ML20206G049
| ML20206G049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1985 |
| From: | Heward R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| 4410-86-L-0074, 4410-86-L-74, 5211-86-2077, NUDOCS 8606250059 | |
| Download: ML20206G049 (200) | |
Text
. _ _ . __ . _. .. . _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ __ _
l/
'{~
l i
r
{
i-i I
-.. 1 L I g, -
1 i' IPt W
N Service N Nuclear a 8606250059 851231
'PDR R
ADOCK 05000289 PDR Met-Ed JGPU
~
( ,,
L m- - -.
l f*~~"
t\\ y ?,
I I
I I 1985 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT FOR THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION {
i I !
I '
I I
l I
i Prepared by Three Mile Island Environmental Controls GPU Nuclear Corporation l
[
I l
I I
i ABLE LF CONTENTS I Page TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES v
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS 1 INTRODUCTION 4
i g Characteristics of Radiation 4 g Sources of Radiation Exposure 6
) Nuclear Reactor Operations 9 j Containment of Radioactivity 11 DESCRIPTION OF THE TMINS SITE 13 General Information 13 Climatological Summary - 1985 14 EFFLUENTS 19 Limits 19 Sources of Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Effluents 20 Radioactivity Removal from Liquid and Gaseous Wastes 20 Effluent Data 22 I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONENTAL MONITORING Program Design 26 26 Quality Assurance Program 39 DIRECT RADIATION MONITORING 42 l'
Sample Collection and Analysis 42 Results 44 ATMOSPHERIC MONITORING 49 Sample Collection and Analysis 49 Results 50 I
l i
I
I I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page AQUATIC MONITORING 66 Sample Collection and Analysis 66 P,esults 67 TERRESTRIAL MONITORING 82 Sample Collection and Analysis 83 Results 83 GROUNDWATER MONITORING 88 Sample Collection and Analysis 89 Results 89 RADIOLOGICAL IWACT OF THINS OPERATIONS 92 REFERENCES 99 j
APPENDIX A: 1985 REW Sampling and Descriptions, Synopsis of REW, 102 and Sampling and Analysis Exceptions APPENDIX B: 1985 Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) Exceptions 112 APPENDIX C: Changes Effected in the 1985 REW 114 APPENDIX D: Determination of Investigational Levels and 116 Subsequent Actions APPENDIX E: 1985 Quality Assurance Results 120 APPENDIX F: 1985 EPA Cross-Check Results 125 APPENDIX G: 1985 Annual Dairy Census 1 31 APPENDIX H: 1985 Annual Garden Census 148 APPENDIX I: Dose Calculation Methodology 153 APPENDIX J: 1985 Groundwater Monitoring Results 161 ;
APPENDIX K: 1985 Meteorological Summary 175 I 11
I i I i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page APPENDIX L: 1985 REW Sample Collection and Analysis Methods 1 81 APPENDIX M: 1985 TLD Quarterly Data 190 I "'^""" "
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 444 I
I I
LIST OF TABLES l Table Title Page 1
I Common Sources of Radiation 1
8 2 Radionuclide Composition of TMINS Effluents 23 for 1985 )
3 Summary of Radionuclide Concentrations in 29 ,
Environmental Samples from TMINS
{
4 1985 Average Gross Beta Concentrations in 51 Air Particulates I 5 1985 Monthly Average Gross Beta Concentrations in Indicator and Control Air Particulate Stations 54 I 6 1985 Quarterly Average Gross Alpna Concentrations in Air Particulates 57 7 1985 Monthly Gross Beta Concentrations in Indicator 61 and Control Precipitation Stations 8 1985 Average Gross Beta Concentrations in Precipitation 62 9 Positive Results for I-131 Analysis in Water 69 During 1985 10 Annual Average Tritium Concentrations in Surface and 70 Drinking Water During 1985 I 11 Annual Average Gross Beta Concentrations in Surface and Drinking Water During 1985 75 I 12 Environmental Exposure Times or Consumption Rates Assumed for Environmental Pathways and Dose Calculations 95 13 Estimated Maximisn Hypothetical Doses to an Individual I for Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Releases from TMI-1 and TMI-2 for 1985 96 14 Estimated Maximtzn Total Radiation Doses to the Population 97 for Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Releases from TMI-1 and TMI-2 for 1985 I
I iv I
I I
LIST OF FIGURES I Figure Title Page 1 Three Mile Island Schematic 10 2 Location of REW Stations Within 1 Mile 15 3 Location of REW Stations Within 5 Miles 16 4 Location of REW Stations Greater Than 5 Miles 17 5 TLD Gamma Dose Rates by Quarter (1985) 45 6 TLD Gamma Dose Rates by Quarter (1974 - 1985) 47 7 Monthly Gross Beta Concentrations in Air Particulates 53 I 8 Quarterly Gross Alpha Concentrations in Air Particulates 57 i
I 9 Quarterly Gross Beta Concentrations in Air Particulates (1974 - 1985) 58 10 Quarterly Gross Alpha Concentrations in I Air Particulates (1980 - 1985) 59 11 Monthly Gross Beta Concentrations in Precipitation 64 12 Monthly Gross Beta Concentrations in Precipitation 65 I (1980 - 1985) l 13 Monthly Tritium Concentrations in Surface Water 71 During 1985 I 14 Quarterly Tritium Concentrations in Surface Water (1974 - 1985) 72 15 Monthly Tritium Concentrations in Drinking Water 74 16 Monthly Gross Beta Concentrations in Surface Water 76 I 17 Quarterly Gross Beta Concentrations in Surface Water (1980 - 1985) 77 18 Monthly Gross Beta Concentrations in Drinking Water 79 I V I
I I l LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Title Page 19 Quarterly Strontium-90 Concentrations in Cow Milk , 86 (1980 - 1985) 20 Quarterly Strontium-90 Concentrations in Goat Milk 87 (1980 - 1985)
I 21 Internal and External Environmental Exposure of Man From Airborne and Liquid Releases of Radioactive Materials 94 I
I I
I I
I I
I :
!I 1
I vi lI l - - . . - . . _ _
I I
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS The operation of a nuclear power plant results in the release of small amounts I of radioactive materials to the environment. A radiological environmental monitori ng program (REW) has been established to monitor radiation and radioactive materials in the environment around Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMINS). The program evaluates the relationship between amounts of radioactive material released in effluents to the environment and resultant radiation doses to individuals. The radiological environmental monitoring I performed by the GPU Nuclear Environmental Controls Department for 1985 is discussed in this rep ort. Summaries and interpretations of the data are published annually. Previous reports in this series for the past eleven years are referenced at the end of this report (references 1 through 13).
Additional information concerning releases of radioactive materials to the environment is contained in the Semi-Annual Effluent Reports submitted to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I During 1985 the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents associated with TMINS I were a small fraction of the applicable federal or state regulatory limits and have not had significant or measurabl e effects on the quality of the environment. Estimated radiation doses to the public attributable to 1985 operations at TMINS were well below all applicable regulatory limits and were significantly less than doses received from common sources of radiation.
Similar conclusions were reached in previous reports, with the exception of 1979 when transient low-l evel increases of iodine-131 (I-1 31) and gamma I immersion dose were evidenced in the immediate environment as a result of the TMI-2 accident. Various studies such as the Kemeny Canmission Report (14),
Rogovin Report (15), and the Ad Hoc Interagency Report (16) concluded that the radioactive releases from the accident had negligible effects on the health of individuals residing in the TMI vicinity.
I Because most of the radioactive materials considered in this report are 1
i normally present in the environment, either naturally or as a resul t of I
I non-TMINS activities such as atmospheric nuclear weapon testing and medical industry activities, measurements made in the vicinity of the site were compared to background or control measurements. Samples of ai r , surface water, soil and sediment, vegetation (terrestrial and aquatic), groundwater, precipitation, and various foodstuf fs were collected. External penetrating radiation dose measurements were also made in the vicinity of TMINS. Most samples were analyzed for radioactivity including tritium (H-3), gross beta and gross alpha, strontium-89 (Sr-89) and 90 (Sr-90), iodine-131 (I-131), and gamma-emitting radionuclides. The results of environmental measurements are used to assess the environmental impact of TMINS operations, to demonstrate compliance with the Technical Specifications (references 17 and 18) and applicable federal and state regulations, and to verify the adequacy of containment and radioactive effluent control systems. The data collected by the REW provide an historical record of the levels of radionuclides and I radiation attributable to natural causes, worldwide fallout from prior nuclear weapon tests, and TMINS operations. Radiological impacts in terms of radiation dose as a result of TMINS operations were calculated and also discussed. The results provided in this report are stanmarized in the following highlights.
o During 1985 there were over 2,000 samples taken from the aquatic, atmospheric, and terrestrial environments around TMINS. More than I 3,700 analyses were performed on these samples. Thirteen hundred and thirty (1330) direct radiation dose measurements using TLDs were also made. Over 380 groundwater samples were collected and more than 1,000 analyses were performed on these samples.
o In addition to natural radioactivity, low levels of Sr-90, cesitzn-137 (Cs-137), H-3, and I-1 31 were detected in various media. All radioactivity detected in offsite environmental samples was attributed to natural radioactivity, fallout from prior nuclear weapon testing, and the medical industry.
I I
1
I I
o Dose rates measured with TLDs and a real time gamma radiation monitoring system around TMINS averaged between 62 and 68 mrem per year and were consistent with natural background radiation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's calculated average I annual dose of 88 mrem per year in the Harrisburg area (referer.ce 19).
o All radioactive effluent releases were small fractions of the federal regulatory and Technical Specification limits. The predominant radionuclides released were xenon-133 (Xe-133) in gases and H-3 in liquids.
o Operations at TMINS during 1985 caused radiation doses to the public well below all applicable regulatory limits, and significantly less than doses received from other common sources of radiation. The maximum whole body dose potentially received by an individual from liquid and gaseous effluents was conservatively calculated to be about 0.08 mrem total . The whole body dose to the surrounding population from liquid and gaseous effluents (TMI-l and TMI-2 combined) was calculated to be 0.2 person-rem. This is one I million times lower than the doses the total population in the TMI area receives from natural background sources.
I I
I I
I lI
I I
I INTRODUCTION Background information is provided on basic radiation characteristics, plant operations, radioactive effluent controls, and environmental monitoring to assist the reader in reviewing this document.
Characteristics of Radiation I Atoms whose nuclei contain an excess of energy are called radioactive atoms.
They release this excess energy by expelling electromagnetic or particulate radiation from their atomic centers to become stable (non-radioactive). This process is called " radioactive decay." Electromagnetic radiation is x-rays and gamma rays and is similar in many ways to light waves, microwaves, and radiowaves. Particulate radiation may be either electrically charged such as alpha and beta particles or have no charge (neutrons). The term " half-life" I refers to the time it takes for half of a given amount of a radionuclide to decay.
Some radionuclides have a half-life as short as a fraction of a second while others have half-lives as long as millions of years. Each radionuclide has unique decay characteristics in tenns of its energy, the types of radiation emitted, and its half-life. Radionuclides may decay directly into stable elements or may undergo a series of decays which ultimately end up reaching a stable element. Radionuclides are found in nature (e.g. uranium, thorium, and potassium), and may also be produced artificially such as with accelerators and nuclear reactors (e.g. , I-131, Cs-137, and Co-60).
I The activity of a radioactive source is the number of nuclear disintegrations (decays) of the source per unit of time. The unit of activity is the curie.
A one-curie radioactive source undergoes 2.2 trillion disintegrations per minute; but in the realm of nuclear power plant effluents and environmental radioactivity, this is a large unit. So, two fractional units--the microcurie and the picocurie--are more commonly used. The microcurie is one millionth of I a curie and represents 2.2 million decays per minute. The picocurie is one millionth of a microcurie and represents 2.2 decays per minute. The mass of a radionuclide corresponding to one curie is directly proportional to the I
I I
half-life and the atomic weight of the nuclide. For exampl e, uraniun-235 i (U-235) with a half-life of 710 million years requires about 465,000 grams to .
obtain an activity of one curie. The mass-activity relationship for I-1 31 with a half-life of 8.0 days requires about 8 millionths of a gram to produce a curie. '
I Any mechanism that can supply the energy necessary to ionize an atom, break a chemical bond, or alter the chemistry of a living cell is capable of producing biological damage. Electromagnetic and particulate radiation can produce cellular damage by any of these mechanisms. In assessing the biological effects of radiation, the type, energy, and amount of radiation must all be considered.
Total body radiation involves exposure of all organs. Most background exposures are of this form. When radioactive elements enter the body through inhalation or ingestion, their distribution is not uniform. For example, I radiofodine selectively concentrates in the thyroid gland, whereas radiocesium collects in muscle and liver tissue and radiostrontium in mineralized bone.
The total dose to organs by a given radionuclide is also influenced by the quantity and the duration of time that the radionuclide remains in the body.
Owing to their rapid radioactive decay as well as their removal from the body, certain radionuclides stay in the body for very short times while some remain for years.
The amount of radiation dose which an individual receives is most frequently expressed in rem. Since human exposure to radiation usually involves very small exposures, the millirem (mrem) is most commonly used (1 mrem = 1/1000 <
ren). Sometimes, it is desirable to express the collective radiation dose to a population. Such a collective dose is expressed in person-rem, which is calculated by adding up each individual dose (e.g. , 1 rem to each of 100 l persons = 100 person-rem).
I I I
I I
Sources of Radiation Exposure Many sources of radiation enosure exist. The most ubiquitous and least controllable source is background radiation from cosmic rays and terrestrial I radioactivity which mankind has always lived with and always will. There is no choice. Every second of our lives, over 7,000 atoms undergo radioactive J
decay in the body of the average adult.
Radioactive elements have always been a part of our planet and everything which has come from the earth including our own bodies is, therefore, naturally radioactive. Radioactive materials found in the earth's crust today I consist of such radionuclides as potassium-40 (K-40), uranium-238 (U-238),
thori um-232 (Th-232 ), radium-226 (Ra-226), and r adon-222 (Rn-222). These 1
radionuclides are introduced into the water, soil, and air by such natural I processes as volcanoes, weathering, erosion, and radioactivity decay.
l Some of the naturally occurring radionuclides such as radon are a significant source of radiation exposure to the general public. Radioactive radon is an inert gas produced naturally in the ground as a part of the uraniin and thorium decay series. Radon continues to undergo radioactive decay, producing I new naturally radioactive materials called " radon daughters". These new materials, which are solid particles--not gases--can stick to surfaces such as dust particles in the air. Concentrations of raden in air are variable and affected by concentrations of uranium and thorium in soil, al titude, soil porosity, temperature, pressure, soil moisture, rainfall, snow cover, atmospheric conditions, and season. It can move through cracks and openings into basements of buildings and become trapped in a small air volume indoors.
Thus, indoor radon concentrations are usually higher than those found outdoors. Building materials such as cinder block and concrete are radon sources. Radon can also be dissolved in well water and contribute to airborne l radon in houses when released through showers or washing. l l
I I
I I
l l
Dust containing radon daughter particles can be inhaled and deposited on the surface of an individual 's lung. Radon daughters emit high energy alpha I radiation to the lung lining resulting in an average dose to the lungs in the United States of 3000 mrem (3 rem) per year. In areas such as eastern central Pennsyl vania over a geologic formation known as the Reading Prong, these levels are even higher due to natural deposits of uranium. Here natural exposure levels to the lung much higher than 3000 mrem / year have been recorded. Doses resulting from radon and its daughter products are the I highest contributor to individuals from all natural sources.
About 300 cosmic rays originating from outer space pass through each person every second. The interaction of cosmic rays with atoms in the earth's atmosphere produces radionuclides such as bery111m-7 (Be-7), beryllium-10
( Be-10 ) , carbon-14 (C-14 ) , H-3, and sodium-22 (Na-22). Portions of these radionuclides become deposited on land and water surfaces while the remainder stay suspended in the atmosphere.
Thus, there are natural radioactive materials in the soil, water, air and building materials which contribute to radiation doses to the human body.
Natural drinking water contains trace amounts of uranium and radium; milk contains radioactive potassium. Sources of natural radiation and their average contributing radiation doses are summarized in Table 1. Radiation exposure levels from natural radiation fluctuate with time and also can vary widely from location to location. The average individual in the United States I receives approximately 100 mrem per year from natural sources. In some areas of the country, the dose from natural radiation is significantly higher.
Residents of Colorado receive an additional 80 mrem per year due to the increase in cosmic (higher elevation) and terrestrial radiation levels. In fact, for every 100 feet in elevation above sea level, an individual will receive an additional 1 mrem per year from cosmic radiation. In several areas of the world, high concentrations of mineral deposits give natural background radiation levels of several thousand mrem per year.
I I
I l I TABLE 1 COMMON SOURCES OF RADIATION
- I Natural Source Approximate (mrem / year) Manmade Source Approximate (mrem / year )
I Cosmic Rays Building Materials Internal 42 35 28 Medical radiation Television and consumer products 90 1-5 Ground 11 Weapons fallout 2-5 I Nuclear power plants 1 APPR0XIMATE TOTAL 100 APPR0XIMATE TOTAL 100
Reference:
NUREG-0558 and EPA Report ORP/SID 72-1 I In addition to natural background radiation, the average individual is exposed to radiation from a number of man-made sources. The single largest of these I sources comes from medical diagnosis, X-rays, CAT-scans, fluoroscopic examinations and radio-pharmaceuticals. Approximately 160 million people in the United States are exposed to medical or dental X-rays in any given year.
The annual dose to an individual from such irradiation averages 90 mrem or is approximately equal to the sum total of natural radiation. Smaller doses from man-made sources come from consumer products (television, smoke detectors, fertilizer), fallout from prior nuclear weapons tests and production of nuclear power and its associated fuel cycle.
Nuclear fission is a process in which heavy atoris such as uranium are split into lighter fragments, many of which are Pai f oactive. This process also resul ts in the release of large amou st" af siergy which can be used to generate electricity. There is scientific evmence that the nuclear fission process also o curs naturally.
I Fallout commonly refers to the radioactive deoris that settles to the surf ace of the earth following the detonation of nuclear weapons. Fallout can be j washed down to the earth's surf ace by rain or snow and is dispersed throughout )
_a_
I
I I
I the environment. There are approximately 200 radionuclides produced in the nuclear weapon detonation process; a number of these are detected in fallout.
The radionuclides found in fallout which produce most of the f allout radiation exposures to man are I-131, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Cs-137.
I Nuclear Reactor Operations The fuel of a nuclear reactor is made of the element uranium in the form of uranium oxide. The fuel produces power by the process called " fission." In fission, the uranium absorbs a neutron (an atomic particle found in nature and I produced by the fissioning of uraniun in the reactor) and splits to produce fission products, heat, radiation, and free neutrons. The free neutrons travel in the core; further absorption of neutrons by uraniun permits the I fission process to continue. As the fission process continues, more fission products, radiation, heat, and neutrons are produced and a sustained reaction occur s. The heat produced is extracted from the fuel to produce steam which drives a turbine generator to produce electricity. The fission products are mostly radioactive; they are unstable elements which emit radiation as they change from unstable to stable elements. Neutrons which are not absorbed by I the uranium fuel may be absorbed by stable atoms in the materials which make up the components and structures of the reactor. In such cases, stable atoms often become radioactive. This process is called " activation" and the radioactive atoms which result are called " activation products."
The TMI reactors are pressurized water reactor (PWR). In this type of reactor, the nuclear fuel is contained within sealed fuel rods. The fuel rods I
1 are arranged in arrays called bundles which are located within a massive steel '
reactor vessel . Pressurized water reactors (Figure 1) incorporate steam generators to convert the heat of primary coolant water to steam while serving i as a boundary between the radioactive portions of the plant and the non-radioactive steam plant. In a PWR, water is pumped around and through the fuel bundles in the reactor vessel . The primary system hot water passes ,
inside thousands of sealed tubes of the steam generator. Outside the tubes is the secondary water. Heat is transferred through the tube walls to convert l
== == me se == == as a. == == a. ==
s x THREE MILE ISLAND DRIVE MECHANISF1 % PRESSURIZER 1 SCHEMATIC
,,,,, g' CONTAINMENT ll l l l STEAM GENERATOR i
TURBINE MAKE UP/ECCS l 3 LINE l GENERATOR REACTOR CORE HEATER
' CONDENSATE A REACTOR VESSEL STORAGE TANK COOLANT ! p gp PUMP EMER- CONDENSATE GENCY PUMP FEED HEATER PUMP ;
PRIMARY LOOP I
__ __ _ _ _ _ J
.. SECONDARY LOOP di PRIMARY, REACTOR LOOP ..
FEEDWATER LINES (RADIOACTIVITY PRESENT) '
,. COOLING TOWER LOOP STEMI
_. j
I I
I !
the secondary water to steam, which operates the turbine, is condensed back to water and then returns to repeat the cycle. As the coolant water circulates through the reactor pressure vessel, corrosion allows trace quantities of the component and structure surfaces to get into the water. The corroded material I also contains radioactive substances known as activation products.
Radioactive fission and activation products are normally confined to the primary system although small leaks from primary to secondary systems may occ ur.
8 Containment of Radioactivity I Under normal operating conditions, essentially all radioactivity is contained within the first of several barriers of the primary system which collectively prevent escape of radioactivity to the environment.
The ceramic uranium fuel pellets provide the first barrier. The majority of the fission products produced are either trapped or chemically bound in the fuel and remain in the fuel. Those fission products that are volatile and gaseous at normal operating temperature of the fuel are able to migrate out of the fuel .
I The fuel cladding (metal tubes) provides the second barrier. The ceramic fuel I pellets are sealed within Zircaloy metal tubes. There is a small gap between the fuel and the cladding in which the noble gases and other volatile nuclides '
collect. I I The primary coolant is the third barri er. Many of the fission products including radioiodines, strontitans, and cesiums are soluble and are retained in the primary coolant in ionic (electrically charged) form. These materials can be removed by demineralizers such as those in the purification system of the reactor. The noble gas radionuclides (kryptons and xenons) do not readily dissolve in the coolant, particularly at high temperatures. Krypton and xenon evolve into a gas or vapor phase above the coolant especially when the coolant is depressurized.
1 1 I
t
I I -
The reactor pressure vessel and the steel piping of the primary coolant system '
provide the fourth barrier. The reactor pressure vessel is a 36-foot high tank having steel walls approximately nine inches thick encasing the reactor core. This system provides containment for all radionuclides in the primary coolant.
I The reactor building (sometimes called the containment building) provides the fifth barrier. The reactor building has steel-lined, 4 foot thick reinforced concrete walls enclosing the primary coclant system. This structure provides the final line of defense against the uncontrolled discharge of radioactivity to the environment.
I Collectively, these five successive barriers provide protection against uncontrolled di scharge of radioactivity, even in instances of accidental conditions involving loss of primary coolant, t
I I
I I :
I l 8 i I '
I I
I I
DESCRIPTION OF THE TMINS SITE I
General Information Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMINS) is located i .ondonderry Township of Dauphin County. It lies approximately 2.5 miles north of the southern tip of the county, where the counties of Dauphin, Lancaster and York all meet.
The site, covering 81 4 acres, encompasses Three Mile Island and several adjacent islands in the Susquehanna River (references 20 and 21). Three Mile I Island itself is approximately 11,000 feet long,1700 feet wide and aligned north to south. The eastern and western riverbanks are 900 and 6500 feet respectively from the site. Situated on the northern two thirds of the island, the station covers close to 200 acres of land. The elevation varies between 280 and 300 feet above mean sea level . Hills within a two mile radius of TMINS have a maximum relief of 543 feet above mean sea level.
With the exception of the southern border of TMINS, the plant site is bounded I by the waters of the York Haven Pond. The York Haven and Red Hill dams combine to form this body of water. The Susquehanna River is approximately I 1.5 miles wide at the site. Three Mile Island and Shelly Island divide the river into three main channels. Several lesser channels are formed by smaller islands within the York Haven Pond. Present uses of the Susquehanna River include public and industrial water supply, power generation, boating, fishing and recreation. While there is no commercial fishing done in the Susquehanna, recreational fisherman can expect to catch any one of several different I species of fish that inhabit the river.
It is estimated that over two million people reside within a 50 mile radius of the plant. The nearest population center is Goldsboro (pop. 477) which lies approximately one mile to the west of the site. About 2.5 miles to the north of the THINS,10,122 people reside in the tnwn of Middletown. Harri sburg, situated 12 miles to the northwest, is the nearest major city with a population of 53,264 (reference 22). Land within a 10 mile radius of the site
!I
I I
I is used primarily for farming. Farm products include dairy, poultry, frui t, vegetable, corn, wheat, alfalfa, tobacco and other crops of lesser importance.
The Blue Mountain, located about 20 miles to the north of Three Mile Island, I is responsible for protecting the area somewhat from the cold winter outbreaks of Arctic air that invade central and western Pennsylvania. However, while the severit;y of the winter climate is lessened, it is still a little too far inland to derive the full benefits of a coastal climate like that of the southeastern region of Pennsylvania. Summer rainfall typically comes from thunderstorm activity while most of the precipitation in the winter is a result of coastal winter storms. Overall average yearly rainfall is about 39 I inches. Winds in the region are primarily from the northwesterly direction throughout the year at an average speed of 9.4 miles per hour in the winter and 6.2 miles per hour in the summer (reference 23).
Figures 2, 3, and 4 show TMINS and the sampling locations of the radiological environmental monitoring program in the vicinity. Descriptions of the sanpling locations may be found in Appendix A.
?
Climatological 52mmary - 1985*
I Temperatures for the months of January, June, August, and December 1985 averaged below normal, while the months of February, March, April, May, July, September, October, and November all averaged above normal. Over the year, 0
the average monthly temperature ranged from 27.9 F in January to 75.90 F in July. The lowest temperature of the year occurred on January 21 when it I dropped to -9 0F.
highest temperature.
On September 7, 960 F was recorded marking the year's l
I E
- Sources: United States National Weather Service. Local Climatological Data, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
I FIGURE 2 I
348.7S q 11.2S
\ l + N
\
l 9.+
\ , \ ,
l -
/ ,,,
I \ . . L ^\ J. /,.
h gg A NE **
C &
% 0 HENRY Q %
N /5 L j .* / /
ggy 0 ENOMN S T. H E l
Is.
kTJ D ENE P/
11 g n \ ,
y a r ~ g.y. bi "f.'; ... L4 g " ..,
~ g: o e. vs - -
th
- ,- a., "
u " (/ '...t.'
E =
% >". ?f '
, =
>k
. ~
E . a f 2g sg,3 g \, N ,
u
" / ggcu a zs N \ N I / ,\ / /) / .# N y
$/
s, sw , I c* \ "* \ \/* s, N8
+
/ '77 \~N
%f %
i e f s sss
\f l E se'let
\\st'est ;
I \
I (
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION Locations of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)
Stations Approximately 1 Mile from the Site.
I FIGURE 3 0
348.75 A II. 2S I p.@
60 44 e
945 S
- r O 59 46g C g& 10 0 WN cb
+44 40 39 108 0
4 g 3[
w 106 36 1
37 S g29 5
I g7 c OLOS80 nog u*
35'
] ,
3 103 109 E
o 3 107
. e 4 13 0 .N I 5 Sg 3h 2 II L urs 4h 31 [a ' 'p I -
a -
55 O h h s L
~ m nn .
50 g$
54 52 e
+.4 e - sg@
2 y & H se' ret J 34'80' I :
5 l THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION Locations of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)
Stations Within 5 Miles of the Site.
il I
I l FIGURE 4 l
A N l E .
C i
,, .ss 6, l I #
p gy 1019 $ 100 41 1 I
Se 7 12, A
P meests o.m
// - LL .6 a2 I ,
. p. .. -
- .. -- ,, )
t e,, s. l
- 'A ' ' '
y ,<,,. . ,
,4
- m. .{ r ""'
h ,,
i au ', e um d*,..r..
J , ,1 .
" " .7 I *
'& e .,
g ,8 ,. y W ,,,, g68 3 _
ar.s. J2
,1 s ..,,,s.
g .' '
2, .-
120 8' '
- , a
- l /* ..-
g, '
- n. a r. .,
Wr,v I -..
t K H J
B f THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION Locations of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)
Stations Greater Than 5 Miles from the Site.
I l
1 _ .
i I ;
l I l A total of 33.81 (water equivalent) inches of precipitation fell during 1985, which amounts to approximately 5 inches below the annual average. Monthly precipitation totals ranged from a low of 0.45 inches in April to a high of !
6.29 inches in May. The largest precipitation event came on September 27 when I 2.61 inches of rain fell as Hurricane Gloria passed up the east coast. The year's heaviest snowfall, measuring 4.0 inches, occurred on February 5.
A wind rose and joint frequency tables for the TMINS site are provided in Appendix K and are generated from onsite meteorological data.
I I
I ;
E I
I 1 I
t 8
I 5
I I
EFFLUENTS Limits I
Radioactive effluent releases at TMINS are under the jurisdiction of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC). Since its inception, the NRC (previously known as the Atomic Energy Commission - AEC) has depended upon the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP ) established in 1928, the National Council on Radiation l Protection and Measurements (NCRP) established in 1929, and since 1959, the I Federal Radiation Council (FRC ) (incorporated in the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1970) for basic radiation protection standards and guidance (references 24 through 27). These guides and recommendations form the basis for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulation in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 20, (10 CFR 20), " Standards for Protection Against Radiation" used in the regulatory program for the commercial nuclear power industry. One recommendation of the ICRP, NCFP, and FRC is that radiation exposures should be maintained at levels which are as low as reasonably achievable ( ALARA) commensurate with the I societal benefit derived from the activities resulting in such exposures.
This philosophy was incorporated into the numerical guidelines of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 (reference 28) and was adopted by GPU Nuclear.
Technical Specifications imposed by the NRC as a condition of the operating license, govern the operating requirements of the plant including I the effluent control program. These requirements include operation of gaseous and liquid processing systems, installation and operation of a radiation l monitoring system, establishment of an inplant and environmental sampling and 8 analysis program, establishment of a quality assurance program for effluents, procedures covering all aspects of effluents, and calculation of doses to the public.
I 5
I
I I
Sources of Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Effluents In a normally operating nuclear power plant, most of the fission products are retained within the fuel and fuel cladding. However small amounts of radioactive fission products are able to diffuse or migrate through the fuel cladding and into the primary coolant. Trace quantities of the component and structure surf aces which have been activated, also get into the primary coolant water. Many of the soluble fission and activation products such as radioactive iodines, strontiums, cobal ts, and cesiums are removed by demineralizers in the purification system of the primary coolant. The noble gas fission products have a very low solubility in the primary coolant and cannot be removed by the demineralizers. Instead they are given off as gas when the primary coolant is depressurized and are collected by a system designed for gas collection and storage. This represents the principal source of gaseous effluents.
I Small releases of radioactive liquids from valves, piping, or equipment associated with the primary coolant system may occur in the Reactor ,
Auxiliary, and Fuel Handling Buildings. The noble gases become part of the gaseous wastes while the remaining radioactive liquids are collected in floor and equipment drains and sumps and are processed prior to release. Processed primary coolant water that does meet chemical specifications for reuse may also become waste water. These represent the principal sources of liquid I* effluents.
Radioactivity Reaoval from Liquid and Gaseous Wastes In a normally operating nuclear power plant, radioactive liquid and gaseous wastes are collected, stored, and processed through processing systens to remove or reduce most of the radioactivity (exclusive of tritium) prior to reuse within the plant or discharge to the environment. These processing g systems are required by the Technical Specifications to be installed and 3 operable and help to ensure all releases of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents are as low as reasonably achievable.
lI l
l i
The liquid waste processing system consists of filters, demineralizers, and evaporators so that liquid wastes are filtered, distilled, and demineralized.
The liquid waste is routed through the waste evaporators to degas and distill the waste to reduce its volume and concentrate the radioactivity. The ;
I distillate is further processed through the condensate demineralizers and transferred to the waste evaporator condensate storage tanks. Liquid wastes are processed through the appropriate portions of the liquid waste treatment system to provide assurance that the releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents will be kept ALARA. The mechanical draft cooling towers l provide an average of 30,000 gallons per minute (gpm) dilution flow for the liquid wastes prior to their discharge to the river. The average flow rate of the Susquehanna River ranges from 5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to greater than 100,000 cfs and provides additional dilution. All concentrates produced from the waste evaporators are packaged as solid waste for shipment and burial I offsite.
The waste gases collected by the vent header system are first routed to waste gas delay tanks and then to the gas compressors which compress the gases into waste gas decay tanks. After a waste gas decay tank is filled, the tank contents may be stored for a period up to 90 days to allow for decay of the shorter lived radionuclides. The discharge of waste gases is made through high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, and charcoal filters prior to release. The filters are rated to be 957, efficient for iodines and greater than 99% efficient for removal of particulates. Noble gases, however, cannot be removed by these filters. Gaseous effluents are discharged through an 5 elevated stack which increases atmospheric dispersion and provides a dilution factor of at least 1000.
4 Ventilation systems have been provided throughout the plant. These systems l
are designed to maintain suitable ambient conditions for personnel and l
I equipment. The ventilation system maintains a negative pressure with respect to the outside environment so that radioactive material release through pathways other than the ventilation exhaust are prevented. It also filters air exhausted from potentially radioactive areas of the buildings through I
I I
I high ef ficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and charcoal filters. The ventilation system also exhausts through the elevated stack to increase atmospheric dispersion and dilution.
Effluent Data Radioactive liquids and gaseous releases from TMI-l and TMI-2 did not exceed federal regulatory and Technical Specification limits during 1985.
I Radiological releases from TMINS are calculated from installed plant effluent monitor readings and sample analyses of the plant stack for gaseous releases and liquid monitors for discharges to the Susquehanna River. These methods provide a means for accurate determination of the type and quantities of radioactive materials being released to the environment. Table 2 presents a samary of the gaseous and liquid effluents released from TNI-l and TMI-2 in 1985.
For TMI-1, liquid discharges for 1985 consisted of about 9 curies of tritium, t 0.005 curies Cs-137, and less than 0.001 curies of noble gas and other beta and ganma emitters. Airborne discharges made during the same time period 1
consisted of about 0.02 curies of tritim,100 curies of noble gas, and less than 0.001 curies each of Sr-89 and Sr-90 Since Unit 1 restarted, the presence of noble gas is expected.
For TMI-2, liquid discharges for 1985 consisted of about 0.02 curies of I tritium and less than 0.001 curies of other beta and gamma emitters. Airborne discharges made during the same time period consisted of about 20 curies of tritim, and less than 0.01 curies of other beta and gamma emitters. Noble gas releases consisted of about 0.1 curies of Xe-133 during the year. The Xe-133 was produced in Unit 1 and was exhausted by Unit 2 by air exchange in the fuel handling building, a
5 I
l 5
i TABLE 2 RADIONUCLIDE C0ff 0SITION (F TMINS EFFLUENTS FOR 1985 i
Liquid Effluents (Ci) Gaseous Effluents (Ci)
Radionuclide Hal f-Li fe TMI-1 TMI-2 TMI-l TMI-2 H-3: 12.3 yr 9.061 0.002 0.023 19.8 i Fission and
, gW Activation Products:
Ar-41 1.8 h 0.477 Fe-55 2.6 yr 5.50E-4 Co-60 5.3 yr 6.44E-4 Kr-85m 4.4 h 0.486 l
Kr-85 10.7 yr 13.6 Kr-87 76 min 2.32 Kr-88 2.8 h 0.485 Sr-89 52.7 d 1.41 E- 5 Sr-90 27.7 yr 1.09E-4 1.35E-4 1.45E-5 2.02E-5 Tc-99m 6.0 d 5.45E-6 (a ) l Sb-125 2.1 yr 1.22E-4 Xe-131m 12.0 d 5 Xe-133m 2.3 d 0.0 36 1.12 N-133 5.4 d 3.37E-4 80.3 0.133 i Cs-134 2.2 yr 2.45E-4 Xe-135 9.2 h 2.15E-5 9.58 Cs-137 30.0 yr 0.0 05 4.19E-5 2. 56 E-5 (a) Medical Administration Note: Those numbers less than 0.001 are expressed in exponential form (i .e. ,1.00E-3 = 0.001 )
I I
Noble gases are the predominant fission products in gaseous effluents from an operating nuclear power plant. Small amounts are also released in liquid ef fluents. The principal noble gases produced are isotopes of xenon (Xe) and krypton (Kr).
Xenon-133 and Xenon-135 (Xe-135) with half-lives of five days I and nine hours, respectively, are the major xenons released. Total xenon radioactivity released to the atmosphere in 1985 was less than 91 curies but with their short half-lives they tend to decay quickly and cease to be radioactive. Small amounts (less than 14 curies) of Kr-85 (10.7 year half-life) were also released. This radionuclide with its longer half-life tends to persist in the atmosphere. However, nuclear power production is only a small contributor to the total atmospheric inventory of Kr-85. An estimated 3.2 million curies of Kr-85 have been dispersed throughout the atmosphere as a 5 result of nuclear weapon tests (reference 29). Fuel reprocessing plants have also added to this inventory.
A small amount (about 10 curies) is also produced by cosmic ray interactions with the atmosphere (reference 30). Air concentrations of Kr-85 world-wide from all sources have been estimated to be 17 pCi per cubic meter in air (reference 29). This is consistent with the USEPA measurements in the TMINS area.
I Noble gases are chemically and physiologically inert. They are readily j dispersed in the atmosphere when released and do not concentrate in humans or 1 i other organisms. Their contributions to human radiation exposures are primarily external to the body (skin) from the gas traveling in a plume.
Tritium is the predominant radionuclide released in liquid effluents and it is also released in gaseous effluents. Total H-3 radioactivity released in 1985 I
was less than 10 curies to the river and less than 20 curies to the atmosphere. Tritiun has a 12 year half-life. It is a low energy beta emitter I l and small dose consequence so that the radioactivity concentration guide issued by the ICRP, NCRP, USNRC and by other standard-setting organizations is higher for tritium than for most other radionuclides.
Tritium is readily oxidized or exchanges with other hydrogen isotopes and finds its way into all living things if they derive their water from a 5
E I
tritiated source. Tritium has several important major pathways to man. For gaseous releases they are direct inhalation and immersion, including absorption through unbroken skin, passage through food crops, and passage into I drinking water via precipitation. For liquid releases the important pathway is through drinking water to man.
Tritium is also naturally occurring, being produced by reactions of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. The world inventory of cosmic ray produced H-3 is about 70 million curies which corresponds to an annual rate of production of four million curies per year (reference 23). The total environmental H-3 I inventory from atmospheric nuclear weapon testing since 1946 has been estimated as eight billion curies and is by far the largest contributor to the environment (reference 23). Because of the naturally occurring and nuclear weapon testing H-3, the small amount of H-3 released from nuclear power reactors made no measurable change in the enviornmental H-3 concentrations.
I I
I I
I I
I I
l I
I I
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Program Design The radiological environmental monitoring program (REW) was established at TMINS to monitor radiation and radioactive materials in the environment and to evaluate the relationship between amounts of radioactive material released in effluents and resultant radiation doses to individuals from principal pathways of exposure. The TMI Technical Specifications require this program to be implemented. The TMI REMP meets all these requirements and in most cases far exceeds them.
I The USNRC has established regulatory guides which specify acceptable monitoring practices (reference 31). The TMINS program was designed on the 1 the basis of these regulatory guides along with the USNRC Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring (reference 32 ) . The important objectives of the REW are:
o assessing dose impacts to the public from TMINS operations o verifying in-plant controls for the containment of radioactive I materials o monitoring to determine buildup of long-lived radionuclides in the environment and changes in background radiation levels I
o providing reassurance to the public that the program is capable of adequately assessing impacts and identifying noteworthy changes in I the radiological status of the environment.
Published information concerning amounts of principal radionuclides released to the environment in liquid and gaseous effluents and data on distribution of radionuclides in environmental media can be used to determine the population critical exposure pathways that should be monitored and to identify media in I I
I I
which there is potential for long-term buildup of radioactivity (reference 33). This information was used to develop the TMINS program.
A radiological environmental monitoring program consists of two phases -- the preoperational and the operational. The preoperational phase provides data I which can be used as a basis for evaluating increases in radiation levels and radioactivity in the vicinity of the plant after the pl ant becomes operational. The operational phase began in 1974 at the time the plant became operational .
I The program consists of collecting of samples from the environment, analyzing them for radiation and radioactivity content, and interpreting the results.
With emphasis on the critical pathways to man, samples from the aquatic, atmospheric, and terrestrial environments are collected. These samples I include, but are not limited to, air, soil, water, fin fish, milk, fruits, vegetables, groundwater, and precipitation. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are placed in the environment to measure ambient gamma radiation l evels . The TMI Technical Specifications and recommendations from the scientific staff at TMI specify the sample types and analysis to be collected.
Sampling locations have been established by considering meteorology, I population distribution, hydrology, and land use characteristics of the local TMI area. The sampling locations are divided into two classes, indicator and control. Indicator locations are those which are expected to show plant effects, if any exist. These locations were primarily selected on the basis :
of where the highest predicted environmental concentrations would occur.
While the indicator locations are typically within a few miles of the plant, the control stations are generally at least 10 miles from the plant.
Therefore, control samples are collected at locations which should be unaffected by plant operations. They provide a basis on which to evaluate I fluctuations at indicator locations relative to natural background radiation and radioactivity and fallout from prior nuclear weapon tests.
l 1
l I
I l
l In addition to specifying the minimum media to be collected and the minimum number of sampling locations, the Technical Specifications also specify the frequency of sample collection, the types of analyses to be performed, and the l
analytical sensitivity (detection limit) and reporting levels. Table A-2 in I Appendix A provides a synopsis of the sample type, number of sampling l
l locations, collection frequency, number of samples collected, type of analysis and frequency, and number of samples analyzed. Table A-3 in Appendix A presents problems encountered in atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic sample collection. Sample analyses which did not meet the required analytical sensitivity are presented in Appendix B. Changes to the REW are described in I Appendix C.
The analytical resul ts are routinely reviewed by department scientists to assure that sensitivities have been achieved and that the proper analyses have been performed. Investigations are conducted when action levels or reporting levels are reached or when anomolous values are discovered. The action levels were established by GPUNC and are typically 10 percent of the NRC reporting levels specified in the Technical Specifications. These levels are purposely set this low so that corrective action can be initiated before a reporting level is reached.
I 0.
This review process is discussed in more detail in Appendix Table 3 provides a summary of radionuclide concentrations in environmental samples from TMINS for 1985 Procedures were written and approved by Environmental Control s , Quality I Assurance, and the Contractor laboratories to cover all aspects of the radiological environmental monitoring program. These procedures cover such areas as sample collection, sampling equipment calibration and maintenance, laboratory analysis, and data review. I A meteorological tower is calibrated and maintained onsite and collects information such as wind direction, wind speed, temperature, barometric ;
pressure, dewpoint, and precipitation. Meteorological data is generated every M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE 3
SUMMARY
OF RADIONUCLIDE CONENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONWNTAL SAMPLES FROM THREE MILE ISLAPO NilCLEAR STATION 1985 (1)
Analysis and Lower Limit Numtier of Media or Pathway Total Number of Indicator Locations Location with Highest Mean Sampled of Analyses Detection Control Locations Non-Routine Hean (f) (4) Name Mean (f) (4) Hean (f) (4) Reported (8)
(Unit of Hessurement) Performed (2) LLD (3) (Range) Distance and Direction (7) (Rance) (Range) Heasurements Direct Radiation TLD 1178 (5) --
5.2 (956/956) F1-2 Top of Dike 8.4 (16/16) 5.7 (222/222) 0 (arem/STD month) (3.3 - 10) 0.2 mi ESE (onsite) (7.7 - 10) (3.7 - 8.0)
Surface Water I-131 255 1.0 4.1 (6/145) J2-1, Above York Haven 5.9 (2/31) 0.77 (5/110) 0 (pci/L) (0.26 - 8.8) Dam 1.5 mi S (3.3 - 8.4) (0.36 - 1.3)
H-3 108 2000 117 (45/60) J2-1, Above York Haven 134 (9/12) 103 (31/48) O e (62 - 320) Dam 1.5 mi S (73 - 220) (65 - 320)
@ G r- 108 4.0 3.9 (58/60) F15.-1, Chickles Creek 6.6 (12/12) 4.0 (48/48) 0
, (1.6 - 16) 12.6 mi ESE (4.5 - 9.0) (1.6 - 9.0)
Sr-89 36 1.0 LLD --- --
LLD 0 Spec. 108 Hn-54 15 LLD -- ---
LLD 0 Zn-65 30 LLD --- --- LLD 0 Zr-95 30 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 Nb-95 15 LLD --- --- LLD 0 Cs-134 15 LLD -- ---
LLD 0 NOTE: See footnotes et end of table.
m m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE 3 (Continued)
SUHPERY OF RADIONUCLIDE CONENTRATIONS IN ENVIROFMNTAL SAMPLES FROM THREE HILE IRAND NUCLEAR STATION 1985 (1)
Analysis and Lower Limit Media or Pathway Total Number Number of of Indicator Locaticos location with Hiqhest Hean Control Locations Non-Routine Sampled of Analyses Detection Hean (f) (4) Name Mean (f) (4) Hean (f) (4) Reported (Unit of Hessurement) Performed (2) LLD (3) (Range) Distance and Direction (7) (Range) (8)
(Ranae) Hessurements Surface Water (Cont'd) 8a-140 60 LLD -- --
LLD 0 (pCi/L)
La-140 15 LLD -- ---
LLD 0 Gr- 12 5.0 --
N1-2A, TH1-1 Intake 1.7 (1/12) 1.7 (1/12) 0 0.1 mi E (Onsite)
Qrinking Water I-131 168 1.0 0.32 (1/112) G15-1, Columbia Water 0.32 (1/28) LLD 0
('pci/L) Treatment Plant g 14.4 mi SE e
H-3 72 2000 94 (28/48) G15-3 Lancaster Water 101 (10/12) 96 (14/24) 0 (65 - 150) Ireatment Plant (76 - 150) (60 - 130) 14.8 mi SE Gr-f 72 4.0 2.8 (43/48) G15-3 Lancaster Water 3.1 (12/12) 2.6 (23/24) 0 (1.3 - 6.7) Treatment Plant (1.7 - 6.7) (1.4 - 4.7) 14.8 mi SE G15-2 Wrightsville 3.1 (12/12)
Water Works (2.2 - 3.9) 13.6 mi SE St-89 24 1.0 LLD -- ---
LLD 0 Sr-90 24 1.0 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 Spec. 72 Hn-54 15 LLD -- ---
LLD 0 NOTE: See footnotes at end of table.
m M m W W W W W M M M M M M M M M TABLE 3 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF RADIONUCLIDE CONGNTRATIONS IN ENVIROP4fNTAL SAMPLES FROM THREE HitE ISLAM) NUCLEAR STATION 1985 (1)
Analysis and Lower Limit Nunber of Media or Pathway Total Number of Indicator locations location with Hlqhest Mean Sampled of Analyses Detection Control locations Non-Routine Mean (f) (4) Name Mean (f) (4) Mean (f) (4) Reported (8)
(Unit of Measurement) Performed (2) LLD (3) (Range) Distance and Direction (7) (Range) (Ranoe) Hessurements Drinking Water Nb-95 15 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 (pC1/L)
Cs-134 15 LLD -- --
LLD 0 Fish Sr-89 8 0.025 LLD - ---
LLD 0 (pci/gn - wet)
Sr-90 8 0.005 0.011 (2/4) Control Predator 0.012 (1/4) 0.012 (1/4) 0 (0.010 - 0.012) 10 mi N (Susq. River)
-Spec 8 Mrr54 0.13 LLD -- --
LLD 0 Cs-137 0.15 0.016 (2/4) Indicator Bottom rewr 0.016 (2/2) LLD 0 (0.0093 - 0.023) Susq. River Below (0.0093 - 0.023)
Discharge K-40 0.80 3.0 (4/4) Indicator Bottom Feeder 3.1 (2/2) 2.8 (4/4) 0 (2.9 - 3.2) Susq. River Below (3.0 - 3.2) (2.4 - 3.1)
Discharge NOTE: See footnotes at end of table.
m m e e m W W-W W W W W W W W W W W TABLE 3 (Continued)
SUMPMRY OF RADIONHCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIROPNENTAL SAMPLES FROM THREE MILE ISLAPO NUCLEAR STATION 1985 (1)
Analysis and Lower Limit Media or Pathway Nunt>er of Total Number of Indicator Locations location with Hiqhest Mean Sampled of Analyses Detection Mean (fJ (4) Control Locations Non-Routine (Unit of Measurement)
Name Mean lfJ (4) Mean ( f ) (4) Reported (8)
Performed (2) LLD (3) (Ranne) Distance and Direction (7) (Range) (Range) Measurements Aquatic Plants Sr-89 2 0.025 (6) LLD LLD (pCi/gn - wet) 0 Sr-90 2 0.005 (6) Control 0.0086 (2/2) 0.0086 (2/2) 0 0.7 mi N (Susq. River) (0.0062 - 0.011) (0.0062 - 0.011)
- Spec 2
- Mn-54 0.13 (6) -- ---
LLD 0
$ Fe-59 0.26 (6) --- ---
LLD 0 Co-58 0.13 (6) -
LLD 0
Co-60 0.13 (6) ---
LLD 0
Zn-65 0.26 (6) --
LLD 0
Cs-134 0.15 (6) --- ---
LLD 0
K-40 0.80 (6) Control 2.7 (2/2) 2.7 (2/2) 0 0.7 mi N (Susq. River) (2.6 - 2.8) (2.6 - 2.8) 8e-7 0.80 (6) Control 0.27 (1/2) 0.27 (1/2) 0 0.7 mi N (Susq. River)
Th-228 0.80 (6) Control 0.043 (1/2) 0.043 (1/2) 0 0.7 mi N (Susq. River)
Aquatic Sediment Sr-89 6 0.10 LLD ---
LLD 0
(pci/gm - dry)
LLD 0
-Spec. 6 Cs-134 0.15 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 Note: See footnotes at end of table.
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W M M TABLE 3 (Continued)
SUHFERY OF RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES FROM THREr MitF ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION 1985 (1)
Analysis and Lower Limit Media or Pathway Total Number Number of of Indicator Locations Location with Highest Mean Control Locat ions Non-Routine Sampled of Analyses Detection Mean (f) (4) Name Mean (f) (4)
(Unit of Measurement) Performed (2) LLD (3) (Rance) Distance and Direction (7) (Ranqe)
Hean (f) (4) Reported (8)
(Ranqe) Heasurements Aquatic Sediment Co-137 0.18 0.27 (4/4) K1-3 (pCi/gm - dry) 0.30 (2/2) 0.12 (2/2) 0 (0.15 - O. 34) 0.8 mi SSW (0.26 - 0.34) (0.12 - 0.13)
(Cont'd)
K-40 0.10 10 (4/4) J2-1, Above York Haven 11 (2/2) 9.0 (2/2) 0 (8.3 - 14) Dam 1.5 mi S (8.4 - 14) (8.8 - 9.2)
Ra-226 0.10 1.6 (4/4) Al-3, N tip of THI 1.9 (2/2) 1.9 (2/2) O e
(1.0 - 2.2) 0.7 mi N (1.3 - 2.6) (1.3 - 2.6)
U Th-228 0.10 1.1 (4/4) J2-1, Above York Haven 1.1 (2/2) 1.0 (2/2) 0
, (0.78 - 1.4) Dam 1.5 mi S (0.78 - 1.4) (l.0 - 1.0)
Air Pagticulates 416 0.01 0.016 (260/260) Al-1, North Weather (pCi/m ) Gr-f (0.0077 - 0.062) 0.018 (52/52) 0.016 (156/156) 0 Station 0.4 mi N (onsite) (0.0081 - 0.062) (0.0042 - 0.031)
Sr-09 32 0.0005 LLD -- --
LLD 0 Sr-90 32 0.0003 0.00081 (1/20) A3-1, Middletown 0.00081 (1/4) LLD 0 2.6 mi N Gr 4 32 0.001 0.0023 (20/20) Q15-1, West fairview 0.0029 (4/4) 0.0024 (12/12) 0 (0.0010 - 0.0044) 13.5 mi NW (0.0023 - 0.0034) (0.00085 - 0.0034)
Al-1, North Weather 0.0029 (4/4)
Station 0.4 mi N (onsite) (0.0021 - 0.0044)
[-Spec 97 Cs-134 0.05 LLD ---
LLD 0
Cs-137 0.06 0.020 (4/61) Al-1 North Weather 0.037 (2/13) 0.0023 (3/36) 0 (0.0022 - 0.058) Station 0.4 mi N (onsite) (0.016 - 0.058) (0.0012 - 0.0038)
Be-7 0.50 0.11 (61/61) G10-1, Drager Farm 0.12 (12/12) 0.11 (36/36) 0 (0.073 - 0.17) 9.8 mi SE (0.082 - 0.15) (0.072 - 0.15)
Al-1, North Weather 0.12 (13/13) LLD 0 Station C.4 mi N (onsite) (0.081 - 0.15)
Nite: See footnotes at end of table.
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E TABLE 3 (Continued)
SutNARY OF RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES FROM THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION 1985 (1)
Analysis and Lower Limit Number of Media or Pathway Total Number of Indicator Locations location with Hiqhest Mean Sampled of Analyses Detection Control Locatinns Non-Routine Mean (f) (4) Name Mean ( f J (4) Hean (f J (4) Reported (Unit of Hessurement) Performed (2) LLD (3) (Range) (8)
Distance and Direction (7) (Ranos) (Rance) Measurements Air Pagticulates Co-60 0.01 0.012 (2/61) Al-1. North Weather 0.012 (2/13) LLD 0 (pci/m ) (0.003-0.022) Station 0.4 mi N (onsite) (0.003-0.022)
(Cont'd)
K-40 0.1 0.024 (10/61) H3-1, Falmouth 0.032 (4/12) 0.020 (3/36) 0 (0.0073 - 0.050) 2.3 mi SSE (0.011 - 0.050) (0.013 - 0.028) ir Igine pCi/m )
LLD 0 P$ecipitation Cr- 60 2.0 2.2 (31/36) Q15-1, West Fairview 2.9 (12/12)
(pCIA) 2.6 (22/24) 0 (0.84 - 5.2) 13.5 mi NW (1.0 - 7.4) (1.0 - 7.4)
Sr-89 10 5.0 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 H-3 20 ,200 107 (7/12) H3-1, Falmouth 130 (1/4) 110 (4/8) 0 (59 - 160) 2.3 mi SSE (100 - 120)
-Spec 20 Hn-54 15 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 Note: See footnotes at end of table.
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE 3 (Continued)
SUPNARY OF RADIONilCLIDC CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONMENT 1i SAMPLES FROM THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION 1985 (1)
Analysis and Lower Limit Media or Pathway Number of Total Number of Indicator Locations Location with Highest Mean Sampled of Analyses Detection Control Locations Non-Routine Hean (f) (4) Name Hean (f) (4) Hean (f) (4) Reported (8)
(Unit of Hessurement) Performed (2) LLD (3) (Ranae) Distance and Direction (7) (Rance) (Ranon) Hensurements Precipation (Cont'd) Cs-137 18 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 (pCiA)
Be-140 60 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 Be-7 50 55 (1/12) El-2, Observation Center 55 (1/4) LLD 0 i
0.4 mi E N1k(Cow) I-131 146 1.0 LLD -- -
LLD 0 (pCiA)
St-89 26 5.0 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 Sr-90 26 2.0 2.4 (21/21) P4-1, Fisher Farm 3.9 (4/4) 2.0 (5/5) 0 (1.0 - 4.5) 3.7 mi WNW (3.3 - 4.5) (1.3 - 3.1)
-Spec 146 Cs-134 15 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 K-40 80 1250 (120/120) K15-2, Ashcombe Farm 1350 (18/18) 1340 (26/26) 0 (170 - 1590) 12.8 mi SSW (980 - 1550) (980 - 1550)
Milk (Cost) I-131 52 1.0 LLD --- --
LLD 0 (pci/L)
Sr-89 8 5.0 LLD --- --
LLD 0 Sr-90 8 2.0 4.0 (4/4) A2-1, Hardison Farm 4.0 (4/4) 2.5 (4/4) 0 (2.5 - 4.6) 1.2 mi N (2.5 - 4.6) (2.1 - 2.7)
Note: See footnotes at end of table.
M M M M M M M M M M m m W W M M M M M TABLE 3 (Continued)
SIMMRY OF RADIONtJCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONTNTAL SAWLES FROM THREE MILE ISLAND NtlCLEAR STATION 1985 (1)
Analysis and Lower Limit Media or Pathway Total Number of Number of fruiicator locations Location with Hiqhest Mean Cont rol Locatims Non-Routine Sampled of Analyses Detection Hean ( f) (4) Name Mean (f) (4)
(Unit or Measurement) Performed (2) LLD (3) (Range) Mean (f) (4) Reported (8)
Distance and Direction (7) (ftsnge) (Ranoe) Menairement s Milk (Goat) (Cont'd) -Spec. 52 (pCJ A)
Co-134 15 LLD ---
LLD 0
C s-137 14 LLD ---
LLD 0 cn
' K-40 80 1480 (26/26) D15-2. Davidhirer Farm 1690 (26/26) 0 1690 (26/26)
(890 - 1800) 10 mi DE (1370 - 1920) (1370 - 1920)
F ruit I-131 4 0.06 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 (pci/gm - wet)
-Spec. 4 Cs-134 0.06 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 K-40 0.4 2.1 (3/3) E-2 , Gruber Farm 2.6 (1/1) 1.1 (1/1) 0 (1.1 - 2. 6) 1.1 mi E Sr-B9 4 0.025 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 Sr-90 4 0.005 0.0069 (2/2) E2-2, Gruber Farm 0.013 (1/1) 0.0089 (1/1) 0 (0.00079 - 0.013) 1.1 mi E Vmetables I-131 4 0.06 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 (pCi/gm - wet)
-Spec. 4 Cs-134 0.06 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 Notes See footnotes at end of table.
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE 3 (Continued)
SIM1ARY tr RADIONtJCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIR0tKNTAL SA>PLES FROM TtitEE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION 1985 (1)
Analysts and Lower Lim 1L NumDer or Media or Pathway Total Number of Indicator Locations Location with Highest Mean Sanpled of Analyses Detection Mean (r) (4) Control Locations Non-Routine Name Mean (f) (4) Hean (f ) (4) Reported (8)
(Unit of Hessurement) Performed (2) LLD (3) (Range) Distance and Direction (7) (Range) (Range) Hensurement s V etables (Cont'd) K-40 400 2.1 (3/3) P7-1, Beshore Farm 2.6 (1/1) 2.1 (1/1) 0
( 1/gn - wet) (1.6 - 2.6) 6.7 mi WNW Sr-89 4 0.025 LLD ---
LLD 0
Sr-90 4 0.005 0.010 (3/3) D2-1, Alwine Farm 0.021 (1/1) 0.0065 (1/1) 0 (0.0021 - 0.021) 1.1 mi E K e
road Lear I-131 7 0.06 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 etation (pCi/gm - wet) -Spec 7 Cs-1M 0.06 LLD --- --
LLD 0 K-40 0.40 2.6 (6/6) E2-1, Zion Road Farm 3.5 (1/1) 2.5 (1/1) 0 (1.7 - 3.5) 1.1 mi E Be-7 0.10 0.12 (1/6) E2-1, Zion Road Farm 0.12 (1/1) LLD 0 1.1 mi E Sr- 89 7 0.025 LLD --- -
LLD 0 St-90 7 0.025 0.011 (6/6) E2-1, Zion Road Farm 0.021 (1/1) 0.019 (1/1) 0 (0.0042 - 0.021) 1.1 mi E Soil Sr-89 22 0.10 LLD --- ---
LLD 0 (pC1/gm - dry)
Sr-90 22 0.05 0.075 (10/14) D2-1, Alwine Farm 0.12 (2/2) 0.060 (3/8) 0 (0.038 - 0.17) 1.1 mi EE (0.10 - 0.13) (0.050 - 0.079)
C2-2, Engle Road 0.12 (2/2) 1.3 mi SE (0.065 - 0.17)
-Spec. 22 Note: See footnotes at the end of table.
M W W W W W W m m m mm a m m m e e m TA8LE 3 (Continued)
SUP9MRY T RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIROP# ENTAL SAWLES FROM TmEE MILE ISLAPD NtX1 EAR STATION 1985 (1)
Analysis and Lower Limit Media or Pathway Total Number Indicator Locations Number of of location with Hiqhest Mean Control Locations Non-Routine Sanpled of Analyses Detection Mean (f) (4) Name Mean (f) (4)
(Unit of Measurement) Performed (2) LLD (3) (Ranqe) Distance and Direction (7) (Range) Mean ( f) (4) Reported (8)
(Ranqe) Measurement s Soil (Cont'd) Cs-134 0.15 LLD ---
LLD (pCi/gm - dry) 0 Cs-137 0.15 0.40 (13/14) G2-2, Engle Road 0.87 (2/2) 0.49 (7/8) 0 (0.12 - 1.6) 1.3 mi SE (0.12 - 1.6) (0.28 - 0.86)
K-40 0.10 11 (14/14) G10-1, Drager Farm 28 (2/2) 20 (8/8) 0 (3.0 - 24) 9.8 mi SE (11 - 45) (11 - 45)
Ra-226 0.10 1.9 (14/14) A9-1, Union Dgosit Road 2.7 (2/2) g (0.49 - 3.2) 9.2 mi N (2.6 - 2.8) 2.3 (8/8)
(1.8 - 2.9) 0 e
A3-3, Rt. 441 2.7 (2/2) 2.5 mi N ( 2.1 - 3. 2)
Ttw228 0.10 1.0 (14/14) A9-2, Hoernerstown 1.8 (2/2) 1.4 (8/8) O (0.39 - 2.0) 9.3 mi N (1.5 - 2.1) (0.99 - 2.1)
NOTES:
(1) This table rgresents results from primary (base) program. It does not include quality controla (QC) results.
(2) Total number of analyses does not include duplicate analyses, recounts or reanalyses.
(3) Technical Specification LLD is given when applice51e. It should be noted that the THINS REMP in some cases uses lower limits of detection.
(4) (f) is the ratio of positive results to the number of samples analyzed. Means and Ranges are based upon detz table activities only.
(5) # of analyses performed is on a per TLD basis. Each badge contains four indmendent measurement elements.
(6) Indicator sample not available.
(7) All distances are measured from a point that is midway between the reactor buildings of TMI-1 ard THI-2.
(8) USNRC reporting levels as specified in the Technical Specifications.
I I
I ten seconds and averaged over a fifteen minute time period before data is I transmitted into a computer for permanent record storage. Some of this data is used in the atmospheric dispersion iaodel for gaseous effluents.
Because of low radionuclide concentrations in environmental media, special analysis techniques have been developed. Analytical laboratories contracted by GPU Nuclear use state-of-the-art laboratory equipment designed to measure the types of radiation emitted (alpha, beta, and gamma) and meet the required analytical sensitivities. Examples of laboratory equipment used are germanium detectors with multichannel analyzers for specific gamma emitting radionuclides, liquid scintillation detectors for tritium, low level alpha and I beta counters, and anticoincidence counters for low level I -1 31 detection.
Computer hardware and sof tware used in conjunction with the counting equipment perform calculations and provide data management. Analysis methods are discussed in more detail in references 34, 35, and 36 and are also described in Appendix L.
Quality Assurance Program A quality assurance program is conducted in accordance with guidelines provided in Regulatory Guide 4.15, " Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs" (reference 37) and as required by the Technical Specifications. It is documented by written policies, procedures , and records. This program is designed to identify possible deficiencies so that immediate correction action can be taken. It also provides a measure of confidence in the results of the monitoring program in order to assure the regulatory agencies and the public that the results are valid. The quality I assurance program for the measurement of radioactivity in air, soil, water, etc. samples is implemented by:
o auditing analytical contractor laboratories o requiring analytical contractor laboratories to participate in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Cross-Chec k I Program I
I I
o requiring analytical contractor laboratories to split samples for separate analysis (recounts are performed when samples are not able to be split) samples, having the sampl es analyzed by I
o splitting independent laboratories, and then comparing the results for agreement o requiring analytical contractor laboratories to perform in-house spiked sample analysis o requiring analytical contractor laboratories to provide bimonthly quality assurance reports showing laboratory instrument calibration and maintenance tests and results of blind, split, and duplicate analyses The quality assurance program and the results of the USEPA Cross-Check Program are outlined in Appendix E and F, respectively.
RDs are processed onsite. To ensure accuracy, a number of calibration checks are performed routinely on the RD system. Each TLD reader used in the dosimetry laboratory must check within three percent against its internal calibration standard prior to each use. The consistency of test results is examined using the processing computer to ensure adequate long term I performance. On a semiannual basis, randomly selected RD badges are sent to an independent laboratory where they are irradiated to doses not known to the GPUNC Dosimetry Laboratory located at TMI. The badges are returned to and processed by the GPUNC Dosimetry Laboratory. The accuracy and precision are tested for acceptability against established limits. Each TLD is checked routinely every two years for response within 10 percent of a known exposure.
I In addition to the GPUNC TLDs, there are nineteen locations which have two vendor-supplied quality control badges.
The environmental dosimeter badges were tested and qualified to the American National Standard Institutes (ANSI) publication N545-1975 and the USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.13 (references 38 and 39). The results of these tests were published in the Health Physics Journal (reference 40). A major program was conducted in 1984 in which the dosimetry program for GPU Nuclear was I
I I accredited by the National Bureau of Standard's National Voluntary Laboratory I Accreditation Program ( NVL AP ). The radiation dosimetry program pas sed a third-party-admini stered test and an onsite visit by a National Bureau of Standards technical expert in radiation dosimetry. The GPUNC program was among the first to receive NVLAP accreditation. GPUNC also participates in an environmental TLD intercomparison program with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Bureau of Standards.
I In addition to the TMI REW , the USNRC, USEPA and the Pennsylvania State Bureau of Radiation Protection maintain surveillance programs of the TMI environment. The results from these programs are compared with those from the TMI REW . The USNRC maintains a separate thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) network in the environment around TMI. The results of the USNRC's TLD Network were consistent with those of GPUNC.
In addition to the in plant effluent sampling of liquid releases prior to discharge, TMI Environmental Controls operates two samplers on the station I discharge as a quality control check. Resul ts from these samplers were consistent with the radioactivity measured in plant prior to release.
I I
I E
I I
I
I
I I
DIRECT RADIATION MONITORING Dose rates from external radiation sources were measured at a number of locations in the vicinity of TMINS using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs)
I and a real-time gamma monitoring system. Naturally occurring sources, including radiations of cosmic origin and natural radioactive materials in the I air and ground, as well as fallout from prior nuclear weapons testing, resulted in a certain amount of penetrating radiation being recorded at all monitoring locations. Indicator TLD's were placed systematically (in a ring) at the site boundary,1 mile and 5 miles distant the site. Control TLDs were located in locations typically greater than ten miles distant from TMINS.
I Results of the direct radiation monitoring program showed that dose rates in the vicinity of TMINS during 1985 were similar to previous years background I levels.
Sample Collection and Analysis A state-of-the-art thermoluminescent dosimeter is used. Thermoluminescense is a process in which ionizing radiation, upon interacting with the sensitive material of the TLD (the phosphor or 'el ement ' ) causes some of the energy deposited in the phosphor to be stored in stable ' traps' in the TLD Material.
I These TLD traps are so stable that they do not decay appreciably over the course of months or even years. This provides an excellent method of integrating the exposure received over a period of time. The energy stored in the TLDs as a result of interactions with radiation is removed and measur=.1 by l a controlled heating process in a calibrated reading system. As the TLD is l heated, the phosphor releases the stored energy as light. The amount of light given off is directly proportional to the radiation dose the TLD received.
I The reading process 'rezeros' the TLD and prepares it for reuse. The TLDs in use for environmental monitoring at TMINS are capable of accurately measuring exposures between 1 mR (well below normal environmental levels for the quarterly monitoring periods) and 200 R.
I I
I
\
\
I ;
During 1985, TLDs were collected on a quarterly basis from locations ranging from less than 0.1 mile to 21.1 miles from TMINS. Two new stations were added to the TLD monitoring program in 1985 bringing the total number of TLD monitoring stations to 88. Each TLD station consists of four TLD badges, each of which has four elements. Since each TLD phosphor element responds to I radiation independently, this provides fifteen redundant detectors at each station. In addition, nineteen stations have two vendor supplied quality I control badges whi';h have four independent measurements per badge, bringing the total independent measurements at each TLD station up to as many as twenty four for each quarter. For the first quarter of 1985, a shortage of TLDs necessitated using 2 GPUNC TLDs at each station. This, however, did not reduce the detection capability of the program, i
I Of the four phosphor elements in GPUNC TLDs, two are composed of calcium ;
I sulfate and two are lithium borate. The calciun sulfate phosphor elements are shielded with a thin layer of lead making the response to dif'erent energies of gamma radiation more linear. The lead also shields the elements from beta !
radiation, making them sensitive to penetrating gamma radiation only. The two lithium borate elements are shielded differently to permit the detection of beta radiation as well as gamma. The combination of different phosphor materials, shielding, and four elements per badge permit quantification of I both penetrating whole body dose and skin dose. Normally only the calcium sulfate phosphors are used for environmental monitoring, however the lithium borate elements can be used as needed to evaluate beta doses from noble gases from plant releases or as a backup to the calciun sulfate elements should more Ata be needed.
The real-time gamma radiation monitoring system provides the capability to obtain current or 'real-time' exposure rate information. Sixteen detector I assemblies have been positioned around TMINS, one in each of 16 compass sectors . The detectors are from 0.1 to 3.5 miles from TMINS. Exposure rate information is displayed continuously and recorded on a strip chart at each detector station. A microprocessor at the monitoring location collects a five minute average from the detectors. These five minute averages are then I
I I
I automaticaily collected by a central processing unit which generates a fifteen minute average for the station from the 5 minute averages, and then permanently stores the fifteen minute averages from each station. The system also integrates the five minute averages to determine a total dose. The monitors are sensitive to ganna radiation only and can detect exposure rates from 1 microR/hr (well below environmental levels) up to 10 R per hour.
I The system is utilized as an instantaneous environmental dose rate monitor, allowing examination of small, short term variations which would not be I detectable with TLDs. Since the system involves the use of sensitive and complex electronics, data is occasionally lost or rendered inaccurate due to electronic, electrical or mechanical f ailures in system components. Since TLDs are not subject to these variabl es, this system is used only to supplement and backup the TLD monitoring program.
Resul ts I
All TLD dose rate data presented in this report has been normalized to a standard month (30.4 days) to eliminate differences caused by slightly differing exposure periods. Exposure rates (mR per standard month) are considered numerically equal to dose rates (mrem per standard month) in this report.
I Average gamma dose rates in the vicinity of TMINS for 1985 by quarter along with the historical average for the period of TMI shutdown (from 1980 to 1985) I are shown in Figure E. In 1985 indicator stations, those stations located j within 10 miles of TMINS, yielded an average dose rate of 5.2 + 2.0 mrem /std.
month with a range of 3.3 to 10 mrem /std. month. Control stations, those stations, further than 10 miles from TMINS, ranged from 3.7 to 8.0 mrem /std.
month and averaged 5.7 + 1.9 mrem /std. month. The average monthly dose rates result in a total annual dose of 62 mrem ar.d 68 mrem per year for indicators I and controls respectively. The historical average for indicators and controls from 1980 through 1985 is 5.2 mren for indicator stations and 5.7 mren for control stations. The station with the highest annual average was station 1
I
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING TLD GAMMA DOSE RATES BY QUARTER 1985 1985 HISTORICAL HISTORICAL INDICATOR CONTROL INDICATOR CONTROL H WRE 5 mR PER STANDARD MONTH 8.0 7.5 -
7.0 -
e
, 6.5 -
6.0 s x
~ '
5.5 5.0 -
i 4.5 -
4.0 i i FIRST OTR SECOND QTR THIRD OTR FOURTH OTR QUARTER 1985 DATA NORMALIZED TO mR PER STANDARD MONTH
I 1
I
- I F1-2 which is located on TMINS. The annual average dose rate for this station was 8.4 mrem /std. month which equates to 1 01 mrem per year. Since this station is located on Three Mile Island adjacent to a radiological waste I temporary storage facility, the slightly elevated doses are expected. This area is inaccessible to the public. The next highest annual average dose rate, 8.1 mrem per month, was at station H8-1. All TLD monitoring station results are consistent with the Environmental Protection Agency calculated average annual dose equivalent rate of 88 mrem per year in the Harrisburg area !
(reference 15).
Statistical analyses of the TLD data indicated that there were statistically significant differences between dose rates at individual stations.
Differences were also evident between the indicator and control groups with the indicators consistently lower than the controls. This is evident in the quarterly trends displayed in Figure 5. Differences are expected between stations because of variations in natural radioactivity of rocks and soil in the immediate vicinity of each station.
All values recorded during 1985 were found to be within normal ranges. No I evidence was found that would indicate a relationship between operations at TMINS and any doses measured by TLDs offsite. Appendix M presents the 1985 results from the individual TLD stations in graphic and tabular form. A distribution graph of dose rates is also included.
I Figure 6 depicts the trends in gamma dose rates in the vicinity of TMINS from 1974 through 1%5 From this it can be seen that the trends in gamma dose I rates at indicator stations were similar to those of control stations with the exception of 1979. As a result of the TMI-2 accident, a transient low-level increase in gamma dose from the release of noble gases was evidenced.
I Increases were also noted in both indicator and control stations in 1976, 1977 and 1978 as a result of nuclear weapons testing.
The only offsite real-time monitoring system measurement during 1985 which indicated an influence from TMINS was an increase of less than 1 microR/hr at I
m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS QUARTERLY GAMMA DOSE RATE BY TLD HISTORICAL HISTORICAL INDICATOR CONTROL l
l FIGURE 6 l
MREM /STD. MONTH 50 45 -
40 -
i 35 -
f 30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
C C 5 -
V
^ C D EB 0 i i i i , , , , , , ,
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 YEAR (A) Tf11-1 Initial Criticality (D) Tf1I-2 Accident (B) Chiriese Nuclear Detonation (E) Tril-2 Reactor Purge (C) Tt1I-2 Initial Criticality
I I
I station Gl-2, TMINS Visitors Center, for a period of about one hour. This was due to a monitored noble gas release which was in progress at the time. The I average annual dose recorded by the system was about 65 mrem. This is in excellent agreement with the results from the TLD stations of 62 mrem for indicators and 68 mrem for controls. This is also in good agreement with the I results from the independent real-time monitoring system operated around TMINS by the USEPA. Appendix M includes a table of station averages from the GPUNC system. The average monthly exposure rates observed with the system ranged from 4.3 to 6.6 mrem per month. The lowest exposure rate occurred at the I TMINS North Gate station. This compares well to the range on the TLDs of 3.3 to 10 mrem per month for indicator stations and 3.7 to 8.0 mrem per month for controls.
Direct and indirect offsite doses from both units at TMINS are calculated by using MIDAS, an advanced " class A" computer program, in accordance with the methodol ogy in USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.109. These calculations indicated that no releases occurred of sufficient magnitude such that they could be detected by the TLD monitoring system. Further, special calculations performed for the release detected by the real-time monitoring systen located I at the Visitors Center as mentioned previously, showed excellent agreement between the model prediction used for calculations and the readings on the real-time dose rate monitors. More detail on the calculations used to estimate offsite doses are discussed in Appendix I.
I E
I !
il l I '
I I ;
I I !
I ATMOSPHERIC MONITORING I A direct and important exposure pathway to man is the inhalation and ingestion of radionuclides released to the atmosphere. Radioactivity in air was measured by a network of eight continuously operating air sampl ers.
Precipitation samples were also collected at five of these locations. Air sample stations are located in the prevailing downwind directions to the southeast (TMI Visitors Center and Falmouth) of TMINS and also in the nearby communities of Goldsboro and Middletown. One air sampler is also located on I TMI. The control air sample stations and those in other wind directions provided background or control airborne radioactivity data for comparison.
These samplers are located at York, Marietta, and West Fairview. Air samples are collected weekly and analyzed for gross beta, gross alpha, gamma-emitting radionuclides, I-131, Sr-89, and Sr-90.
No contribution to the general level of airborne particulate radioactivity could be identified as a resul t of TMINS operations during 1985. The radioactivity that was detected is normally found in the environment and is I consistent with expected concentrations of natural radioactivity and fallout from prior nuclear weapons testing. The United States Department of Energy determined by means of highly sensitive aerial radiation surveys that the amount of particulate radioactivity in the TMI environment was less in 1982 than 1976.
Sample Collection and Analysis I
Mechanical air samplers are used to continuously draw a known volume of air through particulate filters and charcoal cartridges. The samplers are temperature dnd pressure cwpensated to ensure a constant flow rate. Air volumes are measured and recorded with dry gas meters. The air samplers are calibrated and maintained by instrumentation technicians.
I The particulate filters were collected weekly and analyzed for gross beta i I radioactivity. The filters were then combined monthly by individual station 1
8 l
locations and analyzed as a composite for gamma-emitting radionuclides. On a quarterly basis, the monthly composites for each individual station were combined and analyzed for gross alpha radioactivity and Sr-89 and Sr-90.
Gaseous radiofodines were collected using cartridges containing activated I charcoal . These cartridges were placed downstream of the particulate filter at each of the air sampling stations. Charcoal cartridges were collected weekly and analyzed separately from the particulate filters for I-131.
Precipitation samples were collected monthly using a 13-inch diameter funnel that drains into five gallon plastic bottles. Monthly samples were analyzed !
for gross beta radioactivity. The monthly samples were then combined quarterly by individual stations and analyzed as a composite for tritiun and I gamma-emitting radionuclides. On a semiannual basis, the quarterly composites were combined and analyzed for Sr-89 and Sr-90.
Resul ts Results of the gross beta airborne particulate analyses provided comparisons between indicator and control stations for the year, as well as comparisons between locations in relation to spatial and temporal differences. The I. calculated annual averages for indicator and control stations were 0.016 +
0.011 pCi/M 3 and 0. 01 6 + 0.009 pCi/M 3
, respectively. These values are consistent with the 1984 averages of 0.016 pC1/m3 for both indicator and control stations. The station with the highest annual average was the indicator station located onsite at the TMINS North Weather Station (Al-1).
This station had an average concentration of 0. 018 + 0. 016 pCi/M , which is I well belcw the preoperational mean of 0.150 pCi/M , The sample collected from this station during the period of May 1 - May 8 had a concentration of 0.066 v 0.003 pCi/M . A recount (0.062 + 0.003 pCf/M3 ) confirmed the originci result. The elevated activity was related to the presence of Cs-lS7. Individual station averages for the year are presented in Table 4.
Fluctuations in the gross beta concentrations were noted throughout the year.
I t
1 8
TABLE 4 8
1985 AVERAiE GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS I
IN AIR PARTICULATES 8
(pCi/m3 )
I Station Description Average 2 S.D.
Al-1(I) TMINS North Weather Station 0.018 1 0.016 H3-1 (I ) Falmouth 0.016 1 0.008 El-2(I) TMINS Visitors Center 0.016 1 0.009 M2-1(I) Goldsboro 0.016 1 0.009 A3-1(I) Mtddletown 0.016 + 0.009 Q15-1(C) West Fairview 0.016 1 0.009 G10-1(C) Drager Farm (Marietta) 0.017 1 0.009 J15-1 (C ) York 0.015 1 0.010 t
I I
(I) = Indicator Station (C) = Control Station I
-~
t
I I
The general trend for average weekly gross beta concentrations in the I indicator stations showed good correlation with control stations throughout the monitoring period. Statistical analysis of the detectable gross beta concentrations indicated no significant difference between indicator and control stations. Evidence for this fact iaay be seer. from the similarity of the trends in the average monthly gross beta concentrations displayed in Figure 7. Addi tional ly, no significant di fference was indicated between
~
individual stations. Monthly averages for indicator and control stations for the year are presented in Table 5.
I Generally, the gross beta activity for both indicator and control stations remained constant throughout the monitoring period. A gradual rise occurred beginning in July and peaking in September. The increase noted in the third quarter was unrelated to TMINS operations since both indicator and control
_ stations were affected. All gross beta concentrations for 1985 were within normal background levels and no increases were noted a:. a result of the return to service of TMI-1.
Results of the gross alpha airborne particulate analyses provided comparisons between indicator and control stations for the year, as well as comparisons between locations in the relation to spatial and temporal differences. The calculated annual averages for indicator and control stations were 0.0023 +
0.0017 pCi/m 3 and 0.0024 + 0.0016 pCi/m 3
, respectively. These values are consistent with the 1984 averages of 0.0025 pC1/m3 and 0.0023 pCi/m for indicator and control stations, respectively. The stations with the highest I annual averages were Al-1, TMINS N0rth Weather Station (indicator), and Q15-1, West Fairview (control), both with an average of 0.0029 pCi/m .
Fluctuations in the gross alpha concentrations were noted throughout the year. The general trend for average quarterly gross alpha concentrations in the indicator stations showed good correlation with control stations i throughout the monitoring period. Statistical analysi s of the detectable gross alpha concentrations showed no significant difference between indicator and control stations. Evidence for this fact may be seen from the similarity
~ -
I
m M M M M M M M M M m m m m m m m m M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS MONTHLY GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR PARTICULATES 1985 1985 INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 7 GROSS BETA pCi/cubicmeter
.05
.04 -
i W
.03 -
.02 -
% \
l
.01 -
0.00 i , , , , , , , , ,
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 1985
S 8
4 TABLE 5 1985 MONTHLY AVERAGE GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN INDICATOR AND CONTROL AIR PARTICULATE STATIONS (pCi/m3) i Indicator Control Date ( Average i. 2 S.D. ) (Average 2 S.D. )
January 0.014 + 0.006 0.014 + 0.007 February 0. 017 + 0. 006 0. 017 + 0. 006 March 0.013 + 0.003 0.013 + 0.005 April 0. 016 + 0. 010 0. 016 + 0. 011 May 0. 01 6 0.009 0. 01 4 0.005 June 0. 014 + 0. 006 0. 013 + 0. 006 l July 0.017 + 0.003 0. 018 + 0. 001 August 0. 018 + 0. 005 0.019 + 0.006 September 0.020 + 0.007 0.021 + 0.008 October 0. 015 + 0. 003 0.015 + 0. 002 November i December
- 0. 016 + 0. 011
- 0. 019 + 0. 016
- 0. 016 + 0. 012
- 0. 018 + 0. 016 8
I I
I t . ,4 I
4 of the trends in the average quarterly gross alpha concentrations displayed in Figure 8. Additionally, no significant difference was indicated between individual stations. Quarterly averages for indicator and control stations for the year are presented in Table 6.
I Generally, the gross alpha activity for both indicator and control stations remained constant throughout the monitoring period. All gross alpha I concentrations for 1985 were within normal background levels and no increases were noted as a result of the return to service of TMI-1. i Historical trends in gross beta activity from 1974 to 1985 are depicted in Figure 9 Generally, the level of gross beta activity has decreased with I time. Preoperational levels in 1974 averaged 0.15 pCi/m while in 1985, the gross beta activity averaged 0.016 pCi/m3 . These values represent almost a I ten-fold decrease in activity. This is a direct resul t of fewer nucl ear I weapon tests.
Peak activities in both indicator and control stations were noted af ter each detonation, the TMI-2 accident, and to a lesser extent in the spring months when atmospheric mixing and precipitation are greatest. Trends for indicator and control stations were similar.
Historical trends in gross alpha activity from 1980 to 1985 are depicted in Figure 10 Gross alpha activities during the preoperational program averaged I 0 . 0 01 pCi/m activities 3
with maximum levels up to 0.006 pCi/m3. Although operational were found to be slightly higher, averaging closer to 0.002 l pCi/m , control station activities were generally higher than indicator levels. Like gross beta, trends for gross alpha activity at indicator and control stations were similar.
I Analysis of particulate filters for gamma-emitting radionuclides indicated naturally occurring isotopes Be-7 and K-40 and low levels of Cs-137 and Co-60 Cesium-137 was detected occasionally at both indicator and control g stations throughout the monitoring period, indicating the source to be p worldwide fallout fron prior nuclear weapon tests. The one low level positive Co-60 result occurred on TMI. Because the gross beta activity was slightly I
W W W M M M M M M M e m m m m m M M M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS QUARTERLY GROSS ALPHA CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR PARTICULATES 1985 1985 INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 8 H-3 pCi/cubicmeter
.009 -
.008 -
.007 -
.006 -
.005 -
.004 -
~
.003 -
N
.002 '
.001 -
0.000 , ,
FIRST QUARTER SECOND QUARTER THIRD QUARTER FOURTH QUARTER QUARTER 1985
8 I
I TABLE 6 l
l I'
1985 QUARTERLY AVERAGE GROSS ALPHA CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR PARTICULATES l (pCi/m3)
Indicator Control i
Quarter ( Average i 2 S.D. ) ( Average t 2 S.D.)
ist 0.0016 + 0.0006 0.0020 + 0.0019 2nd 0.0034 + 0.0014 0.0032 + 0.0001 3rd 0.0020 + 0.0014 0.0023 + 0.0021 l
4th 0.0021 + 0.0004 0.0021 + 0.0003 E
E I
t I
I E
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS QUARTERLY GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR PARTICULATES HISTORICAL HISTORICAL INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 9 GROSS BETA pCi/cubicmeter
.40
.35 -
.30 -
E
, .25 -
.20 -
l
.15 -
.10 -
.05 -
0.00 ^ i i B
i B , BC ,D ,
B 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 YEAR (A) T!!I-1 Initial Criticality (D) Tf!I-2 Accident (B) Chinese Nuclear Detonation (E) Tl11-2 Reactor Purge (C) Titi-2 Initial Criticality
m m W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS QUARTERLY GROSS ALPHA CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR PARTICULATES HISTORICAL HISTORICAL INDICATOR CONTROL R RE 10 GROSS ALPHA pCi/cubicmeter
.010
.009 -
.008 -
.007 -
8
.006 -
.005 -
.004 -
.003
.002 -
.001 -
j%
E B 0.000 , , , , ,
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 YEAR (B) Chinese Nuclear Detonation (E) TitI-2 Reactor Purge
I I elevated on the station Al-1 May 1 to May 8 particulate fil ter, a gamma analysis was performed. Both Cs-137 and Co-60 were detected at concentrations I of 0.058 1 0.008 pCi/m 3 and 0.022 1 0.008 pCi/m3 , respectively.
monthly composite of weekly samples also yielded detectable concentrations of The both radionuclides but at concentrations approximately 25% of the weekly sample. Cobalt-60 was not detected in any offsite sample. An investigation was performed to determine the source of the radioactivity. TMINS gaseous effluents did not contain Co-60 and were ruled out, as the source. Subsequent gamma analysis of the air sampler head showed low levels of radioactivity indicating the air sampler head had been previously used inside the plant.
This radioactivity was below all applicable release criteria. As a result of the weathering process, particles of paint which contained some of the fixed radioactivity eventually wore off of the sampler head and got trapped onto the particulate fil ter. Consequently, the analysis of the filters showed detectable activities at ratios similar to those detected on the sampling heads.
g Gaseous I-131 was not detected in any air samples during 1985 All analysis W
' results were less than the analytical lower limit of detection (LLD) of 0.07 pCf/m3 (with the exception of the sample listed in Appendix B). In 1976 and 1978, I-131 was detected in indicator and control stations as a result of nuclear weapon testing. The short-term increase of I-131 in 1979 was a result of the TMI-2 accident. The highest concentration observed during this period was 23.9 pCi/m . This amount is less than 25 percent of the radioactivity concentration guide issued by the ICRP, NCRP, and USNRC. Since I-131 ceases 5 tc be cadioactive af ter a few weeks, it does not buildup or persist in the environment.
Results of gross beta radioactivity in precipitation samples are shown in Tables 7 and 8 Gross beta concentrations for indicator and control stations averaged 2.2 1 2.1 pCi/L and 2.6 1 3.4 pCi/L, respectively. Statistical I analysis of the detectable gross beta concentrations showed no significant difference between indicator and control stations. Additionally, no significant difference was indicated between individual stations. The I
I TABLE 7 1985 MONTHLY GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN INDICATOR AND CONTROL PRECIPITATION STATIONS (pCi/L )
Indicator Control Date ( Average i 2 S.D. ) * (Average i 2 S.D. )*
January 3.6 + 0.2 3.9 + 5.4 February 1.1 + 0.1 2.3 + 0.6 March 1.5 + 1.2 3.5 + 2.6 April 2.4 + 1.3 1.8 + 1.4 May 1.6 + 0.3 1.8 + 0.0 June 3.5 + 3.0 2.3 + 2.8 July 2.5 _+ 2.4 1.7 _+ 0.6 August 1. 7 + 0.3 1.2 + 0.0 i September LLD 1.0 October 3.0 + 0.3 4.6 + 3.0 November 1.2 + 0.1 7.4 December 1.3 + 0.9 1.2 + 0.6 5
I
- Based on detectable values only.
8 E
E '
E I
TABLE 8 l
1985 AVERAGE GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN PRECIPITATION (pCi/L) l Station Description Average + 2 S.D.
- El-2 (I) TMINS Visitors Center 2.3 + 2.0 H3-1 (I) Falmouth 2.1 + 2.8 A3-1 (I) Middletown 2.2 + 1.6 Q15-1 (C) West Fairview 2.9 + 4.0 G10-1 (C) Drager Farm (Marietta) 2.2 + 2.6 i
I (I) = Indicator Station (C) = Control Station I
- Based on detectable values only.
I E
E E
I similarity of the trends in the average monthly gross beta concentrations are depicted in Figure 11. Figure 12 depicts gross beta concentrations in precipitation since 1980. Analyses of quarterly composites for H-3 and gamma-emitting radionuclides showed all detectable activities to be consistent with natural background levels. The semiannual strontium analyses showed only one positive Sr-90 result (0.8 + 0.5 pCi/L) which was from fallout from prior nuclear weapon tests.
8 5
5 I l E
I l i
I I
E E
m M M M M M M M M M m M M M M M M M M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS MONTHLY GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN PRECIPITATION 1985 1985 INDICATOR CONTROL.
FIGURE 11 GROSS BETA pCi/L 20 18 -
16 -
i 14 -
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
/x
\
'4
/ \
^
2- _ % \
0 i i i i i i i i i i JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AiJG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 1985
m m m m m m W W W W W W m M M M M M M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS MONTHLY GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN PRECIPITATION HISTORICAL HISTORICAL INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 12 GROSS BETA pCi/L 100 10 -
1
.1 i i i i i 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 YEAR (B) Chinese Nuclear Detonation (E) Tril-2 Reactor Purge
I l
E l AQUATIC MONITORING 1 The Susquehanna River constitutes the primary environmental exposure pathway i
for radioactivity in liquid effluents. Because the Susquehanna River is used '
as a source of drinking water, as well as recreational fishing and other recreational activities, it is closely monitored for radionuclides of potential TMINS crigin. The levels of radionuclides in the river attributable to TMINS activities were determined by comparing radionuclide concentrations in samples collected upstream of the site with samples collected downstream.
In 1980, an experiment was conducted which tracked the dispersion and dilution of a dye from the TMINS discharge. This study verified the appropriateness of TMINS water sampling stations and provided an estimate of both downstream concentrations and travel times of the TMINS effluent.
I Samples of surface water, drinking water, finfish, and sediment were collected upstream and downstream of the TMINS discharge and analyzed for I-131, H-3, gamma-enitting radionuclides such as Cs-137, gross beta activity, and Sr-89 and Sr-90. No downstream samples of aquatic vegetation could be found. The results of these analyses demonstrated that THINS had no detectable effect on the aquatic environment. I Sample Collection and Analysis For 1985, surface and drinking water samples were collected from 11 stations on the Susquehanna River and its tributaries. At three of these stations both I raw and finished drinking water are sampled separately. An additional sample is obtained from i.hc THI-1 intake. For 12 of these samples automatic water compositors were used, while at two drinking water stations, technicians prepared hourly aliquots. At one location, grab samples were taken. The i automatic water compositors collect a measured volume of river water in a large container on a preset timed basis. These samplers are also calibrated and maintained by instrumentation technicians. Samples were collected on a biweekly schedule except for those listed in Table A-3, Appendix A. All biweekly water samples were analyzed for I-131. The water samples were then I
I I
combined monthly by individual station locations and analyzed as a composite I for H-3, gross beta activity, and gamma-emitti ng radionuclides. On a quarterly basis, the monthly composites for each individual station were combined and analyzed for Sr-89 and Sr-90.
Electroshock techniques and/or nets were used to collect finfish samples in July and October. To monitor progression of radionuclides through the food chain, bottom feeding finfish as well as predators were sampled. Indicator samples were collected downstream of the TMINS di scharge, while control specimens were gathered from locations greater than 10 miles upstream. The I edible portions were analyzed for Sr-89 and Sr-90 and gamma-emitting radionuclides.
River sediment was collected two times during 1985 using a dredge designed for this purpose. Aquatic plants were collected manually. All samples were dried and analyzed for Sr-89 and Sr-90 and gamma-emitting radionuclides.
A crayfish caging study was performed to further investigate the assimilation of radionuclides in the aquatic biota and to assess potential impacts from I TMINS liquid effluents. Crayfish used in the TMINS study were purchased from a hatchery in Elverton, Pennsylvania. Gamma isotopic analysis was performed on a sample (control) prior to field placement to determine baseline radioactivity in the crayfish. Two hundred crayfish were then placed upstream (control) and downstream (indicator) of the TMINS discharge on May 1,1985.
Crayfish and sediment samples were retrieved from each location monthly, from June through November, and analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. The 1 Maryland Power Plant Siting Program provided the original study design and performed parallel studies at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.
Resul ts Iodine-131, in addition to measurement in normal gamma analysis, is also analyzed by a chemical separation method for increased sensitivity.
I Iodine-131 occasionally appeared in both upstream and downstream surface water i
1I l
I I
samples. Primarily it occurred in first part of 1985. It was detected only I one time in drinking water samples. Positive I-131 values detected in surface water are listed in Table 9. Iodine-131 has several sources in the environment including medical sources, weapons f allout, and nuclear reactors.
For these reasons, the occurrence of I-1 31 in environmental samples was studied to see if it followed any discernable pattern. No spatial or temporal pattern is evident from the Table 9 entries. Since no reactor produced I-131 was generated at TMINS until October and no nuclear weapons tests have I recently been conducted, medical users represent the most probable source of I-131 found in these environmental samples. No I-131 was released from TMINS liquid and gaseous effluents during 1985.
The biweekly surface and drinking water samples were composited for a monthly H-3 analysis by station. For 1985, no samples contained H-3 levels significantly above the normal environmental range of about 100 to 300 pCi/L.
Table 10 displays the annual average H-3 concentrations observed at individual surface and drinking water stations.
Statistical tests were performed to compare indicator and control surface water H-3 concentrations. These tests revealed that there were no significant differences between the indicators and controls, each grouped together. The indicator stations had an annual average H-3 concentration of 117198 pCi/L, while the control stations had a value of 1031102 pCi/L. The similarity between indicators and controls can be seen in Figure 13 No systematic I trends are evident from the data displayed in this graph.
Historical surface water H-3 activities are shown in Figure 14. Occasionally I two raw river water sampling stations located just downstream of the discharge canal showed H-3 concentrations above background levels .
This is not unexpected because complete mixing of liquid effluents with river water is not achieved until the water passes the York Haven Dam. This structure creates added turbulence and mixing. None of the observed H-3 concentrations exceeded the USEPA safe drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi per liter.
I I
I TABLE 9 POSITIVE RESULTS FOR I-131 ANALYSIS IN WATER DURING 1985 pCi/L + 2 Sigma Contro1* Indicator
- Date Station Value Station Value 01/1 0 - 01/24 J2-1Q 0.54 + 0.2 J1-2 2.5 _+1 .3 I 01 /24 - 01 / 31 N1-2A 1.3 + 0.2
- J2-1Q J2-1 2.3 + 0.6 3.3 T 0.2 J1-2 1.770.2 01/31 - 02/24 J2-1Q 6.4 T 0.8 1 J2-1 8.4 T 1.4 J1-2 8.6 7 1.5 0.32 + 0.15 I 04/25 - 05/09 G15-1+
G15-1 0.26 + 0.15 06/13 - 06/27 F15-1 0.36 + 0.13 08/22 - 08/29 N1-2A 0.60 + 0.38 l 08/28 - 09/12 A3-2 0. 89 + 0.20 08/29 - 09/12 N1-2A 0.84 + 0.20
+0nly positive result in finished drinking water
- Station Locations N1-2 A - TMI-1 Intake G15 Colunbia Water Treatment Pl ant J2-1, J2 West shore TMI at Oam F15 Chickies Creek J1-2 - West shore TMI A3 Swatara Cree.'
I I
I I -. .
I I
TABLE 10 ANNUAL AVERAGE TRITIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE AND DRINKING WATER DURING 1985 (pCi/L + 2 S.D. )
Surface Water Annual Station Description Average _+ S.D.*
A3-2 (C) Swatara Creek 88 + 38 Q9-1 (C) Steelton Water Company 90 + 27 N1 -2 A (C ) TMI-l Intake 127 + 152 F15-1 (C) Chickies Creek 102 + 106 H5-2 (I) Brunner Island 130 + 83 H3-2 (I) York Haven Hydroelectric 94 + 31 Generating Station -
G15-1 (I) Columbia Water Treatment Plant 103 + 70 J1-2 (I) West shore of TMI 128 + 147 J2-1 (I) West shore of TMI at Dam 134 + 98 Drinking Water Q9-1 (C) Steelton Water Company 96 + 21 J15-2 (C) York Water Company 96 + 57 H5-2 (I)
I G15-1 (I)
Brunner Island Columbia Water Treatment Plant 96 + 51_
83 + 3 5 I G15-2 (I) Wrightsville Water Treatment Plant 100 + 41 G15-3 (I) Lancaster Water Treatment Plant 101 + 48,
- Based on detectable values only, duplicates not included (C) = Control (I) = Indicator I I
m m M M M M m m W W m m m m m m m m M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS MONTHLY TRITIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER INDI OR CO h0L FIGURE 13 H-3 pCi/L 500 400 -
I
' 300 -
200 -
[
/ \
100 -
/ '
'v - _ _ .
- s 0 i i ' i i i i i i i JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 1985
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS QUARTERLY TRITIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER HISTORICAL HISTORICAL INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 14 TRITIUM pCi/L 2000 1800 -
1600 -
i 1400 -
M 1200 -
1000 -
f 800 -
600 -
I I 400 -
200 - '
O A , , B, B ,BC ,D ,
E B, , , , [
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 (A) Tt1I-1 Initial Criticality (D) Tf11-2 Accident (B) Chinese fluclear Detonation (E) Tf11-2 Reactor Purge (C) Tl11-2 Initial Criticality
I I
I The H-3 concentrations measured in drinking water during 1%5 were similar to l
the values found in surface water. Table 10 lists the mean and the range for individual drinking water stations along with the data for surface water. The indicator stations had a yearly mean of 94144 pCi/L. For comparison, the I means at the two control drinking water stations were 96142 pCi/L.
Statistical comparisons were performed on the H-3 data from the drinking water stations. The outcome of these tests was similar to that for the surface water data. That is, an analysis of variance showed that individual drinking water stations, regardl ess of whether indicator or control , were not significantly different from one another.
I The indicators as a group showed correlation with the controls. Figure 15 displays the monthly variations of the average H-3 concentrations for indicator and control dri nking water stations. No persistent trends are obvious from the data in Figure 15.
The gross beta activity in surface and drinking water was determined on a monthly basis from composite samples. In general, there was little difference between indicator and control stations for both surface water and drinking water. In addition, the surface water results were similar to the drinking water results. Table 11 lists the range and the annual average gross beta concentration for each surface / drinking water station. The control surface water stations grouped together had an annual average of 4.014.0 pCi/L while the indicator average was 3.914.8 pCi/L. Figure 16 depicts the variation in the monthly averages at indicator and control surface water stations. There was correlation between these two groups of surface water stations.
Statistical analysis indicated no significant difference between controls and I indicators grouped together. Long term variations of the gross beta activity of surface water may be seen in Figure 17.
In general, the annual average gross beta activity was lower in drinking water l than in surface water samples (See Table 11). This is anticipated since sediment is filtered from drinking water as part of the treatment process. It is known that sediment contains naturally occurring and fallout radionuclides j which will contribute to the gross beta activity. As a group, the indicator )
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS MONTHLY TRITIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN DRINKING WATER 1985 1985 INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 15 H-3 pCi/L 500 400 -
i 300 -
200 -
/ w
- s 0 i i e i i i i i i i JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 1985
I TABLE 11 ANNUAL AVERAGE GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE AND DRINKING WATER DURING 1985 (pCi/L )
Surface Water Annual Station Description Average 2 S.D .*
A3-2 (C) Swatara Creek 3.9 + 2.8 Q9-1 (C) Steelton Water Company 2.2 + 0.92 N1-2 A (C ) TMI-1 Intake 3.5 + 2.5 F15-1 (C) Chickies Creek 6.6 + 2.9 H5-2 (I) Brunner Island 3.0 + 1.9 G15-1 (I) Columbia Water Treatment Plant 3.1 2.1 (I)
I H3-z York Haven Hydroelectric 2.9 + 2.7 Generating Station -
J1-2 (I) West shore of TMI 6.1 + 7. 7 J2-1 (I) West shore of TMI at Dam 4.2 + 3.2 i I Q9-1 (C)
Drinking Water Steelton Water Company 2.3 + 0.99 J15-2 (C) York Water Company 2.8 + 2.3 H5-2 (I) Brunner Island 2.0 + 1. 0 G15-1 (I) Columbia Water Treatment Plant 2.7 + 1. 5 G15-2 (I) Wrightsville Water Treatment 3.1 + 1. 3 Plant -
G15-3 (I) Lancaster Water Treatment Plant 3.1 + 2.6 1
- Based on detectable values only, duplicates not included I (C) = Control (I) = Indicator I
1
sus sem een men sus sus men amm aus amm aus num sem um amm aus sus aus ums TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS MONTHLY GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER 1985 1985 INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 16 GROSS BETA pCi/L 10 9 -
8 -
y 7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
[\ b' 3 /
\
2 -
1 O i i i i i i i i i i i JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC i
MONTH 1985
m m m m WE m M M M M me m m m m m m m M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS QUARTERLY GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER HISTORICAL HISTORICAL INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 17 GROSS BETA pCi/L 20 18 -
16 -
14 -
u a
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 2 -
0 i i i i i 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 YEAR
, (B) Chinese Nuclear Detonation (E) TMI-2 Reactor Purge
I i I
I drinking water stations had an annual average gross beta concentration of 2.8
+ 1.90 pCi/L and the control stations had a value of 2.6 + 1.84 pCi/L. The monthly averages for drinking water indicators and controls are plotted in Figure 18.
I Statistical analysis of drinking water gross beta data revealed that the annual averages were similar and the monthly indicator and control averages were well correlated, with no significant difference between indicators and controls, each grouped together. No consistent upward trend is indicated by the gross beta data for either surface or drinking water.
I Monthly composite samples of surface and drinking water were analyzed for the presence of gamma-emitting radionuclides. None of the surface or drinking water composites were found to contain detectable levels of reactor produced radionuclides. The only gamma-emitting radionuclide detected was K-40. This is a naturally occurring isotope frequently found in environmental samples.
Quarterly composites were prepared from surf ace and drinking water and were analyzed for the presence of Sr-89 and Sr-90 No surface or drinking water samples contained detectable levels of either isotope.
I Cesium-137 was found in indicator finfi sh (bottom feeder specimens) at extremely low concentrations. The levels found were consistent with past years data and are attributed to f allout from prior weapon tests. The concentration of Cs-137 in bottom feeders ranged from 0.009 to 0.023 pCi/gm.
The average of the positive values was 0.016 pCi/gm for bottom feeders. These results are lower than those from 1984. Naturally occurring K-40 was also detected in fish samples.
Strontium-89 was not detected in any of the finfish samples collected during 1985 Strontium-90 was identified in both indicator and control predators.
The Sr-90 values for indicator predator samples ranged from 0.010 to 0.012 pCi/gm. The control predator result was 0.012 pCi/gm. The Sr-90 values for both indicators and controls were not considered significantly di f ferent.
I
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS MONTHLY GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN DRINKING WATER 1985 1985 INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 18 GROSS BETA pCi/L 10 9 -
1 8 -
W 7 -
6 -
5 -
! 4 -
l %
3 N
N
-/ -
/ N /
2 -
_ y p
1 0 i i i i i i i i i i JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 1985
I I
These values were consistent with preoperational data and are attributed to residual fallout fra prior nuclear weapon tests.
I No aquatic plants were found at downstream locations during 1985. They were however, collected upstream.
Low levels of Sr-90 were found in the control sampl es.
The July sample was 0.011 pCi/p and the October sample was 0.0062 i
1 pCi/gm. The results were consistent with findings from previous years and are attributable to fallout. Naturally occurring Be-7, K-40, and Th-228 were also identified.
I
' In July and October of 1985, aquatic sediment samples were taken from the Susquehanna River upstream and downstream of TMINS. They were analyzed for Sr-89, Sr-90, and gamma emitting radionuclides. No Sr-89 or Sr-90 was I detected in 1985 sediment samples. The quality control samples collected in both July and October were found to contain marginally positive Sr-90 The values reported for the station, located approximately 1.5 miles below the TMINS discharge (J2-1Q), were 0.024 + 0.006 and 0.013 + 0.004 pCi/p for the samples collected in July and October, respectively. The corresponding results for the base program station were less than 0.03 and less than 0.04 pCi/gm. Both positive results are well below the preoperational mean of 0.39 I pCi/p. Strontium-90 is nuclear weapon testing fallout product commonly found in environmental samples.
Gamma isotopic analysis revealed the presence of naturally occurring K-40, Ra-226 and Th-228. Additionally, Cs-137 was found in all the sediment samples collected. However, due to its long half-life, Cs-137 resulting from nuclear weapons fallout is commonly found in environmental samples. The Cs-137 values ranged from 0.1210.074 to 0.13 + 0.066 pCi/p at the control station, while the indicator station concentrations varied from 0.15 + 0.054 to 0.34 + 0.11 I pCi/p. The average concentration for the control station was 0.12 + 0.014 ,
pCi/gm and the corresponding value for the indicator stations was 0.27 + 0.18 pCi/p. These two values are similar to the preoperational Cs-137 concentration of 0.43 + 0.29 pCi/gm. Past nuclear weapon tests contributed to the presence of this radionuclide.
I I
I I
Sediment samples taken at crayfish caging locations contained positive Cs-137 and naturally occurring K-40, radium-226 (Ra-226) and actinium-228 (Ac-228 ).
Cesium-137 levels ranged from 0. 032 + 0. 011 to 0.17 + 0. 02 pCi/g and occurred at both indicator and control stations throughout the study. The June j background sediment sample also contained positive cobalt-60 (0.02 + 0. 01 pCi/g - wet) activity. Only naturally occurring K-40 existed in the crayfish samples. The lone positive cobalt-60 result occurred at the control crayfish I station, upstream of potential impacts from TMINS liquid effluents. The Cs-137 values detected in the sediment samples were consistent with levels found during the routine REMP sediment sampling and, since evident at both control and indicator stations, were due to fallout from prior nuclear weapon tests.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I TERRESTRIAL MONITORING Radionuclides released to the atmosphere may be deposited on soil and vegetation and become incorporated into milk or food products. To assess the impact of dose to man via the terrestrial environment and ingestion pathway, food product samples such as green leafy vegetables, vegetables, fruit, and milk were collected at several locations in the TMINS environs during 1935 Surface soil and vegetation samples were collected from a number of locations I for the purpose of monitoring the potential buildup of atmospherically deposited radionuclides.
Because the radionuclides of interest with respect to TMINS operations are also present in the environment as a result of several decades of worldwide fallout or are naturally occurring, the presence of these radionuclides was expected to some extent in all of the samples collected.
All milk and food product samples were analyzed for I-131, Sr-89, Sr-90, and ganma-emitting radionuclides such as Cs-137. Soil samples were analyzed for Sr-89, Sr-90, and gama-emitting radionuclides.
I The contribution of radionuclides from TMINS operations was assessed by comparing the results of samples collected in prevalent downwind locations primarily to the south and east of the site, with control samples collected from distant or generally upwind directions.
A dairy census was conducted to determine the location of the nearest milk animal in each of the 16 meteorological sectors out to a distance of five I miles.
This census also included the identification of all milk animals in each sector within five miles of TMINS. The results are listed in Appendix G.
There were no new locations identified which would yield a greater dose or dose commitment than at those dairy locations currently being sample A garden census was conducted to determine the locations of the nearest garden greater than 500 square feet producing broad leaf vegetation. It also identifies the locations of all gardens greater than 500 square feet producing broad leaf vegetation in each of the 16 meteorological sectors out to a distance of five miles. The results are listed in Appendix H. There were no I
I new locations identified which would yield a greater dose or dose commitment than at those garden locations currently being sampled.
I Samples collected during 1985 indicated no apparent TMINS contribution to I radioactivity levels in locally produced foodstuffs and milk or in soil.
Cesium-137 and strontium-90 were found to be present in a number of the samples; however the concentrations observed in samples collected near TMINS were similar to levels observed in samples collected away from the site.
Their presence was related to fallout from prior weapons tests. l I Sample Collection and Analysis Samples of raw cow and goat milk were collected from local farmers at 10 locations. Samples were collected biweekly from January through December.
The biweekly milk samples were analyzed for iodine-131 and gamma-emitting radionuclides. Biweekly milk samples were composited quarterly by station and analyzed for Sr-89 and Sr-90.
Food product samples were collected from local farmers annually at the time of harvest at 11 locations. Samples included were tomatoes, green beans, onions, I cabbage, l ettuce, rhubarb leaves, melons, and appl es. Additionally, one sample of non-edible leafy vegetation was collected. All samples were analyzed for iodine-131, gamma-emitting radionuclides, and Sr-89 and Sr-90.
Soil samples were collected from 11 locations in April and October. Each sample consisted of a composite from four quadrants in a square meter. All samples were dried and analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides and Sr-89 and I Sr-90.
Results No iodine-131 was detected in any cow or goat milk samples during 1985.
Iodine-131 was detected in milk samples in 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, I I
I i I
I and 1980. With the exception of 1979, the detected iodine resulted from a I nuclear weapons test. Generally, the detected concentrations were below a few picocuries per liter. However, following the Chinese nuclear tests of 1976, I
l l
1977, and 1978, I-131 concentrations of 4615 pCi/L, 31 11 pCi/L, and 281 1 pCi/L were noted, respectively. l l
In 1979, I-131 was detected in 134 of 508 milk samples. All of the detectable concentrations were evidenced at indicator locations for a period of two l months following the TMI-2 accident. The highest concentrations were found in goat milk samples with a maximum concentration of 110110 pCi/L. Cow milk I samples contained much lower levels with a maximum value of 21 12 pCi/L.
Goats, because of their body chemistry, tend to concentrate radionuclides more
)
than cows. The highest I-131 concentration in cow and goat milk represent levels which are much lower than those detected in 1976 milk samples (up to )
439 pCi/L) collected from North York County following a nuclear weapons test.
Furthermore, none of the milk samples collected at the time of or subsequent to the TMI-2 accident approached the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) limit I of 12,000 pCi/L.
Naturally occurring potassium-40 was found to be present in all cow and goat milk samples No other gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in any of the samples.
Strontium-90 was found in all quarterly milk composite samples. No strontium-89 was detected. Strontium-90 concentrations in cow mil k for indicator and control stations averaged 2.412.0 pCi/L and 2.011.5 pC1/L, respectively. Strontium-90 concentrations in goat milk for indicator and i I control stations averaged 4.012.0 pCi/L and 2.510.6 pCi/L, respectively.
Statistical analyses of Sr-90 in cow milk indicated no significant difference between indicator and control stations. Statistical analyses were not performed on goat milk results due to the limited number of observations.
However, small differences between indicator and control stations were noted and attributed to the dairy practice of the farmers. Generally, the goats at the indicator station were found to be grazing for almost the entire period I while goats at the control station consumed more stored feed.
I
I I
Figures 19 and 20 depict trends in Sr-90 concentrations since 1980 in cow milk and goat milk, respectively. Generally, the Sr-90 concentrations in cow and goat milk have trended downward since 1980. This occurrence is related to the absence of recent atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and the radioactive I decay of both atmospheric and terrestrial Sr-90 associated with prior testing.
No iodine-131 was detected in any food product samples and non-edible vegetation during 1985.
Naturally occurring potassium-40 and Be-7 were detected in all food product and vegetation samples. No other gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in any of the samples.
I Strontium analyses in food product and vegetation samples revealed no Sr-89, however Sr-90 was detected in most samples. Strontium-90 concentrations for indicator and control samples were similar for each food product group and thus were attributable to worldwide fallout from prior nuclear weapon tests.
Generally, broad leafy vegetation samples were found to contain the highest concentration with fruits and vegetable containing less activity.
I Gamma analyses of soil samples yielded detectabl e levels of naturally occurring K-40, Ra-226, and Th-228 as well as fallout related Cs-137 in both indicator and control stations. The Cs-137 concentrations for indicator and control stations were similar, averaged 0.40 1 0.79 pCi/gm and 0.4910.43 ,
pCi/gn, respectively, and were attributed to worldwide fallout from prior nuclear weapon tests..
l Strontium analyses in soil revealed no Sr-89, however, Sr-90 was detected in 13 of 22 samples collected.
The Sr-90 concentrations in soil for indicator I and control samples were similar, averaged 0.075 1 0.088 pCi/gm and 0.0601 0.032 pC1/gm, respectively, and were attributed to worldwide fallout from prior nuclear weapons tests.
t I
i I
TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS QUARTERLY STRONTIUM-90 CONCENTRATIONS IN COW MILK HISTORICAL HISTORICAL INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 19 STRONTIUM-90 pCi/L 20 18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
E B 0 , , , , ,
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 YEAR (B) Chinese fluclear Detonation (E) T!1I-2 Reactor Purge
m M M M M M M M M M M m m m M M M M M TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS QUARTERLY STRONTIUM-90 CONCENTRATIONS IN GOAT MILK HISTORICAL HISTORICAL INDICATOR CONTROL FIGURE 20 STRONTIUM-90 pCi/L 20 18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 6 -
4 -
2 -
E B 0 i i i i i 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 YEAR (B) Chinese ?!uclear Detonation (E) T!1I-2 Reactor Purge
I I
GROUNDWATER MONITORING Three Mile Island Nucl ear Station is located in the Triassic lowland of Pennsylvania, a region often referred to as the Gettysburg Basin. The island was formed as a result of fluvial deposition by the Susquehanna River and is composed of sub-rounded to rounded sand and gravel, containing varying amounts of silt and clay. Soil depths vary from approxirnately six feet at the south end of the island to about 30 feet at the center of the island. The site is underlain by Gettysburg shale which lies at approximately 277 feet elevation.
There are two different water-bearing zones at TMINS: one is comprised of the unconsolidated materials overlying the Gettysburg shale (bedrock) and the other is comprised of the bedrock. Permeabilities in geologic materials on TMINS vary, however, groundwater discharges into the Susquehanna River.
A groundwater monitori ng program was initiated around TMI-2 in 1980. A network of 15 indicator and control stations were sited so as to detect I leakage of water from the TMI-2 Reactor and Auxiliary Buildings and outside storage tanks. Four stations were added in 1984 to monitor the TMI-l ;
pre-operational chemical cleaning basins. Two offsite stations located at the TMI Visitors Center and the Goldsboro marina are also included in the ground water monitoring program.
I Water samples are analyzed for H-3, gamma-emmitting radionuclides such as Cs-137, gross alpha, and Sr-89 and Sr-90 Since the groundwater monitoring program began in 1980, H-3 is the only radienuclide consistently detected in sampling stations. Tritita activities in the offsite stations have always been within normal environmental background levels (47 to 260 pC1/L ) . Elevated H-3 activities have been detected in stations located adjacent to major TMI-2 pl ant structures.
However, these H-3 activities were all less than the Maximum Permissible Concentrations (W C) of 3,000,000 picocuries per liter as specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, for unrestricted areas. An internal investigation concluded I
I I
that the elevated activities were primarily a result of leakage of water from the TMI-2 Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST). Enclosures and catch basins have been installed around the tank to help prevent l eakage and run off from reaching the soil and groundwater. Periodic maintenance on BWST values also helps to reduce leakage.
Hydrostatic pressure of the Susquehanna River channels surrounding TMI I prevents the island groundwater from reaching onshore residential groundwater supplies. Therefore, groundwater from TMINS cannot impact the quality of ground water offsite. Additionally, the H-3 concentrations in the TMINS groundwater are well below 10 CFR 20 regulatory limits and will not adversely effect the Susquehanna River.
I Sample Collection and Analysis Groundwater stations are sampled on a monthly frequency and are occasionally l sampled more frequently as conditions warrant. The stations are sampled either by bailing or pumping and analyzed for H-3, gamma-emitting radionuclides, gross alpha, and Sr-89 and Sr-90.
Resul ts Sample results for groundwater are included in Appendix J. Stations located near the TMI-2 BWST showed tritium concentrations ranging from 360 pCi/L to i 22,000 pCi/L. These concentrations are slightly below the 1984 H-3 groundwater results. Those stations more distant from the BWST ranged from less than 100 pCi/L to 970 pCi/L. The control station (located away fa om the g plant at the north and south ends of TMINS) samples were all within normal background levels. Tritium concentrations in all groundwater samples were I well below the limits established in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B for water in unrestricted areas. Tables J-la, J-l b, J-lc, and J-3 show H-3 results for 1985.
The elevated tritium concentrations detected in the stations located within I I
I ~
I !
I and adjacent to the TMI-2 secured-area fence were due primarily to past spills I from the TMI-2 BWST. In January 1982, approximately 3,000 gallons of BWST water spilled onto the ground when an outside feed pipe cracked. Also, in late August and early September 1983, approximately 250 gallons of BWST water leaked onto the ground. In March 1985 several valves around the TMI-2 BWST were identified to have small leaks and were repaired. It is unlikely that slight changes in the H-3 activity observed at station OS-17 in March and April were related to this valfe leakage since any leaks were small, and the I concrete pads, collection basins, and protective weather housings around the BWST piping minimize the pathways for leakage to the soil. No other stations showed any changes in radioactivity. Since March 1985 no additional spills or leaks from the TMI-2 BWST have occurred. Consequently, tritium concentrations in samples from stations near the TMI-2 BWST generally remained unchanged during 1%5. Occasionally, fluctuations in tritium concentrations were noted in response to precipitation events. Tritium is slowly migrating away from the BWST area as evidenced by the gradual decrease in concentrations in the stations around the BWST and the slightly. elevated concentrations in stations elsewhere in the vicinity of TMI-2 I
During 1985, the naturally occurring radionuclides K-40 and Thorium (Th-228) occasionally were detected in the groundwater samples. Cesium-137 was detected in four samples during the year. The positive Cs-137 results were all from stations MS-2. The maximun Cs-137 activity observed was 3.76 1 2.06 pCi/L in the boildown analysis. This Cs-137 concentration is very low, is I consistent with results from previous years, and can be attributed to past BWST spills. The detection of Cs-137 in MS-2 is probably due to the presence of sediment in the samples. As noted in past years , boildown analyses I performed on MS-2 samples have confirmed the presence of Cs-137 in the sediment. Since Cs-137 has an affinity for sediments and the groundwater sampling procedure (bailing of the station) tends to dredge up sediments, the detection of Cs-137 is most likely in samples laden with sediment like MS-2.
I Strontium-90 was detected in stations 05-16 and MS-2. 0S-16 showed 2.1 pCi/L i .5 pCi/L in the sample for July 2 to September 3,1985. MS-2 showed Sr-90
~"~
I
I I
at 3.7 + .15 pCi/L for the July 2 to September 3, 1985 sample. The MS-2 positive result was from the duplicate samples sent to the quality control lab. The result was not confirmed by the results from the primary laboratory.
Gross alpha results of the quarterly composite samples showed concentrations I ranging from LLD (<.7) to 150 pCi/L. Samples obtained from MS-2, OS-10, 0S-13B , OS-14, OS-16 and OS-17 occasionally contain sediment which can contribute to gross alpha activities. Gross alpha activity in the samples was attributed to the presence of naturally occurring Ra-226 and Th-228, both alpha emitters. Table J-2 presents gross alpha results by station for 1985 Gross alpha activities in groundwater showed a significant decrease in the second quarter of 1985. This is due to fil tering of samples, to remove sediment prior to analysis of the water, which was begun in the second quarter I of 1985.
I I
I I
I E
I I
I I _ _ _
I I
I RADIOLOGICAL IlfACT OF TMINS OPERATIONS I An assessment of potential radiological impact indicated that radiation doses to the public from 1985 operations at TMINS were well below all applicable I regulatory limits and were significantly less than doses received from common sources of radiation. The 1985 whole body dose potentially received by an assumed maximum exposed individual from liquid and gaseous ef fluents was conservatively calculated to be about 0.08 mrem total, as compared to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I guidelines of 23 mrem per year total. This is 1200 times lower than the doses the average individual in the TMI area receives from natural background sources. The >1985 whole body dose to the surrounding I population from TMI-l and TMI-2 liquid and gaseous effluents was calculated to be 0.2 person-rem.
This is one million times lower than the doses the total population in the TMI area receives from natural background sources.
The precise analysis of environmental samples assesses the dispersion of radionuclides from gaseous and liquid effluents released to the- environment.
Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) positioned in the environment 'around TMI provide measurements to determine radiation doses to hurnans, Analytical I results of environmental samples and TLD measurements hce shown that environmental radioactivity and radiation levels have not been changed appreciably and therefore radiation doses to the public from TMINS have been too low to measure. As a result, calculations were made to confirm environmental samples and TLD data and to provide an estim' ate of the radiation doses which individuals and the general public may have received. The methodology used to calculate the doses can be found in the U5NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of f
I Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Compliance nith 10 CFR 50, Appendix I".
1 Dose calculations are conservative (over estimated) to ensure estimated doses l are higher than any actual dose would be. -
Radiological releases from the plant are calculated from installed plant I effluent monitor readings and sample analyses of the plant stack for gaseous releases and liquid monitors for discharges to the Susquehanna River. These
, . ,2
I I
I methods provide a means for accurate determination of the type and quantities of radioactive materials being released to the environment. The amounts of radioactivity released in liquid and gaseous effluents for 1985 (Table 2) were matched to the actual monthly Susquehanna River flow data and actual I meteorological information to assess the dispersion of effluents in the river and the atmosphere. The environmental pathways which were considered are depicted in Figure 21. The exposure pathways considered for the discharge of TMINS liquid effluents are drinking water, fin fish conseption, and shoreline exposure. The exposure pathways considered for the discharge of TMINS gaseous effluents are plume exposure, inhalation, cow milk conseption, goat milk I consumption, vegetable consumption, meat consumption, and land deposition.
Usage factors and exposure times listed in Table 12 are from USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 and are conservative. In addition, the calculations assume the individual receiving the maximum exposure is located wherever the maximum environmental concentrations would occur. For liquid releases, the maximum hypothetical individual would consume water from the Susquehanna River, eat fish that reside in the plant discharge, and stand on the shoreline influenced by the plant discharge. For gaseous releases, the maximum hypothetical individual would live at the location of highest inhalation and direct plume I exposure while consuming milk, vegetables, and meat produced at the maximum locations for those pathways based upon meteorological conditions at the time of the release. Doses to the population within 50 miles of TMINS for gaseous effluents and the entire population using Susquehanna River water downstream of the plant were calculated.
I Results of the dose calculations are summarized in Tables 13 and 14. Table 13 I compares the estimated maximm dose to an individual of the public to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I dose limit guidelines. Table 14 presents the maximum estimated total body radiation doses to the total population within 50 miles I of the plant from gaseous releases and the entire population using Susquehanna River water downstream of TMINS for liquid releases. These doses are compared to population doses from natural background radiation.
I
~ ~
I--
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W M M M M INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE OF MAN FROM AIRBORNE AND LIQUID RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS ATMOSPHERIC ATMOSPHERIC ON RELEASES
/
ySP w / FIGURE 21 PLUME EXPOSURE UQUtD RELEASES INHAUATION 37 57 57 S"
O ^"
- S (MEA ILK)
N
& /,
/\
^
VEGETATION SHOREUNE / \
RIVER
\
FLOW DILUTION WATER
l I
I I
I TABLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE TIMES OR CONSUWTION RATES I .
ASSUMED FOR ENVIRONENTAL PATHWAYS AND DOSE CALCULATIONS LIQUID EFFLUENTS 3 Maximum Exposure Time or l g PatNay Conseption Rate Water Ingestion 193 gallons / year Shore Exposure 67 hours7.75463e-4 days <br />0.0186 hours <br />1.107804e-4 weeks <br />2.54935e-5 months <br /> / year Fresh Water Sport Fish Ingestion 43 lbs/ year i
GASEOUS EFFLUENTS I PatNay Maximum Exposure Time or Consmption Rate I Pime Exposure Inhalation Consumption of Cow Milk Dependent upon meterology 282,512 ft 3/ year Consmption of Goat Milk 106 gallons / year 106 gallons / year i Consumption of Yegetable Consmption of Meat 1389 lbs/ year Land Deposition 243 lbs/ year 8760 hours0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br /> year I
I I
I I
I I
I I
TABLE 13 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM HYPOTHETICAL DOSES TO AN INDIVIDUAL FOR LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENT RELEASES FROM TMI-1 AND TMI-2 FOR 1985 Maximum Hypothetical Dose To An Individual Estimated Value ,
USNRC 10 CFR 50 App. I millirem / year l millirem / year TMI-1 TMI-2 From Radionuclides 3 total body, or 0.08 0. 0 01 In Liquid Releases 10 any organ 0.1 0.004 From Radionuclides In 5 total body, or 0.002 0.000004 15 skin I Gaseous Releases (Noble Gases)
From Radionuclides in Gaseous 15 any organ 0.006 0.002 0.00001 0.002 Releases (Iodines and Particulates)
Estimated Value milliren/ year 40 CFR 190 TMI-1 and TMI-2 millirc 3/ year Combined Total from Site 75 mrem thyroid < 0.1 mrem 25 mrem total body I or other organs I
I '
I I 8 i
I I
I I
TABLE 14 I ESTIMATE 9 MAXIMUM TOTAL RADIATION DOSES TO THE PTULATION FOR LIQUID AND GASE0US EFFLUENT RELEASES FROM TMI-l AND TMI-2 FOR 1985 Estimated Population 8 Total Body Value Person-Rem / year TMI-l TMI-2 From Radionuclides In Liquid Releases 0.07 0. 01 (Downstream Susquehanna River water users)
I From Radionuclides In Gaseous Releases 0.02 0.1 (Within 50 Mile Radius of TMINS)
I Dose _ Due to Natural Background Radiation Approximately 200,000 person-rem per year I
I I
I I
I I
I As shown by the data, conservative estimates of the doses to members of the public from TMINS are less than 10 CFR 50, Appendix I guidelines, 40 CFR 190 (EPA standard 25 mrem per site),10 CFR 20 (500 mrem /yr.), and the dose from natural background and fallout from prior nuclear weapon tests. Appendix I I contains a more detailed discussion of the dose calculations.
I t .
l E 1 1
8-I I
8 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
REFERENCES (1) Radiation Management Corporation. "Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating l Station - Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program." l RMC-TR-75-17, 1975.
(2) Radiation Management Corporation. "Three Mile Island Nuclear Station -
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program -
First Operational Period." RMC -TR-75-02, 1975.
(3) Radiation Management Corporation. "Three Mile Island Nuclear Station 1975 Semiannual Report." RMC-T R-75-13, 1975.
(4 ) Radiation Management Corporation. " Radiol ogical Environmental Monitoring Report for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station 1975 Semiannual Report II, July 1 through December 31." RMC-TR-76-01, I February 1976.
(5) Radiation Management Corporation. " Radiol ogical Environmental 9 Monitoring Report for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station 1976 Annual Report for January 1 through December 31." RMC-TR-77-01, 1977.
E (6) Teledyne Isotopes. " Metropolitan Edi son Company, Radiological B Environmental Monitoring Report, " 1977 Annual Report.
(7) Teledyne Isotopes. " Metropolitan Edi son Company, Radiological I Environmental Monitoring Report," 1978 Annual Report.
(8) Metropolitan Edison Com any. " Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report for 19 . May 1980.
(9) Metropolitan Edi son Company. " Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report for 1980." May 1 %1.
(10) GPU Nuclear Corporation. " Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report for 1981." May 1982.
(11 ) " Rep ort of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island," October 1979.
(12) "Three Mile Island, A Report to the Commissioners and the Public," ;
Mitchel Rogovi n, Director , NRC Special Inquiry Group, NUREG/CR-1250, !
January 24, 1980, 1 (13) " Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile .
Island Nuclear Station," Preliminary Estimates Prepared by the Ad Hoc l Interagency Dose Assessment Group, NUREG-0558, May 1979.
I i I
I (14 ) GPU Nuclear Corporation. " Operational Radiological Environmental I Monitoring Report for 1982." May 1983.
Nuclear Corporation.
I (15 ) GPU " Operational Monitoring Report for 1983." May 1984.
Radiological Environmental (16 ) GPU Nucl ear Corporation. " Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report for 1984." May 1985.
(17 ) Metropolitan Edison Capany. "Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Technical Specifications," Appendix A, Amendment 72, DPR 50,1981.
(18) Metropolitan Edison Capany. "Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Technical Specifications," Appendix B, Amendment 20, DPR 73,1982.
I (19) Donald T. Oakley. " Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States."
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. ORP/SID 72-1, June 1972 l
l (20) GPU Nuclear Corporation. "Fi nal Safety Analysis Report, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1," 1982.
(21) Metropolitan Edison Company. " Final Safety Analysis Report, Three Mile
- 5. Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2," 1978.
(22) 1980 Census Information provided by The Pennsylvania State Data Center.
(23) National Climatic Data Center " Local Climatological Data-Annual Summary With Caparative Data,1983, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania" January 1984.
(24) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No.
22, "Maximm Permissible Body Burdens and Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Radionuclides in Air and Water for Occupational I- Exposure," (Published as National Bureau of Standards Handbook 69, Issued June 1959, superseding Handbook 52).
(25 ) International Camission on Radiologic al Protection, Publication 2,
" Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radi ation (1959)," with 1962 Supplement Issued in ICRP Publication 6; Publication 9, " Recommendations on Radiation Exposure," (1965); ICRP Publication 7 I (1965), amplifying specific recmmendations of Publication 9 concerning environmental monitoring; and ICRP Publication 26 (1977).
(26 ) Federal Radiation Council Report No. 1, " Background Material for the Development of Radiation Protection Standards," May 13, 1960.
(27) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No.
39, " Basic Radiation Protection Criteria," January 1971.
E I
- 100 -
E E
(28) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 (Nuclear Regulatory Commission),
Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Appendix I, Radioactive Material in Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents."
(29) Ronald L. Kathren. " Radioactivity in the Environment: Sources, Distribution and Surveillance." 1984.
(30) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No.
44, ' Krypton-85 in the Atmosphere -
Accumulation, Biological Significance, and Control Technology," July 1975. '
(31 ) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory Guide 4.1, I " Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in The Environs of Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, April 1975.
I (32) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Revision 1, November 1979.
Environmental Monitoring Program,"
(33) D. H. Denhan, " Environmental Radiological Surveillance in Perspective:
5 The Relative Importance of Environmental Media as a Function of Effluent Pathway and Radionuclides," Paper P/33, presented at 22nd Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, Atlanta, GA, July 5,1977.
(34) Teledyne Isotopes. " Procedures and Quality Assurance Handbook."
IWL-00320365,1975 (35) Radiation Management Corporation. " Analytical and Quality Control Program." RMC-TM-75-3, 1975 (36) Tel edyne Isotopes. " Environmental Radiation Analysis Quality Control Manual . " IWL-00320361,197 5.
t (37) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory Guide 4.15,
" Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) -
Effl uent Streams and the Environment," Revision 1, February 1979.
(38 ) American National Standards Institute, Inc., " Performance, Testing and Procedural Specifications for Thermoluminescence Dosimetry," ANSI I N545-1975.
(39) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory Guide 4.13,
" Performance, Testing and Procedural Specifications for t Thermoluminescence Dosimetry: Environmental Applications," Revision 1, July 1977.
(40) L. F. Toke, B. H. Carson, G. G. Baker , M. H. McBride, " Performance Testing of the Environmental TLD System for the Three Mile Island Nucl ear Station," Heal th Physics Vol . 46, No. 5 (May), pp.1013 - 1020, 1984.
- 1 01 -
i I
t I
I I
I I l APPENDIX A 5 !
l 1985 REW Sampling and Descriptions, '
Synopsis of REW, and Sampling and Analysis Exceptions I
t I
E I
I I - 102 -
8
M W W W @M MM M M@ W M M WM M W W TABLE A-1 (continued)
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM SAWLE LOCATION Sample Station Map Medium Code Number Distance Azimuth Description ID Q1-2 125 0.2 mi 3250 NW of Reactor Building on fence behind Warehouse 1 TMI ID Rl-1 14 0.2 340 NNW of site at gate in fence on W side of TMI, North Boat Dock AQS Al-2 15 0.4 0 N of site at north tip of TMI '
AQS Al-3 16 0. 5 1 N of site at north tip of TMI ID Cl-1 17 0.6 35 NE of site on Route 441 N ID D1-2 18 0.6 65 ENE of site on Laurel Road i AP , AI , RW,ID ,C R,S El-2 19 0.5 90 E of site at Visitors Center
- ID F1 -1 20 0.5 1 06 ESE of site on light pole at entrance to 500 Kev w Substation e
AQS G1-1 21 0.4 137 SE of site ID G1-2 22 0.6 143 SE of site on Route 441 S SW J1-2 23 0.5 190 S of site below discharge pipe west shore TMI AQS K1-3 24 0.4 202 SSW of site AQS L1-3 25 0.3 21 4 SW of site ID L1-2 26 0. 5 230 SW of site on Beech Island ID Rl-2 27 0.7 329 NNW of site on Henry Island MG,FPL A2-1 28 1.2 5 N of site, farm along Route 441 M,FPL,S D2-1 29 1.1 65 ENE of site, f arm on Gingrich Road M,FPL G2-1 1 04 1.4 125 SE of site on Engle Road SW,AQS J2-1 31 1.5 180 S of site above York Haven Dam TMI ID K2-1 32 1.3 200 SSW of site on S Shelley Island ID L2-1 33 1.9 222 SW of site on Route 262 AP ,AI,ID CR M2-1 34 1.3 253 WSW of site adjacent to Fishing Creek, Goldsboro Sub Station ID N2-1 35 1.2 262 W of site at Goldsboro Marina ID P2-! 36 1.6 297 WNW of site off of Old Goldsboro Pike ID Q2-1 37 1.8 31 0 NW of site on access road along river AP , AI ,ID ,RW,C R A3-1 39 2.6 358 N of site at Middletown Substation
M 'M M 'O 9 & WWM M QMM Q QM M M M TABLE A-1 (continued)
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM SAWLE LOCATION Sample Station Map Medium Code Number Distance Azimuth Description FPF M15-2 93 13.6 mi 2530 WSW of site on W side of Route 74, Lerew's orchard ID N15-1 94 13.2 276 W of site, Orchard Lane and Hertzler Road, Mt. Allen ID N15-2 95 10.4 274 W of site, Lisburn Road and Main Street, Lisburn ID P15-1 96 12.2 303 WNW of site on Erford Road in front of Penn Harris Motor Inn, Camp Hill AP , AI ,RW ,ID ,S Q15-1 97 13.5 3 08 ID NW of site at West Fairview Substation Q15-2 98 11.5 31 0 NW of site, Penn and Forster Streets, Harrisburg i ID R15-1 99 11.2 332 NNW of site, Route 22 and Colonial Road, Colonial Park
-. S A9-1 100 9.2 0 N of site off of Union Deposit Road 52 FPL,S A9-2 1 01 9.3 357 N of site off of Union Deposit Road, W of Hoernerstown i FPL El-3 102 0.7 90 E of site,100 meters W of Peck Road and Zion Road intersection FPL,S E2-1 103 1.1 80 E of site on Zion Road S G2-2 30 1.2 125 SE of site, farm on the E side of Conewago Creek S G3-1 105 2.8 1 31 SE of site at intersection of Governors Stable Road and Keener Road FPL P3-1 1 06 2.6 292 WNW of site at farm on Route 392 (Yocumtown Road)
AQF,AQP Indicator - -
All locations where fin fish and plants are collected below the discharge are grouped together and referred to as " indicator" AQF,AQP Control - - -
All locations where fish and plants are collected above the discharge are grouped together and referred to as "C ontrol "
AQS K2-2 107 1.1 197 SSW of site E of Shelley Island S A3-3 1 08 2.5 354 N of site at junction of Swatara Creek and Route 441 FPL,FPF H1-2 110 0.9 150 SSE of site stand off of Route 441 S.
FPF ,FPL Dl-3 111 0.5 65 ENE of site house next to commercial greenhouse on Route 441 N S G2-3 112 1.5 125 SE of site near Conewago Creek
h 8 MQ W 'M 18- $ M M $' M M QQ O M M M TABLE A-1 (continued)
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM SAFPLE LOCATION Sample Station Map Medium Code Nunber Distance Azimuth Description M K15-2 126 12.8 208 SSW of site along Route 74 N Ashcombes Dairy ID A9-3 127 8.1 3 N of site at Duke Street Pumping Station, Hummelstown CR,ID R15-2 128 12.3 329 NNW of site at EOF Building ID M1 -1 129 0.2 245 WSW of Reactor Building on SE corner of U-2 Screenhouse fence TMI M F3-1 1 30 2.3 1 04 ESE of site at farm on Hillsdale Road I
5 '
IDENTIFICATION KEY ID = Immersion Dose (TLD) CR = Cryogenic Air Sampler AQF = Fin Fish SW = Surface Water RW = Rain Water AQP = Aquatic Plants AI = Air Iodine M = Milk (Cow) AQS = Aquatic Sediment AP = Air Particulate MG = Milk (Goat) FPL = Green Leafy Vegetation or Vegetables S = Soil EW = Effluent Water FPF = Fruit Note: All distances are measured from a point that is midway between the reactor buildings of TMI-l and TMI-2.
O @ W WWW E OM M MM @ W@ O E E TABLE A-2 SYNOPSIS OF THE (PERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION 1985 Number of Number of Number of Sample Sampling Collection Samples Type of Analysis Samples Type Locations Frequency Collected Analysis Frequency Analyzed
- Surface / Drinking Weekly 71 I-1 31 Weekly Composite or Grab 71 Water 12 (Including Biweekly 441 1-1 31 Biweekly Composite or Grab 441 i Unit 1 Intake) Gr-G Monthly Composite 21 6 Gamma Monthly Composite 21 6 8 H-3 Monthly Composite 21 6 i Sr-89 Quarterly Composite 72 Sr-90 Quarterly Composite 72 Discharge Water 1 Weekly 10 I-1 31 Weekly Composite or Grab 10 Biweekly 59 I-131 Biweekly Composite or Grab 59 Gr.a Monthly Composite 30 Gr-B Monthly Composite 30 H-3 Monthly Composite 30 P-32 Monthly Composite 30 Fe-55 Monthly Composite 30 Y -Scan Monthly Composite 30
O W M' WW W OO O OO$ & QWO M M TABLE A-2 (continued)
SYNOPSIS OF THE OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION 1985 Number of Number of Number of Sample Sampling Collection Samples Type of Analysis Samples Type Locations Frequency Collected Analysis Frequency Analyzed
- Discharge Water 1 Sr-89 Quarterly Composite 10 (cont'd) Sr-90 Quarterly Composite 10 i Air Particulate 8 Weekly 520 Gr-G Weekly Composite 520 g Gamma Monthly Composite 120 u
Gr-a Quarterly Composite 40 i
Sr-89 Quarterly Composite 40 Sr-90 Quarterly Composite 40 Air Iodine 8 Weekly 520 I-1 31 Weekly Composite 520 Precipitation 5 Monthly 84 Gr-G Monthly Composite 84 Gamma Quarterly Composite 28 H-3 Quarterly Composite 28 Sr-89 Semiannual Composite 14 Sr-90 Semiannual Composite 14 Milk 10 Semimonthly 250 I-1 31 Semimonthly Composite 250 Gamma Semimonthly Composite 250 Sr-89 Quarterly Composite 42 Sr-90 Quarterly Composite 42 9
@ OMS WMOMNO M@ W W W O E S W TABLE A-2 (continued)
SYNOPSIS OF THE OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION 1985 Number of Number of Number of Sample Sampling Collection Samples Type of Analysis Samples Type Locations Frequency Collected Analysis Frequency Analyzed
- Fin Fish 2 Semiannually 11 Gamma Semiannual Composite 11 Sr-89 Semiannual Composite 11 Sr-90 Semiannual Composite 11
- Aquatic Sediment 3 Semiannually 8 Gamma Semiannual Composite 8 8 Sr-89 Semiannual Composite 8 Sr-90 Semiannual Composite 8 Aquatic Plants 2 ** Semiannually 4 Sr-89 Semiannual Composite 4 Sr-90 Semiannual Composite 4 Gamma Semiannual Composite 4 Green Leafy 7 Annually 14 I-1 31 Annual Composite 14 Vegetation and Gamma Annual Composite 14 Vegetables Fruits 4 Annually 6 I-1 31 Annual Composite 6 Gamma Annual Composite 6 Soil 11 Semiannually 26 Gamma Semiannual Composite 26 Sr-89 Semiannual Composite 26 Sr-90 Semiannual Composite 26
OSM O 'e e e e@ memeee&- Oe TABLE A-2 (continued)
SYNOPSIS OF THE OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION 1985 Number of Number of Number of Sample Sampling Collection Samples Type of Analysis Samples Type Locations Frequency Collected Analysis Frequency Analyzed
- Dosimeters (TLD) 88 Quarterly 1330 Gamma Quarterly 1330 Immersion Dose I
e
- Number of samples analyzed does not include duplicate analyses, recounts, or reanalyses.
- No indicator sample was available in 1985.
NOTE: The number of samples collected is a combination of base and Q.C. REff
l 4
TABLE A-3 SAWLING AND ANALYSIS EXCEPTIONS 1985 More than the minime number of samples and analyses as required by the Technical Specifications were collected and perfonned so that none of the exceptions noted in Table A-3 resulted in any violations of the Technical I Specifications.
- 1. January 17, 1985 I Automatic Water Compositors at stations J1-2 and J2-1 had frozen intake lincs. Grab samples were taken.
2 January 24 & 31, 1985 Chickies Creek frozen. No sample taken at station F15-1.
4 3. February 27, 1985 AI/AP Sampler at station (Goldsboro) M2-1 had blown fuse. Total elapsed time was 44.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
March 6,1985 Same problem as above.
4 36.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
Total elapsed time was
- 4. April 4,1985 to First milk samples for second quarterly composite I June 27,1985 of stations E2-2 and G2-1 lost by analysis lab.
Composite period for these two stations was 4/18 to 6/27 instead of 4/4 to 6/27.
- 5. July 3,1985 Air Sampler J15-1 (York) inoperable. Totql flow for week of 6/26/85 to 7/3/85 was 8800 fta.
6 July 18,1985 Effluent water station K1-1 compositor found turned off. Unexplained; no sample from 7/11/85 to 7/18/85
- 7. July 25,1985 Cow milk sample fra station P4-1 not collected by farmer. This was an oversight by the farmer.
- 8. August 1985 In August 1985 during the annual vegetation and fruit collection, fruit was unavailable at I station D1-3. Consequently tomatoes from location El-3 were substituted as fruit.
- 9. August 22, 1985 Cow milk sample frm station P4-1 not I collected. This was an oversight by the farmer.
5 - 110 -
l 8
TABLE A-3 (Continued)
SAWLING AND ANALYSIS EXCEPTIONS 1985
- 10. October 3,1985 Dairy f arm station E2-2 went out of business. l Two samples missed while search for replacement 4 was made.
i 1
- 11. December 31, 1984 to TLD stations J7-1 and P8-1 partially vandalized.
March 27,1985 l 5 Only two GPUNC TLDs were used at each station instead of four due to a shortage of TLDs. 1
- 12. March 27,1985 to TLD station El-2 partially vandalized. TLD 4 July 1,1985 stations K8-1 and L2-1 completely vandalized.
I One TLD at station D6-1 was soaked due to leakage of the protective packaging. Six TLDs 4 from stations El-4, H1-4, H1-7, and H1-8, were unusable due to contaminated lead in the fil ters. The contaminated lead came from the manufacturer and caused elevated readings on the I affected badges.
- 13. July 1,1985 to TLD station C2-1 partially vandalized. Station September 30, 1985 moved at 3rd and 4th quarter changeout to location approximately 30 meters north. One TLD from station Kl-5 did not have a current calibration and was deleted from the data.
- 14. September 30,1985 to TLD stations E7-1 and L2-1 partially vandalized.
December 30, 1985 Stations K2-1, L1-2, N1-2, Pl-1, Ql-1, and Rl-2 9 not collected due to inaccessibility due to river ice. Two TLDs from each of Pl-2, El-1, i
El-2, F1-1, and N15-1 were not included in the I routine analysis data base because they were processed separately to verify doses from a release on December 30, 1985.
8 I
I I
I - 111 -
l
, I
a .- - - - - -
._4 - a _-
I 4
5 3
I APPENDIX B 8
Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) During 1985 4
9 i
5 5
I I
I - 112 -
E
E I
I 6
TABLE B-1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ANALYTICAL RESULTS WHICH FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIRED LLD DURING 1985 5
No. of Samples Sample Media Analysis Required LLD Out of Compliance Comments Air Iodine I-1 31 0.07 pCi/m3 2 Sampler i malfunction (blown fuse)
NOTE:
More than the minimin nunber of samples and analyses as required by the Technical Specifications were collected and performed so that none of I the missed LLD values listed above resulted in any violations of the Technical Specifications.
5 I
I I
I E
- 113 -
I
8
,5 I
E I
I I
E APPENDIX C I
Changes Effected in the 1985 REMP I
I E
I I
I I
I
- 114 -
8 l 5
APPENDIX C Changes Effected in the 1985 REW
- 1. January 11, 1985 TLD station M1-1 initiated bringing total number of stations to 87.
- 2. May 2,1985 Background cow milk farm station A15-1 ceases I milk production; replaced by background cow milk station K15-2
- 3. May 14,1985 TLD station A9-3 initiated, bringing total number of stations to 88.
4 July 25,1985 A flow composite sample from station discharge, I designated Kl-l A, was added to the REW.
Analysis performed will be identical to regular composite sample.
- 5. October 3,1985 Indicator cow milk station E2-2 went out of business.
6 October 17, 1985 Indicator cow milk farm P4-1 refused further sale of samples to GPU Nuclear Corp. This f arm my be deleted from the REW.
7 November 14, 1985 Indicator cow milk station F3-1 in higher D/Q sector; replaces station E2-2.
E E
E E
I I
- 115 -
I
I 1 I
I I
i I I
I APPENDIX D I
Determination of Investigational Levels O Subsequent Actions I
I j
I I
I I
E I - iie -
I
I I
I Data from the radiological analyses of environmental samples were routinely reviewed and evaluated by the TMINS Environmental Controls staff. The data were checked for LLD violations, anomalous values, Technical Specifications reporting levels, main sample and quality control ("Q") sample agreement (Appendix E) and action levels.
I Established by GPU Nuclear, the action level is defined as that level of I reactor-related radioactivity which when detected in environmental samples initiates an investigation and subsequent actions. An action level is reached if either of the following two criteria is met:
- 1. The radioactivity concentration at an indicator station reaches or exceeds those concentrations listed in Table D-1. (With the exception of I-131 in food products and water and Sr-90 in milk, all concentrations listed correspond to ten percent of the NRC I reporting levels.)
2 The radioactivity concentration at the indicator station reaches or exceeds ten times the mean concentration for the control locations. (This criteria applies only to those media and analyses which are not listed in Table D-1.)
If an action level is reached, an investigation is initiated which consists of some or all of the following actions:
1.
Examine the collection sheets for an indication of any equipment malfunctions, collection or delivery errors.
- 2. Examine the running tables (prior data) for trends.
- 3. Review control station data.
I 4. Review quality control or duplicate sample data (if available).
- 5. Review TMI-l and TMI-2 effluent reports.
- 6. Recount and/or reanalyze the sample.
7 Collect an additional sample.
I
- 117 -
I lI TABLE D-1 TMINS REW ACTION LEVELS FOR POSITIVE RADI0 ACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SAWLES Airborne I Analysis Water (a)
(pCi/L )
Particulate or Gases (pCi/m3 )
Fish (pCi/gm-wet)
Milk
( pCi/L )
Food Products (pCi/gm-wet)
H-3 2000 Mn-54 100 3 Fe-59 40 1 Co-58 100 3 Co-60 30 1 Zn-65 30 2 Sr-90 4 (b)
Zr-Nb-95 I I-131 40 1 (b) .09 .3 .05 (b)
Cs-134 3 1 .1 6 .1 Cs-137 5 2 .2 7 .2 Ba-La-140 20 30 (a) Includes surface and drinking water and precipitation.
(b) 50% of NRC reporting level.
I
- 118 -
I
I I
The results of the investigation are then documented on the form provided in the TMI Environmental Controls procedure (9420-SUR-4523.05). Unless the I activity is reportable to the NRC, no other action is necessary. However, if it is concluded from the investigation that the activity is related to TMINS operations, site personnel would be contacted to discuss remedial action.
During 1985, six such investigations were conducted. Four were initiated for Sr-90 concentrations in milk samples, one for I-131 concentrations in surface water, and one for gross beta activity in surface water. All activities were I determined to be related to sources other than TMINS.
I I .
I I
I I
I I
- 119 -
I
I -
/
l I -
l l
l I
lI ~
l I
l APPENDIX E I
1985 Quality Assurance P,0sults I
I l I
I I -
I I - no-I J g, ,
I i I i The TMI Environmental Controls Quality Assurance (QA) Program consists of three phases.
Phase I consists of splitting samples collected at designated stations and analyzing them as if they were obtained at separate stations.
Analysis results from the quality control ("Q") station are compared to those from the main station by criteria set forth in TMI Environmental Controls procedure 9420-SUR-4523.03. Agreement is considered acceptable if the I coefficient of variation for the two values is eighty-five percent or less.
Non-agreement of the values, results in recounting or reanalyzing the samples in question. Phase 11 requires that laboratories analyzing environmental samples from TMINS participate in the USEPA Cross-Check Program. This serves as independent verification of their ability to correctly analyze environmental samples. Results of this interlaboratory comparison program are presented in Appendix F. Phase III requires that contractor laboratories I perform duplicate analyses on every tenth sample.
are checked to verify agreement.
Results of the two analyses Table E-1 outlines the split sample portion of the QA program for the media collected duri ng 1985. Ten QA non-agreements occurred during the entire year.
They are presented in Table E-2 along with corrective actions taken.
It should be noted that as much as possible, samples were split to ensure similar characteristics. However, for some media, thi s was not always i possibl e. One example was air particulate filters.
Although these samples originate from the same locatie., activities can vary because they are distinctly separate samples. Other examples included samples of fish, aquatic vegetation and food products.
I !
I I l i
- 1 21 -
I
I I
I TABLE E-1 1985 QA SAMPLE PROGRAM I Percentage of Regular No. of Regular No. of QA Samples Submitted for Sample Medium Stations Stations OA Analysis Air Particulate (AP) 8 2 25 percent Air Iodine (AI) 8 2 25 percent Surface / Drinking Water 16 4a 25 percent (SW/DW)
Milk (M/MG) 8 2 25 percent Precipitation (RW) 5 2 40 percent TLDs Quarterly (ID) 88 19 22 percent l
Aquatic Plants (AQP) 2b ; 50 percent Aquatic Sediment (AQS) 3 1 33 percent Fish (AQF) 4 2c 50 percent I Food Products (FPV,FPF ,FPL )
15 5 33 percent Soil (S) 11 2 18 percent a Includes sampling station at THINS Discharge. '
i b
Aquatic vegetation was unavailable from the indicator location for 1985 c Insufficient sample collected for first sampling at one station. However for the second sampling period two QA samples were collected and analyzed.
- 122 -
E i
I I
I TABLE E-2 I 1985 QA NON-AGREEMENTS I Sample Collection Medium Dates Station Analysis Action RW 12/31/84 - 01/31/85 Q15-1 Gr-G (January Composite) Comment 1 Ql5-1Q FPV 07/08/85 A15-1 Sr-90 Comment 2 A15-1Q FPL 07/08/85 A15-1 Sr-90 Comment 2 A15-1(duplicate)
I SW 07/25/85 - 08/29/85 (August Composite)
Q9-1 Q9-1Q H-3 Comment 2 I AQP 07/30/85 Control Control-Q Sr-90 Comment 3 I AQF 10/02/85 - 10/03/85 Indicator (Predator)
Indicator-Q Sr-90 Comment 2 (Predator)
SW 12/27/84 - 01/31/85 J2-1 Gr-B Comment 4 J2-1Q FPV 07/08/85 A15-1 K-40 Comment 5 A15-1Q I FPF 07/08/85 M15-2 M15-2Q K-40 Comment 5 FPL 07/08/85 H1-2 K-40 Comment 5 H1-2Q I
- 123 - i I
I I
I I
I I COMENTS I 1. Reanalyses were requested, however insuf ficient sample remained.
Recounts were performed; second counts confirmed original results.
One sample contained higher residue content.
- 2. Reanalyses were performed. Reanalysis results were within limits of agreement.
I 3. Reanalyses were perfomed. Reanalysis results confimed original results. These were distinctly separate samples.
4 Reanalysis (with filtering) was performed on higher activity sample. Reanalysis result was within limits of agreement. Original activity was a result of higher than nomal sediment content.
I 5. Recounts were performed.
Recount results were within limits of agreement.
I I
I I - i24 -
I
lI
- I lI l
I I
I I
APPENDIX F I
1985 EPA Cross-Check Results I
I I
I l 1
I I l I
I - ias -
l I
I l
TABLE F-1 US EPA CROSS-CHECK PROGRAM 1985 I
Collection Media Nuclide EPA Results Teledwne TIML l Date (a) Results (b) Results (c)
I 01/04/85 WATER SR-89 SR-90 3.0 1 8.7 30.0 1 2.6 L.T. 3 29 1 12 L.T. 3 27.3 i 5.2 1
01/11/85 15.7 1 2 8 I
WATER PU-239 19 i 3 NA l l
01/18/85 WATER ALPHA 5.0 i 8.7 510 3.3 1 1..
BETA 15.0 t 8.7 15 i 3 17.3 1 3.0 01/25/85 FOOD SR-89 34.0 i 8.7 17 1 0 (d) 25.3 i 6.4 SR-90 26.0 i 2.6 22 i 6 27.0 i 8.8 I-131 35.0 1 10.4 I CS-137 N
29.0 i 8.7 1382 1 207.9 26.3 i 6.2 31 1 10.4 1393 1 96.4 38.0 1 2.0 32.7 i 2.4 1410 f 212 l
02/02/85 WATER H-3 3796 i 634 3733 i 174 3869 i 319 02/08/85 WATER CR-51 48 i 8.7 L.T. 57 L.T. 29 (e)
I CO-60 20 1 8.7 19.0 i 6 21.3 i 3.0 ZN-65 55 i 8.7 57 i 6 53.7 i 5.0 RU-106 25 i 8.7 L.T. 40 L.T. 23 (e)
CS-134 35 i 8.7 37 1 12 32.3 i 1.2 CS-137 25 i 8.7 31 i 6 25.3 i 3.0 02/22/85 WATER U 12.0 1 10 4 12 1 3 NA 03/01/85 MILK I-131 9 1 1.6 813 7.3 1 2.4 (f) 03/15/85 WATER RA-226 5.0 i 1.3 5.9 i 2.1 4.6 1 0.6 I 03/22/85 WATER RA-228 ALPHA 9.0 i 2.3 6.0 i 8.7 5.1 i 1.8 (s)
(h) 9.0 1 0.4 4.7 i 2.3 l
l BETA (h) 15.0 i 8.7 11.3 1 1.2 03/29/85 FILTER ALPHA 10.0 i 8.7 10.3 i 1.7 9.3 1 1.0 BETA 36.0 1 8.7 36.7 1 7.5 42.0 i 1.1 I SR-90 CS-137 15.0 1 2.6 6.0 1 8.7 14.7 i 1.7 6.0 f 0 13.3 i 1.0 6.3 i 1.0 04/05/85 WATER I-131 I
7.5 i 1.4 6.7 1 1.7 8.0 1 0 04/12/85 WATER H-3 3559 1 630 3367 i 963 3399 1 150 I 04/19/85 WATER (A)
ALPHA RA-226 RA-228 32.0 i 8.7 4.1 1 1.0 6.2 1 1.6 25 3 i 1.7 (i) 29.7 i 1.8 3.66 i 0.9 6.13 1 0.7 4.4 1 0.2 NA U 7.0 1 10.4 6.67 1 1.7 I NA g - ,2e -
I
lI TABLE F-1 (continued)
US EPA CROSS-CHECK PROGRAM 1985 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection Date Media Nuclide EPA Results Teledwne TIML (a) Results (b) Results (c) 04/ 9/85 WATER BETA 72 0 7 92 3 i 9 6 (B) 7 3i 8 SR-89 10.0 1 8.7 10.0 1 0 12.3 i 7.6 SR-90 15.0 1 2.6 I CO-60 CS-134 CS-137 15.0 1 8.7 15.0 1 8.7 12.0 1 8.7 13.3 1 3.5 20.0 i 5.2 14.7 i 3.5 14.7 1 2.4 14.7 1 2.4 12.0 1 2.0 16.3 i 9.6 14 0 f 2.0 04/26/85 URINE H-3 3056 i 622 2833 1 345 NA 05/10/85 WATER SR-89 39.0 1 8.7 35.7 i 9.2 36.0 1 12.4 SR-90 15.0 1 2.6 12.7 1 1.7 (k) 14.3 1 4.2 05/24/85 WATER ALPHA 12.0 1 8.7 1215.2 8.3 1 4.1 BETA 11.0 i 8.7 12.7 1 1.7 8.7 1 1.2 06/07/85 WATER CR-51 44 i 8.7 L.T. 53 44.7 1 6.0 CO-60 I ZN-65 RU-106 CS-134 14 i 8.7 47 i 8.7 62 1 8.7 15.7 i 3.5 48.3 i 7.5 53.7 i 9.6 (1) 55.3 1 5.8 14 3 1 1.2 50.3 1 7.0 35 i 8.7 33.0 1 13.1 32.7 1 1.2 CS-137 20 i 8.7 23.3 1 6.2 22.7 i 2.4 I 06/14/85 WATER H-3 2416 i 608 2367 1 346 2446 i 132 06/21/85 WATER RA-226 3.1 1 0.7 I 3.86 i 0.2 (a) 2.3 1 0.3 (n)
RA-228 4.2 1 1.0 3.66 1 2.0 2.4 i 0.2 (n)
I 06/28/85 MILK SR-89 SR-90 I-131 11 1 8.7 11 i 2.6 11 i 10.4 11.7 1 3.5 10.0 1 0 9.0 i 3.0 10.3 1 4.6 9.0 1 2.0 11.7 i 1.2 CS-137 11 i 8.7 11 1 7.9 12.7 i 1.2 K 1525 i 132 1540 1 104 1512 i 62 07/05/85 URINE H-3 2444 i 610 2067 1 625 NA 07/13/85 WATER PU-239 10.6 i 1.9 8.2 i 2.2 (o) NA 07/19/85 WATER ALPHA i
11 i 8.7 5.7 1 1.7 5.0 1 0 BETA 8 i 8.7 4.3 1 1.7 5.0 1 2.0 07/26/85 FOOD SR-89 33 1 8.7 25 i 6.2 (P) NA I SR-90 I-131 CS-137 26 1 2.6 35 i 10.4 29 1 8.7 28 1 4.6 (P) 37 i 4.6 31 i 3.0 NA NA NA K 1514 1 132 1633 i 154 (a) NA 08/09/85 WATER I-131 33 i 10.4 37 i 4.6 25.7 i 3.0
- 127 -
I
I I TABLE F-1 (continued)
US EPA CROSS-CHECK PROGRAM 1985 Collection Media Nuclide EPA Results Teledwne TIML I Date 08/16/85 WATER H-3 (a) 4480 1 776 Results (b) 4433 i 458 Results (c) 4363 i 83 I 08/30/85 FILTER ALPHA BETA SR-90 13 1 8.7 44 i 8.7 18 i 2.6 12.7 f 1.7 43.0 1 9.0 20.0 f 3.0 (r) 11.3 1 0.6 46.0 1 1.0 17.7 i 0.6 I 09/06/85 WATER CS-137 SR-89 8 i 8.7 20 1 8.7 10 i 3 18.3 1 4.6 10.3 1 0.6 15.7 1 0.6 SR-90 7 i 2.6 6i0 710 09/13/85 WATER RA-226 8.9 1 2.3 9.23 i 1.5 8.2 1 0.3 RA-228 4.6 i 1.2 4.03 1 0.6 4.1 i 0.3 I 09/20/85 WATER ALPHA BETA 8 i 8.7 8 i 8.7 3.3 i 1 7 410 4.7 i 0.6 4.7 i 1.2 I 10/04/85 WATER CR-51 CO-60 ZN-65 21 20 19 i
i i
8.7 8.7 8.7 L.T. 63 17.7 i 9.6 25.3 i 7.5 (t)
L.T. 13 (s) 19.3 i 0.6 19.7 i 0.6 I RU-106 CS-134 CS-137 20 20 20 i
i 1
8.7 8.7 8.7 L.T. 37 18.3 i 9.2 22.3 1 3.5 L.T. 19 17 i 1 19.3 i 1.2 10/11/85 WATER H-3 1974 i 598 2133 i 625 1957 1 50 11/08/85 URINE H 3586 i 632 3400 1 0 NA
__________________________-3 I a.
EPA Results - Expected Laboratorv P*ecision ( 1 3 sissa). Units are PCi/L for water, urine and allk except K is in as/L. Units are total PCi for air Particulate filters. Units for food are PCi/ks.
- b. Teledwne Re791ts - Averase i three sissa. Units are PCi/L for water, urine and a41k except K is in as/L. Units are total PCi for air Particulate filters. Units for food are PCi/kg.
c.
TIML Results - Mean i two sissa for three determinations. All I
l results are in PCi/L excePt for elemental Potassius (K) data, which are in as/Li air filter saaPles, which are in PCi/filteri and food, ,
which is in PCi/ks.
I d. The results from the EPA were received on August 9, 1985 for the analvsis completed in April. The EPA had difficultw determining the correct results for this sanele. It was difficult to scavense and the I results were reported as a courtesw although thew were considered suspect because of the difficultw of analv:ing a svnthetic food sample.
j I - 128 -
I
I I TABLE F-1 (continued)
US EPA CROSS-CHECK PROGRAN 1985
- e. Ganaa software will not recognize the Peaks below a certain countins I time. Corrective action is being taken to ensure that saaPles ere siven ample countins time to recogni:e all Peiks. '
I f. The three results were 8, 8 and 6. Two of these results were within the two sissa limiti the third result was low. resultins in a low averase. Since the vield in the sasPle with the low result was low, that result was not as accurate as the other two. I-131 results in the Past have been accurate. No further action is Planned.
- s. A new chemistry was tried but did not sive good results. A further refinement of the chemistry is Planned.
- h. Teledwne Isotopes did not Participate in this Cross-Check analvsis.
The tecnician incorrectlw diluted the sample, therefore, the results were not accurate.
i.
The proportional counters are calibrated for alpha efficienew with I An-241. Low enersw alpha emitters are included in the sPikel however, no correction for efficienew was made.
I J.
The Poportional counters are calibrated for beta efficienew with Cs-137. The efficeinew correction applied for the low enersw beta esitters overcompensated because the amount of the low enersw esitters was small compared with the high enersw esitters.
k.
The low Sr-90 results were caused bw erronecusiv hish Sr-89 wields because of trace calcium and barium in the Precipitated mounle Experiments will be conducted to eliminate this Problea.
1.
The three results were 50, 55 and 56 PCi/L. The one low result of 50 from caused the averase to be below the two sissa normalized deviation the known.
n.
A new HBS traceable standard was Prepared to check the efficienew calibration of the Zns coated alpha Counters used to count RB-2l'6.
n.
TIML test results are usuallw in close agreement for these analvses in 1985. Thew are unable to explain the low rewults on this sasPle.
- o. A new Pu-239 standard solution was Prepared and a new Pu disc was ordered from NBS to check the efficienew calibration of the counters I P.
The results for these sanPles shoWed high variabilitw with some results near the spike Value.
In the future sa4Ples Will De Counted lonser and sooner after ailk time to reduce the amount of insrowth correction of Sr-90 into Sr-89.
- a. The weisht of the sample analwzed will be controlled more carrfullw since the densitw aaw varv from sanele to sanele.
- 129 -
I
I I TABLE F-1 (continued)
US EPA CROSS-CHECK PROGRAM 1985 I The reported results were 21, 20 and 19.
- r. If the eaunting error
( i 1.0) is taken into consideration, these results would have been within the two sissa normalized deviation from the known.
I s. The Cr-51 peak was not recognized because of a delav in analv:in_t the sample, I
- t. The reported results were 23, 25 and 28. The one high result of 28 caused the averase to be above the 2 sissa normali:ed deviation from the known.
I I
I I ;
I E l I
I l
I I
I I
I -" -
I
I E
- I I
I I
E APPENDIX G I
1985 Dairy and Livestock Census E
I I
I I
lI I
- 1 31 -
I
M M M M M M M M W M .M M M M M <M M M M 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY APO LIVESTOCK ENSUS*
Page 1 of 16 1 Distance l Azimuth I Name, Address'" l l l No. l l No.
1 & I & l &
l t l l Direction l 1 No. l Cows I No. l Goats l l l
l Sector Codel Phone Number l Breed l Cows l l I l i l Hilked l Coats I Milked i Livestock I Dairy Used l Grazinq Period i I I I I I I l 1.93km(1.20mi) l 50 l 1 --
l --
I i 1 1 --
I 8 1 7 l l N I A l l Sold Locally l All year plus l l l l I l l Nannies l l l & Own Use l l l l 1 3 Kids l I store bought i l 1 I l l feed I I l (
l l I 1 wetherl i l
l hli l i
l I
l I
l i
l l
1 1
I 1
l l
I l
l I i l
i I 1 l l 3.28km(2.04mi) i 30 l I I i N I A I Cows and goats are periodically kept here for quarantine from a few days I l to a few weeks. Animals are then shipped to foreign countries. If milked l 25?. of animals I
[l l I I grare I Nl l l l milk may be sent to Reading Dairy or used for hogfeed if animals were l
' l recently treated with antibotics. l l l l l l l l 2 I I l I !
i I I I I I I I l I l 1 1 I I
l 7.90km(4.94mi) l 10 I I I l I --
l --
1 i l l N l A l 1 --
l --
l 40 Pigs 1 Own Use and l Summer & during l l l l l I l 1 l 6 Beef I 1 or 2 Beef I l l l l l favorable winterl I 3 l l l 1 Cattle l Cattle Sold I weather l l l l i l l l l (Holstein) l Locally l l I l I l l l I l I l l 1 l i I I l I l l 8.53km(5.30ml) i 30 l 1 1 l
l Holstein l 80 Cows 1 65 l --
l --
l I
N l A l l l 60 Heir-l l Hershey foods I April 15 to l l l l l l & Dwn use l l 1 October 1 i era l l l l l
1 I I l l I I l l l l 4 l l 1 i I I 1 i i l l I I l l 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I l
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY APO LIVESTOCK ENSUS*
Page _2_ of 16 1 Distance l Azimuth l Name, Address
- l l l No. l l No. l l l & & 1 l 1 l &
l Direction I l No. I Cows l No. l Goats l l l l Sector Codel Phone Namnber I Breed l Cows i Milked I Coats i Milked l Livestock l
l l l l l Dairy used l Grazing Pericx1 l 1 1 I I I I I 8.56km(5.32mi) 1 3570 l l --
1 --
I I l --
l --
1 --
l 40 Beef l Sold at I April to Octoberl 1 N l A l l l l l
1 l l Cattle l Auction l l l l l l l I l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I i l 5 I 1 l l l l l l l l l t I I I I I I i
I I I I I I I I l I I l l I I i I 5.05km(3.14mi) I 14 l l Holstein l 200 l 100 1 1 l NE I B l l --
l --
l --
l Interstate l Confined to l l 1 l l I Ul i l l Dairy & Own I silage and l I l l I l l l l Use i grains which e l l l l l l l l l l 6 l l l l l I l l were partially l l l 1 l l grown on farm l l l l l l I
l I l I l l I l l l l 1 1 I I I l 3.67km(2.28mi) l 450 l l Holstein i 18 I i l 13 l --
l l l Hershey foods l Mid-Hay to l E I C 1 l i I L l l 1 l & Own use I l l i Mid-November 1 l l l 1 1 I I I I i l l l l l I
t i I I l 7 l l l l I
l l l l l i 1 l 1 I I I I I I I I l I 1 l l 1 I l l l l l l 6.58km(4.09mi) l 350 I l Holstein 1 80 Cows l 75 l 1 I l E l C l --
l --
1 Interstate i Hilk cows are l l l l 100 l l l l l Dairy & Own I barn fed. l l l l l l Heiferal I l l l Use l Heifers grare !
I I I I I I I l l 1 l June to October l I 8 l l l l l l l l i 1 I 1 l I I I I I I I I I I
M M M M M M M M W m M M M M M M M M M 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY AW LIVESTOCK CENSUS
- Page 3 of 16 i Distance I Azimuth l Name, Address *" l l l No. I I No. l l [
l & I & t I & I l No. I Cows l No. I Coats i I 1 Direction ISector Codel Phone Number i Breed I Cows I i I
I Milked l Coats I Milked I Livestock l Dairy Used I Grazirwi Period 1 I I I I I I I I i 1 I 7.03km(4.37mi) l 480 l I Holstein 1 275 1 140 1 l E l C 1 --
1 --
I --
1 Interstate 1 Confined to l l l l l l l l
l l Dairy & Own I their own silagel I I I I I I i 1 l use 1 l 1 1 I I l
I I I I I 1 9 I i 1 I I I I I I I I I l l l 1 l I l I I I I I i 1 I l l I I I I I I l 1 1.69km(1.0$ni) 1 650 l i Holstein i 90 Cows l 80 l 1 --
l --
l 2 Steers I Ht. .loy Co-op 1 May I to
-a l EE I D l l l 70 l l 1
l l NI I I I I Helfersi l i I I & Own Use I
1 November I l e1 i i 1 27 I l I I I I I I i l
I l
hlI I l I l
I l
l Calves i l l I
l I
1 I
I I
l i
I l
I I I I I I I I I I I 2.Olkm(1.25mi) I 750 l 1 --
I --
I I
1 --
1 --
l 7 Steers l Sold privatelyl All Summer i EE I D 1 1 I l l I
l l 3 Calves 1 & Own use i l I I I i I i l l I 5 How I i I I 1 1 I I I I I i 100 Chickens l l l l 11 1 1 I l i I I I I I i 1 1 _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 3.97km(2.47mi) 1 680 I 1 I Holstein i 20 1 --
1 --
1 --
1 --
I Sold at 1 April I to l EE l D l l I Heifers i l
l l l l Awtion 1 October l l l l l l l l l l l t i I l l I I I I I I I I i 12 1 1 I I I l i I I
I I I I l i I I I I I I I I i
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY AM) LIVESTOCK ENSUS*
Page 4 of 16 i Distance l Azimuth l Name, Address i I l No. l l No. I I I I & I & l & )
I I No. 1 Cows l No. I Goats l l I Direction l Sector Codel Phone Ntsaber i Breed l Cows I I l
l Hilked l Coats I Hilked I Livestock l Dairy used i Crarinq Period I l l l l 1 I i i l I l 6.73km(4.18mi) l 590 l l Holstein l 59 Cows 1 53 l l
l EE l D 1 --
1 --
l Harrisburg l May 1 to l l l 1 74 l l l l
1 l Dairy & Own l November 1 l l l l l Heiferal l l l l Use l i 1 1 1 I and l l l 1 I l l 13 l i l l l l Calvesl l l l l l l l l ]
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i I I I e l 7.03km(4.37mi) l 750 l l Holstein i 45 Cows 1 45 l I
-a l EE 1 --
l --
1 Interstate i April to 1 I D l l Jersey l 35 l l l i i Dairy & Own
$l l October l l l l l Helferal l l l l Use I i i i i (
l i 11 1 I I I I I I I 14 l l l l Calves l l l l l l l 1 I l I I I i i l i I I I I I l l l 1 1 I I I I l 7.22km(4.49mi) l 570 l l Holstein i 60 Cows l 60 l EE l D l --
l --
l --
l Hershey foods l April to l I l l 60 l l 1 1 I & Own Use l November I l I l l l Hel fersi i l ! l l l l l l I I & I l l l l I l 15 l I l l l Calves i l l l l l 1 1 l 1 I l l I I l i I I i i l I i i i l i I I I 7.51km(4.67mi) l 710 l l Holstein i 85 Cows l 78 l l I
ENE I D l --
l Mt. Joy Co-op 1 May to October 1 1 l l l 70 l l l l l & Own use I i l I l l l Helferal l l l l l [
t i I I l I l I l i I I i 16 I l l l l l l l l l 1 1 1 t
I I I I I I I I I
M M m' W W M M M W M M M M M M M M M W 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY AM) LIVESTOCK CENSUS
- Page 5 of 16 1 Distance i Azimuth l Name, Addresa m l l l No. l l No. I l l l & & 8 l 1 & l l No. I Cows l No. I Goats I l I Direction ISector Codel Phone Number i Breed i Crws l I I
i Hilked l Coats l Hilked i Livestock l Dairy used i Crailrn Perirut l I I I l I i I i i i i 16.1km(10.0mi) l 680 l l --
l l 145 I
l EE D 1 --
l 90 l 1 Steer l Processed & I All year in the l l l l l l Nanntest l i 2 Piga 1 Distributed I evenings urwier l l l l l l l l5 l l l by owner & I favorable l l l l l l I l Bullieel l I Own Hae I conditions l
l hl I l
I I
l I
l I
l I
1 I
l I
l I l l
l l l 1 1 1 I I I I I I l i 1 e
i 1.77km(1.10ml) l 930 l l Holstein i 200 1 120 l 1
-* I E I 1 --
l --
1 Interstate l April to l E l l l 1 l l
$1 l l Co-op & Own l November l l l l l l 1 l l l Use el l I l l i l 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I l I I I I I L i 1 I 3.22km(2.00mi) l 980 l 1 --
I -- --
1 l
1 1 --
1 --
l 3 Beer Cattlel Own use l April throutfi l E l E l l l l l 1 l l l Fall / Winter on l l l l l l l l l l 1 I silage I I i l l I l l I I I I l 19 l l i l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I l l I I I i 1 1 I I I I I i l 1 5.58km(3.47mi) l 960 t i Holstein 1 54 Cows i 48 l l E l 1 --
1 --
l Hershey foods I April to l E l l l 50 1 I ( l l l Septenber l l i l l i Heiferal l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 20 I I I I I I I I I l
I I l 1 1 l l l l l l 1 I i
W W W W W m' M M M M M M M M M M M M 1985 ANNilAL DAIRY AM) LIVESTOCK CENSilS*
Pmje 6 of 16 i Distance l Azimuth l Nams, Address *** l l l No. l l No. l l l 1 & & I l 1 & I l No. I Cows i No. I Costs i i I Direction ISector Codel Phone Number i Breed l Crnes l i l
I Milked l Coats i Hilked i L i ves tock l Dairy tlsed l Crazino Period l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I 3.75km(2.33mi) I 1040 l I Holstein l 32 Cows 1 30 l --
l --
I l ESE I F l --
I Mt. Joy Co-op l May to l l l l 15 l l l l l l l l November i l l l Helferal I l l l l l t i i 1 l
1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I l l I I l l I l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
, l 5.20km(3.23mi) I 1040 l l Holstein 1 53 Cows l 50 1 l l 1 --
l --
l 65,000 l Hershey foods l May to Novemter i mi ESE I F l l t 50 l l l dl l 1 Chickens ! l Winter on silagel l l l Heiferel I ( l l l
. l l l l l l l l t i 1 1 l 22 l l l l 1 l
1 I i 1 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I l l l I
l i l I I l 5.74km(3.57mi) 1170 l I i l l Holstein l 29 Cows 1 29 I --
l --
l --
1 Penn Dalries l May to November l l ESE I F l l 1 29 l l 1 I I I (Not in the l i i I l l Heiferal 1 l l l l evenings) l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I l l 23 l l l l l l l l l
~
1 1 I l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l i I I I I l 6.llkm(3.80ml) I 1130 l I l Holstein l 64 Cows l 55 l --
l --
l 100 Steers l Hershey foods l May to October l l ESE 1 F l l [ 30 I I I I l Steers Sold I (Dairy Cows are 1 i i l 1 ] Helferal l l l l at Auction l On silage) l l l l l l l l 1 l i I i 1 24 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I i
I l l l l l 1 l
M M M & M M M M M M & M & 'M M M S U M 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY APO LIVESTOCK ENSUS*
Page 7 of .16 I Distance l Arimuth I Nams, Address *** l l l No.
l &
I l No. I I l & I & l l l Direction I l No. I Cows l No. I Coats i I ISector Codel Phone Number i Breed l Cows l Hilked l Coats I Hilked I Livestock l Dairy used I l I I I l 1 Grarirra Period 1 i I I I I l 6.89km(4.28mi) I 1140 I l 1 1 Holstein I 4 1 4 I l ESE l F l 1 --
I --
l 45 Steers l Sold Locally l April to l l l l I l l l l (Angus & I & Own Use i November I I I I I l l l l l I I Holstein) i I i l
l 25 l 1 1 I I 50 Pigs l l l l l t i l I I I l l l l I I l l 1 I I i I I i i i l l I
I I I
, 1 7.63km(4.74mi) l 1210 l l 1 l l Holstein l 24 Cows l 21 1 --
l --
l 3 Sheep l Ht. Joy
.I ESE I F l l & Angus l 12 l l l 1 Confined to own l l 1 Farmers Co-op l feed gl l l l l Helferal l I l l l & Sheep Sold l
, I l l l I l l I l 26 I I 1 l l Locally l l l l i I I I l l l 1 l I l l I I I I I I I I I I I I l l t i i
) 8 llkm(5.04mi) I 1150 l l Holstein 1 37 Cows l 35 1 I l ESE F 1 --
1 --
1 26,000 i H3rshey Foods l April to l l l l 30 l l l l l l l Chickens 1 & Chickens l l 1 Heiferal l l l October / Winter l l l l l (Broilers) l Sold Commer- l on Silage l l l l l l l l 27 l l cially to l l l l l l I l I I l l I l l Pennfield i I l I l l I l l l l l 1 l l l l l l 8.11km(5.04mi) i 1190 l I Holstein i 40 Cows 1 37 l 1 1 I l ESE I F l l l 35 l --
1 --
l Interstate 1 May to November l I I l
l 1 l Dairy l Plus Silage l I l i I Heiferal l I
I I I I I l I I l l 1 1 I I I I 28 I I I I I I
I I I l l I I l 1 l l l l l 1 l I i
M M M M M M M W M W W W W M M M M M 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY APO LIVESTOCK ENSUS' Page 8 of 16 1 Distance l Azimuth l Name, Address l l I No. I l No. l l & I & I & l I l l Direction 1 l No. l Cows i No. 1 Coats l 1 l Sector Codel Phone Number l Breed l Cows l l l l Hilked l Cnats l Hilked l L ivest ock I Dairy used 1 l l I I I I 1 Cearino Period l I
l 8.21km(5.10mi) I 1130 l l Holstein i 26 Cows l 25 I I i l ESE l --
1 --
1 --
1 Interstate l f l l April to l l 14 l 1 l 1 1 Dairy l
l l l I November (Dairy l l
l l Calves l l l l l l l la Heifers l 1 l Cows are on l l l l 1 29 l l [ l l I l l l feed)/All on l l l l I silage in winterl 1 l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l
l
, l 8.25km(5.13mi) l 1230 l l Holstein l 130 l 110 1 1 I l --
1 150,000 mi ESE I F l l l 1 --
l Interstate l Dairy Cowns con-l l l l l Chickens gl l l l Dairy & l fined to own l l l l l l l l
, l l l l l l (8 rollers) l Chickens Sold I feed / Heifers l t !
l 30 l l l l l Commercially I grare May to l l l l l l l l l l l l to Fredricks- l October l l l 1 I burg l l l 1 I l I I I I I I l 8.53km(5.30ml) l 1030 l l Ayrshire i 122 Cowsl 104 I i l ESE l F l 1 --
1 --
l 125 Steers i Harrisburg I Silage and l l 100 l l l l 50 Beef l
l l l l l Heiferal l l Daries & Proc-l Pasture all l j l l l Cattle l essed & Used l Year l l l l l i
l 31 l I l (Cas & l 0n Site l l l 1 l l l l l Calves) l l 1 l l l l l l l l l 400 Hoqs I I l l I l i I I i 1
l 2.30km(1.43mi) l 1300 l l l I Holstein l 60 Cows l 55 1 I l SE l G l l --
l --
l 5 Steers l Hershey foods l April to l l 25 l l l I
j l j 1
i & Steers Sold l November / Winter i I
l l Heiferal l i l l at Auction l l l l 1 I on Silage l 1 1 l l 1 l hlI l 1
l 1
l I
1 I
l I
l I
l I
l I
1 l
I l
l
_I
g e e g m e e m W m M M M M E " " "
1985 ANNUAL DAIRY AfD LIVESTOCK CENSUS
- Page 9 or 16 i Distance l Azimuth l Name, Address *** I l l No. I I No. l l & l & I &
l l i No. l I Direction 1 1 Cows 1 No. I Goata i I l Sector Codel Phone Ntamber l Breed l Cows i Hilked l Goats l Hilked I l_ivestock I I l l l l Dairy used l Grazinq Period l l 1 1 I I I l 4.14km(2.57mi) i 1440 l l Jersey I I I E
l 3 1 0 l 1 Billy 1 --
l 11 Chickens l Own use I I G l l l l l All year under l l
I (Pet) l i 1 Goose i l l l l l I favorable con- l 1 l l I I I I I I l l ditions l I I I l 33 1 1 I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I 1 I I I I l 1
, i 4.35km(2.70ml) i 1580 l I I I i 1 --
I --
l --
l3 l i
m SE I --
l --
l G l I I l l --
l 8I I l Nannies ! I I i I I l I 1 i 1 Billy i I
.I I I I l l I i l I I l t M i l i I l I I i i i I I I 1 1 I i I i I I I I 1 i i i l i l l I I I I I l 6.05km(3.75mi) i 1410 l I I l
1 --
I --
1 --
l 1 Billy 1 --
l 65 eeer i Sold to SE l G l l I l Hogs on Silage / I l I I i I I I I Cattle l Markets (Pent ! Cattle on l l l l 1 I l l 1 l (Charlais & I Packing) i Pasture All Yearl l l l 1 i Angus) l 35 I I l l l I I I I l I I I I 225 Hogs l l I I I I l
I I I I I I I I I I i i i I I I 6.4Bkm(4.03mi) I 1410 l I Holstein i 40 I I I SE I G l 1 --
l --
1 --
1 I Bull l Johanna farms i Silage all Year I l l Heiferal l l i I in N.J. & Own l I I I l I I I l l I i 1 l use l l l 1 l 1 1 I I I 36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
( l i I I I I I I I I I I
EU m W m m m m -
1985 ANNUAL DAIRY Am LIVESIOCK CENSUS
- Page 10 of 16 I Distance i Azimuth l Name, Address l l l No. l l No.
l & I & l &
l l l l Direction 1 i No. I Cows i No. I Coats l l ISector Codel Phone Number l Breed l Cows l l l 1 1 I l Milked l Coats l Hilked I Livestock l Dairy used I I I I i l l Crailrwi Period l 1 6.60km(4.10ml) I 1290 l l l l l Holstein l 150 Cowsl 150 t --
l 80 Steers l SE I G l l l 150 1 --
l Mt. Joy i May to October l l l l l l l l l farmers Co-op i but mostly l
1 i Helferal l l l i
l l l l l I & Steers Sold l Silage i l l l 37 I I I I I 1 1 at Auction l l I I I i 1 1 I I I I I I I
- I i I I I 1 1 I I I I I I
, 1 7.43km(4.62mi) I 1360 l I I I --
I -- I I
,1 1 --
I SE l C l 1 --
l 2 Sheep i Own use l l l l May to October / l
$l l l l l l t 1 6 Chickens ) l Winter on l l I l l l I I 1 l I I I I I l stored feed l l 38 l l I l t i I l
l i 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I
I I I I I i
I l t I i I I I I I l 7.59km(4.72mi) l 1260 l 1 --
l --
I I I I 1 --
l l SE l G l 1 --
l 30 Steers 1 --
l l l l l l l Contined to own l l l 1 1 I l (Holstein & l I feed l l i 1 l Charisis) i l l l I l l l I l 39 l l 1 I I I l l l 1 I l I l I l l l I l l l l I l l I l l t i I l l I I l l 7.88km(4.90ml) I 1310 l l Holstein l 20 I i I 1 --
] --
I 60,000 l SE l 1 --
C l l l l l l Eggs are sold l During favorablel l l l Chickens l l l l l I commercially I conditions plus l l l l l l l l l I hay and corn l l l i l l l 40 l l l l l I l year round l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
- - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
EU m m m m m m m m m .
1985 ANNUAL DAIRY AND LIVLSilXX RNSUS*
Page 11 of 16 i Distance l Azimuth l Name, Address l l l No. l l No. l l l & I & l & I l No. 1 Cows ! No. I Coats l l l l Direction l Sector Codel Phone Number i Breed l Cows l l l I l l Milked l Coats l Milked i L i vest ock i Dairy bsed i Crarinq Period i t i l i l 1 1 I 5.31km(3.30mi) l 1800 l 1 --
1 --
I l 1 Billy 1 1 I I l S J l 12 Beef l --
l May to I l l i I (Pet) l l l l l l Cattle l l December l 1 I l t i I I I I l l l l I l l 1 I I l 41 1 I I i I I I I l l i I l I I i 1 1 I l l i
I I i 1 1 I l I I
- l l l 1 1 7.82km(4.86mi) I 2000 I I l l Holstein 1 54 Cows i 48 I gI SSW l 1 --
l --
l 1 Sheep (Pet)! Interstate l May to October l K l l l 45 l ( l PJ l l i Dairy I l l l l Helferal l l I l l
' I I I l l I I I I l i i 1 I 42 l l I 1 l I I I I l l l I I I l 1 1 I I I I I l l l l l t i I I I I l 20.6ka(12.80ml)I 2080 l **
l Holstein l 230 Cows! 200 I l l SSW l K 1 -
l --
l 2 Steers i Interstate ! May through l l l l 320 l
( l l l l l (Holstein) l Co-op & Sold l September but I l l Helferal l l l l Through Retaill mainly stored I l l l l & Calvesi l I
I hl( I I
I I I
I I I I I I
I l
I l
I l Stora I (AsN ombe's l feed l
I i I , ris t ry) l 1 i l I i l l
I 4.02km(2.50ml) l 2250 l I i l i I l --
I l SSW l L l --
1 --
1 --
l 1 Steer i Own use l Spring to fall / l l l l l l l l 1 Bull l I l l l l l Winter on store l l l l 1 l l l 2 Helfers l l bought feed l l l l I 44 1 l l l 1 Turkey i I I I l I 1 l l 1 I l I 12 Chickens i I I I i 1 l l 1 I I I l
l 1
_ -- - - - - J
E E E E E E E E E E 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY Ato LIVESTOCK ENSilS' Page 12 or 16 i Distance l Azimuth l Name, Addrese m i I I No. l l No. l l 1 l l & I & l & l l No. I Cows i No. I Coats i I Direction Isector Codel Phone Nanber 1 Breed i Cows 1 Hilked l Ccats 1 Hilked i Livestock I
l Dairy tJsad I I I l l I I i Grarino Perind l I I I I I I I i 4.26km(2.75mi) l 2260 l l --
1 -
1 --
l 1 32 Beer l sw L 1 -- --
i Lancaster l March to l I I I l l l l l Cattle i stack Yard l November l 1 1 I I l I I I I I i 1 1 1 I I I I I I I i l 1 I 45 I I I I I I I I I I I l i I I I l i I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I l
. I 5.95km(3.70ml) I 2330 I I --
I --
I -
l3 I I
_. I sw I L l 1 -- --
1 Dwn Use l All Year I l l l l Nanniesl l Ol l 1 1 I I I 4 Kida l i I I ( l
. I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I 46 I I I I l l I I t l l l l l 1 I l i I I I I l I l l l l 1 1 I I I I I 6.03km(3.75mi) l 2250 I l I --
I --
I --
I3 l sw I L i 1 --
I --
1 --
l All Year l 1 I l I Nanniesl l I I I I I I I I I I2 I I I l l l l l l l l l wetheral i I I i l 47 I i l l l l 1 Billy l l l l 1 1 I I I I i i I I I I I l I l 1 l i I I I I I I I 6.48km(4.03mi) 1 2420 1 I --
1 --
1 -- --
I l 2 steers 1 --
i Own itse l Conried to own l I wsw l H I l I l l I I 3 Hogs 1 I reed I l i l l l l l l
l l 400 Chickens l l l l l 1 l l I I I I I I 48 l I l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
m M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY APO LIVESIOCK ENSUS*
Page 13 of 16 i Distance I Arimuth l Name, Address *** l l l No. l I No. l l & l & I & l l l Direction I l No. l Cows l No. I Goats l l l
l Sector Codel Phone Number l Breed i Cows l l I I I Hilked i Goats l Hilked l L ivest ock l Dairy used I I l t I i l l Grnrino Period i
! 7.08km(4.40mi) l 2380 l [ --
i i l I -
1 --
l 1 Nanny 1 --
l 4 Hogs i Dwn use WSW l H l I l l l May to October i l l4 l l l l l l l l I l l l l 1 Billiest l l l l l l l (Pets) l {
1 49 I l l I I I l l I I i l I I I i l i I I i l i I i I I i l i l 8 I I I
, 1 7.66km(4.76mi) i 2370 I I l l -- l I 1 --
I --
l2 l 1 2 Steers l Own use ml WSW I H I l l 1
l May to I gi i i l l Nanniest(Not l (Holstein) l I September (not l l I l l 1 Billy lused fort
,I l l i I in the evenings)I l l l l 50 l l 1 Wetherleonsump-l l l 1 l l l
( l 1 l l ltion) l l l 1 1 I I I I l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I i 6.28km(3.90mi) l 2700 i l l 1 --
l --
l --
l t l W l N 1 --
1 --
l 3 Calves l Sold Locally l All year plus l l l l l l 1 I (Charlais) l & Own use l l l l l l I feed from l l l l 2 Heifers l l l l l l 1 l October to l l l l 3 Cows l 51 l l l l April l l l t i I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I i I I I I l 6.76km(4.20mi) i 2620 l I I I 1 --
t ---
l W l N l 1 --
l --
1 --
l 3 Bulls l Sold Locally l March to l l l l l l l 1 ! l 2 Steers I & Own Use l November l l 1 1 l l l 1 l l 6 Cows l l l l l l l l 52 l l l l 4 Calves l l l l 1 l l l l l l 5 Heifers l l l l l l I l l l (Charleis) l l [
m M M M M M M M M M M M M 1985 ANNUAL OAIRY AfD tlVESTOCK ENSUS*
Page 14 of 16 1 Distance i Arimuth l Name, Address l l l No. l l No. I I l & I & I l l l Direction
& I I No. I Cows l No. l Coats l l l l ISector Codel Phone Nisaber I Breed I Cows l Hilked l Coats l Hilked I Livestock I I I I i Dairy used l Craring Period l I I I I I I l l 4.96km(3.08mi) 1 2860 l 1 --
l l
l 20 Beef l --
l I WNW l P l l --
l Sold to l April to l l l 1 l l Cattle i ! l l l Auctions & I December I l l l l l l (Black Angus)I Own use l l l l l l l 1 l i I l 53 I I I i I I I I l l I I 1 1 I I l I I I I I I I i l l l l l l
1 I l I I i I 5.20km(3.23mi) I 295o l I --
1 --
12 Billiest I I
~l WNW l P 1 -- --
l 20 Steers 1 --
l All Year i l l
$l l l I l
I l
l 12 Nanniesl 12 Wetheral l 2 Calves l
l l
l l I l l l l l l l 1 I I I 1 % 1 I i l I i I I I I i l l l I l I I I I I I I I I I l l I l I l l I 5.23km(3.25mi) I 2860 I l i I l l --
l --
1 -
l 1 Nanny 1 0 l WNW I P l l l 1 --
1 --
l All Year i l l (Pet) l l l I excluding winter l l l l l 1 I i l i l l l l l l l l t i I I I I 55 l I I l l l l t i I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I i i i i l l I
I l i I I I l 5.95km(3.70ml) ] 2950 l i Holstein i 70 Cows i 39 I6 I
l -
l 15 Beef l Interstate l May to October I
( WNW l P l 1 Jersey l l
1 l Billieel I Cattle l Hilk Co-op l l l l l Cuernsey l l l 12 I l l I l l l l i l l l Nennies! l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I l l I I t
m M M M M M M M M M M -
M M M M M M 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY AND LIVESTOCK CENSUS
- Page 15 of 16 1 Distance l Arimuth i Name, Address *** l l l No. I I No.
I & I & I I {
& I 1 Direction 1 1 No. I Cows i No. I Coats i I ISector Codel Phone Number i Breed I Cows I I I I l i I I Hilked i Coats i Hilked i Livestock I Dairy used i Crarinq Period i
( l I I l 6.81km(4.23mi) I 2900 I l !
I I l WNW l P 1 --
I --
1 I Namy l 1 1 45 Ducks i Own Use &
I 1 I ( l i I All Year l I I I I l I I 50 Chickens i Sold Locally i I I i I I I l l 1 I I I I I I 1 57 I I I I I I I I i I I I i 1 1 I I i i i I I I I I I I I I I l I I l I l l 1 7.08km(4.40mi) I 2930 t I --
l I I
-I WNW 1 --
1 --
1 I Nanny 1 --
I l I P l l I Harch to l 1
$1 I I I I I l l
(
l l l 1 November I
. I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I 58 I I I l I I I I l .
I I I I I I l I l l i l I I I i 1 I (
I I I l i I I 1 7.08km(4.40ml) I 2970 l l I I i i WNW l P l --
l --
l 1 Namy i O I --
I l l l I April to l l l l i I i I l l November I i l I I i I
1 I l l i t i I I I i
1 59 I I I I I I I i I i i l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 10.8km(6.70mi) I 2930 I I I l
l Holstein 1 52 Cows t 42 i 1 I WNW l --
I --
I --
I Rutters I P l i l April to 1100 I I l 1
I I i i l I Dairy i November I l i Calves i I I I I I
l l I la Heireral l I I
I I
hl I I
l l
( l l
i I I I
l I
i I I
I I
l l l 1 1 I I
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1985 ANNUAL DAIRY AM) LIVESTOCK EENSUS*
Page 16 of 16 l Distance l Arimuth l Name, Addreseml l l No. l l No. l l 1 & l & l l l
& l l No. l Cows l No. l Coats l
) Direction l Sector Codel Phone Number l Breed l Cows l l l l l Milked l Coats l Hilked l Livestock l Dairy used l Crailrw Period l l 1 l l l l 697 Beef l l l l l l l l
l l l Cattle l l l l l l l l l (Includes l l l l l l l l 23 l l Steers, Cows,l l l l Holstein i 2,449 l l l Billieel l Helfers, & l Hershey foods l l l Angus l l Cows l l 183 l l Calves) l Interstate l l l TOTALS l Jersey l 1,604 l 1,934 l Nannies l 99 l 729 Pigs & l Co-up l l Ayrshire l Haifersl l Various l l6 l l Hogs l Ht. Joy Co-op l
, I l Cuernsey l & Calves l l i
l Wetheral l 6 Sheep l Harrisburg l m l 1 l l l 7 Kids l l 301,579 l Dairies
$l l l l l l l Chickens l l
, l l Penn Dairy l l l l l
l l l l 5 Bulls l Johanna farms l l l l l l l 1 Turkey l l l l Rutters Dairy l l l 1 l 1 l 1 Coose l l l l I l l l l 1 45 N ds l l l Includes livestock sich are used only for human consunption and all dairy farms within five miles of THINS plus regularly sampled milk farms.
Indicates new farm this census.
m Names and addresses available from Three Mile Island Environmental Controls.
f In lower right-hand corner of the first colunn indicates running total of farms surveyed. Circled l'a indicate regularly sampled milk farms.
_ _ _ _ , . w at_ - #- # --
I I 1 g
I I
l I
I I ;
APPENDIX H I
1985 Annual Garden Census I
I I l l
I I
I
- 148 -
I l
-. . _ . . - - - . - . - - . -- 1
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ANM1AL CARDEN ENSUS 198$
- Page I of 4 l Meteorological I Distance l l Name, Address ** l l l Sector I and l l and l Type of l
I How tised and l Desionation I Direction l Arimut h i Telephone Nianher i Vegetstion
[
l 1 Distribution of Consunw rs i 1 l l I l l A (1) l 1.80km(1.10ml) l 40 l A ssorted l
1 l Own tlse l l l N 1 l l l 4 Adults l 1 l l l l l 1 Teenager l l l l l l l 2 Children l l l 1 l l l 1 1 l I I I i l l 1 l l l 1 l B (2) I 1.30km(0.80ml) I 290 l l l Assorted l own use 1 1 NE I I i 1
1 2 Adults l 1 l l l l l
-1 I I I Also distributed to friends arut relatives 1 I I
$1 1 I I I I I
e I l l I l l 1 l l l 1 l l l l C (3) l 1 1.00km(0.60mi) l 560 l l Assorted l Own IJse l i E I l
l l l 2 Adults i I I I I I i 1 Teenager l l l i I I I 1 Child I i l 1 l l I l l l l l
l 1 1 1 l
1 1 I I I l D (4) l 0.80km(0.50mt) 1 590 l A ssorted l l Own use i l EE I l I
l l 3 Adults l l l l l l
1 l Infrequently Sold tocally l l l l l l 1
I I I l l l l l l l l 1 I 1 1 l
I l l t l l E (5) I 1.69km(0.60el) 1 890 l l Assorted l Own use l E l 1 I l l l 2 Adults l l 1 l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I i 1 I l i I l l l l l l l I
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ANM1AL CAHDEN CENSUS 1985
- Page 2 of 4 1 Meteorological l Distance i I Name, Address " l l 1 Sector I and l I and l Type of l
I How used avut l Desionation I Direction l A rimut h I intephnne Nwnber l i Veqet at ton I l
Dist r thut ton of formumers l l l l l t l F (6) 1 0.00km(0.50ml) 1 112.50 l I Assorted I own tlse l
I i ESE 1 I l l 1 3 Adults l l l l I
l l Sold Commercially Altruj Rt. 441 I I I I 1
I l l I I I I I I I I I I I
I I l l l l l t i l C (7) 1 0.90km(0.60ml) I 1350 l Assorted I
l l Own use i I I SE l l l l 3 Adults I a l l l l l l Sold Commercially Altnj Rt. 441 gi l l I I l l
ol l l l l l I
el I I I I I l
l l l l l t i H (8) l l I 1.10km(0.70ml) l 1520 l l Assorted i Own lise I I SSE I I I I J Adulta l i I l l I I i l l I I I
I I l l I l i I l l l l l l I l l l 1 1 I I I J (9) l 4.00km(2.40mi) I 1900 l l Assarted i Dwn use I
1 l s l i
1 l l 4 Adults i I I I I I i 1 Teenager l I l i 1 1 I I Child 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l i I I l K (10) I 1.25km(0.75mi) I 2200 l 1 1 Assorted l Own IJse I 1 i ssw I I l l 2 Adulta i I I I I I I 1
i 1 I I I I I l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ANNtlAL CAFE 1EN ENSUS 1985
- Page 3 of 4 l Meteorological l Distance l l Name, Address " l [
l Sector I and l and l l l Type of l How used armi l Deslanation i Direction I Arimut h l Telephone Ninher i i Veqetation i Distribution of Consnacra l I l I I I I I L (11) ! 2.56km(1.60mi) I 2360 l Assorted I
I i Own tise i I I SW l l l l 2 Adults l l i 1 l I
l 2 Children i I I I I I I I l l I I I I I I I I I I I l I l i l I I l H (12) I 2.20km(1.30mi) I 2530 l 1 1 Assorted i Own use l I l WSW l l l I 4 Adulta
- I I l I l i i
- I I l l I I 1
-" l I I I I I l
sl I I I I I l
I I I I I I I I N (13) I 2.08km(1,30ml) l 2670 1 Assorted I
1 I own time i I I W I I I I 2 Adults i i I I I
I i 1 Child i I I I I I I i 1 l i 1 1 1 I l I l i I 1
1 1 1 i
1 1 (
l P (14) l 3.80km(2.40ml) 1 2980 l l l Assorted I own tise l I WNW l l l I l 3 Adults l l l t i I L i i l i i l I 1
I i i i l l I I I I l l I 1 1 I i
I I i I 1 Q (15) l 2.56km(1.60mi) 1 310 l Assorted l 1 Own use {
i i NW l i I I 4 Adults l l l Lot #30 l l i I I I I N. Hill Is. l l l l l l l
l l 1 1 l
I l l l l l 1
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ANNilAL CARDEN ENSUS 1985
- Page 4 of 4 1 Meteorological i Distance l l Name, Address ** I l i I Sector I and I l and i Type of l
I How used arai j Deslanation 1 Direction l Arimuth l Telephone Nienber i Vegetation l Dist ribution of Ontmannera i l 1 I
1 1 1 1 R (16) I 2.24km(1.40mi) l 3370 l Assorted 1
l l Own use i 1 1 NNW l l I I 2 Adults l l N.E. Hill Is. 1 I l l l
I I I I i
I l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l 1 1
I l i 1 1 1 I I I I I l l l l I I I l I I I l
. I I l I
_I I I I I l l
$1 1 1 1 I I I
, 1 I I l
I I I l l l I l l 1 l l l l l I I 1 1 I i I I I I i l I I
l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I i I I I I I I l l I l l l l l l t I I I i
I I I l l 1 I
1 1 1 I I I I l i I l i i l i l i l l 1 I
1 I I I
Census identifies reartest garden (greater than 50 m2 ) in each of the sixteen meterological sectors.
- Names and addresses on file in THI Environmental Controls Office.
4 -- - - - - ._ -- - - -- - ' --'~- - - ~=
I I
I I
I I
E I ^""e"o'x '
I Dose Calculation Methodology I
I
' 1 I
- I I
I
- I i
- 153 - j lI .
I I
I To the extent pos sible, radiological impacts were evaluated based on the direct measurement of dose rates or of radionuclide concentrations in the environment. However, the quantities of radionuclide releases associated with 1985 TMINS operations were too small to be measured once dispersed in the offsite environment. As a result, the potential offsite doses could only be estimated by using computerized models that predict concentrations of I radioactive materials in the environment and subsequent radiation doses on the basis of radionuclides released to the environment. GPUNC calculates doses using an advanced class "A" dispersion model called MIDAS (Meteorological Information and Dose Assessment Sys tem ) . This model incorporates the guidelines and methodology set forth by the USNRC in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
MIDAS uses actual monthly Susquehanna River flow data and hourly actual meteorological information matched to the time of releases to assess the dispersion of effluents in the river and the atmosphere. Combining this I assessment of dispersion and dilution, with effluent data for each unit, postulated maximum hypothetical doses to the public from the TMINS effluents are calculated. The maximum individual dose is calculated as well as the population dose to the total population within 50 miles of TMINS for gaseous effluents and the entire population using Susquehanna River water downstream of the plant for liquid effluents. Values of environmental parameters and I radionuclide concentration factors have been chosen to provide conservative results. As a result, the doses calculated using this model are conservative estimates (i.e. , over-estimated) of the actual exposures.
The dose sunmary tables, Table I-l and I-2, present the maximum hypothetical doses to an individual resulting from ef fluents from TMI-l and TMI-2, respectively, during the 1985 reporting period. Population doses for both I units are presented in Table I-3.
Liquid (Individual)
The first two lines of Table I-l and Table I-2 present the maximum hypothetical dose to an individual from liquids. Presented are the total body and critical organ doses due to the radionuclides in the liquid effluents. As
- 154 -
I
I I
recommenced in USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, calculations are performed on the four age groups and eight organs. The pathways considered are water ingestion, shore exposure, and fresh water sportfish ingestion. The latter two pathways are considered to be the primary recreational activities I associated with the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of TMINS. The
" receptor" would be that individual who consumes water from the Susquehanna Ri ver, eats fish that reside in the plant di scharge, and stands on the shoreline influenced by the plant discharge. The tables present the maximum total body dose and critical organ dose for the age group most effected.
I For the 1985 reporting period, the calculated maximum hypothetical total body I dose received by anyone would have been 0.075 mrem (TMI-1) and 0.0014 mrem (TMI-2 ) to an adult. These represent 2.5 percent and 0.047 percent, respectively, of the USNRC permissible yearly dose limits. Simil arly, the maximum hypothetical organ dose would have been 0.12 mrem to the liver of a teenager (TMI-1) and 0.0041 mrem to the bone of an adul t ( THI-2 ) . These represent 1.2 percent and 0.041 percent, respectively, of the USNRC permissible yearly dose limits.
Gaseous (Individual)
There are seven major pathways considered in the dose calculation for gaseous effluents. These are: (1) plume expesure, (2) inhalation, (3) constanption of cow milk, (4) goat milk, (5) vegetables, (6 ) meat, and (7) standing on contaminated ground.
I Lines 3 and 4 of Table I-1 and Table I-2 present the maximum plume exposure generally at, or near, the site boundary. The notation of " air dose" is interpreted to mean that these doses are not to an individual, but are considered to be the maximum dose at a location. The location is not necessarily a receptor. The tables present the distance in meters and the affected sector (compass poi nt ). It should be noted that real-time I meteorology was used in all dose calculations for gaseous effluents.
- 155 -
I
I I
With respect to the releases for the 1985 reporting period, the maximum plume exposure (air dose) would have been 0.0072 and 0.012 mrad (TMI-1) and 0.000017 and 0.00005 mrad (TMI-2) gamma and beta dose, respectively. All of these represent equal to or less than 0.1 percent of the USNRC permissible yearly dose limits.
Lines 5 and 6 present the calculated dose to the closest receptor (individual) in the maximally affected sector (s ). The location of the receptor is described by both distance (meters) and direction from the site.
I Plume exposures to an individual, regardless of age, from gaseous effluents I during the 1985 reporting period were 0.0022 mrem and 0.006 mrem (TMI-1) and 0.0000045 mren and 0.000013 mrem (TMI-2 ) total body and skin exposure, respectively.
All of these represent equal to or less than 0.05 percent of the USNRC permissible yearly dose limits.
Line 7 represents the maximum exposed organ due to radioactive iodine and particulates.
This does not include the whole body plume exposure which was I separated out on line 5 The doses presented in this section again reflect the maximum exposed organ for the appropriate age group.
During 1985, gaseous lodines and particulates from TMI-l would have resulted in a maximum dose of 0.0017 mrem to the bone of a child residing 2,500 meters from the site in the west sector. The corresponding dose from TMI-2 was 0.0022 mrem to the total body of a child residing 2,500 meters from the site I in the W sector.
No other organ of any age group would have received a dose greater than this from either TMI-l or TMI-2. All of these doses represent j equal to or less than 0.02 percent of the USNRC permissible yearly dose limits.
l Liquid and Gaseous (Population)
I Lines 8-11 (Table I-3) present the person-rem dose resulting from the liquid I and gaseous effluents.
affected population.
These doses are sunmed over all pathways and the Liquid person-rem is based upon the population I - 156 -
I
I I
I encompassed within the region from the TMINS outfall extending down to the Chesapeake Bay.
I The population dose due to gaseous effluents is based upon the 1980 population projections of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and considers the population out to a distance of 50 miles around TMINS.
Population doses are summed over all distances and sectors to give an aggregate dose.
I Based upon the calculations performed for the 1985 reporting period, total TMI-l and TMI-2 liquid and gaseous effluents resulted in population doses of I 0.2 person-rem total body.
This is about 1 million times lower than normal natural background and medical population dose to the same population.
I I
I I
I I
I l l
I I
E
- 1 57 -
l
g g g g e a e m e M M M M M M M " E E TABLE I-l
SUMMARY
OF MAXIMIM INDIVIDUAL DOSES FROM THI-l EFFLUENTS 1985 Liquid 01 /01 /8 5 through 12/31/85 i
Gaseous 01/01 /8 5 through 12/31/85 Air 01 /01 /8 5 through 12/31/85 h Estimated Location Percnt of i
Applicable Dose / year Age Dist Dir NRC Effluent Organ Applicable Limit (mrem) Group (M) ( Toward) Limit C Liquid Total Body 0.075 (mrem /yr)
Adul t Receptor 1 2.5 3.0
- 2. Liquid Liver 0.12 Teen Receptor 1 1.2 10.0 3 Noble Gas Air Dose 0.0072 ---
34 2 E 0.072 (Gamma-mrad ) 10.0
- 4. Noble Gas Air Dose 0.012 ---
342 E 0.062 20.0 (Beta-mrad)
- 5. Noble Gas Total Body 0.002 All 630 ESE 0.044 5.0
- 6. Noble Gas Skin 0.006 All 630 ESE 0.040 15.0
- 7. Iodine and Bone 0.0017 Child 2500 W 0.011 15.0 Particulate
m W W W W W W M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE I-2
SUMMARY
OF MAXIMJM INDIVIDUAL DOSES FROM THI-2 EFFLUENTS 1985 Liquid 01 / 01 /8 5 through 12/31/85 Gaseous 01 /01 /8 5 through 12/31/85 Air 01 /01 /8 5 through 12/31/85 bh Estimated Location Percnt of NRC Applicable Dose / year Age Dist Dir Applicable Limit Ef fluent Organ (mrem) Group (M) (Toward) Limit 17~~ Liquid (mrem /yr)
Total Body 0.0014 Adul t Receptor 1 0.047 3.0
- 2. Liquid Bone 0.0041 Adul t Receptor 1 0.041 10.0
- 3. Noble Gas Air Dose 0.000017 ---
534 SSE 0.00017 10.0 (Gamma-mrad)
- 4. Noble Gas Air Dose 0.00005 ---
534 SSE 0.00025 (Beta-mrad) 20.0
- 5. Noble Gas Total Body 0.0000045 A' 1000 SSE 0.000091 5.0
- 6. Noble Gas Skin 0.000013 All 1000 SSE 0.000085 15.0
/. Iodine and Total Body 0.0022 Child 2500 W 0. 01 5 15.0 Particulates
I I
TABLE I-3
SUMMARY
OF POPULATION DOSES FROM THI-1 EFFLUENTS FOR 1985 Liquid 01 / 01 /8 5 through 12/31/85 Gaseous 01/01/85 through 12/31/85 I Ef fluent Applicable Estimated Population Dose Organ (Person-rem)
- 8. Liquid Total Body O.068
- 9. Liquid Liver 0.072
- 10. Gaseous Total Body 0.022
- 11. Gaseous Bone 0.057 I
SUMMARY
OF POPULATION DOSES FROM TMI-2 EFFLUENTS FOR 1985 I Liquid 01 /01 /8 5 through 12/31/85 Gaseous 01 / 01 /8 5 through 12/31/85 I Ef fluent Applicable Organ Estimated Population Dose (Person-rem)
I 8.
9.
10.
Liquid Liquid Gaseous Total Body Bone
- 0. 01 3 0.052 Total Body 0.098
- 11. Gaseous Liver 0.097 i
I
- 160 -
I
I I
I I
I I
I I APPENDIX J E 1985 Groundwater Monitoring Results I
I I
I I
I I
E
- 1 61 -
I
I I
4 999899999988 A
- -j 899899599989 me~m~~~nn f 999999999R9R I A
- -j RRS898RSR995
~n~~~~~~~--
I .
A r,
4 9999999998RR
+
gggggggggggs
_ j ~~~~--~~~ ~-
I ______
d ,$ 9999999999,8
., a =
I E gg 33
- m 89RSR9992RV9.
~~-~~n~~~~
a 4+ 9998SSSSS8RS I
- 5g 52 4 's jz a
g enrece R82289R 8R822 ~. .
z$o I 5"
,g5 "
g 4+ 888898898R88 s= a I 2m og 5
"I !!!!!!!!b 1
g 4+ 888888888888 8 m
$888888g88@@
~
d ~
% 2 % R - N -.
I -+
a g
- m R9RSGER99v89 I g ---- - --
n-
%%%%% L%%%D l w
- g r:Adar:saddiam' g n~>emauuuu f
am a:me.D8tmS18lfj! g..
I ____-
Mjm
- 1888 a*
I g -
iez .
g g g g g a m M M M M M E '
E IAOLE J-lb GPU ENVIRONWNTAL CONIROLS GROUP GROUtOWATER TRIIIUH CONCENTRATION (pCi/L f 2 S.D.)
Date of OS-9 i 05-10 05-13B OS-14 Sample H3 +/- 1 0S-15 OS-16 05-17 H-3 +/- H-3 +/- H-3 +/- H-3 +/- H-3 + /- H-3 I [000 l
+/- H-3 +/- (
lFebruaryJanuary 7 l l Well 530 50 390 40 l 350 11,, 1985 1985 NotDry )1000 i 100 ll 50 Well Dry l 9100 600 11000 1000 l 160 March 5, 1985 490 50 l 280 40 Not 11000 1000 40 1 Sampled 590 50 400 50 430 50 Sampled 14000 1000 ! 200 40 l April 2, 1985 530 50 190 40 390 50 13000 1000 ; 22000 1000 1 130 50
, Hay 7, 1985 1 14000 1000 20000 1000 June 4, 1985 620 60 l 380 50 1 320 50 l 96 34 l 360 50 t 350 50 l 460 6900 600 l 17000 1000 . 270 50 l (d
July 2, 1985 l 650 60 1 330 40 l 320 80 1 40 l 17000 1000 l 11000 1000 l 120 50 l August 6, 1985 l 460 50 l 300 50 l 310 l 13000 1000 9800 900 l 280 60 H
, September 3,1985 l 410 50 l 8800 1000 1 10C00 1000 l 150 40 October 8, 1985 50 lNot Sampled l 260 50 1 11000 1000 960 70 330 80 180 60 1
7600 600 l 150 50 ,
November 5,1985 400 90
- 440 5800 600 8800 GX) 250 90 i 100 11000 1000 December 3.1985 l l 970 110 l 810 11000 1000 250 80 l 60 l 550 60 l l 12000 1000 l 8800 MX) l 3 *A) 70 l
- Insufficient sample
I TABLE J-1c WEEKLY TRITIUM GROUNDWATER RESULTS pCi/L + 2 S.D.
I DATE l MS-2 1 05-16 1 05-1 7 l T I l l l
1 i SAWLE l Value +/- Value +/- +/-
I l l Value 1 I I I I I 04/02/85 l < 4100 l NA l 22000 2800 l
l l 04/09/85 i NA l NA l 26000 2900 l l 04/15/85 l I l 04/23/85 l 1 04/30/85 1
< 5300
<4400 4800 1900 1 l
l
<13000 14000 15000 2400 2400 l
l 1 20000 21000 19000 3300 2600 2600 1
l 1
l 05/07/85 l <4300 I 16000 l NA l 1700 l 05/14/85 l 2900 490 1 8100 620 l 19000 940 l
l 05/22/85 l 1300 420 1 11000 630 1 14000 700 l
l 05/28/85 l 2000 460 1 15000 770 l 17000 890 l
l 06/04/85 l l I l 06/11/85 l l 06/18/85 l 2000 1400 1100 440 l 460 l 430 l 19000 14000 13000 880 750 71 0 l
l 1
11000 13000 8300 650 71 0 640 l
I l
l 06/25/85 1 2200 480 l 14000 740 I l 07/02/85 l l 07/09/85 l l 07/16/85 l 2000 3400 3400 430 1 470 1 500 l 13000 15000 NA 690 760 l
l 1
15000 6600 8200 770 430 590 l
l l
1 9200 640 l l 07/23/85 1 I l 07/30/85 l l 08/06/85 l 3300 1800 2100 490 l 540 l 440 1 16000 17000 11000 81 0 900 680 1
l l
9900 13000 11000 660 850 670 l
l l
l 08/13/85 1 1600 430 l 6900 I I 08/20/85 1 l 08/27/85 l I 09/03/85 l 2000 1300 3400 550 1 470 l 51 0 1 7200 8500 NA 550 570 620 l l
l 11000 8800 6700 660 680 670 l l
l l 5800 580 1 09/10/85 l 2300 480 1 12000 720 l 8300 640 1 09/17/85 l 3700 500 1 7200 580 l 9500 640 l I 09/24/85 1 4000 490 l 9500 630 l 8800 600 l I 10/01/85 1 770 430 1 I
6000 560 l 8600 600 l 10/08/85 2700 460 l 5500 530 8700 61 0 10/15/85 3000 470 6700 550 10000 630 l 10/22/85 1 6100 530 1 10000 630 1 12000 640 l 10/30/85 1 I
l 4100 500 l 9700 650 l 9800 620 l l 11/05/85 1 4000 490 i NA l 6000 57 0 l l 11/12/85 1 4200 530 1 7900 61 0 l 11000 670 l 11/19/85 l 1700 450 l 12000 I i 11/26/85 1 l 12/03/85 l l 12/10/85 2000 1500 2700 430 1 440 l 460 13000 NA 690 720 l 9200 9700 9200 600 640 620 11000 670 l 9400 61 0 I l 12/17/85 l 12/24/85 1 1 12/31/85 l
, 2000 2000 2400 430 490 .1 490 1 10000 13000 6600 630 730 570 l
l 6900 6400 7000 550 570 58 0 I
- 164 -
l I
m W W W M M M M M -
M TABLE J-2 GROUl0 WATER GROSS ALPHA pCi/L + 2 S.D.
l Well l First Qtr Second Qtr lhird Qtr
. I Number i +/-
l l l Fourth Qtr [
Value l Value +/- l Value +/- l Value +/- l l MS-1 l 30 5 l 17 6 l <2 <2
$ l MS-2 l 84 14 l 2.3 1.2 l <2 l l
<3 l .
l
. I MS-3 l 14 4 l 6.5 4.8 l <2 l <4 l l MS-4 l 8.9 2.1 l 4.2 2.8 l <1 l <1 l l MS-5 l 2.8 1.7 l <5 l <2 1 <2 l l MS-6 l 40 8 l <1 l <2 l <2 1 1 MS-7 l 20 4 l 5.5 3.7 l <1 l <2 l l MS-8 l 17 4 l <5 l <1 l <2 l l OS-10 l 19 6 l <1 l <2 l <2 l l 0S-138 l 150 30 l <1 l <2 1 <3 l l OS-14 l 110 20 l <1 l <2 l <2 l l 0S-16 l 66 13 l 5.3 1.5 1 <2 l <2 l l OS-17 l 75 16 l 2.2 0.8 l 4.2 2.1 l <2 l l EDCB l < 0. 7 l <2 l < 0. 8 l <1 l
g g 3 g M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE J-3 OTHER GROUl0 WATER WELLS TRITIUM RESULTS pCi/L + 2 S.D.
l l VISCENTERI GOLDSBOROl NSl NS2 l l NS3 l NS4 l l Month
& l l Value +/-ll Value +/-l Value +/-l Value +/-l Value +/-l Value +/-l l l l 1 I 1 January l 66 40 l 71 36 l 100 40 l <60 l <60 l 98 42 l l
l February l 47 29 l 160 40 l 110 50 l 120 40 l 73 42 l 170 l March l 92 43 l 120 40 l 50 l
<60 l <60 1 120 40 1 170 40 l l April l 94 46 l 200 40 l <80 l 85 45 l <70 1140 50 l 1 May 1 72 33 l 120 50 l 140 50 l 220 30 l 110 50 l 120 50 l l June 1 97 37 l 130 40 l 130 50 l 250 50 l 210 40 l July 1 190 40 l l <70 l 130 40 l 120 30 l 160 l August ] 96 46 l 110 40 1 280 50 l 84 45 l 40 l 140 40 l 150 50 l 160 50 l 140 40 l l Septed er l 64 40 1 70 37 l 280 40 l 210 50 l 180 40 l 130 40 l l October l 260 80 l <200 <100 l 110 83 l 260 l 70 l 150 90 l l Noved er l 180 80 l <100 l 210 70 l <100 l 210 90 l <100 l l December l <100 1 250 90 l 270 80 l 140 80 l 180 110 l 280 100 l
m M M M M M M M M m m m m W W W M flGURE J-l M CATION Of MONITORING AND OBSERVATION STATIONS 05- # +[AST Dike 05-10 (l' art ially Otistruc ted) CAICH BASIN
-2 EPICOR' ,,,
S-17 g p MS-4
= alAt 05-16 e W S~
j STORAGil
/ UE dE
=a ea d 5d a $g m ug g AUXILIARY 9,
" BUllDING r -
I UNI I2 EE FUEL llANDLING REACTOR 2E BullDING Bull DING Eg Di[SIL -
CANIRAIOR BUILDING -
- I MS-8 y . L 05-138 05-14 MS-6
,/~'
Coseents: (1) MS-1 located in north parking lot (2) 05-15 located on south end of island 1
l I
I 10 6
TMI EMUIRONMENTAL CONTROLS GROUP 1 , , , , , ,
MONITORING STATION 1 10 5 -
T TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) UERSUS TIME -
R I 10 4 -
U M
P 3
C 10 -
I I
/
L I r r I '
10 2 _ y I ;r --
I ,,1 _
I 100 D J F M A M
J J A S O N J I
E A E A P D A U U U E C 0 C N B R R E A Y N L G P T U C H 1984 1985 1986 I
TMI ENUIEJNMENTAL CONTROLS GROUP MONITORING STATION 2 10 6 , , ,
I 10 5 -
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) UERSUS TIME I
T I 10 4 -
U _
3 C 10 -
I l
I T 10 2 _
I E R
101 -
I -
10 0 p i i i ' ' ' '
I p M A E A M J J A s o N D E A P A U J C N 3 U U E C 0 E A
' R R .
768 - H L G P T U C N 1984 1985 1986 I
I TMI EMUIRONMENTAL CONTROLS CROUP MONITORING STATION 3 10 6 , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
I 10 5 -
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) VERSUS TIME i
T I R I
T I 10 4 -
U I
i
" i 10 3 g : ; -
I L T 10 3 -
E 10 1 -
~
I 10 0 D
i J
i F
. . . . . . i . > > > i M A R J J A S O N D J I E C
1984 1985 A
N E
3 A
R P
R A
Y U
H U
L U
G E
P C
T 0
U E
C A
N 1986 I
I 10 6 ,
TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS GROUP MONITORING STATION 4 I T 10 $ -
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) UERSUS TIME -
I R I
T I 10 4 -
U I M P
C 10 3 _
I
% Y -
e -_ N_
I H
/ : -
E L
T 10 2 _
E I 10 1 -
I ,,0 D J
F M
A M
J E A J A 5 0 N D J I
E A P A U U C N 3 R U E C 0 E A R Y M L G P T U C N 1984 1985 1986 I !
I I
i TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS GROUP MONITORING STATION 5 i 10 6 , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
I 10 5 -
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) UERSUS TIME -
T R
I I T
I 10 U
4 -
\
M I P C 10 3 I
I E T 10 2 _
E x x E E R
10 1 -
10 0 D i i ' '
J F M A M J J A 5 E A E A P O N D J A U U U E C 0 E A C H 3 R R Y N L G P T U C N 1984 1985 1986 I
I 10 6 ,
TRI EMUIRONMENTAL CONTROLS GROUP MONITORING STATION S 10 5 -
T TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) UERSUS TIME -
R l I I T
I 10 4 U
M I P C 10 I
3 -
I 7 10 3 E
E k, x TM; R i l
10 1 -
10 0 L i i i i i e i i e i e J F M A N J J A 5 i i E A E A P 0 N D J A U U U E C 0 E A C N B R R Y N L G P T U C H 1984 1985 170 - 19ss I
r l
I I 10 6 ,
TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS CROUP MONITORING STATION 7 I , 10 5 -
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) VERSUS TIME -
I R
I T
I 10 4 -
U _
M C to 3 -
I L T 10 2 E
E
~= " "
101 -
10 0 i ,
D J F i , , . . .
M A R J J A E A E A P 5 0 N D J A
I C H 8 U U U E C 0 E A R R Y N L G P T U C N 1984 1985 1986 I
I 10 6 l
TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS GROUP MONITORING STATION 8 I T 10 5 -
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) VERSUS TIME -
I R
I T
I 10 4 -
U _
M P
C 10 3 -
I _
/ =
- - 1 r r 7 10 -
E _
101 -
I I ! ! $
D J F M A I I l l l E R J J A 5 I $ !
A E A P A 0 N D J I C N 8 U U U E C 0 R R Y E A M L G P T U C 1984 1985 M 1986 I
\
I I 10 6
TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS GROUP OBSERVATION STATION 10 i
l 10 5 -
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) UERSUS TIME -
R I I 7
I 10 4 U
M l
3 10 _
I E R
L T 10 2 _
10 1 -
10 0 '
D J F M A M J J A E A E A P S O N D J A U U U E C 0 E A C N B R R Y N L G P T U C N 1984 1985 1986 I
I 10 6 r TMI ENVIRONMENTAL C0hTROLS CROUP OBSERVATION STATION 13 3
, , , , , , i l
i 5 -
, 10 TRITIUM CONCENTRATION <PCr t> UERSuS TINE -
R I
I T
I 10 4 -
U -
M 10 3 _
j 7 10 2 _
%=== #
E R 1 10 1 -
9 E A E A P A U U U C M 8 R E C 0 E A R Y N L G P T U C N 1984 1985 -
1 72 198s I
I TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS CR0UP OBSERVATION STATION 14 10 6 , , , , , ,
i , ,
t T 10 6 -
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) UERSUS TIME -
R I 10 4 -
U I
M C 10 3 -
I _
I L I
T 10 2 E
E I
R 10I - _
I 10 0 D E
J A
F E
M A
A P
M J J A S O N D J A U U b E C 0 I C H E A B R R Y N L G P T U C N 1984 1985 1986 I
I TMI EMUIRONMENTAL CONTROLS GROUP OBSERVATION STATION 16 10 6 , , , , ,
I T 10 5 -
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L3 UERSUS TIME -
R 4
10 -
e -
M I P C 10 3 I
/
I L I
T 10 2 E
R 10 1 -
I 10 E
A J .,
E A
A P
A J
U J
U A
N 4
l U E C 0 E A I
C H B R R Y M L G P T U C N 1984 1985 1986
- 173 -
I --
TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS GROUP OBSERVATION STATION 17 10 6 10 5 -
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) VERSUS TIME -
T R
I 4
U 10 -
0 k g -A -
M P
C 10 3 _ -
I I /
L T 10 E _ -
E R
10 1 - -
I 10 O i i i e i , e i e ' ' ' ' '
D J F M A R J J A S 0 N D J I E C
1984 1985 A
N E
3 A
R P
R A
Y U
N U
L U
G E
P C
T 0
U E
C A
N 1988 I 10 6 ,
TMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS GROUP OBSERVATION STATION E DCB 5 TRITIUM CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) VERSUS TIME 10 - -
T R
I I T
I 10 4 U
i M
l P
C 10 3 _ -
I
/
L '
T 10 2 _
~
E R
10 1 - -
10 0 i e i e i i , , , . , , e i D J F M A R J J A S 0 N D J E A E A P A U U U E C 0 E A C N 5 R R Y N L G P T U C N 1984 1985 1986
- 174 -
I
l l I
I I
I I
I I
APPENDIX K 1985 Meteorological Summary I
I I
I I
I I
l I - 175 -
I
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M THREE HILE ISLAM)
IINEE HitE ISL AM)
Unit 1 Unit 1 HOURS AT EACH WIND SPEED Ato DIRECIlON HOURS AT EACH WIND SITED AND 0]HECTION Period of Record: 85010101 - 85123124 Stability Class: A DT/DZ Period of Record: 85010101 - 85123124 Elevation:
Stability Class: 0 UT/02 Speed: SP1004 Direction: D1100A lapse Dil50A Elevation: Speed: SP100A Direction: 01100A tapse: Dil 50A Wind Speed (HPH)
Wind Speed (HPH)
Wind Wind Direction 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 > 24 Total Direction 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 > 24 Total N 18 46 22 7 0 0 93 N 6 9 NE 2 0 0 0 17 4 13 2 0 0 0
- 19 NE 4 8 0 0 0 0 K 2 8 0 0 12 1 0 11 E 4 6 0 0 0 0
$ EE 2 14 4 2 0 10 cn 0 22 EE 3 12 5 0 0 0 E 7 18 8 0 20 0 0 33 E 6 17 8 13 1 0 0 37 ESE 9 23 25 0 0 0 57 ESE 7 14 9 SE 9 1 0 0 31 19 12 1 0 0 41 SE 2 15 5 0 0 SSE 14 18 0 22 5 0 0 0 37 SSE 4 9 4 0 0 0 5 12 26 29 4 0 17 0 71 S 10 11 SSW 10 12 2 0 0 35 42 60 5 0 0 117 SSW 11 29 16 3 0 SW 19 55 1 60 47 13 0 0 134 SW 7 21 10 0 0 0 38 WSW 25 34 20 9 2 0 90 WSW 10 9 5 6 0 W 24 26 74 0 30 25 3 0 152 W 8 5 WNW 14 22 13 4 66 23 38 56 17 8 2 144 WNW 6 4 18 26 NW 30 57 83 12 0 66 39 7 1 217 NW NNW 10 6 20 28 6 2 72 28 80 90 26 8 1 233 NNW 15 7 11 6 total 236 1 0 40 517 538 148 28 4 1471 IOTAL 113 182 144 95 33 6 573 Perioda of Calm (Hours): 14 Variable Direction: 68 Periods of Calm (Hours): 14 Hours of Missing Data:
Variable Direction: 39 140 Hours of Missiry Data: 140
m W W W M M M M M M m M M M M M M M M IHREE HILE ISLAM)
THIEE HILE ISLAM)
Unit 1 Unit 1 HOURS AT EACH WIM) SEED AM) DIRECIION HOURS Al EACH WIM) SIMD AM) DIRECIION Period of Record: 85010101 - 65123124 Stability Class: C DT/DZ Period of Record: 85010101 - 85123124 Stability Class: O Di/DZ Elevation: Speed SP1004 Direction: DIl00A tapse: Dil50A Elevation: Speeds SP10tR Direction: DIl00A tapse Di l5tM Wind Speed (MPH)
Wind Speed (MPH)
Wind Wird Direction 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 > 24 Total Direction 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 > 24 Total N 4 7 3 0 0 0 14 N 45 83 21 7 0 NE 3 8 0 0 0 156 1 0 12 NT 48 71 s E 4 4 3 0 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 8 T
- 41 73 4 0 0 0 ENE 6 10 2 0 0 0 118 18 EE 42 77 U E 4 6 9 1 0 0 20 E $7 22 1 1 0 143 115 61 28 3 s ESE 4 11 9 0 0 1 265 1 25 ESE 41 67 25 8 8 0 0 141 SE 10 3 0 0 0 21 SE 24 69 25 0 SSE 2 8 0 2 0 120 1 0 0 11 SSE 31 81 26 3 0 0 S 1 2 7 1 0 0 141 11 S 34 92 33 5 0 0 164 SSW 7 7 11 1 0 0 26 SSW 38 90 43 12 0 0 SW 4 4 3 2 0 0 183 13 SW 43 62 30 5 2 0 142 WSW 3 3 4 0 0 0 10 WSW 32 50 28 W 5 7 11 4 0 125 14 12 2 1 41 W 36 77 106 77 WNW 7 3 13 8 317 11 15 6 1 43 WNW 18 40 114 98 41 12 NW 4 3 8 17 9 0 323 41 NW 16 43 91 NNW 5 5 66 27 6 249 5 5 0 0 20 NNW 37 52 52 29 3 0 TOTAL 71 98 91 55 17 2 334 173 101AL 583 1142 684 352 94 27 2882 Periods of Calm (Hours): 14 Variable Direction: 27 Periods of Calm (Hours): 14 Variable Direction: 195 Hours of Missing Data: 140 Hours of Missing Data: 140
M M M M M M M M M m m m m m M M IHREE MILE ISLAM)
THKE MILE ISt AND Unit I Hnit 1 H0t1RS AT EACH WIM) SITED AM) DIftECTION HOURS AT EACH WIM) SPEED AND DlHECil0N Period of Record: 85010101 - 85123124 Stability Class: E DIA)Z Period of Record: 85010101 - 85123124 Stability Class: F Di/DZ Elevation: Speed: SP1004 Direction: DIl00A Lapse: DT150A Elevation: Speed SP100A Direction: 01100A tapse: 0I1504 Wind Speed (HPH)
Wind Speed (MPH)
Wind Wind Direction 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 >24 Total Direction 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19 24 > 24 Total N 52 102 30 1 1 0 186 N 24 NK 49 46 17 0 0 0 0 41 3 0 0 0 98 NE 17 7 0 0 0 e NE 31 21 0 0 0 0 24 0 52 K 19 3 0 ENE 42 27 4 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 73 EK
$ E 65 36 1 1 2 0 105 E 26 5 0 0 0 0 31 59 16 0 0 0 s ESE 69 27 0 75 3 2 0 0 101 ESE 57 10 0 0 0 0 67 SE 42 42 1 0 0 0 85 SE 57 6 2 0 SSE 42 25 9 0 0 65 0 0 0 76 SSE 33 9 S 43 0 0 0 0 42 51 18 4 0 0 116 S 67 11 0 0 SSW 66 97 26 0 0 78 4 0 0 193 SSW 45 25 3 0 0 0 SW 48 61 28 5 73 1 0 143 SW 43 17 4 0 WSW 60 76 0 0 64 30 2 1 0 169 WSW 41 26 4 0 0 0 W 53 72 66 71 13 1 0 205 W 48 13 WNW 1 0 0 0 62 31 42 33 11 2 0 119 WNW 31 8 0 0 0 NW 35 48 47 0 39 18 9 0 157 NW 20 29 NNW 39 5 0 0 0 54 104 20 2 2 0 167 NNW 23 28 6 0 0 0 TOTAL 767 877 319 63 57 19 0 2045 TOTAL 610 230 25 0 0 0 865 Periods of Calm (Hours): 14 Variable Direction: 219 Periods of Calm (Hours): 14 Hours of Missing Data:
Variable Direction: 133 140 Hours of Missing Data: 140
I I c i
a ne
-~<-~-m-mee 20^433R4?E222ge-o C
- -ER Gm I "
5
=
g 4
~
,, come-emeoeconne- --
m 5
I g C e 7
-co-neeee-ms~mm. "
- a -
e : E t C C o n I eeen-~mmememeogm
- e
& 5 = - - m -
y o
~ ~ % m ~~~~.g_e ;.
w
_ : g - -
w a $ = t I I E5 y
w E
9 5
i
-~a 2R~
g E
E 2
g R**R9:30RSZ94433 -- ~~~ - y
.eg g_
6 3E I see-e-eg o "
-mme 9-
- 27 a An:C;22-~gemeRunm*%* m 2
- 3 m
- 5 =8-4 go
- ~mm~~~m E : A $0 SON m e -.
- 2:n*mese.ES c -
I *u o
8*
^8 8
E
~ "j f au :
w82
.w 6-e ?:
I *3*
g> z E" a Ea m t2 mmu W W M H 3 * < --6.
e zzWwwwMemmMW3 2I 3z E E tt8
>
I 5 c
c
- emoo-mes3meence
- -~mn~m . ~ ~ mm ~~ g I z O
& s' CccccccccccccccC C
== d 4 e-u C N CQ Q CC C Q Q Q C CCCC CC C I y .e.
a
~
Q c
g 0 I
^
'h m_ CC C C00 00 CC CC O-CC -
j C N a m w g g - -
E ~
S* * = g I.
yg I g m
- o o c o m o e e -. e - - o ~ ~
8 g g c2 w
W s -. N c
e 2
~ 5 ERI E 5 po" I ] "~"***"o00** "
, *02 j -
m
- 1 e - t N b=h m -N ce g gg 2 -
S c4 C nN -m N N
- ~nunen --~~- --OS 4 g {
I 82 mu wa -> 8" e
o a
au a o*
g aw
,8
\
i 304 3- .- a I -o, G
mmw
-3 t.
a Y Y Y zzWwwwMmmmm===EI Y 2
.a O
31.
-- u G@
>
I - 1 79 -
I
M M M M M M M M M 'M M M M M M M M M M flGURE K-1 1985 TMI WIND ROSE 8501010100 8512310100 SPEED SENSOR HEIGHT = 100.0 I
h ,
, % 12 %
~ -
_ , .' :: WIND ROSE (WINDS FROM)
N t
. WIND SPEED LESS THAN 3.5 MPl!
+ WIND SPEED LESS THAN 7.5 MPil x WIND SPEED LESS TilAN 12.5 MPH 0.2 PERCENT CALMS o WIND SPEED GREATER THAN 12.5 MPil 02/05/86 16.9 (CALMS DEFINED AS SPEED LESS SITE: TilREE MILE ISLAND TilAN 0.5)
a m - --
I I
I
.I I
I I
APPENDIX L I
1985 REff Sample Collection and Analysis Method'
.I
- I I
- I I
I I - 1 81 -
1I
W M M M M M M M W W W M M TABLE L-1 IMINS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONTNTAL HONITORING PROGRAM SINHARY Of SAMPLE COLLECTION APO A?MLYSIS WTHODS 1985 Approximate leledyne Sanple Sample Size Analysis Meditu Samplirn Method Procedure Procedure Collected Ntaber Abst rect Cr- a AP Quarterly composite of weekly or 13 weeks of filters more frequent sanples continuous Westwood Sample leacted with in Pro-032-14 airsaglingthroughfilterpaper p(er a7,400) g site acid evaporated to dryness e on planctet for low
- background gas flow b proportional counting
- Hidwest Same Aa Above ilg_-AP(Comp)
SW (Intake) Honthly composite 16 liters SW (Intakes)
EW (Discharge) Westwood Sample evaporated on stain-16 liters EW (Discharge) Pro-032-1 less steel planchet for low background gas flow proportional countirq Hidwest Same As Above 2.2.2 Cr-G AP Continuous weekly or more fre- I filter (570 H 3) Westwood Low background gas flow quent air samplirq through filter if weekly Pro-032-10 paper proportional countirq Midwest Some As Above 2.1.1
m W W M M M M TABLE L-1 (Cont'd)
THINS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONTNTAL MONITORING PROGRAH Sl##MRY Of SAMPLE COLLECTION APO ANALYSIS WTH00s 1985 Approximate Teledyne Sample Sample Size Analysis Hedlam Sanplirmi Hethad Procedure Procedure Collected Number Abst rect G r-G SW, EW Grab or composite sample accord-(cont'd) 16 liters SW Westwood Sample evaporated on stain-ing to sanpling site 16 liters EW Pro-032-1 less steel planchet for e
(Monthly) low background gas flow proportional counting g Midwest Same As Above i 2.2.2 RW Honthly composite 8 liters (if possible) Westwood Sample evaporated on stain-Pro-032-1 less steel planchet for low background gas flow proportional countirm; Midwest Same As Above 2.2.2 Camma AP Honthly composite of each Spectro- 4 weeks (2,300 H3 ) Westwood Ganna isotopic analysis station scopy Pro-042-5 Hidwest Gemma isotopic analysis 3.1
g a m m W M M M TABLE L-1 (Cont'd)
THINS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONt4 NTAL HONITORING PROGRAH SUHHARY OF SAMPLE COLiECil0N APO ANAL YSIS KTH005 1985 Approximate Teledyne Sample Sample Size Analysis Median Samplirn Method Procedure Procedure Collected Ntrnber Abs t rac t Gamma H, IC Semimonthly grab of one or 4 liters (goat milk)
Spectro- Westwood Gamma isotopic analysis scopy) corsposite of several milkings; a liters (cow milk) Pro-042-5 (Cont'd)
Hidwest Gamma isotopic analysis 3.3 Al Continuous weekly or more fre- I cartridge (570 H )3 Westwood Gama isotopic analysis quent sit sampling through Pro-042-5 e
chercoal cartridges m Hidwest Gamma isotcpic analysis
- 3.2 e SW, EW Grab or composite sample accord- 16 liters SW Westwood Gama isotopic analysis ing to sampling site 16 liters EW Pro-042-5 (Monthly)
Midwest Gamma isotopic analysis 3.1 RW Quarterly composite 24 liters (if possible) Westwood Gamma isotopic analysis pro-042-5 Midwest Gamma isotopic analysis 3.1 AQF, AQP, Grab sample semiannually I kg (if possible)
AQs Westwood Ga.ana isotopic analysis Pro-042-5 '
AQF, AQP Grab sample semiannually I kg (if possible) Hidwest Gamma isotopic armlysis 3.4
m m W W W M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE L-1 (Cont'd)
IMINS RADIOLOGICAL FNVIRONWNTAl. MONITORING PROGRAM SUMW8tY OF SAMPLE COLLECIION AND ANALYSIS ICTHODS 1985 Approximate Teledyne Sample Sample Sire Analysis Mediaan Samplina Method Procedure Procedure Collected Nund>e r Abstract Genuna AQS Grab sample semiannually I kg (if possible) Midwest Spectro- Gamma isotopic analysis scopy) 3.4 (Cont'd)
FPL, FPF Grab sample annually I kg or more a Westwood Gamma isotopic analysis (if possible) Pro-042-5 CD
- Hidwest Gamma isotopic awlysis 3.5 Tritium SW, EW Grab or composite sample accord- 16 liters SW Westwood Water converted to ing to sampling site 16 liters EW Pro-052-2 (Monthly) hydrogen, methare added for gas countirq Hidwest Sanple distilled, mixed 3.8 with scintillation fluid for scintillation counting RW Quarterly conposite 24 liters (if possible) westwood Water converted to Pro-052-2 hydrogen, methane added for gas counting Hidwest Sample distilled, mixed 3.8 with scintillation fluid for scintillation countirq
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE L-1 (Cont'd)
THINS RADIOLOGICAL FNVIRONWNIAL HONIIORING PROGRAM SIM4ARY OF SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS WTHODS 1985 Sample Approximate Teledyne Analysis Sample Size Procedure Meditan Sampling Method Collected Procedure Ntaber Abs t rac t I-131 SW, LW Grab or composite sample accord- 8 liters (if possible) Westwood irq to sampling site Anion-exchange chemical Pro-032-Il reduction, CCL4 extraction, palladita
, precipitatton, low-level
-.a beta counting
$ Hidwest 7.4 Same As Above 8
FPL, FPF Grab sample annually I kg or more Westwood (if possible) Carrier added, leached, Pro-032-12 evaporat ed and fused.
Residue dissolved, filtered and reduced with hydroxyl-amine hydrochloride preci-pitate as palladiern iodide for counting on low-level beta counter.
Hidwest Same As Above 7.7 H, HG Semimonthly grabs A liters (goat milk) Westwood Same as 1-131 SW, EW 8 liters (cow milk) Pro-032-11 Midwest Same As Above 3.9
m m m W W W W W W m m m m W W W W IABLE L-1 (Cont'd)
IMINS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONKNTAL HONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
Of SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS WTH005 1985 Sample Approximate Teledyne Analysis Medie Sample Size Procedure Samplino Method Collected Procedure Number Abstract Sr-89, 90 AP Quarterly composite of weekly 13 weeks of filters Westwood Sample is Iracted and or more frequent sanples, con- per sampling site Pro-032-24 tinuous air sampling through (7,400 H3) Strontium in sanple filter paper separated through a series of precipitations, Sr-90 inferred Y-90 on yttrium oxalate precipi-tate after 5 days or more
, ingrowth, low-level beta counting follows. Af ter g yttrium separation sample y is precipitated with
, SrC03 mounted on nylon planchet for counting on background beta counter for Sr-89 activity Midwest uses Same As Above Westwood Pro-032-24 AT Grab sanple semiannually I kg (if possible) Westwood Similar to Sr-89, 90 AP Pro-032-85 except sanple is dried arwi ashed prior to separation Midwest Same As Above 8.6 AQS Grab sample semiannually I kg Westwood Similar to Sr-89, 90 AP Pro-032-25 except sanple is dried prior to separat ion Midwest Same As Above 8.6
m W W W W W W W W W W m W m W W m TABLE L-1 (Cont'd)
THINS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONWNTAL HONIIORING PROGRAM SUMMRY Of SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS KTHODS 1985 Sanple Approximate Teledyne Analysis Medium Sample Size Procedure Snmplirn Method Collected Procedure Ntaber Abst ruct Sr-89, 90 AQP Grab senple semi-annually (cont'd) 1 kg (if possible) Westwood Similar to Sr-89, 90 AP Pro-032-23 except sanple is dried arut ashed prior to separation a Midwest Same As Above 8.6 cn SW, EW
- Quarterly composite sample 56 liters SW, EW Westwood I
Similar to Sr-89, 90 AP Pro-032-16 Hidwest Same As Above 8.4 RW Semiannually composite 48 liters Westwood Similar to Sr-89, 90 AP Pro-032-16 Hidwest Same As Above 8.4 H, HC Quarterly composite sample by station 48 liters (cow milk) Westwood Similar to SR-89, 90 AP 24 liters (goat milk) Pro-032-18 except oxalate and phosphate precipitation prior to separation Hidwest Similar to Sr-89, 90 AP 8.6 except sample is ashed prior to separation
W W W W W W W W W W m m m M M M M M TABLE L-1 (Cont'd)
THINS RA0!Ot OGICAL ENVIR0tM NIAL HONITORING PROGRAM Sil>94ARY Of SAMPL E COL lECil0N AND ANALYSIS PfiH005 1985 Approximate Teledyne Sample Sample Size Analysis Med iumn Sampling Method Procedure Procedure Collected Number Abstract TLD ID Dosimeters exchanged TLD THI-EC Thermoluminescent dosimetry quarterly 9420-IMP-4522.02 Rev. 10 9420-OPS-4524.02 e Rev. O a
cn Westwood Thermoluminescent dosimetry e Pro-342-17 e P-32 EW, Monthly composite In'ake 16 liters Westwood Phospherous carrier added; Pro-032-63 precipitated. Counted on low-level beta counter.
Recounted after two weeks to verify radiochemical purity.
Midwest uses Same As Above Westwood Pro-032-43 fe-55 EW, Monthly composite 16 liters Westwood Stable iron and NH0 3 Intake Pro-032-62 added and through series of extractions fe as electro-plated on 1-inch cnpper dise; counted on Nat detector Midwest uses Same As Above Westwood P ro-032-62
I
. I I
I I
I I APPENDIX M I 1985 TLD Quarterly Data I )
i I i I
I I
I !
I
- 190 -
I
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE H-1 1985 TMINS REPP QUARTERLY TLD RESULTS (DOSE IN MREM /STD MONTH + 1 S.D. )
l I I I I l Location l l l ll Station Code1i ist Quarter l12nd Quarter l 3rd Quarter l 4th Quarter l I I N. Weather Station TMI l Al-1 l 5.22 t 0.11 1 4.76 0.38 l 4.69 0.06 l 5.05 + 0.18 ll l l l l l l N. Weather Station TMI l Al-1Q l 4.70 0.14 l 4.55 t 0.20 l 4.80 l
l 1 I I 0.29 I 4.75 t 0.43 l I l
, l Perimeter Fence TMI l Al-4 l 4.31 0.1114.25 0.46 l 4.11 l
1 I I I 0.13 l 4.52 t 0.31 l l
s l Mill Street Substation l A3-1 1 3.99 l l
, I I 0.09 l 5.12 t 0.24 l 3.63 ! 0.14 l 4.28 0.16 l I I l l Vine Street l AS-1 l 5.48 0.12 l 6.12 1 l l l I I 0.62 l 5.14 t 0.19 l 5.86 1 0.24 l l l l l Duke Street Hummelstown l A9-3 l **
l 4.62 0.54 l 4.13 l l l l 0.13 1 4.75 t 0.35 l l
l North Bridge TMI B1-1 l l l
l 1 4.35 t 0.32 l 4.69 t 0.52 l 3.98 0.12 l 4.43 + 0.29 l l l t i l North Bridge TMI i 1 l
l B1-1Q l 4.10 t 0.07 l 4.00 0.1514.25 0.07 l 3.90 0.16 l l l l l l Top of Dike TMI l B1-2 l 4.36 l l l 1 1 0.14 1 4. 91 t 0.45 1 3.84 t 0.22 l 4.59 ! 0.62 l I I I l Perimeter Fence TMI l I F1-3 l 1 I 1 3.98 t 0.27 l 4.96 1 0.72 l 3.75 t 0.14 l 5.54 t 0.31 l I I I l W. Areba Avenue (Hershey) I l B10-1 1 5.93 t 0.5115.11 0.25 1 4.75 t 0.17 l 6.07 t 0.91 l I i I I i l l School House Rd & Miller Rd i B5-1 1 6.07 0.63 1 5.76 t 0.79 l 4.86 0.20 l 6.41 t 0.26 l
- Designates Background Station
- Station not established
M CM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE M-1 (Cont'd) 1985 TMINS REW QUARTERLY TLD RESULTS (DOSE IN MREM /STD MONTH + 1 S.D.)
l i I I l l Location l l I iI Station Code Il 1st Quarter l 2nd Quarter l 3rd Quarter l 4th Quarter l i 1 l Route 441 - North Gate l Cl-1 1 5.40 1 1 l l 0.20 l 5.21 2 0.71 l 6.33 t 0.28 l 6.27 0.25 l I I l l l Route 441 - North Gate l C1-10 l 4.80 0.07 l 4.70 1 0.25 l 5.05 l
l 1 0.25 l 4.70 0.18 l I I 1 Top of Dike TMI l C1-2 l 4.24 I I l 1
0.30 1 4.33 t 0.63 l 5.14 0.39 l 5.42 0.22 l I I 8 l Cumberland Street (Lebanon) l C20-1* l 5.09 I l l l s
l 0.36 l 4.51 t 0.1514.14 0.13 l 5.46 0.59 l I l l l Kennedy Lane l l l l CS-1 1 4.96 l l 1 0.42 1l 5.13 1 0.31 1 4.97 i 0.36 l 6.10 t 0. 79 l I l l Schenk's Church l C8-1 1 6.09 l l 1 I 0.11 Il 6.17 t 0.13 l 5.80 t 0.14 l 7.27 1 0.25 l l Top of Dike TMI D1-1 l 4.68 I I l l 0.34 l 4.94 0.23 l 4.56 0.13 l 5.80 t 0.99 l l 1 I l I l Top of Dike TMI l D1-10 l 4.30 I l 0.14 l 4.30 2 0.35 1 4.50 t 0.28 l 4.45 1 0.39 l l l I I l l l Laurel Road l D1-2 1 5.00 2 0.22 l 5.23 0.11 1 4.81 i 0.19 l 6.32 2 0.45 l l l l l l l l Route 241 (Lawn) l D15-1* l 6.38 0.28 l 5.48 0.09 l 5.06 l l l 0.14 l 5.62 t 0.30 l l l 1 l Route 241 (Lawn) l l
l D15-10* l 5.40 t 0.27 i S.35 0.40 1 5.40 t 0.46 l 4.95 t 0.45 l l l 1 l l Beagle Road D6-1 l l l
1 6.42 t 0.49 l 6.27 t 0.09 l 5.91 0.17 l 6.65 t 0.62 l
- Designates Background Station
i M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M l
l TABLE M-1 (Cont'd) 1985 TMINS REff QUARTERLY TLD RESULTS (DOSE IN MREM /STD MONTH + 1 S.D. )
1 I I I I l Location l l l lI Station Code Il 1st Quarter lI 2nd Quarter l 3rd Quarter l 4th Quarter l l l l Route 241 (Bellaire) l D9-1 l 7.04 l l 1 l 0.41 ll 7.00 + 0.59 l 6.36 t 0.11 l 6.89 t 0.13 l l Top of Dike (TMI) l El-1 1 I 1 5.15 t 0.07 l 6.02 0.2315.58 0.11 l 6.16 t 0.38 ll l 1 1 I l Top of Dike (TMI) i El-1Q l 5.20 I l l I
0.14 l 5.50 t 0.65 l 5.45 0.7515.60 0.78 l I I I g i l Observation Center l El-2 1 4.39 t 0. 31 1 4.88 0.86 l 4.38 1 l I
- 0. 31 1 4.27 0. 21 1 I I I I I l Observation Center l El-20 1 5.10 0.18 l 4.35 l
l l l l 0.20 l 4.45 t 0.21 l 4.30 1 0.29 l l
l Top of Dike TMI El-4 l 5.41 0.37 l 6.68 l l l
l 0.13 l 5.80 0.22 1 5.47 t 0.20 l 1 I I I l Zeager Road l ES-1 1 5.73 I l l l l 0.91 l 5.37 t 0.12 l 4.91 t 0.23 l 4.76 t 0.12 l l l l l l Hummelstown St (E-town) l E7-1 1 4.63 1 I I 0.14 Il 5.15 t 0.10 l 5.36 t 0.74 l 4.48 t 0.22 l I I l Route 441 Substation l F1 -1 1 4.62 0.06 l 4.89 l
l I I 0.17 l 4.98 ! 0.27 l 4.24 2 0.13 l I I I l Route 441 Substation l F1 -1 Q l 4.30 t 0.11 1 4.35 0.20 l 4.70 0.21 1 4.40 t 0.22 l l
l l l l l l Top of Dike TMI l F1 -2 l 7.70 0.09 l 9.96 l
1 0.83 l 8.03 t 0.18 l 7.92 0.44 l I I I I l Donegal Springs Road l F10-1 l 5.86 l l
0.10 1 6.70 t 0. 56 l 6. 28 0.14 l 5.45 2 0.20 [
i I I I I l Steel Way & Loop Road l F25-1* l 6.10 1.0215.60 l
- 0. 68 l 5. 51 0.19 l 4.93 t 0.15 l
- Designates Background Station
M M M M M M W W W W W M M M M M M M M TABLE M-1 (Cont'd) 1985 TMINS REff QUARTERLY TLD RESULTS (DOSE IN MREM /STD MONTH + 1 S.D. )
l I I I I l Location l l I li Station Code il 1st Quarter l 2nd Quarter l 3rd Quarter l 4th Quarter 1 I I I l Masonic Homes FS-1 1 5.66 l l
l 0.18 l 6.51 t 0.67 l 6.09 0.23 l 5.37 0.20 l l l I 1 l l Route 441 (Red Hill) l G1-2 l 4.56 0.25 1 4.30 0.1514.822 0.13 l 4.00 l
l l l 0.25 l 1 l l
. l Route 441 (Red Hill) l G1-20 l 4.40 0.11 l 4.25 l
- 1 I I 0.25 1 4.45 t 0.36 l 4.35 10.25 l 2 i Top of Dike TMI I G1-3 I
l 8.S' 2 0.85 l 7.40 I l l l
0.52 l 5.45 0.18 l 5.18 i 0.26 l I I I I l Drager Farm (Marietta) l G10-1* l 8.01 I l i~ 0.53 1 7.60 2 0.1817.46 0.20 l 6.77 0.36 l l i I I l Drager Farm (Marietta) l G10-1Q* l 7.20 0.18 l 7.20 I l l l 0.45 l 7.20 1 0.47 l 7.10 0.36 l l 1 I l l l Columbia Water Treatment i G15-1* I 6.21 0.27 l 5.71 l l l 0.32 l 7.17 t 1.52 1 5.32 1 0.09 l l l l l Risser Road i GS-1 l 4.32 0.1014.89 l 1 I I 0.51 l 4.70 t 0.19 l 4.20 t 0.21 l I I I l Pole #ME-33-T-28 SSE TMI l l H1-1 1 5.15 0.19 l 5.10 0.49 l 4.87 l l 1 0.16 l 4.50 t 0.20 l 1
l Top of Dike TMI H1-9 l 5.16 I l l 1
l 0.27 l 4.46 t 0. 21 l 4.55 0.16 l 4.35 t 0.15 l I I I I l 1 l Orchard & Stonewood Road l H15-1*
l 1 l 6.83 t 0.23 l 5.56 2 0.19 l 5.89 t 0.23 l 5.41 1 0.30 l I I I I l l Falmouth-Collins Substation l H3-1 1 4.43 ! 0.63 1 3.64 0.28 l 3.88 t 0.20 l 3.48 t 0.16 l l 1 1 I I l l l F 11 mouth-Collins Substation l H3-10 l 3.40 0.11 l 3.70 0.10 l 3.65 t 0.21 l 3.90 t 0.14 l
- Designates Background Station
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE M-1 (Cont'd) 1985 THINS REW QUARTERLY TLD RESULTS (DOSE IN MREM /STD MONTH + 1 S.D.)
l l I l l Location l Station Code l lst Quarter 1
2nd Quarter l 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter ,
I I I I i l Brunner Island l H5-1 l 1 I 1 5.35 t 0.15 l 3.92 t 0.26 l 4.04 t 0.20 l 3.65 I
0.17 l I I I l Starview l H8-1 l l 1 l 8.63 t 0.75 lI 8.04 + 0.18 l 8.23 t 0.19 l 7.36 i 0.24 l I I I l 1 South TMI l J1 -1 1 5.72 0.86 l 5.12 0.22 l 5.13
- 1 I I 0.18 l 4.92 1 0.12 l I I
@ l Wooden Post TMI l J1-3 l 3.90 0.1713.74 0.11 l 3.66 l l
. I I 0.14 l 3.47 0.19 l I I I I i l North York Substation l J15-1* l 6.96 0.14 l 5.79 l l l l 0.1215.282 0.25 l 5.55 i 0.26 l l l l Conewago Road l l J 5-1 1 5.65 t 0.18 l 5.78 0.14 l 'i.86 0.18 l 5.33 t 0.25 l l l l l l l l Conewago Road l 4.80 l l
l J5-10 0.07 l 5.05 0.30 1 5.25 0.35 1 5.50 t 0.47 l i I I I I l l Route 921 (Manchester) 1 J 7-1 l 5.74 0.05 l 5.45 l Pol e fME-33-1-28 l 0.09 l 5.58 t 0.16 l 5.72 t 0.20 l l
l S. Parking Lot TMI KI-2 0.56 l 3.56 1 i l
l l '4.25 0.14 l 3.26 t 0.13 3.72 0.29 l l 1 l l l l l Perimeter Fence TMI l Ki -4 l
l 5.48 1 0. 09 l 5.69 t 1.95 1 4.31 t 0. 70 l 4.89 0.24 l I I I I I I Perimeter Fence TMI l K1-5 5.24 0.28 1 4.18 0.14 l 5.20 t 0.09 ' 4.64 1 0.29 l l 1 1 1 l Alta Vista Road I l i K15-1* l 5.32 0.72 l 4.47 0.13 l 4.35 0.25 l 4.74 0.15 1 1 I I I I l S. End Shelley Island l K2-1 1 6.46 0.07 l 6.10 1.45 i 6.44 I l 0.18 l ***
1
- Designates Background Station
- Not collected due to river ice
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE M-1 (Cont'd) 1985 THINS REW QUARTERLY TLO RESULTS (DOSE IN MREM /STD MONTH + 1 S.D.)
l I I I I l Lc, cation I l l l1 Station Code II 1st Quarter ll 2nd Quarter l 3rd Quarter l 4th Quarter l l
l Strinestown i K5-1 1 7.23 i 0.07 l 7.15 t 1.14 l 6.37 0.61 1 6.55 t 0.24 l 1 l l 1 I I I l Strinestown l K5-1 Q l
l 5.60 0.07 l 6.05 t 0.55 l 6.30 r 0.49 l 6.00 t 0.46 ll l l I I l
. I Coppenhaffer Road l K8-1 1 5.77 t 0.86 l ****
l l 1 I I l 5.72 1 0.55 l 5.35 t 0.29 l
$ l 10CT TMI l L1 -1 l 4.63 I
0.14 l 4.46 I I l e
l i 0.21 l 5.18 2 1.2714.84 0.27 l I I I l l M CT TMI l L1 -10 1 4.10 0.07 l 4.25 l
l 0.20 l 4.35 0.21 l 4.35 t 0.25 l 1 I I I I l Beech Island i L1-2 l 4.16 t 0.08 1 3.97 l l
0.15 l 4.03 t 0.18 l ***
l 1 I l l l Mt. Royal L15-1* l 5.86 0.52 1 5.09 l l l
l 0.10 l 5.30 0.15 l 5.39 t 0.14 1 I I l l l l River Road l L2-1 1 5.10 0.48 1 ****
l 5.49 l
l 1 1 0.13 l 5.91 t 0.15 l I I I l Stevens and Wilson Roads l L S-1 l 4.63 l I I I 0.27 l 4.48 1 0.13 l 4.56 2 0.15 l 4.70 t 0.17 I I I I l Rohler's Church Road I l L8-1 1 4.84 0.35 l 4.89 0.22 l 5.22 t 0.33 l 5.10 t 0.14 l l 1 1 I I I l TMI-2 Screenhouse Fence (
M1-1 '4.09 0.21 ll 4.05 i 0.18 l 4.40 t 0.65 l 5.02 t 1.37 l l l l l l Rossville l M15-1* l 6.19 0.21 l 5.82 1.18 l 6.33 0.18 l 5.53 l
l 1 0.25 l 1 I I l Goldsboro Air Station I i l M2-1 l 5.22 1 0.15 l 3.86 0.11 l 5.05 t 0.21 1 4.02 t 0.19 l
- Designates Background Station
- Not collected due to river ice
- Vandalized
m M M M M M M M M M m M M M M M M M M TABLE M-1 (Cont'd) 1985 TMINS REW QUARTERLY TLD RESULTS (DOSE IN MREM /STD MONTH + 1 S.D.)_
l I I I I l Location l l I lI Station Code Il 1st Quarter lI 2nd Quarter i 3rd Quarter 14th Quarter l I i l Goldsboro Air Station l M2-10 l 3.60 t 0.16 1 3.60 t 0.10 l 3.95 0.22 l 3.85 t 0.22 l l
l l 1 I I l Newberry School l MS-1 1 5.11 0.18 l 4.79 l l l
0.11 l 5.86 0.28 l 5.19 t 0.11 l t l I I
, 1 Alpine Road (Maytown) l M9-1 1 6.74 0.58 I 6.02 I l
- 1 0.25 1 7.33 0.25 l 6.55 t 0.30 1 I I
$ l Due West on Shelley Island l N1 -1 1 4.58 I I 0.27 l 4.56 t 0.15 l 4.85 I I
. I I 0.74 l ***
l I I I l Screenhouse Fence TMI i l l N1-3 1 5.36 0.16 l 4.05 0.1414.86 l 1
- 0. 31 1 4.23 0.19 l 1 I I l Mt. Allen l N15-1* l 6.89 I l 1 I 0.15 l 6.52 1 0.16 l 6.74 2 0.15 l 6.84 0.32 l I I I l Lisburn N15-2
- l 5.98 I i 1
l 0.17 l 5.77 0.25 l 6.00 0.32 1 5.93 t 0.22 l I I I I I l Goldsboro Marina l N2-1 15.701 0.63 l 4.76 l
l I I I 0.08 I 5.89 t 0.16 l 5.07 t 0.14 l I I i Goldsboro Marina l N2-lQ l 4.60 t 0.1014.50 l l l l l 0.20 l 4.80 t 0.2214.501 0.18 l l l l l Yocumtown l NS-1 l 5. 51 0.87 l 5.39 l
1.47 1 5.73 0.19 l 4.73 0.22 l l l 1 I I Lewisberry N8-1 4.66 t 0.15 l 5.00 0.33 l
5.37 t 0.48 5.50 t 0.12 l 1 I l Shelley Island l P1 -1 1 4.99 0.81 1 4.47 i l l
l 1 0.15 l 4.29 t 0.27 l ***
l I I I I l Penn Harris l P15-1* l 5.98 l 0.27 l 6.33 t 0.15 l 6.32 t 0.18 l 6.37 1 0.34 1
- Designates Background Station
- Not collected due to river ice
M M M M M M W M M M M M M M W W W M M TABLE M-1 (Cont'd) 1985 TMINS REW QUARTERLY TLD RESULTS (DOSE IN MREM /STD MONTH + 1 S.D.)
l I I l l l l Location l 1 lI Station Code Il 1st Quarter l 2nd Quarter l 3rd Quarter 14th Quarter l I l l 1 l Tree Fork (N. of Goldsboro) l P2-1 l 5.36 t 0.58 1 5.46 t 0.1315.31 t 0.07 I 5.57 t 0.29 l l l 1 I I- l l l Tree Fork (N. of Goldsboro) l P2-10 l 4.70 l 1 I 0.11 1 4.65 t 0.25 l 5.50 t 0.39 l 5.00 + 0.32 l l l l
. I Beinhower Road l PS-1 1 4.77 l I I 0.28 l 4.76 t 0.16 1 4.73 t 0.26 l 4.80 t 0.18 l g l Reeser's Sunmit l P8-1 l
14.70 l l l 0.72 l 4.42 0.22 l 4.40 t 0.21 1 4.37 i 0.24 l l
. I I I I I l Shelley Island l Q1 -1 1 4.84 0.82 l 4.15 I l I I 0.17 l 4.67 t 0.20 l ***
l I I I I I l Perimeter Fence TMI l Q1-2 l 4.57 0.77 l 4.14 0.19 I 4.40 l 1 0.16 l 4.22 0.10 l 1 I I I l West Fairview l Q15-1* l 5.16 0.13 1 5.60 t 0.11 1 5.60 l
l 1 I
- 0. 31 1 5.15 t 0.20 l I I I l West Fairview l Q15-1 Q
- l 5.00 0.16 l 5.25 0.50 l 5.85 l
1 I I 0.22 1 5.05 t 0.25 l I I l l l Penn & Forster Streets ! Q15-2
- l 3. 72 l l l 0.06 l 4.18 2 0.16 l 4.40 t 0.23 1 3.71 t 0.22 l 1 1 I l West Shore along river l Q2-1 l 5.38 l
l 1 0.64 l 5.02 t 0.16 l 4.97 t 0.18 l 4.91 0.18 l 1 I I I l Lumber Street (Highspire) 05-1 l 5.91 t 0.23 4.73 t 0.15 4.19 1 0.29 4.49 t 0.29 I i I l l Steelton Water Treatment 1 09-1 l 5.75 + 0.93 l 4.84 t 0.15 l 4.53 t 0.21 l 4.64 t 0.19 l
- Designates Background Station
- Not collected due to river ice
M M M M M M M M M M h mW M M M M W W TABLE M-1 (Cont'd) 1985 TMINS RElf QUARTERLY TLD RESULTS (DOSE IN MREM /STD MONTH + 1 S.D.)
l I I l l l l Location l l l Station Code Il 1st Quarter l 2nd Quarter l 3rd Quarter 14th Quarter l i I I I
. I North Boat Dock TMI l l R1-1 1 4.77 0.93 l 4.39 0.16 1 4.03 + 0.25 1 4.42 t 0.14 l
- l 1 I I I I
$ l North Boat Dock TMI l R1 -10 l 4.30 I
. I I 0.11 1 3.95 t 0.15 1 4.25 t 0.22 l 4.20 + 0.70 1 I I l Henry Island R1-2 l 3.63 I l l
l 0.18 1 3.96 t 0.12 l 3.84 t 0.16 l ***
l l l l l l l l Route 22 & Colonial Rond l R15-1* l 4.66 0.63 l 4.21 t 0.13 l 4.39 0.34 l 4.86 + 0.21 l l Route 441 & Airport i I I L l Expressway l l l RS-1 l 5.14 0.78 l 5.01 t 0.24 l 4.70 t 0.21 l 5.27 1 0.27 l l 1 I I I l l Rutherford Heights l R9-1 l 5.85 0.8815.22 0.' l 5.45 t 0.25 l 5.65 t 0.29 l l
l l 1 1 I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
- Designates Background Station
- Hot collected due to river ice
M M M M M M M m m mm m W m M m M m M TABLE H-2 REUTER-SIOKES HONTitLY AND TOTAL DOSE Rf CORDS FOR 1985 (MILLIREM)
Station Jan. Feb. Har. Total Apr. Hg June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Anrmal Dose Hill Street 4.69 4.1 4.76 4.68 4.84 4.82 4.84 4.91 4.39 5.06 5.04 5.13 57.26 Observation Center 4.97 4.43 4.91 4.82 4.98 4.75 4.91 4.91 4.82 4.98 4.97 5.21 58.66 Falmouth 4.68 4.03 4.83 4.75 4.91 4.75 4.84 4.69 4.68 4.84 4.9 4.98 56.88 Goldsboro 4.53 4.23 4.69 4.39 4.54 4.82 4.91 4.69 4.61 4.69 4.6 4. 76 55.46 North Cate 4.53 3.9 4.46 4.18 4.24 4.18 4.31 4.17 4.18 4.31 4. 32 4.46 51.24 4
500 KV Sub. 5.63 5.04 5.65 5.47 5.65 5.4 5.58 5.58 5.47 5.66 5.54 5.8 66.47 S. End THI 5.63 4.83 5.73 5.62 5.73 5.83 5.88 5.95 5.9 5.73 5.69 5.95 68.47 Intakes 5.1 4.57 5.06 4.97 5.28 5.11 5.28 5. 36 5.25 5.43 5.33 5.58 62.32 Ceyers Road 4.37 3.96 4.39 4.3 4.54 4.32 4.54 4.46 4. 32 4.46 4.54 4.7 52.90 8ecker Farm * *
- 6.26 6.33 5.83 6.03 *
- 6.17 6.05 6.17 e
- 7 3.44
U ^5 & & 'O W' 'S & & & & & 5 & 5 & S IAOLE H-2 (Cont'd)
REUTER-STOKES HONTHLY AND TOTAL 00ff RECORDS FOR 1985 (HIL LIREH)
Station Jan. Feb. Total Ha r. Apr. g June July Auq. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual Dose Airport 6.15 5.44 6.25 6.05 6.1 5.9 6.32 6.32 6.05 6.17 5.98 6.25 72.90 Alwine 6.02 5.11 6.47 6.19 5.8 6.26 6.77 6.7 6.48 6.77 6.7 6.84 76.11 M)CT 5.66 5.04 5.73 5.47 5.65 5.4 5.58 5.58 5.47 5.73 5.69 5.86 66.86
, Crawford 6.43 5.64 6.62 6.2 6.39 6.26 6.62 6.55 6.7 6.85 6.55 6.77 77.51 N. Shelly 5.71 4.17 4.98 5.18 5.06 5.11 5.58 5.43 5.04 4.69 4.68 4.76 60.39 S. Shelly * * * *
- 6.76 6.62 6.47 6.34 6.7 6.55 6.77 **79.20
- No data recovery for month
- Txtrapolated total taking account for lost months data
?
6
W M M M W M M M M M eW 4 mW W W W M FIGURE M-1 TLD DATA CRAPHS OF STATIONS 1985 H0ftg1AL AXIS-OUAA1E
. h ti i E'i# 4 'M a.
la A 10 B la C I I
- i_ _- I O O 9 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 la A 10 B 10 C I
I _ l g
3 y
. O O O O O O m ? 1985 t 1985 t 1985 8 la A 10 e 10 'C
. i i
' i 4 -
-N d 2 - '- -
2 0 0 0 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 10 A 10 B 10
- 3 1
' C 3
1 -
2 0 0 0 8 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 I 10 A 10 B 10 C
-t_% 7_ m 5 g y 1 M 5 0
1 1 0 0 1 0 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 10 A 10 B 10 C 9 L _ > 5 -
- 8 3 1 1 0 0 0
_1 1980 t 1985 t 1985 enja g /ussi st L she is HISTORICat AwCRACE FGH THE 51 A110re NEHER STATIONS fia? HavE to HISTORICAL Av[RACC
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ._. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- --- - - - - ---- '--- - ------ -^
W M M M W W W M M MM M M M M M M M M FIGURE H-1 TLD DATA CRAPHS OF STATIONS 1985 y 2""*1,sgg,Agtg, s
e- fA $ Mancuno staistw la D la D la E
___1- _M I y
-~
f L- .
5 0 0 0 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 10 D 10 E la
~ ^
E
- - = - - - - - - - - -
l f l l -%
g O O O t 1985 -
t 1985 t 1985
$ 10 D 10 E 10 F
_--s 1
- : : 1 i 2
1 ~ ~ " l 0 0 0 0 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 10 y 10 E 10 F w _ _ ---
D _ , 1 1 1 - * -
2 - -
1 0 5 0 g O t 1985 I i 1985 t 1985 10 D 10 10 E g*N ,
F
- I I I
-4 5 _ _
g y a 1 g O O
~
t 1985 0 t 1985 i 1985 10 D 10 IB E F H -
c- i 6 L 1 m -% I I 4 0 0 0 0 I I 1985 t 1985 t 1985 seN;lohta, t g ht 35 nistoajtAL avEwaLE 83N inE 51a180h hE wE A ST A T IONS ru r reave NO Hl51091C AL AvfRACE
mm m M. W W 6 M 'M M M M W M 'W W 'M W W f!GURE M-1 TLD DATA GRAPHS OF STATIONS 1985 Elf 2*Inis%Ma' s-aus0 FES SACaponset STA1 Ost i
10 y 10 , G 10 g
' F - - '
r ; _ 1 3 2
0 V .- - - _ , t 0 5 g I g
? 1985 I t 1985 0 t 1985 5 . ;A 1 I .
1 0 g 5 g a 7 1985 t 1985 I t 1985 g 10 G 10 G 10 g 1 5 5 s -
m 2 - - ;
I h_ g 0 0 0 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 10 C la H 10 -
H I _ . _
.__ __ _ 1 8 2 ' -
1 I O O O O t 1985 t 1985 t 1985
~ . 'g _ _ _ _ - -
3 =
9 '
1 0 0 0 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 10 y 10 y 10 J
C 5 --
H I I I - - -
- 5 0 0 0 5 a i 1985 1 7 1985 1 t 1985 eethe llOhl AL LlhE 15 MISTORf[ AL AVERACE F OR THE STATION h[w[R ST ATIONS #1Av NAvf M NISTORICAL AVERAGE
M M M M W W W M W6 mW mmW W W W W FIGURE M-1 TLD DATA GRAPHS OF STATIONS 1985 e- SEME l E#! #s@Es ES Si Amoupes ST AT 8 00s la v 10 K 10 t w- % - - -- I l .
O 5 0 0 t 1985 I T 1985 t 1985 10 J 10 y la L
- 5 g _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
n l 0 0 5 g a t 1985 t 1985 I t 1995 y la J 10 n le L 5
, -_h___ 2 i - -
2 1
0 0 0 0 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 10 J 10 , K 10 g 7 - - i .- 5 s L B 0 0 5 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 I 10 s iO n 10 t 1 -
- - 5 .r-- - - - - - - - - ?-
0 0 0 0 t 1985 7 1985 t 1985 10 K 10 g 10 L I O 5
_ _ _%._ ;_ I-- - - - 6- . -
0 0 0 i 1985 t 1985 t 1985 q uuno iat a te.a is arsicascat avspau s ca i4 staisce. e.cwen staisons na,e.avc ee sistoascat evraan
m I
j me um um uns seu ins en aus eum as me e um uJ sus sus aus em l
l l
FIGURE M-1 TLD DATA CRAPHS OF STATIONS I985
'4 A i "'%..u.ou.?..nt'%.,
.b" #1I"tt la L 10 n la V
N B ;- 9 g g _
2 g
9 0 0 0 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 la n la N la N 1 1 I e I -- 5
- i g .e - r- --
F-g ,
a 0 0 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985
$ 10 y la N 10 N 7 - - I- - -- -
=
m _
l .- - = .
e 0 5 0 0 t 1985 1 7 1985 t 1985 10 n 10
- 10 p A 2
~
N I g
i ! - - .- - g-0 0 5 0 t 1985 7 1985 3 t 1985 10 n 10 y 10 g 2 _ N .
- P 1 I I O O O 5 g 5 t 1985 t 1985 2 t 1985 I 10 n la N 10 p
__ _ 5 2 2 1 1 I O O O 1985 7 1985 t 1985
-eJw iluh l a. E t hL 15 **: 510#e t C AL AvtseACE #L4 Te4 51ailCN NEwlp STAi!Oes5 MAY eeAvE NO sel510RICAL AvEPACE
m W m W W W W W M M $ m ee M W W W W FIGURE M-1 TLD DATA GRAPHS OF STATIONS 1985
" II*"'^h N eTmE[Isacsn!r*iONIM"iousessfaison la P 10 0 10
. 2 R 1
. " I 5
1 0 0 g I g o i 1985 t 1985 O t 1985 10 P 10
- 10 g 5 0 1 I -
I 2 0 0 5 g t 1985 t 1985 2 t 1985
@ la P la 10 0 g e B 2
- _ _ __ __ R 3 j ,
g 0 0 0 5 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 3 10 o 10 10 o g 0
l h - - --
f '
0 0 0 t 1985 t 1985 t 1985 10 o 10 o 10 R I
Q_ 9 <- - -
G 2 I I O O O 7 1985 t 1985 7 1985 10 y 10 R
- - - - O _
i H 5 0
~~
T 1985 I i 1985 m*sionnat a:a is a:sioa: cat avt=act sea ist sv.ison wwtn sv.isons new navt e.c nisioarcat avtaact
E E E E S E E O OO O E 4 E O E E S E o
IIGURE M-2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR TLDS 1985 HORIZONTAL A335 IN ruttri PER STAseBARD riosofee INDICATOR STATIONS us u ,
a 52 e E s.
o se s
- u l' L 2s 4 m 2e 12 c is 2 so 3 e e 5.s 5s 4.s 4.s sa I i ?
- 5s ss ss 7. s 7s - 2 . e io
=.s io io io To To to to 10 ae s.s ea ss 4 s 45 s.s ss s.a s.s 7e to ae To to 30 io 7.5 e.s es as is e
' CONTROL STATIONS s i.e to F #7 8 8 '5 E i5
. o se 2 ,
u L s8 7 8 to 7 t 54 5 Y 2 ae y 55 4.s 4 5
" ' 8 la To 5a 55 sa s.5 To To to 7.s 7 5 ea 4.8 4 5 58 To To 10 To 55 6.3 sS to 7.9 7.5 88 85 is a INDICATOR AND CONTROL STATIONS i 7 75 R S84 57 c
o 45 8 31 12
( 29 2
~ 31 c se s L.
- is ,
ee 3 ,,
.-m-. 5s 4 e 4 s se ss sa l 1 5 4 2 e I IO 70 13 To ?O to 10 6 3 va is . se as os 95 IS 4 0 4 6 59 To TO 10 to Tu SS 62 S.5 7. 3 7$
in to 89 05 00 95 la 8
.2 ,, a m_m _ .-- am. -. - - _ . - - - - - - - - - - -
I
- I i
iI
!I .
'E
!I lI l APPENDIX N oo . u .i,,,,
g
- I
!I
'5
.I
- I
!I
- I i
209 -
- E t
I I
TMI Environmental Controls used a computer statistical analysis package (SAS) developed by SAS Institute, Inc. to analyze the 1985 REW data. A sequence of I tests was performed on each data set, with subsets created from the original data as required. Although the outputs are not presented in this report, this appendix describes the sequence and the purpose of each statistical test. The tests included:
Tests on the distribution of the data Comparisons between control and indicator groups Spacial and temporal comparisons between stations I --
Station correlations Background and indicator group correlations Quality Control (QC) results were not analyzed with other data. QC data would introduce bias at selected stations while providing little additional i nterpretive information. Significance was tested at the 95 percent confidence level (P < 0.05) for all data comparisons.
Parametric statistics were used whenever possible since they normally provide more power than the non-parametric equivalents. However, one of the basic assumptions of parametric statistics is that the data are normally distributed. To test for normality, and therefore choose the appropriate test, the UNIVARIATE procedure of SAS was used. This procedure tests the data I against a normally distributed data set. Acceptance of the null hypothesis at the P < 0.05 level meant the particular 1985 REMP data set was normally distri buted.
Data that were not normally distributed were transformed by taking the natural log of the sample resul t plus 1 (Y ' - In(Y + 1) as described by Sokal and Rohlf (1969). If transformation resulted in normally distributed data, parametric statistics were used for data analysis. If neither the original data nor the log transformed data were normally distributed, noil-parametric statistics were used to further analyze the data.
After determining the distribution, the data was grouped into the indicator and control subsets and tested for significant differences. If either the I - 21 0 -
I
I data or log transformed data were normally distributed, the TTEST procedure (SAS) was applied. Data that were not normally distributed were statistically compared using the NPARlWAY procedure (SAS), a non-parametric analysis of variance. Acceptance of the null hypothesis at the P j 0.05 level indicated that there was no difference between control and indicator station groups.
Differences between stations were tested with the GLM procedure (normal data) and the W AR1WAY procedure. The GLM procedure (SAS) performs an analysis of variance on unbalanced data (unequal sample sizes). Although not quite as powerful as the ANOVA procedure (SAS), the protocol of treating LLD's as missing data made GLM the appropriate choice. As with the indicator vs control group comparisons, NPARlWAY was perfomed on data sets that were not normally distributed.
I When the results of GLM or PARlWAY indicated initial differences between stations, TMI-EC applied the DUNCAN multiple range test (SAS). The DUNCAN test compares each station with the others and identifies groups of stations with similar means.
Finally, correlation coefficients were calculated between both indicator and I control group means and in some cases between station means with the CORR procedure (SAS). Correlation coef ficients, based on the Pearson product-moment test for this report, may range from zero with no correlation to 100 percent with complete correlation. By comparing i ndicators to controls, a degree of association was identified for the year. Likewi se, . the amount of association between any two stations also was estabitshed.
Not every data set from the 1985 RE W collections was analyzed with the procedures listed above.
Data sets with few observations could not be statistically compared. Rather, indicator and control values were compared to environmental levels expected outside the TMINS zone of impact. Other factors considered for non-statistical comparison of data included data collected by other scientists and known levels of radioisotopes resulting from non-TMI I sources (i.e., hospitals and weapons tests). Otherwi se, when data sets
- 211 -
1 I
E permitted, statistical analyses of the data followed the sequence of tests described above.
- I
.I I
I
- I
- I 1
lI I
I i l
.I
!I I
I - 21 2 -
e __ .-_ . __
as t , wJ ty 07054 201 263-6500 TELEX 130-482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
I 1
April 30, 1986 I 5211-86-2077 4410-86-L-0074 Dr. Thomas E. Murley Region I, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue -
[ King of Prussia, PA 19406 .
Dear Dr. Murley:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1 and Unit 2 (TMI-I and TMI-2)
Operating License Nos. DPR-50 and DPR-73 Docket Nos. 50-289 and 50-320 1985 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report c
In accordance with TMI-1 and TMI-2 Technical Specifications, enclosed is the 1985 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report for Three Mile Island d Nuclear Station.
The introduction to this report contains basic information intended to assist the public in interpreting this report.
Sincerely, MQ R. W. Hewa rd , J r.
Director, Radiological and Environmental Controls RMi/SM0/spb cc: R. Conte J. Stolz .
W. Travers
'y Document Control Desk (2 copies)
Enclosure '
\ ) I 0571A GPU Nuclear is a part of the General Pubhc Utihties System
ROUTING S.
- INXTIALS DATE COMMENTS Administrator Deputy Reg Adm Legal SAGA Staff PA0 Enf Spec Dir., DRP Dep., DRP ,, '( (]/)
BR #1 /[h G' BR #2 BR #3 Dir., DRS Dep. DRS TA Eng. Br.
Ops. Br.
Dir., DRSS TA ,, p EP8RP Br. [(7 ,j /,
NMS&S Br. [ '[ tty Dir., DRMA Adm. Mgt. Br.
Res. Mgt. Br.
Pers i
OI Additional Routing PDR es Instructions:
no kniTTils unte l From: Return to I Docket-Room k', ,ToYemIe7I N5 l
- - _ -- a