NL-17-0845, Submittal of Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2016

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submittal of Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2016
ML17137A369
Person / Time
Site: Hatch, Vogtle, Farley  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 05/15/2017
From: Hutto J
Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NL-17-0845
Download: ML17137A369 (145)
v • d • e


Text

~ Southern Nuclear J . J . Hutto Regulatory Affairs Director 40 Inverness Center Parkway Pus t Office Box 1295

{ Birmingham., AL 35242 205 992 5872 tel 205 992 760 I fax jjhutto@southernco.com MAY 1 5 2017 Docket Nos.: 50-321 50-348 50-424 NL-17-0845 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 Vog~ le Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 & 2 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2016 Ladies 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 2016.

This letter contains no NRC commitments. If you have any questions, please contact Ken McElroy at 205.992.7369.

Respectfully submitted ,

~~

J. J. Hutto Reg ulatory Affairs Director JJH/RMJ

Enclosures:

1. Hatch Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2016
2. Farley Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2016
3. Vogtle Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2016 cc: Regional Administrator, Region II NRR Project Manager - Farley, Hatch, Vogtle 1 & 2 Senior Resident Inspector - Farley, Hatch, Vogtle 1 & 2 NRR Project Manager - Farley, Hatch, Vogtle 1 & 2 RType: Farley=CFA04.054, Hatch=CHA02.004, Vogtle=CVC7000 State of Alabama Department of Public Health, Office of Radiation Control State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources American Nuclear Insurers

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 2016 Enclosure 1 Hatch Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2016

EDWIN I, HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 2016 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL O,PERATING REPORT

This page intentionally left blank.

PlANTHATCH ANNUAL RAOtOlOGlCAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 lntroduction ............................. :.................................*.......................... .- ........ 1 2 REMP Description ..........................................................................................2 3 Results Summary ................................................................. :.... ;................... 7 3.1 Airborne Particulates ............................................................................................ 15 3.1.1 Gross Beta ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1.2 Gamma Particulates ............................................................................. :............... 17 3.2 Direct Radiation .................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Biological Media ................. ~ .................................................................................. 21 I .

~:~:~*1 ~~~~~~*~;~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::':::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~

3.3.3 Fish ....................................................................................................................... 22 3.3.4 Biological Media Summary .................................................................................. 23 3.4 Surface Water ....................................................................................................... 23 3.5 Sediment ................................................................................................................ 24 3.6 lnterlaboratory Comparison Program .................................................................. 25 3.7 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 29 4 Survey Summaries ....................................................................................... 32 4.1 Land Use Census ................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Altamaha River Survey ......... .'................................................................................ 32 5 Conclusions .................................................................................................34 Tables 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) ..................................................:.............................................................. 13 Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ................ : 14 Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration ......................................................................... 15 Table 3-5. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation ................................................................. 18 Table 3-6. lnterlaboratory Comparison Limits ........................................................................................... 25 Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary ..................................................................................... 27 Table 3-8. Groundwater Monitoring Locations ......................................................................................... 29 Table 3-9. Groundwater Protection Program Tritium Results (pCi/L} ....................................................... 30 Table 4-1. Land Use Census Results ........................................................................................................... 32 Table 4-2. Special Sample Results (Corn) ................................................................................................... 33 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report ii Page

A\JNJINJl!JJ~ ~<<OO~~

JfOOJVAJIR\OO~EM~U.. 0KM1i1JINJ<5i ~IXOJi%l" Figures Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration ........................................................................ 17 Figure 3-2. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation ................................................................. 20 Figure 3-3. 2016 Average Exposure from Direct Radiation ........................................................................ 21 Figure 3-4. 2016 Biological Media Average Cs-137 Concentrations ........................................................... 23 Figure 3-5. Average Annual Tritium Concentrations in River Water .......................................................... 24 Appendix A - Maps A REMP Stations in Plant Vicinity A REMP Stations within 10 Miles A Facility Groundwater Wells I

Appendix B - Errata 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report iii Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RAOIOlOGICAl ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT 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 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

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RA.tHOlOGtCAl ENVlRONMENTA.l OPERATtNG REPORT 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 2016 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 betweFn 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 preoperational 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

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATtNG REPORT 2 REMP DESCRIPTION The following section provides a description of the sampling and laboratory protocols associated wi.th 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 Environriental Laboratory (GPCEL), located in Atlanta, Georg ia 1

collects and analyzes REMP samples.

2016 HNP.Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 2[Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOlOGlCAl ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Exposure-P;thw;y-ApproximateNumberof~~~~~~~~~~~~-.~~~~~~i'~~-.~~~~~.~~~~~~~.~.~-.-.!

. . Sampling/Collection Frequency . .. Type/Frequency of Analysis

  • I an di or Samp Ie Samp Ie Locat1ons ' ____________
  • ___ .:: ______ , _____ :_ ______ _j __~-----------~

Direct Radiation 37 routine monitoring Quarterly Gamma dose, quarterly stations

~irborne 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 <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following

~ilter change, weekly; perform gamma isotopic analysis on affected sample when gross beta activity is 10 times the yearly mean of control samples; and composite (by location) for gamma isotopic analysis, quarterly.

/ ',!', .. * ** ..

Surface One sample upriver Composite sample over one month period 1 Gamma isotopic analysis 2, monthly One sample downriver Composite for tritium analysis, quarterly Drinking 3 A One sample of river River 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 collections are required. Gross beta and gamma one sample of finished grab sample. These samples will be collected isotopic analysis on each sample; 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 The collections may revert to monthly should the discharges. calculated doses become less than 1 mrem/year.

Groundwater See Table 3-8 and Map A- Quarterly sample; pump used to sample GW wells; Tritium, gamma isotopic, and field parameters of 4 in Appendix A for on- grab sample from yard drains and ponds each sample; hard-to-detects based on tritium and site well locations. These gamma results are part of the GWPP Groundwater is sampled per the guidance under (NEI 07-07). NEI 07-07.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 3JPage

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Milk5 One Bimonthly Gamma isotopic analysis 2*7, bimonthly Fish or Clams 6 WO Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis 2 on edible portions, semiannually Grass or Leafy hree Monthly during growing season Gamma isotopic analysis 2*7, monthly egetation Notes:

1 Composite sample aliquots shall be collected at time intervals that are very short (e.g., h*ourly) 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 he facility.

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

A survey shall be conducted annually at least 50 river miles downstream of the plant to identify those who use water from the Alta ma ha River for drinking.

Up to three sampling locations within five miles and in different sectors will be used as available. In addition, one or more control locations beyond 10 miles will be used.

6 Commercially or recreationally important fish may be sampled. Clams may be sampled if difficulties are encountered in obtaining sufficient fish samples.

7 1f 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.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 41Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RAtHOlOGlCAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations

/___ ---- '-~~;~~JI~: - - -- - - - - L~!~:::"J/,. _L~~~;s~UI. -------~~-~a~~::~~=~::::~ '~ _ J 064 Other Roadside Park WNW 0.8 Direct 101 Indicator Inner Ring N 1.9 Direct 102 Indicator Inner Ring NNE 2.5 Direct 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, Direct 108 Indicator I Inner Ring SSE 1.6 Direq 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 i'nner Ring w 1.1 Direct 114 Indicator Inner Ring WNW 1.2 Direct 115 Indicator Inner Ring NW 1.1 Direct 4

116 Indicator Inner Ring NNW 2.0 Airborne, Direct 170 Control Upstream WNW 2 River3 172 Indicator Downstream E 2 River3 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

PlANT~ATCH ANNUAL RADIOlOGlCAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 2-2. Radiolo ical Environmental Sampling Locations I;:;J[~~l::s~.:~:~~-~c~~~*.~~: i[:~r:~~~~n l[ -~~ _*- _ _

Toombs Central 1

J_ : _ _ :~~ ~~ti~n s~~!,e ~~~e--~ ~1 301 Other N 8.0 Direct School 304 Control State Prison ENE 11.2 Airborne, Direct 304 Control State Prison ENE 10.3 Milk Baxley 309 Control s 10.0 Airborne, Direct Substation Emergency News 416 Control NNW 21.0 Direct, Vegetation Center Notes:

1 Direction and distance are determined from the main stack.

12station 170 iJ located approximately 0.6 river miles upstream of the intake structJre 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,

~ediment and clams, and 1.7 river miles for fish.

rrhe locations from which river water and sediment may be taken can be sharply* defined. However, the

~ampling locations for clams often have to be extended over a wide area to obtain a sufficient quantity. High M/ater adds to the difficulty in obtaining clam samples and may also make an otherwise suitable location for

~ediment 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 approximations of the locations where samples are collected.

13 River (fish or clams, shoreline sediment, and surface water) 14This station was shifted approximately 0.4 miles due to a highway widening project. Sector did not change.

Map A-1 shows the new station and contains a red cross-out of the previous station.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 6IPage

~LANT HATCH ANNUAl RADtOl.OGlCA.l ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 fig'ures 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 durlng pre-operation, and through early operation. Some lohg-lived radionuclides, such as Cs-137, continue tci 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, the Chernobyl incident in the spring of 1986 and the Fukushima accident in the spring of 2011.

As indicated in ODCM 7.1.2.1, the results for naturally occ.urring 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 d.etected 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 2016, 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.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 7f Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAl RADIOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 whi1h 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 2016 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.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report SJ Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-1. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary Particulates 6.6-52.4 10.1-54.4 (fCi/m3) (208/208) (52/52)

Gamma Isotopic 24 1-131 70 NDM(c) NDM Cs-134 50 NDM NDM Cs-137 60 NDM NDM- NDM Airborne 1-131 70 NDM NDM NDM NDM Radioiodine 312 (fCi/m3)

Direct Radiation Gamma Dose 12.1 Inner Ring NM 18.4 11.3 11.0 (mR/91 days) 148 8.7-19.9 1.1 mi. 16.8-19.9 6.8-16.5 8.8-12.7 (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 0.88 0.88 0.88-0.88 0.88-0.88 (1/24) (1/24)

Ba-140 60 NDM NDM La-140 15 NDM NDM Vegetation Gamma Isotopic - ; :

(pCi/kg-wet) 37 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 91Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Cs-137 80 47.3 Inner Ring ESE 69.8 NDM 14.2-183.8 1.1 mi. 27.7-183.8 (14/25) (11113)

River Water Gamma Isotopic (pCi/I) 12 Mn-54 15 Fe-59 30 NDM Co-58 15 NDM Co-60 15 NDM Zn-65 30 NDM NDM Zr-95 30 NDM NDM Nb-95 15 NDM NDM 1-131 15(d) NDM NDM Cs-134 15 NDM NDM Cs-137 18 NDM NDM Ba-140 60 NDM ** NDM La-140 15 NDM NDM Tritium 3000 (e) 106 Upstream WNW 152 8 24.3-169 ~o.6 RM from 125-192 (4/4) intake (3/4) 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report lO[Page

re-l PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGlC:Al ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 20.7 Downstream E 20.7 18.1 20.7-20.7 ~ 1.7 RM 20.7-20.7 18.1-18.1 (1/2) from intake (1/2) (1/2)

Sediment Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg-dry) 4 Cs-134 150 NDM NDM Cs-137 180 73.4 Upstream WNW 114.3 114.3

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-1. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary Medium or l!ldicator Pathway Minimum Locations Location with the Highest Control Sampled Type and Total Detectable Mean (b), Annu~I ME£a*r:i- Other Statibns Locations Me~n (Unit of Number of Analyses Concentration Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range ~: (f) Mean (b), ., (b), Range._

Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) .. (~racti_C!~) _ and Di rec.ti on ~ -~ _jlj"~~~lQ!:r) __*!*_ ~_;;i_rrg~_(fra~tionU __(Fractlon):__ __

Notes:

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

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) 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 required) 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 12 IP age

PLANT ,HATCH ANNUAL RADIOt.OGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-2. Reporting Levels (RL)

I- Ana1ySis *11 ~~ter (pci/ff'J A'iril_oriie~!lrticu1_ii~~J- Fish .~P,Ci/kg~J~-Milk**- *-11-*- -'Grass:.or l'~afY * ~-~--- *-[

_____________j ---~!-~~~-~~(fC:!/m31 ______ _______ ____ (~C'.!l!) ___ v~g~~~~!~]P_C:!/_kg-~~~L H-3 20,000*

Mn-54 1,000 30,000 Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1,000 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 1,000 60 1,000 Cs-137 I so 20,000 2,000 7Q 2,000 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.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 13 IP age

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVlRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Collection Period Affected Samples Anomaly (A)* or Deviation *. , Cause **  :* ** Resolution .* I (D)~*.,,.._ ~--"

_i -------*-----------*-* ___j _ _ _ ~

5/30/16-6/6/16 Air station #112 (A) Sample was short 16.2 Blown fuse at transformer. Repairs were made by hours Georgia Power Company and CR 10233330 power to the air cabinet was restored.

Second half of 2016 Fish sample at Station (D) No fish samples were Drought conditions led to extremely No resolution necessary;

  1. 170 & #172 collected low river for an extended period river level is back to normal CR 10310386
  • An anomaly is considered a non-standard sample that still meets sampling criteria outlined in SNC and Georgia Power Lab procedures.

?LANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 2016 annual average weekly gross beta activity was 21.4 fCi/m3 fcbr the indicator stations. It was 0.2 fCi/m3 less than the cbntrol station average of 21.6 fCi/m3 for the year. This difference is not statistically discernible, since it is less than the calculated MDD of 4.6 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

[___ Peri~~ __J___ ________ [_ I- ' *

  • _Co~trol'lf~i/m3) _ J 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 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 15 I Page

Pl.ANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVlRONMENTAt OPERATING REPORT Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration

~~l~~ ~=ic--=j~_dlCi!~£r_ (f<;i/.

1991 18.1 18 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 I 21.0 I

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 2016 21.4 21.6

~

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 16 I Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADlOlOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 3.1.2 Gamma Particulates During 2016, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of th e quarterly composites of the air particulate filters.

On only one occasion since 1986, has a man -made radionuclide been detected in a quarterly co mposite . 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 2016, 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 ba sis. 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.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 171 Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAl RADIOlOGlCAl IENVIRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT 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 a

Appendix A. The stations in the East sector are 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. Statibn 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 2016 average quarterly exposure at the indicator stations (i'nner ring) was 12.1 mR with a range of 8.7-19.9 mR. The indicator station average was 1.1 mR more than the control station average (11.0 mR). This difference is not considered statistically discernible since it is less than the MDD of 1.5 mR.

The quarterly exposures acquired at the community/other (outer ring) stations during 2016 ranged from 6.8 to 16.5 mR with an average of 11.3 mR which was 0.3 mR more than that for the control stations. However, this difference is not discernible since it is less than the MDD of 0.7 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 I (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 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 18 I Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAl RADlOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-5. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 1979 5.16 6.77 NA 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 I 15.0 14.7 ~5.2 I

1989 16.4 18.0 i6.5 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 2016 12.1 11.0 11.3

~

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 19 I Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Figure 3-2. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation I ~, I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *~

75 77 79 81 83 8S 87 89 91 93 9S 97 99 01 03 OS 07 09 11.,

, Indicator Control  :

Outer. Ring * * * * ******Roadside P.ark (Station 064)

  • The increase shown in 2010 reflects issues with the aging Panasonic TLD reader. The close agreement between the station groups suppo rts 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 2016 values. The values for the special interest areas detailed below, indicate that Plant Hatch did not significantly contribute to direct radiation at those areas.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 20 I Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAl RADlOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Figure 3-3. 2016 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 2016 land census did not identify a milk animal within five miles of th e plant .

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 21 I Page

PLANT HATCH RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING 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, except for a single detection of Cs-137 (0.88 pCi/L) in January 2016. Figure 3-4 provides the 2016 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 14 of the 25 samples collected at the indicator stations. The average of the samples was 47.3 pCi/kg-wet. Cs-137 was not detected in any control station samples. Due to the low number of samples, MOD was not able to be us$d 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 2016, 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 detected in one sample at both the indicator and control locations. The indicator sample value was 20.7 pCi/kg and the control value was 18.1 pCi/kg, which were comparable.

Cs-137 is not typically detected in fish samples at Plant Hatch; however, the indicator and the control both showed positive results, so this is not believed to be a result of operations at Plant Hatch. These results are also well below the MDC of 150 pCi/kg.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 22 I Page

~,

PLA THATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 3.3.4 Biological Media Summary There were no statistica l differences, trends, or anomalies associated with t he 2016 biological media samples when compared to historical data. Figure 3-4 below, details the 2016 Cs-137 concentration compared to the MDC.

Figure 3-4. 2016 Biological Media Average Cs-137 Concentrations 180 IGO 140

  • Co~trol 120 100 80 60 40 Vege taLion Sediment 3.4 Surface Water Composite river water samples are collected monthly at an upstream control location and at a downstream ind icator location (shown on Map A-3 in Appendix A) . The details of the sampling protocols are outli ned 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 t ritium .

As provided in Table 3-1, there were no positive results during 2016 from the gamma isotopic an alysis of the river water samples. Also indicated in Table 3-1, the average tritium 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 23 I Pa g e

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT concentration found at the indicator station was 106 pCi/I which was 46 pCi/I less than the average at the control station (152 pCi/I) . No MOD was calculated because the indicator average was less than the control. Historically, the relationship between the indicator and control stations has remained consistent . Figure 3-5 below details the 2016 historical average tritium concentrations in river water.

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 det ected in sediment samples, except for Cs-137, which is plotted along with biological media (Cs-137 across all detected mediums) in Section 3.3.4, and Figure 3-4. The Cs-137 average at the in dicator stations was 73.4 pCi/kg which is 40.9 p/Ci/kg less than the control station average of 114.3 pCi/kg. No MOD was applied because the indicator is less than the control. The values for Cs-137 in sediment are both below the MDC of 180 pCi/kg .

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 24 I Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVtRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT 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.

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 pretision of the measurements of radioactive materials inl 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 If Nuclide :Cpncentration

  • Total* Sam pie *Activity Percent Coefficient of i t - - !I --* .. *- - _.(l?_~i} --* :r -*-

Variation

- -* I

<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

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADBOUJGICAl ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT The 2016 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).

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 26 I Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 0PERATlNG REPORT Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary

. 1~131 ANALYSIS OF.AN AIR.~~TRIDGE,(pCi/cartridge) 1-131 9/15/2016 61.65 59.1 3.09 0.9"9- 7.15 0.58

~: .:~ ~-

.-:* J>* - <:- '.~ - - .:-.GAMMA ISOTOF!IC ANALYSIS.OF AN J'.\l.R FILTER-(pCi/filterr*

Ce-141 9/15/2016 61.6 63.2 2.32 1.06 6.05 0.39 Co-58 9/15/2016 63.0 66.0 1.40 1.10 6.03 -0.79 Co-60 9/15/2016 86.5 91.4 2.65 1.53 5.52 -1.03 Cr-51 9/15/2016 145.7 160.0 6.82 2.67 9.47 -1.04 Cs-134 9/15/2016 85.8 92 4.17 1.54 7.14 -1.11 Cs-137 9/15/2016 79.8 80.3 1.85 1.34 5.67 -0.12 Fe-59 9/15/2016 55.9 61.4 7.09 1.03 12.63 -0.65 Mn-54 9/15/2016 103.5 103.0 2.55 1.72 5.50 0.09 Zn-65 9/15/2016 128.0 121.0 4.71 2.02 6.89 0.80 GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OFAN*AIRFILTER*(PCl/FILTER).'

89.8 76.6 3.44 1.28 5.57 2.63 GAMMA.ISOTOPICANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE (PCl/LITERr

  • Co-58 6/9/2016 146.7 142.0 6.81 2.37 7.29 0.44 Co-60 6/9/2016 187.8 173.0 7.74 2.88 6.08 1.29 Cr-51 6/9/2016 305.3 276.0 7.33 4.60 11.16 0.86 Cs-134 6/9/2016 191.5 174.0 4.15 2.91 4.66 1.96 Cs-137 6/9/2016 137.0 120.0 5.93 2.01 7.30 1.70 Fe-59 6/9/2016 128.5 122.0 10.7 2.03" 10.97 0.46 1-131 6/9/2016 107.0 94.5 6.80 1.58 8.93 1.30 Mn-54 6/9/2016 144.2 125.0 3.05 2.09 5.99 2.22 Zn-65 6/9/2016 273.9 235.0 10.8 3.93 7.03 2.02 A
7\

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 27 I Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENViRONMENTAl OPERATtNG REPORT Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary Analysis or - :: Date Prepared j~! Known Value I~! Uncertainty ji Percent Coe.fficient *l! Normalized I Radionucli~e  !'. Average 1* I! Deviation EL i: Ana!ytic~J~~L..!' _ ____Q.f Va~_!L__J Qeviation

  • G60SS BETA ANAl:YSIS OF-WATER SAMi>LE.(PCl/LITER):

3/17/2016 264.4 250.0 11.24 4.17 6.09 0.89 Gross Beta 277.01 250.0 6.53 4.18 4.24 2.30 6/9/2016

,... .. *** .GAMMA ISOJ,OPIC ANALYSIS. Of WATER SAMPLES (PCl/LITER) ..  :! .:' ..* . .... * ,**., .. **' \

Ce-141 3/17/2016 121.9 118.0 7.45 1.98 9.44 0.34 Co-58 3/17/2016 143.7 141.0 3.12 2.36 6.29 0.30 Co-60 3/17/2016 300.9 293.0 2.89 4.90 4.40 0.60 Cr-51 3/17/2016 308.6 293.0 22.7 4.88 14.12 0-36 Cs-134 3/17/2016 168.7 157.0 6.51 2.61 5.81 1.20 Cs-137 3/17/2016 205.5 194.0 7.11 3.23 6.20 0.90 Fe-59 3/17/2016 166.0 157.0 2.49 2.63 6.96 0.78 1-131 3/17/2016 96.1 88.9 6.56 1.48 14.48 0.52 Mn-54 3/17/2016 158.1 140.0 6.45 2.34 6.94 1.65 Zn-65 3/17/2016 242.5 215.0 11.7 3.58 7.96 1.42

\" .J):'~' *

...., : * ., .'.> ' .: -.. .~.ciRITIUM ANALYSIS OF.-WAtERSAMPLES (PCl/LITER) . . ..

3/17/2016 5118.5 4630.0 89.3 77.4 3.19 2.99 H-3 6/9/2016 12338.6 12000.0 58.41 201 2.06 1.33 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 28 I Page

~LANT HATCH ANNUAL RADiOlOGICAl ENViRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT 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 groundwater, SNC plants have established robust buried piping and tanks inspection programs. No changes were made to the Groundwater Protection Program in 2016.

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 2016 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 Upgradient R2 82.7 Confined Aquifer Near Diesel Generator 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 Downgradient

  • R6 38.2 Between Subsurface Drain Lines Downgradient NW2A 27 ater Table Near CST-2 Inside of Subsurface 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 Upgradient Inside of Subsurface Drain NWSA 26.7 ater Table Upgradient Inside of Subsurface 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.

Tl 21.4 ater Table Near Diesel Generator Bldg.

TlO 18.8 ater Table Near CST-1 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 29 I Page

PlANTHATCH ANNUAL RA.DIOlOGiCAl ENViRONMENTAl, OPERATING REPORT TlS 27.4 ater Table Near CST-1 Pl SA 74.5 Confined Aquifer Near Turbine Bldg.

Pl SB 18 Water Table Near Turbine Bldg.

P17A* 77 Confined 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 IL"IAIJTh ***J*r:**** ,..

Table 3-9. Groundwater Protection Pro ram Tritium Results Ci L i~*** .. ~. 1:.i Rl NDM NDM NDM NDM R2 NDM NDM NDM NDM R3 2,230 1,140 1,090 ,666 R4 NDM NDM NDM NDM RS 4,860 5,380 6,980 8,120 R6 NDM NDM NDM NDM NW2A 229 388 290 NDM NW2B NDM NDM NDM NDM NW3A NDM NDM NS NS NW3B NDM NDM 195 255 NW4A NDM 185 NDM 134 NWSA NDM NDM 158 NDM NWSB NDM NDM NDM NDM NW6 136 141 NS 205 NW8 NDM NS NDM NS NW9 171 151 434 234 NWlO 3,460 2,140 2,880 5,790 T3 3,290 1,320 614 753 T7 216 202 338 287 no 119,000 31,300 21,600 17,100 T12 82,500 22,300 14,000 12,700 TlS 16,300 8,900 5,240 2,040 PlSA NDM NDM NDM NS 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 30IPage

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RAOlOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT PlSB 2,190 2,480 2,090 NS P17A NDM NDM NDM NDM P17B 216 463 526 NS Deep Well 1 NS - Out of Service NS - Out of Service NS - Out of Service NS - Out of Service Deep Well 2 NDM NDM 222 NDM Deep Well 3 NDM NDM 171 NDM 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 elevat~d 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.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 31 I Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT.Al OPERATING REPORT 4 SURVEY SUMMARIES 4.1 Land Use Census In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted on November 14, 2016 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 2015; 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 1-*~I"!-.-.-1~

~~ _ _ J~_Milk A~im"a~~:~~~~~~_J___~-~~~~"-i Distance in Miles to the Nearest Location in Each Sector N 2.0 None None 3.8 NNE 2.9 None None None NE 3.3 None None 3.1 ENE 4.2 None 4.1 None E 3.0 None None None ESE 3.8 None None None SE 1.8 None 2.4 None SSE 2.0 None 3.6 2.2 s 1;0 None 2.5 1.0 SSW 1.1 None 2.8 2.5 SW 1.1 None 2.6 1.6 WSW 1.0 None 3.6 2.0 w 1.1 None 2.7 None WNW 1.1 None None None NW 3.6 None 4.5 None NNW 1.8 None 2.8 2.9 4.2 Altamaha River Survey A survey of the Altamaha River downstream of the plant was scheduled for September 19, 2016 to identify any new withdrawal of water from the river for drinking, irrigation, or construction purposes. This survey was unable to be conducted due to the drought conditions that caused extremely low river levels until the last week in December, 2016.

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 32 I Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 June 16, 2016, and he stated that he had used river water to irrigate corn this year. A sample of corn 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 27, 2016, and September 23, 2016, indicated that no new agricultural or drinking water withdrawal permits had been issued at those respective times.

-,[------t.= 1 Table 4-2. Special Sample Res.ults (Corn)

-~~~n-~_j _____ ~arp ~

1 Cs-134 Corn

_____lL __ _"'_"__ "__

pCi/Kg NDM 1.20E+01

=---l-------+--------1 Cs-137 Corn pCi/Kg NDM 1.59E+01

~--1--------1--------11 1-131 Corn pCi/Kg NDM 1.49E+01 ND M - No Detectable Measurement --------------------------------

2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 33 I Page

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATlNG REPORT 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 2016 activities associated with the REMP, SNC offers the following conclusions:

  • Sample~ were collected and there were no deviations or an9malies that negatively affected the quality of the REM P
  • Land use census and river survey did not reveal any changes
  • Analytical results were below reporting levels

PLANT HATCH RADiOlOGlCAL ENVIRONMENTAt OPERP11TING APPENDIX A Maps 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix A

Legend: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Drawn by: C. Groce Appendix A Ind icator Stations -.A Relocated Stati on. 2016 Annual Radiological En vi ronmental Report MapA-1 Contro l Stations - .A. REMP Stations in Plant Vicinity Southern t - - - - - - " - - - - f Other Stations - ... Nuclear May 1, 2017

Legend : Drawn by : Append ix A Indicator Stations -

! Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 20 16 An nual Rad io lo gical Envi ronmental Re port A C. Groce Map A-2 Control Stations -

! REMP Stati ons w ithin 10 mile s Southern Other Stations -  ! Nuclear May 1, 2017

Legend : Drawn by : C. Groce Apperidix A Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Upper Perched Aqu ife r - ti) 2016 Annual Radiologica l Environme nta l Repo rt MapA-3 Mino r Confined Aq uifer -@ Facility Groundwater Wells Southern ------4 May 1, 2017 Nuclear

PLANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT APPENDIX B Errata 2016 HNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix B

PlANT HATCH ANNUAL RADIOlOGlCAt ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT There are no errata to include in the 2016 report.

2016 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 2016 Enclosure 2 Farley Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2016

JOSEPH M~ FARLEY NUCLEAR PLAN:T 2016 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT A Southern Nuclear

Plf\NT f ARlEV ANNUAL RADlOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL QPERATiNG REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................1 2 REMP Description ......................................................................................... 2 3 Results Summary .......................................................................................... 8 3.1 Airborne Particulates ............................................................................................ 18 3.1.1 Gross Beta ...............................*............................................................................. 18 3.1.2 Gamma Particulates ............................................................................................. 20 3.2 Direct Radiation ...... ,............................................................................................. 20 3.3 Biological Media .................................................................................................... 24

~:~:~ ~~~~~~-~i~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:

3.3.3 Fish ....................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.3.1 Bottom Feeding Species ...................................................................................... 25 3.3.3.2 Game Species ....................................................................................................... 25 3.3.4 Biological Media Summary .................................................................................. 26 3.4 Off-site Groundwater ...................................*......................................................... 26 3.5 River Water ........................................................................................................... 26 3.6 Sediment ............................................................................................................... 27 3.7 lnterlaboratory Comparison Program .................................................................. 27 3.8 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 31 4 Survey Summaries ...................................................................................... 33 4.1 Land Use Census ................................................................................................... 33 4.2 Chattahoochee River Survey ................................................................................. 34 5 Conclusions .................................................................................................35 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) ....................................................... :......................................................... 15 Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ................. 16 Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration ......................................................................... 18 Table 3-5. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation ................................................................. 21 Table 3-6. lnterlaboratory Comparison Limits ........................................................................................... 28 Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary ..... :............................................................................... 29 Table 3-8. Groundwater Protection Program Locations ............................................................................ 31 Table 3-9. Groundwater Protection Program Results ................................................................................ 32 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report ii Page

M~l!JJOij,, ~\.fDJJ<QlJ.!lGl~W.

l&Ji\'btl~OmJMJ!.tllJl)M, Oill'fi:M1JlJl}ll~ ~IX()l\1!

Table 4-1. Land Use Census Results ........................................................................................................... 33 Figures Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration ........................................................................ 20 Figure 3-2. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation ................................................................. 23 Figure 3-3. 2016 Average Exposure from Direct Radiation in Select Locatiqns .......................................... 24 Figure 3-4. 2016 Average Tritium Concentrations in River and Off-site Groundwater .............................. 27 Appendix A - Maps A REMP Stations in Plant Vicinity A REMP Stations within 10 Miles A Extended REMP Stations A Facility Groundwater Wells Appendix B - Errata 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report iii Page

PLANT FARLEV ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT LIST OF ACRONYMS ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management APC Alabama Power Company AREOR 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 Cohcentration MDD Minimum Detectable Difference MWe Mega Watts 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 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report iiiJPage

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADlOlO.GICAl ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT 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 2016 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 com~arisons between results of analyses of samples obtaihed 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 (SNC). 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

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATlNG REPORT 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 Po wer Company's 1 1 Environmental Laboratory (GPCEL), located in Atlanta, Georgia. The lab analyzes all REMP samples.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 2JPage

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program

" ----~~~-~~-~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Exposure Number of Representative Samples and Sample . .

Pathway and/or L t" Sampling/Collection Frequency Type/Frequency of Analysis .

oca ions . . ... . .. . _. -** .. __ ; -*---- ______ *---------------- ____,

Direct Radiation Forty routine monitoring stations with two or more Quarterly Gamma dose, quarterly dosimeters placed as follows:

n inner ring of stations, one in each compass sector in the general area of the site boundary; n outer ring of stations, one in each compass ector at approximately 5 miles from the site; and Special interest areas, such as population centers, nearby recreation areas, and control stations irborne Continuous sampler operation Particulate sampler: Analyze for gross beta Radioiodine and Samples from nine locations: ith sample collection weekly radioactivity~ 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following filter Particulates change. Perform gamma isotopic analysis on Four locations closeto the site boundary in each sample when gross beta activity is > 10 different sectors; imes the yearly mean of control samples.

Perform gamma isotopic analysis on hree community stations; within 8 miles composite sample (by location) quarterly.

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

Surface 3 One sample upriver Composite sample over one Gamma isotopic analysis 2, monthly One sample downriver month period 4 Composite for tritium analysis, quarterly 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 3JPage

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program

--- *- -- --~-----------------------------------------------

Exposure Number of Representative Samples and Sample Pathway and/or Locations .... - ""

Sampling/Colle<;tion Frequency Type/Frequency of Analysis Groundwater Off-site monitoring includes one indicator station Quarterly Off-site wells are analyzed only for Gamma and one control station Isotopic, 1-131, & tritium See Table 3-8 and Map A-4 in Appendix A for on-site Frequency based on GWPP rTritium, gamma isotopic, and field well locations. These are part of the GWPP (NEI 07- parameters of each sample; hard-to-detects 07). based on tritium and gamma results Shoreline

  • One sample from downriver area with existing Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis 2, semiannually Sediment7 or potential recreational value
  • One sample from upriver area with existing or potential recreational value iilf~tt)<m.~:~~it~:~*- ~~~-:~:,:;~~*-::~~~~~-~~-.-~:,*~ ' * ~ :*:~---~-~-:;;*:>
  • o;*>:.C.
  • °'"'~ . '-~

Milk rrwo samples from milking animals 5 at control Bimonthly Gamma isotopic analysis 2*6, bimonthly locations at a distance of about 10 miles or more Fish 8

  • One bottom feeding fish and one game fish Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis 2 on edible portions, both upstream and downstream semiannually During spring/fall s*pawning -

season Gamma isotopic analysis 2 on edible portions, annually.

Grass or Leafy

  • One sample from two onsite locations near the Monthly during growing season Gamma isotopic analysis 2*6, monthly

~egetation site boundary in different sectors

Pl.ANT Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Exposure Number of Representative Samples and Sample

  • 1, *  !

l?athway and/'or Locations

  • f.
  • Sa.mpling/Collection Freque11cy. f. . .TYP;e/F.reqtiency of An~lysis . . .1

- *- - - - - -- " " - -- "- ... " -- - - -- -- - - -- ------ ---- ________ ..__,,_,_,_j Notes:

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

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

3 Upriver sample 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 assure 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.

6 lf 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.

7 These collections are normally made at river mile 41.3 for the indicator station and river mile 47.8 for the control station; however, due to river bottom sediment shifting caused by high flows, dredging, etc., collections may be made from river mile 40 to 42 for the indicator station and from river mile 47 to 49 for the control station.

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

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report SI Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAl RAD,OlOGtCAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations I Station I Station Descriptive Location 1 I

1Direction Distance Radiation Sample Type Number Type I (miles) 1 I 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 0718 3 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 I 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 Indicator 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 Control Dothan, AL w 15 Direct 1311 Control 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 Indicator Paper Mill Well SSE 4.0 Groundwater 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 61Pag_e

PLANT fARlEV ""'""'L'i'*"'*""""' RADIOLOGlCAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations

/" Station-11* sf~tior!" --!I' - ---~.Des~riptiv;~ocaii0n-~--::--:11oitictiq~11 Dist~ nee" -jl;--R~di~tJ~Sa r:riil!erype'-1

~~-~~~~1

-~yRe:

  • ' I J

'*<<1 * *!"-j-:1,._

- ___ :* , _______ '.,~---- ___ *

  • -1 " - ' -I

,:_~j~*-('!!_i~~s)1_ :;*_

_ __ :: t: __ . :_;.'.___ ~?-:_ __ 1 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)

Robert Weir Dairy, MB-0714 Control 2 SSE 14 Milk Donaldsonville, GA FGI & Downstream of plant discharge FGB Indicator at Smith's Bend (RM 41) s 4.0 Fish FGB & Upstream of plant inta.ke at Control N 4.0 Fish FBB Andrews Lock and Dam (RM 48)1 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 Community 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.

2 No milk animals were found within five miles of the plant, control sample not collected since 2009.

13 Spare, per the ODCM 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 71Page

PLANT FARlEV ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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, 1,019 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, the Chernobyl incident in the spring of 1986 and the Fukushima accident in the spring of 2011.

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 2016, Be-7 was not detected in any plant effluents and therefore is not included in this report. The Be-7 detected in s.elect 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 (MDD), 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.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report SI Page

PLANT fARlEV ANNUAL RADlOLOGlCAL ENVlRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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, Principle~ of Radioisotope Methodology, Burgess Publishing dompany, 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 2016 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.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 9IPage

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATrNG REPORT Table 3-1. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary lndii:ator Medium or Pathway Type and Total Minimum Locations Location with the Highest Other Stations ~ontrol Sampled Number of Detectable Mean (b), Annual Mean (f) Mean (b), Locatigns Mean (Unit of Analyses Concentration Range Name Distance and Mean.(b), Range Range (b), Range Measurement) Performed (MDC} (a) J~~'!ctior:iL_ _ _ _____I?!r~~t\Qn ___ ___ _ _ jFrac:!_iqn) __ (fra~~!~I'!.)____ _(Frac~i9n)__

Airborne Gross Beta 10 18.7 Columbia, AL 24.2 19.9 18.8 Particulates 416 3.5-46.8 N 5 mi. 8.2-46.5 6.9-46.5 6.2-45.1 (fCi/m3) (156/156) Community (52/52) (155/156) (104/104)

Gamma Isotopic 33 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) 312 Direct Radiation Gamma Dose ---

16.3 24.5 13.9 15.2 Plant Perimeter, E (mR/91 days) 160 12.2-25.5 23.6-25.5 10.9-17.2 12.2-18.7 0.8 (64/64) (4/4) (72/72) (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 Cs-134 60 NDM A

~

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report lOIPage

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 13.9-32.2 5.0-71.7 (3/12) (2/12)

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 583 Paper Mill (RM 40) 58~ NDM 8 583-583 Indicator 583-583 (1/4) (1/4)

Off-site Gamma Isotopic Groundwater 8 Mn-54 15 NDM NDM NDM Fe-59 30 NDM NDM NDM Co-58 15 NDM NDM NDM

,:~\

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report ll[Page

PLANT. f AR!.EV ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 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 NDM Fe-59 260 NDM NDM ... NDM 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 17.1 Downstream of 17.1 NDM 17.1-17.1 plant discharge 17.1-17.l (1/2) near Smith's Bend (1/2)

(RM41) -** "*--

Indicator 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 12 JP age

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATtNG REPORT Mn-54 130 NDM NDM Fe-59 260 NDM NDM NDM 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 10.1 Upstream of plant 15.2 15.2 10.1-10.1 discharge in 15.2-15.2 15.2-15.2 (1/2) Andrews Lock & (1/zt- (1/2)

Dam Reservoir (RM 48)

Control Sediment Gamma Isotopic

-~ ~,

(pCi/kg-dry) 4 ~~_,

Co-60 70 NDM NDM Cs-134 150 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 180 NDM NDM NDM 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 13 IP age

PLANT fARlEV Notes:

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

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 than 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) 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 14 IP age

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGRCAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-2. Reporting Levels (RL)

I Analysis 'I Water (pCi/I) 'I Airbor"ne -Particuiate

  • 11 Fish (pCi/kg:wetfl Milk " l - Grass or Leafy - -

_ __ ' __ i -~~-<?ases (fCi/r,n3) _ _L _ __ _ j _ _(p_Ci/ll __i _ye_getatio_n (pCi/k~-w~tl H-3 20,000*

Mn-54 1,000 30,000 Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1,000 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 1,000 60 1,000.

Cs-137 50 20,000 I 2,000 70 2,000 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.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 15 IP age

Pt.ANT FA.RI.EV ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 0PERATlNG REPORT Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program

=~= -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~-

Collection Period Affected Samples Anomaly (A)* or Deviation Cause Resolution (D)**

01/01/16 - 02/02/16 Pl-0701/11-0701 (D) Air samples not obtained In-service air samples and sampling Station operation satisfactory 1.0 mile - SSE equipment ruined during river following power restoration CR 10162781 flooding event. and replacement of sample equipment.

1*1 Quarter 2016 OSLO Station OSLO station inaccessible due to 4th Quarter 2015 OSLO badge (A) OSLO quarterly exchange RC-0405A&B closed roads in surrounding area. set remained in-service delayed CR 10167965 5 miles - E throughout 1st Quarter 2016; replaced upon restoration of normal access during 2nd

- Quarter 2016 exchange.

07/05/16 - 07 /').2/16 PB-1218/IB-1218 Lost 63.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> of sample time after Station operation satisfactory (A) Non-representative CR 10247607 18 miles-W local breaker on sampler tripped off after normal power restored.

sample of airborne during electrical storm.

particulates 07/19/16 - 07 /27/16 PC-0703/IC-0703 Lost 101.1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of sample time Station operation satisfactory (A) Non-representative CR 10253638 3 miles -SSE af~er local breaker on sampler after normal power restored.

sample of airborne tripped off during electrical storm.

particulates.

09/20/16 - 09/27/16 Pl-1601/11-1601 (A) Non-representative Lost 30.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of sample time after Station operation satisfactory sample of airborne lightning took out transformer after normal power restored.

CR 10279013 0.8 miles - N particulates. supplying power to station 10/04/16 - 10/11/16 Pl-1601/11-1601 (A) Non-representative Lost 129.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> of sample time Station operation satisfactory sample of airborne after birds contacted line supplying after normal power restored.

CR 10285473 0.8 miles- N particulates. power to station.

10/04/16 -- 10/11/16 PB-1218/IB-1218 (A) Non-representative Lost 139.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> of sample time Station operation satisfactory sample of airborne after local breaker on sampler . after normal power restored CR 10285473 °'( 18 miles-W particulates. tripped off during electrical storm.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 16 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATBNG Y~D.RD"fl" 2016 Groundwater Sample Point Sam'ples not obtained for PW#3 pump and discharge piping Samples will be collected CR 10237345 PW#3 (onsite Production tritium and gamma isotopic isolated due to an underground once PW#3 pump is returned Well #3 supply) analyses (GWPP) piping leak. to operable status (per GWPP).

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

PLANT fARlEV 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 community 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 charcoal 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 2016 annual average weekly gross beta activity was 18.7 fCi/m3 for the indicator stations. It was 0.1 fCi/m3 less than the control station average of 18.8 fCi/m3 for the year. The MDD is not applicable as the indicator stations produced a lower average than the control stations.

The 2016 annual average weekly gross beta activity at the community stations was 19.9 fCi/m3 which was 1.1 fCi/m3 more than the control station average. This difference is not statistically discernible since it is les's than the calculated MDD of 3.2 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). 1.n 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.

r.----

Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration I- --Perio;i - f lnclicat-or - - - Co~tr*o-1 -- --- .... *re:a~nl'unity -(fCi/~3) .

~-~----~~~~--~--~~(f_Ci_/m_3_}__~~-*~----_(f_C_if_m_~)~*--~-:_--~~~~------~~~-

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 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 18 I Page

PLANT f ARLEY ANNUAL RADlOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL 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 I 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 16.1 2014 17.7 19.1 18.5 2015 13.4 15.9 16.8 2016 18.7 18.8 19.9

~\

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 19 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration E

iJ 120 1~.-~-1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

c 0

111

~ 70 -t--~-~~lt-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

u c

0 u

20 0 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16

- MDC - Indicator Control - Community 3.1.2 Gamma Particulates During 2016, 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 2016, 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.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 20 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADlOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 approximately 5 miles (varying distances) 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 varying 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 !I.001and1108.

As provided in Table 3-1, the 2016 average quarterly exposure at the indicator stations (inner ring) was 16.3 mR with a range of 12.2 to 25.5 mR. The indicator station average was 1.1 mR more than the control station average (15.2 mR; range 12.2-18. 7 mR). This difference is considered statistically discernible since it is equal to the MDD of 1.1 mR. However, the average is consistent with historical readings and is only slightly above the control value. Therefore, no health or environmental concerns Were identified.

The quarterly exposures acquired at the community/other (outer ring) stations during 2016 ranged from 10.9 to 17.2 mR with an average of 13.9 mR which was 1.3 mR less than that of the control stations (15.2 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 l I Period Indicator Control Outer Ring r

Pre-op I (illR) 12.6

! (mR) 11.4 i

(mR) 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 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 21 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOlOGICAl ENVUlONMENTAl 0PERAllNG REPORT Table 3-5. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 1984 18.3 16.9 15.3 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 :i8.4 16.1 16.1 1992 16.1 13.6 13.5 1993 17.4, 15.9 15.6 1

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 15.5 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 2016 16.3 15.2 13.9 A

~

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 22 I Page

PlANT FARLEY A NUAl RADlOlOGlCAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Figure 3-2. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation Vear 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 2016 values. The values for the special interest areas detai led below indicate that Plant Farley did not significantly contribute to direct radiation at those areas.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 23 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Figure 3-3. 2016 Average Exposure from Direct Radiation in Select Locations 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 Mi lk 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 2016 land use census and therefore no milk sampling was performed during the reporting year.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 24 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADlOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 2016, one gamma isotope (Cs-137) was identified in three samples at Station 1601 (Plant Perimeter) and in two samples at the control station, 1218 (Dothan, Alabama). The average for the indicator station (20.8 pCi/L) was below the average for the control station (38.4 pCi/L). These averages are based only on the detected vales; all other results were below detection limits. No envjronmental concerns are noted as these values are belo~ 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 Appendix A.

3.3.3.1 Bottom Feeding Species

  • For bottom-feeding species, all fish sampled are considered indicator stations. One sample

. location identified Cs-137 on one occasions with a value of 17.1 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 consi dered attributable to Plant activity.

1 3.3.3.2 Game Species For game species, all fish sampled are considered indicator stations. One sample location identified Cs-137 on one occasions with a value of 10.1 pCi/kg. The control location upstream of the discharge also identified Cs-137 in one sample at 1S.2 pCi/kg. The indicator value is less than that of the control, so no MOD applies. Additionally, the detected indicator and control values are below the MDC (SO pCi/kg) and the RL (2,000 pCi/kg) and these values are not considered attributable to plant activity.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 25 I Page

ANNU,Al RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 3.3.4 Biological Media Summary There were no statistical differences, trends, or anomalies associated with the 2016 biological media samples when compared to historical data. As shown in Table 3-1, Cs-137 was identified in vegetation and fish samples at low levels; no other reportable radionuclides were found from the gamma isotopic analysis of biological media samples in 2016.

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 southwe~t 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 2016, there were no radionuclides detected in any of the ground water samples from either sample station, apart from 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 2016, 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 2016 from the gamma isotopic analysis of the river water samples. Also indicated in Table 3-1, the tritium concentration (only one sample contained a positive tritium result) found at the indicator station was 583 pCi/I, the control station did not indicate any positive concentrations (four samples). The indicator value

  • is less than the MDC and RL limits for tritium in a drinking water supply source (2000 pCi/I and 20000 pCi/I, respectively).

Figure 3-4 below details the 2016 average tritium concentrations across both water mediums.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 26 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Figure 3-4. 2016 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 isotop ic analysis was performed on each sample . There were no reportable radionuclides detected in sediment samples in 2016.

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 third party blind testing program which provides a means to ensure independent checks are 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 27 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOlOG!CAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT performed on the accuracy and prec1s1on 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

-- J --

Nuclide Concentration

  • total Sample Activity Percent Coefficient of I i :1 {pCi) *I 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 2016 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 2016 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.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 28 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATtNG REPORT Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary Analysis or Date Prepared Reported Known Value Standard  : Uncertainty Percent Coefficient : Norinalized Radionuclide Average ~ Deviation EL ~nalytics (3S) _ : _ _of V~ri'!tio11_ _ _____ Deviation

....  : . " ',,,,"" '" 1-131 ANALVSI~ OF AN AIR CARTRIDGE (pCi/caitridge) '

'" - *-

  • l 1-131 9/15/2016 61.65 59.1 3.09 0.99 7.15 0.58 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OFAN AIR FILTER (pCi/filtli!rr *" (C, Ce-141 9/15/2016 61.6 63.2 2.32 1.06 6.05 0.39 Co-58 9/15/2016 63.0 66.0 1.40 1.10 6.03 -0.79 Co-60 9/15/2016 86.5 91.4 2.65 1.53 5.52 -1.03 Cr-51 9/15/2016 145.7 160.0 6.82 2.67 9.47 -1.04 Cs-134 9/15/2016 85.8 92 4.17 1.54 7.14 -1.11 Cs-137 9/15/2016 79.8 80.3 1.85 1.34 5.67 -0.12 Fe-59 9/15/2016 55.9 61.4 7.09 1.03 12.63 -0.65 Mn-54 9/15/2016 103.5 103.0 2.55 1.72 5.50 0.09 Zn-65 9/15/2016 128.0 121.0 4.71 2.02 6.89 0.80

~- *:-:. * .** ce, -. . .--.. * . , _

GROSS BETA ANALYSIS Of AN_:AIRFILTER (PCl/FILTER).~.

Gross Beta 9/15/2016 89.8 76.6 3.44 1.28 5.57 2.63

- -,-. GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OFA MILK-SAMPLE*(PCl/LITER) *

-~ ",

Co-58 6/9/2016 146.7 142.0 6.81 2.37 7.29 0.44 Co-60 6/9/2016 187.8 173.0 7.74 2.88 6.08 1.29 Cr-51 6/9/2016 305.3 276.0 7.33 4.60 11.16 0.86 Cs-134 6/9/2016 191.5 174.0 4.15 2.91 4.66 1.96 Cs-137 6/9/2016 137.0 120.0 5.93 2.01 7.30 1.70 Fe-59 6/9/2016 128.5 122.0 10.7 2.03 10.97 0.46 1-131 6/9/2016 107.0 94.5 6.80 1.58 8.93 1.30 Mn-54 6/9/2016 144.2 125.0 3.05 2.09 5.99 2.22 Zn-65 6/9/2016 273.9 235.0 10.8 3.93 7.03 2.02

~

A .

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 29 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary Analysis or Date Prepared Reported Known Value Standard Un11ertainty , Percent Coefficient Normalized Radionuclide Average Deviatio!l EL An!=llytics (3~) _ . ______ q_f_VariatjQ~ ____

  • ___ _D~Y.i!'l!i<?11 .. __

,. GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF.WATER SAMPLE (PCl/LITER) . *-

3/17/2016 264.4 250.0 11.24 4.17 6.09 0.89 Gross Beta 6/9/2016 277.01 250.0 6.53 4.18 4.24 2.30

.GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANAl:YSIS OF.WATER SAMPLES (PCl/LITER) .. *::,. ,. ..

Ce-141 3/17/2016 121.9 118.0 7.45 1.98 9.44 0.34 Co-58 3/17/2016 143.7 141.0 3.12 2.36 6.29 0.30 Co-60 3/17/2016 300.9 293.0 2.89 4.90 4.40 0.60 Cr-51 3/17/2016 308.6 293.0 22.7 4.88 14.12 0.36 Cs-134 3/17/2016 168.7 157.0 6.51 2.61 5.81 1.20 Cs-137 3/17/2016 205.5 194.0 7.11 3.23 6.20 0.90 Fe-59 . 3/17/2016 166.0 157.0 2.49 2.63 6.96 0.78 1-131 3/17/2016 96.1 88.9 6.56 1.48 14.48 0.52 Mn-54 3/17/2016 158.1 140.0 6.45 2.34 6.94 1.65 Zn-65 3/17/2016 242.5 215.0 11.7 3.58 7.96 1.42

- . TRITIUM ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (P~l/llTER) *

~-

"* ~ <,1 ' -_ -_ * -~ <.., *** '

' T-3/17/2016 5118.5 4630.0 89.3 77.4 3.19 2.99 H-3 6/9/2016 12338.6 12000.0 58.41 201 2.06 1.33 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 30IPage

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 buried piping and tanks inspection programs.

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 2016 were all within regulatory limits specified within this report. Table 3-9 contains the results of the Gr~undwater 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 aquifer Dilution line R6 Major Shallow aquifer Dilution line R7 Major Shallow aquifer Dilution line R8 Major Shallow aquifer 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 R14 Major Shallow aquifer Background 2 PW#2 Drinking water Production Well #2 Supply PW#3 Drinking water Production Well #3 Supply PW#4 Drinking 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 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 31 I Page

PLANT FARlEV ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT T bl 3 9 G d t p t t" p . R It vlle11 June 2016 November 2016 I !I .I Rl NDM NDM R2 NDM NDM R3 1,620 913 R4 NDM NDM RS NDM 277 R6 NDM NDM R7 NDM NDM R8 198 NDM R9 NDM 271 RlO NDM NDM Rll NDM NDM R13 NDM NDM R14 NDM NDM PW#2 NDM NS PW#3 NS - Out of Service NS - Out of Service PW#4 NDM 201 CW West 240 NDM CW East 228 137 FRW NDM NDM SW-1 148 NDM NDM - No Detectable Measurements NS - Not Sampled 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report . 32 I Page

PLANT ~ARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 4 SURVEY SUMMARIES 4.1 Land Use Census In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted on November 29, 2016 to determine th~ 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 2016 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 20~5 census, nor were any milk animals located within a fiveimile radius.

In 2013, a new permanent resident was identified in the western sector (12) at approximately 1.0 mile from the plant (0.2 miles closer than the current controlling receptor). 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, so the controlling receptor remained the same. No ODCM update was made.

Table 4-1. Land Use Census Results

- ---- ---- --- -- -- '[ "" - -- -- -- ---------------*1---------------------- ---- - - --

1 Sector i Residence I__ Milk Animal Distance in Miles 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 (>5.0) 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 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 33 I Page

PLANT f ARlEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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. At the time of this report, no water has been withdrawn and used for crop irrigation by the landowners.

In the fall of 2016, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), Alabama Department df Environmental Management (ADEM) and Alabama* Dep~rtment of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) was contacted 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.

2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 34 I Page

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 2016 activities associated with the REMP, SNC offers the following conclusions:

r Samples were collected and there were no deviatipns 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

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADBOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENT'Al OPERATING REPORT APPENDIX A Maps 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix A

Legend: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Drawn by: C. Groce Appendix A Indicator Stations - !.. 2016 Annual Radiological Environmental Report MapA-1 REMP Stations in Plant Vicinity outhem M ay 1, 2017 Nuclear

f Legend : Draw n by : C. Groce Appe ndix A In d icator Stations - ! 2016 Annual Radiologica l Environmental Report Map A-2 Control Stations -  ! REMP Stations withi n 10 miles May 1, 2017

t Legend : Joseph M .

Map A-3 Co ntro l Stations - 2016 Annual Radiological En viron

  • mental Report Extended REMP Stations May 1, 2017

l Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Groundwater Wells - g 2016 Annual Radiological Environmen tal Report Map A-4

  • Removed from GWPP Facility Groundwater Wells May 1, 2017

PLANT FARLEY ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT APPENDIX B Errata 2016 FNP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix B

l AINJINJ~ ~<n6MW. .

l.EWJ!it~l)tl]FmJflfDdl O~lJIDIJGJ ~~~lf There are no errata for the 2016 reporting year.

2016 FNP 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 2016 Enclosure 3 Vogtle Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2016

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 2016 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT

PLANT 'YOGllE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 lntroduction .................................................................................................. 1 2 REMP Description .........................................................................................2 3 Results Summary .......................................................................................... 9 3.1 Airborne Particulates ............................................................................................ 19 3.1.1 Gross Beta ............................................................................................................ 19 3.1.2 Gamma Particulates ............................................................................................. 21 3.2 Direct Radiation .................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Biological Media .................................................................................................... 25

~:~:~ ~~~ke~~*~;~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::J:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~

3.3.3 Fish ....................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.3.1 Anadromous Species ........................ :................................................................... 26 3.3.3.2 Commercially or Recreationally Important Species ............................................ 26 3.3.4 Biological Media Summary .................................................................................. 27 3.4 Drinking Water ...................................................................................................... 27 3.5 River Water ........................................................................................................... 29 3.6 Sediment ............................................................................................................... 30 3.7 lnterlaboratory Comparison Program .................................................................. 31 3.8 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 35 4 Survey Summaries ...................................................................................... 37 4.1 Land Use Census ................................................................................................... 37 4.2 Savannah River Survey .......................................................................................... 37 5 Conclusions .................................................................................................39

' ° 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 ........................................ 11 Table 3-2. Reporting Levels (RL) ................................................................................................................. 17 Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiologlcal Environmental Monitoring Program ................. 18 Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration ......................................................................... 19 Table 3-5. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation ................................................................. 22 Table 3-6. lnterlaboratory Comparison Limits ........................................................................................... 32 Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary .................... :................................................................ 33 Table 3-8. Groundwater Protection Program Locations ............................................................................ 35 Table 3-9. Groundwater Protection Program Tritium Results (pCi/L) ....................................................... 36 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report iJPage

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 4-1. Land Use Census Results ...................................................................................................:....... 37 Figures Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration ........................................................................ 21 Figure 3-2. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radi.ation ................................................................. 24 Figure 3-3. 2016 Average Exposure from Direct Radiation *************:********************************************************** 25 Figure 3-4. 2016 Biological Media Average Cs-137 Concentrations ........................................................... 27 Figure 3-5. 2016 Average Gross Beta Concentration in Raw and Finished Drinking Water ....................... 29 Figure 3-6. 2016 Average Tritium Concentrations in River, Raw Drinking, and Finished Drinking Water .. 30 Appendix A - Maps I. I A REMP Stations in Plant Vicinity A _REMP Stations within 10 Miles A Extended REMP Stations A Facility Groundwater Wells Appendix B - Errata 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report iijPage

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADlOLOGlCAl ENVIRONMENTAL 0PERATtNG REPORT LIST OF ACRONYMS AREOR 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 GPC Georgia Power Company GPCEL Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory ICP lnterlaboratory Comparison Program MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MDD Minimum Detectable Differe1ce 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 SRS Savannah River Site TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specification VEGP Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report iii IP age

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RAOlOLOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 2016 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 Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant {VEGP).

The assessments include comparisohs between results of analyses of samples obtained alt 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.

VEGP is owned by Georgia Power Company {GPC), Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia. It is located on the southwest side of the Savannah River approximately 23 river miles upstream from the intersection of the Savannah River and U.S. Highway 301. The site is in the eastern sector of Burke County, Georgia, and across the river from Barnwell County, South Carolina. The VEGP site is directly across the Savannah Riyer from the Department of Energy Savannah River Site

{SRS). Unit 1, a Westinghouse Electric Corporation Pressurized Water Reactor {PWR), with a licensed core thermal power of 3626 Megawatts (MWt), received its operating license on January 16, 1987 and commercial operation started on May 31, 1987. Unit 2, also a Westinghouse PWR rated for 3626 MWt, received its operating license on February 9, 1989 and began commercial operation on May 19, 1989. Both units were relicensed on June 3, 2009.

The pre-operational stage of the REMP began with initial sample collections in August of 1981.

The transition from the pre-operational to the operational stage of the REMP occurred as Unit 1

. reached initial criticality on March 9, 1987.

  • 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

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 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-4 of the station locations included in Appendix A of this report.

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

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 21Page

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL 0PERA.TtNG REPORT Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Direct Radiation 0 routine monitoring stations with two or more Quarterly Gamma dose, quarterly dosimeters placed as follows:

n inner ring of stations, one in each compass ector in the general area of the site boundary; n outer ring of stations, one in each compass ector at approximately five miles from the site; and pecial interest areas, such as population centers, nearby recreation areas, and control stations irborne Samples from seven locations: Continuous sampler operation Radioiodine canister: 1-131 analysis, weekly Radioiodine and with sample collection weekly, or Particulates Five locations close to the site boundary in different more frequently if required by Particulate sampler: Gross beta analysis 1 sectors; dust loading allowing filter change and gamma isotopic analysis 2 of composite (by location),

community having the highest calculated annual quarterly average ground level D/Q; control location near a population center at a distance of about 14 miles Surface 3 One sample upriver Composite sample over one amma isotopic analysis 2, monthly wo samples downriver month period 4 Composite for tritium analysis, quarterly 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 3JPage

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program

---w*--~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Exposure Number of Representative Samples and Sample :: I *

  • i
pathway and/or: Locations _______ ---------- __ J.:_~_am_~~~!'~~-l~~n Fr~quen~y iL__*_ Type/Frequency of Analysis 1 Drinking wo samples at each of the three nearest water Composite sample of river water 1-131 analysis on each sample when the dose reatment plants that could be affected by plant near the intake of each water calculated for the consumption of the water is discharges treatment plant over two week greater than 1 mrem per year 5 . Composite period 4 when 1-131 analysis is for gross beta and gamma isotopic analysis 2 wo samples at a control location required for each sample; monthly on raw water, monthly. Gross beta, gamma composite otherwise; and grab isotopic and 1-131 analyses on grab sample of sample of finished water at each inished water, monthly. Composite for water treatment plant every two ritium analysis on raw and finished water, weeks or monthly, as appropriate qua'rterly Groundwater ee Table 3-8 and Map A-4 for well locations. These Frequency based on GWPP. ritium, gamma isotopic, and field are part of the GWPP (NEI 07-07). parameters of each sample; hard-to-detects based on tritium and gamma results Shoreline
  • One sample from downriver area with existing Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis 2, semiannually Sediment or potential recreational value

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVtRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT Table 2-1. Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program

- - E;p;s~r:;:;-- Number of Representative Samples and Sample . -- --._g/_C_l_I- . - - F - - - - . J /F - = = f A- - ~ --T Pathway and/or. Locations ,:. 5a'.11p 1in o e~t1on requen~~ Ii

  • ype requency.~ ~a

. - - " "" - " "" ~ *- - - - -- ............ ~- _.a.,._ ,....... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~-- --il.---1.------ - _.,, - _ _ ,,,4 _ _ _t...__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...L.,.._.

Fish

  • At least one sample of any commercially or Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis 2 on edible portions, recreationally important species near the plant semiannually discharge During spring spawning season
  • At least one sample of any commercially or Gamma isotopic analysis 2 on edible portions, recreationally important species in an area not annually.

influenced by plant discharges

  • At least one sample of any anadromous species near the plant discharge Grass or Leafy
  • One sample from two onsite locations near the Monthly during growing season Gamma isotopic analysis 2*7, monthly

~egetation site boundary in different sectors

  • One sample from a control location at a distance of about 17 miles Notes:

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

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

~he facility.

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

14composite 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.

15The dose shall be calculated for the maximum organ and age group, using the methodology and paramete_rs in the ODCM.

6 A milking animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption. . -

7 1f 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.

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOLOGtCAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations

  • Station Station Type ----.-------oe:-~:ioirection 1 fi*Dis~ance I: -~~diation Sam::.!:____J Number ' j; f' (imles) 1 1. - -

. "" ----- ------------- ----------~--------------

1 Indicator River Bank N 1.1 Direct 2 Indicator River Bank NNE 0.8 Direct 3 Indicator Discharge Area NE 0.6 Airborne 3 Indicator River Bank NE 0.7 Direct 4 Indicator River Bank ENE 0.8 Direct 5 Indicator River Bank E 1.0 Direct 6 Indicator Plant Wilson ESE 1.1 Direct 7 Indicator Simulator Building SE 1.7 Airborne, Direct, Vegetation 8 Indicator River Road SSE 1.1 Direct 9 Indicator River Road s 1.1 Direct 10 Indicator Met Tower SSW 0.9 Airborne 10 Indicator River Road SSW 1.1 Direct 11 Indicator River Road SW 1.2 Direct 12 Indicator River Road WSW 1.2 Airborne, Direct 13 Indicator River Road w 1.3 Direct 14 Indicator River Road WNW 1.8 Direct lS Indicator Hancock Landing Road NW 1.5 Direct, Vegetation 16 Indicator Hancock Landing Road NNW 1.4 Airborne, Direct 17 Other Sav. River Site (SRS), River Road N 5.4 Direct 18 Other SRS, D Area NNE 5.0 Direct 19 Other SRS, Road A.13 NE 4.6 Direct 20 Other SRS, Road A.13.1 ENE 4.8 Direct 21 Other SRS, Road A.17 E 5.3 Direct 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 61Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations 22 Other River Bank ESE 5.2 Direct 23 Other River Road SE 4.6 Direct 24 Other Chance Road SSE 4.9 Direct 25 Other Chance Road near Highway 23 s 5.2 Direct

~

26 Other Highway 23 and Ebenezer Church Road SSW 4.6 Direct 27 Other Highway 23 opposite Boll Weevil Road SW 4.7 Direct 28 Other Thomas Road WSW 5.0 Direct 29 Other. Claxton-Lively Road w 5.1 Direct 30 Other Nathaniel Howard Road WNW 5.0 Direct 31 Other River Road at Allen's Chapel Fork NW 5.0 Direct 32 Other River Bank NNW 4.7 Direct 35 Other Girard SSE ~

6.6 Airborne, Direct 36 Control GPC Waynesboro Op. HQ WSW 13.9 Airborne, Direct 37 Control Substation, Waynesboro, GA WSW 16.7 Direct, Vegetation 43 Other Employee's Rec. Center SW 2.2 Direct 47 Control Oak Grove Church SE 10.4 Direct 48 Control McBean Cemetery NW 10.2 Direct 51 Control SGA School, Sardis, GA s 11.0 Direct 52 Control Oglethorpe Substation; Alexander, GA SW 10.7 Direct 80 Control Augusta Water Treatment Plant NNW 29.0 Drinking Water 2 81 Control Sav. River N 2.5 Fish 3 Sediment4 82 Control Sav. River (RM 151.2) NNE 0.8 River Water 83 Indicator Sav. River (RM 150.4) ENE 0.8 River Water Sediment4 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 7[Page

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 2-2. Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Station Station Type .1 - - ---~.Directio11 1 *: Dis~ance t: Radiation ~~.mple Type . i

'Number

... - ... . -* ...' .. -*--- ___ ---*---*----* _____ 1; _____ **_U!:rnles}:._j _____ ~

84 Other Sav. River (RM 149.5) ESE 1.6 River Water 85 Indicator Sav. River ESE 4.3 Fish 3 87 Indicator Beaufort-Jasper County Water Treatment Plant SE 76 Drinking Water 5 88 Indicator Cherokee Hill Water Treatment Plant, Port Wentworth, GA SSE 72 Drinking Water 6 89 Indicator Purrysburg Water Treatment Plant; Purrysburg, SC SSE 76 Drinking Water 7 98 Control W.C. Dixon Dairy SE 9.8 Milks 101 Indicator Girard Dairy s 5.5 Milks 102 Control Seven Oaks Dairy/Milky Way Dairy w 7.5/16.0 Milks Notes:

1 Direction and distance are determined from a point midway between the two reactors. -

2 The intake for the Augusta Water Treatment Plant is located on the Augusta Canal. The entrance to the canal is at River Mile (RM) 207 on the Savannah River. The canal effectively parallels the river. The intake to the pumping station is about 4 miles down the canal.

3 A 5-mile stretch of the river is generally needed to obtain adequate fish samples. Samples are normally gathered between RM 153 and 158 for upriver collections and between RM 144 and 149.4 for downriver collections.

4 Sediment is collected at locations with existing or potential-recreational value. Because high water, shifting of the river bottom, or other reasons could cause a suitable location for sediment collections to become unavailable or unsuitable, a stretch of the river between RM 148.5 and 150.5 was designated for downriver collections while a stretch between RM 153 and 154 was designated for upriver collections. In practice, collections are normally made at RM 150.2 for downriver collections and RM 153.3 for upriver collections.

5 DELETED THIS SAMPLE LOCATION IN 2014 (LDCR 2014004) The intake for the Beaufort-Jasper County Water Treatment Plant is located at the end of canal that begins at RM 39.3 on the Savannah River. This intake is about 16 miles by line of sight down the canal from its beginning on the Savannah River.

6 The intake for the Cherokee Hill Water Treatment Plant is located on Abercorn Creek which is about one and a quarter creek miles from its mouth on he Savannah River at RM 29.

7 The intake for the Purrysburg Water Treatment Plant is located on the same canal as the Beaufort-Jasper Water Treatment Plant. The Purrysburg intake is closer to the Savannah River at the beginning of the canal.

sGirard Dairy is considered an indicator station since it is the closest dairy to the plant C5.5 miles). Dixon Dairy went out of business in June 2009 and Seven Oaks Dairy (-7.5 miles) was added as a replacement and is considered a control station even though a control station is typically 10 miles or greater: Milky Way Dairy was identified and added to the ODCM in 2015 to replace Seven Oaks since it is at 16.0 miles from the plant.

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report SI Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADROlOGtCAl ENVIRONMENTAL .

OPERATING REPORT 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, 1,201 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 release<;J 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 radiol~gical 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 histori.cal evaluation, this includes: the nuclear atmospheric weapon test in the fall of 1980; the Chernobyl incident in the spring of 1986; abnormal releases from the Savannah River Site (SRS) during 1987 and 1991; and the Fukushima event in the spring of 2011.

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 2016, 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 evaiuations included within this report include the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC), the Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD), 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.

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 9IPage

\

L

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADlOLOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 87-9pl to identify values which differed from the mean o~ 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 2016 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.

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report lOIPage

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATlNG REPORT Gamma Isotopic 28 1-131 70 NDM(c) NDM NDM Cs-134 50 NDM NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 60 NDM NDM NDM NDM Airborne 1-131 70 NDM NDM NDM NDM Radioiodine 364 (fCi/m3)

Direct Radiation Gamma Dose 11.5 16.4 11.5 11.5 (mR/91 days) 160 7.1-18.3 River Bank N 15.2-17.3 7.0-17.8 8.1-15.4 (64/64) 1.1 mi. (4/4) (72/72) (24/24)

Milk (pCi/I) Gamma Isotopic 48 '* ~.

~ ,_ '

1-131 1 NDM NDM- NDM Cs-134 15 *. NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 18 1.3 Girard Dairy S 1.3 0.9 0.8-2.1 5.5 mi 0.8-2.1 0.4-1.7 (11/24) (11/24) (9/24)

Ba-140 60 NDM NDM NDM 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 11/Page I_

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT Vegetation Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg-wet) 36 1-131 60 NDM Cs-134 60 NDM Cs-137 80 NDM Substation 16.4 Waynesboro, GA 16.4-16.4 WSW 16.7 mi. (1/12)

River Water Gamma Isotopic '" ~- - ~: ---

(pCi/I) 36 Be-7 124(d) NDM NDM NDM NDM 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 1 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 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 12 IP age

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Tritium 2000 763 Savannah River 763 470 153 12 354-1340 (RM 150.4) ENE 354-1340 311-629 101-205 (4/4) 0.8mi (4/4) (4/4) (2/4)

Water Near Gross Beta 4 2.4 Augusta Water 3.2 tAA 3.2 Intakes to Water 36 0.3-3.9 Treatment Plant 1.2-6.9 ---

Treatment Plants (24/24) NNW29 mi. (12/12)

(pCi/I) Gamma Isotopic 36 Be-7 124(d) NDM NDM Mn-54 15 NDM NDM Fe-59 30 NDM NDM Co-58 15 NDM NDM Co-60 15 NDM NDM_

Zn-65 30 NDM NDM Zr-95 30 NDM NDM Nb-95 15 NDM NDM 1-131 1 NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 15 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 18 NDM NDM Ba-140 60 NDM NDM NDM La-140 15 NDM NDM NDM 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 131Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 12 92-490 Water Treatment 91.6-486 (8/8) Plant, (4/4)

Purrysburg, SC, SSE, 76 miles Finished Water Gross Beta 4 2.3 Cherokee Hill 2.8 at Water 36 0.3-4.3 Water Treatment 1.0-4.3 Treatment Plants (24/24) Plant, Port (12/12)

(pCi/I) Wentworth, GA SSE 72 mi.

Gamma Isotopic 36 ~ . ~ '

Be-7 124(d) NDM NDM Mn-54 15 NDM NDM Fe-59 30 NDM NDM Co-58 15 NDM NDM Co-60 15 NDM NDM Zn-65 30 NDM NDM Zr-95 30 NDM NDM Nb-95 15 NDM NDM 1-131 1 NDM NDM Cs-134 15 NDM NDM Cs-137 18 NDM NDM Ba-140 60 NDM NDM NDM 14 IP age A

,2\

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOlOGlCAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Tritium 2000 257 Cherokee Hill 261 142 12 62-463 Water Treatment 178-401 101-183

{8/8) Plant, Port (4/4) {2/4)

Wentworth, GA SSE 72 mi.

Anadromous Fish Gamma Isotopic .:.~ ' "'

{pCi/kg-wet) 1 Be-7 655{d) NA NDM Mn-54 130 NA NDM Fe-59 260 NA NDM Co-58 130 NA NDM

.~\

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 15 IP age

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 0PERATtNG REPORT 24.5-197.4 24.5-197.4 (4/4) (4/4)

Sediment Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg-dry) 4 Co-60 70 NDM Cs-134 150 NDM Cs-137 180 137.2 Savannah River 137.2 77.4-197.0 (RM 150.4), ENE, 77.4-197.0 61.8-76.6 (2/2) 0.8 miles (2/2) (2/2)

Notes:

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

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 than 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 ofTable 2-2, are "Community" and/or "Special" stations.

Not Applicable (sample not required) 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 16 JP age

Pl.ANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVtRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT Table 3-2. Reporting Levels (RL) r~:~l:sis]I"~~~~~ _fp~~l)ll _A;~~:;:~:i:~: IFi~~-Wci[kg-w:~i:__ _J~~J;.9 "l[v_ege~~~~~;;~~w~t) J H-3 20,000*

Mn-54 1,000 30,000 Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1,000 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 1,000 60 1,000 Cs-137 so 20,0~0 2,000 70 2,000 I 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.

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 17JPage

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-3. Anomalies and Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program

-- -C~-ilection Period - Affected Samples

  • Anomaly (A)* or Deviation , !:-----.-f-au_s_e_____-.* -!~

I

i (D)** ~ *.. *. i~

-- ------------'------'~------- ~

October River water (A) Sample collected was a Rodents chewed the intake tubing Tubing repaired and grab station 151.2 grab instead of a not a for the automatic sampler. No sample obtained.

CR 10284264 composite composite sample was obtained.

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

PLANT VoG:rLE ANNUAL RADlOlOGlCAl ENVIRONMENTAL 0PERATtNG REPORT 3.1 Airborne Particulates As specified in Table 2-1, airborne particulate filters and charcoal canisters are collected weekly at five indicator stations (Stations 3, 7, 10, 12 and 16) which encircle the plant at the site periphery, at a nearby community station (Station 35) approximately seven miles from the plant, and at a control station (Station 36) approximately 14 miles from the plant. 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 inl Table 3-1, the 2016 annual average weekly gross beta activity was 23.5 fCi/m3 for the indicator stations. It was 0.7 fCi/m3 more than the control station average of 22.8 fCi/m3 for the year. This difference is not statistically discernible, since it is less than the calculated MDD of 1.7 fCi/m3.

The 2016 annual average weekly gross beta activity at the Girard community station was 21.7 fCi/m3 which was below the control station average (22.8 fCi/m3). No MDD was applied since the community station average was lower than the control average.

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

__ __ . ______ d _______

Pre-op r~-- ~(~~;~~it_

22.9

_ r_ _ j~~L~~~-- ______ _1~)

22.1 21.9 1987 26.3 23.6 22.3 1988 24.7 23.7 22.8 1989 19.1 18.2 18.8 1990 19.6 19.4 18.8 1991 19.3 19.2 18.6 1992 18.7 19.3 18.0 1993 21.2 21.4 20.3 1994 20.1 20.3 19.8 1995 21.1 20.7 20.7 1996 23.3 21.0 20.0 1997 20.6 20.6 19.0 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 19 I Page

PlA~T VOGTLE . ANNUAL RADlOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-4. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 1998 22.7 22.4 20.9 1999 22.5 21.9 22.2 2000 24.5 21.5 21.1 2001 22.4 22.0 22.7 2002 19.9 18.9 18.6 2003 19.4 20.5 18.3 2004 21.6 22.8 21.4 2005 20.5 20.4 19.4 2006 25.5 24.6 24.3 2007 27.3 25.1 I 26.5 2008 24.0 23.2 23.7 2009 23.0 22.4 22.5 2010 25.8 24.4 25.5 2011 25.8 25.1 24.6 2012 25.9 25.2 26.1 2013 22.9 23.9 22.2 2014 24.1 23.4 23.5 2015 21.5 20.8 20.8 2016 23.5 22.8 21.7 I Page

.A

~

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 20

Pl.ANT VOGTlE A NUAl RADlOlOGICAl ENVIRONMENTAL 0PERATlNG REPORT Figure 3-1. Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration Mnc

...J.!'.!~-----------------------------------------------------

3.1.2 Gamma Particulates During 2016, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of th e quarterly composites of the air particulate filters .

Historically, gamma isotopes have been detected as a result of offsite events . During pre-operation, Cs-134, Cs-137 and 1-131 were occasionally detected . In 1987, Cs-137 was found in one indicator composite at a concentration of 1.7 fCi/m3. Additionally, 1-131 was also detected after the Fukushima incident in 2011, the highest 1-131 result in 2011 was 93.8 fCi/m3 , which is ap proximately 10% of the RL.

3.2 Direct Radiation In 2016, 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 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 21 I Page

VOGTl.IE 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.

Two direct radiation stations are established in each of the 16 compass sectors, to form two concentric rings. The inner ring (Stations 1 through 16) is located near the plant perimeter as shown in Map A-1 in Appendix A and the outer ring (Stations 17 through 32) is located at a distance of approximately five 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 36, 37, 47, 48, 51 and 52) are located at distances greater than 10 miles from the plant as shown in Map A-3 in Appendix A. Monitored special interest areas include Station 35 at the town of Girard and !Station 43 at the employee recreational area. The mean and range values presented in the "Other" column in Table 3-1 includes the outer ring stations (stations 17 through 32) as well as stations 35 and 43.

As provided in Table 3-1, the 2016 average quarterly exposure at the indicator stations (inner ring) was 11.5 mR with a range of 7.1 to 18.3 mR. The indicator station average was equal to the control station average (11.5 mR). No MOD was applied because the indicator was equal to the control. Over the operational history, the annual average quarterly exposures show little variation between the indicator and control stations.

The quarterly exposures acquired at the community/other (outer ring) stations during 2016 ranged from 7.0 to 17.8 mR with an average of 11.5 mR which was equal to the control station average. No MOD was applied because the community average was equal to the control average. For the entire period of operation, the annual average quarterly exposures at the outer ring stations vary by no more than 1.2 mR from those at 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 Pre-op 15.3 16.5 14.7 1987 17.6 17.9 16.7 1988 16.8 16.1 16.0 1989 17.9 18.4 17.2 1990 16.9 16.6 16.3 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 22 I Page

PLANT VOGTlE RADIOLOGICAL.

ENVIRONMENTAL 0PERATlNG REPORT Table 3-5. Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 1991 16.9 17.1 16.7 1992 12.3 12.5 12.1 1993 12.4 12.4 12.1 1994 12.3 12.1 11.9 1995 12.0 12.5 12.3 1996 12.3 12.2 12.3 1997 13.0 13.0 13.1 1998 12.3 12.7 12.4 1999 13.6 13.5 13.4 2000 t3.5 13.6 13.5 2001 i2.9 13.0 12.9 2002 12.8 12.9 12.6 2003 12.2 12.5 12.4 2004 12.4 12.2 12.3 2005 12.5 13.2 12.9 2006 13.1 12.9 13.0 2007 13.0 12.5 12.7 2008 13.3 13.0 13.1 2009 13.1 13.6 13.3 2010 16.2 16.7 16.6 2011 13.9 13.9 14.0 2012 14.4 14.3 14.2 2013 13.1 13.2 13.6 2014 11:6 12.3 12.0 2015 12.5 12.3 12.6 2016 11.5 11.5 11.5

.\

~

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 23 I Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 2016 values. The values for the special interest areas detailed below indicate that Plant Vogtle did not significantly contribute to direct radiation at those areas .

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 24 I Page

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Figure 3-3. 2016 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 In accordance with Tables 2-1 and 2-2, milk samples are collected semi-monthly from two locations, the Girard Dairy (Station 101} which is considered an indicator station because it is approximately 5.5 miles from Vogtle (ideally a milk indicator station is less than 5 miles from the plant}, and the Seven Oaks Dairy (Station 102} at 7.5 miles from Vogtle is the control location (ideally control locations are greater than 10 miles from the plant} . SNC identified Milky Way Dairy as a replacement control location . The ODCM was revised in 2015 to include the Milky Way Dairy for sampling instead of Seven Oaks. No milk animal was found within five mi les of Plant Vogtle during the 2016 land use census.

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 25 I Page

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOlOGICAl ENVlRONMENTAl 0PERATtNG REPORT Gamma isotopic (including 1-131 and Cs-137) analyses were performed on each collected milk sample and there were no detectable results for gamma isotope's, with the exception of a Cs-137, which was detected in 11 indicator samples (1.3 pCi/I average) and two control samples (0.9 pCi/I average). The difference is less than the MDD (0.48 pCi/I), therefore there is no statistical difference. Figure 3-4 provides the 2016 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 7 and 15) and at one control station located about 17 miles WSW from the plant (Station 37). The man-made radionuclide Cs-137 is periodically identified in vegetation samples, and is generally attributed to offsite sources (su¢h as weapons testing, Chernobyl, and Fukushima). Cs-13( was det~cted in one of the samples collected in 2016 at the control station, at a value of 16.4 pCi/kg-wet.

While Cs-137 and 1-131 were periodically found and Co-60 was discovered once 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 well below the MDC and the RL for Cs-137 (80 and 2000 pCi/kg-wet, respectively).

During 2016, no other gamma isotopes were detected in any Vogtle 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 81) extends from approximately two to seven miles upriver of the plant intake structure, and the indicator location (Station 85) extends from about 1.4 to seven miles downriver of the plant discharge structure.

3.3.3.1 Anadromous Species For anadromous species, all fish sampled are considered indicator stations. Anadromous fish were sampled once during 2016, on March 22. No radionuclides were detected in the 2016 anadromous fish sample.

3.3.3.2 Commercially or Recreationally Important Species For this year, as provided* in Table 3-1, Cs-137 was found in the semiannual collections of commercially or recreationally important' species of fish (indicator and control). The indicator station averaged a Cs-137 concentration of 97.5 pCi/kg-wet, and 33.0 pCi/kg-wet was the 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 26 I Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT average Cs-137 detected at the control station. There is no statistically discernible difference between the two since the difference is less than the MOD of 98.8 pCi/kg-wet . No discernible difference between the indicator and control stations has occurred for any year of operation or during pre-operation. No other gamma nuclides were discovered in 2016.

3.3.4 Biological Media Summary There were no statistical differences, trends, or anomalies associated with the 2016 biological media samples when compared to historical data . Figure 3-4 below, details the 2016 Cs-137 co ncentration compared to the Reportable Limits.

Figure 3-4. 2016 Biological Media Average Cs-137 Concentrations 200 . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 Fish 3.4 Drinking Water Samples are collected at an upstream control location and at three downstream indicator locations (shown on Map A-3) and further described in Table 2-2.

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 27 IPage

P~ANT VOGTL~ ANNUAL RADlOlOGICAl ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT Water samples are taken near the intake of each water treatment plant (raw drinking water) using automatic composite samplers, which are collected monthly. Additionally, monthly grab samples of the processed water effluent from the treatment plants (finished drinking water) are collected. Monthly aliquots from the raw and processed drinking water are analyzed for gross beta and gamma isotopic activity. The monthly aliquots are also combined to form quarterly composites, which are analyzed for tritium.

For 2016, the indicator station average gross beta concentration in the raw drinking water was 2.4 pCi/I which was 0.8 pCi/I less than the average gross beta concentration at the control station (3.2 pCi/I). Historically, there has been close agreement between the gross beta values at the indicator stations and the control station which supports that there is no significant gross beta contribution from the plant effluents. The required MDC for gross beta in water is 4.0 pCitl. There is no RL for gross beta in water. I For 2016, the indicator station average gross beta concentration in the finished drinking water was 2.3 pCi/I which was 0.1 pCi/l less than the average gross beta concentration at the control station (2.4 pCi/I). The MDD was not calculated because the concentration at the control station was higher than the indicator station. Figure 3-5 show the relationship between the average indicator station and average control station for 2016 and the comparison to the MDC.

As provided in Table 3-1, there were no positive results during 2016 from the gamma isotopic analysis of the raw and finished drinking water samples except for one control sample that yielded a 0.7 pCi/I result for Nb-95. This value is not typically detected, but was detected at a much lower concentration than the MDC (15.0 pCi/I).

The 2016 raw drinking water indicator stations average tritium concentration was 283 pCi/I which was 114 pCi/I greater than the average concentration found at the control station (169.4 pCi/I). However, this difference is not discernible since it is less than the MDD of 307 pCi/L.

A statistically significant increase in the concentrations found in samples collected at the indicator station compared to those collected at the control station could be indicative of plant releases. Concentrations found at the special station are more likely to represent the activity in the river as a whole, which might include plant releases combined with those from other sources along the river.

The finished drinking water average tritium concentration at the indicator stations during 2016 was 257 pCi/I which was 115 pCi/I greater than the average concentration found at the control station (142 pCi/I). The MDD was calculated as 250 pCi/I between the indicator and control stations, indicating no statistically discernible difference.

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 28 I Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Figure 3-5. 2016 Average Gross Beta Concentration in Raw and Finished Drinking Water 3.5 River Water Composite river water samples are collected monthly at an upstream control location and at two downstream indicator locations (shown on Map A-3) . 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 2016 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 763 pCi/I which was 610 pCi/I greater than the average at the control station (153 pCi/I) . The river water tritium MOD was calculated to be 749 pCi/I, so the difference is not statistically discernible. The values are both below the MDC and the RL of 2000 pCi/I and 20000 pCi/I, respectively.

At the " Other" river water sampling station (Station 84), the results ranged from 311 pCi/I to 629 pCi/I with an average of 470 pCi/I. The difference between the Station 84 and the control 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 29 I Page

[_~

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADlOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 0PERATlNG REPORT station was 317 pCi/I. The MOD was calculated to be 164 pCi/I, which would indicate a difference that is statistically discernible . Since the value is only slightly above the MOD and be low the MDC and the RL, no adverse environmental impact exists . Historically, the rel ationship between the indicator/control stations and Station 84 has remained consistent.

Figure 3-6 below details the 2016 average tritium concentration s across the three water mediums.

Figure 3-6. 2016 Average Tritium Concentrations in River, Raw Drinking, and Finished Drinking Water 3.6 Sediment Sediment was collected along t he shoreline of the Savannah River in the spring and fall at Stations 81 and 83 . Station 81 is a control station located about 2.5 miles upriver of the plant inta ke structure wh ile Station 83 is an indicator station located about 0.6 miles downriver of the plant discharge structure. A gamma isotopic analysis was performed on each sample . The radionuclides detected in 2016 samples were Be-7 and Cs-137. Even though Be-7 was detected 2016 VEGP Annual Rad iological Environmental Operating Report 30 I Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOlOGICAl ENVtRONMENTAL OPERATtNG REPORT in sediment, it will not be discussed within this report, because it was not detected in any plant effluents and likely represents naturally occurring and/or background conditions.

For Cs-137, the average concentration at the indicator station during 2016 was 137.2 pCi/kg-dry which was 68 pCi/kg-dry greater than that at the control station (69.2 pCi/kg-dry). The concentration of Cs-137 found at the indicator and control stations could be attributed to plant J effluents or to other facilities that release radioactive effluents near the plant. There are not enough sample points to calculate a MDD value; however, both the indicator and control values for Cs-137 were less than the MDC of 180 pCi/kg-dry and therefore no impact to the environment was indicated.

Co-60 has been detected in past results, but was not detec;ted in any sediment samples taken in 2016. A review of plant effluents !indicates that Co-60 is regularly released at very low leyels.

Co-60 is currently measured in both water and fish samples; however, if this isotope is consistently observed in subsequent sediment samples, it will be added to the Vogtle ODCM for future inclusion on the REMP. There are no reporting levels for sediment results.

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 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:

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 31 I Page

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAi.. OPERATlNG REPORT Table 3-6. lnterlaboratory Comparison Limits

.Nudide' . ,, - Con-Centratibn *;--;; ,,--:--*YOt~I Sa-mp~e ~ctlVity ___ "JI p.erce"nt Coeffi~i~_nt of --]

I _ ': ___ : __ _I *  : ____ :_ __ _ _ __ _ (pCi) ~. __ _* __ ___ _*.. _ya_r:~~~!£>~"- __:_ _

<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:

I

  • 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 2016 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 2016 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.

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 32 I Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary

' - Ana~~s~r ~;-DatePrepar~ Known Value ]

I I II I l Standard l Uncertainty. ~PercentCoeffkient ~ Normalized I I

_ Radio_nu~lid~--- ______________ l __ __Ay~r_a_~~-_j__ L_!>evia!j Analytics(3S)__,~1 Deviation 1 1---- *- "  : 1~131 ANALYSiS"OF AN AIR CAR)'.RIDGE (pti/ca~fridge) 1-131 9/15/2016 61.65 59.1 3.09 " 0.99 7.15 0.58

"_;.' .,---~---" -----  ; :GAIVIMA IS.OTOPIC-ANALYSIS~OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter) 0 Ce-141 9/15/2016 61.6 63.2 2.32 1.06 6.05 0.39 Co-58 9/15/2016 63.0 66.0 1.40 1.10 6.03 -0.79 Co-60 9/15/2016 86.5 91.4 2.65 1.53 5.52 -1.03 Cr-51 9/15/2016 145.7 160.0 6.82 2.67 9.47 -1.04 Cs-134 9/15/2016 85.8 92 4.17 1.54 7.14 -1.11 Cs-137 9/15/2016 79.8 80.3 1.85 1.34 5.67 -0.12 Fe-59 9/15/2016 55.9 61.4 7.09 1.03 12.63 -0.65 Mn-54 9/15/2016 103.5 103.0 2.55 1.72 5.50 0.09 Zn-65 9/15/2016 128.0 121.0 4.71 2.02 6.89 0.80

  • 1*..C '- .. '-* .. . .- ...

-~" ,

-  : ",:_GROSS BEJA ANALYSIS OFAN AIR FILTER (PCl/F-ILTER) ,,

Gross Beta 9/15/2016 89.8 76.6 3.44 1.28 5.57 2.63 GAMMAJSOTOPIC ANALYSIS OFA IVllLIC SAMPLE (PCl/LITER) "'

Co-58 6/9/2016 146.7 142.0 6.81 2.37 7.29 0.44 Co-60 6/9/2016 187.8 173.0 7.74 2.88 6.08 1.29 Cr-51 6/9/2016 305.3 276.0 7.33 4.60 11.16 0.86 Cs-134 6/9/2016 191.5 174.0 4.15 2.91 4.66 1.96 Cs-137 6/9/2016 137.0 120.0 5.93 2.01 7.30 1.70 Fe-59 6/9/2016 128.5 122.0 10.7 2.03 10.97 0.46 1-131 6/9/2016 107.0 94.5 6.80 1.58 8.93 1.30 Mn-54 6/9/2016 144.2 125.0 3.05 2.09 5.99 2.22 Zn-65 6/9/2016 273.9 235.0 10.8 3.93 7.03 2.02 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 33 I Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Table 3-7. lnterlaboratory Comparison Summary GROSS BETA ANA(YSIS'.OF WATER SAMPLE (PCl/[ITER}

264.4 250.0 11.24 4.17 277.01 250.0 6.53 4.18 ' 4.24 2.30

-. GAMMA ISOTOPIC ~NALV'SIS.OF. WATER*SAMF'LES (PCl/LITE~)

Ce-141 3/17/2016 121.9 118.0 7.45 1.98 9.44 0.34 Co-58 3/17/2016 143.7 141.0 3.12 2.36 6.29 0.30 Co-60 3/17/2016 300.9 293.0 2.89 4.90 4.40 0.60 Cr-51 3/17/2016 308.6 293.0 22.7 4.88 14.12 0.36 Cs-134 3/17/2016 168.7 157.0 6.51 2.61 5.81 1.20 Cs-137 3/17/2016 205.5 194.0 7.11 3.23 6.20 0.90 Fe-59 3/17/2016 166.0 157.0 2.49 2.63 6.96 0.78 1-131 3/17/2016 96.1 88.9 6.56 1.48 14.48 0.52 Mn-54 3/17/2016 158.1 140.0 6.45 2.34 6.94 1.65 Zn-65 3/17/2016 242.5 215.0 11.7 3.58 7.96 1.42

. TRITIJJM'J,\NAlYSIS.OF;WATERSAMPLES (PCl/LITERL .

3/17/2016 5118.5 4630.0 89.3 77.4 3.19 2.99 H-3 6/9/2016 12338.6 12000.0 58.41 201 2.06 1.33 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 341Page

PLANT V,OGTLE. ANNUAl RADlOLOGlCAl ENVIRONMENTAL 0PERATtNG REPORT 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, 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 buried piping and tanks inspection programs.

Plant Vogtle maintains the following wells (Table 3-8), which are sampled at a frequency that satisfies t he requirements of NEI 07-07. The analytical results for 2016 were all within 1 1 regulatory limits specified within this report. Table 3-9 contains the results of the Groundwater Protection Program tritium results (in pCi/L).

LT-lB Water Table NSCW related tank LT-7A Water Table NSCW related tank LT-12 Water Table NSCW related tank LT-13 Water Table NSCW related tank 802A Water Table Southeastern potential leakage 803A* Water Table Up gradient to rad waste building Down gradient from rad waste building and NSCW BOSA** Water Table related facilities 806B Water Table Dilution line 808 Water Table Up gradient; along Pen Branch Fault Rl Water Table NSCW related tank; western potential leakage R2 Water Table Southern potential leakage R3 Water Table Eastern potential leakage R4 Water Table Dilution line RS Water Table Dilution line R6 Water Table Dilution line R7 Water Table Dilution line

  • R8 Water Table within Sav. River sediments Dilution line 1013* Water Table Low level rad waste storage 1014 Tertiary Up gradient lOlS Water Table ertically up gradient 1003* Tertiary Up gradient I Page A

~

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 35

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADlOLOGlCAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 27** Tertiary Down gradient tertiary 29** Tertiary Down gradient tertiary MU-1 Tertiary/Cretaceous Facility water supply River N/A Surface water NSCW - Nuclear service cooling water

  • Well abandoned due to construction activities with Vogtle Units 3&4

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 4 SURVEY SUMMARIES 4.1 Land Use Census In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted on November 15, 2016 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 2015 except for the presence of a garden, which will be evaluated for inclusion in the REMP.

Table 4-1. Land Use Census Results 1~----*----ii-~1-1 1----i--*

__-~~~-::.~ _*_ _ j ______ _ __M!!.k An!m~!*. !_ Beef Ca~~ __6:'d"'.'~~ J Distance in Miles to the Nearest Location in Each Sector N 1.4 None None None NNE None None None None NE None None None None ENE None None None None E None None None None ESE 4.2 None None None SE 4.3 None 4.9 None SSE 4.7 None 4.7 None s 4.4 None None None SSW 4.7 None 4.7 None SW 3.1 None 4.4 None WSW 2.6 None 2.7 None w 3.4 None 4.7 4.1 WNW 1.9 None None None NW 1.5 None 1.8 None NNW 1.5 None None None

  • A milk animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption.
    • A garden of greater than 500 square feet producing broad leaf vegetation.

Note: Land within SRS was excluded from the census.

4.2 Savannah River Survey A survey of the Savann_ah River downstream of the plant for approximately 100 miles (approximately river miles 44. 7 to 151.2) was conducted on September 20, 2016 to identify any new withdrawal of water from the river for drinking, irrigation, or construction purposes. No 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 37 I Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADlOlOGICAl ENVlRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT new usage was visually identified. These results were verified with both the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DEHEC) and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources on September 23, 2016. Each of these agencies confirmed that no water withdrawal permits for drinking, irrigation, or construction purposes had been issued for this stretch of the Savannah River. It should be noted that Vogtle Units 3 and 4 received a surface water withdrawal permit in December of 2015.

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 38 I Page

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOlOGt.CAl ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 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 VEGP.

Based on the 2016 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 t~e REMP I
  • Land use census and river survey did not reveal any significant changes
  • Analytical results were below reporting levels

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVtRONMENTAl OPERATlNG REPORT APPENDIX A Maps 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix A

Legend : Draw n by : C. Groce Append ix A Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Map A-1 Indicator Stati ons - 2016 Annual Radiological Environmental Report Control Stations - REMP Stations in Plant Vicin ity uthem May 1, 2017 Othe r Stations - Nuclear

Legend : Drawn by: C. Groce Appendix A Vogt le Electric Generating Plant MapA-2 Indicator Stations - 2016 Annual Rad iological Environmental Report Contro l Stations - REMP Stations with in 10 miles uthem May 1, 2017 Other Stations - Nuclear

Legend :

Ind icator Stations -

  • Control Stations -

Other Stations - A A.

Vogtle Electri c Ge nerating Plant 2016 Annual Radiologica l Environmental Report Extended REMP Stations uthem Nuclear Drawn by: C. Groce May 1, 2017 Appendix A MapA-3

Map A-4 Surficial Aquife r * @) 2016 Annual Radiological Environmental Report Tertiary Aquifer

  • ti} Facility Groundwater Wells out hem May 1, 2017 Nuclear

PLANT VOGTLE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAl OPERATING REPORT APPENDIX B Errata 2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix B

PLANT VOGTlE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT There are no errata for the 2016 reporting year.

2016 VEGP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Appendix B

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=NL-17-0845,_Submittal_of_Annual_Radiological_Environmental_Operating_Reports_for_2016&oldid=2509766"