Text

Annual Radiological Environ Surveillance Rept for 1997, for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
	ML20217J200
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	12/31/1997
From:	; DUKE ENGINEERING & SERVICES
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20217J197	List: ML20217J194; ML20217J200;
References
	NUDOCS 9804300187
	Download: ML20217J200 (103)
	v • d • e

g& ANNUAL c'Wj

%.O

) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT 4

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation 1997 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Vernon, Vermont

{$04000!d$80oll1

o c

1 ANNUAL

%[2+ff RADIOLOGICAL O'yfi. > ENVIRONMENTAL

{

(

, SURVEILLANCE

[

REPORT

[

4

(

[

9

[

[ gg Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station r -

Vernon, Vermont hR DO K 71 PDR R

l

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT January - December 1997 April 1998 Prepared by:

Duke Engineering and Services Environmental Health and Safety 580 Main Street Bolton, Massachusetts 01740

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION . I

2. B ACKGROUND RADIOACTIVITY 2 21 Naturally Occurring Background Radioactivity 2 2.2 hian-Made Background Radioactivity 3

3. GENERAL PLANT AND SITE INFORNIATION 5

4. PROGRAM DESIGN . 6 4.1 Monitoring Zones 7 4.2 Pathways Monitored 7 4.3 Descriptions of Monitoring Programs 8

5. RADIOLOGICAL DATA

SUMMARY

TABLES 26

6. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS 43 6.1 Sampling Program Deviations 43 6.2 Comparison of Achieved LLDs with Requirements 44 6.3 Comparison of Results with Reporting Levels 45 6.4 Changes in Sampling Locations 47 6.5 Data Analysis by Media Type 47

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

8. LAND USE CENSUS 92

9.

SUMMARY

95

10. REFERENCES 96 ii

LIST OF TABLES -

s Table lille Eage '

4.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program . 12 4.2 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Locations (Non-TLD) . 14 4.3 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Locations (TLD) . 16 4.4 Environmental Lower Limit of Detection (LLD)

Sensitivity Requirements . 18 s

4.5 Reporting Levels for Radioactivity Concentrations in Environmental Samples . 19 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary . 28 5.2 Environmental TLD Data Summary . 40 5.3 Environmental TLD Measurements . 41 7.1 Environmental Process Control Results . 84 7.2 EPA Cross Check Program Results . 85 7.3 DESEL Analytics Cross Check Results . 87 7.4 Summary of Blind Duplicate Samples Submitted . 91 8.1 Land Use Census Locations . 94 iii

LIST OF FIGURES <,

Figure Iitic Eage 4.1 Environmental Sampling Locations in Close Proximity to Plant . .. . . .. . . . 20 4.2 Environmental Sampling Locations Within 5 Kilometers of Plant . . . . . . . .. .. . . . 21 4.3 Environmental Sampling Locations Greater than 5 Kilometers from Plant . .. 22 4.4 TLD Locations in Close Proximity

to Plant . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.5 TLD Locations Within 5 Kilometers of Plant . .. . . . . . . . . 24 4.6 TLD Locations Greater than 5 Kilometers from Plant . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . 25 6.1 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . .. . . . 54 (Quarterly Averages - Indicator vs. Control) 6.2 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . . . 55 (AP-11 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.3 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . . , 56 (AP-12 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.4 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters .. 57 (AP-13 vs. AP-21 Control) iv

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) .

Figure lille Eage 6.5 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . 58 (AP-14 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.6 Gross-Beta Measurements on Air Particulate Filters . 59 (AP-15 vs. AP-21 Control) 6.7 Gross Beta Measurements on River Water . 60 6.8 Gross Beta Measurements on Ground Water . 61 6.9 Cesium-137 in Milk . . 62 6.10 Strontium-90 in Milk . . 63 6.11 Cesium-137 in Fish . 64 6.12 Exposure Rate at inner Ring, Outer Ring and Control TLDs . 65 6.13 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 01-03 66 6.14 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 06,50. 67 6.15 Exposure Rate at Site Boundary TLDs, DR 07-08,41-42. 68 6.16 Exposure Rate at Site Boundary TLDs, DR 43-46. 69 6.17 Exposure Rate at Site Boundary TLDs, DR 47-49,51,52.. 70 v

LIST OF FIGURES (con. inued) ,

figure Iille .Eage 6.18 Exposure Rate at inner Ring TLDs, DR 09-15 (odd) . 71 6.19 Exposure Rate at inner Ring TLDs, DR 17-23 (odd) . 72 6.20 Exposure Rate at Inner Ring TLDs, DR 25-31 (odd) . . 73 6.21 Exposure Rate at inner Ring TLDs, DR 33-39 (odd) . . 74 6 22 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 10-16 (even) . 75 6.23 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 18-24 (even).. . 76 6.24 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 26-32 (even).. .77 6.25 Exposure Rate at Outer Ring TLDs, DR 34-40 (even).. .78 6.26 Exposure Rate at Control TLDs, DR-04 & DR-05.. 79

1. INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the findings of the Radiological EnvYronmental Monitoring Program (REMP) conducted by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation in the vicinity of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon, Vermont during the calendar year 1997. It is submitted annually in compliance with plant Technical Specification 6.7.C.3. The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

Section 2: Provides an introductory explanation to the background radioxtivity and radiation that is detected in the plant environs.

Section 3: Provides a brief description of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station site and its environs.

Section 4: Provides a description of the overall REMP program design. Included is a summary of the Technical Specification requirements for REMP sampling, tables listing all locations sampled or monitored in 1997 with compass sectors and distances from the plant, and maps showing each REMP location. Tables listing Lower Limit of Detection requirements and Reporting Levels are also included.

Section 5: Consists of the summarized data as required by VYNPS Technical Specifications.

The tables are in a fonnat similar to that specified by the NRC Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring (Reference 1). Also included is a summary of the 1997 environmental TLD measurements.

Section 6: Provides the results of the 1997 monitoring program. The performance of the program in meeting regulatory requirements as given in the Technical Specifications is discussed, arili the data acquired during the year are analyzed.

Section 7: Provides an overview of the Quality Assurance programs used at the Duke Engineering & Services Laboratory (formerly the Yankee Atomic Electric Company Environmental Laboratory) and the results of the EPA and Analytics Intercomparison Program.

Section 8: Summarizes the requirements and the results of the 1997 Land Use Census.

Section 9: Gives a summary of the 1997 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.

I

2. BACKGROUND RADIOACTIVITY Radiation or radioactivity potentially detected in the Vermont Yankee environment can be grouped into three categories. The first is " naturally-occurring" radiation and radioactivity. The second is " man-made" radioactivity from sources other than the Vermont Yankee plant. The third potential source of radioactivity is due to emissions from the Vermont Yankee plant. For the purposes of the Vermont Yankee REMP, the first two categories are classified as " background" radiation, and are the subject of discussion in this section of the report. The third category is the one that the REMP is designed to detect and evaluate.

2.1 Naturally Occurring Background Radioactivity Natural radiation and radioactivity in the environment, which provide the major source of human radiation exposure, may be subdivided into three separate categories: " primordial radioactivity," "cosmogenic radioactivity" and " cosmic radiation." " Primordial radioactivity" is made up of those radionuclides that were created with the universe and that have a sufficiently long half-life to be still present on the earth. Included in this category are the radionuclides that these elements have decayed into. A few of the more imponant radionuclides in this category are Uranium-238 (U-238), Thorium-232 (Th-232) Rubidium-87 (Rb-87), Potassium-40 (K-40),

Radium-226 (Ra-226), and Radon-222 (Rn-222). Uranium-238 and Thorium-232 are readily detected in soil and rock, whether through direct field measurements or through laboratory analysis of samples. Radium-226 in the eanh can find its way from the soil into ground water, and is often detectable there. Radon-222 is one of the components of natural background in air, and its daughter products are detectable on air sampling filters. Potassium-40 comprises about 0.01 percent of all natural potassium in the canh, and is consequently detectable in most biological substances, including the human body. There are many more primordial radionuclides found in the environment in addition to the major ones discussed above (Reference 2).

The second sub-categog of naturally-occurring radiation and radioactivity is "cosmocenic radioactivity." This is produced through the nuclear interaction of high energy cosmic radiation with elements in the canh's atmosphere, and to a much lesser degree in the earth's crust. These radioactive elements are then incorporated into the entire geosphere and atmosphere, including the canh's soil, surface rock, biosphere, sediments, ocean floors, polar ice and atmosphere. The major radionuclides in this category are Carbon-14 (C-14), Hydrogen-3 (H-3 or Tritium),

Sodium-22 (Na-22), and Begilium-7 (Be-7). Beryllium-7 is the one most readily detected, and is found on air sampling filters and occasionally in biological media (Reference 2).

2

The third sub-category of naturally-occurring radiation and radioactivity is " cosmic radiation."

This consists of high energy atomic and sub-atomic particles of extra-terrestrial origin and the secondary panicles and radiation that are produced through 'their interaction in the earth's atmosphere. The primary radiation comes mostly from outside of our solar system, and to a lesser degree from the sun. We are protected from most of this radiation by the canh's atmosphere, which absorbs the radiation. Consequently, one can see that with increasing elevation one would be exposed to more cosmic radiation as a direct result of a thinner layer of air for protection. This

" direct radiation" is detected in the field with gamma spectroscopy equipment, high pressure ion chambers and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs).

2.2 Man-Made Background Radioactivity The second source of " background" radioactivity in the Vermont Yankee environment is from

" man-made" sources not related to the power plant. The most recent contributor to this category was the fallout from the Chernobyl accident in April of 1986, which was detected in the Vermont Yankee environment and other parts of the world. A much greater contributor to this category, however, has been fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. Tests were conducted from 1945 through 1980 by the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China and France, with the large majority of testing occurring during the periods 1954-1958 and 1961-1962.

(A test ban treaty was signed in 1963 by the United States, Soviet Union and United Kingdom, but not by France and China.) Atmospheric testing was conducted by the People's Republic of China as recently as October 1980. Much of the fallout detected today is due to this explosion and the last large scale one, done in November of 1976 (Reference 3).

The radioactivity produced by these detonations was deposited worldwide. The amount of fallout deposited in any given area is dependent on many factors, such as the explosive yield of the device, the latitude and altitude of the detonation, the season in which it occurred, an~ll the timing of subsequent rainfall which washes fallout from the troposphere (Reference 4). Most of this fallout has decayed into stable elements, but the residual radioactivity is still readily detectable in environmental samples worldwide. The two predominant radionuclides are Cesium-137 (Cs-137) and Strontium-90 (Sr-90). They are found in soil and in vegetation, and since cows and goats graze large areas of vegetation, these radionuclides are also readily detected in milk.

3

bther potential " man-made" sources of environmental " background" radioactivity include other nuclear power plants, coal-fired power phnts, national defense installations, hospitals, research laboratories and industry. These collectively are insig'nificant on a global scale when compared to the sources discussed above (natural and fallout).

4

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

Construction of the single 540 megawatt BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) plant began in 1967.

The pre-operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, designed to measure environmental radiation and radioactivity levels in the area prior to station operation, began in 1970. Commercial operation began on November 30,1972.

5

4. PROGRAM DESIGN The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (R$MP) for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) was designed with specific objectives in mind. These are:

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

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

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

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

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

The current program is designed to meet the intent of NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, Programs for Afonitoring Radioactivity in the Environs ofNuclear Power Plants, NRC Regulatory Guide 4.8, Environmental Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants; the NRC Branch Technical Position of November 1979, An Acceptable Radiological EnvironmentalMonitoring Program; and NRC NUREG-0473, Radiological Effluent Technical Specificationsfor BWR's.

The environmental TLD program has been designed and tested around NRC Regulatory duide 4.13. Performance, Testing and Procedural Specificationsfor Thennoluminescence Dosimetry:

Environmental Applications. The quality assurance program is designed around the guidance given in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality Assurancefor Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment.

The sampling requirements of the REMP are given in Technical Specification 3.9.C. and are summarized in Table 4.1 of this report. A Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) survey was conducted for Vermont Yankee during 1997 to refine the distance and direction of the sampling / monitoring stations from the plant. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 list these more accurate distances 6

i i

and directions for the sampling locations used during 1997 and are not changes in the actual j locations. The identification of the required sampling locations is given in the Offsite Dose j Calculation Manual (ODCM), Chapter 4. These sampling and ' monitoring locations are shown l graphically on the maps in Figures 4.1 through 4.6.

The Vermont Yankee Chemistry Department conducts the radiological environmental l

monitoring program and collects all airbome, terrestrial and ground water samples. VYNPS l maintains a contract with Normandeau Associates to collect all fish, river water and sediment samples. All analytical measurements of environmental samples are performed at the Duke j Engineering & Services Laboratory (DESEL). TLD badges are posted and retrieved by the Vermont Yankee Chemistry Department, and are read out by the DESEL.

l 4.1 Monitoring Zones l

The REMP is designed to allow comparison oflevels of radioactivity in samples from the area possibly influenced by the plant to levels found in areas not influenced by the plant. Monitoring

locations within the first zone are alled " indicators." Those within the second zone are called i

" controls." The distinction between the two zones, depending on the type of sample or sample pathway, is based on one or more of several factors, such as site meteorological history, meteorological dispersion calculations, relative direction from the plant, river flow, and distance.

Analysis of survey data from the two zones aids in determining if there is a significant difference between the two areas. It can also help in differentiating between radioactivity or radiation due to plant releases and that due to other fluctuations in the environment, such as atmospheric nuclear weapons test fa!!out or seasonal variations in the natural background.

I 4.2 Pathways Monitored i i

Four pathway categories are monitored by the REMP. They are the airborne, waterbome, ingestion and direct radiation pathways. Each of these four categories is monitored by the l

! collection of one or more sample media, which are listed below, and are described in more detail

in this section

Airbome Pathway Air Particulate Sampling Charcoal Cartridge (Radioiodine) Sampling 7

l l Waterborne Pathways

! River Water Sampling l l Ground Water Sampling Sediment Sampling l Ingestion Pathways Milk Sampling Silage Sampling Mixed Grass Sampling

! Fish Sampling Direct Radiation Pathway I

TLD Monitoring 4.3 Descriptions of Monitoring Programs 4.3.1 Air Sampling Continuous air samplers are installed at six locations. (Five are required by VYNPS l Technical Specifications.) The sampling pumps at these locations operate continuously at a flow rate of approximately one cubic foot per minute. Airbome particulates are collected by passing air through a 50 mm glass-fiber filter. A dry gas meter is incorporated into the sampling stream to measure the total volume of air sampled in a given interval. The entire system is housed in a weatherproof structure. The filters are collected biweekly, and to allow for the decay of radon daughter products, they are held for at least 100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months at the DESEL before being analyzed for gross-beta radioactivity. The biweekly filters are composited by location at the DESEL for a quarterly gamma spectroscopy analysis.

If the gross-beta activity on an air paniculate sample is greater than ten times the yearly mean of the control samples. Technical Specification 3.9.C requires a gamma isotopic analysis on the j individual sample. Whenever the main plant stack effluent release rate of I-131 is equal to or l greater than 0.1 pCi/sec, weekly air particulate collection is required, pursuant to Technical Specification 3.9.C.

l l

8 l

l f

4.3.2 Charcoal Cartridge (Radiolodine) Sampling Continuous air samplers are installed at six locations. ($ive are required by Technical Specifications.) The sampling pumps at these locations operate continuously at a flow rate of approximately one cubic foot per minute. A 60 cc TEDA impregnated charcoal cartridge is located downstream of the air particulate filter described above. A dry gas meter is incorporated I into the sampling stream to measure the total volume of air sampled in a given interval. The entire system is housed in a weatherproof stmeture. These cartridges are collected and analyzed ;

biweekly for I-131.

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

4.3.3 River Water Sampling An automatic compositing sampler is maintained at the downstream sampling location by the Vermont Yankee Chemistry Department staff, and the pump delivering river water to the sampler is maintained by Normandeau Associates. The sampler is controlled by a timer that collects an l

aliquot of river water hourly. An additional grab sample is collected monthly at the upstream ;

control location. All river water samples are preserved with hcl and NaHSO 3to prevent the plate oct of radionuclides on the container walls. Each sample is analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. Although not required by VYNPS Technical Specifications, a gross-beta analysis is performed on each sample. The monthly composite or grab samples are composited by location at the DESEL for a quarterly H-3 analysis.

~

4.3.4 Ground Water Sampling Grab samples are collected quarterly from three indicator and one control location. (Only one indicator and one control is required by VYNPS Technical Specifications.) All ground water samples are preserved with hcl and NaHSO 3to prevent the plate out of radionuclides on the container walls. Each sample is analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides and H-3. Although not required by VYNPS Technical Specifications, a gross-beta analysis is also performed on each

, sample.

9

[

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

4.3.6 Milk Sampling

[

When milk animals a identified as being on pasture feed, milk samples are collected twice per month from that loc 2 tion. Throughout the rest of the year, and for the full year where animals are not on pasture, milk samples are collected on a monthly schedule. Three locations are chosen as a result of the annual Land Use Census, based on meteorological dispersion calculations. The

( fourth location is a control, which is located sufficiently far away from the plant to be outside any potential influence from it. Other samples may be collected from locations of interest.

(

Immediately after collection, each milk sample is refrigerated and then typically transported by courier to the DESEL. Upon receipt at the DESEL, methimazole and formaldehyde are added to the milk to prevent protein binding and spoilage, respectively. Each sample is then analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. Following a chemical separation, a separate low-level I-131

[ analysis is performed to meet the Lower Limit of Detection requirements in the Technical Specifications. Although not required by Technical Specifications, Sr-89 and Sr-90 analyses are also performed on quarterly composited samples.

4.3.7 Silage Sampling Silage samples are collected at the milk sampling location at the time o1 harvest, if available.

One sample is shipped to the DESEL without preservative, where it is analyzed for gainma-emitting radionuclides. Although not required by Technical Specifications, a separate silage sample is preserved with NaOH, and is then analyzed at the DESEL for low-level I-131.

[

4.3.8 Mixed Grass Sampling At each air sampling station, a mixed grass sample is collected quarterly, when available.

Enough grass is clipped to provide the minimal sample weight needed to achieve the required lower limit of detection (LLDs). One sample is shipped to the DESEL without preservative, 10 L

where it is analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. Although not required by Technical Specifications, a separate grass sample is preserved with NaOH, and is then shipped to the DESEL for a separate I-131 analysis.

4.3.9 Fish Sampling Fish samples are collected semiannually at two locations (upstream of the plant and in Vemon Pond) by Normandeau Associates. The samples are frozen and delivered to the DESEL where the edible portions are analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. l 4.3.10 TLD Monitoring Direct gamma radiation exposure was continuously monitored with the use of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Specifically, Panasonic UD-801 AS1 and UD-814ASI calcium sulfate dosimeters were used, with a total of five elements in place at each monitoring location. Each pair of dosimeters is sealed in a plastic bag, which is in turn housed in a plastic-screened container. This container is attached to an object such as a fence or utility pole.

A total of 40 stations are required by Technical Specifications. Of these,24 must be read out quarterly, while those from the remaining 16 incident response (outer ring) stations need only be de-dosed (annealed) quarterly, unless a gaseous release LCO was exceeded during the period.

Although not required by Technical Specifications, the TLDs from the 16 outer ring stations are read out quarterly along with the other stations' TLDs. In addition to the TLDs required by Technical Specifications, twelve more are typically posted at or near the site boundary. The plant staff posts and retrieves all TLDs, while the DESEL processes them.

4.3.11 Special Monitoring Special interest samples may be taken throughout the year that are not required as part of the REMP. These locations do not appear on the ODCM Table 4.1, nor do they all appear in Table 4.1 or 4.2 of this report. The re.sults are discussed in Section 5 and 6 of this report.

i l

11

~

y b

(

te t e

i i y s s is c o

p o p

s n s' e m m iu aq e o le e o e i c e n e lp C p lpC lpp lp ArF D m ly) m my mm ma L a r n a al r a a T S e t o S S et SS S h h r it h h ra hh h c c a uca c c c c c s a a a au aa a i

s E E Q'. E EQ EE E ly a

n A ly, n

oe :

e s r e

s a :

s oled d e e lep i t

s i

s - r d ic n c c c e s e hha 3

d e

e u c m

a p

o C a ip to) ip)o ip o

nT s - ox S t o e 3 -

t 3- t o

oge es e a n o1 o1 A n d i a s t t a e I s i d I s 1

(

s I 1( I s

aRga lu B a o a a a h

A mr ss w c s m ic1 m um m um m R mte eO tri so ma id3 mi t mi

'ai r t m a

G a ulnC a r a1 air GOuL PG G R1 -

GT GT G O

R )*

P3 G 39 N e s

I Rbl lyA :

Oa lala l TT I n ny iocn uf nt n uM N o t c e a iOC Ot a i

l e uq mnD _

Mc i

l o e r ly eiO S ra 1

Li c f

CF ht

Din 4 ly n y m Ae r o ly l r a mde E Tp e ht e e ri 2 L N S t r

a m

n t

r a tr toic f

1 B E la u im o u s S_ e p

A l c e p T

%i n Q S M Q UNs N h -

Oc n ret I

V y i

t o

c te e

N b l i l s Ed e o o C e n g p Lr i ni e mba org Au q ilpo t

u d :mc Cer s s s RomM I u u a c : e Gs aS o u

o u

eim r ta a t

o t

s n Oa i n i n n mer t L( t n

t n wt ots b a

b a i m

O o o ou p r r f I

C C DAU G G e D t lep A y R m f

o e ns o c

rl o r e pi 0 f o

bmac mta 4 5 2 2 2 3 _

uS o 9 N l 3

le b

a d T .

n n

) a o s s i

t y D e a a c L ta tn w i da i

f T l u e i c

h ( c m e ta e n i r r i p

P rM o i o

t r

a e

ts e

ta d

e S ed e t a P) S l a

r nl u ap i d ( e e n W W e ic s a n o m a e dm r o e c

d n

m p R n l

e h r o fa u S b r c x t c oi c r e r o o e E e bi u r h T rd ta ir a S. G. S. e D. iA. R W .

a b c S e

1 2 3

I s

y _

s c s n leel e e lep lve a u pp lp lp n q e mm a a m

a m

a ArF s s s s s hh h h h _

c c c c c a a a a a EE E E E is s

ly A

a n -

n o

c c si s e ip ic ps ic p ip ly p a y t o t ono t o t o

nT o s oi t s

o s o s

r I A I I o I I

% a a p a a A m1 me m m R m3 a1 il rb a id m

a m

a G GI - Ge G G O

R )*

P3 G9 )

e N 3 ny lyus r n e

le a ntroc I l ly h Rb ne h ta la w Oa c ti p u t T Tn imle ol uq ly n. n n

n y

lrle s

e v

I N o Noe CF r h ;.

tn o a n eb tr la r

a _

t

. Oi a t o mn e ime ai u a h c v t n

n e,

Mic l

i f MS( h. - S Qa A 1

Ae Tp 4 N S l 3

1 E. E 1

a c e gn l

5i ni e B Nm n ilpo t d A u T Od i o

RomM -

ReT I

t c aS b a

b a

b a s le r r r e Vy l r N b o G G G G t o

C tn E, der o l i o Au g f

e _

Cq e f g in te I

r os n lp lp Gs r n ilp IO. (a be tn i m

m a

m o

G ma u

a s n s n c ri o k o r I

D Nt w 4 2 it a ta l i t f o

\ lal e h s imtas 3 t n p c h 9 y I

im a c a

m a e e 3 NoS t

a t a

le b

I I a T

- k m

ta i

c f

i y c e

a p w a S ht die l a

a rM e lep c P o n lp i n

ed r nl ua p e i t

o ma m a

h c

s m a s s e o m kt t e s e T

- p a k h g s g e x S s e

l i s e a a e

- r l

- E g M F i

V. G i S

S n .

I 4 b c 4

. ~

TABLE 4.2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LO ATIONS (NON-TLD)IN 1997 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Distance Direction Exposure Station From Plant From Pathway Code Station Descriotion Zod (kmY" Plant"

1. Airbome AP/CF-11 River Sta. No. 3.3 1 1.9 SSE AP/CF-12 N. Hinsdale, NH I 3.6 NNW AP/CF-13 Hinsdale Substation 1 3.1 E AP/CF-14 Northfield, MA i 11.6 SSE AP/CF-15 Tyler Hill Road 1 3.1 WNW AP/CF.21 Spofford Lake C 16.4 NNE

2. Waterborne

a. Surface WR-il River Sta. No. 3.3 1 1.9 SSE WR-21 Rt. 9 Bridge C 11.8 NNW

b. Ground WG-11 Plant Well 1 0.2 On-site W G-12 Vernon Nursing Well 1 2.1 SSE WG-13 C O B W ell 1 --

On-site WT-14 Test Well 1 --

On-site WT-16 Test Well 1 -

On-site WT-17 Test Well 1 --

On-site WT-18 Test Well I --

On-site WG-22 Skibniowsky Well C 13.7 N

c. Sediment - SE-11 Shoreline Downriver 1 0.6 SSE SE-12 North Storm Drain Outfall 1 0.13 E

! 3. Ingestion i

a. Milk TM 11 Miller Farm I 0.8 W TM-14 Brown Farm 1 2.2 S TM-16 Meadow Crest I 4.3 NW TM-18 Blodgett Farm I 3.6 SE TM-24 County Farm C 21.6 N 14

TABLE 4.2, cont.

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL $10NITORING LO ATIONS (NON-TLD)IN 1997 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Distance Direction I Exposure Pathway Station Gy.i_ Station Descriotion zegg-From Plant (km)"*

From Plant""

3. Ingestion,(continued)

b. Fish FH-ll Vernon Pond I 0.6** SSE FH-21 Rt. 9 Bridge C i 1.8 NNW

c. Mixed Grass TG-11 River Sta. No. 3.3 I 1.9 SSE TG-12 N. Hinsdale, NH I 3.6 NNW TG-13 Hinsdale Substation I 3.1 E TG-14 Northfield, MA i 11.6 SSE TG-15 Tyler Hill Rd. I 3.1 WNW TG-21 Spofford Lake C 16.4 NNE

d. Silage TC-11 Miller Farm I 0.8 WNW TC-14 Brown Farm 1 2.2 S TC-16 Meadow Crest Farm I 4.3 NW I TC-18 Blodgett Farm 1 3.6 SE TC-24 County Farm C 21.6 N I

I = Indicator Stations; C = Control Stations I **

Fish samples are collected anyuhere in Vernon Pond, which is adjacent to the plant (see Figure 4.1).

The Distance and Direction for non-TLD sampling sites are relative to the plant stack as detennined by a Global Positioning System Survey conducted in 1997 and discussed in Section 4.

i l

l h ,

I 15

~

TABLE 4.3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (TLD)IN 1997 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Distance From Direction

. Station Plant From Code Station Descriotion ZQng &n#" Plant"~

DR-1 her Sta. No. 3.3 1 1.6 SSE DR-2 N. Hinsdale, NH I 3.9 NNW DR-3 Hinsdale Substation I 3.0 E DR-4 Northfield, MA C 11.0 SSE DR-5 SpofTord Lake C , 16.5 NNE l

~

DR-6 Vernon School 0.52 WSW DR-7 Site Boundary **** SB 0.28 W -

DR-8 Site Boundary SB 0.25 SSW DR-9 inner h g I 1.7 N DR-10 Outer Ring O 4.5 N DR-11 Inner hg I 1.6 NNE DR-12 Outer hg O 3.6 NNE DR-13 Inner hg 1 1.2 NE DR-14 Outer Ring O 3.9 NE DR-15 Inner hg I 1.5 ENE DR-16 Outer hg O 2.9 ENE DR-17 Inner hg I 1.2 E DR-18 Outer hg O 3.0 E DR-19 Inner h g I 3.6 ESE DR-20 Outer hg O 5.3 ESE DR-21 Inner h g i 1.8 SE DR-22 Outer hg O 3.3 SE DR-23 Inner Ring i 2.0 SSE DR-24 Outer Ring O 3.9 SSE l DR-25 Inner hg . I 1.9 S l l

DR-26 Outer hg O 3.8 S l l DR-27 Inner hg i 1.0 SSW l DR-28 Outer Ring O 2.2 SSW l DR-29 ' Inner hg I 0.9 SW DR-30 Outer Ring O 2.4 SW I

i 16

TABLE 4.3, cont.

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS (TLD) IN 1997

[ VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

[ Distance Direction Station From Plant From Code Station Description Zgng* (km)*** Plant ***

DR-31 Inner Ring I 0.71 WSW DR-32 Outer Ring O 5.1 WSW

{ DR-33 Inner Ring I 0.66 WNW DR-34 Outer Ring O 4.6 W

( DR-35 DR-36 Inner Ring Outer Ring O I 1.3 WNW 4.4 WNW DR-37 Inner Ring I 2.8 NW

( DR-38 Outer Ring O 7.3 NW DR-39 Inner Ring I 3.1 NNW DR-40 Outer Ring O 5.0 NNW DR-41 *

Site Boundary SB 0.38 SSW DR-42" Site Boundary SB 0.59 S DR-43 *

Site Boundary SB 0.44 SSE DR-44 *

Site Boundary SB 0.19 SE DR-45 *

Site Boundary SB 0.12 NE DR-46 *

Site Boundary SB 0.28 NNW DR-47 *

Site Boundary SB 0.50 NNW DR-48" Site Boundary SB 0.82 NW DR-49 *

Site Boundary SB 0.55 WNW DR-50" Gov. Hunt House I 0.35 SSW DR-51 *

Site Boundary SB 0.26 W DR-52*

Site Boundary SB 0.24 SW I = Inner Ring TLD; O = Outer Ring Incident Response TLD; C = Control TLD; SB = Site Boundary TLD.

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

Distance and direction for TLD sites are relative to the center of the Turbine Building as determined

{ by a Global Positioning System Survey conducted in 1997 and discussed in Section 4.

- " DR-7 satisfies Technical Specification Table 3.9.3 for an inner ring direct radiation monitoring location. However, it is averaged as a Site Boundary TLD due to its close proximity to the plant.

{

[

17 L

n g-t S e

_ 0 0

_ T m/rk )v i 5 8 N

i dCd 1 1 E Se (p M

E R

I n U io )g Q

t

_ a/ k t i 0 0 0 E

_ e gC 6 6 8 R e p

_ Y V(

T I

V I

T 1

)

I S

lk/ i 5 8 5

. N iC Mp .

1 1 1 1 E (

S

_ )

- D L

L

( )

g s N e hk 0 0 0 0 0 0 t

4. O is/ i 3 6 3 6 3 5 o 4l FC.p 1 2 1 2 1 1 n E r t

o fo

(

. L C 8 I

- B E y AT r o

T ED t

a n

F s a O e e s t

e )3 lp n

r a x T l oua/ sm 1 0

7 0 0 0 5 6 e r

I br cGi o M i t C 0 0 0 0 f I iAar o r (p 3

L P 9 R 4 E l e

W b a _

O T _

L r) e/l 0 n -

L t i 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 8 5 o y A aC 4 0 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 it a

T W (p 3 i

c N f ic E e p _

M S ..

N a 0 O

l _

s t 0 5 4 a _

R i e 4 9 6, 5 9- 4 7 ic I

s y B- 3 5- 5- 8 6- S 1

3 3 3 1

- n a

1 1 V l a s s H n e 5

- n N 1 s

s L-h c

N n o M F o Z r

- I C C a e E A r C Z B T -

G e e

S

)

t y r

end "0

. m g-ik 0

. d/ i 0 SeCp 3

(

d e

s t u

_ c e u b S d )g y ok 000 0 0 N r/ 0 a Pi 0 0 m O C

_ 1 I dop 1 2 0 T

A F o( 0 0,

R 0 3

T f

_ N o .

_ E ey C k/

)

1 ul n lao N S l i 3 0 0 0 0 vl OE iC Mp 6 7 3 a,fa l

CL ( r e u t

YP t aO

. TM wn

- I V A ga r i

I S n iD TL

_ 5 4 CA )

g 0 0 0 0 0 k

nm E AT hk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i

r r d- ot L ONE I

is/

FC p i 0, 0 0 0,

0 0 0 0, 0, 0, 0 0 nS 9

1 1 2 B 3 1 3 1 2 oh

- A D A M

( nt r r o T RN o _

O FN RR sh

. e OI yt FV at SN s wa LE e nt e s) h n ae3 t a e EN rl s o u a /m 9 0 0 pk a VI b c iGi C 0 1 2 r t E r it e s Aa ro r (p t

L a e P wp l G gm N

I n a i s T k inb R )

l r r a .

O /

i d g r r P Cp 0 0 0 oo E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ff R (

r 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 3 2 l l e e _

e 0 1 4 1 3 3 4 v v t

a 2 ee _

LL W gg ii n n t

r n 0 oo pp s 5 4 i

s 4 9 8 0 5 9- 4 7 1 e e ly 3 5- 5 5 6- 6 -b 1

3 3 3 - RR

- - - 1 1 a a H n e o o n N- 1

- s s L-A n M F C C Z r 1 C C a * "

Z B _

NNW N ,

N

}

p

% , I

'g,, I s . ,

1

\ /*

/

/ \\

\# Fenceline f EE Vernon Pond W A .

\\ ~

ASE-12 TC-11 E '\

W-ll I g ,

K

\ . Intake og g

l WSW fo of A

,,, Discharge '

ESE

\

l A, E-11 Ver on Elementa VyT 1 - ~ Ayjh 18

\ V 6 g N/ -

SW

',/ .- SE 1

\ \

vernon ao' SSE g ,

t i '

KM g' ,

t C 0 .2 .4

~. / \

Figure 4-1 Environmental Santpling Locations in Close Proximity to the Plant 20

1

/

\ f

l

\ //"

'NT . , _ - .

NNE k s'.

',/ /

's

/ .c s % N '

l U

g. . ,/ 1 Y '?j, Qi

's A '

/

/y'N '-

,/

/

,\

t i

A AP/CF-12 G.12.

gl f s SE x

\

TM.16 A TC.16

\ \ ' fC

,1

/

\,

p/

/ y i

l / -1 g

rx. .

4/ <

(- \<x<

I b' f'

p?., bigff,,, L d....$... N

\

See Enlargemeni p\f-'

Wg.

\ Y[

\

\ fAP/ F 11 r,,

syu

\

b<'/

m g Q(

TC

- 18 EF F-

' /

/ s / l

\

'{C' N~.q \

\ -

,/ j av \ j/ /

\ \ .

/

sE 's ,' s N'A/ / s ,/

If19 '

/ ' \ 'i r~f' L if,,' N,\

/ [ ['

Figure 4-2 Environinental Sainpling Locations Within 5 Kin of Plant 21

~

N )

b l TM-24 o TC-24 b

f N *

> Keene NNWf-' ' -7 % P/CF-21 A WG. x TG-21 9

NW / ,

,e' \

WR 21 FH 2 l

/

'94

/ N NE g !

M :' /

.s

~, f \, N ,, *ry/See Enlarge.A i ,

/

\

'N 1

\ i bw/ ,/ ~dBr*attlek ^ t .i ! '

ment-

' ene j p ', g.m..... .p. 4j/.....g s / / 'i; zi s

(' i' \j/ '

l

- }N![r 'x' '

h];ns}lI W ; mv

,Vernop j

c ester e

'l ,/jT.*s .

\

l

~

I*

. ,/ ~$, '

VT s -

'i 'A Q 'x\ N

\/ : /

WSW \ '

/ f _g " "j ; i s NH jESE

\ g,/ 'N ' ,

/

>- " - ~ " " " " " " " " '

l 'o

' s, g/

' ,. ,_ '91 f 1[' 'sj' )

x f '-

-;r

\. '\

/ ';.

x- -

SW /

\

\ AP/CFe14

't ,/ , TG-14\ SE 1

/

' \ ;

s D'-

IE S 1

'[

t ~ \ !

J N !

PG- d -

Cge Figure 4-3 Environmental Sainpling Locations Greater than 5 Kmfroin Plant 22

[

N

[ - \ N

.NNW '

f -

NNE 1

{ N O

\ \ b

%,, s O

Fenceline / \ NEk t ;i

( A[R-48 % \

\ \ \

WhW g AD 47 ernon Pond I

/

\

ll j tac Edd'q; DR ~

N

{* .

x \

k1 \N ADR-33 \ S'

[

't

'g

\ \, \

DR 7 A' N '

W

\ g- % \ okd: j R-44

.[

E

\ DRE -52 4 O' U(90 -?

A R 31 A \

-j ESE

\ V Elementa g 50ADR-4i OR

\/

WSW ool A' !R-43

( l /

(

[ /

\ ,

.-~

/

'ADR-42 X

/ 1AD R-2 /

( / {'

SSE 'SE ~

SW ~

\ Vernon Da

( DR 27 S '

[ Ku

\\ e

\ 0 .2 .4

[

Figure 4-4 TLD Locations in Close Proximity to Plant f

m 23 r

1

,,, ~ v i 1s i i s N , / r

\

{

DR. f '

Brattls ,:' JW Nf

\ __ . -

/ i

--~..L, M' N

ja

\ '

/

j l N s 4,4*'

/N,'s N. NT , / N gg

/

/ -

2

'N

'N / l ADR-12 N' '\

i g - 7\ N sf 99 3 l j ADW l

?

/',

l WNW[

j g

'NDR-37

's Ik% >l '

'/ \

CR-36 g' A@

Hi ' dale i

i

'N'N, ' /q ENE

%j \

}/ ,/ J KO / _,

R-1 j m R-35 '

! , , - p I bDR-34 %! -

~~'>.._... ;,AQR47 y T~

iv'oM L- % .

\ 'y;

,./

\ -

See Enlargeme t/

\i / '* '\ E8E

\

in Figure 4gD -30 (\/,O oR.j [R 1 k .

WSW

\ [

/,/

/

25 - /

AA-C -23 s

's N

' DR 19

, DR 28 ', -22 A \ >

R-32 ' /,/ /

/

\ N N

/ l _ -

p

/

\ /

,/

,,'/ SW ,] 5 NK j/-

A .i \ 'y 11 %, ,

I N,'y

,/ N N j i / /K s.

( / '

1

?!T '

\

KM M, i

\'

/ \

0 .5 1 1.5 2 N

-*- "-" - - - /j -

Figure 4-5 TLD Locations Within 5 Km ofPlant 24

~

\ T N f

( *

'eene 9

\

NT , 'A s

\

f j ?'s

/ \

/ N\

/ bb i /

i js Brattle or V '

'g ,j

\' l 's(e rplargernent N rus

, x i !

Sin Figure 4-o y 7f

\ ~

)

... ......q... . .:/ c/

gsy

\ -

l ji ,/A, i s M j

\

', yt i '

f I

,; 4 k ,. #

f

/ %D -34 %

'N' a , N '-

W '

v - \,

DRd4!' N- .g j F }1 ster

t 7' - -

E q ,/jK ,/, i 8 x DR-)2 4 / /// \ d' ADR-20 f -

/

\;

y F ; s' 3 /

\

,: 91'gl .

N 's /

l ..

%,_,__ VT \ / i.. ../...................A q 'y su rst\ yN s c l \

/'~ /

't /

usu

/ ',

l y ' y' 8 mi y ,

__7

,- -r , -

' y ,e ;. -

SW j

/

09 4 'N j'

~ s N / sE N /

J )

'\ j \/ *

\., ,'

N. .

\

,/ A ggy ,

%_ s :

L, I i 1

\

f n 5

A^

/

.q .,

KM

/

W er belt ,

0 1 2 3 4 /

/

y -

Figure 4-6 TLD Locations Greater Than 5 Kinfroin Plant 25 i

f

5. RADIOLOGICAL DATA

SUMMARY

TABLES

(

This section summarizes the analytical results of the enviIonmental samples which were collected during 1997. These results, shown in Table 5.1, are presented in a format similar to that prescribed in the NRC's Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position on iivironmental Monitoring (Reference 1). The results are ordered by sample media type ano then by radionuclide. The units for each media type are also given.

The left-most column contains the radionuclide of interest, the total number of analyses for that radionuclide in 1997, and the number of measurements which exceeded the Reporting Ixvels found in Table 3.9.4 of the VYNPS Technical Specifications. The latter are classified as "Non-routine" measurements. The second column lists the required Lower Limit of Detection (LLD)

( for those radionuclides which have detection capability requirements as specified in the plant's Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (Table 4.9.3). The absence of a value in this column indicates that no LLD is specified in the Technical Specifications for that radionuclide in that media. The target LLD for any analysis is typically 30-40 percent of the most restrictive required LLD. Occasionally the required LLD is not met. This is usually due to malfunctions in f sampling equipment, which results in low sample volume. Such cases, if any, are addressed in Section 6.2.

f For each radionuclide and media type, the remaining three columns summarize the data for the following categories of monitoring locations: (1) the Indicator stations, which are within the range ofinfluence of the plant and which could be affected by its operation; (2) the station which had the highest mean concentration during 1997 for that radionuclide; and (3) the Control stations, which are beyond the influence of the plant. Direct radiation monitoring stations (using TLDs) are grouped into Inner Ring, Outer ring, Site Boundary and Control. -

In each of these columns, for each radionuclide, the following statistical values are given:

The mean value of all concentrations, with all values that are less than the a posteriori LLD for that analysis having been converted to zero, pursuant to footnote (f) of Technical Specification Table 4.9.3.

The lowest and highest concentration, with all values that are less than the a posteriori LLD having been converted to zero, pursuant to footnote (f) of Technical Specification Table 4.9.3.

26 L

I

~

=

The "No. Detected," is the number of positive measurements, divided by the total number.

A measurement is considered positive when the concentration is greater than three times the standard deviation in the concentration.

Each single radioactivity measurement datum in this repon is based on a single measurement and is reported as a concentration plus or minus a one standard deviation uncertainty. The standard deviation on each measurement represents only the random uncenainty associated with the radioactive decay process (counting statistics), and not the propagation of all possible uncertainties in the analytical procedure.

Pursuant to VYNPS Technical Specification Table 4.9.3 (footnote 1), any concentration below the a posteriori LLD for its analysis is averaged as a zero. Where a range of values is reported in the tables of this section, values less than the LLD are reported as zero. To be consistent with Duke Engineering & Services Laboratory (DESEL) reporting practices and normal data review practices used by Vermont Yankee, a " positive measurement" is considered to be one whose concentration is greater than three times its associated standard deviation, based on the random uncertainty as discussed above. This use of counting statistics for the determination of the presence of radioactivity, rather than the use of an LLD as a cut-off, is consistent with industry practices.

The radionuclides reported in this section represent those that: 1) had an LLD requirement in Table 4.9.3 of the Technical Specifications, or a Reporting level listed in Table 3.9.4, or 2) had a positive measurement of radioactivity, whether it was naturally-occurring or man-made; or 3) were of special interest for any other reason. The radionuclides that were routinely analyzed and reported by the DESEL (in a gamma spectroscopy analysis) were: Th-232, Ag-110m, Ba,140, Be-7, Ce-141, Ce-144, Co-57, Co-58, Co-60, Cr-51, Cs-134, Cs-137, Fe-59, I-131, I-133, K-40, l Mn-54, Mo-99, Np-239, Ru-103, Ru-106, Sb-124, Se-75, Tel-132, Zn-65 and Zr-95. In no case did a radionuclide not shown in Table 5.1 of this report appear as a " detectable measurement" during 1997. ,

l Data from direct radiation measurements made by TLDs are provided in Table 5.2 in a format essentially the same as above. The complete listing of qucrterly TLD data is provided in Table 5.3.

l l

i 27 l

i

, Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary l Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT i

l (January - December 1997) '

l MEDIUM: Air Particulates (AP) UNITS: oCl/eubic meter

.ind.ic.a.to..r.S..

. . . . .. . tat.io..ns... Station With Highest Mean

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. o..n.t.rol

. . Sta.ti.o.n.s Radionuclides

Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine ** LLD No. Detecteo'* No. Detected *** No. Detected ***

GR-B (156) 0.01 2.0E -2 13 2.1E -2 2.0E -2 (0) ( 1.3 - 3.2)E -2 ( 1.3 - 3.2)E -2 ( 1.1 - 2.9)E -2 (130/ 130) (26/ 26) (26/ 26)

Be-7 (24) 1.0E -1 11 1.1E -1 9.6E -2 (0) ( 7.2 - 15.9)E -2 ( e.1 - 15.9)E -2 ( 7.1 - 12.4)E -2 (20/ 20) (5/ 4) (4/ 4)

Cs-60 (24) 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 1

(0) "**

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

C3-134 (24) 0.05 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E o (0) *"*

j (0/ 20) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Cc-137 (24) 0.06 0.0E O 11 0.0E 0 0.0E o (0) ""

(0/ 20) (0/ 4) (0/ 4) g 1

l l

l 28

( )

I f

Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January- December 1997) ,

f MEDIUM. CharcoalCartridae (CF) UNITS oCl/cuble re.r_r U..gto,r,S,9,gm,s,, Sgjt,on gjtg,pj,gg,est,,y,ean,

, , , , ,, , g,g,S,g,on,s,,,,

Radionuclides

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

l-131 (156) 0.07 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 (o) .... .... ....

(0/ 130) (0/ 26) (0/ 26)

[

{

f

{

l j

l o

L 29 r

i

(

Table 5.1

( Radiological Environmental Program Summary l Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January. December 1997) .,

MEDIUM. River Water (WR) UNITS: oC]lkg Station With Highest Mean ind.ic.a.t.o..r.S..ta.t.io..ns...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.o..nt.r.ol

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

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

GR-B (23) 4 1.5E O 21 1.6E O 1.6E o (0) ( 0.0 - 2.3)E O ( 0.0 - 2.7)E O ( 0.0 - 2.7)E 0 (10/ 11) (10/ 12) (10/ 12) i H-3 (8) 3000 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O I ....

go) .... ....

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

Mn-54 (23) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 go) .... .... ....

(0/ 11) (0/ 11) (0/ 12)

Co-58 (23) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E 0 (0)

(0/ 11) (0/ 11) (0/ 12)

Fe-59 (23) 30 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E O (0)

(0/ 11) (0/ 11) (0/ 12)

Co-60 (23) 15 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E o go) .... .... ....

! (0/ 11) (0/ 11) (0/ 12)

Zn-65 (23) 30 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E O go) .... .... ....

(0/ 11) (0/ 11) (0/ 12)

W j Zr.95 (23) 15 0.03 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E O ;,

(0)

(0/ 11) (0/ 11) (0/ 12)

Cs.134 (23) 15 0.0E o 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O (0)

(0/ 11) (0/ 11) (0/ 12)

Cs-137 (23) is 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O (0)

(0/ 11) (0/ 11) (0/ 12) 140 (23) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E o (0)

(0/ 11) (0/ 11) (0/ 12) 30 i

\

Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January. December 1997) ,,

I i MEDIUM. Ground Water (WG) UNITS: oCl/ka ~

l l .S.tation With Highest Mean

.Ind.ic.a.t.o..r.S..ta.t.io..ns...

. . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . C..o..n.t.r.o.l..S.t.a.t.io.ns...

Radionuclides

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

GR-B (16) 4 4.0E o 11 7.3E 0 2.2E o (0) ( 0.0 - 8.8)E O ( 6.4 - 8.8)E O ( 1.7 - 3.2)E 0 (11/ 12) (4/ 4) (4/ 4) l H-3 (16) 3000 0.0E o 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O go) .... .... ....

(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Mn-54 (16) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O go) .... .... ....

(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4) l Co-58 (16) 15 0.0E o 11 0.0E 0 0.0E 0

- - - +++- ****

(0)

(0/ 12) (b/ 4) (0/ 4) l Fe-59 (16) 30 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 (0)

(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Co40 (16) 15 0.0E o 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 (o)

(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Zn45 (16) 30 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O go) .... .... ....

(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Zr-95 (16) 15 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 j.

(0)

(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Ca-134 (16) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 l

(o) j (0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4) l Cs-137 (16) 18 0.0E o 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0

.... .... .... J (o)

(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

Ba-140 (16) 15 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 j (0)

(0/ 12) (0/ 4) (0/ 4) 31

l l

l Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT j (January - December 1997) ,

! MEDIUM: Sediment (SE) UNITS: oCl/ha

.In..d.ic.a.t.o..r.S..t.a.t.

. ion.s... Station With Highest Mean

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - C.o. n.t.r.o.l..St.a.tio.n.s

. .. . ... )

Radionuclides

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

Be-7 (102) 4.1E 1 12 5.2E 1 No DATA (0) ( 0.0 - 1.4)E 3 ( 0.0 - 1.4)E 3 (2/ 102) (2/ 50)

K-40 (102) 1.3E 4 to 1.4E 4 No MTA (0) ( 8.4 - 18.9)E 3 ( 1.2 - 1.9)E 4 (102/ 102) (4/ 4)

Mn-54 (102) 0.0E 0 07 0.0E O No MTA (0)

(0/ 102) (0/ 10)

Co-58 (102) 0.05 0 07 0.0E O No MTA (0)

(0/ 102) (0/ 10)

Co-60 (102) 7.9E 1 12 1.0E 2 No MTA i 1

(1) ( 0.0 - 8.1)E 3 ( 0.0 - 8.1)E 3 (1/ 102) (1/ 80)

Zn-65 (102) 0.0E O 07 0.0E o No MTA (0) l (0/ 102) (0/ 10) i Cs-134 (102) 150 0.05 0 07 0.0E O No MTA I (0)

(0/ 102) (0/ 10)

Cs-137 (102) 180 1.2E 2 12 1.4E 2 No MTA p (0) ( 0.0 - 2.7)E 2 ( 0.0 - 2.7)E 2 (73/ 102) (69/ 80)

Th-232 (102) 9.0E 2 12 9.8E 2 No MTA (0) ( 0.0 - 1.3)E 3 ( 6.2 - 12.9)E 2 (101/ 102) (80/ 80) 32

q Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January. December 1997) ,

MEDIUM: Storm Drain Water (WW) UNITS: oCl/kg Station With Highest Mean Control Stations In.d.i.c.a.t.o.r.S..ta.t.io..n.s...

Radionuclides

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

GR-B (18) 2.9E 0 12 3.6E O NO DATA (0) ( 0.0 - 4.2)E o ( 2.7 - 4.2)E o (17/ 18) (6/ 6)

H-3 (18) 0.0E O 10 0.0E O NO DATA (0)

(0/ 18) (Q/ 12)

Mn-54 (15) 0.0E o to 0.0E O NO DATA (0)

(0/ 15) (0/ 12)

Co-58 (15) 0.0E o 10 0.0E O No DATA (a)

(0/ 15) (0/ 12)

Fe-59 (15) 0.0E 0 10 0.0E O NO DATA

. (0)

(0/ 15) (0/ 12)

Co-60 (15) 0.0E O 10 0.0E O No DATA (0)

(0/ 15) (0/ 12)

Zn-65 (15) 0.0E O 10 0.0E O NO DATA (0)

(0/ 15) (0/ 12)

Zr-95 (15) 0.0E o 10 0.0E O NO DATA ,

(0)

(0/ 15) (0/ 12)

Cs.134 (15) 0.0E 0 10 0.0E 0 NO DATA (0)

(,0/ 15) (0/ 12)

Cs-137 (15) 0.0E O 10 0.0E O NO DATA (0)

(0/ 15) (0/ 12)

Ba-140 (15) 0.0E O 10 0.0E 0 NO DATA (0)

(0/ 15) (0/ 12)

I t

33 l

Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Vernon, VT (January - December 1997) y l

MEDIUM: Test Well (WT) UNITS: DQjdg i

!ad.i.e.,pr,sja,ews ,

, staup,9,m go,9 psi ugan

, , . , cm.mi stang,ns ,

Radionuclides

Mean Sta. Mean Mean (No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Nor> Routine" LLD No. Detected"* No. Detected"* No. Detected'"

i GR-B (8) 1.4E 1 17 1.6E 1 NO DATA (0) ( 1.2 - 1.8)E 1 ( 1.3 - 1.s)E 1 (s/ s) (2/ 2)

H-3 (8) 0.0E 0 14 0.0E 0 NO DATA (0)

(0/ e) .(0/ 2)

Mn-54 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E 0 NO DATA (0)

(0/ e) (0/ 2)

Co-58 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E 0 NO DATA (0)

(0/ s) (0/ 2)

Fe-59 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA (0)

(0/ s) (0/ 2)

Co-60 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E o No DATA (0)

(0/ s) (0/ 2)

Zn-65 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA

"" ~~ l (0)

(0/ s) (0/ 2)

Zr-95 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E 0 NO DATA ;, j go) .... ....

(0/ s) (0/ 2)

Cs-134 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA go) .... ....

,(0/ s) (0/ 2)

Cs-137 (8) 0.0E 0 14 0.0E 0 NO DATA (0)

(0/ s) (0/ 2)

Be-140 (8) 0.0E O 14 0.0E O NO DATA go) .... ....

(0/ s) (0/ 2) 34

Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January- December 1997) y MEQ[UM: Milk (TM) UNITS: oCL/km 1

l

!"2E.*.'.t.S!*1oa.5.. S' a ".Highg,st Mean,,

.. . , ,,, gg,n,tgt,S,23,ns,,,,

, Radionuclides

Mean Sta. Mean Mean l

(No. Analyses) Required Range Range Range Non-Routine" LLD No. Detocted"* No. Detected *" No. Detected *"

K-40 (90) 1.4s 3 18 1.4s 3 1.4s 3 (0) ( 1.2 - 1.s) 3 ( 1..* - 1.sjs 3 ( 1.3 - 1.s): 3 (72/ 72) (1s/ 10) (1s/ 1s)

St-89 (20) 0.0s 0 11 0.0s 0 0.os 0 (0)

(0/ 1s) (0/ 4) (0/ 4)

St-90 (20) 4.7s -1 14 1.2s 0 0.Os 0 (0) ( 0.0 - 3.4): 0 ( 0.0 - 3.4): 0 *"*

(4/ 15) (2/ 4) (0/ 4) l-131 (90) 1 0.05 0 11 0.os 0 0.0E O go) .... .... ....

(0/ 72) (0/ 10) (0/ 18)

Co-134 (90) 15 0.0s 0 11 0.0s 0 0.03 0 go) .... .... ....

(0/ 72) (0/ 10) (0/ 10)

Cs-137 (90) le 0.0s 0 11 0.0E O 0.0s 0 (0)

(0/ 72) (0/ 10) (0/ 15)

Ba-140 (90) 15 0.0E o 11 0.0s 0 0.Os O go) .... .... ....

(0/ 72) (0/ 18) (0/ 18) i l-35

I I

Table 5.1

~

Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT l

(January - December 1997) ,

MEDIUM: Silane (TC) UNITS: oCl/kg l

.In..d.i.c.a.t.o..r.Sta.t.io..n.s... .S.tation With Highest.Mean

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C..o..n. trol Stations....

Radionuclides

Mean Sta. Mean Mean (Ro. Analyses) Required Range Range Range

, Non-Routine" LLD No. Detected"* No. Detected"* No. Detected"*

I Be.7 (5) 4.25 2 14 6.ss ll 5.8E 2 l

(o) ( 0.0 - s.s)E 2 l

(3/ 4) (1/ 1) (1/ 1)

K-40 (5) 3.3E 3 14 ' 4.8E 3 2.0E 3 (0) ( 2.0 - 4.8)E 3 (4/ 4) (1/ 1) (1/ 1) 1131 (5) 0.0E O 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O (o)

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

Cs-134 (5) 0.0E O 11 0.0E 0 0.05 0 l (o)

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

Cs-137 (5) 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E O go) ....

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

Be-140 (5) 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.05 0 go) ....

(0/ 4) (0/ 1) (0/ 1) i

! i I

,* 1 1

I f

1 l 36

Table 5.1 W ' '

Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January - December 1997) ,

MEDIUM: Mixed Grass (TG) UNITS: oCl/kg

..?.. .'.h..".N.".s,, Statj, og,g,, ,,,

,,, ti Hig gest Mean, , , , pontrol y,o,ns,,

Radionuclides

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

Be-7 (18) 1.4E 3 15 1.8E 3 1.2s 3 I (0) ( o.o - 4.5)E 3 ( 3.0 - 44.8)E 2 ( 3.5 - 27.2)E 2 (9/ 15) (2/ 3) (3/ 3)

K.40 i (18) 5.6E 3 14 6.7E 3 5.9E 3 (0) ( 3.1 - 7.9)E 3 ( 6.0 - 7.9)E 3 ( 4.8 - 6.4)E 3 (15/ 15) ()/ 3) (3/ 3) l-131 (18) so 0.ca o 0.os o I (o) ****

11 0.cz o (0/ 15) (o/ 3) (0/ 3) i Cs-134 (18)

(0) so 0.oz o 11 o.os o o.cz o (0/ 15) (o/ 3) (0/ 3)

Cs 137 (18) 80 0.or o 11 0.cz o 0.os o

(,, .... .... ....

(c/ 15) (o/ 3) (0/ 3) l I

I .

I I

m 37 r

Table 5.1 Radiological Environmental Program Summary Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Vernon, VT (January December 1997) ,,

MEDIUM: Flah (FH) UNITS: oCl/ka 3ad.1.aptsjaypn,9,,

. Station Mh Highest,,y,ean

, , ,, ,, , , , p,ontyp,1,S,tagns,,,,

Radionuclides

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

K-40 (4) 2.7E 3 11 2.75 3 2.0E 3 (0) ( 2.5 - 2.8)E 3 ( 2.5 - 2.5)E 3 ( 1.9 - 2.1)E 3 (2/ 2) (2/ 2) (2/ 2)

Mn-54 (4) 130 0.0E 0 11 0.0E 0 0.0E O (0)

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

Co-58 (4) 130 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E O go) .... .... ....

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

Fe-59 (4) 260 0.0E 0 11 0.0E o 0.0E o go) .... .... ....

(0/ 2) (0/ 2) (0/ 2) l Co-60 (4) 130 0.0E 0 11 0.0E O 0.0E 0 go) .... .... ....

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

Zn-66 (4) 260 0.0E O 11 0.0E 0 0.05 0 (o)

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

Cs-134 (4) 130 0.OE O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O go) .... .... ....

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

CO 137 (4) 150 0.0E O 11 0.0E O 0.0E O _,

(0)

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

\

l l

l 1

38

l i

i i

I l

l l Footnotes to Table 5.1:

De only radionuclides reported in this table are those with Reporting level or LLD requirements, those for which positive radioactivity was detected, and those that were of some other special interest. See Section 5 of this report for a discussion of'dther radionuclides that were analyzed.

5

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

l *** The fraction of sample analyses yielding detectable measurements (i e. the concentration is greater than three times its standard deviation)is shown in parentheses.

- - - Range is not displayed if all the concentration values were converted to zero pursuant to footnote f of Technical Specification Table 4 9.3.

I i

l 1

l l

l

/

l I

39

l i

r

w l

TABLE S.2 l

ENVIRONMENTALTLD DATA SUMMAljY VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON, VT (JANUARY . DECEMBER 1997) 0FFSITE STATION INNER RING TLD OLTTER RING TLD WITil filGilEST MEAN CONTROL TLDs MEAN* MEAN* STANO. MEAN* MEAN*

RANGE

RANGE

RANGE

RANGE *

(NO. MEASUREMENTS)" (NO MEASUREMENTS)" (NO MEASUREMENTS)" (NO MEASUREMENTS)"

I 6.5

0.5 6.6

0.8 DR-36 7.8

0.7 6.3

0.3 5.5 B.5 5.2 - B.7 7.08.7 5.96.9 (84) (63) (4) (8) l l

SITE BOUNDARY TLD l WITI! HIGIIEST MEAN SITE BOUNDARY TLD STA.No. MEAN* MEAN*

RANGE

RANGE

j (No MEASUREMENTS)" (NO MEASUREMENTS)"

l l DR-45 12.4

2.1 8.I

1.6 l 10.2 15.1 60 15.1

! (4) (52) l l

I

Units are in micro-R per hour.

" Each " measurement" is based typically on quarterly readings from five TLD clements.

I

]

l l

1 i

1 \

t l

l 40

TABLE 5 3 ENVIRON %1ENTALTLD hlEASURE%lENTS 1997

(%licro-R per llour)

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

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

DR 01 River Sta. No. 33 5.9

0.4 6.1*03 6.4

0.2 6.0*03 6. I DR 02 N. Ilinsdale, NIi 5.6

0.4 63 *03 6.7

0.2 6.2*03 6.2 DR-03 Ilinsdale Substation 6.9

0.5 7.5

0.4 7.8*03 6.9

0.4 73 DR-04 Northfield, MA 6.0

0.5 63 *03 6.6

0.2 60*03 6.2 DR05 Spofford Lake. Nil 5.9

0.4 6.4* 03 6.9

0.2 6.4*03 6.4 DR-06 Vernon Schcol 6.0

0.6 6.4

0.4 6.9

0.2 6.1*03 6.4 DR 07 Site Boundary 7.4

0.6 7.8

0.4 8.6

0.4 7.9

0.4 7.9 DR-08 Sia Boundary 7.7

0.5 7.6*03 8.2*03 7.4

0.7 7.7 DR-09 Inner Ring 6.1

0.5 6.2

0.4 6.7

0.2 8.5

1.2 6.9 DR-10 Outer Ring 53 *0.4 '5.2* 03 5.8

0.2 5.6

O 4 5.5 DR-I l Inner Ring 5.5

0.4 5.8

0.4 1

0.2 5.9

0.3 5.8 DR-12 Outer Ring 5.2

0.5 5.6

0.3 9*O3 5.7*03 5.6 DR-13 Inner Ring 6.1

0.6 63*03

0.2 6.2

0.4 63 DR14 Outer Ring 6.7

0.4 7.6

0.4 7.9*03 7.6

0.4 7.5 DR15 Inner Ring 6.4

0.4 6.5* 03 6.7*03 64*03 6.5 DR-16 Outer Ring 7.2

0.6 7.0

0.4 73*03 7.2

0.4 7.2 DR-17 inner Ring 5.8

0.5 63 *0.5 6.6*03 6.2*03 6.2 DR-18 Outer Ring 6.0

O 4 6.5*03 6.8

0.2 6.4

0.4 6.4 DR-19 Inner Ring 6.1

0.5 6.7*03 7.2

0.2 6.5

0.4 6.6 DRO Outer Ring 6.6

0.6 7.1

0.3 8.0*03 7.2* 03 73 DR-21 Inner Ring 6.7

0.6 6.9

0.4 7.2*03 6.7*03 6.9 DR-22 Outer Ring 6.1

0.5 6.4

0.3 6.8*03 6.6*03 6.5 DR-23 Inner Ring 6.0

0.5 6.1

0.4 6.4

0.2 63 i03 6.2 DR-24 Outer Ring 5.5

0.6 5.6*03 6.0

0.2 5.7*03 5.7 DR-25 Inner Ring 6.2

0.4 6.2

0.4 6.8*03 63*03 64 DR-26 Outer Ring 5.9

0.4 6.7

0.4 7.0 e 03 6.320.3 6.5 DR 27 inner Ring 6.3

0.5 63 *03 6.8

O 2 63*03 6.4 DR 28 Outer Ring 5.9 03 6.7

0.4 7.2

0.4 6.4

O 4 66 ,,

DR-29 Inner Ring 63 *0.6 6.2

O 3 6.7*03 6.5

0.5 6.4 DR 30 Outer Ring 63 *0.5 6.6*03 7.1

O 3 6.9

0.5 6.7 DR-3 I Inner Ring 6.3

0.5 6.6*03 7.2*03 6.8*03 6.7 DR-32 Outer Ring 5.9

0.4 63 *O4 7.1*03 6.7

0.4 6.5 DR-33 inner Ring 62*O4 6.6

0.4 73 *0.3 68*0.4 6.7 DR-34 Outer Ring 6.5

0.5 7.1

0.4 7.7*03 7.1*03 7.1 DR-35 Inner Ring 6.2

0.4 6.7

O 4 7.0*03 6.9

0.4 67 DR-36 Outer Ring 7.0 = 0.5 7.8

O 4 8.7

O 3 7.9

0.4 7.8 DR-37 inner Ring 5.9

0.5 6.6

O 4 7.0*03 6.5*03 6.5 DR-38 Outer Ring 6.5

0.5 7.1

0.4 7.4*03

7.0 DR-39 inner Ring 6.2

0.4 6.7

0.4 7.2

0.3 6.7

0.4 6.7 DR-10 Outer Ring 6.5

0.7 6.5

0.4 7.1

0.2 7.1

0.5 6.8 1

I I

1 I

41 1

l l

TAULE 5.3, continued ENVIRON %1 ENTAL TLD %!EASUREhlENTS 1997

(%licro-R per flour)

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

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

DR41 Site Boundary 7.1

0.5 7.4

O 4 8.1

0.3 7.7

0.4 7.6 DR42 Site Boundary 64*0.4 6.7

0.3 7.1

0.2 68*O4 6.7 DR43 Site Boundary 6.8

0.5 7.0 e 0.4 7.8

0.3 7.3

O 4 7.2 DR-44 Site Boundary 8.7

0.8 7.6

O 4 8.6

0.4 84*O4 8.3 DR45 Site Boundary 11.4

0 6 10.2

0.5 131*1.0 15.1

1.1 12 4 DR46 Site Boundary 8.8

0.6 8.7

0.5 9.3

0.3 8.8

0.5 8.9 DR-47 Site Boundary 7.2

0.6 7.8

0.4 8.5

0.4 8.1

0.4 7.9 DR-48 Site Boundary 6.4

0.5 6.~7

0.3 7.3

0.4 6.9

0.3 6.8 DR49 Site Boundary 6.0

O 4 6.3

0.3 6.8

0.3

6.5

0.4 6.4 DR-50 Omernor ilunt 11ouse 6.3

0.5 7.0 + 0.4 7.6

0.3 7.1

0.3 7.0 DR51 Site Boundary 7.5

0.5 7.520.4 8.5

0.3 8.5

0.5 8.0 DR-52 Site Boundary 8.1*06 8.3

0.4 94*0.3 9.1

0.7 8.7

Data not availsble cue to missing TLDs.

42

l l

l

6. ' ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS 1

6.1 Sampling Program Deviations l Radiological Effluent Technical Specification 3.9.C allows for deviations "if specimens are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, seasonal unavailability, malfunction of automatic sampling equipment and other legitimate reasons." In 1997, several deviations were noted in the REMP. These deviations did not compromise the program's effectiveness and in fact are i considered typical with respect to what is normally anticipated for any radiological environmental monitoring program. The specific deviations for 1997 were:

l i

a.. Air was not sampled for approximately twenty four hours during the period December 31, 1996 to January 14,1997 at air sampling station AP/CF-11., River Station. The cause was likely a power surge in the Vernon area.

L i

b. Two scheduled outages to work on the Vernon Tie resulted in loss of power to the

]

following air sampling stations for the time indicated. The outages occurred on August

]

12,1997 and August 15,1997.

Sampling period: August 12,1997 to August 26,1997 i

AP/CF-11. River Station 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months l AP/CF-15, Tyler Hill 7.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months j

c. Air sampling at AP/CF-il, River Station was interrupted for 116 hours0.00134 days 0.0322 hours 1.917989e-4 weeks 4.4138e-5 months during the sampling period October 21,1997 to November 4,1997 and 22 hours2.546296e-4 days 0.00611 hours 3.637566e-5 weeks 8.371e-6 months during the sampling period November 4,1997 to November 18,1997. A new vacuum pump installed on October 21, 1997 appears to have caused the GFCI to trip during the first sampling period. The GFCI was reset on November 4,1997 but had tripped again when checked on November 6,1997.' The l pump was replaced and no additional problems have occurred.

l

d. The following missed sampling occurred at WR 11 - Downstream River compositor location.

1) The water pump did not operate approximately 73.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months between December 31,1996 and January 3,1997. The cause is thought to have been a power surge in the Vernon area which tripped the circuit breaker.

43

I l l

\ >

2) The river water composite sampler indicated 321 missed samples between January 15, 1997 and February 13, 1997. This is approximately 160.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months out of a month long sampling period. The cause is likely freezing of the saniple line from the river.

3) Power to the River Station was off for approximately 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months during the sampling period August 12,1997 to August 26,1997. The loss of power was due to two scheduled outages in Vemon to work on the Vernon Tie. The scheduled outages occurred on August 12 and 15,1997.

4) The water sampling pump was out of service due to local electrical storms on Augus. 29, l 1997. Power to the sampling station was restored on September 4,1997 when the breaker was reset.

j

f. Vegetation samples were not available for collection at the air sampling locations during the first and fourth quaner of 1997. I

g. There was one missing TLD in the fourth quarter,1997: 1) the TLD frorn the outer ring location DR-38 in the NW Sector.

6.2 Comparison of Achieved LLDs with Requirements Table 4.9.3 of the VYNPS Technical Specifications (also shown in Table 4.4 of this repon) gives the required Lower Limits of Detection (LLDs) for environmental sample analyses. On occasion, an LLD is not achievable due to a situation such as a low sample volume caused by l sampling equipment malfunction. In such a case, Technical Specification 6.7.C.3 requires a discussion of the situation. At the DESEL, the target LLD for any analysis is typically 30-40 percent of the most restrictive required LLD. Expressed differently, the typical sensitivities achieved for each analysis are at least 2.5 to 3 times greater than that required by VYNPS l Technical Specifications. '

l For each analysis having an LLD requirement in Technical Specification Table 4.9.3, the l 1

a posteriori(after the fact) LLD calculated for that analysis was compared with the required LLD. l Of the more than 1400 analyses that had an LLD requirement in Technical Specification Table l 4.9.3, all met the requirement.

i 44 l

'6.3 ' Comparison of Results with Reporting Levels Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.9.4 requires written nolification to the NRC within 30 days of receipt of an analysis result whenever a Reporting Level in that table is exceeded.

Reporting Levels are the environmental concentrations that relate to the ALARA design dose objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. Environmental concentrations are averaged over calendar quaners for the purposes of this comparison. The Reporting Levels are intended to apply only to measured levels of radioactivity due to plant effluents.

During 1997, one sediment sample collected in the area of the North Storm Drain Outfall exceeded the Reporting Level established in 1987 for Co-60 in the river sediment. Sediment samples are collected on a semiannual schedule and therefore no averaging over a calendar i quarter was done. The North Storm Drain Outfall sample collection area is divided into a 40 location grid with at least 26 samples collected each half year. The sediment sample collected I at a grid location approximately 40 feet offshore was determined to contain a discrete particle of Co-60 of 3820 120 pCi. This results in a concentration of 8092 254 pCi/kg in the 472.1 l grams of sample collected. This concentration exceeds the reporting level listed in TS Table 3.9.4. A special report was submitted to the NRC on August 8,1997 as required by Technical Specification 6.7.C.2.d. detailing the VYNPS investigation into the source and extent of the Co-60 activity. The outcome of the investigation is summarized below and includes items in progress at the time of the submittal of the Special Report to the NRC. l l

1. The dose impact resulting from exposure to a discrete particle of Co-60, assuming a point source of 3820 pCi Co-60 on the surface of the sediment, is 0.00034 mrem (this assumes the presence of a hypothetical maximum exposed individual standing directly over the particle). This dose is far below the annual dose objectives of 10CR50, Appendix I of three mrem.

In addition, a conservative or upper bound dose impact was determined assuming the activity was uniformly distributed in the sediment at 8092 pCi/kg and using the Regulatory Guide 1.109 mociel for exposure to river sediment. The accumulated annual dose a hypothetical maximally exposed individual would receive if standing on the surface of the sediment would be 0.07 mrem. This value is also far below the annual dose l objective of 10CFR50, Appendix I with neither representing a radiological hazard.

1 45 l

'2. Site surveys were conducted on the Turbine Building Roof and at the North Warehouse.

No gamma or beta activity was found on twenty-one smears collected on the Turbine Building Roof and no radioactivity was detected in the weekIy' North Warehouse surveys.

3. Semiannual samples collected from the North Storm Drain Outfall are routinely split with the Vermont Public Health Laboratory. The twenty-six samples collected in May and sent to the State Laboratory did not indicate the presence of Co-60. The State's sample from the location in question was analyzed at the DESEL and confirmed the VT State result that Co-60 was not present in the sample.

4. On 7/17/97, in-situ measurements were performed in the area of the North Storm Drain outfall and two grab samples were collected. The results indicate Co-60 present at levels between 4 and 10 pCi/kg in the area of the outfall. These concentrations represent about 0.3% of the required Co-60 Reporting Level in river sediments.

5. Thirteen additional sediment samples were collected on 7/25/97 in the area of the river where the particle was found, one at the same grid location and twelve surrounding this location. The samples were analyzed at the DESEL to environmental Lower Limits of Detection and no Co-60 activity was detected in any of the samples.

6. In August 1997, the VYNPS staff collected and analyzed sediment from the manholes in the North Storm Drain system. These analyses indicated Co-60 in four out of seven samples in concentrations ranging from 72 to 191 pCi/kg, or 7% of the Reporting Level concentration.

7. In August 1997, river sediment samples were collected from an area downstream from the Nonh Storm Drain outfall in the vicinity of the plant intake. These samples were analyzed by the DESEL to routine environmental Lower Limits of Detection. No Co-60 was detected in any of these samples.

8. The second semiannual North Storm Drain outfall sample collection conducted in October 1997 did not indicate the presence of Co-60 in any of the forty samples analyzed.

9. A review by VYNPS staff of all the sediment analyses and site surveys performed pri6r and subsequent to the detection of Co-60 in excess of the Reporting Level for river sediment and the lack of the presence of other shorter-lived plant-related nuclides indicate that the Co-60 in the sediment and the North Storm Drain system is residual activity most likely from the Turbine B'uilding Roof vents prior to 1993. This evaluation and supponing documents were submitted by VYNPS Chemistry Department staff for inclusion into the file for compliance with 10CFR50.75(g).

46

~6.4 ' Changes in Sampling Locations VYNPS Technical Specification 6.7.C.3 states that if "new e'nvironmental sampling locations are identified in accordance with Specification 3.9.D, the new locations shall be identified in the next annual Radiological Environmental Surveillance Report." During 1997 there were no changes in sampling locations.

6.5 Data Analysis by Media Type The 1997 REMP data for each media type is discussed below. Whenever a specific measurement result is presented, it is given as the concentration plus or minus one standard deviation. This standard deviation represents only the random uncertainty associated with the radioactive decay process (counting statistics), and not the propagation of all possible uncertainties in the analytical procedure. An analysis is considered to yield a " detectable measurement" wbn the concentration exceeds three times the standard deviation for that analysis.

With respect to data plots, all net concentrations are plotted as reported, without regard to whether the value is " detectable" or "non-detectable."

6.5.1 Airborne Pathways 6.5.1.1 Air Particulates The bi-weekly air paniculate filters from each of the six sampling sites were analyzed for gross-beta radioactivity. At the end of each quarter, the bi-weekly filters from each sampling site were composited for a gamma analysis. The results of the weekly air particulate sampling program are shown in Table 5.1 and Figures 6.1 through 6.6.

Gross beta activity was detected on all air paniculate filters collected. As shown in Figures ;

6.1, there is no significant difference between the quarterly average concentrations at the indicator (near-plant) stations and the control (distant from plant) stations. Also notable in the Figure is a distinct annual cycle, with the minimum concentration in the second quaner, and the maximum concentration in the first quarter.

Figures 6.2 through 6.6 show the weekly gross beta concentration at each air particulate sampling location alongside the same for the control air particulate sampling location at AP-21 (Spofford Lake, NH). Small differences are evident, and are expected, between individual 47

sampling locations. It can also be seen that the gross-beta measurements on air paniculate filters fluctuate significantly over the course of a year. The measurements from control station AP-21 vary similarly, indicating that these fluctuations are due to regional changes in naturally-occurring airborne radioactive materials, and not due to Vermont Yankee operations.

The only gamma emitting radionuclide detected on the air particulate filters was Be-7, a naturally-occurring cosmogenic radionuclide. I

6.5.1.2 ' Charcoal Cartridges The bi-weekly charcoal cartridges from each of the six air sampling sites were analyzed for I-131. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5.1. As in previous years, no I-131 was detected in any charcoal cartridge.

4 6.5.2 Waterborne Pathways l

6.5.2.1 River Water l Aliquots of river water were automatically collected hourly from the Connecticut River downstream from the plant discharge area. Monthly grab samples were also collected at the upstream control location, also on the Connecticut River. The composited samples at WR-11 were collected monthly and sent to the DESEL, along with the WR-21 grab samples, for analysis.

Table 5.1 shows that gross-beta measurements were positive in 10 out of 1I indicator samples and 10 out of 12 control samples, as would be expected, due to naturally-occurring radionuclides in the water. For 1997, the mean concentration of the indicator locations was similar to the mean conceutration at the control location. No gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in this sample.

For each sampling site, the monthly samples were composited into quarterly samples for H-3 I (Tritium) analyses. None of the samples contained detectable quantities of H-3.

6.5.2.2 Ground Water Quarterly ground water samples were collected from two indicator locations (only one is required by VYNPS Technical Specifications) and one control location during 1997. In the second half of 1996, WG-13 was added as an on-site well location. Table 5.1 and Figure 6.8 48

show that gross-beta measurements were positive in 11 out of 12 indicator samples and in all of the control samples. This is due to naturally-occurring radionucl, ides in the water. The levels at all sampling locations, including the higher levels at station WG-11, were consistent with that detected in previous years. No gamma-emitting radionuclides or H-3 (Tritium) were detected in any of the samples.

6.5.2.3 Sediment Semiannual sediment grab samples (27 in May and 41 in October) were collected from two indicator locations during 1997. As would be expected, naturally-occurring K-40 and Th-232 were detected in all samples. Cs-137 was detected in most indicator samples. The levels of Cs-137 measured at both locations were consistent with what has been measured in the previous several years and with that detected at other New England locations.

One sample out of eighty collected as part of the sampling grid at SE-12 showed the presence of a discrete particle of 3820 120 pCi Co-60. This activity represents 8092 254 pCi/kg averaged over the entire weight of the sample analyzed. This one grab sample resulted in an I increase in the annual average Co-60 concentration at SE-12 which has seen a declining trend in j the magnitude and number of occurrences of positive activity related to plant operations since i 1993 when the likely source of emission was eliminated. The average concentrations listed in Table 5.1 include the results of the semiannual collections plus the results of an additional thineen samples collected at SE-12, the analysis at the DESEL of the sediment sample split with the Vermont Public Health Laboratory for the grid location of interest and twenty samples collected downstream from the North Storm Drain outfall. A more detailed discussion of the dose assessment, additional sampling and site surveys conducted at SE-12 can be found in Section 6.3, Comparison of Results with Reporting Levels.

6.5.2.4 Storm Drains During 1997, grab samples.of water were collected from the on-site storm drain system at Vermont Yankee. Twelve monthly samples were collected from the South Storm Drain (WW-10) l and six samples from the North Storm Drain (WW-12). All samples were submitted for H-3 analysis and no H-3 was detected in any of the these 1997 samples from the North and South l Storm Drain systems.

l r

49 ,

l I

\

l

f Gross beta activity was detected in 17 out of 18 samples at levels similar to previous years (mean concentration range from 2.9 pCi/kg to 8.2 pCi/kg) due to naturally occurring nuclides in the water. No gamma emitting radionuclides were detected in the samples.

Monthly water grab samples were also collected by VYNPS staff from an on-site Manhole 13, which is located at the beginning of the South Storm Drain System. These samples were analyzed on-site for H-3 and four out of twelve samples contained H-3 in concentrations above the MDC with a mean concentration of 5345 pCi/kg. The H-3 concentration fe- :hese four l

samples ranged from 1970 pCi/kg to 9980 pCi/kg. Subsequently, from May througt. &cember 1997 the VYNPS staff also collected an additional 161 grab water samples from the South Storm Drain location WW-10 which is at the end of the South Storm Drain System. The samples were analyzed on-site at VY for H-3 to environmental MDC levels (approximately,2000 pCi/kg for 52 samples and 700 pCi/kg for 109 samples). No H-3 was detected in any of the additional samples collected. The VYNPS staff will continue to assess the presence of H-3 at Manhole 13 during 1998.

l 6.5.2.5 Test Wells During 1996 sampling was initiated at test wells around the outer edges of an area in the south l portion of the VYNPS site where septic sludge is spread. The test well locations are shown on Figure 4.1 and the results are summarized in Table 5.1 under the media category, Test Well (WT).

The sampling continued in 1997 and two samples were taken at each of the four locations and all were analyzed for gamma isotopic, gross beta and H-3 activity. No gamma emitting radionuclides or H-3 were detected.

f Prior to the gross beta analysis, each sample was filtered through a 0.45 micron Gelman Tuffryn membrane filter. Gross Beta activity was detected in all samples with levels ranging from 12 to 18 pCi/kg.

i 6.5.3 Ingestion Pathways y

{ 6.5.3.1 Milk Milk samples from cows or goats at several local farms were collected monthly during 1997.

Semimonthly collections were made during the " pasture season" since the milking cows or goats were identified as being fed pasture grass during that time. Each sarnple was analyzed for I-131 50 t

and other gamma-emitting radionuclides. Quarterly composites (by location) were analyzed for Sr-89 and Sr-90.

As expected, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. Also expected were l Cs-137 and Sr 90. Cs-137 was not detected in any of the 72 indicator samples or the 18 control samples. Sr-90 was detected in 4 out of 16 indicator samples. Although Sr-90 is a by-product of plant operations, the levels detected in milk are consistent with that expected from worldwide fallout from nuclear weapons tests, and to a much lesser degree from fallout from the Chernobyl incident. This radionuclide and Cs-137 are present throughout the natural environment as a result I of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing that started primarily in the late 1950's and continued through 1980. They are found in soil and vegetation, as well as anything that feeds upon vegetation, directly or indirectly. The Cs-137 and Sr-90 levels shown in Table 5.1 and Figures 6.9 and 6.10 are consistent with those detected at other New England farms participating in other j plant environmental monitoring programs. It should be noted here that most of the Cs-137 concentrations and many of the Sr-90 concentrations shown on Figures 6.9 and 6.10, respectively, are considered "not detectable." All values have been plotted, regardless of whether they were I considered statistically significant or not.

As shown in these figures, the levels are also consistent with those detected in previous years near the VYNPS plant. There is also little difference in concentrations between farms. It should be noted in Figures 6.9 and 6.10 that the plot for TM-16 includes data from several dairy farms, I all located successively on the same land. The Meadow Crest farm has provided samples only since October 1993.

6.5.3.2 Silage I

A silage sample was collected from each of the required milk sampling stations d'uring i October. Each of these was analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. As expected with all biological media, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. Naturally-occurring Be-7 was also detected in four of the.five samples.

I i _

L r

i 6.5.3.3 Mixed Grass i Mixed grass samples were collected at each of the air samhling stations on three occasions during 1997. As expected with all biological media, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. Naturally-occurring Be-7 was also detected in 12 out of 18 samples.

i No other gamma emitting radionuclides were detected in any of the samples collected in 1997.

6.5.3.4 Fish Semiannual samples of fish were collected from two locations in May/ June and October, 1997. The species collected were smallmouth bass, rock bass and yellow perch at both locations (FH-11 and FH-21) and walleye at FH-11. The edible portions of each of these were analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. As expected in biological matter, naturally-occurring K-40 was detected in all samples.

l As shown in Table 5.1, Cs-137 was not detected in any of the samples. It should be noted that the 1997 Cs-137 concentrations plotted in Figure 6.11 are considered "not detectable". All values were plotted regardless of whether they were considered statistically significant or not.

The Cs-137 levels plotted for previous years are typical of concentrations attributable to global l nuclear weapons testing fallout. No other radionuclides were detected.

6.5.4 Direct Radiation Pathway Direct radiation was continuously measured at 52 locations surrounding the Vermont Yankee plant with the use of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). These are collected every calendar quarter for readout at the DESEL. The complete summary of data may be found in Table 5.3.

From Tables 5.2 and 5.3 and Figure 6.12, it can be seen that the Inner and Outer Ring TLD mean exposure rates were not significantly different in 1997. This indicates no significant overall increase in direct radiation exposure rates in the plant vicinity. It can also be seen from these

tables that the Control TLD mean exposure rate was not significantly different than that at the Inner and Outer Rings.

Figure 6.12 also shows an annual cycle at both indicator and control locations. The lowest point of the cycle occurs during the winter months. This is due primarily to the attenuating effect 52 I

l l

l l of the snow cover on radon emissions and on direct irradiation by naturally-occurring radionuclides in the soil. Differing amounts of these naturally-occurring radionuclides in the underlying soil, rock or nearby building materials result in different radiation levels between one field site and another.

Upon examining Figure 6.16, as well as Table 5.2, it is evident that in recent years station DR-45 had a higher average exposure rate than any other station. This location is on-site, and the higher exposure rates are due to plant operations and activities in the immediate vicinity of the TLDs. There is no significant dose potential to the surrounding population or any real individual from these sources since they are located on the back side of the plant site, between the facility and the river. The same can be said for station DR-46, which has shown higher exposure rates in previous years.

Evaluation of the increase in the 4th quarter exposure rate at DR-09 in Figure 6.18 shows that the standard deviation associated with this quarter is high compared to the previous three quarters (Table 5.3). Applying a two sigma range to the fourth quaner compared to the individual or average exposure rates of the first three quarter shows that the ranges overlap, indicating since no change has occurred at the TLD site that the increase is statistical in nature and within the expected statistical variance at the 95% confidence interval.

I 53

FIGURE 6.1

, )

GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS QUARTERLY AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 0.16 0.16 0.12- -0.12 5 ~

e E .

$ 0.08- -0.08

~

0.04- -0.04 YMM8 0 .

i 0 1/1/87 1/1/89 1/1/91 1/1/93 1/1/95 1/1/97

-e- Indicator Stations

-x Control Station I

l* 54

t 1

FIGURE 6.2 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 _ 0.06 0.05i -0.05 iii 0.042 ' 0.04 lii E .

o -

2i 0.03- -0.03 g

n,

',- ,X, 0.02- ,.x x

,. j -0.02

.x x -

x 'x/ x g 0.01- -0.01 0' . .

.i

. . , . . , . . , . O Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec 1997 C AP-11 Observation Stand

-x- AP-21 Williamstown, MA (control) l l

55 i l

r

FIGURE 6.3 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICUL ATE FILTERS 0.06 _

0.06 0.05f -0.05 I

~

iii 0.04f -0.04 "lii E :

o -

25 0.03- ~

-0.03 h

~

M R 0.02Y 'x - x. -0.02

9. / .

0.01 x' x - 0.01 0' . . , . .

. . O Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan 1997

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

- 1 1

l l

l 56

~

FIGURE 6.4 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS l 0.06 0.06 1 0.05 -0.05

~

5 0.04 -0.04 5 -

E :

1 $ 0.032 -0.03 8

B :

I

" 0.02- x .X' x.. ' .- -0.02 kx ,

, x X X - 0.01 0.01 l 0 . . ,

Apr Jul 1

Oct Jan O

Jan 1997 l

l . . 4 m e .,. e .

4 I

I I

57 r

f 1 l

l 1

~

FIGURE 6.5 l - !

! GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS !

. ON AIR PARTICULATE FILTERS 0.06 , 0.os i

0.05{ -0.05 l

} 0.04 _ -0.04 2 :

0 -

y 0.03- x x -0.03 g

,- g p.

o" : x ' -

0.02- i / ~ . x..x. .

-0.02 i

..X- .,

l 0.01 - x x - 0.01 O' . . , . .

. . , , . O Jan Apr Jul Oct 'Jan 1997

-e- AP-14 North 6 eld MA x- AP-21 Spofford Lake NH I

58 t

I 4

~

FIGURE 6.6 GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON AIR PARTICUL. ATE FILTERS 0.06- 0.06 I 0.055 -0.05

,@ 0.04 -0.04 o .

2i 0.03- -0.03 k -

c" : . .

x .

0.02- .

X- .,

- 0.02 0.01- x x -0.01 i

O' . . , , ,

, . . , . . O Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan 1997 l

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

l I

i 59

i

~

FIGURE 6.7 4 I

GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON RIVER WATER SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 16 16 3 l 142 -14 12 ' -12 102 '

-10 i

l e -

l

-8 h" Bi 6- 76

-4 4i 2

Q: ~ .; , ,

'2

i 0 ...i...i...i...i...,...i.. ,,. , .. O i 1/1/89 1/1/90 1/1/91 1/1/92 1/1/93 1/1/94 1/1/95 1/1/96 1/1/97 1/1/98 i

j l

--e- WR 11 River Station No.3.3 i

e WR-21 Rt.9 Bridge (

- l 60 l

l

~ I 1

l FIGURE 6.8 l ~

l GROSS-BETA MEASUREMENTS ON GROUND WATER I l SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 16 ~ 16 14 -14 l 12 -12 102 -10

~

j a :

hc. 8i '8 6$ -6 4 -4 2 -

o -2

0~ .

. , 0 )

l 1/1/88 1/1/90 1/1/92 1/1/94 1/1/96 1/1/98 WG-11 Plant Well e WG-12 Vemon Nursing Well

-x- WG-13 COB Well -

-*- WG-21 Brattleboro CC e WG-22 Skibniowsky Well i

I i

61 l 1

FIGURE 6.9 CESIUM-137 IN MILK ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 20 ,

20 15- -15 10- -10 i a .

1 sO -

c. -

5 -- -5 p 2 M -

0-

= " M~

N pg -0

-5 .

i -5 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 a TM-11 Miller (cow)

--o- TM-14 Brown (cow)

--o-- TM-16 Meadow Crest Farrn (cow)

-v- TM-18 Blodgett Farm (cow)

-x- TM-24 County Farm (control) 62 1

i

. ~

FIGURE 6.10 STRONTIUM 90IN MILK ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 10 10 8 -8 6- -6 0 .

N .

Q 4- -4 a

v v 2 -

-2 r -

, w a 0

O ,

i , -

i i 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 4

l

-e-- TM-11 Miller (cow)

-o- TM-14 Brown (cow) ,

e TM-16 Meadow Crest Farm (cow) o TM-18 Blodgett Farm (cow)

' v- TM-24 County Farm (control) 4 63

FIGURE 6.11 CESIUM-137 IN FISH ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS 140 140 120 -120 100 -100 80 -80 R -

-60 60-40- -40 0 - 0 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Year ,

E FH-11 Vemon Pond O FH-21 Rt. 9 Bridge (Control) 64

FIGURE 6.12 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING, OUTER RING l ANDCONTROLTLDS 20 20 l 1

~

l 15- -15 u

l 1

ru -

8 10- -10 W .

l e .

$ ; M, -

r A i 5- -5 l

l .

O -

n e e s s 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retneval Date i

-e- Control e-o inner Ring l -x- Outer Ring l

l r

65 l

t L

F l

l l

l 1

~

\

FIGURE 6.13 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 01-03 20 20 e

15- -15.

l 8

l 5 :

E 10-

-10 m

~

h .

u u -

5- 5

( . .

0 . . .

i 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 l

Retrieval Date l

C DR-01 River Station No. 3.3 l t DR-02 North Hinsdale, NH f

l

-n- 0R-03 Hinsdale Substation l

l l

l 66 l l o

FIGURE 6.14

! EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 06,50 20 20 15- -15 l

Ei

$u -

E 10- -10 g

2 j 5 \ -5 0 . . .

i 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date

--e- DR-06 Vemon School x DR-50 Gov. Hunt House i .

l 67 L l

I FIGURE 6.15 EXPOSURE RATE AT SITE BOUNDARY TLDS, DR 07- 08,41 - 42 20 20 .

I l

15- -15 I

y -

1 i O -

! 1 u .

10- -10 f -

6 ~

.E 1 s 2 (

5- -5

~

i l

i 0 , . . .

. . . , 0 i

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date

-tt- DR-07 Site Boundary i

-x- DR-08 Site Boundaary a DR-41 Site Boundary

- o-- DR-42 Site Boundary 1

l 68 l

[

{ FIGURE 6.16

[ EXPOSURE RATE AT SITE BOUNDARY TLDS, DR 43 -46 60 60 50- -50 g 40- -40 30- -30 h -

.9

[ 2 20- -20 10- ^ " ~ ^ " A" " "

-10

)

Y l

0 . . .

...i 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date 1

-e- DR-43 SNe Boundary

>e- DR-44 SNe Boundary -

e DR-45 SNe Boundary O DR-46 SNe Boundary 69

(

FIGURE 6.17 .

EXPOSURE RATE AT SITE BOUNDARY TLDS, DR 47 - 49, 51-52 20 20 4

15 -15 E -

2 -

y . .

a 10- -10 tr . -

5- -5 .,

0 . .

i i

, 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 s Retrieval Date

-e- DR-47 Site Boundary

-x- DR-48 Site Boundary e DR-49 Site Boundary e DR-51 Site Boundary

-er- DR 52 Site Boundary 70

/

i FIGURE 6.18 -

EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 09 - 15 (Odd) 20 20 15- -15 E -

5 p 10- -10

.8 :

Y ,

5- -5 4

0 .

..... i 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date . .

G DR-09 Inner Ring

-x- DR-11 Inner Ring e DR-13 inner Ring e DR-15 inner Ring s F

71 s

~

FIGURE 6.19 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 17- 23 (Odd) 20 20 15- -15 h -

5 p 10- -10

~

e :

% k% - -

5- -5 0 . .

i 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date a DR-17 inner Ring ax-- DR-19 inner Ring -

A DR-21 Inner Ring e DR-23 inner Ring , .

is 72

FIGURE 6.20 EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDb, DR 25 - 31 (Odd) 20 20 15- -15 s -

} . .

10- -10

~

_lI p o \ a = =

5- -5 0 . . . , . .

i 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date

-e- DR-25 inner Ring

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

- o-- DR-31 inner Ring 73

FIGURE 6.21 -

EXPOSURE RATE AT INNER RING TLDS, DR 33 - 39 (Odd) 20 20 15 -15 5 -

~

Ei p 10-

-10 E

E3 5

/

5-m a .4W -5 0 . . .

, . . . , 0 -

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date

--e- DR-33 inner Ring .

--x-- DR-35 inner Ring -

A DR-37 inner Ring c DR-39 inner Ring

{

74

FIGURE 6.22 EXPOSURE RATE AT OlIFER RING TLDS, DR 10-16 (Even) 20 20 15 -15 Ei

[ .

fg 10- -10

$$ v

~

5- a -5 0 . .

.i... ... ..

i 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date DR-10 Outer Ring x DR-12 Outer Ring e DR-14 Outer Ring

-o-- DR-16 Outer Ring 75

FIGURE 6.23 -

EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 18 - 24 (Even) 20 20 15 -15 y . -

$u '

E 10- -10 cr -

6 e

0 . .

i i

i i 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date

-e- DR-18 Outer Ring -

-x- DR-20 Outer Ring A DR-22 Outer Ring

-o- DR 24 Outer Ring 76

~

FIGURE 6.24 EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDN, DR 26- 32 (Even) 20 20 15 -15 r

g . .

p 10- -10 8 :

5 3

5- -5 0 . . .

. . . , . . . , 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date

-e- DR-26 Outer Ring x DR-28 Outer Ring A DR-30 Outer Ring

-o- DR-3.' Outer Ring 77

(

[

FIGURE 6.25 -

[

EXPOSURE RATE AT OUTER RING TLDS, DR 34 - 40 (Even) 20 20 6

[ :

15- -15

[ B 2 -

[ 10- .

-10

( :

5-s 4- - .-

-5

( -

0 . . .

. .. ...,...i...i 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Retrieval Date

-e- DR-34 Outer Ring x DR-36 Outer Ring -

a DR-38 Outer Ring

-o- DR-40 Outer Ring

{

(

[

{

78 p

L

...m. . -

FIGURE 6.26 EXPOSURE RATE AT CONTROL TLDS DR 04 - 05 20 20 I i l 15- -15 1 :

I 5

10- -10

.b -

2 .

l i / '

5- -5 I :

~

l 0 . . .

i i

i 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1 Retrieval Date 1 0 DR-04 Northfield, MA

~

x DR45 Spofford Lake, NH I

I I

I 79 r

7. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM The quality assurance program at the Duke Engineering & Services Laboratory (DESEL) is designed to serve two overall purposes: 1) Establish a measure of confidence in the measurement process to assure the licensee, regulatory agencies and the public that analytical results are accurate and precise; and 2) Identify deficiencies in the sampling and/or measurement process to those responsible for these operations so that corrective action can be taken. Quality assurance is applied to all steps of the measurement process, including the collection, reduction, evaluation and reporting of data, as well as the record keeping of the final results. Quality control, as part of the quality assurance program, provides a means to control and measure the characteristics of measurement equipment and processes, relative to established requirements.

The Duke Engineering & Services Laboratory employs a comprehensive quality assurcnce program designed to monitor the quality of analytical processing to ensure reliable environmental monitoring data. The program includes the use of approved and controlled procedures for all work activities, a nonconformance and corrective action tracking system, systematic intemal audits, audits by extemal groups, a laboratory quality control program, and a staff training and retraining system. Monitoring programs include the Intralaboratory Quality Control Program administered by the Laboratory QA Officer (used in conjunction with the National Institute Standards and Technology's Measurement Assurance Program, NIST MAP) and third party interlaboratory programs administered by the EPA and Analytics, Inc. Together these programs are targeted to supply QC/QA sources at 5% of the routine sample analysis load. In addition the Laboratory Quality Control Audit Committee conducts a blind duplicate quality assurance program.

7.1 Intralaborntory Quality Control Program The Duke Engineering & Services Laboratory conducts an extensive intralaboratory quality control program to assure the validity and reliability of environmental analytical data. Process check samples are either samples submitted in duplicate to evaluate the precision of the measurements or are " spiked" with a known quantity of radioactive material to assess the bias in the measurement. The program is administered by the Laboratory QA Officer. A summary of the program process check results may be found in Table 7.1. For the gamma and tritium results falling in category 4 of the Bias Criteria, the mean bias for each set of results was within il5% and no further action was required. The failure of the charcoal filter analysis resulted in CR97-0184 which was closed following the satisfactory completion of a root cause analysis.

80

7.2 Third Party Intercomparison Program To further verify the accuracy and precision of the Laboratory analyses the Duke Engineering

& Services Laboratory panicipates in two independent third parties intercomparison programs.

At the end of 1995 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stopped its Environmental Intercomparison Studies Program. To replace the mix of radionuclides and matrices which comprised this one program the Laboratory now participates in two third party programs, the U.S.

EPA Performance Evaluation Study for radionuclides in water and the Analytics Inc.

Environmental Cross Check Program for radionuclides in milk, water and on air filters.

Panicipation in such programs and the reporting of results in this report is pursuant to Vermont Yankee ODCM section 4.1 and Technical Specification 4.9.E.

Each sample supplied by the EPA or Analytics is analyzed in triplicate and the results are

^

returned to the EPA or Analytics within a specified time frame. The known values from Analytics are evaluated against the Laboratory acceptance criteria ( 15 %) and the EPA results are evaluated against the EPA control limits. When the results of the cross-check analysis fall outside of the acceptance criteria or control limit, an investigation is initiated to determine the cause of the problem and if appropriate, corrective measures are taken.

For the EPA Intercomparison Program,24 sample sets in a water matrix were analyzed. The analyses included gamma-emitting radionuclides, gross alpha, gross-beta, Sr-89, Sr-90, low level I-131, tritium (H-3), Ra-226, Ra-228 and Natural Uranium. Table 7.2 provides a summary of the results for 1997.

Two mean values for Radium-228 in water did not fall within the EPA control limits. Both sample sets were spiked at or near the MDA for the technique in question. Applying only a bias criterion when testing at or near the MDA should be avoided. In both cases, an acceptable' range of values around the mean was determined (at the 95% confidence level, CL). The known value was then compared to the range around the mean and in both cases the EPA known value fell within the range and no further action was necessary.

Radium-228 in water Reference date: 4/15/97 DESEL Mean: 4.82 pCi/L Range @ 95%CL: 4.8 2.4 pCi/L EPA known value of 3.lpCi/L falls within this range.

Radium-228 in water Reference date 6/13/97 DESEL Mean: 4.57 pCi/L Range @ 95% CL: 4.6 2.0 pCi/L EPA known value of 3.lpCi/L falls within this range.

81

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

Table 7.3 provides a summary of the results for 1997.

One Analytics result failed to meet the criteria for acceptance .

DESEL CR97-0172 was issued because the 16.2% mean bias for Zn-65 on air particulate filter exceeded the performance criteria of 15%. This investigation is in progress.

7.3 Environmental TLD Quality Assurance Program Performance documentation of the routine processing of the Panasonic environmental TLDs (thermoluminescent dosimeter) program at the Duke Engineering & Services Laboratory is provided by the dosimetry quality assurance testing program. This program includes the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, independent third party performance testing by Battelle Pacinc Northwest Labs and internal performance testing conducted by the Laboratory QA Officer. Under these programs, dosimeters are irradiated to ANSI N13.11-1993 speciHed testing criteria and submitted for processing to the Dosimetry Services Group as " unknowns". The bias and precision of TLD pocessing is measured against this ANSI standard and is used to indicate trends and changes in perfomiance. Instmmentation checks, although routinely performed by the Dosimetry Services Group and representing between 5-10% of the TLDs processed, are not presented in this report because they do not represent a tme process check sample since the doses are known to the processor.

The DESEL processed 3304 environmental TLDs during 1997. Ninety-five indepe'ndent performance tests were conducted. Of these,7I were submitted to the Dosimetry Services Group by the QA Of6cer and 24 were submitted as part of Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories testing program. One hundred percent of these met the acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision with an average percent bias during the Drst half of 1997 of 3.5 3.9 and 1.5 3.4 during the second half of 1997.

82

7.4 Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program The Laboratory Quality Control Audit Committee (LQCAC) is comprised of one member from each of the five New England power plants that are serviced by the Duke Engineering &

Services Laboratory. Two of the primary functions of the LQCAC are to conduct an annual audit of I.aboratory operations and to coordinate the Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program.

Under the Blind Duplicate Quality Assurance Program, paired samples are submitted from the five plants, including the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. They are prepared from homogeneous environmental media at each respective plant, and are sent to the Laboratory for analysis. They are " blind" in that the identification of the matching sample is not identified to the Laboratory. The LQCAC analyzes the results of the paired analyses to evaluate precision in Laboratory measurements.

Fifty-five paired samples were submitted under this program by the five participating plants during 1997. Paired measurements were evaluated for twenty-five gamma emitting radionuclides, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, I-131 and gross-beta. All measurements are evaluated, whether the results are statistically positive or not, and whether the net concentration is positive or negative. Of the 1435 paired measurements evaluated in 1997,1426 or 99 4% fell within the established acceptance criteria.

f The samples submitted as part of this program are listed in Table 7.4.

83

l l l .li Iil1 4

0 0 y5

%0%5 ira 1

1 r = e 3 4 2 6 go <= = < r i t

2

) I 7 1 e

t dn nda nC<d

( a e a C a a i

r n %ids y

t ir e io%%0 s

i > >

0 5 1

> O t

u r C c o e r

t n P 1 2 3 4 a

r i o 2 0 1 4 1 y = = = =

I 2 o i s

c 1

1 3 b y y y y r r r r b e ia o o o o l

a P r r e

g g g g e e l

a ir ta ta tea te t

a t s CCCCC nl t n n n n no e u io iiio o o i ms n e 1 6 2 I 4 3 5 i

s c c s s s s iiiicc c 4

oR e r re rer er e 1 I 2 5 4 irl P P P P P v o r )

nt En o s

l ll jl jlll l

d I L

I lL 2

(

eC ic ss .

v e r 4 I 2

e c 4 2 I

S ro 4 8

& P l ga t n n ier e

e m io n n 3 5 1

1 I 7 8 gr 1 n iv )

En 1

(

eE a ku 7 i r

e D99 1 i

t r

1 C 2 2 0 5 2 s 1 I

1 1 I 2

7 i a 1 B %

E y % 0%5 L lT r 1 a

B a5 1

= ir A 6 e =< = < te T

t a <d i r

1 6 9 2 8 8 Cs d an n a e d nC 0 5 7 2 1 2 6 3 1 7 0 a a %d 1

2 i%

B y 0 %0 5 1

isu t

! l b > > > O

a a l e g

i r

l a

i e 1 2 3 4 o

h a o n t ir = = = =

c lp et U S a a r a /

R C y ryr yr yr s

r a te a A B a 6 8 m l a

t n a :

ia h m l m s s m 2 2 u r 0 e m n : s e s o o o o is m r u 9 d a g g g g 1

i a s s 1 d ly C m F m 2 2- m i

a t e m k a 3 e o o m 3 - it t 8 9- m r e y i ea te te e e a r a l 1 t a r r a 1 a a i r a r r de i

a e f o

s B t a a a t

G ir B - s la M G G G G R R T N S i

S G b M A n iA A G I

W l S m e e g c n t

n CCCC u a o r A e s s s a sa N t n P f o c a ia r Bi B Bi B i Pe

. I 1 1 I 1 V. V. la e a l 1 I t

c r t m o e o u 1) l[ -

T P T S (

l , l1

[ Table 7.2 - Duke Engineering & Services Environmental Laboratory 1997 EPA Cross Check Program Results LOWER UPPER NUCLIDE MEDIA REFERENCE E-LAB CONTROL CONTROL DATE MEAN* LIMIT

LIMIT

Sr-89 Water 01/17/97 11.5 3.3 20.7 Sr-90 Water 22.8

{ l' 01/17/97 16.3 33.7 Alpha Water 01/31/97 4.3 0.0 13.9 Beta Water 01/31/97 13.6 6.0 23.4 1-131LL Water 02/07/97 86.9

{ 70.4 101.6 Ra-226 Water 02/14/97 6.3 4.3 7.5 Ra-228 Water l 02/14/97 9.4 4.6 11.8 Natual U Water l 02/14/97 25.3 21.8 32.2 H-3 Water j 03/07/97 7611.5 6529.4 9270.6 Sr-89 Water 04/15/97 24.1 15.3 32 7 Sr-90 Water 04/15/97 11.0 4.3 21.7 Co-60 Water 04/15/97 21.1 12.3 29.7 Cs-134 Water 1 04/15/97 I 30.0 22.3 39.7 Cs-137 Water 1 04/15/97 21.2 13.3 30.7 Ra-226 Water l 04/15/97 13.9 9.5 16.5 Ra-228 Water I 04/15/97 4.8 1.7 4.5 Natural U Water 1 04/15/97 23.3 18.8 29.2 Cs-134 Water l 06/06/97 20.4 13.3 30.7 Cs-137 Water 1 06/06/97 48.8 40.3 57.7 Zn-65 Water 1 06/06/97 98.6 82.7 117.3 Co-60 Water l 06/06/97 18.0 9.3 26.7 Ba-133 Water l 06/06/97 71.5 16.3 33.7 Natural U Water 1 06/13/97 33.9 33.4 47.2 Ra-226 Water j 06/13/97 3.4 2.1 3.9 Ra-228 Water 1 06/13/97 4.6 1.7 4.5 Sr-89 Water 07/11/97 42.8 35.3 52.7 _

Sr-90 Water 07/11/97 14.8 7.3 24.7 Beta Water 07/18/97 15.2 7.0 25.9 Alpha Water 07/18/97 2.8 0.0 11.8 H-3 Water 08/08/97 9294.0 9099.8 12920.2

(- Ra-226 Ra-228 Water 09/12/97 19.8 14.8 25.2 Water' 09/12/97 8.4 4.5 11.5

[

Units in pCi/ Liter

[

c 85 1

~

l Table 7.2 - Duke Engineering & Services Environmental Laboratory 1997 EPA Cross Check Program Results LOWER UPPER NUCLIDE MEDIA REFERENCE E-LAB CONTROL I DATE M EAN* LIMIT

CONTROL LIMIT *__

j l

Natural U Water 09/12/97 l I-131LI. Water 09/19/97 4.4 10.7 00 0.0 10.3 20.4 Ra-226 i W ater 10/21/97 5.5 3.6 6.4 Ra-228 Water 10/21/97 4.8 2.7 7.3 Natural U W ater 10/21/97 29.5 25.8 36.2 Sr-89 Water 10/21/97 36.7 27.3 44.7 Sr-90 Water 10/21/97 20.7 13.3 30.7 Co-60 Water 10/21/97 9.0 1.3 18.7 Cs-134 Water 10/21/97 39.6 32.3 49.7 I Cs-137 Water 10/21/97 33.6 25.3 42.7 Alpha Water 10/31/97 8.8 6.0 23.4 Beta Water 10/31/97 47.0 40.2 57.6 I Co-60 W ater I1/07/97 27.7 I 8.3 35.7 Zn-65 Water I!/07/97 75.4 61.I 88.9 Cs-134 Water 11/07/97 10.4 1.3 18.7 I Cs-137 Water 11/07/97 77.1 65.3 82.7 Ba-133 Water 11/07/97 97.6 81.7 116.3 1

Units in pCi/ Liter i

1 -

1 I

l 86

Table 7.3 - Duke Engineering & Services Environmental Laboratory 1997 ANALYTICS Cross Check Program Results

~

Sample: E0978-162 Gamma Quarter,: 1st.1997 ,

E0981-167 Strontium Media: Milk Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics r-Cr-51 403 387 1.04 Agreement Mn-54 17J 176 1.01 Agreement Co-58 80 79 1.01 Agreement Fe-59 150 144 1.04 Agreement Co-60 176 176 1.00 Agreement Zn-65 178 165 1.08 Agreement Sr-89 24 25 0.96 Agreement Sr-90 18 19 0.95 Agreement 1-131 23 20 1.15 Agreement 1-131LL 21 20 1.05 Agreement Cs-134 143 143 1.00 Agreement Cs-137 117 114 1.03 Agreement Cc-141 232 232 1.00 Agreement a Sample: E0977-162 Alpha, Beta Quarter: 1st,1997 E0979-162 Gamma E0980-162 Ra,U Media: Water Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics /

Cr-51 433 419 1.03 Agreement Mn-54 193 190 1.02 Agreement Co-58 84 86 0.98 Agreement Fe-59 160 155 1.03 Agreement Co-60 190 190 1.00 Agreement Zn-65 185 179 1.03 Agreement I-131 26 25 1.04 Agreement 1-131LL 25 25 1.00 Agreement Cs-134 151 155 0.97 Agreement Cs-137 124 123 1.01 Agreement Cc-141 249 251 0.99 Agreement Alpha 103 97 1.06 Agreement I

Beta 132 144 0.92 Agreement Ra-226 52 53 0.98 Agreement i Ra-228 60 59 1.02 Agreement f U-234 41 42 0.98 Agreement 1

[__U-238 __ . 42 44 0 95 A greement 87

Table 7.3 - Duke Engineering & Services Environmental Laboratory 1997 ANALYTICS Cross Check Program Results Sample: E1072-162 Alpha, Beta Quarter; 2nd,1997 Gamma '

Strontium Media: Air Filter Units: pCi/ filter Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics Cr-51 208 213 0.98 Agreement Mn-54 98 91 1.08 Agreement Co-58 81 83 0.98 Agreement Fe-59 88 81 1.09 Agreement Co-60 108 121 0.89 Agreement Zn-65 176 151 1.17 Non-Agreement Cs-134 84 88 0.95 Agreement Cs-137 137 124 1.10 Agreement Ce 141 134 142 0.94 Agreement Alpha 70 65 1.08 Agreement Beta 127 135 0.94 Agreement Sr-89 100 94 1.06 Agreement Sr-90 84 92 0.91 Agreement Sample: E1073-162 Gamma Quarter: 2nd,1997 E1075-162 Tritium '

Media: Milk Gamma Units: pCi/L i Water Tritium Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics Cr-51 325 319 1.02 Agreement Mn-54 144 137 1.05 Agreement Co-58 127 124 1.02 agreement Fe-59 130 122 1.07 Agreement Co-60 168 168 1.00 Agreement 2n-65 245 225 1.09 Agreement 1-131 57 61 0.93 Agreement I-131LL 62 61 1.02 Agreement Cs-134 129 131 0.9is Agreement Cs-137 200 185 1.08 Agreement Ce-141 214 213 1.00 l Agreement

[ 11-3___... .._1197 u _l313 0.91 Acreement I 88

Table 7.3 - Duke Engineering & Services Environmental Laboratory 1997 ANALITICS Cross Check Program Results Sample: Ell 69-162 A!pha, Beta Quarter; 3rd,1997 Ell 71-162 Gamma EI173-162 Stron'ium t

Media: Water Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics Cr 51 240 239 1.00 Agreement Mn-54 72 69 1.04 Agreement Co-58 49 47 1.04 Agreement Fe-59 99 94 1.05 Agreement Co-60 155 155 1.00 Agreement 2n-65 157 154 1.02 Agreement I-131 99 94 1.05 Agreement 1-131LL 97 94 1.03 Agreement Cs-134 80 80 1.00 Agreement Cs-137 84 84 1.00 Agreement

, Ce-141 66 60 1.10 Agreement Alpha 51 48 1.06 Agreement Beta 298 291 1.02 Agreement Sr-89 17 15 1.13 Agreement Sr-90 14 15 0.93 _ Agreement Sample: Ell 70-162 Gamma Quarter: 3rd.1997 Ell 72-162 Strontium Media: Milk Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics Cr-51 313 304 1.03 Agreement Mn-54 93 88 1.06 Agreement Co-58 64 60 1.07 Agreement Fe 59 126 119 1.06 Agreement Co-60 201 197 1.02 Agreement Zn-65 204 196 1.04 Agreement I-131 97 87 1.11 Agreement 1-131LL 89 87 1.02 Agreement Cs-134 104 102 1.02 Agreement Cs.137 110 107 1.03 Agreement Cc-141 78 77 1.01 Agreement Sr-89 15 15 1.00 Agreement

! Sr.90 15 14 _ l.07 Anecment_]

89

r l Table 7.3 - Duke Engineering & Services Environmental Laboratory

~

1997 ANALYTICS Cross Geck Program Results Sample: E1244-162 Gamma Quarter: 4th,1997 Media: Milk Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics Cr-51 205 195 1.05 Agreement Mn-54 83 80 1.04 Agreement Co-58 56 52 f 1.08 Agreement Fe-59 62 57 1.09 Agreement Co-60 96 94 1.02 Agreement f Zn-65 144 141 1.02 Agreement 1-131 42 39 1.08 Agreement 1-131LL 38 39 0.97 Agreement f Cs-134 102 100 1.02 Agreement Cs-137 109 103 1.06 Agreement Ce-141 103 98 1.05 Agreement Sample: E1243-162 Alpha, Beta Quarter: 4th,1997 E1245-162 Strontium Media: Air Filter Units: pCi/ Filter Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation Value Value Analytics Alpha 72 72 1.00 Agreement Beta 245 238 1.03 Agreement Sr-89 167 182 0.92 Agreement Sr-90 101 110 0.92 Acreement Sample: E1246-162 Tritium Quarter: 4th,1997 Media: W ater Units: pCi/L Ratio Nuclide Reported Known YAEU Evaluation

[

Value Value Analyt_ics i

L H-3 1017 1076 0.95 Agreement

[

90

1 I

l l

TABLE 7.4

SUMMARY

0F BLIND DUPLICATE SAMPLES SUBMITTER January - December 1997 TYPE OF SAMPLE NUMBER OF PAIRED SAMPLES SUBMITTED Cow Milk 25 Ground Water 7 Surface Water 16 Irish Moss 2 Mussels 4-Food Product - Cranbenies 1 TOTAL 55 91 t

8. [,AND USE CENSUS VYNPS Technical Specincation 3.9.D/4.9.D requires that a' Land Use Census be conducted annually between the dates of June 1 and October 1. The Census identifies the locations of the nearest milk animal and the nearest residence in each of the 16 meteorological sectors within a distance of five miles of the plant. It also identifies the nearest milk animal (within three miles of the plant) to the point of predicted highest annual average D/Q value in each of the three major meteorological sectors due to elevated releases from the plant stack. The 1997 Land Use Census was conducted in July,1997 in accordance with Technical Specifications and in conjunction with a Global Position System survey of the REMP sampline/ measurement locations. The differential GPS survey allows the de;ermination of a location with an accuracy of one to five meters. These more accurate distar.ces and direction from the plant are given in Table 8.1 and do not necessarily mean a change in location from previous years.

Following the collection of field data and in compliance with Technical Specification 6.7.C.I.b, a dosimetric analysis is performed to compare the census locations to the " critical receptor" identified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). This critical receptor is the location that is used in the Method I screening dose calculations found in the ODCM (i.e. the dose calculations done in compliance with Technical Specification 4 8.G.1). If a Census location has a 20% greater potential dose than that of the critical receptor, this fact must be announced in the Annual Effluent Release Report for that riod. A re-evaluation of the critical receptor would also be done at that time. For the 1997 Census, no such locations were identified.

Pursuant to Technical Specification 3.9.D.2, a dosimetric analysis is performed, using site specific meteorological data, to determine which milk animal locations would provide the optimal sampling locations. If any location has a 20% greater potential dose commitment than at a currently-sampled location, the new location is added to the routine environmental sampling program in replacement of the location with the lowest calculated dose (which is eliminated from 3 the program). For the 1997 Census, one new goat milk location was it'entified in the NNE sector.

The highest ranked milk location has only one cow and can not provide regular milk samples to the REMP. The new location identified in the NNE sector is ranked fourth but can not provide samples to the REMP on a regular basis. The second, third and fifth ranked milk locations are already part of the regular sampling program..

92 1

w The results of the 1997 Land Use Census are included in this report in compliance with !

I

! Technical Specifications 4.9.D.1 and 6.7.C.3. The locations identified during the Census may

! be found in Table 3.1.

l l

l l l i

93

i l

1 l l TABLE 8.1 1997 LAND USE CENSUS LOCATIONS

l l

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

N 1.5 (0.9) ----

NNE 1.4 (0.9) 4.5 (2.8) Goats l NE 1.2 (0.8) 3.6 (2.2) Cows ENE 1.0 (0.6) ----

l E 0.9 (0.6) ----

l ESE 2.8 (1.8) ----

SE 2.0 (l.2) 3.6 (2.2) Cows SSE 2.1 (1.3) 5.2 (3.3) Cows S 0.4 (0.3) 2.2 (1.4) Cows l

SSW 0.4 (0.3) ---

l SW 0.4 (0.3) 8.2 (5.1) Cows WSW 0.4 (0.3) ----

W 0.6 (0.4) 0.8 (0.5) Cows WNW l.1 (0.7) 7.0 (4.3) Cows NW 2.6 (l .6) 4.3 (2.7) Cows NNW 2.6 (l.6) ----

Sectors and distances are relative to the plant stack as determined by a Global Positioning System survey conducted in 1997 and discussed in Section 4.

i 94

9.

SUMMARY

During 1997 as in all previous years of plant operation, a pr'ogram was conducted to assess the levels of radiation or radioactivity in the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station environment. Over 800 samples were collected (Jacluding TLDs) over the course of the year, with a total of over 2800 radionuclide or exposure rate analyses being performed on them. The samples included ground water, river water, sediment, fish, milk, silage, mixed grass and storm drain water. In addition to these samples, the air surrounding the plant was sampled continuously {

and the radiation levels were measured continuously with environmental TLDs.

f 1

i Low levels of radioactivity from three sources were detected in samples collected off-site as a part of the radiological environmental monitoring program. Most samples had measurable levels of K-40, Be-7, Th-232 or radon daughter products. These are the most common of the naturally-occurring radionuclides. Many samples (milk, sediment, mixed vegetation and fish in panicular) had fallout radioactivity from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted primarily from the late 1950's through 1980. Several samples had low levels of radioactivity resulting from l

emissions from the Vermont Yankee plant. These were all collected in the immediate vicinity of the plant or from on-site locations. In all cases, the possible radiological impact was negligible j with respect to exposure from natural background radiation. In no case did the detected levels exceed the most restrictive federal regulatory or plant license limits for radionuclides in the environment.

l f

95

10. ' REFERENCES

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

2. NCRP Report No. 94, Exposure ofthe Population in the United States and Canadafrom Natural Background Radiation, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements,1987, h 3. Ioni:ing Radiation: Sources and Biological Effects, United Nations Scientiiic Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),1982 Report to the General Assembly.

4. Kathren, Ronald L., Radioactivity and the Environment - Sources, Distribution, and Surveillance, Harwood Academic' Publishers, New York,1984.

5. Till, John E. and Robert H. Meyer, ed., Radiological Assessment - A Textbook on Environmental Dose Analysis, NUREG/CR-3332, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,1983.

96 i

ML20217J200

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20217J200

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search