ML19332E818

Rev a to Fort St Vrain Site-Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate Basis for Preliminary Decommissioning Plan.

ML19332E818
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	12/01/1989
From:	PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO
To:
Shared Package
ML19332E816	List: ML19332E815 ML19332E818 ML19332E819 ML19332E821
References
EE-DEC-0020, EE-DEC-0020-R-A, EE-DEC-20, EE-DEC-20-R-A, NUDOCS 8912130018
Download: ML19332E818 (233)

Text

, . .. . - ~

t ((l l

l EE-DEC-0020 4 REY A

]

FORT ST. VRAIN '

SITE SPECIFIC DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE '

BASIS FOR PRELIMINARY DECOMISSIONING PLAN t'

Prepared by: k. Dvm j ProfessionaT Engineer I2. /' / 81 Date Verified by: A M Jjlds # _ - /2///ff Professional Engineer Date i,

Approved by: A{ W1.ud_ l2 - i - t 'l Date Nuclear Engineering Managep Approved by: '-

i x/t /e<t D/D Pr6 gram Mariager Date 8912130018 891201 PDR ADOCK 05000267 P PDC

-n f

J j

TABLE OF CONTENTS i Pqe, .

'1.0 PURPOSE -1 g- 2.0

SUMMARY

1 ,

3.0 SCOPE 1 .-

[!. 4.0 APPROACH 4 5.0 EVAll!ATION 5 6.' O CONCLUSION 5-1 ATTACHMENT A: DETAILS OF COST ESTIMATE

c. ATTACHMENT B: PCRV DECONTAMINATI0h/ DISMANTLEMENT CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND COST ESTIMATE 9

I l

l:  :

l ~ t

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 1 of 41 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this engineering evaluation (EE) is to document the decomissioning cost estimate that was submitted in the Preliminary tecommissioning Plan (Ref. Letter P-89228). Only costs associated with decommissioning are the subject of this engineering evaluation. ,

2.0

SUMMARY

The various phases of decomissioning were reviewed and the estimated costs during each period were determined. The costs were outlined in Tables.1 thru 4 for each of the four periods of deconnissioning. The four decomissioning periods, time frames,-

and associated costs are as follows: ,

1) Defueling and component removal period, 1988-1993,

$19,654,000.

2) Fuel storage period, 1993-2019,$16,148,000.

3) PCRV decay period, 2021-2043,$9,794,000,

4) PCRV decontamination / dismantlement period, 2044-2046,

$34,571,000.

These' costs were then summarized on Table 5 to show what the yearly costs were expected to be. The details of the cost estimate were included in Attachment A to this engineering evaluation.

3.0 SCOPE This cost estimate was based on the following defueling and decommissioning scenario for FSV:

Defueling and Component Removal Period:

FSV is permanently shutdown and defueling is started at the end of March, 1990.

Defueling is completed by October,1992.

A six month component removal period follows defueling.

Contaminated systems are cleaned-up, the control rod drive and orificing assemblies and the helium cftculators are removed and disposed of and the plant is readied for SAFSTOR during this period.

F 9- ~ +-~e~ -e v - - - - - , .v., ,, , ---w - , , - - - - - , - -, e

y ,r - . . - . _- -

7 gg;)@dU c

m A ,

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 2 of 41 i

Fuel Storage Period:

-- The plant is kept in a SAFSTOR mode until the year 2044.

During this period, it is. assumed spent fuel is stored on- '

site in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) until the year 2020, at which time it is transferred to the Federal Repository.

PCRV Decay Period:

- The PCRV residual radioactivity continues to decay.

Decontamination / Dismantlement Period:

The remaining contaminated pertions of the plant including the PCRV are decontaminated and dismantled during a 31 month period starting in the year 2044. ,

The 10CFR Part 50 license is teminated in the year 2046. ,

Only costs associated with decommissioning as defined by.the Draft Regulatory Guide _ DG-1003 were included in this cost estimate. Other costs associated with defueling and storage of spent fuel.were not included.

MAJOR COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS

- Salvage value for any equipment or materials was not assumed or taken credit for.

The cost estimate was based on bringing the plant to a state in which all materials are free-releasable based on the radiation levels of the materials. The cost of bringing the plant site down to the original corn field was not , included (ie. the cost of tearing down the major structureswastnotincluded).

It was assumed that existing facilities would be used whenever possible, such as the hot service facility.

Existing buildings would be used for construction office space and storage space.

It was assumed that the site was not used by any other function such as converting the usable turbine side of the plant into a fossil fired facility.

4

- + ,.-, -

1 3

~:

l .

y v EE-DEC-0020 -1 REV A y Page 3 of 41  ;

I

, I m

It was assumed that the fuel is' stored in an ISFSI using )

.. dry storage casks and the salvage value or resale value of the dry storage casks offset the cost of decontaminating or disposing of the casks after they were used in the year 2020.

It was assumed that decommissioning costs were associated with the removal or decontaminetion of all radioactive material down to unrestricted release limits. Costs for ,

the removal of fuel frofn the PCRV and the storage of fuel on-site and the appropriate fuel storage supporting costs were not considered decomissioning related.

Many of the costs were estimated in 1987 dollars.

Therefore all costs were escalated .to 1989 dolla rs.

Escalation factors of 1.041 for 1988 and 1.05 for 1989 were used baced : on PSC Financial estimates for the Consumar's . Price Index for All Urban Consumers as forecasted by Data Resources Inc.

Technology for remote dismantling of portions of the PCRV to unrestricted releasable limits exists today and was assumed to take place in the year 2044. Costs for this dismantlement phase were based on a feasibility study performed by a Contractor. A. sumary of this study is included in Attachment B. -A cost sensitivity study was performed and all the high range costs associated with the base radwaste volume were assumed from that study except in the area of waste disposal costs. For these costs, the base case disposal costs were assumed for the base

' radwaste volume.

A contingency was assumed to be 25% for all costs except those for PCRV dismantlement, where contingencies ranged l from 20% to 140%.

1 .

l PSC personnel were assumed to remove some of the PCRV internal components and operate and maintain systems as required. All other decommissioning labor was assumed to be perfonned by contract workers.

Contract labor pricing was assumed to be $50 per hour except for the estimates from the dismantlement study which detailed the labor pricing. (Ref. Attachment B.)

The cost for shipping of low level waste was assumed to be

$2,400/ shipment. The burial cost was assumed to be

$150/cu. f t.

, is '

j o

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 4 of 41 A 15% fee was assumed for the contractor performed component removal and PCRV decontamination / dismantlement -

work.

Unrestricted-release limits were assumed as follows:

- Reg. Guide 1.86 was used for surface contamination ,

A value of 10 mrem /yr or 5 micro R per hour was assumed for materials remaining on the site after release.

4.0 APPROACH In terms of the cost estimate, there were basically four periods associated with decommissioning of FSV. The first period, ,

called the defueling and component removal period began in 1990 and was the period in which the fuel and some PCRV components '

were assumed to be removed. .These components included the control rods and drives and the helium circulators. In addition. the contaminated systems outside of the PCRV were assumed to be cleaned up during this period. Following the defueling and component removal period came a period called fuel storage. During this period, fuel segment 9 was assumed to be stored on-site in an ISFSI since no location was available for permanent storage until the Federal . Repository was built and available. Fuel was predicted to remain on-site until the year 2020. Once the fuel was moved from the site, the PCRV was allowed to sit and. decay for an additional 25 year period to allow the internal radiation- levels to decay to minimize exposures and reduce the amount of contaminated material to be removed. This 25 year period was identified as the PCRV decay period. Finally, the PCRV was assumed to be dismantled and .

decontaminated during the fourth and final period. This period was called the decontamination and dismantle period and was estimated to last for 31 months.

The costs were estimated and broken down into categories which included burial costs, 0&M costs, capital costs and labor costs.

The costs were also broken into two categories; those related to decommissioning as defined by.the NRC and those other costs not associated with decommissioning which would still be incurred by

'PSC. The costs not associated with decommissioning were not the subject of this engineering evaluation. Some of the costs were clearly associated with decommissioning. Some of the indirect overhead costs were not clearly separable into decommissioning

, and non-decommissioning costs so these costs were usually L shared. All of the costs were then tabulated in the summary tables which were included in this engineering evaluation.

i

?

t

-.h' EE-DEC-0020 7

REV A Page 5 of 41 5.0 EVALUATION ,

All of the details of the cost estimate were included in -

Attachment A of this engineering evaluation. Details of the PCRV dismantlement feasibility and cost study were included in Attachment B.

6.0 CONCLUSION

A sumary of the cost estimate was included on Tables 1 thru 5.

The tables contain the following information:-

Table 1-Detailed cost of the Defueling Period Table 2-Detailed cost of the Fuel Storage Period Table 3-Detailed cost of the Decay Period Table 4-Detailed cost of the Decon/ Dismantle Period Table 5-Yearly costs associated with Decommissioning 4

l I

i l

l l

_ u

.., y.> y

-d I '

Table 1'of 5 ~

DECOMMISSIONING COST:

SUMMARY

. ' Rev..Date ~20-Jan-89.'

DEFUELING-AND COMPONENT REMOVAL PERIOD (In $1000's, $1989);

~

~

~

~

PRELIMINARY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN EASIS- -

i-l TOTAL DIRECT COSTS BURIAL OEM CAPITAL .. IABOR: COST ,

y CRDOA Removal $584 $342 -$0 ~$3,396 $4,3221 Helium Circulators $38 .$2 $0 .$58 $9E Helium Purif & Decon Sys $105 $11 $0~ -$99' $215

, Liquid & Gas Waste'Sys $79 $7- $0 $111 $196 Misc contaminated Sys $23 $2 $0 $28 $53-Fire Protection Sys $0 .$0' $164 $682 .$846:

INDIRECT COSTS l Security Force $0 $3 $6 $1,073 $1,082 l Decon Matl's & Equip $0 $69' $0 '$0 569 Plant OEM $0 $216 $0 $1,960 $2,176 Pre-Decommissioning $0 $865 $0 $959 $1,824 Consultants $0 $14 $0- $155 $169' PSC Labor $0 $200 $0 ' $1,714 $1,914 Insurance $0 $2,679 $0 $0 $2,679 TOTAL DIRECTS & INDIRECTS $828 $4,410 $170 $10,235 $15,643 l CONTINGENCIES $207 $1,103 $42 - $2,559 $3,911 i

TOTAL 1989 DOLLARS $1,035 $5,513 $212 $12,794 $19,554 2

i E

i i

• I i

t

+ . - - -

, ,4 m.- . r wy. ,-,S- , , , , , w .,, ,., ,, , , . . . , _ , ,,.- _ , , , , ,

_. .-= .

]

^

{Og Table.2 of.5- -DECOMMISSIONING COST

SUMMARY

. R e v . ' D a t e Jan-89 -

FUEL STORAGE PERIOD (In $1000's,.$1989)

PRELIMINARY' DECOMMISSIONING PIAN BASIS

' TOTAL DIRECT COSTS BURIAL OEM CAPITAL IABOR COST Balance of Plant $0 .$696- $0 $1,452 $2,147 F

INDIRECT COSTS l Plant OEM $0 $544 $0- $0 $544 Consultants $0 $2,117 $0' SO $2,117-

! PSC Labor $0 -$60 $0 $7,022 $7,082 j Insurance $0 $1,512 $0 $0 $1,512 TOTAL CONSTR & INDIRECTS $0 $4,929 $0 $8,474 $13,403 CONTINGENCIES $0 $1,232 $0 $2,118 $3,351 i

TOTAL 1989 DOLLARS $0 $6,162 $0 .$10,592 $16,754 1

i i

\

?

i s e-i e

f 4 I

i 4

r ..

z_: . .

.a:

e .:- __

^

_~.

~

. Table 3 of'5 DECOMMISSIONING. COST

SUMMARY

l _.Rev.;Date '20-Jan-89' M 'j" PCRV DECAY PERIOD (In'$1000's, $1989), .

1 PRELIMINARY! DECOMMISSIONING PLAN BASIS

+

-TOTAL:

DIRECT COSTS BURIAL .OEM._ . CAPITAL LABOR' ' COST *

= = - - =

l Balance of Plant $0 $478 ~$0' ' $1,156- $1,634 -

~

=============----

INDIRECT COSTS Security Force $0 $0 $0. ~ $ 0 ~- ' $0 l Plant OEM $0 $126 $0 $0 $126 Consultants $0 $1,257 $0 $0 $1,257 PSC Labor $0 -$16 $0- $2,288 $2,304 l Overheads $0 *

$0 $0 $0 $0-

, Insurance $0 $2,514 $0 '$0 $2,514

, TOTAL CONSTR & INDIRECTS $0 $4,391 $0 $3,444~ $7,835 CONTINGENCIES $0 $1,098 $0 $861 $1,959 TOTAL 1989 DOLLARS $0 $5,488 $0 $4,305 $9,794 .

s l

i

l l

[

i i

,~r 9

i

. ~; , , - . .- . - . _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . . _ . _ _ - - = . - -

.4 mm '

,,q -_ _ _ ,

_ ~.

~

Table'4 of-5 " DECOMMISSIONING COST

SUMMARY

. Rev.cDate 20-Jan,89 DECONTAMINATION / DISMANTLE PERIOD:(In $1000's, $1989)

PRELIMINARY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN BASIS

~~

TOTAL e DIRECT COSTS BURIAL: OEM CAPITAL IABOR -COST

. $2,717

~

Core Components. '$638- .$0 $2,234 $5,589- _

PCRV Components .$2,667  :$7,452L $0 $9,436 $19,555' -- .

INDIRECT COSTS Security Force $0 $140- $0 '$1,059 $1,199 l Plant OEM $0 -$68- $0 $0 -

$68-Prepare Activity Spec $0 $455 $0. $0 $455..

• Contractor Fee (15%) $0 $3,772 $0 .$0 $3,772-Consultants $0 $403 $0 $0 ~$403- ~

, PSC Labor $0 $39 $0 $3,139 .$3,178-

!' Overheads $0 $0- $0 $0 .

$0 '

Insurance $0 $353 $0 '$0 $353.

? TOTAL CONSTR & INDIRECTS $5,384 $13,319 $0 $15,867' $34,571

CONTINGENCIES -$0 '$0 $0 $0 $0-4 TOTAL 1989 DOLLARS $5,384 $13,319 $0 $15,867- $34,571 i

s i

I' 4

i I

4 t 1

. + w.- e,,c, +

- . . + - . p r, - , 4- ,- -p , , o .y - c ~e , w, p4 e --v<'..4e s- w,m res =.. i-

i' j ;.

-Table 5 of 5 DECOMMISSIONING COST SUpWEARY Rev. Date 20-Jan-89 YEARLY DECOMMISSIONING COSTS (In $1000's, $1989)

PRELIMINARY DECOMMISSIONING PIAN BASIS YEAR ** BURIAL OEM CAPITAL IABOR ColtfINGENCY TOTAL ,

4 DEFUELING & COMPONENT REMOVAL PERIOD 1988 $0 $277 $0 $71 $87 $436 1989 $0 $636 $0 $887 $381 $1,904 1990-BEGIN D/F (MAR) $0 $930 $170 $0 $275 $1,375 1991 $0 $1,496 $0 $0 $374 $1,870 1992-BEGIN C/R (NOV) $0 $873 $0 $3,092, $991 $4,956 1993-END C/R (APR) $828 $198 $0 $6,185 $1,803 $9,014 SUB TOTAL $828 $4,410 $170 $10,235 $3,911 $19,554 FUEL STORAGE PERIOD j 1993 (MAY) THRU 2019 $0 $178 $0 $306 $121 $606 '

SUB TOTAL $0 $4,751 $0 $8,167 $3,230 $16,148

! FUEL SHIPPING PERIOD 2020 $0 $178 $0 $306 $121 $606 SUB TOTAL $0 $178 $0 $306 $121 $606 l

PCRV DECAY PERIOD

! 2021 THRU 2043 $0 $191 $0 $150 $85 $426 j SUB TOTAL $0 $4,391 $0 $3,444 $1,959 $9,794 PCRV DECONTAMINATION / DISMANTLE PERIOD 2044 $2,084 $5,156 $0 $6,142 $0 $13,382 2045 $2,084 $5,156 $0 $6,142 $0 $13,382 2046 (JUL) $1,216 $3,008 $0 $3,583 $0 $7,806 SUB TOTAL $5,384 $13,319 $0 $15,867 $0 $34,571 TOTAL ACCUMUTATED DECOM COST $80,672 t

~ _..

f EE-DEC-0020 REV A l Page 6 of 41 ATTACHMENT A DETAILS OF-THE COST ESTIMATE 1::

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 7 of 41 ALL PERIODS Several costs were used from a previous cost estimate which were originally in 1987 dollars. Therefore, the costs from the previous cost estimate were escalated from 1987 to 1989 dollars. Based on information from PSC Long Term Finance, the following escalation factors were used:

1988--- 1. 04 1 1989--- 1.050 This gives a total escalation of 1.041 x 1.050 = 1.093 This is denoted as "i" in this attachment in all costs which were escalated to $1989.

All continuing costs which are constant over a period of time for the -

various pe~riods are broken down into per month or per year averages.

These average costs are nultiplied by the period duration in order to determine the total cost. This period duration is denoted as "t" in all costs where this is applicable.

L l

L

Il EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 8 of 41 DEFUELING PERIOD COSTS Period duration: Defueling period (D/F) = 34 months Component removal period (C/R) = 6 months CRD0A REMOVAL:

These costs are considered to be decommissioning costs. These costs L are spread over the component removal period evenly except where specifically identified. The costs are summarized on Table A1. The labor and 0&M costs included in this category are in support of CRD0A removal. Therefore, costs include support organizations such as plant operations, engineering, QA, health physics, licensing, planning and scheduling, maintenance and training along with fuel deck personnel perfonning the CRDOA removal.

BURIAL: During the last 6 months, the control rod drive assemblies will be removed from the PCRV, shipped and buried.

CRD atsemblies = 78.5 cu ft. x 44 = 3454 cu. ft.

CRD absorbers = 20.0 cu. ft. x 22 = 440 cu. ft.

TOTAL BURIAL = 3894 cu. ft.

O&M costs: O&M costs include the costs associated with the Labor O&M of $300,000/yr x i (or approx. $27,000/mo), the cost of component shipping (see below) and, the cost of storage liners for the RCDs in-the FSW of $45,000 x 1.

l For component shipping cost: The CRD absorbers are assumed to be

separated from the assemblies and shipped via the shielded FSV-1 casks (2/ cask). The assemblies are then shipped via conventional means.

[ CRD absorber strings = $104,000 total (based on past experience using ,

i FSV-1 cask)

CRD assemblies = 11 shipments

! Labor costs: A total labor cost of $6,200,000/yr x i (or approx.

l $566,000/mo) is incurred due to the component removal work.

1

.)

[

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 9 of 41 i

HEllUM CIRCULATORS:

These costs are considered to be decommissioning costs. These costs ,

are spread over the compor.ent removal period evenly except where specifically identified. It is planned that the lower sections of the helium circulators be removed from the PCRV as soon as possible.

This can be done once the fuel is removed from the PCRV. The four circulators in the penetrations will have to be removed and all five circulators (including the spare) will have to be buried as low level waste. The following costs are estimated and are summarized on Table A-1.

Burial: ,

Volumes: The main assembly is assumed to be )ut into a sleeve whole  ;

and buried. The assembly is approx. 64" long )y 40" dia.

Volume = (64" x 3.14 x 20" x 20")/1728 cu in/cu ft

= 47 cu. ft/ circ

= 250 cu. ft for all five circulators approximately O&M costs: '

Included in the 0&M costs are the costs for shipping of the circulators. For the helium circulators, it is assumed that 5 circulators can be shipped in 1 shipment using a flat bed truck.

Labor cost:

- The total labor cost includes the cost to remove the 4 circulators from the PCRV and the cost to disassemble the circulators for shipping. The fifth circulator must be shipped and disposed of but

• it is located out-of-core as a spare. It is assumed that no decontamination work is performed.

Total Estimated Labor cost = $58,000 HELIUM PURIFICATION AND DECONTAMINATION SYSTEMS: SYSTEMS 23 & 61 These costs are considered to be deconsnissioning costs. These costs are spread over the component removal period evenly except where specifically identified.

The costs associated with the decontamination of the helium

)urification system and the decontamination system are included here.

or some contaminated components, removal and burial would be less expensive and easier than decontamination and these cost are also included here. All of the costs are summarized on Table A-1.

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 10 of 41 O&M costs include expenses for decon work = $2000/ week Labor costs for decon work = $26,000/ week Purification /Decon system, time estimate for decontamination efforts = 3 weeks Labor cost for decon = 3 week x $26,000/wk = $78,000 O&M cost for decon = (3 week x $2000/wk) x i = $7,000 approx.

In addition to decontamination efforts, it is predicted that some of the purification train components, including the regeneration compressor and decon pumps, will have to be removed and duried. It is estimated that 518 m-h are required to remove the entire system i

23. Assuming that only 30% of system 23 will have to be removed, the cost for removal is approx:

Cost = 518 m-h x .3 x $50/hr = $7770 or approx $8000 For system 61, an estimated 96 m=h are required to remove the decon pumps Cost = 96 m-h x $50/hr = $4800 or approx $5000 Therefore, a total labor cost for decontamination and removal efforts

= ($78,000 + $8000 + $5000) x i = $99,000 (Labor) -

Burial costs:

It is estimated that a total of 700 cu. ft will have to be buried.

The waste volume for system 61 is negligible.

The waste will have to be shipped and it is assumed 2 shipments will '

be required.

LIQUID AND GAS WASTE SYSTEMS: SYSTEMS 62 & 63 These costs are considered to be deconinissioning costs. These costs are spread over the component removal period evenly except where specifically identified. The costs associated with the decontamination of the liquid and gas waste systems are included here. For some contaminated components, removal and burial would be less expensive and easier than decontamination and these costs are also included here. All of the costs are summarized on Table A-1.

O&M costs include expenses for decon work = $2000/ week Labor costs for decon work = $26,000/ week Liquid and gas waste system time estimate for decontamination efforts = 2 weeks Labor cost for decon = 2 week x $26,000/wk = $52,000 O&M cost for decon = (2 week x $2000/wk) x i = $4,000 approx.

1

L l

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 11 of 41 In addition to decontamination efforts, it is predicted that some of the liquid waste and gas waste system components, including the pumps .

and some valves, will have to be removed and buried. It is estimated  !

that 192 m-h are required to remove system 62 pumps, 2050 m-h for system 62 piping and valves, 144 m-h for system 63 pumps and 4492 m-h  !

for system 63 piping and valves. Since only selected valves require I removal, assume only 10% of the estimated man hours for all the I system piping and valves is required. Therefore, the cost for I removal is approx .

1 Cost = (192 + 2050 x .1 + 144 + 4490 x .1)m-h x $50/hr = $49,500 or approx. $50,000 for the removal of system 62 & 63 componer,ts (labor cost)

Therefore, a total labor cost for decontamination and removal efforts l

= ($52,000 + $50,000) x i = $111,000 (approx. labor)

Burial costs:

It is estimated that a total of 75 + 450 cu ft will have to be buried for system 62 & 63 respectively. '

The waste will have to be shipped and it is assumed 1 shipment will be required.

MISC CONTAMINATED SYSTEMS:

These costs are considered to be decommissioning costs. These costs are spread over the component removal period evenly except where specifically identified. The costs associated with the decontamination of the fuel storage wells, fuel handling machine, auxiliary transfer cask and equipment storage wells are included here. For some contaminated components, removal and burial would be  ;

less expensive and easier than decontamination and these costs are i also included here. All of the costs are sumarized on Table A-1, 0&M costs include expenses for decon work = $2000/ week Labor costs for decon work = $26,000/ week Misc. contaminated systems, time estimate for decontamination efforts = 1 week Labor cost for decon = 1 week x $26,000/wk = $26,000 O&M cost for decon = (1 week x $2000/wk) x i = $2000 approx.

I

EE-DEC-0020 ,

REV A 1 Page 12 of 41 l J

l 1

In addition to decontamination efforts, it is predicted that some '

parts of the fuel handling machine and ATC (grapple heads etc) will I have to be removed and buried. Removal costs for these components i will be small and are ignored for this cost estimate. Therefore, a l total labor cost for decontamination and removal efforts = $26,000 x i = $28,400 = $28,000 approx.

Burial costs:

It is estimated that a total of 50 cu. ft will have to be buried for -

the fuel handling machine and 100 cu. ft for the ATC.  ;

The waste quantity is small and is assumed to be shipped with other shipments.

FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM:

These costs are considered to be decommissioning costs. These costs are spread over the component removal period evenly except where specifically identified. The costs included here are the costs  ;

associated with modification of fire protection system so adequate t fire protection can be provided throughout the SAFSTOR period. The exact fire protection measures which will be required are not defined at this time so the following assumptions and costs will be used for .i the cost estimate: ,

Capital = $150,000 x i = $164,000, this is an assumed cost for any modifications (yet undefined) which may_ be required to bring the '

system to its proper configuration.

Labor = (3 men x 8 hr/ day x $50/hr x 5 days / week x 52 week /yr x 2 yr) xi= $682,000, this is an approximate cost for removing all flamable materials including congested cable areas during the period t of component removal.

SECURITY FORCE:

This cost is sharedb as . a decommissioning cost and a non-decomissioning cost. The cost is spread out evenly over the ertire defueling and component removal period except where specifically identified.

The decommissioning portion of these costs are as follows:

O&M Cost = $3,000 Capital Cost = $6,000 Labor Cost = $1,073,000

ji EE-DEC-0020 ,

REV A Fage 13 of 41 DECON MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT:

These costs are considered to be decommissioning costs. These costs are spread over the component removal period evenly except where '

specifically identified. The costs included in the category ar?

those costs for the rental of decontaminadon materials and equipment to be used in the decontamination effort of the systems identified above. The cost is considered an 0&M cost since it is the rental of such equipment. It has been estimated that equipment is required at a rate of $10,500/ week for a period of 6 weeks total. The total cost is therefore $63.000 x i = $69,000.

PLANT O&M:

This cost is shared as a decommissioning cost and a non-decommissioning cost. The decommissioning portion is spread out evenly over the entire component removal period except where specifically identified. The amount of the cost charged to decomissioning is proportional to the amount of dir'ect cost which was charged to decommissioning for each category. The Plant O&M ,

costs include all of the costs associated with maintaining the plant systems functional during the defueling period. Actual cost center data was taken for the first 5 months of 1987 and averaged over the year. Then an estimated future adjusted average was used to detennine an estimated future cost during the component removal ,

period. In reality, the costs would gradually decline from 100% of the yearly . average costs at the time of reactor shutdown to the

• minimal staffing at the end of the. component removal period. However for this cost estimate, an average for all support staffs has been assumed and will be applied over the entire period to determine the total Plant 0&M cost.

The PSC cost centers which were considered to be Plant 0&M were the following:

-4500, Division Manager

-4510 Station Manager

-4511, Supt. Opera tions

-4512 Supt. Maintenance

-4519, Nuclear Betterment Engineering

-4538, Reactor Maintenance The adjusted average factors are discussed below.

- Cost center 4538, reactor maintenance, all costs are considered 0 since the direct costs associated with CRDOA removal have already accounted for these costs.

e ,

~

L x i ,

V" EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 14 of 41

- Cost center 4510, station manager, a few special costs are included for this cost center and are discussed below:

fuel oil - This cost is expected to remain high at a level of 30% of current costs. This is expected to drop from 100% since the auxiliary ' boilers will not be used to supply the amount of steam used during cperation to various comp.onents but will be required to supply steam for building heat during the winter months, Water - This cost is expected to remain high also at a level cf 40%. Water will not be required at near the quantity for make-up to the condensate, service water and circulator water systems as during nomal operation, tiowever, water will still be required for domestic use and for decontamination and flushing of systems as they are prepared for SAFSTOR.  ;

Electric power - This cost is assumed to drop to a level of 50% since many of the components are not used or are used with a lower power demand than during power operation.

Manpower. This ecst was assumed to be 30% on average for i the period except for_ nuclear betterment whith was assumed to be lower due to the decrease in' calibration and surveillances required.

- Employee expenses, These costs are assumed to drop to 10%

since some overtime meals etc. are expected for these cost centers, l- -

Contract. The orly cost center expected to use contract labor is maintenance and this is assumed to drop to 10%.

- Material, The costs for materials for most cost centers is expected to drop to 10% or 5% due to the decreased L

activity and procurement of new items and tools.

i. .

L - Transportation, Transportation costs are assumed to drop j to 0 except for the division manager cost center who may still attend a few meetings and maintenance who may require shipping of some materials.

Equipment, Equipment costs are assumed to drop to 10% due ,

to decreased activity. l

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 15 of 41 S pace , Space costs are assumed to drop to 0 for all cost L centers except nuclear bettennent du& to reduced staffs.

Nuclear betterment is assumed to drop to 25% since they will still require trailers for space part of the time.

I -- Service, All service is assumed to drop to 0 except for some in maintenance. This is due to reduced staffing p requirements and- elimination of special studies or L services which were required during power operation.

The manpower costs were sumed to determine the total labor costs for these cost centers and the remaining costs were charged as O&M costs.

The costs were then split between decomissioning and non-decomissioning and the final costs associated with decomissioning are as follows:

O&M cost = $5.400/mo Labor cost = $49,000/mo O&M cost = $5,400/mo x (34 mo + 6 mo) = $216,000 Labor cost = $49,000/mo x (34 mo + 6 mo) = $1,960,000 The costs are calculated over the entire period since some de(omissioning work will take place during the entire period. The costs are charged only to the component removal period however.

PRE-DECOMMISSIONING:

These costs are considered to be combined non-decomissioning and decomissioning costs. The decomissioning portion of the costs is 60% and the non-decomissioning portion is 40% (see below). The Pre-decomissioning costs are those costs, both PSC labor and outside consultants, which are required for the planning of decomissioning and defueling operations. The cost breakdown for the year 1988 and those expected for 1989 are shown below. Once defueling has started, ali planning dollars are included in the general Plant 0&M and PSC Labor Categories.

n l

r EE-DEC-0020 i

REV A Page 16 of 41 1

The following costs are based on the decomissioning job order for the year 1988:

Consultants (Jan-Nov) = $347,000 PSC Labor (Jan-Nov) = $131,000 ExpectedConsultants(Dec) = $231,000 Expected PSC Labor (Dec) = $ 17,000 Total 1988 cost = 5726,000 (actual $1988)

Total 1988 consultant = $578,000 (0&Mcost)

Total 1988 PSC labor = $148,000 (Laborcost)

Of the total consultant cost, approximately $363,000, or approximately 60%, of the total consultant cost is associated with decomissioning. The remainder is associated with defueling.

Therefore, assume 60% of the total consultant cost and PSC cost is associated with decommissioning and the remaining 40% is not associated with decomissioning for both the years 1988 and 1989.

The above costs are actual costs, so they must be divided by the  ;

contingency so the final costs in the yearly breakdowns reflect ,

actual costs since the total is multiplied by the contingency.  ;

For the year 1989, the following is planned for the budget for the decomissioning cost center:

Decomissioning consultants =$ 600,000 Misc. consultants (defueling)= 380,000 PSC labor = $1,480,000 Approximately 60% of the consulting costs is bssociated with decomissioning , so the above assumption about 60% for decomissioning is valid. The expected 1989 costs are multiplied by the contingency in the end like all other costs.

Total O&M cost = $578,000/1.25 + $980,000 = $1,442,000 Total Labor cost = $148,000/1.25 + $1,480,000 = $1,598,000 For the above costs, 60% is allocated to decomissioning.

CONSULTANTS:

This cost is shared as a decomissioning cost and a ncn-decomissioning cost. The cost is spread out evenly over the entire component removal period except where specifically identified.

I

l EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 17 of 41 ji  :

All of the consultant costs for studies during this period should be covered by the pre-decommissioning costs. Once defueling has started, there appears to be no costs associated with consultants except the associated environmental monitoring program (which is ,

assumed to be continued by Colorado State University, CSU), the t auditing programs (which is assumed to be continued by an outside ,

party) and seme contract labor support as identified below. These QA and environmental costs are categorized as 0&M costs with the maintenance cost categorized as labor.

The decommissioning portion of these costs are as follows:

Environmental monitoring = $ 8,000 QA auditing =$ 6,000 Total O&M = 5 14,000 Contract Maintenance labor = $155,000 PSC LABOR:

This cost is shared as a decommissioning cost and a non-decommissioning cost. The cost is spread out evenly over tha entire ,

component removal period except where specifically identified. The amount of the cost charged to decomissioning is proportional to the amount of direct cost which was charged to decommissioning for each category.

The PSC Labor costs included all of the costs associated with support organizations that are required during the component removal period.

Actual cost center data was taken for the first 5 months of 1987 and averaged over the year. Then an estimated future adjusted average was assumed to determine an estimated future cost during the component removal period. In reality, the costs would gradually decline from 100% of the yearly average costs at the time of reactor shutdown to the minimal staffing at the end of the component removal period. However, for this cost estimate, an average for all support staffs has been assumed and will be applied over the entire period to determine the total PSC labor cost.

9 EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 18 of 41 ,

The PSC cost centers which were considered to be PSC labor were the following:

- 4514, Planning and scheduling

- 4530. Tech admin service manager <

- 4531, Security 4532, Nuclear documents supr 4534. Technical services

- 4536, Supr tech service engineering i

- 4537 Plant engineering ,

4539. Emergency Preparedness

- 4540, Support services manager

- 4541. Health physics

- 4542, Radiochemistry

- 4543, FSV water chemistry 4545, Supr training

- 4546, Operator training

- 4547 Technical training 4548, Training support .

4700, Nuclear Engineering '

- 4800, Manager, nuclear licensing and fuels The adjusted average factors are discussed below.

- Cost center 4531, Security, All costs are considered 0 since the direct costs associated with security are listed separately. -

Manpower, This cost was assumed to be 20% on average for the period for a majority of the cost centers. Emergency preparedness, technical training and training support are assumed to be required only at a level of 10%. On the ,

other hand, due to the large amount of radioactive ,

materials being handled, it was assumed that health physics would be required at a level of 80% and radiochemistry at 40%. In addition, due to the modifications that are required and the shutting down of systems, it was assumed 30% of engineering wculd be required.

Employee expenses, These costs are assumed to drop to 0%

for most cost centers and 10% for the cost centers which '

may experience some overtime meals etc.

- Contract labor, This cost is assumed to drop to 0% for all cost centers.

EE-DEC-002C o.EV A Page 19 of 41 o

- Material, The costs for materials for most cost centers is expected to drop to 0% or 5% due to the decreated activity and procurement of new items and tools. It is assumed to drop to a level of only 30% for nuclear documents due to the continuation of paper work, and 20% for support services. Due to the radioactive materials handling, 80%

is assumed for health physics and 20% for radiochemistry.

Due to the draining of all liquid systems, a level of 30%

was assumed for water chemistry.

Transportation. Transportation costs are assumed to drop to O except for engineering and licensing who may still-attend a frfw meetings with the NRC and consultants and health physics who may require shipping of some materials.

Equipmant. Equipment costs are assumed to drop to between 0% and 30% due to decreased activity. ,

Space. Space costs are assumed to drop to O for all cost centers except tech services, training, engineering and licensing due to decreased staffing levels. Those cost centers requiring space are assumed to drop to 20% or 30%

since they will still require trailers or office space part of the time.

Se rvice. All service is assumed to drop to O except for the following. This is due to reduced staffing requirements and elimination of special studies- or services which were required during power operation. -

Services at a level of 20% is assumed for nuclear documents due to the paper work continuing, 20% is assumed for tech services for computer support, 50% is assumed for health physics and 80% for radiochemistry for support due to the volume of radioactive waste, 20% for training outside support,1% for engineering due to - the reduction of projects and 5% for licensing for continued outside licensing support.

I l

l 1

l l

m e

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 20 of 41 0- l The marpower costs were sumed to detennine the total labor costs for i these cost centers and the remaining costs were charoed as O&M costs.

The costs were then split between decomissioning . and non-decomissioning and the decommissioning portion ;/ the final costs are as following:

O&M cost = $5000/mo Labor cost = $42,800/mo 0&M cost = $5000/mo x (34 mo + 6 mo) = $200,000 Labor cost = $42,800/mo x (34 mo + 6 mo) = $1,714,000 INSURANCE:

The cost of insurance is arbitrarily assumed to be 50%  :

decomissioning cost and 50% non-decomissioning incurred cost as long as fuel remains on site and is considered an OAM cost.

The decomissioning portion of insurance is assumed to be the following:

Cost = $77,500/mo during defueling Cost = $ 7,300/mo during component removal The cost is calculated and spread out over the entire defueling and component removal periods. Therefore, the total cost is:

Insurance cost = $77,500/mo x 34 mo

+ $7,300/mo x 6 mo

= $2,679,000 CONTINGENCIES is an additional cost added to the entire cost estimate to cover all unknown costs. An industry average of 25% is used for this cost estimate.

SAFSTOR FUEL STORAGE PERIOD COSTS AND PCRV DECAY PERIOD COSTS Note: All of the following costs are spread out over the entire period and are defined in terms of an annual cost multiplied by the period duration.

L.

e t

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 21 of 41 The fuel storage period is defined as the period when the i

contaminated PCRV is intact and awaiting delayed dismantling and the fuel is being stored on-site in the ISFSI. In this period, FSV would have 10CFR Part 50 and Part 72 licenses. Duration = 27 yr. + 8 mo.

The PCRV decay period is defined as the period after which the fuel is shipped off-site and only the contaminated PCRV remains intact awaiting delayed dismantlement. In this period FSV would have a 10CFR Part 50 license only. Duration = 23 yrs.

BALANCE OF PLANT:

These costs are considered decommissioning costs. For the periods with fuel on-site, the costs associated with maintaining all of the systems operational (other than those at the fuel storage facility) are listed below:

SUMMARY

OF SYSTEMS, MODIFICATIONS AND COSTS O&M COSTS CAPITAL PARTS LABOR COSTS System 16-ATC* 0 5200 0 System 41-Circ water make-up 0 7600 0 System 44-Domestic water 0 1000 0 l System 45-Fire protection 100 6100 0 l System 72-Building sump 17700 9300 0 l l -Building cranes 1000 5200 0 l System 75-Fire pump house HVAC 0 500 0

-Building sump 0 100 0

-Building cranes 500 2600 0 L

TOTAL COST $19300 $37600 $0

• The ATC will probably not be required but the cost is included to l

be conservative.

I 0&M cost = $19,300/yr or approx $19,000/yr Labor cost = $37,600/yr or approx $38,000/yr In addition, it is assumed for this evaluation that the Tech support center would be used for office space for the site assigned personnel. Therefore, the following additional costs are required:

l 1-O&M cost = $3500/yr or approx $4000/yr Labor cost = $1500/yr or approx $2000/yr

p ,

1 EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 22 of 41 In addition, the cost of performing the surveillance and calibrations  !

on the fire detection system and fire water pumps was not included i above. Assume it will take 2 men 5 days to do the work twice a year.

Cost = 2 men x 5 days /sury x 2 surv/yr x 8 hr/ day x $50/hr = $8000/yr (labor)

Total O&M cost with fuel on-site = $19,000/yr + $ 4,000/yr = $23,000/yr Total labor cost with fuel on-site = $38,000/yr + $ 2,000/yr i

+ $ 8,000/yr = $48,000/yr l For the period when the fuel is off-site, it is assumed for this evaluation that the Tech support center would not be used for office space for the site assigned personnel since the number of personnel '

will be much less than during the previous periods. All other costs remain the same. "

Total 0&M cost with fuel off-site = $19,000/yr Total labor cost with fuel off-site = $38,000/yr + $8000/yr

= $46,000/yr FUEL STORAGE PERIOD O&M cost = $23,000/yr x i x t Labor cost = $48,000/yr x i x t These costs are considered decommissioning costs since most of the activity is associated with maintaining the shutdown buildings and ll contaminated PCRV on-site.

^

PCRV DECAY PERIOD

! 0&M cost = $19,000/yr x i x t Labor cost = $46,000/yr x i x t These costs are considered decommissioning costs since all of the activity is associated with maintaining the shutdown buildings and contaminated PCRV on-site.t ,

l PLANT 0&M:

This cost is considered a decommissioning cost. The only item which this cost covers is the house power required. All other costs of maintaining and operating plant systems is already covered in Balance of Plant or in PSC Labor. ,

l L

i

- , w

EE-DEC-0020 REV A ,

Page 23 of 41 Approximate electrical loads are as follows for the periods when fuel is on site: -

- Security lighting = 10 kw i

- Tech support center heating load = 144 kw, cooling load = 40 ton = 480,000 btu /hr = 140 kw

- misc loads = 5 kw

- Total loads = 160 kw approx Use 1/2 of this value as a yearly night and day average.

Cost = 80 kw x 24 hr/ day x 365 day /yr x $.025/ kwhr = $17,520 or approx $18,000/yr For the PCRV decay period when all fuel is removed from the site, approximate elect *1 cal loads are assumed to be 20 kw for this cost estimate. This load should be small since trailers or a small building would probably be used for the onsite personnel and no security lighting should be required.

Cost = 20 kw x 24 hr/ day x 365 day /yr x $.025/ kwhr = $4380/yr or approx $5000/yr FUEL STORAGE PERIOD O&M cost = $18,000/yr x i x t PCRV DECAY PERIOD 0&M cost = $5,000/yr x i x t CONSULTANTS:

This cost is considered as a decommissioning cost. For the periods with fuel on-site, the only costs associated with consultants are the costs to perform the environmental monitoring program and audits.

Estimated auditing cost =' $30,000/yr Estimated Environmental monitoring cost = $40,000/yr Total cost with fuel on-site = $30,000 + $40,000/yr = $70,000/yr

," After the fuel is off-site, the same frequency and cost to perform l the environmental monitoring is assumed for the PCRV decay period as L the fuel storage period. As far as auditing goes, it is assumed that only one audit is required every two years at $20,000/ audit.

• Auditing cost = $20,000/ audit x 1 audit /2 years = $10,000/yr

Environmental monitoring cost = $40,000/yr Total cost with fuel off site = $10.000/yr + $40,000/yr

• $50,000/yr t

'a ,

e EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 24 of 41 ,

FUEL STORAGE PERIOD O&M cost = $70,000/yr x i x t PCRV DECAY PER100 O&M cost = $50,000/yr x 1 x t [

PSC LABOR:

This cost is shared es a decommissioning cost and a non-decomissioning cost. The amount of the cost charged to decomissioning is proportional to the amount of direct cost which '

was charged to decomissioning for each category.

The followirig staffing requirements are assumed for FSV during the period when the contaminated PCRV (Part 50 license) and the ISFSI (Part 72 license) are both on-site: .

Posi tion # of. people $/yr Total ,

Plant Manager 1 $50,000 $50,000 Oecom. Supp/ Plan Supr 1 35,000 35,000 Engineer 1 35,000 35,000 Licensing Engineer 1 35,000 35,000 '

HP Tech. 1/2 35,000 17,500 Secretary / Admin. Supp. 1 30,000 30,000 I&C Tech. 1/2 20,000 10,000 QA Engineer 1/2 35,000 17,500 Total 6 1/2 $230.000 78% of the above costs were assumed to be charged to decomissioning.

These costs do not include overhead charges for benefits, insurance ,

etc., so these wage amounts shall be increased by 30%.

1 Total period costs = $230,000/yr x 1.3 x .776 for labor.

A factor of .74% will be assumed to be required for misc. O&M costs Total period cost = $230,000/yr x 1.3 x 0.0074 = $2,000/yr I

approx. for 0&M l

8 l

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 25 of 41 i In the case where the PCRV is still on-site but the fuel has been removed off-site, the following staffing requirements are assumed for FSV during the PCRV decay period:

Position # of people $/yr Total Engineer 1/2 35,000 17,500 Professior,el (NED, 1 35,000 35,000 Licensing.QAetc.)

HP Tech. 142 35,000 ,17.500 Total 2 $70,000 Total period costs = $70,000/yr x 1.3 for labor. A factor of .74%

will be assumed as before to be required for misc. O&M costs.

Total pecied cost = $10,000/yr x 1.3 x 0.0074 = $500 x 1.3 approx. for O&M FUEL STORAGE PERIOD 0&M cost = $2 000/yr x 1 x t Labor cost = $230,000/yr x 1.3 x .776 x i x t -

PCRV DECAY PERIOD O&M cost = $500/yr x 1.3 x i x t Labor cost = $70,000/yr x 1.3 x i x t INSURANCE:

The cost of insurance is arbitrarily assumed to be 50%

decommissioning cost and 50% PSC incurred cost as long as fuel remains on site. When fuel is off-site but the contaminated PCRV ,

remains on-site, the insurance cost is 100% decomissioning, it is assumed to be categorized as an 0&M cost.

An estimated cost of approximately $100,000/yr will be used in this cost estimate for the cost of insuring FSV cnce fuel is removed from the core.

FUEL STORAGE PERIOD O&M cost = (1000,000/yr x i x t)/2 PCRV DECAY PERIOD 0&M cost = $100,000/yr x i x t CONTINGENCIES As stated before, a 25% contingency factor is applied to all costs.

P u'  :

l' 9

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 26 of 41 i

COMPONENT REMOVAL & DECONTAMINATION / DISMANTLE PERIOD COSTS Note: Most of the following costs cre spread out over the entire period and are defined in terms of a monthly cost multiplied by the period duration.

The PCRV decontamination / dismantle period is defined as the period when the contaminated PCRV is decontaminated and dismantled to a free release limit for all materials. In addition, component removal tasks (dummy blocks, reflector blocks, and steam generators) are also performed during this period. The duration of the period is 31 months. .

i l

l

l t

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 27 of 41 i l

CORE COMPONENTS, STEAM GENERATORS:

This cost is considered a decommissioning cost. The costs associated with core components involve a contractor performing the work of ramoving the dummy fuel blocks, reflector blocks and steam generators in conjunction with the disnantling of the PCRV as described below.

The contractor would remove the top of the PCRV and remove the above components using the same equipment used to dismantle the remaining portions of the PCRV as described below. In addition, the contractor would also perform the work of removal and disposal of the steam generators. The costs used in this EE are based on a study which is summarized in Attachment B to this EE. The costs are based on a contractor performing the work and are assumed to be linear over the project duration. The high radwaste volume costs are used due to the low probability that the dummy blocks, helium circulators and steam ,

generators can be decontaminated for free release (which is the basis for the base radwaste volume) . The high case costs for the high radwaste volume are used for everything except burial to account for unforeseen contingencies. For the burial cost, the base case costs for the high radwaste volume are used since $150/cu. ft, seems reasonable for a predicted burial cost. The contingency is included in the cost since the high range costs are assumed.

Burial costs:

i .

To obtain the burial cost for delayed dismantlement subtract the burial cost for the circulators ($38,000) and the CRDs ($584,000) from the total cost (Table B-7).

Burial cost = $3,339,000 - 38,000 - 584,000 = $2.717,000 Labor costs:

These costs include the cost of manual and non-manual labor.

Subtract the costs for events 11.4,11.5,11.18,11.19 of the study since this work was already completed. (Ref. Tables B5 & B7)

Labor cost = $687,000 + $1,'708,000 - $52,800 - $17,700 - $34,100 - $56,600

= $2,234,000

EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 28 of 41 O&M Costs:

These costs include the cost of equipment and services. Subtract the costs for events 11.4,11.5,11.18, and 11.19 of the study since this work was aircady completed. (Ref. Tables B5 & B7) 0&M Cost = $706,000 - $7,500 - $800 - $59,400 = $638,000 Note: $706.000 is approximately $509.000 + $184,000 PCRV COMPONENTS:

This cost is considered a decommissioning cost. The following section determines the cost associated with the decontamination and/or dismantlemeat of all the remaining PCRV components shose radiation level still exceeds that for materials which could be free ,

released. The plan would involve removal (labor cost), shipping (0&M '

cost) and burial (burial cost) of the contaminated components. The activation analysis and the plateout study aredicts that the following components would have to be removed and >uried: ,

- large side reflector blocks - core support posts and blocks

- boronated spacer blocks - core support floor

- core barrel - liner

- insulation and cover plates - a portion of the PCRV concrete The. costs used in this EE are based on a study that was performed '

which is summarized in Attachment B of this EE. The costs are based on a contractor performing the work and are assumed to be linear over the project duration. The base radwaste volume costs are used since they appear to be most reasonable. The high case costs for the base radwaste volume are used for everything except burial to account for unforeseen contingencies. For the burial cost, the base case costs for the base radwaste volume are used since $150/cu. ft. seems reasonable for a predicted burial cost. The contingency is included in the cost since the high range costs are assumed.

l l

l .

(' l i

l l I

l l

a EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 29 of 41 Burial costs:

The study included in Attachment B evaluated dismantlement of the PCRV after 5 years following reactor shutdown. For a 50 year SAFSTOR

period, it was assumed that all internal PCRV components (except the concrete)assumedtobedisposedofinthestudywill still require disposal. For the concrete, the activation analysis showed that very little to no concrete will require removal after 50 years of decey.

Therefore, very little concrete was assumed to be buried. This later proved to be an inaccurate assumption. Based on the current activation analysis, approximately 18" of concrete on the side walls will require disposal. This results in an approximate volume of 5700 cubic feet of concrete. The resulting cost would be $855,000 which is small compared to the total cost and is covered by the contingencies. For the estimate, the following was assumed. A ratio of the concrete volume and total waste volume assumed in the report was used to determine burial costs. The concrete volume to the total volume is:  % concrete = 8628/26,672 cu ft

• 1/3 approx. Therefore, assume only 2/3 of original burial cost at 50 years. (Ref. Table B-7)

Burial cost = $4,001,000 x 2/3 = $2.667,000 0 2 Costs:

These costs include the cost of transportation, equipment and services: (Ref. Table B-7) 0 2 Cost = $7,236,000 + $216,000 = $7,452,000 Labor costs:

These costs include the cost of manual and non-manual labor: (Ref.

Table B-7)

Labor cost = $2.696,000 + $6,740,000 = $9,436,000 .

SECURITY FORCE:

This cost is considered a decomissioning cost. Since portions of the facility will be dismantled during this period and la rge quantities of contaminated materials will be handled during this seriod, security personnel will be assumed to be required. It will

>e assumed for this cost estimate that security at a level shown below is required for this dismantling / decontamination period. A 25%

contingency is added.

EE-DEC-0020 REV A r Page 30 of 41 i

O&M = (2 x $20,000/yr x i)/12 x 1.25 x t

= $3,300/mo x i x t x 1.25 l

Labor cost = (2 x $150,000/yr x i)/12 x 1.25 x t

= $25,000 x 1 x t x 1.25 -

PLANT O&M: >

This cost is considered a decommissioning cost. The only item which this cost covers is the house power required during the PCRV dismantlement period. All other costs of maintaining and operating '

plant systems is already covered in PSC Labor. .

Approximate electrical loads are as assumed to be 100 kw for this cost estimate.

Cost = 100 kw x 24 hr/ day x 365 day /yr x $ 025/ kwhr = $21,900/yr or approximately $22,000/yr Total period cost = ($22,000/yr x i)/12 x t = $2,000/mo x i x t approximately. (consideredanO&Mcost) ,

PREPARE ACTIVITY SPEC: ,

This cost is considered a deconsnissioning cost since it is planning ,

work for dismantling the PCRV. This cost is associated with the writing of the specification and contract which will detail the work ,

that must be performed during the dismantling / decontamination of the PCRV. This spec will then be converted into detailed work packages '

which will specify the actual work steps to be taken during dismantling and decontaminating the PCRV. This activity also involves planning and other miscellaneous activities for dismantling.

Assume outside labor is used to >erform this work and that it takes 4 people 1 year to perform the wor (. This work will probably be done prior to this period but the costs will be included in this period.

For the writing of the Activity Spec.:

Cost = 4 people x 52 weeks x 40 hr/wk x $50/hr x i = $416,000 x i

t l 1 l

EE-0EC-0020 REV A Page 31 of 41  !

CONTRACTOR FEE:

Since it was assumed the decontamination / dismantlement work would 9e l performed by a contractor, a fee will be required by the contracter.  !

This was not included as part of the costs estimated in Attachment B. I For this evaluation a fee of 15% times the total contractor cost will l be assumed. The total cost is as follows and is categorized as 0&M l cost. '

Cost = 0.15 x ($5,589,000 + $19,555,000) = $3,772,000 1 CONSULTANTS:

This cost is considered a decomissioning cost. Part of the costs associated with consultants are the costs to perform the environmental monitoring program and audits. Other consultants may be utilized for advice during the work effort but theste costs should be offset by reduced reliance on PSC labor if consultants are used.

Therefore, consulting costs for this cost estimate cre:

Auditing cost = $30,000/yr Environmental monitoring cost = $40,000/yr L In addition, the environmental impact documentation must be updated for the dismantling 3roject and this cost was not part of the costs '

estimated in Attac1 ment B. A cost of $200,000 will be assumed for this estimate.

Total 0&M cost = $200,000 + ($30,000 + $40,000)/12 x i x t approx. = $200,000 + $6,000 x i x t PSC LABOR:

This cost is considered a decommissioning cost. Based on PSC organizational staffing levels outlined in the report in Attachment B l plus additional PSC project management personnel expected, the I following staffing requirements are assumed for FSV during the PCRV dismantlement project:

b l

l

4- -

EE-DEC-0020 REY A Page 32 of 41 Position _

1. of people $/yr Total $/yr Station manager 1 55,000 55,000 QA manager 1 45.000 45,000 Nuclear support mgr 1 45,000 45,000 Decommissioning mgr 1 45,000 45,000 Security supervisor 1 45,000 45,000  ;

Health Physics sup 1 45,000 45,000  ;

Training supervisor 1 45,000 45,000 Industrial safety sup 1 45,000 45,000 Secretary / admin support 2 20,000 40,000 1 Engineer 3 40,000 120,000 l Trainers 2 35,000 70,000 1 Misc. (NRC interface, 5 30,000 150,000 '

burial site interface, contract writers, payroll etc.)

Total 20 people $750,000 PSC labor will be assumed to be used to control the project. The above costs must be increased by 30% to account for costs for benefits, lost time etc. A 25% contingency is included since the overall cost does not include a contingency.

Labor cost = ($750,000/yr x 1.3 x 1.25)/12 x t

= $81,000/mo x t x 1.25 As before, a .74% factor is applied for O&M costs:

l O&M cost = $81,000 x 0.0074 = $600/mo so assume $1,000/mo 0&M 0&M cost = $1,000/mo x t x 1.25 INSURANCE:

. This cost is considered a decommissioning cost. The same insurance l cost for the PCRV decay period is assumed for the PCRV dismantle / decontamination period. This estimate will be multiplied  !

by 1.25 since the contingency factor is not applied to the overall cost.

(' Cost =($100,000/yrxi)/12xtx1.25 CONTINGENCIES:

Contingencies are already included in the costs. Therefore, no additional contingency is added.

~

':11 .

%~

' Table A-1

.Page 1 of 2 ,DECONNISSIONING COST BREAKDONN

.Rev. Date 20-Jan-89~

COMPONENT REMOVAL REIATED COSTS (In $1000's, $1989)

, DIRECT / INDIRECT BURIAL NUMBER DECON BURIAL. O&M -CAPITAL IABOR, COST BASIS cu.~ft SHIPMENTS Man-wk - COST COST COST i COST CRDOA Removal

o Burial 44 CRDOks 3894 $584

) o Labor ($566,000/mo) .

$3,396 l o' Labor OEM - ($27,000/mo) . $162 o RCD Liners $49

o CRD Linars $0 o Shipping CRDOAs 11 $26

~

o Shipping Absorbers 22 $104 l TOTALS 3894- 33 0 $584 $342 $0 $3,396 4

s Helium Circulators l 0 Burial 4 Circa 250 $38 i l o Shipping 1 $2 j o Removal $58 ~

o Decon

TOTALS 250 1 0 $38 $2 $0 $58 l

l Helium Purification & Decontamination Systems o Burial -700 $105 o Shipping 2 $5 o Removal 250 m-h $14 9 Decon 3 $7 $85 TOTALS 700 2 3 $105 $11 $0 $99

. - . . ~ ~

Table A-1 (cont.)

Page 2 of 2 DECOMMISSIONING COST BREAKDONN

- .Rev..Date 20-Jan COMPONENT REMOVAL REIATED COSTS (In $1000's, $1989)

DIRECT / INDIRECT BURIAL NUMBER DECON BURIAL OEM CAPITAL IABOR COST. BASIS cu. ft SHIPhENTS Man-wk COST COST

===

COST l COST Liquid & Gas Waste Systems I

o Burial 525 $79 i o Shipping 1 $2 o Removal 990 m-h o Decon * $54 2 $4 $57 TOTALS 525 1 2 $79 $7 $0 $111 I

. i Misc. Contaminated Systems o Burial 150 $23

o Shipping 0 $0 l o Removal l o Decon 1 $2 $28 TOTALS 150 0 1 $23 $2 $0 $28 3

t i

k  % --

T W'-D"'^ W w ____-- _ _ _- ___--___a 4

E,f g m,- .I s.: ,

t be l , l EE-DEC-0020 ..

REV A Page 33 of 41 i 4

J 4

f 1 i

t

.l Attachment B PCRV Decontamination / Dismantlement Conceptual Plan /

and-Cost-Estimate-c r

~h.-

c

(

f 3  ?

{

EE-DEC-0020 i REV A Page 34'of 41 r

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to develop a conceptual plan and a '

cost estimate to decontaminate and -dismantle- the prestressed concrete reactor vessel (PCRV) and its internal components at the Fort St. Vrain (FSV) Nuclear Generating Station. The scope

' of this study is summarized as follows:

n Estimate the potential radiation exposure incurred in completing the project o Determine the residual radioactivity limit for releasing materials for unrestricted use o Provide a- time estimate and schedule for the decontamination / dismantlement o Identify methods and estimate costs for radwaste shipping ,

and burial ,

o ' Perform a sensitivity analysis to define boundaries for

-the cost estimate uncertainties

.In accordance with the work scope, this study is_ limited by the -

following resources and conditions:

o The' FSV plateout study results will be used to estimate radioactive contamination levels on PCRV components.

o The PSC activation analyses will be used to determine the ,

volume of PCRV concrete to be removed, o The noncontaminated (i.e., below releasable limits) portions of the PCRV and shall be left in place, o Only the decontamination / dismantlement of the PCRV and internal components will be addressed; the balance of the power plant will already be dispositioned prior to SAFSTOR.

2.0 PROJECTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN The- primary objectives of this study is to provide cost and resources projections for the early decontamination and dismantlement of the FSV PCRV. The costs and resources required to implement the plan include the following:

"k J

EE-DEC-0020 i REV A Page 35 of 41 i.

o Event schedules and manpower loadings to decontaminate and dismantle _the radioactive portions of the PCRV o Cost estimates for implementing the decontamination and dismantlement plan 5 years and 15 years after shu tdown.

These costs-are also used to predict costs after 55 years of SAFSTOR o Estimates of radiation exposure incurred in performing the decontamination / dismantlement plan

o. A sensitivity analysis that indicates the cost estimate range of uncertainty In accordance with scope, the cost projections rely upon the following assumptions: ,

o A third party will manage the dismantlement effort an an independent project.

o Denver labor ra tes will be used in cost estimates for manual labor. Normal Contractor rates will be used for non-manual labor, o A one-shift per day, 50-hour work week will be standard for site operations during decommissioning, o Costs are reported in 1988 dollars.

o The salvage value for structures and components is excluded from the cost estimate.

o No interest on funds has been- included during the decommissioning period.

o A 40-hour wor,k week will be standard for all home office work.

o The cost for site surveillance, plant maintenance, and systems operation during decommissioning is not included in the estimates, o The cost of nuclear liability insurance is not included in the cost estimate.

o No costs for use of site facilities, staff, or services were included.

k ,< l f.) a ,

i EE-DEC-0020

" REV A Page 36 of 41 K

p o No contractor profit is included in' the cost estimate.

2.1 Schedule of Decontamination / Dismantlement Activities L The schedule of decontamination and dismantlement activities.is- depicted in Figure B-1. This schedule

, treats several preplanning events as- prerequisites because '

they should be completed prior to initiation of the plan.

- These events are shown in month zero. This schedule lasts.

for 31 months and covers all four phases: planning, preparation, implementation, and verification. ,

g 2.2 Manpower Requirements Manpower is a significant cost factor associated with:

implementation'of the PCRV- decontamination / dismantlement plan. Two labor categories are used to describe these costs: manual and nonmanual. The manual labor category includes workers who do_ the hands-on -physical work:

craftsmen, equipment operators, construction trades, and

• servicemen. Nonmanual labor refers to project management personnel, engineers, 'healtn physics technicians, and professionals who plan, control, and administrative 1y

! support the work.

Figures B-2 thru B-7 present the labor distribution over l' 31 months- for manual, nonmanual, and manual- plus nonmanual categories, respectively.  ;

l

'2.3 Equipment and Services Lists g

l The. equipment and services required for this project are l listed in Tables, B1 and B2.

The listed equipment i tems are divided into three categories: small tools, construction equipment, and L specialty equipment.

l' L' The services list identifies subcontracted activities required for this project. Because the decontamination and dismantlement prime contractor is . assumed to be l

experienced in. all manual and nonmanual tasks, and extensive use is to be made of existing facilities, this list compromises only three subcontracted activities.

' ~' -

p ,

l  ;

p, EE-DEC-0020  !

L REV A Page 37 of 41 u  ;

2.4 Radwaste Volumes and Types The' . origins, volumes,- and weights of radioactively-contaminated wastes generated during decontamination and dismantlement operations- are listed in Table B3, Waste '

volumes.were estimated for individual events of the plan; F the numbers in Table B3 are a sum of the waste volumes 4 calculated for the individual events.

2.5 Radiation Exposure Estimate Manual and nonmanual labor hours were used to estimate 1 radiation exposure associated. with the PCRV decontamination / dismantlement events. In events where the majority of activity is perfonned with remote technology,

-exposures are small because procedures will require work practices and engineered devices that minimize personnel exposure. For other tasks, exposure time is adjusted downward to represent only the portion of the event where

• direct radiation exposures are possible.- Radiation exposure for health physics personnel who perform the '

i- surveys and monitoring activities are included in the estimates. Table B4 provides the exposure estimate for j' the PCRV decontamination / dismantlement events.

~

i 2.6 - Cost Estimate and Sensitivity Analysis l o Cost Estimate L Table B5 provides base case (i.e., 5 years after  ;

shutdown)costestimatesfor labor and equipment to perform the FSV PCRV decontamination / dismantlement l' events.-

o Sensitivity Analysis Events 1-10 i

A cost sensitivity analysis was performed to show how project costs vary with the critical parameters:

radwaste volume, labor, equipment and services, radwaste transportation , and radwaste disposal. This variance is used instead of a contingency.

Table B6 displays the variance estimated for each L parameter addressed in the analysis. The total dollar l ranges calculated for the listed parameters are l summarized in Table B7.

l

a y , s .l 9t EE-DEC-0020 REV A-Page 38 of 41  ;

The following paragraphs. discuss- the critical parameters used in the sensitivity analysis and describe factors that affect increases and decreases in_ ,

maanitude of. these parameters.

Waste Volume

.The' projection of radioactive waste quantities to be dispositioned is based on a number of factors applied to the- -analysis of- neutron activation -of PCRV materials. One such factor concerning neutron streaming through penetrations in the top head and core ,

support floor could add appreciably to the activation of concrete and steel in the head and the lower PCRV cavity.

. g

~ '

The net effect of this consideration could be that the radwaste volume increases by 5,000 cubic feet, Likewise, it is estimated that this radwaste volume could reduce by 4,300 cubic feet if average neutron '

fluxes are used- to calculate the PCRV- concrete activation depth, Manual Labor Labor rates for current agreement union building trades were used for the development of manual labor costs for this study. Depending on the availability and demand for skilled union craft experienced in the nuclear industry at the time of the project, labor agreements at the prevailing building trades rates may be difficult to negotiate. In addition, a premium on wages and/or fringe benefits may be required to incorporate contract provisions addressing craft experience, prohibition of strikes, grievance procedures, etc., due to the relatively hazardous nature of the work and the requirement for minimizing the project duration. Unplanned events and additional tasks may increase the work effort. The net affect of these factors is estimated to be no more than a 20%

increase in manual labor cost.

l l

l l-L

.. . .. --. . .-.-_--.-___--_-i

D1n j ,

f :& i g y,

, EE-DEC-0020 m REV A i

Page 39 of 41 .;

m ,

s

[ If an ' open shop prime contractor is selected for the '

L project, labor rates lower. than those in prevailing union agreements would be in effect. Non-union craft o' could also be required to perform multiple. tasks that

overla] traditional' craft disciplines. It is estimtaed that t7e overall net effects of this approach would be no change to the project schedule and as much as a 25%

.g decrease-in manual labor cost.

,+ Nonmanual Labor Every contractor of meduim and large scale projects has its own system of project management and control, and some systems ' are more labor intensive than others. A project management system that. differs significantly

- from the one envisioned for this study, or the occurence of unforeseeable management / engineering requirements could increase nonmanual labor costs by as much as 35%.

- Equipment and Services

, Equipment, materials, and services were estimated at

quantities and durations deemed sufficient to _ perform the' work ' scope in an efficient and uninterrupted manner. Factors-that could increase the costs over ,

those estimated by as much as 25%, or decrease the -i costs by as much as 10%, include the following: >

L o Abnormal changeout of failed parts in purchased equipment and existing plant equipment o Above-rormal changeout of rented equipment due to frequent breakdowns o Enhanced or reduced requirements for redundancy of ,

L materials and equipment installed for safety-related systems 1 o Abnormal usage of consumables, e.g. anti-C clothing o Slower or faster than predicted performance by

,: major subcontractors o The unpredictable effects of supply vs. demand for equipment, materials, and services at the time of project performance

.c , .

(. ,

(2 e ,

h.:,

ny .i p:

[- r

, EE-DEC-0020 k

REY A

, Page 40 of 41 -

o A change in the regulatory climate for the nuclear

,4 industry which changes project requirements i Waste Transportation.

. Waste' transportation costs vary with the distance  ;

between the source of the waste and the disposal site; "

fees imposed . by Federal, State, and County regulatory agencies and by the disposal site operator; and supply and . demand factors affecting the- hazardous waste transportation business at the time the porject is -

performed.- The unit cost used in the base case study ,

estimate could vary in the range of -17% to + 140% as a ,

result. of these variables. The high variance includes the' possibility of having to ship the waste to the Hanford Reservation, Washington.

Waste Disposal-Waste disposal unit costs are a. function of several variables, including the following:

L o The number' of licensed disposal sites within economically viable transportaion distance (supply

-and demand factors) o Existing agreements between the source operator and the disposal site operators o Volume .of waste to bedisposed-(negotiationof discount unit cost) o Fees imposed by regulatory agencies

, t

! o Fees, surcharges, and taxes imposed at the y disposal site The unit cost used in the base case study estimate l could vary in the range of -17% to +100% as a result of I these variables.

h

.o Sensitivity Analysis - Event 11 The parameters used in the Event 11 sensitivity analysis are the same used for the PCRV components except for radwaste volume, which is described below.

t L

- ~

. .y EE-DEC-0020 REV A Page 41 of 41 The projection of radioactive waste quantities to be dispositioned is based on a number of factors applied to the analysis.

One such factor is the ability to decontaminate major .

components including the 12 steam generators, the 4 1 circulators, and all of the dummy fuel blocks. If this approach is not used, or if decontamination is not  ;

successful in- reducing the residual radioactivity to releasable limits .then the base volume of radwaste s will increase by. 70%. In contrast, the base case volume cannot be reduced appreciably because the l j^ graphite reflector blocks are activated and cannot be i decontaminated to releasable levels. Therefore, low i l

radwaste volume is equal to the base case volume.  ;

l t

l l

l I-l

I s,a*< ( f 11l  :

i

_lll

?

1 _

1_ ,o

! _ I l _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ .

^

{ -

Ill - -

l L

I t ,

L  ; . _ _ _ _

l =- >

5 '

_ aj .

i l.

g _

o i

ll i i e, ii, li il i i li

!il s ji i! , ii Ii i L

i liiii 11 i ,i.I ii laiii .ii l,l 'l li . :' i n 1,a I ii v,li

=

ii a

i,g i, .

y i l1..!!

i I .

ai i

j!!liii,j ii I!ia! l1!

'ei

! :11 llli i p i j r it il

's i -  :

i .1i 1, Ii li.

i ni lilliiilll i.: ! . i.! gill,ilili!!i l!il lliillill 3 :::::::: 2 n:  : 2: s: 2 a a a 3 ll n

3;cca 31 1 11 l

d:

11l Jhl llll

! I a o

- l -

it ,

IL r il i,

l

I ,,

5 i

1

. ,l\

c -

c .

I! li i

[il..lgI l

i !l g . 11 i .i ,'

1, , 1,si i ! gig.in ,t r i : 81 l' gi .l s I,l 4

.i I

h,,!!

6;i.lli 18iialilll!

y 8 'l -

iilvilisi l i;iI ;e 1 II lli eill!!!il!Il ;: :: l llli g: ::: :

e

.  : ::::::::s i:::

g l;

. ') '

• j 111l 2 f llll

~

r

,,3

. . i T lll '

i 3

L.  ;

i; li .

l i

i-

I

I

. i v .

i

>si .

.i g.

ii 11,;l', s i

li!!!!!lllIlll!lgl"ill r!! li lil!

li

i ;;

k' lI'1i!!!!!!!!i1111111111l t

i l i l i i 'i i ei , l l g

__ ._ . . . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ . _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

LABOR ROURS FOR EVENTS 1 THRU 10 14 I"'13 I'*

_ EI E_ a I_a R

• E-E I I I I-I

'

• EIII III mEERI_ III

' IEEERImIEE. l

' I I I I I I-I I-I E I l

' IIIIIIIBEIE l

• IIIIII E E E E-E IIIIIIIIIII i IIIEIIIIEII

SUMMARY

F ANUAL HOURS 0 EEEEEIEEIEE (Time pHAsso) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 N 22 24 as 27

==rm

__E l'*'EII._Isa.__m EEsiERIs EEEEEEIIIIIII III,

! l'* ' IEEIIIIIIIEIEa

' EEEEEEEEIIIIII

' IIIIIIIIIIIIII '

EEEEEEERIIIIIII-u

! iiiiiiiiiiilili 0 2 4 4 8 10 12 14 to 18 30 22 24 28 27 aar(($"!@a'"=a=

mwr=

E EE l '""'

EIEEI I

IIE l' IIIIII.III.

E EIIIIIIIIII

' EIIIEREIIII a m I E E E E E:E E E E E IIIIIEEEEEEEE IEIIIIIIIIIIII

SUMMARY

MA UAL PLUS "o" ";^',=a "=as

i iiiiiiiiiiiiii 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 27

=WrHS Fort St. Vraltz ?CRV ww oww- -

.---.-.-~...7-.--

LABOR NOURS FOR EVENT 11

.a ,

7

~g -

5

. l. . .

2 1. _ _

2 - ---

i !f~iiiill1 o;2 4 s a to 12 14 18 to 20 22 24 26 2e 30 31 "I"I""'oh-

~2 l':.4 i =

. . .~

E .: _ E riouRe B6

~

NONMANUAL HOURS o -s a to 12 14 is 1s- 20 22 24 as as 30 31 e

Eaa_

4 FIGURE B7

I

SUMMARY

OF Hitt HEbo2 4 e s 10 12 14 14 1s 20 22 24 as as so 31

~9EP-Forf St. Vrain PCRV e . -- . . '- .m - . . -- - - - . . - - . - . . - - - - . . * . . --.-...----...-.----w <w

ti a*' i l

l l

TABLE B1 EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES REQUIREMENTS (EVENTS 1-10)

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY SMALL TOOLS HAND TOOLS A/R HAND TRUCKS 2

. JkCKHAMMER 1 VACUUM CLEANERS, HEPA FILTERED 4 COME ALONGS 2 IMPACT WRENCHES 3 3

,, ABRASIVE SAWS 3 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT s CAT D-6 BULLDOZER 1

20 TON CRANE,' RUBBER TIRED 1 10-TON CRANE, RUBBER TIRED 1

, FORKLIFTS 2

- 21/2 TON STAKE BED TRUCK 1 LAUNDRY TRAILER 1 INDUSTRIAL HEATER 1 .

RIGGING AND APPURTENANCES A/R SCAFFOLDING A/R SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MANIPULATOR POSITIONING FIXTURES 4 HOIST HOOKING FIXTURES 2 SPACER BLOCK HOIST LATCHING FIXTURES 2 MANIPULATORS S -

HOT CELL HOISTS 2 SMOOTH DRUM COMPACTOR EXISTING AIR COMPRESSOR / HOSES / AIR JET NOZZLE 1 1 HP SUBMERSIBLE WASTEWATER PUMP / HOSES 1 DECON WATER PUMPS,2-4 GPM/ HOSES 2 DECON WATER HOLDING TANKS 2 WATER JET PUMP / HOSES / NOZZLE 1 WELDING MACHINE AND APPURTENANCES 1 BORONATED PIN REMOVAL FIXTURES 2 A/R - AS REQUIRED S/C = SUBCONTRACTOR FURNISHED Fort St. Vrain PCRV

i f TABLE B1 (cont.)

EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES REQUIREMENTS- (EVENTS-1-10) 1 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT (CONT) 1 MANIPULATOR CONTROL CONSOLES 3 CCTV CAMERAS / APPURTENANCES 14 4 PCRV SPRAY NOZZLES / HOSES / FITTINGS 2 PLASMA ARC POWER SUPPLIES 2 PLASMA ARC TORCH FIXTURES / CLAMPS 4 PLASMA ARC CORE BARREL RING GUIDE 1 PLASMA ARC CORE BARREL VERTICAL TORCH GUIDE 1 R-BUILDING OVERHEAD CRANE EXISTING '

PCRV HOISTS /DASKET LIFTS 2 '

PORTABLE LIGHTING A/R PCRV POWER CABLING ,

A/R PCRV DUST SUPPRESSION MISTERS 2 MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS TO FIT MANIPULATOR ARM A/R GRAPHITE BLOCK LATCHING FIXTURES 2 GRAPHITE POST LATCHING FIXTURES 2 MFP FOOTING FIXTURES 2 CORE SUPPORT OUTER BLOCK ATTACHING FIXTURES 2 SILICA BLOCK HOIST ATTACHMENTS 2 METAL INSERT HOIST ATTACHMENTS 2 DIAMOND WIRE CUTTER S/C l DIAMOND WALL SAW S/C DIAMOND CORER S/C l AIRBORNE CONTAMINATION REMOVAL HVAC A/R WATERBORNE CONTAMINATION REMOVAL DEMINERALIZER A/R

, PCRV TOOLS' HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS A/P l HEALTH AND SAFETY / ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT A/R PUG MILL 1  !

GRAPHITE GRINDING AND BORING TOOL _

A/R l SERVICES j LAUNDRY TRAILER S/C CONCRETE CUTTING AND CORING S/C LABORATORY ANALYSIS S/C l A/R = AS REQUIRED S/C = SUBCO'NTRACTOR FURNISHED i

Fort St. Vrain PCRV

\

I l.

1

.. , , 1

- > y 9

-r,

t - i

c

, I I

TABLE B2 EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES FOR EVENT 11 l

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY

, SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT' ELECTRIC HOIST 1 TRANSFER SKIP 1 FOAMING EQUIPMENT 1 PUMP SKID 1 WASTE FILTER SKID 1 CHEMICAL MAKEUP SKID 1 L BRACING AND JACKING EQUIPMENT 1 ,

l MANIPULATOR MAST FOOTING 2 BLOCK HOIST HOOKING FIXTURE 2

'- DEFUELING MACHINE AND FIXTURES EXISTING CONTROL ROD DRIVE ASSEMBLY RACK 2 HYDRAULIC SHEAR TOOLS - .

1 MANIPULATOR POSITIONING STAND 1

. MECHANICAL SAW 1 EQUIPMENT RACK 1 END CAPS 4

- DRILL RIG 1 ION EXCHANGER 1 l, . HOLDING RACK 1 STEP LADDER A/R RIGGING EQUIPMENT A/R I AUXILIARY TRANSFER CASK EXISTING ' .

l A/R = AS REQUIRED 4 4

h::

..- )j ji t

,s, i

Fort St. Vrain PCRV

n ,

. _m . . _ ___. . . . . . . _ . . . _ - . . -. , . . _ . _ _ _ . . . . , . .. . . . ~ .,

r TABLE B3 RADWASTE COMPILAN '

iEVENTS 1-10)

ITEM NO. DESCR m

• SHIPPED VOL. cf

• l' SHIPPED" WBGHT.h  ;

1-PCRV TOP HEAD PENETRATIONS 1,716 140,400 2 REFLECTOR SPACER 1,914 154,000 3 S105 REFLECTOR BLOCKS 6,720 720,000 4 BORONATED DOWELS 200 25,000 >

5 CORE BARREL 2,506 540,000 6 GRAPHITE FLOOR 3,500 375.000.

8,626 1,321,600 E

8 lNSULATED PLATES

' 1,048 l 188,000 440 ! 25.000 l TOTAL /ALL EVENTS 26,670 8 3,449,000 naseo oN errs =Nat co4C4 0 so.s esCLUDES DuseNAC4 DRACp4 5HaELD*80. AND PACK. AGE WEIGHT TABLE B3 (cont. )

' RADWASTE COMPILATION FOR EVENT 11 ffEM g gg g . SHIPPED SHIPPED

- NO. VOL. . cf WT. t 1 STEAM GENERATOR CHEMICAL RESIDUE 162 11,000 2 UHP DECON RESIDUE 132 8,700

'3 - CONTROL ROO DRIVES 3,300 500,000 4 GRAPHITE REFLECTOR BLOCKS 9,500 212,000 5 Helium Circulators (flote 1) 250 100,000 6 Steam Generators (Note 1) 6,566 600,000 j; 7 Dummy Fuel Elements (Note 1) 2,350 450,000 E

l 1 ,

I TOTAL 22,260 1,831,700 l l

l l Ilote 1 - These components were not part of the base volume case, but make up the additional 70% volume in the high volume case. Fort St. Vrain PCRV I

L. . . _ . . . . . _ . . - . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ - . . - - - - . - - - - --

i TABLE B4 RADIATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR FSV PCRV DECONTAMINATION / DISMANTLEMENT NON- @ SYEARS @ 15 YEARS MANUAL EVENT DESCRIPTION hours M E '

go REW RM 1.0 PRE PCRV D/D PLANNING, ENGR'NG., & INSURANCE O r

17.248 0 0 2.0 PCRV CHARACTERIZATION 0 427 <1 <1 3.0 PCRV MOD., TEMP, FACILITIES & MOCKUPS 27,302 1,520 0 0 4.0 SITE SUPPORT FOR PCRV D/D 8.720 34,260 0 0 5.0 DECONTAMINATION 1,050 0 <1 <1 6.0 DISMANTLEMENT OF PCRV STRUCTURE 25,819 0 423 108

. 7.0 DISASSEMBLY / DISMANTLEMENT PCRV INTERNALS 26,497 2,295 560 138 8.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 13,560 0 .95 24 9.0 SITE RELEASE 1,950 2.060 0 0 10.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 0- 57,384 0 0 TOTAL /ALL EVENTS 104,897 118,193 1,068 270 TABLE B4 (cont') .

. RADIATION EXPOSURE ESTRAATES FOR EVENT 11 EVENT DESCRIPflON MANUAL NONMANUAL 5YR. EXPOSURE 15 YR. EXPOSURE HOURS HOURS MAN REM MAN REM 11- EVENT 11 - 27.000 - 25,500 110 78 fort St. Vrain PCRV

t 1

TABLE BS COST ITEMS FOR THE FSV PCRV DECONTAMINATION / DISMANTLEMENT

(

SUMMARY

OF COST BY EVENT) n w w . int w u a..>

MW BOUIP.

• g EVENT DESCRIPTION

,1 !g4 . cost

. 1.1 CONFIRM PCRV D/D ALTERNATIVE 00 61.0 i 96 71 5 1.2 PRE 8ARE PCRV D,0 pun 0.0 , 54.0 0.0 M.0 1:3' '

REVISE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) 0.0 O.0 l 0.0 0.0

+ 1A MEVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATCNS 00 33 5 .. 00 33.8 1.8 PREPARE DETAILED WORK PROCEDURES & MACHINE 0.0 i 740 0 0.0 749 0 DESIGN i

1.4 DEVELOP PWECT OA PROGRAM 0.0 0.0 0.0 ; 0.0 {

' 1.7 DEVELOP DECONTAMINATION AND WASTE 00 7.7 i 0.0 7.7 MANAGEMENT PLANS 1A ESTASUSH GENERAL LIA81LITY INSURANCE 0.0 , . 0.0 53.0 53.0 EVENT 1 SUSTOTAL 0.0 i 908 3 42.4 968.8 3.1 ESTA861SH AND MAINTAIN PCRV RADIOLOGICAL DATA 0.0 00 16 8 16.8 )'

BASE -

6 l

3J PERPORM SURVEYS OF PCRV COMPONENTS 0.0 i 0.0

• 45.0 45 0 i  !

3.3 REMOVE CORES FOR RADCACTIVE MAPPING 00 l 0.01 05 9.5 i I 3A EST1 MATE RADCACTIVITY INVENTORY 0.0 1.i I 00 1.9 -

3.8 ESTIMATE RA06ATON EXPOSURE 00 1.0 0.0 1.9 EVENT 3 SUSTOTAL 0.0  ! 20.8 l 84.8 75.1 3.1 CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE TEMPORARY MATERIAL 214.3 105.5 144 6 466 4 STORAGE FACILITY 3.2 ' SET UP LAYDOWN AND SHIPPtNG AREAS 15.7 00 66 6 64 3 1 3.3 PERFORM SITE BUILDINGS MODIFICATONS 44.1 O.0 I 95.0 139 1 1, -

• 3.4 DEVELOP NON' RADIOACTIVE WASTE OtSPOSAL SrTE e8 0.0 18.3 27.1 3.8 ERECT MOCKUPS AND TEST REMOTELY OPERATED 273.6 62.5 1,343.0 1.679.1 TOOLS SJ ERECTWA8TE PROCES$1NG AND PACKAGING FACILITIES 16 3 0.0 137.0 153.3 3.7 ERECT CONTAMINATION CONTROL TENTS AND WORK 45.3 0.0 74 6 120.0 STATON 3J INSTALL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SURVEILLANCE MEASURES 3.9 INSTALL DECONTAMWATON EOutPMENT AND LCutD 33 0.0 140.7 144 0 PROCESSING FACILITIES 3.10 INSTALL AND OPERATE LAUNDRY AND RESPIRATOR 2.8 0.0 j 26.0 29 6 CUIANING  ;

EVENT 3 SUSTOTAL 824.4 168.0 . 2.052.6 2.845.0 Fort St. Vrain PCRV

~

TABLE BS (cont.)

COST ITEMS FOR THE FSV PCRV DECONTAMINATION / DISMANTLEMENT

(

SUMMARY

OF COST BY EVENT)

W" sove, eviv? oaca m a

._.m. c4 73 4.1 - HIRE AND TRAIN SECURITY FORCES 0.0 , 0.0 0.0 0.0 j , 4.2 IMPLEMENT HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAM 5.2 { 1.250.7 l 515 4 1.760.3 4.3 - SET UP ADM!NtSTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 CONDUCT TRAINING & ORIENTATION OF NEW PERSONNEL 34.3 0.0 0.0 34.3 4.8 PROCURE EQUIPMENT, TOOLS SUPPLIES & SERVICES I 0.0 0.0 l -

00 0.0 '

i

+

4.6 PERFORM CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTAffvE 193.0 0.0 i '

10.0 203.0 MANTENANCE I t

l f. EVENT 4 SUSTOTAL 2,017.6 332.5 l 1.384.7 836.4 8.1 REMOVE LOOSE CONTAMINATION FROM PCRV INTERNAL 22.5 0.0 l 11.0 33 4 SURFACES l i EVENT 8 808707AL I

.. 22.5 0.0 ! 11.0 33.4 4.1 REMOVE TENDONS 128.I 66 5 194 6 4.2 REMOVE REFUELING PENETRATIONS 0.0 l1 40 4 0.0 { 12.2 f.2 6 8.3 - SEGMENT AND REMOVE HEAD 176.4 0.0 1.198.7

, 1.375.1 4.4 SECTION AND REMOVE LINER AND CONCRETE WALLS 122.4 f 0.0 706.7 829 1 '

(ACTIVATED PORTION ONLY) 4.8 SEOMENT AND REMOVE CORE SUPPORT FLOOR 64.7 0.0 191.2 256.0 EVENT 4 SUSTOTAL

$32.1 k 0.0 l 2.176.3 3.707.4 7.1 ACCESS PCRV INTERNALS WITH REMOTELY OPERATED 11.1 1.3 0.5 12.9 TOOLNG 7.2 REMOVE SIDE REFLECTOR BLOCK RESTRANTS 5.7 3.5 16.4 25.6 7.3 REMOVE SIDE REFLECTOR BLOCKS 40.1 23.7 10.0 73.8 7.4 REMOVE BORONATt0 SPACER BLOCKS 160.4 47.4 117.9 325.7 7.5 SE3 MENT AND REMOVE CORE BARREL 26.9 14 4 42.0 83 2 7.8 REMOVE LINER INSULATION PLATES 233.1 0.0 42.4 275 6 1: 7.7 0000E GROOVES IN LINER l-27.4 0.0 ' O.2 27.6 7A REMOVE CORE SUPPORT BLOCKS 27.8 4.1 70.0 101.9 7.9 REMOVE CORE SUPPORT POSTS l- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.10 REMOVE SILICA BLOCK 5 14.2 0.0 9.0 23.2 EVEHf 7 SUSTOTAL 940.8 644.4 l 94 4 l 300.4 (Doelare in ThouseNe)

I

( Fort St. Vrain PCRV

__ _~ ._ _- _ _ _ _ . _ , . . _ . . . . _ - - _ . . __ __. ___ . , _ _ . _ - _ . . _ . - - . .

. _. . . _ . . . _. _ _ .~ ._

?

t' t TABLE Bb (cont.)

COST ITEMS FOR THE FSV PCRV DECONTAMINATION / DISMANTLEMENT

(

SUMMARY

OF COST SY EVENT)

"* ' tour, 9g3gg EVENT. DESCRIPTION

,,,Q i* 4 cm 8.1 VOLUME REDUCTCN AND PROCESSING OF RADWASTE 40.8 l 0.0 ' 10.1 50 9 +

MATERIAL * '

O.t - PACKAGE AND LABEL RADCACTIVE WASTE GENERATED 01.6 0 0 l 486.1 569 7 BY DECONTAMWATON/ DISMANTLEMENT  !

8.3 TRANSMRT RADCACTIVE WASTE TO BURIAL SITE 124 5 00 I 4.105 5 4 230.0 EVENT 8SU4 TOTAL 246.5' I 0.0 l 4,903.7 4,860.7 9.1 ' REMOVE TEMPORARY STRUCTURES 41.6 0.0 '. 20.0 616 9.2 PERFORM RADIATION SURVEY OF PCRV 0.0 i 0.06 42.0 42.0 9.3 PREPARE FINAL REPORT C0 l 64.7 ? 40 48.T EVENT e sueTOTAL 41.s I e4.7 es.0 isa.3 10.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT C0 f 2.464.9 20 0 2.476 9 EVENT 109USTOTAL 0.0 l 2,400.9 i . 30.0 2,478.9

{0otiate in Thouesnes) -

L i

Fort St. Vrain PCRV L

i

+

i

, s E

TABLE Bb (Cont.)

COST ITEMS FOR THE FSV PCRV DECONTAMINATION! DISMANTLEMENT

(

SUMMARY

OF EVENT 11 COSTS)

• 'N 80UeP.

TOTAL MA86uAL seuAL " it #

11.1 PREPARE LOWER HEAD AREA 30 4 0.0 17.5 47.9 1

11.2 ERECT LOWER HEAD WORK ENCLOSURE 31.1 00 95 40.7 3 -!

, 11.3 ISOLATE UPPER AND LOWER CAVITIES 42, 0.0 17.7 21.9 i

11.4 REMOVE CIRCULATORS 52.8 , 0.0 7.5 60.3 11.5 DECONTAM:NATE CIRCULATORS 17.7 00 08 18 5 11.6 REMOVE INTERNAL BAFFLE PLATES 90 0.0 00 9.9 11.7 INSTALL LOWER CAVITY WORK PLATFORM 11.5 0.0 13 2 24.7 11.8 DECONTAMINATE LOWER CAVITY 11.0 00, 00 11.0 11.s CHEMICALLY DECONTAMINATE LOWER STEAM i '

GENERATOR INTERNALS 0.0 32 3 43 0 10.7; ,

11.10 REMOVE STEAM GENERATOR SECONDARY SYSTEMS 58; 0.0 ' 1.0 6.8 I .

11.11 INSTALL RIGGING AND HANDLING EOU'PMENT FOR STEAM .

I GENERATOR REMOVAL 6.1 . 0.5 66 0.0l 11.12 STEAM GENERATOR DISPOSITION 14 5- 0.0 ' 00 14 5 11.13 PROCESS DECONTAMINATION LIQUIDS 0.0 : 0.0 30 30

• l 11.14 INSTALL MANIPULATOR POSITIONING FIXTURE 5.61 1.6 to0 17.2 1

11.18 REMOVE GRAPHITE AND BORONATED DUMMY FUEL BLOCKS 83.5 f 49.3, i

10.0 142.0 11.18 PACKAGE GRAPHITE BLOCKS FOR DISPOSAL 0.0 0.0 128.1 128 1

- 11.17 DECONTAMtNATE BORONATED DUMMY FUEL BLOCKS '26.7 j 0.0 0.0 26.7 11.18 REMOVE CONTROL ROD DRIVC ASSEMBLIES 23.8 10.3 0.0 34 1 11.19 DISPOSITION OF THE CONTROL ROO ASSEM8uES 44.3 12.3 59 4 116.1 1

11 3 PREPARE DETAILED DESIGN AND WORK PROCEDURES 0.0 i 172.3 0.0 172.3 11.21 SITE SUPPORT 79 6 46.8 417.5 291.0; 11.33 WA5TE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS '103.3 0.0I 2.059.1 2.162.5 11.23 PRatCT MANAGEMENT' 0.0 ! 728.1 0.0 728.1 EVENT 11 SUSTOTAL 572.6 l 1.386.1l 2.416.84.254.1 (DoHare in Thousands) l l

l l'

Fort St. Vrain PCRV l

o  :

4 i

i TABLE B6

, COST VARIANCE FOR CRmCAL PARAMETERS (EVENTS 1-10)

(

DESC M MIGH 3A3E

, tow d

RADWASTE VOLUME +18%

I TABLE B3 16%

MANUAL LABOR +20%

> TABLE B5 25 %

- NONMANUAL LABOR +35% TABLE B5 0%

EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES . 25?.

TABLE B5 10.',

RADWASTE TRANSPORTATON +140 % B5 TABLE 20%

RADWASTE DISPOSAL + 100 %

TABLE B5 17% ,

TABLE B6 (cont. )

COST VARIANCE FOR CRITICAL PARAMETERS (EVENT 11)

DESCRIPTION HIGH BASE LOW RADWASTE VOLUME + 70% TABLE B3 0%

MANUAL LABOR + 20% TABLE B5 20 %

NONMANUAL LABOR + 35% TABLE B5 0%

EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES + 25% TABLE B5 10 %

RADWASTE TRANSPORTATION + 140% TABLE B5 20%

RADWASTE DISPOSAL + 100% TABLE B5 17%

fort St. Vraits PCRV

-, - - - ~ e--,- -wem---_,. c, v.. +_ , -- .. ,_ ~ , , - _ _ . _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. es .

...=.,+.+ss . . ~ . am+ .a a.+., ..r-.na.- .,am.aa a an, a..x..,, .a m,, .,.>

1

D

- ;n If j

" l TABLE B7

)

EARLY DISMANTLEMENT OF THE FSV PCRV (EVENTS 1-10) " #"N T-BASE RADWASTE VOLUME HIGH SASE LOW

]

26,670 CF MANUAL LA80R 2.806 2,247. '1,885

)

NONMANUAL LA80R 6.740 4,993 4,993 EOUPMENT AND SERVICES 7.236 5,709 5,210 TRANSPORTATION 216 90 72 OlSPOSAL 8,001 4,001 3,320 s

l TOTAL 24,000 - 17,119 15,200 .I HIGH RADWASTE VOLUME HNBH - SASE LOW 31,473 CF MANUAL LABOR ~ 2.696 2.247 1,685 NONMANUAL LABOR - 6.740 4,993 4.993 EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES 7,236 5,789 5.210

. TRANSPORTATION 255 106 85 DISPOSAL, 9,441 4,721 3,918 TOTAL - 26,384 17,856 15,491 LOW RADWASTE VOLUME HIGH SASE LOW

~22,400 CF MANUAL LABOR ' 2.696 2.747 1,685 NONMANUAL LABOR 6,740 4,993 4,993 EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES - 7,236 5,789 5.210 TRANSPORTATION 181 76 60 D(SPOSAL 6,721 3,360 2,789 TOTAL 23,574 18,444 14,737 (Dollars in Thousand)

Fort St. Vrain PCRV g

& ~ .r-- * * . - ..ae- --- - n--. _-. _ - _ . _w ._...n,. _,.,s- -- _,c,_.,,,....m.,,_.aan..,,,,,..__.,,..,.,.,,,,,,,,,,w,_,,..,_n.,,-,,,,,,.mn,- s.,,,n..,_, , ., ,

>n ,  !

s i TABLE B-7 (cont.)

EARLY DISMANTLEMENT 0F THE F3V PCRV a SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS -

(EVENT 11)~

BASE VOLUME CASE 13,094 CF HIGH BASE LOW .

MANUAL LABOR 687 573 429

' NONMANUAL LABOR 1,708- 1,265 1,265 EQUIPMENT & SERVICES 509- 407 367 TRANSPORTATION 108 45 36 DISPOSAL- 3,928 1,964 1,630 TOTAL' 6,940 4,254 3,727 4

HIGH VOLUME CASE 22,260 CF HIGH BASE LOW MANUAL LABOR f 687- 573 429 ,

NONMANUAL LABOR ' 1,708 1,265 1,265 EQUIPMENT & SERVICES 509- 407 367 ,

TRANSPORTATION 184 77 61 DISPOSAL 6,678 3,339 2,771-

. TOTAL 9,766 5,661 4,894 L

LOW VOLUME CASE 13,094 CF ' HIGH SASE LOW-MANUAL LABOR 687 573 429 NONMANUAL LABOR 1,708 1,265- 1,265 EQUIPMENT & SERVICES 509 407 367 TRANSPORTATION . 108 45 36 DIS"OSAL 3,928 1,964 1,630 TOTAL 6,940 4,254 3,727 (Dollars in Thousands) l Fort St. Vrain PCRV L

li '

I..'. -

.; :l l

l i

t l ': i l I f

ATTACHMENT 4 i

FORT ST. VRAIN SURVEY AND ANALYSES RESULTS I i

r! ,

i P4" W

h 4

i

'4.,

I i

i 9

1

(

h l

l

' h g- p , _ - -~. . . , - _ . . , . ,. - y + ..y-.

I

> \ >

l L

l t

L Attachment 4 contains the following information:

Pages Information Provided 23 Radiochemistry water sample results for the Condensate System (System 31).

4-6 Turbine Building Sump Radiochemistry water sample  :

results.

!' 7-8 Radiochemistry water sample results for the Cooling Tower (C/T) Basin. (Cooling tower basin samples are identified in the " Remarks" column as "C/T BASIN")

9 - 17 Results of recent radiological surveys of the Turbine Building (W *).

18 21 Recults of recent radiological surveys of plant areas inside the protected aren (M *).  !

l l

Page 1

!. .3 h

i

( de m seme AMi CA'6EWlet m E msamS

- ..m - u. , . M ,.D em 4. ,

a,gm D- -

- .uw> .S_ 8e.+4 .e. SU -..

W ees i M EEEE mmat S CTt-m35 D EL3-PS OeEPS EC E-09 )t' oB-ot )4 sE-eB )0 03-48 S lE E9 ega I sed I ta dnega e t Er-tsa DEES D EEFA E tE-D9 )4~03-65 )9 sE-ot W'eeE EIPSA 6EE W NEItet 0E-08 S eD i i S ST4-93E )SE-ed M LEFG E W -D9 )G M )4 s E-GI )G'sE-et )t' S 54I

E9'eet 52E4llEG m e S ST t-DEID )S R -ed H'DEFS C lE3F9 )eh )GM-oS )6 003-63 S ESi ,

f i

E9'ega IEesa stae onamaS e9 eeS a psa seit dnasa a s'E t-tse e srt-pe9 DEES D esi-e o c E-oS nw-m z'2e3-09 )e na-os )e esa-on le sE-os S ni i E9'eet ZHed 58D9 dEWsa z tua-a )e sE+ )e os3-os )o ea3-m a ese  :,

O

• EB-PG M tE-DS t )e oM-DI )6 bE-03 )e sE-et S DSE i

E9'00S ZEM IKS WWEset B ETt-pat D W -oG O'NFG t'tE-ed )4'sE-ot )e DE-OI )e s E-et S ht9 l W'ese EEESe sec es S STL-pS )R EFS p EEPS I'8 5 -09 )4 93-63 )9 oB-et )e 0 3-68 S tte 1 l

i ES GIG E2fSe tebE nnaamma g gT t-mla n'em-D3 M SE-DS 1W'G03-D9 -ed )e W -41 )6'o M-63 )4'eEw S Cte j E9WII E tse 894 demAI S C E 4-elle D' thFO M E -bS I F 3-09 )4 e 3-05 )e M -GI )e 0E-0B 5 952  !

E9WZ KEea ese Wreamas sa srt-D3s D eB >e o 2f3-DS tna-DS )e' m -os n ee3-os )e'es3-ei sa ,sa <

E9WE sose enessut nwFG n l

t E9WD Eeseraam. nS -

ESws D Esa me dE a s E t-muz

. art-an

= sT t-mH D w-e w -DG n w -DS ir-e e --

n'em-DS EEFS no ew-. m -e4 >.)emw oB-osnw+)e'nmeB-m-oa )eSmuE -os S ees i n sE+ o mw S sas  !

i -Q e

ES W 9 > ted et deesa WWt DEDed E03C WNERAI ore-ed H 683-N 8 tsE-09 )t sE-eB )t'03-08 )G M -65 S 084 E' Et3F9Es3-p n'sE-el )e M -el )S M -el S sel j

S C T t-D53tE )I ESJFS ME-S 1 i

m. E9WG ettaatem m e S E T t-m319 E EPS )e 03-01 )t'oM-05 >e' SE-el e 6E4 l E9 ele DEDA4 leg naamaxe g g E 1-m54 D EES MCFk3-m N s'eEES )e ee3-03 )4 003-03 )e~s03-05 68419 1

N ES'MG G ESe IRE daWet W C T L-mlES )1' EM-oS HK'IBFG -SS s'003-D )G'sE-05 )e sE-eB )9 003-03 M oid I eal E t e B24 depeet D CEFG E m-oG t'GMFe 8 )9'0E-05 )t sE-43 )4'eE-el m Ise E9'DBZ E9 C site SDE WNERSI S G E 4-9386 D EES )t'De3FS H S CEF9 )t oB3-05 )e'03-43 )e sE-el ell 2S 29 ME GI M eM m e S STL-RBe )8W-ee H mFO E' 903-D )t'GEW 0 3 -05 )0 03-05 M let i j

29' # t SIM 55# eeSIBet S CT t-NBI )t

• th-oS MW3PO E R -ot )e'033-05 )e's03-03 )e )e M Esi t E9'D3E EEeSd 9DE dnaet S ETL-pmE D N-D n ed3FO E rt3-et )o N -61 )0 03-01 )e h' 003&R -el M EaZ i t W DE9 9E SEG ynasamma g G E t-pl2E - D EES M E FS i rf3-ot )e sE-61 )G 03-05 )0 s03-03 SIEeS l E9mi flM 843G m me ES DBS 956se HBG ORAMS B ETt-telED SS n'003-# HSEFG I M -et )G' 03-05 )e 9E-03 )t sE-43 mew i

= eae 9 essa trae dnani sa sT'E4-pm9 t-tslEE la)S'sE-04 le)D'Ss3FS 2 tt3-ot )e's E w )4'0 3-65 )e'0 3-45 elEEB '

DrFG n tE-m w-w )e esa-ei e m- .

Wew t Eea mt dmees a sr t-tsat S

o em-04 oemhA w-w n m-m n m-.ei e3 eei-os n m-ei Gi,ct S:ese i E9'eM 45 3 4 leEG m e eE2 lliate tega ORAMS - S S' E'EE't-plE 4->53E4 D eB-oG )D'453-eS D ral-SS >>' 83-e8 I K3-ot )e 03-03 )e M -03 )e 03-01 m t2E S'Cf3-W )e eM-el )e tE-el )e 03-63 M ut I 29'eEE tfed 8991 dmaet a E T't-DslEG D E83'-64 HhFS i M -66 )4'0 3 -63 )G'eB3-03 )0 03-63 S8efE E9'eM E9 LKed LEE WNEERet SSE O'283FS HKFO E E -et )6003-03 )40 3 -05 )4 eM-65 SGSeS j W' eEE S tte MG WNEBAI M T' E' 4-tslEB DEFS MKFO E W -et )e W -el )e'D E-03 )e DE-eB m eEG E9'eES 8894 500s OBAMS S G E'L-653Mt-plEE )IEPS C 6EFe I K -ot )e e M-GI )G M -eB )e'eB-eD 35e35 I eEf 5584itte m I W E T L-M ED I'C3 H 4f3FO E m -ot )4 93-61 )G M -ol )4'0 5-01 SBegE  :

E9SES E9 eBaAd lese wseamne e s r t- m u z em'FG -oG o os3-DS m 8 raaFe )ew-os )e eM-cs )e es3-ei snaaes ,

awen e sed ese ssesses sa srt-mw D r-DG n EE-DS E 9BFe )e sE-03 )e m-e3 )e oB-os snaate E9 836 OMMS D E -DS M V03-oG I~Em-ot 0 3 -63 003-03 maER E 29'ete 091 453#

ele EEEE 0003ES D CD3-W GM-W E W-ot )e'oB-el )4 )4~0DE-el 3-43-)e )t'0 3-el BaMS E9' epa ega d g wsarmaan EEWS 9 m-M )4'~0 5-01 )e'sE-05 )9's E-et S 2Ed9 i

E9'GDE 6EM EEDe m3Bde 29 069 te M EDE dEt D't E52-6 )D

)1'W3Fla )t 603-De M'2t3-M R3-DG I M S'E63 ot

)0 003-43 )t'03-61 )4 sE-el sahG4 E9' ODE le 634 ggge naamaan 1223-09 )4~003-41 )4'eB3-el )8 )e 003-03 maCEE '

)T MFG n t ' M-ot )4 sE-el )4'DB3-03 )e D E-el EESE i a9 eeS te:9sa ass wsemmet n w -oa oc'EEFG sa-DS m zw-e )e eniw )e sE-on )e oB-mssa sna,ot m  :

e9 eci staEaa &>s snemw )ir-DG n w-m zwFe )e oB-os )ow-os )e es3-os os w w G neEesa teet d E t D zuFS nw-m z w Fs e eE-eI nw-m e m-m ssasE ,

n te : eSa ltse 0aa=me D ctaw nw-DS i w -nE n m-ei nww n sE-ti maeB z9'eso srood 6oo Wruraaw  !

ew-m )o m-os )e'oB-oI )e sew )e'oBw )e sew S i g 4 , p , _ , , ,

xg_, , , q a, 4m__y , , ,y , --, 4 .

- . , - - - - - - , , - - - - - - - - - - ,. - , , , - _ - _ - - - , - - - , , , , - - - - - . ---,-----,--r,-- .

um As --.- -+m-- _J

.4.-..sa,.= .,, 4a.. .A .

. h I

I ff WW*

Yf  !

fE*

WW*

1 yy Nh8 wi .

9

~ l  :

i

. E 2

4 l

,,E I ;il  :

l . j,  :.

l+11d I I L....

Page 3

+

- . - - . . . , , - . , ,-----n,, ,-,.-+..--,----,-n---,,,,~n,_,,,,-,,,-,,,-~,,,,,,_,,-....,-,,---.....n. ---.,-a

I Finuc sevenE W.F GLabet j FW T ST.W ADt

edDIODEMICAL Sf51EN S5OURT GEFWT FEB30D F : 1 BSP 19 111NF SpVE .1345W-SP

( i 4 IWBM SumeN Seg' WFtJWit.-  ;

4 Oc-ee east TEsE emet.se Sv apWWe m.FtWHcf GET4 4CT. 15t17-4C7. MHET. SpW-4CT. 983-4Cf. EPet e 4.001 1 ESP 113e at.s Wfuus (1.23E-63 (S GE-49 1. 30E-46 (8.GE-98 (0.00E-48 (0. 00E-95 W 24 4.00E 1 4WF S45 OWWW ES 7.97E-GF O. 80E-W 3.17E-46 (0.0K-Ot (9.GE-95 (9 S K-98 3 45  !

4.893 1 de' SES mem (1.9 M-ee 7.SIE te 1. M-46 (0.0 E-95 (9.e K-et (9. eK-95 W es  ;

I 4.994 1 9WF S23 Faust (3.2E-es (3 FE-ep 1. 7pE-46 (0.4K-98 (9 GE-95 (9 S K-OL W 306 4.cos salSF sei Fumet (1. 'K-43 (s. 3sENS 1. 9K-46 (0.00E-98 (0.00E-99 (0. 00E-et W 3M 4.006 IIEWF 757 FWIW84 (1.7K-W (S. M-10 1.4 4-46 (9.eK-98 (9.GE-95 (0.4 K-Ot S 339 4.997 114WF 95D ALM NEWI (S SK-GF (4. M -ee 1.3BE-46 (0. 0K48 (4.9K-98 (9. 60E-98 5 355 4.eGe 13eBP 900 m.MWWWI (S.SeE-GF (4.M-48 1.M-46 (G.eK-9a (9.G E-Of (0. 00E-98 9 236 4.00F 1200F 1999 massaut (1.48E-03 (4. M-4B 1.3 E-46 (9 G E-OS (9.eK-91 (0.00E-91 W 361 j 4.980 32WF3129IW M 1.eK-43 (4.4 4-49 1. W-46 (9.GE-91 (0.00E-98 (9 S K-91 W 299 9 4.011 12WF S458 6 (1. M-es 4.4M-ee 1. M-46 (0.9E-Of (0.8K-Ot (9. eK-4E W 322 1 4.912 3279e SIG sum (1. DOE-et (4.M-40 N 4.2K-97 (9 SK-Ot (9.4 K-95 (9.4 K-98 5 3B j 4.913 13ESF E!2 DeWWEB (1. M-03 (4 M-ee 1. M-46 (9.4K-91 (9.9 E-06 (0.GE-98 9 367 1 4.014 2 10F 745 OWWWERS (1.2E-48 (4.75E-0B S. 7K-97 (9.00E-91 (0.9 K-Og (9 G E-GE W 3F3 i 4.913 2 MF 845 0053 ENS (1.3E 4B (4.5 M-49 1. eK-46 (9.G K-OS (9.GGE-95 (9.0 K-98 5 G3  ;

l 4.916 2 eSF 993 Fafest (1.M-40 (4. M-49 2.1E-46 (9.0K-91 (0.0 K-Ot (0.9 K-Ot S 4M 4.91 7 2 WP 757 FWIWel 4.998 28 esp WDe FSect

7. M -9F (4.4 K-43 1. M-46 (0.0K41 (4.9 K-Ot (9 80E-OL W 443 r (1.19E-es (4. M -ee 4. M -97 (9.e K-98 (9 9 K-Ot (0.90E-98 5 457 4.999 213F SeEl m.EENWWI - (1.3K-G (4 4E-48 S. 45E47 (0.4 K-95 (0.0 E-98 (9 M -91 5 est 4.9E9 25est Ste OWWWERS (1. 3E-40 f4. M -00 S. M47 (0.9 K-96 (9.G E-98 (0.0 K-98 5 4W o 4.021 21759 W 3 FBeSt IIC1.9 E-es K 4.87E-65 3 M47 (9 GE-Ot (0.0 E-91 (9 90E-98 5 498

$e 4.eE2 22 TSP SED fW m 4.423 22WP 72 fuoIM (4.9E4B (4. M-43 3 95E-97 (9.00E-98 (0.9 K-OS (0. 00E-et W 325 (1.4eE- M (4.90E-40 (3. 6K-47 (0.0 E-et (O GE-9! (0. 00E-91 3 SM 4.924 22WP 700 fum (3 9E-99 (4. M -40 S. lf-97 (9.G E-OL (4. 9K-98 (9.9K-91 5 349 4.025 2275p E53 OWERS (1 CE-ee (4.87E-40 4. 7K47 (6.9K-OL (9. GK-Ot (0.9 K-95 W SeS ,

i 4.026 3 ISP 999 OWWNS (1. 4K-W (4.7tE-49 7. M-97 (9 GE-St (9.eK-98 (9 O K-Og W W3 '

i 4.027 3 NF 75 fm II(1.11E-43 M4.M-M 4. 79E-97 (9.0 K-Ot (0.9 K-95 (0. 0K48 5 599 t

! 4.eEB 3 489 726 FBept (1. 39E-45 (4. M -48 4.etE47 (0.4 K-Ot (0.G K-Ot (9.e K-98 9 423 I l 4.029 3 GBP IMG IIESIEEN (1. M-4B (4. M-e3 4. 7E47 (9.G E-95 (9.G E-99 (0. 00E-98 5 43t i

4.03D 389BP 897 FRfWWI (1.3K OS (4. 4K-60 (3. 4E-97 (0.4 K-Ot (9.G E-OL (4.9eE-91 5 6W 4.9M 3t MF 983 masaget (1,9g-es (g.2g-ee at 1.3m-96 (9.9 E-91 (9.e K-Og (9.eK-Ot W 457 4.OR 3t W P 1333 dE M Neut s1. 44E-03 (4 e K-43 2.1E-46 (9.GE-95 (G.SK-94 (9.eK-Ot S 678 l 4.033 3t799 3349 dE M Neut (1. M-9B (4.4 E-48 3.9tE-46 (0.9 K-98 (9.G E-91 (0.0 K-98 9 700 i

4.9M MOSF 1982 IWetM (1.SM-et (4.4E-e3 K3 SIE-97 (0.9K-95 (9. M -95 (9.G E-98 5 710 4.9 35 MEEP 1895 masamos (1.G E-ee (4.44-43 7. 7K47 (9.g E-et (9.S K-98 (9.e K-et S 733 4.936 RWF 95 m.KNWWI (1. M-M (4. 4E-4B 9. 48E-97 (9. M -95 (9.M-95 (9.G E-98 W 732 4.037 m 93 OWNES (1.9E-M (4.37E-40 f . M-46 (9. M -95 (9.GE-Os (9 GK-Ot 5 775 4.933 most ses motsen (s.90E-99 (4.44E-48 S.edE-97 (0.00E-98 (0.00E-95 (0.00E-98 W 759

4. 03F 33tSF 7e OWWMRS 1.2 E-03 ('t. M -43 2. 4E-46 (9.eK48 (9.G K-98 (G. eK41 5 7FF 4.040 4 M r SOS Fafget 1.29E-45 (4.4tE-SS 3. M-46 (O.eK-Of (9.eK-Ot (O. eK-Ot W S26 4.041 4 WF SIS F94SI (1.2 K-43 (4. 4K-es 3.7 N-e6 (9.S K-OS (9.e K-Of (G 80E-98 SG Ele  !

4.042 4 7WF 1250 Famet 2.3 K-es (4.99E-te 3. M-06 (0.GE-95 (0.9 K-OS (0.00E-96 99 879 4.943 4800F 1913 at.KRftut 1.2GE-es 4. 7K-W 3.2 K-46 (9.e K-98 (0.9 K-OL (9.e K-98 5 888 4.944 412WP 1955 ALSENWet (1. DE-et (4 2 K-ee 2.12E-e5 (9.00E-95 (9.4 K-Ot (9.S K-96 9 917 '

4.945 414WF 92 dESENWt (1. 3K-W (4. M-M 1. M-W (9 S K-Ot (9.S K-91 (9.OK-es W 939 4.946 4sisF 3937 fuessee (a. M -et (4. 3m-se 1.9eE-e5 (9.est-98 (9.e0E-91 (0.00E-98 9 900 i 7 41999 835 dEMBfWWI (1.4tE-te (4.7K-es 2. 34E-6 (0.0 K-Of (0.9K-98 (9 SK-Of 9 977 4.94.3 4.9 42iSF Sis motset 2.n E-e8 (4. m -e8 2. 4eE-45 (9.e0E41 (9.e0E-et (9. GEE-91 9 999 4 949 4249F 1019 DeWWERS (1. M -ee 4 4K-40 2. 30E-45 (0.00E-98 (9.8EE-95 (G 40E-98 58913 4.059 42eSF 818 DeWWERS (t.e E-te 3. M -40 3. 30E-45 (9.eK-Ot (G 00E-91 (9 00E-98 W1937 i 4.051 42WF S29 DeWWERS (1.38E-e8 (4.3K-48 2. M-6 (0.0 K-OS (G eK-Ot (O SK-Ot W9990 4 052 3 ISF 993 FEafft (1.19E-e8 (4.3EE-43 7.71-46 (9.00E-98 (9.G K-Ot (9 00E-91 58975 4 053 3 309 723 F# met (1.35E-48 (4 9 K-83 1.14E-6 (4 OK-Of (9 GE-98 (9 4 K-91 Wie91 i 4.054 3 WF 743 DeWWEWS (1. 9K-98 (4. 4M-ee 7, M-46 (9.GK-Ot (9 G E-91 (O OK-98 St197 4 OTl 5 899 840 At.DFWest (1. M -e9 (4 4WE-te 191-46 (0.0E-91 (G S K-Of (9 G E-91 Wil2P l

l i

f

,Hm ,,,m,Hmm,mm-,-H ...r IIHHHHHHH m.,,,,H H,H8HHHHHHiiiiilllBlilHhlmm,i,llIRBIm, HM HH s,F,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,ff,fff te ess e s s ess, e,,e s s e s s e es s e

sseesesessessessesteesseessessesseessie s

,,,s e

,, ,e,f,f,f,f

, , f

,i,f,f,f , f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f

, f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.fi.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.

essessesessesessessegesseissessessessessessesesessesses. ....

sesessesseee

,f,f,f,,

es f,f f,f,f,f e sseits ee, sseess

, f,f,f,f,Y,f,f,f,f,f f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f ss s ,esese f,f,f,f,f,f f.f se . se e s se s se eesseeteeseessessessessese mmmmm WHHH,,HH t HHVUHHHHHHSHW5HHHH ,m m , H m m m m m H ,m m m m,5 H H H . R HmHm,m

.ww.wwa.. -

.4. se..as.sto.assw w aa.s ...s.waa. .aaaaas-s# w..sw. 4.

,m,mmmmmmmm,mmm,mmmmmHmmm, WH.HUWHHHmn e HHH MMHHHRHH55HHHHHHH tiivits t'-tes"ttectososcetets'ctitice't"'tc'est"" tat =st ~ " ititt

,m , m ,

, m,mmmmm mmnm, , ,m , mH FEEN D H H ,H W H H ,H! H H W H ,H , ,m,H m ,m 0, NH d"d"dd""d"ddd"ddddedde"dddded"dd"edddddddd""ddddd""ddddddddddddddde Illlillililllllllllimillllllimilllllllillllllllllilllllllmll1

!!H!ERI!I!!!!EI!HEIBE8!!I!EHRER!I!,Eli!!!!il!!!!il!!igsgggggg;  ;

I ERRf8888 ananERR.ttREHHitmanganguggpataslHRE!HI8E88llHEREnl888884HIH l ... 33:35:55.~~~cssscE HE~....ssssEsH. ssss HEEEassegg sHli.fillall!!!EEEEE!!H,iHIEHIE,EiffEtt!*!!!8!E!!!EBS593B*E5595 s ...+...+.s...........v.....w.w.w.v..w..w.w.ws...s s.v.....ws.....

Page 5

i lll11llll1..

Ffffffffffff f f f -

monum .

sinistissisi e *

• l i

1111111111111I.I-

,siste... .i . . '

ffffffffffff fYY mmmm uau- ,

sesseissists * *

• mmmm , ,

E N I, !

t

.fM_H_n W . HE~

mmmm W,t ,l N !

REH5HM =**

is  :: iitti lilllill!!!!!.. =! ! == - e i i i

l e.1.l

'l

~ '

lllllilillll almam , I ** ljl i

i5

!!slllaman l senseems s,mm.s +

=====ss i

lg.l;ls Illh ;;g 3

Page 6

_ . . . . - _ - - - . . . _ . _ . . . . . . _ . ~ - _ . . _ - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -

. t FMLE ESUBE CB F MENES l

,We er.W sarant Femtep a : 1 ISP W natigr SSE . INWF-W  !

nasta3eaCat. svsun assueT

!. Onza peas. Ce/r baud) SAs*^U

! ewsmeestsat alessass x eOneB EpeWe anseeHf.T. EETMICT WIT-dCT. BB-GCT SumalCT. 98W -4CT WEC e l

2C-te enK YM murts St N.eet a WP tese Quesums W. 3sE-GF (6.73E-@F O.SE-07 (0.9EE-et (e.esE-et (0.0EE-et S i

N.esE a WP taso Can (4.SE-er 7.vaE-GF 2.W-W O.45E-07 (9.eE-et (0.00E-et (9.eEE-et B (9 GE-et (9 G E-et M SE-et S kW O. 7E-@P 4. n.lE-M 37.003 st#P 1300 CSI (4. M -er M -SP O.4pE-07 (9.W 41 (9.M-et (9.eE-es W

! 37.004 IS W P 3200 m t . 3E-GS 2. M -4B (3.M 47 (9.eE-et (9. (G.eK41 (0.0E-et 9

! 37.005 2 WP 1887 naassammar (3. M -SP O.3E-op (3. 48E-47 (9 GE-et M -et (9. GEE-et 3 l 37.006 2 WP 13M (EDI N.007 213SP 1893 Cal WW 4. M-GF S. M -#P 2.4E4 (9.e K-Ot (0.4E-et (e GE-et 3 (9. GEE-et S N.000 atSSP 336 (28 4.M-GF G.DE-@F O.4K47 (9.S E-et (0.GE-Of i

W.GSP 3 WP 1300 sem 2. M-40 (4. M-OS (3. 4E47 (9. M -et (S.GE-et (9.SE-et W l E-et 7.eE-er 1.4E-6B (3.SE-67 (9. M -et (9.eE-08 (0.00E-et S i 37.000 3 WP 1400 Get N.elt 30 TSP 1800 CAf &E5 S. M -eF 1. 3E-40 3. M-45 (9 GE-et (9.4EE-et (e.eK-et W (3. M -8F 9.79E-eF 4.48E-97 (9. M -Ot (9. M -et (9. M -et B i 37.982 3ttSP 12W CW

• M 15 3.4tE-et It 3.2E43 0.6E-97 (9. M -48 (9.4K-@R (9.G E-et 3 N.983 4 W P 3089 FBeel N.el4 4 WP1300(310 E-48 1.eE-GS 9.9E-GF 1. M -97 (9.eE-et (9.eK-et (9.GE41 W l

37.915 4 WP 183D Caf & 21 S. 3E-er I . M-GS (3. M-97 (9.e E-et (9.GE-et (9.e E-01 W 3.M-5 (9. M -48 (9. M-et (9.G E-et S l

37.986 4 WP 123D CWf e-35 1.SE-GS 2.M-49 u

37.987 3 3BF til2 FS NSI GM M 1. M-GS n.45E-40 (3.4WE-97 (9. 9E-el (9.eGE-et (0.00E-et B

) c=

e N.098 S WPIMO W E-48 3. M -er 9.4EE-SP NC3.M-97 (9 M-48 (9.eE-et (e.4 E-et 3 l

• 37.089 SINP 13W CSI F21 9.M-et G.M-er G.M-97 (9. M -et (9. M -et (9.4 E-et 9 7.78E-49 2. M-45 (0.9E-et (9.0E-et (9.e E-et 3 I

37.GES SIMP 1989 Cap *E5 7.4 E-er l-w &W (3 M-et 1. 30E-e 1.33E-6 (0.4E-es M.M-et (0.0E-et S 37.0E1 484WP 12M CMI 3.edE-et (S.eE-GF eu.4E-e7 (9. M -et (9.eE-et (e.esE-et W 37.M 6800P 1300 CWf &tt 1.M-GS UC3.4E-47 (9.SE-et (9.GE-et (9. GEE-et W i

37.023 484BP a3E5 (St 2.GIE-4B  ;

I M 1.tE-W 1.40E-W (3.eE-07 (9. M -et (9.eE-et (9.4 K-et W n.2 E-40 9. 4E-GF 1. 6 -48 (0.9E-et (G.eE-et (0.9 E-et W l

37.6E4 42 TSP $459 OWWWNB 37.4E5 7 WP 1939 CEf FE5 37.006 7eBPteNCW 3.7tE-49 4.eE-GF (3.35E-e7 (0.4E-et (9.eE-et (9.eE-et W

• 3.9E-GS 4. t E-GS O.4E-47 (9. M -et (0.eE~et (e.e E-es W 37.eE7 73 TSP 900 m.MWWWI 4. M -GF t.90E-GS 3. M 4 (9.eE-et (e.eE-et (9.00E-et 9

! 37.e5 StWF 130 CSS 4.79E-GF 4.eE-et O. 3E-07 (9. M -48 (9.0E-et (9.e E-et B

) 37.GEF StWP 3239 CBS N 1.9E-GS N 2.M-M 4. M -07 (9. M-el (0.9E-et (S. GEE-et S l 37.930 SteBP 11 N OWWWEPS 1. M-40 1. tee-98 O.M-47 (9. W -et (e.eE-et (9.e K-Ot 9 37.931 WWF 1800 (301 4.SE-eF 1.30E-SS 6. lE-47 (G.eK-et (G.eE-et (e.GE-et W l

! 3T.9E 9eSF125s m .

M 9.9E-@F n . M-GS S.M-07 (9. M -et (0.9E-et (G.eEE-et S l 37.933 9 4SP 14M EBt &E5 (2. M-eF t. 6 -09 1. 7E-GS (9 eW-et (0. M-et (9.e E-et 3

, 37.934 9 90F 1140 Caf & 21 7.M-et 2. M-W (3. 35E-07 (9.eE-et (0.0 E-et (9.eE-et S j 37.GB 9 98P33W CSS & 21 S.48E-9F 1.SEE-4B (3. M-07 (9.eE-et (0.e E-et (e.e E-et S i

37.GM toter 9W CMI WB n.7 E-40 9.M-49 4.SE-GS (9.eE-et (4.9 E-et (0.0E-91 3 l 37.eN 19tWP 91!0 CRf e.esE-et 9.S E-49 N 7.00E-46 (0.00E-et (9.90E-et (0.9EE-et 3 N.9?e to spF 13eo Can  :

7. 2E-49 5.48E-GF (3. M-97 (0.9 E-et (9.4 E-et (G.eE-et 9  !

i 37.9N RetWP 983 FWW 37.940 11 SWF teOS DeWWERS S.00E-#P 4. M-SP ( 3. 4E-97 (9. tee-et (9.eE-et (0.9EE-et W -

37.94n at WF 32B G M (G.e E-et (9.e E-et (e.eE4R (e.esE-et(9. (9.0 M E-et (9.eE-et

-et (e.e E-et W 3 l

37.942 nattSP 930 CRf &W (9.eE41 te. eE-et (e.9E-et (9 M-es  ;

37.943 tillSP EID CSf & 21 M.eE-et (0.G E-91 (0.9E-et (9.eE-et (0.0 E-08 (9.9E-et W l

.. eE+ 0. 9.E+  :

3. M . .. I E-4. 4.S.E-6 9. 0E+

=

2. M-W S tee . t..E-47 ..ea:. 9.9.E + 9.e.E-et Enmm n.asE m s.4E-e3 .. M + 9.em:-9 ..esE + ..G.E + r

.E E  !

e e W 9 e e i semeat F sasetts t i

i  :

L 2rm .

. 7-i l

I i

l 1

6 4

I g

Ia ,

, I W h

• E ll,I,B

• mm g -

I Rd ,

ONVs Fage 8

• - ~~ - - . _. _ _ _ ,

?'

o i i '

Sc ~

i wO O 0ioe.gSem:s wom.o n;  ;

.. i 0 ;,y

, ~ )

00 i , ,

s R -

gi

,- = -

J g i = i [iO ** 1 oo -

8 3 o l l*-3tE3j f*-31E2l ja-31eij N'M b '

e W >

cmig c3 4

oo *

• I ,'%jW

.u c i 4 I i

~

s g tt i o$ h O e o L ,

J.

=E. Jg H! 9 g / ~

E E

% e -

5 '

- O i s

. -.m. Cs) g -

, , ,. p 3 i i,t 2

s :i!

I E F1 m a s::

y P**

L 4 R&J l 9 pg .,

y 113mhI E

%er8

!, 5 555 g

[ '

ill is I I lllllll I!!

1&m---

2 e_ mm .- , e i

I' i 2 .: s ~ :: .: .

l I.

\

EE

--.$;E _. lI l l l l l l ' l l l -l l l !!!!! c., .

Page 9

.~

7 1

i l 1 1 i

N M

e - , i - ,,. . .x g- e G d5 i.l 1

@d-  %

l a  ;  ; / $c E -

Ep

.__ 0] @

d*  ;

r a d  :

I I g ci-

. a up xh. ., i i

k C As- g S t

w

.t' N

l 4g -

fe i e

a: R yl a f 4 -

A/@

J' s E

@ ~

b' F m 4 *E l .

< r y

u . ,i .  ? 's

@ 2 2 E i

$b s.e y

Q <! O hI s s ,.

g, i 1 .

. s s el g

E. .

N D 3 333 555 r$ -

t, I

Mr 5 Q d 8[ ,, g

'T a

e 1: E c ~, 3 c* e* I:. l l

, 3 *

$000

<t I 4 :.=,e i

l (s h ,N g: .

p, e .-

.3

• 3q q gs. l l, s  % .t s  !  :

pr :

E

egdak.m l s sg 14 , I 3.;.,j

, w i . .

.J- -

~4  ! gg

'sti n

l c

s

• 6 N 6

5"5-6 .

~

,=

l . e ~- _-=.

1tE a ;EErE o  : --e ~2', e E lj l e.. .

l Page 10 L

)

i i '

e i

I l- i i  !'

M -

J ,

• k) i se u I< U Bn i

3. h h \

m EI  !

\ i k- oo ii i @ @.

@% a;:

es n

om U a r

'W y .

,, (

4[ d,, ..

/

i '

sw s .

. _ =

h g -

W al @ # 2 9 3  ! E.

_i. 1 1- t .i .

{~ .a

.-g

-e.

E ed em Q <! O bsk hsl gw.

N NA! ~e E i N bQ S: 3 gc l 8 \ g g i a m 5 55$ El 8 T e

\ 5 ~ 5 5 I- l!

o e 1 x le 4

l l ,

<  :=0

_s  ; - _s _ % ,h. h, N es 9% gF E

I." 2

'57FiNDs ,S u . rn l g  ;  !$ l l w ' f. D , :- .

i i:en}z a a {> a . ag!i i s v ir 71 E J J(J i i : ~.

L &ci_s 3 6e6 s s s l't  : si

.i.121 4 5

=__.as_ lf l l l l  ! ... .

l Page 11

I 1

I l i

. l I

b

\- I

- 1 5 -

i=

! I, @ %0 S 1

D

- e -

-ggr is O

- _x1 .

E I! "I i .

. 0- .

.t 1 oto 03 ' i c

=- o.

4 e

i i

er e ! <

si-4 I<

- Is i i l..-,

\,

\ h, b _E E  !

t @A s- o gl .

i si .' i g@s (g o b 5 g o =

=

o 4 o s o b;e: =_. 8  ; 3 9

g'

& o@q oS E

5 u sN F Eo a l jg . $. s.

g

40 C

i%a s a s s i

t..

l s4 sH s s 1 ,/g 5 4  : D s $'

l

E d{1l 3 ' >

, a saa E-l i l

n- . . . .

aaa li 1

,en 8

e

% a , l ll l lill

-u--- -

i!!

gvuv y

g *e n:.

-% -uos N r:, Ii u 3 ig l g g-h e r It :2 e

l o

a s

c e

s.

l..= l l i:m ;i

i. e ei s.

e 6, . I9 5 d.i:

g .s o s 6 - -

oS S0$ l'I

i t - [j I

s. - s> s.

35T57I%

.aas u "4 lll llllllllll !55I5 c.. .

Page 12 l

L l r: l I l l 1

. i t

C N I I h 1 i

E i

= l l

1 t t bh ar -

- IW@ .5 l

wt 2 5 g 4 -

E=s

=  ;

J tt

~

E

9C Ew g =z O f v .c 0 <

-

eO g ^ gs 4

1 w wN i

's :j .

i 6, h i 5 a

l  :: w g - =

%. E!m  ;

JI9 7 a

v a

~

l E

c 5

..s.ei! .ul 3M i- .C cci '

1 ls s s l _-

p ",

t s

9 Mes l ,*!

s Ni I v

l -

9 K Ql l E t I q [  ;

555 l1 l i

'! 4

=S === i !i iii 5 R. 3 j l~111 54

.y-I Ii l I I !y!!i yg g E v. vv -

, 1' ,

! yA,- l E g. f: "*

g M 5 N I~. ,A I' .h ls- b k N S b, i b 1' b5 E

, J l *n l lll lll l it i i N}y 22 4 tt12 W

e)a$ Ike "g i i s se + 4 sy! i

? EJ JQJ lI h."

l h[  ::$ 5- 5 5 h. ;;; m -k k k, ,

n blei j

__g ; .

! E E- ,~

. . p A2E hj lll l llllll iEEEEi i c.. .

(

Page 13 l

l l

J l  !

! l t

O [ i I

l--

E-

~

lll i I G @ l I

_- % e @ 4_ g . i i

A en B e

E s

I A

l-l g _ _ _

g i

.s.

\  !

r - 1 O "

@ iF ~

j 1

k g w E2 4 a g@ p a

=

g

=

)

e -  :

5 s' .t w g , =j [

5 3 :.

g ,040 s s s NM! . *gl b y, *

!sN s 3s 2

4! di i Et ,

Bl t,  :

l t i i 13 -

i '

I  %:

555 k.' l li i g[

8. !If5 EE E } 3C5 l'l

!c a oed h:e_j___ l2 l lllll >

t:*g i h; a e a a a <t

~

yj 1

L i is i= 2 -

l 2Wmm4

, Q ls1 17 3 i, )

n%  :.

! Mlg .

hI l lll l -

x3 -

1

% ..K .: 2 .: *

! B l =5 s, :d 9 f u 2 *O It gkjt -

3:

W3 s is4_fmf r IcI

2J=mIJ

!!Lil

--g-

~

= _t E . g sa E E

li l lll !EEEE u.. .

Page 14

N(

- f

- r aV tT E

[f/p G

O O R A

h O T

S C O H

, 4 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

M U **

N I

Mr O l-l E*

0 H19 7

G4 N

IN D

t iI O

UT HV A _

E mL

@ RE n g

Y 9,  :

t Y .

D w

D u

a W E

( ( (

wI

. ( t ( ( ( ( I V -

T.

"& s f f

m

=

tM

. to t

w f

r y p7 -

oAE .

g lyg/ [ t y f s

_ /

f )/

/ " /

Cm 2c 8 .

s t

p 6

ss y /s rr e e e e GC T/

9 8

o r e

t a

t a lMtla I C R I ta t t D WP l

T f l l D - s s

y e e e e hL e b E .

Po

~- T t

t h 'm t I I I WN - _

_ . A c

jf ~-

t t c l l l p

a 0 a a a 'm , e

=

C 0 CC C

- I A

T e E r s

I -

w e e; / r e s_ 1 Be e

+ e.

yyy Y 2 I

N E fl

• ayI ,ggG F f . ,

I t WrD e n. -

y/ Jy p / e E . _

g Po . _

en

/j QM .h 3_

, I _

s WN . _ . .

d. .

f gh t

'm f-- t h r t

k t

s A

T e e., _A~

E f r t

. ' '-w B0 e _

f- a r . ,

0 t .'

r / r E l e.; .

j/ i 0

C S n

e

/. 1 S

e5 1 e

/ /

1 S

/.

rf f If WP S

s

• e. -. " " ,

'e s w t N ' e ,'

t e I C s f t

1 2- - - s t

E .

Fo si ,," ,

lo le In t _

'v

$WR n i I _

WN ' _

l I a% ns _

? _

h l l g .

s.

w

'l$) N Y E

@) h -

b 8 '

3 b a

@ @ l5  :-

\

% a:

g k< _'

a 3 3

c y

w

~

v.

. I_-

h. .

l e El M00 f @ h E

.', lI l T

• U5

. s. ,

. IMHON g.

)O 4 01 i

' s 4 sa4,si- s

• ggE 4 s4!

4! d l s s s l 8

I

, 4 d4 I 3 o D I l  ? 3SS -

w I i

1. g$

d.

9 o E ER IEW 8f  !

g d~d61 lm.

t a 5 i h ~e ii bh r te""" ig a  :'-

2 F esI 1* I.I h

m% ~, D .

h1 w N BEE 1.

. l, El

, 1% bs .

1 3 I In I (sW.e -

i: l' mo x

3  !!w]b M'5 I g8]E  !

cUc l!

l l .

Ec si:~.j  !  ;

((  ::i?2P I

I; ..( Ji ' )0 ( . i ' h j :'

c: - m- - =

lI 2 E l

4  !::f ,

% _8._E @ e'. l ll  !

I

= o.. .

i Page 16 1

' ;I

, ~ -

w

,, 4 -

w r

m w

r a

'nr w

w Pw W

t 2 1

\ 7 g

e Pm 1 y W

2 k/ef 4 er

1. 6 O  : -

0 Mp , T 1

1 e m

l

• 1

/h_

y ~

+

1 y

3

@ e t g

(

w I

g w d_g 7-

~ e Q

- 'w L / Y 4 -

r

- R  : 7 I

) eI O T

A I

I

(

U e 4

V R C l i a 0

9 I

f

• 4 R O W~ I I E I V

W Y R N E

F s

a T

& V S "9 g I

M E

I t

u m

3 N

g I

C O

1. tn 1tP -

- h: I D +

u

+rH_

g

- M  ? A R OAO 2

ff g g/ e a -

/ / / / e a

' r s z

[

/ /

gy. Te a. c n a

r  %

A( 3g/ see t d t c

e e e te e ts / p t

a t

a al a t r/

e es r D D D wrp

^

o w c o

• f c s y e e es e> s d

n a

s t e t f k k D rae ca E

ws _ n w h 'm t i r v e r sy c i l A s es aw l l a 0 a a a A s s n a C 0 C C C A w a

w -

e T e ,%

. r e i

md ,

~

j/p 1

M s

s

a. ne 45

a. 2 de T y- s  ;

9 N r/ t r- 3 I e c - a es wra s

a o.

e r r c, / se s a h s 9 3 t r .a mr l e

Q. 2,3.h 1 es vv n

a. ss u 9 e .

s eed t

, ce e t n A. k(9 k e b ae t c nami ct t t

yj t t t t

.o v e e sse t <

ss n . . S .

s. as rss a r r / r ts .

. e eS 1 e r/s clep

a.

i c S S

/ /

S e.

ie wrD s.

t s

ru..n.

3 4

,t i. D n A e c B t t e I 2 1 t

a. niI t ou as H s

e t re mnHtin a e n O M nI t e wf e c.e a D r I 8R R

. . q

- g ,

- 6 v*% nw y g

+

n o

\-,

i l

L- i

• g k 1 i

h(,

! E

i ,

i i i

' '===-i ,a g

=

di -

4 E

4 t

t a]

t I

!y l

)

I "[ l 1

N

?

4

- z.

e i '

. l t [7 t '~

f 5.L'

- *, .- h  !

w l

~ '

I  : 2., ' i . l '

% *  !  ; 7 t -

_E y

' _ i_ , _

l lQ.  % 1

+

- P, i l --), & g E s  !

• ~

L  ; ll ll s

l p"'!,:-

L '-. - ,,

t  !

l I "" I L_ _"~. _= J , J ll0<0

.N --, J

,i s Rls sl s1 i s -

' b l @I ,$lsl sl < *! l bf*h DI Il l N 3 523 I

l ll

2 saa ti a

• f E t c ~. c c e la.

i l l lll

] l. Em}h a[.

a "i

v b ~;;

4 Wa ~! >;!

uu "; v al l l 1 li ti g ~

lI Je 141 t.T

@S h

l t

y'4s w E

• q s -:

5 Hi .i N

=

e-gd i

l i

l i i l l

- - p 1C 5 2 Q !l hNNN III g.3I JhJ

~

iJ ." $

2 5h hkk  ::k h f C.f'j<

s E d j w I J- I,I lEEIE l'E-- E hm'E l ll lllllllll u.. . $e$

Page 19

g. '~.;

e note /O-30-87 T enee /ZfS * "

Techneceen 'ff]atag 8 hhdd

• Inst./Ser. No. astv/4fMC7 CeI the Date///S//f ~

M-3 B NOR f/ IFtt/legem' -

RO-2 /Ser. No._ 3 3/3 Col the DeteJ/.fi/fc RPt-11/15 G r No.

_ Cal Ibe Date /_ /_

Itts t . /Se r. No. /

i CeI the Dete _ /_ /_

vers sure esta sure sure esta sure vers assa 18 9 - _

Gr4/9ES eum' 58 9 - Org/tep aus' IE W 4/DED aus' j

s gg, A lb <D 1

IA A L'1 2 -

'E - e 0 i

so .

I c'_., s o ,o a

~

L fdl5ULTW LUNQt 200M E12FAfBON 479t*-s*

t .

i 1

l Ceammast e r

1. Rfl reefeet6w reedenge en aft h e nti generet necese areen < 2.e eftA.e W -

4 teps wisee,aeted e set t . pee e tgyt w. tee noted rar men seco cess M LW PG{57 {1Wl_ a *4 i e resencaves ermeer rates O **t t a tar:f=tte' 8EV!ENED DY: INTE: j

/J U .

Z v

.at l j

e

.......', M ,,'

1

' l , y~

, f0 i I t@ "

? 9 - '

a l I .

t 9 M t _

7

}

w i i s-mms "

i s , , . - ,

'9 ( .

ww >

L  ! $'

l - '

u ,

p i f "

., W I$

l ' '. W.

w- IE -

l f.

P i

9 'f3 !k, i i h (g i

t}a i 3 4th i

ges N/

L i - -

g 040

! Ds El l j

h! 'k N l N ..I bg i s' s9 sill s g 2 t  !

I hl 9! l ! "3

+il l  ?

2 1Si Es 'l* b a .5 5 5 5 l l 1

y eR R

- e- ese 1---

it .

l. l l l I 1

• =E;k _

9 y

v

,- uvv -

. ,i e 5 !.;

+- Q h

it- l8 t ,.

1 4 1 ,s

% l' s, e s  ; N

$ ,y f" *EA : $=t If 5

%s ' s .

i p9. i .-

1.s II I I III i: s b -

. !tig N'

%.l i

- i ~t -i l gW gE d+

1  %

' ' .g '

. . . Q '. S

% :. Jlk t

l- u 5

-('n( ls

.j'bli

!2 L a!2 ti-

• d 59 d' ' ' '

$3 1.93;g&3 la/ e- - -

Page 20

I s.. t e fis .Jr. gy senc lechnNean %9a 5. MU . M-5 Inst./Ser. tk. M /J9/S Cal ikse liste G/p s/f .

8 NINI f/ If Tt/ I Wken' N RO-2 /Ser. tb. JSS Cal Ibe flate J/g/g ~

s l ll-l Rtt-14/15/Ser tb. Cal Ibe Date / / *.. .

Inst./Ser. tb.- /

Cal Ikse Date--- / /

j ' WIPE WWE BETA WIFE ~

WIPE BETA WIPE Wrt SETA 78*. SPRI/898 can' 38 0. SPII/100 em' 30 s . SPM/ISS em' ~

/b b l

b 4,= m 4e

• O 4

__. -l e or ,s.

e. ,.s 6 ..+ .-

fu .

M r

4 e e *- R ,, s

! e9

! E MACHINE SHOP l-I-4 C - ts:

, e (Ill redtatton readings In mW4r

a stil gener al access ereas 4 2.9 mWAr and i tfytisnless rmted

= ft19 wipes ( tTH tsniess noted yngsgSR DECD CP90 8 MM I OT I _ _ _ -8 %

o mt A FOUIFMNT gi s Isserentes etpWCT F9tSE j '

i O it.onst -

/

RFNIEWI) PV:

IEIli : /// 7 /[

L

, . , _ , ..~m _.%.g.__, _.

,...,,,.,,,,,.n.-,.~ . , _ _ _ - m_m-_._..mm...-_

, _ __,-m_.

_ ___.__________,,m____m

!~

r j: ,

F i

l t

. ATTACMENT 5 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT (P-89151), dated April 20, 1989.

h I

b 9

e s

, . . - - , , , . - , . , , , - - , -.,,rr .-..ne- -- , - - -.,.,- . , - - - w,, -- . , , w.. - , - , , ea---

h L l 1

$ Public Service'- - .e Cemeeny of Celeredo e

o P.o.toneso '

Denver. CD eo201 oteo ,

o R.O. WILLIAMS. JR. l sENtom VICE PmEslotNT suctsAn oPamatiows April 20, 1989 Fort St. Vrain I Unit No. 1 P-89151 U. $. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk  ;

Washington, D.C. 20555 Docket No. 50-267 SueJECT: Annual Radiolog4 cal .

Enviror. mental Monitoring Report ,,

Gertiemen:  :

i Enclosed please find a copy of the Fort St. Vrain Nucitar Generating  ;

Station Radiological Environments.1 Monitorir.g Program Annual S u1'mtry  :

Report - for 1988. The report is submitted in accordance with section 7.5.1d of the Fort St. Vrain Technical Specifications.

A copy of the Summary - Report is also being sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, per the requirements of section 7.5.1d of the Technical Specifications. Please contact Mr. Mike Holr.es at (303) 480-6960 if you have any questions regarding

• the Report.

4 Sincerely.

.:, .c .  ;

ll*e.imie04.tose

. v f l ,,,, ,,

, R. O. Williams, Jr. j!f Senior Vice President { L'p%"'

'2 ' * * '

Nuclear Operatiens  : r3,!E!

R0W:00M/bw l ,E,

.. 5,Q:

Enclosure

! iE"Lig""

Y yt:: . . = --

," 6.- =-.m n:,,. . ,c......,

i i::::','4*'

m ei-  : L'.'. 5!,

r

r-P-89151 April 20, 1989 cc: Regional Administrator, Region IV Attention: Mr. T. F. Westerman, Chief Projects Section B Mr. R. E. Farrell Senior Resident Inspector Fort St. Vrain Mr. Al Hazie Colorado Department of Health 4210 E. 13th Avenue Denver, CO 30200 '

L i

V ze-/t i Date:

w~<-uera r er ~ eera,,m pow ,s r

)

g\RONMENTg  ;

_ u

_- . [

/~_-

'7 3 X' i>

~. .

/ ,

FORT ST VRAIN 'y '.,

Qf ,' NUCLEAR '

. T ;' .' GENERATING STATION '.

i

%l r

-/y

~i a

J i

f i

_ -- - \

,' PUBLIC SERYlCE COMPANY l OF i COLORADO 1

1, Rr A. .

1 i

1 \

', \

'. l N - -

l PROGRAM i

! SUW ARY REPORT T

1988 a0 a g ci Q COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY g FORTCOLLINS, COLORADO 80523 1

1

I t

i P',DIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM l

For the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station Operated by the Public Service Co. of Colorado

. Sunnary Report for the Period January 1,1988 - December 31, 1988 _

' U

Prepared by: M. , '

'l !/ */ ' l -

.)

Dames E. Johnson, Professor date >

.l Colorado State'Universit,v ..

i 1

Reviewed by: M /f s Superintendent of Chemistry date' and Radiation Protection t-Reviewed by: k ,.O A \AA'.iL & u. > e - y9 i Radiochemistry Supervisor 'Date Approved by: 7m _ _ -- _ //aso$

Nuclea[ support, Services Manager Date *

}

l

'l

• , . , , . . . ~ _ ~ _ . . -- -.. .. . - - - . . . - . . _ . . - . . - - . . - _ - - . - - . - . - . _ . . _ - - . ~ . .

i j

[

Acknowledgements Many persons have contributed to this project during 1988, ar.d it is important to acknowledge their effort. We also wish to thank the citizens from whose farms, homes, and ranches we collect the j

environmental samples. Without their cooperation the project would not  ;

f r. be possible.

The persons working of rectly 'n the project have been: '

Joseph Biancont Grcevete Research Assistant Deborah Blunt Graduate Research Assistant John Fleming Student Employee

[

Roger Gardes llndergraduate Student '

Patti Kelley Student Employee '

Grant T. Reid Programmer Charles Sampier Chief Electronic Technician David Thorne Graduate Research Assistant .

.b l,i l;I , ' l f ' l ' .> '

i J

! ames J E.-Johnson l' i Professor and Project Director bmr &

Sharon Clow l

Laboratory Coordinator 1

l '

l ii

.u,

?.

u f

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

Page No.

Acknowledgments 11

-List of Tables iv List of Figures vi I.. I!CRODUCTION 1 II. SURVEILLANCE DATA FOR 1988' AND INTERPRETATI0N'0F RESULTS , 6 A. External Camma Exposure Rates 6  ;

B. Air Sampling Data 9 I

C. Wa *e Sampling Data 34 -

l D. . f. ; 4 wta 67 if E. v Products 79 stic Patnways 81 ll s- C. Sample Cross check Data 84 l'

L H.. Suasary and Conclusions 93 I I l III. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILIANCE l

1 PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE ~

'112 IV. APPENDIX 131 A. Survey of Dairy Farms 131 1

1.11 L

L . . ' + f d a < i 4

! "!r '~ 4 I

!;l l

LIST OF TABLES ,

]

1 o Page No. 1 II.A.1 Camma Exposure Rates. 8 e

II.B.1 Concentrations of Long lived Cross: Beta Activity in Airborne Particles. 11

a. First Quarter, 11 m

b. Second Quarter, 12 i

c. Third Quarter, 13

d. Fourth Quarter, 14 p II.B.2 Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Water l-

- Vapor, pCi/L. 18-L .. a.' FirAt Quarter, 18 b .Second Quarter, 19 ,

7';; c. Third Quartgr, 20 *

/a '

H' 1

d. Fourth Quarter, 21

.g II.B.3~ Tritium Concentrations in Air, pC1/m3 . 22

, s

a. First Quarter, 22 p

1

b. Second Quarter,- 23

c. Third Quarter, 24

d. Fourth Quarter, 25 II.B.4 Tritium Releasec in Reactor Effluents. 26 1 II.B.5 I-131 Concentrations in Air.

29 o q, a. First Quarter, 2'9 o .

s b. SecondQuarter, 30 j c. Third Quarter, 31

d. Fourth Quarter, 32

II.B 6 Radiocesium Concentrations in Ambient Air. 33

-l II.C.1 Cross Beta Concentrations in Bi weekly Composites of Drinking Water. 37 iv

I 4

{

^

L i

LIST OF TABLES (Continued) i Page No.

II.C.2' Tritium Concentrations in Bi-weekly Composites of Drinking Water. 38

.II.C.3 Radionuclide Concentrations in Bi weekly Composites l of Drinking Water. 39 II.C.4 Tritium Concentrations in Surface Water. 50 i II.C.5 Radienuclide Concentrations in-Surface and Effluent Water: 52 II.C.6 Radionuclide Concentrations in Ground Water. 65 II.C.7 Tritium Concentrations in Ground Water. 66 -

II.C.8 Kaximum Permissible Concentrations in Water. 66 l II.D.1 Radionuclide Concentrations in Milk. 70 II.D.2 J Tritium Concentrations in Milk. 77 II.E.1 Radiiducl'idi Toncentrations in Food Products.  ! '80 II'.F.1 Radionuclide Concentrations in Fish. 82 II.F.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Sediment. 83 s

II.G.1 EPA Cross check Data. 88 II.G.2 Tritium Concentrations in Cross-check Data, .

CSU Colorado' Dept. of Health PSC. 90-II.G.3 Gross Beta Concentrations in Water Cross-check Data, CSU.Colorsdo Dept. of Health PSC. 91 II.G.4 Intralaboratory Cross check Results. 92

-II.H.1 Data Summary., 100 II.H.2 Geometric Means of Selected Sample Types 1985 1988. 109'

.III.A.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program. 114 III.A.2 Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analysis, LLD. 116 III.A.3 Reporting Levels, 117 III.B.1 Sampling Locations for Environmental Samples. 118

~III.C.1 Land use Census, 1988. 129 V

i

. , i i

LIST OF FIGURES i

Page No.

Figure II.B.1 Gross Beta Concentrations in Air 15

- Figure II.C.1 Tritium Concentrations in Water 1974 1988 51 Figure II.D.1 1 131 Concentrations in MiU. at Site A 22 76 i Figure III.B.1 Close in Sampling Locations 127 Figure III.B.2 Adjacent. and Reference Sampling Locations 128*

Figure III.C.1 Land Use Census, 1988 130 6'

.t -

q- . .

f P

1 e

l 1

=

mj'

)

Vi

1 i i

I. Introduction to Radiological Environmental Monitoring Data for the Period January 1,1988 - December 31, 1988 ,

During 1988 the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station produced I thermal energy as follows:

• i Dates with Thermal Gross Themal Energy Month Energy Generation Production (MWH)

Jan. 1-31 402,863 Feb. 1-10 . 100,788

. 12-29 139,596 Mar. 1-31 455,973 Apr. 1-7 61,530 21-30 99,147 May 1 88,111' l

18-31 73,962 June 1-30 458,144

• July . 1-5 74,262 -

.Aug.-Dec. 0 0

,i Total for 1988 1,954,378 '

• A complete and detailed listing of radioactivity released by all

, effluent routes may be found in the Public Service Company of Colorado.

Semi-annual Effluent Release Reports for 1988 to the U.S. Nuclear i Regulatory Commission. When possible in this report, any correlation of radioactivity in environmental samples with the effluent release data is discussed. These discussions are presented in the appropriate sample type section and in the sumary section, !!.H.

,l Table !!!.A.2 lists the LLO values achievable by the counting systems used during 1988 on project samples. These values are given for i typical sample . sizes, counting times and decay times. The LLO is, i

1 therefore, an a priori parameter to indicate the capability of the detection system used. The LLO values in Table III.A.2 were calculated

, as suggested in NUREG-0472.

L I

,r.m,,-w..~ ,.m, . , ,..,r. . ...m..,....~.,__,., .,..,--,.._.__._m. --

2 Throughout the. report, however, when a sample result is listed as ,

less than a specified value, that value is the calculated MDC (minimum detectable concentration). This approach is analogous to that of Currie (NUREG/CR-4007): the MDC is the same as e S ,.the critical signal, and the LLD is equal to SD , the detectable signal. The MDC value applies to the s actual sample size, counting time and decay time applicable to that individual sample. It is calculated as:

r MDC = 2.33 og /E Y Y E-At s

Where: og

• Standard deviation of background count rate d E = Counting efficiency, e s'1 pCi"I Y = Chemical yield V = Sample mass or volume '

A = 0.693/ Half-life t = Decay time between sample collection and analysis This calculation method assumes that E and Y are constants and makes no allowance for systematic error.

• It should be noted that we have not used the notation < MDC for l

values less than MDC. Rather, we report the result as less than the

' actual MDC value. Because the MDC is dependent upon variables such as t

the background count time.and sample size, the value will be different for each sample type and even within. sample type.

!- Essentially all radioactivity values measured on this project are near background levels and, more importantly, near the MDC values for each radionuclide and sample type, it has been well-documented that 1>

environmental radioactivity values exhibit great inherent variability.

This is partly due to sampling and analytical variability, but most i

3 Importantly due to'true environmental or biological variability. . As a 2

{ result, the overall_ variability of the surveillance data is quite large, ,

t and it is necessary to use mean values from a- rather large sample population size to make any conclusions about the absolute radioactivity concentrations in any environmental pathway.

Environmental radiation surveillance data also commonly exhibit ,

non-normal frequency distributions. Usually the data can be

• l satisfactorily treated using log-nomal statistics. However, when the number of observations is small, i.e., less than 10, log-normal treatment is tentative. The geometric means and geometric standard [

deviations are calculated for each sample set. If any data point ,

measured resulted in a negative value, the corresponding MDC is used in -

the calculation of the log-nomal statistics. (Negative values are  !

!' possible'due to the statistica'l nature of radioactivity counting.) In Section II.H. Conclusions and Summary, the geometric means and geometric standard deviations- for the reporting period of 1988 are listed in Table L

.' II.H.2. -

The arithmetic mean for each sample set is also listed in Table h II.H.2. All measured values, both positive and negative, are used in i 4

the calculations of the arithmetic mean. This is the suggested practice by Gilbert (Health Physics 40:377,1984) and the NRC (NUREG/CR-4007).

Merty sets of, data were compared in this report. The statistical l ] test used was either a 'dt"-test or a paired "t"-test. If data sets are

.1 noted to be significantly different or not significantly different, the confidence'for the statement is at the 95% level (a = 0.05).

In this report we have footnoted appropriate tables with the f maximum permissible concentration applicable to each radionuclide. We i

'f l

s

m

L l;i

-- 3 4

. have' chosen to list the maximum permissible concentrations as found in '

Appendix B Table II of 10CFR20.. This is the concentration in water or air of each radionuclide which if ingested or inhaled continuously would singularly produce the maximum permissible radiation dose rate to a '

1 spectfled individual member of the general public. That value is 500 mrem / year, but must include the dose from all possible sources, and,  :

therefore, cannot be ' solely due to reactor effluent. As stated in " #

10CFR20 these are the maximum concentrations above natural background that a licensee may release to an unrestricted area. . It is assumed that no direct ingestion o, inhalation of effluents can occur at the '

l restricted area boundary and that dilution and dispersion decreases the l '

concentration before it reaches nearby residents. This is certainly the case for the Fort St.- Vrain environs. - -

There is no specified maximum permissible dose rate or dose commitment for residents near the Fort St. Vrain reactor from the s

L reactor effluents. Such limits for water cooled reactors are found in

. 10CFRSO Appendix I. These are judged as "As Low as Reasonably -

Achievable" dose rates from such reactor types and, although not directly applicable to the Fort St. Vrain gas cooled reactor, can be used for comparison purposes.

A limit that does apply is the independent maximum permissible dose commitment rate set by,the E.P.A'. (40CFR190) for any specified member of '

the general public from any part of the nuclear fuel cycle. This value is 25 mrem / year, the dose rate tu the whole body from all contributing .

radionuclides excluding background and medical radiation dose rate.

I e-i 6

, , , , , , , - ._,.n, -.,,,,.--s --- , ..,,,N

I" s

+

5-

,i. '

Dose commitments are calculated for hypothetical individuals for .i any mean concentrations noted in unrestricted areas that are ,

significantly above. control mean values.'

The following-is the footnote ' system used in this report.

a. Sample lost prior to analysis. ,

't

b. Sample missing at site.  :

P

c. Instrument malfunction. - -

d. Sample lost during analysis,

e. Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.  ;

~ t 4 f. Sample unavailable. ' - r

-g. Analysis'in progress.

m h. Sample not collected (actual reason given). ,

1. Analytical error (actual reason given). .

-f N.A. Not applicable.

s

!?

l 1'

l

- - - - - - - - - - - - u -a--- - - - - - - - - --,w ,. - - - , , ~ ,,,,a , - ---- - , - g ,

,T '

7 i t 6

.  !!. Surveillance Data for January Through December 1988 and .

<J Interpretation of ~ Results A. External Gamma-ray Exposure Rates i

The average measured.gama-ray exposure rates expressed in mR/ day are given in Table !!.A.1. The values were determined by CaF2 0Y  !

(TLD-200)- dosimeters at each of 41 locations (see Table !!!.B.1). ~ Two i TLD chips per package are installed at each site and the mean value is -

reported for that site. The mean calculated total exposure is then divided by the number of days that elapsed between pre-exposure and L post-exposure annealing to obtain the average daily exposure rate. The TLD devices are changed quarterly at each location. Fading during field '

exposure is minimized by the post-annealing readout procedure.

.l The TLD data indicate that the arithmetic mean measured exposure:

• l rate in the facility area for all of 1988 was 0.36 mR/ day. The mean exposure rate was 0.36 mR/ day for the adjacent area and 0.34 mR/ day for f.hereferencearea. These mean values were not significantly different from each other.

The exposure rate measured at all sites is due to a combination of exposure from cosmic rays, from natural ganna-ray emitters in the 1

l earth's crust and from ground surface deposition-of fission prnducts due

! to previous world-wide fallout. The variation in measured values is due l

to true variation of the above s'ources plus the variation due to the measurement method. The purpose of the two TLD rings around the reactor

'. is not to measure gama-rays. generated from the reactor facility itself, 1.

E but to document the presence or absence of gama-ray emitters deposited

.upon the ground from the reactor effluents. Since the inception of

(:

L power production by the reactor, there has been no detectable increase p

1:

1 o

g

.s

.7. l in the external exposure' rate due- to reactor releases. Fallout, both from the Chinese nuclear weapon tests and from the Chernobyl accident, was detected in the past.

The TLD system was calibrated by exposing chips to a scattered gamma-ray flux produced in a cavity surrounded by uranium mill tailings.

' This. produces a gamma-ray spectrum nearly identical to that from natural

background measured in the reactor environs. The quality control program includes calibration before readout of each quarterly batch of TLD devices.

L For ccuparison purposes, the EPA-in EPA 520/5-88-057 Report #53 1

lists 0.38 + 0.11 mR/ day for the background external exposure rate in

, - Denver.

t 6

L I ' '

i' l

3 Table II.A.1 Gammma Exposure Rates. (nR/ day) 1988 )

Facility Area 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter l F-1 0.35 0.43 0.42 0.44 1 F-2 0.33 0.40 0.36 0.46 i F-3 0.37 0.36 0.37 0.42

' - l

.F-4 0.32 0.35 0.43 0.37 .

F-5. 0.36 0.39 0.37 0.38 l F-6 0.30 0.32 0.35 0.36  !

F-7 0.30 0.37 0.35 0.38 I F-8 0.34 0.33 0.40. 0.41 F-9 0.43 0.30 0.37 0.41-F-10 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.39 i F-11 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.46 -

F-12 0.30 0.31 0.40 0.44 F-13 0.31 0.25 0.33 0.37 F 0.33 0.20 0.34 0.39 F-15 0.32 0.35 0.34 0.35 F-16 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.43 F-17 0.37 0.36 0.39 0.35 F-18 0.33 0.39 0.44 0.41 i (1.96c}- 0.34(0.062) 0.34(0.11) 0.38(0.06) 0.40(0.069).

Adjacent Area A-1 0.30 0.42 0.40 0.36 A-2 0.34 0.38 0.39 0.43 A-3 0.31 0.41 0.37 -0.42 A-4 0.32- 0.36 0.38 0.36 A-5 s 0.36- 0.36 0.38 0.34 A-6 0.35 0.31 0.37 0.35 A-7 0.31 0.36 0.38 0.44

.A-8 0.32 0.45 0.41 0.41

A-9 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.42 L A-10 0.33 0.42 0.41 0.47 l A-11 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 l A-12 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.41 A-13 0.31 0.31 0.34 0.35 A-14. 0.34 0.30 0.34 0.38 A 0.35 0.28 0.36 0.36 A-16 0.34 0.23 0.36 0.40 A-17 0.34 0.28 0.38 0.42 A-20 0.36 0.38 0.42 0.46 L

l X(1.96o) 0.33(0.039) .0.35(0.11) 0.38(0.05) 0.39(0.077) l L Reference Area l"

l R-2 0.30 0.29 0.34 b R-3 0.31 0.36 0.35 0.40 R-4 0.29 0.33 0.31 0.36 R-5 0.27 0.37 0.33 0.37 R-7 0.28 0.40 0.33 0.42

_ 0.29(0.031) 0.35(0.082) 0.30(0.03) 0.39(0.052)

X (1.96c) -

b TLD packet removed from pole by vandals.

d I

.. g. ..

II'.B. -Ambient Air Concentrations

1. Gross Beta Activity

- The air concentrations of long lived particulate gross beta activity measured at- the facility and reference sampling sites are listed in Tables II.B.la-id for each quarter of 1988. A-19, while technically in the adjacent zone, is only a few meters from the~ facility boundary and logically should be considered a facility site. It has -

been termed a- facility site since the inception of the monitoring program. . The reference sites R-3, R-4, and R-11 are all new locations as of January l',1984 and sufficiently distant to be considered reference . (control ) locations. (See Table III.B.1).

The reported concentrations are listed in units of femtocuries per cubic meter of ambient air, although the measured activity is due to a -

combination of radionuclides almost all of which are naturally o

occurring. It should be noted that the current technical specifications no longer require measurement of gross alpha activity. All filters, however, are saved indefinitely for later alpha activity analysis if needed.

The mean gross beta-concentration in air for all facility stations for all of 1988 was 26 fCf /m3 . The mean concentration for all 3

references stations was 24 fCf /m . This slight difference was statistically significant at 955. confidence level but not significant at 97.5% level. In any ca'se the slight difference was not due to reactor i effluents because specific fission product concentrations, e.g.1370s, were not statistically higher in'the facility area. Any real difference was due to naturally occurring radionuclides. There was also no evidence of fission product or activation product debris in surface air w, ---a s r

i ,

10 .

3 from the reentry'of COSMOS 1900. The-U.S.S.R. satellite was predicted

~

to reenter the earth's atmosphere between mid September and early October 1988. ,

The gross beta data for 1988 have been added to the plot of air concentrations observed since 1973 (Figure 11.8.1).- In this figure the half-yearly mean values for the facility sites are' plotted with the values from the reference sites. The contribution from Chernobyl is ~ ~

clearly evident in 1986. It can be observed that overall mean values are not significantly different and that world-wide fallout, principally L

(.- due to Chinese atmospheric nuclear weapon tests, is the predominant contributor to the measured values over the period shown.

.: There has never been a significant difference observed between

-o facility and reference sites. Thus, it can be again concluded that -

j; reactor air effluents of particulate fission products or activation products are not a source of dose commitment for the Fort St. Vrain s

environs population.

L h, .

l

' lg 1

r

~ .- , - -

~~

- . - - - .=.... ,-. - . . . . . . .a- .--.:.. ..- .

(

g; 1.it le l l .it.1 . Conceritrationis of losi9-lived Gross Heta l' articulate Activity is. Air. (fCi/m )

a) First Quarter 1988 collection IIIIlY SII'S "'I""C" sit'5 Ila te f-7 F-9 F-lG' A-19 R-3 R-4' R-11 Jan 2 49(3.1)* 32(2.3) 40(3.0) 22(2.2) 44(4.0) .30(2.2) c-1

.1.. . 9 40(2.3) 44(2.4) 45(2.4) 44(2.3) 54(4.8)- '35(1.9) 34(2.0)

Jan 16 29(1.7) 25(1.5) 27(2.0) 31(2.0) 13(2.9) 18(1.4)- 29( l'.5)

Jan 23 19(1.8) 15(1.5) 19(1.6) 18(1.4) 18(1.9) 25(2.0)

, 21(1.6)~

Jan 30 21(1.6) 21(1.4) 21(1.8) 17(1.5) *24(2.3) 16(1.2) 19(1.2)

Feb 6 67 (2.8) 37(2.1) 83(4.2) 45(1.6) 68(2.3) 41(1.8) 45(2.0).

i reh 13 44(2.1) 30(1.7) 44(2.1) 31(2.5) 27(1.5) 27(1.4) 36(1.7) reh 20 12(1.2) 9.9(1.0) 11(0.97) 11(0.97 12(1.1) 11(1.0) 9.6(0.91) reb 27 20(1.6) -

19(7.1) 17(1.2) 15(1.6) 19(1.3) 17(1.2) 15(1.2)

Har 5 25(1.5) 19(1.2) 25(1.4) 26(1.3) 23(1.4) 22(1.4)  :: !

25(1.6)

! Har 12 15(1.3) 8.2(0.84) 11(1.5) 12(1.1) 12(1.1) 12(1.0) 10(1.1) ,

! lbr 19 24(1.5) 22(1.4) 25(1.4) 23(1.3) 22(1.4) 21(1.5) 15(1.4).

Har 26 20(1.7) 17(1.2) 17(2.0) 18(1.4) 17(1.3) 17(1.3) c-1

~

x 30 23 30 24 27 22 24 i .96 => 16 -10 .

20

,11 _ 17 a.7 ,

11 ItAX: 113 T(1.9G 'a) 27 (IS)

~

MAX: 6P Yp.96M,24(13)

HIII: 8.2 .

- 52 MIN:.9.6 n 37 4 8.98 a es (O co 1 s OJositisig : tististics.)

Table 'II.8.1 Concentrations of Long-lived Gross Beta Particulate Activity in Air. (fC1/ml) b) Second ()uarter,1988 Facility Sites Reference Sites Collection ,

Date F-7 F-9 F-16 'A-19 R-3 R-4 R-11 4/2/88 15 (1.5)* 12 (1.2) 14 (1.2) 15 (1.2) 17 (1.3) 17 (1.4) 14 (1.3) 3 4/9/88 26 (2.0) 34 (2.2) 23 (1.4) 22 (2.0) 23 (1.5) 25 (1.5) 20 (1.3) 4/16/88 27 (0,62) 31 (2.1) . 26 (1.4) 27 (1.4) 23 (1.4) 25 (1.6) 24 (1.5)  ;

l 4/22/88 2'7 (0.62)*' 23 (0.59) 24 (0.75) 23 (1.4) 21 (0.79) 21 (0.65) 30 (8.5) j 4/30/88 19 (0.77) 16 (0.61) 17 (0.55) 17 (0.52) 18 (0.58) 17 (0.55) 17 (0.67) i 5/7/88 22-(1.6) 13 (0.56) 17 (0.67) 18 (1.2) 23 (1.1) 17 (0.56) 19 (0.78)  ;

5/14/88 17 (0.57) 17 (0.76) 19 (0.65) 19 (0.67) c-1 13 (2.0) 18 (0.84) -

G 1  :

5/21/88 16 (0.49) 38 (2.5) 32 (1.5) 17 (1.2) 12 (0.61) 11 (0.58) 15 (0.72) 5/28/88 20 (l.2) 21 (1.3) c-1 25 (1.5) 18 (1.9) 24 (1.3) 24 (1.6) i 6/4/88 22 (1.1) 20 (1.2) 25 (3.8) 21 (2.2) 22 (1.4) 20 (1.1) 21 (1.5) 6/11/88 22 (1.2) 18 (1.3) 24 (1.3) 24 (1.5) 56 (2.0) 25 (1.5) 24'(1.6) l 6/18/88 36 (3.1) 19 (1.0) 23 (1.5) 20 (2.1) 20 (1.4) 20.(1.2) 23 (1.5) l 6/25/88 21 (2.4) 24 (l.5) 26 (1.4) 25 (1.6) 24 (1.5) 26 (1.5) 28 (0.90) ,

i 22 22 22 21 23 20 21  ;

1.96o 11 15 9.8 7.0 22 9.6 9.4 MAX: 38 It(1.%o) 22(11) MAX: 56 X(1.%o) 21(14)

MIN: 12 n 50 MIN: 11 n 38 i

• 1.960 (Due to counting statistics.) -

l.

• • April 22 value represents a two week period.

c-1 Volume inadequate for accurate ^ analysis - pump malfunction.

__ = - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

Table 11.8.1 Concentrations of l_ong-lived Gross Beta Particulate Activity in Air. 7(fCf/m 3) ~

c) Third Quarter,1988 Facility Sites i Reference Sites Collection

Date F-7 F-9 F A-19 R-3. R-4 R-11 7/2/88 19.0 (1.2)*18.0 (1.0) b ts 20.0 (1.4) 19.0 (1.1) 18.0.. ( 1.4 )

7/9/88 e 20.0 (1.5) 17.0 (1.3) 24.0 (1 ,7) 19.0 (1.4) 19.0 (1.2) 21.0 (1.7) 7/16/88 24.0 (1.4) 21.0 (1.2) 46.0 (3.9) 23.0 (2m6) 30.0 (2.6) 23.0 (1.3) 24.0 (1.7) 7/23/88 23.0 (1.3) 25.0 (1.5) 25.0 (1.4) 28.0 (ll7) 22.0 (1.3) 27.0 (1.5) 27.0 (1.9) 7/30/88 30L.0 (1.4) 26.0 (1.3) 33.0 (2.0) 31.0 (2 9) 25.0 (1.4) 29.0 (1.3) 32.0 (1.8) 3

~

8/6/88 41.0 (3.4) 24.0 (1.7) 22.0 (1.3) 23.0 (1.6) 20.0 (1.2) 25.0 (1.4) 26.0 (1.9) i 8/13/88 23.0 (1.1) 20.0 (1.2) 23.0 (1.5) 12.0 (2.0) 22.0 (1.1) 23.0 (1.2)'25.0 (1.7) 8/20/88 21.0 (1.2) 24.0 (1.5) 27.0 (1.4) e 23.0 (1.4) 25.0 (1.5) 54.0 (4.0) 8/27/88 34.0 (1.5) 30.0 (1.4) 53.0 (3.4) 30.0 (2.3) 31.0 (1.5) 30.0 (1.4) 34.0 (2.0) 9/3/88 32.0 (1.5) 34.0 (1.8) 18.0 (1.3) 37.0 (1.5) 32.0 (1.5) 26.0 (1.5) e 9/10/88 30.0 (1.6) 27.0 (1.4) 32.0 (2.1) 31.0 (2.4) 12.0 (1.1) 27.0 (1.5) 41.0 (2.7) 9/17/88 16.0 (1.1) 16.0 (1.2) 16.0 (1.3) 13.0 (0.88 16.0 (1.1) 12.0 (1.1) 34.0 (2.0) 9/24/88 39.0 (1.6) 30.0 (1.4) 32.0 (1.8) 42.0 (1.8) 18.0 (1.4) 14.0 (1.2) b X 28 24 29 27 22 23 31 1.96o (16) (10) (22) (18) (12) (11)' (20) -

MAX: 53 X(1.96o) 27 (17) MAX: 54 X(1.96o) 25 (16)

MIN: 12 n 48 MIN: 12 n 37

• 1.966 (Due to counting statistics).

e Insufficient volume for accurate analysis. .

b Filter missing at site. *

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. .--=-==--_: -- -- -- -- =--

. - - . _ . . . .. 'a . . . . . .

Table II.8.1 Concentrations of Long-lived Gross Beta Par 11culate Activity in Air. (fC1/m3) d) Fourth Quarter,1988 Facility Sites Reference Sites Collectio.i Date F-7 F-9 F-16 A-19 R-3 R-4 R-11 10/1/88 35 (1.9)* 24 (1.8) 27 (1.5) 26 (2.2) 24 (1.3) 26 (1.5) 26 (1.9) 10/8/88 30 (1.4) 40 (4.1) 27 (2.2) 30 (1.2) 25 (1.3) 35 (1.7) 42 (2.7) 10/15/88 34.(1.6) 44 (19) 38 (1.8) 36 (2.6) 34 (1.6) 37 (1.9) 38 (2.5) 10/22/88 23 (1.4) e 23 (1.5) 40 (2.1) 20 (1.3) 20 (1.5) 27 (2.3) 10/29/88 '2'3 (1.5) 25 (2.4) 26 (1.6) 21 (1.3) 22 (1.3) 24 (1.6) 42 (1.4) 11/5/88 33 (1.8) 28 (1.4) 35 (2.0) 32 (1.4) 27 (1.4) 31 (1.5) 24 (1.8) ,,

4 11/12/88 18 (1.8) 18 (1.4) 19 (1.4) 20 (2.1) 15 (1.1) 18 (1.4) 8.8 (2.1) 11/19/88 26 (1.6) 22 (1.1) 16 (1.7) 19 (1.3) 11 (1.2) 33 (2.1) 21 (1.6) 11/26/88 26 (1.4) 25 (1.6) 27 (1.6)- 21 (2.7) 22 (1.4) 31 (1.9) 28 (1.6) 12/3/88 35 (1.7) 22 (1.3) 27 (1.9) 24 (1.5) 16 (1.3) 15 (1.1) 17 (1.4) 12/10/88 59 (8.1) 30 (1.8) 38 (2.0) 35-(2.6) 26 (1.5) 28 (1.6) 26 (1.6) 12/16/88 26 (1.5) 31 (2.3) 26 (1.8) 27 (1.5) 18 (1.3) 24 (1.2) 38 (2.7) 12/24/88 26 (1.2) 24 (1.5) 25 (1.6) 24 (2.1) 19 (1.4) 22 (1.3) 26 (1.6) 12/31/88 44 (1.8) 43 (1.7) 45 (2.4) 59 (2.5) 37 (1.7) 36 (1.7) 40 (1.9)

~

X 31 29 28 30 23 27 29 1.96 o 20 16 15 21 14 14 20 MAX: 59 X(1.96o) 30 (18) MAX: X(1.% o) (16)

MIN: 16 n 55 -

MIN: ' h2 .8 n

• 1.96o (Due to ' counting statistics. )

e Insufficient volume for accurate analysis.

. . _ . _ _ _ . _ ._ _ = _ ___

i p

L:,

15- 1 0 Figure II.B.1 1000 900

. Gross Beta Concentrations in Air 800 -

q 700 -

- Facility Sampling Stations l

, .oo .

R = 55 e = 59  !

500 - ,

4._ , Reference Sampling Statior.s 400 . R=62 e = 67

}

300 -

200 - +

)

\

\ /

I f .,

\ l .

n

.E

\

\ I f I N- 100 -

\ l t U 90 - \ \

~ l 80 -

l l-70 l g

'J

(

o 60 \ l I 1; \ l \ j

\

' 50 E \.

\ j \.

\ l 1 \

40 h I k k  ;

\ \

I 30 -

<\ p

\, \g '

\,

\ l p 20 -

g f i 1 , a\

j. a kl

~\ , y 4

\ \

/

10 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'e ' ' ' ' ' '

l --

1973 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 89 1

Time (year)

H e

l l- .---.. _ . . . _ . . ~ . . , . . - . . . . .

,~

N

'. .4 16 l

2. Tritium Activity Atmospheric water vapor samples are collected continuously by passive absorption on silica gel at all seven air sampling stations (four in the facility area and three in the reference area).. The l

specific activity of tritium in water extracted.from these weekly '

samples for 1988 is listed in Tables -!I.B.2a-2d. The corresponding -

tritium concentration in air (pCi/m3 ) is calculated from the specific

• l activity data'using weekly mean temperatures and dew points measured at

] the FSV meteorological tower. The measuring point is at a htight of 2 m

_,. from the surface. The tritium air concentrations are shown in Table II.B.3a-3d.

q. The principle release mode of tritium from the reactor is batch

~

{ liquid releases from holding canks (system 62). The tank water is first

]

I analyzed and then released with sufficient-additional dilution, if necessary, to not exceed 10CFR20 concentration limits. The sumary of -.

tritium release by all modes is'shown in Table II.B.4. The sumary indicates' that the total tritium released in 1988 was 2.8 times greater than in 1987 for all routes. (See 1987 annual report to the USNRC).

l j i This effluent release was detected principally at two of the air p j_ sampling sites.

Sampling locations F-16 and A-19 a' re located near the Goosequill l l

1 Ditch, which .f s the comon route for liquid effluent tritium release. l

l. Tables II.B.2a-2d indicate a strong correlation of elevated atmospheric tritium concentrations corresponding to the batch release of tritium in water along the ditch. Due to evaporation while in transit, elevated tritium concentrations in air have been observed for these two locations often in past years. The concentrations observed, however, have always l- i t

.E i

. -. . . , . . . , - , . . . _ . , , . . . , , . , ,_,,._,_..v. .m., ,_r,,,

h

)

a ,

17 been below the limit of regulatory concern. The occasional elevated

. values at the reference sites are assumed to be statistically false

, ,. positive values.

The mean value for. sites F-16 and A-19 were significantly greater )

than for all other sites during the year. When all four facility sites are: averaged, however, the total mean value was 470 pCi/L. The mean for the three ' reference sites was less than the MDC value of 250 pC1/L.. Tfie mean for. the facility stations was significantly greater than the mean for the adjacent stations. Radiation dose commitment estimates are not e

warranted on the basis of elevated air concentration values alone, i Inhalation is not a significant pathway for dose to humans. .The milk l and food product pathway is the only significant source of radiation dose to humans from environmental tritium. See results for these *

• pathways in sections 11.0 and II.E.

' Since the same relative humidity is assumed for all sites Table s

II.B.3 shows the same site dependence on reactor effluent as Table

• l 11.8.2. Only the units used to measure tritium in surface air are -

l- di f ferent.

[1 L

j cr l, '

l ..

b 1

t.

I

Table II.B.2 Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Ilater Vapor. - (pC1/L) a) First Quarter, .1988 Fecility Sites Reference Sites Collectio Date F-7 F-9 F-16 A-19 R-3 R-4 'R-ll 1/2/88 e 630 (430)* e "2100 (430) 830 (430) l'100 (430) e 1/9/88 960 (430) 890 (430) 600 (350). 1100 (430) 700 (430) 770 (430) < 290 1/16/88 460 (350) 430 (420) 1200 (430) 2800 (440) 650 (430) < 410 <410

1/23/88 < 290 e 460 (350) e. 450 (350) < 290 380 (350) 1/30/88 c,550 (310) 370 (310) 490 (310) 610 (310) 360 (310) < 260 -

< 260 l

l 2/6/88 < 2'60 < 260 < 260 450-(310) < 260 440 (310) e 2/13/88 < 230

, 380 (270) 640 (270) 620 (270)~ 490 (270) 960 (280) 520 (270) 2/20/88 560 (310) 490 (310) 820 (310) 760 (310) < 260 360 (310) 150 (310) 5 2/27/88 < 380 760 (460) < 380 930 (470) < 380 < 380 < 380 3/5/88 600 (310) 1000 (310) 810 (310) 950 (310) 570 (310) 870 (310) 190 (320) l 3/12/88 400 (320) 320 (320) 760 (330) 800 (330) 800 (330) 600 (320) i100 (33')

0 3/19/88 280 (310) < 260- < 260 570 (310) 460 (310) < 260 450 (310) 3/26/88 < 260 < 260 310 (310) 280 (310) 330 (310) 460 (310) 570 (310)

• 1.DG o (Duo lo counting statistics.)

l I Insufficient volume for accurate analysis.

e .

i i

~

+

Table'II.B.2 Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Idater Vapor. ~(pCi/L)-

b) Second Quarter,1988 '

Facillty. Sites Reference Sites-Collectio:

Date F-7 F-9 F-16 A R-3 R-4 R-11 4/2/88 < 250 380 (310)* 450.(310) 420 (310) 560 (310) 420 (310) < 260 4/9/88 <-250 < 250 290 (300) 570 (310) 310 (300) 330 (300) 540 (320) ,

4/16/88 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 e '< 250 < 250 4/22/88 < 220' < 220 < 220 < 220 350 (270) < 253- < 250 4/30/88 < 250 < 250- 340.(370) < 250 e < 250 < 250 5/7/88 < 250 < 250 490 (370) 640 (370) 390 (370) < 250 < 250 5/14/88 < 250 < 250 500 (370) 890 (380) < 250 < 250 < 250 5/21/88 < 250 < 250 560 (370) 1400 (380) < 250 < 250 < 250 5 5/28/88 < 250 < 250 560 (370) 1100 (380) < 250 < 250- < 250 6/4/88 < 250 < 250 610'(370) 1100 (380) < 250 < 250 < 250 6/11/88 < 250 < 250 1600-(390) 1300 (380) < 250 < 250 < 250 6/18/88 < 250 < 250 1600 (390) 1900 (390) < 250 330 (370) < 250 6/25/88 < 250 e < 250 570 (270) < 250 < 250 < 250 1.9G o (Duo lo counting statistics.)

e Insufficient volume for accurate analysis. . ,

t y .__- e.. a ..,--u - - , . ..-&-.-s rw e =-#-._ms -----,, - , - - ---,.-,~m-- - - - - _--,-._.-------m_. -

--.m_ -

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + _ - - _ . _

~

TableII.B.2TrittumconcentratIons1nAtmospherfcWatervapor.:(pcl/L) 4 c) Third Quarter 1988 '

4 Fac111ty Sites  : Reference Sites l

I R-11 Date F-7 F-9 F-16 'A-19 R-3 R-4 7/2/88 < 260 < 260- < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260

7/9/88 < 250 < 250 520 (380)* 560 (380) < 250 < 250 < 250 'l 7/16/88 < 250 e 280 (370) 870 (380) < 250 '< 250 <250-l

< 250 < 250 7/23/88 < 250 <250 760 (380) 1300 (390) < 250 7/30/88 < 260 < 260 890 (390) 700 (380) < 260 < 260 -

< 260

^

8/6/88 < 250 < 250 440 (370) 570 (380) < 250 < 250 < 250 .

8/13/88 < 250 < 250 490 (380) 490 (380) < 250 < 250 < 250 8/20/88 < 250 < 250 1500 (390) 1300 (390) < 250 < 250 < 250 g l

8/27/88 < 250 < 250 870 (380) 920 (380) < 250 < 250 < 250 i .

! 9/3/88 < 260 < 260 510 (380) 660 (380) 430 (380) < 260 <.260

~

9/10/88 < 260 < 260 970 (380) 1200 (390) < 260 < 260 < 260 I

i 9/17/88 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 i

9/24/88 < 260 < 260 700 (380) 510 (380) < 260 < 260- < 260 4

i e I sufWc#ie t$oN fo*7ak$ifrate analysis s

t i

a

_, _e-

0- . _ g-_.. _ .

1.ible- 11.11.2 Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Water Vapor. (pCl/1.)

d) Fourth Quarter.1988 -

Facility Sites Reference Sites Collec tiar ,

Date F-7 F-9 F-16 A-19 R-3 R-4 R-il 4

10/1/89 < 260 . < 260 980 (390)* 970 (390) < 260 < 260 < 260 l 10/8/89. e e 830'(390) 580 (390) < 260 < 260 e 10/15/89 < 260 e 1200 (400) < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 ,

10/22/88 620 (380) 1100 (380) < 250 1100 (380) < 250- < 250- < 250 i 10/29/88 620 (380) 520 (380) 1700 (400) 2900'(410) 350 (370) < 250 .

510 (380) 11/5/88 870 (380) ~690 (380) 1100 (390) 1500 (390) 570 (380) e 320 (380)

11/12/88 800 (370) 700 (370) 660 (370) 1200 (380) 660 (370) 830 (370) 590 (370) j 11/19/88 790 (370) 790 (370) 990 (370) 1100 (370) 670 (370) 560 (370) RIO (370) N l 11/26/88 720 (340) 540 (340) 850 (340) 710 (340) 890 (340) 540 (340) 480 (340) i 12/3/88 800 (330) 580 (330) 1000 (330) 1500 (340) 790 (330) 740 (330) 570 (330) 12/10/88 570 (310) 450 (310) 300 (310) 700 (320) 250 (310) 250 (310) 430 (310) .

12/17/89 460 (310) 350 (310) 610 (320) 540 (310) 500 (310) < 210 230 (310) ,

12/24/89 350 (210) 460 (310) < 210 600 (320) 260 (310). 450 (310) 750 (320) 12/31/89 < 210 < 210 < 210 480 (310) < 210 220 (310) < 210

• 1.9G o (Due lo counting statistics.) ,

e - Insufficient volume for accurate analysis.

• g - , , , .

.y , - , , g , , - , - -- -

• -m e e

p -

-l.

-l ' '

Table 11.8.3 -Trltf um Concentrations in Air (pCi/m )

~

a) First Quarter,1988 Facility Sites' Reference Sites

. Date F-7 F-9 F-16 A-19. R-3 R-4 R 'l

.j 1/2/88 e 0.95 (0.65)*e 3.2 (0.67) 1.3 (0.65) 1.7 (0.65) e 1

1 1/9/88 1.5 (0.67) 124'(0.67) 0.93 (0.54 11.7 (0.67) 1.1 (0.67) 1.2 (0.67) < 0.50 1

,l 1/16/88 1.4 (1.0) 1.3 (1.2) 3.5 (1.3) 8.3 (1.3) 1.9 (1.3) ' < 1.3 < .1.3 -

~

~

.f 1/23/88 < 0.66 e 1.1 (0.84) e 1.1 (0.84) .< 0.77 0.91 (0.84)'

j 1/30/88 1.7 (0.98) 1.2 (0.98) 1.5 (0.98) 1.9 (0.98) 1.1 (0.98) < 0.90 < 0.90

! 2/5/88 < 0.70 < 0.70 < 0.70 1.'2 (0.79) < 0.73 1.1 (0.79) e i

2/13/88 < 0.76 1.1 (0.81) 1.9 (0.81) 1.9 (0.81) 1.5 (0.81) 2.9 (0.84) 1.6 (0.81) g l' 2/20/88 2.1 (1.1) 1.8 (1.1) 3.0 (1.1) 2.8 (1.1) < i.0 1.3 (1.1) 2.7.(1.1)-

!j j

4 i

j 2/27/88 < 1.7 3.1 (1.9) < 1.7 3.8 (1.9) < 1.7 < 1. 7 < 1.7 3 3/5/88 2.7 (1.4) 4.5 (1.4) 3.7 (1.4). 4.3 (1.4) 2.6 (1.4) 4.0 (1.4) 3.6 (1.5) i i -

'! 3/12/88 1.3 (1.1) 1.1 (1.1) 2.6 (1.1) 2.7 (1.1) 2.7 (1.1) 2.0 (1.1) 3.7 (1.1),

i j 3/19/88 0.75 (0.8] ) < 0.77 < 0.77 1.5 (0.83) 1.2 (0.83) < 0.77 - 1.2 (0.83) 1 ll

i 3/26/88 < 0.92 .< 0.92 1.0 (1.0) 0.90 (1.0) 1.1 (1.0) 1.5 (1.01 1.8'(1.0)

'i

,

• 1.0G o (Duo lo couniin0 statistics.)

e Insufficient volume for accurate analysis.

j - - . ..

i .

i .,

e

, , , ~ . . ._ ~ .y.,-- n. ,

.ew ,

Table II.B.3 Tritium Concentrations in Air (pCi/m )

! b) Second ()uarter,1988 : ,

Facility Sites.

Reference Sites.

i Collectic: .

1 Date F-7 F-9 F-16 A-19 R-3 R-4 _R-11 l 4/2/88 < 0.95 1.3 (1.1)* 1.5 (1.1) 1.4 (1.1) 1.9 (1.1) 1.4-(1.1) < 0.98 4/11/88 < 1.2 < 1.2 1.3 (1.3) 2.5 (1.3) 1.3 (1.3) 1.4 (1.3) 2.3 (1.4)

! 4/16/88 < 1.3 < 1.3 < 1.3 < 1.3 e < 1. 3 ' < 1.3 4/22/88 < 1.3 < 1.3 < 1.3 < 1.3 1.9 (1.5) < 1.5 < 1.5 4/30/88 14 1.3

< 1.3 1.7 (1.8) < 1.3 e < 1.3 -

< 1.3 5/7/88 < 1.3 < 1.3 2.3 (1.7) 3.0 (1.7) 1.8 (1.7) < 1.3 < 1.3 5/14/88 < 1.4 < 1.4 2.5 (1.9) 4.5 (1.9) < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 5/21/88 < 1.8 < 1.8 3.6 (2.4) 9.1 (2.5) < 1.8 < 1. 8 - < 1.8 5/28/88 < 2.0 < 2.0 4.2 (2.8) 8.2 (2.8) < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 6/4/88 < 2.0 < 2.0 4.3 (2.6) 7.8 (2.6) < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 j 6/11/88 < 2.4 < 2.4 14 (3.4) 3.3 (3.3) < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 ~

, t 6/18/88 < 2.5 < 2.5 15 (3.6) 18 (3.6) < 2.5 3.0 (3.4) < 2.5  !

6/25/88 < 2.4 e < 2.4 5.0 (2.4) < 2.4 < 2.4 < 2.4

.I 1.9G a (Duo lo counting stallslics.)

e Insufficient volume for accurate analysis. -

l e--w , e _____ -g4

==s Table II.B.3 Tritium Concentrations -'in: Air .(pCi/m )

c) Third Quarter, 1988 Facility Sites- Reference Sites Collectior Date F-7 F-9 F-16' A-19 R-3 R-4 IR-Il 7/2/88 < 3.0 < 3.0 < 3.0 < 3.0 <3.0 < 3.0 < 3.0 j- 7/9/88 < 2.7 < 2.7 5.1 (3.7) 5.5 (3.7) < 2.7 < 2.7 < 2.7 7/16/88 < 2.7 e 2.7 (3.6). 8.5 (3.7) < 2.7 < 2.7 < 2.7 7/23/88 < 2.2 < 2.2 6.1 (3.1) 11 (3.2) < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 ~

7/10/88 < 2.7

< 2.7 8.5'(3.7) 6.7 (3.6)- < 2.7 < 2.7 -

< 2.7 8/6/88 < 2.8' < 2.8 4.4 (3.7) 5.7 (3.8) < 2.8 < 2.8 < 2.8 8/13/88 < 2.4 < 2.4 4.3 (3.3) 4.3 (3.3) < 2.4 < 2.4 < 2.4 ,

8/20/88 < 2.5 < 2.5 14 (3.6) 12 (3.6) < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 8/27/88 < 2.4 < 2.4 7.7 (3.3) 8.1 (3.3) < 2.4 < 2,4 < 2.4 9/3/88 < 2.0 < 2.0 3.6 (2.7) 4.6 (2.7) 3.0 (2.7) i

< 2.0 ~ < 2.0 9/10/88 < l.6 < l .6 5.5 (2.2) 6.8 (2.2) < 1.6 < 1.6

~

< 1.6 t 9/17/88 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 .

9/24/88 < l.6 < l .6 4.0 (2.2) 2.9 (2.2) < l.6 < l.6 < 1.6 1.DG e (Duo lo countin0 statisilcs.)

ll

e Insufficient volume for accurate analysis. ,

- i.

m.<m m -'n- -ee ~w

, ,4 y y 4m.,,._ _ _ _ _ _ - _- _____ ____ y--.m

.i

~

i l .

Table 11.8.3 Tritium ConcentesGJ,a ir, Air (pCi/m )

1 d) Fourth Quar'xr,1988  ;

Facility Sites Reference Sites

! Date F-7 F-9 F-16 A-19 R-3 R-4 R , 10/1/88 < 1.5 < l.5 5.1 (2.0)* 5.1 (2.0) < 1.5 < l.5 < I.5

. i jl 10/8/83 e e 4.7 (2.2) 3.3 (2.2) < l.6 < l.6 e l! 10/15/88 < l.4 e 5.9 (2.0) < 1.4 < I.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 i!'

3 10/22/88 3.2 (2.01 5.7 (2.0) < 1.4 5.7 (2.0) < I .4 < l.4 < 1.4 4

10/29/88 2.4 (1.5) 2.0 (1.5) 6.6 (1.5) 11 (1.6) 1.4 (1.4) < l.1 _

2.4 (1.5) i 11/5/88 3.4 (1.5) 2.7 (1.5) 4.3 (1.5) 5.9 (1.5) 2.2 (1.5) e 1.2 (1.5) j 11/12/88 3.1 -(1.4) 2.7 (1.4) 2.5 (1.4) 4.6 (1.4) 2.5 (1.4) 3.2 (1.4) 2.3 (1.4)  !

i

• ll 1 :

11/19/88 2.7 (1.3) 2.7 (1.3) 3.4 {1.3) 3.7 (1.3) 2.3 (1.3) 1.9 (1.3) 2.8 (1.3)

. ,I 11/26/na 2.4 (1.1) 1.s (1.1) 2.s (L1) 2.3 (1.1) 2.9 (1.1) 1.s (1.1) t.6 (1.1)

, 12/3/88 2.1 (0.85) 1.5 (0.85) 2 6 (0.85) 3.9 (0.88) 2.0 (0.85) 1.9 (0.85) 1.5 (0.85) 12/10/88 1.1 (0.62) 9.90 (0.62 10.60 (0.62 il.4 (0.64) 0.50 (0.621 0.50 (0.621 0.86 (0.62) 12/17/88 1.1 (0.74) 0.83 (0.74 ll.5 (0.76) 1.3 (0.74) 1.2 (0.74) < 0.66 3.55 (0.74) i 12/24/88 1.0 (0.60) 1.3 (0.88) < 0.66 1.7-(0.91) 0.74 (0.881 1.3 (0.88) 2.1 (0.88) 12/31/88 < 0.48 < 0.88 < 0.48 1.0 (0.65) < 0.48 0.46 (0.651 < 0.48 l t

l

• 1.9G e (Due lo coundne slalisacs.)  ;

l i l e Insuf ficient volume for accurate analysis. .

i l

i I. . _

l

?

' ]

1 I

26

_ e.e. e . e. e. e. m. . e. e e. e.- e. _ e. -1 l I e 4 4  % N A  ;

4 6 @ '*

m . . O. N. 1 O & " e c + )

=

@ l )

WW M - . e.M W .D .D G. 6 m .4 -- e. g. e. es, em et a. e. .mm en em emm  ;

• • m  :

m e m i U N m m w @ @

a O. . e. . .

1

---

M---------------------------- l m e N i g N g e i

C. m. O. a.

. 8 g

. e. e.a . e.em e.e-e.e.e. e. e. e. e.a.

M @

w S  % , i

e. N s m = '

O O 3 O O. N.

a m.

pm

e. l o.

m. u. em sum eum atin eu. e e. e. m.e. e. eum e. eum ese ess .I. emp es..un um eum e. eum e-m

. 8 O ee & A @ m i<

es tap @ N @ @

n m.

l

. e . , .

. = g

e. . e. . e. e. e. c e. e. a.

w m

' e. .a. p tas S A w .O.

6 8 . . e. . .

• O w d e. e.

. .N. .

en, e. e.m.m.e.e. e. e- e. e.e.e-e. e-w g - p  !

O -

3

• N. M. #. . #. T

= 0

• 2 4 .

een

( e.ame emem. ennen.

=

t

e. memmanne. anne- m. e-e. e===.

• W @ O

• em E

=

e  % N P e N. O. m. N. i

• '* N e .=

= N m ,

Q umm e..sm .m.au. e. a.e. = e= =. amm ano m es. e- e.s amm e.

.m. au. aum e-a.M e.

% t **

e. m S

e e >

d e m N m E

E N. N. M. . e. ,

N & .= N * '

5 w .= N e- w meem. ease. es ema.o.a..se e. e. e. emme e-a

• W w 5 &

=.

6 g p. p .

D. W g. g N.

s p.

5 < e e m a e. .- e. e. e e. e. e- e.e- e. . e.,

5 S = l

a. O m  ! *

% @ e b 8 O 5 M e N.

N O. m.

A em m..umen. m e. aso e e-e-.n.e.eu. m e.e.am. es m.m. .e eu. m -emm.no e m 8 '@ N m m O @

• e.nd

.. e . #. e N.

N ** C

=

MMMMMmWM-MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmm Mmmm e.

re 3 3 E $ m o e 4 @ Q =

5 e . S. e. e

.= @ &

m .m. e.e . e. e. e- .-e-.N. e.g er a e. e e .N e. 9-e.

. N

!F

. . . .h.=r I .

s

= & 1 *. &nU1m & n e5 4

• • b W G e = CL WG e.* W =

j =3 .=e adtg. e- t . g ., = x eM e

es o

==

wwE EwEE Ew M ess e. eso em e..se == e.e een u.i emme.e. ameuse.enee. eus es. e.=emueneo.am eu em e. t

27

3. Concentrations of Gamma ray Emitting Radionuclides in Ambient Air Tables !!.8.5e-5d list the concentrations of I-131 in air as measured by activated charcoal sampling and Ge(Li) gamma-ray spectrum analysis. Each sample from the seven air sampling stations is counted within 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> af ter collection. A 100 minute count and a sample 3

volume of 800 m is required to achieve an MDC of 33 fCi/m3 . Radon *

. daughters and Thoron daughters are trapped on the particulate filter ahead of the charcoal trap. Radon-222 daughter in-growth on the charcoal does not provide interference to the region of interest for I-131 using the Ge(L1) high resolution spectrometry. Any positive 1-131 activity is corrected for radioactive decay back to the midpoint of the-

! collection period. Decay correction to the midpoint of the sampling period is appropriate as any I 131 in air would not arrive at the sampling stations at a constant rate, but rather in pulses of snort I s duration compared to the collection period. This is the case whether the 1-131 source tens would be weapons testing fallout or reactor stack ef fluent.

There were only occasional positive values very near the MOC value and all are assumed to be false positives. 1-131 concentrations due to reactor effluent have never been detected in any sample type in, the Fort St. Vrain environs.

Table !!.8.6 lists measured ambient air concentrations of Cs-134 and Cs-137. These values are from gamma-ray spectrum analyses on weekly air tilters composited quarterly from each of the seven air sampling stations. The occasional positive Cs-137 concentrations measured are L likely due to resuspension of surface soil. The Cs-137 activity is due l

L

_ _ _ - ~ - - . _ _ . , _. ._ ___-- _. _._ -_______ _ __ - - - -- - -

I 28 I

to Chernobyl (or previous) fallout which is bound by clay minerals on the surface of undisturbed soil. For the entire year, the mean of the i

]

facility stations was not different from the mean of the reference j stations.

Although only Cs-134 and Cs-137 are reported, each gamma-ray spectrum is scanned for evidence of peaks from other fission products and activation products. Normally only gehda-ray activity due to the .  ;

naturally occurring background radionuclides are observed. During the second quarter of 1986, however, many other radionuclides were observed due to the Chernobyl accident. Of these only Cs-137 can still be detected.

. i 4

k e

n p

.-. 7. . 7

Table 11.8.5 lodine-131 Concentrations in Air. (fCI/m )

a) First Quarter,1988 Facility Sites Reference Sites Collection Date F-7 F-9 F-17 A-19 R-3 R-4 R-II 1/2/88 33(39)* < 28 < 30 < 23 < 35 < 20 < 28 1 S 1/9/88 < 17 < 19 < 10 < 34 < 34 < 32 < 24 i

1/16/88 < 15 < 17 20(23) < 18 < 23 < 15

< 12

I/23/88 < 21 27(27) < 32 < 23 < 22 < 25 < 12 1/30/88 < 35 < 27 < 13 < 21 < 20 < 19 < 16

~

1 2/6/88 < 19 < 15 < 34 < 18 C-1 < 35 < 11 I 2/13/88 < 23 < 17 22(22) < 27 < 19 < 16 < 19 2/20/88 < 14 ' < 20 < 15 < 26 < 16 < 22 < 16 2/27/88 < 22 C-1

< 29 < 20 < 25 < 15 < 30 3/5/88 < 26 < 23 < 25 < 14 < 28 < 23 < 15 4

3/12/88 < 18 < 18 < 18 < 19 < 29 < 14 < 16 3/19/88 < 23 < 16 < 30 < 19 < 18 < 28

!. < 21 3/26/88 32(36) < 26 < 35 < 21 < 21 < 16 C-1

• 1.96 s (Due lo counting 6) t C-1 Pump malfunction , sample volume too low for accurate analysis.

i . .

i e . .

Tabic . II.H.S Iodine-131 Concent rations ia Air.- (fCi/m )

~

. b) Second Quarter, 1988 Facility Sites Reference Sites Collection Date F-7 F-9 F-16 A-19 R-3 R-4 R-Il 4/32/88. < 24 < 23 < 12 < 15 < 16 < 28 < 25 4

4 /O'>/ 88 < 28 < 42 < 15 < 34 < 12 < 21 < 14. 3 i

e/lb/n8 < 22 < 26 < 18. < 21 < 19 < 33 < 25 .

4/22/88 < 22**

< 4.4 < 27 < 33 ' < 12 < 16 c-1

! 4/30/88 < 30 < 18 < 14 < 10 < 21 < 18 ; < 20 -

1 5/07/88 < 31 ,

< 18 - < 17 < 28 < 34 < 16 < ?9 5/14/88 < 28 < 14. < 13 < 16 -

c-1 < 25 ~ < 13

, S/21/88 < 21 < 37*** < ia < 22 < 35 < 16 < 23 i i '

u, S/2ft/n8 28 (28)* < 17 c-1 < 15 27 (30) < 19 < 19

! t./04/88 < 15 < 22 < 35 < 32 < 21 < 17 < 12 6/11/88 < 11 < 11 < 23 < 19 < 23 < 17 < 26 i  !

I 6/18/63 < 23 < 16. < 13 < 22 < 16 ~ < 14 < 24' l i

! 6/25/88 < 35 < 16. < 26 < 14 < 27 < 13 < 24 .

l 1.96 o (Due to counling *8h-)

• • Ape;il 22 value represents a two week period.  !

• • • LLD not met because pump malfunction resulte.d in low volume.

• c-I Volume inadequate for accurate analyst - puny; malfunction. .

e g

4 -de w cyeW-v"- -wwf" c w w nr 9 9+ - + - T- P-WD- i og I an-MP'- es f? it'e 'wp-- tT--2--J~*+--_.iM--a _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - - = =

=

_ _ - . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . -. _. .- _~ _ . _ _ _ _ -_.

h 31

.i t

i O.

O* O. O.

- O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O.

- g C

~

W W

,gv N

~

N M

m M

w M

w m

m N

4 v v v v v v ,

y v v v v v e -

U w O. ,

= N

• M Ce O. O. O. O. .N . O. O. O. O. O.

. O.

& W W m W W N. W w e W W W4 '

W 4 ==e em .=e m m N .= m *= N N .N=

a ag O.

W v v v v v v e v v v v v v

% N

• . '.U W

5 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O.

M N O O Eh @ O N N O O W W O

• I N N N == ,= N .= m m N .= .m .== '9 E e v v v v v v v v v v v v v m .

f9 E .

N

• ==

q,J m O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O.

w m m e m O Ipp m m M m W O @

W O

= I M N* N M N w.e wm M - N M s=e

< s g v v v v v v v w v v v v v g 6

< M U

g-

.C. - e O. O. O., O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O.

M == m W w a

• m. w N O m N w ==d 4A I = .= N N M m N M N m v

N v

N v

N v

- ("]

E w v- v. v v v v .v v v 3

e =

u e i b t . a m e e e

I et 6 O. O. O. O. O. . O. O. O. - O. O. O. O. *"P 6g l G .

u b m @ em W W N W m @ M N W W M. S g e 4 = M N m = N m N m M = = m Ow w Y v v v v' v v v v v v v v v eC 4

5 -h

• Ob e 0 0 O O O. O. O. . O. O. O. O.

O. O. O.

a g N, W s - . . - -

m M =

N m-it

.,_m n N m - N - - - -

O-5 w v . v v v v v v v v v v v >=

1 W -

u Sei

..C.5

' r l

C g .

l

~

• Wc L Eu E E E E E E E E E E E E E s ?E

, s s s  % s s s s  % s s s

- N m 43 M O @ C N f*"I O T gA

= , .U.e Q @ . N m O .Mme N N O == N.=. N .-

"4 0g s s N N N s  %  % N N N s  % *

.J,

- v0 N N N N N O e e e ta e e m ,

.Ob l

l l

e - - . . ,..-n- ',,-. a..- ...~+,-.~,,,..,.....-...,-n..,.,,- . . . . . . _ . , . ,,-.... n, . . , - , , , - - - . - - , ,

~

. Table II.B.5 lodine-131 Concentrations in Afr. (fC1/m3 )

d) Fourth -Quarter, 1988

~

Facility Sites Reference Sites

Collection Date F-7 F-9 F-16 A-19 R-3 R-4 R-Il 10/01/88 < 10.0 < 23.0 < 27.0 < 28.0 < 16.0 < 36.0 < 19.0 10/08/88 < 17.0 < 27.0 < 22.0 < 11.0 < 9.7 < 15.0 < 12.0 j 10/12/88 < 26.0 e < 16.0 < 29.0 < 22.0 < 22.0 < 21.0 i

10/19/88 < 14.0 e.- , < 26.0 < 23.0 < 26.0 < 13.0 < 33.0 s

10/29/88 < 21.0

< 34.0 < 35.0 < 27.0 < 10.0 < 17.0 < 28.0 10/26/89 < 10.0 < 24.0 < 33.0 < 5.9 < 30.0 < 29.0 < 7.6

< 9.0

~

l 11/9/88 < 28.0 < 23.0 < 23.0 < 27.0 < 17.0 < 16.0

! w

<.16.0 "

i 11/16/88 < 20.0 < 25.0 < 20.0 < 12.0 < 23.0 < 27.0 j 11/23/28 < 15.0 < 13.0 < 14.0 < 29.0 < 32.0 < 11.0 < 15.0 l 11/30/88 < 20.0 < 23.0 < 26.0 < 23.0 < 14.0 < 26.0' < 25.0 i

12/7/88 < 4.6 < 27.0 < 11.0 ' < 27.0 < 7.9 < 4.5 < 15.0 i

12/14/88 12 (14)* < 11.0 < 7.3 16 (17) < 31.0 < 16.0 < 14.0 4

12/21/88 < 13.0 < 16.0 < 22.0 < 19.0 < 14.0 < 17.0 < 18.0 12/28/88 < 22.0 < 23.0 < 12.0 < 20.0 < 8.5 < 18 < 19.0

• 1.96 o (Due to coundng mandsare) { ,

e Insufficient volume due.to pump malfunction. t 3 -

n 9

• V '* e 4w _2e_-- m-_ __m.-.._:.__wu .in-.a_ _ _ _ -__4__m - _.- - ..-__.m.____mus.a

..- ... -.. a ... . .- . . . . . . . . .

i Tabic 11.8.6 Radiocesfum Concentrations in Ambient Air. (fC1/m3) 8

)

f 1988 Fac!!I'.; sites ' Reference 5ites i

, Collection Radio-

Date nacilde F-7 F-9 F-16 A-19 R-3 R-4 R Il

^i l

0 Ist Cs-134 < l.6 < 2.1 < 1.9 < l.6 < 9.9 < 10 ( 8.8 Quarter Cs-137 < 1.8 < 2.1 < l.9 < l.7 < 10 16(13)* < 9.2 i

2nd Cs-134 < 3.3 < 2.6 < 3.5 < 2.9 < 3.3 < 2.8 < 2.9

~

i~

Quarter Cs-137 < 3.2 < 2.9 < 3.7 4.0 (3.5) < 3.4 < 3.3 < 3.3 0

j 3rd Cs-134 < 1.4 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 2.0 < 0.51 < 0.58 < 0.97 i

. Quarter Cs-137 < 1.4 1.9 (2.0) < l.5 < 2.1 0.55 (0.641 < 0.59 < I.1

~

4th Cs-134 < l.2 2.1 (2.1) < 0.64 < 0.89 < 0.76 .< 0,.4 I < 0.75 Quarter Cs-137 < l.2 4.4 (2.1) 3.73 (0.80) < 0.90 < 0.81 <0.41 < 0.81

1.96 o (Due to coundng stededcs.)

e g . ., , y y :g-. e. .s. .v.mr ,#, 6-y'-

y g ,w s.g.w,- .y * , , , , e ir e = , , . . ,e- , m - . . _.- __ ___.___.____a_.w

l i

34 ,

!!.C. Radionuclide Concentration in Water

1. Orinking Water j Drinking water is sampled weekly and composited biweekly at two I locations. Location R 6 is the well used for drinking water by the town of Gilcrest, Colorado, and R-3 is a water tap located on.the CSU dairy 1

farm. The Glierest well is the nearest public water supply that could be affected by the reactor effluents. R-3 samples are from the Fort

• l l

Collins drinking water supply and serve as a reference location since its source is run-off surface water from the Rocky Mountains to the West. However, water treatment systems for the two water supplies are very different.

Table II.C.1 shows gross beta concentrations measured in 1988 from I

each water supply. The mean for the Gilcrest site was again **

,I significantly higher than the Reference site in Fort Collins. This is '

only due to the different water treatment practices. The city of Gilcrest does not filter its water and natural radionuclide ,

concentrations are responsible for the higher measured concentrations.

As can be observed in Table II.H.2, the mean for the entire year for the Gilcrest site was not greater than in previous years.

Table II.C.2 If sts measured tritium concentrations in these same two drinking water sources. The yearly arithmetic mean value for the j Gilerest location was gienter than MDC. The mean yearly concentration measured in the Gilcrest :;upply was statistically greater than in the Fort Collins supply. Th6 difference, while very small, can be used to L estimate a radiation dose commitment to the Gilerest population for the period. Assume the following:

l

~

35 l

1. The critical individual is an adult.  !

2. The average annual intake of tap water is 388 ml/ day (ICRP-23).

3. The mean concentration for Gilerest residents during the year is the measured difference between the two potable l

water sources, . i .e. 370-120 = 250 pCf/L.

l

~

Therefore by !CRP-26,30 dose comitment methodology the weighted comitted dose equivalent rate, A, is calculated as:

- 2 g , (250 pC1)(0.39 L)(365 d)(0.037 8g)(1.7x10-11Sv.)(10 7,,)

L day y pCi Bq Sv

, 2.2x10-6 ren , 2.2x10'3 mree y y

(For a 5-14 year old child the weighted comitted dose equivalent rate would only be 1.10x10'3 mres/y). l s

This comitted dose rate would still be trivial in absolute terms and certainly is when compared to background dose rates of approximately 300 mres/ year as calculated by the same methodology. 3 i Since H was not detected in milk or other foods, intake of water from these sources is not included.

The EPA limit for comunity. drinking water systems is 20,000 pCOL for tritium. Figure II.C.1 shows tritium concentration in Gilcrest drinking (potable) water source.

The two drinking water supplies are also analyzed for fission I

product and activation product concentrations. A sample of 18 liters is pat sed through Dowex 1-x8 anion exchange resin and the resin then l- l

k 36 l counted by Ge(Lf) spectrometry for I-131. A three liter aliquot of tne l original sample is counted directly for the other gauna-ray emitters. l Inspection of Table !!-C.3 reveals occasional positive values of f radionuclide concentration, but with the exception of Cs-137, these are interpreted to be random variations. The Cs 137 is the residue from the 1986 Chernobyl accident fallout as well as from past world-wide fallout

~

from nuclear weapon testing. -

. t

' b

'i 4

1 5

1 9

l k

,a

Table II.C.1

• ross a Bett Con:er.trations in Biweekly Cornposites of Drinking 'a'ater. (;Ci/L) ,

l

~

Collection Gilerest City R 6 '

Fort Collins City R-3 Date 1988 (Reference)

-1/2 4 1/9 7.7 (2.5)

• 1.1 (0.58) 1/16 4 1/23 5.5 (2.5) 0.78 (0.56) 1/30 4 2/6 7.2 (2.5) 0.46 (0.54) 2/13 4 2/20 9.4 (2.6) 1.8 (0.61) I 2/27 4 3/5 6.7 (2.5) 0.84 (0.56)  !

3/12 4 3/19 4.3 (2.4) 0.59-(0.56) 3/26 & 4/2 8.1 (1.9) 1.3 (0.59) .

4/9 4 4/16' 7.5 (1.8) 1.1 (0.45) 4/22 4 4/30 7.3 (1.8) 2.0 (0.43) ,

5/7 & 5/14 6.8 (1.9) 1.1 (0.44)  !

5/21 8 5/28 8.7 (2.6) 0.92 (0.57) l 6/4 8 6/11 5.6 (2.4) 0.90 (0.57) 1 6/18 & 6/25 5.4 (2.4) 0.99 (0.57)  !

i 7/2 4 7/9 5.5 (2.4) 1.0 (0.57) 7/16 & 7/23 9.1 (2.6) 0.99 (0.57) 7/30 4 8/8 5.9 (2.5) 0.65 (0.55)

• 8/13 4 8/20 8.0 (2.6) 0.97 (0.57)

, 8/27 8 9/3 3.0 (2.3) 1.1 (0.57)

9/10 & 9/17 6.5 (2.5) 1.2 (0.58) . .i 1 9/24 8 10/1 7.1 (2.5) 1.1 (0.58) .

10/8 & 10/15 7.4 (2.5) 0.99 (0.57) i 10/22 4 10/29 9.0 (2.6) 0.92 (0.57) 1 ~

11/5 4 11/12 5.7 (2.5) 0.91 (0.57) 11/19,a 11/26 7.8 (2.5) 1.1 (0.57) ,

12/3 4 12/10 7.1 (2.5) 1.1 (0.58) 12/17 A 12/24 5.5 (2.4) 1.3 (0.59)

• 1.96 o (Due to counting statistics.)

r=

l t

I

l l

1 38 l Table !!.C.2 i Tritium Concentrations in Biweekly Composites of Drinking Water. (pci/t.)

]

i Collection G11 crest City R-6 '

Fort Collins City R-3 j Date 1988 -

(Reference) l 1/2 & 1/9 350 (360) * < 300 I 1/16 4 1/23 < 290 < 290 1/30 4 2/6 450 (310) < 290 2/13 4 2/20 370 (270) 340 (270) 2/27 4 3/5 230 (270) 380 (270) ,

1 3/12 & 3/19 610 (310) 310 (310) 3/26 4 4/2 560 (280) < 230 4/9 4 4/16 490 (310) < 230 4/22 4 4/30 890 (310) 240 (280) 5/7 & 5/14 350 (310) < 260 5/21 4 5/28 530 (310) < 260 6/4 & 6/11 < 250 < 250 '

6/1886/25 < 250 < 250 7/2 & 7/9 < 250 < 250 *

• 7/16 & 7/23 < 250 < 250 7/30 & 8/6 < 250 < 250 8/13 & 8/20 < 250 < 250 ,

8/27 8 9/3 . 340 (370) < 250 >

9/10 4 9/17 280 (370) < 250 9/24 4 10/1 < 260 < 260 10/8 4 10/15 < 250 280 (370) 10/22 & 10/29 870 (380) 590 (380) 11/5 & 11/12 830 (340) 470 (340)

• 11/19 & 11/26 800 (340) 720 (340) 12/3 & 12/10 960 (340) 660 (340) 12/17 4 12/24 640 (320) 600 (320)

4. . (s. . - . .)

l

. _ - - ~ _

.- *q j, TAlltE II.C.3 Radionuclide Concentrations in Bi-weekly Composite of Drinking Water. (pC(/L) t j' i .

,'. Collection for two weeks ending for two weeks ending - for two weeks _ending  !

4 Date 1/9/88 , 1/23/88 2/6/88 l Radionuclide Gilcrest Ft Collins G11 crest Ft Collins G11 crest tt Lossins

i R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3

!I

j I-131 < 0.21 < 0.42 < 0.22 < C.43 < 0.48 < 0.zg jl 3

Cs-134 < l.7 < 2.0 < l.9 < 2.0 < 3.6 < 3.0 i , Cs-137 < 2.0 4.4(3.6) 3.2(3.4) < 3.4 < 4.2 < 4.7 i; i j; Zr-95 < 3.7 < 4.6 < 4.3 < 4.8 < 8.3 < 6.5

'j Mb-95 < 1.9 < l .8 < 1.9 < 1.8 < 3.3 < 2.8 C0-58 < 1.6 < I.9 < l.8 < I.8 < 3.2 < 3.0

i l Mn-54 < l.7 < 2.0 < l .9 2.5(2.3) < 3.6 < 3.0 g Zn-65 < 14 < 5.0 < 5.2 < 4.7 < 8.6 < 7.2  ;

fe-59 6.5(5.1)* < 5.1 < 4.3 < 4.9 < 8.8 < 7.4 i

i Co-60 < I.6 < 2.1 < l.9 < 2.1 < 3.9 < 3.0 i l

Ba-140 < 2.8 < 4.4 < 2.8 < 3.1 < 5.7 < 6.5 l i

l: La-140 < 3.2 < 5.1 < 3.2 < 3.6 < 6.6 < 7.5 1.96 o (Due to q m,)

t

1. y 9

e e

. .. - ~ . . _ -. - ___ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ -..

-. . . . ~ .

_1 h

Tahic II.C.3 Radionuclide Concentrations in Bi-weekly Composite of Drinkin9 Water. (PCi/L)  ;

4 2

Collection for two weeks ending for two weeks endin9

' for two weeks endin9 Date 2/20/88 3/5/88 3/19/88 .

Radionuclide Gilcrest Ft Collins Gilcrest Ft Co111ns G11 crest Ft Collins R-6 -

R-3 R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 I-131 < 0.41 0.47(0.55)' < 0.46 < 0.47 < 0.19 < 0.42

Cs-134 < 2.4 < 2.3 < l.9 < 2.1 < 2.2 < 2.0 i Cs-137 < 3.0 < 3.3 < 2.9 < 3.2 < 2.3 i ,

3.3(2.8) i Zr-95 < 6.1 < 5.3 < 4.3 < 4.6 < 4.8 < 4.6 Mb-95 < 2.3 < 2.1 < 1.7 < 1.9 < 2.0 < 1.8

00-58 . < 2.4 < 2.1 < 1.8 < 2.0 < 2.2 < 1.9 Mn-54 < 2.5 < 2.2 < l.9 < 2.1 < 2.1 < l .9 S

Zn-65 < 6.0 < 5.5 < 4.6 < 5.0 < 5.3 < 4.6 Fe-59 < 6.4 < 4.9 < 4.8 < 5.1 < 4.9 < 4.5 i

Co-60 < 2.5 < 2.3 2.0(2.3) < 2.1 < 2.2 < 2.1 i

Ba-140 < 6.2 < 3.2 < 2.8 < 3.1 < 4.5 < 4.4 l

La-140 < 7.1 < 3.7 < 3.2 < 3.6 < 5.8 < 5.0 l

i 1.9G e (Due to coundne sle4 secs.)

4 e

n .r -

, , ,,w.-- v. e.-, ., ., + g,,, ,en .-w n ----v w~-_.w__ - -

_____.-__-.--_..--__.__---.._..---_N

- t lahic II.C.3 Radionecilde Concentrations in Hl.wcekly Cazq.esite af Drinktwg Water. (pCl/t)

!f il Collection for two weeks ending for two weeks ending for two weeks eding

{l

!- Date 4/02/88 4/16/88 4/30/88

l ,

ll Radionuclide Gilcrest Ft Collins I Gilcrest Ft Collins Gilcrest Ft Collins

!j R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 R-6 N-3~

I-131

. < O.18 < 0.21 < 0.15 < 0.6 < 0.47 < 0.36 -

.?

. Cs-134 < 2.2 < 2.4 < 2.2 < 2.5 < 1.8 < Z.5 Cs-137 < 2.6 < 2.9 < 5.3 < 2.9 < 3.3 < 3.0 ir ie Zr-95 < 4.9 < 5.5 < 4.9 < 6.0 < 4.0 < 5.8

i. IA>-95 < 1.9 < 2.1 < 2.0 < 2.,2 < l.7 < 2.2

.j Co-58 < l.9 < 2.2 < 2.1 < 2.3 < 1.7 < 2.3 11n-54 < 2.2 < 2.4 < 2.2 < 2.4 < l.8 < 2.5 0 7n-GS < S. I ' < 5.7 < 5.4 < 5.6 < 4.3 < 5.8 fc-59 < 5.0 < 5.8 < 4.8 < S.5 < 4.0 < 5.9

!^ Co-60 < 2.3 < 2.5 < 2.2 < 2.6 < l.8 < 2.7 i

na-140 < 3.4 < 3.8 < 4.6 < 5.7 < Z.6 < 5.9 La-140 < 3.9 < 4.4 < 5.3 < 6.6 < 3.0 < 6.8 G

l e

p i .

4

, . , , . -.y- . -

,,w,,c + , .w-- ---,-w

~

,---,....-em , -~- - . s. -es-n +wwm.m. -42.- . +.me -a___ _-_.__m_._o____m---

Talste II.C.3 Hadlonocilde. Concentrations in RI-wretly Ct=q=o.ite of prinkin9 Water. (pCf/L) (

1 k

for two weeks ending for two weets ending . for two weeks ending Collection Date 5/14/88 ,5/28/88 6/11/88 .

It...li -mn:l i de Gilcrest Ft Collins Gilcrest Ft Collins Gilcrest Ft Collins R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 I l l_-..-_-_.. < 0.52 < 0.34 < 0.49 < 0.42 I-131 < 0.43 0.44(0.52)*

< 2.5 < 1.8 < 2.1 < l.6 < l.6 < 2.1 Cs-134 2.6(3.1) < 2.5 4.7(2.1) 3.4 (2.2) < 2.5 ,

Cs-137 < 3.0 i fr-95 ,< 5.7 < 3.9 < 4.7 < 3.6 < 3.6 < 4.8

! m -95 < 2.2 < l.6 3.8 (2.5) < l.7 2.6 (1.9) < l.9 Co-58 < 2.2 < l.6 < 2.0 2.3(1.9) < l.6 < l.9 e

< 2.5 < l .8 < 2.1 < ! .7 < 1.7 < 2.1 rn. '.4 in-b', < 5.9 < 4.2 7.4 (6.6) < 3.9 < 3.8 < 4.9

< 7.6 < 4.0 < 5.4 4.6(5.4) < 4.3 < 4.7 l'e-59 ,

< 2.7 < 1.8 < 2.0 < l.5 < 1.5 - < 2.3 00-60

< 12.0 < 2.6 < 3.8 < 4.2 < 3.7 < 5.6 Ba-140

< 13.0 < 3.0 < 4.4 < 4.8 < 4.3 < 6.4 La-140 1.ss o (oue to counan0 e 4

?

9

-Table II.C.3 Radfenecilde Concentrations in Bf-weekly Ceapestte of Drinking Water. (pCf/1.)

Collection for two weeks 'ending . for two weeks ending for two weeks ending

^

Oate 6/25/98 7/9/88 7/23/88 Radionoclide Glicrest Ft Collins G11 crest Ft Ce111as Glicrest Ft Collfes R-6 R-3 R-6 R R-6 R-3 i

1-131 < 0.15 0.46(0.49) < 0.26 < 0.26 < 0.26 < 0.22 Cs-134 < 0.97 < 1.0 < 2.0 < 1.1 < 3.0 1.G (2.2)

Cs-137 2.6 (1.4)* < 1.2 < 2.4 < l .4 < 3.6 < 2.4 L Zr-95 2.6 (2.9) < 2.1 < 5.0 < 2.5 < 6.9 < 4.3 Bei-95 < 1.0 < 0.90 < 1.8 < l.1 < 2.8 < 1.9 1

Co-58 < 0.88 < 0.91 < 2.0 < I.1 < 2.7 < l.7 i Mn-54 < 0.95 < 1.0 < 2.0 1.4 (1.4) 3.7 (3.6) < 1.8  !

~

Zn-65 5.6 (3.2) < 2.4 < 4.7 < 2.8 < 8.4 < 5.7 ~

Fe-59 < 2.4 < 2.5 5.7 (6.3) < 3.0 < 6.9 < 5.1  ;

Co-60 < 0.92 < 0.91 < 2.1 < 1.2 < 3.2 < 1.9 l Ba-140 < 3.1 < 1.6 < 5.3 < 3.2 < 4.8 < 4.4 i . i La-140 < 3.5 < 1.9 < 6.1 < 3.7 < 5.5 < 5.0

. i l

• 1.96 o (Due to counen0 eleds8cs.) j

'l l -

I - .. _ .

u Table II.C.3 Radtenecilde Concentrations in 81-weekly Coupesite of Drf aking Mater. (pCI/L)

Collectlaa for twe weeks ending for tape weeks ending for two weeks ending Date 8/6/08 8/20/88 9/3/08 Radtonoc11de Glicrest Ft Cellfas Glicrest Ft Collfas Sticrest Ft Ce111ms R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 1-131 < 0.33 < d.27 < 0.24 < 0.18 < 0.15 < 0.29 Cs-134 < 1.5 < 2.4 < 2.5 < 2.2 < I.3 < l .a Cs-137 < 1.8 4.9 (3.5) < 3.0 < 2.6 2.2 (1.9) 3.5 (3.1)

Zr-95 < 3.5 < 5.8 < 5.9 < 4.9 < 2.9 < 3.9 lb-95 3.1 (1.8)* < 2.6. < 2.3 < 2.1 < 1.3 < 1.5 C0-58 < 1.5 < 2.4 < 2.4 < 2.1 < l.2 < I.7 E

Mn-54 < l.5 < 2.6 < 2.5 < 2.5 < l.3 < l.8 Zn-65 < 5.0 < 7.1 < 6.7 < 5.2 < 4.2 < 4.5 Fe-59 < 4.3 6.7 (7.4) < 6.2 7.5 (6.9) < 3.2 < 3.9 l

Co-60 1.4 (1.7) < 2.2 < 2.7 < 2.0 < I .3 < I.7 f Ba-140 3.9 (4.5) < 4.1 < 4.0 < 4.9 < 2.3 < 2.6 l La-140 4.5 (5.2) < 4.7 < 4.6 < 5.7 < 2.7 < 2.9 i

• 1.96 o (Due to coundng stellsGcs.)

e e

-. . . . . . , , - ._..,,--._.._.L-

_ . . . - _ . _ . ~ . - . . _ _ - _ . . -. .. . _.

e

~ ~

t .

Table II.C.3 Radionucif de Concentrattens in Bi-weekly Campestte of Drinking Mater. (pCi/L) ,

. .1 Collectien for two weeks endtog for tud weeks ener.g for two weeks ending Date 9/17/88 10/1/88 10/12/88 4 t Radionuclide Glicrest Ft Collf as Gilcrest Ft Colifes Glicrest Ft Ce111as R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 1-131 < 0.24 < 0.19 . < 0.26 < 0.16 < 0.48 < 0.16

Cs-134 < 2.5 < 1.5 < 2.2 < 3.9 < 1.8 < 2.2 i Cs-137 < 3.0 < 1.8 < 2.6 < 2.9 5.5 (3.2) < 3.3 i

Zr-95 < 5.8 < 3.4 < 5.0 < 4.6 < 4.0 < 5.0 i

Nb-95 < 2. 5 < 1.6 < l.9 < l.8 < l.7 < 2.0  !

Co-58 . < 2.3 < 1.5 < 2.0 < 1.9 < l.8 < 2.2 Mn-54 < 2.4 < l.5 2.4 (2.6) < 1.9 < l.8 < 2.1 Zn-65 < 7.4 < 5.1 < 6.0 < 5.1 < 4.7 < 5.6 ,

Fe-59 < 5.6 5.2 (5.0)* < 5.0 < 4.4 3

< 4.6 < 5.6 Co-60 < 2.2 < l.5 < 2.3 < 2.0 < 1.8 < ?.2 Ba-140 < 6.3 < 3.6 5.5 (6.1) < 4.2 < 4.2 < 3.2 La-140 < 7.2 < 4.2 6 A (7.0) < 4.8 < 4.8 < 3.7 1.96 o (Due to coundng saa:m.)

e

- a , , , . - x - - - - _ - - -

l Table II.C.3 Radionucilde Concentrations in Bi-weekly Coupesite of Drinking Water. (pCf/L) i I

Collection for tuo weeks ending for,two weeks ending for two weeks ending

. Date 10/29/88 11/12/88 11/26/86

! Radionuclide G11 crest Ft Collins Glicrest Ft Collins Glicrest Ft Co111ms

. R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 I-131 0.49(0.49)* < 0.44 < 0.32 < 0.4 < 0.23 < 0.21 Cs-134 < 2.2

. < l.4 < 2.3 < 2.1 < 2.2 < l.5 i Cs-137 < 2.6 < l.6 6.6 (4.1) < 3.1 5.6 (3.8) < 1.7 Zr-95 < 4.6 < 3.0 < 5.0 < 4.6 < 5.1 < 3.0 i Nb-95 < 2.2 < 1.4 < 2.1 < 2.0 < 2.0 < l.4

! C0-58 < 2.0 < l.2 < 2.2 . < 2.1 < 2.2 < 1.3 Mn-54 < 2.2 1.8 (1.7) < 2.3 i< 2.1 < 2.2 < l.4 I

Zn-65 < 5.8 3.7 (4.2) < 5.8 j<5.3 < 5.5 < 3.7 i Fe-59 < 5.5 < 3.2 < 5.1 l<4.8 < 5.0 < 3.7 C0-60 < 1.8 < l.3 2.4 (2.7) < 2.1 3.3 (2.6) < 1.4 '

l Ba-140 < 3.5 < 2.3 6.0 (5.9) < 4.8 - < 4.6 < 2.5 La-140 < 4.1 < 2.6 7.0 (6.8) < 5.5 < 5.3 < 2.9 <

^

l

, I l

• 1.96 o (Due to coundng e ) l i I l

, - ..y .% y c -- , --. . --w- # # w .w -*-w -w =a - - - - - - - -

Table II.C.3 Radionuclide Concentrations in Bi-weekly Camposite of Drinking Water. - (pCf/L)

Collection for two weeks ending for'two' weeks ending Date 12/10/08 12/24/88 Radionuclide Gilcrest Ft Collins Glicrest Ft Collins R-6 R-3 R-6 R-3 I-131 < 0.44 < 0.17 < 0.12 < 0.44 Cs-134 < l.1- < I.2 < l.8 < 0.65 Cs-137 2.2 (1.5)* 1.7 (1.6) < 2.7 0.99 (0.95)

Zr-95 < 2'. h < 2.9 < 4.3 2.1 (1.9)

Mb-95 < l.1 < 1.2 < 1. 7 1.2 (0.84)  :

Co-58 < l.1 < l.2

< l.7 < 0.59 -

I Mn-54 < l .1 < l.2 < l .8 1.0 (0.81)

Zn-65 ~5.5 (3.5) < 2.8 < 4.4 6.9 (2.1)

Fe-53 < 2.8 < 3.0 < 4.0 < l .9 i C0-60 1.8 (1.2) < I.1 < l.7 < 0.62  ;

Ba-140 < 3.1 < 2.0 < 4.4 < l.1 l La-140 < 3.6 < 2.2 < 5.0 < l.3 i i

1 1.9s o (ous m oouanno sumsnes.)

m

- . . . - . . . . , - -_ . - . - . . - ~ . _ . . . - - . - ___ _ . - - . .

i 48 l

2. Surface Water Surface water is collected monthly from four sites. Since the reactor water effluent can be directed to either river course, there are upstream and downstream sampling locations on both the St. Vrain Creek '

and on the South Platte River.

Table !!.C.4 shows tritium concentrations measured during 1988 at '

the four surface water sites. Most of the values were less than MDC. ~  ;

The arithmetic mean value for the downstream locations in 1988 was not  !

significantly different from the t.to upstream locations (Table !!.H.2).

In fact the mean values were identical. The EPA lists 300 + 200 pCi/L for tritium measured in a Platte River sample collected on 1/4/88 for comparison purposes.

Table II.C.5 shows measurements of fission product and activation - [

product concentrations in surface water samples collected monthly.

There were occasional positive values, but the mean of the downstream s .

sites was not sig11ficantly different from the mean of the upstream '

sites during 1988 for any of the gauna-ray emitting radionuclides -

measured. This has been the case since the inception of reactor operations at the Fort St. Vrain site. The occasional positive values are either fallout Cs-137, which can be er.pected, or values close to the

- uncertainty limits and assumed to be false positives.

In addition to the monthly. sampling of the South Platte River and St. Vrain Creek, a continuous water sample is collected at station A-25.

An aliquot of the farm pond outlet is sampled every 80 minutes and the compostte collected weekly. The weekly composites are then combined and analyzed monthly. The results of these samples are also shown in Table's l  !!.C.4 and !!.C.S. For every month there was evidence of measurable L

l L

L i

i 49 i

tritium release (see Table II.C.4). Mean values for the other l

radionuclides were less than MDC er. cept for Cs-137. The correlation of '

i i

the tritium concentrations with the effluent release report is high.

j l

i r

i l

4

. s 1

1 I '

i i

1-i 4

l Table II.C.4

, Tritium Concentratloss la Surface Water. (pC1/L) .

~

3 Effluent Oounstream Sites Upstream Sites Collection St. Vrain S. Platte St. # rain S. Platte Goosequill j Date F-20 R-10 A-21 F-19 A-25 January 530(420)* 340(310) < 290 < 290 53000(370)

February < 290 580(350) 600(350) 1900(450) 27000(510)

March < 290 400(270) 780(290) 410(270) 23000(520)

April 340(310) 340(310) 260(300) 430(310) 5400(370)

May 650(310) 540(310) 470(310) 410(310) 31000(470)

June < 220 590(260) < 220 < 220 45000(830)  ;

July < 250 820(380) < 250 < 250 25000(660)

August < 250 560(370) < 250 340(370) 12000(520) g September < 250 < 250 < 260 < 260 12000(520)

October 500(380) 640(380) < 250 < 250 38000(770) l November 660(320) 640(320) 550(310) 770(320) 24000(620)  ;

December 6~/0(320) 1000(320) 960(320) 550(310) 28000(670) d 1.96 o (Due 10 ootnning statistes.)

t

+ - r - - - . - _ _ - - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - - _ . _ . - . - - - . - . . _ . _ .

+

1 i

l

.i figure II.C.1 - ,

Tritium Concentrations in Water 1974-1988 i

e-e Surface Upskeam

a-a Surface Downskeam i 1500 -

4

o--o Potable (Gecrest) 5 l 1400 - 8 l ai

! 1300 -

,g

• 8 '

1200 -

.A -

i 1 .o q . I 1 i l 1100 -

sS y i j it I i

! , .' i -

s 3 4 1000 8 :is a.

+

s 9'

s  : :g g

i e

\

-3 900 - A s

- is I a g -  :$ :s I S

' O 800 -

g  ! 18 ig s. i a E

700 -

8 [ ~

y 58I 3Ns ,

pa

,-4 8 is

>:t i 3

600 -

i 8 . i i

% I e

• 500 -

sA .i1, t f's ]l j ~1 p

,  :  : T I 400 -

g g i  ; $ o .,

g

: 3 o i 300 -

I

i. .i / i. .

'a-A 0. A

~

' i- i 200 -

-x -

- s 5100 - i a $ a a a a i 2 a E a _a a a a a

'l 1973 '74 '75 *76 *77 *78 *79 '80 *81 *82 *83 *84 *85

-86 *87 '88 *89 Tune (year) .

t

Tabic 'II.C.5 Radionuc11de Concentrations la Surface Water. (pCl/L.)

t Collection Date: 1/09/88 .

4 Downstream Sites Upstream Sites Effluent' . -

Radle- St. Vrain S. Platte ' St. Vrain S. Platte Goosev=st11 .

nuc11^de F-20 R-10 ~ A-21 F-19 A-25 4

Cs-134 < 2.2 < 2.6 < 2.2 .c 1.4 < 1.4 Cs-137 < 2.7 < 5.0 < 2.7 < l.7 2.2 (2.1)'

Zr-95 < 5.3 < 5.2 < 4.4 < 3.1 < 3.3 L tih-95 < 2.0 < 2.1 3.8(2.6) * < l.4 < l.3

Co-58 < 2.1 < 3.4 < 2.1 < I.3 < l.6 lin-54 < 2.2 ,

, < 2.2 < 2.2 < l .5 < 1.5 i

Zn-65 < 5.6 < 8.3 < 5.8 <'3.7 < 3.4 Fe-59

~

< 5.2 < 5.3 7.l(6.8) < 3.8 < 4.6

Co-60 < 2.4 - < 2.5 < 2.2 < l.9~ < l.5 Ba-140 < 4.4 < 3.7 4.3(5.2) < 2.9 < 2.3 . ;",

- La-140 < 5.0 < 4.3 4.9(6.0) < 3.3 < 2.6 l

1 l

1.9G a (Due to coundn0 statisacs.)

I l

1 I

i

~

l .

t .

e 4

, ,. ,, , w . - - * + . , 5., # a-e , , - ,e- w ry v. . .-ce -m--m--. .w w, -. , - . . - v~.< ,--# .--c- . .....~;.. , . . - , . ,w

g .

.4---

.?

iable II.C.5 hcdlonuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pC1/L)

Collection . ate: 2/13/88 ,

i ,.

- Downstream Sites Upstream Sites Effluent ,

Radio- St. Vrain S. Platte St. Vrain S. Platte Goosequill i

F-19 A-25 1

nucil'de F-20 R A-21 i

0s-134 < 2.5

< 3.3 < 2.9 i 3.8 < 1.7 Cs-137 < 3.6- 7.5(6.1)* < 3.4 < 4.7 2.5.(2.5) ^

Zr-95 < 5.5 < 7.2 < 6.7 < 9.3 < 4.1 Hb-95 < 2.3 < 3.0 < 2.6 < 3.4 < 1,5 C0-58 < 2.4 ..

< 3.3 < 2.7 < 3.5 < l.6 i lin-54 < 2.5 < 3.3 < 2.9 < 3.9 < 1,7 Zn-65 < 6.2 < 8.0 < 7.0 < 9.2 . < 4.1 .i Fe-59

< 5.8 < 8.4 < 6.8 < 9.1 < 4,1 00-60 < 2.5 < 3.4 < 3.1 < 4.3 < 1,9 Da-140 < 4.4

< 5.6 < 4.8 < 6.4 < 5.9 o'

< 5.1 < 6.4 < 5.5 < 7.4 < 6.8 La-140 ,

i -

! l l

• 1.96 o (Due lo Countin0 statistics.)

I I

k a

l t .

l i.

l i ,

2. -

~

f

' Table ll.C.5 Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCl/L) ,

Collection Date: 3/12/88 Downstream Sites Upstream' Sites Ef fluent - - .

l Radio- St. Vrain S. Platte St. Vrain S. Platte - Goosequill .

l F-19 A-25 j nucil'de F-20 R-10 ' A-21 -

Cs-134 < 3.8 < 3.8 < 2.4. < 2.5 < 1.7 Cs-137 < 4.5 < 5.5 < 2.8 < 3.0 2.8 (2.4?

i Zr-95 < 8.9 < 8.4 < 5.7 < 5.7 < 3.9 i lib-95 < 3.6 < 3.4 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 1,5 -

C0-50 < 3.5 < 3.6 < 2.1 < 2.2 < 1.6

Hn-54 < 3.8 < 3.8 < 2.4 < 2.5 < 1.6

Zn-65 < 9.2 < 9.1 < 5.6 < 5.9 < 4.0 ~

Fe-59

< 9.4 < 8.2 < 5.5 < 5.9 < 3.9

! Co-60 < 4.0 < 3.9 < 2.7 < 2.8 < 1.8

< 3.9 < 4.1 u.

~

i Ba-140 < 6.3 < 5.7 < 5.8 *

'La-140 < 7.2 < 6.6 < 4.4 < 4.7 < 6.6 l

• 1.9G a (Duo lo counting statistics.)

e k

0 9

t i .

. . ~ . ._ _

lhble -Il.C.5 Radionuclide.Concentrallons in Surface Water. (pCi/L)

Enlicction Date: 4/09/88

~

Downstream Sites Upstream Sites Effluent Radio- St. Vrain S. Platte St. Vrain S. Platte Goosequill nuc 1 l'de F-20 'R-10 ~A-21 F-19 A-25 Es-134 < l.8 < 2.5 < 2.1 < 2.2 4.1 (3.0)

Cs-137 < 2.7 4.l(4.4)* < 2.5 < 3.2 <3.0 Zr-95 < 4.2 < 5.5 < 4.9. < 5.0 < 5.7 lib-95 < l . 7. < 2.4 < l.9 < 2.0 < 2.2 Co-50 < l.7 < 2.5 < l.9 < 2.0 <2.2 lin-54 < l.8 < 2.5 < 2.0 < 2.1 < 2.5 Zn-65 < 4.4 < 6.0 < 4.7 < 5.1 (6.1 Fe-59 < 4.2 < 6.0 < 4.7 < 5.0 <5.7 Co-60 < l.8 < 2.4 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2. 6 Da-140 < 2.7 < 4.8 < 3.8 < 3.2 < 3.9

< 3.1 < 5.5 < 4.4 < 3.7 < 4.5 3;

'La-140

,

• 1.b6 o (Due to counting statistics.)

l l

i l

l e

--p, ^

Wn * -' 2"='*we- Y w'

m .

.(

- lahic II.C.5 Railionuclide Concentrations-In Surface Water. (pCi/L)

Collection Date: 5/21/08

Downstream Sites Upstream ~ Sites Effluent Radlo- St. Vrain S. Platte St. Vrain S. Platte Goosequill.

. nucl I'de F-20 R-10 A-21 F-19 A-25

~

Cs-134 < 2.1 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.8 2.2 (2.7)

< 2.7 < 3.7 < 3.7 < 3.4 < 3.4 -t Cs-137 < 5.7 < 6.5 < 5.7 Zr-95 5.5 (6.1)* < 5.4

< 2.5

< 2.0 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.0 ,

lib-95 < 2.4 < 2.4 < 2.5 2.9 (2.9)

Co-Sil < 2.0 2.6 (2.6) < 2.4 < 2.5 < 2.7 < 2.3 11n-54 < 6.4 < C.4

< S.2 < 5.8 < 5.9 o In-65 .

< 5.7 < 6.2 g c--59 < 5.1 < 5.5 < 6.9

< 2.3 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.9 < 2.3 co-60 .

< 3.5 < 3.6 < 3.7 .< 4.4 < 3.3 yg , ,

Da-140 < 5.1 < 3.8

< 4.0- < 4.1 < 4.2

- La-140 '

1.96 o (Due lo counting statistics.)

l l

l e

o e

0

.yw.a v- er s J,P-.a

r-

-i -

.j :.

Talene 11.C.5 Railinnuclide Concentrations In Surface Water. (pCi/t.)

Collection Date: 6/11/88 Downstream Sites Upstream Sites E f fluent

'Radlo- St. Vrain S. Platte St. Vrain S. Platte Gooscrysill

. nucl i'de F-20 R-10 - A-21 F-19 A-25 j +

Cs-134 < 3.2- - 4.4 (4.0)* < l.5: < 2.5 42.0 1 Cs-137 < 4.8 < 4.1- 3.3 (2.2) 3.6 (3.7) 3.9-(3.5)

< S.8 Zr-95 < 6.8 < 8.0 < 3.2 < 4.5 ,

lib-95 < 2.7- < 3.1 < 1.5 < 2.3 < l .7 Co-58 . < 3.1 < 3.1 < l.4 < 2.4 < l .8 lin-54 ,

• < 3. 0 < 3.4 < l.5 < 2.5 < 1.9 i In-65 < 7.3 < 8.0 < 3.9 -.< 6.0 <-4.5 Fe-59 < 7.5 < 8.1 < 4.0 < 5.7 < 6.1 Co-60 < 3.2 < 3.7 < 1.4 < 2. 7 < l.9 Da-140 < 4.7

< 5.6 < 2.9 < 4.1 < 2.8 0 ta_14o < 5.4 < 6.5 <'3.3- < 4.7 53.3 I

1.96 o (Due to countire statistics.) l-in t

4

.f I

6 e- a e v -

w w w e-

, , . _ _ ,' ,, _- 6 < .- -:,, $2 f x

$ . _., n A" "

K;",, $~.

ll i ? .'.

= ,T _-:

~ .:- r-

,,' a _ .

p: ,

• ~ > lt '

, u g;p

. 2 - '-

x "  ;+-

3~ -

3 7_.

.r: . n

=

-;% [.

"~~

Table II.C.S Radionuclide Concentrations Id Surface lhter. (pCf/L)L

h. ~

Collect!on Date: 7/09/88 .

I Downstream Sites ~ Upstream Sites  :. Ef fluent .

n:

Radio - St. Vraf n S. Platte St. Vrain. S. Platte

' Goosequill .

nuclide -F-20 . R-10 A-21 F A-25: ~

Cs-134 . < 2.0 < 3.0 < 1.4- <-1.5 1< - 2.0 ' -

C si37- < 2.4 6.7 (5.2). < l.9 2.0 (2.1)  ?< 2.3 +

2r-95 < 5.0 < 7.0 < 3.5 < 3.4 < 4.5 Nb-95 < 1.9 -< 2.8 < 1.5 < l .'4 < 1,8 ,

Co-58 <-1.9 .- < 2.9 < 1.3- < 1.4 < 1.8 Mn-54 < 2.0 -< 2.9 ,

t 1.5 -< 1.5

< 2.0 .

7n-65 5.8 (5.7)* < 6.9' < 4.0

< 3.8 < 4.3 .. .,

< fi.0 Fe-59 < 6,9 < 4.0 - < 3.6 < 5.0 '  :;

4 Co.60 < 2.2 < 2.9 '< 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.8 g

. Ga-140 < 3.3 < 5.4 < 2.6 - < 2.3 < 7.5 '

La-140 < 3.8 < 6.2 --< 3.D < 2.7- < 8.7

.j

• 1.96 o (Oua 30 counting stadsdcs.) .

i f

e t

. f

. '+

, ,.,,,~ ~ n,- . . ,-- , .A,.. -s , --~m,> :- ,e-- ~

< wr v -- ~ e- ,s '

-r- = s l -- e,~s u~-w-'- w ~ = -e' - - '-" " = ' = * * ' "

~ ~

?= W k b - * '

J u ;- -

Q~ 77gpq

..;__ ,' -' c 1. _ q __ q _ 1 : # . .. _. _ ...a...__.. .. . . , ; _.  ; q -

S +

y ' -

. . , z+

n-p .m

__ .c. _ , .

f, ~

4 ly

.: Table II.C.5 Radionuclide Concentrations In Surface Water..-(pC1/L) .

i I: Collection Date: 8/13/88 ,,

1 -

i. ~Ocunstrees Sites. .. Upstream Sites: Effluent : -

N Radi e - St. Vrain -S. Platte

~

St.1Vrafa :3.'Platte-  : Goosequi11 .

+

i' .

' nuc11'de -F R-10 ~ - A-21 F-19 A j p: - Cs-134 < 2.8 < 2.3 ** < 3.5 < 3.2 < 1.3:

. Cs-137 4 A (5.0)*' 3.9 (3.5). < 4.1  :< 3.8 2.0 (2.0)'

l, fr-95 ~< 6.4 < 5 . 3 -- < 8.0 7.4 (8.8) < 2.9.' i i Nb-95 < 2.6 ' < 2.4 < 2.9 <'3.0' < 1.3 -

< 2.6 < 2.1 < 3.2 < 2.9 4.1.4

~

} Co-59 .

l i Mn-54 < 2.7 < 2.4 < 3.4 < 3.2 < li4L . r

! In-65 '

< 7.4 < 6.3 < 8.7 < 7.9 < 3.5 i- Fe+59 < 6.2 < 6.2 9.1:(9.4) -< 7.3 < 4.1 ' -

, Co-60 < 2,8 < 2.1 ' < :3.6 < 3.2 < 1.3 o.

!; Ba-140 < 4.2 < 4.3 - < 5.5 <.S.2 < 2.1-i, 'La-140 < 4.8 < 5.0

<* 6.4 < 6.0 < 2.5 ..,

t u

!

• 1.96 a (Due to coundn0 stadsilca.)

4

• • COLLECTED AUGUST 20  ;

I t

i 0

- t i

. z 4

e

-, g 3 - - - u .pg + -,s. , , -'

y h-  %. . -ayv,,'++=---,y r  %, y --e,, 6 , u cos., _s _%.  ;.,,,-.--

4 m.

^

1 .ia .

~ ~

.y -' -' #

~

'N' "

Table II.C.5 Radionuclide Concentrations In Surface Water..(pC1/L) .

. Collection Date: '9/10/88 i 4; tipstream Sites . Effluent j Downstream Sites.

Radio- St. Vrain S. Platte St. Vrain S. Platte Goosequill .

! nuclide F-20 . R-10 A-21 'F-19 A-25 e

Cs-134 < 3.4 < 2.0 < 3.0 <72 < 2.1 i Cs-137 < 4.1 3.4 (2.9)* < 4.5 < E.5 - 4.5 (3.9)

Ir-95 < 8.2 < 4.2 < 6.7. < 4.4 < 4.7 l, lib-95 < 3.3 < 2.1 < 2.9 < 1.9 < 2.0 ,i Co-58 < 3.1 < 1.9 < 2.8 < g.0 < 2.0

Mn-54 < 3.3 -< 1.9 < 3.1 <20 < 2.1 1 In-65 < 8.7 < 5.7 < 8.2 < 6.0 < 5.9 Fe < 7.8 7.0 (6.1) < 7.2 <56 < 4.9 .

Co-60 < 3.6 < 2.0 < 3.1 < J.9 < 2.1 - ,

Ba-140 < 5s5 < 3.5 < 4.7 .

< it.3 < 3.2 c)

l. La-140 < 6.3 < 4.1 < 5.4 <p.8 < 3.6

, . .t l-l 1.96 o (Due 80 counung stadsdes.) 3 i

I f

9 e ., .

. t 4

^ *"

y  % .f', d y a  %- w aum e . o e gw,, r u n. yaw , w, e:m'. =4 , > . _ _ _ _-

~

eg;

..:..;. . _ . . 2. - ' ; a .. , ..

~^

~

a- q- -

1 1 ~ ~

!! Table II.C.5 Radionuclide Concentrations. In Surface Water. (pCf/L) ~f l, Collection Date: 10/08/88 >

!! Downstream Sites Upstream Sites' Effluent d Radi o - .St. Vrain S. Platte 'St. Vrain S. Platte - Goosequill

l nuclide F-20 R-10 A-21 F-19 A-25 Cs-134 < 2.2 2.6 (2.5) < 4.0 < 4.1 < 1.6 i;:

Cs-137 4.1-(4.0)* 4.6 (3.6) < 5.9 < 4.9 2.5 (2.3) ,

2r-95 < 5.0 < 4.8 < 9.1 < 9.5 .< 3.6 Nb-95 < 2.1 < 1.9 < 3.9 < 3.6 < 1.8 i

1 00-58 < 2.1 < 2.0 < 3.8 < 3,7 < l .5 .

Mn-54 < 2.2 < 2.0 < 3.8 < 4.0  !

j Zn-65 < 5.5

< 5.1 < 10.0 < 9.7

< 1.6

< 4.9 li Fe-59 < 5.2

< 4.8 ' < 9.0 < 9.2 < 4.0

,e Co-60 < 2.2 < 2.1 < 4.2 < 4.4 < l.5 3

ll Ba-140 < 3.2 < 3.7 < 6.2 < 6.5 < 6.5 '

l1 t.a-140 < 3.7 < 4.3 -< 7.1 <75 < 7.5 6

l!

(!

• 1.96 o (Due to coununo statistics.)

l.

1 I

f I

e $

s .

~

I I

u . . . .

. . - .. . ..- ,. , , -. . =.

u  : -. ~

"j.

n'

^ ~

-= -  ;

g:+3;>

Q_ _. ,

,W ,.

gv 7

Table II.C.5 Radionuclide Concentrations In Surface Water. (pCl/L)

F Collection Date: 11/19/88- 9 i .

Downstream Sites Upstream Sites . Ef fluent >

Radio- St.-Vrain S. Platte St.(Vrain Goosequill IlS.'Platte. e nuclide F-20 R-10 A-21 ' F-19> :A-25~-

- Cs-134- < 2.0 < 2.0 < fl'.4 < 2.5 < 2.0' Cs-137 3.3 (3.5)* < 2.5 -< l.7 < 2.9 < 2.5-

< 4.8 < 3.1 < 5.5 ~~.7

<4

~

4 Zr-95 < 4.6

. Nb-95 < l.8 '

< l.8 < l .3 - < 2.5 '< 1.6 Co-58 2.4 (2.3)' <

.'t.* < l.3- - < 2.3 .< l.9 Mn-54 < 1.9 < 2.0 < 1.4 < 2.6 -2.1 (2.5) i 2n-65 < 4.8 < 4.8 < 3.6 < 6.6 < 4.7 -

Fe-59 < 4.6 < 4.8 3.7-(4.4) <-6.0 < 4.8

Co-60 < 2'.0 < 2.2 < l.4 - < 2.5- 3.1 (2.6) g

< 2.9 < 3.9 < 2.4' . < 5.1 < . 3.3 -

~

Ba-140

. La-140 < 3.3 < 4.5 < 2.7 < 5.8 .< 3.7 i

1.96 o (ous m coununo stausucs.)

1 l

l i

e e

- ---g- y - -.

g g%.F ,r.,4 .c p. 4 _

. - . _y; L__.L_,_, L_j

, . .p . . .. . .. .--..:.. . .. ;. _..  :..

+;

a. ~

.? ;c .,

. Table . II.C.5 Radionuclide Concentrations 'la Surface Water. ~ (pC1/t.)'- -

Collection'Date: 12/17/88 - - .

f

)

- -l Downstream Sites tipstream Sites Effluent. ' '

Radio- St.-Vrain S. Platte - St. Vrain

. ' S. Platte Goosequill.

-nuclide F-20 R A F-19 -A-25 r

, Cs-134 < 2.2 < 0.89 < 0.70' <L1.3 .< 0.86

! Cs-137 < 3.0 1.6 (1.3) 0.92 (0.99): - 3.6 (1.9) 2.0 (1.2)

< 5.5 I Zr-95 < 2.0 '<'1.5 '

3.7 (3.9) < 2 .4'-

A Hb-95 < 2.4 , 1.3 (1.1) ' < O.66- < l.4 1.6.(l.2)-

00-58 < 2.1 .

.< 0.82 < 0.64 - < 1. 3 < 1.0 Mn-54 4.3 (2.9)* 1.3 (1.1) < 0.69 < l .3 - < 0.89 g 2n-65 12.0 (7 9) 6.2 (3.0) 4.2 (2.0) 6.8 (4.5) 5.1 (2.8)

Fe < 5.9 < 2.6 < 1.8 < 3.3 3.3 (3.7)'

< 2.2

} Co-60 < 0.9 < 0.67 < l .4 < 0.83 0, L Ca-140 < 5.1 < 2.6 < l.4 < 2.3 < l.4-f La-140 < 5.8 < 3.0 < l.6 < 2.6 < l.6 D.

b L

i 1.96 o (Due to @ M.)

S 5 .

^

e e o

i -

.[

,, , .- ..y . , f . , _ . , s.,;r ,,. s._.~., , . , , , . , . _ , . , _ , . . _ , _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , .,

.__,.,__m,,,,

h b

. 66 '

3. Ground Water

- Ground water.is' sampled quarterly at two locations. These are at F-16, a well on the' farm .immediately north and the closest to the-reactor down. the hydrological gradient, and at R-S the Ehrlich feedlot.

i

- Table II.C.7; lists the measured ' concentrations of fission products and activation products in ground water. The Cs-137 results are not surprising due to residue of Chernobyl . fallout, and the other'results

- above MDC are assumed to be statistically false positive values.

For comparison purposes, Table II.C.8 lists the Maximum Permissible Concentration ' values in ' drinking water for each of the radionuclides l: listed in Tables II.C.4-7.

4

' l i

k s-

a 4

t Table II.C.6 Radionuclide Concentrations in Ground Water. (pCi/L)

Ist 2nd- 3rd 4th

. Quarter 3/12/88 Quarter 6/11/88 Quarter 9/24/88 Quarter 1/2842/4/89 Radio-nuclide F-16 R-5 F-16 R-5 F-16 R-5 F-16 R-5' Cs-134 < 3.6 < 2.5 < 2.4 < l .4 ' < 2.1 < 2.3 < 2.1 < 2.3 Cs-137 < 6.6 5.9(4.5)* 4.4 (4.2) .l.8(2.2) 11.0 (3.11 3.9 (3.9) 11'(3.1) 3.9 (3.91 Zr-95 4 8.3 < 5.6 . < 5.3 < 3.2 < 5.1 < 5.0 < 5.1 < 5.0 Mb-95 < 3.8 < 2,3 < 2.3 < l.3 < 2.3 < 2.1 < 2.3. < 2.1

, Co-58 < 3.5 < 2.4 < 2.2 < 1.3 < l .9 < 2.1 < l.9 < 2.1

~

2.l(1.8) 3.1 (2.6) < 2.2 3.1 (2.6) < 2.2

~

Mn-54 < 3.7 < 2.4 < 2.3 og _

Zn-65 < 11 < 6.4 < 6.2 < 3.4 12.0 (7.9' < E.3 12 (7.9) < 5.3

. Fe-59 < 8.7 < 5.7 5.6 (6.5) < 3.6 5.2 (6.1) 5.4 (6.4) ~5.2 (6.1) 5.4 (6.4)

Co-60 < 3.7 < 2.6 < 2.3' < l .3 < 2.3 5.4 (2.6) < 2.3' 5.4 (2.6)

Ba-140 < 5.5 < 4.4 < 3.9 < 2.5 6.5 (4.8) < 3.4 6.5 (4.8) < 3.4

}

l La-140 < 6.3 < 5.1 < 4.5 < 2.8 7.5 (5.6) < 3.9 7.5 (5.6) < 3.9

' 1.96 o (Duo lo countin0 statistics.)

l i

i r

. ., - , . . -, ,.s. -.

h

_y n >

I 66 i L ,

4 L

Table-II.C.7 Tritium Concentrations in Ground Water 1988'.

Facility Reference i F-16 R-5 3/12/88, < 280 340 (340)

'6/11/88 < 220 < 220 t

9/24/88 < 260 < 260 1/28/89 1000(330)* 540(330)

L k

• 1.96 o (Due to counting statistics. )

Table II.C.8 Maximum Pennissible Concentrations in Drinking Watar,

, (10CFR20, Appendix B, . Table II)

H-3 3 x 106 pCi/L s I-131 3 x 102 pCi/L-p

'Cs-134 9 x 103pC1/L 4

Cs-137 2 x 10 pCi/L  ;

l- Zr-95 6 x 104 pCi/L ,

1 ,

5 Nb-95 1 x 10 pCi/L L

5 o- Co-58 1 x 10 pCi/L Mn-54 ,

1 x 105 pCi/L' .

5 In-65 1 x 10 pCi/L l- ,

4 Fe-59~ 6 x 10 pC1/L l 4

Co-60 5 x 10 pCi/L

' 4 Ba-140 3 x 10 pCi/L 4

La-140 2 x 10 pCi/L l

h , . . . - _ . _ - . . - - . - _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ __ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _

1

. p j 67 II.D. Milk l

The dairy food chain is the critical pathway for possible radiation -;

dose commitment.around any nuclear facility. . The critical individual-

]

would be an infant consuming milk produced. from cows grazing local pastures. Milk-is the critical pathway for possible dose commitment to 1

- humans from environmental contamination of H-3, I-131, Cs-137 and Sr-90. -

For this reason milk is sampled extensively to document the presence or-absence of radioactivity due to reactor operations. A three liter milk  !

sample is counted for determination of Cs-137, Cs-134 and Ba-La-140. To measure I-131 at the required LLD of 1.0 pCi/L, an 18 liter sample is concentrated by anion exchange and the resin counted by gama-ray ,

4 spectroscopy. The method of treating the milk is modified from that of-McCurdy and Mellor,' Health Physics 38: 203-213, 1980.

There are no dairies (or personal milk cows) in the facility area, 1.6 km radius. The six dairies in the adjacent area,1.6-8 km radius, .l wre selected as they are located in the highest X/Q areas (refer to updated FSAR). The description of these location; can be found in Table III.B.1 and Figure III.B.2. The single reference location dairy, R-8, .

is 22.5 km West of the reactor in the least predominant. wind direction.

Herd management practices are virtually identical at all dairy l ocations. The cows in the milking herd are never on pasture but under lL

j. dry-lot management typical of Eastern Colorado (see Appendix).

l L Table !!.0.1 lists,'the concentrations of. all radionuclides that are investigated in milk samples. During 1988, elevated concentrations of L I-131 were again observed only at site A-22. The source of this I-131 L

l is from nuclear medicine thyroid therapy practice in the Denver l

hospitals. The releases enter the S. Platte River just North of Denver.

L 1

l l

--- .~.-_.___.___x._~_.~_.___,____________.__

i 1 I~ 68

! I

- A-22 dairy uses irrigation ditch water for its herd during the sumer rather than well water. The ditch (Independence) receives S. Platte water upstream of FSV. This observation was first made in 1985 and  ;

. discussed:at length in the 1985 REMP sumary report. Unfortunately, A

A-22 Edairy could not provide milk samples during the_ last quarter of

- 1988 due to efforts .to meet production quotas. The dairy has rejoined

- the program beginning in January. -

During October, when milk was not available from A-22 four extra

< water samples were collected from the Independence Ditch at the ' dairy location. The I-131 concentrations on those four dates are given below. .

t Date I-131 pCi/L + 1.96, 10/1/88- 1.4 + 0.35 I 10/8/88 -8.0 + 0.85 -

u, .

'.!~g 10/15/88 4.0 + 0.69 -

o -

10/22/88 2.0 + 0.44 L If ditch water were the only source of drinking water for the A-22 herd l'

during this period, it can be assumed that milk concentrations would have been approximately- the same as the water concentration. The ditch b flow was= stopped in November and December. l Figure II.D.1 shows' the frequency and magnitude of the I-131 f- concentrations observed at the A-22 da'iry in recent years. The large peak observed in May and' June of 1986 is of course due to Chernobyl  ;

j fall.out, but all other.' peaks are due to hospital release in Denver.

K-natural, as measured by K-40, is extremely constant in milk. The h

u 'y!l j'j mean literature value for cow milk is 1.5 g/L. K concentrations are homeostatically controlled and independent of K intake. K-nat is measured in all milk samples as a quality control measure for the other

_- i'__.______l________ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . ___.__m ..,__._____,--,___,___.i,,r-.-,. --

w . . - . . . - - - - -

69 radionuclides determined in the same sample by gansna-ray spectrometry, but K-not concentrations are no longer reported in Table !!.D.1.

Elevated tritium concentrations in milk due to reactor ef fluents Thi s have never been observed in the operational period of the reactor.

implies the tritium from reactor effluents is not contributing any radiation dose to humans via the milk pathway. Tritium concentrations in milk should respond rapidly to changes in tritium concentrations of.

This is the forage water intake or drinking water intake to the cow.

due to the short biological half-life for water in the cow (about three days for the lactating cow). As noted in previous reports, the reported tritium concentration in milk is the tritium in water extracted from the milk. Contamination of milk samples by any radionuclide due to reactor" effluents has never been observed during the operationa' periods of Fort St. Vrain.

For comparison purposes, the EPA lists a measured Cs-137 concentration in milk from Denver as 9 + 6 pCi/L on 1/4/88.

i i

l

m J

_L ' . .

lable II.D.I' Radionuclide Concentrations In Milk. (pCi/L).

LOCATION -A-6 A-18 A-22 A-23 A-24 A-26 R-8 Collection Datt 1/30/88 1/30/88 1/30/88 1/30/88 I/09/88 1/09/88 1/30/88 I-131 < 0.46 < O.4 < 0.34 <-0.4

< 0.54 < 0.'47 < 0.39 Cs-134 < 2.2 <-3.8 < 2.5' < 2.6 < 2.3

< 1.6 < 4.1  :

Cs-137 < 2.6 < 4.6 < 3.1 < 4.0 3.8 (4.1) 1.9(2.2) 9.2(7.2)

Ba-140 4.2(4.7)' < 6.2 < 4.2 < 4.7 4.3(4.5) 3.1(3.3) < 5.9

La-140 4.9(5.4) < 7.2' < 4.9 < 5.4 5.0( 5.1 ) ' 3.6(3.8)- < 6.8 Collection Date 2/20/88 2/27/88 2/27/88 2/27/88 2/13/88 2/13/88 2/06/88 I-131 < 0.27 < 0.38 < 0.47 < 0.37 < 0.44 < 0.28 < 0.31 Cs-134 < 2.4 < 2.9 < 2.5 < 3.5 < 2.5 < 1.6 < 3.4 Cs-137 < 3.5 4.7(5.3) < 3.1 < 5.0 < 3.1 < 2.0 < 4.1 25 Ba-140 < 3.5 < 5.2 < 4.8 < 6.1 < 4.5 3.8(3.5) < 6.4 La-140 < 4.1 < 6.0 < 5.6. < 7.0 < 5.1 4.4(4.1) < 7.4 l Collection Date 3/26/88 3/26/88 3/19/88 3/19/88 3/12/88 3/12/88 3/05/88

, I-131 < 0.29 < 0.25 < 0.33 < 0.41 < 0.21 < 0.23 < 0.38 l

Cs-134 < 2.8 < 1.8 < 2.6 4.0(2.8) < 5.2 < 2.S' < 2.5 Cs-137 c 3.4 3.8(3.3) < 3.2 5.9 (4.1) c 6.0 ' 8.0(3.7) 7.8(4.1)

Ba-140 < 5.3 < 3.2 < 4.2 < 3.4 < 8.5** < 3.9 < 5.0

! La-140 < 6.1 < 3.7 < 4.8 < 3.9 < 9.8 < 4.5 < 5.7 I

~

1.96 o (Doo lo coundng statistics.) -

Insuf ficient volume to achieve LLD due to technician error..

.c - -

_ . _ _ _ - _ , .- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ -

. . . , . . - . _ _ - _ . _ _ .-.... . . _ .. .__.. .. __. . . . _ _ - . . . ._ u. g. ,

l.ilite i1.11. I H.iilismui iisle Cimcerd.r.itienn In fli tt. (lit i /l ) .

1.0CAllott - A-6 A-18 A-22 A.23 A-24 A-26 R-8 Collection Date 4/30/88 4/30/08 4/22/88 4/22/88 4/09/88 4/09/88 4/02/88 l-131 C.65(0.67)V < 0.34 < 0.27 < 0.31 < 0.28 < 0.3 < 0.34 Cs-134 < 4.1 < 4.0 < 2.6 < l.7 < 2.8 6.5(4.8) < 3.9 -

f Cs-137 5.9 (7.0) < 5.9 < 3.2 < l.9 < 3.4 17(5.9) < 4.6 na-140 < 5.7 6.8(7.1) < 5.0 < 3.1 < 4.5 < 6.2 < 6.1 La-140 < 6.5 7.8(8.2) < 5.7 < 3.6 < 5.2 < 7.2 < 7.0

~

Collection Date 5/07/88 5/07/88 5/07/88 5/07/88 5/14/88 5/14/88 5/14/88 1-131 < 0.28 < 0.3 < 0.4 < 0.32 < 0.49 < 0.35 < 0.32 Cs-134 < 3.1 < 3.5 < 3.4 < 3.7 < 2.8 3.0 (3.1) < 2.8 l Cs-137 < 4.6 < 4.1 '< 5.1 4.4(5.2) < 3.4 13.0 (4.7) 6.9 (4.2)-

Da-140 < 8.1 (6.9 1 < 5.4 < 5.8 < 5.9 < 5.1 < 3.8 < 4.5 t.a-140 < 9.3 (8.0 l < 6.2 < 6.6 < 6.7 < 5.9 < 4.4 < 5.1 Collection Date 5/21/88 5/21/88 5/21/88 5/21/88 5/28/88 5/28/88 5/28/n8 1-131 < 0.36 < 0.45 < 0.35 < 0.29 < 0.49 < 0.29 < 0.24 Cs-134 < l.5 < 2.1 < 2.2 < 2.3 < 4.1 < 2.6 1.8 (2.0)

Cs-137 4.8(3.6) 3.4 (3.7) < 2.7 < 2.8 9.9 (7.5) 11.0 (3.8) 2.5 (2.5)

I

Da-140 < 2.9 < 3.0 < 3.6 < 5.8 < 6.2 < 4.0 < 2.7

~

La-140 < 3.4 < 3.4 < 4.1 ~< 6.7 < 7.1 < 4.6 < 3.1 1.96 o (Duo no counting staustics.) .

" ' " A Y s "

q u +- ;y -q. pyw-- ow a' --

_--y-4_ ...M

. Table -II.D.1 Radionucilde Concentrations in Milk.. (pC1/L)..

LOCAT100l* A-6 A-18' A-22 A-23 A-24 A-26 R-8

~

Collection Date 6/11/88 6/04/88 s/04/88 6/04/88 6/11/88 6/11/88 6/11/88 I-131 < 0.27 < 0.25 1.7 (.76)- < O.22 < 0.26 < 0.32 < 0.19 5 < 3.2 < 2.3 < 3.3 < 3.4 Cs-134 < 2.-4 < l . 4' 4.0 (2.9) ,

i Cs-137 5.7 (5.7)" < 3.3 < 3.4 < 5.0 - < 4.2 2.3 (2.0) 5.8 (3.5)

Sa-140 < 4.7 < 3.3 < 4.1 < 6.0' < 5.5 < 2.2 < 3.8 .

La-140 < 5.4 < 3.8 < 4.7 < 6.9 < 6.4 < 2.6 < 4.4 i Collection Oate 6/20/88 6/18/88 6/18/88 6/25/88 6/25/88 , 6/25/88 f/?S/88 ,

1-131 -< 0.18 < 0.21 < 0.21 < 0.46 < 0.31 < 0.31 < 0.2 l Cs-134 < l.9 < l.9 < 2.0 '< 3.5 < l.9 2.5 (2.8) < 2.6 .g Cs-137 7.l(3.3) 3.7 (3.3) < 2.5 11.0 (6.4) < 2.1 7.3 (4.2) < 3.1 -

l Ba-140 * < 2.8 < 2.8 4.0(4.8) < 5.2 < 3.3 < 4.2 < 5.2 1

La-140 < 3.2 < 3.2 4.6(5.5) < 5.9 < 3.8 < 4.8 < 5.9 Collection Date 7/02/88 7/02/88 7/07/88 7/16/88 7/09/88 7/09/88 7/09/88 l 1-131 < 0.23 < 0.43 < 0.43 < 0.28 < 0.14 < 0.14 < 0.23 Cs-134 < 1.5 < 2.2 2.5 (2.8) < 1.4 < l.7 < 2.2 < 2.6  !

I i Cs-137 < 2.1 < 2.7 < 2.8 < l.7 < l .9 < 2.7 < 3.2  ;

i i Ba-140 < 3.6 <-4.5 < 3.9 < 2.3 < 2.8 < 4.1 < 4.2 l La-140 < 4.1 - < S.2 < 4.5 < 2.6 < 3.2 < 4.7 < 4.8 l

l

• 1.96 o (Doo lo countin0 statistics.)

l

, ., . . .- . . , , . ~ . - -. , ,

. . - . ..a ._ .. *'-

5w ..

7 Table II.D.1' Radionuclide Concentrations In Milk. - (pCf /L). -

A-26 R-8

{ LOCATION

• A-6 A-18 A-22 A-23 A-24 h- Collection Date 7/23/88 7/16/88 7/23/88 7/23/88 7/30/88 7/30/88 7/23/88 1-131 < 0.42 < 0.24 1.64 (0.36)' < 0.3 < 0.35 < 0.33 < 0.32 Cs-134 < 2.6 < 2.9 < 2.4 < 2.8 < 2.2 < 2.8 < 3.5 g Cs-137 < 3.0 < 3.5 6.2 (3,5) < 3.5 < 2.9 < 3.4 < 5.1 li j Ba-140 < 3.8 < 4.9 < 3.8 < 5.1 < 4.3 < 5.4 < 5.7 ii

!! La-140 < 4.4 < 5.6 < 4.4 < 5.8 < 5.0 < 6.3 < 6.6 Collection Date 8/06'/88 8/06/88 8/06/88 8/06/88 8/13/88 8/13/88 S/13/88 ,

i 3

l'; I-131 < 0.26 ' < 0.3 3.81 (0.34) < 0.27 < 0.23 < 0.17 < 0.23 .;

e t

< 1.8

~

ll Cs-134 < 2.1 < 3.8 < 3.3 < 2.3 < 3.0 < 3.2

!. ; ~

3 l! Cs-137 < 2.9 6.6 (5.4) P.8 (4.9) < 2.1 < 2.7 < 4.4 < 3.9 -

L I- Ba-140 4.4 (S.3) < 6.1 < 5.4 < 2.8 < 3.6 < 4.3 < 5.4 La-140 1.0 (6.1) < 7.1 < 6.3 < 3.2 < 4.2 t 4.9 < 6.2 l

. Collection Date 8/20/88 8/20/88 8/27/88 8/20/88 8/27/88 8/27/88 8/27/88 1-131 < 0.18 < 0.3 < 0.25 < 0.18 < 0.22 < 0.25 < 6.17 l

! Cs-134 < 2.2 < 3.2 < 3.1 < 2.9 < 2.2 < 3.3 < 3.5 ,

i

~

Cs-137 < 2.6 4-4 (4.7) < 3.5 < 4.4 1.1 (3.1) < 3.9 < 5.3 Ba-140 < 3.4 < 5.2 5.4 (6.2) < 4.4 < 4.1 < 5.2 < 5.2 i La-140 < 3.9

< 6.0 7.4 ('7.1) < 5.0 ~ < 4.7 < 6.0 < 5.9

. i

~

' l.96 o (Due to countlog stadstics.)

• " ' ^ - - '_'

__-*_____._L__._. _ _ _ _ _ . _

i' j' >

l

[+

Table II.D.I Radionuclide Concentrations in Milk.

(pCi/L).

'i i

'i LOCATIDW A-6 A-18 A-22 A-23 A-24 A-26 R-8 i i

! Collection Date 9/03/88 9/03/88 9/10/88~ 9/03/88 9/10/88 9/10/88 9/10/88 I

l-131  :< 0.21 < 0.37 0.78 (0.36 i < 0.?4 < 0.28 < 0.13 < 0.34 i

Cs-134 < 2.3 < l.9 < 3.2 < 2.? < 3.0 < 2.0 < 1.6' Cs-137 < 2.9 2.5 (2.5)* 8.3 (4.6) 3.5 ( .9) < 4.2 < 2.5 2.8 (2.2) l Ba-140 < 4.2 < 3.0 < 5.2 < 4.9 < 4.7 < 3.2 < 2.4 La-140 < 4.9 < 3.5 < 5.9 < 5. < 5.4 < 3.6 < 2.8 Collection Date 9/17/88 9/24/88 f 9/17/88 9/24/88 9/24/88 9/17/88 I-131 < 0.19 < 0.25 < 0.34 0.41 (0.46) < 0.33 < 0.31 Cs-134 < 3.6 < 2.3 < 2.4 < 3.0 < 2.5 < 2.8 y.

Cs-137 < 4.4 < 2.7 S.1 (4.3) < 4.4 4.1 (4.3) 4.1 (3.9)

Ba-140 < 5.8 < 3.7 < 3.5 < 4.5 '

< 3.5 9.7 (5.6)

La-140 < 6.6 4 4.3 < 4.0 < 5.1 <-4.1 11.0 (6.4)

Collection Date 10/08/88 10/29/88 f 10/22/88 10/15/45 10/08/88 10/29/88 5

'~

I-131 < 0.23 < 0.4 < 0.32 .< 0.45 < 0.37 < 0.21

, Cs-134 < 2.6 2.3 (2.8) < 2.1 < 2.1 <l.7 < 2.8 Cs-137 < 2.8 ' < 2.8 5.5 (3.7) < 2.5 4.7 (2.4)' < 3.4 Ba-140 < 3.7 < 4.4

< 3.8 < 3.4 < 2.8 < 4.8 La-140 < 4.3 < 5.0 < 4.3 .< 3.9 < 3.2 < 5.5

• 1.06 o (Due to counting statistics.)

f Dairyman could not spare volume while qualifying for annual quota.

- - - - - - - - - - - - _ p - .- _, . ,

. . . . . . . a...._ . . . .

,-..-.'u ~

,~ 'i a:

kN'gh

, A

, ;p^;.

'**i y . .

j :g

~

-Table II.D.1 - Radionuclide Concentrations ist Mi1k. '(pCl/L). - - '

10 CATION' " A-6 A-18' 'A-22 A-23 A-24 'A-26' R-8 Collection Date 11/12/88- ' 11/05/88.. f 10/29/88' 11/19/88 11/19/88.:. - 11/05/88 1-131 < 0.18 - < 0.27 < 0.4 < 0.28 < 0.38 < 0.33

~

C s-1 ~14 < 2.6 < l.5- < l.7 .9.(2.2) < 2.1- < 2.1 Cs-137 , 3.7'(3.7)* 2.1'(2.1) < l .9 < 2.8 _< 2.5 < 2.5 Ba-140 < 4.1 3.1 (3.6) < 3.3' < 3.4 < 3.3 < 3.8 La-140 < 4.7 3.6 (4.2)' < 3.7 ~ < 3.9 < 3.8. < 4.3 i

Collection Date 12/10/88 12/03/88 f 12/03/88 12/24/88 12/17/88 f l  :

! l-131 < 0.31 < 0.24 C .41 (0.37) < 0.43 < 0.33 Cs-134 < 3.4 < 2.4 < 2.6' < t.5 < 1.6 v.

I Cs-137 < 5.2 < 3.5 < 3.2 -.3 (2.2) 1.9 (2.2)

I j Ba-140 < 6.6 < 3.4 < 4.6- < 3.0 < 2.5

! La-140 < 7.6 < 3.9 < 5.3 < 3.5 < 2.9 l __ _ _ . .

2

'i 1.96 o (Due to counting statistics.)

f A-22 dairyman could not spare volume while qualifying for annual quota. : R-8_ dairyuun declared bankruptcy and could not be replaced before end of year.

.- ,_ci

-- m 5-.w., ,,2.,

- _-._2.-a.-.,,ws.s ._% ,_s- _ _ .,.%_mm._ .--,,ai.= - - - - . _ i-wm._.- .--.%' . - - - - - - , - - . - -

_ . m.,.

.[ 1. _

+ 1 ,.4

. p. '

100 -

eo.

a0

- I-131 Concentrations in Mik at Site A-22 x

70 -

00 -

50 -

, 2 go '

40  : C

• 'l 4.

i 30 -

M e

d e .

N -

w 4

4 10 -

' 90 -

80 -

7.O -

SD -

50 -

a 4D -

N w-

. on l O 30 - -

n -

[ 8 .* I

'g,s 20 -

h &

• 1.0

! 09 -

08 -

l 0.7 -

l 06 -

~

0.5 -

E O.4 .-

- -- '= - -

03 -

02 -

t 6

o, . ........... ........... ...........i...........

J M M J S .N J M M J SN J M M J S N J M M J S N-1985 1986 1987 '- -.1988-

. = ~,,

Yahic II.D.2 Tritiume C6ncentrations in Hilk. (pC1/L) al firs L leali ,19M. :i

~

Adjacent Sites Reference A-6 A-18 'A-22 A-23 A-24 A-26 R-8 i ,

. i 1/30/88 ,

1/30/88 1/30/88 '

.1/30/88 1/9/88 1/9/88- 1/30/88- j-

< 230 < 230 < 230 < 230 410 (420)* < 290 < 230 2/20/88 2/27/88 2/27/88 ,2/27/88 2/13/88 2/13/88 2/8/88

< 230 < 230 < 230 < 230 290 (2P9) < 220 < 230 3/,26/88 3/26/88 3/19/88 3/19/88 3/12/88 3/5/88.

3/12/88.l'

< 230 < 230 390 (310) < 230 < 280 <280f < 220 .

~

4/30/88 4/30/88' 4/22/88 4/22/88 4/9/88 4/9/88 4/2/88

< 250 450 (310) 270 (310) 520 (310) 380 (310) 560 (310) 480 (310) '

5/7/88 5/7/C8 5/7/88 5/7/88 5/14/88 5/I'4/88 5/14/88 360 (370) < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 5/21/88 5/21/88 5/21/88 5/21/38 5/28/88 5/28/88 5/28/88

< 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 6/11/88 6/4/88 6/4/88 6/4/88 6/11/88 6/11/88 6/11/88 i l

l < 250 < 250 - < 250 < 250 440 (370) < 250 < 250 .

6/18/88 6/18/08 6/18/88 6/25/88 6/25/88 6/25/88 6/25/88 l < 250 < 250 < 220 < 22G. < 250 < 250 < 250 l 1.96 o' (Duo M couplin0 stallatics.) ,

l I

'~- '

s ii. Table 11.0.2 Tritium Concentrations in tiilk.. (pCi/t) b) Sciond half, IXKl.

a ij . . .

Adjacent. Sites Reference A-6 'A-18 A-i'2 A-23 A-24 A-26 R-8

]u l 7/2/88 7/2/88 7/2/88 7/16/88 7/9/88 7/9/88 7/9/88

< 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 7/23/88 7/16/88 7/23/88 7/23/88 7/30/88 7/30/88 7/23/88

i'

< 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 a 8/6/88 8/6/88 8/6/88 8/6/88 8/13/88 8/13/88 8/13/88

< 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 8/20/86 8/20/88 8/27/88 8/20/88 8/27/88 8/27/88 8/27/88 s

. m

< 260 <.260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 .

9/3/88 9/3/88 9/10/88 9/3/88 9/10/88 9/10/88 9/10/88

< 250 < 250 . < 256 < 250 < 250 280 (300)* < 250 j 9/17/88 9/24/88 f 9/17/88 9/24/88 9/24/88 9/17/88 t

l! < 260 < 250' < 250 - < 250 < 250 290 (380)*

e -

l- 10/8/88 10/29/88 f 10/22/88 10/15/88 10/8/88 10/29/88 d 370~(380) 500 (380) d d 390 (350)

~

11/12/88 11/5/88 f 11/5/88 11/19/88 11/19/88 11/5/88 560 (350) 500 (350) 650 (380) 490 (350) 640 (350) 300 (350)

'r2/10/88 12/3/88 f 12/3/?8 12/24/88 12/17/88 f, 870 (340) 600 (340) 740 (340) ,690 (340). 870 (340')

• 1.9G o (Doo lo countin0 dalistics.) '

l d Sample lost during analysis.

r nu - , o a?? wa< . tina ann.ai n..nt2 l n=i v at on wont n..t of husiness.

E .

r 79 II.E. .. Food Products -!

Food sampling locations were selected from areas possibly irrigated  :

by surface water downstream of the FSV discharge point or by well water.

from the aquifer most lik,.ely to be contaminated by seepage from the farm pond. '

fhe locations of these food p'oduct r collection sites are l described in Table 111.8'1. One sample of each principal class of food

, products was collected from these location,s. Locations and available -

produce of ten change due to owner needs, harves't time, harvest' size, '

etc. .

~

, Eack samp1e is, homogenized without drying imediately-af ter collection. The sample is then counted by ganna-ray spectroscopy.

i Table II.E.1 lists the date of collection and the results for the 1988 L[ 4 harvest. Three of the food samples showed detectable Cs-137 from past .

t

.l; Chernobyl fallout deposition and two showed marginal but detectable l I

concentrations of. Cs-134, also from Chernobyl .  % T-131 concentration result in the zucchini sample from A-30 was rect ind confirmed.

The result was certainly not due to reactor efflant but probably the .

result of the use of irrigation water from the S. Platte River. In section II.0,. concentrations of I-131 from Denver hospital,use'were documented in irrigation ditches off the Platte' River. The gamma-ray I +

spectra were scanned for other radionuclides, but only the naturally 1

occurring were observed,' presumably due to surface soil deposits.

• l y , , ,-.+m , -- - *-m ,~--,e n-- - , ,-.,3m.cm--.., e- . . - - - - --w-- -- w

. .. , y-

,1 y ,. -

3 y ' '

80 l

1 1

LTable,II.E.1' Radionuclide Concentrations, in Food Products (pCi/kg) l Collection Date 9/13/88 1

.>r

~

Location Food Type- I-131 Cs 134 Cs-137 A-8 CORN < 5.9 < 6.5 - < 7.8 A-9 MELONS < 2.9 < 3.0 * < 4.4 A , TOMATOES < 8.3 < 7.0 < 8.3 ,

3 A BEANS .- < 18.0 < 10. 0 . < 12.0 -

A ON!0$5 < 2.8 < 2.7 5.1 (3.9)

A ZUCCHINI 9.1 (11.0)* 8.3 (6.0) 16.0 . ('8.8 ) ,

A-31 BROCCOLI < 8.0 14.0 (10.0) 10.0 (12.0) -

IR-12' POTATOS' < 2.8 < 3.1 < 3.5 R-13 BEETS < 6.5 < 4.3 < 4.9  : ,

R-14 > BEET TOPS < 7.6 < 8.3 < 9.4 s ..

, . i

• 1.96 e. (Due to counting staustics.)

1

• 9 8 m 4

9 9' y -. --- ,9----,, - , - - , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ . _ . , _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ____,._:.___

I

. I i

81 i

!!.F. Aquatic Pathways j Table !!.F.1 shows radionuclide concentrations measured in fish  !

. samples collected at F-19 A-25 and R-10 on two dates in 1988. The fish were collected by shocking and netting and 'the compost te sample was  ;

homogenized without cleaning and analyzed on a wet weight basis. The i only two positive values were due to Cs 137, assumed to be due to f all out. -

Table !!.F.2 shows the measured concentrations of both Cs-137 and C1,134 in surface sediment collected at R-10, the downstream location.

There was measurable activity of CS-137 clearly due to the Chernobyl ,

f allout. The Cs-134 results are douthful. The costum tons are bound l'

nearly irreversibly by the clay mineral matrix in the sediment. i y

Monitoring for Corbicula fluminea, a species of freshwater clam.' '

was conducted at all fish sagling sites. These monitoring dates  :

coincided with the fish collection dates. Corbicula have been Int'roduced to North America from Asia. . The freshwater c; .ms are now 9

found in large river systems e the U.S. from coast to coast. The .

Colorado Division of Wi'idlife has stated that Corbicula have been found in Northern Colorado at Boyd Lake, some 30 miles from the fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station. However, to this date, our samplings have .

Indicated no evidence of Corbicula in any of the sampling sites.of the reactor surface water courses.

D

. . g . . . - .. ,

. . .. . . 7 . . .

i- . ,.

I

~Tahic II.F.1- -

~ ~

~

r- Radlenecilde Concentrations in Fish. (pCl/kg) . . .

P- . .

, Collection Date F:rst Half Second Nalf Upstream- Etfluent . ' Deumstream _l$ stream Effluent Dounstream Radionocilde F-19 A-25 R-10 F-19 A-25 ,

R-10 t Cs-134

< 7.5 < 3.8

?

< 15.0 < 15.0 .

< 9.3 < 17.0

?

Cs-137

. < S.7 14 (5.4) *

< 15.0 < 15.0 < 11.0 22.0 (23.0) .

' ~

to-50 -

i < 6.9 < 3.5 < 17.0 < 17 0 < S.5 < 15.0

~

mi-54 '

< 7.1 ,

< 3.7, .< 15.0 . < 15.0 < 9.1 < 17.0 .  !

E ~Zn-65 .

i '< 19.0 < 9.4 -

< 41.0 < 41.0 < 26.0 < 43.0 ** - '

h -

Fe-59 -

< 14.0 , < 6.3 < 24.0 < 24.0 < 15.0 < 35.0 h

~

Co-60

< 4.2 < 16.0

~

< 8.1 < 16.0 < 9.8 < 18.0 i

1.se n (ous to coune:S siensacs.) .

t .

a e

64-

• 4

& - e

= . - _ _ . . . ,

83 Table II.F.2~ Radionuclide Concentrations in Sediment from R10. (pCi/kg) .

Radionuclide Collection Date 6/11/88 Cs-134 . 21 (21)*

. Cs-137 150 (21)

. Radionucli de Collection Date 11/5/88 i Cs-134 16 (9.8) i Cs-137 130 (9.2)

I

'1.M e (Due to counting statistics.)

i s

. e t

e 9

i 4

4 1

i k -

1

I I

84 .

l 1

!!.G. Sample Crosscheck Program To assure the accuracy and precision of the environmental data obtained from the radiation surveillance program provided for the Fort St. Vrain reactor, Colorado State Universit/ participates in a number of interleboratory and intralaboratory quality assurance programs. The U.S. Environmental Protectior L s Scy (EPA) sponsored laboratory i intercomparison studies program is the principal crosscheck. This i

involves the analysis of a ve.riety of environmental media containing

. various levels of radionuclides. The media, type of analysis and .

frequency of analysis for the EPA program are sumarized below.

Medium Analysi s' (f tdionuclide ) Frequency -

Water H-3 Triennually , , ,

I l Water Gross beta, gross alpha Simonthly Water Co-60, Zn-65, Cs-134, Cs-137 Triannually +

- s Water . 1-131 Semiannually Air partic- Cs-137, gross beta, Semiannually ulate filters gross alpha Milk I-131, Cs-137 Triannually For each radionuclide analysis of a particular medium, three' independent measurements are performed and all results are reported to the EPA. It l should be noted that during the, year, our laboratory became certifled by , .

the EPA for drinking water analysis. .

Table II.G.1 gives the EPA crosscheck data for 1988. The EPA uses the term, Estimated Laboratory Precision (ELP), calculated as one standard deviation for one determination. The normalized deviation of our mean from the known is calculated as: ,

c

. es I

CSU mean value - EPA known vslue etT Wherei o = standard deviation of the mean of all participating laboratory results n = numer of analyses by our labor: tory, normally n=3 s

The control limit is determined by the mean range of all results ,

and three standard deviations of the range. If any result exceeds two standard deviations from the mean (warning level), the result is i unacceptable. Whenever our mean value falls outside' this limit, the calculations are rechecked and the sample reanalyzed if possible'. .

During.1988 all results except 12 were within the warning level. The results exceeding the warning level have the notation (n) in Table ..

!!.G.I. If pessible,-the corrected values are shown in the table.

The recheck process and conclusion are given below for these samples, i

1. No explanation for variation known. All possibilities -

investigated., All program samples during this period were reanalyied and recounted.

2. Count yield in error, new c.alibration in ' April produced correct value. ,

3. All results in error were low. It is concluded that Co, Ru, In, and Cr do not transfer well from the EPA vessel to our .

. laboratory vessel due to c.,hemical form of the tracer <

1 3

radionuclides. The Cs-137 and Cs-134 results were corre't.

! All Cs compounds are extremely soluble and therefore  ;

i transferred well. Therefore, it is concluded that these EPA results do not have any direct bearing on program results for any of the radionuclides tested. The of ficiency curve for each '

g g'?

i w ,

7

+

3 Y 86 l 7u .

x detector and each geometry is only a function of gams-ray  :,

absorption in the detector. No other conclusion than the above '

, is possible. Carrier will be added to future samples. l

4. Technician allowed excessive decay before ion ex:hange treatment and subsequent counting. The decay reduced the I-131 i

. 3 concentration below detectable levels. (Technician has since been repiaced.) . j

5. Count yield for K-40 was too' high. Calibration was changed on the basis of new calibration result.  !

6. Wrong count yield was used for one of the two Ge(L1) detector i l systems. The corrected value was within the EPA warning level.  !

Table II.G 2 lists independent results for H-3 in.isater samples

[;

split between this laboratory and the Colorado Department of Health, "-

i Radiation Control Ofyision and the laboratory at the Fort St. Vrain Generating Station. The comparison between 'leboratories in general was ,

acceptable.

• Table II.G.3 lists the results of gross beta analyses of the split water samples. The procedural differences between the 1.aboratories were l_' previously investigated and minimized. It is concluded'that the ,

differences can be attributed only to statistical urcertainty.

Table II.G.4 shows results of an intralaboratory crosscheck program. Replicate simples are independently analyzed. The replicat'e results are not statistically different and imply that the precision .of ,

. the methods is acceptable.

Recently approximately 30% of all laboratory calculations that l ,

partly involve technician input were recalculated by a different

! technician. No input or calculation errors were dete'cted. This result

. ~ - :=*: ': ':~:: _  :'L '

L - ' . LL . - *

- _ . , .- L - .. - -.. .-

W - -

W: ,

\ .1 -

6

[,- . I e .i is ,

1 B7 1

i gives further credence to the rator/ results.which are ret solely

t. computer calculated ard listed. .

4

9' .

9 t

l P

e e

6

,{ .

-e ee i r.

.6 9

i

~

t I

r S

• e .

i

• b

, 9 l-,

w G

G

' + ' '

li,:1 l'

I '. .l .

p i

' - e.

\'. a t

'4'

^

9

n. ,&

G 4

l

^

l i l: !

1 l- -

l.t j) 3 f

l' 4

(.

l.  :-

1^.

1 l

\.

88 r

1 Table II.G.1 EPA Cross-Check Data Summary. 19 88 Radio- CSU EPA 1 E.L.P.* Normalized Deviation Date nuclide Yalue Yalue from known** j

~

, WATER TRITIUM ,

Feb 12 H-3 5400 3327 362 +10.09 .

Jun 10 H-3 4300 5565 557 -3.99 Oct 14 H-3 2300 2316 350 +0.01 i ,

WATER ALPRA/ BETA 1

Jan 22 alpha 3.7 4 5' - -0.12 i beta 7.0 ,

8 5 -0.35 .

., Mar 18 alpha 12 6 5 +2.08 i beta 6 13 5 -2.42 .

t

May 20 alpha 10' 11 5 -0.35 -

beta 11 11 5

+0.00 i

Jul 22 s alpha 11 15 5 '

-1.50 beta 4.3 4 5 +0.12 Sep 23 -

alpha 4.7 8 5 -1.15 ,

/ beta 7.3 10 5 -0.92 l Nov 25 alpha 4 9 5 -1.73 I

beta 8.7 9 5 -0,12 WATER I-131 Apr 8 I-131 7.4 7.5 0.75 -0.38

, Aug 5 I-131 66- , 76 8 -2.09 i ,

L Dec 9 I-131 110 115 12 -1.30  ;

L >

EPA Performance Test Oct 18 beta 49 54 5 -1.85 l

Cs-134 14 15 5 -0.23

+1.15 Cs-137: 18 15 5

• E.L.P. Expected laboratory precision.

I ** Normafized deviation = (. CSU mean - EPA known)/( a / n), if this value falls between the upper and lower warning levels, the accuracy is acceptable.

c ,

89 Table II.G.1 EPA Cross-Check Data Summary. 19 95 t

Radto- CSU EPA 1 E.L.P .* Normali:ed Deviation Date nuclide Yalue Yalce from kncwn" ,

WATER, GAMMA Feb 5 Co-60 65 69 .5

-1.27 Zt-65 78 94 9.40 -2.95 e

Ru-106 95 105 10.50 -1.70 Cs-134 59 64 5 -1.73 Cs-137 99 94 5 1.56 Jun 3 Cc.60 12 15 5 -0.92 i Zn-65 91 101 10 -1.73 Ru-1063 135 195 20 -5.20 .

Cs-134 17 20 5 . -1,15

,, Cs-137 28 25 5 1.15 Oct 7 Co-603 14 25 5 -3.93 Zn-653 123 151 15 -3.19 Ru-1063 116 152 15 -4.16 Cs-134 . 22 25 5 -1.15 Cs-137 18 15 5 0.92

' Cr-513 200- 251 25 -3.53 MILK Feb 26 I-131' <3 4 0.40 ----

Jun 24 I-131 79 94 9 -2.95 .

Cs-137 54 51 5 0.61 K-405 1540 1600 80 -1.22 Oct 28 I-1316 106 91 9 2.89 Cs-137 55 50 5 1.85 X-40 1500 1600 80 -2.09 '

AIR FILTER Mar 25 alpha 18 20 5 -0.69 beta 51 50 5 0.35 Cs-137 16 15 5 0.0 Aug 26 a l ph'a' 8.0 10 5 -0.69 l beta 29 30 5 -0.35 Cs-137 13 10 5 1.15

• - E.L.P. E'xpected laboratory precision.

Normalized deviation = (CSU mean - EPA known)/(e/n); if this value falls between the upper and lo'..tr warning levcis, the accuracy is acceptable.

~

Table !!.0.2 '

90 i Tritium Crosscheck Analyses on Split Vater Semples Deteruined by Colorado State-University, Colorado Dep'att;ent of Health, and Public Service Company.

Collection Sample Tritium Concentrations pCi/L Date Location ,.- CSU CDH PSC January A 25* 110,000 (990) 8110 (253) 9240 (541) 1 A 21 <290 401 ( 167) <343 -

E 41 610 (310) 43 (172) 437 (418)

February A 25 24000 (560) 21028 (346) 22800 (687) '

A 21 - 600 (350) 5 ( 165) <344 E 41 1400 (320) 1179 (179) 924 (427)

' ~

March 'A 25 31000 (580) 27400 (727) '

A 21 780 (290) <344 E 41 550 (310) <344  :

April. A 25 -

4800 (360) 4110 (465)

A 21 260 (300) -

<336 ,

E 41 <250 <339 May A 25 45000 (660) 40300 (829) -

A 21 470 (310) <334 -

. E 41 280000 (1500) 246000 (1840),

June A 25 33000 (48'0) 41600 (848)

A 21 330 (260) 622 (424)

E 41 35000 (750) 38200 (821) 1 July s A 25 38000 (770) 42300 (871)

A 21 <260 <367 E 4'1 <260 <367 August A 25 4400 (430) 3810 (492)

A 21 <250- <365 E 41 <250 <365 i September A 25 9000 (500) 9360 (541)

A 21 1580 (434)

[ E 41 <250 3400 (461) ,

October A 25 37000 (770) 37500 (831)'

A 21 . <250 <356 -

E 41 460 (380) <356 Nove::bar A 25 23000 (620) 35500 (802)

A 21 550 (310) <346 E 41 640-(340) --

December K 25 28000 (660) 36800 (820) j A 21 960 (320) <356 i E 41 740 (340) <

,348

• A composite of 1/9 and 1/12 grab sa::ple.  ;

i

.-.s __

n-Table $I.G.3 91

. Cross 8 eta . Crosscheck Analyses en Split Water Samples Determined by Colorado 3cate University, Colorado Department of Health, end Public Service ccmpany of Colorado. .

Collection Sample Cross Beta Concentrations pCi/L Date Location CSU CDH PSC l- January A 25 15 (6.1) 20 (5) 8.49 (6.56)

A 21 11 (5.8) 9 (4) 10.30 (6.54)

_ E 41 16 (6.1) '17 (3) 10.50 (6.90) o .

february A 25 13 (5.9) 17 (5) 6.72 (5.80) ,

A 21 9.9 (5.9) 13 (4) 10.50 (6.04)

E 41 11 (5.8) 11 (7) 10.60 (5.99)

March A 2F' 9.4 (5.9) 16'.40 (6.77)

A 21 5.2 (5.6) 10.20 (5.83)

E 41 32 (7.3) 62.40 (53.50)

April A 25 19 (6.4) 15.60 (6.50) -

, A 21 13 (6.0) 8.00 (5.60)

• E 41 21 (6.5) 15.70 (7.20) ,

May A 25 17 (6.3) <5.13 8 30 (6.40) ,

A 21 7.1 (5.7)

E 41 12 (5.9) 9.89 (6.52)

', June A 25 10 (5.8) 6.94 (6.54) ,

A 21 15 (6.1) 6.62 (6.42)-

E 41 16 (6.2) 11.80 (7.07) ,

. s .

l July

• A 25 11 (5.8) 12.10 (6.14)

A 21 12 (5.9) -

12.00 (6.36) ,

E 41 6.7 (5.6) 9.47 (6.32). . .

L August

• A 25 11 (5.8) . 5.65 (6.63) l A 21 11 (5.9) 6.80 (7.05) l E 41 8.4 (5.6) 8.52 (6.85) l.

I- September A 25 12 (5.8) 10.10 (6.90)

L A 21 6.0 (5.6) 14.60 (7.44)-

E 41 9.1 (5.'/) <5.25 October A 25 11 (5.8') 7.12 (6.50)

A 21 7.0 (5.6) <5.15 E 41 11 (5.8) 8.62 (6.67)

November A 25 35 (12) 11.00 (7.00)

A 21 11 (5.8) 6.00 (7.00)

E 41 9.6 (5.7) -

l l t December A 25 15 (6.0) 11.70 (6.75) 4 A 21 13 (6.0) . 13.10 (6.79)

E 41 15 (6.0) 13.30 (6.87) f a

~

Table II.G.4 Intralaboratory Crosscheck Results, (pC1/L).

(Replicate Analysis of Same Sample)

Drinktag Water Radio- 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Nuclide A 8 A B A B A B Cs-134 < 2.0 < 2.2 < l.6 < l.2 5 3.0 52.7' < l.8 < l.9 Cs-137 < 2.5 5.3 (3.9) 4.7 (2.3) 3.8 (1.7) < 3.6 13 (4.8) 52.7 2.9 (2.8)-

. Zr-95 < 4.7 < 4.9 5 3.6 < 2.6 4 6.9 56.1' 54.3 5 4.5 Mb-95 < l.8 < 2.0 5 1.7 < 1.2 5 2.8 52.7 < l.7 '

5 1.8 Co-58 < 2.0 .. < 2.0 2.3 (1.9) < l .0 <

2.7.- < 2. 5

• 1. 7 < l.3 Mn-54 < 2.0 < 2.2 < l.7 < l.2 3.7 (3.6) - 3.3 (3.2) < l .8 < 2.0 Za-65 < 4.8 < 5.4 18 (5.4) 11 (3.8) < 8.4 < 8.2 < 4.4 < 4. 7 fe-59 < 4.7 < 4.8 4.6 (5.4) < 3.4 < 6.9 13 (8.0) < 4.0 9.1 (6.1)

Co-60 < 2.2 < 2.2

< 1.5 < l .1 <

3.2 < 2.7

• 1.7

• 2.1 Ba-140 < 3.2 < 4.6 < 4.2 < 3.3

• 4.8

• 4.0 < 4.4 < 3.1 ;0 La-140 < 3. 7 < 5.3 < 4.3 < 3.7 <

5.5

• 4.6 < 5.0

• 3.6 Gross Beta 7.7 (2.5)" 6.2 (2.4) 7.5 (2.5) 4.2 (2.4) 9.1 <

(2.6) 7.3 (2.5) 5.5 (2.4) 4.0 (2.4)

H-3 670 (280) 820 (320) < 250 - 230 (260) 250 < 250 640 (320) 800 (320) i *

- Ni1k ,

1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter <

4th Quarter i

A 8 A '

8 A B A 8 Cs-134 < 4.4 < 4.1 < 2.6

• 2.4 <

l.4 < 2.1 < I.6

• 1. 5 -

C3-137 < 5.1 5.9 (4.5) 11 (3.3) 15 (4.5) < l.7 < 2.5~ 1.9 (2.2) -

-<l.7 Ba-140 < 7.1 < 5. 7 < 4.0 < 3.5 < 2.3 43.3 < 2.5 5 2.2 La-140 < 8.1 < 6.5 < 4.6 < 4.0 < 2.6 < 3.8 < 2.9 < 2.5-2 11 - 3 < 230 < 230 . <.220 < 230 990 (350) 870 (340) 640 (320) 800 (320)

• 1.96 o (Due to mmting <. tit is t ics. )

i 1

93 II.H. Sumary and Conclusions l

. Table !!.H.1 sumarizes the 'radittion and environmental radioactivity measurements conducted during 1988.in the environs of the 1

,?

Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station, owned and operated by Public Service Company of Colorado. The values for each sample type may be compared to pre-operational and operational periods for this reactor, as well as to the value,s from other U.S. environmental monitoring programs (e.g., EPA 520). It must be emphasized, however, that the mean values t

I *' ,

. in Table !!.H.1 are only the means of the values greater than MDC, the statistically minimum detectable concentration. The range also'is given f L only for detectable measurements. The mean and range values, the,refore, are not the true means or ranges if any of the values in the sample

• population were less than MDC. The fonnat of Table !!.H.1 is a

• I requirement of the NRC. '

Inspection of Table II.H.1 reveals that there were no individual l ,

' measurements except 1-131 due to release from Denver and/or Boulder hospitals that exceeded the Reporting Level (RL) (see Table !!I.A.3).

The Chernobyl fallout was still observable in several sample types.

For the category of gross beta , concentrations in drinking water, ,

the mean for the Gilcrest well was again significantly greater than for

! the reference supply located in Fort C'ollins. This difference cannot be

.due to reactor affluent activity for the following reasons: .

3

4. None of the t'n dividual fission product or activation product i radionuclides measured were significantly higher in the 1: l 1

L Gilcrest drinking water.

i Tritium concentrations measured at Gilcrest were only slightly b.

statistically greater than those in Fort Collins. Assuming l

l l l.

56  !

I that 311 crest residents consumed only this tap water as their drinking water source, the calculated weighted dose commitment rate to the critical individual (adult) was less than 1.2x10'I mrem / year. This is a neg,ligible dose rate. Tritium is the only significant radionuclide measured in the air or water ef fluent from 'FSY. Since it is far more mobile than any of the 5 specific ' radionuclides, if in the unlikely event that effluent .

, activity were reaching the Gilerest aquifer, elevated tritium .

concentrations would be the first and most sensitive indicator. '

c. The city of Gilerest does not filter and treat its water to the -l same degree as Fort Collins. This has been verified and .i

, evidenced by the fact that the genena , ray spectra of the .

suspended solids from Gilerest water samples show only elevated I i

concentrations of the natural radionuclides. It has been concluded in previous reports that the elevated gross beta ,

s concentrations in Gilcrest water are due to elevated conc'entrations of the naturally occurring'U-238, and Th-232 decay products. The suspended solids are higher in titlerest water samples due to less filtration of the water. .

For the category of tritium in surface water, as has.been the case since reactor operation, elevated concentrations were noted at station A-25, the outlet of the (Goosequill) f arm pond. A-25 is directly in .the principal effluent route and elevated concentrations should be expected,

to correlate with release schedules. Elevated concentrations of tritium i ,

! have never been observed, however, in any human food source in direct or l I I indirect contact with the farm pond water. Downstream surface water concentrations of tritium have occasionally been elevated, but there is l I- -

o

a. . _

95 significant dilution before any human use of this water. During 1988 elevated tritium concentrations were observed downstream on several occasions but the mean values for the first and second half of 1988 were not significantly greater than in upstream surface water. An historical summary of tritium concentration in upstream, downstream and potable surface water for six month periods from 1974 to 1988 is depicted in

- Figure !!.C.1. The potable water concentrations plotted are those for-the Gilcrest city water well.

I-131 was observed again in milk samples from Dairy A-22. Because

~

the reactor did npt release any significant fission products during 1988, the source of the I-131 concentrations in milk could not be reactor ef fluent. It was documented in the 1985 annual report that the source of the I-131 concentrations during that year was not due to the '

reactor but due to nuclear medicine use and release upstream of the reactor. This was an important observation'as I-131 is certainly a critical radionuclide in human dose coinnitment possibilities, a fact of which the ge'neral public is aware. This discovery prompted increased monitoring for I-131. Upstream nuclear medicine releases of I-131 is, l therefore, the only likely source of. the I-131 observed again in milk samples during 1988. Irrigation water samples confirmed this' conclusion.

Cs-137 was also observed in. many' environmental samples due to the Chernobyl fallout.

Table II.H.2 presents an additional surunary of mean values for selected sample types. The sample types and radionuclides were chosen on the basis of their importance in documenting possible radiation dose 4

to humans. Air and surface water would be the predominant environmental

. . . - . . .-. ~ . - .

9 96 transport routes and drinking water and milk would be the ' predominant sources of radiation dose if significant radioactivity release from FSV

, occurred. Table !!.H.2 also allows comparison to the three most recent years of operation. .

, The arithmetic means in Table !!.H.2 were calculated for all sample results. It should be noted that the tabular data presented in the body of this report contain only positive calculated values. Aoy calculated t values less than zero or less than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) are listed as less than the actual MDC for that sample analysis.

However, the actual result in all cases was used in the calculation for p

the arithmetic mean values for the period. Therefore, all val,ues,

~

, negative as well as positive, were included. This procedure is now ponerally accepted and gives a proper estimate of the true mean value. . $

Because of this procedure, however, the values listed in Table !!.H.2  !

cannot be calculated directly from the tabular values in the report. It must be emphasized that while it is true that no sample can contain less

. than zero radioactivity, due to the random nature of radioactive decay, it is statistically possible to obtain sample count rates less than background and hence a negative result. It is equally trve that many sample types do in fact have zero concentr'ations of certain radionuclides. Therefore, to obtain the correct mean value from the distribution of analytical results, all positive results must be . ,

averaged with all negative results. If the negative results were omitted, the resulting arithmetic mean would be falsely biased high.

From log-normal analysis of each data set for each 12 month period. -

I the geometric mean and geometric standard deviations are also presented in Table !!.H.2. The log-normal probability treatment is to plot all -

i

?

,m , , , . , + - s ~,,w.c .y -w -

---

v,,,em

I

)

l data for each sample type over the year on log; probit coordinates. The I samples are ranked by increasing activity concentratton and the cumulative percentage of rankings are plotted on the probit abcissa versus the activity concentration of the log ordinate. The geometric mean value Ig , is determined directly from the 50th percentile point.

, The geometric standard deviation is simply the slope of the line which can be calculated from the ratio between 84'.1 percentile point and the* I 50th percentile. In a normal distribution, the arithmetic stan'dard l deviation .f s an additive parameter to the arithqit. tic mean, i.e. (i+e); ,

1 whereas, in the log-normal distribution the geometric standard deviation, o g, is a multiplicative parameter to the geometric mean . l (i gleg). The area betweeng i multiplied by go andi gdivided by o g i

. should contain 68% of. the frequency values. With the log-nomal '

analysis, no bias- results from u, sing either actual values or less than MDC values in estimating the geometric mean. The geometric mean is  :

i.

identical to the median.

From the values presented in Tables !!.H.1 and II.H.2 and the -

tabular data of the report, the following observations and conclusions may be drawn:

1. Tritium w'as again the only radionuclide that was detected in significant concentrations in any of the effluent pathways that could be attributed to' reactor operation.

Since the tritium is ' f released as trittated water, the dilution by the surrounding ,

. i hydrosphere is great. Although in 1988 a few elevated levels '

of tritiated water could be detected in downstream surface l water samples, the mean values of downstream surface water was

! not statistically greatte than upstream concentrations. The l

i l

4

- - - _ . , , - rr., .,-..s,_-._ , , . , - , , , , ,,,-,_,% ~ . . - , ~ . * , . - _ _ . , _ _ , , _ . - . - . - - . . ---w -

. 1 98  !

l tritium concentrations measured in milk produced by the nearest i

dairy herd were also all less than MDC.

2. Figure !!.C.1 is a plot of tritium measured in surf ace water samples over the period 1974-1988. During the period the l predominant source term is that of fallout deposition. There

. is some delay period in the peaks due to the mean residence time of tritium in the hydrosphere and input from other areas.

I Beginning in 1981, an increase can be observed in the "

downstream locations relative to upstream. This small increase is statistically significant, however, the radiation dose commitment that can be calculated as a result of possible ingestio'n of this as drinking water was found to be negligible as con 9ared to natural background radiation dose rates. Thi's

• was discussed in the 1986 annual report. t I-

3. As in every' previous report, it was again apparent that for  :

s most sample types the variability observed around the mean values was great. This variability is due to counting ,

f statistics and methodological variation, but principally due to ,

true environmental variation (of ten termed sampling error). It must be recognized and accounted for in analysis of any set of environmental data before meaningful conclusions can be drawn. ,

4. The Chernobyl accident fallout has totally obscured what '

i fission product debris has remained in the FSV environs from the October 1980 Chinese atmospheric nuclear weapon test. The

biosphere will contain the Chernobyl fallout, particularly Cs-137, for an equally long period. Nuclear weapon test ,

i

, fallout has since tt.e inception of the project been noted to be k

, , - - we-- ,--,-,a,,-c e,,w-,-,,--,, -,,-,-r-ne,- ,----,..-....-~-,---e ,--~ , , - - - -

99 l

, the p'redominant source term above natural background. It is the variation in fallout deposttion, in addition to the variation in naturally occurring radionuclides, that mandates i the large number of environmental samples ..to detect any possible radioactivity due to reactor effluents. A simple  ;

comparison of pre-operational and' operational values is of '

If ttle value for most sample types because the fallout .~ '

deposition was considerably greater during the pre-operational period. .-

i

5. The prompt and sensitive detection of the Chinese weapon test  :

and Chernobyl fallout in the past assures that the environmental monitoring program is of adequate scope and

• sensitivity to detect any accidental releases from the FSV ** '

reactor operation. It can be concluded from the data collected ,

by the environmental monitoring program that the radiation dose  :

s commitments calculated for the closest inhabitants or other -

parts of the nearby ecosystems due to current reactor effluents -

i are negligible. Natural background radiation and the dose ,

commitment from atmospheric fallout are the only known ,

, significant sources of radiation dose to the residents of the '

area.  ;

1

• 5 e

i l .

?, .

)

. . - - , -nw,-- - - - - -- - .

.--1 , _

-Table II.H.1~ Environmenital Radiological Monitorin6 Program Annual Summary Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Facility, Flatteville, Colorado Medium or Pathway Type and . Facility Adjacent Locations with Highest Reference haber of Samples (Unit of Total Number Incation .imcationg gnnualMean Incation Montoutine Mean (f)g me surement) of Analysis Mean (f) .

Mean (f)g Reported Performed range range Distance & Range Range Measurements Direction Cirect Radiation TLD (163) 0.37 (72/72) 0.36 (72/72) F-1-Cate 0.41 (4/4) 0.33 (19/19) 0 (mR/ day) (0.20-0.46) (0. 23-.0.47) to (0.35-0.44) (0.27-0.42)

Coosequill 1.3 km 20*

Air. Cross 8 (360) 27 (206/206) F-7-Fara .28 (52/52) 24 (154/154) ~0 Particulates 3

(8.2-67) CR21 & CR34 l (12-67) (8.8-68)  ;

(fC1/m ) 1.5 km 145*

• Camma Spectrometry

• f Cs-134 (28) 2.1 (1/16) F-9-Fara 2.1 (1/4) <10 0 CR19% & CR34 ,

1.5 km 185* -

Cs-137 (28) 2.8 (4/16) A-19 Hunting 4.0 (1/4) 8.3 (2/12) 0 (0.73-4.4) Cabin (0.55-16)

Coosequill 1:7 km 5*

Air. Charcoal 3

1-131 (361) 23.8 (8/206) F-9-Fare 27 (1/50) 27.5 (2/155) 0 (pCE/m ) (12-33) CR19% & CR34 (27-28) 1.5 km 185*

H-3 (356) A-19-Hunting Air, Atmospheric 790 (124/203) 970 (46/52) 560 (59/153) 0 Water Vapor (280-2900) Cabin. (280-2900) (220-1100)

(pCi/m s) Coosequi11 1.7 km 5*

~

Mean and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction (f) of detectable measurements at spectiled loc.ations is indicated in parentheses.

, . ,, _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . - .. __ . . _ _ . . _ . . . _ . ~_

l Table II.H.I' Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary .

Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Facility, Platteville, Colorado .

Medium or Pathway Type and Facility Adjacent Imcations with Highest Re ference .Numi,e r o f -i Samples (Unit of Total Number Iscation Imcation gnnualMean- Iscatinn Nonrout i n.- I measurement) of Analysis Mean (f)g Mean (f)g ,

Mean (f)g Reported ,.

Performed range range Distance 6 Mange Range Measurements t Dikection l 1 .

4 i

Drinking Water Cross 8 (52) 6.8 (26/26) R-s C11 crest 6.8 (26/26) 1.1 (26/26) 0 4 (pci/L) (4.3-9.4) City Water (4.3-9.4) (8.46-1.8) i 9.] km 60*

j 11-3 ($2) 561.8 (17/26) R-6 561.8'(17/26) 459 (10/26) 0 (230-960) Cith,Cilcrest Water (230-960) (240 660) 9.1 km 60*

I Camma Spectrometry 1-131 ($2) 0.49 (1/26) R-6, C11 crest 0.49 (1/26) 0.46 (3/26) 0 City Water (0.44-0.47) 9.3 km 60*

Cs-134 (52) <3.6 R-3 Ft. Collins ,1.8 (1/26) 1.8 (1/26) O City Water 45 km 330*

Cs-137 (52) 3.9 (8/26) R-6, Gilcrest 3.9 (8/26) 3.3 (8/26) 0 (2.2-6.6) City Unter (2.2-6.6) (0.99 4.9) 9.3 km 60*

Zr-95 (52) 2.6 (1/26) R-6, Cllerest 2.6 (1/26) 2.1 (1/26) 0 City Water 9.3 km 60*

i Nb-95 (52) 3.2 (3/26) R-6, Cilcrest 3.2 (3/26) 1.2 (1/26) 0 (2.6-3.8) City Water (2.6-3.8) 9.3 km 60*

He a t i ..id range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction (f) of detectable measurements at specified locations as isodicated isi parentlieses.

I

• l t _ __

~

d

~

Table II.H.1 Envirorumental Radiological Monitoring Frogram Annual Sesamery [

Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Facility, Flatteville, Colorado

• Medium or Pathway Type and Facility Adjacent locations with Highest Reference Mumber of Samples (Unit of Total Mumber incation Incation *" * " " "*

measurement) . Mean (f)g Mean (f)$

Mab""" Mean (fib of Analysis Mean (f)E Reported Perfoined range range Distance 4 Range Range Measurements Direction .

Crinking Water- Co-58 (52) <3.2 R-3 Ft. Collins 2.3 (1/26) 2.3 (1/26) 0 (pCi/L) City Water

• 45 km 330* .

Mn-54 (52) 3.1 (2/26) R-6 Cilcrest 3.1 (2/26) ' 1.7 (4/26) 0

,. (2.4-3.7) City Water (2.4-3.7) (1.0 2.5)

. 9.3 km 60*

Zre-65 (52) 6.2 (3/26) R-6 Gilcrest 62 (3/26) 5.3'(2/26) 0 (5.5-7.4) City Water (5.5-7.4) (3.7-6.9) -

9.3 km 60* 2 Fe-59 (52) 6.1 (2/26) R-3 Ft. Collins 6.3 (4/26) 6.3 (4/26) 0 (5.7-6.1) -

City Water (4.6-7.5) (4,6-7.5) 45 km 330*

'Co-60 (52) 2.2 (5/26) R-6 C11 crest 2.2 (5/26) <3.0 0 (1.4-3.3) City Water (1.4-3.3) 9.3 km 60*

Ba-140 ($2) 5.2.(3/26) R-6 Cilcrest 5.2 (3/26) <6.5 0 I

(3.9-6.0) ~

City Water (3.9-6.0) 9.3 km 60*

~

12-140 (52) 6.0 (3/26) . R-6 C11 crest 6.0 (3/26) <7.5 0 (4.5-7.0) City Water -

(4.5-7.0) J 9.3 km 60*

Nean and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction (f) of detectable measurements at specified locatiosia, 1.

j indicated isi paresitheses. -

I

. . . . . - .~ .

-t; Table II.H.1 Environssental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Suannary Fort St. Vrain Muclear Generating Facility, Platteville, Colorado t Medium or Pathway Type and Facility Adjacent locations with Highest Re fe rence hator of Samples (Unit of Total Number -Locationg locat' ion gnnualMean location flontoutine messurement) of Analysis Mean (f) Mean (f)g kan (f)g stepart e.t l'e r formed range -

range Distance & Range Range Measurements Direction a

, Surface Water 18 - 3 ( 6 0 ) 13166 (29136) A-2$ Coosequill 31000 (12/12) 649 (13/24) 0 (pC1/L) (340-54000) 2.2 km 20* (12000-54000) (260-1900)

Ca=== Spectrometry Cs-134 (64) 3.3 (4/36) It-10 S. Platte . 3.5 (2/12) <4.1 0 (2.2-4.4) at CO 60 *-(2.6-4.4) 10 km 290*

Cs-137 (60) 3.7 (18/36) R-10 S. Platte 4.5 (7/12) 2.7 (5/24) O -

(1.6-7.5) at co 60 (1.6-I.3) (0.92-3.6) 8 10 km 290*

Zr-95 (60) ~5.5 (1/36) - F-19 S. Platte 5.6 (2/12) 5.6 (2/24) 0 1.2 km 90* (3.7-7.4) (3. 7- 7.4)

Nb-95 (60) 1.5 (2/36) A-21 St. Vrain 3.8 (1/12) 3.8 (1/24) 0 (1.3-1.6)

, Bridge 2.4 km 8

220*

i Co-58 (60) 2.7 (2/36) A-25 Coosequill 2.9 (1/12) <3.8 0 (2.4-2.9) 2.2 km 20*

Mn-54 (60) 2.6 (4/36) F-20 St. Vrain 3.4 (2/12) <4.0 6 (1.3-4.3) 1.5 km 345* (2.6-4.3)

Zn-65 (60) 7.3 (4/36) F-20 St. Vrain 8.9 (2/12) 5.5 (2/24) 0 (5.1-12.0) 1.5 km 345* (5.8-12.0) (4.2-6.8) hinan and range based upon detectable measurennents only. Fraction (f) of detectable measurements at specilled locations is indicated in parentlieses.

. . . . . . .~ - .. .. . - - c. .,

/_

Table II.H.1 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Facility, Plattoville, Colorado- -

-Meatum or Pathway Type and Facility . Adj acent incations with Highest: Reference . Number of Samples (Unit of Total Number tocaticr imcation Mean (f)g - Mean (f)g gnnual Mean Location mersurement) of Analysis  ; Mean (f)g. Mentoutina Reported Performed range range Distance & Range Range Measurements-Direction Surface Water Camma Spectrometry (pCi/L) Fe-59 (60) 5.2 (2/36) R-10 5. Platte 7.0 (1/12) 6.6 (3/24) O.

(3.3-7.0) at CO 60 (3.7-9.1) 10 km 290*

Co-60 (60) -

3.1 (1/36) A-25 Goosequill 3.1 (1/12) <9.0 0 2.2 km 20*

Ba-140 (60) <7 5 -- --

<6.5 0 8e La-140 (60) <8.7 -- --

<7. 5 - 0 Ground Water H-3 <220 340 (1/4) 0 (PCi/L)

Camma Seeetrosetrv t

i Cs-134 (8) <3.6 --- ---

<2.5 0 Cs-137 (8) 8.8 (3/4) F-16 3 Bar 8.8 (3/4) 3.9 (4/4) 0 j

(4.4-11.0) Ranch (4.4-11.0) (1.8-5.9) -

1.2 km 0*

Zr-95 (8) <8.3 --- ---

<5.6 0 No-95 (8) <3 . 8 --- ---

<2 . 3 . O hiean sud range based upon detectable measurements only. ~

Fraction (f) of detectable measurements at specified locations 1.

Indicated in parentheses. -

i W *i- s -

T- te . 9 -=* 6 h_--__e_we-_ mum _a ___ %__________._-_a_=__ . _ _ . . _ , . _ _ .

~. _

a  :

Table II.H.1 Envirorumental Radiological Monitoring Frogram Annual Summary 4

Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Facility, Platteville, Colorado Medium or Pathway Type and Facility- Adj acent incations with Highest Reference Mumber of Samples (Unit of Total Number Iscation Imcatin mencurement) of Analysis Mean (f)g Mean (f)g ,,A" me Mean (fib Mean (f)$ Reported l Performed range range Distance & Range Range Measurements-Direction

~

, Ground Water Camma Spectrometry

, (PCi/L) l co-58 (8) <3.5- --- --- -

<2.4 0 Mn-54 (8) 3.1 (2/4) F-16 3 Ear 3.1 (2/4) 2.1 (1/4) 0

] (3.1-3.1) Ranch (3.1-3.1) 1.2 km 0*

Zn-65 (8) 12.0 (2/4) F-16 3 Bar 12.0 (2/4) <6.4 0 (12.0-12.0) . Ranch (12.0-12.0) .

1.2 km O' -

. Sl Fe-59 (8) 5 3 (3/4) F-16 3 Bar 5.3 (3/4) 5.4 (2/4) 0 j

(5.2-5.6) kanch (5.2-5.6) (5.4-5.4)

. 1.2 km O*

Co.60 (8) <3.7 --- .- ---

5.4 (2/4) 0 (5.4-5.4)

Ba-140 (8) 6.5 (2/4) F-16 3 Ear 6.5 (2/4) <4.4 0 (6.5-6.5) Ranch (6.5 6.5) 1.2 km 0* -

La-140 (8) 7.5 (2/4) F-16 3 Bar 7.5 (2/4) <6.3 0 (7.5-7.5) Ranch (7.5-7.5) 1.2 km 0*

hteen and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction (f) of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses. ,

e e

4

_ , . . , - . a ~ v m

, Table II.H.1 Esivirosamental Radiological Monitoring Frogram Annual Stemmary

, Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Cenerating Facility Platteville, Colorado -

Medium or Fatlaeay Type and Facility Adjacent incations with Highest Re ference haber of Samples (Unit of Total Nussber incatio4 Incatfor gnnualNeon Imcation Nontoutine

, mensurement) of Analysis Mean (f)g Mean (f)g Mean (f)g Reported Ferformed range range Distance & Range Range Measurements Direction Sediment F--- Spectrometry

, (pci/kg. dry) -

Cs-134 (2) 18 (2/2) . R-10 S. Platte 18 (2/2) ---

0 '

(16-21) at CO 60 (16-21)  ;

l 10 km 290* 7 i

Cs:137 (2) 140 (2/2) R-10 S. Platte 140 (2/2) --- -

0 (130-150) at CO 60 (130 150) 10 km 290*

G m

Milk H-3 (111) 500 (19/95) A-23 Imroy 600 (4/17) 360 (4/16) 0 (pci/L) (270 870) odenbaugh Dairy (500-740) (290-480) 4.1 km 83-j Gamma Spectrometry I-131 (114) 0.77 (7/98) A-22 Percy 0.98 (4/13) <0 39. 0 (0.41-1.7) odenbaugh Dairy (0.64-1.1) 5 km 90*

Cs-134 (114) 3.4 (6/98) A-26 L & F 4.0 (3/17) 2.9 (2/16) 0 (1.9-6.5) Dairy (2.5-6.5) (1.8-4.0)  ;

! 8 km 240*

Cs-137 (114) 5.5 (34/98) .

A-26 L & F 7.1 (10/17) 5.6 (7/16) 0 i

(1.9-17) Dairy (1.9-17) (2.5-9.2 )

8 km 240*

Necn and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction ~(f) of detectable measurements at specified locations i :.

innlicated in parentheses. -

I, y  % 4 *-i -

y' y- +-m

• 4- grv v-e--- v - v e- e e a-- - . e-

• w e w .w -

e- ---e---er-+

. . - . - . . . .. i. . -- .

l.

-(

, . .3.

2 Tablo II.H.1 Environmental Radiological Monitoring' Program Annesal Summary Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Facility, Platteville, Colorado Medium or Pathway Type and Facility Adjacent Iscations with Highest Re fe rence phember of' Samples (thilt of Total Number locati locati nnual Mean Imcation 'Nontoutine seesurement) of Analysis Mean (f) Mean (f) Mean (f)g Reported Performed range range Distance & Range Range Messescements Direction  ;

Milk Csama Spectrometry *

(pC1/L)

Ba-140 (114) 4.8 (10/98) A-6 Hendrickson 5.6 (3/17) 9.7 (1/16) 0 (3.1-8.1) Dairy (4.2-8.1) 6 km 112* ,

La-140 (114) 5.6 (10/98) A-6 Hendrickson 6.4 (3/17) 11.0 (1/16) O (3.6-9.3) Dairy .

(4.9-9.3) ,

6 km 112* l ,

s, I, c

Food Products Camma Spectrometry -

(pC1/kg, wet)  !

j I-131 (10) 9.1 (1/10) A-30 19440 9.1 (1/1) ---

0 i CR 25%

. 6.3 km 52*

Cs-134 (10) 11 (2/10) A-31 19801 14 (1/1) --- O .

(8.3-14) -

CR 25%

6.5 km 52* . I Cs-137 (10) 10 (3/10) A-30 19440 10 (1/1) - --- 0 (5.1-16) CR -258s , .

6.3 km 52* -' .

%lern anxi range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction (f) of detectable measurements $t specified locations is" indicated in parentheses. -

~

y--  % <mg sin 9 7 4

q.  % y g % e- -

w a v w. w-w e 4 e www -* - e

' Table II.H.1 Environmental Radiological Monitortrg Fregram Annesal Summery Fort St. Vrain Ihsclear Generating Facility. Platteville Colorado Medium or Fathway Type and Facility Adjacent Imcations with Highest Re ference Number of Samples (Unit of Total Number Iscatioe Imcatiog annual Mean gg Imcatiog Nantestine me surement) of Analysis Mean (f)g Mean.(f) Mean (f) Reported Performed range range Distance & Range Range Measurements Direction .

Fish Camma Spectrometry (pCi/kg, wet)

Cs-134 (6) <17 --- ---

<15 0 Cs-137 (6) 18 (2/4) R-10 S. Platte 22 (1/2) <18 0 3

(14-22) at CD 60 10 km 290*

~

Co-58 (6) <17 --- --- <17 0 i -

Mn-54 (6) <17 -

<15 0 .g Zn-65 (6) . .

<43 --- ---

<41 0 I Fe-59 (6) <35 - --- ---

<24 0 Co-60 (6) <18 --- ---

<16 0 1

%eean .and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction (f) of detectable measurements at specified locations is l indicated in parentheses.

~

l .

i l

1 -

I .

~

l.

f

+h- . _ _- -

.; . x... ... . - . - . . . . .

g

7 - -

~ ~

, .u.

• 1 I Table II.H.2 Summary Tab. Oof Geometric.Means, Geometric Standard Deviations and. ~

Arithmetic' F Jans for Selected' Sample *1ypas.

l -

i 1985 1986 . .. -1987 21988 29 og y 1

'I

% f Xg g Y 9

o g-- . .X l . t Atmospheric Water vapor (pci/L)

!- ~

H-3 ~

Facility 200 1.0 <250 220 2.1 <240- 190 2.2 <230 .400 2.6 470 Reference 190 1.1 <250 100 2.4 <240 190 1.9 <230 250 2.7 172 Air (fCi/m3)  ;

Gross Beta

-h Facility 28 29 27 1.0 2.0 44 24 1.5 26 25 1.4 27 Reference 25 1.0 27 31 2.0 51 24 1.4 25 23 1.4 24 I-131 Facility 11 1.1 <43 18 2.5 14 12 2.9 1.1 ~ 10 5.5 1.9 'I Reference 13 1.1 <36 16 5.5 19 12 2.9 ' 1. 2 10 5.8 <4.5 l l

Cs-137 '

Facility 1.7 1.3 <4.4 2.5 3.3 4.1 1.3 2.6 0.33 1.6 1.9 0.73 Reference 2.1 2.1 <4.4 2.0 4.7 4.5 1.1 2.6 0.44 1.4 5.8. 1.0 "

I h 5

> ~ -

- - _ . - - _ , . . .,,.....w%,_ -

- . ~ . - _

, - . ; . .--m=~ m. m .-

n=y=g

.m  : -

._ . , -- - ~

x

~ ~ 7-,.__:,.

.w- :p

^

-5

%- ~

~

n: _

7,

~0 e

9 Table II.H.2 Summary Table of-Geometric Means, Geometric Standard Deviations and Arithmetic Means for Selected Sample; Types.

i

'1985 . 1986- 1987 -1988 29 of. Y Rg og Y . Yg o g_ x x, o g .. ~1-

, . Drinking Water '(pC1/L) . . _ .

2 H-3 Gilcrest 190 1.1 160 130 2.9 <240 150 12.e~ 75 310- 3.1 370.

Ft. Collins 180 1. 0 - <250 '210 1.4 ,

<240- 210 .1.7 <230 260 - 2.0 . 120-Gross Beta Gilcrest 4.8 1.0 5.2 3.8 1.4 4.0 4.7 1.5 5.1 6.7 1.3 6.8 ~

Ft. Collins 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.6 0.7' 1.5 .79 - 1.0 1.4 1.1 C

o

~

. I-131 -

Gilcrest 0.2 1.3 0.004 0.2 2. 4' , 0.14 0.2 2.1 .052 0.17 2.0 0.09'9 l Ft. Collins 0.2 1.0 0.077 0.2 .1.7 <0.49 0.2 3.5 .071 0.18 2.$ 0.083' .

+ i Cs-137 i Gilerest 1.8 1.1 1.5 2.6 . 2 .1 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.9 1.7 Ft. Collins 1.4 1.1 1.7 2.0 3.3 1.3. 1.9 3.1 1.1 1.7- 2.1 1.4 e

r 8

• p l

\

l i -

l .

I .

n -- . - , . -

y ..e. ,

e.. : ,y-- .n m. .. ,

-- . . ~ -- ..  ; .,.:= .

3

..---.....~7 .. . . . . . . . . . . . -

jf

, . p

.. t -

Teble II.H.2 Summary Table of Geometric Means, Geometric Standard Deviations'and:

Arithmetic Means for Selected Sample Types. 7' 1985 1986- 1987 .1988

• i K a 1 E- a K K a K K a K i 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 i Surface Water (pci/L)

H-3 -

) Effluent 1300 1.3 2700 7800 4.3 15000 4200 3.5 7700 30000 1.6 31000

! Downstream 340 1.8 220 180 3.3 72 170 2.3 21 370 2.3 430 l Upstream 140 2.0 <250 '230 1.4 <240 160 2.3 <230 300 2.7 430

) cs-137 ~

f

Effluent 2. 2 - 1.2 1.4 2.8 1.6 2.8 1.5 4.5 1.7 .2.5 1.4 1.9

! Downstream 2.2 1.1 2.1 1.8 2.5 1.7 2.2 2.7 0.01 2.4 2.9 2.5*

! Upstream 1.9 1.3 1.3 1. 9 - 3.1 1.5 2.3 3.0 0.32 1.7 2.6 1.4 ~

4 I

~

l Milk (pC1/L) ,

i H-3 l Adjacent 170 1.1 <250 190 1.8 <240 200 1.6 <230 230 2.1 70 Reference 190 1.1 <250 140 3.6 <240 160 2.5 <230 180 2.8 <220 I-131 -

Adjacent 0.22 1.0 0.02 0.46 12 3.9 0.22 3.1 0.15 0.20 2.8 0.046 l Reference 0.21 1.1 0.47 0.68 5.9- 3.8 0.14 5.2 0.02 0.17 2.1 <0.17 f

I Cs-137 -

Adjacent 2.1 1.0 1.7 '5.8 3.4- 11 3.1 2.3 3.2 2.0' 3.4 2.7 Reference 1.9 1.2 1.6. 7. 6- 4.2 13 2.7 3.2 3.6 2.4 -3.5 3.3 e

y m,..e ,.W' ~ y v

U 112

'1 l

III. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program I

'A. Sample Collection and Analysis Schedule ,

Table !!!.A.1~ outlines the sampling design, the collection frequency and. the type 'of analysis for all environmental samples. It should be repeated that' this schedule was only adopted January 1.,1984, ,

and while different in certain aspects from the previous schedule, has

. as its intent the same objective. That objective is to document the -

radiation and radioactivity levels in the critical pathways of dose to humans. Such data is necessary to prove that reactor radioactivity effluents produce environmental concentrations that are within 3

appropriate environmental protection limits and at the same time are as low as reasonably achievable. ,

j..

During 1988, there were no changes in the sampling program. As ' -

noted in 11.0. A-22 dairy temporarily suspended the supply of milk

- samples. The control dairy, R-8, went out of business in December and a new ' location was found starting in January of 1989.

Table III.B.1 gives the description of each sampling location by i number, sector and distance from the reactor. These descriptions were  !

l expanded somewhat in this report. Each of these sampling locations-

[ (except certain ' reference locations) can be identified on scale maps (Figures III.B.1 and III.B.2). Topographical maps showing greater .

detail, as well as photographs of principal sampling sites are on file t

I in the CSU laboratory. '

During June of 1988 the land-use census was conducted to determine the locations of the nearest residence, the nearest milk animal, and the

'I nearest garden producing broad leaf vegetation in each of the 16 meteorological sectors around the reactor.

These locations by address

- E ,- - + . . . - . - ~ ,v.. ,,,., , ,.- , , , . , , , , _ _ _ _ _ ,

(

bk- m

.113 '

J

, are shown in Table III.C.1. _ Figure III.C.1 shows these locations in

' ~

L, '

, each sector. At' the time of the 1988 census it was verified that the p ' closest, permanent residence in Sector 16 (17250 CR 191/2) was the critical receptor with regar.ds to mean annual dose commitment. .However, that residence was abandoned early in the fall. 'The closest resident now is'at the Russell farm F-16.

• A few residents in the sampling sectors .up to a. distance of 8 km '

from the plant have cows or goats' that could be used for personal milk

. q consumption. However, from direct discussion with these persons, this-

- is not a co'unon practice' and most milk produced is transported to commercial processors. The milk produced locally is diluted by a large,

. milk shed, processed and distributed over a large area for consumption.-

Table III.A.2 lists the LLD concentration values for each sample type and radionuclide measured in this report. These LLO values are the 1 actual 7 values pertinent to the sample sizes, counting yields, and s

counting times used.in the project.- Typical decay periods wer,e used in

- the calculations. It should be noted that the LLO values are in all' -

I cases equal to or less than those required by the technical- i specifications.

Table III.A.3 lists the USNRC reporting level for each sample type-  !

and radionuclide.

'h

.4, a

l t

e k

w - - , ,,,an-,- .w-- - - . - - --

r. .- ..... ..: . = . - .. . - . . . . . , _ . _ . ,

=: f,

.n

[ ;-

.g l

l I

y.

i

[

Table Ill.A.1 Operational Radiological Environsiental Monitoring Program -

t .

fpposere Pathway llumber of Samples Sampling Type end frequency esel/or semple mead tocations Collection f rqagesency ~ er Asselysis t :t i

Alft900 % ,

Ii Irltlegs oxide Searles free seven locatipass Continur,ess seapter operetten Redfelodisse Centster:

Geellgledine and vltit semple collectlen woolely - Asselyze weekly for 4-13 8 ' 'l Porteoulates four semples from off-site locetlene er as reagestred by eenset feeding, llageste seintillet ten lin different sosters) of time higleost wielchever is more frostuont.. coesnting for tritteen en calculated easiesel everage ground water veper omtrected level 9/4 esed airborne M/4. Free silice get en sects .

, semple cellected. ' i one semple free the vicinity of a ;

comenenity havleeg ties higliest calcolated - Perticulate seepler:

ennuel everage ground level S/4. Crose bote redleect8vity Following F80ter choeeye, 'i Iwo semples free control lecetlen compeelte by lecetlesel 15 to 30 kilometers (to to 2e miles) for geese agenerterly. yetopic 't distent esed la ties least prevalent wind directlen.

asifttCI nAnI Allest forty stettens with two er more Ebeserterly exposere. Comme asese aguerterty. 'u-b asosleeters or ese ene t ressent ter ,

measuring ensi recordiseg dose rete continesseesly to be placed as follows:

Il est leaner ring of stations la time generei eroe of ties elte beesadery esed on eester ring les stee 4B, to 5 ma le resage fsector rom flee site with a statlen in secle*

of each riseg (16 sectore x 2 risogs = 32 statloses). IIee betence of

. tsee stet tens, eight, shall be placed in special laterest erees sescle en populatlen centers, nearby residences, scheels, and la two or three areas

.to serve es centrol stations.

Walt n800llt

~

su rece One semple upstrese, escop strees, one ~

semples cellected aanthly, comme laetopse enssyssa.

end tritiese monthly.

soople downstreme.

Sierrace esse semple in lamedlete eres of site semple *ever este Gemme f eetep8e sees tys 8 s

( f e e n Posed) d i sclea rge. perled. Ilse weekly and composite ter tritium compeeltes wf l 8 he combtsted mesothly.

for the monthly semple.

a i r g e n s a tin e s ac t i v i t y i n a i r er wa t e r i s g rea te r tieen ten t imes ties yea r ly seen of cesst re l seahte for esey mediese, gemme Isoteric analysis steould be pertermed on ties leedivideas t semples.

e S

a _ , . . - . . _ -- --- ,.. -i .m... _.-_4 .m ...- -.mm-_ _ . _ . - . - - . .

' *- - # 4-,

. g " ., % ' '

~

s .. -

' Table III.A.1 Operational Radiological Envirorument Monitoring *rograal V i

TAall: a.z-1 ,

OfERATIGEAL AADIOLOGICAL ENVIADMEEIAL IWim.850RilIG PAeg Wi "

g .

4 Exposeere Pathway llumber of Seeples

• l Seepting Type end fregemency eted/or Seaple and Lacettens Collectice.fr M .ef Analysis i

1. Crosand Searles free two seesrces most Ilhely esserterly comme lootepic and i j to be errected. t ri tiese. ,

d Drinking One semple free the nearest water alto semple over tese Ceeposite ter tritteen, a

snapply estoich consid he 'ef fected by perled. grese bete, esed gemme

< facility's discleerge. laeteple emelyses every -

two woolas.

4 ene sample free a centrol lecellen.

i Sediment free esse semple free downstream area with . Seel-es:neselly Gemme Isotopic eseelyses Sleereisno exIatlag ar potentieI recroetBeneI seal-ensense I ty.

! we lese.

IIGCE SI 8000 sta lk Searles free oliking enleets la all Seel-mentiety tsleon entests Caese laetepic esed 8-131 locations, esp to a tetet of three are en postore, monthly at enelysis seel-mentiety lecetteiss, within 5 tillemotors. ether times. tsleen enleels are ese "

i posture; monthly at *-*

One semple free allhing onlasts in

• etteer . t lees.  !

each of thsee areas between 5 to e ~

!.' hilometers distent leavin -

highest dose potential. g,the u '

i one semple free milking enleets et e Seel-mentiety tdeen enteels Comes isotopic and B-135 centrol location (15'te 38 kilometers) are en posteere, monthly at emelysis seel-seestfaly distent esed in time feest prevalent etteer slees, winen enleele are ese -

wised directlen). posteere; eenthly at ,

etiser klees.

l Aqasetic Blote Sample fisle la vicinity of discinerge Seaple seal-ensenselly. Comme f eetepic aseelyses.

! peint, espstrsee and doesastrees.

i lood I's odiac t s Orte semple or each principal class er At time of leervest. Comme isotopic esselyses.

l reed predeacts free assy area which is .

! Irrigated by water in wielch ligesid .

! plant westes leave been discharges. .

l i

l l

e b

j liso dose shall be calculated for the mexlease ergen esed age greesp eselseg Alge. eetfeedology contained Ih Regesletory liaside 9.109 esed i o,., a c i... I ...see ers 1.ortice.wr to the sis..

l I

_f-i_ + _ , e - -

, 3 , y ..- , ,- y n- .

~

2

' ~

- .y 1 +. ,

l- .,

3 -

L '

4: TableIII.A.2L-DetectionCapabilitiesforEnvironmentalSampfe' Analysis ,

n ji e

.t 8[

i L'ower Limit of Detection (LLD)* ;i .,

~

~l Analysis llater Airborne Particulate - Fish Milk . Food Products Sediment

4 (pCl/L) or Gas (fCl/m 3 ) (pCl/kg,. wet) (pCl/L) (pCf /kg. . wet) (pCl/kg. dry) 4 i -

I Gross Beta 3.06 3.25 ~

li- 3 494 j 1-131 0.89 66.4 0.89- 56.8

!, Cs-134 5.58 8.06 19.5 4.98 .44.4 . 90.6 1 Cs-lU 6.60 7.86 18.5 6.14 44.6 100 Zr-95 10.12 E-95 4.12

!i Co-58 4.60- . 12.8 .

! lin-54 4.68 ,

12.7  %-

! In-65 10.94 .23.6 l: Fe-59 -8.40 31.4 .

i Co-60 4.40 . 14.5 Ba-140 6.66 8.00 -

1 La-140 7.66 9.16

!

• As suggested in NUREG-0472. All values are at or below values ilsted in Table 8.2-2 of technical specifications.

.- i; 1

k

.s.

3.. - . . . ~.. . , . . .. - .

.e+ n ... t: , s Nh;[ i.f s;f 3:'

. .r , t  ;

?;s,pj.;,lo... , . ,

_.fy .

e,h.,,1 -

, ,'['f:h , . .

, , .(;

• s i.

57 .

~.

,c-

+

, o,p - A,%

.:.n:

4

• 3

-j l j 7 +. 3 s

.g es sa. , N se ' m i

• 2* .

, < g. - .

X i

s M*.X .r g

^

y **

• N

.i

% .* .e k:-

<,~ .d

.c

, fb .,, one -  !

i, .t- , ,

. '!' r , ;.-(.. S --

w .

n' l.

s.

'l f 1,

. + -

I ,

n N

. m.

en n e O O w a%' -@ - r= a a e == w 1:'-  % eQ K A..

- e 3 .m. m es b 5

4. -1

g.' s= a g

sa. .

g. .

w W .

a

[ g' A

'M O

E. O . E o O 9 O.

M n

@ =

. . . O. . .O i i*i.

i

. .e. g

• e en w M .x M M M M M. ==

E  % A

• M a M* N = N s=

i.

-- - r I. &

a q

l i eg a

'L. E

>+ tm .

l? L

[4

. gi e .

[ w e

'. @- $ $ g l.

.E

- e.m

.e 1, a 8 ,

F.- , 3- g .

e -

-  ! F ,

.. c 2r - -

I- 1

~. .

R -3.r. ' .

--a

. 6

m. es % e e

l- **

i 0-o -

Sk - -

e

~

ll W

s

.g -

d .

4 a i 6 .=

t

==

.e. .

y 3 m N n N N N O N ,

'E k *' O 9 O O S N m @  ;

os e# ==

. . . . . C. .S gg M X X X X X X X

. N - - - - - - N 4

'", > t e e g a b .4

- - N Jl3 e * # F* O q h a S e e c = Mm m= =a==

N

==

M c o e e e e a 4 $

e = a s e e

• *

• E 8 0 0 C 4 e e e e E E m O Q N 5 = WWS I 1 OM M 6 4889 m deeggag m a,em om g g g,8N e ****894&#8******e edau d e e I g n p. -w w-+s y -

- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - - -

-- ox- m,m--< vm.

3: - x

- ~

* "=

w g

.u M gp r . .. . :y;@

__ 7

_ h. ' " _. :q ~

TI, e-n.. ,

3,; e, Table III.B.1 ~ Radiological - Environmental Moeittortag~ Prograss (contIneed)[ ' E  %.

. Samp1ing; Site Descriptions ~ '

f{

-(F: Facility: Area'0-1.6 km. A Adjacent Area 1.6-8km. R:l Reference Area) 1,:

_ 10 Exposure Location Description (see map)

Pathway.

Site No. . Sector Distance, W km 7~

Direct ' '

Radtatton F-1 Pole by gate to Coosequ111 road on dirt-extension or

~

-1 1.3-CR 21. -

7 -

F-2 21st pole N or ditch. on dirt extension of CR 21,just. 2 1 '.1.

before road drops down'to river bottom.

F-3 -17th pole N of ditch.on dirt extension of CR 21 or 3 0.7 first pole N of E-W road.

F-4 15th pole N-or. ditch on dirt extension of CR'21, S of. 4 0.7 - -

pump road, midway between F-3 and F-5.-

E ..

F-5 tith pole N of ditch on dirt extension of CR 21, near 5 0.6

, drive to pump house.

F-6 ,8th pole N of ditch en dirt extension of CR 21, 6 0. 8 '.

by E-W concrete ditch, S or . bridge. .

F-7 Old dairy barn, 1st pole N after crossing ditch on 7'. 1.2 dirt extension of CR 21.

F-8 1st pole 14 or puep house on N side of road 0.4 km E' B 1 3.

of CR 194 .

F-9 Pole E or. first shed at intersection of CR- 19% 9 -1.5 and CR 34 F-10 Pole on'NW corner of Intersection of dirt extension '

10 1.5 of CR 19 aiut 34. -

a f e

~,q, - , , m,~. , -y==. . . . , ~ . , . ,y.-

y c , --. - - ~ g 'c.

_..my.3 ,, _ _ _ _ ___m____ ., c . _ .w mm e x m ,c- 3

. .w a . . .. P .,...-.:.., '

'^

+}

_ f:

. ~

t - , g;p g'

. q

--- - u-

.I

n. wl . -

~

Table'III.'B.1 Dadiological Environmental Monitoring Program' (continesed) - -

^

Sampling Site Descripticas ;l}

(F

Facility : Area 0-1.6 km. A: Adjacent Area-1.6-8km. ' R:

X~

s Reference ' Aref)'

Exposure Site No. Location Description (see map)-

Pathway Sector . Distance.. --

1 km Direct .

F-11 Radiation 7th pole N or intersection or dirt extension of CR 19 11- 1.2 with CR 311 F-12 -- 0.5 km S of FSV Visitor Center take dirt road W 12~ 1.0

, across field, go into farmyard of Aristocrat Brangus.

(If. chain across road onter from CR 36). TLD is

~ located on pple ~ at SE corner of corral across from Aristocrat Brangus.orrice.

, F Take first dirt road S or Visitor Center. co u 3 cross 13 0.S~ ~

railroad tracks. follow dirt road to metal staircase U going down off dike. TI,D is taped to railing.

F-54 2nd pole 0.1 km S Intersection CR 36Y, & ad 19. 14 1.5 -

F-15 2nd pole 0.7 km S or intersection of CR 38 on CR- 19. -

15 1.5-F-16 Pole at NE corner of potato cellar at 3 Bar Ranch 1 ' 1.2 (Russell's). .

F-17 Visitor Center. on N end of cross beam over entrance. 13 0.2 F-18 Pole closest to house on SW corner 17250' CR 19Y,. 16 0.8 The address of 17250 is taped to the Mountain Bell j underground cable warning post.

l -

u gv +- = '

9 9

-- ae,i

• -la '# +

W*-

we '" -W

_ _

~; -.; -:w .

, c. - ~ -

, =.. .  :; ~. ; . = = ; -

_ ; A:

.i -

. .. -; 2 ; _ , ;; .:w

'~.27 .

_. ,^

[ .; , '~' ~

H .

~

.ls

~

' Table III.B.'1~ RadiologicallEnvironmental Monitering-Program (continesed)

~

g, Sampling. Site Descriptions'

~

~ ~

2.

~(F: Facility-Area 0-1.6 km. A: Adjacent ' Area 1.6-8ke. R:' Reference' Aced)'

3 .,

~

f Exposure Site No. Locatton Description'(see map). ' Sector Distance, Pathway -

km Direct - -

Haitiation A-1 Pole on NW corner or' intersection or CR 44 and CR~21. 1- -6;7.

A-2 Pole on NE corner intersection of CR 42 and CR 25Y,.. 2 6.8 A-3 Pole on NE corner or' intersection of CR 42 and CO 60. 3 7.5 A-4 1st pole NE or intersection of CR 29 and CR -38, take 4 7.4 CR 29 E out of Gilcrest to CR 38. -

A-5 SE corner or CR 34 and CR 29. Taped to road sign on 5 7.2 . ,_. J

, SW corner or intersection.  : y A-6 Pole on S side of CR.3.2 near drive to dairy 13278.CR 6 7.1

32. ,-

A-7 Niles Miller dairy. 0.4 km E or US 85 on CR 30. TLD -

7. 7.3

.Is located on pole at. NE corner of. house.

A-8 On CO 66 (CH30) race on S side or road '(address 9476) 8- 4.7

• Pole in front of' house.

A-9 Corner of CO 66 (CR 30):and CR 19, Miller produce 9 4.6 stand. Second pole S on CR 19 on .E side or road.

, A-10 Pole on SE corner at intersection CR 26Y,& CR 15. 10 7.8

! . j' A-11 AL. intersection of CO 66 and rRl13, 2nd pole N or . 11_ 7.2 l corner. i

! t l

l

, ~ . . . - ~ . , , -- . n = ,. _

= . - _ , = _ _ _ _ = - .- - . , - - _ _ _ _ _,.._~.w...~ .

m

. 7 . c=- y.

3 g ~g w:- 7. e r a -

w-

' " ^ ~ : .:, - - +

f .:' .' ~- ~.

_,_y ~2__ l ^': '

i's ~y, - - Q .: ;; _

u. ' :

g ,.

,,- _, f 5: . .: 7-qw . gx .

s

' T' ~

-  ? .. -

^j .,

__ w;.

-y - . : 4 :_.

y_.~.

Tabl.e III.B.1 - Radiological' Environmental Monitoring-Program (continued)

Sampilng'S1te Descriptions #

(F: Facility Artsa 0-1.6 km. . A: . Adjacent Area' 1.6-8ke. - R: Reference Ares)'

s ..

! o

." Exposure Site No. Location Description'(see map) SectorL Distance,-

ji Pathway 'ka

s Direct .

Radiation A-12 On CR 34. pole E or house N. or Lake Thoanas 2 km from - 12 7.2'

~

e I-25.

i-A-13 Pole opposite lake, N or: silage pits E' side or CR 13 13 5.8 2.9 km N-or CR 34. . .

A-14 Intersection of CR 13 and CR 110. NW corner. 14 6.9-A ~ Intersection or- CR 42 and CR 15 NW corner. 15' 6.7 .

A Intersection of CR. 44 and CR '19, SW corner. 16 _ 6'. 8 U ..

~ ~

A-17 Platteville school (S edge or-town on Main St.) 6 e 5.9

\ pole on-NW corner just.outside school intramural 4

rield.

• 3 -

A-20 1st pole N of white picket rence and drivewayi 9 ~2.5 , '

into turkey farm on-S end or building that is lt parallel ' with CR 19.

l-i i

I

\

( o e

h 4

t e ,

,,,,w

..m . - .we- , g,,.a ,=,.=- y -- - <

..i-m- - , . . * - . , y- m. __,- __ _____,_______,_________.______,,_,______,__._m -

, + -

..,M

^ ' '

. . u-. ...# . . ..

- c - 4

~

.n

- _ - x

+

Table III.B.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (continmed)"-

Samp11pg Site; Descriptions t

(F: Facility Area 0-1.6 km. A: Adjacent Area 1.6-8km. . R: ' Reference Are~a)

Exposure Site No. Location Description-(see map); . Sector Distance, Pathway km i Direct Radiation R-1 - M111'1 ken School on CR 214 TLD ~ isL located on polei 9.3 :

. which is ' located at SE corner of Lola park,' across -

~

the street from. school.

R-2 10.8' Johnstown School (Letford Elementary), turn lef t'at

,* school crossing'on Idaho St. onto Joy Ave. and proceed

. Lo school. TLD is located on pole at SE corner of main 1

entrance to school on W side of town.

R-3 CSU dairy rare on W Drake,'N of Vet Hospital. Ft. 81 5 . 1 Collins, CO. . Pole is E or hay barn next to 'N~

railroad tracks. .

R-ti Air sampler corner US 287 and CO 66, Longmont Dairy .20.5 Store. TLD is located on pole directly behind air I sampler.

l R-7 Behind G11 crest School quo'nset auditorium, pole 9.3 l on SW end of. school property,'Just before garage.

l 4

• • _w' ( 4 s. +-

,9.., y y p p ar..w.,f. a , ...e c w _ . . ,qwr._ __ _ ,,%.. r .y. ,,e, . ..p.

_-7' '

__ - ._ y.y gr.7..

.~ -r

~~

..I q

~ - . - . . n .. - -

p _ m L .. .

r

, Tabl e . II I . B.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (continued)

Sampling. Site.Descr1ptices; j- (F:' Facility-Area 0-1.6 km. A: Adjacent" Area 1.6-6ke. R: Reference Area) -

T l Exposure Site No. . Location Description (see map). Sector Distance,

! Pathway km Airbcrne F-7 Farm at intersection of. CR 21 and CR 34. . Air 7. 1.5 sampler is located on west side.of, shop. Silica gel inside building on N end of workbench.

F-9 First shed along drive at end of Rd-194 intersection 9 1.5-

- with - Rd 21. - Silica ' gel is' located in shed. -

F-16 Potato cellar at 3 Bar Ranch (Russell's).~ Silica 16 1.2 gel in mailbox.on tree-to S of pump. _

l A-19 Ilonting cabin between Goosequ111 ditch and Platte 1 1.7  :

River. ' Air sampler is on W side of_ cabin, allica gel is'in box on. tree north of air sampler.

i .

R-3 Colorado State University Dalry, W. Drake Rd., Ft. 45.1-

. Collins, CO. W side of: sited directly N of main * '

dairy building. Silica gel'inside mallbox. .

! R-4 Intersection of US 66 and US 287, E side of dairy 20.5 store, north edge of tongeont. Silica gel in j mailbox attached to utility pole.

11 - 1 1 Air sampler is. located in alley behind Johnstown, CO 10.5 PSC office, .13712 Main St., next to garage. . Silica' -

gel is located next to air sampler in mailbox.

e 0

e e

e 9

a

, -.,.-%. .. .-y - m ~s,. . e- . . , , ' E .- ,-%. ~ . , -.u u,,

. .- s

_ . . i.3 . . ... . . . . ..

-e -

.. (.

1 a. ;t"

,  :- ( .

4

' Table III.B.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (continesed)' .

Sampling Site Descriptions a (F: facility' Area 0-1.6 km. .A: Adjacent Area 1.6-8km.. R:'Heference Area') :I

3...

4:

Exposure Site No. Location Description'(see' map) Sector Distance,-

Pathway -

km 4 '

Waterborne .. .

Surface F-19 S. Platte at das locas.O* oss dirt road E.of pump 4 1.2 ,

house.f3 directly E'of reactor. -

F-20 -

St. Vrain creek on Rd. 19% 0.3 km from dischar,ge 1$ ,1.5 -

Into St. Vrain creek. Directly N of reactor. ' ,

A-21 St. Vrain creek at bridge on Rd. 34. E of Rd.19..

11 2.4 A-25 Goosequill Pond outlet. Continuous sampler located 1 2.2' ~ ,

in green box adjacenL to the green shed on-the M end $'

of the-pond. --

R-10 S. Platte river at bridge on CO 60 where highway 10.1 has just turned and headed South. ' -

! Ground F-16 Well behind residence at 3 Bar Ranch (Russell's). I 1.2 l H-5 .

Ehrlich feed lot, flerth side of 00'66 approximately 9.0 l 0.8 km East of WCR 25. Drive north alorg dirt road -t approximately 0.27 km to field water spig,at on West '

side or road.

Drink.ing R-3 CSU dairy W Drake Rd., Ft. Collins, CD, N of 45.1

• Vet Hospital. Water sample is taken from hydrant .

Inside the entrance to the milking parlor.

R-6 C11 crest U.S. Post Office located on Birch St. and - 9.3 Rd.'40 off of Hwy 85. Water t. alum from utility sink ..

~

Inside . Post Of fice.

i 5

e i .

.= . . . - ,- .- - _ - - . -

. . ~ -. . _ . - - - ____ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ = _ . . . _ ~ .

.m . ~_7

g. . ./.-

~ .

s- g. y ~ 4 ;,. w.

m'

, .. my..y

n. ~ :w 3

'n, '

p. 3 - ~ _3 ' ;-; $b

_ , g. . ._ -

~  ?

s Table III.B.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring' Program;(continued)' .

Sampt1ng Site Descriptions Ai Adjacent' Area 1.6-8km.

~

(F: Facility Area 0-1.6 km. R: Reference Are'a) l

.! Exposure Sit,e No. Location Description (see map) Sector Distance, Pathway km .

1 =

' waierborne Sediment R-10 Sediment from S. Platte River at bridge on CO 60.

J 10.1-from Shoreline ,

.?

Ingestion si Milk A-6 Hendrickson Dairy, 13278 Rd. 32 (crand Ave.) 6 7.1 1.6 km E of US 85.

t

A-18 Boos Dairy, 11258 W Rd. 40, w or US 85 behind 2 4.7 modular home. ~

su o.

A-22 Percy Odenbaugh Dairy, S on dirt rd from "Percy 5 3.2 .

Odenbaugh Dairy" sign on Rd 36 E or Rd 23 9 ._

A-23 Leroy.Odenbaugh Dalry, 11733.Rd 36, u or Rd 25. 4 4.1 A-24 Marostica Dalry, 20718 Rd 17, 4 milec S of CO 60. '

16 -

6.9 A-26 L & 'F Dairy (Flechtner), E of Rd 13 on Rd 32. _ -11 7.8 H-8 Arlo Johnston Farm, located off Exit 255 W or I-25 22.5 .

directly N of Johnson's Corner restaurant.

Fish F-19 S. Platte at dam located on dirt Rd E or pump 4 1.1 house #3 dIrectly E or reactor. .

, A-25 Goosequ111 pond outlet. 1 2.2 H-10 S. Platte river at bridge on CO-60. . 10.1

, , . + , . -

. . , , - - . - -.l~,.,- a + . , e - . - , ~ ~ , . - - ,,,e v --

A

< -w & zg

~'

. 2 .c : _:_2. __g

. .. j = _. g.pm _ -

7:7

-~~ . .

1. 1 ,._ -

_ - q yn u.. ra_y

~

4 -

^ d' 7;pg

4 7 . .

x-- ,:

~ ~

Radt'o logical Environmental Monitoring Program.(continued)

~

Table III.B.1 '

Sampling Site Descriptions, y .

~

- ( F: . Facility Area ' 0-1.6 km. - A: Adjacent Area 1.6-8km.

~

R: Reference Aceah,-

T' 4

Exposure Site No. Imcation Description (see map) . Sector Distance,-

km .

rattiway -

r.u ..:

Products A-23 Leroy Odenbaugh_Dalry, 11733 CRl36. W of CR 25 4 4.1 A-28 Conrad Walter Farm, 11470 CR 38, 2 3.6 ,

~

A-29 Gutfelder Farm, 12027 CR 42. 4 :7.0 0

i A-30 Cr 46 & US 85. -4 7.0 -

R-6 Gilcrest Grocery. 9.3

-g l R-10 MW corner of S. Platte &' C0 60. 10.1 ,

l El-13 Richardson Truck Farm. 21210 00 60.. 9.5 f

l s

e b

e b

e tg a , ,m..

,.m~ n ~ .,,,.m..,.. ,w.., , ,

-g,. -

-1 .;

1 i

127 .I

. l i

Figure III.B 1 "

'I

-* l f  %

/

- ,8 l

[s.

' .t 1 J n

y I

- u 4

~

s-v ' ,

j

m. , .

-~

~

q.

1 r

o y _

+

h' N,

=g __

• \

CHC>S;

/ .s ,

\

, \

, ,s, \ ,

s,a CitC>

\

u cgg g r * * \~ f~' \-

a I c * *'*

& \

9 7.. ..f. .

\4 . 3 4 .; .

ai, y

f

/

s i

\, g\

/

\ -

' i j

/ \ ,#

o

\ p,a' @%,b,j, . ,' /

Lp q.w w .__ __ - '

/,

i y -* .-..-., - ,.-r.. . . . . . - - - - - , - , , - - , . , . _.,,~..... -.m. . .-

, 128

. i Figure III.B.2

' ~

]

- E -

6 ,

l A Q M S4. N P_ 4s, /pllM f

. . , l

~

r 1 Y

= ,s m v.s  !

f <*

.

130 1 dc Figure III.C.1 Land Use Census, 1988.

!. t $.

., l 8

,.',. [. ,

'"'N . [ ,'*., ., ,,. , s

}

'l , ~ <

• * ... }.

sA '.  %

_f

.. s .. , ot

- ,';,'y q.~ , .,- . =. . ,e *. >. a., y ,,,, .y' .g'.g.' .r'.

• e.

,.f,v.4;.

. ,f -* , - ./

,,e-= .

. . ,A ., , n' g

, ~a, ,, s,. j

- r -

. -jr . .o.t [ '. y, ; , ,;,.,,,,.,u ,. ...

c ,

• 1el f.,1 :. , .. .

b l' . .l . o.

f . ' -

. s.

e , -

, ...... .. ( . . .X. . , ,v,,.

~ . , .

b g(- .

Q

~

p . .s..t-4- .... ,GN'*.

.. );. O ,

e.

?M,g~g.j t' !

(

g.

. qq ,:\.

p be f.i..g,..'2-l: ,

.g i

'.W:; 'd

^~

' ~

' \ 't 7 s f 'E 1.

,,f. e ;

p'

'  % f7.(.>J($$' )

! 'Y O ,/.

t,

' .)

,1 -

s-s ...< . :., v . N.4 .p:

). /. . t .,t '

. rte <$ ,

a c.)j,: ' yp: >) /

1 i e .

< a.. y i .. .-

.< . -+

. .g. .. ..w.py. .

\ .

I- .,o f/ !

%.;I

^, '

M. d.. y,,.  : .w'P' .,

( y[,e i.:,, -- :4*#,;' .G , .g,..I.

.c . y./ . . , .,

-~

... / ,

. . .. q . .. . . q.~... .

.. u

.u~ - al 4

< e2 %.}. .ar .\ k. . . . ,

', /

f~.%,. %_ ,

?p.: . y.:. .

.. ~ .y . .....

.: W .n..

. h1 . . )"...M.k- 9 .:.; .- .;

a. %- ,4 ...=-1 <

-- :- '.'. ' i J

a.. . t.

.p

.i. .-. ,0. .t, o. . %. . s, , ..... ;; . 4. P

'- n r . A.

, -.s,')

y. 7.-

w. 4-' J i V. ! __ j u; 3 . . . .. .

.ij. ,7 .,.b .(

/ ,.& - N' ."

VN . .) a

=.>K .'. 2 .: '

. ' ., s. ..[ :j)'.v .., :s?*4 l

V .

.. ..{%:

.: ,., ::.l' e

.l-n.-* s .. ' r.

t, ay, . .

T tA .'.:., ' . . '

. y. .

. . I. .

.@ ,j,.

7 .. t. ,i i -

.tg 6

. y, -

, . . , ,a . ;s; . ia: ;,.-) ,,w. ,,.,,

f. sr. , , , . .q,. - ,

,, =.

%.0 - : . yl,; .

r .. .1 1..s.w- .s.

s y . .

t <

s& -

.l -

r.s a ..e, -. y ., ." r.-

u. 2,.:..ie,u s . +i .. ..A. , .

s . . . . -

.. , + ..

' .[. . :: : .i: ': .5, x - k . . l % z /. ..r, ,< . ..;t." .:.ll l.C.

• l

!f ( .it:3' \,.

g:. ;.tg

' . 71.-:r,f<'<As./. ? g.. .

' .?

t,.,,,.}gy . .

s '

1

,,.,.a ,x O-$ d' M- ....:,.

i

.d ..I,?

. eJ!. ". . . . . . ,2\ .. ,; . .

. . . . . .j . C. ^'. .e.i

. . e..v

-m >- ee. n .s , .M. ,

m

. .. ..- ..- ' v-r -

\. t

. g Nearest residence -

3 Hearest garden h & Nearest milk animal 1

- .;..._._ .-_L ..,_.-,...__[.. __..__..___.o-- '.._.

' . 4 ,. e w*. b nr .

..- 1

!y 1 a

131 s

i ll j

r Appendix I- ,

i i-';O q .5:

During 1988 Dr. Gerald M. Ward, Professor of Animal Sciences was hired as ,

a liason.between the local farmers and ranchers and this program. ~ Dr. Vard is:

a dairy scientist but has had over 25 years of experience in many aspects' of g - fallout studies and of dairy food chain transport of fission: products,-

l e, <

principally, Cs-137. .

Dr. Ward was instrumental in many discussions with the local farmers'and provided the following report. -

o I

-e a 4 = wwon e i

.p 1'.'.., e .

l?

l .

s , .

4 4

e

l- ,

k , .

F. ,

^ .

I-

,fi. ,4

.. 132 l

. Survey of Dairy Farms Providing Milk for Environmental '

Monitoring of the St. Vrain Nuclear Power Plant

' l

. March 24-25,1988 .

. l

. Gerald M. Ward

]

All of. the farmers were contacted except Arlo Johnston. (near Johnson's /

Corner) although his dairy operation was observed. All operations n're rather ,

- conventional for Northern Colorado. Cows are kept permanently in open lots on

- a dirt surface. The winter manure pack is removed at this time of year. Some i of the lots have:an'open-faced shed for shelter, some have a fence on the' -

1 north side and some.no-protection at all. During cold weather and muddy '

li L spells straw is .of, ten placed in the corrals for bedding. The one exception is l .r a covered feeding area at the Henrickson Dairy which is also the largest -l L.

(about 300 cows). However, most of the- time is spent in an open shed. . 2 '

1

. Herd sizes'except for Henrickson range from 50 to 90 cows per dairy.

~

The survey day was very windy and dusty. It 'is obvious that top soil can - ,

l . s R

. flow'into corrals. The surface area of corrals in northern Colorado is about l-350 to 500 ft2 per cow which means that the potential contamination area is ,

small.

The only drinking water supply for cows in all cases except one is from a rural water supply which comes from Carter Lake. On one farm (Percy .;

Odenbaugh) cows have access to water from an irrigation ditch during the time that-water is running in the ditch. His cows, unlike on other farms, also have access to water from a hil on his farm as well as from the rural wate'r supply.

None of the milking cows on any of the f, arms have access to pasture or green-chopped feed. Hay on all the f arms is stacked outside and is not covered. Silage is stored in trench silos and generally evvered with plastic.

-g T@'r*--'s" w1 4 wwv- -+-p-- www-' -pam.

,.w wwe9-+- - - .--' w -

m --amin h - - --+-a w-

• 1 133

.n.

Two dairies Henrickson and Marostica purchase all their hay, the latter i fros'his;next-door neighbor. The other farmers produced a part or all their own hay. Purchased hay. is generally from Weld Co. Those who. feed corn silage '

-produce their own. .

No apparent differences between dairy farms were noted that could be used-to explain differences in the. transfer of airborne radionuclides to milk.

A few goats were seen in a yard near the Odenbaugh farm. It was not .

determined if they were milk goats'.

\

1' ,

.a.

e a

O' e

?

t  %

• e 1

i.

.- s' l- ,

l: .

1 o

\ 's'

• r l '

r ,

b . ;

'l

[

.,.,%..-.--,,-,,-..m,. ,w , ,v

.# q 2N .. , 7 j; . >-

{

o.

6 1

-1

[I a l

u 4

i' .. ATTACHMENT'6-

' FORT ST. VRAIN ACTIVATION ANALYSIS ~

i t,. ..

(EE-DEC-0010,iRev. A, dated 8/31/89).

1-l 1

I l

l l

l E

N l

l i

?

?

/

a

-(

_