1986RADIOLOGI CAL'ENVIRON MENTAL

OPERATING REPORT

* INDIAN POINT•NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

January 1 through December 31, 1986

0VIP

NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITYCONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK

-8705060085. 8361231PDR ADOCK 05000003' •-R PDR

ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT

NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITYCONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.

INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONUNITS 1, 2, AND 3

January 1 - December 31, 1986

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

1.0 ......... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1

2.0 ........ INTRODUCTION 2-1

2.1........ Site Description 2-1

2.2 ....... Program Background 2-1

2.3 ....... Program Objectives 2-1

3.0 ........ PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3-1

3.1 ....... Sample Collection 3-1

3.2 ....... Sample Analysis 3-1

3.3 ....... Sample Collection and Analysis Methodology 3-1

3.3.1 .... Direct Radiation 3-13.3.2 .... Air Particulates and Radioiodine 3-23.3.3 .... Hudson River Water 3-23.3.4 .... Drinking Water 3-23.3.5 .... Hudson River Shoreline Soil 3-23.3.6 .... Broad Leaf Vegetation 3-23.3.7 .... Fish and Invertebrates 3-23.3.8 .... Hudson River Aquatic Vegetation 3-23.3.9 .... Hudson River Bottom Sediment 3-23.3.10 .... Precipitation 3-23.3.11 .... Soil 3-43.3.12 .... Land Use Census 3-4

3.4 ....... Statistical Methodology 3-4

3.4.1 ....... Estimation of the Mean Value 3-5

3.4.2 ....... Lower Limit of Detection 3-6

3.4.3 Trend Analysis 3-6

3.4.4 ....... Chart Formats 3-8

3.4.5 ....... Table Statistics 3-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)Page

4.0 ....... RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4-1

4.1 ....... Direct Radiation 4-4

4.2 ....... Airborne Particulates and Radioiodine 4-4

4.3 ..... ... Hudson River Water 4-5

4.4 ....... Drinking Water 4-5

4.5 ....... Hudson River Shoreline Soil 4-6

4.6 ......... Broad Leaf Vegetation 4-6

4.7 ........ Fish and Invertebrates 4-7

4.8 ....... Additional Media Sampling 4-7

4.9 ....... Land Use Census 4-7

4.10 ....... Conclusion 4-8

5.0 ........ QUALITY ASSURANCE .5-1

5.1 ....... Contractor Quality Assurance Program 5-2

6.0 ....... REFERENCES 6-i

APPENDICES:

A. ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS A-i

B. RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM B-iRESULTS SUMMARY

- C. HISTORICAL TRENDS C-1

D. EPA INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM D-1

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

A-i Environmental Sample Station Locations(Within Two Miles) .............................. A-2

A-2 Environmental Sample Station Locations(Greater Than Two Miles) ........................ A-3

C-1 Direct Radiation, Summary By Year ............... C-3

C-2 Direct Radiation, 1978 to 1986,Standard Normal Deviate ......................... C-4

C-3 Gross Beta Radioactivity in Air, 1976 to 1986 .. C-6

C-4 Gross Beta Radioactivity in Air,Standard Normal Deviate .......................... C-7

C-5 Cs-137 Radioactivity in Air, 1976 to 1986 ....... C-8

C-6 Cs-137 Radioactivity in Air,Standard Normal Deviate ......................... C-9

C-7 Cs-137 in Hudson River Water, 1976 to 1986 ...... C-i1

C-8 Cs-137 in Hudson River Water,Standard Normal Deviate ......................... C-12

C-9 Cs-134 and Cs-137 in Shoreline Soil,1976 to 1986 ..................................... C-15

C-IO Cs-134 and Cs-137 in Shoreline Soil,Standard NormalDeviate ......................... C-16

C-11 Radioactivity in Broad Leaf Vegetation,1976 or 1986 .................................... C-18

C-12 Radioactivity in Broad Leaf Vegetation,Standard Normal Deviate ......................... C-19

C-13 Cs-137 in Fish and Invertebrates, 1976 to 1986 .. C-21

C-14 Cs-137 in Fish and Invertebrates,Standard Normal Deviate ......................... C-22

LIST OF TABMES

TABLE TITLE

A-I Sampling Station Locations ...................... A--4

A-2 Detection Capabilities for-Environmental SampleAnalyses ................................. o ........ A49

B-i Summary of SamplingDeviations, 1986 ............ B-2

B-2 Direct Radiation, Innmer.Ring .. B-3

B-3 Direct Radiation, Outer Ring ............. B-4

B-4 Direct Radiation, Special-Interest andControl Location............................... 3-5

B-5 Quarterly Direct Radiation, Annual

Summary, 1986 .................................... B-6

B-6 Radionuclides in Air, Annual Summary, 1986 ....... -7

B-7 Radionuclides in Hudson RiverWater, Annual Summary,1986....... -8

B-8 Radionuclides in'Drinking Water

Annual Summary, 1986 ......... ................ B-9

B-9 Radionuclides in Shoreline Sois,- Armuma

Summary, 1986 .....

B-10 Radionuclides in BroadLeaf Vegetation, Annual

Summary, 1986 ..................................

B-11 Radionuclides in Fish and-Invertebrates,

Annual Summary, 1986 .......................... B-12

B-12 Land Use Census, 1986 .... .......... 3.43

B-13 Milch Animal Census, 19B6 ........ .......... B-lI

C-i Direct Radiation Annual Summary, 1978 to 1986... C-.2

C-2 Radionuclides in Air, 1976-to 1986 ........... .... C-

C-3 Radionuclides in Hudson River Water,1976 to 1986 ....... ................ -ID

C-4 Radionuclides in Drinking Water,: 1976 to-"1986 ... '-C13

C-5 Radionuclides in Hudson Rlver.Shorelmne.Soil,1976 to 1986 .......... . .................... .C-IA

C-6 Radionuclides in Broad-Leaf.Vegetation,1976 to 1986 ................... . . ...... ... . -1

C-7 Radionuclides in Fish and I:vertebrates1976 to 1986 ................. .......... .......... C-20

D-1 US EPA Cross-Check Program "B6 ..........1

SECTION I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report contains adescription of the 1986 Radiological Environmental MonitoringProgram (REMP) for the Indian Point site, and its results. TheIndian Point site consists of Units 1, 2 and 3. Units 1 and 2 areowned and operated by the Consolidated Edison Company of New York,Unit 3 by the New York Power Authority.

The REMP is used to measure direct radiation, as well as theairborne and waterborne pathways of the environment. Directradiation pathways include radiation from buildings and structuresof the plant, airborne material that might be released from theplant, cosmic radiation, and the naturally occurring radioactivematerials in soil, air and water. Analysis of ThermoluminescentDosimeters (TLD) used to measure direct radiation showed noindication of increased radiation levels resulting from plantoperation.

The airborne pathway consists of air, food, drinking water andprecipitation and includes measurements of air, precipitation,drinking water and broad leaf vegetation samples. The 1986 air-borne pathway measurements indicated that there was no increasingtrend attributable to the Indian Point Station.

The waterborne pathway consists of Hudson River water, fish andinvertebrates, and shoreline sediment. Measurements of the mediacomprising the waterborne pathway provided results which were foundto be consistent with historical averages.

Overall, concentrations of nuclides detected in the vicinity ofIndian Point were well within their historical background rangesfor most of the year. However, the accident at the ChernobylNuclear Power Station (April 26, 1986) resulted in above backgroundconcentrations of some radionuclides (e.g., 1-131, Cs-134 andCs-137) in air and vegetation samples during mid-1986.

This report contains a description of the REMP and the conduct ofthat program as required by the Radiological EnvironmentalTechnical Specifications (RETS). It also contains summaries of theresults of the 1986 program and discussions of those resultsincluding trend analyses, potential impact on the environment, landuse census and interlaboratory comparisons.

1-1

During 1986 a total of 1350 RETS samples were collected. A summaryof the numbers of samples collected is presented in Table B-i. Inaddition, the sampling frequency in 1986 was higher than required,due to the use of additional (non-RETS) sample locations and media.

The accident at the reactor in Chernobyl resulted in detectableimpacts on the environment worldwide. In order to obtain a moredetailed picture of the potential impact of this incident on theplant's local environment, additional samples were taken andanalyzed. This additional ."special" sampling also providedevidence of the effectiveness of the existing REMP in detecting andquantifying minimal perturbations of the local environment.

This "special" sampling revealed the presence of detectableconcentrations of certain radionuclides in the environment as aresult of the accident. It is clear that these positive resultscan be attributed to sources other than the operation of IndianPoint (i.e., the accident at Chernobyl) due to the ubiquity andconsistency of the detected concentrations in the environment.

In summary, the measured concentrations of radionuclides in theenvironment surrounding Indian Point are not increasing as a resultof releases of radioactive materials from Indian Point Units 1, 2,and 3. The concentrations present in 1986 were within the historicbackground ranges for the detecLed radionuclides; any calculateddoses would be primarily attributable to background radiation.Consequently, the operation of the plants in 1986 resulted in nomeaningful dose to man above background. Some of the nuclidesdetected as a result of the Chernobyl incident were an exceptionsince they were clearly present at levels above recent years'background. However, the dose consequences from theseradionuclides is low relative to the normal ambient doses frombackground radiation in the vicinity of Indian Point.

1-2

SECTION 2

INTRODUCTION

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Site Description

The Indian Point site occupies 239 acres on the east bank ofthe Hudson River on a point of land at Mile Point 42.6. Thesite is located in the Village of Buchanan, WestchesterCounty, New York. Three nuclear reactors, Indian Point UnitNos. 1, 2 and 3, and associated buildings occupy 35 acres nearthe southern end of the site. Unit 1 has been retired as agenerating facility, Units 2 and 3 are owned and operated byCon Edison and New York Power Authority, respectively.

2.2 Program Background

Environmental monitoring/surveillance has been conducted atIndian Point since 1958, four years prior to the start-up ofUnit 1. The pre-operational program was designed and imple-mented to determine the natural background radioactivity andto measure the variations in activity levels from natural andother sources in the vicinity, as well as fallout from nuclearweapons tests. Accumulation of this background data permitsthe detection and assessment of activity attributable to plantoperations.

2.3 Program Objectives

The current environmental -monitoring program is designed tomeet two primary objectives:

1. To enable the identification and quantification ofchanges in the radioactivity of the area, and

2. To verify projected and anticipated radionuclide concen-trations in the environment from releases of the radioac-tive materials from the site.

In order to identify changes in activity, the environmentalsampling schedule requires that analyses be conducted forspecific environmental media on a regular basis. The radioac-tivity profile of the environment is established and monitoredthrough routine evaluation of analytical results.

2-1

Environmental sample locations are designated for the col-lection of environmental media for analysis. These samplelocations are divided into indicator and control locations.Indicator locations are established near the site, where thepresence of environmental radioactivity of plant origin ismost likely to be detected. Control locations are establishedfurther away from the site, where the level would not beaffected by plant discharges. The use of indicator andcontrol locations enables the identification of potentialsources of detected radioactivity, thus meeting one of theprogram objectives.

Verification of expected radionuclide concentrations resultingfrom effluent releases from the site is another programobjective. Verifying projected concentrations through theREMP is difficult since the environmental concentrationsresulting from plant releases are usually too small to bedetected. Since effluent releases in 1986 were kept to thelowest level practicable, predictive models for plant releasesindicate that the resultant environmental concentrationsshould be undetectable in most cases. Residual radioactivityfrom atmospheric bomb test and naturally occurring radioactiv-ity were the predominant sources of radioactivity in thesamples collected. Their presence, along with the environ-mental concentrations resulting from the accident atChernobyl, makes the detection of the predicted low levelconcentrations due to plant operations difficult. Nonetheless,analysis .7,f the data verified that plant effluents resulted inenvironmental concentrations far below regulatory limits andof no health significance.

2-2

SECTION 3

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

3.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

In order to achieve the objectives outlined above and ensurecompliance with the Radiological Environmental TechnicalSpecifications, sampling and analysis of environmental media areperformed as outlined in Table A-i and described in 3.3 below.

3.1 Sample Collection

Collection of environmental samples for the entire IndianPoint Site is performed by Con Edison Nuclear EnvironmentalMonitoring personnel.

Assistance in the collection of fish and invertebrate sampleswas provided by a contracted environmental company, NormandeauAssociates.

3.2 Sample Analysis

The analysis of all Indian Point environmental samples wasperformed by a commercial analytical laboratory, TeledyneIsotopes, Inc. of Westwood, New Jersey. In addition, thespiked samples used as part of the analytical QualityAssurance Program are prepared by Clean Harbors, Inc.

3.3 Sample Collection and Analysis Methodology

3.3.1 Direct Radiation

Direct gamma radiation is measured using integratingcalcium sulfate thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD),which provide cumulative measurements of backgroundradiation (e.g., total integrated exposures) for agiven period. Two TLD holders are posted at each ofvarious locations within a 5 mile (8 km) radius ofthe site. Their locations encompass two points ineach of the 16 compass sectors, comprising two ringsof TLD's.

The inner ring of TLD's is located near the siteboundary; the outer ring is located 4-6 km from thesite. Additional TLD's are located at Roseton (20miles north) as a control and at seven otherlocations of special interest. TLD's are collectedand evaluated on a quarterly basis (i.e., mrem perquarter).

3-1

3.3.2 Air Particulates and Radioiodine

Air samples are taken at nine locations varying indistance from 0.25 to 20 miles from the plant.These locations represent I control and 8 indicatorlocations. The air samples are collectedcontinuously by means of fixed air particulatefilters followed by in-line charcoal cartridges,both of which are changed on a weekly basis. Thefilter and cartridge sample& are analyzed weekly forgross beta and radioiodine, respectively. Inaddition, gamma spectroscopy is performed onquarterly composites of the air particulate filters.

3.3.3 Hudson River Water

Hudson River water is collected continuously fromthe inlet pipe (control location) and the dischargecanal (indicator location), both of which arelocated on-site. The sampling apparatus usedensures that representative samples are obtained.On a weekly basis, 4-liter samples are taken fromthe inlet and discharge sample drums in one gallonbottles. These weekly river water samples arecomposited for monthly gamma spectroscopy analysis(GSA), and quarterly for tritium analysis and GSA.

3.3.4 Drinking Water

Samples of drinking water are collected from theCamp Field Reservoir (3.5 miles NE). These samplesare each 4 liters and are collected in one galloncontainers. They are obtained monthly and areanalyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides and 1-131;they are also composited quarterly and analyzed fortritium.

3.3.5 Hudson River Shoreline Soil

Shoreline soil samples are taken at 3 indicator and2 control locations along the Hudson River. Theyare approximately 2 kg in size and consist of grabsamples obtained with a trowel where available.These samples are collected during the spring andsummer and gamma spectroscopy analysis is performedon them.

3-2

3.3.6 Broad Leaf Vegetation

Broad leaf vegetation samples are collected from 3locations. They are collected monthly whenavailable and analyzed for gamma-emittingradionuclides and radioiodine. These samplesconsist of at least I kg of edible and/or inediblevegetation and are used in assessment of the foodproduct and milk ingestion pathways.

3.3.7 Fish and Invertebrates

Various fish and invertebrate samples are obtainedfrom the Hudson River at locations upstream anddownstream of the plant discharge. These samplesare taken in the spring and fall depending upontheir availability. The edible portions of the fishand invertebrates collected are analyzed by gammaspectroscopy.

3.3.8 Hudson River Aquatic Vegetation

During the spring and summer, aquatic vegetationsamples are collectee from the Hudson River at 3locations. At each location samples of Potometonperfoliatus, and Myriophyllium verticullatum areobtained when available. These samples are analyzedfor gamma-emitting radionuclides and 1-131.

3.3.9 Hudson River Bottom Sediment

Bottom sediment and benthos are sampled at fourlocations along the Hudson River, once each springand summer. These samples are obtained using aPeterson grab sampler or similar instrument. Gammaspectroscopy analysis is performed on these bottomsediment samples.

3.3.10 Precipitation

Precipitation samples are continuously collected atone indicator and one control location. They arecollected in sample bottles designed to hinderevaporation. They are composited quarterly andanalyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides andtritium.

3-3

3.3.11 'Soil

Soil samples:.are collected from 2 indicator and onecontrol locations. They are approximately 2 kg insize and consist of about twenty 2-inch deep cores.Gamma spectroscopy .analyses are performed on thesoil samples.

3.3.12 land Use Census

-Each year a .land ,use census is conducted to....determine the current utilization of land within 8

km of the site. This census actually consists oftwo types of census which are used to determine

Swhether there are .changes in existing conditionswhich warrant changing the sampling program: amullch animal census and a residence census.

'The imilch animal census is used to identify animalsproducing milk for human consumption within 8 km (5miles) of Indian Point to determine herd size andlocation. It consists of a visual field survey ofthe areas where a high probability of milch animalsexists and confirmation through personnel who dealwith farm animals, such as veternarians, feedsuppliers and dairy associations. Although there,rerprsesntl-y ~-no~an ls-producing-milk for humanconsumption within 8 km of the site, the census isperformed to determine if the milk sampling program

.needs to be conducted.

.A residence-census is also performed to identify thenearest residence(s) to the site in each of the 16sectors surrounding the site. Sampling ofvegetation at the site boundary is performed in lieuof the garden census as per TechnicalSpecifications..

3.4 Statistical YMethodology

There were two basic statistical calculation methodologiesutilized In the -analysis of the 1986 REMP data from IndianPoint. The'-first calculation consisted of the determination•.of mean values; -the mean of.the.indicatorand'control sampleswas determined for each sample medium. The second methodologyutilized.,which was.employed to determine data trends, was the-Shewhart Control Chart Analysis. These methodologies are

_-.descrlbed In the following sections.

..3-4

3.4.1 Estimation of the Mean Value

The mean, (i), and standard deviation, (s), arewidely used statistical methods for describingcharacteristics of a sampled population.

These statistical values were used in the reductionof the data generated by the sampling and analysisof the various media in the Indian PointRadiological Environmental Monitoring Program. Thefollowing equations were utilized to estimate themean (M) and the standard deviation (s):

N

-xix= ili

N

(Equation 3-1)

where,

i

N

x.1

= estimate of the mean.= individual sample, i.= total number of samples with positive

indicatie.:ýs.

= Value for sample i above the lowerlimit of detection.

N~i=1/2

. (Equation 3-2)

where,

s = standard deviation for the sample.

These equations were used in the reduction of the1986 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Data.

3-5

Note that the statistic for the mean using onlypositive values tends to strongly bias the averageshigh, particularly when few of the data are mea-surably positive. Most of the data for this reportreflect the small number of positive values.Exceptions to this case are direct radiationmeasured by TLD's and gross beta radioactivity inair which showed positive indications related tonaturally occurring radionuclides throughout theyear.

Also, the standard deviation is calculated for thesample set (using N) rather than as an estimate ofthe population standard deviation (using N-i).

3.4.2 Lower Limit of Detection (LLD)

The LLD is a predetermined concentration or activitylevel used to establish a detection limit for theanalytical procedures.

The LLD's are specified by the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission for each radionuclide in specific media,and are determined by taking into account overallmeasurement methods. The equaticn used to calculatethe LLD is: LLD = 4.66 K Sb,

where, Sb is the standard deviation in thebackground counting rate and K consistsof variables which account for suchparameters as:

- Instrument characteristics (e.g.,efficiency)

- Sample size- Counting time- Media density (self-absorption)- Radioactive decay- Chemical yield

In the RETS program, LLD's are used to ensure thatminimum acceptable detection capabilities are metwith specified statistical confidence levels (95%detection probability with 51 probability of a falsenegative). Table A-2 presents the LLD's used in theRETS programs for required media and radionuclidesas specified by the NRC.

3-6

3.4.3 Trend AnalysIs

In 1986, trend analysis is based on Shewhart ControlCharts. Data contained in Shewhart control chartsin this report are displayed as points about anhistorical an. 'Data for the historical means fortrending were found to be nmmally distributed andall charts In this report use the norsal dis-tribution. The control charts are used to displaythe deviation of annual mean values from the 10 yearhistorical mean. Deviations are normalized to thehistorical standard deviation for the period. Thesecharts give visual evidence of trending and e3Jni-nate bias based on the variabiJity of the dataitself.

When there is no Trend, the data will be within plusor minus two standard deviations approximately 95%of the time. Any single point above the +3 standarddeviation line indicates a significant increas, fromthe historical mean. Two points in a row above the2 standard deviation l-Ine also indicates an in-crease. Vote that with the averaging used for theimmediate prior 10 year period, historic meant andhistoric st-anrd devdation chan e each year.

Possible c-ases bebn•d I sstItica-lly evlenrt trendmay include mormal radioactive decay, fallout frnuclear weapons testing or the Chernobyl event,releases to the environment by plant operations,transfer or relocation of radioactive materials byactive transport -processes, or experimental .oranalytical error.

The equation for the value of -he standard normaldeviate s given by

S "

where .is the average for the year In aqnestin.

is the historical average for the Previousten years, and

sh is the historical standard deviation forOme 10 year tim PeriJd.

3-7

The historical average is1

x h -N

Summed over the years 1976 - 1985.

The historical standard deviation iscalculated using

SNh3 1 2 ( )2) 1/2

N 2

where the summation over N is taken over the samerange as given for 3 (i.e., 1976 - 1985).

3.4.4 Chart Formats

Bar charts are used to plot the concentration data.Charts are generally scaled to a full scale value often times the required lower limit of detection forthe nuclide in question. This displays all datarelative to the detection sensitivity. It is also aconvenient method of showing relative concentrationimportance as well.

Like nuclides are plotted on the same chart. Forexample Co-60 and Co-58 along with controls areshown together. In all cases, these paired nuclidehave similar LLD's. For unpaired nuclides, indica-tor and control sample concentration are showntogether where appropriate.

Line charts are used for Standard Normal DeviateCharts. Lines are used to connect consecutivepoints but not for points that are not consecutive.

3.4.5 Table Statistics

Averages shown in the tables are, the averages ofpositive values in accordance with the NRC's BranchTechnical Position (BTP) to Regulatory Guide 4.8,"An Acceptable Radiological Environmental MonitoringProgram". Samples with "LT" values or " LLD" valuesare not included in the averages.

Standard deviations for reported analytical valuesare shown at one standard deviation in the body ofthe tables.

3-8

SECTION 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

' ',The 1986 Radiological Znvironmental- Monitoring. Program. .(REMP) wasconducted in accordance with the Radiological Environmental Techni-cal Specifications (RETS). The RETS contain requirements for thenumber and distribution of sampling, locations, the types of samplesto be collected, and :.the .types of..analysesz -o be performed formeasurement of radioactivity.

"'The REMP at Indian Poimt includes measurements of 'XRdioactivity.levels in the following, environmental pathways.

Hudson River w- ater, aquatic vegetation (Won-TS) ,bottom sediments (Wono-R-TS), shorelineBoil, fish and invertebrates.

-Airborne Particulates and RadolodinePrecipitation (Non-RETS)-Drinking 'WaterMilk/Food ProductsTerrestrial Broadl..eaf VegetationSoil (Non-RETS)Direct Gamma Radiation

An annuml Jland use and milch animal census is also part of the

Oi~~ A rilT~26,'4986~~,ý mjreintourd-avo UnInt, -4 '-of :theChernobyl Nuclear .ower Station located ab:.uz: 60 miles -north of

'Xiev, USSR. 'This accident began with a power excursion and a loss%of -coolant and resulted In an explosion and .subsequent burning -of.its graphite moderator and reactor .core.

As a result of the accident, there was an aitborne release-of* megaturie quantities -of fission -products, some of -which were,carried to considerable -elevations and subsequently spread :.and,deposited. The . fission products -were initially observed Insignificant concentrations in mearby Poland, and later in loweramounts in central and western 'Europe. -In early to mid-May, lesssignificant concentrations of -hese fission products reached theUnited States. The. radionuclides detected In various mediathroughout the United States as a result of the accident include

S'1-131,'Cs-134, Cs-137, Ru-103, and Ru-106.

-. dditional "special-" seampling •was iplemented at Indlman ,Point -nA.:response to this accident, In order to ensure the characterizationof -the event-'s environmental Impact. The ."special" sample results-.-applicable to- ýthe Chernob~l accident demonstrate -the effectivenessof the existing MP In characterizing the effect of the incident,and - in " fact, reinforce .the findings. -of -the IMP. -in terms ofChernobyl's environmental impact. .Descriptions of the "special"sample .>results -- are .presented ..as a supplemymt to .the resultsobtained through the REM,.

A-1

In order to evaluate the contribution of plant operations toenvironmental radioactivity levels, other man-made and naturalsources of environmental radioactivity, as well as the aggregate ofpast monitoring data must be considered. It is not the detectionof an isotope but the determination of its potential impact whichdetermines its significance. Therefore, we have reported the datacollected in 1986, and attempted to assess the significance of thefindings.

The radionuclides detected in the atmosphere in 1986 can be groupedinto four categories: (1) naturally occurring radionuclides; (2)radionuclides resulting from weapons testing; (3) radionuclidesresulting from the accident at Chernobyl; and (4) radionuclidesthat could be related to plant operations.

The environment contains a broad inventory of naturally occurringradionuclides; i.e., cosmic ray induced (Be-7, H-3) or geologicallyderived (Ra-226, Th-228, K-40). These radionuclides constitute themajority of the background radiation source and thus account for amajority of the annual background dose. Since the detectedconcentrations of these radionuclides were consistent at indicatorand control locations, and unrelated to plant operations, theirpresence will not be discussed further.

In addition to the naturally occurring radionuclides, 6 others weredetected through the REMP. During 1986, Cs-137, Cs-134, Co-60,Ru-106, Ru-103 and 1-131 were detected at above background levelsin various media in the vicinity of Indian Point. The sources, andsignificance of the presence, of these radionuclides are describedin the following sections.

The second group of radionuclides detected in 1986 consist of thoseresulting from past weapons testing in the earth's atmosphere. Theheyday of such testing in the 1950's and 1960's resulted in asignificant atmospheric radionuclide inventory which, in turn,contributed significantly to the concentrations in the loweratmosphere and ecological systems. Although reduced in frequency,atmospheric weapons testing continued until 1980. The resultantradionuclide inventory, although diminishing with time (i.e.,through decay, deposition and sedimentation, etc.), remains detect-able.

In 1986, the detected radionuclides attributable to past atmospher-ic weapons testing included Co-60 and Cs-137 in some media. Thelevels detected were consistent with the decreasing levels ofradionuclides resulting from weapons tests measured over the pastten years. Another reason for attributing their presence toweapons testing is the absence of the related short-lived corrosionand fission products Co-58 and Cs-134 respectively.

Radionuclides which are attributable to the accident at Chernobylcomprise the third group of radionuclides detected in 1986.

4-2

The detected radionuclides attributable to the accident atChernobyl include Ru-103, Ru-106, 1-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137. Theirpresence is attributable to this incident for two reasons. Theprimary indication that the positive measurements were not of plantorigin was their consistent nature (e.g., detected in the sameconcentration at locations surrounding the plant at varyingdistances). Also, the timing of the positive measurementscoincided exactly with the period during which the environmentalradioactivity from the accident reached the area in which the plantis located.

The final group of radionuclides detected through the 1986 REMPcomprise those which may be attributable to current plantoperations. During 1986, Cs-134, Cs-137, Ru-103, Ru-106, 1-131 andCo-60 were the only potentially plant-related radionuclidesdetected in the required samples. All of the Cs-134, Ru-103,Ru-106, and 1-131, as well as most of the Cs-137 detected aredirectly attributable to the accident at Chernobyl; leaving theCs-137 detected in some media and the detected Co-60 asattributable to other sources.

Cs-137 and Cs-134 are both products of uranium atom fission. SinceCs-134 has a significantly shorter half-life, detected concen-trations of Cs-137 attributable to plant operations (e.g., recentreleases), should be accompanied by Cs-134. The absence of suchcorroborating Cs-134 concentrations indicates that the presence ofCs-137 is not distinguishable from the existing background andshould be attributed primarily to weapons testing and residualconcentrations; i.e., not to recent plant operations.

Other plant-related radionuclides are Co-58 and Co-60 which areactivation/corrosion products. As Co-58 has a much shorterhalf-life, its absence would "date" the presence of the Co-60 to aresidual from past releases or other non-plant related sources.

In the following sections, a summary of the results of the 1986REMP are presented by medium, and the significance of any positivefindings discussed. It should be noted that identified naturallyoccurring radionuclides are omitted from the data tables andfurther discussion.

4-3

4.1 Direct Radiation

In 1986, the TLD program produced a clear, consistent pictureof ambient radiation levels in the vicinity of the IndianPoint Station.

Results of the quarterly measurements for 1986 are presentedin Tables B-2 to B-5. The results are presented as means andstandard deviations, by location and quarter. It should benoted that all quarterly results are normalized to a 91.2 dayquarter.

In addition, annual averages for previous years were calculat-ed and compared with the 1986 average. As can be seen fromTable C-I and Figures C-i and C-2, there was no observableincrease in ambient radiation levels over the years of 1978 -1986.

4.2 Airborne Particulates and Radioiodine

A sumnmary of the results of the 1986 air particulate filteranalysis is presented in Table B-6. The accident whichoccurred at the Soviet nuclear reactor at Chernobyl resultedin detectable noncentrations of airborne radi!nuclides in theIndian Point vicinity. A number of radionuclides directlyattributable to this event were det:.cted through the 1986REMP: 1-131, Ru-103, Cs-134 and Cs-137.

The concentrations of these radionuclides were consistent atthe indicator and control locations leading to the conclusionthat they were not due to plant operations. When combinedwith the fact that they were detected during the secondquarter, it became apparent that the presence of theseradionuclides was due to the accident at Chernobyl. Thequantities detected were consistent with those detected byothers as a result of Chernobyl in the Indian Point region.

One quarterly air sample fevealed the presence of a smallconcentration (0.008 pCi/m ) of Ru-106, which is consistentwith other measurements of Chernobyl's contribution to theenvironmental radionuclide inventory. The single, low-leveloccurrence of the detected Ru-106 is of no significance andwill not be discussed any further.

4-4

The mean annual concentration of air particulates for the past10 years are presented.i:n Table C-2. From this 'table- andFigures C-3 and C-4, It can be seen that the. average GrossBeta concentration was consistent with historical levels.Figures C-5 and C-6 illustrate that the Cs-137 concentrationwas higher at indicator and control locations in 1986 than inrecent years, but within the ,historical Trange..... This.elevatedannual average is directly attributable to the: detectedelevated concentrations resulting from the accident atChernobyl, as described above.

A summary of the charroal. cartridge analytical. results Isincluded in Table B-6. As. llustrated by the data, 1-131 wasdetected at above background levels in a few charcoal samples.The timing and ubiquity of the detected 1-131 -make "It 'clearthat it was due' to the accident at Chernobyl. Thus, there wasno detection of 1-131 attributable to the operation of IndianPoint in 1986.

Additional air sampling anti ..analysis-was-performed for-theperiod in which the environmental radioactivity, due toChernobyl was present in the region; weekly gamma spectroscopyanalysis was performed on air filter and charcoal cartridgesamples. Detected radionrclide concentrations in th2"special" samples were conssXen= with Xhom ta ý 4,he...REMPsamples. Also, they provided evidence that the greatestconcentrations of -the-adi c1i restng -•frn .theChernobyl accident were detected during May at i1ndicator andcontrol locations alike.

From the data it can :be seen that -during 1986, no airparticulate radioactivity attributable -to the -operation ofIndian Point was detected.

4.3 Hudson River Water

A summary of the radionuclides detected in the Hudson Riverwater is presented in Table 3-7. The only detectedradionuclide potentially attributable to plant operations wasCs-137 which was detected...in the discharge canal first quartercomposite sample at 8 pCi/1.._far below the required.l2D of .18pCi/i. This concentration represents a single positive resultout of 12 samples. Also,'-the absence of detectable Cs-134 inthe same sample, indicates that -the Cs-137 -should beattributed to weapons testing and residual concentrations andnot to recent plant operation. Therefore, the operation ofIndian Point in 1986 did -not result .. any . adverseradiological impact on HudsonRiver water.

.4-5

Data on radionuclides detected in the Hudson River water overthe past ten years is summarized in Table C-3. From thistable and Figures C-7 and C-8, it can be seen that thedetected Cs-137, as well as the absence of detectable Co-60and tritium are consistent with the historical data.

4.4 Drinking Water

A summary of the drinking water sample analysis data ispresented in Table B-8.

There were no radionuclides attributable to plant operationsdetected in drinking water in 1986. In fact, no radionuclideswere detected in any of the monthly and quarterly compositedrinking water samples analyzed.

The average gross beta concentration measured in the sampleswas 3 pCi/l which is below the required LLD of 4 pCi/l.

The summary of historical drinking water analytical datapresented in Table C-4, illustrates that the average resultsof 1986 are consistent with historical results. The absenceof detectable concentrations of radionuclides potentiallyattributable to plant operations is in keeping with thedecreasing concentrations detected over the past ten years.

Examination of the 1986 and historical data indicates that thecurrent operation of Indian Point did nct have a radiologicalimpact on drinking water.

4.5 Hudson River Shoreline Soil

A summary of the radionuclide concentrations detected in thesamples is presented in Table B-9. Although three potentialreactor products have been historically detected in shorelinesoils, only Cs-137 was detected in 1986 (and in 1985 as well).

4-6

The average annual Cs-137 concentration was 253 pCi/Kg atindicator locations and 212 pCi/Kg at control locations.These levels are consistent with those detected in previousyears as shown in Table C-5 and Figures C-9 and C-10. Thelevels detected at the control locations were consistent withthose measured at indicator locations, indicating that theCs-137 detected consists primarily of background activitywhich can be ascribed to previous weapons testing. Also,Cs-134 was not detected in any of the samples and both Cs-134and Cs-137 would be expected to be present if theradioactivity resulted from recent plant releases. Thus, thepresence of the Cs-137 in the shoreline soils is notattributable to recent plant operations. The slight increase[in concentration] over the 1985 concentration at somelocations can be attributed to the variability of backgroundCs-137 concentrations.

The operation of the Indian Point station did not result inany increase in the radioactivity of shoreline soils alongthe Hudson River in 1986.

4.6 Broad Leaf Vegetation

The data obtained from the broad leaf vegetation sampleanalysis is summarized in Table B-10. As shown, Ru-103,1-131, Cs-137 and Cs-134 were detected in these samples at theindicator and control locations. The average concentrationsof each of the radionuclides was found to be higher at thecontrol than at the indicator locations; in fact, the controllocation was the one with the highest annual averageconcentrations. Thus, the presence of these radionuclides isnot the result of plant operations. Given the additionalinformation that these elevated concentrations were detectedin May, their presence is clearly a result of the accident atChernobyl.

A number of additional broad leaf vegetation samples. weretaken in May and June to further quantify the effects of theaccident at Chernobyl. The results of these "special" sampleswere consistent with the RETS sample results, reinforcing theeffectiveness of the REMP in characterizing the impact of theChernobyl accident on the local environment, and particularlylocal vegetation.

Table C-6 contains a summary of the broad leaf vegetation datafor the past 10 years. As described above, the elevatedlevels of Ru-103, 1-131, Cs-137 and Cs-134 detected in 1986are clearly due to the Chernobyl accident, and are not part ofan increasing trend (see Figures C-11 and C-12).

4-7

4.7 Fish and Invertebrates

The fish and invertebrate sample analysis results are sum-marized in Table B-t1. Cs-137 was the only radionuclidedetected in any of the samples, in fact it was detected inonly one indicator (12 pCi/kg) and one control (24 pCi/kg)location sample. Based on a comparison of the indicator andcontrol location values and the absence of detectable Cs-134,it appears that plant operations in 1986 did not contribute tothe activity levels in fish and invertebrates.

A summary of the fish and inverterbrate analytical data overthe past ten years is provided in Table C-7, and illustratedin Figures C-13 and C-14. Clearly, the detectedconcentrations of Cs-137 in fish and invertebrates areconsistent with the trend of decreasing concentrations overthe past ten years.

4.8 Additional Media Sampling

Although not required by the RETS, sampling and analysis wereperformed on aquatic vegetation, Hudson River sediment,precipitation, and soil samples. The analytical data revealedthe absence of any detected radionuclides in the precipitationsamples. Also, the data obtained indicated that there hasbeen no build up of radioactivity in the aquatic vegetation,Hudson River sediment, or soil in the. vicinity of IndianPoint.

Since these samples were not required by the RETS, tables and

graphs are not presented for the data.

4.9 Land Use Census

A census was performed in the vicinity of Indian Point in1986. This census consisted of a milch animal and a residencecensus. Results of this census are presented in Tables B-12and B-13.

During the milch animal census, there were no animals produc-ing milk for human consumption found within 8 km of the plant.The second part of this census revealed that the nearestresidences are located 0.4 miles ESE and 0.4 miles SSE of theplant.

It should be noted that sampling of vegetation at the siteboundary is performed in lieu of the garden census, as allowedby the RETS.

4-8

4.10 Conclusion

The REMP is conducted each year to determine the radiologicalimpact of Indian Point operations on the environment. Thepreceding discussions of the results of the 1986 REMP revealthat there was no appreciable (i.e., measurable) impact on theenvironment due to operations at the station. Examination ofthe historical data indicates an overall decreasing trend inradionuclide concentrations in the various media sampled andanalyzed.

The results of the 1986 REMP also revealed that the impact onthe environment of fallout from [previous] atmospheric weaponstesting represents the greatest long-term environmentalimpact. During the first half of 1986, the greatestradiological environmental impact on a short-term basis wasdue to the accident at Chernobyl. Additionally, the doses toman from natural background radiation are much more signifi-cant than those associated with normal plant operations.

4-9

SECTION 5

QUALITY ASSURANCE

* 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Sampling and analysis of environmental lmeda at lndlan 7o17t wereconducted in accordance with quality aBmanMCe JeqVir•ments rpec-.ified in -Regulatory- Guide 4.15 (Reference 12), ad n....ternal-procedures (References ..2 and -,2I)- e .•aal mrm n. iF':.heRadiological Environmental Monitordng Vprgram MMM Xff the-following:

.- Audit of all Indian. Point .. =d - danada - ..==2Cta Orprocedures related to the Radiological 2nvirnentpl MoNitor-Ing Program by NYPA Quality hsuzm (e ) Amd rMUL-ameEdison Quality Assurance .and: RamJI Alftiy (Q1M) -iersminel.

Audit of Indian Point smnple rn1 a• . -radiom MAI

contractor laboratory techiizpes by QA pemsonel AQI QA&Rpersonnel.

Submission for amnalysis .of -inmpJ4re (1=14-1) X =_1 ± .±.beradioanalytical contractor to verify reprodzcib-lity (precir-sion) of results.

.Submissimn for. analysis of enviromnt S=pznp:e. sTp1md W1:hknown -levels of radloactivity Io *.±_ e _11.ei clrcntractor to verify accuracy of i•u•uL..

-Assessment of the radioanalytircal .c-on-acmrs pefo,•ice J=the Environmental Protection Agency -PA) *t2 =ruy

'Comparison Study ..(AppendixiD).

Audit - of -the 1986 Radiological Mr.mi.m- Pragrmdemonstrated that sampling and analysis of envirommental -edia wereconducted by qualified -technicians, in arvrdance with-approvetprocedures, -to. ensure reproducibility :and consistency of analytIcaltechniques. Adherence to Internal .•ncedurle Xrezqu mreMent enjsiethat the program met or exceeded requirements stated In theRadiological 'Effluent Technical 'S-peri1iat-1Tnm != nTrin ? tStation.

Review of the quality assurance mgrzm x& I.12edyne 71-q_ .-demonstrated that all rTequirements uper-ifled -n 31MFM -Part 3DAppendix B and Regulatory Guide 4.15 were achieved. In addition,

'Teledyne Isotopes performance In the -EPW l~tI 1aubatary Co •rizan.,Study was completely satisfactory; 67 ont of 76 neasurements:in agreement (see Appendix D). The. =mntent of Teledyne Isotopes":internal quality assurance - u ihma -1rthe -n1wi;,section.

5-1

In summary, the quality assurance program conducted in conjunctionwith the Indian Point Environmental Monitoring Program includedaudits and evaluations of in-house and contractor procedures, workfunctions, and quality assurance programs. Review of the 1986quality assurance program indicated that the Radiological Environ-mental Monitoring Program was performed in accordance with theRadiological Effluent Technical Specifications.

5.1 Contractor Quality Assurance Program

The analysis of environmental samples was performed byTeledyne Isotopes (TI).

TI maintains its own comprehensive quality assurance programand has made a commitment to quality control. Quality assur-ance requirements specified in 1OCFR50 Appendix B and Regu-latory Guide 4.15 were met by the quality assurance program atTI. This program included stability, operation, and accuracychecks through the analysis procedures.

Checks were performed on analytical equipment using standardsto monitor the stability and reproducibility of countinginstruments. Operational checks were performed utilizingblanks, spikes and splits (including internal cross-checks) tomonitor the quality of analytical procedures and the qualityof analyses performed by laboratory personnel. Accuracychecks were performed by laboratory participation in theEnvironmental Protection Agency and other laboratoryintercomparison programs (see Appendix D) and by maintainingequipment calibrations with standards from the National Bureauof Standards (NBS), Amersham, or IAEA.

5-2

SECTION 6

REFERENCES

6.0 REFERENCES

1. "Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications" for IndianPoint Nuclear Generating Stations 1, 2, and 3.

2. Consolidated Edison Company of N.Y. Environmental Health &Safety Dept. Nuclear Environmental Monitoring Procedures,Indian Point Station.

3. Environmental Analytical Procedures, Teledyne Isotopes, Inc.,50 Van Buren Avenue, Westwood, New Jersey, 07675.

4. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, "NuclearEnvironmental Monitoring Sample and Analysis Schedule",Environmental Health and Safety Procedure, Rev. 1, 08/12/86.(EHS 5.101).

5. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory Guide4.8, "Environmental Technical Specifications for Nuclear PowerPlants", December 1975.

6. Eisenbud, M., Environmental Radioactivity, Academic Press,New York, 1973.

7. Glasstone, S., and W. H. Jordan, Nuclear Power and ItsEnvironmental Effects, American Nuclear Society, Lq GrangePark, IL, 1980.

8. "Calculation of Annual Dosels to Man from Routine Releases ofReactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliancewith 10 CFR 50, Appendix I", U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109,Revision 1, 1977.

9. Cohen N., and Eisenbud M., "Radiological Studies of the HudsonRiver, Progress Report", Institute of Environmental Medicine,New York University Medical Center, December 1983.

10. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Environmental Healthand Safety Procedure, "Quality Control Program", Rev. 1,08/12/86. (EHS-5.121)

11. "Quality Assurance Manual Environmental Analysis Department",Teledyne Isotopes, Westwood, N.J.

12. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory Guide4.15, Revision 1 "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitor-ing Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and theEnvironment", February 1979.

13. EPA Interlaboratory Comparison Program Performance Results1986, Teledyne Isotopes, Westwood, New Jersey.

6-1

14. J. W. Poston, "Cesium-137 and Other Man-Made Radionuclides inthe Hudson River: A Review of the Available Literature",Applied Physical Technology, Inc., report to NYPA, September1977.

15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPC-520/1 80-012,"Upgrading Environmental Radiation Data", August 1980.

16. Andrews, Howard L. and Lapp, Ralph E. Nuclear RadiationPhysics, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,1972.

17. Nelson, Lloyd, S., "The Shewhart Control Chart - Tests forSpecial Causes", Journal of Quality Control, Vol. 16, No. 4,PP 237-9, Oct. 1984.

18. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Branch TechnicalPosition to Regulatory Guide 4.8, "An Acceptable RadiologicalEnvironmental Monitoring Program", November 1979.

19. Eichholz, Geoffrey G., Environmental Aspects of Nuclear Power,Lewis Publishers, Inc., Michigan, 1985.

20. Kelly, J. J. (Ed.), Effluent and Environmental RadiationSurveillance, ASTM STP #698, Philadelphia, PA, 1978.

21. New York Pfwer Authority, Radiologic..l and EnvironmentalServices Department Administrative Procedure, "Audit Plan forthe Indian Point Radiological Environmental MonitoringProgram" (RE-AD-2.1).

22. Hull, Andrew, "Preliminary Dose Assessment of the ChernobylAccident", The Health Physics Society Newsletter, Vol. XIV,No. 12, December 1986.

23. Fry, F.A., et. al., "Early Estimates of uR Radiation Dosesfrom the Chernobyl Reactor", Nature, Vol. 231, May 1986.

6-2

APPENDIX A

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

APPENDIX A

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQU11EMENIS

Envi rom~ental 'media .:are 4ampled at the o71oaataoms ispecified In .Table A-I.=d u•how In Figures A-2 and A-2. The samples are analyzed according tocriteria establlshed in the 'Radiological ''Effluent TechnicalSpecification (RETS)' 'These 'RETS requirements include: 'methods of

.. sample , collection; - types of sample analysis; minimum --sample .-size7equired; and minimum -detectable concentrations which must be attained:for each media, sample, or analysis type.

"T'6 Teequlred lower limits Lof.. detection foTr ,I-nda Poi:nt sample analysis,are.-presented In Table A-2.

71'n addition to the sam~illng outli'ned Im -Table Ar-, Lthere Is anevi'ro'mental surveillance requirement that an annual .land use and mtlch

..animal census be performed in .accordance- with RETS. The mumber andlocation of animals producing milk for human consumption must- be-idetermined within eight kilometers of the 'plant. _.In additio, -the'nearest residence and -the nearest garden greater than 50 m sizeproduri•g broad leaf vegetation 'must be Identified.

*A-I

040I

/ ,.- 2.,,. /

,~ •4",f,

ANYN

" I-1111 N 1

A A"lil~ll M tlM SM 11

tGR -:Eviomna ample Station Locations (wit]

A-2

S-°

--V '

Highlands

US. Military AcademyWest Point

,0 - -

~~..8

I

Dual0I Cortlandt

14.,

A*1

INDIAN POINTREMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL

SAMPLE LOCATIONS• 4m• qbqt,- T- TLD SITE

A A - AIR MONITOR SITiW - WATER SITES - SHORELINE SEDINENT SITE

FIGURE A-2: Environmental Sample Station Locations (greater than 2 miles)

A-3

TABLE A-1 INDIAN POINT STATION SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONSTABLE A-i INDIAN POINT STATION SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS

SamplingStation

RETSSampleDesignationLocation/Distances Sample Type

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

14

17

20

Standard Brands,0.6 MI - NNE

Service Building,Onsite - SSE

Algonquin Gas Line,0.25 MI - SW

NYU Tower1 Mi - SSW

Camp Smith,2.5 MI - NNE

Camp Field Reservoir,3.5 MI - NE

Inlet pipe into plants,NE

Discharge Canal,Onsite - SW

Water Meter House,Onsite - SE

Off Verplanck,I MI - SSW

Montrose Marina,1.5 MI S

A-2A-2N.A.

DR-08

A-iA-I

A-4A-4DR-10N.A.Ic-i

N.A.Ic-2

Wb-1

Wa-i

Wa-2

DR-7

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

DR-38

Air ParticulatesRadioiodineDirect Gamma

Direct Gamma

Air ParticulateRadioiodine

Air ParticulateRadioiodineDirect GammaSoilBroadleaf

Vegetation

SoilBroadleaf

Vegetation

Drinking Water

HRa Water

HRa Water

Direct Gamma

HRa AquaticVegetation

HR a ShorelineSoil

HR a BottomSediment

Direct Gamma

A-4

TABLE A-i CONTINUED

SamplingStation

22

23

25

27

28

29

Location/Distances

Lovett, 1.5 MI - WSW

Roseton, 20 MI - N

Where available

Croton Point, 6.4 MI - SSE

Lent's Cove, 0.5 MI- ENE

Grassy Point, 3.3 MI - SSW

Hamilton St., SS, 3 MI - NE

SE Corner Onsite SE

Bleakley & BroadwayOnsite - E

Furnace Dock, 3.5 MI - SE

Peekskill Gas Holder Bldg.,1.7 MI NE

Manitou Inlet, 4.5 MI - NNW(control)

White Beach, 0.9 MI - SW

RETSSampleDesignation

N.A.N.A.

N.A.A-5A-5DR-40Ic-3N.A.

lb 1&2

N.A.N.A.DR-24

N.A.DP-4

N.A.N.A.DR-39

DR-33

DR-9

DR-5

DR-34

N.A.N.A.N.A.

Wc-2

Wc-1DR-11

Sample Types

Air ParticulateRadioiodine

Precipitation, bAir Particulafe,Radioiodine, bDirect Gamma,Broadleaf VegetationSoil

Fish/Invertebrates

Air ParticulateRadioiodineDirect Gamma

HR a Shoreline SoilDirect Gamma

Air ParticulateRadioiodineDirect Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

PrecipitationAir ParticulateRadioiodine

HRa Shoreline Soil

HR Shoreline SoilDirect Gamma

33

34

35

38

44

50

53

A-5

TABLE A-1

SamplingStation

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

64

66

67

69

71

72

73

74

CONTINUED

Location/Distances

Verplanck 1.3 MI - SSW

Cortlandt Sanitation Garage,2 MI - N

Rt. 9D Garrison, 5 MI - N

Old Pemart Avenue Pole1.8 MI - NNE

Gallows Hill Road CH G&MPole #6639F, 5 MI-, NNE

Lower South St. & Bay St.NYT Pole #17, 1.3 MI - NE

Westbrook Drive Pole #CP2,5 MI - NE

Pine Road - Cortlandt,4.8 MI - ENE

Croton Avenue - CortlandtPole #NYT-A, 5 MI - E

Colabaugh Pond RoadCortlandt Pole #30,5 MI - ESE

Mt. Airy & Windsor RoadPole #W-66-2-40, 5 MI - SE

Warren Ave - Haverstraw,4.8 MI - S

Railroad Avenue & 9WHaverstraw, 4.6 MI - SSW

Willow Grove Rd. & Birch Dr.5 MI - SW

Gays Hill Road S,1.5 MI - WSW

RETSSampleDesignation

DR-37

A-3A-3DR-I

DR-17

DR-2

DR-18

DR-36

DR-19

DR-19

DR-21

DR-22

DR-23

DR-25

DR-26

DR-27

DR-12

Sample Types

Direct Gamma

Air ParticulateRadioiodineDirect Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct Gamma

Direct

Direct

Direct

Direct

Gamma

Gamma

Gamma

Gamma

A-6

TABLE A-1

SamplingStation

75

76

77

78

79

81

82

83

84

85

BB

89

90

91

CONqTINUE)

location /Distances

sign (NY and NJ) PalisadesParkway -SoutIhbond,5 MI - WSW

Gays Hill oad N,1.2 MI V.

Palisades Parkway.4.2 MI - v

Rt. 9W Pirates Cove -Pole #0&R 233, 1.2 MI7-

Anthony Wayne Park,.4.5 141 - WNW

VT. 9W South of Ayers RoadPole #•1YI .255, 1 MI -

Tu- •i-ades Parkway lake heidiExit~, .4. MI -E

Ayers Road PoleI MI - NNW

Rt. 9W 'Fort MontgomeryPole #142, 5 MI - FMW

Cold Spring. 10.0 M - V(Control)

Amrus Reservoirc

Sector 6 Reuter Stokes Po.e,0.5 ME - ESE

Highland Avence & SproutBrook Ad (near rock out)

.3 -Ii - EUM

Charles Point-, 0.8 MI - ME

Bnrnmefl Gas Co., OD.8 MI-3E

RETSSampleIDesignation

DR-28

DR-13

1)-29

MR-14

DR-30

DR-15

-M-31

DR-16

DR-32

N.A.W.A.

Mq.A.

DR-35

DM-3

A-2N.A.

SaiTle Types

mllrect Gama

Direct C

Direct z.

Direct GCmna

'Direct Gaama

Direct Cam,Mirect Gm.

Direct Qm

H.RL Aquatic VegetatiomH.R. Shoreline Soil11.R. Bottom Sediment

Direct

Diret

c-Mw

cm

DIrTct Caa

Air ParticulateRadioiodlneDirect: Gwm

A-7

TABLE A-1 CONTINUEDTABLE A-i CONTINUED

(a) HR = Hudson River

(b) Control Station

(c) Quality Assurance Station

N.A. = Not Applicable

A-8

I

LOW4ER IMIT

W TOILE A-2

OF DETEMtON MDt1) TAI'AMITAIES iýOlt EM~VIfON14E9NTt SAMIPU ANAttSIS (a) (b~)

!0

Water Airborne PVrt~culnte Fish ,• Milk Food Products SedimentAnalysis (Pci/I) or Gas (pCi/rn) (pCi/k~i wet) (pCi/I) (pCi/kg, wet) (pCi/kg, dry)

gross beta 4 0.01

H-3 2000(c)

Mn-54 .15 130

Fe-59 30 260

Co-58, 60 15 130

Zn-65 30 260

Zr-Nb-95 15

1-131 1(d) 0.07 1 60

Cs-134 15 0.05 130 15 60 150

Cs-137 18 0.06 150 18 60 180

Ba-La-140 15 15

a This list does not mean that only these nuclides are to be considered. Other Identifiable peaksshall also be analyzed and reported in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.

b Required detection capabilities for thermoluminescent dosimeters used for environmental measurements

are given in Regulatory Guide 4.13.

c LLD for drinking water samples. If no drinking water q~athway exists, a value of 3000 pCi/l may be used.

d LLD for drinking water samples. If no drinking water pathway exists, the LLD of gamma isotopic analysismay be used.

APPENDIX B

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM RESULTS SUMMARY

APPENDIX B

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM RESULTS SUMMARY

The results of the 1986 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Programare presented in Section B.I. The required Milch Animal and Land UseCensus is summarized in Section B.2.

B.1 1986 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY

Environmental monitoring data are summarized and presented intabular form by media type. The results of the program as outlinedin Table A-1 are summarized in tabular form in Tables B-2 throughB-i1. The format of the summary tables conforms to the reportingrequirements of the RETS and NRC Regulatory Guide 4.8 (Reference5). Gamma spectroscopy analysis was performed for the followingradionuclides: Be-7, K-40, Mn-54, Co-58, Co-60, Fe-59, Zn-65,Zr-95, Ru-103, Ru-106, 1-131, Cs-134, Cs-137, Ba-140, Ce-141,Ce-144, Ra-226 and Th-228.

Radiochemical (1-131) and tritium analyses were performed forspecific media and locations as required in the RETS.

B.2 LAND USE CENSUS

In accordance with Sections 4.11B of the Con Ed RETS and 2.8.A ofthe NYPA RETS, a land use census was conducted to identify thenearest milk animal and the nearest residence. In lteu 2fidentifying and sampling the nearest garden of greater than 50m ,at least three kinds of broad leaf vegetation were sampled (resultsare summarized in Table B-10).

B.3 SAMPLING DEVIATIONS

During 1986, environmental sampling was performed for 10 mediatypes and for direct radiation. A total of 1350 samples (>98%)were collected and analyzed for the RETS program.

Sampling deviations are summarized in Table B-I.

B.4 ANALYTICAL DEVIATIONS

Although LLD sensitivities were met for all samples of all media,one analytical deviation occurred in 1986. Gross beta analysis wasnot performed on one of the twelve (RETS) drinking water samplesanalyzed. This deviation was caused by insufficient sample sizeresulting from problems experienced in performing other analyses onthis sample.

B-i

TABLE B-1

SAMPLING DEVIATIONS, '19B6

Media

Particulates in Air

Charcoal Filter

(1-131 in Air)

TLD

Drinking Water

Hudson River Water

Precipitation

Broad Leaf Vegetation

SUMMARY OF

TotalScheduledSamples

468

468

320

24

24

8

58

Number ofDeviations

5

SamplingEfficiency

98.9

5

7

0

0

0

5

-9& 9

97.B

100.0

100.0

-100.0

91.4

Rleasonf or eachDeficiency

Equ±pmerit

-Equipme=i

VaiidalIJ3

Aquatic Vegetation

Shoreline Soil

Sediments

Soil

Fish and Invertebrates

7

10

8

3

10

0

0

0

0

0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

B-2

DtRa t nADiAtON! HMO hi 0 46 hkbtdh9 NSAR ottk 60dhnARAIL 6 iom

Li b-6 t bl biH O. t. haluhd MtiP hi d, P ube h It P. Asn itotlbeog nitolu t b * leu tr NI i i Iu61 buot. budb biv. beaso Deiv bobl 1ist. total Dev.tel

O nP ilandRitatuof ug iit1-0l ib I.d 4 d 1 is 4d 4 44 4 b12Dtd Pesoet AVtsuf bih-0 Nht I.0 41 9 17 I 41 9 is I be 4

ChsieLt Poeiht bit-0 Nk b.0 44 4 1bj Ibi 4d 4 is I be ILehit's cove 81-04 tI4t .8. 14 1 44 1 44 il Is I hi1 4flLaIALey 1, fli-odeal bit-OS k 1.4 id 4 is 4 44 9 44 1 t34Soctor O, hiutor-Otekdo PoLo boi-OS tt b.1 Id I 44 4 46 I of 1Water Nuter House bi-07 at b.d 41 4 tbe fbe Is I ,1 SI d

sorvi cente bW-OO out t.4 ,1 4 4i I 44 1 1I s 45 9

Ba brhte. Conelte IWOO-O at D.8 1b) 1b) l s 44 1 14 1 56 3NYU Toai. Obi-id ShW 1A. IN 1 tbj (b) 49 R 14 e 51 3white Beabh bit-il SW 0.9 lb I 1t 1 42 1 12 1 45 2

GDys HiLL Road 8 DR-12 WbW 0.2 15 2 15 2 15 2 16 2 61 4

Gays HiLL Road N DR-13 W 1.2 16 2 17 3 17 2 19 2 68 5

Rt. Nil, Pir6teb Cove DR-14 WNW 1.2 12 1 13 1 13 2 14 1 52 3

Ft. OW South of Ayers Rd DR-15 NW 1.0 12 1 12 1 13 1 13 1 50 2

Ayeos Road DR-16 NNW 1.0 13 2 14 2 15 2 15 1 56 3

Averages (c) 12 4 11 6 14 2 15 2 54 6

(a) TotaL Dev. is the square root of the sum of the squares ofthe quarterLy deviations. OuarterLy deviations are given as Is.

(b) SampLe Lost due to vandaLism. Annual total for this station is

based on the sum of the monitored quarters pLus the average

quarterLy dose rate for the unmonitored quarter.

(c) Deviation shown for quarterLy averages is the standard deviation

for aLL TLDe coLLected for the quarter in this ring.

TAB Lr-'-3DIRECT RADIATION, OUTER RING OF 16 SECTORS 4-5 ml FROM SITE BOUNDARYmiLLirem

Location RETS Dist. First Otr. Second Otr. Third Otr. Fourth Otr. AnnuaL TotaLDesignation ID 0 Sector MiLes Dose Oev. Dose Dev. Dose Dev. Dose 0ev. TotaL Dev.(s)

Rt. GD Garrison DR-17 N 5.0 [bI (b) 13 1 13 2 14 1 53 2

GaLLows HILL Road DR-18 NNE 5.0 13 1 14 2 13 2 14 1 54 3

Westbrook Drive DR-19 NE 5.0 13 1 15 2 15 3 16 2 58 4

Pine Road, CortLandt DR-20 ENE 4.8 12 1 14 3 14 1 14 1 55 3

Croton Ave., Corttandt DR-21 E 5.0 12 1 13 2 14 2 14. 1 53 3

CoLabaugh Pond Road DR-22 ESE 5.0 11 1 11 1 11 2 13 1 48 3

Mount Airy & Windsor Rd DR-23 SE 5.0 15 1 13 1 14 1 14 1 55 2

Croton Point DR-24 SSE 6.4 12 1 12 1 12 1 13 1 49 2

Warren Avenue, Heveretraw DR-25 S 4.8 12 1 12 1 12 1 13 1 50 2

RaiLroad Avenue a 9W, Haveretraw DR-26 SSW 4.6 16 2 13 2 14 2 15 1 57 4

WiLLow Grove Rd. & Birch Dr. DR-27 SW 5.0 14 2 14 3 13 1 13 1 54 4

Sign "NY and NJ" PaLisades Parkway South DR-28 WSW 5.0 13 1 15 2 15 2 16 1 58 3

PaLisades Parkway DR-29 W 4.2 15 3 17 4 17 4 19 3 68 7

Anthony Wayne Park DR-30 WNW 4.5 13 1 14 2 15 2 16 1 59 3PaLisades Parkway, Lake WeLch Exit DR-31 NW 4.7 15 2 17 3 16 2 18 2 69 4

Rt. 9W, Fort Montgomery DR-32 NNW 4.8 12 1 13 2 15 1 15 1 55 3

Averages (a) 12 3 14 2 14 2 15 2 56 8

(sl TotaL Dev. Is the square root of the sum of the squares ofthe quarterLy deviations. GusrterLy deviations are given as Is.

(b) SampLe Lost due to vandalism. AnnuaL totaL for this station isbased on the sum of the monitored quarters pLus the average

quarterLy dose rate for the unmonitored quarter.(c) Deviation shown for quarterLy averages is the standard deviation

for aLL TLDe coLLected for the quarter in this ring.

TAOW•B-4DIRECT RADIATION, SPECIAL INTEREST AND CONTROL

miLLlremLOCATIONS

SpeciaL Location RETS Dist. Fi rst Otr. Second Otr. Third Otr. Fourth Otr. Annual TotalDesignation 1D 9 Sector MitLes Dose Dev. Dose 0ev. Doese ev. Dose Dev. TotaL Dav.ea)

HamiLton St. DR-33 NE 3.0 8 0 9 2 9 1 9 1 36 2

Furnace Dock DR-34 SE 3.5 13 1 14 2 14 1 13 1 54 3

HighLand Avenue & Sprout Brook Rd. DR-35 NNE 3.0 13 1 14 1 16 1 17 2 60 3

Lower South St.& Bay St. DR-36 NE 1.3 12 1 (b) (b) 13 2 14 1 53 3Ve rpLenck DR-37 S SW 1.3 13 1 13 1 (b) (b) 15 1 55 2

Montrose Marina DR-3D S 1.6 9 1 9 1 10 1 10 1 39 1Grassy Point DR-39 SSW 3.3 14 1 14 2 14 1 1s 1 58 3Roseton (ControL Location) DR-40 N 20,.ý 15 2 16 1 18 3 22 4 70 5

Averages (c) 12 2 13 5 13 5 15 4 53 10

(a) Total Dev. is the square root of the sum of the squares ofthe quarterly deviations. QuarterLy deviations are given as Is.

(b) SampLe Lost due to vandaLism. Annual totaL for this station is

based on the sum of the monitored quarters plus the average

quarterly dose rate for the unmonitor~ed quarter.(c) Deviation shown for quarterly averages is the standard deviation

for aLL TLDS coLLected for the quarter in this ring.

TABLE S-5QUARTERLY DIRCT RADIATION IN 16 SECTORSANNUAL BUIJIARY, 1908mrao/qua rter

Location with Highest Annual Average

Average No. of TotaL Name, Average No. of Total

of MLL Highest Lowest Positive No. of Distance, of aLL Highest Lowest Positive No. ofReadings Reading Reading Readings Readinge Direction Readings Reading Reading Readings Readings

ALL Near Boundary Locations 14 Is 10 60 60 Gays HILL Road N, 17 18 16 4 4

West, 1.2 mi.

ALL Locations 4-5 mi from Boundary 14 19 11 63 63 PaLisades Parkway, 17 19 15 4 4

Lake WeLch Exit,

North West, 4.7 mi.

ALL speciaL Intereat Locations 13 17 a 26 26 Highland Ave and 15 17 13 4 4S,7out Brook Road,NNE, 3.0 mi.

Control Location 19 22 15 4 4 Roseton, 19 22 15 4 4North, 20 mi.

TABLE "-RADIOMIDES02 IN AIR, ANISMA SNOWM, 1989PCI/ma

Analysis DetectedType Niel ids

gross Onto Bate

1-131 1-131

Gýes Ru-lOSSpectrum

Ow Analysis

-a RU-IOU

Ce-ISA

Ce-I 37

LLDpCI/s

0.01

0.07

(a)

ALL NET9 Indicator Locations Control

Avg. of Highest Lowest No. of Total Name,Positive Positive Positive Positive No. of DistanctSomptles omp

t Sample samples 9

eaptes Direotic

0.028 0.3M -0.007 194 104 Rooston.

20 of, A

0.249 1 .020 0.031 14 164

0.05m 0.0o5 0.022 15 22

Avg. of Highest Lowest No. of Total

It Positive Positive Positive Positive No. of

in Samples Sample Semple Samples Samples

0.030 0.300 0.001 52 52

ýorth

0.300 0.978 0.091 4 52

0.045 0.065 0.031 4 a

Location with Highest Annual Average

Mase, Avg. of Highest Loeset No. of TotalDistance, Positive Positive Positive Positive No. of

Di rection Samptes Sample Semple Samples Semples

Cortlendt, 0.030 0.320 0.008 52 522.0 mi, North

Lovett*. 0.394 0.710 0.099 3 52

1.5 mi., NO9

Lovette. 0.048 0.071 0.027 3 9

1.5 mi, WO

VIU Taer, 0.009 0.009 0.000 1 22

1 mi., 899

Cot ttlndt, 0.049 0.001 0.019 4 I

2.0 mi, North

Lovette. 0.093 0.119 0.044 3 9

1.5 mi, NO

(W) 0.009 0.00 0.008

0.05 0.0BS 0.0191 0.012

0.06 0.089 0.181 0.024

1

14

15

22

22

22

0

0.034

0.073

0 0

0.053 0.016

0.121 0.019

6

9

0

to) There Is no eetablished LLD for Ru-IOU or Ru-lO0 in air samples.

AL W10"R fIMAN sU

Atif Indlestot Lfestishe tbiltot ibctIldho Looettoi at th Htossi kamutt Average

~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ no ~ LSiB a~t oalb:, Avg.;st Nig t .Ld i. tuat blfile Detected GHVL Pd.m at-h bul Deibge iftectto Positive Isp1dat hp. ape hetonbge ep.Sm~ ag0 a

Anallsies Ca-197 s b 43 tilhsI 4LO &0~ oLLD i lahafleei IU 4

tpltitue ws- 600 (LWi 1W (L 4I (LLB ( LLD A Llb d 4 &Lm dil tLWb U 4bbuoGmett

TABLE -magADICIESs IN OfllMINO MAIMMSWA. go""AR, losepCI/I

ALL Indicator Locations Control Locations Lootion with Highest Amouat Average

Avg. of Nishoet Lowest No. of Total lNNW, Avg. of Highest Lmnat No. of Total Name, Avg. of HMighet Lowest No. of Total

Anetyals Ooteotad LLD Positive Positive Positive Positive No. of Distoamse Positive Positive Positive Positive No. of Distance, Positive Positive Positive Positive No. of

Type Nuotide pCi/t lMapto. eapte lS e oompt o leat.o .lmpeap Direotion Semptes leapt. 8ampte leaptes leapt.a Direction lmptosa lampt. leapLo leoptoa Buptoe

SpectrumAnaLtyis None 15 to 80 <LLD (LLD (LLD 0 1e None None (LD (LLD (LLD 0 12

grossnota Date 4 a S 2 1i 11 None Cap Fistd I a I3 1 11

3 ai, NE

Tritium li-S ema (LLD <LLD (LLD 0 4 None None (L (LLD (LLD 0 4

Composite

I%0

0TABLE 94RADI0M11LDES IN 9N0R9.NE 9011,86, AISWM. KUMW, IS0pCi/kg (dry)

All IndimtoP Locations Control Locations Location with Higoot AnnuaL Average

LLD Avg. of Highest Lowes Na. of Total NHom,Anaelyis Detected pCI/g Positive Positive Positive Positive No. of Distenco,

Type bihotfdo (dryl plltes Sample Stmple Samples Smpwle. Direction

Avg. of Highest Loinat No. of TotalPositive Posltive Positive Positive No. ofsamplesa empla Scowle spLes Samples

Nase,Diateom,Direction

Avg. of Highest Loot No. of Total

Positive Positive Positive Positive No. ofsamplte fenpto Seapto Somplaes Smplas

unce Ce-1894

Analysis Ce-17

co-G8

IS0 (LWD (LLW (LWD 0 S Nanitou Inlet,4.3 mloft*INW.

Igo 33 70? 61 6 8 and Cold Spring,10.6 sile@ North

(LID (LLD (LLD 0 4

212 492 Be 3 4 VerptlnokI mile s•9

817 707 927 2 2

(b) to)(. (a)

(b) (. a a

0 9 (a) (a) (a) 0 4

Co-6O 0 (a) (i0 ta) 0 4

(a) Not detected in ISIS.

(b) There Is no established LWD for C"8S end Co-SO In moil@.

TABLE 11-10W4IDOUfl.IDES IN 511040 LEAF VNETATI0N, AWKU UM*Se, l0EPCtAig (set)

All Indicator Locations Control Location* Location with Highest Amnunl Average

LLD Avg. of HNighet Lomwet No. of Total NaOm, Avg. of Highest Lomwt No. of Total Nawe, Avg. of Highest Lomet No. of Total

Anealyis Detected pCi/kgo Positive Positive Positive Positive No. of Distaone. Positive Positive Powitive Positive No. of DietMieop Positive Positive Positive Positive Number of

Type Nuclide (met) SompLoo sample Sample Shuptoa Samploo Direction %apLt* SampLe SampLe Samptles $@pt** Direction Somples Sample Semple 9emptes samples

am RU-l03 (a) N a 1 8 2 • loaston, 45 49 43speotnar 1-11 o0 301 as 111 U 32 20 N1 Lee. 1040 1040 1040

Analysis Ce-l97 so 30 a 16 20 32 N 37 63 20Co-184 60 27 B0 12 a 32 34 34 34

2 17 RNeton 46 43 43

1 17 Roamton 1040 1040 10405 17 RNoton 87 53 201 17 Roseton 34 34 34

a 17 Rowiton 247 800 g0

2 171 175 17

1 17

Msdiochiam. 1-131Zodi ne-ISI

Be 11 230 1 10 32 247 500 90 17

(a) There Is no established LLD for Ru-08O in vegetation.

TABLE W-1t

IAUOMLIDEG IN FPB19 AN !NVR1UTEBIATE8, ANw. BUmmA. 1900

ALL Indietor LUotifons Control Locations Location with Hfihesat Annual Average

LID Avg. of Highest Lowet No. of Total No", Avg. of Highest Lowest No. of Total News, Avg. of "Ighost Lowest No. of Total

Anatlysi Deteoted pCi/kg Positive Positive Positive Positive No. of Diatance. Positive Positive Positlv Positive No. of Distanceo Positive Positive Positive Positive No. of

Type Nueoldo (vat) bmples ample Sample soeptes Samples Direction Samples Sauple Sempto SampLes 9sapLes Direction SampLes Smpte SampLo eompole SeepLes

Sine CV-137 10 It 12 12 1 5 Fboston, 26 24 24 24 1 5 RoNeton, 25 24 24 24 1 5

spectrum olets upstreem, mites upstream,

Analysis (Ibi) (1b0J

SECTOR

lNNE

2 -- NE

3 - ENE

6 - SSE

•.7 - SBE

-8 S

"io -- SSw

.10 -,SW

.13 - WNW

14 -q

15 -NNW

16,- N

MILE

'3 .-0

1.2

1. 5

.,0.14

0.4

0.6

0.7

0.75

D.B

L... d'75

1.4

.1.3

1.2

1.1

TABLE B-12

LAND USE CENSUS, 1986

LOCATION OF NEAREST RESIDENCE

Old Stone Restaurant,~- Caretaker

t-amp •tmith- 2 Residences

South Street, Peekskill

South Street, Peekskill

.Bleakley Ave... Bucbaman

'Broadway, "Buchanan

Westchester Ave. .Zuchanan

Westchester Ave.',"Buchanan

Broadway, Verplanck

St. 1'ats .'Chu'rch Rectory, Ve-planck

Rt.-9w, Toiktins Cove

Gays Hill Rd., Tomkins Cove

Gays AFi:ll Rd. ," TomktIs':TCv

Bear • opntain lodge

Jones 'Point

. 3-13

TABLE B-13

MILCH ANIMAL CENSUS, 1986

DIRECTIONFROMINDIAN POINT

NNE

ESE

SE

NNE

ww

NNW

NOTE: *C

DISTANCE(MILE)

1.0

2.1

3.0

4.8

1.31.3

4.5

NO. OF

ANIMALS

1

4

1

1

13

3

SPECIES

Goat (Non Milker)

Goats (Non Milkers)

Goat (Non Milker)

Goat (Non Milker)

Goats (2 Milkers)*(11 Non Milkers)

Goats (Non Milkers)

iilk produced by these goats is not w~ed for human

:onsumptica.

B-14

APPENDIX C

HISTORICAL TRENDS

APPENDIX C

HISTORICAL TRENDS

Historical data for various radionuclides and media are presented bothin tabular form and in graphical form to facilitate the evaluation of1986 data with historical values. Comparison to other data from outsidesources is presented as available. Although samples were taken andanalyzed, values were only tabulated and plotted where positiveindications were present.

C-i

TABLE C-iDIRECT RADIATION ANNUAL SUMMARY,mil lirem

1978 TO 1986

First Qtr. Second Qtr. Third Qtr. Fourth Qtr. Annual TotalYear Dose Dev. Dose Dev. Dose Dev. Dose Dev. Total Dev. (a)

197819791980198119821983198419851986

121612141414131512

122223215

241414161414151512

322223316

13111515131414

1314

223323312

141413131415151515

222223212

625554585558565953

545546528

Note: 1985 and 1986 data are the average ofring of RETS sampling location data.included in the annual summary.

the inner ring and outerNon-RETS locations are not

(a) Total Tiev. is the square root of the 4;ux of the squares of thedeviations for the quarters.

C-2

Fiqure c--1L) 0rýe' c t Kcd diatio i, SLU' r

All Indicator Lomcry bycatcions

Yedr

LEGEND

4th

l1st

Quorter

Quarter

QuairterQuorter

EL.

'i1971 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

YearSee Reg. Guide 4.13 for required sensitivity for TLDs.

FigureRadiation,

C-21978Direct

Stato 1986

ndard Normal Deviate4-

3

2

C',

0.4-,

L.

.4-,U,

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982Year

1983 1984 1985 1986

TABLE C-2RADIONUCLIDES IN AIR, 1976 to 1986pCi/m3

Gross Beta Cs-137

All RETS All REISIndicator Control Indicatcw Cauntxl

Year Locations Location Locations Loaticm

1976 0.03 (a) 0.019 (a)1977 0.03 (a) 0.006 (a)1978 0.15 0.14 0.008 0.0061979 0.03 0.03 0.040 0.0261980 0.03 0.04 0.013 0.0121981 0.19 0.19 0.015 0.0151982 0.03 0.04 0.066 (b)1983 0.02 0.02 0.006 Mb)1984 0.02 0.02 (b) (b)1985 0.02 0.02 (b) (b)1986 0.03 0.03 0.063 -D.)J73

HistoricalAverage 0.05 0.06 0.022 0o015

HistoricalStd. Dev. 0.06 0.06 0.020 0.007

(a) No data available.initiated in 1978.-

Control Station

(b) Not detected above lower limit of detw=1.=

C-5

I-

Figure5eta RadiGross

C--3

o activity1986

in Air1976 to

All Indicator Stations vS. Control~fl LEGEND

Indic.27± :ator

Con trol.24t

LLD.21 t

.18+

E

0-,

.15-"i-

.12"+

.09+

.06-

.b -I

1% 1 . - -a "I

1976 1?71 1071 1970 1-.980 A1981

Yedirf"-2 I1§.'3 IOB4 1985 1986

Note: ihe LLD for Gtoill 6.ta Itl Atr ts 0.01 ýCl/rt,3.

F' u re c-4Grc ss Betd ddioactivi

Standard No'rikil Deviin

aleAir

_-4-

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Year

Figure C-5RadioactivityCs--137 in Air

1976 to 1986All Indicator Stations vs. Control

LEGEND

Indicator

Control

__ LLD

E

0-

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

YearNote: The LLD for Co--137 in air is 0.06 pCi/m3.

Cs--137Standa

Figure C-6Radioactivity

rd Normal DEin Air

•viate

CI,C0

0)

I.-0

0-4--,

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

YearNote: Cs-137 not detected above LLD in 1984 and 1985.

TABLE C-3RADIONUCLIDES IN WATER, 1976 TO 1986HUDSON RIVER INLET AND DISCHARGEpCi/1

Year Tritium Co-60 Cs-13 7

1976 513 (a) 31977 290 (a) 61978 630 (a) 51979 354 (a) 61980 358 (a) 151981 300 (a) 61982 370 (a) 71983 540 4 51984 541 (a) (a)1985 870 (a) (a)1986 (a) (a) 8

HistoricAve rae 477 4 7

HistoricStd. Dev. 172 3

(a) Not detected above LLD.

C-10

Figure C'-7Cs-137 Hi HUdori. River Water-

1976 :to 1986ilet cind Dischw,..g e AnriualI Average

sm ,

'LEGEND

V- -Cs-I

.. . LLD

37

40+

30

20-

20"

to-77

Fj M F1 H Ii' I1976 1977 1978 1979

I

1980 1981 1982, 1983 1984 1985 1986

YearNote: The LLD for C--137 in water is 18 pCi/I.

Figure C--8Cs- 1 37 in Hudson River Water

Inlet and DischargeStandard Normal Deviate

0

t- -1

-2

-- 3

--4.

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981

Year1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Note: No Cs-137 found in 1984 or 1985.

TABLE C-4RADIONUCLIDES IN WATER. 1976 TO 1986CAMP FIELD DRINKING WATER (a)pCi/1

Year Tritium Co-60 Cs-137

1976 254 (b) 91977 193 (b) 71978 208 (b) (b)1979 170 (b) 41980 267 (b) (b)1981 240 (b) (b)1982 190. (b) (b)1983 122 (b) 61984 178 (b) (b)1985 (b) (b) (b)1986 Cb) (b) (b)

HistoricAve rage 202 -- 6

HistoricStd. Dev. 43 1

(a) Data for 1985 includes Roseton.

(b) Not detected above LLD.

C-13

TABLE C-5RADIOACTIVITY IN HUDSON RIVER SHIEL'.0 SUIL.,1976 -to 1986pCi/kg (dry)

Year Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60Indicator Control Indicstcr Contral Indicator. ConTrol

1976 * * -.

1977 * * * * •1978 85 (a) 206 (a) (a) (a)1979 (a) (a) 179 205 (a) (a)1980 89 (a) 419 (a) 72 (a)1981 60 70 41D 16D -20 (a)1982 70 (a) 420_ 140 (a) (a)1983 24 (a) 439 197 85 (a)1984 34 (a) .286 142 38 ('a)1985 (a) (a) 166 .279 (a) (a)1986 (a) (a) 253 2.12 .(a) (a)

His t or ic alAve rage 60 70 .3U9 ,.1,91 -3-

HistoricalStd. Dev. 24 -- .07 45 .-26

* Note: Data prior todue to analysispCi/kg-dry vs. I

1978 was ,ot reported in annual reportsrequirements. or reporting units (e.,-.Ci/kg-wet).

(a) Not detected above LLD.

c.C-I4

~1aig -

and Cs--1357Cs- 1 34 in Shoreline1986

Soil1976 to

Ave rage of Indicator Stations

1

1

LEGEND

Cs-

-~ Cs-

Cs-

137

137

134

Control

:3LLD ,. -177

LLD Cs-134

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1984 1984 1985 1986

Year

Note: LLD. in pCi/kg (dry) are: C--137 180; Ce-134 150.

Figure C 10Cs-134 and Cs-137 in Shoreline Soil

Average of Indicator StationsStandard Normal Deviate

LEGEND

0 s--- 174Cs-1 37C-1

U,

0

0

- i;4~

/" \

-~ ---- -

Year

Note: Cm--134 not

detected

above L•

in 1985 or 1986.

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

YearNote: Cs-134 not detected above LLD in 1985 or 1986.

TABLE C-6RADIONUCLIDES IN BROAD LEAF VEGETATION, 1976 TO 1986 (a)pCi/kg, (wet)

Gamma Spec Radio ChseYear Co-BO Co-60 Ru-103 Ru-103 1-131 1-131 1-131 1-131 Ce-134 Ce-134 Ce-137 Cw-137

Indicator ControL Indicator ControL Indicator ControL Indicator Control Indicator Control Indicator ControL

1976 925 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) 1191 (b)

1977 280 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) 132 (b)1979 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (f, (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b)1979 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (bl N) (b) (bi fbi (bi (bi1980 (bi (bi fb) fb) fb) fb) fbI (bb) (b) (b) (b)1981 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b)1992 (b) (b) (bi (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b)

1986 (b) (bi (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) 17 (b)1994 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) fb)1985 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) 99 (b)1989 (bi (b) 26 45 301 1040 11 247 27 34 30 37

HietorcaLAverage 578 (b) 26 45 301 1040 116 247 27 34 294 37

HietoriceLBtd. Dev. 348 NA NA NA NA MA NA NA NA NA 462 NA

(a) Leafy green vegetation prior to 1984.(b) Not detected above LLD.Notes NA means not appLicabLe.

Figure C--Radioactivity in Broad Leaf Vegetation

1976 to 1.986Avera g.e of All Indicator Stations

LEGEND

0Co-60-Cs-i 15-,"

-.. - LLD1000.

800--4--I

~1)

01

a-500-

400-

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

YearNote: The LLD for Cs-137 in food products in 80 pCi/kg (wet).

Fig urn "C--12Radiooctivity

Averdgein Broad Leafof, iridiCat~r S Vt;, eget a t ionr

Stondaor'd Nd~rrral DeviafteLEGEND

o Co-60

Css--137

C',

En-

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

YearNote: Co-60 not detected above LLD from 1 978 thru 1986.

TAMLE G-7RADIDA'•I1976 TO 1986p-rifkg (wet)

m

Tear Ce-137

1976 59D (a)1977 102 (a)1978 53 (a)1979 24 (a)1980 106 (a)1981 50 (a)1982 36 (a)1983 .43 (.1984 33 (a)1985 32 19

'112 24

Ave-rage 1V7 .19

Hi.tD3icalStd. Mrv. 163 (b)

Ls) N4ot detected Above LW.1

(b) mhe -tistrical vtmaaxda dewist-tiois undefined £oz the omri.Aa~ d Fri= to 1986.

C-20

Figure C0-13Cs- 137 in Fish and Invertebrates

1976 to 1986Indicator Stations vs. Control

LEGEND

Indi cator

Control

LLD

CL-

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

YearNote: The LLD for Cs-137 in fish is 150 pCi/kg (wet).

Figure C0-14Cs-1 37 ir

Average. Fish andof Indicatc

Invertebrates)r Stations

.DeviateStandard Normal

U,

0n

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Year

APPENDIX D

EPA INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM

APPENDIX DEPA INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM

Teledyne Isotopes participates in- the EPA Interlaboratory Comparisonprogram. Samples of various media containing known activities ofradionuclides were sent from the EPA to participating laboratories foranalyses. Results of the analyses were compared to the EPA knownvalues.

In 1986, samples of environmental media were provided and appropriateanalyses were performed as indicated in Table D-1.

Results were considered acceptable if there was agreement within ± 3standard deviations of the EPA known value. If unacceptable resultswere reported, the contractors were contacted and the deviations wereresolved. Teledyne Isotopes monitored the results of this program andadhered to a policy of investigation, determination of causation, andcorrective action in the event of discrepancies. In addition, thecontractors' performance in this program was routinely reviewed. In1986, Teledyne Isotopes performance in this program was satisfactory;agreement was attained for 67 out of 76 analyses.

D-1

TABLE D-1US EPA CROSS-CHECK PROGRAM 1986

CollectionDate Media Nuclide

01/10

01/17

01/24

01/31

02/07

02/14

02/21

02/28

03/14

03/21

04/04

04/25

04/25

Water

Water

Water

Food(c)

Water

Water

Water

Milk

Water

Water

Water

Urine

Sr-89Sr-90

Pu-239

Gross AlphaGross Beta

Sr-89Sr-901-131Cs-137K

Cr-51Co-60Zn-65Ru-106Cs-134Cs-137

H-3

Uranium

1-131

Ra-226Ra-228

EPAResults(a)

31.0 ± 8.715.0 ± 2.6

7.1 ± 1.2

3.0 ± 8.77.0 ± 8.7

25.0 ± 8.710.0 ± 2.620.0 ± 10.415.0 ± 8.7950 ± 247.4

38.0 ± 8.718.0 ± 8.740.0 ± 8.70.00 ± 8.730.0 ± 8.722.0 ± 8.7

5277 ± 904.8

9.0 ± 10.4

9.0 ± 10.4

4.1 ± 1.112.4 ±3.2

15.0 8 8.78.0 ± 8.7

9.0 ± 10.4

4423 ± 764.7

15.0 + 8.747.0 ± 8.718.0,± 2.610.0 - 8.7

Teledyn bisotopeResults

30 ± 3.015.3 ±1.7

6.7 ±1.7

4.0± 07.3 ±1.7

23.7 ± 3.523.7 ± 4.6(d)18.0 ± 3.019.0 ± 3.0959 ± 187

L.T.18.746.3L.T.26.021.7

86.7± 1.7± 17.3(e)40± 10.8± 14.8

5266 ± 173.2

9.0± 0

9.0± 0

3.0 0 0.2(f)11.7 ± 1.5

12.0 ±6.09.3 ±1.7

Gross AlphaGross Beta

1-131 10.0 ± 0

4100 ± 0H-3

Air Gross-AlphaFilters Gross-Beta

Sr-90Cs-137

17.6 ± 1.744.6 ± 9.615.6 ± 3.5(g)10.3 ± 1.7

05/09 Water Sr-89Sr-90

5.0 ± 8.75.0 ± 2.6

4.6 ± 1.75.0 ± 0

D-2

TABLE D-1CONTINUED

CollectionDate

05/23

06/06

Media

Water

Water

Nuclide

Gross AlphaGross Beta

Cr-51Co-60Zn-65Ru-106Cs-134Cs-137

06/13

06/20

06/27

Water

Water

Milk

H-3

Ra-226Ra-278

Sr-89Sr-901-131Cs-137K

EPAResults (a)

8.0 ± 8.715.0 ± 8.7

0.0 ± 8.766.0 ± 8.786.0 ± 8.750.0 ± 8.749.0 ± 8.710.0 ± 8.7

3125 ± 622.8

8.6 ± 2.216.7 ± 4.3

0.0 ± 8.716.0 ± 2.641.0 ± 10.431.0 ± 8.71600 ± 138

6.0 ± 8.718.0 ± 8.7

30.0 ± 8.719.0 ± 2.630.0 ± 10.420.0 ± 8.71150 ± 100

45.0 ± 10.4

10.1 ± 1.74

4.0 ± 10.4

22.0 ± 8.766.0 ± 8.722.0 ± 2.622.0 ± 8.7

3033

Teledyn . IsotopeResults

9.0 ± 015.3 ± 3.5

L.T. 92.766.7 ± 3.587.7 ± 25.5L.T. 48.047.7 ± 1.79.3 ± 6.2

6.6 ± 0.5(h)17.4 ± 2.9

L.T.15.041.039.01593

3.7±0±3.0± 5.2(i)± 96.4

07/18

07/25

Water

Food(c)

Gross AlphaGrossBeta

6.0± 014.7 ±1.7

Sr-89Sr-901-131Cs-137K

1-131

Pu-239

Uranium

23.722.325.722.01126

±+

_+

-+

-+

3.5(j)4.6(k)3.513.7173

08/08

08/15

08/22

09/12

Water

Water

Water

27.0 ± 3.0(1)

9.1 ± 0.3

4.7 ± 1.7

23.0 ± 064.3 ± 1.718.0 ± 3.0(m)23.3 ± 6.2

Air Gross AlphaFilter Gross Beta

Sr-90Cs-137

09/12 Water Ra-226Ra-228

6.1 ± 1.69.1 ± 2.4

5.9 ±0.510.4 ±3.6

D-3

TABLE D-1CONTINUED

CollectionDate

09/19

10/10

Media

Water

Water

NuclideEPAResults(a)

15.0 ± 8.78.0 -- 8.7

Teledyn bisotopeResults

Gross AlphaGross Beta

18.7 ± 1.711.0 ± 0

Cr-51Co-60Zn-65Ru-106Cs-134Cs-137

59.031.085.074.028.044.0

±±±+±±

8.78.78.78.78.78.7

L.T.30.384.0L.T.27.352.7

113± 1.7± 15.970± 7.5

1. 71(n)

10/17

11/07

11/21

Water

Urine

Water

H-3

H-3

5973 ± 1033

5257 ± 910

20.0 ± 8.720.0 ± 8.7

5900 ± 300

5333 ± 458

16.3 ± 3.521.0 ± 5.2

Gross AlphaGross Beta

D-4

TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED)

(a) EPA Results - Expected laboratory precision (3 sigma). Units arepCi/l for water, urine, and milk except K which is in mg/l. Unitsare total pCi for air particulate filters.

(b) Teledyne Results - Average ± three sigma. Units are pCi/1 forwater, urine, and milk except K which is in mg/l. Units are totalpCi for air particulate filters.

(c) Units for food analysis are pCi/kg.

(d) This sample is a synthetic food which may contain a substance whichinterferes with the Strontium-89 and 90 analysis. Less than halfof the usual number of laboratories participated in this analysis;of those who did, 42.9% had results beyond the three sigma controllimits.

(e) The three results reported were 43.0, 43.0 and 53.0. The one highresult of 53.0 caused the average result to be above the 2 sigmalimit. This sample was aliquoted last of the three samples andmore of the spike may have settled in the bottom of the container.

(f) The efficiencies of the counters were rechecked and some counterswere recoated to prevent the efficiencies from dJ.fting.

(g) These air filters are counted for gross alpha, beta and gammabefore being analyzed for Sr-90. It was felt that some of theactivity had been lost in handling. The air particulate filterswill be handled more carefully in the future. This had not been aproblem in previous analysis.

(h) A new set of standards was prepared to check the efficiency of theAlpha Counters. Two new counters were prepared and the existingcounters cleaned or resurfaced. A new set of efficiencies wasdetermined.

(i) The efficiency calibration for Cs-137 for the gamma spectrometerdetectors was checked and no reason for the high result wasevident. Previous analyses did not exceed the 2 sigma lmit.

(j, For Sr-90 fourteen of the seventeen participating laboratories werek) beyond the 3 sigma level. For Sr-89 thirteen of the fifteen

laboratories had low results. It would appear that the sample isflawed in some way.

(1) This analysis was performed by an inexperienced technician who hassince received additional training and is performingsatisfactorily.

D-5

TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED)

(m) It is believed thatprecipitation of SrCOLess NaCO3 will be usel

too much NaCO3 was used in the finalresulting in a falsely high Sr-89 yield.

in the future precipitation of SrCO3.

(n) The data for the samples was examined and no obvious reason for thehigh result could be found. The Cs-137 calibration was checked andfound to be in agreement with previous readings. Since this wasnot a trend in previous analyses for Cs-137 in water, it wasdecided to follow the results to see if a trend developed.

D-6