Text

Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, January 1 Through December 31, 2012
	ML13128A304
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	04/30/2013
From:	; Teledyne Brown Engineering Environmental Services, Exelon Generation Co
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	U-604118
	Download: ML13128A304 (126)
	v • d • e

Docket No: 50-461 CLINTON POWER STATION Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 1 January Through 31 December 2012 Prepared By Teledyne Brown Engineering Environmental Services o-w ExelonGeneration, Clinton Power Station Clinton, IL61727 April 2013

Table Of Contents I. Sum mary and Conclusions .............................................................................................. 1 I1. In trod u ctio n ..................................................................................................................... 3 A. Objectives of the REM P ................................................................................. 3 B. Im plementation of the Objectives .................................................................... 3 III. Program Description ................................................................................................. 4 A. Sam ple Collection .......................................................................................... 4 B. Sam ple Analysis ............................................................................................. 6 C. Data Interpretation .......................................................................................... 6 D. Program Exceptions ........................................................................................ 8 E. Program Changes ........................................................................................ 10 IV. Results and Discussion .......................................................................................... 10 A. Aquatic Environment ...................................................................................... 10

1. Surface W ater .................................................................................... 10

2. Drinking W ater .................................................................................... 11

3. W ell W ater ........................................................................................ 12 4 . F is h ................................................................................................... . . 12

5. Sediment ............................................................................................. 13 B. Atmospheric Environment ............................................................................. 13

1. Airborne .............................................................................................. 13

a. Air Particulates ........................................................................ 13

b. Airborne Iodine ........................................................................ 14

2. Terrestrial .......................................................................................... 14 a . Milk ......................................................................................... . . 14

b. Food Products ........................................................................ 15

c. Grass ........................................................................................ 15 C. Am bient Gam ma Radiation ........................................................................... 15 D. Land Use Survey ........................................................................................... 16 E. Summary of Results - Inter-laboratory Comparison Program ...................... 17 V. References ................................................................................................................... 19 i

6. Appendices Appendix A Radiological Envilronmental Monitoring Report Summary Tables Table A-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary for the Clinton Power Station, 2012 Appendix B Location Designation, Distance & Direction,. and Sample Collection &

Analytical Methods Tables Table B-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program - Sampling Locations, Distance and Direction, Clinton' Power Station, 2012 Table B-2 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program - Summary of Sample Collection, Clinton Power Station, 2012 Figures Figure B-1 Environmental Sampling Locations Within One Mile of the Clinton Power Station, 2012 Figure B-4 Environmental Sampling Locations Between One and Two Miles from the Clinton Power Station, 2012 Figure B-3 Environmental Sampling Locations Between Two and Five Miles from the Clinton Power Station, 2012 Figure B-4I Environmental Sampling Locations Greater Than Five Miles from the Clinton Power Station, 2012 Appendix C Data Tables and Figures - Primary Laboratory Tables Table C-I. 1 Concentrations of 113.1 in Surface Water Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-1.2 Concentrations of Tritium in Surface Water Samples Collected in the

Vicinityof Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-l.3 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Surface Water Samples C6ollected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-I1.1 Concentrations of Gross Beta in Drinking Water Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

.11

Table C-11.2 Concentrations of Tritium in Drinking Water Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-11.3 Concentrations of 1-131 in Drinking Water Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-11.4 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Drinking Water Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-111.1 Concentrations of Tritium in Well Water Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-111.2 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Ground Water Samples Collectedl in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-IV.1 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Fish Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-V.1 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Sediment Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station,. 2012.

Table C-VI. 1 Concentrations of Gross Beta in Air Particulate Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-VI.2 Monthly and Yearly Mean Values of Gross Beta Concentrations (E-3 pCi/cu. meter) in Air Particulate Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-VI.3 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Air Particulate Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-VII.1 Concentrations of 1-131 in Air Iodine Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-VIII.1 Concentrations of 1-131 in Milk Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012..

Table C-VIII.2 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Milk Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-IX.1 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Vegetation Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-IX.2 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Grass Samples Collected in the-

.Vicinity of Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-X.1 Quarterly OSLD Results for Clinton Power Station, 2012.

Table C-X.2 Mean Quarterly OSLD Resultsilfor the Inner Ring, Outer Ring, Special Interest and Control Locations f*or Cintoi Power Station, 2012.

Table C-X.3 Summrary of the Ambient Osi4ýjetry Prog rahifor ihton Power' Station, 2012. *s. . . -.e. y. *.a* . Clinton Power iii

Figures Figure C-1 Mean Monthly Gross Beta Concentrations in Air Particulate Samples Collected in the Vicinity of CPS, 2012.

Figure C-2 Mean Quarterly Ambient Gamma Radiation Levels (OSLD) in the Vicinity of CPS, 2012.

Appendix D Inter-Laboratory Comparison Program Tables Table D-1 Analytics Environmental Radioactivity Cross Check Program Teledyne Brown Engineering, 2012 Table D-2 ERA Environmental Radioactivity Cross Check Program

.Teledyne Brown Engineering, 2012 -

Table D-3 DOE's Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP)

Teledyne Brown Engineering, 201 Appendix E Annual Radiological Groundwater Protection Program Report (ARGPPR)

- I~ I I 7 ..

J iv

I. Summary and Conclusions This report on the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) conducted for the Clinton Power Station (CPS).by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) covers the period 1 January 2012 through 31 December 2012.

During that time period, 1,615 analyses were performed on 1,451 samples. In assessing all the data gathered for this report and comparing these results with preoperational data, it was concluded that the operation of CPS had no adverse radiological impact on the environment.

There were zero (0) radioactive liquid releases from CPS during 2012.

Releases of gaseous radioactive materials were accurately measured in plant effluents. There were no gaseous effluent releases that approached the limits specified in the CPS Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The highest calculated offsite dose received by a member of the public due to the release of gaseous effluents from CPS was 3.60 E-02 or 0.036 mRem.

Surface, drinking, and well water samples were analyzed for concentrations of tritium and gamma emitting nuclides. Drinking water samples were also analyzed for concentrations of gross beta and 1-131. Naturally occurring K-40 was detected at levels consistent with those detected in previous years. No fission or activation products were detected. No tritium or gross beta activity was detected and the required lower limit of detection (LLD) was met.

Fish and shoreline sediment samples were analyzed for concentrations of gamma emitting nuclides. No fission or activation products were detected in fish or shoreline sediment samples.

Air particulate samples were analyzed for concentrations of gross beta and gamma emitting nuclides. Cosmogenic Be-7 was detected at a level consistent with those detected in previous years. No fission or activation products were detected.

High sensitivity 1-131 analyses were performed on weekly air samples. All results were less than the minimum detectable concentration with for 1-131.

Cow milk samples were analyzed for concentrations of 1-131 and gamma emitting nuclides. All results were below the required LLDs for 1-131.

Concentrations of naturally occurring K-40 were consistent with those detected in previous years. No fission or activation products were found.

Food product samples were analyzed for concentrations of gamma emitting nuclides. Concentrations of cosmogenically produced Be-7 and naturally occurring K-40 were consistent with those detected in previous years. No fission or activation products were detected.

Grass samples were analyzed for concentrations of gamma emitting nuclides.

Concentrations of cosmogenically produced Be-7 and naturally occurring K-40 were consistent with those detected in previous years. No fission or activation

- 1, -

products were detected.

Environmental gamma radiation measurements were performed quarterly using Optically. Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeters (OSLD). Beginning in 2012, Exelon changed the type of dosimetry used for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program. (REMP).. Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimetry (OSLD) were deployed and Thermo-luminescent Dosimetry (TLD) were discontinued. This change may result in .a step change in readings, up or down, depending~on site characteristics. The relative comparison to control locations remains valid. OSLD technology is different than that used in a TLD but has the same purpose (to measure direct radiation).

I1. Introduction The Clinton Power Station (CPS), consisting of one approximately 1,140 MW gross electrical power output boiling water reactor is located in Harp Township, DeWitt County, Illinois. CPS is owned and 0pe'rated by Exelon and became operational in 1987. Unit No. 1 went critical on 15 February 1987. The site encloses approximately 13,730 acres. This includes the 4,895 acre, man-made cooling lake and about 452 acres of property not owned by Exelon. The plant is

'situated on approximately 150 acres:. The cooling water discharge flume - which discharges to the eastern arm of the lake - occupies an additional 130 acres.

Although the nuclear reactor, supporting equipment and associated electrical generation and distribution equipment lie in Harp Township, portions of the aforementioned 13,730 acre plot reside within Wilson, Rutledge, DeWitt, Creek, Nixon and Santa Anna Townships.

A Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) for CPS was initiated in 1987. The preoperational period for most media covers the periods May 1980 through 27 February 1987 and was summarized in a separate report. This report covers those analyses performed by Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE) and Landauer on samples collected during the period 1 January 2012 through 31 December 2012.

A. Objectives of the REMP The objectives of the REMP are to:

1. Provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive materials in the site environs.

2. Evaluate the relationship between quantities of radioactive material released from the plant and resultant radiation doses to individuals from principal pathways of exposure.

B. Implementation of the Objectives The implementation of the objectives is accomplished by:

1. Identifying significant exposure pathways.

2. Establishing baseline radiological data of media within those pathways.

3. Continuously monitoring those media before and during Station operation to assess Station radiological effects (if any) on man and the environment.

Ill. .Program- Description A. Sample Collection This section describes the general collection methods used by Environmental. Inc. (Midwest Labs): to obtain environmental samples for the CPS REMP in 201.2. Sample locations and descriptions can be found in Tables B-1 and B-2, and Figures B-i through B-3, Appendix B. The sampling methods used by Environmental Inc. (Midwest Labs) are listed in Table B-2.

Aquatic Environment The aquatic environment was evaluated by performing radiological analyses on samples of surface water, drinking water, well water, fish, and shoreline sediment. Two gallon water samples were collected monthly from continuous samplers located at three surface water locations (CL-90, CL-91 and CL-99) and one drinking water location (CL-14). A monthly grab sample was obtained from one surface water location (CL-1 3).

Quarterly samples were obtained from two well water locations (CL-7D and CL-12). All samples were collected in new unused plastic bottles, which were rinsed at least twice with source water prior to collection. Fish samples comprising the flesh of largemouth bass, crappie, carp, bluegill, white-bass and channel catfish, the species most commonly harvested from the lakes by sporting fishermen, were collected semiannually at two locations, CL-19 and CL-105. CL-105 was the control location. Shoreline sediment samples composed of recently deposited substrate were collected at two locations semiannually (CL-7B and CL-1 05 (control)).

Atmospheric Environment;.

The atmospheric environment was evaluated by performing radiological analyses on samples.of air particulate, airborne iodine, milk, food produce and grass. Airborne iodine and particulate samples were collected and analyzed weekly at ten locations (CL-1, CL-2, CL-3, CL-4, CL-6, CL-7, CL-8, CL-1 1, CL-1 5 and CL-94). CL-1 1 was the control location.

Airborne iodine and particulate samples were obtained at each location, using a vacuum pump with charcoal and glass fiber filters attached. The pumps were.run continuously and sampled air at the, rate of approximately one cubic foot per minute. The filters were replaced weekly and sent to ther-laboratoryfor analysis.

Milk samples: were collected biweekly at one location (CL-1 16) from May through November and monthly from December through April to coincide with the grazing season. All samples were-collected in new unused

plastic bottles from the bulk tank at that location, preserved with sodium bisulfite and shipped promptly to the laboratory.

Food products were collected once a month from June through

September at four locations (CL-1 14, CL-i 15; CL- 17 and CL- 18). The control location was CL-i 14. Various broadleaf Vegetable samples were collected and placed in new unused plastic bags, and sent to the

-laboratory for. analysis:.

Grass samples were collected biweekly at four locations (CL-i, CL-2, CL-8 and CL- 16) from May through October. CL- 16 was the control location. All samples were collected in new unused plastic bags and sent to the laboratory for analysis.

Ambient Gamma Radiation Direct radiation measurements were made using A12 0 3 :C Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimetry (OSLD). Each location consisted of 2 OSLD sets. The OSLDs were exchanged quarterly and'sent to Landauer for analysis. The OSLD locations were placed around the CPS site as follows:

An inner ringq consisting of 16 locations (CL-, CL-5, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL-34, CL-35, CL-36, CL-42 CL-43, CL-44, CL-45, CL-46,C'L-47, CL-48 and CL-63).

An outer ring consisting of 16 locations (CL-51, CL-52, CL-53, CL-54, CL-55, CL-56, CL-57, CL-58, CL-60, CL-61, CL-76, CL-77, CL-78, CL-79, CL-80 and CL-81). CL-58MM was installed as part of a volunteer comparison study extending to approximately 5 miles from the site.

A special interest set consisting of seven locations (CL-37, CL-41, CL-49, CL-64, CL65, CL-74 and CL-75) representing special interest areas.

A supplemental set consisting of 14 locations (CL-2, CL-3, CL-4, CL-6, CL-7, CL-8, CL-i5, CL'33, CL-84, CL-90, CL-91, CL-97, CL-99 and CL- 14).

CL- 1 represents the control location for all environmental TLDs.

The specific OSLD locations were determined bythe following criteria:

1. The presence of relatively dense population;-:!- ,

2.- Site rneteorological data taking into account distah6e'"and elevation for:each of the sixteen-22 1/2 degree sectors around the site,where estimated annual dose from CPS, if any, would be most significant;

3. On hills free from local obstructions and within sight of the vents (where practical);

.4. And, near the closest dwelling.to the HVAC and VG stacks in the prevailing downwind direction.

Each location has two OSLDs in a vented PVC conduit located approximately three feet above ground level.. The OSLDs were exchanged quarterly and sent to Landauer for analysis.

B. Sample Analysis This section describes the general analytical methodologies used by TBE and Environmental Inc. (Midwest Labs) to analyze the environmental

-samples for radioactivity for the CPS REMP in 2012. The analytical procedures used by the laboratories are listed in Table B-2.

In order to achieve the stated, objectives, the current program includes the following analyses:.

1,. Concentrations of beta emitters in drinking water and air particulates.

2. Concentrations of gamma emitters in surface, drinking and well water, air partiqulates,.rmilk, fish, grass, sediment and vegetables.

3. Concentrations of tritium in surface, drinking and well water.

4. Concentrations of 1-131 in air, milk, drinking water and surface water.

5. Ambient gamma radiation levels at various on-site and off-site environs.

C. Data Interpretation The .radiological -and direct radiation data, collected prior to CPS becoming o-.perationa !,was used as a. baseline-with which these operational data w.ere cor-.pared-.:: For the purpose, of this report, CPS was considered operational at initial criticality. In addition, data were compared to previous years' operational data for consistency and trending. Several factors were importantin the interpretation of the data:

1. Lower Limit of Detection and Minimum Detectable Concentration The lower limit of detection"(LLD) was defined as the smallest concentration of radioactive material in a sample that would yield a net count (above background) that would be detected with only a 5% probability of falsely concluding that-a blank observation represents a "real" signal. The LLD was intended as a before the fact estimate of a system (including instrumentation, procedure and sample .ype) and not as an after the fact criteria for the presence of activity. All analyses were'designed to achieve the required CPS detection capabilities for environmental sample analysis.

2. Net Activity Calculation and Reporting of Results Net activity for a sample was calculated by subtracting background activity from the sample activity. Since the REMP measures extremely small changes in radioactivity in the environment, background variations may result in sample activity being lower than the background activity resulting in a negative number. A minimum detectable concentration (MDC) was reported in all cases where positive activity was not detected- ...-. 1 '

Gamma spectroscopy results for each type of sample were grouped as follows:

For surface water, well water, fish, sediment, and milk 14 nuclides, Be-7, K-40, Mn-54, Co-58, Fe-59, Co-60, Zn-65, Nb-95, Zr-95, Cs-134, Cs-137, Ba-140, La-140 and Ce-144 were reported.'

For drinking water, grass, and vegetation 15 nuclides, Be-7, K-40, Mn-54, Co-58, Fe-59, Co-60, Zn-65, Nb-95, Zr-95, 1-131, Cs-134, Cs-137, Ba-140, La-140 and Ce-144 were reported.

For air particulate 11 nuclides, Be-7, K-40, Co-60, Nb-95, Zr-95, Ru-103, Ru-106, Cs-134, Cs-137, Ce-141 and Ce-144, were reported.

The mean and standard-deviation 'of the results were calculated.

The -standard deViation *ep'ris~hts the'Variability of mtheasured results for different samples rathere'than".sir-ile"nalysis "i , .. i . . .. . . : " *,* '*.. " i~i ',V':

uncertainty.

-m7 -

D. Program Exceptions The exceptions described below are-those that are considered 'deviations' from the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program as required by the Station's ODCM. By definition, 'deviations' are permitted as delineated within NUREG-0133, "Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants", October 1978, and

.within Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, Revision 1, November 1979, which states.... "Deviations are permitted from the required sampling schedule if specimens are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, seasonal unavailability, malfunction of automatic sampling equipment and other legitimate reasons".... The below section addresses the reporting requirements found within Section 7.1 of the Station's ODCM.

January 18, 2012. IR 1314960 During weekly sampling activities, ODCM air samplers CL-2 and CL-11 were found to have timer shortages of one hour and six hours, respectively. The timer shortages are an indication of power outages and loss of continuous sampling capability during the sampling period. The interruptions were most likely due to electrical storms in the area.

January 18, 2012. IR 1314958 During weekly sampling activities; the vendor technician found ODCM surface water compositor CL-91 unable to collect sample due to an apparent blockage in the sample line. Upon investigation, it was determined that the heat trace associated with the sample line had failed, resulting in an ice blockage. An alternate sample line with new heat trace was installed on 1/25/12 to return sampling capability at CL-91-. Because of the sampling interruption, the January sample did not meet the definition of a composite.

January 20, 2012. IR 1316058 During a walkdown of sampling equipment ,by plant personnel, 0

ODCM surface water compositor CL-9.0 was found with no power supplied to the enclosure.. The Operations department was engaged andOthe breaker, associated with.the sampler enclosure was reset, returning sampling capability at CL-90. Because of the sampling interruption, the January sample from this location did not meet the definition of a composite.

January 24, 2012. IR 1317488 During a walkdown of sampling equipment by plant personnel, non-ODCM surface water compositor CL-99 was found to be incapable of sampling due to clearing of the program from the compositor memory due to an apparent loss of power during the sampling period. The vendor technician wa"s contacted and the sampler was reprogrammed on 1/25/12, which reestablished sampling capability.

This issue prevented the January sample from CL-99 from meeting the definition of a composite.

May 3, 2012. IR 1361977 During a walkdown of sampling equipment by plant personnel on 4/30/12, ODCM air sample stations CL-2 and CL-3 were found without power. An investigation by Ameren concluded that an underground fault was the cause of the loss of power. The fault was identified and repaired and power (and subsequently continuous sampling capability) was restored on 5/3/12.

June 5, 2012. IR 11375996 During a scheduled plant potable water system maintenance outage (duration 6/5/12 0830 to 6/6/12 1417), ODCM drinking water compositor CL-14 was unable to obtain hourly drinking water samples. This interruption of sampling capability prevented the June sample from CL-14 from meeting the definition of a composite.

July 11, 2012. IR 1387602 During weekly sampling activities, ODCM continuous air sample station CL-8 was found without power. Ameren was contacted for repair and sampling capability was restored the same day.

August 22, 2012. IR 1403663 During weekly sampling activities, ODCM continuous air sample station CL-3 was found 'with a timer reading shortage of approximatelyA28 hours,'mindicating a loss of power and sampling

. capability during the sampling period.

September 6, 20112. IR 1409637 During an emergent maintenance outage window impacting the

station 12kV bus (beginning 9/3/12 1700), ODCM air sample stations CL-2 and CL-3, as well as ODCM drinking water compositor CL-14, the sampling equipment was unable to obtain samples due to isolation of their power supplies. Sampling capability was returned to CL-14 on 9/5/12 and to CL-2 and CL-3 on 9/6/12.

October 11,2012. IR 1425358 Emergent depressurization of the plant potable water distribution precluded ODCM drinking water compositor CL-14 from obtaining scheduled samples from 10/7/12 1410 to 10/11/12 1330. Because of this interruption to sampling capability, the October sample from CL-14 did not meet the definition of a composite.

October 17, 2012. IR 1427863 During weekly sampling activities, non-ODCM air sample station CL-1 was found with a timer reading shortage of approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, indicating a loss of power and subsequent continuous sampling capability during thesampling period.

Program exceptions were reviewed to understand the causes of the exception and to return to ODCM sample compliance before the next sampling frequency period.

The overall sample recovery rate indicates that the appropriate procedures and equipment are in place to assure reliable program implementation.

E. Program Changes A supplemental control location, designated as CL-058, was established for shoreline sediment. The new location is 50 miles South from CPS and approximately 100 yards south of the Wilborn Creek access area boat ramp on Lake Shelbyville.

IV. Results and Discussion.

A. Aquatic Environment

1. Surface Water

....S.amples were-taken hourly from a continuous compositor at three locations. (CL-90, CL-91 and CL-99).on a monthly schedule and grab samples were taken monthly from one location (CL-13). The following analyses were performed.

Iodine-1 31 Monthly samples from location CL-90 were analyzed for 1-131 activity (Table C-1.1, Appendix C). No 1-131 was detected in all samples and the required LLD was met.

Tritium Monthly samples from all locations were composited quarterly and analyzed for tritium activity (Table C-l.2, Appendix C). No tritium was detected in any samples and the required LLD was met.

Gamma Spectrometry Samples from all locations were analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides (Table C-1.3, Appendix C). Naturally occurring K-40 was found in six of 48 samples. The concentration ranged from 41 to 94 pCi/L.:'No other nuclides were detected and all required LLDs were met.

2. Drinking Water Monthly samples were collected from a continuous compositor at one location (CL-14). The following analyses were performed:

Gross Beta Monthly samples were analyzed for concentrations of gross beta (Tables C-I1.1, Appendix C). No Gross beta was detected in any of the samples.

-Tritium Monthly samples were composited quarterly and analyzed for tritium activity (Table C-11.2, Appendix C). No tritium was detected in any samples and the required LLD was met.

Iodine-1 31 Monthly samples from location CL-14 were analyzed for 1-131 activity (Table C-11.3,'Appendix C). ,No -131: Was detected in any

.. samples and the required LLD was met.,

- 1:1 -

Gamma Spectrometry Monthly samples were analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides (Table C-11.4, Appendix C). No nuclides were detected and all required LLDs were met.

3. Well Water Quarterly grab samples were collected at two locations (CL-7D and CL-12, consisting of CL-12R [a raw water sample from this well]

and CL-12T [same well water, but after treatment and available for consumption]). The following analyses were performed:

Tritium Samples from all locations were analyzed for tritium activity (Table C-I11.1, Appendix C). No tritium was detected in any samples and the required LLD was met.

Gamma Spectrometry Samples from all locations were analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides (Table C-111.2, Appendix C). Naturally occurring K-40 was found in one of four samples for location CL-7D. The concentration was 49 pCi/l. No other nuclides were detected in any of the samples and all required LLDs were met.

4. Fish Fish samples comprised of carp, largemouth bass, bluegill, crappie, white bass and channel catfish were collected at two locations (CL-19 and CL-105) semiannually. The following analysis was performed:

Gamma Spectrometry The edible portion of fish samples from .both locations was analyzed for gamma.emitting.*nuclides -(Table C-IV. 1, Appendix C).

Naturally occurring K-40 wasfound at both locations. No fission or

,,.;activationprpducts w-ere found., No other nuclides were detected required LLQs were met.

- -. , .ndthe, ,

'0;. r . ,. . . h:. :". i: ." . . " g Z: ".- . .. ,

5. Shoreline Sediment Aquatic shoreline sediment samples were collected at CL-7B semiannually and CL-105 annually. The following analysis was performed:

Gamma Spectrometry Shoreline sediment samples were analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides (Table C-V.1, Appendix C). Naturally occurring K-40 was detected in all samples. No fission :or activation products were found. No other nuclides were detected and the required LLDs were met.

B. Atmospheric Environment

1. Airborne

a. Air Particulates Continuous air particulate samples were collected from 10 locations on a weekly basis. The 10 locations were separated into three groups: Group I represents locations within one mile of the CPS site boundary (CL-2, CL-3, CL-4, CL-6, CL-15 and CL-94); Group II represents the locations at an intermediate distance within one to five miles of CPS (CL-1, CL-7 and CL-8); and Group III represents the control location greater than five miles from CPS (CL-1 1). The following analyses were performed:

Gross Beta Weekly samples were analyzed forconcentrations of beta emitters (Table C-VI.1 and C-VI.2 and Figure C-1, Appendix C).

Detectable gross beta activity was observed at all locations.

Comparison: of results among the three groups aid in determining the effects, if any; resultingfrom the operation of CPS. The results'from the On-Site locations (Group I) ranged from,7.to 43, E-3 pCi/im3 with a -mean of 20 E-3 pCi/m 3 . The retult8 from-the' Interme diate Distance location (Group II) ranged from 7 to 41 E-3 pCi/m 3 with a mean of 19 E-3 pCi/m 3 . The results from the Control locations (Group III) ranged from 9 to 40 E-3 pCi/m 3 with a mean of 21 E-3

- 1*3-

pCi/m 3 . Comparison of the 2012 air particulate data with previous years data indicate no effects from the operation of CPS (Figure C-5, Appendix C). In addition, a comparison of the weekly mean values for 2012 indicate no notable differences among the three groups.

Gamma Spectrometry Weekly samples were composited quarterly and analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides. (Table C-VI.3, Appendix C).

Naturally occurring cosmogenically produced Be-7 due to cosmic ray activity was detected in all samples. No other nuclides were detected and all required LLDs were met.

b. Airborne Iodine Continuous air samples were collected from 10 locations (CL-1, CL-2, CL-3, CL-4, CL-6, CL-7, CL-8, CL-11, CL-15 and CL-94) and analyzed weekly for 1-131 (Table C-VII.1, Appendix C).. All results were -less than the MDC and the required LLD. was met.

2. Terrestrial

a. Milk Samples were collected from CL-1 16 biweekly May through November and monthly December through April to coincide with the, grazing season. The following analyses were performed:.

Iodine-131 Milk samples were analyzed for concentrations of 1-131 (Table C-VIII.1, Appendix C). Iodine-131 was not detected in any of the samples. The required LLD was met.

Gamma Spectrometry Each milk sample was analyzed for concentrations of gammaemittog, Jnuclides(Table C-VIII.2, Appendix C).

Naturally occuirring K-40 activity was found in all samples.

No other nuclides were. detected and all required LLDs were

:: . m et. .

b. Food Products Broadleaf vegetation samples were collected from four locations (CL-114, CL-115, CL-117 and CL-118) monthly June through September to coincide with the harvest season. The following analysis were performed:

Gamma Spectrometry Each food product sample was analyzed for concentrations of gamma emitting nuclides (Table C-IX.1, Appendix C).

Cosmogenically produced Be-7 due to cosmic ray activity was detected in most samples. Naturally occurring K-40 activity was found in all samples. No other nuclides were detected and all required LLDs were met.

c. Grass Samples were collected from-four locations (CL-1, CL-2, CL-8, and CL-1 16) biweekly May through October. The following analysis were performed:

Gamma Spectrometry Each grass sample was analyzed for concentrations of gamma emitting nuclides (Table C-IX.2, Appendix C).

Cosmogenically produced Be'-7 due to cosmic ray activity was detected in all samples. Naturally occurring K-40 activity was found in all samples. No other nuclides were detected and all required LLDs were met.

C. Ambient Gamma Radiation Ambient gamma radiation levels were measured utilizing OSLD (optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters). Fifty-four OSLD locations were established around the site. Results of OSLD measurements are listed in Tables C-X.1 to C-X.3, Appendix C.

'A total of 216 OSLD measurements were made in 2012. The average dose from the inner rihg was 238.8'.mR/quarteri.ý The average dose from the outer ring wag 24.0 mR/quarter. The average dose from the special interest group was 23.7 mR/quarter. The average dose from the supplemental group was 22.2 mR/quarter. The quarterly measurements ranged from 18.1.to.29.3 mR/quarter.

The inner ring and outer ring measurements compared well to the Control Station, CL-11, which ranged from 19.4 mR/quarter to 23.1 mR/quarter with an .average measurement of 20.6 mR/quarter. A comparison of the Inner Ringand Outer Ring data to the Control Location data indicate that the ambient gamma radiation. levels from all the locations were comparable. The historical ambient gamma radiation data from the control location were plotted along with similar data from the Inner and Outer Ring Locations (Figure C-2, Appendix C).

D. Land Use Survey A Land Use Survey conducted during the July through October 2012 growing season around the Clinton Power Station (CPS) was performed by Environmental Inc. (Midwest Labs) for Exelon to comply with Clinton's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, section 5.2. The purpose of the survey was to document the nearest resident, milk producing animal and garden of greater than 538 ft2 in each of the sixteen 22 1/2 degree sectors around the site. The distance and direction of all locations from the CPS Station HVAC vent stack were positioned using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. There were no-changes required to the CPS REMP as a result of this survey.: The results of this survey are summarized below.

Distance in Kilometers from the CPS Station HVAC Vent Stack Sector Residence Garden Milk Farm (km) (kim) (km) 1 N 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 NNE 1.5 3.8 3.8 3 NE 2.1 *7.0 >8 4 ENE 2.9 2.9 >8 5 E 1.7 1.7 >8 6 ESE 5.1. 5.3 >8

7. SE 4.4 >8 >8 8 SSE 2.9 4.3 4.5 9 S 4.8 .6.6 6.6 10 SSW 4.7 >8 >8 11SW 1.2, " 5.6 >8 12 WSW 3.6 3.7 5.5 13W 2.0 3.28 14 WNW 2.6 2.6 >8 15NW,* 27.

. .7 >8

. 21.6NNW 2.1 2.1 E. Summary of Results - Inter-Laboratory Comparison Program The primary laboratory analyzed Performance Evaluation (PE) samples of air particulate, air iodine, milk, soil, vegetation and water matrices for 19 analytes (Appendix D). The PE samples, supplied by Analytics Inc.,

Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) and DOE's Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP),l were evaluated against the following pre-set acceptance criteria:

1. Analytics Evaluation Criteria Analytics' evaluation report provides a ratio of TBE's result and Analytics' known value. Since flag values are not assigned by Analytics, TBE-ES evaluates the reported ratios based on internal QC requirements:, which are based on the DOE MAPEP criteria.

2. ERA Evaluation Criteria ERA's evaluation report provides an acceptance range for control and Warning limits with associated flag values. ERA's acceptance limits are established per the USEPA, NELAC, state specific PT program requirements;or ERA's SOP for the Generation of Performance Acceptance Limits, as applicable. The acceptance limits are either determined by a regression equation specific to each analyte or a fixed percentage limit promulgated under the appropriate regulatory document.

3. DOE Evaluation Criteria MAPEP's evaluation report provides an acceptance range with associated flag values.

The MAPEP defines three levels of performance: Acceptable (flag = "A"), Acceptable with Warning (flag = "W"), and Not Acceptable (flag = "N"). Performance is considered acceptable when a mean result for the specified analyte is +/- 20% of the reference value. Performance is acceptable with warning when a mean result falls in the range from +/- 20% to + 30% of the reference value (i.e., 20% < bias < 30%). If the bias is greater than 30%, the results are deemed not acceptable.,

For the TBE laboratory, 12 out of 18 analytes met the s-,cified acceptance criteria. Six analytes (Co-60, Gross Alpha;Xi3o&ss Beta, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Zn-65) did not meet the specified acceptance criteria for the following reason:

" 17 -

1. Teledyne Brown Engineering's MAPEP March 2012 Co-60 in soil result of 7.6.1 Bq/kg was higher than the known value of 1.56 Bq/kg, resulting in a found to known ratio of 4.88 on a sensitivity evaluation. NCR 12-08 was initiated to investigate this failure. No cause could be found for the failure. TBE is monitoring the Co-60 in soil analyses on a case-to-case basis.

2. Teledyne Brown Engineering's MAPEP March 2012 Zn-65 in AP result of 4':19 Bq/sample was higher than the known value of 2.99 Bq/sample, exceeding the upper control limit of 3.89 Bq/sample.

NCR 12-08 was initiated to investigate this failure. No cause could be found for the failure and is considered an anomaly specific to the MAPEP sample. The first and second quarter 2012 Analytics AP Zn-65 analyses were acceptable.

3. Teledyne Brown Engineering's MAPEP September 2012 Sr-90 in water result of 19.6 pCi/L was higher than the known value of 12.2 pCi/L, exceeding the upper control limit of 15.9 pCi/L. NCR 12-11 was initiated to investigate this failure. An incorrect aliquot was entered into LIMS. Using the correct aliquot, the result would have fallen within the acceptance range.

4. Teledyne Brown Engineering's ERA May 2012 Gross Alpha in water result of 82.4 pCi/L Was higher than the known value of 62.9 pCi/L, which exceeded the upper control limit of 78.0 pCi/L. NCR 12-05 was initiated to investigate this failure. The G-1 detector is slightly biased high for Th-230 based measurements. The G-1 detector is used only for ERA samples. The detector was recalibrated.

5. Teledyne Brown Engineering's ERA November 2012 Gross Beta in water result of 59.3 pCi/L was higher than the known value of 39.2 pCi/L, which exceeded the upper control limit of 46.7 pCi/L. NCR 12-13 was initiated to investigate this failure. The rerun result of

44.8 fell within the control limits. It appears an incorrect aliquot was entered into LIMS.

Teledyne Brown Engineering's ERA November 2012 Sr-89 in water result of,46.5 pCi/L was higher than the known value of 39.1 pCi/L, which exceeded the upper control limit of 46.1 pCi/L. NCR 12-13 was initiated to investigate this failure. The found to known ratio was 1.19, which TBE considers acceptable with warning. For the EIML laboratory, 12 out of 14 analytes met the specified acceptance criteria. Two analytes (Gross Beta and-Co-57) did not meet the specified acceptance criteria for the following reason:

.. 1. .- Environmental Inc., Midwest Laboratory's.ERA.April 2012 Gross Beta in, water -result of 76.2 pCi/L was higher than the known value of 44.2 pCi/L, exceeding the upper control limit of 51.5 pCi/L. The rerun result of 38.3 fell within the control limits. A sample dilution problem is suspected.

2. Environmental Inc., Midwest Laboratory's MAPEP August 2012 Co-57 in vegetation result of 7.44 pCi/L was higher than the known value of 5.66 pCi/L, exceeding the upper control limit of 7.36 pCi/L.

The recount result of 6.74 fell within the control limits. The sample was recounted using a geometry more closely matched to the MAPEP sample size..

The Inter-Laboratory Comparison Program'provides evidence of "in control" counting systems. and methods, and that.the laboratories are producing accurate and reliable data.

V. References.

1. American National Standards Institute, Inc., "Performance, Testing and Procedural Specifications for Thermoluminescent Dosimetry," ANSI N545-1975.

2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20 (Nuclear Regulatory Commission).

3. CPS 2011 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.

4. "Environmental Radioactivity," M. Eisenbud, 1987 (E187).

5. "Natural Radon Exposure in the United States," Donald T. Oakley, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. ORP/SID 72-1, June 1972.

6. Federal Radiation Council Report No. 1, "Background Material for the Development of Radiation Protection Standards," May 13, 1960.

7. International Commission on Radiation Protection, Publication 2, "Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation," (1959) with 1962 Supplement issued in ICRP Publication 6; Publication 9, "Recommendations on Radiation Exposure," (1965);. ICRP Publication 7 (1965), amplifying specific recommendations of Publication .26 (1977).

8. International Commission on Radiation Protection, Publication No. 39 (1984), "Principles of Limiting Exposure tothe Public to Natural Sources of Radiation".

9. "Radioactivity in the Environment:-, So uces, Distribution- and, Surveillance," Ronald L. Kathren, 1984.

10. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No.

22, "Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maxihffum Perhmissible Concentrations of'Radionuclides in Air and Water f6r :Occupational

- 1:9-.

Exposure," (Published as National Bureau of Standards Handbook 69, issued June 1959, superseding Handbook 52).

11. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No.

39, "Basic Radiation Protection Criteria," January 1971.

12. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No.

44, "Krypton-85 in the Atmosphere - Accumulation, Biological Significance, and Control Technology," July 1975.

13. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No.

91, "Recommendations on Limits for Exposure to Ionizing Radiation,"

June 1987.

14. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No.

93, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States,"

September 1987.

15. National Research Council, 1990, Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR V), Board on Radiation Effects Research on Life Sciences, "The Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation".

16. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.1, "Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, April 1975.

17. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.13, "Performance, Testing and Procedural Specifications for Thermoluminescence Dosimetry: Environmental Applications, "Revision 1, July 1977.

18. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Dose to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10CFR Part 50, Appendix I, "Revision 1, October 1977.

19. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program,"

Revision 1, November 1979.

20. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.15, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Norm Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment," Revision 1, February 1979.

21. Technical Specifications, Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, Docket No.

50-461, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 1986. Facility Operating License Number NPF-62.

22. Clinton Power Station, Updated Safety Analysis Report.

23. Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual.

Intentionally left blank APPENDIX A RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT