Text

Annual Environmental and Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports
	ML031250638
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/29/2003
From:	Gerry Powell; South Texas
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	NOC-AE-03001524, STI: 31602148
	Download: ML031250638 (59)
	v • d • e

Nuclear Operating Company South 7Zerav' Pioscct Lhxrc 6,cnituid POV Sax 28$'

SwszPom Pyrdimrwoli Tht'a;7,'48&

April 29, 2003 NOC-AE-03001524 10CFR50.36b STI: 31602148 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 2002 Annual Environmental and Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports Pursuant to the South Texas Project (STP) Unit I Operating License NPF-76, Unit 2 Operating License NPF-80 Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan (Nonradiological), and Technical Specification 6.9.1.3, attached are the 2002 Annual Environmental and Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports.

If you have any questions, please contact J. D. Sherwood at (361) 972-8766 or me at (361) 972-7566.

G.T. Powell Manager, Health Physics MKJ

Attachment:

2002 Annual Environmental and Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports.

O:WP\NL\NRC-AP\RREP-2003\03001524

NOC-AE-03001524 Page 2 cc:

(paper copy) (electronic copy)

Ellis W. Merschoff A. H. Gutterman, Esquire Regional Administrator, Region IV Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 L. D. Blaylock Arlington, Texas 76011-8064 City Public Service U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mohan C. Thadani Attention: Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike R. L. Balcom Rockville, MD 20852 Texas Genco, LP Richard A. Ratliff A. Ramirez Bureau of Radiation Control City of Austin Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street C. A. Johnson Austin, TX 78756-3189 AEP Texas Central Company Cornelius F. O'Keefe Jon C. Wood U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Matthews & Branscomb P. O. Box 289, Mail Code: MNI16 Wadsworth, TX 77483 C. M. Canady City of Austin Electric Utility Department 721 Barton Springs Road Austin, TX 78704

Attachment not included with electronic copies O:WP\NL\NRC-AP\RREP-2003\03001524

III I .1

'lI

A

i. 2 I

I i

Completed in accordance with Technical Specifications for United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission License Nos.

NPF-76 & NPF-80 April 2003 Authored by:

J. arrell Sberw Ph.D.

(Sprvisor Health Physics Division and Peggy n Travi.D,6 CHMM Staff Consultant Chemistry Division Technical Review: 7 7 nard M. Earls, Ph.D., CHP Health Physicist Health Physics Division Approved by: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Gerald T. Powell Manager Health Physics Division 2002 Annual Environmental Operating Report SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION

Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ............................................. 1-1 Site and Area Description .............................................. 2-1 Non-Radiological Environmental Introduction and Summary .............................................. 3-1 Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Report .............. ............................... 4-1 W Environmental Conditions o Aquatic and Ecological Monitoring .............................................. 4-1 O Water Quality Management ............................................. 4-3 O AirQualityManagement ............................................. 4-6 o Non-Radioactive Waste Management ............................................. 4-7 O Chemical Control and Management ............................................. 4-9 X Environmental Protection Plan Status ............................................. 4-10 Radiological Environmental Introduction and Summary .................... .......................... 5-1 Radiological Environmental Operating Report ............................................. 6-1 O Program Description .............................................. 6-1 O Analysis of Results and Trends ............................................. 6-5 O Land Use Census ............................................. 6-9 o Quality Assurance .............................................. 6-10 O Program Deviation .............................................. 6-11 List of Tables XI Table 1: Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ............................................ 6-12 Table 2: Sample Media and Location Descriptions ........................................... 6-14 p Table 3: 2002 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Analysis Summary ............................................ 6-19 STP Nuclear Operating Company

2002 Environmental Report Page List of Figures Figure 4-1: 1997 Matagorda County Groundwater Pumpage .................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2: Historical Groundwater Usage .................................... 4-3 Figure 4-3: 2002 Water Use Sources .................................... 4-4 Figure 4-4: 2002 Nonradioactive Waste Management ................ .................... 4-8 Figure 4-5: 2002 Nonradioactive Waste Generation .............. ...................... 4-8 Figure 4-6: Hazardous Waste Generation Historical Comparison .................................... 4-9 Figure 6-1: Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Designated Sample Location Map (Off Site) .................................. 6-2 Figure 6-2: Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Designated Sample Location Map (On Site) ................................... 6-3 Figure 6-3: Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Zone Location Map .................................... 6-4 Figure 6-4: Historical Comparison ofAverage Quarterly Beta Activity .................................... 6-5 Figure 6-5: Environmental Dosimeter Comparisons ............. ....................... 6-6 Figure 6-6: Historical Comparison of Cobalt-58 and Cobalt-60 in Main Cooling Reservoir Sediment ........... ......................... 6-7 Figure 6-7: Calculated Cumulative Curies of Cobalt-60 in the Main Cooling Reservoir .................................... 6-8 Figure 6-8: Historical Comparison ofTritium Added to and Remaining in the Main Cooling Reservoir ........................ ............ 6-8 Figure 6-9: Historical Comparison ofTritium Activity in Surface Water .................................... 6-9 Figure 6-10: 2002 Radiological Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Performance .................................... 6-11 STP Nuclear Operating Company fnk

Pip

Executive Summary

.o his report describes the environmental y xr _monitoring programs, radiological and non-radiological, conducted at the South Texas Project during 2002. Included in this report are the Environmental Protection Plan Status, the results of the Radiological Environmen-tal Monitoring Program and the Land Use Census.

Radiation and radioactivity in indicator stations are compared to detect specified minimum limits for the environment are constantly both current control sample re- certain types ofsamples. This en-monitored within a 15-mile radius sults and the pre-operational sures that radiation measurements ofthe South Texas Project. Sam- baseline values to determine if are sufficiently sensitive to detect pling locations are selected using changes in radioactivity levels are small changes in the environment.

weather, land use and water use attributable to station operations The United States Nuclear Regu-information. Two types of sam- or other causes such as previous latory Commission also has a re-pling locations are used. The first nuclear weapons testing programs quired "reporting level." Licensed type, control stations, are located and natural variations. nuclear facilities must prepare a in areas that are beyond measur- special report and increase their able influence of the South Texas Radioactivity levels in the sampling if any measured radia-Project or any other nuclear facil- South Texas Project's environ- tion level is equal to or greater than ity. The sample results from these ment frequently fall below the this reporting level. No sample stations are used to explain radia- minimum detection capabilities of from the South Texas Project has tion from sources other than the the state-of-the-art scientific in- ever reached or exceeded a re-South Texas Project. Indicator struments. Samples with radiation porting level.

stations are the second type of sta- levels that cannot be detected are tions. The samples from these sta- below the Lower Limits of Detec- Measurements made are di-tions measure any radiation con- tion. The United States Nuclear vided into four categories or path-tributed to the environment by the Regulatory Commission requires ways based upon how the results.

project. Indicator stations are lo- that equipment used for radiologi- may affect the public. Airborne, cated in areas close to the South cal monitoring must be able to waterborne, ingestion and direct Texas Project where any plant releases would be at the highest concentration.

Prior to initial operation ofthe South Texas Project, samples were collected and analyzed to determine the amount ofradioac-tivity present in the area. These results are used as a "pre-opera-tional baseline." Results from the 0§ STP Nuclear Operating Company (Z:1 "_WWQ)

2002 Environmental Report radiation are the four pathways plant-related isotopes. The The direct exposure pathway that are sampled. Each pathway amount ofplant-related iso- measures environmental ra-is described below. topes found in reservoirbot- diation doses using thermolu-tom sediment samples has minescent dosimeters.

l The airborne pathway is decreased since 1992 be- These results are consistent sampled in areas around the cause less Cobalt-60 has with the readings from pre-South Texas Project by mea- been added to the reservoir vious years and continue to suring radioactivity of iodine by plant effluents than has un- show no effect from plant and particulate air filters. The dergone radioactive decay. operations.

2002 airborne results were The Cobalt-60 appears to similar to pre-operational have stabilized following a The South Texas Project levels with only naturally oc- major decrease four years continues to operate with no nega-curring radioactive material ago. Offsite sediment tive effect on the population or the unrelated to the operation of samples continue to show no environment. The exposure for the South Texas Project de- radioactivity from the South people living in the area is main-tected. Texas Project. This indicates tained at less than one millirem per that the station produces no year. Environmental programs at b The waterbome pathway in- detectable effect offsite from the site monitor known and pre-cludes samples taken from this pathway. dictable relationships between the surface water, ground water operation of the South Texas and drinking water. Also in- b The ingestion pathway in- Project and the surrounding area.

cluded in this path are sedi- cludes broadleafvegetation, These monitoring programs verify ment samples taken from the agricultural products and that the operation of the South Main Cooling Reservoir and food products. Naturally Texas Project has no detectable the Colorado River. Tritium occurring isotopes were de- impact offsite and is well within was the only man-made iso- tected at average environ- state and federal regulations and tope consistently detected in mental levels in the samples. guidelines. These programs are water samples and was mea- Man-made isotopes found in verified by the state of Texas sured in the shallow aquifer, the samples were consistent through collection and analysis of the Main Cooling Reservoir with values found in pre-op- samples and placement of the and other bodies of water erational samples. state's thermoluminescent dosim-onsite. The average tritium eters.

level changed very little in the Main Cooling Reservoir over the past year and re-mained below United States Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission reporting limits and within United States Environ-mental Protection Agency drinking water standards.

Sediment samples from the Main Cooling Reservoir continue to show traces of Photo By': Gwenna Kelton STP Nuclear Operating Company 6 9-0-,,q

he South Texas Project subsequently uprated by 1.4 per- steam. The steam is directed is located on 12,220 cent increasing electrical output. through a turbine to turn a gen-acres in Matagorda Unit I received a low-power test- erator. In a fossil fuel plant, burn-County, Texas, approximately 15 ing license on August 21, 1987, ing coal, lignite, oil or natural gas miles southwest of Bay City along obtained initial criticality on March in a boiler produces the heat. In a the west bank of the Colorado 8, 1988, and was declared com- nuclear plant, the reactor replaces River. The South Texas Project mercially operational on August the boiler and the "fissioning" or isjointly owned by Texas Genco, 25, 1988. Unit 2 received a low- splitting of uranium atoms inside LP, AEP Texas Central Company, power testing license on Decem- the reactor produces the heat.

the City of Austin and the City of ber 16, 1988, obtained initial criti-San Antonio. Until late 1997, the cality on March 12, 1989, and The fuel for a nuclear reactor Houston Lighting & Power Com- was declared commercially op- is uranium. It is formed into cylin-pany was the designated Project erational on June 19, 1989. Both drical ceramic pellets, each about Manager for the owners. In No- units together produce enough the size ofthe end of your little fin-vember of 1997, the STP Nuclear electricity to serve over a million ger. One pellet has the energy po-Operating Company assumed homes.

tential of about a ton of coal. Mil-operational control of the South lions of these pellets are stacked Texas Project and responsibility How the South Texas Project in fuel rods that are arranged for implementation of all environ- into Works assemblies that make up the core mental programs.

of the reactor. The use of ura-Fossil-fueled and nuclear- nium allows us to conserve natu-The South Texas Project has powered steam generating plants ral gas, oil and coal and to two 1,250 megawatt-electric avoid operate on the same principle. the associated production Westinghouse pressurized water of Fuel is used to produce heat to greenhouse gases.

reactors. The thermal output was convert water into high-pressure PWIMARYLOOP WALL COOLING LOOP 46

- C_ 1, Cor

2002 Environmental Report the blades of a turbine generator Late in 1998 and again in to produce electricity. The steam 2001, in a continuation of strong is then fed to a condenser where business and industry support for a separate supply of cooling wa- nuclear energy, the International ter from the reservoir turns it back Chamber of Commerce recom-into water that is then pumped mended that delegates at the back to the steam generator for United Nations negotiations on reuse. A diagram of the plant global climate change include water systems is shown on the nuclear energy as an option for A reactor starts operating previous page. meeting increased electricity de-when control rods in the core are In addition to its safety sys- mand while avoiding greenhouse withdrawn and fission begins. The tems, the South Texas Project has gas emissions. The International fuel rods heat water circulating in manybuilt-in physical barriers that Chamber of Commerce's support sealed, stainless steel piping that would prevent the release of ra- reaffirms the significant carbon passes through large heat ex- dioactive materials in the unlikely reductions achieved by nuclear changers called steam generators. event of an accident. The most energy in many countries. Nuclear The water in the reactor is pres- visible ones are the 200-foot-tall, power plants produce approxi-surized to prevent boiling. This is domed containment buildings with mately 20 percent ofthe nation's why the South Texas Project's steel-reinforced walls four feet electricity while saving the equiva-reactors are called "pressurized thick. Inside each of these mas- lent of approximately 164 million water reactors." sive structures, two more concrete metric tons of carbon, as well as walls provide another 11 feet of 2.4 million tons ofnitrogen oxide This hot, pressurized water shielding. The reactor vessel itself emissions and 5.1 million tons of heats a separate supply of water has steel walls six inches thick, and sulfur dioxide, from entering the in the steam generators to pro- the fuel pellets inside it are sheathed earth's atmosphere annually.

duce steam that is directed through in hardened metal tubes.

Photo By: Gwenna Kelton STP Nuclear Operating Company 6 9-9-X,D

Site and Area Description The Site Sixty-five ofthe entire 12,220 acres at the South Texas Project are occupied by the two power plants. Plant facilities include a 7,000-acre main cooling reservoir and a 47-acre essential cooling pond. Many smaller bodies of water onsite include wetlands, Kelly Lake, drainage ditches, sloughs and depressions. Much ofthe land east ofthe cooling res-ervoir is leased for cattle grazing.

Approximately 1,700 acres re-Photo By: Gwenna Kelton main in a more natural state as a lowland habitat. A 110-acre wet- nant commercial fish while fin tern, have found that the plant's land habitat area was established fishes have been commercially less 7,000-acre cooling reservoir pro-in 1996 on previously unused land important in recent years. vides a good resting place during located northeast of the power their migrations. The station also plants. The area surrounding the Although the surrounding area established a man-made wetland South Texas Project is character- is heavily cultivated, significant habitat in 1996 that attracts an in-ized by coastal plain with farmland amounts of woodlands, thicket, creasing diversity ofmigratory fowl and pasture predominating. Local brush, fields, marsh and open wa- and other wildlife. Since 1997, relief of the area is characterized ter exist to support wildlife. The the 15-mile-wide area that in-by flat land, approximately 23 feet area lies in the southern region of cludes the South Texas Project above sea level. the central flyway and is host to has had the highest number of bird an abundance ofmigratory birds. species nationwide in the National The Area The local estuary environments Audubon Society's annual Christ-provide the necessary habitat for mas Bird Count.

The economic base for this a variety of fish types to complete area primarily is agricultural re- their life cycles. The area also af- The climate of the region is lated. Most of the land near the fords opportunity for recreational subtropical maritime, with conti-site is used for the production of hunting and fishing. nental influence. It is character-five major agricultural products: ized by short, mild winters and beef, rice, grain sorghum, soy- The South Texas Project is long, hot and humid summers.

beans and cotton. In addition to home to many species ofanimals. Rainfall is usually abundant the agriculture industry, there is Our inhabitants include American throughout the year with an annual commercial fishing in the lower alligators, a family of osprey, bald average of approximately Colorado River, East and West eagles and several hundred deer. forty-two inches. The prevailing Matagorda Bays, Intracoastal In winter, literally hundreds of wind direction is from the south-Waterway and the Gulf of thousands of waterfowl, princi- southeast, shifting to north-north-Mexico. Currently shrimp, oys- pally migratory geese as well as east for short intervals during the ters, and crab are the predomi- white pelicans and the common winter months.

0§ STP Nuclear Operating Company eA

.f eel 9ei01 Non-Radiological Environmental Introduction and Summary I -,

he South Texas Project is committed to the

/ production of electricity in a safe, reliable, and economical manner using nuclear energy. The station's programs, policies and business plan objectives also in-corporate a commitment to envi-ronmental excellence and sound environmental management. The dedication of station personnel who develop, implement and monitor site environmental pro-tection programs and compliance exemplify this commitment.

The station's commitment to sound environmental management encompass the integration of sues for the benefit of the station is illustrated by the following en- sound environmental practices into and the public. The South Texas vironmental successes in 2002: our daily operational and business Project understands that we must decisions. The people at the hold ourselves to the highest prin-4 Classified as a high performer South Texas Project understand ciples ofresponsibility for our en-by the Texas Commission on the need to balance economic, vironmental and station activities.

Environmental Quality based operational and environmental is-on the station's above-aver-age environmental compliance record Approved by the Texas Com-mission on Environmental Quality as a member of the state's CLEAN TEXAS pro-gram 6 Continued reductions in non-radiological waste generation.

Everyone has a responsibility to protect the environment. Comi mitment to environmental respon sibility is an integral component o the South Texas Project operat ing policy. This responsibility reaches further than mere compli.

ance with laws and regulations tc STP Nuclear Operating Company . 1

.. I.

Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Report Enviironniental Conditions his section of the land resources. As a partner in AQUATIC AND ECOLOGI-report describes the CLEAN TEXAS program, the CAL MONITORING the South Texas South Texas Project is committed Project's non-radiological envi- to meeting established environ- The location of the South ronmental program performance mental improvement goals, main- Texas Project falls within the Texas and environmental conditions from taining and improving intemal pro- Land Resource Area designation January 1 through December 31, grams and continuing community as coastal prairie and can be di-2002. The STP Nuclear Operat- environmental outreach programs vided into two broad ecological ing Company environmental staff and projects. areas based on topography, soils closely monitors environmental and vegetation. The bottomland conditions and performance at the In November 2002, the area is a swampy, marshy area South Texas Project. Reliant Re- Texas Commission on Environ- that occupies approximately sources, Inc. provided support mental Quality classified the South 1,700 acres of the site near the and technical assistance to the Texas Project as a high performer Colorado River. This area pro-South Texas Project. In 2002, the based on the station's above-av- vides an important habitat forbirds Texas Natural Resource Conser- erage environmental compliance and other wildlife. A spoil im-vation Commission also con- record. Facilities, such as the poundment constructed in 1972 ducted a beneficial land applica- South Texas Project, are classi- by the United States Army Corps tion inspection and a stormwater fied by the state as a high per- of Engineers is included in this permit inspection at the station. former, average performer or poor area. In addition, a 110-acre No discrepancies were found. On performer based on that facility's wetland habitat area that attracts September 1, 2002, the Texas compliance history. The state's a variety ofbird groups and other Natural Resource Conservation classification of the South Texas wildlife was established in 1996 Commission (TNRCC) formally Project as a high performer was on previously unused land located changed its name to the Texas based on the station's environ- northeast of the power plants.

Commission on Environmental mental performance over the last The remaining area of the site of-Quality (TCEQ) as required by five year period. fers diverse habitats for mammals state legislation.

In 2002, the South Texas Project applied for recognition as a partner in the CLEAN TEXAS program administered by the Texas Commission on Environ-mental Quality. The state subse-quently granted approval of the station's application. CLEAN TEXAS is a voluntary environ-mental leadership program com-prised of industries, nonprofit groups, counties and other orga-nizations with a common goal to protect the state air, water and 0§ STP Nuclear Operating Company

2002 Environmental Report and least terns established nests on a remote parking lot at the sta-tion. Special precautions were taken to protect the nesting area and a small, but growing popula-tion of both species has continued to return each year to the site. In-tensive bird nesting continues throughout the lowland habitat, particularly in a heron rookery around the perimeter of Kelly Lake. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Photo By: Gwenna Kelton Service biologists estimate that and several types of birds. The over half ofTexas' breeding adult wetland habitat allows easy ac-South Texas Project environmen- Gull-billed Tern population nest cess and viewing by visitors.

on the internal dikes of the Main tal staff regularly monitor the site's environs for changing conditions. Cooling Reservoir. TheU. S. Fish The South Texas Project and and Wildlife Service considers Ecological conditions onsite in the wetland habitat project are 2002 remained generally un- nesting of Gull-billed Terns in located on the state-sponsored changed and satisfactory. Texas uncommon.

Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail that spans the entire Texas Gulf In 1996, the South Texas The South Texas Project Coast from Brownsville to the Project and Houston Industries continues to monitor important Louisiana border. Several bird wildlife species to detect popula-Incorporated initiated ajoint ef- species listed on the state and fed-tion changes. In January of 2002, fort with Ducks Unlimited, Texas eral threatened or endangered Parks and Wildlife, the United the station commissioned a fish species lists have been observed population study of the station's States Fish and Wildlife Service, at the wetland habitat and else-46.9-acre Essential Cooling and the United States Department where onsite. These include the ofAgriculture Natural Resources Pond. Two distinct populations bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Conservation Service to establish offish, sheepshead minnows and wood stork, white-faced ibis, sailfin mollies, were found to be a 110-acre wetland habitat for wood ibis and white-tailed hawk.

migratory waterfowl at the station. present, although, neither species Additional migratory and resident were found to be overpopulated.

This habitat area immediately at- bird species have been observed tracted a variety of bird species Recommendations from this study during informal surveys of the were captured under the station's and other wildlife and has contin- site's diverse natural and man-Corrective Action Program and ued to support an increasing di- made habitats.

incorporated into station proce-versity of plants and animals. The dures and practices to prevent fish wetland project received the The South Texas Project Ducks Unlimited Habitat Conser- from congregating in the pond's continues to provide vital habitat intake structure where they could vation Award in 1996 and a for more than 125 different spe-potentially impact station opera-United States Department of Ag- cies of wintering and resident tions. (Inspection ReportNo. 01-riculture Conservation Award in birds, including the common tern 010) Informal observations by 1999forhabitatpreservation. An and white pelicans. In 1998, a station and Reliant Resources, observation trail adjacent to the small number of black skimmers Inc. personnel continue to indicate STP Nuclear Operating Company fo-o-k17DI-2

for station personnel, replenishes 1997 Matagorda County Groundwater Pumpage the Essential Cooling Pond, and (Texas Water Development Board) is used for other industrial pur-poses onsite. Surface water from the Main Cooling Reservoir and the Essential Cooling Pond is used as cooling water for plant activi-ties. Water from the Colorado River replenishes the Main Cool-

Municipal I

Manufacturing ing Reservoir via intermittent

_ Steam-Electric pumping periods. Surface water 10%

Mining diverted to the Main Cooling Res-

Irrigation ervoir from the Colorado River O Livestock accounted for approximately 97 Figure 4-1 percent of the water used at the South Texas Project in 2002.

that the site provides high-quality the South Texas Project. Water habitat in which a wide range of usage and wastewater treatment Figure 4-1 illustrates the animals live. The site also contin- onsite are regulated under the Safe various users of groundwater ues to attract extensive wildlife Drinking Water Act, the Federal sources in Matagorda County in populations, offering a refuge for Clean Water Act and the Texas 1997 based on the most current resident species as well as sea- Water Quality Act. Collectively, information distributed by the sonal migrants. The lowland habi- these acts provide for the safe- Texas Water Development Board.

tat located between the Colorado guarding of public drinking water At that time, the South Texas River and the east bank of the supplies and maintaining the integ- Project accounted for only 10 Main Cooling Reservoir offers a rity of state and federal waters. percent ofthe county's groundwa-significant source of water year- The South Texas Project uses both ter usage. Consistent with station round. These natural resource surface water and groundwater environmental principles encour-areas, in concert with numerous for station purposes. Groundwa- aging efficient water usage and additional wetland and grassland ter provides onsite drinking water conservation, the station has care-areas, offer the key ingredients necessary to sustain the extensive Historical Groundwater Usage wildlife population at the South South Texas Project Texas Project.

WATER QUALITY MAN- 1400 AGEMENT 1350

~O 1300 Water is an essential compo- Z. 1250 nent in electricity production, and 1 200 1M all electric utilities must comply 1150 e with extensive federal, state and 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 local water regulations. These Year regulations govern virtually every aspect of business operations at Figure 4-2 to CO

_i ' /2002 -En arnn~r fully managed its groundwater us- from the Colorado River in 2002 wastewater discharges to ensure age over the last five years in or- for the Main Cooling Reservoir fill that we meet or exceed the strin-der to conserve this important re- operations while preserving ad- gent levels set in the permit. A source. Station groundwater us- equate freshwater flow conditions monthly monitoring report is sub-age in 2002 remained consistent for downstream bay and estuarine mitted to the Texas Commission with previous years. (Reference environments. on Environmental Quality for Figure 4-2) Groundwater usage wastewater discharges. Reports only accounted for approximately Existing federal and state identifying ground and surface three percent ofthe water utilized water quality standards are imple- water use are also submitted to in 2002 by the South Texas mented and enforced through the the Texas Commission on Envi-Project. (Reference Figure 4-3) Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimi- ronmental Quality and Texas nation System (TPDES) permit Water Development Board.

Most of the water used by program to restore and maintain the South Texas Project is needed the state's waters. In 1998, the The South Texas Project to condense steam and provide State ofTexas assumed authority understands that the water re-cooling for plant generating sys- to administer and implement the sources of the state are a critical tems. The majority of this water federal National Pollutant Dis- natural resource requiring care-is drawn from and returned to the charge Elimination System ful management and conservation station's Main Cooling Reservoir. (NPDES) program. Accordingly, to preserve water quality and The Main Cooling Reservoir is a federal and state requirements availability. Accordingly, the sta-7,000-acre, above grade, off- were consolidated in November tion in 1998 began to actively channel reservoir capable of im- of 2000 into one wastewater dis- participate in statewide water pounding 202,600 acre-feet of charge permit for the station un- planning initiatives, including the water at its maximum level. Res- der the TPDES permit program. Lower Colorado Regional Wa-ervoir makeup water is withdrawn Under this permit program, the ter Planning Group, that also seek intermittently from the adjacent South Texas Project monitors, to achieve these goals. The South Colorado River. In addition, the records and reports the types and Texas Project continues to ex-Essential Cooling Pond, a 46.9- quantities of pollutants from plore and support efforts focus-acre, below grade, off-channel reservoir that supplies water to cool crucial plant components is 2002 Water Use Sources capable ofimpounding 388 acre- South Texas Project feet of water. Various water rights permits, contractual agreements Surface Water

_ 97%

and compliance documents autho-rize the South Texas Project to maintain these reservoirs, impound water diverted from the Colorado River, and to circulate, divert and use water from the reservoirs for industrial purposes to operate the plant. These permits also limit the Groundwater 3%

rate of diversion from the Colo-rado River. The South Texas Project diverted 42,168 acre-feet Figure 4-3 C_ G __21 fo 0%

1,k D4

Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Report ter discharges met state and fed-eral water quality standards dem-onstrating a 100 percent compli-ance record for the year while conserving and maximizing effi-cient water usage at the station.

In addition to the wastewa-ter discharge permit program, the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended in 1987, requires per-mits for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity.

Photo By: Gwenna Kelton The South Texas Project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, implemented since October of ing on the efficient use of water The station continued its outstand- 1993, ensures that potential pol-resources and reduction of water ing wastewater discharge compli- lution sources at the site are evalu-waste. ance performance record in 2002. ated, and that appropriate mea-Station conditions did not require sures are selected and imple-Wastewater generated at the site aquatic monitoring studies be mented to prevent or control the South Texas Project is processed conducted in 2002 nor were any discharge of pollutants in storm and discharged to the onsite Main additional studies required by the water runoff. In September of Cooling Reservoir to be re-used United States Environmental 1998, the United States Environ-by the station as cooling water for Agency or the State of Texas ei- mental Protection Agency modi-plant systems. No water was re- ther by way of station discharge fied the storm water permit pro-leased from the reservoir in 2002. permits or otherwise. Wastewa-Photo By: Givenna Kelton STP Nuclear Operating Company (ZI14 %

2002 Environmental Report gram to require facilities, such as each tasked to prepare a regional Fossil-Fueled Emission the South Texas Project, permit- plan for the orderly development, Sources ted under the baseline general per- management and conserv'ation of mit to obtain permit coverage un- water resources. The South Texas Unlike conventional electri-der a multi-sector general storm Project was chosen to represent cal generating stations, nuclear water permit. Accordingly, the the electric generating utility inter- power plants do not burn petro-station filed a Notice of Intent for est for the water-planning region leum fuel. Therefore, the South transfer from the General Permit that encompasses the lower Colo- Texas Project produces virtually to the Multi-Sector General Per- rado River Basin. Plans subse- no greenhouse gases or other air mit with the United States Envi- quently submitted by each plan- pollutants that are the typical by-ronmental Protection Agency in ning region were incorporated into products of industrial production 1998. The Texas Natural Re- a State Water Plan in the year processes. The use ofemissions-source Conservation Commission 2001. The South Texas Project free nuclear power is a significant issued a TPDES Multi-Sector continues to actively participate in contributor to the preservation of General Permit in August of 2001. the Lower Colorado Regional our community's clean air re-The station filed a Notice of In- Water Planning Group in the cur- sources. The South Texas Project tent in November of 2001 to ob- rent planning cycle that will result uses small amounts of fossil fuel tain coverage under the state per- in an update of the existing plan for backup and emergency equip-mit and the station's Storm Water by 2006. Additional information ment. Air emission sources at the Pollution Prevention Plan was regarding regional water planning South Texas Project fall under the modified accordingly to reflect in Texas can be found on the scope of air pollution regulations these changes. This plan is a website maintained by the Texas promulgated under the Texas working document that is revised Water Development Board at Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean whenever there is a change in de- http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/. Air Act and numerous associated sign, construction, operation or amendments that protect air re-maintenance that has a significant AIR QUALITY MANAGE- sources from pollution by control-effect on the potential for the dis- MENT ling or abating air pollution and charge of pollutants from the sta- emissions. The major regulated tion. Air emission sources at the air emission sources at the South South Texas Project fall under the Texas Project include one fossil-Following a severe drought scope of air pollution regulations fueled boiler and various emer-in 1996, the Texas Legislature rec- promulgated under the Texas gency diesel generators.

ognized the need to address a Clean Air Act and the Federal wide range of state water resource Clean Air Act and the numerous The South Texas Project has management issues. In 1997, the associated amendments. The pur- one oil-fired auxiliary steam boiler Texas Senate drafted legislation pose ofthese regulations is to pro- available to furnish steam for known as Senate Bill I to address tect air resources from pollution deaerator startup, turbine gland these issues and to develop a by controlling or abating air pol- seals and radioactive liquid waste comprehensive state water policy. lution and emissions. Regulated processing when steam is not Towards this end, this legislation emission sources at the South available from the nuclear steam required that the Texas Water Texas Project include a fossil-fuel supply system. In addition to the Development Board create a boiler, emergency diesel genera- auxiliary steam boiler, a number of statewide water plan that empha- tors, fire-fighting training and other fossil-fueled diesel generators are sizes regional planning. Sixteen minor maintenance activities. located onsite. These diesels are planning regions were created, designed to provide emergency STP Nuclear Operating Company from6K"D

Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Report Federal Clean Air Act mandated applicable federal, state and local a new permitting program to environmental and health regula-clearly define applicable air qual- tions. By regulatory definition, ity requirements for affected facili- solid waste includes solid, semi-ties such as the South Texas solid, liquid and gaseous waste Project. This program is com- material. The Texas Commission monly known as the Title V Op- on Environmental Quality, which erating Permit Program and is ad- administers the Texas Solid Waste ministered by the state. The Texas Disposal Act and also the federal Natural Resource Conservation Resource Conservation and Re-Commission issued a Federal covery Act program, is the pri-Operating Permit in January of mary agency regulating non-ra-2000 for the South Texas Project dioactive wastes generated at the Photo By: Gvenna Kelton granting authority to operate iden- South Texas Project. The Texas tified emission units at the station Commission on Environmental power to various plant systems or in accordance with applicable per- Quality also regulates the collec-buildings in the event of a loss of mit and regulatory requirements. tion, handling, storage and dis-power. This equipment is not nor- posal of solid wastes, including mally needed for daily operations In accordance with the South hazardous wastes. The transpor-and the station does not use it to Texas Project's Federal Operat- tation of waste materials is regu-produce electricity for distribution. ing Permit's reporting require- lated by the United States Depart-Routine maintenance nis are con- ments, the station reported one ment of Transportation.

ducted to ensure availability if minor deviation that occurred in needed and for equipment main- 2002. InNovember of 2002 dur- The South Texas Project is tenance. ing operation ofthe station's Aux- registered with the Texas Com-iliary Boiler, flue gas excess oxy- mission on Environmental Quality Fire-Fighting Activities gen levels intermittently fluctuated as a large quantity generator of above the permit-established industrial solid wastes, including The South Texas Project range for manual operations. The hazardous wastes. Texas Com-conducts onsite training of selected excess flue gas oxygen range es- mission on Environmental Quality employees on proper fire-fighting tablished in the permit is a control regulations require that industrial techniques. Most onsite instruc- parameter for operation of the solid wastes generated at the tion consists of training on the Auxiliary Boiler. The condition South Texas Project be identified proper use of a fire extinguisher. was corrected and no emission to the Commission and these are Advance notification offirefighting limits were exceeded. \ listed in the Texas Commission on training sessions is provided to the Environmental Quality Notice of Matagorda County Environmen- NON-RADIOACTIVE M' Registration for the South Texas tal Services and the Texas Com- WASTE MIANAGENIENT Project. The registration is revised mission on Environmental Quality whenever there is a change in as required by state regulation. Solid waste management waste management practices at procedures for hazardous and the site. Waste handling and dis-Title V Federal Operating non-hazardous wastes generated posal activities are summarized Permit at the South Texas Project ensure and documented in a waste sum-that wastes are properly mary report for the South Texas In 1990, amendments to the dispositioned in accordance with C4-7*v- (-4--W4 STP Nuclear Operating Company

Project that is submitted annually to the Texas Commission on En- 2002 Nonradioactive Waste Management vironmental Quality. South Texas Project Hazardous waste accumula-tion at the South Texas Project is Recycle limited to a maximum holding pe-riod of 90 days. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act also require the use of proper storage and shipping containers, labels, manifests, reports, person-Incineration & Landfill nel training, a spill control plan and Fuel Blending 18.4%

an accident contingency plan. 8.4%

Plant personnel routinely inspect areas throughout the site to ensure Figure 4-4 wastes are not stored or accumu-lated inappropriately.

erated. A site paper recycling pro- months. The station continues to gram results in the collection of explore new areas where recy-Station policies and regula-several tons of paper each year. cling may be expanded or initi-tions encourage the recycling, re-In 2002, the station collected ap- ated.

covery or re-use of waste when proximately 40 tons of paper for possible to reduce the amount of recycling. Every ton ofpaper re- Non-radioactive solid waste waste generated or disposed of in cycled saves approximately 17 that cannot be shipped for recy-landfills. Approximately 73 per-trees, eliminates approximately cling is shipped for disposal. Mu-cent ofthe industrial non-radioac-three cubic yards of landfill mate- nicipal-type trash is transported to tive waste generated at the South rial and saves enough energy to the county landfill transfer station Texas Project was recycled or power the average home for six for appropriate disposition. Con-processed for re-use in 2002.

(Reference Figure 4-4) The South Texas Project ships waste oil, 2002 Nonradioactive Waste Generation grease, electrohydraulic fluid, South Texas Project sealants, adhesives, liquid paint Non-Hazardous and solvent for fuel blending and Waste thermal energy recovery. Used 94.0% -

oil, diesel fuels and antifreeze so-lutions are sent to a recycling ven-dor for re-processing. Lead-acid batteries are returned, when pos-sible, to the original manufacturer Universal Waste 0.8%

for recycling or are shipped to a Hazardous Waste registered battery recycler, thereby 1.3% Used Batteries 3.9%

reducing the volume of hazardous waste that might otherwise be gen- Figure 4-5 Cod" k

Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Report struction-related non-combus- policies and programs to minimize proper packaging for disposal and tible, inert debris, if generated, is the generation of waste materials, mitigate the consequences of in-placed in the onsite landfill. Waste control chemical usage and pre- advertent spillage.

minimization and source reduction vent spills.

efforts by employees allowed the The South Texas Project South Texas Project to achieve The South Texas Project also emphasizes awareness training for approximately a 12 percent reduc- evaluates chemicals and products spill prevention and maintains sta-tion in normal hazardous waste proposed for use, which could tion readiness to respond should generated at the site during 2002. come in contact with plant com- a spill occur. Spill response team The volume of hazardous waste ponents. Site procedures address members receive annual refresher generated at the station is suffi- the evaluation, storage, use, spill training in hazardous material in-ciently low to allow the station to control, and disposal requirements cident response. No significant or seek re-classification as a small- ofchemicals. These guidelines as- consequential spills occurred in quantity generator. This option sist in reducing wastes, ensure 2002.

will continue to be evaluated in the following year. Hazardous waste accounts for only a small portion Hazardous Waste Generation Historical of the waste generated at the Comparison South Texas Project South Texas Project; however, minimization and reduction ofhaz-ardous waste generation where feasible remains an important goal at the station. (Reference Figures 4-5 and 4-6)

CHEMICAL CONTROL 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 AND MANAGEMENT [iHazardous Waste from Cleanup of an Onsite Spill I Hazardous Waste The South Texas Project uses standard operating procedures, Figure 4-6 e4 STP Nuclear Operating Company

2002 Environmental Report Environmental Protection Plain Status The South Texas Project's involved a potentially significant a significant adverse en-Environmental Protection Plan unreviewed environmental ques- vironmental impact.

was issued in March of 1989 to tion. A proposed change, test or provide for the protection of non- experiment is considered to No unreviewed environmen-radiological environmental values present an unreviewed environ- tal questions were identified in during operation of the South mental questions if it concerns: 2002.

Texas Project. This report re-views Environmental Protection 1) A matter that may result Events that require reports to Plan non-compliances identified in a significant increase in federal, state or local agencies by the plant in 2002 and the as- any adverse environmen- other than the Nuclear Regulatory sociated corrective actions taken tal impact previously Commission such as the Auxiliary to prevent their recurrence. Po- evaluated in the Final En- Boiler deviation discussed earlier tential nonconformities are vironmental Statement re- in this report are reported in ac-promptly addressed, as identified, lated to the Operation of cordance with the applicable re-to maintain operations in an envi- South Texas Project, porting requirements. The ronmentally acceptable manner. Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nuclear Regulatory Commission The station uses its Corrective Ac- Nos. 50-498 and 50- is provided with a copy of any tion Program to document these 499), environmental im- such report at the time it is sub-conditions and track corrective pact appraisals, or in any mitted to the cognizant agency. If actions to completion. Internal decisions of the Atomic a non-routine event occurs and a assessments, reviews and inspec- Safety and Licensing report is not required by another tions are also used to document Board; or, agency, then a 30-day report to plant compliance. 2) A significant change in ef- the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-fluents orpower level; or, sion is required by the Environ-This report also reviews non- 3) A matter not previously mental Protection Plan. No such routine reports submitted by plant reviewed and evaluated in 30-day or other non-routine re-personnel and any activities that the documents specified in port of this type was required in (1) above, that may have 2002.

STP Nuclear Operating Company ft

$kto I

I Radiological Environmental Introduction and Summarv here wvere two items of in-erest identified by this pro-gram during 2002. A short tion of them follows.

4 Cobalt-60 levels in reservoir bottom sediment samples vary but remain within the expected range. The amount of Cobalt-60 in the Main Cooling Reser-voir appears to have stabilized following a decrease four years ago.

Photo by: Ed Conaway Low level tritium was moni-tored in shallow aquifer ground water samples. The shallow Operation of the South Texas than one millirem which is insignifi-well was located within ap- Project continues to have no de- cant when compared to the 360 mil-proximately seventy-five yards tectable radiological impact offsite. lirems average annual radiation of the Main Cooling Reservoir Samples analyzed from the off-site exposure to people in the United dike base. The concentration sampling stations continue to show States from natural and medical is essentially unchanged and no radiological contribution from sources.

remained less than in the Main plant operation. The radiological Cooling Reservoir. doses received by the general pub-lic from plant operations were less Photo By: Givenna Kelton 4

STP Nuclear Operating Company Z_ - *. Ii

il-,

i-,71

e.

6.-I -,

I %, .-

V I.-

I Radiological Environmental Operating Report PROGRAM determined after considering site or meaningful with all sample DESCRIPTION meteorology, Colorado River hy- types. Fluctuations in the concen-drology, local demography and tration ofradionuclides and direct The South Texas Project ini- land use. Sampling locations are radiation exposure at indicator sta-tiated a comprehensive pre-op- further evaluated and modified tions are evaluated in relation to erational Radiological Environ- according to field and analysis historical data and against the con-mental Monitoring Program in July experience. Table I lists the mini- trol stations. Indicator stations are 1985. That program terminated mum sampling locations and fre- compared with characteristics on March 7, 1988, when the op- quency of collection. identified during the pre-opera-erational program was imple- tional program to monitor for ra-mented. The pre-operational Sampling locations consist of diological effects from plant op-monitoring program data forms the indicator and control stations. In- eration.

baseline against which operational dicator stations are locations on changes are measured. or off the site that may be influ- Several sample identification enced by plant discharges during methods are used to implement Critical pathway analysis re- plant operation. Control stations the program. Figures 6-1 and 6-quires that samples be taken from are located beyond the measur- 2 are maps that identify perma-water, air, and land environments. able influence ofthe South Texas nent sample stations. Descriptions These samples are obtained to Project or any other nuclear facil- of sample stations shown on Fig-evaluate potential radiation expo- ity. Although most samples ana- ures 6-1 and 6-2 are found in sure. Sample types are based on lyzed are accompanied by a con- Table 2. Table 2 also includes ad-established pathways and experi- trol sample, it should be noted that ditional sampling locations and ence gained at other nuclear fa- this practice is not always possible media types that may be used for cilities. Sample locations were C!DAWq STP Nuclear Operating Company

I Designated Sample Locations iS E-00140DW0 Figure 6-1 Cc$)

~&.a(1v~~)&tci L LLirflht DeXsiSampl{>

t rons LocaI N

Designated Sample Locations S

(On Site Sample Locations)

Figure 6-2 to

2002 if~s 4 ___l _ _llent_ Retport N

4"s Zone Location Map S

The zone station number is determined in the following manner:

The first character of the station number is 'Z' to identify it as a zone station.

The second character is the direction coordinate numbers 1-8.

The third character is the distance from Figure 6-3 site numbers 1-6.

QQ7

2,,> " ,I tt' g 0,t)m/-;< QZ0 tt t

. . . t additional information. Figure 6- Average quarterly beta activ- rial. As a routine part of the pro-3 illustrates the zones used when ity from three onsite indicator sta- gram, we perform gamma analy-collection locations are not per- tions and a single control station sis on quarterly composites ofthe manent sample stations. for air particulate samples have air particulate samples to deter-been compared historically from mine if any activity is from the ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 1988 through 2002 (see Figure South Texas Project. The gamma AND TRENDS 4 6-4). The average of the onsite analysis revealed that it was all indicators trends closely with the natural radioactivity.

Environmental samples from offsite control values. The com-areas surrounding the South Texas parison illustrates thatplant opera- Direct gamma radiation is Project continue to indicate no sig- tions are not having an impact on monitored in the environment by nificant radiological effects from air particulate activity even at the thermoluminescent dosimeters lo-plant operation. Analytical values Sensitive Indicator Stations (#1, cated at 43 sites. The natural di-from offsite indicator sample sta- #15, and #16). These stations are rect gamma radiation varies ac-tions continue to trend with the located near the plant and are lo- cording to location because of dif-control stations. Onsite indicator cated downwind from the plant ferences in the natural radioactive samples continued to increase or based on the prevailing wind di- materials in the soil, its moisture decrease in measured values at rection. The beta activity mea- content and the vegetation cover.

their expected rates. sured in the air particulate samples Figure 6-5 compares the amount is from natural radioactive mate- of direct gamma radiation mea-Historical Comparison of Average Quarterly Beta Activity from Indicator and Control Air Samples 1988 - 2002 0.035 t

__0.025 Eh 0.02 0.01 2 C CE 0 .0 -

0.0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

-Station #001, #015 & #016 Average of Onsite Indicators

- Station #037 Offsite Control Figure 6-4 to 1;6-1O* %) cotr

z -

2 i_ c ,2}

s Si Ui C >o 123 'kk .2 rI zk,, l-The Sensitive Indicator Stations ground radiation, probably due to are in the directions that the wind the soil composition. The trends blows most often and are one mile of Figure 6-5 clearly show that the from the power plants on Farm- power plants are not adding to the to-Market Road 521 (Stations #1, direct radiation in the environment.

15 and #16). The Indicator Sta-tions are the remainder of the sta- Bottom sediment samples are tions excluding Stations #38, 40, taken from the Main Cooling Res-and 42 which are of general inter- ervoir each year. Figure 6-6 est stations and not required. The shows the positive results from values plotted are the averages for two plant-produced radioactive Phcno By: Gwenna Kelton all of the stations according to materials, Cobalt-58 and Cobalt-

60. The Cobalt-58 and Cobalt-sured at the plant since the fourth type. Figure 6-5 indicates the di-60 inventory in the reservoir has quarter of I 985 for three differ- rect radiation exposure rates in the decreased since 1992 because of ent types clofstations. The Con- area ofthe individual stations. The aregreaterthan Io average ofthe Control Stations is equipment installed to reduce ra-trol Station dioactive effluents. The amount miles from the site and are in the higher than the other stations be-of Cobalt-58 has decreased be-direction c[the least prevailing cause station #23 is in an area that of phas

-- e least a slightly higher natural back- low levels that can be reliably de-winds (Sta LiOnS ThU atiU to.3 1).

Environmental Dosimeter Comparisons 22

-Aerage of Indica,.r Sto iO's -Aerage .r Control Stations Sena sitle lad roto Stalions 20 0

Ci 16

- I o 14 12 Unit #1 Criticality - 03/08/88 Unit #2 Criticality -03112/89 l0

'985 1989 1987 19898 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Results by Quarter Figure 6-5 CcQ.

Radidpcratng Repori' ti a Operatingf ft Rteiport tected. The concentration of Co- released from the plant were iden- der isreleased into the Main Cool-balt-60 in the reservoir bottom tified in the shoreline samples, ing Reservoir. The tritium escapes sediment samples varies but is which indicates that the plant was from the Main Cooling Reservoir within the expected range. Fig- probably not the source of Ce- by evaporation and by percola-ure 6-7 demonstrates the decline sium-137inthesesamples. The tion from the reliefwells that are a in the total amount of Cobalt-60 Cesium-137 measured in the part of the dike's stabilization sys-in the reservoir. Main Cooling Reservoir does not tem. Figure 6-8 shows the suggest an increase due to plant amount of tritium released to the Cesium-137 was also mea- operation. Main Cooling Reservoir each sured in one oftwo Main Cooling year and the amount present dur-Reservoir bottom sediment Tritium is a radioactive iso- ing the last quarter of each year.

samples and in one of three indi- tope of hydrogen and isproduced This indicates that almost half of cator and one control station during plant operation. Tritium the tritium is removed from the shoreline sediment samples on the produced in the reactors isa part reservoir annually. The majority Colorado River. However, Ce- ofthe water molecule. Wastewa- of the tritium escapes from the sium-137 was present in the en- ter is treated to remove impurities reservoir by evaporation because vironment before the operation of before release, but tritium cannot the flow from the relief wells is in-the South Texas Project and the be removed because it is chemi- sufficient to account for the tritium sample concentrations were ap- cally part of the water molecule. removed. Rainwater was col-proximately equal to pre-opera- Some of the tritium isreleased into lected during 2002 to determine tional values. No other isotopes the atmosphere and the remain- ifthe tritium remained in the local Historical Comparison of Cobalt-58 & Cobalt-60 in Main Cooling Reservoir Sediment 1986 - 2002 1800

- Station #215 1600 Cohalt-58 Plant Discharge

-Station #215 1400 CoISIt-60 Plant E Discharge 1200

= -l H l000 The Coalft-SR activity inthe Ireservoirhas decreased to I ~below levels that can he 800 IIdetected. Statistical variations

- typical ofatserial in a 0 600 particulate form, are seen in 1996 & 1997 Cobalt-60 Ivalues The inventoy of 400 Cohalt-60 hasdecreased since 1992 due to radioactive decay and reduced liquid effluents.

200 0 . . . ... . . .

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 6-6

-1I C e' I 21 -1i .'

Z"

2002 Lri En X3.I a Re px ort Calculated Cumulative Curies of Cobalt-60 in the M ain Cooling Reservoir C..

1919 .... 990, I9 9 20020 01 2 002 ASSU M PTIONS I Radioactive decay Is the only nveehtimn for removal fomhiheM in Cooling Reservoir.

2. The initiI Ime for calculatng t h erev siting radioacvy iys Juy I of he year re- eaed I Figure 6-7 area. Tritium was not found in any tration in eight surface water increased in the sloughs and rain water samples. sample points for 1988 through ditches through 2002 because it 2002 isshown in Figure 6-9. The takes several years for water to The concentration oftritrum in specific sample point locations can move from the reservoir to the the Main Cooling Reservoir be found in Table 2. Tritium levels relief'wells.

changed very little in 2002 as ex- in the onsite sloughs and ditches pected. Tritium enters the sloughs have increased and are expected Tritium was identified in a and ditches of the site as runoff to continue increasing until they are shallow (ten to thirty feet deep) from the relief wells that surround near equilibriunmwith reservoir lev- aquifer test well approximately the reservoir. The tritium concen- els. The tritium concentration has seventy-five yards south of the Historical Com parison of Tritium Added to and Rem aining in the M a in Cooling Reservoir 1989 -2002 400(1 500(1 Ri011 9 89 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199$ 1999 2000 2001 2002

TvIlan RIto-,Id to the Min -,oolingReMeTvo *itiu M Casr-d in dh a(n iM Ivo o Ravavnoir Figure 6-8 C")\

Pits

4 ')e-Xratuxm ==vort Historical Comparison of Tritium Activity in Surface Water 1988 - 2002 M00(10 . '.--

i ~t>>I_

2000000 __

00,00,0S-op1O U pFol-o, orfPlatO Offoil) 1(002 H ker So pie, Do..-streo.o 1>+PIoot OIffolico 0 0.I1 HF~oII(0rjotlo ILItole Jhbi,.,S~tseph~ol~noigo (20 *01eh.: Rotbb ..C000.., Reoer'oirE CMooe p l

(>, l Bi-'og IR orreol h 2o1Mdowo 4237 in to1o Io M iOoitol Reseroi.oiio}

( - 2)0l Figure 6-9 reservoir dike base during 1999. receives from naturally occurring LAND USE CENSUSi In 2002, the concentration ap- radioactive potassium in the body.

peared to stabilize and is a frac- The current reservoir concentra- The Annual Land Use Cen-tion ofthe concentration oftritium tion is approximately 1/3 the re- sus is performed to determine if in the reservoir. porting level. any changes have occurred in the location of residents and the use The drinking water onsite is Some samples are collected ofthe land within five miles ofthe pumped from deep aquifer wells and analyzed in addition to those South Texas Project generating and is tested quarterly to verify required by our licensing docu- units. The information is used to tritium isnot present. The waters ments or internal procedures. determine whether any changes in the reservoir and other surface These samples are obtained to are needed inthe Radiological En-bodies of water onsite are not give additional assurance that the vironmental Monitoring Program.

used as drinking water. The only public and the environment are The census is performed by con-way tritium could be introduced protected from any adverse ef- tacting area residents and local into humans isby eating fish from fects from the plant. These government agencies that provide the reservoir, which isnot pennit- samples include wildlife, pasture the information. The results ofthe ted. If a person ate forty pounds grass, sediment samples, rain wa- survey indicated that no changes of fish a year from water that con- ter, water samples from various were required.

tained the United States Nuclear ditches and sloughs onsite, and air In addition, a survey is per-Regulatory Commission reporting samples near communities or formned to verify the nearest resi-level (30,000 picoCuries per ki- other areas of interest. The re- dents within five miles ofthe South logram), thatperson wouldreceive sults ofthese analyses indicate that Texas Project generating units in less than one millirem. This is in- there is no detectable radiological each of 16 sectors. The nine sec-significant compared to the almost effect on the environment by plant tors that have residents within five twenty millirem a year everyone operation. miles and the distance to the near-C1 7 h

Q3MV94

2002 Environmental Report est residence in each sector are mercial vegetable farms lo- isfactorily.

listed below. cated within the five-mile Zone. Quality audits and indepen-The following items of interest dent technical reviews help to de-were noted during the census A commercial fish farm con- termine areas that need attention tinues to operate 2 miles west and re-evaluation. Areas that need A 110-acre wetland prairie of the plant near FM 521. In attention are addressed in accor-project continues to provide addition, another commercial dance with the station's Correc-a habitat for migratory birds fish farm has begun operation tive Action Program.

and waterfowl. The habitat is five miles southwest of the located northeast of the plant. The water supply for The measurement capabilities power plants and is easily ac- the ponds is not affected by ofthe Radiological Laboratory are cessible to the public. the operations of the STP demonstratedbyparticipating in power plants. inter-laboratory measurement as-l Colorado River water from surance programs. These pro-below the Bay City Dam has QUALITY ASSURANCE grams provide samples that are notbeen used to irrigate crops. similar in matrix and size to those Quality assurance encom- measured for the Radiological l No commercial dairy oper- passes planned and systematic Environmental Monitoring Pro-ates in Matagorda County tinns tn ensiire thait an item or gram.

and there is no agricultural milk facility will perform satisfactorily.

source within the five-mile Reviews, surveillance and audits Figure 6-10 summarizes the Zone. have determined that the pro- results ofthese inter-comparison grams, procedures and personnel programs. Analyses consisted of lb There were no identified com- are adequate and do perform sat- radiochemical measurements and Nearest Residents Seto - - i . i:c Locat. , z -

'gion3 -,-

S5E- 3.5 -Selkirk Islan3 d

,;, .SW. {-.-v- -i -. Citruss Gro eK

- WSW = .- x. -. 25. AAL Fi; i2l<W j W '4tEN 7 FM-=1-09 e5 .5>'H xH N,

S 4. Oi Moii-droasdGbe WNW 35h Runnls A- Ranch (F168)

N - 35 -Runellsni .. (FM 1468 STP Nuclear Operating Company Took"-D10

i~a}~, v Xa < EX+

9SA (Ier n rlt ty 2002 Radiological Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Performance 0-5% Difference 5-10% Difference 10-15% Difference 78 Total Analyses Figure 6-1 0 measurement of direct radiation ceptable for analysis: due to seasonal unavailability through the use ofthermolumines- (January, February and cent dosimeters. In addition, ap- March).

proximately twenty percent of the lb Seven out of thirty-six re-analyses made are quality control quired broadleaf vegetation samples that consist of duplicate, samples were not collected split and blind samples.

Radiochemical measurements must meet sensitivity requirements at the lower level of detection for environmental samples. These stringent requirements were met in all samples taken in 2002.

PROGRAM DEVIATIONS Deviations from the sampling program must be acknowledged and explained in this report. Dur-ing 2002 the following samples were not collected or were unac-Photo By: Gwenna Kelton 4 C'-b

2002 Environmental Report The minimum Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program is presented in Table 1. The table is organized by exposure pathway. Specific requirements like location, sampling method, collection frequency and analyses are given for each pathway.

Table 1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program EXPOSURE: DIRECT RADIATION 4Q TOTAL SAMPLING STATIONS Sample Media. Number, Approximate Location and Distance of Routine Sampling Sampling and Analysis Minimum Sample Stations from Containment. Mode Collection Type Analysis Frequency Frequency Exposure Media: TLD 16- Located In all 16 meteorological sectors, 0.21 to 4 miles. Continuously Quarterly Gamma dose Quarterly 16- Located In all 16 meteorological sectors, 2 to 7 miles.

§- Located In special Interest areas (e.g. school, population centers), within 14 miles.

a Control stations located In areas of minimal wind direction (WSW,ENE), 10-16 miles.

The Inner ring of stations In the southern sectors are located within I mile because of the main cooling reservoir EXPOSURE: AIRBORNE D TOTAL SAMPLING STATIONS Sample Media, Number. Approximate Location, and Distance of Routine Sampling Nominal Analysis Minimum Sample Stations from Containment. Mode Collection Type Analysis Frequency Frequency Charcoal and Particulate Filters a- Located at the exclusion zone, N, NNW. NW Sectors, 1 mile. Continuous Weekly or Rsdiolodine Weekly sampler more caniste 1- Located In Bay City, 14 miles. operations fr1-11t

- Control Station, located In a minimal wind direction (WSW), required by Particulate 10 miles. dust loading SamDler:

Gross Beta Following Activity filter change Gamma- Quarterly Isotopic of composite (by location)

EXPOSURE: WATERBORNE 2 TOTAL SAMPLING STATIONS Sample Media, Number And Approximate Location of Sample Routine Sampling Nominal Analysis Minimum Stations Mode Collection Type Analysis Frequency . Frequency Surface.

I- Located In MCR at the MCR blowdown structure. Composite sample Monthly Gamma- Monthly Over a I month Isotopic 1- Located above the site on the Colorado River not Influenced period (grab If by plant discharge (control). not available) Tritium Quarterly J- Located downstream from blow down entrance Into the Composite Colorado River.

Ground 1- Located at well down gradient In the shallow aquifer. Grab Quarterly Gamma- Quarterly Isotopic &

Tritium STP Nuclear Operating Company .

Radiological Environmental Operating Report Table 1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program EXPOSURE: WATERBORNE (CONTINUED)

Sample Media, Number And Approximate Location of Sample Routine Sampling Nominal Analysis Minimum Stations Mode Collection Type Analysis Frequency Frequency Drinking Water 1- Located on site. Grab Monthly Gross Beta Monthly 1- Located at a control station.

& Gamma-Isotopic Sediment Tritium Quarterly Composites 1- Located above the site on the Colorado River, not influenced Grab Semi-annually Gamma- Semi-annually by plant discharge. Isotopic 1- Located downstream from blowdown entrance into the Colorado River.

1- Located in MCR.

No municipal water systems are affected by STP. This sample taken from deep aquifer supplying drinking water to employees while at work.

EXPOSURE: INGESTION 7 TOTAL SAMPLING STATIONS Sample Media, Number And Approximate Location of Sample Routine Sampling Nominal Analysis Minimum Stations Mode Collection Type Analysis Frequency Frequency Milk Grab Semi-monthly Gamma- Semi-monthly when animals Isotopic when animals are on and 1-131 are on pasture; pasture; monthly at monthly at Broadleaf Vegetation- other times. other times.

2- Located at the exclusion zone, N. NW, or NNW sectors. Grab Gamma-1- Located in a minimal wind direction. Monthly during Isotopic As collected growing season and 1-131 (When available)

Limited source of sample in vicinity of the South Texas Project. (Attempts will be made to obtain samples when available.)

Three different kinds of broadleaf vegetation are to be collected over the growing season, not each collection period EXPOSURE: INGESTION (continued)

Sample Media. NumberAnd Approximate Location of Sample Routine Sampling Nominal Analysis Minimum Stations Mode Collection Type Analysis ll ___ Frequency Frequency Fish and Invertebrates (edible gortions) l- Representing commercially or recreational important species Grab Sample semi- Gamma- As collected in vicinity of STP that maybe influenced by plant operation. annually Isotopic on edible 1- Same or analogous species In area not Influenced by STP. portions l- Same or analogous species In the MCR.

Agricultural Products Grab At time of Gamma- As collected harvest Isotopic Analysis In Domestic Meat edible portion 1- Represents domestic stock fed on crops grown exclusively Grab Gamma- As collected within 10 miles of the plant. Annually Isotopic No sample stations have been Identified In the vicinity of the site. Presently no agricultural land Is Irrgated by water Into which liquid plant wastes will be discharged. Agricultural products will be considered If these conditions change.

ISTP Nuclear Operating Company

2002 Environmental Report Table 2 Sample Media and Location Descriptions AIRBORNE RADIOIODINE CABBAGE AIRBORNE PARTICULATE COLLARD GREENS RESIDENT DABBLER DUCK BEEF MEAT RESIDENT DIVER DUCK POULTRY MEAT MIGRATORY DABBLER DUCK WILD SWINE MIGRATORY DIVER DUCK DOMESTIC SWINE GOOSE EGGS DOVE GAME DEER QUAIL ALLIGATOR PIGEON RABBIT CRUSTACEAN CRAB OYSTER CRUSTACEAN SHRIMP SOIL DIRECT RADIATION SEDIMENT - SHORELINE FISH - PISCIVOROUS SEDIMENT- BOTTOM FISH - CRUSTACEAN & INSECT PASTURE GRASS FEEDERS 0-FISH - PLANTIVORES & DETRITUS -

DRINKING WATER FEEDERS .

. BANANA LEAVES, GROUND WATER CANA LEAVES SURFACE WATER TURNIP GREENS RELIEF WELL WATER STP Nuclear Operating Company roO+~

Radiological Environmental Operating Report Table 2 Sample Media and Location Descriptions MEDIA CODE STATION VECTOR LOCATION DESCRIPTION CODE (Approximate) l DR Al AP VB VP SO 001 1 mile N FM 521 DR 002 1 mile NNE FM 521 DR 003 1 mile NE FM 521 DR 004 1 mile ENE FM 521 DR 005 1 mile E STP Visitor Center on FM 521 DRAI AP SO 006 3.5 miles ESE Site near Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility DR 007 3.5 miles SE MCR Dike DR 008 0.25 mile SSE MCR Dike DR 009 0.25 mile S MCR Dike DR 010 0.25 mile SSW MCR Dike DR 011 0.5 mile SW MCR Dike DR 012 1.5 mile WSW MCR Dike DR 013 1.5 mile W FM 521 DR 014 1.5 mile WNW FM 521 DRAIAPVB SOVP 015 1 mile NW FM 521 DRAIAPVB SOVP 016 1 mile NNW FM 521 DR 017 6.5 miles N Buckeye - FM 1468 DRAI AP SO 018 5.5 miles NNE Celanese Plant - FM 3057 DR 019 5.5 miles NE FM 2668 DR 020 5 miles ENE FM 2668 & FM 2078 DR 021 5 miles E FM 521& FM 2668 DR 022 7 miles E Equistar Chemical Plant DR 023

16 miles ENE Intersection of FM 521 and FM 2540 MCR-STP Main Cooling Reservoir STP-South Texas Project Media codes typed in bold satisfy collection requirements described in Table 1.

Control Station I 94 STP Nuclear Operating Company

2002 Environmental Report Table 2 Sample Media and Location Descriptions MEDIA CODE STATION VECTOR LOCATION DESCRIPTION CODE (Approximate) l DR 024 4 miles SSE MCR Dike DR 025 4 miles S MCR Dike DR 026 4 miles SSW MCR Dike DR 027 2.5 miles SW MCR Dike DR 028 5 miles WSW FM 1095 & Ellis Road DR SO 029 4.5 miles W FM 1095 DR 030 6 miles WNW Tres Palacios Oaks, FM 2853 DR 031 5.5 miles NW Wilson Creek Road DR 032 3.5 miles NNW FM 1468 DR Al AP S0 DRAlAPSO _

033 033 14 miles NNE 14_milesNNE Microwave city Tower at end of Kilowatt Road in Bay DR 034 7.5 miles ENE Wadsworth Water Supply Pump Station DR Al AP SO 035 8.5 miles SSE Matagorda DR 036 9 miles WSW College Port DR Al AP VB VP SO 037* 10 miles WSW Palacios CP&L Substation DR 038 10.5 miles NW CP&L Substation on TX 71 near Blessing DRAlAPSO DRAI P 039 SOTidehaven 9 miles NW TX 35 underHigh HighSchool Voltage Power lines near DR 040 4.5 miles SW Citrus Grove DR 041 2.0 miles ESE MCR Dike DR 042 8.5 miles NW FM 459 at Tidehaven Intermediate School DR 043 4.5 miles SE Site boundary at blowdown outlet WS 209 2 miles ESE Kelly Lake WD 210 On Site Approved drinking water supply from STP WVS 51211 .3.5 miles S Site, E. Branch Little Robbins Slough MCR-STP Main Cooling Reservoir STP-South Texas Project Media codes typed in bold satisfy collection requirements described in Table 1.

Control Station STP Nuclear Operating Company f- k%

Radiological Environmental Operating Report Table 2 Sample Media and Location Descriptions MEDIA CODE STATION VECTOR LOCATION DESCRIPTION CODE (Approximate)

WS Si 212 4 miles S Little Robbins Slough Ws Si 213 4 miles SE West Branch Colorado River F (1,2, or 3) CC 214 2.5 miles SE MCR at Makeup Water Discharge S2 215 0.5 mile SW MCR at Circulating Water Discharge WS S2 216 3.5 miles SSE MCR at blowdown structure F (1, 2, or 3) CC CS 222 >10 miles West Matagorda Bay WS S(1 or 2) 227 5-6 miles SE West bank of Colorado River downstream of STP across from channel marker #22 WD 228* 14 miles NNE Le Tulle Park public water supply Drainage ditch north of the reservoir that empties WS S1 229 2-3 miles ESE into Colorado River upstream of the reservoir makeup pumping facility S~l r 2)230 3.5 ilesESE Colorado River at point where drainage ditch 5(1 or 2) 230 3.5 miles ESE (#229) empties into it S(1 or 2) WS 233 4.5 miles SE Colorado River where MCR blowdown discharge channel empties into it.

WG 235 3.8 miles S Well B-3 directly south from MCR B8 236 N/A STP Protected Area WS 237 3.7 miles SSE Blowdown discharge channel from MCR S(1 or 2) WS 242* >10 miles N Colorado River where it intersects Highway 35 WS 243 >10 miles N Colorado River upstream of Bay City Dam at the Lower Colorado River Authority pumping station WS 247 <1 mile E Essential Cooling Pond F(1,2, or 3) 249* N/A Control sample purchased from a local retailer SO 250 0.75 miles NW Sewage sludge land farming area F(1,2,or 3) CC S2 300 S STP Main Cooling Reservoir WW 701 4 miles S MCR Relief Well # 440 Ws Q01 N/A Quarterly composite of station #227 and/or WS Q02 N/A altermate #233 Ws Q0 N/AQuarterly composite of station #243 and/or ELS I NAaltermate #242 MCR-STP Main Cooling Reservoir STP-South Texas Project Media codes typed in bold satisfy collection requirements described in Table 1.

Control Station STP Nuclear Operating Company

2002 Environmental Report 2002 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Analysis Summary An analysis summary for all ofthe required samples is given in Table 3. The table has been formatted to resemble a United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission industry standard. Modifications have been made for the sole purpose ofreading ease. Only positive values are given in this table.

Media type is printed at the top left of each table, and the units ofmeasurement are printed at the top right. The first column lists the type of radioactivity or specific radionuclide for which each sample was analyzed. The second column gives the total number of analyses performed and the total number of non-routine analyses for each indicated nuclide. (A non-routine measurement is a sample whose measured activity is greater than the reporting levels for Radioactivity Concentrations in Environmental Samples.)

The "LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION" column lists the normal measurement sensitivities achieved which were more sensitive than specified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

A set of statistical parameters is listed for each radionuclide in the remaining columns. The parameters contain information from the indicator locations, the location having the highest annual mean, and infor-mation from the control stations. Some sample types do not have control stations. When this is the case, "no samples" is listed in the control location column. For each of these groups of data, the follow-ing is calculated:

Photo By: Gwenna Kelton STP Nuclear Operating Company

I4

Radiological Environmental Operating Report

§n . i s ...................

? sn x v u s w-,< . Ott ... < < F s . i R -

$, s i * - - x s . s a v * . i .4 * - - P h b The mean value of positive *., .4, .

S-

. t f

E, * ,

0 .

Z

- , 0 A real values.

The number of positive real .s 7, -d, 8 -

i 4

0 7'

j b

' : i t

-, e X ff'-' ' ", ' ' 2 E N D , ' .

measurements / the total ? S _ z wot - ' s , r : 5' s e ' _ f ; V E . X number of analyses. i. \, A , dE_ , . s ,

t > e , 4 0 r - .

2 w . i _ f < 1 h ' =, s _ S ' i t ' 0 ; ' , . ;

4 The lowest and highest values for the analysis. t9o i.

.s o"

r-s H

R

)

=

'?

< sw

=,

X f

iiii>_

S <'4

\

1; I

t

=- .<

t

. Z j

x

' W

, _ t _; ' ,. ; N' _, _ , t ! . 0-The data placed in the table are b: .'s , q e- * ' i g %- J t from the samples listed in Table t ' _r,. 6 .>. s; NS % v M ; s t -¢ s . - d< - w f t c-l-e+ t- Wr 'E\ .. st-..'S'S- ' 'i i , XW

1. Additional thermoluminescent dosimeters were utilized each t E^

t i. 4* g >4 c

> <v <o t" t - . t ¢-j:

> ., s . *',

e,5<

, ' X" . , _ R- iv !,;

t

=s; _{

o_ t

.,...t; quarter for quality purposes. . >, ' j r j , _ , s . N O . P u . S ' - < g _ ' t ' ', + : Q _ .

The minimum number of other ^ t *tl. ? 2',. ,, -. 9. e ,. =J ,, .J; f . -, F ¢ _:; -, . ;

analyses required by Table 1 > ! < e9 , t: 1t 0S i ' ' ' ': ' >' > ; ' }

were supplemented in 2002 by ,,

s

,2

X _' oS S ' ' '

C, % s, F _ H.T'i :._.-i F * ? z 7 f-c i

- .. . ; . - t- t; E : ¢ 2 z

5 f F e - j i j - 0 . -s 4 s - , , . *n * - . - .i - . . .

four surface water samples, 0 : < t: t * ,9; N ......................... -t 0 - . . . .

three groundwater samples, 4 ' _-, 4( s:_- i .................. t . , : .: . j , .t . s - :; -. , :x4: - , ;_ f _*e -

three drinking water samples, 9 il&-<'t gWSj ¢.'.'>-j e:x=-';<>. -_efes t four rainwater samples and one shoreline sediment sample. Fish, . S, ta kS1i<;A;<,,S$,S vegetation, and wildlife samples vary in number according to availability but also exceeded the minimum number required by ,%..t,. __,__L__,-> g .;...-'.'-'..-

_%,>

E Table 1.

Photo By. Gwenna Kelton TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMIENTAL AIONITORING PROGRAMI ANALYSIS SUMIMIARY M-fl-: Dli-rt Radiation Units: Milliroentgen/Standard Quarter ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (f)- LOCATION MEAN (t) MEAN (f)-

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE I RANGE Gamma 17310 ... 1.4E+OI ( 165t 165 ) I mile W 1 .8E+OI ( 4/4) 1.5E+0I ( 8/ 8)

( I.E+01 - 1.9E1+OI ) (#O13 (1.8E+0I - 1.9E+01) ( 1.3E+01 -1.75+01 )

(f) Number of positive measurements / SotaImeasurements at specified locations.

TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMIENTAL IONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Airborne Radioiodine Units: Picocuries per Cubic Meter ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (f)- LOCATION MEAN (f) MEAN (f)l MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Iodine-131 265/0 8.9E-03 --- ( 0/212) -r ---. .( 01 53)

(0 Number of positive measurements I total measurements at specified locations.

STP Nuclear Operating Company e9l--0-4-14

- 2002 Environmental Report TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Airborne Particulate Units: Picocuries per Cubic Meter ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (t) LOCATION MEAN (I) MEAN (f)

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Gross Beta 26510 I.5E-03 2.6E-02 ( 212 /212) 10 miles WSW 2.6E-02 ( 53 /53) 2.6E-02 (531 53)

(7.4AE-03 -5.1E-02 ) (#037) (8.5E 5.2E-02) (8.5E-03 -5.2E-02 Cesium-134 20/0 2.8E-04 --- ( 0 /16) --- ..-- ( 0/ 4)

Cesium-137 2010 2.5E-04 .( 0/ 16) ... .. --- ( 0/ 4)

Manganese-54 20/0 3.IE-04 *-. ( 0 / t6) .. ... -- ( 01 4)

Iron-59 20/0 1.7E-04 --- ( 0 16) ... .. --- ( 0/ 4)

Cobalt-58 2010 4.5E-04 --- ( 0 16) --- . --- ( 01 4)

Cobalt-60 2010 3.OE-04 --- ( 01 16) -- --- --- ( 01 4)

Zinc-65 20/0 6.7E-04 --- ( 0 /16) --- --- ( 0/ 4)

Zirconium-95 20/0 8.3E-04 --- ( 0 16) --- - --- ( 01 4)

Niobium-55 20/0 8.2E-04 --- ( 0 116) --- ... --- ( 01 4)

Lanthanum-140 20/0 5.3E-03 --- ( 01 16) --- .. --- ( 01 4)

Barium-140 (O)Number of positive measurements / total measurements at specified locations.

2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Surface Water Units: icoCuries per Kilogram ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE (NONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (t- LOCATION MEAN (t' MEAN (f' MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Hydrogen-3 1210 2.6E+02 I.OE+04 ( 41/ ) 3 miles SSE I.OE+04 ( 4/ 4) --- ( 01 4)

(9.8E+03 I.IE+04) (6216) (9.8E+03 - 1.1E+04)

Iodine-131 40/0 8.4E+00 --- ( 01 26) ... ... --- ( 0 / 14)

Cesium-134 40/0 2.0E+00 --- ( 0/ 26) ... ... --- ( 14)

Cesium-137 4010 1.9E+00 --- ( 0/ 26) .. . --- ( 0 1 14)

Manganese-54 4010 1.8E+00 *-- ( 0/ 26) .. .. - ( 0/ 14)

Iron-59 40/0 5.7E+00 *- ( 01 26) .-- -- --- ( 0 /14)

Cobalt-58 40/0 2.0E+00 --- ( 0 26) --- .. --- ( 0/ 14)

Cobalt-60 4010 1.9E+00 --- ( 01 26) -- --- --- ( 01 14)

Zinc-65 4010 3.9E+00 --- ( 0 26) --- --- ( 0 /14)

Zirconium-95 4010 3.5E+00 --- ( 0/ 26) .. ... * ( 0/ 14)

Niobium-95 4010 2.4E+00 --- ( 01 26) --- .. --- ( 0/ 14)

Lantbanum-140 40/0 3.5E+00 --- ( 01 26) .. .. ( 0/ 14 Barium-140 I (I) Number ofpositive measurements I total measurements at specified locations.

fromis112 -

STP Nuclear Operating Company

Radiological Environmental Operating Report TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMIENTAL MNIONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS SUMNMIIIARY Medium: Drinking Water Units: PicoCuries per Kilogram ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMITOF MEAN (f- LOCATION MEAN (f)' MEAN f)

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Gross Beta 26/0 1.2E+00 3.8E+00 ( 1l/ 13) On Site 3.8E+00( It/ 13) 3.4E+00( 12/13) 2.7E400 - 5.7E+00) (#210) ( 2.7E+00 - 5.7E+00) ( 2.7E+00 - 4.0E+00 Hydrogen-3 8/0 2.6E+02 --- ( 0/ 4 - --- --- ( 0/ 4) lodine-131 27/0 5.413+00 --- ( 0/ 14) --- --- --- 0/ 13)

Cesium-134 27/0 2.013+00 --- ( 0/ 14) --- . --- ( 0/ 13)

Cesium-137 27/0 1.9E+00 --- ( 01 14 --- .. --- ( 01 13)

Manganese-54 2710 1.SE+00 --- ( 0/ 14) --- - - ( 01 13)

Iron-59 2710 5.7E+00 --- ( 0/ 14) - - ( 0/ 13)

Cobalt-58 27/0 2.0E+00 -( 0/ 14) - - ( 01 13)

Cobalt-60 27/0 1.9E+00 ( 0/ 14) --- --- --- ( 0/ 13)

Zinc-65 27/0 3.9E+00 --- ( 0/ 14) --- ( 0/ 13)

Zirconium-95 27/0 3.5E+00 -- ( 0/14) _--- - --- ( 0/ 13)

Niobium-95 27/0 2.4E+00 --- ( 0 / 14) --- - --- ( 01 13)

Lanthanum-I 40 27/0 3.5E+00 ...

Barium-140 I .

(fl Number of positive measurements/ totn measurements at specified locations.

TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS SUMMIlARY Medium: Ground Water (On site test well) Units: PicoCuries per Kilogram ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE /NONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (f' LOCATION MEAN (I)- MEAN (r)'

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Hydrogen-3 7/0 2.6E+02 1.9E+03 ( 7/ 7) 3.8 miles S 1.9E+03 ( 71 7) no samples 1.8E+03 - 2.0E+03 ) (#235) ( 1.8E+03 - 2.0E+03 Iodine-131 7/0 8.4E+00 --- ( 0/ 7) --- --- no samples Cesium-134 7/0 2.0E1+00 --- ( 0/ 7) --- --- no samples Cesium-137 7/0 1.9E+00 --- ( 01 7) - - no samples Manganese-54 710 I.8E+00 --- ( 01 7) - no samples Iron-59 7/0 5.71+00 --- ( 0 7 ) -- - no samples Cobalt-5 7/ 0 2.0E+00 --- ( 0 i 7 )--- --- no samples Cobalt-60 7/0 1.91+00 - ( 0/ 7 ) - no samples Zinc-65 7/0 3.90+00 -- ( 0/ 7 ) -- no samples Zireonium-95 7/0 3.5E+00 --- ( 0/ 7 --- ... no samples Niobium-95 7/0 2.42+00 --- ( 0/ 7) --- .. no samples Lanthanum-140 7/0 3.5E+00 _-( 0/ 7) _ _ no samples

'ariUM-140 I I I(t) Number of positive measurements / olal measurements at specified locationsn.

0§ STP Nuclear Operating Company

2002 Environmental Report TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Rain Water Units: PicoCuries per Kilogram ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE /NONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (f) LOCATION MEAN (I)- MEAN (f)-

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Hydrogen-3 410 2.6E+02 --- ( 0/ 4) --- --- no samples Iodine-131 41.0 .. ---( 01 4) -- --- no samples Cesium-134 410 2.OE+00 --- ( 01 4) --- no samples Cesium-137 410 1.9E+00 --- ( 0/ 4) -. --- no samples Manganese-54 410 1.8E+00 .- ( 0/ 4) .. - no samples Iron-59 410 5.7E+00 --- ( 0/ 4) --- --- no samples Cobalt-58 410 2.OE+00 --- ( 0/ 4 --- --- no samples Cobalt-60 410 1.9E+00 --- ( 01 4) ... .. no samples Zinc-65 410 3.9E+00 --- ( 0 / 4) ... .. no samples Zirconium-95 410 3.5E+00 --- ( 0/ 4) -.. no samples Niobium-95 410 2.4E+00 --- ( 0/ 4) .-. -.. no samples Lanthanum-140 410 .. --- ( 01 4) --- --- no samples Barium-140

(D Number of positive measurements/ Itotal measurements at specified locations.

TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Sediment-Shoreline Units: Picocuries er Kilogram dry weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (f)' LOCATION MEAN (t) MEAN ()*

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Cesium.134 5/0 ... --- ( 0/ 3) ... ... .. ( 0/ 2)

Cesium-137 5/0 ... 3.4E+01 ( 1/ 3) 6 miles SE 3.4E+01 ( 11 3) 3.1E+0I ( 11 2) 3.4E+01 - 3.4E+01 ) (#227) ( 3.4E+01 - 3.4E+01 ) ( 3.IE+01 - 3.IE+01 Mlanganese-54 5/0 I.5E+01 ( 0/ 3) --- . --- ( 0/ 2)

Iron-59 510 8.IE+01 .-- ( 01 3) --- --- --- ( 0/ 2)

Cobalt-58 510 2.3E+01 --- ( 0/ 3) --- --- -- 0 1 2)

Cobalt-60 510 1.3E+01 ... ( 0/ 3) --- ... --- ( 0 / 2)

Zinc-65 510 4.9E+01 -.. ( 0/ 3) .. . --- ( 0/ 2)

Zirconium-95 510 5.0E+0I .- ( 01 3) .. .. --- ( 0/ 2)

Niobium-95 510 4.6E+01 --- ( 01 3) . ... --- ( 01 2)

Lanthanum-140 510 1.9E+02 --- ( 01 3) ... .. --- ( 01 2)

Barium-140 i (I) Number of positive measurements / total measurements at specified locations.

too's 0"-2 STP Nuclear Operating Company

Radiological Environmental Operating Report TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Sediment-Bottom _ Units: Picocuries er Kilogram dry weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMITOF MEAN (I' LOCATION MEAN (I) MEAN (f)-

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Cesium-134 2/0 ... --- ( 0/ 2) .. --- no samples Cesium-137 210 ... 7.8E+01 ( I/ 2) I mile SW 7.8E+01 ( I/ 2) no samples

( 7.8E+01 - 7.8E+01 ) (#215) ( 7.8E+01 - 7.8E+01 Manganese-54 210 I.5E+01 --- ( 0/ 2) .. -... no samples Iron-59 2/0 8.IE+01 ... ( 0/ 2 --- no samples Cobalt-58 210 2.3E+01 ... ( 0 0.. 2 --- no samples Cobalt-60 2/0 1.3E+01 4.3E+01 ( I / 2) I mile SW 4.3E+01 ( I / 2) no samples

( 4.3E+01 - 4.3E+01 ) (#215) ( 4.3E+01 - 4.3E+0I1 Zinc-65 2/0 4.9E+01 --- 0 / 2) . no samples Zirconium-95 2/0 5.0E+01 --- 01 2 )--- .. no samples Niobium-95 210 4.6E+01 --- ( 01 2) . --- no samples Lanthanum-140 210 I.9E+02 --- ( 01 2 ) . --- no samples Barium-140 (f) Number ofpositive measurements / tola measurements at specified locations.

TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS SUNMIARY Mediurn Banana Leaves Units: Picocuries per Kiogram wet weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WFIH I UGIIEST ANNUAL NEAN CONTROL LOCATtONS TYPE INONROUTINE LDMIf OF MEAN (f)* LOCATION MEAN (t)' MEAN (f)

ME R NTS DETECtION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE kodine-131 19/0 1.4E+01 ( 0 /13) -( 0/ 6)

Cesiusm-134 19/0 22E+O0 - ( / 13) _ _ -( 0/ 6)

Ccsiurr,137 19/0 1.8E+O0 -( O/ 13) -( O/ 6)

Manganese-54 19/0 2.OE+00 ( O/ 13) -( O/ 6)

Iron-59 1910 9.7E+00 - ( O/ 13) -( O/ 6)

Cobalt-58 19/0 2.3E+0 - ( O/ 13) -( O/ 6)

Cobalt-60 19/0 3.4E+00 - (0 13) _

-( 0 / 6)

Zinc-65 19/0 63E+OO -( O 13) -( O/ 6)

Zisrcoium-95 19/0 4.1E+O0 - ( / 13) -- ( 0 6)

Niobiun-95 19/0 2.9E+O0 - ( / 13) _ -( O/ 6)

Lnantnanum-140 19/0 4.9E+O0 - ( / 13) -( 0/ 6)

B3asiurr140

(f) Nunber orpositive rnssavnrrnts / total rrxasuensts at specified locations.

eol__04_4 STP Nuclear Operating Company

2002 Environmental Report TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Cana Leaves Units: Picocuries per Kilogram wet weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION wrry HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE /NONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (f) LOCATION MEAN (f)- MEAN (f)-

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Iodine-131 1910 8.6E+00 - ( 0/ 13) _ - ( 0/ 6)

Cesium-134 1910 1.7E+00 - ( 0/ 13) _ _ ( 0/ 6)

Cesium-137 19/0 1.4E+00 - ( 0/ 13) _ __ ( 0/ 6)

Manganese-54 19/0 1.5E+00 - ( 0/ 13) -- ( 0/ 6)

Iron-59 19/0 7.3E+00 _ ( 0/ 13) _ _ __ ( 0/ 6)

Cobalt-58 19/0 1.8E+00 ( 0/ 13) _ __ _ ( 0/ 6)

Cobalt-60 19/0 2.6E+00 ( 0/ 13) _ _ __ ( 0/ 6)

Zinc-65 19/0 4.8E+00 --- ( 0/ 13) _ _ -( 0/ 6)

Zirconium-95 19/0 3.1E+00 __ ( 0/ 13) _ _ ( 0/ 6)

Niobium-95 19/0 2.2E+00 -- ( 0/ 13) _ _ ( 0/ 6)

Lanthanum-140 19/0 3.6E+00 _ ( 0/ 13) __ ( 0/ 6)

Barium-140

(f) Number of positive measurements I total measurements at specified locations.

TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Collard Greens Units: Picocuries per Kilogram wet weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE /NONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (f) LOCATION MEAN ()- MEAN (f)0 MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Iodine-131 3/0 5.9E+00 -( 0/ 2) - - -( 0/ 1)

Cesium-134 3/0 1.I E+00 -( 0/ 2) - - -( 0/ 1)

Cesium-137 3/0 9.3E-01 -(0/ 2) - - -(0/ 1)

Manganese-54 3/0 1.OE+00 _ ( 0/ 2) - - -( 0/ 1)

Iron-59 3/0 5.1E+00 -( 0/2) 2 ( 0/ 1)

Cobalt-58 3/0 1.2E+00 -( 0/ 2) - _ - ( 0/ 1)

Cobalt-60 310 1.8E+00 -( 0/ 2) _ ( 0/ 1)

Zinc-65 3/0 3.2E+00 -( 0 22 ) -( 0/ I)

Zirconium-95 310 2.1E+00 -(0/ 2) - (0/ I)

Niobium-95 3/0 1.5E+00 -( 0/ 2) - - - ( 0/ 1 )

Lanthanum-140 310 23E+00 -( 0/ 2) -(0

_ I)

Barium-140

(f) Number of positive measurements I total measurements at specified locations.

STP Nuclear Operating Company ff -I

Radiological Environmental Operating Report TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMIENTAL IONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS SUNMARY Medium: Piscivorous - Fish Units: Picocuries per Kilogram wet weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMITOF MEAN (f)- LOCATION MEAN (f) MEAN (f)-

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Cesium-134 4/0 3.2E+01 -( 0/ 2) _ _ ( 0/ 2)

Cesium-137 4/0 28E+01 -( 0/ 2) -- ( 0/ 2)

Manganese-54 410 3.OE+1O -- ( 0/ 2) --- --- 0 2)

Iron-59 410 9.7E+01 -- ( 0/ 2) _ -( 0/ 2)

Cobalt-58 410 3.1E+01 -- ( 0/ 2) _ -( 0/ 2)

Cobalt-60 410 3.2E+01 -- ( 0/ 2) _ -( 0/ 2)

Zinc-65 410 6.8E+01 -- ( 01 2) -- ( 0/ 2)

Zirconium-95 4/0 5.8E+01 ( 0/ 2) --- --- 0 2)

Niobium-95 410 4.IE+01 --- ( 01 2) --- --- 0 2)

Lanthanum-140 410 9.8E+01 _ ( 0/ 2) --- --- 0 2)

Barium-140

(f) Number of positive measurements / total measurements at specified locations.

TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAi ANALYSIS SUNINMARY Mediumt Crustacean Shrimnp Units: Picocuries per Kilogram wet weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITHIHIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE /NONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (f)' LOCATION MEAN ()- MEAN (f)-

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Cesiunm-134 5/0 3.2E+01 -( 0/ 3) _ _ -- ( 0/ 2)

Cesiuni-137 5/0 3.OE+01 -( 0/ 3) _ _ ( 0/ 2)

Manganese-54 5/0 3.IE+01 -( 0/ 3) _ ( 0/ 2)

Iron-59 5/0 8.5E+01 -( 0/ 3) _ ( 0 2)

Cobalt-58 5/0 3.OE+01 -( 01 3) _ ( 0/ 2)

Cobalt-60 50 3.3E+01 -( 01 3) __ ( 0/ 2)

Zinc-65 510 6.8E+01 -( 0/ 3) _ ( 0/ 2)

Zirconium-95 510 5.IE+01 -( 01 3) _ -- ( 0/ 2)

Niobiurn-95 510 3.3E+01 -( 0/ 3) -- ( 0/ 2)

Lanthanurn-140 510 4.9E+01 -( 0 3) _ -- ( 0/ 2)

Barium,140

(f) Number of positive measuretents / total measurements at specified locations.

STP Nuclear Operating Company (V404 %)

2002 Environmental Report TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Beef Meat Units: Picocuries per Kilogram wet weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WIT HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMITOF MEAN (f) LOCATION MEAN (f) MEAN (f)-

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Cesium-134 110 3.5E+01 _ ( 0/ 1) _ no samples Cesium-137 1/0 3.4E+01 __ ( 0/ 1) - no samples Manganese-54 1/0 3.5E+01 _ ( 0/ 1) _ - no samples Iron-59 1/0 1.2E+02 _ ( 0/ 1) - no samples Cobalt-58 1/0 3.8E+01 -( 0/ I ) - no samples Cobalt-60 1/0 3.2E+OtI ( 01 1 ) _ _ no samples Zinc-65 1/0 6.9E+01 _ ( 0/ I) _ _ no samples Zirconium-95 1/0 6.6E+0 -I( 0/ 1) _ no samples Niobium-95 1/0 5.IE+01 ( 0/ 1) no samples Lanthanum-140 110 1.3E+02 _ ( 0/ 1) _ no samples Barium-140 (f) Number of positive measurements I total measurements at specified locations.

TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Rabbit Units: PicoCuries per Kilogram wet weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMITOF MEAN (f) LOCATION MEAN (f) MEAN (f)-

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Cesium-134 10 3.OE+01 --- ( 0/ 1) _ - no samples Cesium-137 1/0 2.5E+01 _ ( 0/ 1) - nosamples Manganese-54 I/O 3.IE+01 -- ( 0 1 - no samples Iron-59 1/0 1.5E+02 -- ( 0/ 1) - no samples Cobalt-58 110 3.7E+01 - ( 0/ I

1) _ no samples Cobalt-60 1/0 3-5E+01 _ ( 0/ I) no samples Zinc-65 1/0 6.8E+01 -( 0 / I) __ _ no samples Zirconium-95 I/ 7.OE+01 -( 0/ I1) no samples Niobium-95 1/0 6.3E+01 _ ( 0/ 1) _ no samples Lanthanum-140 1/0 3.7E+02 - ( 0/ 1) _ _ no samples Barium-140 I (f) Number of positive measurements I total measurements at specified locations.

STP Nuclear Operating Company

Radiological Environmental Operating Report TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS SUMM11WARY Medium: Resident Dabbler Duck Units: PicoCuries per Kilogram wet weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE /NONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (f)- LOCATION MEAN (f)- MEAN ()-

MEASUREMENTS DETECTiON RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Cesium-134 2/0 3.8E+01 -- ( 0/ 2) _ _ nosamples Cesium-137 2/0 3.2E+01 --- ( 0/ 2) --- no samples Manganese-54 2/0 3.4E+01 --- ( 0/ 2) --- no samples Iron-59 2/0 1.4E+02 -( 0/ 2) --- no samples Cobalt-58 2/0 4.5E+01 -( 0/ 2) no samples Cobalt-60 2/0 3.6E+0 -I( 0/ 2) _ _ no samples Zinc-65 2/ 0 8.0E+01 -( 0 / 2) _ no samples Zirconium-95 2/0 8.5E+01 -- ( 0 / 2) _ no samples Niobium-95 2/0 7.1E+01 -- ( 0/ 2) _ _ no samples Lanthanum-140 2/0 3.3E+02 -( 0 / 2) _ _ no samples Barium- 140 I _

(f) Number of positive measurements / total measurements at specified locations.

TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Goose Units: PicoCuries per Kilogram wet weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITI HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMIT OF MEAN (f) LOCATION MEAN (f)- MEAN ()-

MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Cesium- 134 1/0 2.3E+01 --- ( 0/ 1) _ _ no samples Cesium-137 I/0 1.8E+01 --- ( 0/ I) _ no samples Manganese-54 1/ 0 2.2E+01 - ( 0/ I) --- no samples Iron-59 1/ 0 I. I E+02 _ ( 0/ I) --- no samples Cobalt-58 I/0 2.9E+01 _ ( 0/ 1 ) no samples Cobalt-60 I/0 2.3E+01 _ ( 0/ 1) _ - no samples Zinc-65 1/ 5.OE+01 -( 011 ) - no samples Zirconium-95 1/ 0 5.4E+01 _ ( 0/ I) _ - no samples Niobium-95 I/0 4.9E+01 ( 0/ 1) - no samples Lanthanum-140 1/0 33E+02 ( 0/ 1) _ no samples Barium-140 I II II

(f) Number of positive measurements / total measurements at specified locations.

0 STP Nuclear Operating Company Q-1,"P14"I

2002 Environmental Report TABLE 3 2002 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Medium: Pigeon Units: PicoCuries per Kilogram wet weight ANALYSIS TOTAL ANALYSES LOWER INDICATOR LOCATIONS LOCATION WITH HIGHEST ANNUAL MEAN CONTROL LOCATIONS TYPE INONROUTINE LIMITOF MEAN () LOCATION MEAN (f)- MEAN (t-MEASUREMENTS DETECTION RANGE INFORMATION RANGE RANGE Cesium-134 1/0 2.3E+01 - ( 0/ 1) no samples Cesium-137 110 1.9E+01 - ( 0/ 1) no samples Manganese-54 1/0 2.1E+01 - ( 0/ 1 ) no samples Iron-59 1/0 I.IE+02 - ( 0/ ) _ no samples Cobalt-58 1/0 2.8E+01 -( 0/ I) _ _ no samples Cobalt-60 1/0 2.3E+01 - ( 0/ 1) _ no samples Zinc-65 1/0 5.3E+01 -( 0/ 1) --- no samples Zirconium-95 1/0 5.4E+0I -( 0/ I) _ no samples Niobium-95 1/0 4.8E+01 -( 0/) I _ no samples Lanthanum-140 1/0 2.8E+02 ( 0/ 1) _ no samples Barium-140 I

(f) Number of positive measurements / total measurements at specified locations.

STP Nuclear Operating Company

I-EI

NOC-AE-03001524, Annual Environmental and Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports

Contents

Text

Attachment:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

NOC-AE-03001524, Annual Environmental and Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports

Text

Attachment:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search