ML20112E182
| ML20112E182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1983 |
| From: | VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20112E108 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-342 RO-831007, NUDOCS 8501150050 | |
| Download: ML20112E182 (20) | |
Text
- .
c PLANT INFORMATION REPORT f p.
83-06 (LER 83-23/3L) fI.' P.EPORT NUMBER:
REPORT DATE- October 7, 1983 Rev. 1)
'CCCURRENCE DATE: None specific. Accumulative during prior plant operations.
Situation first suspected August 10, and verified on August 23, 1983.
FACILITY: Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vermont IDENTIFICATION OF OCCURRENCE: Buildup of detectable quantities (i.e. 100's pCi/Kg range) of plant-related Co-60 insoluble parti-culates in Connecticut River sediments at the outfall of the north storm drain system.
CONDITIONS PRIOR TO OCCURRENCE: Prior 10 year history of plant operations and refueling outages.
NOTIFICATION: Resident NRC Inspector 8/23/83 by SJJ.
Vermont Department of Health 8/23/83 by GDW. .
DESCRIPTION OF OCCURRENCE: Prior to construction of the new Storeroom and Training Facility, liquid discharges from the chemical neutralization tank, the sand filters, and the house heat-( ing boiler blowdown in the Turbine Building were dis-charged into the south storm drain system where drainage is monitored at the discharge structure prior to release into the Connecticut River. On August 8, 1983, Potential Reportable Occurrence No. 31 " NPDES-pH not in Spec " was submitted. Upon investigation of this incident, it was determined that when the new Storeroom was built, the south storm drain was interrupted with the consequence that the above Turbine Building equipment drains were then diverted to the unmonitored north storm drain system.
Upon learning of this determination, the Chemistry and Health Physics Supervisor requested on August 10, 1983, that a sediment sample be taken at the river baak outfall of the north storm drain system. Initial analysis of this sample by plant personnel and counting equipment indicated a barely detectable concentration of plant-related Co-60 of approximately 620 pCi/Kg. On August 12, 1983, a larger confirmatory sample was taken and plant personnel reported a Co-60 concentration of'approximately 480 pCi/Kg. This sample was sent on August 17 to the Yankee Atomic Environ-mental Laboratory, for a more sensitive analysis and veri-fication of the in-plant result. On' August 19, the YAEL reported by phone that their preliminary analysis indicated the positive presence of Co-60 at a concentration of approximately 650 pCi/Kg, well above their minimum detectable concentration of approximately 2 5 pCi/Kg.
On August 22, 1983, a full scale sampling program was ini-tiated to determine the source of this plant-related radioiso-tope and to scope the level and distribution of this activity 850115(X)50 840618 PDR FOIA LONGEN84-342 PDR ~
in river sadiments below the north storm drain outlet. The initial sampling program (Exhibit 1) was based on the working hypothesis that
. (_ some percentage of stack particulate releases over the 10 year operating history of the plant settled to the ground within the plant site and were washed into the nortl. storm drain system during rains and concentrated in the river in the vicinity of the north storm drain outfall. River sediment sampling stations were established at 25 foot intervals from the river bank outward to a distance of 100 feet in line with the storm drain outlet.
Similar stations were also established on a 45 degree angle downstream. An in-situ soil analysis and/or sampling program was established in the predominate downwind direction from the stack as indicated in Exhibit 1. In addition, an attempt was made to trace the source by sampling sediments in storm drain basins as indicated in Exhibit 2. In general, the soil monitoring results indicated the plant vent stack was definitely not a major contributor as all results, with the exception of one which was unrelated, were negative as indicated in Attachment I to Exhibit 3. Storm drain basin sampling was rather inconclusive as few basins had sediments available for collection. (It had earlier been _ determined that the Co-60 activity was in an insoluble form as no Co-60 activity was detected in the water when it was separated from the sediments).
Since it was known, and later verified, that four roof drains on the west side of the Turbine Building flowed into the north storm drain system, attention was directed to the Turbine Building
-(. roof. It was also determined that these drains have always drained to this system since the plant was built. Initial composite-sampling of roofing gravel around each of the two roof vents taken before and after a rainstorm on August 30 and 31, 1983, pro-duced the results indicated in Exhibit 2. The 30% reduction in
- Co-60 and a greater' reduction of the Cesiums, following the rain was' considered as significant. In addition, rinsing of the
. gravel samples with damineralized water at the Environmental Laboratory produced similar, but unquantifiable, results. '
Extended follow-up river sediment samples were taken August 30, 1983,.
and the results are indicated in Exhibit 4. It is estimated that.
an ' area of approximately 2000 sq. f t. of river-bed sediments contain plant-related Co-60.
- The results of' extended Turbine and other roof gravel sampling O
are indicated in Exhibit 5.
Exhibits' 3 and 6 summarize the results of all sampling through September'7, 1983. In progress is weekly air sampling of'the Turbine Building . vents which was started on September 7, '1983.
The result of 'the _first weekly ' sample is as follows:
. Radioisotope '
Detected
- pCi/M3 1 sigma (uCi/cc)
Co-60 6.22E-3 1.9E-3 (6.22E-15) 1 f Ba-La-140 1.68-2 3.0E-3 (1.68E-14)-
- Exceeding 3 sigma
, , _ , _ NU "*
DESIGNATION OF APPARENT CAUSE OF OCCURRENCE: It is concluded that the p Turbine Building roof vents are the cause of the plant-related Co-60
\ radioactivity detected in approximately 2000 sq. ft. of Connecticut River sedi-ments at the north storm drain outfall. This is based on the following known facts:
- 1. Soil sampling of the plant site eliminated the plant stack as a significant source, although it still may be a minor contributor.
- 2. The two Turbine Building vents exhaus t air at the rate of 25,000 cfm each. Recent monitoring of this air indicates there is a ratio with the known Co-60 content of the plant stack effluent. Applying this ratio over a five year period, including four refuelings and one fuel reconstitution, it is estimated that theaverageCo7g0concen-tration at the Turbine Building vents has beyg 1.3 x 10 uCi/cc, with a maximum quarterly period of 1.1 x 10 uCi/cc. Assuming the average concentration over the 10 year period of plant operations, then:
1.3 x 10 -13 uCi 6 10 pCi 28.3 X 10 3 cc -3 3.7 X 10 pci cc
~
uCi g[3 " g 3 3.7 X 10 -3 pCi 5 X 10' e 5 X
, X 2.6 X 10 min X 10 yrs = 4.8 X 10 0pCi ft 6 mos/yr It is not unreasonable to expect that a fraction of this total will be detected on the Turbine Building roof and store drain outlet.
3.
( The design of the roof vent hoods direct the flow of air directly down onto the roof gravel where a significant fraction of particulates are impinged (i.e. concentrated) while awaiting the next rain to wash them down the roof drains to the river where low flow allows them to settle to the sediments. A " smear" sample taken on the underside of tha hood also indicated the positive presence of Co-60.
- 4. It was noted that no detectable radioactivity greater than approximately 25 pCi Co-60 (i.e. the MDL) was measured in the vicinity of the Turbine Building roof drains. A reasoned explanation of this fact is that once rain dislodged the particulate activity from its host gravel in the vicinity of the roof vents, it remained suspended and was trans-ported te the roof drains in the suspended state. The slope of the roof provided a flow that " flushed" the suspended particulates down the roof drains and precluded any detectable redeposition when the rain ended.
- 5. All other roof drains go to the monitored south storm drain system which is diluted and dispersed at the discharge structure. Routine semiannual river sediment sampling at this location has detected no plant-related radioactivity.
- 6. The detectable activity on the Radwaste Building roof and soil station
- 3 is unrelated to this situation and results from work in the radwaste area.
- 7. The absence of any short-lived radioactivity indicates this situation is the result of a long term cumulative ef fect.
ANALYSIS OF-0CCURRENCE: Evaluation of the off-site safety implications have
'made by two methods; which agree within 17%. Conservatively assuming the maximum river sediment concentration of 750 pCi/Kg of Co-60 uniformly
distributed over 25% of an infinite plane, with no shielding provided by the water layer, a person (with other assumptions of Reg. Guide 1.109)
( would receive less than 0.01 mrem /yr. This is well within of 10CFR50, Appendix I, and its reporting requirements.
the criteria For verification, it was further assumed a person stood in the center of a flat disc with a 25 ft. radius in an open field and a uniform distribution of the maximum 750 pCi/Kg Co-60 in topsoil, and the result was less than 0.01 mrem /yr.
It is therefore concluded that normal Co-60 airborne discharges from the Turbine Building and thereafter concentrates in the sediments of the Connecticut River, creates no significant hazard to the public and is well within the ALARA guidelines of 10CFR50, Appendix 1.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:
Immediate Actions
- 1. VY completed a review of the storm drain, stack and turbine venti-lation system to ensure all environmental limits were met (ie 10CFR20, NPDES, FSAR and Tech Specs).
- 2. VY initiated an extensive sampling program to determine the source and extent of Co-60 contamination.
Long Term Program
' 1. Initiate a procedure change for sampling the sediment from the north discharge outfall on a semiannual basis. Incorporate this sample point location in the RETS program prior to submittal to the NRC.
- 2. Reroute chem. neutralization tank, sand filter and house heating boiler blowdown to the discharge structure.
- 3. Review the feasibility and cost / benefit of routing T.B. roof drains to the discharge structure ,as a secondary means of monitoring T.B.
vent re-concentration.
Note: Ir. ens 2 and 3 are the only design changes that need to be considered to address this event.
- 4. Obtain and evaluate core samples at the north storm drain to help determine Co-60 deposit history.
- 5. Obtain sampling data from T.B. vent duct during normal operation and during a refuel outage for establishing a firm baseline for future reference.
- 6. Evaluate work practice for Radwaste roof filter changeouts.
(
1
FAILURE DATA:
No previous similar occurrences.
PLANT OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Committee reviewed the report and agreed with the corrective
- action-taken or planned. Further, PORC follow items have been generated for Long Term Action Items 2 and 3.
Approved _ M Jh_ A I_ C U
Plant Manager
\
l-i.'ig e f -
3
l
/ "
- TavG h
( / \ $p k!)i tsg .
ve s - W( N's Scue
'x \
x
.\
s
.t. -
g.25-e 'x ,,
7' ' di N %
p, i el \ g -
\ ,
f f
.. VERiONT YA.';KEE
\ -g7 .@[ $\ '\ NUC1. EAR PotiER
'. STATION
( g y
\
\
g sy ,, t.
'\ \ J'e/- /
% \ .
wi I l
j
\ %
% i '.
~
- i. I
>]e/ y
\ ;5(o d5:h n..,
f
\ t'
'. /
g
\g [// /
\
1, s l
. l g $ cts. %MPLING
, \ STA r:0N S *
\
d l '
.A \ L
.. - 5
% '** # DO
~ . 5*?.-.-
, 9m % 00 - ROO "
ME T ERS g
/ %:-55 .$Q _-
.. - . . - . - . - -.. - . .. - - ~ ~ - - - . .. .. _ .. . .- - . . ---
, _- _ . _ _ - - - - - - - ~ ' -
y ;, y.
s, .e
%k ~ ~f %.
S u
. / , ~tij j :.,a_.- 2 a .: *
.s ,/ L. W..s$. v .i...>,W.1
?
'~ ,
D. ,. , ': l
? .t n3
. ~ .f.v.. / h a .k w . *'""
s I
np
'..s<.
~.
1 .d5 ,,
i - ; .*.*.% , q..>', N s 3.',p ~ n.b. p '
r ,,, v i '
-/ v ._ ,,
1( e
. W ,. a 1- f tp 1q .
. . nj g. . # g / . y' L m,, .*
V.; n. .i.t t-A * *.:a. . .i.r. . . * ,01
- I.a **.-+
. .*:: n. ~ *g'g: =.,q;. :n' 1
"c. . . . .p. . .
- i. ., '
I / !"o . . .
3 q.i ' ! . ;; y,.,. m= .
. .. 't j l,.j i
,N g ?
_ Na. I .caa!._\\My ~ig.F, n
, v. .i l r"
,e,.-
6;y*_gr t.;f['<ti.
~
// $
' __ a 1
- m. _ J L4 - g .3 L _ .w~, _ _ _
.Ms yiff.
C* I '
g
,ld.a.
,i 4.
- i ,f P x d W. /
D M g + y
)
- e. . / /*..gj,.%.:!'3.s m 7.4.4 .d@h i! t lL l' Ii s
,! 1 ~&
_a a
$ /gc i ;in,1 L'h11p.c
.: i- .!:,2 ,1
)l} Y. . :.
h"'.i.,_._n..__...
w.<L s L.s l
- lt- i
- f. I.7,0 , \ .,c 1_ ./
- h. m.b (g,li
( a -g} :
qjf
.aj l, fb '\ i*J- ).!ci! <r'! 4 t
- w~$ f Y..*1 99
- e.>iD 3 135 sN i *, r. [ y3 ;'.n . %. .
s- t ! .H,.i i l,0 * ' , 71 > . h.'. ;
lu; li 4 r-41._r
- _L /l\
o ...n..w# , l: h . es I
d _u. w .R;!!
.1
} m-.yE '. e n t N t - *\
' 'g Gi ~:M .di ts }4.:s d,f. Uig=h.] jti m -* 1 J pl 1 j i W. 0 .r-in y M'N v t- ",.../. ) .s W-T . W.;\v_1 - .- c. ..s. :
. ' s ' ~.
4 r'
I gdi "
4
\\,
y^ ' sDb I
- j,4. i g g d ' n.1k' . ,'
' ".f # ' \ l.
'. ;,,.{
~
a C
ll, j{i);dPM._L_C..~3..A JS'l'at.! r is h.df. * * .
3
..s; s ' =$- i. L Mn.'. s u , J '~*N R .tM M -yi.Y ::,f v.1N 4 '
b 1 hW p 'i'L'3'b. s
~
' fib f iif'NI . f;i[<;h hi ,j l' (f' .C#. .a_ .
'.p h b .
\, e.y n c ., wye i i
&n' d ak g;*j l W . . . .
,r ;' N ' . ,6 r %.ys s
e s ,y qs;, .t , s
,ci .
% n l . !. ! :! e .m.,iq ;h
- - i l)' f.'~ ns,i { Y** ' -
S'
.., 1,
- r. e %.1, p: w M NI;~ %1[i . '*
4
.;; g \
s.
p y--/
5, s .s.n. !
,r p g .A:::;' .v
.- r ent ;. -, n t rx: w\,
_~4a e
[g,(#,%.g Je/r-i.y%[
I p.- :j 4 n. .4,.:.3 ,
!~w J.. .. a Q y . eI.>J e,e.
'\,,h-d d -
.i ,, --
I W- IE.D n h. f r+-\ : H ,e,. . .
en l h %.n.Mf(;:
T u .nr[ _ , _ Ah.JLI QS I i l[ ;O k k. . 3 h g ,g .2 @',.
a . .:
,3N b./jh. g! $.g == M_
' t .
,.,. 13 ~
J os 1 g a 'a ~.M. a'!!.,F.w h -
VI aE / f1if swA . . .
.It r I '*r .
. N. ,.9 t 5 ,,
( .
IV's.'l- 1 ,t
,i 0u ,jt o
[v . . .a..]-~a 7' d m w. d Mi
)
uky ( m,j"- m.U.;>#3 ,; 4 I .
L
,ll s
E i
I ew ff. Ety. o, Qe.n *
.:-.v.n .
v .% ... ,---
-:g..Lm.;<n)..-
- ,c .d o .
Q -
JP~T.i.::7. k .,
..t. -
y (i.,i L' -
u.-
..e w,
'p .
,1:. . C
.E- Q op
%.i -
Gll d *.*(g/] %,'[, .I., U ,
Lg- ,, .
d.1 t . ';.= -
i o=m ., g . .. . .. .e.. . ,&$n .m".,.t . ,,6F h, e(Jp.f',,' Dt.6 w
- , ., {
l'
_t .
_,_ gl . -
(* $b W %c.i.y ha ; A 4g %y s . v. ,' .l ; s.
, a.4.
t lu 3
1 a e
- 4. i t.u iu i y
D.2 I]. ..
]g, m
'. tm
- n. , , 1, t
p.
/ 3" **"'" k
's . .'. j \M . e.*3 s t
a . d .,,7 .... y .g. .x i
p g,;.;am.
.l z,, ,_,_ m... . ..
... ,c 4 ..
Iis' m
s
.ta. I.!.s
. : m. m. -
c N. W.\ \ \ ..
i AMr.ey y: -
.!#. r. b
- . o "f~~
E p Q. l . ! .-e
.e ': s.. '.. \\eq\ ;
s (.sTv .,, . - ' ,
Q r}s s
>t "4J%( j g !
} <s, d
C 1 r%..~y'gil i !! . i 9. To
. N. , .%,.A's. ....{'f 8
.,. - e i 1 it. :
io H j ;;
a o 8ll. -
, . s
@'l j lh j.I;;'. [!!
(
JP-*. i -N. \, , ., *. ;
Ed
? *' ., ' *x n:t
,g s
' 'q i h14 1 %,, .lt
- l 6 -> { g -
2 f . \z Vs v. . .; . s \w.
\
Q-
_a i l..rh t *
, !t
. t s .es e ,s et . ...
1 '
- s '] I ' . w ...e.".t .
.s- ) I l
- j (A. * \,_'s,,i
.. 'u .N 4'?N*
m , r. .. -
,l
- j3 p
"'.i
~
f.t,,
s
\ e. s.. i t qi 'q~ ,
a
., . ., , . ,, , . 4 . y
. .. . . ....y 3 3
. : , 'h C 10l!l.O d NY
-i (
. g,..; c . 7 September 12, 1983 ELG 282/83 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation P.O. Box 157 Governor Hunt Road
- Ve rnon, VT 05354 Attention: Mr. Burt Ball
Dear Mr. Ball:
The Environmental Laboratory has completed the preliminary analyses of
(' approximately sixty sediments, gravels, waters, and soils recently submitted to the Laboratory under the special station code of "99". Initial Analysis Reports (IARs) are currently bgg prgRa) corrections being applied for 54Mn and 134 Cs respectively. .The pertinent Ac ( Bi gndred iDterferences for gnsmittal with to you with OCo and.13/cs concentrations have been reported verbally. These concentrations will not be
~
effected by the corrections in progress.
The analyses of these sanples proceeded on a priority screening' basis with the normal Laboratory protocols for drying of sediments and for geometry considerations being waived. This practice introduces additional uncertainties into each analysis. The additional uncertainty is estimated at
+ 50 percent as an upper boundary and will be indicated, as approprir.te, on each IAR. Please refer tc the latest Laboratory compilation .of ' data for the calculation of Total Relative Uncertainty.
The Laboratory is currently re-analyzing these samples in accordance with routine methodologies.- It would be helpful and time / cost effective if the VY staff could supply a prio rity listing- of which samples should be processed.
' Also, the correct processtng methodology for gravels should be discussed. The 6uco activity in these san ples is most likely associated with surf ace contamination and thus utilizing 'the entire sample weight and uncalibrated geometries does not provid e for an accurate dete rmination of the man-made radioa ctivi ty.-
-('
EXHIBIT 3 1
_...m , , , , , , , , ,
. FDDPNW1 To s. sall Se ptem be r 12, 1983 I
Location Date
! y N. Stanford FILElb. ELG 283/83 f Location
! SUBJECT PRELIMINARY REPORT OF SPECIAL IN-SITU ANALYSIS AT VERMONT YANKEE - AUGUST 1983 During the week of August 29, 1983, soil analyses were perfomed at se ve n on-site locations at Ve rmont Yankee . Both g-situ and Laboratory gamma spectrometry wre employed for the analyses. The results (Table 1) show that with the exception of one location (#3) the in-situ measurements in conjunction with Laboratory analyses indicate no O Co above minimum detectable 60 concentration (approximately 20 pCi/kg.) Site #3 did show positive Co, but the area analyzed had been used in the past as a location for decontamination 60 operations and is therefore not a good indicator of local Co deposition patte rns.
The i_n,-situ methodology utilized is outlined in reference 1 and em-loyes a high pu rity germanita detector together with a 4096 channel mult2 -channel analyzer, in conjuction with assorted computer equipment. '-
In,-situ measurements wre taken at locations 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 (see Figure
- 1) with core samples taken at locations 1, 3, 6 and 9. The M-situ analyses at locations 1, 3, 4, and 7 were made with a 5.1 cm thick lead shield in place to reduce the effect of the close proximity to the plant. As the apparent 60 Co activity concentration was found to be positive at locations 1, 3 and
(. 6, eight representative core samples were taken at each of these locations to dete mine if the source of the activity was the soil. Core samples we re also taken at location ntaber 9 which was directly over the storm drain conduit which fomed a local depression for a large open area. This site was chosen as one would expect any deposited activity to acetnulate in the depression.
Table 1 contains the results f rom the analyses of the 7 locations. For each location, the results of the g-situ analyses (where taken) high pressurization chamber (PIC) measurement, and laboratory analyses are included (at present only the 0-5 cm core samples have been analyzed. The 5-10 cm results will be included in the subsequent full report). Activity concentrations are listed for 5 radionuclides, as well as the total exposure rate as dete mined by both PIC and HPCe measurements.
CONCLUSION:
This study shows no 60 Co activity concentration above 20 pC1/kg except at location 3. The close agreement between the HPCe system and both PIC and laboratory measurements is an indication of the confidence with which the HPCe results may be reviewed. High PIC results (greater than 10 uR/hr) which cannot be confimed by g-situ HPCe analysis indicate increased activity levels due to some source tem other than the soil such as the radioa cti ve waste warehouse or the turbine building.
A full report , including f omal results f rom in,-situ and laboratory analyses will be sent out as soon as all c,f the analyses have been ecupleted.
I
O Mr. Burt Ball Page 2 Septem ber 12, 1983 A preliminary comparison, provided as Attachment I, of g-situ measurements with sample soil concentrations has baen completed by the Laboratory staff. In general, the results of the soil sampling confirm the g-situ measurements within the boundary conditions outlined in the attachment. A more detailed report is being prepared.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
Since rely , q R. . Mellor, Assistant Manager -
Environmental Laboratory RAM /,)nn Attachment cc: D. E. McCurdy - (YAEC)
~( D. Weyman - (VY)
B. N. Leach - (VY)
r O R . .
Tabla 1: R2sults of in-situ and Labtratory soil analyses for 7 cn-sit?
locations aEVY. Included are: acti vity concentrations for 5 '
radionuclides, as well as total exposure rate as measured with both the HPGe and PIC detectors.
k(uR/hr) Acti vity Concentrations (pCi/kg)
- 60 Location Pic 137 40 g 232 238 g HPGe Co Cs Th 01 in-situ 11.7 + 0.3 8.7 + .09 43 + 6 72 + 13 10240 + 210 508 + 23 1046 + 27 Lab < 16 98 + 6.2 10500 + 140 603 + 20 952 + 77
- 03 in-situ 94. 7 + 1.4 28.4 + .2 6424 + 35 1630 + 40 9000 + 200 367 + 59 214 + 33 Lab 550 + 29 2060 + 42 9020 + 360 491 + 57 1020 + 230 04 in-situ 10.4 + 0.4 7.7 + .1 < 6.4 192 + 13 9170 + 190 521 + 31 570 + 24 Lab N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 06 in-situ 9.1 + 1.0 8. 5 + . 0 9 19 + 4.7 85 + 11 10440 + 210 541 + 22 870 - 24 Lab < 15 67. 9 + 4.1 10400 + 130 550 + 19 1040 + 91 07 in-situ 9.8 + 0.4 7.3 + .10
< 5.9 223 + 13 7660 + 190 566 + 29 534 + 23 Lab N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 08 in-situ 9.6 + 1.0 9.1 + .11 < 6.9 65.9 + 8.9 12590 + 230 787 + 34 720 + 22 Lab N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 09 in-situ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Lab < 12.2 121 + 6.4 13900 + 162 822 + 24 1520 + 110
- = 3.3 uR/hr cosmic is included in total k (Ref. 2)
- = These activity concentrations are due to sandblasting in the Soil Sample 3 area. This issue has been addressed in our recent response to NRC/INPO findings.
r- - - i
'[gu(
\
/ ,c h '%
fp
\..
'\ $
\
R D's. - 'y
\
-y\ ,'s .
As 's \
a S. W. ". ... .
s N. #1
) 6 .
9 .
N p9 M 3\ .,
VEF.'10NT YANKEE MJCLEAA Pot /ER
-
- STATION
< h
- ' A '. .
- y. /
s '
I
( .. .
n;. 4., ....
Q
-) %
S I
\ ,
l i
$_' 'I) i /
- /
. 10 I
[ ." /
g s g 4 . 7
/ S
- w. ~ __a - .'
o wm tw =
h.%_ y i r ::10::1 )A::EL/
ro..'r.it 51 At lox
B.' Ball
. Septem be r 12, 1983 j{ Page 2
REFERENCES:
-1) HASL-258, "In-Situ (Ge(Li) and NaI(TI)) Gamma-Ray Spectrometry",
September 1972.
- 2) " Cosmic-Ray Ionization in the Lowe r Atmosphere", Wayne M. Lowden and Harold Beck, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.17, No.19, October 1, 1966.
N. Stanf ord /
Environmental Laboratory
^
NS/jan cc: D. E. McCurdy R. A. Mellor E. L. Laurenzo
I 2
g
\ k-4,b%
y .2 I
I lhna
~
(
@i e r a
@e 2 Dt i
@t du @t .t
@_ g. ' &o
@i @
~
@ @i
@ @ $'t
@i A
@9
@t A 3 x e 2
0 q- 3} -
1 .
s M I 1k ONm I( -
N 0 it vim)
U n g. UC r >
gt b
m Q gN * '
g ' N& TA n
g g *b, % b k eN .4 M
.NkA i
M Ng St 'l $t e-t %g'.s *7 )s $~ 'N
~ ,
nu D b 9 -
n>
- e
\ %. - #
D tW m ygQ ~
% ~ 4s
- vi
_ u' $1m A h
$, heM %. G Y I >? S
$>u$
0 0 e @ -
N
- 4. N0
(
33 et
( .
N s
0 %
'$e 2
2 %
t{ g h_ V M '
n D Q h 5 '
NT rk b M Um sy NY' -.
c kb a# 5 kh5" %E $33 *d 0
~
m u m 4 "; ecc 75 *
- 4 0
?ca'
- e Ms ~m v B N
sms s b r
+1 45 g D-s u $1 vt Ag Al '
$ \ t' v +$
%A
- ~ 5 w
k> b w* q m >a ON
}. *N T
~~ '4 y 7 e3 w- 4 o u*
g @ @ ~
V x$ -
e o o g _
e A
~~
2 k O D
@ c2 d
'Z
%O D. b
- <C>
ok G i ,-
s- 5 t' 4
( s t
% o- L.t)
NM
$. M $ U. $.
k
& A 4 'a h
% ,3
.%i +, -> ., s, -
h De . . . -
.e r. 5* -
SPECIAL NORTil STORM DRAIN SAMPLES o
'l DATE TIME SAMPLE LOCATION V.Y. RESULTS SAMPLE NUMBER E-LAB PRELIMINARY RESULTS Co-60 (uci/g) (pCi/kg) 8/10 1540 North Storm Drain Outfall 6.2 E-5 Co-60 8/12 0800 , North storm D'ain Outfall 4.8 E-7 Co-60 V-TZ-99-32-83 650 8/22 1730 North S.D. Water While None V-W-99A-34-83 MDA Raining 8/22 1830 North S.D. Water while -None V-W-99 B-34-83 MDA Raining 8/22 1930 North S.D. Wate'r while None V-W -99 C-34-83 MDA .
Raining 8/22 2030 North S.D. Water while None V-W-99 D-34-83 MDA Raining ,.
8/23 1400 NSD Manhole "D"(W) None V-W-99 E-34-83 MDA 8/23 1330 NSD Manhole #9(W) None V-W-99 F-34-83 MDA .
8/23 1300 NSD Manhole illa (W) None V-W-99 G-34-83 MDA [
8/23 1230 NSD Manhole #14(W) None V-W-9911-34-83 MDA /,
8/23 1530 NSD Outfall @ Riverbank V-TZ-99A-34-83 680(6.8 E-7 uCi/g) 8/23 1400 NSD Manhole #11E(S) V-TZ-99B-34-83 45(4.5 E-8 uCi/g) 8/23 1330 USD Manhole #12A(S) V-TZ-99C-34-83 86(8.6 E-8 uCi/g) 8/25 Mt NSD Outfall @ Riverbank V-TZ-99D-34-83 440 (Cs-137 244)
Split Sasple w/ State 8/25 AM NSD @ Shoreline + 3' V-TZ-99E-34-83 750 (Cs-137 264) 8/25 M1 NSD 900 + 25' V-Tz-99F-34-83 140 8/25 M1 NSD 900 + 50' V-TZ-99G-34-83 50 l
l 8/25 Mt NSD 900 + 75' V-TZ-9911-34-83 20 8/25 Mt NSD 90 + 100' V-TZ-993-34-83 < 25 (MDA)
EXHIBIT 6 , ,
P:g2 2 e SPECIAL NORTil STORM DRAIN SAMPLES * .
DATE TIME . SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE NUMBER E-LAB PRELIMNARY RESULTS Co-60 (pCi/kg) 8/25 Mt NSD 45 + 25' V-TZ-99K-34-83 60(Cs-137 202) 8/25 AM NSD 45 + 50' V-TZ-99L-34-83 < 28(Cs-137 177) 8/25 AM ,NSD 450+ 75' V-TZ-99M-34-83 < 24 (Cs-137 197) 8/25 AM NSD 450+ 100' V-TZ-99N-34-83 426(Cs-137 199) 8/25 M1 NSD @ Shoreline (See 99D) V-TZ-99P-34-83 360 (Cs-137 62) 8/29 NE Corner of Discharge V-TZ-99A-35-83 MDA Structure in the River 8/29 NSD Upriver 25'(Shoreline) V-TZ-99B-35-83 MDA ,:
si 8/29 NSD Downriver 25' V-TZ-99C-35-83 98 .,+:
(Shoreline) < .;
8/30 NSD New 4 + 25' V-TZ-99D-35-83 41 ;i 4
8/30 NSD New 4 + 50' V-TZ-99E-35-83 (28(MDA)
, y, 8/30 NSD New 4 + 75'
- V-Tz-99 F-35-83 MDA 8/30 NSD 25'(10'N) V-TZ-99G-35-83 126(Cs-137 217) 8/30 NSD 25'(10'S) V-TZ-9911-35-83 13(Cs-137 141) 8/30 Turbine Roof Vents V-TZ-99J-35-83 2930(Cs-137,1980 ;Cs-134,240 ;
Before Heavy Rainstorm Zn-65,150) 8/30 Turbine Roof Drains V-TZ-99K-35-83 MDA After Rainstorm l 8/30 NE Corner of Turbine Roof V-TZ-99L-35-83 126(Cs-137,217) 8/30 NSD 50'(10'N) V-TZ-99M-35-83 23
,8/30 NSD 50'(20'N) V-TZ-99N-35-83 MDA(Cs-137,153) 8/30 NSD 50'(10's) V-TZ-99P-35-83 120(Cs-137,179)
f- A Pcg7 3 cf *
DATE TIME SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE NUltBER E-LAB PRELIMINARY RESULTS Co-60 (pCi/kg)
C/30 NSD 50 '(20'S) V-TZ-99Q-35-83 189 (Cs-137,175) 8/30 NSD 75'(10'N) V-TZ-99R-35-83 MDA(Cs-137,150) 8/30 ,NSD 75'(20'N) V-TZ-99S-35-83 MDA(Cs-137,142) 8/30 NSD 75'(30'N) V-TZ-99T-35-83 MDA(Cs-137,184) 8/30 NSD 75'(10'S) V-TZ-99U-35-83 MDA(Cs-137,168) 3/30 NSD 75'(20 'S) V-TZ-99V-35-83 MDA(Cs-137,163) 8/30 NSD 75'(30's) V-TZ-99W-35-83 MDA(Cs-137,140) ,.
9/1 Turbine Roof Vents V-TZ-99X-35-83 2050(Cs-137,150;Cs-134,1650) .,-
After Rains -'
9/6 1400 North TB Roof Vent V-TZ-99A-36-83 1220(Cs-137,1300; Cs-134,196)
NRC/ State Split 9/C 1400 South TB Roof Vent V-TZ-99B-36-83 1400(Cs-137,1100; Cs-134,156)
NRC/ State Split /
9/6 1500 NSD Outfall(Riverbank) V-TZ-99C-36-83 437(Cs-137, 287) 9/6 1500 NSD Outfall(Riverbank V-TZ-99D-36-83 5810(Cs-137, 240)
+ 3') MDA(Cs-137, 348) 9/7 1000 TB Roof #1 V-TZ-99E-36-83 l
TB Roof #2 V-TZ-99F-36-83 MDA(Cs-137, 454) 9 /7 1000 TB Roof #3 V-TZ-99G-36-83 POA(Cs-137, 352) 9/7 1000 V-TZ-99H-36-83 40(Cs-137, 499) 9/7 1000 TB Roof #4 9 /7 TB Roof #5 V-TZ-99J-36-83 MDA(Cs-137, 291) 1000 llVAC Roof #6 V-TZ-99K-36-83 MDA(Cs-137, 419) 9/7 1000 V-TZ-99L-36-83 45(Cs-137, 487; Cs-134, 28) 9/7 1000 llVAC Roof #7
- p. O '
b _' , .'
- I;.
SPECIAL NORTH STORM DRAIN SAMPLES DATE TIME- SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE' NUMBER E-LAB PRELIMINARY RESULTS Co-60
) q- (pCi/kg) ,
?
9/7 1000 RW Roof #8 V-TZ-99M-36-83 289(Cs-137, 1170;_Cs-134, 64)
[ 9/7 1000 RW Roof #9 V-TZ-99N-36-83 204(Cs-137,_724; Cs-134, 55) l 9/7 1000 RW Roof #10 V-TZ-99P-36-83 4290(Cs-137, 8630; Cs-134,.1530; Zn-65, 231; Mn 54, 457) 9/7 1000 'RW' Roof ill- V TZ-990-36-83 85(Cs-137, 504)'
~
(flts/93 J;rn O lla>L , Secy on ~E 5322.
Ro.s h - <mdL& duhd LLD A t pfc}hg vn 900 vn oMat + v O ~ M a:
L%%R) {f C '/ wclh .
cg-bo 7. I t 1, 3 C+ 2.
cs. i gg 5, 3 /, # Ee/
$$/ cv 13 7 3. r 1 0 9 E+2_ soco elsk fE,,
2,n - b y 4,i. s 'i E+l fT + ciel C- NSD oul-[-utf G bc Co -to 4. 2. 1 0.7 f f 7_.
, Cs-G</ /. 3 2. o.4 C+l cs -t27 2.M 0,7 L s z.
a n -65 3.( I' o 7 er/
NTe 'f4 A Red kl 9. C y :le
'19 5 5 G> apos, < le
'R8 T913 Co . 6,o zh -t . 0 9 e + 5 th p A . lag 1 0.3 Er3 C3-GT 2.6 0.7 E4 2- ;2.31 o.6 E+ a e c, - i 3 7 / 7 f of Er 3 (, 4 i 0 4 c-r3 2n- sv p 4- 6.<[ Et L- <f.o i 3.d E-r (
cocks : to n a f .e k r of i ro g sh wtN pe Vf5 M.wald a J/)b.5 d 1b4 - '
- _ o