NL-10-0905, Enclosure 2 - Joseph M. Farley, Units 1 and 2, Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2009

Enclosure 2 - Joseph M. Farley, Units 1 and 2, Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2009

ML101390533
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	05/14/2010
From:	Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NL-10-0905
Download: ML101390533 (76)

Text

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2009 Enclosure 2 Farley Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2009 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 2009 SOUTHERNA COMPANY Energy to Serve Your World" TABLE OF CONTENTS Section and/or Title Subsection Page List of Figures ii List of Tables iii List of Acronyms iv 1.0 Introduction 1-1 2.0 REMP Description 2-1 3.0 Results Summary 3-1 4.0 Discussion of Results 4-1 4.1 Land Use Census 4-6 4.2 Airborne 4-7 4.3 Direct Radiation 4-13 4.4 Milk 4-17 4.5 Forage 4-21 4.6 Ground Water 4-27 4.7 Surface Water 4-32 4.8 Fish 4-35 4.9 Sediment 4-41 5.0 Interlaboratory Comparison Program 5-1 6.0 Conclusions 6-1 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Title Page Figure 2-1 REMP Stations Near the Plant Perimeter 2-10 Figure 2-2 REMP Stations 2 to 5 Miles from the Plant 2-11 Figure 2-3 REMP Stations Beyond 5 Miles from the Plant 2-12 Figure 2-4 Onsite Ground Water Monitoring Locations 2-13 Figure 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 4-8 Figure 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs- 137 Concentration in Air 4-10 Figure 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 4-14 Figure 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 4-17 Figure 4.4-2 Average Annual 1- 131 Concentration in Milk 4-19 Figure 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage 4-22 Figure 4.5-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage 4-24 Figure 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Offsite Ground 4-28 Water Figure 4.6-2 H-3 Concentration in Onsite Ground Water Well R-3 4-31 Figure 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water 4-33 Figure 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs- 137 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish 4-36 Figure 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish 4-38 Figure 4.9-1 Average Annual Cs-134 Concentration in Sediment 4-42 Figure 4.9-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment 4-43 ii LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title Page Table 2-1 Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 2-2 Table 2-2 Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Locations 2-9 Table 3-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary 3-2 Table 4-1 Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) 4-1 Table 4-2 Reporting Levels (RL) 4-2 Table 4-3 Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 4-4 Table 4.1-1 Land Use Census Results 4-6 Table 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 4-9 Table 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air 4-11 Table 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 4-15 Table 4.4-1 Average Annual-Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 4-18 Table 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Conceritration in Milk 4-20 Table 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage 4-23 Table 4.5-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage 4-25 Table 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Ground Water 4-29 Table 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water 4-34 Table 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish 4-37 Table 4.8-2 AverageAnnual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish 4-39 Table 4.9 Sediment Nuclide Concentrations 4-41 Table 5-1 Interlaboratory Comparison Program Results 5-3 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronyms presented in alphabetical order Acronym Definition APCo Alabama Power Company ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CL Confidence Level EL Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory EPA Environmental Protection Agency FNP Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant ICP Interlaboratory Comparison Program MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MDD Minimum Detectable Difference MWe MegaWatts Electric NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measurement(s)

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Po Preoperation PWR Pressurized Water Reactor REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting Level RM River Mile TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter.

TS Technical Specification iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) for 2009 was conducted in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The REMP activities for 2009 are reported herein in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.2 and ODCM 7.1.The objectives of the REMP are to: 1) Determine the levels of radiation and the concentrations of fadioactivity in the environs and;2) Assess the radiological impact (if any) to the environment due to the operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP).The assessments include comparisons between results of analyses of samples obtained at locations where radiological levels are not expected to be affected by plant operation (control stations) and at locations where radiological levels .are more likely to be affected by plant operation (indicator stations), as well as comparisons between preoperational and operational sample results.FNP is owned by Alabama Power Company (APCo) and operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company. It is located in Houston County, Alabama approximately fifteen miles east of Dothan, Alabama on the west bank of the Chattahoochee River. Unit 1, a Westinghouse Electric Corporation Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) with a licensed core thermal power output of 2775 MegaWatts thermal (MWt), achieved initial criticality on August 9, 1977 and was declared "commercial" on December 1, 1977. Unit 2, also a 2775 MWt Westinghouse PWR, achieved initial criticality on May 8, 1981 and was declared"commercial" on July 30, 1981.The preoperational stage of the REMP began with initial sample collections in January of 1975. The transition from the preoperational to the operational stage of the REMP was marked by Unit 1 initial criticality.

A description of the REMP is provided in Section 2 of this report. An annual summary of the results of the analyses of REMP samples is provided in Section 3.A discussion of the results, including assessments of any radiological impacts upon the environment and the results of the land use census are provided in Section 4. The results of the Interlaboratory Comparison Program (ICP) are provided in Section 5. Conclusions are provided in Section 6.1-1 2.0 REMP DESCRIPTION A summary description of the REMP is provided in Table 2-1. This table summarizes the program as it meets the requirements outlined in ODCM Table 4-1. It details the sample types to be collected and the analyses to be performed in order to monitor the airborne, direct radiation, waterborne and ingestion pathways, and also delineates the collection and analysis frequencies.

In addition, Table 2-1 describes the locations of the indicator, community and control stations as described in ODCM Table 4-4 and the identification of each sample according to station location and analysis type. The stations are also depicted on maps in Figures 2-1 through 2-3: The location of each REMP station for gaseous releases is described by its direction and distance from a point midway between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 plant vent stacks. The surrounding area is divided into 16 azimuthal sectors which are centered on the major compass points; each sector is numbered sequentially clockwise and oriented so that the centerline of sector 16 is due north. Each sampling station is identified by a four digit number. The first two digits indicate the sector number, and the last two digits indicate the distance from the origin to the nearest mile. For example, air monitoring station 0215 is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the origin. The locations for the sampling stations along the river are identified by the nearest River Mile (RM) which is the distance along the navigable portion of the Chattahoochee River upstream of the Jim Woodruff Dam near Chattahoochee, Florida. The approximate locations of the plant discharge and intake structures are at RM 43.5 and 43.8, respectively.

The samples are collected by the plant's technical staff, except for fish and river sediment samples which are collected by APCo Environmental Field Services personnel.

All laboratory analyses were performed by Georgia Power Company's Environmental Laboratory (EL) in Smyrna, Georgia.2-1 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 1 of 7)

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Identification Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types and Locations (sector-miles)

AIRBORNE Particulates Continuous sampler operation with sample collection weekly.Particulate sampler: Analyze for gross beta radioactivity

> 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following filter change. Perform gamma isotopic analysis on each sample when gross beta activity is > 10 times the yearly mean of control samples. Perform gamma isotopic analysis on composite.sample (by location) quarterly.

Indicator Stations: River Intake Structure (ESE-0.8)South Perimeter (SSE-1.0)Plant Entrance (WSW-0.9)North Perimeter (N-0.8).. .. .... ... .. .. ... .. ..... .. ..... .. ... .. .................................

..Cntrol Stations: Blakely GA (NE-15)Neals Landing, FL (SSE-18)..D.o.thanAW...

... -1..... 8).........8......)

Community Stations: GA Pacific Paper Co.(SSE-3)Ashford, AL (WSW-8)Columbia.

AL (N-5)PI-0501 PI-0701 PI-1101 PI-1601......................................................................................................

............

.PB-0215 PB-0718 (spare station, not in service)S .....................................................................

PC-0703 PC- 1108 PC- 1605 I i h TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 2 of 7)

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Identification Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types and Locations (sector-miles)

Iodine Continuous sampler operation with sample Radioiodine canister:

Analyze each collection weekly sample 'fo 'r 1** -1 3 1 w-e 'e 'k ly. ........Indicator Stations: River Intake Structure 11-0501 (ESE-0.8)South Perimeter 11-0701 (SSE-1.0)Plant Entrance 11-1101 (WSW-o.9)North Perimeter 11-1601_( N -0 .8 .........................

)..........................................................................

... .......................................................

).. .... ..........

.............

.................

).. ...........

........ .......................................................................

.................................................................

..........

.Control Station: Blakely, GA (NE-15) IB-0215 Neals Landing, FL IB-0718 (spare station, (SSE-18) not in service)Dothan, AL (W-18) IB-1218 Community Station: GA Pacific Paper Co. IC-0703 (SSE-3)DIRECT RADIATION TLD Quarterly Gamma dose: Read each badge Indicator Stations: Plant Perimeter (NNE-0.9)

RI-0101 (NE-1.0) RI-0201 (ENE-0.9)

RI-0301 (E-0.8) RI-0401 (ESE-0.8)

RI-0501 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 3 of 7)

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)(SE-1.1)(SSE-1.0)(S-1.0)(SSW-1.0)(SW-0.9)(WSW-0.9)(W-0.8)(WNW-0.8)(NW-1.1)(NNW-0.9)(N-0.8).RI-0601 RI-0701 RI-0801 RI-0901 RI-1001 RI-1101 RI-1201 RI-1301 RI-1401 RI-1501 RI-1601.e n r f {3~ .. ...............................................

....Control Stations: Blakely, GA (NE-15)Neals Landing, FL (SSE-18)Dothan, AL (W-15)Dothan, AL (W- 18)Webb, AL (WNW-11)Haleburg, AL (N- 12)Community Station By sector (NNE-4)(NE-4)(ENE-4)(E-5)(ESE-5)(SE-5)(SSE-3)RB-0215 RB-0718 RB-1215 RB-1218 RB-1311 RB-1612 RC-0104 RC-0204 RC-0304 RC-0405 RC-0505 RC-0605 RC-0703 I I h TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 4 of 7)

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)(S-5) RC-0805 (SSW-4) RC-0904 (SW-5) RC-1005 (WSW-4) RC-1104 (W-4) RC-1204 (WNW-4) RC-1304 (NW-4) RC-1404 (NNW-4) RC-1504 (N-5) RC-1605 Of Special Interest: Nearest Residence RC- 1001 (SW-1.2)City of Ashford, AL RC- 1108 (WSW-8.0)WATERBORNE Aliquots taken with proportional semi-Surface Water continuous sampler, having a minimum Gamma isotopic analysis of each 4 week sampling frequency not exceeding two composite sample. Tritium analysis for_hours, collected weekly for 4 week each quarterly composite.

Indicator Station: Paper Mill, (-3 miles WRI downstream of plant discharge, RM 40)Control Station: Upstream of WRB Andrews Lock and dam (-3 miles upstream of the plant intake, RM 47)

TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 5 of 7)

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)

Offsite Ground Water Grab sample quarterly Gamma isotopic, 1-131, and tritium....................................................................................................................................................................................................

.........................

e.... _u. .......................................

Indicator Station.:

nlso ahsml urel Paper Mill Well WGI-07 (SSE-4), Control Station: Whatley Residence WGB-10 Well (SW-1.2)Onsite Ground Water See Table 2-2 Quarterly sample; pump used to sample GW Tritium, gamma isotopic, and field wells; grab sample from yard drains and parameters (pH, temperature, ponds conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation/reduction potential, and turbidity) of each sample quarterly; Hard to detect radionuclides as necessary based on results of tritium and gamma River Sediment Grab sample semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis of each sample semiannually Indicator Station: Downstream of plant RSI discharge at Smith's Bend (RM 41)a Control Station: Upstream of plant RSB discharge at Andrews Lock & Dam Reservoir (RM 48)a TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 6 of 7)

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)

INGESTION Milk Grab sample biweekly Gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses of...... ... ...... .................

.........

......................

... ... .... .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

s....... .e..........................................................................................................

Control Station: Robert Weir Dairy MB-0714 Donaldsonville, GA (SSE -14)Fish Grab sample semiannually for Game Fish Gamma isotopic analysis on the edible and Bottom Feeding Fish .....................................

.. .. ... .portio....

.. ...........

.ns of each sample s~em iannu~ally

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n.........!.e.

..............................................................................................

.....o r..n.s....e.. .a..e..sm i a..ll.................

Indicator Stations: Downstream of plant FGI & FBI discharge in vicinity of Smith's Bend (RM. 41)b Control Station: Upstream of plant FGB & FBB discharge in Andrews Lock &Dam Reservoir (RM 4 8)b Forag Grab sample from forage every 4 weeks. Gamma isotopic analysis of each sample every 4 weeks.Indicator Station: South Southeast FI-0701 Perimeter (S SE- 1.0)North Perimeter Fl- 1601 (N-0.8)Control Station: Dothan, AL (W-18) FB-1218-,-

TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 7 of 7)

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM NOTATIONS a. These collections are normally made at river mile 41.3 for the indicator station and river mile 47.8 for the control station; however, due to river bottom sediment shifting caused by high flows, dredging, etc., collections may be made from river mile 40 to 42 for the indicator station and from river mile 47 to 49 for the control station.b. Since a few miles of river water may be needed to obtain adequate fish samples, these river mile positions represent the approximate locations about which the catches are taken. Collections for the indicator station should be from river mile 37.5 to 42.5 and for the control station from river mile 47 to 52.ccý TABLE 2-2 Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Locations WELL ACQUIFER MONITORING PURPOSE RI Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer R2 Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer R3 Major Shallow Unit 2 RWST aquifer R4 Major Shallow Unit I RWST aquifer R5 Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer R6 Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer R7 Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer R8 Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer R9 Major Shalloyw Dilution line aquifer RIO Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer Ri1 Major Shallow Background 1 aquifer R13 Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer R14 Major Shallow' Background 2 aquifer PW#2 Drinking water Production Well #2 Supply PW#3 Drinking water Production Well #3 Supply CW#1 Drinking water Construction Well West Supply CW#2 Drinking water Construction Well East Supply FRW Drinking water Firing Range Well Supply SW- I N/A Background 3 Service Water Pond East YD N/A Plant outfall East Yard Drain SE YD N/A Plant outfall Southeast Yard Drain 2-9 E Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Indicator Control Community REMP Stations Near the TLD A A A Plant Perimeter Other S S *TLD & Other O Figure 2-1 2-10 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Indicator Control Community REMP Stations 2 to 5 TLD A A A Miles From the Plant Other 0 0 0 TLD&Other Figure 2-2 2-11 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Indicator Control Community REMP Stations Beyond TLD A A A 5 Miles From the Plant Other S

• _TLD & Other Figure 2-3 2-12 z --~ 1*T 0b(D lop C--1 Figure 2-4 Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Location 2-13 3.0 RESULTS

SUMMARY

In accordance with ODCM 7.1.2.1, the summarized and tabulated results for all of the regular samples collected for the year at the designated indicator, community and control stations are presented in Table 3-1. The format of Table 3-1 is similar to Table 3 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program" Revision 1, November 1979. Results for samples' collected at locations other than those listed in Table 2-1 are discussed in Section 4 under the particular sample type.As indicated in ODCM 7.1.2.1, the results for naturally-occurring radionuclides that are also found in plant effluents must be reported along with man-made radionuclides.

The radionuclide Be-7, which occurs abundantly in nature, is often.detected in REMP samples. It is occasionally detected in the. plant's liquid and gaseous effluents.

When it is detected in effluents, it is also included in the REMP results. In 2009, Be-7 was detected in Farley's liquid effluents but not in the gaseous effluents.

3-1 TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 1 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)

Performed (Fraction)

& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)

Airborne Gross Beta 10 16.2 PC-0703 20.1 17.3 16.3 Particulates 465 3.0-34.5 Paper Mill 7.3-37.0 5.6-37.0 6.3-36.3 (fim ).........

.............................

............................

3....... .. (205/205) 3 miles, SSE (52/52) (156/156)

(104/104)( f ~~~~~~~i/

m 3 ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .......................

......: ........ ..............

......................................................

.....0../2 ...5 .............

..............

3.....!.e

.,..............

..............

.........

(..2. .2..... ................................................................

...... ..............

6.. ..........................

................................

Gamma Isotopic 36 1-131 70 NDM(c) NA(d) NDM NDM (0/16) (0/12) (0/8)Cs-134 50 NDM NA NDM NDM (0/16) (0/12) (0/8)Cs-137 60 NDM NA NDM NDM (0/16) (0/12) (0/8)Airborne 1-131 70 NDM NA NDM NDM Radioiodine 361 (0/205) (0/52) (0/104)(fCi/m3)Direct Gamma NA 15.2 RI-0401 21.9 12.8 13.6 Radiation Dose 11.5-22.2 Plt. Perimeter 21.5-22.2 10.2-16.0 10.6-17.2 (mR/91 days) 159 (63/63) 0.8 miles, E (4/4) (72/72) (24/24)Milk (pCi/1) Gamma Isotopic 26 Cs- 134 15 NA NA NA NDM (0/26)Cs-137 18' NA NA NA NDM (0/26)Ba- 140 60 NA NA NA NDM (0/26)La-140 15 NA NA NA NDM r ... ..... ..... ....... ... ...... ............

...... f..... ...... ...........................

........ ... .. ... ...... ......... ... ...... ... ...... .... ..... ....... ...............

.. ...... ...... ..............................

.............

....... ... ....... ....... ... ....................

...........

........................

..... ..... ...... ........ .. ...........

..... .. ........ ...... ... .......... .............

.... §02). .I-131 1 NANA NA 0DM 26 (0/26)

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 2 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)

Performed (Fraction)

& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)

Forage Gamma (pCi/kg wet) Isotopic 39 1-131 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/26) (0/13)Cs-134 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/26) (0/13)Cs-137 80 NDM NA NA NDM (0/26) (0/13)Offsite Ground H-3 2000 474 WGI-07 474 NA 401 Water (g) 8 444-503 Paper Mill 444-503 255-547.(pCi/l) (/4) 4 miles, SSE (2/4) (2/4)( p ~~~~~i/ 1 ) ~~~~~~.......................................

...... ........ ...... i...............

...........................

...............................

_( .2_[ .........

................

.. .........

...m ...s.....S .......................

... .24. ..................................................................................................................................................................

1-131 1 NDM NA NA NDM Gamma Isotopic 8 Mn-54 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Fe-59 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Co-58 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Co-60 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Zn-65 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Zr-95 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Nb-95 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 3 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type. and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)

Performed (Fraction)

& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)

Cs-134 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Cs-137 18 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)B a- 140 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)La- 140 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Surface Water H-3 3000 343 Ga Pacific 343 NA NDM (pCi/1) .8 (1/4) Paper Mill (1/4) (0/4)RM.40 Gamma Isotopic 26 Be-7 124 (e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Mn-54 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Fe-59 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Co-58 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Co-60 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Zn-65 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Zr-95 30 -NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Nb-95 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 4 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)

Performed (Fraction)

& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction) 1-131 15 (t) NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Cs-134 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Cs-137 18 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Ba-140 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)La- 140 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Bottom Gamma Feeding Fish Isotopic (pCi/kg wet) 4 Be-7 655 (e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Mn-54 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Fe-59 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-58 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-60 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Zn-65 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-134 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-137 150 8.4 Upstream, at 21.9 NA 21.9 (1/2) Andrews Dam (1/2) (1/2)(RM 48)

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 5 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Community Control.Pathway Total Detectable Locations Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)

Performed (Fraction)

& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)

Game Fish Gamma (pCi/kg wet) Isotopic 4 Be-7 655 (e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Mn-54 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Fe-59 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-58 -130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-60 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Zn-65 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-134 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-137 150 24.9 Downstream, 24.9 NA 12.5 15.7-34.2 near Smith's 1527-34.2 (1/2)(2/2) Bend (RM 41) (2/2)River Shoreline Gamma Sediment Isotopic (pCi/kg dry) 4 Be-7 655 (e) 72.8 Downstream, 72.8 NA NDM (1/2) near Smith's (1/2) (0/2)Bend (RM 41)Cs- 134 150 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-137 180 NDM Upstream, at 24.4 NA 24.4 (0/2) Andrews Dam (1/2) (1/2)(RM 48)

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 6 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama NOTATIONS a. The MDC is defined in ODCM 10.1. Except as noted otherwise, the values listed in this column are the detection capabilities required by ODCM Table 4-3 (Table 4-1 of this report). The values listed in this column are a priori (before the fact) MDCs. In practice, the a posteriori (after the fact) MDCs are generally lower than the values listed. Any a posteriori MDC greater than the value listed in this column is discussed in Section 4.b. Mean and range are based upon detectable measurements only. The fraction of all measurements at a specified location that are detectable is placed in parentheses.

c. No Detectable Measurement(s).

d. Not Applicable.

e. The EL has determined that this value may be routinely attained under normal conditions.

No value is provided in Table 4-1 of this report.f. If a drinking water pathway exists, a value of 1 pCi/1 would be used. See note b of Table 4-1 of this report.g. Onsite groundwater results are discussed in Section 4.6.

4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Included in this section are evaluations of the laboratory results for the various sample types. Comparisons were made between the. difference in mean values for pairs of station groups (e.g., indicator and control stations, or, community and control stations) and the calculated Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD)between these pairs, at the 99% Confidence Level (CL). The MDD was determined using the standard Student's t-test. A difference in the mean values which was less than the MDD was considered to be statistically indiscernible.

The 2009 results were compared with past results, including those obtained during preoperation.

As appropriate, results were compared with their Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) and Reporting Levels (RL) which are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of this report, respectively.

The required MDCs were achieved during laboratory sample analysis.

Any anomalous results are explained within this report.Results of interest are graphed, to show historical trends. The data points are tabulated and included in this report. The points plotted and provided in the tables represent mean values of only detectable results. Periods for which no detectable measurements (NDM) were observed, or periods for which values were not applicable (e.g., milk indicator, etc.), are plotted as O's and listed in the tables as NDM.Table 4-1 Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC)Analysis Water Airborne Fish Milk Grass or Sediment (pCi/l) Particulate (pCi/kg) (pCi/l) Leafy (pCi/kg)or Gases wet Vegetation dry (fCi/m3) (pCi/kg)wet Gross Beta 4 10 H-3 2000 (a)Mn-54 15 _ _130 Fe-59 30 260 Co-58 15 130 Co-60 15 130 _Zn-65 30 260 Zr-95 30 Nb-95 15 1-131 1 (b) 70 1 60 Cs-134 15 50 130 15 60 150 Cs-137 18 60 150 18 80 180 Ba-140 60 1 60 1 La-140 15 15 (a) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 3000 pCi/l may be used.(b) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 15 pCi/l may be used.4-1 Table 4-2 Reporting Levels (RL)Analysis Water Airborne Fish Milk (pCi/l) Grass or (pCi/l) Particulate (pCi/kg) wet Leafy or Gases Vegetation (fCi/m3) (pCi/kg) wet H-3 20,000 (a)Mn-54 1000 30,000 Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1000 30,000 Co-60 300 10,000 Zn-65 300 20,000 Zr-95 400 Nb-95 700 1-131 2 (b) 900 3 100 Cs- 134 30 10,000 1000 60 1000 Cs-137 50 20,000 2000 70 2000 Ba- 140 200 300 La-140 100 400 (a) This is the 40 CFR 141 value for drinking water samples.exists, a value of 30,000 may be used.If no drinking water pathway (b) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 20 pCi/I may be used.Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from the mid 1940's through 1980 distributed man-made nuclides around the world. The most recent atmospheric tests in the 1970's and in 1980 had a significant impact upon the radiological concentrations found in the environment prior to and during preoperation, and the earlier years of operation.

Some long-lived radionuclides, such as Cs-137, continue to have some impact.Significant upward trends also followed the Chernobyl incident, which began on April 26, 1986.In accordance with ODCM 4.1.1.2.1, deviations from the required sampling schedule are permitted if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, unavailability, inclement weather, equipment malfunction or other just reasons.Deviations from conducting the REMP as described in Table 2-1 are summarized in Table 4-3 along with their causes and resolutions.

4-2 All results were tested for conformance with Chauvenet's criterion (G. D. Chase and J. L. Rabinowitz, Principles of Radioisotope Methodology, Burgess Publishing Company, 1962, pages 87-90) to identify values which differed from the mean of a set by a statistically significant amount. Identified outliers were investigated to determine the reason(s) for the variation.

If equipment malfunction or other valid physical reasons were identified as causing the variation, the anomalous result was excluded from the data set as non-representative.

No data were excluded exclusively for failing Chauvenet's criterion.

Data exclusions are discussed in this section under the appropriate sample type.4-3 TABLE 4-3 (SHEET 2 of 2)DEVIATIONS FROM RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING.PROGRAM COLLECTION AFFECTED DEVIATION CAUSE RESOLUTION PERIOD SAMPLE(S)2 nd Quarter Groundwater Not sampled Flooding in area -unable to access Will consider modifications to well CR2009108139 Monitoring Well well or relocating well if flooding is a R-2 recurring problem 05/19/09-05/26/09 PB-0215/IB-0215 Non-representative sample of Power loss due to inclement Station operation satisfactory after CR2009106938 Blakely, GA airborne particulates weather; sample time short about 2 power restored hours 08/18/09-08/25/09 PI-0701/11-0701 Non-representative sample of Sample pump found not running; Station operation satisfactory after CR2009110637 South Perimeter airborne particulates; not enough circuit breaker would not reset; maintenance performed EXCLUDED volume collected to meet MDC work order initiated 3 rd Quarter TLD Stations TLDs rendered suspect by presence Moisture / rain water entered Replaced TLDs at beginning of CR2009113255 RC- 1404A and of moisture in bag holding bag; both TLDs had >1.4 quarter EXCLUDED RI-0201A SD and were excluded 10/20/09-10/27/09 PI-1101/11-1101 Non-representative sample of Sample station lost power for Station operation satisfactory after CR2009112939 Plant Entrance airborne particulates approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> while work maintenance performed order 1063407901 was performed 10/20/09-10/27/09 PB-0215/IB-0215 Non-representative sample of Damage to filter noted at Replaced filter at beginning of CR2009112931 Blakely, GA airborne particulates changeout weekly sampling period 11/10/09-11/17/09 PI- 1601/11-1601 Non-representative sample of Sample pump found not running; Station operation satisfactory after CR2009113842 North Perimeter airborne particulates; did not meet when circuit breaker reset, pump power restored EXCLUDED MDC ran satisfactorily; potentially weather related 12/01/09-12/29/09 WRB Non-representative monthly river ISCO sampler had to be taken out ISCO continuous river water CR2009114920 Andrews Dam water composite of service due to high river water sampling restored when water level level; one weekly sample (12/15- decreased; other 3 weeks of sample 12/21) missed of the monthly used for monthly composite sample composite sample TABLE 4-3 (SHEET 1 of 2)DEVIATIONS FROM RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM COLLECTION AFFECTED DEVIATION CAUSE RESOLUTION PERIOD SAMPLE(S)02/10/09-02/17/09 PI-0501/11-0501 Non-representative sample of Power tagged out @0530 on Station operation satisfactory after CR2009101892 River Water Intake airborne particulates 02/16/09 for maintenance at river power restored Structure water intake structure; sample time short approximately 30.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> 02/17/09-02/24/09 PI-0501/11-0501 Non-representative sample of Power tagged out @0530 on Station operation satisfactory after CR2009101892 River Water Intake airborne particulates 02/16/09 for maintenance at river power restored Structure water intake structure; sample time short approximately 42.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> I st Quarter TLD Station TLDs rendered suspect by presence Moisture / rain waterentered Replaced TLDs at beginning of RB- 1612 of water in bag holding bag quarter N @ 12 miles 03/24/09-03/31/09 PI-0701/11-0701 Non-representative sample of Sample time short approximately 6 Station operation satisfactory at CR2009103480 South Perimeter airborne particulates hours; possibly weather related sample collection time 03/30/09-04/21/09 WRB Non-representative monthly river ISCO sampler had to be taken out of ISCO continuous river water CR2009103388 Andrews Dam water composite service due to high river water level; sampling restored when water level one weekly sample (03/30-04/07) decreased was a grab rather than a composite sample 03/31/09-04/07/09 PI-0701/II-0701 Non-representative sample of Sample pump found not running; Station operation satisfactory after CR2009103944 and South Perimeter airborne particulates; not enough circuit breaker would not reset; maintenance performed CR2009105175 volume collected to meet MDC work order initiated; sample time EXCLUDED short approximately 124 hours0.00144 days <br />0.0344 hours <br />2.050265e-4 weeks <br />4.7182e-5 months <br /> 2 nd Quarter TLD Station Non-representative direct radiation TLD packet was attached to utility TLDs were placed in service on CR2009108199 RI- 1401 monitoring duration; only 44 days on pole which was removed by new pole at beginning of 3 rd EXCLUDED NW @ I.1 mile station Centurytel; TLDs were recovered Quarter and sent for analysis; 1401A was excluded because the results had>1.4 SD (and was wet) and 140 1B failed Chauvenet's Criterion 4.1 Land Use Census In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted during the month of December 2009. The land use census is used to determine the locations of the nearest permanent residence and milk animal in each of the 16 compass sectors within a distance of 5 miles. A milk animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption.

The 2009 survey revealed no significant changes from the 2008 survey. No milk animals were found within a 5 mile distance.

The census results are tabulated in Table 4.1-1.Table 4.1-1 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS Distance in Miles to the Nearest Location in Each Sector SECTOR RESIDENCE MILK ANIMAL N 2.6 none NNE 2.5 none NE 2.4 none ENE 2.4 none E 2.8 none ESE 3.0 none SE 3.4 none SSE >5 none S 4.3 none SSW 2.9 none SW 1.2 none WSW 2.4 none W 1.3 none WNW 2.1 none NW 1.5 none NNW 3.4 none The Houston County, Alabama and the Early County, Georgia Extension Agents were contacted for assistance in locating commercial dairy farms and privately owned milk animals within 5 miles of the plant. A list of commercial dairy farms in Houston County, AL and Seminole County, GA was provided; there are no commercial dairy farms in Early County. Neither agent knew of privately owned milk animals within 5 miles of FNP. In addition, field surveys were conducted in* the plant vicinity along the state and county highways and the interconnecting secondary roads. No milk animals were found within 5 miles of the plant.ODCM 4.1.2.2.1 requires a new controlling receptor to be determined, if the land use census identifies a location that yields a calculated receptor dose greater than the one in current use. Neither current sampling locations nor the controlling receptor were affected by the 2009 land use census results. The current controlling receptor as described in ODCM Table 3-7 remains a child in the SW Sector at 1.2 miles.4-6 4.2 Airborne As specified in Table 2-1 and shown in Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, airborne particulate filters and charcoal canisters are collected weekly at 4 indicator, 3 control and 3 community stations.

Particulate filters are collected at all of the stations while the charcoal canisters are collected at all but 2 of the community stations.

At each location, air is continuously drawn through a glass fiber filter to retain airborne particulates and, as appropriate, an activated charcoal canister is placed in series to adsorb radioiodine.

Each particulate filter is counted for gross beta activity.

A quarterly gamma isotopic analysis is performed on a composite of the air particulate filters for each station. Each charcoal canister is analyzed for 1-131.As provided in Table 3-1, the 2009 annual average weekly gross beta activity was 16.2 fCi/m 3 at the indicator stations and 16.3 fCi/m 3 at the control stations.

The difference of 0.1 fCi/m 3 between the two averages is not statistically discernible since the MDD for these two average values is 1.6 fCi/m 3.The trend over the years has shown close agreement between the control, community, and indicator stations, and in most years (including pre-op), the indicator station gross beta average activity was lower than the control and community annual averages.As shown in Table 3-1, the 2009 annual average weekly gross beta concentration was 17.3 fCi/m 3 at community stations.

The community stations average was 1.0 fCi/m 3 less than the average for the control stations.

The difference is not statistically discernible since it is less than the MDD of 1.8 fCi/m 3 between the two averages.Due to the weapons. tests during preoperation and the early years of operation, the average gross beta concentrations were 5 to 10 times greater than those currently being measured.

By the mid 1980s, .the readings had diminished to about half the current levels. These annual averages approximately doubled as a consequence of the Chernobyl incident in 1986; this impact faded away in approximately 2 years.The installation of new air monitoring equipment in 1992 yielded an approximate factor of 2 increase in the readings.

Since then, the levels have been fairly flat.The historical trending of the average weekly gross beta air concentrations for each year of operation and the preoperational period at the indicator, control and community stations is plotted in Figure 4.2-1 and listed in Table 4.2-L. In general, there is close agreement between the results for the indicator, control and community stations.

This close agreement supports the position that the plant's contribution to gross beta concentration in air is insignificant.

4-7 Figure 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 1000 4-E 0 0 t 10 0 Year I -MDC --4-- Indicator

• -Control X)E-Community 4-8 Table 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration Period Indicator Control Community (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3)Pre-op 90 92 91 1977 205 206 206 1978 125 115 115 1979 27.3 27.3 28.7 1980 29.7 28.1 29.2 1981 121 115 115 1982 20.0 20.4 21.0 1983 15.5 14.1 14.5 1984 10.2 12.6 10.5 1985 9.0 9.6 10.3 1986 10.5 15.8 12.5 1987 9.0 11.0 17.0 1988 8.0 8.0 10.0 1989 7.0 7.0 8.0 1990 10.0 10.0 10.0 1991 9.0 10.0 8.0 1992 15.0 17.9 18.5 1993 19.1 22.3 22.4 1994 19.0 20.0 19.0 1995 21.7 22.9 21.6 1996 20.3 22.3 23.5 1997 21.1 21.6 22.4 1998 20.6 19.3 22.0 1999 20.5 22.1 25.2 2000 20.9 20.8 23.6 2001 16.3 17.2 17.3 2002 16.8 18.0 16.8 2003 19.1 19.3 19.9 2004 22.0 21.3 22.4 2005 18.4 19.3 19.0 2006 16.1 17.5 16.8 2007 14.5 18.9 17.3 2008 16.7 20.6 18.0 2009 16.2 16.3 17.3 4-9 During 2009, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the quarterly composites of the air particulate filters. This has generally been the case since the impact of the weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident have faded. During preoperation and the early years of operation, a number of fission and activation products were detected.

During preoperation, the average levels for Cs-134 and Cs-137 were 22 and 9 fCi/m-, respectively.

In 1986, as a consequence of the Chernobyl incident, Cs-134 and Cs-137 levels of 3 to 4 fCi/m 3 were found. The MDC and RL for Cs-134 are 50 and 10,000 fCi/m 3 and the MDC and RL for Cs- 137 are 60 and 20,000 fCi/m 3 respectively.

The historical trending of the annual detectable Cs-137 concentrations for the indicator, control and community stations is provided in Figure 4.2-2 and Table 4.2-2. The trend has been generally downward since preoperation and no positive results have been observed since 1988.Figure 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air 20 E 10.ci 8 o In 0O A"b "4' CP c 1"P (Yea r-4-Indicator -U-*Control Ai- Community 4-10 Table 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air Period Indicator Control Community (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3) j (fCi/m3)Pre-op 8 13 7 1977 3.0 y 3.0 3.0 1978 4.0 5.0 5.0 1979 2.0 NDM 2.0 1980 1.0 2.0 1.8 1981 2.8 3.2 2.6 1982 1.7 NDM 1.0 1983 1.0 NDM 1.0 1984 NDM 1.5 NDM 1985 1.0 1.0 1.0 1986 3.3 3.4 2.7 1987 NDM NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1 1989 NDM NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM NDM 2008 NDM NDM NDM 2009 NDM NDM NDM 4-11 Airborne 1-131 was not detected in the charcoal canisters during 2009. In 1978, levels between 40 and 50 fCi/mr 3 were found in a few samples and attributed to the Chinese weapons tests; then after the Chernobyl incident, levels up to a few hundred fCi/m3 were found in some samples. At no other times has airborne 1-131 been detected in the environmental samples. The MDC and RL for airborne 1-131 are 70 and 900 fCi/m3 respectively.

Table 4-3 lists REMP deviations that occurred during 2009. There were nine air sampling deviations listed in Table 4-3, six results passed Chauvenet's Criterion and the data was retained in the calculation of the mean values. Three air sample results were excluded because they failed to meet the MDC. Low sample volumes were collected during those three weeks due to equipment malfunctions.

4-12 4.3 Direct Radiation Direct (external) radiation is measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Two Panasonic UD-814 TLD badges are placed at each station. Each badge contains three phosphors composed of calcium sulfate crystals (with thulium impurity).

The gamma dose at each station is based upon the average readings of the phosphors from the two badges. The two badges for each station are placed in thin plastic bags for protection from moisture while in the field. The badges are nominally exposed for periods of a quarter of a year (91 days). An inspection is performed near mid-quarter for offsite badges to assure that the badges are on-station and to replace any missing or damaged badges.Two TLD stations are established in each of the 16 sectors, to form 2 concentric rings. The inner ring stations are located near the plant perimeter, as shown in Figure 2-1, and the outer ring stations are located at distances of approximately 3 to 5 miles from the plant, as shown in Figure 2-2. The stations forming the inner ring are designated as the indicator stations.

The 6 control stations are located at distances greater than 10 miles from the plant, as shown in Figure2-3.

Stations are also provided which monitor special interest areas: the nearest occupied residence (SW at 1.2 miles), as shown in Figure 2-1, and the city of Ashford (WSW at 8 miles), as shown in Figure 2-3. The 16 outer ring stations and the 2 special interest stations are designated as community stations.As provided in Table 3-1, the average quarterly exposure measured at the indicator stations (inner ring) during 2009 was 15.2 mR which was 1.6 mR greater than the 13.6 mR which was acquired at the control stations.

This difference is statistically discernible since it is greater than the MDD of 1.4 mR. The difference of 0.82 mR found between the control stations (12.8 mR) and community stations (13.6 mR) is not statistically discernible since the difference is less than the MDD of 0.84 mR. The difference between the -indicator and control and between the control and community stations is consistent with what has been seen in previous years.The historical trending of the average quarterly exposures in units of mR at the indicator, control, and community locations are plotted in Figure 4.3-1 and listed in Table 4.3-1. During preoperation the average exposure at the indicator stations was 1.2 mR greater than that for the control stations, but the average over the entire period of operation was only 1.1 mR greater. During preoperation, the average exposure at the control stations was 1.3 mR greater than that at the community stations and the average over the period of operation is 1.5 mR greater. This supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to direct radiation in the environment.

Table 4-3 lists the REMP program deviations that occurred in 2009. There were three deviations involving TLD badges. In first quarter, RB-1612 TLDs had moisture in the holding bags, but the results passed Chauvenet's Criterion and were retained in the data set. In second quarter, RI-1401A TLD was wet in the holding bag. The results from the "A" badge failed Chauvenet's Criterion and RI-1401B had >1.4 SD; therefore both badges from 1401 were excluded.

In third quarter, RC-1401A and RI-0201A were wet in the holding bag. The results from both of these TLDs were >1.4 SD therefore both were excluded from the data set.4-13 Figure 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 30 25-20.x Y5 0 Year I 1 4-Indicator -U--Control A Community I 4-14 Table 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation Period Indicator (mR) Control (mR) Community (mR)Pre-op 12.6 11.4 10.1 1977 10.6 12.2 10.6 1978 15.0 13.5 12.0 1979 20.3 18.7 15.2 1980 21.9 21.6 18.5 1981 16.5 14.9 14.5 1982 15.5 14.7 13.0 1983 20.2 20.2 17.4 1984 18.3 16.9 15.3 1985 21.9 22.0 18.0 1986 17.8 17.7 15.1 1987 20.8 20.0 18.0 1988 21.5 19.9 18.5 1989 18.0 16.2 15.3 1990 18.9 16.4 15.8 1991 18.4 16.1 16.1 1992 16.1 13.6 13.5 1993 17.4 15.9 15.6 1994 15.0 13.0 12.0 1995 14.0 12.5 11.8 1996 14.2 12.7 11.9 1997 15.3 13.9 11.9 1998 16.2 14.6 13.9 1999 14.7 13.4 12.6 2000 15.5 14.1 13.5 2001 14.9 13.4 12.7 2002 14.1 12.6 11.9 2003 15.2 13.6 12.9 2004 14.3 12.9 12.1 2005 14.7 13.4 12.5 2006 15.2 13.6 12.9 2007 14.6 13.3 12.5 2008 15.0 13.7 12.9 2009 15.2 13.6 12.8 4-15 The standard deviation for the quarterly result for each badge was subjected to a self imposed limit of 1.4. This limit is calculated using a method developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (ASTM Special Technical Publication 15D, ASTM Manual on Presentation of Data and Control Chart Analysis, Fourth Revision, Philadelphia, PA, October 1976). The calculation is based upon the standard deviations obtained by the EL with the Panasonic UD-814 badges during 1992. This limit serves as a flag to initiate an investigation.

To be conservative, readings with a standard deviation greater than 1.4 are excluded since the high standard deviation is interpreted as an indication of unacceptable variation in TLD response.The TLD results from the following stations were excluded from the data set because their standard deviations were greater than 1.4: Quarter 1 -RB-0718A Quarter 2 -RI-1401A Quarter 3 -RC-1404A, RI-0101A, RI-0201A Quarter 4 -None For the TLD stations where these badges were located, only the reading of the companion badge was used to determine the quarterly exposure for the station with the exception of 2nd Qtr RI-1401. One badge was greater than 1.4 standard deviation and the other badge was excluded for failing Chauvenet's Criterion.

These badges were only on station for 44 days due to the change out of a utility pole.The badges (with >1.4 SD) were visually inspected under a microscope and the glow curve and test results for the anneal data and the element correction factors were reviewed.

No reason was found for the high standard deviations.

4-16 4.4 Milk In accordance with Table 2-1, milk samples are collected biweekly from a control location.

No indicator station (a location within five miles of the plant) has been available for milk sampling since 1987. As discussed in Section 4.0, no milk animals were found within five miles of the plant during the 2009 land use census.Gamma isotopic analyses were performed on each sample as specified in Table 2-1. No man-made radionuclides were identified from the gamma isotopic analysis of the milk samples during 2009. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in milk are 18 and 70 pCi/1, respectively.

The historical trending of the average annual detectable Cs-137 concentration in milk samples is shown in Figure 4.4-1 and Table 4.4-1. Cs-137 has not been detected in milk since 1986. Its presence at that time is attributed to the Chernobyl incident.

The earlier detectable results were attributed to the weapons tests.Figure 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 45 30-.25-0 S20-15--10 Year----Indicator

-- Control -MDC 4-17 Table 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk Period Indicator Control____________I(pci/)

j(pCi/l)Pre-op 32 18 1977 41 20 1978 15 17 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 NDM 23.0 1982 NDM NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 NDM 16.5 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 2008 NDM NDM 2009 NDM NDM 4-18 As specified in Table 2-1, each sample was analyzed for 1-131, which has not been detected in milk since 1986. The presence of 1-131 at that time is attributed to the Chernobyl incident.

The earlier detectable results were attributed to the weapons tests. The MDC and RL for 1-131 are 1 and 3 pCi/l, respectively.

Figure 4.4-2 and Table 4.4-2 show the historical trending of the average annual detectable 1-131 concentration in milk samples.Figure 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk CL C 0 C 50 40 30 20 10 0-~,e Alb Year I *-Indicator -Control -MVDC -RL 4-19 Table 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk Period Indicator Control (pCi/I) (pCi/I)Pre-op 41 14 1977 20 2.6 1978 30 11 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 NDM NDM 1982 NDM NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 NDM 5.0 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 2008 NDM NDM 2009 NDM NDM 4-20 4.5 Forage In accordance with Table 2-1, forage samples are collected every 4 weeks at two indicator stations on the plant perimeter, and at one control station located approximately 18 miles west of the plant, in Dothan. Gamma isotopic analyses are performed on each sample.During preoperation and the years of operation through 1986 (the year of the Chernobyl incident), Cs-137 was typically found in about a third of the 35 to 40 forage samples collected per year. In 1987 and 1988 the number dropped to about a seventh of the total samples and from 1989 through 1994, it was only found in one or two samples every year. From 1994 to 2006, Cs-137 was detected in only a few samples, three indicator samples and three control samples.In 2009, Cs-137 was not detected in any of the 13 control samples or in any of the 26 indicator samples. The occasional presence of Cs-137 in vegetation samples is attributed primarily to fallout from nuclear weapons tests and from the Chernobyl incident.

The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in forage are 80 and 2000 pCi/kg wet, respectively.

Table 4.5-1 presents the average detectable results of Cs-137 found in forage over the life of the plant and Figure 4.5-1 shows the historical trending of this data.4-21 Figure 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage 70 60,0 20 "N (\/ V 10 I T .W ' I ..I Yx!! .., Year-- ------ Indicator

-- ---Control -MDC-4-22 Table 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 59.4 48.6 1977 25.0 NDM 1978 52.5 32.5 1979 37.2 32.8 1980 36.2 35.9 1981 32.1 -43.1 1982 25.0 33.1 1983 16.8 23.6 1984 19.9 22.8 1985 22.2 9.5 1986 41.2 36.2 1987 46.8 NDM 1988 33.6 31.7 1989 35.7 NDM 1990 56.0 NDM 1991 NDM 12.9 1992 NDM 43.0 1993 NDM 24.0 1994 NDM 24 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 52.6 NDM 1998 NDM 22.7 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 24.1 25.2 2004 21.6 NDM 2005 NDM 23.1 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 2008 10.1 NDM 2009 NDM NDM 4-23 During preoperation and in the early years of operation, 1-131 was found in 10%to 25% of the forage samples at very high levels which ranged from around 100 to 1,000 pCi/kg wet. In 1986 (Chernobyl incident), 1-131 reappeared after not having been detected for 3 years. The MDC and RL for 1-131 are 60 and 100 pCi/kg wet, respectively.

Table 4.5-2 lists the average detectable results of 1-131 found in forage over the life of the plant and Figure 4.5-2 plots the historical trending of this data.Figure 4.5-2 1000 -- Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage 900 800 o00 700 0.400 C C 0 0 11111 1 1111111 104,110 4 W ----------Year-.-Indicator -U-Control -MDC ---RL 4-24 Table 4.5-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 405 486 1977 971 654 1978 220 240 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 21.4 NDM 1982 46.4 NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 184 NDM 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 2008 NDM NDM 2009 NDM NDM 4-25 These forage analyses results show the impact of the weapons tests during preoperation and the early years of operation and of the Chernobyl incident in 1986 and for a few years afterwards.

The impact is reflected by the number of different radionuclides detected, the fraction of samples with detectable results, as well as the magnitude of the results. During preoperatioh and for the first few years of operation, 11 different radionuclides from fission and activation products were detected.

By 1985, only 2 different radionuclides were detected and the fraction of samples with detectable results had diminished.

In 1986, the same two nuclides as seen in 1985 appeared at a significantly higher magnitude and 1-131 reappeared.

In the years following 1986, only Cs-137 has been found in forage and it has been found in a decreasing fraction of the samples.4-26 4.6 Ground Water In the FNP offsite environs, there are no true indicator sources of ground water. A well, located about four miles south-southeast of the plant on the east bank of the Chattahoochee River, serves Georgia Pacific Paper Company as a source of potable water and is designated as the indicator station. A deep well located about 1.2 miles southwest of the plant, which supplies water to the Whatley residence, is designated as the control station. Samples are collected quarterly and analyzed for gamma isotopic, 1-131 and tritium as specified in Table 2-1. In 2009, two indicator samples and two control samples were positive for tritium. No other radionuclides were detected.In 1983, 1985, and 1986, Cs-134 was detected in single samples at levels ranging from 3 to 13 pCi/l. The MDC and RL for Cs-134 in water are 15 and 30 pCi/l, respectively.

During preoperation, Cs-137 was detected in two of the samples at levels of 15 and 17 pCi/1. Then in 1984 and 1985, Cs-137 was again detected in a few samples with levels ranging from 4 to 5 pCi/l. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in water are 18 and 50 pCi/1, respectively.

/ Iodine-131 has never been detected in ground water samples. From 1986-2003, no radionuclides were detected.

In 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009 tritium was detected at very low concentrations (near the instrument detection level) and close to environmental background concentration which is approximately 350 pCi/i (+/-250 pCi/1) in the area around Farley. The positive results seen in these years were less than 3% of the reporting level for tritium. In 2009, the difference (73pCi/L)between the average of the 2 positive values seen at the indicator station (474 pCi/L) and the average of the 2 positive values seen at the control station (401 pCi/L) was not statistically discernible because it was less than the MDD of 1035 pCi/L. The MDC and RL for tritium in drinking water are 2,000 and 20,000 pCi/1, respectively.

Figure 4.6-1 and Table 4.6-1 show the historical trending of the average annual detectable tritium concentration in offsite ground water.4-27 Figure 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Offsite Ground Water 25O0 2000--1500.1000-0 5 --0 0o 0 -% -O -bo , p b 6 Z Z 4 4b'b Year--Indicator

--Control -MDC 4-28 Table 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Offsite Ground Water Period Indicator Control._(pCi/A) (pCiA)Pre-op 150 240 1977 NDM NDM 1978 NDM 240 1979 NDM NDM 1980 124 NDM 1981 264 NDM 1982 240 NDM 1983 360 341 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 NDM NDM 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM' NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 194 271 2005 264 360 2006 NDM NDM 2007 218 321 2008 196 237 2009 474 401 4-29

.As nuclear plants began to undergo decommissioning in the late 1990's to early 2000s, instances of subsurface and/or groundwater contamination were identified.

In addition, several operating facilities also identified groundwater contamination resulting from spills and leaks or equipment failure. In one instance, low levels of licensed material were detected in a private well located on property adjacent to a nuclear power plant.In 2006, NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) formed a task force to address monitoring onsite groundwater for radionuclides at nuclear facilities.

A Groundwater Protection Initiative was developed which was adopted by all U.S. commercial operating nuclear plants.The NRC also formed a task force to study the groundwater issues and released Information Notice 2006-13 "Ground-water Contamination due to Undetected Leakage of Radioactive Water" which summarized its review of radioactive contamination of ground water at multiple facilities as a result of undetected leakage from structures, systems, or components that contain or transport radioactive fluids. Licensees were instructed to review the information for applicability and to consider appropriate actions to avoid similar problems.The NEI task. force felt it was prudent for the industry to update site hydrology information and to develop radiological groundwater monitoring plans at each site. These groundwater protection plans would ensure that underground leaks and spills would be addressed promptly.

Additionally, the task force recommended developing a communications protocol to report radioactive leaks or spills that entered groundwater (or might eventually enter groundwater) to the NRC and State / Local government officials as needed. For guidance regarding monitoring wells with unexpected results, Southern Nuclear developed a company-wide communications protocol which is contained in the Nuclear Management Procedure, Actions for Potential Groundwater Contamination Events, to ensure radioactive leaks and spills are addressed and communicated appropriately.

In an effort to prevent future leaks of radioactive material to groundwater, SNC plants have established detailed buried piping and tanks inspection programs.In 2006, Farley located several old onsite piezometer wells and sampled these and the onsite drinking water wells for tritium and gamma isotopic, activity.

None of these wells contained detectable amounts of radioactivity.

In 2007, after the site hydrology was evaluated, Farley implemented a more extensive radiological groundwater monitoring program which included drilling twelve new onsite monitoring wells (see Table 2-2). The twelve new wells along with one of the existing piezometer wells, the onsite drinking water wells, and several surface water / discharge locations comprise the monitoring program. These locations were sampled twice in the latter portion of 2007 and sampled quarterly in 2008.Of the numerous samples taken from 2007 through 2009 (from the locations* described above), only one location (groundwater well R-3) showed low levels of radiological contamination (see Figure 4.6-2). Tritium was the only nuclide identified.

R-3 was also analyzed for gamma emitters (quarterly) and strontium (initially and after increase was noted) and these were not detected.

This well is located near the Protected Area and in the vicinity of the site where the Unit-2 radioactive effluent discharge line ruptured several years ago. In 2009, the level of tritium in R-3 remained fairly constant for all 4 quarterly sample events at an average of 4585 pCi/L.4-30 Figure 4.6-2 H-3 Concentration in Onsite Ground Water Well R-3 6000 5000 "-)/CL 4000 /1000----------------

---

2000 4 2000 "-- "- I 0 10 4 4-31 4.7 Surface Water As specified in Table 2-1 and shown in Figure 2-2, water samples are collected from the Chattahoochee River at a control station approximately 3 miles upstream of the intake structure and at an indicator station approximately 4 miles downstream of the discharge structure.

Small quantities are collected during the week at periodic intervals using automatic samplers.

For each station, one liter from each of four consecutive weekly samples is combined into a composite sample which is analyzed for gamma emitters.

In addition, 0.075 liters is collected from 13 consecutive weekly samples for each station to form composite quarterly samples which are analyzed for tritium.No detectable results have been found from these gamma isotopic analyses since 1988. During preoperation and in every year of operation through 1988 (except 1979 and 1980), a few samples showed at least one of nine different activation or fission products at levels less than or on the order of their MDCs. During preoperation, Cs-137 was found in about 3% of the samples. From 1981 through 1988, it was found in about 15% of the samples. Cs-134 was found in about 15%of the samples from 1981 to 1986. All of these gamma emitters are attributed to the weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident.In 2009, as shown in Table 3-1, tritium was detected in one of the 4 quarterly composites at the indicator station (343 pCi/L) arid in none of the 4 quarterly composite samples collected at the control station. Although tritium was detectable in one quarterly sample, the value was at the environmental background level which is approximately 350 pCi!l (+/- 250 pCi/1) in the area around Farley.Historical trending of the detectable concentrations of tritium in surface water is provided in Figure 4.7-1 and Table 4.7-1. The slightly elevated plot of the indicator stations is indicative of plant tritium contributions to surface water.However, it is noteworthy that the annual average levels are less than 10% of the MDC and less than 1% of the RL. The MDC and RL for tritium in surface water are 3,000 and 30,000, respectively.

4-32 Figure 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water 3500 3000 2500---a.S2000 E 1000500 500----- ---------0 Year--*-ndicator -Ul-Control -MDC 4-33 Table 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water Period Indicator Control (pCi/I) (pCi/l)Pre-op 200 170 1977 300 160 1978 230 250 1979 169 135 1980 221 206 1981 294 162 1982 300 132 1983 434 ill 1984 333 152 1985 351 105 1986 478 272 1987 291.8 116.5 1988 293.3 NDM 1989 253.8 NDM 1990 166 NDM 1991 122 NDM 1992 360.5 134 1993 388.8 NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 257 NDM 1996 386 NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 415 NDM 1999 314 NDM 2000 424 212 2001 252 NDM 2002 598 NDM 2003 296 NDM 2004 270 NDM 2005 215 173 2006 348 179 2007 321 NDM 2008 644 NDM 2009 343 NDM 4-34 4.8 Fish Two types of fish (bottom feeding and game) are collected semiannually from the Chattahoochee River at a control station several miles upstream of the plant intake structure and at an indicator station a few miles downstream of the plant discharge structure.

These locations are shown in Figure 2-2. Gamma isotopic analysis is performed on the edible portions of each sample as specified in Table 2-1.As provided in Table 3-1, Cs-137 was the only radionuclide of interest that was found from the gamma isotopic analysis of fish samples in 2009. Cs-137 was detected in both the fall and spring collection of game fish samples at the indicator station. The average was 24.9 pCi/kg wet. Cs-137 was detected in one game fish sample at the control station (12.5 pCi/kg-wet).

Using the modified Student's t-test, the difference between the indicator and control station was not statistically discernible.

The average of the samples at the indicator station was less than 2%of the reporting level. The MDC for Cs-137 in fish is 150 pCi/kg wet and the RL is 2000 pCi/kg wet.Cesium-137 was detected in one bottom feeding fish sample at the indicator location (spring collection) at 8.4 pCi/kg-wet and one bottom feeding fish at the control station (fall collection) at 21.9 pCi/kg-wet.

The positive values seen at both stations were less than 2% of the reporting level. The MDC for Cs-137 in fish is 150 pCi/kg wet and the RL is 2000 pCi/kg wet.Historically, Cs-137 has been found in approximately 30% of the bottom feeding fish samples and in 80% of the game fish samples. Figures 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 and Tables 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 provide the historical trending of the average annual detectable concentrations of Cs-137 in pCi/kg wet in bottom feeding and game fish, respectively.

Since the early 1980s, values have generally decreased for both indicator and control groups, with the exception of the bottom feeding fish collected at the indicator station in 1993. While some contribution from the plant cannot be ruled out, most of the Cs-137 in these samples may be attributed to the nuclear weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident, as evidenced by the normally close agreement between the control and indicator station results.4-35 Figure 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish 250 200 C)150 C.0 100 0 (.) 50 Year I -Indicator

--U-Control

-MDC I 4-36 Table 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 69 48 1977 NDM NDM 1978 NDM NDM 1979 38 30 1980 92 90 1981 96 106 1982 51.5 39.0 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM 19 1985 NDM NDM 1986 28 25 1987 25 19 1988 25.5 22.0 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 208 NDM 1994 15.9 10.3 1995 NDM 14.2 1996 16.4 9.9 1997 10.9 7.7 1998 NDM NDM 1999 19.2 NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 9.8 NDM 2002 NDM* NDM 2003 NDM 8.5 2004 8.1 NDM 2005 NDM 9.6 2006 9.7 NDM 2007 8.1 NDM 2008 11.4 7.7 S ;~>~K 8.4K 21.9 4-37 Figure 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish 350 3o00 cL3 200 150 0 L Year[2--Indicator

---

-Control -MDC--4-38 Table 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 84 60 1977 95 48 1978 NDM NDM 1979 111 83.5 1980 289 316 1981 189 126 1982 76 77 1983 57 56.5 1984 42 26 1985 84 44 1986 51 35 1987 83 46 1988 42 33 1989 38 29 1990 28 NDM 1991 36 24 1992 32.5 28 1993 34 NDM 1994 19 16 1995 17.9 18.2 1996 19.6 23.1 1997 25.9 NDM 1998 52 20 1999 36.9 15.9 2000 22.9 12.5 2001 22.4 12.3 2002 NDM 10.1 2003 19.3 12.0 2004 12.7 .10.8 2005 15.7 NDM 2006 15.0 14.7 2007 15.4 6.5 2008 16.6 23.2 2009. 2.. ) 1' 1 .. =' ..4-39 Radionuclides of interest other than Cs-137 have been found in only a few.samples in the past. The following table provides a summary of the results in pCi/kg wet compared with the applicable MDCs.YEAR Nuclide Fish Type Indicator Control MDC (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg)1978 Ce-144 Bottom Feeding NDM 200 1981 Nb-95 Bottom Feeding 38 NDM 50 (a)1982 Nb-95 Game 31 NDM 50 (a)1986 Co-60 Game 25 NDM 130 (a) Determined by the EL. Not defined in ODCM Table 4-3 (Table 4-1 of this report).4-40 4.9 Sediment River sediment samples are collected semiannually on the Chattahoochee River at a control station which is approximately 4 miles upstream of the intake structure and at an indicator station which is approximately 2 miles downstream of the discharge structure as shown in Figure 2-2. A gamma isotopic analysis is performed on each sample as specified in Table 2-1. During 2009, Be-7 was detected in one of the semiannual samples at the indicator station (72.8 pCi/kg-dry). Be-7 is naturally occurring but has been identified in Farley's liquid effluents so it is a radionuclide of interest.

Cs-137 was the only other nuclide detected in river sediment during 2009. One of the semiannual samples at the control station had 24.4 pCi/kg-dry of Cs-137.Historically, Be-7, Cs-134, Cs-137, and Nb-95 have been detected in some samples. These positive results were generally for samples collected at the control station.'

A summary of the positive historical results for these nuclides along with their applicable MDCs in units of pCi/kg dry is provided in Table 4.9. Cs-134 and Cs-137 data are plotted in Figures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2, respectively.

Table 4.9 Sediment Nuclide Concentrations Nuclide YEAR Indicator (pCi/kg) Control (pCi/kg) MDC (pCi/kg)Be-7 1985 535 945 655 (a)2003 199 NDM 2009 72.8 NDM Cs-134 1987 NDM 45 150 1989 NDM 48 1992 138 51 1993 94 105 Cs-137 1981 NDM 185 180 1985 NDM 97 1989 NDM 39 1994 29 11 1996 11.8 NDM 2005 14.5 NDM 2009 NDM 24.4 Nb-95 1981 52 113 50 (a)(a) Determined by the EL. Not defined in ODCM Table 4-3 (Table 4-1 of this report).4-41 Figure 4.9-1 Average Annual Cs-134 Concentration in Sediment 160-140----120----)100 80 0 4-20 IQ -----0 J% j%-- -------Year-1,ndicator

--JControl --MDC The positive results for Cs-134 appear mostly at the control station. Due to its relatively short half-life of approximately 2 years, the positive results may be attributed to the Chernobyl incident.

The overall plotting of the positive results does not show any discernible trends.4-42 Figure 4.9-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment IM 0)0.C C-)200,, --160----------------------------------------------

140 ---------------120- --- -------- ------100 --400f~ -----I//N/01 qo0 ( iN-U -I -I ~ U -I -U -U -I ~. U-I~Il-E -I -U ~I ~ Il-U l- U -U -U -I -U -I -I -U -I -Ul-I~II-E .qflIfl -Year 4zp 49 QP 4so 4bb----Indicator

--*-Control

-MDC I Cs-137 appears to be trending down since the ceasing of above ground weapons testing and the majority of the positive results appear at the control stations.Therefore in general, the positive results can be attributed to the weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident.4-43 5.0 INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM In accordance with ODCM 4.1.3, the EL participates in an ICP that satisfies the requirements of Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)

-Effluent Streams and the Environment", February 1979. The guide indicates the ICP is to be conducted with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies (Cross-check)

Program or an equivalent program, and the ICP should include all of the determinations (sample medium/radionuclide combinations) that are offered by the EPA and included in the REMP.The ICP is conducted by Analytics, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. Analytics has a documented Quality Assurance (QA) program and the capability to prepare Quality Control (QC) materials traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The ICP is a third party blind testing program which provides a means to ensure independent checks are performed on the accuracy and precision of the measurements of radioactive materials in environmental sample matrices: Analytics supplies the crosscheck samples to the EL which performs the laboratory analyses in a normal manner. Each of the specified analyses is performed three times. The results are then sent to Analytics who performs an evaluation which may be helpful to the EL in the identification of instrument or procedural problems.The samples offered by Analytics and included in the EL analyses are gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter; gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples; and gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples.The accuracy of each result is measured by the normalized deviation, which is the ratio of the reported average less the known value to the total error. The total error is the square root of the sum of the squares of the uncertainties of the known value and of the reported average. The uncertainty of the known value includes all analytical uncertainties as reported by Analytics.

The uncertainty of the reported average is the propagated error of the values in the reported average by the EL.The precision of each result is measured by the coefficient of variation, which is defined as the standard deviation of the reported result divided by the reported average. An investigation is undertaken whenever the absolute value of the normalized deviation is greater than three or whenever the coefficient of variation is greater than 15% for all radionuclides other than Cr-51 and Fe-59. For Cr-51 and Fe-59, an investigation is undertaken when the coefficient of variation exceeds the values shown as follows: Nuclide Concentration

• Total Sample Activity Percent Coefficient (pCi) of Variation Cr-51 <300 NA 25 Cr-51 NA >1000 25 Cr-51 >300 <1000 15 Fe-59 <80 NA 25 Fe-59 >80 NA 15* For air filters, concentration units are pCi/filter.

For all other media, concentration units are pCi/liter (pCi/1).5-1 As required by ODCM 4.1.3.3 and 7.1.2.3, a summary of the results of the EL's participation in the ICP is provided in Table 5-1 for: the gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter; gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples; and gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples. Delineated in this table for each of the media/analysis combinations, are: the specific radionuclides; Analytics' preparation dates; the known values with their uncertainties supplied by Analytics; the reported averages with their standard deviations; and the resultant normalized deviations and coefficients of variation expressed as a percentage.

The EL analyzed 9 samples for 35 parameters in 2009. These analyses included tritium, gross beta and gamma emitting radio-nuclides in different matrices.

The attached results indicate all analyses are acceptable for precision and one analysis outside the acceptance limits for accuracy.

The activity recovery of Fe-59 in air filter was above the upper acceptance limit for accuracy.The analysis of Fe-59 is performed by gamma spectroscopy, with the value determined by a weighted average of the three germanium detectors.

In a 2005 investigation a positive bias was determined to exist in the analysis based on summing of nuclides in the calibration standard.

The detectors are calibrated on a three year geometry rotation.

The air filter geometry calibration is scheduled and will be completed in 2010. The 2009 sample will be reanalyzed with the new calibration to verify calibration accuracy.5-2 I.-0 I 1f~0 Q 0 0 z 0 0 0 C50 9z ON 00 tr~00 00 0 rj~0 0 0 0) 0 C,- r- kn t t_ C?V.) 0N~ 0 00~00-Om n 0*N CN 0C)0 0 000000 000M\, r C) C0 o 0c0oo 0 c CD-c m-- -m 04-\ 10 ::Cli~4*-~ = ON -00 1-0 C 0 00o od W.) V) I O~00 f 00 N 0 CC0U ) : 000000D CC 0000 N--00 Q 0000 0 0 0 00~N C)C)C C ) c f- C)I-0 0.00 00 4~L I-CU 0I-CU (J 5-3 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 2 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE (pCi/liter)

Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide I Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Fe-59 06/18/09 144.10 122.00 3.6 0.68 7.69 1.99 1-131 06/18/09 116.00 102.00 7.01 0.57 9.34 1.29 Mn-54 06/18/09 138.80 137.00 17.49 0.76 13.97 0.09 Zn-65 06/18/09 194.90 175.00 3.54 0.98 8.45 1.21 GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLE (pCi/liter)

GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)

Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard T Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce-141 03/19/09 119.10 120.00 9 0.67 9.54 -0.08 Co-58 03/19/09 145.30 151.00 9.04 0.84 8.18 -0.48 Co-60 03/19/09 193.70 180.00 4.54 1.00 4.44 1.60 Cr-51 03/19/09 406.90 387.00 12.63 2.15 9.69 0.50 Cs-134 03/19/09 122.20 119.00 6.96 0.66 7.42 0.35 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 3 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)

Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Cs-137 03/19/09 152.00 141.00 9.57 0.79 8.05 0.90 Fe-59 03/19/09 142.00 127.00 2178 0.70 6.68 1.58 1-131 03/19/09 76.10 69.00 3.21 0.38 7.95 1.18 Mn-54 03/19/09 179.10 162.00 3.05 0.90 4.90 1.95 Zn-65 03/19/09 210.40 197.00 4.72 1.10 6.91 0.92 TRITIUM ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)

Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average JValue Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation H-3 103/19/09

[ .4470.001 4480.001 106.90 [ 24.931 4.321 -0.05 106/18/09

[ 12933.90]

13000 267.3 [ 74.3 2.98 -0.17 1-131 ANALYSIS OF AN AIR CARTRIDGE (pCi/cartridge)

Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation 1-131 06/18/09 96.40 99.10 10.4 0.55 11.94 -0.24

6.0 CONCLUSION

S This report confirms the licensee's conformance with the requirements of Chapter 4 of the ODCM. It provides a summary and discussion of the results of the laboratory analyses for each type of sample.In 2009, there one instance where the indicator station results were statistically discernible from the control station results. The direct radiation average of the indicator stations was slightly higher than the average at the control stations.Figure 4.3-1 trend shows that the difference between the indicator, control, and community stations has been very consistent over the years of plant operation and therefore supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to direct radiation in the environment.

No discernible radiological impact upon the environment or the public as a consequence of plant discharges to the atmosphere and to the river was established for any other REMP samples.The radiological levels reported in 2009 were low and are generally trending downward.

The REMP trends over the course of time from preoperation to the present are generally decreasing or have remained fairly constant.

This supports the conclusion that there is no adverse radiological impact on the environment or to the public as a result of the operation of Farley Nuclear Plant.6-1