ML20127A220
| ML20127A220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | Marcinkiewicz NUS CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUS-4082A, NUDOCS 8508060101 | |
| Download: ML20127A220 (41) | |
Text
r e
~
NUS-4082 A ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1981 OF THE PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM AT THE PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT N
Prepared for The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company by Charles J. Marcinkiewicz April 1982 (Revision 1 - December 1982)
Environmental Services Division NUS Corporation 910 Clopper Road Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878 k
/I1:n b<
Charles /J[ Marcinki wicz A. Edg g Mit4 hell, Project Manager Managef Radiological L oratory DR K
40 h
R PDR
- 0l W
a m
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page I.
INTRODUCTION 1
A.
Site and Station Description 1
B.
Objectives and Overview of 1
Perry Nuclear Power Plant Monitoring Program II.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3
III.
SAMPLING METHODS AND PROCEDURES 10 A.
Direct Radiation 10 B.
Fish 11 C.
Shoreline Sediments 11 IV.
SUMMARY
AND DISCUSSION OF 1981 12 ANALYTICAL RESULTS A.
Direct Radiation 12 B.
Fish 19 C.
Shoreline Sediments 20 V.
REFERENCES 21 APPENDIX A.
Laboratory Quality Assurance APPENDIX B Reporting of Analytical Results i
b LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page Numbers 1
PNPP Radiological Environmental 4
Monitoring Program 2
Sample Locations and Media for the Perry 6
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 3
Direct Radiation - Thermoluminescent 13 Dosimetry Results for Monthly Exchange Cycles 4
Comparison of TLD and PIC Direct Radiation 14 Measurements 5
Gamma Spectrometry of Fish Samples 15 6
Gamma Spectrometry of Sediment Samples 16 7
Summary of Data for the PNPP Radiological 17 Environmental Monitoring Program -- 1981 l
I ii j
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page Numbers 1
Sampling Locations Within 5 Miles of 8
of the Site 2
Sampling Locations Greater than 5 Miles 9
from the Site iii lj
I.
INTRODUCTION i
The preoperational radiological environmental monitoring program for Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) was initiated in March 1981 f
and will continue until fuel loading, presently scheduled for November, 1983.
This program is being conducted by NUS Corpora-tion under contract with The Cleveland Electric Illuminating i
Company (CEI).
This is the first Annual Report for the radiolo-gical environmental monitoring program being conducted under contract.
This report covers the period March 23, 1981 through December 29, 1981 and summarizes the results of ncasurements and analyses of data obtained from samples collected during this interval.
j A.
Site and Station Description PSPP will consist of two BWR units, each designed to operate at a power level of about 1205 megawatts with the main condenser circulating water cooled by a system of closed-loop natural draft cooling towers.
The plant is located on Lake Erie, on approximately 1100 acres about thirty-five (35) miles northeast of Cleveland, Ohio and about seven (7) miles northeast of Paines-ville, Ohio.
PNPP is situated in North Perry Village in north-eastern Lake County, Ohio.
t B.
Objectives and Overview of PNPP Monitoring Program 1
i United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) regulations require that nuclear power plants be designed, constructed, and operated to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)(10 CFR l
50.34).
To assure that these criteria are m e t,. each license authorizing reactor operation includes technical specifications l
(10 CFR 50.36a) governing the release of radioactive effluents.
In-plant monitoring will be used to assure that these predeter-mined release limits are not exceeded.
However, as a precaution against unexpected and undefined processes which might allow undue accumulation of radioactivity in any sector of man's envi-
- ronment, a
program for monitoring the plant environs is also included.
The regulations governing the quantities of radioactivity in reactor effluents allow nuclear power plants to contribute, at most, only a few percent increase above normal background radio-activity.
Background levels at any one location are not constant.
but vary.with time as they are influenced by external events such as cosmic ray bombardment, weapons test fallout, and seasonal variations.
These levels also can vary spatially within rela-tively short distances reflecting variations in geological compo,-
sition.
Because of these spatial and temporal variations, the i
radiological surveys of the plant environs are divided into l
i 1
i l
1 i
preoperational and operational phases.
The preoperational phase of the program of sampling and measuring radioactivity in various l
media permits a general characterization of the radiation levels and concentrations prevailing prior to plant operation along with an indication of the degree of natural variation to be expected.
]
The operational phase of the program obtains data which, when j
considered along with the data obtained in the preoperational phase, assist in the evaluation of the radiological impact of j
plant operation.
I Implementation of the preoperational monitoring program fc sfills q
the following objectives:
1.
Evaluation of procedures, equipment and technicues.
I 2.
Identification of potentially important pathway,t to be monitored after the plant is in operation.
i 3.
Measurement of background levels and their variations
]
along potentially important pathways in the area surrounding the plant.
l 4.
Provision of baseline - data for statistical comparison with future operational analytical results.
I Sampling locations were selected on the basis of local ecology, 3
meteorology, physical - characteristics of the region, and demo-graphic and land use features of the site vicinity.
The preoperational program was designed on the basis of the USNRC
.l Branch Technical Position on radiological environmental monitor-ing issuedbytgRadiologicalAssessment Branch, Revision 1 (November 1979).
t In 1981 the radiological monitoring program included the measurement of ambient gamma radiation by thermoluminescent l
dosimetry and pressurized ion chamber measurements, and the j
determination of gamma emitters in shoreline sediments and fish.
i i
i l
4 l
~
2
1 II.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Twenty-eight locations within a radius of about 15 miles from the PNPP site were included in the monitoring program for 1981.
The number and location of monitoring points were determined by considering the locations where the highest off-site environmen-tal concentrations have been predicted from plant effluent source terms, site hydrology, and site meteorological conditions.
Other factors considered were applicable regulations, population dis-tribution, ease of access to sampling stations, security and future program integrity.
The preoperational environmental radiological program for Perry is summarized in Table 1.
Table 2 describes sample locations, associated media, and approximate distance and direction from the site.
Figures 1 and 2 designate sampling locations by station number.
The program during 1981 consisted of measurements of gamma dose rate with TLDs and a pressurized ion chamber and semi-annual collections of fish and sediment.
The balance of the preoperational program will be instituted in 1982.
3
k
=
l s
TABlfi 1 PNPP RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Analysis Sample Media Locations Sampling Frequency Type Frequency Airborne radiciodine ")
I through 6 Continuous sampler operation Radiciodine Weekly following I
and with collection weekly or 1-131 canister change particulates(b) as required by dust load-Particulatesid)
Weekly following ing, whichever is more Gross Beta filter change frequent GammaIsotopib'} Composite, by location, quarterly ~
Direct Radiation At each airborne Continuous sampling, one Gamma Dose Monthly (4 TLDs/ location) monitoring location TLD exchanged monthly 7 through 24 Continuous sampling, one Gamma Dose Annually TLD exchanged annually III WaterbornTb) 34, 27, 26, 28 Composite H-3 Composite, by loca-tion, quarterly surface (b)
Gross Beta Monthly l
drinking Gama Monthly 1
Isotopic Sediment from 25, 26, 27, 32 Semiannually--spring and Gama Semiannually shoreline fall as weather permits Isotopic
TABLE I (continued)
PNPP RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Analysis Sample Media Locations Sampling Frequency Type Frequency Ingestigo 29, 30, 31, 33 Monthly when animals are not Gamma All samples Milk ( >C) on pasture Isotopic
^
Semimonthly when animals are I-131 All samples l
on pasture Fish 25, 32 Semiannually--spring and Ganma Semiannually fall as weather permits Isotopic (edible portion) vi (a) Sampling begins at least six months prior to PNPP operation.
(b) Sampling begins at least one year prior to PNPP operation.
(c)
I-131 to be performed at least for 6 months of the last full pasture season. prior to operation.
(d) Particulate sample filters will be analyzed for gross beta 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or more after sampling ti allow for radon and thoron daughter decay. If gross beta activity in air or water is greater than ten times the mean control samples for any medium, gamma isotopic analysis will be performed on the individual samples.
i (e) Gamma isotopic analysis means the identification and quantification of gamma-emitting radionuclides that may be attributable to the effluents from the facility.
(f) Composite samples will be collected with equipment that is capable of collecting an aliquot at time intervals that are very short (e.g., hourly) relative to the compositing period (e.g., monthly).
(g) Definitive sampling locations will be determined by a milk-animal census prior to initiation of preoperational monitoring.
m
TABLE 2 Sample Locations and Media for the Perry Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program L@ cation No.
Description Distance (Miles) Direction Media (1) 1 Redbird (Haines Road, North of West Chapel Road) 3.4 ENE APT, AI, TLD 2
Site Boundary; Tree line 0.7 E
Meteorological Tower 1.0 SE APT, AI, TLD 4
Site Boundary; Parmly Road (side gate) 0.7 S
5 Site Boundary;-Quincy Substation 0.6 SW APT, AI, TLD 6
Concord Service Center (Control).
Site Boundary; Lockwood Road Bus Turnaround 0.6 NE TLD 8
Site Boundary; Tree Line 0.8 ENE TLD 9
Site Boundary; Transmission Line Tower 0.7 ESE TLD t
e 10 Site Boundary; Southsoutheast Corner Security Fence 0.8 SSE TLD-11 Site Boundary; Transmission Ltr.e Tower 0.6 SSW TLD i
12 Site Boundary; Transmission Line-Tower 0.6 WSW TLD 13 Madison-on-the-Lake (Whitewood Drive) 4.7 ENE TLD 14 Hubbard Road (South of North Ridge Road) 4.9 E
TLD l
15 Madison Substation (Eagle Street) 5.1 ESE TLD 16 Dayton Road (North of Interstate 90) 5.0 SE TLD 17 Chadwick Road-(Cul de Sac South of Interstate 90) 5.2 SSE TLD 18 Blair Road (West of Grand River Bridge) 5.0 S
TLD 19 Lane Road and South Ridge Road 5.3 SSW TLD 20 Nursery Road at Route 2 Overpass 5.3 SW TLD 21 Hardy Road at Painesville Township Park 5.1 WSW TLD 22 Painesville (Main Street, South of Evergreen Cemetery) 6.9 SW TLD i
23 Fairport Harbor (High Street and New Street) 7.9 WSW TLD 24 St. Clair Ave. Substation (Control) 15.1 SW TLD 25 PNPP Disclearge 0.6 NNW SED, FSH 26 Ohio Water Service Co., LEE, Madison (at end of Green Road in Redbird) 4.2 ENE WTR, SED I
TABLE 2 (continued)
Sample Locations and Media for the Perry Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program III Location No.
Description Distance (Miles) Direction Media 1
27 Fairport Harbor Water Supply System 7.9 WSW WTR, SED 28 Ashtabula (Control) 18 ENE WTR 29 Milk l' arm
- (2)
MLK 30 Milk Farm
- (2)
MLK 31 Milk Farm
- (2)
MLK 32 Mentor-on-the-Lake (Control) 15.8 WSW SED, FSH 33 Milk Farm (Control)
- (2)
MLK 34 PNPP Intake 0.7 NW WTR IIIAPT = Air particulate AI = Air iodine TLD = Ambient gamma dose rate SED = Sediment WTR = Water FSH = Fish MLK = Milk (2)These locations to be determined in the annual milch animal survey.
i y&
Y*
\\
~
y, B
.i' I4 g 6* ",,
NNW
. b-
'Se6 NNE b
- g e'*
\\
.A
- o
~
o 'pOo NW i
r NE-
-'s' f
I
._. i(-j y' _~..
WNW
.g-6
.: \\. *
- 24 25,
- ._ W.. L V
T l
j '
l
""' 8 4
F
< MW c u
).2.5 MILE
- D:.
d W
I
~
,'. kd !!!"'2[:
'. m a. y)I 4.b
~
)
~[/
- w#y s 9 3
il i
r R e v. V. j tlsn1R..,..,; "
.r st a
n WSW 4
r, 3
./,
s
--~~~^
4
. 3 rr.
^~
i s
.@~"
- l
- .s'
... [, -
e :. '....
...r-*
r 4
)
/ s,, '- = 9 '.f s
., t-d,- -.
+
e
'w
\\
3
/
/,
e o
Il.. u s
1.j
,g,.- n S MILE,
--e
,-y..
d~
.=
.-,f.--
s e
,,f y
- R y
9 2'.
,' j-
~ p./
~'
5
.g-
-.c -
- ?
6, > :'_
\\..
.s..' g ' t' ~.'.' '~~ i o
s r. \\
t A.
. /4
,5N
-xs 9.), 2 ~,u.-
.../
i
- \\,*
+.p
]
\\
w p...
/.
J
,......s
.e 4
.....s,-
\\
ss j
.O J *> - -
,,, i,.
,f'#
c i
3
, f' -
.., t i 4....--',.,
t -
.^.
- ie -
,SSE
.\\.v / ',
- 18 a
c-y
,, gr i
h I
' ~
Sj q (.
h' I
. r-
.. a.-
.,_m
/
kq.\\.
,d.
. p,
... i ". [
,[.
- ,,, c.
(
e w
p.,
c 3,.*-.=---
<---e y
\\.
s.
s p
't k '.
\\
[p,.r'h.y' 7 ~ J h(,:.c..yk h r,-
-((([
m
're -
~
~
2282 m
1 1
N I
j l
l
'480 Aval)*ble On A ertare Card j
P
~,im -
2 N
.;/
' 7 TI
.)$h."$Cf APERTURE
^ ~ '4y k
CARD
,5 MILE
~.
t'
}
y 3..
3 k-
~'.;>yle ENE
~ ~ " '
E'
'i r-1 (i
1 2
3 4
2_.-
7--
myqmas
'i*
9 l
I h.
ln MILES I
.L f
LEGEND 2
--2f.'
34
>..f.'
E'%..
Station No.
Media Direction l
1 Air - TLD ENE
'l 2
TLD E
' 'O. ~
, _ D., i,
~
o 4
Air - TLD S
i.
,Q
.?...-
i j
7 TLD NE I
I
-~~
8 TLD ENE I
~
M.s-
{
.t 9
Air - TLD ESE ESE ~ f"
f,,. - c r,' d_.c r-.-
a-a 7A' 12 TLD WSW wr t i 13 TLD ENE
- m'.
i.
14 TLD E
- y.. -
1 r'
y 15 TLD ESE l
,A es.
- .7^
s.
g""T];-
SEg, f. _
p_ f[. l '.J '
d 19 TLD E
SSW 2
~ ~~ ~~' N._._
h.
c, y
21 TLD WSW I
.. '. "A l 25 Sediment-Fish NNW g'., g M L..M, ' ',
26 Water - Sediment EhE j..,
. b},
h.s
, (.,4-34 Water NW l
4,
- ., G r h[...
qW) *,,A e
/7 ) ', '
J af,i l
.s
{
f n
.}
.. _ i, 3 -
,t.1:s, -F L
l
-6 i
_., gg, -- -f + ' * # p -
J. ',
PNFP PREOPER ATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL g
g t A t-RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM
'N
" ~~ l.
SAMPLING LOCATIONS WITHIN 5 MILES OF SITE
.;. - 7
- 3.. -
e=
.__..-_.:.._.,7.._l..---
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1 & 2 e a i
, (
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC g%bO
~
ILLUMINATING COMPANY Figure 1
)
F t
t
.=
0 N
LAKE
. E RIE gg, g
NW W
WNW C
10 g,f,Cumsias erovad
- 54
,,j
.[
kQ, E
I r_
w r
mi (Q
Pa-F 27 m
i s7,.
Ugst e
c p.i Us k.d$
g 2 eg 23 '
j,; e,,, 3,,
v.., mf
/
/
,as
^
fsj g
' Usht Manter-ondheIakey D
5Ya yyd r] } L. O
&G TV
- &
- .....e' pg'
&s
., s,
g.,
e b...
}.#
t F
a 1,
4.
s.
5,w.
s l
I ( g.
M h.
['[
p c
lNA'? 7hgA ~ff+,-QJ$.
L
^
y'$' e.v s:n w
x h
l$t. \\.
&&kfll ?
f^ jhk
~
&ggy"p Gb.'
lW A((.],
.Jf '~; f J L lf
)qH
~
LF_m,m.mme 1
~M
~
3 #wf,x, p, 4 s va,ag y
,,, u.v m 8 nas.,uww/
(
F~
\\ m>
-~=
n.
LEGEND
- F ROAD DArA 1956 PARilALLY REvtSED 1966
(
POPULArED PLACES NoE
. 00.000 BOSTON 300.000 i. s00.000 RICHMOND 25.000 t.100.000 WETON 5.000 to 25 000 Hialeah 1.000 to 5.000 Sar Marne.
NE Le.. ta.* I,030 F '." *ll nO405 Asg 28 H;,alg,.,cy,Z.7,,80,,
....u.=
or r...........a.,...........,
e
/
4
" ,:;':,."*::."'.*.n'.
- x===
r..........s..........m-.-
g]
1,no,ev.4189t duty
, e l
I e ai.tR 0. IDS..se eM eva-on he. Lake s
. D e es.ne.e
~~ 4h _ _
_ ]
2}-
e"'u",. 04 a'Y'
~
St ac,e a L
{
g
.,s t
y a3-nar i.i.,,......i
, a
<8p fa
.e~
w s,,,.
-t
_\\
i e
4 Counir...i..-
cj y.E"N,,,
,m, f.--
li
.4p.
P.,..
y u...,...
i7 M.
r i h/
a D'
s 10 - ti P
u.'...'..',.'.''"
i-
\\lb4.Geaetb '~
'- C~
g t
W-'
^
o,,m,,,
yj i
Nofth
?
Q ylse,c j '
\\
f L, '.*
y ':: @..
( l { s' f r
~~
~/
- - {%.
A tt T
-. U,/
i f
LEGEND V
OC1 r
I sd";
li
-- p D,AO' b f." q ; #.3 W{1 g' p
. ['. Ath~ '-
e.
Station No.
Media Direction
" 3 ' O5
_ ;' I W.
," --dh g'
6 Air - TLD - Milk (Control)
SSW yi.,.
23 TLD WSW
.T 3 t
airsv.
2' 7 ",,
.'p.*,j,,4 -
h<,y
~- ; t; / ; mr r
,f, 24 TLD (Controll SW s'i trihXQL
-[-hhh1 gs't3 _._ l 27 Water - Sedirnent WSW 7
s
. + f--3)<
ny m)J kW, j
, I /;
28 Water (Control)
ENE
-t
' 4
/
/
4.
./
- W
- ~ hWVL?f 6 ',c;,_.'X t
32 Fish - Sediment (Control)
WSW f'
En
'{'j g.).
k[' ~k i)
P
- 1 Al60 Asihnj,de On
}/. ~'
l~
fl 4... y'~ 3.l k
i iA^*
Y. ' t :,
. n
?s8pm s?
$..'.kA h ' l - &z f-,
Ord 4
.N. I l[ '
-b.
%W:
Rock 'Qdrek
_a U,.
6 0
k ENTQQg
,s
.I lj q...f C-
- ? l (fyg ll-l
,dJ win '
g.k.$ 6 J - } l[t - e.ai..
4 x
.t.
e
! }
d-i
,04,
8 0,,
6 t.
g PNPP PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL J
i/f i 3
I R ADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGR AM j
1, i,
.h9 i-h
'[
1,-
3 SAMPLING LOCATIONS > 5 MILES FROM SITE h0 1
2 3
4 5
E to nnes
. i.,,;,
PERRY HUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1 & 2 3 V SCALE
-l DE MWE'AD mmm f//K] ' '7 [7'//*[.%d eM[T..
ILLuadiNA14NG CDesPANY Figure 2 O60/O/-02 r
III SAMPLING METHODS AND PROCEDURES To derive meaningful and useful data from the radiological environmental monitoring program, sampling methods and procedures are required which will provide samples representative of poten-tial pathways of the area. During the preoperational phase of t!!e program, samples are collected and analyzed not only to obtain background radiological levels, but at the same time to acquire experience with the sampling methodolo and procedural format dictated by site specific requirements.
A.
Direct Radiation Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were used to determine the direct (ambient) radiation levele at twenty-four (24) monitoring points as described in Tables 1 and 2.
Sampling locations were chosen according to the criteria given in the USNRC Branch Technical Posi ion on Radiological Monitoring (Revision 1,
November 1979).Ig) 1 TLDs were located in two rings around the station.
An inner ring was located at the site boundary and an outer ring was located at a distance of 4 to 5 miles from the i
station.
The area around the station was divided into 16 radial sectors of 22 1/2 degrees each.
TLDs were placed in all sectors except i
those which radiated f rom the site directly out over the lake without intersecting any unrestricted areas. Additional TLDs were located at three nearby communities and two control locations.
Prior to finalization of TLS locations, gamma exposure rates were measured at each proposed dosimetry location with a pressurized ion chamber.
This was to avoid inadvertently selecting a loca-tion for TLD placement which normally would show an atypical exposure rate.
The results of these measurements are included in this report.
For routine TLD measurements, two dosimeters of CaSO 4:D in teflon cards were deployed at each selected location.
One sek of dosimeters were exchanged on a monthly basis and the second set was exchanged on en annual basis. Additional sets of dosimeters were shipped with each exchange cycle to serve as in-transit controls.
For routine exchanges TLDs were shipped by overnight Greyhound one evening, picked up and exchanged the following day, and returned by overnight Greyhound on the second evening.
This was done to maintain the minimum possible in-transit dose.
)
Individual dosimeters were calibrated by exposure to an accurately known radiation field from a calibrated Cs-137 source.
10
B.
Fish Fish sampling was conducted in May and devember at two locations for this program.
The immediate vicinity or the discharge was selected as an indicator location, and an offshore location at Mentor-on-the-Lake was chosen as a control location.
Using a passive collection technique, an experimental gill net (mesh ranging from approximately 0.5 to 3.5 inches to decrease size selectivity) was set at each sampling location by biologists from 1:US Corporation.
Nets were set in the evening and removed the following morning.- Entrapped surviving fish not required for sampling were released.
A Scientific Collecting Permit was ob-tained from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to permit this sampling.
E
.Available edible species were filleted at the time of collection.
The edible portions were packed in ice and shipped to the laboratory for analysis by gamma spectrometry.
C.
Sediment Sediment samples were collected in May and November at four i
locations. Two locations were nominally the same as the locations chosen for fish sampling.
At Mentor the sediment was collected approximately 400 yards further offshore, and at the Perry dis-T charge the sediment was collected approximately 600 yards further
}
offshore.
Some movement was necessary to. find a suitable sub-
.l strate for sampling.
Sediment samples were also collected off-
};
shore in the vicinities of Fairport Harbor and Redbird.
Samples were collected with a petite ponar grab sampler in about 30 feet of water.
A sample was composited at each location in a 3 gallon plastic bucket.
Approximately 1 kilogram was frozen and shipped to the laboratory for analysis by gamma spectrometry.
i i
I f
i 4
11 i
~ ~ -
.__,__-.u.-...-
......a
- ~.
l I
IV.
SUMMARY
AND DISCUSSION OF 1981 ANALYTICAL RESULTS I
Data from the radiological analyses of environnental media col-i lected during the report period are tabulated and discussed below.
The procedures and specifications followed in the labora-l tory for these analyses are as required in Section 5.9 of the NUS Environmental Systems Group Qualilty Assurance Manual, Issue B,
and are detailed in the NUS Radiological Laboratory Work Instructions.
i Radiological analyses of environmental media characteristically the detection limits of state-approachandfrequentlyfallbelgyI 1
of-the-art measurement methods.
The use of "LT" in the data tables is the equivalent of the less than symbol
(<) and is 4
j consistent with the NUS Radiological Laboratory practice of data reporting.
The number following the "LT" is a result of the lower limit of detection (LLD) calculation as defined in Appendix 1
B.
"ND" (Not De t e c t e d) is used periodically in the tables presenting gamma analysis results for various media.
It primar-l ily appears under the "Others" column, and indicates that no other detectable gamma emitting nuclides were identified.
NUS analytical methods meet the LLD requirements addressed in Table 2 oftheUSNRCBranchTechnical{ositiononRadiologicalMonitoring 7
(November 1979, Revision 1).Il Tables.3 through 6 give the radioanalytical results for indivi-l dual samples.
A statistical summary of the results appears in i
Table 7.
The reported averages are based only on concentrations 1
above the limit of detection.
In Table 7, the f raction (f) of 1
the total number of analyses which were detectable follows in parentheses.
Also given in parentheses are the minimum and 4
maximum values of detectable activity during the report period.
A.
Direct Radiation l
Environmental radiation dose rates determined by thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are given in Table 3.
TLD l
badges of four readout areas each were deployed at each location on monthly and annual cycles.
For this, the first year of the i
- program, the " annual" cycle covers the period May through December.
The mean values of four readings (co r r ec ted individually for response to a known dose and for in-transit exposure) are reported.
{
A statistical summary of the 1981 data is' included in Table 7.
Individual measurements of external radiation levels in the envi-rons of the PNPP site ranged from 8.11 to 9.37 mR/ day.. Table 4 i
compares the '. 3 from the pressurized ion chamber measurements i
with the data
'.om the annual cycle TLDs and the annual averages of the mo'nthly cycle TLDs.
Agreement between the three types of data is generally quite good. This is especially true considering that the PIC readings were in the nature of a grab sample taken when no TLDs were actually in the field.
12
-n,
,J...,,
. _ -... - - ~, - _.. - - _, -. -
_m
~
TAItI.1: 3 Direct Radiation. Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Results for Monthly I:xchange Cycles PNPP RIMP 19Rl (Results in linits of mR/Dayt2a '})
I I.ocation May
. lune
.luly August Sept,cobe r October November December Average 22 III 1
.222.08.25206
.15t.05.16t.04
.38!.06
.24t.01
.222.02
.172.03
.201.04 2
.382.09. Int.04
.142.05
.142.05
.192.06
.212.04
.12t.02
.182.03
.172.06 3
.234.06.21t.04
.161.06
.35t.04
.211.06
.262.03
.23t.02
.16t.02
.202.08 4
.232.08
.222.12
.lRt.OR
.172.04
.21!.06
.26+,02
.222.02
.16t.04
.212.07 5
.212.06.20t.03
.151.D6.IRt.04
.l72.06
.222.03
.192.03
.172.02
.19t.05 6
.222.0R
. 2 7f. 06
.172.06
.192.06
.352.02
.202.03
.20t.04 7
.25t.D6
.162.OR
.I71.04
.lRt.D6
.22t.02
.171.02
.29t.04
.212.10 8
.172.D6
.3R2.08
.15t.06
.37t.05
.14'.P6
.21*.03
.192.02
.192.03
.lRt.04 9
.19t.07.23t.05
.lSt.06
.ISt.05
.172.06
.221.03
.lSt.02
.13t.03
.172.07 10
.192.06.20f.07
.141.05.15t.04
.lAt.06
.22t.03
.15t.03
.lRt.02
.182.06 11
.182.06.19t.04
.132.05.l51.04
.16t.04 -
.232.04
.162.02
.192.03
.172.06 12
.16t.08.l72.07
.142.06.162.05
.172.06
.252.03
.192.03
.I52.02
.372.07
[
13
.212.07.201.06
.14t.06.152.04
.17t.06
.222.03
.242.03
.142.02
.182.08
~
14
.212.06.23t.03
.16t.06
.171.06
.242.02
.232.02
.I62.02
.202.07 15
.192.07.23t.07
.17t.05
.162.04
.lat.06
.22t.02
.261.03
.162.02
.202.07 16
.172.07.29t.04
.192.06.221.05
.212.06
.2R1.03
.252.02
.212.06
.232.08 17
.162.07.26?.03
.172.05.191.04
.22t.06
.272.02
.281.04
.ISt.02
.212.10 18
.192.08
.372.12
.222.05.252.04
.272.06
.282.03
.25t.03
.272.02
.262.11 19
.18t.07.272.04
.172.05.192.04
.202.06
.212.02
.29t.06
.192.02
.212.09 20
.35t.06.20t.04
.162.06.352.04
.182.06
.222.02
.172.03
.16t.02
.172.05 2I
.l52.07.232.04
.382.05.172.05
.20t.D6
.25t.02
.202.03
.I62.02
.19t.07 22
.122.06
.272.0R
.lSt.06
.172.06
.23t.03
.192.02
.192.11 23
.142.06.26t.05
.192.06.151.04
.222.06
.25t.02
.222.05
.182.02
.202.09 24
.l62.0R
.I72.06.312.04
.382.06
.222.05
.20t.04
.14t.03
.172.07 Average
.181.06
.23t.09
.16t.04
.172.06
.192.05
.24t.04
.201.09
.lRt 08 (22e)L4J TI.D lost due to vandalism.
(1) 1.rrors for inillvidual measurements are two standard deviations of the average of four readings per dosimeter.
(2) Errors of row and column averages are 2 standard deviations calculated from the same row or column data used to generate the averanc.
L
e TABLE 4 Comparison of Direct Radiation Measurements PNPP REMP 1981 II)
(Results in Units of mR/ Day + 2a:
PIC Average of Readings Annual Cycle TLD Monthly Cycles Date,s (3-24-81)
(5-1-81 to 12-29-81)
(5-1-81 to 12-29-81) 1
.202.02
.182.01
.20:.08 2
.182.01
.171.01
.372.06 3
.192.03
.151.01
.202.0S 4
.21!.02
.182.02
.212.07 5
.201.02
.142.02
.191.05 I) 6
.200.02
.191.01
.202.08 I) 7
.192.02
.150.06
.202.10 8
.192.02
.151.01
.18!.04 4
9
.192.04
.152.02
.171.07 10
.191.02
.172.02
.181.06 11
.21!.03
.142.04
.172.06 12
.191.02
.18!.01
.171.07 13
.211'.01
.121.05
.381.08 I#)
14
.201.02
.25.03
.20!.07 13
.21!.02
.162.02
.202.07 16
.25:.03
.20!.02
.23:.08 17
.23!.01
.171.02
.212.10 18
.28.02
.232.03
.26!.11 19
.21.02
.152.02
.212.08 1
20
.212.02
.162.02
.171.06 21
.221.01
.18.02
.192.07 22
.202.02
.201.04(2)
,39,33 23
.231.02
.192.02
.20!.09 24
.201.02
.181.03
.172.07 (1)
Errors of PIC readings are two stsndard deviations of the average of 10 field readings; errors of annual TLDs are two standard deviations of the 4 readout areas on each TLD; errors of monthly averages are two standard deviations of the average of the individual monthly results.
(2) 9-30-81 to 12-29-C1 (3) 6-2-81 to 12-29-81 (4) 9-1-81 to 12-29-81 14
TAlli.li 5 Gamma Spectrometry of Fish Samples PNPP RIiMP 1981 (Results in Units of pCi/Kg(wet)12a)
Fish Collection Location Species Date Mn-54 Fe-59 Co-58.
Co Zn-65 Cs-134 Cs-137' K-40 fI)
LT2500d }LT1500(2) LT100 LT500 I.T80 56i39 99001900 25
. Yellow Perch 5-20-81 1,T130 25 Spottail. Shiner 5-20-81 I.T40 UT130 LT30' LT30 LT80 LT20 LT30 2100!100 32 Ye110w Perch 5-20-81 LT14 LT50 LT20 LT13 LT30 LTIO 1914 30001100
~
32 Carp 5-20-81 LT14 LT50 LT20 LT12 LT40 I.T11 11 5 30001200 32 Brown Trout 5-20-81 LT40 LT100 I.T50 LT20 LT60 LT17 3019 4600 300 32 Spottail Shiner 5-20-81 LT50 LT140 LT70 LT30 LT80 LT20 LT60 1600!300 25 Walleye 11-12-81 LT10 LT200-LT30 1,T12 LT30 UT10 51i6 3400!200 25 Freshwater Drum 11-12-81 LT60 LT2000 LT200 LT50 LT180 UT40 LT40 49001500 32 White Sucker 11-13-81 LT20 LT800 LT90 LT20 LT70 LT15 14:S 4200i300 32 Freshwater Drum 11-13-81 LT50 LT1600 LT180 LT40 LT140 LT40 LT30 29001300 32 Yellow Perch 11-13-81 LT30 LT600 LT80 LT30 UT90 LT19 LT17 43001300 (1) LT = less than (2) Sensitivities exceed Branch Technical Position guides due to equipment failures and delay in counting.
O L
'I
t h
i.
e e
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
1 6
5 1
t 1
2 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 s
5 1
8 9
r 9
3 1
1 e
D 9
D D
D
- 9 4
h N
4 N
N N
4 4
4 t
4 2
2 2
o 1
2 2
2 e
m a
a C
m m
p 06 0
0 0
0 3
4 5
3 o
D 1
D D
D 1
1 1
C N
0 W
N N
0 0
7 9
5 2
8 1
1 1
7 3
0 0
2 4
0 O
0 0
1 3
8 1
1 7
S 3
3 1
2 t
1 1
t 1
2 s
0 0
4 8
0 0
0 0
C 9
5 2
3 9
9 5
6 1
4 3
3 1
1
]
4 2
0 3
[
1 0
0 0
0 3
0 0
0 9
7 3
6 1
5 8
8 g
1 T
T 1
T 1
T T
C L
L L
L L
L L
L 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 4
4 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
t 1
1 2
t t0 0
0 0
0 0
0 M0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
0 0
7 0
0 0
7 4
9 2
4 7
5 6
K 1
2 1
2 1
1 1
s 0
0 0
0 0
0 e
8 0
0 0
0 0
0 6
4 l
2 1
3 7
7 4
2 1
1 p
2 1
1 t
t 1
2 1
2 m
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
a c
0 0
1 R
0 0
0 8
S A
1 1
4 6
1 1
6 6
)
1 1
1 1
t a
n 2
e 8
0 0
0 m
2 0
3 2
2 i
2 2
D 1
2 D
D D
D d
)
0 N
0 0
N N
N N
e y
1 4
5 5
T 4
1 2
8 d
f9
[
6 o1 g
0 0
0 0
0 K
2 0
0 0
0 5
0 1
1 E
yP
/
1 5
2 2
3 1
2 1
1 L
rN i
2 1
t t
t t
t 2
1 B
t E C
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
A eR p
h 8
0 1
7 1
0 2
6 T
m P
9 2
3 4
9 3
7 7
oP n
1 1
rP i
f t N cP s
0 0
0 0
e t
2 0
0 5
5 p
l 1
2 5
3 3
S u
7 2
1 2
t s
D D
D 0
D 0
0 0
a e
1 N
N N
5 N
0 1
6 n
P B
5 2
7 6
u
(
1 saC 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
8 6_
2 3
1 1
5 3
2 1
2_
t t
1 t
t 1
2 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 9
2 0
0 8
7 a
1 3
4 7
4 6
9 9
R 1
1 1
1 0
M 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 6
7 0
4 1
3 3
4 3
3 1
1 1
t 1
t t
t 2
t 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 b
3 5
4 0
3 6
8 9
- (
0 0
6 1
0 0
2 5
P 1
1 1
1 x
/
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 0
0 s
4 1
2 5
2 1
8 8
1 2
t I
1 1
t 2
1 2
0 0
D 0
0 0
0 0
9 0
0 N
0 0
0 0
3 1
2 3
8 3
5 8
8 3
1 1
1 1
de b
t c n n
e a
o t
h t
e 1
t 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 D
ce 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 s
et t
s h' L l a 0
0 0
0 2
2 2
2 e
l D 2
2 2
2 1
1 1
1 o
e C
5 5
5 $
1 1
1 1
=
=
1 1
1 1
D T
n N
L o
i t
5 6
7 2
5 6
7 2
a 2
2 2
3 2
2 2
3 c
]
.]
o 1
2
[
[
l g
l'
[e '
1
TA8LE 7
SUMMARY
OF DATA FOR THE PERRY NPP PAD 10 LOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM - 1981 (Sheet 1 of 2)
Name of Factitty: Perry NPP Units I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-440 and 50-441 Location of Factitty: 35 Miles Northeast of Cleveland, Ohio (Lake County)
Reporting Period: March 23, 1981, through December 29, 1981 Medium or Pathway Type and Location with Highest Annual Mean Sampled Total Number Lower All Indicator Control L (Units of of Analyses Limit of Locations Name, Distance Mean (f)(2) ge,n(g)g(,lon III Mean (f) (Range) and Direction (Range)
(Range)
Measurement)
Performed Detection TLDs Garuna Dose 185 0.19(172/172)
Station 18 0.26(8/8) 0.18(13/13 (udt/ day)
(0.12-0.37) 4.9 miles S (o.19-0.37)
(0.11-0.27 Fish Ganssa Spec 11 5:00(4/4)
Only one indicator location sampled 3400(7/7)
(pCl/Kg(wet))
K-40 (2100-9900) for this medium (1600-4600)
-u Fe-59 260 LLD LLD Co-58,60 130 LLD LLD Zn-65 260 LLD LLD Cs-134 130 LLD LLD Cs-137 150 54(2/4) 19(4/7)
(51-56)
(11-30)
Shoreline Gansna Spec 8 Sediments 1200(5/6)
Station 26 1400(2/2) 820(2/2)
(pct /Kg (dry))81-214 (800-1500) 4.2 miles ENE (1300-1500)
(800-830)
Pb-214 1200(6/6)
Str*1on 26 1600(2/2) 880(2/2)
(460-1600) 4.2 elles ENE (1500-1600)
(810-950)
Note: See footnotes at end of table.
l l
TABLE 7 SUPNARY OF DATA FOR THE PERRY NPP RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MON!TORING PROGRIJ1 - 1981 (Sheet 2 of 2)
Nwne of Facility: Perry NPP Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos. 50-440 and 50-441 Location of Facility: 35 Miles Northeast of Cleveland. Ohio (Lake County)
Reporting Period: March 23. 1981 C. cough December 29. 1981 Medlian or Location with Highest Annual Mean Pathway Type and Sampled Total Number Lowr All Indicator ControlLoggtfon (Units of of Analyses Limit of Locations Name. Distance Mean (f)(2)
Mean (f)L 8
Measurement)
Performed DetectionIII Mean (f) (Range) and Direction (Range)
(Range)
Storeline Ra-226 1100(6/6)
Station 26 1500(2/2) 850(2/2)
Sediments (490-1600) 4.2 elles ENE (1300-1600)
(720-970)
(Con't)
Bi-212 960(2/6)
Station 26 1200(1/2) 600(2/2)
(710-1200) 4.2 miles ENE (1200-1200)
(550-660)
Pb-212 900(6/6)
Station 26 1300(2/2) 620(2/2)
(310-1300) 4.2 miles ENE (1200-1300)
(470-760)
T1-208 300(2/6)
Station 25 440(1/2) 250(1/2)
(150-440) 0.6 alles NNW (440-440)
(250-250)
Ac-228 900(6/6)
Stations 25 & 26 Il00(2/2)I3I 680(2/2)
(410-1100) 0.6 alles NNW &
(1100-1100)
(680-680) 4.2 miles ENE K-40 18000(6/6)
Stations 25 & 26 21000(2/2/3) 14000(2/2)
(9700-24000) 0.6 miles NNW &
(11000-24000)
(12000-16000) 4.2 miles ENE Cs-134 150 LLD Cs-137 180 270(6/6)
Station 26 4 20(2/2) 100(2/2)
(24-450) 4.2 miles ENE (390-450)
(38-160)
Co-60 150(3/6)
Station 26 170(2/2) 87(1/2)
(120-190) 4.2 miles ENE (150-190)
(87-87)
(1)LLD is lower limit of detection as defined and required in USNRC Branch Technical Position on An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program. Revision 1. November 1979.
(2)(f) is the ratio of positive results to the number of samples analyzed for the parameter of interest.
(3)Means, "f" values and ranges are identical for the two locations.
Annual averages (from the monthly cycles) ranged from 0.17 to 0.26 mR/ day or 62 to 95 mR/ year.
Oakley(3) calculates an ionizing radiation dose equivalent of 82.2 mR/ year for Ohio including a terrestrial component of 45.6 mR/ year and an ionizing cosmic ray component of 36.6 mR/ year (excludes neutron co mponent).
Since Oakley's values represent averages covering wide geographical areas, the measured ambient radiation average of 71 mR/ year for the immediate locale of Perry is not inconsistent with oakley's observations.
Significant variations occur between geographical areas as a result of geological composition and altitude differences.
Temporal varia-tions result from changes in cosmic ray intensity, local human activities, and factors such as ground cover and soil moisture.
B.
Fish The results of gamma spectrometric analysis of fish samples collected during 1981 are presented in Table 5.
A total of 11 samples were analyzed, four from the indicator location and seven from the control location.
A few additional species were collected but in insuf ficient size to perform the analysis at the required sensitivity. Future sampling ef forts will concentrate on l
the larger edible species of commercial and/or recreational l
importance.
Since most ( 90%) of the fish of filleting size were caught in the 1-inch mesh size of the gill nets, application will be made for the 1982 sampling to limit the size of the gill net mesh and eliminate the unproductive panels from the experimental i
gill nets.
This should permit more efficient and useful i
sampling.
As expected, naturally occurring K-40 was the major detectable l
activity in the edible portions of the fish.
Cs-137 was also detected in 6 of 11 samples ranging from 11 to 56 picoCuries per kilogram (we t).
This isotope has often been reported in fish flesh in other environmental monitoring prog rams.
Since it is present in global fallout, the occasional detection of Cs-137 in environmental media is not unusual.
)
19
C Shoreline Sediments The processea by which radionuclides and stable elements are concentrated in bottom sediments are complex, involving physico-chemical interaction in the environment between the various or-ganic and inorganic materials from the watershed.
These interac-tions can proceed by a myriad of steps in which the elements are adsorbed on or displaced from the surf aces of colloidal particles enriched with chelating organic materials.
Biological action of bacteria and other benthic organisms also contribute to the concentration of certain elements and in the acceleration of the sedimentation process.
Results of the gamma isotopic analyses of the sediments sampled l
f rom the PNPP environment are given in Table 6.
The average, J
fraction of detectables, and range of radionuclide concentrations are summarized in Table 7.
Most of the observed gamma emitters were naturally occurring members of the uranium and thorium decay chains.
These were detected in their expected concentrations.
Similarly, K-40 was observed in all samples at its expected range of activities.
The predominant man-made radionuclide observed in the sediment sam-ples was Cs-137.
Because of its presence in global fallout, the detection of this isotope is neither unexpected nor unusual.
The activity levels reported (24 to 450 picoCuries per kilogram (d ry)) are within the range of observed values for other environ-mental monitoring programs.
Due to the inhomogeneity typical of sediment samples, wide variations between samples are expected even when the samples are taken relatively near each other.
Detectable activities of Co-60 were observed in 4 of 8 sediment samples.
The detection of Co-60 in sediment samples is less common than is the detection of Cs-137.
Collaboration of this data is being sought in other programs.
This will also be watched closely in future sampling efforts.
A single sample contained detectable activity of Ce-144.
This nuclide is occasionally detected due to its presence in fallout l
from nuclear weapons testing.
I 20 a
4 i
V.
REFERENCES 1.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program," Radiological Assessment Branch Technical
- Position, November
- 1979, Revision 1.
2.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements,
" Environmental Radiation Measurements," NCRP Report No. 50, Washington, D.C.,
December 27, 1976.
3.
- Oakley, D.C.,
" Natural Radiation Exposure in the United S t a t e s," ORP/SQ 72-1 Office of Radiation Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
June 1972.
4
~
21
APPENDIX A LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE 1.
Introduction The quality assurance program of the Radiological Laboratory of NUS is briefly described in this appendix.
Information on each incoming sample is entered in a permanent log book.
A sample number is assigned to each sample at the time of receipt. This sample number uniquely identifies each sample.
Laboratory counting instruments are calibrated, using radionuclide standards obtained from the National Bureau of Standards, the EPA, and reliable commercial suppliers, such as Amersham-Searle. Calibration of counting instruments is maintained by regular counting of radioactive reference sources. Background counting rates are measured regularly on all counting instruments. Additional performance checks for the gamma-ray scintillation spectrometer include regular checks and adjustment, wher, necessary, of energy calibration.
Blank samples are processed, with each group of samples analyzed for specific radionuclides, using radiochemical separation procedures. Blank, spiked (known quantities of radioactivity added), and replicate samples are processed periodically to determine analytical precision and accuracy.
2.
Laborstory Analyses for Quality Assurance The quality assurance procedures employed in the conduct of radiological monitoring programs by the Environmental Services Division Radiological Labora-tory are as required in Section 5.0 of the NUS Environmental Systems Group Quality Assurance Manual and detailed in the NUS Radiological Laboratory M anual. These procedures include the requ.irement for (1) laboratory analysis of samples distributed by appropriate government or other standards-maintaining agencies in a laboratory intercomparison program, (2) analysis of some of the client's environmental samples split with other independent laboratories, and (3) analysis in duplicate of a specific fraction of the cliant's environmen-
]
tal samples.
A-1
The NUS Radiological Laboratory participates in the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency Radioactivity Intercomparison Studies (Cross-check) Program.
The NUS results of analyses performed on samples pertinent to the Perry program and the known values are listed in Tables A-1 through A-5.
i
' s s
1 4
0 A-2
TABLE A-1.
USEPA Intercomparison Program t
Analytical Results - Gross 8 eta i
EPA Results NUS Results Collection Date (pci/ filter + lo )
(pCi/ filter + le )
Air Filter 1-5-79 18 + 5 22 + 2 10-5-79 31 7 5 3771 12-28-79 29 7 5 33 T 1 3-28-80 4175 45 7 1 6-27-80 2875 49 7 2 (32 + 2)(1) 9-26-80 1075 11 7 1 12-19-80 19 7 5 18 I 2 3-27-81 50 7 5 54 7 1 6-26-81 54 7 5 6273 9-25-81 5135 5931 Water 9-22-78 10 + 5 11 + 1 i
11-17 26 7 5 2472 1-19-78 16 7 5 1571 3-23-79 16 7 5 1670-5-25-79.
2275 22 7 1 97})(42+4)(2) 9-21-79 40 7 5 NRI 11-30-79 27 7 5 1-18-80 4575 50 + 6 3-21-80 2275 2571 5-16-80 1475 22-T 0 7-18-80 38 7 5 92 7 9 (49 + 5)II) 9-19-80 21 7 5 2478 11-21-80 13 7 3 1671 3-20-81 25 7 5 25 7 1 5-22-81 14 7 5 1672 7-17-81 15 7 5 1871 9-18-81 28 7 0 2670 11-20-81 2335 2233 9
(1) These samples were inadvertently counted with alpha discriminator at "off" on the proportional counter. This caused the beta channel to acetsnulate alpha plus beta. Values in parentheses are the corrected values.
(2) Actual value reported to EPA was 9 + 1.
This was due to the use of 1 liter as the sample volume whee only 200 mis were evaporated. Corrected value is in parentheses.
(3) Satple destroyed in shipment.
1 A-3 i
~
TABLE A-2.
USEPA Intercomparison Program Analytical Results - Tritium in Water l
. Collection Date (pC1/1 + la )
(pC1/1 + lo )
2-17-78 1680 + 340 1613 + 29 4-14-78 2220 7 349 2173 7 116 6-9-78 2270 7 349 2260 7 70 i~
8-11-78 1230 7 330 1227 7 127 12-15-78 2030 7 346 2203 7 217 2-9-79 1280 7 331 1395 7 168 4-13-79 2270 7 349.
1933 7 35 6-15-79 1538 7 337 1407 7 91 8-10-79 1480 7 335 MRT 10-05-79 1560 7 337 1370 + 66 12-14-79 2040 7 346 1670 7 170 2-8-80 1750 7 341 1660 7 0 4-11-80 3400 7 360 3003 7'42 6-13-80 2000 7 345 1947 7 247 8-15-80 1210 7 329 1200 7 100 10-10-80 3200 7 360 3067 T 153 12-26-80 2240 7 350 2167 7 58 2-13-81 1760 7 41 1667 7 58 3
4-10-81 2710 7 355 2467 7 153 6-12-81 1950 7 344 1933 7 58 8-07-81
, 2630 7 354 2967 7 115 10-09-81 2210 7 348 1900 7 100 a
12-11-81 2700][355 2633][153
- Analysis not performed, i
l j
1' i
4 A-4 i
t
e-m, 1
TABLE A-3.
USEPA Intercomparison Program Analytical Results - Cs-137 on Air Filters EPA Results NUS Results Collection Date (pC1/ filter + la )
(pCi/ filter + lo )
1-5-79 6+5 9+1 10-5-79 1275 17 7 3 12-28-79 10 7 5 16 7 2 3-28-80 2075 27 7 1 6-27-80 1275 1671 9-26-30 10 li 5 1273 12-19-80 19 I 5 2774 9-25-81 19 ][ 5 29][3 4
4 e
A-5 4
TABLE A-4.
USEPA Intercomparison Program (Sheet 1 of 2)
Gamma Spectrometry of Water Samples Collection EPA Result NUS Result Date Nuclide (pCi/l + la ) (pCi/l f; la )
2-10-78 Co-60 34 + 5 32 + 2 Zn-65 29 + 5 26 + 2 Ru-106 36 T 5 4377 Cs-134 52 ][ 5 46][3 4-7-78 Co-60 34 + 5 32 + 2 Zn-65 59 7 5 5773 Ru-106 113 7 6 114 7 13 Cs-134 743[5 63][2 6-2-78 Cr-51 102 + 5 96 + 16 Co-60 2275 21 7 2 Zn-65 54 7 5 4877 Ru-106 5875 73 7 10 Cs-134 22 7 5 18 T 1 Cs-137 30 3[ 5 30][2 8-4-78 Cr-51 105 + 5
?6 + 14 Co-60 2775 25 7 2 Zn-65 62 7 5 52 7 5 Ru-106 4175 55 7 15 Cs-134 975 071 Cse137 15 ][ 5 163[2 10-20-78 Cr-51 117 + 6 LT 373*
Co-60 2375 21 + 3 Zn-65 82 7 5 84710 Ru-106 4673 LT T28 Cs-134 2575 18 + 1 Cs-137 1253[6 1133[4 2-2-79 Co-60 9+5 LT 15**
)
In-65 21 7 5 LT 13 Cs-134 675 LT 10 i
Cs-137 12][5 LT 12 Note: See footnotes at end of table.
A-6 5
v
i TABLE A-4.
USEPA Intercomparison Program (Sheet'2 of 2)
Gama Spectrarretry of Water Sample Collection EPA Result NUS Result Date Nuclide (pCi/l+lo)
(pCi/l + lo) 6-8-79 Co-60 47 + 5 49 + 3 Cs-134 7135 6934 10-5-79
.Cr-51:
113 + 6 LT 226 Co-60 6 75 LT 9 Cs-134 7T5 LT 15 Cs-137 1135 LT 13 i
i 2-1-80 Cr-51 101 + 5 106 + 25 Co-60 11 I 5 12 T 1 2n-65 25 7 5 2471 Ru-106 5175 54 7 5 Cs-134 1075 10 7 0 Cs-137 3035 3331 6-6-80 Cr-51 13 + 5 LT 160 Co-60 575 8+4 Zn-65 2375 24 7 5 Ru-106 37 7 5 LT TOO Cs-134 1175 10 + 1 Cs-137 1735 1211 10-3-80 Cr-51 86 + 5 LT 193 Co-60 16 7 5 18 + 5 Zn-65 25 7 5 28710 Ru-106 46 7 5 LT T03 Cs-134 2075 17 + 2 Cs-137 1215 1431 2-6-81 Cr-51 0
LT 130 Co-60 25 + 5 24 + 2 l
Zn-65 85 I 5 83 7 13 i
Ru-106 0
LT E0 Cs-134 36 + 5 33 + 1
{
Cs-137 415 LT T
- LT = Less Than
- Single determination only A-7
r TABLE A-5.
USEPA Intercomparison Program Analytical Results - Garna Spectrometry of Milk Samples Collection EPA Result NUS Result 1
Date Nuclide (pC1/1 + l a) (pCi/l + la )
i 4-28-78 I-131 82 + 5 80 + 5 Cs-1 K-40(()
2375 2573 4
1500175 1567140 7-21-78 Cs-137 53 + 5 54 + 4 K-40 1560178 1443E47 1-26-79 I-131 105 + 5 94 + 5 i
Cs-137 49 7 5 4874 K-40 1560178 1351359 11-2-79 I-131 637 + 32 673 +.9 Cs-137 4975 50 7 7 j
K-40 1470173 16843144 1-25-80 Cs-137 40 + 5 43 + 3 K-40 1600180,
17675100 4-25-80 I-131 33 + 5 LT250(2)
Cs-137 2875 28 + 2 K-40 1190360 1350171 7-25-80 Cs-137 35 + 5 34 + 2 K-40 1550178 1667 5 58 10-31-80 I-131 18 + 5 16 + 1 i
Co-137 21 7 5.
2273 i
K-40 1700185 1600[0 4
(1) Results for K-40 are in mg/ liter.
(2) LT = Less Than A-8
APPENDIX B REPORTING OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS In the tables presenting analytical measurements, the calculated value is reported with the two sipa counting error (2a ) derived from a statistical analysis of both the sample and background count rates. The precision of the results is influenced by the size of the sample, the background count rate, and the method used to round off the value obtained to reflect the degree of significance of the results. For analytical results obtained from gama spectral analysis, the precision is also influenced by the composition and concentrations of the radionuclides in the sample, the size of the sample, and the assumptions used in selecting the radionuclides to be quantitatively determined. The two sipa error for the net counting rate is:
% +
"6 2,=2 t
t s
b where R = sample counting rate s
R = background counting rate b
t = sample counting time s
tb = background counting time.
If the measurements on the samples are not statistically significant (i.e.,
the two sigma count error is equal to or greater than the net measured value),
then the radioactivity concentrations in the sample are considered not detected.
Results reported as less than ("LT") are below the lower limit of detection (LLD). The LLD is defined as the smallest concentration of radioactive material in a sample that will yield a net count (above system background) that will be detected with 95 percent probability with only 5 percent probability of f alsely concluding that blank observation repesents a "real" signal.
B-1
~
For a particular measurement system (that may include radiochemical separation):
4*008 LLD =
b E x V x 2.22 x Y x exp (- A 6t) where:
LLD is the lower limit of detection as defined above (as pCi per unit mass or volume) s is the standard deviation of the background counting rate or of b
the counting rate of a blank sample as appropriate (as counts per minute)
E is the counting efficiency (as counts per disintegration)
V is the sample size (in units of mass or volume) 2.22 is the number of disintegrations per minute per picoeurie Y
is the fractional radiochemical yield (when applicable)
A is the radioactive decay constant for the particular radionuclide At is the elapsed time between sample collection and counting.
The following are definitions or descriptions of statistical termt used in the reporting and analysis of environmental monitoring results.
Precision relates to the reproducibility of measurements within 4 set, that is, to the scatter or dispersion of a set about its central value.
B-2
O 4
Measures of the Central Value of a Set. Mean (or Average or Arithmetic Mean) is the sum
$ of the values of individual results divided by the number of results Intheset. The mean is given by n
I = (Xg+X2+...X)/"'fX/n n
g jt Measures of Precision with a Set. Standard Deviation is the square root of the quantity (sum of squares of deviations of individual results from the mean, divided by one less than the number of results in the set). The standard deviation, s, is given by:
n
[ (Xg - Y)2 (n-1)
/
s=
i=1 Standard deviation has the same units as the measurement.
It becomes a more reliable expression of precision as n becomes larger. When the measurements are independent and normally distributed, the most useful statistics are the mean for the central value and the standard deviation for the dispersion.
Relative Standard Deviation is the standard deviation expressed as a fraction of the mean, s/7. It is sometimes multiplied by 100 and expressed as a par-centage.
Range is the difference in magnitude between the largest and the smallest results in a set. Instead of a single value, the actual limits are semetimes expressed (minimum value/ maximum value).
)
1 B-3
, _ - - -