|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | number = ML17334B622 | | | number = ML17334B622 |
| | issue date = 12/31/1996 | | | issue date = 12/31/1996 |
| | title = Annual Environ Operating Rept for 960101-961231. W/970418 Ltr | | | title = Annual Environ Operating Rept for 960101-961231 |
| | author name = Fitzpatrick E | | | author name = Fitzpatrick E |
| | author affiliation = INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. | | | author affiliation = INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:CATEGORY 1 REOUDRTOINEORMA'/ION,DISTRIBUTION TEM (RIDE) | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| ACCESSION NBR:9704240079 DOC.DATE: 96/12/31 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50-',315 Donald C. Cook Nuclear P6wer Plant, Unit 1, Indiana M 05000315 50-316 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana M 05000316 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION FITZPATRICK,E. Indiana Michigan Power Co.
| |
| , RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION I
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| "Annual Environ Operating Rept for 960101-961231." W/970418 ltr.
| |
| DISTRIBUTION CODE: C001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:
| |
| TITLE: Licensing Submittal: Environmental Rept Amdt 6 Related Correspondence NOTES:
| |
| E RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL HICKMAN,J 1 1 0
| |
| INTERNAL: IL~5575 01 1 1 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT 1 1 OGC HDS2 1 0 RGN3 DRS/RSB 1 1 EXTERNAL: NOAC 1 1 NRC PDR 1 1 D
| |
| N NOTE TO ALL MRIDSN RECIPIENTS:
| |
| PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD) ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 7 ENCL 6
| |
| | |
| 1 ll "I
| |
| I 4
| |
| | |
| Indiana Michigan Power Company 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, MI 49107 1395 lNQMMAl MlCNEGAM PSST April 18, 1997 AEP: NRC: 0806Q Docket Nos.: 50-315 50-316 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:
| |
| Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT JANUARY 1, 1996 TO DECEMBER 31, 1996 Attached is the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Annual Environmental Operating Report for the year 1996. This report was prepared in accordance with procedure 12 PMP 6010 OSD.001, "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual," section 4.8.1, and Technical Specification, Appendix B, Part 2, section 5.4. 1.
| |
| Sincerely, E. E. Fit trick Vice President vlb Attachment cc: A. A. Blind A. B. Beach MDEQ - DW 8( RPD NRC Resident Inspector J. R. Padgett
| |
| <goi i C~
| |
| 9'704240079 9'6iR3i PDR ADOCK 050003i5 PDR IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIC
| |
| | |
| II t
| |
| 4, 1
| |
| j', f
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMENT TO AEP:NRC:0806Q ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT JANUARY 1, 1996 TO DECEMBER 31, 1996 9704240079 6
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS Pacae I. Introduction II. Changes to the Environmental Technical Specifications ..
| |
| III. Non-Radiological'nvironmental Operating Report A. Plant Design and Operation 1 B. Non-Routine Reports 1 C. Environmental Protection Plan . 1 D. Potentially Significant Unreviewed Environmental Issue . 1 E. Environmental Monitoring-Herbicide Applications 2 F. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring .
| |
| G. Special Reports IV. Radiological Environmental Operating Report A. Changes to the REMP B. Radiological Impact of Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Operations 3 C. Land Use Census . 3 D. Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems 3 Conclusion
| |
| | |
| LIST OF APPENDICES e~eedix Title I. Non-Routine Reports - 1996 II. Environmental Screening Reports - 1996 III. Herbicide Application Report - 19'96 IV. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring - 1996 V. Special Reports VI. Annual Report: Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program - 1996 A. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Summary - 1996 B. Data Tables C. Analytical Procedures Synopsis D. Summary of EPA Interlaboratory Comparisons E. REMP Sampling and Analytical Exceptions F. Land Use Census G. Summary of the Preoperational Radiological Monitoring Program H. Summary of the Spike and Blank Sample Program I. TLD Quality Control Program
| |
| | |
| I. INTRODUCTION Procedure 12 PMP 6010 OSD.001, "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual," Section 4.8.1 and Technical Specification, Appendix B, Part 2, Section 5.4.1 require that an annual report, which details the results and findings of ongoing environmental radiological and non-radiological surveillance programs, be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This report services to fulfill these requirements and represents the Annual Environmental operating Report for Units 1 and 2 of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant for the operating period from January 1 through December 31, 1996.
| |
| During 1996, based on the monthly operating repcrts for Unit 1 and Unit 2, the annual gross electrical generation, average unit service factors, and capacity factors were:
| |
| ~parameter Unit 2 Gross Electrical, Generation (MWH) 8,687,540 8,298,030 Unit Service Factor (4) 97.6 87.0 Unit Capacity Factor - MDC* Net (%) 95.3 86.2
| |
| * Maximum Dependable Capacity II. HANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL TE HNICAL PECIFICATIONS There were no environmental Technical Specification changes in 1996.
| |
| III. NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIR NMENTAL PERATING REPORT A. Plant Design and Operation During 1996, no instances of noncompliance with the Environmental Protection Plan occurred, nor were there any changes in station design, operations, tests, or exp riments which involved a potentially significant unreviewed environmental issue.
| |
| There was one environmental screening during the reporting period.
| |
| A copy of this screening is located in Appendix II of this report.
| |
| It was concluded that no environmental evaluations were required and that n~ unreviewed environmental questions existed.
| |
| B. Non-Routine Reports A summary of the 1996 non-routine events is located in Appendix I of this report. No long-term, adverse environmental effects were noted.
| |
| Environmental Protection Plan There were no instances of Environmental Protection Plan noncompliance in 1996.
| |
| D. Potentially Significant Unreviewed Environmental Issues There were no changes in station design, operations, tests or experiments which involved a potentially significant unreviewed environmental issue.
| |
| There was one environmental screening during the reporting period.
| |
| A copy of this screening is located in Appendix II of this report.
| |
| The screening determined that there were no unreviewed environmental
| |
| | |
| 0 ques" ions E. Environmental Monitoring - Herbicide Application Technical Specifications Appendix B, Part 2, section 5.4.1, states summaries and analyses 'f that the Annual Environmental Operating Report ;hall include:
| |
| the results of the environmental protection activities required by section 4.2 of this Environmental Protection Plan for the report period, including a comparison with preoperational studies, operational controls (as appropriate), and previous non-radiological environmental monitoring reports, and an assessment of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environment.
| |
| Herbicide applications are the activities monitored in accordance with section 4.2. There were no preoperational herbicide studies to which comparisons could be made. Herbicide applications are managed by plant procedure 12 THP 2160 HER.001.
| |
| A summary of the 1996 herbicide applications is contained in Appendix III of this report. Based on observations, there were,no negative impacts or evidence of trends toward irreversible change to the environment as a result of the herbicide applications. Based on our review of application records and field observations, the applications conformed with EPA and State requirements for the approved use of herbicides.
| |
| F. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program Macrofouler monitoring and control activities during 1996 are discussed in Appendix IV of this report. Whole water sampling studies showed no adverse environmental impact.
| |
| G. Special Reports There were no special reports identified during 1996.
| |
| IV. RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program annual report is located in Appendix VI of this report.
| |
| The objectives of the operational radiological environmental monitoring program are:
| |
| Identify and measure radiation and radioactivity in the plant environs for the calculation of potential dose to the population.
| |
| Verify the effectiveness of in-plant measures used for controlling the release of radioactive material.
| |
| Provide reasonable assurance that the predicted doses, based on radiological effluent data, have not been substantially underestimated and are consistent with applicable standards.
| |
| Comply with regulatory requirements and Station Technical Specifications .and provide records to document compliance.
| |
| Changes to the REMP There were no identified changes to the REMP during 1996.
| |
| | |
| There were no identified changes to the REMP during 1996.
| |
| B. Radiological Impact of Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Operations This report summarizes the collection and analysis of various environmental sample media in 1996 for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.
| |
| The various analyses of most sample media suggest that there was no discernable impact of the nuclear plant on the environment. The analysis of air particulate filters, charcoal cartridges, direct radiation by thermoluminescent dosimeters, fish, water, mild and sediments from Lake Michigan, drinking water, and food products, either did not detect any radioactivity or measured only naturally occurring radionuclides at normal background levels.
| |
| The only radionuclide which appears attributable to the Donald C.
| |
| Cook Nuclear Plant operation is tritium, which was measured at low levels in onsite wells. However, the associated groundwater does not provide a direct dose pathway to man.
| |
| C. Land Use Census The Land Use Census is performed to ensure that significant changes in the immediate vicinity of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant are identified. Any identified changes are evaluated to determine whether a modification must be made to the REMP or other related programs. Two deletions of milk farms were identified during the 1996 Land Use Census. A further discussion of the Land Use Census can be found in Appendix VI of this report.
| |
| D. Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems There were no changes in the solid, liquid, or gaseous radioactive waste treatment systems during 1996.
| |
| CONCLUSION Based upon the results of the radiological environmental monitoring program and the radioactive effluent release reports for the 1996 reporting year, it can be concluded that there were no adverso. affects to the environment or to the general public due to the operation of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.
| |
| 3
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX I NON-ROUTINE REPORTS 1996
| |
| | |
| 1996 Non-Routine Events February 26, 1996 - Outfall OOD Continuous pH monitoring was interrupted. The interruption was caused by fouling problems associated with the glass pH electrode.
| |
| March 10, 1996 - Outfall OOD continuous pH monitoring was interrupted. The interruption was caused by an electronic failure of pH monitoring instrumentation.
| |
| May 10, 1996 - An estimated 1 gallon of oil was washed down the roof drains to the storm water system as a result of oil vapor accumulating on the roof from the Unit 2 hydrogen seal oil vapor extractors (an estimated 5 gallon accumulation) .
| |
| August 19, 1996 - Approximately 2 gallons of lube oil leaked from a damaged oil res rvoir for a traveling water screen to the Unit 1 forebay.
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX II ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORTS 1996
| |
| | |
| 4 ANHWmw ELECTRIC PQHfF.R Data June 4, 1996 SubJect Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Environmental Evaluation Unit 2 Uprate Per AEP: NRC: 1223 arlsonl . P. A ntlS. L. Colvis To AEP: N RC: 1223 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant iotrodualion This environmental screening is written in support of the application for amendment of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Number 2 Facility Operating License; for amendment of the Donald C.
| |
| Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Technical Specifications; and for related changes to the Unit 1 Technical Specitications proposed primarily to support operation of Cook Nuclear Piant Unit 2 at an increased core Rated Thermal Power of 3588 MWt.
| |
| In anticipation of the proposed Unit 2 uprato, the March 1994 renewal submittal for the National Pollution DIscharge Elimination Systems (NPOES) Permit included a request for Increasing the thermal effluent discharge limit. The following excerpt provides vi es th escopeo f thechangeandthe th h justification.
| |
| 'The current thermal effluent limit for the circulating water syste sem d'isc arging to Lake ichlgan is 15.5 x 10'TU/hr. This ls calculated from measurements taken at Outhlls 001 and 002 for Units 1 and 2, respectively. At this limit, the units are operating with calculated un'aximum temperature differentials of 22.3 and 18.3 degrees F f U 'ts Thee units have been required to reduce load from 100M during the hottest summer months 'o mainta the thermal dischat~Je within limits. In order to maintaIn 100 lo load throughout 'ihe o maintain enbre year, including the hot summer months, we propose increasing the thermal rma dischar isc argee At the proposed thermal discharge, the temperature differerttials are calculated to be approximately1 degree F greater, or 23.4 and,19.3 degreess F fo or U nits 1 andd 2 respectively, using the same conditions es in the above calculations., Th e increase n heat h load and is arge temperature to Lake Michigan are minimal and are not expected to result in adverse environmental harm ln and around the plant discharges.'he 16.25 x 10'TU/hr was iincreased c to 16.8 x 1O'TUlhr in a later proposal sa too thee MONR R, as described in the demonstra nstration i of the acceptability of the proposed increase in heat dischar e of Rule 98 Michigan Water Quality Standards (Attachment C).
| |
| | |
| 'M g
| |
| Fnvironmental Evaluation U-2 Uprate Per AEP: NRC: 1223 On Juno 28, 1995, the Cook Nu lear Plant received a new NPDES Permit which included permission to inc."ase Heat Addition Discharge Limitation to 16.8 x 10'TU/hr with the following "As a condition of this permit, the permittee shall conduct a thermal plume study for outfal!s 001 and 002. The study shall bo conducted seasonally, during spring, summer and fall. Each seasonal study shalllndude a determination of the current velocity and volume which serves to dilute the discharge In Lake Michigan, a determination of the stratification of the effluent, if any in Lake Michigan, predominant wind direction and velocity at the time of the study, and detailed mapping of the plume for each study.
| |
| Within three (3) months of the effective date of this permit, a plan for conducting the study shall be submitted to the Plainwell District Supervisor of the Surface Water Quality Division for approval. The study shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plan, which will include information regarding Initiation of the study. If the permittee desires to make any substantial changes ln tke approved plan, such proposed changes shall be submitted to and bo approved by the Plainwell District Supeiv',sor prior to implementation. The result of this study'hall be submitted to the Plainwell District Supervisor vrithin four (4) months of the completion of the study."
| |
| A plan for conducting the study was submitted on September 25, 1995 to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) (now known as the MichIgan Department of Environmental Quality or MDEQ) District Supervisor of tlie Surface Water Quality Division (SWQD) (Attachment A). Approval from the MDEQ SWQD was received on November 6, 1995 (Attachment 8).
| |
| Schedules have been established to meet the other items of Special Condition 9.
| |
| current NPDES Permit:
| |
| "The Michigan Deoartment of Natural Resour es 's cons!" dng the necessity oof incorpora incorporatirg ing h'emperature limitations in this permit to assure that the requlroments of Rui 82 (1) f th Miic igan Water Quality Standards are met. Thorefore, when consideration of this issue has been completed, the Department may modify this permit in. accordance with Part II.B.4 to add appropriate temperature limitations or requirements."
| |
| view Action Ta The Final Environmental Statement (FES), National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Appendix S of Technical Specifications were reviewed In support of this screening to determine the potential environmental impact associated with this proposed uprate.
| |
| in accordance with 661000-LTG-2200-1, Revision 0 Preparation and Distribution of Environmental Evaluations," an Environmental Check Skeet was completed. The conclusions of this check skeet follow.
| |
| | |
| Peg* 3 Environmental Evaluation U-2 Uprato Per AEP: NRC; 1223
| |
| : 1. Willthe proposed activity result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES)7 The proposed u'prate will result in an increase in temperature of the cooling w t th t No
| |
| 'n er Lake Michigan as found in the summary of environmental Impact and adverse effects in the FES. The area of the thermal plume is also expected to increase from 593 to 700 acres, an increase of about 18'A. We believe that th" impact of this change will have a negligible effect on the environment end,does not represent a significant increaso in any adverse Impact discussed ln the FES. On the basis of the statement 7, in the summary and conclusions portion of the FES, all requirements set forth in the FES called forth by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) such as License Conditions has been met and reviewed and approved by the Michigan Department Natural Resources and the United States Environmental Protection Agonc . A h p lume stu as required per NPDES permit is scheduled once the uprate has occurred.
| |
| ume study Technical Speclficabons associated With the u prate will be Included in AEP: NRC: 1223.
| |
| : 2. Is the he proposed ro o ua e in thee Final activity a matter not previously evaluated ina E nvironmental No, The FES discusses thermal effluent-discharge and the Unit 2 uprate represents a change to the NPDES effluent limits as discussod In question 3 and 4, The proposed activity was not evaluated at ihe heat discharge levels that were evaluated in the original FES. However, tho FES did evaluate thermal effluent discharge. Current modeling studies indicated that the calculated mixing zone vnli expand, yot this is not expected to be a significant deviation from the original study and does not indicate an adverse environmental impact previously evaluatod in the FES. This activity and associated effect have been proviously evaluated i>> tiio FES and are all potential adverse effects wore addressed via the NPDES Permit approval process.
| |
| :,d J. Jude from the Center for Great Lakos and Aauatic Sciences for th U 'iy Ic ~, was contracted to perform an inves@ation of changes that might occur due to the heat Increase and how those changes might Impact the current Lako Mich'n fauna in the vicinity of the pl'ant (Attachment D). The review determined that the requested heat input and increased iherma> pluine size will have e neg I igi'bl o impact on int ri of thee integrity o the Lake Michigan ecosystem in this area of the lake. In add'tl i on,t is h'a po u e ying studies show tho size andincreased temperatures expected within the plume will have no discernible adverse environmental imp mpa ct on th e wi'd o array of is es, zooplankton, and benthic organlsrns that are common , rare,rare en d angered,d, or uncommon in the vicinity of the Cook Plant.
| |
| Thehe eenvironmental impacts and adverse effects contained in the FES were reviewed an a I approprhte measures required under the National Environmental Policy Act end Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 wore addressed via the NP DES Permit approval process described and attached throughout this document
| |
| | |
| i age4 i"=nrironrnentaf F valuation U-2 Uprato Por AEP: NRC: 1223
| |
| : 3. Will the proposed activity result In a significant change in constituent or quantity of effluent' No There is no significant change in constituent of effluent. The quantity of the effluen will only change in tho amount of heat being discharged. This change is from 15.5 to 168 x10 'TU/hr. Heat is different from chemical pollutants in that it willnot x10'TU/hr interfere vrith the designated uses in the receiving stream, nor will it impact tho public health or environment. The additional heat to be rojocted to Lake Michigan is not expocted to result in a significant change in the quality of effluent and has been reviewed and approved and permitted by the MDNR.
| |
| : 4. Will the propcsed activity result in a significant chango in aiithorized power level?
| |
| Yes The change to Rated Thermal Power l'rom 3411 to 358& by deflnition reflects a change in authorized Power level. Impacts resulting from this change are discussed in the
| |
| 'esponse to questfon 3 and will be addressed In AEP:NRC:1223 Technical Specification:
| |
| amendment proposal to the USNRC.
| |
| : 5. Will a previously undisturbed area be impacted by this activity?
| |
| No The thermal "fume size is expected to Increase, although this increase ls not expected to impact previously undiisturbed areas in Lake Mlchlgan. The thermal plume study that vill bo performed as required in the NP DES permit vrilf document wheth er there will bo a sfgnificant environmental effect as a result of tho uorate.
| |
| : 6. Will initiation or implementation of tlie proposed activity require modification to existing permits?
| |
| No In accordance is% tho NPDES Permit No. MI0005827 for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant PART II A2. Change of Conditions, a new application was submitted to the Chlof f tho Permit Section of tho Surface Water Quality Division to increase the he."'ejected to Lak~ """.higan from 15.5 x 10'TU/hr to 16.8 x 10'TU/hr. Also submined to the Michigan Department of N"tural Resources per Part 4 of the general rules of tho h4'chigon Water Resource Commission (Water Quality Standards) was a Demonstration of Acceptability of Increase Heat Additfon proposed in accordance to, Rule 98 (Attachment C).
| |
| ~C~Ision Based on this review of tho proposed uprate of Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 from 3411 MWt to 3588 th'n MWt, lt ls concluded that an unreviowed environmental question does exist. As such, fnformalion concerning the change will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance vrith procedure 661-LTG-220041 'Preparation and Distribution of Envlronmontal Evaluations.
| |
| | |
| 0 Page 5 Environmental Evaluation U-2 Uprate Per AEP: NRC: 1223 lt should be noted that 4".e determination that an unreviewed environmental question existed was an expected result of this evaluation. The purpose of this evaluation was to support the proposed Technical Specification Amendment submittal package. From a strictly environmental perspective, the proposed uprate is not consdored to have a significant adverse impact on the environment as discussed ln tho FES. Finally, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has approved the proposed increase In the thermal effluent limit.
| |
| Based on a review of the FES, Appendix B Technical Specifications, the current NP DES Permit for the Cook Nuclear Plant, and 10 CFR 51 requirements no environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) is required. EAs or EISs are not required for any action included in the list of categorical exclusions'et forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c). Specifically, 10 CFR 5'.22(c)(a), provides that an EA is not required;or the issuance of an amendment provided that:
| |
| Qi the amondment involves no significant hazards consideration, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and (iu) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
| |
| Plant radiation protection features are designed to limit the radiation exposure to plant personnel and the genera) public to 10 CFR 20 limits under normal conditions. Nlhile certain isotopes are present in greater concentration ln the fuol gap due to the uprated power levol, tho actual increases in occupational dose are expected to bo minimal. The fuel has been designed to operate at the higher p'urer level without any damage, which would negate any increases In radioactivity trapped within an intact fuel rod. Also, our technical specifications limitthe concentration of radioactivity viithin the reactor coolant system (see Technical Specification 3.4.8),
| |
| Nevertheless, acddent offsito doses have been recalcu;ated based on the uprated source term and other analysis assumptions used in the Uprating Program. In some cases, the resulting thyroid offsite dose consequence's increase slightly above the values presently in the UFSAR.. The new calculated whole bc'y doses either romain the same as the UFSAR vaiuos or decrease ~or both types ofcalculations, tne changes in tho offsite radiation dose for each accident are not significant and are within the acceptance criteria as defined in 10 CFR 100.
| |
| Since systems and procedures controlling normal radioactive releases are based on limiting plant ffluents to a small fraction of regulatory limits, the proposed uprating of Unit 2 will not exceed 10 CFR 20 or 10 C CF R100 limits. Basod on this information, there wIII bo no significant increase in the types or amounts of effluerits that may be released offsite and no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
| |
| AEPNO believes that the provisions of 10 CFR 51.22(c}(e} are applicable to this power increase.
| |
| For reasons descnbedin the submittal, AEPNO believes the three criteria of 10 CFR 5122(c)(9) are satisfied. Thereforo, this Technical Specification amendment should be considered under the "categorical exclusions" provision of 10 CFR 5122(c)(9).
| |
| | |
| Page 6 Environmental Evaluation U-2 Uprate Per AEP: NRC,. 1223 The enviranmenta,'impacts at tho highor power level a bounded by the impacts assumed in tho existing FES and controllod by tho Michigan Department of Environmental Quality through the NPDES Permit program, arid Rule 98 of the Michigan Quality Standards. A copy of the Demonstration of Acceptability of increased Heat Addition, which was submitted as part of the compliance requirements by the MDNR and EPA, is also included with this package for review at Attachment C. This submittal should assist the NRC in making a finding of no significant impact" in accordanco with 10 CFR 51.32.
| |
| References
| |
| : 1. Unit 1 and 2 Technical Specifications, Appendix B.
| |
| : 2. NPDES Permit No. MI0005827, June 28, 1995
| |
| : 3. Final Environmental Statement, August 1973
| |
| : 4. 10 CFR 51.22.(c), 10 CFR 51.32
| |
| /I Approved by:
| |
| D. H. Malin, Section Manager Nuclear Licensing and Fuels Attachments c: S.J. Brewer D.M. Fitzgerald M.A. Ackerman
| |
| | |
| 0 APPENDIX III HERBICIDE APPLICATION REPORT 1996
| |
| | |
| ANKRlC'AN KLKCfRIC PQWfR Date March 26, 1997 subject 1996 Herbicide Spray Report - Cook Nuclear Plant W(
| |
| From E. C. Mallen To J. P. Carlson The following herbicides were applied on Cook Nuclear Plant property during 1996.
| |
| Round-up Pro .Preen Oust . Weed-B-Gon From July 24-29, 1996, a mixture of Round-up Pro and Oust was used for total plant control in the switch yards, railroad right-of-way, around buildings, parking lots, the sewage and absorption ponds, and within the plant's protected area. The application was performed by DeAngelo Brothers, a licensed herbicide applicator on contract to the AEP Western Division.
| |
| On September 3, 1996, the mortality of this herbicide application was assessed at 80-90%. The areas around the Oil Building and the PM&IS Steel Yard were assessed at 15% effective. The fence opening between the 34SKV and 765 KV yards indicated no application had occurred in this area. The effect on small ((3') saplings was minimal and these are quite numerous in the 76SKV yard. The protected area had a very high mortality, with only a few plants noted in the microwave zone.
| |
| On August 8, 9, and 22, 1996 Preen was used for weed control in planting beds around the North Guardhouse entrance, Training Building, and Visitor's Parking Lot. The herbicide was applied by a licensed applicator from the Maintenance ANR Buildings &
| |
| Grounds Crew. The herbicide was 80-90% effective and controlled weeds in the planting beds cutting back on weeding time.
| |
| On July 18, 26, 31 and August 1, 27, 28, and 29, 1996 Weed-B-Gon was used for weed control on the lawns around the plant site..lie herbicide was applied by a licensed applicator from the Maintenance ANR Buildings & Grounds Crew. The herbicide was 20-30% effective in controlling weeds in the Plant's lawns. The reason for this low efficacy was that the herbicide was applied in summer as opposed to early spring.
| |
| In summary, based upon our review of the application records, manufacturer specifications, material safety data sheets (MSDSs) and observations of the treated areas, the herbicides were applied according to the manufacturer's labeled instructions and according to Federal and State requirements. A certified applicator was used as required. ~
| |
| No signs of over spray or spillage were observed or noted. No adverse environmental effects occurred.
| |
| | |
| Attao."=en: 2
| |
| ~Y i(
| |
| KEY
| |
| ''.', '0 >sW I rg
| |
| ~J fg, Round-up Pro wii ~ s'fA's g > ~ ' e ~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~
| |
| Oust
| |
| >>r q
| |
| "Qf'I I j I '
| |
| Preen tNeed-B-Con
| |
| ~rrrl6r, It/ @..I P ~ O,r ~ r ~
| |
| f It@ "P:
| |
| W
| |
| ~ P
| |
| )(
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~o o 9
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| Page 1 of 6 Rov<cfnn A
| |
| | |
| 0 Attachment
| |
| !,8''age 2 of 6 Revision 0
| |
| | |
| PNP '(60 H:.".. 3c Attachment STEEL YARO" page 3 Pf 6 Re;ision 0
| |
| | |
| -'i60 HEg.pp
| |
| <"-"-acnnent 2 CES~
| |
| 6 RMB
| |
| )4 Q Page 4 0 "e<$ sinn
| |
| | |
| ?.'P '.
| |
| o0 HER.CO.
| |
| Attachment 2
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| OIL B" RN
| |
| -'X SS!TCH YARD page S of 6 Revision 0
| |
| | |
| 12 P.'tP '160:>>::-R.CO!
| |
| Actachmenc i
| |
| I I
| |
| I
| |
| / ~
| |
| /
| |
| /
| |
| j 1
| |
| /
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I I Page 6 of 6 Revision 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX XV MOLLUSC BXOFOULXNG MONXTORXNG 1996
| |
| | |
| Cook Nuclear Plant 1996 Zebra Mussel Monitoring and Control Ressort Z~1ODUCTION The plant's zebra mussel monitoring and control program is presented in the followin report. Chlorine, molluscicides, mechanical cleaning, and chan es in lant the zebra mussel control strateg at the Cook Pl des'emain to assess thee threat rea oof zebra z mussel infestation and determine '
| |
| the 'effectiveness of plant control techniques. Zebra mussels which slough from thee in a k e pipe ines continue to present a challen gee too thee screenwash and traveling screen system, service water um strainers, plant condensers, and the miscellaneous sea sealining an co ing water system. The and coo is workin I g a gg ressivel ive y on design changes to alleviate these zebra mussel related 1'lant ERADICATION AND CONTROL MEASURES The 1996 control strategy consisted of the use of continuous and intermittent chlorination of the service water, miscellaneous sealing and cooling water, and circulating water systems, and mechanical cleaning. Plant design changes to mitigate zebra mussel related problems 'const'tuted a lar argee portion of zebra mussel cont,rol efforts in 1996.
| |
| MECHANICAL CLEANING Mechanical cleaning of the Unit 2 intake forebay and Uni ba Ys was peerform ormed by divers during the Unit 2 refueling outage in 1996.
| |
| i nit 2 essent al service water pump The Unit 2 main condenser inlet t'~nnel was inspected and cleaned during the Unit 2 retueling outage. Cleaning and flushing of small bore piping and strainers in the service water systems and low volume water systems was continued in 1996.
| |
| All three intake cribs were cleaned in the fall of 1996 to minimize the impact of the intakes on diving ducks. Intake crib cleaning has been an effective means to mitigate duck entrainment into the plant.
| |
| MOLLUSCZCZDE TREATMENT RESULTS There were no proprietary molluscicide treatments in 1996.
| |
| CHLORINATION TREATMENT RESULTS A vendor su pp lied ch 'orination system was again used to continuously c hl orina service water and miscellaneousus sealing and cooling water systems, and intermitt en tly e the c orinate the circulatin g water s y s tern. Continuous chlorination of the service water sys ems an the misceilaneous sealing and cooling water system a t a t arget fee d rate of 0.3 to 0.6 m end-of--o -p ipee residua', was effective in controlling the settl emen t o f ze ra mussels in these systems.'p Corrosion coupon monitorin studies ha have begun t", indicate corrosion of yellow metals mi s. yr.) and mild steel (8.6 mils./ ./y r..) in the service water systems.
| |
| ave no 0 serve actual corrosion indication in engineering inspectio ns t o d ate. The pplant s corrosion 'on rate objectives for the service water systems are <0.2 m s./yr. for yellow metals and <5 mils./yr. for mild steel.
| |
| Intermittent
| |
| ' chlorination of the circulating water system a t 0.2 . ppm for 155 minutes per y d shortened to 60 minutes per day in June thru early December was effective in minimizing slime growth in the main and feed pump condensers. The water system was cross-connectede to the m1sce miscellaneous sea in and coo11 g ater non-essent'ervice aneous seal1ng rea t e system. Though the miscellaneous sealing and coolin g system was continuously chlorinated via the non-ess t' service water cross-on-essentia connect'ater ction, the system still experienced some blockage b y s ilt an d s h e 1 1 fragments in the small bore piping i downstream of. the miscellaneous sealing and co o 1'ing wa er pump strainers. here has .been a noticeable reduction in frequency of small bore i in The blockage since the system was first continuously cchlorinated or nate d uring the zebra mussel, spawning season in 1995.
| |
| FOULING FROM THE INTAKE PIPELINES Zebra e ~
| |
| Zv bi velocities mussels tm~
| |
| i us e 1s c 0 t1n continue I~
| |
| to slough from the intake pipelines especially when flow and patterns are changed by cycling the center intake gate valve WMO-30 and e 0 ac I~
| |
| | |
| circulating water pumps. This operation presents a challenge to the traveling screens and screenwash system in their ability to 'handle the influx of zebra mussels sloughing off from the intake tunnels. Any" carryover that occurs, must be handled by the service water pump strainers or is impinged on the condenser tube sheets. The continuous operation of the traveling screens contributed to a large diver maintenance effort in 1996.
| |
| DESIGN CHANGES Traveling Screens Modifications of the traveling screen spraywash sy tern begun in 1995 from a single to a dual spray header with improved nozzle design was completed in 1996 under PM-873. The dual spray header return piping was routed to the traveling screen trash trough to facilitate flushing of the spray headers and nozzles. In addition to the spray header and spray nozzle changes, the screen panels on traveling screen 2-OME-43-7 were replaced with a flatter stainless steel wire mesh. The improved design effectively removed the debris from the traveling screens. The old galvanized dipped screen panels are systematically being replaced on the remaining traveling screen units by the stainless steel panels as the old panels wear out. A component evaluation, CE-95-0345, performed on the north screenwash pump strainer in August of 1996, reduced the strainer mesh size from 1/8" to 5/64" to prevent the traveling screenwash nozzles from plugging.
| |
| Miscellaneous Sealing & Cooling Water Pump Strainer and Filter Upgrade In the fall of 1996, the 2" miscellaneous sealing a cooling water pump strainers were replaced with 4" Hayward self cleaning strainers. In addition, two Ontario Industries 40 micron filters were installed to run in parallel. The new filters Hydro will become operational in 1997 when the filter backwash routing can be changed from the screenwash pump stainer backwash lines to the 30" turbine room sump overflow line to the intake forebay.
| |
| Chemical Injection Pipeline A design has been issued under DCP-108 for installation of two chemical injection pipeline systems to be run through the center intake tunnel and branching at the center intake crib to the north and south intake cribs. This design is scheduled'o be installed in May 1997. Chemicals will be delivered out to the intake cribs effectively controlling zebra mussel colonization in the intake pipelines.
| |
| CONCLUSION For the foreseeable future, proprietary molluscicides will continue to be used for zebra mussel control. Mechanical cleaning can supplement chemical control methods in the circulating water system. Plant design changes including strainers, filters, screens, and chemical delivery systems, will work to resolve the plant s zebra mussel related problems. Continuous chlorination has proven to be effective in contro~~ing zebra mussels in the service water and the miscellaneous sealing a cooling water systems.
| |
| Corrosion coupon studies in the service water systems have shown that alternatives to chlorine should be sought to minimize corrosion. A zebra mussel monitoring program utilizing side-stream and arti,ficial substrate monitors, along with diver and heat exchanger inspections, will continue to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical and physical control measures.
| |
| 2
| |
| | |
| Prepared for AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant One Cook Place Bridgman, Michigan b IOI.LUSC BIOFOULING MONITORING DURING l996 March 1997 LMSE-97/0091&673/003 Prepared by:
| |
| LAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERS LLP Environmental Science & Engineering Consultants 10207 Lucas Road
| |
| %oodstock, Illinois 60098
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
| |
| LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES nI EXECUTIVE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Past History 1.2 Objectives 2 METHODS 2-1 2.1 Whole-Water Sampling 2-1 2.2 Artificial Substrates 2-2 2.2.1 Periodic Settlement 2-2 2.2.2 Cumulative Settlement 2-3 2.2.3 Periodic and Cumulative Sample Analysis 2-3 2.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control 2-4 3 RESULT~ AND DISCUSSION 3-1 3.1 Whole-Water Sampling 3-1 3.2 Artificial Substrate Sampling 3-2 3.2.1 Circulating Water System 3-2 3.2.2 Service and Miscellaneous Sealing and Cooling Water Systems 3-3 3.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Samples 3-8 4
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1 4.1 Summary 4-1 4.2 Recommendations 4-2 4.3 References 4-3 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP
| |
| | |
| LIST OF FIGE!LES Table No. Title Following Page 3-1 Whole Water Sampling Program Veligers Per Cubic Meter, D.C. Cook, 1996 3-1A 3-2 A'rtificial Substrate Settlement-Forebay Numbers Per Square Meter, D.C. Cook, 1996 3-2A 3-3 ArtificialSubstrate Settlement-Periodic Servic" Water and Miscellaneous Cooling Water Systems Postveliger Density Per Square Meter, D.C. Cook, 1996 3-3A 3-4 Wholewater Veliger Density and Periodic Settlement in the Service Water System, D.C. Cook, 1996 3-4A 3-5 'ArtificialSubstrate Settlement-Cumulative Service Water and Miscellaneous Cooling Water Systems Postveliger Density Per Square Meter, D.C. Cook, 1996 3-7A Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP
| |
| | |
| LIST OF TAI)LES Table No. Title Page No.
| |
| 2-1 Sampling Schedule for Zebra Mussel Monitoring, D.C.
| |
| Cook, 1996 2-1A 3-1 Whole Water Sampling Program Veligers Per Cubic Meter, D.C. Cook,'996 3-18 3-2 Zebra Mussel Density, Average Size, and Size Range of Settled Postveligers from Periodic Sampling, D.C. Cook, 1996 3-28 3-3 Chlorination Data for the Service Water Systems, D.C.
| |
| Cook, 1996 3-48 3-4 Zebra Mussel Density, Average Size, and Size Range Postveligers from Cumulative Sampling, D.C. of'ettled Cook, 1996 3-78 3-5 Results of QA/QC Samples, D.C. Cook, 1996 3-8A nl Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP
| |
| | |
| EXECUTIVE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| Biofouling Studies have been conducted at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant since 1983. In 1991, monitoring of zebra mussels in the circulating wat".r, essential service water (ESW), and nonessential service water (NESW) systems was added to the program. The objectives of this monitoring are to detect the presence and density of zebra mussel veligers in the circulating water system and postveliger settlement in the forebay and service water systems.
| |
| Veligers were present in the forebay from 9 May through 12 December 1996. Peak densities occurred on 10 October and 26 September 1996, with the major peak occurring on the October date (292,750/m ). Secondary peaks were observed on 17. 24 and 31 October 1996. This period of peak abundance is typical for the lower Great Lakes which normally experience peak densities during the September-October period.
| |
| Settlement occurred in the forebay on all periodic sampling dates in 1996, except 6 June and 25 July. Size information indicates that settlement during the 6 June to 11 July period was partially composed of translocators. First evidence of 1996 spawned postveliger settlement was observed on 20 June. Heaviest settlement occurred between 5 September and 21 November with the peak occurring between 19 September and 31 October. This is typical for the lower Great Lake." ."ad is similar to results reported for the 1992, 1993, and 1994 monitoring pfograllls.
| |
| There were no proprietary molluscicide treaunents in 1996. Therefore, the objective of comparing cumulative settlement in the forebay after treatment with that of the entire season could not be met.
| |
| Settlement of live postveligers first appeared on the artificial substrates set in the service water systems during the latter half of October. Observation of location of individuals on slides, number of half shells, no cilia or internal movement, and size data indicated that results recorded from June through the first half of October reflected the effects of the continuous chlorination, i.e., primarily dead organisms were en'.rained on the slides.
| |
| ES-1 Lawler, NIatusky 0 Skelly Engineers LLp
| |
| | |
| Peak densities on the neriodic artific!al substrates which were placed on the service water systems occurred during the latter half of October for all service water systems. This followed the peak densities in the wholewater samples by one to two weeks, as expected. Densities of postveligers on the cumulative artificial substrate samples were low from 23 May through 22 August and peaked at ESWR-I, ESWR-2, and the miscellaneous sealing and cooling water systems during the latter half of October. The highest density reported for NESW occurred on 12 December.
| |
| Several unexpected observations were made during the 1996 sampling season. These includes:
| |
| ~ Veligers were present in the wholewater samples through 12 December.
| |
| Size data for artificial substrate samples (both periodic and cumulative) indicated that small postveligers were present through 12 December and that these specimens were ali ene on the substrates collected on the November and December sampling dates.
| |
| A number of possible explanations are presented for these obs.rvations. No one explanation by itself is considered to be the answer; but rather some combination of tnese factors is thought to be responsible for the unexpected results. These possible explanations include:
| |
| o The abnormally warm lake water, as measured at the, intake, during October (particularly the latter half of the month) most likely extended the peak spawnin" season for zeura mussels until the first part of November.
| |
| The efficacy of the chlorine may have been reduced by the combination of colder water and high pH during November and/or the possible presence of chloramines in the system.
| |
| Zebra mussel metabolic rates slowed down with the decrease in water temperature during November; therefore, they were not as susceptible to chlorine as during the warmer weather months.
| |
| Results may reflect presence of quagga mussels in the vicinity of the offshore.
| |
| intake. These relatives of zebra mussels continue to spawn at much colder water temperatures than zebra mussels and are known to be present in the Great Lakes.
| |
| ES-2 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLp
| |
| | |
| CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 PAST HISTORY American Electric Power Company (AEP) has been conducting zebra mussel monitoring studies at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant since 1991. The purpose of the studies is to monitor the presence of zebra mussel veliger and postveliger settlement densities in the circulating water, essential service water (ESW), and nonessential service water (NESW) systems to help determine the effectiveness of zebra mussel control programs.
| |
| The 1996 monitoring program conducted by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLp (LMS) was designed to detect the timing of spawning and senling of zebra mussels at the Cook Nuclear Plant and to collect and determine densities for: (1) wholewater samples for planktonic veligers; and (2) artificial substrates set within the circulating water, ESW, NESW, and miscellaneous sealing and cooling systems for periodic and cumulative postveliger settlement.
| |
| 1.2 OMECTIVES Specific obje~...es for the 1996 biofouling monitoring program were as follows:
| |
| Whole-water sampling of the circulating water system was conducted weekly (June-October), bimonthly (May and November), or monthly (April'nd December) to determine the presence and density of larval zebra mussels.
| |
| Artificial substrates were deployed in the intake forebay and service water systems to detect settlement of post-veligers. Samples were collected every two weeks from June through October and once every three weeks during November and December.
| |
| Lawler, NIatusky & Skelly Engineer LLp
| |
| | |
| 1 CHAPTER 2 METHODS 2.1 WHOLE-WATER SAMPLING Whole-water sampling of the circulating water system was conducted from 25 April to 12 December 1996 according to the schedule presented in Table 2-1. Samples were collected from mid-depth in the intake forebay by pumpjng lake water through an in-line flowmeter into a plankton net. The sampling location was consistent with that of previous studies. Two replicates (2000 liters each) were collected during each sampling event.
| |
| A Myers Model 2JF-51-8 well pump, rated to deliver 8 gpm, was connected to an in-line flowmeter assembly (Signet Model il'P58640) and pumped water into a plankton net for approximately 45 minutes. To minimize organism abrasion, measured flow was directed into a No. 20 plankton net that was suspended in a partially filled 55-gal plastic barrel. Valves were adjusted to reduce flow, thus preventing the plankton net from overflowing when heavy sediment loads or plankton concentrations were present.
| |
| Samples were washed down gently into the cod-end bucket using filtered, circulating water system water a<<u then transferred into a 1 liter plastic jar. Ifneeded, filtered water was added to the jar to ensure that a full liter was analyzed. After the second replicate was taken, both samples were transported to the on-site laboratory and analyzed immediately.
| |
| Samples were initially mixed thoroughly for 3 minutes using a magnetic stir plate. Then, using a calibrated disposable Pasteur pipette, a 1-ml aliquot of mixed sample was placed into a Sedgewick-Rafter cell for counting, using an Olympus SZ-1145 binocular microscope (18-110X) equipped with cross-polarizing filters. Ten replicates were counted, and the average was extrapolated to determine the number of individuals per cubic meter. This process was repeated for the second replicate and the mean of the two values was calculated to yield a final density value. The density was calculated as follows.
| |
| 2-1 Lawler, NIatusky & Skelly Engineers LLp
| |
| | |
| C TABLE 2-1 SAMPLING SCHEDULE FOR ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING, D.C. COOK, 1996 ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DATE WHOLEWATER PERIODIC CUMULATIVE April 25 X May 9 X 23 X June 6 X 13 X 20 X X 27 X July 3 X 11 X 18 X 25 X August 1 X 8 X 15 X 22 X 29 X September 5 X X 12 X 19 X X 26 X October 3 X X 10 X 17 ,X X 24 X 31 X November 7 X 21 X X X December 12 X X X
| |
| . 2-1A
| |
| | |
| Density (0'im') = (average O'*DF) / 0.001L
| |
| * I L /2000L
| |
| * 1000L /m Size measurements were recorded for up to 50 organisms from each sample. Veliger length (pm) was measured using an ocular micrometer that was calibrated to a stage micrometer.
| |
| 2.2 ARTIFICIALSUBSTRATES To determine zebra mussel settlement in the circulating water, ESW, and NESW systems, artificial substrates were placed in the intake forebay upstream of the trash racks; sidestream samplers were set on the return side of both service water systems and on the miscellaneous sealing and cooling system. Monitors were equipped with modified test-tube racks designed to hold slides for periodic and cumulative sampling. (Periodic settlement is defined as short-term monitoring, either two- or three-week periods, depending on the month. Cumulative settlement is long-term monitoring that extends from initial deployment [23 May] to the end of the sampling season.) Both periodic and cumulative sampling dates are presented in Table 2-1.
| |
| 2.2.1 Periodic Settlement Artificialst-'"ates that were designed to measure periodic settlement were placed in the intake forebay and consisted of cinderblocks with test-tube racks secured inside the openings,. Periodic samplers were deployed by rope in the central location at approximately mid-depth.
| |
| Sidestream monitors were placed on the return side of the service water systems (ESW and NESW) and the miscellaneous sealing and cooling water system. Each monitor contained two modified test-tube racks that held all slides above the monitor base. This allowed silt and sediment to fall out before they could influence postveliger settlement. Monitors were covered 4
| |
| with a plant-approved fireproof fabric to limit light exposure. Plant personnel checked the monitors periodically to ensure that adequate flow was available, and flow was adjusted as necessary. On each sampling date 10 slides from each location were retrieved and replaced with clean slides. These were labeled as periodic settlement. Slides were placed in labeled 2-2 Lawler, Matusky A Skelly Engineers LLP 12
| |
| | |
| 0 racks, covered, with a plastic bag, and transported to the on-site laboratory where they were analyzed immediately.
| |
| 2.2.2 Cumulative Settlement A sufficient number of substrates were initially placed in the biobox samplers to allow 10 slides to be removed once per month at the service water and miscellaneous sealing and cooling water locations. These slides were not replaced. Cumulative settlement was monitored in the forebay using two pieces of PVC pipe that were each six inches long and had an inside diameter of two inches. Each pipe was cut in half lengthwise, rejoined using hose clamps, and attached to a rope at intervals of about three feet. These were deployed at the central location at mid-depth.
| |
| One sampler was intended to be exposed to Clam Trol CT-2 and the other was not to be exposed to the toxicant during the Clamtrol treatment. Cumulative monitoring was designed to provide information on accumulated infestation throughout the growing season. There were no proprietar'y molluscide treatments in 1996.
| |
| ~
| |
| 2.2.3 Periodic
| |
| ~
| |
| and'umulative Sample Analysis
| |
| ~
| |
| Analysis was conducted with an Olympus SZ-1145 binocular microscope (18-110X) equipped with cross-p".larizing filters. After one side of the slide was scraped clean, the slide was placed on the microscope so that the attached postveligers could be counted. When s.. beche heavily infested, a subsampling technique was followed:
| |
| The slides were subsampled using a splitter that permitted either half or a quarter of the slide to be counted. Counts were then proportionally extrapolated to one square meter.
| |
| Settlement rates were computed by taking the average value of the 10 slides and multiplying this value by 533.34 to obtain the density of zebra mussels per square meter." (One postveliger/microscope slide equals 533.34 veii~ers per square meter.)
| |
| 2-3 Lawler, Matusky 8'kelly Engineers LLP
| |
| | |
| Shell diameters were measured for up to 50 selected and random individuals for both unsubsampled and subsampled slides to obtain maximum, minimum, and mean sizes.
| |
| Diameters were measured using an ocular micrometer calibrated to a stage micrometer.
| |
| 2.3 QUALITYASSURANCE / QUALITYCONTROL A total of three sampling dates were reanalyzed by Mr. Jeffrey Mensinger (who conducted this zebra mussel monitoring program for LMS during the period 1992 through 1994} for precision and accuracy of the counting procedures. Samples were shipped to an off-site laboratory and analyzed using the same procedures as the original analysis. Dates reanalyzed included 27 June, 31 October, and 12 December 1996. One liter of wholewater and one slide from each sampling site (both cumulative and periodic artificial substrates) were reinspected.
| |
| 24 Lawler, Matusky Sc Skelly Engineers LLp
| |
| | |
| CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 WHOLE-WATER SAMPLING Sampling of planktonic veligers in the circulating water system was initiated on 25 April 1996 and completed on 12 December 1996. Fifty-six samples were tal'en (two per sampling date) from the station's intake forebay. The monitoring system performed up to expectations. The continued use of an electronic flowmeter provided data comparable to those of the 1993, 1994, and 1995 monitoring programs. As a result, direct comparisons with those data can be made.
| |
| Results of sampling are presented in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1. With the exception of the 25 April sampling date, veligers were present in all samples collected. The major density peak was observed on 10 October (292,750/m ). Lesser peaks of abuiidance occurred on 26 September (92,250/m ), 17 October (57,250/m ), 24 October (53,450/m ), and 31 October (55,650/m3).
| |
| As was observed in previous years, veliger presence throughout the monitoring program (except for April) suggests that substantial densities of velig rs are in the water coltl'nfor more than six months of the ye~.. Heaviest spawning activity occurred during the mid-Ocl '.'i:liod.
| |
| During the seven weeks from mid-September through the end of October, mean veliger densities were approximately 85,280/m, which was about 84,000/m greater than the same period in 1995 and similar to densities recorded in 1994. In 1993 and 1995, the peak abundances were recorded during this seven week period; while in 1994, peak abundance occurred atypically in June. The late September-October period of peak abundance is more typical- for the lower Great Lakes (O'eil, personal communication). It is thought that the June 1994 peak was more the result of unusually hot weather that occurred turing the first two weeks of June than environmental differences between the early fall periods amongst the years of record.
| |
| 3-1 Lawler, Matusky 4 Skelly Engineers LLP
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3-1 WHOLE-WATER SAMPLING PROGRAM VELIGERS PER CUBIC METER, D.C. COOK, 1996 292)750 10 0) 7 rD 7
| |
| O o 1
| |
| O.
| |
| 0 4 Z 4 Apr 25 May 9 May 23 Jun 6 Jun 13 Jun 27 Jun 20 Jul 3 Jul 11 Jul 18 Jul 25 Aug 1 Aug 8 Aug 22 Aug 15 Aug 29 Sep 5 Sep 19 Sap 12 Sep 26 Ocl 3 Ocl 10 Ocl 17 Ocl 24
| |
| ~ 31 Ncy 7 Nov2 1 SAMPLING DATE
| |
| | |
| 0 TABLE 3-1 WHOLE WATER SAMPLING PROGRAM VELIGEP.S PER CUBIC METER, D.C. COOK, 1996 DATE DENSITY (No./m3) SIZE RANGE (pm) MEAN SIZE (pm) 4/25/96 0 5/09/96 150 100 - 160 130 5/23/96 1,175 75 - 625 118 6/06/96 250 120 - 500 213 6/13/96 1,375 80 - 130 100 6/20/96 500 90 - 330 140 6/27/96 25 125 125 7/03/96 3,625 90 - 320 105 7/11/96 625 100 - 150 114 7/18/96 1,950 90 - 130 103 7/25/96 17,000 90 - 180 110 8/01/96 6,325 90 - 200 '142 8/08/96 1,700 100 - 230 193 8/15/96 9,675 90 - 330 138 8/22/96 15,925 100 - 330 158 8/29/96 975 100 - 260 174 9/05/96 5,975 '0-230 150 9/12/96 8,275 100 - 260 I /4 9/19/96 35,425 90 - 300 144 9/26/96 96,250 100 - 300 165 10/03/96 6,200 100 - 390 189 10/10/96 292,750 90 - 330 197 10/17/96 57,250 90 - 330 219 10/24/96 53,450 100 - 400 216 10/31/96 55,650 100 - 430 202 11/07/96 17,475 130 - 330 216 11/21/96 4,600 100 - 560 232 12/12/96 925 100 - 560 363
| |
| | |
| Size data for the 1996 sampling season shows that translocators were active in the forebay on 23 May and 6 June. Spawning commenced between 25 April and 9 May and continued through the middle of December as indicated by the lower portion of the size range data. Size range data also show that translocators were present in the water column from 23 May through 6 Jure but then were absent from the samples for the remainder of the sampling season. On most other data, the upper end of the size range exceeded the size of settlement (200-225pm) and was in or exceeded this range on every sampling date from 1 August through 12 December.
| |
| However, mean size did not approach this settlement size range until October.
| |
| In summary, zebra mussel veligers were present in the water column on all sampling dates except 25 April. Spawning commenced between 25 April and 9 May and continued through mid-December. Peak veliger densities occurred during the seven week period from mid-September to the end of October which is typical for the lower Great Lakes and has been reported at the Cook Plant for three of the last four years (1993, 1995, and 1996).
| |
| 3.2 ARTIFICIALSUBSTRATE SAMPLING 3.2.1 Circulating Water System Artificialsubstrate monitoring was conducted at the center forebay location (which is protected by a deflector - "11):;om 23 May to 12 December 1996. Periodic settlement r;.',ar the circulating water system (forebay) are shown in Figure 3-2. Table 3-2 provides density and size information for settled postveligers.
| |
| Settlement in the forebay occurred on all periodic sampling dates in 1996 except 6 June and 25 July. Density information presented in Table 3-2 indicates that settlement was low from 6 June through 5 September (0-8600lmz). Several translocators settled on the substrates during the 6 "June to 11 July period. First evidence of settlement of 1996 spawned zebra mussels was observed on 20 June. Heaviest settlement occurred between 5 September and 21 November with the peak occurring during the 3 October to 17 October period. This is typical for the lower Great Lakes and is consistent with results reported for the 1992, 1993, and 1994 3-2 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLp
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3-2 ARTIFICIALSUBSTRATE SETTLEMENT-FOREBAY NUMBERS PER SQUARE METER, D C COOK, 1996
| |
| *~
| |
| 14 E
| |
| 1 8 U 8 0
| |
| tD CL 0
| |
| Z Jun 6 Jul 11 Aug 8 Sep 5 Oct 3 Oct 31 Jun 20 JUI 25 Dec12 Aug 22 Sop 19 Oct 17 Nov 21 SAMPLING DATE
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3-2 ZEBRA MUSSEL DENSITY, AVERAGESIZE, AND SIZE RANGE OF SETTLED POSTVELIGERS FROM PERIODIC SAMPLING, D.C. COOK, 1996 PERIODIC SAMPLES FOREBAY NESW MS&,C ESW R-1 ESW R-2 Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
| |
| Density Size Range Dense Size Range Dense Size Range Dens/ Size DATE Range Dense Size Range (No/.m ) (r m) Qm) (Norm ) Qm) (pm) (Norm ) Qm) Qm) (No Jm ) (r m) (No./m ) (pm) gm) 6/06/96 130 130 53 6/20/96 9,600 193 140-260 1,600 7/1 1/96 3.200 415 140-1,475 1,600 120-1 80 130 130 120 120 1'25/96 267 238 200430 98 9O-1OO 160 8/08/96 640 291 26M40 100-160 373 126 100-160 160 117 100-130 207 126 100.160 8/22i96 747 1 $ 4390 1,600 125 1M-160 3,520 116 90-230 480 117 100-130 747 124 100-160 9/05/96 251 2$ M30 140-200 167 140-200 373 137 100-170 153 100.200 9/19/96 46,453 245 200430 2720 175 1M.280 6,347 199 100-260 3,147- 193 100-230 2,080 212 100-260 10/03/96 64,533 395 1~80 4,253 249 130460 2,2"0 148 1 00430 1,173 221 10O440 2.560 192 100~0 10/17/96 158,613 200460 5,600 207 1M-260 12,053 235 100460 5,920 239 .180300 9,280 226 100-500 10/31/96 70,560 274 8&400 31,680 13O330 4,000 223 lOM30 20,480 268 160-360 4,960 194 100-330 11/21/96 25,867 180400 1,707 199 130400 1,173 230 1 Eh%0 233 100400 2.720 386 200-1.050 12/12/96 2,880 200-460 5,173 310 100-760 271 1,813 210 10O430 5,387 337 200430 4
| |
| One translocator at 4620 (r m) not inlcluded.
| |
| | |
| monitoring programs (LMS 1993, 1994, 1995), but later than 1995 when settlement in the forebay peaked between 13 July and 17 September (GLEC 1996). Similar to 1994 and 1995 results, very little settlement occurred during the late November to mid-December period.
| |
| Based on size data, the majority of those individuals settling during this period were postveligers whose average size ranged from 283 to 290 pm.
| |
| Two six inch long pieces of PVC (ID 2 in.) were suspended in the forebay to monitor cumulative settlement. The objective of this program element is to compare the post Clamtrol treatment settlement to that of the entire sampling season. Data collected in previous years indicates that much of the annual settlement occurs after the treatment. This program objective was not met in 1996 because molluscicide treatment was not administered and the samples were lost.
| |
| 3.2.2 Service and Miscellaneous Sealing and Cooling Water Systems The return sides of the ESW and NESW systems were monitored during 1996. The ESW systems of both Units 1 and 2 were monitored throughout the sampling period; but only the Unit 1 NESW system was sampled in 1996. A sidestre w biobox monitor was also placed on the miscellaneous sealing and cooling water system which draws its water from a source separate frc::; that of the service water systems. The ESW, NESW, and miscellaneous sealing and cooling water systems were scheduled for chlorination from mid-May tt. u.. nd of November.
| |
| Periodic settlement densities for the service water systems and die miscellaneous sealing and water system are shown in Table 3-2 and Fibre 3-3: Settlement occurred in low 'ooling densities at NESW R-l, ESW R-l, and miscellaneous sealing and cooling water system on the first retrieval date (6 June), but did not appear on artificial substrates set at ESW R-2 until 11 July. Density and size information (Table 3-2) shows that settlement was sparse at all locations during June with densities ranging from 0 to 160U/mz. Size data indicate that most postveligers collected in June were spawned during May, with several translocators also appearing on the substrates.
| |
| 3-3 Lawler, Matusky Bc Skelly Engineers LLP
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3-3 ARTIFICIALSUBSTRATE SETTLEMENT-PERIODIC SERVICE MfATER AND MISCELLANEOUS COOLING IfATER SYSTEMS POSTVELIGER DENSITY PER SQUARE METER, D.C. COOK 'f 996 31,680 20>480 ht h
| |
| ESW R-1 h
| |
| h h h NESW h
| |
| h ihh' h MS&C h ~
| |
| h h
| |
| ESW R-2 Jun 6 Jul 11 Aug 8 Sep 5 Oct 31 Dec 12 Jun 20 Jul 25 Aug 22 Sep 19 Oct 17 Nov 21 SAMPLING DATE
| |
| | |
| Figure 3-4 presents the comparison of periodic settlement densities with those of wholewater veligers for the sampling season. As expected, these data show that periods of increased'ettlement in the systems monitored lag increases in wholewater densities by about one to two weeks. This is particularly evident during the mid-September to end of October period.
| |
| Because total residual chlorine data are not available for the last,two weeks of October, it can not b: determined whether the settlement. was the result of insufficient availability of chlorine to prevent settlement.
| |
| Chlorine was administered continuously to the treated systems for the entire season in 1996.
| |
| Total residual chlorine data were reported on a weekly basis (Table 3-3). '1'here were several occasions during the season when no data are available. These include 18 July and 25 and 31 October. The October dates coincide with the laner part. of the peak spawning period and inadequate chlorination may be responsible for the high densities recorded at both NESW (31,680/m ) and ESW R-1 (20,480/m ) locations on 31 October. Conversely, lower densities were recorded at miscellaneous sealing and cooling and ESW R-2 locations on 31 October than on the previous sampling date (17 October) when peak settlement occurred at both locations.
| |
| Inspection of the discharge monitoring report (DMR) for October indicates that chlorination was continuously applied to the systems from 19 through 31 October. This suggests that either the dosage was low on the efficacy of the chlorine had been reduced by condition beyond the control of plant staff.
| |
| The ESW systems are cross connected downstream of the one chlorine injection point that serves both ESW systems. The separate chlorine inject location that serves the NESW system also serves the miscellaneous sealing and cooling system. Considering these cross connections, the data are somewhat confounding. One possible xplanation is that chlorine is not being.
| |
| equally distributed through the cross connections.
| |
| I nspection of the remainder of the data indicates that settlement was prevented/controlled from May through the tifth of September. Then, as the peak spawning occurred and large numbers of postveligers of senlement size came into the systems, densities on the periodic artificial substrates increased until the peaks were reached in th: latter half of October (which coincided Lawler, Matusky 8c Skelly Engineers LLP 23
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3-4 WHOLE WATER VELIGER DENSITY AND PERIODIC SETTLEMENT IN THE SERVICE WATER SYSTEM, D.C. COOK, 1996 E3 NESW MSEC mI R-1 250 ESW K3 ESW R-2 Q)
| |
| Whole Water E
| |
| O S)
| |
| O tD EO C
| |
| 150:o~ m C
| |
| 0)
| |
| CI L
| |
| 0) 6$
| |
| 100 tD 0
| |
| ~ P xs Apt 25 May 23 Jun 13 Jun 27 May 9 Jun 6 Jun 20 Jul 3 Jul 11 Jul 25 Jul 18 Aug 8 Aug 22 SeP 5 Aug 1 SeP 19 Oct 3 Aug 15 Aug 29 Sep 12 Sep 26
| |
| 'ct Oct 10 17 Oct 24 Oct 31 Nov 21 Nov 7 Dec 12 SAMPLING DATE
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3-3 CHLORINATIONDATA FOR THE SERVICE WATER SYSTEMS, D.C. COOK, 1996 UNIT I UNIT 2 DATE NESW ppm ESW ppm MS&C ppm ESW ppm May 17 0.49 0.47 0. 11 ND'.06 May 23 0.22 0.78 0.93 May 30 0.51 0.38 <0.01 0.24 Jun 6 0.48 0.02 <0.01 0.40 Jun 13 0.29 0.30 0.13 0.31 Jun 21 0.82 ND 0.71 ND Jun 27 0.30 0.73 0.58 0.64 Jul 3 0.76 0.30 0.38 0.41 Jul 11 0.50 0.41 0.85 0.57 JUI 25 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.13 Aug 1 0.48 0.26 0.29 0.42 Aug 8 0.39 0.15 0.47 0.81 Aug 15 0.27 0.14 0.29 0.45 Aug 22 0.25 0.13 0.31 0.28 Aug 29 0.47 0.40 0.60 0.89 Sep 5 0.41 0.04 0.55 1.12 Sep 12 0.28 0.21 0.01 .23 Sep 24 0.01 0.09 0.03 0. 15 Sep 27 0.04 0.01 0.42 ND Oct 2 0.08 0.62 1.11 0.58 Oct 10 0.52 1.04 0.08 0.92 Oct 17 0.53 0.01 0.65 0.01 Nov 6 0.47 0.03 0.02 0.85 Nov 21'ov 0.89 0.02 0.88 0.05 28 0.65 0.78 0.67 0.60 ND - No data 3-4B 25
| |
| | |
| 0 with lack of chlorination data). Size data show that the mean size of postveligers on the substrates were generally below the threshold for settlement until 19 September. Inspection of the smaller individuals that were collected revealed that they were dead which indicated that the chlorine was effective. It was not until the latter part of October that truly settled, live individuals were observed on the substrates. These continued to appear on the substrates until the end of the sampling season.
| |
| For the first time in this monitoring program, settlement of postveligers continued in all the systems through November until the program was concluded in mid-December. The observation of an increase in density at three of the four in-plant monitoring locations between 21 November and 12 December was unexpected. This appears to be a combination of the densities of veligers in the intake water and the efficiency of the chlorine at cooler water temperatures in water that typically exhibits high pH. Figure 34 presents information showing wholewater veliger and periodic settlement densities for the sampling season. Wholewater densities continued to be above 50,000/m~ until the first week of November and remained above 17,000/m~ through 7 November. These veligers continued to grow and became postveligers of settleable size by the third week of November. Most likely, veligers were present in the lake water after 21 November and these then were included in the unexpected periodic densities recorded on 12 December. Wholewater densities recorded during the 1993 through 1995 programs for the November-December sampling periods were less than 1000/m3 for sampling conducted afte~ ~ Nc.~mber. This suggests that spawning continued into the late 'early winter period in 1996. This is atypical in the vicinity of D.C. Cook Plant based on four years of data. A preliminary review of chlorine chemistry indicates that pH may have a greater influence driving the reaction than temperature as shown in the following table.
| |
| Percent Hyperchlorous Acid in Solution Temperature pH 7.5 pH 8.0 5 'C 64.3 36.3 10 'C 33.0 3-5 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly,Engineers LLP
| |
| | |
| 'L Activity rates of reaction are influenced by temperature and those activities are influenced by pH. Any difference. between years in temperature and/or pH will modify the effectiveness of the chlorine.
| |
| Comparison of daily water temperatures recorded on the DMR's for the months of October, November. and December for 1993 through 1996 indicates that intake water temperatures in October 1996 were considerably warmer than the previous three,"ears, particularly during the second half of the month. November and December (first 15 days) mean intake water temperatures in 1996 were similar to those of 1993 and 1994 but warmer than in 1995. As can be seen in the table below, December mean intake water temperatures recorded in 1996 were cooler for this period than in both 1993 and 1994.
| |
| Mean Intake Water Temperatures 'F Year Oct(1-15) Oct(16-31) Nov Dec(1-15) 1993 59.8 56.7 49.0 44.6 1994 56.7 55.6 48.1 43.4 1995 60.1 55.1 45.8 38.8 1996 63.4 59.8 48 9 42.2
| |
| +can intake water temperatures reflect lake conditions which were more conducive to zebra mussel spawning during both halves of October in 1996 than they were in the previous years.
| |
| However, the data for both November and the flr t half of December do not suggest that intake water temperatures in 1996 would have been conducive to continued spawning during the November-December period. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, that the favorable spawning temperatures during the second half of October 1996 were at least partially responsible for the settlement observed on the artificial substrates in both November and December.
| |
| Changes may also have occurred in the water quality constituents that use chlorine as an oxidant, e.g., iron, manganese, and ammonia. Ammonia is particularly important because it forms chloramines with chlorine. These often are measured in the TRC readings suggesting that the target is being met. However, chloramines are not as reactive as free chlorine (therefore, not as effective) although they are more persistent in the water column. In the case 3-6 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLp 27
| |
| | |
| of Cook Plant, this would reduce the effectiveness because the flow through the service water systems remains relatively rapid, that is, it does not remain in the system long enough for the chloramines to be effective.
| |
| Another possible explanation for the veligers and postveliger senlement observed during November and December is that the individuals were early life stages of quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis), a relative of zebra mussels. Quagga mussels tend to inhabit deeper, colder waters and spawning is not limited by colder water temperatures. Therefore, it is feasible that, as lake water temperatures decreased during November and December, these H
| |
| mussels (if present) continued to spawn and the early life forms were collected. Early life stages of muss'els believed to be quagga mussels have begun to appear during cold weather months at other sampling sites along the Great Lakes during the last, two to three years (L. Ray Tuttle, personal communication). It is plausible that an adult pop!lation of quagga mussels has become established in the vicinity of the Cook Plant intake and has reached sufficient numbers such that the effects of their spawning is beginning to be observed in this project.
| |
| A second set of data was collected from each of the service water systems and miscellaneous sealing and cooling water system for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of chlorination during the entire sampling season. These cumulative densities and associated size information:"- ~resented in Figure 3-5 and Table 3-4. Artificialsubstrates used for cumulative analyses were set on 23 May and sets of 10 slides were retrieve~ from each location at monthly intervals throughout the sampling 'season beginning on 20 June. Results were evaluated in conjunction with periodic data to better understand pcstveliger settlement in the systems.
| |
| Density data indicate that few postveligers were on the artificial substrates collected from 20 June through 22 August at NESW, ESW R-2, and miscellaneous sealing and cooling systems.
| |
| Concentrations at the ESW R-1 location was somewhat higher than the other locations during this period. Size information shows that, with the exception of several translocators collected at the miscellaneous sealing and cooling water location, most of the individuals on the slides at all locations were below the threshold size for settlement. Furthermore, these specimens 3-7 Lawler, Matusky 4 Skelly Engineers LLp 28
| |
| | |
| FIGURE S-S ARTIFICIALSUBSTRATE SETTLEMENT-CUlVlULATIVESERVICE WATER AND MISCELLANEOUS COOLING WATER SYSTEMS POSTVELIGER DENSITY PER SQUARE METER, D.C. COOK 1996 I 1 L
| |
| 6) 1 E
| |
| Q)
| |
| GJ 4 1 to tD O.
| |
| 0 t Z
| |
| k..
| |
| NESW MS8C ESW R-2 ESW R-1 Jun 20 Aug 22 Oct 17 Dec 12 Jul 25 Sep 19 Nov 21 SAMPLING DATE
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3-4 ZEBRA MUSSEL DENSITY, AVERAGESIZE, AND SIZE RANGE OF SETTI.ED POSTVELIGERS FROM CUMULATIVESAMPLING,D.C. COOK, I99ti CUMULATIVE SAMPLES NESW MS&C ESW R-I ESW R-2 Avg. Avg. Avg.
| |
| DATE Avg.
| |
| Density Size Range Density Size Range Density Size Range Density Size Range (No./mz) (pm) (pm) (No./m ) (pm) (pm) (No./m ) (pm) (pm) (No./mz) (pm) t pm) 6/20/96 1,067 155 130-200 0 7/25/96 53 230 230 373 279 170-460 2,133 103 90-120 373 103 100-120 8/22/96 587 113 90-160 1,920 121 90-390 1,173 119 100-160 9/19/96 2,987 221 100-300 2,880 203 100400 2,667 174 100-260 5,227 199 130-260 10/1 7/96 6,080 232 100450 15,893 218 90<00 6,613 246 100-700 3,467 .
| |
| 246 100-500 11/21/96 3,520 387 200-1,030 1,173 380 180-880 1,120 327 160-690 1,600 307 160-460 12/12/96 17,013 425 200-800 2,987 314 100-660 3,466 376 200-730 6,880 415 200-860
| |
| | |
| 0 exhibited no signs of lite (beating cilia and stomach movement). The reasonable conclusion is that the chlorine was very effective throughout the summer.
| |
| As the densities of veligers increased in wholewater samples during the fall, densities on the cumulative artificial substrates also increased as might be expected. The observation that peak densit cccurred at the miscellaneous sealing and cooling water systems and the ESW R-I systems on 17 October was not surprising because wholewater densities peaked on 10 October.
| |
| However, peak densities occurred at the other two locations on 12 December with the NESW density being the highest (17,013/m ) for the year for all cumulative samples. This was unexpected and may have been the result of a lack of sufficient chlorination that seems to have occurred during the latter half of October. The discussion regarding efficacy of chlorine during this late fall period which is presented above (periodic artificial substrate results) applies to the cumulative results as well.
| |
| Size data show two expected and one unexpected results. Mean sizes progressively increased the fall period at all locations (except for the last sampling at the miscellaneous 'hroughout sealing and cooling system); and generally, the high end of the size ranges also increased during the fall period. The somewhat unexpected result was the low end of the size ranges which indica'. d that recently hatched postveligers continued to settle on these substrates until the middle of December. The presence of these smaller veligers suggests that settlement may have continued at some low rate after the monitoring program was discontinued for i. season.
| |
| Furthermore, most of those organisms observed on the artificial substrates in December were alive. It is reasonable to conclude that chlorination was not very effective during the late fall period in 1996.
| |
| 3.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITYCONTROL SAMPLES The results of the QA/QC samples analyzed in 1996 are summarized in Table 3-5. These reinspections included both original analyzers used for this project and were conducted by a third analyzer. Because one slide from each set of 10 analyzed on each sampling date was randomly selected for re-analysis, no statistics were applied. However, results were compared 3-8 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3-5 RESULTS OF QA/QC SAMPLES) D.C. COOK, 1996 SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE ONSITE QA/QC DATE TYPE LOCATION DENSITY DENSITY % AGREEMENT Jun 27 Wholewater Forcbay 25 25 100.0 Oct 31 Wholewater Forebay 56,000 59,400 94.3 Periodic Forebay 53,866 44,800 83.2 Periodic ESW R-1 21,333 19,733 92.5 Periodic ESW R-2 4,780 4,267 89.3 Periodic NESW 25,600 Periodic MS&C 4,800 4,800 ltK.O Dec 12 Wholcwatcr Forcbay 925 750 81.1 Periodic Forcbay 3,200 3,200 100.0 Periodic ESW R-1 3,200 2,667 83.3 Periodic ESW R-2 3 733 3,733 100.0 Periodic NESW 3,200 3,200 100.0 Periodic MS&C 533 533 100.0 Periodic Circ. H>O 1,066 2,133 50.0 Cumulative ESW R-1 5,333 5,333 100.0 Cumulative ESW R-2 3,200 2,667 83.3 Cumulative NESW 6,933 6,400 92.3 Cumulative MS&C 3,200 3,200 100.0
| |
| 'lide broken in transit.
| |
| 3-8A 32
| |
| | |
| t'or percent agreement between the two analyses. In each case where artiticial substrate results fell below 100%, the reinspection result was lower than the original. It was observed by the QC inspector that specimens were lying free, i.e., off the slide, in the packaging. The conclusion is that a few individuals on those slide were not solidly attached, perhaps even dead, and fell from the slides during shipping. Given this explanation of differences, the artificial substrate data reported in this program are acceptable. The difference in the wholewater analyses for the 12 December sample is attributed to low numbers of veligers in the sample. These may have settled in the!iter bottle during shipment and not resuspended when agitated by the QC inspector. Wholewater results are deemed to be acceptable.
| |
| 3-9 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP 33
| |
| | |
| CHAPTER 4
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| The 1996 zebra mussel sampling was initiated on 25 April and continued to 12 December. The major spawning peak occurred during the first week of October with lesser peaks occurring during the third week of September and the latter half of October. The magnitude of the peak was two orders of magnitude greater than the 1995 peak, which was atypically low, and about 60% of the peak reported for 1994.
| |
| Peak postveliger settlement in the forebay occurred during the 3-17 October period which followed peak wholewater densities by about eight to 10 days as expected. Secondary peaks in settlement were observed for the periods both just before and after the major settlement peak.
| |
| Fall spawning and settlement peaks are typical for the loiter Great Lakes. Cumulative settlement observations were not made following molluscicide treaunent because treatment was not administered in 1996.
| |
| Periods of heaviest periodic settlement occurred during the mid-September to end of October period in all plant,.;erns monitored. This corresponded to peak periods of spawning as measured in the wholewater samples. During the early part of this period (mid-September to mid-October), few live mussels were observed on the substrates. However, from mid-October through to the end of the monitoring season, live specimens were observed on the slides, particularly in November and December. This suggests that chlorination was less effective during this period than earlier in the season.
| |
| Cumulative settlement in the service water and miscellaneous sealing and cooling systems was essentially prevented from May through the first p'art of September. The few specimens on the substrates were dead which is indicative of effective chlorination. Then as peak spawning occurred, densities increased peaking in mid-October in the miscellaneous sealing and cooling 4-1 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP 34
| |
| | |
| and ESW R-I systems. This corresponded to peaks in periodic settlement. However, settlement unexpectedly peaked at NESW and ESW R-2 on 12 December. Many ot'hese specimens were alive reflecting the reduced level of effectiveness of the chlorination program during the November-December period. Growth of settled postveligers also occurred during this period reinforcing the conclusion that the effectiveness of the chlorination program was reduced during this period.
| |
| 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on observations made during the course of this program, LMS is making several recommendations:
| |
| Whole-water sampling should continue to be initiated in April to determine the presence of veligers in the water column.
| |
| Studies of postveliger settlement substrates should continue to be conducted from May through December. Inspection of the substrates should include anempting to move the postveligers with a probe to determine whether they are still motil or have begun to lay down byssal threats for permanent attachment.
| |
| The chlorination system should be maintained to ensure appropriate intermittent or contmuous delivery of chlorine to control postveliger, settlement (1 May-I Uecember), particularly in light of the 1996 results.
| |
| Based on set '"~ent data from the early paw of the piogram (May-June), chlorine should be delivered to the service water systems beginning during the first hair of May. This should reduce/eliminate the translocators from establishing residency in the critical service water systems.
| |
| Daily chlorination data should be made available to allow more meaningful interpretation of results.
| |
| Several other water quality parameters including pH and ammonia should be monitored at the intake to aid in determination of efficacy of chlorine. Also, concentration of chloramines should be determined downstream of the bioboxes for the same reason.
| |
| 4-2 Lawler, Matusky A Skelly Engineers LLP 35
| |
| | |
| REFERENCES Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers U.t. 1994. Mollusc biofouling monitoring during 1993, Donald C. Cook Nuclear PLant: Final Report. 46 pp.
| |
| Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers t.t.p. 1995 Mollusc biofouling monitoring during 1994 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant: Final Report. 52 pp.
| |
| Great Lakes Environmental Center. 1996. A zebra mussel (Dreissena) monitoring survey for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Final Report. 37 pp.
| |
| 4-3 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP 36
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX V SPECIAL REPORTS
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX V.A No special reports were identified during the 1996 reporting period.
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX VI ANNUAL REPORT:
| |
| RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 1996
| |
| | |
| DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 Bt 2 OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 1996 ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1 to DECEMBER 31, 1996 Prepared by Indiana Michigan Power Company aIld Teledyne Brown Engineering April 15, 1997
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE Summary Introduction Sampling and Analysis Program 6 III. Summary and Discussion of 1996 Analytical Results ........... 15 A. Airborne Particulates...... . 16 B Airborne Iodine . 18 C. Direct Radiation - TLDs................. . 19 D. Surface Water . . 19 E. Groundwater .. 21 F. Drinking Water ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 25 G. Sediment ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 25 H. M ilk 27 I. Broadleaf Vegetation ... .. 27 J Rsh i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 27 K. Food Products..... 28 IV. Conclusions........ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 29 V. References .................. 33
| |
| | |
| 0 0
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS. (Cont)
| |
| APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Radiological Environmental Monitoring .... 35 Program Summary - 1996 APPENDIX 3 - Data Tables . 40 APPENDIX C - Analytical Procedures Synopsis ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ 67 APPENDIX D - Summary of EPA lnterlaboratory Comparisons ........... 77 APPENDS E - REMP Sampling and Analytical Exceptions............. 107 APPENDIX F - Land Use Census .................................... 111 APPENDIX 6 - Summary of the Preoperational Radiological............ 118 Monitoring Program APPENDIX H- Summary of the Spike and Blank Sample Program....... 122 APPENDIX I - TLD Quality Control Program .'............... 135
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
| |
| LIST OF FIGURES
| |
| : 1. Onsite REMP Monitoring Locations 12
| |
| : 2. Offsite REMP Monitoring Locations 13
| |
| : 3. Fish Sampling Locations .... 14
| |
| : 4. Milk Farm Survey Table . 114
| |
| : 5. Residental Land Use Survey Table ............ 115
| |
| : 6. Milk Farm Survey Map 116 Residential Survey Map 117 LIST OF TRENDING GRAPHS Average Monthly Gross Beta in Air Particulates .... 17 Direct Radiation - Quarterly TLD's ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 20 Tritium in Groundwater 22 Tritium in Drinking Water .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 26 EPA Cross Check Program . 83 Quality Control TLDs .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 37
| |
| | |
| 0 LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE B-l Concentrations of Gross Beta Emitters in Weekly.................. 41 Airborne Particulates B-2 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Quarterly.................... 45 Composites of Airborne Particulate Samples B-3 Concentrations of Iodine-131 in Weekly Air Cartridge............... 47 Sample's B-4 Direct Radiation Measurements - Quarterly TLD Results............. 51 B-5 Concentrations of Iodine, Tritium and Gamma Emitters 52 in Surface Water B-6 Concentrations of Tritium and Gamma Emitters in ...... ~.... ~..... 54 Groundwater B-7 Concentrations of Gross Beta, iodine, Tritium and. 57 Gamma Emitters in Drinking Water B-8 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Sediment ......... . 59 B-9 Concentrations of Iodine and Gamma Emitters in Milk.............. 60 B-10 Concentrations of Iodine and Gamma Emitters in Broadleaf Vegetables
| |
| .................. 61 B-11 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Fish 63 B-12 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Food/Vegetation . 64 B-13 Gamma Spec LLDs and Reporting Levels ... 65 iv
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| INDIANAMICHIGAN POKER COMPANY DONALD C. COOK PO~R NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| This report summarizes the collection and analysis of various environmental sample media in 1996 for the Radiological Environmen-tal Monitoring Program for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.
| |
| The various analyses of most sample media suggest that there was no discernible impact of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant on the environment. The analysis of air particulate filters. charcoal cartridges.
| |
| direct radiation by thermoluminescent dosimeters, fish, water, milk and sediments from Lake Michigan, drinking water. and food products, either did not detect any radioactivity or measured only naturally occurring radionuclides at normal background levels.
| |
| Tritium, measured at low levels in on-site wells, appears to be the only radionuclide attributable to the plant operations. However, the associated groundwater does not provide a direct dose pathway to man.
| |
| | |
| INTRODUCTION
| |
| | |
| I. INTRODUCTION 0
| |
| The Donald C. Cook Nuclear Piant's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) is conducted in compliance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.21 and 4.1, licensing commitments, and Technical Specifications. The REMP was developed in accordance with the NRC Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position (BTP), Rev. 1, November 1979. A synopsis of the sampling program and maps can be found in Section II, Sampling and Analysis Program. This report represents the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for Units 1 and 2 of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant for the operating period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996.
| |
| A. The Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant of American Electric Power Company is located on the southeastern shore of Lake Michigan approximately one mile northwest of Bridgm"n. Michigan. The plant consists of two pressurized water reactors, Unit 1, 1030 MWE and Unit 2, 1100 hAVE. Unit 1 achieved initial criticality on January 18, 1975 and Unit 2 achieved initial criticality on March 10, 1978.
| |
| B Object'ives The objectives of the operational radiological environmental monitoring program are:
| |
| : l. Identify and measure radiation and radioactivity in the plant environs for the calculation of potential dose to the population.
| |
| : 2. Verify the effectiveness of in-plant measures used for controlling the release of radioactive materials.
| |
| : 3. Provide reasonable assurance that the predicted doses, based on effluent data, have not been substantially underestimated and are consistent with applicable standards.
| |
| : 4. Comply with regulatory requirements and Station Technical Specifications and provide records to document compliance.
| |
| | |
| During 1996 the following changes were made to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)
| |
| The changes became effective on 10/22/96 and included:
| |
| Adding an attachment which approved on-site storage of contaminated concrete Changed Unit Ventilation H-3 requirement from continuous to weekly grab samples.
| |
| Removed emergency plan values- due to upcoming implementation of revised Emergency Action Levels (EAL).
| |
| Clarified section describing collection of broadleaf vegetation samples in lieu of milk samples.
| |
| Corrected error in numbering of electrical pole where TLD station
| |
| ¹OFT-11 is located.
| |
| Eliminated the need for compensatory sampling of Essential Service Water (ESW) system when respective radiation monitors are inoperable unless the containment spray heat exchangers are in service.
| |
| | |
| II. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
| |
| | |
| II. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM Table 1 summarizes the sampling and analysis program for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant for l996. For each sample medium, the table lists the sample locations, including distance and direction from the center of the two units, and the station identification. The station identifications for the sampling locations are shown on Figures I and 2. Also for each sample medium the sample collection frequency, type of analysis. and frequency of analysis are listed.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 1 DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT- 1996 ltAI)IOI.OGICAI SAMPLING STATIONS I>ISTANCI-: AN(I I>Ilail'C.I ION I'ltOM I'LANT AXIS Collection Loca Uon Distance Direction De rees Pre ucnc Anal / uenc Environmental (TLD's)
| |
| ONS. I (T.O I) I!) 15 A. 18'8o Direct Radiation/Quarterly ONS-2 (T-02) 2:138 A.
| |
| ONS-3 (T.03) 2407 A. 90' ONS-4 (T-04) 1852 A. 18'8qo ONS-5 (T-05) 1895 A.
| |
| ONS-6 (T-06) 1917 A. 127'1'3'uarterly 210'6o (T-07) 2103 A.
| |
| (T-08) 2208 I\. 82'490 (T-09) 1368 A.
| |
| (T-10) 1390 A.
| |
| (T- I I) 1969 A.
| |
| (T-12) 2292 ft.
| |
| New Buffalo (N BF) 15.6 ml SSW South Bend (SBN) 26.2 mt SE Dowaglac (DOW) 24.3 ml EN E Coloma (COL) 18.9 ml NN E Intersection of Red Arrow Hwy. & Marquette (OFT- I ) 4.5 ml NE Woods Rd, Pole ¹B294-44 Stevensvllle Substatlon (OFT-2) 36 ml NE Pole ¹B296-13 (OFT-3) 51 ml NE Pole ¹B350-72 (OI'T-4) 4.1 ml E Intersection of Shawnee & Cleveland. Pole (OFT-5) 4.2 ml ESE
| |
| ¹B387-32 Snow Rd., East ol'Holden Rd., (OFT-6) 4 9 n>l SE
| |
| ¹B426-1 Brldgman SubstaUon (OFT-7) 25 ml S Callfornla Rd., Pole ¹B424-20 (OFT-8) 40 ml S Ruggles Rd., Pole B369-214 (OFT-9) 4.4 mi ESE IntersecUon of Red Arrow Hwy.. & (OFT-10) 3.8 ml S Hlldebrant Rd.,Pole ¹B422-152 IntersecUon of Snow Rd. & Baldwin Rd., (OFT -11) 3.8 ml S Pole ¹B423-12
| |
| | |
| TABLE 1 I<>>>>i.l DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT- 1996 1th l ) I()1.()(ilCAI. SA411'l.l N G STATIONS I)ISTAN( I:. ANI) I)II(ECTION FltOM l>IDENT AXIS CollecUon Loca Uon StaUon Distance Dlrectlon De rees Fre ucnc Anal Is/Fre uenc Air Charcoal/Particulates ONS. I (A. I ) I!) 15> A. 18'8o Weekly Gross Beta/Weekly ONS-2 (A-21 2:I:38 A. 1-131/Weekly ONS-3 (A.:I) 2107 A. Gamma Isotopic/
| |
| )0'IHo ONS-4 (A-4) 1852 A. Quarterly Composllc ONS-5 (A.5) 1895 n. 18!)'10o ONS-6 (A-6) 1917 n.
| |
| New llunalo (NI3F) 15.6 nil SSW South (3cnd (SBN) 26.2 ml SE Oowaglac (Dow) 24.3 n) I F.N E Coloma (COL) 18.9 n) I NNE Groundwater Onslle (W- I) =1969 A. 11'3o Quarterly Gamma Isotopic/Quarterly Onslte (W-2) 2292 A. Trltlum/Quarterly Onslte (W-3) 3279 ft. 107o o
| |
| Onslte (W-4) 4 18 ft. 301 Onslle (W-5) 404 I'.
| |
| Onsltc (W-6) 424 A.
| |
| Onslte (W-7) 1895 ft.
| |
| Onslte =
| |
| (W-8) 1279 I'. 290'73'89'3'2'29'53 Onslte (W-9) 1447 A.
| |
| Onslte (W-10) 4216 A.
| |
| Onslte (W-1 I) 3206 n.
| |
| Onslte (W-12) 2631 A.
| |
| Onslte (W-13) 2152 A. 162'82'64 Onslte (W-14) 1780 n.
| |
| Steam Generator Groundwater Steam Generator Storage Faclllty (SG- I ) 08 ml 95'2o Quarterly Gross Beta/Quarterly Steam Generator Storage Faclllty (SG-2) 0.7 mI Gross Alpha/Quarterly Steam Generator Storage Facility (SG-4) 07 mI 93'20 Gamma Isotopic/Quarterly Steam Generator Storage Faclllty (SG-5) 07 ml .
| |
| | |
| TABLE 1 (('urer I DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT- 1996 l(AI)IOI.()(ll(:Al.SAMI'l.lNG STATIONS 1)ISTAN( E ANI) l)lltl'.CI ION FltOM I'IDENT AXIS CoUcctton Location Station Distance Dtrectlon Dc rees Fre ucnc Anal Is/Fre enc Drlnkln Water Sl. Joseph Public Intake ISTJ) !).0 nrl NF. Dally Gross Beta/14 Day Com posit e Gamma Isotopic/14 Dny Composl te 1-131/14 Day Conrposltc Lake Townslrlp Ptrbllc Intake Station ILTW) 0.4 nrl S Tritium/gtrartcrly Conrposllc Surface Water Condenser Circulating Water Intake SWL- I Intake Dally Gamn)a Isotopic/Monthly Lake Mlchlgan Shorellnc SWL-2 500 A. S Composlle Lake Mlchlgan Shorcllne SWL-3 500 ft. N Tritium/guarterly Composltc C7
| |
| ~Sediment Lake Mlchlgan Shoreline SL-2 500 A. S Lake Mlchlgan Shorcllne SL3 500 A. N Scml-annually Gamma Isotopic/Scml-Annual Freehllng Farm Buchanan Freehl1ng 7.0 ml SE 14 Days Gamma Isotopic/Sample 1-131/Sample Mlle-Bac round (a)
| |
| Wyant Farm Dowagalc Wyant 20.7 ml E 14 Days Gamma l~~toplc/Sample Llvinghouse Farm La Porte Llvlnghouse 20.0 ml S 1-131/ Sample Broadleaf Ve etatton (a) 3 Indicator Samples Wlthln 8 mlles ol'lant Hlghcst D/Q Land Sector Monthly when Gamma Isotopic'/Monthly 1 Control Sample 15-25 mlles distant Less prevalent wind dlrectlon aval)able 1-131/Monthly Ial No mtlk samples were obtained tn 1996 as 2 of 3 Indtcator farms dropped from program and no replacements could be found.
| |
| Broadleaf vegctatton samples were obtained In ltcu of mt tk In 1996.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 1 I('o>>l.l DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT- 1996 l(AI)I()I.O(<<ICAI.SAMI'I,ING STATIONS l)IS I'AN( I:. r Nl) l)II<I:.C1 ION I:feOM I IDENT AXIS Collection Location Station Distance Direction De rccs Frc ucnc Anal is/ ucnc I 'Ikc Michigan ONS-N .:I a>l 2/year Gamma Isotopic/
| |
| I >kc Mlclilgan ONS.S S 2 per year I 'ikc Mlclilgan OPS-N a3.5>>ll I eke Mlcl>i@an Ol'S-S 5.0 all S Gra s/Broadleaf Ncarcst sample lo Plant Sector D At time ol harvest Gamma Isotopic at In highest D/Q land sector time of harvest.
| |
| contalnlng media.
| |
| ~Gra <<<<
| |
| In a land sector contalnlng grapes Sector K At time of harvest Gamma Isotopic at approximately 20 mlles from the Plant Umc of harvest.
| |
| In one of the less prevalent D/Q land sectors.
| |
| Composite samples of Drinking and Surface. water shall be collected at least. dally.
| |
| Particulate sample filters should be analyzed for gross beta activity 24 or more hours following Alter removal. This will allow for radon and thoron daughter decay. If gross beta activity In air or water Is greater than IO times the yearly mean of control samples lor any medium, gamma Isotopic analysis should be performed on the individual samples.
| |
| Please note the following defenltlons:
| |
| IVeekly at least once every seven (7) days Monthly - at least once every (3I) days Quarterly - at least once every ninety-two (92) days Semi-annually - at least once every one hundred eighty-four (184) days
| |
| | |
| On-@i te HEMP Monitoring Locclt ions c) '
| |
| h
| |
| ~.ca~'B I Ys.
| |
| II TLO T-O TLD T-02 AIR ONS-2 TLD T-Ol C
| |
| AIR ONS-I c WELL 'w-2 WELL w-I
| |
| ('LL iLD wE(.L w-9 TLD T-I2 // AIR 0NS-3 SG-S SVRFACE WATER (SWL-3l
| |
| ~( TLD T-O WELL SG-2 SEOIHENT (SL-3( I
| |
| ! Ii ELL SG-I ~
| |
| I WEl.l. w-0 U'l WELL w 4 ~ o o (
| |
| WELL w 5 WELL SG-4 c
| |
| SURFACE WATER (SWL-Il I
| |
| sELL w-6 SvoFACE vA(ER (SWL-2(~
| |
| SEDI((E((( (5<-2(
| |
| r(( ~~. 1 tLD T-04 ,
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~J TLO T-IO AIR ONS-4 TLO T-09 )
| |
| /
| |
| wELL w-IO (LD I 05 AIR D((5 5 I
| |
| TLO T-AIR O((5-6 WELL w-l3 WELL w-I I LAKE TwP WELI.
| |
| LEGEND ONS I ONS-6( Alr Soeo((no Stations T-Ol -'-I2: TLD Sano(ino Stations V-I - r-I ~ ( REHP T/5 Grovndsote( Wells SG-I, SG-2, SG-4, SG-5( REHP Non T/5 Groundsoter 'Wells SWL-I,2. 3: 5~tace Water Soso((no Stat(one SL-2, 3: Sediment Sow(in(( Stat(one 12
| |
| | |
| LEGE<O GffSITE REIC'GHIIORIHG LOCAII bye< o <vv<o A<rvlLO <ocot<o ~
| |
| 0<< ~ II~ ILO <ocr<i vv OOC<,Or<VV<O H>>a faraa Oi<va<oo votre <ocot<o ~
| |
| I~<CO<a> HI<a fO aa CQ.OHA St<OSSASIOH ~
| |
| <SAC<<GROS<HO AIR << ILO ICCC I Vrvr'R HILLBUsG
| |
| ~
| |
| I<S a< re<>>a Sl. JOSE<a<
| |
| S I.
| |
| yATER TREAT%HI RAHI <ST J<
| |
| OOvAG<AC SLO (F'I ~ ~ St<BSTAIIOH SLO Ofl e<
| |
| \ OACKGRO<<HO AIR I ILO TLO Gf I ~ RS tv<
| |
| TLO tFT R ~ $< I r( HS I<I I(
| |
| TLO Gf T.oa 1 TLO O' RS $L~AIRE I D. c, co<a< ac H<sLIAA IS>>,<Q
| |
| ~
| |
| <~ V VAIC~
| |
| LA<<E SoyHS>>lo Car yATER TREAT~HI RAHI <Lly<
| |
| OA IGG<<av S(MPH IL Of I ~ S<H<<<CS SS Ofl:<R~
| |
| ILO as
| |
| 'ILO Gf I ~
| |
| ~ II ILO Ofl I'>>A<<(1 AGIAC OACRGRGs<HO f AA tao<
| |
| t~~<HH <sac
| |
| /
| |
| VIC ysAHI I
| |
| /
| |
| /
| |
| /
| |
| y O< fI p Ac t<V(H at(R
| |
| /ILES st<<Is<as<OH O AC a Go O<pCS
| |
| ~ 11 f ISO GH<S oclf I 4 ~ Of< << ~ <I
| |
| ~ <<<ac
| |
| ~ a>>< a LAAGR<E OICaGAGLrCS f
| |
| ~~~ Llyl Cr Gs<SE SOUTH BEIe RAN<A<<EE STAIIO<
| |
| daeva<(Ape<
| |
| AIR I TLO
| |
| <S<TH<
| |
| 13
| |
| | |
| I '
| |
| ) $
| |
| ~ ~ g J $ l I l
| |
| .,;8%@rK~ .
| |
| II '/~i P~gp.48%
| |
| <g ]'Klli.:i.aR 1
| |
| .i/ %7=.~
| |
| J Kl&~~,-
| |
| s .
| |
| a
| |
| | |
| III.
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| AND DISCUSSION OF 1996 ANALYTICALRESULTS 15
| |
| | |
| III.
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| AND DISCUSSION OF 1996 ANALYTICALRESULTS A discussion of the data from the radiological analyses of environmental media collected during the report period is provided in this section. Analyses of samples for 1996 were analyzed by Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. {TI) in Westwood, New Jersey. The procedures and specifications followed at Teledyne Brown Engineering are in accordance with the Teledyne Brown Engineering Quality Assurance Manual and are explained in the Teledyne Brown Engineering Analytical Procedures. A synopsis of analytical procedures used for the environmental samples are in Appendix C. In addition to internal quality control measures 'roved performed by Teledyne, the laboratory also participates in the Environmental Protection Agency's Interlaboratory Comparison Program.
| |
| Participation in this program ensures that independent checks on the precision and accuracy of the measurements of radioactive material in environmental samples are performed. The results of the EPA Interlaboratory Comparison are provided in Appendix D.
| |
| Radiological analyses of environmental media characteristically approach and frequently fall below the detection limits of state-of-the-art measurement methods. Teledyne Brown Engineering analytical methods meet or exceed the Lower Limit of Detection {LLD) requirements given in Table 2 =f the USNRC Branch Technical Position of Radiological Monitoring, Revision l. November 1979.
| |
| The following is a discussion and summary of the results of the environmental measurements performed during the reporting period.
| |
| Comparison is made where possible with radioactivity concentrations measured in the preoperational period of August 1971 to the initial criticality of Unit 1 on January 12, 1975. A brief summary of the preoperational program is found in Appendix G.
| |
| A. Airborne Particulates Airborne particulate samples are collected with an oil less pump at approximately 56 LPM using a 47 mm particulate filter. Results of 16
| |
| | |
| 0 Trending Graph - 1 AYERAGE MONTHLYGROSS BETA IN AIR PARTICULATES 40
| |
| : a. 35 L
| |
| : a. 30 O Qi O
| |
| O 25 O
| |
| O (ot 20 O
| |
| O 15 0
| |
| 10 0
| |
| 5 0
| |
| 1/89 7/89 1/90 7/90 1/91 7/91 1/92 7/92 1/93 7/93 1/94 7/94 1/95 7/95 1/96 7/96 Indicators ~ --e'- - Controls
| |
| | |
| gross, beta activities are presented in Table B-l. The measurement of the gross beta activity on the weekly air particulate filters is a good indication of the levels of natural and or manmade radioactivity in the environment. The average gross beta concent. ation of the six indicator locations was 0.020 pCi/m~ with a range of individual values between 0.007 and 0.036 pCi/m~. The average gross beta concentration of the four control locations was 0.020 pCi/m~ with a range between 0.007 and 0.033 pCi/m~. In. Trending Graph 1 the
| |
| ., monthly average gross beta concentrations for the indicator locations and for the control locations are plotted. The gross beta concentrations in air particulate filters in 1996 were lower than at the end of the preoperational period when the effects of recent atmospheric nuclear tests were being detected.
| |
| Air particulate filters were composited by location on a quarterly basis and were analyzed by gamma ray spectroscopy. Results are presented in Table B-2. Beryllium-7, which is produced continuously in the upper atmosphere by cosmic radiation, was measured in all forty samples. The average concentration for the control locations was 0.128 pCi/m~ and the values ranged from 0.088 to 0.154 pCi/m~. The average concentration for the indicator locations was 0.139 pCi/m~
| |
| with a range of 0.075 to 0.195 pCi/m. These values are typical of beryllium-7 measured at various locations throughout the United States. Naturally occurring potassium-40 was measured in seven of the twenty-four indicator quarterly composites with an average concentration of 0.005 pCi/m~ and a range of 0.004 to 0.009 pCi/m~.
| |
| Potassium-40 was measured in four of the sixteen control quarterly composites with a concentration of 0.004 pCi/m~ and a range of 0.003 to 0.004 pCi/m~. No other gamma emitting radioactivity was detected.
| |
| B Airborne iodine Airborne iodine samples are collected with an oil less pump at approximately 56 LPM using a charcoal filter cartridge. Charcoal cartridges are installed downstream of the particulate filters and are used to collect airborne radioiodine. The results of the weekly analysis 18
| |
| | |
| of the charcoal cartridges are presented in Table 8-3. All results were below the lower level of detection of 0.07 pCi/m with no positive activity detected.
| |
| C. Direct Radiation - Thermoluminescent Dosimeters Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) measure external radiation exposure from several sources including naturally occurring radionuclides in the air and soil, radiation from cosmic origin, fallout from atomic weapons testing, potential radioactive airborne releases from the power station and direct radiation from the power station.
| |
| The TLDs record exposure from all of these potential sources. The TLDs are deployed quarterly at 27 locations in the environs surrounding the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant. The average value of the four areas of each dosimeter (calibrated individually after each field exposure period for response to a known exposure and for transit exposure) are presented in Table B-4. Those exposure rates are quite typical of observed ra'tes at many other locations in the country. The average annual measurement, for the control samples was 4.34 mR/standard month with a range of 3.0 to 6,6 mR/standard month.
| |
| The annual accumulation of indicator samples had a measurement of 4.17 mR/standard month with a range of 2.8 to 6.6 mR/standard month. The 1996 annual average in the environs of the Donald C.
| |
| Cook Nuclear Plant is at the low range of the exposure rat~~ (1.0 to 2.0 mR/week) measured during the preoperational period. The results of the indicator and control TLDs are in good agreement and are plotted in Trending Graph 2.
| |
| D. Surface Water A 125 milliliter surface water sample is collected from the intake forebay and from two shoreline locations, all within 0.3 mile of the two reactors and were composited daily over a monthly period.
| |
| The thirty samples were analyzed for iodine-131 by the radiochemical technique described on page 73. All results were less than the lower limit of detection of 1 pCi/l. 'I'he quarterly composite was analyzed for 19
| |
| | |
| J Trending Graph - 2 DIRECT RADIATION- QUARTERLY TLD RESULTS r /
| |
| r i /
| |
| 0 01/90 07/90 01 $ 1 07$ 1 1 $2 7/92 1/93 7$ 3 1/94 7/94 1/95 7/95 1/96 7/96 TLD Controls TLD Indicators
| |
| | |
| tritium by liquid scintillation method described on page 70. Results are presented in Table B-5. Tritium was detected in 2 of the 10 samples analyzed with an average concentration of 520 pCi/liter and a range of 130 to 910 pCi/liter. This is slightly higher than the 3 measurements in 1995 which had an average concentration of 310 pCi/liter. During the preoperational period tritium was measured in surface water sam ples at concentrations of approximately 400 pCi/liter. Naturally occurring potassium-40 and cesium-137 were not measured during 1996. Naturally occurring gamma emitting isotopes were detected using gamma ray spectroscopy.
| |
| E. Groundwater Water samples are collected quarterly from fourteen wells, all within 4300 feet of the reactors. First, a static water elevation is determined and three well bore volumes are purged from the well using a groundwater pump, or equivalent. A two liter sample is then obtained. The samples are analyzed for gamma emitters and tritium.
| |
| The results are presented in Table B-6. Naturally occurring potassium-40 was not measured during 1996 nor were there any other gamma emitting isotopes measured. The groundwater wells W-4, W-5, W-6. W-7. W-9. W-11, W-13 and W-14 had measurable tritium activity throughout 1996. Tritium was measured in 21 of the 56 samples at the loca,ons with an average concentration of 1659 pCi/liter and a range of 210 to 14000 pCi/liter. The annual concentrations of tritium in wells W-l through W-7 are plotted in Trending Graph 3. An additional six wells were added to the program during 1992 and one well in 1993. The results are plotted quarterly for 1996 in Trending Graph 3.
| |
| Tritium concentration in groundwater wells during the preoperational period typically averaged 400 pCi/liter.
| |
| 21
| |
| | |
| Trending Graph -3 TRITIUM IN GROUNDWATER 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 4/95 10/95 4/96 10/96
| |
| | |
| Trending Graph - 3 (Cont.)
| |
| TRITIUVi IN GROUNDWATER 10000 8000 6000 CL 0
| |
| M 0 4000 CI I
| |
| 0) 0CL 2000 C
| |
| M C
| |
| 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 4/95 10/95 4/96 10/96 Well-4 W:II-5 Well-6 Well-7
| |
| | |
| Trending Graph - 3 (Cont.)
| |
| TRITIUM IN GROUNDWATER
| |
| 'l6000 (6
| |
| CL 12000 O
| |
| CL O
| |
| 0 0
| |
| V 8000 O
| |
| I UCL 4000 0) 0 1/92 1/93'/94 1/95 1/96 Well 14 added to the program in 1993.
| |
| Well 8 ~
| |
| No sample collected January 1994.
| |
| Well 9 M Well 10 ~ Well 11 M Well 12 M Well 13 ~ Well 14
| |
| | |
| Daily samples are collected at the intake of the purification plants for St. Joseph and Lake Township. The 500 ml daily samples at each location are composited and analyzed for gross beta, iodine-131, and gamma emitters. On a quarterly basis the daily samples are composited and analyzed for tritium. The results of analyses of drinking water samples are shown in Table 3-7.
| |
| Gross beta activity was measured in all twenty-six samples from the Lake Township intake with an average concentration of 3.41 pCi/liter and a range from 2.1 to 5.1 pCi/liter. Gross beta activity was measured in all twenty-six samples from the St. Joseph intake with an average concentration of 3.35 pCi/liter and a range from 1.8 to 5.7 pCi/liter. No gamma emitting isotopes or iodine-131 were detected.
| |
| Tritium was not measured in any of the four samples from either location. Tritium (or LLD values) in drinking water are plotted in Trending Graph 4.
| |
| There were no drinking water analyses performed in the preoperational program.
| |
| G. ~edimen i S .dtment samples are cnllected semiannually along the shoreline of Lake Michigan at the same two locations as the surface water samples. Two liters of lake sediment are collected using a small dredge in an area covered part time by wave action. The sediment samples are analyzed by gamma ray spectroscopy, the results of which are shown in Table B-8. In April and October one sample was collected from location SL-2 and SL-3. Gamma ray spec spectroscop roscopy deetected naturally occurring potassium-40 in all four samples. The average potassium-40 concentration was 4695 pCi/kg (dry weight) with a range from 3420 to 6510 pCi/kg (dry weight). Thorium-228, also naturally occurring was measured in all samples with an average concentration of 443 pCi/kg (dry weight) with a range from 91.8 to 846 pCi/kg (dry weight). Radium-226 was measured in two samples 25
| |
| | |
| Trending Graph - 4 TRITIUM IN DRINKING WATER 2000 CL 1500 0
| |
| CL O
| |
| 0O O
| |
| 1000 L
| |
| 500 a4" 4 4 "qy'<<<<~<<<<<<t"'~, ~'i' p) << ~
| |
| + <<+r. <<~. <<~.<<~. <<~. <<~<<.~<<.+<<
| |
| 0 01/89 07/89 01/90 07/90 01/91 10/91 4/92 10/92 4/93 10/93 4/94 10/94 4/95 10/95 4/96 10/96
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ "4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| Lake Township St. Joseph
| |
| | |
| with an average activity of 667 pCi/kg and a range of 440 to 894 pCi/kg (dry weight). All other gamma emitters were below the lower limits of detection.
| |
| H. Milk During 1996. the requirements of two samples from different locations could not be met. The sampling of food samples was increased to offset the milk.
| |
| Broadleaf Ve etation Broadleaf vegetation was collected in lieu of milk during 1996. Thirty one samples were collected and results are presented in Table B-10.
| |
| Naturally occurring potassium-40 was measured in all samples with an average concentration of 4018 pCi/kg (wet weight) and a range of 2220 to 6740 pCi/kg (wet weight). Cosmogenically produced beryllium-7 was measured in all samples with an average concentration of 1275 pCi/kg (wet weight) and a range of 324 to 4460 pCi/kg (wet weight). Cesium-137 was measured in seven samples.
| |
| with an average concentration of 87.4 pCi/kg (wet weight) and a range of 27.3 to 298 pCi/kg (wet weight).
| |
| J. Fish Using gill nets in approximately twenty feet of water in Lake Michigan, 4.5 pounds of fish are collected 2 times per year from each of four locations. The samples were then analyzed by gamma ray spectroscopy. Results are presented in Table B-11. Naturally occurring potassium-40 was measured in all samples with an average concentration of 3463 pCi/kg (wet weight) and a range of 2810 to 4200 pCi/kg (wet weight). Cesium-137 was measured in five of the seven fish samples with an average concentration of 50.8 pCi/kg (wet weight) and a range of 28.7 to 72.0 pCi/kg (wet weight).
| |
| 27
| |
| | |
| K. Food Products Food samples are collected annually at harvest, as near the site boundary as possible, and approximately twenty miles from the plant.
| |
| Each sample consists of 3 pounds of grapes and 3 pounds of broadleaves. There were four food samples collected during 1996 and results are presented in Table B-12. Naturally occurring potassium-40 was measured in all four samples with an average concentration of 2163 pCi/kg (wet weight) and a range of 1630 to 2650 pCi/kg (wet weight). Cosmogenically produced beryllium-7 was measured in three of the four samples with an average concentration of 1583 pCi/kg (wet weight) and a range of 58.6 to 3280 pCi/kg (wet-weight). All other gamma emitters were below the lower limits of detection.
| |
| 28
| |
| | |
| IV. CONCLUSIONS 29
| |
| | |
| IV. CONCLUSIONS The results of the 1996 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for the Donald C., Cook Nuclear Plant have be.n presented. The results were as expected for normal environmental samples. Naturally occurring radioactivity was observed in sample media in the expected activity ranges.
| |
| J Occasional samples of a few media showed the presence of man-made isotopes. These have been discussed individually in the text. Observed activities were at very low concentrations and had no significant dose consequence. Specific examples of sample media with positive analysis results are discussed below.
| |
| Air particulate gross beta concentrations of all the indicator locations for 1996 appear to follow the gross beta concentrations at the control locations. The concentration levels are actually lower than during the preoperational period. Gamma isotopic analysis of the particulate samples identified the gamma emitting isotopes as natural products (beryllium-7 and potassium-40). No man-made activity was found in the particulate media during 1996. No iodine-131 was detected in charcoal filters in 1996.
| |
| Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) measure external gamma radiation from naturally occurring radionuclides in the air and soil, radiation from cosmi~ ~rigin and fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, and radioactive airborne releases and direct radiation from the power plant.
| |
| The average annual TLD results were at normal background exposure levels.
| |
| Surface water samples are collected daily from the intake forebay and two locations in Lake Michigan. The samples are analyzed quarterly for tritium. and monthly for gamma emitting isotopes. No gamma emitters were detected during 1996. Tritium was measured and the concentrations were at normal background levels.
| |
| Groundwater samples were collected quarterly at fourteen wells, all within 4300 feet of the reactors. The three wells within -500 feet had measurable tritium which is attributed to the operation of the plant. The highest concentration measured in 1996 was 14000 pCi/liter while the 30
| |
| | |
| 0 highest concentration measured during 1995 was 7000 pCi/liter. The increased tritium concentration is attributed to draining portions of the Component Cooling Water (CCW) system to the turbine room sump which discharges into the onsite absorption pond. Well W-14 is adjacent to the pond and monitors the aquifer at this location. Potassium-40, a naturally occurring nuclide was not observed during 1996. No other gamma emitting isotopes were detected.
| |
| Samples are'collected daily at the intakes of the drinking purification plants for St. Joseph and Lake Township. Samples composited daily over a two week period are analyzed for iodine-131, gross beta, and measured for gamma emitting isotopes. Samples are also analyzed quarterly for tritium.
| |
| No iodine-131 or gamma emitting isotopes were detected. Gross beta was measured in all fifty-two samples at normal background concentrations.
| |
| Tritium was not measured in any of the eight quarterly composite samples collected during 1996.
| |
| Sediment samples can be a sensitive indicator of discharges from
| |
| -nuclear power stations. Sediment samples are collected semiannually along the shoreline of Lake Michigan at two locations in close proximity of the reactors. The samples were analyzed by gamma ray spectroscopy and only naturally occurring gamma emitters were detected. There is no evidence of station discharges affecting Lake Michigan, either in the sediments or in the water. as previously discussed.
| |
| M ilk samples were not analyzed during 1996 due to lack of participants in the program. Broadleaf sampling was performed in lieu of milk collection in 1996. Cesium-137 was measured in 7 of 31 broadleaf samples. No other gamma emitting isotopes were measured in broadleaf samples in 1996.
| |
| Fish samples collected in Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the nuclear plant. were analyzed by gamma ray spectroscopy. The only gamma emitting isotope measured was cesium-137 which was found in low concentrations in five samples.
| |
| 31
| |
| | |
| Food products, consisting of grapes, and broadleaf vegetation were collected and analyzed by gamma ray spectroscopy. No gamma emitting isotopes were measured during 1996 The-results of the analyses have been presented. Based on the evidence of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant is operating within regulatory limits. Tritium in seven on-site wells appears to be the only radionuclide which can be directly correlated with the plant. However the associated groundwater does not provide a direct dose pathway to man.
| |
| 32
| |
| | |
| V. REFERENCES 33
| |
| | |
| V. FMFERENCES
| |
| : l. Data Tables from 1985-1988 CEP-AEPSC Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Reports.
| |
| : 2. Eberline Instrument Company. Indiana Michigan Power Company, "D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant Radiological Environme'ntal Monitoring Program - 1974 Annual Report",
| |
| May 1975.
| |
| : 3. American Electric Power, 12 PMP 6010 OSD.001, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.
| |
| : 4. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.8 "Environmental Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants", December 1975.
| |
| : 5. United States Nuclear Regulato~ Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.21 "Measuring, Evaluating. and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants, April 1974.
| |
| : 6. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.4 "Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Enilrons of Nuclear Power Plants", April 1975.
| |
| : 7. USNRC Branch Technical Position, "Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program", Rev. 1, November 1979.
| |
| 34
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX A RADIOLOGICALENVIRONMENTALMONITORING PROGRAM
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| 35
| |
| | |
| RADIOLOGICALENVIRONMENTALMONITORING PROGRAM
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-3I5/50-31,6 I!El<RIEN COUNlY JANUAI<Y I to DECEMBER 31. 1996 ANA Y . AND NUMI3ER OF MEDIUM OR PATIIWAY TOTAL NUMIIER I WITI I I N COlrfROL LOCATION NONROUTINE SAMPLF.D OF ANALYSES .I FAN Ia/I>I NAME MEAN MEAN REPORI'ED tUNIT OF MEASUREMENTI PERFORMED .IANGE DISTANCE AND D)RECTION RANGE RANGE MEASUREMENTS Alr Iodlnc 1-131 525 -(0/:3 I:I) -(0/2 13)
| |
| (p C I/rrI3)
| |
| Airborne Gross ficta 524 19.13(313/313) ONS- I Orrslle 1945 ft. 20.9(53/53) 19.7(212/212)
| |
| Particulates (Weekly) (7.2-36) (8.6-36) (7.0-33)
| |
| ( I E.03 pCI/nr3)
| |
| Gamma 40 Bc-7 139(24/24) QNS.6 Onslte 1917 ft. 152(4/4) 128(16/16)
| |
| (74.7- 195) '104-
| |
| , 195) (88. 3- I 54)
| |
| K-40 40 5.0.9(7/24) ONS-2 -Onsllc 2338 ft. 7.06(2/4) 3.84(4/16)
| |
| ('3. 95-9. 39) (4.72-9.39)- (2.91-4.47)
| |
| Direct Radlatlon Gamma 109 (mR/S tandard Dose 4. 17(92/92) SBN 26.2 rnl SE 5.15(4/4) 4.34 (16/16)
| |
| Month) guarterly (2.8-6.6) (4.5-6.6) (3.0-6.6!
| |
| (a/b) Rauo of samples with detectable actlvlty to total number of samples analyzed.
| |
| | |
| RADIOLOGICALENVIRONMENTALMONITORING PROGRAM
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-315/50-3I6 IIErelelEN COUVn JANUARY I Io DECEMBER 31. 1996 A A . A NUMBER Of MEDIUM OR PATHWAY TOTAL NUMIIER w I N COmROL LOCATION NONROUTINE SAMPLED OF ANALYSES MMN Ia/hl NAME MEAN MEAN REPORTED IUNIT OF MEASUREMENTI PERFORMED RANGI'. DISTANCE AND DIRECIlON RANGE RANGE MEASUREMEIfl'S Surface Water Gamma 30 /:10) N/A (0/0)
| |
| (pCI/Ilier) 11-3 10 520(2/10) SWL-1 l>>take 910( I /4) -(0/0)
| |
| (130-910)
| |
| Groundwater GamnIa 56 (p C I/1l ter)
| |
| K-40 56 . (0/56) N/A -(0/0)
| |
| Th-228 56 -(0/56) N/A -(0/0)
| |
| H-3 56 1659(21/56) Well 14 1780 ft. 54 10(4/4) -(0/0)
| |
| (210-14000) (340-14000)
| |
| Drinking Water Gross Beta 52 3.35(52/52) LTW 0.4 ml S 3.4 1(26/26) -(0/0)
| |
| (pCI/liter) (1.8-5.7) (2.1-5.1) 1-131 52 -(0/52) N/A N/A -(0/0)
| |
| Gamma 52 -(0/52) N/A N/A -(0/0)
| |
| H-3 -(0/8) N/A N/A -(0/0)
| |
| (a/b) Rauo of samples with detectable activity to total number of samples analyzed.
| |
| | |
| RADIOLOGICALENVIRONMENTALMONITORING PROGRAM
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-315/50-316 I I El<BIEN ('OtINIY JANUARY I lo DECEMBER 31. 1996 ANA A ' NUMBER OF
| |
| ,MEDIUM OR PATIIWAY TOTAl.NUMIIEH ) w AN CONTROL LOCATION NONROUTINE SAMPLED OF ANALYSES hIFAN I >/4) NAME MEAN MEAN REPORTED IUNIT OF MEASUREMFNll PERFORMED RANGE DISTANCE AND DIRECTION RANGE RANGE hlEASUREMENTS Sediment Gamma 4 (pCI/kg dry)
| |
| K-40 4 4!165(4/4 l SI.-2 5000(2/2) -(0/0)
| |
| (3420-6510) 0.3 n>l S (3490-6510)
| |
| Cs-137 4 -(0/4) N/A -(0/0)
| |
| Ra-226 4 667(2/4) SL-2 894(1/2) -(0/0)
| |
| (440-894) 0.3 ml S Th-228 4 443(4/4) SL-3 479(2/2) -(0/0)
| |
| (91.8-846) 0.2 ml N ( I 12-846)
| |
| Broadleaf/ Gamma 31 Vegetation (pCI/kg wet)
| |
| Be-7 31 1275(31/31) Various 1275(31/31) -(0/0)
| |
| (324-44 60) (324-4460)
| |
| K-40 31 4018(31/31) Various 4018(31/31) -(0/0)
| |
| (1206-241 I ) (1206-24 I I )
| |
| Cs-137 31 87.4(7/31) Various 87.4(7/31) -(0/0)
| |
| (27.3-298) (27.3-298)
| |
| (a/b) Ratio of samples with detectable activity to total number of samples analyzed.
| |
| | |
| RADIOLOGICALENVIRONMENTALMONITORING PROGRAM
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-3/5/50-3I6 13ERRIEN COUN IY JANUARY to DECEMBER 31, 1996 1
| |
| ANA A NUMBER OF MEDIUM OR PATIIWAY TOTAL NUMBF.R )
| |
| ' W F AN COBOL LOCATION I NONROUTINE SAMPLED OF ANALYSFS MEAN Ia/III NAME MEAN MEAN REPORIED IUNIT oF MEAsUREMEIr11 PERFQRMED RANGE DISTANCF. AND DIRECTION RANGE RANGE MEASUREMENTS Fish Gamma (pCI/kg wet)
| |
| K-40 :116:3(7/7) ONS-Nor I h 3780(2/2) -(0/0)
| |
| (28 10- 1200) 5.0 nil S (3360-4200)
| |
| Cs-137 50.8(5/7) ONS-South 58. 2(2/2) -(0/0)
| |
| (28.7-72.0) 5.0 ml S (51.8-64.6)
| |
| Food/Vegetation Gamnla (pCI/kg wet)
| |
| Be-7 1583(3/4) ONS-V 3280(1/1) -(0/0)
| |
| (58. 6-3280)
| |
| K-40 2163(4/4) OFS-V 2650(1/ I) -(0/0)
| |
| (1630-2650)
| |
| Cs-137 -(0/4) -(0/4) -(0/0)
| |
| (a/b) Ratio of samples with detectable actlvlty to total number of samples analyzed.
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX B DATA TABLES 40
| |
| | |
| TABLE B. 1 INDIANh MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTRATIONS OI'ACROSS I)l".I'A EM) I I'ERS IN WEEI<LY AIRI3ORNE PART]CULATES Rc>>nil>> ln Unlls nf 10 " pCI/nP i-2 sign>a STATION CODES COLLECTION ONS-1 ONS-2 ONS-3 ONS-4 ONS-5 ONS-6 NBF SBN DOW Ave ra)
| |
| DATES i 2 8.
| |
| 0)/08/96 01/12/96 29 36 i
| |
| i 2
| |
| 4 25 28 ii 23 28+2 26i 3 29+2 28+4 27+
| |
| 32+4 2 26 30 ii 24 26 27 ii 42 29+2 26+ 4 30+ 3 33+4 27+2 27 i 3 28 29 ii 0)/18/96 26i 2)i 3 23 i3 i2 26 ii 32 24 i3 ii 22 28+
| |
| ii 322 27+3 i2 26+ 3 ii 22 27i3 23+3 24+3 25+
| |
| 01/24/96 2 17 18 20 19 19 20 (a) 23i3 18+ 2 19*
| |
| 01/31/96 19i 2 20i 2 20 i 2 23 19 20+ 2 22 22 i2 20 i2 19+ 2 20 i Q~BRUAQY iii 222 ii 22 ii 22 iii 22 i 22 iii 02/07/96 02/14/96 02/21/96 02/28/96 24 2) 17 21 i2
| |
| '6 i24 20 19 i2 2 26i2 16 15 16 ii 22 i2 27i2 19 16 17 iii 222 23i2 17 i2 20 i 2 20 i 2 23i2
| |
| )7 16 +
| |
| 16 i 22 i 2 21i2 19 17 20 ii 22 i2 27 19 19 18 ii 22 23 15 16
| |
| )5i2 2
| |
| 26 17 i 17+ 2 18 i2 24 18 17 18 i
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'ARCH 03/06/96 03/13/96 24i 25i 2
| |
| 2 22i2 24i2 22i 2 21i2 20 i2 16i2 (b) 28i3 (b) 22i2 21 i2 23i2 22i2 28i3 21 21i2 i2 19i2 20i2 21 23i i:
| |
| 03/20/96 20 i 19i2 18i2 2) i2 19i2 28i2 )9i2 17i2 i2 i2 i '0 2
| |
| 22 i 2 19 17 22 i i
| |
| 03/27/96 26i 2 21i2 20i2 25i2 22+2 23i2 20+2 2) i2 21+2 QuarterAvg. 24k 10 21%7 21i9 22i9 23i10 22410 22i6 23i9 22i ll 21i8 22 i Ia) Gale wind; sample blown and not available.
| |
| Ib) Power off. Sample not available.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B- I (Cont,)
| |
| INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTRATIONS OF GROSS IIl".Ih EMI'I I'ERS IN WEEKLY AIRBORNE PARTICULATES t<<sn))s ln Un)Is of 10 ~ pCI/nP + 2 s)gina STATION CODES COLLECTION ONS-1 ONS-2 ONS-3 '3NS-4 ONS-5 ONS-6 NBF SBN DOW -Avcrag DATES i 2 s.d
| |
| : 0) /0:)/'.)6 04/10/96 24t2 22 l2 22 i 32 i 20k 16 i2 2 23i2
| |
| )8i 2 20
| |
| )6 2ii 2 18
| |
| )3 iti 222 23 15 ii 22 20 i2 16 k 2 2li 14+ 2 2 21 i2 15+ 2 21 i 16% 5 04/17/96 22 t 2 18 19+ 2 i2 IG i 2 17 i 2 19 i 22 ii 2 IG+ 2 i2 15 13+ 2 IG i 2 i2 17 ii 2 16+ 2 16i 16 ii 22 17i
| |
| )6*
| |
| 4 t
| |
| 04/24/96 05/0)/96 17 18 i 2
| |
| 2 15 16i2 )5 i 2 17 15 16 15 i 2 14 i2 16
| |
| )4 2 +
| |
| 13 15i2 2
| |
| 14*
| |
| 2 2
| |
| 16 14 i2 15i 3
| |
| 3 I
| |
| 05/08/96 i2 ii 22 15i2 17i2 15i2 14i2 ii 22 16i2 16i2 i2 15i ti 222 16i2 IGi 3 iit 222 ii 22 15 05/15/96 19 15i2 12 i 22 i2 13 ii 22 12 12
| |
| )5 i 2 14 12 13i i 3 ii 2 15 14 14 16 i 2 it 22 ii 22 7 5 i 8 2
| |
| 15 15 i2 i2
| |
| '5 05/22/96 05/29/96 16 18 15 16 13 14 i2 14 14 i2 15 15 I 16 15 17 13 + 2 15 14i 6
| |
| ~JN E 06/05/96 14 i 21.7 12 ii 21.6 ll + 2 7.8i Il +
| |
| ii 22 12 7.2i i 21.5 )2 ii 2 13 ii 2 13i2 ii 21.8 13i i 22 13i ii 221.6 12i ii 27 8.6i 8.3 7.5 1.6 7.4 1.6 8.8 7.9 7.2 7.8 06/12/96 06/19/96 16 i 2 7.4 ii 22 9.9 i 14 i 1.5 2 15 i2 1.6 15 ii 22 12 i 22 25 2 +
| |
| i2 14 i2 14 +
| |
| i2 1.6 13 i2 15 i4 1.
| |
| 12 i 2 14 06/26/96 10 1.7 12 -
| |
| 12 11 + 16 13 13 13 12 QuartetlyAvg. 17i8 15i7 14iG 15i7 14i6 13t5 16i9 14 i 7 14i 6 14+6 14+ 7
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-1 ICo~u.)
| |
| INDIANAMICHIOAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTRATIONS OV GROSS IIETA EMIVI'ERS IN WEEKLY AIRBORNE PARTICULATES Ilrsnlts In Units of 10 ~ pCI/nP i 2 sigma STATION CODES COLLECTION ONS-1 ONS-2 ONS-3 ONS-4 ONS-5 ONS-6 NBF SBN DOW Ave@
| |
| DATES 22k 07/03/96 23i 2 22 + 2 21 i 22 21 i2 i 22 22i 2 26t2 21 i2 2lt i 22 ii 07/10/96 19i ii 2 ii 2 20 2 17 i 22 i 2 16 i ISi 2 7.0i1.5 19 ii 22 14i 2
| |
| 2 22 IS+
| |
| 22 17 ii 07/17/96 2 19i 2 19i2 20i 18i 07/24/96 07/31/96 21 15 16i 2
| |
| 19 16i2 i2 14 ii22 17 14i2 i2 16 ii 2 18 20 i i2 17 15 i2 i 15i 14i 2
| |
| 2 16i 2
| |
| 2 19 15 2 18 13 18 21 2 2 13 2 2 17% 2 17 *
| |
| ~V/ST 08/07/96 18i 2 17 ii 22 17i2 i* 22 I7i i 2 19i2 ii 22 18i i 2 19 iii 2 21 ii 22 20i 2 20i 2 19i 08/14/96 08/21/96 23i (a) 2 20 25 t 22 14 19 16 22 i 2 2 IS 23 19 23 t 2 2 IS 24 2
| |
| 2 18 24 i 2 17 i 25i 2 18 23 i i 2 18 ii i 20 i 2 i2 i2 23 i 2 22 i 2 2 2 25 i 2 23 08/28/96 26i 2 23 24 24 24i2 22i 2 23 i PEP'~EM~BE 09/04/96 33i 33i 3 32 34i3 i3 26 25 ii 2 32i 32i 2
| |
| 2 35i2 33i2 29i 34t 2
| |
| 2 30i2 33i2 33i2 32i2 29i 30i 2 32i 30i 2 31i 32i 09/11/96 09/18/96 09/25/96 12i 23i 3
| |
| 2 9.2 i 1.6 24 i 7.8 20 ii 2 1.4 2
| |
| 9.7 t 24i 1.5 2
| |
| 11 i 2 26i2 9.6i 25i 1.5 2
| |
| II 19i2 i 2 9.6i 1.5 27i2 9.9 it 2 1.5 9.7 i i
| |
| 2 1.5 10 ii 22 i 2 2 2 23 10/02/96 23i 2 18 t2 21 i2 25t2 22i 2 22i2 20i2 23i 2
| |
| 2 22 20i 2
| |
| 2 23 22i
| |
| ~~Avg. 22* 13 22i13 18i10 21i 12 21i14 21i 12 21i14 2li13 20i 12 2li Il 2li la) Pump olI. Sample not collected.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-1 I('ont.)
| |
| INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCEYflMTIONS OF GI(OSS Ill.".IA EMI I fEltS IN iVFENLY AIRBORNE PARI'ICULATES Itcsnlts lt> Ut>lts of 10" PCI/ni" i 2 sigma STATION CODES COLLECTION ONS-1 ONS-2 ONS-3 ONS-4 ONS.6 ONS.6 NBF SBN DOW Averag DATES i2 s.d IP/Pg/96 17 22 i i 2 14 iI 27 i 3
| |
| )3 i2 23 i 2 13i 25i 2
| |
| 2 16 26i 2 i2 17i 25i 2 17 24i2 i2 21+2 i.2 17i 26i 2 16i 26+
| |
| 2 16i 25 i e
| |
| 10/16/96 10/23/96
| |
| )0/30/96 20 i 23 i 2
| |
| 2 2
| |
| 34 i 20 i 2 7 (a) 17 19 i2 i2 19i 23 i 2 2
| |
| 18i 21 i 2 2
| |
| 18i 22+
| |
| 2 2
| |
| 2 21 21+
| |
| i 2 2
| |
| 26 21 19+
| |
| i 2 2
| |
| 20i 24+
| |
| 2 2
| |
| 2 20+
| |
| 21+
| |
| 2 2
| |
| 2 21i 21i I
| |
| 3 NOVEMBER 11/06/96 23 ii 22 23i2 8.5 i 1.6 21 ii 22 23k 16i 2
| |
| 2 18i (a) 2 23+ 2 < 10 (a) i 2 20 13 ii 22 21 k 2 12i 2 21 16i i 22 21i 14i 4
| |
| 5 11/13/96 14 13 (a) 16 11/20/96 19 ii 22 21 i2 12i2 23 i2 ll i2 23 i 16i 2
| |
| 2 20 12 ii 32 22 i 15i 2 2 22 i 2 i2 24 14i2 i2 20i 15i 2
| |
| 2 23i 15k 2
| |
| 2 22i 14i 3
| |
| 3 11/27/96 12/04/96 13 27 i2 24i2 23 i2 30i 2 24 i 2 30+ 2 13 25 i2 24+ 2 25i 2 29i 2 26i 5 DECEMBER 12/11/96 19 ii 22 20 23 ii 22 20 ii 22 25i 27i 2
| |
| 2 21i 24i 2
| |
| 2 26i 26+
| |
| 2 2
| |
| 25i 2 25i2 21i2 27 ii 23 23i 25i 2
| |
| 2 25i 24i 2
| |
| 2 26i 25i 5
| |
| 4 12/18/96 12/23/96 12/30/96 23 26 26 ii 32 28 25 ii 32 21 26i3 24 i 2 29i 28i 3
| |
| 2 24i 27 i 3 2
| |
| 28i 28+
| |
| 3 3
| |
| 29+3 27 i2 27 23 i2 29i 26i 3
| |
| 2 29i 25i 3
| |
| 2 28i 26i 3
| |
| 3 QuarterAvg. 21i 9 22i 14 20i9 23i ll 21i 9 23i 9 22i 10 22i9 22k 10 22i 9 22 i 1 AnnualAvg. 21 i ll 20 i 12 18 i 10 20+ 11 20 i 12 20 i 12 20 i ll 20i 12. 20i ll 20 i 11 20i 1 (a) Low sample volume.
| |
| (bl No power: blown fuse. Sample not collected.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-2 INDIANAMICHICAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTIIATIONS Of'hhlhlA I'.Mll f'flftS'N QUAftTEltI.Y COMPOSITES OF AIRBORNE PARTICULATES ftesnlts ln Units of IO 3 pCI/nP i 2 sigma Nucudes Ffrst Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter Fourth Quarter Average Stauons 01/01/9604/03/96 04/03/9607/03/96 trr/03/96-10/02/96 10/02/96-12/30/96 i2 s.d.
| |
| ONS-I f3e-7 K-40 176 i 18
| |
| < 6 1~).'I J 15 4.:13 i 2.03 159
| |
| <5 i 16 93.4
| |
| <5 i 9.3 145+ 72 4.33 i 2.03 Cs-134 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 CG. 137 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.3 ONS-2 Bc-7 K-40 139
| |
| <4 i 14 152 9.39 i 2.26 i 15 160
| |
| <6 i 16 96.4 J 9.6 4.72 i 2.21 137 i 57 7.06 A 6.6 CB-134 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.4 < 0.2 Cs-137 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.2 ONS-3 Be-7 K-40 180 3.95 ii 2.28 18 124
| |
| < 10 i 12 114
| |
| < 7 i 11 74.7 i 7.5
| |
| < 7 123 3.95 i 8.7 A 2.83 Cs.134 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.3 Cs-137 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.3 ONS-4 Be-7 K-40 172
| |
| < 6 i 17 163
| |
| <6 i 16 147
| |
| <4 i 15 95.4 i 9.5
| |
| < 10 144 i 68 Cs-134 < 0,2 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 Cs-137 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 ONS-5 Be-7 K-40 132 i
| |
| < 7 13 140 4.70 i0.3i 2.00 14 146
| |
| <5 i 15 101
| |
| <5 i 10 130 4.70 i 402.00 S
| |
| Cs-134 < 0.3 < < 0.2 < 0.2 Cs-137 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 Typfcal LLDs are found In Table B-12. All other gamma emltters were <LLD.
| |
| | |
| Oa TABLE B-2 K oui.l INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY. - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTKYI'IONS OF OAMMA EMI'I I'EltS'N QUARl'FRLY COMPOSITES OF AIRBORNE PARTICULATES Rcsnlls. In Unlls of 10 3 pCI/m3 t 2 sigma Nuclldes First Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter Fourth Quarter Average 01/01/96O4/03/96 04/03/9607/03/96 07/03/96.10/02/96 10/02/96- 12/30/96 X 2 s.d.
| |
| ONS-6 flc-7 195 19 165 t 16 144 + 14 104 2 10 152 + 76 K-40 CB-134 4.39 i X
| |
| 1.98
| |
| < 0.3
| |
| <5
| |
| < 0.2
| |
| <4
| |
| < 0.2 4.14 j 1.55
| |
| < 0.2 4.27 + 0.4 CR-137 < 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 Be-7 K-40 153
| |
| <5 i 15 105 i 2.91 k 1.48 11 127 + 13
| |
| < 10 116 X 12
| |
| <5 125+ 41 2.91 2 I 48 Cs-134 < 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.4 < 0.3 Cs-137 < 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.3 SBN Bc 7 K-40 154 f 15 3.51 2 1.69 148
| |
| <4 i 15 115
| |
| <6 i 12 101
| |
| <5 k 10 130 k 51 3.51 k 1.69 Cs-134 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 Cs-137 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 Be-7 K-40 146 X 15
| |
| <8 136 i
| |
| < 4 14 152 + 15
| |
| <6 97.8 2 9.8
| |
| <6 133 A 49 Cs-134 < 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.3 Cs-137 < 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.3 Be-7 154 2 15 133 k 13 122 0 12 88.3 2 8.8 124 A 55 K-40 <4 4.47 R 2.38 4.46 2 2.43 < 7 4.47 k 0.0 Cs-134 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.2 Cs-137 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.2 Typtcal LLDs are found hi Table B-12. All other gamma em'ltters were <LLO.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-3 INDIANAMICH)GAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTRATIONS OV IOI)INE-131 IN WEEKLY AIR CARTRIDGE SAMPI.ES Rcsillts lil Ur>lls of 10 ~ pCI/ma i 2 sigma STATION CODES COLLECT1ON ONS-1 ONS-2 ONS-3 ONS-4 ONS-5 ONS-6 SBN DOW DATES 01/08/96 < 20 < 10 < 20 < 20 < 7 10 < 20 < 10 < 20 <9 01/12/96 < 20 < 20 < 30 < 30 < 10 < 20 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 10 01/18/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 7 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <8 01/24/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 10 01/31/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <8 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 10 FEBRUARY 02/07/96 <9 <8 <9 <9 <6 <9 < 10 < 10 <9 < 6 02/14/96 < 7 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 7 02/21/96 <9 <8 <8 <9 < 6 < 10 10 < 10 < 10 <8 02/28/96 < 7 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <8 MARCH 03/06/96 < 7 <7 <7 < 7 ta) (a) < 10 < 10 < 10 <8 03/13/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <8 <9 < 7 < 8 < 7 <5 03/20/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 <6 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 03/27/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 Ia) Power olf; sample not available.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-3 Icotn.)
| |
| INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CQNCI:NTI&TIONS Ol'OI)INE-131 IN WFFKLY AIR CARTRIDGE SAMPLES Rt st tits ltt Uttlls of 10 ~ pCI/nP i 2 sigma STATION COI)ES COLLECTION ONS-I ONS.2 ONS-3 ONS.4 ONS-5 ONS.6 SBN DOW DATES 04/03/96 ( 20 ( 20 ( 20 ( 20 <9 ( 20 < 20 < 20 ( 20 ( 10 04/ 10/96 ( 20 <<30 ( 20 ( 20 <9 < 20 ( 20 < 20 ( 20 < 10 04/ 17/96 ( 10 < 10 < 10 10 <6 < 7 (8 <8 < 7 <5 04/24/96 ( 10 < 10 10 < 10 <6 < 6 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 05/01/96 ( 10 ( 10 ( 10 < IO <6 < 6 <8 <8 <8 (5 05!08/96 < 10 <9 (8 <9 <6 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 05/15/96 < In < 10 ( 10 < 10 < 6 < 7 <8 <8 <8 <5 05/22/96 ( 10 ( 10 ( 10 < 10 <8 ( 10 < 10 < 10 *( 10 < 6 05/29/96 < 10 ( 10 ( 10 10 <9 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <8 JUNE 06/05/96 ( 10 < 10 <8 < 10 < 7 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 06/12/96 < 10 < 10 ( 10 < 10 < 6 <8 <8 <8 < 7 <5 06/19/96 < 10 < 10 ( 10 ( 10 <6 <8 <8 <8 < 7 <5 06/26/96 < 10 ( 20 ( 10 ( 20 < 10 ( 20 < 20 ( 20 ( 20 < 10
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-3 Icom.I INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENl IIATIONS Ol IODINE-13 I IN WEEKLY AIR CARTR!DGE SAMPLES Results I>> Untts of IG ~ pCI/>>P + 2 sigma STATION CODES
| |
| =COLLECTION ONS-I ONS-2 ONS-3 ONS-4 ONS-5 ONS-6 SBN DOW DATES 88Z 07/03/96 ( 20 < 20 ( 20 < 20 <9 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <8 07/10/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 7 <8 <8 < 7 <8 <5 07/17/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <9 07/24/96 <6 < 6 <6 <6 <5 < 10 < 10 <9 < 10 < 7 07/31/96 <9 <9 <8 <9 < 6 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 AUGIG8T 08/07/96 < 10 < 10 10 < 10 <8 <9 <9 < 7 <9 <6 08/14/96 Ia) <8 <8 <8 < 6 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 6 08/21/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 < 7 <8 < 7 <8 <5 08/28/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 6 < 7 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 SEPTEMBER 09/04/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 < 7 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 09/11/96 <6 <6 <5 <5 <4 <9 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 7 09/18/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 < 7 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 09/25/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 < 7 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 10/02/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 < 7 < 7 <9 < 7 < 7 (a) Pump off. Sample not collected.
| |
| | |
| 0 TABLE B-3 ((:mu.)
| |
| INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONC('.NTRATIC)NS Ol'OI)INI'. I:31
| |
| ~
| |
| IN WFEKI.Y AIR CARTRIDGE SAMPLES Rcsnlts lii Units nf 10 " PCI/ni" i 2 sign>a STATION CODF.S COLLECTION ONS-1 ON 8-2 ON 8-3 ONS-4 ONS-5 ONS-6 SBN DOW DATES
| |
| ~QBE+
| |
| 10/09/96 < 6 <4 <6 <5 < 4 <9 < 10 10 < 10 < 7 10/16/96 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 < 7 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 10/23/96 < 10 <20 (8) < 10 < 10 < 10 < 6 < 7 < 7 < 7 < 7 10/30/96 < 6 <6 <6 < 7 <5 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 7 NOVEMBER 11/06/96 < 8 < 8 s < 7 <8 <6 <8 < 40 (a) <8 <9 <6 11/13/96 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 (a) (a) < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 11/20/96 <8 <8 <8 <9 <8 <9 <8 <9 <8 <6 11/27/96 < 10 < 20 < 20 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 12/04/96 < 7 < 7 < 7 < 7 <5 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 7 D~ECEMBE 12/11/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <6 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <8 12/18/96 < 20 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 7 <8 <9 <9 <8 <6 12/23/96 <8 <8 <8 <8 <6 <8 <8 <8 <8 < 6 12/30/96 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <5 < 7 <6 < 6 <6 <4 Ia) Low sample volume (b) No power, blown fuse. Sample nol colleeled.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B.4 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT I)ll(I:CT l&I)lhl'IONMI'.ASUIIIIMENTS - QUAIL'ERLY TLD RESULTS lb>>t)lt>> tn Untts of tnR/stantlard month STATION FIRST QUARTER SECOND QUARTER THIRD QUARTER (a) FOURTH QUARTER AVERAGE CODES 01/01/96.04/02/96 04/02/96-07/02/96 07/02/96-10/02/96 10/02/96-01/02/97
| |
| * 2 s.d.
| |
| h-I 4.1 i 0.3 4.7 1 1.9 5.2 i 0.4 i 3.3 0.3 4.3 + 1.6 A-2 4.0 i 0.7 :3.6 I 0.5) r) I i03 3.3 + 0.3 4.0
| |
| * 1.6 h-3 3.3 i 0.3 :3.:3 i I.:3 4.6 i 0.2 i 2.9 0.2 i 3.5 1.5 h-4 4.6 i 1.3 :3.13 i 0.:3 r)5i04 i 3.5 0.3 4.4 + 1.8 h-5 3.8 i 0.7 3. I i 0.3 5.0 i 0.3 3.4 + 0.4 3.9 + 1.5
| |
| '.6 3.8 i 0.4 3.3 i 0.4 5.0 i 0.3 i 3.4 0.5 i 3.9 1.6 h-7 4.0 i 0.4 3.4 i 0.3 5.1 i 0.2 i 3.1 0.4 3.9 + 1.8 A-8 3.9 i 0.5 3.9 i 0.3 5. i 0.4 I i 3.7 0.6 i 4.2 1.3 4.0 i 0.9 :3.6 i 0.4 5.3 i 0.4 i 3.5 0.3 4.1 + 1.7 3.5 i A-9 A-10 3.4 i 0.5 3.1 i 0.3 4.6 i 0.2 i 2.8 0.2 1.6 A-11 4.1 i 09 35i Or) 5).2 i 0.2 i 3.4 0.4 4.1 i 1.7 4.3 i 0.4 i 3.7 0.3 5.8 i 1.7 i 3.5 0.4 4.3 + 2.1 A-12 3.7 i 0.3 i 3.7 I).4 5.24 0.3 i 3.2 0.4 i 4.0 1.7 0FS- I i 3.5 0.5i i 5.2 0.5 i 3.2 0.1 i 3.9 1.8 OFS-2 3.6 i
| |
| 0.3 0.3 3.3 0.5i 5.5 1 0.6 i 3.9 1.1 i 4.2 1.9 OFS-3 3.9 4.1 i 0.4 3.7 + 0.3 i 5.6 0.2 i 3.6 0.4 i 4.3 1.9 0FS-4 4.2 i i 4.0 0.4 i 5.5 0.6 i 3.7 0.4 i 4.4 1.6 OFS-5 OFS-6 4.8 i 0.3 0.4 i 4.5 0.5 i 6.6 0.8 ii 4.4 0.7 i 5.1 2.1 4.3 i 4.2 i i i 5.7 0.5 3.5 0.5 2.0 4.8 i 0.8 3.8 0.7 OFS-7 4.7 i 0.3 i 4.2 0.7 6.1 i 0.4 i 4.2 0.6 1.8-4.6 i OFS-8 4.3 i 0.0 4.3 + 1.9 i 6.0 1.2 i 3.9 0.6 1.9 i i 4.0 i OFS-9 3.8 i 0.4 i 3.7 0.9 5.3 0.8 3.3 0.2 4.9 i 1.8 OFS-10 4.7 i 0.3 4.5 0.5i i 6.1 0.6 i 4.4 0.4 1.6 OFS- I 1 4.4 i 0.6 4.1 i 0.3 i 5.7 0.5 i 4.0 0.5 +
| |
| 4.6 1.6 NBF 4.9 i 0.3 4.6 0.5i i 6.6 0.5 i 4.5 0.6 i 5.2 2.0 SBN DOW 3.9 i 0.3 3.7 1.1i 5.0 + 0.7 i 3.4 0.3 4.0 + 3.4 COL 3.5 i 0.3 3.3 0.4i i 4.8 0.4 3.0 + 0.4 3.7 + 1.6 Average i2 s.d. 4.1 i 0.8 3.8 i 0.9 5.4 i 1.1 3.6 i 0.9 4.2 i 1.7 Standard month ~ 30.4 days.
| |
| la) Transit dose not subtracted I'rom totals as TLD had not been ptaced In shielded TLD holder.
| |
| | |
| 0 TABLE B 5 INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTIIATIONS OF IOI)INI'.. TltITIUM AND GAMMA EMI11'ERS'N SURFACE WATER i
| |
| ltesttlts In U>>lls of pCI/lllcr 2 sigma STATION CollectIon Date 1-131 K-40 SWI I 01/31/96 < I < 80 910 k 160 (Condenser Circ.) 02/29/96 < I < 50 03/31/96 < 0.7 < 70 04/30/96 < I < 100 < 100 05/31/96 < 0.5 < 70 06/30/96 < 0.3 < 40 07/31/96 < 0.8 < 50 < 100 08/31/96 < 0.4 < 40 09/30/96 < 0.8 < 50 IO/31/96 < 0.4 < 90 100 11/30/96 I < 50 12/31/96 < 0.9 < 100 SWL-2 01/31/96 (a)
| |
| (Soulh Comp) 02/29/96 la) 03/31/96 (al 04/30/96 < I < 60 < 100 05/31/96 < 0.5 < 60 06/30/96 < 0.4 < 80 07/31/96 < 0.8 < 50 < 200 08/31/96 < OA < 70 09/30/96 < 0.9 < 50 10/31/96 < 0.4 < 30 130 2 80 11/30/96 < O.l < 90 12/18/96 < I < 100 (a) Sample not collected.
| |
| ~Ical LLDs are found in Table B.]2. All other gamma emit ters were below <LLD.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-S I('oui I INDIANAMICIIIGANPOWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT
| |
| (:ONCI:.N'I'I(ATI()NS I )I'()l)INI'.. 'I'ill'I'I(JM ANI) GAMMA EMITTERS'N SURFACE WATER Itcsnlts ln U>>lls of pCI/litt r + 2 sl(!nut STATION Collect(on Date 1-131 K-40 SWI 3 01/31/96 (n)
| |
| (Norllt Contp) 02/29/96 ln) 03/31/96 (n) 04/30/96 . < I < 50 100 05/31/96 < 0.5 < 60 06/30/96 < 0.4 < 100 0?/31/96 < 0.9 < 50 100 08/31/96 < 0.4 < 90 09/30/96 < 0.8 < 50 10/31/96 < 0.3 < 40 < 100 11/30/96 I 100 12/18/96 < 2 (b) < 80 (al Sample not collected.
| |
| lb) LLD for I-13l not met due to the low sample volume recetved.
| |
| ~
| |
| Vjptcat LLDs are found tn Table B-12. All other gamma emttters were below <LLD.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 8.6 lNDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY . DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONC!'.NTIIATIONS Ol'IIITIUMANI) GAMMA FMITTERS'N GROUNDWATER ltr>>tilt>> ltt Uttlts of pCI(lltcr + 2 sigma STAT!ON Couectlon Date 1-131 K-40 Weu W-l 01/26/! IG < 0.4 < 90 < 200 04/25/! IG < I < 50 < 200 07/25/! IG ( 0.8 < 50 100 10/24 (!)6 < 0.4 <<60 ( 200 Well W-2 01/25/96 < 0.4 < 50 < 200 04/25/96 < I < 70 ( 200 07/25/96 < 0.9 < 70 ( 200 10/24/96 I <<60 ( 200 Well W-3 01/26/96 < 0.4 < 50 < 200 04/25/96 I << 100 ( 200 07/25/96 < 0.8 < 60 < 100 10/25/96 < 0.4 < 70 ( 200 Well W-4 01/30/96 < 0.4 < 90 640 + 140 04/25/96 < 0.9 ( 100 1300 2 200 07/26/96 ( 0.8 ( 60 1300 2 200 10/24/96 < 0.5 < 50 1110 k 200 Well W-5 01/30/96 < 0.4 < 40 320 2 140 04/26(96 < I < 50 1100 2 200 07/26/96 < 0.9 < 60 840 R 130 10/24/96 < 0.4 < 50 810 k 150 Well W-6 01/30/96 < 0.4 < 100 1600 2 200 04/26/96 < 1 < 80 1100 2 200 07/26/96 < 0.7 < 50 660 2 120 10/24/96 < 0.3 < 70 860 2 140
| |
| 'ootnotes located at end of table.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B.6 I('own.I lNDIANh MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CON('I'.h"l ltATI()NS OI'RITIUM AND GAMMA EMITI'ERS'N GROUNDWATER Hrsnlts In Untts of IiCI/Ittrr+ 2 sigma STATION Collection Date 1-131 K-40 Well W-7 Ol/26/96 < 0.4 < 100 < 200 04/25/IIG I < 60 250 2 140 07/25/116 < 0.8 < 60 < 200 10/25/96 < 0.'I < 100 < 200 Well W-S 01/26/96 < 0.4 100 < 200 04/25/96 < I < 60 < 200 07/25/96 < 0.9 < 40 < 200 10/24/96 < 0.5 < 50 < 200
| |
| 'Well W-9 01/25/96 < 0.4 < 50 < 200 04/25/96, I < 70 260 X 140 07/25/96 < 0.8 < 100 100 10/24/96 < 0.6 < 70 < 200 Well W-10 01/25/96 < 0.4 < 80 < 200 04/24/96 < I 100 ( 200 07/25/96 I < 100 < 200 10/24/96 < 0.5 < 50 < 200 Well W-11 01/25/96 < 0.4 < 50 < 200 04/24/96 < I < 50 46' 60 07/25/96 < 0.8 < 50 < 200 10/24/96 < 0.5 < 100 < 200 Well W-12 01/25/96 < 0.4 < 50 < 200 04/24/96 <1 < 50 < 300 07/26/96 < 0.7 < 50 < 200 10/24/96 < 0.4 < 90 < 200
| |
| ~ Footnotes located at end of table.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B 6 (rout I INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT
| |
| ( ONC'I'.Nfl(ATI()NS ()I'IIITIUMAND GAMMA EMITTERS'N GROUNDWATER ltriitlta It) Uttlls of 1)C)/)lier 2 2 s)gma STATION Col!ection Date I-131 K-40 Well W-13 01/26/96 < 0.5 100 < 200 0 I /24 /!)6 I < 50 3?0 + I?0 07/25/! ) 6 < 0.8 < 80 < 200 10/25/!) 6 < 0.4 < 60 210 + 140 Well W-14 01/26/96 < 0.5 < 90 340 k 110 04/25/96 < I < 100 2000 k 200 07/25/96 < 0.7 < 90 5300 + 300 10/25/96 < 0.5 < 70 14000 2 1000 (a)
| |
| Average 1659 j 6060 i 2 s.d.
| |
| (o) Trtttum results cont)rmcd by a reanalysts.
| |
| 'Pyptca) LLDs are tound tn Table B. )2. All other gamma cmttters were LLD.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-7 INDIANAMICIIIGANPO%VR COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTRATIONS Ol'ROSS III;"I'A. IOI)INE. TltlTIUM ANI) GAMMA EMITI'ERS'N DRINKING lVATER Ht s>>Its I>> U>>Its of pCI/liter J 2 slg>>ta LT%'amma COLLECTlON DATE
| |
| < LI.D S c Iodine-131 01/17/96 4.0 X 1.0 < 0.2 < 200 01/31/96 2.8 X 1.0 < LI.D < 0.3 02/14/96 3.5 i 0.9 < LLD < 0.3 02/28/96 2.6 i 0.9 < LLD < 0.3 03/13/96 3.6 i I. I < LI.D < 0.5 03/27/96 i 1.0 '.2
| |
| < LLD < 0.3 04/10/96 36'.1 < LLD < 0.3 < 100 04/24/96 3.6 i 1.1 < LLD < 0.4 05/08/96 37 i 1.0 < LLD < 0.3 05/22/96 3.6 I 1.0 < LLD < 0.4 06/05/96 3.7 i 1.1 < LLD < 0.2 06/19/96 3.2 i 1.0 < LLD < 0.4 07/03/96 4.2 i 1.2 < LI.D < 0.5 100 07/17/96 3.6 i 1.0 < LLD < 0.2 07/31/96 2.9 i 1.0 < LI.D < 0.2 08/14/96 3.7 i 1.0 < LLD < 0.3 08/28/96 5.1 i 1.1 ~ < LLD < 0.3 09/11/96 3.7 i 1.2 < LLD < 0.3 09/25/96 3.1 i 0.9 < LLD < 0.3 10/09/96 3.0 i 1.0 < LLD < 0.3 < 100 10/23/96 3.2 i 0.9 < LLD < 0.4 11/06/9C 2.5 i 0.9 < LLD < 0.3 11/20/96 3.2 i 1.0 < LLD < 0.3 12/04/96 2.1 X 0.9 < LLD < 0.3 12/18/96 3.4 N 1.1 < LLD < 0.3 12/30/96 2.9 i 1.1 < LLD < 0.4 Average i 3.4 i 1.2 2s. d.
| |
| ~
| |
| ~leal LU)s ate found In table B. 12.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-7 (Cone)
| |
| INDIANAMICHIGANPOWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTRATIONS OF GROSS III".Ib. IODINE. TIZITIUM AND GAMMA EMITIERS'N DRINKING WATER Itc snlbs In Unlls of pCI/Ilier + 2 sigma COLLECTION DATE Gross Beta Gamma S c Iodine-131 STJ 01/17/96 3.7 X 1.0 < I.LD < 0.2 < 200 0 I /31/96 29 i I. I < I.LD < 0.2 02/I4/96 4.4 X I.I < LLD < 0.4 02/28/96 2.8 X 0.9 < LLD < 0.3 03/13/96 3.0 X I.I < LLD < 0.4 03/27/96 3.7 I 1.0 < LI.D < 0.4 04/10/96 5.7 i 1.2 < LLD < 0.3 < 100 04/24/96 2.3 i 1.0 < LLD < 0.4 05/08/96 4.3 i l.l < LLD < 0.3 05/22/96 3.4 i 1.0 < LLD < 0.4 06/05/96 26i 1.0 < LLD < O.l 06/19/96 3.9 X 1.0 < LLD < 0.4 07/03/96 1.8 i 1.1 < LLD < 0.5 < 100 07/17/96 3.4 k 1.0 < LLD < 0.2 07/31/96 3.8 X 1.1 < LLD < 0.2 08/14/96 3.0 2 1.0 < LLD < 0.4 08/28/96 3.7 2 1.0 < LLD < 0.3 09/11/96 2.6 E 1.1 < LLD < 0.3 09/25/96 4.1 2 1.0 < LLD < G.2 10/09/96 3.9 2 1.1 < LLD < 0.3 100 10/23/96 3.5 2 1.0 < LLD < 0.3 11/06/96 4.1 + 1.1 < LLD < 0.3 11/20/96 3.1 i 1.0 < LLD < 0.3
| |
| < 0.3 12/04/96 2.0 X 0.9 < LLD 12/18/96 3.0 i 1.1 < LLD < 0.3
| |
| < 0.2 12/30/96 2.5 R 1.1 < LLD Average 2 3.4 f 1.7 2 s. d.
| |
| Typical LLDs are found In table B-12.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B.8 INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT
| |
| ('()N('I:.N'I'Ith'I'l()NS ()I')AMMAI'.MITI'EBS'N SEDIMENT lte. ulti tn tlnlts of I)CI/kp t(try) i 2 s)gula StatIon Cottectlon Date Be-7 K-40 CB-137 Ra-226 Th-228 SL-2 04/16/96 < 200 6510 f 650 < 20 < 400 91.8+ 29.6 SL-3 04/16/96 -< 200 3420 X 390 < 30 < 700 846 S 85 SL-2 10/ 15/96 < 200 3490 X 350 < 20 894 X 317 724 k 72 SL-3 10/15/96 < 200 5360 x 540 < 20 440 k 239 112 2 20 Average 4695 i 3014 667 2 642 443 2 795 k2 s.de
| |
| ~Ical LLDs are found In table B-12. All other gamma emltters were <LLD.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B.9 INDIANAMICIIIGANPOWER COMPANY . DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT
| |
| ('()N( I'.YI'I(AI'I()NS()I'()l)INI'.ANI) GAMMA EMITTERS'N MILK lh nits ln tlnlt>> of 1)CI/liter ~ 2 stt.nta SIA I ION CODES COLLECTION ANALYSIS FREEHLING LIVINGHOUSE DATES Tl)ere were no milk analYses complelcd dvrinp. 1996 due to lack of parllclpanls to rncct tl)e mlnlmum rcqulrcmcnts of the REMP prograni. In lieu of nttlk. I'ood and vegetation samples were Increased.
| |
| | |
| 0 TABLE B-10 INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTItATIONS Ol GAMMA EMI'I l'I'.IIS'N IIIIOhl)I.EAFVEGETATION COLLECTED IN LIEU OF MILK ltrsttlls ln Uttlls of pCI/kg (wcl) X 2 s!gma COLLECTION DATE StaUon Desert tlon K-40 I-131 CB-137 04/24/96 New Buffalo Ilroatllt;tf 2790 + 280 4960 + 500 < 20 10 04/24/96 ONS- I Ilro;ttlle'tf 770 i 101 3620 X 360 < 20 < 10 04/24/9G ONS-2 llroadlcaf 4460 i 450 5000 i 500 < 20 298+ 30 0 I/24/96 ONS-8 Uroadlr.af 4210 i 420 4230 X 420 < 20 < 20 05/22/96 New Buffalo 13roadlcaf 969 + 126 4650 + 460 < 10 < 20 05/22/96 ONS- I Broadleaf 324 X 167 3390 + 340 < 10 < 20 05/22/9G ONS-2 I3roadlcaf 404 A 74 4630 2 460 < 10 i 74.6 9.7 05/22/96 ONS-8 l3roadlcaf 378 i 82 6740 2 670 10 < 10 05/24/96 Sector J - 20 mlles 13roatlleaf 461 i 86 4310 4 430 < 10 < 10 05/24/96 Sector A - Beach I3roadlea f ;372 i 107 4980 2 500 < 10 10 05/24/96 Sector A - Cabin Broadlcal'roadleaf 398 f 101 4160 2 420 < 10 < 20 06/19/96 Sector A - Beach 995 + 111 3600 4 360 < 6 < 20 06/19/96 Sector A - Beach Broadleaf 1720 2 170 4900 2 490 < 7 < 10 06/19/96 Sector A - Cabin Broadleaf 1510 A 150 4480 2 450 < 6 41.5 2 12.0 06/19/96 Llvlnghouse Farm Broadleaf 749 k 80 5030 + 500 <6 < 10 07/17/96 Sector A - Beach Broadlcal'roadleaf 628 k 104 2400 2 240 <5 < 10 07/17/96 Sector A - ONS-I 1220
| |
| * 150 4090 k 410 <5 < 20 07/17)96 Sector A - Cabin Sector J - Farm Broadleal'e-7 Broadleaf Broadleaf 1830 k 210 456 + 204 6490 4800 2 650 2 480
| |
| <5
| |
| <4 30 30 07/17/96 08/14/96 Sector A - Beach Broadleaf 822 k 106 3220 2 320 < 6 < 10 08/14/96 Sector A - Trail E sadleaf 875 k 111 2430 2 240 <6 < 20 08/14/96 Sector A - ONS-I Broadleaf 1020+ 110 2570 2 260 <5 < 10 08/14/96 Sector J - Farm Broadleaf 828+ 83 4580 ~ 460 <8 < 10 09/11/96 Sector J - Farm 1480 + 150 4950 + 490 <4 < 10
| |
| ~teal LLDs are found In table B.!2. All other gamnta emitters were <I.LD.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B )0 tt can )
| |
| INDIANAMICH)CAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONC)'.NTI(ATI()NS ()I' iAIDIAI'.%ll I I I'.l(S'N I)l(OAI)l.l'.AFVI'.GI".I'ATIONCOLLECTFD IN L)EU QF M)LK I)ran)ti Itt I)tt)li of It('I/k)! (ivct) 1 2 sl)lttta COLLECTION DATE Stat)on Descrl tlon Be-7 K-40 1-131 Cs-137 09/11/l)6 Sector A - I)c tc)t I ) r t nN I I c: I f I 140 + 180 2980 2 300 <4 42.5 + 19.1 09/ II/96 Scclor A - E: l)carl) I)ro;ttl)t;tf 553 g )09 2220 + 220 < 5 < 20 09/Il/96 Sector A - Cal)tn l)ro;ttllc'tf 758 X 88 2390 + 240 <4 10 10/09/96 Sec)or J - Farnt )3 fondl ca f 3420 + 340 4870 E 490 <5 < 20 10/09/96 Scclor A - Trail )3ottndary Broadleaf 929 t 185 2330 + 260 <4 70.4 + 22.5 10/09/96 Sector A - f)each f)roadlcaf 2210 i. 220 3230 + 320 <4 57.6+ 18.4 10/09/96 Scclor A - Troll Broadleaf 555 i 134 2340 + 230 < 5 27.3 k 15.4 Average 2 1275 R 2183 4018 2 2411 87.4 R 189 2 s.d.
| |
| ~)ca) LLDs are found tn table 8-) 2. A)) other gamma em) t ters were <<LLD.
| |
| | |
| k TABLE B-11 lNDIANAMIClllGANPOWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT
| |
| ('()N('I'.NTI(hl'l()NS ()I' hMMh I'.MI'fTERS'N FISII l<<stilts lii Uiilts of PCI/kg Iwrt) t 2 sign)a Collection Date Station Descrl tlo) Be-7 K-40 Cs-137 Ra-226 Th-228 Or)/31/96 OFS-S fa) 0 )/J I/qG OFS-N Ster lhrad/Stirkrr 100 ~
| |
| 3)10 P 3r)0 < 20 < 300 < 20 Or5/31/96 ONS-N Long))osc Surkcr 100 4200 + 420 37.1 + 13.4 < 300 < 20 Or)/:31/96 ONS-S Like Trout 100 2810 + 280 64.6 i. 13.1 < 300 < 20 09/10/96 OFS-N Wallcyc IQO 3500 + 350 < 20 < 300 < 30 09/ 10/96 ONS-N Walleye < 100 3360 + 340 72.0 i 16.9 < 400 <40 09/10/96 OFS.S Bass/Wallcyc 100 3490 i 350 28.7 k 12.5 < 300 < 20 09/10/96 ONS-S Bass/Walleye < 100 3370 i 340 51.8 2 12.3 < 300 < 30 Average 2 2 s.d.
| |
| 3463 k 814'0.82 36.3 lal Sample not collected.
| |
| fyplca) LLDs are found tn table B- l2. AII other gamma emit ters were <LLD.
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-12 INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTIIATIONS OF GAMMA EMIT'I EIIS'N FOOD/VEGETATION l<<snlts ln Units ol PCI/kg (v:cl) + 2 SIIimo COLLECTION DATE StaUon Descrl tlon Be-7 K-40 I-131 Cs-137 09/18/96 Sector D - ONS-G ( ropes 58.6 i 31.6 1750 i 180 < 6 <6 Of) / 18/96 Sector J - OFS-G Gropes < 50 1630 k 160 <6 <6 09/ 18/96 Sector D ONS.V
| |
| - Lcovcs 3280 I 330 2620 X 260 < 20 < 10 09/18/96 Scclor J - OFS-V Lcovcs 1410 i 140 2650 R 270 < 10 < 10 Average k 1583 k 3235 2163 2 1096 2 s.d.
| |
| emltters were <LLD.
| |
| Typteal LLDs are found ln table B-l2. All other gamma
| |
| | |
| TABLE B-13 1NDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT GAMMA Sl'I:.C Tl<()MI.".I'ltYI.()KVI'.lt I.IMITS Ol')l; I'ECTION AND REPORTlNG LEVELS Isoto e Tech 8 c LLD Re t Level TI LLD Tech S cc LLD Rc t Level W Water - 1 liter Cerium-144 60 N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A Barlun)/La-140 10 N/A N/A 50/10 60/15 200 Cesium-134 10 60 1000 7 15 30 Ru. Rh-106 80 N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A Ccsl <) m- 137 10 60 2000 6 18 50 Zr. Nb-95 10 N/A N/A 10/15 30/'I 5 400 Manganese-54 10 N/A N/A 5 15 1000 Iron-59 15 N/A N/A 15 30 400 Zinc-65 20 .N/A N/A 10 30 300 Cobalt-60 10 N/A N/A 5 15 300 Cobalt-58 10 N/A N/A 5 15 1000 Iodine-131 20 60 100 10 I 2
| |
| 'odlne-131 (a) I I Mttk - Cl liter Cerium-144 30 N/A N/A 0.007 N/A N/A Barium/La-140 50/10 60/15 '300 0.005 N/A N/A Cesium-134 7 15 60 0.002 0.06 10 Ru,Rh- 1'06 50 N/A N/A 0.010 N/A N/A Ccslum-137 6 18 70 0.002 0.06 20 Zr,Nb-95 20 N/A N/A 0.002 N/A N/A Manganese-54 5 N/A N/A 0.002 N/A N/A Iron-59 15 N/A N/A 0.002 N/A N/A Zinc-65 10 N/A N/A 0.002 N/A N/A Cobalt-60 5 N/A N/A 0.002 N/A N/A Cobalt-58 5 N/A N/A 0.002 N/A N/A iodine-131 10 I 3 0.040 0.07 0.9 Iodine-131 (a) 1 I (a) Analysis by radiochemistry and based on the assumptions ln Procedure PRO-032-11.
| |
| Charcoal Trap
| |
| | |
| TABLE t3'a a ii
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT GAMMA Sl I:.<-.IIICGII.-.lleY I.I3WI:.It I.II ills Ol: Iil;-I'I:.Cl'IONANI) REPOIGING LEVELS Isoto Tl LLD Tech S c LLD Re t Level TI LLD Tech S cc LLD Re t Level Scdlmcnt Soll- I K-Crrli>>>>. 34 I 200 N/A N/h 150 N/A N/A tlarli>>>>/I a. 140 200 N/h N/A 5 N/A N/A Ceslii>>>-134 20 I:30 1000 30 150 N/A It>>. RI>-106 200 N/h N/h 200 N/A N/A Crsl>>>>>. 137 20 150 2000 30 180 N/A Zr. Nb-95 40 N/h N/h 40 N/A N/A Ma>>gancsc 54 20 130 30000 9 N/A N/A Iron-59 40 260 10000 50 N/A N/A Zinc-65 40 260 20000 60 N/A N/h Cobalt-60 20 130 10000 20 N/A N/A Cobal t-58 20 130 30000 20 N/A Iodine-131 100 N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A Gross Beta/Trltlum LLDs and Rc rtln Levels Gross Beta Alr Particulates 0.01 pCI/m3 0.01 pCI/m3 N/A Drlnklng Water 2 pCI/I 4.0 pCI/I N/A Surface Water 200 2000 20.000 Ground Water 200 2000 20.000 Drinking Water 200 2000 20,000 (b) Based on the assumptions In procedure PRO-042-5.
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX C ANALYTICALPROCEDUIGM SYNOPSIS 67
| |
| | |
| ANALYTICALPROCEDUBZS SYNOPSIS Appendix C is a synopsis of the analytical procedures performed during 1996 on samples collected for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program. All analyses have been mutually agreed upon by American Electric Power and Teledyne Brown Engineering and include those recommended by the USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.8,BTP, Rev. 1, November 1979.
| |
| ANALYSIS TITLE PAGE Gross Beta Analysis of Air Particulate Samples.... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 69 Gross Beta Analysis of Water Samples .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 70 Analysis of Samples for Tritium (Liquid Scintillation).................... 72 Analysis of Samples for Iodine-131 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 73 Milk or Water ........'..... . 73 Gamma Spectrometry of Samples ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 74 Milk and Water..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 74 Dried Solids other than Soils and Sediment ......... 74 FL4. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 74 Soils and Sediments ............. . 74 Charcoal Cartridges (Air iodine) ~............................... 74 Airborne Particulates.......................................... 74 Environmental Dosimetry . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 76 68
| |
| | |
| GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES Airborne Particulates After a delay of five or more days, allowing for the radon-222 and radon-220 (thoron) daughter products to decay, the filters are counted in a gas-flow proportional counter. An unused air particulate filter, supplied by the customer, is counted as the blank.
| |
| Calculations of the results, the two sigma error and the lower limit of detection (LLD):
| |
| RESULT (pCi/m3) ((S/T) - (B/t))/(2.22 V E)
| |
| TWO SIGMA ERROR (pCi/m3) = 2((S/T2) + (B/t2))1/2/(2.22 V E)
| |
| LLD (pCi/m3) 4.66 (B/t/T) / /(2.22 V E) whcrc:
| |
| S Gross counts of sample including blank B Counts of blank E Counting efficiency T Number of minutes sample was counted Number of minutes blank was counted V Sample aliquot size (cubic meters) 69
| |
| | |
| DETERMINATION OF GROSS BETA ACTIVITYIN WATER SAMPLES
| |
| | |
| ==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| | |
| The procedures described in this section are used to measure the overall radioactivity of water samples without identifying the radioactive species present. No chemical separation techniques are involved.
| |
| One liter of the sample is evaporated on a hot plate. A smaller volume may be used if the sample has a significant salt content. If requested by the customer, the sample is filtered through No. 54 filter paper before evaporation, removing particles greater than 30 microns in size.
| |
| Aft.er evaporating to a small volume in a beaker, the sample is rinsed into a 2-inch diameter stainless steel planchet which is stamped with a concentric ring pattern to distribute residue evenly. Final evaporation to dress takes place under heat lamps.
| |
| Residue mass is determined by weighing the planchet before and after mounting the sample. The planchet is counted for beta activity on an automatic proportional counter. Results are calculated using empirical sell-absorption curves which allow for the change in effective counting emciency caused by the residue mass.
| |
| 70
| |
| | |
| 2.0 DETECTION CAPABILITY Detection capability depends upon the sample volume actually represented on the planchet, the background and the efficiency of. the counting instrument, and upon self-absorption of beta particles by the mounted sample. Because the radioactive species are not identified, no decay corrections are made and the reported activity refers to the counting time.
| |
| The minimum detectable level (MDL) for water samples is nominally 1.6 picocuries per liter for gross beta at the 4.66 sigma level (1.0 pCi/1 at the 2.83 sigma level), assuming that 1 liter of sample is used and that >
| |
| gram of sample residue is mounted on the planchet. These figures are based upon a counting time of 50 minutes and upon representative values of counting efficiency and background of 0.2 and 1.2 cpm. respectively.,
| |
| The MDL becomes significantly lower as the mount weight decreases because oi reduced self'-absorption. At a zero mount weight, l)>e 4.66 sigma MDL for gross beta i" 0.9 picocuries per liter. These values reflect a beta counting efficiency of 0.38.
| |
| | |
| ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FOR TRITHJM (Liquid Scintillation)
| |
| Water Ten milliliters of water are mixed with 10 ml of a liquid scintillation "cocktail" and then the mixture is counted in an automatic liquid scintillator.
| |
| Calculation of the results, the two sigma error and the lower limit detection (LLD) in pCi/1:
| |
| RESULT (N-B)/(2.22 V E)
| |
| TWQ S1GMA ERROR = 2((N + B)/dt)1/2/ (2.22 V E)
| |
| LLD 4.66 (B/ht) >/~/(2.22 V E )
| |
| where: the gross cpm of the sample B the background of the detector in cpm 2.22 conversion factor changing dpm to pCi V volume of the sample in ml efficiency of the detector counting time for the sample 72
| |
| | |
| ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FOR IODINE-131 Milk or Water Two liters of sample are first equilibrated with stable iodide carrier. A batch treatment with anion exchange resin is used to remove iodine from the sample. The iodine is then stripped from the resin with sodium hypochlorite solution, reduced with hydroxylamine hydrochloride and extracted into toluene as free iodine. It is then back-extracted as iodide into sodium bisulr>te solution and is precipitated as palladium iodide. The precipitate is weighed for chemical yield and is mounted on a nylon planchet for low level beta counting. The chemical yield is corrected by m"asuring the stable iodide content of the milk or the water with a specific ion electrode.
| |
| Calculations of results, two sigma error and the lower limit of detection (LLD) in pCi/1:
| |
| RESULT (N/d t-B)/(2.22 E V Y DF)
| |
| TWO SIGMA ERROR 2((N/ht+B)/ht) / (2.22 E V Y DF)
| |
| LLD = 4.66(B/ht) I/2/(2 22 E V Y DF) where: N = total counts from sample (counts) ht = counting time for sample (min)
| |
| B = background rate of counter (cpm) 2.22 = dpm/pCi V = volume or weight of sample analyzed Y = chemical yield of the mount or sample counted DF = decay factor from the collection to the counting date E = efficiency of the counter for I-131, corrected for self absorption effects by the formula E Es(exp 0 0085M) /(exp-0.0085Ms)
| |
| Es efficiency of the counter determined from an 1-131 standard mount Ms = mass of Pdl2 on the standard mount, mg mass of Pdl2 on the sample mount, mg
| |
| ?3
| |
| | |
| GAMMASPECTROMETRY OF SAMPLES Milk and Water A 1.0 liter Marinelli beaker is filled with a representative aliquot of the sample. The sample is then counted for approximately 1000 minutes with a shielded Ge(Li) detector coupled to a mini-computer-based data acquisition system which performs pulse height analysis.
| |
| Dried Solids other than Soils and Sediments A large quantity of the sample is dried at a low temperature, less than 100'C. As much as possible (up to the total sample) is loaded into a tared 1-liter Marinelli and weighed. The sample is then counted for approximately 1000 minutes with a shielded Ge(Li) detector coupled to a mini-computer-based data acquisition system which performs pulse height analysis.
| |
| Fish As much as possible (up to the total sample) of the edible portion of the sample is loaded into a tared Marinelli and weighed. The sample is then counted for approximately 1000 minutes with a shielded Ge(Li) detector coupled to a mini-computer-based data acquisition system which performs piilse height analysis.
| |
| nile and ediments Soils and sediments are dried at a low temperature, less than 100'C.
| |
| The soil or sediment is loaded fully into a=tared, standard 300 cc container and weighed. The sample is then counted for approximately six hours with a shielded Ge(Li) detector coupled to a mini-computer-based data acquisition system which performs pulse he~ght analysis.
| |
| Airborne Particulates The thirteen airborne particulate filters for a quarterly composite for each field station are aligned one in front of another and then counted for at least six hours with a shielded Ge(Li) detector coupled to a mini-computer-based data acquisition system which performs pulse height analysis.
| |
| 74
| |
| | |
| A mini-computer software program defines peaks by certain changes in the slope of the spectrum. The program also compares the energy of each peak with a library of peaks for isotope identification and then performs the radioactivity calculation using the appropriate fractional gamma ray abundance, half life, detector efficiency, and net counts in the peak region. The calculation of results, two sigma error and the lower limit of detection (LLD) in pCi/volume of pCi/mass:
| |
| RESULT (S-B)/2.22 t E V F DF)
| |
| TWO SIGMA ERROR 2(S+B) / /(2.22 t E V F DF) 4.66(B) / /(2.22 t E V F DF) where: S Area. in counts, of sample peak and background (region of spectrum of interest)
| |
| Background area, in counts, under sample peak, determined by a linear interpolation of the representative backgrounds on either side of the peak length of time in minutes the sample was counted 2.22 dpm/pCi detector efficiency for energy of interest and geometry of sample sample aliquot size (liters, cubic meters, kilograms, or grams) fractional gamma abundance (specific for each emitted gamma)
| |
| DF factor from the mid-collection date to the
| |
| 'ecay counting date
| |
| | |
| ENVIRONMENTALDOSIMETRY Teledyne Brown Engineering uses a CaS04.'Dy thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) which the company manufactures. This material has a high light output, negligible thermally induced signal loss (fading), and negligible self dosing. The energy response curve (as well as all other features) satisfies NRC Reg. Guide 4.13. Transit doses are accounted for by use of separate TLDs.
| |
| Following the field exposure period the TLDs are placed in a Teledyne Isotopes Model 8300. One fourth of the rectangular TLD is heated at a time and the measured light emission (luminescence) is recorded. The TLD is then annealed and exposed to a known Cs-137 dose; each area is then read again. This provides a calibration of each area of each TLD after every field use. The transit controls are read in the same manner.
| |
| Calculations of results and the two sigma error in net milliRoentgen (mR):
| |
| RESULT D = (D >+D2+D3+D~)/4 TWO SIGMA ERROR =.
| |
| 2((p,-p)2+(p p)2+(D3-D)2+(D D)2)/3)1/2 WHERE: D1 the net mR of area 1 of the TLD, and similarly for D2, D3, and D4 D> I1 K/R I - A the instrument reading of the field dose in area 1 the known exposure by the Cs-137 source R1 the instrument reading due to the Cs-137 dose on area 1 average dose in mR, calculated in similar manner as above, of the transit control TLDs D the average net mR of all 4 areas of the TLD.
| |
| 76
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX D
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF EPA INTERLABORATORYCOMPARISONS 77
| |
| | |
| EPA Interlaborato~ Comparison Program Teledyne Brown Engineering participates in the US EPA Interlaboratory Comparison Program to the fullest extent possible. That is, we participate in the program for all radioactive isotopes prepared and at the maximum frequency of availability. Beginning with 1996 the US EPA discontinued providing milk and air particulate filter samples. For replacements, we have purchased comparable spiked samples from Analytics, Inc.
| |
| In this section 1996 data summary tables are presented for isotopes in the various sample media applicable to the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program. The footnotes of the table discuss 'investigations of problems encountered in a few cases and the steps taken to prevent reoccurrence.
| |
| 78
| |
| | |
| ~<A ~T~KLAHOHATORYCOMPARISON PROGRAM 1996 Environmental Collection Teledyne Brown Date Media Nuclide EPA Result(a) En ineering Result(b) Deviation(c) 01/23/96 Water Sr-89 73.0+ 5.0 73.67 + 3.21 0.23 Sr-90 5.0 2 5.0 5.00+ 0.00 0.00 01/26/96 Water Gr-Alpha 12.1 + 5.0 19.00 + 1.00 2.39 (d)
| |
| Gr-Beta 7.0 2 5.0 7.13 2 0.21 0.05 02/02/96 Water 1-131 67.0 + 7.0 71.57 + 3.06 1.15 03/08/96 Water H-3 22002.0+ 2200.0 22000.00 + 0.00 0.00 04/16/96 Water Gr-Beta 166.9 + 25.0 160.00+ 0.00 -0.48 Sr-89 43.0 + 5.0 41.33 + 2.31 -0.58 Sr-90 16.0 + 5.0 15.33 2 0.58 -0.23 Co-60 31.0 + 5.0 31.67 2 1. 15 0.23 Cs-134 46.0 6 5.0 42.33 2 1.53 -1.27 Cs-137 50.0+ 5.0 52.33 + 1.53 0.81 Gr-Alpha 74.8 + 18.7 63.67 + 2.89 -1.03 Ra-226 3.0 + 0.5 3.40+ 0.00 1.39 Ra-228 5.0 + 1.3 3.63 + 0.61 -1.82 06/07/96 Water Co-60 99.0 + 5.0 99.00 + 1.73 0.00 Zn-65 300.0 + 30.0 309.33 + 2.08 0.54 Cs-134 79.0 + 5.0 69.67 + 1.53 -3.23 (e)
| |
| Cs-137 197.0 + 10.0 202.00+ 2.65 0.87 Ba-133 745.0 + 75.0 711.00 + 71.42 -0.79 06/21/96 Water Ra-226 4.9 + 0.7 5.50 + 0.26 1.48 Ra-228 9.0 + 2.3 9.73 2 0.46 0.55 07/l2/96 iVatcr Sr-89 25.0 + 5.0 22.67 + 1.53 -0.81 Sr-90 12.0 k 5.0 12.33 + 1.15 0. 12 07/ l 9/96 KV >ter Gr-Alpha 24.4 + 6.1 22.67 + 0.5R -0.49 Gr-Beta 44.8 2 5.0 45.33 + 2.08 0.18 OH/09/96 IVatcr fl-3 10879.0+ 1088.0 9800.00+ 346.41 -1.72 09/27/96 Water Ra-226 14.0 + 2.1 14.00 + 1.00 0.00 Ra-228 4.7 + 1.2 6.20 2 0.50 2. 17 10/02/96 Water 1-131 27.0 + 6.0 26.33 2 2.31 -0. 19 l 0/15/96 Water Gr-Alpha Ra-226 Ra-228 Gr-Beta Sr-89
| |
| '9.1 9.9 2 5.1 +
| |
| 111.8,+
| |
| 10.0+
| |
| 2 14.8 1.5 1.3 16.8 5.0 55.671 10.00 5.47 110.0 9.00
| |
| +
| |
| +
| |
| +
| |
| 2 2
| |
| 5.03 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00
| |
| -0.40
| |
| : 0. 12 0.49
| |
| -0. 19
| |
| -0.35 Sr-90 25.0 2 5.0 26.00 2 1.00 0.35 Co-60 15.0 + 5.0 I4.'67+ 1.53 -0.12 Cs-134 20.0 R 5.0 19.67 + 1 ~ 15 -0.12 Cs-137 30.0 + 5.0 29.33 + 1.15 -0.23 79
| |
| | |
| zil A. Lcv L ELcLctlDUIcALvlf,z 4~gvu ~evil I IcvtÃcLBJTI Avvo Fnvixonmental Collection Teledyne Brown Date Media Nuclide EPA Result(a) En ineerfng Result(b) Deviation(c) 10/25/96 Water Gr-Alpha 10.3+ 5.0 9.03 + 0.72 -0.44 Gr-Beta 34.6 ~ 5.0 39.67 + 0.58 1.76 11/08/96 Water Co-60 44.0+ 5.0 44.67 + 0.58 0.23 Zn-65 35.0 2 5.0 38.67 2 0.58 1.27 Cs-134 11.0 2 5.0 12.00 + 0.00 0.35 Cs-137 19.0+ 5.0 20.67 2 1.15 0 58 Ba-133 64.0 2 6.0 56.67 + 3.21 -2. 12 (g) 12/06/96 Water Ra-226 20.1 + 3.0 20.33 + 0.58 0.13 Ra-228 10.2 + 2.6 10.33 + 0.58 0.09 Footnotes:
| |
| (a) EPA Results-Expected laboratory precision (1 sigma). Units are pCi/liter for water and milk except K is in mg/liter. Units are total pCl for air parUculate Alters.
| |
| (b) Tclcdvne Results - Average + one sigma. Units are pCi/liter for water and milk except K ls in mg/liter. Units are total pCi for afr partfculate filters.
| |
| (c) Normalized dcviaUon from the known.
| |
| (d) The variation was due to self-absorpUon properties of the EPA sample matrix. On future EPA water samples of this type, we will determine the overall alpha counting efficienc by spiking thc matrix with Th-230 fn accordance with their recent advisory.
| |
| (c) To verify the cause for the deviation. a Cs-134 standard has been purchased. If thc Cs-134 cmcfcncy is lower than the efficiency at 604 KeV and 795 KeV, then rather than change those cfficicncics (which may be needed for other isotopes of comparable energies). the Cs-134 branching intensity shall be adjusted.
| |
| fn Erroneously lo~ cerium yields were obtained in back-extraction from riuEHP. Greater care to bc taken during ~ 'k-extracUon. If this operation is incomplete. the cerium carrier yield becomes lower than the Ac-228 yield. The procedure had been revised to require additional back-cxtractions for longer periods of Ume to ensure that proper cerium carrier yields are obtained. The procedure is under review to determine if additional back-extracUons are required.
| |
| (pJ Thc cause for the deviaUon could not be specffically determined. Samples were analyzed in triplfcate on three differen HPGe detectors providing results with good precision (less than l1% deviaUon). The values calculated by thc software for each discrete energy line of Ba-133-werc also in agreement indicaUng an excellent cfficicncy versus energy caifbraUon At. Use of a valid branching raUo in the calculaUon was verified. The iniUal aliquot was veriAed and the Co-60, Cs-134. and Cs-137 values were in excellent agreement with the known. A specific trend over Ume was not apparent in the data, however the normalized deviaUon calculated from the EPA appears to decrease as thc known activity increases. No corrective actions are anUcipated at this Ume. Future analyses will be monitored to idenUfy any potenUal trend toward an "out of control" condiUon.
| |
| 80
| |
| | |
| ANALYTICS CROSS CHECK COMPARISON PROGRAM 1996 Sample ID Media Nuclide Tele'e Brown Analytics En ineering Result (a) Result Ratio (b)
| |
| E0633-396 Water 1-131 39+ 5 36+ 2 1.08 TI ¹11912 Ce-141 89K 9 88+ 1.01 03/12/96 Cr-51 330 2 30 322 + 16 1.02 Cs-134 53 k 5 58+ 3 0.91 Cs-137 65+ 7 64+ '3 1.02 Co-58 49+ 5 48+ 2 1.02 Mn-54 37k 4 31+ 2 1. 19 Fe-59 93+ 9 83+ 4 1.12 Zn-65 100 + 10 97+ 5 1.03 CO-60 81+ 8 76~ 4 1.07 E0635-396 M ilk 1-131 162 6 132 1 1.23 TI ¹11914 Ce-141 240+ 20 234 + 12 1.03 03/12/96 Cr-51 880+ 90 858 + 43 1.03 Cs-134 150 + 20 154 + 8 0.97 Cs-137 180 + 20 170 + 9 1.06 Co-58 140+ 10 128 + 6 1.09 Mn-54 93+ 9 84+ 4 1.11 Fe-59 Zn-65 250 x 260 +
| |
| 30 30 223 +
| |
| 260 +
| |
| ll l. 12 13 1.00 Co-60 220+ 20 204 + 10 1.08 E0632.396 Water Sr-89 30+ 24+ 1.25 Tl <<11911 Sr-90 23+ 21+ 1.10 03/12/96 E0634.396 Milk Sr-89 30+ 312 0.97 Tl <<11914 Sr-90 172 16+ 1.06 03/12/96 E0636.396 Water ll-3 2800 2 200 2982 + 149 0.94 Tl <<11913 03/12/96 E0746.396 Air Filter Gross Alpha 37+ 3 352 1.06 Tl <<19220 Gross Beta 150 + 10 144 + 1.04 06/19/96 E0747-396 Air Filter Ce-141 500 + 50 400+ 20 1.25 Tl ¹19221 Cr-51 1200 + 100 1048 2 52 1. 15 06/19/96 Cs-134 310 + 30 310 2 "16 1.00 Cs-137 910 a 90 764 2 38 l. 19 Co-58 210 a 20 173 k 9 1.21 Mn-54 690+ 70 559 2 28 1.23 Fe-59 Zn-65 190 140+
| |
| t 20 144% 7 1.32 10 1082 5 1.30 Co-60 180 + 20 156+ 8 1. 15 81
| |
| | |
| ANAIYTICS CROSS CHECK COMPARISON PROGRAM 1996 Teledyne Brown Analytics Sample ID Media Nuclide En inecring Result (a) Result Ratio (b)
| |
| E0748-396 Air Filter Sr-90 71+ 3 742 4 0.96 TI ¹19222 06/19/96 E0749-396 Air Filter Sr-90 46+ 3 49+ 2 0.94 Tl ¹19223 06/19/96 E0750-396 Air Filter Sr-90 66+ 4 63k 3 1.05 TI ¹19224 06/19/96 Footnotes (a) Teledyne Results - counting error is two standard deviations. Units are pCI/liter for water and milk. For gamma results. if two standard deviations are less than 10%, then a 10% eror is rcportcd. Units are total pCI for air particulate filters.
| |
| (bl Ratio oi'Teledyne Brown Engineering to Analytics results.
| |
| 82
| |
| | |
| 0 EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM GROSS ALPHA IN AIR PARTICULATES (pg. 1 of 1) 80 60 40 20 20 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 a Tl k 3 Sigma 0 EPA k 3 Sigma The US EPA discontinued air particulate fitter samples in 1996.
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM GROSS BETA IN AIR PARTICULATES (pg. 1 of 1) 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
| |
| .1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 D,TI k 3 Sigma o EPA k3 Sigma The US EPA discontinued air particulate filler samples tn 1996.
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM STRONTIUM-90 IN AIR PARTICULATES (pg. 1 of 1) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
| |
| -10 20 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 0 TI23Sigma o EPA+ 3 Sigma The US FPA disconlinued air parliculale liller samaples in 1996.
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM CESIUM-137 IN AIR PARTICULATES (pg. 1 of 1) 80 60 40 20
| |
| -20 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Tl t3 Sigma o EPA k 3 Sigma The US EPA discontinued air particulate filler samples in 1996.
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM STRONTIUM-89 IN MILK(pg. 1 of 1) 100 80 60 40 20 0 o 20 1981 1982 1983 1984 198'986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 a Tl i 3 Sigma o EPA g 3 Sigma The US EPA disconlinued milk samples in 1996.
| |
| | |
| 0 EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM STRONTIUM-90 IN MILK (pg. 1 of 1) 80 60 40 20 20 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 o TI k3 Sigma o EPA a 3 Sigma The US EPA disconlinued milk samples in 1996.
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM POTASSIUM-40 IN MILK(pg. 1 'of 1) 2600 2400 2200 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 600 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 o Tl %3 Sigma o EPA i 3 Sigma The US EPA discontinued milk samples in 1996.
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM IODINE-131 IN MILK (pg. 1 of 1) 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 20 1981 1982 1983 1984 1~85 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 0 f Tl 3 Sigma o EPA+ 3 Sigma The US EPA disconlinued milk samples in 1996.
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM CESIUM-137 IN MILK(pg. 1 of 1) 100 80 60 0 40 CL 20 1981 1982 1983 1984 198.'986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 0 Tl i 3 Sigma o EPA k3 Sigma The US EPA discontinued milk samples ln 1996.
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM GROSS ALPHA IN WATER (pg. 1 of 1) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 20 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Tl t 3 Sigma o EPA t 3 Sigma
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM GROSS BETA 1N WATER (pg. 2 of 2) .
| |
| 260 220 180 140 100 60 20 o
| |
| -20 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 o i Tl 3 Sigma 0 EPA a 3 Sigma
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM GROSS BETA IN WATER (pg. 1 of 2) 220 200 180 160 140 le O
| |
| 120 100 80 40 20
| |
| -20 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Tl 2 3 sigma < EPA a 3 sigma
| |
| | |
| t EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM TRITIUM IN WATER (pg. 2 of 2) 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 8 Tl k 3 Sigma 0 EPA a 3 Sigma
| |
| | |
| + ~ e ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ I
| |
| ~~ I II I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~~
| |
| I~ I ~ I
| |
| ~ t
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I~ I
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM lOD1NE-131 1N WATER (pg. 1 of 1) 180 140
| |
| 'I00 60 20
| |
| -20 1981 1983 1985 198'989 1991 1993 1995 1997 o Tl a 3 Sigma o EPA I3 Sigma
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM COBALT-60 IN WATER (pg 1 of 2) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
| |
| -20 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 a TIX3sigma o EPA t3 sigma
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAlVI COBALT-601N WATER (pg. 2 of 2)
| |
| '120 80 60 40 20
| |
| -20 1988 1989 - 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 0 Tl k 3 Sigma 0 EPA+ 3 Sigma
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM CESIUM-134 IN WATER (pg. 2 of 2) 80 60 40 CD CD 20
| |
| -20 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 0 Tl 13Sigma o EPA k 3 Sigma
| |
| | |
| 0 4 I L
| |
| I ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I 0 ~ 4 0
| |
| | |
| V 0
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM CESIUM-137 IN WATER (pg. 2 of 2) 120 100 80 60 40 20
| |
| -20 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 o -o EPA+ 3 Sigma Tl k 3 Sigma
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM CESIUM-137 IN WATER (pg. 1 of 2) 80 60 40 20
| |
| -20 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Tl i 3 sigma o EPA f3 s',gma
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM STRONTIUM-89 IN WATER (pg. 2 of 2) 100 80 60 40 20 20 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 0 Tl k 3 Sigma o EPA i 3 Sigma
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM STRONTIUM89 IN VfATER (pg. 1 of 2) 100 80 60 40 D
| |
| CL 20
| |
| -20 1981 1983 1984 1985 0 Tl i 3 sigma o EPA k3 sigma
| |
| | |
| EPA CROSS CHECK PROGRAM STRONTIUM-90 IN WATER (pg. 1 of 1) 80 60 40 20 20 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 '1997 Tl k 3 Sigma o EPA k 3 Sigma
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX E REMP SAMPLING AND ANALYTICALEXCEPTIONS 107
| |
| | |
| PROGRAM EXCEPTIONS AIR PARTICULATES On 01/24/96, at the South Bend air station, a strong wind gust blew the particulate filter from the sampler head and the filter was lost. An enhancement was added to the procedure, directing the user to pre-load sample heads or .change filters inside the vehicle if inclement weather conditions exist.
| |
| On 03/06/96, it was discovered that electric power was off at air stations ONS-5 and ONS-6. A technician walked down the power line and discovered that the line fuse was open.
| |
| On 08/14/96. the ONS-1 sample pump lost power. The'particulate and 12 samples were not obtained.
| |
| On 10/23/96. the ONS-2 pump was found with the breaker tripped. The sample pump only ran for 34 hours.
| |
| On 11/06/96 the air particulate and 12 results from New Buffalo were considered invalid as the sample pump pulled an average of 7.6 LPM during the 7 day monitoring period.
| |
| On 1 1/13/96 power was lost at stations ONS-5 and ONS-6 due to a tripped fuse line. No particulate or 12 samples were obtained.
| |
| Throughout. the year, the air particulate gross beta results did not meet the ODCM LLD of.01 pCi/m~. This is consistent with historical results.
| |
| SURFACE WATER l
| |
| Winier icing conditions on Lake Michigan prevented surface water sample collections at beach locations (SWL-2 and SWL-3) from 01/01/96 to 03/31/96. Winter ice cleared and sampling resumed on 04/Ol/96.
| |
| Inclement weather prevented sample collection on 10/30/96 at locations SWL-2 and SWL-3. Beginning on 12/18/96 through the end of the year, surface water samples were not obtained from locations SWL-2 and SWL-3 due to the return of ice at the shoreline.
| |
| On Ol/22/97 Teledyne Brown Eng. reported that the iodine-131 result for station SWL-3 was more than 1.0 pCi/liter (2.0 pCi/liter) in December. This was attributed to the decreased amount of sample water sent to the lab for analysis.
| |
| 108
| |
| | |
| GROUND WATER On 01/26/96 well samples W1, W3, W4, W5, W6. W7, W8, W13, W14, SG-2, SG-4 and SG-5 were not collected due to inclement weather and electric power availability. However, all were subsequently sampled within the 25%
| |
| grace period.
| |
| Gross beta results from statiohs SG-1. SG-2, SG-4, and SG-5 on Ol/25.
| |
| 04/25, 07/26, and 10/25/96 were higher than the ODCM LLD of 4.0 pCi/liter. This is consistent with historical data.
| |
| On 07/25/96, groundwater from well-14 measured a tritium result of 5,300 pCi/liter and on 10/25/96 the result from well-14 was 14,000 pCi/liter.
| |
| This exceeded the ODCM LLD of 2000'pCi/liter.
| |
| DRINKING WATER On several occasions the gross beta LLD failed to meet the ODCM LLD of 4.0 pCi/liter at the St. Joseph and Lake Township Facilities. This is consistent with historical information. It applies to composite samples from St.
| |
| Joseph: 02/02-02/14, 03/28-04/10, 04/25-05/08, 09/12-09/25 and IO/24-11/06. From Lake Township facility the composite samples were:
| |
| 03/14-03/27. 06/20-07/03. and 08/15-08/28.
| |
| In addition, the Lake Township drinking water sample from 04/30/96 was not collected. The sample collector failed to obtain the sample. This was only the second incident of a missed drinking water sample since 1987 and the incident was attributed to water lab technician oversight.
| |
| BROADLEAF SAIVB'LES IN LIEU OF MILE SAMPLES During l996 no milk samples were obtained because two r,-'he three Indicator farms dropped from the program. No replacement farms could be located. Per the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, broadleaf samples were substituted in lieu of milk samples. Monthly broadleaf samples were not obtained during the first quarter of 1996 due to season unavailability. In April broadleaf sampling began.
| |
| In May it was discovered that. procedural directions, in the ODCM, indicating where to obtain the, indicator broadleaf samples were misinterpreted during April sample collection. Broadleaf samples had been obtained from the three highest D/Q land sectors instead of obtaining three indicator samples from the highest D/Q land sector. This was corrected for the May broadleaf samples.
| |
| Broadleaf cesium-.137 LLD results from station ONS-2 was 298.0 pCi/kg on 04/24/96 and 74.6 pCI/kg on 05/22/96. The ODCM LLD is 60 pCi/kg for cesium-137. All other gamma emitting radionuclides results met respective LLDs for May 1996.
| |
| 109
| |
| | |
| l 0
| |
| | |
| On 10/09/96, the broadleaf cesium-137 result was ) 60 pCi/kg (70.4 pCi/kg) in sector A. The other two sample locations in sector IA showed results ( 60 pCi/kg.
| |
| Broadleaf samples were not obtained in November and December 1996 due to season unavailability.
| |
| FISH No fish were collected at location OFS-S on 05/31/96.
| |
| TLDs The transit does was not subtracted from totals for the third quarter TLDs.
| |
| The transit TLD was inadvertently not placed in the shielded TLD holder.
| |
| 110
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX F 1996 LAND USE CENSUS
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX F
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF THE 1996 LAND USE CENSUS The Land Use Census is performed to ensure that significant changes in the areas in the immediate vicinity of the plant site are identified. Any identified changes are evaluated to determine whether modifications must t
| |
| be made to the REMP or other related programs. No such changes were identified during the 1996 Land Use Census. The following is a summary of the 1996 results.
| |
| Milk Farm Surve The milk farm survey is performed to update the list of milk farms located in the plant area, to identify the closest milk farm in each land sector, and to identify the nearest milk animal'hose milk is used for human consumption. The milk farm survey for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant was conducted on July 2. 1996.
| |
| In 1996 there were two deletions to the Michigan Department of Agriculture's list of dairy farms in Berrien County Michigan. One of the deleted farms had previously participated in the REMP Milk Sampling Program.
| |
| The pr'eviously identified milk animal, a goat owne~ by Sue Dorman continues to be 'he closest milk producing animal to the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant whose milk is used for human consumption. The closest edge of the animals pasture is 13,425 feet from the Plant's centerline axis.
| |
| ResidenQal Surve The residential survey is performed to identify the closest residence in each land sector surrounding the Donald C; Cook Nuclear Plant. The residential survey was completed on July 2, 1996. There was one new residential building permits issued by Lake Township during 1996. In addition a door-to-door survey was then conducted using a local area map.
| |
| The closest residence to the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant in each sector remains unchanged from the previous year.
| |
| 112
| |
| | |
| Broadleaf~Surve In accordance with Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, broadleaf vegetation sampling is performed in lieu of a garden census. Broadleaf sampling is performed to monitor for plant impact on the environment.
| |
| The samples are obtained at the site boundary. The broadleaf analytical results for 1996 were less than the Technical Specification LLDs.
| |
| '13
| |
| | |
| Figure 4 INDIANAMICHIGANPOWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT Milk Farm Survey - 1996 Survey Distance Sector Year Miles Address N/A No milk farms N/A N/A No milk farms N/A B N/A No milk farms N/A N/A No milk farms N/A N/A No milk farms N/A N/A No milk farms N/A D 13.9 William Nimtz 3445 Park Rd., Eau Claire 5.1 Gerald Totzke 6744 Totzke Rd., Baroda 10.5 Andrews University Berrien Springs 10.5 Andrews University Berrien Springs Lee Nelson RFD 1, Box 390A, Snow Rd.
| |
| Baroda 6.8 Lee Nelson RFD l. Box 390A, Snow Rd.
| |
| Baroda
| |
| * G 4.1 G. G. Shuler & Sons RFD 1, Snow Rd., Baroda 4.1 G. G. Shuler & Sons RFD 1, Snow Rd.. Baroda a 7.0 George Freehling 2221 W. Glendora Rd., Buchanan b 7.0 George Freehling 2221 W. Gtc.i.uora Rd., Buchanan 7.7 Jerry Warmbein 14143 Mill Rd., Three Oaks 7.7 Jerry Warmbein 14143 Mill Rd., Three Oaks 12 Kenneth Tappan Rt. 2, Kruger Rd, Three Oaks 12 Kenneth Tappan Rt. 2, Kruger Rd, Three Oaks All other sectors arc over water.
| |
| (a) Reporting Year (b) Year prior to reporung year.
| |
| 114
| |
| | |
| Figure 5 INDIANAMICHIGAN POWER COMPANY . DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT ltrsl<l<>>tin) I >>>>d Usc Survey - I!)96 Sector House lt) In Feet Pro ert ¹ Strcct Address 216. I I - I 1.0006-0004-'01-7 lier Drive. Rosemary Dcacli 216 I I I - I I -ooo6-ooon -o)-7 lier Drive. Rosemary Beach 13 2)6 I I - I I -ooo6.ooon-o9-2 lier Drive, Rosemary l3cach 2165 11-11-0006 0004-09-2 lier Drive. Roscntary B< ac))
| |
| 3093 I I- I I -6800.0028-00-0 Lake Road. Rosemary licacli 3093 I I-I 1-6800-0028.00-0 Lake Road, Rosemary 13cach 5733 ) 1-11-0005-0036.0) -8 7500 Thorlon Drive 5733 I I ~
| |
| I 1-0005-0036-0) -8 7500 Thorton Drive 563) I I-I ).0005.0009-07-0 7927 Rcd Arrow ) I ig)1 way 5631 I I-I )-0005-0009-07-0 7927 Rcd Arrow I llghtvay F 5392 11-1 1-0008-0015-03-1 8197 Rcd Arrow H lglnvay Vl 5392 1)-) 1-0008-0015-03-1 8197 Rcd Arrow H)ghway 3728 I I-I 1-0007-0013-01-4 Livingston Road 3728 11-1 1-0007-0013-01-4 Livingston Road 4944 I I- I 1-8600-0004-00-1 Wildwood 4944 11-1) -8600-0004-00-1 WI)dwood 3366 I I- I 1-0007-00)0-02-3 L)v)ngsto<> Hills 3366 I I- I 1-0007-00 10-02-3 Livingston I I ills 10 3090 I I- I 1-0007-0010-03-1 Llvlngston Hl)ls 10 3090 11-1 1-0007-0010-03-1 Livingston Hills
| |
| [ I) House ¹ indicated Is the rel'erence number used on map when obtaining the raw Acid data.
| |
| la) Reporting Year lb) Year prtor to reporong year.
| |
| | |
| r DONALD C.COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT n H 10 MlLE EPZ BERRlEN COUNTY ~ ~ ~ I ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ala 1996 uILK FA(I.'l Str'R)jrY HI,S ' r .A. ((a Cnj '
| |
| I ~ ~ I Wt ~ I~
| |
| ~
| |
| ls rt~
| |
| '...I I (Soot ~ N s
| |
| Is I'e
| |
| ~
| |
| ts xa I~~
| |
| I s
| |
| I,x 8 ~ R II
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 0 360
| |
| ~
| |
| spelt Hl( I ~ (Etpx I~
| |
| ~, +(s(t(I 'I ~
| |
| A S(SI(w I
| |
| ~~
| |
| s(I
| |
| + i 4I (I!ne 'sisstjtg, r'MB.
| |
| ~
| |
| I(ll301
| |
| ~ IS
| |
| ~ e 0 (I ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ sj I
| |
| Ie I l( n((js I I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ntts m I~ ~ ~
| |
| "-"il
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ! (s )~ ( ~ ax(( ~ we! I
| |
| ~~
| |
| I ~
| |
| \
| |
| I(l I I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I I&
| |
| i'a O'> l I I ~ ~
| |
| psst ~ )I.
| |
| I J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| '"s I ~ a "j
| |
| )I I I( ~ as p~s)
| |
| I~I I ! )I (7.I( )otsn t/
| |
| P. I PI7 I(Ines iP tg S.W
| |
| ~
| |
| ~,
| |
| ~ oa
| |
| ~ ~ (sn 'l>> W~e$ ~ I ~ ~
| |
| I cf'b, V ~
| |
| ]
| |
| 1
| |
| ~ )W Saon swats 3
| |
| ~ l3 Vs I a(s) I ~, I I~
| |
| I ~ re ~
| |
| p)s Croenst
| |
| ~ ~~
| |
| A I',t. Iy
| |
| ,~
| |
| III
| |
| "/p ~
| |
| ttea
| |
| ~ gle( I; Closets nlls Anl tse I I ~ I~~ t~>, le I Sue Dorsssn rg I ~ ~ ~ I w It 733 Andrew s Ijnlverslty w ~s(
| |
| o 770 rw w 'I o r ~
| |
| ~ l!I I
| |
| ~
| |
| i ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 0 1$ ( ~ I ~
| |
| I~ tw I( 0 E
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| t ~ 't
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 0o'i I 'I
| |
| ~~
| |
| s', ~
| |
| I. ~ A ~ r, i''
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ 37 Scnu ler el( " es3 'I ~ i(on
| |
| ~I I
| |
| 8ro(!assn
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ soot (p-i=
| |
| t5
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| E'
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| w" ~I I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| A xl ~ sj
| |
| = ex'3 I
| |
| E
| |
| ~"
| |
| r t j
| |
| ;~
| |
| t Wt ~ I I
| |
| ~ I
| |
| ', w 4
| |
| ~ E I
| |
| e25 Cl ~ n lroy I
| |
| ~ /~ o sj I I.
| |
| I t(wwO(r I Ig I r s lj ~ HI A '.4 I H lls A ~ s'I 0. ).o(tasct ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ell Ionn usretseln VWw rw ow ~
| |
| tgs r
| |
| r , ~ j,I I
| |
| ~ 70 Psyne P. I.o(necss
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| H') ~, I o~o l'Arl'
| |
| ~
| |
| Q ~ I~ ~
| |
| I: !P sso~rs'
| |
| .;,'1((ys')"
| |
| ls
| |
| ;"'/~'"
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| te( ~ Isa)All pptns lln( lI wtt I l-: ~ ~
| |
| Cs w ~ wreu ~
| |
| 116
| |
| | |
| v Oi : - Q4 ]ma:Y g ) I Il )-
| |
| e
| |
| ~( /! )
| |
| ~~J
| |
| ~ 4 $ v ~go 0,
| |
| 'O V
| |
| r(( l'~Z Tjrg )
| |
| g t
| |
| ('96 Qs pr g/
| |
| Qo O~ /' /-
| |
| /, /
| |
| /
| |
| t ., , OB
| |
| /
| |
| /
| |
| I, RESIDEHTIAL LAND USE SURVEY
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX G
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF THE PRE-OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICALMONITORING PROGRAM 118
| |
| | |
| ~I SUlVQ~Y CF THE PRE<OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM A preoperational radiological environmental monitoring program was performed for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant from August 1971 until the initial criticality of Unit 1 on January 18, 1975. The analyses of samples collected in the vicinity of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant were perfGrmed by Eberline Instrument Corporation. The summary of the preoperational program presented in this appendix is based on the seven semi-annual reports covering the period. The purpose of this summary is to provide a comparison of the radioactivity measured in the environs of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant during the pre-start up of Unit 1 and the radioactivity measured in 1996.
| |
| As stated in the report for the period of July 1 to December 31.
| |
| 1971 the purposes of a preoperational radiological monitoring program
| |
| ~
| |
| include:
| |
| (a) -To yield average values of radiation levels and concentrations of radioactive material in various media of the environment.
| |
| (b) To identify sample locations and/or types of samples that deviate from the averages.
| |
| (c) To document seasonal variations that could be erroneously
| |
| >t~rpreted when the power station is operating.
| |
| (d) To indicate the range of values that should be considered "background" for various types of samples.
| |
| (e) To "proof test" the environmental monitoring equipment and procedures prior to operation of the nuclear power station.
| |
| (h) To provide baseline information that will yield estimates of the dose to man, if any, which will result from plant operation."
| |
| The discussion t,hat follows is for the various sample media collected and analyzed in both the preoperational period and during 119
| |
| | |
| 1996. Ana]yses performed during the preoperational but not required in 1996, are not discussed.
| |
| The gross beta activity in air particulate filters ranged from 0 0-'
| |
| 0.17 pCi/m3 from the middle of 1971 to the'middle of 1973.
| |
| 1973 and in June of 1974 the people's Republic of China detona<<d atmospheric nuclear tests. As a result there were periods during which the gross beta results were elevated to as high as 0.45 pCi/m 3 statistically significant differences between indicator and background stations. By the end of the preoperational period the values were approximately 0.06 pCi/m3.
| |
| The gamma ray ana]yses of composited air particulate filters showed "trace amounts" of fission products, Ce-144, Ru-106, Ru-103. Zr-95 and Nb-95, the resu]ts of fa]]out from previous atmospheric nuclear tests.
| |
| Cosmogenically produced bervllium-7 was also detected.
| |
| The direct radiation background as measured by thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) ranged between 1.0 and nirem/week during the three and one-half years period.
| |
| Milk samples during ihe preop rational period were analyzed f<<
| |
| iodine-]3] and by gamma ray-spectroscopy (and for strontium-89 and strontium-90). All samples had naturally occurring potassium-40 with values ranging between 520 and 2310 pCi/liter. Cesium-137 was nie;isurcd in many samples after the two atmospheric nuclear tests nicntioned above. The cesium-137 activity ranged from 8 to 33 pCi/>><<r.
| |
| iodine-13] was measured in four milk samples collected July 9. 1974.
| |
| The values ranged between 0.2 and 0.9 pCi/liter.
| |
| Lake water samples were collected and analyzed for tritium>>d by gamma ray spectroscopy. Trii.ium activities were below 1000 pCi/>><<r and typically averaged about. 400 pCi/liter. No radionuclides w<<e detected by gamma ray spectroscopy.
| |
| ]20
| |
| | |
| Gamma ray spectroscopy analyses of lake sediment detected natural abundances of potassium-40, uranium,and thorium daughters, and traces of cesium-137 below 0.1 pCi/g which is attributed to fallout.
| |
| Gamma spectroscopy analyses of fish detected natural abundances of potassium-40 and traces of cesium-137, the latter attributed to fallout.
| |
| Drinking water analysis was not part of the preoperational program.
| |
| | |
| 0 APPENDIX H
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF THE SPIKE AND BLANKSAMPLE PROGRAM 122
| |
| | |
| TELEDYNE BRO~ ENGPlEERING QUALITYCONTROL PROGRAM The goal of the quality control program at Teledyne Brown Engineering is to produce analytical results which are accurate, precise and supported by adequate documentation. The program is based on the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B, Nuclear Regulatory Guide 4.15 and the program as described in Quality Assurance Manual IWL-0032-395 and Quality Control Manual IWL-0032-365.
| |
| All measuring equipment is calibrated for efficiency at least annually using standard reference material traceable to NIST. For alpha and beta counting, check sources are prepared and counted every day the counter is in use.
| |
| Control charts are maintained with 'three sigma limits specified. Control of the alpha-beta counting equipment is described in procedure PRO-032-27, "Calibration and Control of Alpha/Beta Counters". Backgrounds are usually measured at least once per week.
| |
| The gamma spectrometers are calibrated annually with a NIST traceable standard reference material selected to cover the energy range of the nuclides to be monitored and to include all of the geometries measured.
| |
| Backgrounds are determined every other week and check sources are counted weekly. The energy resolution and efficiency were plotted at two enerpv levels on charts and held within three sigma control limits. From January I, 1996 December 31, 1996 the energy levels were 59.5 and 1332 KcV. This -;oc.dure is described in PRO-042-44. "Calibration and Control of Gamma Ray Spectrometers".
| |
| The efficiency of the liquid scintillation counters is determined at least annually by counting NIST traceable standards which have been diluted in a known amount of distilled water and various amounts of quenching agent.
| |
| The procedure is described in PRO-052.-35. "Determination of Tritium by Liquid Scintillation". The background of each counter is measured with each batch of samples. A control chart is maintained for the background and check source measurements as a stability check.
| |
| P reparation of carrier solutions and acceptability criteria are contained in procedure PRO-032-49 "Standardization of Radio-chemical Carrier 123
| |
| | |
| Solutions". Preparation of efficiency calibration standards and check sources is described in procedure PRO-032-27, "Calibration and Control of Alpha/Beta Counters".
| |
| Results are reviewed before being entered into the data system by the Quality Assurance or Laboratory Manager, or supervisors for reasonableness of the parameters (background, efficiency, decay, etc.). Any results which are suspect,=being higher or lower than results in the past, are returned to the laboratory for recount. If a longer count,'ecay check, recount on another system or recalculation does not give acceptable results based on experience, a new aliquot is analyzed. The complete information about the sample is contained on the work sheet(s).
| |
| No deviations from written procedures occurred during 1996.
| |
| 124
| |
| | |
| Results of Duplicate Analyses for 1996 Sam le e Anal sis First Anal sis Second Anal sis Air Particulates Gr-B,eta 2.5+ 0.2 E-02 2.4+ 0.2 E-02 Results in Units of 2.6+ 0.3 E-02 2.3 + 0.3 E-02 10-3 pCi/m3 2;3+ 0.2 E-02 2.3 + 0.2 E-02 1.7+ 0.2 E-02 1.7 + 0.2 E-02 1.6+ 0.2 E-02 1.6 + 0.2 E-02 2.3+ 0.2 E-02 2.1 + 0.2 E-02 2.1 + 0.2 E-02 2.2 + 0.2 E-02 1.4+ 0.2 E-02 1.4 + 0.2 + -02 1.6+ 0.2 E-02 1.6 + 0.2 E-02 1.9 + 0.2 E-02 1.9 + 0.2 E-02 1.5 + 0.2 E-02 1.5 + 0.2 E-02 1.1 + 0.2 E-02 1.3 + 0.2 E-02 1.5 . 0.2 E-02 1.5 + 0.2 E-02 2.1 + 0.2 E-02 2.3 + 0.2 E-02 1.9 + 0.2 E-02 2.1 + 0.2 E-02 2.0+ 0.2 E-02 2.1 + 0.2 E-02 1.8+ 0.2 E-02 2.0 + 0.2 E-02 3.0+ 0.2 E-02 3.0 + 0.2 E-02 2.2 + 0.2 E-02 2.3 + 0.2 E-02 1.7+ 0.2 E-02 2.3 + 0.2 E-02 1.7+ 0.2 E-02 1.8 + 0.2 E-02 2.1 + 0.2 E-02 1.8 + 0.2 E-02 2.3 + 0.2 E-02 2.3 + 0.2 E-02 1.2+ 0.2 E-02 1.4 + 0.2 E-02 2.6+ 0.2 E-02 2.6 + 0.2 E-02 2.9+ 0.3 E-02 2.7 + 0.3 E-02
| |
| ~ I 3.6+ 0.4 E-02 3.6+ ').5 E-02 Air Particulates/ 1 ad inc- 13 1 L. T. 1. E-02 L. T. 1. E-02 Charcoal Filters L. T. 1. E-02 L. T. 6. E-03 Results In Units of L. T. 5. E-03 L. T. l. E-02 10- pCI/m L. T. l. E-02 L. T. l. E-02 L. T. 7. E-03 L. T. 2. E-02 L. T. 7. E-03 L. T. 9. E-03 L. T. 2. E-02 L. T. 1. E-02 L. T. 5. E-03 L. T. 1. E-02 L. T. 1. E-02 L. T. 5. E-03 L. T. l. E-02 L. T. 8. E-03 L. T. 8. E-03 L. T. 6. E-03 L. T. l. E-02 L. T. 2. E-02 L. T. 9. E-03 L. T. 9. E-03 L. T. l. E-02 L. T. 2. E-02 L. T. l. -E-02 L. T. 6. E-03 Footnotes located at end of table.
| |
| 125
| |
| | |
| Results of Duplicate Analyses for 1996 (cont.)
| |
| Sam le e Anal sis First Analvsis Second Anal sis Air Particulates/ Iodine-131 L. T. 6. E-03 L. T. 8. E-03 Charcoal Filters L. T. 7. E-03 L. T. 2. E-02 Results in Units of L. T. l. E-02 L. T. 1. E-02 10-3 pCI/m3 L. T. 5. E-03 L. T. 9. E-03 L. T. 6. E-03 L. T. 9. E-03 L. T. l. E-02 L. T. l. E-02 L. T. 7. E-03 L. T. l. E-02 L. T. 9. E-03 L. T. 1. E-02 L. T. l. E-02 L. T. 1. E-02 L. T. l. E-02 L. T. 2. E-02 L. T. 8. E-03 L. T. 1. E-02 L. T. 3. E-02 L. T. 2. E-02 Surface Water H-3 L. T. 1. E 02 L. T. 2. E 02 Results In Units H-3 oi'CI/liter Ground Water Gamma (a) (a)
| |
| Results in Units of H-3 3.4+ 1.1 E 02 2.9 + 1.1 E 02 pCI/liter Gr-Alpha (a) (a)
| |
| Gr-Beta 7.3 + 2.2 E 00 6.7+ 2.1 E 00 Gamma .
| |
| (a) (a)
| |
| H-3 (a) (a) 1-131 (a) (a)
| |
| Gamma (a) (a)
| |
| H-3 (a) (a)
| |
| Gamma (a) (pl H-3 (a) (a)'a) 1-131 (a)
| |
| Gamma (a) (a)
| |
| H-3 (a) (a)
| |
| Drinking Water Gr-Beta 3.6+ 1.0 E 00 2.9+ 1.0 E 00 Results In Units of I- 131 (a) (a) pCI/liter Gamma (a) (a)
| |
| Gr-Beta 3.5+ 1.0 E 00 3.4+ 1.1 E 00 1-131 (a) (a)
| |
| Gamma (a) (a)
| |
| Footnotes located at end oi'able.
| |
| 126
| |
| | |
| Results of Duplicate Analyses for 1996 (cont.)
| |
| Sam le e Anal sls First Anal sis Second Anal sis Food Gamma (a) (a)
| |
| Results in Units of K-40 2.39 + 0.24 E 03 1.72 + 0.17 E 03 pCi/kg (wet) Be-7 7.58 + 0.88 E 02 3.28 + 0.91 E 02 Cs-137 (b) 2.55+ 1.91 E Ol (c)
| |
| (a) All gamma results less than the detecoon limit (LLD).
| |
| (b) Result positive but associated error made it suspect.
| |
| (c) Confirmed by a reanalysis.
| |
| 127
| |
| | |
| Teledyne Brown Engineering In-House Spiked Sample Results - 1996 Water ike Levels Ci L Acce table Ran e Ci 1 Gross Alpha 1.1 + 0.5 E 01 0.6 - 1.6 E 01 Gross Beta 2.2+ 0.7 E Ol 1.5 - 2.9 E 01 Gamma (Cs-137) 2.2+ 0.3 E 04 1.9 - 2.5 E 04 (1/3-1/31/96)
| |
| Gamma (Cs-137) 2.0+ 0.3 E 04 1.7 - 2.3 E 04 (2/7-12/26/96)
| |
| H-3 (LS) 1.4+ 0.4 E 03 1.0 - 1.8 E 03 AxuQysis Gro s Beta Date L 06806 01/03/96 1.3+ 02 E Ol 07409 01/10/96 2.5 + 0.2 E Ol 07850 01/17/96 2.5+ 0.2 E Ol 08541 01/24/96 2.6+ 0.2 E 01 09080 01/31/96 2.0+ O.l E Ol 09408 02/07/96 2.1 + 0.2 E Ol 09906 02/14/96 1.7+ O.l E 01 10406 02/21/96 2.2+ 0.2 E Ol 10832 02/28/96 "
| |
| 1.4+ O.l E Ol 11184 03/06/96 1.8 + 0.1 E 01 11882 03/13/96 1.9+ 0.2 E 01 12380 03/20/96 2.3 + 0.2 E Ol 12895 03/27/96 2.2+ 0.2 E 01 13312 04/03/96 1.8+ O.l E 01 13932 04/10/96 1.6+ O.l E Ol 14631 04/17/96 2.3+ 0.2 < Ol 15107 04/24/96 2.1 + 0.2 E Ol 15514 05/01/96 1.6+ O.l E Ol 16003 05/08/96 1.8+ O.l E Ol 16618 05/15/96 2.1 + 0.2 E Ol 16838 05/22/96 1.8+ O.l E Ol 17371 05/29/96 2.3+ 0.2 E 01 17754 06/05/96 2.3+ 0.2 E Ol 18334 06/12/96 2.1+ 0.2 E Ol 18831 06/19/96 2.3+ 0.2 E Ol 19455 06/26/96 2.3+ 0.2 E Ol 20049 07/03/96 1.8+ O.l E Ol 20672 07/10/96 2.3+ 0.2 E Ol 21098 07/17/96 2.0+ 0.1 E Ol 21890 07/24/96 2.3+ 0.2 E Ol 22420 07/31/96 2.3 + 0.2 E Ol 22727 08/07/96 1.6+ O.l E Ol 23137 08/14/96 2.0+ O.l E Ol 128
| |
| | |
| Analysis Gross Beta TI ¹ Date Ci 23840 08/21/96 2. 1 + 0.2 E Ol 24 1.81 08/28/96 2.1 + 0.2 E Ol 24743 09/04/96 1.6+ O.l E Ol 25119 09/11/96 2.3+ 0.2 E Ol 25775 09/18/96 2.1+ O.l E Ol 26263 09/25/96 1.9+ O.l E Ol 26820 10/02/96 2.5 + 0.2 E Ol 27434 10/09/96 2.4+ 0.2 E Ol 28206 10/16/96 2.4 + 0.2 E Ol 28965 10/23/96 2.5+ 0.2 E 01 29362 10/30/96 2.4+ 0.2 E 01 29808 11/06/96 26+ 02 E Ol 30605 11/13/96 2.2 + 0.2 E Ol 31203 11/20/96 2.6 + 0.2 E Ol 31650 11/27/96 2.7 + 0.8 E 00 (a) 32143'2713 12/04/96 2.1 + 0.2 E 01 12/ll/96 2.7 + 0.2 E 01 33254 12/18/96 2.2 + 0.2 E Ol 33811 12/26/96 2.3 + 0.2 E Ol SPIKES - GAMMA (Cs-1.37)
| |
| TI ¹ lumhs' "*
| |
| 06811 01/03/96 2.2+ 0.2 E 04 07414 01/10/96 2.3+ 0.2 E 04 07855 01/17/96 2.2+ 0.2 E 04 08546 01/24;96 2.14+ 0.21 E 04 09085 01/31/96 2.32 + 0.2.. E 04 09413 02/07/96 2.06+ 0.21 E 04 09911 02/14/96 2.05+ 0.21 E 04 10411 02/21/96 2.09+ 0.21 E 04 10837 02/28/96 2.09+ 0.21 E 04 11189 03/06/96 2.42 + 0.24 E 04 11887 03/13/96 2.45 + 0.25 E 04 12385 03/20/96 2.08+ 0.21 E 04 12889 03/27/96 2.08 + 0.25 E 04 13308 04/03/96 2.11 + 0.21 E 04 13926 04/10/96 2.09 + 0.21 E 04 14627 04/17/96 2.07+ 0.21 E 04 15102 04/24/96 2.21 + 0.22 E 04 15997 05/08/96 2.12 + 0.21 E 04 (a) The gross alpha and gross beta recoveries for spiked sample 31650 were approximately 10%.
| |
| Errors in counting. data entry or calculation have been ruled out as a cause to the best of our ability. Possible pipetting error is spking the sample can not be confirmed or denied, but is unlikely. Subsequent spiked samples were in control.
| |
| 129
| |
| | |
| SPIKES - GA1VMA (Cs-137)
| |
| TI 0 ci 16614 05/15/96 2.09+ 0.21 E 04 16835 05/22/96 2.06+ 0.21 E 04 17368 05/29/96 2.06+ 0.21 E 04 17751 06/05/96 2.08+ 0.21 E 04 18828. 06/19/96 2.14+ 0.21 E 04 19452 06/26/96 2.02 + 0.20 E 04 20046 07/03/96 2.04 + 0.20 E 04 20669 07/10/96 2.11 + 0.21 E 04 21095 07/17/96 2.07+ 0.21 E 04 21887 07/24/96 2.07+ 0.21 E 04 22417 07/31/96 2.07+ 0.21 E 04 22724 08/07/96 2.05 + 0.21 E 04 23134 08/14/96 2.03+ 0.20 E 04 23837 08/21/96 2.07+ 0.21 E 04 24178 08/28/96 2.02+ 0.20 E 04 24740 09/04/96 2.10 + 0.21 E 04 25116 09/11/96 2.06+ 0.21 E 04 25772 09/18/96 2.13+ 0.21 E 04 26260 09/25/96 2.11 + 0.21 E 04 26817 10/02/96 2.05+ 0.21 E 04 27431 10/09/96 2.03 + 0.20 E 04 28203 10/16/96 2.04+ 0.20 E 04 28962 10/23/96 2.08+ 0.21 E 04 29359 10/30/96 2.06 + 0.21 E 04 29805 11/06/96 2.08+ 0.21 E 04 30093 11/08/96 2.05 + 0.21 E 04 30602 11/13/96 2.03 + 0.20 E 04 31200 11/20/96 2.08+ 0.21 E 04 31458 11/22/96 2.02+ 0.20 E 04 31647 11/27/96 2.04+ 0.20 e u4 32140 12/04/96 2.08 + 0.21 E 04 32710 12/11/96 2.09 + 0.21 E 04 33251 12/18/96 2.07 + 0.21 E 04 33570 12/20/96 2.10+ 0.21 E 04 33808 12/26/96 2.04 + 0.20 E 04 SPIKES - TRITIUM - (H-3) 10ml TI ¹ IItslzs Ci 1 06808 01/03/96 1.44 + 0. 15 E 03 07411 01/10/96 1.56+ 0.17 E 03 07852 01/17/96 1.49 + 0.15 E 03 08543 01/24/96 1.19 + 0.14 E 03 09082 01/31/96 1.39 + 0.15 E 03 09410 02/07/96 1.35+ 0.16 E 03 130
| |
| | |
| 'PIKES - TRITIUM - (H-3) 10ml TI ¹ c'9908 02/14/96 1.38 + 0.16 E 03 10408 02/21/96 1.37 + 0.16 E 03 10834 02/28/96 1.63+ 0.17 E 03 11186 03/06/96 1.37 + 0.16 E 03 11884 03/13/96 1.44+ 0.16 E 03 12382 03/20/96 1.47 + 0.16 E 03 12899 03/27/96 1.43 + 0.17 E 03 133.'6 04/03/96 1.46+ 0.19 E 03 13936 04/10/96 1.51 + 0.18 E 03 14635 04/17/96 1.66+ 0.20 E 03 15111 04/24/96 1.35 + 0.17 E 03 15516 05/01/96 1.32'+ 0.15 E 03 16005 05/08/96 1.33+ 0.15 E 03 16620 05/15/96 1.52 + 0.16 E 03 16842 05/22/96 1.33+ 0.15 E 03 17375 05/29/96 1.39 + 0.11 E 03 17758 06/05/96 1.71 + 0.20 E 03 18338 06/12/96 1.37+ 0.15 E 03 18835 06/19/96 1.35 + 0.15 E 03 19459 06/26/96 1.28 + 0.15 E 03 20053 07/03/96 1.19+ 0.16 E 03 20676 07/10/96 1.32 + 0.17 E 03 21102 07/17/96 1.34 + 0.15 E 03 21894 07/24/96 1.39 + 0.15 E 03 22424 07/31/96 1.27 + 0.15 E 03 22731 08/07/96 1.24 + 0.15 E 03 23156 08/14/96 1.36 + 0.15 E 03 23844 08/21/96 1.32+ 0.15 E 03 24185 08/28/96 1.13+ 0.15 E 03 24747 09/04/96 1.40 + 0.16 E 03 25123 09/11/96 1.30 + 0.16 E 03 25779 09/18/96 1.41 + 0.16 E 03 26267 09/25/96 1.22+ 0.15 E 03 26824 10/02/96 1.23+ 0.14 E 03 27438 10/09/96 1.41+ 0.19 E 03 28210 10/16/96 1.26+ 0.15 E 03 28969 10/23/96 1.14+ 0.17 E 03 29366 10/30/96 1.43 + 0.17 E 03 29812 11/06/96 1.09+ 0.15 E 03 30609 11/13/96 1.13+ 0.16 E 03 31207 11/20/96 1.24 + 0.16 E 03 31654 11/27/96 1.17 + 0.17 E 03 32147 12/04/96 1.25 + 0.16 E 03 32717 12/11/96- 1.28+ 0.17 E 03 33258 12/18/96 1.26 + 0.18 E 03 33815 12/26/96 1.55+ 0.18 E 03 131
| |
| | |
| Teledyne Brown Engineering In-House Blanks Sample Results - 1996 Water GROSS BETA BLANKS Analysis Gross Beta TI ¹ Date C" 06805 01/03/96 L. T. 8. E-Ol 07408 01/10/96 L. T. 8. E-01 07849 01/17/96 L. T. 8. E-01 08540 Ol/24/96 L. T. 9. E-01 09079 01/31/96 L. T. 9. E-Ol 09407 02/07/96 L. T. 8. E-01 09905 02/14/96 L. T. 1. E 00 10405 02/21/96 L. T. 9. E-01 10831 02/28/96 L. T. 8. E-01 11183 03/06/96 L. T. 9. E-01 11881 03/13/96 L. T. 8. E-01 12379 03/20/96 L. T. 7. E-01 12894 03/27/96 L. T. 8. E-01 13311 04/03/96 L. T. 7. E-Ol 13931 04/10/96 L. T. 8. E-01 14630 04/17/96 L. T. 7. E-01 15106 04/24/96 L. T. 9. E-Ol 15513 05/01/96 L. T. 1. E 00 16002 05/08/96 L. T E-Ol 16617 05/15/96 L. T E-01 16837 05/22/96 L. T E-Ol 17370 05/29/96, L. T E-Ol 17753 06/05/96 L. T E-01 18333 06/12/96 L. T. 8. E-01 18830 06/19/96 L. T. 8. E-01 19454 06/26/96 L. T. 8. E-01 20048 07/03/96 L. T. 8. E-Ol 20671 07/10/96 L. T. 8. E-01 21097 07/17/96 L. T. 7. E-01 21889 07/24/96 L. T. 8. E-01 22419 07/31/96 L. T. 8. E-01 22726 08/07/96 L. T. 8. E-01 23136 08/14/96 L. T. 9. E-01 23839 08/21/96 L. T. 9. E-01 24180 08/28/96 L. T. 8. E-01 24742 09/04/96 L. T. 8. E-01 25118 09/ll/96 L. T. 9. E-Ol 25774 09/18/96 L. T. 8. E-01 26262 09/25/96 L. T. 8. E-01 132
| |
| | |
| GROSS BETA - BLANKS (Cont.)
| |
| Analysis Gross Beta Tl ¹ Date Ci 26819 10/02/96 L. T 8. E-01 27433 10/09/96 L. T 8. E-01 28205 10/16/96 L. T 8. E-Ol 28964 10/23/96 L. T 8. E-01 29807 11/06/96 L. T. 9. E-01 30604 11/13/96 L. T. 9. E-01 31202 11/20/96 L. T. 8. E-Ol 31649 11/27/96 L. T 8. E-01 32142 12/04/96 L. T 7. E-01 32712 12/11/96 L. T 7. E-01 33253 12/18/96 L. T 9. E-01 33810 12/26/96 L. T 8. E-01 TRITIUM - (H-3) - BLANKS TI ¹ Activi 06810 01/03/96 L. T. 1.43 E 02 07413 01/10/96 L. T. 1.57 E 02 07854 01/17/96 L. T. 1.48 E 02 08545 01/24/96 L. T. 1.60 E 02 09084 01/31/96 L. T. 1.53 E 02 09412 02/07/96 L. T. 1.65 E 02 09910 02/14/96 L. T. 1.90 E 02 10410 02/21/96 L. T. 1.84 E 02 10836 02/28/96 L. T. 2.14 E 02 ll188 03/06/96 L. T. 2.0C E 02 11886 03/13/96 L. T. 1.60 E 02 12384 03/20/96 L. T. 1.79 E 02 12897 03/27/96 L. T. 1.90 E 02 13314 04/03/96 L. T. 2.24 E 02 13934 04/10/96 L. T. 2.26 E 02 14633 04/17/96 L. T. 238E02 15109 04/24/96 L. T. 1.81 E 02 15518 05/01/96 L. T. 1.51 E 02 16007 05/08/96 L. T. 1.61 E 02 16622 05/15/96 L. T. 1.42 E 02 16840 05/22/96 L. T. 1.53 E 02 17373 05/29/96 L. T. 1.09 E 02 17756 06/05/96 L. T. 1.62 E 02 18336 06/12/96 L. T. 1.43 E 02 18833 06/19/96 L. T. 1.61 E 02 19457 06/26/96 L. T. 1.51 E 02 133
| |
| | |
| TRITIUM - (H-3) - BLANKS (Cont.)
| |
| TI ¹ is Date Ci 20051 07/03/96 L. T. 1.75 E 02 20674 07/10/96 L. T. 1.66 E 02 21100 07/17/96 L. T. 1.40 E 02 21892 07/24/96 L. T. 1.50 E 02 22422 07/31/96 L. T. 1.55 E 02 22729 08/07/96 L. T. 1.48 E 02 23155 08/14/96 L. T. 1.46 E 02 23842 08/21/96 L. T. 1.50 E 02 24183 08/28/96 L. T. 1.60 E 02 24745 09/04/96 L. T. 1.63 E 02 25121 09/11/96 L. T. 1.69 E 02 25777 09/18/96 L. T. 1.56 E 02 26265 09/25/96 L. T. 1.56 E 02 26822 10/02/96 L. T. 1.48 E 02 27436 10/09/96 L. T. 2.34 E 02 28208 10/16/96 L. T. 1.57 E 02 28967 10/23/96 L. T. 1.74 E 02 29364 10/30/96 L. T. 1.80 E 02 29810 11/06/96 L. T. 1.69 E 02 30607 11/13/96 L. T. 1.74 E 02 31205 11/20/96 L. T. 1.74 E 02 31652 11/27/96. L. T. 1.91 E 02 32145 12/04/96 L. T. 1.74 E 02 32715 12/11/96 L. T. 1.87 E 02 33256 12/18/96 L. T. 2.00 E 02 33813 12/26/96 L. T. 1.72 E 02 134
| |
| | |
| 0 APPENDIX I TLD QUALITYCONTROL PROGRAM 135
| |
| | |
| TLQ QUALITY'ONTROLPROGRAM Teledyne Brown Engineering performs an in-house quality assurance testing program for the environmental TLD laboratory. On a quarterly basis the QA manager or a qualified designate exposes groups of TLDs to three different doses using a known exposure rate from a cesium-137 source.
| |
| Typical exposures are between 20 and 80 mR. The TLDs are read on each of the three Model 8300 Readers in the environmental TLD laboratory and the calculated results are reported to the QA manager. The QA manager evaluates the results and writes a report discussing the performance of the laboratory.
| |
| For 1996 all results were within the requirements of Regulatory Guide 4.l3, Section C. The standard deviations of three measurements at each exposure for each reader was less than 7.5%. The percent deviation of the average of the three measurements from the known exposure at each exposure for each reader was less than 30%. The accompanying graphs indicate the normalized deviations of the average measurements from the known exposures at each exposure for each reader.
| |
| 136
| |
| | |
| QUALITY CONTROL - TLDs HIGH DOSE 0.8 0.6 Cl 0.4 0
| |
| 0 X
| |
| C2 D 0.2 Cl -0.2 E r
| |
| //
| |
| 0 -0.4 C
| |
| 0 I
| |
| -0.6 4C O
| |
| 0 -0.8 E
| |
| 0 Reader ¹242 malfunctioned during
| |
| -1.2 testing in 3/96. Test repeated in 4/96
| |
| -1.4
| |
| ~
| |
| 1/93 3/93 7/93 10/93 2/94 5/94 9/94 12/94 3/95 6/95 10/95 12/95 3/96 4/96 6/96 7/96 9/96 12/96 Reader-205 w Reader-211
| |
| ~
| |
| Reader-242 rr ,. Reader-9150 Reader-9150 permanently removed from service during the first quarter 1993.
| |
| | |
| QUALlTY CONTROL - TLDs LOW DOSE 2.5 Reader f/2O5 test invalid in
| |
| ',r o
| |
| I 3/96. Test repeated in 4/96.
| |
| 0 I CL X t o I O 1.5 e Reader ff242 malfunctioned during C
| |
| testing in 3/96. Test repeated in 4/96 I 0
| |
| \
| |
| /
| |
| Cl 0.5 E
| |
| 0 I
| |
| C 0
| |
| C$
| |
| .-0.5 .A-fj X /
| |
| i
| |
| '00 y
| |
| /
| |
| E 0 -1.5 K
| |
| -2
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 1/93 3/93 7/93 10/93 2/94 5/94 9/94 12/S4 3/95 6/95 10/S5 12/95 3/96 4/96 6/96 7/96 9/96 12/96
| |
| - e- Reader-205 W Reader-211 Reader-242 Reader-9150 Reader-9150 was permanently removed from service during the first quarter 1993.
| |
| | |
| 0 QUALITY CONTROL - TLDs MIDDLE DOSE o
| |
| 4 Reader 8242.malfunctioned during 1.5 0 testing in 3/96. Test repeated in 4/96 CL O
| |
| Q I
| |
| 0
| |
| =C 0.5 o
| |
| E 0
| |
| 'Q C
| |
| 0 o -0.5 e.
| |
| >e- ~ ~ /
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| E 0
| |
| X
| |
| -1.5
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 1/g3 3/g3 7/g3 10/93 2/94 5/94 9/94 12/94 3/95 6/95 10/95 12/95 3/96 4/96 6/96 7/96 9/96 12/96 Reader-205 W Reader-211
| |
| ~
| |
| Reader-242 Reader-9150 Reader-9150 was permanently removed from service during the first quarter 1993.
| |
| | |
| QUALlTY CONTROL - TLDS TLD READER 205 2.5 3/96 Test Invalid.
| |
| Repeated 4/96.
| |
| I ~
| |
| I I
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I O 1.5 I I-C I
| |
| 0C I
| |
| O I
| |
| E 0 0.5 I C I 0
| |
| '5gd e
| |
| 1 e-~ -8 0
| |
| N 0
| |
| / I t5 E -0.5 0
| |
| Z
| |
| /
| |
| /
| |
| -1.5 1/93 3/93 7/93 1 0/g3 2/94 5/g4 g/94 1 2/94 3/95 6/95 1 0/95 1 2/95 3/96 4/96 7/96 9/96 1 2/96 Low Dose -e Middle Dose 6t High Dose
| |
| | |
| QUALITY CONTROL - TLDS TLD READER 211 l.5 0.5 p
| |
| 0 rS ig
| |
| -0.5 /
| |
| /
| |
| /
| |
| /
| |
| -1.5
| |
| -2 1/93 3/93 7/93 1 P/93 2/94 5/94 9/94 1 2/94 3/95 6/95 1 P/95 1 2/95 3/96 4/96 7/96 9/96 1 2/96 Low Dose -e .Middle Dose High Dose
| |
| | |
| QUA ONTROL - TLDs T o READER 242 1.5 O
| |
| D 0
| |
| X a
| |
| O 0.5 O
| |
| I-I 0
| |
| c I Q
| |
| C Q ~
| |
| 0 -0.5 C
| |
| 0 I gD C)
| |
| I I
| |
| CU E
| |
| s reader malfunction in 3/96
| |
| -1.5 0 Test repeated in 4/96
| |
| -2
| |
| ~
| |
| 1/93 3/93 7/93 10/93 2/94 5/94 9/94 12/'94 3/95 6/95 10/95 12/95 4/96 6/96 9/96 12/96
| |
| - e- L."w Dose -e Middle Dose High Dose}}
| |
