ML071360059
| ML071360059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/2007 |
| From: | Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NL-07-1039 | |
| Download: ML071360059 (70) | |
Text
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 2006 SOUTHERN Na COMPANY Energy to Serve Your World" TABLE OF CONTENTS Section and/or Title Subsection Page List of Figures ii List of Tables iii List of Acronyms iv 1.0 Introduction 1-1 2.0 REMP Description 2-1 3.0 Results Summary 3-1 4.0 Discussion of Results 4-1 4.1 Land Use Census 4-7 4.2 Airborne 4-8 4.3 Direct Radiation 4-14 4.4 Milk 4-18 4.5 Forage 4-22 4.6 Ground Water 4-27 4.7 Surface Water 4-30 4.8 Fish 4-33 4.9 Sediment 4-38 5.0 Interlaboratory Comparison Program (ICP) 5-1 6.0 Conclusions 6-1 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Title Page Figure 2-1 REMP Stations Near the Plant Perimeter 2-9 Figure 2-2 REMP Stations 2 to 5 Miles from the Plant 2-10 Figure 2-3 REMP Stations Beyond 5 Miles from the Plant 2-11 Figure 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 4-9 Figure 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air 4-11 Figure 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 4-15 Figure 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 4-18 Figure 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk 4-20 Figure 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage 4-23 Figure 4.5-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage 4-25 Figure 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Ground Water 4-28 Figure 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water 4-31 Figure 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish 4-34 Figure 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish 4-36 Figure 4.9-1 Average Annual Cs-134 Concentration in Sediment 4-39 Figure 4.9-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment 4-40 ii LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title Page Table 2-1 Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 2-2 Table 3-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary 3-2 Table 4-1 Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) 4-1 Table 4-2 Reporting Levels (RL) 4-2 Table 4-3 Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 4-4 Table 4.1-1 Land Use Census Results 4-7 Table 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 4-10 Table 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air 4-12 Table 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 4-16 Table 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs- 137 Concentration in Milk 4-19 Table 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk 4-21 Table 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage 4-24 Table 4.5-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage 4-26 Table 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Ground Water 4-29 Table 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water 4-32 Table 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish 4-35 Table 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish 4-37 Table 4.9 Sediment Nuclide Concentrations 4-38 Table 5-1 Interlaboratory Comparison Program Results 5-3 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronyms presented in alphabetical order Acronym Definition APCo Alabama Power Company ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CL Confidence Level EL Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory EPA Environmental Protection Agency FNP Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant ICP Interlaboratory Comparison Program MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MDD Minimum Detectable Difference MWe MegaWatts Electric NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measurement(s)
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Po Preoperation PWR Pressurized Water Reactor REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting Level RM River Mile TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specification iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) for 2006 was conducted in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The REMP activities for 2006 are reported herein in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.2 and ODCM 7.1.The objectives of the REMP are to: 1) Determine the levels of radiation and the concentrations of radioactivity in the environs and;2) Assess the radiological impact (if any) to the environment due to the operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP).The assessments include comparisons between results of analyses of samples obtained at locations where radiological levels are not expected to be affected by plant operation (control stations) and at locations where radiological levels are more likely to be affected by plant operation (indicator stations), as well as comparisons between preoperational and operational sample results.FNP is owned by Alabama Power Company (APCo) and operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company. It is located in Houston County, Alabama approximately fifteen miles east of Dothan, Alabama on the west bank of the Chattahoochee River. Unit 1, a Westinghouse Electric Corporation Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) with a licensed core thermal power output of 2775 MegaWatts thermal (MWt), achieved initial criticality on August 9, 1977 and was declared "commercial" on December 1, 1977. Unit 2, also a 2775 MWt Westinghouse PWR, achieved initial criticality on May 8, 1981 and was declared"commercial" on July 30, 1981.The preoperational stage of the REMP began with initial sample collections in January of 1975. The transition from the preoperational to the operational stage of the REMP was marked by Unit 1 initial criticality.
A description of the REMP is provided in Section 2 of this report. An annual summary of the results of the analyses of REMP samples is provided in Section 3.A discussion of the results, including assessments of any radiological impacts upon the environment and the results of the land use census are provided in Section 4. The results of the Interlaboratory Comparison Program (ICP) are provided in Section 5. Conclusions are provided in Section 6.1-I 2.0 REMP DESCRIPTION A summary description of the REMP is provided in Table 2-1. This table summarizes the program as it meets the requirements outlined in ODCM Table 4-1. It details the sample types to be collected and the analyses to be performed in order to monitor the airborne, direct radiation, waterborne and ingestion pathways, and also delineates the collection and analysis frequencies.
In addition, Table 2-1 describes the locations of the indicator, community and control stations as described in ODCM Table 4-4 and the identification of each sample according to station location and analysis type. The stations are also depicted on maps in Figures 2-1 through 2-3.The location of each REMP station for gaseous releases is described by its direction and distance from a point midway between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 plant vent stacks. The surrounding area is divided into 16 azimuthal sectors which are centered on the major compass points; each sector is numbered sequentially clockwise and oriented so that the centerline of sector 16 is due north. Each sampling station is identified by a four digit number. The first two digits indicate the sector number, and the last two digits indicate the distance from the origin to the nearest mile. For example, air monitoring station 0215 is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the origin. The locations for the sampling stations along the river are identified by the nearest River Mile (RM) which is the distance along the navigable portion of the Chattahoochee River upstream of the Jim Woodruff Dam near Chattahoochee, Florida. The approximate locations of the plant discharge and intake structures are at RM 43.5 and 43.8, respectively.
The samples are collected by the plant's technical staff, except for fish and river sediment samples which are collected by APCo Environmental Field Services personnel.
All laboratory analyses were performed by Georgia Power Company's Environmental Laboratory (EL) in Smyrna, Georgia.2-1 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET I of 7)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)
AIRBORNE Particulates Continuous sampler operation with sample collection weekly.Particulate sampler: Analyze for gross beta radioactivity
> 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following filter change. Perform gamma isotopic analysis on each sample when gross beta activity is > 10 times the yearly mean of control samples. Perform gamma isotopic analysis on composite sample.(by.
location) quarterly.
Indicator Stations: River Intake Structure (ESE-0.8)South Perimeter (SSE-1.0)Plant Entrance (WSW-0.9)North Perimeter (N-0.8)Control Stations: Blakely GA (NE- 15)Neals Landing, FL (SSE-18)S...............
Community Stations: GA Pacific Paper Co.(SSE-3)Ashford, AL (WSW-8)Columbia, AL (N-5)PI-0501 PI-0701 PI-1101 PI-1601 PB-0215 PB-0718 PB.. 218 PC-0703 PC-1108 PC- 1605 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 2 of 7)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)
Iodine Continuous sampler operation with sample Radioiodine canister:
Analyze each.............
........c....o l ci...........
..... .s a m p l e .........o.....r....
................................................
......n.................
...... .. ...... ... .....................
.........................
........ ........!.......Indicator Stations: River Intake Structure 11-0501 (ESE-0.8)South Perimeter 11-0701 (SSE-1.0)Plant Entrance 11-1101 (WSW-0.9)North Perimeter 11-1601.(- 0 ...............................................................................................................................................
(..............................................................................................N........................
.......................................-.................................................
..................................................................................................
.. .Control Station: Blakely, GA (NE-15) IB-0215 Neals Landing, FL IB-0718 (SSE-18)Dothan, AL (W-18) IB-1218 Community Station: GA Pacific Paper Co. IC-0703 (SSE-3)DIRECT RADIATION TLD Quarterly Gamma dose: Read each badge Indic r tations: aerl Plant Perimeter (NNE-0.9)
RI-0101 (NE-1.0) RI-0201 (ENE-0.9)
RI-0301 (E-0.8) RI-0401 (ESE-0.8)
RI-0501 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 3 of 7)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)(SE-1.1) RI-0601 (SSE-1.0)
RI-0701 (S-1.0) RI-0801 (SSW-1.0)
RI-0901 (SW-0.9) RI-1001 (WSW-0.9)
RI-1101 (W-0.8) RI-1201 (WNW-0.8)
RI- 1301 (NW- 1.1) RI- 1401 (NNW-0.9)
RI-1501 (N-0.8) RI-1601 Control Stations: Blakely, GA (NE-15) RB-0215 Neals Landing, FL RB-0718 (SSE-18)Dothan, AL (W-15) RB-1215 Dothan, AL (W-18) RB-1218 Webb, AL RB-1311 (WNW- 11)Haleburg, AL (N-12) RB-1612 Community Station By sector (NNE-4) RC-0104 (NE-4) RC-0204 (ENE-4) RC-0304 (E-5) RC-0405 (ESE-5) RC-0505 (SE-5) RC-0605 (SSE-3) RC-0703 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 4 of 7)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)(S-5) RC-0805 (SSW-4) RC-0904 (SW-5) RC-1005 (WSW-4) RC-1104 (W-4) RC-1204 (WNW-4) RC-1304 (NW-4) RC- 1404 (NNW-4) RC- 1504 (N-5) RC-1605 Of Special Interest: Nearest Residence RC-1001 (SW-1.2)City of Ashford, AL RC-1108 (WSW-8.0)WATERBORNE Aliquots taken with proportional semi-Surface Water continuous sampler, having a minimum Gamma isotopic analysis of each 4 week sampling frequency not exceeding two composite sample. Tritium analysis for hours, collected weekly for 4 week each quarterly composite.
composites and quarterly composites Indicator Station: Paper Mill, (-3 miles WRI downstream of plant discharge, RM 40)Control Station: Upstream of WRB Andrews Lock and dam (-3 miles upstream of the plant intake, RM 47)
TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 5 of 7)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)
Ground Water Grab sample quarterly Gamma isotopic, 1-131 and tritium analyses of each sample quarterly Indicator Station: Paper Mill Well WGI-07 (SSE-4)Control Station: Whatley Residence WGB- 10 Well (SW-1.2)River Sediment Grab sample semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis of each sample semiannually Indicator Station: Downstream of plant RSI discharge at Smith's Bend (RM 41)a Control Station: Upstream of plant RSB discharge at Andrews Lock & Dam Reservoir (RM 48)a INGESTION Milk Grab sample biweekly Gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses of..... ................-...............
.............................................................
..........
.....................................................................................................
........................
.-......................
.................................................................................................................................................
....................................
e ac h s amp.e .w.ee.l y Control Station: Robert Weir Dairy MB-0714 Donaldsonville, GA (SSE -14)
TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 6 of 7)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)
Fish Grab sample semiannually for Game Fish Gamma isotopic analysis on the edible and Bottom Feeding Fish portions of each sample semiannually
.................................................................................
- ...............................................................................................11......................ttm...
.....................................................................................................................
e.....samll....em.........................
Indicator Stations: Downstream of plant FGI & FBI discharge in vicinity of Smith's Bend (RM 4 1)b............
--.................................................
...........
.. ..... .... .. ...........
..... .........................
...................................
..................................................
...................................
...... ...............
.....................
.....................
..............
............................................................................
...........
............
............................
.........Control Station: Upstream of plant FGB & FBB discharge in Andrews Lock &Dam Reservoir (RM 4 8)b Forage Grab sample from forage every 4 weeks. Gamma isotopic analysis of each sample every 4 weeks.Indicator Station: South Southeast FI-0701 Perimeter (SSE- 1.0)North Perimeter FI- 1601 (N-0.8)Control Station: Dothan, AL (W-18) FB-1218--Q TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 7 of 7)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM NOTATIONS a. These collections are normally made at river mile 41.3 for the indicator station and river mile 47.8 for the control station; however, due to river bottom sediment shifting caused by high flows, dredging, etc., collections may be made from river mile 40 to 42 for the indicator station and from river mile 47 to 49 for the control station.b. Since a few miles of river water may be needed to obtain adequate fish samples, these river mile positions represent the approximate locations about which the catches are taken. Collections for the indicator station should be from river mile 37.5 to 42.5 and for the control station from river mile 47 to 52.00 E Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Indicator Control Community REMP Stations Near the TLD A A A Plant Perimeter Other 0 0 S TLD & Other Figure 2-1 2-9 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Indicator Control Community REMP Stations 2 to 5 TLD A A A Miles From the Plant Other S S S TLD & Other © Figure 2-2 2-10 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Indicator Control Community REMP Stations Beyond TLD A A A 5 Miles From the Plant Other S *TLD & Other Figure 2-3 2-11
3.0 RESULTS
SUMMARY
In accordance with ODCM 7.1.2.1, the summarized and tabulated results for all of the regular samples collected for the year at the designated indicator, community and control stations are presented in Table 3-1. The format of Table 3-1 is similar to Table 3 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program" Revision 1, November 1979. Results for samples collected at locations other than those listed in Table 2-1 are discussed in Section 4 under the particular sample type.As indicated in ODCM 7.1.2.1, the results for naturally-occurring radionuclides that are also found in plant effluents must be reported along with man-made radionuclides.
Be-7, which occurs abundantly in nature, has been found in some years in the plant effluents.
No other naturally occurring radionuclides have been found in effluents.
Therefore, the only radionuclides of interest in the REMP are the man-made radionuclides and Be-7, when it is detected in the plant's liquid or gaseous effluents.
During 2006, Be-7 was detected in Farley's liquid effluents.
3-1 TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 1 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Indicator Location with the Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Highest Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)
Airborne Gross Beta 10 16.1 PB-0718 20.5 16.8 17.5 Particulates 513 2.7-35.6 Neal's 5.8-37.6 5.3-32.0 5.8-37.6 (fCi/m3) (208/208)
Landing (47/52) (156/156)
(149/156)18 miles, SSE Gamma Isotopic 40 1-131 70 NDM(c) NA(d) NDM NDM (0/16) (0/12) (0/12)Cs-134 50 NDM NA NDM NDM (0/16) (0/12) (0/12)Cs-137 60 NDM NA NDM NDM (0/16) (0/12) (0/12)Airborne 1-131 70 NDM NA NDM NDM Radioiodine 415 (0/208) (0/52) (0/151)(fCi/m3)Direct Gamma NA 15.2 RI-0401 22.0 12.9 13.6 Radiation Dose 11.3-23.7 Plt. Perimeter 21.2-23.7 9.9-16.0 10.4-18.3 (mR/91 days) 160 (64/64) 0.8 miles, E (4/4) (71/72) (24/24)Milk (pCi/1) Gamma Isotopic 26 Cs-134 15 NA NA NA NDM (0/26)Cs-137 18 NA NA NA NDM (0/26)B a- 140 60 NA NA NA NDM (0/26)La- 140 15 NA NA NA NDM (0/26)I-131 1 NA NA NA NDM 26 (0/26)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 2 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Indicator Location with the Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Highest Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)
Forage Gamma (pCi/kg wet) Isotopic 36 1-131 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/24) (0/12)Cs-134 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/24) (0/12)Cs- 137 80 NDM NA NA NDM (0/24) (0/12)Ground Water H-3 2000 NDM NA NA NDM ( p C i / 1 ) ...8 ..............................................
.................................................................
.... ...........................................................................................................
.............................
..............................
...........
...................................................................
4............
............
). 8........
.........
..........................
(0 /4 ) (0 /4 )I-131 1 NDM NA NA NDM 8 (0/4) ---04 Gamma Isotopic 8 Mn-54 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Fe-59 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Co-58 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Co-60 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Zn-65 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Zr-95 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Nb-95 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 3 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Indicator Location with the Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Highest Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)
Cs-134 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Cs-137 18 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Ba-140 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)La- 140 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Surface Water H-3 3000 348 Ga Pacific 348 NA 179 (pCi!l) 8 338-366 Paper Co. 338-366 169-188 Gamma Isotopic 24 Be-7 124 (e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Mn-54 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Fe-59 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Co-58 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Co-60 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Zn-65 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Zr-95 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Nb-95 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 4 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Indicator Location with the Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Highest Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction) 1-131 15 (f) NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Cs-134 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Cs- 137 18 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Ba- 140 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)La-140 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/12) (0/12)Bottom Gamma Feeding Fish Isotopic (pCi/kg wet) 4 Be-7 655 (e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Mn-54 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Fe-59 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-58 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-60 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Zn-65 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs- 134 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-137 150 9.7 Downstream, NA NDM (1/2) near Smith's (0/2)Bend (RM 41)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 5 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama LON Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Indicator Location with the Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Highest Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)
Game Fish Gamma (pCi/kg wet) Isotopic 4 Be-7 655 (e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Mn-54 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Fe-59 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-58 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-60 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Zn-65 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-134 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-137 150 15.0 Downstream, 15.0 NA 14.7 9.6-20.4 near Smith's 9.6-20.4 (1/2)(2/2) Bend (RM 41) (2/2)River Shoreline Gamma Sediment Isotopic (pCi/kg dry) 4 Be-7 655 (e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-134 150 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-137 180 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 6 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama NOTATIONS a. The MDC is defined in ODCM 10.1. Except as noted otherwise, the values listed in this column are the detection capabilities required by ODCM Table 4-3 (Table 4-1 of this report). The values listed in this column are a priori (before the fact) MDCs. In practice, the a posteriori (after the fact) MDCs are generally lower than the values listed. Any a posteriori MDC greater than the value listed in this column is discussed in Section 4.b. Mean and range are based upon detectable measurements only. The fraction of all measurements at a specified location that are detectable is placed in parentheses.
- c. No Detectable Measurement(s).
- d. Not Applicable.
- e. The EL has determined that this value may be routinely attained under normal conditions.
No value is provided in Table 4-1 of this report.f. If a drinking water pathway exists, a value of 1 pCi/l would be used. See note b of Table 4-1 of this report.
4.0 DISCUSSION
OF RESULTS Included in this section are evaluations of the laboratory results for the various sample types. Comparisons were made between the difference in mean values for pairs of station groups (e.g., indicator and control stations, or, community and control stations) and the calculated Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD)between these pairs, at the 99% Confidence Level (CL). The MDD was determined using the standard Student's t-test. A difference in the mean values which was less than the MDD was considered to be statistically indiscernible.
The 2006 results were compared with past results, including those obtained during preoperation.
As appropriate, results were compared with their Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) and Reporting Levels (RL) which are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of this report, respectively.
The required MDCs were achieved during laboratory sample analysis.
Any anomalous results are explained within this report.Results of interest are graphed to show historical trends. The data points are tabulated and included in this report. The points plotted and provided in the tables represent mean values of only detectable results. Periods for which no detectable measurements (NDM) were observed, or periods for which values were not applicable (e.g., milk indicator, etc.), are plotted as O's and listed in the tables as NDM.Table 4-1 Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC)Analysis Water Airborne Fish Milk Grass or Sediment (pCi/l) Particulate (pCi/kg) (pCi/l) Leafy (pCi/kg)or Gases wet Vegetation dry (fCi/m3) (pCi/kg)wet Gross Beta 4 10 H-3 2000 (a)Mn-54 15 130 Fe-59 30 260 Co-58 15 130 Co-60 15 130 Zn-65 30 260 Zr-95 30 Nb-95 15 1-131 1 (b) 70 1 60 Cs-134 15 50 130 15 60 150 Cs-137 18 60 150 18 80 180 Ba-140 60 60 La-140 15 _ 1 15 (a) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 3000 pCi/1 may be used.(b) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 15 pCi/l may be used.4-1 Table 4-2 Reporting Levels (RL)Analysis Water Airborne Fish Milk (pCi/l) Grass or (pCi/l) Particulate (pCi/kg) wet Leafy or Gases Vegetation (fCi/m3) (pCi/kg) wet H-3 20,000 (a)Mn-54 1000 30,000 Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1000 30,000 Co-60 300 10,000 Zn-65 300 20,000 Zr-95 400 Nb-95 700 1-131 2 (b) 900 3 100 Cs- 134 30 10,000 1000 60 1000 Cs- 137 50 20,000 2000 70 2000 Ba-140 200 300 La-140 100 400 (a) This is the 40 CFR 141 value for drinking exists, a value of 30,000 may be used.water samples. If no drinking water pathway (b) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 20 pCi/1 may be used.Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from the mid 1940's through 1980 distributed man-made nuclides around the world. The most recent atmospheric tests in the 1970's and in 1980 had a significant impact upon the radiological concentrations found in the environment prior to and during preoperation, and the earlier years of operation.
Some long-lived radionuclides, such as Cs-137, continue to have some impact.Significant upward trends also followed the Chernobyl incident, which began on April 26, 1986.In accordance with ODCM 4.1.1.2.1, deviations from the required sampling schedule are permitted if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, unavailability, inclement weather, equipment malfunction or other just reasons.Deviations from conducting the REMP as described in Table 2-1 are summarized in Table 4-3 along with their causes and resolutions.
4-2 All results were tested for conformance with Chauvenet's criterion (G. D. Chase and J. L. Rabinowitz, Principles of Radioisotope Methodology, Burgess Publishing Company, 1962, pages 87-90) to identify values which differed from the mean of a set by a statistically significant amount. Identified outliers were investigated to determine the reason(s) for the variation.
If equipment malfunction or other valid physical reasons were identified as causing the variation, the anomalous result was excluded from the data set as non-representative.
No data were excluded exclusively for failing Chauvenet's criterion.
Data exclusions are discussed in this section under the appropriate sample type.4-3 TABLE 4-3 (SHEET 1 of 3)DEVIATIONS FROM RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM COLLECTIO AFFECTED DEVIATION CAUSE RESOLUTION N PERIOD SAMPLE(S)2/14/06-2/21/06 PI-1601/11-1601 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about Station operation satisfactory CR2006101605 N. Plant Perimeter airborne particulates.
4.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. Possible power after sample change out.loss at station.4/18/06-4/25/06 PI-1101/11-1101 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about Portable generator used during CR2006103994 Plant Entrance airborne particulates.
2.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br />. Time lost due 1D 4160V power supply to issues with portable maintenance work.generator
-while refueling generator and due to blown pump fuses.5/9/06-5/16/06 PB-0718/IB-0718 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about 1 Station operation satisfactory CR2006104732 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
hour. Possible power loss after sample change out.at station.6/06/06-6/13/06 PB-1218/IB-1218 Non-representative sample of Inadequate sample volume CR2006105476 written to CR2006105702 Dothan airborne particulates.
collected.
Sample pump replace exhaust fan in sample EXCLUDED tripped -suspect pump is station.overheating due to improper operation of station exhaust fan.6/13/06-6/20/06 PB-1218/IB-1218 Non-representative sample of Inadequate sample volume Work Order generated to check CR2006105946 Dothan airborne particulates.
collected.
Sample pump pump operation.
EXCLUDED tripped.3/21/06-6/20/06 WRB River water samples not Sampler found in the "off' Added step to PM to verify CR2006105940 Andrews Dam collected continuously, position.
Not returned to sampler auto-operation after Missed weekly samples service after PM work done maintenance performed.
6/13/06-6/20/06.
on 6/13/06. 1 1 TABLE 4-3 (SHEET 2 of 3)DEVIATIONS FROM RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM COLLECTIO AFFECTED DEVIATION CAUSE RESOLUTION N PERIOD SAMPLE(S)6/20/06-6/27/06 PB-0718/IB-0718 Non-representative sample of Sample pump tripped -Station operation satisfactory CR2006106197 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
fuse blown, after fuse replaced.EXCLUDED 7/18/06-7/25/06 PB-0718/IB-0718 Non-representative sample of Sample pump tripped -Station operation satisfactory CR2006107017 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
fuse blown, after fuse replaced.Possibly due to bad weather.7/25/06-8/1/06 PB-0718/IB-0718 Non-representative sample of No power to sample Power restored to station on CR2006107233 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
station. Remote location 8/10/06.EXCLUDED therefore not able to support use of portable generator.
8/1/06-8/8/06 PB-0718/IB-0718 Non-representative sample of No power to sample Power restored to station on CR2006107233 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
station. Remote location 8/10/06.EXCLUDED therefore not able to support use of portable generator.
8/8/06-8/15/06 PB-0718/IB-0718 Non-representative sample of No power to sample station Power restored to station on CR2006107233 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
for part of collection 8/10/06.period.8/22/06-8/29/06 PB-0718/IB-0718 Non-representative sample of Sample pump tripped -Station operation satisfactory CR2006108023 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
fuse blown, after fuse replaced.EXCLUDED I I I II TABLE 4-3 (SHEET 3 of 3)DEVIATIONS FROM RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM COLLECTION AFFECTED DEVIATION CAUSE RESOLUTION PERIOD SAMPLE(S)3 r Qtr TLD Station No direct radiation data. TLDs missing at mid- Moved TLDs a short distance to CR2006108222 RC-0104 quarter, replaced with a more secure location.EXCLUDED spares. TLD replacements missing at end of quarter.10/24/06-10/31/06 PB-0718/TB-Non-representative sample of Sample time short about 4 Station operation satisfactory CR2006110037 0718 airborne particulates.
hours. Possible power loss after sample change out.EXCLUDED Neal's Landing at station.11/14/06-11/21/06 P1-1601/11-1601 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about Station operation satisfactory CR2006110455 North Perimeter airborne particulates.
30.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. Possibly power after sample change out.loss due to bad weather.
4.1 Land Use Census In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted during the month of June 2006. The land use census is used to determine the locations of the nearest permanent residence and milk animal in each of the 16 compass sectors within a distance of 5 miles. A milk animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption.
The 2006 survey revealed no significant changes from the 2005 survey. No milk animals were found within a 5 mile distance.
The census results are tabulated in Table 4.1-1.Table 4.1-1 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS Distance in Miles to the Nearest Location in Each Sector SECTOR RESIDENCE MILK ANIMAL N 2.6 none NNE 2.5 none NE 2.4 none ENE 2.4 none E 2.8 none ESE 3.0 none SE 3.4 none SSE none none S 4.3 none SSW 2.9 none SW 1.2 none WSW 2.4 none W 1.3 none WNW 2.1 none NW 1.5 none NNW 3.4 none The Houston County, Alabama and the Early County, Georgia Extension Agents were contacted for assistance in locating commercial dairy farms and privately owned milk animals within 5 miles of the plant. A list of commercial dairy farms in Houston County, AL and Seminole County, GA was provided; there are no commercial dairy farms in Early County. Neither agent knew of privately owned milk animals within 5 miles of FNP. In addition, field surveys were conducted in the plant vicinity along the state and county highways and the interconnecting secondary roads. No milk animals were found within 5 miles of the plant.ODCM 4.1.2.2.1 requires a new controlling receptor to be determined, if the land use census identifies a location that yields a calculated receptor dose greater than the one in current use. Neither current sampling locations nor the controlling receptor were affected by the 2006 land use census results. The current controlling receptor as described in ODCM Table 3-7 remains a child in the SW Sector at 1.2 miles.4-7
4.2 Airborne
As specified in Table 2-1 and shown in Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, airborne particulate filters and charcoal canisters are collected weekly at 4 indicator, 3 control and 3 community stations.
Particulate filters are collected at all of the stations while the charcoal canisters are collected at all but 2 of the community stations.
At each location, air is continuously drawn through a glass fiber filter to retain airborne particulates and, as appropriate, an activated charcoal canister is placed in series to adsorb radioiodine.
Each particulate filter is counted for gross beta activity.
A quarterly gamma isotopic analysis is performed on a composite of the air particulate filters for each station. Each charcoal canister is analyzed for 1-131.As provided in Table 3-1, the 2006 annual average weekly gross beta activity was 16.1 fCi/m 3 at the indicator stations and 17.5 fCi/m 3 at the control stations.However, the difference of 1.4 fCi/m 3 between the two averages is not statistically discernible since the MDD for these two average values is 1.49 fCi/m .As shown in Table 3-1, the 2006 annual average weekly gross beta concentration was 16.8 fCi/m 3 at community stations.
The community stations average was 0.7 fCi/m 3 less than the average for the control stations.
The difference is not statistically discernible since it is less than the MDD of 1.49 fCi/m 3 between the two averages.Due to the weapons tests during preoperation and the early years of operation, the average gross beta concentrations were 5 to 10 times greater than those currently being measured.
By the mid 1980s, the readings had diminished to about half the current levels. These annual averages approximately doubled as a consequence of the Chernobyl incident in 1986; this impact faded away in approximately 2 years.The installation of new air monitoring equipment in 1992 yielded an approximate factor of 2 increase in the readings.
Since then, the levels have been fairly flat.The historical trending of the average weekly gross beta air concentrations for each year of operation and the preoperational period at the indicator, control and community stations is plotted in Figure 4.2-1 and listed in Table 4.2-1. In general, there is close agreement between the results for the indicator, control and community stations.
This close agreement supports the position that the plant's contribution to gross beta concentration in air is insignificant.
4-8 Figure 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 1000 cv, 100 0 0 0 C.)1 Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year I -MDC -Indicator A Control -X-- Community I 4-9 Table 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration Period Indicator Control Community (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3)Pre-op 90 92 91 1977 205 206 206 1978 125 115 115 1979 27.3 27.3 28.7 1980 29.7 28.1 29.2 1981 121 115 115 1982 20.0 20.4 21.0 1983 15.5 14.1 14.5 1984 10.2 12.6 10.5 1985 9.0 9.6 10.3 1986 10.5 15.8 12.5 1987 9.0 11.0 17.0 1988 8.0 8.0 10.0 1989 7.0 7.0 8.0 1990 10.0 10.0 10.0 1991 9.0 10.0 8.0 1992 15.0 17.9 18.5 1993 19.1 22.3 22.4 1994 19.0 20.0 19.0 1995 21.7 22.9 21.6 1996 20.3 22.3 23.5 1997 21.1 21.6 22.4 1998 20.6 19.3 22.0 1999 20.5 22.1 25.2 2000 20.9 20.8 23.6 2001 16.3 17.2 17.3 2002 16.8 18.0 16.8 2003 19.1 19.3 19.9 2004 22.0 21.3 22.4 2005 18.4 19.3 19.0 2006 16.1 17.5 16.8 4-10 During 2006, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the quarterly composites of the air particulate filters. This has generally been the case since the impact of the weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident have faded. During preoperation and the early years of operation, a number of fission and activation products were detected.
During preoperation, the average levels for Cs-134 and Cs-137 were 22 and 9 fCi/m-, respectively.
In 1986, as a consequence of the Chernobyl incident, Cs-134 and Cs-137 levels of 3 to 4 fCi/m3 were found. The MDC and RL for Cs-134 are 50 and 10,000 fCi/m 3 and the MDC and RL for Cs-137 are 60 and 20,000 fCi/m 3 respectively.
The historical trending of the annual detectable Cs-137 concentrations for the indicator, control and community stations is provided in Figure 4.2-2 and Table 4.2-2. The trend has been generally downward since preoperation and no positive results have been observed since 1988.Figure 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air 20 M 15 E-0 C 10*. 0 (U C 0 Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year-4-Indicator -U--Control A Community 4-11 Table 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air Period Indicator Control Community (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3)Pre-op 8 13 7 1977 3.0 3.0 3.0 1978 4.0 5.0 5.0 1979 2.0 NDM 2.0 1980 1.0 2.0 1.8 1981 2.8 3.2 2.6 1982 1.7 NDM 1.0 1983 1.0 NDM 1.0 1984 NDM 1.5 NDM 1985 1.0 1.0 1.0 1986 3.3 3.4 2.7 1987 NDM NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1 1989 NDM NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM NDM 4-12 Airborne 1-131 was not detected in the charcoal canisters during 2006. In 1978, levels between 40 and 50 fCi/m 3 were found in a few samples and attributed to the Chinese weapons tests; then after the Chernobyl incident, levels up to a few hundred fCi/m 3 were found in some samples. At no other times has airborne 1-131 been detected in the environmental samples. The MDC and RL for airborne 1-131 are 70 and 900 fCi/m3 respectively.
Table 4-3 lists REMP deviations that occurred during 2006. Although there were 13 air sampling deviations listed in Table 4-3, only 7 required data to be excluded from the calculation of the mean values. Three of the 13 were minor deviations where the sample system lost approximately 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> or less of sampling time for the week due to power interruptions.
Of the 7 air stations where data was excluded, four sample results (both filter and cartridge) were excluded due to inadequate sample volume collected during the sampling period. The remaining three excluded station results (both filter and cartridge) failed Chauvenet's Criterion following equipment malfunctions.
4-13
4.3 Direct
Radiation Direct (external) radiation is measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Two Panasonic UD-814 TLD badges are placed at each station. Each badge contains three phosphors composed of calcium sulfate crystals (with thulium impurity).
The gamma dose at each station is based upon the average readings of the phosphors from the two badges. The two badges for each station are placed in thin plastic bags for protection from moisture while in the field. The badges are nominally exposed for periods of a quarter of a year (91 days). An inspection is performed near mid-quarter to assure that all badges are on-station and to replace any missing or damaged badges.Two TLD stations are established in each of the 16 sectors, to form 2 concentric rings. The inner ring stations are located near the plant perimeter, as shown in Figure 2-1, and the outer ring stations are located at distances of approximately 3 to 5 miles from the plant, as shown in Figure 2-2. The stations forming the inner ring are designated as the indicator stations.
The 6 control stations are located at distances greater than 10 miles from the plant, as shown in Figure 2-3. Stations are also provided which monitor special interest areas: the nearest occupied residence (SW at 1.2 miles), as shown in Figure 2-1, and the city of Ashford (WSW at 8 miles), as shown in Figure 2-3. The 16 outer ring stations and the 2 special interest stations are designated as community stations.As provided in Table 3-1, the average quarterly exposure measured at the indicator stations (inner ring) during 2006 was 15.2 mR which was 1.6 mR greater than the 13.6 mR which was acquired at the control stations.
This difference is statistically discernible since it is slightly greater than the MDD of 1.5 mR. The difference of 0.7 mR found between the control stations (13.6 mR) and community stations (12.9 mR) is not statistically discernible since the difference is less than the MDD of 1.12 mR. The difference between the indicator and control and between the control and community stations is consistent with what has been seen in previous years.The historical trending of the average quarterly exposures in units of mR at the indicator, control, and community locations are plotted in Figure 4.3-1 and listed in Table 4.3-1. During preoperation the average exposure at the indicator stations was 1.2 mR greater than that for the control stations, but the average over the entire period of operation was only 1.1 mR greater. During preoperation, the average exposure at the control stations was 1.3 mR greater than that at the community stations and the average over the period of operation is 1.5 mR greater. This supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to direct radiation in the environment.
Table 4-3 lists the REMP program deviations that occurred in 2006. There was one deviation involving TLD badges in 2006. This deviation did lead to a loss of direct radiation data since the badges were missing at mid-quarter (at Station RC-0104) and the replacement badges were missing at the end of the 3 rd quarter. The TLD packet was moved a short distance to a more secure location.
There were no problems noted at this station in the 4 th quarter.4-14 Figure 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 30 25-20 E 15 0.LU low 5x 011 1 11 .. I ... T Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year-"--Indicator
--E Control A Community 4-15 Table 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation Period Indicator (mR) Control (mR) Community_ I [ (mR)Pre-op 12.6 11.4 10.1 1977 10.6 12.2 10.6 1978 15.0 13.5 12.0 1979 20.3 18.7 15.2 1980 21.9 21.6 18.5 1981 16.5 14.9 14.5 1982 15.5 14.7 13.0 1983 20.2 20.2 17.4 1984 18.3 16.9 15.3 1985 21.9 22.0 18.0 1986 17.8 17.7 15.1 1987 20.8 20.0 18.0 1988 21.5 19.9 18.5 1989 18.0 16.2 15.3 1990 18.9 16.4 15.8 1991 18.4 16.1 16.1 1992 16.1 13.6 13.5 1993 17.4 15.9 15.6 1994 15.0 13.0 12.0 1995 14.0 12.5 11.8 1996 14.2 12.7 11.9 1997 15.3 13.9 11.9 1998 16.2 14.6 13.9 1999 14.7 13.4 12.6 2000 15.5 14.1 13.5 2001 14.9 13.4 12.7 2002 14.1 12.6 11.9 2003 15.2 13.6 12.9 2004 14.3 12.9 12.1 2005 14.7 13.4 12.5 2006 15.2 13.6 12.9 4-16 The standard deviation for the quarterly result for each badge was subjected to a self imposed limit of 1.4. This limit is calculated using a method developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (ASTM Special Technical Publication 15D, ASTM Manual on Presentation of Data and Control Chart Analysis, Fourth Revision, Philadelphia, PA, October 1976). The calculation is based upon the standard deviations obtained by the EL with the Panasonic UD-814 badges during 1992. This limit serves as a flag to initiate an investigation.
To be conservative, readings with a standard deviation greater than 1.4 are excluded since the high standard deviation is interpreted as an indication of unacceptable variation in TLD response.The TLD results from the following stations were excluded from the data set because their standard deviations were greater than 1.4: Quarter 1 -RB- 1311B Quarter 2 -RB-1612A, RC-0204A, RC-0904A, RI-0401B, RI-1001A, RI-1401A Quarter 3 -RI-0101B, RI-0401B Quarter 4 -RB-1218B, RI-0401A For the eleven TLD stations where these badges were located, only the reading of the companion badge was used to determine the quarterly exposure for the station.The affected badges were visually inspected under a microscope and the glow curve and test results for the anneal data and the element correction factors were reviewed.
No reason was found for the high standard deviations.
4-17 4.4 Milk In accordance with Table 2-1, milk samples are collected biweekly from a control location.
No indicator station (a location within five miles of the plant) has been available for milk sampling since 1987. As discussed in Section 4.0, no milk animals were found within five miles of the plant during the 2006 land use census.Gamma isotopic analyses were performed on each sample as specified in Table 2-1. No man-made radionuclides were identified from the gamma isotopic analysis of the milk samples during 2006. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in milk are 18 and 70 pCi/i, respectively.
The historical trending of the average annual detectable Cs-137 concentration in milk samples is shown in Figure 4.4-1 and Table 4.4-1. Cs-137 has not been detected in milk since 1986. Its presence at that time is attributed to the Chernobyl incident.
The earlier detectable results were attributed to the weapons tests.Figure 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 45-40O 35O 15-n iatr -- C nto M C 0~ 5 t-j 0 Ii+/-ffil::
Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year-4-Indicator -U-MControl -MIDC 4-18 Table 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk Period Indicator Control (pCi/l) (pCi/l)Pre-op 32 18 1977 41 20 1978 15 17 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 NDM 23.0 1982 NDM NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 NDM 16.5 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 4-19 As specified in Table 2-1, each sample was analyzed for 1-131, which has not been detected in milk since 1986. The presence of 1-131 at that time is attributed to the Chernobyl incident.
The earlier detectable results were attributed to the weapons tests. The MDC and RL for 1-131 are 1 and 3 pCi/l, respectively.
Figure 4.4-2 and Table 4.4-2 show the historical trending of the average annual detectable 1- 131 concentration in milk samples.Figure 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk 50O 40 C.0.( 20-0 1-0 ......................1-= = =~ = ------- --Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year-- Indicator -U-- Control -MDC -RL 4-20 Table 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk Period Indicator Control (pCi/1) (pCi/l)Pre-op 41 14 1977 20 2.6 1978 30 11 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 NDM NDM 1982 NDM NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 NDM 5.0 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 4-21
4.5 Forage
In accordance with Table 2-1, forage samples are collected every 4 weeks at two indicator stations on the plant perimeter, and at one control station located approximately 18 miles west of the plant, in Dothan. Gamma isotopic analyses are performed on each sample.During preoperation and the years of operation through 1986 (the year of the Chernobyl incident), Cs-137 was typically found in about a third of the 35 to 40 forage samples collected per year. In 1987 and 1988 the number dropped to about a seventh of the total samples and from 1989 through 1994, it was only found in one or two samples every year. From 1994 to 2005, Cs-137 was detected in only a few samples, three indicator samples and three control samples.In 2006, Cs-137 was not detected in any of the 12 control samples and not detected in any of the 24 indicator samples. The occasional presence of Cs-137 in vegetation samples is attributed primarily to fallout from nuclear weapons tests and from the Chernobyl incident.
The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in forage are 80 and 2000 pCi/kg wet, respectively.
Table 4.5-1 presents the average detectable results of Cs-137 found in forage over the life of the plant and Figure 4.5-1 shows the historical trending of this data.4-22 Figure 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage 90 80-.-.-.-.-.-U -U -* -S -S -S -S -S --U -U -U -U -U -U -S -S -S -S -S -S -S -U -U -70O.M 60 C 50 C 0 40 cc C30 0 o2 0..............................A I, I I I I / I/_ W I V I I\. I ... ..I /\ VI\I-TUil ..----I..L v I--4--Idctr--I--
l MD Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 56 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Year 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 I-4-*Indicator -a- Control -MDCI 4-23 I Table 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 59.4 48.6 1977 25.0 NDM 1978 52.5 32.5 1979 37.2 32.8 1980 36.2 35.9 1981 32.1 43.1 1982 25.0 33.1 1983 16.8 23.6 1984 19.9 22.8 1985 22.2 9.5 1986 41.2 36.2 1987 46.8 NDM 1988 33.6 31.7 1989 35.7 NDM 1990 56.0 NDM 1991 NDM 12.9 1992 NDM 43.0 1993 NDM 24.0 1994 NDM 24 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 52.6 NDM 1998 NDM 22.7 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 24.1 25.2 2004 21.6 NDM 2005 NDM 23.1 2006 NDM NDM 4-24 During preoperation and in the early years of operation, 1-131 was found in 10%to 25% of the forage samples at very high levels which ranged from around 100 to 1,000 pCi/kg wet. In 1986 (Chernobyl incident), 1-131 reappeared after not having been detected for 3 years. The MDC and RL for 1-131 are 60 and 100 pCi/kg wet, respectively.
Table 4.5-2 lists the average detectable results of 1-131 found in forage over the life of the plant and Figure 4.5-2 plots the historical trending of this data.1-131 has not been detected in forage samples since the 1986 Chernobyl accident.Figure 4.5-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage 4-C 0.C 0 (U 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 lull I I.. II -II -.. -II II-tI-It1---tIt tt1I-tI-I I-I I I-I-I-._w I-4 t IM -- ----.-.- -------.--. ..--. -.- ---Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 mar 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Yc 1-+-Indicator
-ý Control -MDC -RLI 4-25 Table 4.5-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 405 486 1977 971 654 1978 220 240 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 21.4 NDM 1982 46.4 NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 184 NDM 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM These forage analyses results show the impact of the weapons tests during preoperation and the early years of operation and of the Chernobyl incident in 1986 and for a few years afterwards.
The impact is reflected by the number of different radionuclides detected, the fraction of samples with detectable results, as well as the magnitude of the results. During preoperation and for the first few years of operation, 11 different radionuclides from fission and activation products were detected.
By 1985, only 2 different radionuclides were detected and the fraction of samples with detectable results had diminished.
In 1986, the same two nuclides as seen in 1985 appeared at a significantly higher magnitude and 1-131 reappeared.
In the years following 1986, only Cs-137 has been found in forage and it has been found in a decreasing fraction of the samples.4-26
4.6 Ground
Water In the FNP environs, there are no true indicator sources of ground water. A well, located about four miles south-southeast of the plant on the east bank of the Chattahoochee River, serves Georgia Pacific Paper Company as a source of potable water and is designated as the indicator station. A deep well located about 1.2 miles southwest of the plant, which supplies water to the Whatley residence, is designated as the control station. Samples are collected quarterly and analyzed for gamma isotopic, 1-131 and tritium as specified in Table 2-1. In 2006, no indicator samples were positive for tritium and no control samples were positive for tritium.No other radionuclides were detected.In 1983, 1985, and 1986, Cs-134 was detected in single samples at levels ranging from 3 to 13 pCi/1. The MDC and RL for Cs-134 in water are 15 and 30 pCi/l, respectively.
During preoperation, Cs-137 was detected in two of the samples at levels of 15 and 17 pCi/l. Then in 1984 and 1985, Cs-137 was again detected in a few samples with levels ranging from 4 to 5 pCi/l. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in water are 18 and 50 pCi/l, respectively.
1-131 has never been detected in ground water samples. From 1986-2003, no radionuclides were detected.
In 2004 and 2005, tritium was detected at very low concentrations (near the instrument detection level) and close to environmental background concentrations which are approximately 100-300 pCi/l. The positive results seen in 2004 and 2005 were less than 2% of the reporting level for tritium.The MDC and RL for tritium in drinking water are 2,000 and 20,000 pCi/l, respectively.
Figure 4.6-1 and Table 4.6-1 show the historical trending of the average annual detectable tritium concentration in ground water.In 2006, NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) formed a task force to address monitoring onsite groundwater for radionuclides at nuclear facilities.
The task force was formed after several plants detected radionuclides (primarily tritium) in groundwater wells off plant site. The contamination sources were found to be onsite underground piping leaks, tank leaks, storage ponds, or radioactive spills that had slowly seeped into the groundwater.
These small leaks went undetected for many years and eventually led to the unexpected discovery of radionuclides off plant site. The amount of radioactivity seen in the offsite wells did not pose a significant health concern. However, NEI felt it was prudent for the industry to update site hydrology information and to develop radiological groundwater monitoring plans at each site. These groundwater protection plans would ensure that underground leaks and spills would be addressed more promptly.Additionally, NEI recommended developing a communications protocol to report radioactive leaks or spills that entered groundwater (or might eventually enter groundwater) to the NRC and State and Local government officials as needed.4-27 Farley's current groundwater monitoring program includes the two offsite drinking water wells discussed in this section. In 2006, Farley also sampled onsite drinking water wells and several other onsite piezometer wells for tritium and gamma isotopic activity.
These wells did not contain detectable amounts of radioactivity.
In 2007, Farley will implement a more extensive radiological groundwater monitoring program. A qualified hydrologist will make recommendations for drilling additional onsite monitoring wells and will update the site hydrology information.
The groundwater monitoring results will be reported each year in the site REMP report.Southern Nuclear has developed a company-wide communications protocol which is contained in the Nuclear Management Procedure, Actions for Potential Groundwater Contamination Events, to ensure radioactive leaks and spills would be addressed and communicated appropriately.
Figure 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Ground Water 0.C 0 0 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year-4-Indicator -U- Control -MDC 4-28 Table 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Ground Water Period Indicator Control (pCi/l) (pCi/l)Pre-op 150 240 1977 NDM NDM 1978 NDM 240 1979 NDM NDM 1980 124 NDM 1981 264 NDM 1982 240 NDM 1983 360 341 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 NDM NDM 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 194 271 2005 264 360 2006 NDM NDM 4-29
4.7 Surface
Water As specified in Table 2-1 and shown in Figure 2-2, water samples are collected from the Chattahoochee River at a control station approximately 3 miles upstream of the intake structure and at an indicator station approximately 4 miles downstream of the discharge structure.
Small quantities are collected during the week at periodic intervals using automatic samplers.
For each station, one liter from each of four consecutive weekly samples is combined into a composite sample which is analyzed for gamma emitters.
In addition, 0.075 liters is collected from 13 consecutive weekly samples for each station to form composite quarterly samples which are analyzed for tritium.No detectable results have been found from these gamma isotopic analyses since 1988. During preoperation and in every year of operation through 1988 (except 1979 and 1980), a few samples showed at least one of nine different activation or fission products at levels less than or on the order of their MDCs. During preoperation, Cs-137 was found in about 3% of the samples. From 1981 through 1988, it was found in about 15% of the samples. Cs-134 was found in about 15%of the samples from 1981 to 1986. All of these gamma emitters are attributed to the weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident.As shown in Table 3-1, tritium was detected in 3 out of 4 composite samples collected at the indicator station and in 2 out of 4 composite samples collected at the control station. The average concentration at the indicator station was 348 pCi/l. At the control station, the average result was 179 pCi/I. The difference between the average at the indicator station and the average at the control station (169 pCi/l) was statistically discernible since it was greater than the calculated MDD of 55 pCi/1. The results seen at the indicator station could be attributed to plant effluents.
The results seen at both stations are very close to the background levels commonly seen in the environment (100-300 pCi/i).Historical trending of the detectable concentrations of tritium in surface water is provided in Figure 4.7-1 and Table 4.7-1. The slightly elevated plot of the indicator stations could be indicative of plant tritium contributions to surface water. However, it is noteworthy that the annual average levels are less than 10%of the MDC and less than 1% of the RL. The MDC and RL for tritium in surface water are 3000 and 30,000, respectively.
As shown in Table 4-3, there was one deviation involving surface water sampling in 2006. The sampler at Andrews Dam was not returned to service after preventive maintenance was performed.
Samples were missed from 6/13/06-6/20/06. The samples collected from the other 3 weeks in the month were adequate for the monthly composite gamma analysis and the monthly aliquot for the quarterly composite tritium analysis.4-30 Figure 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water 3500-3000-__2500---2000-.2 0=1500 01000--500--Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year---Indicator -U- Control -MDC 4-31 Table 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water Period Indicator Control (pCi/i) (pCi/i)Pre-op 200 170 1977 300 160 1978 230 250 1979 169 135 1980 221 206 1981 294 162 1982 300 132 1983 434 111 1984 333 152 1985 351 105 1986 478 272 1987 291.8 116.5 1988 293.3 NDM 1989 253.8 NDM 1990 166 NDM 1991 122 NDM 1992 360.5 134 1993 388.8 NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 257 NDM 1996 386 NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 415 NDM 1999 314 NDM 2000 424 212 2001 252 NDM 2002 598 NDM 2003 296 NDM 2004 270 NDM 2005 215 173 2006 348 179 4-32 4.8 Fish Two types of fish (bottom feeding and game) are collected semiannually from the Chattahoochee River at a control station several miles upstream of the plant intake structure and at an indicator station a few miles downstream of the plant discharge structure.
These locations are shown in Figure 2-2. Gamma isotopic analysis is performed on the edible portions of each sample as specified in Table 2-1.As provided in Table 3-1, Cs-137 was the only radionuclide of interest that was found from the gamma isotopic analysis of fish samples in 2006. Cs-137 was detected in both the fall and spring collection of game fish samples at the indicator station. The average was 15.0 pCi/kg wet. Cs-137 was detected in one game fish sample at the control station (14.7 pCi/kg-wet).
Using the modified Student's t-test, the difference between the indicator and control station was not statistically discernible.
The MDC for Cs-137 in fish is 150 pCi/kg wet and the RL is 2000 pCi/kg wet.Cesium-137 was detected in one bottom feeding fish sample at the indicator location (9.7 pCi/kg wet). Cs-137 was not detected in any of the other bottom feeding fish samples. The single positive value at the control station was near the detection threshold for the instrument and is less than 1% of the reporting level.The MDC for Cs-137 in fish is 150 pCi/kg wet and the RL is 2000 pCi/kg wet.Historically, Cs-137 has been found in approximately 30% of the bottom feeding fish samples and in 80% of the game fish samples. Figures 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 and Tables 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 provide the historical trending of the average annual detectable concentrations of Cs-137 in pCi/kg wet in bottom feeding and game fish, respectively.
Since the early 1980s, values have generally decreased for both indicator and control groups, with the exception of the bottom feeding fish collected at the indicator station in 1993. While some contribution from the plant cannot be ruled out, most of the Cs-137 in these samples may be attributed to the nuclear weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident, as evidenced by the normally close agreement between the control and indicator station results.4-33 Figure 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-1 37 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish 4-0.I Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year-4*-Indicator Control -MDC 4-34 Table 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 69 48 1977 NDM NDM 1978 NDM NDM 1979 38 30 1980 92 90 1981 I 96 106 1982 51.5 39.0 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM 19 1985 NDM NDM 1986 28 25 1987 25 19 1988 25.5 22.0 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 208 NDM 1994 15.9 10.3 1995 NDM 14.2 1996 16.4 9.9 1997 10.9 7.7 1998 NDM NDM 1999 19.2 NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 9.8 NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM 8.5 2004 8.1 NDM 2005 NDM 9.6 2006 9.7 NDM 4-35 Figure 4.8-2 4-a)U 0.0 4-Cu 4-a)0 0 C.)350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish ,..,i LI/, I Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year I *Indicator -Control
-MDC I 4-36 Table 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 84 60 1977 95 48 1978 NDM NDM 1979 111 83.5 1980 289 316 1981 189 126 1982 76 77 1983 57 56.5 1984 42 26 1985 84 44 1986 51 35 1987 83 46 1988 42 33 1989 38 29 1990 28 NDM 1991 36 24 1992 32.5 28 1993 34 NDM 1994 19 16 1995 17.9 18.2 1996 19.6 23.1 1997 25.9 NDM 1998 52 20 1999 36.9 15.9 2000 22.9 12.5 2001 22.4 12.3 2002 NDM 10.1 2003 19.3 12.0 2004 12.7 10.8 2005 15.7 NDM 2006 15.0 14.7 Radionuclides of interest other than Cs-137 have been found in only a few samples in .the past. The following table provides a summary of the results in pCi/kg wet compared with the applicable MDCs.YEAR Nuclide Fish Type Indicator Control MDC (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg)1978 Ce- 144 Bottom Feeding NDM 200 1981 Nb-95 Bottom Feeding 38 NDM 50 (a)1982 Nb-95 Game 31 NDM 50 (a)1986 Co-60 Game 25 NDM 130 (a) Determined by the EL. Not defined in ODCM Table 4-3 (Table 4-1 of this report)4-37
4.9 Sediment
River sediment samples are collected semiannually on the Chattahoochee River at a control station which is approximately 4 miles upstream of the intake structure and at an indicator station which is approximately 2 miles downstream of the discharge structure as shown in Figure 2-2. A gamma isotopic analysis is performed on each sample as specified in Table 2-1. During 2006, no nuclides of interest were detected in river sediment.Historically, Be-7, Cs-134, Cs-137, and Nb-95 have been detected in some samples. These positive results were generally for samples collected at the control station. A summary of the positive historical results for these nuclides along with their applicable MDCs in units of pCi/kg dry is provided in Table 4.9. Cs-134 and Cs-137 data are plotted in Figures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2, respectively.
Table 4.9 Sediment Nuclide Concentrations Nuclide YEAR Indicator (pCi/kg) Control (pCi/kg) MDC (pCi/kg)Be-7 1985 535 945 655 (a)2003 199 NDM Cs-134 1987 NDM 45 150 1989 NDM 48 1992 138 51 1993 94 105 Cs-137 1981 NDM 185 180 1985 NDM 97 1989 NDM 39 1994 29 11 1996 11.8 NDM 2005 14.5 NDM Nb-95 1981 52 113 50 (a)(a) Determined by the EL. Not defined in ODCM Table 4-3 (Table 4-1 of this report).4-38 Figure 4.9-1 Average Annual Cs-134 Concentration in Sediment 160 140120 o. 100 0 O 80 w S60-0 () 40-I --Y -Y -P -I -U -I -P -P -P -I -I -I -I -P -P -P -I -I -I -P -P -P -I -I -I -P -P --I .- .. --.-. ...- ..- .- ..- ..-4 4 I I.-- .4 I- ---.-4. I. I.4.+.K 20 n'0 Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Year 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 I-4-ndicator
--Control -MDC The positive results for Cs-134 appear mostly at the control station. Due to its relatively short half-life of approximately 2 years, the positive results may be attributed to the Chernobyl incident.
The overall plotting of the positive results does not show any discernible trends.4-39 Figure 4.9-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment 20 10.4-.9 120--80 40-S60-- --- -----------0 C., 40-- --- ---------oil 0 --, ---_- ----------.. .----. ......- -..Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year-4--Indicator -Control
-MDC Cs-137 appears to be trending down since the ceasing of above ground weapons testing and the majority of the positive results appear at the control stations.Therefore in general, the positive results can be attributed to the weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident.4-40
5.0 INTERLABORATORY
COMPARISON PROGRAM In accordance with ODCM 4.1.3, the EL participates in an ICP that satisfies the requirements of Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)
-Effluent Streams and the Environment", February 1979. The guide indicates the ICP is to be conducted with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies (Cross-check)
Program or an equivalent program, and the ICP should include all of the determinations (sample medium/radionuclide combinations) that are offered by the EPA and included in the REMP.The ICP is conducted by Analytics, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. Analytics has a documented Quality Assurance (QA) program and the capability to prepare Quality Control (QC) materials traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The ICP is a third party blind testing program which provides a means to ensure independent checks are performed on the accuracy and precision of the measurements of radioactive materials in environmental sample matrices.Analytics supplies the crosscheck samples to the EL which performs the laboratory analyses in a normal manner. Each of the specified analyses is performed three times. The results are then sent to Analytics who performs an evaluation which may be helpful to the EL in the identification of instrument or procedural problems.The samples offered by Analytics and included in the EL analyses are gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter; gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples; and gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples.The accuracy of each result is measured by the normalized deviation, which is the ratio of the reported average less the known value to the total error. The total error is the square root of the sum of the squares of the uncertainties of the known value and of the reported average. The uncertainty of the known value includes all analytical uncertainties as reported by Analytics.
The uncertainty of the reported average is the propagated error of the values in the reported average by the EL.The precision of each result is measured by the coefficient of variation, which is defined as the standard deviation of the reported result divided by the reported average. An investigation is undertaken whenever the absolute value of the normalized deviation is greater than three or whenever the coefficient of variation is greater than 15% for all radionuclides other than Cr-51 and Fe-59. For Cr-51 and Fe-59, an investigation is undertaken when the coefficient of variation exceeds the values shown as follows: Nuclide Concentration
- Total Sample Activity Percent Coefficient (pCi) of Variation Cr-51 <300 NA 25 Cr-51 NA >1000 25 Cr-51 >300 <1000 15 Fe-59 <80 NA 25 Fe-59 >80 NA 15* For air filters, concentration units are pCi/filter.
For all other media, concentration units are pCi/liter (pCi/1).5-1 As required by ODCM 4.1.3.3 and 7.1.2.3, a summary of the results of the EL's participation in the ICP is provided in Table 5-1 for: the gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter; gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples; and gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples. Delineated in this table for each of the media/analysis combinations, are: the specific radionuclides; Analytics' preparation dates; the known values with their uncertainties supplied by Analytics; the reported averages with their standard deviations; and the resultant normalized deviations and coefficients of variation expressed as a percentage.
The GPC EL analyzed 9 samples for 46 parameters in 2006. These analyses included tritium, gross beta, Fe-55, Sr-89/90 and gamma emitting radio-nuclides in different matrices.
The attached results indicate all analyses are acceptable for accuracy.
Three analyses outside the control limit for precision are discussed below. The precision deviations were for the determination of gross alpha in water, 1-131 in milk and Sr-90 in an air filter.The gross alpha in water is analyzed in triplicate with an average value reported.The high range is attributed to one of the samples not evenly mixing in the beaker during digestion.
The samples were counted a second time to eliminate detector variation.
The second quarter alpha sample was in control for both accuracy and precision and no further investigation will be performed.
The second quarter milk sample was analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.
The sample is analyzed on three detectors with an error weighted average reported.
An elevated range of values in the analysis is due to one of the detectors measuring a higher activity.
No inconsistencies were found in the detectors shaping or analysis of the 364.5 kev gamma peak. No further investigation will be performed.
The third quarter air filter sample analyzed for Sr-90 had a high range of values.The low activity in the sample resulted in a high uncertainty for the measurement and is reflected in the precision for the reported values. No further investigation will be performed.
The 2005 investigation into the Fe-59 high bias using gamma spectroscopy indicated a need for the calibration curve to be evaluated.
The efficiency curve was believed to be affected by summing losses for specific gamma energies of Co-60 and Y-88. A calibration standard was purchased which included nuclides that do not contribute to summing. A calibration curve was developed using the standard and the curve was compared to the calibration curve using Co-60 and Y-88. The comparison indicated only a slight difference in efficiencies, therefore there is no benefit to adjusting the calibration curve for efficiency.
The analysis of Fe-59 has been investigated and a small positive bias of 13% exists in the activity recovery.
No further investigation will be performed and no corrective actions are planned.5-2 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 1 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard [Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide I Prepared Average I Value I Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Gross Beta 109/26/06 1 78.901 78.40 3.14 [ 0.87 5.63 0.12 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce-141 09/26/06 51.60 55.20 1.19 0.61 4.92 -1.44 Co-58 09/26/06 80.20 80.60 2.58 0.90 5.54 -0.09 Co-60 09/26/06 105.90 111.00 2.19 0.33 4.25 -1.13 Cr-51 09/26/06 179.60 173.00 17.53 1.92 12.67 0.29 Cs- 134 09/26/06 64.50 69.70 3.05 0.77 6.44 -1.26 Cs- 137 09/26/06 148.50 145.00 7.04 1.61 6.03 0.39 Fe-59 09/26/06 36.90 30.10 4.56 1.01 14.92 1.23 Mn-54 09/26/06 98.50 90.80 4.71 1.29 6.32 1.23 Zn-65 09/26/06 127.20 116.00 3.22 1.23 5.84 1.50 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce- 141 06/08/06 186.00 184.00 7.78 2.04 6.15 0.17 Co-58 06/08/06 99.00 100.00 1.19 1.11 7.08 -0.15 Co-60 06/08/06 129.80 129.00 2.12 1.43 4.94 0.13 Cr-51 06/08/06 307.80 259.00 31.86 2.88 16.25 0.97 Cs-134 06/08/06 127.00 127.00 8.61 1.41 8.31 0 Cs-137 06/08/06 120.60 117.00 8.55 1.30 9.30 0.32 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 2 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known IStandard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average ValueI Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Fe-59 06/08/06 102.70 93.60 6.69 1.04 10.50 0.85 1-131 06/08/06 67.40 63.20 9.05 0.70 17.18 0.37 Mn-54 06/08/06 147.20 146.00 3.06 1.63 5.78 0.14 Zn-65 06/08/06 185.30 185.00 14.68 2.06 10.51 0.02 GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value I Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce-141 03/23/06 90.20 86.80 2.65 0.96 7.42 0.51 Co-58 03/23/06 87.80 87.50 2.55 0.97 7.08 0.04 Co-60 03/23/06 103.00 107.00 3.71 1.19 6.31 -0.61 Cr-51 03/23/06 240.70 234.00 14.02 2.60 14.79 0.19 Cs-134 03/23/06 102.70 101.00 3.5 1.12 6.04 0.28 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 3 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Cs-137 03/23/06 74.80 74.30 6.11 0.83 11.03 0.07 Fe-59 03/23/06 78.80 72.40 2.81 0.80 9.39 0.86 1-131 03/23/06 70.30 67.40 1.19 0.75 7.21 0.58 Mn-54 03/23/06 80.80 78.10 8.55 0.87 12.86 0.26 Zn-65 03/23/06 159.20 148.00 13.76 1.64 11.61 0.60 TRITIUM ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
6.0 CONCLUSION
S This report confirms the licensee's conformance with the requirements of Chapter 4 of the ODCM. It provides a summary and discussion of the results of the laboratory analyses for each type of sample.In 2006, there were three instances where the indicator station results were statistically discernible from the control station results. These are discussed below. No discernible radiological impact upon the environment or the public as a consequence of plant discharges to the atmosphere and to the river was established for any other REMP samples.The annual average for the direct radiation results at the indicator stations was 1.6 mrem higher than at the control stations.
This difference is consistent with what has been seen in previous years including preoperation.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the difference seen at the indicator and control stations is due to plant effluents.
River water tritium was slightly higher at the indicator station than at the control station. The difference between the annual station averages was 169 pCi/l.Although no drinking water pathway via surface water exists in the plant vicinity, a potential dose was calculated assuming a person regularly consumed drinking water from the river. The potential dose of 0.013 mrem in a year is less than 1%of the annual dose limit for the total body due to liquid effluents.
Another pathway to obtain dose from tritium in the river is through consumption of fish.The potential total body dose for an adult who consumed fish regularly from river would be about 3.4E-04 mrem in a year which is less than 0.02% of the annual limit for the total body (3 mrem) due to liquid effluents.
Cesium-137 was detected in one of the two bottom-feeding fish samples at the indicator station. No Cs-137 was detected at the control station therefore the Cs-137 seen at the indicator station could be attributed to plant effluents.
The potential total body dose for an adult who regularly consumed fish from the river would be 0.015 mrem in a year which is approximately 0.50% of the annual limit for the total body due to liquid effluents.
The radiological levels reported in 2006 were low and are generally trending downward.
The REMP trends over the course of time from preoperation to the present are generally decreasing or have remained fairly constant.
This supports the conclusion that there is no adverse radiological impact on the environment or to the public as a result of the operation of Farley Nuclear Plant.6-1