ML20107N167
| ML20107N167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1995 |
| From: | YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20107N162 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9605020017 | |
| Download: ML20107N167 (95) | |
Text
,
I
- ANNUAL l l
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT I
i i
i i
I l
l
}
\
l i
l Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station i Vernon, Vermont IS* $80cd $00fg i I.
m ANNUAL (f.Q
- jf
- RADIOLOGICAL
-c ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT Of
' ~
(I .
9 ,
t y ..
gg Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Vernon, Vermont E NS$hf2
l VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION h
ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT January - December 1995 April 1996 Prepared by:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company Environmental Engineering Department 580 Main Street Bolton, Massachusetts 01740
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 1. INTROD UCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
- 2. BACKGROUND RADIOACTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1 Naturally Occurring Background Radioactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2 Man-Made Background Radioactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
- 3. GENERAL PLANT AND SITE INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 4. PROGRAM DES IGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1 Monitoring Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2 Pathways Monitored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3 Descriptions ofMonitoring Programs ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- 5. RADIOLOGICAL DATA
SUMMARY
TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
- 6. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6.1 Sampling Program Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6.2 Comparison of Achieved LLDs with Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.3 Comparison of Results with Reporting Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.4 Changes in Sampling Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.5 Data Analysis by Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... 43
- 7. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 7.1 Intralaboratory Quality Control Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 7.2 EPA Intercomparison Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 7.3 Environmental TLD Quality Assurance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 7.4 Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
- 8. LAND USE CENSUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
- 9. S UMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
- 10. REFERENCE S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 ii '
LIST OF TABLES l l
1 i
.T.able .T. ids P.ASc 4.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ............ ..... ........ .. ... . 12 1
i 4.2 Radiological Environmental Monitoning Lo cations (Non-TLD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 1 4.3 Radiological Environmental Monitoring i
Locati ons (TLD) . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i l
4.4 Environmental Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) '
Sensitivity Requirements . . .. . . .... . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. ... ... . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. I 8 4.5 Reporting Levels for Radioactivity Concentrations in Environmental S amples . . . .. .. . . . .. ... . ... . .... ... . ... . ... . . .. . ... ... . . . .. . ....... . .. .. . . ..... 19 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary .... ................... ......... ..... 28 5.2 Environmental TLD Data Summary .................................. . .. ................ 3 8 5.3 Environmental TLD Measurements ........... .. ........ ............ ................ .... 3 9 7.1 Summary of Process Control Analysis Results ....... .................................. 80 1
1 7.2 EPA Intercomparison Analysis Results . . . ............ .. .. ........................ ... 81 !
7.3 Summary of EPA Intercomparison Results .. ........... . ...... ....... .............. 83 l 7.4 Summary of Blind Duplicate Samples Submitted .... ......... ... .... . .... . .. .. 84 8.1 Land Use Census Locations . .. ..... ..................... ......... . ........... ........ .. 86 til
LIST OF FIGURES fig 1En .T.itle Eage 4.1 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations in Close Proximity to Plant ..... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................20 4.2 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Within 5 Kilometers of Plant ...... ........ ..... . . . . ...... .... ....... ..... .. .. .21 4.3 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Greater than 5 Kilometers from Plant . . . .... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.4 TLD Monitoring Locations in Close Proximity to Plant........... .. ......... ... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................23 4.5 TLD Monitoring Locations Within 5 Kilometers of Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................24 4.6 TLD Monitoring Locations Greater than 5 Kilometers from Plant .. . . ... . ... ... . . ..........................................................25 6.1 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Paniculate Filters .. ..... . . ...... ..... .. .. 50 (Quarterly Averages - Indicator vs. Control) 6.2 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . . ....... .. . ... .. .... 51 (AP-11 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.3 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Paniculate Filters ..... . ....... . .. ........ 52 (AP-12 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.4 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters .. . .. ....... .. ........ .. 53 (AP-13 vs. AP-21 Control) iv
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Eumrs Iide Eagn 6.5 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . ........... .... .............. 54 (AP-14 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.6 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters .. .. ... .................. .... 55 (AP-15 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.7 Gross Beta Measurements on River Water .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..................56 6.8 Gross Beta Measurements on Ground Water .... . .......... . . ............... . .. 57 6.9 Cesium- 13 7 in Milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . .. . .. 5 8 6.10 S trontium-90 in Milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . .... . . . 5 9 6.I1 Cesium- 13 7 in Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 6 6.12 Exposure Rate at inner Ring, Outer Ring and Control TLDs ..... .... .. ... . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.13 Exposure Rate at Indicator TLDs, DR 01 -0 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.14 Exposure Rate at Indicator TLDs, DR 04, 06, 5 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 63 6.15 Exposure Rate at Site Boundary TLDs, DR 07-08,41-42.. ... .............. .. 64 6.16 Exposure Rate at Site Boundary TLDs, DR4 3 -4 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 6 5 6.17 Exposure Rate at Site Boundary TLDs, DR 47-49, 51. . ................ ....... 66 i
V
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Este Ii11: .P. age 6.18 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 09-15 (odd) ...... . ................. .. . 67
- 6. I 9 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 17-23 (odd) ... . .............. .......... 68 6.20 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 25-31 (odd) .............. .. ... .. ....... 69 6.21 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 33-39 (odd) ........ . .... ... . ........ 70 6.22 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 10-16 (even) . . ... ..... ... .... ..... 71 6.23 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 18-24 (even)... .. .................. ..... 72 6.24 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 26-32 (even).......... ... ....... ........ 73 6.25 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 34-40 (even)........... ...... ...... ..... 74 6.26 Exposure Rate at Control TLDs, DR-04 & DR-05.. ........ ........ .... . . .... 75 si
l
- 1. INTRODUCTION This report summanzes the findings of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) conducted by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation in the vicinity of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon, Vermont during the calendar year 1995. It is submitted annuallyin compliance with plant Technical Specification 6.7.C.3. The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2! Provides an introductory explanation to the background radioactivity and radiation that is detected in the plant environs.
Section 3: Provides a brief description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station site and its envirots.
Section 4: Provides a description of the overall REMP program design. Included is a summary of the Technical Specification requirements for REMP sampling, tables listing all locations sampled or monitored in 1995 with compass sectors and distances from the plant, and maps showing each REMP location. Tables listing Lower Limit ofDetection requirements and Reporting Levels are also included.
Section 5: Consists of the summarized data as required by VYNPS Technical Specifications. The tables are in the format specified by the NRC Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring (Reference 1). Also included is a summary of the environmental TLD measurements for 1995.
Section 6: Provides the results of the 1995 monitoring program. The performance of the program in meeting regulatory requirements as given in the Technical Specifications is discussed, and the data acquired during the year are analyzed.
Section 7: Provides an overview of the Quality Assurance programs used at the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory and the results of the EPA Intercomparison Program.
Section 8: Summarizes the requirements and the results of the 1995 Land Use Census.
Section 9: Gives an overall summary of the results of the 1995 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.
1
t i
- 2. BACKGROUND RADIOACTIVITY Radiation or radioactivity potentially detected in the Vermont Yankee environment can be grouped into three categories. The first is " naturally-occurring" radiation and radioactivity.
The second is " man-made" radioactivity from sources other than the Vermont Yankee plant.
l The third potential source ofradioactivity is due to emissions from the Vermont Yankee plant.
For the purposes of the Vermont Yankee REMP, the first two categories are classified as l " background" radiation, and are the subject of discussion in this section of the report. The
! third category is the one that the REMP is designed to detect and evaluate.
I 2.1 Naturally Occurring Background Radioactivity l
Natural radiation and radioactivity in the environment, which provide the major source of human radiation exposure, may be subdivided into three separate categories: " primordial radioactivity," "cosmogenic radioactivity" and " cosmic radiation." "PrimorL1 radioactivity" is made up of those radionuclides that were created with the universe and that have a sufficiently long half-life to be still present on the earth. Included in this category are the radionuclides
, that these elements have decayed into. A few of the more important radionuclides in this l category are Uranium-238 (U-238), Thorium-232 (Th-232), Rubidium-87 (Rb-87),
l Potassium-40 (K-40), Radium-226 (Ra-226), and Radon-222 (Rn-222). Uranium-238 and l Thorium-232 are readily detected in soil and rock, whether through direct field measurements or through laboratory analysis of samples. Radium-226 in the earth can find its way from the soil into ground water, and is often detectable there. Radon-222 is one of the components of natural background in air, and its daughter products are detectable on air sampling filters.
Potassium-40 comprises about 0.01 percent of all natural potassium in the earth, and is i consequently detectable in most biological substances, including the human body. There are l many more primordial radionuclides found in the environment in addition to the major ones discussed above (Reference 2).
l The second sub-category of naturally-occurring radiation and radioactivity is "cosmogenic radioactivity." This is produced through the nuclear interaction of high energy cosmic radiation with elements in the earth's atmosphere, and to a much lesser degree in the earth's crust. These radioactive elements are then incorporated into the entire geosphere and atmosphere, including the earth's soil, surface rock, biosphere, sediments, ocean floors, polar
Hydrogen-3 (H-3 or Tritium), Sodium-22 (Na-22), and Beryllium-7 (Be-7). Beryllium-7 is the
, 2
one most readily detected, and is found on air sampling filters and occasionally in biological media (Reference 2).
The third sub-category of naturally-occurring radiation and radioactivity is " cosmic radiation " This consists of high energy atomic and sub-atomic particles of extra-terrestrial origin and the secondary particles and radiation that are produced through their interaction in the earth's atmosphere. The primary radiation comes mostly from outside of our solar system, and to a lesser degree from the sun. We are protected from most of this radiation by the earth's atmosphere, which absorbs the radiation. Consequently, one can see that with increasing elevation one would be exposed to more cosmic radiation as a direct result of a thinner layer of air for protection. This " direct radiation" is detected in the field with gamma spectroscopy equipment, high pressure ion chambers and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs).
2.2 Man-Made Background Radioactivity The second source of" background" radioactivity in the Vermont Yankee environment is from " man-made" sources not related to the power plant. The most recent contributor to this category was the fallout from the Chernobyl accident in April of 1986, which was detected in the Vermont Yankee environment and other parts of the world. A much greater contributor to this category, however, has been fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. Tests were conducted from 1945 through 1980 by the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China and France, with the large majority of testing occurring during the periods 1954-1958 and 1961-1962. (A test ban treaty was signed in 1963 by the United States, Soviet '
Union and United Kingdom, but not by France and China.) Atmospheric testing was conducted by the People's Republic of China as recently as October 1980. Much of the fallout detected today is due to this explosion and the last large scale one, done in November of 1976 (Reference 3).
The radioactivity produced by these detonations was deposited worldwide. The amount of fallout deposited in any given area is dependent on many factors, such as the explosive yield of the device, the latitude and altitude of the detonation, the season in which it occurred, and the timing of subsequent rainfall which washes fallout from the troposphere (Reference 4). Most of this fallout has decayed into stable elements, but the residual radioactivity is still readily detectable in environmental samples worldwide. The two predominant radionuclides are Cesium-137 (Cs-137) and Strontium-90 (Sr-90). They are found in soil and in vegetation. and 3
, since cows and goats graze large areas of vegetation, these radionuclides are also readily detected in milk.
Other potential " man-made" sources of emir om aental " background" radioactivity include other nuclear power plants, coal-fired power plants, national defense installations, hospitals, research laboratories and industry. These collectively are insignificant on a global scale when compared :c, the sources discussed above (natural and fallout).
1 4
2 3. GENERAL PLANT AND SITE INFORMATION 5
l The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station is located in the town of Vernon, Vermont in
! Windham County. The 130-acre site it on the west shore of the Connecticut River,
- immediately upstream of the Vernon Hydroelectric Station. The land is bounded on the north,
- south and west by privately-owned land, and on the east by the Connecticut River. The i surrounding area is generally rural and lightly populated, and the topography is flat or gently
- rolling. ,
i Construction of the single 540 megawatt BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) plant began in 1967. The pre-operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program,4dgoed to measure environmental radiation and radioactivity levels in the area prior to station operation, began in 1970. Commercial operation began on November 30,1972.
l l
l 5
l l i
1
, 1
- 4. PROGRAM DESIGN I
The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Statim: (VYNPS) was designed with specific objectives in mind. These are:
- I To provide an early indication of the appearance or accumulation of any radioactive l
material in the environment caused by the operation of the station. -i l
To provide assurance to regulatory agencies and the public that the station's l
l environmental impact is known and within anticipated limits. '
To verify the adequacy and proper functioning of station effluent controls and l l monitoring systems. I I
=
l To provide standby monitoring capability for rapid assessment of risk to the general public in the event ofunanticipated or accidental releases of radioactive material.
l
- The program was initiated in 1970, approximately two years before the plant began l
commercial operation. It has been in operation centinuously since that time, with I improvements made periodically over those yea's.
1 The current program is designed to meet the intent of NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, ProgramsforMonitoring Radioactivity in the Environ > fNuclear Power Plantst NRC Regulatory Guide 4.8, Environmental TechnicalSpecificationsfor Nuclear Power Plants; the NRC Branch Technical Position of November 1979, An Acceptable Radiological EnvironmentalMonitoring Program; and NRC NUREG-0473, Radiological Effluent i TechnicalSpecificationsfor BWR's. The enviromr. ental TLD program has been designed and I tested around NRC Regulatory Guide 4.13, Pe@rmance, Testing andProcedural Specificationsfor Thermoluminescence Dosimetry: EnvironmentalApplications. The qualitj I assurance program is designed around the guidance given in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.i3, !
Quality Assurancefor RadiologicalMonitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Efj7uent !
Streams and the Environment.
l The minimum sampling requirements of the REMP are given in Technical Specification 3.9.C, which is summarized in Table 4.1 of this report. The identification of the required sampling locations is given in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), Chapter 4. The f
1 6
i l
l l
l 1
I I
complete list oflocations used during 1995 is given in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 of this report. These sampling and monitoring locations are shown graphically on the maps in Figures 4.1 through )
4.6.
l The Vermont Yankee Chemistry Department conducts the radiological environmental i monitoring program. They collect all airborne, terrestrial and ground water samples, and contract with Aquatec, Inc. to collect all fish, river water and sediment samples. All TLD badges are posted and retrieved by the Vermont Yankee Chemistry Department, and are read out by the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL). ,
l 4.1 Monitoring Zones )
l The REMP is designed to allow comparison oflevels of radioactivity in samples from the area possibly influenced by the plant to levels found in areas not influenced by the plant.
Monitoring locations within the first zone are called " indicators." Those within the second zone are called " controls." The distinction between the two zones, depending on the type of sample or sample pathway, is based on one or more of several factors, such as site meteorological history, meteorological dispersion calculations, relative direction from the plant, river flow, and distance. Analysis of survey data from the two zones aids in determining if there is a significant difference between the two areas. It can also help in differentiating between radioactivity or radiation due to plant releases and that due to other fluctuations in the environment, such as atmospheric nuclear weapons test fallout or seasonal variatione in the natural background, 4.2 Pathways Monitored Four pathway categories are monitored by the REMP. They are the airborne, waterborne, ingestion and direct radiation pathways. Each of these four categories is monitored by the collection of one or more sample media, which are listed below, and are described in more detailin this section:
Airborne Pathway Air Particulate Sampling Charcoal Cartridge (Radiciodine) Sampling 7
i
k 4
{ Waterborne Pathways River Water Sampling i Ground Water Sampling
! Sediment Sampling
. Ingestion Pathways l Milk Sampling l Silage Sampling -
I Mixed Grass Sampling Fish Sampling
, Direct Radiation Pathway TLD Monitoring i
4.3 Descriptions of Monitoring Programs 4.3.1 Air Sampling Continuous air samplers are installed at six locations. (Five are required by VYNPS Technical Speci6 cations.) The sampling pumps at these locations operate continuously at a flow rate of approximately one cubic foot per minute. Airborne particulates are collected by passing air through a 50 mm glass-fiber filter. A dry gas meter is incorporated into the sampling stream to measure the total volume of air sampled in a given interval. The entire system is housed in a weatherproof structure. The filters are collected biweekly, and to allow for the decay of radon daughter products, they are held for at least 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> at the YAEL before being analyzed for gross-beta radioactivity (indicated as GR-B in the data tables). The biweekly filters are composited (by location) at the YAEL for a quarterly gamma spectroscopy analysis.
If the gross-beta activity on an air particulate sample is greater than ten times the yearly mean of the control samples, Technical Specification 3.9.C requires a gamma isotopic analysis on the individual sample. Whenever the main plant stack effluent release rate ofI-131 is equal to or greater than 0.1 pCi/sec, weekly air particulate collection is required, pursuant to Technical Specification 3.9.C.
8
J i
! 4.3.2 Charcoal Cartridge (Radiciodine) Sampling i Continuous air samplers are installed at six locations. (Five are required by Technical j Specifications.) The sampling pumps at these locations operate continuously at a flow rate of l approximately one cubic foot per minute. A 60 cc TEDA impregnated charcoal cartridge is
] located downstream of the air particulate filter described above. A dry gas meter is
! incorporated into the sampling stream to measure the total volume of air sampled in a given
) interval. The entire system is housed in a weatherproof structure. These cartridges are l collected and analyzed biweekly for I-131.
Whenever the main plant stack effluent release rate ofI-131 is equal to or greater than 0.1 j pCi/sec, weekly charcoal cartridge collection is required, pursuant to Technical Specification
] 3.9.C.
i j 4.3.3 River Water Sampling 4
l An automatic compositing sampler is maintained at the downstream sampling location by :
{ the Vermont Yankee Chemistry Department staff, and the pump delivering river water to the
! sampler is maintained by Aquatec, Inc. The sampler is controlled by a timer that collects an j aliquot of river water hourly. An additional grab sample is collected monthly at the upstream
! controllocation. All river water samples are preserved with hcl and NaHSO3 to prevent the
{ plate out of radionuclides on the container walls. Each sample is analyzed for gamma-emitting
] radionuclides. Although not required by VYNPS Technical Specifications, a gross-beta i analysis is performed on each sample. The monthly composite or grab samples are composited i again (by location) at the YAEL for a quarterly H-3 analysis.
l_ 4.3.4 Ground Water Sampling i Grab samples are collected quarterly from two indicator and one controllocation. (Only i one indicator and one control is required by VYNPS Technical Specifications.) All ground j water samples are preserved with hcl and NaHSO3 to prevent the plate out of radionuclides j- on the container walls. Each sample is analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides' and H-3.
Although not required by VYNPS Technical Specifications, a gross-beta analysis is also performed on each sample.
i i
i b 9 I
i
J 4
l 4.3.5 Sediment Sampling 4
Sediment grab samples are collected semiannually from the downriver location and
{ quarterly at the North Storm Drain Outfall by Aquatec, Inc. At the downriver shoreline,
, multiple grab samples were collected on two occe,sions, May 19 and October 26, in addition
] the quarterly samples. During 1995,60 control sediment samples were taken upstream of the l
plant on the Connecticut River. Thirty of these were collected at the Route 9 Eridge l (designated SE-21). The other thirty samples were collected at a locationjust upstream of the ;
i North Storm Drain Outfall (designated SE-05). Each sample is analyzed at the YAEL for
! gamma-emitting radionuclides.
1 l 4.3.6 Milk Sampling i
! When milk animals are identified as being on pasture feed, milk samples are collected twice i per month from that location. Throughout the rest of the year, and for the full year where l animals are not on pasture, milk samples are collected on a monthly schedule. Three locations
- are chosen as a result of the annual Land Use Census, based on meteorological dispersion j calculations. The fourth location is a control, which is located sufficiently far away from the l plant to be outside any potential influence from it. Other samples may be collected from j locations ofinterest.
1
- Immediately after collection, each milk sample is refrigerated and then typically transported
! by comier. Upon receipt at the YAEL, methimazole and forma'dehyde are added to the milk to prevent protein binding and spoilage, respectively. Each sample is then analyzed for i
gamma-emitting radionuclides. Following a chemical separation, a separate low-level I-131 analysis is performed to meet the Lower Limit of Detection requirements in the Technical Specifications. Although not required by Technical Specifications, Sr-89 and Sr-90 analyses j are also performed on quarterly composited samples.
1
- 4.3.7 Silage Sampling I
j At each milk sampling location, a silage sample is collected at the time of harvest, if j available. One sample is shipped to the YAEL without preservative, where it is analyzed for j gamma-emitting radionuclides. Although not required by Technical Specifications, a separate i silage sample is preserved with NaOH, and is then analyzed at the YAEL for low-level I-131.
i
)
10 l
i
I 1
! I 4.3.8 Mixed Grass Sampling At each air sampling station, a mixed grass sample is collected quarterly, when available.
Enough grass is clipped to provide the minimal sample weight needed to achieve the required lower limits of detection (LLDs). One sample is shipped to the YAEL without preservative, where it is analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. Although not required by Technical Specifications, a separate grass sample is preserved with NaOH, and is then shipped to the YAEL for a separate I-131 analysis.
4.3.9 Fish Sampling Fish samples are collected semiannually at two locations (upstream of the plant and in Vernon Pond) by Aquatec, Inc. The samples are frozen and delivered to the YAEL where the edible portions are analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides.
4.3.10 TLD Monitoring l Direct gamma radiation exposure was continuously monitored with the use of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Specifically, Panasonic UD-801 ASI and UD-814ASI calcium sulfate dosimeters were used, with a total of five elements in place at each monitoring location. Each pair of dosimeters is sealed in a plastic bag, which is in turn housed in a plastic-screened container. This container is attached to an object such as a fence or utility pole.
A total of 40 stations are required by Technical Specifications. Of these,24 must be read out quanerly, while those from the remaining 16 incident response (outer ring) stations need only be de-dosed (annealed) quarterly, unless a gaseous release LCO was exceeded during the l period. Although not required by Technical Specifications, the TLDs from the 16 outer ring stations are read out quarterly along with the other stations' TLDs. In addition to the TLDs required by Technical Specifications, twelve more are typically posted at or near the site boundary. The plant staff posts and retrieves all TLDs, while the YAEL processes them.
P 11
TABLE 4.1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONNENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (as required by Tech. Spec. Table 3.9.3)*
Cottection Analysis Exposure Pathway d thmber of Routine Analysis Analysis Sample M ia Sample Sampling Collection Type Frequency Locations Mode Frequency .
- 1. Direct Radiation (TLDs) 40 Continuous Quarterly c - ; Outer Ring - Each TLD de-dose only, unless gaseous release LCO was exceeded
- 2. Airborne (Particulates $ Continuous Semimonthly Particulate Sample:
and Radiolodine) Gross Beta Each Sample Gansna Isotopic Querterty Composite (by tocation)
Radiolodine Canister:
I-131 Each sample
- 3. Waterborne
- a. Surface Water 2 Downstream: Monthly Genus Isotopic Each sample Automatic Trititsa (N-3) Quarterly composite composite.
. Upstream: grab.
- b. Groted Water 2 Grab Ouarterly Canna Isotopic Each Sample Tritium (M-3) Each sample
- c. Shoreline Sediment 2 Grab Upstream: Semiennuelty. Gansna Isotopic Each Sample N. Storm O'ain OutfatL:
As specified in ODCM.
12 1
_ m_ . _ _ . . ._ _ . . . . .. _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ , _ . . _ . _ . _ . .. ._m _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . _.
TABLE 4.1, cont.
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (as required by Tech. Spec. Tabte 3.9.0)*
Collection Analysis Exposure Pathway and/or saaple Media Nominal Ntaber of Routine Nominal Analysis Analysis sample Locations sampling Cottection Type Frequency ;
Mode Frequency
- 4. Ingestion
- a. Milk 4 Grab Monthly Genena Isotopic Each sample (semimonthly I-131 Each sanpie when on j pasture) [
- b. Fish 2 Grab sentannuelty Gansne Isotopic on Each sample edible portions
- c. Vegetation
- Grass sample 1 at each air Grab ouarterty when Gansna Isotopic Each sample -
sanpting station avaltable I
- sitage sample 1 at each milk Grab At harvest Gansne Isotopic Each sample saapting station
- see Technical specification Tabte 3.9.3 for complete footnotes.
l 13 :
- - - . ~ . . . - - - - - ._. - . .. . - . _ _ - . .- -. . _ _ . .
1 ll 1
l TABLE 4.2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (NON-TLD) IN 1995
! VERMONT ' YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION 4
i 1
Distance Direction Exposure Station From Plant From ,
Pathway
, & Station DHotion ZQDC' .GanC. Plant ***
i 1. Airborne AP/CF-11 River Sta. No. 3.3 I 1.9 SSE AP/CF-12 N. Hinsdale, NH I 3.6 NNW 4
AP/CF-13 Hinsdale Substation I 3.1 E
- AP/CF-14 Northfield, MA I 11.3 SSE
, AP/CF-15 Tyler Hill Road 1 3.2 WNW AP/CF-21 Spofford Lake C 16.1 NNE 4
- 2. Waterborne
- a. Surface WR-11 River Sta. No. 3.3 I 1.9 Down-river
{
- WR-21 Rt. 9 Bridge C 12.8 Up-river i
j b. Ground WG 11 Plant Well I -- On-site WG 12 Vernon Nursing Well I 2.0 SSE WG 22 Skibniowsky Well C 14.3 N
! SE-12 North Storm Drain Outfall I 0.15 E l SE-05 Upriver of North Storm Drain C 0.4 NNW 4
Outfall SE-21 Rt. 9 Bridge C 12.8 Up-river
- 3. Ingestion
- a. Milk TM 10 Back Track Farm I 2.3 S
, TM-11 Miller Farm I 0.8 WNW TM-12 Dommick I 5.2 E
. TM 14 Brown Fann 1 2.1 S j TM-16 Meadow Crest 1 4.4 WNW/NW
- TM 18 Blodgett Farm I 3.4 SE l TM-24 County Farm C 22.5 N j 14 i
l TABLE 4.2, cont.
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (NON-TLD) IN 1995
. VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION 1
Distance Direction i Exposure Station From Plant From Pathway & Station DaecriviQD ZQDC 00I0'~ dant
4 3. Ingestion,(continued)
- b. Fish FH 11 Vernon Pond I - "
1 FH 21 Rt. 9 Bridge C 12.8 Upriver i
- c. Mixed TG-ll River Sta. No. 3.3 I 1.9 SSE i Grass TG-12 N. Ensdale, NH I 3.6 NNW TG-13 Hinsdale Substation 1 3.1 E TG-14 Northfield, MA I 11.3 SSE TG 15 Tyler Hill Rd. I 3.2 WNW
- TG 21 Spofford Lake C 16.1 NNE 4
l d. Silage TC-10 Back Track Farm I 2.3 S i TC-11 Miller Farm I 0.8 WNW q TC 12 Dommick I 5.2 E
~
TC-14 Brown Farm I 2.1 S
! TC-16 Meadow Crest Farm I 4.4 WNW/NW TC-18 Blodgett Farm I 3.4 SE TC-24 County Farm C 22.5 N
- I = Indicator Stations; C = Control Stations
" Fish samples are collected anywhere in Vernon Pond, which is adjacent to the plant (see Figure 4.1).
'" The Distance and Direction for non-TLD sampling sites are relative to the plant stack.
15
2 i
! TABLE 4.3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (TLD) IN 1995
- VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION i
Distance From Direction Station Plant From
.Cgdg., Station Desenption Zgg* (kmV** ElanC' DR-1 River Sta. No. 3.3 I 1.6 SSE DR-2 N. Hmsdale, NH I 3.9 NNW DR-3 Hinsdale Substation I 3.0 E q DR-4 Northfield, MA C 11.0 SSE J DR-5 Spofford Lake C 16.3 NNE DR-6 Vemon School I 0.46 WSW DR-7 Site Boundary SB 0.27 W DR-8 Site Boundary SB 0.25 SW DR-9 Inner hg I 2.1 N DR-10 Outer hg O 4.6 N DR-11 Inner hg I 2.0 NNE DR-12 Outer hg O 3.6 NNE DR-13 inner hg I 1.4 NE DR 14 Outer hg O 4.3 NE DR-15 Inner h g I 1.4 ENE DR-16 Outer hg O 2.9 ENE l
DR-17 inner hg I 1.2 E DR-18 Outer hg O 3.0 E !
DR-19 Inner hg I 3.5 ESE DR-20 Outer hg O 5.3 ESE DR-21 Inner hg I 1.8 SE DR-22 Outer hg O 3.2 SE DR-23 Inner hg I 1.8 SSE.
DR 24 Outer hg O 3.9 SSE DR Inner hg I 2.0 S DR-26 Outer hg O 3.7 S DR-27 Inner hg I 1.0 SSW DR 28 Outer hg O 2.2 SSW DR 29 Inner hg I 0.7 WSW DR 30 Outer hg O 2.3 SW 16
TABLE 4.3, cont.
' RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (TLD) IN 1995 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION
- 1 Distance Direction Station From Plant From
{ h Statinn Descrintion Zggg* (km)*** Plant *"
DR 31 Inner hg I 0.8 W DR-32 Outer hg O 5.0 WSW ;
DR-33 Inner hg I 0.9 WNW !
- DR-34 Outer hg Road O 4.9 W l DR-35 Inner h g I 1.4 WNW DR-36 Outer hg O U WNW DR-37 Inner hg 1 3.0 NW DR-38 Outer hg O 7.7 NW DR-39 Inner hg I 3.2 NNW DR-40 Outer hg O 5.8 NNW DR-41" Site Boundary SB 0.38 SSW DR-42" Site Boundary SB 0.60 S DR-43" Site Boundary SB 0.42 SSE DR-44" Site Boundary SB 0.21 SE DR-45 *
- Site Boundary SB 0.12 NE DR-46" Site Boundary SB 0.29 NNW DR-47" Site Boundary SB 0.51 NNW DR-48" Site Boundary SB 0.82 - NW DR-49" Site Boundary SB 0.27 WNW DR-50" Gov. Hunt House I 0.34 SSW DR-51" Site Boundary SB 0.27 W DR 52" Site Boundary SB 0.25 SW
" This location is not considered a requirement of Technical Specification Table 3.9.3.
"* Distance and diection for TLD sites are relative to the center of the Turbine Building.
"" DR 8 satisfies Technical Specification Table 3.9.3 for an inner ring direct radiation monitoring
~.ocation. Hov ever, it is averaged as a Site Boundary TLD due to its close proximity to the plant.
17
TABLE 4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION (LLD) SENSITIVITY REQUIREMENTS Airborne Particulates Water or Gases Fish Milk Vegetation Sedunent Analysis (pCi/l) (pCi/m3) (pCi/kg) (pCi/l) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg -
drv)
Gross-Beta 4 0.01 H-3 3000 i
Mn-54 15 130 ,
l Fe-59 30 260 Co-58,60 15 130 Zn-65 30 260 Zr-Nb-95 15 l-131 0.07 1 60 Cs-134 15 0.05 130 15 60 150 Cs-137 18 ,0.06 150 18 80 180 Ba-La-140 15 15 (Several explanatory footnotes are given in Tech. Spec. Table 4.12-1.
18
I l TABLE 4.5 .
REPORTING LEVELS FOR RADIOACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS j IN ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES l Airbome
- Particulates Fish Milk Food Product Sedmw.at !
l Analysis Water (pCi/l) or Gases (pCi/kg) (pCi/l) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg-dry)
(pCi/m3) l .
i H-3 20,000*
i Mn-54 1000 30,000 r Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1000 30,000 CW 300 10,000 3000**
Zn-65 300 20,000 Zr-Nb-95 400 I-131 0.9 3 100 Cs-134 30 10 1000 60 1000 Cs-137 50 20 2000 70 2000 Ba-La-140 200 , 300 Reportmg level for dnnkmg water pathways. For non-dnnkmg water, a value of 30,000 may be used.
- Reportmg level for grab samples taken at the North Storm Drain Outfall only.
19 -
I 0 500 N METERS e __
g, FENCELINE,/ ,
'g
/ %
q'l 1
\
TC-11
+
'N
'N '
t 5, A SE-05 i,
- VERNON POND
)
l TM-11
\
'g STACKO %,
s
'A,SE-12 3 h
% INTAKE YG-11 'g s
i l
A rs-11
\
DISCHARGE VERNON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL t 8
,/
? SE-11
/
HINSDALE, NH ,
S
' l
~,,s \
\N vEnNON, vT sto Y f CONNECTICUT VERNON DAM RIVER l
. - l l
Figure 4.1 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Within Close Proximity to Plant 20
1 b
N 1
]
TG-12 g AP/CF-12
- A HINSDALE, NH g TM-16 TC-16 4
TG-15 0 AP/CF-15 A To-13 AP/CF-13 y -a j I
sss zuzAncomur zu rzcuns 4-1 \
VERNON DM
! ~
TC-14 A A To-11
"~ 14 Wo-12 wa-11 ,1g TC-18 0 1 2 3 LILY Polo KIla mTERS Figure 4.2 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Within 5 Kilometers of Plant 21
I l
l i
N [
] \
Sp 4 6 W-24 ;
TC-24 l l
I I .
SPOFFORD LAKE l
J TG-21 j A WG-22 A AP/Cr-21
-21 HOGBACK O WR-2' MT. A MARLBORO CEESTERFIELD 0 L BRATTLEBORO O SEE ENLARCEMENT IN TIGURE 4-2 I
EINSDALE -
GUILFoRD0 0 A m-12 VERNON0 0 WINCHESTER PLANT VERMONT NEW EAMPSHIRE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _3 _ _
MASSACHUSETTS ll MASSACHUSETTS O NORTEFIELD A AP/CF-14 TG-14 l
l GREINFIELDO l 0 5 10 KILOMETERS I
i
', Figure 4.3 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Greater than Five Kilometers from Plant 22 l
0 500 N METERS 1
+g FENCELI1E,, l
\ z'~
,s' e'd DR-40'N 1
)
A r DA-41 b \
% 's s \, i l
\ VERNON PO10 '
i 1A i s
i R-33 \pR-49 's )
STACK O'd@R-46 g 's, ,
M AKE DR-7
%A - R-45
~
DR-31 A t DR-32 A A DR-44 DR-S A #
ymSCma DR-6 A 's ,
VERNON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
\ t g
8 4 f DR-4,1 DR-29 ' l '
DR-50 jDR-43 A,/
DR-42-,A 'e' N
O VERNON, VT g DR-278 l
Figure 4.4 TLD Monitoring Locations in Close Proxirnity to Plant 23
4 i
j .I I
1
! N NNw NNE N
l i )
Nw A DR-4o i DR-10 A wE DR-12 i A i' DR-14 ~~
l A DR-2 A A DR-39 HINSDALE, NH DR-36 g DR-37A DR-9 R-11
- e A A wNw
~
Og;- 'A DR-13 A
- DR-35 A
, /dDR-15 ADR-3 4
LANT
/- t A DR-18 w E I A DR-17 E
% l SZE ENIARGDfENT IN TIGURE d-4 l DR-32 .
, i x
A DR-21 A DR-19 A A DR-3o A DR-23 ::
wSw A A DR 1
-8 DR-25 VERNON, VT A DR-22 A A DR-24 0 1 2 3 '
ILY POND KILONETERS SE SSw s SSE Figure 4.5 TLD Monitoring Locations Within 5 Kilometers from Plant 24
l .
i l
' (
I N {
} \
l y P0FFolto LAKE W P A'DR-s 4 '% .
g COGRACE MT. CHESTERFIELD A
MAR.LBO r.
TTLEBORO 9 szz rw m zw rzovar 4-5 DR-38 Al ,
I I
g GUILFORD#
Nsli DR-34 A M ON*
HINsDALE i
WINCHESTER e g i
A DR-2o I
._ vz="T_ _ . I _% NEW B M sB,I,RE,,,
unsaxCHosEns (
,+, ,; Ass,xCHosEns4 x
NORTHFIELD A DR-4 4 & :
0*4, ;
3% tsS s
))
GREENrIELDe o 5 lo
, , 1 KILCMETERs Figure 4.6 TLD Monitoring Locations Greater than 5 Kilometers from Plant 25
- 5. RADIOLOGICAL DATA
SUMMARY
TABLES l
j This section summarizes the analytical results of the environmental samples which were collected during 1995. These results, shown in Table 5.1, are presented in a format similar to i that prescribed in the NRC's Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring (Reference 1). The results are ordered by sample media type and
- then by radionuclide. The units for each media type are also given.
1 The left-most column contains the radionuclide ofinterest, the total number of analyses for l l that radionuclide in 1995, and the number of measurements which exceeded the Reporting
! Levels found in Table 3.9.4 of the VYNPS Technical Specifications. The latter are classified i
j as "Non-routine" measurements. The second column lists the required Lower Limit of I i
Detection (LLD) for those radionuclides which have detection capability requirements as
- specified in the plant's Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (Table 4.9.3). The
)
absence of a value in this column indicates that no LLD is specified in the Technical Specifications for that radionuclide in that media. The target LLD for any analysis is typically l
30-40 percent of the most restrictive required LLD. On rare occasions the required LLD is not met. This is usually due to malfunctions in sampling equipment, which results in low sample 1 volume. Such cases, if any, are addressed in Section 6.2.
1 For each radionuclide and media type, the remaining three columns summarize the data for '
the following categories of monitoring locations: (1) the Indicator stations, which are within the range ofinfluence of the plant and which could be affected by its operation; (2) the station which had the highest mean concentration during 1995 for that radionuclide; and (3) the !
Control stations, which are beyond the influence of the plant. Direct radiation monitoring stations (using TLDs) are grouped into Inner Ring, Outer ring, Site Boundary and Control.
In each of these columns, for each radionuclide, the following statistical values are given:
The mean value of all concentrations, with all values that are less than the aposteriori LLD for that analysis having been converted to zero, pursuant to footnote (f) of 1 Technical Specification Table 4.9.3.
=
The standard error of the mean.
1 The lowest and highest concentration, with all values that are less than the aposteriori 1
26
LLD having been converted to zero, pursuant to footnote (f) of Technical Specification Table 4.9.3.
The "No. Detected," or the number of positive measurements, divided by the total number. (A concentration which is greater than three times the standard deviation of that count, based on random uncertainty only, is considered " positive.")
Each single radioactivity measurement datum in this report is based on a single measurement and is reponed as a concentration plus or minus a one standard deviation uncertainty. The standard deviation on each measurement represents only the random uncertainty associated with the radioactive decay process (counting statistics), and not the propagation of all possible uncertainties in the analytical procedure.
Pursuant to VYNPS Technical Specification Table 4.9.3 (footnote f), any concentration below the aposteriori LLD for its malysis is averaged as a zero. Where a range of values is reported in the tables of this secti values less than their LLD are also reported as zero. To be consistent with Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL) reporting practices and normal data review practices used by Vermont Yankee, a " positive measurement" is considered to be one whose concentration is greater than three times its associated standard deviation, based on the random uncertainty as discussed above. This use of counting statistics for the determination of the presence or radioactivity, rather than the use of an LLD as a cut-off, is consistent with industry practices.
The radionuclides reponed in this section represent those that: 1) had an LLD requirement in Table 4.9.3 of the Technical Specifications, or a Reporting Level listed in Table 3.9.4, or
- 2) had a positive measurement of radioactivity, whether it was natu ally-occurring or man- I made; or 3) were of special interest for any other reason. The radionuclides that were routinely analyzed and reported by the YAEL (in a gamma spectroscopy analysis) were:
Th-232, Ag-110m, Ba-140, Be-7, Ce-141, Ce-144, Co-57, Co-58, Co-60, Cr-51, Cs-134, Cs-137, Fe-59, I-131, I-133, K-40, Mn-54, Mo-99, Np-239, Ru-103, Ru-lv6, Sb-124, Se-75, Tel-132, Zn-65 and Zr-95. In no case did a radionuclide not shown in Table 5.1 of this report appear as a " detectable measurement" during 1995.
Data from direct radiation measurements made by TLDs are provided in Table 5.2 in a format essentially the same as above. The complete listing of quarterly TLD data is provided in Table 5.3.
I 27
l l l
l TABLE 5.1 RADIOLOG'! CAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM SuletARY VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT (JANUARY - DECEMBER 1995)
, l INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGHEST MEAN CONTROL STATIONS RADIONUCLIDES
- MEAN MEAN MEAN (No. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE ETA. RANGE RANGE (NON ROUTINE)" LLD NO. DETECTED *** NO. No. DETECTED *** No. DETECTED ***
MEDIUM: AIR PARTICUUTES (AP) UNITS: pCf/ cubic meter GR-B (156) .01 ( 1.9 s 0.0)E -2 13 ( 1.9
- 0.1)E -2 ( 1.9 s 0.1)E -2
( 0) ( 8.4 - 31.7)E -3 ( 9.6 - 29.C)E 3 ( 1.0 - 3.0)E 2 (130/130) ( 26/ 26) ( 26/ 26) l l
BE 7 ( 24) ( 9.9 0.5)E 2 13 ( 1.1 2 0.1)E -1 ( 1.0 s 0.1)E -1 1
( 0) ( 6.7 - 14.0)E -2 ( 9.6 - 12.0)E -2 ( 8.1 - 12.0)E -2
! ( 20/ 20) ( 4/ 4) ( 4/ 4)
Co-60 ( 24) ( 3.5 3.5)E -5 21 ( 1.8 1.8)E 4 ( 1.8 a 1.8)E -4
( 0) ( 0.0 - 7.1)E -4 ( 0.0 - 7.3)E -4 ( 0.0 - 7.3)E -4
( 0/ 20) ( 0/ 4) ( 0/ 4)
CS 134 ( 24) .05 ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O l
( o) ....
( 0/ 20) ( 0/ 4)
CS 137 ( 24) .06 ( 0.0 2 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O
( 0) ****
( 0/ 20) ( 0/ 4)
MEDIUM: CHARC0AL FILTERS (CF) UNITS: pCf/ cubic meter l-131 (156) .07 ( 0.0 s 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O ,
( 0) **** I
( 0/130) ( 0/ 26)
MEDIUM: RIVER WATER (WR) UNITS: pCf/kg GR B ( 24) 4. ( 1.8 s 0.1)E 0 21 ( 1.9 t 0.2)E D ( 1.9 0.2)E O
( 0) ( 1.3 - 2.4)E 0 ( 1.2 - 2.6)E O ( 1.2 - 2.6)E O
( 12/ 12) ( 12/ 12) ( 12/ 12)
MN-54 ( 24) 15. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O
( 0) ****
( 0/ 12) ( 0/ 12)
I l
NOTE: Footnotes may be found at the end of Table 5.1.
28
TABLE 5.1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
SUMMARY
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT (JANUARY - DECEMBER 1995)
INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH NIGNEST MEAN CONTROL STATIONS ,
eeeeee**********ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee***ee l RADIONUCLIDES
- MEAN MEAN MEAN (No. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA. RANGE RANGE ,
(NON ROUTINE)** LLD No. DETECTED *** No. No. DETECTED *** NO. DETECTED *** l I
MEDIUM: RIVER WATER (WR), continued UNITS: pCl/kg i
C0 58- ( 24) 15. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O ( 0.0
- 0.0)E O
( 0) ....
( 0/ 12) ( 0/ 12)
- FE 59 ( 24) 30. ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O l 1 ( 0) ****
i
} ( 0/ 12) ( 0/ 12) l I
i co-60 ( 24) 15. ( 0.0 1 0.0)E O ( 0.0 a 0.0)E O I ( 0) ****
2' ( 0/ 12) ( 0/ 12) l
- ZN 65 ( 24) 30. ( 0.0 0.0)E O ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O
( 0) ****
l
( of 12) ( C/ !3)
ZR 95 ( 24) 15. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 t 0.0)E O
( 0) ****
( 0/ 12) ( 0/ 12) l CS 134 ( 24) 15. ( 0.0
- 0.0)E O ( 0.0 a 0.0)E 0
( 0) ****
1 ( 0/ 12) ( 0/ 12) i
! CS 137 ( 24) 18. ( 0.0
- 0.0)E O ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O i ( 0) ****
a
( 0/ 12) ( 0/ 12)
BA 140 ( 24) 15. ( 0.0 a 0.0)E D ( 0.0 t 0.0)E O l
( 0) ***e
( 0/ 12) ( 0/ 12)
- N3 ( 8) 3000. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O ( 0.0 a 0.0)E 0
( 0) ****
! ( 0/ 4) ( 0/ 4) i i
)
WOTE: Footnotes may be found at the end of Table 5.1.
29 i
s TABLE 5.1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
SUMMARY
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT (JANUARY DECEMSER 1995)
INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH NIGNEST MEAN CONTROL STAfl0NS RADIDMUCLIDES* MEAN MEAN MEAN (NO. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA. RANGE RANGE (NON ROUTINE)** LLD NO DETECTED *** N0. NO. DETECTED *** Wo. DETECTED ***
MEDIUM: GROUND WATER (WG) UNITS: pCl/kg GR B ( 12) 4. ( 5.3 a 1.2)E O 11 ( 7.6 2 1.0)E O ( 2.0 t 0.3)E O
( 0) ( 0.0 - 1.1)E 1 ( 6.2 - 10.5)E 0 ( 1.4 - 2.5)E O
( 7/ 8) ( 4/ 4) ( 4/ 4)
MN 54 ( 12) 15. ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O ( 0.0 t 0.0)E O
( 0)
( 0/ 8) ( 0/ 4) 00-58 ( 12) 15. ( 0.0 t 0.0)E O ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O I
( 0)
( 0/ 8) ( 0/ 4)
FE-59 ( 12) 30. ( 0.0 2 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O
( 0)
( 0/ 8) ( 0/ 4)
C0 60 ( 12) 15. ( 0.0 a 0.0)E O ( 0.0 t 0.0)E O
( 0)
( 0/ 8) ( 0/ 4) 2N-65 ( 12) 30. ( 0.0 a 0.0)E O ( 0.0
- 0.0)E O
( 0)
( 0/ 8) ( 0/ 4) l 1
ZR 95 ( 12) 15. ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O
( 0)
( 0/ 8) ( 0/ 4)
CS 134 ( 12) 15. ( 0.0 a 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O
( 0)
( 0/ 8) ( 0/ 4)
CS 137 ( 12) 18. ( 0.0 2 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 t 0.0)E 0
( 0)
( 0/ 8) ( 0/ 4) j i
I i
NOTE: Footnotes may be fourd at the end of Table 5.1.
l 30 :
1 TABLE 5.1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM SUletARY VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT (JANUARY - DECEMBER 1995)
INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGHEST MEAN CONTROL STATIONS eee***eeeeeeeeeeee eee***.ee.******eeeee**** ****eeee*****ee.
RADIONUCLIDES
- NO. NO. DETECTED *** No. DETECTED "
MEDIUM: GROUND WATER (WG), continued UNITS: pcl/kg
} BA-140 ( 12) 15. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 a 0.0)E 0
( 0) ****
( 0/ 8) ( 0/ 4) 1
- H3 ( 12) 3000. ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O j ( 0) .
( 0/ 8) ( 0/ 4)
RA 226 ( 3) ( 4.5 2 0.8)E 1 12 ( 5.3 s 0.5)E 1 ( 6.8
- 1.6)E 2
( 0) ( 3.7 - 5.3)E 1
( 2/ 2) ( 1/ 1) ( 1/ 1)
J MEDIUM: SEDIMENT (SE) UNITS: pCf/kg (dry)
BE-7 (116) ( 0.0
- 0.0)E O ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O
( 0) ****
i ( 0/ 56) ( 0/ 60) 1 K 40 (116) ( 1.3 2 0.0)E 4 12 ( 1.3
- 0.0)E 4 ( 1.0 a 0.0)E 4
( 0) ( 8.1 - 16.0)E 3 ( 1.0 - 1.6)E 4 ( 6.3 - 15.6)E 3 I
( 56/ 56) ( 54/ 54) ( 60/ 60)
MN 54 (116) ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O ( 0.0 2 0.0)E 0 l l g o) .... l
( 0/ 56) ( 0/ 60)
CO-58 (116) ( 0.0 1 0.0)E D (. 0.0 t 0.0)E 0
( 0) ****
( 0/ 56) ( 0/ 60)
CO-60 (116) ( 5.6 t 3.3)E O 12 ( 5.8 2 3.4)E O ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O
( 0) ( 0.0 - 1.4)E 2 ( 0.0 - 1.4)E 2
( 3/ 56) ( 3/ 54) ( 0/ 60)
ZN-65 (116) ( 0.0 a 0.0)E D ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O
( 0) ****
( 0/ 56) ( 0/ 60)
N3TE: Footnotes may be found at the end of Table 5.1.
} 31
~ ~
I i l
l r
TABLE 5.1 l
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM SLActARY l VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERWON, VT (JANUARY - DECEMBER 1995) l INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH NIGHEST MEAN CONTROL STATIONS eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
RADIONUCLIDES
- MEAN MEAN MAN
! (NO. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA. RANGE RANGE (NON ROUTINE)** LLD No. DETECTE0*** No. No. DETECTED *** NO. DETECTED ***
MEDIUM: SEDIMENT (SE), cent. UNITS: pCl/kg (dry)
! CS 134 (116) 150. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O ( 0.0
- 0.0)E O
( 0) ****
I
( 0/ 56) ( 0/ 60)
CS 137 (116) 180. ( 1.7 0.1)E 2 12 ( 1.71 0.1)E 2 ( 3.7 0.6)E 1 l
( 0) ( 0.0 - 4.6)E 2 ( 0.0 - 4.6)E 2 ( 0.0 - 1.4)E '2 l
( 53/ 56) ( 52/ 54) ( 25/ 60)
TM-232 (116) ( 8.7
- 0.2)E 2 22 ( 8.9 0.7)E 2 ( 6.1 a 0.2)E 2
( 0) ( 4.4 - 12.2)E 2 ( 7.5 - 9.7)E 2 ( 3.8 - 10.5)E 2
( $6/ 56) ( 3/ 3) ( 60/ 60)
MEDIUM: MILK (TN) UNITS: pcl/kg SR 89 ( 22) ( 0.0 2 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O
( 0) ****
( 0/ 18) ( 0/ 4)
SR 90 ( 22) ( 7.3 2 2.9)E 1 14 ( 2.2
- 0.7)E 0 ( 3.6 a 3.6)E 1
( 0) ( 0.0 - 3.2)E O ( 0.0 - 3.2)E O ( 0.0 - 1.4)E O
( 5/ 18) ( 3/ 4) ( 1/ 4)
K 40 ( 93) ( 1.4
- 0.0)E 3 12 ( 1.8 2 0.1)E 3 ( 1.3 2 0.0)E 3 l
( 0) ( 1.2 - 1.8)E 3 ( 1.2 - 1.5)E 3 l
( 75/ 75) ( 1/ 1) ( 18/ 18) 1 131 ( 93) 1 ( 0.0 t 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O
( 0) ****
'( 0/ 75) ( 0/ 18)
CS 134 ( 93) 15. ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O
( 0) ****
( 0/ 75) ( 0/ 18)
CS 137 ( 93) 18. ( 9.8
- 9.8)E 2 12 ( 7.3
- 2.1)E D ( 0.0
- 0.0)E O
( 0) ( 0.0 - 7.3)E D
( 1/ 75) ( 1/ 1) ( 0/ 18)
I l NOTE: Footnotes may be found at the end of Table 5.1.
32
4 TABLE 5.1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM SUIstARY VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT (JANUARY - DECEMBER 1995) 4
. INDICATOR STAT!DNS STATION WITH HIGNEST NEAN CONTROL STATIONS J
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
RAD!0NUCLIDES* MEAN MEAN MEAN (NO. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA. RANGE RANGE
? (NON-ROUTINE)** LLD NO. DETECTED *** NO. NO. bETECTED*** N0. DETECTED ***
. MEDIUM: MILE (TN), cent. UNITS: pcl/kg i
BA 140 ( 93) 15. ( 0.0 1 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 t 0.0)E O g o} eeee
( 0/ 75) ( 0/ 18)
MEDIUM: SILAGE (TC) UNITS: pCl/kg BE 7 ( 5) ( 2.5 2 0.9)E 2 24 ( 5.0
- 1.1)E 2 ( 5.0
- 1.1)E 2
( 0) ( 0.0 - 3.9)E 2
( 3/ 4) ( 1/ 1) ( 1/ 1)
K-do ( 5) ( 3.1 a 0.2)E 3 24 s 4.0 2 0.3)E 3 ( 4.0 a 0.3)E 3
( 0) ( 2.5 - 3.5)E 3
( 4/ 4) ( 1/ 1) ( 1/ 1) 1-131 ( 5) 60. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O ( 0.0
- 1.3)E 0
( 0) ****
( 0/ 4) ( 0/ 1)
CS-134 ( 5) 60. ( 0.0 a 0.0)E O ( 0.0 a 7.1)E O
( 0) ****
)
( 0/ 4) ( 0/ 1)
J CS 137 ( 5) 80. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E D ( 0.0 a 7.4)E O
( 0) ****
( 0/ 4) ( 0/ 1)
BA 140 ( 5) ( 0.0 t 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 a 3.6)E 1 l
( 0) ****
( 0/ 4) ( 0/ 1)
NOTE: Frotnotes may be found at the and of Table 5.1.
33
i TABLE 5.1 l
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONNENTAL PROGRAM
SUMMARY
i VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT i (JANUARY - DECEMBER 1995) l
[
INDICATOR STATIONS STATION UITH HIGNEST MEAN CONTROL STATIONS l ... ....... .... ................. ..... ................
RADIONUCLIDES
- MEAN MEAN l MEAN
- (No. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA. RANGE RANGE (NON ROUTINE)** LLD No. DETECTED *** NO. NO. DETECTED *** No. DETECTE0***
I
- MEDIUM
- MIXED GRASS (TG) UNITS: pCl/kg BE 7 ( 18) ( 1.8 a 0.6)E 3 12 ( 3.1 s 1.6)E 3 ( 5.6
- 5.6)E 2 0.0 - l
( 0) ( 5.3)E 3 ( 0.0 - 5.3)E 3 ( 0.0 - 1.7)E 3 l
( 8/ 15) ( 2/ 3) ( 1/ 3) !
K 40 ( 18) ( 5.1
- 0.5)E 3 12 ( 6.4 s 2.3)E 3 ( 5.2 2 0.8)E 3
( 0) ( 3.2 - 11.1)E 3 ( 4.0 - 11.1)E 3 ( 3.6 - 6.1)E 3
( 15/ 15) ( 3/ 3) ( 3/ 3) {
l 1 131 ( 18) 60. ( 0.0
- 0.0)E D ( 0.0 2 0.0)E 0 ,
( o3 ....
j
( 0/ 15) ( 0/ 3)
CS 134 ( 18) 60. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E ' 0 ( 0.0 a 0.0)E 0
( 0) **
( 0/ 15) ( 0/ 3)
CS 137 ( 18) 80. ( 3.0 a 3.0)E O 13 ( 1.5 a 1.5)E 1 ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O
( 0) ( 0.0 - 4.6)E 1 ( 0.0 - 4.6)E 1
( 1/ 15) ( 1/ 3) ( 0/ 3)
MEDIUM: FISH (FN) UNITS: pCl/kg l
K 60 ( 4) ( 2.9 0.2)E 3 21 ( 3.0 a 0.2)E 3 ( 3.0 s 0.2)E 3
( 0) ( 2.7 - 3.1'E
, 3 ( 2.8 - 3.3)E 3 ( 2.8 - 3.3)E 3
( 2/ 2) ( 2/ 2) ( 2/ 2)
MN-54 ( 4) 130. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E D ( 0.0 2 0.0)E 0 g o3 ....
( 0/ 2) ( 0/ 2)
Co-58 ( 4) 130. ( 0.0 a 0.0)E O ( 0.0 a 0.0)E D
( 0) ****
( 0/ 2) ( 0/ 2) i FE 59 ( 4) 260. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O ( 0.0 t 0.0)E D
( 0) ****
I
( 0/ 2) ( 0/ 2)
NOTE: Footnotes may be found at the end of Table 5.1.
34
TABLE 5.1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM SuletARY 7 VERMONT TANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT (JANUARY - DECEMBER 1995)
INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGHEST MEAal CONTROL STATIONS
....... .. ..... ..............** eeeeseee e....... ......
RADIONUCLIDES
- MEAN MEAN MEAN (NO. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA. RANGE RANGE (Noel ROUTINE)** LLD NO. DETECTED *" NO. NO. DETECTED *** No. DETECTED ***
1 ............. ........ ..................... .......................... .....................
l MEDIUM: FISN (FR), cont. UNITE: pCl/kg Co-60 ( 4) 130. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 2 0.0)E O
( 0) **"
( 0/ 2) ( 0/ 2) 2N 65 ( 4) 260. ( 0.0
- 0.0)E O ( 0.0 s 0.0)E 0
( 0) ****
( 0/ 2) ( 0/ 2) 3 CS 134 ( 4) 130. ( 0.0 s 0.0)E 0 ( 0.0 a 0.0)E O
( 0) *"*
( 0/ 2) ( 0/ 2)
CS 137 ( 4) 150. ( 0.0 a 0.0)E O 21 ( 2.8 s 2.8)E 1 ( 2.8 a 2.8)E 1 l C 0) ( 0.0 - 5.6)E 1 ( 0.0 - 5.6)E 1 4
( 0/ 2) ( 1/ 2) ( 1/ 2)
MEDIUM: STORM DRAIN WATER UNITS: pCf/kg (wet)
GR B ( 17) ( 8.2 a 4.1)E 0 12 ( 2.0 a 1.3)E 1 No DATA
. ( 0) ( 1.9 - 72.2)E O ( 3.2 - 72.2)6 0
( 17/ 17) ( 5/ 5)
Co-58 ( 14) ( 0.0 a 0.0)E D NO DATA
- 0, ....
1
( 0/ 14)
FE 59 ( 14) ( 0.0 a 0.0)E D NO DATA
( 0) ****
. ( 0/ 14)
C0-60 ( 14) ( 0.0 a 0.0)E O NO DATA
( 0) ****
( 0/ 14)
ZN-65 ( 14) ( 0.0 a 0.0)E D NO DATA
( 0) **
( 0/ 14)
NOTE: Footnotes may be found at the end of Table 5.1.
35
l i
I TABLE 5.1 j I
I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
SUMMARY
j VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT l
, (JANUARY - DECEMBER 1995)
INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGHEST MEAN CONTROL STATIONS
.................. ......................... ................ l RADIONUCLIDES
- MEAN MEAN MEAN (No. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA. RANGE KANGE (NON ROUTINE)** LLD No. DETECTED *** No. NO. DETECTED *** NO. DETECTED ***
MEDIUM: STORM DRAIN WATER (W), cont. UNITS: pC1/kg a
ZR-95 ( 14) ( 0.0 s 0.0)E 0 NO DATA
( 0) ****
l
( 0/ 14) i 4
CS-134 ( 14) ( 0.0 a 0.0)E O NO DATA l
( 0)
( 0/ 14)
CS 137 ( 14) ( 0.0 s 0.0)E 0 NO DATA
( 0) **** I
( 0/ 14) I BA 140 ( 14) ( 0.0 s 0.0)E D NO DATA
( 0) ****
( 0/ 14)
H-3 ( 16) ( 0.0 s 0.0)E O NO DATA
( 0) **** l
( 0/ 16)
NOTE: Footnotes may be found at the end of Table 5.1.
36
4 1
Footnotes to Table 5.1: ;
i The only radionuclides reported in this table are those with LLD requirements', those for which positive radioactivity was detected, and those that were of some other special interest. See Section 5 of this report for a discussion of other radionuclides that were analyzed.
4 Non Routine refers to those radionuclides that exceeded the Reporting Levels in Technical Specification
, Table 3.9.4.
i The fraction of e 7 te analyses yielding detectable measurements (f.e. the concentration is greater than
- three times its standard deviation) is shown in parentheses.
, All measurements for this nuclide were less than the LLD for its analysis, and were therefore reported as zero. Consequently, all measurements were equal. (Pursuant to VYNPS Technical specification Table
) 4.9.3 (footnote f), any concentration betw the a posterforf LLD for its analysis is averaged as a zero.
j Where a range of values is reported in the tables of this section, values less than their LLD are also y reported as zero.)
i 4
37
1 l
l TABLE 5.2 ENVIROMMENTAL TLD DATA
SUMMARY
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT j (JANUARY - DECEMBER 1995) ;
i l
4 l
1 0FFSITE STATION 1 INNER RING TLDs DUTER RING TLDs WITH NIGHEST MEAN CONTROL TLDs MEAN* MEAN* MEAN* MEAN*
{
RANGE
- RANGE
- RANGE
- RANGE *
(NO. MEASUREMENTS)** (No. MEASUREMENTS)** (NO. MEASUREMENTS)** (N0. MEASUREMENTS)**
1 1
6.7 a 0.5 6.8 0.8 DR 36 8.3 s 0.5 6.5 1.5 i 5.6 - 8.2 5.2 9.1 7.8 - 9.1 5.9 - 6.9 l (82) (64) (4) (8) j SITE BOUNDARY TLD WITH HIGHEST MEAN SITE BOUNDARY TLDs l MEAN* MEAN*
RANGE
- RANGE *
(NO. MEASUREMENTS)** (NO. MEASUREMENTS)** ;
)
DR-45 12.2 1.5 8.2 1.5 11.0 - 14.8 6.3 14.8 (4) (52)
- Units are in micro-R per hour.
- Each ameasurement" is based typically on quarterly readings from five TLD elements.
38
4 i
i i
ThtLE 5.3 ENVIRONNENTAL TLD MEASURENENTS 1995
.(Micro-R per Nour) i I ANNUAL
- Ste. 1ST GUARTER 25 GUARTER 3RD ouARTER 4TH GUARTER AVE.
No. Description EXP. S.D. EXP. S.D. EXP. S.0. EXP. 8.0.
] EXP.
i 3 -01 River Ste. No. 3.3 6.2 s 0.2 '6.0 s 0.2 6.4 a 0.2 6.0 a 0.3 '6.2 i DR-02 N. Ninedste, NN 6.2 a 0.3 6.5 0.4 6.9 s 0.3 5.9 a 0.2 6.4 q DR 03 Ninedste Seetation 7.4 s 0.2 7.3 0.3 f,.2 s 0.3 7.3 a 0.3 7.6 ,
) DR 04 Northfield, MA 6.3 s 0.3 6.3 a 0.3 6.7 a 0.3 5.9 a 0.3 6.3
}. DR 05 Spofford Lake, NN 6.7 0.3 6.6 s 0.3 6.9 0.3 6.4 a 0.3 6.7 DR 06 Vernon School 6.4 s 0.2 6.4's 0.2 7.1 s 0.3 6.3 s 0.3 6.6 DR 07 Site Boundary 7.8 0.3 7.8 s 0.3 8.7 0.4 8.2 s 0.4 8.1 DR-08 Site Boundary '7.8 a 0.3 7.9 a 0.3 8.7 s 0.3 7.8 a 0.3 8.1 j DR 09 Inner Ring 6.3 a 0.2 6.1 a 0.2 6.5 0.2 6.0 a 0.2 6.2 4
DR 10 outer Ring 5.6 0.3 5.2 a 0.3 5.9 s 0.3 5.3 a 0.4 5.5 i DR 11 Inner Ring 6.0 s 0.3 5.9 0.2 6.5 s 0.2 5.6 s 0.2 6.0
< DR 12 Outer Ring 5.8 s 0.2 5.6 s 0.2 6.2 a 0.2 5.3 a 0.3 5.7 DR-13 Inner Ring 6.5 s 0.3 6.4 s 0.3 6.8 s 0.3 6.2 a 0.3 6.5 DR-14 Outer Ring 7.6 2 0.3 7.9 0.5 8.4 s 0.4 7.1 a 0.3 7.8
- DR 15 Inner Ring 6.8 a 0.3 6.4 a 0.2 6.9 a 0.3 6.2 a 0.3 6.6 DR 16 outer Ring 7.0 s 0.4 6.8 0.2 7.3 s 0.4 6.8 s 0.4 7.0 ~
DR 17 Inner Ring 6.5 s 0.2 6.2 a 0.3 6.P a 0.2 5.8 s 0.3 6.3 4
-DR 18 Outer Ring 7.0 s 0.3 6.4 s 0.3 6.9 0.3 6.3 s 0.3 6.7 DR 19 Inner Ring 6.7 0.2 7.0 s 0.3 7.2 a 0.2 6.5 s 0.3 6.9 '
- DR-20 Outer Ring 7.5 s 0.3 7.5 0.3 8.3 a 0.3 7.1 s 0.3 7.6 DR 21 Inner Ring 7.0 a 0.2
- 7.7 s 0.3 6.8 s 0.3 7.2 DR-22 Outer Ring 6.9 a 0.3 6.6 s 0.3 7.2 a 0.3 6.3 a 0.4 6.8 DR 23 Inner Ring 6.7 : 0.4 6.6 0.4 7.5 s 0.3
- 6.9 DR 24 Outer Ring 5.9 s 0.2 5.6 a 0.3 6.2 s 0.3 5.5 s 0.3 5.8
, DR-25 Inner Ring 6.6 s 0.4 6.4 s 0.2 7.0 a 0.2 6.1 0.3 6.5 DR 26 Outer Ring 6.6 s 0.2 6.8 a 0.3 7.4 s 0.4 6.4 a 0.3 6.8
-DR 27 Inner Ring 6.8 s 0.4 6.6 s 0.2 7.3 s 0.5 6.4 s 0.3 6.8 DR 28 outer Ring 6.4 a 0.2 6.6 s 0.3 7.0 s 0.4 6.5 a 0.3 6.6 ,
4 DR 29 Irvier Ring 6.7 s 0.3 6.7 0.2 7.2 s 0.4 6.6 s 0.3 6.8 DR 30 Outer Ring 6.6 s 0.3 6.5 s 0.3 7.2 0.3 6.5 s 0.3 6.7 DR 31 Inner Ring 6.7 a 0.2 6.9 0.3 7.4 a 0.4 6.7 s 0.4 6.9 DR 32 Outer Ring 6.3 a 0.4 6.5 s 0.2 7.3 a 0.3 6.3 a 0.3 6.6 DR-33 Inner kl x 6.6 s 0.3 6.7 a 0.3 7.3 a 0.4 6.7 a 0.3 6.8 DR 34 Outer Ring 6.9 s 0.3 7.3 a 0.4 8.1 a 0.8 6.9 s 0.3 7.3 DR 35 inner Ring 6.6 s 0.2 6.5 0.3 7.0 s 0.3 6.4 a 0.3 6.6 DR 36 Outer Ring 7.8 0.3 8.2 a 0.4 9.1 a 0.3 7.9 s 0.4 8.3 DR 37 Inner Ring 6.4 s 0.3 6.6 0.3 7.2 a 0.3 6.4 s 0.3 6.7 DR 38 Outer Ring 6.9 s 0.2 7.0 s 0.2 7.5 s 0.3 6.9 a 0.3 7.1 DR 39 Inner Ring 6.5 0.4 6.6 s 0.3 7.1 s 0.3 6.4 a 0.4 6.7 DR 40 Outer Ring. 6.4 a 0.3 6.5 s 0.2 7.1 a 0.4 6.4 a 0.6 6.6 l
39
/
J
1 TABLE 5.3, continued ENVIRONMENTAL TLD MEASUREMENTS 1995 (Micro-R per Nour) )
ANWUAL Sta. 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER AVE.
No. Description EXP. S.D. EXP. S.D. EXP. S.D. EXP. S.D. EXP.
DR 41 Site Boundary 7.1 s 0.3 7.2 s 0.3 8.3 s 0.4 7.0 s 0.3 '7.4 DR 42 Site Boundary 6.5 s 0.3 6.8 0.3 7.5 2 0.3 6.7 s 0.4 6.9 DR-43 Site Boundary 6.9 s 0.2 7.0 s 0.3 8.3
- 0.3 7.2 s 0.4 7.4 DR 44 Site Boundary 8.1 s 0.3 7.0 s 0.3 8.7 s 0.4 8.1 s 0.4 8.0 DR 45 Site Boundary 11.5
- 0.5 11.0 s 0.6 14.8 0.7 11.5 0.6 12.2 .
DR-46 Site Boundary 8.9 t 0.3 9.0 s 0.3 10.8 s 0.5 8.9 s 0.4 9.4 DR 47 Site Boundary 8.0 s 0.4 7.8 0.4 8.9 s 0.3 7.7 0.4 8.1 DR-48 Site Boundary 6.8 0.3 6.8 s 0.2 7.7 0.3 6.8 s 0.3 7.0 CR-49 Site Boundary 6.5 0.4 6.4 s 0.3 7.3 s 0.3 6.3
- 0.3 6.6 DR-50 Governor Hunt House 6.9 0.2 6.9 s 0.3 7.5 s 0.4 7.0 s 0.3 7.1 DR 51 Site Boundary 8.0 s 0.3 8.0 s 0.3 9.2 s 0.3 8.1 0.3 8.3 DR-52 Site Boundary 7.9 0.6 8.0 s 0.3 10.0 a 0.4 8.5 s 0.3 8.6 Data not avaltable due to missinB TLDs.
1 i
l 40 1
l I
l l
1 1
- 6. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS l l
I 6.1 Sampling Program Deviations Radiological Effluent Technical Specification 3.9.C allows for deviations "if specimens are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, seasonal unavailability, malfunction of automatic ;
sampling equipment and other legitimate reasons." In 1995, several deviations were noted in )
the REMP. These deviations did not compromise the program's effectiveness and in fact are considered typical with respect to what is normally anticipated for any radiological
]
environmental monitoring program. The specific deviations for 1995 were 1
- a. Air was not sampled during the period June 14 to June 20 at air sampling station AP/CF-11 (River Station). The cause was a tripped circuit breaker, which was apparently due to a faulty vacuum pump. The pump was replaced.
- b. Air was not sampled during the period July 15 to July 18 at air sampling station AP/CF-11 (River Station). An electrical storm on July 15 caused a power outage, following which the GFCI did not reset. The GFCI was subsequently replaced.
- c. Air was not sampled during the period July 12 to July 18 at the control air sampling station AP/CF-21 (Spofford Lake). An electrical storm on July 12 caused a power outage, following which the GFCI did not reset. The GFCI was subsequently replaced.
1
- d. The automatic composite river water sampler at station WR-11 (River Station) is programmed to collect hourly aliquots of river water. Approximately 77 hourly samples were missed during the period January 31 to March 14. The reason is not known, although a clogged intake strainer may have been the cause.
- e. Several hourly river water aliquots were not collected at WR-11 on July 15 due to a power outage caused by an electrical storm.
- f. Approximately two to three days of sampling were missed at river water sampling station WR-11, beginning on November 20, due to a pump failure. The failure was most likely caused by high river flow and the subsequent clogging of the sampler intake.
- g. TLDs were missing at station DR-21 in the second quarter, and at station DR-23 in the ,
41
E fourth quarter.
i 6.2 Comparison of Achieved LLDs with Requirements j.
j Table 4.9.3 of the VYNPS Technical Specifications (also shown in Table 4.4 of this report)
! gives the required Lower Limits of Detection (LLDs) for environmental sample analyses. On l occasion, an LLD is not achievable due to a situation such as a low sample volume caused by l sampling equipment malfunction. In such a case, Technical Speci6 cation 6.7.C.3 requires a j discussion of the situation. At the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL), the l target LLD for any analysis is typically 30-40 percent of the most restrictive required LLD.
j Expressed differently, the typical sensitivities achieved for each analysis are at least 2.5 to 3 l times greater than that required by VYNPS Technical Speci6 cations.
j For each analysis having an LLD requirement in Technical Specification Table 4.9.3, the j aposteriori (after the fact) LLD calculated for that analysis was compared with the required
l Table 4.9.3, all met the requirement.
l l 6.3 Comparison of Results with Reporting Levels 4
I i I
- Technical Specification Table 3.9.4 requires written notification to the NRC (within 30 i days) whenever a Reporting Level in that table is exceeded. Reporting Levels are the i environmental concentrations that relate to the ALARA design dose objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1. It should be noted that environmental concentrations are averaged over calendar l l quarters for the purposes of this comparison, and that Reporting Levels apply only to j measured levels of radioactivity due to plant effluents. During 1995, no Reporting Levels were i exceeded.
j 6.4 Changes in Sampling Locations i
l VYNPS Technical Specification 6.7 C.3 states that if"new environmental sampling locations are identified in accordance with Specification 3.9.D, the new locations shall be l
j identified in the next annual Radiological Environmental Surveillance Report." As a result of l the 1995 Land Use Census (required by Specification 3.9.D), a new milk sampling location, j TM-10 (Back Tracks Farm), was added to the sampling program. Station TC-10 was also
] added for the collection of silage samples at the same location. Additional details are found in l 4 l h
j 42 i :
i l '
4 i
Section 8, Land Use Census.
6.5 Data Analysis by Media Type The 1995 REMP data for each media type is discussed below. Whenever a specific measurement result is presented, it is given as the concentration plus or minus one standard deviation. This standard deviation represents only the random uncertainty associated with the radioactive decay process (counting statistics), and not the propagation of all possible uncertainties in the analytical procedure. An analysis is considered to yield a " detectable measurement" when the concentration exceeds three times the standard deviation for that analysis. With respect to data plots, all net concentrations are plotted as reported, without regard to whether the value is " detectable" or "non-detectable." l 6.5.1 Airborne Pathways .
. )
6.5.1.1 Air Particulates )
1 The bi-weekly air particulate filters from each of the six sampling sites were analyzed for i
gross-beta radioactivity. At the end of each quarter, the thirteen weekly filters from each sampling site were composited for a gamma analysis. The results of the weekly air particulate sampling program are shown in Table 5.1 and Figures 6.1 through 6.6.
As shown in Figures 6.1, there is no significant difference between the quarterly average concentrations at the indicator (near-plant) stations and the control (distant from plant) stations. Also notable in the Figure is a distinct annual cycle, with the minimum concentration !
in the second quarter, and the maximum concentration in the first quarter. The peak seen in the second quarter of 1986 is airborne contamination resulting from the Chernobyl accident, as detected by the Vermont Yankee monitoring program.
Figures 6.2 through 6.6 show the weekly gross beta concentration at each air particulate sampling location alongside the same for the control air particulate sampling location at AP-21 (Spofford Lake, NH). Small differences are evident, and are expected, between individual sampling locations. It can also be seen that the gross-beta measurements on air particulate filters fluctuate significantly over the course of a year. The measurements from control station AP-21 vary similarly, indicating that these fluctuations are due to regional changes in naturally-occurring airborne radioactive materials, and not due to Vermont Yankee operations.
43
The only other radionuclide detected on air particulate filters was Be-7, a naturally- l occurring cosmogenic radionuclide.
6.5.1.2 Charcoal Cartridges l The bi-weekly charcoal cartridges from each of the six air sampling sites were analyzed for I-131. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5.1. As in previous years, no I-131 was detected in any charcoal cartridge.
6.5.2 Waterborne Pathways 6.5.2.1 River Water Aliquots of river water were automatically collected hourly from the Connecticut River downstream from the plant discharge area. Monthly grab samples were also collected at the upstream controllocation, also on the Connecticut River. The composited samples at WR-1I were collected monthly and sent to the YAEL, along with the WR-21 grab samples, for analysis. Table 5.1 shows that gross-beta measurements were positive in most samples, as would be expected, due to naturally-occurring radionuclides in the water. The mean concentrations at the indicator and control locations were not significantly different in 1995.
Both mean concentrations were consistent with those detected in previous years, as shown in Figure 6.7. No gamma-emitting radionuclides attributable to VYNPS operations were detected in any of the samples.
For each sampling site, the monthly samples were composited into quarterly samples for H-3 (Tritium) analyses. None of the samples contained detectable quantities of H-3, 6.5.2.2 Ground Water Quarterly ground water samples were collected from two indicator locations (only one is required by VYNPS Technical Specifications) and one control location during 1995. Table 5.1 and Figure 6.8 show that gross-beta measurements were positive in ah samples. This is due to naturally-occurring radionuclides in the water. The levels at all sampling locations, including the higher levels at station WG-11, were consistent with that detected in previous years. No gamma-emitting radionuclides or H-3 (Tritium) were detected in any of the samples.
44 f
A Ra-226 analysis was done on each ground water sample in 1995. The results, shown in Table 5.1, show that the indicator samples had greater levels of this naturally occurring radionuclide (0.37 and 0.53 pCi/kg) than the control (0.068 pCi/kg), which is consistent with the gross-beta measurement differences shown on Figure 6.8.
6.5.2.3 Sediment Semiannual sediment grab samples were collected from two locations during 1995. In addition, a set of 30 control samples' was collected from each of two upstream control locations. As would be expected, naturally-occurring K-40 and Th-232 were detected in all samples.
Co-60 was also detected in 3 of the 54 samples from station SE-12. This radioactivity is ,
due to plant operations and is locahzed within a small area near the west sbre of Vernon Pond. Its presence has been monitored for several years.
In addition to the above radionuclides, Cs-137 was detected in most indicator samples and many controls. The levels measured at both locations were consistent with what has been measured in the previous several years and with that detected at other New England locations that are monitored as part of other Yankec-affiliated environmental monitoring programs.
Fallout from nuclear weapons tests conducted thrcugh 1980 is undoubtedly the cause of the Cs-137 in the control samples. The origin of the Cs-137 in the North Storm Drain Outfall sediment is le:s clear, however, as evidenced by the slightly lower concentrations in the control samples collected in 1995. Although the amount of Cs-137 retained by sediment is highly dependent on its physical and chemical make-up, and could explain the difference between the indicators and controls, the 1995 data seem to indicate that the Cs-137 at the North Storm Drain Outfall originated both from nuclear weapons testing fallout and plant activities.
It should also be noted that the mean values for all radionuclides in Table 5.1 are weighted toward station SE-12, since 54 of the 56 indicator samples collected in 1995 were from that location. No Co-60 has been detected at station SE-11, which is downstream of the plant discharge structure and the North Storm Drain Outfall (SE-12).
I 45 ;
1 1
1
! l i l l
6.5.2.4 Storm Drains i During 1995, grab samples of water were collected from the on-site storm drain system at Vermont Yankee (twelve monthly samples from the South Storm Drain WW-10 and four l samples from the North Stonn Drain WW-12). No gamma emmittn:s radionuclides or H-3
! were detected in the samples.
Gross-beta measurements were made on all samples, and the results were as expected for ground water, with one exception. The sample collected on April 6,1995 had a gross-beta concentration of 72
- 3.1 pCi/kg. This higher concentration was most likely due to naturally occurring radionuclides contained in the visible suspended solids in the sample. After fdtering through a 0.45 micron Whatman filter paper, the resulting concentration had been lowered to 16
- 0.8 pCi/kg.
6.5.3 Ingestion Pathways i
6.5.3.1 Milk Milk samples from cows or goats at several local farms were collected monthly during 1995. Semimonthly collections were made during the " pasture season" since the milking cows or goats were identified as being fed pasture grass during that time. Each sample was analyzed for I-131 and other gamma-emitting radionuclides. Quarterly composites (by location) were analyzed for Sr-89 and Sr-90.
As was expected, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. Also expected were Cs-137 and Sr-90. Cs-137 was detected in one out of 75 indicator samples. Sr-90 was detected in five out of 18 indicator samples. Although both Cs-137 and Sr-90 are a by-product l
of plant operations, the levels detected in milk are consistent with that expected from l worldwide fallout from nuclear weapons tests, and to a much lesser degree from fallout from the Chernobyl incident. These two radionuclides are present throughout the natural environment as a result of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing that started primarily in the late 1950's and continued through 1980. They may be found in soil and vegetation, as well as anything that feeds upon vegetation, directly or indirectly. The Cs-137 and Sr-90 levels shown in Table 5.1 and Figures 6.9 and 6.10 are consistent with those detected at other New England farms that are monitored as part of other Yankee-affiliated environmental monitoring programs. It should be noted here that most of the Cs-137 concentrations and many of the 46
Sr-90 concentrations shown on Figures 6.9 and 6.10, respectively, are considered "not detectable." All values have been plotted, regardless of whether they were considered statistically significant or'not.
l As shown in these figures, the levels are also consistent with those detected in previous years near the VYNPS plant. There is also little difference in concentrations between farms, with one exception. The goat milk from TM-12 generally has had elevated levels of Cs-137 and to a lesser degree, Sr-90, relative to the other locations. It has been shown in the past that fallout-related Cs-137 and Sr-90 in cow or goat milk can vary substantially from one farm to
_ the next, due primarily to the differences in feeding habits of the ammals. It is also known that l goats have a much higher transfer coefficient from vegetation to milk for strontium and
! cesium. This means that for a given amount of Cs-137 or Sr-90 in the vegetation, the concentration in the milk will typically be higher for a goat than for a cow (Reference 5).
l l It should be noted in Figures 6.9 and 6.10 that the plot for TM-16 includes data from l several dairy farms, all located successively on the same land. The Meadow Crest farm has provided samples only since October 1993.
6.5.3.2 Silage A silage sample was collected from each of the required milk sampling stations during October. Each of these was analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. As expected with all biological media, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. Naturally-occurring Be-7 was also detected in four of thelive samples.
6.5.3.3 Mixed Grass l Mixed grass samples v ere collected at each of the air sampling stations on three occasions during 1995. (The fourth of the quarterly sample sets was not available during the winter months.) As expected with all biological media, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. Naturally-occurring Be-7 was also detected in nine of 15 samples. ,
Cs-137 was detected in one indicator sample (45.5
- 9.1 pCi/kg at station TG-13 on October 12,1995). Although Cs-137 is a by-product of plant operations, the levels detected in l
grass are due to worldwide fallout from nuclear weapons tests. This is supported by the lack of any such radioactivity on the air sampling filters that run continuously at the same location.
1 47 l
l
This radionuclide is present throughout the natural environment (including soil and vegetation) as a result of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing that started primarily in the late 1950s and continued through 1980. The Cs-137 levels in grass shown in Table 5.1 are consistent with those that have been detected in the past at Vermont Yankee and also with those levels detected at other New England locations that are monitored as part of other Yankee-affiliated environmental monitoring programs.
6.5.3.4 Fish Semiannual samples of fish were collected from two locations during 1995. The species collected were yellow perch and smallmouth bass at both locations (FH-11 and FH-21) for the May and October / November collections. The edible portions of each of these were analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. As expected in biological matter, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples.
As shown in Table 5.1, Cs-137 was detected in one of the two control samples. This level of Cs-137 is typical of what has been detected at both the control and indicator stations in previous years, as can be seen in Figure 6.11, and is attributed to global nuclear weapons testing fallout. No other radionuclides were detected.
6.5.4 Direct Radiation Pathway
- Direct radiation was continuously measured at 52 locations surrounding the Vermont Yankee plant with the use of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). These are collected every l
1 calendar quarter for readout at the YAEL. The complete summary of data may be found in l Table 5.3.
1 .
! From Tables 5.2 and 5.3 and Figure 6.12, it can be seen that the Inner and Outer Ring TLD f mean exposure rates were not significantly different in 1995. This indicates no significant overall increase in direct radiation exposure rates in the plant vicinity. It can also be seen from these tables that the Control TLD mean exposure rate was not significantly different than that at the Inner and Outer Rings.
Figure 6.12 also shows an annual cycle at both indicator and control locations. The lowest point of the cycle occurs during the winter months. This is due primarily to the attenuating effect of the snow cover on radon emissions and on direct irradiation by naturally-occurring 48
l l
radionuclides in the soil. Differing amounts of these naturally-occ.urring radionuclides in the underlying soil, rock or nearby building materials result in different adiation levels between ,
l one field site and another.
l l
l l l
Upon examining Figure 6.16, as well as Table 5.2, it is evident that in recent years station DR-45 had a higher average exposure rate than any other station. This location is on-site, and the higher exposure rates are due to plant operations in the immediate vicinity of the TLDs.
There is no significant dose potential to the surrounding population or any real individual from these sources since they are located on the back side of the plant site, between the facility and the river. The same can be said for station DR-46, which has shown higher exposure rates in previous years.
l 49 l
4 J .
FIGURE 6.1 3
GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 1
QUARTERLY AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS ,
! 0.16 0.16
- 0.12- -0.12 B l 0.08- -0.08 l
~
s :
0.04- -0.04 Y l 1
0 . , . , , . , ,
, 0 1/1/85 1/1/87 1/1/89 1/1/91 1/1/93 1/1/95 i
-e- IndicatorStations
-y- Control Station 50
FIGURE 62 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 0.06 0.05 -0.05
~
B 0.04 - 0.04 j :
~
O.03- -0.03 4
x H 0.02 .,
x, .
-0.02
.x ..
0.01 - 0.01 l
0~ . . , . , . ,
, . ~0 Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan 1995 I
-t3- AP-11 River Shtion No. 3.3 x - AP-21 Spofford L*e, NH 51
l 1
FIGURE 6.3 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS 1 ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 _
0.06 1
l 0.05-- -0.05 B 0.042 -0.04 l Io -
I 0.03- X -0.03 l l
. .X, X J 0.02
-0.02 I
~
.x , ' "
. , .: ..X l
'z X 0.01 i , -0.01 O' . . , .
, . . , . . O Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan 1
1995 i i
-e- AP 12 N Hinsdale, NH x- AP-21 Spofford Lake, NH 52
4 4
s
! FIGURE 6.4
! GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS
- ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 1
s 0.06 ,
0.06 e
~
0.05f -0.05
^
t l B 0.042 -0.04
! ko !
~
0.03- -
-0.03
.x -
i Q 0.02 .
-x
- x- -0.02
., .x.
. M '
- x -
-0.01
~
i 0.01 - -
O' . ,
. . 0
- Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan i 1995
--e- AP-13 Hinsdale Substabon x- AP-21 Spofford Lake, NH 53
l FIGURE 6.5 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS '
l ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS l
0.06 0.06 0.05 -0.05
} 0.04i -0.04 i E :
O -
-0.03 0.03-
- x.
N 0.02
~*
-0.02
[
x-
- , x -
0.01 - -0.01 O' . ,
, . . , . . O Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan i l
1995 l 1
-e- AP-14 Northfield, MA x- AP 21 Spofford Lake, NH l l
54
FIGURE 6.6 I l
1 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS l ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 0.0s 0.05 -0.05
$ 0.042 -0.04 1
-0.03 O.03i
.3 : x *x Q - '. '
0.02- .
x- ..x- -0.02 x.
x .
0.01 -- -
-0.01 O' . . , . .
. . , . . 0 1 Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan l 1995 1
-e- AP-15 Tyler Hill Road x- AP-21 Spofford Lake, NH 55
I FIGURE 6.7 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON RIVER WATER SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCEbfTRATIONS 4
16 16
~
14 -14 12 -12 10i -10 cn -
N Bi -8 R
el -e 4 -4 2jr "w g:% 3- ; n -2' 0' .
. 0 1/1/86 1/1/88 1/1/90 1/1/92 1/1/94 1/1/96 l l
l
-e- WR 11 River Station No.3.3
-A- WR-21 Rt.9 Bridge l
l l
l l
56 i
i i l t 1 i
FIGURE 6.8 l GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON GROUND WATER SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS l
l 16 , 16 )
14-' -14
! : 1 12 -12 10k -10
, cm -
8' -8 6 -6 4 -4 1
~
2- -2 3
l 1 0' . , , .
. O I 1/1/86 1/1/88 1/1/90 1/1/92 1/1/94 1/1/96
-e- WG 11 Plant Well l
4 WG 12 Vemon Nursing Well l
t WG-21 Brattleboro CC
--o- WG-22 Skbniowsky Well I
I 57 p
-. =--. . . . - ..
l FGURE 6.9 CESIUM-137 IN MILK ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATONS 20 ,
20 I
- 1 15- -15 I 10- -10 I cm -
i g
- o. -
1 5- _
-5
- o o i
x Y
0- =
"~V-- -0 \
O 1
-5 .
i -5 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995
-e- TM-10 Back Tracks Farm (cow)
-o- TM-11 Miller (cow) e TM-12 Dominick (goat)
-tr- TM-14 Brown (cow)
-t- TM 16 Meadow Crest Farm (cow) t TM-24 County Farm (control) 58
l I
i l
i FIGURE 6.10 .
STRONTIUM 90IN MILK ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS j 10 10 l
8- -8 6- -6 c2 .
4_ _4
-+
=_
q 0 i .
i .
i -
i 0 '
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995
.a
-e- TM-10 Back Tracks Farm (cow) j
-o- TM 11 Miller (cow) e TM-12 Dominick (goat)
-o- TM-14 Brown (cow) !
--v- TM 16 Meadow Crest Farm (cow)
-x- TM 24 County Farm (contro0 )
l 59
1 1
1 i
i 4
FIGURE 6.11 s
d l
l CESIUM-137 IN FISH l l ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCEffTRATIONS i
i j 140 140
- i 120- -120 j! -
! 100--
-100 j
~
1 i
+
cn 80- -80 N .
I ?a. -
i 60- -60 4
' 40- -40 l l
a 0 i , , , , , i i i 0 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Year s
E FH 11 Vemon Pond O FH-21 Rt. 9 Bridge (Control) 4 5 .
l 60 i
i
FIGURE 6.12 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING, OUTER RING ANDCONTROLTLDS 20 20 15- , -15 s
xw . .
E -10 g 10-6
, p..g... g ---w h _
-5 5-5 4 0 . . ,
..i 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date ,
i
-e- Inner Ring o Outer Ring x - Control 61
FIGURE 6.13 EXPOSURE RATE AT INDICATOR TLDS, DR 01-03 20 20 15- -15 u . .
8 -
I 10- -10 8 :
E -
@ y w -A 5- -5 0 . . .
i 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR41 River Stat'm No. 3.3
-x- DR-02 North Hhsdale, NH
--n- DR-03 Hhsdale Substation 62
FIGURE 6.14 EXPOSURE RATE AT INDICATOR TLDS, DR 06,50 20 20 15- -15 8 ~
E .
E 10 -- -10 g
h -
3 .
5 -5
~
f 0 . . .
i (0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-D- DR-06 Vemon School
-x- DR-50 Gov. Hunt House 63
FIGURE 6.15 EXPOSURE RATE AT INDICATOR TLDS, DR 07- 08,41 - 42 20 20 15- -15 8 -
I 10 -10
.9
~
5- -5 0 . . .
i 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR-07 SNe Boundary
-x- DR-08 She Boundary a DR-41 SMe Boundary e DR-42 She Boundary 64
FIGURE 6.16 EXPOSURE RATE AT SITE BOUNDARY TLDS, DR 43 - 46 60 60 50- -50 40- 1.owlewiveste mee storage -40 g
I -
30- -30 g -
2 20- -20 10- ^ "e "+ -10 mm ' b 5 '^
0 . . . , . . . , . . .
i 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR-43 SNe Boundsry
--x- DR-44 She Boundary a DR-45 She Boundary
-o- DR-46 She Boundary 65
FIGURE 6.17 EXPOSURE RATE AT SITE BOUNDARY TLDS, DR 47 -49, 51-52 20 20 15- -15 E
x -
10- -10 5- -5 0 . . . , . . .
. . . , ..,,0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR-47 Site Boundary e DR-48 Site Boundary a DR-49 Site Boundary
-o- DR-51 Site Boundary
-e- DR-52 Site Boundary 66
FIGURE 6.18 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 09 - 15 (Odd) 20 20 15- -15 x -
10- -10 x
n n $-l ~ -$
5- -5 0 . . . , . . .
. . . , . . .,..,,0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR-09 inner Ring
-x- DR 11 inner Ring a DR 13 inner Ring e DR 15 inner Ring 67
FIGURE 6.19 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 17 - 23 (Odd) 20 20 15- -15 5g- -
u .
b 10- -10
~
5 _.
5- -5 0 . . .
. . . , 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR-17 inner Ring
-'e DR 1g inner Ring
-e- DR-21 inner Ring e DR-23 inner Ring 68
FIGURE 6.20 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 25 - 31 (Odd) 20 20 15- -15
~
x -
10- -10 g :
5 p +%#. . . _ eAg 5- -5 M
0 . . , . . . , . . . , . .
.,...i 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
--e- DR-25 inner Rhg
+ DR-27 inner Rhg a DR-29 inner Rhg
-o- DR-31 inner Rhg 69
FIGURE 6.21 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 33 - 39 (Odd) 20 20 15- -15 5
I -
10- -10 a:
5 5-i r%v=W %W -5 0 ...,... ...,...,.. ,0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR-33 bner Rhg
-x- DR-35 bner Rhg 4 DR-37 hner Rhg
-e- DR-39 bner Rhg 70
FIGURE 6.22 EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 10-16 (Even) 20 20 4
15- -15
~
I 10- -10 h Wg4 ^ t i th 5 bb -5 0 , ,
, . ..,,..,..,,0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR 10 Outer Rhg
-x- DR 12 Outer Rhg a DR 14 Outer Rhg
-o- DR 16 Outer Rhg 71
FIGURE 6.23 EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 18 - 24 (Even) 20 20 15- -15 1 -
10 '
-10 s
J :
ps Me o v e yA e e o 5- -5 0 . . .
i . . .
. ..,...,0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR 18 Outer Ring
-x- DR-20 Outer Rhg e DR-22 Outer Ring e DR-24 Outer Ring 72 1
FIGURE 624 EXPOSURE RATE AT OllTER RING TLDS, DR 26 - 32 (Even) 20 20 15- -15 g
g .
10- -10 ..
x . .
fE .
5- -5 O . . . , . .
i i 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR-26 Outer Rhg
-x- DR-28 Outer Rhg a DR-30 Outer Rhg t DR-32 Outer Rhg e
73 i
1
FIGURE 625 EXPOSURE F%TE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 34 - 40 (Even) 20 20 15- -15 z -
10- -10 2 ; s, ; v 5- -5 0 . . .
, 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR-34 Outer Ring
-x- DR-36 Outer Ring a DR-38 Outer Ring
-o- DR-40 Outer Ring 74
o FIGURE 6.26 EXPOSURE RATE AT CObfTROLTLDS DR 04 - 05 20 20 15 -15 i
I 10- -10 x
>c- ^
D' 5- -5 0 . . .
i . . .
i 0 1991 1992 1993. 1994 1995 1996 Retrieval Date
-e- DR-04 Northfield, MA
-x- DR-05 Spofford Lake, NH 75 i
- 7. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM The quality assurance program at the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL) is designed to serve two overall purposes: 1) Establish a measure of confidence in the measurement process to assure the licensee, regulatory agencies and the public that the N
analytical results are accurate and precise; and 2) Identify deficiencies in the sampling and/or measurement process to those responsible for these operations so that corrective action can be taken. Quality assurance is applied to all steps of the measurement process, including the collection, reduction, evaluation and reporting of data, as well as the record keeping of the final results. Quality controlis a part of the quality assurance program. It provides a means to control and measure the characteristics of measurement equipment and processes, relative to established requirements.
The YAEL employs a thorough quality assurance program to ensure reliable environmental monitoring data. The program includes the use ofwritten, approved and controlled procedures for all work activities, a nonconformance and corrective action tracking system, systematic internal audits, audits from external groups, a laboratory quality control program, and a complete training and retraining system. The Intralaboratory Quality Control program at the YAEL and the EPA third party interlaboratory program are discussed in more detail below.
Also discussed is the environmental TLD quality assurance program and the Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program conducted by the Laboratory Quality Control Audit Committee.
7.1 Intralaboratory Quality Control Program The YAEL conducts an extensive intralaboratory quality control program to assure the validity and reliability of non-TLD analytical data. Included are the internal process control program and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Measurement Assurance Program. These collectively comprise about five percent of the laboratory sample throughput. The records of the quality control program are reviewed by the responsible cognizant individual, and corrective measures are taken whenever applicable. A summary of the program results may be found in Figure 7.1 7.2 EPA Intercomparison Program To further verify the accuracy and precision of the YAEL analyses via an independent outside third party, the YAEL participates in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 76
Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies Program for those available species and matrices routinely analyzed by the YAEL. Participation in this program is required by VYNPS Technical Specification 3.9.E. Each sample supplied by the EPA is analyzed in triplicate, and the results are returned to the EPA within a specified time frame. When the know values are returned to the YAEL, these and the EPA results are then evaluated against specific YAEL and EPA acceptance criteria. 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. Results of this program are provided in this report in compliance with Technical Specification 4.9.E.
For the EPA Intercomparison Program, there were 111 analyses for accuracy on 15 sample sets. The samples consisted of water, milk and air particulate filters. The analyses were for gamma-emitting radionuclides, gross alpha, gross-beta, Sr-89, Sr-90, low level I-131, tritium (H-3), Ra-226, Ra-228 and Pu-239. Tables 7.2 and 7.3 show summaries of the results for 1995. Two sets of results from 1995 have not yet been received from the EPA, and are consequently not included in the discussion above or the following tables.
Three mean values did not fall within the EPA controllimits. These are described below:
The first mean value was for Pu-239 in water (Ref. date 3/17/95). An investigation was conducted (YLCAR ASG-07-95), and the original EPA sample was reprocessed in triplicate. The same radiochemist and nuclear instmmentation staffinvolved with the original EPA sample analysis processed the new EPA sample set. The reprocessed results were within the EPA control limits. It should be noted that the YAEL does not currently perform any Pu-239 analyses in environmental water for its clients.
The second and third mean values were for two sets ofgross alpha results in water (Ref. dates 7/21/95 and 10/27/95). The EPA issued a note with thc October 27,1995 gross alpha-beta in water Performance Evaluation Study stating: "Both the July 1995 and October 1995 Gross Alpha-Beta in Water Performance Evaluation (PE) Studies showed a significant difference between the grand average and the known value for the gross alpha. This strongly implies there is bias in the method. Our research indicates that matrix differences between the salt solids used to prepare the calibration curve and the salts in the sample are the source of the bias." Based upon the EPA outlier results, two follow-up internal gross alpha-beta process check sample sets were issued. In both instances the mean bias results were observed within YAEL *25% performance 77
criteria. The YAEL believes the EPA gross alpha PE sample sets to be suspect.
Consequently no further action is considered warranted at this time.
7.3 Environmental TLD Quality Assurance Program The Panasonic environmental TLD (thermoluminescent dosimeter) program at the YAEL has its own quality assurance program. In addition to instrumentation checks performed by the Dosimetry Services Group (DSG), which represent approximately 10% of the TLDs processed, two independent test programs are performed for accuracy and precision. The first of these programs is performed by the in-house Dosimetry QA Officer, and the second involves the third-party testing program by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Under these programs, dosimeters are irradiated to known doses (unknown to the DSG) and given to the DSG for read-out.
In 1995, out of 3066 TLDs processed at the YAEL,3.1% (96 TLDs) were processed as part of the performance testing program. Of these 96 TLDs, 72 were from the in-house Dosimetry QA Officer, and 24 were from the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories testing program. All of these (100%) met the acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision.
7.4 Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program The Laboratory Quality Control Audit Committee (LQCAC)is comprised of one member from each of the five power plants that are serviced by the YAEL. Two of the primary functions of the LQCAC are to conduct an annual audit of YAEL operations and to coordinate the Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program. Under this program, paired samples are submitted from the five plants, including the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. They are prepared from homogeneous environmental media at each respective plant, and are sent to the YAEL for analysis. They are " blind" in that the identification of the matching sample is not identified to the YAEL. The LQCAC analyzes the results of the paired analyses to evaluate precision in YAEL measurements.
A total of 49 paired samples were submitted under this program by the five participating plants, including VYNPS, during 1995. Paired measurements were evaluated for 26 gamma emitting radionuclides, H-3, St-89, Sr-90, I-131 and gross-beta. All measurements were evaluated, whether the results were considered statistically positive or not, and whether the net concentration was positive or negative. Of the 1260 paired duplicate measurements evaluated 78
in 1995,1249 (99.1%) fell within the established acceptance criteria.
'Of the eleven paired measurements that did not meet the acceptance criteria, two had radioactivity (Sr-90) that was considered statistically positive Six additional blind duplicate paired samples were analyzed for Sr-90 subsequent to these two in 1995, and all were within the acceptance criteria. In addition, nine independent Sr-89/90 Performance Evaluations representing three media types (water, milk and particulate filters) and three quality control programs (NIST, EPA and internal), were performed in 1995 by the YAEL. Mean bias results for all nine Sr-89/90 sample sets fell within the control limits for each of the respective QC programs.
The samples submitted through this program are listed in Table 7.4.
79
TABLE 7.1
SUMMARY
OF PROCESS CONTROL ANALYSIS RESUL13 January - December 1995 ACCURACY PRECISION SAMPLE MEDIA NUMBER NUMBER ANALYSES ANALYSES NUMBER OUTSIDE NUMBER OU15IDB OF ACCEPTANCE OF ACCEPTANCE ANALYSES CRITERIA ANALYSES CRITERIA AIR CHARCOAL Gamma 52 0 0 0 AIR FILTER N
Beta 129 0 0 0 Gamma 0 0 3 0 Strontium 0 0 0 0 MILK Gamma 51 1 54 0 lodine 21 0 21 0 Strontium 18 0 18 0 WATER Gross-Beta 3 1 3 0 Gamma 15 0 15 0 Iodine 3 0 3 0 Strontium 6 0 6 0 Tritium 3 0 3 0 SOII1 SEDIMENT Gamma 0 0 30 0 TOTAL 301 2 153 0 80
TABLE 7.2 EPA INTERCOMPARISON ANALYSIS RESULTS January - December 1995 NUCLIDE SAMPLE EPA REF. YAEL MEAN EPA CONTROL LIMITS TYPE DATE (pCi/l) (pci/1)
Sr-89 Water 01/13/95 21.67 11.3 -28.7 Sr-90 Water 01/13/95 18.13 6.3 - 23.7 Gross Alpha Water 01/27/95 5.09 0.0 - 13.7 Gross Beta
- Water 01/27/95 6.08 0.0 - 14.9 l 131 Low level Water 02/03/95 100.73 5t2.7 - 117.3 H-3 Water 03/10N5 7005.60 6144.2 - 8725.8 Pu-239 Water 03/17/95 8.91 9.2 - 13.0 Co-60 Water 04/18/95 28.25 20.3 -37.7 Cs-134 Water 04/18/95 18.06 11.3 - 28.7 Cs-137 Water 04/18/95 12.34 2.3 -19.7 Natural U. Water 04/18/95 9.86 4.8 -15.2 Ra-226 Water 04/18/95 14.81 11.1 -18.7 Ra 228 Water 04/18/95 17.47 S.9 - 22.7 Sr-89 Water 04/18/95 24.80 11.3 -28.7 Sr-90 Water 04/18/95 15.67 6.3 - 23.7 Ba 133 Water 06/09/95 79.03 65.1 - 92.9 Co-60 Water 06/09/95 38.63 31.3 -48.7 Cs-134 Water 06/09/95 46.60 41.3 -58.7 Cs-137 Water 06/09/95 34.66 26.3 -43.7 Zn-65 Water 06/09/95 77.66 62.1 -89.9 Sr-89 Water 07/14/95 17.63 11.3 - 28.7 Sr-90 Water 07/14/95 8.94 0.0 -16.7 Gross Alpha Water 07/21/95 13.90 15.5-39.5 Gross Beta
- Water 07/21/95 22.50 11.7 -30.6 H-3 Water 08/04/95 5154.21 4027.1 -5716.9 81 l
I
TABLE 7.2, cont.
EPA INTERCOMPARISON ANALYSIS RESULTS January - December 1995 NUCLIDE SAMPLE EPA REF. YAEL MEAN EPA CONTROL LIMITS TYPE DATE (pci/l) (pCi/l)
Gross Alpha Particulate Filter 08/25/95 25.26 14.1-35.9 Gross Beta Particulate Filter 08/25 S 5 83.10 69.3-103.0 Cs-137 Particulate Filter 08/25/95 24.% 16.3 -33.7 St 90 Particulate Filter 08/25/95 28.53 21.3 -38.7 Cs-137 Milk 09/29/95 50.45 41.3 -58.7 K-40 Mille 09/29/95 1418.00 1259.0 -1499.0 1 131 Milk 09/29/95 100.16 81.7 - 116.3 Sr-89 Milk 09/29/95 21.37 11.3 - 28.7 Sr 90 Milk 09/29/95 15.57 6.3 - 23.7 I-131 Water 10A)6/95 150.51 122.0 - 174.0 Gross Alpha Water 10/27/95 21.05 29.0 -73.4 Gross Beta
- Water 10/27/95 27.9 17.54-36.49 All EPA Gross Beta known and associated values adjusted by 1.0894% to compensate for reference electron conversion.
82
TABLE 7.3
SUMMARY
OF EPA INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS January - December 1995 NO. OF SAMPLES NO. OF NO. OUTSIDE SAMPLE MEDIA ANALYZED
- ANALYSES EPA CONTROL LIMITS" AIR FILTER Gross-Alpha 1 3 0 Gross-Beta 1 3 0 Gamma 1 3 0 Strontium 1 3 0 MILK Gamma 1 9 0 Strontium 1 6 0 WATER Gross-Alpha 3 9 2 Gross-Beta 3 9 0 Gamma 9 27 0 Iodine 1 3 0 Radium 1 6 0 Strontium 3 18 0 Tritium 2 6 0 Plutonium 1 3 1 Natural U 1 3 0 The number of EPA samples that were analyzed for the specified radionuclide. Each of these samples was analyzed in triplicate.
" The number ofmean values (from triplicate camples) outside EPA Control Limits.
83
TABLE 7.4
SUMMARY
OF BLIND DUPLICATE SAMPLES SUBMfITED January - Deceanber 1995 TYPE OF SAMPLE NUMBER OF PAIRED
, _ SAMPLES SUBMITTED Cow Milk 21 Ground Water 6 Surface Water 15 Irish Moss 2 Mussels 4 Food Paxiuct - Cranberries 1 TOTAL 49 84
l
- 8. LAND USE CENSUS VYNPS Technical Specification 3/4.9.D requires that a Land Use Census be conducted annually between the dates ofJune I and October 1. The Census identifies the locations of the nearest milk animal and the nearest residence in each of the 16 meteorological sectors within a distance of five miles of the plant. It also identifies the nearest milk animal (within three miles of the plant) to the point of predicted highest annual average D/Q value in each of the three major meteorological sectors due to elevated releases from the plant stack. The 1995 Land Use Census was conducted in accordance with the above Technical Specifications.
Immediately following the collection of field data, in compliance with Technical Specification 6.7.C.I.b, a dosimetric analysis is performed to compare the census locations to the " critical receptor" identified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). This critical receptor is the location that is used in the Method I screening dose calculations found in the ODCM (i.e. the dose calculations done in compliance with Technical Specification 4.8.G.1). If a Census location has a 20% greater potential dose than that of the critical receptor, this fact must be announced in the Semiannual Effluent Release Report for that period. A re-evaluation of the critical receptor would also be done at that time. For the 1995 Census, no such locations were identified.
Pursuant to Technical Specification 3.9.D.2, a dosimetric analysis is then performed, using site specific meteorological data, to determine which milk animal locations would provide the optimal sampling locations. If any location has a 20% greater potential dose commitment than at a currently-sampled location, the new location is added to the routine environmental sampling program in replacement of the location with the lowest calculated dose (which is eliminated from the program). For the 1995 Census, two such milk animallocations were identified. One (NE at 3.4 km), however, is not capable of providing regular milk samples and was not added to the program. The other (S at 2.3 km) was added to the program as sampling location TM-10. Pursuant to Technical Specification 3.9.D, sampling location TM-11 was removed from the " required" program, although samples continued to be collected there.
The results of the 1995 Land Use Census are included in this report in compliance with Technical Specifications 4.9.D.1 and 6.7.C.3. The locations identified during the Census may be found in Table 8.1.
85
TABLE 8.1 1995 LAND USE CENSUS LOCATIONSa SECTOR NEAREST RESIDENCE NEAREST MILK ANLMAL Km (Mi) Km (Mi)
N 1.6 (1.0) -
NNE 1.6 (1.0) 5.8 (3.6) Cows NE 1.3(0.7) 3.4 (2.1) Cows ENE 1.0 (0.6) -
E 1.0 (0.6) ----
ESE 2.8 (1.75) --
SE 1.8 (1.1) 3.4 (2.1) Cows SSE 2.0 (1.3) 5.1 (3.2) Cows S 0.5 (0.3) 2.1 (1.3) Cows SSW 0.5 (0.3) -
SW 0.5 (0.3) -
WSW 0.5 (0.3) ---
W 0.5 (0.3) 6.8 (4.2) Goats WNW 0.6 (0.4) 0.8 (0.5) Cows NW 1.2 (0.8) 4.4 (2.7) Cows *
- NNW 2.1 (1.3) ---
Sector and distance relative to plant stack.
- This location overlaps the NW and WNW sectors.
86
- 9.
SUMMARY
During 1995, as in all previous years of plant operation, a program was conducted to assess the levels ofradiation or radioactivity in the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station environment. Over 800 samples were collected (including TLDs) over the course of the year, with a total of over 8000 radionuclide or exposure rate analyses being perfonned on them.
The samples included ground water, river water, sediment, fish, milk, silage, mixed grass and storm drain water. In addition to these samples, the air surrounding the plant was sampled continuously and the radiation levels were measured continuously with environmental TLDs.
Low levels of radioactivity from three sources were detected in samples collected off-site as a part of the radiological environmental monitoring program. Most samples had measurable levels ofK-40, Be-7, Th-232 or radon daughter products. These are the most common of the naturally-occurring radionuclides. Many samples (milk, sediment, mixed vegetation and fish in particular) had fallout radioactivity from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted primarily from the late 1950's through 1980. Several samples had low levels of radioactivity resulting from emissions from the Vermont Yankee plant. These were all collected in the immediate vicinity of the plant or from on-site locations. In all cases, the possible radiological impact was negligible with respect to exposure from natural background radiation. In no case did the detected levels exceed the most restrictive federal regulatory or plant license limits for radionuclides in the environment.
87
i
- 10. REFERENCES
- 1. USNRC Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program," Revision 1, November 1979.
- 2. NCRP Repont No. 94, Exposure of the Population in the UnitedStates and Canada from NaturalBackgroundRadiation, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements,1987.
- 3. loni:ingRadiation: Sources andBiologicalEfects, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),1982 Report to the General Assembly.
- 4. Kathren, Ronald L., Radioactivity and the Environment - Sources, Distribution, and Surveillance, Harwood Academic Publishers, New York,1984.
- 5. Till, John E. and Robert H. Meyer, ed., Radiological Assessment - A Textbook on EnvironmentalDose Analysis, NUREG/CR-3332, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,1983.
88
_ _______