ML20138D468

Annual Radiological Environ Surveillance Rept for 1996

ML20138D468
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	12/31/1996
From:	Duffy J VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
BVY-97-55, NUDOCS 9705010131
Download: ML20138D468 (103)

Text

VERMONT YANKEE l

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION q Fen / Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301-7002 ENGINEERINGOFFICE

• 580 MAIN STREET I BOLTON, MA 01740

. )

(508) 779 4 711 April 28,1997 PVY 97-55 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

References:

(a) License No. DPR-28 (Docket No 50-271)

Subject:

1996 Vermont Yankee Annual Radiological Environmental Surveillance Report l Enclosed please find one copy of the subject report for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,  ;

submitted in accordance with Technical Specification 6.7.C.3. This report contains a summary and analysis of the radiological environmental data collected for the calendar year 1996.

We trust that the information provided is acceptable; however should you have any questions, I please contact this office.

Sincerely, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION

//tAf James J. Duffy Licensing Engineer I

c: USNRC Region 1 Administrator I USNRC Resident inspector- VYNPS USNRC Project Manager - VYNPS 9705010131 961231 PDR ADOCK 05000271

.i PDR ogQOkk l.l[l.lL l.l[l.lll .llIl, ,I.I,

,Ill i

l c

x C - . ANNUAL C. hy)s}' RADIOLOGICAL y /.

i

. ENVIRONMENTAL

SURVEILLANCE REPORT

^

\I 4

0 ,

19.gg Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Vernon, Vermont

,M. -

ANNUAL GNy))J 1.I RADIOLOGICAL F . \' ' .3 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE

~

REPORT

^'

e 1

~

1996 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Vernon, Vermont

[

[

{

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION f

ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT January - December 1996 April 1997

[

[

[

[

i

[

[

[ i i

Prepared by:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company

{

Environmental Engineering Department 580 Main Street Bolton, Massachusetts 01740 I

L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ... 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 DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . 6 4.1 Monitoring Zones . .. ........ .... .. . . . . . 7 4.2 Pathways Monitored .... ....... . ..... .. . .. 7 4.3 Descriptions of Monitoring Programs . . .......... . .... . 8

5. RADIOLOGICAL DATA

SUMMARY

TABLES ... . ... . . . . . 26

6. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS . . .. . .. 43 6.1 Sampling Program Deviations ... . . ..... .. 43 6.2 Comparison of Achieved LLDs with Requirements . . 44 6.3 Comparison of Results with Reporting Levels ..... .... . . . 45 6.4 Changes in Sampling locations . . . .. .... . .... . . 45 6.5 Data Analysis by Media Type . .. ... ... . .. . . . . 45

7. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM . . .. ... . .. . . 80 7.1 Intralaboratory Quality Control Program . .. . .. .. ... . 80 7.2 Third Party Intercomparison Program . . . . . . . .. . 81 7.3 Environmental TLD Quality Assurance Program .. .. .. 82 l 7.4 Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program . . . ......... . . ... 83 .

1

8. LAND USE CENSUS . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... .. .. . . 92

9.

SUMMARY

. . . ...... . . . ... .. . ... ...... 94

10. REFERENCES ..... .. .... .. . . . , 95 ii l

L r

LIST OF TABLES Iahin Iills Eage 4.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program .. .. .. . 12 4.2 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Locations (Non-TLD) . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .14 4.3 Radiological Emiromnental Monitoring Locations (TLD) . . ....... ... .... . . . . . . . .16 l 4.4 Environmental Lower Limit of Detection (LLD)

Sensitivity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5 Reporting Levels for Radioactivity Concentrations  ;

in Emironmental Samples . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

(

5.2 Environmental TLD Data Summary ... . . . . .. .. .....40 5.3 Emironmental TLD Measure ~'nts . . . . . . . . . . .41 6.1 Summary of 1996 In Situ Measurements at VYNPS .. .. . .. . . . .53 7.1 Environmental Process Control Analysis Results . . .. . . . . .. . 84 7.2 EPA Intercomparison Analysis Results . . . .. . . 85 7.3 YAEL Analytics Cross Check Results ... .. .. . .. .. .87 7.4 Summary of Blind Duplicate Samples Submitted . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 91 8.1 Land Use Census Locations .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 93 {

l 1

iii I

i l . .

LIST OF FIGURES EiguIn . Title E! ige 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 Particulate Filters . .. .. .. . .54 (Quarterly Averages - Indicator vs. Control) 1 r 6.2 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters .. . . . . . . . .55 i (AP-11 vs. AP-21 Control) l 6.3 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . .56 l

(AP-12 vs. AP-21 Control) l 6.4 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . . . . .. . 57 (AP-13 vs. AP-21 Control) iv I

l

k I

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) l l

Eigun Iilla Eagn I

) 6.5 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters .. . . . . . .. ..58 (AP-14 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.6 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Paniculate Filters . . .. . . . . . .. . 59 (AP-15 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.7 Gross Beta Measurements on River Water .. . .. . . .. . 60 6.8 Gross Beta Measurements on Ground Water .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.9 Cesium-137 in Milk .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . 62 6.10 Strontium-90 in Milk ... .. . .. . . . . . . . . ...... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 63 6.11 Cesium-13 7 in Fish .... . ... . . .. . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.12 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring, Outer Ring and Control TLDs .. . ......... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .65 6.13 Exposure Rate at Indicator TLDs, DR 01-03 . . . . . . . . 66 6.14 Exposure Rate at Indicator TLDs, DR 04, 06, 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.15 Exposure Rate at Site Boundary TLDs, DR 07-08,41-42. . . .68 6.16 Exposure Rate at Site Boundary TLDs, DR 43-46. . . .. . . . .. 69 6.17 Exposure Rate at Site Boundary TLDs, DR 47-49,51 . .. ..70 I

LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Laur.e Iide Eass

6. I 8 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 09-15 (odd) . . . . ...... .. . . . . 71 6.19 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 17-23 (odd) . ... .. .. . .72 6.20 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 25-31 (odd) . . . . 73 6.21 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 33-39 (odd) . . .. . . . 74 6.22 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 10-16 (even) . . .. .. . . . 75 6.23 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 18-24 (even).. . .. ... . .. 76 6.24 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 26-32 (even)... . . . . . . . . . 77 6.25 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 34-40 (even).. .. . . . . 78 6.26 Exposure Rate at Control TLDs, DR-04 & DR-05... .. . . . . . . . , .79 i

) I l

Vi 1

1. INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the fmdings 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 1996. It is submitted annually in 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 environs.

Section 4: Provides a description of the overall REMP program design. Included is a summary of the Techr/ cal Specification requirements for REMP sampling, tables listing all locations sampled or monitored in 1996 with compass sectors and distances from the plant, and maps showing each REMP location. Tables listing Lower Limit of Detection requirements and Reporting Levels are also included.

Section 5: Consists of the summarized data as required by VYNPS Technical Specifications. The tables are in a format similar to that specified by the NRC Radiological i Assessment Branch Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring (Reference 1). Also included is a summary of the 1996 environmental TLD measurements.

Section 6: Pmvides the results of the 1996 monitoring program. The performance of the program in meet ing 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 and Analytics Intercomparison Program.

Section 8: Summarizes the requirements and the results of the 1996 Land Use Census.

{ Section 9: Gives an overall summary of the results of the 1996 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.

f

2. BACKGROUND RADIOACTIVITY Radiation or radioactivity potentially detected in the Vermont Yankee environment can be grouped into three categories. The first is " naturally-occurring" raition and radioactivity.

The second is " man-made" radioactivity from sources other than the Vermont Yankee plant.

The third potential source of radioactivity is due to emissions from the Vermont Yankee plant.

{ For the purposes of the Vermont Yankee REMP, the first two categories are classified as

" 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.

j 2.1 Naturally Occm ring Background Radioactivity 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." " Primordial radioactivity" is made up of those radionuclides that were created with the universe and that have a sutTiciently 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 category are Uranium-238 (U-238), Thorium-232 (Th-232), Rubidium-87 (Rb-87),

Potassium-40 (K-40), Radium-226 (Ra-226), and Radon-222 (Rn-222). Uranium-238 and 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 consequently detectable in most biological substances, including the human body. There are many more primordial radionuclides found in the environment in addition to the major ones discussed above (Reference 2).

The second sub-category of naturally-occurring radiation and radioactivity is "cosmogenic radioactivitv." This is produced through the nuclear interaction of high energy cosmic raolation 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 ice and atmosphere. The major radionuclides in this category are Carbon-14 (C-14),

Hydrogen-3 (H-3 or Tritium), Sodium-22 (Na-22), and Beryllium-7 (Be-7). Beryllium-7 is the f 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

. ___m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

since cows and goats graze large areas of vegetation, these radionuclides are also readily I

detected in milk.

Other potential " man-made" sources of environmental " 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 to the sources discussed above (natural and fallout).

/

4 l

i

3. GENERAL PLANT AND SITE INFORMATION The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station is located in the town of Vernon, Vermont in I Windham County. The 130-acre site is on the west shore of the Connecticut River, immediately upstream of the Vernon Hydroelectric Station. The land is bounded on the north, l south and west by privately-owned land, and on the east by the Connecticut River. The surrounding area is generally rural and lightly populated, and the topography is flat or gently rolling.

Construction of the single 540 megawatt BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) plant began in I 1967. The pre-operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, designed 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 I

I I

i 1

] .

1 I

l 1

5

4. PROGRAM DESIGN 1

The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) was designed with specific objectives in mind. These are:

To provide an early indication of the appearance or accumulation of any radioactive material in the environment caused by the operation of the station.

To provide assurance to regu'atory agencies and the public that the station's environmental impact is known and within anticipated limits.

To verify the adequacy and proper functioning of station effluent controls and monitoring systems.

To provide standby monitoring capability for rapid assessment of risk to the general public in the event of unanticipated or accidental releases of radioactive material.

The program was initiated in 1970, approximately two years before the plant began commercial operation. It has been in operation continuously since that time, with improvements made periodically over those years.

The current program is designed to meet the intent of NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1,

, Programsfor Monitoring Radioactivity in the Em irons ofNuclear Power Plants: 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 TechnicalSpecificationsfor BWR's. The environmental TLD program has been designed and tested around NRC Regulatory Guide 4.13, Performance, Testing andProcedural Spec 01cationsfor Thermoluminescence Dosimetry: Environmental Applications. The quality assurance program is designed around the guidance given in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15, j l

Quality Assurancefor RadiologicalMonitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment.

The minimum sampling requirements of the REMP are given in Technical Specification 3.9.C, and are summarized in Table 4.1 of this report. The identification of the required f sampling locations is given in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), Chapter 4. The )

)

)

f 6 l

complete list oflocations used during 1996 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.

I The Vermont Yankee Chemistry Department conducts the radiological environmental monitoring program and collects all airborne, terrestrial and ground water samples. VYNPS maintains a contract with Normandeau Associates to collect all fish, river water and sediment samples. All analytical measurements of environmental samples are performed at the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL). TLD badges are posted and retrieved by the Vermont Yankee Chemistry Department, and are read out by the YAEL.

4.1 Monitoring Zones 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 calcelations, 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 variations in the natural background.

f 4.2 Pathways Monitored Four pathway categories are monitored by the REMP. They are the airborne, waterborne, ingestion and direct radiation pathways. Each cf 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 f Air Particulate Sampling Charcoal Cartridge (Radiciodine) Sampling 7

)

Waterborne Pathways r

River Water Sampling Ground Water Sampling Sediment Sampling Ingestion Pathways hiilk Sampling Silage Sampling Mixed Grass Sampling Fish Sampling Direct Radiation Pathway l TLD Monitoring 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 Specifications.) The sampling pumps at these locations operate continuously at a flow rate of approximately one cubic foot per minute. Airborne particulates are collected by g par. sing air through a 50 mm glass-fiber filter. A dry gas meter is incorporated into the B 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 paniculate 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.

1 8 I

8 I

J

l 4.3.2 Charcoal Cartridge (Radioiodine) Sampling l

Continuous air samplers are installed at six locations. (Five are required by Technical Specifications.) The sampling pumps at these locations operate continuously at a flow rate of 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 stnicture. These cartridges are collected and analyzed biweekly for I-131.

Whenever the main plant stack eflluent release rate ofI-131 is equal to or greater than 0.1 pCi/sec, weekly charcoal cartridge collection is required, pursuant to Technical Specification 3.9.C.

4.3.3 River Water Sampling An automatic compositing sampler is maintained at the downstream sampling location by the Vermont Yankee Chemistry Depanment staff, and the pump delivering river water to the sampler is maintained by Normandeau Associates. The sampler is controlled by a timer that collects an aliquot ofriver water hourly. An additional grab sample is collected monthly at the upstream control location. All river water samples are preserved with hcl and NaHSO3 to g prevent the plate out of radionuclides on the container walls. Each sample is analyzed for B gamma-emitting radionuclides. Although not required by VYNPS Technical Specifications, a gross-beta analysis is performed on each sample. The monthly composite or grab samples are l composited again (by location) at the YAEL for a quarterly H-3 analysis.

4.3.4 Ground Water Sampling Grab samples are collected quarterly from three indicetor and one control location. (Only one indicator and one control is required by VYNPS Technical Specifications.) All ground 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 and H-3.

Although not required by VYNPS Technical Specifications, a gross-beta analysis is also performed on each sample.

I l s

J

4.3.5 Sediment Sampling River sediment grab samples are collected semiannually from the downriver location and at the North Storm Drain Outfall by Normandeau Associates. Each sample is analyzed at the YAEL for gamma-emitting radionuclides.

4.3.6 Milk Sampling When milk animals are identified as being on pasture feed, milk samples are collected twice per month from that location. Throughout the rest of the year, and for the full year where animals are not on pasture, milk samples are collected on a monthly schedule. Three locations f are chosen as a result of the annual Land Use Census, based on meteorological dispersion calculations. The fourth location is a control, which is located sufliciently far away from the plant to be outside any potentialinfluence from it. Other samples may be collected from

{

locations ofinterest.

Immediately after collection, each milk sample is refrigerated and then typically transponed by courier to the YAEL. Upon receipt at the YAEL, methimazole and formaldehyde are added to the milk to prevent protein binding and spoilage, respectively. Each sample is then analyzed for 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 are also performed on quarterly composited samples.

4.3.7 Silage Sampling Silage samples are collected at the milk sampling location at the time of harvest, if available. 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 silage sample is preserved with NaOH, and is then analyzed at the YAEL for low-level I-131.

[

4.3.8 Mixed Grass Sampling j 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 10

?

l

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 Normandeau Associates. The samples are frozen and delivered to the YAEL where the edible portions are analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides.

4.3.10 TLD Monitoring Direct gamma radiation exposure was continuously monitored with the use of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Specifically, Panasonic UD-801 ASl 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 quarterly, 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 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.

I1

v --- v m . ..

m. .-

TABLE 4.1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (as required by Technical Specification Table 3.9.3)*

I Collection Analysis Exposure Pathway

. Number of Routine Analpis Analysis Sample Media Sample Sampling Collection T3pe Frequency locations Mode Frequencv

1. Direct Radiation (TLDs) 40 Continuous Quarterly Gamma; Outer Ring - Eact TLD de-dose only, unless gaseous release LCO was exceeded

2. Airborne (Particulates and 5 Continuous Semimonthly Particulate Sample:

Radiciodine) Gross Deta Each Sample Gamma Isotopic Quarterly Composite (by location)

Radiciodine Canister-I-131 Each Sample

3. Waterborne

a. Surface Water 2 Downstream: Monthly Camma Isotopic Each Sample Automatic l'ritium (II-3) Quarterly Composite composite.

Upstreant grab.

b. Ground Water 2 Grab Quarterly Gamma Isotopic Each Sample Tritium (11-3) Each Sampic

c. Shoreline Sediment 2 Grab Upstream: Semiannually. Gamma Isotopic Each Sample N. Storm Drain Outfall: As specified in ODCM.

1 12

L_ J W m i M M M M l I TABLE 4.1, cont.

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONhlENTAL hlONITORING PROGRAhl (as required by Technical Specification Table 3.9.3)*

Collection Analysis l

Exposure Pathway and'or Sample Media Nominal Number of Routine Nominal Analysis Analysis Sample Imcations Sampling Collection T3pe Frequency Mode Frequencv

4. Ingestion

a. Milk 4 Grab Monthly Gamma Isotopic Each sample (Semimonthly I-131 Each sample mhen on pasture)

b. Fish 2 Grab Semiannually Gamma Isotopic on Each sample edible portions

c. Vegetation Grass sample I at each air sampling Grab Quarterly when Gamma Isotopic Each sample station available Silage sample I at each milk sampling Grab At harvest Gamma lsotopic Each sample station I

• See Technical Specification Table 3.93 for complete footnotes.

I l

13 l

l l

l 1

I ,

TABLE 4.2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (NON-TLD)IN 1996 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

[

Distance Direction Exposure Station From Plant From Pathway Codc_ Station Descriotion Z0ng (kmT" Plant"*

1. Airbome AP/CF-11 River Sta. No. 3.3 1 1.9 SSE AP/CF-12 N. Hinsdale, NH I 3.6 NNW AP/CF-13 Hinsdale Substation I 3.1 E AP/CF-14 Northfield, MA I i 1.3 SSE AP/CF-15 Tyler Hill Road 1 3.2 WNW AP/CF-21 Spofford Lake - C 16.1 NNE

2. Waterborne

a. Surface W R-11 River Sta. No. 3.3 1 1.9 Down-river WR 21 Rt. 9 Bridge C 12.8 Up-river

b. Ground W G-11 Plant Well 1 -- On-site WG 12 Vernon Nursing Well I 2.0 SSE WG 13 C O B W ell 1 --

On-site WG-14 Test Well 1 --

On-site WG 16 Test Well 1 --

On-site WG-17 Test Well I --

On-site WG 18 Test Well 1 --

On-site WG-22 Skibniowsky Well C 14.3 N

e. Sediment SE-11 Shoreline Downriver 1 0.8 SSE SE-12 North Storm Drain Outfall I 0.15 E

3. Ingestion

a. Milk TM-10 Back Track Farm" I 2.3 S TM-11 Miller Farm I 0.8 WNW TM 14 Brown Farm 1 2.1 S TM-16 Meadow Crest I 4.4 WNW/NW TM-18 Blodgett Fann 1 3.4 SE TM-24 County Fann C 22.5 N 14

{

r

TABLE 4.2, cont.

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (NON-TLD)IN 1996 E

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION I Distance Direction Exposure Station From Plant From Pathway Code.. Station Descrintion Zgng* (kmY" Plant"'

3. Ingestion,(continued)

b. Fish FH-11 Vernon Pond I -- **

FH-21 Rt. 9 Bridge C 12.8 Upriver

c. Mixed Grass TG-11 River Sta. No. 3.3 I 1.9 SSE TG 12 N. Hinsdale, 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

d. Silage TC-11 Miller Farm I 0.8 WNW TC-14 Brown Farm I 2.1 S I 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

• 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.

I # Samples collected at TM-10 from January to March, when it was determined that the farm was out of business.

1 1

15 0

TABLE 4.3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (TLD) IN 1996 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Distance From Direction Station Plant From Code Station Descrintion Zgnq' (kmT" Plant"'

DR-1 River Sta. No. 3.3 I 1.6 SSE DR-2 N. Hinsdale, NH I 3.9 NNW DR3 Hinsdale Substation I 3.0 E DR-4 Northfield, MA C 11.0 SSE DR-5 SpofTord Lake C 16.3 NNE DR-6 Vernon School 1 0.46 WSW DR 7 Site Boundary SB 0.27 W DR 8 Site Baundary*"* SB 0.25 SW DR 9 inner Ring i 2.1 N DR-10 Outer Ring O 4.6 N DR-11 Inner Ring I 2.0 NNE DR-12 Outer Ring O 3.6 NNE DR-13 Inner Ring I 1.4 NE DR-14 Outer Ring O 4.3 hE DR-15 inner Ring i 1.4 E!4E DR-16 Outer Ring O 2.9 EN2 DR-17 Inner Ring i 1.2 E DR-18 Outer Ring O 3.0 E DR-19 inner Ring I 3.5 ESE DR-20 Outer Ring O 5.3 ESE DR-21 Inner Ring 1 1.8 SE DR 22 Outer Ring O 3.2 SE DR-23 Inner Ring I 1.8 SSE DR-24 Outer Ring O 3.9 SSE DR-25 Inner Ring i 2.0 S l DR-26 Outer Ring O 3.7 S DR-27 Inner Ring i 1.0 SSW DR-28 Outer Ring O 2.2 SSW

, DR-29 Inner Ring I 0.7 WSW DR-30 Outer Ring O 2.3 SW l

l 16 I

1

(-

1 1 TABLE 4.3, cont.

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (TLD) IN 1996 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION I Distance Direction Station From Plant From Code Station D-scrintion Zgni (km)"* Plant"*

DR-31 Inner Ring 1 0.8 W DR-32 Outer Ring O 5.0 WSW DR-33 Inner Ring 1 0.9 WNW DR-34 Outer Ring Road O 4.9 W DR-35 inner Ring I 1.4 WNW DR 36 Outer Ring O 4.7 WNW DR 37 Inner Ring I 3.0 NW I DR 38 Outer Ring O 7.7 NW DR-39 inner Ring I 3.2 NNW l DR-40 Outer Ring O 5.8 NNW l DR-41" Site Boundarv SB 0.38 SSW DR-42" Site Boundary S8 0.60 S DR-43" Site Boundary SB 0.42 SSE I 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 1 0.34 SSW DR-51" Site Boundary SB 0.27 W DR-52" Site Boundary SB 0.25 SW I = Inner Ring TLD; O = Outer Ring Incident Response TLD; C = Control TLD; SB = Site Boundary TLD.

" This location is not considered a requirement of Technical Specification Table 3.9.3.

l l ***

Distance and direction 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 location. However, it is averaged as a Site Boundary TLD due to its close proximity to the plant.

I i

17 i 1

W

\ l \ U l' M M M M ' 'M~

I TABLE 4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION (LLD) SENSITIVITY REQUIREMENTS l

1 Airborne Particulates Water or Gases Fish Milk Vegetation Sediment Analysis (pCi/l) (pCi/m3) (pCi/kg) (pCi/l) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg - {

dni Gross-Beta 4 0.01 h3 3000 Mn-54 15 130 Fe-59 30 260 Co-58,60 15 130 Zn-65 30 260 Zr-Nb-95 15 1-131 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 See Technical Specification Table 4.9.3 for explanatory footnotes 18

l J W W W M M M' TABLE 4.5 REPORTING LEVELS FOR RADIOACrlVITY CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES Airborne Particulates Fish Milk Food Product Sediment Analysis W'ater (pCi/l) or Gases (pCi/kg) ( Ci.1) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg-dry)

(pCi/m3)

H-3 20,000*

Mn-54 1000 30,000 Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1000 30,000 Co-60 300 10,000 3000 "

Zn-65 300 20,000 Zr-Nb-95 400 1-131 0.9 3 100 Cs-134 30 10 1000 60 1000 Cs-137 50 29 2000 70 2000 Ba-La-140 200 300 Reporting Level for drinking water pathways. For non-drinking water, a value of 30,000 may be used.

• • Reporting Level for grab samples taken at the North Storm Drain Outfall only.

I l

19 l

i F 0 500 N

- . . - - . . - . . . . . _ . _ . . t uETERs )

i N

O

&p 4

FENCELINE,/N

,' \

/ s l

\ (N, \

TC-11 f

% j,

\,

VERNON POND

)

I Di-11 Q' \

s, I \

\

STACKOs s

'd,SE-12 ,

s t) 1

\g INTAKE I s d WO-13 NG-11 g A rH-11

\

p l DISCHARGE VERNON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL {

I, I

v,AW

, T-14 WT-i6 A A AwT-18

,/ SE-11

/

HINSDALE, NH f} i ,WT-17 g v M

l VERNON, VT O

g 14 CO!DTECTICUT VERNON DAM RISTR E

Figure 4.1 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Uithin Close Proximity to Plant 20

I h

N l

. TG-12 AP/CF-12 #

l ^

/ HINSDALE, NH

~~

TM-16

' A TC-16 l 0 i 4 i

l gsgUEW b TG-15 4 W A Av/cr-is A To-13 l l AP/CF-13 l SEE ENLARGDfENT IN TZCURE 4-1 VERNON DAM u . . . .' ..

ll $ AP/CF-11 l A A To-11 l

l VERNON, VT A TMto M-18 Tc-18 6

I I

O 1 2 3 i LILY POND ratomzns lI Figure 4.2 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations k'ithin 5 Kilometers of Plant

t I )

l ,

N  !

I J {\

l ' %,

6 Of-2 4 TC-24 l l t SPOFFORD LAKE J

TG-21 lAwG-22 A Ar/Cr-21 i

FH-21  ;

HOGBACK O  ;

WR-2' MT.A MARLBORO cHESTERrIELD  ;

O  ? j BRATTLEBORO O SE WNT m nN 4-2 I

I  ; a

/

HINSDALE GUILMRD O o l VERNONO a O p

I I

VERMONT NEW HAMPSHIRE q.

MASSACHUSETTS ll MASSACHUSETTS O NORTHFIELD

= A AP/Cr-14 TG-14 I

I l l

i GREENFIELDO O 5 10 KILOMETERS l

.lE Figure 4.3 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Greater than Five Kilometers from Plant 22

,I i

I I

l 0 500 N

METERS I OO I Oh ,O

&p s

FENCELINE,,

/ 's e'A DR-48'N

,. i 4 's DR-47 A i I ~

\

1. 6 t.

s VERHON POND l l

R-33 \pR-49 's ,

STACK $ ,

's 'N t l I

IICAKE b DR-7 sA - DR-45 I DR-31 A i DR-52 A DR-44 DR-8 A # g'/

DR-6 A \ r , DISCEARGE VERNON ELDE! ARY SCHOOL k i A e4 O DR-4,1 i DR-29 I DR-50 t,DR-43 A,,e DR-42 ~ ~ ,A '/

s VERNON, VT to CONNECTICUT I DR-27 A VERNON DAM i

Figure 4.4 TLD Monitoring Locations in W Close Proximity to Plant 23

I

I 1

I I I '..

/

)

Nw A DR-4o DR-10 NE DR-12 A

DR-14 ~~

A DR-2 A A DR-39 HINSDALE, IG DR-37A DR-9 DR-11 00 A A www

- DR-16 CG

• 1 g DR-35 A

/dDR-15 f[DR-13 WT y- ADR-3 W a A DR-18

% l' A DR-17 E Srr ruuRcExcur zu rzem 4-4 L. /[l . . _ . ._.'

DR-32 i

A DR-21 A DR-19 A A DR-30 A DR-23 ESE wSw A A

.j -

DR-1 VERNON, VT DR-25 A

\

A A DR-24 LILY POND KILOETERS SE SSW S SSE I

Figure 4.5 TLD Monitoring Locations Within 5 Kilometers from Plant 24

.I q Y <

\

[

[

y PCFF020 LME s

8 DR-5 4,

HOGBACK HT. CHESTERFIELD A MARLBOR

[ e le RATTLEBORO G gg N DR-38 A s -

7, n ,,3

[ f - - --

I I

' i

[ i .

cartroRD. l "I"8f^"

g DR-34 A G.ERuott..

- i "CPSTER a l E

j i f 8 DR-20 rr--  !

_ - ,t uEw anesszRz_

n uAssAcausETT ,

r *4, N

( NORTHFIELD d DR-4

[ *' 6 to k,

r 9

s cRzEurzEm .

0 5 to

, , i KILOMETERS Figure 4.6 TLD Monitoring Locations Greater than 5 Kilometers from Plant I

25 1

5. RADIOLOGICAL DATA

SUMMARY

TABLES This section summarizes the analytical results of the environmental samples which were collected during 1996. These results, shown in Table 5.1, are presented in a format similar to that prescribed in the NRC's Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring (Reference 1). The results are ordere i by sample media type and then by radionuclide. The units for each media type are also given.

The left-most column contains the radionuclide ofinterest, the total number of analyses for that radionuclide in 1996, and the number of measurements which exceeded the Reporting l

Levels found in Table 3.9.4 of the VYNPS Technical Specifications. The latter are classified as "Non-routine" measurements. The second column lists the required Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) for those radionuclides which have detection capability requirements as specified in the plant's Radiological Efiluent Technical Specifications (Table 4.9.3). The Asence 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 30-40 percent of the most restrictive required LLD. Occasionally the required LLD is not met.

This is usually due to mrlfunctions in sampling equipment, which results in low sample volume.

Such cases, if any, are addressed in Sectim 6.2.

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 l

the range ofinfluence of the plant and which could be affected by its operation; (2) the station which had the highest mer.n concentration during 1996 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 a posteriori LLD for that analysis having been convened to zero, pursuant to footnote (f) of Technical Specification Table 4.9.3.

The lowest and highest concentration, with all values that are less than the aposteriori LLD having been converted to zero, pursuant to footnote (f) of Technice.1 Specification

{

Table 4.9.3.

[ 26 s

?

Y

l 1

The "No. Detected," is the number of positive measurements, divided by the total number. A measurement is considered positive when the concentration is greater than three times the standard deviation in the concentration.

Each single radioactivity measurement datum in this repon is based on a single measurement and is reported 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 analysis is averaged as a zero. Where a range of values is reported in the tables of this section, values less than the LLD are reported as zero. To be consistent with Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL) reponing practices and normal data review practices used by Vermont Yankee, a " positive measurement" is considered g to be one whose concentration is greater than three times its associated standard deviation, p based on the random uncenainty 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 reported 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 naturally-occurring or man-made; or 3) were of special interest for any other reason. The radionuclides that were routinely analyzed and reponed 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-l 137, Fe-59, I-131, I-133, K-40, Mn-54, 5 :o-99, Np-239, Ru-103, Ru-106, 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 I appear as a " detectable measurement" during 1996.

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 i l

in Table 5.3.

I I i i 27 j l

4

Table 6.1 l Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Vernon, VT (January . December 1996)

I MEDIUM: Air Particulates (AP) UNITS: DCi/ cubic meter Ir.d...c.a.t.o.r. S.t.a.t.io.n.e.... .S.t.a.t.i.o.n W...it.h..High.e.st.Me.a..n..

i RadionucEdee*

Mean Sta. Mean

.. .C.o..n.t.r.o.l.Sta.tio.n..e.

Mean (No. Analysee) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine" LLD No. Detoded"* No. Detected"*

I No. Detected *"

GR4 (166) 0.01 2.os -2 13 2.1s -2 2.03 -2 (c) ( s.5 - 40.3)x -3 ( 1.4 - 3.7)2 -2 ( 1.1 - 3.s)s -2 I (130/ 130) (26/ 26) (25/ 26)

Be.7 (24) 9.65 -2 14 1.o5 -1 9.95 -2 (0) ( 5.3 - 12.9)s -2 ( 7.7 - 12. 9) E -2 ( 7.e - 11.1)s -2 I (20/ 20) (4/ 4) (4/ 4)

Co40 (24) 0.oE o 21 2.2s -4 2.2E -4

• "* ( o.o - e.s): -4 ( o.o - e.g): -4 (0)

I (0/ 20) (0/ 4) (of 4)

Cs.134 (24) 0.05 0.oE o 11 0.0E o 0.oE o (o)

(0/ 20) (o/ 4) (o/ 4)

Cs-137 (24) 0.06 o.cz o 11 o.oz o o.on o (c)

I (0/ 20) (o/ 4) (o/ 4) 1 I

L

[

[

28 h

P

Table 5.9 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Pla't. Vernon, VT (January - December is96)

MEDIUM: CharcoalCartridae (CF) UNITS: oCl/ cubic meter

[N.Y.0.D .b.D D..U.Y.Y..D. h.d.8D.....

Radionuclides

• Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analysee) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine ** LLD No. Detected *" No. Detected"* No. Detected ***

1131 (156) 0.07 o.os 0 11 o.os o o.on o (o)

I (0/ 130) (o/ 26) (0/ 26)

I .

I I

I I

I I

I

[

[

u 29

Table 6.1 Radiological Environmerdal Program Sunwnery Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Vernon, VT (January December 19M)

MEDIUM: RiverWater AVRl UMTS: nCL/ka D.Y.Y..b.U.N... .b.D..D U.D.D.. h.D.Y.$.D.. .

1 Radionuclides

• Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine ** LLD No. Detecter" No. Detecter ** No. Detecter **

GR-B (24) 4 1.es 0 21 2.eE O 2.eE 0 (0) ( 1.5 - 2.3)E o ( 1. 2 - 10. 7) E O ( 1.2 - 10.7)E O (12/ 12) (12/ 12) (12/ 12)

H4 (8) 3000 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O (o)

(0/ 4) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Mn44 (24) 15 0.0E O 11 0.0E o 0.0E O (0)

(0/ 12) (0/ 12)

I Co48 15 0.0E O 0.0E O (0/ 12)

(24) 11 0.0E O (c)

(0/ 12)

I (0/ 12) (0/ 12)

Fe49 (24) 30 0.0E O 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O (a)

I (0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)

Co40 (24) 15 0.0E O 11 0.0E o 0.0E 0 (c) 1 (0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)

Zn46 (24) 30 6.5E -1 11 6.5E -1 0.0E O (0) ( 0.0 - 7.8) E O ( 0.0 - 7.8) E O .*.*

I (0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)

Zr46 (24) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O (c)

I (0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)

Cs.134 (24) 15 0.0E O 11 0.0E o 0.0E 0 (c)

I (0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)

Cs.137 (24) is 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O g (, .... .... ....

(0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)

Ba.144 (24) 15 0.OE O 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 (c)

(0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12) l I l

Table 6.1 Radiological Environmental Progtom Summary Vermont Yarsee Nuclear Powt Plant, Vemon, VT (January. December 1996)

MEDIUM: Ground Water fWG) UNITS: ocl/ka U.N..T..b.M. ..D..D..$D..D .D.Y.8.YD.....

i Radionuclides

• Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Anatyees) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected *" No. Detected *** No. Detected *"

GR-B (14) 4 4.25 0 11 6.6E O 1.5E 0 (0) ( 0.0 - 8.3)E O ( 4.7 - 8.3)E O ( 0.0 - 2.2)E O (9/ 10) (4/ 4) (3/ 4)

H4 (14) 0.0E o 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O p3 .... .... ....

I 15 0.0E O (0/ 10) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Mn44 (14) 11 0.0E O 0.0E O p3 .... .... ....

I (0/ 10) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Co48 (14) 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E o p3 .... .... ....

I (0/ 10) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Fe49 (14) 30 0.0E O 11 0.0E 0 0.0E o p) .... .... ....

I (0/ 10) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Co40 (14) 15 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O p3 .... .... ....

I (0/ 10) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Zn46 (14) 30 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E O p; .... .... ....

I to/ 10) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Zr46 (14) 15 0.05 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E 0 p) .... .... ....

I (0/ 10) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Cs.134 (14) 15 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O l ,,

(0/ 10)

(0/ 4)

(0/ 4)

Cs.137 (14) is 0.0E O 11 0.05 0 0.0E O I p3 ....

(0/ 10)

(0/ 4)

(0/ 4) )

g Ba.14n (14) 15 0.CE O 11 0.0E O 0.05 0 l p3 ....

(0/ 10)

(0/ 4)

(0/ 4)

Ra-226 (4) 4.9E -1 13 1.5E O 0.05 0 l (0) ( 0.0 - 1.5)E O (1/ 3) (1/ 1) (0/ 1) 31 W

Table 5.1 Rad 6ological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Vemon, VT (January . December 1995)

MEDIUM. Sedsvient (SE) UNITS: oCl/ka UN b.D... 8.D..$.T..U.D..D.. .C,g,S,g,,,,,

Radionuclides

• Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. AnaW) Required Range Range Range NwRoutine** LLD No. Detectee" No. Detected *" No. Detectee" go.7 (54) 0.0E O 11 0.05 0 No DATA (0)

(0/ 54) (0/ 2)

K40 (54) 1.3E 4 12 1.3E 4 NO DATA (0) ( 9. 6 - 16. 8) E 3 ( 9. 6 - 16. 8) E 3 (54/ 54) (52/ 52)

Mn44 (54) 0.05 0 11 0.05 0 No DATA go) .... ....

'I (0/ 54) (0/ 2)

Co45 (54) 0.05 0 11 0.0E O NO DATA I go) ....

(0/ 54)

(0/ 2)

Co40 (54) 0.01 0 11 0.0E o NO DATA

'I (0)

(0/ 54) (0/ 2)

Zn45 (54) 0.0E O 11 0.0E O NO DATA I (0)

(0/ 54)

(0/ 2)

Cs 134 (54) 150 0.05 0 0.0E o NO DATA I

11 go) .... ....

(0/ 54) (0/ 2)

I Cs-137 (54) 180 1.2E 2 12 1.2E 2 NO DATA l

(0) ( 0.0 - 2.7) E 2 ( 0.0 - 2.7) E 2 (47/ 54) (46/ 52)

I Th-232 (54) 9.6E 2 12 9.65 2 NO DATA (0) ( 3. 5 - 12. 6) E 2 ( 6.7 - 12. 6) E 2 I (54/ 54) (52/ 52)

I l l

I 32 I

_ _ - - _ - - - - - - - )

Table 8.1 Radiological Environmerdal Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January . December 1996)

MEDIUM: Milk (TM) UNITS: oCWho

??.T.*.t. r..St.".T.'... 8.t*Le..W.?..H,g,ed,,gan,, ,g,9,yjStg,s,,,,,

Radionuckles* Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine ** LLD No. Detected"* No. DetecteW" No. Detector" K.40 (93) 1.4E 3 14 1.4E 3 1.3E 3 l

(0) ( e.s - 16.0)E 2 ( 1.3 - 1.5)E 3 ( 1.2 - 1.5)E 3 (75/ 75) (18/ 18) (18/ 18)

Sr49 (20) 0.0E 0 10 0.0E O 0.OE o (0)

I Sr40 (20) 2.9E -1 (0/ 16) 14 1.2E O (0/ 1) 0.OE 0 (0/ 4)

(0) ( 0.0 - 2.4)E O ( 0.0 - 2.4)E O ....

I 1131 (93) 1 0.0E 0 (2/ 16) 10 0.0E O (2/ 4) 0.0E O (0/ 4)

(0)

I Cs.134 (93) 15 0.0E O (0/ 75) 10 0.0E 0 (0/ 3) 0.0E O (0/ 1s)

(0)

I 18 0.0E o (0/ 75) (0/ 3) (0/ 13)

Cs.137 (93) 10 0.0E 0 0.0E 0 I

(0)

(0/ 75) (0/ 3) (0/ 13)

Ba.140 (93) 15 0.0E O 10 0.0E O 0.0E O I

(0)

(0/ 75) (0/ 3) (0/ Is)

I I

E l

33 u

Table 6.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January December 1996)

MEDIUM: Silaae (TC) UNITS: oCl/ka

!a!.Tr..St.=2*. .??e..T..H,y,p,,ge,, gg,o[,S,ta,gs,,,,,

Radionuclides

• Mean Sta. Moen Mean (No. Anatyees) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected ~* No. Detecter" No. Detecte&**

Be-7 (6) 4.e5 2 14 1.4E 3 o.oE o (0) ( o.o - 1.4)E 3 (2/ 4) (1/ 1) (o/ 1)

K 40 (6) 3.3E 3 16 3.6E 3 3.3E 3 I (0) ( 3.2 - 3.5)E 3 (4/ 4) (1/ 1) (1/ 1) 1131 (6) 60 o.oE o 11 0.oE o o.oE o I

(0)

(0/ 4) (o/ 1) (0/ 1)

Cs-134 (6) 60 0.oE o 11 o.oE o o.oE o I

(0)

(0/ 4) (0/ 1) (o/ 1)

Cs-137 (6) 80 0.oE o 11 0.0E o o.oE o I go) ....

(0/ 4) (o/ 1) (o/ 1)

Ba.140 (6) 0.oE o 11 o.oE o 0.oE o I go) ....

(o/ 4) (0/ 1) (o/ 1)

I l

E 34 W

I Table 6.1 l

Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plan (, Vernon, VT f (January -December itM) l l

ueDiuu: uin.d orama (roi unirs: ociina

!ad.e.a'.8.2!* 8l$a..W9..H,gg,lgan,, Cg,of,S,ta}gs,,,,,

Radionuclides

• Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected *** No. Detected"* No. Detected"*

Be 7 (18) 1.SE 3 11 2.5E 3 8.13 2 (0) ( 0.0 - 4.1)E 3 ( 0.0 - 4.1)E 3 ( 2.0 - 16.0)E 2 (11/ 15) (2/ 3) (3/ 3)

! K 40 (18) 6.6E 3 14 9.3E 3 6.4E 3 I

(0) ( 3. 6 - 16. 9) E 3 ( 5.1 - 16.s)E 3 ( 5.4 - 7.s)E 3 ,

(15/ 15) (3/ 3) (3/ 3) l l-131 (18) 60 0.OE O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O I (0)

Cs.134 (18) 60 0.0E o (0/ 15) 11 0.08 0 (0/ 3) 0.05 0 (0/ 3)

I i

g (0) g (0/ 15) (0/ 3) (0/ 3) cs.137 (1s) *'s 6.72 0 12 3.1E 1 0.05 0 j

( 0.0 - 9.3)E 1 ( 0.0 - 9.3)E 1 ****

(0) l (1/ 15) (1/ 3) (0/ 3)

I I l I

I i i

1 il m

lI I

l Table 5.1

! Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January . December 1996)

MEDIUM. Fish (FH) UNITS: DCl/kG I Radionuclides *

(No. Analyses)

.Ind.ic.a.b..r..S.t.a.t.i.o.n.s Mean Required Range

.S.t.a.t.io..n..W...it.h..H..igh.e.s..t.M..e.a..n..

Sta. Mean Range

.. .C.o..n.t.r.o.l.S..ta..ti.o.n..s.....

Mean Range Non Routine" LLD No. Detected *" No. Detected"* No. Detected *"

l l K 40 (4) 2.95 3 11 2.9E 3 2.2E 3 Jo) ( 2.8 - 3.0)E 3 ( 2.8 - 3.0)E 3 ( t.9 - 2.5)E 3 (2/ 2) (2/ 2) (2/ 2)

Mn44 (4) 130 0.oE o 11 0.0x o o.oE o (c) l (0/ 2) (o/ 2) (o/ 2)

Co48 (4) 130 0.1E o 11 0.oE o 0.oE o

=*" "" +"*

(c)

I (o/ 2) (o/ 2) (0/ 2) l Fe49 250 0.os 0 0.oz o

(

(4) 11 0.oz o go)

(0/ 2) (0/ 2) (0/ 2)

Co40 (4) 13o 0.oE o 11 0.0E o 0.oE o go) .... .... ....

l l (o/ 2) (o/ 2) (o/ 2) i i

Zn46 (4) 260 o.oz o 11 o.cz o o.cz o go) .... .... ....

(o/ 2) (0/ 2) (o/ 2) 1 l Cs-134 (4) 130 0.0E o 11 0.os o o.0s o l go) .... .... ....

(o/ 2) (0/ 2) (o/ 2) )

I Cs-137 (4) 150 0.0s o 11 0.cz o o.cz o 1 lI go) ....

(o/ 2)

(0/ 2)

(o/ 2)

, I 1

E j 36

l l

l Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January December 1008)

I I MEDIUM: Storm Drain Water (WW) UNITS: oCilka I Radionuclides

• d.Y.T b.D.

Mean

.b.N..D.T.."D.D Sta. Mean C,g,S,g,,,,,

Mean (No. Analysee) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected ** No. Detected *" NO. Detected *"

OR 8 (18) 3.4E O 12 4.3E O No DATA I (0) ( 1.4 - 10.2)E O ( 2.1 - 10.2)E O (le/ 18) (s/ s) l H4 (17) s.03 1 10 1.1E 2 No DATA (0) ( 0.0 - 1.4)E 3 ( 0.0 - 1.4)E 3 l (1/ 17) (1/ 12) l l Mn44 (14) 0.0E O 10 0.0E O NO DATA lg go; .... ....

jg (0/ 14) (0/ 12)

Co48 (14) 0.0E O 10 c.0E O No DATA l- go; .u. ....

l (0/ 14) (0/ 12)

Fe4e (14) 0.08 0 10 0.05 0 No DATA l go) .... ....

(0/ 14) (0/ 12)

I i Co40 (14) 0.0E O 10 0.05 0 NO DATA go) .... ....

l (0/ 14) (0/ 12) l 0.0E O Zn46 (14) 0.0E O 10 No DATA go; .... ....

l (0/ 14) (0/ 12)

Zr46 0.05 0 0.0E O NO DATA I

(14) 10 go) .... ....

(0/ 14) (0/ 12)

Cs.134 (14) 0.0E 0 10 0.0E O NO DATA (0)

(0/ 14) (0/ 12)

'E Cs.137 (14) 0.02 0 10 0.OE O NO DATA g go) .... ....

(0/ 14) (0/ 12)

Ba-140 (14) 0.0E 0 10 0.OE O NO DATA go) .... ....

(0/ 14) (0/ 12) 37 lI l

Table 6.1 j Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Vernon, VT i (January . December iets) )

MEDIUM: Test Well (WTl UNITS: oCilka 1

l

.in..d.ic..a.t.o.r

. S.t.a.t.io.n.s.... .S.t.a.t.io.n

. W...a.h..H..igh.e.s.t M..e.a..n.. C.o..n.t.r.o.l.S..ta.tio.n..s..... i

,I

.. . .. \

l Radionuclides

• Mm Sta. Mean Mean l t

l (NO. Analyses) Required Range Range Range l Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected"* No. Detecter" No. Detector" I

( GR.8 (4) 4 1.EE 1 14 1.95 1 NO DATA (c) ( 1.3 - 1. 9) E 1 (4/ 4) (1/ 1) l H-3 (4) 3000 0.0E o 14 0.0E O NO DATA (c) l (0/ 4) (0/ 1)

Mn44 (4) 15 0.0E o 14 0.0E O NO DATA go) ....

I, (0/ 4) (0/ 1)

Co48 (4) is 0.05 0 14 0.0E O NO DATA ig (0) lg (0/ 4) (0/ 1)

Fe48 (4) 30 0.05 0 14 0.0E O NO DATA l (c)

(0/ 4) (0/ 1) l C040 (4) 15 0.0E o 14 0.05 0 NO DATA (o) l (0/ 4) (0/ 11 j Zn45 30 0.0E 0 14 0.0E 0 No DATA i

(4) l

• "* l to)

(0/ 4) (0/ 1) l

( Zr46 (4) 15 0.05 0 14 0.05 0 No DATA  !

l (c)  !

! (0/ 4) (0/ 1) )

1 Cs-134 (4) 15 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA '

(c) l (0/ 4) (0/ 1) l Cs.137 (4) is 0.0E o 14 0.0L 0 No DATA (o)

(0/ 4) (0/ 1) j Ba.140 (4) 15 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA

.... 1 l (a) i (0/ 4) (0/ 1) 38 i

l l

Footnotes to Table 5.1:

The only radionuclides reported sa this table are those with LLD requirements, those for which positive radioactivity was detected, and those that were of sorne other special iraerest. See Section 5 of this report for a discussion of other radionuclides that were analyzed.

Non-Routine refers to those radionuclides that exceeded the Reporting Levels in Technical Specification Table 3.9.4.

'the fraction ofsample analyses yielding detectable measurements (i.e. the concentration is greater than three times its standard deviation) is shown in I parentheses.

"" Range is not displayed if all the concentration values were converted to zero pursuant to footnote f of Technical Specification Table 4.9.3.

I l

l I

I I

I I

I I

I 1

l l l I

( I 39

_I

1 TABLE 5.2 ENYlRONMENTALTLD DATA

SUMMARY

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, \T (JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996)

Of7 SITE STATION INNER RING TLD OUTER RING TLD WITil!!!Gi!EST MEAN CONTROL TLDs MEAN* MEAN* STA.NO. MEAN* MEAN*

RANGE *' RANGE

• RANGE

• RANGE *

(NO. MEASUREhENT5f' (NO. MEASUREhENT5P* (NO hEASUREhENT57* (NO hiEASUREMENTSP' 6.6

• 0.4 6.7

• 0.8 DR-36 8.1

• 0.7 6.4* 03 5.7 - 7.4 5.4 8.8 7.28.8 6.1 - 7.0 (67) (67) (4) (8)

SITE BOUNDARY TLD WITilIIIGIIEST MEAN SITE BOUNDARY TLD

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

( STA.NO. MEAN* MEAN*

RANGE

• RANGE *

(NO. MEASUREhENT5f * (NO MEASUREhENTS)**

(

DR-t$ 11.0

• 0.4 8.0

• 1.2 10.5 -11.3 5.9 113 (4) (52)

• Units are in micro-R per hour.

" Each

• measurement"is based )pically on quarterly readings from five TLD clements.

[

[

[

40 I

L

TABLE S.3 ENVIRONh!ENTALTLD h!EASUREh!ENTS 1996 (hlicro-R per llour)

ANNUAL Sta. IST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TII QUARTER AVE.

No. Description EXP. S.D. EXP. S.D. EXP. S.D. EXP. S.D. EXP.

DR-01 River Sta. No. 33 5.8*03 6.1

• 0.2 6.4

• 0.4 5.7

• 0.2 6.0 DR-02 N. liinsdale, NII 5.5

• 0.2 6.4

• 0.2 6.8

• 0.5 6.1*03 6.2 DR-03 Ilinsdale Substation 7.0

• 0.4 7.6*03 7.8

• 0.5 7.0

• 0.2 7.4 DR-04 Northfield, MA 6.1*03 6.4

• 0.4 6.5

• 0.4 6.1*03 63 DR-05 Spoirord Lake, Nil 6.1*03 6.6

• 0.2 7.0

• 0.5 63 *0.3 6.5 1 DR-06 Vernon School 6.0* 03 6.9

• 0.4 6.9

• 0.4 6.6*03 6.6 DR-07 Site Boundary 73 *0.4 83 *03 8.2

• 0.5 7.5*03 7.8 DR-08 Site Boundary 7.6

• 0.4 8.1

• 0.4 8.2

• 0.4 7.2*03 7.8 DR-09 Inner Ring 5.7*03 63 *0.3 6.5

• 0.4 63 *03 1 DR-10 Outer Ring 5.4

• 0.2 5.4*03 5.5*03 5.5*03 6.2 5.5 DR-1 I Inner Ring 5.9

• 0.4 6.0

• 0.2 6.0

• 0.4 5.7

• 0.2 5.9 DR-12 Outer Ring 5.5

• 0.5 5.7* 03 5.8* 03 5.9

• 0.5 5.7 DR-13 Inner Ring 6.1*03 63 *0.2 6.6

• 0.4 6.2

• 0.2 63 DR-14 Outer Ring 7.0

• 0.4 7.5*03 7.7

• 0.5 73 *0.4 7.4 DR-15 Inner Ring 6.6*03 6.5*03 7.0

• 0.5 6.5

• 0.2 6.7 DR 16 Outer Ring 7.1*03 6.8

• 0.4 7.2

• 0.6 7.2* 03 1 DR-17 inner Ring 5.9

• 0.5 63 *0.2 6.7

• 0.4 5.9*03 7.1 6.2 DR18 Outer Ring 6.5

• 0.5 6.6

• 0.2 6.7

• 0.5 6.5

• 0.4 6.6 DR-19 Inner Ring 6.1

• 0.4 6.9*03 7.2

• 0.5 6.7

• 0.4 6.7 1 DR-20 Outer Ring 6.2*03 7.5*03 7.9

• 0.5 7.2*03 7.2 DR-21 Inner Ring 6.5*03 7.1*03 73 *0.5 7.2

• 0.7 7.0 DR-22 Outer Ring 6.2* 03 6.7

• 0.2 7.1

• 0.4

• 6.7 DR-23 Inner Ring 63 *03 6.5

• 0.2 7 i

• 0.5 63

• 03 6.6 DR 24 Outer Ring 5.5*03 5.9*03 5.9

• 0.4 6.1

• 0.2 5.9 DR 25 Inner Ring 6.2

• 0.3 6.5

• 0.2 6.9

• 0.5 6.1

• 0.2 6.4 DR 26 Outer Ring 5.6*03 6.9

• 0.4 73 *0.6 6.6

• 0.2 6.6 m DR-27 Inner Ring 5.9

• 0.4 6.8*03 7.1

• 0.4 6.4

• 0.2 6.6 DR 28 Outer Ring 5.8

• 0.4 6.9*03 7.0

• 0.5 6.4

• 0.2 6.5 DR-29 Inner Ring 6.1

• 0.2 6.9*03 7.0

• 0.5

• 6.7 1 DR 30 Outer Ring DR-31 Inner Ring 6.1*03 6.2*03 7.0* 03 6.9* 03 7.1

• 0.5 7.4

• 0.5 6.5*03 6.7

• 0.4 6.7 6.8 DR-32 Outer Ring 6.0*03 6.5*03 6.9

• 0.5 6.7

• 0.6 6.5 DR-33 Inner Ring 6.4*03 6.9

• 0.2 7.1

• 0.4 6.7*03 6.8

= DR-34 Outer Ring 6.2*03 7.4

• 0.4 7.6

• 0.5 6.8* 03 7.0 DR 35 Inner Ring 6.4*03 7.0*03 6.9

• 0.4 6.6

• 0.2 6.7 DR-36 Outer Ring 7.2*03 83 *03 8.8

• 0.5 7.9*03 8.1 1 DR-37 Inner Ring DR 38 Outer Ring 5.9*03 63 *03 6.8

• 0.4 7.5*03 6.9

• 0.5 7.6

• 0.5 6.6*03 7.0

• 0.2 6.6 7.1 l DR-39 Inner Ring 6.5*03 6.9*03 6.9

• 0.5 6.6*03 6.7 DR 40 Outer Ring 6.6

• 0.2 6.7

• 0.5 l 6.1

• 0.4 6.6*03 6.5 I i i

W

1 TABLE $3, continued ENVIRONhlENTALTLD h!EASUREhlENTS 1996 (hticro-R per flour)

ANNUAL Sta. IST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4Tl! QUARTER AVE.

No. Description EXP. S.D. EXP. S.D. EXP. S.D. EXP. S.D. EXP.

DR-41 Site Boundary 6.7*03 7.8*03 8.1

• 0.4 7.0

• 0.4 7.4 DR42 Site Boundary 6.2*03 7.1

• 0.4 7.5

• 0.4 6.7* 03 6.9 DR 43 Site Boundary 6.5*03 7.8*03 7.6

• 0.5 6.9* 03 7.2 DR 44 Site Boundary 83

• 0.4 8.6*03 8.1

• 0.5 7.1*03 8.0 DR-45 Site Boundary 113

• 0.6 113

• 0.8 10.9

• 0.9 10.5

• 0.5 11.0 J

DR.46 Cite Boundary 9.0

• O 4 9.5

• 0.5 9.5

• 0.6 8.6* 03 9.2 3

DR-47 Site Boundary 7.2*03 83 *03 8.4

• 0.5 7.8*03 7.9 DR-48 Site Boundary -63 *03 73 *0.4 7.4

• 0.4 7.0* 03 7.0 DR-49 Site Boundary 5.9

• 0.2 6.8

• 0.4 6.9

• 0.6 6.5*03 6.5 DR 50 GovernoriluntIfouse 6.8*03 7.2*03 7.2

• 0.6 6.7*03 7.0 DR51 Site Boundary B.0

• 0.4 8.6*03 8.4

• 0.5 7.6*03 8.2 DR-52 Site Boundary 8.7

• 0.5 9.0*03 8.9

• 0.5 7.8*03 8.6

[

' Data not available dus to missing TLDs.

[

[

[

[

[

42 F

L

6. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS 6.1 Sampling Program Deviations b Radiological Efiluent 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 1996, 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 1996 were:

a. Air was not sampled for approximately two hours during the period June 13 to June 14 at air sampling station AP/CF-11, River Station. The cause was a circuit breaker trip during an electrical storm.

b. Air was not sampled during the period October 8 to October 22 for 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> at air sampling station AP/CF-11, River Station due to a failed sampling pump.

c. Air was not sampled during the period June 4 to June 18 for approximately 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> at air sampling station AP/CF-14, Northfield. The cause was a power outage during an electrical storm.

d. During the sample period December 3 to December 17 there were widespread power outages due to heavy wet snow. The following locations were without power for the approximate times indicated.

AP/CF-11 River Station No. 3.3 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> AP/CF-12 North Hinsdale 27 hours3.125e-4 days <br />0.0075 hours <br />4.464286e-5 weeks <br />1.02735e-5 months <br /> AP/CF-13 Hinsdale Substation 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> AP/CF-15 Tyler Hill Road 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> AP/CF-21 Spofford Lake 21 hours2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br />

e. The fc!!owing missed sampling occurred at WR 11 - Downstream River compositor location.

1) Approximately 120 hourly river water aliquots were not collected between January 30 and February 5. The cause is thought to have been a frozen sample line from the river to the compositor.

43 s

=~

k

2) Intermittent pump operation caused approximately 73 missed hourly samples from Febmary 15 to February 24, when the pump failed completely. The pump .

and part of the sample line from the river, which had cracked, were replaced.

This work, resulting in an additional loss of 100 hourly samples, was completed

( on February 28.

3) The pump was out of service on about April 27, caused by high levels of silt

( clogging the pump. Because of the high riven water level during this period, the replacement of the pump was delayed until May 29. Daily grab samples were collected and composited during the time the pump was out of service.

4) Two hourly samples were missed during the period June 13 to June 14 due to loss of power during electrical storms. The breaker was reset to restore power.

5) Eighteen hourly samples were mi;. ed during the period July 16 to July 17, likely due to the build up of silt which clogged the pump.

6) Approximately 80 hourly samples were missed during the period December 3 to

{

December 17 due to widespread power outages caused by wet, heavy snow.

(' f. Vegetation samples were not available for collection at the air sampling locations during the first and fourth quarter of 1996. Samples were collected early in the fourth quaner but were not within the surveillance interval tolerance specified by VYNPS procedure.

g. The following two TLD's were missing for the fourth quarter,1996: 1) the TLD from the outer ring location DR-22 and 2) the TLD from the inner ring location DR-29 were found to be missing on January 2,1997. Both TLDs were posted on telephone poles

(. which were replaced.

h. Three milk samples were collected from TM-10, Back Track Farm during 1996

{_

because the farm went out of business in April,1996. No silage samples were collected during 1996 at TM-10. See additional detailsin Section 6.4.

6.2 Comparison of Achieved L.LDs with Requirements 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 occasion, an LLD is not achievable due to a situation such as a low sample volume caused by sampling equipment malfunction. In such a case, Technical Specification 6.7.C.3 requires a

( discussion of the situation. At the YAEL, the target LLD for any analysis is typically 30-40

( 44 L

1 percent of the most restrictive required LLD. Expressed differently, the typical sensitivities achieved for each analysis are at least 2.5 to 3 times greater than that required by VYNPS Technical Specifications.

For each analysis having an LLD requirement in Technical Specification Table 4.9.3, the l aposteriori(afler the fact) LLD calculated for that analysis was compared with the required LLD. Of the more than 1300 analyses that had an LLD requirement in Technical Specification Table 4.9.3, all met the requirement.

6.3 Comparison of Results with Reporting Levels Technical Specification Table 3.9.4 requires written notification to the NRC (within 30 days) whenever a Reporting Level in that table is exceeded. Reporting Levels are the environmental concentrations that relate to the ALARA design dose objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. It should be noted that environmental concentrations are averaged over calendar 1 quarters for the purposes of this comparison, and that Reporting Levels apply only to measured levels ofradioactivity due to plant effluents. During 1996, no Reporting Levels were exceeded.

l 6.4 Changes in Sampling Locations 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 identified in the next annual Radiological Environmental Surveillance Report." In April,1996, Back Track Farm was determined to have gone out of business, resulting in the loss of this location as milk sampling station TM/TC-10. The Miller Farm, TM/fC-11, which was already part of the REMP, became one of the Technical Specification required sampling I locations in place of the Back Track Farm.

6.5 Data Analysis by Media Type 1

The 1996 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 J 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

[ 45 m

W

'= _ _ _ ~ - _ - - - - _ - - - _

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."

6.5.1 Airborne Pathways 6.5.1.1 Air Particulates The bi-weekly air particulate filters from each of the six sampling sites were analyzed for 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 concentraticn in the second quarter, and the maximum concentration in the first quarter.

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 indisidual 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.

f .

The only other radionuclide detected on air particulate filters was Be-7, a naturally-occurring cosmogenic radionuclide.

1 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.

46 I~

I

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-11 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 all samples, as would be expected, due to naturally-occurring radionuclides in the water. For 1996, the mean concentration of the indicator locations was lower than the control location. The mean concentration for the control station fnr the first semiannual period was higher than previous years, as shown in Figure 6.7. The control sample for week 24 had a gross beta concentration of 10.7 0.6 pCi/kg resulting from the presence of suspended solids co'ntaining naturally occurring radioactivity in the water. This sample was filtered through a 0.45 micron Tuffryn membrane filter. The filtered water gross beta activity was reduced to 6.5 *0.5 pCi/kg and the solids were analyzed for gamma emitting radionuclides. No gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in this sample. The mean concentration for the second semiannual period returned to levels seen in previous years.

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 1996. In the second half of 1996, WG-13 was added as an on-site well location. Table 5.1 and Figure 6.8 show that gross-beta measurements were positive in twelve out of fourteen samples. This is due to naturally-occurring radionuclides in the water. The levels at all sampling locations, j 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.

A Ra-226 analysis was done on each ground water sample in 1996. The results, shown in Table 5.1, show that only one indicator sample from WG-13 had statistically positive activity of this naturally occurring radionuclide at 1.5

• 0.2 pCi/kg.

i 47

6.5.2.3 Sediment Semiannual =ediment grab samples were collected from two indicator locations during 1996. As would be expected, naturally-occurring K-40 and Th-232 were detected in all samples.

)

Cs-137 was detected in most indicator samples. The levels of Cs-137 measured at both locations were consistent aith 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 Yankee-afliliated environmental monitoring programs.

No other plant related radionuclides were detected at either station SE-11 or SE-12.

6.5.2.4 Storm Drains l During 1996, grab samples of water were collected from the on-site storm drain system at Vermont Yankee. Twelve monthly samples were collected from the South Storm Drain (WW-10) and five samples from the North Storm Drain (WW-12). No gamma emitting radionuclides were detected in the samples.

All samples were submitted for H-3 analysis with one result at WW-10 for January showing a detectable H-3 concentration of 1356

• 245 pCi/kg. Since the start of sampling at this

( station in 1993, detectable levels of H-3 have sometimes been observed. As in the previous years, e comparison of this concentration to the off-site non-drinking water Reporting Level for H-3 of 30,000 pCi/kg can be used to put the H-3 levels into perspective. No H-3 was

[ detected in the remainder of the 1996 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 6,1996 from WW-12 had a gross-beta concentration of 10.2

• 0.6 pCi/kg. This higher concentration was most likely due to naturally occurring radionuclides contained in the visible suspended solids in the sample.

After filtering through a 0.45 micron Whatman filter paper, the resulting concentration was lowered to 4.7

• 0.5 pCi/kg.

48 1

s W

6.5.2.4 Test Wells During 1996 test wells were established around the outer edges of an area in the south portion of the VYNPS site where septic sludge was spread. The test welllocations are shown on Figure 4.1 and the results are summarized in Table 5.1 under the media category, Test Well (WT). One sample was taken at each of the four locations and all were analyzed for gamma isotopic, gross beta and H-3 activity. No gamma emitting radionuclides or H-3 were detected.

Prior to the gross beta analysis, each sample was filtered through a 0.45 micron Gelman Tuffiyn membrane filter. Gross Beta activity was detected in all samples with levels ranging from 13.3 to 19.3 pCi/kg.

6.5.3 Ingestion Pathways 6.5.3.1 Milk Milk samples from cows or goats at severallocal farms were collected monthly during 1996. 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 expected, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. Also expected were Cs-137 and Sr-90. Cs-137 was not detected in any of the 75 indicator samples or the 18 I control samples. Sr-90 was detected in 2 out of 16 indicator samples. Although Sr-90 is a by-product of plant operations, the levels detected in milk are consistent with that expected from worldwide fallout from nuclear weapons tests, and to a much lesser degree from fallout from the Chernobyl incident. This radionuclide and Cs-137 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 are found in soil and vegetation, as well as anything that feeds upon vegetation, directly or indirectly. The Cs-137 and Sr-90 levels chown in Table j 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 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 49 h

significant or not.

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.

It should be noted in Figures 6.9 and 6.10 that the plot for TM-16 includes data from several dairy farms, alllocated 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 two of the five samples.

6.5.3.3 Mixed Grass Mixed grass samples were collected at each of the air sampling stations on three occasions during 1996. As expected with all biological media, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. Naturally-occurring Be-7 was also detected in eleven out of eighteen samples.

Cs-137 was detected in one indicator sample (93.4

• 27 pCi/kg at station TG-12 on August 14, 1996). Although Cs-137 is a by-product of plant operations, the levels detected in 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. 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-afliliated environmental monitoring programs.

50

l 6.5.3.4 Fish j Semiannual samples of fish were collected from two locations in May/ June and October, l 1996. The species collected were smallmouth bass and largemouth bass at both locations (FH-11 and FH-21) and white sucker, pickerel and walleye at FH-11. 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 not detected in any of the samples. It should be noted that the 1996 Cs-137 concentrations plotted in Figure 6.11 are considercJ "not detectable" All values were plotted regardless of whether they were considered statistically significant or not. The Cs-137 levels plotted for previous years are typical of concentrations attributable 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 l Yankee plant with the use of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). These are collected every calendar quarter for readout at the YAEL. The complete summary of data may be found in Table 5.3.

i From Tables 5.2 and 5.3 and Figure 6.12, it can be seen that the Inner and Outer Ring TLD mean exposure rates were not significantly different in 1996. 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 l radionuclides in the soil. Differing amounts of these naturally-occurring radionuclides in the underlying soil, rock or nearby building materials result in different radiation levels between l g one field site and another. )

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 4 l 51 l

]

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.

6.5.5 In-Situ Sun ey During October 1996, in-situ measurements were performed at the six air sampling locations g surrounding the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. These locations are listed in Table 3 4.2 of this report. A portable high purity germanium detector (HPGe) and associated nuclear instmmentation were used in conjunction with a PC and gamma data reduction software to quantify naturally occurring and plant related radionuclides. A Reuter Stokes High Pressure Ionization Chamber (HPIC) was used to measure the direct radiation exposure.

Table 6.1 shows the exposure rate in uR/hr for the HPGe measurements for the naturally I

occurring and fallout radionuclides detected, a total HPGe terrestrial exposure rate and the HPIC terrestrial exposure rate. The HPIC measurement includes a terrestrial and a cosmic component. For the purpose of comparing the results of the two measurement techniques, the cosmic component has been subtracted from the HPIC measurement. The cosmic component ranged from 3.59 to 3.78 uR/hr depending on the altitude of the particular site. The results in Table 6.1 indicate that most of the exposure is due to naturally occurring K-40 and Th-232, I followed by naturally occurring U-238. Small, residual levels of Cs-137 from atmospheric weapons testing adds a small amount (less than 1%) to the total exposure rate at each location.

I I

i 1

l 2

I

L_J WM~6 Table 6.1 Summary of 1996 In Situ Measurements at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Location HPGe in-situ Net +- Isigma (uRJhr)

HPGe HPIC K-40 Cs-137 Th-232 U-238 Terrestrial Terrestrial Sta ll- River Station 1.50 +- 0.09 0.0011 +-0.0016 1.63 +-0.01 1.03 +-0.10 4.17 +- 0.17 4.57 +- 0.35 Sta 12 - N. Hinsdale, NH 1.51 +- 0.09 0.0187 +-0.0022 l 1.44 +- O.I 2 0.90 +- 0.08 3.87 +- 0.I7 not available Sta 13 - N. Hinsdale Substation 1.83 +-0.08 0.0171 +-0.0020 1.85 +- 0.10 1.07 +- 0.07 4.78 +- 0.15 5.98 +- 0.35 l

Sta 14 - Northfield, MA 1.62 +- 0.09 0.0038 +-0.0018 1.57 +- 0.11 0.99 +- 0.09 4.18 +- 0.17 4.21 +- 0.34 i Sta 15 -Tyler Hill Road 2.00 +- O.10 0.0142 +- 0.0023 2.57 +- O. I 2 1.29 +- 0.10 5.86 +- 0.I8 5.97 +- 0.28 Sta 21 - Spofford Lake 2.18 +-0.11 0.0043 +- 0.0017 2.01 +- 0.13 0.99 +- 0.08 5.18 +- 0.19 4.8 +- 0.39 l l

\

53 1

I

FIGURE 6.1 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS QUARTERLY AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS

( 0.16 0.16 0.12- -0.12

~

lii

$ 0.08- -0.08

.h

[ R  :

0.04- -0.04 R kW #ssB%se 0 . , ,

, . , . , . , 0 1/1/86 1/1/88 1/1/90 1/1/92 1/1/94 1/1/96

--e- Indicator Stations

-x- Control Station l

l 54

L FIGURE 6.2 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS I

0.06 _

0.06 b

0.05 -0.05

[ lii 0.04 -0.04 i

[ o 25 0.03-

-0 8 _ l .03

$ x. ,

y;

[  : ,

" 0.02 - .x-

.x. -0.02

.x ~*

0.01 -

_ 0.01 b 0' . . , . . , . ,

, . . O Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan 1996 ,

--c-- AP-11 River Station No. 3.3 ,

x- AP-21 Spofford Lake, NH 55 L

~

u

~ j i

1

~

FIGURE 6.3 l l

l GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS

]

^

ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 0.06 l 0.05 -0.05

]  :

jij 0.04i x -0.04 e

J E 0

l l

Zi 0.03- g -0.03

.x .-

8  : . '  :

8  :

-0.02

- " 0.02 -- 'x . -

ia X - -

l l - 0.01 l 0.01 -[

L O'

. , . . , . . , . . 'O Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan

~

1996 I -e- AP-12 N. Hinsdale, NH x- AP-21 Spofford Lake, NH I

i I

I

.I

I .

I

I I

l FIGURE 6.4 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS l ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06

~

-0.05

.05]

' 0.04 g 0.04i e  :

O -

LO.03 l f'}

d 0

X .

y:

0.02

, , , -0.02 i< X ,y'

'X

- 0.01 0.01 i I 0 - - . , ,

, . . 0 l

Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan 1996

-e- AP-13 Hinsdale Substation (

I x- AP-21 Spofford Lake, NH 1

lI ,

I

!I '

57 ll I

I l l

L l FIGURE 6.5 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS I ON AIR PARTICUI. ATE FILTERS l l 0.06 0.06 g 0.05 -- -0.05 g 0.04 -0.04 E _

O -

O.03 - g -0.03 0.02- '. ..

0.02 I

x-

-0.01 I O.01 5 g O' . . , . .

. . , . . 0 )

Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan 3

1996

--e- AP-14 Northfield, MA I x- AP-21 Spofford Lake, NH I

I -

lI I 58

I

'I

FIGURE 6.6 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 _

0.06 0.05 -0.05 1 .

g 0.04 - 0.04 I E .

~

$ 0.03i x

-0.03 8

1 .5 y_

0.02 'x' ..x' ,

- 0.02

• - 0.01 0.01 {

1  :

O' . .

i . . , , . , . . ~0 Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan 1996 1

--c- AP-15 Tyler Hill Road x- AP-21 Spofford Lake, NH

'l

{ 59 w

FIGURE 6.7 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON RIVER WATER SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 16 16 14 -14 12 -12 10i -10 Bi -8 I 6ca.

Si

-6 4 -4 2 p_ _g , m

-2 0'...,. ,,,,.,...,...,...i...i... ... 0 l 1/1/88 1/1/89 1/1/90 1/1/91 1/1/92 1/1/93 1/1/94 1/1/95 1/1/96 1/1/97 I -e- WR-11 River Station No. 3.3 I e WR-21 Rt.9 Bridge l

I I J I

60

(

l I

FIGURE 6.8 l

l GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON GROUND WATER SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS j

I 16 16 14 -14 12{ -12 102 -10 cn -

hc. 8j 78

-6 j 6 .

~^

lI ^i /\

W

~

i ll

~

0 , ,

, . 0 l

1/1/87 1/1/89 1/1/91 1/1/93 1/1/95 1/1/97 lI

-e- WG-11 Plant Well A WG-12 Vemon Nursing Well

-*- WG-13 COB Well I -x- WG-21 Brattleboro CC l t WG-22 Skibniowsky Well l

I

!I 61 I

l I

l L

FIGURE 6.9 CESIUM-137 IN MILK E ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 1

20 20 15 -15 10 -10 m -

5 -

R  :

5- -5 v v r 9 -w -0 0_

l -5 i

i i .

4

-5 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

--o- TM-10 Back Tracks Farm (cow)

-o- TM 11 Miller (cow)

A TM-14 Brown (cow) e TM-16 Meadow Crest Farm (cow)

--v- TM-18 Blodgett Farm (cow) x TM-24 County Farm (control) 62

)

l l l

! FIGURE 6.10 l

\

1- l STRONTIUM 90IN MILK l ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS l 10 10 8- -8 I l

6- -6 cn .

b .

l S - 1 r

1 4_ _4 A

" " -2 2- v .

i l

l 0 i

i i

T -

i 0 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

-e- TM-10 Back Tracks Farm (cow) i

-o- TM-11 Miller (cow)

A TM-14 Brown (cow)

I e TM 16 Meadow Crest Farm (cow)

+ TM-18 Blodgett Farm (cow) x TM-24 County Farm (control)

I

63 l

l

[

[

FIGURE 6.11

( CESIUM- 137 IN FISH ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 140 140 120 -120 100 -100 80 -80

[ $  :

R -

60- -60 40- -40 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Year

[

E FH-11 Vemon Pond b C FH-21 Rt. 9 Bridge (Control) 64 r

3

i- 4 r

l g FIGURE 6.12 b EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING, OUTER RING AND CONTROLTLDS r

l 20 20 l _

l .

1 -

w I $

x 10-6  :

-10 l

l 5-sp, -

_Q -5

E O

...i...i.. i...i...i 0 l 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 l' Retrieval Date .

-e- Control e Inner Ring

-x- Outer Ring i

I

.I I

il

I l

l FIGURE 6.13 1 EXPOSURE RATE AT INDICATOR TLDS, DR 01-03 l 20 20 g  :

15 -15 I-2

$ ~

10- -10

~

6 1

5 --

Pv .

-5 I 0 O . . .

i . . .

i i

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date r, DR-01 River Station No. 3.3

-x- DR-02 North Hinsda!s, NH g e DR-03 Hinsdale Substation

!3 lI I

66 I

FIGURE 6.14 EXPOSURE RATE AT INDICATOR TLDS, DR 06,50 20 20 15- -15 l

~

~

S E [ .

i. f 10-

~

-10 l $

5- -5 I _

0 . . .

i . . .

i 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date

-e- DR-06 Vemon School

, . . _ .m_e_e I

'I )

m

FGURE 6.15 EXPOSURE RATE AT SITE BOUNDARY TLDS, DR 07- 08,41 -42 20 20 1

15- -15 8

l x -

10 -10 e  :

E -

l

% -5 i

5- -

4 0 . . .

i

....,... ..,,0 '

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date

-e- DR-07 Site Boundary

{

x DR-08 Site Boundaary o DR-41 Site Boundary e DR-42 Site Boundary 1

68 f

L

FIGURE 6.16 EXPOSURE RATE AT SITE BOUNDARY TLDS, DR 43 -46 60 60 50- -50

- 40- -40 8

I -

u E 30- -30 x

b 5 20- -20 10- -10 l

l 0 . . .

i . . .

i i

i 0 1 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date

-e- DR-43 Site Boundary

-x- DR-44 Site Boundary e DR-45 Site Boundary  ;

-o- DR-46 Site Boundary 69 l

FIGURE 6.17 EXPOSURE RATE AT SITE BOUNDARY TLDS, DR 47 - 49, 51-52 20 20 15- -15 E

10- -10 6 u y

x

-x--

5- -5 0 . . . , . . , . . . , . . .

i

. . . , 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date

)

-e- DR-47 Site Boundary

-x- DR-48 Site Boundary e DR-49 Site Boundary i

- o-- DR-51 Site Boundary

-e- DR-52 Site Boundary 70 f

(

FIGURE 6.18 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 09 - 15 (Odd) 20 20 15- -15 Ei 10- -10 8  :

5-kn: s  % rrM

~

-5 m

0 ...,...i. .,.. ,...i 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date

--c-- DR-09 inner Ring x DR-11 inner Ring A DR 13 inner Ring l

-o- DR-15 inner Ring l

71 I

L I

k FIGURE 6.19 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 17 - 23 (Odd) 20 20 e

15- -15 Ei

10- -10 4 ~

5-

~

/ -5 0 . . .

i

. . . , . . . , . . . , 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date

-e- DR 17 inner Ring x DR-19 inner Ring 4 DR-21 inner Ring

-o-- DR-23 inner Ring l

72 r

4

l I

l FIGURE 6.20 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 25 - 31 (Odd) 20 i 20

~

l

- l 15- -15 l

8 -

7 10- -10 e

o -

[ %9o .

'u =~t-

-5 I

5-1

. l 0 . . .

i . . .

i i . . .

i i 0 l I

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date

--e- DR-25 inner Ring x DR-27 inner Ring e DR 29 inner Ring i

o DR-31 Inner Ring

~ .J 73 l

l

FIGURE 6.21 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 33 - 39 (Odd) 20 20 15- -15 w .

8 x -

10- -10

- # ~

.9 f

[ w '. Y6 -

5- -5 0 . . . , . . .

i 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date

-e- DR-33 innor Ring

-x- DR-35 inner Ring e DR-37 Inner Ring

(

-o- DR-39 Inner Ring f 74 i

FIGURE 6.22 EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 10 -16 (Even) 1 20 20 15- -15  !

5 -

$w .'

-10 f10-'

k -

o -

~

G G O v G G 4 5- -5 0 . . .

i i 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date G DR-10 Outer Ring x DR-12 Outer Ring e DR-14 Outer Ring

-o- DR-16 Outer Ring 1

75 t

l J

1

l l

FIGURE 6.23 EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 18 - 24 (Even) 20 20 1

15 --

-15 m

S .

I k jo_ -10 5 ~

l 5  : 6 g y4aq

~

%o v o

-5 I

~

0 . . . , . . .

s I

' O 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date

--c- DR-18 Outer Ring

+ DR-20 Outer Ring e DR-22 Outer Ring

--o- DR-24 Outer Ring I

I

>e g

II l

FIGURE 6.24 EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 26 - 32 (Even)

%r

, 20 20

) .

15- -15

> y -

5

, o. 10- -10 ct h

5-

~

o48 3

-5 0 . . .

i . . . ... ...i 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date a DR-26 Outer Ring x DR-28 Outer Ring 4 DR-30 Outer Ring

-o- DR-32 Outer Ring r

77

(

0

FIGURE 6.25 EXPOSURE RATE AT OlRER RING TLDS, DR 34 - 40 (Even) j 20 20

~

15- -15 i

g .

i -

' -10 10-

~

h E

0 f

Dv v v v 0 v v I

5- -5 0 . . .

. .,,0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieva!.Date

--e- DR-34 Outer Ring

-x-- DR-36 Outer Ring e DR-38 Outer Ring

r-- DR-40 Outer Ring

{

( n L

FIGURE 6.26 EXPOSURE RATE AT CONTROLTLD DR 04-05

, 20 20 t-15- -15 s

I u .

g 10- -10 o -

i' 5- -5

~

\

0 . . .

i 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Retrieval Date

-e- DR-04 Northfield, MA

-x- DR-05 Spofford Lake, NH s

L

7. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM The quality assurance program at the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory 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 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 control, as part of the quality assurance program, provides a means to control and measure the characteristics ofmeasurement equipment and processes, relative to established requirements.

The Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory employs a comprehensive quality assurance program designed to monitor the quality of analytical processing to ensure reliable environmental monitoring data. The program includes the use of approved and controlled procedures for all work activities, a nonconformance and corrective action tracking system, systematic internal audits, audits by external groups, a laboratory quality control program, and a staff training and retraining system. Monitoring programs include the Intralaboratory '

Quality Control Program administered by the Laboratory QA Officer (used in conjunction s vith the National Institute Standards and Technology's Measurement Assurance Progra s NIST MAP) and third party interlaboratory programs administered by the EPA and Analytics, Inc.

Together these programs are targeted to supply QC/QA sources at 5% of the routine sample analysis load. In addition the Laboratory Quality Control Audit Committee conducts a blind ,

duplicate quality assurance program.

7.1 Intralaboratory Quality Control Program The Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory conducts an extensive int:alaboratory quality control program to assure the validity and reliability of environmental analytical data.

Process check samples are either samples submitted in duplicate to evaluate the precision of the measurements or are " spiked" with a known quantity of radioactive material to assess the bias in the measurement. The program is administered by the Laboratory QA Officer. A summary of the program process check results may be found in Table 7.1. For each of the three results falling in category 4 of the Bias Criteria, the mean bias for the set was within

• 15% and no further action was required.

80

7.2 Third Party Intercomparison Program To further verify the accuracy and precision of the Laboratory analyses the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory participates in two independent third parties intercomparison programs. At the end of 1995 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stopped its EnvironmentalIntercomparison Studies Program. To replace the mix of radionuclides and matrices which comprised this one program the Laboratory now panicipates in two third party programs, the U.S. EPA Performance Evaluation Study for radionuclides in water and the Analytics Inc. Environmental Cross Check Program for radionuclides in milk, water and on air filters. Panicipation in such programs and the reporting of results in this report is pursuant to l Vermont Yankee ODCM section 4.1 and Technical Specification 4.9.E.

Each semple supplied by the EPA or Analytics is analyzed in triplicate and the results are returned to the EPA or Analytics within a specified time frame. When the known values are i returned to the Laboratory, the results are evaluated against specific Laboratory acceptance criteria and the EPA results are also evaluated against the EPA control limits. When the results of the cross-check analysis fall outside of the acceptance criteria or control limit, an I

investigation is initiated to determine the cause of the problem and if appropriate, corrective measures are taken.

For the EPA Intercomparison Program,26 sample sets in a water matrix were analyzed.

The analyses included gamma-emitting radionuclides, gross alpha, gross-beta, Sr-89, Sr-90, low level I-131, tritium (H-3), Ra-226, Ra-228 and Natural Uranium. Table 7.2 provides a summary of the results for 1996.

One result did not fall within the EPA control limits and is described below:

• The mean value for Gross Alpha in water (Reference date 7/19/96) of 10.82 pCi/L failed to fall within the EPA control limits of 13.8 - 35 pCi/L. An investigation was conducted (YLCAR IG-02-96) which indicated that the deposition of solids during processing was the likely root of the problem (EL 608/96). Subsequent processing of an EPA gross alpha set ( Reference date 10/25/96) and a process check set (Reference date 01/22/97) yielded a mean bias of +1.6% and -2.9%, respectively. The Laboratory )

is continuing to investigate the development of a mass correction curve, l I

l 81

For the Analytics Inc. Cross Check Program,18 sample sets in water, milk and air filter matrices were analyzed. The analyses included gamma-emitting radionuclides, gross alpha, gross-beta, Sr-89, Sr-90, low level I-131, tritium (H-3), Ra-226, Ra-228 and Natural Uranium.

Table 7.3 provides a summary of the results for 1996.

The Analytics results which failed to meet the criteria for acceptance are discussed below.

YAEL Inquiry 3-96 was issued in response to the failure of the results for Mn-54 and Fe-59 in sample set E0717-162 (Reference date 2nd quarter,1996) to meet the acceptance criteria of *15%. The investigation determined that the root cause was difTerences in the filter spiking techniques used at the Laboratory and Analytics (EL 522/96 and EL 614/96). A mixed gamma filter calibration source was purchased and used to set up a calibration curve for the Analytics filter geometry.

The mean bias was re-evaluated for all nuclides and was found to be +2.9%. No further action is considered necessary.

The reported mean bias for the gross beta on air filter set E0902-162 failed to meet the criteria for agreement of *15%. 17. CAR IG06-97 was issued on 3/18/97.

7.3 Environmental TLD Quality _ssurance Program Performance documentation of the routine processing of the Panasonic environmental TLDs (thermoluminescent dosimeter) program at the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory is provided by the dosimetry quality assurance testing program.. This program includes the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, independent third party performance testing by Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs and internal performance testing conducted by the Laboratory Quality Assurance Officer. Under these programs, dosimeters are irradiated to ANSI specified testing criteria and submitted for processing to the Dosimetry Services Group as " unknowns" The bias and precision of TLD processing is measured against tHs standard and is used to indicate trends and changes in performance. Instrumentation t

checks, although routinely performed by the Dosimetry Services Group and representing l

between 5-10% of the TLDs processed, are not presented in this report because they do not represent a tme process check sample since the doses are known to the processor.

l The YAEL processed 3232 environmental TLDs during 1996. Ninety-six independent performance tests were conducted. Of these 96 TLDs,72 were submitted by the Dosimetry 82 l

1

performance tests were conducted. Of these 96 TLDs,72 were submitted by the Dosimetry QA Oflicer and 24 were submitted as part of Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories testing program. All of these, or 100% met the acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision with an average bias during the first half of 1996 of 0.7*2.6 and -3.8 5.0 during the second half of 1996.

7.4 Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program The Laboratory Quality Control Audit Committee (LQCAC)is comprised of one member from each of the five sponsor power plants that are serviced by the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory. Two of the primary functions of the LQCAC are to conduct an annual audit of Laboratory operations and to coordinate the Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program. Under the Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance 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 Laboratory for analysis. They are " blind" in that the identification of the matching sample is not identified to the Laboratory. The LQCAC analyzes the results of the paired analyses to evaluate precision in Laboratory measurements.

Forty-nine paired samples were submitted under this program by the five participating plants during 1996. Paired measurements were evaluated for twenty-five gamma emitting radionuclides, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, I-131, Ra-226 and gross-beta. All measurements are evaluated, whether the results are statistically positive or not, and whether the net concentration is positive or negative. Of he 1283 paired measurements evaluated in 1996, 1273 (99.2%) fell within the established acceptance criteria. Only one of the ten measurements falling outside the acceptance is considered to have statistically positive gross beta activity and is being addressed by the Laboratory as corrective action YLCAR IG07-97.

The samples submitted through this program are listed in Table 7.4.

I

\

83 I

,ll I;l jl 1 l l I 1 1 4

s 3 I 6 o 1 '. '

t 1 s* 5

' 01 a y51 r = ir 3 o=

g =<i te

< d r

)

2

(

te<d a dn nanC e a Ca i

r e

n o%%0 a%ids t t _

4 5 2 I i 05 u i

r _

4 5 1

7 1

7 8 is>

i c

> 1 > O e

C. r P1 234 2 y- - - -

b yyvy G-i a roo r r r oo r ir g g g g S P te e e E li l irt ateata tea Y

I R

9 2

2 1

6 4 1 0 CCCCC 1 6 7 nn nn n B O S G iooiiiooo s s s s is T i iiii c

E e rce rce rc e rc 1

LY UR A T r PPPPP e

SO C ET 2

)

RA SR N T ll l

!I l

l N 1

(

I S OlE Y Bh ~

LAE 6 1 1 X 1 A LR9 NL U91 I 1 1 3 1 S .

AA A LT R NlE E O EhB 4

I. Rl 7

E ThDM NNNE

. L OOA,EC B CRI AD 3 4 3 2 2 6 A SVI -

1 T S EN DY g C ElERA 3

O C a,U

- RI L PN I

LOR JA SN d

)

1

(

ATE I

l i

r 5 4 8 4 2 3 1 4 T AIT ER i t

e 2 1 1 2

r 5EC C 2 A KE 1

s a

NNC i OAN B _

R YA I T V P 2 7 3 0 4 1

6 2 l

i I

N E 4 9 2 1 7 8

~

E C 1 C

A 1 _

6

. 5 y?

• 1 g r5 o 0 = a 1 in li 1 I i l iI 11 11 I g r l I  !

< i e an R e <= <d t

=

u ad n tn o Cnd aC s n e r

a io t

s J a

i a

t i

i D 'O a. 'a. 0%d i s e o 1 t u

o e

I L

lp p

t e m S b

y> $> > Ou d t a r a A B a /

0 e (

m iu n a t  :

a s m e u tn m e

- D_

i r a m

m l

Vir t

a t

lk m e m dn a

i r s e o s s

o m n d o it i

r a di a tr ir u e m m m g

n a

ir a

e I 234 0

1 i

a d a e t r i t

- - = -

i G i B iG I o i a o G G G I R S T e G R_

ir Cyyvs u

q A N W S n d s r r s oo o o r r e i

e J e i r_ f s a g g g g o e o s -

ly e e e n I

I I

l l V. V. i e

s e a iDtatea ta ta y I I lm u

g a

co n t

nCCCC e s s s s a

r m h

t n P fJ c ri a a a a i PeDHIiii l e l o l i l t a

a c ta o

[I I ll l lI I f ~

i 5e f [

r e o P T i S

LI m

u )

1 ~

(

T ll l'

Table 7.2 Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory 1996 EPA Intercomparison Program LOWER UPPER ~

REFERENCE E-LAB CONTROL CONTROL MKUDE MEDIA DATE MEAN* LIMIT

• _UMIT*

Co-60 Water 10/17/95 47.36 40.3 57.7 Cs 134 Water 10/17/95 36.96 31.3 48.7 Cs-137 Water 10/17/95 29.86 21.3 38 7 Nat. U Water 10/17/95 26.5 21.8 32.2 Ra-226 Water 10/17/95 26 I 8.4 31.2 Ra-228 Water 10/17/95 21.1 11.7 29.7 Sr-89 Water 10/17/95 22.53 11.3 28.7 Sr-90 Water 10/17/95 9.74 1.3 18.7 Ba-133 Water iI/03/95 94.1 81.7 116.3 Co-60 Water i I/03/95 58.77 51.3 68.7 Cs-134 Water 11/03/95 36.55 31.3 48.7 Cs-137 Water I1/03/95 50.77 40.3 57.7 Sr-89 Water 01/23 S 6 79.2 64.3 81.7 Sr-90 Water 01/23/96 4.65 0 13.7 Zn45 Water 11/03/95 126.6 102.4 147.6 H-3 Water 03/08/96 23429.8 18185.1 25818.9 Co-60 Water 04/16/96 31.4 22.3 39.7 Cs-134 Water 04/16/96 43.03 37.3 54.7 Cs-137 Water 04/16/96 49.02 41.3 58.7 Nat. U Water 04/16/96 55.47 48.3 68.5 Ra-226 Water 04/16/96 3.6 2.1 3.9 Ra-228 Water 04/16/96 5.14 2.7 7.3 Sr-89 Water 04/16/96 46.07 34.3 51.7 Sr-90 Water 04/16/96 14.73 7.3 24.7 Ba-133 Water 06/07/96 734.63 614.9 875.1 i Co-60 Water 06/07/96 95.99 90.3 107.7 Cs-134 Water 06/07/96 76.35 70.3 87.7 Cs-137 Water 06/07/96 198.1 179.7 214.3 Zn-65 Water 06/07/96 303.43 248 352 Nat U Water 06/21/96 19.02 15 25.4 Ra-226 W ater 06/21/96 5.39 3.7 6I ira-228 Water 06/21/96 8.07 5 13 I

• Units in pCi/ Liter i 85

?

Table 7.2, continued la Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory 1996 EPA Intercomparison Program LOWER UPPER REFERENCE E-LAB CONTROL CONTROL NUCUDE MEDIA DATE MEAN* LIMIT

• LIMIT

• Sr-89 Water 07/12/96 24.37- 16.3 33.7 Sr-90 Water 07/1266 11.92 3.3 20.7 Alpha Water 07/19/96 10 82 13.8 35 Beta Water 07/19/96 40.53 36.1 53.5 H-3 Water 08/09/96 10227.8 8991.4 12766.6 Nat. U Water 09/27/96 9.68 4.9 15.3 Ra-226 Water 09/27/96 13.22 10.4 17.6 Ra-228 Water 09/27/96 6.24 2.6 6.8 I-131LL Water 10/04 S 6 28.24 16.6 37.4 Co-60 Water 10/15/96 13.71 6.3 23.7 Cs-134 Water 10/15/96 18.99 11.3 28.7 Cs-137 Water 10/1566 30.02 21.3 38.7 3

Nat. U Water 10/1566 38.74 33.8 48-Ra-226 Water 10/15/96 9.07 7.3 12.5 Ra-228 Water 10/1566 6.67 2.8 7.4 Sr-89 Water 10/15/96 11.8 1.3 18.7 Sr-90 Water 10/15/96 22.93 16.3 33.7 Alpha Water 10/25/96 10.47 1.6 19 Beta Water 10/25/96 34.6 -28.2 47.2 Ba 133 Water 11/08/96 60.94 53.6 74.4 Co-60 Water 11/08/96 43.68 35.3 52.7 Cs-134 - Water 11/08/96 10.65 2.3 19.7 Cs-137 Water 11/08/96 '19.74 10.3 27.7 Zn-65 Water 11/08/96 34.46 26.3 43.7 Nat U Water 12/06/96 4.71 0 10.2 f ' a-226 R Water 12/06/96 18.62 14.9 25.3 Ra-228 Water 12/06/96 10.5 5.7 14.7

• Unitsin pCi/ Liter 86 I

Table 7.3 J

YAEL 1996 ANALYTICS CROSS-CIIECK RESULTS a-Sample: E0642-162 Quarter: 1st,1996 E0645-162 Sr89/90 Media: Milk Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics Cr-51 875 858 1.02 Agreement Mn-54 88 84 1.05 Agreement Co-58 132 128 1.03 Agreement Fe-59 235 223 1.05 Agreement Co-60 207 204 1.01 Agreement Zn-65 267 260 1.03 Agreement Sr-89 35 31 1.13 Agreement Sr-90 17 16 1.06 Agreement 1-131 11 13 0.85 Agreement I-131LL i 1.8 13 0.91 Agreement Cs-134 155 154 1.01 Agreement i

Cs-137 170 170 1 Agreement Ce-141 237 234 1.01 Agreement Sample: E0643-162 Quarter: 1st,1996 E0641 162 Alpha / Beta E0644-162 RaAJ

( Media: Water Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Anabtics Alpha 12 10 1.2 Agreement Beta 118 107 1.03 Agreement Cr-51 -328 322 1.02 Agreement Mn-54 30 31 0.97 Agreement Co-58 48 48 i Agreement

{ Fe-59 85 83 1.02 Agreement Co 60 73 76 0.96 Agreement Zn-65 90 97 0.93 Agreement I-131 34 36 0.94 Agreement Cs-111 55 58 0.95 Agreement Cs-137 63 64 0.98 Agreement Cc-141 88 88 l Agreement

{ Ra-226 68 70 0.97 Agreement

! Ra-228 49 49 1 Agreement  ;

j U-234 40 40 1 Agreement  !

l U-238 42 41 1.02 Agreement l

[_ - .I 87

l Table 7.3 continued j YAEL 1995 ANtLYTICS CROSS-CHECK RESULTS l

Sample: E0717162 Quaner: 2nd,1996 E0716-162 Alpha / Beta E0719-162 Sr89/90 Media: Air Filter Units: pCi/ Filter Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics Alpha 41 40 1.03 Agreement Beta 185 179 1.03 Agreement Cr-51 1071 953 1.12 Agreement Mn-54 597 508 1.18 Non-Agreement Co-58 176 157 1.12 Agreement Fe-59 151 131 1.15 Non-Agreement Co-60 153 142 1.08 Agreement Zn-65 110 98 1.12 Agreement Sr-89 <MDC 44 pCi/ Filter Sr-90 57 64 0.89 Agreement Cs-134 281 282 1 Agreement Cs-137 797 694 1.15 Agreement Cc-141 380 363 1.05 Agreement Sample: E0718-162 Quarters 2nd,1996 E0720-162 Media: Milk Units: pCi/L Water 11-3 Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics H3 4580 4915 0.93 Agreement K-40 1350 1269 1.06 Agreement Cr-51 581 563 1.03 Agreement l Mn-54 311 300 1.04 Agreement Co-58 93 93 l Agreement Fe-59 82 77 1.06 Agreement Co-60 84 84 i Agreement

Zn-65 53 58 0.91 Agreement l i

1-131 16 , 15 1.07 Agreement ji Cs-134 167 166 1.01 Agreement f Cs-137 409 410 1 Agreement Ce-141 219 215 1.02 Agreement l i  !

88 1

Table 7.3 continued YAEL 1996 ANALYTICS CROSS-CHECK RESULTS Sample: E0818-162 Quader: 3rd,1996 E0820-162 Sr89/90 Media: Milk Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analvtics Cr-Si 514 486 1.06 Agreement Mn-54 189 180 1.05 Agreement Co-58 132 131 1.01 Agreement Fe-59 40.8 37 1.1 Agreement Co-60 118 114 1.04 Agreement Zn-65 73 70 1.04 Agreement f Sr-89 54 50 1.08 Agreement Sr-90 22 22 1 Agrectnent 1-131 24.5 24 1.02 Agreement Cs-134 226 222 1.02 Agreement Cs-137 176 169 1.04 Agreement Cc-141 325 318 1.02 Agreement

{ Sample: E0819-162 Quaner: 3rd,1996 E0817-162 Alpha / Beta E0821 162 Sr89/90 Media: Water -

Units: pCi/L Ratio '

Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation

h. Value Value Analvties Alpha 77 74 1.04 Agreement Beta 77 70 1.1 Agreement

{ Cr-51 650 646 1.01 Agreement Mn-54 248 239 1.04 Agreement r Co-58 172 174 0.99 Agreement L Fe-59 51 50 1.02 Agreement Co-60 155 151 1.03 Agreement Zn-65 98 93 1.05 Agreement

(' Sr-89 St-90 47 36 40 35 1.18 Agreement 1.03 Agreement 1-131 49 50 0.98 Agreement Cs-134 299 295 1.01 Agreement

{ Cs-137 226 225 1 Agreement Ce-141 420 423 0.99 Agreement 89

Table 7.3 Continued YAEL 1996 ANALY11CS CROSS-CHECK RESULTS SampleAdedia E0901-162 Milk Quarter: 4th,1996 E0902-162 Filter Sr-89,90 f E0903-162 Water i1-3 Units: pCi/L pCi/ Filter Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Anahtics Alpha 75 80 0.94 Agreement Beta 199 170 1.17 Non-Agreement H-3 2440 2686 0.91 Agreement Cr-51 202 214 0.94 Agreement

{ Mn-54 217 206 1.05 Agreement Co-58 120 121 0.99 Agreement

[ Fe-59 52 49 1.06 Agreement t Co-60 113 110 .

1.03 Agreement Zn-65 94  !

93 1.01 Agreement Sr-89 102 96 1.06 Agreement Sr-90 72 77 0.94 Agreement 1-131 65 59 1.10 Agreement I-13 iLL 56 59 0.95 Agreement Cs-134 168 175 0.96 Agreement Cs-137 194 195 0.99 Agreement Ce-141 278 277 1.00 Agreement I

{ -

[

[

[

1

[ l

[

90 l

u

(

TABLE 7.4

(

SUMMARY

OF BLIND DUPLICATE SAMPLES SUBMITTED January - December 1996 TYPE OF SAMPLE NUMBER OF PAIRED

( SAMPLES SUBMITTED Cow Milk 21 Ground Water 6 Surface Water 15

( Irish Moss 2 Mussels 4

( Food Product - Cranberries i TOTAL 49

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

91 s

I

8. LAND USE CENSUS 1

VYNPS Technical Specification 3/4.9.D requires that a Land Use Census be conducted annually between the dates of June 1 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 I 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 1996 Land Use Census was conducted in accordance with the above Technical Specifications.

Following the collection of field data and in compliance with Technical Specification 6.7.C.l.b, a dosimetric analysis is performed to compare the census locations to the " critical 1 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 Efiluent Release Report for that period. A re-evaluation of the I critical receptor would also be done at that time. For the 1996 Census, no such locations were identified.

I Pursuant to Technical Specification 3.9.D.2, a dosimetric analysis is performed, using site j specific meteorological data, to determine which milk animallocations 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 I sampling program in replacement of the location with the lowest calculated dose (which is l eliminated from the program). For the 1996 Census, one such location was identified in the NE sector. This location is not capable of providing regular milk samples to the REMP and has therefore not been added as a new location.

l l The results of the 1996 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.

t l I I

92

TABLE 8.1 1996 LAND USE CENSUS LOCATIONSa b

SECTOR NEAREST RESIDENCE NEAREST MILK ANIMAL Km (Mi) Km (Mi)

N 1.6 (1.0) ---

NNE 1.6 (1.0) 5.8 (3.6) Cows NE 1.1 (0.7) 3.4 (2.1) Cows ENE 1.0 (0.6) ----

E 1.0 (0.6) ----

b ESE 2.7 (1.7) ----

SE 1.8 (1.1) 3.4 (2.1) Cows SSE 2.1 (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 1.3 (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.

[

[ l 93

l

9.

SUMMARY

During 1996, as in all previous years of plant operation, a program was conducted to assess the levels of radiation or radioactivity in the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station environment. Over 750 samples were collected (including TLDs) over the course of the year, l

B with a total of over 3000 radionuclide or exposure rate analyses being performed 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.

I 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 of K-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 l 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 I 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.

I I

I I

I I

94 I

a

[

10. REFERENCES

[

1. USNRC Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program," Revision 1, November 1979.

{

2. NCRP Repost No. 94, Exposure of the Population in the United States and Canada from NaturalBackgroundRadiation, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements,1987.

3. Ioni:ingRadiation: SourcesandBiologicalEffects, 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 b Commission, Washington, D.C.,1983.

[

[

[

l 1

[

[

[ i

[ 95 r

l W