LR-N09-0095, Units 1 and 2, 2008 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report

Units 1 and 2, 2008 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report

ML091200612
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/15/2009
From:	George Gellrich, Jamila Perry Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0209, LR-N09-0095
Download: ML091200612 (123)

Text

PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0236 0 PSEG Nuclear LLC Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.7 (Salem)

Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.6 (Hope Creek)

APR 1,,5 2009 LR-N09-0095 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hope Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 NRC Docket No. 50-354 Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. land 2 Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 NRC Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Subject:

2008 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report As required by Section 6.9.1.7 of Appendix A to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and Section 6.9.1.6 of Appendix A to the Operating License NPF-57 for Hope Creek Generating Station, PSEG Nuclear hereby transmits one copy of the 2008 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. This report summarizes the results of the radiological environmental surveillance program for 2008 in the vicinity of the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. The result of this program for 2008 was specifically compared to the result of the pre-operational program.

There are no regulatory commitments contained in this correspondence.

95-2168 REV. 7/99

Document Control Desk LR-N09-0095 Page 2 If you have any questions or comments on this transmittal, please contact Jon Sears at (856) 339-1773.

Sincerely, John F. Perry George H. Gellrich Plant Manager - Hope Creek Plant Manager - Salem 008 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report

Document Control Desk LR-N09-0095 Page 3 C Mr. S. Collins, Administrator - Region 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. R. Ennis, Project Manager Salem & Hope Creek U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Mail Stop 08 BlA 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Joseph T. Furia, NRC Inspector - Region 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - Hope Creek (X24)

USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - Salem (X24)

Mr. P. Mulligan, Manager IV Bureau of Nuclear Engineering PO Box 415 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Ms. J. Chomiszak Delaware Emergency Management Agency 165 Brick Store Landing Road Smyrna, DE 19977 Hope Creek Commitment Tracking Coordinator (H02)

Salem Commitment Tracking Coordinator (X25)

o PSEG Power LLC RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM For Salem Generating Station, Unit 1: Docket No. 50-272 Salem Generating Station, Unit 2: Docket No. 50-311 Hope Creek Generating Station : Docket No. 50-354 2008 ANNUAL.RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 2008 Prepared by PSEG POWER LLC MAPLEWOOD TESTING SERVICES APRIL 2009

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 117 1/2" "

SALEM & HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS 2008 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE S U M MA R Y ........ ... .............................. ........................ 1......................

1 THE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM............. 4 O bje ctive s .................................................................................. ...... 5 Data Interpretation .................. ........................ 7 Q uality Assurance Program ........................ .................................... 8 Results and Discussion....................................... 10 Atm ospheric ................ .................. ... ....................... . 11 Direct Radiation.......................... .......... ........... 13 Terrestrial............................................ 14 Aquatic ............. .......................................... 21 Program Deviations.. ............................. ............. 27 Hope Creek Technical Specification Limits for Primary Water Iodine Concentrations ........................ . ...... 28 Conclusions...............................................28 R EFER ENC ES ...................................................... ................................. 40 APPENDIX A - PROGRAM

SUMMARY

.... 43 APPENDIX B - SAMPLE DESIGNATION AND LOCATIONS .... .... 49 APPENDIX C - DATA TABLES ........... .............................. 577......

5.7...................

APPENDIX.D -

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS FROM ANALYTICS, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, AREVA E-LAB INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAMS ............... . 87 APPENDIX E - SYNOPSIS OF LAND USE CENSUS ........ .... 97 APPENDIX F- RADIOLOGICAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM 101

LIST OF TABLES TABLE NUMBER "lTABLE DESCRIPNiON PAGE

1. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations' Radiological Environmental Monitoring: Program*n..... ............................... 29 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE, NUMBER FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

1. Gross Beta Activi*in 'Air Pa"IticUlate -

1988 throLigh 20Q 8 (Quarterly)...... .... . ........................ 34

2. Ambient %Radiation-.0Off-site. vs Control Station 1988 through 2008 (Q uarterly) ............................................ ............ 35

3. Iodine-131 Activity in Milk 1988 through 2008u( uarterly).................... .............. ...... ........... 36

4. Gross Beta Activity in Surface Water 1988 through 2008 (Quarterly). ............................ 37

5. Tritium Activity'in Surface Water 1988 1through 2008 (Quarterly).,....,., ....... .. ... .............. ............ 38

6. ;:Ceeure-1 37, and CobalI-60 AcJvityin Aquatic Sediment 1988 through 2008 (Semi-Annual) ..................... 39

. ii I

SUMMARY

During normal operations of a nuclear power generating station there are releases of small amounts of radioactive material to the environment. To monitor and determine the effects of these releases a Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) has been established for the environment around Artificial Island where the Salem Generating Station (SGS) and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) are located. The results of the REMP are published annually, providing a summary and interpretation of the data collected [10].

PSEG's Maplewood Testing Services (MTS) has been responsible for the collection and analysis of environmental samples during the period of January 1, 2008, .through December 31, 2008, and the results are discussed in this report. The REMP was conducted in accordance with the SGS and HCGS Technical Specifications (TS).. and Qffsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) [14,15]. The Lower Limit of Det-ection (LL)* ales required by the Technical Specifications and ODCM were achieved'for the 2008'reporting period. The

-REMP objectives were also met during this period. The data that was collected in 2008 assists in demonstrating that SGS and HCGS werepeirated in c6mplia'nce. with Technical Specifications and ODCM.

Most of the radioactive materials noted in this report are, normally present in the environment, either naturally, such as potassium4*O4T"r as ,areSultof ndn-nuclear generating station activity, such as nuclear bomb-testing., Meas~urements! made in the vicinity of SGS/HCGS were compared to background or control measurements and the preoperational REMP study performed before Salem Unit I became operational. Samples of air particulates; air iodine; -milk;'surface, ground and drinking water; vegetables; fodder.

crops; fish; crabs; and sediment were collected and analyzed.. External radiation dose measurements were also made in the vicinity of SGS/HCGS using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD).

From the results obtained, it can be concluded that the levels and fluctuations of radioactivity in environmental samples were as expected for an estuarine environment.

1

The concentration of radioactive material in the environment that could be attributable to Salem and Hope Creeks stations operations was only a small .fraction of the concentration of naturally occurringand mran-made radioactivity. Since these results were comparable to the results obtained during the preoperat'onal phase of the program [7,8,9], and with historical results collected since commercial operation [10], we can conclude that the operation of SGS and HCGS had no significantr,adiological impact on the environment.

To demonstrate compliance with Technical Specifications and ODCM (Sections 3/4.12.1 &

6.8.4.h .-1,2,3) [14,15],.samples were analyzed for one or more of the following: gamma emitting isotopes, tritium (H-3), iodine-131 (1-!31), gross beta and gross alpha. The results of these analyses were used to assess the environmental impact of SGS and HCGS operations, thereby demonstrating compliance with Technical Specifications and ODCM (Section 3/4.11) and applicable Federal and State regulations [19,20,21], and to verify the adequacy of radioactive effluent controi systems...The results provided in this report are summarized below:

• There were a total of 1221 analyses on 865 environmental samples during 2008. Direct radiation dose measurements were made using 196 thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs)..

" In addition to the detection of naturally.- occurring isotopes (i.e. Be-7, K-40, Radium and Th-232),trace levels of H-3 were also detected in surface water. The tritium concentration in these surface water samples was slightly above minimum detectable concentrations.

• Dose measurements made with quarterly TLDs at offsite locations around the SGS/HCGS site averaged 52 millirems for the year 2008.1 The average of the dose measurements at the control locations (background) was 54 millirems for the year. This was comparable to the levels prior to station operation which had an average of 55 millirems per year for 1973 to 1976.

2

Appendix F contains the annual report on the status of the Radiological*Groundwater" Protection program (RGPP) conducted at Salem and:.Hope Creek Stations. The RGPP was initiated by PSEG to determine whether groundWater at anhd in the vibinity of Salem and Hope Creek Stations had been adversely impa{f6d'by-any release of radionuclides that was not previously identified-. The RGPP is being imrplemented"by'PSEG': n:conjunrction with a nuclear industry ihitiative and' associated guid'af.

Salem

• *The 2008 results of the'laboratory analysisindicated thattritium Wasdetected in five of thirteen RGPP monitoring Wells at Salem, and all resuits Were'less than 1000 pCi/L.-

Hope Creek '.-

• The 2008 results-of the laboratory.analysis indicated that tritiumwas detectedi insix of thirteen RGPP monitoring wells at Hope Creek and all results were:.less than 1000

.pCi/L.

The results are shown in Appendix F, in Tables 4and 4B. The tritiurn concentr`atios measured in the onsite monitoring wells were below the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reporting Levels.

PSEG Nuclear is continuing remedialacitions for tritiu*rm identified in shallo'6wgirundwater at Salem Station, conducted in accordance with 'aRemedial Ation Work Plan that was approved by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection -Bureau of Nuclear Engineering (NJDEP-BNE) in November'2004. The Groundwater Recovery System (GRS) is in operation, providing hydraulic control of the .plume and effectively removing tritium contaminated groundwater. The tritium contaminated groundwater is disposed of in accordance with Salem Station's liquid radioactive waste disposal program. There is no evidence or indication that tritium contaminated water above Ground Water Quality Criteria (GWQC) levels [GWQC is

<20,000 pCi/L] has migrated to the station boundary or the Delaware River.

3

THE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey is the site of Salem (SGS) and Hope Creek (HCGS) Generating .Stations. SGS consists of two operating pressurized water nuclear power reactors., Salem Unit One has a net rating of 1195 megawatt electric(MWe) and Salem UnitTwo hasa net rating of 1196 MWe. The licensed core power for both units is 3459, megawatt thermal:(MWt)., HCGS is a boiling.water nuc!ear power reactor, which has a net rating of 1265.MWe (3840 MWt).

SGS/HCGS are located on a man-made peninsula on the east bank of the Delaware River.

It was created by theý deposition of hydraulic fill from dredging operations. The environment surroundin.g SGSIHCGS is characterizedm.rainly by the Delaware River Estuary and Bay, extensive -tidal marshlands, and low-lying meIdowlands. These land types make up approximately 85%. of,the land area within five/ milesof the site. Most. of the remaining land is used for agriculture [1,2]: More specific information on the demography, hydrology, meteorology, and land use of the area may be found in the Environmental Reports [1,2],

Environmental Statements [3,4], and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports for SGS and HCGS [5,6].

Since 1968, a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been conducted at the SGS/HCGS Site. Starting in December, 1972, more extensive radiological monitoringprog-ams were initiated [7,G,9]. ,he operational REMP was initiated in December, 1976, when Salem Unit 1 achieved criticality. PSEG's Maplewood Testing Services (MTS) has been involved in the REMP since its inception. MTS is responsible for the collection of all radiological environmental samples and, from .1973 through June, 1983, conducted a quality assurance program in which duplicates of a portion of those samples analyzed by the primary laboratory were also analyzed by MTS.

From January, 1973, through June, 1983, Radiation Management Corporation,(RMC) had primary responsibility for the analysis of all samples under the SGS/HCGS REMP and annual reporting of results.

4

RMC reports for the preoperational and operational phase of the program are referenced in this report [7-9]. On July 1, 1983, MTS assumed primary responsibility for the analysis of all samples (except TLDs) and the reporting of results. Teledyne Brown Engineering Environmental Services (TBE), assumed responsibility for third-party QA-analyses and TLDs. An additional vendor, Controls for Enhviron iaPollution inc. (CEP),. was' retained tii to provide third-party QA analyses 'and cettainnio'n-routin'e analyses from May, 1988, until June 1, 1992. Currently, AREVA NPI Enirnmental Laboratory (AREVA)ris the third party OA vendor andthe laboratory Which performs the-TLD analyses. MTS reports for the operational phase from 1983'to 2007'areei;referenced in:.this.teport[10]'

An overview of theo 2008 REMP is provided in Table 1.,, Salem, and Hope ,Creek'Generating Stations Radiological Environmental Mbnitoring ,PrOgram. Radioanalytical data from samples collected under this programi Were comnpared With resuJltsý from the :p'reperational phase. Diffedrenc'(es betwee'nthese peribds'were examined staitisticall5to ,deternine the .

effects of station operations. This report presents the results from 'January 1-through December 31, 2008, for-the SGS/HCGS REMP.

OBJECTIVES T1he objectives of the operational REMP areý,";

• To fulfill the requirements of the Ra-dio6lgica!' Surv4ilance sections of the Technical Specifications and OD'CMfor SGSIlCGS .

• To determine whether any sinrificanttinhreasre occuirred in the' concentration of radionuclides in critical pathway"s. :'

• To determine if SGS or HCGS has caused an increase in the radioactive inventory of long-lived radionuclides.

5

To detect any change in ambient gamma radiation levels.

To verify that SGS and HCGS operations have no detrimental effects on the health and safety of the public or on the environment.

This report, as required by Section 6.9.1.7 of the Salem Technical Specifications [12] and ODCM [14] and Section 6.9.1.6 of the Hope Creek Technical Specifications'[13] and ODCM

[15], summarizes the findings of the 2008 REMP. Results, from the formal 1973 through 1976 preoperational program were summarized by RMC and have been used for comparison with subsequent operational reports [8].'

In order to meet the objectives, an operational REMP was developed. Samples of various media were selected for monitoring due to the radiological dose impact to human and other organisms. The selection of samples was based on* (1), established critical pathways for the transfer of radionuclides through the environment to man, and, (2), experience gained during the preoperational phase. Sampling locations were determined based on site meteorology, Delaware estuarine hydrology, local d'emography,and land uses.

Sampling locations were divided into two classes, indicator and control. Indicator stations are those which are expected to manifest station effects. Control samples are collected at locations which are believed to be unaffected by station operations, usually at 15 to 30 kilometers distance. Fluctuations in the levels of radionuclides and direct radiation at indicator stations are evaluated with respect to analogous fluctuations at control stations.

Indicator and control station data are also evaluated relative to preoperational data.

Appendix A, Program Summary, describes and summarizes the Analytical'results in accordance with Section 6.9.1.7 of the Salem TSa nd Section 6.9. 1.6 of the Hope Creek TS

[25,26,27]. Appendix B, Sample Designation, describes the coding system which identifies sample type and location. Table B-1 On-site Sampling Locations lists the station codes, stations location, latitude, longitude, and the types of samples collected at each station.

6

These sampling stations are indicated on Maps B-1, Onsite Sampling Locations and B-2, Offsite Sampling Locations.

DATA INTERPRETATION Results of analyses are grouped according to sample type and presented in Appendix C, Data Tables.: All results above the Lower Limit.of Detection (LLD) are at a confidence level of 2 sigma. This represents the range of values into which 95% of repeated analyses of the same sample should fall. As defined in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 4.8, LLD is the smallest concentration of radioactive material in a. sample that will yield a net count (above system background) that will be detected with 95% probability, with only 5% probability of falsely concluding that a blank observation represents a "real signal".

LLD is normally-calculated as 4.66 times the standard deviation of the background counting rate,.or of the blank sample count, as appropriate, divided by counting efficiency, sample size, 2.22 (dpm per picocurie), the radiochemical yield when applicable, the radioactive decay constant and the elapsed time between sample collection and time of counting. The Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) is defined as the smallest concentration of radioactive material that can be detected at a given confidence level. The MDC differs from the LLD in that the MDC takes into consideration the interference caused by the presence of other nuclides while the LLD does not.

The grouped data were averaged and standard deviations calculated in accordance with Appendix B of Reference 16. Thus, the 2 sigma deviations of the averaged data represent sample and not analytical variability. For reporting and calculation of averages, any result occurring at or below the LLD is considered to be at that level. When a group of data was composed of 50% or more LLD values, averages were, not calculated.

• . "" K " * 'i ' *. . :" - :' . * ~

7

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM MTS has a quality assurance program designied to ensure confidence in the analytical program. Approximately 10 -15% of the total analytical effort is spent on quality control, including process quality control, instrument quality control, interlaboratory cross-check analyses, and data review/evaluation.

The quality of the results obtained iby M"TSis en'sureid' by the implementation of the Quality-Assurance Program as describted in the Maplewood Testing ServicessQuality Assurance Plan [1 Ia], the Maplewood Testing Services Mechanical Division Quality'Assurance Plan

[11 b], and the Maplewood Testing Services Mechanical Division Environmental/Radiological Group Procedure Manual, [11c].

The internal quality control activity of MTS includes' tlhe quality control of instrumentation, equipment and reagents, the Use of reference standards in calibration, documentation of established procedures and computer programs, analysis of blank samples, and analysis of duplicate samples. The external quality control activity is implemented through participation in the Analytics Environmental'Cross Check (ECC),'AREVA and the Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) Interlaboratoryý Comparison Programs. MTS's internal QC results are evaluated in accordance with the NRC Resolution Criteria [18]. 'This criteria is also used for the Analytics Environmental Crosscheck Program results. ERA's RadCheMTM Proficiency Testing (PT) studies have been evaluated by comparing MrS results to the acceptance limits and evaluation criteria contained in the' NELAC standards, National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) PT Field of Testing list (October 2007). (The results of these three Interlaboratory Coomparison Programs arelisted in Tables D-1 through D-4 inAppendix D).

A total of 89 analysis results were obtained in the Cross Check, Interlabor'ato'ry Comparison and Proficiency Testing programs. Eighty-four (84) passed the applicable criteria, this translates to a 94% acceptance rate.

"8 I

The five medias and analysis which disagreed with the criteria were: water/gross beta, water/gross alpha, air particulate/ Cr-51 Gamma Spec, air particulate/ Mn-54 Gamma Spec and air particulate/ Fe-59 Gamma Spec. The cause for these disagreements and the corrective actions are provided below.

The result disagreement for the gross beta .analysis and gross alpha analysis for the Analytics ECC water Was attributed to intermittent count (data) reproducibility problems with our Series 5XLB gas.propor ional counter. A field-service technician was called in. The resolution,. a new computer model was. installed with the latest version (v3.1.2) of the Eclipse LB software and firmware.

The results disagreement for the gamma spec results on the Analytics air filter are attributable to a combination of uneven mixed standard distribution on the calibration filter prepared by MTS, and geometry differences in the. active area on Analytics ECC airfilter.

The MTS resolution is.to -have Analytics prepare both a mixed gamma APTfilter standard and the ECC filter for analysis in the same 47 mm geometry used by MTS.

The Quality Assurance program for environmental TLDs includes independent third party performance testing by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and internal performance testing conducted by the AREVA Laboratory Quality Assurance Officer.

Underthese programs, sets of six dosimeters are irradiated to ANSI N545, Performance Testing and Procedural Specifications for Theirmoluminescent DQsimetry (Environmental)

[29], and submitted for processing. as "unknowns.7. The bias and precision of TLD processing is measured against the guidance in U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 4.13 Performance, Testing, and Procedural Specifications for Thermoluminescence Dosimetry: Environmental Applications [23] and is trended over time to indicate changes in TLD processing performance.

The AREVA Lab conducted internal performance tests in 2008. These tests were conducted on fifteen separate sets of six environmental dosimeters. All of the fifteen TLD test sets passed the mean bias criteria of +/-20.1%.

9

Of the ninety individual measurements, all of the individual dosimeter evaluations met the E-LAB Internal Acceptance Criteria for bias (+/-20.1%) and precision (+/-12.8) (see Table D-5).

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory performed third party performance tests for the AREVA Lab. The'third party dosimeters were irradiated and analyzed along with second and fourth quarter client dosimeters. Both sets of six dosiimeters passed the-mean bias criteria of +/-20.1/. All twelve dosimeter evaluations met the E-LAB individual acceptance criteria for bias (+/-20.1%) and precision (+/-12.8) (see Table D-6).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Theexwur*

analyticalath results of the 2008

ýas':'tmosphe Ic, REMP samples t,e e . are di ,rect,"'" .... divided intocategories based on exposure path d trstriaI, and aquatic. The. analytical results for the 2008 REMP are summarized'in Appendix A, Program Summary. The data for individual samples are presented in Appendix C, Data Tables. The data are compared to the formal pre-operationaI environmental monitoring program data ('1973-1976) and to historical data.

The data collected demonstrates that the SGS and HdGS REMP3 was conducted in compliance with the Technical Specifications and ODCM.

The REMP for the SGS/HCGS Site h'as historically included samples and analyses not specifically required by these Stations' Technical Specifications and ODCM. These analyses are referenced throughout the'report as Management Audit samples. MTS continues to collect and analyze these samples iný odder to maintain pergon.nel proficiency in performing these non-routine analyses. The summary tables in this repofrinfclude*these additional samples and analyses.

10 I

ATMOSPHERIC Air particulates were collected on Schleicher-Schuell No. 25 glass fiber filters with low-volume air samplers.

Iodine was collected from the-air by adsorption on triethylene-diamine (TEDA) impregnated charcoal cartridges connected in series after the air particulate filters. Air sample volumes were measured with calibrated dry-gas meters. The displayed volumes were corrected to standard temperature and pressure.

Air Particulates (Tables C-1, C-2)

Air particulate samples were collected weekly, at 6 locations. Each of the samples (see Program Deviations) collected for the year were analyzed for gross *beta. Quarterly composites of the weekly samples from each station were analyzed for specific gamma

.emitters. Total air sampler availability.,forthe 6,sampling stations in 2008 was 98.7 percent.

• Gross beta activity was detected in all, of the indicator station samples collected at concentrations ranging from 7.0 x 10i to 57 x 10`3 pCi/in 3 and in all of the control station samples from 8.9 x 103 to 51 x 10-* pCi/m 3 . The average for both the indicator and control station samples was 22 x 10-3 pCi/m 3. The maximum preoperational leveldetectedwas 920,x,10 pCi/rn 3 , with.an average of 74 x 10.

pCi/m 3 . Results for gross beta, analysis from 1988 to current year are plotted on Figure 1 as quarterlyaverages. Included along with this plot, for purposes of comparison, ,is,an inset depicting a continuation of this plot from the current year all the way back to 19733.

• Gamma spectroscopy, performed on each of the 24 quarterly composite samples analyzed, indicated the presence of the naturally-occurring radionuclides Be-7, K-40 and RA-NAT. All other gamma emitters searched for in the nuclide library used by nuclear plants were below the minimum detectable concentration.

11

• Beryllium-7, attributed to cosmic ray activity in the atmosphere, was detected in all 20 indicator station composites that were analyzed, at concentrations ranging 3

from 6* x 10* to ,"102 x 10-3,n pCiim3, n c. It was X*;, 103 pCi/m3'. X1 with.an average fof 81 x2 10. -

detected in the 4 control station composites ranging from 62x 10. to 95 x 103 pCi/im 3 , with an average of 8 x I0' pCi/m 3 . The maximum preoperational level detected was 3.30 10-3 pCi/mi3, witI an average of 109 x 10-3 pCi/m3.

• Potassium-40 activity was detected in all 20 of the indicator station samples, with concentrations ranging from 8.0 x 10-3 to 17 x 10-3 pCi/m 3 , and an average of 11 x 10-3 pCi/m 3 . K-40 was also detected in all 4 control station samples, at concentrations of 8.0 X i0- 3 to 11 x 10-3 and an average of 10 X 10-3 . No preoperationaldata is available for comparison.

RA-NAT was only detected in 3 indicator station samples at concentrations ranging from 0.8 to 1.1 X 10-3 pCi/L, with an average of 1 X 10-3 pCi/L. It was not detected in any of the control station samples. No preoperational data is available for comparison.

Air Iodine (Table C-3)

Iodine in filtered air samples was collected weekly, at 6 locations. Each of the samples collected. (see Program Deviations) for the year was analyzed for 1-131.

lodine-131 was not detected above minimum detectable concentrations in any of the weekly samples analyzed. Minimum detectable concentrations for all the stations, both indicator and control, ranged from <'1.0 X i0-3 to <8.5 x 10-3 pCi/m 3. The maximum preoperational 3

level detected was 42x 10- pCi/in 12 4

DIRECT RADIATION Ambienrt radiation levels in the environs were measured with a pair of Panasonic thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) supplied and read by AREVA NP E-Lab. Packets containing TLDs for quarterly exposure were placed in the owner-controlled area and around the Site at various distances and in each land based meteorological sector.

Emphasis was placed on special interest areas such as population centers, nearby residences, and schools.

Direct Radiation (Table C-4)

A total of 49 locations were monitored for direct radiation during 2008, including 12 on-site locations, 31 off-site locations within the 10 mile zone, and 6 control locations beyond '10 miles.

Each location gets a pair of Panasonic TLDS packaged together. This pair consist of 1 UD-801 TLD which contains 2 lithium and 2 calcium elements and 1 UD814 TLD which contains 1 lithium and 3 calcium elements. To calculate the stations exposure, AREVA averages the 5 calcium elements to obtain a more statistically valid result: Then they perform a T test to identify any outliers. These outliers are removed and would reduce the.

number of elements used. For these measurements, the rad is considered equivalent to the rem, in accordance. with 10CFR20.1004.

The average dose rate for the 31 quarterly off-site indicator TLDs was 4.3 millirads per standard month, while the on-site average was 4.2 millirads per standard month. The average control rate was similar at 4.5 millirads per standard month. The preoperational average for the quarterly TLD readings was 4.4 millirads per standard month.

In Figure 2, the quarterly average radiation levels of the off-site indicator stations versus the control stations, are plotted for the period .1988 through 2008, with an inset graph depicting the current year back to 1973.

13

The results of the direct radiation measurements for 2008 confirmed that the radiation levels in the vicinity of the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations were similar to previous years.

TERRESTRIAL.

Milk samples were taken semi-monthily when cows were on pasture and monthly when cows were not grazing on open pasture. Animals are considered on pasture from April to November of each year. Samples were collected in polyethylene containers and transported in ice chests with no preservatives added to the milk.

A well wiater"sample wa's collected monthly. Separate raw and treated potable water samples were com-posited daily at the City of Salem Water and Sewer Department. All samples were collected in new polyethylene containers.-

Locally grown vegetable and foddder crops-were collected at the time of harvest with the exception of ornamental cabbage. "MTS personnel planted, maintained and harvested this broad leaf crop in the' fall from:th ree locations on site and one ac.ross the river. All samples were weighed and packed in plastic bags.

Milk (Table C-5)

Milk samples were collected at 4 local dairy farms (2 farms in NJ and 2 in Delaware). Each sample was analyzed for 1-131 and gamnma ernitters."'

• Iodine-131 was not'detected above minimurm detectable concentrationh in any of the 80 samples analyzed. 'LLD's for both the'indicator and the, 6ontrol station saimples ranged from <0.1 to 0.3 pCi/L.

14 I

The maximum preoperational level detected was 65 pCi/L which occurred following a period of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. Results from 1988 to 2008 are plotted on Figure 3, with an inset graph depicting the current year back to 1973.

Gamma spectroscopy performed on each of the 80 samples indicated the presence of the naturally-occurring radionuclides K-40 and RA-NAT. All other gamma emitters searched for in the nuclide library used by nuclear plants were below the minimum detectable concentration.

o Potassium-40 was detected in atl 80 samples. Concentrations for the 60 indicator station samples ranged from 1120 to 1470 pCi/L, with an average of 1340 pCj/L The 20 control station sample concentrations ranged from 1200 to 1390, pCi/L, with an. aver.age of 1290 pCi/L. The maximum pTropprational level detected was 2000 pCi/L, with an average of 1437 pCi/L.

SRA-NAT was detected in only one of the indicator station samples at a

-concentration of 113 pCi/L. Itwas not detected above the minimum detectable concentration in any of the control station samples. The preoperational had an average of 3.8 pCi/L and a range of 1.5 to 11, pCi/L.

Well Water (Ground Water) (Tables C -6, C-7)

Although wells in the vicinity of SGS/HCGS are not directly affected by, plant operations,.

water samples were collected monthly from one farm's well (3E1) during January through December of the year. This well is.located upgradient of the stations aquifer. Each management audit sample was analyzed for gross alpha .gross beta, tritium, and gamma emitters.

15

• Gross alpha activity, was detected in one of the well water samples at a concentration of 1 pCi/L. LLD's ranged from <0.5 to 1.2 pCi/L. The maximum preoperational level detected was 9.6 pCi/L. There:was,,o, preoperational average determined for this analysis.

e Gross beta activity.was.detected. in all 2..well wIater samples. Concentrations for the samples ranged from 8.4%..tO 12 pCi/L, with an average of 10 pCi/L. The 2008 gross beta results are comparable with the preoperational results which ranged from <2.1 to 38 pCi/L, with an average value of 9 pCi/L.

o Tritium act'vity Was, not detected above the rninimumdetectable concentration in any of th'-well Mwater samples. ýThe MDC ranged from <134 to <155 pCi/L.- The

'maximium preoperational level detected was 380 pCirL: There was no preoperational average determined for this anaiys's,.

Gamma spetroscopy performed on! each'of the 12 well water samples indicated the presence of the naturally-occurring radionuclides K-40 and RA-NAT. All other gamma :emitters searched for in the nuclide library used by nuclear plants were below the mirimum detectable concentraton. .

R'ANAT was detected in -ali12oftheWell water samples at concentrations ranging'froni 66 to 254 pCi/L with-an-: average of 138 pCi/L. The maximum preoperational level detected was 2.0 pCi/L. There was no preoperational average determined for thisi analysis.

These values are similar to those found in the past 19 :years:;. However, as with the 1989 through 2007 results, they are higher than those found in the preoperational program. These results are due-to a procedural change instituted in 1989 for water sample preparation.

16

This change results inless removal of radon (and its daughter products) from the sample, which causes the higher numbers we are recording.-It is reasonable to conclude that values currently observedkaretypical for.this region;.[28]

Potassium-40 was detected in 2 of the samples at concentrations of 48 and 61 pCi/L. The maximum preoperationral level. detected was 30 pCiIL. ,.There was no preoperational average determined forthis analysis.

Potable Water (Drinking Water) (Tables C,-8,;C-9)

Both raw and -treated potable water samples were collected. and compqsited by The City of Salem Water and Sewer Department-personnel.: Each sample consisted of daily aliquots composited into a monthly sample...The raw Water.sourcefor this plajnt is. Laurel Lake and its adjacent wells. These are management audit~samples as no liquid effiuentsdischarged from SGS/HCGS will directly affect this pathway. *Each of the 24 individual samples was analyzed for grossralpha, gross beta, ,tritirm,iodine-1i1ý and gamma merqitters._.

Gross alpha activity was detected in 3.raw.water samples at concentrations of 0.4 to 0.6 pCi/L. It was not detected in anyof the treated water, samples,: Minimum detectable concentrations for the remaining 21 samples (both treated and raw) ranged from <0.4 to ý<0.6 pCi/L. 'Theýnaximvm, prepperatiqpai level detected was 2.7 pCi/L. There was no preoperational average determinqed for this analysis.

Gross beta activity was detected in all,24 of thp raw and. treated water samples. The raw samples were at concentrations ranging from 2 to 3.2 pCi/L. Concentrations for the treated water rangedfromr 1.9 toi 3.5 pCi/L. :The average :concentration for both raw and treated was; 2.7 pCi/L. The maximum preoperaitional level detected was 9.0 pCi/L, with an average of 4.2 pCi/L.

17

• Tritium activity was not detected above minimum detectable concentration in any of the raw or treated potable water samples. MDC's for the raw and treated samples ranged from <139 to <1:55 pCi/L. The'maximum preoperational. level detected was 350 pCi/L, with an average of 179 pCi/L.

lodine-131 measurements were performed to an LLD of 1.0 pCi/L, even though the drinking water sup'plies'arae not affectiebdbydisCharges from the Site. Additionally, the receiving water body (Delaware River)ý is brackish andtherefore the water is not used for human consumption. .

.6dineb-"I31 measurements for all 24,sa'mmples were below the minimum detectable concentration. These values ranged from <0.1 to <0.3 pCi/L. There was no preopelatioria data available for comparison.,:

• Garrnma..spectroscopy'performed on each of the 24 monthly water samples indicated the presence of the naturally-occurring radionuclides K-40 and RA-NAT. All other

-gamma emitters searched for in the nuclide library used by nuclear plants were below the minimum detectable concentration.

. '.The. radionuclide K4Q0 was, detected-in 6 of the treated potable waters at

'. ... ,rocentrations ranging from,28 to,57 pCi/L. It was detected in 9 of the raw

,potable water samples at concentrations from 8.0 to 57 pCI/L. The average for both raw and treated results was 33, pCi/L. LLD's for the remaining 9 potable water samples were <10 to <16 pCi/L. There was no preoperational data available for comparison.

RA-NAT was detected in 4 of the treated potable waters at concentrations ranging from 3.01to 24 pCi/L. It was detected in 1 .of the raw potable water samples at a concentration of 9.0 pCi/L. LLD s for the remaining 19 samples were <1.5 to.:<4.2 pCi/L. The maximum preoperational level detected was 1.4 pCi/L.

18

There was no preoperational average determined for this analysis. The higher results in the three measurable samplespare due to the procedural change for sample preparation, as discussedin the Well. Water section..'

Vegetables (Table C- 10)

Although vegetables in the r.egion :are .not irrigated&with water, into ,which liquid plant effluents have been discharged, a: variety of fQod products grown. in the area for human consumption were sampled at 5 indicator stations (14 samples) and 5 control stations (13 samples). These vegetables, collected as management audit samples, were analyzed for gamma emitters and included asparagus,. cabbage, sweet corn, peppers, and .toma oes.

. Gamma spectroscopy performed on eacGh of :the 27 -.samples indicat*d the presence of the naturally-occurring radionuclide K-40. All other gamma emitters searched for in the nuclide library used by nuclear plan s*were bi'Iow the minimumetectable, concentration. -

• Potassium-40 was detected in alI'27 s*mpies.:* oncentrations for the 14::indicator station samples ranged from 1370 to 2620 pCi/kg-wet and averaged 1950 pCi/kg-wet. Concentrations forthe 13-cdntrol'staton samples ranged from 1380 to 2240 pCi/kg-Wet, and averaged 1920 pCi/kg-wet. T4he-a*erage cdncentration detected for all samples, both indicator an cointrbf,'Was;1940"pCi/kg-wet. Themaximum preoperational level detected was,4800 pCi/kgfwet; with ah average of 2140 pCi/kg-wet.

Fodder Crops (Table C-1I1)

Although not required 15y the SGS oi HCGS Technical Specifications and ODCM, 6 samples of crops'normally used as cattle feed (silage and soybleans) were collected from four indicator stations(4 samples) and one control station (2 samples). It Was determined that these products may be a significant element in the food-chain pathway.

19

These fodder crops are collected as management audit-samples and ahalyzed for gamma emitters. All four locations from which samples were collected this year are milk sampling stations....

In addition to the silage and soybean, ornamental cabbage was, planted-and maintained by MTS personnel at'3 locations.on sitepand 1 in D-laware; at 3.9. miles. These samples were harvested in December. -These broad leaf vegetation samples were deemed necessary since there are no longer any milk-farms operating within the 5 km radius of SGS/HCGS.

The closest milk farm we have is located in Odessa, DE at 4.9 miles (7.88 km).

, Gamma spectroscopy performed on each of the 10 samples indicated the presence of the natUVa lly-occu'rring radionuclides .Be-7,K-40 pius RA-.NAT in. one sample. All other gamma emitters searched for in the nuclide library fused by nuclear plants were below the minimum detectable concentration.

Beryllium-7, attributed to cosmic ray activity in the atmosphere, was detected in 3-of the indicator silage samples at, concentrations from 142 to 255 pCi/kg-wet. It was detected, in the.control station silage sample at 137 pCi/kg-wet. The maximum preoperational level detected for silage was 4700 pCi/kg-wet, with an. average of 2000 pCi/kg-wet.. Be-7 was not detectedin either the indicator nor control station soybean samples. The maximum preoperational level detected for soybean samples was 9300 pCi/kg-dry. Be-7 was detected in 1 of the ornamental cabbage samples at.a concqntration of 167 pCi/kg-wet. There was no preoperational data available for comparison with this.type of samples.

• Potassium-40 was detected in all 10 of the vegetation. station samples, The, combined average for the indicator station saPmples was 4430 pCi/kg-wet. The average for, the 2 control station vegetation samples was 7570 pCi/kg-wet. The average concentration-detected for the silage samples (both indicator and .control) was 2770 pCi/kg-wet. Preoperational results averaged 7000 pci/kg-wet. Results for the soybean samples (indicator and control) was 14700 pCi/kg-wet.

20 I

Preoperational soybean results averaged 22000 pCi/kg-dry. The average concentration of K-40 forthe 4 ornamental cabbage samples was 2740 pCi/kg-wet.

There was no preoperational data availablefor comparison with these samples.

• RA-NAT was detected inl. of.the control ýsoybean samples at a concentration. of 11 pCi/kg-wet. MDC's for all the remaiding Vegetation samples; both indicator and control, ranged from <36 :to <12 pCi/L. There was no preoperational average available for comparison.

AQUATIC Environmental Consulting.Services; lic (EGSI)-collected all aquatic saMples.(with thel.

exception of the 6S2 shoreline sediment). ,,

Surface water samples were collected in new polyethylene containers that were rinsed twice with the sample medium prior to collection.

Edible fish are taken, by ill nets while crabs aremcaught -in commerciar trapsl*These samples are then processed where the fleshis-, sieparated from the bone and she.l. The flesh is placed in sealed containers and frozen before beihg tradsported in:ice chests to MTS for analysis.,

Sediment samples collected by ECSI were taken With a bottm'g"rab sanmp)lerahn' frozen in sealed polyethylene containe'es before being transportedjin ice chests to MTS. Personnel from MTS collect location 6S2 shoreline sediment on the beach behind the parking aread-for the Heli'opter Pad. A square area, rmeasuring 1 meter on each side is staked out and then"div'ided irto a grid of 9 smaller boxes, 3 per side. A 1 inch deep scoop fro0mthe de nterof'each of the small grids is taken. All the aliquots are combined and the total` sample transported in the ice chest t6 MIS.

1 21

Surface Water (Tables C-12, C-13, C-14)

Surface water samples were collected monthyv at .4 indicatox stations and. one control station in the Delaware estu,*y. One loration (1 1A1) is at the outfall area (which is the area where liquid radioactive effluents from the. Salem Station are allowed tobe discharged into the Delaware River), another is downstream from the outfall area (7E1), and anotheris directly west of the outfall area at the mouth of the Appoquinimink River (12C1). Two upstream locations are :n'the Delaware River!(i12) and at the mouth of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal,(II6F1), the latter being sampled when the flow is from the Canal into the river.: -Station: 2C1, .directlyv.west, atthe:,mouth of the Appoquinimink River, serves as the operational control, .Location 12C1,was c hosen becaUse the physical characteristics of this station more closely resemble those of the outfall area than do those at the farther upstream location (1:F2).. As discussed in the pre-op-rational summary report, due to the tidal nature 'efthis..,.e!awa.re:Rivr-Bay .estuary-,there are flow rate, variations.

The furtherithe distance from the boundaryt between the Delaware River and the Delaware Bay (Liston Point), lthen lower the background levels, the lower the salinity, lower K-40( as determined; by Atomic, Absorption) and lower concentrations of soluble gross beta emitters.

All surface water samples were analyzed monthly for gross beta, tritium and gamma emitters.

Gro*.ssbeta activityw-,as detectedin all *4:8 of the indicator station samples ranging from 8.4 to 3-30 pCi/L, with ,.an,.avermge of, 97 pCiIL, .Beta activity was detected in all 12 of the control station. samples .with.concrntratio'ns ranging from 24,to. 158 pCi/L, with- an average of 73 pCi/L. The maximum preoperational level detected was 110, pCi/L, with an average of 32 pCi/L. Quarterly results for all locations are plotted on Figure 4, for the years 1988 to 2008, with an inset graph depicting the current year back to 1973.

• Tritium activity was detected in 1 of thecontrol station samoles at a concentration of 210 pCi/L. It was detected in 2 of the indicator station samples at concentrations of 140 and 150 pCi/L.

22

These levels were slightly above'the minimum detectable concentration range.

Minimum detectable concentrations for the remaining station samples, both indicator and control, ranged from <130 to <150 pCi/L.. The maximum preoperational level-detected was 600 pCi/L, with an average of,210 pCi/L., Positive results from 1988 to 2008 are plotted on FigUre;5, with an inset graph depicting the current year.back to 1973..

• Gamma spectroscopy performed dn each' of the 48 indicator stationmand 12 control station surface water sampleS indicated the presence0f the naturally-occurring radionuclides K-40 and RA-NAT. All othergamma emitters. searched for ýin-the nuclide library used by nuclear plants Were below'the minimum detectable concentration:.

Potassium-40,was detected ihnall `48 samples~of the indicator stgtions at:

concentrations 'ranging froim" 51 tW1 86lCilL and inall 1236f the control station, samples ranging from 49-to 115 pCi/L* -The: averagefor the indicator station locations was 97 p~i/L,,while the avera~id Ifor'the control stlationh locations wasg 80 pCi/L. The maximum preoperationhd'lýlevei l~detedted wdýs 200.pCi/L,,with an average of 48 pCi/L.

• RA-NAT was detected in 1 of the indicator stations at a concentration of 6.4 pCi/L. -It was detected in only I of the control Iocýtion samples 'at 6.1,,pCi/L. ;.MDG.s for. the remainihg station samples, both ndicator and control, -rahged from'<1 5to <6.6 pCi/L. The maximumnpreoperational level"detedted -Was4ý pCi/L with no'average determined-.

Fish (TableC-15)";

Edible species of fish were 'collected semi-annually at 3 locations -2 indicator (7E1, I WA1) and I control (12C1), and analyzed for gamma emitters in flesh.

23

Samples included channel catfish, white catfish, bluefish, white perch, flounder and, striped bass. (See exp!anation of controls in the surface water section). The 4 indicator and 2 control station samples-from boti semi--an*uai collections, indicated the presence of the naturally-occurring radionuclide K-40&. -AlIOther gamma-emitters searched for in the nuclide library used by nuclear plants, were, b.low the minim-um detectable concentration.

Potassium-40 was detected in all 4 samples from the indicator stations at concentrations ranging from; 3320 to 3730 pCi/kg-wet for an average of 3590 pCi/kg-wet. K-40 was detected in both samples, from, the control location at 3540 and 3770 pCi/kg-wet. The average for the control samples was 3660 pCi/kg-wet.

.The maximum-preoperational level-detected was 13000 pCi/kg-wet, with an average

..of 2900 pCi/kg.-wet..

Blue Crab (Table C-16)

Blue crab samples were collected twice during the. season at 2 locations, 1 indicator and 1 control,.and the edible portionswere analyzed for gamma emitters. (See explanation of controls in the surface water section).

• Gamma spectroscopy performed. o n the.flesh of the indicator station samples and the control station samples indicated the presence.of the naturally-occurring radionuclides K-40 and.RA-NAT. All other gamma emitters searched for in the nuclide library used by nuclear plants were below the minimum detectable concentration.

SPotassium-40 was detected in both indicator station samples at concentrations Of 2460 and 2600 pCi/kg-wet. It was detected in both control station samples at 2530 and 2690 pCi/kg-wet.. The average for both the indicator and control station samples was 2570 pCi/kg-wyet. The maximum preoperational level detected was 12000 pCi/kg-wet, with an average of 2835 pCi/kg-wet.

24

e RA-NAT was detected in 1 of the indicator stations at a concentration of 16.pCi/kg-wet. It was detected in only 1 of the control location -samplesat 24.pCi/kg-wet.

Minimum detectable concentrations for..the' remaining station samples, both -indicator and control, ranged from <7.8 to t<8.0 p~i/kg-wet. The-maximumpreoperational level detected .was 33 pCi/kg-wet with no, average determined.,

Sediment (Table C-17)

• 1, 6 'a ns,* ;6~ ig6i~iao Sediment samples were collected serhi-a'nnually from 7 locaions, including 6indicator stations and i control station. (Location 6S2 is the only shoreline tediment .nd, it is directly affected by tidal fluctuations) Each of the 14-samples Was anaFyzed forgamma emitters.

Only the naturally-occurring radionuclides K-40, Be-7, Th-232 and"IRkANAT'were:detected in this years sediment samples. (See explanation of controls in the surface water section)

• Gamma spectroscopy was performed -on each of the 12 indicator station samples and 2 otherdgamrmal control station samples. Except forithe radionuclides ligtediab'ove,*all emitters searched for in the nuclide library used' by nuciear pl*ts were beldw the minimum detectable concentration. ,

• Cesiumh-I37 was not detected in any of the indicatr 0iOIrthe 'con0*l 1station ýsamples this year. Minimum detectable conht ntfrations for '14 samlI0s, both indi ator and control, 'ranged from <3.8qo: <27*pCiilk-ry. Potitiv* results froim '19t88 to 2008 are plotted on F'igUre 6, with. an inset graph depicti *r"*h 'current year back to 1977.

Cobalt-60 was not detected in any' f thbesediment samples. Minimum detectable concentrations for the 14 samples, indicator and contrrol, ranged from <2.9 to <29 OpCi/kg-dry.' Results"of all tne positive values fro6nh1 988 to 2008 are plotted on Figure 6, with an inset graph depicting the current year back to 1977.'

.ý25

Beryllium-7 was detected in 3 of the indicator station samples at concentrations of 157 to 308 pCi/kg-dry and an average of 233 pCi/kg-dry. It was not detected in either control location above minimum detectable concentration. The maximum preoperational level detected'Was 2300 pCi/kg-dry. There was no preoperational average determined for this nuclide.

• Potassium-40 was detected in all 12 indicator station samples at concentrations ranging from 1830 ,to 12400 pCi/kg-dry, With ari average of 5946 pCi/kg-dry.

Concentrations detected in both of the control station samples were at 7230 and 11700 pCi/kg-dry. The average for the control station samples was 9465 pCi/kg-dry.

The maximum preoperational leel detected was 21000 pCi/kg-dry, with an average of 15000 pCi/kg-dry.

RA-NAT was detected in all 12 indicator station samfples at concentrations ranging from 1.21 to 813 pCi/kg-dry, with an average of 420 pCi/kg-dry. Concentrations detected in both of the control station samples were at 246 and 667 pCi/kg-dry, with an average of 460 pCi/kg-dr. The grand average for both the indicator and control station samples was 430 pCi/kg-dry. The maximum pre-operational level detected was 1200 pCi/kg-dry, with an average of 760 pCi/kg-dry.

• Thorium-232 was detected in all 12 indicator station samples at concentrations ranging from 277.to 958.pCi/kg-drywith an average of 546 pCi/kg-dry.

Concentrations detected in both of the control station samples were at 443 and 8970 pCi/kg-dry, with an average of 4707 pCi/kg-dry. The grand average for both the indicator and contrcl station samples was 1140 pCi/kg-dry. The maximum pre-operational level detected -was 1300. pCi/kg-dry, with an average of 840 pCi/kg-dry.

26

PROGRAM DEVIATIONS Location 2F6 (7.3 miles NNE of vent) experienced an equipment malfunction the week of January 8 through 14, 2008. The quick disconnect fitting failed causing the APT/AIO assembly to separate from the airsampler. Both the APT and AIO samples were invalid for this week due to low sample volume. Although this had not happened before, MTS decided to replace all the brass fittings with new stainless steel ones at all the air sampler locations.

Due to power losses the 5S1lair sampler station had air particulate and iodine samples with insufficient volumes, onthe following dates,:

STATION: LOCATION HOURS UNAVAILABLE,*. DATES 5S1 1.0 mi. E of vent 124.4 3/3-10/08 5S1 1.0 mi. E of vent 121.2 12/8-15/08 5S 1.0.mi. E of 107.2 12/22-29/08 Both air particulate and air iodine samples were considered 'irvalid due to an unplan ned power outage on three'separate occasions. The loss of these three'air-samples resulted in 96% availability on this sample station. This is greater than the 90% availability goal for sampler availability. This sampler is located along the site access road and its power line is subjected to high winds and icing, causing the frequent power losses during inclement weather. Corrective actions are being taken. Site services will be relocating this sampler across the road. 'The new power supply is the ýunderground "feed for the&PSEGSecurity Check Point. This feed has a back-up diesel'generator,"whic:hwill supply emergenrcy power in the unlikely event of a loss of.po.w e.r..

On July 1st, 2008 Location 14F4 milk farm experienced an electrical fire which destroyed its milk barn and hay loft. The farmer relocated his'100+ milk animals to other farms in the area until he could rebuild. In the interim, 'he gave'us the name and location of the closest milk farm -to him, Location 14G3 (13.7 miles WNW of the vent).. We then collected milk from this location for the remainder of the year. No milk samples were missed during 2008.

27

HOPE CREEK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LIMIT FOR PRIMARY WATER IODINE CONCENTRATIONS The Hope Creek primary water chemistry results for 2008 Were reviewed. The specific activity of the primary coolant did not exceed 0.2 microcuries per gram Dose Equivalent I-131. Therefore, the iodine concentrations in the primary coolant did not exceed the Tech Spec limit specified in section 3.4.5.

CONCLUSIONS The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations was conducted during 2008 in accordance with the SGS and HCGS Technical Specifications and ODCM. The LLD'values required by the Technical Specifications and ODCM were achieved.for this reporting period (See Appendix A and Appendix C). 'The objectives, of the program were also met during this period. The data collected assists in demonstrating that SGS and HCGS were operated, in compliance with Technical Specifications! and ODCM requirements. -

From the results obtained, it can be co'ncluded:tthai the levels and fluctuations of radioactivity in environmental samples were -as expected for an estuarine environment.

The concentration of radioactiveý material in the environment that could be attributable to Salem and Hope Creeks stations operations was only a small fraction of the concentration of naturally occurring and man-made radioactivity. Since these results were comparable to the results obtained during the preoperational phase of the program, which ran from 1973 to 1976, and with historical results collected since commercial operation, we can conclude that the operation of the Salem, and Hope Creek Stations had no significant radiological impact on the environment.

28

TABLE -1 SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (Prbgram Overview)

EXPOSURE EXOSR PATRWAY. AND/TION AND'/OR SAMPLEY NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVE 'SAMPLESA SAPIN ANDA SAMPLING N SAMPL .COLLECTION SAMPLE LOCATIONS TYPE/FREQUENCY* OF FREQUENCY ANALYSIS

1. DIRECT RADIATION Forty-nine routine monitoring stations Quarterly Thermoluminescent with twoi-or more dosimeters placed as. Gamma dosa/ quarterly follows:!

Dosimeters An inner ring of stations; one in each land-based meteorological, sector "(not bbunded .by water) in the general' area of the sit6ýboundary:'.1-Sl, 2S2, 2S4-3S1,,.4S1., S§1, 6S2, 7S1, lIOSI, 1S1..

cO .* ~~~~15Sli r'161I.4,*;.. * '

C --

Ail oute*"ring of stations", one in epch land-based meteorologicalr sectorz* in the.

5 - 11 km range (3.12- 6(.88 ýmiles) "

from th site (not bou-nded by- or over water) : 2D2:, 5DI, OD!, I4DIý 15D1,*--.

2E1, 3EL1,l1E2, 12E1, 13EI, 16E1:, IFl, 3F2,j,4F2ý, 5F1, 6F!t, 9FI, 1"F2, I1Fl-;

1:3F2-, 14F2, 15F3.

The balance of the6 stations to be placed in ýpecial ýinterest areas such as popuJation centers3,' nearby residencesi tand schools: 2F2-ý, 2F5, 2F6, 3F3,- 7F2, 1-2F1, 13F3, -13F4, 16F2, 1G3, 10G1, 16Gl,3H1. and in two areas to serve as control etations: 3GI, 14Gl.

TABLE 1 (cont'd)

SALEMAND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS RADIO.OCGICAL EKVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM EXPOSURE PATHWAY SAMPLE AND/OR

• " O.": "SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVS.SAMPLE LOCATIONS "- "*';A " SAMPLING AND SML LEOCTOS- - COLLECTION TYPE/FREQUENCY* OF FREQUENCY ANALYSIS

2. ATMOSPHERIC Samples from 6 locations:

a. Air Particulate I sample from close to the Site Boundary Continuous sampler Gross Beta / weekly operation with Gamma isotopic analysis 3 Samples in different' land based sectors: sample collection / quarterly composite IF1,* 2F6, ,SD1. *.... .* .. - :, . . weekly or more 1 Sampie from "the vicini*ty" of a frequently if community: Iodine-131 / weekly

b. Air Iodine required by dust loading I Sample from a,.control location,* as for examp!a 153. k!a,, distant and in ,.the least C) prevalent wind direction,:. 14G1.,-

W 3.' TERRESTRIAL Samples from milking animals in 3 locations within 5 km distance- If there are none, then, 1 'sampl'e from milking,

a. Milk Semi-monthly Gamma scan /semi-animals -in each of 3 areas between 5 " 8 km (3.12*-'5 miles) distant: 13E3, 14F4, (when animals are on monthly 2G*3. (*" pasture) Iodine-131 / semi-monthly.

1 :.Sample from milking animals at a control Monthly location 15- 30 km distant (9.38 - 18.75 (when animals, are Gamma scan / monthly miles) : 3GI. not on pasture) Iodine-131 / monthly

b. Well Water Samples from one or two sources only if (Ground) likely to be affected. (Although wells in the. vicinity of SGS/HCGS are not directly Monthly Gamma Scan / monthly affected by plant operations, we sample Gross alpha / monthly 3E1 farm's well, as management audit) Gross beta / monthly Tritium / monthly

TABLE 1 (cont'd)

SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM EXPOSURE PATHWAY NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES AND SAMPLE SAMPLING AND AND/OR SAMPLE LOCATIONS COLLECTION TYPE/FREQUENCY*

FREQUENCY OF ANALYSIS

c. Potable Water One sample of the nearest water supply (Drinking Water) affected by-its- discharge (No potable -water Monthly (composited Gross alpha /'monthly

ý-samples are required as liquid effluents daily) Gross beta / monthly discharged from SGS/HCGS do not directly affect this pathway) However, for Tritium / monthly management audit, one raw and one treated Gamma scan / monthly sample from a public water supply' (City of Iodine-131 /*monthly Salem Water'and Sewer Department) is collected: 2F3 "

d. Vegetables4 One sample of eachpq ncipai class of food products from area. that is _,rrigated by,.. Annually (at Gamma scan/on collection water- in, which liquid :plant .wastes have harvest) been discharged (The..Delaware River at the location of SGS/HCGS is.a brackish water source and is' not_ used for irrigation of food products). Management audit samples are *61lected fromývarious l oc'atidns°during harvest: 2F9, 3F7,. 2G2, 9G1, 3H5, 2F10, 3F6,,924 15F4,72G4. "~

e. Fodder Crops .Broad leaf vegetation (ornamental cabbage) was planted & collected in lieu of having a Annually (at Gamma scan/on collection milk farm within 5 km of the Site M: 10DI, harvest);

iS1I,1S.1, 16S1 /Although rnoot required by SGS//HCGS C-DM,. samp o crops-..no=al'ly" of used as cattle feed (silage-soybeans) were collected,"as. management audit :--samplesz;,--

14F4, 3GI, 2G3,,1 3 E 3 !,14G3.

TABLE 1 (cont'd)

SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM EXPOSURE PATHWAY AND/OR NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES AND SAMPLE SAMPLING AND SAMPLEE *.* - -'., .' -i** OCATIONS :,*- ........... TYPE./FREQUENCY*

.REQUENCY'-O

____ ~. *;fi--.

- .. ~. ., ,, OF ANALYSIS f ~~.Soi~J Although. -_jtýrequi-'ed-no- by S~/CSOC!

samples of soil are collected as mc nagement Every 3 years Gamma 'scan/on iS2- 6E . (2007-2010-2013) . collection,

, i, -.. "-,.'-- p cd< - ng 2008) ," .. ........ .. ,N.t..m ..  :' ,.,....., ......... *- .c'. T;, , ,' .

?- -C-1, Z1

4. AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT One sample upstream: 1F2 n.sppl, dot. stream..-7,E, -. - ,Monthl.. , Gross.Beta/monthly

a. Surface Water One sample outfall: IIA1 Gamma 'scan/monthly One sample cross-stream (mouth of Tritium/monthly**

co3 Appoquinimink River): 12CI (2)

And an additional location in the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal: 16F1

b. Edible Fish ,,Onesanple-:of each commer-cially-..,*d'. '

recrzationally.- importmntý,[speci s - in' Semi- Gamma scan (flesh)/ on

,;.Jvicizity of plant di~ccharga..area: .Al annually collection

.0.Q,9e sample..*of_ same.. species in, Area not influenced by plant discharge:' 12C&1' (2)

'Andan* additional lodatioi- downstream: 7E1 O sample of each commercially and

c. Blue Crabs recreationally important species' in Semi-. Gamma scan (flesh)/ on of plant discharge area:, IIAl..--.

.vicinity annually collection One sample of same species in area not inflence.d, plant discharge: 12C1 (2) A

,: * :::.l','. ,.(, ':.  : ,, /£ - :" *;" :-*- ' -

V -,j 7

TABLE 1 (cont'd)

SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING AND NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES AND SAMPLE COLLECTION TYPE/FREQUENCY*

EXPD/OR SAMPLE LOCATIONS FREQUENCY OF ANALYSIS

d. Sediment One sample %from-downstreamarea: 7E1 Semi- Gamma scan/on One s~ampe. from cross-stream area/One annually collection sample from a control location: 12CI(2)

One sample from outfall area: IIAl One sample from-the G-&.DCanal:;.ý16F1 One. sample from shoreline area::6S2.

One samplelfrom Cooling Tower.Blowdown: i5A1 And an additional location of south storm drain discharge line: 16A1 CA, Except for TLDs, the quarter-ly analypis is performed on a composite of. individual samples collected*during the quarter.

• • Tech Specs and ODCM require quarterly analysis but due to the tritium leak at Salem, it was decided to analyze surface waters on a monthly basis for tritium.

(1) While these milk locatipns are,-not within the 5 km range, they are the closest farms in the Site vicinity.

Since broad leaf vegetation-ise acceptable in lieu of milk collections, MTS personnel planted and harvested ornamental cabbage (Brassica'X o crcea) at three ,locations -on Site (1S1, 15S1, 16S1) and one across the river in Delaware (1l1)i) .

(2) Station 12C1 was made,.the operat:,onal, contro. .. (19,75), for aquatic samples since the physical characteristics of this station more closely resemble those of the outfall area than do those at the upstream location originally chosen. This is due to the distance from Liston Point, which is the boundary between the Delaware River and Delaware Bay. As discussed extensively in the SGS/HCGS Pre-operdtional reports, the sampling locations further upstream show significantly lower background levels due to estuarine tidal flow.

FIGURE 1 GROSS BETA ACTIVITY IN AIR PARTICULATE 1988 THROUGH 2008 1000_

GROSS BETA IN AIR PARTICULATE 1973 THROUGH 2008 1000 -

100 - A 100- 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006

<Z 10 1 1 1I 9 . . .

1988 1990 1992, .1994. 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 I

QUARTERLY AVERAGE

FIGURE 2 AMBIENT RADIATION - OFFSITg. vs CONTROL STATION 1988 THROUGH 2008 10.0 AMBIENT RADIATION - OFFSITE vs CONTROL STATION 1973 THROUGH 2008 8.0 6.0 2 4.0 2.0 -OFF-SITE STATIONS CONTROL STATIONS 0.0 1988 1990 1992 19.

9,6 1998 *,~ ~,~.~~,~ 2002 2004 2006 2008 QUARTERLY AVERAGE1

FIGURE 3 IODINE,-,131 ACT!WI'TY IN MI" 1988 THROUGH 2008 20 7 IODINE-131 ACTIVITY IN MILK 1973 THROUGH 2008 3X 00 - .,... ... ...

20.001 10.00 1192 0.001

-10.00 10 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006 cj,-

0 I ......

I I I I I

-10 , 1, , , , , , 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1988 1990 1992 ~94~ 1996 1998 2000 .2QD2 2004 2006 2008 IQARERLYAVERAGEI

FIGURE 4 GROSS BETA ACTIVITY IN SURFACE WATER 1988 THROUGH 2008 1000 GROSS EBETA ACTIVITY IN SURFACE WATER 1973 THROUGH 2008 1000 100~

10 .... ....

1976 1982 100-10

• V 1 .1990. . . .1, .. . .. 1 .199 , , . . . 20 1988 1990 1992 1994 *. . 1996 * , 19,9 t::.**' , ,, 20 02 2004 2006 2008 1QUARTERLY AVERAGEI

FIGURE 5 TRITiUM ACTIVITY iN SURFACE W.ATER 1988 THROUGH 2008 10,000 TRITIUM ACTIVITY INSURFACE WATER 1973 Through 2008 1000--

100 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006 1,0o0 Effluent Discharge near F-7-", I

.10 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 '1 2d02 - 2004 2006 2008 FQUARTERLY AVERAGE

FIGURE 6 CESIUM-137 & COBALT-60 ACTIVITY IN AQUATIC SEDIMENT 1988 THROUGH 2008 10000.

CESIUM-137 & COBALT4b ACTIVITY INAQUATIC SEDIMENT 1977 THROUGH 2003

-CS-137 10000-'--

C

- co-60 1000 100 A 1994 2000 2006 1000 1976 1982 1988 1000 A 10 1990 199 199 i 1996 2000 20 200 I 2 2008 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 '* 1L*"f98 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 SEMI-ANNUAL AVERAGE

REFERENCES

[1] Public Service Enterprise Group. "Environmental Report, Operating License Stage -'Salem Nuclear Gehdrating* Station'Units 1 and 2". 1971.

[2] Public Service Enterprise Group. "Environmental Report, Operating License Stage - Hope Creek Generating Station". 1983.

[3] United States Atomic Energy Commission. "Final Environmental Statemenft Salem .Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2". Docket No. 50-272 and 50-31 . 1973.1., "

[4] United States Atomic Energy Commission. "Final Environmental Statement -

Hope'Creek Generating Station", Docket No: 50-354:. 1983.

[51. PublicService Enterprise Group. "Updated Final Safety Analysis Report - Salem Nuclear Gen-erating Station, Units 1'and.2".,

[6] Public Service Enterprise Group. "Updated Final Safety Analysis Report - Hope Creek Gene'ratinig Station'.

[7] Radiation Management Corporation. "Artificial Island Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program k-'Anual Rep orts1973 th rough 1982".'

[8] Radiation Management Corporation. "Artificial Island Radiological Environmental MonitQring. Prog~ram Pre(perati n S1mmary- 1"9738through'1976".

RMC-TR:-77-03, 1'978.ý

[9] "Radiation Managemeit Coipbratibn. "Artificial lslahd Radiological Environmental Monitbring Program LDeember 11't6 Decmber 31','l1976". RMC-TR-77-02, 1977.

[10] Maplewodo testing'Services. "Salem'ah Hope`Creek:Generating Stations' Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program - Annual Reports 1983 through 2007".

[11a] Maplewood Testing 'Services. 'Quality:AssUrand~eFian' 'February 2004

[11 b] Maplewood Testing Services.' Mechanical Divisioh "OualityAsuranCe Plan".

September 2003.`

[11c] Maplewood Testing Services. Mechanical Division Environmental/Radiological Group "Procedures;Manual".'October 2008':

[12] Public Service Enterprise Group. "Salem Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications", Appendix A to Operating License No. DPR-70, 1976, Sections 6.8.4.h - 1,2,3 and 6.9.1.7.

40

REFERENCES (dont'd)

[13] Public Service Enterpri G~neatirg 1tation techinical' Specifications", Appendix A to Facility Operating Lic6en e . 'o F- 57ji9"'

Sections 6.8.4.h,7-1 23 and.6;9A*6. .,. ,,,., ,

[14] Public Service Enterprise Group. "OffsiteDose Calculation Manual"r-Salem Generating Station.r evision 21 ,:: ,-

[15] Public Service Enterprise Group. "Ofsite Dose Calcula ion manuaaI'-.Hpeo'Cgtee*

Generating Station. Revision 22.  ; * .C

. 2' -. *

[16] U.S. Environmental rote`ctin- ncy* P bed of Radioactivity in Drinking Water." EPAJ600/4-80O32, AuL*gut 90.-

[17] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. iEpironmental For Nuclear Power Plants." Regulatory Guie 4.8, December 1975.

... ...... .. ' *i -- mission : ,', ,,NR6, l nspection~v ,j,'*n

^ .- np

• cto*

[18] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 6ommission' *,,: - -1'- ,, n Procedure 84750, Issue Date 3/15/94.

[19] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory om'mision:Cd e..of ,der eguIl*i *i, Part 20.1301 Standards for Protection Against Radiation.

[20] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;,_CgdeofFederal Rogula t6ffd.i'itoens,,',P*50 Appendix A, General Design Criterion 64, Mo(nitoring-'l adioactiviReleases.,

[21] U.S. Nuclear Regulatqry, omTissionCg~ie o..FederLal ReguJati#ns, Titlel ,ePart 50, Appendix-I, .NumericaI Guidesjforf pg OpjectivPes arid Limitin C" dits fo

Operations'to meet the Criterion 'As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable'for"'

Radioactive Material inljghtWateto,.oe dNucear Pywer .,ectorEfflun,91 r,,

[22] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Programs for Monitoring Radioaýti'&it' inf'he Environs ofNuclpar.PowerPlants: peguuatoryGuide.4,,*ev. 1. .

[23] U.S. Nuclear Regulatoy QCommisio Perjriace,pTesting-f and ,rpcpdural r, Specifications for Thermoluminescence Dosimetry: Environmernta[A.*pplIcations, Regulatory Guide4.13, Rev. 1.

[24] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Qualit-y As~surpnrcefpr Radi*!dgi,6al(M*fiýtrig Programs (Normal Operations) Effluent Streams and Environmentr , Regulatory Guide 4.1, 1f -Rey.. .

41

REFERENCES (cont'd)

[25] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss:ion`.-blfsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance:

Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Boiling Water Reactors, NUREG -1302, April 1991.

[26] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance:

Standard Radiological Effl.ert Cohtroli fcr Pressuifized ;Water Reactors, NUREG -

1301, April 1991.

[27] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, Revision 1, November 1979.

[28] NJDEP : "A South Jersey Homeowner's Guide to Radioactivity in Drinking Water:

Radium" Revised April 2004.

[29] American Nuclear Standards Institute, ANSI N545-1975, Performance Testing and Procedural Specification for Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (Environmental).

42

APPENDIXA PROGRAM

SUMMARY

43, I

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM SALEM GENERATING STATION , DOCKET 50-272/-311

.HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY' JANUARY 1, 2008 to DECEMBER 31, 2008 MEDIUM OR PATHWAY Analysis And Lower All Indicator Locations Location with Highest Mean Control Location Number of SAMPLE Total Number Limit of Mean Name Mean Mean Nonroutine (UNIT OF MEASUREMENT, of Analyses Detection (Range) Distance and Direction (Range) (Range) Reported Performed (LLD)* ** Measurements I.AIRBORNE Air Particulates Beta 314 6.0 22 (261/265) 1F1 5.8 mi N 23 (53/53) 22 (53/53) 0 3

(10-3 pCi/im ) (7-57) (8-54) (9-51) 2F6 7.3 ml NNE 23 (52/53)

(9-57)

Gamma Be7 24 2.0 81 (20/20) 2F6 7.3 mi NNE 86 (4/4) 80 (4/4) 0 (63-102) (65-101) (62-95)

K-40ý 24 9.0 11 (20/20) 2F6 7.3 mi NNE 13 (4/4) 10 (4/4) 0 (8-1.7) (8-10) (8-11)

RANAT 24 1.1 1 (3/20) 2F6 7.3 mi NNE 1.1 (1/4) <LLD (0.8-1 .1) (1-1.1)

Air Iodine 1-131 314 8.5 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 (10 3.-pCi/mj3)

II DIRECT "

• Direct Radiation Quarterly 196 4.3 (172/172) 1Fl 5.8 mi N 5.8 (4/4 ) 4.5 (24/24) 0 (mrad/std.. month) Badges (2.6-6.3) (5.1-6.3) (3.3-5.8)

III TERRESTRIAL Milk .1-131 80 0.3 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 (pCi/L)

Gamma K-40 80 32 1340 (60/60) 13E3 4.9 mi W 1360 (20120) 1290.(20/20) 0 (1120-1470) (1270-1450) (1200-1390)

RA-NAT 80 5.1 11. (1 /60) 2G3 12 mi NNE 11 (1/20) <LLD 0 (11-11)

(11-11)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET 50-272/-311 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY* JANUARY 1, 2008 to DECEMBER 31, 2008 MEDIUM OR PATHWAY Analysis And Lower All Indicator Locations Location with Highest Mean Control Location Number of SAMPLE Total Number Limit of Mean Name Mean Mean Nonroutine (UNIT OF MEASUREMENT of Analyses Detection (Range) Distance and Diirection (Range) (Range) Reported Performed (LLD)- Measurements III TERRESTRIAL Well Water Alpha 12 1.2 1 (1/12) 3E1 4.1 mi NE 1 (1/12) No Control 0 (pCi/L) S(1-1) ) Location Beta i2 1.0- 10 (1211) 3E1 4.1 mi NE 10'(12/12 No Control 0 (8.4-12) (8.4-12) Location H-3 12 155 <LLD.. <LLD No Control Location Gamma " 0 K-40 12 34 55 (2/12) 3E1 4.1mi NE 55 (2 712) No Control 0

. (48-61)

(48-61)'; Location RA-NAT 12 6.6 138 (12/12) 3E1 4.1mi NE 138 (12/12) No Control 0 (66-254) (66-254) Location Potable Water Alpha 24 0.6 0.5 (3/24) 2F3 8.0 mi NNE 0.5 (3/24) No Control 0 (pCi/L) (0:4-0.6) .(0.4-0.6)* Locationl Beta 24 1.0** 2.7 (24/24) 21`3 8.0 mi NNE 2.7' (24 i24) No Control 0 (1.9-3.6) (1.9-3.6) Location

. <LLD H-3 24 .155 . <LLD No Control 0 Location Gamma K-40 24 - 34 44 (',5/24) 2F3 8.0 mi NNE 44 (15/24) No Control -0

.(8-57) (8-57) Location 1-131 24 0.3 <LLD <LLD No Control 0 Location RA-NAT - 24 6.6 12 (5/24) 2F3 8.0 mi NNE 12 (5/24) No Control 0 (3-24) (3-24) Location.

Fruit & Gamma Vegetables K-40 27 70 1950 (1;4/14) 15F4 7.0 mi NW 2150 (2/2) 1920 (13/13) 0 (pCi/Kg-wet) (1370-2620) (2020-2270) (1380-2240) 3F6 6.5 mi NE 2150 (2/2)

(2090-2210)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET 50-272/-311 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY JANUARY 1, 2008to'DECEMBER 31, 2008 MEDIUM OR PATHWAY Analysis And Lower All Indicator Locations Location with Higlhest Mean ControlLocation Number of SAMPLE Total Number Limit of *Mean Name Mean Mean Nonroutine (UNIT OF MEASUREMENT, of Analyses Detection (Range) Distance and Direction (Range) (Range) Reported Performed (LLD)-

• Measurements III TERRESTRIAL Fodder Crops Gamma (pCi/Kg-wet) Be-7 10 75 199 ý(4/8) 2G312miNNE 255 (1/1) 137 (1/2) 0 (137-255) (2 55) ' (137-137)

K-40 10 32 4430 (8,/8) 14F4 7.6 miWNW 16200 ý(.111 ) 7570 (23/2) 0 (1970-16200) (16200-16200) (2030-1ý100)

"11 (1/2) 0 RA-NAT 10 -12 1 1 (1/8)

(11-11) (11-11) (11-11)

.IVAQUATIC 16f (12 ii.2 Surface Water Beta 60 9.7 97 :,(48/148) 7E1 4.5 mi SE 73 (12/12) 0 (pCi/L) '(8.4-330) (78-330) (24-158)

H-h3 60 150 150 (2 /48) 12C1 2.5 mi. WSW 210'(1/12) 210 0 (140 150) (210-210)

Gamma K-40 60- 34 97 (48/48) 7E1 4.5 mi SE 118 (12/121) 80 (12/12) 0 c_(69-160)

RA-NAT 60 6.6 6.4 (1/48) ,7EI 4.5 mi SE 6,41 (1 ./12) 6!T"(1"/12) 0 (6.4-6.4) (6.4-6.4)- (6.1-6. 1i Blue Crabs Gamma

"(pCilkg-wet) K 4 :55- 2530 :(2'/a) . t201- 2-i52:mi.-WSW -..2610,(2 /2) 2610, (2/2).

(2460-2600) (2530-2690) (2530-2690) 16 (1:/2)

RA-NAT 4 24 12C1 2.52 fni:WSW 24 (1./2) 24 (1/2)"

.(24-24). "

(24-24)

Edible Fish. Gamma (pCi/kg-wet) K-40 6 55 3593 (4 /4) 7E1 4.5 mi. SE 3665 (2/2) 3655 (2/2) 0 (3320-3730) (3600-3730) (3540-3770)

Sediment (pCi/kg-dry) Gamma - -

Be-7 14 28- 233 (3/12) 6S2 0.2 Emi.IES E`- 308 (1/2) <LLD 0 (157-308) (308-308)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET 50-272/-311 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY JANUARY 1, 2008 to DECEMBER 31, 2008 MEDIUM OR PATHWAY.. " Analysis And Lower All Indicator Locations Location with Highest Mean Control Location Number of SAMPLE Total Number' Limit of Mean Name Mean Mean Nonroutine (UNIT OF MEASUREMENT of Analyses Detection (Range). Distance and Direction (Range) (Range) Reported Performed (LLD)* ** Measurements IV AQUATIC K-40 14 55 5946 (12 /12) 7E1 4.5 mi. SE 12100 (2/2) 9565 (2 12) 0 Sediment (1830-12400) (15500-17300) (7230-11900)

(pCi/kg-dry) Co-60 14 29 <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-137 14 27 <LLD <LLD 0 U  ;

RA-NAT 14 5.0 420 (12/12) 16A1 0.7 mi. NNW :690 (2 /2) 460 (21/2)

(121-813) -(574-813) (246-670)

Th-232 14 7E1 4.5 mi. SE 849 (2/2)

• 67(0 (2 /2) 8.1 546 (12/12) .(3"38-85*) 0:*:

(277-958) (443-897) 0,

• LLD listed is the lower limit of detection which we endeavored to achieve during this reporting period. In some instances nuclides were detected at concentrations above/below the LLD values shown.

Mean calculated using values above LLD only. Fraction of measurements above LLD are in parentheses.

Typical LLD values.

APPENDIX B SAMPLE DESIGNATION; AND LOCATIONS 49

APPENDIX B SAMPLE DESIGNATION The PSEG's Maplewood Testing Services identifies samples by a three part code. The, first two letters are the program identification code.. Because of the proximity of the Salem and Hope Creek Stations a common environmental surveillance program is being conducted. The identification code, "SA", has been applied to Salem and Hope Creek stations. The next three letters are for the media sampled.

AIO = Air Iodine IDM Immersion Dose (TLD)

APT = Air Particulate MLK Milk ECH = Hard Shell Blue Crab PWR Potable Water (Raw)

ESF = Edible Fish PWT = Potable Water (Treated)

ESS = Sediment SOL= Soil FPL= Green Leaf Vegetables SWA= Surface Water FPV= Vegetables (Various) VGT= Fodder Crops (Various)

GAM= Game (Muskrat) WWA= Well Water The last four symbols are a location code based on direction and distance from a standard reference point. The reference point is located at the midpoint between the center of the Salem 1 and Salem 2 containments. Of these, the first two represent each of the sixteen angular sectors of 22.5 degrees centered about the reactor site. Sector one is divided evenly by the north axis and other sectors are numbered in a clockwise direction as follows:

1=N '5 E 9=S 13=W .

2 =NNE 6 ESE 10= SSW 14 = WNW 3=NE 7 SE. 11 =SW 15 = NW 4 = ENE 8 SSE 12 =WSW 16 = NNW The next digit is a letter which represents the radial distance from the reference point:

S = On-site location E = 4-5 miles off-site A = 0-1 miles off-site F = 5-10 miles off-site B = 1-2 miles off-site G = 10-20 miles off-site

-C = 2-3 miles off-site H = >20 miles off-site D = 3-4 miles off-site The last number is the station numerical designation within each sector and zone; e.g.,

1,2,3,... For example, the designation'SA-WWA-3E1 would indicate a sample in the Salem and Hope Creek program (SA), consisting of well water (WWA), which, had been collected in sector number 3, centered at 45 degrees (north east) with respect to the.

midpoint between Salem 1 and 2 containments at a radial distance of 4 to 5 miles off-site, (therefore, radial distance E). The number 1 indicates that this is sampling station

1. 1 in that particular sector.

51

TABLE B-I SAMPLING LOCATIONS Specific information about the-individual sampling locations are given in Table B-i. Maps B-1 and B-2 show the locations of sampling-stations with respect to the Site. A Portable Global Positioning System (GPS) was used to provide the coordinates of sampling locations. The Datum used was WGS 84.

STATION CODE STATION LOCATION LATITUDINAL LONGITUDINAL SAMPLE TYPE DEG- MIN. SEC DEG. MIN. SEC iS1 0.55mi. N, 39 - 28 - 16 75 13 IDM, VGT 2S2 0.4 mi. NNE; Lamp Pole 65 Near HC Switch Yard 39 - 28 - 07 75 - 32 - 00 IDM 2S4 0.59 mi. NNE 39 - 28 -18 75 - 31 -54 IDM 3S1 0.58 mi. NE 39 - 28 08 75 - 31 - 41 IDM 4S1 0.60 mi. ENE 39 - 28 - 02 75 - 31 - 33 1DM 5S1 1.0 mi. E; site access road 39 - 27 - 38 75 - 31 - 08 AIO,APT, IDM 6S2 0.23mi. ESE; area around Helicopter Pad 39 - 27 - 43 75 - 31 - 5.5 IDM, SOL,ESS 01 7S1 0.12 mi. SE; station personnel gate 39, - 27 - 44 75 - 32 - 03 IDM 10S1 0.14 mi. SSW; inlet cooling.,water bldg. 39 - 27. - 41 75 -32 - 10 IDM 1IS1 0.09 mi. SW; service water inlet bldg. 39,- 27 - 43 75 32 - 12 IDM 15SI 0.57 mi. NW 39 - 28 - 10 75 32 - 32 IDM,VGT 16S1 0.54 mi. NNW 39'- 28 - 13 75 32 26. 1DM,VGT 11AI 0.2 mi. SW; outfall area 39 - 227 - 59 75 32 25 ECH,ESF,ESS,SWA 0.15 mi. SE; Located at the plant barge slip 39 - 27 - 41 75 - 32 - 02 Alternate SWA 15A1 0.65 mi. NNW; cooling tower blowdown discharge 39 - 27 - 67 75 32 - 19 ESS line outfall 16A1 0.24 mi. NW; south storm drain discharge line 39 28 - 24 75 32 - 58 ESS 12C1 2.5 mi. WSW; west bank of Delaware River 39 27 - 22 75 34 08 ECH,ESF,ESS,SWA 12CIA 3.7 mi. WSW; Located at the tip of' Augustine 39 -30 - 17 75 - 34 - 48 Alternate SWA Beach Boat Ramp 4D2 3.7 mi.'ENE; Alloway Creek Neck Road 39 - 29 - 18 75 - 32 - 11 IDM 5D1 3.5 mi. E; local farm 39 - 28 - 24 75 - 28 - 22 AIO,APT, IDM 1ODi 3.9 mi. SSW; Taylor's Bridge Spur 39 - 24 - 37 75 - 33 - 44 IDM,SOL,VGT 14D1 3.4 mi. WNW; Bay View, Delaware 39 - 29 - 02 75 35 -_31 IDM 15D1 3.8 mi. NW; Rt. 9, Augustine Beach 39 - 30 - 08 75 - 35 02 IDM

TABLE B-I (cont'd)

STATION CODE STATION LOCATION LATITUDINAL LONGITUDINAL SAMPLE TYPE DEG. MIN. SEC DEG. MIN. SEC 2E1 4.4 mi. NNE; local farm 39 -31 - 23 75 - 30 - 26 IDM 3E1 4.1 mi. NE; local farm 39 - 30 - b7 .75 - 28 -41 -IDM, WWA 7E1 4.5'mi. SE; 1 mi. W of Mad Horse Creek 39 25 - 08 75 -'28 - 64 ESF,ESS,SWA 8.87 mi. SE; Located at the end of Bayside Road 39 - 22 - 57 75 - 24 -24 Alternate SWA 11E2 5.0 mi. SW; Rt. 9 39 24 - 20 75 - 35 - 33 IDM 12EEl 4.4 mi. WSW;;.Thomas Landing 39 -26 - 52 75 - 36 - 59 IDM 13E1 4.2 mi. W; Diehl House Lab 39 - 27 - 59 75 - 36 - 44 IDM 13E3 4.9 mi. W; L6cal Farm, Odessa, DE 39 - 27 - 17 75 - 37 - 30 MLK,VGT,SOL 16El 4.1 mi. NNW; Port Penn 39-- 30 - 47 75- 34 - 34 AIO,APT, IDM, SOL iF1 5.8 mi. N; Fort Elisborg 39 32 - 43 75 - 31 - 05 AIO,APT,IDM 1F2 7.1 mi. N; midpoint of Delaware River 39 33 - 08 75 - 32 -54 SWA 2F2 8.7 mi. NNE; Pole at Corner of 5 th& Howell,- 39' - 34 - 38 75 28 - 04 IDM Salem 2F3' 8.0 mi. NNE; Salem Water. Company, 39 -.. 33 _- 40 75 -, 27 - 18 PWR,PWT 2F5 714 mi. NNE; Salem High Schql:.,-, .39 - 33 -.- 27 .,75 - 28 - 31 IDM 2F6 7.3 mi. NNE;,Southern Training-Center -39 .- 33 - 43-* 75 28 - 48 AIO,APT, IDM 2F9 7.5:mi. NNE; Local Farm -:.Tilbury Rd, Salem .39 -'33 - 55 75 - 29 - 30 FPV, FPL,SOL 2F10 9.2.mi. NNE; LocalýFarm,. South Broadway (Rt. 49) 39 - 35 - 35 75 - 29 - 35 FPV,FPL Pennsville 3F2. 5.1 mi. NE;Hancocks Bridge Municipal Bld 39 - 30 -. 25 75 - 27 -- 36 IDM 45 IDM 3F3 8.6 mi'. NE; Quinton Township School- 39 -323-38 75. - 24 3F6 6.5 mi. NE; Local Farm, Salem/Hancocks Bridge 39 - :32 - 03 75 - 28 00 FPV, FPL Road 3F7 .7.2 mi. NE; Local Farm, Beasley Neck Road, RD#3 39 - 32 - 07 75 25 - 46 4F2 .6.0 mi. ENE; Mays Lane, Harmersville 39-- 29 - 58 75r- 26 03 IDM 5F1 6.5 mi. E; Canton - 39. -'ýZ8.- 212 .75 - 24 -59 IDM, SOL 6F1 6.4 mi. ESE; Stow Neck Road 39 - 26 - 24 75 - 25 09 IDM 7F2 9.1 mi. SE; Bayside, New Jersey 39 - 22 56 75 - 24 17 IDM 9F1 523 mi. S; D.P.A.L. 48912-30217 39 - 23- 03 75 - 32 - 32 IDM 10F2 5:8 mi. SSW; Rt. 9. ý39 ;-.23- - 01 75 34 IDM 11F1 39..-24 ,

6.2 mi. SW; Taylor's Bridge:jDelaware.; -'75 - 37 - 37 IDM 12F1 9.4 mi. WSW; Townsend Elemeiitary School 39 - 23i- 4-7, 75 - 41 - 18 IDM 13F2 6.5 mi. W; Odessa, Delaware 39 - 27'- 18 75.- 39. - 21 IDM

TABLE B-I (cont'd) t-"

STATION CODE STATION LOCATION LAT-ITUDINAL LONGITUDINAL SAMPLE:. *TYPE DEG. MIN. SEC DEG. MIN. SEC 13F3 9.3 mi. W; Redding Middle School, Middletowi,*-, 39 - 27 7`14 75 32 IDM Delaware . ' 39 26. / "5 13F4 9.8. mi. W;W Middletown, Delaware 39 26- 51 "7 5 - 43 - 07 IDM 14F2 6.6 mi, WNW; Boyds.Corner .... 3 5 3- 00 75 - 38 - 59 IDM 14F4 7.6 mi. WNW; local farm .... 5."-9 - 30 -}44 75 - 40 - 52 MLK,VGT, SOL "

15F3 5.4 mi. NW 39"- 30 - 58 75 - 36 - 36 IDM ,

15F4 7. 0 mi. NW; local farm;' Port Penn' Road; Delaware 39 31 - 21 75

- 3B8- 31 FPV A 16F1 ,6.9 mi. NNW; C&D Canal r39 33- - 55 75 34 - 25 ESS, Sj*'K`'I 16FlA;- -6.84 mi. NNW; Located at the C&D Canal tip. - 39 -,, - 34 75 33 56 5- Alter'.Ate-- SWA 16F2 8.1 mi. NNW; Delaware City Publici School 3.9 - 34 - 18 75 35 25 1DM 1G3 19 mi. N; N. Church St. Wilmington, Del (Old 39 -,44 - 16 75 32 ý3 1 IDM Swedish Church Yard Park)

IG4 10.8 mi. N; Local Farm,`-.Rte&. 4,9,. South Broadway, 39 - 37 . 54- -75 - 30 - 45 FPV Pennsville 2G2 13.5 mi. NNE; LOcal Farm; PointersiAuburn Rbad (Rt. "26 -10

.FPV

- 38 - 19 75 540), Salem, .NWf08079 2G3 12 mi. NNE; Local Milk Farm, Corne-. -f Roues 540 &.. 39 -36 - 21 75 - 24 -53 MLKK F.--4', VGT ,.SOL Cn 45, Mannington,.-NJ . . ,-

.2G4 11.3 mi. NNE; l-;rge family garden .Rt*ý, & 39.- 36 - 02 75 - 25 - 21, FPV Welchville Rd,Mannington,-NJ -

3G1 17 mi. NE; Milk)Farm; .Daretown-Alyowb.a Road, 39 - 35 56 75 16 47 IDM, M, VGT SOL Woodstown .. -

9G1 10.3 mi. S; Locql Farm, Woodland Beach Rd.,.. Smyrm,., 39:- 18 47 33

-56 FPV

- 75 -

Delaware / -

9G2 10.7 mi. S; Local Farm,- Woodland Beach Road, 39 "7 18 - 39 75 - 34 -11 FPV,FPL Smyrna, .Delaware ' .-- . ..

10GI 12 mi. SSW; Smyrna, Delaware.' 39.-18

.-... 13. 75 - 36 - !05 IDM 14G1 11.8 mi. WNW; Rte. 286/Bethel Church--Road; De'-w*.=- 39 - 31\- 18 75 - .46 AIO ,A14,1DM 14G3 13.73 mi. WNW; Local Milk Farm; Frazier Road, 39 -- 33 18-, 75 45 MLK, VGT

%Middletown, Delaware - -- -:

16G1 15 mi. NNW; Across from Greater Wilmington Airport-.;- 39 -40 38- 75 - 3.5 35 IDM ( '

3H1 32-mi. NE; National Park, New Jers6ey 39 - 51 - 36 75 -;11 -. 06 IDM 3H5 25 mi. NE; Farm Market, Rt 77 39 - 41 - 02 75 - 12 - 23 FPL,FPV NOTE: All stati-on locations are referenced to the midpoint of the two Salem Unitd', Containment :s. The coordinates of this location are: Latitude N 390 - 27' - 46.5" and Longitude W 75° - 32' - 10.6".

All Game (GAM), Vegetables(FPV & FPL) and Vegetation (VGT), are management audit samples.' They are not required by the Salem & Hope Creek Stations' Tech Specs nor listed in the StatiQn's ODCM. Vegetable samples are not always collected in consecutive years from the same farmer since they rotate the type of crop they grow.

MAP B-i SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERA TING STATIONS.ý-

RADIOLOGICAL ENWRONMENTAL MONITORING "PROGRAM, ON-SITE SAMPLING LOCATIONS 16.- .2 :

151 iSl - 2S43 16S1 HOPE CREEK GENERATING S2, STATION13,

• * ,,. * *MET

-,. .*,.TO W ER 9

55

MAP B-2 SALEM AND HOPE CREEK (HC) GENERATING STATIONS RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM OFF-SITE SAMPLING LOCATION 56

50L1- .2~ -

'NJI DATA TýABLES 4, :1 % ;4',4

-- 2

APPENDIX C DATA TABLES Appendix C presents the analytical results of the 2008 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for the period of January 1 to December 31, 2008.

TABLE NUMBER TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT AIR PARTICULATES C-1 2008 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Quarterly Composites of Air Particulates ................................................. 63 C-2 2008 Concentrations of Gross Beta Emitters in Air Particulates ...................... 64 AIR IODINE C-3 2008 Concentrations of Iodine-131 in Filtered Air........................................ ..... 66 DIRECT RADIATION THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETERS C-4 2008 Direct Radiation Measurements - Quarterly, TLD Results ....... ........... ......... 68 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT MILK C-5 2008 Concentrations of Iodine-131 and Gamma Emitters in Milk .......................... 69

.WELL WATER C-6 2008 Concentrations of Gross Alpha and Gross Beta Emitters, and Tritium in Well Water ............................................. ....... 71 C-7 2008 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters *in Well Water................................... 72 59

DATA TABLES (cont'd.)

TABLE NUMBER TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE TERRESTRIAL'ENVIRONMENT (cont'd)

POTABLE WATER C-8 2008 Concentrations of Gross Alpha and Gross Beta Emitters, and Tritium in Raw and Treated Potable W aters ................................................... 73 C-9 2008 Concentrations of Iodine 131 and Gamma Emitters in Raw and Treated Potable Water......................................................................... ........ 74 FOOD PRODUCTS C-10 2008 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Vegetables ...................................... 75 FODDER CROPS C-1 1 2008 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Fodder Crops ..................... 76 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT SURFACE WATER C-1 2 2008 Concentrations of Gross Beta Emitters in Surface Water ...... ............. 77 C-1 3 2008 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Surface Water .................... 78 C-14 2008 Concentrations of Tritium in Quarterly Composites of Surface Water ...................... .................................... 80 EDIBLE FISH C-15 2008 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Edible Fish ............................... 81 BLUE CRABS C-16 2008 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Crabs ............................. .82 SEDIMENT C-17 2008 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Sediment ......................................... 83 60

DATA TABLES (cont'd.)

-TABLE TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER SPECIALUTABLES LLDs C-18 2008 PSEG Maplewood Testing Services' LLDs for Gamma S pectroscopy ............. .................. . . . ...... ... . ...................... 84........

84 r;

." *.. ':i v'" *' }" , -*, ; %.: .:. -.. :,. . . * ' .. "t 61

Table C-1 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS*

IN QUARTERLY COMPOSITES OF AIR PARTICULATES Results in Units of 10-3 pCi/m 3 +/-2 sigma STATION Sampling Period Gamma Emitters ----- >

ID Start Stop Be-7 K-40 RANAT SA-APT-5S1 12/26/2007 to 3/31/2008 70+/-4 10+/-2 <0.4 SA-APT-1F1 12/26/2007 to 3/31/2008 71+/-4 10+/-3 <0.5 SA-APT-2F6 12/26/2007 to 3/31/2008 .75+/-4 16+/-3 <0.6 SA-APT-5D1 12/26/2007 to K 3/31/2008 74+/-4 12+/-3 <0.3 SA-APT-16E1 12/26/2007 to 3/31/2008 65+/-4 14+/-4 *<0.6 SA-APT-14G1(C) 12/26/2007 to 3/31/2008 70+/-4 -11+/-2 <0.4 SA-APT-5S1 3/31/2008 to 6/30/2008 91+/-5 11+/-2 <0.3 SA-APT-1F1 3/31/2008 to 6/30/2008 89+/-5 12+/-3 <0.5 SA-APT-2F6 3/31/2008 . to 6/30/2008 102+/-5 13+/-3 1.1+/-0.3 SA-APT-5D1 3/3112008 to 6/30/2008 92+/-5 13+/-3 0.8+/-0.3 SA-APT-16E1 3/31(2008 to 6/30/2008 . 94+/-5 17+/-4 <-ý0.6 SA-APT-14G1(C) 3/31/2008 to 6/30/2008 95+/-5 10+/-2 <0.3 SA-APT-5S1 6/30/2008 to 9/29/2008 101+/-5 8+/-3 <0.3 SA-APT-1 F1 6/30/2008 to 9/29/2008 .88+/-5 11+/-2 <0.3 SA-APT-2F6 .6/30/2008 to 9/29/2008 101+/-5 12+/-3 <3.4 SA-APT-5D1 6/30/2008 to 9/29/2008 87+/-5 8+/-3 <0.3 SA-APT-16E1 6/30/2008 to 9/29/2008 100+/-5 10+/-2 <0.3 SA-APT-14G1(C) 6/30/2008 to 9/29/2008 94+/-5 11+/-3 .<0.3 SA-APT-5S1 9/29/2009 to 12/29/2008 65+/-5 10+/-3 <0.3.

• SA-APT-1F1' 9/29/2009 to 12/29/2008. 64+/-4 8+/-2 <0.2 SA-APT-2F6. 9/29/2009'. to 12/29/2008 66+/-5 12+/-3 -1+/-0.3 SA-APT-5D1 9/29/2009 to 12/29/2008 63+/-4 12+/-3 <0.3 SA-APT-16E1 9/29/2009 to 12/29/2008 63+/-4 9+/-3 <0.3 SA-APT-14G1(C) 9/29/2009 to 12/29/2008 62+/-4 8+/-2 <0.2 AVERAGE 81+/-29 11+/-4

• AllIother gamma emitters searched for were <LLD; typical LLDs are given in Table C-18.

(C) Control Station.

63

-TABLE C-2 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GROSS BETA EMITTERS IN AIR PARTICULATES Results in Units of .1o3 pCi/ra3 +I-2sigma

-- '-<---"....- STATIONID ----------

Control

,MONTH SA-APT-14G1 SA-APT-16E1 SA-APT-IF1 SA-APT.-2F6 SA-APT-5D1 SA-APT-5S1 AVERAGE January 32+/-2 29+/-2 28+/-2 26+/-2 24+/-2 31+/-2 28+/-7 28+/-3 27+/-2 26+/-2 25+/-2 26+/-2 28+/-2 27+/-2 14+/-2 15+/-2 14+/-2 (1) 13+/-2 14+/-2 14+/-1 23+/-2 23+/-2 23+/-2 24+/-2 20+/-2 23+/-2 23+/ 28+/-2 31+/-3 29+/-2 30+/-2 28+/-2 33+/-2 30+/-4 February 32+/-2 35+/-3 38+/-2 34+/-2 33+/-2 26+/-2 33+/-8 23+/-2 20+/-2 22+/-2 21+/-2 1.8+/-2 23+/-2 21+/-4 2312 23+/-2 26+/-2 25+/-2 24+/-2 21+/-2 24+/-3 15+/-2 21+/-2 22+/-2 21+/-2 19+/-2 20+/-2 20+/-5 March 22+/-2 19+/-2 25+/-2 22+/-2 21+/-2 24+/-2 22+/-4 21+/-2 26+/-2 21+/-2 20+/-2 18+/-2 '(2) 20+/-3

]7+/-7 51+/-4 51+/-4 50+/-4 53+/-4 51+/-4 44+/-36 21+/-2 19:+/-2 22+/-2 2,1+/-2 24+/-2 26+/-3 22+/-5 21+/-2 24+/-2 24+/-2 23+/-2 24+/-2 25+/-2 24+/-3 April 14+/-2 14+/-2 12+/-2 13+/-2 15+/-2 14+/-2 13+/-2

'9+/-2 8+/-2; 10+/-2 9£+/-2 7+/-2 ,8+/-2 9+/-2 24+/-2 25+/-2 25+/-2 25+/-2 25+/-2 27+/-2 25+/-2 24+/-2 23+/-2 27+/-2 25+/-2 23+/-2 24+/-2 24+/-3 May 22+/-2 20+/-2 24+/-2 23+/-2 22+/-2 24+/-2 22+/-3 16+/-2 19+/-2 22+/-2 19+/-2 1,6+/-2 20+/-2 19+/-5 13+/-2 16+/-2 17+/-2 16+/-2 15+/-2 16+/-2 15+/-2 13+/-2 14+/-2 15+/-2 12+/-2 11+/-2 17+/-2 13+/-4 19+/ 20+/-2 19+/-2 20+/-2 .18+/-2 20+/-2 19+/-1 June 16+/-2 15+/-2 13+/-2 15+/-2 14+/-2 14+/-2 14+/-2 29+/-2 23+/-2 29+/-2 27+/-2 25+/-2 25+/-2 26+/-5 18+/-2 20+/-2 19+/-2 17+/-2 17+/-2 20+/-2 18+/-3 23+/-2 22+/-2 23+/-3 26+/-3 20+/-2 24+/-3 23+/-4

TABLE C-2 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GROSS BETA EMITTERS IN AIR PARTICULATES Results in Units of 10,3 pCi/M3 +/- 2 sigma

<-.---------------------------- -.--- STATION ID -------

Control MONTH SA-APT-14G1 SA-APT-16E1 SA-APT-1F1 SA-APT-2F6 SA-APT-5D1 SA-APT-5S1 AVERAGE July 19+/-2 18+/-2 19+/-2 1,8+/-2 16+/-2 18+/-2 18+/-2 22+/-2 20+/-2 21+/-2 1,9+/-2 18+/-2 24+/-2 21+/-5 29+/-2 25+/-2 30+/-2 28+/-2 25+/-2 28+/-2 28+/-4 23+/-2 23+/-2 19+/-2 25+/-2 19+/-2 26+/-3 22+/-6 August 28+/-2 30+/-2 29+/-2 27+/-2 21+/-2 35+/-3 28+/-9 23+/-2 17+/-2 19+/-2 25+/-2 1ý7+/-2 22+/-2 21+/-6 26+/-2 24+/-2 24+/-2 26+/-2 22W2 2-7+/-2 25+/-3 25+/-2 21+/-2 23+/-2 27+/-2 21+/-2 25+/-2 23+/-5 23+/-2 19+/-2 21+/-2 23+/-2 20+/-2 21+/-2 21+/-3 September 22+/-2 26+/-3 24+,3 20+/-2 26+/-3 24+/-5.

.16+/-2 18+/-2 18+/-2 17+/-2 13+/-2 18+/-2 22+/-2 16+/-2 '1.9+/-6 16+/-2 18+/-2 22+/-2 23+/-2 15+/-2 15+/-2, 19+/-2 21+/-2 16++/-2 17+/-2 17ý+/-5 October 20+/-2 22+/-2 23+/-2 26+/-2 21+/-2 28+/-2 23+/-6 47+/-3 54+/ 54+/-3 57+/-3 28+/-2 48+/-3 48+/-21 27+/-2 27+/-2 29+/-3 26+/-2 27+/-2 30+/-2 27+/-3 19+/-2 16+/-2 *-16+/-2 18+/-3 13+/-2 17+/-2 17+/-4 19+/-2 24+/-2 22+/-2 20+/-2 20+/-2 26+/-2 22+/-6 November 16+/-2 15+/-2 18+/-2 19+/-2 *15+/-2 -18+/-2 17+/-4 18+/-2

,9+/-2 .7+/-2 8+/-2 10+/-2 8+/-2 29+/-2 17+/-2 1-9+/-2 24+/-2 ,16+/-2 19+/-2 21+/-1,0 17+/-2 16+/-2 22+/-2 1:8+/-2 18+/-2 20+/-2 19+/-4 December :16+/-2 1:8+/ -21+/ ..20+/-2

>1'i8+/-3

'15+/ 15+/-2. 15+/-2 18+/-2 16+/-2 (2) 16+/-2 15+/-2 -15+/-2 15+/-2 18+/-2 16+/-2 17+/-2 16+/-3

":....30+/-2 "(2)2+/- ....

31+/ 31+/-2-" 29+/-2 . '33+/-2'" ..31"+/-2 22+/-16 23+/-16 23+/-16. 20+/-14 22+/-14 22+/-14 AVERAGE 22+/-16 ',, *

.GRANDýAVERAGE 22+/-15 (1) Equipment malfunction; results not included in averages: See program deviations.

(2) Power outage; results not included in averages. See program deviations.

TABLE C-3 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF IODINE-131* IN FILTERED AIR 3

'Resuts in Units of 10 pCilm STATION ID------------- -.--.-----------.--------

Control MONTH SA-AIO-14G1 SA-AIO-16E1 SA-A1O-1 F1 SA-A.O-2F6 SA-AIQ-5D1 SA-AIO-5S1 January <3.4 <3.8 <2.4 <7 <1.7 <3.5

<8.2

<2.6 <2 <2.4 <4.6 <2.2

<4.5 <4.8 <5.8 (1) <11.5 <6.7

<1.8 <1.8 <3 <4.5 <4.5 <2.8

<3.9 <2.5 <2.2 <2.3 <6.3 <4.2 February <3.3 <2.8 <3.4 <5.4 <1.5 <2.4

<3.5 <2.2 <2.8 <2 <2:6 <6

<2.3 <3.9 <1.3 <1.3 <1.7 <3.2

<2.7 <2.5 <4.1 <5.6 <3.6 <2.7 March <2.6 <3.5 <1.7 <4.4 <2 <1.3

<2.4 <1.6 <2.5 <3.6 <8.5 (2)

0) <1.8 <6.8 <2.9 <1.8 <4.2 <2.7

<4.5 <7.9 <3.5 <5.8 <3.1 <2

<3.7 <3.1 <5.9 <2.4 <5.3 <2.6 April <3.9 <3.2 <2 <3.7 <4.9 <2.8

<1.1 <4* <5.7 <5.9 <5.7 <1.4

<5.4 <5 <1.7 <3.A <4.7 <6.9

<ý4.4 <2.4 '<2 <2.7 <2.3 <3.2 May <7.9 <3.1 <3.3 <2.4 <2.7 <7

<2.4 <7.7 <5.3 <3.2 <2.1 <2.3

<2.3 <237 <2.6 <2.4 <3.2 <4.8

<1.2 <1.8 <4.2 <4.8 <2.2 <2.1

<3.1

<4 <3.4 <3.2 <5.1 <3.7 June <1.4 <2.6 <2.9 <1.3 <4.3 <4.8

<3.9 <1.5 <2.5 <1.7 <1.5 <1.9

<4.5 <2.6 <2.7 <1.9 <1.6 <4.3

<3 <1.5 <3.4 <5.7. ,<3.7 <2.4

TABLE C-3 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF IODINE-131* IN FILTERED AIR 3

Results in Units of 10-3 pCi/m

< ---------.-.----------------.- STATION ID Control MONTH SA-AIO-14GI SA-AIO-16E1 SA-AIO-1F1 SA-AIO-2F6 SA-AIO-SD1 SA-AIO-5S1 July <1 <3.9 <2 <4.9 <0. 1 </-.Z

<6.7 <2.6 <2.3 <3.8 <4.4 <3.4

<3.6 <2.7 <1.5 <3.6 <4.7 <4

<1.6 <2 <3.6 <2.7 <6.2 <3.4 August <6.9 <3.9 <2.9 <6.6 <3.4 <1.9

<3.2 <2.9 <1.7 <2.5 <1.9 <3.8

<2.5 <3.3 <3.3 <3.5 <3 <2.3

<4.5 k3.1 <1.9 <1.8 <2.4 <2.8

<3.3  !<3:1 <1.7 <2.t1 <2.5 <1.6

<7.7 <2.3 <3.7 - <3.1 September <2.6 <5.2

<2.7 <1.9 <3.7 <1.4 <2.3 <2.8

<3 <3.8 <2'6 <2.8 <2.4 <316

<5.4 <:3'

<2.7 <1.7 <3.2 <1.7 October <2.4 <4.1 <6.2 <2.1 <4.8 <2.7

<1.4 <2.5 <6.1 <4.4 <1.6 <2.3

<1.9 <ý5.8 <6.4 <5.5 <2.2 <2.8

<5.1 <2.8 <5.1 <5.7 <2.5

<4.5

<1.8 <2.9 0 <1t6 <3 <2.5 November <3.3 <3.9 <4.4 <2.9 <3.8. <2

<3.1

<2 <2.3 <2.6 <3.7 <3.2.

<2.2 <2.6 <5.1 ,<4.8 <3.5 <3.2

<7.9 -<5 <2.5 <3.1 <2.1

<2.1 December <3.5 <2.6 <3 <2.5

<1.9 <2.4 <3.3 <3.5 -(2)

<3

<212 <42.83 S<4 <1.8 <2.2 <3.9 <4.3 (2)

• 1-131 results are corrected for decay to sample stopý date.!

(1) Equipment malfunction: See program deviations..

.(2) Power Outages: See program deviations.

TABLE C-4 2008 DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENTS - QUARTERLY TLD RESULTS Results in mrad/standard month* +1-2 sigma JAN APR JUL' Oct QTR

-STATION ",'to- to to to ELEMENTS JD . MAR JUN SEP DEC AVG SA-IDM-2S2 4.5+/-0.4, 5.3+/-0.7 5.4+/-0.4 5.7+/-0.7 5.2+/-1.0 SA-IDM-5S1 3.1+/-0.4 3.6+/-0.4 3.5+/-0.5 4.1+/-0:4 3.6+/-0.8 SA-IDM-6S2 5.6+/-0.7 5.2+/-0.4 5.2+/-0.5 5.8+/-0.5 5.3+/-0.7 SA-IDM-7S1 5.1+/-0.5 5.7+/-0.8 5.7+/-0.5 5.9+/-0.6 5.6+/-0.7 SA-IDM-10SI 3.3+/-0.5 3.7+/-0.4 3.6+/-0.5 4.2-0.5 3.7+/-0.7 SA-IDM-11Si 2.9+/-0.3 3.6+/-0.5 3.3+/-0.4 - 4.0+/-0.7. 3.4:0.9 SA-IDM-4D2 4.1+/-0.3 4.6+/-0.4 4.50160 4.80.5 4.5+/-0.6 SA-IDM-5D1 3.5+/-0.4 4.1+/-0.5 4.0_0.99 4.6:0.5 4.1+/-0.9 SA-IDM-10Di 4.110.3 4.7+/-0.5 4:9+/-0.5 5.2+/-0.5 4.7+/-0.9 SA-IDM-14D1 3.5+/-0.3, 4.3+/-0.4., 4.3.0.7 4.6+/-0.7 4.2+/-0.9 SA-IDM-151D1 4.2+/-0.5 " 4.7+/-0.4 4.8+/-0.5 5.2+/-0.5 4.7+/-0.8 SA-IDM-2E1 3.8+/-0.3 4.5+/-0.5 4.3+/-'0.4 4.6+/-0.5 4.13+/-0.8 SA-IDM-3E1 3.1+/-0.4 3.7+/-0.5 3.6&0.4 3.9+/-0.4 3.6+/-0.7 SA-IDM-9F1 4.2+/-0.6 4.9+/-0.8 5.0+/-0.* 5.6+/-0.7 4.9+/-1.2 SA-IDM-1 1E2 4.1+/-0.4 4.6+/-0.6 4.7+/-0.4 5.1+/-0.6 4.6+/-0.9 SA-IDM-.12E1 4.2+/-0.41" 4.7+/-0.6 50+/-0.5' 4.9+/-0.6 4:7+/-0.7 SA-IDM-13E1 3.1*0.4 3.7+/-0.4, 3.8+/-0,5 4.1+/-0.5, 3.7+/-0.8 SA-IDM-16E1 4.0+/-0.4 4.5+/-0.5 4.6+/-0.6' 4.9i0.5 4.5+/-0.8 SA-IDM-IFl-' 5.1+/-0.4, 5.7+/-0.5 6.0+/-0.6 6.3+/-0.7 5.8+/-1.0 SA-IDM-2F2 3.463.5: 3.8+/-.0.4 3.6+/-0.6 4.0+/-0.4 3.7+/-0.5 SA-IDM-2F5 4.5+/-0.6 4.5i0.6 * -,4.9+/-0.5 4.5+/-0.7 4:0+/-0.6 SA-IDM-2F6 3.7+/-0.3 4.1+/-0.4 4.0+/-0.3 .4.5+/-0.4 4.1+/-0.6 SA-IDM-3F2 3.8+/-0.5 3.4+/-0.3 3.8+/-0.6 4.3+/-0.6 3.9+/-0.7 SA-IDM-3F3 3.3+/-0.3 4.1+/-0.4, 3.8§+/-0.4 4.2+/-0.6 3.9+/-0.8 3.7+/-!0.4" 4.0+/-0.7 SA-IDM-4F2 3.3-0.4 .3.5+/-0.4. 3:6+/-0,7 SA-IDM-5F! 3.5+/-0.4 4.1+/-0.4, 4.3+/-0.4 4.0+/-0.7 SA-IDM-6F1 2.9+/-0.3 3.2+/-0.4 3.2+/-0.4 3.8-0.4 3.3+/-0.7 SA-IDM-7F2 2.6+/-0.2 3.1+/-0.3 4.0+/-0.5 3.0+/-0.3 3.4+/-0.4 3.0+/-0.7 SA-IDM-10F2 319+/-0.4 4.5+/-0.5 4. 9+/-0.4 5:0+/-0.5 4.6+/-1.0 SA-IDM.I 1F1 4.3+/-0:4, 4.7+/-0.6 4.9+/-0.5 5.1+/-0.5 4.8:+/-0.7 SA-IDM-12F1 3:9+/-0.4 4.5+/-0.,5 4.5.+/-0.5 4:8+/-0.5 4,4+/-0.7 SA-IDM-13F2 3.9+/-0.4 4.2+/-0.4 4.6+/-0.4. 5.1+/-0.6 4.4+/-1.1 SA-IDM-1 3F3 3,8+/-0.4 4.3+/-0.5 4.9+/-0.5; 4.4+/-0.9 SA-IDM-13F4 5:0+/-0.5 5.3+/-0.5 4.4+/-0.7.' 4.9+/-0.7 '4.9+/-0.8 SA-IDM-IqF2 4.1+/-0.5 4.8+/-0.6 49'+/-0.4 5.2+/-0.6, 4.7+/-0.9 SA-IDM-15F3 4.5+/-0.4 5.0+/-0.5 5.2+/-0.6 5.4+/-0.5 5.0+/-0.8 4.0+/-0.4 4.16r.O.5' SA-IDM-.16F2 3.5+/-0ý0.5 4.0+/-0.4 4.3+/-0.4, 4.0+/-0.6

'5.8+/-:0.7 SA-IDM-1G3 (C) 4.9+/-0.6. 5.4+/-0.6 3.4+/-0.5 5.4+/-0.7' SA-IDM-3G1 (C) 4.0+/-0.5: 4.7+/-0.6 4.6+/-0.5 5.1+/-0.6 4.6+/-0.9 SA-IDM-10GI(C) 3.7+/-0.5 4.3+/-0.4 4.4+/-0.4 4.7+/-0.5 4.3+/-0.8 4.1i.*0.5° SA-IDM-16G1(C) 3.7+/-0.5 4.3+/-0.5 4.5i0.4* 4.2.W0.7.

SA-IDM-3H1 (C) 3.3+/-0.3 3.6+/-0.3 3:.5+/-.4. 4.22+/-ý--05 3.7+/-0.7 5.0+0.6' SA-IDM-1Si 4.1+/-0.4 4.5+/-0.4 5.5+/-0.6 4.8+/-1.2 3.4+/-L0.4 SA-IDM-3S1 3.0+/-0.3 3.3+/-0.5 3.8+/-0.4 3.4+/-0.7 SA-IDM-2S4 3.7+/-0.3 4.1+/-0.5 4.6+/-0.4 4.1+/-0.7 SA-IDM-4S1 3.5+/-0.4 4.1+/-0.5 4.6+/-0.5 4.1+/-0.9 SA-IDM-1551 3.2+/-0.4, 3.6+/-0.3 3.5+/-0.5 3.9+/-0.4 3.5+/-0.6 SA-IDM-16S1 3.8+/-0.3 4.2+/-0.4. 4.2+/-0.4 4.6+/-0.5 4.2+/-0.7 SA-IDM-14G1(C) 4.1+/-0.5 4.6+/-0.4 4.8+/-0.7 5.3+/-1.2 4.7+/-1.1 AVERAGE 3.8+/-1.2 4.3+/-1.2 4.4+/-1.4 4.7+/-1.3 GRAND AVG 4.3+/-1.4 The standard month = 30.4 days.

Quarterly Element TLD results by AREVA - NP Environmental Laboratory.

(C) Control Station 68

TABLE C-5 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF IODINE-131* AND GAMMA EMITTERS* IN MILK Results in Units.of .pCi/L +12 sigma ,

SAMPLING PERIOD. <---- GAMMA EMITTERS ---- >

STATION ID START STOP 1-13!:: K-40, , RA-NAT SA-MLK-2G3 1/7/2008 1/8/2008 <0.2 1350 +/-70 11 +/-4.

SA-MLK-13E3 1/7/2008 1/8/2008 <0.3' 1310+/- 69 <4.1 SA-MLK-14F4 1/7/2008 1/8/2008 <0.2 1280 +/-74 <3.8 .

SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 1/7/2008 1/8/2008 <0.2' 1310 174 <3.1ý

<5..*

SA-MLK-2G3 2/3/2008 2/4/2008 <0.3 1310 +/-72 SA-MLK-13E3 2/4/2008 2/4/2008 <0.2 1360 +/-73 <3.4.

SA-MLK-14F4 2/3/2008 2/4/2008 <0.2:. 1280 +/-66 <3.8 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 2/3/2008 2/4/2008. <0.2 1260 +/-67. <4.6 SA-MLK-2G3 3/2/2008 3/3/2008, <0.2 1230 +/-70 <4.7

<2.9 ,

SA-MLK-1 3E3 3/2/2008 3/3/2008 <0.2 1330 +/-72 SA-MLK-14F4 3/2/2008 3/3/2008 <0.3 1330 +/-71 <35 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 3/2/2008 3/3/2008 <0.3. 1240 +/-73 SA-MLK-2G3 4/6/2008 4/7/2008 <0.2 1260 +/-74,.. <3.2 SA-MLK-1 3E3. 4/6/2008 4f7i20p8 <0.2 1400 +/-75 416/2008 4/7/.2008 1280 +/-78 '<3.6

<3,8 SA-MLK-14F4 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 4/6/2Q08 4/7/2008 <0.2

<0. 1" 1280 +/-72 <344 SA-MLK-2G3 4/20/2008 4/21/2008- 1340 +/-74 <36.3 '

SA-MLK-13E3 4/20/2008 4/21/2008 <0.3; 1450 +/-76,. <3.8 SA-MLK-14F4 4/20/2008 4/2T/2008 <0.2 1440 +/-70 <3.72-SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 4/20/2008 4/21/2008 <0.1 1330 +/-69! <4.4

• <5.1 SA-MLK72G3 5/4/2008 5/51/2008 <0.3 13606+/-74 SA-MLK-13E3 5/4/2008 5/5/2008. <0.2 1430 +/-76 SA-MLK-14F4 5/4/2008 5/5/2008, <0.3:' 1390 +/-73 <4.2 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 5/5/2008' <0.1 1280 +/-64 5/18/2008 SA-MLK-2G3 5/18/2008 5/19/2008 <0.1 1386 +/-74' <3.1

<3.6.

SA-MLK-13E3 5/18/2008 5/19/2008 <0.2 1360 +/-70 ,<3'.5 'i SA-MLK-14F4 5/18/2008 5/19/20DB <0.21 1340 +/-68

<2.9 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 5/19/2008 <0.1 1330 +/-72 6/1/2008 .<6.2" .

SA-MLK-2G3 6/1/2008 6/2/2008 1360 +/-74 SA-MLK-13E3 6/1/2008 6/2/20086' <0.2, 1300 +/-72 SA-MLK-14F4 6/2/2008 <0.2 1390+/-*70'  ::<3.9 .:,;

6/112008 5:3.1!",*..

SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 6/2/2008 <0.3 1200 +/-70 <2.9 6115/2008 Si<3.7:, -

SA-MLK-2G3, 6/1l5/2008 6/16/2008 1340 +/-70,

<0.2 SA-MLK-1 3E3 6/15/2008 6/1 o/208 <0.2' 1270 +/-95

" <2.9. .

SA-MLK-14F4 6/15/2008 6/16/2008 <0.2 1460'+/-75 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 6/16/2008 <0i3 1250+/-69 7/6/2008 , <3.2, :.

SA-MLK-2G3 7/6/2008 7/7-20081 <0.2 1360 ,;74

. <3.5,.

SA-MLK-13E3 7/6/2008 7/7/2008 <0.2 14206+/-72 SA-MLK-14G3 (1) 7/7/2008 <0.3 1390 +/-69 <3.4 7/6/2008 <3 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 7/7/2008 <0.2 1220 +/-72 7/20/2008 <3*6 SA-MLK-2G3 '7/20/2008 7/21/2008 1370 +/-72 SA-MLK-i3E3 7/21/2008 <0.2** 1380 +/-69 <2.9 7/20/2008 SA-MLK-14G3 (1) 7/21/2008 <0.2 1330 +/-73 <2.8 7/20/2008 <2.9 SA-MLK-3G1I(C) 7121/2008 <0.2 1230 +/-67 69

TABLE C-5 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF IODINE-131* AND GAMMA EMITTERS** IN MILK Resultsin Units of pCi/L +1- 2 sigma SAMPLING PERIOD <--- GAMMA EMITTERS ---- >

.STATION ID START STOP 1-131 K-40 RA-NAT SA-MLK-2G3 8/3/2008 8/4/2008 <0.3 1290 +/-75 <3.3 SA-MLK-13E3 8/3/2008 -8/4/2008 <0.2 1380 +/-76 <2.9 SA-MLK-14G3 (1), 8/3/2008 8/4/2008 <0.2 1370 +/-69 <3.1 SA-MLK-3G1,(C) . 803/2008- :8/4/2008 .... <0,. 1260 +/-72 .<2.9 SA-MLK-2G3 8/17/2008 8/18/2008 <0.2 1380 +/-70 <3.6 SA-MLK-13E3 8/17/2008 8/18/2008 *<0.2 1300 +/-75 <3 SA-MLK-14G3 (1) 8/17/2008 8/18/2008 <0.2 1320 +/-74 <2.9 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 8/17/2008 .8/18/2008 <0.2 1300 +/-70 <2.9 SA-MLK-2G3 9/1/2008 9/2/2008 <0.2 1230 +/-72 <3.4 SA-MLK-13E3 9/1/2008 9/2/2008 <0.2 1370 +/-69 <3.1 SA-MLK-14G3 (1) 9/1/2008 9/2/2008 <0.3 1120 +/-89 <3 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 9/2/2008 9/3/2008  !<0.3 +/-1390 72 <2.9 SA-MLK-2G3 9/14/2008 9/15/2008 <0.2 1290 +/-69 <3.2

• SA-MLK-13E3 9/14/2008 '9/15/2008 -<0.2 1430+/-71 <3 SA-MLK-14G3 (1) 9/14/2008 9/15/2008 <0.2 1390 +/-74 <3.1 SA-MLK-3G1 (C),: 9/14/2008 .9/15/2008 <0.2 1270 +/-72 <3.3 SA-MLK-2G3 10/5/2008 10/6/2008 <0.2 1400 +/-73 <2.9 SA-MLK-13E3 10/5/2008 10/6/2008 ýý<0.2 '..1370 +/-74 <3:3 SA-MLK-14G3 (1) 10/5/2008 10/6/2008 <0.3 1370 +/-76 <3 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 10/5/2008 10/6/2008 <0.2 1360 +/-73 <3 SA-MLK-2G3 10/19/2008 10/20/2008 <0.3 1360 +/-71 <3.2 SA-MLK-13E3 10/20/2008 10/20/2008 <0.2 1290 +/-71 <3.3 SA-MLK-14G3 (1) 10/19/2008 10/20/2008 <0.3 1290 +/-72 <2.8 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 10/19/2008 10/20/2008 <0.2 1330 +/-74 <3.1 SA-MLK-2G3 11/2/2008 11/3/2008 <0.2 1300 +/-73 <3.1 SA-MLK-13E3 11/2/2008, 11/3/2008 -<0.2 ,1310 +/-74 <3.3 SA-MLK-14G3 (1) 11/2/2008 11/3/2008 <0.2 1270 +/-68 <2.9 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 11/2/2008 11/3/2008 <0.2 1390 +/-75 <2.4 SA-MLK-2G3 11/16/2008 11/17/2008 <0.2 1280 +/-71 <3.3 SA-MLK-13E3 11/16/2008 11/17/2008 <0.2 1310 +/-73 <2.5 SA-MLK-14G3 (1) 11/16/2008 11/17/2008 <0.3 1330 +/-72 <3.1 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 11/16/2008 11/17/2008 <0.2 1270 +/-66 <3.2 SA-MLK-2G3 11/30/2008 -12/1/2008 <0.2 1470 +/-77 <2.7 SA-MLK-13E3 11/30/2008 12/1/2008 <0.3 1390 +/-68 <2.9 SA-MLK-14G3 (1) 11/30/2008 12/1/2008 <0.2 1310 +/-74 <3.4 SA-MLK-3G1 (C) 12/1/2008 12/1/2008 <0.2 1390 +/-74 <3.1 AVERAGE - 1330+/-130

• Iodine-1 31 results are corrected for decay to stop date of collection period & analyzed to an LLD of 1.0 pCi/L.

• • All other gamma emitters searched for were <LLD; typical LLDs are given in Table C-19 Monthly sample collected during Jan., Feb., March and Dec., when animals are not on pasture.

(C) Control Station (1) Location 14F4 had the barn & milking shed burn down the last week of June. Most of his cows were sent to Location 14G3 where we collected a sample from July through December.

70

TABLE C-6 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GROSS ALPHA AND GROSS BETA EMITTERS, AND TRITIUM IN WEILLVWA6TEki* f(Ground Water)..

Results in Units of pClL,**-2sigma..-

SAMPLING GROSS  :.'. GROSS STATION ID DATE ALPHA BETA TRITIUM 1/i28/2008 SA-WWA-3E1 <1.2 "--"11+/-0.9 <155 SA-WWA-3E1 2/25/2008 1+/-0.7 -,8:4+/-0.9 <142 .,

SA-VWVA-3E1 3/31/2008 .<0.8 .10+/-0.9. <142 SA-WWA-3E1 4/28/2008 .<0.8 A'1+/-1.1 <141 SA-WwA-3E1 5/27t2008 .<0.9 12+/-1 <139 SA-WWA-3E1 6/25/2008 <0.5 8.9+/-0.9 <143".

SA-WWA-3E1 7/28/2008 .1+/-1 <134 SA-WWA-3E1I 8/25/2008 <1 10+/-1.1 <134:'

SA-WWA-3E1 9/29/2008 "<1  : 10+0.9 . <143 SA-WWA-3E1 10/25/2009 <1.1 10+/-1 <142 SA-WWA-3E1 11/24/2008 '.0.9 10+/-0.9 <139 SA-WWA-3E1 12/29/2008 <0.5 10+/-1 <140 AVERAGE - 10+/-2

• Management Audit Sample: not required by ODCM.

71

TABLE C-7 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS* IN WELL WATER**

Results in Units of pCi/L +/- 2 sigma

<---GAMMA EMITTERS -- >

STATION ID DATE K-40 RA-NAT SA-WWiA-3E1 1/28/2008 <18- 176+/-7 SA-WW'A-3E1 2/25/2008 <17 159+/-4 SA-WWVA-3E1 3/27/2008 <19 153+/-6 SA-WWA-3E1 4/28/2008 <16 254+/-8 SA-VWWA-3E 1 5/27/2008 <20 68+/-4 SA-WWA-3E1 6/25/2008 <26 66+/-4 SA-WWNA-3E1 7/28/2008 ,.48+/-19 162+/-4 8/25/2008 SA-WWA-3E1 <38 .118+/-5 SA-\WVA-3E1 9/29/2008. <32 98+/-4 SA-WNA-3E I 10/25/2008 <25,. 114+/-4 SA-WWA-3E1 11/24/2008 <15 99+/-3 SA-WWNA-3E1 12/29/2008 61+/-17 185+/-5 AVERAGE 138+/-109

• All other gamma emitters searched for were <LLD; typical LLDs are given in Table C-18.

• • Management Audit Samples: not required by ODCM.

72

TABLE -C-8 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GROSS ALPHA AND GROSS BETA EMITTERS AND TRITIUM IN RAW AND TREATED POTABLE WATER (2F3)*

Results in Units of pCi/L +/- 2 sigma SAMPLING TGROSS, GROSS-.',

TYPE PERIOD ALPHA BETA TRITIUM.

RAW 1/1-31/2008 <0.5 2.7+/-0.5 <155 TREATED 1/1-31/2008 <0.5 2.4+/-0.5 <150 RAW 2/1-28/2008 <0.4' 3.1+/-0.6 <139 TREATED 2/1-28/2008 <0.6 3.5+/-0.7, <140 .

.RAW 3/1-31/2008 <0.4 2.6+/-0.5 <143 TREATED 3/1-31/2008 <0,5 2:9+/-0:6 <143 RAW 4/1-30/2008 <0.4 3.2+/-0.7 <141 TREATED 4/1-30/2008 <0.6 3.5+/-0.7 <143 RAW 5/1-31/2008 <0.4 3.1+/-0.6 <139 TREATED 5/1-31/2008 <0.6 2.8+/-0.6 <140 RAW 6/1-30/2008 0.4+/-0.3 2+/-0.5 <134 TREATED 6/1-30/2008 <0.3 2.6+/-0.6 <143.._ .

RAW 7/1-31/2008 0.5+/-0.4 2.5+/-0.61 <134 TREATED 7/1-31/2008 <0.4 1.9+/-0.5 <134 RAW 8/1-31/2008 <0.5 2.9+/-0.8 <136 TREATED 8/1-31/2008 <0.6 3.1+/-0.8 <135 RAW 9/1-30/2008 <0.5 2.4+/-0.6 <142 TREATED 9/1-30/2008 . <0.5 2.2+/-0.5, <143 RAW 10/1-31/2008 <0.5 2.7+/-0.6 <141 TREATED 10/1-31/2008 <0.5 2.2+/-0.6 <142

.RAW 11/1-30/2008 <0.4 2.1+/-0.5 <142 TREATED 11/1-30/2008 <0.6 2.8+/-0.6 <144 RAW 12/1-31/2008 0.6+/-0.3 3+/-0.6 <142 TREATED 12/1-31/2008 <0.3 2.6+/-0.6 <141 AVERAGE RAW 2.7+/-0.8 TREATED - 2.7+/-1 -

GRAND AVERAGE 2.7+/-0.9

• Managemnent Audit Sample: not required by ODCM.

73

TABLE C-9 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF IODINE-131* AND GAMMA EMITTERS**

IN RAW AND TREATED POTABLE WATER (2F3)***

Results in Units of pCi/L +1-2 sigma SAMPLING <--GAMMA EMITTERS --- >

TYPE PERIOD 1-131 K-40 RA-NAT RAW 1/1-31/2008 <0.1 <16 9+/-3 TREATED 1/1-31/2008 .: .'<0.2 <18 <2.6 RAW 2/1-28/2008 <0.3 30+/-14 <2.2 TREATED 2/1-28/2008 <0.2 57+/-16 <2.1 RAW 3/1-31/2008 <0.3 <15 <2.1 TREATED 3/1-31/2008  ;<0.2 -50+/-16 3+/-1 RAW 4/1-30/2008 <0.2

.. <0.2 51+/-15 <2 TREATED 4/1-30/2008 43+/-15 5+/-2 RAW 5/1-31/2008 <0.2 .50+/-14 <1.8 TREATED .5/1-31/2008 28+/-10 <2 RAW 6/1-30/2008 <0.1 50+/-16 <4.2 TREATED 6/1-30/2008 <0.1 <15 21+/-3 RAW .7/1-31/2008 - -<0.2. <16 <2.4 TREATED 7/1-31/2008 <0.2 <10 <1.8 RAW - 8/1-31/2008 <0.2 -.8+/-3 <2.5 TREATED 8/1-31/2008 -' <0.3  :<14, <2 RAW 9/1-30/2008 '.5<0.2 57+/-18 . <3 TREATED 9/1-30/2008 * <0.2 <16 <2 RAW 10/1 -31/2008 <0.2 41+/-13 <2.3 TREATED 10/1-31/2008 m<0.3 57+/-16 <2.1

-... 43+/-15 RAW ..11/1-30/2008 <0.3 <1.7 TREATED 11/1-30/2008 o<0.1 " 40+/-15 <1.5 RAW 12/1-31/2008 <0.2  ;. "53+/-14  :<1.7 TREATED 12/1-31/2008 .<0.3 <15 .24+2 AVERAGES RAW 36+/-36 TREATED 36+/-30 GRAND AVERAGE 33+/-36

• Iodine-131 analyzed to an LLD of 1.0 pCi/L.

• • All other gamma emitters searched for were <LLD; typical LLDs are given in Table C-1 8 Management Audit Sample: not required by ODCM.

74

TABLE C-10 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS*- IN VEGETABLES**

Results in Units ofpCi/kg (Wet) +/-.2 sigma SAMPLING <---.GAMMA EMITTERS --- >

-STATION ID DATE SAMPLE TYPE K-40 RA-NAT SA-FPV-2F9 5/3/2008 Asparagus 1860+/-148 <8.3 SA-FPV-2G2 (C) 5/3/208 Asparagus 2060+/-184 *<7.3

'<13 SA-FPL-3H5 (C) 4/30/2008 Asparagus 2160+/-188 AVERAGE 2030+/-310 SA-FPL-3H5 (C) 7/25/2008 PCabbage 1850+/-160 <8.9 AVERAGE 1850+/-1 60 SA-FPV-2F9 7/26/2008 Ctorn 2090+/-142 <9.8 7/26/2008 <57.2 SA-FPV-2F10 Corn 2110+/-159 SA-FPV-3F6 8/3/2008 Corn 2090+/-149 <51 SA-FPV-2G2 (C) 7/19/2008 Corn 2140+/-153 <7.7 8/712008 * ' Corn 2150+/-163 <8.3 SA-FPV-9G2 (C)

SA-FPV-3H5 (C) 7/19/2008 torn 2190+/-159 .<8.2 SA-FPV-15F4 7/11/2008 .Com 2270+/-159 <8.4 AVERAGE 2150+/-130 7/26/2008 SA-FPV-2F9 Peppers 1620+/-151 <10 SA-FPV-2F9 8/3/2008 Peppers 1410+/-148 <8.8 SA-FPV-2F10 7/26/2008 :Peppers 1370+/-147 <9.8 SA-FPV-3F7 7/27/2008 Peppers 1550+/-146 <9.3 SA-FPV-2G2 (C) 7/19/2008 Peppers 1430+/-145 <8.1 SA-FPV-9G2 (C) 8/7/2008 Peppers -1750+/-149 <7.8 SA-FPV-3H5 (C) 7/19/2008 Peppers 1380+/-139 AVERAGE A1500+/-290 SA-FPV-2F10 7/26/2008 -...Tomatoes 1710+/-121 <6.1 SA-FPV-3F6 7/27/2008 Tomatoes 2210+/-154 <6.6 SA-FPV-3F7 7/27/2008 Tomatoes ,2420+/-165 <7.8 SA-FPV-2G2 (C) 7/19/2008 Tomatoes ."2240+/-164 SA-FPV-2G4 (C) 7/27/2008- Tomatoes 1830+/-140 <7 SA-FPV-9G1 (C) 8/3/2008 Tomatoes 1930+/-152 <7.8 SA-FPV-3H5 (C) 7/19/2008 Tomatoes 1900+/-145 <8.2 SA-FPV-15F4 8/3/2008 Tomatoes 2020+/-143 <7.6 SA-FPV-2F9 7/26/2008 7Tomatoes 2620+/-162 <6.4 AVERAGE 2100+/-590 GRAND AVERAGE 1940+/-660

• All other gamma emitters searched for were <LLD; typical LLDs are given in Table C-l8.

Management Audit Sample: not required by ODCM.

(C) Control Station 75

TABLE C-11 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS* IN FODDER CROPS **

Results in Units of pCi/kg (wet) +1-2 sigma SAMPLING <------ GAMMA EMITTERS ---------

STATION ID DATE SAMPLE TYPE Be-7 K-40 RA-NAT SA-VGT- 1S 1 12/18/2008 Ornamental Cabbage <62 3280+/-253 <12 SA-VGT- 10D1 12/18/2008 Ornamental Cabbage 167+/-53 2420+/-227 <12 SA-VGT-15S1 12/18/2008. Ornamental Cabbage- <60 2300+/-204 <12 SA-VGT-16S1 12/18/2008 Ornamental Cabbage <92 2970+/-233 <12 AVERAGE 2740+/-920 SA-VGT-2G3 10/1-11/17/08 Silage 255+/-52.2 3060+/-210 <6.4 SA-VGT-3G1 (C): 10/1-11/17/08 Silage  ? 137+/-33.8 2030+/-107 <5.3 SA-VGT-1 3E3 10/1-11/17/08 -Silage 142+/-37 1 3220+/-169 <6:2 SA-VGT-1 4G3 10/1-11/17/08 Silage 231+/-30.4 1970+/-91 <3.6 AVERAGE 190+/-120 2770+/-1290 SA-VGT-14F4 10/17/2008 Soybeans .<26.5 16200+/-285 <12 SA-VGT-3G1 (C) 11/28/2008 Soybeans <75.7 13100+/-262 11+/-5 AVERAGE - 14700+/-4384

• All other gamma emitters searched for were <LLD; typical LLDs are given in Table C-1 8.

• • Management Audit Sample: not required by ODCM.

(C) Control Station 76

TABLE C-1 2 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GROSS BETA EMITTERS IN SURFACE WATER Results in Units of pCi/L +/- 2 sigma

---

STATION ID --------------------- --------- >

SAMPLING SA-SWA-11A1 SA-SWA-12C1 SA-SWA-16F1 SA-SWA-1F2 SA-SWA-7E1 AVERAGE DATE (Control)

January 87+/-8 67+/-7 42+/-5 21+/-4* 146+/-11 73+/-96 February 84+/-8 43+/-5 34+/-6 18+/-4 91+/-8 54+/-64 March 63+/-7 51+/-6 51+/-6 8+/-4 90+/-9 53+/-59 April 43+/-5 24+/-4 14+/-4 0104 78+/-7 34+/-56 May 79+/-8 50+/-6 42+/-6 . '.28+/-5 134+/-11 67+/-83 June 56+/-7 38+/-6 33+/-6 20+/-5 114+/-10 52+/-73 July 121+/-10 66+/-7 61+/-7 31+/-5 164+/-13 88+/-106 August 116+/-10 72+/-8 51+/-6 46+/-6 186+/-15 94+/-116 September 292+/-t22 125+/-12 88+/-10 330+/-28 193+/-220 October 234+/-17 119+/-10 102+/-9 77+/-8 302+/-22 167+/-193 November 262+/-24 158+/-18 144+/-17 '94+/-14 212+/-21 174+/-129 December 79+/-10 60+/-9 -46+/-8 37+/-8 89+/-11 ;62+/-44 AVERAGE 126+/-172 73+/-81 62+/-81 40+/-60 161+/-167 GRANDIAVEAGE *92+/-148

TABLE C-13 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS* IN SURFACE WATER Results in Units of pCiIL +/-2 sigma SAMPLING <------GAMMA EMITTERS----->

STAT!ON ID DATE K-40 RA-NAT SA-SWA-1 F2 1/7/2008 75+/-18 <2.7 SA-SWA-7E1 1/7/2008 160+/-20 6.4+/-3 SA-SWA-1I1Al lf7/2008 86+/-16 <2.7 SA-SWA-12C1 (C) 1/7/2008 97+/-17 <2.6 SA-SWA-16Fl 1/7/2008 93+/-18 <2.3 SA-SWA-1 F2 2/4/2008 ' 76+/-18 <5.2 SA-SWA-7E1 -. 2/4/2008 92+/-18 <2.6 SA-SWA-1 1A1 2/4/2008 113+/-22 <2.2 "83+/-16 SA-SWA-12C1 (C) 2/4/2008 <2.1 SA-SWA-16F1 2/4/2008 61+/-16 <2.3 SA-SWA-1 F2 3/3/2008 61.+/-19 <2.8 SA-SWA-7E1 3/3/2008 <2.2 SA-SWA-1i Al .3/3/2008 55+/-19 <2.2 SA-SWA-12Cl(C) 3/3/2008 .66+/-16 <2 SA-SWA-16F1 3/3/2008 52+/-17 <2.5 SA-SWA-1 F2 4i8/2008 1i+/-15 <1.9 SA-SWA-7E1 4/8/2008 1 109+/-18 <2.3 SA-SWA-i1Al 4/8/2008 95+/-15 <3 SA-SWA-12C1 (C) 4/8/2008 61+/-17 <1.9 SA-SWA-16F1 4/8/2008 51+/-12 <2.2 SA-SWA-1 F2 5/5/2008 .59+/-17 <1.7 SA-SWA-7E1 5/5/2008 121+/-22 <1.9 SA-SWA- 11AI 5/5/2008 103+/-20 <5.6 SA-SWA-12C1(C) 515/2008 77+/-17 <2.2 SA-SWA-16F1 .5/5/2008 71+/-16 <2.1 SA-SWA-1 F2 6/5/2008 56+/-12 <1.8 SA-SWA-7E1 6/5/2008 109+/-21 <1.7 SA-SWA-11A1 6/5/2008 90+/-15 <2.2 SA-SWA-12C1(C) 6/5/2008 69+/-15 6.1+/-1 SA-SWA-16F1 6/5/2008 65+/-16 <2.1 SA.-SWA-1 F2 7/7/2008 89+/-17 <2.4 SA-SWA-7E1 7/7/2008 89+/-19 <2 SA-SWA-1i Al 7/7/2008 120+/-21 <1.7 SA-SWA-12C1 (C) 7/7/2008 71+/-16 <6.6 SA-SWA-16F1 7/7/2008 80+/-19 <1.7 78

TABLE C-13 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS* IN SURFACE WATER Results in.Units of pCi/L +/÷ 2 sigma

-SAMPLING. -- '--GAMMA EMITTERS----->

STATION ID DATE . -40 RA-NAT SA-SWA-1 F2 8/4/2008 87+/-20 <1.7.

SA-SWA-7E1 8/4/2008 157+/-20

• ..94+20 SA-SWA-1 1A1 8/4/2008 <21 SA-SWA-12C1 (C) 8/4/2008 :88+/-17 SA-SWA-16F1 8/4/2008 61+/-18 <2128 SA-SWA-1 F2 .,,9/2/2008 126+/-16 SA-SWA-7E1 .912/2008 125+/-21 SA-SWA- 11A1 ... 9/2/2008 .128+/-22

.....11.0+/-18 SA-SWA-12C1(C) 9/2/2008

.,<1.7.

SA-SWA-16F1 ...9/2/2008 81+/-16 SA-SWA-1F2 10!7/2008 67+/-18 SA-SWA-7E1 -. 0/7/2008 128+/-21 <1.8 SA-SWA- 11A1 . .0/7/2008

,1 166+/-24

• !;"79+/-22 1.6...,

j .

SA-SWA-12C1 (C) j11/7/2008 SA-SWA-16Fl 10/7/2008 1:13+/-18 SA-SWA-1 F2 _11/7/2008 . 80+/-19 .. .<1.7.

SA-SWA-7E1 11/7/2008 .. ...ý,-138+/-241 1.86+/-22 = <1.7*

SA-SWA-11 Al ".1117/2008

• 11/7/2008 115+/-18 SA-SWA-12C1 (C) . <2 4

,- 11/7/2008 91+/-19 SA-SWA-16F1

,. <2.4.

SA-SWA-1 F2: 12/3/2008 . 43+/-14 i <2 2!

SA-SWA-7E1 S12/3/2008 92+/-18 <2.

SA-SWA-11A1i 12/3/2008 89+/-20 SA-SWA-12C1 (C) 12/3/2008

'12/3/2008 SA-SWA-16F1 ",60+/-15 AVERAGE 91+/-62

• All other gamma emitters searched for were <LLD; typical LLDs are given-in Table C-18 (C) Control.Station 79

TABLE C-14 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF TRITIUM IN SURFACE WATER Results in Units of pCi/L +/- 2 sigma

< ------------------------------------------ STATION ID --------------- -

SAMPLING SA-SWA-11A1 SA-SWA-12C1 SA-SWA-16F1 SA-SWA-1F2. SA-SWA-7E1 AVERAGE PERIOD (Control)

January <140 <140 <140 .<140', <140 February <140 <140 <140 <140' <140 March <140 <140 <140 <140 <140 April <140 . <140 <140 <140 <140 0o C) May <150 <150 <150 <150 <150 June <150 <140 <140 <150 <140 July <140 <140 <140 <1.40 <140 AugUst <130 <130 <130 <130 <130 September <130 <130 <130 <130 <130 October <135 <150 <140 <140 <140 November 150+/-90 210+/-90 <140 <140 <i40 December <140 <140 <140 140+/-80 <130

TABLE C-15 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS** IN EDIBLE FISH Results in Units of pCi/kg (wet) +/- 2 sigma GAMMA EMITTERS (FLESH)

SAMPLING STATION ID PERIOD K-40 SA-ESF-7E1 6/5/2008 3600+/-200 SA-ESF- 11A1 6/5/2008 3320+/-180 -

SA-ESF-12C1 (C). 6/5-6/2008 3540+/-190 AVERAGE 3490+/-290 SA-ESF-7E1 9/4/2008 3730+/-200 SA-ESF-11A1 '9/10-10/08/08 3720+/-200 SA-ESF-12C1 (C) 9/4/2008 3770+/-190 AVERAGE 3740+/-50 GRAND AVERAGE 3610+/-340

• • All other gamma emitters-searched for were <LLD; typical LLDs are given in Table C-18 (C) Control Station 81

TABLE C-16 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS* IN CRABS Results in Units of pCi/kg (wet) +1-2 sigma

<--- GAMMA EMITTERS --- >

SAMPOING -(FLESH)

STATION.ID PERIOD- K40 RANAT SA-ECH-11AI 6123-710112008: 2460+/-160 16+/-6 SA-ECH-12C1 (C) 6/23-7/011/2008 2530+/-150 24+/-10 AVERAGE 2500+/-100 .20+/-10 SA-ECH-11A1 8/28-9/02/20( )8 2600+/-170 <7.8 SA.-ECH-12C1 (C) 8/28-9/02/2r, 38 2690+/-180 <8 AVERAGE 2650+/-130 G'GRAND AVERAGE 2570+/-200

• All other gamma emitters searched for were <LLD; Typical LLDs are giver Table C-18..

(C) Control Station 82

TABLE C-17 2008 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS* IN SEDIMENT Results in Units of pCi/kg (dry) +/-2sigma SAMPLING . ...

STATION ID DATE Be-7 K-40 Co-60 Cs-i 37 RA-NAT Th-232 SA-ESS-6S2 .,6/9/20.08. ...<54: , , '242+/-11 688+/-20 277+/-26 SA-ESS-7E1 5/30/2008 233+/-99 12400+/-337 <29 <20 838+/-56

.5/30/2008 *-<7.9 <4.7 321+/-11 .355+/-28 SA-ESS-1 WA .<35,.. 2090+/-123

-',<7.1 <14. 359114 532+/-46 SA-ESS-1 5A1 5/30/2008 157+/-68 4920+/-243.

SA-ESS-16A1 5/30/2008 <90 5520+/-199 <6.1 <12 574+/-15 734+/-47 SA-ESS-12C1 (C) 5/30/2008 <*63 11900+/-323 <9.3 <12 p1670+/-20 .897+/-55 SA-ESS-16F1 5/30/2008 <128 6780+/-217 <11 <7.4 280+/-12  ::360+/-30 AVERAGE 6500-+/-8500 - .450+/-380 570+/-510 SA-ESS-6S2 11/24/2008 *308+/-55; 3040+/-141 <4.6 <3.8 121+/-7.7 301+/-22 SA-ESS-7E1 11/20/2008 <69 11800+/-352 <14 <27 663+/-25 859+/-72 SA-ESS-11A1 11/20/2008 <67 5500+/-237 <17 <9.7 342+/-14 446+/-40

"<60* -' <15 ' 262+11 409+/-32 SA-ESS-1 5A1 11/20/2008 4450+/-198 <7.6 SA-ESS-16A1 11/20/2008 <67 4550+/-207 <16 <6.4 813+/-18 958+/-44 SA-ESS-12C1 (C) 11/20/2008 <35 7230+/-196, <12. <6.6 246+/-9.1 443+/-34 SA-ESS-16F1 11/20/2008 <112 8470+/-280 <8.1 <27 374+/-14 487+/-39 AVERAGE 6400+/-6000 400+/-490 560+/-500 GRAND AVERAGE 6500+/-7100 430+/-430 560+/-480

• All other gamma emitters searched for were <LLD; typical LLDs are given in Table C-18 (C) Control Station 83

TABLE C-18' 2008 MAPLEWOOD TESTING SERVICES LLDs FOR-GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY SAMPLE TYPE: < --------..-- AIR---.------- > <----------...WATER -------  :-> < ---- MILK --------

IODINE PARTICULATES GAMMA SCAN IODINE GAMMA SCAN IODINE ACTIVITY: 10-3 pCi/m3 . 10-3.pCi/m3 pCi/[LU pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L GEOMETRY: 47 ML .13 FILTERS ."3:5 LITERS 100 ML, 3.5 LITERS 100 ML.,-'

COUNT TIME: 120 MINS 500 MINS 1000 MINS 1000 MINS 500 MINS 1000 MINS DELAY TO COUNT: 2 DAYS 5 DAYS 7 DAYS 3 DAYS 2 DAYS 2 DAYS NUCLIDES BE-7 2.0 12 - 18 NA-22 - 0.32 "1.6 - 6.0 K-40 9 "34 - 32 CR-51 1.6 11 - 20 MN-54 - 0.36 1.2 - 3.2 CO-58 " 0.31 2.2 '2.9 FE-59 - 0.78 2.7 - 9.8 CO-60 0.28 2.6 - 5.9 -

ZN-65 - 0.54 3.6 17 ZRNB-95 - 0.54 3.2 - 3.9 MO-99 38 86 - 15 RU-103 0.30 1.2 - 1.6 RU-106 2.8 15 - 28 AG-110M 0.39 2.2 - 3.i SB- 125 0.86 2.8 - 4.8 TE- 129M 12 60 - 87 1-131 8.5 0.68 2.9 0.33 3.1 0.33 TE-132 2.3 5 - 9.8 BA-133 -'0.24 1.2 - 1.9 CS-134 0.30 0.9 - .. 2.4 CS-136 0.36 3.2 - 2.1 CS-137 0.35 1.1 - 3.2 -

BALA-140 1.3 7.6 - .5.3 CE-141 - 0.20 3.0 - 3.2 CE-144 - 0.70 7.5 - 4.4 -

RA-NAT - 1.10 :6.6 - 5.1 TH-232 1.2 10.0 - 14 84

TABLE C-18 (Cont'd) 2008 MAPLEWOOD TESTING SERVICES&

LLDs FOR GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY 7,-

SAMPLE TYPE: FOOD PRODUCTS ':;VEGETATION FISHi & CRAB SEDIMENT.

GAMMA SCAN GAMMA SCAN - GAMMA. SCAN GAMMA SCAN ACTIVITY: pCi/kg WET pCi/kg WET pCi/kg WET. pCi/kg DRY GEOMETRY: 500 ml 3.5LITER "500 ml 500 ml COUNT TIME: 500 MINS 500 MINS 500 MINS 500 MINS DELAY TO COUNT: 3 DAYS *7DAYS 5 DAYS 30 DAYS NUCLIDES BE-7 92 75' 75 128 NA-22 .8.9 18 -9ý9 24 K-40 70 32 55 55-.

CR-51 55 , 25 74 99 MN-54 10 10 .4.7 14 CO-58 5.6 -7.5 6.6 7.8 FE-59 20 . ,16 14 24 CO-60 . 22 16 .15 .29 ZN-65 20 .:25 13 .. 19 ZRNB-95 18 6.8 10-. 34 MO-99 251 6 227 206 90500 RU-103 6.5 ,4.2 - 6.7 14 RU-106 65 ,36 , 38 68 AG-IIOM 10 '.'12 .9.209 SB-125 18 .. 8.1 14 24 TE-129M 328 .210 229 575.

1-131 7.9 6.3 ,,. 104.80 10 TE-132 23 7.8 12 4030 BA-133 7.3 .3.6 - 13.0 14.0 CS-134 6.4 -3.7 ,. .3.8 7 CS-136 8.9 4.0 ,.. 34 40 CS-137 24 5.8 - . 12 27 BALA-140 30 23 , 97 139 CE-141 7.7 .. 4.6 9.0 19 CE-144 - 32 18 18 40 RA-NAT 13 .12 24 5.0 TH-232 73 39 . 44 8.1 85

APPENDIX D

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS FROM ANALYTICS, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, AND AREVA E - LAB INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAMS 87

APPENDIX D

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS FOR ANALYTICS, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, AND AREVA E-LAB INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM Appendix D presents a summary of the analytical results for the 2008 Analytics and Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) Interlaboratory Comparison Program plus the TLD QA Data for AREVA E-LAB.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE NO. TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE D-1 Analytics Results: Gross Alpha/Beta in Water, Gross Beta 91 in Air Particulate filters, Iodine in Air Samples, and Tritium in Water Samples D-2 Analytics Results: Gamma Emitters in Water and Milk 92 Samples D-3 Analytics Results: Gamma Emitters in Air Particulate and 93 Soil Samples D-4 ERA Results: Gamma Emitters in Water, Gross Alpha/Beta 94 in Water, Tritium Analysis in Water, and Iodine Analysis in Water Samples D-5 Percentage of Individual TLD Results That Passed 95 AREVA- E-Lab Internal Criteria D-6 Third Party TLD Testing Performance Criteria 95 89

TABLE D-1 RESULTS FOR ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSS CHECK PROGRAM Gross Alpha and Gross Beta Emitters In Water (pCi/L), Iodine In Air Samples (pCi/m 3 ),

Gross Beta In Air Particulate Filter (pCi/m 3 ) And Tritium Analysis In Water (pCi/L)

MTS MTS Ratio Date Sample Sample Reported Known MTS/

MM-YY Code Media Nuclide Value Value Resolution Analytics Evaluation 03-2008 B683 APT Beta 83.7 71 60 1.18 Acceptable 03-2008 H684 WAT H-3 4078 4010 60 1.02 Acceptable 03-2008 1687 A1O 1-131 60.7 60 60 1.01 Acceptable 06-2008 B691 APT Beta 41 42 60 0.98 Acceptable 06-2008 AB692 WAT Alpha 158.5 194 60 0.82 Acceptable Beta 191.6 169 60 1.13 Acceptable 06-2008 1693 A1O 1-131 80.1 85 21 0.95 Acceptable 06-2008 H695 WAT H-3 13084 13000 60 1.01. Acceptable 09-2008 1698 AIO 1-131 91.5 89 60 1.03 Acceptable 09-2008 H700 WAT H-3 11161 11400 60 0.98 Acceptable 09-2008 AB701 WAT Alpha 143 152 60 0.94 Acceptable Beta 169 134 60 1.26 Disagree 12-2008 AB706 WAT Alpha 52 . 114 60 0.46 Disagree Beta 228 204 60 1.12 Acceptable 12-2008 1707 AIO 1-131 54 54 60 1.01 Acceptable 12-2008 H705 WAT H-3 10194 10200 60 1.00 Acceptable 12-2008 B709 APT Beta 127 119 60 1.07 Acceptable 91

TABLE D-2 RESULTS FOR ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSS CHECK PROGRAM Gamma Emitters in Water And Milk (pCi/L)

MTS MTS Ratio.

Date Sample Sample Reported . Known MTS/

MM-YY Code Media Nuclide Value. Value Resolution Analytics Evaluation 03-2008 G685 WAT Cr-51 290 286.0 60 ,1.01 Acceptable Mn-54 84.0 75.0 60 1.12 Acceptable Co-58 59 ,56 63 1.04 Acceptable Fe-59 88.0 81* 60 1.08 Acceptable Co-60 190 188 60 1.01 Acceptable Zn-65 116 109 60 1.07 Acceptable 1-131 71 70 60 1.00 Acceptable Cs-134 .94 100 60 0.94 Acceptable Cs-137 121 116 60 1.04 Acceptable Ce-141 199 198 60 1.01 Acceptable 03-2008 G688 MILK Cr-51 361'.3 359; eo 1.01 Acceptable Mn-54 103.3 94 60 1.10 Acceptable Co-58 72.4 71 . . 0 1.02 Acceptable Fe-59 110:3 102 60 1.08 Acceptable Co-60 240.7 235 60 1.02 Acceptable Zn-65 146.7 137. 60 1.07 Acceptable 1-131 60.3 60 60 1.00 Acceptable CS-134 " 117.3 25 60 0.94 Acceptable Cs-137 .151.0 146 60 1.03 Acceptable Ce-141 249.3 249 60 1.00 Acceptable 12-2008 G708 WAT. Cr-51 303 288, 60 1.05 Acceptable Mn-54 181 -178= 60 1.02 Acceptable

' . . .Co-58 12.7 122 60 1.04 Acceptable Fe-59 124 117 60 1.06 Acceptable SCo-60 160 156 60 1.02 Acceptable Zn-65 219 214. 60 1.02 Acceptable 1-131 64 . 64 . 60 0.99 Acceptable Cs-134 148 157 60 0.94 Acceptable Cs-137 . 138 140 60 0.99 Acceptable Ce-141 228 224 60 1.02 Acceptable 92

TABLE.D-3 RESULTS FOR ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL.CROSS CHECK PROGRAM Gamma Emitters in Soil (pCi/g-dry,*.-And: Air Particulate Samples (pCi/m )

MTS MTS .,Ratib Date Sample "Sample Reported .Known .... MTS/..

MM-YY Code Media Nuclide Value Value Resolution: Analytics Evaluation 03-2008 G686 Soil Cr-51 -0.509 . 0:516- :99W Acceptable Mn-54 0-f54 . 0136 60 1.13 Acceptable

-o-58 .. 0.107..- 1 ...... 60 .1 05 Acceptable Fe-59 0.161,. 0.147" 60 1.10 Acceptable Co-60 -0.334 .3 . 60 0.98 :Acceptable

.:"'Zn-65 0.199 0' 600-197 1.01 - Acceptable Cs-134 0.162 . 0.180 60'. . 0:90 ... Acceptable Cs-137 01307 -.. 321 . 60: 1:05 Aceptable Ce-141 . 02345 . .358 60 0 96. Acceptable-06-2008 G694 - APT' Cr-5t 185.145 60 1 27 Disagree.

MI-54 ....... 184W 142 60 1.30 Disagree

.C58 . 78 .......... 65 60 120 Acceptable Fe-59 1,25. ........ 96 :60 130 Disagree Co-60 . 124: 109 . -.ý_61 . 1.14 Acceptable Zn-65 1647 133 . 60 1.23 Acceptable Cs-134 77. . 60 .. 0.95 -Acceptable Cs-1 37 148 A122 .60- 1.22 'Acceptable Ce-141 216 . 183 60:- 118 . Acceptable

÷ "

.I. ..... * * ;.--* .......... 1 .- ...........  ;. *. . . .. . .. .. . . . .. .

09-2008 G699 SOIL Cr-51 0.82f ....... 0.833 60 . 0.99 Acceptable Mn-54 . . 36 . 0.329. 60 ".-. -1.10 Acceptable Co-58 . .0.364 . .0.3.53 . 60 ...... 03 Acceptable Fe-59 0.304 0.286 " .,60 1.06 Acceptable CO-60 0.453 0.464 ......... 60 0.98 Acceptable Zn-65 0'639 0.632 . .. . 60 1.01 Acceptable Cs-134 0.424 .459 '60 0.92 Acceptable

..- 137. 0.433 ........ 0.416 60 1.04 Acceptable Ce-141 ' .0.324

.319 64: 1.02 Acceptable 93

TABLE D-4 RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOCIATES (ERA) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM Gamma Emitters in Water (pCi/L), Gross Aipha and Beta in Water (pCi/L), Iodine-131 Analysis in Water (pCi/L), and Tritium in Water (pCi/L),

MTS MTS ERA Date Sample Sample Reported Assigned Acceptance MM-YY Code Media -Nuclide - Value Value Limits. Evaluation 01-2008 AB682 WAT Alpha 13:9 14.8 7.15-21.2 Acceptable Beta 21.1 22.5 13.7-30.6 Acceptable 04-2008 H690' WAT H-3 ' -1 94 6 12000 10400- 13200 Acceptable 04-2008 1689 WAT 1-131 29.4 28.7 13.9-33.6 Acceptable 07-2008 G697 WAT Ba-133 46.1 -. 46.6 38.1-51.8 Acceptable Co-060 . 28.7 25.7, .22.3-31 ,, , Acceptable Cs-134 . 88.3. 93.2 . 75.6-102.0 Acceptable Cs-137, '.55.3 . 54'6 49.1L62.9 Acceptable Zn-65 106.7 98.8 88.8-118.0 Acceptable 7-2008 AB696 WAT Alpha 19.8 30.7 15.7-40.0 Acceptable Beta 24.8 25.8 16.1-33.7 Acceptable 10-2008 AB703 WAT Alpha 17:8 26.9 13.6-35.5 Acceptable Beta 32.8 38 25.1-45.5 Acceptable 12-2008 1702 WAT .1-131 30 28.1 23.4-33.0 Acceptable 12-2008 H704 WAT H-3 2220.3 2220 1830-2460 Acceptable 94

TABLE D-5.,;-

PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL TLD RESULTS THAT PASSED AREVA E-LAB INTERNAL CRITERIA'!.

Dosimeter Type .. Number  % Passed Bias  % Passed Precision

_ _ 'Tested Criteria Criteria Panasonic Environmental TLDs 90 100 100 THIRD PARTY TLD TESTING PERFORMANCE CRITERIA.....

Dosimeter Type Exposure ANSI Category  % (Bias +SD)

• Period Panasonic Environmental-TLDs FH 2008 II 2.7 +/- 1.0 Panasonic Environmental TLDs. SH2008 II +-1.1/

114

• Performance criteria "arethe same-as the Internaltcriteria.

95

APPENDIX E SYNOPSIS OF LAND USE CENSUS 97

APPENDIX E SYNOPSIS OF 2008 LAND USE CENSUS A land use census was conducted in each of the 16 meteorological sectors to identify,

-within a -distance of 8 km (5 miles), the location of the nearest milk animal, the nearest residence, -and the nearest garden of greater than 50m2 (500ft ) producing broad leaf vegetation. In accordance with Salem and Hope Creek ODCMs the census was performed using a door to door survey, visual survey and by consulting with local agriculture authorities.

Milk Nearest Vegetable Animal ,Residence

• Garden Meteorological July, 2008 'July, 2008 July, 2008 Sector XKm(miles) Km (miles) Km (miles)

N None None None

'-NNE None None None NE None -6.4 (4.0) *7.8(4.9)

ENE None: U52 (3.6) None E None None None ESE None None None SE. None None "None SSE None None None

,S 'None 'None None SSW None 5.5 (3.4) None SW None 6.9*(4.3) 7.1 (4.4)

WSW None 7.1 (4.4) 7:1 (4.4)

W 7.8(4.9) 6.5 (4.0) None WNW None -5.5 (3.4) None NW 5.9 (3.7)

None None NNW 6.8 (4.2)

None None N'

The 2008 Land Use Census results are summarized in the above table. A comparison of the identified locations from the'2008 table with the 2007 table shows that no new nearest milk animal, nearest resident, or nearest vegetable garden (500 Ft2 ) with broadleaf vegetation were identified. Therefore, no formal dose evaluation or changes to the ODCMs are required.

'99,

APPENDIX F RADIOLOGICAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM (RGPP) 101

2008 Radiological Groundwater Protection Program (RGPP)

Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 105 II. GROUNDWATER PATHWAYS ................................ ..... 106 A. O BJECTIVES FOR THE RG PP .............................................................................................. 16........................

106 III. LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ........ 107 A. SAM PLE C OLLECTION ............................................................................................................................. 107 B. SA MPLE A N A LY SIS ...................................................................................................................................... 108 C. D ATA E V ALU ATIO N ..................................................................................................................................... 109 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 112 A. G ROUNDW ATER RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 112 B. INVESTIGATION S................................................................................................................................. ........ 115 C. R G PP 2008 STATUS ...................................................................................................................................... 117 D. IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER: PAST SPILLS AND LEAKS ....................................... 118 V. REFERENCES .......................................... . ........ ................................... 118 Tables I Hope Creek.RGPP Monitoring Wells: Construction Details 2 Salem RGPP Monitoring Wells: Construction Details 3 Relevant Groundwater Evaluation Criteria: Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 4A Analytical Results for Tritium in Groundwater: Hope Creek Generating Station 4B Analytical Results for Tritium in Groundwater: Salem Generating Station 5 Salem and Hope Creek 10CFR 50.75(g) Data Figures 1 Hope Creek RGPP Monitoring Well Locations 2 Salem RGPP Monitoring Well Locations 3 Hope Creek Tritium Trends: Wells BH, BI, BJ, BK, BM, BN 4 Salem Tritium Trends: Wells AL, BD, BE, BG, Z 103

I. Introduction This is the annual report on the status of the Radiological Groundwater Protection Program (RGPP) conducted at Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. This report covers the RGPP groundwater samples collected from the PSEG site in 2008. This report also describes any changes to this program and provides the radiochemical analysis results for groundwater samples collected during the 2008 reporting year. The 2006 PSEG Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (AREOR) was the first report that provided a description of theRGPP (PSEG, 2007). Both the 2006 and 2007 AREORs contained information and detailed descriptions of the RGPP in Appendix F.

This report contains a summary of the previous annual report description and the results of the 2008 long-term groundwater-sampling program.

The RGPP was initiated by PSEG in 2006 to determine whether groundwater at and in the vicinity of Salem and HopeCreek Stations had been adversely impacted by any releases of radionuclides related to nuclear station operations. The RGPP is a voluntary program implemented by PSEG in conjunction with the nuclear industry initiatives and associated guidance (NEI, 2007). Although it is designed to be separate, the RGPP complements the existing Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program and Radioactive Effluent Technical Specification programs. The long-term groundwater-sampling program is one of the key elements of the RGPP that provides for early leak detection. The other key elements that comprise the RGPP and contribute to public safety are spill/leak prevention and effective remediation.

In 2002, operations personnel at Salem Generating Station identified a release of radioactive liquids from the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool to the environment. PSEG developed a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP). This RAWP was reviewed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and approved by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - Bureau of Nuclear Engineering (NJDEP-BNE). In accordance with the RAWP, a Groundwater Recovery System (GRS) has been installed 105

and is in operation to remove the groundwater containing tritium. This system was designed to reduce the migration of the tritium plume towards the plant boundary. The GRS is fully discussed in the quarterly Remedial Action Plan Reports (RAPR) provided to the state and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by PSEG. The information and data associated with the GRS is not Itcluded in the annual RGPP repots. It should be noted that five shared monitoring wells (Well IDs AL, T, U, Y and Z) are included in both the GRS monitoring and RGPP long-term sampling programs to ensure that the two programs are comprehensive.

II. Groundwater Pathways PSEG's Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stationss are located in a flat, largely undeveloped region of southern New Jersey. The Sites are bordered on the west and south by the Delaware River Estuary and on the east and north by extensive marshlands.

Both of the sites obtain cooling water from the Delaware River Estuary and discharge it back to this Estuary.

The two sites are underlain by over 1,000 ifeet. of inter-layered sand, silt and clay.

The Salem and Hope Creek sites derive potable and sanitary water from deep wells in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) formations, greater than 600 feet below the surface.

There, are no potable wells offiosite within at least one mile. The nearest potable supply Well is located 3;65. miles away.in the state of4Delaware. In the yicinit, of the site there is no public water supply wells-or private wells ,that can be impacted by radionuclides associated with nuclear station operations.

A. Objectives for the RGPP The long-term sampling program objectives are as follows:

1. Identify suitable locations to monitor and evaluate potential impacts from 106

station operations before significant radiological impact to the environment or potential drinking water sources can occur.

2. Understand the local hydro-geologic regime in the vicinity of the station and maintain up-to-date knowledge of flow patternson ,the surface and shallow subsurface.

3. Perform routine water sampling from strategic. locations and evaluate, radiochemical'analysis results.

4. Report new leaks, spills, or other detections with potential radiological significance to stakeholders in a timely manner..

5. Regularly eivaluate analytical; results. to.identify adverse trends,

6. Take necessary corrective actions to protect groundwater resources.

III. Long-term Groundwater.Sampling Program Description A. Sample Collection This section describes the general sampling methodologies usedto collect water samples from monitoring wells for the.Salem and Hopeý Creek Generating: Stations RGPP. In 2006. the RGPP monitoring wells (Tables I and 2, Monitoring Well Construction Details) were installed.-and developed -for both Salem and Hope Creek as part of the Site Tritium Investigation (ARCADIS, 2006A and 2006B).

Groundwater samples were collected from all new monitoring wells, as well as the five pre-existing wells located at Salem (AL, T, U, Y & Z). Test Engineers and Laboratory Technicians from PSEG Maplewood Testing Services (MTS) collected these groundwater samples. Sampling protocols were consistent with' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and NJDEP guidance; a 107

modified low-flow sampling methodology was used. This methodology is consistent with protocols established for the Salem GRS investigation. The initial groundwater sampling began approximately two weeks following the completion of well development activiies.

In May 2006, after the Site HydrologicalInvestigation was completed the long-term groundwater-sampling program was initiated. The Hope Creek RGPP monitoring wells are currently sampled semi-annually (BL, BT, BO, BP, BR and BS) and quarterly (BH, BI, BJ, BK, BM, BN and BQ). The Salem RGPP monitoring wells are currently sampled semi-annually (BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG and BU), quarterly (AL, T and U) and monthly (Y and Z). The sampling

'frequencies that are specified ýin the RGPP procedures may be modified by the PSEG RGPP Manager for purposes of adaptive management of the RGPP.

However, sampling and analysis shall not occur less frequently than semi annually. "

Two deviations occurred in the RGPP sampling program during 2008. The deviations were for Salem Well BC and Hope, Creek Well BN. The Salem monitoring well BC,-which is sampled semiannually, could not be sampled during the October 2008 sampling campaign due to a recent security modification. This modification prevented safe accessto~the well. This safety concern is being evaluated and the necessary cofrective actions will be taken.

The Hope Creek Well BN which is required to be sampled quarterly was not collected during the second quarter. This wvell location was thought to have a semi-annual'sampling frequency. A quarterly sampling frequency is appropriate for well BN because it's tritium concentrations are trending upward. Well BN will be sampled quarterly: in 2009.

B. Sample Analysis 108

This section describes the general analytical methodologies used to, analyze the water samples for radioactivity for the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations RGPP.. Groundwater samples were anaalyzed for plant-related gamma emitting radionuclides (every sample), tritium (eyery, sample) and total: strontium (annually) by a radiochemical analytical laboratory. In order to achieve the stated RGPP objectives, the long-term grpoundwater-sampling program includes the following measurements and. analyses:.

• Concentrationsof gamma emittingwradionuclides.in water by gamma spectroscopy... .

. Concentrations of tritium in:waterby,.filtration/distjllation and liquid scintillation. , .

• -Concentrations of strontium in water by chemical separation and liquid scintillation.

The tritium analysis resultsrrepnrted in Tables 4A and:4B were obtained from PSEG MTS laboratory located: in: Maplewood,, NJ .The gamma spectroscopy and total Sr analysis results are obtained fromTeledyne Brown Engineering (TBE)

Laboratory locatedin Knoxville; TN. Analytical .laboratories. are subject to internal quality assurance programs and inter-laboratory cross-check programs.,

The inter- laboratory, cross-check program for, the;RGPP, samples is conducted between the PSEG MTS laboratory ,and the TBE laboratory (tritium analysis only). Station personnel review and evaluate all analytical data deliverables obtained from these laboratories, upon receipt. -

C. Data Evaluation This section describes the method used to evaluate the analytical results for RGPP 109

samples obtained at the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations site.

Analytical data results are reviewed for adverse trends or anomalous data.

Investigations and notifications are made' as required by RGPP program procedures. The radiological data for groundwater collected during the preoperational phase of the stations were used as a baseline with which current operational data were compared. Several factors are important in the interpretation' and evaluation of the'radiological data:

1. Lower Limit of Detection.

The lower limit of detection (LLD) is specified by federal regulation as a minimum sensitivity value that must be achieved routinely by the analytical method. The'environmental LLD specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manuai (oDCM) for tritium is 3,000 pCi/L (ODCM Table 14.12-1 for Salem andrTabIe 14.12: 1-1 for Hope Creek). However, for the RGPP all tritium' anal yses are pertformed with the lower LLD of 200 pCi/L. All other nuclides Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDCs) meet or are below the LLDs specified in the ODCM. For 2008 RGPP, the analytical sensitivities for all analysis met or were below the LLDs specified in the ODCMs.

2. Laboratory Measurements Uncertainty Statistically, the exact value of a measurement is expressed as a range with a stated level of confidence. The convention isto report results with a 95% level of confidence. The uncertainty comes from the counting system measurement, calibration standards, sample volume or weight measurements, sampling uncertainty and other factors.

Analytical uncertainties are reported at the 95% confidence level in this RGPP report to be consistent with the uncertainties reported in the 110

AREOR for the RGPP.

3. Groundwater Data Ouality Analysis Groundwater samples generally consist of at least four aliquots. These split samples were either submitted to a laboratory or held as back up samples as described in the MTS .sampling procedures.

One of the groundwater samples is submitted to.the respective station's onsite chemistry laboratory for tritium and gamma spectroscopy analysis. If these scans indicated:that tritium concentrations is below 10,000 pCi/L and no. plant-related gamma emitters were present (all RGPP samples met this criteria), then the second sample is sent to the MTS Laboratory for tritium analysis. The. on-site Chemistrylaboratory's screening analysis for all 2008 RGPP groundwater samples were below 10,000 pCi/L for. tritium and no plant-related gamma emitters were present above the associated LLDs specified in the ODCM.

The third split sample is. submitted to the TBE Laboratory for tritium, gamma spectroscopy and total Sr analysis. During 2008, the tritium concentration results for those wells that had results above the minimum detectable concentrations were compared. ThePSEG MTS and TBE tritium results on split samples were found to have a relative percent difference within + 10%.

The forth split sample is held as a back-up samples until all the analytical..

results were received and determined to be valid. In the event that the results were believed to be questionable or sample results were lost, the back-up sample would be submitted for analysis. In addition, this back-up sample can be used to verify-a samples analytical result when needed.

111

IV. Results and Discussion The locations of the RGPP monitoring wells are illustrated on the aerial maps for Hope Creek and Salem in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The Monitoring Well Construction Details for Hope Creek and Salem are proyided in Tables I and 2, respectively.- The relevant groundwater parameters used to evaluate the groundwater data are provided in Table 3 Relevant Groundwater Evaluation, Criteria: Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations., The Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) is defined as the smallest concentration of radioactive material in asamnple that will yield a net count, above system, background, that will be detected with 95% probability with only 5% probability of falsely concluding that a blank observation represents a "real" signal. The Reporting Level is the level of plant produced radioactive material in an environmental sampling medimn (averaged over any calendar quarter) from a specified location-that requires a 30-day written report to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corianission. The 2008 Gro-andwater Tritium Analytical Results for Hope Creek Generating Station are shown in Table 4A. The 2008 Groundwater Tritium Analytical Results forSalem Generating Station are shown in Table 4B.ý During 2008, none of the groundwater sample results exceeded the Reporting Levels in Table 3. .

A. Groundwoaer R esults Samples were collected from RGPP monitoring wells duiing 2008 in accordance

'with the station and MTS proceduresfor the radiological groundwater protection program with the exception of Salem RGPP monitoring well:BC and BN. Well BC was sampled once instead of semiannually due to a safety concern associated with a recent Security Modification. This safety concern is beingeeValuated and the safety hazard will be moved back to allow safe access. The Well BN was not sampled during the second quarter. This well location was thought to have a 112

semi-annual sampling frequency. Well BN will be sampled quarterly in 2009.

The MTS. Laboratory in Maplewood, NJ analyzed the groundwater samples for tritium. TBE Laboratory in Knoxville, TN analyzed the groundwater samples for plant-related tritium, gamma emitters and total strontium. Analytical results and anomalies,, if any, are discussed below. ,

Tritium at Hope Creek Generating Station The results ofthe laboratory analysis indicate that tritium was detected, i.,e, reported at a concentration above the RGPP, LLD of 200.pCi/L, in six RGPP monitoring wells.. The tritium :.concentrations measured at .wellsBH, Bl,-BJ,.BK, BM, and BN ranged from'<200-pCi/L to 934 pCi/L during 2008..:

Tritium was detected at well BH: in the range of <200 pC.i/L to 736 pCi/L. Well BH is: locateddown gradient of IheCondensate Storage Tank (CST) near the southwest protected area:boundary and.is, a perimeter. well.. Tritium was detected at well BI in the range of 227pCi/L to 678. pC.i/L. Well BI is located due west of the reactor containment and is a-sentinel well. Tritium was detected at well BJ in the riange-of <200 pCi/L-.to934,pCi/L,. Well, BJis; also located down gradient of the CST and is a sentinel well. Tritium was detected at well BK in the range of

<200 pCi/L to 798 pCi/L. Well BK is also located due west of the reactor containment and is a perimeter well., Tritium was detected at well. BM in the range of <200 pCi/L to 258 pCi/L. Well BM is also located west of the Unit 2 Reactor Building andjis a. sentinel'well..: Tritium was detected at well BN in the range of 238 pCi/Lto423-pCi/L; Well BN is located northeast of the Material Control Center and is a sentinel well:.

These low concentrations of tritium were evaluated and determined not to be indicative of an adverse trend as shown in Figure 3 - Hope Creek Tritium Trends:

Wells BHý, BI, BJ, BK, BM, BN. These wells are-being sampled quarterly and the

, 113

results will continue to be evaluated. These tritium concentrations are all well below the ODCM Reporting Limit of 30,000 pCi/L. Monitoring is underway for alternate sources considered to be a potential contributor to these anomalous results, such as analysis of the yard drainage systems, the service water system, the precipitation from the roof areas near the plant vents, and other similar potential sources.;

Tritium at Salem Generating Station The results'of the laboratory analysis indicate that tritium was detected, i.e.,

reported at a concentration above the RGPP LLD of 200 pCi/L, in five RGPP monitoring wells. The tritium concentrations measured at wells AL, BD, BE, BG and Z ranged from <200 pCi/L to 659 pCi/L during 2008.

Tritium was detected at well AL in the range of 366 pCi/L to 426 pCi/L. Well AL is also located south of the Salem 1 containment and is a sentinel well. The tritium concentration in well BD.raiged from 264 pCj/L to 323 pCi/L. Well BD was installed to monitor groupidwater quality adjacent to and downgradient of the Refueling, Auxiliary, and Primary Water Storage tank area and is a sentinel well.

Tritium was detected!atwell BE in the;range of <200 pCi/L to 659 pCi/L. Well BE is also located due west of the Salem 2 contairnment and is a perimeter well.

Tritium wasidetected at well BG inthe range of<200 pCi/L to 322 pCi/L. Well BG is located northwest of the Salem 2 containment and is a perimeter well.

Tritium was detected at well Z in-therange of <200 pCi/L to 289 pCi/L. Well Z is also located due west of the Salem 1 Spent Fuel Pool and is a perimeter well.

These low concentrations of tritium were evaluated and determined not to be indicative of an adverse trend as shown in Figure 4 - Salem Tritium Trends:

Wells AL, BD, BE, BG, Z. The concentration of tritium detected in these wells is well below the:ODCM Reporting Limit of 30,000 pCi/tL. The tritium concentrations in these wells are being monitored and trended.: No adverse trends 114

have been observed.

Gamma-Emitters No plant-related gamma emitters were detected in any RGPP well sampled in 2008. Naturally occurring Potassium-40 was detected in several of the wells sampled during 2008.

Strontium Total strontium, incliding Sr-89 and Sr-90; was not detected: in any RGPP well sampled during 2008. , 1 B. Investigations An elevated tritium concentrationmwas measured in the water from: the Unit 2 Turbine Building Emergency Sump at Hope Creek Station. This resulted in a Tritium Investigation being coniducted duking the last quarter of 2008.

On November 7, 2008, as part of a station evaluation for~an increase in plant water usage, water in the Unit 2 Emergency Sump:.was sampled. The results identified a tritium concentration of 40,990 pCi/L in the water from the Unit 2 Emergency Sump. One: ofthe purposes for this. sump is: to, collect the condensation from the. Unit 2 Turbine Building HVAC.. It was determined that this sump had been drained on or about Novembier 34,2008 and released through cooling tower blowdown to the Delaware River. Operations Department personnel.were notified immediately. Equipment Operators tagged out the sump preventing any more inadvertent discharges.

A calculation was performed to determine the potential concentration of tritium that could have been released to the Delaware River. This calculation was based 115

on the maximum tritium concentration and volume of water found in the Unit 2 Emergency Sump. Based on this calculation, which included the dilution associated with the water in the blowdown line, the amount released is greater than an order of magnitude below the reportable concentration listed in the ODCM.

A Prompt Investigation was initiated and a team was formed. The team's charter was to investigate and determine the source (s) of Tritium to the sump., This team worked. independent but not.exchusive from the Demineralized Water Usage Team mentioned prev-iously...

The team evaluated eleven failure modes for the source of the Tritium in the Unit 2 Emergency Sump. Of the eleven-failure modes, identified, four were determined by the team to be the greatest potential sources of Tritium. In addition, the team performed a review-of P&IDs drawings. and, visually inspected all potential

• sources to the sump. No ancrralous inputs.to the sump were identified..

Chemistry personnel obtained additional water samples from the 1C Lift Station,

" Low Volume Oily Waste, and the Cooling Tower blowdown. Results were less

'than LLD for all samples. 'This is -consistent with historical analysis results of

. tritium concentration in these systems. ,.

The Tritium Investigation teamfi validated all open failure modes and concluded that the most probable'source for, theitritium is:.the recycling of monitored gaseous effluents7 from :the offgas stack through'the normal Turbine Building HVAC System' condensate drains: Tritiurm concentrations are monitored prior to all future pump-outs of this sump. If sump concentrationsare in excess of 3000 pCi/L the sump contents will be processed through the Liquid Radwaste System.

The investigation found no indication of a release to groundwater from this sump.

116

C. RGPP 2008 Status The RGPP long-term sampling program will be modified as required in.2009 to effect changes as a result of the recent tritium concentrations and to adaptively manage the program to meet the RGPP objectives. ,Baseline sampling andoanalysis of groundwater will continue on the following schedule: -

• Tritium will be analyzed at least: twice each calendar year,to0 an LLD of 200 pCi/L;

• Plant-related gamma emitters will be analyzed semi-,anuallytothe.

Environmental LLDs specified in the ODCM; and,

-Strontium will be analyzed annually as*ttal strontium;, if .theltotal strontium is greater than 2.0pCi/Ustrontiufi489 and strontium-9,0 analysis will be performed.

RGPP monitoring. well sample frequency;will be adjustedbased on analytical results, but in no event less than twice per year,! In additioni:seVeral locations willtundergo an investigation into the fluctuating tritium concentrations-.

During October through December of 2008-PSEG Chemistry Department personnel conducted a self assessment of the' RGPP. 'The assessment wasperformed to identify areas of the program that meets -the intent of Nuclear Energy Institute NEI>07-07, "Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative - Final Guidance Document," August 2007 (NEI, 2007). This self-assessment identifiediprogram stengths, opportunities for performance improvement, and program: deficiencies, and provided recommendations.

These recommendations are currently, being implemented. I1is, expected. that completion of these recommended actions will improve RGPP-conformance with the NEI-07-07 Objectives for the Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative (GPI). This in turn would strengthen. the RGPP implementation andcontribute to overall program excellence.

117

D. Impacts to Groundwater: Past Spills and Leaks Historical unplanned and unionnitoredireleases on site are listed in Table 5, Salem and Hope Creek 10CFR50.75(g) Data. There are currently no known active releases into the groundwater at Salem or Hope Creek Stations.

In conclusion, the operation of Salem and'Hope Creek Stations has had no adverse radiological impact on the environment from unmonitored or unplanned releases of radionuclides to groundwater'.

V. References

1. ARCADIS, 2006A. Site Investigation Report July 2006. PSEG Nuclear LLC. Hope Creek Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.,

2. ARCADIS, 2006B. Site Investigation Report July 2006. PSEG Nuclear LLC. Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.

3. NEI, 2007, NEI 07-07, Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative - Final Guidance Document, Nuclear Energy.Institute, Washington, DC, June 2007.

4. PSEG, 2007. 2006 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, January 1 to December 31, 2006, Salem Generating Station Unit 1 and 2 and Hope Creek Generating Station, April 2007.

5. PSEG, 2008. 2007 Annual, Radiological Environmental Operating Report, January 1 t6 December 31, 2007, Salem Generating Station Unit 1 and 2 and Hope Creek Generating Station, April 2008.

6. Reference for the 2008 Tritium Investigation Unit 2 Turbine Bldg Sump (Later) 118

Table 1 Hope Creek RGPP Monitoring Wells: Construction Details "Total Installation Construction Diameter Depth Monitoring MP MP Monitoring Well ID Date Details 1 (inches) (feet bgs) Interval Elevation Elevation Purpose Source Targets (feet bgs) (feet RPD) (feet msl)

Well BH May-06 _Sch-40 PVC 4 37.0 27-37 97.92 8 Perimeter NA Well BI May-06 Sch-40 PVC" 4 38.5 28.5 - 38.5 99.6 9.68 . Source 1 Facilities; Piping Well BJ May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4- 38.0 28 - 38 Source "Condensate Storage &

.100.23 10.31 Transfer; Facilities; Piping Well BK May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 38.5. 28.5- 38.5 98.19 8.27 Perimeter [NAf Well BL May-06 Sch-40 PVCý 4 35.0 .:25 - 35 99.71 9.79 Perimeter T NA:

Well BM May-06 . Sch-40 PVC, 4. 38.0 28 - ,38 99.76 9.84 Source Facilities; Piping Well BN, May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 , 12.5 7.5 - 12.5 Source Auxiliary Boiler Building;

-06_.. .... .. 30  :, ,102.64 2-36Prmeter/Source 12.72 . Piping BuildingSewage Well BO. May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 36.0 , 26--36 97.98 8.06 Peri Well BP May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4.. 38.0 338. 28 , 99.06 9.14 Perimeter/Source . Building Sewage Well BQ May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 . 42.0 .. ,32 -,42 'Source Auxiliary Boiler Building; Dry 102.16 12.24 Cask Storage Building; Piping Well BR May-06 Sch-40.PVC . 4 . 40.5 30.5 - 40.5 Perimeter/Source Piping; Dry Cask Storage

, _.., _.. .. . . ... . '... . 104.28 14.36 " ... . . :_ .'Building Well BS May-06 Sch-40 PVC. 4., 35.0 .25- 35 100.55 10.63 lUgradient NA' WellBT May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 " 38.5 28.5 - 38.5. 99.60 9.68 Upgradient -_NA Notes:

MP Measuring Point bgs Below ground surface RPD Relative to plant datum msl Relative to mean sea level (NAVD 1988)

NA Not applicable NAD 83 North American Datum 1983 119

Table 2. Salem RGPP Monitoring Wells: Construction Details Constructio Installation n Diameter Total Depth Monitoring MP MP Monitoring Well ID Date Details (inches) (feet bgs) Interval Elevation Elevation Purpose Source Targets (feet bgs) (feet RPD) (feet msl)

Well T Jun-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 31.2 21.2-31.2 104.13 14.21 Source Facilities; House Heating BIr Well U May-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 32.2 27.2 - 32.2

• 98.57 8.65 Source Facilities; House Heating BIr Well Y Sep-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 37.0 27.0 - 35.0 101.81 11.89 Perimeter NA Well Z Sep-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 37.5 -27.5- 37.5 101.8'6 1'.94 Perimeter NA Well AL Jan-04 Sch-40 PVC. 2 25.3- 15.3- 25.3 99.13 9.21 Perimeter NA Well BA May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 39.5 29.5- 39.5 101.07 11.15. Perimeter NA Well BB May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 .... 47.0 37 - 47 99.38 9.46 Perimeter NA -

Well BC May-06 Sch-40 PVC .4.. 38.0 28 - 38 Source I Perimeter Facilities; RAP Tanks;

- 98.78 8.'86 Piping Well BD May-06 Sch-40, PVC 4 40.5 30.5 - 40.5 Source Facilities; RAP Tanks;

-- ____ _ 98.78 8.86 Piping Well BE May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 37.0 27 - 37 Perimeter NA

_______ -98.31 8.39 Well-BF May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 42.5 32.5-42.5 99.11 9:19 Perimeter NA Well BG May-06. Sch-40 PVC 4 37.0 27 - 100 10.08 Perimeter NA Well BU May-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 36.0 26.- 36 100.16. 10.24 Upgradient NA Notes:

Measuring MP Point bgs Below ground suirface RPD Relative to plant datum msl Relative to mean sea level (NAVD 1988)

NA Not applicable NAD 83 North American Datum 1983 120

Table 3. Relevant Groundwater Evaluation Criteria: Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations PSEG ODCM Isotope RGPP LLD (pCiIL) Reporting Level (pCilL)

Tritium Conc. (pCilL) 200 30,000 Total Strontium (pCi/L) 2.0 8 Mn-54. 15 1000 Fe-59 30 - 400 0-60 1530

-ni65 30* .300 Nb-95 .. - '5 -400

,""'Zr-95 . 15 200 Cs-1 34 15 30 Cs-137 18 50 Ba-I 40 60 200 La-140 15 200

. Informal Report,.ODCM Reporting Limit 30,000 pci/L

'1-

121

Table 4A. Analytical Results for Tritium in Groundwater:

Hope Creek Generating Station Well ID Sample Data Tritium Conc. Well ID Sample Data Tritium Conc.

(pCi/I) (pCi/L)

• 03/19/2008 736 03/24/2008 <200 06/12/2008 <200 06/12/2008 <200 BH *09/23/2008 <200 BM 09/23/2008 258 S11/11/2008 <200 11/11/2008 <200 12/18/2008 <200 12/18/2008 .<200

. 03/24/2008 T 577 03/24/2008 . 319 06/12/2008 . . 241 06/12/2008 NS BI 09/23/2008 227 BN 09/15/2008 *372 11/11/2008 592 11/12/2008 238 12/18/2008 '678 12/30/2008 423 03/19/2008 <200 = <200 B'P 04/16/2008 06/12/2008 -<200 10/27/2008 <200 BJ. 09/23/2008 934 11/11/2008 200 04/16/2008

- " <200 12/18/2008 <200 BP10/27/2008 .<*200 03/19/2008 611 03/24/2008 <200 06/12/2008 <200 09/15/2008 <200 BK 09/23/2008 <200 BQ 11/12/2008 <200 11/11/2008 798 12/30/2008 <200 12/18/2008 <200 BL 04/22/2008

• .10/30/2008

]j <200

<200 BR ..

1 4/16/2008 <200

<200

. i 10/27/2008 <200

- .04/16/2008 1

• 04/16/2008 <200 1 .04/16/2008 <200 BT I. *I. BS ...

1 10/27/2008 <200 . 10/27/2008 <200

_____________ J I V *~

• Bold concentration value indicates tritium level aboveRGPP Administrative Limits 200 pCi/L.

NS Not Sampled 122

Table 4B Analytical Results.for Tritium inGroundwater:

Salem Generating Station Tritium. Tritium Well ID Sample Date Conc. Well ID Sample Date Conc.

(pCi/L) (pCi/L) 01/23/2008 If 366 ,01/16/2008 <200 375 U 05/28/2008 Q200 AL 04/22/2008 07/16/2008 426 07/16/2008 <200 10/20/2008 396 10/20/2008 <200 04/17/2008 <200 BA 10/20/2008 <200

'03/13/2008 .<200

-,04/22/2008 <200

<200 :0o5/15/2008 <200 BB 04/17/2008 10/20/2008 <200 06/24/2008 <-200

.07/17/2008 .<200

. " 04/17/2008 <200 .08/19/2008 <200 BC 10/21/2008 '.NS.... y _.

09/03/2008 <200 10/18/2008 ' <200 323, 11/21/2008 <200 BD 04/22/2008

.10/20/2008 264 12/23/2008 ' <200 04/17/2008 <200 ~~~~1 BE 10/21/2008 659

<200 BF 04/17/2008

-<200 10/21/2008 <200 03/13/2008 04/22/2008 <200 322 05/15/2008 <200 BG 04/22/2008 10/21/2008 <200 06/24/2008 <200 07/17/2008 <200 .

04/16/2008 <200 .08/19/2008 <200 BU ". Z

_______ j 10/27/2008 [ <200 09/03/2008 " ' <200 10/18/2008 278 01/16/2008 <200 11/21/2008 289 04/22/2008 <200 12/23/2008 253 T

07/16/2008 <200 10/21/2008 <200

_____________ A.________________________ I. _______________ ~.J. _____________ ________________________________________

Bold concentration value above RGPP Administrative Reporting Level 200 pCi/L.

NS Not Sampled

'123

Table 5,. Salem and Hope Creek 10CFR 50.75(g) Data

. ....... ,,-1-.'Quantity(ies)

(. Spilled I . Location of p,_uscr_ *- Discharged '.Ppill"Djscharge Description

,pr-95 k;  :-88m* i Hope Creek and.Salem Steam from the Decon"Solution I' Evaporator released from Hope Creek's South Plant Vent

.un-Ol.. j.. ___...... Unit 1 RWST Salem Unit 1 RWST Nozzle Leak Sep-02 tCi Ground west of LUnit 1 Spent Fuel *lung "

Blockage of the Spent FuelIPool liner's "tell-iales" causeddbackup Sof contamina ed'ater ,through I i * - building seams Jan-05 oes*har*i& the .,Hope Creek rooms 3133,

-' Water from inside, the Waste 66Vironment 3135, 3129 and 5102 Sludge Phase Separator Tank I

., -Room appearedco be leaking

._.______________,____"through

___________. the crack in the.,wall May-07 2,_.-mni1li', Curies of Cs 137 In front of Salem Unit 2 Burst site glass during operation.

cohdensate polisher Resin blown through wall into switchyard

,A

~aa i*

113/4 4a V - -~

K -~

~

1~ r

~ '4 'a ta 31 ~a 124

Figure 1 - Hope-Creek RGPP Monitoring Well Locations

-117 too I V1.

80 U f-r 1

N, 2*, ~-

ST

• 'If 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2000 Feet "IBARTLETT t1

Figure 2 - Salem RGPP Monitoring Well Locations V.

t-y

• ~j~j~r~Tj I"' ~

.V ;

IN, 0 200 400 -800 1,2001,600 Feet L 'IBARTLETT

Figure 3 Hope Creek Tritium Trends: Wells BH, BI, BJ, BK, BM, BN HC RGPP Tritium Trend 2006-2008 3000 2500 HC Well BH 0 2000 HC Well BJ HC Well BI o1500 Q HC Well BN E HC Well BM

-= 1000 ---- HC Well BK 500 0

Sample Date

-1/4 -, ,--.q~

---

- '- .- -- .-- p :-~ ~'-'--. -

127

Figure 4 Salem Tritium Trends: Wells AL,BD, BE, BG, Z Salem RGPP Tritium Trend 2006-2008 3000 2500 2000

$ Salem Well AL

--m- Salem Well BD o 1500 Salem Well BE E . Salem Well BG INESalem Well Z 1000 500 0

Sample Date 128