ML081370355: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[NL-08-0771, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc, Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2007]]
| number = ML081370355
| issue date = 05/13/2008
| title = Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc, Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2007
| author name = Godfrey J M
| author affiliation = Southern Nuclear Operating Co, Inc
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000321, 05000348, 05000364, 05000366, 05000424, 05000425
| license number =
| contact person =
| case reference number = NL-08-0771
| document type = Environmental Monitoring Report, Letter
| page count = 221
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1295 Tel 205.992.5000 May 13, 2008 Energy to Serve Your World'Docket Nos.: 50-321 50-348 50-424 50-366 50-364 50-425 NL-08-0771 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual Radioloaical Environmental ODeratina Reports for 2007 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 2007.This letter contains no NRC commitments.
If you have any questions, please advise.Sincerely, L" J.. M. Godfrey I I Manager, Environmental Affairs JMG/TWS/phr
 
==Enclosures:==
: 1. Hatch Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2007 2. Farley Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2007 3. Vogtle Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2007 f~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NL-08-0771 Page 2 cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company Mr. J. T. Gasser, Executive Vice President Mr. J. R. Johnson, Vice President
-Farley Mr. D. R. Madison, Vice President
-Hatch Mr. T. E. Tynan, Vice President
-Vogtle Mr. D. H. Jones, Vice President
-Engineering RType: CFA04.054; CHA02.004; CVC7000; LC#14768 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. L. A. Reyes, Regional Administrator Mr. R. A. Jervey, NRR Project Manager -Farley Mr. R. E. Martin, NRR Project Manager -Hatch Mr. R. A. Jervey, NRR Project Manager -Vogtle Mr. E. L. Crowe, Senior Resident Inspector
-Farley Mr. J. A. Hickey, Senior Resident Inspector
-Hatch Mr. G. J. McCoy, Senior Resident Inspector
-Vogtle State of Alabama Mr. K. E. Whatley, Department of Public Health, Division of Radiation Control State of Georgia Mr. T. V. Jackson, Department of Natural Resources Georgia Power Company Mr. M. C. Nichols American Nuclear Insurers Mr. R. A. Oliveira Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2007 Enclosure 1 Hatch Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2007 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 2007 SOUTHERNA..COMPANY Energy to Serve Your World" TABLE OF CONTENTS Title and/or Section Subsection Page List of Figures ii List of Tables iii List of Acronyms iv 1.0 Introduction 1-1 2.0 REMP Description 2-1 3.0 Results Summary 3-1 4.0 Discussion of Results 4-1 4.1 Land Use Census and River Survey 4-5 4.2 Airborne 4-7 4.3 Direct Radiation 4-12 4.4 Milk 4-18 4.5 Vegetation 4-22 4.6 River Water 4-25 4.7 Fish 4-28 4.8 Sediment 4-32 4.9 Groundwater 4-38 5.0 Interlaboratory Comparison Program (ICP) 5-1 6.0 Conclusions 6-1 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Title Page Figure 2-1 REMP Stations Near the Plant 2-7 Figure 2-2 REMP Stations Beyond Six Miles from the Plant 2-8 Figure 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 4-7 Figure 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air 4-9 Figure 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 4-13 Figure 4.3-2 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation at Special Interest Areas 4-15 Figure 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 4-18 Figure 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk 4-20 Figure 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Vegetation 4-23 Figure 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in River Water 4-26 Figure 4.7-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Fish 4-28 Figure 4.7-2 Average Annual Cs-134 Concentration in Fish 4-30 Figure 4.8-1 Average Annual Co-60 Concentration in Sediment 4-32 Figure 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment 4-34 Figure 4.8-3 Average Annual Indicator Station Concentrations I of Select Nuclides in Sediment 4-36 ii LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title Page Table 2-1 Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 2-2 Table 2-2 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations 2-5 Table 3-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary 3-2 Table 4-1 Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) 4-1 Table 4-2 Reporting Levels (RL) 4-2 Table 4-3 Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 4-4 Table 4.1-1 Land Use Census Results 4-5 Table 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 4-8 Table 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air 4-10 Table 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 4-14 Table 4.3-2 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation at Special Interest Areas 4-16 Table 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 4-19 Table 4.4-2 Average Annual 1- 131 Concentration in Milk 4-21 Table 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Vegetation 4-24 Table 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in River Water 4-27 Table 4.7-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Fish 4-29 Table 4.7-2 Average Annual Cs-134 Concentration in Fish 4-31 Table 4.8-1 Average Annual Co-60 Concentration in Sediment 4-33 Table 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment 4-35 Table 4.8-3 Sediment Nuclide Concentrations Other Than Co-60 &Cs-137 4-37 Table 5-1 Interlaboratory Comparison Results 5-3 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronyms presented in alphabetical order.Acronym Definition ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CL Confidence Level EL Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory EPA Environmental Protection Agency GPC Georgia Power Company HNP Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant ICP Interlaboratory Comparison Program MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MDD Minimum Detectable Difference NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measurement(s)
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Po Preoperation REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting Level TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specification iv
 
==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
 
The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) is conducted in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).REMP activities for 2007 are reported herein in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.2 and ODCM 7.1.The objectives of the REMP are to: 1) Determine the levels of radiation and the concentrations of radioactivity in the environs and;2) Assess the radiological impact (if any) to the environment due to the operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP).The assessments include comparisons between the results of analyses of samples obtained at locations where radiological levels are not expected to be affected by plant operation (control stations) 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. An annual summary of the results of the analyses of REMP samples is provided in Section 3.A discussion of the results, including assessments of any radiological impacts upon the environment, and the results of the land use census and the river survey, are provided in Section 4. The results of the Interlaboratory Comparison Program (ICP) are provided in Section 5. Conclusions are provided in Section 6.1-1 2.0 REMP DESCRIPTION A summary description of the REMP is provided in Table 2-1. This table summarizes the program as it meets the requirements outlined in ODCM Table 4-1. It details the sample types to be collected and the analyses to be performed in order to monitor the airborne, direct radiation, waterborne and ingestion pathways, and also delineates the collection and analysis frequencies.
The sampling locations (stations) specified by ODCM 4.2 are depicted on maps in Figures 2-1 and 2-2.These maps are keyed to Table 2-2 which delineates the direction and distance of each station from the main stack.REMP samples are collected by Georgia Power Company's (GPC) Environmental Laboratory (EL) personnel.
The same lab performs all the laboratory analyses at their headquarters in Smyrna, Georgia.2-1 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 1 of 3)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Approximate Sampling and Type of Analysis and Frequency and/or Sample Number of Sample Collection Frequency Locations 1. Airborne 6 Continuous operation Radioiodine canister:
1-131 analysis, weekly.Radioiodine and of the sampler with Particulates sample collection Particulate sampler: analyze for gross beta radioactivity not less weekly. than 24 hours following filter 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.
: 2. Direct Radiation 37 Quarterly Gamma dose, quarterly.
: 3. Ingestion...........
...... ..... ................
..............
..............
................
....... .... ....................
...... ..................................................
...........
.........
..............
....................
........................................
............................
I.....................................
.................................
.........................
.............
.....................................................................
Milk (a) 1 Biweekly Gamma isotopic and 1-131 analysis, biweekly.Fish or Clams (b) 2 Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis on edible portions, semiannually.
Grass or Leafy 3 Monthly during Gamma isotopic analysis, monthly. (c)Vegetation growing season.4. Waterborne Surface 2 Composite sample Gamma isotopic analysis, monthly. Composite (by location) for collected monthly. (d) tritium'analysis, quarterly.
Sediment 2 Semiannually.
Gamma isotopic analysis, semiannually.
TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 2 of 3)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Approximate Sampling and Type of Analysis and Frequency and/or Sample Number of Sample Collection Frequency Locations Drinking Water (e&f)One sample of river water near the intake and one sample of finished water from each of one to three of the nearest water supplies which could be affected by HNP discharges.
See Section 4.9 River water collected near the intake will be a composite sample;the finished water will be a grab sample.These samples will be collected monthly unless the calculated dose due to consumption of the water is greater than 1 mrem/year; then the collection will be biweekly.
The collections may revert to monthly should the calculated doses become less than 1 mremlyear.
........................
..e.e a r..............
...............................................
Quarterly sample;pump used to sample GW wells; grab sample from yard drains and ponds 1-131 analysis on each sample when biweekly collections are required.
Gross beta and gamma isotopic analysis on each sample; composite (by location) for tritium analysis, quarterly.
Tritium, gamma isotopic, and field parameters (pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation/reduction potential, and turbidity) of each sample quarterly; Hard to detect radionuclides as necessary based on results of tritium and gamma Groundwater h a TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 3 of 3)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Notes: a. Up to three sampling locations within 5 miles and in different sectors will be used as available.
In addition, one or more control locations beyond 10 miles will be used.b. Commercially or recreationally important fish may be sampled. Clams may be sampled if difficulties are encountered in obtaining sufficient fish samples.c. If gamma isotopic analysis is not sensitive enough to meet the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC), a separate analysis for 1- 13 1 may be performed.
: d. The composite samples shall be composed of a series of aliquots collected at intervals not exceeding a few hours.e. If 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.f. A survey shall be conducted annually at least 50 river miles downstream of the plant to identify those who use water from the Altamaha River for drinking.
TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 1 of 2)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS Station Station Descriptive Location Direction Distance (a) Sample Type Number Type (a) (miles)064 Other Roadside Park WNW 0.8 Direct Rad 101 Indicator Inner Ring N 1.9 Direct Rad 102 Indicator Inner Ring NNE 2.5 Direct Rad 103 Indicator Inner Ring NE 1.8 Airborne Rad I Direct Rad 104 Indicator Inner Ring ENE 1.6 Direct Rad 105 Indicator Inner Ring E 3.7 Direct Rad 106 Indicator Inner Ring ESE 1.1 Direct Rad Vegetation 107 Indicator Inner Ring SE 1.2 Airborne Rad Direct Rad 108 Indicator Inner Ring SSE 1.6 Direct Rad 109 Indicator Inner Ring S 0.9 Direct Rad 110 Indicator Inner Ring SSW 1.0 Direct Rad 111 Indicator Inner Ring SW 0.9 Direct Rad 112 Indicator Inner Ring WSW 1.0 Airborne Rad Direct Rad Vegetation 113 Indicator Inner Ring W 1.1 Direct Rad 114 Indicator Inner Ring WNW 1.2 Direct Rad 115 Indicator Inner Ring NW 1.1 Direct Rad 116 Indicator Inner Ring NNW 1.6 Airborne Rad Direct Rad 170 Control Upstream WNW (c) River (b)172 Indicator Downstream E (c) River (b)201 Other Outer Ring N 5.0 Direct Rad 202 Other Outer Ring NNE 4.9 Direct Rad 203 Other Outer Ring NE 5.0 Direct Rad 204 Other Outer Ring ENE 5.0 Direct Rad 205 Other Outer Ring E 7.2 Direct Rad 206 Other Outer Ring ESE 4.8 Direct Rad 207 Other Outer Ring SE 4.3 Direct Rad 208 Other Outer Ring SSE 4.8 Direct Rad 209 Other Outer Ring S 4.4 Direct Rad 210 Other Outer Ring SSW 4.3 Direct Rad 211 Other Outer Ring SW 4.7 Direct Rad 212 Other Outer Ring WSW 4.4 Direct Rad 213 Other Outer Ring W 4.3 Direct Rad 214 Other Outer Ring WNW 5.4 Direct Rad 215 Other Outer Ring NW 4.4 Direct Rad 216 Other Outer Ring NNW 4.8 Direct Rad 301 Other Toombs Central School N 8.0 Direct Rad 304 Control State Prison ENE 11.2 Airborne Rad Direct Rad 304 Control State Prison ENE 10.3 Milk 309 Control Baxley S 10.0 Airborne Rad Substation Direct Rad 416 Control Emergency News NNW 21.0 Direct Rad Center I Vegetation 2-5 TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 2 of 2)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS Notes: a. Direction and distance are determined from the main stack.b. River (fish or clams, shoreline sediment, and surface water)c. Station 170 is located approximately
 
===0.6 river===
miles upstream of the intake structure for river water, 1. 1 river miles for sediment and clams, and 1.5 river miles for fish.Station 172 is located approximately
 
===3.0 river===
miles downstream of the discharge structure for river water, sediment and clams, and 1.7 river miles for fish.The locations from which river water and sediment may be taken can be sharply defined.However, the sampling locations for clams often have to be extended over a wide area to obtain a sufficient quantity.
High water adds to the difficulty in obtaining clam samples and may also make an otherwise suitable location for sediment sampling unavailable.
A stretch of the river of a few miles or so is generally needed to obtain adequate fish samples. The mile locations given above represent approximations of the locations where samples are collected.
2-6 N REMP Stations Near Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Indicator Control Additional TLD Other TLD & Other A A 0 A 0 REMP Stations Near the Plant Figure 2-1 a Montq ofery f C-W~heeler i Wayne Jeff Davis;on Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations REMP Stations Beyond Indicator Control Additional TLD A A A Five Miles from the Plant Other 0 0 0 TLD & Other 4 @ ý, Figure 2-2
 
===3.0 RESULTS===
 
==SUMMARY==
In accordance with ODCM 7.1.2.1, the summarized and tabulated results for all of the regular samples collected for the year at the designated indicator and control stations are presented in Table 3-1. The format of Table 3-1 is similar to Table 3 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program", Revision 1, November 1979. Since no naturally occurring radionuclides were found in the plant's effluent releases, only man-made radionuclides are reported as permitted by ODCM 7.1.2.1. Results for samples collected at locations other than control or indicator stations are discussed in Section 4 under the particular sample type.3-1 TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 1 of 4)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia Medium or Type and Total Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Other Control Pathway Number of Detectable Locations Annual Mean Stations(g)
Locations Sampled Analyses Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean (b), (Unit of Performed (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement) (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction)(Fraction)
Airborne Gross Beta 10 24.4 No. 112 25.0 NA 24.3 Particulates 310 7.8-46.4 Indicator 13.0-43.6 7.5-39.9 ( f i m )............
....... .. ..............................
... ...... ..........................
...........
........................................................
........ .2 .6 2 .6..........
................
....... 1 .... ....m....................................W. .W ..................
.5 ./.... ..............
.............................................................................................................
..
Gamma Isotopic 24 Cs- 134 50 NDM (c) NDM NDM Cs-137 60 NDM NDM NDM Airborne 1-131 70 NDM NDM NA NDM Radioiodine 310 (fCi/m3)Direct Radiation Gamma Dose NA (d) 12.8 No. 115 16.7 12.5 12.5 (mR/91 days) 148 9.7-17.9 Inner Ring 15.5-17.9 9.0-17.8 10.4-14.1 (63/64) 1.1 miles, NW (4/4) (72/72) (12/12)Milk Gamma Isotopic NA (pCi/l) 27 Cs- 134 15 NA NDM NDM Cs-137 18 NA NDM NDM B a- 140 60 NA NDM NDM La- 140 15 NA NDM NDM.... ....................................
1...................................
...............
....... .... .............
..............
..........................................
........ J ............................................................
........ t .......................................
..........................
.............. " ..............
...................................
...........
...........................
I......................................................
I-131 1 NA NDM NDM 27 TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 2 of 4)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Control Pathway Total Number Detectable Locations Annual Mean Locations Sampled of Analyses Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), (Unit of Performed (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Measurement) (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction)
Vegetation Gamma (pCi/kg-wet)
Isotopic 36 1-131 60 NDM NDM NDM Cs- 134 60 NDM NDM NDM Cs- 137 80 55.7 Station 106 62.2 31.1 17.3-142.6 Inner Ring 32.9-142.6 24.8-37.4 (10/24) 1.1 miles; ESE (8/12) (2/12)River Water Gamma (pCi/1) Isotopic 24 Mn-54 15 NDM NDM NDM Fe-59 30 NDM NDM NDM Co-58 15 NDM NDM NDM Co-60 15 NDM NDM NDM Zn-65 30 NDM NDM NDM Zr-95 30 NDM NDM NDM Nb-95 15 NDM NDM NDM 1-131 15 (e) NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 15 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 18 NDM NDM NDM Ba-140 60 NDM NDM NDM La- 140 15 NDM NDM NDM Tritium 3000 (f) 235 No. 170 338 338 8 213-256 0.6 miles 322-353 322-353 (2/4) Upstream (2/4) (2/4)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 3 of 4)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Control Pathway Total Number Detectable Locations Annual Mean Locations Sampled of Analyses Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), (Unit of Performed (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Measurement) (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction)
Fish Gamma (pCi/kg-wet)
Isotopic 6 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 6.8 No. 170 9.8 9.8 5.7-7.9 1.5 miles 9.0-10.6 9.0-10.6 (2/3) Upstream (2/3) (2/3)Sediment Gamma (pCi/kg-dry)
Isotopic 4 Cs-134 150 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 180 82.1 No. 172 82.1 71.6 49.2-114.9
 
===3.0 miles===
49.2-114.9 49.8-93.4 1(2/2) Downstream (2/2) (2/2).A TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 4 of 4)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia NOTATIONS a. The MDC is defined in ODCM 10.1. Except as noted otherwise, the values listed in this column are the detection capabilities required by ODCM Table 4-3. The values listed in this column are a priori (before the fact) MDCs. In practice, the a posteriori (after the fact) MDCs are generally lower than the values listed. Any a posteriori MDC greater than the value listed in this column is discussed in Section 4.b. Mean and range are based upon detectable measurements only. The fraction of all measurements at specified locations that are detectable is placed in parenthesis.
: c. No Detectable Measurement(s).
: d. Not Applicable.
: e. If a drinking water pathway were to exist, a MDC of 1 pCi/l would have been used (see Table 4-1 of this report).f. If a drinking water pathway were to exist, a MDC of 2000 pCi/l would have been used (see Table 4-1 of this report).g. "Other" stations, identified in the "station type" column of Table 2-2, include community and special stations.
 
===4.0 DISCUSSION===
 
OF RESULTS Included in this section are evaluations of the laboratory results for the various sample types. Comparisons were made between the difference in mean values for pairs of station groups (e.g., indicator and control stations) and the calculated Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD) between these pairs at the 99%Confidence Level (CL). The MDD was determined using the standard Student's t-test. A difference in the mean values which was less than the MDD was considered to be statistically indiscernible.
The 2007 results were compared with past results, including those obtained during pre-operation.
As appropriate, results were compared with their Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) and Reporting Levels (RL) which are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of this report, respectively.
The required MDCs were achieved during laboratory sample analyses.
Any anomalous results are explained within this report.Results of interest are graphed to show historical trends. The data points are tabulated and included in this report. The points plotted and provided in the tables represent mean values of only detectable results. Periods for which no detectable measurements (NDM) were observed or periods for which values were not applicable (e.g., milk indicator, etc.) are plotted as O's and listed in the tables as NDM.Table 4-1 Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC)Analysis Water Airborne Fish Milk Grass or Sediment (pCi/l) Particulate (pCi/kg- (pCi/l) Leafy (pCi/kg-or Gases wet) Vegetation dry)(fCi/m3) (pCi/kg-wet)
Gross Beta 4 10 H-3 2000 (a)Mn-54 15 130 Fe-59 30 260 Co-58 15 130 Co-60 15 130 Zn-65 30 260 Zr-95 30 Nb-95 15 1-131 1 (b) 70 1 60 Cs-134" 15 50 130 15 60 150 Cs-137 18 60 150 18 80 180 Ba-140 60 60 La-140 15 15 (a) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 3000 pCi/1 may be used.(b) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 15 pCi/1 may be used.4-1 Table 4-2 Reporting Levels (RL)Analysis Water Airborne Fish Milk (pCi/l) Grass or Leafy (pCi/l) Particulate (pCi/kg-wet)
Vegetation or Gases (pCi/kg-wet)(fCi/m3)H-3 20,000 (a)Mn-54 1000 30,000 Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1000 30,000 Co-60 300 10,000 Zn-65 300 20,000 Zr-95 400 Nb-95 700 1-131 2 (b) 900 3 100 Cs-134 30 10,000 1000 60 1000 Cs-137 50 20,000 2000 70 2000 Ba- 140 200 300 La- 140 100 400 (a) This is the 40 CFR 141 value for drinking water samples.exists, a value of 30,000 may be used.If no drinking water pathway (b) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 20 pCi/1 may be used.4-2 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 preoperation, and the earlier years of operation.
Some long lived radionuclides, such as Cs-137, continue to be detectable.
Significant upward trends also followed the Chernobyl incident which began on April 26, 1986.In accordance with ODCM 4.1.1.2.1, deviations from the required sampling schedule are permitted, if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, unavailability, inclement weather, equipment malfunction or other just reasons.Deviations from conducting the REMP as described in Table 2-1 are summarized in Table 4-3 along with their causes and resolutions.
All results were tested for conformance to Chauvenet's criterion (G. D. Chase and J. L. Rabinowitz, Principles of Radioisotope Methodology, Burgess Publishing Company, 1962, pages 87-90) to identify values which differed from the mean of a set by a statistically significant amount. Identified outliers were investigated to determine the reason(s) for the difference.
If equipment malfunction or other valid physical reasons were identified as causing the variation, the anomalous result was excluded from the data set as non-representative.
No data were excluded exclusively for failing Chauvenet's criterion.
Data exclusions are discussed in this section under the appropriate sample typfe.4-3 TABLE 4-3 DEVIATIONS FROM RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM COLLECTION AFFECTED DEVIATION CAUSE RESOLUTION PERIOD SAMPLES 02/05/07-02/12/07 AF/AC Non-representative sample of Controlled burn in area; heavy Filter changed out.CR2008104458 Station 107 airborne particulates.
particulate load on filter.EXCLUDED 1.2 miles SE 1 St Quarter All REMP TLD Large number of TLD results Unknown. Used results from elements 3 CR2007111350 Stations with high standard deviations, and 4 only to determine direct radiation dose.07/30/07-08/06/07 AF/AC Non-representative sample of Motor was "locked up"; lost 81 Sample station operated CR2007107613 Station 116 airborne particulates.
hours of sample time. Motor satisfactorily after motor EXCLUDED 1.6 miles NNW replaced.
replaced.4 th Quarter TLDs TLDs found on ground at Fallen tree limb was apparent cause. Replaced TLDs at beginning CR2008104156 Station 107 collection time. of quarter.1.2 miles SE 4.1 Land Use Census and River Survey In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted on November 12 and 13, 2007, to determine the locations of the nearest permanent residence and milk animal in each of the 16 compass sectors within a distance of 5 miles, and the locations of all milk animals within a distance of 3 miles. A milk animal is defined as a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption.
The locations of beef cattle and of gardens greater than 500 square feet producing broad leaf vegetation were also included in the census. The census results are tabulated in the Table 4. 1 -1.Table 4.1-1 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS Distance in Miles to Nearest Location in Each Sector SECTOR RESIDENCE MILK ANIMAL BEEF CATTLE J GARDEN N 2.1 None None 3.8 NNE 2.9 None None 3.5 NE 3.3 None 3.5 None ENE 4.2 None 4.1 None E 3.0 None None None ESE 3.8 None None None SE 1.8 None 2.3 3.5 SSE 2.0 None 2.2 4.3 S 1.1 None 2.3 2.3 SSW 1.5 None 2.0 None SW 1.1 None 2.3 1.6 WSW 1.0 None 1.6 1.6 W 1.1 None 2.8 2.1 WNW 1.1 None None None NW 3.6 None 3.2 None NNW 1.8 None 2.8 3.6 4-5 ODCM 4.1.2.2.1 requires a new controlling receptor to be identified if the land use census identifies a location that yields a calculated receptor dose greater than the one in current use. No change in the controlling receptor was required as a result of the 2007 land use census. The current controlling receptor as described in ODCM Table 3-7 is a child in the WSW Sector at 1.2 miles ODCM 4.1.2.2.2 requires that whenever the land use census identifies a location which would yield a calculated dose (via the same ingestion pathway) 20% greater than that of a current indicator station, the new location must become a REMP station (if samples are available).
The 2007 land use census did not identify a garden which yielded a calculated dose 20% greater than that for any of the current indicator stations for vegetation.
The results of the census were corroborated by inquiries to the county extension agents in the 5 counties in the vicinity of the plant.As required by Note f of Table 2-1, the annual survey of the Altamaha River for 50 miles downstream of the plant was conducted on September 24, 2007 to identify any withdrawal of river water for drinking purposes.
No sources of withdrawal for drinking water or irrigation purposes were identified.
Information obtained from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources on September 27, 2007 and October 11, 2007 indicated that no surface water withdrawal permits for agricultural or drinking purposes had been issued for this stretch of the Altamaha River between the 2006 survey and the 2007 survey. Should it be determined that river water downstream of the plant is being used for drinking, the sampling and analysis requirements for drinking water found in Table 2:1 would be implemented.
4-6
 
===4.2 Airborne===
As indicated in Table 2-2 and Figures 2-1 and 2-2, airborne particulates and airborne radioiodine are collected at 4 indicator stations (Nos. 103, 107, 112 and 116) which encircle the plant near the site periphery and at 2 control stations (Nos.304 and 309) which are located approximately 10 miles from the main stack. At each location, air is continuously drawn through a glass fiber filter and a charcoal canister placed in series to collect airborne particulates and radioiodine.
The filters and canisters are collected weekly and analyzed for gross beta and 1-131, respectively.
A gamma isotopic analysis is performed quarterly on a composite of the filters for each station.The 2007 annual average weekly 3 gross beta concentration of 24.4 fCi/m 3 for the indicator stations was 0.1 fCi/m3 greater than that for the control stations (24.3 fCi/m3). This difference is not statistically discernible, since it is less than the calculated MDD of 1.9 fCi/m 3.Figure 4.2-1 and Table 4.2-1 provide the historical trending of the average weekly gross beta concentrations in air. In general, there is close agreement between the results for the indicator and control stations.
This close agreement supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to the gross beta concentration in air.Figure 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 300 250 9 200 C.)0150 o100 0 50 0 IQo Year I- MDC -U1-Indicator
-*-ControlI 4-7 Table 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration Year Indicator Control (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3)Pre-op 140 140 1974 87 90 1975 85 90 1976 135 139 1977 239 247 1978 130 137 1979 38 39 1980 49 48 1981 191 203 1982 33 34 1983 31 30 1984 26 28 1985 22 21 1986 36 38 1987 23 22 1988 22.6 21.7 1989 18.4 17.8 1990 19.3 18.7 1991 18.1 18 1992 18.5 18.4 1993 20.4 20.7 1994 19.5 19.7 1995 21.7 21.7 1996 21.3 21.4 1997 20.3 20.7 1998 20.0 20.5 1999 21.3 21.3 2000 23.6 23.9 2001 21.5 21.0 2002 19.3 19.2 2003 18.8 18.2 2004 21.4 21.3 2005 19.7 19.4 2006 24.9 24.7 2007 24.4 24.3 4-8 During 2007, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the quarterly composites of the particulate air filters. During preoperation and during operation through 1986, a number of fission products and activation products were detected.These were generally attributed to the nuclear weapons tests and to the Chernobyl incident.On only one occasion since 1986, has a man-made radionuclide been detected in a quarterly composite.
A small amount of Cs-137 (1.7 fCi/m3) was identified in the first quarter of 1991 at Station 304. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in air are 60 and 20,000 fCi/m3, respectively.
The historical trending of the average annual concentrations of detectable Cs-137 from quarterly air filter composites is provided in Figure 4.2-2 and Table 4.2-2.Figure 4.2-2 60 50 E 40 0 o 30 0 q 20 0 lO 0 Average Annual Cs-1 37 Concentration in Air........1ý1 I(N 10 ý, 1" 0 0 Yea 0)r 1-+-Indicator -U-Control -MDC 4-9 Table 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration In Air Year Indicator Control (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3)Pre-op NDM 2.0 1974 1.5 2.0 1975 1.4 1.4 1976 0.6 0.7 1977 1.5 1.4 1978 2.3 2.6 1979 0.8 0.8 1980 0.4 0.6 1981 1.8 1.7 1982 0.5 0.6 1983 0.7 NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 0.7 NDM 1986 8.1 9.6 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM 1.7 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 4-10 No airborne 1-131 was detected in the charcoal canisters in 2007. During 1976, 1977, and 1978, positive levels of 1-131 were found in nearly all of the samples collected for a period of a few weeks following atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.Some of the concentrations were on the order of 70 fCi/m 3.In 1986, the same phenomenon occurred following the Chernobyl incident.
The highest airborne 1-131 concentration found to date in an individual charcoal canister was 217 fCi/m3 in 1977. The MDC and RL for airborne 1-131 are 70 fCi/m 3 and 900 fCi/m 3 , respectively.
Table 4-3 lists REMP deviations that occurred in 2007. Two deviations involved air sampling.
The first incident happened 02/05/07-02/12/07 at Station 107 when a controlled burn by the Land Dept. resulted in heavy loading on the air filter. The second incident happened 07/30/07-08/06/07 when the air pump motor at Station 116 "locked up" and resulted in a loss of 81 hours during the collection period.The results from both of these air samples failed Chauvenet's Criterion and were excluded from the data set.4-11
 
===4.3 Direct===
Radiation Direct (external) radiation is measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Two Panasonic UD-814 TLD badges are placed at each station. Each badge contains three phosphors composed of calcium sulfate crystals (with thulium impurity).
The gamma dose at each station is based upon the average readings of the phosphors from the two badges. The badges for each station are placed in thin plastic bags for. protection from moisture while in the field. The badges are nominally exposed for periods of a quarter of a year (91 days). An inspection is performed near mid-quarter to assure that all badges are on-station and to replace any missing or damaged badges.Two TLD stations are established in each of the 16 compass sectors around the plant to form 2 concentric rings, as seen in Figures 2-1 and 2-2. The two ring configuration of stations was established in 1980, in accordance with NRC Branch Technical Position "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program", Revision 1, 1979. With the exception of the East sector, the inner ring stations (Nos. 101 through 116) are located near the site boundary and the outer ring stations (Nos. 201 through 216) are located at distances of 4 to 5 miles from the plant. The stations in the East sector are a few miles farther out than 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 3 control stations (Nos. 304, 309 and 416) are located 10 miles or more from the plant. Stations 064 and 301 monitor special interest areas.Station 064 is located at the onsite roadside park, while Station 301 is located near the Toombs Central School. Station 210, in the outer ring, is located near the Altamaha School (the only other nearby school).As provided in Table 3-1, the average quarterly exposure measured at the indicator stations (inner ring) during 2007 Was 12.8 mR. At the control stations, the average quarterly exposure was 12.5 mR. This difference (0.3 mR) is not statistically discernible since it is less than the MDD of 1.4 mR.The quarterly exposures acquired at the outer ring stations during 2007 ranged from 9.0 to 17.8 mR, with an average of 12.6 mR. The average for the outer ring stations was 0.1 mR more than the average for the control stations.
Since the results for the outer ring stations and the control stations differ by less than the MDD of 1.5 mR, there is no discernible difference between outer ring and control station results for 2007.The historical trending of the average quarterly exposures for the indicator inner ring, outer ring, and the control stations are plotted in Figure 4.3-1 and listed in Table 4.3-1. 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.The close agreement between the station groups supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to direct radiation in the environment.
4-12 Figure 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 30-25 0 0. Hr X Year-4--Indicator  --Control A Outer Ring 4-13 Table 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation Year Indicator (mR) J Control (mR) Outer Ring (mR)Pre-op 22.3 23 NA 1974 23.2 25.6 NA 1975 10.0 10.5 NA 1976 8.18 6.9 NA 1977 7.31 6.52 NA 1978 6.67 6.01 NA 1979 5.16 6.77 NA 1980 4.44 5.04 4.42 1981 5.9 5.7 5.7 1982 12.3 12 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 14 14.5 1987 14.9 14.6 15.3 1988 15.0 14.7 15.2 1989 16.4 18.0 16.5 1990 14.9 13.9 14.7 1991 15.1 13.7 15.6 1992 11.9 10.9 12.3 1993 11.6 10.7 11.5 1994 11 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 4-14 The historical trending of the average quarterly exposures at the special interest areas for the past 19 years is provided in Figure 4.3-2 and listed in Table 4.3-2. These exposures are within the range of those acquired at the other stations.
They too, show that the plant is not contributing significantly to direct radiation at the special interest areas.Figure 4.3-2 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation at Special Interest Areas 25-20-010-----------------------------I-------aCentra----------a----
0 01 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year-*-Roadside Park (Sta 064) -W- Toombs Central School (Sta 301)4-15 Table 4.3-2 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation at Special Interest Areas Period Station 064 Station 301 (mR) (mR)1986 14.6 15.1 1987 14.2 15.0 1988 14.9 15.3 1989 16.1 16.6 1990 15.1 14.4 1991 14.4 15.2 1992 11.1 11.5 1993 11.2 10.8 1994 10.4 10.7 1995 11.0 10.5 1996 11.7 11.0 1997 12.6 11.4 1998 12.4 11.8 1999 12.5 12.4 2000 13.3 12.6 2001 11.8 11.3 2002 11.4 11.4 2003 11.2 11.1 2004 11.9 12.3 2005 11.8 12.4 2006 11.9 11.6 2007 11.9 12.1 In 2007, there were two deviations involving direct radiation measurements.
The first quarter deviation is discussed in the last paragraph below. In the fourth quarter, the TLDs at Station 107 were found on the ground. The results passed Chauvenet's Criterion and were retained in the data set.The standard deviation for the quarterly result for each badge was subjected to a self-imposed limit of 1.4. This limit is based upon the standard deviations obtained with the Panasonic UD-814 badges during 1992 and is calculated using a method developed by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Special Technical Publication 15D, ASTM Manual on Presentation of Data and Control Chart Analysis, Fourth Revision, Philadelphia, PA, October 1976).4-16 The limit serves as a flag to initiate an investigation.
To be conservative, readings with a standard deviation greater than 1.4 are excluded from the data set since the high standard deviation is interpreted as an indication of unacceptable variation in TLD response.
In 2007, the following TLD results were excluded from the data set because their standard deviations were greater than 1.4: First Quarter 108A, 108B, 109B, 110A, 114B, 204A, 210A, 211B, 212B, and 216A Second Quarter 309B Third Quarter None Fourth Quarter None For the stations listed above, where one badge at a station exhibited a standard deviation greater than 1.4, the reading of the companion badge at each location was used to determine the quarterly exposure.
A deviation occurred in the first quarter that involved a large number of TLD results which had high standard deviations.
To minimize data loss, only the results from elements 3 and 4 were used to determine dose. The badges exceeding the self-imposed limit were visually inspected under a microscope and the glow curve and test results for the anneal data and the element correction factors were reviewed.
No reason was evident for the high standard deviation.
4-17 4.4 Milk Milk samples are obtained biweekly from Station 304 (the state prison dairy)which is a control station located more than 10 miles from the plant. Gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses are performed on each sample as specified in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Since 1989, efforts to locate a reliable milk sample source within 5 miles of the plant have been unsuccessful.
During 2007, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the milk samples. Cesium-137 was found in most of the samples each year from 1978 (when this analysis became a requirement) through 1989. No other man-made radionuclides have been detected by this analysis.The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in milk are 18 and 70 pCi/l, respectively.
The historical trending of the average annual detectable Cs- 137 concentration in milk is provided in Figure 4.4-1 and Table 4.4-1.Figure 4.4-1 (U CL 0 U.Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 25-!15 lkl I I I o1! _ _ x! \ .... ..........250------------------------------------------------------------
20-----------------------------------------,Qo XA '0 2ý 0 4", Year I--*-Indicator -U- Control -MDCI 4-18 Table 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk Year Indicator Control (pCi/l) (pCi/l)Pre-op 19.9 19.4 1974 NDM NDM 1975 NDM NDM 1976 NDM NDM 1977 NDM NDM 1978 12.1 18.3 1979 16.1 13 1980 14.7 15.4 1981 12.57 10.2 1982 11.8 11 1983 12 7.2 1984 9.6 10.2 1985 9.14 5.35 1986 9.8 10 1987 NDM NDM 1988 10.9 NDM 1989 8.6 7.9 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 4-19 During 2007, 1-131 was not detected in any of the milk samples. During preoperation, all readings were less than 2 pCi/I which was the allowed MDC at that time. Figure 4.4-2 and Table 4.4-2 provide the historical trending of the average annual detectable concentration of 1-131 in milk. In 1988, a single reading of 0.32 pCi/l, which was believed to have resulted from a procedural deficiency, was reported.
The MDC and RL for 1-131 in milk are 1 and 3 pCi/l, respectively.
All the detectable results for Cs-137 and 1-131 are attributed to fallout from the nuclear weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident.Figure 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk 16 -I 14--- -- --------------12-Cu 0 qO q; %II1b %A %qll A ý P , 2 --------- ---------------Year-Indicator -U--Control
-MDC -RL 4-20 Table 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk Year Indicator Control (pCi/l) (pCi/l)Pre-op NDM NDM 1974 0.98 2.6 1975 0.3 NDM 1976 12.23 9.1 1977 14.61 4.08 1978 2.72 4.18 1979 NDM NDM 1980 1.26 0.69 1981 NDM. NDM 1982 NDM NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 8.9 7.6 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM 0.32 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 4-21
 
===4.5 Vegetation===
In accordance with Tables 2-1 and 2-2, grass samples are collected monthly from two indicator stations near the site boundary (Nos. 106 and 112) and at one control station located about 21 miles from the plant (No. 416). Gamma isotopic analyses are performed on each sample. Gamma isotopic analysis on vegetation samples began in 1978 when the analysis became a TS requirement.
The results presented in Table 3-1 show that Cs-137 was the only man-made radionuclide detected in vegetation samples during 2007. Cs-137 was detected in ten samples collected at the indicator stations at an average value of 55.7 pCi/kg-wet. Two samples collected at the control station had detectable Cs-137 at an average of 31.1 pCi/kg-wet.
The difference of 24.6 pCi/kg/wet between the control and the indicator averages is statistically discernible; it is greater than the MDD of 19.6 pCi/kg-wet.
The Cs-137 seen at the indicator stations could potentially be attributed to plant effluents.
Since 1986, Cs-137 has been the only man-made radionuclide found in vegetation samples. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in vegetation samples are 80 pCi/kg-wet and 2000 pCi/kg-wet, respectively.
The occasional presence of Cs-137 in vegetation samples is attributed primarily to fallout from nuclear weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident.Figure 4.5-1 and Table 4.5-1 provide the historical trending of the average annual detectable Cs-137 concentration found in vegetation.
'Since 1978, the Cs-137 concentration has been on a decline, and since about 1989, generally occurring below the required MDC.4-22 Figure 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-1 37 Concentration in Vegetation 1200 1000 400 0 2 800 U 2 00 0 qo i I/ I I k z I I 46 (\10 19 I b %-1-bdcao
--onrl D Year I--*-Indicator -U-Control -MDC 4-23 Table 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Vegetation Year Indicator Control (pCi/kg-wet) (pCi/kg-wet)
Pre-op 55 30 1974 NDM NDM 1975 NDM NDM 1976 NDM NDM 1977 NDM NDM 1978 112 1089 1979 59 695 1980 208 916 1981 182 152 1982 65 99 1983 95 211 1984 149 388 1985 60.9 113.3 1986 80 215 1987 60 428 1988 40.1 228.8 1989 37 NDM 1990 66.7 34.5 1991 34.1 36.1 1992 35.2 41.3 1993 24.7 45.8 1994 32.2 46.6 1995 49.8 47.6 1996 47.2 41.1 1997 48.4 54.9 1998 81.4 44.1 1999 26.9 NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 33.7 41.1 2003 61.0 62.8 2004 41.6 43.5 2005 47.7 39.8 2006 66.8 29.6 2007 55.7 31.1 4-24
 
===4.6 River===
Water Surface water from the Altamaha River is obtained at an upstream location (Station 170) and at a downstream location (Station 172) using automatic samplers.
Small quantities are drawn at intervals not exceeding a few hours. The samples drawn are collected monthly and quarterly composites are produced from the monthly collections.
As specified in Table 2-1, a gamma isotopic analysis is conducted on each monthly sample. No man-made gamma emitters were detected during 2007. The only man-made gamma emitters previously detected are presented in the table below.Year Quarter Station Radionuclide Level I I_ (pCi/I)1975 4th 172 Ce-141 78.2 1986 2nd 170 La- 140 18.0 1986 2nd 172 Cs-137 12.0 1988 j 2nd 170 Cs-137 6.8 A tritium analysis is performed on the quarterly composite.
Prior to 1986, positive results were usually found in each quarterly composite at levels generally ranging from 200 and 350 pCi/1 which is approximately background environmental levels.Subsequently, the number of positive results have diminished.
In 2007, tritium was detected in two of the four quarterly samples at the upstream (control) location and in two of the four quarterly samples at the downstream (indicator) location.
The average of the two indicator samples was 235 pCi/l (the range was 213-256 pCi/1). The average of the two positive control samples was 338 pCi/l (the range was 322-353 pCi/l). The difference between the two stations is greater than the MDD of 59 pCi/l. However, these. low levels are essentially background environmental levels. The MDC and RL for tritium in river water are 3000 and 30,000 pCi/l, respectively.
Figure 4.6-1 and Table 4.6-1 provide the historical trending of the annual average detectable tritium concentration in river water.The annual 50 mile downstream survey of the Altamaha River to determine if river water is being withdrawn for drinking purposes is discussed in Section 4.1.4-25 Figure 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in River Water 3500 ------- -- --------- -2000 C-)0.0 U 1500 1000 --500 Year1 _ ..4 IMA 0 4 0 -ý, 4p d, ZAI 1---Indicator -m-Control
-MDC I 4-26 Table 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in River Water Year Indicator Control (pCi/l) (pCi/l)Pre-op 210 191 1974 230 205 1975 205 238 1976 165 153 1977 189 170 1978 224 193 1979 210 180 1980 358 218 1981 220 135 1982 165 220 1983 265 328 1984 437 327 1985 288 220 1986 242 206 1987 241 204 1988 220 NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 139 NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 200 NDM 1996 144 147 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 209 NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM 261 2004 206 302 2005 245 NDM 2006 299 NDM 2007 235 338 4-27 4.7 Fish Gamma isotopic analyses were performed on the edible portion of the fish samples collected at the river stations on April 9, 2007 and October 29, 2007. The control station (No. 170) is located upstream of the plant while the indicator station (No.172) is located downstream.
As shown in Table 3-1, Cs-137 was the only man-made radionuclide detected in fish during 2007. The average concentration of 6.8 pCi/kg-wet at the indicator station was 3.0 pCi/kg-wet less than the average concentration found at the control station (9.8 pCi/kg-wet).
This difference is not statistically discernible since it is less than the calculated MDD of 4.1 pCi/kg-wet.
Cs-137 in fish samples is attributed primarily to weapons testing and the Chernobyl incident.
The MDC and RL for Cs- 137 in fish are 150 and 2000 pCi/kg-wet, respectively.
The historical trending of the average annual detectable Cs-137 concentration in fish is provided in Figure 4.7-1 and Table 4.7-1. Figure 4.7-1 indicates, in general, a decline in the Cs-137 levels after 1983. (Note: From 1979 through 1982, clams were collected rather than fish.)Figure 4.7-1 Average Annual Cs-1 37 Concentration in Fish 160-140--t 1 U 08.2--0 Year-4-Indicator  Control -MDC 4-28 Table 4.7-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Fish Year Indicator Control (pCi/kg-wet) (pCi/kg-wet)
Pre-op 90 115 1974 134 61 1975 80.6 89.4 1976 73 88 1977 76 91 1978 88 47 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 NDM NDM 1982 NDM NDM 1983 138.6 67.5 1984 84 53 1985 117 63.3 1986 79 44 1987 62 52 1988 77.8 33.3 1989 34.3 28.9 1990 26.7 24.2 1991 32.9 26.9 1992 41.6 28.8 1993 38.0 25.9 1994 23.8 20.7 1995 25.0 27.9 1996 20.4 18.0 1997 29.4 15.1 1998 26.1 17.7 1999 22.3 13.5 2000 17.9 25.3 2001 20.8 10.2 2002 18.2 13.0 2003 13.1 7.1 2004 11.6 18.8 2005 13.0 13.3 2006 10.4 13.5 200 6. 4___ _ ___8 _ _4-29 In the past, the only other man-made radionuclides detected in fish samples were Co-60 and Cs-I134. During preoperation, Co-60 was detected in one fish sample at a very low concentration.
During the period of 1983 through 1988, Cs-134 was found in about half of the samples at concentrations of the same order of magnitude as those found for Cs-137. The Co-60 and Cs-134 levels found in these samples are attributed to the nuclear weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident.Figure 4.7-2 and Table 4.7-2 show the historical trending of the annual average detectable concentration of Cs-134 in fish.Figure 4.7-2 Average Annual Cs-134 Concentration in Fish 1 L)C.).2 0'U 140-120-100.o 40-2o0k oi .. I I. I ..........
qo '0 4` 'P '9 .A '; 4, , CP CP 4A CP '6, 'Z C Year-4-Indicator
----Control -MDC 4-30 Table 4.7-2 Average Annual Cs-134 Concentration in Fish Year Indicator Control (pCi/kg-wet) (pCi/kg-wet)
Pre-op NDM NDM 1974 NDM NDM 1975 NDM NDM 1976 NDM NDM 1977 NDM NDM 1978 NDM NDM 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 NDM NDM 1982 NDM NDM 1983 101.8 NDM 1984 35.8 26.3 1985 46.7 21.1 1986 29 NDM 1987 69 15 1988 21.7 6.9 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 4-31
 
===4.8 Sediment===
Sediment was collected along the shoreline of the Altamaha River on May 7 and November 5, 2007, at the upstream control station (No. 170) and the downstream indicator station (No. 172). A gamma isotopic analysis was performed on each sample.Co-60 was not found in sediment samples in 2007. With the exception of a few years, Co-60 has been found at either the indicator or the control station every year since 1986. There is no RL or MDC assigned to Co-60 in sediment in ODCM Tables 4-2 and 4-3 (Tables 4-2 and 4-1 of this report). The MDC assigned by the EL for Co-60 in sediment is 70 pCi/kg-dry.
The historical trending of the average annual detectable Co-60 concentration in sediment is provided in Figure 4.8-1 and Table 4.8-1.Figure 4.8-1 Average Annual Co-60 Concentration in Sediment 250 Q150-0.1-0 0.---------------I-0 --- --- ---- -Year--Indicator -U-MControl -MDC 4-32 Table 4.8-1 Average Annual Co-60 Concentration in Sediment Year Indicator Control (pCi/kg-dry) (pCi/kg-dry)
Pre-op NDM NDM 1974 NDM NDM 1975 NDM NDM 1976 NDM NDM 1977 NDM NDM 1978 NDM NDM 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 NDM NDM 1982 NDM NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 108 33 1987 NDM NDM 1988 67.8 NDM 1989 NDM 31 1990 33 19 1991 123.6 NDM 1992 81.4 NDM 1993 70.7 NDM 1994 218 NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 118.5 NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 79.4 NDM 1999 107.7 NDM 2000 70.0 NDM 2001 58.1 NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM 31.5 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007ND __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _4-33 Co-60 was not detected in sediment samples near the plant until 1986, the year of the Chernobyl incident.
However, because Co-60 was detected in indicator station samples more often than in control station samples during the years 1986 through 2002, some contribution from plant effluents cannot be ruled out. Co-60 has not been detected in either control or indicator station samples since 2004.In 2007, Cs-137 was detected in both indicator and control station sediment samples. It has been found in over 95% of all of the sediment samples collected back through preoperation, and is generally attributed to the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests or to the Chernobyl incident.
As shown in Table 3-1, the average at the indicator station was 82.1 pCi/kg-dry and at the control station was 71.6 pCi/kg-dry.
The difference (10.5 pCi/kg-dry) between the stations is not statistically discernible since it is less than the MDD of 275 pCi/kg-dry.
The MDC for Cs-137 in sediment is 180 pCi/kg-dry.
The historical trending of the average annual detectable Cs- 137 concentration in sediment is provided in Figure 4.8-2 and Table 4.8-2.Figure 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment C,.2 0 4-4-ou 0 1000 -1 1 1 ----- ----------------6000 500--400-- -- -----300-- --- -----Onn LL --- -----" i1.-,N ! I 100 0 IV Vl1t~"!-N'im r qo Ab '0 -,* -bb, Year$4-Indicator -U-1-Control -MDCI 4-34 Table 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment Year Indicator Control (pCi/kg-dry) (pCi/kg-dry)
Pre-op 170 270 1974 218 57 1975 330 615 1976 211 300 1977 364 200 1978 330 260 1979 NDM 310 1980 240 NDM 1981 590 110 1982 141 285 1983 384 365 1984 500 260 1985 76.5 269 1986 238 190-1987 59 39 1988 903 114 1989 56 62 1990 130.5 66 1991 43.1 54.5 1992 151 198.5 1993 113 115 1994 127 104 1995 52.3 80.6 1996 106 110 1997 186 137 1998 148.5 101.4 1999 92 111.8 2000 68.1 114.5 2001 68.7 69.6 2002 68.1 62.8 2003 57.3 106 2004 59.5 57.1 2005 57.2 30.3 2006 85.2 79.2 2007 82.1 71.6 4-35 Other man-made nuclides, besides Co-60 and Cs-137, were occasionally found in past years. Their presence was generally attributed to the nuclear weapons tests or to the Chernobyl incident, although plant releases were not ruled out. Mn-54, Co-58, and Zn-65, which have relatively short half-lives, are most likely a result of plant releases and have been plotted in Figure 4.8-3 along with their MDCs. All the man-made nuclides detected in sediment except for Co-60 and Cs-137 have been listed in Table 4.8-3. The Cs-134 MDC (150 pCi/kg-dry) is defined in ODCM Table 4-3 (Table 4-1 of this report). The MDCs for Mn-54 (42 pCi/kg-dry) and Zn-65 (129 pCi/kg-dry) were determined by the EL since no values are provided in ODCM Table 4-3.Figure 4.8-3 Average Annual Indicator Station Concentrations of Select Nuclides in Sediment 600 500] I I I I I I I I I I I I H i i i i i i- I I 0, C.2 0 U-400---- --100---------------
0- ------- --Year 4 Mn-54-Mn-MDC--- Zn-65-Zn-MDC A Cs-134-Cs-MDC 4-36 Table 4.8-3 Sediment Nuclide Concentrations Other Than Co-60 & Cs-137 Nuclide YEAR Indicator Control (pCi/kg-dry) (pCi/kg-dry)
Ce-141 1976 340 254 1977 141 Ce-144 Preop 720 1974 363 1975 342 389 1978 700 1981 1290 Co-58 1994 22.2 Cs-134 Preop 40 1981 280 1984 130 40 1986 132 1988 505 1990 31 Mn-54 1975 36.1 1986 28 26 1991 57.2 1996 77.7 Ru-103 1974 81 1976 158 1977 195 1981 220 Zn-65 1986 175 1988 136 1991 250.5 1992 83 1993 39.9 1994 332 Zr-95 Preop 180 1974 138 1976 427 170 1977 349 294 1978 220 230 1981 860 280 4-37
 
===4.9 Groundwater===
As nuclear plants began to undergo decommissioning in the late 1990's to early 2000s, instances of subsurface and/or groundwater contamination were identified.
In addition, several operating facilities also identified groundwater contamination resulting from spills and leaks or equipment failure. In one instance, low levels of licensed material were detected in a private well located on property adjacent to a nuclear power plant.In 2006, NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) formed a task force to address monitoring onsite groundwater for radionuclides at nuclear facilities.
A Groundwater Protection Initiative was developed which was adopted by all U.S. commercial operating nuclear plants.The NRC also formed a task force to study the groundwater issues and released Information Notice 2006-13 "Ground-water Contamination due to Undetected Leakage of Radioactive Water" which summarized its review of radioactive contamination of ground water at multiple facilities as a result of undetected leakage from structures, systems, or components that contain or transport radioactive fluids. Licensees were instructed to review the information for applicability and to consider appropriate actions to avoid similar problems.The NEI task force felt it was prudent for the industry to update site hydrology information and to develop radiological groundwater monitoring plans at each site.These groundwater protection plans would ensure that underground leaks and spills would be addressed promptly.
Additionally, the task force recommended developing a communications protocol to report radioactive leaks or spills that entered groundwater (or might eventually enter groundwater) to the NRC and State and Local government officials as needed.Plant Hatch has monitored onsite groundwater since preoperation.
Initially piezometers, which were installed prior to plant construction, were used to monitor groundwater.
In the late 1970s to the early 1980s timeframe, a hydrological engineering consultant was hired to evaluate several areas where leaks had occurred and tritium had been detected in onsite wells. The consultant recommended drilling additional monitoring wells to study the groundwater ,movement, to determine the source of the leaks, and to track the tritium concentrations in groundwater.
In the late 1970s through the mid 1980s, Hatch reported groundwater results to the NRC. The reporting frequency was decreased for several reasons -the areas where the groundwater showed tritium were all onsite and the movement of groundwater was extremely slow and in a direction (towards the river) that was not expected to impact the public. Although the reports are no longer made on a routine basis, Plant Hatch has continued to monitor onsite groundwater wells for tritium on a scheduled frequency.
In 2006 as the nuclear industry was moving towards establishing groundwater monitoring programs, Plant Hatch hired a hydrological engineering consultant to re-evaluate the groundwater study which had been done previously.
The key purpose of the new study was to evaluate the adequacy of the current monitoring program and to diagram the existing groundwater tritium plume to ensure that the plume had not migrated offsite. The consultant concluded that tritium was not leaving the site through the groundwater.
The consultant recommended installing 4-38 additional monitoring wells to better characterize the groundwater plume in areas of the site where there were no existing wells.During the course of Plant Hatch's groundwater evaluation in 2006, some leaks were discovered which explained why the levels of tritium around CST-1 (Unit 1 Condensate Storage Tank) were not decreasing.
Underground piping which carried radioactive liquids was evaluated over the plant site and replaced in some areas around CST-1. Both CST tank/pump moats (Unit 1 and Unit 2) were coated and sealed to ensure that moats would not leak in the event of transfer pump or tank leaks.In 2006, Plant Hatch's groundwater monitoring program included over 50 location points which were sampled on weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annual frequencies (see maps at the end of this section).
Included in these sample points were the onsite drinking water wells. They did not contain detectable amounts of radioactivity.
Surface drains or outfalls were also included as sample points.Tritium was detected in two of the outfalls which discharged to the river. These outfalls were added to the Hatch ODCM as radiological effluent release points.Permitted release point Y22N008A (by design) discharges groundwater from the site subsurface drainage system which includes the tritiated groundwater around the CST-1. The other permitted release point, Y22N003A, discharges runoff from the roof drains. The source of tritium in this outfall is believed to be from rain washout of the gaseous plant effluents.
Plant Hatch sampled rainfall during two rain events in 2006 and found tritium levels as high as 4.58E5 pCi/l on the reactor building roof. Two other outfalls, Y22N024A and Y22N025A, which discharge into the onsite swamp show sporadic levels of tritium. The source of tritium in these outfalls is also believed to be from rain washout.In 2007, Hatch continued to aggressively monitor the groundwater tritium plume especially in two areas of higher activity around CST- 1 and CST-2. The amount of seasonal rainfall during 2007 seems to have had some correlation with the tritium concentrations in the T-12 well near CST-1. During early spring and late fall rainy seasons, the concentrations of tritium were at their highest levels, whereas, during the summer and early fall drought season the tritium concentrations decreased significantly.
This is indicative of water table level fluctuations.
However, this same seasonal affect was not observed in the newer NW1O monitoring well installed in 2006 near CST-2. The tritium concentration in NW1O increased from February 2007 through September 2007 by a factor of 2.5. Events which could have contributed to the increase were a CST-2 transfer pump leak (in November 2006) which led to an accumulation of a couple feet of CST-2 water in the pump moat. Although the moat had been sealed earlier in 2006, there was a possibility that some of the contaminated water seeped through the concrete moat and gradually seeped through the ground to NW10. In addition, there was a deep hole dug (in January 2007) near the CST-2 (and NW1O) to replace some CST-2 piping. The hole may have altered groundwater flow toward NW1O from the CST-1 groundwater plume and resulted in higher concentrations of tritium being drawn to NW1O.Southern Nuclear developed a company-wide communications protocol which is contained in the Nuclear Management Procedure, Actions for Potential Groundwater Contamination Events, to ensure radioactive leaks and spills would be addressed and communicated appropriately.
The guidance in this procedure was used to informally update both the NRC and the State of Georgia regarding the changes in Hatch's groundwater tritium concentrations.
4-39 In 2008, Hatch will make further enhancements to the groundwater tritium monitoring program. Several more shallow wells have been planned as well as several deeper wells. In addition, two other groups within Southern Company will be utilized to conduct an improved sampling program and to provide additional expertise in characterizing groundwater quality and flow. The groundwater tritium plume map will be updated in 2008 with the onset of the new monitoring program.The plume map shown on the following page (from October 2006) is a representation of the groundwater conditions at Plant Hatch with the exception of the increased tritium concentrations at NW10 which are in the range of 1E5 to 2E5 pCi/l.4-40 rlexa-nd-Th--h T-1611 NIT 1 (]N12B6 W3B 0
* N3A I& 109* MONITORING WELL LOCATION O INTERPOLATED VALUE 0- MODIFIED VALUE USED BASED ON SUBSEQUENT SAMPLING 300-1000 1000-10,000 10.000-50.000 50,000-100.000 100,000-500,000 500.000-1.000.000
>1.000.000 PY5 O SUMP--- -SUBSURFACE DRAIN (APPROXIMATE)
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT BAXLEY, GEORGIA PREPARED BY/DAO E CHECKED BY/DATE FIRST QUARTER SAMPLE POINTS NWýB7 NW7AI" 00 WGTB---..........-
Y22-N022A
--SS2 in. LINE ---- --------------------------------
Y22-N024A
-YD2 in. LINE Y22-N025A
-BASIN TOWER OVERFLOW (02B) in. LINE SECOND QUARTER SAMPLE POINTS NWýBf NW7AII c: 00 WGTB 0"-- ,Y22-NO22A
-SS2 in. LINE Y22-N024A
-YD2 in. LINE Y22-N025A
-BASIN TOWER OVERFLOW (02B) in. LINE THIRD QUARTER SAMPLE POINTS NW7A'" c: 00 F 9-----------------------------, ----Y2-N 2-- SS ----------------- 22-N 22A -SS2-12-in.
LINE Y22-N024A
-YD2 in. LINE* Y22-N025A
-BASIN TOWER OVERFLOW (02B) in. LINE FOURTH QUARTER SAMPLE POINTSNW7A0 00 4 ,,' --L L_-j i 4~~ .........------ , Y22-NO022A
-55S2 in. -LI-NE ------------------
Y22-N024A
-YD2 in. LINE Y22-N025A
-BASIN TOWER OVERFLOW (02B) in. LINE
 
===5.0 INTERLABORATORY===
 
COMPARISON PROGRAM In accordance with ODCM 4.1.3, the EL participates in an ICP that satisfies the requirements of Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)
-Effluent Streams and the Environment", February 1979. The guide indicates the ICP is to be conducted with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies (Cross-check)
Program or an equivalent program, and the ICP should include all of the determinations (sample medium/radionuclide combinations) that are offered by the EPA and included in the REMP.The ICP is conducted by Analytics, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. Analytics has a-documented Quality Assurance (QA) program and the capability to prepare Quality Control (QC) materials traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The ICP is a third party blind testing program which provides a means to ensure independent checks are performed on the accuracy and precision of the measurements of radioactive materials in environmental sample matrices.Analytics supplies the crosscheck samples to the EL which performs the laboratory analyses in a normal manner. Each of the specified analyses is performed three times. The results are then sent to Analytics who performs an evaluation which may be helpful to the EL in the identification of instrument or procedural problems.The samples offered by Analytics and included in the EL analyses are gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter; gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples; and gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples.The accuracy of each result is measured by the normalized deviation, which is the ratio of the reported average less the known value to the total error. The total error is the square root of the sum of the squares of the uncertainties of the known value and of the reported average. The uncertainty of the known value includes all analytical uncertainties as reported by Analytics.
The uncertainty of the reported average is the propagated error of the values in the reported average by the EL.The precision of each result is measured by the coefficient of variation, which is defined as the standard deviation of the reported result divided by the reported average. An investigation is undertaken whenever the absolute value of the normalized deviation is greater than three or whenever the coefficient of variation is greater than 15% for all radionuclides other than Cr-51 and Fe-59. For Cr-51 and Fe-59, an investigation is undertaken when the coefficient of variation exceeds the values shown as follows: Nuclide Concentration
* Total Sample Activity Percent Coefficient (pCi) of Variation Cr-51 <300 NA 25 Cr-51 NA >1000 25 Cr-51 >300 <1000 15 Fe-59 <80 NA 25 Fe-59 >80 NA 15* For air filters, concentration units are pCi/filter.
For all other media, concentration units are pCi/liter (pCi/1).5-1 As required by ODCM 4.1.3.3 and 7.1.2.3, a summary of the results of the EL's participation in the ICP is provided in Table 5-1 for:, the gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of ant air filter; gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples; and gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples. Delineated in this table for each of the media/analysis combinations, are: the specific radionuclides; Analytics' preparation dates; the known values with their uncertainties supplied by Analytics; the reported averages with their standard deviations; and the resultant normalized deviations and coefficients of variation expressed as a percentage.
The GPC EL analyzed 12 samples for 46 parameters in 2007. These analyses included tritium, gross beta, Fe-55, Sr-89/90 and gamma emitting radio-nuclides in different matrices.
The attached results indicate all analyses are acceptable for accuracy and precision for environmental media.5-2 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 1 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide I Prepared Average Value I Deviation EL I Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Gross Beta [ 09/13/07 62.40[ 66.00 1.27 1 1.10 5.73 1 -1.02 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) I of Variation Deviation Ce- 141 09/13/07 134.00 143.00 8.14 9.90 7.39 -0.91 Co-58 09/13/07 78.40 77.20 6.86 8.10 10.32 0.14 Co-60 09/13/07 99.40 100.00 2.35 4.43 4.45 -0.14 Cr-51 09/13/07 203.40 196.00 19.88 36.70 18.04 0.20 Cs- 134 09/13/07 93.80 99.80 4.92 6.10 6.51 -0.99 Cs-137 09/13/07 92.50 88.40 10.08 10.90 11.78 0.37 Fe-59 09/13/07 86.30 74.90 6.42 8.67 10.04 1.32 Mn-54 09/13/07 123.80 114.00 8.17 9.77 7.88 1.00 Zn-65 09/13/07 164.90 137.00 11.81 14.60 8.85 1.91 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE (pCiliter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value I Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce- 141 06/14/07 189.40 200.00 1.16 2.22 5.11 -1.10 Co-58 06/14/07 199.10 198.00 8.82 2.20 6.57 0.09 Co-60 06/14/07 235.10 238.00 1.11 2.64 3.82 -0.32 Cr-51 06/14/07 537.00 512.00 33.36 5.70 10.77 0.43 Cs-134 06/14/07 253.10 242.00 3.56 2.69 3.75 1.17 Cs-137 06/14/07 177.80 169.00 5.18 1.88 5.89 0.84 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 1 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average I Value I Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Fe-59 06/14/07 189.10 167.00 23.67 1.85 13.71 0.85 1-131 06/14/07 71.60 70.10 4.86 0.78 10.50 0.20 Mn-54 06/14/07 182.60 166.00 3.44 1.84 5.30 1.71 Zn-65 06/14/07 352.20 334.00 29.84 3.70 10.18 0.51 GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value I Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce- 141 03/22/07 259.10 258.00 1.7 2.86 4.08 0.10 Co-58 03/22/07 89.50 85.80 10.44 0.95 13.95 0.30 Co-60 03/22/07 130.40 132.00 4.77 1.47 5.74 -0.21 Cr-51 03/22/07 248.80 213.00 32.08 2.36 19.35 0.74 Cs-134 03/22/07 104.90 97.10 7.94 1.08 9.32 0.80 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 3 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value I Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Cs-137 03/22/07 213.70 204.00 3.41 2.26 4.71 0.97 Fe-59 03/22/07 109.20 91.70 4.98 1.02 9.16 1.75 1-131 03/22/07 100.50 89.80 9.1 1.00 12.33 0.86 Mn-54 03/22/07 173.00 158.00 4.91 1.76 5.86 1.48 Zn-65 03/22/07 916.60 869.00 30.85 9.67 4.90 1.06 TRITIUM ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
 
==6.0 CONCLUSION==
S This report confirms the licensee's conformance with the requirements of Chapter 4 of the ODCM. It provides a summary and discussion of the results of the laboratory analyses for each type of sample.In 2007, there was one instance where the indicator station results were statistically discernible from the control station results. This is discussed below.No discernible radiological impact upon the environment or the public as a consequence of plant discharges to the atmosphere and to the river was established for any other REMP samples.Cesium-137 was identified in vegetation in ten of 24 samples at the indicator stations and in two of the 12 samples at the control station. The average of the samples at the indicator station was 55.7 pCi/kg-wet and the average at the control station was 31.1 pCi/kg-wet.
The potential dose to a member of the public who would receive the highest dose (an adult) due to regular consumption of leafy vegetation containing Cs-137 would be 0.75 mrem in a year. This dose is approximately 5% of the regulatory limit of 15 mrem per year to any organ due to gaseous effluents.
Low levels of Cs-137 in the environment are attributed primarily to fallout from nuclear weapons testing and from the Chernobyl incident.
However, the level of Cs-137 seen at the indicator stations could potentially be attributed to plant effluents.
The radiological levels reported in 2007 were low and are generally trending downward.
The REMP trends over the course of time from preoperation to the present are decreasing or have remained fairly constant.
This supports the conclusion that there is no adverse radiological impact on the environment or to the public as a result of the operation of Hatch Nuclear Plant.6-1 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2007 Enclosure 2 Farley Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2007 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 2007 SOUTHERNA COMPANY Energy to Serve Your World" TABLE OF CONTENTS Section and/or Title Subsection Page List of Figures ii List of Tables iii List of Acronyms iv 1.0 Introduction 1-1 2.0 REMP Description 2-1 3.0 Results Summary 3-1 4.0 Discussion of Results 4-1 4.1 Land Use Census 4-6 4.2 Airborne 4-7 4.3 Direct Radiation 4-13 4.4 Milk 4-17 4.5 Forage 4-21 4.6 Ground Water 4-26 4.7 Surface Water 4-29 4.8 Fish 4-32 4.9 Sediment 4-37 5.0 Interlaboratory Comparison Program (ICP) 5-1 6.0 Conclusions 6-1 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Title Page Figure 2-1 REMP Stations Near the Plant Perimeter 2-10 Figure 2-2 REMP Stations 2 to 5 Miles from the Plant 2-11 Figure 2-3 REMP Stations Beyond 5 Miles from the Plant 2-12 Figure 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 4-8 Figure 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air 4-10 Figure 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 4-14 Figure 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 4-17 Figure 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk 4-19 Figure 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage 4-22 Figure 4.5-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage 4-24 Figure 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Ground Water 4-27 Figure 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water 4-30 Figure 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs- 137 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish 4-33 Figure 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish 4-35 Figure 4.9-1 Average Annual Cs-134 Concentration in Sediment 4-38 Figure 4.9-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment 4-39 ii LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title Page Table 2-1 Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 2-2 Table 2-2 Groundwater Monitoring Locations 2-9 Table 3-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary 3-2 Table 4-1 Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) 4-1 Table 4-2 Reporting Levels (RL) 4-2 Table 4-3 Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 4-4 Table 4.1-1 Land Use Census Results 4-6 Table 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 4-9 Table 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air 4-11 Table 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 4-15 Table 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 4-18 Table 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk 4-20 Table 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage 4-23 Table 4.5-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage 4-25 Table 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Ground Water 4-28 Table 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water 4-31 Table 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish 4-34 Table 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish 4-36 Table 4.9 Sediment Nuclide Concentrations 4-37 Table 5-1 Interlaboratory Comparison Program Results 5-3 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronyms presented in alphabetical order Acronym Definition APCo Alabama Power Company ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CL Confidence Level EL Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory EPA Environmental Protection Agency FNP Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant ICP Interlaboratory Comparison Program MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MDD Minimum Detectable Difference MWe MegaWatts Electric NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measurement(s)
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Po Preoperation PWR Pressurized Water Reactor REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting Level RM River Mile TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specification iv
 
==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
 
The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) for 2007 was conducted in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The REMP activities for 2007 are reported herein in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.2 and ODCM 7.1.The objectives of the REMP are to: 1) Determine the levels of radiation and the concentrations of radioactivity in the environs and;2) Assess the radiological impact (if any) to the environment due to the operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP).The assessments include comparisons between results of analyses of samples obtained at locations where radiological levels are not expected to be affected by plant operation (control stations) and at locations where radiological levels are more likely to be affected by plant operation (indicator stations), as well as comparisons between preoperational and operational sample results.FNP is owned by Alabama Power Company (APCo) and operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company. It is located in Houston County, Alabama approximately fifteen miles east of Dothan, Alabama on the west bank of the Chattahoochee River. Unit 1, a Westinghouse Electric Corporation Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) with a licensed core thermal power output of 2775 MegaWatts thermal (MWt), achieved initial criticality on August 9, 1977 and was declared "commercial" on December 1, 1977. Unit 2, also a 2775 MWt Westinghouse PWR, achieved initial criticality on May 8, 1981 and was declared"commercial" on July 30, 1981.The preoperational stage of the REMP began with initial sample collections in January of 1975. The transition from the preoperational to the operational stage of the REMP was marked by Unit 1 initial criticality.
A description of the REMP is provided in Section 2 of this report. An annual summary of the results of the analyses of REMP samples is provided in Section 3.A discussion of the results, including assessments of any radiological impacts upon the environment and the results of the land use census are provided in Section 4. The results of the Interlaboratory Comparison Program (ICP) are provided in Section 5. Conclusions are provided in Section 6.l-I 2.0 REMP DESCRIPTION A summary description of the REMP is provided in Table 2-1. This table summarizes the program as it meets the requirements outlined in ODCM Table 4-1. It details the sample types to be collected and the analyses to be performed in order to monitor the airborne, direct radiation, waterborne and ingestion pathways, and also delineates the collection and analysis frequencies.
In addition, Table 2-1 describes the locations of the indicator, community and control stations as described in ODCM Table 4-4 and the identification of each sample according to station location and analysis type. The stations are also depicted on maps in Figures. 2-1 through 2-3.The location of each REMP station for gaseous releases is described by its direction and distance from a point midway between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 plant vent stacks. The surrounding area is divided into 16 azimuthal sectors which are centered on the major compass points; each sector is numbered sequentially clockwise and oriented so that the centerline of sector 16 is due north. Each sampling station is identified by a four digit number. The first two digits indicate the sector number, and the last two digits indicate the distance from the' origin to the nearest mile. For example, air monitoring station 0215 is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the origin. The locations for the sampling stations along the river are identified by the nearest River Mile (RM) which is the distance along the navigable portion -of the Chattahoochee River upstream of the Jim Woodruff Dam near Chattahoochee, Florida. The approximate locations of the plant discharge and intake structures are at RM 43.5 and 43.8, respectively.
The samples are collected by the plant's technical staff, except for fish and river sediment samples which are collected by APCo Environmental Field Services personnel.
All laboratory analyses were performed by Georgia Power Company's Environmental Laboratory (EL) in Smyrna, Georgia.2-1 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 1 of 7)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)
AIRBORNE Particulates Continuous sampler operation with sample collection weekly.Particulate sampler: Analyze for gross beta radioactivity
> 24 hours following filter change. Perform gamma isotopic analysis on each sample when gross beta activity is > 10 times the yearly mean of control samples. Perform gamma isotopic analysis on composite sample (by location) q arterly.....................
Indicator Stations: River Intake Structure (ESE-0.8)South Perimeter (SSE-1.0)Plant Entrance (WSW-0.9)North Perimeter (N-0.8)Control Stations: Blakely GA (NE-15)Neals Landing, FL (SSE-18)Doth-an, .A.LA (-J18).... .. ... ..... .P ......... .... ..-.. ..8 ..... .....Community Stations: GA Pacific Paper Co.(SSE-3)Ashford, AL (WSW-8)Columbia, AL (N-5)PI-0501 PI-0701 PI-1101 PI-1601 PB-0215 PB-0718 P 12 ..18 PC-0703 PC- 1108 PC- 1605 d I I TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 2 of 7)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)
Iodine Continuous sampler operation with sample Radioiodine canister:
Analyze each........ ..... ...............
*, " ........ ..........
.... ....................
.... ................
...... ............
.. .. ...........................................
..e ...._ .e ..e..k ! Y ...... ....... .........
......................................................
..................................................
.... .............................
s a n[ e f 0..I.1..3..e...y
:...................................................
Indicator Stations: River Intake Structure 11-0501 (ESE-0.8)South Perimeter 11-0701 (SSE-1.0)Plant Entrance 11-1101 (WSW-0.9)North Perimeter 11-1601 ( N -0...........
...................
...........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................
...........................................
8................................................................................
Control Station: Blakely, GA (NE-15) IB-0215 Neals Landing, FL IB-0718 (SSE-18)Dothan, AL (W-18) IB-1218 Community Station: GA Pacific Paper Co. IC-0703 (SSE-3)DIRECT RADIATION TLD Quarterly Gamma dose: Read each badge..q u a r t er.y ................................................................................................................................................................
Indicator Stations: Plant Perimeter (NNE-0.9)
RI-0101 (NE- 1.0) RI-0201 (ENE-0.9)
RI-0301 (E-0.8) RI-0401 (ESE-0.8)
RI-0501 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 3 of 7)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)(SE-1.1) RI-0601 (SSE-1.0)
RI-0701 (S-1.0) RI-0801 (SSW-1.0)
RI-0901 (SW-0.9) RI-1001 (WSW-0.9)
RI-1101 (W-0.8) RI-1201 (WNW-0.8)
RI-1301 (NW-1.1) RI-1401 (NNW-0.9)
RI-1501 (N-0.8) RI-1601 Control Stations: Blakely, GA (NE-15) RB-0215 Neals Landing, FL RB-0718 (SSE-18)Dothan, AL (W-15) RB-1215 Dothan, AL (W-18) RB-1218 Webb, AL RB-1311 (WNW-11)Haleburg, AL (N-12) RB-1612.... ....... .................................................................
...........
..................
...... ...................................................
Community Station By sector (NNE-4) RC-0104 (NE-4) RC-0204 (ENE-4) RC-0304 (E-5) RC-0405 (ESE-5) RC-0505 (SE-5) RC-0605 (SSE-3) RC-0703 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 4 of 7)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)(S-5) RC-0805 (SSW-4) RC-0904 (SW-5) RC-1005 (WSW-4) RC- 1104 (W-4) RC-1204 (WNW-4) RC-1304 (NW-4) RC-1404 (NNW-4) RC-1504 (N-5) RC-1605 Of Special Interest: Nearest Residence RC-1001 (SW-1.2)City of Ashford, AL RC-1108 (WSW-8.0)WATERBORNE Aliquots taken with proportional semi-Surface Water continuous sampler, having a minimum Gamma isotopic analysis of each 4 week sampling frequency not exceeding two composite sample. Tritium analysis for hours, collected weekly for 4 week each quarterly composite.
Indicator Station: Paper Mill, (-3 miles WRI downstream of plant discharge, RM 40)Control Station: Upstream of WRB Andrews Lock and dam (-3 miles upstream of the plant intake, RM 47)
TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 5 of 7)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)
Offsite Ground Water Grab sample quarterly Gamma isotopic, 1-131, and tritium Inicto taia:nalyses of each sample quarterly
...................................................................
.........
...........
.... ..................
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
a .ses....ac.sa.........r............................
Inicator Station: Paper Mill Well WGI-07 (SSE-4)Control Station: Whatley Residence WGB-10 Well (SW-1.2)Onsite Ground Water See Table 2-2 Quarterly sample; pump used to sample GW Tritium, gamma isotopic, and field wells; grab sample from yard drains and parameters (pH, temperature, ponds conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation/reduction potential, and turbidity) of each sample quarterly; Hard to detect radionuclides as necessary based on results of tritium and gamma River Sediment Grab sample semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis of each sample semiannually Indicator Station:...
...Downstream of plant RSI discharge at Smith's Bend (RM 41)a Control Station: Upstream of plant RSB discharge at Andrews Lock & Dam Reservoir (RM 48)a TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 6 of 7)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Sample Sampling and Collection Frequency Type and Frequency of Analysis with Sample Types Identification and Locations (sector-miles)
INGESTION Milk Grab sample biweekly Gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses of each sample biweekly...........
........ ................................
............
... ............
...............................................................
.. ........................
... ............
..........................
.. ............................................
...........................
..................................
... ..................................
..................................................
---- .. ............. .ea c h... ..sam..........we.............
........Control Station: Robert Weir Dairy MB-0714 Donaldsonville, GA (SSE -14)Fish Grab sample semiannually for Game Fish Gamma isotopic analysis on the edible and Bottom Feeding Fish portions..........................of..
..each.......sample........
semiatonnonuallype emanual..........................................................................................................................................................................................
B..t.... e e..n...s...............................................................................
.....o..o.....ec h.s.ap.....e...ua l................
Indicator Stations: Downstream of plant FGI & FBI discharge in vicinity of Smith's Bend Control Station: Upstream of plant FGB & FBB discharge in Andrews Lock &Dam Reservoir (RM 4 8)b Forage Grab sample from forage every 4 weeks. Gamma isotopic analysis of each sample Indicator Station:4 weeks.South Southeast FI-0701 Perimeter (SSE- 1.0)North Perimeter Fl- 1601 ( N -0. ...................................
.................................................................................
11......................................................................N.............
.......................................
Control Station: Dothan, AL (W-18) FB-1218 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 7 of 7)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM NOTATIONS a. These collections are normally made at river mile 41.3 for the indicator station and river mile 47.8 for the control station; however, due to river bottom sediment shifting caused by high flows, dredging, etc., collections may be made from river mile 40 to 42 for the indicator station and from river mile 47 to 49 for the control station.b. Since a few miles of river water may be needed to obtain adequate fish samples, these river mile positions represent the approximate locations about which the catches are taken. Collections for the indicator station should be from river mile 37.5 to 42.5 and for the control station from river mile 47 to 52.
TABLE 2-2 Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Locations WELL ACQUIFER MONITORING PURPOSE RI Major Shallow NSCW Circulation Pipe aquifer R2 Major Shallow NSCW Circulation Pipe aquifer R3 Major Shallow NSCW Tanks aquifer R4 Major Shallow NSCW Tanks aquifer R5 Major Shallow NSCW Circulation Pipe aquifer R6 Major Shallow NSCW Circulation Pipe aquifer R7 Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer R8 Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer R9 Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer RIO Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer RI I Major Shallow Background I aquifer R 13 Major Shallow Dilution line aquifer R14 Major Shallow Background 2 aquifer PW#2 Drinking water Production Well #2 Supply PW#3 Drinking water Production Well #3 Supply CW#1 Drinking water Construction Well West Supply CW#2 Drinking water Construction Well East Supply FRW Drinking water Firing Range Well Supply SW- I N/A Background 3 Service Water Pond East YD N/A Plant outfall East Yard Drain SE YD N/A Plant outfall Southeast Yard Drain NSCW -Nuclear service cooling water 2-9 E Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Indicator Control Community REMP Stations Near the TLD A A A Plant Perimeter Other 0 S 0 TLD & Other Figure 2-1 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Indicator Control Community REMP Stations 2 to 5 TLD A A Miles From the Plant Other 0 0 _TLD & Other Figure 2-2 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations Indicator Control Community REMP Stations Beyond TLD A A 5 Miles From the Plant Other S S TLD & Other Figure 2-3
 
===3.0 RESULTS===
 
==SUMMARY==
In accordance with ODCM 7.1.2.1, the summarized and tabulated results for all of the regular samples collected for the year at the designated indicator, community and control stations are presented in Table 3-1. The format of Table 3-1 is similar to Table 3 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program" Revision 1, November 1979. Results for samples collected at locations other than those listed in Table 2-1 are discussed in Section 4 under the particular sample type.As indicated in ODCM 7.1.2.1, the results for naturally-occurring radionuclides that are also found in plant effluents must be reported along with man-made radionuclides.
The radionuclide Be-7, which occurs abundantly in nature, is often detected in REMP samples. It is occasionally detected in the plant's liquid and gaseous effluents.
When it is detected in effluents, it is also included in the REMP results. In 2007, Be-7 was not detected in Farley's liquid or gaseous effluents.
3-1 TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 1 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Indicator Location with the Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Highest Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)
Airborne Gross Beta 10 14.5 PI-1601 17.1 17.3 18.9 Particulates 513 2.2-39.7 N. Perimeter 8.0-38.0 3.4-43.7 4.6-42.5 ( f C i/m 3 ) ......) 2........
.....................................................................................
.....................
..................
.(.5..05.2( 5/0..... ....... .............
.. .... 0 .... e.s../.....
................................
..5.). ..... .................................
...5...........(................
.... 5.2.5 6)..............................
Gamma Isotopic 40 1-131 70 NDM(c) NA(d) NDM NDM (0/16) (0/12) (0/12)Cs-134 50 NDM NA NDM NDM (0/16) (0/12) (0/12)Cs-137 60 NDM NA NDM NDM (0/16) (0/12) (0/12)Airborne 1-131 70 NDM NA NDM NDM Radioiodine 412 (0/208) (0/52) (0/152)(fCi/m3)Direct Gamma NA 14.6 RI-0401 21.6 12.5 13.3 Radiation Dose 10.3-22.7 Plt. Perimeter 20.7-22.7 9.5-16.2 10.1-17.7 (mR/91 days) 160 (64/64) 0.8 miles, E (4/4) (72/72) (24/24)Milk (pCi/1) Gamma Isotopic 26 Cs-134 15 NA NA NA NDM (0/26)Cs-137 18 NA NA NA NDM (0/26)Ba-140 60 NA NA NA NDM (0/26)La-140 15 NA NA NA NDM n i..... N A..............(0
/2 6 ) ........................
-131 1 NA NA NA NDM 26 (0/26)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 2 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Indicator Location with the Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Highest Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)
Forage Gamma (pCi/kg wet) Isotopic 36 1-131 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/26) (0/13)Cs-134 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/26) (0/13)Cs-137 80 NDM NA NA NDM (0/26) (0/13)Offsite Ground H-3 2000 218 WGI-07 218 NA 321 Water (g) 8 (1/4) Paper Mill (1/4) (1/4)(pCi/l) Well, SSE-4..........................................
....... ..........................................................................................................
..............................
...... ( ..1 / 4 .) ..............
"..............
.. .............................................................
...................
..........................................................................
..................................................
I-131 1 NDM NA NA NDM 8... ( 0 / ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.... ..... .... ................................................
.........................
Gamma Isotopic 8 Mn-54 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Fe-59 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Co-58 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Co-60 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Zn-65 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Zr-95 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Nb-95 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 3.of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Indicator Location with the Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Highest Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)
Cs-134 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Cs-137 18 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Ba- 140 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)La- 140 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/4) (0/4)Surface Water H-3 3000 321 Ga Pacific 321 NA NDM (pCi/1) 8 291-351 Paper Mill 291-351 (0/4).................
......................................
.......................................................................
2...: .............................................
.................
..... ...... ...... .... ..........
.........
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Gamma Isotopic 26 Be-7 124 (e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Mn-54 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Fe-59 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Co-58 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Co-60 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Zn-65 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Zr-95 30 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Nb-95 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 4 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Indicator Location with the Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Highest Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction) 1-131 15 (f) NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Cs-134 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Cs-137 18 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Ba- 140 60 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)La- 140 15 NDM NA NA NDM (0/13) (0/13)Bottom Gamma Feeding Fish Isotopic (pCi/kg wet) 4 Be-7 655 (e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Mn-54 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Fe-59 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-58 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-60 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Zn-65 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-134 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-137 150 8.1 Downstream, 8.1 NA NDM 7.9-8.3 near Smith's 7.9-8.3 (0/2)(2/2) Bend (RM 41) (2/2)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 5 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Indicator Location with the Community Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Highest Annual Mean Locations Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean(b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)
Game Fish Gamma (pCi/kg wet) Isotopic 4 Be-7 655 (e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Mn-54 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Fe-59 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-58 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Co-60 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Zn-65 260 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-134 130 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-137 150 15.4 Downstream, 15.4 NA 6.5 12.6-18.9 near Smith's 12.6-18.9 (1/2)(2/2) Bend(RM41)
(2/2)River Shoreline Gamma Sediment Isotopic (pCilkg dry) 4 Be-7 655 .(e) NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs-134 150 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)Cs- 137 180 NDM NA NA NDM (0/2) (0/2)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 6 of 6)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Farley Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Houston County, Alabama NOTATIONS a. The MDC is defined in ODCM 10.1. Except as noted otherwise, the values listed in this column are the detection capabilities required by ODCM Table 4-3 (Table 4-1 of this report). The values listed in this column are a priori (before the fact) MDCs. In practice, the a posteriori (after the fact) MDCs are generally lower than the values listed. Any a posteriori MDC greater than the value listed in this column is discussed in Section 4.b. Mean and range are based upon detectable measurements only. The fraction of all measurements at a specified location that are detectable is placed in parentheses.
: c. No Detectable Measurement(s).
: d. Not Applicable.
: e. The EL has determined that this value may be routinely attained under normal conditions.
No value is provided in Table 4-1 of this report.f. If a drinking water pathway exists, a value of 1 pCi/I would be used. See note b of Table 4-1 of this report.g. Onsite groundwater results are discussed in Section 4.6.
 
===4.0 DISCUSSION===
 
OF RESULTS Included in this section are evaluations of the laboratory results for the various sample types. Comparisons were made between the difference in mean values for pairs of station groups (e.g., indicator and control stations, or, community and control stations) and the calculated Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD)between these pairs, at the 99% Confidence Level (CL). The MDD was determined using the standard Student's t-test. A difference in the mean values which was less than the MDD was considered to be statistically indiscernible.
The 2007 results were compared with past results, including those obtained during preoperation.
As appropriate, results were compared with their Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) and Reporting Levels (RL) which are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of this report, respectively.
The required MDCs were achieved during laboratory sample analysis.
Any anomalous results are explained within this report.Results of interest are graphed to show historical trends. The data points are tabulated and included in this report. The points plotted and provided in the tables represent mean values of only detectable results. Periods for which no detectable measurements (NDM) were observed, or periods for which values were not applicable (e.g., milk indicator, etc.), are plotted as O's and listed in the tables as NDM.Table 4-1 Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC)Analysis Water Airborne Fish Milk Grass or Sediment (pCi/l) Particulate (pCi/kg) (pCi/l) Leafy (pCi/kg)or Gases wet Vegetation dry (fCi/m3) (pCi/kg)wet Gross Beta 4 10 H-3 2000 (a)Mn-54 15 130 Fe-59 30 260 Co-58 15 130 Co-60 15 130 Zn-65 30 260 Zr-95 30 Nb-95 15 1-131 1 (b) 70 1 60 Cs-134 15 50 130 15 60 150 Cs-137 18 60 150 18 80 180 Ba-140 60 60 La-140 15 15 (a) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 3000 pCi/l may be used.(b) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 15 pCi/l may be used.4-1 Table 4-2 Reporting Levels (RL)Analysis Water Airborne Fish Milk (pCi/l) Grass or (pCi/_ ) Particulate (pCi/kg) wet Leafy or Gases Vegetation (fCi/m3) (pCi/kg) wet H-3 20,000 (a)Mn-54 1000 30,000 Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1000 30,000 Co-60 300 10,000 Zn-65 300 20,000 Zr-95 400 Nb-95 700 1-131 2 (b) 900 3 100 Cs- 134 30 10,000 1000 60 1000 Cs-137 50 20,000 2000 70 2000 Ba- 140 200 300 La-140 100 400 (a) This is the 40 CFR 141 value for drinking water samples. 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.Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from the mid 1940's through 1980 distributed man-made nuclides around the world. The most recent atmospheric tests in the 1970's and in 1980 had a significant impact upon the radiological concentrations found in the environment prior to and during preoperation, and the earlier years of operation.
Some long-lived radionuclides, such as Cs-137, continue to have some impact.Significant upward trends also followed the Chernobyl incident, which began on April 26, 1986.In accordance with ODCM 4.1.1.2.1, deviations from the required sampling schedule are permitted if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, unavailability, inclement weather, equipment malfunction or other just reasons.Deviations from conducting the REMP as described in Table 2-1 are summarized in Table 4-3 along with their causes and resolutions.
4-2 All results were tested for conformance with Chauvenet's criterion (G. D. Chase and J. L. Rabinowitz, Principles of Radioisotope Methodology, Burgess Publishing Company, 1962, pages 87-90) to identify values which differed from the mean of a set by a statistically significant amount. Identified outliers were investigated to determine the reason(s) for the variation.
If equipment malfunction or other valid physical reasons were identified as causing the variation, the anomalous result was excluded from the data set as non-representative.
No data were excluded exclusively for failing Chauvenet's criterion.
Data exclusions are discussed in this section under the appropriate sample type.4-3 TABLE 4-3 (SHEET 1 of 2)DEVIATIONS FROM RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM COLLECTION AFFECTED DEVIATION CAUSE RESOLUTION PERIOD SAMPLE(S)01/02/07-01/09/07 PB-0718/IB-0718 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about 1.75 Station operation satisfactory after CR2007100305 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
hours. Possible power loss due sample change out.EXCLUDED to inclement weather.02/13/07-02/20/07 PI-160 1/11-1601 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about 27.5 Station operation satisfactory after CR2007101609 North Perimeter airborne particulates.
hours. sample change out.Possible power loss at station.1 st Quarter RI- 1l01A TLD rendered suspect by presence of Moisture / rain water entered Replaced TLDs at beginning of CR2008104563 Plant Entrance water in bag holding bag. quarter.05/08/07-05/15/07 PB-0215/IB-0215 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about 1.25 Station operation satisfactory after CR2007104982 Blakely, GA airborne particulates.
hours. Possible power loss due sample change out.to inclement weather.06/05/07-06/12/07 PB-0718/iB-0718 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about 3.5 Station operation satisfactory after CR2007105869 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
hours. sample change out.Possible power loss due to inclement weather.06/26/07-07/03/07 PB-0718/IB-0718 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about 2.25 Station operation satisfactory after CR2007106502 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
hours, sample change out.Possible power loss due to inclement weather.06/26/07-07/03/07 PC-0703/IC-0703 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about 1.5 Station operation satisfactory after CR2007106502 GA Pacific airborne particulates.
hours. sample change out.Possible power loss due to inclement weather.
TABLE 4-3 (SHEET 2 of 2)DEVIATIONS FROM RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM COLLECTION AFFECTED DEVIATION CAUSE RESOLUTION PERIOD SAMPLE(S)2nd Quarter RC- 1404B TLD rendered suspect by presence of Moisture / rain water entered Replaced TLDs at beginning of CR2008104563 NW @ 4 miles water in bag holding bag. quarter.08/07/07-08/14/07 PB-0718/113-0718 Non-representative sample of Sample pump tripped. Station operation satisfactory after CR2007108006 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
Volume Possibly due to bad weather, circuit breaker on flow totalizer reset.EXCLUDED collected less than 250 cubic meters.08/21/07-08/28/07 PB-0718/113-0718 Non-representative sample of Sample pump tripped. Station operation satisfactory after CR2007108421 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
Volume Possibly due to bad weather, circuit breaker on flow totalizer reset.EXCLUDED collected less than 250 cubic meters.10/16/07-10/23/07 PI-1101/11-1101 Non-representative sample of Sample time short about 9 hours Station operation satisfactory after CR2007110993 Plant Entrance airborne particulates.
due to problems with portable sample change out.generator which was in service while work done on ID bus.10/23/07-10/30/07 PB-0718/IB-0718 Non-representative sample of Sample pump tripped. Station operation satisfactory after CR2007110993 Neal's Landing airborne particulates.
Possibly due to bad weather, circuit breaker on flow totalizer reset.EXCLUDED 11/06/07-11/13/07 PC-1605 Non-representative sample of Low volume collected.
Unsure Station operation satisfactory after CR2007111612 Columbia airborne particulates.
if problem is with flow indicator sample change out. Will monitor EXCLUDED or pump. sample station over next few days to determine if WO needs to be written.4th Quarter TLD Station TLD rendered suspect by presence of Moisture / rain water entered Replaced TLDs at beginning of CR2008104563 RC-0703A water in bag holding bag. quarter.GA Pacific~.J1 4.1 Land Use Census In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted during the month of September 2007. The land use census is used to determine the locations of the nearest permanent residence and milk animal in each of the 16 compass sectors within a distance of 5 miles. A milk animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption.
The 2007 survey revealed no significant changes from the 2006 survey. No milk animals were found within a 5 mile distance.
The census results are tabulated in Table 4. 1 -1.Table 4.1-1 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS Distance in Miles to the Nearest Location in Each Sector SECTOR JT RESIDENCE J -MILK ANIMAL N 2.6 none NNE 2.5 none NE 2.4 none ENE 2.4 none E 2.8 none ESE 3.0 none SE 3.4 none SSE none none 5 4.3 none SSW 2.9 none SW 1.2 none WSW 2.4 none W 1.3 none WNW 2.1 none NW 1.5 none NNW 3.4 none The Houston County, Alabama and the Early County, Georgia Extension Agents were contacted for assistance in locating commercial dairy farms and privately owned milk animals within 5 miles of the plant. A list of commercial dairy farms in Houston County, AL and Seminole County, GA was provided; there are no commercial dairy farms in Early County. Neither agent knew of privately owned milk animals within 5 miles of FNP. In addition, field surveys were conducted in the plant vicinity along the state and county highways and the interconnecting secondary roads. No milk animals were found within 5 miles of the plant.ODCM 4.1.2.2.1 requires a new controlling receptor to be determined, if the land use census identifies a location that yields a calculated receptor dose greater than the one in current use. Neither current sampling locations nor the controlling receptor were affected by the 2007 land use census results. The current controlling receptor as described in ODCM Table 3-7 remains a child in the SW Sector at 1.2 miles.4-6
 
===4.2 Airborne===
As specified in Table 2-1 and shown in Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, airborne particulate filters and charcoal canisters are collected weekly at 4 indicator, 3 control and 3 community stations.
Particulate filters are collected at all of the stations while the charcoal canisters are collected at all but 2 of the community stations.
At each location, air is continuously drawn through a glass fiber filter to retain airborne particulates and, as appropriate, an activated charcoal canister is placed in series to adsorb radioiodine.
Each particulate filter is counted for gross beta activity.
A quarterly gamma isotopic analysis is performed on a composite of the air particulate filters for each station. Each charcoal canister is analyzed for 1-131.As provided in Table 3-1, the 2007 annual average weekly gross beta activity wdis 14.5 fCi/m 3 at the indicator stations and 18.9 fCi/m 3 at the control stations.
The difference of 4.4 fCi/m 3 between the two averages is statistically discernible since the MDD for these two average values is 2.1 fCi/m 3.However, the trend over the years has shown close agreement between the control, community, and indicator stations, and in most years (including pre-op), the indicator station gross beta average activity was lower than the control and community annual averages.As shown in Table 3-1, the 2007 annual average weekly gross beta concentration was 17.3 fCi/m 3 at community stations.
The community stations average was 1.6 fCi/m 3 less than the average for the control stations.
The difference is not statistically discernible since it is less than the MDD of 2.1 fCi/m 3 between the two averages.Due to the weapons tests during preoperation and the early years of operation, the average gross beta concentrations were 5 to 10 times greater than those currently being measured.
By the mid 1980s, the readings had diminished to about half the current levels. These annual averages approximately doubled as a consequence of the Chernobyl incident in 1986; this impact faded away in approximately 2 years.The installation of new air monitoring equipment in 1992 yielded an approximate factor of 2 increase in the readings.
Since then, the levels have been fairly flat.The historical trending of the average weekly gross beta air concentrations for each year of operation and the preoperational period at the indicator, control and community stations is plotted in Figure 4.2-1 and listed in Table 4.2-1. In general, there is close agreement between the results for the indicator, control and community stations.
This close agreement supports the position that the plant's contribution to gross beta concentration in air is insignificant.
4-7 Figure 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 1000 100 0 ou r 10 0 U-Year I- MDC -U-*-Indicator A.-Control A *Community 4-8 Table 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration Period Indicator Control Community (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3)Pre-op 90 92 91 1977 205 206 206 1978 125 115 115 1979 27.3 27.3 28.7 1980 29.7 28.1 29.2 1981 121 115 115 1982 20.0 20.4 21.0 1983 15.5 14.1 14.5 1984 10.2 12.6 10.5 1985 9.0 9.6 10.3 1986 10.5 15.8 12.5 1987 9.0 11.0 17.0 1988 8.0 8.0 10.0 1989 7.0 7.0 8.0 1990 10.0 10.0 10.0 1991 9.0, 10.0 8.0 1992 15.0 17.9 18.5 1993 19.1 22.3 22.4 1994 19.0 20.0 19.0 1995 21.7 22.9 21.6 1996 20.3 22.3 23.5 1997 21.1 21.6 22.4 1998 20.6 19.3 22.0 1999 20.5 22.1 25.2 2000 20.9 20.8 23.6 2001 16.3 17.2 17.3 2002 16.8 18.0 16.8 2003 19.1 19.3 19.9 2004 22.0 21.3 22.4 2005 18.4 19.3 19.0 2006 16.1 17.5 16.8 2007 14.5 18.9 17.3 4-9 During 2007, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the quarterly composites of the air particulate filters. This has generally been the case since the impact of the weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident have faded. During preoperation and the early years of operation, a number of fission and activation products were detected.
During preoperation, the average levels for Cs-134 and Cs-137 were 22 and 9 fCi/m , respectively.
In 1986, as a consequence of the Chernobyl incident, Cs-134 and Cs-137 levels of 3 to 4 fCi/m3 were found. The MDC and RL for Cs-134 are 50 and 10,000 fCi/m 3 and the MDC and RL for Cs-137 are 60 and 20,000 fCi!m 3 respectively.
The historical trending of the annual detectable Cs-137 concentrations for the indicator, control and community stations is provided in Figure 4.2-2 and Table 4.2-2. The trend has been generally downward since preoperation and no positive results have been observed since 1988.Figure 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-1 37 Concentration in Air 20 CV 15 E'4-0= 10 C13 0 5 0 Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year 4 Indicator
--U- Control A Community 4-10 Table 4.2-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Air Period Indicator Control Community (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3)Pre-op 8 13 7 1977 3.0 3.0 3.0 1978 4.0 5.0 5.0 1979 2.0 NDM 2.0 1980 1.0 2.0 1.8 1981 2.8 3.2 2.6 1982 1.7 NDM 1.0 1983 1.0 NDM 1.0 1984 NDM 1.5 NDM 1985 1.0 1.0 1.0 1986 3.3 3.4 2.7 1987 NDM NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1 1989 NDM NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM NDM 4-11 Airborne 1-131 was not detected in the charcoal canisters during 2007. In 1978, levels between 40 and 50 fCi/m 3 were found in a few samples and attributed to the Chinese weapons tests; then after the Chernobyl incident, levels up to a few hundred fCi/m3 were found in some samples. At no other times has airborne 1-131 been detected in the environmental samples. The MDC and RL for airborne 1-131 are 70 and 900 fCi/m3 respectively.
Table 4-3 lists REMP deviations that occurred during 2007. Although there were 11 air sampling deviations listed in Table 4-3, only 5 required data to be excluded from the calculation of the mean values. Five of the 11 were minor deviations where less than 4 hours of sampling time was lost for the week due to power interruptions.
Of the 5 air stations where data was excluded, two sample results (both filter and cartridge) were excluded due to inadequate sample volume collected during the sampling period. The remaining three excluded station results (both filter and cartridge) failed Chauvenet's Criterion following equipment malfunctions.
4-12
 
===4.3 Direct===
Radiation Direct (external) radiation is measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Two Panasonic UD-814 TLD badges are placed at each station. Each badge contains three phosphors composed of calcium sulfate crystals (with thulium impurity).
The gamma dose at each station is based upon the average readings of the phosphors from the two badges. The two badges for each station are placed in thin plastic bags for protection from moisture while in the field. The badges are nominally exposed for periods of a quarter of a year (91 days). An inspection is performed near mid-quarter to assure that all badges are on-station and to replace any missing or damaged badges.Two TLD stations are established in each of the 16 sectors, to form 2 concentric rings. The inner ring stations are located near the plant perimeter, as shown in Figure 2-1, and the outer ring stations are located at distances of approximately 3 to 5 miles from the plant, as shown in Figure 2-2. The stations forming the inner ring are designated as the indicator stations.
The 6 control stations are located at distances greater than 10 miles from the plant, as shown in Figure 2-3. Stations are also provided which monitor special interest areas: the nearest occupied residence (SW at 1.2 miles), as shown in Figure 2-1, and the city of Ashford (WSW at 8 miles), as shown in Figure 2-3. The 16 outer ring stations and the 2 special interest stations are designated as community stations.As provided in Table 3-1, the average quarterly exposure measured at the indicator stations (inner ring) during 2007 was 14.6 mR which was 1.4 mR greater than the 13.3 mR which was acquired at the control stations.
This difference is not statistically discernible since it is less than the MDD of 1.5 mR. The difference of 0.7 mR found between the control stations (13.3 mR) and community stations (12.5 mR) is not statistically discernible since the difference is less than the MDD of 0.9 mR. The difference between the indicator and control and between the control and community stations is consistent with what has been seen in previous years.The historical trending of the average quarterly exposures in units of mR at the indicator, control, and community locations are plotted in Figure 4.3-1 and listed in Table 4.3-1. During preoperation the average exposure at the indicator stations was 1.2 mR greater than that for the control stations, but the average over the entire period of operation was only 1.1 mR greater. During preoperation, the average exposure at the control stations was 1.3 mR greater than that at the community stations and the average over the period of operation is 1.5 mR greater. This supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to direct radiation in the environment.
Table 4-3 lists the REMP program deviations that occurred in 2007. There were three deviations involving TLD badges in 2007. All involved moisture getting into the TLD holding bag. None of these deviations led to a loss of data.4-13 Figure 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 30 25 0 Year I---4-Indicator -UI-Control
-*- -CommunityI 4-14 Table 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation Period Indicator (mR) Control (mR) Community (mR)Pre-op 12.6 11.4 10.1 1977 10.6 12.2 10.6 1978 15.0 13.5 12.0 1979 20.3 18.7 15.2 1980 21.9 21.6 18.5 1981 16.5 14.9 14.5 1982 15.5 14.7 13.0 1983 20.2 20.2 17.4 1984 18.3 16.9 15.3 1985 21.9 22.0 18.0 1986 17.8 17.7 15.1 1987 20.8 20.0 18.0 1988 21.5 19.9 18.5 1989 18.0 16.2 15.3 1990 18.9 16.4 15.8 1991 18.4 16.1 16.1 1992 16.1 13.6 13.5 1993 17.4 15.9 15.6 1994 15.0 13.0 12.0 1995 14.0 12.5 11.8 1996 14.2 12.7 11.9 1997 15.3 13.9 11.9 1998 16.2 14.6 13.9 1999 14.7 13.4 12.6 2000 15.5 14.1 13.5 2001 14.9 13.4 12.7 2002 14.1 12.6 11.9 2003 15.2 13.6 12.9 2004 14.3 12.9 12.1 2005 14.7 13.4 12.5 2006 15.2 13.6 12.9 2007 14.6 13.3 12.5 4-15 The standard deviation for the quarterly result for each badge was subjected to a self imposed limit of 1.4. This limit is calculated using a method developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (ASTM Special Technical Publication 15D, ASTM Manual on Presentation of Data and Control Chart Analysis, Fourth Revision, Philadelphia, PA, October 1976). The calculation is based upon the standard deviations obtained by the EL with the Panasonic UD-814 badges during 1992. This limit serves as a flag to initiate an investigation.
To be conservative, readings with a standard deviation greater than 1.4 are excluded since the high standard deviation is interpreted as an indication of unacceptable variation in TLD response.The TLD results from the following stations were excluded from the data set because their standard deviations were greater than 1.4: Quarter 1 -RC- 1304A, RI-0401B Quarter 2 -RC-0104B Quarter 3 -None Quarter 4 -None For the three TLD stations where these badges were located, only the reading of the companion badge was used to determine the quarterly exposure for the station.The affected badges were visually inspected under a microscope and the glow curve and test results for the anneal data and the element correction factors were reviewed.
No reason was found for the high standard deviations.
4-16 4.4 Milk In accordance with Table 2-1, milk samples are collected biweekly from a control location.
No indicator station (a location within five miles of the plant) has been available for milk sampling since 1987. As discussed in Section 4.0, no milk animals were found within five miles of the plant during the 2007 land use census.Gamma isotopic analyses were performed on each sample as specified in Table 2-1. No man-made radionuclides were identified from the gamma isotopic analysis of the milk samples during 2007. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in milk are 18 and 70 pCi/l, respectively.
The historical trending of the average annual detectable Cs-137 concentration in milk samples is shown in Figure 4.4-1 and Table 4.4-1. Cs-137 has not been detected in milk since 1986. Its presence at that time is attributed to the Chernobyl incident.
The earlier detectable results were attributed to the weapons tests.Figure 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 45 35-30-S251 0 S20-15-15 0 qblb e ,%b, q Year--Indicator -U-- Control -MDC 4-17 Table 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk Period Indicator Control (pCi/i) (pCi/i)Pre-op 32 18 1977 41 20 1978 15 17 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 NDM 23.0 1982 NDM NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 NDM 16.5 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM...... NDM..... ....NDM 4-18 As specified in Table 2-1, each sample was analyzed for 1-13 1, which has not been detected in milk since 1986. The presence of 1-131 at that time is attributed to the Chernobyl incident.
The earlier detectable results were attributed to the weapons tests. The MDC and RL for 1-131 are 1 and 3 pCi/1, respectively.
Figure 4.4-2 and Table 4.4-2 show the historical trending of the average annual detectable 1- 131 concentration in milk samples.Figure 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk 50 C.0.L)0 Year--Indicator
--Control -MDC -RL 4-19 Table 4.4-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Milk Period Indicator Control (pCi/l) (pCi/l)Pre-op 41 14 1977 20 2.6 1978 30 11 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 NDM NDM 1982 NDM NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 NDM 5.0 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 4-20
 
===4.5 Forage===
In accordance with Table 2-1, forage samples are collected every 4 weeks at two indicator stations on the plant perimeter, and at one control station located approximately 18 miles west of the plant, in Dothan. Gamma isotopic analyses are performed on each sample.During preoperation and the years of operation through 1986 (the year of the Chernobyl incident), Cs-137 was typically found in about a third of the 35 to 40 forage samples collected per year. In 1987 and 1988 the number dropped to about a seventh of the total samples and from 1989 through 1994, it was only found in one or two samples every year. From 1994 to 2006, Cs-137 was detected in only a few samples, three indicator samples and three control samples.In 2007, Cs-137 was not detected in any of the 13 control samples and not detected in any of the 26 indicator samples. The occasional presence of Cs-137 in vegetation samples is attributed primarily to fallout from nuclear weapons tests and from the Chernobyl incident.
The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in forage are 80 and 2000 pCi/kg wet, respectively.
Table 4.5-1 presents the average detectable results of Cs-137 found in forage over the life of the plant and Figure 4.5-1 shows the historical trending of this data.4-21 Figure 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage 4-0 0.0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 I --I I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t T i I y6 i Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Year 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 I ---Indicator -U-Control
-MDC I 4-22 Table 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Forage Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 59.4 48.6 1977 25.0 NDM 1978 52.5 32.5 1979 37.2 32.8 1980 36.2 35.9 1981 32.1 43.1 1982 25.0 33.1 1983 16.8 23.6 1984 19.9 22.8 1985 22.2 9.5 1986 41.2 36.2 1987 46.8 NDM 1988 33.6 31.7 1989 35.7 NDM 1990 56.0 NDM 1991 NDM 12.9 1992 NDM 43.0 1993 NDM 24.0 1994 NDM 24 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 52.6 NDM 1998 NDM 22.7 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 24.1 25.2 2004 21.6 NDM 2005 NDM 23.1 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 4-23 During preoperation and in the early years of operation, 1-131 was found in 10%to 25% of the forage samples at very high levels which ranged from around 100 to 1,000 pCi/kg wet. In 1986 (Chernobyl incident), 1-131 reappeared after not having been detected for 3 years. The MDC and RL for 1-131 are 60 and 100 pCi/kg wet, respectively.
Table 4.5-2 lists the average detectable results of 1-131 found in forage over the life of the plant and Figure 4.5-2 plots the historical trending of this data.1-131 has not been detected in forage samples since the 1986 Chernobyl accident.Figure 4.5-2 4-r-, 0.0 U-L.1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage 100 0 IQ0 A, P %V Q Year I ---Indicator -m- -Control -MDC -RL I 4-24 Table 4.5-2 Average Annual 1-131 Concentration in Forage Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet [ (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 405 486 1977 971 654 1978 220 240 1979 NDM NDM 1980 NDM NDM 1981 21.4 NDM 1982 46.4 NDM 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 184 NDM 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007' NDM NDM These forage analyses results show the impact of the weapons tests during preoperation and the early years of operation and of the Chernobyl incident in 1986 and for a few years afterwards.
The impact is reflected by the number of different radionuclides detected, the fraction of samples with detectable results, as well as the magnitude of the results. During preoperation and for the first few years of operation, 11 different radionuclides from fission and activation products were detected.
By 1985, only 2 different radionuclides were detected and the fraction of samples with detectable results had diminished.
In 1986, the same two nuclides as seen in 1985 appeared at a significantly higher magnitude and 1-131 reappeared.
In the years following 1986, only Cs-137 has been found in forage and it has been found in a decreasing fraction of the samples.4-25
 
===4.6 Ground===
Water In the FNP offsite environs, there are no true indicator sources of ground water. A well, located about four miles south-southeast of the plant on the east bank of the Chattahoochee River, serves Georgia Pacific Paper Company as a source of potable water and is designated as the indicator station. A deep well located about 1.2 miles southwest of the plant, which supplies water to the Whatley residence, is designated as the control station. Samples are collected quarterly and analyzed for gamma isotopic, 1-131 and tritium as specified in Table 2-1. In 2007, one indicator sample and one control sample were positive for tritium. No other radionuclides were detected.In 1983, 1985, and 1986, Cs-134 was detected in single samples at levels ranging from 3 to 13 pCi/l. The MDC and RL for Cs-134 in water are 15 and 30 pCi/l, respectively.
During preoperation, Cs-137 was detected in two of the samples at levels of 15 and 17 pCi/l. Then in 1984 and 1985, Cs-137 was again detected in a few samples with levels ranging from 4 to 5 pCi/l. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in water are 18 and 50 pCi/l, respectively.
Iodine-131 has never been detected in ground water samples. From 1986-2003, no radionuclides were detected.
In 2004, 2005, and 2007, tritium was detected at very low concentrations (near the instrument detection level) and close to environmental background concentration which is approximately 350 pCi/l (+/-150 pCi/1) in the area around Farley. The positive results seen in these years were less than 2% of the reporting level for tritium. The MDC and RL for tritium in drinking water are 2,000 and 20,000 pCi/l, respectively.
Figure 4.6-1 and Table 4.6-1 show the historical trending of the average annual detectable tritium concentration in ground water.As nuclear plants began to undergo decommissioning in the late 1990's to early 2000s, instances of subsurface and/or groundwater contamination were identified.
In addition, several operating facilities also identified groundwater contamination resulting from spills and leaks or equipment failure. In one instance, low levels of licensed material were detected in a private well located on property adjacent to a nuclear power plant.In 2006, NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) formed a task force to address monitoring onsite groundwater for radionuclides at nuclear facilities.
A Groundwater Protection Initiative was developed which was adopted by all U.S. commercial operating nuclear plants.The NRC also formed a task force to study the groundwater issues and released Information Notice 2006-13 "Ground-water Contamination due to Undetected Leakage of Radioactive Water" which summarized its review of radioactive contamination of ground water at multiple facilities as a result of undetected leakage from structures, systems, or components that contain or transport radioactive fluids. Licensees were instructed to review the information for applicability and to consider appropriate actions to avoid similar problems.The NEI task force felt it was prudent for the industry to update site hydrology information and to develop radiological groundwater monitoring plans at each 4-26 site. These groundwater protection plans would ensure that underground leaks and spills would be addressed promptly.
Additionally, the task force recommended developing a communications protocol to report radioactive leaks or spills that entered groundwater (or might eventually enter groundwater) to the NRC and State and Local government officials as needed.In 2006, Farley located several old onsite piezometer wells and sampled these and the onsite drinking water wells for tritium and gamma isotopic activity.
None of these wells contained detectable amounts of radioactivity.
In 2007, after the site hydrology was evaluated, Farley implemented a more extensive radiological groundwater monitoring program which included drilling twelve new onsite monitoring wells (see Table 2-2). The twelve new wells along with one of the existing piezometer wells, the onsite drinking water wells, and several surface water / discharge locations comprise the monitoring program. These locations were sampled twice in the latter portion of 2007 and going forward will be sampled quarterly.
Of more than 50 samples taken during 2007 from the locations described above, only one location (groundwater well R-3) showed low levels of radiological contamination.
Tritium was the only nuclide identified (2050 pCi/l on 9/18/07 and 2150 pCi/l on 11/30/07).
R-3 was also analyzed for gamma emitters and strontium and these were not detected.
This well is located near the Protected Area and in the vicinity of the site where the Unit-2 radioactive effluent discharge line ruptured several years ago. For guidance regarding monitoring wells with unexpected results, Southern Nuclear developed a company-wide communications protocol which is contained in the Nuclear Management Procedure, Actions for Potential Groundwater Contamination Events, to ensure radioactive leaks and spills are addressed and communicated appropriately.
Figure 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Offsite Ground Water 2500-2000 Z 1500--O 4-1000 0 0 500------- -------I 0 4 Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year---Indicator -U--Control -M DC 4-27 Table 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Offsite Ground Water Period Indicator Control (pCi/l) (pCi/I)Pre-op 150 240 1977 NDM NDM 1978 NDM 240 1979 NDM NDM 1980 124 NDM 1981 264 NDM 1982 240 NDM 1983 360 341 1984 NDM NDM 1985 NDM NDM 1986 NDM NDM 1987 NDM NDM 1988 NDM NDM 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 194 271 2005 264 360 2006 NDM NDM 2007 218 321 4-28
 
===4.7 Surface===
Water As specified in Table 2-1 and shown in Figure 2-2, water samples are collected from the Chattahoochee River at a control station approximately 3 miles upstream of the intake structure and at an indicator station approximately 4 miles downstream of the discharge structure.
Small quantities are collected during the week at periodic intervals using automatic samplers.
For each station, one liter from each of four consecutive weekly samples is combined into a composite sample which is analyzed for gamma emitters.
In addition, 0.075 liters is collected from 13 consecutive weekly samples for each station to form composite quarterly samples which are analyzed for tritium.No detectable results have been found from these gamma isotopic analyses since 1988. During preoperation and in every year of operation through 1988 (except 1979 and 1980), a few samples showed at least one of nine different activation or fission products at levels less than or on the order of their MDCs. During preoperation, Cs-137 was found in about 3% of the samples. From 1981 through 1988, it was found in about 15% of the samples. Cs-134 was found in about 15%of the samples from 1981 to 1986. All of these gamma emitters are attributed to the weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident.In 2007, as shown in Table 3-1, tritium was detected in 2 out of 4 composite samples collected at the indicator station and in none of the 4 composite samples collected at the control station. The average concentration at the indicator station was 321 pCi/l. The results seen at the indicator station are very close to the Farley environmental levels but also could be attributed to plant effluents.
Historical trending of the detectable concentrations of tritium in surface water is provided in Figure 4.7-1 and Table 4.7-1. The slightly elevated plot of the indicator stations could be indicative of plant tritium contributions to surface water. However, it is noteworthy that the annual average levels are less than 10%of the MDC and less than 1% of the RL. The MDC and RL for tritium in surface water are 3000 and 30,000, respectively.
4-29 Figure 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water 35001 3000 3000-----------------------------------------
.2 150 0 1500 ----- ---------------0 -, Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year-*-Indicator
---Control -MDC 4-30 Table 4.7-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Surface Water Period Indicator Control (pCi/l) (pCi/l)Pre-op 200 170 1977 300 160 1978 230 250 1979 169 135 1980 221 206 1981 294 162 1982 300 132 1983 434 111 1984 333 152 1985 351 105 1986 478 272 1987 291.8 116.5 1988 293.3 NDM 1989 253.8 NDM 1990 166 NDM 1991 122 NDM 1992 360.5 134 1993 388.8 NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 257 NDM 1996 386 NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 415 NDM 1999 314 NDM 2000 424 212 2001 252 NDM 2002 598 NDM 2003 296 NDM 2004 270 NDM 2005 215 173 2006 348 179 2007 321 NDM 4-31 4.8 Fish Two types of fish (bottom feeding and game) are collected semiannually from the Chattahoochee River at a control station several miles upstream of the plant intake structure and at an indicator station a few miles downstream of the plant discharge structure.
These locations are shown in Figure 2-2. Gamma isotopic analysis is performed on the edible portions of each sample as specified in Table 2-1.As provided in Table 3-1, Cs-137 was the only radionuclide of interest that was found from the gamma isotopic analysis of fish samples in 2007. Cs-137 was detected in both the fall and spring collection of game fish samples at the indicator station. The average was 15.4 pCi/kg wet, Cs-137 was detected in one game fish sample at the control station (6.5 pCi/kg-wet).
Using the modified Student's t-test, the difference between the indicator and control station was not statistically discernible.
The MDC for Cs-137 in fish is 150 pCi/kg wet and the RL is 2000 pCi/kg wet.Cesium-137 was detected in both the fall and spring collection of bottom feeding fish samples at the indicator location.
The average of the two samples was 8.1 pCi/kg wet. Cs-137 was not detected in either of the bottom feeding fish samples collected at the control station. The values at the indicator station were near the detection threshold for the instrument but also could be attributed to plant effluents.
The average of the samples was less than 1% of the reporting level.The MDC for Cs-137 in fish is 150 pCi/kg wet and the RL is 2000 pCi/kg wet.Historically, Cs-137 has been found in approximately 30% of the bottom feeding fish samples and in 80% of the game fish samples. Figures 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 and Tables 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 provide the historical trending of the average annual detectable concentrations of Cs-137 in pCi/kg wet in bottom feeding and game fish, respectively.
Since the early 1980s, values have generally decreased for both indicator and control groups, with the exception of the bottom feeding fish collected at the indicator station in 1993. While some contribution from the plant cannot be ruled out, most of the Cs-137 in these samples may be attributed to the nuclear weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident, as evidenced by the normally close agreement between the control and indicator station results.4-32 Figure 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-1 37 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish 25 I0 ..4 200 C) 150 0.0 0 5 J! p///)I I r!111 I~L4I*~LE TLi~&IUkAL{IW nL Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Year 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 I--+-Indicator  E-Control -MDCI 4-33 Table 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Bottom Feeding Fish Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 69 48 1977 NDM NDM 1978 NDM NDM 1979 38 30 1980 92 90 1981 96 106 1982 51.5 39.0 1983 NDM NDM 1984 NDM 19 1985 NDM NDM 1986 28 25 1987 25 19 1988 25.5 22.0 1989 NDM NDM 1990 NDM NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 NDM NDM 1993 208 NDM 1994 15.9 10.3 1995 NDM 14.2 1996 16.4 9.9 1997 10.9 7.7 1998 NDM NDM 1999 19.2 NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 9.8 NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM 8.5 2004 8.1 NDM 2005 NDM 9.6 2006 9.7 NDM 2007 8.1 NDM 4-34 Figure 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-1 37 Concentration in Game Fish 350 300 4-250 cL 200 S150 100 50 50 C.-Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year-4-Indicator
--Control -MDC 4-35 Table 4.8-2 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Game Fish Period Indicator Control (pCi/kg) wet (pCi/kg) wet Pre-op 84 60 1977 95 48 1978 NDM NDM 1979 111 83.5 1980 289 316 1981 189 126 1982 76 77 1983 57 56.5 1984 42 26 1985 84 44 1986 51 35 1987 83 46 1988 42 33 1989 38 29 1990 28 NDM 1991 36 24 1992 32.5 28 1993 34 NDM 1994 19 16 1995 17.9 18.2 1996 19.6 23.1 1997 25.9 NDM 1998 52 20 1999 36.9 15.9 2000 22.9 12.5 2001 22.4 12.3 2002 NDM 10.1 2003 19.3 12.0 2004 12.7 10.8 2005 15.7 NDM 2006 15.0 14.7 2007 1 15.4 6.5 Radionuclides of interest other than Cs-137 have been found in only a few samples in the past. The following table provides a summary of the results in pCi/kg wet compared with the applicable MDCs.YEAR Nuclide Fish Type Indicator Control MDC (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg)1978 Ce- 144 Bottom Feeding NDM 200 1981 Nb-95 Bottom Feeding 38 NDM 50 (a)1982 Nb-95 Game 31 NDM 50 (a)1986 Co-60 Game 25 NDM 130 (a) Determined by the EL. Not defined in ODCM Table 4-3 (Table 4-1 of this report)4-36
 
===4.9 Sediment===
River sediment samples are collected semiannually on the Chattahoochee River at a control station which is approximately 4 miles upstream of the intake structure and at an indicator station which is approximately 2 miles downstream of the discharge structure as shown in Figure 2-2. A gamma isotopic analysis is performed on each sample as specified in Table 2-1. During 2007, no nuclides of interest were detected in river sediment.Historically, Be-7, Cs-134, Cs-137, and Nb-95 have been detected in some samples. These positive results were generally for samples collected at the control station. A summary of the positive historical results for these nuclides along with their applicable MDCs in units of pCi/kg dry is provided in Table 4.9. Cs-134 and Cs-137 data are plotted in Figures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2, respectively.
Table 4.9 Sediment Nuclide Concentrations Nuclide YEAR Indicator (pCi/kg) Control (pCi/kg) MDC (pCi/kg)Be-7 1985 535 945 655 (a)2003 199 NDM Cs-134 1987 NDM 45 150 1989 NDM 48 1992 138 51 1993 94 105 Cs-137 1981 NDM 185 180 1985 NDM 97 1989 NDM 39 1994 29 11 1996 11.8 NDM 2005 14.5 NDM Nb-95 1981 52 113 50 (a)(a) Determined by the EL. Not defined in ODCM Table 4-3 (Table 4-1 of this report).4-37 Figure 4.9-1 0 0 U-U)Average Annual Cs-134 Concentration in Sediment 140----120--- 1-- ---------80 80-----------------------
40 ---0 .. ........ .-.............., q0 'b bqj 0 Year I --ndicator --*--Control
-MDC I The positive results for Cs-134 appear mostly at the control station. Due to its relatively short half-life of approximately 2 years, the positive results may be attributed to the Chernobyl incident.
The overall plotting of the positive results does not show any discernible trends.4-38 Figure 4.9-2 200 180 160 01 140 120 0: 100~80 06 0 40 20 0 Average Annual Cs-1 37 Concentration in Sediment--I -1 Po 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Year 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06--*-Indicator
--1--Control
-MDC I Cs-137 appears to be trending down since the ceasing of above ground weapons testing and the majority of the positive results appear at the control stations.Therefore in general, the positive results can be attributed to the weapons tests and the Chemobyl incident.4-39
 
===5.0 INTERLABORATORY===
 
COMPARISON PROGRAM In accordance with ODCM 4.1.3, the EL participates in an ICP that satisfies the requirements of Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)
-Effluent Streams and the Environment", February 1979. The guide indicates the ICP is to be conducted with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies (Cross-check)
Program or an equivalent program, and the ICP should include all of the determinations (sample medium/radionuclide combinations) that are offered by the EPA and included in the REMP.The ICP is conducted by Analytics, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. Analytics has a documented Quality Assurance (QA) program and the capability to prepare Quality Control (QC) materials traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The ICP is a third party blind testing program which provides a means to ensure independent checks are performed on the accuracy and precision of the measurements of radioactive materials in environmental sample matrices.Analytics supplies the crosscheck samples to the EL which performs the laboratory analyses in a normal manner. Each of the specified analyses is performed three times. The results are then sent to Analytics who performs an evaluation which may be helpful to the EL in the identification of instrument or procedural problems.The samples offered by Analytics and included in the EL analyses are gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter; gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples; and gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples.The accuracy of each result is measured by the normalized deviation, which is the ratio of the reported average less the known value to the total error. The total error is the square root of the sum of the squares of the uncertainties of the known value and of the reported average. The uncertainty of the known value includes all analytical uncertainties as reported by Analytics.
The uncertainty of the reported average is the propagated error of the values in the reported average by the EL.The precision of each result is measured by the coefficient of variation, which is defined as the standard deviation of the reported result divided by the reported average. An investigation is undertaken whenever the absolute value of the normalized deviation is greater than three or whenever the coefficient of variation is greater than 15% for all radionuclides other than Cr-51 and Fe-59. For Cr-51 and Fe-59, an investigation is undertaken when the coefficient of variation exceeds the values shown as follows: Nuclide Concentration
* Total Sample Activity Percent Coefficient (pCi) of Variation Cr-51 <300 NA 25 Cr-51 NA >1000 25 Cr-51 >300 <1000 15 Fe-59 <80 NA 25 Fe-59 >80 NA 15* For air filters, concentration units are pCi/filter.
For all other media, concentration units are pCi/liter (pCi/1).5-1 As required by ODCM 4.1.3.3 and 7.1.2.3, a summary of the results of the EL's participation in the ICP is provided in Table 5-1 for: the gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter; gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples; and gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples. Delineated in this table for each of the media/analysis combinations, are: the specific radionuclides; Analytics' preparation dates; the known values with their uncertainties supplied by Analytics; the reported averages with their standard deviations; and the resultant normalized deviations and coefficients of variation expressed as a percentage.
The GPC EL analyzed 12 samples for 46 parameters in 2007. These analyses included tritium, gross beta, Fe-55, Sr-89/90 and gamma emitting radio-nuclides in different matrices.
The attached results indicate all analyses are acceptable for accuracy and precision for environmental media.5-2 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 1 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard 1 Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide I Prepared Average Value I Deviation EL I Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Gross Beta 09/13/07 62.40[ 66.00 1.27] 1.10 5.73 1 -1.02 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known [Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce-141 09/13/07 134.00 143.00 8.14 9.90 7.39 -0.91 Co-58 09/13/07 78.40 77.20 6.86 8.10 10.32 0.14 Co-60 09/13/07 99.40 100.00 2.35 4.43 4.45 -0.14 Cr-51 09/13/07 203.40 196.00 19.88 36.70 18.04 0.20 Cs- 134 09/13/07 93.80 99.80 4.92 6.10 6.51 -0.99 Cs-137 09/13/07 92.50 88.40 10.08 10.90 11.78 0.37 Fe-59 09/13/07 86.30 74.90 6.42 8.67 10.04 1.32 Mn-54 09/13/07 123.80 114.00 8.17 9.77 7.88 1.00 Zn-65 09/13/07 164.90 137.00 11.81 14.60 8.85 1.91 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average I Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce- 141 06/14/07 189.40 200.00 1.16 2.22 5.11 -1.10 Co-58 06/14/07 199.10 198.00 8.82 2.20 6.57 0.09 Co-60 06/14/07 235.10 238.00 1.11 2.64 3.82 -0.32 Cr-51 06/14/07 537.00 512.00 33.36 5.70 10.77 0.43 Cs-134 06/14/07 253.10 242.00 3.56 2.69 3.75 1.17 Cs-137 06/14/07 177.80 169.00 5.18 1.88 5.89 0.84 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 2 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Fe-59 06/14/07 189.10 167.00 23.67 1.85 13.71 0.85 1-131 06/14/07 71.60 70.10 4.86 0.78 10.50 0.20 Mn-54 06/14/07 182.60 166.00 3.44 1.84 5.30 1./1_1 Zn-65 06/14/07 352.20 334.00 29.84 3.70 10.18 0.51 GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Gross Beta 03/22/07 107.20 100.00 8.45 1.11 11.93 0.56 06/14/07 145.80 148.00 10.48 -1.64 8.90 -0.17 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value I Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce-141 03/22/07 259.10 258.00 1.7 2.86 4.08 0.10 Co-58 03/22/07 89.50 85.80 10.44 0.95 13.95 0.30 Co-60 03/22/07 130.40 132.00 4.77 1.47 5.74 -0.21 Cr-51 03/22/07 248.80 213.00 32.08 2.36 19.35 0.74 Cs- 134 03/22/07 104.90 97.10 7.94 1.08 9.32 0.80 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 3 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Cs-137 03/22/07 213.70 204.00 3.41 2.26 4.71 0.97 Fe-59 03/22/07 109.20 91.70 4.98 1.02 9.16 1.75 1-131 03/22/07 100.50 89.80 9.1 1.00 12.33 0.86 Mn-54 03/22/07 173.00 158.00 4.91 1.76 5.86 1.48 Zn-65 03/22/07 916.60 869.00 30.85 9.67 4.90 1.06 TRITIUM ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
Percent Coef Normalized of Variation Deviation I 4.94 1.63 2.271 0.81
 
==6.0 CONCLUSION==
S This report confirms the licensee's conformance with the requirements of Chapter 4 of the ODCM. It provides a summary and discussion of the results of the laboratory analyses for each type of sample.In 2007, there were two instances where the indicator station results were statistically discernible from the control station results -tritium in surface water and Cs-137 in bottom-feeding fish. These are discussed below. No discernible radiological impact upon the environment or the public as a consequence of plant discharges to the atmosphere and to the river was established for any other REMP samples.Low levels of tritium were detected at the indicator station in two of the four quarterly surface water sample collections.
No tritium was detected at the control station. Although no drinking water pathway via surface water exists in the plant vicinity, a potential dose was calculated assuming a person regularly consumed drinking water from the river. The potential dose of 0.025 mrem in a year is less than 1% of the annual dose limit for the total body due to liquid effluents (3 mrem). Another pathway to obtain dose from tritium in the river is through consumption of fish. The potential total body dose for an adult who consumed fish regularly from the river would be about 6.4E-04 mrem in a year which is approximately 0.02% of the annual limit for the total body (3 mrem) due to liquid effluents.
Cesium-137 was detected both of the bottom-feeding fish samples at the indicator station. No Cs-137 was detected at the controlstation therefore theCs-137 seen at the indicator station could be attributed to plant effluents.
The potential total body dose for an adult who regularly consumed fish from the river would be 0.012 mrem in a year which is less than 0.50% of the annual limit for the total body due to liquid effluents.
The radiological levels reported in 2007 were low and are generally trending downward.
The REMP trends over the course of time from preoperation to the present are generally decreasing or have remained fairly constant.
This supports the conclusion that there is no adverse radiological impact on the environment or to the public as a result of the operation of Farley Nuclear Plant.6-1 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2007 Enclosure 3 Vogtle Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2007 VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 2007 SOUTHERN Nk COMPANY Energy to Serve Your World" TABLE OF CONTENTS Section and/or Title Subsection Page List of Figures ii List of Tables iii List of Acronyms iv 1.0 Introduction 1-1 2.0 REMP Description 2-1 3.0 Results Summary 3-1 4.0 Discussion of Results 4-1 4.1 Land Use Census and River Survey 4-5 4.2 Airborne 4-7 4.3 Direct Radiation 4-11 4.4 Milk 4-17 4.5 Vegetation 4-19 4.6 River Water 4-22 4.7 Drinking Water 4-25 4.8 Fish 4-33 4.9 Sediment 4-33 4.10 Groundwater 4-42 5.0 Interlaboratory Comparison Program (ICP) 5-1 6.0 Conclusions 6-1 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Title Page Figure 2-1 REMP Stations in the Plant Vicinity 2-11 Figure 2-2 REMP Control Stations for the Plant 2-12 Figure 2-3 REMP Indicator Drinking Water Stations 2-13 Figure 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 4-8 Figure 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 4-12 Figure 4.3-2 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation at Special Interest Areas 4-14 Figure 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 4-17 Figure 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Vegetation 4-20 Figure 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in River Water 4-23 Figure 4.7-1 Average Monthly Gross Beta Concentration in Raw Drinking Water 4-26 Figure 4.7-2 Average Monthly Gross Beta Concentration in Finished Drinking Water 4-27 Figure 4.7-3 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Raw Drinking Water 4-29 Figure 4.7-4 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Finished Drinking Water 4-31 Figure 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Fish 4-34 Figure 4.9-1 Average Annual Be-7 Concentration in Sediment 4-37 Figure 4.9-2 Average Annual Co-58 Concentration in Sediment 4-38 Figure 4.9-3 Average Annual Co-60 Concentration in Sediment 4-39 Figure 4.9-4 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment 4-40 ii LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title Page Table 2-1 Summary Description of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 2-2 Table 2-2 Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations 2-7 Table 2-3 Groundwater Monitoring Locations 2-10 Table 3-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary 3-2 Table 4-1 Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) 4-1 Table 4-2 Reporting Levels (RL) 4-2 Table 4-3 Deviations from Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 4-4 Table 4.1-1 Land Use Census Results 4-5 Table 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 4-9 Table 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 4-13 Table 4.3-2 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation at Special Interest Areas 4-15 Table 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk 4-18 Table 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Vegetation 4-21 Table 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in River Water 4-24 Table 4.7-1 Average Monthly Gross Beta Concentration in Raw Drinking Water 4-26 Table 4.7-2 Average Monthly Gross Beta Concentration in Finished Drinking Water 4-27 Table 4.7-3 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Raw Drinking Water 4-30 Table 4.7-4 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Finished Drinking Water 4-32 Table 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Fish 4-35 Table 4.9-1 Average Annual Be-7 Concentration in Sediment 4-37 Table 4.9-2 Average Annual Co-58 Concentration in Sediment 4-38 Table 4.9-3 Average Annual Co-60 Concentration in Sediment 4-39 Table 4.9-4 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment 4-41 Table 4.9-5 Additional Sediment Nuclide Concentrations 4-41 Table 5-1 Interlaboratory Comparison Program Results 5-3 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronyms presented in alphabetical order.Acronym Definition ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CL Confidence Level EL Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory EPA Environmental Protection Agency GPC Georgia Power Company ICP Interlaboratory Comparison Program MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MDD Minimum Detectable Difference MWe MegaWatts Electric NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measurement(s)
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Po Preoperation PWR Pressurized Water Reactor REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting Level RM River Mile TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specification VEGP Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant iv
 
==1.0 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 2007 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 comparisons between results of analyses of samples obtained at locations where radiological levels are not expected to be affected by plant operation (control stations) and at locations where radiological levels are more likely to be affected by plant operation (indicator stations), as well as comparisons between preoperational and operational sample results.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 River from the Department of Energy Savannah River Site.Unit 1, a Westinghouse Electric Corporation Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), with a licensed core thermal power of 3565 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 3565 MWt, received its operating license on February 9, 1989 and began commercial operation on May 19, 1989.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. Maps showing the sampling stations are keyed to a table which indicates the direction and distance of each station from a point midway between the two reactors.
Section 3 provides a summary of the results of the analyses of REMP samples for the year.The results are discussed, including an assessment of any,'radiological impacts upon the environment and the results of the land use census and the river survey, in Section 4. The results of the Interlaboratory Comparison Program (ICP) are provided in Section 5. Conclusions are provided in Section 6.1-I 2.0 REMP DESCRIPTION A summary description of the REMP is provided in Table 2-1. This table summarizes the program as it meets the requirements outlined in ODCM Table 4-1. It details the sample types to be collected and the analyses to be performed in order to monitor the airborne, direct radiation, waterborne and ingestion pathways, and also delineates the collection and analysis frequencies.
In addition, Table 2-1 references the locations of stations as described in ODCM Section 4.2 and in Table 2-2 of this report. The stations are also depicted on maps in Figures 2-1 through 2-3.REMP samples are collected by Georgia Power Company's (GPC) Environmental Laboratory (EL) personnel.
The same lab performs all the laboratory analyses at their headquarters in Smyrna, Georgia.2-1 TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 1 of 5)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Number of Representative Sampling and Collection Type and Frequency of and/or Sample Samples and Sample Frequency Analysis Locations 1. Direct Radiation Thirty nine routine monitoring Quarterly Gamma dose, quarterly stations with two or more dosimeters placed as follows: An inner ring of stations, one in each compass sector in the general area of the site boundary;An outer ring of stations, one in each compass sector at approximately 5 miles from the site; and Special interest areas, such as population centers, nearby recreation areas, and control stations.2. Airborne Radioiodine Samples from seven locations:
Continuous sampler operation Radioiodine canister:
l-and Particulates with sample collection weekly, 131 analysis, weekly.Five locations close to the site or more frequently if required by boundary in different sectors; dust loading. Particulate sampler: Gross beta analysis'I A community having the following filter change highest calculated annual and gam~ma isotopic average ground level D/Q; analysis 2of composite (by location), quarterly.
A control location near a population center at a distance_____________________
of about_14_miles.________
_________
_____________
NJ NJ TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 2 of 5)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Number of Representative Sampling and Collection Type and Frequency of and/or Sample Samples and Sample Frequency Analysis Locations 3. Waterborne
.... S r..... f-u .ace ...........
.b. Drinking c. Groundwater
....................................
.........
-.................................
..............
One sample upriver.Two samples downriver.
.................. .W ..................
.........................
.............
.... ..............
.........Two samples at each of the three nearest water treatment plants that could be affected by plant discharges.
Two samples at a control location.See Table 2-3 for well locations.
Composite sample over one month.period 4.Composite sample of river water near the intake of each water treatment plant over two week period 4 when 1-131 analysis is required for each sample;monthly composite otherwise; and grab sample of finished water at each water treatment plant every two weeks or monthly, as appropriate.
Quarterly sample; pump used to sample GW wells; grab sample from yard drains and ponds Gamma 2isotopic analysis 2 , monthly.Composite for tritium analysis, quarterly.
.......................................................
":~ -n i ~ ~ o e c ...........................
1-13 1 analysis on each sample when the dose calculated for the consumption of the water is greater than 1 mrem per year5.Composite for gross beta and gamma isotopic analysis2 on raw water, monthly.Gross beta, gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses on grab sample of finished water, monthly. Composite for tritium analysis on raw and finished water, quarterly.
Tritium, gamma isotopic, and field parameters (pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation/reduction potential, and turbidity) of each sample quarterly; Hard to detect radionuclides as necessary based on results of tritium and gamma TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 3 of 5)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Number of Representative Sampling and Collection Type and Frequency of and/or Sample Samples and Sample Frequency Analysis Locations d. Sediment from Shoreline One sample from downriver Semiannually Gamma isotopic area with existing or potential analysis2, semiannually.
recreational value.One sample from upriver area with existing or potential recreational value......4 .g e s t i o n ..... .......................................
...................
...........................................
.... ..............
... .........
.... ... ... ..... ... ...........................................................
... ... ........................................................
.....................................................................................................
: a. Milk Two samples from milking Biweekly Gamma isotopic animals6 at control locations analysis 27, biweekly.at a distance of about 10 miles or more..... ..................
.....................................................
........................................................
............................................
...... ......................................
....................
....................................................
..........
.... ................................
........................................................................................................................
........................
: b. Fish At least one sample of any Semiannually Gamma isotopic commercially or analysis on edible recreationally important portions, semiannually.
species near the plant discharge.
At least one sample of any commercially or recreationally important species in an area not influenced by plant discharges.
At least one sample of any During the spring spawning Gamma isotopic anadromous species near the season. analysis 2 on edible plant discharge.
portions, annually.
TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 4 of 5)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Number of Representative Sampling and Collection Type and Frequency of and/or Sample Samples and Sample Frequency Analysis Locations c. Grass or Leafy One sample from two onsite Monthly during growing Gamma isotopic Vegetation locations near the site season. analysis 2 , 7, monthly.boundary in different sectors.One sample from a control location at a distance of about 17 miles.
TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 5 of 5)
 
==SUMMARY==
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Notes: (1) Airborne particulate sample filters shall be analyzed for gross beta radioactivity 24 hours 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.(4) 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.(5) The dose shall be calculated for the maximum organ and age group, using the methodology and parameters in the ODCM.(6) A milking animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption.
(7) If the gamma isotopic analysis is not sensitive enough to meet the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) for 1-131, a separate analysis for 1-131 may be performed.
TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 1 of 3)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS Station Station Descriptive Direction 1  Distance Sample Type Number Type Location (miles)'1 Indicator River Bank N 1.1 Direct Rad.2 Indicator River Bank NNE 0.8 Direct Rad.3 Indicator Discharge Area NE 0.6 Airborne Rad.3 Indicator River Bank NE 0.7 Direct Rad 4 Indicator River Bank ENE 0.8 Direct Rad.5 Indicator River Bank E 1.0 Direct Rad.6 Indicator Plant Wilson ESE 1.1 Direct Rad.7 Indicator Simulator SE 1.7 Airborne Rad.Building Direct Rad.Vegetation 8 Indicator River Road SSE 1.1 Direct Rad.9 Indicator River Road S 1.1 Direct Rad.10 Indicator Met Tower SSW 0.9 Airborne Rad.10 Indicator River Road SSW 1.1 Direct Rad.11 Indicator River Road SW 1.2 Direct Rad.12 Indicator River Road WSW 1.2 Airborne Rad.Direct Rad.13 Indicator River Road W 1.3 Direct Rad.14 Indicator River Road WNW 1.8 Direct Rad.15 Indicator Hancock NW 1.5 Direct Rad.Landing Road Vegetation 16 Indicator Hancock NNW 1.4 Airborne Rad.Landing Road Direct Rad.17 Other Sav. River Site N 5.4 Direct Rad.(SRS), River Road 18 Other SRS, D Area NNE 5.0 Direct Rad.19 Other SRS, Road NE 4.6 Direct Rad.A.13 20 Other SRS, Road ENE 4.8 Direct Rad.A.13.1 21 Other SRS, Road E 5.3 Direct Rad.A.17 22 Other River Bank ESE 5.2 Direct Rad.23 Other River Road SE 4.6 Direct Rad.24 Other Chance Road SSE 4.9 Direct Rad.25 Other Chance Road S 5.2 Direct Rad.near Highway 23 26 Other Highway 23 SSW 4.6 Direct Rad.and Ebenezer Church Road 27 Other Highway 23 SW 4.7 Direct Rad.opposite Boll Weevil Road 28 Other Thomas Road WSW 5.0 Direct Rad.2-7 TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 2 of 3)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS Station Station Descriptive Direction' Distance Sample Type Number Type Location (miles)'29 Other Claxton-Lively W 5.1 Direct Rad.Road 30 Other Nathaniel WNW 5.0 Direct Rad.Howard Road 31 Other River Road at NW 5.0 Direct Rad.Allen's Chapel Fork 32 Other River Bank NNW 4.7 Direct Rad.35 Other Girard SSE 6.6 Airborne Rad.Direct Rad.36 Control GPC WSW 13.9 Airborne Rad.Waynesboro Op. Direct Rad.HQ 37 Control Substation WSW 16.7 Direct Rad Waynesboro, Vegetation GA 43 Other Employee's Rec. SW 2.2 Direct Rad.Center 47 Control Oak Grove SE 10.4 Direct Rad.Church 48 Control McBean NW 10.2 Direct Rad.Cemetery 51 Control SGA School S 11.0 Direct Rad.Sardis, GA 52 Control Oglethorpe SW 10.7 Direct Rad.Substation; Alexander, GA 80 Control Augusta Water NNW 29.0 Drinking Treatment Plant Water 2 81 Control Sav River N 2.5 Fish 3 Sediment 4 82 Control Sav River (RM NNE 0.8 River Water 151.2)83 Indicator Sav River (RM ENE 0.8 River Water 150.4) Sediment 4 84 Other Sav River (RM ESE 1.6 River Water 149.5)85 Indicator Sav River ESE 4.3 Fish 3 87 Indicator Beaufort-Jasper SE 76 Drinking County Water Water 5 Treatment Plant 88 Indicator Cherokee Hill SSE 72 Drinking Water Treatment Water 6 Plant, Port Wentworth, Ga 2-8 TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 3 of 3)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS 89 Indicator Purrysburg SSE 76 Drinking Water Treatment Water 9 Plant;Purrysburg, SC 98 Control W.C. Dixon SE 9.8 Milk Dairy 99' Control Boyceland Dairy W 20.9 Milk 100, Control Coble Dairy WSW 23.8 Milk 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) 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 the Savannah River at RM 29.(7) Dairy operations ceased and milk sampling was discontinued at location 99 on September 3, 2003.(8) Milk sample collection began at location 100 on September 30, 2003. In 2006, the dairy changed locations from WNW at 16.2 miles to WSW at 23.8 miles.(9) 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 nearer to the Savannah River at the beginning of the canal.2-9 Groundwater Monitoring Locations Table 2-3 WELL AQUIFER MONITORING PURPOSE LT-1B 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 bldg and NSCW related facilities 806B Water Table Dilution line 808 Water Table Up gradient; along Pen Branch Fault NSCW related tank; western potential R 1 Water Tablelekg leakage R2 Water Table Southern potential leakage R3 Water Table Eastern potential leakage R4 Water Table Dilution line R5 Water Table Dilution line R6 Water Table Dilution line R7 Water Table Dilution line R8 Water Table Dilution line 1013 Water Table Low level rad waste storage 1014 Tertiary Up gradient 1015 Water Table Vertically up gradient 1003 Tertiary Up gradient 1004 Water Table Vertically up gradient 27 Tertiary Down gradient tertiary 29 Tertiary Down gradient tertiary MU-I Tertiary/Cretaceous Facility water supply River N/A Surface water NSCW -Nuclear service cooling water 2-10 22AAW N Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations REMP Stations Indicator Control Additional TLD A A A in the Plant Vicinity Other 0 0 0 TLD & Other 3 , Figure 2-1 S., Aiken&#xa9;o~34 9,-.%i Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations REMP Control Stations Indicator Control Additional TLD , , A for the Plant Other 0 0 0 TLD & Other 4 40 Figure 2-2 10 Miles Radiological Environmental Sampling Locations REMP Indicator Drinking Indicator Control Additional TLD AA A Water Stations Other S 0 0 TLD & Other Figure 2-3
 
===3.0 RESULTS===
 
==SUMMARY==
In accordance with ODCM 7.1.2.1, the summarized and tabulated results for all of the regular samples collected for the year at the designated indicator and control stations are presented in Table 3-1. The format of Table 3-1 is similar to Table 3 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program", Revision 1, November 1979. Results for samples collected at locations other than indicator or control stations are discussed in Section 4 under the particular sample type.As indicated in ODCM 7.1.2.1, the results for naturally occurring radionuclides that are also found in plant effluents must be reported along with man-made radionuclides.
The radionuclide Be-7, which occurs abundantly in nature, is often detected in REMP samples. It is occasionally detected in the plant's liquid and gaseous effluents.
When it is detected in effluents, it is also included in the REMP results. In 2007, Be-7 was not detected in Vogtle's liquid or gaseous effluents.
3-1 TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 1 of 8)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Burke County, Georgia Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Other Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Annual Mean Stations (g) Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean (b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction) (Fraction) (Fraction)
Airborne Gross Beta 10 27.3 Station 10 28.0 26.5 25.1 Particulates 364 9.9-44.5 Met Tower 15.1-44.5 13.0-39.9 13.2-36.5 (fCi/m3) (260/260)
 
===0.9 miles===
SSW (52/52) (52/52) (52/52)Gamma Isotopic 28 Cs- 134 50 NDM (c) NDM NDM NDM Cs- 137 60 NDM NDM NDM NDM Airborne 1-131 70 NDM NDM NDM NDM Radioiodine 364 (fCi/m3)Direct Gamma NA (d) 13.0 Station 01 16.6 12.7 12.5 Radiation Dose 10.2-18.0 River Bank 15.5-18.0 9.0-17.5 10.3-15.7 (mR/91 days) 160 (64/64) 1.1 miles N (4/4) (72/72) (24/24)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 2 of 8)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Burke County, Georgia Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Other Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Annual Mean Stations (g) Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean (b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction)
Range (Fraction)(Fraction)
Milk (pCi/1) Gamma Isotopic 52 Cs-134 15 NA NDM NA NDM Cs-137 18 NA NDM NA NDM Ba-140 60 NA NDM NA NDM La- 140 15 NA NDM NA NDM..-.I.... ...........
.............
................
..............
.. ..............................
... ...........................
..................
............
... ......................
................
... ... .........
..... ...... ...... ... ................
........ t ........................................................................................
...................................................
........ ...........................
...................
I-131 1 NA NDM NA NDM 52 Vegetation Gamma (pCi/kg-wet)
Isotopic 36 1-131 60 NDM NDM NA NDM Cs- 134 60 NDM NDM NA NDM.....................................................................
*..............
...................
............
..........................................
o..........................
..................................
....... &#xf7;...........11.............
-...........-...............
.......................................
................................................
I................................................
.......................
..............................
Cs-137 80 20.2 Station 7 20.2 NA NA 14.2-25.9 Simulator Bldg. 14.2-25.9_(3/24) 1.7 miles SE (3/12)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 3 of 8)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Burke County, Georgia Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Other Control Pathway Total Number Detectable Locations Annual Mean Stations (g) Locations Sampled of Analyses Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean (b), (Unit of Performed (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Measurement) (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction)
Range (Fraction)(Fraction)
River Water Gamma (pCi/l) Isotopic 36 Be-7 124(e) 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 15 NDM NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 15 NDM NDM NDM NDM Cs- 137 18 NDM NDM NDM NDM Ba- 140 60 NDM NDM NDM NDM La- 140 15 NDM NDM NDM NDM Tritium 2000 879 Station 83 879 489 344 12 363-1730 RM 150.4 363-1730 298-664 254-403 (4/4) 0.8 miles ENE (4/4) (4/4) (3/4)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 4 of 8)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Burke County, Georgia Medium or Type and Total Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Other Control Pathway Number of Detectable Locations Annual Mean Stations (g) Locations Sampled Analyses Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean (b), (Unit of Performed (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Man Range Measurement) (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction)
Range (Fraction)(Fraction)
Water Near Intakes to Water Treatment Plants (pCi/1)Gross Beta 48 4 4.00 1.81-12.16 (36/36)Station 89 Purrysburg WTP Purrysburg, SC 76 miles SSE 4.62 1.81-12.16 (12/12)NA 3.13 1.73-4.86 (11/12)t t t Gamma Isotopic 48 Be-7 Mn-54 Fe-59 Co-58 Co-60 Zn-65 Zr-95 Nb-95 1-131(f)Cs- 134 Cs- 137 B a- 140 La- 140 Tritium 16 124(e)15 30 15 15 30 30 15 15 15 18 60 15 2000 NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM 462 353-636 (12/12)NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM 473 404-548 (4/4)NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA.............................................................................
NA NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM 357 (1/4)Station 89 Purrysburg WTP Purrysburg, SC 76 miles SSE I & .1. i I TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 5 of 8)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Burke County, Georgia Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Other Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Annual Mean Stations (g) Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean (b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction)
Range (Fraction)(Fraction)
Finished Water at Water Treatment Plants (pCi/1)Gross Beta 48 4 3.19 1.28-6.60 (35/36)Station 80 Augusta WTP Augusta, GA 29 miles NNW (upstream) 3.36 1.43-6.81 (11/12)NA 3.36 1.43-6.81 (11/12)4 + 4 1 Gamma Isotopic 48 Be-7 Mn-54 Fe-59 Co-58 Co-60 Zn-65 Zr-95 Nb-95 1-131 Cs-134 Cs- 137 Ba- 140 La- 140 Tritium 16 124(e)15 30 15 15 30 30 15 1 15 18 60 15 2000 NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM 494 285-767 (12/12)NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM 548 384-767 (4/4)NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM NDM 229 (1/4)Station 89 Purrysburg WTP Purrysburg, SC 76 miles SSE J i d &
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 6 of 8)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Burke County, Georgia Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Other Control Pathway Total Detectable Locations Annual Mean Stations (g) Locations Sampled Number of Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean (b), (Unit of Analyses (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Measurement)
Performed (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction)
Range (Fraction)(Fraction)
Anadromous Gamma Fish Isotopic (pCi/kg-wet) 1 Be-7 655(e) NDM NDM NA NA Mn-54 130 NDM NDM NA NA Fe-59 260 NDM NDM NA NA Co-58 130 NDM NDM NA NA Co-60 130 NDM NDM NA NA Zn-65 260 NDM NDM NA NA Cs- 134 130 NDM NDM NA NA Cs- 137 150 NDM NDM NA NA Fish Gamma (pCi/kg-wet)
Isotopic 6 Be-7 655(e) NDM NDM NA NDM Mn-54 130 NDM NDM NA NDM Fe-59 260 NDM NDM NA NDM Co-58 130 NDM NDM NA NDM Co-60 130 NDM NDM NA NDM Zn-65 260 NDM NDM NA NDM Cs-134 130 NDM NDM NA NDM Cs-137 150 58.7 Station 85 58.7 NA 37.7 24.2-96.9
 
===4.3 miles===
ESE 24.2-96.9 26.2-49.2 (4/4) (4/4) (2/2)
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 7 of 8)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Burke County, Georgia Medium or Type and Minimum Indicator Location with the Highest Other Control Pathway Total Number Detectable Locations Annual Mean Stations (g) Locations Sampled of Analyses Concentration Mean (b), Mean (b), Mean (b), (Unit of Performed (MDC) (a) Range Name Distance Mean (b), Range Measurement) (Fraction)
& Direction Range (Fraction)
Range (Fraction)(Fraction)
Sediment Gamma (pCi/kg-dry)
Isotopic 4 Be-7 655(e) 1034 Station 81 1274 NA 1274 70(e) NDM NDM NA NDM Cs- 134 150 NDM NDM_ NA NDM Cs-137 180 125 Station 83 125 NA 83 55-194 0.8 miles ENE 55-194 66-100 (2/2) (2/2) (2/2)oc1 00 TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 8 of 8)RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
 
==SUMMARY==
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Burke County, Georgia 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. Any a posteriori MDC greater than the value listed in this column is discussed in Section 4.b. Mean and range are based upon detectable measurements only. The fraction of all measurements at a specified location that are detectable is placed in parenthesis.
: c. No Detectable Measurement(s).
: d. Not Applicable.
: e. The EL has determined that this value may be routinely attained under normal conditions.
No value is provided in ODCM Table 4-3.f. Item 3 of ODCM Table 4-1 implies that an 1-131 analysis is not required to be performed on water samples when the dose calculated from the consumption of water is less then 1 mrem per year. However, 1-131 analyses have been performed on the finished drinking water samples.g. "Other" stations, as identified in the "Station Type" column of Table 2-2, are "Community" and/or "Special" stations.
 
===4.0 DISCUSSION===
 
OF RESULTS Included in this section are evaluations of the laboratory results for the various sample types. Comparisons were made between the difference in mean values for pairs of station groups (e.g., indicator and control stations) and the calculated Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD) between these pairs at the 99%Confidence Level (CL). The MDD was determined using the standard Student's t-test. A difference in the mean values that was less than the MDD was considered to be statistically indiscernible.
The 2007 results were compared with past results, including those obtained during preoperation.
As appropriate, results were compared with their Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) and Reporting Levels (RL) which are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of this report, respectively.
The required MDCs were achieved during laboratory sample analysis.
Any anomalous results are explained within this report.Results of interest are graphed to show historical trends. The data points are tabulated and included in this report. The points plotted and provided in the tables represent mean values of only detectable results. Periods for which no detectable measurements (NDM) were observed or periods for which values were not applicable (e.g., milk indicator, etc.) are listed as NDM and are plotted in the tables as O's.Table 4-1 Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC)Analysis Water Airborne Fish Milk Grass or Sediment (pCi/l) Particulate (pCi/kg- (pCi/l) Leafy (pCi/kg)or Gases wet) Vegetation (fCi/m3) (pCi/kg-wet)Gross Beta 4 10 H-3 2000 (a)Mn-54 15 130 Fe-59 30 260 Co-58 15 130 Co-60 15 130 Zn-65 30 260 Zr-95 30_Nb-95 15 1-131 1 (b) 70 1 60 Cs-134 15 50 130 15 60 150 Cs-137 18 60 150 18 80 180 Ba- 140 60 60 La-140 15 15 (a) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 3000 pCi/1 may be used.(b) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 15 pCi/l may be used.4-1 Table 4-2 Reporting Levels (RL)Analysis Water Airborne Fish Milk (pCi/l) Grass or (pCi/l) Particulate (pCi/kg-wet)
Leafy or Gases Vegetation (fCi/m3) (pCi/kg-wet)
H-3 20,000 (a)Mn-54 1000 30,000 Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1000 30,000 Co-60 300 10,000 Zn-65 300 20,000 Zr-95 400 Nb-95 700 1-131 2 (b) 900 3 100 Cs-134 30 10,000 1000 60 1000 Cs-137 50 20,000 2000 70 2000 Ba-140 200 300 La-140 100 400 (a) This is the 40 CFR 141 value for drinking water samples.pathway exists, a value of 30,000 may be used.If no drinking water (b) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 20 pCi/i may be used.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 preoperation, and the earlier years of operation.
Some long lived radionuclides, such as Cs-137, continue to have some impact. A significant component of the Cs-137 which has often been found in various samples over the years (and continues to be found) is attributed to the nuclear weapons tests.Data in this section has been modified to remove any obvious non-plant short term impacts. The specific short term impact data that has been removed includes:
the nuclear atmospheric weapon test in the fall of 1980; abnormal releases from the Savannah River Site (SRS) during 1987 and 1991; and the Chernobyl incident in the spring of 1986.In accordance with ODCM 4.1.1.2.1, deviations from the required sampling schedule are permitted, if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, unavailability, inclement weather, equipment malfunction or other just reasons.Deviations from conducting the REMP as described in Table 2-1 are summarized in Table 4-3 along with their causes and resolutions.
As discussed in Section 4.2, during 2007 there were two deviations which resulted in loss of data. Each of the milk stations had one occurrence where a sample was not available.
4-2 All results were tested for conformance with Chauvenet's criterion (G. D. Chase and J. L. Rabinowitz, Principles of Radioisotope Methodology, Burgess Publishing Company, 1962, pages 87-90) to identify values which differed from the mean of a set by a statistically significant amount. Identified outliers were investigated to determine the reason(s) for the 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.
No data were excluded exclusively for failing Chauvenet's criterion.
Data exclusions are discussed in this section under the appropriate sample type.4-3 TABLE 4-3 DEVIATIONS FROM RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM COLLECTION AFFECTED DEVIATION CAUSE RESOLUTION PERIOD SAMPLES 1 st Quarter All VEGP TLD Large number of TLD Unknown Used results from elements 3 and CR2007113008 REMP Stations results with high standard 4 only to determine direct deviations radiation dose 2nd Quarter River Bank TLD 2A TLD rendered suspect by Moisture / rain water entered Replaced TLDs at beginning of CR2008103759 NNE @ 0.8 miles presence of water in bag holding bag quarter 3'd Quarter SRS TLDs 17A & B TLDs found on ground at Unknown Replaced TLDs at beginning of CR2008103759 N @ 5.4 miles collection time quarter 09/11/07-09/25/07 Coble Dairy No milk sample available Dairy operator not able to Sample available at next CR2007113006 provide sample collection period 11/06/07-11/13/07 AC/AF Non-representative sample Fuse blown -- lost Fuse and motor were replaced CR2007113009 Discharge Station of airborne particulates approximately 60 hours of NE @ 0.6 miles sample time 11/06/07-11/20/07 Dixon Dairy No milk sample available Dairy owner not able to Sample available at next CR2007113010 provide sample collection period 4'h Quarter River Bank TLDs rendered suspect by Moisture / rain water entered Replaced TLDs at beginning of CR2008103759 TLDs 32A & B presence of water in bag holding bag quarter NNW @ 4.7 miles and found on the ground at collection time 4.1 Land Use Census and River Survey In accordance with ODCM 4.1.2, a land use census was conducted on November 13, 2007 to determine the locations of the nearest permanent residence, milk animal, and garden of greater than 500 square feet producing broad leaf vegetation, in each of the 16 compass sectors within a distance of 5 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.
Land within SRS was excluded from the census. The census results are tabulated in Table Table 4.1-1 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS Distance in Miles to the Nearest Location in Each Sector SECTOR RESIDENCE MILK BEEF GARDEN ANIMAL CATTLE 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 4.4 None 5.0 None SSE 4.6 None 4.7 None S 4.4 None None None SSW 4.7 None 4.5 None SW 2.7 None 4.9 None WSW 1.2 None 2.7 None W 3.4 None 4.5 4.2 WNW 1.8 None None None NW 1.6 None 1.9 None NNW 1.5 None None None ODCM 4.1.2.2.1 requires a new controlling receptor to be identified, if the land use census identifies a location that yields a calculated receptor dose greater than the one in current use. It was determined that no change in the controlling receptor was required in 2007.ODCM 4.1.2.2.2 requires that whenever the land use census identifies a location which yields a calculated dose (via the same ingestion pathway) 20% greater than that of a current indicator station, the new location must become a REMP station (if samples are available).
None of the identified locations yielded a calculated 4-5 dose 20% greater than that for any of the current indicator stations.
No milk animals were identified within five miles of the plant.A survey of the Savannah River downstream of the plant for approximately 100 miles was conducted on September 18, 2007 to identify any withdrawal of water from the river for drinking or irrigation purposes.
No such usage was identified.
These results were corroborated by checking with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources on September 27, 2007 and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control on October 4, 2007. Each of these agencies confirmed that no water withdrawal permits for drinking or irrigation purposes had been issued for this stretch of the Savannah River. The three water treatment plants used as indicator stations for drinking water are located farther downriver.
4-6
 
===4.2 Airborne===
As specified in Table 2-1 and shown in Figures 2-1 through 2-3, airborne particulate filters and charcoal canisters are collected weekly at 5 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 7 miles from the plant, and at a control station (Station 36) which is approximately 14 miles from the plant. At each location, 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.
Each particulate filter is counted for gross beta activity.
A quarterly gamma isotopic analysis is performed on a composite of the air particulate filters for each station. Each charcoal canister is analyzed for 1-131.As provided in Table 3-1, the 2007 annual average weekly gross beta activity was 27.3 fCi/m 3 for the indicator stations.
It was 2.2 fCi/m 3 greater than the control station average of 25.1 fCi/m 3 for the year. This difference is not statistically discernible, since it is less than the calculated MDD of 2.4 fCi/m 3.The 2007 annual average weekly gross beta activity at the Girard community station was 26.5 fCi/m3 which was 0.8 fCi/m 3 less than the control station average.This difference is not statistically discernible since it is less than the calculated MDD of 2.4 fCi/m 3.The historical trending of the average weekly gross beta air concentrations for each year of operation and the preoperational period (September, 1981 to January, 1987) at the indicator, control and community stations is plotted in Figure 4.2-1 and listed in Table 4.2-1. In general, there is close agreement between the results for the indicator, control and community stations.
This close agreement supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to the gross beta concentrations in air.4-7 Figure 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration 30 E 25 2 -0 0 PO 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year 1-4-Indicator -U- Control --- Community
-MDC 4-8 Table 4.2-1 Average Weekly Gross Beta Air Concentration Period Indicator (fCi/m3) Control Community (fCi/m3) (fCi/m3)Pre-op 22.9 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 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 26.5 4-9 During 2007, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the quarterly composites of the air particulate filters. In 1987, Cs-137 was found in one indicator composite at a concentration of 1.7 fCi/m 3.During pre-operation, Cs-137 was found in approximately 12% of the indicator composites and 14% of the control composites with average concentrations of 1.7 and 1.0 fCi/m 3 , respectively.
The MDC for airborne Cs-137 is 60 fCi/m 3.Also, during pre-operation, Cs-134 was found in about 8% of the indicator composites at an average concentration of 1.2 fCi/m3. The MDC for Cs-134 is 50 fCi/m3.The naturally occurring radionuclide Be-7 is typically detected in all indicator and control station gamma isotopic analyses of the quarterly composites of the air particulate filters. In 2007, Be-7 was not identified in plant gaseous effluents therefore it is not included in the 2007 REMP summary table for the airborne pathway samples. Be-7 has been detected in gaseous effluents in only eight of the years of plant operation.
However, there was not a statistically discernible difference between the indicator and control station Be-7 concentrations in air samples in any of the years.Airborne 1-131 was not detected in any sample during 2007. During pre-operation, positive results were obtained only during the Chernobyl incident when concentrations as high as 182 fCi/m 3 were observed.
The MDC and RL for airborne 1-131 are 70 and 900 fCi/m 3 , respectively.
Table 4-3 lists REMP deviations that occurred in 2007. There was one air sampling deviation.
During the collection period 11/06/07-11/13/07, a fuse blew at the Discharge air station causing a loss of approximately 60 hours of sampling time. The system operated satisfactorily after the fuse and motor were replaced.No data was lost as a result of this deviation.
4-10
 
===4.3 Direct===
Radiation Direct (external) radiation is measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Two Panasonic UD-814 TLD badges are placed at each station. Each badge contains three phosphors composed of calcium sulfate crystals (with thulium impurity).
The gamma dose at each station is based upon the average readings of the phosphors from the two badges. The badges for each station are placed in thin plastic bags for protection from moisture while in the field. The badges are nominally exposed for periods of a quarter of a year (91 days). An inspection is performed near mid-quarter to assure that all badges are on-station and to replace any missing or damaged badges.Two TLD stations are established in each of the 16 compass sectors, to form 2 concentric rings. The inner ring (Stations 1 through 16) is located near the plant perimeter as shown in Figure 2-1 and the outer ring (Stations 17 through 32) is located at a distance of approximately 5 miles from the plant as shown in Figure 2-2. 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 6 control stations (Stations 36, 37, 47, 48, 51 and 52) are located at distances greater than 10 miles from the plant as shown in Figure 2-2. Monitored special interest areas consist of the following:
Station 35 at the town of Girard, and Station 43 at the employee recreational area. The TLD mean and range values presented in the "Other" column in Table 3-1 (page 1 of 8) includes the outer ring stations (stations 17 through 32) as well as stations 35 and 43.As provided in Table 3-1 the average quarterly exposure measured at the indicator stations was 13.0 mR with a range of 10.2 to 18.0 mR. This average was 0.5 mR greater than the average quarterly exposure measured at the control stations (12.5 mR). This difference is not statistically discernible since it is less than the MDD of 1.0 mR. Over the operational history of the site, the annual average quarterly exposures shows a variation of no more than 0.7 mR difference between the indicator and control stations.
The overall average quarterly exposure for the control stations during preoperation was 1.2 mR greater than that for the indicator stations.The quarterly exposures acquired at the outer ring stations during 2007 ranged from 9.0 to 17.5 mR with an average of 12.7 mR which was 0.2 mR greater than that for the control stations.
However, this difference is not discernible since it is less than the MDD of 1.2 mR. 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.
The overall average quarterly exposure for the outer ring stations during preoperation was 1.8 mR less than that for the control stations.The historical trending of the average quarterly exposures for the indicator inner ring, outer ring, and the control stations are plotted in Figure 4.3-1 and listed in Table 4.3-1. 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.The close agreement between the station groups supports the position that the plant is not contributing significantly to direct radiation in the environment.
4-11 Figure 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation 20 18 I 16 0 I1 --- ---ri--Inicto
--D-oto -I-OtrRn 0 0 ------------Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year-4--Indicator U-Control A*- Outer Ring 4-12 Table 4.3-1 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation Period Indicator Control Outer Ring (mR) (mR) (mR)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 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 13.5 13.6 13.5 2001 12.9 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 4-13 The historical trending of the average quarterly exposures at the special interest areas for the same periods are provided in Figure 4.3-2 and listed in Table 4.3-2.These exposures are within the range of those acquired at the other stations.
They too, show that the plant is not contributing significantly to direct radiation at the special interest areas.Figure 4.3-2 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation at Special Interest Areas 25 20 U)~10---------------
---- -----------------
----' ---------------------, 0 Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year--*-Hunting Cabin (Sta 33) --M- Girard (Sta 35) A Rec Center (Sta 43)4-14 Table 4.3-2 Average Quarterly Exposure from Direct Radiation% at Special Interest Areas Period Station 33 Station 35 Station 43 (mR) (mR) (mR)Pre-op 16.6 15.1 15.3 1987 21.3 18.5 15.2 1988 19.7 18.1 14.8 1989 21.2 18.7 17.4 1990 16.8 18.9 16.2 1991 17.3 19.6 17.0 1992 12.8 13.5 12.0 1993 12.9 13.3 12.1 1994 12.6 13.6 12.0 1995 13.3 13.5 12.3 1996 13.0 13.6 12.1 1997 13.8 14.4 12.7 1998 13.5 13.7 12.5 1999 NA 14.5 12.7 2000 NA 14.8 13.1 2001 NA 14.0 12.6 2002 NA 14.0 12.1 2003 NA 14.1 12.2 2004 NA 14.2 11.7 2005 NA 15.2 12.7 2006 NA 14.3 12.6 2007 NA 13.6 11.8 The hunting cabin activities at Station 33 have been discontinued and, consequently, this location is no longer considered as an area of special interest.Monitoring at this location was discontinued at the end of 1998.There were four deviations from the REMP pertaining to measuring quarterly gamma doses during 2007. In second quarter and fourth quarter, moisture was found in the TLD holding bags at River Bank location 2A and River Bank location 32A and 32B, respectively.
In the third quarter, SRS TLDs 17A and 17B were found on the ground at collection time. The results from these deviations passed Chauvenet's Criterion and were included in the data set. The first quarter deviation is discussed in the last paragraph below.The standard deviation for the quarterly result for each badge was subjected to a self imposed limit of 1.4. This limit is based upon the standard deviations obtained with the Panasonic UD-814 badges during 1992 and is calculated using a method developed by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Special Technical Publication 15D, ASTM Manual on Presentation of Data and Control Chart Analysis, Fourth Revision, Philadelphia, PA, October 1976). The limit serves as a flag to initiate an investigation.
To be conservative, readings with a standard deviation greater than 1.4 are excluded since the high standard deviation is interpreted as an indication of unacceptable variation in TLD response.4-15 The readings for the following badges were deemed unacceptable since the standard deviation for each badge was greater than the self-imposed limit of 1.4: First Quarter: V15B Second Quarter: None Third Quarter: None Fourth Quarter: V42B However, for these cases when only one badge exceeded a standard deviation of 1.4, the companion badges were available and were used for determining the quarterly doses. A deviation occurred in the first quarter that involved a large number of ILD results which had high standard deviations.
To minimize data loss, only the results from elements 3 and 4 were used to determine dose. The badges exceeding the self-imposed limit were visually inspected under a microscope and the glow curve and test results for the anneal data and the element correction factors were reviewed.
No reason was evident for the high standard deviation.
4-16 4.4 Milk In accordance with Tables 2-1 and 2-2, milk samples are collected biweekly from two control locations, the W. C. Dixon Dairy (Station 98) and the Coble Dairy (Station 100). No indicator station (a location within 5 miles of the plant) for milk has been available since April 1986. As discussed in Section 4.1, no milk animal was found during the 2007 land use census. There were two collection periods in 2007 where milk samples were not available; no sample from Coble 09/11/07-09/25-07 and no sample from Dixon 11/06/07-11/20/07.
Gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses are performed on each milk sample. No man-made radionuclides were identified by gamma isotopic analysis in 2007. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in milk are 18 and 70 pCi/l, respectively.
During preoperation and each year of operation through 1991, Cs-137 was found in 2 to 6% of the samples at concentrations ranging from 5 to 27 pCi/l. During preoperation, Cs-134 was detected in one sample and in the first year of operation, Zn-65 was detected in one sample. Figure 4.4-1 and Table 4.4-1 provide the historical trending of the Cs-137 concentration in milk.Figure 4.4-1 20 18 16 14 C.)12 0 10 0 6 4 2 0 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year 1 $-Indicator  Control -MVDCI 4-17 Table 4.4-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Milk Year Indicator Control (pCi/l) (pCi/l)Pre-op 18.5 18 1987 NDM 10.4 1988 NDM 6.9 1989 NDM 7 1990 NDM 17 1991 NDM 14.2 1992 NDM NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 NDM NDM 1995 NDM NDM 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM During 2007, 1-131 was not detected in any of the milk samples. Since plant operations began in 1987, 1-131 may have been detected in one sample in 1996 and two during 1990; however, its presence in these cases was questionable, due to large counting uncertainties.
During preoperation, positive 1-131 results were found only during the Chernobyl incident with concentrations ranging from 0.53 to 5.07 pCi/l. The MDC and RL for 1-131 in milk are 1 and 3 pCi/l, respectively.
4-18
 
===4.5 Vegetation===
In accordance with Tables 2-1 and 2-2, grass samples are collected monthly at two indicator locations onsite near the site boundary (Stations 7 and 15) and at one control station located about 17 miles WSW from the plant (Station 37). Gamma isotopic analyses are performed on the samples. During 2007, three samples out of the 24 samples collected at the indicator stations were positive for the man-made radionuclide, Cs-137. The average of the three positive indicator samples was 20.2 pCi/kg-wet.
None of the 12 samples collected at the control stations was positive for Cs-137. The levels seen at the indicator stations could potentially be attributed to plant effluents.
However, Cs-137 is often detected in environmental samples as a result of atmospheric weapons testing and the Chernobyl incident.In 2006, one sample at the control station was positive for Cs-137 at a higher concentration, 491.8 pCi/kg-wet, than typically seen over the years in Vogtle vegetation samples. A duplicate sample (which is taken periodically) happened to be taken at the same collection time and also revealed a similar activity.
The higher concentration more than likely resulted from plowing and seeding activities (to maintain the vegetation plot) which took place a couple of weeks prior to the sample collection.
The historical trending of the average concentration of Cs-137 at the indicator and control stations is provided in Figure 4.5-1 and listed in Table 4.5-1. No trend is recognized in this data. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in vegetation samples are 80 and 2000 pCi/kg-wet, respectively.
Cs-137 is the only man-made radionuclide that has been identified in vegetation samples during the operational history of the plant. During preoperation, Cs-137 was found in approximately 60% of the samples from indicator stations and in approximately 20% of the samples from the control station. These percentages have generally decreased during operation.
The naturally occurring radionuclide Be-7 is typically detected in indicator and control station vegetation samples. Be-7 was not detected in gaseous effluents in 2007, therefore it is not included in the REMP summary table for the airborne pathway samples. Be-7 has been detected in gaseous effluents eight of the nineteen years of plant operation and is therefore of interest in the REMP program. However, the levels of Be-7 found in the REMP make no significant contribution to dose.In May and June of 1986 during preoperation, as a consequence of the Chernobyl incident, 1-131 was found in nearly all the samples collected for a period of several weeks in the range of 200 to 500 pCi/kg-wet.
The MDC and RL for 1-131 in vegetation are 60 and 100 pCi/kg-wet, respectively.
Also during this time period, Co-60 was found in one of the samples at a concentration of 62.5 pCi/kg-wet.
There is no specified MDC or RL for Co-60 in vegetation.
4-19 Figure 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Vegetation 600.-50O-400--1111-
-C.)300.1.2 5- 2001 U 100 1 .3---*.---
Indicator
---- -Control -MDC-]4-20 Table 4.5-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Vegetation Year Indicator Control (pCi/kg-wet) (pCi/kg-wet)
Pre-op 54.6 43.7 1987 24.4 61.5 1988 38.7 NDM 1989 9.7 NDM 1990 30.0 102.0 1991 35.3 62.4 1992 38.1 144.0 1993 46.4 34.1 1994 20.7 57.4 1995 57.8 179.0 1996 NDM NDM 1997 NDM 32.6 1998 NDM 50.1 1999 37.2 NDM 2000 36.6 NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM 98.3 2003 24.5 NDM 2004 36.8 19.7 2005 49.5 NDM 2006 23.9 491.8 2007 20.2 NDM 4-21
 
===4.6 River===
Water Surface water from the Savannah River is obtained at three locations using automatic samplers.
Small quantities are drawn at intervals not exceeding a few hours. The samples drawn are collected monthly; quarterly composites are produced from the monthly collections.
The collection points consist of a control location (Station 82) which is located about 0.4 miles upriver of the plant intake structure, an indicator location (Station 83) which is located about 0.4 miles downriver of the plant discharge structure, and a special location (Station 84) which is located approximately
 
===1.3 miles===
downriver of the plant discharge structure.
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.A gamma isotopic analysis is conducted on each monthly sample. As in all previous years, there were no gamma emitting radionuclides of interest detected in the 2007 river water samples.Each quarterly composite is analyzed for tritium. As indicated in Table 3-1, the average concentration found at the indicator station was 879 pCi/l which was 535 pCi/l greater than the average at the control station (344 pCi/1). The difference between the indicator and the control station was less than the calculated MDD (1189 pCi/1). The MDD is influenced by the variability of concentrations at the indicator station from quarter to quarter. The low number of samples (four quarterly composite samples), the variability of the four sample values, and the high standard deviation contributed to the large MDD value. The MDC for tritium in river water used to supply drinking, water is 2000 pCi/l and the RL is 20,000 pCi/l.At the special river water sampling station, the results ranged from 298 pCi/l to 664 pCi/l with an average of 489 pCi/l. The difference between the average concentration at the control station and the average at the special station was less than the calculated MDD of 329 pCi/l. The decrease in tritium concentration between the indicator station and the special station is due to the additional dispersion over the 0.9 miles that separates the two stations.
In the first two years of operation, the tritium concentration at the special station was somewhat greater than that at the indicator station. In recent years, the level at the special station has generally become less than the level at the indicator station.The historical trending of the average tritium concentrations found at the special, indicator, and control stations along with the MDC for tritium is plotte~d on Figure 4.6-1. The data for the plot is listed in Table 4.6-1. Also included in the table are data from the calculated difference between the indicator and control stations; the MDD between the indicator and control stations; and the total curies of tritium released from the plant in liquid effluents.
The annual downriver survey of the Savannah River showed that river water is not being used for purposes of drinking or irrigation for at least 100 miles downriver (discussed in Section 4.1).4-22 Figure 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in River Water 3000 2500 O 2000 0.0 1500 C U)51)1 Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year-4-Indicator -m--Control A Special -MDC 4-23 Table 4.6-1 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in River Water Year Special Indicator Control Difference MDD Annual Site (pCi/l) (pCi/l) (pCi/I) Between (pCi/l) Tritium Indicator and Released Control (Ci)(pCi/I)Pre-op 1900 650 665 -15 145 NA 1987 1411 680 524 156 416 321 1988 1430 843 427 416 271 390 1989 1268 1293 538 755 518 918 1990 1081 1142 392 750 766 1172 1991 1298 1299 828 471 626 1094 1992 929 1064 371 693 714 1481 1993 616 712 238 474 1526 761 1994 774 1258 257 '1001 2009 1052 1995 699 597 236 361 766 968 1996 719 1187 387 800 2147 1637 1997 686 1547 254 1293 1566 1449 1998 640 1226 196 1030 1313 1669 1999 859 2005 389 1616 1079 1674 2000 885 1564 496 1068 1786 869 2001 931 2101 743 1358 1696 1492 2002 1280 2628 437 2190 1211 1566 2003 800 1376 399 977 1706 1932 2004 743 1269 351 918 1061 1212 2005 713 800 458 342 1333 1860 2006 852 2307 384 1882 2688 2005 2007 489 879 344 535 1189 757 4-24
 
===4.7 Drinking===
Water Samples are collected at /a control location (Station 80 -the Augusta Water Treatment Plant in Augusta, Georgia located about 56 river miles upriver), and at three indicator locations (Station 87 -the Beaufort-Jasper County Water Treatment Plant near Beaufort, South Carolina, 112 river miles downriver; Station 88 -the Cherokee Hill Water Treatment Plant near Port Wentworth, Georgia, 122 river miles downriver; and Station 89 -the Purrysburg Water Treatment Plant near Purrysburg, South Carolina, located about 112 miles downriver.
The Purrysburg Station was added to the REMP in January 2006.) Stations 87 and 89 are located on the same canal with the Purrysburg location at the beginning of the canal (nearer the Savannah River) and the Beaufort-Jasper location near the end of the canal. These upriver and downriver distances in river miles are the distances from the plant to the point on the river where water is diverted to the intake for each of these water treatment plants.Water samples are taken near the intake of each water treatment plant (raw drinking water) using automatic samplers that take periodical small aliquots from the stream. These composite samples are collected monthly along with a grab sample of the processed water coming from the treatment plants (finished drinking water). Quarterly composites are made from these monthly collections for both raw and processed river water. Gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses are performed on each of the monthly samples while tritium analysis is conducted on the quarterly composites.
An 1-131 analysis is not required to be conducted on these samples, since the dose calculated from the consumption of water is less than 1 mrem per year (see ODCM Table 4-1). However, an 1-131 analysis is conducted on each of the monthly finished water grab samples, since a drinking water pathway exists.Provided in Figures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 and Tables 4.7-1 and 4.7-2, are the historical trends of the average gross beta concentrations found in the monthly collections of raw and finished drinking water.For 2007, the indicator station average gross beta concentration in the raw drinking water was 4.00 pCi/l which was 0.87 pCi/l greater than the average gross beta concentration at the control station (3.13 pCi/1). This difference is not statistically discernible, since it is less than the calculated MDD of 1.0 pCi/l. The required MDC for gross beta in water is 4.0 pCi/l. There is no RL for gross beta in water.For 2007, the indicator station average gross beta concentration in the finished drinking water was 3.19 pCi/l which was 0.17 pCi/l less than the average gross beta concentration at the control station (3.36 pCi/l). This difference is less than the MDD of 1.1 pCi/l and is not statistically discernible.
The gross beta concentrations at the indicator stations ranged from 1.28 to 6.60 pCi/l while the concentrations at the control station ranged from 1.43 to 6.81 pCi/l. The required MDC for gross beta in water is 4.0 pCi/1. There is no RL for gross beta in water.4-25 Figure 4.7-1 Average Monthly Gross Beta Concentration in Raw Drinking Water 8 7.2 4-3 PO 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year-4--Indicator
---Control -MDC Table 4.7-1 Average Monthly Gross Beta Concentration in Raw Drinking Water Period Indicator Control (pCi/) I (pCill)Pre-op 2.70 1.90 1987 2.20 5.50 1988 2.67 3.04 1989 2.93 3.05 1990 2.53 2.55 1991 2.83 3.08 1992 2.73 2.70 1993 3.17 2.83 1994 3.51 3.47 1995 3.06 4.90 1996 5.83 3.02 1997 2.93 2.94 1998 3.31 2.58 1999 4.10 4.37 2000 4.52 3.59 2001 3.21 2.94 2002 3.09 2.61 2003 3.73 2.59 2004 4.06 2.39 2005 3.75 2.48 2006 3.85 2.93 2007 4.00 3.13 4-26 Figure 4.7-2 Average Monthly Gross Beta Concentration in Finished Drinking Water 4.5-4--4.5---------------------------------------------
jI 1.5-0,5 o1.Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year----Indicator -U--Control -MDC Average Monthly Table 4.7-2 Gross Beta Concentration in Finished Drinking Water Period Indicator Control (pCi/l) (pCi/l)Pre-op 2.90 1.80 1987 2.10 1.80 1988 2.28 2.35 1989 2.36 2.38 1990 2.08 1.92 1991 1.90 1.53 1992 2.09 1.67 1993 2.23 2.30 1994 2.40 2.68 1995 2.74 2.32 1996 2.19 2.21 1997 2.38 1.77 1998 3.23 1.67 1999 3.23 3.21 2000 3.39 2.68 2001 2.67 2.00 2002 2.80 2.61 2003 2.51 2.34 2004 2.36 1.92 2005 2.61 2.00 2006 3.23 3.25 2007 3.19 3.36 4-27 As provided in Table 3-1, there were no positive results during 2007 for the radionuclides of interest from the gamma isotopic analysis of the monthly collections for both raw and finished drinking water. Only one positive result has been found since operation began. Be-7 was found at a concentration of 68.2 pCi/l in the sample collected for September 1987 at Station 87. During preoperation Be-7 was found in about 5% of the samples at concentrations ranging from 50 to 80 pCi/l. The MDC assigned for Be-7 in water is 124 pCi/l. Also during preoperation, Cs-134 and Cs-137 were detected in about 7% of the samples at concentrations on the order of their MDCs which are 15 and 18 pCi/l, respectively.
1-131 was detected in finished drinking water in 1997 at levels near the MDC.This was the first occurrence for detecting 1-131 in finished drinking water since operation began. During preoperation, it was detected in only one of 73 samples at a concentration of 0.77 pCi/l at Port Wentworth.
The MDC and RL for 1-131 in drinking water are 1 and 2 pCi/l, respectively.
Figures 4.7-3 and 4.7-4 and Tables 4.7-3 and 4.7-4 provide historical trending for the average tritium concentrations found in the quarterly composites of raw and finished drinking water collected at the indicator and control stations.
The tables also list the calculated differences between the indicator and control stations, and list the MDDs between these two station groups.The graphs and tables show that the tritium concentrations in the drinking water samples, both raw and finished, have been gradually trending downward since 1988. The small increase in average concentrations at the indicator stations for 1991 and 1992 reflect the impact of the inadvertent release from SRS of 7,500 Ci of tritium to the Savannah River about 10 miles downriver of VEGP, in December 1991 (SRS release data was obtained from "Release of 7,500 Curies of Tritium to the Savannah River from the Savannah River Site", Georgia Department of National Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Environmental Radiation Program, January 1992).The 2007 raw drinking water indicator stations average tritium was 462 pCi/l which was 105 pCi/l greater than the single positive concentration determined at the control station (357 pCi/1). Application of the modified Student's t-test showed that the difference between the average at the indicator stations and the single positive value at the control station is not statistically discernible.
The MDC and RL for tritium in drinking water are 2000 pCi/l and 20,000 pCi/l, respectively.
The finished drinking water average tritium concentration at the indicator stations during 2007 was 494 pCi/l which was 265 pCi/l more than that the single positive concentration found at the control station (229 pCi/1). Application of the modified Student's t-test showed that the difference between the average at the indicator stations and the single positive value at the control station is not statistically discernible.
4-28 Figure 4.7-3 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Raw Drinking Water 0 a-0 (U 4-.C Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year S Indicator
--D--Control
-MDC 4-29 Table 4.7-3 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Raw Drinking Water Period Indicator Control Difference MDD (pCi/1) (pCi/l) Between Ind. & (pCi/l)Control (pCiAl)Pre-op 2300 400 1900 1987 2229 316 1913 793 1988 2630 240 2390 580 1989 2508 259 2249 1000 1990 1320 266 1054 572 1991 1626 165 1461 834 1992 1373 179 1194 353 1993 955 NDM 955 NA 1994 871 NDM 871 NA 1995 917 201 716 NA 1996 1014 207 807 151 1997 956 230 726 61 1998 791 160 631 NA 1999 908 NDM 908 NA 2000 1020 373 647 704 2001 889 525 364 NA 2002 938 304 634 284 2003 563 203 360 NA 2004 585 220 365 204 2005 463 393 70 301 2006 690 451 239 394 2007 462 357 105 NA 4-30 Figure 4.7-4 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Finished Drinking Water C.L 0.0 0 0 Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 6 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 1-0-Indicator
-4Control
-MDC 4-31 Table 4.7-4 Average Annual H-3 Concentration in Finished Drinking Water Period Indicator Control Difference MDD (pCi/i) (pCi/l) Between Ind. & (pCi/l)Control (pCi/l)Pre-op 2900 380 2520 1987 2406 305 2101 1007 1988 2900 270 2630 830 1989 2236 259 1977 627 1990 1299 404 895 1131 1991 1471 225 1246 647 1992 1195 211 984 427 1993 993 NDM 993 NA 1994 880 131 749 270 1995 847 279 568 NA 1996 884 168 716 NA 1997 887 221 666 383 1998 713 180 533 NA 1999 920 263 657 NA 2000 1043 251 792 833 2001 1037 516 521 NA 2002 1060 340 720 416 2003 473 196 277 NA 2004 531 255 276 314 2005 546 223 323 NA 2006 688 710 22 NA 2007 494 229 265 NA 4-32 4.8 Fish Table 2-1 requires the collection of at least one sample of any anadromous species of fish in the vicinity of the plant discharge during the spring spawning season, and for the semi-annual collection of at least one sample of any commercially or recreationally important species in the vicinity of the plant discharge area and in an area not influenced by plant discharges.
Table 2-1 specifies that a gamma isotopic analysis be performed on the edible portions of each sample collected.
As provided in Table 2-2, a 5-mile stretch of the river is generally needed to obtain adequate fish samples. For the semiannual collections, the control location (Station 81) extends from approximately 2 to 7 miles upriver of the plant intake structure, and the indicator location (Station 85) extends from about 1.4 to 7 miles downriver of the plant discharge structure.
For anadromous species, all collection points can be considered as indicator stations.The anadromous fish (American Shad) sample was collected on March 12, 2007 during the spring spawning season. No man-made radionuclides were detected in the 2007 sample. In all but three previous years of operation, no radionuclides were detected.
In 2005, Cs-137 was detected in the anadromous fish sample at a low level of 28.8 pCi/kg-wet.
In 1987, as well as in 1991, Cs-137 was found in a single sample of American Shad at concentrations of 10 and 12 pCi/kg-wet, respectively.
The dates and compositions of the semi-annual catches at the indicator and control stations during 2007 are shown below.Date Indicator Control April 10 Largemouth Bass Largemouth Bass Channel Catfish October 9 Largemouth Bass Largemouth Bass Channel Catfish As indicated in Table 3-1, Cs-137 was the only radionuclide found in the semiannual collections of a commercially or recreationally important species of fish. It has been found in all but 4 of the 135 samples collected during operation and in all but 5 of the 32 samples collected during preoperation.
As provided in Table 3-1, the average concentration at the indicator station was 58.7 pCi/kg-wet which was 21.0 pCi/kg-wet greater than that at the control station (37.7 pCi/kg-wet). The difference between the average at the indicator station and the average at the control station is less than the calculated MDD of 92 pCi/l and therefore is not statistically discernible.
No discernible difference has occurred for any year of operation or during pre-operation.
Figure 4.8-1 and Table 4.8-1 provide the historical trending of the average concentrations of Cs-137 in units of pCi/kg-wet found in fish samples at the indicator and control stations.
The indicator station fish sample concentration of Cs-137 in 1999 was greatly influenced by a largemouth bass collected in October with a concentration of 2500 pCi/kg-wet.
Other than the fact that largemouth bass are predators that concentrate Cs-137, no specific cause for the elevated concentration in this sample is known. No trend is recognized in this data. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in fish are 150 and 2000 pCi/kg-wet, respectively.
4-33 Figure 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Fish 900-800---0700------------
6600----------
C.0 3400 --1200 A \ ----- \ / \0 Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 VeaPS 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 S--Indicator -U--Control -MDCI 4-34 Table 4.8-1 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Fish Year Indicator Control (pCi/kg-wet) (pCi/kg-wet)
Pre-op 590 340 1987 337 119 1988 66 116 1989 117 125 1990 103 249 1991 105 211 1992 178 80 1993 360 84 1994 165 200 1995 125 96 1996 194 404 1997 93 139 1998 190 200 1999 848 221 2000 55 96 2001 48 39 2002 59 133 2003 62 21 2004 56.4 26.0 2005 39.3 40.2 2006 257 35.7 2007 58.7 37.7 The only other radionuclide found in fish samples during operation is 1-131. In 1989, it was found in one sample at the indicator station at a concentration of 18 pCi/kg-wet.
In 1990, it was found in one sample at the indicator station and in one sample at the control station, at concentrations of 13 and 12 pCi/kg-wet, respectively.
The MDC assigned to 1-131 in fish is 53 pCi/kg-wet.
During preoperation, Cs-134 was found in two of the 17 samples collected at the control station at concentrations of 23 and 190 pCi/kg-wet.
The MDC and RL for Cs-134 are 130 and 1000 pCi/kg-wet, respectively.
Nb-95 was also found in one of the control station samples at a concentration of 34 pCi/kg-wet.
The assigned MDC and calculated RL for Nb-95 are 50 and 70,000 pCi/kg-wet, respectively.
4-35
 
===4.9 Sediment===
Sediment was collected along the shoreline of the Savannah River on April 3 and October 2, 2007 at Stations 81 and 83. Station 81 is a control station located about 2.5 miles upriver of the plant intake structure while 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 of interest identified in 2007 samples were Be-7 and Cs-137.Be-7, which is abundant in nature, was not identified in plant liquid effluents during 2007. However, it continues to be trended in river sediment in the REMP report. In 2007, the single positive value at the indicator station was 1034 pCi/kg-dry and at the control station the single positive value was 1274 pCi/kg-dry.
Because there continues to be no significant difference between the indicator and control station, the Be-7 found at the indicator station is not attributed to plant releases.For Cs-137, the average concentration at the indicator station during 2007 was 125 pCi/kg-dry which was 42 pCi/kg-dry greater than that at the control station (83 pCi/kg-dry).
The difference between the average value at the indicator station and the average value at the control station is not statistically discernible since it is less than the calculated MDD of 498 pCi/kg-dry.
However, the concentration of Cs-137 found at the indicator station could be attributed to plant effluents or to other facilities that release radioactive effluents in the vicinity of the plant. The Cs-137 level at the indicator station has averaged nearly 100 pCi/kg-dry greater than that at the control station over the entire period of operation.
During preoperation, the Cs-137 was 170 pCi/kg-dry greater at the indicator station than at the control station.During 2007, Co-60 was not detected in sediment samples at the indicator or control station. Cobalt-60 has been detected in sediment collected at the indicator station every year of plant operation but three. The concentrations of Co-60 often found at the indicator station could be attributed to plant releases or, potentially, to other facilities that release radioactive effluents in the vicinity of the plant.The historical average concentrations of Be-7, Co-58, Co-60, and Cs-137 in sediment are plotted in Figures 4.9-1 through 4.9-4 along with listings of their concentrations in Tables 4.9-1 through 4.9-4. The concentrations of the solely man-made nuclides (Co-58, Co-60, & Cs-137) are consistent with past average concentrations.
No pattern has been detected.
Be-7, produced by man and nature, is also within the range that is typically seen.During preoperation, Zr-95, Nb-95, Cs-134, and Ce-141 were detected in at least one of the control station samples and Nb-95 was detected in one of the indicator station samples. Be-7 and Cs-137 were found in several of the samples. The concentrations of these preoperational nuclides were on the order of their respective MDC values. The presence of these preoperational nuclides could be attributed to atmospheric weapons testing and the Chernobyl incident.Mn-54 and 1-131 were found sporadically over several years of operation.
A summary of the positive results for these nuclides along with their applicable MDCs is provided in Table 4.9-5.4-36 Figure 4.9-1 Average Annual Be-7 Concentration in Sediment 3500 C.)0 /V Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year-4-Indicator  - Control -MDC Table 4.9-1 Average Annual Be-7 Concentration in Sediment MDC=655 pCi/kg-dry Year Indicator Control (pCi/kg-dry) (pCi/kg-dry)
Pre-op 580 500 1987 987 543 1988 970 810 1989 1300 415 1990 465 545 1991 826 427 1992 2038 380 1993 711 902 1994 1203 964 1995 1865 1575 1996 1925 831 1997 1130 1028 1998 1396 1016 1999 662 769 2000 1526 3324 2001 1697 2614 2002 742 1254 2003 1150 903 2004 1309 905 2005 1931 1086 2006 1254 704 2007 1034 1274 4-37 Figure 4.9-2 300" 250 S200 U 0 U 150 0 ,6m (U I-s o4 Average Annual Co-58 Concentration in Sediment Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Year 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07-Indicator -UI--Control -MDC Table 4.9-2 Averaee Annual Co-58 Concentration in Sediment[7 MDC=43 pCi/kg-dry Year Indicator Control (pCi/kg-dry)
L (pCi/kg-dry)
Pre-op NDM NDM 1987 NDM NDM 1988 190 NDM 1989 135 NDM 1990 140 NDM 1991 NDM NDM 1992 124 NDM 1993 NDM NDM 1994 18.4 NDM 1995 42.4 NDM 1996 274 NDM 1997 NDM NDM 1998 NDM NDM 1999 NDM NDM 2000 NDM NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 NDM NDM 2003 NDM NDM 2004 NDM NDM 2005 NDM NDM 2006 NDM NDM 2007 NDM NDM 4-38 Figure 4.9-3 Average Annual Co-60 Concentration in Sediment 400-350---E300---250 Cu C 200-------------------
.2 C 100 ---- -so io / ---/0 --------Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 91.96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07%ear--*-Indicator -E--Control -MDC Table 4.9-3 Average Annual Co-60 Concentration in Sediment MDC=70 pCi/kg-dry Year Indicator Control (pCi/kg-dry) (pCi/kg-dry)
Pre-op NDM NDM 1987 NDM NDM 1988 62 NDM 1989 46 NDM 1990 46 NDM 1991 113 NDM 1992 59.5 NDM 1993 65.9 NDM 1994 85.2 NDM 1995 267 NDM 1996 344 NDM 1997 86 NDM 1998 263 NDM 1999 49.5 NDM 2000 131.3 NDM 2001 NDM NDM 2002 49.7 NDM 2003 146 NDM 2004 77 NDM 2005 146 NDM 2006 40 NDM 2007 NDM NDM 4-39 Figure 4.9-4 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment Se 400 C.)0.300 0 o Po 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Year I-*-Indicator -U-*Control
-MDCI 4-40 Table 4.9-4 Average Annual Cs-137 Concentration in Sediment MDC=180 pCi/kg Year Indicator Control______ _ (pCi/kg) (i Pre-op 320 150 1987 209 111 1988 175 175 1989 230 125 1990 155 140 1991 246 100 1992 259 111 1993 345 115 1994 240 118 1995 357 123 1996 541 93 1997 184 98 1998 316 122 1999 197 97 2000 138 218 2001 252 118 2002 189 60 2003 171 90 2004 149 100 2005 263 89 2006 142 68 2007 125 83 Table 4.9-5 Additional Sediment Nuclide Concentrations Nuclide YEAR Indicator Control 1 MDC (pCi/kg-dry) (pCi/kg-dry) (pCi/kg-dry)
Mn-54 1988 22 NDM 1989 18 NDM 42 1994 32 NDM 1-131 1992 194 20 53 1994 51 41 4-41 4.10 Groundwater As nuclear plants began to undergo decommissioning in the late 1990's to early 2000s, instances of subsurface and/or groundwater contamination were identified.
In addition, several operating facilities also identified groundwater contamination resulting from spills and leaks or equipment failure. In one instance, low levels of licensed material were detected in a private well located on property adjacent to a nuclear power plant.In 2006, NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) formed a task force to address monitoring onsite groundwater for radionuclides at nuclear facilities.
A Groundwater Protection Initiative was developed which was adopted by all U.S. commercial operating nuclear plants.The NRC also formed a task force to study the groundwater issues and released Information Notice 2006-13 "Ground-water Contamination due to Undetected Leakage of Radioactive Water" which summarized its review of radioactive contamination of ground water at multiple facilities as a result of undetected leakage from structures, systems, or components that contain or transport radioactive fluids. Licensees were instructed to review the information for applicability and to consider appropriate actions to avoid similar problems.The NEI task force felt it was prudent for the industry to update site hydrology information and to develop radiological groundwater monitoring plans at each site. These groundwater protection plans would ensure that underground leaks and spills would be addressed promptly.
Additionally, the task force recommended developing a communications protocol to report radioactive leaks or spills that entered groundwater (or might eventually enter groundwater) to the NRC and State and Local government officials as needed.In 2006, Vogtle sampled onsite drinking water deep wells and onsite makeup water deep wells for tritium and gamma isotopic activity.
These wells did not contain detectable amounts of radioactivity.
In 2007, Vogtle implemented a more extensive radiological groundwater monitoring program. A qualified hydrologist made recommendations for drilling additional onsite monitoring wells and updated the site hydrology information.
Eight new wells and 17 existing wells comprise the current VEGP groundwater monitoring program (see Table 2-3).These locations were sampled twice in the latter portion of 2007. Several wells were positive for tritium but no gamma emitters were detected.
The highest activity sample showed approximately 900 pCi/I of tritium. This level of tritium is typical background for the area around Plant Vogtle based on historical information from Georgia Department of Natural Resources and Savannah River Site. Drinking water wells, sewage treatment plant effluent, and several surface water locations supplement the monitoring program and were also sampled in 2007. None of these locations showed activity above environmental background levels. In 2008, the above described locations will be sampled quarterly, and the results reported annually in the REMP Report. For guidance regarding monitoring wells with unexpected results, Southern Nuclear has developed a company-wide communications protocol which is contained in the Nuclear Management Procedure, Actions for Potential Groundwater Contamination Events, to ensure radioactive leaks and spills would be addressed and communicated appropriately.
4-42
 
===5.0 INTERLABORATORY===
 
COMPARISON PROGRAM In accordance with ODCM 4.1.3, the EL participates in an ICP that satisfies the requirements of Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)
-Effluent Streams and the Environment", February 1979. The guide indicates the ICP is to be conducted with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies (Cross-check)
Program or an equivalent program, and the ICP should include all of the determinations (sample medium/radionuclide combinations) that are offered by the EPA and included in the REMP.The ICP is conducted by Analytics, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. Analytics has a documented Quality Assurance (QA) program and the capability to prepare Quality Control (QC) materials traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The ICP is a third party blind testing program which provides a means to ensure independent checks are performed on the accuracy and precision of the measurements of radioactive materials in environmental sample matrices.Analytics supplies the crosscheck samples to the EL which performs the laboratory analyses in a normal manner. Each of the specified analyses is performed three times. The results are then sent to Analytics who performs an evaluation which may be helpful to the EL in the identification of instrument or procedural problems.The samples offered by Analytics and included in the EL analyses are gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter; gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples; and gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples.The accuracy of each result is measured by the normalized deviation, which is the ratio of the reported average less the known value to the total error. The total error is the square root of the sum of the squares of the uncertainties of the known value and of the reported average. The uncertainty of the known value includes all analytical uncertainties as reported by Analytics.
The uncertainty of the reported average is the propagated error of the values in the reported average by the EL.The precision of each result is measured by the coefficient of variation, which is defined as the standard deviation of the reported result divided by the reported average. An investigation is undertaken whenever the absolute value of the normalized deviation is greater than three or whenever the coefficient of variation is greater than 15% for all radionuclides other than Cr-51 and Fe-59. For Cr-51 and Fe-59, an investigation is undertaken when the coefficient of variation exceeds the values shown as follows: Nuclide Concentration
* Total Sample Activity Percent Coefficient (pCi) of Variation Cr-51 <300 NA 25 Cr-51 NA >1000 25 Cr-51 >300 <1000 15 Fe-59 <80 NA 25 Fe-59 >80 NA 15* For air filters, concentration units are pCi/filter.
For all other media, concentration units are pCi/liter (pCi/1).5-1 As required by ODCM 4.1.3.3 and 7.1.2.3, a summary of the results of the EL's participation in the ICP is provided in Table 5-1 for: the gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter; gamma isotopic analyses of milk samples; and gross beta, tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples. Delineated in this table for each of the media/analysis combinations, are: the specific radionuclides; Analytics' preparation dates; the known values with their uncertainties supplied by Analytics; the reported averages with their standard deviations; and the resultant normalized deviations and coefficients of variation expressed as a percentage.
The GPC EL analyzed 12 samples for 46 parameters in 2007. These analyses included tritium, gross beta, Fe-55, Sr-89/90 and gamma emitting radio-nuclides in different matrices.
The attached results indicate all analyses are acceptable for accuracy and precision for environmental media."5-2 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 1 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide IPrepared IAverage IValue IDeviation EL IAnalytics (3S) of Variation TDeviation Gross Beta [09/13/07 62.401 66.00 [ 1.27 1.10 5.73 [ -1.02 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF AN AIR FILTER (pCi/filter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce- 141 09/13/07 134.00 143.00 8.14 9.90 7.39 -0.91 Co-58 09/13/07 78.40 77.20 6.86 8.10 10.32 0.14 Co-60 09/13/07 99.40 100.00 2.35 4.43 4.45 -0.14 Cr-51 09/13/07 203.40 196.00 19.88 36.70 18.04 0.20 Cs- 134 09/13/07 93.80 99.80 4.92 6.10 6.51 -0.99 Cs-137 09/13/07 92.50 88.40 10.08 10.90 11.78 0.37 Fe-59 09/13/07 86.30 74.90 6.42 8.67 10.04 1.32 Mn-54 09/13/07 123.80 114.00 8.17 9.77 7.88 1.00 Zn-65 09/13/07 164.90 137.00 11.81 14.60 8.85 1.91 GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value I Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Ce- 141 06/14/07 189.40 200.00 1.16 2.22 5.11 -1.10 Co-58 06/14/07 199.10 198.00 8.82 2.20 6.57 0.09 Co-60 06/14/07 235.10 238.00 1.11 2.64 3.82 -0.32 Cr-51 06/14/07 537.00 512.00 33.36 5.70 10.77 0.43 Cs-134 06/14/07 253.10 242.00 3.56 2.69 3.75 1.17 Cs-137 06/14/07 177.80 169.00 5.18 1.88 5.89 0.84 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 2 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF A MILK SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Fe-59 06/14/07 189.10 167.00 23.67 1.85 13.71 0.85 1-131 06/14/07 71.60 70.10 4.86 0.78 10.50 0.20 Mn-54 06/14/07 182.60 166.00 3.44 1.84 5.30 1.71 Zn-65 06/14/07 352.20 334.00 29.84 3.70 10.18 0.51 GROSS BETA ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLE (pCi/liter)
GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide IPrepared Average Value I Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation I Deviation Ce-141 03/22/07 259.10 258.00 1.7 2.86 4.08 0.10 Co-58 03/22/07 89.50 85.80 10.44 0.95 13.95 0.30 Co-60 03/22/07 130.40 132.00 4.77 1.47 5.74 -0.21 Cr-51 03/22/07 248.80 213.00 32.08 2.36 19.35 0.74 Cs-134 03/22/07 104.90 97.10 7.94 1.08 9.32 0.80 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 3 of 3)INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS GAMMA ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average I Value Deviation EL Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation Cs-137 03/22/07 213.70 204.00 3.41 2.26 4.71 0.97 Fe-59 03/22/07 109.20 91.70 4.98 1.02 9.16 1.75 1-131 03/22/07 100.50 89.80 9.1 1.00 12.33 0.86 Mn-54 03/22/07 173.00 158.00 4.91 1.76 5.86 1.48 Zn-65 03/22/07 916.60 869.00 30.85 9.67 4.90 1.06 TRITIUM ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES (pCi/liter)
Analysis or Date Reported Known Standard Uncertainty Percent Coef Normalized Radionuclide Prepared Average I Value I Deviation EL I Analytics (3S) of Variation Deviation H-3 03/22/07 5449.201 5010.001 222.86 1 55.67] 4.94T[ 1.63 06/14/07 9209.20 9040.00[ 93.76 1 100.33 1 2.27 0.81
 
==6.0 CONCLUSION==
S This report confirms the licensee's conformance with the requirements of Chapter 4 of the ODCM. It provides a summary and discussion of the results of the laboratory analyses for each type of sample.In 2007, there was one instance in which the indicator station readings were statistically discernible from the control station readings.
This is discussed in detail below. No discernible radiological impact upon the environment or the public as a consequence of plant discharges to the atmosphere and to the river was established for any other REMP samples.Cesium-137 was identified in vegetation in three of 24 samples at the indicator stations and in none of the 12 samples at the control station. All three positive samples were from the Simulator Building sample location.
The average of the three samples was 20.2 pCi/kg-wet.
The potential dose to a member of the public who would receive the highest dose (an adult) due to regular consumption of leafy vegetation containing Cs-137 at the concentration identified at the Simulator Station would be 0.11 mrem in a year. This dose is less than 1% of the regulatory.
limit of 15 mrem per year to any organ due to gaseous effluents.
Low levels of Cs-137 in the environment are attributed primarily to fallout from nuclear weapons testing and from the Chernobyl incident.
However, the level of Cs-137 seen at the Simulator Station could potentially be attributed to plant effluents.
The radiological levels reported in 2007 were low. The REMP trends over the course of time from preoperation to the present are generally decreasing or have remained fairly constant.
This supports the conclusion that there is no adverse radiological impact on the environment or to the public as a result of the operation of Plant Vogtle.6-1}}

Latest revision as of 12:18, 17 April 2019

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML081370355&oldid=1474959"