ML20082L197
| ML20082L197 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1994 |
| From: | Beckham J GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| HL-4553, NUDOCS 9504210039 | |
| Download: ML20082L197 (45) | |
Text
- ,.....- .~ . ..._ .. - _~ ... - -.. ..- . .. - - ., - . . . . . . . . - -
' , Georgia Powur Company 40 inveeness Cunter Pa4*ny
, 6 Post Ofica Dos t?%
l i
! n.rmingham. Atatianui awot i
. Telephone POS 077 7thi l
J T. u.c kham Jr. C0018lIIIDWOI
$2l['r *I "I ""*d'"'"'**1***'"
l April 17, 1995 Docket Nos. 50 321 IIIA553 S0366 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission j ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 i i l l
I Edwin 1. llatch Nuclear Plant i Annualladiological.Enyltonine111aLSurycillance_Itepo1LforJ22.4 ;
l Gentlemen:
l l
In accordance with Plant IIntch Units I and 2 Technical Specifications, Section 6.9.1.6, Georgia Power Company is submitting the enclosed Radiological Environmental l Surveillance Report for 1994. ,
If you have any questions in this regard, please contact this ollice at any time. !
I l
Sincerely,
- ' [ h _
J. T.13eckham, Jr. WilO/eb I i
Enclosure:
Annual Radiological Environmental Surveillance Report cc: (See next page,) l l
,'T' rs r .3 ,y 9504210039 941231 f3 R
PDR ADOCK 05000321 PDR p' g
}
r-,- -m n ., w , y , . - -- ,e- + ---- -, , - - - ~,--4
A GeorgiaPower d U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Two , April 17, 1995 cc: Georgia Power Company Mr. H. L. Sumner, Nuclear Plant General Manager ' NORMS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. D.C. Mr. K. N. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch U.S. Nuclear Reerdatorv Commission. Rcelon H Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. B. L. Holbrook, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch , State ofGeorgia Mr. J. Setser, Department of Natural Resources AmeTi can NuclearInsurers Mr. M. Marugg l 1 l i HL-4553 l i
L GEORGIA POWER COMPANY EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT FOR 1994 s
i i l I I
< l l
r i EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT l l l l TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE EAGE f l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1 2.0
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION 2-1 l l 3.0 RESULTS
SUMMARY
3-1 l 4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 4-1 4.1 Airborne 4-4 i 4.2 Direct Radiation 4-6 4.3 Milk 4-8 !
)
4.4 Vegetation 4-9 4.5 River Water 4-10 4.6 Fish 4-11 4.7 Sediment 4-12 5.0 INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM 5-1
6.0 CONCLUSION
S 6-1 i i
l* l L i LIST OF TABLES l TABLE TITLE EASE l l 2-1
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 2-2 2-2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS 2-5 I 3-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
3-2 i 4-1 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS 4-? 5-1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM RESULTS 5-2 l l 11
1 i l
- l LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE EAGE 2-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS ON SITE PERIPHERY 27 l
2-2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY 2-8 l l l 2-3 LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL STATION FOR TLDs AND VEGETATION 2-11 l l l l 1 iii
l - ACRONYMS A2LA American Association of Laboratory Accreditation l ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CFR Code of Federal Regulations CL Confidence Level EL Environmental Laboratory EPA Environmental Protection Agency GPC Georgia Power Company l l HNP Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plan MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration HDD Minimum Detectable Difference l NA Not Applicable l l NDM No Detectable Measurement (s) NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual REMP Radiolog' cal Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting Level TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specifications iv
l o. EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The objectives of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) are to ascertain the levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactivity in the environs of the Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP) and to assess any radiological impact upon the environment due to plant operation. The bases for such an assessment include comparisons between results obtained.at control stations (locations where radiological levels are not expected to be significantly affected by plant ! operation) with those obtained at indicator stations (locations l where it is anticipated that radiological levels are more likely to be affected by plant operation), and comparisons between results obtained during preoperation with those obtained during operation. The preoperational stage of the REMP began with the initial operation of REMP stations in January of 1972. The operational l stage began with initial criticality which was achieved on i September 12. 1974. l The REMP is conducted in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 6.19 and Chapter 4 of the Offsite Oose Calculation Manual (0DCM). On January 1, 1994, the TS and ODCM were amended to accommodate the implementation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Generic Letter 89-01 and the new 10CFR20 (Part 20 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulation). May 21, 1991. The amendments included the relocation of the procedural details of the REMP from the TS to the ODCM while the progrannatic controls I remained in the TS. Although there were no essential changes to the REMP as a consequence of these amendments. there were changes to the Section Numbers in both the TS and the ODCM along with_a l re-wording of the text. The REMP activities for 1994 are reported herein in accordance with TS 6.9.1.6 and ODCM 7.1. All dates in this report are for 1994 unless otherwise indicated. 1 i i 1-1 l l
A summary description of the REMP is provided in Section 2 of this report; maps showing the sampling stations are keyed to a table , which indicates the direction and distance of each station from the main stack. An annual summary of the main laboratory analysis results obtained from the samples utilized for environmental monitoring is presented in Section 3. A discussion of the results, including assessments of any radiological impacts upon the environment and the results of the land use census and the river survey, is provided in Section 4. The results of the . l Interlaboratory Comparison Program are presented in Section 5. Conclusions are stated in Section 6. i 1 l l l 1-2 i i
2.0
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION A summary description of the REMP is provided in Table 2 1. This
~
table portrays the program in the manner by which it is being regularly carried out. Table 2-1 is essentially a copy of 00CM Table 4-1 which delineates the program's requirements. Sampling _ locations required by Table 2-1 are described in Table 2-2 and are shown on maps in Figures 2-1 through 2-3. This description'of the sample locations closely follows the table ^ and figures in 00CM 4.2. In accordance with ODCM 4.1.1.2.1, deviations from the required - sampling schedule as set forth in Table 2-1 are permitted if
-samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, unavailability, inclement weather, equipment malfunction or other just reasons. Any deviations are accounted for in the discussions for the particular sample types in Section 4 All laboratory analyses were ' performed by Georgia Power Company's (GPC) Environmental Laboratory (EL) in Smyrna, Georgia. .3ince 1987, the EL has been accredited by the American Association of I
Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) for radiochemistry. The A2LA is'a nonprofit, nongovernmental, public service, membership society dedicated to the formal recognition of competent laboratories and related activities. Accreditation is based upon internationally accepted criteria for laboratory competence. I l l 21
I
. i TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 10F 3)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM-Exposure Pathway Approximate Number- Sampling and and/or Samole of Samole Locations Collection Frecuency Tvoe of Analysis and Frecuency j
- 1. Airborne 6 Continuous operation Radiciodine canister: I-131 Radioiodine of sampler with sample analysis, weekly. i and collection weekly l Particulates Particulate sampler: analyze-for ,
gross beta radioactivity not less I than 24 hours following filter. change, weekly: perform gamma isotopic analysis on affected sample when gross beta activity is 10 times the yearly mean of control samples: and composite (by 7 location) for gamma isotopic analysis, quarterly.
- 2. Direct. Radiation 37 Quarterly Gamma dose, quarterly. j
- 3. Ingestion Milk (a) . 1 Biweekly Gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses, biweekly.
Fish or 2. Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis on edible Clams (b) portions, semiannually. Grass or Leafy 3 Monthly during Gamma isotopic analysis, monthly (c). Vegetation growing season . I 4 4 ,
TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 2 0F 3)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Approximate Number Sampling and Collection Freauency Tvoe of Analysis and Freauency and/or Samole of Samole Locations
- 4. Waterborne Surface 2 Composite sample Gamma isotopic analysis, monthly.
collected monthly (d) Composite (by location) for tritium analysis, quarterly. Sediment 2 Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis, semiannually. Drinking One sample of river River water collected I-131 analysis on each sample when Water water near the near the intake will be biweekly collections are required. (e & f) intake and one a composite sample: the Gross beta and gamma isotopic sample of finished finished water will be . analyses on each sample: composite-7 water from each of a grab sample. These (by location) for tritium analysis, one to three of the samples will be quarterly. nearest water collected monthly supplies which unless the calculated could be affected dose due to consumption by HNP discharges. of the water is greater than 1 mrem / year: then the collection will be biweekly. The collections may revert to monthly should the calculated doses become less than 1 mrem / year.
._ _ _ _ . __.._m___.___.__._...____m_____________._________.__ ________m._ . _ _ _ . . , , , _ - m __.___________m_ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _
1 , ) TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 3 0F 3) l
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF ! RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM NOTES
- a. Up to three sampling locations within 5 miles and in different ,
sectors will be used as available. In addition, one or more l control locations beyond 10 miles will be used. ;
- b. Commercially or recreationally important fish may be sampled. )
Clams may be sampled if difficulties are encountered in ! obtaining sufficient fish samples. j
- c. If gamma isotopic analysis is not sensitive enough to meet the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC), a separate analysis for 1-131 may be performed.
- d. The composite samples shall be composed of a series of aliquots collected at intervals not exceeding a few hours.
~
- e. If it is found that river water downstream of the plant is used for drinking, drinking water samples will be collected and analyzed as specified herein.
- f. A survey shall be conducted annually at least 50 river miles downstream of the plant to identify those who use water from the Altamaha River for drinking.
1 i I i 2-4
, 4, , ,, , , , ,,
, g, .
,7w ,
I i TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 1 0F 2) l RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS Descriptive Direction Distance Sample Station Station Tvoe (c) Number Tvoe (a) location (b) (miles) (b) ; 064 0 Roadside Park WNW 0.8 D Inner Ring N 1,9 0 101- 1 102 I Inner Ring NNE 2.5 D / 103 I Inner Ring- NE 1.8 AD l 104 I Inner Ring ENE 1.6 D Inner. Ring 3.7 0 105 I E 106 I Inner Ring ESE 1.1 DV 107 I Inner Ring SE 1.2 AD . 108 I Inner Ring SSE 1.6 0 { 109 1 Inner Ring S 0.9 D ! 110 1 Inner Ring SSW 1.0 D 111 1 Inner Ring SW 0.9 0-112 I Inner Ring WSW 1.0- ADV-113 I Inner Ring W 1.1 D 114 I Inner Ring WNW 1.2 D 115 I Inner Ring NW 1.1 0 116 I Inner Ring NNW- 1.6 AD 170 C Upstream WNW (d) R 172 1 Downstream E (d) R 201 0 Outer Ring N 5.0 D 202 0 Outer Ring NNE 4.9 0 203 0 Outer Ring NE 5.0 0 204 0 Outer Ring ENE 5.0 0 205 0 Outer Ring E 7.2 0 206 0 Outer Ring ESE 4.8' D 207 0 Outer Ring SE 4.3 0 208 0 Outer Ring SSE 4.8 0 209 0 Outer Ring S 4.4 D 210 0 Outer Ring SSW 4.3 D 211 0 Outer Ring SW 4.7 0 212 0 Outer Ring WSW 4.4 0 213 0 Outer Ring W 4.3 D 214 0 Outer Ring WNW 5.4 D' 215 0 Outer Ring NW 4.4 0 216 0 Outer Ring NNW 4.8 D 301 0 Toombs Central N 8.0 0 304 C State Prison ENE 11.2 AD 304 C State Prison ENE 10.3 M 309 C Baxley Substa S 10.0 AD 416 C Emer News Ctr NNW 21.0 DV 2-5 f - .- -- . . _. .
TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 2 0F 2) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS NOTES
- a. Station types C - Control 1 - Indicator 0 - Other
- b. Direction and distance are reckoned from the main stack.
- c. Sample types A - Airborne Radioactivity D - Direct Radiation M - Milk R - River (fish or clams, shoreline sediment, and surf ace water)
V - Vegetation
- d. Station 170 is located approximately 0.6 river miles upstream of the intake structure for river water, 1.1 river miles for sediment and clams, and 1.5 river miles for fish.
Station 172 is located approximately 3.0 river miles downstream of the discharge structure.for river water, sediment and clams, and 1.7 river miles for fish. The locations from which river water and sediment may be taken can be sharply defined. However, the sampling locations for clams often have to be extended over a wide area to obtain a sufficient quantity. High water adds to the difficulty in obtaining clam samples and may also make an otherwise suitable location for l sediment sampling unavailable. A stretch of the river of a few l miles or so is generally needed to obtain adequate fish samples. The mile locations given above represent approximations of the locations where samoles are collected. 1 l 2-6 l l l
l
\
, - 'Ob '
, (9 'f .
' 1
- N', '
.El \ -
e
~
cdousa "% es. -i %'h. p
<*v,, sA'
. . t4 . f, - UB -
s < , t l
\'
$4d)m % \
~. ~ -
im Y{N 1/
. . . {- -
. m
}.
* * . o ' 6 l ~ .)f ..
3l ns
.\'.*\ ,
! - . i o,
- k i -Q '
f' Y Y n . .__ . s ' ,l=*
- hh,
- 1 ; %-
1 ~ I h "O.i7o g ;4 dI _, t , . i' " ' ,,
. g - %~'J -7g ' *
\"g ;
h=si@N'w.~q,
, Ps !!-
) 3 L ,s n:-
aq;; y'("- /.y,,"; _ sg- .. i. 8 .b .. y.y eso 0 c 9 % ba/. .__ t_ u2# t / 3 l
'/ .g h, p
y! - - - - .s r3 .
) ,
r _ y< s
- .p:. s x g. w .. /
)
. . . .u - - - - .. .
w .r T f[yk A.4/ s.~ / 4 07 4 A 7
.[
t
-m
[ w
. _. - c. . .m.
/
y ' 1 ... /. s 1
- 5 g - qty
=:
,l ) gl gp,
\g, = v{
= = _';. 6 .y , \-
- - ..i ; eg: m s..
^ U"c t .' "
j k
"i! __b i *d'_ _, '
] _
)% f3 T 7T% ',% M j
, RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS ON SITE PERIPHERY FIGURE 2-1 2-7
1 6 ] I i as .
- ).
. ~- .\.
..e.n D- .
. . ... e . ...=..
y
,w
.] '
)
.f.
, V.x'...e 9, '
[3m . _
, j
. . . . , . . . o j
* , - - ,.a.. . - ...- .
c
- . . , . ~.
. . . ~
1 -q '
. ~ :- .
.: . .. ; , N <
) >
[ '.., . ,g-* .g ,'
.\% , .
- -y .
_r c s ...
,y ..
s,.., - s s., . .
'.s 1 -
NI-'
- e. , .
/48 '- -
.i , \. ':N.Ci '- ' '%d
' q..*;,'.<*~
' . 5 ..
- - .,b.
,,~r<.\; -{f- ' "
. y n ,,s ,1 .o.
>Q ] ,.-
, s .::. ' e s e
' ?a
(
^
\
Ki ',- ( .;, f
~
- m. . ;.:. g.::. -. .. , . -
~. . -' . .s ..
.h.e' ,',. . .- y.
.-.4 *~ ..
y.<. . ; ., .: . 1.f ., c . m: i ) ..
;.w . =.
s., v..
..~
~
e 2m 5 --
.: .,. .sA,e
;.i 1
(,?,i. , i. ;' . oc,, 3) s
, v. .
.. t. . .'.: zo
.e -
- . ., , . . .~ .-- . _....
7 s.m
.e_.h.-
.,s,-
v s. ,
. 4. ~ : .- ./
. t -
' ~
b ] g'Sqq. ,. ( . "
~
.iy ~ i y;
%. .'( ! l '/ \ .
=;.
XV y
.3.
\
I?@)Y 4L'k a
. . ~ . __ h...; s. . _ . . ,
.-a o ). a . ... s
. }c, T.
' 214 . s ,. . V .a \ \ .l -
. .-....s..
i
.- s x.. .w .
~. o + .h
- J, . .
7'C
.%f.,*.%l].l_,.3' ' ' kn l
h..Y.
- - . ).
- . \. .
.i 3
. .d- '
\.= . .
...:.....-- )
e
.g. ,/ ,. - -
. . .-s y, . V
. y - a.-
j y >' --
' r- u. q ,_
w w -w - '- . ! i <.. -2i f }... Pr. W.y @. ~=%N. bi ' 2
. . %l
. ,,, 'ty L,2,,
.- a
.. M;;J m ..- ..
.- :.J.. ., t
\ . . . ~ .
. n ,\ > -
=
1 ; :
* =. ::.
gf n'I
.* f~ \ / R M.' 1 .i c.x ~~ ]
.I , %'p,. )....y1 J. .
. . .b. .
- 2. . . _. _,. , m
< t .!. .f.. :.
7 . *, N. ,.
, ...g ;. . ,
s = /<
. .W,.,.h.,+ ;
~.
. Ai-
, ..A* :n2Y t j '2 %- 9 . i RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY l FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET 1 of 3) 2-8 l
I 1 i
.c
.. w s t
q a. ' . h. s .i
* 'M\
- 202 .';. ! '*, . , t A . T.. rs ,, Vb; +; , w y- 1
=
e s s e
'f
""'"*" D .I * &
3
.n., '
,~,,1=.. :.,,,---
- o. x s.
4 v'- .S .: .s
..,'-. . :, :.g..
,- h 9 .
' t c.t
- r-q'*y s .- r.:e t.
3 , i,
=";%
. - 4.
4 1
*\
-- e j **
.. .4 -. :
y;.
'l
.\j,si .. he '
ag. i W
- n. . gi M, *- /
1
>k: gh .L..w.
.p, 2,. -
y,.; .
, Q .? .e-4
- s. - ;
- i. . . 33- t ,/
- u. J' % ,x'i\,, a
" O Cs y G3
... :/ ~. lr;
'K. dJ j'
- 3 I .*'
l - y s, \ s I &y / [ L.x .'c,,'"-~'\.
, r,
)4 7 .
t
~
r a P. f.. ' %l5. ,,.:-s -:-
.et1.% .... <
?;:: . A-
.. _ \
e t
)
e-5::i g.. c p.s- y.; . i
.N i .- ,+.. yu s f 8,o.. ;
- w. m %.&. q
~ *
- g. :
(' . . . - - .
. ,f ' y.l.';:
~ .
/ , j .
Y
- I '. ,. .- r .%_
,/ .: @ l f.
8 ' i i
. <, {, '. /' , / g . ..
.. \. i v i t ) i
- y. { \ .. _:
+ *- ,
% ,;>,:.) ...
%)g;. . - i
,. m. -
\. , . ; .. .
. - i. ,
. m. \ t .-
-c~ E V43 .
6 /.. \ -;J ~.j~ D.. -l8*
~
it.10'
. 4*1 *
- n. .,
..9': pl v
e s i
/ .g
,g} * . * .h
- .- l ., .
l _N
. .- @ ~,. .
._. j %
,p . .
-f j
*,\
.tj .
r-4
' j,p). . .)/. ,, 4 . .
/ N
\ .i t IW
( <"e.,.c.. i .. - s \
,%w/ w
. \ p\. .3
- i . -y , , i 4 - - . -l. - .. .
y , .
--y . -
03 Q
-J.; . h- - -
;' N, .
)t . *yf~
\ (p.
L
=
r; - . A. .
~
.. g 2*
- (f
.. .. t y . . , . .n .
/ ,~~. ... . . .- 3 , v., . .
...s
.t $
f-N.- % * {; .', Y .. x u: . h*5
~
. 8Y ' ,' u ,
l,
.(.
).,f y{ ..
Y ~3. p; ,.----g_ _ . 4 ' r,_
.z . ,
/ ,z,.
.'*~~
, q r-
.a. ...ir. :;.4, v.
. 9. :. ./' -- --~.g....sv..
s
~
3 .--\)' 2.~ .,V"'
.,.s-
~-
- 3. +. U O *. . ). . -
a. n -- --- ;
.) *
~ . f. %.-
- u. '~':.;
. n. ,J. t'.1
.,y.. .w ~ ~. 1
. . .~.e . - / .Y s .% g
. 0.
. ;.f.-
j j%,3- -( ;
..A.. . _ _ _,_.
s
\.,,. m_ 9.
h'. l.-: -
,, c
- ,g .
~. 7 Q ~- g%,g%.4 4r ., : 3.: 1
-p(3*3 p ,, 'f 3 . t ,
y , f 1p% b C--+- o' [,. @%.~
.7 ,~~,.
p.sg .. ,j L...~ i
- "+
_Q. -
' + .,j. n, g 1. \:. v ; < .-
.n-yv .3.,.Y.. 5... .
i
% ^.* N, . e .
g , ,5 y , -- .., 1
--s, _
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET 2 of 3) 2-9
,.8 / i . -t i , l.
x
$ 1.E gs C(.,2.32.. hei -2,7.-m & d ~4
.' 7 3,,6x..
'2
~.4 .-.- _ ,-- , , .
m.
. %.\u
. : g;, . .a 4. . .
) f g - \.\~ .
.q e &.g"c-r. -,4
.. , [
p~ . t. . . ..s. : .. j- ; .; . 4
-... . ; .v.;3 .. e g*,.s i~
p .Q. ...., - W.{ yL.... ' J.Q- (. .
),h. 3.....] , 7 e. .
.,A
.s
*e ;
..c t,[.
r m.. .
.u.
w% q [ ..- / ,A s.* .a
. g
.~v. .- c. .A..m..#,. c- l-
_. w .n 1
... _ , m .
wg'L. 7........,....
~~
' ~'
l'. I
- s. i. i s: r.r % ..,
4.. ... . (' m,, l . ,,j/ p ,- :. . e ++ , N.I-- 3r S{.,----ht
- y. ;.. . . f. .. :.
2 . . , p _.g
/ <'-
. 7-- ~.t s-- ;- ,
g . i.
..., 5 ,s. .
.y g
.-..J..... h. s .
.p 5.! ..
70~ . , . ' . g e a.s 3 J.. y" . . ... . . . . . . A ::. , -- -- 4
. . .J.- .
- f, ..
; , WTo . ' -
- 4 -%
. . .\,.. C; i. .
- g . .
V. e
) q '. -
.,\'
m . . . . .
~ ~..
. . U 3 - -
.r....
. .. . l. . .
s -
- t. -
. . . . f "" * ,
1 ---- p
%n- .gW*:r .
- 5 ;.
x . . w(........>.
.-- w .e..:: .. ,w.
,v,.
A.
~v,
'.g . 5 y..... .+.
N -3..
. u . -
N * ' . jq i*
~.'e N. .- . .
. . .I . . .. - - . .%. . .
,., v..r
- l. . .
.a
. g* * .3
.H.--
f.
.s ./ .
.Jg *
* * *h *. . :N% .~ g ' "' . ..
1 -
^ t-
. .~'"'.. .. . - ---...... ,.. 8,s.
s j, '.'..' . . NM
. ...k .' .- .~ ,s, -
. __...:.-. ."'g.u .i f. q .
. ;.* ,y .
....(.- ".. . . s : * .
..s; as
.. 2 h.* ....,.s
- - 4 , .. . ,/
., s c - .
.. .s.
S.3 w4'p. . , . .
, %. *.-C.g5. p . . . . . . . i y
/
r 220'.. -r .,,, . I . . .. * . -
,( g - *
'$ f,.,, _
a
s ..%
.,,,,.j- ~ ' :. 1 . ... ' -
. E:.w.: - ..
. ,s . fe \ '
,""'**.'- *s . - g
.c
.* 5 3. . / -t*.*
*. .. . . =q ~ . *# 7, < .
.. \. .
)'. .a .'.J ,.
*N'.'
.'[' *
/ g,, . ,\
A#... 1 A .%,
.. .w . - /aa%u 7.".....'".",..* **' , . .. .
s . .. ,,
....... . s 4
... s g .
-,.a
;x .N .
....f...gg. . . . . , . .
. ;;., ... .m .-.. +.. . . . ,
9....
;.3 .
~ . . . . ~ . - -. ~ q ,. ;
,-. .s ;. , -
- .3 .
. g 2 . ,a.. ... .. ,.
a .. .v : u.,.T.. ;ig 4,.
. . .. .s...-...
ssw .
- ' ,s
- q '.\,(*....-.,,.g,. . * .'4:* - o:;, ..
1 *rs.,, e, %. .
, , . . ~
-).,:.g . .t. .
,z. .t ,, ..s..:g ,..,
N ' h, b'. ' f ' f ., . .g.{.'
'. I ,\ JIs'[...$_, . . ..[:,.h .
l i RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET 3 of 3) 2-10
! s t
1 i I i Edena d7* I i
- I j
j $ 8 - ** i i 1 i 4 N - i
... 5, 44 l f 4
4 I 8 0 9 8 9 4 g I ' j < T j u ma en e. m em c...iime. ; e wa..a. ,w
- HNpr Alto m ...,
y 1 l 3 I f m e~..
\
** so ss*
r-- , sanie, . . . . i I
'~m
{ 5 l i 1 i ' LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL
. A rom = i. watch STATION FOR TLDs AND VEGETATION
- Georgia Power ma noct:4= n*=1 3 F]GURE 2-3 i
i i 2-11 i i _ _ __ _ , , , . _ . _ . - - , _ _ . . . - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ " - - ' ~~~ -
s t 4 i i 1 1 3.0 RESULTS
SUMMARY
)
In accordance with ODCM 7.1.2.1, summarized and tabulated results for all of the regular samples collected _for the year at the designated indicator and control stations are presented in Table 3-1 in a format similar to that of Table 3 of the NRC Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, Revision 1. November 1979. l Since no reportable occurrences were called for during-the' year, l the column entitled " Number of Reportable 0ccurrences" has been l excluded from Table 3-1. Since no naturally occurring l radionuclides were found in the plant's effluent releases, only ) man-made radionuclides are reported. Results for-samples j l collected at locations other than' indicator or control stations or l in addition to those stipulated by Table 2-1 are discussed -in i Section 4 for the particular sample type. j I [ l I l l l I i 1 31 i r R l
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 1 0F 6) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
FOR 1994 Edwin I. Hatd *'uclear Plant. Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County. Georgia .; Indicator Location with Highest Control Type and Minimum Locations Annual Mean Locations . Medium or Mean-(b)- Pathway Sampled Total Number Detectable Mean (b) Name dean (b) Concentration Range Distance & Range Rangc (Unit of of Analyses Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) Measurement) Gross Beta 10 19.5 No. 304 20.2 19.7 Airborne 2 Particulates 312 9-32 State Prison 10-32 9-32 (208/208) 11.2 miles (52/52) (104/104) ( fCi /m') ENE w Gamma Isotopic 4 24 ' 50 NOM (c) NDM NDM Cs-134 4 f Cs-137 60 NDM NDM NDM I-131 70 NDM NOM' NDM Airborne t Radiciodine 312 i ( fCi /m') Direct Gamma Dose NA (d) 11.0 No. 104 14.0 10.7 Radiation 76 9-16 Inner Ring 13 9-12 ;
- (mR/91 days) (64/64) 1.6 miles (4/4) (12/12)
ENE
i TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 2 0F 6) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
FOR 1994 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County. Georgia Indicator location with Highest Control .l Medium or Type and Minimum . Locations Annual Mean Locations Pathway Sampled Total Number Detectable Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Mean (b) Concentration Range Distance & Range Range (Unit of of Analyses (Fraction) (Fraction) Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction Milk Gamma Isotopic (pCi/1) 26 NDM Cs-134 15 NA NDM Cs-137 18 NA NDM NDM NA NDM NDM
$ Ba-140 60 La-140 15 NA NDM NDM I-131 1 NA NDM NDM 26 Vegetation Gamma Isotopic ;
] (pCi/kg wet) 36
' I-131 60 NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 60 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 80 32.2 No. 416 46.6 46.6 24-40 Em News Ctr 41-56 41-56 (4/24) 21 miles (3/12) (3/12)
NNW
i TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 3 0F 6) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
FOR 1994 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 l Appling County, Georgia Indicator Location with Highest Control Minimum Locations Annual Mean Locations Medium or Type and Mean (b) Detectable Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Pathway Sampled Total Number Range Range of Analyses Concentration Range Distance & (Unit of Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) River Water Gamma Isotopic (pCi/1) 24 g NDM NDM Mn-54 15 NDM ' NDH NDM NDM Fe-59 30 w NDM NDM Co-58 15 NDH a NDM NDM NDM Co-60 15 i NDM NDM NDM Zn-65 30 NDM NDM NDM , Zr-95 30 NDM NDM NDM Nb-95 15 15 (e) NDM NDM NDM 1-131 ,
-j
- 15. NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 18 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 60 NDM NDM NDM Ba-140 15 NDM NDM NDM La-140 i
t TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 4 0F 6) r RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
FOR 1994 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia , Indicator Location with Highest Control Type and Minimum Locations Annual Mean Locations Medium or Mean (b) Mean (b) Pathway Sampled Total Number Detectable Mean (b) Name Range Distance & Range Range (Unit of of Analyses Concentration (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) Measurement) Performed NDM NDM Tritium 3000 (f) NDM 8 ! Fish Gamma Isotopic w (pCi/kg wet) 8 NDM NDM i > J, Mn-54 130 NDM
. 260 NDM NDM NDM !
Fe-59 I 130 NDM NDH NDM Co-58 . 130 NDH NDM NDM i Co-60 260 NDM NDM NDM Zn-65 130 NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 l Cs-137 150 23.8 No. 172 23.8 20.7 _ 19-28 1.7 miles 19-28 16-25 , (3/3) Downstream (3/3) (2/2) i 4
---a.w---,- - , .- - -- ---_-----.--_--._--,u-u---.-------a,_------n._-- w-__-___m _ + _4- vewm--_ ,_m'=-____ -- s--_a wm-awn-u an-- ___- - - , - - , - - - -
7 0 TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 5 0F 6) , RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
FOR 1994 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia Indicator Location with Highest Control Locations Annual Mean locations Medium or Type and Minimum Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Mean (b) < Pathway Sampled Total Number Detectable Range Range Distance & Range (Unit of of Analyses Concentration (Fraction) (Fract* M Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction Measurement) Sediment Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg dry) 4 22.2 No. 172 22.2 NDM i Co-58 43 (g) 3.0 miles 20-24 - 20-24 ' (2/2) Downstream (2/2) 218 No. 172 218 NDM Co-60 70 (g)
$ 217-219 3.0 miles 217-219 t (2/2) Downstream (2/2) 332 No. 172 332 NDM Zn-65 129 (g) 237-427 3.0 miles _ 237-427 (2/2) Downstream (2/2)
NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 150 127' No. 172 127 104 Cs-137 180 '
.92-161 3.0 miles 92-161 68-141 (2/2) Downstream (2/2) (2/2) t r
b
- - . - -.___.-_..m__ _ _ _ _._____.__...___._.____________.__-________m_______ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ - _ _ ____..___.---_e-
_ - - m.-_-__ - _ . _-____.m
.. - . . -. . . . . - .- - -. - . . - - .~. -. . . .
)
- l I
I i
?
TABLE 3 1 (SHEET 6 0F 6) j RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
FOR 1994 l Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 ! Appling County Georgia NOTES i i l
- a. The MDC is defined in ODCM 10.1. Except as noted otherwise, the values listed in this column are the detection capabilities required by 0DCM Table 4-3. The values listed in ,
this column are a priori-(before the' f act) MDCs. In practice, f the a posteriori (after the fact) MDCs are generally much j lower than the values 1isted. Any a posteriori MDC greater ! than the value listed in this column is discussed in Section i
- 4. .
I
- b. Mean ar.d range are based upon detectable measurements only. i The fraction of all measurements at specified locations which !
is detectable is placed in parenthesis. !
- c. No Detectable Measurement (s). !
l
- d. Not Applicable. .
- e. if a drinking water pathway were to exist, a MDC of 1 pCi/l would have been used (see Notation c of ODCM Table 4-3).
- f. If a drinking water pathway were to exist, a MDC of 2000 pCi/l would have been used (see Notation b of ODCM Table 4-3).
- g. The EL has determined that this value may be-routinely attained under normal conditions. No value is provided in ,
ODCM Table 4-3. I l l l 1 I 3-7 l
. _ _ . . . _ ._. , _ .._. .~_ ._ __ _ ,,
l. I 1 i 4.0 DISCUSSION _OF RESULTS-l An interpretation and evaluation, as appropriate, of the , laboratory results for each type sample are included in this section. Relevant comparisons were made between the difference in. average values for indicator and control stations and the calculated Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD) between these two groups at the 99 percent Confidence Level (CL). The MDD was determined using the standard Student's t-test. A difference in i the average values which was less than the MDD was considered to be statistically indiscernible. ! Pertinent results were also compared with past results including ! those obtained during preoperation. The results were examined to perceive any trends. To provide perspective, a result might also be compared with its Reporting Level (RL) or Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) whose nominal values are found in ODCM Tables 4-2 and 4-3 respectively. ~ Attempts were made to explain any high radiological levels found in the samples. During the year there were no failures in the laboratory analyses for any of_the samples l
- in attaining the MDCs required by ODCM Table 4-3.
l l All results were tested for conformance to Chauvenet's Criterioni l to flag any values which might differ from the others in its set l by a relatively large amount. Identified outliers were ! investigated to determine the reason (s) for the deviation from the l norm. If due to an equipment malfunction or other valid physical l reason, the anomalous result was deemed non-representative and l excluded from the data set. No datum was excluded for failing Chauvenet's Criterion only. Any exclusions are discussed in this section under the appropriate sample type. l The annual land use census as required by TS 6.19(2) and ODCM 4.1.2 was conducted on November 14 to determine the locations of i the nearest permanent residence and milk animal in each of the 16 i meteorological sectors within a distance of 5 miles, and the i locations of all' milk animals within 3 miles. A milk animal is a ! cow or goat producing milk for human consumption. The locations i of gardens greater than 500 square feet producing broad leaf vegetation were also included in the census. The census results i are tabulated in Table 4-1. l
- 1. G.- D. Chase and J. L. Rabinowetz. Princioles of-Radioisotone Methodoloav. (Burgess Publishing Company, 1962), pages 87-90.
4-1 (
l l l
- TABLE 4-1 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS Distance in Miles to Nearest Location in Each Sector i
i SECTOR RESIDENCE MILK ANIMAL GARDEN N 2.0
- 3.7 NNE 2.9 l NE 3.2 ENE 4.2
- 4.7 E
ESE 3.7 SE 1.8
- 3.5 SSE 2.0
- 3.9 5 1.0 -
2.1 SSW 1.1
- 2.7 SW 1.1
- 1.5 WSW 1.1 W 1.1
- 2.6
=
- WNW 1.1 NW 3.6 -
NNW 1.8
- 4.8 1
l l l
- None within 5 miles.
l l l l I l l l l l 4-2 l l l l
l
)
1 ODCM 4.1.2.2.1 requires a new controlling receptor in'0DCM 3.4.3. if the land use census identifies a location'that yields a greater calculated dose. An analysis of the survey's results:showed.that
.there was none.
ODCM 4.1.2.2.2 requires that whenever the land use census identifies a location which would yield a calculated dose (via1the same ingestion pathway) 20 percent greater than that from a current indicator station, the new location must become a REMP station'(if samples are available). None of the gardens yielded a calculated dose 20 percent greater than that for any of the current indicator stations for vegetation. No milk animals were found in the census. This result was corroborated by inquiries to the county extension agents in 5 counties in the vicinity of the plant on January 28 and again on July 14 in regard to the. location-of suitable milk animals; none were found. As required by Note f of Table 2-1. the annual survey of the Altamaha River downstream of the plant for at least 50 miles to identify those who use water from the river for drinking purposes was conducted on September 19. As in all previous surveys, no j intakes for drinking water or irrigation were observed. This result was corroborated by information obtained from the Georgia i Department of Natural Resources that no water withdrawal permits for drinking water or irrigation purposes had been issued for the Altamaha River during the year. If river water should become used ! for drinking, the sampling and analysis requirements' for drinking ' water as delineated in Table 2-1 would be implemented. l 4-3
l 4.1 Airborne As indicated by Table 2 2, airborne particulates and airborne radioiodine were collected at 4 indicator stations (Nos. 103, 107, 112 and 116) which encircle the site and are on the site
~~ periphery, and at 2 control stations (Nos. 304 and 309) which are at least 10 miles from the plant. At these locations air was continuously drawn through a Gelman Type A/E glass fiber filter and a SAIC CP-200 charcoal canister in sequence to retain airborne particulates and to adsorb airborne radioiodine, respectively.
The filters and canisters were collected weekly. Each of the air particulate filters was counted for gross beta activity. A gamma isotopic analysis was performed quarterly on a composite of the air particulate filters for each station. Each charcoal canister I was analyzed for I-131 by gamma spectroscopy. l l As seen in Table 3-1, the annual average weekly gross beta ! activity of 19.5 fCi/m' for the indicator stations was 0.2 fCi/m' less than that for the control stations. However, this difference was not discernible, since it was less than the MDD, calculated as 1.3 fCi/m*. During the previous 6 years (1988 through 1993). the average weekly activity for the year at_the indicator stations randomly varied from 0.9 fCi/m' greater than to .0.3 fC1/m' less ) than that for the control' stations. Over the entire 6 year l period, the average weekly activity for the indicator stations was 1 almost 0.2 fCi/m' greater than that for the control stations. During this 6 year period. the average weekly gross beta activity for all stations randomly varied from 18.1 pCi/m' in 1991 to 22.3 l pCi/m' in 1988: the average for the entire period was 19.5 fCl/m'. l In past years, it had been an order of magnitude higher. For 2 j example: the average weekly activity was 140 fCi/m during ; preoperation, 242 fCi/m' during 1977, and 195 fCi/m' during 1981. l Those high values have been shown to be the result of fallout from l numerous nuclear weapons tests conducted on mainland China in the early 1970s and from 1976 through 1980. With the termination of the weapons tests, the gross beta levels became lower. The annual average was 33 fCi/m' for 1982, and this steadily decreased to 22 fCi/m' for 1985. Then, during 1986 as a consequence to the l Chernobyl incident, the average activity increased to 37 fCi/m': it dropped to 23 fCi/m' in 1987. l
) *- 4-4 l J
l During 1994, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the quarterly composites of air particulate filters. During preoperation and each year of operation through 1986. numerous fission products and some activation products were detected. As stated above, these were generally attributed to the nuclear weapons tests and to the Chernobyl incident. On only one occurrence since 1986, has a man-made radionuclide been detected in a quarterly composite: Cs-137 was found at a very low level for the first quarter of 1991 at Station 304. Airborne 1-131 is not normally detected in the charcoal canisters and 1994 was no exception. However, during 1976. 1977 and 1978. positive levels of I-131 were found in nearly all of the samples collected for a period of a few weeks following the arrival of the cloud from each of the Chinese nuclear weapons tests conducted at that time. Some of the levels were on the order of the MDC for airborne 1 131 which is 70 fCi/m'. In 1986, the same phenomenon occurred because of the Chernobyl incident. The highest airborne I-131 level found to date was 217 fCi/m' in 1977. The RL for airborne 1-131 is 900 fCi/m3.
\
4-5
l . l 4.2 Direct Radiation l Direct (external) radiation is measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Two Panasonic 00-814 TLD badges are placed at each station. Each badge contains three phosphors which are composed of calcium sulfate (with thulium impurity) crystals. The gamma dose at each station is nominally based upon the average readings of the phosphors from the two badges. The two badges for each station are sealed in a thin plastic bag for protection from moisture while in the field. The badges are nominally exposed for periods of a quarter of a year (91 days) l Two TLD stations are established in each of the 16 meteorological i sectors about the plant forming two concentric rings. The stations comprising the inner ring (Nos. 101 through 116) are i located near the site boundary. while those comprising the outer l ring (Nos. 201 through 216) are generally located at distances of 4 to 5 miles. However. each of the stations in the East Sector is at a radius which is a few miles greater than those for the other stations in its ring. The flood plain in this sector prevents easy access on a year round basis to the site boundary and to the , 4 to 5 mile annulus. This two ring configuration of stations began with the first quarter of 1980. l The 16 stations forming the inner ring are designated as the l indicator stations. The 3 control stations (Nos. 304. 309 and j 416) are at least 10 miles from the plant. Stations 064 and 301 ; accommodate special interest areas. Station 064 is located in an ; onsite roadside park, while Station 301 is adjacent to the Toombs ' l Central School. Station 210 in the outer ring is adjacent to the
- Altamaha School, the only other nearby school.
l l As shown in Table 3-1. the average quarterly exposure of 11.0 mR ! acquired at the indicator stations (inner ring) during 1994 was 0.3 mR greater than that acquired at the control stations. This difference was not discernible since it was less than the MDD of ( 1.0 mR. During the 14 year period from 1980 through 1993. the l average quarterly exposure for the year at the indicator stations i randomly varied f rom 1.4 mR greater than to 1.6 mR less than that i for the control stations. The average quarterly exposure for the indicator stations over the entire 14 year period was almost 0.3 mR greater than that for the control stations. The quarterly exposures acquired at outer ring stations during I 1994 ranged from 8.4 to 15.5 mR. with an average of 11.2 mR which was 0.2 mR greater than that found for the inner ring. There was ; no discernible difference between the averages for the inner and the outer rings, since the difference was less than the MDD of 0.6 mR. For the 14 year period beginning in 1980, the average 4-6 l l f i _ _ , - -
l l l quarterly exposure for the year at the inner ring stations randomly varied from 1.0 mR greater than to 0.5 mR less than that at the outer ring stations. Overall, the average quarterly l l exposure for the inner ring was about 0.2 mR greater than that for the outer ring. The quarterly exposures in units of mR acquired during 1994 at the special interest areas which are listed below are seen to be j within the range of those acquired at the other stations. Station 'Averaae Minimum Maximum l 064 10.4 9.8 11.1 301 10.7 10.1 11.3 Although there were no failures in obtaining a quarterly dose measurement at any station during 1994, the readings for TLDs 206A and 211A for the second quarter were not used as each had a standard deviation greater than the self imposed limit of 1.4. Consequently, the readings for the companion badges only were used to determine the exposures for the second quarter at these stations. A rodent had chewed a hole in the plastic bag containing TLDs 206A and 206B: as a result, both badges became wet; before reading. they were placed in the presence of a desiccant for a few days in an attempt to dry them out. The reading for 206B was normal and had a low standard deviation. The badges at Station 206 will be l ' put in a plastic mesh cage to provide protection from rodents. I No reason was found for the high standard deviation for TLD 211A. I It was visually inspected under a microscope; the glow curve and test results for the anneal data and the element correction factor were reviewed. The standard deviation limit of 1.4 was calculated using a method' developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The calculation was based upon the standard deviations obtained with the Panasonic UD 814 badges during 1992. This limit , serves as a flag to evoke an investigation. To be conservative. ! readings with a greater standard deviation are deleted since the i high standard deviation is interpreted as an indication of a l suspect TLD. f
- 2. ASTM Special Technical Publication 150. ASTM Manual on ;
Presentation of Data and Control Chart Analysis. Fourth Revision. ) Philadelphia. PA October 1976. 4-7 l l l
I \ r 1 i i 4.3 Milk ( Milk samples from cows were obtained biweekly from Station 304 l (the state prison dairy) which is a control station located more ; than 10 miles from the plant. Gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses ! were performed on each sample. As discussed in Section 4.0. the land use census and other efforts to locate additional milk , animals in the vicinity were unsuccessful. During 1994 as in the previous 4 years, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the milk ; samples. Except for 1987. Cs-137 was found in some of the samples ; each year from 1978 (when this analysis became a requirement) through 1989. No other man-made radionuclides have been detected : by this analysis of the samples. During preoperation and the i early years of operation, a chemical separation technique was
- employed to measure the Cs-137 levels in the samples.
During preoperation, the average positive level of Cs 137 was 19.3 pCi/l: during operation the averages were 14.8 pCi/l for the period from 1978 through 1983. and 9.6 pCi/1 from 1984 through 1989. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in milk are 18 and 70 pCi/1 I respectively. For the past 6 years. 1-131 has not been detected in any of the milk samples. During preoperation, all readings were less than 2 pri/l which was the allowed MDC at that time. Positive results were found each year during the first 5 years of operation (1974 l through 1978); these results ranged from 0.95 to 88 pCi/1. In 1980, positive results ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 pCi/l: then in 1986. from 0.6 to 20 pCi/1. In 1988, a single reading of 0.32 pCi/l which was believed to have resulted from a procedural deficiency, was reported. The MDC and RL for 1 131 in milk are 1 and 3 pCi/1. respectively. All the positive readings for Cs-137 and 1-131 are generally I attributed to fallout from the nuclear weapons tests and the' l Chernobyl incident. l 4-8 i i
l. I i ; i 4.4 Vegetation i Gamma isotopic analysis was performed on each grass sample. collected monthly from two indicator stations (Nos. 106 and 112) and one control station (No. 416). Gamma isotopic analysis on vegetation samples began during 1978 when it became a TS , requirement. l The results presented in Table 3-1 show that Cs-137 was'the only l man-made radionuclide detected during 1994: this has been the case i I since 1986. The average value of 32.2 pCi/kg wet found at the indicator stations was 14.4-pCi/kg wet less than that found at the control station. However, this difference was not discernible. ' since it was less than the MDD. calculated as 21.6 pCi/kg wet. These results are typical of- those found in recent years; no trends were recognized. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in vegetation l samples are 80 and 2000 pCi/kg wet, respectively. The presence of l Cs-137 in the vegetation samples is attributed to fallout from the ) nuclear weapons tests of past years and to the Chernobyl incident. 4 l 5 I i k l l l 49 l , 1 f
.= - .. -- - .. --
e 4.5 River Water Surf ace water was composited from the Altamaha River at an upstream location (Station 170) and at a downstream location I j (Station 172) using ISCO automatic samplers. Small quantities were collected at intervals not exceeding a few hours. River water samples collected by these machines were picked up monthly: quarterly composites were made from the monthly collections. A gamma isotopic analysis was conducted on each monthly collection. As usual. no man made radionuclides were detected; positive results are seldom found. The only man-made radionuclides detected previously (by gamma isotopic analysis) are , I presented below; the levels are in units of pCi/1. lear Quarter Station Radionuclide Level ! 1975 4th 172 Ce-141 78.2 l 1986 2nd 170 La-140 18.0 1 1986 2nd 172 Cs-137 12.0 1988 2nd 170 Cs-137 6.8 The positive results for 1986 are attributed to the Chernobyl ; incident. l l Tritium analysis was performed on each quarterly composite. No ] positive results were found during 1994. Before 1986. positive j results were usually found in each composite at levels typically s l \ between 200 and 400 pCi/1. Subsequently, the number of positive results and their levels diminished. There have been no positive results since 1990. The annual 50 mile downstream survey of the Altamaha River to determine if river water has begun to be used for drinking purposes is discussed in Section 4.0. I 4-10
4.6 Fish ; Gamma isotopic analysis was performed on the edible portion of the fish samples collected at the river stations on May 9 and November-
- 30. The control station (No. 170) is located upstream of the plant while the indicator station (No.172) is located downstream. '
Largemouth bass was collected at each station in both May and November; in May, redpar sunfish was also collected at the ; indicator station. As shown in Table 3-1. Cs-137 wr, the only man-made radionuclide detected during 1994. As usual, it was found in each sample. The
~
average level of 23.8 pCi/kg wet at the indicator station is seen to be 3.1 pCi/kg wet greater than that at the control station. This difference, however is not discernible since it is less than the MDD of 22.2 pCi/kg wet. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in fish are 150 and 2000 pCi/kg wet, respectively. There seems to have been a reduction in the Cs-137 level after 1988. This is illustrated by comparing the range and mean of annual averages in units of pCi/kg wet at the indicator and- . control stations for the 1984-1988 period with the 1989-1993 I period. 11gm 84-88 89-93 Indicator Station Mean 84.0 34 7 Lowest 62.0 26.7 Highest 117.0 41.6 Control Station Mean 49.1 26.9 24.2 ! Lowest 33.3 Highest 63.3 28.9 In the past, the only other man-made radionuclides detected in { fish samples by gamma isotopic analysis were Co 60 and Cs-134. l During preoperations, Co-60 was detected in one fish sample at a i very low level. During the period of 1983 through 1988. Cs-134 ! was found in about half of the samples at levels on the order of i those found for Cs-137. 4-11
~ . -. .- . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
l l
. 1 3
I 4.7 Sediment Sediment was collected along the shoreline of the Altamaha River on Mey 2 and November 7 at the upstream control stations (No 170) and the downstream indicator station (No 172). A gamma isotopic analysis w.js performed on each sample. Positive results were l obtali.ed for Cs-137 in each sample. Positive results were also ! found for Co-58. Co-60 and Zn-65 in the samples collected at the J indicator station. Pos; <e readings for Cs-137 have been found in nearly 93 percent l of a of the regular samples collected, including those during preoh tion. As shown in Table 3 1. the average level of 127 pCi/kg dry found at the indicator station was 23 pCi/kg dry i greater than that found at the control station. This difference ; was not discernible as it is less than the MDD of 350 pCi/kg dry. l The MDC for Cs-137 in sediment is 180 pCi/kg dry. The Cs-137 i levels have varied widely and randomly through the years during ; preoperation as well as during operation. The levels for 1994 are i typical of and within the range of those found previously. j e Positive readings for Cs-58 have not been detected previously in l shoreline sediment during either preoperation or operation. The i levels found-(20 and 24 pCi/kg dry) are seen to be about half that I of the assigned MDC of 43 pCi/kg dry. l l Positive readings for Co-60 began in 1986 when positive results were found at both the indicator and control stations. Except for 1987, it has been detected every year since. During the 8 year period. 1986 through 1993: positive results were found in almost 70 percent of the regular samples from the indicator station but in less than a quarter of those from the control station: the average positive result was 84.5 pCi/kg dry at the indicator station and 27.7 pCi/kg dry at the control station. The 1994 positive results of 217 and 219 pCi/kg dry for the indic'a tor station a.re a few times greater than the average for the 8 year period. Zn-65 has only been detected at the indicator station, starting in 1986. It has been found in about 40 percent of the regular samples collected there during the 8 year period 1986 through 1993. The average level for 1994 is a few times greater than the average for the 8 year period. l I 4-12 l l
. , . - . . - . . ..~.4. .. .m_~ _.m...- .- m . - - . . .-- _ _m _ . . . --- .m _
,-.5 i ,
- l 1
In past years, various fission and activation products were occasionally fuund in sediment samples. Their presence was generally' attributed to .the nuclear weapons tests or to the Chernobyl incident although plant releases were= not ruled out. The results found during 1994 are indicative of plant releases. Using the methodology and parameters of NRC Regulatory Guide-1.109 Revision 1, October 1977, the annual whole body dose to an individual by-direct radiation from sediment with the concentrations of man-made radionuclides found at the indicator station less those found at the control station was estimated to ; be approximately 7.6 microrem or about 0.25 percent of the 3 mrem limit for releases from one unit as stipulated by 0DCM 2.1 3. i This extremely low dose, although. calculable, is insignificant with respect to radiation dose and regulatory limits. i
+
1 L l l > t i l i I . 4-13 1
~
r -- -
e 5.0 INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM TS 6.19(3) requires participation in an interlaboratory' comparison program to ensure that independent checks are performed on the .l precision and accuracy of the measurements of radioactive i materials in environmental sample matrices. As directed by ODCM l 4.1.3 the EL performed analyses on radioactive materials supplied j by the Performance Evaluation Program conducted by the l Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at their Environmental. l j Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas. Nevada. In past years, this program was known as the Intercomparison Studies (Crosscheck) Program. Reported herein, as required by 00CM 4 l 4.1.3.3 and 7.1.2.3 is a summary of the results of the EL's I l participation in this program.. 1 The Performance Evaluation Program was designed for laboratories I involved with REMPs and includes environmental media and a variety of radionuclides with activities which might be as low as l environmental levels. Simulated environmental samples are l distributed regularly to the participants who analyze the samples ! and return the results to the EPA for statistical analysis and comparison with known values and with results obtained from other participating laboratories. The EPA then provides each participant with documentation of its performance; this can be . helpful in identifying any instrument or procedure problems. I i The El analyzed the EPA supplied samples consistent with the requirements of Table 2-1. Analyses were performed in a normal l manner. Each sample was analyzed in triplicate as required'by the : program. Results obtained for the gross beta and gamma isotopic , analyses of air filters. the gamma isotopic analysis of milk ! samples, and the tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water ; samples are summarized in Table 5-1. > Delineated in Table 5-1 for each of the environmental media are , the type analyses performed. EPA's collection dates, the known ! values and expected precisions (one standard deviation) provided l by the EPA. the average results obtained and reported by the EL along with the standard deviations of these results, and the normalized deviations and the normalized ranges from the known results. The normalized deviations and normalized ranges were also provided by the EPA. l 5-1 l , I l
TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 1 0F 2) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM RESULTS 1 Reported Standard Normalized Normalized Radionuclide Date Known Expected Value Precision Averace Deviation Deviation Ranae or Analysis Collected Air Filters (pCi/ filter) f 10.0 56.00 1.73 0.00 0.18 Gross Beta 08/26/94 56.0 5.0 18.67 0.58 1.27 0.12 15.0 4 Cs-137 08/26/94 Milk (pCi/l) 8.0 71.00 4.36 -0.87 0.59 T I-131 Os/30/94 75.0 ro 5.0 61.00 1.73 0.69 0.35 Cs-137 09/30/94 59.0 ' Water (pCi/1) 4710.00 98.49 -0.79 0.23 H-3 03/04/94 4936.0 494.0 9253.33 176.17 -1.21' O.20 08/05/94 9951.0 995.0 i 5.0. 22.67 2.08 0.92 0.47 Co-60 04/19/94 20.0 2.02 50.0 5.0 54.33 6.81 1.50 06/10/94 -0.58 0.12 10/18/94 40.0 5.0 38.33 0.58 5.0 57.00 2.65 -0.69 0.59 11/04/94 59.0 13.0' 141.33 2.31- 0.98 0.18 Zn-65 06/10/94 134.0 0.71 i 100.0 10.0 107.00 6.24 1.21 11/04/94 t
--- _- - - . _ _ _ - - - . _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - -___--- _ _-~- . - - _ - _ _ _ _ ,___
i TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 2 0F 2) , i PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM RESULTS i Expected Reported Standard Normalized Normalized Radionuclide Date Known ~t Value Precision Averaae Deviation Deviation Ranae or Analysis Collected t 25.0 240.67 15.63 -0.79 0.73 Ru-106 06/10/94 252.0 5.0 28.33 1.53 -1.96- 0.35 ' Cs-134 04/19/94 34.0 0.12 40.0 5.0 36.33 0.58 -1.27 06/10/94 -0.92 0.12 10/18/94 20.0 5.0 17.33 0.58 + 5.0 24.00 3.00 0.00 0.71 11/04/94 24.0 5.0 30.33 1.53 0.46 0.35 Cs-137 04/19/94 29.0 1.12 49.0 5.0 50.33 4.51- 0.46 06/10/94 .0.58 0.12 10/18/94 39.0 5.0 40.67 0.58
- T 53.33 3.51 1.50 0.83 11/04/94 49.0 5.0 i
10.0 87.33 2.08 -1.85 0.24 Ba-133 06/10/94- 98.0 73.0 7.0 68.00 1.73 -1.24 0.25 11/04/94 t l } 4 _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ ~ _ _ . - _ - . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _
The normalized deviation from the known value provides a measure of the central tendency of the data (accuracy). The normalized range is a measure of the dispersion of the data (precision). An absolute value of 3 standard deviations for the normalized deviation and for the normalized range was established by the EPA as the control limit. An absolute value of 2 standard deviations was established as the warning limit. The EL considers any value-greater than the control limit as unacceptable. Investigations are undertaken whenever any value exceeds the warning limit or ' whenever a plot of the values indicates a trend. An investigation was undertaken due to the following conditions which may be noted from Table 5-1:
- 1. The warning limit for the normalized range was exceeded for the gamma isotopic analysis of Co-60 for the water sample collected on June 10: and
- 2. The gamma isotopic analysis of Cs-137 in water continues to show a positive bias.
The activity values reported to the EPA for Co 60 in water for the June 10 collection were 49. 52 and 62 pCi/1. The range in the analysis results could not be attributed to sample preparation as each sample is prepared in the same manner. The counting variables such as, detector efficiency or count times, were the same when the 49 and 62 pCi/l results were obtained. The quality ' control criteria for the instrumentation used to count the samples was within established limits. The internal quality control for l the sample matrix processed was within acceptance limits. The normalized range is seen to barely exceed the warning limits. ] Further investigation is deemed to be unwarranted. j The recovery of Cs-137 activity in water samples is trending high. Eighteen out of the last twenty samples (going back to April 17 1990) have had positive normalized deviation values. The current efficiency curves for the 3 gamma detectors were evaluated from a mixture of 8 isotopes with a total of 13 energy values (from 88 to 1836 key) using a quadratic fit, For each of the 3 detectors the actual efficiency point at 661 key (the prominent gamma for Cs-l 137) fell above the calculated efficiency curve by approximately : 2%. Because all values of the normalized deviation have been within the warning limits since the start of 1987 and because the average value of the normalized deviation beginning with the April 17, 1990 sample is only 0.68, the trend is not considered I significant. Further investigation is deemed to be unwarranted. l l 5-4 l l
.* 4
6.0 CONCLUSION
S i This report confirms the licensee's conformance with TS 6.19 and l Chapter 4 of the ODCM during 1994. It shows that all data were i carefully examined. A. summary and discussion of the results of the laboratory analyses for each type sample were presented. The presence of Co-60. Zn-65 and other manmade radionuclides in the shoreline sediment a few miles downstream of the discharge ! structure is indicative of plant releases. The' consequent doses [ which were'shown to be a small fraction'of the 00CM limits pose no l measurable radiological impact to the environment or the public. ) l l i l l l t i l i, l i l 1 i l i l 6-1 i l- ! i- -
!}}