Text

Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2015 - Page 1 of 2
	ML16145A377
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch, Vogtle, Farley
Issue date:	05/16/2016
From:	Pierce C; Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	NL-16-0741
	Download: ML16145A377 (86)
	v • d • e

Charles R. Pierce Southern Nuclear Regulatory Affairs Director Operating Company, Inc.

40*1nverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35242 Tel 205.992 .7872 SOUTHERN ._\

Fax 205 .992.7601 NUCLEAR A SOUTHERN COMPANY MAY 1 6 2016 Docket Nos .: 50-321 50-348 50-424 NL-16-0741 50-366 50-364 50-425 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington , D. C . 20555-0001 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 & 2 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant- Units 1 & 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 & 2 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2015 Lad ies and Gentlemen :

In accordance with section 5 .6 .2 of the referenced plants' Technical Specifications , Southern Nuclear Operating Company hereby submits the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2015.

This letter contains no NRC commitments . If you have any questions, please contact Ken McElroy at (205) 992-7369 .

C. R. Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director CRP/RMJ

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NL-16-0741 Page 2

Enclosures:

1. Hatch Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2015

2. Farley Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2015

3. Vogtle Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2015 cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company Mr. S. E. Kuczynski, Chairman, President & CEO Mr. D. G. Bost, Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Ms. C. A. Gayheart, Vice President - Farley Mr. D. R. Vineyard, Vice President - Hatch Mr. D. R. Madison , Vice President - Fleet Operations Mr. B. K. Taber, Vice President - Vogtle 1 & 2 Mr. M. D. Meier, Vice President - Regulatory Affairs Mr. B. J. Adams, Vice President - Engineering Ms. B. L. Taylor, Regulatory Affairs Manager - Farley Mr. G. L. Johnson, Regulatory Affairs Manager - Hatch Mr. G. W. Gunn, Regulatory Affairs Manager - Vogtle 1 & 2 RType: Farley=CFA04.054; Hatch=CHA02.004; Vogtle=CVC7000 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. C. Haney, Regional Administrator Mr. S. A. Williams, NRR Project Manager - Farley Mr. D. H. Hardage, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch Mr. W. D. Deschaine, Senior Resident Inspector - Vogtle 1 & 2 Mr. P. K. Niebaum, Senior Resident Inspector - Farley Mr. R. E. Martin, NRR Project Manager - Vogtle 1 & 2 Mr. A. M. Alen, Resident Inspector - Vogtle 1 & 2 Mr. M. D. Orenak, NRR Project Manager - Hatch State of Alabama Mr. D. K. Walter, Department of Public Health, Office of Radiation Control State of Georgia Mr. M. Williams, Department of Natural Resources American Nuclear Insurers Mr. R. A. Oliveira

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 & 2 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant- Units 1 & 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 & 2 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2015 Enclosure 1 Hatch Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2015

EDWIN le. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 2015 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT SOUTHERN << \

NUCLEAR A SOUTHERN COMPANY

LANT A H NNUAL ADIOLOGICAL RT EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 2015 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 lntroduction .. ... ........... .......... ....................................... ...................... .......... . 1 2 REMP Description ....... .......... ........................................................................ 2 3 Results Summary ........ .................................................................................. 7 3.1 Airborne Particulates ... ............. .. .......... ...................... ................... ... .. ........ .... .. ... . 14 3.1.1 Gross Beta ..... ................ .... ......... ... .. ....................... .............................................. 14 3.1.2 Gamma Particulates ................................................................................ ............. 16 3.2 Direct Radiation ... .................. .. .. ............. ................................................. ... ...... ... . 16 3.3 Biological Media .. .................. ................. .............. .. ....... .... ........ .... ... ..... ............ .... 20 3.3 .1 Milk .... ... .. ...... .... ..... .. ............ .... ....... ........ ... .. ... .. .. ........... .. .... .. ..... ..... ........ .... ........ 20 3.3 .2 Vegetation ............... ...... .... .... .. .... ...... ....... .. .... .... .... ... ... .. ..... ........ ... .... .......... ... ..... 21 3.3.3 Fish ............... .. ... ... ............. ... ...... ...... ..... ....... ..... .. .. ...... ....................................... .. 21 3.3.4 Biological Media Summary .......... .. ... .... ...... .. .. .. .. .. ....... .... ............... .. ..... ......... .. .. . 21 3.4 Surface Water .. .... ... .... ....... .. ..... .. ............... .. ....... .. ..... .................... .. ... .. .. .. ..... ....... 22 3.5 Sediment ............ ..... .. .. ... .... .. ................................. ........ ...... ............. .. ..... .. .... .... .... 23 3.6 lnterlaboratory Comparison Program ..... ... .......................................................... 23 3.7 Groundwater .. .... .. ... .. .. .... .. ......... .. ........... .......... ........ ............................................ 27 4 Survey Summaries ..... .. ............................................................................... 30 4.1 Land Use Census ... .. .... ... .......... ... ........... ........ .. .................. .. ... ......... ... ...... .... .. ...... 30 4 .2 Altamaha River Survey ........... ................. .............. .... ..... .. ........ ....... .. ............ .... .... 30 5 Conclusions ............. .................................................................................... 32 Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ...... ... .. ................ .. .. 3 Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations ......... .... .. ...... ................. ... .............. .. .... .. ......... 5 Table 3-1. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary ...... ........ .... .. ... ............ ... .... 9 Table 3-2. Reporting Levels (RL) .. ... .. ....... .................... .. .................................... ................. .. .. .. ........ .. .... .... 12 Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ....... ...... .... 13 Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration .. ........ ............... .......... .. .......... ... ... .... ...... .... ...... 14 Table 3-5 . Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation .... ........ ........... ................. .... .. .. ................. 17 Table 3-6. lnterlaboratory Comparison Limits ........ ... .. ........ .. ......................................................... ...... .. ... 24 2015 HNP !A.nnual Radiological Environmental Operating Report I i lP age

PLANT c NNU L ADIOLOGICAL Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary .. ........ ....... ..... .. ...... .. ... ... ............ ................. ..... ... .......... 25 Table 3-8 . Groundwater Monitoring Locations .. ... ...... .. .......... .... .. ....... .... .. ................ .... .. .......... ...... ... .. .... 27 Table 3-9 . Groundwater Monitoring Results ....... .. ...... .... .... ................. .. ........... ... ..... ....... ... .. .. .... ... ....... .... 28 Table 4-1. Land Use Census Results ... .......... ... ............................................ .. ....... ........... .. ........ ................. 30 Table 4-2 . Special Sample Results (Peanuts) ........................................... ......... .. .. .............. .. .. .......... .......... 31 Figures Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration ... ....... ..... .. ........ ....... .. ..... .. ........ .. ............. .... .. .. 16 Figure 3-2 . Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation ................. .. .. ...... ........ .. .. ..... .... ........... ... ... 19 Figure 3-3. 2015 Average Exposure from Direct Radiation ....................... .................................. ........... ... . 20 Figure 3-4 . 2015 Biological Media Average Concentrations .................. .. ............. ........ .... .... .. ........ ........ .... 22 Figure 3-5. Average Annual Tritium Concentrations in River Water ......... ..... ... ... ....... .... .. ......... .. ..... .. .... ... 23 Appendix A - Maps A REMP Stations in Plant Vicinity A REMP Stations within 5 Miles A Facility Groundwater Wells Appendix B - Errata Groundwater Protection Results from 2014 Report 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 1 ii I P age

PL NTH TC ANNUAL ADIOLOGICAL PERATING E ORT LIST OF ACRONYMS AREOR Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BWR Boiling Water Reactor CL Confidence Level EPA Environmental Protection Agency GA EPD State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division GPC Georgia Power Company GPCEL Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory HNP Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant ICP lnterlaboratory Comparison Program MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MOD Minimum Detectable Difference MWe Megawatts Electric NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measurement(s)

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual OSL Optically Stimulated Luminescence Po Preoperation REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting Level RM River Mile SNC Southern Nuclear Operating Company TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specification 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operatihg Report iii IPage I

PLANT ATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVI PERATING EPORT 1 INTRODUCTION The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) is conducted in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). REMP activities for 2015 are reported herein in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.2 and ODCM 7.1.

The objectives of the REMP are to:

1) Determine the levels of radiation and the concentrations of radioactivity in the environs and;

2) Assess the radiological impact (if any) to the environment due to the operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP).

The assessments include comparisons between the results of analyses of samples obtained at locations where radiological levels are not expected to be affected by plant operation (control stations), areas of higher population (community stations), and at locations where radiological levels are more likely to be affected by plant operation (indicator stations), as well as comparisons between preope rat ional and operational sample results .

The pre-operational stage of the REMP began with the establishment and activation of the environmental monitoring stations in January of 1972. The operational stage of the REMP began on September 12, 1974 with Unit 1 initial criticality.

A description of the REMP is provided in Section 2 of this report

Section 3 provides a summary of the results and an assessment of any radiological impacts to the environment as well as the results from the interlaboratory comparison

A summary of the land use census and the river survey are included in Section 4

Conclusions are included in Section 5 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report ll P age

L NT c NNUAL ADIOLOGICAL 2 REMP DESCRIPTION The following section provides a description of the sampling and laboratory protocols associated with the REMP . Table 2-1 provides a summary of 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 summarizes the collection and analysis frequencies (in accordance with ODCM Section 4.2). Table 2-2 provides specific information regarding the station locations, their proximity to the plant, and exposure pathways .

Additionally, the locations of the sampling stations are depicted on Maps A-1 through A-3 of the georeferenced data included in Appendix A of this report .

Georgia Power Company's Environmental Laboratory (GPCEL), located in Smyrna, Georgia collects and analyzes REMP samples .

~'

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 2 1P age I

PLANT ATCH NNUAL RADI LOGIC l NVIRONMENT l Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Exposure Pathway Approximate Number of Sampling/Collection Frequency Type/Frequency of Analysis and/or Sample Sample Locations Direct Radiation 37 routine monitoring Qua rterly Gamma dose, quarterly stations Airborne Radioiodine Samples from six Continuous sampler operation with sample Radioiodine canister: 1-131 analysis, weekly and Particulates locations : collection weekly Particulate sampler : analyze for gross beta radioactivity not less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months following filter change, weekly; perform gamma isotopic analysis on affected samp le when gross beta activity is 10 times the yearly mean of control samples; and compo site (by locati on) for gamma isotopic analysis, quarterly.

Waterborne 1 2 Surface One sample upriver Composite sample over one month period Gamma isotopic analysis , monthly One sample downriver Composite for tritium analysis, quarterly 3 4 Drinking ' One sample of river Rive r water collected near the intake will be a 1-131 analysis on each sample when biweekly water near the intake and composite sample; the finished water will be a coll ect ion s are required . Gross beta and gamma one sample of finished grab sample . These samples will be collected isotopic analysis on each sa mple; composite (by water from each of one monthly unless the calculated dose due to location) for tritium analysis, quarterly.

to three of the nearest consumption of the water is greater than 1 water supplies which mrem/year; then the collection will be biweekly.

could be affected by HNP rT"he collections may revert to monthly should the discharges. calculated doses become less than 1 mrem/year.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 3 I Page

LANT A C NNU l ADI l Gtc NVIR N ENT l Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Exposure Pathway Approximate Number of Sampling/Collection Frequency Type/Frequency of Analysis and/or Sample Sample Locations Groundwater See Table 3-8 and Map A- Quarte rly sample; pump used to sample GW wells; Tritium, gamma isotopic, and field parameters 3 for well locations grab sample from yard drains and ponds (pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation/reduction potential, and turbidity) of each sample quarterly; Hard to detect rad ionuclides as necessary based on results of tritium and gamma .

2 Shoreline Sediment Two Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis , semiannually Ingestion 5 27 M ilk On e Bimonthly Gamma isotopic analysis ' , bimonthly 0 2 Fish or Clams Two Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis on edible portion s, semian nually 27 Grass or Leafy Three Monthly during growing season Gamma isotopic analysis ' , monthly

!Vegetation Notes:

1 Composite sample aliquots shall be collected at time intervals that are very short (e .g., hourly) relative to the compositing period (e.g ., monthly) to assure obtaining a representative sample.

2 Gamma isotopic analysis means the identification and quantification of gamma -emitting radionuclides that may be attributable to the effluents from the facility.

3 1f it is found that river water downstream of the plant is used for drinking, drinking water sam ples will be collected and analyzed as specified herein .

14 A survey shall be conducted annually at least 50 river mile s downstream of the plant to identify those who use water from the Altamaha River for drinking.

15 up to three sampling locations within five miles and in different sectors will be used as available. In addition, one or more con t rol locations beyond 10 miles will be used .

16commercially or recreationally important fish may be sampled . Clams may be sa mpled if diffi culties are encountered in obtaining su fficient fish samples.

7 1f the gamma isotopic analysis is not se nsitive enough to meet the Minimum Detectabl e Concentrati on (MDC) for 1-131, a separate analysis for 1-131 may be performed.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 4 1P age

PLANT HATC NNUAL RA IOLOGIC . l ENVI *ONME T l Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations 1

Station Station Descriptive Location Direction Distance Radiation Sample Type 1

Number Type (miles) 064 Othe r Roadside Park WNW 0.8 Direct 101 Indicator Inner Ring N 1.9 Direct 102 Indicator Inner Ring NNE 2.5 Di rect 103 Indicator Inner Ring NE 1.8 Airborne, Direct 104 Indicator Inner Ring ENE 1.6 Direct 105 Indicator Inner Ring E 3.7 Direct 106 Indicator Inner Ring ESE 1.1 Direct, Vegetation 107 Indicator Inner Ring SE 1.2 Airborne, Dire ct 108 Indicator Inner Ring SSE 1.6 Direct 109 Indicator Inner Ring s 0.9 Direct 110 Indicator Inner Ring SSW 1.0 Direct 111 Indicator Inner Ring SW 0.9 Direct 112 Indicator Inner Ring WSW 1.0 Airborne, Direct, Vegetation 113 Indicator Inn er Ring w 1.1 Direct 114 Indicator Inner Ring WNW 1.2 Direct 115 Indicator Inn er Ring NW 1.1 Direct 116 Indicator Inn er Ring NNW 1.6 Airborne, Direct 2 3 170 Control Upstream WNW River 2 3 172 Indicator Downstream E River 201 Other Outer Ring N 5.0 Direct 202 Other Outer Ring NNE 4.9 Direct 203 Other Outer Ring NE 5.0 Direct 204 Other Outer Ring ENE 5.0 Direct 205 Other Outer Ring E 7.2 Direct 206 Other Outer Ring ESE 4.8 Direct 207 Other Outer Ring SE 4.3 Direct 208 Other Outer Ring SSE 4.8 Direct 209 Other Outer Ring s 4.4 Direct 210 Other Outer Ring SSW 4.3 Direct 211 Other Outer Ring SW 4.7 Direct 212 Other Outer Ring WSW 4.4 Direct 213 Other Outer Ring w 4.3 Direct 214 Other Outer Ring WNW 5.4 Direct 215 Other Outer Ring NW 4.4 Direct 216 Oth er Outer Ring NNW 4.8 Direct 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report SI P age

LANT CH ANNUAL RADIOLOGlC L ENVIRONM TAL T

Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations 1

Station Station Descriptive Location Direction Distance Radiation Sample Type 1

Number Type (miles)

Toombs Central 301 Other N 8.0 Direct School 304 Control State Prison ENE 11.2 Airborne, Direct 304 Control State Pri son ENE 10.3 Milk Ba xley 309 Control Substation s 10.0 Airborne, Direct Emergency News 416 Control NNW 21.0 Direct, Vegetation Center Notes:

1 Direction and distance are determined from the main stack .

2 Station 170 is located approximate ly 0.6 river miles upstream of the intake structure for river water, 1.1 river miles for sediment and clams, and 1.5 river miles for fish .

>tation 172 is located approximately 3.0 river miles downstream of the discharge structure for river water, sed iment and clams, and 1.7 river miles for fish .

The location s from which river water and sedim ent may be taken can be sharply defined. However, the sam pling locations for clams often have to be extended over a wide area to obta in a sufficient quantity. High water adds to the difficulty in obtaining clam sa mples and may also make an otherwise suitable location for sediment sampling unavailable. A stretch of the river of a few miles or so is generally needed to obtain adequate fish samples. The mile locations given above represent approxi mations of the location s where

,,amples are collected.

3 River (fish or clams, shoreline sediment, and surface water) 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 6I P age

PLA T A CH ANNUAL ADIOLOGIC L NVI ONMENTAL OPE RT 3 RESULTS

SUMMARY

Included in this section are statistical evaluations of the laboratory results, comparison of the results by media, and a summary of the anomalies and deviations. Overall, 885 analyses were performed across nine exposure pathways. Tables and figures are provided throughout this section to provide an enhanced presentation of the information .

In recent history, man-made nuclides have been released into the environment and have resulted in wide spread distribution of radionuclides across the globe . For example, atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from the mid-1940s through 1980 distributed man-made nuclides around the world . The most recent atmospheric tests in the 1970s and in 1980 had a significant impact upon the radiological concentrations found in the environment prior to and during pre-operation, and through early operation. Some long-lived radionuclides, such as Cs-137, continue to be detected and a portion of these detections are believed to be attributed to the nuclear weapons tests .

Additionally, data associated with certain radiological effects created by off-site events have been removed from the historical evaluation, this includes : the nuclear atmospheric weapon test in the fall of 1980 and the Chernobyl incident in the spring of 1986.

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. Historically, the radionuclide Be-7, which occurs abundantly in nature, is often detected in REMP samples, and occasionally detected in the plant's liquid and gaseous effluents . When it is detected in effluents and REMP samples, it is also included in the REMP results . In 2015, Be-7 was not detected in any plant effluents and is therefore not included in this report. The Be-7 detected in select REMP samples likely represents naturally occurring and/or background conditions .

As part of the data evaluation process, SNC considered the impact of the non-plant associated nuclides along with a statistical evaluation of the REMP data. The statistical evaluations included within this report include the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC), the Minimum Detectable Difference (MOD), and Chauvenet's Criterion as described below .

Minimum Detectable Concentration The minimum detectable concentration is defined as an estimate of the true concentration of an analyte required to give a specified high probability that the measured response will be greater than the critical value.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report I 71 Page I

LA T A CH NNUAL R IOLOGI L NVIRONMENTAL Minimum Detectable Difference The Minimum Detectable Difference {MOD) compares the lowest significant difference

{between the means) of a control station, versus an indicator station or a community station, that can be determined statistically at the 99% Confidence Level {CL). A difference in mean values which was less than the MOD was considered to be statistically indiscernible.

ChauvenersCriterion All results were tested for conformance with Chauvenet 's criterion {G . D. Chase and J. L.

Rabinowitz, Principles of Radioisotope Methodology, Burgess Publ ishing 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 difference. 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.

The 2015 results were compared with past results, including those obtained during pre-operation. As appropriate, results were compared with their MDC {listed in Table 3-1) and RL which is listed in Table 3-2. The required MDCs were achieved during laboratory sample analysis. No data points were excluded for violating Chauvenet's criterion .

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operati rlg Report S f Page

LANT HATCH NUAL ADIOLQGtCAL Medium or Indicator Pathway Minimum Locations Location with the Highest Control Sampled Type and Total Detectable Mean (b), Annual Mean Other Stations Locations Mean (Unit of Number of Analyses Concentration Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range (f) Mean (b), (b), Range Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) and Direction (Fraction) Range (Fraction) (Fraction)

Airborne Gross Beta 10 19.l State Pri son 20 19.6 Particulates 312 4-40.4 ENE 11.2 Mi les 2.3-35 .9 2.3-35 .9 (fCi/m3) (208/208) (52/52) (104/104)

Gamma Isotopic 24 1-131 70 NDM(c) NDM NDM Cs-134 so NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 60 NDM NDM NDM Airborne 1-131 70 NDM NDM NDM NDM Radioiod ine 312 (fCi/m3)

Direct Radiati on Gamma Dose 12.l Outer Ring 16.4 12.1 11.7 (mR/91 days) 148 9.4-17.4 WNW 5.4 mi. 14.3-16.2 8.6-16.9 9.8-14.2 (64/64) (4/4) (72/72) (12/12)

Milk (pCi/I) Gamma Isotopic 24 1-131 1 NDM NDM Cs-134 15 NDM NDM Cs-137 18 State Prison 0.78-0.78 0.78-0.78 ENE 10.3 Miles (1/24) (1/24)

Ba-140 60 NDM NDM La-140 15 NDM NDM Vegetation Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg-wet) 36 1-131 60 NDM NDM 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 9 1P age

PLANT HATCH NUAL ADtQLOGlCAl PE RATING

. .. *

I e I : :

I : "

Medium or Indicator Pathway Minimum Locations Location with the Highest Control Sampled Type and Total Detectable Mean (b), Annual Mean Other Stations Locations Mean (Unit of Number of Analyses Concentration Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range (f) Mean (b), (b), Range Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) and Direction (Fraction) Range (Fraction) (Fraction)

Cs-134 60 NDM NDM Cs-137 80 135.2 Inn er Ring ESE 149.7 NDM 16.2-376.2 1.1 mi. 16.2-376.2 (9/24) (8/12)

Riv er Water Gamma Isotopic (pCi/I) 13 Mn-54 15 NDM NDM NDM Fe-59 30 NDM NDM NDM Co-58 15 NDM NDM NDM Co-60 15 NDM NDM NDM Zn-65 30 NDM NDM NDM Zr-95 30 NDM NDM NDM Nb-95 15 NDM NDM NDM 1-131 15(d) NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 15 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 18 NDM NDM NDM Ba-140 60 NDM NDM NDM La-140 15 NDM NDM NDM Tritium 3000 (e) 200 Downstream E 200 17.5 8 200-200 3.0 RM from 200-200 17.5-17.5 (1/4) intake (1/4) (1/4)

Fish Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg-wet) 4 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 10 IP age

PLA T ATCH NU L ADtOL GlCAL ENVIRONME PE RATING

. .. .. .. I : :

I :

Medium or Indicator Pathway Minimum Locations Location with the Highest Control Sampled Type and Total Detectable Mean (b), Annual Mean Other Stations Locations Mean (Unit of Number of Analyses Concentration Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range (f) Mean (b), (b), Range Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) and Direction (Fraction) Range (Fraction) (Fraction)

Be-7 655(d) NDM NDM Mn-54 130 NDM NDM Fe-59 260 NDM NDM Co-58 130 NDM NDM Co-60 130 NDM NDM Zn-65 260 NDM NDM Cs-134 130 NDM NDM Cs-137 150 NDM NDM Sediment Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg-dry) 4 Cs-134 150 NDM NDM Cs-137 180 40.5 Upstream WNW 84.0 84.0 28.9-52 .0 1.1 RM from 79 .6-88 .5 79 .6-88.5 (2/2) inta ke (2/2) (2/2)

Notes:

(a)The MDC is defined in ODCM 10.1. Except as noted otherwise, the value s listed in this column are the detection capabil ities required by ODCM Table 4-3.

The values listed in this co lumn are a priori (before the fact) MDCs. In practice, the a posteriori (after the fact) MDCs are generally lower than the value s listed .

(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 parenthesis.

(c) No Detectable Measurement(s) (NDM) .

(d) If a drinking water pathway were to exist, a MDC of lpCi/L would have been used .

(e) If a drinking water pathway were to exist, a MDC of 2000pCi/L would have been used .

Not Applicable (sample not re qu ired )

-- ~ 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report ll lP age

LANT HATCH NNUAL RADIOLOGICAL NVIRONME TAL OPERATING Table 3-2. Reporting Levels (RL)

Analysis Water (pCi/I) Airborne Particulate Fish (pCi/kg-wet) Milk Grass or Leafy or Gases (fCi/m3) (pCi/I) Vegetation (pCi/kg-wet)

H-3 20,000*

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 2b 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

This is the 40 CFR 141 value for drinking water samples . If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 30,000 may be used .

b If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 20 pCi/I may be used .

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 sampling (as described in Table 2-1) are summarized in Table 3-3 along with their causes and resolution.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 12 1P age

PLANT HATCH NUAL ADIOLOGICAL ENVIRON E TAL 0 ERATING Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Collection Period Affected Samples Anolmaly (A)* or Deviation Cause Resolution (D)**

No program deviations were identified in the Hatch Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program during 2015.

An anomaly is considered a non-standard sample that stil l meets sampl ing criteria outlined in SNC and Georgia Powe r Lab procedures .

- A deviation is a sample result that is not recorded due to not meeting scheduling and/or procedural requirements as outlined by SNC and Georgia Power Lab 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 13j Page

PLANT A CH ANNUAL RADIOL GI AL NVIRONMEN AL RT 3.1 Airborne Particulates As specified in Table 2-1, airborne particulate filters and charcoal canisters are collected weekly at four indicator stations (Stations 103, 107, 112 and 116) which encircle the plant at the site periphery, and at two control stations (Station 304 and 309) which is approximately 10 miles from the main stack . At sampling locations containing a filter and cartridge series, air is continuously drawn through a glass fiber filter to retain airborne particulate and an activated charcoal canister is placed in series with the filter to adsorb radioiodine .

3.1.1 Gross Beta As provided in Table 3-1, the 2015 annual average weekly gross beta activity was 19.l fCi/m3 for the indicator stations . It was 0.5 fCi/m3 less than the control station average of 19.6 fCi/m3 for the year. This difference is not statistically discernible, since it is less than the calculated MOD of 4.1 fCi/m3.

Avera ge Air Gross Beta historical data (Table 3-4) is graphed to show trends associated with a prevalent exposure pathway (Figure 3-1). In general, there is close agreement between the results for the indicator, control and community stations . This close agreement supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to the gross beta concentrations in air.

Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration Period Indicator (fCi/m3) Control (fCi/m3)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pre-op 140 140 1974 87 90 1975 85 90 1976 135 139 1977 239 247 1978 130 137 1979 38 39 1980 49 48 1981 191 203 1982 33 34 1983 31 30 1984 26 28 1985 22 21 1986 36 38 1987 23 22 1988 22 .6 21.7 1989 18.4 17.8 1990 19.3 18.7 1991 18.1 18 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 14 I Page

PLANT A CH NNUAL RA IOLOGICAL ERA.TING Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration Period Indicator (fCi/m3) Control (fCi/m3) 1992 18.5 18.4 1993 20.4 20.7 1994 19 .5 19.7 1995 21.7 21.7 1996 21.3 21.4 1997 20 .3 20.7 1998 20.0 20 .5 1999 21.3 21.3 2000 23 .6 23 .9 2001 21 .5 21.0 2002 19 .3 19 .2 2003 18.8 18.2 2004 21.4 21.3 2005 19.7 19.4 2006 24 .9 24.7 2007 24.4 24 .3 2008 21.8 22 .5 2009 21.2 21.4 2010 23 .1 24.0 2011 23 .5 25 .1 2012 23 .7 22 .7 2013 21.3 20 .3 2014 22.0 22 .3 2015 19 .1 19 .6 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 1 15 I Page

LANT A CH ANNUAL A IOLOGICAL Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 3.1.2 Gamma Particulates During 2015, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the quarterly composites of the air particulate filters.

On only one occasion since 1986, has a man-made radionuclide been detected in a quarterly composite . A small amount of Cs-137 (1.7 fCi/m3) was identified in the first quarter of 1991 at Station 304. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in air are 60 and 20,000 fCi/m3, respectively.

3.2 Direct Radiation In 2015, direct (external) radiation was measured with Optically Stimulated Luminescent (OSL) dosimeters by placing two OSL badges at each station . The gamma dose at each station is reported as the average reading of the two badges. The badges are analyzed on a quarterly basis. 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.

I Page A '. I 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operati ng Report 16

LANT HA CH NNUAL ~ADIOLOGICAL NMENTAL PERATING EPORT Two direct radiation stations are established in each of the 16 compass sectors, to form two concentric rings. The inner ring stations (Nos. 101 through 116) are located near the plant perimeter as shown in Map A-1 in Appendix A and the outer ring stations (Nos. 201 through 216) are located at distances of four to five miles from the plant as shown in Map A-2 in Appendix A. The stations in the East sector are a few additional miles away with regard to the other stations in their respective rings due to large swamps making normal access extremely difficult. The 16 stations forming the inner ring are designated as the indicator stations. The two ring configuration of stations was established in accordance with NRC Branch Technical Position "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program", Revision 1, November 1979.

The three control stations (Nos . 304, 309 and 416) are located at distances greater than 10 miles from the plant as shown in Map A-2. The mean and range values presented in the "Other" column in Table 3-1 includes the outer ring stations (stations 201 through 216) as well as stations 064 and 301, which monitor special interest areas . Station 064 is located at the onsite roadside park, while Station 301 is located near the Toombs Central School. Station 210, in the outer ring, is located near the Altamaha School (the only other nearby school).

As provided in Table 3-1, the 2015 average quarterly exposure at the indicator stations (inner ring) was 12.1 mR with a range of 9.4-17.4 mR. The indicator station average was 0.4 mR more than the control station average (11.7 mR) . This difference is not considered statistically discernible since it is less than the MOD of 1.1 mR.

The quarterly exposures acquired at the community/other (outer ring) stations during 2015 ranged from 8.6 to 16.2 mR with an average of 12.1 mR which was 0.4 mR more than that for the control stations. However, this difference is not discernible since it is less than the MOD of 0.6 mR.

Average Direct Radiation historical data (Table 3-5) is graphed to show trends associated with a prevalent exposure pathway (Figure 3-2). The decrease between 1991 and 1992 values is attributed to a change in TLDs from Teledyne to Panasonic. It should be noted however that the differences between indicator and control and outer ring values did not change.

Table 3-5. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation Period Indicator Control Outer Ring (mR) (mR) (mR)

Pre-op 22 .3 23 .0 NA 1974 23 .2 25.6 NA 1975 10.0 10.5 NA 1976 8.18 6.90 NA 1977 7.31 6.52 NA 1978 6.67 6.01 NA 1979 5.16 6.77 NA 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 171 Page

LA THATCH NNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL Table 3-5. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation Period Indicator Control Outer Ring (mR) (mR) (mR) 1980 4.44 5.04 4.42 1981 5.90 5.70 5.70 1982 12.3 12.0 11.3 1983 11.4 11.3 10.6 1984 13 .3 12.9 11.9 1985 14.7 14.7 13 .7 1986 15 .0 14.0 14.5 1987 14.9 14.6 15 .3 1988 15.0 14.7 15.2 1989 16.4 18 .0 16.5 1990 14.9 13.9 14.7 1991 15 .1 13 .7 15 .6 1992 11.9 10.9 12.3 1993

11.6 10.7 11.5 1994 11.0 10.7 11.2 1995 11.5 10.8 11.3 1996 11.6 11 .3 11.6 1997 12.3 11 .8 12 .3 1998 12.1 12 .3 12 .3 1999 12.8 13 .2 13 .0 2000 13 .6 13 .3 13 .3 2001 12.0 12 .1 11.8 2002 11.7 11 .7 11.5 2003 11.4 11.4 11.4 2004 12.2 12.4 12.2 2005 12.1 12.5 12.0 2006 12.4 11.9 11 .8 2007 12 .8 12.5 12 .6 2008 13 .0 12.3 12.4 2009 12 .4 12 .2 12.2 2010 15 .8 15 .6 16.0 2011 19.7 19 .1 19.2 2012 14.4 13.6 14.1 2013 12.7 10.2 12.4 2014 12.0 11 .7 11 .8 2015 12 .1 11.7 12 .1 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 18 I Page

LANT TCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGI l ENVIRONMENT l Figure 3-2. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation ifoomos Central Scliool (Station 301)

The increase shown in 2010 reflects issues with the aging Panasonic TLD reader. The close agreement between the station groups supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to direct radiation in the environment. Figure 3-3 below provides a more detailed view of the 2015 values. The values for the special interest areas detailed below, indicate that Plant Hatch did not significantly contribute to direct radiation at those areas.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 19 I Page

LANT ATCH ANNUAL ADIOLOGICAL NVIRONMENTAL Figure 3-3. 2015 Average Exposure from Direct Radiation 3.3 Biological Media Cs-137 was the only radionuclide analyzed across all three biological mediums. As indicated in Figure 3-4, the Cs-137 activity levels are below the respective MDCs and well below that of the respective Rls for each sample media for both the indicator and control stations.

3.3.1 Milk In accordance with Tables 2-1 and 2-2, milk samples are collected bimonthly from Station 304 (the state prison dairy) which is a control station located more than 10 miles from the plant.

Since 1989, efforts to locate a reliable milk sample source within five miles of the plant have been unsuccessful and the 2015 land census did not identify a milk animal within five miles of the plant.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 20 I Page

LANT HATCH ANNUAL ADIOLOGICAL NVIRONMENT l Gamma isotopic (including 1-131 and Cs-137) analyses were performed on each collected milk sample and there were no detectable results for gamma isotopes, with the exception of a single detection of Cs-137 (0.78 pCi/L) in November 2015. Figure 3-4 provides the 2015 Cs-137 concentration in milk.

3.3.2 Vegetation In accordance with Tables 2-1 and 2-2, vegetation samples are collected monthly for gamma isotopic analyses at two indicator locations near the site boundary (Stations 106 and 112) and at one control station located about 21 miles from the plant (Station 416). Cesium-137 was detected in nine of the 24 samples collected at the indicator stations. The average of the samples was 135.2 pCi/kg-wet. Cesium-137 was not detected in any control station samples.

Due to the low number of samples, MDD was not able to be used to evaluate the data. The man-made radionuclide Cs-137 is periodically identified in vegetation samples, and is generally attributed to offsite sources (such as weapons testing, Chernobyl, and Fukushima).

While Cs-137 and 1-131 were periodically found in vegetation samples during pre-operation, the historical trends and the relationship between the indicator and control stations demonstrate that plant operations are having no adverse impact to the environment. The sample results have consistently been below the MDC and the RL for Cs-137 {80 and 2000 pCi/kg-wet, respectively).

During 2015, no other man-made gamma isotopes were detected in any Hatch REMP vegetation samples.

3.3.3 Fish Fish samples were collected in accordance with the ODCM (as indicated in Table 2-1). For the semiannual collections, the control location (Station 170) is located upriver of the plant intake structure, and the indicator location (Station 172) is located downriver of the plant discharge structure.

Cs-137 was not detected in the indicator and control locations, which is consistent with historical results .

3.3.4 Biological Media Summary There were no statistical differences, trends, or anomalies associated with the 2015 biological media samples when compared to historical data . Figure 3-4 below, details the 2015 Cs-137 concentration compared to the Reportable Limits.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 21 I Page

LANT ATCH NNUAL ADIOLOGICAL NVIRONMENT L Figure 3-4. 2015 Biological Media Average Cs-137 Concentrations

Indicator

Control

MDC 1000 1Reportable Limit 500 3.4 Surface Water Composite river water samples are collected monthly at an upstream control location and at a downstream indicator location (shown on Map A-3 in Appendix A} . The details of the sampling protocols are outlined in Tables 2-1 and Table 2-2. A gamma isotopic analysis is conducted on each monthly sample and the monthly aliquots are combined to form quarterly composite samples, which are analyzed for tritium.

As provided in Table 3-1, there were no positive results during 2015 from the gamma isotopic analysis of the river water samples. Also indicated in Table 3-1, the average tritium concentration found at the indicator station was 200 pCi/I which was 182.5 pCi/I more than the average at the control station (17 .5 pCi/I}. No MDD was calculated because only one of the four samples for both the indicator and control stations indicated any concentration. Historically, the relationship between the indicator and control stations has remained consistent. Figure 3-5 below details the 2015 historical average tritium concentrations in river water.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 22 I Page

LANT TCH ANNUAL ADIOLOGICAL ERATING Figure 3-5. Average Annual Tritium Concentrations in River Water 3.5 Sediment Sediment was collected along the shoreline of the Altamaha River in the spring and fall, at the upstream control station (No. 170) and the downstream indicator station (No. 172). A gamma isotopic analysis was performed on each sample. There were no man-made radionuclides detected in sediment samples, with the exception of Cs-137 (slightly above the control average), which is previously plotted along with biological media (Cs-137 across all detected mediums) in Section 3.3.4, and Figure 3-4.

3.6 lnterlaboratory Comparison Program In accordance with ODCM 4.1.3, GPCEL participates in an lnterlaboratory Comparison Program (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 ICP includes the required determinations (sample medium/radionuclide combinations) included in the REMP.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 23 I Page

LA T TC A NUAL ADIOLOGICAL The ICP was conducted by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc. (EZA) of Atlanta, Georgia. EZA 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. EZA supplies the crosscheck samples to GPCEL which performs routine laboratory analyses. Each of the specified analyses is performed three times.

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. 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 on Table 3-6 below:

Table 3-6. lnterlaboratory Comparison Limits Nuclide Concentration

Total Sample Activity Percent Coefficient of (pCi) Variation

<300 NA 25 Cr-51 NA >1000 25

>300 <1000 15

<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/I) .

As required by ODCM 4.1.3 .3 and 7.1.2.3, a summary of the results of the GPCEL's participation in the ICP is provided in Table 3-7 for:

gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter

gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples

gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples The 2015 analyses included tritium, gross beta and gamma emitting radio-nuclides in different matrices. The attached results for all analyses were within acceptable limits for accuracy (less than 15% coefficient of variation and less than 3.0 normalized deviations, except for Cr-51 and Fe-59, which are outlined in Table 3-6).

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 24 I Page

PLANT HATCH NNUAL RADIOL GIC l Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary Analysis or Date Prepared Reported Known Value Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef of Normalized Radionuclide Average Deviation EL Analytics (3S) Variation Deviation 1-131 ANALYSIS OF AN AIR CARTRIDGE (pCl/cartridge) 1-131 9/10/2015 85.4 82.0 1.37 1.37 5.79 0.69 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter)

Ce-141 9/10/2015 92 .7 85.5 4.36 1.43 7.5 1.03 Co-58 9/10/2015 114 106 5.28 1.76 5.6 0.9 Co-60 9/10/2015 139 132 5.38 2.21 5 0.37 Cr-51 9/10/2015 226 216 16.66 3.61 9.6 0.45 Cs-134 9/10/2015 85.3 84.9 3.37 1.42 5.4 0.08 Cs-137 9/10/2015 111 102 5 1.71 6.5 1.2 Fe-59 9/10/2015 96.7 90.5 5.5 1.51 6.2 0.91 Mn-54 9/10/2015 133 116 5.82 1.94 6 2.09 Zn-65 9/10/2015 164 142 8.46 2.37 7.3 1.85 GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (PCl/FILTER)

Gross Beta 9/10/2015 103 96 .3 3.66 1.61 5.9 1.44 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE PCl/LITER)

Co-58 6/11/2015 77.7 68.4 5.92 1.14 10.92 1.1 Co-60 6/11/2015 203 193 8.29 1.06 4.52 1.12 Cr-51 6/11/2015 295 276 33.19 4.61 12.3 0.53 Cs-134 6/11/2015 184 163 6.93 2.72 5.02 2.28 Cs-137 6/11/2015 144 125 7.77 2.09 7.38 1.75 Fe-59 6/11/2015 163 151 10.07 2.53 6.94 1.03 1-131 6/11/2015 105 95.9 6.91 1.6 8 1.04 Mn-54 6/11/2015 115 101 6.9 1.68 7.31 1.62 Zn-65 6/11/2015 282 248 15.62 4.15 7.3 1.64 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 25 I Page

LANT ATCH A NUAL ADIOLOGIC l ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPO T Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary Analysis or Date Prepared Reported Known Value Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef of Normalized Radionuclide Average Deviation EL Analytics (3S) Variation Deviation GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLE (PCl/LITER) 3/19/2015 319 281 10.5 4.69 4.56 2.59 Gross Beta 6/11/2015 290 248 10.2 4.15 4.68 3.1 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (PCl/LITER)

Ce-141 3/19/2015 135.7 139.2 8.44 2.32 7.97 -0.3 Co-58 3/19/2015 183 180 9.32 3 6.76 0.24 Co-60 3/19/2015 325.3 328 12.73 5.48 5.61 -0.15 Cr-51 3/19/2015 399.1 366 38.04 6.11 17.12 0.48 Cs-134 3/19/2015 131.1 126 5.81 2.1 9.49 0.41 Cs-137 3/19/2015 175 167 9 2.78 7.49 0.6 Fe-59 3/19/2015 203 195 11.63 3.25 7.01 0.56 1-131 3/19/2015 100.5 96.7 7.16 1.61 9.24 0.41 Mn-54 3/19/2015 170 159 8.97 2.65 7.78 0.8 Zn-65 3/19/2015 328 299 17.26 4.99 7.61 1.15 TRITIUM ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (PCl/LITER) 3/19/2015 12104 12600 140 210 3.14 -1.31 H-3 6/11/2015 12700 13000 148 217 2.11 -0.95 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 26 I Page

LANT TCH NNUAL ADIOLOGIC L EPORT 3.7 Groundwater To ensure compliance with NEI 07-07 (Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative - Final Guidance Document), Southern Nuclear developed the Nuclear Management Procedure, Radiological Groundwater Protection Program. The procedure contains detailed site-specific monitoring plans, program technical bases, and communications protocol (to ensure that radioactive leaks and spills are addressed and communicated appropriately). In an effort to prevent future leaks of radioactive material to woundwater, SNC plants have established robust buried piping and tanks inspection programs. No changes were made to the Groundwater Protection Program in 2015.

Plant Hatch maintains the following wells (Table 3-8), which are sampled at a frequency that satisfies the requirements of NEI 07-07. The analytical results for 2015 were all within regulatory limits specified within this report. Table3-9 contains the results of the Groundwater Protection Program tritium results (in pCi/L). See Map A-4 in Appendix A for well locations.

Rl 82 .9 Confined Aquifer Upgrad ient R2 82 .7 Confined Aquifer Near Diesel Generato r Bldg.

R3 89.2 Confined Aquifer Near CST-1 R4 41 Dilution Line Near River Water Discharge Structure RS 33 .6 Between Subsurface Drain Lines Downgrad ient R6 38 .2 Between Subsurface Drai n Lines Downgrad ient NW2A 27 ater Table Near CST-2 In side of Subsurface Dra in NW2B 27 ater Table Outs ide of Subsurface Dra in NW3A 26.5 ater Table Inside of Subsurface Drain NW3B 25 .3 ater Table Outside of Subsurface Drain NW4A 27 ater Table Upgradient Inside of Subsurface Drain NWSA 26 .7 ater Table Upgradient Inside of Subsu rface Drain NWSB 26.3 ater Table Upgradient Outside of Subsurface Drain NW6 27 ater Table Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

NW8 23 ater Table Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

NW9 26.1 ater Table Downgradient Inside of Subsurface Drain NWlO 26 .2 ater Table Near CST-2 T3 18 ater Table Near Turbine Bldg.

T7 21.4 ater Table Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

TlO 18.8 ater Table Near CST-1 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 27 I Page

LANT ATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL EPORT ater Table Near CST-1 PlSA 74.5 PlSB 18 ater Tab le Near Turbine Bldg.

P17A* 77 onfined Aquifer Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

P17B 14.8 ater Table Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

Deep Well 1 680 Backup Supply for Potable Water (infrequently used)

Deep Well 2 711 Plant Potable Water Supply Deep Well 3 710 Potable Water Supply - Rec. Center, Firing Range, and Garage Table 3-9. Groundwater Protection Pro ram Tritium Results . L

1*r:**** i****r.:***"' ,.*aur:1*1* '**a**Jn:1*1'"'

Rl 12.6 NDM 220 286 R2 NDM NDM8 66 .1 370 R3 1040 961 1320 1430 R4 NDM 120 12.3 NDM RS 17400 18600 12600 8400 R6 88.5 324 161 326 NW2A 153 491 500 272 NW2B 154 199 NDM NDM NW3A 17.4 NDM NDM 52 .7 NW3B 105 327 NDM 101 NW4A 111 135 41.3 325 NWSA 159 218 83.1 288 NWSB 125 89.1 75 .8 NDM NW6 100 297 285 184 NW8 NS NS NS 298 NW9 57 .5 484 477 NDM NWlO 9540 8620 10000 6140 T3 7260 3200 1370 1720 T7 19.9 235 224 273 TlO 14100 18600 23300 19900 T12 18300 18300 7290 8190 TlS 911 2810 941 1910 Pl SA NDM 91.6 45.2 195 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 28 I Page

LANT TCH NNUAL RADIOLOGICAL NS - Not enough P15B 2440 3270 1900 water to sample P17A 135 106 NDM NDM P17B 132 173 545 423 Deep Well 1 NS - Out of Service NS - Out of Service NS - Out of Service NS - Out of Service Deep Well 2 NDM NDM NDM NDM Deep Well 3 81.2 NDM NDM 113 Plant Hatch has had historic tritium leaks into the perched aquifer from around the Unit 1 Condensate Storage Tank (CST), documented on 10 CFR 50.75(g) records. The tritium values in the wells that were found to be elevated above MDC were from previous CST and related piping leaks and are not considered present issues. Historic leaks and spills are reported in accordance with NEI 07-07.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 29 I Page

PLANT HATCH NNUAL ADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL T 4 SURVEY SUMMARIES 4.1 Land Use Census In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted on November 9, 2015 to verify the locations of the nearest radiological receptor within five miles. The census results, shown in Table 4-1, indicated no major changes from 2014; therefore, no changes to the ODCM are required . Residents were located in each sector as identified below; no resident was identified closer than the current closest resident.

Table 4-1. Land Use Census Results Sector Residence Milk Animal Beef Cattle Fruit/Nut Tree Garden Distance in Miles to the Nearest Location in Each Sector N 2.0 None None 4.2 3.8 NNE 2.9 None None 4.7 None NE 3.3 None None None None ENE 4.2 None 4.1 None None E 3.0 None None None None ESE 3.8 None None None None SE 1.8 None 2.4 None 2.4 SSE 2.0 None 3.6 None 2.2 s 1.0 None 2.5 None 1.0 SSW 1.1 None 2.8 1.4 2.5 SW 1.1 None 4.0 1.6 1.6 WSW 1.0 None 3.6 1.5 2.0 w 1.1 None 2.7 2.8 None WNW 1.1 None None None None NW 3.6 None 4.5 None None NNW 1.8 None 2.8 None 2.9 4.2 Altamaha River Survey A survey of the Altamaha River downstream of the plant for approximately 50 miles (approximately river miles 66 .5 to 117.0) was conducted on September 21, 2015 to identify any new withdrawal of water from the river for drinking, irrigation, or construction purposes.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 30 I Page

PLANT HATCH NNUAL ADIOL GICAL EPORT Irrigation equipment was identified at Clarke's Farm about% mile downstream of Station #172 river water sampling station. The equipment is potentially used to irrigate crops. Mr. Clarke was contacted on September 3, 2015, and he stated that he had used river water to irrigate peanuts this year. A sample of peanuts was collected and analyzed for gamma isotopes. The data is indicated in Table 4-2 below.

Correspondence from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) on September 29, 2015, and November 12, 2015, indicated that no new agricultural or drinking water withdrawal permits had been issued at those respective times.

Table 4-2. Special Sample Results (Peanuts)

Nuclide Sample Units Activity MDA Cs-134 Peanuts pCi/Kg NDM 8.07E+01 Cs-137 Peanuts pCi/Kg NDM 7.56E+OO 1-131 Peanuts pCi/Kg NDM 1.11E+01 NDM - No Detectable Measurement 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 31 I Page

PLANT TC NVIRONME 5 CONCLUSIONS This report confirms SNCs conformance with the requirements of Chapter 4 of the ODCM and the objectives were to:

1) Determine the levels of radiation and the concentrations of radioactivity in the environs and;

2) Assess the radiological impact (if any) to the environment due to the operation of the HNP.

Based on the 2015 activities associated with the REMP, SNC offers the following conclusions:

Samples were collected and there were no deviations or anomalies that negatively affected the quality of the REMP

Land use census and river survey did not reveal any changes

Analytical results were below reporting levels

These values are consistent with historical results, indicating no adverse radiological environmental impacts associated with the operation of HNP 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 32 I Page

PLANT HATCH NUAL ADIOLOGICAL T

APPENDIX A Maps 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix A

Appendix A MapA-1 Indicator Stations _

.--1---__J Control Stations _ April 30, 2016 Other Stations _

Legend :

Indicator Stations -

Control Stations -

Other Stations -

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 2015 Annual Rad iological Environmental Report REMP Stations within 10 miles

.r' t--D-r-aw

_ n_b_y_

C_. G April 30, 2016

_ r_o_c_

e _ ... ::p*:~~x A

z Drawn by: C. Groce Appendix A Legend: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Map A-3 Upper Perched Aquifer -

2015 Annual Radiological Environmental Report Minor Confined Aquifer -

Facility Groundwater Wells April 30, 2016

PLANTHATC ANNUAL ADIOL GICAL APPENDIX B Errata 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix B

PLANT ATCH 3.8 Groundwater To ensure compliance* with NEI 07-07 (Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative - Final Guidance Document), Southern Nuclear developed the Nuclear Management Procedure, Rad iological Groundwater Protection Program. The procedure contains detailed site-specific monitoring plans, program technical bases, and communications protocol (to ensure that 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 robust buried piping and tanks inspection programs . No changes were made to the Groundwater Protection Program in 2014.

Plant Hatch maintains the following wells (Table 3-8), which are sampled at a frequency that satisfies the requirements of NEI 07-07. The analytical resu lts for 2014 were all within regulatory limits specified within this report. Table3-9 contains the results of the Groundwater Protection Program results. See Map A-4 in appendix for well locations.

Rl 82 .9 Confined Aquifer Upgradient R2 82 .7 Confined Aqu ifer Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

R3 89 .2 Confined Aqu ifer Near CST-1 R4 41 Dilution Line Near River Water Discharge Structu re RS 33 .6 Between Subsurface Dra in Lines Downgradient R6 38 .2 Between Subsurface Dra in Lines Downgradient NW2A 27 ater Table Near CST-2 Inside of Subsu rface Drain NW2B 27 ater Table Outside of Subsurface Drain NW3A 26 .5 ater Table Inside of Subsurface Drain NW3B 25 .3 ater Table Outside of Subsurface Drain NW4A 27 ater Table Upgrad ient Inside of Subsurface Dra in NWSA 26 .7 ater Table Upgradient Inside of Subsurface Dra in NWSB 26.3 ater Table Upgradient Outside of Subsurface Dra in NW6 27 ater Table Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

NW8 23 ater Table Near Diesel Generato r Bldg.

NW9 26 .1 ater Table Downgradient Inside of Subsurface Drain NWlO 26 .2 ater Table Near CST-2 T3 18 ater Table Near Turbine Bldg.

T7 21.4 ater Table Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

TlO 18.8 ater Table Near CST-1 T12 23.2 ater Table Near CST-1 TlS 27 .4 ater Table Near CST-1 A 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix B

PLANTHATC NNUAL ADIOLOGICAL NVIRONMENT L Pl SB ater Table Near Turbine Bldg.

P17A

77 onfined Aquifer Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

P17B 14.8 ater Table Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

Deep Well 1 680 Backup Supply for Potable Water (infrequently used)

Deep Well 2 711 Plant Potable Water Supply Deep Well 3 710 Potable Water Supply - Rec . Center, Firing Range, and Garage Table 3-9. Groundwater Protection Pro ram Tritium Results Ci l

. ,. *** 1--:1a'" *** 1r:* .. *'" "~ill .

Rl 259 NDM NDM NDM R2 NDM 130 173 NDM R3 941 792 1040 887 R4 295 NDM NDM NDM RS 12500 22500 30300 24200 R6 194 NDM 195 NDM NW2A 440 1420 829 188 NW2B NDM NDM NDM NDM NW3A 208 NDM 185 NDM NW3B NDM NDM 303 197 NW4A NDM NDM NDM NDM NWSA NDM 160 NDM NDM NWSB 966 NDM NDM NDM NW6 1050 NDM NDM NDM NW8 215 NDM NS - insufficient water NS - insufficient water NW9 NDM NDM 162 161 NW10 15500 11800 9920 10800 T3 2290 1970 1240 3440 T7 NDM NDM NDM NDM no 11100 38500 55900 16500 T12 10500 59700 43400 17600 TlS NDM 4190 4130 1520 Pl SA NS - not assigned NS - not assigned NDM NDM Pl SB 6007 4300 2180 NS - insufficient water P17A NDM NDM NDM NDM P17B 519 474 547 361 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Append ix B

PLANT A CH A NUAL RADIOLOGICAL T

Deep Well 1 NS - not assigned NS - not assigned 143 NS - not assigned Deep Well 2 NDM NDM NS - not assigned 208 Deep Well 3 NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM - No Detectable Measurement NS - Not Sampled Plant Hatch has had historic tritium leaks into the perched aquifer from around the Unit 1 Condensate Storage Tank (CST), documented on 10 CFR 50.75(g) records. The tritium values in the wells that were found to be elevated above MDC were from previous CST and related piping leaks and are not considered present issues. Historic leaks and spills are reported in accordance with NEI 07-07.

2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix B

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 & 2 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant- Units 1 & 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 & 2 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2015 Enclosure 2 Farley Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2015

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 2015 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT SOUTHERN << \

NUCLEAR A SOUTHERN COMPANY

LANT FA LE ENVIRONMENTAL JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 2015 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................. .......... .... ................ ..... ....... ... .. ........... ....... 1 2 REMP Description ..... ... ................................................................................. 2 3 Results Summary ............................................. .... ... ..... ........ ... .......... ..... .. ..... 8 3.1 Airborne Particulates .... .. ...... .. ..... ... .. ............. ................................ .. .. ...... ... ..... ..... 17 3.1.1 Gross Beta ...................................... ......... .................... ......................................... 17 3.1. 2 Gamma Particulates ............... ............. ................................ .............. .. ................. 19 3.2 Direct Radiation ....... ..... ...... .... ................................................................ ... ....... .... 19 3.3 Biological Media .... ............ ........ .......................................................... .... ....... .... ... 23 3.3.1 Milk ......................................................... ............... .............................................. 23 3.3.2 Vegetation ...................... ............. .. .. .. ...................... ..................... .. ... .. ... ... .. ......... 24 3.3.3 Fish ......................... ........................ ...................................................................... 24 3.3.3.1 Bottom Feeding Species ...................................................................................... 24 3.3.3.2 Game Species ....................... ............. ........................ .. ........ ................... .............. 24 3.3 .4 Biological Media Summary .................................................................................. 24 3.4 Off-site Groundwater .......................................... .... .............................................. 25 3.5 River Water .. ..... ... ... ............. ..................................... .................... ........ .......... ...... 25 3.6 Sediment .... .. .. ... ... .. ...... .............. ..... ..................... ... ... ................................... .. ...... 26 3.7 lnterlaboratory Comparison Program ........................ .. ........................ ................ 26 3.8 Groundwater .............................................. .. ........ .......... ....................... ................ 30 4 Survey Summaries ...................................................................................... 32 4.1 Land Use Census .... ... ............................... ................................ .... ............ ........ ..... 32 4.2 Chattahoochee River Survey ................................................................................. 33 5 Conclusions .............. ... ........................ .... .. ....... ....... .... .. .......... ..... ............... 34 Tables Table 2-1 . Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program .. ........ ................ ..... 3 Table 2-2 . Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations ........................ .. ...................................... .... .... 6 Table 3-1. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary ........................................ 10 Table 3-2 . Reporting Levels (RL) .......... ... .......................... .............. ... ................................... .... ............ ... .. . 14 Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ................. 15 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report i l Page

PLANT f RLEY NNUAL ADIOLOGtCAL ENVI ONMENTAL Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration .. ... ..................... ................................... ............ 17 Table 3-5 . Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Rad iation .. .... .. ... ............. ................ ...... .............. .. .. . 20 Table 3-6. lnterlaboratory Comparison Limits ................. .. ................ .... .. .. ................................... .... .... ... .. 27 Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary ................................................................... ......... ......... 28 Table 3-8. Groundwater Protection Program Locations .. ....... .. ... ... ..... .. .. ... ............. ......... .... ..... ... ..... ... .. ... 30 Table 3-9. Groundwater Protection Program Results ........ ..... .. .................................... .... ... ..... ................. 31 Table 4-1. Land Use Census Results ....... .. ........ ... .. ... ... .. ........................ .. ................................. ........ .. ........ 32 Figures Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration .. .... .............. .. ... ..... ............ .... ... ............... .. ...... 19 Figure 3-2. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation .............. ......... ... ........................ .. .... ......... 22 Figure 3-3. 2015 Average Exposure from Direct Radiation .. .... .. ................. ............................ ...... .. .. ... ...... 23 Figure 3-4. 2015 Average Tritium Concentrations in River and Off-site Groundwater .. ............ ....... ... .. .... 26 Appendix A - Maps A REMP Stations in Plant Vicinity A REMP Stations within 5 Miles A Extended REMP Stations A Facility Groundwater Wells Appendix B - Errata Groundwater Protection Results from 2014 Report 2015 FNP Annual Rad iologi cal Environmental Operating Report ii l Page

LANT FARLE ANNU L ADIOLOGtCAL LIST OF ACRONYMS ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management APC Alabama Power Company ARE OR Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CL Confidence Level EPA Environmental Protection Agency GA EPD State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division FNP Joseph M . Farley Nuclear Plant GPCEL Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory ICP lnterlaboratory Comparison Program MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MDD Minimum Detectable Difference MWe Megawatts Electric NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measurement(s)

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual OSL Optically Stimulated Luminescence Po Preoperation PWR Pressurized Water Reactor REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting Level RM River Mile SNC Southern Nuclear Operating Company TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specification 2015 FNP Annual Rad iological Environmental Operating Report iii IPage

LANT F Rl N U l ADIOLOGICAL EPORT 1 INTRODUCTION The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) is conducted in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The REMP activities for 2015 are reported herein in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.2 and ODCM 7.1.

The objectives of the REMP are to :

1) Determine the levels of radiation and the concentrations of radioactivity in the environs and;

2) Assess the radiological impact (if any) to the environment due to the operation of the Joseph M . Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP).

The assessments include comparisons between results of analyses of samples obtained at locations where radiological levels are not expected to be affected by plant operation (control stations), areas of higher population (community 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 (APC) and operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNOC). 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

Section 3 provides a summary of the results and an assessment of any radiological impacts to the environment as well as the results from the lnterlaboratory Comparison

A summary of the land use census and the river survey are included in Section 4

Conclusions are included in Section 5 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report l l Page

LANT ARLE NNUAL ADIOLOGICAL ONMENTAL EPORT 2 REMP DESCRIPTION The following section provides a description of the sampling and laboratory protocols associated with the REMP . Table 2-1 provides a summary of 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 summarizes the collection and analysis frequencies (in accordance with ODCM Section 4.2) . Table 2-2 provides specific information regarding the station locations, their proximity to the plant, and exposure pathways.

Additionally, the locations of the sampling stations are depicted on Maps A-1 through A-3 of the station locations included in the Appendix A of this report.

Plant personnel collect some samples, while others are collected by Georgia Power Company's Environmental Laboratory (GPCEL), located in Smyrna, Georgia. The lab analyzes all REMP samples.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 2 1Page

LANT FA LEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONME T L OPERATING EPORT Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Exposure Number of Representative Samples and Sample Sampling/Collection Frequency Type/Frequency of Analysis Pathway and/or Locations Direct Radiation Forty routine monitoring stations with two or more Quarterly Gamma dose, quarterly dosimeters placed as follows :

An inner ring of stations, one in each compass isector in the general area of the site boundary;

!An outer ring of stations, one in each compass isector at approximately 5 miles from the site; and

ipecial interest areas, such as population centers, nearby recreation areas, and control stations Airborne Continuous sampler operation Particulate sampler: Analyze for gross beta

.amples from nine locations :

Radioiodine and with sample collection weekly radioactivity~ 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months following filter Particulates change. Perform gamma isotopic analysis on Four locations close to the site boundary in ~ach sample when gross beta activity is > 10 different sectors;

~imes the yearly mean of control samples.

Perform gamma isotopic analysis on Three community stations; within 8 miles

~omposite sample (by location) quarterly.

Two control locations near population centers, Radioiodine canister: 1-131 analysis, weekly approximately 15 and 18 miles away (One community station)

Waterborne 2

Surface" One sample upriver Composite sample over one Gamma isotopic analysis , monthly 4

One sample downriver month period :=omposite for tritium analysis, quarterly 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 3I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING EPORT Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Exposure Number of Representative Samples and Sample Sampling/Collection Frequency Type/Frequency of Analysis Pathway and/or Locations Groundwater ~ee Table 3-8 and Map A-4 in Appendix A for well Quarterly sample; pump used to rTritium, gamma isotopic, and field location s sample GW wells; grab sample parameters (pH, temperature, conductivity, Off-site monitoring includes one indicator station ~ram yard drains and ponds k!issolved oxygen, oxidation/reduction and one control station potential, and turbidity) of each sample 1<1uarterly; Hard t o detect radionuclides as necessary based on results of tritium and jgamma (Off-site wells are analyzed only for Gamma Isotopic, 1-131, & tritium 2

ihoreline 7

One sample from downriver area with existing ~emiannually Gamma isotopic analysis , semiannually

iediment or potential recreational value

One sample from upriver area with existing or potential r ecreational value Ingestion 5 26 Milk rrwo samples from milking animals at control Bimonthly Gamma isotopic analysis ' , bimonthly locations at a distance of about 10 miles or more 8 2 Fish

One bottom feeding fish and one game fish ~emiannually Gamma isotopic analysis on edible portions, both upstream and downstream :.emiannually During spring spawning season 2

Gamma isotopic analysis on edible portions, annually.

Gra ss or Leafy

One sample from two onsite locations near the Monthly during growing season Gamma isotopic analysis'*", monthly Vegetation site boundary in different sectors

One sample from a control location at a distance of about 18 miles 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 4 I Page

LANT FARLEY NNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONME L OPERATING REPO T Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Exposure Number of Representative Samples and Sample . . .

. Samphng/Collect1on Frequency Type/Frequency of Analysis Path way an d/ or Locations Notes:

Airborne particulate sample filters shall be analyzed for gross beta radioactivity 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months or more after sampling to allow for radon and thoron aughter decay. If gross beta activity in air particulate samples is greater than 10 times the yearly mean of control samples, gamma isotopic analysis hall be performed on the individual samples.

Gamma isotopic analysis means the identification and quantification of gamma-emitting radionuclides that may be attributable to the effluents from he facility.

Upriver samp le is taken at a distance beyond significant influence of the discharge. Downriver samples are taken beyond but near the mixing zone.

Composite sample aliquots shall be collected at time intervals that are very short (e.g., hourly) relative to the compositing period (e.g., monthly) to ssure obtaining a representative sample.

A milking animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption, no milk animals were found within five miles of the plant.

-If the gamma isotopic analysis is not sensitive enough to meet the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) for 1-131, a separate analysis for 1-131 may be performed .

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 ediment 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 o 49 for the control station .

Since several miles of river water may be needed to obtain adequate fish samples, these river mile positions represent the approximate locations from hich the fish 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.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report SI Page

NT NNUAL RADIOLOGI NVIRONME T l PERATING RT Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations 1

Station Station Descriptive Location Direction Distance Radiation Sample Type 1

Number Type (miles) 0501 Indicator River Intake Structure ESE 0.8 Airborne 0701 Indicator South Perimeter SSE 1.0 Airborne 1101 Indicator Plant Entrance WSW 0.9 Airborne 1601 Indicator North Perimeter N 0.8 Airborne 0215 Control Blakely GA NE 15 Airborne, Direct 3

0718 Control Neals Landing, FL SSE 18 Airborne, Direct 1218 Control Dothan, AL w 18 Airborne, Direct, Vegetation 0703 Community GA Pacific Paper Co . SSE 3 Airborne, Direct 1108 Community Ashford, AL WSW 8 Airborne 1605 Community Columbia, Al N 5 Airborne, Direct 0101 Indicator Plant Perimeter NNE 0.9 Direct 0201 Indicator Plant Perimeter NE 1.0 Direct 0301 Indicator Plant Perimeter ENE 0.9 Direct 0401 Indicator Plant Perimeter E 0.8 Direct 0501 Indicator Plant Perimeter ESE 0.8 Direct 0601 Indicator Plant Perimeter SE 1.1 Direct 0701 Indicator Plant Perimeter SSE 1.0 Direct, Vegetation 0801 Ind icator Plant Perimeter s 1.0 Direct 0901 Indicator Plant Perimeter SSW 1.0 Direct 1001 Indicator Plant Perimeter SW 0.9 Direct 1101 Indicator Plant Perimeter WSW 0.9 Direct 1201 Indicator Plant Perimeter w 0.8 Direct 1301 Indicator Plant Perimeter WNW 0.8 Direct 1401 Indicator Plant Perimeter NW 1.1 Direct 1501 Indicator Plant Perimeter NNW 0.9 Direct 1601 Indicator Plant Perimeter N 0.8 Direct, Vegetation 1215 Contro l Dothan, Al w 15 Direct 1311 Contro l Webb, Al w 11 Direct 1612 Control Haleburg, Al WNW 12 Direct 1001 Community Whatley Residence SW 12 Direct 1108 Community Ashford, Al WSW 8.0 Direct Downstream of plant discharge, WRI Indicator approximately RM 40 s 3.0 River Water Upstream of plant intake, WRB Control NNE 3.0 River Water approximately RM 47 WGl-07 Ind icato r Paper M ill Well SSE 4.0 Groundwater 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 6 1Page

LANT ARLE A NUAL RADIOL GIC l NVIRONMENT l PERATING E ORT Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations 1

Station Station Descriptive Location Direction Distance Radiation Sample Type 1

Number Type (miles)

WGB-10 Control Whatley Residence SW 1.2 Groundwater Downstream of plant discharge RSI Indicator at Smith' s Bend (RM 41) s 4.0 Sediment Upstream of plant intake at RSB Control N 4.0 Sediment Andrews Lock and Dam (RM 48) 2 Robert Weir Dairy, MB-0714 Control SSE 14 Mi lk Donaldsonville, GA FGI & Downstream of plant discharge FGB Indicator at Smith's Bend (RM 41) s 4.0 Fish FGB & Upstream of plant intake at Control N 4.0 Fish FBB Andrews Lock and Dam (RM 48) 0104 Community Early Co., GA NNE 4.0 Direct 0204 Community Early Co ., GA NE 4.0 Direct 0304 Community Early Co., GA ENE 4.0 Direct 0405 Community Early Co ., GA E 5.0 Direct 0505 Community Early Co ., GA ESE 5.0 Direct 0605 Community Early Co., GA SE 5.0 Direct 0805 Community Houston Co ., AL SSE 5.0 Direct 0904 Community Houston Co., AL SSW 4.0 Direct 1005 Community Houston Co ., AL SW 5.0 Direct 1104 Commun ity Houston Co ., AL WSW 4.0 Direct 1204 Community Houston Co ., AL w 4.0 Direct 1304 Community Houston Co., AL WNW 4.0 Direct 1404 Community Houston Co ., AL NW 4.0 Direct 1504 Community Houston Co ., AL NNW 4.0 Direct Notes:

1 Direction and distance are determined as the mid-point between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 vent stacks .

12 No milk animals were found w ithin five miles of the plant, control sample not collected since 2009.

~ Spare, per the ODCM 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 7 1Page

LA T F LE NUAL RADIOLOGICAL NVIRONMENTAL PERA ING EPOR 3 RESULTS

SUMMARY

Included in this section are statistical evaluations of the laboratory results, comparison of the results by media, and a summary of the anomalies and deviations. Overall, 1,120 analyses were performed across nine exposure pathways. Tables and figures are provided throughout this section to provide an enhanced presentation of the information.

In recent history, man-made nuclides have been released into the environment and have resulted in wide spread distribution of radionuclides across the globe. For example, atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from the mid-1940s through 1980 distributed man-made nuclides around the world. The most recent atmospheric tests in the 1970s and in 1980 had a sign ificant impact upon the radiological concentrations found in the environment prior to and during pre-operation, and through early operation . Some long-lived radionuclides, such as Cs-137, continue to be detected and a portion of these detections are believed to be attributed to the nuclear weapons tests .

Additionally, data associated with certain radiologica l effects created by off-site events have been removed from the historical evaluation, this includes: the nuclear atmospheric weapon test in the fall of 1980 and the Chernobyl incident in the spring of 1986.

As ind icated 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. Historically, the radionuclide Be-7, which occurs abundantly in nature, is often detected in REMP samples, and occasionally detected in the plant's liquid and gaseous effluents. When it is detected in effluents and REMP samples, it is also included in the REMP results. In 2015, Be-7 was not detected in any plant effluents and therefore is not included in this report. The Be-7 detected in select REMP samples likely represents naturally occurring and/or background conditions .

As part of the data evaluation process, SNC considered the impact of the non-plant associated nuclides along with a statistical evaluation of the REMP data. The statistical evaluations included within this report include the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC), the Minimum Detect able Difference (MOD}, and Chauvenet' s Criterion as described below.

Minimum Detectable Concentration The minimum detectable concentration is defined as an estimate of the true concentration of an analyte required to give a specified high probability that the measured response will be greater than the critical value.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report S IPage

LANT F LE NUAL RADIOLOGIC L NVIRO PERATING e -ORT Minimum Detectable Difference The Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD} compares the lowest significant difference (between the means} of a control station, versus an indicator station or a community station, that can be determined statistically at the 99% Confidence Level (CL}. A difference in mean values which was less than the MDD was considered to be statistically indiscernible.

Chauvenet's Criterion 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 difference. 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.

The 2015 results were compared with past results, including those obtained during pre-operation . As appropriate, results were compared with their MDC (listed in Table 3-1} and RL which is listed in Table 3-2. The required MDCs were achieved during laboratory sample analysis. No data points were excluded for violating Chauvenet's criterion.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 9I Page

LANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING Airborne Gross Beta 10 13.4 Columbia , AL 21.5 16.8 15.9 Particulates 466 0.8-35 .6 NS mi. 2.6-42.2 1.1-42 .2 2.3-33 .6 (fCi/m3) (206/207) Community (52/52) (155/155) (104/104)

Gamma Isotopic 36 1-131 70 NDM(c) NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 so NDM NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 60 NDM NDM NDM NDM Airborne 1-131 70 NDM NDM NDM NDM Radioiodine(fCi/m3) 363 Direct Radiation Gamma Dose 17.1 25 .4 14.4 15.6 Plant Perimeter, E (mR/91 days) 157 11.4-27.7 23 .7-26.1 10.9-18.3 12.3-19 0.8 (63/63) (4/4) (70/70) (24/24)

Indicator Milk (pCi/I) Gamma Isotopic 0

1-131 1 Cs-134 15 Cs-137 18 Ba-140 60 La-140 15 Vegetation (pCi/kg- Gamma Isotopic wet) 36 1-131 60 NDM NDM Cs-134 60 NDM NDM 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report tOI P age

LANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGIC L ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING Table 3-1. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary Indicator Medium or Pathway Type and Total Minimum Locations Location with the Highest Other Stations Control Sampled Number of Detectable Mean (b), Annual Mean (f) Mean (b), Locations Mean (Unit of Analyses Concentration Range Name Distance and Mean (b), Range Range (b), Range Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)

Cs-137 80 7.9 Dothan, AL 12.3 12.3 4.5-11.3 W18mi. (12 .3-12.3) (12 .3-12 .3)

(2/12) Control (1/12) (1/12)

River Water Gamma Isotopic (pCi/I) 26 Mn-54 15 NDM NDM NDM NDM Fe-59 30 NDM NDM NDM NDM Co-58 15 NDM NDM NDM NDM Co-60 15 NDM NDM NDM NDM Zn-65 30 NDM NDM NDM NDM Zr-95 30 NDM NDM NDM NDM Nb-95 15 NDM NDM NDM NDM 1-131 15 NDM NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 15 NDM NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 18 NDM NDM Ba-140 60 NDM NDM La-140 15 NDM NDM Tritium 3000 203 .3 Paper Mill (RM 40) 203 .3 NDM 8 156-248 Indicator 156-248 (3/4) (3/4)

Off-site Gamma Isotopic Groundwater 8 Mn-54 15 NDM NDM NDM Fe-59 30 NDM NDM NDM Co-58 15 NDM NDM NDM 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report ll l P age

PLANT FARLEY NNUAL AOIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING EPORT Table 3-1. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary Indicator Medium or Pathway Type and Total Minimum Locations Location with the Highest Other Stations Control Sampled Number of Detectable Mean (b), Annual Mean (f) Mean (b), Locations Mean (Unit of Analyses Concentration Range Name Distance and Mean (b), Range Range (b), Range Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)

Co-60 15 NDM NDM NDM Zn-65 30 NDM NDM NDM Zr-95 30 NDM NDM NDM Nb-95 15 NDM NDM NDM 1-131 15 NDM NDM NDM 8

Cs-134 15 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 18 NDM NDM NDM Ba-140 60 NDM NDM NDM La-140 15 NDM NDM NDM Tritium 2000 NDM NDM NDM 8

Bottom Feeding Gamma Isotopic Fish 4 (pCi/kg-wet) Mn-54 130 NDM NDM Fe-59 260 NDM NDM Co-58 130 NDM NDM Co-60 130 NDM . NDM Zn-65 260 NDM NDM Cs-134 130 NDM NDM Cs-137 150 NDM NDM Game Fish Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg-wet) 4 Mn-54 130 NDM NDM NDM Fe-59 260 NDM NDM NDM 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 12 IPage

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOL GtCAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING Co-58 130 NDM NDM NDM Co-60 130 NDM NDM NDM Zn-65 260 NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 130 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 150 13.5 Downstream of 13.5 NDM (13 .1-14.0) plant discharge in (13.1-14.0)

(2/2) vicinity of Smith' s (2/2)

Bend (RM 41)

Sediment Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg-dry) 4 Co-60 70(e) NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 150 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 180 NDM NDM NDM Notes:

(a)The MDC is defined in ODCM 10.l. Except as noted otherwise, the values listed in this column are the detection capabilities required by ODCM Table 4-3.

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.

(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 parenthesis.

(c) No Detectable Measurement(s) (NDM) .

(d) The Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory has determined that this value may be routinely attained under normal conditions. No value is provided in ODCM Table 4-3.

(e) Item 3 of ODCM Table 4-1 implies that an 1-131 analysis is not required to be performed on water samples when the dose calculated from the consumption of water is less then 1 mrem per year. However, 1-131 analyses have been performed on the finished drinking water samples.

(f) " Other" stations, as identified in the " Station Type" column of Table 2-2, are " Community" and/or "Special" stations.

Not Applicable (sample not required) 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 13 IPage

LANT FARLE A NUAL ADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING EPORT Table 3-2. Reporting Levels (RL)

Analysis Water (pCi/I) Airborne Particulate Fish (pCi/kg-wet) M ilk Grass or Leafy or Gases (fCi/m3) (pCi/I) Vegetation (pCi/kg-wet)

H-3 20,000*

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 2b 900 3 100 Cs-134 30 10,000 1000 60 1000 Cs-137 so 20,000 2000 70 2000 Ba-140 200 300 La-140 100 400

Th is is the 40 CFR 141 value for drinking water samples. If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 30,000 may be used .

b If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 20 pCi/I may be used .

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 sampling (as described in Table 2-1) are summarized in Table 3-3 along with their causes and resolution.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 141 Page

LANT F RLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING EPO T Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Collection Period Affected Samples Anomaly (A)* or Deviation Cause Resolution (D)**

04/07/15 - 04/14/15 Pl-1101/11-1101 Non-representative sample Lost 102 hours0.00118 days 0.0283 hours 1.686508e-4 weeks 3.8811e-5 months of sample time when Station operation satisfactory CR10053095 0.9 mile - WSW of airborne particulates. portable generator used to supply after normal power restored .

power during outage tripped off.

2nd Quarter 2015 OSLO Station Non -representative direct In-service OSLO badge set missing Spare OSLO badge set 04/07 /15 to 04/28/15 Rl -0701A&B radiation data and presumed lost following severe installed at station during CR 10062765 nd 1.0 mile - SSE weather event in area. remainder of 2 Quarter period .

04/21/15 - 04/28/15 Pl-1601/11-1601 Non-representative sample Lost 6.25 hours2.893519e-4 days 0.00694 hours 4.133598e-5 weeks 9.5125e-6 months of sample time due Station operation satisfactory CR 10062765 0.8 mile - North of airborne particulates to power interruption during severe after normal power restored .

weather event in area.

05/12/15 - 05/19/15 Pl-0701/11-0701 Non-representative sample Lost 3.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months of sample time due to Station operation satisfactory CR 10069726 1.0 mile - SSE of airborne particulates unexpected loss of the 12KV South after normal power restored .

Feeder power supply.

2nd Quarter 2015 OSLO Station OSLO missing from station In-service OSLO badge set missing New OSLO badge set installed 04/08/15 - 07 /10/15 RC-0204A&B and presumed lost following severe at start of 3'd Quarter period.

CR 10095289 (4 miles - NE) weather event in area .

09/29/15 - 10/06/15 PC-0703/IC-0703 Non-representative sample Lost 171 hours0.00198 days 0.0475 hours 2.827381e-4 weeks 6.50655e-5 months of sample time after Station operation satisfactory CR 10131957 3 miles - SSE of airborne particulates. local breaker on sampler tripped off after normal power restored .

Inadequate sample volume during electrical storm.

3 collected (less than 250 m )

12/24/15 - EOY WRB Non-representative monthly Water sampler out of service for 7.5 Station operability CR 10162085 (Andrews Dam) and quarterly river water days due to high river levels and satisfactory after access to

-3 miles - upstream composites resulting flood conditions facility restored and sampling equipment returned to service.

12/21/15 - EOY Pl-0701/11-0701 Air samples not obtained In-service air samples and sampling Station operation satisfactory CR 10162781 1.0 mile - SSE equipment ruined during river following power restoration flooding event. and replacement of sampling equipment.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 15 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGIC L ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING EPORT 4th Quarter 2015 OSLO Station OSLO collection delayed OSLO station is inaccessible due to 4th Quarter OSLO badge set 10/08/15 - EOY RC-0405A &B closed roads in surrounding area . will be changed-out when CR 10167965 5 miles - East normal access is restored.

1 1' through 3'd Quarter Groundwater Sample Point Samples not obtained for PW#3 pump was Danger-Tagged PW#3 pump was untagged 2015 PW#3 (onsite Production tritium and gamma isotopic 'off' for an underground piping leak and samples collected during TE 921084 Well #3 supply) analyses (1-DT-14-Y36-00041). 4th Quarter 2015.

3'd Quarter 2015 Groundwater Sample Point Samples not obtained for CW#2 pump was inoperable CW#2 pump was repaired TE 921084 CW#2 (onsite Construction tritium and gamma isotopic (SNC677410) and samples collected during 1

East Well supply) analyses 4 h Quarter 2015.

An anomaly is considered a non -standard sample that still meets sampling criteria outlined in SNC and Georgia Power Labs procedures.

- A deviation is a sample result that is not recorded due to not meeting scheduling and/or procedural requirements as outlined by SNC and Georgia Power Labs 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 16 I Page

LANT LE ANNUAL ADIOLOGICAL 3.1 Airborne Particulates As specified in Table 2-1, airborne particulate filters and charcoal canisters are collected weekly at four indicator stations (Stations 0501, 0701, 1101, and 1601) which encircle the plant at the site periphery, at three commun ity station (0703, 1108, and 1605) approximately three to eight miles from the plant, and at three control stations (0215 and 1218) which range from approximately 15 to 18 miles from the plant. At each location, air is continuously drawn through a glass fiber filter to retain airborne particulate. An activated cha rcoal canister is also placed in series with the particulate filter to adsorb radioiodine at each indicator and control station and at community station 0703 in Cedar Springs, GA for comparison purposes with GA EPD .

3.1.1 Gross Beta As provided in Table 3-1, the 2015 annual average weekly gross beta activity was 13.4 fCi/m3 for the indicator stations. It was 2.5 fCi/m3 less than the control station average of 15.9 fCi/m3 for the year. The MOD is not applicable as the ind icator stations produced a lower average than the control stations .

The 2015 annual average weekly gross beta activity at the community stations was 16.8 fCi/m3 which was 0.9 fCi/m3 more than the control station average . This difference is not statistically discernible since it is less than the calculated MOD of 3.0 fCi/m3.

Average Air Gross Beta historical data (Table 3-4) is graphed to show trends associated with a prevalent exposure pathway (Figure 3-1) . In general, there is close agreement between the results for the indicator, control and community stations. This close agreement supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to the gross beta concentrations in air.

Table 3-4. 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 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 17 I Page

LANT FARLEY NNUAL RADIOLOGICAL NVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 1986 10.5 15.8 12 .5 1987 9.0 11.0 17.0 1988 8 8 10 1989 7 7 8 1990 10 10 10 1991 9 10 8 1992 15 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 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 2010 21.2 17.5 18.2 2011 20 .9 14.5 18.2 2012 18.0 17.3 18.9 2013 16.7 18.7 16.l 2014 17.7 19.l 18.5 2015 13.4 15 .9 16.8 I Page A 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 18

LANT FA LE ANNUAL ADIOLOGICAL ENVIRON Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 3.1.2 Gamma Particulates During 2015, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the quarterly composites of the air particulate filters.

Historically, gamma isotopes have been detected as a result of offsite events. During pre-operation Cs-137 was occasionally detected .

3.2 Direct Radiation In 2015, direct (external) radiation was measured with Optically Stimulated Luminescent (OSL) dosimeters by placing two OSL badges at each station. The gamma dose at each station is reported as the average reading of the two badges. The badges are analyzed on a quarterly basis. 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.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 19 I Page

LANT LE NNUAl ADIOLOGI l NVIRONMENT l Two direct radiation stations are established in each of the 16 compass sectors, to form two concentric rings. The inner ring (Stations 0101 through 1601) is located near the plant perimeter as shown in Map A-1 in Appendix A and the outer ring (Stations 0104 through 1605) is located at a distance of approximately 5 miles from the plant as shown in Map A-2 in Appendix A. The 16 stations forming the inner ring are designated as the indicator stations. The two ring configuration of stations was established in accordance with NRC Branch Technical Position "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program" , Revision 1, November 1979. The six control stations (Stations 0215, 0718, 1215, 1218, 1311 and 1612) are located at distances greater than 10 miles from the plant as shown in Map A-3 in Appendix A.

Monitored special interest areas consist of the following: Station 1001 which is the nearest residence to the plant, and Station 1108 in the town of Ashford, Alabama. The mean and range values presented in the "Other" column in Table 3-1 includes the outer ring stations (stations 0104 through 1605) as well as stations 1001 and 1108.

As provided in Table 3-1, the 2015 average quarterly exposure at the indicator stations (inner ring) was 17.1 mR with a range of 11.4 to 27.7 mR. The indicator station average was 1.5 mR more than the control station average (15 .6 mR). This difference is considered statistically discernible since it is more than the MOD of 1.1 mR. However, the average is consistent with historical readings and is only slightly above the control value and therefore no environmental concerns were identified.

The quarterly exposures acquired at the community/other {outer ring) stations during 2015 ranged from 10.9 to 18.3 mR with an average of 14.4 mR which was 1.2 mR less than that of the control stations.

Average Direct Radiation historical data (Table 3-5) is graphed to show trends associated with a prevalent exposure pathway (Figure 3-2). The decrease between 1991 and 1992 values is attributed to a change in TLDs from Teledyne to Panasonic. It should be noted however that the differences between indicator and control and outer ring values did not change.

Table 3-5. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation Period Indicator Control Outer Ring (mR) (mR) (mR)

Pre-op 12 .6 11.4 10.1 1977 10.6 12 .2 10.6 1978 15 13 .5 12 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 1983 20 .2 20.2 17.4 1984 18.3 16.9 15 .3 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 20 I Page

LANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL NVIRONMENTAL - -

Table 3-5. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 1985 21.9 22 18 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 2010 17.8 16.7 15.S 2011 21 .0 19 .9 18.4 2012 17.4 15.8 14.7 2013 16.5 15.1 13 .8 2014 16.7 15.7 14.1 2015 17 .1 15 .6 14.4 I Page

.\ 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 21

LANT A LE NNUAL RADIOLOGICAL NVIRONMENT L Figure 3-2. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation The increase shown in 2010 reflects issues with the aging Panasonic TLD reader. The close agreement between the station groups supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to direct radiation in the environment. Figure 3-3 provides a more detailed view of the 2015 values. The values for the special interest areas detailed below indicate that Plant Farley did not significantly contribute to direct radiation at those areas.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 22 I Page

LANT LEY ANNUAL NVIRONMENT L Figure 3-3. 2015 Average Exposure from Direct Radiation 3.3 Biological Media Cs-137 was the only radionuclide detected in two of the three biological media. As indicated in Figure 3-4, the Cs-137 activity levels are below the respective MDCs and well below that of the respective Rls for each sample media for both the indicator and control stations.

3.3.1 Milk Milk samples had been collected biweekly from a control location until the end of 2009 when the dairy would no longer provide samples. 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 2015 land use census and therefore no milk sampling was performed during the reporting year.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 23 I Page

LANT A LEY ANNUAL ADIOLOGICAL 3.3.2 Vegetation In accordance with Table 2-1 and 2-2, forage samples are collected every four weeks at two indicator stations on the plant perimeter, and at one control station located approximately 18 miles west of the plant, in Dothan. The man-made radionuclide Cs-137 is periodically identified in vegetation samples, and is generally attributed to offsite sources (such as weapons testing, Chernobyl, and Fukushima).

During 2015, one gamma isotope (Cs-137) was identified twice at Station 1601 (Plant Perimeter) and once at a control station (Dothan, Alabama). The average for the indicator station (7.9 pCi/L) was below the average for the control station (12.3 pCi/L). No environmental concerns are noted as these values are below the MDC and RL.

3.3.3 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 Map A-3 in Append ix A.

3.3.3.1 Bottom Feeding Species For bottom-feeding species, all fish sampled are considered indicator stations. No radionuclides were detected in the 2015 analyses, which is consistent with historical data .

3.3.3.2 Game Species For game species, all fish sampled are considered indicator stations. One sample location identified Cs-137 on two occasions with an average value of 13.5 pCi/kg. While the control samples did not contain Cs-137, the indicator value is below the MDC (SO pCi/kg) and the RL (2,000 pCi/kg) and this value is not considered attributable to Plant activity.

3.3.4 Biological Media Summary There were no statistical differences, trends, or anomalies associated with the 2015 biological media samples when compared to historical data. As shown in Table 3-1, Cs-137 was identified in vegetation and game species fish ; no other radionuclides were found from the gamma isotopic analysis of biological media samples in 2015.

2015 FNP Annual Rad iological Environmental Operating Report 24 I Page

LANT LE NNU L ADIOLOGICAL NVIRONMENT L 3.4 Off-site Groundwater There are no true indicator sources of ground water offsite of Plant Farley. A well, located approximately 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 2015, there were no radionuclides detected in any of the ground water samples from either sample station, with the exception of tritium.

Since 2004, tritium has been detected at very low concentrations (near the instrument detection level} and close to environmental background levels in off-site groundwater. In 2015, tritium was not detected. Typically the positive results are at concentrations well below the MDC and RL for tritium (2,000 and 20,000 pCi/I, respectively} .

3.5 River Water Composite river water samples are collected monthly at an upstream control location and at two downstream indicator locations (shown on Figure 2) . The details of the sampling protocols are outlined in Tables 2-1 and Table 2-2. A gamma isotopic analysis is conducted on each monthly sample and the monthly aliquots are combined to form quarterly composite samples, which are analyzed for tritium .

As provided in Table 3-1, there were no positive results during 2015 from the gamma isotopic analysis of the river water samples. Also indicated in Table 3-1, the average tritium concentration (three samples) found at the indicator station was 203 .3 pCi/I, the control station did not indicate any positive concentrations (four samples) . The MDC for tritium in river water used to supply drinking water is 2000 pCi/I and the RL is 20000 pCi/I.

Figure 3-4 below details the 2015 average tritium concentrations across both water mediums.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 25 I Page

LANT LE NNUAL ADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT l Figure 3-4. 2015 Average Tritium Concentrations in River and Off-site Groundwater 3.6 Sediment Sediment was collected along the shoreline of the Chattahoochee River in the spring and fall at a control station which is approximately four miles upstream of the intake structure and at an indicator station which is approximately two miles downstream of the discharge structure as shown in Map A-3. A gamma isotopic analysis was performed on each sample. There were no radionuclides detected in sediment samples in 2015.

3.7 lnterlaboratory Comparison Program In accordance with ODCM 4.1.3, GPCEL participates in an lnterlaboratory Comparison Program (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 ICP includes the required determinations (sample medium/radionuclide combinations) included in the REMP.

The ICP was conducted by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc. (EZA) of Atlanta, Georgia. EZA 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 thi rd 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 26 I Page

LANT FA LE ANNUAL ADIOL GICAL ENVI 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. EZA supplies the crosscheck samples to GPCEL which performs routine laboratory analyses. Each of the specified analyses is performed three times.

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. 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 on Table 3-6 below:

Table 3-6. lnterlaboratory Comparison Limits Nuclide Concentration

Total Sample Activity Percent Coefficient of

{pCi) Variation

<300 NA 25 Cr-51 NA >1000 25

>300 <1000 15

<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/I) .

As required by ODCM 4.1.3.3 and 7.1.2.3, a summary of the results of the GPCEL's participation in the ICP is provided in Table 3-7 for:

gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter

gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples

gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples The 2015 analyses included tritium, gross beta and gamma emitting radio-nuclides in different matrices. The attached results for all analyses were within acceptable limits for accuracy (less than 15% coefficient of variation and less than 3.0 normalized deviations, except for Cr-51 and Fe-59, which are outlined in Table 3-6).

The 2015 analyses included tritium, gross beta and gamma emitting radio-nuclides in different matrices. The attached results for all analyses were within acceptable limits for accuracy.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 27 I Page

LANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPO T Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary Analysis or Date Prepared Reported Known Value Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef of Normalized Radionuclide Average Deviation EL Analytics (35) Variation Deviation 1-131 ANALYSIS OF AN AIR CARTRIDGE (pCi/cartridge) 1-131 9/10/2015 85.4 82.0 1.37 1.37 5.79 0.69 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter)

Ce-141 9/10/2015 92.7 85.5 4.36 1.43 7.5 1.03 Co-58 9/10/2015 114 106 5.28 1.76 5.6 0.9 Co-60 9/10/2015 139 132 5.38 2.21 5 0.37 Cr-51 9/10/2015 226 216 16.66 3.61 9.6 0.45 Cs-134 9/10/2015 85.3 84.9 3.37 1.42 5.4 0.08 Cs-137 9/10/2015 111 102 5 1.71 6.5 1.2 Fe-59 9/10/2015 96.7 90.5 5.5 1.51 6.2 0.91 Mn-54 9/10/2015 133 116 5.82 1.94 6 2.09 Zn-65 9/10/2015 164 142 8.46 2.37 7.3 1.85 GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (PCl/FILTER)

Gross Beta 9/10/2015 103 96.3 3.66 1.61 5.9 1.44 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE Pel/LITER)

Co-58 6/11/2015 77.7 68.4 5.92 1.14 10.92 1.1 Co-60 6/11/2015 203 193 8.29 1.06 4.52 1.12 Cr-51 6/11/2015 295 276 33.19 4.61 12.3 0.53 Cs-134 6/11/2015 184 163 6.93 2.72 5.02 2.28 Cs-137 6/11/2015 144 125 7.77 2.09 7.38 1.75 Fe-59 6/11/2015 163 151 10.07 2.53 6.94 1.03 1-131 6/11/2015 105 95.9 6.91 1.6 8 1.04 Mn-54 6/11/2015 115 101 6.9 1.68 7.31 1.62 Zn-65 6/11/2015 282 248 15.62 4.15 7.3 1.64 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 28 I Page

LANT FARLEY ANNUAL ADIOL GtCAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPO T Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary Analysis or Date Prepared Reported Known Value Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef of Normalized Radionuclide Average Deviation EL Analytics (35) Variation Deviation GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLE (Pel/LITER) 3/19/2015 319 281 10.5 4.69 4.56 2.59 Gross Beta 6/11/2015 290 248 10.2 4.15 4.68 3.1 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (PCl/LITER)

Ce-141 3/19/2015 135.7 139.2 8.44 2.32 7.97 -0.3 Co-58 3/19/2015 183 180 9.32 3 6.76 0.24 Co-60 3/19/2015 325.3 328 12.73 5.48 5.61 -0.15 Cr-51 3/19/2015 399.1 366 38.04 6.11 17.12 0.48 Cs-134 3/19/2015 131.1 126 5.81 2.1 9.49 0.41 Cs-137 3/19/2015 175 167 9 2.78 7.49 0.6 Fe-59 3/19/2015 203 195 11.63 3.25 7.01 0.56 1-131 3/19/2015 100.5 96.7 7.16 1.61 9.24 0.41 Mn-54 3/19/2015 170 159 8.97 2.65 7.78 0.8 Zn-65 3/19/2015 328 299 17.26 4.99 7.61 1.15 TRITIUM ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (PCl/LITER) 3/19/2015 12104 12600 140 210 3.14 -1.31 H-3 6/11/2015 12700 13000 148 217 2.11 -0.95 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 29 I Page

LANT A LEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL EPORT 3.8 Groundwater To ensure compliance with NEI 07-07, Southern Nuclear developed the Nuclear Management Procedure, Radiological Groundwater Protection Program . The procedure contains detailed site-specific monitoring plans, program technical bases, and communications protocol (to ensure that 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 robust bu ried piping and tanks inspection programs-. No changes were made to the Groundwater Protection Program in 2015 .

Plant Farley maintains the following wells (Table 3-8), which are sampled at a frequency that satisfies the requirements of NEI 07-07. The analytical results for 2015 were all within regulatory limits specified within this report. Table 3-9 contains the results of the Groundwater Protection Program results for tritium (in pCi/L) .

Rl Major Shallow aquifer Dilution line R2 Major Shallow aquifer Dilution line R3 Major Shallow aquifer Unit 2 RWST R4 Major Shallow aquifer Unit 1 RWST RS Major Shallow aqu ifer Dilution line R6 Major Shallow aquifer Dilution line R7 Major Shallow aquifer Dilution line R8 Maj or Shallow aqu ifer Dilution line R9 Major Shallow aquifer Dilution line RlO Major Shallow aquifer Dilution line Rll Major Shallow aquifer Background 1 R13 Major Shallow aquifer Dilution line Rl4 Major Shallow aquifer Background 2 PW#2 Drinking water Production Well #2 Supply PW#3 Drinking water Produ ction Well #3 Supply PW#4 Drink ing water Production Well #4 Supply CW West Drinking water Construction Well West Supply CW East Drinking water Construction Well East Supply FRW Drinking water Firing Range Well Supply SW-1 N/A Background 3, Service Water Pond 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 30 I Page

LA T LE NUAL ADIOL GICAL ENVIRONMENT EPORT Rl 27 .6 NDM NDM 87 .2 R2 45 .1 53.7 6.87 96.9 R3 1690 1870 1660 1650 R4 NDM 145 NDM NDM RS 45.4 NDM 143 NDM R6 182 NDM 78.4 NDM R7 90 .5 16.3 123 NDM R8 50.6 57 .9 NDM 28.9 R9 60 .3 NDM 76 .1 NDM RlO 60.5 NDM 41.6 NDM Rll NDM 9.33 110 NDM R13 NDM NDM 27.1 NDM R14 131 NDM NDM NDM PW#2 173 NDM NDM NDM PW#3 NS - Out of Service NS - Out of Service NS - Out of Service 173 PW#4 NDM NDM NDM 209 CW West NDM NDM NDM NDM CW East NDM 74 .5 NS - Out of Service 179 FRW NDM NDM NDM 248 SW-1 NDM 53 .6 NDM NDM NDM - No Detectable Measurements NS - Not Samp led 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 31 I Page

LANT fARLE NNUAL ADIOLOGICAL NVIRONMENT l TING REPO 4 SURVEY SUMMARIES 4.1 Land Use Census In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted on November 25, 2015 to determine the locations of the nearest permanent residence, milk animal, and garden of greater than 500 square feet producing broad leaf vegetation, in each of the 16 compass sectors within a distance of five miles; the locations of the nearest beef cattle in each sector were also determined. A milk animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption.

The census results are tabulated in Table 4.1-1. The 2015 census indicated that there were no changes to the nearest location for any of the categories in any of the sectors when compared to the 2014 census, nor were any milk animals located within a five-mile radius .

In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted on November 25, 2015 to verify the locations of the nearest radiological receptor within five miles. The census results, shown in Table 4-1 indicated one change from 2013; a new permanent resident was identified in the western sector (12); now located 1.0 mile from the plant (a change of 0.2 miles). This location was evaluated under CAR 249563 in accordance with ODCM 4.1.2.2.1. There were no significant differences in X/Q or D/Q values or radiological doses between the new location and the previous location.

Table 4-1. Land Use Census Results Sector Residence Milk Animal Distance in M iles to the Nearest Location in Each Sector N 2.6 None NNE 2.5 None NE 2.4 None ENE 2.4 None E 2.8 None ESE 3.0 None SE 3.4 None SSE None None s 4.3 None SSW 2.9 None SW 1.2 None WSW 2.4 None w 1.0 None WNW 2.1 None NW 1.5 None NNW 3.4 None 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 32 I Page

LA Tf NNUAL ADI LOGICAL NVIRONMENT L 4.2 Chattahoochee River Survey A previous river survey performed for Plant Farley identified a potential use of water from the Chattahoochee River, downstream of the plant discharge at a distance of approximately 2 miles. In July 2013, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources issued a farm use permit to withdraw from the Chattahoochee River to the Nature Conservancy of Georgia. The Nature Conservancy of Georgia leases property along the river for agricultural and grazing purposes to a private farm family, and water from the river could potentially be used for crop irrigation. It is not known, at the time of this report, if the property lessee (farmer) has exercised permit rights to withdraw from the river. Plant Farley is pursuing this information from the farmer and will request future crop samples from the farmer if, and when, water is withdrawn from the river for irrigation of crops.

In June 2015, a survey was sent to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) and Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) to request any information about river use permits that had been issued in the area near the plant. No additional withdrawal permits or intake locations had been added at the time of the survey.

2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 33 I Page

LA T A LE NNUAL ADIOLOGICAL T

5 CONCLUSIONS This report confirms SNCs conformance with the requirements of Chapter 4 of the ODCM and the objectives were to:

1) Determine the levels of radiation and the concentrations of radioactivity in the environs and;

2) Assess the radiological impact (if any) to the environment due to the operation of the FNP.

Based on the 2015 activities associated with the REMP, SNC offers the following conclusions:

Samples were collected and there were no deviations or anomalies that negatively affected the quality of the REMP

Land use census and river survey did not reveal any changes

Analytical results were below reporting levels

These values are consistent with historical results, indicating no adverse radiological environmental impacts associated with the operation of FNP 2015 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 34 I Page

Charles R. Pierce Southern Nuclear Regulatory Affairs Director Operating Company, Inc.

40*1nverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35242 Tel 205.992 .7872 SOUTHERN ._\

Fax 205 .992.7601 NUCLEAR A SOUTHERN COMPANY MAY 1 6 2016 Docket Nos .: 50-321 50-348 50-424 NL-16-0741 50-366 50-364 50-425 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington , D. C . 20555-0001 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 & 2 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant- Units 1 & 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 & 2 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2015 Lad ies and Gentlemen :

In accordance with section 5 .6 .2 of the referenced plants' Technical Specifications , Southern Nuclear Operating Company hereby submits the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2015.

This letter contains no NRC commitments . If you have any questions, please contact Ken McElroy at (205) 992-7369 .

C. R. Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director CRP/RMJ

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NL-16-0741 Page 2

Enclosures:

1. Hatch Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2015

2. Farley Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2015

3. Vogtle Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2015 cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company Mr. S. E. Kuczynski, Chairman, President & CEO Mr. D. G. Bost, Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Ms. C. A. Gayheart, Vice President - Farley Mr. D. R. Vineyard, Vice President - Hatch Mr. D. R. Madison , Vice President - Fleet Operations Mr. B. K. Taber, Vice President - Vogtle 1 & 2 Mr. M. D. Meier, Vice President - Regulatory Affairs Mr. B. J. Adams, Vice President - Engineering Ms. B. L. Taylor, Regulatory Affairs Manager - Farley Mr. G. L. Johnson, Regulatory Affairs Manager - Hatch Mr. G. W. Gunn, Regulatory Affairs Manager - Vogtle 1 & 2 RType: Farley=CFA04.054; Hatch=CHA02.004; Vogtle=CVC7000 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. C. Haney, Regional Administrator Mr. S. A. Williams, NRR Project Manager - Farley Mr. D. H. Hardage, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch Mr. W. D. Deschaine, Senior Resident Inspector - Vogtle 1 & 2 Mr. P. K. Niebaum, Senior Resident Inspector - Farley Mr. R. E. Martin, NRR Project Manager - Vogtle 1 & 2 Mr. A. M. Alen, Resident Inspector - Vogtle 1 & 2 Mr. M. D. Orenak, NRR Project Manager - Hatch State of Alabama Mr. D. K. Walter, Department of Public Health, Office of Radiation Control State of Georgia Mr. M. Williams, Department of Natural Resources American Nuclear Insurers Mr. R. A. Oliveira

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 & 2 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant- Units 1 & 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 & 2 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2015 Enclosure 1 Hatch Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2015

EDWIN le. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 2015 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT SOUTHERN << \

NUCLEAR A SOUTHERN COMPANY

LANT A H NNUAL ADIOLOGICAL RT EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 2015 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 lntroduction .. ... ........... .......... ....................................... ...................... .......... . 1 2 REMP Description ....... .......... ........................................................................ 2 3 Results Summary ........ .................................................................................. 7 3.1 Airborne Particulates ... ............. .. .......... ...................... ................... ... .. ........ .... .. ... . 14 3.1.1 Gross Beta ..... ................ .... ......... ... .. ....................... .............................................. 14 3.1.2 Gamma Particulates ................................................................................ ............. 16 3.2 Direct Radiation ... .................. .. .. ............. ................................................. ... ...... ... . 16 3.3 Biological Media .. .................. ................. .............. .. ....... .... ........ .... ... ..... ............ .... 20 3.3 .1 Milk .... ... .. ...... .... ..... .. ............ .... ....... ........ ... .. ... .. .. ........... .. .... .. ..... ..... ........ .... ........ 20 3.3 .2 Vegetation ............... ...... .... .... .. .... ...... ....... .. .... .... .... ... ... .. ..... ........ ... .... .......... ... ..... 21 3.3.3 Fish ............... .. ... ... ............. ... ...... ...... ..... ....... ..... .. .. ...... ....................................... .. 21 3.3.4 Biological Media Summary .......... .. ... .... ...... .. .. .. .. .. ....... .... ............... .. ..... ......... .. .. . 21 3.4 Surface Water .. .... ... .... ....... .. ..... .. ............... .. ....... .. ..... .................... .. ... .. .. .. ..... ....... 22 3.5 Sediment ............ ..... .. .. ... .... .. ................................. ........ ...... ............. .. ..... .. .... .... .... 23 3.6 lnterlaboratory Comparison Program ..... ... .......................................................... 23 3.7 Groundwater .. .... .. ... .. .. .... .. ......... .. ........... .......... ........ ............................................ 27 4 Survey Summaries ..... .. ............................................................................... 30 4.1 Land Use Census ... .. .... ... .......... ... ........... ........ .. .................. .. ... ......... ... ...... .... .. ...... 30 4 .2 Altamaha River Survey ........... ................. .............. .... ..... .. ........ ....... .. ............ .... .... 30 5 Conclusions ............. .................................................................................... 32 Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ...... ... .. ................ .. .. 3 Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations ......... .... .. ...... ................. ... .............. .. .... .. ......... 5 Table 3-1. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary ...... ........ .... .. ... ............ ... .... 9 Table 3-2. Reporting Levels (RL) .. ... .. ....... .................... .. .................................... ................. .. .. .. ........ .. .... .... 12 Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ....... ...... .... 13 Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration .. ........ ............... .......... .. .......... ... ... .... ...... .... ...... 14 Table 3-5 . Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation .... ........ ........... ................. .... .. .. ................. 17 Table 3-6. lnterlaboratory Comparison Limits ........ ... .. ........ .. ......................................................... ...... .. ... 24 2015 HNP !A.nnual Radiological Environmental Operating Report I i lP age

PLANT c NNU L ADIOLOGICAL Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary .. ........ ....... ..... .. ...... .. ... ... ............ ................. ..... ... .......... 25 Table 3-8 . Groundwater Monitoring Locations .. ... ...... .. .......... .... .. ....... .... .. ................ .... .. .......... ...... ... .. .... 27 Table 3-9 . Groundwater Monitoring Results ....... .. ...... .... .... ................. .. ........... ... ..... ....... ... .. .. .... ... ....... .... 28 Table 4-1. Land Use Census Results ... .......... ... ............................................ .. ....... ........... .. ........ ................. 30 Table 4-2 . Special Sample Results (Peanuts) ........................................... ......... .. .. .............. .. .. .......... .......... 31 Figures Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration ... ....... ..... .. ........ ....... .. ..... .. ........ .. ............. .... .. .. 16 Figure 3-2 . Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation ................. .. .. ...... ........ .. .. ..... .... ........... ... ... 19 Figure 3-3. 2015 Average Exposure from Direct Radiation ....................... .................................. ........... ... . 20 Figure 3-4 . 2015 Biological Media Average Concentrations .................. .. ............. ........ .... .... .. ........ ........ .... 22 Figure 3-5. Average Annual Tritium Concentrations in River Water ......... ..... ... ... ....... .... .. ......... .. ..... .. .... ... 23 Appendix A - Maps A REMP Stations in Plant Vicinity A REMP Stations within 5 Miles A Facility Groundwater Wells Appendix B - Errata Groundwater Protection Results from 2014 Report 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 1 ii I P age

PL NTH TC ANNUAL ADIOLOGICAL PERATING E ORT LIST OF ACRONYMS AREOR Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BWR Boiling Water Reactor CL Confidence Level EPA Environmental Protection Agency GA EPD State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division GPC Georgia Power Company GPCEL Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory HNP Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant ICP lnterlaboratory Comparison Program MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MOD Minimum Detectable Difference MWe Megawatts Electric NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measurement(s)

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual OSL Optically Stimulated Luminescence Po Preoperation REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting Level RM River Mile SNC Southern Nuclear Operating Company TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specification 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operatihg Report iii IPage I

PLANT ATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVI PERATING EPORT 1 INTRODUCTION The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) is conducted in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). REMP activities for 2015 are reported herein in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.2 and ODCM 7.1.

The objectives of the REMP are to:

1) Determine the levels of radiation and the concentrations of radioactivity in the environs and;

2) Assess the radiological impact (if any) to the environment due to the operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP).

The assessments include comparisons between the results of analyses of samples obtained at locations where radiological levels are not expected to be affected by plant operation (control stations), areas of higher population (community stations), and at locations where radiological levels are more likely to be affected by plant operation (indicator stations), as well as comparisons between preope rat ional and operational sample results .

The pre-operational stage of the REMP began with the establishment and activation of the environmental monitoring stations in January of 1972. The operational stage of the REMP began on September 12, 1974 with Unit 1 initial criticality.

A description of the REMP is provided in Section 2 of this report

Section 3 provides a summary of the results and an assessment of any radiological impacts to the environment as well as the results from the interlaboratory comparison

A summary of the land use census and the river survey are included in Section 4

Conclusions are included in Section 5 2015 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report ll P age