|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:10 CFR 50.36(a) 10 CFR 72.44 | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| | |
| April
| |
| LIC-2 -000
| |
| | |
| U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
| |
| | |
| Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1 Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40 NRC Docket No. 50-285
| |
| | |
| Fort Calhoun Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation NRC Docket No. 72-054
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) Radiological Effluent Release Report and Radiological Environmental Operating Report
| |
| | |
| ==References:==
| |
| FCS Quality Assurance Topical Report (NO-FC-10)
| |
| | |
| Pursuant to Fort Calhoun Station (FCS), Unit No. 1, Quality Assurance Topical Report (QATR),
| |
| procedure NO-FC-10 Appendix E, Section E.4.1 and E.4.2, Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) provides the Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report and the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.
| |
| | |
| The Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report is submitted in accordance with QATR Section E.4.1 and encompasses the period of January 1, through December 31, 202 . The report is presented in the format outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1. In addition, the report provides the results of quarterly dose calculations performed in accordance with the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). In accordance with QATR Section E.4.2, Section VII of the Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report includes the revisions to the ODCM made during this period.
| |
| Section VII of the Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report also includes Process Control Program (PCP) changes made during this period.
| |
| | |
| The Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report is submitted in accordance with QATR Section E.4.2 and encompasses the period of January 1, 202 through December 31, 202 .
| |
| | |
| No commitments to the NRC are contained in this letter.
| |
| | |
| 444SOUTH16THSTREETMALL
| |
| * OMAHA,NE681022247
| |
| U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission LIC-2 -000 Page 2
| |
| | |
| Please contact Mrs. Andrea K. Barker at (531) 226-6051 if you should have any questions.
| |
| | |
| Respectfully,
| |
| | |
| Andrea K. Barker Regulatory Assurance & Emergency Planning Manager,
| |
| | |
| AKB/akb
| |
| | |
| ==Enclosures:==
| |
| : 1. Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report
| |
| : 2. Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report
| |
| | |
| c: S. A. Morris, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV J. D. Parrott, NRC Senior Project Manager S.* Anderson, NRC 6HQLRUHealth Physicist, Region IV 0 7 -RKQVRQ 15&6HQLRU+HDOWK3K\\VLFLVW 5HJLRQ,9 Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station Unit No. 1
| |
| | |
| Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (ARERR)
| |
| | |
| January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| DOCKET NO. 50-285 OPERATING LICENSE DPR-40
| |
| | |
| Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report
| |
| | |
| This report is submitted for the period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023. The Effluent Report is presented in the format outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 2.
| |
| | |
| In addition, this report provides the results of quarterly dose calculations performed in accordance with the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.
| |
| Results are presented by quarter for the period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.
| |
| | |
| Descriptions of any changes made during the preceding twelve months to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and/or the Process Control Program for the Fort Calhoun Station are presented.
| |
| | |
| Plant Manager Decommissioning TABLE OF CONTENTS
| |
| | |
| Section Section Title
| |
| | |
| I. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Executive Summary
| |
| | |
| 2.0 Supplemental Information 2.1 Regulatory Limits 2.2 Effluent Concentration Limits 2.3 Measurements and Approximations of Total Radioactivity 2.4 Estimation of Total Percent Error 2.5 Batch Releases 2.6 Abnormal Releases
| |
| | |
| 3.0 Gaseous Effluents
| |
| | |
| 4.0 Liquid Effluents
| |
| | |
| 5.0 Solid Wastes
| |
| | |
| 6.0 Related Information
| |
| | |
| 6.1 Functionality of Liquid and Gaseous Monitoring Instrumentation 6.2 Changes to Off-site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), CH-ODCM-0001 or Process Control Program (PCP), FCSD-RW-PG-101 6.3 New Locations or Modifications for Dose Calculations or Environmental Monitoring 6.4 Noncompliance with Radiological Effluent Control Requirements 6.5 Modifications to Liquid and Gaseous Waste Treatment and Ventilation Exhaust Systems 6.6 Meteorological Monitoring Program 6.7 Assessment of Doses 6.8 Groundwater Monitoring Program and Observations
| |
| | |
| II. Quarterly Doses from Effluents, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS
| |
| | |
| III. Radiological Effluent Releases
| |
| | |
| Table III.1; Batch Liquid and Gas Release Summary Table III.2; Abnormal Batch Liquid and Gaseous Release Summary Table III.3; Gaseous Effluents - Summation of All Releases Table III.4; Gaseous Effluent Releases - Batch Mode Table III.5; Gaseous Effluent Releases - Continuous Mode Table III.6; Liquid Effluents - Summation of All Releases Table III.7; Liquid Effluent Releases - Batch Mode Table III.8; Liquid Effluent Releases - Continuous Mode Table III.9; Groundwater Analysis Results
| |
| | |
| IV. Dose From Gaseous Effluents - GASPAR II Output
| |
| | |
| Tables IV-A-1 through IV-A Receptor Dose Projections Table IV-B Dose Contributions at Unrestricted Area Boundary Table IV-C ALARA Annual Integrated Dose Summary
| |
| | |
| V. Dose From Liquid Effluents - LADTAP II Output
| |
| | |
| Summary Dose Projections from Liquid Effluent Releases
| |
| | |
| VI. Radioactive Effluent Releases-Solid Radioactive Waste
| |
| | |
| VII. ATTACHMENTS
| |
| : 1. Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and Process Control Program (PCP) Revisions
| |
| : 2. Joint Frequency Distribution Wind Direction vs. Wind Speed by Stability Class and Meteorological Data
| |
| | |
| ==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| | |
| This Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report, for Fort Calhoun Station Unit No. 1, is submitted for the period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.
| |
| | |
| 1.1 Executive Summary
| |
| | |
| The Radioactive Effluent Monitoring program for the year 2023 was conducted as described in the following report. Major efforts were made to maintain the release of radioactive effluents to the environment as low as reasonably achievable.
| |
| | |
| The total airborne activity released from noble gas was 0.00 curies.
| |
| This was the same as from 2022. This was due to all fuel being stored safely on the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) pad.
| |
| | |
| The total airborne activity from I-131, I-133, and particulates with half-lives > 8 days in 2023 was 0.00 curies. This is a decrease from the 2022 activity of 1.51E-05 curies. This was due to no particulates being identified from decommissioning activities.
| |
| | |
| The total airborne activity from Tritium was 1.69E-02 curies. This was a decrease from the 2022 activity of 1.94E-01 curies. This decrease was due to a reduction in water inventory based on decommissioning activities.
| |
| | |
| Dose contributions from airborne effluents at the unrestricted area boundary were; 0.00 mRad gamma air dose, 0.00 mRad beta air dose, 1.38-04 mRem total body dose, and 1.38E-04 mRem critical organ dose. Gamma and beta doses were the same as from 202 levels of 0.00 mRad gamma air dose and 0.00 mRad beta air dose, from releasing no noble gases. W hole body and critical organ doses decreased from 202 levels of 4.85E-03 mRem total body dose and 3.20E-03 mRem critical organ dose. This decrease is due to the decrease in the amount of tritium released.
| |
| | |
| II-1 Total water activity (excluding tritium, dissolved gases, and alpha) released in 2023 in liquid effluents was 1.73E-02 curies. This was similar to 2022 activity of 1.74E-02 curies. This similarity was due to continued liquid waste generation due to decommissioning activities and dust suppression.
| |
| | |
| The total water tritium activity released in 2023 in liquid effluents was 3.02E-01 curies. This was an increase from the 2022 activity of 7.84E-02 curies. This increase was due to the source of the liquid waste generated being from reactor vessel internal work activities and processing cavity water.
| |
| | |
| The calculated whole body dose due to liquid effluents at the site discharge from all sources in 2023 was 7.25E-01 mRem which was 24.17% of the annual dose limit. This was a decrease from the 2022 dose of 2.71+00 mRem, which was 90.33% of the annual dose limit.
| |
| Dose decreased due to an increase in dilution volume during the releases.
| |
| | |
| The calculated critical organ dose due to liquid effluents at the site discharge from all sources in 2023 was 1.17E+00 mRem. This was a decrease from the 2022 dose of 4.32E+00 mRem. This decrease was due to an increase in dilution volume during the releases.
| |
| | |
| Historical average meteorological data was utilized in the preparation of the ARERR. The Fort Calhoun Station meteorological system for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 had a cumulative recovery rate of 78.15% from the station meteorological tower with the remaining 21.85% provided by the National Weather Service, for the joint frequency parameters required by Regulatory Guide 1.23 for wind speed, wind direction, and delta temperature.
| |
| The low recovery rate was due to the loss of the onsite tower from flood damage.
| |
| | |
| There were no abnormal releases during 2023.
| |
| | |
| During 2023 there was no change to the Off-site Dose Calculations Manual (ODCM), CH-ODCM-0001 and one change to the Process Control Program, FCSD-RW-PG-101.
| |
| | |
| For 2023, the total volume of solid radwaste released from the unit was 2.05E+04 cubic meters. This was a decrease from the 3.23E+04 cubic meters of solid wa ste released from the unit in 202 .
| |
| The decrease was attributed to a decrease in the volume of Dry Active Waste and Class C Waste shipments.
| |
| | |
| II-2 The total activity released from the unit for 2023 was 5.10E+03 curies, 4.50+01 curies from Resins, Filters, and Evaporator Bottoms, 3.50E+01 curies from Dry Active Waste, 5.02E+03 curies of Irradiated Components, and 6.46E+00 curies of Other Waste. This was decrease from the 202 value of 5.35E+04 curies due to decrease in waste generation from decommissioning activities.
| |
| | |
| Overall, the effluent monitoring program was conducted in a manner to ensure the activity released and dose to the public were maintained as low as reasonably achievable.
| |
| | |
| 2.0 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
| |
| | |
| 2.1 Regulatory Limits
| |
| | |
| The ODCM Radiological Effluent Control Specifications applicable to the release of radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents are described in the following sections.
| |
| | |
| 2.1.1 Fission and Activation Gases
| |
| | |
| The release rate of radioactive material in airborne effluents shall be controlled such that the instantaneous concentrations of radionuclides do not exceed the values specified in 10 CFR 20 for airborne effluents at the unrestricted area boundary.
| |
| | |
| 2.1.2 Doses from H-3 and Radioactive Material in Particulate Form with Half Lives Greater than 8 Days (Other than Noble Gases).
| |
| : a. The dose to an individual or dose commitment to any organ of an individual in unrestricted areas due to the release of H-3 and radioactive material in particulate form with half-lives greater than eight days (other than noble gases) in airborne effluents shall not exceed 7.5 millirem from all exposure pathways during any calendar quarter.
| |
| : b. The dose to an individual or dose commitment to any organ of an individual in unrestricted areas due to the release of H-3 and radioactive materials in particulate form with half-lives greater than eight days (other than noble gases) in airborne effluents shall not exceed 15 millirem from all exposure pathways during any calendar year.
| |
| | |
| II-3 2.1.3 Liquid Effluents
| |
| | |
| The release rate of radioactive material in liquid effluents shall be controlled such that the instantaneous concentrations for radionuclides do not exceed the values specified in 10 CFR 20 for liquid effluents at site discharge. To support facility operations, RP/Chemistry supervision may increase this limit up to the limit specified in QATR Appendix E, E.2.1.3.b.
| |
| | |
| QATR Appendix E, E.2.1.3.b establishes the administrative control limit on concentration of radioactive material, other than dissolved or entrained noble gases, released in liquid effluents to unrestricted areas conforming to ten times 10 CFR 20.1001-20.2401, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2.
| |
| The dose or dose commitment to an individual from radioactive materials in liquid effluents released to unrestricted areas shall be limited to:
| |
| : a. During any calendar quarter: Less than or equal to 1.5 mRem to the whole body and less than or equal to 5 mRem to any organ, and
| |
| : b. During any calendar year: Less than or equal to 3 mRem to the whole body and less than or equal to 10 mRem to any organ.
| |
| | |
| 2.1.4 Total Dose-Uranium Fuel Cycle
| |
| | |
| The dose to any real individual from uranium fuel cycle sources shall be limited to 25 mRem to the total body or any organ (except the thyroid, which shall be limited to 75 mRem) during each calendar year.
| |
| | |
| 2.2 Effluent Concentration Limits (ECL)
| |
| | |
| 2.2.1 Liquid Effluents
| |
| | |
| The values specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Column 2 are used as the ECL for liquid radioactive effluents released to unrestricted areas.
| |
| | |
| II-4 2.2.2 Gaseous Effluents
| |
| | |
| The values specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Column 1 are used as the ECL for gaseous radioactive effluents released to unrestricted areas.
| |
| | |
| 2.3 Measurements and Approximations of Total Radioactivity
| |
| | |
| Measurements of total radioactivity in liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents were accomplished in accordance with the sampling and analysis requirements of Tables 4.1 and 4.2 of Part I of the ODCM.
| |
| | |
| 2.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Effluents
| |
| | |
| Each batch was sampled and analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides using gamma spectroscopy, before release.
| |
| Composite samples were analyzed monthly and quarterly.
| |
| Composite samples were analyzed monthly in the onsite laboratory for tritium and gross alpha radioactivity, using liquid scintillation and propor tional counting techniques respectively.
| |
| Composite samples were analyzed quarterly for Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55, Ni-63, and Gross Alpha by a contract laboratory (Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.). A software program was used to project the total body and critical organ dose contribution at the unrestricted area boundary for each release and the percent contribution to the annual objective dose.
| |
| | |
| 2.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Effluents
| |
| | |
| Each gaseous batch release was sampled and analyzed for radioactivity before release. A software program was developed and installed that can project the total body and critical organ dose contribution at the unrestricted area boundary for each release and the percent contribution to the annual objective dose. This program also adds the projected dose to the current actual dose totals in a temporary file, until it is updated with actual release data after a purge.
| |
| | |
| II-5 Continuous release effluent pathways were continuously sampled using particulate filters and analyzed weekly for gamma-emitting radionuclides using gamma spectroscopy.
| |
| Weekly particulate filters were analyzed for gross alpha radioactivity in the onsite laboratory using proportional counting techniques. Quarterly composites of particulate filters were analyzed for Sr-89, Sr-90, and Gross Alpha by a contract laboratory (Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.).
| |
| | |
| 2.4 Estimation of Total Percent Error
| |
| | |
| The estimated total percent error is calculated as follows:
| |
| | |
| Total Percent Error = (E12 + E22 + E32 + ... + En2)0.5 Where E n = percent error associated with each contributing parameter.
| |
| | |
| Sample counting error is estimated by the Canberra Genie System Software for samples analyzed by gamma spectroscopy. This calculation can include the error associated with peak area determination, gamma ray abundance, efficiency, and half-life.
| |
| Systematic error is estimated for gaseous and liquid effluent analyses and dilution and wastewater volume.
| |
| | |
| 2.5 Batch Releases
| |
| | |
| A summary of information for liquid and gaseous batch releases is included in Table III.1.
| |
| | |
| 2.6 Abnormal Releases
| |
| | |
| Abnormal Releases are defined as unplanned and unmonitored releases of radioactive material from the site.
| |
| | |
| A summary of information for liquid and gaseous abnormal releases is included in Table III.2.
| |
| | |
| 3.0 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS
| |
| | |
| The quantities of radioactive material released in gaseous effluents are summarized in Tables III.3, III.4 and III.5. All radioactive materials released in gaseous form are considered to be ground level releases.
| |
| | |
| 4.0 LIQUID EFFLUENTS
| |
| | |
| The quantities of radioactive material released in liquid effluents are summarized in Tables III.6, III.7 and III.8.
| |
| | |
| II-6 5.0 SOLID WASTES
| |
| | |
| The quantities of radioactive material released as solid effluents are summarized in Section VI.
| |
| | |
| 6.0 RELATED INFORMATION
| |
| | |
| 6.1 Functionality of Liquid and Gaseous Monitoring Instrumentation
| |
| | |
| During the reporting period, there was no instrument used to monitor radioactive effluent releases that failed to meet the minimum reportable instrument functionality requirements listed in the ODCM during the reporting period.
| |
| | |
| During the reporting period RM-055, Liquid Radwaste Effluent Monitor, remained functional.
| |
| | |
| 6.2 Changes to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), CH-ODCM-0001 and/or Process Control Program (PCP), FCSD-RW-PG-101
| |
| | |
| During 2023 there was no change to the Off-site Dose Calculations Manual (ODCM), CH-ODCM-0001 and one change to the Process Control Program, FCSD-RW-PG-101, issued on 07/20/2023.
| |
| | |
| The following change was made to PCP:
| |
| o Updated and added reference to USNRC, Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical Position, volumes 1 & 2.
| |
| o Added process definition and overview for encapsulation by external vendors.
| |
| | |
| 6.3 New Locations or Modifications for Dose Calculations or Environmental Monitoring
| |
| | |
| None
| |
| | |
| 6.4 Noncompliance with Radiological Effluent Control Requirements
| |
| | |
| This section provides a list of any event that did not comply with the applicable requirements of the Radiological Effluent Controls given in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). Detailed documentation concerning the evaluations and corrective actions is maintained onsite.
| |
| | |
| 6.4.1 Abnormal Gaseous and Liquid Releases
| |
| | |
| II-7 No abnormal releases were made during the calendar year of 2023.
| |
| | |
| 6.4.2 Failure to Meet Specified Sampling Requirements
| |
| | |
| During 2023, there were no instances in which specified sampling requirements were not met.
| |
| | |
| 6.5 Modifications to Liquid and Gaseous Waste Treatment and Ventilation Exhaust Systems
| |
| | |
| During the reporting period no design modifications were made to the Liquid Waste Treatment System.
| |
| | |
| 6.6 Meteorological Monitoring Program
| |
| | |
| A summary of hourly meteorological data, collected during 2023, is retained onsite and is maintained as documentation as required by Regulatory Guide 1.21 Rev 2. This data is available for review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission upon request. Joint Frequency tables are included in Section VII, Attachment 2.
| |
| | |
| The 5 year historical concentrations of radionuclides at the unrestricted area boundary. For quarterly estimates, during the year, an average /Q is used, which is the highest calculated using the 5 year historical meteorological data.
| |
| | |
| II-8 6.7 Assessment of Doses
| |
| | |
| 6.7.1 Doses Due to Liquid Effluents
| |
| | |
| Total body, skin, and organ doses for liquid releases were calculated in mRem for all significant liquid pathways using the annual configuration of the LADTAP II program. The site discharge location was chosen to present a most conservative estimate of dose for an average adult, teenager, child, and infant. A conservative approach is also presented by the assumption that Omaha and Council Bluffs receive all drinking water from the Missouri River.
| |
| | |
| The LADTAP II program in its annual configuration was also used to calculate the total body and organ doses for the population of 1,053,476 within a 50-mile radius of the plant (based on the 2020 census). The results of the calculations are listed in Section V.
| |
| | |
| The doses due to liquid effluents for the total body and critical organ are also calculated quarterly using the methods in the ODCM. The results are listed in Section II.
| |
| | |
| 6.7.2 Doses Due to Gaseous Effluents
| |
| | |
| Total body, skin, and organ doses from ground releases were calculated in mRem to an average adult, teenager, child, and infant in each receptor using the annual configuration of the GASPAR II program. Also, the doses to the same groups, in units of mRad due to gamma and beta radiation carried by air, were computed using GASPAR II.
| |
| | |
| The GASPAR II program in its annual configuration was also used to calculate the ALARA integrated population dose summary for the total body, skin, and organ doses in person-rem for all individuals within a 50-mile radius. The results of the calculations are shown in Section IV.
| |
| | |
| The doses due to gaseous effluents for total body gamma and beta noble gas air dose are calculated quarterly using the methods in the ODCM with an average . The results are listed in Section II.
| |
| | |
| II-9 6.7.3 Doses Due to H-3 and Particulates with Half Lives Greater than 8 days.
| |
| | |
| The doses due to H-3 and Particulates with half-lives greater than 8 days for total body and critical organ dose are calculated quarterly using the highest of infant or child dose factors and an average . The results are listed in Section II for inhalation, ground, and food.
| |
| | |
| 6.7.4 Direct Radiation Dose to Individuals and Populations
| |
| | |
| Direct radiation doses attributed to the gamma radiation emitted from the containment structure were not observed above local background at any TLD sample location for this annual period.
| |
| | |
| 6.7.5 40 CFR 190 Dose Evaluation
| |
| | |
| ODCM Radiological Effluent Controls require dose evaluations and a special report to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR Part 190 only if calculated yearly doses exceed two times the annual design objectives for liquid and/or gaseous effluents. At no time during 2023 were any of these limits exceeded; therefore, no special report was required.
| |
| | |
| The external Total Body Dose is comprised of:
| |
| : 1) Total Body Dose due to noble gas radionuclides in gaseous effluents
| |
| : 2) Dose due to radioactive waste and the ISFSI
| |
| : 3) Total Body Dose due to radioactivity deposited on the ground (this dose is accounted for in the determination of the non-noble gas dose and is not considered here)
| |
| | |
| The Total Body Dose, external is given by:
| |
| Dext = Dtb + Dosf
| |
| | |
| Where Dext is the external dose D tb is the total body dose D osf is the dose from on-site storage
| |
| | |
| II-10 The Total Dose is then given by:
| |
| Dtot = Dext + Dliq + Dnng
| |
| | |
| Where Dtot is the total dose D ext is the external dose D liq is the dose from liquid effluents D nng is the dose from non-noble gases
| |
| | |
| Dose Limits Total Body, annual 25 mrem Thyroid, annual 75 mrem Other Organs, annual 25 mrem
| |
| | |
| Calculation using REMP TLD Comparison
| |
| | |
| Indicating TLD station {OTD-1P-(I)}, closest to onsite storage, in mrem/week minus background, in mrem/week
| |
| | |
| OTD-1K-(I) Background Net mrem/wk mrem/wk mrem/wk Weeks/qtr Qtr Dose mrem/qtr Quarter 1 1.4 1.3 0.1 13 1.3 Quarter 2 1.9 1.6 0.3 13 3.9 Quarter 3 1.5 1.4 0.1 13 1.3 Quarter 4 1.8 1.6 0.2 13 2.6 Dext 9.10
| |
| | |
| Dext = 9.10 mrem
| |
| | |
| Maximum offsite doses from report
| |
| | |
| Dtbwb = 1.38E-04 mrem, D tbco = 1.38E-04 mrem
| |
| | |
| Dliqwb = 7.25E-01 mrem D liqco = 1.17E+00 mrem
| |
| | |
| Dtot wholebody = 9.10 + 1.38E-04 + 7.25E-01 = 9.83 mrem
| |
| | |
| Dtot critical organ = 9.10 + 1.38E-04 + 1.17E+00 = 10.27 mrem
| |
| | |
| II-11 These reported doses are bounding cases demonstrating compliance.
| |
| Actual REMP TLD readings do not show any deviation from historical averages for this location, both pre and post-construction of the Steam Generator storage mausoleum and ISFSI. On-site TLDs used for dose monitoring at onsite rad storage facilities do not have identical counterparts at the site boundary or actual offsite receptors.
| |
| Additionally, the liquid dose pathway, since it is downstream of the indicator location and is not hydro-geologically connected, would produce very conservative results compared to calculating the actual dose.
| |
| | |
| 6.8 Groundwater Monitoring Program and Observations
| |
| | |
| OPPD conducted groundwater sampling from 17 wells, 2 surface water sites, and 4 stormwater headers within the site property per NEI 07-07. Additionally, Nebraska requirements regarding avoidance of snow runoff were deleted, so stormwater sampling is now performed quarterly, if available. Well MW-12A was not sampled in the first or second quarter due to the well being dry. Well was sampled quarterly for the remainder of the year.
| |
| | |
| Ten sample locations in sectors experiencing significant (>10%) wind direction were established to assess potential atmospheric deposition.
| |
| After an initial sampling regime in all ten sectors displayed no detectable tritium, the sampling program was switched to 2 affected sectors per rain event and an upwind background test. Three rain sampling events were conducted in 2023. No tritium activity above the vendors Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) was reported. Stormwater sampling was impacted in the 4 th quarter by severe weather event that limited ability to obtain samples due to safety considerations and site procedures not allowing work outside during severe weather events (lightening strikes).
| |
| No tritium activity above the vendors Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) was reported in collected stormwater or rain sampling from 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd quarter sampling.
| |
| | |
| During 2nd quarter groundwater monitoring, MW-6 identified tritium above 2 sigma error but less than MDC. Some Sr-90 results identified
| |
| < MDA but > 2 sigma error were retained during statistical data review based on historical station shallow well trends. Gamma isotopes and some hard to detect nuclides were reduced to an annual sample frequency (Ni-63, Fe-55, Sr-90 in deep wells) based on 2 years of quarterly sampling with no detections above MDA and Groundwater Protection assessment audit recommendations.
| |
| | |
| II-12 The Fort Calhoun REMP sampling did not detect tritium in samples within the Missouri River downstream at the site boundary or the nearest municipal drinking water facility. No groundwater drinking pathway exist on site. Groundwater monitoring of neighboring drinking wells is performed to have data if a plume were identified on site. No state or federal drinking water limits and no site groundwater protection program administrative limits were exceeded.
| |
| | |
| II-13 SECTION II
| |
| | |
| QUARTERLY DOSES FROM EFFLUENTS
| |
| | |
| Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
| |
| | |
| January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| II-14 Quarterly Dose Calculation Results
| |
| | |
| January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| With the implementation of the Fort Calhoun Station Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) on October 1, 1985, radiation doses in the unrestricted area from liquid and gaseous effluents must be calculated quarterly per the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). These calculations are performed to ensure the annual dose limits delineated in Appendix I of 10 CFR 50 and implemented by RETS are not exceeded. If the results of the quarterly calculations exceed fifty percent (50%) of the annual limits of Appendix I, actions are taken to reduce effluents so that the resultant doses do not exceed the annual limits during the remainder of the year and a special report is submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No special reports were required for 2023 calculated doses.
| |
| | |
| This section presents the results of the quarterly dose calculations performed during the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. Details are shown as to the types, sources, and resultant doses from the effluents, the annual limits and a comparison to the annual limits.
| |
| | |
| II-15 II-16 II-17 II
| |
| | |
| II-18 II-19 RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT RELEASES
| |
| | |
| Table III.1 Batch Liquid and Gas Release Summary Table III.2 Abnormal Batch Liquid and Gaseous Release Summary Table III.3 Gaseous Effluents - Summation of all Releases Table III.4 Gaseous Effluent Releases - Batch Mode Table III.5 Gaseous Effluent Releases - Continuous Mode Table III.6 Liquid Effluents - Summation of all Releases Table III.7 Liquid Effluent Releases - Batch Mode Table III.8 Liquid Effluent Releases - Continuous Mode Table III.9 Groundwater Tritium Results
| |
| | |
| January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| III-1
| |
| | |
| SECTION IV DOSE FROM GASEOUS EFFLUENTS
| |
| | |
| GASPAR II OUTPUT
| |
| | |
| January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| IV-1 Radioactive Effluent Releases - First, Second, Third and Fourth Quarters 2023
| |
| | |
| GASEOUS EFFLUENTS
| |
| | |
| Radioactive gaseous releases for the reporting period totaled 0.00E+00 curies of inert gas. The gross gaseous activity release rates were 0.00E+00 Ci/sec for the first quarter, 0.00E+00 Ci/sec for the second quarter, 0.00E+00 Ci/sec for the third quarter, and 0.00E+00 Ci/sec for the fourth quarter.
| |
| | |
| No radioactive halogen releases were released during the reporting period from gaseous effluent discharges.
| |
| | |
| Radioactive particulate releases for the reporting period totaled 0.00E+00 curies. The particulate release rates were 0.00E+00 Ci/sec for the first quarter, 0.00E+00 Ci/sec for the second quarter, 0.00E+00 Ci/sec for the third quarter, and 0.00E+00 Ci/sec for the fourth quarter.
| |
| | |
| Radioactive tritium released during the reporting period totaled 1.69E-02 curies.
| |
| | |
| Off-site vendor analysis of weekly composite samples indicated that no gross alpha radioactivity was released during the reporting period.
| |
| | |
| IV-2 POTENTIAL DOSES TO INDIVIDUALS AND POPULATIONS
| |
| | |
| A. Potential Annual Doses to Individuals from Gaseous Releases
| |
| | |
| Total body, skin, and organ doses from ground releases were calculated in mRem to an average adult, teenager, child, and infant using the annual configuration of the GASPAR II program. Results of each receptor are shown in Tables IV-A-1 through IV-A-36. Also, the doses to the same groups, Table IV-B-1, in units of mRad, due to gamma and beta radiation carried by air, were computed using GASPAR II. In its annual configuration, GASPAR II assumes that all release rates are entered in curies per year (Ci/yr).
| |
| | |
| The inputs to GASPAR II for the annual period from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023 were as follows:
| |
| | |
| (1) All gaseous effluents
| |
| | |
| (2) Entrained gases (Ar-41, Xe-131M, Xe-133M, Xe-133, Xe-135M, Xe-135, Kr-85M, Kr-87, and Kr-88) from liquid effluents.
| |
| | |
| (3) Annual at the actual receptor locations, which are corrected for open terrain and plume depletion, are calculated according to Regulatory Guide 1.111. Also included are annual deposition rates corrected for the open terrain factor.
| |
| | |
| (4) The production, intake, and grazing fractions were as follows: 1.0 for leafy vegetables grown in the garden of interest, 0.76 for produce grown in the garden of interest, 0.5 for the pasture grazing season of the milk animal, 1.0 for pasture grazing season of the meat animal, and 8 g/m 3 for the air water (humidity) concentrations.
| |
| | |
| (5) All dose factors, transport times from receptor to individual, and usage factors are defined by Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREG-0172.
| |
| | |
| (6) Site specific information, within a five-mile radius of the plant, on types of receptors located in each sector was used. That is, if a cow was not present in a sector, then the milk pathway for that sector was not considered. If it was present, then the actual sector distance was used.
| |
| | |
| These inputs introduce a most conservative approach for the following reasons:
| |
| | |
| (1) The open terrain and deposition corrections increase annual by a factor ranging between 1.0 and 4.0
| |
| | |
| IV-3 (2) The production, intake, and grazing fractions, as defined in the input definition statement, represent the environment in an extremely conservative manner.
| |
| | |
| B. Potential Semiannual Doses to Population from Gaseous Releases
| |
| | |
| The GASPAR II program in its annual configuration was also used to calculate the ALARA integrated population dose summary for the total body, skin, and organ doses in man-rem for all individuals within a 50-mile radius. The population-integrated dose is the summation of the dose received by all individuals and has units of man-thyroid-rem when applied to the summation of thyroid doses. The same inputs were used as in the individual case with the addition of the following:
| |
| | |
| (1) A total population of 1,053,476 (based on the 2020 census) was used to define the sector segments within a 50-mile radius of the plant.
| |
| | |
| (2) Production of milk, meat, and vegetation is based on 1973 annual data for Nebraska as recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for use in GASPAR II.
| |
| | |
| IV-4
| |
| | |
| SECTION V
| |
| | |
| DOSE FROM LIQUID EFFLUENTS LADTAP II OUTPUT
| |
| | |
| January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| V-1
| |
| | |
| Radioactive Effluent Releases - First, Second, Third, and Fourth Quarters 2023
| |
| | |
| LIQUID EFFLUENTS
| |
| | |
| During the reporting period, a total of 1.73E-02 curies of radioactive liquid materials, less tritium, dissolved noble gases, and alpha were released to the Missouri River at an average concentration of 1.25E-08 Ci/mL. This represents 1.25E+00 percent of the limits specified in Appendix B to 10 CFR 20 (1.0E-06 Ci/mL for unrestricted areas).
| |
| 3.02E-01 curies of tritium were discharged at an average diluted concentration of 2.18E-07 Ci/mL or 2.18E-02 percent of ECL (1.0E-03 Ci/mL).
| |
| | |
| No gross alpha radioactivity was identified by Off-site vendor analysis of quarterly liquid composites for the reporting period.
| |
| | |
| Dilution water during the periods of release amounted to 1.37E+09 liters, while liquid waste discharges consisted of 1.07E+07 liters of radioactive liquid waste.
| |
| | |
| V-2 Potential Annual Doses to I ndividuals from Liquid Releases Total body, skin, and organ mRem for li quid releases were calculated for all significant liquid pathwa ys using the annual configuration of the LADTAP II program.
| |
| The inputs to LADTAP II for the annual period from Januar y 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, were as follows:
| |
| | |
| All liquid effluents were as described in Section IV except for entrained noble gases (Ar-41, Xe-131M, Xe-133M, Xe-133, Xe-135M, Xe-135, Kr-85M, Kr-87, and Kr-88).
| |
| | |
| An average dilution stream flow during periods of release was cubic feet per second (CFS) for 2023. The average discharge rate during releases was CFS.
| |
| | |
| Dilution factors (inverse of the mixing ratios) were computed based on Regulatory Guide 1.113 (equation 7 in Section 2.a.1 of Appendix A) for a one dimensional transport model.
| |
| | |
| Drinking water transport times of 6.6 hours to the Omaha intake and 7.0 hours to the Council Bluffs intake were used for dose calculations.
| |
| | |
| A shore width factor of 0.2 was used.
| |
| | |
| All dose factors, transport times fr om receptor to individual, and usage factors are defined by Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREG-0172.
| |
| | |
| The discharge site was chosen to present the most conservative estimate of mRem dose for an average adult, teenager, child, and infant. A conservative approach is also presented by the assumption that Omaha and Council Bluffs receive all drinking water from the Missouri River.
| |
| | |
| V-3 B. Potential Annual Doses to Population from Liquid Releases
| |
| | |
| The LADTAP II program in its annual configuration was also used to calculate to total body and organ doses for the population of 1,053,476 within a 50-mile radius of the plant (based on the 2020 census). The same input was used as in the individual cases with the addition of the following:
| |
| | |
| (1) Dilution factors and transport times for the pathways of sport fish, commercial fish, recreation, and biota were calculated based on a distance of two miles downstream as approximately the distance to the nearest recreation facility - DeSoto National Wildlife Preserve.
| |
| | |
| (2) The total fish harvest for both sport and commercial purposes was calculated using an average commercial fish catch for Nebraska.
| |
| | |
| V-4
| |
| | |
| SECTION VI
| |
| | |
| RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASES- SOLID RADIOATIVE WASTE
| |
| | |
| January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| VI-1 VI. RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASES - SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL REPORT
| |
| | |
| January1, 2023 through December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| A. Resins, Filters, and Evaporator Bottoms
| |
| | |
| Waste Volume Curies Class ft3 m3 Shipped A 1.01E+03 2.85E+01 4.50E+01 B 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 C 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Unclassified 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ALL 1.01E+03 2.85E+01 4.50E+01 Major Nuclides for the Above Table:
| |
| H-3, C-14, Fe-55, Co-60, Ni-59, Ni-63, Sr-90, Nb-94, Tc-99, I-129, Cs-137, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-241, Am-241, Cm-242, Cm-244
| |
| | |
| B. Dry Active Waste
| |
| | |
| Waste Volume Curies Class ft3 m3 Shipped A 7.21E+05 2.04E+04 3.50E+01 B 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 C 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Unclassified 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ALL 7.21E+05 2.04E+04 3.50E+01 Major Nuclides for the Above Table:
| |
| H-3, C-14, Fe-55, Co-60, Ni-59, Ni-63, Sr-90, Nb-94, Tc-99, I-129, Cs-137, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-241, Am-241, Cm-242, Cm-244
| |
| | |
| C. Irradiated Components
| |
| | |
| Waste Volume Curies Class ft3 m3Shipped A 3.27E+03 9.26E+01 9.07E+02 B 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 C 5.57E+01 1.58E+00 4.11E+03 Unclassified 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ALL 3.33E+03 9.42E+01 5.02E+03 Major Nuclides for the Above Table:
| |
| H-3, C-14, Fe-55, Co-60, Ni-59, Ni-63, Sr-90, Nb-94, Tc-99, I-129, Cs-137, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-241, Am-241, Cm-242, Cm-244
| |
| | |
| VI-2
| |
| | |
| D. Other Waste
| |
| | |
| Waste Volume Curies Class ft3 m3Shipped A 2.24E+01 6.34E-01 6.46E+00 B 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 C 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Unclassified 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ALL 2.24E+01 6.34E-01 6.46E+00 Major Nuclides for the Above Table:
| |
| H-3, C-14, Fe-55, Co-60, Ni-59, Ni-63, Sr-90, Nb-94, Tc-99, I-129, Cs-137, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-241, Am-241, Cm-244
| |
| | |
| E. Sum of All Low-Level Waste Shipped from Site
| |
| | |
| Waste Volume Curies Class ft3 m3Shipped A 7.25E+05 2.05E+04 9.94E+02 B 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 C 5.57E+01 1.58E+00 4.11E+03 Unclassified 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ALL 7.25E+05 2.05E+04 5.10E+03 Major Nuclides for the Above Table:
| |
| H-3, C-14, Fe-55, Co-60, Ni-59, Ni-63, Sr-90, Nb-94, Tc-99, I-129, Cs-137, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-241, Am-241, Cm-242, Cm-244
| |
| | |
| VI-3 SECTION VII
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMENT 1
| |
| | |
| The annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report shall include any revisions to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and the Process Control Program (PCP) for the period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.
| |
| | |
| ___0___ revisions were made to the Offs ide Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).
| |
| | |
| ___1___revision was made to the Process Control Program (PCP).
| |
| | |
| January 1, 2023- December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| VII-1 FCSD-RW-PG-101 Radwaste Process Control Program Revision 2 Radwaste Process Control Program
| |
| | |
| Revision 2
| |
| | |
| Revision By:
| |
| Aaron Dudas, OPPD/FCS Rad Specialist Date
| |
| | |
| Reviewed By:
| |
| Jedidiah Emich, FCS Waste Manager Date
| |
| | |
| Approved By:
| |
| Scott Baskett, ESI SVP Corporate Waste Date
| |
| | |
| Approved By:
| |
| Dan Whisler, OPPD/FCS Radiation Protection Manager Date
| |
| | |
| Approved By:
| |
| Independent Safety Reviewer - Andrea Barker, OPPD/FCS Reg Assurance & Emergency Planning Manage r Date
| |
| | |
| Non-Proprietary New Proprietary Title Change Restricted Information Revision Safeguards Information Rewrite Sensitive Security Information Cancellation
| |
| | |
| Effective Date:
| |
| | |
| Proprietary Information Page 1 of 9 FCSD-RW-PG-101 Radwaste Process Control Program Revision 2
| |
| | |
| RECORD OF REVISIONS Revision Revision Title Description and Reason for Change
| |
| | |
| 0 Initial issue. New document.
| |
| Updated Review and Approval cover page.
| |
| Section 3.1.1 - Definition to clarify the difference between EnergySolutions 1 groups.
| |
| Section 4.2.2 - Clarify reviews and sign offs for the FCS QATR.
| |
| Added reference 2.16 for Reg Guide 1.21 2 Added references, and process definition and overview for encapsulation by external vendors.
| |
| | |
| Proprietary Information Page 2 of 9 FCSD-RW-PG-101 Radwaste Process Control Program Revision 2
| |
| | |
| Table of Contents 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ........................................................................................ ............. 4 1.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Scope.......................................................................................................................... 4 2 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ ............. 4 3 GENER AL ............................................................................................................................ 5 3.1 Definitions ................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Responsibilit ies ......................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Precautions and Limitations ................................................................................... 5 3.4 Records...................................................................................................................... 5 4 REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE .............................................................................. 5 4.1 General Instructions ................................................................................................ 5 4.2 Administrative Controls .......................................................................................... 8 5 ATTACHMENTS AND FORMS ....................................................................................... 9
| |
| | |
| Proprietary Information Page 3 of 9 FCSD-RW-PG-101 Radwaste Process Control Program Revision 2
| |
| | |
| 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1.1 Purpose 1.1.1 The purpose of this document is to establish a Process Control Program that ensures processing and packaging of solid radioactive waste resulting from treatment of gaseous and liquid effluents and from other sources that is compliant with:
| |
| A. Applicable federal and state regulations B. Disposal site requirements C. Other requirements governing the disposal of radioactive waste 1.2 Scope 1.2.1 The scope of this document applies to all personnel performing activities associated with the processing and packaging of solid radioactive waste.
| |
| | |
| 2 REFERENCES 2.1 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation 2.2 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 60, Control of Releases of Radioactive Material to the Environment 2.3 10 CFR Part 50.36a, Technical Specifications on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors 2.4 10 CFR Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste 2.5 10 CFR Part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials 2.6 49 CFR, Transportation 2.7 NUREG 1301, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1991 2.8 NRC Generic Letter 89-01, Implementation of Programmatic Controls for Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications and the Relocation of Procedural Details of RETs to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual or to the Process Control Program, January 31, 1989 2.9 USNRC Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch Technical Position on Radioactive Waste Form, Rev. 1, January, 1991 2.10 FCSD-CH-108, Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report 2.11 FCSD-RW-PR-308, Packaging Solid Radioactive Waste 2.12 EPND-RM-100, Records Management Program 2.13 FCSD-RW-PG-100, Waste Management Program 2.14 NO-FC-10, Quality Assurance Topical Report (QATR)
| |
| | |
| Proprietary Information Page 4 of 9 FCSD-RW-PG-101 Radwaste Process Control Program Revision 2
| |
| | |
| 2.15 EnergySolutions, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control, Radioactive Material License, License Number UT 2300249 2.16 Regulatory Guide 1.21, Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Material in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents and Solid Waste 2.17 USNRC, Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical Position, Revision 1, Volume 1 (February 2015) 2.18 USNRC, Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical Position, Revision 1, Volume 2, Response to Stakeholder Comments and Technical Basis (February 2015)
| |
| | |
| 3 GENERAL 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 Vendor Services - External services providing specific waste preparations or packaging services. This does not refer to the on-site EnergySolutions staff or this document which is based on an EnergySolutions project document template. This may refer to EnergySoluti ons services out of another facility with a separate license and QA program (e.g., Barnwell or Bear Creek).
| |
| 3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 The Waste Manager has overall responsibility for solid radioactive waste activities at the D&D project site.
| |
| 3.2.2 Contractors and their subcontractors have the roles and associated responsibilities of a vendor in accordance with this procedure.
| |
| 3.2.3 Radiation Protection Manager has the responsibility of review and approval of the vendor submittals.
| |
| 3.3 Precautions and Limitations 3.3.1 Verify current revision in accordance with applicable site procedures.
| |
| 3.4 Records 3.4.1 All Waste Management records will be maintained in accordance with FCSD-RW-PG-100 (Ref. 2.13).
| |
| 3.4.2 Records generated from the use of this procedure should be processed in accordance with EPND-RM-100 (Ref. 2.12).
| |
| | |
| 4 REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE 4.1 General Instructions 4.1.1 Wet Waste A. Process liquid wet waste in accordance with:
| |
| | |
| Proprietary Information Page 5 of 9 FCSD-RW-PG-101 Radwaste Process Control Program Revision 2
| |
| : 1. Specific site procedures that provide sufficient instructions for safe and efficient processing, immobilizing and, stabilizing of wet wastes in accordance with FCSD-RW-PR-308 (Ref. 2.11).
| |
| : 2. Shipment and disposal requirements that meet the criteria on Free Standing Water (FSW) in accordance with USNRC Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch Technical Position on Radioactive Waste Form (Ref. 2.9) and EnergySolutions, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control, Radioactive Material License (Ref. 2.15).
| |
| : 3. Approved procedures that contain provisions for correcting processed waste in which FSW is detected in excess of FSW limits and criteria.
| |
| B. Ensure vendor procedures are approved by the Radiation Protection Manager (RPM) prior to use.
| |
| 4.1.2 Solidification A. Qualified vendor services shall supply solidification Process Control Programs (PCPs), procedures, and topical reports to the RPM for approval.
| |
| B. These documents shall include:
| |
| : 1. Process description
| |
| : 2. Solidification media used
| |
| : 3. Process control parameters
| |
| : 4. Parameter boundary conditions
| |
| : 5. Waste form properties
| |
| : 6. Specific instructions to ensure systems are operated within process parameters
| |
| : 7. Pre-solidification laboratory sample mixing criteria
| |
| : 8. Sampling frequency and acceptance criteria
| |
| : 9. Exothermic reaction process control parameters C. Solidification vendor documentation shall include provisions to verify FSW criteria are met for the specific waste type being solidified.
| |
| | |
| Proprietary Information Page 6 of 9 FCSD-RW-PG-101 Radwaste Process Control Program Revision 2
| |
| | |
| D. The vendor supplied PCP shall contain the current formulas, sampling, analyses, tests, and determinations to be made to ensure that processing and packaging of solid radioactive wastes based on demonstrated processing of actual or simulated wet solid wastes will be accomplished in such a way as to assure compliance with 10 CFR Parts 20, 61 and 71 (Refs. 2.1, 2.4, 2.5), state regulations, burial ground requirements, and other requirements governing the disposal of solid radioactive waste.
| |
| 4.1.3 Containers, Shipping Casks, and Packaging A. Solid radioactive waste shall be processed, packaged and shipped in accordance with approved site procedures.
| |
| B. Procedures shall provide specific instructions that ensure compliance with applicable federal, state and burial site requirements.
| |
| 4.1.4 Shipping and Disposal A. Prepare, load and ship solid radioactive waste in accordance with specific site procedures to meet federal, state, and burial site requirements.
| |
| 4.1.5 Oily/Mixed Wastes A. Radioactive wastes containing oil or hazardous substances are processed in accordance with approved site procedures to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
| |
| 4.1.6 Special Cases A. Unique wastes may require special techniques or processes. Process special case waste in accordance with specific site procedures to meet applicable requirements.
| |
| B. Implementing procedures are reviewed and approved by the Waste Manager.
| |
| C. Special processes developed under this provision should be documented as a change to the PCP per Section 4.2.2 of this procedure.
| |
| 4.1.7 Encapsulation A. Encapsulation is the process of surrounding discrete items of radioactive waste, (such as sealed sources or cartridge filters, in a non-radioactive binding matrix), where the activity remains within the dimensions of the original item of waste.
| |
| | |
| Proprietary Information Page 7 of 9 FCSD-RW-PG-101 Radwaste Process Control Program Revision 2
| |
| | |
| B. Encapsulation differs from waste solidification, in which radioactive waste is uniformly mixed into a binding matrix to create a physically uniform final waste form. The advantages of encapsulation are that it can mitigate waste dispersion to the general environment after disposal, provide additional shielding to limit external radiation, and satisfy the stability requirements of 10 CFR 61.56(b) and the technical requirements for land disposal facilities of 10 CFR 61.52(a), when applicable.
| |
| C. The Branch Technical Position (BTP) on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation (Refs. 2.17, 2.18) expands on those regulatory requirements by describing acceptable averaging methods that can be used in classifying waste.
| |
| D. Qualified vendor services shall supply encapsulation Process Control Programs (PCPs), procedures, and topical reports to the RPM for approval.
| |
| : 1. These documents shall include:
| |
| Process description Encapsulation media to be used Process control parameters Parameter boundary conditions Waste form properties Specific instructions to ensure systems are operated within process parameters The vendor supplied PCP and encapsulation documentation may contain examples of provisions to verify final package criteria are met for the specific waste type being solidified, the current formulas, sampling, analyses, tests, and determinations to be made to ensure that processing and packaging of solid radioactive wastes based on demonstrated processing of actual or simulated wet solid wastes will be accomplished in such a way as to assure compliance with 10 CFR Parts 20, 61 and 71 (Refs. 2.1, 2.4, 2.5), state regulations, burial ground requirements, and other requirements governing the disposal of solid radioactive waste.
| |
| 4.2 Administrative Controls 4.2.1 Quality Assurance A. Quality Assurance shall be implem ented in a graded approach as described in NO-FC-10 (Ref. 2.14).
| |
| 4.2.2 Changes to the Process Control Programs (PCPs)
| |
| | |
| Proprietary Information Page 8 of 9 FCSD-RW-PG-101 Radwaste Process Control Program Revision 2
| |
| | |
| A. The Process Control Program (PCP) is implemented through this controlling document for the processing and packaging of solid radioactive waste to comply with all applicable regulations and requirements. It is defined as a program under the guidance of QATR, Appendix D.
| |
| B. At a minimum, document completion of a NOS Review against the QATR, NO-FC-10 on the Document Routing Form for the PCP revision. Additional documentation of reviews may be required per section 4.2.2.D of this procedure.
| |
| C. Shall become effective after review and acceptance by the Independent Safety Reviewer and the approval of the Decommissioning Plant Manager/ISFSI Manager.
| |
| D. Licensee-initiated changes to the PCP shall:
| |
| : 1. Be documented and records of reviews shall be retained in accordance with NO-FC-10 (Ref. 2.14). This documentation shall contain:
| |
| : i. Sufficient information to support the change(s), together with the appropriate analyses or evaluations justifying the change(s),
| |
| ii. A determination that the change(s) will maintain the overall conformance of the solidified waste product to the existing requirements of federal, state and other applicable regulations, and iii. Documentation that the change has been reviewed and found acceptable through execution of the applicable regulatory review process for the project.
| |
| : 2. Changes made to the PCP shall be communicated to Chemistry and Environmental for inclusion in Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report in accordance with FCSD-CH-108 (Ref. 2.10) and Regulatory Guide 1.21 (Ref. 2.16).
| |
| | |
| 5 ATTACHMENTS AND FORMS None
| |
| | |
| Proprietary Information Page 9 of 9 SECTION VII
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMENT 2
| |
| | |
| JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION WIND DIRECTION VS. WIND SPEED BY STABILITY CLASS AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA
| |
| | |
| (Regulatory Guide 1.21)
| |
| | |
| January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| VII-JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION WIND DIRECTION VS. WIND SPEED BY STABILITY CLASS AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA
| |
| | |
| A. Meteorological Data Recovery
| |
| | |
| Data availability from the on-site weather tower for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 had a cumulative recovery rate of 78.15% from the meteorological tower with the remaining 21.85%
| |
| provided by Eppley Airfield Weather Station, a branch of the National Weather Service. The following table is a summary of the parameters and their respective recovery rates for the period.
| |
| | |
| The tabulations of the Weather Tower Data for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 look appropriate for the season indicated.
| |
| The Pasquill Classes observed for the five year period are detailed below.
| |
| | |
| Pasquill Class A B C D E F G Total
| |
| % Obs. 7.34 3.46 6.37 46.83 22.95 8.56 4.49 100
| |
| | |
| On the basis of the data and its cross-checks, the weather data as amended is completely valid for use in tabulating atmospheric releases.
| |
| | |
| VII-
| |
| | |
| OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
| |
| | |
| FORT CALHOUN STATION
| |
| | |
| RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT
| |
| | |
| January 01, 2023 - December 31, 2023
| |
| | |
| Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report
| |
| | |
| This report is submitted for the period January 01, 2023 through December 31, 2023.
| |
| | |
| In addition, this report provides any observations and anomalies that occurred during the monitoring period.
| |
| | |
| Reviewed by: Approved by:
| |
| | |
| RP/Chem Supervisor/Specialist Manager-RP/Chemistry
| |
| | |
| Plant Manager Decommissioning
| |
| | |
| Senior Director of Nuclear Decommissioning Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report
| |
| | |
| The Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for the year 2023. The data provided is consistent with the objectives as specified in Section 6.2.2 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. The report is presented as follows:
| |
| : 1) An introductory discussion of the implementation of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), including program observations and environmental impact relevant to the operation of FCS.
| |
| : 2) The sample class, sample collection frequency, number of sample locations, and the number of samples collected during this reporting period for each parameter is delineated in Table 1.0, Sample Collection Program.
| |
| : 3) A statistical evaluation of REMP data is summarized in Table 2.0, Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Summary. For each type of sample media and analysis, Table 2.0 presents data separately for all indicator locations, all control (background) locations, and the location having the highest annual mean result. For each of these classes, Table 2.0 specifies the following:
| |
| : a. The total number of analyses,
| |
| : b. The fraction of analyses yielding detectable results (i.e., results above the highest Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) for this period),
| |
| : c. The maximum, minimum, and average results,
| |
| : d. Locations with the highest annual mean are specified by code, name, and by distance and direction from the center of the plant reactor containment building.
| |
| : 4) Table 3.0, Listing of Missed Samples
| |
| : 5) Table 4.0, 2022 Land Use Survey
| |
| : 6) Review of Environmental Inc. Quality Assurance Program
| |
| : 7) Appendix A Interlaboratory Comparison Program
| |
| : 8) Appendix B vendor Data Reporting Conventions utilized
| |
| : 9) Appendix C Sample Location Maps and Site Map
| |
| : 10) Table 5.2, Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations And Media
| |
| | |
| Page 1 of 14 INTRODUCTION
| |
| | |
| Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) - 2023
| |
| | |
| This report gives the results of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) for the year 2023.
| |
| The REMP is a requirement of the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) Quality Assurance Topical Report (QATR). It was initiated before plant operation in 1973.
| |
| | |
| The main purpose of the REMP is to ensure public safety by monitoring plant discharges and assessing the effect, if any, of plant operations on the environment. Samples are collected that would account for various exposure pathways such as ingestion, inhalation, adsorption, and direct exposure. Samples collected regularly include; air, surface water, groundwater, milk, vegetation, fish, sediment, and food crops. Direct radiation is measured by thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). These samples and TLDs are sent to an independent vendor laboratory for analysis. The vendor uses analytical methods that are sensitive enough to detect a level of activity far below that which would be considered harmful. Locations for sample collection are based on radiological and meteorological data from the Annual Effluent Release Report and information obtained from the Environmental Land Use Survey.
| |
| | |
| Most samples, particularly indicator samples, are collected in a circular area within a five-mile radius of plant containment. (However, control locations are usually outside of five miles.) This circle is divided into sixteen equal sectors, each assigned an identification letter A through R (note: letters I and O are not used, as they may be mistaken for the numbers 1 and 0). Sector A is centered on North or zero degrees. Sectors are also given directional labels such as West-Southwest (WSW). Sample locations are listed by number along with their respective distances and direction from plant containment, in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).
| |
| | |
| When assessing sample results, data from indicator locations (those most likely to be affected by plant operations) are compared to those from control locations (those least or not likely to be affected). Results from an indicator location that were significantly higher than those from a control location could indicate a plant-attributable effect and could require additional investigation.
| |
| | |
| The results of the sample analyses, as required by the FCS Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), are presented in the attached statistical tables. Sample collection was conducted by plant chemistry/environmental staff. A contracted vendor (Microbac Laboratories Inc.) performed sample analyses, preparation of monthly reports and the statistical evaluation of sample results. All vendor analysis techniques met the sensitivity requirements as stated in the ODCM.
| |
| | |
| Results for 2023 were within expected ranges and compared closely with historical results. The result details and exceptions are listed in the following sections.
| |
| | |
| Page 2 of 14
| |
| : 1) Ambient Gamma Radiation
| |
| | |
| Ambient gamma radiation is measured by thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) provided by the vendor laboratory. These dosimeters contain calcium sulfate phosphors and are processed quarterly.
| |
| | |
| All sample results are within the range of historical data and displayed less than 14% difference when compared to historical averages. All results were less than 3 sigma standard deviations from historical means. No discrepancy between released effluents and the resultant radiation dose measured was observed. No changes in plant operation/procedures are required based upon observed impacts to the environment to date.
| |
| | |
| Twelve TLDs were added to the stations ODCM. These TLDs were placed within the owner-controlled area to assist with the determination of 40 CFR 190 doses. These locations are not included in Table 1.0, Sample Collection Program, but are being described to assist reviewers of vendor analysis records.
| |
| | |
| 10-Year Trend Comparison of TLD Locations
| |
| | |
| Location Avg. Dose (mr/week) 2023 Avg. Dose (mr/week)
| |
| A 1.23 1.15 B 1.37 1.35 C 1.29 1.35 D 1.14 1.30 F 1.28 1.30 G 1.26 1.30 H 1.29 1.43 I 1.44 1.43 J 1.48 1.48 K 1.40 1.45 N 1.50 1.48 O 1.44 1.40 P 1.49 1.65 S 1.57 1.53 L (Control) 1.27 1.30
| |
| | |
| Page 3 of 14
| |
| : 2) Milk/Pasture
| |
| | |
| Milk samples or pasture grasses, if milk is temporarily unavailable, are collected monthly for the entire calendar year. Indicator samples are collected from a herd of milk goats at a family farm located approximately 3.3 miles from the plant in Sector K (Southsouthwest). The control samples are collected from a commercial dairy cow herd located approximately 9.9 miles from the plant in Sector J (South). No indicator milk samples were available until spring (May) due to the dairy owners suspending operations. Pasture grass in place of milk was collected at the indicator location due to unavailability.
| |
| | |
| Two vegetation samples taken in January and April of 2023 at Millers Goat Dairy had Cs-137 identified greater than background. Vegetation was taken near the pasture because the goats were not being milked. When the sample result was reviewed, the positive result for January 2024 was noted and a reanalysis was requested. That Cs-137 detection was confirmed by reanalysis. Two additional samples were taken after the January (February and March) sample result was returned for review.
| |
| Those samples were analyzed, and Cs-137 was not detected in either sample. Aprils vegetation sample also had Cs-137 identified. All detections were slightly above the MDA for these tests. No values exceeded the required ODCM lower limits of detection or reporting limits. It is not uncommon to see positive Cs-137 in environmental vegetation sa mples, particularly when the sample is dead, dry grasses because more sample is required to fill the Marinelli for counting, and dry material is more likely to have external soils attached. In discussions with the lab, they stated that they have seen Cs-137 in vegetation quite frequently. The presence of more soil, which does contain low levels of Cs-137 due to fallout, is the likely reason for these results. When milking was resumed, no plant produced radionuclides were identified in the milk. The milk testing is a better indicator of the presence of contamination due to bioaccumulation.
| |
| | |
| Effluent release information was reviewed to determine if FCS could be a source of these positive sample results. Fifteen years of effluent reports were reviewed, no cesium particulate release was noted while operational. Since plant shutdown some cesium has been released from decommissioning activities. 2021 was the highest year for Cs-137 release, FCS has not had any airborne releases of Cs-137 since January of 2022. Dose in the annual report based on the 2021 effluent releases for all ingestion pathways was ~5.00 E-6 mrem Total Body dose at this location. A dose calculation using the 2023 highest grass analytical result, highest usage factors, and the highest dose equivalence values was performed as a conservative bounding estimative. That 2023 dose was calculated to be 1.11E-3 mrem. This value is < 0.01% of the annual limit. During this time no milk was consumed, nor was garden vegetation consumed.
| |
| | |
| FCS has experienced drought conditions for an extended period. These drier conditions increased the probability of soils being integrated with vegetation samples. Based upon a historical review of effluent releases and associated offsite dose calculations, it is unlikely that any FCS effluent releases resulted in the Cs-137 present in the January and April 2023 vegetation samples. The detections were more likely due to environmental Cs-137 soil contamination present on the dead vegetation during sampling and no correlation to FCS decommissioning.
| |
| | |
| Page 4 of 14
| |
| : 3) Fish
| |
| | |
| Fish are collected on an annual basis. Control samples are collected at a location approximately twenty miles upstream of the plant (river miles 665 - 667). Indicator samples are collected in the immediate vicinity of the power plant (river miles 644 - 646). Several species of fish, important to commercial and recreational interest, representing all levels of the aquatic food chain are collected at both locations.
| |
| | |
| All sample results are within the range of historical data. Results from both control and indicator locations were less than LLD for all gamma emitters, indicating no plant-related effects.
| |
| : 4) Food Crop
| |
| | |
| Based on the results of the biennial Land Use Survey, the nearest high deposition pathway for food crops is the Alvin Pechnik Farm in Sector H (0.94 miles, 163°). Accordingly, vegetable samples were collected at Alvin Pechnik Farm for the 2023 REMP.
| |
| | |
| Samples were comparable with historical results and within the range of results reported from the control location garden at Mohr Dairy.
| |
| | |
| All results were at the LLD for all non-naturally occurring radionuclides. No plant-related effects were observed.
| |
| : 5) Sediment
| |
| | |
| River sediment samples were deleted from the program on 6/5/2019 due to shoreline sediment not being a significant pathway and reduced volume of effluent release and activity.
| |
| : 6) Air Monitoring
| |
| | |
| Air sample results for 2023 were well within historical limits for all locations. Additionally, all indicator locations showed results very similar to the control locations.
| |
| | |
| All sample results are within the range of historical data. All indicator locations displayed less than 38%
| |
| difference when compared to the historical average. All 2023 results when compared to historical averages are within the stated vendor error acceptance tolerance.
| |
| | |
| Results from both control and indicator locations were less than LLD for gamma emitters. Air monitoring for Iodine was stopped on 1/9/2019. No changes in plant operation/procedures are required based upon observed impacts to the environment to date.
| |
| | |
| Page 5 of 14 10-Year Trend Comparison of Air Sampling Locations
| |
| | |
| Location Avg. Beta (pCi/m3) 2023 Avg. Beta (pCi/m3)
| |
| | |
| Sector B 0.026 0.032
| |
| | |
| Sector D 0.026 0.029
| |
| | |
| Sector I 0.023 0.031
| |
| | |
| Sector J 0.025 0.034
| |
| | |
| Sector K 0.025 0.029
| |
| | |
| Sector F (Control) 0.027 0.033
| |
| : 7) Surface Water
| |
| | |
| Water samples are collected upstream of the plant (control location) as well as half-mile downstream and at a municipal water treatment plant on the north edge of Omaha.
| |
| | |
| Results for Cs-134, Cs-137, and other gammas were all less than LLD. All tritium results were less than LLD. No plant-related effects were detected.
| |
| : 8) Ground Water
| |
| | |
| Quarterly residential well water samples are collected at the following four locations: Station No. 15:
| |
| Smith Farm, Station No. 20: Mohr Dairy, Station No. 74: D. Miller Farm, and Station No. 75: Lomp Acreage. All sample results to date have been at the LLD except gross beta and K-40 due to naturally occurring radionuclides. Gross beta results have ranged from a low of 2.4 pCi/liter to a high of 5.1 pCi/liter, with an average gross beta for the year of 3.2pCi/liter for indicator locations. Strontium-90 analysis is being conducted on the wells as part of the stations groundwater monitoring protection program. No plant-related effects were detected.
| |
| | |
| Page 6 of 14 Table 1.0
| |
| | |
| Sample Collection Program
| |
| | |
| Collection Number of Samples Sample Class Frequency Sample Collected this Locations Period
| |
| | |
| Background Radiation (TLDs) Quarterly 48 4 1884
| |
| | |
| Air Particulates Weekly 6 317
| |
| | |
| Airborne Iodine Note 5 00 5
| |
| | |
| Milk Monthly 2261
| |
| | |
| Surface Water Monthly 336
| |
| | |
| Groundwater Quarterly 416
| |
| | |
| Fish Annually 252
| |
| | |
| Sediment Note 5 005
| |
| | |
| Food Crops Annually 2103
| |
| | |
| TOTAL 598
| |
| | |
| Note 1: Milk sample collection total includes 7 vegetation samples performed for milk unavailability. Milk samples are co llected monthly for the entire year.
| |
| Note 2: Includes one background sample.
| |
| Note 3: Variety of samples collected during period Note 4: Twelve sample locations were added for assessing 40 CFR 190 doses. The results are not included in total REMP samples collected.
| |
| Note 5: Deleted from program on 1/9/2019.
| |
| | |
| Page 7 of 14 Table 2.0
| |
| | |
| Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Summary
| |
| | |
| Page 8 of 14 Page 9 of 14 Table 3.0 Listing of Missed Samples (samples scheduled but not collected)
| |
| | |
| Sample Date Location Reason Type AP 10/11/2023 OAP-F-(C) Environmental Power Outage- Breaker Tripped (CR 2023-00173)
| |
| | |
| Page 10 of 14
| |
| | |
| Review of Environmental Inc., Quality Assurance Program
| |
| | |
| Fort Calhoun Station contracts with Environmental Inc., Midwest Laboratory (vendor lab) to perform radiological analysis of environmental samples. Environmental Inc. participates in inter-laboratory comparison (cross-check) programs as part of its quality control program. These programs are operated by such agencies as the Department of Energy, which supply blind-spike samples such as milk or water containing concentrations of radionuclides unknown to the testing laboratory. This type of program provides an independent check of the analytical laboratorys procedures and processes and indicates possible weaknesses. In addition, Environmental Inc. has its own in-house QA program for blind-spike and duplicate analyses.
| |
| | |
| Routine FCS REMP duplicate samples were analyzed by the vendor to verify the reproducibility of results. All duplicates were within the acceptance criteria.
| |
| | |
| There were no environmental resource cross check samples that failed during 2023.
| |
| | |
| One DOE MAPEP cross check samples failed in 2023. MADW-543 for failed for Gross Beta. The cause of the failure was due to a decimal point misplaced in a unit conversion. If the conversion was done properly the result : 5.78+/- 0.93 Bq/L would have been within the MAPEPs acceptance range.
| |
| | |
| No test results failed both the ERA and DOE methodologies for a given sample type. The ordering of additional tests and successful testing after corrections were applied, visibly demonstrates the vendor's commitment to reporting and resolving deficiencies.
| |
| | |
| These results indicate the vendors ability to self-identify and correct any deviations from acceptable or expected results. The test results had no impact on Fort Calhoun samples and were documented as such by the vendor. No changes are deemed necessary to the FCS REMP program due to vendor performance.
| |
| | |
| Page 14 of 14
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX A
| |
| | |
| INTERLABORATORY AND INTRALABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS
| |
| | |
| NOTE: Appendix A is updated four times a year. The complete appendix is included in March, June, September and December monthly progress reports only.
| |
| | |
| January, 2023 through December, 2023 Appendix A
| |
| | |
| Interlaboratory/ Intralaboratory Comparison Program Results
| |
| | |
| Laborator has participated in interlaboratory comparison (crosscheck) programs since the formulation of its quality control program in December 1971. These programs are operated by agencies which supply environmental type samples containing concentrations of radionuclides known to the issuing agency but not to participant laboratories. The purpose of such a program is to provide
| |
| | |
| Participant laboratories measure the concentration of specified radionuclides and report them to the issuing agency. Several months later, the agency reports the known values to the participant laboratories and specifies control limits. Results consistently higher or lower than the known values or outside the control limits indicate a need to check the instruments or procedures used.
| |
| | |
| Results in Table A-1 were obtained through participation in the RAD PT Study Proficiency Testing Program administered by Environmental Resource Associates, serving as a replacement for studies conducted previously by the U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada.
| |
| | |
| Table A-2 lists results for thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), via irradiation and evaluation by the University of W isconsin-Madison Radiation Calibration Laboratory at the University of W isconsin Medical Radiation Research Center.
| |
| | |
| samples are prepared using NIST traceable sources. Data for previous years available upon request.
| |
| | |
| previous years available upon request.
| |
| | |
| months. Acceptance is based on each result being within 25% of the mean of the two results or the two sigma uncertainties of each result overlap.
| |
| | |
| The results in Table A-6 were obtained through participation in the Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program.
| |
| | |
| Results in Table A-7 were obtained through participation in the MRAD PT Study Proficiency Testing Program administered by Environmental Resource Associates, serving as a replacement for studies conducted previously by the Environmental Measurement Laboratory Quality Assessment Program (EML).
| |
| | |
| Attachment A lists the laboratory acceptance criteria for various analyses.
| |
| | |
| Out-of-limit results are explained directly below the result.
| |
| | |
| A-1 Attachm ent A
| |
| | |
| ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR INTRALABORATORY SPIKED SAMPLES
| |
| | |
| Analysis Ratio of lab result to known value.
| |
| | |
| Gamma Emitters 0.8 to 1.2
| |
| | |
| Strontium-89, 0.8 to 1.2 Strontium-90
| |
| | |
| Potassium-40 0.8 to 1.2
| |
| | |
| Gross alpha 0.5 to 1.5
| |
| | |
| Gross beta 0.8 to 1.2
| |
| | |
| Tritium 0.8 to 1.2
| |
| | |
| Radium-226, 0.7 to 1.3 Radium-228
| |
| | |
| Plutonium 0.8 to 1.2
| |
| | |
| Iodine-129, 0.8 to 1.2 Iodine-131
| |
| | |
| Nickel-63, 0.7 to 1.3 Technetium-99, Uranium-238
| |
| | |
| Iron-55 0.8 to 1.2
| |
| | |
| Other Analyses 0.8 to 1.2
| |
| | |
| A-2 TABLE A-1. Interlaboratory Comparison Crosscheck program, Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) a.
| |
| | |
| RAD study
| |
| | |
| Concentration (pCi/L)
| |
| Lab Code Date Analysis ERALaboratory Acceptance Result LimitsValue Acceptance
| |
| | |
| RAD-132 Study
| |
| | |
| ERDW -162 2/23/2023 Ba-133 33.0 +/- 3.5 30.5 24.2 - 34.6 Pass ERDW -162 2/23/2023 Cs-134 30.7 +/- 3.0 28.2 21.9 - 31.1 Pass ERDW -162 2/23/2023 Cs-137 191 +/- 7 190 171 - 211 Pass ERDW -162 2/23/2023 Co-60 110 +/- 4 110 99.0 - 123 Pass ERDW -162 2/23/2023 Zn-65 109 +/- 8 105 94.5 - 125 Pass ERDW -162 2/23/2023 Gr. Alpha 25.3 +/- 0.2 30.0 15.3 - 39.2 Pass ERDW -162 2/23/2023 G. Beta 15.0 +/- 0.1 16.5 9.25 - 24.8 Pass ERDW -162 2/23/2023 Ra-226 7.58 +/- 0.52 8.26 6.21 - 9.71 Pass ERDW -162 2/23/2023 Ra-228 7.44 +/- 1.53 7.17 4.51 - 9.20 Pass ERDW -162 2/23/2023 H-3 22,600 +/- 467 21,600 18,900 - 23,800 Pass
| |
| | |
| RAD-134 Study
| |
| | |
| ERDW -1956 7/10/2023 Ba-133 64.1 +/- 4.7 66.5 55.4 - 73.2 Pass ERDW -1956 7/10/2023 Cs-134 97.0 +/- 4.8 90.8 74.5 - 99.9 Pass ERDW -1956 7/10/2023 Cs-137 179 +/- 8 163 147 - 181 Pass ERDW -1956 7/10/2023 Co-60 26.6 +/- 2.9 20.7 17.5 - 25.6 Fail b
| |
| | |
| ERDW -1956 7/10/2023 Zn-65 318 +/- 12 290 261 - 339 Pass ERDW -50167 7/10/2023 Gr. Alpha 34.3 +/- 1.9 47.9 24.9 - 60.3 Pass ERDW -50167 7/10/2023 G. Beta 27.4 +/- 1.2 28.6 18.2 - 36.4 Pass ERDW -50171 7/10/2023 Ra-226 19.3 +/- 0.9 17.4 12.9 - 19.9 Pass ERDW -50171 7/10/2023 Ra-228 7.11 +/- 1.59 7.16 4.50 - 9.18 Pass ERDW -50173 7/10/2023 H-3 10,500 +/- 326 9,860 8,570 - 10,800 Pass ERDW -50169 7/10/2023 I-131 23.9 +/- 1.2 24.4 20.2 - 28.9 Pass
| |
| | |
| a Results obtained by Microbac Laboratories Inc. - Northbrook as a participant in the crosscheck program for proficiency
| |
| | |
| testing in drinking water conducted by Environmental Resource Associates (ERA).
| |
| b The Cobalt-60 result did not meet ERA acceptance criteria. The sample was reanalyzed and passed for all analytes.
| |
| | |
| (Co-60 reanalysis result was 21.2 +/- 3.0 pCi/L). No cause for the earlier failure could be determined.
| |
| | |
| A-3 TABLE A-2. Thermoluminescent Dosimetry, (TLD, CaSO4: Dy Cards).a
| |
| | |
| mrem Lab Code Irradiation Delivered ReportedbPerformancec Date Description Dose DoseQuotient (P)
| |
| | |
| , Inc. Group 1
| |
| | |
| 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 1 93.0 90.0 -0.03 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 2 93.0 88.5 -0.05 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 3 93.0 89.0 -0.04 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 4 93.0 89.5 -0.04 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 5 93.0 88.1 -0.05 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 6 93.0 95.1 0.02 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 7 93.0 90.8 -0.02 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 8 93.0 90.8 -0.02 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 9 93.0 92.3 -0.01 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 10 93.0 89.0 -0.04 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 11 93.0 84.9 -0.09 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 12 93.0 90.8 -0.02 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 13 93.0 92.0 -0.01 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 14 93.0 87.7 -0.06 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 15 93.0 88.8 -0.05 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 16 93.0 88.6 -0.05 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 17 93.0 84.2 -0.09 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 18 93.0 88.6 -0.05 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 19 93.0 86.4 -0.07 2022-23-3 11/29/2023 Spike 20 93.0 88.3 -0.05
| |
| | |
| Mean (Spike 1-20) 89.2 -0.04 Passd
| |
| | |
| Standard Deviation (Spike 1-20) 2.5 0.03 Passd
| |
| | |
| a TLD's were irradiated by the University of Wisconsin-M adison Radiation Calibration Laboratory following ANSI N13.37 protocol from a known air kerma rate. TLD's were read and the results were submitted by Inc. to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Radiation Calibr ation Laboratory for comparison to the delivered dose.
| |
| b Reported dose was converted from exposure (R) to Air Kerm a (cGy) using a conversion of 0.876. Conversion from air kerma to ambient dose equivalent for Cs-137 at the reference dose point H*(10)K a = 1.20 . mrem/cGy = 1000.
| |
| | |
| c Performance Quotient (P) is calculated as ((reported dose - c onventionally true value) ÷ conventionally true value) where the conventionally true value is the delivered dose.
| |
| d Acceptance is achieved when neither the absolute value of the mean of the P values, nor the standard deviation of the P values exceed 0.15.
| |
| | |
| A-4 TABLE A-2. Thermoluminescent Dosimetry, (TLD, CaSO 4: Dy Cards).a
| |
| | |
| mrem Lab Code Irradiation Delivered ReportedbPerformancec Date Description Dose DoseQuotient (P)
| |
| | |
| , Inc. Group 2
| |
| | |
| 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 21 176.0 170.1 -0.03 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 22 176.0 166.8 -0.05 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 23 176.0 156.3 -0.11 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 24 176.0 163.1 -0.07 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 25 176.0 166.8 -0.05 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 26 176.0 168.0 -0.05 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 27 176.0 159.8 -0.09 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 28 176.0 160.4 -0.09 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 29 176.0 165.4 -0.06 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 30 176.0 166.2 -0.06 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 31 176.0 159.9 -0.09 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 32 176.0 161.4 -0.08 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 33 176.0 165.8 -0.06 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 34 176.0 163.9 -0.07 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 35 176.0 167.9 -0.05 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 36 176.0 157.4 -0.11 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 37 176.0 165.6 -0.06 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 38 176.0 161.3 -0.08 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 39 176.0 165.9 -0.06 2022-23-4 11/29/2023 Spike 40 176.0 159.4 -0.09
| |
| | |
| d Mean (Spike 21-40) 163.6 -0.07 Pass
| |
| | |
| Standard Deviation (Spike 21-40) 3.9 0.02 Passd
| |
| | |
| a TLD's were irradiated by the University of Wisconsin -Madison Radiation Calibration Laboratory following ANSI N13.37 protocol from a known air kerma rate. TLD's were read and the results were submitted by Inc. to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Radiation Calibr ation Laboratory for comparison to the delivered dose.
| |
| b Reported dose was converted from exposure (R) to Air Kerm a (cGy) using a conversion of 0.876. Conversion from air kerma to ambient dose equivalent for Cs-137 at the reference dose point H*(10)K a = 1.20 . mrem/cGy = 1000.
| |
| c Performance Quotient (P) is calculat ed as ((reported dose - conventionally true value) ÷ conventionally true value) where the conventionally true value is the delivered dose.
| |
| d Acceptance is achieved when neither the absolute value of the mean of the P values, nor the standard deviation of the P values exceed 0.15.
| |
| | |
| A-5 TABLE A-3. Intralaboratory "Spiked" Samples
| |
| | |
| Concentrationa
| |
| | |
| Lab Codeb Date Analysis Known RatioLaboratory results Control 2s, n=1c Activity Acceptance Lab/KnownLimitsd
| |
| | |
| SPDW -26 1/5/2023 Ra-228 11.8 +/- 1.9 13.4 9.4 - 17.4 Pass 0.88 SPDW -50002 1/11/2023 H-3 21,747 +/- 452 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.98 SPDW -50004 1/20/2023 H-3 21,861 +/- 458 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.99 SPDW -50006 1/5/2023 Ra-226 11.3 +/- 0.3 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 0.92 SPDW -50034 1/27/2023 Ra-226 12.6 +/- 0.4 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 1.02 LCS-SO-012723 8/1/2020 Cs-134 17.1 +/- 0.2 19.2 15.4 - 23.0 Pass 0.89 LCS-SO-012723 8/1/2020 Zn-65 13.8 +/- 1.7 14.1 11.3 - 16.9 Pass 0.98 LCS-SO-012723 8/1/2020 Co-60 26.4 +/- 0.2 27.0 21.6 - 32.4 Pass 0.98 LCS-SO-012723 8/1/2020 Co-57 30.7 +/- 0.1 30.9 24.7 - 37.1 Pass 0.99 LCS-SO-012723 8/1/2020 Mn-54 17.7 +/- 0.8 16.5 13.2 - 19.8 Pass 1.07 LCS-SO-012723 8/1/2020 K-40 18.4 +/- 0.7 16.8 13.4 - 20.2 Pass 1.10 SPDW -50010 1/31/2023 Ra-228 9.7 +/- 1.3 13.4 9.4 - 17.4 Pass 0.72
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50008 2/3/2023 H-3 21,961 +/- 459 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.99 SPDW -50016 2/10/2023 H-3 22,137 +/- 462 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 1.00 SPDW -50012 2/24/2023 Sr-90 18.6 +/- 1.2 17.1 13.7 - 20.5 Pass 1.09 SPDW -50032 2/16/2023 Ra-228 13.1 +/- 1.9 13.4 9.4 - 17.4 Pass 0.98 SPDW -50018 2/16/2023 Gr. Alpha 19.1 +/- 1.3 23.5 11.8 - 28.2 Pass 0.81 SPDW -50018 2/16/2023 Gr. Beta 133 +/- 2 141 112 - 169 Pass 0.94 SPDW -50021 2/17/2023 H-3 21,843 +/- 459 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.99 SPDW -50047 2/24/2023 Ra-226 12.8 +/- 0.4 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 1.04
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50049 3/17/2023 H-3 22,120 +/- 465 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 1.00 SPDW -50056 3/24/2023 H-3 21,911 +/- 463 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.99 SPDW -50060 3/16/2023 Ra-226 12.9 +/- 0.4 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 1.05
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50097 4/13/2023 Ra-226 11.7 +/- 0.5 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 0.95 SPDW -50068 4/14/2023 H-3 22,656 +/- 482 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 1.03 SPDW -50081 4/25/2023 H-3 21,594 +/- 461 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.98
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50131 5/3/2023 Ra-226 11.4 +/- 0.3 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 0.93 SPDW -50104 5/12/2023 H-3 21,513 462 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.97 SPDW -50117 5/26/2023 H-3 22,069 468 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 1.00
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50182 6/8/2023 Ra-226 10.4 +/- 0.3 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 0.85 SPDW -50137 6/12/2023 H-3 21,898 +/- 456 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.99 SPDW -50138 6/12/2023 H-3 21,898 +/- 456 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.99 SPDW -50153 6/26/2023 H-3 21,672 +/- 456 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.98 SPDW -50153 6/26/2023 H-3 21,672 +/- 456 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.98
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50259 7/19/2023 Ra-226 10.5 +/- 0.3 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 0.85
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50219 8/15/2023 Sr-90 17.5 +/- 1.1 17.1 13.7 - 20.5 Pass 1.02 SPDW -50291 8/28/2023 Ra-226 11.0 +/- 0.3 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 0.89 SPDW -50249 8/22/2023 Gr. Alpha 16.7 +/- 1.4 23.5 11.8 - 28.2 Pass 0.71 SPDW -50249 8/22/2023 Gr. Beta 128 +/- 2 141 112 - 169 Pass 0.91 SPDW -50252 8/18/2023 H-3 21,628 +/- 459 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.98 SPDW -50257 8/25/2023 H-3 22,152 +/- 469 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 1.00
| |
| | |
| a Liquid sample results are reported in pCi/Liter, air filters ( pCi/m3), charcoal (pCi/charcoal canister), and solid samples (pC i/kg).
| |
| b Laboratory codes : W & SPW (W ater), MI (milk), AP (air filter), SO (soil), VE (vegetation), CH (charcoal canister), F (fish), U (urine).
| |
| | |
| c Results are based on single determinations.
| |
| | |
| d Acceptance criteria are listed in Attachment A of this report. A-6 TABLE A-3. Intralaboratory "Spiked" Samples
| |
| | |
| Concentrationa
| |
| | |
| Lab Code b Date Analysis Known RatioLaboratory results Control 2s, n=1c Activity Acceptance Lab/KnownLimitsd
| |
| | |
| LCS-09/12/23 8/1/2020 Cs-134 17,533 +/- 346 19,170 15,336 - 23,004 Pass 0.91 LCS-09/12/23 8/1/2020 Co-60 27,480 +/- 347 26,055 20,844 - 31,266 Pass 1.05 LCS-09/12/23 8/1/2020 K-40 20,183 1268 18,468 14,774 - 22,162 Pass 1.09 SPDW -50270 9/6/2023 H-3 22,287 +/- 469 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 1.01 SPDW -50283 9/25/2023 H-3 21,062 +/- 444 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.95 SPDW -50291 8/28/2023 Ra-226 11.0 +/- 0 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 0.89 SPDW -50316 10/3/2023 H-3 21,406 +/- 454 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.97
| |
| | |
| SPW -50330 11/17/2023 H-3 21,143 +/- 543 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.96 LCS-SO-112823 8/1/2020 Cs-134 17.2 +/- 0.2 19.2 15.4 - 23.0 Pass 0.90 LCS-SO-112823 8/1/2020 Zn-65 14.9 +/- 3.1 14.1 11.3 - 16.9 Pass 1.06 LCS-SO-112823 8/1/2020 Co-60 26.0 +/- 0.3 27.0 21.6 - 32.4 Pass 0.96 LCS-SO-112823 8/1/2020 Co-57 29.3 +/- 0.9 30.9 24.7 - 37.1 Pass 0.95 LCS-SO-112823 8/1/2020 Mn-54 17.5 +/- 1.3 16.5 13.2 - 19.8 Pass 1.06 LCS-SO-112823 8/1/2020 K-40 18.0 +/- 0.7 16.8 13.4 - 20.2 Pass 1.07
| |
| | |
| SPW -3908 12/18/2023 NI-63 2,032 +/- 27 1,788 1,430 - 2,146 Pass 1.14 SPW -3910 12/18/2023 Fe-55 269 +/- 24 232 186 - 0,278 Pass 1.16 SPDW -50378 12/19/2023 H-3 21,102 +/- 452 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.95 SPDW -50388 12/28/2023 H-3 20,540 +/- 445 22,100 17,680 - 26,520 Pass 0.93 SPDW -50393 12/19/2023 Ra-226 11.6 +/- 0.3 12.3 8.6 - 16.0 Pass 0.94
| |
| | |
| a Liquid sample results are reported in pCi/Liter, air filters ( pCi/m3), charcoal (pCi/charcoal canister), and solid samples (pC i/ kg).
| |
| b Laboratory codes : W & SPW (W ater), MI (milk), AP (air filter), SO (soil), VE (vegetation), CH (charcoal canister), F (fish), U (urine).
| |
| | |
| c Results are based on single determinations.
| |
| | |
| d Acceptance criteria are listed in Attachment A of this report.
| |
| | |
| A-7 TABLE A-4. Intralaboratory "Blank" Samples Concentrationa Lab Codeb Sample Date Analysisc Laboratory results (4.66 ) Acceptance Type LLDActivitydCriteria (4.66 )
| |
| | |
| SPW -25 W ater 1/5/2023 Ra-228 0.98 0.74 +/- 0.54 2 SPDW -50000 W ater 1/6/2023 I-131 0.36 -0.10 +/- 0.16 1 SPDW -50001 W ater 1/11/2023 H-3 157 13 +/- 74 200 SPDW -50003 W ater 1/20/2023 H-3 161 98 +/- 85 200 SPDW -50005 W ater 1/5/2023 Ra-226 0.02 0.00 +/- 0.03 2 SPDW -50033 W ater 1/27/2023 Ra-226 0.03 -0.01 +/- 0.03 2 SPDW -50009 W ater 1/31/2023 Ra-228 1.40 0.69 +/- 0.75 2
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50007 W ater 2/3/2023 H-3 160 17 +/- 80 200 SPDW -50015 W ater 2/10/2023 H-3 159 91 +/- 84 200 SPDW -50011 W ater 2/9/2023 Sr-89 0.62 0.24 +/- 0.49 5 SPDW -50011 W ater 2/9/2023 Sr-90 0.66 -0.02 +/- 0.30 1 SPDW -50018 W ater 2/16/2023 Gr. Alpha 0.62 0.01 +/- 0.44 2 SPDW -50018 W ater 2/16/2023 Gr. Beta 0.78 -0.10 +/- 0.54 4 SPDW -50020 W ater 2/17/2023 H-3 154 122 +/- 80 200 SPDW -50031 W ater 2/16/2023 Ra-228 0.82 0.42 +/- 0.43 2 SPDW -50046 W ater 2/24/2023 Ra-226 0.03 0.05 +/- 0.04 2
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50044 W ater 3/13/2023 I-131 0.15 -0.06 +/- 0.08 1 SPDW -50048 W ater 3/17/2023 H-3 163 80 +/- 80 200 SPDW -50055 W ater 3/24/2023 H-3 169 63 +/- 82 200 SPDW -50059 W ater 3/16/2023 Ra-226 0.04 -0.02 +/- 0.03 2 SPDW -50063 W ater 3/28/2023 Ra-226 0.06 -0.01 +/- 0.05 2
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50067 W ater 4/14/2023 H-3 173 92 +/- 87 200 SPDW -50069 W ater 4/17/2023 I-131 0.11 -0.05 +/- 0.08 1
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50102 W ater 5/15/2023 I-131 0.15 -0.01 +/- 0.08 1 SPDW -50103 W ater 5/12/2023 H-3 161 67 +/- 80 200 SPDW -50116 W ater 5/26/2023 H-3 161 122 +/- 87 200
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50137 W ater 6/12/2023 H-3 157 125 +/- 80 200 SPDW -50154 W ater 6/26/2023 H-3 157 105 +/- 80 200 SPDW -50181 W ater 6/8/2023 Ra-226 0.04 -0.07 +/- 0.03 2
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50218 W ater 8/15/2023 Sr-89 0.66 -0.07 +/- 0.48 5 SPDW -50218 W ater 8/15/2023 Sr-90 0.55 0.02 +/- 0.26 1 SPDW -50248 W ater 8/22/2024 Gr. Alpha 0.57 -0.03 +/- 0.40 2 SPDW -50248 W ater 8/22/2024 Gr. Beta 0.70 0.28 +/- 0.50 4 SPDW -50256 W ater 8/25/2023 H-3 161 75 +/- 84 200 SPDW -50258 W ater 7/19/2023 Ra-226 0.06 -0.25 +/- 0.04 2
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50270 W ater 9/6/2023 H-3 160 90 +/- 81 200 SPDW -50282 W ater 9/25/2023 H-3 163 53 +/- 79 200 SPDW -50290 W ater 8/28/2023 Ra-226 0.05 0.00 +/- 0.04 2
| |
| | |
| a Liquid sample results are reported in pCi/Liter, air filters ( pCi/m3), charcoal (pCi/charcoal canister), and solid samples (pCi/g).
| |
| | |
| b Laboratory codes : W & SPW (Water), MI (milk), AP (air filter), SO (soil), VE (vegetation), CH (charcoal canister), F (fish), U (urine).
| |
| | |
| c I-131(G); iodine-131 as analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.
| |
| | |
| d Activity reported is a net activity result. A-8
| |
| | |
| TABLE A-4. Intralaboratory "Blank" Samples Concentrationa Lab Codeb Sample Date Analysisc Laboratory results (4.66 ) Acceptance Type LLDActivitydCriteria (4.66 )
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50311 W ater 10/16/2023 I-131 0.25 0.06 +/- 0.14 1 SPDW -50312 W ater 10/3/2023 Ra-226 0.04 0.06 +/- 0.09 2 SPDW -50315 W ater 10/27/2023 H-3 169 5 +/- 79 200
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50329 W ater 11/17/2023 H-3 170 51 +/- 82 200 SPDW -50379 W ater 11/17/2023 Ra-226 0.05 0.09 +/- 0.04 2
| |
| | |
| SPDW -50346 W ater 12/5/2023 H-3 0.10 -0.12 +/- 0.07 1 SPDW -50347 W ater 12/5/2023 Ra-228 1.27 -0.07 +/- 0.62 2 SPW -3907 W ater 12/18/2023 Ni-63 149 0 +/- 91 200 SPW -3909 W ater 12/18/2023 Fe-55 435 7 +/- 265 2000 SPDW -50377 W ater 12/19/2023 H-3 173 -42 +/- 78 200 SPDW -50387 W ater 12/28/2023 H-3 171 -21 +/- 79 200
| |
| | |
| a Liquid sample results are reported in pCi/Liter, air filters ( pCi/m3), charcoal (pCi/charcoal canister), and solid samples (pCi/g).
| |
| | |
| b Laboratory codes : W & SPW (W ater), MI (m ilk), AP (air filter), SO (soil), VE (vegetation), CH (charcoal canister), F (fish), U (urine).
| |
| | |
| c I-131(G); iodine-131 as analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.
| |
| | |
| d Activity reported is a net activity result.
| |
| A-9 TABLE A-5. Intralaboratory "Duplicate" Samples
| |
| | |
| Concentrationa Averaged Lab Codeb Date Analysis AcceptanceFirst Result Second Result Result
| |
| | |
| WW-65,66 1/10/2023 Gr. Beta 15.4 +/- 2.0 17.2 +/- 2.1 16.3 +/- 1.5 Pass WW-107,108 1/18/2023 H-3 153 +/- 88 132 +/- 87 143 +/- 62 Pass SG-187,188 1/30/2023 Gr. Alpha 28.1 +/- 3.9 22.0 +/- 3.5 25.1 +/- 2.6 Pass SG-187,188 1/30/2023 Gr. Beta 22.3 +/- 1.8 22.2 +/- 1.8 22.3 +/- 1.3 Pass SG-187,188 1/30/2023 Pb-214 4.08 +/- 0.16 3.38 +/- 0.09 3.73 +/- 0.09 Pass SG-187,188 1/30/2023 Ac-228 3.88 +/- 0.28 3.98 +/- 0.14 3.93 +/- 0.16 Pass SWU-201,202 1/31/2023 H-3 171 +/- 89 234 +/- 92 203 +/- 64 Pass
| |
| | |
| SW-243,244 2/7/2023 H-3 358 +/- 98 262 +/- 93 310 +/- 68 Pass PW-266,267 2/6/2023 Ra-226 0.61 +/- 0.18 0.37 +/- 0.20 0.49 +/- 0.13 Pass DW-50028.50029 2/27/2023 Ra-226 0.68 +/- 0.13 0.76 +/- 0.13 0.72 +/- 0.09 Pass DW-50028.50029 2/27/2023 Ra-228 2.26 +/- 0.65 1.20 +/- 0.65 1.73 +/- 0.46 Pass DW-50052,50053 2/27/2023 Ra-228 0.48 +/- 0.57 1.19 +/- 0.65 0.84 +/- 0.43 Pass DW-50035,50036 2/28/2023 Gr. Alpha 3.68 +/- 1.42 4.00 +/- 1.29 3.84 +/- 0.96 Pass DW-50035,50036 2/28/2023 Gr. Beta 2.50 +/- 0.64 1.99 +/- 0.64 2.25 +/- 0.45 Pass
| |
| | |
| LW-518,519 3/8/2023 Gr. Beta 1.71 +/- 0.64 1.38 +/- 0.64 1.55 +/- 0.45 Pass SG-571,572 3/8/2023 Pb-214 7.80 +/- 0.46 8.20 +/- 0.35 8.00 +/- 0.29 Pass SG-571,572 3/8/2023 Ac-228 11.9 +/- 0.8 11.4 +/- 0.6 11.7 +/- 0.5 Pass SG-571.572 3/8/2023 Gr. Alpha 86.5 +/- 10.6 89.6 +/- 11.0 88.1 +/- 7.6 Pass DW-50052,50053 3/17/2023 Gr. Alpha 9.16 +/- 1.02 14.7 +/- 1.2 11.9 +/- 0.8 Pass DW-50052,50053 3/17/2023 Gr. Beta 6.03 +/- 0.71 7.58 +/- 0.75 6.81 +/- 0.52 Pass CF-700,701 3/22/2023 K-40 2.91 +/- 0.32 3.30 +/- 0.36 3.11 +/- 0.24 Pass SW-679,680 3/27/2023 H-3 14,480 +/- 389 14,487 +/- 389 14,484 +/- 275 Pass
| |
| | |
| SG-974,975 4/4/2023 Gr. Alpha 12.0 +/- 2.1 12.1 +/- 2.1 12.1 +/- 1.5 Pass DW-50074,50075 4/21/2023 Ra-226 1.63 +/- 0.22 1.56 +/- 0.28 1.60 +/- 0.18 Pass DW-50074,50075 4/21/2023 Ra-228 3.41 +/- 0.98 2.14 +/- 0.80 2.78 +/- 0.63 Pass U-1038,1039 4/20/2023 Gr. Beta 6.14 +/- 1.71 6.46 +/- 2.19 6.30 +/- 1.39 Pass WW-1101,1102 4/25/2023 H-3 358 +/- 96 334 +/- 95 346 +/- 68 Pass
| |
| | |
| DW-50092,50093 5/1/2023 Ra-226 1.00 +/- 0.22 1.46 +/- 0.19 1.23 +/- 0.15 Pass DW-50092,50093 5/1/2023 Ra-228 1.11 +/- 0.73 1.57 +/- 0.82 1.34 +/- 0.55 Pass WW-1122,1123 5/2/2023 H-3 307 +/- 93 229 +/- 89 268 +/- 64 Pass WW-1269,1270 5/17/2023 H-3 366 +/- 100 214 +/- 92 290 +/- 68 Pass DW-50110,50111 5/29/2023 Ra-226 6.27 +/- 0.40 4.77 +/- 0.26 5.52 +/- 0.24 Pass DW-50110,50111 5/29/2023 Ra-228 2.81 +/- 0.97 3.53 +/- 0.98 3.17 +/- 0.69 Pass SW-1356,1357 5/30/2023 H-3 380 +/- 94 257 +/- 88 319 +/- 64 Pass WW-1398,1399 5/24/2023 H-3 571 +/- 103 613 +/- 105 592 +/- 74 Pass SG-1377,1378 5/30/2023 Pb-214 1.07 +/- 0.14 1.19 +/- 0.15 1.13 +/- 0.10 Pass SG-1377,1378 5/30/2023 Ac-228 1.23 +/- 0.28 1.11 +/- 0.23 1.17 +/- 0.18 Pass
| |
| | |
| A-10 TABLE A-5. Intralaboratory "Duplicate" Samples
| |
| | |
| Concentrationa Averaged Lab Codeb Date Analysis AcceptanceFirst Result Second Result Result
| |
| | |
| DW-50124,50125 6/5/2023 Ra-226 0.25 +/- 0.08 0.24 +/- 0.09 0.25 +/- 0.06 Pass AP-060523A/B 6/5/2023 Gr. Beta 0.023 +/- 0.003 0.0236 +/- 0.003 0.023 +/- 0.002 Pass DW-50126,50127 6/5/2023 Gr. Alpha 2.50 +/- 1.17 3.87 +/- 1.39 3.19 +/- 0.91 Pass WW-1441,1442 6/6/2023 Gr. Beta 2.55 +/- 0.64 1.91 +/- 0.67 2.23 +/- 0.46 Pass SW-1483,1484 6/8/2023 H-3 281 +/- 90 281 +/- 90 281 +/- 64 Pass CF-1546,1547 6/12/2023 K-40 7.77 +/- 0.34 7.48 +/- 0.48 7.63 +/- 0.29 Pass AP-061223A/B 6/12/2023 Gr. Beta 0.031 +/- 0.005 0.030 +/- 0.005 0.031 +/- 0.004 Pass S-1567,1568 6/14/2023 K-40 9.75 +/- 0.71 9.80 +/- 0.77 9.78 +/- 0.52 Pass WW-1630,1631 6/6/2023 H-3 319 +/- 93 236 +/- 89 278 +/- 64 Pass F-1945,1946 6/26/2023 K-40 3.81 +/- 0.34 3.22 +/- 0.54 3.52 +/- 0.32 Pass DW-50157,50158 6/26/2023 Gr. Beta 0.93 +/- 0.59 1.09 +/- 0.06 1.01 +/- 0.30 Pass AP-062823A/B 6/28/2023 Gr. Beta 0.026 +/- 0.004 0.021 +/- 0.003 0.024 +/- 0.003 Pass
| |
| | |
| AP-070323A/B 7/3/2023 Gr. Beta 0.028 +/- 0.003 0.026 +/- 0.003 0.027 +/- 0.002 Pass DW-50160,50161 7/5/2023 Ra-226 2.63 +/- 0.32 2.77 +/- 0.27 2.70 +/- 0.21 Pass DW-50160,50161 7/5/2023 Ra-228 2.46 +/- 0.78 2.51 +/- 0.81 2.49 +/- 0.56 Pass AP-071123A/B 7/11/2023 Gr. Beta 0.025 +/- 0.003 0.027 +/- 0.003 0.026 +/- 0.002 Pass DW-50188,50189 7/21/2023 Ra-226 3.07 +/- 0.30 2.63 +/- 0.20 2.85 +/- 0.18 Pass DW-50188,50189 7/21/2023 Ra-228 5.28 +/- 0.92 5.08 +/- 0.90 5.18 +/- 0.64 Pass DW-50197,50198 7/24/2023 Gr. Alpha 5.82 +/- 1.50 5.78 +/- 1.30 5.80 +/- 0.99 Pass DW-50200,50201 7/24/2023 Ra-226 2.51 +/- 0.24 4.07 +/- 0.29 3.29 +/- 0.19 Pass DW-50200,50201 7/24/2023 Ra-228 7.04 +/- 1.13 6.55 +/- 1.09 6.80 +/- 0.79 Pass SG-2199,2200 7/25/2023 Pb-214 1.18 +/- 0.22 1.03 +/- 0.19 1.11 +/- 0.15 Pass SG-2199,2200 7/25/2023 Ac-228 1.74 +/- 0.32 1.86 +/- 0.42 1.80 +/- 0.26 Pass AP-072623A/B 7/26/2023 Gr. Beta 0.021 +/- 0.003 0.021 +/- 0.003 0.021 +/- 0.002 Pass
| |
| | |
| AP-080223A/B 8/2/2023 Gr. Beta 0.015 +/- 0.003 0.016 +/- 0.003 0.016 +/- 0.002 Pass SG-2315,2316 8/3/2023 Gr. Alpha 59.5 +/- 6.7 48.2 +/- 6.1 53.9 +/- 4.5 Pass SG-2315,2316 8/3/2023 Gr. Beta 39.8 +/- 2.9 34.4 +/- 2.6 37.1 +/- 1.9 Pass AP-080723A/B 8/7/2024 Gr. Beta 0.025 +/- 0.005 0.025 +/- 0.005 0.025 +/- 0.004 Pass DW-50200,50201 8/9/2023 Ra-228 1.88 +/- 0.71 1.29 +/- 0.70 1.59 +/- 0.50 Pass AP-081423A/B 8/14/2023 Gr. Beta 0.030 +/- 0.003 0.028 +/- 0.003 0.029 +/- 0.002 Pass AP-082123A/B 8/21/2023 Gr. Beta 0.020 +/- 0.003 0.022 +/- 0.003 0.021 +/- 0.002 Pass DW-50262,50263 8/24/2023 Ra-228 2.62 +/- 0.87 1.46 +/- 0.52 2.04 +/- 0.51 Pass DW-50262,50263 8/24/2023 Ra-228 2.62 +/- 0.87 2.80 +/- 0.67 2.71 +/- 0.55 Pass AP-082823A/B 8/28/2023 Gr. Beta 0.023 +/- 0.003 0.028 +/- 0.003 0.026 +/- 0.002 Pass DW-50268,50269 8/29/2023 Gr. Alpha 0.87 +/- 0.69 0.97 +/- 0.81 0.92 +/- 0.53 Pass
| |
| | |
| SG-2660,2661 9/4/2023 Gr. Alpha 68.5 +/- 7.1 51.0 +/- 6.3 59.8 +/- 4.7 Pass SG-2660,2661 9/4/2023 Pb-214 13.7 +/- 0.5 14.2 +/- 0.5 14.0 +/- 0.4 Pass SG-2660,2661 9/4/2023 Ac-228 14.4 +/- 0.8 14.3 +/- 0.9 14.4 +/- 0.6 Pass AP-090523A/B 9/5/2023 Gr. Beta 0.023 +/- 0.003 0.023 +/- 0.003 0.023 +/- 0.002 Pass AP-091223A/B 9/12/2023 Gr. Beta 0.024 +/- 0.002 0.025 +/- 0.002 0.025 +/- 0.001 Pass
| |
| | |
| A-11 TABLE A-5. Intralaboratory "Duplicate" Samples
| |
| | |
| Concentrationa Averaged Lab Codeb Date Analysis AcceptanceFirst Result Second Result Result
| |
| | |
| W-2776,2777 9/18/2023 Gr. Alpha 1.86 +/- 1.73 0.99 +/- 1.64 1.43 +/- 1.19 Pass W-2776,2777 9/18/2023 Ra-226 0.43 +/- 0.10 0.55 +/- 0.27 0.49 +/- 0.14 Pass W-2776,2777 9/18/2023 Ra-228 1.71 +/- 1.07 3.33 +/- 1.12 2.52 +/- 0.77 Pass AP-092023A/B 9/20/2023 Gr. Beta 0.039 +/- 0.004 0.042 +/- 0.004 0.041 +/- 0.003 Pass DW-50296,50297 9/27/2023 Ra-226 0.51 +/- 0.09 0.54 +/- 0.20 0.53 +/- 0.11 Pass AP-092823A/B 9/28/2023 Gr. Beta 0.030 +/- 0.004 0.034 +/- 0.004 0.032 +/- 0.003 Pass
| |
| | |
| S-3136,3137 10/11/2023 Pb-214 1.93 +/- 0.06 1.84 +/- 0.08 1.89 +/- 0.05 Pass S-3135,3136 10/11/2023 Ac-228 4.06 +/- 0.17 3.84 +/- 0.19 3.95 +/- 0.13 Pass SG-3511,3512 10/10/2023 Gr. Alpha 59.0 +/- 6.2 68.5 +/- 6.6 63.8 +/- 4.5 Pass SG-3511,3512 10/10/2023 Gr. Beta 52.1 +/- 2.9 54.6 +/- 3.0 53.4 +/- 2.1 Pass SG-3511,3512 10/10/2023 Pb-214 9.67 +/- 0.25 9.57 +/- 0.29 9.62 +/- 0.19 Pass SG-3511,3512 10/10/2023 Ac-228 8.99 +/- 0.43 8.79 +/- 0.53 8.89 +/- 0.34 Pass
| |
| | |
| SG-3521,3522 11/8/2023 Gr. Alpha 57.3 +/- 7.3 70.9 +/- 7.6 64.1 +/- 5.3 Pass SG-3521,3522 11/8/2023 Pb-214 11.2 +/- 0.2 11.7 +/- 0.2 11.5 +/- 0.1 Pass SG-3521,3522 11/8/2023 Ac-228 13.0 +/- 0.4 13.4 +/- 0.5 13.2 +/- 0.3 Pass DW-50335,50336 11/17/2023 Gr. Alpha 3.70 +/- 1.00 3.46 +/- 0.90 3.58 +/- 0.67 Pass DW-50335,50336 11/17/2023 Gr. Beta 1.73 +/- 0.63 2.07 +/- 0.06 1.90 +/- 0.32 Pass W-3647,3648 11/20/2023 H-3 2,815 +/- 181 2,829 +/- 182 2,822 +/- 128 Pass
| |
| | |
| DW-50358,50359 12/4/2023 Gr. Beta 2.53 +/- 0.61 1.66 +/- 0.62 2.10 +/- 0.43 Pass DW-50349,50350 12/4/2023 Ra-226 0.04 +/- 0.11 0.32 +/- 0.10 0.18 +/- 0.07 Pass DW-50349,50350 12/4/2023 Ra-228 1.37 +/- 0.48 1.57 +/- 0.47 1.47 +/- 0.34 Pass DW-50365,50366 12/11/2023 Gr. Alpha 1.4 +/- 0.79 1.95 +/- 0.91 1.675 +/- 0.60 Pass DW-50365,50366 12/11/2023 Gr. Beta 3.18 +/- 0.62 3.18 +/- 0.66 3.18 +/- 0.45 Pass DW-50374,50375 12/13/2023 Gr. Alpha 0.89 +/- 0.60 0.54 +/- 0.67 0.715 +/- 0.45 Pass W-4035.4036 12/31/2023 H-3 157,638 +/- 1,218 159,848 +/- 1,227 158,743 +/- 864 Pass W-4035.4036 12/31/2023 Ni-63 2,410 +/- 78 2,337 +/- 78 2,373 +/- 55 Pass W-4035.4036 12/31/2023 Sr-90 49.8 +/- 5.2 42.7 +/- 4.8 46.3 +/- 3.5 Pass
| |
| | |
| A-12 TABLE A-6. Department of Energy's Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP).
| |
| | |
| Concentrationa Reference KnownAcceptance Lab Code b Date Analysis Activity AcceptanceLaboratory result Range c
| |
| | |
| MAAP-544 2/1/2023 Gross Alpha 1.23 +/- 0.10 0.97 0.29 - 1.65 Pass MAAP-544 2/1/2023 Gross Beta 1.67 +/- 0.06 1.49 0.75 - 2.24 Pass
| |
| | |
| MADW-543 2/1/2023 Gross Alpha 0.843 +/- 0.074 1.19 0.36 - 2.02 Pass MADW-543 2/1/2023 Gross Beta 0.578 +/- 0.093 5.94 2.97 - 8.91 Fail d
| |
| | |
| MASO-540 2/1/2023 Cs-134 2.33 +/- 2.77 0 NA c Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 Cs-137 1.22 +/- 2.41 0 NA c Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 Co-57 585 +/- 4 698 489 - 907 Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 Co-60 727 +/- 8 795 557 - 1034 Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 Mn-54 1180 +/- 10 1230 861 - 1599 Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 Zn-65 846 +/- 11 990 693 - 1287 Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 K-40 526 +/- 23 574 402 - 746 Pass
| |
| | |
| MADW-545 2/1/2023 Cs-134 9.17 +/- 0.17 9.6 6.7 - 12.5 Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Cs-137 9.38 +/- 0.29 8.7 6.1 - 11.3 Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Co-57 -0.01 +/- 0.08 0.0 NA c Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Co-60 7.47 +/- 0.18 7.24 5.07 - 9.41 Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Mn-54 12.3 +/- 0.3 11.3 7.9 - 14.7 Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Zn-65 15.7 +/- 0.5 15.3 10.7 - 19.9 Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 K-40 1.23 +/- 1.52 0 NA c Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Sr-90 -0.0035 +/- 0.0172 0 NA c Pass
| |
| | |
| MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Cs-134 1.12 +/- 0.04 1.52 1.06 - 1.98 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Cs-137 0.56 +/- 0.07 0.630 0.441 - 0.819 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Co-57 0.62 +/- 0.30 0.661 0.463 - 0.859 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Co-60 0.89 +/- 0.07 1.05 0.74 - 1.37 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Mn-54 2.02 +/- 0.09 2.14 1.50 - 2.78 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Zn-65 2.13 +/- 0.14 2.25 1.58 - 2.93 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Sr-90 0.004 +/- 0.061 0 NA c Pass
| |
| | |
| MASO-540 2/1/2023 Cs-134 2.33 +/- 2.77 0 NA c Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 Cs-137 1.22 +/- 2.41 0 NA c Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 Co-57 585 +/- 4 698 489 - 907 Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 Co-60 727 +/- 8 795 557 - 1034 Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 Mn-54 1180 +/- 10 1230 861 - 1599 Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 Zn-65 846 +/- 11 990 693 - 1287 Pass MASO-540 2/1/2023 K-40 526 +/- 23 574 402 - 746 Pass
| |
| | |
| A-13 TABLE A-6. Department of Energy's Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP).
| |
| | |
| Concentrationa Reference KnownAcceptance Lab Code b Date Analysis Activity AcceptanceLaboratory result Range c
| |
| | |
| MADW-545 2/1/2023 Cs-134 9.17 +/- 0.17 9.6 6.7 - 12.5 Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Cs-137 9.38 +/- 0.29 8.7 6.1 - 11.3 Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Co-57 -0.01 +/- 0.08 0.0 NA c Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Co-60 7.47 +/- 0.18 7.24 5.07 - 9.41 Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Mn-54 12.3 +/- 0.3 11.3 7.9 - 14.7 Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Zn-65 15.7 +/- 0.5 15.3 10.7 - 19.9 Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 K-40 1.23 +/- 1.52 0 NAc Pass MADW-545 2/1/2023 Sr-90 -0.0035 +/- 0.0172 0 NAc Pass
| |
| | |
| MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Cs-134 1.12 +/- 0.04 1.52 1.06 - 1.98 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Cs-137 0.56 +/- 0.07 0.630 0.441 - 0.819 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Co-57 0.62 +/- 0.30 0.661 0.463 - 0.859 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Co-60 0.89 +/- 0.07 1.05 0.74 - 1.37 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Mn-54 2.02 +/- 0.09 2.14 1.50 - 2.78 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Zn-65 2.13 +/- 0.14 2.25 1.58 - 2.93 Pass MAAP-538 2/1/2023 Sr-90 0.004 +/- 0.061 0 NAc Pass
| |
| | |
| MAVE-545 2/1/2023 Cs-134 7.45 +/- 0.39 7.60 5.32 - 9.88 Pass MAVE-545 2/1/2023 Cs-137 0.010 +/- 0.084 0 NAc Pass MAVE-545 2/1/2023 Co-57 6.83 +/- 0.17 6.93 4.85 - 9.01 Pass MAVE-545 2/1/2023 Co-60 6.89 +/- 0.17 6.51 4.56 - 8.46 Pass MAVE-545 2/1/2023 Mn-54 9.08 +/- 0.28 8.03 5.62 - 10.44 Pass MAVE-545 2/1/2023 Zn-65 7.83 +/- 0.39 7.43 5.20 - 9.66 Pass
| |
| | |
| MAAP-2761 8/1/2023 Gross Alpha 0.16 +/- 0.04 0.255 0.077 - 0.434 Pass MAAP-2761 8/1/2023 Gross Beta 1.16 +/- 0.07 0.927 0.464 - 1.391 Pass
| |
| | |
| MADW-2753 8/1/2023 Gross Alpha 1.20 +/- 0.06 1.59 0.48 - 2.70 Pass MADW-2753 8/1/2023 Gross Beta 14.7 +/- 0.1 16.27 8.14 - 24.41 Pass
| |
| | |
| MASO-2757 8/1/2023 Cs-134 612 +/- 8 693 485 - 901 Pass MASO-2757 8/1/2023 Cs-137 1900 +/- 20 1810 1267 - 2353 Pass MASO-2757 8/1/2023 Co-57 1020 +/- 20 1060 742 - 1378 Pass MASO-2757 8/1/2023 Co-60 901 +/- 10 898 629 - 1167 Pass MASO-2757 8/1/2023 Mn-54 6.53 +/- 3.22 0 NAc Pass MASO-2757 8/1/2023 Zn-65 1270 +/- 30 1160 812 - 1508 Pass MASO-2757 8/1/2023 K-40 702 +/- 54 574 402 - 746 Pass
| |
| | |
| A-14 TABLE A-6. Department of Energy's Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP).
| |
| | |
| Concentrationa Reference KnownAcceptance Lab Code b Date Analysis Activity AcceptanceLaboratory resultRangec
| |
| | |
| MADW-2751 8/1/2023 Cs-134 8.88 +/- 0.18 11.3 7.9 - 14.7 Pass MADW-2751 8/1/2023 Cs-137 7.95 +/- 0.30 8.7 6.1 - 11.3 Pass MADW-2751 8/1/2023 Co-57 16.5 +/- 0.3 19.3 13.5 - 25.1 Pass MADW-2751 8/1/2023 Co-60 0.09 +/- 0.06 0 NAcPass MADW-2751 8/1/2023 Mn-54 11.6 +/- 0.3 12.7 8.9 - 16.5 Pass MADW-2751 8/1/2023 Zn-65 17.9 +/- 0.6 19.1 13.4 - 24.8 Pass MADW-2751 8/1/2023 K-40 1.56 +/- 1.60 0 NAcPass
| |
| | |
| MAAP-2755 8/1/2023 Cs-134 1.30 +/- 0.10 1.60 1.12 - 2.08 Pass MAAP-2755 8/1/2023 Cs-137 0.04 +/- 0.03 0 NAcPass MAAP-2755 8/1/2023 Co-57 1.47 +/- 0.05 1.63 1.14 - 2.12 Pass MAAP-2755 8/1/2023 Co-60 0.04 +/- 0.09 0 NAcPass MAAP-2755 8/1/2023 Mn-54 1.59 +/- 0.09 1.57 1.10 - 2.04 Pass MAAP-2755 8/1/2023 Zn-65 1.71 +/- 0.14 1.89 1.32 - 2.46 Pass MAAP-2755 8/1/2023 Sr-90 0.533 +/- 0.040 0.614 0.430 - 0.796 Pass
| |
| | |
| MAVE-2759 8/1/2023 Cs-134 4.25 +/- 0.14 4.96 3.49 - 6.47 Pass MAVE-2759 8/1/2023 Cs-137 0.025 +/- 0.050 0 NAcPass MAVE-2759 8/1/2023 Co-57 4.28 +/- 0.13 4.24 2.97 - 5.51 Pass MAVE-2759 8/1/2023 Co-60 2.49 +/- 0.11 2.79 1.95 - 3.63 Pass MAVE-2759 8/1/2023 Mn-54 2.45 +/- 0.16 2.6 1.8 - 3.3 Pass MAVE-2759 8/1/2023 Zn-65 0.058 - 0.107 0 NAcPass
| |
| | |
| a Results are reported in units of Bq/kg (soil), Bq/L (water) or Bq/total sample (filters, vegetation).
| |
| | |
| b Laboratory codes as follows: MAW (water), MADW (water), MAAP (air filter), MASO (soil) and MAVE (vegetation).
| |
| | |
| c MAPEP results are presented as the known values and expec ted laboratory precision (1 sigma, 1 determination) and
| |
| | |
| control limits as defined by the MAPEP. A known value of "zero" indicates an analysis was included in the testing series as a "false positive". MAPEP does not provide an acceptance range.
| |
| d A decimal point was misplaced in a unit conversion. If the conversion was was done properly the result: 5.78 +/- 0.93 Bq/L
| |
| | |
| woud have been within MAPEP's acceptance range.
| |
| | |
| A-15 TABLE A-7. Interlaboratory Comparison Crosscheck Program, Environmental Resource Associates (ERA)a.
| |
| | |
| MRAD-38 Study Concentration a Lab Code b Date Analysis ERALaboratory Acceptance Result Limits Value cdAcceptance
| |
| | |
| ERAP-599 3/20/2023 Cs-134 139 153 99 - 188 Pass ERAP-599 3/20/2023 Cs-137 970 892 733 - 1170 Pass ERAP-599 3/20/2023 Co-60 474 467 397 - 593 Pass ERAP-599 3/20/2023 Mn-54 < 3.3 < 35.0 0.00 - 35.0 Pass ERAP-599 3/20/2023 Zn-65 1280 1110 910 - 1700 Pass ERAP-599 3/20/2023 Sr-90 143 137 87 - 187 Pass
| |
| | |
| ERAP-598 3/20/2023 Gross Alpha 72.7 76.8 40.1 - 127 Pass ERAP-598 3/20/2023 Gross Beta 35.0 32.8 19.9 - 49.6 Pass
| |
| | |
| a Results obtained by Inc. as a participant in the crosscheck program for proficiency testing administered by Environmental Resource Associates, servi ng as a replacement for studies conducted previously by the Environmental Measurements Laboratory Quality Assessment Program (EML).
| |
| | |
| b Laboratory code ERAP (air filter). Results are reported in units of (pCi/Filter).
| |
| c The ERA Assigned values for the air filter standards are equal to 100% of the parameter present in the standard as determined by the gravimetric and/or volumetric measurements made during standard preparation as applicable.
| |
| | |
| d The acceptance limits are established per the guidelines contained in the Department of Energy (DOE) report EML-564, Analysis of Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) Quality Assessment Program (QAP)
| |
| Data Determination of Operational Criteria and Control Limits for Performance Evaluation Purposes or ERA's SOP for the generation of Performance Acceptance Limits.
| |
| | |
| A-16 APPENDIX B
| |
| | |
| DATA REPORTING CONVENTIONS
| |
| | |
| B-1 Data Reporting Conventions
| |
| | |
| 1.0. All activities, except gross alpha and gross beta, are decay corrected to collection time or the end of the collection period.
| |
| | |
| 2.0. Single Measurements
| |
| | |
| Each single measurement is reported as follows: x +/- s
| |
| | |
| where: x = value of the measurement;
| |
| | |
| s = 2s counting uncertainty (corresponding to the 95% confidence level).
| |
| | |
| In cases where the activity is less than the lower limit of detection L, it is reported as: <L,
| |
| | |
| where L = the lower limit of detection based on 4.66s uncertainty for a background sample.
| |
| | |
| 3.0. Duplicate analyses
| |
| | |
| 3.1 Individual results: For two analysis results; x 1 +/- s1 and x2 +/- s2
| |
| | |
| Reported result: x +/- s; where x = (1/2) (x 1 + x2) and s = (1/2) s21 + s22
| |
| | |
| 3.2. Individual results: <L1 , <L2 Reported result: <L, where L = lower of L1 and L2
| |
| | |
| 3.3. Individual results: x +/- s, <L Reported result:
| |
| otherwise.
| |
| | |
| 4.0. Computation of Averages and Standard Deviations
| |
| | |
| B-2 4.1 Averages and standard deviations listed in the tables are computed from all of the individual measurements over the period averaged; for example, an annual standard deviation would not be the average of quarterly standard deviations. The average x and standard deviation s of a set of n numbers x1, x2 . . . xn are defined as follows:
| |
| | |
| x = 1 s = (x- x)2 n n-1
| |
| | |
| 4.2 Values below the highest lower limit of detection are not included in the average.
| |
| | |
| 4.3 If all values in the averaging group are less than the highest LLD, the highest LLD is reported.
| |
| | |
| 4.4 If all but one of the values are less than the highest LLD, the single value x and associated two sigma error is reported.
| |
| | |
| 4.5 In rounding off, the following rules are followed:
| |
| | |
| 4.5.1. If the figure following those to be retained is less than 5, the figure is dropped, and the retained figures are kept unchanged. As an example, 11.443 is rounded off to 11.44.
| |
| | |
| 4.5.2. If the figure following those to be retained is equal to or greater than 5, the figure is dropped and the last retained figure is raised by 1. As an example, 11.445 is rounded off to 11.45.
| |
| | |
| 4.6 Composite samples which overlap the next month or year are reported for the month or year in which most of the sample is collected.
| |
| | |
| B-3 APPENDIX C
| |
| | |
| SAMPLE LOCATION MAPS
| |
| | |
| C-1 Environmental Radiological Sampling Points
| |
| | |
| (*) Locations currently discontinued are not illustrated.
| |
| | |
| C-2 C-3}}
| |
