ML20206A265
| ML20206A265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1998 |
| From: | Sen G VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| BVY-99-60, NUDOCS 9904280115 | |
| Download: ML20206A265 (101) | |
Text
v.
VERMONT YANKEE
"@ NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION 185 Old Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301 7002 (802) 257-5271 April 22,1999 BVY 99-60 j 1
l J
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATrN: Document Control Desk ,
Washington, DC 20555 !
I
Subject:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) 1998 Vermont Yankee Annual Radioloeical Environmental Surveillance Report Attached 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 1998.
We tmst that the information provided is acceptable; however, should you have any questions, please contact Mr. David P. Ratch at 802-258-5500.
Sincerely, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION Jovuulw g au W Sen /
Licensing Manager
/f Attachment cc: USNRC Region 1 Administrator USNRC Resident Inspector- VYNPS USNRC Project Manager - VYNPS Vermont Department of Public Service Vermont Division of Occupational and Radiological Health (3
4 1'4 03
~
9904290115 981231 PDR ADOCK 05000271 R PDR
i E
ANNUAL i .
@ RADIOLOGICAL
- i. ~ ENVIRONMENTAL i '
SURVEILLANCE l .
REPORT I
g I
l .l;'(( .
I l . .
j;
, f. . .. g g .. .
U,- .N g
'1.:9. " 8' T'. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
'Y Vernon, Vermont g ..
l q -
I
, L; , " ANNUAL dby G.7;.. -+lJ RADIOLOGICAL '
v
- ENVIRONMENTAL
^*y SURVEILLANCE REPORT i
l l
l l
gg Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station j Vernon, Vermont
I VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION g
ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT January - Decernber 1998 April 1999 l 1
1 l
l l
l l
l l
Prepared by:
Duke Engineering and Services Environmental Health and Safety 580 Main Street
, Bolton, Massachusetts 01740 I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 1. INTRODUCTION . ..... . ... . .. .. ..... . . ... .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I
- 2. B ACKGROUND RADIO ACTIVITY.. .. ... .... ... . .. ...... .... .. . ... ....... .... .... . .. 2 2.1 Naturally Occurring Background Radioactivity ... ... . .... .. .. .... ... .. ......... .. . .. 2 2.2 Man-Made Background Radioactivity... . . ... . .. . .... ... .. . ............ ...... ........... 3
- 3. GENERAL PLANT AND SITE INFORM ATION . .. . ..... .... . . ..... ....... . . .... ............ 5
- 4. PROGRAM DESIGN ... .... ..... ...... ... . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . ...............6 l 4.1 Monitoring Zones... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................7 4.2 Pathways M oni tored . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3 Descriptions of Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
- 5. RADIOLOGICAL DATA
SUMMARY
TABLES .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... .26
- 6. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS..... .. ..... ... ... . . ..........42 6.1 Sampling Program Deviations.. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 6.2 Comparison of Achieved LLDs with Requirements... . .. . . . . . .. ...... ....... . 43 6.3 Comparison of Results with Reporting Levels. ..... ... .... ....... . . .. ...... .. .... .... 43 6.4 Changes in Sampling Locations..... ... . ......... ........ .........................44 6.5 Data Analysis by Media Type... .... .. .... . ........ . ...... ............ .. ............ . ... .. . 44
- 7. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROG RAM .................. . ... ..... . ...... .. .... .... .... . .... ... 80 7.1 Intralaboratory Quality Control Program.. ... . ... . .. . ........ . .. ...............80 7.2 Third Party Intercomparison Program .... . .......... . .... .. ... . . ... .......... .. . .... .. 81 7.3 Environmental TLD Quality Assurance Program.. ...... .... .... ..... ... . . .... .. . .82 I 7.4 Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program. ...... . ...... . .. .. .. ...... .. ..... . .. .. 83 l 8. LAND USE CENSUS... .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . 90
- 9. S UM M ARY . ..... .... . ... .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................92
- 10. RE F E REN C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 i
i I
LIST OF TABLES Table Title Pace I
4.1 Radiological Environmental hionitoring Program .. . . . . . . . 12 1 4.2 Radiological Environmental hionitoring Locations (Non-TLD) ... . . . . . . . .. . . . ............14 4.3 Radiological Environmental hionitoring Locations (TLD) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 16 4.4 Environmental Lower Limit of Detection (LLD)
Sensitivity Requirements . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5 Reporting Levels for Radioactivity Concentrations 1 in Environmental Samples . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . 19 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary . .. ........28 5.2 Environmental TLD Data Summary . . . . . .. . . . . 39 5.3 Environmental TLD hieasurements . .. . . . . . . . . . 40 6.1 Summary of Storm Drain System Sediment Sample Analyses... ... . ...50 6.2 Summary of Storm Drain System Water Sample Analyses.. .. . .......50 7.1 Environmental Process Control Results . . .. . . . . . . 84 I
7.2 EPA Cross Check Program Results . . .. . . .......85 1 7.3 DESEL Analytics Cross Check Results . ... ..... . .. .88 7.4 Summary of Blind Duplicate Samples Submitted . . . ...... . 89 8.1 Land Use Census Locations . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 1
m
( ii wwa i ..
l :
l I
I l
LIST OF FIGURES 1
Ficure Title Pace Environmental Sampling Locations I
4.1 in Close Proximity to Plant .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .20 4.2 Environmental Sampling Locations Within 5 Kilometers of Plant . .. .. . . . ... . . . .. . . . 21 l 4.3 Environmental Sampling Locations Greater than 5 Kilometers from Plant . . . . . . . . . .. . 22 4.4 TLD Locations in Close Proximity to Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ..... .23 I 4.5 TLD Locations Within 5 Kilometers of Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . 24 l
4.6 TLD Locations Greater than 5 Kilometers from Plant . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .... .. . . 25 I 6.1 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . . ... .. 54 (Quarterly Averages - Indicator vs. Control) 6.2 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . . . . . .. 55 (AP-11 vs. AP-21 Control) l l
6.3 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . . . . . 56 (AP-12 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.4 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters ... . . 57 I (AP-13 vs. AP-21 Control) iii I
f I
f l
LIST OF FIGURES l (continued) i Ficure Title Pace 6.5 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters .. ...... ..... . .. ... 58 t I
(AP-14 vs. AP-21 Control) l I
i' 6.6 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . . .. . ...... ..... 59 l (AP-15 vs. AP-21 Control) 1 6.7 Gross Beta Measurements on River Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 60 l
l 6.8 Gross Beta Measurements on Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . 61 !
1 6.9 Cesium-137 in Milk ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 62 ,
\
l 6.10 Strontium-90 in Milk . .. . ... ...... .... . .. . .... ... .. . .. 63 J
1 6.11 Cesium-13 7 in Fish . . . . . .... .. ..... .. .. ....... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 64 )
6.12 Exp.osure Rate at inner Ring, Outer Ring and Control TLDs .. . .... . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 6.13 Exposure Rate at inner Ring TLDs, DR 01 -03 .. .. . . . . .. . ... .. . . .. . . 66 6.14 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 06,50.. .. 67 l
l 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 47-49,51,52..... .... ... . 70 l
iv l
I 1
L
r i LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Ficure Title Pace ,
6.18 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 7 6.21 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 33-39 (odd) .... . .... ..... . .. 74 l b
l 6.22 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 10-16 (even) ... .. . . . .. . . 75 j 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 ;
1 1
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
I V s
- 1. INTRODUCTION This repon summarizes the findings of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) conducted by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation in the vicinity of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS)in Vemon, Vermont during the calendar year 1998. It is submitted annually in compliance with plant Technical Specification 6.7.C.3. The remainder of tnis 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 it!. environs.
Section 4: Provides a description of the overall REMP program design. Included is a summary of the Technical Specification requirements for REMP sampling, tables listing all locations sampled or monitored in 1998 with compass sectors and distances from the plant, and maps I showing each REMP location. Tables listing Lower Limit of Detection requirements and Reporting Levels are also included.
I 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 Assessment Branch I Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring (Reference 1). Also included is a summary of the 1998 environmental TLD measurements.
Section 6: Provides the results of the 1998 monitoring program. The performance of the program in meeting regulatory requirements as given in the Technical Specifications is discussed, and the data acquired during the year are analyzed.
Section 7: Provides an overview of the Quality Assurance programs used at the Duke Engineering & Services Laboratory (formerly the Yankee Atomic Electric Company Environmental Laboratory) and the results of the EPA and Analytics Intercomparison Program.
l Section 8: Summarizes the requirements and the results of the 1998 Land Use Census.
Section 9: Gives a summary of the 1998 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.
6 N
I
- 2. BACKGROUND RADIOACTIVITY Radiation os radioactivity potentially detected in the Vermont Yankee environment can be grouped into three categories. The first is " naturally-occuning" radiation 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 g purposes of the Vermont Yankee REMP, the first two categories are classified as " background" lE radiation, and are the subject of discussion in this section of the repon. The third categon is the one that the REMP is designed to detect and evaluate.
I 2.1 Naturally Occurring Background Rt.dioactivity 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 sufficiently long half-life to be still present on the earth. Included in this category are the radionuclides that these elements have decayed into. A few of the more important radionuclides in this category are Uranium-238 (U-238), Thorium-232 (Th-232), Rubidium-87 (Rb-87), Potassium-40 (K-40),
I 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 "cosmocenic radioactivity." This is produced through the nuclear interaction of high energy cosmic radiation with elements in the earth's atmosphere, and to a much lesser degree in the canh's crust. These I 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 one most readily detected, and is found on air sampling filters and occasionally in biological media (Reference 2).
2
The third sub-categmy 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 l secondary particles and radiation that are produced through their interaction in the earth's atmosphem. The majority of this radiation comes from outside of our solar system, and to a lesser degree from the sun. We are protected from most of t'his 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 I " 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 Chemobyl 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.
i (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 since cows l and goats graze large areas of vegetation, these radionuclides are also readily detected in milk.
I I
I
Other potential " man-made" sources of environmental " background" radioactivity include other nuclear power plants, coal-fired power plants, national defense installations, hospitals, I research laboratories and industry. These collectively are insignificant on a glob 4 :: ele when compared to the sources discussed above (natural and fallout).
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
[
[ 4 L
r
. m
l
- 3. GENERAL PLANT AND SITE INFORMATION The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station is located in the town of Vernon, Vermont in 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, south and west I 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 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 tegan on November 30,1972.
I I
I I
I I
I i
1 I 5 1
W
I
- 4. PROGRAM DESIGN 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 regulatory 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 :he 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 b en 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, Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs ofNuclear Power Plants; NRC Regulatory Guide 4.8, Environmental Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants; the NRC Branch Technical Position of November 1979, An Acceptable Radiological EnviromnentalMonitoring Program; and NRC NUREG-0473, Radiological Effluent Technical Specificationsfor BWR's.
The environmental TLD program has been designed and tested around NRC Regulatory Guide 4.13, Performance, Testing and Procedural Specificationsfor Thennoluminescence Dosimetry:
Environmental Applications. The qaality assurance program is designed around the guidance given in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15, Guality Assurancefor Radiological Monitoring Programs (Nonnal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment.
[ The sampling requirements of the REMP are given in Technical Specification 3.9.C. and are summarized in Table 4.1 of this repon. The identification of the required sampling locations is given in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), Chapter 4. These sampling and monitoring Iccations are shown graphically on the maps in Figures 4.1 through 4.6.
6
I The Vermont Yankee Chemistry Depanment conducts the radiological environmental I monitoring program and collects all airborne, terrestrial and ground water samples. VYNPS maintains a cc ntract with Normandeau Associates to collect all fish, river water and sediment samples. All analytical measurements of environmental samples are performed at the Duke Engineering & Services Environmental Laboratory (DESEL). TLD badges are posted and l retrieved by the Vermont Yankee Chemistry Depanment, and are read out by the DESEL.
4.1 Monitoring Zones The REMP is designed to allow comparison oflevels of radioactivity in samples from the I area possibly influenced by the plant to levels found in areas not influenced by the plant.
Monitoring locations within the first zone are called " indicators." Those within the second zone are called " controls." The distinction between the two zones, depending on the type of sample or sample pathway, is based on one or more of several factors, such as site meteorological history, meteorological dispersion calculations, relative direction from the plant, river flow, and distance. Analysis of survey data from the two zones aids in determining if there is a significant difference between the two areas. It can also help in differentiating I between radioactivity or radiation due to plant tueases and that due to other fluctuations in the environment, such as atmospheric nuclear weapons test fallout or seasonal variations in the natural background.
i 4.2 Pathways Monitored I Four pathway categories are monitored by the REMP. They are the airborne, waterborne, ingestion and direct radiation pathways. Each of these four categories is monitored by the I collection of one or more sample media, which are listed below, and are described in more detail in this section:
l l
l
Airbome Pathway Air Particulate Sampling Charcoal Cartridge (Radioiodine) Sampling Waterborne Pathways River Water Sampling Ground Water Sampling Sediment Sampling Ingestion Pathways Milk Sampling Silage Sampling Mixed Grass Sampling Fish Sampling Direct Radiation Pathway TLD Monitoring 4.3 Descriptions of Monitoring Programs 4.3.1 Air Sampling I 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 I rate of approximately one cubic foot per minute. Airbome particulates are co!!ected by passing air through a 50 mm glass-fiber filter. A dry gas meter is incorporated into the sampling stream to measure the total volume of air sampled in a given interval. The entire system is housed in a weatherproof structure. The filters are collected biweekly, and to allow for the decay of radon daughter products, they are held for at least 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> at the DESEL before being analyzed for gross-beta radioactivity. The biweekly filters are composited by location at the DESEL for a quarterly gamma spectroscopy analysis.
If the gross-beta activity on an air particulate sample is greater than ten times the yearly mean l of the control samples, Technical Specification 3.9.C requires a gamma isotopic analysis on the sample. Whenever the main plant stack effluent release rate ofI-131 is equal to or greater than 0.1 pCi/sec, weekly air paniculate collection is required by Technical Specification 3.9.C.
8 I
]
4.3.2 Charcoal Cartridge (Radiolodine) Sampling Continuous air samplers are installed at six locations. (Five are required by Technical Specifications.) The sampling pumps at these locations operate continuously at a Dow rate of approximately one cubic foot per minute. A 60 cc TEDA imprepated 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 stmeture. These cartridges are collected and analyzed biweekly for I-131.
Whenever the main plant stack effluent release rate of I-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 Department 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 I aliquot of river water hourly. An additional grab sample is collected monthly at the upstream control location. All river water samples are preserved with hcl and NaHSO 3to prevent the plate out of radionuclides on the container walls. Each sample is analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. Although not required by VYNPS Technical Specifications, a gross-beta analysis is performed on each sample. The monthly composite or grab samples are composited by location I at the DESEL for a quarterly H-3 analysis.
4.3.4 Ground Water Sampling Grab samples are collected quarterly from three indicator locations 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 I the container walls. Each sample is analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides and H-3.
Although not required by VYNPS Technical Specifications, a gross-beta analysis is also performed on each sample.
I I
rw.*
4.3.5 Sediment Sampling River sedimes grab samples are collected semiannually from the downriver location and at the North Storu r rain Outfall by Normandeau Associates. Each sample is analyzed at the DESEL 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 are chosen I as a result of the annual Land Use =:'ensus, based on meteorological dispersion calculations. The fourth location is a control, which is located sufficiently far away from the plant to be outside any potential influence from it. Other samples may be collected from locations ofinterest.
Immediately after collection, each milk sample is refrigerated and then typically transported I by courier to the DESEL. Upon receipt at the DESEL, 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 l 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 I Silage samples are collected at the milk sampling location at the time of harvest, if available. One sample is shipped to the DESEL 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 DESEL for low-level I-131.
4.3.8 Mixed Grass Sampling At each air sampling station, a mixed grass sample is collected quanerly, when available.
Enough grass is clipped to provide the minimal sample weight needed to achieve the required l 4 er limit of detection (LLDs). One sample is shipped to the DESEL without preservative, 4.ere it is analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. Although not required by Technical 10
Specifications, a separate grass sample is preserved with NaOH, and is then shipped to the DESEL 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 Vemon Pond) by Normandeau Associates. The samples are frozen and delivered to the DESEL where the edible portions are analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides.
4.3.10 TLD hfonitoring Direct gamma radiation exposure was continuously monitored with the use of I thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Specifically, Panasonic UD-801 ASI and UD-814AS1 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. Althougl not required by Technical Specifications, the TLDs from the 16 outer ring I stations are read out quanerly 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 DESEL processes them.
4.3.11 Special hionitoring Special interest samples may be taken throughout the year that are not required as part of the I REMP. These locations do not appear on the ODCM Table 4.1, nor do they all appear in Table 4.1 or 4.2 of this report. The results are discussed in Section 5 and 6 of this repon.
I l
11
]
ll .llli ll4l!Il y
b
(
i te i te y s s is c o p
o p
s n lye m m a u n q c o c i co ec i c
e ip C ip pC my lpp ip ArF L
D m a ly) r n m
a al r mm a a ma T S e o S S et SS S r i h
c a
h c
a tau ta c
h c
a h ra c
a u hh c c a a h
c a
i s
s E E Ql o E EQ EE E y
la n y A ln o e -
esa r s : te oed e e is is s e de- led r e lp ic n c icp m a ic lyp a y :d s uce a y C p) ip) o nT e s - ox S
- e o3 <3 t A ogc e v n to1 to1 -
o d in as as tea a t
e I i
d s
I 1(
s I 1( I s
M aRg sw lu B a o a a a A mr s c ss m io1 m um m um m R mte a ulnC eO it r
ar o m a
d3 i
aI mit ai r mit ai m
a G GOuL PG G RI -
GT GT G r
O R *)
P3 G9 N 3 e s ly A:
I Rb l Oa lalal T Tn ny uf n uM nt I
No iocn t
c e a iOC Oita e u q mnD Mc i loe l
ly eiO S r a
I. Lifc C l'T ht
- Din 4 Ae ly n y m E Tp r e
o ly l r
e a mde 2 N Sl m t ht t e ri I r n r tr tof i 1
B Ea c a u im e o a u p S. c s
e A Mi Q S M Q UNs p
T Nn h Oce n o
RT I
i t
c Vy te le Nb l o
i s
o E. de C e g p n n e mh I ir
- ora Au ih d Cq e u po s s mcg s I
r tomM Ra u
o u
o a c:
eita ma te M Gs O. (a I
S i
u n
tn i
u n
t n
r t
nme s
wtots r
b a
b t
o n
o o
G o o ou p r a f r
I D C C DAU G G t e
e A lp R
M r o cns m
o c
r ripio e o 0
bma mta c 4 5 2 2 2 f 3
N uS x I 9
M 3 le b
a d T n n
)
s a io s ta M y a
w ht ia d
D L
T(
te lu a t n
e ic r
u c
a r e n it r r i m e p
P /o M i o r a te a
e ta d
e S ed c t S
r ni uap i a P
( )e n e W W e la M s o
p x S m
a d
R a ed no ri i n br r
o ec a
d n
u i
l n
e r
ic h
n c
E t
c oc e f
r o o e T
i T
e r br da t a u r h i
S. G. c D. iA. R W .
a b S.
c S e
I 2 3
- m A
J
\
lll
Il l lI ljlilIi lll l Rii s >
is ---
y cc c e le la +-- iipp ip lp p An-- .
mm a a m
a m
a m a
F s s s s s hh h h h c c c c c a a a a a s EE E E E i
s ly
_ A a
n n
o is c c ic icp s e ip ips p ly p a y o o no t o o nT to s
toi s rt s o to s
A I o I I M a I. p a a A
R mI ..le
. m m m3
.b m m G a1
.d i
a a GI -
Ge G G
_ O R *)
P3 G9 )
e N 3 I e n ) r n lyus e Rlb Oa lao ni t c
A t hJ ap ly l
a h
w T Tn I
ime ol q l w
ly wn
- u n lye t
u No NoCfic h ;. -. o ia n r l teba .
. Oia t tnmne m r l ai :
t n Mc oeh e u a v t e LWc i
MS( w s Qa A c,
Ae I. Tp 4 NS 3 E, Ea c l
g 1 I
Mi en ilnie B Nnh pod A n t u
- T Oc ReT I
o it c
le omM Ra S ba h a
h a
ha s, Vy r r r r te Nb lo G G G G o Ed e C t n
o Lr i o Au g f
Cq e f g n te .
I os n h e Grs r n e o i
lp p l.
g O. (a bi m m m t
a I
G ma a s n s n u ri o r
um lk o
- I D
A NI lai np c
4 2 iaa h s c
t t imttas h
i f
3 o
R im a c 9 m a c a 3 c
NoS le t
a t a b I
a
- I T
i n
o ta ic f
y ice
- a w
ht ia d
e S
l p
a a e P rM o
n lep lp ic n
eMic r
uap n iot a
m a
m a
s h
c e
- s o
p x S m
a o it s
e k
l i
hs t
e g
e s
a s
s r l e
g a
T c
e E g M i
G i
S S
n . F. V.
- I. a b c 4
ll l
TABLE 4.2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (NON TLD)IN 1998 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Distance Direction Exposure Station From Plant From I Pathway Code Station Description Zone' {};m) Plant
- 1. Airborne AP/CF-11 River Sta. No. 3.3 I 1.9 SSE AP/CF-12 N. Hinsdale, NH I 3.6 NNW
-I AP/CF-13 Hinsdale Substation I 3.1 E AP/CF 14 Nonhfield, MA I 11.6 SSE AP/CF-15 Tyler Hill Road I 3.1 WNW I AP/CF-21 Spofford Lake C 16.4 NNE
[ b. Ground WG-11 Plant Well I 0.2 On-site WG-12 Vemon Nursing Well I 2.3 SSE COB Well
( WG-13 I --
On-site WT-14 Test Well I --
On-site WT-16 Test Well I --
On-site WT-17 Test Well I --
On-site WT-18 Test Well I -
On-site WG 22 Skibniowsky Well C 13.7 N
SE-12 Nonh Storm Drain Outfall I 0.13 E
{
[
[
[ 14 r
L on
TABLE 4.2, cont.
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (NON TLD)IN 1998 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Distance Direction Exposure Station From Plant From P_athway Code Station Description Zone
- ikm) Plant
- 3. Ingestion
- a. Milk TM-11 Miller Farm I 0.8 W TM-14 Brown Farm I 2.2 S TM-16 Meadow Crest I 4.3 NW I TM-18 Blodgett Farm I 3.6 SE g TM-22 Franklin Farm I 9.7 WSW g TM-23 Evans Farm I 7.0 WNW TM-24 County Farm C 21.6 N
- b. Fish FH-11 Vernon Pond I 0.6" SSE FH-21 Rt. 9 Bridge C 11.8- NNW
- c. Mixed Grass TG-11 River Sta. No. 3.3 I 1.9 SSE TG 12 N. Hinsdale, NH I 3.6 NNW I TG-13 TG-14 Hinsdale Substation Northfield, MA I
I I
3.1 11.6 SSE E
TG-15 Tyler Hill Rd. 3.1 WNW TG-21 Spofford Lake C 16.4 NNE
- d. Silage TC-11 Miller Farm I 0.8 W TC-14 Brown Farm 1 2.2 S TC-16 Meadow Cres: Fann I 4.3 NW TC-18 Blodgett Farm I 3.6 SE TC-22 Franklin Farm I 9.7 WSW TC-23 Evans Farm I 7.0 WNW TC-24 County Farm C 21.6 N
-I
- I = Indicator Stations; C = Control Stations
- Fish samples are collected anywhere in Vemon Pond, which is adjacent to the plant (see Figure 4.1).
I u 15 M
TABLE 4.3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (TLD) IN 1998 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Distance Direction Station From Plant From Code Station Description Zone * (km) Plant DR-1 River Sta. No. 3.3 I 1.6 SSE DR-2 N. Hinsdale, NH I 3.9 NNW DR-3 Hinsdale Substation I 3.0 E DR-4 Northfield, MA C 11.0 SSE I DR-5 DR-6 Spofford Lake Vernon School C
I 16.5 0.52 NNE WSW DR-7 Site Boundary *** SB 0.28 W I DR-8 Site Boundary SB 0.25 SSW DR-9 Inner Ring I 1.7 N DR-10 Outer Ring O 4.5 N DR-11 Inner Ring I 1.6 NNE DR-12 Outer Ring O 3.6 NNE I DR-13 DR-14 Inner Ring Outer Ring I
O 1.2 3.9 NE NE DR-15 Inner Ring I 1.5 ENE I DR-16 Outer Ring O 2.8 ENE DR-17 Inner Ring I 1.2 E DR-18 Outer Ring O 3.0 E DR-19 Inner Ring I 3.7 ESE DR-20 Outer Ring O 5.3 ESE DR-21 Inner Ring I 1.8 SE DR 22 Outer Ring O 3.3 SE DR 23 Inner Ring I 2.0 SSE I DR-24 DR-25 Outer Ring Inner Ring O
I 3.9 1.9 SSE S
DR 26 Outer Ring O 3.8 S
,I DR-27 Inner Ring I 1.0 SSW
_ DR-28 Outer Ring O 2.2 SSW DR-29 Inner Ring I 0.9 SW DR-30 Outer Ring O 2.4 SW 16 V ___n
TABLE 4.3, cont.
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (TLD)IN 1998 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION I Distance Direction Station From Plant From I Code Station Descriotio_n Zone * (km) Plant DR-31 Inner Ring I 0.71 WSW I DR-32 Outer Ring O 5.1 WSW DR-33 Inner Ring I 0.66 WNW DR-34 Outer Ring O 4.6 W DR-35 Inner Ring I 1.3 WNW DR-36 - Outer Ring O 4.4 WNW DR-37 Inner Ring I 2.8 NW DR-38 Outer Ring O 7.3 NW DR-39 Inner Ring I 3.1 NNW I DR-40 Outer Ring O 5.0 NNW DR-41 ** Site Boundary SB 0.38 SSW I DR-42*
- Site Boundary SB 0.59 S DR-43 *
- Site Boundary SB 0.12 NE DR-46*
- Site Boundary SB 0.28 NNW DR-47 *
- Site Boundary SB 0.50 NNW DR-48 *
- Site Boundary SB 0.82 NW DR-49 *
- Site Boundary SB 0.55 WNW I DR-50*
I **
This location is not considered a requirement of Technical Specification Table 3.9.3.
DR-7 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 17 I
) ! ll
_ t -
S n e g T m/rk )y 0 0 5 8 N i dCd i
1 1 E e M S (p E
R I n U o )g Q
i t
ak/ 0 0 0 E t i 6 6 8 R eC g
e p Y V(
T I
V I
T I kl
)
l S l i 5 8 5 N iC Mp 1
1 1 1 E (
S
)
D L
L
( s
)
g e N hk 0 0 0 0 0 0 t
o n
- 4. O s/ i 3 6 3 6 3 5 t o
4I iFCp 1 2 1 2 1 1 o
AT E t
a T D n a
l F s e e s) p x
O t na e3 e rl s m 7 5 6 T oua/
1 0 0 0 0 r
o I
bri cGi C 0 0 0 0 f
M I A ar or (p i t 3
L P 9 4
R E
W O
le b
T n
a L r) 0 el l 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 8 5 io L t i
- aC t
4 0 1 3 1 3 1 1 I 1 a A W (p 3 c T i f
i N c e
E p M S
- N O s t a
e 4 0
6, 5 5
9- 4 7 0
4 l
a c
R is ly B 5- 9 5 8 0- b 1
3 3 3 1
- in I
s n -
5-1 1 a h V a n s 1 1 i e n N 1
- s s L c e
h F
- o Z -
N A m C r I C C -
a T E G Z B e e
S r
1
' ll
i
{ !lll
- t n r
)
y edg- "
m 0 ik 0 d/ i 0
- SeCp 3 d
( e s
u e
t b c
a S u
d )g y
a N ok r/ 0 0 0 0 0 m
O Pi 0 0 0 0 d pC 0 1
I 1 2 T o 0,
- A F o( 0 3
R f T o N ey .
E ul n
- C N S kl l i
)
/
0 07 0 lao v
all a OE iC Mp 3 6 3 0
r, tf CL ( e u YP aO t
-. TM I
wn ga i VA S nr I
TL iD k
5 n CA )
r m i
4 g 0 0 0 0 0 r
- E L
AT ON hk is/ i 0
0, 0
0, 0 0 0 0 0, 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 d- o nS o
t 9
B I
E FC p 0 0 0 0 0 2 nht 1 D
1 3 1 3 1 2 A A M ( r r oo T RN FN
- R O s.e OIR yh a t FV wta SN s e e s) h n t
LE a e t
na e3 pk EN VI rl s oua/
br c m 9 0 0 rt e s a
E iGi C 0 1 2 t r r t
iAa o (p ae %
L wlp L P gm G
- N I
i s k
na T i nb a R l l
)
d g r r O i Cp
- r r P oo E ( 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 000 0 0 00 ff R r e
0, 0 4 0 03 3 4 3 5 2 il e e v v 0 1 1 t
a 2 ee LL W gg
- g n n itr rit 0 oo pp s 5 4 i
s 4 95 8 0 5 9- 4 7 ee l
y 3- 5 - -
5- 6- 6 b-1 3
3 1
3 1
1 a
- RR a 1 n e o o n N 1
- s s L-n 1 M F C C Z r- I A C C a Z B l l
~
. N
,hpa ~e ., vi+ . . . ,
g,
%. b."',,b.1,fqzh ,,ky;p 3$3,.:,
w). / U[
l
'9'. % .t. N ~I
- n my: ,
4:yq t% : j;*' a,t \ '\
..' , , } TgbDW v h
5 ..
yhhk!Idi. !!j %[if hp "#/ 'h I ,o'k<d%.9 in QGhLt: Wllk%4. hh 'n:VI Y ^
N i I'
- [$
- f W h f f # {$4 \
Fe eline / Y,! jjffi ,j 4- NE
\ hs; f(Hf i y s' : ., ',
1
'A;) qr !T r 'i -
1 \ gVemon' on YM w 4:J6, ?
3
\ :
dy;b i i.d$.N,'...g I
{) 4jyg[da$
W A \ ' . ASE-1g E N
,. j, '.y .
f I ,
$ Oo
+
\m 1 WG- i u,
% w
%o '% i , k WSW $ x q, '
'Di a , ESE I
d'\{]OQ)3 Ver on Elementa hp.i gy g 1
S .ool rA 9;.d IN' h'?/g4 8~, N'7 A j l (6 N/ n
< 'g -
.'#,, T v
.. :e si; 4
4$
?
J N
$f, '. 5
'&h *
\
ff)kY.V.I[.
l' ,,:dElhh V
?
?? .-
bjE ~
$lih' g
C p (sf.f:IE' O .2 .4
' .'a ::rp Figure 4-1 Environmental Sanspling Locations in Close Proxhnity to the Plant 20
$r E r N '
'gr
,, SNE 1 -
'( g
-l b N ,
NE
/
A/ -12
'I
,$f \
I
\
WSW
\
s A e Q A C .15
/ /
N A
! 1 18 3T SE 5
[- SE' 0 .5 1 1.5 7 g 1 ; n -
' W Figure 4-2 Environinental Sanspling Locations Within 5 Kin ofPlant 21
_ _ - _ . - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
$ TM-24 g l TC-24 h
Q .
N b Keene NNW '
NW WR 21 /r '
s NE FH-2
/ I a/
\
bw '
ee E[nla ebs g ENE f
[%))}* ,.
. . . . . . . . . . . A.
42 TC-23
- TM 23 5f '
}]hs W
- v. [
f., y, j c ester l'
TC-22 'i>!/
- . x : f I
VT !I f\x' l ,S, 7- : ...... .............
. NH ESE r- - - -
l 7 sw ! AP/C -14
, I To-14 sE
, ssw ssE I e
~y y x _ .
J KM N /
O1234 l- Figure 4-3 EnvironmentalSampling Locations Greater than 5 Kmfrom Plant 22
- y. . .
-g@:owrW > . N r/S ,
9:' ./M: / u.";d 43% ' ~!D f'h '3'\ k,
. ~f[Si < .
t,O'
- ihodi : wN[k .,
- . a .
!;;.*[:r' N < Qp....
- g., .[k$g,,y S
[- [lh A t "
- 1. r-Q.
.L M j*n?,;lg N Q , 9LQ9({Q4":f( }fy
. JNE
{- [ \EQ '9p: q Q q @f ,T
Q;^ r %.
- g. &RQ',. , .
M$8:f :. ;'a, ? e'h%09:-
, NW
' Tij' 'I .
[
- I
%g... ;.,s.
~ .s naci app
d [k hij h-,k .
Nyk ^
'Qpy!d -
"? &, i' Eja
?:-i, M&ik:n tn i}s$$$@ a ~
t ..
f
- ("9:r.Y:id. k.9 n pg "M&'si; 7 Q vM0 '"$s 1 yA 9 n y iji4TA;A. s * ' ~
NE Fenceline / {gff3ffe[R;g ,
S;(ip ,,
l .A[R-48 % Jh k k .
l Wg
\
s g
\ TssYNh$fI o ':pj;. YAsggjg N h
7 emo on e y yg , d Etd a 2.wn a ..
a ADR-33 \ 's '
~
6 \ r
.agj'QM' .- g dB/
D
%o, ,
,h
.d5 - .
N I ;.DL
- a, D R- D 2 , is A R-31 A *$ --- , , d' 3
" \ yf +
. Idg E ESE I
3
~
DR SO I" WSW Ve n Elementa hool g'A R di Ikw'
<I-
- 2 -
R-4 t.
\ ;".H..'f:
l 1DR-42 '
4 G., s DR- p -
s:.s ..
,.th
- 7 a
I 4Vemon D,a ;; .y
\ R -27 Oy.Q.j?T&T<
- w (%q r n
j
,[ <fj 5 h E
- I,f [fi KM Pre I 4
,u'; .r;-
I l
' '@;m4;F 0 .2 .4 l Figure 4-4 TLD Locations in Close Proximity to Plant 23
/
Bratt k o !
7/
g R A
-\ f
/~ -2 ADR-12
,,,,,, b DR-37 36 .
ENE' R1 DR-34 R-35 p[
E r :
.A
.i See Enlarge l in Figure 4-4 D
t 5\
hg*.3 g
DR- i \
N ESE
, OR-19 I
- 'SY t DR-28 I
-22 i
R-32 '
) R /
s y, "' 4
]
gg,. -
's o i i.5 2
.5
77.--.------._.._t_._._._._._._._. i Figure 4-5 TLD Locations Within 5 Kin of Plant 24
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~
_ ~
'N N
[ *
'eene
~
~
L Nr ' /
NE L
7
( Brattle ' or
- j <
k gl=sement rgy -
ENU dR- '
k N
R-3
/\ '
W DR-f4 ' lN' '
Y 11 ster E i
- /
W !
f,_ ,_ :.. fg , .......f..-- g - , ,
rst MA ' NH
/ '
EEE I ,%_, j' Y
)
l sr
\
/
/ r! #[h 7\
a 09 4 SE
/
g .
'i
- A sse - L, ssE
{,
-I '
t ~ s l
n- ,
/% J I L
e *ele ~
[
oi2 3 4 y
[f n __ -
- Figure 4-6 TLD Locations Greater Than 5 Knifroin Plant w
25
I
- 5. RADIOLOGICAL DATA
SUMMARY
TABLES This section summarizes the analytical results of the environmental samples which were collected during 1998. 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 ordered 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 1998, and the number of measurements which exceeded the Reporting levels found in Table 3.9.4 of the VYNPS Technical Specifications. The latter are classified as "Non-routine" measurernents. 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 Effluent Technical Specifications (Table 4.9.3). The absence of a value in this I 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 malfunctions in sampling equipment, which results in low sample volume. Such cases, if any, are addressed in Section 6.2.
1 For each radionuclide and media type, the remaining three columns summarize the data for the following categories of monitoring locations: (1) the Indicator stations, which are within the range ofinfluence of the plant and which could be affected by its operation; (2) the station which had the highest mean concentration during 1998 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:
I -
The mean value of all concentrations, with all values that are less than the a posteriori LLD for that analysis having been converted 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 a posteriori LLD having been convened to zero, pursuant to footnote (f) of Technical Specification
{
Table 4.9.3.
26
I i
- The "No. Detected," is the number of positive measurements, divided by the total number.
A measurement is considered positive when the concemration 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 uncenainty associated with the radioactive decay process (counting statistics), and not the propagation of all possible uncenainties in the analytical procedure.
Pursuant to VYNPS Technical Specification Table 4.9.3 (footnote f), any concentration below j
the a posteriori 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 reponed as zero. To be consistent with Duke Engineering & Services Laboratory (DESEL) reporting practices and normal data review practices used by Vermont Yankee, a " positive measurement" is considered to be one whose concentration is greater than three times its associated standard deviation, based on the random uncertainty as discussed above. This use of counting statistics for the determination of the presence of 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 Reponing 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) wem of special interest for any other reason. The radionuclides that were routinely analyzed and l reported by the DESEL (in a gamma spectroscopy analysis) were: Th-232, Ag-110m, Ba-140, Be-7, Cc-141, Ce-144, Co-57, Co-58, Co-60, Cr-51, Cs-134, Cs-137, Fe-59, I-131, I-133, K-40, Mn-54, Mo-99, Np-239, Ru-103, Ru-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 repon appear as a " detectable measurement" during 1998.
Data from dimet radiation measurements made by TLDs are provided in Table 5.2 in a format essentially the same as above. The complete listing of quanerly TLD data is provided in Table l 5.3.
l 27 l
l
Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Ver.nont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January December 1998)
MEDIUM: Air Partleulates fAPI UNITS: oCl/cuble meter b9.k.C.".3.h.Y.D.".$.. ... ao ig y,,g,p,g,p,,,Q,egt y,ean g,on,t,r,ol,S,t,ay,o,ns,,,,
Radionuclides
- Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected"* No. Detected *" No. Detected"*
GR-B (156) 0.01 1.pE -2 13 2.0E -2 1.9E -2 (0) ( 0.0 - 3.6)E -2 ( 9.s - 34.4)E -3 ( 9.2 - 34.7)E -3 (129/ 130) (26/ 26) (26/ 26)
Be-7 s.4E -2 21 1.1E -1 1.1E -1 i
(24)
(D) ( 0.0 - 1.4)E -1 ( s.4 - 15.132 -2 ( s.4 - 15.1)E -2 (17/ 20) (4/ 4) (4/ 4)
Co-60 (24) 0.0E O 11 0.CE 0 0.0E O I (0)
(0/ 20)
(0/ 4)
(0/ 4)
Cs.134 (24) 0 05 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O I go) ....
(0/ 20)
(0/ 4)
(0/ 4)
Ca.137 (24) 0.06 0.CE O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O I go) ....
(0/ 20)
(0/ 4)
(0/ 4)
I I
I I
I E
E
- 28
Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January December 1998)
MEDIUMr Charcoal Cartridae (CF) UNITS: oC1/ cubic meter
!?. dica.!5.s,9,ijm,5,, ,s,tatio9,gjig,sig9.st,,y, tan co,nt,r,oi,s,tailms,,,,
Radionuclides
- Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected *" No. Detected ** No. Detected *"
l131 (156) 0.07 0.0E 0 11 0.0E o 0.0E o (0)
(0/ 130) (0/ 26) (0/ 26) l i
l l
l
{
I L
29 r
I 1 1
T;bb 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary I Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January. December 1998)
I MEDIUM: River Water (WR) UNITS: DCl/ka
!?.d.if.*'.5.s,ta,t!9,n,s,, ,stalip,n gig y,ig9est fff,a,n co,n,typi,s, tat,ip,na, ,,
l Radionuclides
- Sta. Mean Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range No. Detecte.1"* No. Detected *"
I Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected *"
GR-B (24) 4 1.sr 0 21 5.5E O 5.5E O (0) ( 0.0 - 3.7)E O ( 0.0 - 4.4)E 1 ( 0.0 - 4.4)E 1 I (11/ 12) (10/ 12) (10/ 12)
H-3 (8) 3000 0.0E o 11 0.0E O 0.0E O go)
I (0/ 4) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
Mn-54 (24) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E o 0.0E o (o) l (0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)
Co-58 (24) 15 0.0E o 11 0.0E O 0.0E O go) .... .... ....
I (0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)
Fe-59 (24) 30 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E O go) .... .... ....
I (0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)
Co-60 (24) 15 0.0E o 11 0.0E o 0.0E o go) .... .... ....
I (0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)
Zn-65 (24) 30 0.02 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O I go)
(0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)
Zr 95 (24) 15 0.02 0 11 0.0E o 0.0E o I (c)
(0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)
C&134 (24) 15 0.0E O 11 0.0E O O.0E 0 I go) ....
(0/ 12)
(0/ 12)
(0/ 12)
Cs-137 (24) la 0.0E 0 11 0.02 0 0.0E O I go) .... .... ....
(0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)
Ba-140 (24) 15 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O (0)
(0/ 12) (0/ 12) (0/ 12)
L 30
\
Tsble 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January December 1998)
MEDIUM. Ground Water (WG) (JNITS: oCl/ko ind.i.c.a.t.o..r.S..ta.t.io..n.s...
.S. tat.io.n With Highest Mean
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C..o..n.t.r.o.l.S.t.a.t.io.n..s....
Radionuclides
- Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non Routine" LLD No. Detected *" No. Detected *" No. Detected *"
f GR-B (16) 4 4.4E O 11 6.sE O 1.75 0 (0) ( 0.0 - s.9)E o ( 5.5 - s.9)E O ( 0.0 - 3.3)E o (10/ 12) (4/ 4) (3/ 4) f H-3 (16) 3000 0.0E o 11 0.0E O 0.0E o
(,) ....
(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
Mn.54 (16) 15 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O (0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
Co-58 (16) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O go) .... .... ....
(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
Fe 59 (16) 30 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O
(,) .... .... ....
(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
{ Co40 (16) 15 0.0E o 11 0.0E O 0.05 0 (o)
(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
Zn.65 (16) 30 0.0E o 11 0.0E o 0.0E o go) .... .... ....
(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
Zr-95 (16) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E O (D)
(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
Cs.134 (16) 15 0.0E o 11 0.0E o 0.0E o go) .... .... ....
(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
Cs.137 (16) - is 0.0E o 11 0.0E o 0.0E o go) .... .... ....
(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4) sa.140 (16) 15 0.0E o 11 0.0E o 0.0E o go) .... .... ....
( (0/ tal (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
{
[ 31
I Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Vernon, VT (January December 1998) ,
MEDIUM: Sediment ISE) UNITS: oCI/km I
l .In..d.i.c.a.t.o.r.S..t.a.t.io..n.s
. . .S.ta. tion With Highe.s.t..Me.an
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C..o..n.t.ro.l.S..t.a.ti.o.n.s...
Radionuclides
- Mean Sta. Mean Mean )
! (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range l Non-Routine ** LLD No. Detected *** No. Detected *** No. Detected'**
i Be 7 (83) 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O No DATA
.... .... i
- go)
(0/ 83) (0/ 3) l No DATA K.40 (83) 1.4E 4 12 1.4E 4 (0) ( s.6 - 18.2)E 3 ( 9.5 - 18.2)E 3 )
(83/ 83) (80/ 80) 0.0E o 0.0E O No DATA Mn-54 (83) 11 go)
(0/ 83) (0/ 3) i l
Co.58 (83) 0.0E O 11 0.0E O No DATA J
"" "" i (0)
(0/ 83) (0/ 3) j Co40 (83) 1.4E O 12 1.5E O No DATA l (0) ( 0.0 - 1.2)E 2 ( 0.0 - 1.2)E 2 l
(0/ 83) (0/ so)
I Zn45 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O No DATA (83) l (0)
(0/ 83) (0/ 3) 150 0.0E o 11 0.0E o No DATA 1-Cs.134 (83) l (0)
(0/ 83) (0/ 3)
Cs.137 (83) 180 1.3E 2 12 1.3E 2 No DATA i
(0) ( 0.0 - 2.s)E 2 ( 0.0 - 2.s>E 2 (63/ s3) (62/ so)
Th-232 (83) 9.7E 2 12 9.92 2 No DATA (0) ( 0.0 - 1.3)E 3 ( 0.0 - 1.3)E 3 (s2/ s3) (79/ so) f-i 32 ;
i
Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January. December 1998)
MEDIUM: Test Well (WT) UNITS: oCl/ka 8 s,tatiog,wg,H, igg,est y,eap, C,g,n,tf,o,1,S, tat, ions ,,,
!0.d.if.*t1.t'.t!?P.S.. ,, ,, ,
Radionuclides
- Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine ** LLD No. Detected *" No. . tected*" No. Detected ***
GR-B (8) 3.0E 1 16 4.2E 1 NO DATA (0) ( 1.5 - 6.1)E 1 ( 2.3 - 6.1)E 1 i (8/ 8) (2/ 2) 0.0E O I H-3 (8) 0.0E 0 14 NO DATA go) .... ....
(0/ 8) (0/ 2)
I K-40 (B)
(0) (
2.3E 1 0.0 - 6.9)E 1 (3/ 8) 17
(
3.4E 1 0.0 - 8.8)E 1 (1/ 2)
NO DATA I Mn 54 (B) go) 0.0E 0 14 0.0E O NO DATA (0/ s) (0/ 2)
Co 58 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA
,0, (0/ s) (0/ 2)
Fa-59 (8) 0.0E o 14 0.CE O NO DATA (0/ 8) (0/ 2)
Co-60 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA
,0, .... ....
(0/ e) (0/ 2)
Zn-65 (6) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA (0/ 8) (0/ 2)
I Zr 95 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA go) .... ....
(0/ s) (0/ 2)
I Cs-134 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA go) .... ....
(0/ 8) (0/ 2)
I Cs 137 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA go)
(0/ 8) (0/ 2) 1 Be-140 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA
[ (0)
(0/ 8)
(0/ 2)
~
33
Table 5.1 Red!ological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January December 1998)
MEDIUM: Milk (TM) UNITS: oCilka 8t'!io.a "'M.Higgest,,y,qan
.. p,g,n,(r,o,1,S,(alio,ng,,,,
!ad.if.t!?!.S!*.ti?.a.'.. . . ,,, , ,
Radionuclides
- Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected"* No. Detected"* No. Detected"*
K.40 (122) 1.4E 3 22 1.5E 3 1.4E 3 (0) ( 1.2 - 1.6)E 3 ( 1.3 - 1.6)E 3 ( 1.3 - 1.5)E 3 (104/ 104) (16/ 16) (18/ is)
Sr 89 (27) 0.0E o 11 0.cE o 0.0E 0 go) .... .... ....
(0/ 23) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
St90 6.18 -1 14 1.6E o 0.0s, o (27)
( 0.0 - 2.7)E o "**
(0) ( 0.0 - 2.7)E o (7/ 23) (3/ 4) (0/ 4) 1131 (122) 1 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 go)
(0/ 104) (0/ 18) (0/ 18)
Cs 134 (122) 15 0.0E o 11 0.0E O 0.0E O go3 (0/ 104) (0/ 18) (0/ 18)
Cs 137 (122) is 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E o go)
(0/ 104) (0/ 18) (0/ 18)
Ba-140 (122) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E o go)
(0/ 104) (0/ 18) (0/ 18) 34
Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January December 1998)
MEDIUM: Siface (TC) UNITS: oCl/km
[".d,ic,a,1,g[,g,y,jg,n,s,,
, ,S,tation With Highest,,Mean, Contro,1,S,tations, ,,
Radionuclides
- Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non Routine" LLD No. Detected " No. Detected"* No. Detected"*
Be-7 (7) 3.pt 2 24 7.4E 2 7.4E 2 (0) ( 0.0 - 6.5)E 2 (4/ 6) (1/ 1) (1/ 1)
K-40 F) 3.0E 3 11 4.5E 3 3.4E 3 )
I (0) ( 1.3 - 4.5)E 3 (6/ 6) (1/ 1) (1/ 1) l-131 (7) 60 0.0E O 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O I go) ....
(0/ 6) (0/ 1) (0/ 1)
Cs 134 (7) 60 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O go) ....
(0/ 6) (0/ 1) (0/ 1)
Cs 137 (7) so 0.0E O 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O I go) ....
(0/ 6) (0/ 1) (0/ 1)
Ba-140 (7) 0.0E O 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O l (0)
(0/ 6) (0/ 1) (0/ 1) l I
l l
r 35
) I[ m
Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January December 1998) jfgQfUM: Mired GIs}s (TG) UNITS: oCl/ka I .in..d.ic.a.t.o.r.S..t.a.t.io..n.s...
. . ......o..Stati n With Highest Mean
- - - . . . . . . . . C. 3.n.t.r.o.l.S.t.at.i.o.n.s . .
Radionuclides
- Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Anafyses) Required Range Range Range I Non-Routine" LLD No. Detecteda' No. Detected *" No. Detected *"
Be-7 (24) 2.3E 3 12 3.9E 3 2.6E 3 (0) ( 0.0 - 1.0)E 4 ( 6.3 - 104.3)E 2 ( 5.4 - 58.4)E 2 I (16/ 20) (4/ 4) (4/ 4)
K40 (24) 4.5E 3 21 5.3E 3 5.3E 3 (0) ( 2.2 - 6.1)E 3 ( 4.2 - 7.4)E 3 ( 4.2 - 7.4)E 3 1 (20/ 20) (4/ 4) (4/ 4) l-131 (24) 60 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O I (0)
(0/ 20) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
Cs-134 (24) 60 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O I go)
(0/ 23) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)
Cs-137 (24) so 0.0E O 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O I go) ....
(0/ 20)
(0/ 4)
(0/ 4) l I
I I
l
[
{
36 A , . . . , .
Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Vernon, VT
(.'anuary. December 1998)
MEDIUMr Flah (FH) UNITS: ecl/km
!atf.*'.5.s,ia,tjons,, , station m9,Higg,est,,y,ea,n
,, , , , , , , gg,n,t,rp,1,S,ta{o,ns, ,,
Radionuclides
- Mean sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected *" No. Detected"* No. Detected"*
K-40 l (4) 2.4E 3 21 2.5E 3 2.5E 3 (0) ( 2.3 - 2.asE 3 ( 1.9 - 3.1)E 3 t 1.9 - 3.1)E 3 (2/ 2) (2/ 2) (2/ 2)
Mn-54 (4) 130 0.0E O 11 0.0E o 0.0E o
,,) .... .... ....
(0/ 2) (0/ 2) (0/ 2)
Co-58 (4) 130 0.08 0 11 0.0E O 0.08 0 (0/ 2) (0/ 2) (0/ 2)
Fe-59 (4) 250 0.0E O 11 0.0E o 0.0E O (0/ 2) (0/ 2) (0/ 2)
Co4, (4) 130 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O
(,) .... .... ....
(0/ 2) (0/ 2) (0/ 2)
Zn45 (4) 250 0.0E o 11 0.0E o 0.0E o
++++ **** ****
(o)
(0/ 2) (0/ 2) (0/ 2)
Cs 134 (4) 130 0.0E o 11 0.0E o 0.0E o go) .... .... ....
(0/ 2) (0/ 2) (0/ 2)
Cs-137 (4) 150 0.0E o 11 0.0E o 0.0E o go) .... .... ....
(0/ 2) (0/ 2) (0/ 2)
(
(
{
f 37 R'iu .. .
I I Footnoies to Table 5.1:
- The only radionuclides reponed in this table are those with Reponing Level or 11D requirements, those for u hich positive radioactivity was detected.
I and those that were of some other specialinterest. See Section 5 of this report for w discussion of other radionuclides that were analyzed.
- Non. Routine refers to those radionuclides that exceeded the Reponing lescis in Technical Specification Table 3.9.4.
- " The fraction of sample analyses yieldmg detectable measurements (i.e. the concentration is greater than three times its standaid desiation)is show n in parentheses.
- " Range is not displayed if all the concentration values were consened to zero pursuant to footnote f of Technical Specification Table 4.9.3.
I I
I I
I I
l l
l l
f
[ 38 L
r
TABLE 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL TLD DATA
SUMMARY
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT (JANUARY DECEMBER 1998)
OFFSITE STATION INNER RING TLD OUTER RING TLD WITH HIGHEST MEAN CONTROLTLDs MEAN* MEAN* STA. NO. MEAN* MEAN*
RANGE
- RANGE
- RANGE
- RANGE *
(NO. MEASUREMENTS) (NO. MEASUREMENTS) (NO. MEASUREMENTS) (NO. MEASUREMENTS) 1 6.7 160 6.9 0.8 DR-36 8.2 0.9 6.5 0.6 5.47.9 5.1 - 8.8 6.8 - 8.8 5.77.1 (82) (60) (4) (B)
I SITE BOUNDARY TLD WITH HIGHEST MEAN SITE BOUNDARY TLD STA. NO. MEAN* MEAN*
I RANGE *
(NO. MEASUREMENTS)
RANGE *
(NO. MEASUREMENTS) t .8 I DR-45 12.5 0 11.8 13.2 (4) 8.011.5 6.0 - 13.2 (52)
I I
- Units are in micro-R per hour.
" Each " measurement" is based typically on quarterly readings from five TLD elements I
I
[
39 F
TABLE 5.3 DNIRONMENTAL TLD MEASUREMENTS '
1998 (Micro-R per Hour)
ANNUAL 8tt. 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER AVE.
XQ. Descrintion R Q R m g Q R m E DR-01 River Ste. No. 5.4 a 0.3
- 6.2 a 0.3 6.3 s 0.3 6.0 3.3 DR-02 N Hinedale, NH 5.6 e 0.3 7.0 s 0.3 6.4 s 0.3 6.7
- 0. 3 . 6.4 DR-03 Hinedale 6.4 a 0.3 7.9 e 0.4 7.6 e 0.3 7.8 8 0.3 7.4 Substetton DR-04 Northfield. MA 5.7 s 0.2 6.6 s 0.5 6.6 s 0.4 6.6
- 0.3 6.4 DR-05 Spofford 1. eke, NH 5.7 e 0.2 7.1 a 0.3 7.0 s 0.4 7.0 s 0.3 6.7 DR-06 vernen school' 5.1 a 0.3 7.0 a 0.5 6.8 s 0.4 7.1 s 0.3 6.7
- DR-07 Site Soundary 6.7 a . 0.3 7.6 s 0.5 8.3 a 0.4 8.2 s 0.3 7.7 DR-08 Site Boundary 7.0 s 0.3 7.6 s 0.1 8.3 s 0.5 8.6 s 0.3 7.8 DR-09 Inner Ring 6.0 s 0.4 7.1 s 0.4 6.5
- 0.3 6.8 s 0.3 6.6 DR-10 Outer Ring 5.1 a 0.2 5.8 s 0.4 5.5 s 0.4 5.8 s 0.2 5.6
' DR-11 Inner Ring 5.6 s 0.3 6.7 s 0.7 6.0 s 0.3 6.2 a 0.3 6.1 D2-12 Outer Ring * * * *
- DR-13 Inner Ring 6.1 a 0.5 6.8 s 0.3 6.3
- 0.3 6.9 0.2 6.5 DR-14 Outer Ring 6.8 s 0.3 8.1 a 0.4 7.8 a 0.4 0.1 s 0.3 7.7 DR-15 Inner Ring 6.3 s 0.3 7.0 s 0.3 6.9 a 0.3 7.1 s 0.3 6.8 DR-16 Outer Ring 6.7 - e 0.4 1.5 s 0.5 7.0 s 0.4 7.5
- 0.3 1.2 DR-17 Inner Ring 5.7 s 0.3 6.6 s 0.3 6.5 s 0.3 7.0 s 0.3 6.4 DR-18 Outer Ring 5.8 s 0.3 1.0 s 0.3 6.8 s 0.3 7.0 a 0.3 6.6 DR-19 Inner Ring 5.9 a 0.4 7.5
- 0.4 7.3
- 0.3 7.7 s 0.3 7.1 DR-20 Outer Ring 6.6 s 0.3 7.7 s 0.5 7.7 s 0.3 7.9 s 0.3 7.5 DR-21 Inner Ring
- 7.5 s 0.3 7.2 s 0.3 7.5 s 0.4 7.4 DR Outer Ring 6.3 s 0.3 1.2 s 0.5 6.6 s 0.3 6.9 s 0.3 6.8 DR-23 Inner Ring- 5.9 e 0.3 6.8
- 0.4 6.4 s 0.3 6.6 s 0.3 6.4 DR-24 Outer Ring 5.3 s 0.3 6.3 s 0.4 5.7 e 0.3 6.3 a 0.2 5.9 DR-25 Inner Ring 6.1 a 0.3 7.0 a 0.5 6.5 . e 0.3 6.8
- 0.3 6.6 DR-36 Outer Ring 5.8 s 0.3 7.2 a 0.5 7.1 s 0.4 7.4
- 0.3 6.9 DR 27 Inner Ring 5.7 s 0.3 7.0 s 0.3 6.9 a 0.3 7.0 s 0.4 6.6 DR-28 Outer Ring 6.1 a 0.2 6.8
- 0.3 6.9 s 0.3 7.1 s 0.4 6.8 DR-29 Inner Ring 6.0
- 0.4 6.7 s 0.4 6.6
- 0.3 6.7 s 0.3 6.5 DR 30 Outer Ring 5.9 s 0.3 7.2 s 0.4 7.3 s 0.4 7.1 a 0.3 6.9 DR-31 Inner Ring 6.3 s 0.4 7.2 s 0.5 7.2 s 0.3 7.3 s 0.3 7.0 DR 32 Outer Ring 6.0 s 0.4 7.0 s 0.4 6.9 s 0.3 7.2 s 0.3 6.8 DR-33 Inner Ring 6.0 s 0.3 7.1 a 0.4 7.1 a 0.3 7.3 s 0.3 6.9 DR-34 Outer Ring 6.5 s 0.3 7.7 s 0.4 7.4 a 0.4 7.7 s 0.3 7.3 DR-33' Inner Ring 6.2 s 0.3 7.1 s 0.4 6.8 s 0.3 7.1 a 0.4 6.8 DR-36 Outer Ring 6.8 s 0.4 8.7 s 0.4 8.6
- 0.4 8.8
- 0.3 8.2 DR-37 Inner Ring- 6.0 ' s 0.3 6.7 s 0.3 6.9 s 0.4 6.9 s 0.3 6.6 DR-38 Outer Ring 6.6 s 0.3 7.7 a 0.4 7.4 a 0.4 7.7
- 0.4 7.4 DR-39.. inner Ring 6.1 s 0.4 ' 7.1 s 0.4 6.8 s 0.3 7.1 s 0.3 6.8
' DR-40 Outer Ping 6.2 a 0.4 7.1 a 0.3 6.6 s 0.3 7.0 s 0.3 6.7 40
TABLE 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL TLD MEASUREMENTS 1998 (Micro-R per IMur t ANNUAL sta. 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER .4TH QUARTER AVE.
- h Descrintion n- mn m n.-an a n DR-41 site Boundary 6.9 s 0.4 1.5 s 0.5 7.9 s 0.4 7.7 s 0.3 1.5 DR-42 site soundary' 6.1 s 0.5 7.4
- 0.5 1.3 s 0.4 7.1 a 0.3 7.0 DR-43 ' site soundary 6.7 s 0.3 1.4
- 0.3 7.7 s 0.4 7.5 s 0.3 7.3 DR-44 site Boundary 1.9 s 0.5 6.5 ' e 0. 5 . 1.9 s 0.4. 8.1 a 0.3 7.6 DR-45 -site soundary ~13.2 a 0.7 11.8 s 0.6 11.8 s 0.7 13.2 a 0.6 12.5 DR-46 site Soundary. 7.7 s . 0.4 8.3 a 0.5 9.2 a 0. 4 ' 9.5 s 0.4 8.7 DR-47 site Boundary 7.2 a 0.3 8.4 s 0.3 8.2 s 0.4 8.6
- 0.4 8.1 l DR-48 site Soundary 6.3 - e 0.3 7.4 s 0.4 7.0 s 0.3 7.2 s 0.3 7.0 DR 49 site Boundary 6.0 s 0.3 6.9
- 0.4 6.7 s 0.3 6.9 s 0.3 6.6 DR-50 Covernor Hunt 6.3
- 0.3 6.8 s 0.4 6.8
- 0.3 7.2 a 0.3 6.8 House DR 51 site soundary 7.5 s 0.6 7.7 e 0.5 8.3 s 0.9 8.0 s 0.3 7.9
\
j DR-52 site boundary. 7.8 s 0.4 1.5 s 0.5 8.8 s 0.5 8.7 s 0.4 8.2 l
- Data not evallable due to missiap TLD.
l i
l l-l I
t l
l i
i I
l 41
- 6. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS 6.1 Sampling Program Deviations .
Radiological Effluent Technical Specification 3.9.C allows for deviations "if specimens are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, seasonal unavailability, malfunction of automatic sampling equipment and other legitimate reasons." In 1998, 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 1998 were:
a) There were several missing TLDs during 1998. The outer ring TLD in the NNE sector, DR-12, was reponed missing foi all 4 quarters of the year. Vandahsm is suspected at this location. The TLD has been placed higher on the pole to prevent further vandalism.
b) The 1" quaner TLD for the SE inner ring, DR-21, was reported missing.
c) The downstream river Station (VWR-11) water pump did not operate from 4/2/98 to 4/10/98 when the breaker was reset. The pump motor apparently failed as a result of sediment clogging the pump due to high river flows. Grab samp!cs during this period were taken once per day beginning on 4/3/98.
1 d) The downstream river Station (VWR-11) water pump did not operate from 5/31/98 until 6/2/98. Thunderstorms in the vicinity on 5/31/98 must have caused a power anomaly that tripped the breaker. The breaker was reset on 6/2/98.
e) The downstream river Station (VWR-11) water pump missed about 27 days from 11/18/98- ;
12/15/98. The line from the river to the sample compositor had frozen. The line was thawed !
and the pump restarted on 12/16/98.
f) The Hinsdale Substation air sampling location, VAP/VCF 13, did not operate for about 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> during the sampling period from 6/16/98 to 6/30/98. The GFI circuit had tripped. The breaker was reset which restarted the equipment. The vacuum pump was replaced since it was suspected to have caused the GFI circuit to trip.
g) The vacuum pump at the River Station air sampling location VAP/VCF 11 failed which resulted in missing all but 4 days of the period 11/3/98 to 11/17/98. The pump was replaced on 11/17/98, which fixed the problem.
42
h) The 1st quarter samples of vegetation at all of the required locations were not taken since vegetation was not available that quarter of the year. The Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications allow for missed vegetation samples due to lack of availability as described in T.S. Table 3.9.3, note a.
6.2 Comparison of Achieved LLDs 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 DESEL, the target LLD for any analysis is typically 30-40 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 a posteriori(after the fact) LLD calculated for that analysis was compared with the required LLD.
Of the more than 1500 analyses that had an LLD requirement in Technical Specification Table 4.9.3, two did not meet the LLD requirement. Both samples were environmental water samples being analyzed for gross beta activity. The required LLD for gross beta analyses of environmental water samples is 4 pCi/kg. The first is DESEL Lab Sample Number (LSN) 45700, a ground water sample taken in November from Station 12 (the Vernon Nursing Well). The a posteriori LLD for LSN 4500 was 4.4 pCi/kg. The second is DESEL LSN 46626, a river water sample taken in December from Station 21 (Route 9 Bridge). The a posteriori LLD for LSN 46626 was 24.3 pCi/kg. Due to a high suspended solid content in each of these two samples, a volume of sample sufficient to achieve the desired LLD could not be obtained without compromising the validity of the efficiency. The measured concentration of each of these two samples, however, exceeds the aposteriori LLD and three times the standard deviation, thus indicating that the measurements are valid and positive.
6.3 Comparison of Results with Repoi-ting Levels Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.9.4 requires written notification to the NRC within 30 days of receipt of an analysis result whenever a Reponing 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. Environmental concentrations are averaged over calendar 43
(
quarters for the purposes of this comparison. The Reponing Levels are intended to apply only to measured levels of radioactivity due to plant effluents.
During 1998, no analytical result exceeded a corresponding reponing level requirement in Table 3.9.4 of the Technical Specifications.
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." During 1998 there was a change in sampling locations required under Technical Specifications. Identified by the 1998 Land Use Census, TM-11 (Miller Farm) is no longer a technical specification required sampling location, and is replaced by TM-18 (Blodgett Farm). The Miller Farm will remain part of the routine sampling program as a non-tech spec. required station. This change is also reflected in the silage sampling stations (TC-11 and TC-18) which always correspond with the identified milk sampling stations. Two milk sample locations, TM-22 and TM-23, and two silage sample locations TC-22 and TC-23, were added to Table 4.1 of the ODCM in 1998 as part of the routine environmental monitoring program. Inclusion of these stations into the monitoring program, however, is a voluntary addition and are identified in the ODCM as Non-Tech Spec stations.
6.5 Data Analysis by Media Type The 1998 REMP data for each media type is discussed below. Whenever a specific measurement result is presented, it is given as the concentration plus or minus one standard deviation. This standard deviation represents only the random uncertainty associated with the radioactive decay process (counting statistics), and not the propagation of all possible uncertainties in the analytical procedure. An analysis is considered to yield a " detectable measurement" when the concentr:. tion 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."
44
l 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 quaner, the bi-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.
Gross beta activity was detected on all air particulate filters collected. As shown in Figure 6.1, there is no significant difference between the quanerly average concentrations at the indicator (near-plant) stations and the control (distant from plant) stations. Also notable in the Figure is a distinct annual cycle, with the minimum concentration in the second quarter, and the maximum concentration in the first quarter.
Figures 6.2 through 6.6 show the weekly gross beta concentration at each air paniculate sampling location alongside the same for the control air particulate sampling location at AP-21 (Spofford Lake, NH). Small differences are evident, and are expected, between individual sampling locations. It can also be seen that the gross-beta measurements on air particulate filters fluctuate significantly over the course of a year. The measurements from control station AP-21 vary similarly, indicating that these fluctuations are due to regional changes in naturally-occuning airbome radioactive materials, and not due to Vermont Yankee operations.
The only gamma emitting radionuclide detected on the air particulate filters was Be-7, a naturally-occurring cosmogenic radionuclide.
6.5.1.2 Charcoal Cartridges 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 Tab!c 5.1. As in previous years, no I-131 was detected in any charcoal cartridge.
45
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 control location, also on the Connecticut River. The composited samples at WR-11 I were collected monthly and sent to the DESEL, along with the WR-21 grab samples, for analysis.
Table 5.1 shows that gross-beta measurements v. re positive in 11 out of 12 indicator samples and 10 out of 12 control samples, as would be expected, due to naturally-occurring radionuclides in the water.
I The gross beta activity measured at the control location (WR-21) in December of 1998 was unusually high witt a concentration of 44 8.1 pCi/kg. This activity was verified at the I environmental laboratoy by reprocessing the sample and performing a recount. In addition, the sample was filtered through a 0.45 micron Gelman Tuffyn Membrane filter and the concentration in the filtered water was 23 0.9 pCi/kg. River water samples taken from this location tre also l analyzed for gamma cmitting isotopes and a peak was found in the K-40 region in December only. The elevated presence of K-40, which emits both beta and gamma radiation, indicates that I the elevated gross beta measurement was probably due largely to K-40. Potassium 40 is a naturally occurring radionuclide often found in sediment and water in the form of suspended l organic matter. The contractor performing the collection of this sample (Nonnandeau Associates) reported that the river was frozen at the time. The ice was drilled with a power auger to obtain the sample, thus disturbing the sediment at the bottom. A sample taken at this controllocation I in January of 1999 was also found to have an elevated gross beta concentration of 14 2.1 pCi/kg.
As seen in Figure 6.7, the mean concentration of the indicator locations was similar to the mean concentration at the control location in the first half of the year. No gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in river water samples in 1998.
For each sampling site, the monthly samples were composited into quanerly samples for H-3 (Tritium) analyses. None of the samples contained detectable quantities of H-3.
4e l
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 1998. In addition, WG-13 (COB Well) is an on-site well location that has been routinely sampled since the second half of 1996. Table 5.1 and Figure 6.8 shaw that gross-beta measurements were positive in 10 out of 12 of the indicator samples and in 3 out of 4 of the control samples. This is due to naturally-occurring radionuclides in the water. The levels at all sampling locations, including the higher levels at station WG-11, were consistent with that detected in previous years. No gamma-emitting radionuclides or tritium were detected in any of the samples.
6.5.2.3 Sediment Semiannual sediment grab samples were collected from two indicator locations during 1998.
As would be expected, naturally-occurring K-40 and Th-232 were detected in all samples (excluding Th-232 not detected in 1 out of 83 samples). Cesium-137 was detected in most indicator samples. The levels of Cs-137 measured at both locations were consistent with what has been measured in the previous several years and with those detected at other New England locations.
6.5.2.4 Test Wells During 1996 sampling was initiated at test wells around the outer edges of an area in the south portion of the VYNPS site where septic sludge is spread. This sampling continued through the 1998 year. The test well locations are shown on Figure 4.1 and the results are summarized in Table 5.1 under the media category, Test Well (WT). In 1998, two samples were taken at each of the four locations and all were analyzed for gamma isotopic, gross beta and H-3 activity.
Potassium 40 was detected in 3 out of 8 of the samples collected. Potassium 40 is a naturally occurring nuclide found in water. There were no other gamma emitting radionuclides or H-3 detected.
Prior to the gross beta analysis, each sample was filtered through a 0.45 micron Gelman Tuffryn membrane filter. Gross beta activity was detected in all 8 samples collected with levels ranging from 15 to 61 pCi/kg. The detected presence of K-40, which emits both beta and gamma radiation, indicates that the detected gross beta activity was largely due to K-40 6.5.2.5 Air Compressor Condensate 47
l 1
During 1998, monthly samples of condensate from air compressors were taken when available.
A tctal of 4 samples were obtained. The samples were analyzed for tritium activity. The l analytical results of the four samples are concentrations of H-3 ranging from 1.3E-06 pCi/ml to 5.5E-05 pCi/ml, with a mean of 3.0E-05 pCi/ml. The presence of H-3 in the condensate is an incidental result of the normal operation of the air compressor. This condensate is discharged to i the Turbine Building Clean Sump and ultimately to the Circulating Water System. The small volume of condensata relative to the volume of water in the clean sump results in a dilution of the H-3 to below detectable levels. This dilution is also an incidental result of the system's normal operation.
6.5.2.6 Storm Drain System The presence of plant related radionuclides in the onsite storm drain system has been identified i in previous years at Vermont Yankee (VY). As a consequence, a 50.59 evaluation of radioactive materials discharged via the storm drain system was performed in 1998. This assessment was in response to I&E Information and Enforcement Bulletin No. 80-10 and NRC Information Notice No. 91-40. The evaluation demonstrated that the total curies released via the VYNPS storm drain system are not sufficient to result in a significant dose (i.e. dose does not exceed 10% of the I technical specification objective of 0.3 millirem per year to the total body, and 1.0 millirem per year to the target organ for the maximally exposed receptor). Water and sediment in the onsite storm drain system was routinely sampled throughout 1998 at various points. The results of this sampling are summarized below.
Sediment samples were taken from the storm drain system at onsite manhole locations in 1998.
Specifically, I sample was taken from Manhole Il-G,12 samples from Manhole 12,5 samples from Manhole Il-F, and 5 samples from Manhole 1I E, for a total of 23 samples. All samples were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes. Table 6-1 summarizes the analytical results of the sediment samples. Naturally occurring isotopes K-40 and Be-7 were found in nearly all the samples as expected. Another naturally occurring isotope, Th-238, was detected in most samples.
The highest detected concentration for all plant related radionuclides that were detected in I sediment samples was found in Station 95 which is also designated by the plant as Manhole 12.
Water samples were taken from the storm drain system at various access points in 1998 including ,
Manholes MH-1IH, MH-12A, MH-13, and MH-14. Table 6-2 summarizes the analytical results of water samples from the storm drain system in 1998. Naturally occurring Be-7 was detected in 48
I 2 out of 22 samples analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes. No other gamma emitting isotopes were detected. Low levels of gross beta activity were detected in 22 out of 23 samples analyzed at concentrations that are typical of any environmental water sample. Tritium (H-3) was detected in 12 out of 140 samples analyzed.
An additional dose assessment was performed that incorpo ates all of the 1998 storm drain system analytical results (including both sediment and water). The dose assessment was performed using the maximum measured concentration of radionuclides in 1998, and a conservative estimate of the volume of sediment and water discharged via the storm drain system. The results of this dose assessment are estimates of the total body and maximum organ dose equaling 3.2% and 1.6% of
( the corresponding Technical Specification dose limits respectively. Therefore, there was no significant dose impact from plant related radionuclides in the storm drain system in 1998. The VYNPS staff will continue to monitor the presence of plant related radionuclides in the storm drain system.
f
{
{
l l
49 L
r
Table 61 Summary of Storm Drain System Sediment Sample Analyses
- Isotope No. Detected ** Mean Range Station With Highest (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg) Detected Concentration Be-7 19/23 2.0 E 4 (0 - 7.5) E 4 95 (MH-12)
I K-40 23/23 1.1 E 4 (6.9 - 24) E 3 99 (MH I1E)
Th-232 18/23 5.7 E 2 (0 - 1.7) E 3 99 (MH IIE) l Mn-54 7/23 1.2 E 2 (0 - 1.8) E 3 95 (MH-12)
Co-60 17/23 2.6 E 3 (0 - 3.7) E 4 95 (MH-12)
Zn-65 3/23 8.0 E 1 (-1.0 - 1.3) E 3 95 (MH-12) l Cs-134 1/23 3.1 E O (0 - 7.1) E 1 95 (MH-12) p Cs-137 18/23 3.1 E 3 (0 - 8.3) E 3 95 (MH-12)
Radionuclides that were not detected in any sample are not listed
- The fraction of sample analyses yielding detectable measurements (i.e. >3 standard deviations).
Table 6 2 Summary of Storm Drain System Water Sample Analyses
- Isotope No. Detected ** Mean Range Station With Highest (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg) Detected Concentration Be-7 2/22 1.2 E O (0 - 15.0) E O WW-12 Gross Beta 22/23 3.1 E O (0 - 5.0) E O WW-12 H-3 12/140 1.0 E I (0 - 1.4) E 3 WW-12 Radionuclides that were not detected in any sample are not listed
" The fraction of sample analyses yielding detectable measurements (i.e. >3 standard deviations).
[
[
[
50 r
L
r 6.5.3 Ingestion Pathways 6.5.3.1 Milk Milk samples from cows or goats at several local farms were collected monthly during 1998.
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 was Sr-90.
Sr-90 was detected in 7 out of 23 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 staned 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 detection of Cs-137 in environmental milk samples was I expected in previous years but has seen a steady decline in recent years. There was no Cs-137 detected in milk samples in 1998. The Sr-90 levels shown in Table 5.1 and Figure 6.10 are consistent with those detected at other New England farms participating in other plant 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 significant or not.
As shown in these figures, the levels are also consistent with those detected ia previeus 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.
51
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 and I-131. As expected with all biological media, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. Naturally-occurring Be-7 was also detected in four of the six samples. No I-131 was detected in any sample.
6.5.3.3 Mixed Grass Mixed grass samples were collected at each of the air sampling stations on four occasions during 1998. As expected with all biological media, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. Naturally-occurring Be-7 was also detected in 16 out of 20 samples.
No other gamma emitting radionuclides were detected in any of the samples collected in 1998.
6.5.3.4 Fish Semiannual samples of fish were collected from two locations in May and September,1998.
The species collected were Walleye, Small Mouth Bass, Large Mouth Bass, and Yellow Perch at Station FH-11, and White Perch and Rock Bass at Station FH-21. 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 1998 Cs-137 concentrations plotted in Figure 6.11 are considered "not detectable". All n
values were plotted regardless of w' er they were considered statistically significant or not. The Cs-137 levels plotted for previous , .s 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 Yankee plant with the use of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). These are collected every calendar quaner for readout at the DESEL. The complete summary of data may be found in Table 5.3.
From Tables 5.2 and 5.3 and Figure 6.12,it can be seen that the Inner and Outer Ring TLD 52 l
l
mean exposure rates were not significantly different in 1998. 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 b 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 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 one field site and another.
Upon examining Figure 6.16, as well as Table 5.2, it is evident that in recent years station DR-45 had a higher average exposure rate than any other station. This location is on-site, and the higher exposure rates are due to plant operations and activities 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.
53 l
1-
. . . _ _ = . .
r FIGURE 6.1 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS QUARTERLY AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 0.16 , 0.16 0.12 ' - 0.12 d
- r 2 -
-@ 0.08- - 0.08
- s N -
l R ,
0.04 J - 0.04
. 1 N 8 p gQNS'g99RgpA g"9'gR ERg sEEg as g EEssge.
0 0 1/1/88 1/1/90 1/1/92 1/1/94 1/1/96 1/1/98
-o- Indicator Stations ,
l -x Contrv Station l 54 il
FIGURE 6.2 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 , 0.06
~
' O.05 - ' 0.05
~
iii 0.045 - 0.04 2 : 3 :
~
~
- - 0.03 0.03 2 U R, s.
x p -
p x Q 0.02 )5 5
-o x
yj 5x o
~
- 0.02 x x o
0.01 5 9 g N 9 a - 0.01 0 0 Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec 1998
-c- AP-11 River Station x- AP 21 Spofford Lake NH 55
.i
p.
FIGURE 6.3 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 . 0.06 3- [
0.05 a, -r 0.05 d -
5' O.04 4. - 0.04 l 2 x '.
~
0.03 - 0.03 s 3 a. a 9.. b 0.02 ,
2 a R.
'o '.6 a "3 ,
p.x 0.02
-,* X x.X;g a '
b -
0.01 {.
[ d' m R h 0.01 u
~
0 0 Dec- Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec 1998
- AP 12 N. Hinsdale NH i
! - x - AP 21 Spofford Lake NH i l
e i.
l 56 j l
i I
c-FIGURE 6.4 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 ; , 0.06
-b .
0.05 J -- 0.05 5 0.04 l'. ' 0.04
~ '
- /
s .
D - 0.03 0.03 j g
- 8 ,o :
9
- 0.020 2 0y a U d'D , .3)Q 8 h 0.02 g x x x.g.x . x g.x o x x :
. 0.01 9 k h 0.01 t :
0 0
'Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec 1998
{ -c- AP 13 Hinsdale Substation {
I j -x AP 21 Spofford Lake NH i 57 e
F FIGURE 6.5 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 ; , 0.06 0.05 ' - 0.05
.1 :
~
5 0.04 4 7004
$. d. x ~.
j 0.035~ P 7003 4
i
~
I x-E x.%e -
g 0.02 - . x )5' 'x ; 0.02
,- 0 O 9 F j
Em ' k x/* Y 6y 0.01 - -[a g R f 0.01 0-- -0 Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec 1998 i m- AP-14 Northfield MA l 1 .
l -x AP-21 Spofford Lake NH I l
I l
i 58 i
}
FIGURE 6.6 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 0.06 4 5 1 r 0.05 5, 5
- 0.05 li; 0.042 1 0.04
$ U of :
~
$s 0.03 5 X - 0.03 U .
x .
. O. U -
' a 4 - 0.02 x p9 @,,R g x 0.02 i "
D x Qx
- , g ,
esy
.' X .
0.01 _~ R R s -- 0.01 5
t 0 0 Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec l 1998 m- AP-15 Tyler Hill Road i i
-X- AP 21 Spofford Lake NH I
l l
59 l
l
l l
l FIGURE 6.7 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON RIVER WATER I SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS l 16 _ 16 14 i -- 14 I -
122 1 12 1 102 1 10 o : :
ha 8i h8 6- -
-6 4i -
3 h4 x .
2 h~g4* ge:99'8g>g-g a4o -6
~
l a+g -2 0' ~
0 1/1/89 1/1/91 1/1/93 1/1/95 1/1/97 1/1/99 I
-c- WR-11 River Station No. 3.3
-A- WR 21 Rt.9 Bridge j l
[
{
60
FIGURE 6.8 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON GROUND WATER SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 16 _ _ 16 14 -14 12 -12
~
10 o - 10 8
0 6
/ g __g/n N O 8 6x/9 D D 0
D j a \
s g
-6 4 3_3
^
4-t . , j# #
-4 2 ^%/"*-
- o^n s,M~o-o hby" 2 0- 0 1/1/89 1/1/91 1/1/93 1/1/95 1/1/97 1/1/99
-c- WG-11 Plant Well a- WG-12 Vernon Nursing Well
-x- WG-13 COB Well w-- WG 21 Brattleboro CC
-o- WG-22 Skibniowsky Well t
{
FIGURE 6.9 CESIUM-137 IN MILK ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 20 _ ,
20 I
15 - -- 15 I
10- -10 g : :
l R 5--
~
_- 5 l 0-
~
o-o N Noe, a - [= = = g 7 s y g S E E g-0m
-o i l :
-5 -5 1988 1990 1992 1994 1995 1998 I --o- TM-11 Miller (cow)
-o- TM-14 Brown (cow)
-o- TM-16 Meadow Crest Farm (cow)
-V- TM-18 Blodgett Farm (cow)
- -w- TM-22 Franklin (cow)
-t- TM-23 Evans Farm (cow)
E - x - TM-24 County Farm (control) 62
FIGURE 6.10 STRONTIUM 90IN MILK I ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 10 , _
10 I ej }e
~
6 ~- 6 h" 47 -4
% A :
. % \
2- e o o'O\ 9
'.2 0-e X' h*[Nh D7
/*
E%hg % E$ ,
4 0
-0 1 -
-2 2 1 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 I
-o- TM-11 Miller (cow)
-o- TM-14 Brown (cow)
, -n- TM-16 Meadow Crest Farm (cow)
-o- TM-18 Blodgett Farm (cow)
-*- TM-22 Franklin Farm (cow)
-v- TM-23 Evans Farm (cow) x- TM-24 County Farm (control) 1 63
I l
FIGURE 6.11 CESIUM- 137 IN FISH ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 140 , 140
[ ] ,
120 - -120 100 -100 8U ~ 8U
[ a .
60
{ f60 40 _ -40
~
l 20- _. __ _
20
~
l 0- E- :
0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Year
{
E FH-11 Vernon Pond
[ FH 21 Rt. 9 Bridge (Control) f r
64
w l ,
FIGURE 6.12 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING, OUTER RING 1 AND CONTROLTLDS 20 20 l .
15- -15 I g .
~
E .
I ' 10- -10 l s 5-je+ #s%,.%,,sy y pes
-5 1 .
O I O --
-- -- - O 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 i Retrieval Date 1 -c- Control
~
-t- Inner Ring x- Outer Ring
{
[
[
65 i
~
l
__b
1 FIGURE 6.13 1 EXPOSURE RATE AT INDICATOR TLDS, DR 01-03 20 20 1 : :
15- -15 I . .
5 -
C - 10 e
I ~
- 'A
^Y[ A'6 a ^ ^'Y ^
$ 3 / n /
4g '~5 ,/
6l}[15"acd%yM a %gg :C6:5.
X 0 ---- 0 1 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date
-o- DR-01 River Station No. 3.3
-->e- DR-02 North Hinsdale, NH i -t- DR-03 Hinsdale Substation ,
[
66
-M hkh i - a
1 I
I FIGU.?? 6.14 l
EXPOSURE RATE AT INDICATOR TLDS, DR 06,50 I 20 20 l : :
J _
15 , -15 l -
z -
I g - .
p 10- -10 I e : :
l6 $ *ts lY l 5- d -s 1
i -
0 -
0 l 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date
-c- DR-06 Vemon School
--x- DR-50 Gov. Hunt House
{
67
i FIGURE 6.15 EXPOSURE RATE AT INDICATOR TLDS, DR 07- 08,41 - 42 20 20 15 - 15 y - .
h - -
10 - 10 q /
5- 6 -5 0 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date DR-07 Site Boundary
-x- DR-08 Site Boundaary
-n- DR-41 Site Boundary
- r- DR-42 Site Boundary 68 i
.._.7__
FIGURE 6.16 EXPOSURE RATE AT SITE BOUNDARY TLDS, DR 43 - 46 60 . 60 I
I SOH -50 F
u 40- -40 8 :
I i -
30- - 30 f
$ i- -
.9 2 20- -20 10 W ^ a N rp=m'v&*as'e':s"w sw=s=a--10 0 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date
- -o- DR-43 Site Boundary j -x- DR-44 Site Boundary i -a- DR-45 Site Boundary l -o- DR-46 Site Boundary 69
FIGURE 6.17 EXPOSURE RATE AT SITE BOUNDARY TLDS, DR 47 - 49, 51-52 20 , 20 J -
N r 15- -15 xu - -
E 10- c -10
=
4DaQI# h h
- 4;f/;2M,,/ %# 25 @< k WErMw=s i -
r 1
0 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date l DR-47 Site Boundary
!- T. DR-48 Site Boundary I
- -n- DR-49 Site Boundary .
- o-- DR-51 Site Boundary
- ' DR-52 Site Boundary 70 i;
r-*;~
FIGURE 6.18 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 09 - 15 (Odd) 20 20 15- -15 u . .
8 -
x -
'10- -10 g ~
$ o
.9 5g Qk I -
kN k 5
-5 0 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date
-D- DR-09 inner Ring
--x- DR-11 inner Ring
-n- DR 13 inner Ring
- o DR-15 inner Ring 71
FIGURE 6.19 I EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 17 - 23 (Odd) 20 20 l - .
~.
15- -15 I g l g . _
g 10- -10 b .
53p%M?pgs&EP$pB03%MM:
h
$ -5 I ; -
0 0 1 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date
-o- DR-17 inner Ring i -x- DR-19 inner Ring l -a- DR-21 inner Ring l i -o- DR-23 inner Ring
[
72 r
I 1
1 FIGURE 6.20 1
EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 25 - 31 (Odd) 20 20 iu 1 15 ; -15 l g l g - -
p 10 , -10 I e ; :
5-g p=wnss y p y,4ng n=s:
ts -5 l A
~
~
0 0 l 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date DR-25 inner Ring
-x- DR-27 inner Ring n- DR-29 inner Ring
,:r- DR-31 Inner Ring
[
6 73
[
[
{
FIGURE 6.21
[
EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 33 - 39 (Odd) 20 20
[
{ 1 15 , -15
~
h -
3 .
'10 -10
[ - .
~
.9
~
f h #ES;R Y =-g8 f b *@g N 5- -5
[ .'
0 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 I' Retrieval Date f -c- DR-33 inner Ring
-x- DR-35 inner Ring
-a- DR-37 inner Ring
-o- DR-39 inner Ring 74 f
I
c.
t FIGURE 6.22 EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 10 -16 (Even) 20 ; 20 1
i -
15 ; -15 1
h I 7
u - .
f10--
--10 l MTr##m,#:w/cd Y NI '
5
[ 8'd -- 5 i ~
9 O' 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date
-c- DR-10 Outer Ring ;
e DR-12 Outer Ring
, e DR-14 Outer Ring ,
i
,:r- DR-16 Outer Ring l
I
)
l 75
FIGURE 6.23 EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 18 - 24 (Even) 20 20 15- -15 g 1 1 -
10 -10
- ~
6 s ~
x .xw x x e-x 1 =6x4~g/x 2 46 gg esg-r gs /
5-Do N yo-+vN,x 8 c o
- g s NAr -5 r
0 0 1994- 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date
- -c- DR 18 Outer Ring
, i
- -x- DR-20 Outer Ring
_-n- DR 22 Outer Ring i
-o- DR-24 Outer Ring l-76
FIGURE 6.24 EXPOSURE RATE AT OlJTER RING TLDS, DR 26 - 32 (Even) 20 , 20 d -
i 15J' -15 B , -
g .
y . -
a 10-m -10 h . -
5 5-
- ( [*' w %fe=S v *1 / **:
g -5 r
0 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date
-c- DR 26 Outer Ring
-x- DR 28 Outer Ring
-n- DR 30 Outer Ring m- DR-32 Outer Ring i
f 77
FIGURE 6.25 EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 34 - 40 (Even) i r b -
15 -15 x
i -
w _
E 10-! -10 g
- / @g MhDP 5~ -5 4 r
d -
0 , , o 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date 1 -t- DR-34 Outer Ring ,
f -x- DR 36 Outer Ring !
f ~ -n- DR-38 Outer Ring l o-- DR-40 Outer Ring 78 L -
m FIGURE 6.26 EXPOSURE RATE ATCONTROLTLD DR04-05 20 , 20 i
l 15 -! -15 8 _ _
xu .
$ 10- -10 m .
6 ,'
,y ..
2
$ Ns j/[dW hs' ~Uk k
-5
~l P 0 . 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Retrieval Date l -c- DR-04 Northfield, MA !
- i
! -x- DR-05 Spofford Lake, NH I l
79
r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ - -
- 7. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM The quality assurance program at the Duke Engineering & Services 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 of measurement equipment and processes, relative to established requirements.
The Duke Engineering & Services 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 t'ie Intralaboratory Quality Control Program administered by the Laboratory QA Officer (used in conjunction with the National Institute Standards and Technology's Measurement Assurance Program, 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 toutine sample analysis load. In addition the Laboratory Quality Control Audit Committee conducts a blind duplicate quality assurance program.
This summary reports all interlaboratory known values or intralaboratory results received by the DESEL on or before January 31,1999.
7.1 Intralaboratory Quality Control Program The Duke Engineering & Services Laboratory conducts an extensive intralaboratory quality control program to assure the validity and reliability of environmental analytical data.
Process check samples are either samples submitted in duplicate to uvaluate the precision of the measurements or are " spiked" with a known quantity of radioactive material to assess the bias in the measurement. The Laboratory QA Officer administers the program. A summary of the program process check results may be found in Table 7.1.
Two low level iodine-131 (chemistry followed by beta-gamma coincidence counting) results fell into category 4 for bias and precision and contributed to the issuance of CR98-009. One gamma result fell into category 4 of the Bias Criteria, however since the mean bias for this set was within 115% no further action was required.
- Two low level iodine-131 in milk results fell outside the acceptance criteria for bias and precision. The mean bias for the set was within 15% of the known value. The 80
)
DESL confirmed the iodine-131 activity by gamma analysis to be within 5% of the mean. Inquiry 6-98 was issued to investigate the first precision outlier which occurred in September but was subsequently changed to CR98-009 following the occurrence of the second failure in October and a review of the Analytics low level iodine-131 which indicated two additional outliers. CR98-009 was issued in December 1998.
7.2 Third Party Intercomparison Program To further verify the accuracy and precision of the analyses performed at the Duke Engineering & Services Laboratory participates in two independent third pany intercomparison programs conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Analytics Inc.
At the end of 1995 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stopped its Environmental Intercomparison Studies Program. At that time the DESL replaced the mix of radionuclides and matrices (milk, water and air filters) which had comprised the EPA program with another third pany QA program managed by Analytics Inc. The Laboratory continued to panicipate in the EPA drinking water Performance Evaluation (PE). 1998 is the last year the EPA will provide PE samples for analysis. The overall scope of the program managed by Analytics was designed to be comparable to the pre-1996 EPA program and reflects the mix of client REMP media processed by the DESL. '
Participation in such programs and the reporting of results in this report is pursuant to Vermont Yankee ODCM section 4.1 and Technical Speci" cation 4.9.E.
Each sample 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. The known values from Analytics are evaluated against the Laboratory acceptance criteria described in the DESL Manual 100- Laboratory QA Plan and the EPA results are evaluated against the EPA control limits.
When the results of the cross-check analysis fall outside of the acceptance criteria or control limit, an investigation is initiated to determine the cause of the problem and if appropriate, corrective measures are taken.
EPA PE Procram: During 1998, the DESL analyzed 13 sample sets, representing 34 nuclides, for the EPA PE Program. The analyses included gamma-emitting radionuclides, gross alpha, gross-beta, strontium-89 and 90, low level iodine-131, tritium, radium-226 and 228 and natural uranium. Table 7.2 provides a summary of the results for 1998. One set of EPA gross alpha analyses (reference date 1/30/98) fell outside the EPA control limits.
81 1
e Inquiry 3-98 was issued to address the failure of the 1/30/98 gross alpha samples.
DESL mean value: 9.8 pCi/L EPA known value: 30.50 7.60 pCi/L EPA controllimits: 17.30 - 43.70 pCi/L The DESL had previously determined the root cause of the low bias in gross alpha
, analysis to be sample evaporation and the amount of solids present in the sample.
Follow-up analyse of the EPA samples (EL 189-98) produced results that were within
+6.6% and +5.9% of the EPA known value, with and without salts respectively.
To provide additional assurance that the root cause for the low bin in the gross alpha analysis was identified, the DESL requested and processed a back-up sample from the 1/30/98 PE sample (A79087-A79089). This analysis resulted in the following results:
DESL mean value: 17.92 pCi/L EPA known value: 30.50 7.60 pCi/L EPA control limits: 17.30 - 43.70 pCi/L The Laboratory Quality Assurance Review Committee (LQARC) determined that no funher action was necessary because these results were within the EPA control limits.
ANALYTICS Proeram: 14 sample sets in water, milk and air filter matrices were analyzed as part of the Analytics Inc. Cross Check Program. The analyses included gamma-emitting radionuclides, gross alpha, gross-beta, strontium-89 and 90, low level iodine-131, tritium, Radium-226 and 228, plutonium-238 and 239 and uranium-234 and 238. Table 7.3 provides a summary of the results for 1998.
. All DESL mean value results met the acceptance criteria for bias, however, two low leveliodine-131 results with the following precision. -14.4 % for milk and -16.8% for water, contributed to the change ofInquiry 6-98 to CR 98-009.
7.3 Environmental TLD Quality Assurance Program Performance documentation of the routine processing of the Panasonic environmental TLD (thermoluminescent dosimeter) program at the Duke Engineering & Services 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 Nonhwest Labs and intemal performance testing conducted by the Laboratory QA 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 this standard and is used to indicate trends and changes 82 l
in performance. Instmmentation checks, although routinely performed by the Dosimetry Services Group and representing 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.
The DESEL processed 3576 environmer.tal TLDs during 1998. Ninety-six independent performance tests were conducted (2.7%QC). Of these, the QA Officer submitted 72 to the Dosimetry Services Group and 24 were submitted as part of Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories testing program. One hundred percent of these met the acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision with a mean bias during the first half of 1998 of--0.1 2.5% and
-1.9 3.3% during the second half of 1998.
During 1998 a special study was conducted to evaluate the dosimeter mean bias response )
as a function of depth and dose level. The process was standardized by "binning" the dose levels into 100 mR increments starting with 0 mR out to 400 mR for high energy photon irradiations (
NVLAB Category IV). The environmental TLD percent bias was 0.81,0.83 and -2.80 at dose levels of 0-100mR, >100-200mR and >300-400mR, respectively.
7.4 Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program The Laboratoy Quality Control Audit Committee (LQCAC) is comprised of one member from each of the five New England power plants that are serviced by the Duke Engineering &
Services Laboratoy. Two of the primary functions of the LQCAC are to conduct an annual audit of Laboratoy operations and to coordinate the Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program.
Under the Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program, paired samples are submitted by the panicipating plants. 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 assesses the results of the paired analyses to evaluate precision in Laboratory measurements.
Fifty-seven paired samples were submitted under this program by five panicipating clients during 1998. Paired measurements were evaluated for twenty-five gamma emitting radionuclides, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, I-131 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 the 1492 paired measurements evaluated in 1998,1486 or 99.6% fell within the established acceptance criteria.
The samples submitted as part of this program are listed in Table 7.4.
83
TABLE 7.1 - Duke Engineering & Sersices Environmental Laboratory 1998 Environmental Process Control Results Media Bias Criteria (1) Precision Criteria (2)
Analysis 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I. Air Charcoal Gamma 51 2
- 11. Air Filter Beta 107 i Gamma 1 2 1 2 Ill. Milk Gamma 21 10 2 29 4 lodine (LL) 3 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 IV. Water Gross Alpha Gross Beta Gamma 9 5 3 1 36 18 10 lodine (LL)
Radium Tritium 3 3 Strontium V. Sediment / Soil Gamma 26 14 6 l
VI. Vegetation Gamma 2 Total Number in RanFe: 192 25 7 3 98 42 '8 2 Percentage of 85 ll 3 1 26 11 1 Total Processed- 61 Sum of Analyses: 227 160 (1) Percent Bias Criteria by Dias Category (2) Percent Precision Criteria b) Precision Category Dias Category = l > 0% and c= 5% Precision Category = 1 >0% and <= 5%
Bias Category = 2 > 5% and <= 10% Precision Category = 2 >5% and <= 10'4 Dias Category = 3 > 10% and <= 15% Precision Cz.egory = 3 >10% and c= 15% 1 gross alpha, Sr89/90 > 10% and<= 25% gross alpha, Sr89S0 > 10% and <= 25%
transuranics > 10% and <= 20% transuranics > 10% and <= 20%
Dias Category = 4 Outside Criteria Precision Categor3 - 4 Outside Criteria (LL)= lodine Low Lesel Analysis 84
p Table 7.2 - Duke Engineering & Services Environmental Laboratory 1998 EPA Cross Check Program Results IDWER UPPER NUCLIDE MEDIA REFERENCE DESL CONTROL CONTROL DATE MEAN* UMIT* UMIT*
Sr-90 Water 01/16/98 28.4 23.3 40.7 Alpha Water 01/30/98 9.8 # 17.3 43.7 Beta Water 01/30/98 7.3 0.0 13.7 1-131LL Water 02/06/98 108.9 86.7 123.1 Ra-226 Water 02/13/98 16.8 11.8 20.2 Ra-228 Water 02/13/98 33.7 18.9 47.7 Natual U - Water 02/13/98 28.9 26.8 37.2 H-3 Water 03/13/98 2095 1551 2759 Sr-90 Water 04/21/98 15.5 9.3 26.7 Co-60 Water 04/21/98 48.2 41.3 58.7 Cs-134 Water 04/21/98 21.2 13.3 30.7
- Cs 137 Water 04/21/98 9.1 1.3 18.7 Ra-226 Water 04/21/98 17.4 11 19 Ra 228 W ater 04/21/98 9.0 5.3 13.3 Natural U Water 04/21/98 4.1 0.0 10.2 Cs-134 Water 06/05/98 27.9 22.3 39.7 Cs 137 Water 06/05/98 35.1 26.3 43.7 Zn-65 Water 06/05/98 103.9 86.7 121.3 Co-60 Water 06/05/98 - 11.8 3.3 20.7 Ba-133 Water 06/05/98 37.6 31.3 48.7
. Natural U Water 06/12/98 3.4 0.0 8.2 Ra-226 W ater 06/12/98- 4.7 3.7 6.1 Ra-228 - Water 06/12/98 2.4 1.2 3.0 Sr-89 Water 07/17/98 20.8 12.3 29.7 Sr-90 Water 07/17/98 8.1 0.0 -15.7 Beta Water 07/24/98 13.5 4.5 23.4 Alpha Water 07/24/98 5.4 0.0 15.9 H-3 Water 08/07/98 17551 14873 21119 Ra-226 Water 09/18/98 1.7 1.2 2.2 Ra-228 Water 09/18/98 6.2 3.3 8.1 Natural U Water 09/18/98 8.5 3.9 14.3 1-13]LL Water 09/11/98 5.6 2.6 9.6
- Units in pCi/ Liter
- Non-Agreement 85
Table 7.3 - Duke Engineering & Services Environmental Laboratory 1998 ANALYTICS Cross Check Program Results Sample: E1337162 Gamma, Nat U Quarter: 1st,1998 Radium, Plutnit.m E1338162 Alpha, Beta Media: Water Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known DESU Evaluation I Value Value Analvtics Cr 51 171 167 a .02 Agreement I Mn 54 111 111 1.00 Agreement Fe-59 82 79 1.04 Agreement Co-60 70 71 0.99 Agreement I Zn-65 120 118 1.02 Agreement 1 131 90 90 1.00 Agreement I-131LL 92 90 1.02 Agreement i Cs 134 Cs-137 68 136 70 134 0.97 1.01 Agreement Agreement Cc 141 59 58 1.02 Agreement Alpha I Beta 42 308 38 269 1.11 J .14 Agreement Agreement Ra-226 56 53 1.06 Agreement Ra-228 47 46 1.02 Agreement Pu-238 72 75 0.96 Agreement Pu 240 43 42 1.02 Agreement U-234 30 29 1.03 Agreement i U-238 31 30 1.03 Acreement i
Sample: E1340-162 Gamma Quarter: 1st,1998 E1341 162 Strontium Media: Milk Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known DESU Evaluation Value Value Analvtics Cr51 204 201 1.01 Agreement Mn-54 139 133 1.05 Agreement Fe 59 100 95 1.05 Agreement Co-60 86 85 1.01 Agreement
~ Zn-65 147 142 1.04 Agreement 1-131 84 82 1.02 Agreement 1-13]LL 83 82 1.01 Agreement
[ Cs 134 83 84 0.99 Agreement Cs 137 171 161 1.06 Agreement r Cc-141 73 70 1.04 Agreement L Sr 89 55 53 1.04 Agreement Sr-90 45 44 1.02 Agreement 86
// e'
Table 7.3 - Duke Engineering & Services Environmental Laborat; y 1998 ANALYTICS Cross Check Program Results Sample: E1421-162 Gamma Quarter: 2nd,1998
, Media: Milk Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known DESU Evaluation Value Value Analytics Cr 51 128 132 0.97 Agreement l
i Mn-54 111 106 1.05 Agreement Fe 59 46 45 1.02 Agreement Co-60 144 143 1.01 Agreement Zn-65 124 122 1.02 Agreement I-131 71 67 1.06 Agreement I-13111 67 67 1.00 Agreement Cs-134 97 95 1.02 Agreement Cs-137 74 70 1.06 Agreement Ce-141 102 99 1.03 Acreement Sample: E1417-162 Gamma Quarter: 2nd,1998 E1418-162 Strontium E1419-162 Alpha, Beta Media: Filter Units: pCi/ Filter Ratio Nuclide Reported Known DESU Evaluation Value Value Analytics t Cr-51 111 113 0.98 Agreement Mn-54 96 91 1.05 Agreement f Fe-59 43 39 1.10 Agreement Co-60 116 124 0.94 Agreement Zn-65 114 105 1.09 Agreement Cs-134 84 82 1.02 Agreement Cs 137 62 61 1.02 Agreement Cc-141 80 85 0.94 Agreement Alpha 36 36 1.00 Agreement Beta 220 212 1.04 Agreement St-89 140 142 0.99 Agreement Sr-90 49 51 0.96 Agreement 87 l
r --
Table 7.3 Duke Engineering & Senices Environmental laboratory 1998 ANALYTICS Cross Check Program Results Sanple: E1420-162 Gamma Quarter: 2nd,1998 Media: Water Uruts: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known DESU Evaluation Value Value Ana,1ytics l
H3 5697 6007 0 95 Agreenent Sample: E1537162 Gamma Quarter: 3rd,1998 E1538162 Strontium Media: Milk Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuchde Reported Krown DESU Evaluation Value Vahie Analytics Cr.51 180 186 0.97 Agreenent l Mn-54 77 74 1.04 Agreenent Fe 59 66 63 1.05 Agreement Co-60 146 148 0.99 Agreenent Zn45 201 195 1.03 Agreenent 1 131 96 90 1.07 Agreenrnt 1131LL 87 90 0.97 Agreement
- Cs 134 80 82 0.98 Agreenrnt C>l37 134 134 1.00 Agreenrnt I Cc-Idi 145 146 0.99 Agreenent Sr 89 62 SI 1.22 Agreement Sr 90 72 8I O F9 Agement Sample: E1534-162 Gamma Quaner: 3rd,1998 E1535-162 Strontium E1536162 Alpha, Ileta i Media: Water Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known DESU Evaluation I
Value Value Analvtics Alpha 61 66 0 92 Agreement Beta 190 198 0.96 Agreenent St 89 84 0 99 Agreement
( 83 Sr-90 47 51 0.92 Agreenrnt Cr 51 172 165 1.04 Agreement Mn-54 66 66 1.00 Agreenent Fe-59 59 55 1.07 Agreenent Co-60 129 131 0.98 Agreement Zn45 175 173 1.01 Agreenent I131LL 78 79 0.99 Agreenent
- l-131 82 79 1.04 Agreenent Cs-134 71 73 0.97 Agreenrnt Cs137 117 119 0.98 Agreenent cc.p l 129 129 1 00 Arreenent
- Accuracy within agreenent criteria, but precision result contributed to CR98-009.
88
l
SUMMARY
OF BLIND DUPLICATE SAMPLES SUBMITTED January - Decer.ber 1998 I TYPE OF SAMPLE NUMBER OF PAIRED SAMPLES SUBMITTED Cow Milk 26 Ground Water 8 Surface Water 16 Irish Moss 2 I Mussels 4 Food Product - 1 I Cranberries TOTAL 57 I
I I
I I
I l
(
(
89 L
i I 8. LAND USE CENSUS VYNPS Technical Specification 3.9.D/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 I nearest milk animal and the nearest residence in each of the 16 meteorological sectors within a distance of five miles of the plant. It also identifies the nearest milk animal (within three miles l 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 1998 Land Ure Census was conducted in June and July of 1998 in accordance with Technical Specifications Following the collectim of field data and in compliance with Technical Specification 6.7.C.I.b, a dosimetric analysis is performed to compare the census locations to the " critical receptor" identified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). This critical receptor is the location that is used in the Method I screening dose calculations found in the ODCM (i.e. the dose calculations done in compliance with Technical Specification 4.8.G.1). If a Census location has a 20% greater potential dose than that of the critical receptor, this fact must be announced in I the Annual Effluent Release Report for that period. A re-evaluation of the critical receptor would also be done at that time. For the 1998 Census, no such locations were identified.
I Pursuant to Technical Specification 3.9.D.2, a dosimetric analysis is performed, using site specific meteorological data, to detemiine which milk animal locations would provide the optimal I sampling locations. If any location has a 20% greater potential dose commitment than at a currently-sampled location, the new location is added to the routine environmental sampling program in replacement of the location with the lowest calculated dose (which is eliminated from the program). For the 1998 Census, one new milk location was identified as a Technical Specification required sampling location in the SE sector because it is the third highest ranked farm with milk available for sampling on a regular basis (fourth highest ranked overall) within 3 miles of the plant. The highest ranked milk location has only one cow and can not provide 1 regular milk samples to the REMP. The second and third ranked milk locations are already part of the regular sampling program..
I The results of the 1998 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 I be found in Table 8.1.
I 90
TABLE 8.1 1998 LAND USE CENSUS LOCATIONS
- 1 SECTOR NEAREST RESIDENCE NEAREST MILK ANIMAL Km (Mi) Km (Mi)
N 1.5 (0.9) ----
NNE 1.4 (0.9) 5.5 (3.4) Cows NE 1.3 (0.8) 3.6 (2.2) Cows ENE 1.0 (0.6) ----
E 0.9 (0.6) ----
ESE 2.8 (1.8) ----
SE 2.0 (l .2) 3.6 (2.2) Cows SSE 2.1 (l.3) 5.2 (3.3) Cows S 0.5 (0.3) 2.2 (l.4) Cows SSW 0.5 (0.3) ----
SW 0.4 (0.3) 8.2 (5.1) Cows WSW 0.5 (0.3) 9.6 (6.0) Goats W 0.6 (0.4) 0.8 (0.5) Cows WNW l.1 (0.7) 7.0 (4.3) Cows NW 2.6 (1.6) 4.3 (2.7) Cows NNW 2.6 (l.6) ----
- Sectors and distances are relative to the plant stack as determined by a Global Positioning System survey conducted in 1997.
~
I
- 9.
SUMMARY
i During 1998 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 800 samples were collected (including TLDs) over the course of the year, with a total of over 2700 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.
Low levels of radioactivity from three sources (discussed below) 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 panicular) had fallout radioactivity from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted primarily from the late 1950's through 1980. Several samples from onsite locations had low levels of radioactivity resulting from emissions from the Vermont Yankee plant. 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
92
- 1. USNRC Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program," Revision 1, November 1979.
- 2. NCRP Repon No. 94, Exposure of the Population in the United States and Canadafrom Natural Background Radiation, National Council on Radiation Protection and i Measurements,1987.
- 3. lonizing Radiation: Sources and Biological Efects, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),1982 Report to the General Assembly.
I 4. Kathren, Ronald L., Radioactivity and the Environment - Sources, Distribution, and Surveillance, Harwood Academic Publishers, New York,1984.
I
- 5. Till, John E. and Robert H. Meyer, ed., Radiological Assessment - A Textbook on Em iromnental Dose Analysis, NUREG/CR-3332, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,1983.
I I
I I
I
[
[
[
93 e
f
.