Text

Annual Radiological Environ Operating Rept 1985. W/860430 Ltr
	ML18038A158
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	12/31/1985
From:	Lempges T; NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:	Murley T; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
	NMP-18234, NUDOCS 8605050584
	Download: ML18038A158 (264)
	v • d • e

BETS MASTER FILE REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION S t=uv-C'>

,ACCESSION NBR: 8605050584, DOC. DATE: 85/12/31 NOTARIZED: NET 4 FAOIL: 50-220 Nine-Nile-Point-Nuolear Station Unit', Niagara Poue 05000220

,AUTH. MANE AUTHOR AFFILIATION LEMPQES> T. E. Niagara Mohawk Poeer Corp.

RECIP. NAME 'ECIPIENT AFFILIATION MURLEYi T. E. Region 1. Of'fice of Director

SUBJECT:

"Annual Radiological Environ Operating Rept 1985. "

M/860430 ltr.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: IE25L COPIES RECEIVED: LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: Periodic Environ Monitoring Rept (50 DKT)-Annual/Semiannual/Effluent/

NOTES'ECIPIENT COPIES REC I P I ENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL E AME LTTR ENCL BMR PD1 PD 04 5 5 MR PSB 3 3 INTERNAL: AEOD 1 1 IE FILE 01 1 NRR BMR ADTS NRR PWR-A ADTS 1 1 NRR PNR-B ADTS 1 NRR/DSRO/RRAB 1 RQN2/DRSS/EPRPB 'RM/DDAMI/MIB EXTERNAL: 24X NRC PDR 02 1 i

1 LPDR 03 TOTAL NUMBER OF 'COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 19 ENCL 19

...;,.. ~ (~QNNU(L.AADlOLOGICAL.ENVIRQNMEN~T/L,],,t...,

'i" ~~-':":"-';:=:.-';=="-~~~i:4',)'OP/RAT~NB:::.BEP. R- '~~.",""";.-'-".-::: ~.-k',":,".-:;

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT January 1, 1985 - December 31, 1985 for NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 Facility Operating License DPR-63 Docket Number 50-220 8605050584 851231 PDR ADOCK 05000220 R PDR P" T'

TABLE OF CONTENTS P~ae List of Tables List of Figures I. Introduction II. Description

1) Sample Collection Methodology and Analysis

2) Analyses Performed

3) Changes to the 1985 Sample Program

4) Exceptions to the 1985'ample Program 10 III. Evaluation of Environmental Data 17 A) Aquatic Program 18

1) Shoreline Sediment 19

2) Fish 24 S) Surface Water 26 B) Terrestrial Program

1) Air Particulates Gross Beta 30

2) Monthly Air Particulate Composites 31

3) Airborne Radioiodine (1-331) 34

,4) TLD (Environmental Dosimetry) 35

5) Milk 38

6) Land Use Census 40

7) Food Products

8) Interlaboratory Comparison Program 43

9) Environmental Sample Locations 43

10) Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary 43

I

'TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued )

~Pa e C) Conclusion 44 D) General Reference Material E) Data Tables 1985 47

LIST OF TABLES Table No. Content P~ae Table 1 Sample Collection and Analysis, Site 48 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program - A. Aquatic Program Table 2 Sample Collection and Analysis, Site 49 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program - B. Terrestrial Program Table 3A Concentration of Gamma Emitters 50 in Shoreline Sediment Samples (pCi/g&ry)

Table 3B Concentration of Gamma Emitters in Shoreline Sediment Samples (pCi/kgMry)

Table 4A Concentration of Gamma Emitters 52 in Fish Samples (pCi/g-wet)

Table 4B Concentration of Gamma Emitters in Fish Samples (pCi/kg~et)

Table 5 Concentration of Tritium in Surface Water Samples Table 6 Concentration of Gamma Emitters in Surfade Water Samples Table 7 Environmental Airborne Particulate Samples- 59 Off-Site Stations, Gross Beta Activity Table 8 Environmental Airborne Particulate Samples- 60 On-Site Stations, Gross Beta Activity Table 9 Concentration of Gamma Emitters in Monthly 61 Composites of NMP Air Particulate Samples Table 10 Environmental Charcoal Cartridge Samples- 76 Off-Site Stations, I-131 Activity Table 11 Environmental Charcoal Cartridge Samples- 77 On-Site Stations, I-131 Activity Table 12A Direct Radiation Measurement Results 78 (mrem per quarterly period)

Table 12B Direct Radiation Measurement Results 81 (mrem per standard month)

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table No. Coneent ~Pa e I

Table 13 Concentration of Gamma Emitters in 84 Milk

'able 14 Concentration of Iodine-131 in Milk 90 Table 15 Milk. Animal Census 92 Table 16 1985 Residence Census 93 Table 17A Concentration of Gamma Emitters in 94 Food Products (pCi/guet)

Table 17B Concentration of Gamma Emitters in Food Products (pCi/kgmet)

Table 18 Interlaboratory Comparison Program Results 96 Table 19 Environmental Sample Locations 104 Table 20 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary

LIST OF FIGURES Fi re No. Content P~ae Figure: lA Off-Site Environmental Station and 118 TLD Locations Figure 1B Off-Site Environmental Station and TLD 119 Locations (Southern)

Figure 2 On-Site Environmental Station and TLD 120 Locations Figure 3 Nearest Residence and Food Product Locations 121 Figure 4 Milk Animal Census and Milk Sample 122 Locations Figure 5 New York State Map

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT I. INTRODUCTION This report is submitted in accordance with Appendix A (Radiological Technical Specifications), Section 6.9.1.d to License DPR-63, Docket No. 50-220 for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 for the year 1985. This report is also submitted as preoperational monitoring data for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2, Docket No. 50%10.

II. DESCRIPTION The required sample collection and analysis schedule for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 (NMPNS) is listed in Table 1'and 2.

The sample collections for the radiological program are performed by two groups. Ecological Analysts Incorporated (EAI) performs much of the environmental sampling. EAI is presently performing the Nine Mile Point Biological Monitoring Program required by the Stations SPDES Perad.t. The staff required by EAI to perform this program is used to perform the terrestrial sampling required for the site Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REHP). In-plant canal sampling and remaining terrestrial sampling is performed )ointly by the NMPNS and the James A,. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAPNPP) staffs.

l. 'am le Collection Methodolo and-Anal sis A. Surface Water Surface water samples are taken from the respective inlet canals of the J.A,. FitzPatrick facility and Niagara Mohawk' Oswego Steam Station. The FitzPatrick facQity removes water from Lake Ontario on a continuous basis and generally represents a

."down-current" sampling point from the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 facility. The Oswego Steam Station inlet canal removes water from Lake Ontario at a point approximately 7.6 mQes west of the site. This "upwurrent" location is considered a control location because of the distance from the site as well as lake current patterns and current patterns'rom the Oswego River located nearby ~

Samples from the FitzPatrick facility are composited from automatic sampling equipment which discharges into a large compositing tank. Samples are obtained from the tank monthly and analyzed for gamma emitters. Samples from the Oswego Steam Station are also composited from automatic sampling equipment and discharged to a compositing tank. Samples from this location are obtained weekly and composited to form monthly composite samples'onthly samples are analyzed for gamma emitter s ~

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont 'd)

1. Sam le Collection Methodology and Analysis (Cont'd)

A. Surface Mater (Cont'd)

A portion of the monthly samples from each of the locations is saved and composited to form quarterly composite samples for each calendar quarter. Quarterly composite samples are analyzed for tritium.

In addition to the FitzPatrick and Oswego Steam Station facilities, data are presented for the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 facility inlet canal and city water from the City of Oswego. The latter two locations are not required by the Technical Specifications, but are optional samples. Monthly composite samples from these two locations are analyzed for gamma emitters and quarterly composite samples are analyzed for tritium.

Surface water sample locations are shown on Figure lA.

B ~ Air Particulate/Iodine The air samp1ing stations required by the Technical Specifications are located in the general area o f the sit e boundary (within 0.7 miles) in sectors of highest calculated meteorological deposition factors (D/Q) based on historical meteorological data. These stations (R-l,. R-2, and R-3) are located in the east, east-southeast, and southeas t sector s a s measured from the center of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 reactor building. The Technical Specifications also require that a fourth air sampling station be located in the vicinity of a year round community having the highest calculated dispersion factor (D/Q) based on historical meteorologic'al data.

This station is located in the southeast sector (R-4). A fift.h station required by the Technical Specifications is located at a site 16.4 miles from the site in a least prevalent wind direction of eastmortheast (R-5). This location is considered a control location.

In addition to the Technical Specification required locations, there are nine other sampling stations located within the site boundary. These locations generally surround the area occupied by the three generating facilities, but are well within the site boundary. One other air sampling station is located off-site in the southwest sector and is in the vicinity of the City of Oswego.

At each station, airborne particulates are collected by glass fiber filters and radioiodine by charcoal filters. Air particulate glass fiber filters are approximately two inches (47 millimeters) in diameter and are placed in sample holders in the intake line of a vacuum sampler. Directly down stream from the

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont'd)

1. Sample Collection Methodology and Analysis (Cont'd)

Air Particulate/Iodine (Cont'd) particulate filter is a 2 'x' inch charcoal cartridge used to absorb airborne radioiodine. The samplers run continuously and the charcoal cartridges and particulate filters are changed on a" weekly basis, or as required by dust loading. Gross beta analysis is performed for the individual particulate filters on a weekly basis'harcoal cartridges are analyzed weekly for radioiodine by GeIi detector.

The particulate filters are composited for gamma analyses on a monthly basis by location after all weekly particulate filters have been counted for gross beta activity.

Air sampling stations are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

C. Milk Milk samples are collected in polyethylene bottles from the bulk storage tank at each sampled farm. Before the sample is drawn, the tank contents are agitated from three to five minutes to assure a homogenous mixture. of milk and butterfat ~ Two gallons are collected during the first half and second half of each month from each of the selected locations within ten miles of the site and from a. control location. The 'samples are frozen and shipped to the analytical contractor within thirty-six hours of collection in insulated shipping containers.

Milk sampling locations are selected based on the maximum deposition factors (D/Q) Deposition factors are generated from average historical meteorological data based on all licensed reactors. The Technical Specifications require three sample locations within 5.0 miles of the site with the highest calculated deposition factors. In addition to the three required locations, several other locations with high deposition factors are sampled for milk. These samples are optional.

I A fourth sampling location required by'he Technical Specifications is located in a least prevalent wind direction from the site. This location is 15.0 miles from the site in the southwest sectore Milk samples are collected twice per month (April - December) and analyzed for gamma emit ters and I-131. Samples ar e coU.ected and analyzed in January - March in the event I-131 is detected in November and December of the preceding year.

The milk'ampling locations are Sound on Figure 4. (See Section B.5 for the identification of locations sampled.)

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont'd) 1 . Sample Collection Methodology and Analysis (Cont'd)

D. Food Products Food products are coU.ected once per year during the late summer at the approximate height of the harvest season. Approximately one kilogram of broadleaf vegetables is collected from garden locations with the highest deposition factors (D/Q) based on average historical meteorological data. Six samples are collected from at least two sectors ~ Control samples are also f f collected rom available o f-site locations 9 to 20 miles distant in a least prevalent wind direction. Control samples are of a similar type of vegetation. All samples are shippea fresh as soon as possible after collection.

Food product samples are analyzed for gamma emitters (gamma isotopic analysis) ~ The gamma isotopic analysis also includes I-131 ~

Food product locations are shown on Figure 3.

Fish Samples Available fish species are obtainea from coU.ections during and fall. Samples are collected from two of four the'pring possible on>>site sample transects located in the vicinity of the site discharge points and one offmite sample species are selected under the following guidelines'.

transect'vailable

1. .Samples of 0.5 to 1 kilogram of edible portions for a minimum of two species per location.

2. When two independent species are not available at all sample locations, a species may be divided into two samples for each location. This procedure may be accomplished provided that a sufficient sample size is available for the species in question at all three locations.

Selected fish samples are segregated by species and location

~

and are processed immediately after collection. Samples are s hipped frozen within three weeks in insulatea containers.

Samples are analyzed for gamma emitters in edible portions.

Fish. sample transects are shown on Figure lA.

F. Shoreline Sediment Shoreline sediment samples are collectea twice per year for one area of existing or potential recreational value and from one area beyond the influence of the site. The area of potential recreational value is the only area required by the Technical

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont 'd)

1. Sample Collection Methodology and Analysis (Cont'd)

Shoreline Sediment (Cont'd)

Specifications. Approximate+ one kilogram of shoreline seaiment is obtained from areas washed by the lake shore surf at the two locations twice per year. All samples are snippea and anaiyzea for gamma emitters. Optional samples may be collected from other shoreline locations at or near the site.

Shoreline sediment locations are shown on Figure M.

G. TLD (direct radiation)

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD's) are used to measure direct radiation (gamma dose) in the environment. TLD's are obtained from Teledyne Isotopes on a quarterly basis and are read at Teledyne Isotopes'acility in Westwood, New Jersey. Shipment control TLD's (at least two) accompany each shipment to and from the vendor's laboratory. Shipment control TLD's also accompany the TLD's when they are being placed or collected and are shielded by lead when they are not being used. TLD data results are corrected for a transit dose by use of the data from the shipment control TLD's.

Five different types of areas are evaluatea by environmental TLD's. These areas include on-site areas (areas within the site boundary not required by the Technical Specifications), the site boundary area in each of the sixteen meteorological sectors, an outer ring of TLD's (locatpd four to five miles from the site in eight available land based - meteorological sectors) > special interest TLD's (located at sites of high population density) ana control TLD's located at sites beyond significant influence of the site. Special interest TLD's are located at or near large industrial sites, schools, or proximal towns or communities ~

Control TLD's are located to the southwest, south and east~ortheast of the site at distances of 12.6 to 19.8 miles ~

TLD's used during 1985 were composed of rectangular teflon wafers impregnated with 25K CaSOz: Dy Phosphor. These were placed in polyethylene packages to ensure dosimeter integrity .

TLD packages were placed in open webbea plastic holders and were attached to supporting structures, usually trees or utility poles .

Environmental TLD locations are shown on Figures lh,, 1B, and 2.

'I II. DESCRIPTION (Cont'd)

1. Sam le Collection Methodolo and Anal sis (Cont'd)

"H. Land Use Census A land use census is conducted to determine'he utilization of land within a distance of 3 miles from the site. The land use census actually consists of two types of census. A milk animal census is conducted to identify all milk animals within a distance of 10 miles from the site. A census covering areas out to a distance of 10 miles exceeds a distance of 3 miles required by the Technical Specifications. This census is conducted during the beginning of the grazing season using road surveys, contacting local agricultural authorities, post cards, and investigating references from other owners.

A second type of census is a residence census. " This census is conducted in order to identify the- closest residence in each of the 22.5 degree meteorological sectors. A residence, for the purposes of this census, is a residence that is occupied on a part time basis (such as a summer camp), or on a full time, year round basis. For the residence census, several of the meteorological sectors. are over Lake Ontario because the site is located at the shoreline. No residences are located in these sectors. There are only eight sectors oyer land where residences are located within 3 miles.

The results of the land use census are shown on Figures 3 and 4.

I.. Interlaboratory Comparison Program An Interlaboratozy Comparison Program is conducted with reference samples originating from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As required by the Technical Specifications, participation in this program. includes media for which environmental samples are routinely collected and for which intercomparison samples are available.

The results of the Interlaboratozy Comparison Progzam are shown on Table 18.

2. Anal ses Performed The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) samples were analyzed by Teledyne Isotopes and by the Site Environmental Laboratory during 1985. The following samples were analyzed by the site:

Air particulate filter (weekly gross beta analysis)

Air particulate filter (monthly gamma spectral analysis)

e 0

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont'd)

2. Analyses Performed (Cont'd)

Airborne radioiodine cartridge (weekly gamma spectral

'analysis)

Lake water (monthly gamma spectral analysis)

The remainder of the sample analyses, as outlined in Table 1 and 2, were analyzed by Teledyne Isotopes.

3. Chan es to the 1985 Sam le Pro ram A. Sample collection, analysis and evaluation for Cladophora (algae) was deleted from the Environmental Technical Specifications by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The new Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications issued by the Commission became effective January 1, 1985. The new specification does not require sampling and analysis in Lake Ontario. Optional samples may be collected, fox'ladophora however at,the dlscretdon of supervisory personnel.

B. The indicator location for shoreline sediment samples was changed from a location near the north shoreline of the station to a location directly east of the site. The new location is of importance as an area of x'ecreational value. The indicator location was revised because the new Technical Specifications, effective January 1, 1985, required the indicator shoreline sediment location to be at an area of existing or potential recreational value. Optional samples may be coU.ected at the discretion of supervisory personnel.

C. The contxol sample location for surface water sampling was changed during 1985 as a result of the new Technical Specifications effective January 1, 1985. The new Technical Specifications required that a control sample location be established that utilizes surface water from Lake Ontario .

Since the indicator location (the PitzPatxick facility inlet canal) utilizes Lake Ontario surface water, the control location was established as Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's Oswego Steam Station inlet canal. The previous control location (Oswego City. Water Treatment System) was deleted as a control sample. Samples are still obtained, however, to monitor the City of Oswego drinking water supply.

D. Pour of the fifteen air saipling stations were relocated during the end of 1984 to meet the requirements of the new Technical Specifications, effective January, 1, 1985. The new specifications required that three air sampling stations be located in three different 22 1/2 degree meteorological sectors of highest calculated site average deposition values (D/Q) based on historical meteorology. The three stations (R-l, R-2, and R-3) were located at approzimate sector mid point and near the site boundary, where possible.

-7

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont'd)

3. Changes to the 1985 Sam le Program (Cont'd)

The new specifications also required that a fourth air sampling station (R-4) be relocated in the vicinity of a year round community having the highest calculated site average deposition value (D/Q). A fifth air sampling station (R-5) is required to be a control sampling station. The existing control air sampling station met the, requirements of the new specification so that the relocation of the control station was not required'he relocation of the four air sampling stations affects the sampling locations for the weekly gross beta determinations from the air particulate filters, the monthly composite of air particulate filters for gamma analysis and the weekly iodine 131 determinations from the charcoal cartridges.

In addition, the new specifications effective January 1, 1985 required that the monthly particu1ate samples analyzed for gamma emittez's be composites of weekly samples by location. Thus, the weekly aiz particulate filters are composited to form a monthly sample for each designated location. Previously, the monthly composite samples were comprised of several locations to form two on-site composites and two off-site composites from a total of fifteen air sampling locations.

Several environmental TLD locations were deleted and several added to the overall program during 1985. The new Technical Specifications, effective January 1, 1985, requized that TLD's be placed at the site boundary in each of the sixteen 22 1/2 degree meteorological sectors. In add1tion, TLD's were required to be placed at locations four to five miles from the site in each of the 22 1/2 degree land based metearological sectors' TLD's were also required to be located at special interest areas and control areas. Most of the special interest and control TLD's were already in place, as required by the previous Technical Specifications.

Program TLD numbers75-101 were added during the first quarter of 1985, 102 during the thizd quarter, 103 during the second quarter, and TLD numbers 43&6, 48> 50, 61 and 65 wez'e deleted during the third quarter of 1985.

F. The milk animal census was changed slightly during 1985 as a result of the new Technical Specifications effective January 1, 1985. The previous Technical Specifications required a milk animal census conducted twice per year within ten miles of the site. The new specification requ1red a milk animal census conducted once per year, within three miles of the site. The milk animal census witb1n ten miles was retained since exceeded the requirements of the new specification and is in the it best interest of Niagara Mohawk. This census was conducted once during 1985. In addition, as a result of the new specification, an additional census was conducted once during 1985 to identify the nearest residence in each of the sixteen 22 1/2 degree meteorological sectors out to a distance of three miles.

-8

E II. DESCRIPTION (Cont'd)

3. Changes to the 1985 Sample Program (Cont'd)

G. Sampling of food products was changed during 1985 as a result of the new Technical Specifications effective January 1, 1985. The previous Techxd.cal Specifications required three samples of broadleaf and three samples of non-broadleaf fruits and/or vegetables to be collected and analyzed once per year. The new Technical Specifications requires a total of six samples to be collected utilizing at least two downwind 22 1/2 degree meteorological sectors. The samples must be from locations of highest calculated site average deposition factors (D/Q). In addition, samples of similar vegetation must be collected from an offmite or control location 9-20 miles distant in a least prevalent wind direction. Pood product samples collected during 1985 met the requirements of the new specification. Analysis .

requirements of the new and old specifications were the same.

H~ Sampling o f water under the old .Technical Specification requirements necessitated the analysis o f quarterly water samples for Sr-89 and Sr-90. The new Radiological Effluen t Technical Specifications deleted this requirement.

The old Technical Specifications required the analysis of fish samples for Sr-89 and Sr-90 in addition to gamma emitters. The new Te'chnical Specifications deleted the requirement for Sr-89 and Sr-90 analysis.

The previous Technical Specifications also required fish samples to be analyzed in units of pCi/kg (dry weight)- The analytical units were changed to pCi/kg (wet weight) with the new .Technical Specifications. These units are more consistent with regulatory guidance methodology and common analytical technique.

The old Technical Specifications required the collection and analysis of soil samples every three years. The sampling and analysis of soil samples was deleted by the new Technical Specifications. Soil samples may be collected and analyzed on an intermittent basis as optional samples at the discretion of supervisory personnel.

R. Radiation monitoring instrumentation is installed in many of the air sampling stations and was required by the old Technical Specifications. 'he new Technical .Specifications deleted the requirement to operate and maintain radiation monitoring instrumentation.

L. Milk sampling under the old Technical Specifications required samples to be analyzed for gamma emitters, iodine 131 and Sr-90. The new Technical Specifications deleted the requirement to analyze milk samples for Sr-90. Optional samples may be collected intermittently at select locations for Sr-90 at the discretion of supervisory personnel.

II~ DESCRIPTION (Cont 'd)

3. Changes to the 1985 Sam le Program (Cont'd)

In addition, the new Technical Specifications deleted the previous requirement to sample milk once per month during the grazing season. The new specification requires that milk be coU.ected tvice per month for the months of April through December. In conjunction with bi-monthly sampling, the new specification also requires that samples by analyzed for I-131 in January through March in the event I-131 is detected in November through December of the previous year.

M. Samples of meat, eggs and poultry vere collected twice per year as required by the old Technical Specifications. The nev specification deleted the requirement to collect and analyze meat, eggs and poultry. Samples of meat and poultry may be collected intermittently at the discretion of supervisory personnel .

4. Exce tions to the 1985 Sample Program Exceptions to the 1985 sample program consists of those samples or monitoring requirements which are required by the Technical Specifications and those that are not required. For those that are required by the Technical Specifications this section implements section 3.6.20 of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 Technical Specifications.

A. Air Radioiodine and Particulate Sampling Required by the Technical Specifications

l. Environmental air sample equipment at R-1 offmite air sampling station was inoperable from 1/28/85 at 1405 hours0.0163 days 0.39 hours 0.00232 weeks 5.346025e-4 months to 1/31/85 at 0910 hours0.0105 days 0.253 hours 0.0015 weeks 3.46255e-4 months . The circuit fuse for the vacuum pump was found blown and was replaced.

2. Environmental air sample equipment at R-1 offmite air sampling station vas inoperable from 4/18/85 at 1510 hours0.0175 days 0.419 hours 0.0025 weeks 5.74555e-4 months to 4/18/85 at 1556 hours0.018 days 0.432 hours 0.00257 weeks 5.92058e-4 months . The monitoring station was moved a short distance because of complaints from a nearby resident .

3~ Environmental air sample equipment at R-2 offwite air sampling station vas inoperable from 10/3/85 at 0800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months to 10/4/85 at 0830 hours0.00961 days 0.231 hours 0.00137 weeks 3.15815e-4 months . The cabinet wiring and circuit breaker was replaced to avoid any possible safety hazards .

4. Environmental air sample equipment at R-3 offmite air sampling station was inoperable from 10/16/85 at 0821 hours0.0095 days 0.228 hours 0.00136 weeks 3.123905e-4 months to 10/16/85 at 1503 hours0.0174 days 0.418 hours 0.00249 weeks 5.718915e-4 months . The cabinet wiring and circuit breaker was replaced to avoid any possible safety hazards .

-10

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont 'd)

4. Exce tions to the 1985 Sam le Program (Cont'd)

5. Environmental air sample equipment at R-4 off-site air sampling station was inoperable from 10/17/85 at 0812 hours0.0094 days 0.226 hours 0.00134 weeks 3.08966e-4 months to 10/17/85 at 1442 hours'he cabinet wiring and circuit breaker was replaced to avoid any possible safety hazards'.

Environmental air sample equipment at R-1 off-site air sampling station was inop'erable from 10/18/85 at 0750 hours0.00868 days 0.208 hours 0.00124 weeks 2.85375e-4 months to 10/18/85 at 1437 hours0.0166 days 0.399 hours 0.00238 weeks 5.467785e-4 months . The cabinet wiring and circuit breaker was replaced to avoid any possible safety hazards.

7~ Environmental air sample equipment at R-5 off-site air sampling station was inoperable from 10/29/85 at 0914 hours0.0106 days 0.254 hours 0.00151 weeks 3.47777e-4 months to 10/30/85 at 1345 hours0.0156 days 0.374 hours 0.00222 weeks 5.117725e-4 months . The cabinet wiring and circuit breaker was replaced to avoid possible safety hazards.

8. Environmental air'sample equipment at R-2 off-site air sampling station was inoperable from ll/17/85 at 1105 hours0.0128 days 0.307 hours 0.00183 weeks 4.204525e-4 months to 11/19/85 at 1243 hours0.0144 days 0.345 hours 0.00206 weeks 4.729615e-4 months . The ground fault interrupter had tripped equipment was re-energized using a circuit without a ground off'he fault interrupter.

9. Environmental air sample equipment at R-2 off-site air sampling station was inoperable from 12/17/85 at 0820 hours0.00949 days 0.228 hours 0.00136 weeks 3.1201e-4 months to 12/17/85 a t 1255 hours0.0145 days 0.349 hours 0.00208 weeks 4.775275e-4 months . The vacuum pump failed to restart af ter the weekly particulate filter and radioiodine The vacuum pump was replaced with a spare pump.

cartridge'eplacement.

B. Air Radioiodine and Particulate Sampling No t Required by the Technical Specifications.

The following summarizes the down time and the respective reasons for air sampling stations not required by the Technical Specifications .

1. H on-site station, off: 1/8/85 .(1035 hours0.012 days 0.288 hours 0.00171 weeks 3.938175e-4 months ) to 1/14/85 (1250 hours) ~ Vacuum pump inoperable because of transmission line problem.

2. E on-site station, off! 1/17/85 (1100 hours0.0127 days 0.306 hours 0.00182 weeks 4.1855e-4 months ) to 1/23/85 (0930 hours0.0108 days 0.258 hours 0.00154 weeks 3.53865e-4 months ). Technician forgot to re-energize vacuum pump.

3. J on-site station, off: 1/17/85 (1300 hours0.015 days 0.361 hours 0.00215 weeks 4.9465e-4 months ) to 1/23/85 (1030 hours0.0119 days 0.286 hours 0.0017 weeks 3.91915e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

4. J on-site station, off: 2/20/85 (0506 hours0.00586 days 0.141 hours 8.366402e-4 weeks 1.92533e-4 months ) to 2/21/8 5 (1455 hours0.0168 days 0.404 hours 0.00241 weeks 5.536275e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

5. E on-site station, off: 3/7/85 (1310 hours0.0152 days 0.364 hours 0.00217 weeks 4.98455e-4 months ) to 3/11/8 5 (1050 hours0.0122 days 0.292 hours 0.00174 weeks 3.99525e-4 months ). Technician forgot to re-energize vacuum pump.

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont'd)

4. Exce tions to the 1985 Sample Program (Cont'd)

6. K on-site station, off: 4/5/85 (1524 hours0.0176 days 0.423 hours 0.00252 weeks 5.79882e-4 months ) to 4/8/85 (1600 hours0.0185 days 0.444 hours 0.00265 weeks 6.088e-4 months ). Tree feU. on transmission line.

7~ D2 on-site station, off: 4/15/85 (2126 hours0.0246 days 0.591 hours 0.00352 weeks 8.08943e-4 months ) to 4/17/85 (1031 hours0.0119 days 0.286 hours 0.0017 weeks 3.922955e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

8. Dl on-site station, off: 4/1?/85 (1000 hours0.0116 days 0.278 hours 0.00165 weeks 3.805e-4 months ) to 4/17/85 (1250 hours0.0145 days 0.347 hours 0.00207 weeks 4.75625e-4 months ). Faulty vacuum pump "on" switch.

9; D2 on-site station, off: 4/17/85 (1542 hours0.0178 days 0.428 hours 0.00255 weeks 5.86731e-4 months ) to 4/22/85 (1030 hours0.0119 days 0.286 hours 0.0017 weeks 3.91915e-4 months ).. Blown fuse.

10. Dl on-site station, off: 5/10/85 (0905 hours0.0105 days 0.251 hours 0.0015 weeks 3.443525e-4 months ) to 5/10/85 (0915 hours0.0106 days 0.254 hours 0.00151 weeks 3.481575e-4 months ). Vacuum pump malfunction.

J on-site station, off: 5/10/85 (1947 hours0.0225 days 0.541 hours 0.00322 weeks 7.408335e-4 months ) to 5/13/85 (0922 hours0.0107 days 0.256 hours 0.00152 weeks 3.50821e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

12. D2 onmite station, off: 5/12/85 (0725 hours0.00839 days 0.201 hours 0.0012 weeks 2.758625e-4 months ) to 5/12/85 (1445 hours0.0167 days 0.401 hours 0.00239 weeks 5.498225e-4 months ). Power outage in the service area.

13. E on-site station, off: 5/12/85 (0725 hours0.00839 days 0.201 hours 0.0012 weeks 2.758625e-4 months ) to 5/12/85 (1445 hours0.0167 days 0.401 hours 0.00239 weeks 5.498225e-4 months ). Power outage in the service area.

14. F on-site station, off: 5/12/85 (0725 hours0.00839 days 0.201 hours 0.0012 weeks 2.758625e-4 months ) to 5/12/85 (1445 hours0.0167 days 0.401 hours 0.00239 weeks 5.498225e-4 months ). Power outage in the service area.

15. K on-site station, off: 5/12/85 (0725 hours0.00839 days 0.201 hours 0.0012 weeks 2.758625e-4 months ) to 5/12/85 (1445 hours0.0167 days 0.401 hours 0.00239 weeks 5.498225e-4 months ). Power outage in the service area.

16. Dl on~ite station, off: 5/15/85 (2128 hours0.0246 days 0.591 hours 0.00352 weeks 8.09704e-4 months ) to 5/20/85 (0955 hours0.0111 days 0.265 hours 0.00158 weeks 3.633775e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

17. J on-site station, off: 5/21/85 (2227 hours0.0258 days 0.619 hours 0.00368 weeks 8.473735e-4 months ) to 5/24/85 (0835 hours0.00966 days 0.232 hours 0.00138 weeks 3.177175e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

18. J on-site station, off: 6/9/85 (2300 hours0.0266 days 0.639 hours 0.0038 weeks 8.7515e-4 months ) to 6/10/85 (0945 hours0.0109 days 0.263 hours 0.00156 weeks 3.595725e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

19. J o~ite station, off: 6/11/85 (2316 hours0.0268 days 0.643 hours 0.00383 weeks 8.81238e-4 months ) to 6/12/85 (1317 hours0.0152 days 0.366 hours 0.00218 weeks 5.011185e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

20. J on-site station,'ff: 6/16/85 (0035 hours4.050926e-4 days 0.00972 hours 5.787037e-5 weeks 1.33175e-5 months ) to 6/17/85 (1013.

hours). Blown fuse.

21. D2 on-site station, off: 7/4/85 (0151 hours0.00175 days 0.0419 hours 2.496693e-4 weeks 5.74555e-5 months ) to 7/5/85 (1030 hours0.0119 days 0.286 hours 0.0017 weeks 3.91915e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

-12

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont'd)

4. Exceptions to the 1985 Sample Program (Cont'd)

22. Dl on-site station, off: 8/6/85 (0249 hours0.00288 days 0.0692 hours 4.117063e-4 weeks 9.47445e-5 months ) to 8/9/85 (112 0 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months ). Malfunction of vacuum pump.

23. J on-site station, off: 8/6/85 (0254 hours0.00294 days 0.0706 hours 4.199735e-4 weeks 9.6647e-5 months ) to 8/8/85 (103 0 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months ). Blown fuse.

24. J on-site station, off: 8/10/85 (0948 hours0.011 days 0.263 hours 0.00157 weeks 3.60714e-4 months ) to 8/12/85 (1010 hours0.0117 days 0.281 hours 0.00167 weeks 3.84305e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

25. J on-site station, off: 8/13/85 (0443 hours0.00513 days 0.123 hours 7.324735e-4 weeks 1.685615e-4 months ) to 8/16/85 (1023 hours0.0118 days 0.284 hours 0.00169 weeks 3.892515e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

26. K on-site station, off: 8/30/85 (0237 hours0.00274 days 0.0658 hours 3.918651e-4 weeks 9.01785e-5 months ) to 8/30/85 (0920 hours0.0106 days 0.256 hours 0.00152 weeks 3.5006e-4 months ). Vacuum pump malfunction.

27. D2 on-site station, o ff: 9/6/85 (1057 hours0.0122 days 0.294 hours 0.00175 weeks 4.021885e-4 months ) to 9/9/85 (1416 hours0.0164 days 0.393 hours 0.00234 weeks 5.38788e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

28. D2 on-site station, off: 9/17/85 (0700 hours0.0081 days 0.194 hours 0.00116 weeks 2.6635e-4 months ) to 9/19/85 (1050 hours0.0122 days 0.292 hours 0.00174 weeks 3.99525e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

29. I on-site station, off: 9/30/85 (1000 hours0.0116 days 0.278 hours 0.00165 weeks 3.805e-4 months ) to 9/30/85 (1430 hours0.0166 days 0.397 hours 0.00236 weeks 5.44115e-4 months ) . Vacuum pump malfunction.

~

30. Dl on~ite station,. off: 10/9/85 (0830 hours0.00961 days 0.231 hours 0.00137 weeks 3.15815e-4 months ) to 10/10/85 (1010 hours0.0117 days 0.281 hours 0.00167 weeks 3.84305e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

Dl o~ite station, off: 10/10/85 (1310 hours0.0152 days 0.364 hours 0.00217 weeks 4.98455e-4 months ) to 10/12/85 31'2. (1035 hours0.012 days 0.288 hours 0.00171 weeks 3.938175e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

G on-site station, off: 10/15/85 (0821 hours0.0095 days 0.228 hours 0.00136 weeks 3.123905e-4 months ) to 10/17/85 (0952 hours0.011 days 0.264 hours 0.00157 weeks 3.62236e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

33. Dl o~ite station, off: 10/15/85 (2245 hours0.026 days 0.624 hours 0.00371 weeks 8.542225e-4 months ) to 10/17/85 (0922 hours0.0107 days 0.256 hours 0.00152 weeks 3.50821e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

34. G on-site station, off: 10/21/85 (0800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months ) to 10/21/85 (1500 hours0.0174 days 0.417 hours 0.00248 weeks 5.7075e-4 months ) Replace wiring and circuit breaker.

~

35. D2 on-site station, off: 10/22/85 (0824 hours0.00954 days 0.229 hours 0.00136 weeks 3.13532e-4 months ) to 10/22/85 (1550 hours0.0179 days 0.431 hours 0.00256 weeks 5.89775e-4 months ). Replace wiring and circuit breaker.

36. G on-site station, off 10/22/85 (2030 hours0.0235 days 0.564 hours 0.00336 weeks 7.72415e-4 months ) to 10/24/85 (0948 hours0.011 days 0.263 hours 0.00157 weeks 3.60714e-4 months ). Blown fuse..

37. E o~ite station, off: 10/23/85 (0815 hours0.00943 days 0.226 hours 0.00135 weeks 3.101075e-4 months ) to 10/23/85 (1501 hours0.0174 days 0.417 hours 0.00248 weeks 5.711305e-4 months ). Replace wiring and circuit breaker.

-13

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont'd)

4. Excentions to the 1985 Sample Program (Cont'd)

38. F on-site station, off: 10/24/85 (0815 hours0.00943 days 0.226 hours 0.00135 weeks 3.101075e-4 months ) to 10/24/85 (1245 hours0.0144 days 0.346 hours 0.00206 weeks 4.737225e-4 months ). Replace wiring and circuit breaker.

39. F on-site station, off: 10/25/85 (0800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months ) to 10/25/85 (1505 hours0.0174 days 0.418 hours 0.00249 weeks 5.726525e-4 months ). Continued replacement of wiring and circuit breaker.

40. G off<<site station, off: 10/28/85 (0823 hours) to 10/28/85 (1510 hours0.0175 days 0.419 hours 0.0025 weeks 5.74555e-4 months ). Replaced wiring and circuit breaker.

41. G on-site station, off: 11/5/85 (2050 hours0.0237 days 0.569 hours 0.00339 weeks 7.80025e-4 months ) to ll/7/85 (0855 hours0.0099 days 0.238 hours 0.00141 weeks 3.253275e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

42. G off-site station, off: 11/12/85 (0905 hours0.0105 days 0.251 hours 0.0015 weeks 3.443525e-4 months ) to ll/15/85 (0852 hours0.00986 days 0.237 hours 0.00141 weeks 3.24186e-4 months ). Pump not remnergised by technician.

43. G onmite station, off: 11/15/85 (2241 hours0.0259 days 0.623 hours 0.00371 weeks 8.527005e-4 months ) to 11/19/85 (1223 hours0.0142 days 0.34 hours 0.00202 weeks 4.653515e-4 months ). Ground fault interrupter tripped, reset.

44. J on-site station, off! 11/18/85 (1846 houx's) to ll/19/85 (1102 houxs). Blown fuse.

45. Dl on-site s tation, o ff: 11/19/85 (1020 hours) to 11/20/85 (1302 hours0.0151 days 0.362 hours 0.00215 weeks 4.95411e-4 months ). Replaced wiring and circuit breaker.

46. Dl on-site station, off: ll/21/85 (0500 hours) to 11/25/85 (0842 hou'rs). Vacuum pump malfunction.

47. J on-site station, off: 12/2/85 (1600 hours0.0185 days 0.444 hours 0.00265 weeks 6.088e-4 months ) to 12/5/85 (0850 hours0.00984 days 0.236 hours 0.00141 weeks 3.23425e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

48. J on"site station, off: 12/5/85 (1410 hours0.0163 days 0.392 hours 0.00233 weeks 5.36505e-4 months ) to 12/9/85 (0810 hours0.00938 days 0.225 hours 0.00134 weeks 3.08205e-4 months ) Blown fuse.

49. G on-site station, off: 12/8/85 (0400 hours0.00463 days 0.111 hours 6.613757e-4 weeks 1.522e-4 months ) to 12/9/85 (1330 hours0.0154 days 0.369 hours 0.0022 weeks 5.06065e-4 months ). Blown fuse.

50. J on-site station, off: 12/9/85 (1500 hours0.0174 days 0.417 hours 0.00248 weeks 5.7075e-4 months ) to 12/10/85 (0820 hours0.00949 days 0.228 hours 0.00136 weeks 3.1201e-4 months ) Vacuum pump malfunction.

~

C. Envixonmenta1 Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLD)

The foU.owing environmental TLD' were lost as a result o f theft. These TLD's are required by the Technical Specifications.

1. Environmental TLD 8 88 (Offsite Dose Calculation Manual TLD 822) was missing during the third quarter of 1985 as a result of theft. Data were not available for this location from 6/28/85 to 9/27/85.

-14

II. DESCRIPTION (Cont'd)

4. Exceptions to the 1985 Sample Pxogram (Cont'd)

2. Environmental TLD 8 81 (Offsite Dose Calculation Manual TLD

13) was missing during the fourth quarter of 1985 as a result of thefts Data were not available for this location from 9/25/85 to 12/31/85.

3. Environmental TLD 8 88 (Offsite Dose Calculation Manual TLD

22) was missing during the fourth quarter of 1985 as a result of theft. Data were not available for this location from 9/27/85 to 1/3/86.

TLD 8 88 was re1ocated at the end of the fourth quarter because of the continual theft. TLD 8 81 was stolen during the fourth quarter. In the event that theft continues at this location, then this TLD may also be relocated. In the meantime, TLD 8 81 will be checked intermittently to verify that it has not been stolen.

The following environmental TLD's were lost as a result of theft and are not required by the Technical Specifications.

4. Environmental TLD 8 47 was missing during the first quarter of 1985 as a result of theft. Data were not available for this location from 1/2/85 to 3/28/85.

5. Environmental TLD 8 103 was. missing during the third quarter of 1985 as a result of theft. Data were not available for this location from 6/26/85 to 9/27/85.

Normally, environmental TLD's are not relocated unless theft is continual. Past history has shown that usually TLD's are stolen only once.

D ~ 'ower Limit of Detection for Environmental Samples The Technical Specifications require that environmental samples analyzed for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program meet the lower limits,of detection (LLD) found on Table 4.6.20-1 of the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Technical Specifications. All of the 1985 environmental samples which showed no net activity were less than the required values found on Table 4.6.20-1

-15

1 II. DESCRIPTION (Cont 'd)

4. Exceptions to the 1985 Sample Program (Cont'd)

Deviations from the Interlaboratory Comparison Program Section 3.6.21 of the'ine Mile point Unit 1 Technical Specifications requires the site to conduct an Interlaboratory Comparison Program utiliring QC samples from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This section also requires that ~

deviations from the sample schedules be reported in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. The sample schedule is set by the EPA and includes media for which environmental samples are routinely collected and for which interlaboratory comparison samples are available from the EPA.

During 1985, all sample media offered by the EPA for the Interlaboratory Comparison Program, and for which environmental samples are routinely collected and analyzed, were obtained and analyzed ~

-16

l III. EVALUATION OP ENVIRONMENTAL DATA There were three separate groups of zadionuclides that were detected in the environment during 1985. A few o f these radionuclides could possibly fall into two of the, three groups. The -first of these groups is naturally occurring radionuclides ~ It must be realized that the environment contains a broad inventory of naturally occurring radioactive .elements. Background radiation, as a function of primordial radioactive elements and cosmic radiation of solar origin, offers a constant exposure to the environment and man. These radionuclides, such as Ra-226, Be-7 and especially K&0,'ccount for a majority of the annual per capita background dose.

A second group of radionuclides that were detected are a result of the detonation of thermonuclear devices in the earth's upper atmospheres The detonation frequency during the early 1950's produced a significant inventory of radionuclides found in the lower atmosphere as well as in ecological systems. A ban was placed on atmospheric weapons testing in 1963 which greatly reduced the inventory through the decay of short lived radionuclides, deposition, ana the removal (by natural processes) of radionuclides from the food chain such as by the process of sedimentation. Since 1963, several atmospheric weapons tests have been conducted by the People's Republic of China. In each case, the usual radionuclides associated with nuclear detonations were detectea several months afterwards and then after a peak detection period, diminished to a point where mast could.not be detected. The last such weapons test was conducted in October of 1980. The resulting fa1lout or deposition from this test has influenced the background radiation in the vicinity of the site and was very evident in many of the sample media analyzed during 1981. Calculations of the resulting doses to man from fallout related radionuclides in the environment show that the contribution from such nuclides, in some cases (such as Sz-90 or Cs-137), is significant and second in intensity only to natural background radiation. Quantities of Nb"95, Zr-95> Ce-141> Ce-144>

Ru-106, Ru-103, La-140, Cs-137, Mn-54 and Co-60 were typical in air particulate samples during 1981 and have a weapons test origin. During 1985, Cs-137 was the only radionuclide detected in environmental samples that has a weapons testing origin.

The third group of radionuclides detected in the environment during 1985 were those that could be related to operations at the site. These select radionuclides were detected in a few of the sample media coU.ected and at very low concentrations. Many of these radionuclides are a byproduct of both nuclear detonations and the operation of'light water reactors ,thus making a distinction between the two sources difficult, if not impossible. Radionuclides falling into this category (as applicable to the 1985 Nine Mile Point Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program) include Cs-l37 and Co-60. The dose to man as a result of these radionuclides is small and significantly less than the radiation exposure from naturaU.y occurring sources of radiation and from fallout.

-17

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd )

Thus, the evaluation and interpretation is made at several levels including trend analysis, dose to man, etc. An attempt has been made not only to report the data collected during 1985, but also to assess the significance of .the radionuclides detected in the environment as compared to natural radiation sources. lt is important to note that detected concentrations of radionuclides that are possibly related to operations at the site are very smal1 and are not an indication of environmental significance. In regards to these very, small quantities, it will be further noted that at such minute concentrations the assessment of the significance of detected radionuclides is very difficult. Therefore, concentrations in one sample that are two times the concentration of another, for example, are not significant overall. Moreover, concentrations at such low levels may show, a particular radionuclide in one sample and yet not in another because of counting statistics.

The 1970 per capita dose rate (Eisenbud) was determined to be 209 mrem per year. Ttd.s average dose includes such exposure sources as natural, occupational, weapons testing, consumer products, medical, etc. The 1970 per capita dose rate due to natural sources was 130 mrem per year. Of this dose, approximately 20 mrem per year is received by the gonads and other, soft issues and an additional 15 mrem per year is received by the bona tissue for a 70 kg (155 lb) man. These doses (ie.

20 mrem and 15 mrem) are the result of )ust K-40 alone, a naturally occurring relatively high energy beta emitter (1.3 Mev). The 1970 per capita dose rate due to the nuclear fuel cycle was 0.028 mrem per year.

Background gamma radiation around the Nine Mile Point Site, as a result of radionuclides in the atmosphere and the ground> accounts for-approximately 60 mrem per year. This dose is a result of radionuclides of cosmic origin (as for example Be-7), of a primordial origin (as Ra-226, K-40, and Th-232) and to a much smaller extent of a man-made origin from weapons testing. A, dose of 60 mrem per year, as a background dose, is significantly greater than any possible doses as a result of operations at the site during 1985.

A.

Tables 3 through 6 demonstrate the analytical results for the aquatic media collected during the 1985 sampling program.

Aquatic samples were collected at four possible indicator locations. The locations (on-site transect designations) used for on-site sampling were NMPW (01), NMPP (02), JAF (03), and NMPE (04) (see H.gure 1) ~ Because of the unavailability o f various sample media, on-site samples may be collected from combinations 'of the above listed locations, when required. NMPW and NMPP were combined into location NMPP. NMPE and JAP were combined into location JAP. Off-site samples were collected at the Oswego Harbor area or further to the west (or east) and therefore served as control samples.

-18

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont 'd )

A. 1. Shoreline Sediment - Table 3 Shoreline sediment samples were collected twice during 1985.

Collections were made in May and November at one off-site or control location (near Oswego Harbor) and at one indicator location (shoreline area )ust east of the site with recreational value). In addition to the two locations noted above, another shoreline location at the site was sampled. This optional location was the location required by the previous Technical Specifications. This location was sampled during 1985 because plant related radionuclides had been detected during previous years and had been noted in previous annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports.

The results of the shoreline sediment samples collected during 1985 at the indicator and control locations are shown on Table

3. Only the Sunset Bay location was required by the Technical Specifications during 1985.

Several radionuclides were detected in sediment samples using gamma spectral analysis. These radionuclides ranged from naturally occurring primordial radionuclides to man-made radionuclides ~ K&0 was detected at both the control location and indicator locations for both collection periods during 1985. KAO ranged in concentration from 13.1 pCi/g (dry) to 15.4 pCi/g (dry) at the control location and 10.9 pCi/g (dry) to 19.5 pCi/g (dry) at the indicator locations.

Ra-226 and Th-228, in addition to KAO, were also detected and are also naturally occurring radionuclides. Ra-226 was detected only at the optional Nine Mi1e Point location at a cqncentration that was representative of normal background level fluctuations ~

Ra-226 was found at a concentration of 1.52 pCi/g (dry) at the Nine Mile Point location. Th-228 was found at all locations and ranged from 0.27 'Ci/g (dry) to 1.38 pCi/g (dry) at the indicator locations and 0.49 pCi/g (dry) to 0.67 pCi/g (dry) at the control location. Be-7 was also detected in one of the indicator samples (the Nine Mile Point location) at a concentration of 0.49 pCi/g (dry). Be-7 is a naturally occurring radionuclide.

Cs-137 was detected in both of the optional Nine Mile Point samples collected during the year. Cs-137 was detected in these optional indicator samples only and none of the normal program samples. The concentrations detected were small and were, for the most part, indicative of operations at the site. Cs-137 was detected in both of the Nine MQ.e Point samples (i.e., May and November) at concentrations of 1.81 pCi/g (dry) and 1.00 pCi/g (dry), respectively. As noted above, Cs-137 was not detected in any of the control samples, although Cs-137 has been routinely observed in the past in control samples (prior to 1981). Cs-137 was not detected at the Sunset Bay indicator location.

-19

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd )

A. 1. Shoreline Sediment - Table 3 (cont'd)

Co-60 was detected in both of the optional Nine MQ.e Point indicator samples collected during 1985. Co-60 was detected at 0.18 pCi/g (dry) in the May sample and at 0.11 pCi/g (dry) in the November sample. The control location samples showed no detectable Co-60 Co-60 has not been noted in previous years at the control location. Co-60 detected during 1985 at this location is a result of operations at the site. Co-60 was not detected at the Sunset Bay indicator location during 1985.

Cs>>134 was not detected in any of the indicator or control samples during 1985. Cs-134 had been detected once during 1983, in a Nine Mile Point sample at a concentration of 0.09 pCi/g (dry) which was greater than the LLD values for the 1985 samples.

No other radionuclides were detected in shoreline sediment samples using gamma spectral analysis.

Evaluation of average historical data (1979-1984) shows that Cs-137 has ranged from 0.05 pCi/g (dry) in 1982 to 0.22 pCi/g (dry) in 1979 at the control location. Cs-137 at the Nine Mile Point indicator location has ranged from 0.07 pCi/g (dry) in 1982 to 1.81 pCi/g (dry) in 1983 and 1985. 1985 results ranged from 1.00 pCi/g (dry) to 1.81 pCi/g (dry) at the Nine Mile Point indicator location. Cs-137 was not detected at the control location..during '983, 1984 or 1985. Overall, the control location results have decreased since 1979, while the Nine Mile Point indicator results have increased starting with the one 1982 sample result for Cs-137 of 0.80 pCi/g (dry). Indicator sample results at Nine Mile Point have remained fairly consistent since the fall of 1983.

Since the new Technical Specification location was initiated in 1985, there is no previous data to compare the 1985 result to.,

As noted above, however, Cs-137 was not detected at the Technical Specification indicator location during 1985. Cs-137 LLDs values ranged from 0.09 pCi/g (dry) to 0.10 pCi/g (dry) during 1985.

The evaluation of past Co-60 data indicates that Co-60 has not been detected during the period of 1974-1982 at either the Nine MQ.e Point indicator or control locations with the exception of one sample from the Nine Mile Point indicator location in 1982 (0. 16 pCi/g-dry). Results from 1983 show that Co-60 was detected in both of the required Nine MQ.e Point indicator samples (0.14. and 0.36 pCi/gMry). During 1984~ Co-60 was detected at concentrations of 0.21 and 0.26 pCi/g (dry) ~ During 1985, Co-60 was detected at 0.18 pCi/g (dry) and 0.11 pCi/g (dry) C~O has not been detected in any of the control samples from 1979-1985. It appears that Co-60 concentrations at

~

the indicator location have increased (from not previously detected), remained somewhat consistent through 1984. and decreased during 1985.

-20

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

A. 1. Shoreline Sediment Table 3 (cont'd)

As noted previously, the new Technical Specification location was initiated in 1985. Therefore, there is no previous data to compare the 1985 Co-60 results to. Co-60 wss not found at this location during 1985. Co-60 LLDs values ranged from < 0.05 pC1/g (dry) to < 0.07 pC1/g (dry) during 1985.

Samples o f the Technical Specif1catioa indicator location (a t the time) collected during November 1982 showed levels of Cs-13?

(0.80 pC1/g dry) that indicated an iacreased concentration of this radionuclide in comparison to previous years (1979-1981).

In addition, Co-60 was detected in the November 1982 sample at a low conceatration (0.16 pCi/g-dry). Co-60 had not been detected prev1ous to the November 1982 sample. In view of the increase in Cs-137 concentrations and the appearance o f Co-60 ia shoreline sediment samples from the Nine Mile Po1nt location, extra samples were collected in March 1983. These samples showed no positive detection of Co-60 and the Cs-137 concentration was less than the November 1982 conceatration (0.16 pCi/g-dry) ~ Subsequent samples collected in May snd November 1983, which were the normal Technical Specification samples at the time, showed Co-60 to be detected again. Co-60 in May 1983 was detected at a concentration similar to the November 1982 conceatration (0.14 pC1/g-dry) ~ The November 1983 sample showed an increase ia the Co-60 concentration to 0.36 pC1/g (dry) ~ The Miy and November 1983 samples showed Cs-137 coacentrations of '0.85 pC1/g (dry) snd 1.81 pC1/g (dry),

respectively.

These gamples demonstrated an increase in the Cs-3.37 concentrat1on to 1.81 pC1/g (dry)- In addition to Cs-137 snd Co-60's-134 was detected in the November 1983 Nine Mile point indicator sample. Cs-134 had not been detected previous to 1983 in either control or indicator samples. Cs-134 was detected at 0.09 pC1/g (dry) ~ Concentrations of Cs-137 and Co-60 during 1984 and 1985 were relatively cons1stent with 1983 concentrations and may have demonstrated a very slight decrease. Cs-134 was not detected 1n 1984 or .1985. These conceatrstions, although greater than previous concentrations at this location, have no significant dose consequences to members of the public in regards to 10 CPR 50> Appendix I. An assessment of Co-60 and Cs-.137 in shore11ne sediment samples 1B included at the end of th1s sect1on.

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

A. 1. Shoreline Sediment Table 3 (cont'd)

The source o f the elevated Co-60 and Cs-137 concentrations believed to be liquid e ffluents from the site. Site liquid i s effluents during 1982 1985 were well within Technical Specification limits, although the quantities of Co-60, Cs-137 and Cs-134 did increase during the first three quarters of 1983. Other potential sources of radionuclides in liquid effluents are the sewage treatment facility effluent and the s torm sewer drainage which accepts its most significant drainage from building foundation sumps, roo f drainage, and roadway drainage. Grab samples are obtained weekly from the storm sewer drainage system and from the sewage treatment plant ef fluent which both . discharge at points near the Nine Mile Point f

shoreline sediment sample location. Review o weekly data showed no detectable concentrations of Co<<60> Cs-137 or Cs-134 from the end of 1982 through 1985.

The presence of Co-60, Cs-137, and Cs-134 in other aquatic sample media shows no similar trends, as observed in shoreline sediment. Algae or Clado hora results for 1983 generally showed lower concentrations o these radionuclides when detected .

During 1984, Cs-137 concentrations remained the .same, although C~O and Cs-134 were not detected. For 1985, C~O, Cs<<134 and Cs-137 were not detected in Cladophora samples (data not presented in this report). In addition, fish sample results showed no detectable Co-60 nor Cs-134 during 1983-1985. Cs-137 detected in indicator fish samples as well as control

"'as samples with no significant differences between the two. 1984 detected Cs-137 q'uantities were equal to 1983 quantities .

Results from 1985 demonstrated an apparent decreasing trend. It appears, therefore, that the increased concentrations of Cs-137 and Co<<60 during 1983-1984 are specific to shoreline sediment and are not able to be observed in other aquatic sample media ~

Shoreline sediment samples, as required by the Technical Specifications, as well as optional samples of the Nine Mile Point location, wi11 continue to be collected and analyzed.

These samples may be supplemented with additional samples, necessary, in an effort to further assess any trends and any if possible impacts.

The impact of the 1985 shoreline sediment sample results is minimal and can be evaluated by pro)ecting a dose to man using standard Regulatory Guide 1.109 methodology. The critical pathway, in this case, is direct radiation to the whole body.

The presence of Co<<60 and Cs-137 at the optional Nine Mile Point location, is a result of operations at the- site. Although the shoreline'rea is controLled by NMPC personnel, a dose may be calculated assuming that the area in question is utilized as a beaoh area. Assuming that a teenager spends 67 hours7.75463e-4 days 0.0186 hours 1.107804e-4 weeks 2.54935e-5 months per year at the beach area or shoreline ()egulatory Guide 1.109), and the sediment has a mass of 40 kg/m (dry) to a depth of 2.5 cm, then the associated dose to the whole body in mrem per year can be calculated.

<<22

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

A. 1. Shoreline Sediment - Table 3 (cont'd)

Further assumptions must be made and include: . no radiological decay of the detected radionuclides, the shoreline width factor is 0.3 (Regulatory Guide 1.109) and the, average Co-60 and Cs-137 concentrations detected are constant for one year and are a result of site operations. Whole body and skin doses are as follows ~

Radionuclide Concentration ** %hole Body Dose>> Skin Dose>>

Co-60 0.14 0.0019 0.0022 Cs-137 1.40 0. 0048 0.0055

>>Dose in mrem per year

- Concentration in pCi/g (dry)

The average radionuclide concentrations used are 0.14 pCi/g (dry) for Co-60 and 1.40 pCi/g (dry) for Cs-137. The whole body dose from Co-60 is 0.0019 mrem per year and 0.0048 mrem per year from Cs-137 or a tots'1 whole body'dose of 0.0067 mrem.

A whole body dose from Co-60 and Cs-137 can not be calculated for shoreline sediment samples collected at the 1985 Technical Specification location since no 'gammy, emitting radionuclides, with'he exception of naturally occurring radionuclides> were found ~

A whole body dose of 0.0067 mrem per year at the Nine Mile Point location is very small and can be compared to the whole body dose from natural background radiation in the area surrounding the site. The natural background dose as a result of parameters such as cosmic radiation and naturally occurring radionuclides in the atmosphere and the ground, has been demonstrated by environmental dosimeters (TLD's) to be approximately 5 mrem per month or 60 mrem per year. The calcu1ated dose of 0.0067 mrem per year as a result of Co-60 and Cs-137 in shoreline sediment is conservative in the sense that it is a high dose estimate and the shoreline area is not a beach area. Even in view of this conservatism, this dose is extreme1y small and is 0.0001 of the annual natural background dose of 60 mrem per year.

-23

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

A. 2. Fish Table 4A, 4B A total of 18 fish samples were analyzed as a result of collections in the spring season (June July 1985) and in the fall season (September October 1985). Collections were made utilizing gill nets at one control location greater than five miles from the site (Oswego Harbor area), and at two indicator locations in the vicinity of the lake discharges for the Nine Mile Point Unit 81 (02), and the James A. FitzPatrick (03) generating facilities. The Oswego Harbor samples served as control samples while the NMP (02) and JAF (03) samples served as indicator samples'amples were analyzed for gamma emitters ~

Table 4A shows results in units of pCi/g (wet) for purposes of data evaluation. Table 4B showa results in units of pCi/kg (wet), as required by the Technical Specifications.

Analysis of the spring 1985 fish samples indicated detectable concentrations of radionuclides related to past weapons testing and natural origins (naturally occurring) ~ Small detectable concentrations of Cs-137 were found in all fish samples (including control samples) ~ Spring fish collections wer e comprised of two separate species and nine individual samples.

The two species represented one feeding type. lake trout and brown trout are highly predacious and feed on significant quantities of smaL1er fish such as smelt, alewife, and other smaller predacious species. Because of the limited availabQ.ity of species present, in the catches, no .bottom feeding specimens were collected in the sprihg samples.

Cs-137 was detected in all indicator and control sample s collected during the spring for both species collected.

Indicator samples showed Cs-137 concentrations . to be slightly greater than control results for some samples and slightly less than or equal to control resu1ts for other samples. The average indicator Cs-137 concentration was slightly less than the average control concentration. The indicator results, however, are not significantly different from the control results and are therefore considered to be representative of background concentrations. Cs-137 in brown trout samples ranged from 0.025 to 0.044 pCi/g (wet) for the indicator samples. Cs-137 in control samples ranged from 0.026 to 0.047 pCi/g (wet) for brown trout. Cs-137 in lake trout samples ranged from 0.033 to 0.036 pCi/g (wet), at the indicator locations. Cs-137 in the control sample.was 0.035 pCi/g (wet) (one sample collected) ~

K&0 was detected in all of the spring samples collected. K&0 is a natural1y occurring radionuclide and is not related to power plant operations. Detectable concentrations of K-40 in the indicator samples (lake trout and brown trout) ranged from 2.81 to 3.78 pCi/g (wet) and 2.85 to 4.96 pCi/g (wet) for the control samples. No other radionuclides were detected in the spring fish samples.

-24

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

A. 2. Fish - Table 4A, 4B (Cont'd)

Fa11 fish sample collections were comprised of three separat e species and nine individual samples. Three samples of brown trout, three samples of chinook salmon and three samples of smallmouth bass were collected at a combination of two indicator sample locations (NMP and JAF) and one control sample location (Oswego Harbor ares) . Samples were collected by gill net in September October.

Cs-137 was detected in all nine samples including the three control samples'ndicator samples showed an average Cs-137 concentration that was less than the control sample mean from the off-site location. The detected concentrations were not significantly different from one another because of the exremely small quantities detected. Cs-137 in brown trout samples at the indicator locations ranged from 0.018 to 0.021'Ci/g (wet) and was 0.026 pCi/g (wet) at the control location. Chinook Salmon samples from the indicator locations ranged from 0.023 to 0.025 pCi/g (wet) ~ The associated control sample was 0.033 pCi/g (wet). The third species, smallmouth bass, ranged from 0.035 0.044 pCi/g (wet) at the indicator locations and the control result was 0.034 pCi/g (wet) ~

K&0 was detected in all of the fall samples collected ~

Detectable concentrations of K-40 in the indicator samples (brown trout, chinook salmon and smallmouth bass ) ranged from 2;70 to 3.62 pCi/g (wet) and 3.13 to 3.55 pCi/g (wet) for the control samples. No other radionuclides were detected in the fall fish samples.

Review of past envtronmental data indicates that the mean 1985 Cs-137 concentration has decreased from 1984 for the indicator samples'nd significantly from the 1979 through 1976 concentrations for these samples decreased from a level results'verage of 1.4 pCi/g (wet) in 1976 to a level of 0 030 pCi/g (wet) in 1985. Control sample resu1ts have also decreased from a level of 1.2 pCi/g (wet) in 1976 to a leve1 of 0.032 pCi/g (wet) in 1984. Results from 1980 to 1985 have remained fairly consistent for control and indicator samples. The 1985 average of control Cs-137 results increased sightly from 1984: 0.032 to 0.034 pci/g (wet) ~

The general decreasing trend for Cs-137 is most probably a result of ecological cycling. The concentrations of Cs-137 detected since 1976 in fish are a result of weapons testing fallout, and the general downward trend in concentrations will continue as a function of ecological cycling and nuclear decay.

-25

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL.DATA (Cont'd )

A. 2. Fish - Table 4A, 4B (Coat'd)

Iske Ontario fish are considered an important food source by many. Therefore, fish is an 1ntegral part of the human food chain. Based on the importance of fish in the local diet, a reasonable conservative estimate of dose to man can be calculated. Assuming that an adult consumes 21.0 kg of fish per year (Regulatory Guide 1.109 maximum exposed age group) snd the fish consumed contains an average Cs-137 concentration of 0.030 pCi/g (wet) (annual mean result of indicator samples for 1985),

the whole body dose received would be 0.045 mrem per year. The critical organ in this case is the 11ver whfch would receive a calculated dose of 0.069 mrem per year. The Cs<<337 whole body and crit1cal orgaa doses are conservative calculated doses associated with consuming fish from the Nine Mile Point area (indicator samples). No radiologfcal decay is assumed for the calculation of doses.

Conservative whole body and critical organ doses can be calculated. for the consumptioa of fish from the control location as well. In this case the consumption rate is assumed to remain the same (21.0 kg per year ) but the average aanual Cs-137 concentration for the control .samples 1s 0.034 pC1/g (wet). The calculated Cs-137 whole body dose is 0.051 mrem per year and the associated dose to the liver is 0.078 mrem per year.

Ia summary, the whole body aad critical organ doses observed as a result of consumption of fish is sisll. 'Doses received from the consumption of iad1eator and control sample f1sh are approximately the same. The doses from indicator sample fish are slightly lower although well within natural variability .

For example, the whole body and organ doses from the control samples were lower dur1ng 1984. Doses, from both sample groups are considered background doses.

A. 3 Surface Water - Tables 5 and 6 1985 surface water samples were analyzed monthly for gamma emitters (using gamma spectral analysis) ~ Tritium analyses were performed quarterly. quarterly samples (i.e., analysis for tritium) were composites of monthly samples.

The snalytfcal results for the 1985 surface water samples showed no evidence of plant related radionuclide buildup in the surface water in the vicinity of the site. Indicator samples were collected from the inlet canal st the James A. FftzPatr1ck facflity. The control locat1on samples'ere collected at the inlet c'anal of Niagara Mohawk's Oswego Steam Stat1on. These two locations are required to be sampled by the Technical Specificatf ons. Tables 5 and 6 show the resu1ts o f surface water samples analyzed during 1985.

-26

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd )

A. 3. Surface Water Tables 3 and 6 (Cont'd)

Gamma spectral analysis was performed on 24 monthly composite samples (two locations) required by the Technical Specifications. In addition, two optional sample locations were evaluated. These included the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 inlet canal and the City of Oswego drinking water supply. The drinking water supply composite samples consisted of twice per week grab samples ~ Only two radionuclides were detected in samples from the four locations over the course of 1985. These radionuclides were naturally occurring.

K&0 was detected intermittently in both Techrd.cal Specification required intake canal samples. The James A. FitxPatrick inlet canal samples showed K-40 detected in 4 of the 12 monthly samples and ranged from 7.8 to 13.0 pCi/liter. K&0 in the Oswego Steam Station inlet canal was detected in 2 of the 12 samples and ranged fzom 7.1 to 13.6 pCi/liter. The Nine Mile Point Unit 1 inlet canal and the city water samples showed K-40 detected in 4 and 5 respectively, of the 12 monthly samples for each location. For these samples, K"40 concentrations ranged from 10.9 - 16.9 pCi/liter and 7.1 - 21.2 pCi/liter respectively.

Ra-226 was detected intermittently in samples from all four locations. Ra-226 wa's detected in 6 of the 12 monthly samples

, from the Nine'ile Point Unit 81 inlet canal and ranged from 13,4 to 26.1 pCf./liter. Samples from the FitzPatrick location showed Ra-226 in 7 of the 12 monthly samples and ranged from 15.0 to 27.4 pCi/liter. The control sample location (Oswego Steam Station) showed Ra-226 in 7 of the 12 monthly samples and ranged in concentrations from 9.7 - 22.0 pCi/liter. The city water samples results showed Ra-226 detected in 3 of the 12 monthly samples and ranged from 15.0 21.5 pCi/liter.

Tritium samples are quarterly samples that were a composite of the appropriate monthly samples'z'itium was detected in samples taken at a11 four locations. A few sample results showed tritium as not detected within the ana1ytical sensitivity of the analysis. The City of Oswego drinking watex showed tritium concentxations ranging from 240 pCi/liter to 430 pCi/liter with a mean of 305 pCi/liter. Tritium concentrations for the James A. FitzPatrick inlet canal ranged from 250 pCi/liter to 1200 pCi/liter and showed a mean concentration of 530 pCi/liter. Inlet canal samples taken at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 showed tritium concentrations ranging from <100 pCi/liter to 470 pCi/liter. The annual mean concentration was 262 pCi/liter. The Technical Specification control location (Oswego Steam Station inlet canal) showed tritium results which ranged fzom 230 pCi/litez to 370 pCi/liter with a mean of 278 pCi/liter.

-27

Z' III. EUALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

Ao 3. Surface Water Tables 5 and 6 (Cont'd)

The FitzPatrick inlet canal showed one result of 120U pCi/liter that was greater than any o f the other indicator quarterly results and was also greater than any of the quarterly results from the control location. The elevated third quarter sample result was verifiea by reanalysis of another portion of tne sample and by an independent laboratory analysis'pon further investigation, it.was determined that all of the monthly samples that were used to composite the quarterly sample also showed elevated tritium results. These results for the months of July through September 1985 were 940, 870, and 1500 pCi/liter, r espectively. It appears, there fore, that all three months showed tritium results that were higher than what would normally be expected. The fourth quarter result was normal (250 pCi/liter).

A plausible reason for the higher than normal quarterly FitzPatrick inlet canal result is not known at this time. The discharge sample for the FitzPatrick facility for the same quarter is considered normal (280 pCi/liter, data not included on Table 5). In addition, the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 inlet sample is also considered normal (270 pCi/liter). Liquid wastewater tank discharges from the site during the third quarter of 1985 were well within Technical Specification limits. No discharges were made from the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 facility. The FitzPatrick facility discharged only 3.6X of the total tritium released for 1985 during the third quarter, Possible reasons for the anomalous third quarter result includes mishandling of the sample compositing tanks and contamination at the collection point which is located within the FitzPatrick facility. It is possible that the intake sample result was actually the discharge sample result. This confusion may have occurred through misidentification of compositing tanks or mislabeling of sample containers during shipment. Contamination may have also occurred, although the feasibility of this possible reason is limited since the sampling area is outside of any radiation areas.

Review of past environmental data for Cs-137 from 1979 through 1985 shows that this radionuclide was detected only once at the control location during 1979 at a concentration of 2.5 pCi/liter. Cs-137 at the indicator location (JAF inlet canal) was detected only once during 1982 at a concentration of 0.43 pCi/liter. The 1979 control sample result is suspect and may have ,been a result of contamination during handling or instrument background since Cs-137 was not detected in the indicator inlet canal. The one result from the indicator location (JAF inlet canal) during 1982 was detected in a January composite sample and may have been a result of inlet .canal tempering (the addition of discharge water to the inlet canal) or instrument background. Cs-137 was not detected during 1985 in surface water samples-

-28

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd )

A. 3. Surface Water - Tables 5 and.6 (Cont'd)

Other plant related radionuclides detected during a review period of. 1979 1985 incluce only Co-60. The control 'sample location results showed that Co-60 was detected once in 1981 (the May composite sample). This result is suspect and, as noted above, may be a result of contamination during handling or may be instrument background. This result was 1.4 pCi/liter.

from the indicator location showed that Co-60. was 'esults detected three times during 1982 and averaged 1.9 pCi/liter.

These positive results were attributed to. inlet canal tempering and instrument background. Co-60 was not detected during 1985 in surface water samples.

Review of previous environmental data for K-40 and Ra-226 showed that the detectable concentrations found during 1985 were representative of concentrations found during 1979 1984.

Previous annual mean results for tritium at the indicator sample location (FitzPatrick inlet canal) has decreased since 1976.

Mean sample results were reviewed from 1976 through 1984 and showed a peak average value of 476 pCi/liter (1978) and a minimum value of 227 pCi/liter (1980) ~ The annual mean tritium result at the indicator location for 1985 was 530 pCi/liter.

Mean tritium results of the control location (Oswego Steam Station) can not be evaluated with -regard to historical data since sampling was only initiated at this location in 1985.

Some idea of the variability of control sample data can be obtained, however, by review of previous data from the City of Oswego drinking water samples. The drinking water samples are not likely to be affected by the station because of the effects of the distance, lake currents, and the discharge of the Oswego River. Therefore, this previous sample data represents acceptable control sample data for evaluation purposes.

Mean annual tritium results from previous city water samples from 1976 to 1984 show that the tritium concentrations have steadily decreased. The maximum annual average was found in 1976 (652 pCi/liter) and the minimum in 1982 (165 pCi/liter).

The 1985 annual mean tritium result for the Oswego Steam Station (278 pCi/liter) 'as greater than results from the city water location for the last several years (1982 1984)- These results ranged from 165 pCi/liter to 250 pCi/liter. The 1985 city water annual mean result increased snd was noted at 305 pCi/lite r .

The impact, as expressed as a dose to man, can not be evaluated because no plant related radionuclides were detected in surface water samples with the exception of tritium. Plant related radionuclides were not found in the optional drinking water samples either.

-29

L III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont ' )

A. 3. 'urface Water - Tables 5 and 6 (Cont'd)

Tritium results during 1985 were variable . The one elevated quarterly result from the FitzPatrick inlet canal is not considered to be representative of actual tritium concentrations because the discharge canal tritium results were normal. With the exception of this one anomalous result from the FitzPatrick inlet canal, the results noted during 1985 are representative of normal background tritium results in s'urface water. Any impact associated with the fluctuation'of tritium levels are considered to be background and are not considered to be a result of operations at the site.

B. Terrestrial Pro ram Tables 7 through 14 and 17 represent the analytical results for the terrestrial samples collected for the 1985 reporting period.

1, Air Particulate Gross Beta - Tables 7 and 8 Tables 7 and 8 contain the results for the weekly ai r particulate gross beta analysis for a total of six offmite and nine on-site sample locations. Five of the six off-site locations are required by 'the Technical Specifications. These sample locations are R-l, R-2, R-3, and R-4 (all located near the site boundary) and R-5 (located at a control location beyond any significant influence from the site) ~ Data contained'n Tables 7 and 8 also shows the results from other air sampling locations not required by the Technical Specifications. These locations are designated as Dl on-site, D2 on-site, E on-site, F on-site, G on-site, H on-site, I on-site, J on-site, K on-site and G off~ite locations. A total of 52 control samples from location R and 208 indicator samples from locations R-l, R-2, R-3, and R-4 were coLLecte'd and analyzed during 1985 No significant levels of gross beta activity were observed in any of the weekly air particulate filter samples collected. The minimum, maximum, and average gross beta results for sample locations required by the Technical Specifications are presented below.

Location ** Minimum* Maximum* Average" R-1 0.010 0.039 0.022 R-2 0.010 0.040 0.024 R-3 0.011 0.041 0.023'.

R-4 0.011 0.044 023 R-5 (control) 0.013 0.043 0.024 Concentration in pCf./m3

" Locations required by the Technical Specifications'30

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont 'd )

Air Particulate Gross Beta Tables 7 and 8 (Cont'd)

The observed minimum, maximum, and average concentrations are all fairly consistent for all locations. Duzing 1985, there were no elevated gross beta results that were ten times an average historical control concentration. The average historical control concentration utilized duzing 1985 was the average control result from 1984 which was 0.026 pCi/m .

The observed small increases and decreases in general gross beta activity can be attributed to changes in the environment, especially seasonal changes. The concentration of naturally occurring radionuclides in the lower limits of the atmosphere directly above land areas are affected by time related processes such as wind direction, snow cover, soil temperature and soil moisture content. Little change was noted in gross beta activity which corresponded with weapons 'testing as has been observed in past years. Review of air particulate gross beta concentrations shows that no significant increases in concentration occurred during 1985.

In general, the trend in aiz pazticulate gross beta activity has been one of decreasing activity since 1974 (extent of the review period) ~ The gross beta concentration at control or off-site locations has decreased from a level of 0.121 pCi/m3 in 1974 to 0.024 in 1983. Results from on-site air sampling locations ranged from 0.111 pCi/m3 in 1974 to 0.023 pCi/m~ in 198 3.

For both indicator (on-site) locations and control (off-site) locations, the gross beta concentration during 1974 to 1984 fluctuated with the detonation of thermonuclear weapons. The Tecbnical Specification indicator and control resu1ts during 1985 were 0.023 pCi/m and 0.024 pC1/m~ respectively. 'he annual mean results for indicator and control locations during the las t three years (1983, 1984, and 1985) have been approximately equal and ranged from 0.023 to 0.026 pCi/m3.

The range noted during these last three years appears to be a baseline range. The remaining effects of past weapons tests, any, appears to be at an insignificant leve1.

if 20 Monthl Air Particulate Com osites - Table 9 Weekly air particulate samples were composited by location to form monthly composite samples. The monthly composite samples required by the Technical Specifications include R-l, R-2, R-3, R 4, and R 5. Other sample locations not required by the Te chnical Specifications include Dl on-site, D2 on-site, E on-site, F on-site, G on-site, H on-site, I on-site, J on-site, K on-site, and G off-site locations. The results of all monthly composite samples are included on Table 9.

-31.

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

2. Monthly Air particulate Composites - Table 9 (Cont'd)

The results for the monthly composite samples showed positiv e r esults for Be-?, K-40, and Rs.-'226. All three' f these radionuclides are naturally occurring. Be-7 was found in each of the monthly composite samples from all locations, including those sample locations required by the: fec cal gpecifications. Be7-ranged from 0.064 to 0.197 pgi/m for the indicator locations (R-l, R-2, R-3, and RA). The control locatgon results (R-B) shoved Be7-ranging from 0.082, to 0.173 pCi/m . K&0 was found intermitrently in the monthly composite samples required by the )echnical Specifications ~

K&0 ranged from 0.013 to 0.025 'pCi/m at the control location (R-5) and was found once at a concentration of 0.014 pCi/m at one of the indicator 'locations (R-3). Ra-226 was not found at any of the indicator locations required by the Technical Specifications. The Technical Specification control location shove) concentrations of Ra-226 ranging from 0.012 to 0.017 pci/m No other naturally occurring or plant related radionuclides were detected using gamma spectral analysis during 1985.

The location, concentration range and mean, and frequency of occurrence of each radionuclide detected during 1985 at the Technical Specification required locations are included be1ow.

Radionuclide location '~Rn e*

Ra-226 Indicator ND ND 0 Ra-226 Control 0.012 - 0.017 0.014 3 KWO Indicator 0.014 1 K&0 Control 0.013 - 0.025 0014'.018 3

'e-7 Indicator 0.064 - 0 197 0. 127 48 Be-7 Control. 0.082 - 0.173 0.132 12

- Results in units of pCi/m3

- - Frequency is number of times detected ND << Not detected Historically, the naturally occurring radionuclides Ra-226, K&0 and Be-7 have shown fluctuations that are representative of natural changing conditions. No significant trends were noted.

during 1985.

-32

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. (Cont'd)

2. Monthl Air particulate Com osites Table 9 (Cont'd)

In the past, Co-60 has fluctuated in air particulate samples as a result of previous weapons testing. Co-60 average concentrations at the on-site or indicator and off-site or control locations from 1977 to 1978 decreased from approximately 0.0175 to 0.0015 pCi/m3. Average concentrations decreased

'ignificantly duzing 1979 and 1980 when compared to 1977. These results where 0.007 to 0.0016 pCi/m3 respectively. 1981 and 1982 average Co-60 concentrations decreased to 0.0007 and 0.0005 pCi/m3. Average indicator and "control concentrations were approximately equal during 1977 to 1982. The 1983 indicator average Co-60 concentration was 0.0007 pCi/m3 or slightly greater than the 1982 concentration. The 1983 average control mean Co-60 concentration was also 0.0007 pCi/m3 which was slightly greater than 1982 results. As noted-in previous annual reports, however, a portion of the Co-60 detected during 1983 was attzibuted to contamination during hand1ing of the unused filters. Co-60 during 1984 averaged 0.00079 pCi/m3 at the control stations and 0.00123 pCi/m3 at the indicator stations. 'owever, the 1984 Co-60 positive resu1ts were a result of contamination during handling and not a result of operations it the site. The general reduction in previous indicator and control Co-60 concentrations (1981 1983) was a result of. nuclear decay arid ecological cycling of, Co 60 initially produced by the 1980 Chinese weapons test.. Co-60 was not detected during 1985 in air particulate samples.

Historically, Cs-137 has been variable during the past and has been present in air particulate samples since 1977 and prior to 1977. 'uring 1977, both on-site, or indicator and off-site or control Cs-137 average concentrations were approximately equal and averaged 0.0039 pCi/m3. Cs-137 average concentrations at indicator and control locations decreased during 1978 and 1979 to 0.0017 and 0.0013 pCi/m3 respectively. Avezage concen-trations during 1980 and 1981 were approximately equal at contr'ol and indicator locations. Cs-137 during 1980 was approximately equal to 1979 and increased slightly in 1981 from 1979. The 1980 and 1981 average concentrations were 0.0013 and

0. 0015 pCi/m3 respectively. The mean 1982 concentration for Cs-137 decreased to 0.0004 pCi/m . The 1983 mean Cs-137 concentration for the indicator and control composite samples were 0.0002 and 0.0002 pCi/m3 which was a reduction from 1982 results. Cs-137 was not detected during 1984 in any of the indicator oz control air particulate composite samples. As noted above for the average annual Co-60 results, the reduction in Cs-137 results since 1981 is attz'ibuted to nuclear decay and ecological cycling of Cs-137 initially produced by the 1980 Chinese weapons test. Cs-137 was not detected during 1985 in air particulate samples.

III. EVALUATION OP ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

2. Monthl Air Particulate Com osites - Table 9 (Cont'd)

Prior to 1983 and 1984, several radionuclides were detected that were associated with the 1980 Chinese weapons test and other weapons tests prior to 1980. These radionuclides were not detected during 1984 or 1985 as a result of nuclear decay and ecological cycling. These include Zr-95, Ce-141, Nb-95, Ce-144, Hn-54, Ru-103, Ru-106 and Ba-140. In addition, La-140 was detected once during 1983 and infrequently during 1978 and 1981. La-140 was not detected during 1984 or 1985.

Assessment of the presence of fission product radionuclides in aix'articulate composite samples can be depicted by calculating doses to man as a result of inhalation. Since no fission product radionuclides were detected in air particulate samples during 1985, no doses can be calculated. It is assumed that there is no significant dose impact from inhalation as a result of operations at the site during 1985.

B. 3. Airborne Radioiodine (I-131) - Tables 10 and ll Dux'ing the 1985 sampling program, airborne radioiodine was not detected in any of the 260 weekly samples collected from the five sampling stations required by the Technical Specifi-cations. I-131 has been detected in the past at off-site stations. During 1976, the mean off-site I-131 concentration averaged 0.604 pCi/m . 1977 showed an I-131 concentration that decreased to 0.323 pCi/m3 and for 1978 the concentration decreased by a factor of ten to 0.032 pCi/m . During 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, and 1984, I-131 was not detected. I-131 was detected once during 1982 at a concentration of 0.039 pCi/m3.

As noted above, I-131 was not detected at the sample stations required by the Technical Specifications during 1985.

I-131 was not detected in any of the 517 weekly samples collected from the nine optional on-site 'sampling stations and the one optional off-site sampling station. I-131 has been detected in the past and was detected at a mean concentration of 0.328 and 0.309 pCi/m3 during 1976 and 1977. The average concentration decreased to 0.041 pCi/m3 during 1978 and was not detected during 1979. The 1980-1982 average concentxations were 0.013, 0.029, and 0.016 pCi/m3 which were reductions in view of previous I-131 concentrations. During 1983, the mean I-131 concentration was 0.028 pCi/m which represented a slight increase compared to 1982. I-131 in on-site and off-site samples was a result of g-131 from weapons testing. A small portion of the concentrations detected may have been a xesult of operations of the site. The concentrations detected during 1983 at the on-site sample stations were a result of opexations at the site. I-131 was not detected in any of the 1984 or 1985 on-site samples

-34

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd )

B ~ 3. Airborne Radioiodine (I-131) Tables 10 and 11 (Cont'd)

The end result o f the 1985 air radioiodine sampling ef or f t showed no significant impact due to operations at the site.

During 1985, I-131 was not detected in any other environmental sample media including milk and green leafy vegetables.

Since I-131 was not detected in any of the on-site or off-site environmental stations, no doses can be calculated to members of the public using this sample medium.

B~ 4. TLD (Environmental Dosimeter) - Table 12 TLD's were collected and read once per quarter during the 1985 sample year. The TLD results are, for the most part, an average of eight independent readings at each location and are reported in mrem per standard month and in mrem per quarterly period.

TLD' required by the Technical Specifications include two TLD's at each location with four independent readings per TLD or a total of eight readings. TLD results included on Tables 12A and 12B are comprised of TLD's required by the Technical Specifications and special interest TLD's not required by the Technical Specifications. In 1985, TLD's were collected .on approximately March 28, 1985, June 27, 1985, September 27, 1985,

-and January 3, 1986.

TLD results are evaluated by organizing environmental TLD's different groups. These. groups include. (1) on-site TLD's into'ive (TLD's within the site boundary not required by the Technical Specifications), (2) site boundary TLD's (one in each of the sixteen 22 1/2 degree meteorological sectors), (3) a ring of TLD's four to five miles from the site (in gach of the land based .22 1/2 degree meteorological sectors), (4) special interest TLD's (in areas of high population density)> and (5) control TLD's (in areas beyond any significant influence of the generating facilities) ~ Special interest TLD's are located at or near large industrial sites, schools, or proximal town or communities. Control TLD's are located to the southwest, south, and eastmortheast of the site at distances of 12.8 to 19.8 miles from the site.

On-site TLD's are TLD's at special interest areas and are not required by the Technical Specifications- These are located near the generating f acilities and at on>>site air sampling stations. TLD' located at the air sampling stations include numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 23, 24, 25 and 26. The results for these XLD s are consistent with previous years results and are in agreement with control TLD results. These results ranged from 4.4 to 14.7 mrem per standard month- TLD d3 is located in the vicinity of Nine MQ.e Point Unit 2 and is between the Unit 1 facility and the FitzPatrick facility. The 'results for TLD 4'3 were approximately double the results of the other TLD's because of the effects from Unit 1 and the FitzPatrick facility as well as any possible radiography work at Unit 2. A general increase in 'TLD results was noted for the first and third quarter results. A similiar tren'd was noted for the control TLD's.

I III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd )

B . 4. TLD (Environmental Dosimeter) Table 12 (Cont'd}

Other on-site TLD's include special interest TLD's located near the north shoreline of the Unit 1 and FitzPatrick facilities but in close proximity to radwaste facilities and the Unit 1 reactor building. These TLD's include numbers 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, and 47. Results for these TLD's during 1985 were variable and ranged from 7.3 to 55.2 mrem per standard month as a result of activities at the radwaste facilities and the operating modes of the generating facilities. Results for 1985 are within the ranges of variability noted in previous years for TLD's at or near these locations. TLD's in this group ranged up to approximately ten times control TLD results.

Additional on-site TLD's are located near the on-site Energy Information Center and the environmental laboratory. Thea e TLD's include numbers 18, 103, and 59 TLD number 103 is a new TLD and was established in the second quarter of 1985.

Therefore, no previous results for this TLD exist, although results were consistent with control TLD results and ranged from 4.7 to 6.8 mrem per standard month. TLD number 18 results during 1985 were fairly consistent and were within the range of control TLD data. Results were consistent with previous. years and ranged from 5.0 to 7.0 mrem per standard month. TLD number 59 is located near the FitzPatrick facility stack and showed 1985 results slightly above control TLD results'he proximity of this TLD to the FitzPatrick stack and the reactor building accounted for the slight increase in results. Results were consistent with previous years results and ranged from 6.2 to 14.5 mrem per standard month.

Site boundary TLD's are located in the approximate area of the site boundary, with one in each of the sixteen 22 I/2 degree meteorological sectors. These TLD's include numbers 75, 76, 77, 23, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 7, 18, 85, 86 and 87- TLD numbers 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 7 and 18 showed results that were consistent with control TLD results and ranged from 4.0 to 7.2 mrem per standard month. TLD numbers 75, 76, 77'3'5, 86, and 87 showed results that ranged up to twice the results of control TLD's. These results ranged from 4.8 to 12.6 mrem per standard month. This latter group of TLD's are located near the lake shoreline (approximately 100 feet from the shoreline), but are also located in close proximity of the reactor building and radwaste facilities of Unit 1 and the radwaste facilities of the FitzPatrick facility. TLD number 78 was slightly greater than the other site boundary TLD's not affected by facility reactor buildings or radwaste buQdings. This TLD is located closer to the FitzPatrick facility and is at least 500 .feet within the site boundary or site property.

-36

III ~ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont ' )

B. 4. TLD (Environmental Dosimeter) - Table 12 (Cont'd)

A net site boundary dose can be estimated from available TLD results and control TLD results. TLD results from TLD's located near the site "boundary in sectors facing the land occupied by members of the public (excluding TLD's near the generating facilities and facing Lake, Ontario) are compared to control TLD results. The site boundary TLD's include numbers 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 7 and 18. Control TLD's include numbers 8, 14 and 49. Net site boundary 'doses for each quarter in mrem per standard month are as follows:

quarter Net Site Boundary Dose*

1 -0.4 2 -0.4 3 -0.5 4 -0.2 "Dose in mrem per standard month Site boundary TLD numbers 75, 76, 77, 23, 85, 86, and 87 were excluded from the net site boundary dose calculation since these TLD's are not representative of doses at areas where a member of the public may be located. These areas are near the north s horeline which are in close proximity to the generating facilities and are not accessible to members of the public.

The third group of environmental TLD's are those TLD's located four to five miles from. the site in each of the land based 22.5 degree meteorological sectors. At this distance, TLD's are not present in eight of the sixteen meteorological sectors over Lake Ontario .

Results for this group of TLD's during 1985 fluctuated slightly as a result of changing naturally occurring conditions and the different concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides in the ground at each of the locations. 'hese TLD's included numbers 88 89'0 91 92'3'4 from 4.0 to 7.1 mrem per standard and 95. Results fluctuated month. These results are consistent with control TLD results during 1985. Results during 1985 can not be compared to previous yearly results since this group of TLD's was established in 1985. The 1985 results, however, were consistent with other off-site TLD results noted in previous years.

S~

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont ' )

B. 4. TLD (Environmental Dosimeter) - Table 12 (Cont'd)

The fourth group of environmental TLD's are those TLD's located beyond the site boundary and at special interest areas such as industrial sites, schools, nearby communities, towns, off-sit e air sampling stations, the closest residence to the site, and the off-site environmental laboratory. This group of TLD's include numbers 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 51, 52, 53> 54> 55>

56, 58, 96, 97, 98, 99 100, 101, and 102 and ranged from 3.9 to 6.8 mrem per standard month. All the TLD results from this group were within the variation noted for the contxol TLD's.

Results during 1985 for TLD's established during previous years wexe consistent with results noted for those years.

The fifth gxoup of TLD's include those TLD's 'considered as control TLD's ~ These TLD' include numbers 8, 14, and 4 9.

Results f or 1985 ranged from 4.4 to 7.7 mrem per standard month. Results from 1985 were consistent with previous years results. A slight increase was noted in the first and third quarters of 1985. This trend was also noted in the other groups o f TLD's evaluated during 1985 and has also been noted in previous years.

Overall, TLD results for 1985 showed no significant impact from direct radiation measured outside the site'oundary.

S ~ 5 Milk-Tables 13 and 14 Milk samples were coU.ected from a total of sM indicator locations (within 10 miles of the site) and one control location (beyond 10 miles from the site) during 1985. No new locations were added nor were any locations deleted when compared to the latter half of 1984. The Technical Specifications require that three locations be sampled for milk within 5.0 miles of the site. During 1985, there were no milk sample locations within 5.0 miles of the site. The locations that were sampled during 1985 are located from 5.5 to 9.5 miles from the site. The only sample location required by the Technical Specifications during 1985 was the contxol location which was located 15.0 miles to the southwest from the site (location 440) ~ Sample location descriptions for all milk sample locations utilized during 1985 are listed below.

Location No. Direction Prom Site Distance From Site (miles).

7 ESE 5.5 16 S 5.9 50 E 8.2 55 E 9.0 60 E 9.5 4 ESE 7.8 40 SV 15.2

-38

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

"B. 5. Milk -Tables 13 and 14 (Cont'd)

During 1985, milk samples were cd.ected at each of the six indicator locations and the control location in the first half and the second half of each month. Samples were collected during the months of April through December 1985. Since I-131 was not detected during November and December of 1984~ no additional samples were coU.ected in January through March of 1985. For each sample, analyses were performed for. gamma emitters (analysis by GeLi detector) and I-131 using a resin extraction. Sample analysis results for gamma emitters are found on Table 13 and for I-131 on Table 14.

The gamma spectral analyses of the bimonthly samples showed K-40 to be the only radionuclide detected in the milk samples collected during 1985. K-40 was detected in every sample analyzed and ranged in concentration from 824 pCi/liter to 1620 pCi/liter at the indicator locations and 967 pCi/liter to 1520 pCi/liter at the control location. K&0 is a naturally occurring radionuclide and is found in many of the environmental media sampled.

Cs-137 was not detected in any of the indicator or control samples during 1985. Contrary to the absence of Cs-137 in milk during 1984 and 1985> Cs-137 has been detected in milk samples since 1969. LLD values for Cs-137 ranged from 3.5 7.9 pCi/liter during 1985. It should be noted that the .two generating facilities were, for the most part, at full capacity during the 1984 and 1985 grazing season and Cs-137 was not detected in milk samples. Cs-137 was detected in milk samples during 1983, however, and ranged from 3.3 - 10.9 pCi/liter and averaged 7.2 pCi/liter. This observation may indicate that the source of the Cs-137 during the more recent years of 1981 - 1983 was the October 1980 Chinese Weapons Test.

No other radionuclides were detected in milk samples using gamma spectral analysis.

Milk samples were collected and analyzed twice per month for I-131 ~ I-131 was not detected during 1985 in any of the indicator or control samples. All 1985 I-131 milk results are reported as lower limits of detection (LLD). The LLD results ranged from <0. 10 pCi/liter to <0.49 pCi/liter for all milk samples.

Evaluation of site historical milk data shows that Cs-137 has been detected in environmental milk samples at both indicator (within 10 miles) and control locations (beyond 10 mQ.es). Mean Cs-,137 concentrations for 1976 - 1981 remained fairly consistent

~

and ranged from 8.1 (1980) to 17.1 pCi/liter (1977) at the

-39

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont ' )

B. 5. Milk-Tables 13 and 14 (Cont'd) indicator locations ~ The 1982 indicator mean was 5,7 pCi/liter which showed a decrease when compared to 1976 1981. Cs-137 in milk during 1983 yielded a mean of 7.2 pCi/liter which was slightly greater than the 1982 mean but was less than the 1976-1981 mean range. During 1983, however, Cs-137 was detected in only 3 of the 66 samples, while in 1982, Cs-137,was detected in 10 of the 54 samples analyzed. As noted previously, Cs-137 was .

not detected during 1984 or 1985 in indicator milk samples. At the control location, Cs-137 has remained fairly consistent for all years from 1978 << 1982 except for 1979 and 1982. For these years, this radionuclide was not detected. Cs-137 ranged from 3.9 - 5.8 pCi/liter during 1978 - 1982. Cs-137 was not detected at the control location during 1983, 1984, or 1985 The absence of Cs-137 during 1983 through 1985 may be a result of a three to five year time interval since the last weapons test ~

Since Cs-137 was not detected during 1985 at either indicator or control locations, no doses to man can be calculated. During previous years, however, Cs-137 has been detected at low levels in milk samples. The resultant doses to man from ingesting Cs-137 at low levels has been very small and insignificant when compared to doses as a result of naturally occurring K-40 in Iodine-131 was not detected in the bimonthly milk samples analyzed for the 1985 program. Therefore, no doses to man have been calculated because of the lack of detectable I<<131 B. 6 ?and Use Census -. Tables 15 and 16 In accordance with the Technical Specifications, a land use census was conducted during 1985 to identify within a distance of three miles the location of all milk animals (cows and goats) and the location of the nearest residence in e'ach of the sixteen 22.5 degree meteorological sectors. The milk animal census was actually conducted out to a distance of ten miles in order to provide a more comprehensive census.

The milk animal census is an estimation of the number of cows and goats within a ten mQ.e radius of the Nine Mile Point Site.

.A census is conducted once per year in the spring. The census is conducted by sending questionnaires to previous milk animal owners and also by road surveys to locate any possible new owners. In the event questionnaires are not answered, then the owners are contacted by telephone or in person. The local agricultural agency is also contacted.

f:

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

B ~ 6 Land Use Census - Tables 15 and 16 (cont'd)

The number of milk animals located within the ten mile radius of the site was estimated to be 1158 cows and 1 goat for the 1985 census. One new location (849) with a milk animal was found since the summer 1984 census. The number of cows increased by 62 and the number of goats remained the same with respect to the 1984 summer census.

A residence "census was conducted during 1985 to identify the nearest residence in each of the sixteen 22.5 degree "

meteorological sectors within a dis'tance of three miles from the site. At this distance, some of the meteorological sectors are over water. These sectors include: N, NNE, NEy ENEy Wy WNW NW, and NNW. There are no residences in these sectors'he results of the 1985 residence census showing the applicable sectors and degrees and distance of each of the nearest residences are found on Table 16.

fruited B. 7 Food Products -Table 17 Food product samples collected during 1985 were comprised of garden vegetables and Samples were collected from six indicator locations and one control location. The indicator locations were represented by nearby gardens in areas of highest D/Q (deposition factor) values based on historical meteorology and all site release points at operating facilities. The control location was represented by a garden location 9-20 miles distant in a least prevalent wind direction. Garden vegetables were comprised of cabbage, beet greens, collard greens, and swiss chard which are all considered broad-leaf vegetables.

Where broad-leaf vegetables were not available, non broad-leaf fruits or vegetables were collected. Non broad-leaf fruits or vegetables collected in 1985 consisted of tomatoes. At the control location, one sample of each similar type of fruit or vegetable was collected. Fruits and vegetables were collected in the late summer harvest season.

K&0 was detected in all broadleaf and non-broadleaf vegetables and fruits Broadleaf vegetables (Swiss chard, collard greens,

~

beet greens and cabbage) showed concentrations of KWO ranging from 2.05 pCi/g to 4.37 pCi/g (wet). Non-broadleaf fruits (tomatoes) showed concentrations of K&0 ranging from 1.14 pCi/g to 2.34 pCi/g (wet) ~ Be-7 was not detected in the vegetable samples collected during 1985. This naturally occurring radionuclide was detected in a swiss chard sample (broad-leaf vegetable) from the control location during 1984.

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

B. 7 Food Products-Table 17 (cont'd)

Cs-137 was detected in one of the broach-leaf vegetable samples from an indicator location (0 location) ~ The sample consisted of beet greens. The Cs-137 concentration was 0.047 pCi/g (wet) which was greater than the lower limit of detection for the other broad-leaf and non broad-leaf samples. The lower limit of detection for the other samples'anged from 0.009 to 0.033 pCi/g (wet). Two other proximal locations, one within 1000 feet ana the other at approximately 3000 "feet from location 0, showed no detectable Cs-137. Cs-137 was not detected at the control location nor at any of the other indicator locations.

No other radionuclides were detected in the 1985 samples of fruits and vegetables.

Review of past environmental data indicates that K-40 has been consistently detected in food crop samples. K&0 concentrations have fluctuated from one sample to another but the annual ranges have remained relatively consistent from year to year. Be-7 has been detected occasionally during the past on leafy vegetables (1978 - 1982, and 1984) ~

Cs>>137'as been detected intermittently auring the years of 1976 1985 at the indicator locations and during the years of 1980 1985 at the control locations (control samples were not obtainea prior to 1980). Review of indicator sample results from 1976 1985 showed that Cs-137 was not detectea during 1976 - 1975 and 1981 - 1984. During 1979 and 1980, Cs-137 in fruits and/or showed annual mean concentrations of 0.004 ana 0.036 'egetables pCi/g (wet) respectively. Cs-137 was found at an indicator location during 1985 at a concentration of 0.047 pCi/g (wet).

Control sample results during 1980-1985 showed Cs-137 detected only during 1980 at a concentration of 0.02 pCi/g (wet).

The impact of detectable Cs-137 in food product samples can be evaluated by calculating a dose to the maximum exposed individual as a result of consumption. Using standard methodology from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, the maximum exposed organ is the bone of a child. The maximum whole body dose would be to an adult. The Cs-137 concentration is 0.047 pCi/g (wet) and is assumed to be a result of operations at the site. The consumption rate is assumed'o be a maximum consumption rate of 26 kg per year for a child and 64 kg per year for an adult. The calculated doses are 0.40 mrem per year to a child's hone tissue (maximum organ dose) and 0.21 mrem per year to the whole body of an adult. The child's whole body dose would be 0.06 mrem per year.

A maximum organ dose of 0.40 mrem per year and whole body dose of 0.21 mrem per year are sms11 when compared to doses from non meznaade sources. A maximum organ dose of 0.40 mrem is small when compared to a dose of 20 mrem per year to the gonads and other soft tissues of an adult from naturaLly occurring K&0. A maximum whole body dose of 0.21 mrem per year can be compared to

-42

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd )

B. 7 Food Products-Table 17 (Cont'd) the increase in dose from increasing altitude. As one proceeds from one location to another location higher in altitude, the dose rate will increase slightly as a result of solar radiation. A whole body dose of 0.21 mrem per year is equivalent to proceeding fxom one area to another of 100 meters (328 feet) higher in altitude and remaining at that altitude for 38 days.

An occasion, such as moving to a. location 100 meters higher in altitude, is a common occurrence. Any dose that may be received as a result of such an occurreace is considered small and insignificaat.

B. 8 Interlaboratory Comparison Pxogram-Table 18 Section 3.6.21 of the Radiological Technical Specificatioas for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 requires that a summary of the results obtained as part of an Interlaboratory Comparison Program be included in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Presently, the only NRC appxoved Iaterlaboratory Comparison Progxam is the USEPA. Cross Check Program. Table 18 shows the results of the EPA's refexence results and the licensee's results. Some of the EPA reference samples have been analyzed by the site. Other EPA reference samples have been analyzed by s vendor who normally analyzes those types of sample media for the site. Participation in the EPA Cross Check Program includes sample media for which environmental samples are xoutinely collected, as required by Table 3.6.20 - 1 of the Technical Specifications and for which intercomparison samples are available from the EPA.

B. 9 Environmental Sample Locations-Table 19 Table 19 contains the locations of the environmental sample s presented in the data tables (Section E). The locations are given in degrees and distance from the Niae Mile Point Nuclear S tation Uait 2 reactor ceaterline. Table 19 also gives the figure (map) number as well as the map designatioa for each sample location by sample medium type. The requirement f or Table 19 is found ia section 6.9.1. d of the Radiological Technical Specifications for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit l.

B 10 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual.

~Stuama ?able 20 Ta ble 20 g,ontains a summary of basic statistics for environmental sample media as required by the Technical Specifications. Table 20 is in the format presented oa Table 3 of the NRC Branch Technical Position (Revision 1 dated November 1979) to NRC ReyQatory Guide 4.8 "Environmental Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants". The presented to meet the requirements of section, 6.9.1.d of the table i s Radiological Technical Specifications effective January 1, 3.985 for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1.

~3

III. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Cont'd)

C. Conclusion The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REHP) was established to detect and evaluate any possible impact to the environment surrounding the Nine Mile Point area resulting from operations at the site.

Samples representing food sources consumed at higher trophic levels, such as fish and milk, were reviewed closely to evaluate any impact to the general environment or to man. In addition, the data was reviewed for any possible historical trophic level bioaccumulation trends. Little or no impact could be determined resulting from radionuclide deposition considering all sources (natuzal, weapons testing, etc.). In regards to doses as a result of man-made radionuclides, a significant portion of the smaU. doses received by a member of the public was from past nuclear weapons testings Doses as a result of naturally occurring radionuclides, such as K-40, contributed a mayor portion of the total annual dose to members of the public.

Any possible impact as a result of site operations is extremely minimal when compared to the impact from natural background levels or weapons testing. It has been demonstrated that almost all environmental samples contain traces of radionuclides which are a result of weapons testing oz naturally occurzing sources (primordial and/or cosmic reLated). Whole body doses to man as a result of natural sources (naturally occurring radionuclices in the soil and lower atmosphere). in Oswego County account for approximately 60 mrem per year as demonstrated by control envizonmental TLD's. Possible doses due to site operations are a minute fraction of this particular natural exposure.

Therefore, as determined by review of the data presented herein, ao impact due to operations at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station was detected that would effect the health and safety of the public.

44

D. GENERAL REFERENCE MA'PHUT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10CFR Part 50, Appendix I"9 March 1976 (Revision 0).

2~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance With 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I", October 1977 (Revision 1).

3~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 4.8, "Environmental Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants", December, 1975.

4~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Branch Technical Position to Regulatory Guide 4.8, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program",

November 1979.

5. National Council on Radiation protection and Measurements (NCRP),

Eavironmental Radiation Measurements NCRP Report No. 509 1976.

6. National Councdl on Raddatdon Protectdon and Measurenents (NCRP), Natural Back round Raddatdon dn the United States, NCRP Report No. 45, 1975.

7~ National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP),

Cesium-137 from the Environment to Man: Metabolism and Dose, NCRP Report No. 52, 1977.

I

8. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP),

Radiation osure from Consumer Products and Miscellaneous'ources, NCRP Report No. 56, 1977.

9. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)P Radionuclide Release into the Environment Assessment of Doses to Man ICRP Publication 29, 1979.

10. Eichholzs G. Environmental As ects of Nuclear Powerp First Editionf Ann Arbor Science PubLishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1976.

11. Eisenbud, MerriLLP Environmental Radioactivit, Second Editions Academic Press, New York, NY 1973.

12. Francis, C.Wep Radiostrontium Movement in Soils and U take in Plants.

Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National .Laboratory, U.ST Department of Energy, 1978.

13. Thomas, C.W. et al., Radioactive Fallout from Chinese Nuclear Wea ons Test, September 26, 1 ~ BNWL- 16 Batt e, Paci ic Nore west Laboratories, U.S. ERDA, 1979.

14. Pochin, Edward E., Estimated Po ulation Exposure from Nuclear Power Production and other Radiation Sources, Nuclear Energy for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1976. Agency,'rganization

-45

D. GENERAL REFERENCE MATERIAL (cont'd) 15 Glasstone, Samuel and Jordan, Walter H' Nuclear power and Its Environmental Effects, First Edition, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Ill., 1980.

16. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Radiological Health Handbook. Bureau of Radiological Health, Rockvtlle, Mary January 197 0.

E. DATA TABLES - 198S

-47

TABLE 1 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS SITE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM MEDIA ANALYSIS FREQUENCY LOCATIONS (1) 1~ Shoreline Sediment GSA 2/year 1 indicator, 1 Control (2)

2. Fish GSA 2/year 2 Indicator, 1 Control (3)

3. Surface Water GSA M. Comp. 1 Indicator, 1 Control H-3 Qtr. Comp. 1 Indicator, 1 Control NOTES:

(1) Indicator samples collected in the vicinity of the site; control samples collected at a distance of at least five miles from the site.

(2) Indicator sample from an area of potential recreational value.

(3) Indicator samples from an area near the vicinity of a site discharge point. Control samples of the same species or of species of similar feeding habits.

(4) Indicator sample from the J.A. FitzPatrick inlet canal.

~

- -48

TABLE 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS SITE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM B~ TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM HEDIA ANALYSIS PROVEN CY LOCAT10hs

l. Air Particulates GB GSA Meekly M. Composite 4 Indicator, l Control (1)

2. Airborne - I-131 GSA Meekly 4 Indicator, 1 Control (lf

3. TLD Gamma Dose Quarterly 29 Indicator, 3 Control (2)

4. Milk I-131 2/Month 3 Indicator, 1 Control (3)

GSA 2/Month

5. Human Pood Crops GSA, I-131 (5) Annually (4)

NOTES:

(1) Three indicator samples from near the site boundary in three of the highest D/Q meteorological sectors, one indicator sample from near a year round community, and one control sample from an area of least prevalent wind direction.

(2) Indicator samples from the site boundary, four-five miles from the site, special interest areas, and control areas (greater than ten miles from the site).

(3) Three indicator samples from areas within 5.0 miles of the site. Control sample from an area of least prevalent wind direction.

(4) Six samples total utilizing at least two meteorological sectors in areas oi highest D/Q. One sample oi each oi similar food product in a least prevalent wind direc'tion.

(5) Gamma spectral analysis to include I-131.

-49

V TABLE 3A CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EHITTERS IN SNORELINE SEDIMENT SAMPLES Results in units of pCi/g (dry) + 2 sigma Sample Collection Location Date Be-7 K-40 Co-'60 Cs-134 Cs-137 Ra-226 Th-228 Others Langs Beach 5-7"85 <Oe59 13.1+1.3 <0.05 <0.06 <0.05 <1.10 0.49&.06 <LLD

( Control) "~ 11-12-85 <0 67 15.4+1.5 <0.08 <0.07 <0.06 <1.21 0.67+0.12 <LLD Sunset Beach 5-7>>85 <0.96 19.5f 2.0 <0.07 <0.10 <0.09 <1.20 1.3 8f Oe 17 <LLD

( Off-Site) 11-12-85 <0 89 13.5+1.5 <0.05 <0.08 <0. 10 <1.57 0. 92% 10e <LLD Nine Mile Point 5-7-85 <0.64 19.2+1.2 0.18&0.05 <0.06 1.81+0.10 1.52+0.56 0.6 Q.O. 15*= <LLD (On-Site)<~ 11-12-85 0.49%.24 10.9+1.0 0;11&.04 <0.04 1.00%.08 <0. 83 0.27&.11* <LLD e Represents AcTh 228

- Sample not required by the Technical Specifications Results in units of ectivity ~er rem dry weight

-50

TABLE 3B CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SHORELINE SEDIMENT SAMPLES

'Results in units of pCi/kg (dry) + 2 sigma Sample Collection Location Date Be-7 K-40 Co-6Q Cs-134 Cs"137 Ra-226 Th-228 Others Langs Beach 5-7-.85 <590 13100+1300 <50 <60 . <50 <1100 490&0 <LLD (Control)** 11-12-85 <670 15400+1500 <80 <70 <60 <1210 670+120 <LLD Su@set Beach 5-7-85 <96Q 1950%2000 . <70 <100 <90 <1200 1380+170 <LLD

( Off-Site) 11-12-85 <890 13500+1500 <50 <80 <100 <1570 920+100 <LLD Nine Mile Point 5-7-85 <640 19200+1200 18Qt.50 <60 1810+100 152(H560 66 0+150* <LLD (0 -Site)~* 11-12-85 490+240 1090041000 110%0 <40 1000&0 <830 270+110* . <LLD

Represents AcTh - 228

- Sample not required by the Technical Specifications

-51

l TABLE 4A CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN FISH SAMPLES Results in units of pCi/g (wet) + 2 sigma GAMMA EMITTERS Sam le Date Sam le e Fe-59 Co-58 K-40 Mn-54 Co-60 Cs-134 Cs-137 Zn-65 Other s OSWEGO CONTROL) 00 June 26, Brown Trout fl <0.014 <0.005 2.95k 0.3Q <0.005 <Q.OQ5 <0.005 0.02 Q-0.005 <0.012 4J. D 1985 Brown Trout d2 <0.054 (0.025 4.96%.50 (0.021 (0.026 (0. 021 0.047&-021 <0.047 <LLD Lake Trout (0.015 <0.006 2.85k 0.29 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.03 5l-0.006 <0.012 <LLD October 4 Chinook Salmon <0.024 <0.009 3.40%.34 <0.008 <0.009 <0.008 0.033&.008 (0.020 <LLD October 10 Brown Trout <0.020 <0.007 3.55t.Q.36 <0.006 <Q.QQ7 <0.007 0.02 Q" 0.007 <0.016 (LL9 1985 Smalimouth Bass <0.031 (0.011 3. 13%.31 <0.009 <0.009 (0.010 0-.034+0.009 <0.023 <LLD NINE MILE POINT 02 July 1985 2 Brown Trout fl Trout f2

<0.017

<0.014

<0.007

<0.005 2.81+0.28 3.09%.31

<0.006

<0.005

<0.007 <0.007

<0.005 0.02 $ -0.006

0. 028+0. 005

<0.015

<0.013 (LL D Brown <0.005 <LLD Lake Trout <0.013 <0.005 3.03k 0.30 <0.005 (Q.OQ6 <O.QQ5 Q.03 Q-0.006 <0.011 (LLD September 30 Chinook Salmon <0.024 <0.009 3.42&.34 <0.007 <0<<008 <0.008 0.023&.006 <0.018 <LLD October 15,18 Brown Trout <0.020 <0.008 3.4%.0.35 <0.008 <0.009 <0.008 0.021+0.009 <0.018 <LLD 1985 ~

Smallmouth Bass <0.018 <0.007 3.62%.36 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.044&.008 (0.018 <LLD JA FITZPATRICK 03 June 21 1985 Brown Trout fl Brown Trout 42

<0.059

<0.023 (0.023

<0.009 3.7 R.0.38 3.05%.31

<0.021

<0.008

<0.022

<0.008

<0.024

<0.009

. 0.04 4k 0.020

0. 03250. 007

<0.045

<0.019 (LLD (LLD Lake Trout (0.024 <0.010 2.93& 0.29 <0.009 <0.008 <0.009 0 033K0.008 <0.020 <LLD September 30 Chinook Salmon <0.068 <0.014 3.21&.32 (0.012 <0.031 <0.012 0. 025&. 008 <0.052 <LLD October 18 Brown Trout <0.014 <0.006 2.96k 0.30 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 . 0.01 $ -0.005 <0.012 (LLD 1985 Smallmouth Bass <Q.Q26 <0.01Q 2.70&.27 <0.007. <0.008 <0.008 0.035& -007 (0.018 (LLD

-52

TABLE 4B CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN FISH SAMPLES Results in units of pCi/kg (wet) + 2 sigma GAMMA EMITTERS Sam le Date Sam le e Fe-59 Co-58 K-40 Mn-54 Co-60 Cs-134 Cs-137 Zn-65 Other s Jupe 26 Brown Trout 81 <14 <5 2950g00 <5 <5 <5 26+5 <12 4J,D 1985 Brown Trout f2 <54 <25 4960+500 <21 <26 <21 47+21 <47 <LLD Lake Trout <15 <6 285(H 290 <5 <5 <5 351-6 <12 <LLD October 4 Chinook Salmon ~

<24 <9 3400+340 <8 <9 <8 33% <20 <LLD October 10 Brown Trout <20 <7 3550K360 <6 <7 <7 2 Q-7 <16 <LLD 1985 Smallmouth Bass <31 <11 3130+310 <9 <9 <10 34% <23 <LLD NINE MILE POINT 02 July 1985 2 Brown Trout Brown Trout fl f2

<17

<14 .

<7

<5 281(H.280 3090+310

<6

<5

<7

<5

<7

<5 251 6 28+5

<15

<13

<LL D

<LLD Lake Trout <13 <5 303$ -300 <5 <6 <5 3 Q.6 <11 <LLD September 30 Chinook Salmon <24 <9 3420+340 <7 <8 <8 23+6 <18 <LLD October 15,18 Brown Trout <20 <8 349 tH350 <8 <9 <8 21+9 <18 <LLD 1985 Smallmouth Bass <18 <7 3620+360 <7 <7 <7 44+8 <18 <LLD JA FITZPATRICK 03 June 21 1985 Brown Brown Trout fl Trout f2

<59

<23

<9 3780@80 3050+310

<21

<8

<22

<8

<24

<9 4@20 32+7

<45

<19

<LL D

<LLD Iake Trout <24 <10 293$ .290 <9 <8 <9 3&8 <20 <LLD September 30 Chinook Salmon <68 <14 . 3210+320 <12 <31 <12 2548 <52 <LLD October 18 Brown Trout <14 <6 296 tH.300 <5 <5 <5 1$ -5 <12 <LLD 1985 Smallmouth Base <26 <10 2700+270 <7 <8 <8 35+7 <18 <LLD

-53

TABLE 5 CONCENTRATION OF TRITIUM IN SURFACE MATER SAMPLES (QUARTERLY COMPOSITE SAMPLES )

Results in units of pCi/liter + 2 sigma Station Period Date Tritium JAP INLET

First Quarter 1/2/85 3/30/85 320 + 80 Second Quarter 3/30/85- 7/1/85 350 + 110 Third Quarter ~

7/1/85 - 9/30/85 1200 + 100 (a)

Fourth Quarter 9/30/85 12/30/85 250+ 90 NMP INLET <* Pirst Quarter 12/31/84- 4/1/85 F10 Second Quarter 4/1/85 7/1/85 (100 Third Quarter 7/1/85 10/1/85 270 + 80 Fourth Quarter 10/1/85 12/31/85 470 + 60 OSWEGO CITY MATER ** First Quarter 12/31/84- 240&80 .

Second Quarter 7/1/85 4/1/85'/1/85 430+70 Third Quarter 7/1/85 10/1/85 300 + 90 Fourth Quarter 10/1/85 12/31/85 250 + 50 OSWEGO STEAM First Quarter 12/31/84 4/1/85 370 + 70 STATION

Second Quarter 4/1/85 7/1/85 260 + 70 (CONTROL) Third Quarter 7/1/85 10/1/85 250 + 40 Fourth Quarter 10/1/85 12/31/85 230 + 70

- Samples required by the Technical Specifications.

- Optional samples. Oswego City Water samples are compos'ites of twice per week grab samples.

(a)- Third quartet monthly tritium results were 940, 870, and 1500 pCi/liter. The quarterly discharge sample was 280 pCi/liters

-54

TABLE 6 CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EHITTERS IN SURFACE MATER SAMPLES Results in units oX pCi/liter + 2 sigma Station Nuclide January February March . April 1985 OSWEGO CITY KWO 9.4W.3 8.6&.6 <12 3 7. 9+5.8 <13.6 7.1+5.0 WATER Ra-226 <18. 7 15. 0%. 0 21.5+10. 8 (18. 7 <20.3 <19.2 Cs-134 Cs-137

<0.88

<0.94 a.ll

<1.02 a.02

<1.00

<1.04

<1. 14

<1.14

<1.22

<1.10 Zr-95 <2.61 <3.06 <2.95 (2.77 <3.97 <4+21 Nb-95 <1.71 <1.78 <1.69 <1.71 <1.50 <2.80 Co-58 <1.18 <1.25 <1.39 <0.94 <1.48 <1.47 Mn-54 <0.92 <1.19 <1.11. <0. 97 <1.09 <1.06 Fe-59 a.35 a.70 a.33 a.73 <2.31 <2.41 Co-60 <0. 82 <1-27 <1.33 <1.25 <1.23 <1.05 Zn-65 <1.78 <2.39 <l'.90 <2+37 <2.12 <2.98 I-131 <15.1 <8.3 <9.2 <9.5 <15.2 <130.0 Ba/La-140<6.5 <4.8 <6 6 <4.7 <7.5 <30.0 NINE MILE K-40 13.7+7.5 <12.3 <7 6 ~

<13.9 <14.0 412 ~ 6 POINT Ra-226 <20.1 21.&9.0- 18.4+10.5 <18.2 '9.&.9.7 13.4+7.6 (02, INLET) Cs-134 <0 '4 <1.03 <1. 16 (0.93 <1.17 <1.08 Cs-137 <1.13 a. 17 a.05 <0.95 <1.20 <l. 15 Zr-95 <3.55 <2.96 <3. 08 (2 ~ 84 <3.42 <3,76 Nb"95 <1.87 a.76 <1.67 <1.52 <2.17 <2.53 Co-58 <1.25 <1.16 <1.48 <1.22 <1-39 <1.61 Mn-54 <1.03 a.28 a.14 <1.12 <1.19 <1. 18 Fe-59 <2.H. <<1.94 <1.80 <1.92 <2.04 <1 ~ 99 C~0 <1.28 <1.55 <1.42 <1 .56 <1.42 <1.22 Zn-65 <2.48 <2.42 <2 ~ 20 <2.38 <2.56 <2.07 I=131 <l4.9 <8.5 <l1.3 <<10.8 <15.7 <67.0 Ba/La-140<6.4 <5.5 <5+2 <5.2 <6. 0 <15.5

TABLE 6 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES Results in units of pCi/liter + 2 sigma Station Nuclide January February March April May June 1985 FITZPATRICK K-40 <12.9 9.4+6.9 13.tH 7.4 <13.2 7.8+6.4 <11 .8 (03, INLET) Ra-226 <18.3 21.0%. 7 16.0%.0 <17. 0 23.7+9.0 <19. 8 Cs-134 <1.00 <1.14 <l.l2 <1.26 <1.08 <0.96 Cs-137 <1.05 <1.04 <1.15 <1.07 <1.12 <1. 15 Zr-95 <3.21 <3.18 <3.63 <2o77 <3+37 <3e72 Nb-95 <1.70 <1 74 <2 +27 <1.74 <2.76 <2.07 Co-58 <1.22 <1.29 <1.35 <1.12 '1.47 <1.29 Mn-54 <0.99 <1.11 <1.08 <0.85 <1.05 <1.14 Fe-59 <1.76 <2.02 <2.04 <2. 10 <1.91 <2.04 C0-60 <1.34 <1 16 <1.08 <1.43 <1.29 <1.28 Zn-65 <2.32 <2.49 <2.58 <2.52 <2.26 <1.58 I-131 <8. 1 <13.1 <12.1 <10.5 <26 ' <21.1 Ba/La-140<4.0

<6.8 <5.3 <5.2 <12.4 <6.6 OSWEGO K&0 <13.6 <13.4 <14.5 <14.4 <10. 0 <10.4 STEAM Ra-226 16.4+9.8 9.7+7.4 <18.3 <19.5 <19.3 13.3+7.4 STATION Cs-134 <1.11 <0.88 <1.05 <1.09 <1.05 <1.03 (00'ONTROL) Cs 137 a.04 <1.08 <1.11 <1'.00 <l.07 <0.95 Zr-95 <3.21 <3 ~ 02 <2.45 <3.06 <3.04 <3.44 Nb-95 <2.48 <1.48 <L.62 <1.79 <1.78 <1.88 Co-58 <1.50 <1.10 <1.34 <1.39 <1.37 <1.55 Mn-54 <0.90 <1.15 <1.16 <1.20 <0.98 <l. 18 Fe-59 <1;74 <1.53 <1.80 <1.62 <3..94 <1.54 Co-60 <0.94 CL.38 <<1.29 <1.46 <1.36 <1.04 Zn-65 <2.36 <2.67 <2. 10 <1.67 <2.05 <2.30 I-'131 <30 ~ 1 <7 e3 <9 8 <9. 1 <16. 1 <16.7 Ba/La-1 40<13.3 <5. 7 <6-3 <6.3 <8.4 <8.7

-Sample required by the Technical Specifications

TABLE 6 (Continued )

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE- WATER SAMPLES Results in units of pCi/liter + 2 sigma Station Nuclide . July August September October November December 1985 OSWEGO CITY K-40 <14.3 21.2+10.4 <<U..2 <16.8 .<11.8 M2.2 WATER Ra-226 <18. 8 <19.2 <19.5 <20.2 15. 8+9. 1 <17. 7 Cs-134 <<1.05 <<1.16 <1.08 <1.07 <<1. 15 <0.94 Cs-137 <1.12 <1.17 <1.09 <l.oe <1 22 <1.15 Zr-95 <2.52 <3.74 <3.42 <3e37 <3.14 <2.57 Nb-95 <2.13 <2.40 <2 ~ 18 <1.53 <1.93 <1.81 Co-58 <1.26 <1.41 <1.40 <1.21 <1.63 <<l. 10 Mn-54 <1.03 <1. 10 <1.14 <1.29 <1 17 <1.03 Fe-59 <2.30 <2.19 <1.55 <1.95 <2.18 <1.88 Co-60 <1.12 <1.23 <1.18 <1.32 <1.23 <0 ~ 70 Zn-65 <1.92 <2.76 <2.26 <2.19 <1.70 <2.21 I-131 <16.6 <27 ~ 7 <30.7 <12.1 <21.9 <16.4 Ba/ La-140 <7. 1 <13.3 <15.6 <3e3 <8. 1 <6.6 NINE MILE K-40 16. 9H. 9 <16.8 <10. 1 <13. 7 ll.e+s.8 10'9+7.4 POINT Ra-226 26. 1+15.5 <19-0 1 &.4+10.0 <19.2 <<17.7 <20.3 (02 INLET) Cs-134 <1.0% '1.10 <1.07 <0 ~ 92 <0. 93 <1.03 Cs-137 <1.13 CL.10 <0.96 <<1.24 <0.83 <1.29 Zr-95 <3.64 <3.52 <2. 98 <3 ~ 58 <2.88 <3.34 Nb-95 <2.15 <2.5? <<3..77 <1.82 <1.61 <2. 12 C0-58 <1.35 <1.76 <1.29 <1.42 <1.19 <1.57 Mn-54 <0.97 <1.31 <l.04 <1.13 <0.87 <1 .01 Fe-59 <1.47 <2 '2 <1.72 <1 43 <1.60 <1 ~ 96 C~O <1.33 CL.27 <1.06 CL.27 <1.04 <1e 17 Zn<<65 <2.39 <3. 17 <2.57 <2.53 <1.77 <2022 I-131 <29.8 <13.5 <<18.4 <14.4 <8.8 <18-1 Ba/La-140<11. 8 <10.5 <9.7 <7.0 <6.0 <7-9

-57

TABLE 6 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE MATER SAMPLES Results in units of pCi/liter + 2 sigma Station Nuclide July August September October November December 1985 FITZPATRICK K-40 <14.8 <12.5 <13.8. 9.st-6.9 <20. 1 <16. 9 (03, INLET) Ra-226 <18.5 <18+ 1 23. 8+10.4 15.0+8.4 18.7+13.9 27.4+14.5 Cs-134 <O.PO <1.17 <1.02 <0.91 <1.48 <1.14 Cs-137 <l. 13 <1.19 <1.17 <1.07 <1.61 <1.04 Zr-95 <2.87 <3.05 <2.57 <2.61 <4.97 <2.7 0 Nb-95 <1.41 <1.98 <1.77 <1.42 <2.12 <1.79 Co-58 <L. 12 <1.57 <1 12 <1.28 <1.39 <1.37 Mn-54 <1.02 <1.25 <1.01 <0.64 <1.41 <1.17 Fe-59 <1.61 <2.21 <2.44 <1.67 <2.13 <1.42 Co-60 <1.22 <1.22 <1.57 <1.35 <1.76 <1.22 Zn"65 <2.59 <2.78 <2.62 <2.15 <3.07 <1.53 ~

I-131 <9.4 <7 ' <7 ~ 6 <8 ' <7.4 <10.9 Ba/La-140 <5.5 <6.2 <5.2 <4.1 <5.0 <5.3 OSMEGO K&0 13.6+5.5 <16.8 7 ~ 1+3.2 <16.3 <15. 6 <20. 9 STEAM Ra-226 15.3+6.2 2 2.0+11.2 14.$ .4.8 20.&9.8 <19.2 <20.6 STATION Cs-134 <0.75 <1.12 <0.48 <1 16 <0. 95 <1.11 (00, CONTROL) Cs-137 <0.72 <1.04 <0.47 <1.15 <1.04 <1.40

ZK-95 Nb"95

<2.32 <2 '0 <1;58 <2.75 <2.60 <2.85

<1.36 CL.73 <1.03 <L.95 <1.32 .57 Co-58 <0.95 <1.12 <0. 65 <1.36 <0. 90 <1.24 MQ-54 <0.74 <1.20 <0.55 <0.98 <1.03 <l. 15 Fe-59 <1.42 <1.18 <0 ~ 84 <2 21 <2 '3 <2.06 Co-60 <0.83 <0.99 <0.54 <l.45 <1.17 <1.22 Zn-65 <1.76 <2.03 <1.05 <1 96 <2.48 <1.85 I-131 <12.3 <11.0 <13.3 <8.2 <6 0 <6.0 Ba/La-140<5. 9 <5. 9 <4. 9 <3 ' <4-3 <3o3

<-Sample required by the Technical Specifications

-58

t TABLE 7 Hl?F/JAF SITE Ett'L?IRON??E??TAL AIROORt?E PARTICULATE SA?t?'LEO - OFF SITE BTATIO??S G??DSS SETA ACTIVITY PCi/>>>>"3>> 2 81QAa LOCATIO?t llEEK Etta DATE RS-OFF Ri-OFF Rz-Of F R3-Ot F R4 OFF G -OFF 85/01/08 0.025>>0.095 0.027>>0.004 0.023>>0.004 0.921>>0.003 0.921>>0.094 9.039>>9.005 85/01/15 9.0?S>>0.094 0.017>>0.003 0.936>>0.095 0.022>>0.093 -9.022>>9.003 D.019>>D.903 85/01/23 0 .OZBTD.D04 0.012>>0.992 0.017>>0.002 9.928>>O.D94 0.939T0.004 0.022>>0.094 85/02/29 9.822TD.OOS D. D14ro. 093 0.021TD.D93 0;918T8.903 9.029T0.003 0.01409. 02 85/02/05 0.026T0.004 0.012T0.093 0.828TO.DOS 0.029TO.DOS D.930T0.004 9.017FO. 03 85/02/ii 0.022TO.OD4 9.914T0.093 0.023>>0.003 0.016>>0.093 0.022>>D.993 0.030>>D.Q06 85/92/19 0.024T0.003 0.013TO.DD2 0.026T0.003 :D13rio.aaz 0.023>0.003 0.822T8.093 85/02/26 O'.ezirO'.OO3 0.099$ 0.003 0.027TO. 03 .017TO.093 0.0?Sro.903 0.'023rD'.004 85/o3/05 0.026T0.094 0.019T0.003 0.022T0.803 0.024T0.903 0.024T0.093 0.026T9.004 85/03/12 0.029>>0.004 0.024>>9.004 0.023>>0.003 0.024>>0.003 0. 044 ro. 005 9.026>>0.094 85/03/19 0.016TO.eo3 O.D21>>0.093 O.D1800.803 0.016>>O.DD3 D.021T9.004 D.D23>>0.994 SS/03/25 0.027T0.094 0.025T0.004 0.024TO.094 0.023rD.084 0.028<0.004 0.024?9.094 SS/04/02 9.016T0.803 0. 018TD. 003 O.OPTO.D93 D.016T0.003 0.016T0.003 0.017>>0.003 SS/04/09 0.021T0.003 0.022T0.093 0.019T0.003 O.'019ro.o03 0.01ST0.093 0.'922>>a.aa4 SS/D4/06 0.028+0.004 0.030>>0.004 0.930>>0.004 0.029T0.094 0.031T0.094 O.O36TO.'ODS 85/04/23 0.029TO.OD4 .

0.031T0.004 O.a".ira'.Do4 D.Q34T0.004 0.928T0.994 9.029TD.004 SS/04/30 O.o19ro.'094 0.022T0.093 0.022T0.093 0.024T0.093 0.918T0.003 0.021>>9.094 85/05/a7 0.822>>0.004 0.016TO. 93 0.016>>0.093 0 018TD 093 9.916>>0.093 D.D17>>9.904 85/05/14 0. 28T0.094 0.024TO. 03 0.024T0.003 0.025T9.903 0.023TO.003 0.027T0.094 85/05/21 0. 19T0.003 0.014TD. 92 0.018T0.093 0.019TO.DO3 0.015T0.993 0 . 019ra. 003 85/05/29 Q. 29T0.004 0.027ro. 93 O.Q30T0.003 , 9.027T0.003 0.027T0.003 0.029T0.004 85/06/4 D . D1S>>.0.994 0.021+0.003 0.021>>0.003 0.023>>.0.093 0.021>>0.093 0.019>>0.003 85/06/11 0.016+0.003 0. 018TD. 003 o.015>>0'.Oa3 0.816>>9.093 D.813+0.003 '.916>>0.093 85/06/18 0. 018ra. D 03 0. 015TO. 003 0.018T0.003 0.016T0.003 0.015T0.003 0.015<0.903 SS/06/24 0.021T0.004 0.'02STD'.994 0.024T0.094 o.o24ro.'oo3 O.O24>>O.OD4 D.D28>>D.DD4 85/07/02 0.013>>0.093 0.013T0.002 0.013rD.002 0.011::0.002 0.011T0.002 0.014>>0.003 85/07/09 0.031T0.094 0.831TO.OD3 . 0.03DTD.004 0.928>>0.003 0.928>>0.893 0.029T0.004 OS/07/17 0.027T0.004 0.022T0.093 e.ozbro.ao4 0.028T0.004 0.02STO.D03 0.923rD.003 85/07/23 D.022TD.D94 0.023TD.003 .022T0.093 0.021>>9.003 0.020>>0.093 0.018T0.003 85/07/30 o.'ezzro.'oo4 0.019T0.003 0.021T0.003 0.025+0 003 0.021TO.OQ3 0.019>>0.803 85/08/06 0.03470.004 0,039>>9.094 0.038+0.004 0.041T0.094 0.043>>0.994 9.036>>0.094 85/QB/13 0.027TO.OD3 0.9?ST0.003 0'.027ra.'Oa3 0.025T0.893 0.025<0.093 0.026TD.DD4 85/08/20 0.031>> Q.OD3 0.031T0.003 0.028>>D.003 0.030+0.003 o.o3oro.ao3 9.030>>0.984 85/08/27 0.021TO.OQ3 '.017T0.903 0.016T0.093 0.017TD.OD2 0.018TD.DD3 0.019TO.003 85/09/04 0.039>>0.093 O.039T>>e.'Oo3 0.034>>0.003 0.036T0.003 0.033>>0.093 9.034>>9.003 85/09/10 0 .829T0.003 . O.D29T0.093 0.031T0.094 0.031TO.OD3 O.D30T0.004 D.93DTQ.004 85/09/17 0.921T0.003 0.022T0.003 0.024T0.003 0.027T0.003 0.026T0.003 O.ac;OT0.903 85/99/24 0.043rD.D04 0.036>>0.003 0.040TQ.094 0.036>>0.094 O.Q33s0.004 0.037T0.004 85/1O/1 D.030T0.093 0.9?STQ.003 0.028ro.e03 a.a29>>a.oo3 9.926>>9.893 0.031T0.094 85/10/ 8 0.019T0.003 0.023rD.093 0.021T0.093 0.022T8.003 0.021T0.003 D.ozore.003 85/10/16 0.0?0>>0.8Q2 0.022T0.003 D.oc.4T0.093 0. 825>> 0. 093 O.D24>>.8.903 D.D23>>0.003 85/10/22 0.023rD.003 0.023>>0.003 0.022T0.003 0.025>>0.003 0.021>>.0.003 0.022>>0.003 SS/10/29 0.019T0.003 '.017>>0.092 D.ai7T0.003 0.920T0.003 0.018T0.003 0.020T0.093 =

85/11/05 0.013rD.003 0.016T0.003 O.eizrO.OO2 0'.OiZT0.002 0.011T0.992 O.aiST0.993 85/ii/12 D.014TD.093 0.011T0.002 O.D10>>0.092 O'.O13re.Ooz 0.014>>0.093 0.015T0.093 85/11/1'9 0.024>>0.003 O.D20TO.OQ3 0.932>>0.097 0.019T0.003 D.aisre.D03 0.92S>>0.806 85/11/26 D.027T0.004 0.028T0.093 0.025>>0.003 0. 031TO. 003 0.086+0.003 0.028>>0.004 85/12/03 0.818T0.003 0. 019>> 9.093 0.021T0.003 0.021TO.003 O.ei'9>>0.093 0.0"0>>0.003 85/12/10- 0.027r0.003 0.026TD.DD3 0.'029ro.004 0.02BTO.004 0.926T0.903 O.ozzro.'004 85/12/17 a .024TO.OQ3 9.926>>0.003 0.0?3T0.903 D.021T0.003 0.02ST0.003 9.026T9.004 85/12/23 0.024T0.003 0.026>>.0.003 .0.935TO.oos D.ezira.003 0.026TD.894 0.027>>0.094 85/12/30 9 .018T0.083 0.823TO.OD3 0.023rD.D93 0.019T9.093 0.024T0.893 O.O24TO.OO3

TABLB 8 ErtV1"Ot<>>Ettr

++ Elto @ @ttttamtE t9/SAr qqTE fthTE AC ACTS VfTT . GNfrt Dttt Es 85/pf/p7 -----ttf.-att. ~

tt2 8tt

" -------- E-ot< Tfatt

'024FO.'- o.0p4 ------- ----= F--

"'"'n<f 85/Of/23 004 D29tO -PeS --Ott

'5/01 0 Of9 0 0 ef9- p o25 tt.pf3IO'.0 85/O2/D8 85/D2/25 4 tt'026FO.O003 26FO.OO'3

0. 024rp 4-p O.02g 0'e O.O34TO.'0'ttS 0- 034FO 'p 4

0.020-.p 0-028"0 D.O19rp

0. 028TO O03 y 033 0

O.020, O.D2 F0.004 0"2-"

o- Dfbrtt

'5/02/1 03

"'. 0 024-- --

02fr' D. yf 9+0 3 4

tt -Ott 0.0:3<

. 0209FO.

D04 afb 0

"'np Npg pt, O03 04 O.o23rp'003 003 0 Q07F 0

Q p3 4t 85'3/05 00 02fro'003 0.029rp'OO4 D.O26fp oe3 "4- O.eoora 0.'O21 F .003 P PPlr-'0 O'Of 001 r'-0.002 0- D.OOS 85/03/11 o O26FO.'003

0. O2frp'003 0.01SFQ.OO3 0-023FO OD y

D.'027rp

0. 02'F g03 ~ g21 O.OP O.e 5 0.002 'F0.003 p

'1~0.004 D.P2erg 003 g.031TD pp4 02ft 0 0 a O.el>>g 8S/03/18 85/04/g 25 y O21$

".OD3 Fo 0.003 O.020FO'.of9F

' 0.00 "2FO. OQ4 y ~ 0 2+0 ~'Pe 000~

" 0 026++

0' 0.016FO.'pa3 03 o.022r D.OO3 O.O20FO 'ep,"

'+0 0.00 D.olsrp'00

. 03 00

a. 0 0 Pos 01 rpa'Q

0. p28F0.0 P3 0.02 O.O174Q.003 p03 85/04/08 85/O4/1 S 0 D17FD.OD3 0.016Fp'g D2 0 025 O.g23Fp'4

.Oe3 p.017 O.OP4 O.y3p- 0-OD4 '003 0

y p17-a ag3r0.00 0 024

'OFO.QQ3 0 OD3 0'9 0.003

'02lrp,QQ3 0 e ffp.'pp pasro yp O.O22TO 0 ~ 023rp pp3 0 O.of7rp p 3 5rpO.D03 004 85/04 P p30r

~

O.ef F

~

p p y 023TO o.017ro 003 D.O2yrp'003 '8FQ DD2 0 giprp p003 P 0 o 0 028r0.003 0 g2 T .D03 01"ra 00 OD3 '014FO OD3

~

8 /04/22 o.004 p

O.D03 D

8rr 0 0..022FD Pg3 00 014FP'00~ O.posrg'pp2 0.018rp OOO32 P gll.ro Pyt'1 8S/05/D6 0003' '037 0 O3 0 o "P.og 4rp.g03 00. 20 g'oo 85/Os/13 85/05/20

-D21rg

$ FO 0 020.50 pp3 '0 O.pf9FO D2IF.P 003 O.O3gro OD3 0 020'70 Pyyyt

.y O.033FO 004 032,-g 00 0'pf 0 ~ 03 y 033 II03 .y0'026F0.003 tt'ppFo.Q03 I0200rry 003 .00'Df~

0 0 0077.0 'yP3 .00 024iy.ogi

~0.003.

f 003

.026FO yp4 .D2frp,op o P21Tg'ya 0'o26r 004 ~ P02 p'014r0.003 0 01 8

05/28 6/03 y Fe.pps

0. p03 - 19Fp pg3 . 026 0 '003 . 019FO 'p 3

.'FO o 02 D3 0. p 8 0.' OO2 g O17 0.'029-('O3 D.OD2 0 0'013 ae3 4 o.00'5 S 'Qfbrp.003 024Fo.gg3 O1$ 'Fo 'pg3 0. 022Fg p03 . O26~g

'.02prp

~

10 0 3. '0 o-po3 y 0 017FO 03 .003 g 03fFO.006 p.p22F p OO4 0-O20rg pp3 017rp pg3 0.026FO'003 0.019FP ep3 g g23 03 y 017r 0.019'>> Da'3 p,p OTO.004 85/066 85/07 24 .

/

85/0 ~ 08 P 027FF O.efbro 0 Dzpr.p

.003

'D02 O,yl7430.' t OQ3 0 020FO'00 O.028FD- O03 .

pp O

0 0 D

~

018re.p03 0.003 15Fp 002 p'02'Fe 22re*g

.019Fg'.015F O03

.p'plyi0.003 p 03 6F0.003 0 '019FD.pg3

.003 0

rp af are.oagp3 O.D03 0.028FO pg3 0-014ro.'03

~ p 9FII.'gp3 p O.of3FO'002

o. 027FO'pp D.ylgry

~

003 3

O.O2Org

.028ip

- ~ 03 004

'0.02430 '003 O.pfbr'0. 003 003 pgyro .Oebro. Og2 D. 016FO 003 rIlpy .0 p'll OD3 .'0 3670'pp lily g Q 0

0. D1ST .'0 3 II p2lli'p' p 0.0232rp'5/07/Iy 85/07/ 0.021 Fg '0 0.027Fa 0 'y 0 t.D"Dill'ppp 8 /II7/29 0.02Ãg'0 0'022rg 005 0 0247'0 D2 1 003 o.O17re 0. o.g23-,'.,',p

'8/OS '019re.OO '0>>FO.OOS4 o.Q23TO g 3 O.02qrO og2 0.'of~~F0.oo4

' O.e 6F .0o3 eforo pu3 3 017re O,3 0.008FO'002 ~ 018rp gp3 0.023FO po 0.023FO 022ro..a0003 O'026 <<0 0003 0 O22r 0 01239TF 'OP3 0 85/08/12 OD45

" 0'02fr .003 "0.P03 ~

2oro.0o3 016~0. pg 5/08/26 09/03 85/09/

O.028rp'pp3 21rp.p03 o.Oi9rp. D02

.025+0 yp4

~ 033FQ D.02yr. 0 D04 004 0.023rp g03 0.025ro'pe 4

0. p3 ~

0 02grp.eD3 D.O26 0'0 y'

.0.02940.004 D3 0.Q p'

g2fro pFD'4 02000

.003 Q'pfbr0.003

~

'OllrD

.003 0 01 F

0040/0003

'022rg P.OO3 D

0 0

3rp.pp 0 0700.

0 000 0 0

0.0

.opere.

p22ig.'002 4rp gg3 IIII3 p03 p02 p'02 p.D.2000 Olyry.'000.037iy 'tt3

~

85/pp/p~ 0 y3lip 0 2470 '004 .0 02270 003 .0 0 0~0-0 05/09/23 0.020rt t~4 '0. Olyrtyyg 0 01370 '.003 0'ggP.003 00'023re.003 0.015+0:O03" 0:OP9TO:Oo'23 D.p-'fF'0.0003 e P37ro.oo' OO3 Q.030-,'0 003 0:0"'aro:003- 02pro: 003 85/09 -'O af9ru.. Q03 f. P04 ~ra. O03 0:'14ro.op3 ~ 03PTD. gg3 0. Df370 g og 'p. 00 '09TO 85/fo/"

85/1 0.029wa 0 0;022rra'p03 4 0. 039F

. D24 0 'pp O 'O2

0. P36ra'g y

P, 022FO p

'2 D03 ~ 0' 0. 00 'FO. Dg3 003

.008 0 'llllltip'ttg g pg3 II. 0 pp '0gp 014"0 D

0.024t't '0 00 I gpigp'l03 t'tggty llpg 'glgrp, 002 00'Olgrp 003

~

05/lg/glt t.'II2pig tt3 tg 0 (g 0'0

~

0.003 0 fbsp,pp3 .O17tp'pg3 O.offrp'Dg 85/fo/28 .Oebrg O02 O.O2erp 0 4 0 p23-'0 003 0 p26Fo.004 a 022ro.'eog 0.008Fg 'pp2 o.Oo4FO 0023 p'015~0.QO3 0

0. O24rp 000 Q03 p'.003 0 p25-0.0O3 00

'<o.aef 0.018rp'S/if/

0 85/11/ 4 -P2010.'003 0.025FO pp4 O. P21rpo ',""Fp 0 afore p ~ 0 pfsro .003 e 003 004 y,'pl, O,013+0.0 O.D19rp IID4 D,021T p2 0.02070'003 00.02270'003 O.Dylip 0 ypyrpg02 05/ll/9 0 003rD. .D2 0'02330

~

0'yyp 0.00 't.II2trFD.DD3 00"1 g.ag3 OD3 ge18rp 03 0 019- 03 g 019FO.003 0' FOD03

~efbrp~oo 0 013rD DD13 0.012FD pp2'.P2ere'O03 f 016TP op2 '/

25 O.af4ro'003 003 p'02215F0.003 0.02fro py 0.012'D32 0 014-00 0~ 0.02grg 8

/ 2/02 2/09 0 y 017+0.DO2

'rp.pp 0-D25rp'pos 018FO o.y22ro 0 O.029r '3

~

y Of3r .003

0. 018F O.gg2 02 0 opo.pP3 p'

pfsro 003 QD2 go.

e'0

.Oifrp'002 P.gg3 D03 0

021rg.pp3

'3rD.

0. pib<<0Dp3

.024re.

0. p2pFO ~

pa Op 3 0.016rg g

O.02PTO'/fb u24

.OO2

'4

~

0. p24rp.pp 0 O18ro.oa4 O.o 85/12/23 12/3O 0.019FO 003 18F0.003 ~ 22rp'yg o.026rp.ee e 01$ 'FD.

0 0 030sr g'gf .002 0'.D02 ~

~

060g O02 08TD gg2

~

op8TD'Q02 of 9gg pg2

'02 0

~

p 2STD. D. D29t 'pp 3 0. g2 0 0. pn8rao 003 p 002 003

'025FD 004 T0.004 0 022rp py gp 0 022Fp 0

0 4 0'p19rrp yeg3 p'019 004 0 02 FO.Op3 0

oPbrp.aa~

3 D.O03 ~

ofSTO go~

f2re.gg2 0'003 o.O25rp'OO4 0.017ro'ttp3 0 P27r

~

0'ofbr .003 e 0

o. 018Fy 0.017rp tta~3 0 029r0.002 016- 03 0.026FO.OP2

.026F0.004 0

~ 012rp pg2 OQ3

.021Tp'gp3 O.yforg 0 g,o.go3 g.pi D.gg3 o 6 .D24TQ o.Ofbta 0 n~~2

TABLE 9 CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES R-1 OFF-SITE STATION+

Results in units of 10 pCi/m + 2 sigma Nu clides January, February March'pril May June 1985 Co-60 ~2.4 <.1 <1.7 <2o3 <1.7 <2. 1 Mn-54 <1.5 <1.8 <1.7 <1.6 <1.3 <0.6 Cs-134 c1 ~ 7 ~ 4 .0 <2.0 <0.9 <1.2 Cs-137 <2 ~ 1 <F 6 <1.2 <3..8 <1.0 <1.5 Nb-95 c3o 1 <2o2 H.4 <2o7 <1.6 <1 .6 Zr . <6 ' <4.3 <3. 5 <2. 8 <2.0 <2.6 ~

Ce-141 <2.8 <2.6 <2. 1 <2.4 .8 <2.5 Ce-144 <8.6 <6.5 <5. 6 <6. 1 <5e2 <5.4 Ru-106 <19.9 <15.9 c3.3.5 <12 o7 <12.8 <11 .7 Ru-103 <2.5 <1.9 <1.4 <2. 0 <1 5 <2.5 Be-7 112.$ -25. 9 6 4.3+17. 4 16 6.$ -24.9 161.$ .26 2 15 4.0t-21.2 128.Og 4.9 K-40 <26. 7 <19.3 <20. 7 <24.0 <22o3 <23-8 La-140 <9.2 <5-6 <5.5 <3o3 <2.5 <10. 1 Ra-226 <34.8 <7.9 '23.2

<30.6 <18.5 <20.9 Nuclides July August Septem er Octooer Novem er Decemoer Co-60 <2o2 <1.8 <1.9 -<1.6 <lo 1 <0.9 Mn-54 <1.2 <1.3 <1.2 <1 o3, <0.7 <1.2 Cs-134 <1.7 <0 8 <1.3 <9.0 <1.1 <1.6 Cs-137 <1.9 <1o2 <1.2 <1 e2 <le2 <1.5 Nb-95 <2o3 <1.8 <2o2 <2. 1 <1.8 <1.6 Zr-95 <5.3 <2 ' <2 ' <3 ~ 3 <F 6 <3.8 Ce-141 <2e7 <1.6 <1.6 <1.9 <1.5 <1.6 Ce-144 <6 ~ 8 <3. 9 , <5.5 <4 6 <4.0 <5-5 Ru-106 <16.3 <9.5 <U..2 <8.6 <8.7 <9.9 Ru-103 <1.7 <1.6 <1.4 <1.4 <1.2 <le6 Be-7 155.0@4.8 33 0.0+19.9 14 2.0+21.4 95.3+18.3 7 3. 9+14.3 10 8. 0+19. 4 K-40 <22;9 <17'8 <17 6 <23. 1 <13.9 <17 9 La-140 <5.5 <6.1 <2.4 <5.3 <3-0 <2 '

Ra-226 <<25 7 <19.8 <24.0 <22.6 <14.9 <22.6

Location required by the Technical Specifications.

TABLE 9 (Continued }

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES R-2 OFF-SITE STATION~

Results in units of 10 pCi/m + 2 sigma Nuclides January February March April May June 1985 Co-60 <2.9 <2.7 <1.4 <1 .7 <1.6 <2.0 Mn-54 <1.3 <1.7 <1.1 <1<<7 <1.0 <1.6 Cs-134 <1.9 <1.8 <0.8 <1.5 <l. 1 <1,4 Cs-137 <1.3 <2 ~ 2 <1.2 <1.7 <1.2 <2.0 Nb-95 <2.4 <3.5 <0.7 <2.6 <1.0 <2 ~ 2 Zr-95 ~

<5.3 <5.0 <3 ~ 1 <3. 8 <2 ~ 7 <2 '

Ce-141 <2.4 <2 ' <1.4 <2.5 <1.5 <3. 1 Ce-144 <8. 1 <8.9 <5. 1 <6 4 <5-0 <6.8 RQ-106 <16.9 <17.6 <13.1 <17.5 <12.0 <17.6 Ru-103 <3. 1 <2 ~ 2 <1 ~ 6 <1.9 <2.0 <2.5 Be-7 10 6.0+23. 1 158.tH 30. 7 127.(H20.6 182.0+29.2 14 2.0+22.3 151.0+27.0 K-40 <25 ~ 8 <37.5 <15.2 <28.5 <25.8 <37.9 La-140 <8.0 <5.0 <2 ~ 7 <3.5 <3 ~ 1 <8 ~ 9 Ra-226 <35. 1 <32. 1 <23-0 <32.0 <22.6 <27 e7 Nuclides July August September October November December Co-60 <1.8 <2.1 <1,4 <1 o3 <1.8 <1 ~ 6 Mn-54 <1.6 <1.2 <1.6 <0 ~ 8 <1+5 <1 ~ 0 Cs-134 a.8 <1.2 .0 <0.8 <1,4 <1.0 Cs-137 <1.4 <1.2 <1.4 <1.3 <lol <107 Nb-95 <202 <1 .5 <2.0 <1.5 <l. 1 <1.5 Zr-95 <4~9 <3.4 <3 ~ 1 <4.2 <3.4 <4.2 Ce-141 <2~3 <1.8 <2.4 <1.9 <2. 1 <2.6 Ce-144 <7e3 <5.3 <6.5 <5. 7 <4 8 <7.4 Ru-106 <18.0 <11.4 <14.4 <14.0 <U..7 <11.5 Ru-103 <1.9 <1 4 <1.5 <1 e3 <2 0 <2 '

Be-7 15 7. $ -25. 9 122. (H20. 1 152+0+23.7 100.0+18.7 8 3.8+18. 8 107 0+22.4 K-40 <31.9 <19. 1 <34.8 <25.4 <25.2 <25.4 La-140 <7 o3 <6 ' <3. 9 <3.0 <3. 9 <3+ 3 Ra-226 <30.6 <18.2 <25. 1 <21.7 <2 2.0 <26.3

" - Location required by the Technical Specifications.

-62

TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES R-3 OFF-SITE STATION*

Results in units of 10 3pCi/m3 + 2 sigma Nuclides January February March April May June 1985 Co-60 <3o 1 <2 ' <1.3 <2o3 . <1.9 <1.3 Mn-54 <2o3 <1.9 <1.0 <1.6 <0.5 <1.6 Cs-134 <1.4 <1.9 <1,4 <l.7 <1,4 <1 .5

's-137 <2 ' <1.7 <1.6 <1.7 <1 o3 <0.9 Nb-95 <2o3 <1.0 <1.4 <2o2 <1.6 .8 Zr-95 <5 ' <5.0 <3o5 <2 ' <3.0 <4.5 Ce-141 <2.6 o 2o3 <1.9 <2o5 <2.0 <2o3 Ce-144 <6 ~ 9 <7.0 <5.8 <?.3 <4.8 <5 '

RG-106 <17 3 <14.3 <11.7 <19. 1 <3.8 <12.2 Ru-103 <2. 1 <1.9 <1.6 <2 ~ 2 <1.5 <1.8 Be-7 97.8+22.4 71.0t.20. 1 154.0+22.8 19 7. $ -28. 1 167.$ .23.8 113.0+21.8 K-40 <22.7 <18. 8 <19.0 <22.1 <16.7 <2b.?

La-140 <6.4 <6 ' <4.2 <4.4 <6.5 <8.6 Ra-226 <29.9 <28. 7 <22. 1 <2 9.0 <21.0 <24.8 Nuclides July September October November December Co-60 <1.6 <l.3 <1,4 <1.9 <1.9 <2.8 Mn-54 <1.7 <1ol <1.3 <1.6 <lo2 <1.9 Cs-134 <1.7 <1.0 <1,4 <1.2 <1.3 <l. 1 Cs-137 <1 ~ 8 <1.2 <1.6 <1.4 <1.3 <1.9 Nb-95 <2o7 <1.3 <1.7 <1.5 <1.5 <2.0 Zr 95 <4. 1 <2. 6 <3o3 <3. 9 <3.1 <4. 1 Ce-141 <2.5 <1.7 <1.8 <2. 1 <1.9 <2 ~ 6 Ce-144 <7 ' <4.5 <5. 8 <5. 6 <5.5 <7.4 Ru-106 <7 ~ 2 <10.5 <10.6 <17.3 '12.3

<12 ~ 7 Ru-103 <2.0 <1,4 <l.a <1-8 <1.9 <2.0 Be 7 140.$ -25. 1 110.0+19 8 123.$ -20.7 108.0+19.8 9 3.7+17.4 93.8+20. 1 K-40 <31.3 <24.8 13. 7+11. 1 <26. 7 <21o2 <30.7 La-140 <6 3 <3 o3 <4.? <4.5 <4o6 <4'0 Ra-226 <29.6 <18.0 <20.3 <23.8 <17.9 <2 6.0

- Location required by the Technical Specifications.

TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES R-4 OFF-SITE STATION*

Results in units of 10 pCi/m3+ 2 sigma Nuclides January February March April May June 1985 Co-60 <<5.5 <3e3 <l.3 <1.7 <1.6 (l. 1 Mn-54 <2 ~ 7 <1.5 <1 e3 <1.9 <1 ~ 7 <1.2 Cs-134 <3e 1 <<1.8 <1.8 <1.3 <1.2 (1 .4 Cs-137 <2.4 <1.5 <1.0 <1.8 <Qe7 <1e2 Nb"95 <<1.9 <2e2 <1.8 "

<l.6 <2e3 (2.4 Zr-95 <6.2 <5.4 <3.4 <4 ~ 6 <4.0 <5. 1 Ce-141 <3.0 <2.9 <1.8 <2.4 <1.9 (3e2 Ce-144 <10. 1 (7 ~ 1 <5e2 <7.3 <5.6 <8.0 Ru-106 <24.4 <l5.8 <16.2 <14.9 <14.2 <17.3 Ru-103 <2.6 <2e3 <1 ~ 7 <2e2 <le2 <2.8 Be-7 99.4+24.3 134.0+25.4 188.(H26.2 15 2. tH.2 6.7 132.$ -22.0 154.$ .2 7. 6 K-40 (15.0 <21.3 <16. 6 <13.0 <13.7 <26.3 La-140 <7 ~ 1 <4.4 <3.0 <3 ~ 6 <3.8 <11.1 Ra-226 <41 ~ 6 <31.2 <<20.4 <30.8 <26.7 <26.9 Nuclides July August September October 'ovember December C~Q <1.5 <1.6 <1.5 <0.9 <0.8 <1.0 Mn-54 <1e2 <1.1 <1.4 <1e4 <1.0 <1.4 Cs-134 = <1.3 <<1.0 <1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.4 Cs-137 <1 6 <1.6 '1.5

<le7 <0 6 <2.0 Nb-95 (0.9 <1.6 <2.0 <2e2 <1.4 <1.9 Zx-95 <3.9 <2 ~ 7 <2.5 <4.9 <2 ' <3 ~ 7 Ce-141 (2.5 <1.8 <1.6 <2.0 <1.8 (2e2 Ce-144 <5. 9 <4.5 <5. 8 <5e2 <4.8 <6.4 Ru-106 <12.0 <9 6 <12.4 <11.2 <U..8 <14.3 Ru-103 <1.8 <1.6 <1 e5 <1.5 <1 e2 <le9 Be-7 12 7. $ -23.4 115.0+19 5 125.$ -21.8 99. 9+19.4 79 ?+16.4 13 9. (H.2 3.8 K-40 <30.0 <22.8 <15e0 <28.7 <23ef <14 ~ 8 L -140 <7.4 <4. 9 <4. 1 <3.1 <3.4 <F 6 Ra-226 <<26.2 &6.7 <<22.5 <21.0 <17.8 <25.5

+ - Location required by the Technical Specifications.

I TABLE 9 (Continued )

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES R-5 OFF-SITE STATION (CONTROL) "

Results in units of 10 pCi/m3 + 2 sigma Nuclides January February March April May June 1985 Co-60 <4.6 <2.6 <2e2 <3.9 <2.8 <2o3 Mn-54 <3. 1 <1.6 'lo2 <2 ' <1 ~ 7 <2.5 Cs-134 <3e2 <2e3 <2e3 <2.0 <1.8 <2.0 Cs-137 <2.9 <1 ~ 8 <1.6 <2 ~ 2 (2 ' <1.7 Nb-95 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2 e3 <3.1 <3.0 Zr<<95 <6. 7 <6.8 <4-3 <6 ~ 0 <4.7 <5.5 Ce-141 <4. 1 <2e7 <2.0 <3e2 <2.9 <3 ~ 2 Ce-144 <11.3 <9.0 <6.6 <9 ' <7 8 <8.4 Ru-106 <31.0 (27. 1 <10. 1 <15.3 <<16.2 <14.9 Ru-103 <2.4 <2 ~ 5 <2.0 <1.8 <3 ' <2 '

Be-7 101 . $ -28.5 119.$ .28.5 173 $ -26.5 162.$ -30.3 161.$ .27.7 136.&.27. 1 K-40 (50. 8 <27. 6 <11.6 <22 e3 ~

<29.2 15. 8+14. 1 C

La-140 <7.8 <8.0 <7.2 <4.3 <5 ' <9.4

)

Ra-226 <45.4 <34.7 %8.9 <3 2e3 <31.2 16.7+12. 1 I

1 r

Nuclides , July 'ugust September October November December I

Co-60 <2e2 <1.4 <2 7 <1.7 <1,4 <1.9 Mn-54 (2 ' <<1.7 <le2 <1.3 <0. 9 <1.5 Cs-134 <1.6 <1.3 <1.3 <1.1 <l. 1 <1.2 Cs-137 <2.4 <1.3 <l. 7 <1.0 <1.0 <1 4 Nb-95 <2.5 <<1.4 <1.5 <1.5 <2.0 <2e3 Zx-95 <5. 9 <3.8 <4.0 <2. 8 <3e3 <4.2 Ce-141 <3e2 <2 0 <1.8 <l.9 <2.0 <2.4 Ce-144 (8.4 <4.1 (6 0 <5e3 <4.9 <7e3 RG-106 <20.0 <12.1 <13.8 <13.4 .<9.8 <16.9 Ru-103 <2.5 <2o2 <1.4 <1. 0 <le6 <1.8 Be-7 13 9. &-28.6 125 0+21.4 164.$ 23.6 101 .0+18.0 82. 1+17.0 119.(H21.7 K-40 25.4+19. 0 <28. 6 <14.7 <19.7 <27. 8 13 ~ 0+11.5 La-140 <5 ~ 2 <9.0 <5.8 <5. 9 <3.6 <5.3 Ra-226 <32.1 14.0+11.6 <21 e2 11,.8+K..6 <19.2 <25.5

" Location required by the Technical Specifications.

il TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES Dl ON-SITE STATION

Results in units of 10 3pCi/m + 2'igma Nuclides January February March April May June 1985 Co-60 <<3.8 ~ 1 <0.9 <2.5 <1.9 <1.4 Mn-54 <2.6 <2.0 <1.5 <2.0 <1.0 <0.6 Cs-134 <1.9 <<1,4 <l. 1 '1.5 <1.3 <<1.4 Cs-137 <2.4 <2 ~ 2 <1.5 <<1.4 <1 7 <1.6 Nb-95 <l. 1 <2.8 <2.0 <<1.9 <1.9 <2. 1 Er-95 <5.9 <3. 8 <3. 1 <4.5 <3.5 <<3e3 Ce-141 <3e2 <2.8 <<1.9 <1.6 <2e2 <2 ~ 7 Ce-144 <9 ~ 1 <7.0 <5.0 <6 ~ 1 <5.7 <6 '

Ru-106 <<31.7 <12.8 <Q.7 <11.6 <13.4 <<17. 1 RQ-103 <3.0 <2.8 <1.7 <1.8 <1.4 <2 ~ 8 Be-7 10 4.%.27.8 121.0+24.7 129.0t-22.8 131.Oga.S 126 Ol-21.7 123.0t-23.7 K-40 <44 ~ 2 <18.3 <21.0 <24. 9 <27.1 <31.3 La-140 <7 ~ 1 <5. 1 <4.0 <2 ' <3 ~ 2 <10e8 Ra-226 <39.1 <30.4 <21.5 <25.7 <27.3 <24.8 Nuclides July August September October November December Co-60 <1.9 <2.1 <2.9 <<1.9 <1.7 <1.4 Mn-54 <1.4 <1.2 <1.9 <2 ' <le2 <1.4 Cs-134 <1.5 <1.3 <1,4 <1.3 <0.9 <1,4 Cs-137 <1 ~ 7 <1.6 <2.0 <1.8 <1.0 <1.6 Nb-95 <2.8 <0.7 <2e7 <1.9 <1.8 <2e2 Zr-95 <4.5 <2. 6 <4. 1 <3.5 <2.5 <4. 1 Ce-141 <2e3 <1.8 <2e3 <1.9 <1.7 <2.8 Ce-144 <6.3 <4.5 <6.7 <5e 6 <4.7 <9.3 Ru-106 <16.6 <<10.5 <13.1 <U..4 (9.6 <12.9 Ru-103 <1.9 <1.4 <2e2 <0.9 <1.4 <1.6 Be-7 120.$ .22e 1 115.0t 20. 1 14 3.0t-2 4.0 9 9.7+19.5 7 4 ~ 6+15.8 83 ~ 7+17. 9 K-40 <27.5 <26. 9 27.2+17.9 11.6+10.4 <24 0 <23. 9 La-140 <7 ' <5. 1 <4.4 <3'8 <5e2 <4.3 Ra-226 <31.2 <20.7 <27. 1 <<20.5 <19 ~ 1 <29. 1

<-Optional sample location

-66

TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES D2 ON-SITE STATION

Results in units of 10 3pCi/m3 + 2 sigma Nuclides January February March 1985 April, May June Co-60 <3.9 <2. 1 <2.9 <2o? <2.5 <1.3 Mn-54 <202 <1.9 <1.8 <1.9 <0. 9 <2. 1 Cs-134 <2 8 <1.2 <1.2 <202 <1. 1 <2. 1 Cs-137 <2-9 <2+2 <1.2 <2.1 <1.8 <1 ~ 9 Nb-95 <3o? <1.8 <2.0 <2.9 <1+ 1 <5o3 Zr-95 <8.9 <5 ~ 2 <4.3 <6.5 <2 ~ 9 <5 '

Ce-141 <3.9 <3.4 <2o? <2.8 <2+2 <3.4 Ce-144 <12.0 <9 8 <6 7 <8 8 <5. 5 <8.3 Ru-106 <28.8 <17.4 <15.2 <16.7 <15.0 <16.5 Ru-103 <3.5 <3+3 <1.1 <2. 9 u.e <4. 1 Be-7 7 8.3+2 6.5 150.$ -31.0 123. $ -2 2. 9 126.0t.25. 1 125.$ -22. 1 127.$ -28.5 K-40 <41.9 <22. 1 <2205 <40. 1 <28.4 <41.3 La-140 <4 8 <6. 1 <4.3 <5.4 <3. 1 <16.2 Ra-226 <51.7 <37 e? <25.0 <34.0 <22.6 %27 e?

Nuclides July . August September October November December

<2.4 <2o? N.6 <2.6 <1 o7 <2.6

<2 6 <1.7 <2.8 <2+3 <i+8 <2 '

<2.8 <1.7 <203 <2.1 <1.6 <2.5

<3.0 <1.8 <3.0 <2.6 <1.7 <202

<3.4 <2.4 <3.4 <3.0 <2.8 <3.5

<7. 1 <2. 6 <6.4 <3'e 7 <4. 1 <4. 9

<3 8 <2+6 <3.4 <2.6 <2.8 <2.5

<12. 1 <7.0 <9.6 <F 6 <6.8 <9.3

<27.3 <13.7 <27 3 <21.8 <18.2 <19 7

<3.6 <1.7 <3.0 <2 I 2 <2 ' <2.4 109.0t-28.0 113.0I-23. 2 108.$ -26.1 113 S.Z? 7 4 6.6+18.3 108.0+26. 1

<49.0 <35.4 <40.5 28. 8+23.3 <28.7 31. 9+23. 6

<11.8 <5. 9 <7. 9 <8 6 <8. 9 <7.8

<43.2 <28.4 <37.9 <38.4 <30.3 <37.9

<Optional sample location

-67

TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA. EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES E ON-SITE STATION Results in units of 10 3pCi/m3+ 2 sigma Nuclides January February March April May June 1985 Co-60 <3.1 i2.9 <<1.4 <2.5 <0.8 <1 8 Mn-54 <2.5. <1.2 <1.8 <<1.7 <0. 8 (1. 6 Cs-134 <2.6 <<1.8 <0.9 <1 e2 <0.9 <1.5 Cs-137 <3.5 <1 e3 <l.b <2 ' <1.2 <1.0 Nb-95 <3 5 <2o3 <<2.0 <1.5 (2.0 <<1 ~ 4 Zr-95 (6.3 <4;1 <3.5 <3. b <1.8 <2.9 Ce-141 <2o5 <2.5 <2+5 <2. 1 <1.9 <2 ~ 7 Ce-144 <10.2 <5.8 <5. 6 <6 ~ 7 <5. 2 <6.5 Ru-106 <<24.4 <13.3 <11.4 <<17.9 <11.7 <10.9 Ru-103 <3.0 <2 ~ 0 <2. 1 <l. 9 <102 <1 8 Be-7 8 4.8+23.9 12 8.0+23. 9 156.$ .24.7 16 2>>$ .26. 1 14 2.0t 21.3 159.(H.26.5 K-40 <27.0 <25.5 <21.0 <23.9 <20.0 <25.5 L -140 <8.4 <6.4 <4.5 <4.6 <4.0 <8.2 Ra-226 <36.0 <<25.2 <25 9 <25. 1 <2 2.0 <24.0 Nuclides July \

August 'September October November December Co-60 <1.6 <2.1 <2.5 <<1.9 <1.5 <2.4 Mn-54 <1.8 <1.6 <1.8 <1.6 <1.1 <1.6 Cs-134 <<1.6 <<1.7 <<1 3 <1.4 <1.0 <1 .5 Cs-137 <1 4 <1.6 <1 o3 <1.1 <1 o3 Nb-95 <0.9 W.9 <1.8 <2 0 <2.0 <1.6 Zr 95 <4.7 <4.0 <2.0 <3e 7 <4.1 <5.6 Ce-141 <2.4 <<2.0 <2.1 <2. 1 ~.8 <2.9 Ce-144 <6.3 <5.6 <<6.0 <5.3 <4 ' (9.8 Ru-106 <12.5 <12.6 <<16. 1 <9.8 <11.0 <11.0 Ru-103 <2 ~ 0. <2.5 <1.3 <1.8 <1.4 <2.4 Be-7 133.&-24 2 128.&.23. 1 165.0+24.9 9 0.5+19.5 9 7.3+18. b 9 5.0+1 9-3 K-40 <30.2 <20. 9 <2702 13. 1+12.3 <15,4 <25.7 La-140 <7.6 <13.1 <4.0 <3 ~ 1 <5. 0 <3 e3 Ra-226 <26.5 <<22+7 <26.7 <<24.8 <20.4 <3 2e7

<Optional sample location

-68

TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES F ON-SITE STATION Results in units of 10 3pCi/m + 2 sigma Nuclides January February March April May June 1985 Co-60 <4.3 <2 ' a.4 <1.0 <1 o2 <0.9 Mn-54 <2.5 <2o3 <1.4 <2 ~ 1 <1.3 <1.5 Cs-134 <2.8 <1.7 <1.5 <1.8 <0.7 <1,4 Cs-137 <2.4 <1.9 <1.2 <1.3 <0.7 <1.2 Nb-95 <2.0 <3.0 <2.0 <1.4 <1.2 d.4 Zr-95 <6 ~ 1 <5o3 <3 ' <3.6 <1. 9 <2 ~ 7 Ce-141 <3.4 <2.9 <2.0 <2.0 <1.6 <2.6 Ce-144 <8. 9 <7.4 <5.5 <6. 1 <4.7 <5.3 Ru-106 <17.6 <19.2 <12.4 <15.8 <7 6 <15.4 Ru-103 <2.4 <2. 9 <1.6 <2. 1 <1.3 <2 '

Be-7 109.$ -24.5 12 0. (H 25.7 158.$ .23.0 . 178.$ .26. 2 16 9.$ .21.4 163.$ -26.8 K-40 <29.7 12.9+12.8 <25. 9 <23. 8 <15. 1 19 8+15.4 La-140 <5.3 <7.4 <5.0 <5.0 <3.4 <7o5 Ra-226 <36.5 <37.9 <20.6 <27.4 <19.2 <22o7 Nuclides July August September October November December Co-60 <0.9 <1 3 <1.7 <1.9 <1.8 <2.4 Mn-54 <1.6 <1o5 <lol- <2. 1 <1 o3 <1.5 Cs-134 <1.5 <lol <1.6 <1.5 <1.2 '<2o2 Cs-137 <1.3 <1.5 <1.9 <1,9 <1.1 <2. 1 Nb-95 <2o2 <1.9 <2.0 <1.4 <l. 1 <0.9 .

Zr>>95 <2o2 <3.8 <3o2 <4.7 <2. 9 <2.4 Ce-141 <2o3 <2o2 <2o3 <1.8 <1.7 <2o2 Ce<<144 <5.9 <5.6 <7 ~ 1 <6.2 <5 ~ 7 <7 ~ 7 Ru-106 <14.7 <10.9 <17.2 <8.7 <12. 1 <11.0 Ru-103 <1 ~ 6 <2 ' <2.0 <1.6 <1.6 <2 '

Be-7 12 2. R-2 2.5 116.$ .20.7 14 7.$ .23.6 97.3+20.6 8 7.7+16.8 92.3+2 2.4.

K-40 <28.8 <26.4 <38. 0 <23.6 <18. 6 22.5+16.3 La-140 <5. 1 <7.6 <4.0 <7o2 <3.9 <8.0 Ra-226 <23. 1 <20.0 <25.9 <21.0 <17.6 <28.2

<Wptional sample location.

-69

TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES G ON-SITE STATION Results in units of 10 3pCi/m3 + 2 sigma Nuclides January February March April May June 1985 Co-60 <2.8 <1.8 <0.9 <2.4 <1 ~ 4 <1.2 Mn-54 <1 ~ 6 <1.1 <1.6 <1.3 <lo6 '1.3 Cs-134 <1.9 ~.8 <1.2 <1.8 <1.6 <1.5 Cs-137 <2 0 <2 ' <1.6 <1.4 <1.5 <1.8 Nb-95 <2. 1 <3o3 <2.8 <2o3 <2o3 '3.1 Zr-95 <6.3 <4.4 <3.6 <3.1 <4.3 <3.4 Ce-141 <2.6 <206 <2e3 <2e2 <2e2 <3. 1 Ce-144 <9.6 <6.9 <5.8 <7.4 <6.0 <8.2 Ru-106 <23.0 <17.8 <11.6 <13.2 <13.3 <13 '

Ru-103 <1 8 <2.6 <l. 8 <1.9 <1 ~ 7 <3.0 Be-7 84.%-23.4 105.$ .23.5 141 . &-23.7 138. $ -2 4.0 14 7. (H-2 4.9 131 .0+2 6. 9 K-40 <32e5 <26. 9 <22o2 <27o3 <24.1 <22. 9 La-140 <3.4 <5o3 <6 0 <3o2 <4.8 <11.7 Ra-226 <36.2 <29.4 16 0+10.0 <28.3 <25.5 20.5+15 0 Nuclides July August September October November December Ger+0 <3,4 <1,7 <1,4 <1.5 <1.7 <1.3 Mn-54 <1.5 <1.5 <2e 3. <0. 9 <1.0 <1 6 Cs-134 -<2.0 <1,4 <1.6 <1.4 <1,4 <0.9 Cs-137 <2.4 <1.6 <2o2 <1,4 <1.5 <1.1 Nb-95 <2 0 <2.5 <1.9 <1.8 <1.7 <2e2 Zr-95 <F 6 <3 8 <3.6 <4 2 <2 ' <2 '

Ce-141 <3o3 <2.4 <2e2 <2o2 <2.0 <2.0 Ce-144 <8.6 <6.5 <6.5 <6 ' <5.3 <6 ~ 9 Ru-106 <16.8 <14.2 <14.1 <19.7 <18.7 <10.5 Ru-103 <3o3 <2e2 , <2.0 <1.8 <2e3 <l. 9 Be-7 122. (H.26.7 329.$ -24. 1 113.$ .20.5 88.5+19.4 6 9.9+17.9 7 7.6+16. 8 K-40 <34.9 30. 1+17. 9 22.3+16.3 <24.5 <32o 1 <26.5 La-140 <9.4 <5. 6 <4. 1 <3o1 <8.8 <2.9 Ra<<226 <34.5 <25.6 <24.7 <27 o2 <24.6 <23.8

-Optional sample location

-ZO

'U TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES H ON-SITE STATION Results in units of 10 pCi/m3+ 2 sigma Nuclides January February March Apri1 May June 1985 Co-60 <4,3 <2o7 <1.1 <1.7 <1.1 <1 o3 Mn-54 <2o7 <1.6 <1.5 <2.4 <1.4 <1.4 Cs-134 <2o5 <1.8 <1.3 <1,4 <1.3 <1.6 Cs-137 <3.1 <2.0 <1 o2 <1.3 <1.3 <2.0 Nb-95 <<4.2 <2.6 <2.0 <2.4 <2o2 <2. 1 Zr-95 <7 ~ 1 <4 ~ 2 <3.4 '5.2 <3.1 <4.9 Ce-141 <4. 1 <2o7 <1.8 <2.5 <1.9 <2.6 Ce-144 <13.4 <5 ' <5 ~ 7 <6 ' <5. 1 <6 2 Ru-106 <<24.3 <L8. 1 <11.5 <12.4 <8.3 <12.8 Ru-103 <3 ' <2.4 <1.8 <2o7 <1.6 <2o2 Be-7 57.6+27.3 105.$ -22.3 130.tH-20 9 127.0+24.0 140 (H-21.2 126.(H.23.9 K-40 <42.5 <28. 1 10.0& 9 <18'0 <20.1 <30.8 I -140 <8.5 <4.5 <6.3 <3. 6 <2 ' <11.6 Ra-226 <52.0 <29. 1 <22.6 <34.6 <21.6 <22.9 Nuclides July August September October November December Co-60 <2.8 <<1.5 <2o2 <1 7 <2o 1 <1.0 Mn-54 <0-6 <1.0 <1.8 <1.1 <1 o3 <1 o2 Cs-134 <<1.6 <<1.0 <1.6 <1 o2 <l. 1 ~2 Cs-137 <1.8 <1.2 <2 ~ 1 <1 o2 <1 o3 (1.5 Nb-95 <<2. 1 <2,1 <2o2 <0.8 <l. 1 ~ 3 Zr-95 <3 ' <4.2 <5.2 <2o7 <2 ~ 9 <4.4 Ce-141 <2o3 <2o3 <2.0 <1.5 <2o2 <2o2 Ce-144 <5o7 <4.3 <6 8 <4. 7 <4.7'9.6

<6 ~ 0 Ru-106 <<16.5 <10.8 <16.7 <10.6 <13.9 Ru-103 <2 ' <1 o5 <1.6 <1o1 <1 ~ 6 <1.4 Be-7 113.0+21.9 75.2+16. 1 125.lH23.7 89.5+15.8 7 8.7+17.3 96 6+19.3 K-40 <34.5 <26o1 <22' 7 <16. 7 <19. 9 La-140 <5o6 <7.6 <3o2 <4.3 <5 ~ 5 <2 '

Ra>>226 <26.8 <19.1 <25.8 <20.9 <19.6 <<25.0

-Optional sample location

"*-The data report showed the error to be greater than the net activity, therefore, a result is not reported here. The original result was

7. 6+10.2.

-71

TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OE GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES I ON-SITZ STATION Results in units of 10 3pCi/m3 + 2 sigma

'Nuclides January F ebruary March April May June 1985 Co-60 <3.0 <2.0 <2.6 <2.0 <1.4 <2 '

Mn-5$ <2.9 <2 ~ 1 <1.1 <1.1 <1 e2 <1.8 Cs-134 <2.0 <1.6 <1.0 <1.1 <1.0 <2.4 Cs-137 <1 ~ 9 <1.4 <1.0 <1.8 <1.6 <1.9 Nb-95 <3 ' <2.5 <2.0 <1.9 <0.7 <2e3 Zr-95 <5.8 <3.4 <1.9 <4.2 <2 ' <3e2 Ce-141 <2.8 <2e3 <2.0 <1.9 <2.0 <3.6 Ce-144 <7.9 <7.6 <4 ' <6 3 <5e7 <8.4 RU-106 <15.0 <15.8 <11.3 <10.5 <14.5 <20.7 Ru-103 <2 ' <1.9 <1.6 <le 6 <1.4 <3.9 Be-7 4 3.4+16.8 6 2. 9+18.6 7 6.0+16.9 117.0f 20-7 8 7.8+17.7 110.$ .26.4 K-40 <27 ~ 1 <18.4 <25.6 <15.3 <21.1 <26.5 La-140 <F 6 <4.3 <3.9 <5.3 <2 ' <ll.l Ra-226 <30.3 <27.2 <20.5 <23.0 <22. 1 <31. 1 Nuclides July August 'eptember October November December Co-60 <3e3 <1.6 <2.5 <2.0 <1.1 <1.4 Mn-54 <2.9 <1 e5 <1.6 <le2 <1.5 <1.8 Cs-134 <2e3 <1.2 <2e3 <0.9 <1.2 <1.3 Cs-137 <3e7 <1.4 <1.6 <1.2 <1.3 <1.4 Nb-95 <3e2 <1.6 <2.5 <1 e7 <2. 1 <2.0 Zr-95 <8e5 <4 ~ 1 <4.4 <3.6 <3 ~ 2 <2.4 Ce-141 <4.0 <2e2 <2e7 <2.1 <2.0 <2.6 Ce-144 <9.3 <5.6 <7e3 <6 6 <5. 0 <7. 9 RQ-106 <21.3 <11 e7 <16.6 <11.5 <12.3 <14.7 Ru-103 <3 ~ 1 <2 e2 <2e2 <1.6 <1.8 <1.4 Be-7 7 8.5f-25. 1 53.0+17.0 9 3.0+20.7 92.2+17.2 7 8.2+16.7 84.8+18- 1 K-40 34. 0+25.4 <30.5 <43.0 <16. 1 <16.3 <27.4 La-140 <7 ~ 5 <9.8 <5. 1 <5.3 <8.4 <6 '

Ra-226 <42.4 <21.8 <33.0 <21.8 <19.8 <29.0

"-Optional sample location

-72

TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES J ON-SITE STATION

Results in units of 10 3pCi/m + 2 sigma Nuclides January February March April. May June 1985 Co-60 <2.8 <2e2 <1,4 <l 8 <1,4 <0.9 Mn-54 <3e3 <1.6 <1.5 <0'9 <1.5 <1 ~ 6 Cs-134 <2.4 <l.4 <1.0 <1 e3 <0.8 <1 .3 Cs-137 <2e2 <1.5 <1 e3 <1.6 <1.1 <1 e3 Nb-95 <4.0 <3. 1 <2.0 <l.9 <1.6 <2e2 Zr-95 <7.9 <6 ~ 1 <2e3 <3e6 <3.4 <5.3 Ce-141 <3.6 <2e7 <1.9 <2.0 <1.6 <2.4 Ce-144 <13. 2 <6 ~ 8 <4.7 <5e2 <5.0 <5.4 RU-106 <28.6 <16.4 <9.0 <11.4 <7e5 <13.3 Ru-103 <3 ' <2el <1.6 <1.9 <1.8 <2 '

Be-7 6 4.4+22.3 121 $ .25.4 12 4.0+19.7 130.0+22.5 12 9.0+19.6 89.&.20.&

K-40 <22.4 <18. 6 <16. 8 <24.0 <12e2 <31.7 La-140 <7 ' <5.3 <3e2 <3 ' <2 ~ 8 <7e3 Ra-226 <<43.4 <30.4 <19.3 <22.6 <17.2 <22 ~ 7 Nuclides July August September October "

November December Co-60 <1.5 <2e3 <0.9 <1 e7 <2.0 <1 ~ 2 Mn-54 <1.9 <1 e2 <1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1 ~ 7 Cs-134 <1'.6 <1.0 <1.6 <1.2 <0.9 <1.6 Cs-137 <1 e3 <1.4 <1.2 <0. 8 <0.9 <1.8 Nb-95 <2.0 <1.9 <1.1 <1.3 <2e3 <1.9 Zr-95 <4 6 <4.5 <2.4 <3. 6 <3e2 <3 '

Ce-141 <2.5 <1.8 <1.5 <1.8 <1.9 (2.6 Ce-144 <6.3 <4. 0 <4 5 <4 6 <4 3 <8 4 Ru-106 <17.7 <11.1 <14.6 <8.5 <7.0 <14.0 Ru-103 <1.9 <1.7 <1.2 <1.7 <1.4 <1.9 Be-7 96.9t20. 7 ~

44.3+13.1 6 6.5+14.6 71 .5+15.2 5 5.0+14. 1 62. 1+18.3 K-40 <29.0 <21.2 <19 8 <12e6 <32. 1 La-140 <6 ' <4.8 <2 5 <4.5 <7 e2 <3 8 Ra-226 <26.3 <17.5 <20 5 <17.5. <21.3 24. 1+14 ~ 0

<<-Optional sample location

"-The data report showed the error to be equal to the net activity, therefore, a result is not reported'here. The original result was 8.5t 8.5.

-73

n TABLE 9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES K ON-SITE STATION Results in units of,10 3pCi/m3 + 2 sigma Nuclides January February March April May June 1985 Co-60 <1.2 <2. 1 <0.9 <1.2 '1.3 <1.5 Mn-54 <2.5 <1.5 <1.0 <2. 1 <1 e3 <1.9 Cs-134 <2.0 <1.8 <1.2 <1.6 <1.4 <0,8 Cs-137 <1.6 <1 ~ 7 <1.2 <2 ' <i+1 <i+3 Nb-95 <1.8 <1.5 <1.8 <2.6 <1.6 <3o 1 Zr-95 <4 ~ 1 <3 ~ 2 <3. 8 <4.3 <3+3 <5. 8 Ce<<141 <<202 <2.5 <2.0 <2.6 <1.8 (2,8 Ce-144 <F 6 <7.1 <5. 9 <8.3 <4.9 <?e2 Ru-106 <16.4 <16.8 <7.4 <16.9 <11.5 <15 1 Ru-103 <2 ' <1.6 <1.5 <2.5 <1.6 <2.8 Be-7 5 8.5+18.5 125.0+25.2 330 ~ (H22.4 135.$ -26.4 12 0.0+19.2 96.%-22.3 K-40 <35.9 <22.0 13.4+70. 9 <21.8 <21.4 <26.3 La-140 <5.5 <7 ~ 2 <4.2 <5i 1 <4.e <8 6 Ra-226 <33.1 <<29.5 <<22.8 <35.6 <20.2 <2 6.0

..r" Nuclides July August September October November Decemoer Co-60 <1.6 <<1.6 <1.2 <1.9 <0.5 <0.9 Mn-54 <1.7 <1.4 <1.6 <1.2 <005 <1.5 Cs-134 <1.5 <1.3 <1.5 <1.4 <0.4 <1.2 Cs-137 <1.6 <0.9 <1.4 <1.5 <0-6 <le2 Nb-95 (2.4 <L.& <1.8 <1.8 <0.8 <1.9 Zr-95 <3 ' <3.8 <2+2 <2.8 <1.4 <3.0 Ce-141 <2+7 <2. 1 <1.8 <1.8 <0.9 <1.7 Ce-144 <6 5 <4.4 <5. 9 <5.4 <2.4 <5.1 Ru-106 <20. 1 <<10.9 <13.5 <8.9 <5.6 <12.8 Ru-103 <2 ' <1.2 <1.6 <1.0 <0. 7 <1.6 Be-7 100.0+21.4 8 8.6+19.5 8 5.8+17.3 91 7+16.7 4 &.&.8.7 10 3.0+1 9.?

K&0 <28.4 <28.0 <21I5 <16+6 <11.2 <22o3 La-140 <6 6 <4-9 <3 ' <3.4 <3.0 <5o 7 Ra-226 <25.0 <20.0 <<21.0 <22o3 <8.7 <19.9

~-Optional sample location 74

TABLE 9 (Continued )

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTHLY COMPOSITES OF NMP AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES G OFF-SITE STATION Results in units of 10 pCi/m + 2 sigma Nuc1ides 'January February March April May June 1985 Co-60 <2.5 <2o 1 <2o2 <3.0 <2o 1 <1.8 Mn-54 <1.8 <2.4 <1.0 <2o3 <1.5 <1.7 Cs-334 <2.6 <1.4 c1. 1 <2o2 <1.7 <2.0 Cs-137 <2o3 <3 ~ 1 <1.1 <2.8 <1.2 <2 ~ 1 Nb-95 <3.5 <3o2 <2o2 <3.6 <2.4 <1 .3 Zr-95 <6.9 <6. 6 <4.4 <3-7 <4.0 <7.4 Ce-141 <2.9 <3.6 <2o7 <2.9 <2.4 <3.4 Ce-144 <8.5 <9.7 <7. 1 <8.6 <6 ~ 1 <8 '

Ru-106 <14.7 <19.1 <13.7 <23.9 <16.3 <12.3 Ru-103 <2 ' <2 ~ 6 <2o3 <1.6 <1.6 <2.1 Be-7 115.$ -24.5 12 9.$ .2 9.4 175.$ -27.8 17 6.$ .31.2 17 6.0t-29.6 14 7.0+2 8. 9 K-40 <33.0 <45. 1 <11.5 <15. 9 16 3+13.3 <30.9 La-140 <6. 1 <8 ' <5.0 <6 4 <9 ' <7.5 Ra-226 <36.7 <39.0 <25.6 <41.3 <29.6 <29.8 Nuclides Ju1y August September October November 'December Co-60 <2o3 a.8 <2o7 <1.2 <2.4 <2 5 Mn-54 <2.0 <1 o2 <202 <1.1 <1.9 <loe Cs-134 <2.0 <1.3 <1.7 <2.0 <1.6 <1.9 Cs-137 <1.9 <1.3 <1.6 <1.5 <1.0 <1.6 Nb-95 <1.8 <2 ' <1.8 <2.0 <2.6 <2o3 Zr 95 <4 8 <5.1 <4 2 <5 ~ 1 <2. 9 <3.0 Ce-141 <2.8 <2.5 <2.8 <2.6 <2.4 <3o7 Ce-144 <8. 1 <6.5 <8. 1 <70 1 <6 4 <13.0 Ru-106 <15. 1 <11 o3 <20.7 <22 9 <9.9 <16.2 Ru-103 <3.0 <203 <1.9 <2. 8 <1 o3 <3o3 Be-7 171 .0+28.8 12 0. (H.2 2. 0 137 $ .24.9 103. (H.22.4 116.$ -22'3 113.$ .25 0 K-40 <38.0 <27 ~ 7 <21 2 <25.9 <33.5 <39.3 La-140 <14.7 <4. 9 <5. 9 <4.4 <5 0 <7o3 Ra-226 <28.6 <25.4 <31.2 <26 ~ 9 <2 4.6 <34.0

~-Optional sample location

-75

'ABLE 8&1'/JAF SITE E&IVIROHIIEHTALCIIARCOAL CARTRIDGE I-'131 ACTIVITY 'PCi/n"3SA&IPLE"

- OFF "ITE GTATIOHS

(. 2 signa uEEL EIID LOCATIO&8 DATE R'5-orr Ri-Of& R2-orr R3.0& r 85/ai/08 (0.025 R4.0FF c--orr 85/01/15 (0.024 (0.031 (0.024 (0.019 CO.D2D (0.034 SS/Ol/23 (D.D3D Co 02S .018 <9.024 CD. 015 0.018 Ca (0 0"4 (D. 020 80/$ 2/28 (9.027 (0.025 SS/92/ii BS/02/19 h&:&lh CO. D13

<0.008

.02<

(0.018

<0.010 C .026 C0.014 ll:I (0.015

<0.019 (0.020 Co.oli (0.025

< .014 85/02/26 CO.01D (0.011 (0.033 85/03/05 85/03/12 Il:III lg:$ &8 lg:&II 0.022

<0.909 CD.019

<0.015 .

(0. 012 C0.017 (0.013 0.015 (0. 012 85/03/19 (0.018 Co. D1D CO.Old (9.924 85/93/25 ( .Oil CO.O18 <0.012 CO.014

, (0.015 85/04/02 <g.o<2 <0.0<I <0.014 (0.012 <0.030 9.913 (0.915 85/04/99 <0.013 (9.015 0.015 (9.009 SS/04/96 C0.013 <9.009 <0.012 <9.015 85/04/23

<0.012 (0.009 Ca;013 D.ail (0.015 <O. 018

<0.017 (0.010 0.010 (D.oil 85/04/30 <0.015 <0 .014 <0.011 BS/II5/07 (0.013 (0.096 (9.019 <0.012 (0.018 <0.015 8:&II <0. 010 (9.018 85/05/14 CD.DD9 C0.013 (0.009 85/95/21 (0.004 (0.012 <0.012 (O. 016 (0.012 85/05/29 85/06/4

<I:I CO.niS

$ 8.00$

D.ail 0.013 C0.009

<0.008 (0.004

<9.915

<0.017 (O. 914 85/886/li <0.012 0.099 CD.013 (0.016 (0.013 Ca'. 909

<9.016 80/go/hg 0.010 <0.008 (0.013 Ill:III (O.oil <0.014 (0. <0.012 SS/07/02 ss/a7/09 (0.041 D.D47 (D.044 14 hl:ll< (0.012

<0.013

<9.013

<9.058 Q.QS5 <0 055 (0.048

<0.037 CD.038 (1. 062

/ /23 h&:8<8 &8:&hh

<0.046 <0.069 85/07/30 <0.015 8:&ig h&:gho &0.$ 02 <0.017 SS/Oe/06 <0.910 0.011 <0.910

<9.012 (0.008 <0.012 010

<0.010 (0.012 CO. <a. Oil 08/88/M (0.010 (9.008 85/Oe/27

&8:Ihg

<o.ais hl:III <$ .$ 80 &8:&h&

<0.009 <g.o<2 BS/D9/04 <0.907 (0.010 (0.008 (D.OOO (0.905 <a.'alo (0 .008 (O.Dii 85/09/10 C0.007 (0.007 (0. 919 85/09/17 0.998 <0.008 (0.009 <0.009 (0.099 0.011 <0 .0<I (0.919 85/0'9/24 Ca.als (0.010 (O. 914 BS/10/1 <0.008 (0.013 (0.911 <0.015

<0.099 Ca.aiD <0.011 Ss/1 0/08 (0.011 C0.910 I. 918 85/10/16 85/10/22 BS/10/29

<0.008 (0.009 CO.OQB

<0.006 9.009 0.009 0.005 h&:8$ 8

<0.012

'I'l C0.012 <0.011

<0. 19

<0. 10 CD.oii

<0.015 (0.913 CD.D10 85/il/05 (9.018 BS/ii/12 &8:Ihg <0.010 (9.013 8:8hh hl:&&I SS/il/19 85/ll/26 <0.008 <0.099 (0.026

'8 ll'I: <g.gio (0.011 Ca.ail (0.010 co.'oas 80/&2/Ig (0.007 (0.004 <Q. 021 CD.010 (0.011 85/12/17 I&: o.o I hl:&i<< <0.008 <Q. 912 IN ca'.oil 85/12/23 0,0 0 <0.009 (0.013 85/12/30 O.ail 0.017 <0.012 <0.012

<0.095 <D.DiD (0.011 (0.012 (0.011 <0.007 <0.018 (0.012 (9. 012

TABLE 11 888CP/ AE SITE E88VIROMI(TAL CIIAIICQAL CARTR DGE &AISLES - 088 S!TE STATICIS I-131 ACTIVITY p 1/s"3 i 2 signa LOCATIOW

Pump Not Operational llEEK EHD DATE Di-OH D2-OH E OH G-OH 88-OH I-OH J OW K-OH 1

e 85/01/07 (0.025 <0.033 <0.023 <0.019 (0.032 (0.028 <0.018 <0.036 <0 029 t ~ 85/01/14 (9.931 <0.932 (9.022 (0.023 CO.D23 (0.039 (D.D21 <0. Dis (0. 018

~

je 85/Oi/23 0.021 C0.022 C0.041 <0.022 (0.023 (0.011 <0.015 <0.058 (0.099 85/91/28 0. 019 (0.029 (0.021 <0. 019 C0.021 (0.027 CD.02S (0. 022 (Q. 017 85/o2/O4 (0.019 (0.027 <0.012 <0.019 (0.017 <0.011 C0.028 <0.024 <0.014 tel8t/II jt.t(8 I8.8(8 It.8(2 <0.016 (0.011 (0.015

<0.092 (0.011 (0.014 (0.014 (0.011

<0.015 Ca.ail (0. 013 (0.011 85/02/25 CQ.D09 CD. 017 (0.011 (0.019 (0.013 (9.915 <O.Q10 (0. 012 <Q. 014 85/03/05 (0.015 (0.015 (0.018 (0.018 <9.013 (0. Dis (0.01'5 <0.014 <0.016 85/03/11 85/03/18 0.013 0.064 (0.910 C0.014 (t. (i <0.016 C0.010 (0.007 co.QDB C0.013 (0.912

<0.013 (0.009 ca. 013 (9.013 (0. 013 (0.013 85/03/25 0.012 (0.01B (0. 17 <0.013 Co.oos C0.012 <0.010 (Q. 012 (0. 013 85/04/01 0.009 (0.019 (0.010 (Q.017 C0.012 (0.011 <0.011 (0.009 <9.013 85/04/08 0.010 C0.016 (0.012 (0.012 Co.aii <0.011 <0.009 <0.010 C0.051 85/04/15 0.006 (0. 10 ca.'Oa9 (0.008 CO.Oa? (0.913 <0.097 (9.00& CD.011 85/04/22 :013 CO. 65 <0.013 C0.014 (0.014 (0.008 (0. 012 <o.oia <9. 013 85/04/29 ( .006 <0. 13 (0.099 (0.909 <9.013 (O. D12 (0.011 (0.01D (0.015 85/0S/06 C0.915 <0.013 Co.oio <0.010 0.011 Co.oii 0.010 <0. 014 85laS/13 :888 (0.019 <0.009 (0.012 (0.913 O.OD6 (0.913 (D.Q13 (O.D13 85/05/20 (0.034 Co.oii <0.009 Ca.ail (0.012 (0.009 (0.009 0.008 (0. 009 85/05/2& (0.012 (0.012 (0.0 2 (0.009 (0.015 (0.009 (0.01S C0.007 <Q.009 BS/0 /03 (0.011 CD.D 1 0.011 co.a14 (0.014 <0. 017 (0.006 CD.011 85/0 /10 0.010 (9.016 (Q.a 8 D.011 (D.aio (0. 00'9 CD.013 (0.008 (0.014 BS/06/17 <0.008 <0.007 D. 010 0.009 <0.011 CD.015 C0.015 <0.910 (0. 007 85/06/24 (0.013 (O.D16 (O.DD7 O.DDB (0.013 (0.013 <0.012 (0.007 <0.009 85/07/02 ~ Co;045 C0.030 <0.045 C0.036 CQ. 47 <a. 023 <I. 033 85/0?/08 0.923 (0.058 D.033 C0.049 (0.039 <0.052 (0. 68 <0.051 (9.052 85/07/16 (0.011 Ca.oio CO.OID <0. 010 <0.014 (0.010 ca. 099 <0. 005 85/07/22 (O.OD9 (0.020 (0.013 <9.010 C0.016 (0.014 <a.o14 (0.012 (O. D14 85/07/29 <0.013 0.011 (0.010 C0.015 <0.014 <a.oa9 <a'.a09 <a.ao?

85/08/05 Ca.'O14 0.015 0.013 (0.007 (0.011 <0.008 <0.011 (0.013 <0.013 85/00/12 <0.022 Ca.aii (0.008 <0.014 <0.017 <a.oia 0. 013 <D.a16 (Q.oa9.

85/08/19 (0.009 0.014 CO 011 <0.010 <0.018 <0.012 (0.009 (0.021 Co.oa&

85/08/26 It.t(3 0.019 ca'.aii (0.016 (9.911 <0 .013 Ca. 006 <0 812 e

85/09/03 0.006 0.006 <0.011 <0.011 (0.012 <0.019 <0.910 <0.009 85/09/09'5/09/16 CQ.01? (0.014 co'.ais (88. 014 <0.017 (0.913 (0.020 co .010'0.010

<a. 012

<0.010 (0.013 <0.013 (0.010 C0.014 Ca.aii (0.016 <0.012 85/09/23 <0.013 <o.ai6 (D.Q16 <o.a16 <0.006 <9.011 (0 .016 (0. 009 (0. 0D6 85/0'9/30 ca.oio <0.020 (0.007 <0.005 (0.009 <0.012 (0.011 (0.010 CO.D97 85/ia/a? <0.009 <9.015 <0.009 0.008 (0.012 ca. D11 (0. 011 CD.D06 (I. 009 85/10/15 (0.012 (0.01 (0.010 <0.012 <0.006 (0.012 (0.008 <a.'oa&. (0.010 85/ 9/21 <8.ii II.OII8 0. 10 C0.009 0.013 (0.009 <0.011 <9. 016 85/10/28 I8:8iI 0. 11 <0.013 0.012 (0.009 <0.009 (0.097 85/1 /04 0.020 0.01 0. 12 (D. 01D Co.ao& (0.012 (9.004 (0.019 85/11/12 (0.010 <0.010 (0.00 Co. 09 (0.016 <0.007 (0.004 <0.005 <0.004 85/if/19 (0.8(t C D. D11 (D.O21 <0.012 (0.908 <0.014 (a. 007 85/11/25 <8:8( (8:88'0.011

<0.013 .(0.010 C0.013 (0.008 (0.009 <0.007 85/12/92 CO.DOB (0.918 CD.OD9 (D.oil (0.011 <0.007 (0.009 (O. 008 85/12/09 Ca.oii (0.016 (0.016 (0.010 (0.009 (0.00& (0.012 <0.919 SS/12/16 <0. D1D <0.013 <0.011 <0.012 <0.009 (0.010 (0.911 (0.015 <0. 012 85/12/23 C0.013 C0.015 <0.016 CO.Oia (0. 010 (0.009 (0.010 (D.Q12 (9.011 885/12/30 <0.016 <0.014 (9.005 D'.ao9 <0.010 (0.909 (0. 013 <0.015 <9.012,

TABLE 12A DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS Results in units of mrem/quarterly period + 2 sigma January April July October Location Station 1985 Through Through Through Through (Direction and '

Number Location March June September December (Distance)(3)

Dl On Site 26.2+1.6 17. 1+0.2 36.9+1.8 47.7+3.2 0.2 miles 8 69 D2 On Site 18.3+1.2 16.7%.6 18.3%.6 18.4&.2 0.4 miles 8 140' 5 E On Site 17.5+1. 1 15..9.0.8 17.4+0.8 16.8.0.5 0.4 miles 175' 6 F On Site 15.7%.6 14.1&.3 15.7+1.3 14.8+1.1 0.5 miles 210 7* 0 On Site 15.7+0.8 . 13.Q.0.2 19.2+0.6 17.6+1. 1 0.7 miles 8 250 8 R-5 Off Site-Control 17.6+1.2 16. 1%.6 22.7%.8 17.2&.8 . 16.4 miles 8 42' 9 Dl Off Site 15.4+0.9 14.4+0.3 19.4+0.2 16. Q-0.6 11.4 miles 80' 10 D2 Off Site 15.6%.7 14.9%.4 19.2%.4 15.4&.6 9.0 miles 117' 11 E Off Site 13.4+1.1 '-.

14. 2+0. 1 18.8+1.0 15.1+0.4 7.2 miles 160 12 P Off Site 15.2+1.0 14.2%.3 18. 6%.6 16.5%.8 7.7 miles 8 190' 13 0 Off Site 16.1+1.2 14.Q 0.6 19.1+0.4 15.0-0.5 5.3 miles 225' 14* DeMass Rd, SW Oswego-Control 16. 14. 1&.4 20.0%.6 16.0%.5 12.6 miles 226' 15* Pole 66, W. Boundary-Bible Camp 7+1.5'4.4+1.5 11.$ 0.3 17.8+1.0 15.$ -0.6 0.9 miles 237' 18* Energy Info. Center-Lamp Post, SW 16.0+1.4 15. 1&.3 20.6%.5 16.8&.5 0.4 miles 265' 19 East Boundary-JAF, Pole 9 17.4+1.6 15.8.0.6 18.7+0.8 15.4f 0.4 1.3 miles 81' 23* H On Site 20 3+1.8 15.8&'6 25.2+1.4 23.8+0.8 0.8 miles 70' 24 I On Site '17. 1+0.9 14.Q-0.3 22.4+0.4 16.3%0.5 0.8 miles 98' 25 J On Site 17.4&.8 14.3&.4 18.6%.7 14.8+0.6 0.9 miles 110 26 K On Site 16.5& 0.9 .17.$ -0.2 17.7+0.5 14.7+0.6 0.5 miles 8 132 27 N. Fence, N. of Switchyard, JAP 42.8+6.2- 26. 1+1'5 64.2+7.4 84.9+10.0 0.4 miles 6 28 N. Light Pole, N. of 60'.5 Screenhouse,JAP 63.4+11.8 40. 1%.9 83.6+11.6 110.2+20.0 miles 8 29 N. Fence, N. of W. Side 68'.5'miles Scgeenhouse, JAP 93. 9+15. 8 98.8+12.3 134.0+12.3 179.4+22.8 8 33.&3.5 52.3f 4.2 miles 8 *57 65'.4 30 N Fence (NW) JAF 19.7+1. 1 65.iH 6.0 31 N. Fence (NW) NMP-1 25.0+1.6 . 22.6+1.2 31.2+3.7 26.0+2.0 0.2 miles 8 276'.2 39 N. Fence> Rad. Waste, NMP-1 36.1+5.1 36.5+1.9 4 4.4+3.2 . 38.0I-3.8 miles 8 292

-78

TABLE 12A (Continued)

DIRECT RAMATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS Results in units of mrem/quarterly period + 2 sigma January April July October Location Station 1985 Through Through Through Through (Direction and Number Iocation March June September December (Distance)(3) 47 N. Fence, NE, JAF (1) 2'2.0+1.4 45.7+2.6 4 7.8-3.6 0.6 miles. 8 69 49* Phoenix, NY-Control 15.2%.8 13.6%.3 19.3&.6 14. 1&.5 -19.8 miles 8 51 Liberty 6 Bronson Sts., E. of OSS 15.5f 0.9 14.5f 0.4 18.9f 0.5 17. 1+0.8 7.4 miles 8 170'33'27'83

52. East 12th & Cayuga Sts., Osw. School 14.9+.4 13.9%.2 18.2%.6 13.8%.4 5.8 miles 8 53 Broadwell 6 Chestnut Sts., Fulton H.ST 15.4f 0.7 18.7+0.6 20.3+1.3 15.3f 0.5 -

13.7 miles 8 54 Liberty St. 6 Co. Rt. 16, Mexico H.S. 14.9+1.9 14.1+0.4 17 ~ 6%.2 14.4&.4 9.3 miles 8 '15 55" Gas Substation, Co. Rt. 5, Pulaski 14.3f 0.5 15.2+0.4 18.0& 0.4 17.4+1.2 13.0 miles 8 75'23 56* .Rt. 104 New Haven Sch. (SE Corner) 14.6%.6 15.9+0.8 19.3+0.6 17.0+1.0 5.3 miles 8 58" Co. Rt. lA Alcan (E. of Entrance Rd.) 14.5& 0.7 15.0f 0.6 19.Q.0.7 14.2+Q.5 3.1 miles 8 22Q'5 59 Environmental Lab 'JAF 40.4+3. 1 18.6&.9 24.9+1.2 25.8+2.4 0.5 miles 8 75"- Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Reactor Bldg. 19.$ .0.6 14.3f 0.8 20.9l.0.6 16.3I-O 7 0.1 miles 8 5o 76* Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Change House 25.2%.4 14.9%.8 21.4%.7 16.9+1-0 0.1 miles 8 25 77* ,Unit g> No Fence ~ N of Pipe Bldg 29.0-3.0 13. 2+0.6 23.4+2.2 19.Q.0.7 0.2 miles 8 45 78* JAF, E. OF E. Old Laydown Area 17.2+1.2 . 15.2%.6 21.3+0.3 16.9%.5 1.0 miles 8 90 79k Co. Rt. 29, Pole f63, 0'.2 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 15.2+1.2 12.H 0.3 19.2+0.7 12.8.0.4 1.1 miles 8 115'33 8QA Co. Rt. 29, Pole 854, 0.7 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 15.8+1.0 13.9+0.4 20.1+0.6 16.6+1.0 1-4 miles 8 81* Miner Rd., Pole 416, 0.5 mi. N. of Rt. 29 14 9&0.5 12.$ -0.4 18.4f'0.6 (IT 1.6 miles 8 82* Miner Rd., Pole 0 1 1/2, I.l mi. M. of Rt. 29 15.0%.6 13.2+0.3 18.1+0.8 14.1+0.4 1.6-miles 9 159'81 83* Lakeview Rd., Tree 0.45 mi. N. of Miner Rd. 14.8+1 .0. 13.B.0.4 18. 2+0.8 13.7+0.5 1.2 miles 8 200 84* Lakeview Rd., N;, Pole 0 6117, 20Q Ft.

N. of Lake Rd. 14.4+1.0; 13.0+0.4 18.2&. 7 13.4%.5 1.1 miles 8 85* Unit 1, N. Pence, N. of M. Side of Screen h 225'.2 House 34.6%.8 28.0+1.4 38.2+5.0 32.8+3.4 miles 8 294 86 Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of M. Side of Screen House 20.4+1.6 15.2&'8 21.4%.6 24.4+2.9 0. 1 miles 9 87* Unit 2, N. Fence, N. Of E. Side of 315'.1 24.5&.9 Screen'ouse 23.2+2.6 19.2+1.2 16.1+1.2 miles 8 88+ Demster Beach Rd., Pole f35, 0.6 mi. N.. 341'.8 of Rt. 1 16.0%.5 14.2&.2 miles 8 97

-79

TABLE 12A (Continued)

DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS Results in units of miem/quarterly period + 2 sigma January April July October Location Station 1985 Through Through Through Through (Direction and Number Location March June September December (Distance)(3) 89* Leavitt Rd., Pole $ 16, 0.4 mi. S., of Rt. 1 14.8+1.6 13.%-0.4 21 . (H.0.4 14.$ -0.6 4.1 miles (4 90* Rt. 104> Pole f300, 150 Ft. E. of Keefe Rd.

111'.2 15.6+1.0 12.6+0.2 17.6%.9 14.2%.6 miles 8 135'.8 91* Rt SIA> Pole 059 0.8 mi. W. of Rt. 51

~ 14.3t 0.8 12.Q 0.4 14.Q.0.4 13.%.0.4 miles 8 92* Maiden Lane Rd., bower Pole, 5.6 mi., S. 156'.4 of Rt, 104 16.4%.8 14.8+0.2 17.4%. 6 14.9+0.4- miles 8 183 93* Rt. S3, Pole l-l, 120 Ft. S. of Rt. 104 15.2+1.2 13.0t 0.3 17.4+0.4 17. R--1 -3 4.4 miles 8 94* Rt. 1, Pole 882, 250 Ft. E. of Kocher Rd.

205'.7 14.6%.4 13.0+0.3 17.6&.7 13.4%'6 miles 6 95* Lakeshore Camp Site, From Alcan W. Access 223'.1 Rd., Pole 421, 1.2 mi. N. of Rt. 1 14.5&.6 12.3%.2 17.4+0.5 13.4+0.4 miles 8 237 96* Creamery Rd., 0.3mi. S. of Middle Rd.,

Pole 1 1/2 14.0%.8 13.49Q.8 18.7%.6 16.8+0-4 3.6 miles 8 97* Rt. 29, Pole of Miner Rd.

199'.8 IISQ, 200 Ft. N. 15.%f 0.8 13.&.0.2 19.0+1.4 14.Q.0.4 miles 8 98*

-143'.2 Lake Rd.; Pole 0145, 0.15 mi. E. of Rt. 29 16.5+1.4 14.8&.4 20. 1&.5 14.6&.4 miles 8 99 NMP Rd., 0.4 miles N. of Lake Rd.; Env.

101'.8 Station Rl Off-Site 15.8+1.4 15.8&.3 20. 1+0. 8 16.0%'6 miles 8 1QQ Rt. 29 and Lake Rd., Khv. Station R2 88'.1 Off-Site 14.8%.6 14. 1&.5 19.8%.4 16.4+0. 9 miles 101 Rt. 29, 07 mi. S. of Lake Rd., Env. Station 8-104'.5 R3 Off-Site 17.2+1.0 13.1+0.6 18.8&.8 15.2&.5 miles 8 102 EOF/Env. Lab, Oswego Co. Airport (Fulton 132'1.9 Airport), Rt. 176 (2) (2) 18.8+1.2 15.6&. 8 miles 8 (0

175.'.4 103 EIC, East Garage Rd., Lamp Post (2) 11.2f 0.4 14.7+0.4 miles 8 267'1)

TLD lost in the field.

(2) TLD not established during the quarterly peribd .

'(3) Direction and distance based on NMP-2 reactor cehterline and sixteen 22.5'ector grid.

Technical Specification location

-80

TABLE 12B DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS Results in units of.mrem/standard month + 2 sigma January April July October Location Station '1985 Through Through Through Through (Direction and Number Location March June September 'ecember (Distance)(3) 3 Dl On Site 9.4+1.2 5.R.0.2 12'.2+1. 2 14.7+1.9 0.2 miles (~

4 D2 On Site 6.6&.9 5.6K.4 6.Xm.4 5.7&.1 0.4 8 140 69'iles 5 E On Site 6.3f 0.8 5.8 0.6 5.7+0.5 5.2+0.3 0.4 miles 8 6 F On Site 5. 7&.4 4.7&.2 5.2&.9 4.7&.7 0.5 8 175'iles 7* G On Site 5.7+0.6 4;4>0.1 6.4+0.4 5.4f 0.7 0.7 8 250 210'iles 8 R-5 Off Site-Control 6.3&.9 5.4%.4 7~7 Qo5 5.4&.4 16.4 miles 8 42 9 Dl Off Site 5.5f 0.6 4.N.0.2 6.Q-0.2 5. 1+0.4 11.4 miles 8 80 10 D2 Off Site 5.6%.5 5.0&.2 6.5&.3 4.7&.4 9.0 miles 8 11 E Off Site 4.$ .0.8 4.7+0.1 6.4+0.8 4.Q-0.2 7.2 117'iles 8

12 F Off Site 5.5&.7 4.7&.2 6.3&.4 5. 1+0.5 7-7 160'iles 8

13 G Off Site 5.8f 0.9 4.$ .0.4 6.4+0.3 4.$ 0.4 5.3 8 190'iles DeMass Rd., SW Oswego-Control 6. 1+1.1 4.7&.3 6.8&.4 5.0%.2 12.6 8 225'iles 15* Pole 66, W. Boundary-Bible Camp 5.2+1. 1 3.9l.0. 1 6.(H 0.7 4.7+0.4 0.9 8 226'iles 18* Energy Info. Center Lamp Post, SW. 5. 8+1.0 5.0%.2 7.0&.3 5.3' 0.4 8 237'iles 19 East Boundary-JAF, Pole 9 .6.4+1.2 5.2+0.4 6.3f 0.5 4.7+0.2 1.3 8 265'iles 23* H On Site 7.4+1.4 . 5.2&.4, 8.4%. 9 7-4+0.5. 0.8 8 81'iles 24 I On Site 6.2+0.6 4.$ -0.2 7.5f 0.3 5.0f 0.3 0.8 8 98 70'iles 25 J On Site 6.3K.6 4. 7&.3 6.2&.5 4.6K.4 0.9 miles 8 26 K On Site 6.$ -0.6 5.Q.O. 1 5.9&0.4 4.Q.0.3 0.5 110'iles 8

27 N. Fence, N. of Switchyard, JAF 15.3<.4 &.6+1.0 21.6+5.5 26. l+6.2 0.4 8 132'iles 28 N. Light Pole, N. of Scieenhouse, JAF 2 2.7+8.4 13.3f.3. 2 28.2+7.8 3 3.9+12.4 0.5 8 60'iles 29 N. Fence, N. of W. Side Screenhouse, JAF 33.6+lli3 32.7%. 1 45.24B-3 55. 2+14. 1 0.5 8 68'iles 30 N. Fence (NW) JAF 12>>$ .2.5 . 6.$ -0.7 17.Q-2.8 20. 1+3.6 0.4 8 65'iles 31 N. Fence (NW) NMP-1 8. 9+1.2 7 6&.8 10.2+2.4 7. 8+1.2 0.2 57'iles

~

~ 8 39 N. Fence, Rad Waste, NMP-1 12.9l-3.6 12.3+1.3 14.Q-2.2 11. Q-2.2 0.2 8 292 276'iles

TABLE 12B (Continued)

DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS Results in units of mrem/standard month + 2 sigma January April .Inly October Location Station 1985 Through Through Through Through (Direction and Number Location March June September December (Distance)(3) 47 N. Fence, NE, JAF (1) 7. 3+1. 0 15.4+1.8 14.7+2.2 0.6 miles 8 69' 49* Phoenix, NY-Control 5.4+0.6 4.5+0.2 6.4+0.4 4.4+0.4 19.8 miles 170' 51 Liberty & Bronson Sts., E of OSS 5.6+0.6 4.9+0.2 6.4+0.3 5.2+0.5 7.4 miles 233' 52 East 12th & Cayuga Sts., Osw. School 5.4+0.3 4.7+0.2 6.1+0.4 4.2+0.2 5.8 miles 227' 53 Broadwell & Chestnut Sts., Fulton H.S. 5.6+0.5 6.2+0.4 6.8+0.8 4.7+0.3 13.7 miles 183' 54 Liberty St., & Co. Rte. 16, Mexico H.S. 5.4+1.4 4.7+0.2 6.0+0.2 4.4+0.3 9.3 miles llS' 55 Gas Substation & Co. Rt. 5 Pulaski 5.2+0.3 5.1+0.3 6.1+0.3 5.4+0.8 13.0 miles 75' Sp -

Rt. 104 New Haven Sch. (SE Corner) 5.3+0.5 5.3+0.5 6.5+0.4 5.2+0.6 . 5.3 miles 123' 58* Co. Rt. 1A Alcan (E. of E. Entrance Rd.) 5.3+0.6 5.0+0.4 6.6+0.5 4.3+0.3 3.1 miles 220' 59 Environmental Lab JAFNPP 14.5+2.2 6.2+0.6 8.4+0.8 7.9+1.5 0.5 miles 95' 75" Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Reactor Bldg. 6.7+0.4 4.8+0.5 7.0+0.4 5.2+0.4 0.1 miles s 76~ Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Change House 8.8+3.0 5.0+0.6 7.0+0.4 5.4+0.6 0.1 miles 8 2S' 770 Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Pipe Bldg. 10.1+2.1 6.1+0.4 7.7+1.4 6.2+0 4 0.2 miles 4s 78* JAF, E. of'E. Old Lay Down Area 6.1+0.9 5.0+0.4 7.2+0.2 5.2+0.3 1.0 miles 8 90' 79+ Co. Rt. 29, Pole 863, 0.2 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 5.4+0.9 4.1+0.2 6.4+0.4 4.0+0.2 1.1 miles 115' 80* Co. Rt. 29, Pole 454, 0.7 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 5.6+0.8 4.6+0.2 6.8+0.4 5.,2+0.6 1.4 miles 133' 81* Miner Rd., Pole 416, 0.5 mi. W. of Rt. 29 5.2+0.4 4.2+0.3 6.2+0.4 (1) 1.6 miles 159' 82* Miner Rd., Pole fl 1/2, 1.1 mi. W. of Rt. 29 5.2+0.5 4.4+0.2 6.2+0.6 4.4+0.2 1.6 miles 181' 83* Lakeview Rd., Tree, 0.45 mi. N. of Miner Rd. 5.2+0.7 4.4+0.3 6.2+0.6 4.2+0.3 1.2 miles 84* Lakeview Rd. N , Pole f6117, 200 Ft. N. of Lake Rd. 5.0+0.7 4. 3+0. 2 6. 2+0. 5 4.2+0.4 1.1 miles 8 85* Unit 1, N. Fence, N. of W. Side of 225'.2 200'.8 Screen House 12.2+3.4 9.4+0.9 12.6+3.4 9.8+2.0 miles 8 86+ Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of W. Side of 294'.1 Screen House 7.2+1.1 5.1+0.5 7.0+0.4 7.9+1.8 miles 8 Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of E. side of 315'.1 Screen House 8.1+1.8 6.4+0.8 8.0+0.6 S.2+0.8 miles 8 341' 88* Demster Beach Rd., Pole 435, 0.6 mi.

I N. of Rt. 1 5.6+0.4 4. 7+0. 1 miles 974

-82

v TABLE 12B (Continued)

DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS Results in units of mrem/standard month + 2 sigma January April July October Location Station 1985 Through Through Through Through (Direction and Number Location March 'une September December (Distance)(3) 89* Leavitt Rd., Pole 016, 0.4 mi. S. of Rt. 1 5.2+1. 1 4.Q.0.3 7. 1+0.2 4.WO.4 miles 8 111'.2 90* Rt. 104, Pole 4300, 150 Ft. E. of Keefe Rd. 5.4&. 8 4.0%. 1 6.0%.6 4.4K.3 miles 8 135'.8 91* Rt. 51A, Pole 459, 0.8 mi. W. of Rt. 51 5. 2%0.6 4. 1+0.3 4.9l.0.3 4.2+0.3 miles 8 92k Maiden Lane Rd., Power Pole, 0-6 mi., 156'.4 S ~ of Rt. 104 5.9%.6 5.0%. 1 5.8&.4 4.0%.2 miles 8

'.1 183'.4 93* Rt. 53, Pole 1-1, 120 Ft. S. of 104 5.Q.0.9 4.4f 0.2 5.8&0.2 5.&0.8 miles 8 94* Rt. 1, Pole 882, 250 ft. E. of Kocher Rd. 4.1&.1 6.0&.4 205'.7 5.+0.3 4.2K.4 miles 8 223 95* Lakeshore Camp Site, From Alcan W.

Access Rd., Role f21,.1.2 mi. N. of Rt. 1 5.3%.4 4.1&.1 5.8K.4 4. 1+0.3 4.1 miles 8 96* Creamery Rd., 0.3 mi. S of Middle Rd.,

237'.6 Pole 1 1/2 5. 1&.6 4.5K.5 6.3%.4 5 ~ 2& 3 miles 8 199 97* Rt. 29, Pole 850, 200 Ft. N. of Miner Rd. 5;4+0.6 4.%f0. 1 6.4+1 .0 4.6&0.2 1.8 miles 8 98*

143'.2 Lake Rd , Pole 4145, 0.15 mi. E. of Rt. 29 5.8+1.1 4.8&.2 6.8%.4 4.6&.2 miles 8 99 NMP Rd., 0.4 miles N. of Lake Rd , Env.

101'.8 Station Rl Off-Site 5.6+1.1 5.2&.2 6. 8%. 6 5.0&;4 miles 8 100 Rt. 29 and Lake Rd., Env. Station R2 88'.1 Off-Site 5.2%.4 4.6&.3 6.6&.2 5.2%.8 miles 8 104 101 Rt.. 29, 0.7 mi. S. of Lake Rd., Eav.

Station R3 Off-Site 6.0%0.7 .- 4.3&.4 6-4&.6 4.8K.4 1.5 miles 8 102 EOF/Env. Lab, Oswego Co. Airport (Fulton 132'1.9 Airport), Rt. 176 (2) (2) 6.3&.8 4.8%.5 miles 8 175'.4 103 EIC, East Garage Rd., Lamp Post (2) 6.R.0.4 (1) 4.7+0.2 miles 8 267 lost in field.

'1)

TLD (2) TLD not established during the quarterly period.

(3) Direction and distance baaed on NMP-2 reactor centerline and sixteen 22.5'ector grid .

Technical Specification location.

-83

TABLE 13 CONCENTRATION OP GAMMA EHITTERS IN MILK Results in units of pCi/liter + 2 sigma Station Nucl'ides 4-8-85 4-22-85 5-6-85 5-ZO-85 6-3.7-85 k-40 1380+140 1380+14 Q 127 0+13Q 1360+140 1250+130 1360+140 Cs-134 <5.3 <8.3 <4.0 <5.2 <5 ~ 2 <5. 1 Cs-137 <5o 2 <7.6 <4.0 <6.4 <6.4 <6 ~ 2 Ba/La-140 <6. 2 <7.7 <4.1 <5.3 <6 ' <8.3 0 thers <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 16 K-40 1320+130 1240+120 1330+130 1370+140 1260+130 104 0+100 Cs-134 <4.6 <4.5 .4.4 ~7.5 <B.1 <7.8 Cs-137 <4.5 <4.3. . <4.2 <7.6 <7 a5 <7.7 Ba/La-140 <6. 1, c.4.5 <4.3 <8.2 ~8.5 <9.6 Others <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 50 K-40 1220+120 1380+140 1310+130 135 U+14U 1480+150 124 0+120 Cs-134 <4.6 <4.1 <5. 5 <5-9 ~b d <v.z Cs-137 <4.2 <4.3 <5. 1 <5 8 <0.4 <>.u Ba/La-140 <6 3 <4.5 <5.4 <5.4 ~

<7 2 <9.3 0 thers <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <Ll,D K-4Q 144 Q+140 1520+150 1620+160 133 0+l30 1410+140 145 U+15O Cs-134 <4.4 <5.5 <8.3 <3.9 <3.9 Cs-137 <4 ' <5e3 <7.9 <4 6 <J ~ 9 <4.4 Ba/La-140' <5.7 <5.7 <8.1 <4.9 <4.3 <5.3 thers <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD

-84

TABLE 13 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MILK Results in units of pCi/liter + 2 sigma r

Station Nuclides 4-'8-85 4-22"85 5-6-85 5-20-85 6-3-85 6-17-85 60 K-40 1570+160 1350+140 1400+140 1420+140 1390+140 140 0+140 Cs"134 <6.6 <4.0 <5 ~ 3 <4.3 <4.1 <4,4 Cs-137 <6.5 <4.4 <5.9 <4. 1 <4.4 Ba/La-140 <7;5 <4.2 <5.8 <4.4 <4.2 <5o 1

~ Others <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD. <LLD K-40 1400+140 1410+140 1370+140 1490+150 1320+130 142 0+14 0 Cs-134 <4.3 <4.3 <4.3 <8 ~ 1 <5.7 <6.2 Cs-137 <4.0 <4.5 <4.0 <7'7 <6. 1 <6.9 Ba/La-140 <5.5 <4.8 <3e7 '8.3 <6.5 <7.8 Others <LLD <LLD <I.LD ~ <LLD <LLD <LI,D 40* K-40 967+97 1350+140 1520+150 1430+140 1400+140 149 &150 (Control) Cs-134 <6 ~ 6. <7.9 <4.4 <7.5 <5.6 <5.4 Cs-137 <6. 1 <7 ~ 1 <4.2 .<7 0 <5.3 <5.1 .,

Ba/La-140 <6.8 <7o2 <6.3 <6 6 <5.5 <7+2 Others <LLD. <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD (LLD e-Technical Specification location

-85

I ~

TABLE 13 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OP GAMMA EMITTERS IN MILK Results in units of pCi/liter + 2 sigma Station Nuclides 7-8-85 7-22-85 8-5-85 8-19-85 9-9-85 9-23-85 K-40 1240+120 1350+140 1120+110 1310+130 1220+120 123 0+120 Cs-134 <5.6 <4.4 <5.5 <4 ~ 1 - <5.6 <4.2 Cs-137 <6 ' <4 ~ 1 <6.3 <4.0 <6.4 <4.3.

Ba/La-140 <8.0 <5 o3 <12.0 <5.7 <9.7 <6. 1 0 thers <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 16 K-40 1270+130 144 0+140 824482 1320+130 1310+130 132 (H130 Cs-134 <7 8 <4 ~ 2 <7. 9 <4.3 <8. 1 <3.9 l Cs-137 <4.5

<7 ~ 6 <5.2 <7.9 <4.8 ~

<7.9 Ba/La-140 <8.6 <5.9 <7.7 <5.0 <9.7 <5.7 Others <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 7

50 K-40 1140+110 1270>130 1150+120 1260+130 1510+150 126 0+130 i

Cs-134 <6 ~ 2 <6.2 <5.7 <5 8 <6.2 <6'2 Cs-137. <6.2 <6.3 <5.7 <5.8 <6 0 <5.7 Ba/La-140 <8 7 <8.2 <7+3 <7.9 <8.9 <7.6 Others <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 55 K-40 152(H150 1380+140 1450+150 1290>130 . 1320%130 140 0+14 0

<3 '

I Cs-134 <4.2 <7 ~ 2 <4.3 <4.5 <4.5 Cs-137 <3.9 <4.4 <6.7 <4 ~ 6 <4.0 .<4 ~ 8 Ba/La-140 <5.0 <5.3. <6.4 .<6. 2 <5.4 <6.3 Others <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD

-86

TABLE 13 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION QF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MILK Results in units. of pCi/liter + 2 sigma If t

Station Nuclides 7-8-85 7-22-85 8-5-85 8-19-85 9-9-85 9-23-85 I

60 '-40 1410+140 1480+150 1520+150 1460+150 138 0+140 1390+140 7 Cs'-134 <4.5 <F 1 <4.2 <4.0 <4.2 <4,4 Cs-137 <4 ~ 1 <4.5 <4'4 <4 ~ 1 <4.6 <4.4 Ba/ La-140 <5 ~ 2 <6. 1 <4. 1 <5.8 <5. 1 <6. 1 0 there <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD K-40 143 0+140 1310+130 1380+140 1220+120 1350+140 1350+14 0 Cs-134 <5.5 ~

<4.3 <5. 9 <7.4 <5.2 <3.9

.i Cs-137 <6 ' <4-9 <6.3 <7. 8 <6.0 <4.3 I Ba/Ia-140 <7 +3, '<6.4 <13.0 <10.0 <7.6 <5.6 i Others <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD I

40* K-40 1470+150 1370+140 1130+110 1430+140 1320+130 141%14 0 (Contxol) Cs-134 <502 <3.9 <7 ~ 6 <5.5 <5.4 <3.9 Cs-1.37 <5. 1 <3.9 <6.8 <5.5 <5.5 <4.3 Ba/La-140 <6.5 <6.1 <7.3 <7ol <6.5 <5.3 Others <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD . <LLD <LLD e-Technical Specification location

TABLE 13 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OP GAMMA KNITTERS IN MILK Results in units of pCi/liter + 2 sigma

'tation Nuelides 10-7-85 10-21-85 11-4-85 11-18-85 12-2-85 12-.16-85 K-40 1290+130 12904130 1250%130 1340+130 1350+140 144 Q+140 Cs-134 <5.4 <4.5 <5. 7 <4.4 <5. 1 <5.9 Cs-137 <5.3 <4.7 <5.8 <4.3 (6.0 (6.0

'a/La-140

<6.3 (6.0 <5 o7 (5.6 <6.6 (6.2 Others <LLD <LLD (LLD <LLD (LLD (LLD 16 K-40 1350+140 1170>120 1360+140 1280+130 1100+110 147 0+150 Cs-134 <4.3 <5.9 <5.6 <6.3 (6.7 (4.1 Cs-137 <4.4 <6.0 <5.4 <6.2 <6,5 <3.9 Ba/La-140 <5. 1 <8.7 <4.7 <7.7 <7.3 <4.4 Others <LLD (LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD

'LLD 50 K-40 1300>130 1290+130 127 04130 12&0+130 1110+110 130 0+13 0 C0-134 <7.9 <4.3 <6 ~ 2 <6.2 <5.3 <e.e Cs<<137 <7.5 <4. 1 <7. 1 <5-6 <5.3 <8.7 Ba/La-140 <9o3 <6.1 <7.7 <7.3 <6.6 <6.2 0 thers . <LLD (LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD (LLD K-40 13004130 1270+130 1390~140 1390+140 1460+150 130 0&130 Cs-134 <5.4 <6 ' <6.3 <4.5 <3.6 <6.4, Cs-137 (6. 1 <6.0 <6.4 (4 6 <3.5 <6.4 Ba/La-140 (8. 1 <6.6 <7. 1 <5.7 <4.4 <7.9 Others (LLD (LLD <LLD (LLD <LLD <LLD

-ee

TABLE 13 (Continued)

CONCENT1QTION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MILK Results in units of pCi/liter + 2 sigma Station Nuclides 10-7-85 10-21-85 11-4-85 11-18-85 12-2-85 12-16-85 60 K-40 1280+130 1320+130 1270>130 1300+130 129 0+130 134 0+130 Cs-134 <6 ' <4.6 <4.1 <4.0 <3.8 <4 ~ 0 Cs-137 <5.9 <4.4 <4.2 <4.5 <3.8 <4. 1 Ba/La-140. <8.5 <5.0 <4. 1 <6.0 .<3.6 <4.0 Others <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD K-40 1430+140 1290>130 1390>140 1440+140 . 1270+130 149 0+150 Cs-134 <$ .1 <8.0 <7 ~ 7 <4 ~ 6 <4.9 <8.0 Cs-137 <4.2 <7.0 <7.8 <4,3 <5 1 <7.9 Ba/La-140 <5.6 <9.6 <6.9 <6.5 <5.4 <8. 1 0 thers <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 404 KHO 1330+130 137 lH140 1290+130 1350+130 140 0y140 137 (H14 0 (Control) Cs-134 <7 ~ 6 <5 8 <4.1 <4.3 <5.0 <7.6 Cs-137 <7.0 <6 0 <4.2 <4.2 <4.6 <6.9 Ba/La-140 <8.8 <7.5 <4.0 <7.7 <5.1 <8.7 Others <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD

-Technical Specification location

-89

TABLE 14 CONCENTRATION OF IODINE 131 IN MILK (1)

Results in unita of pCi/liter + 2 sigma Station 4-8-85 4-22-85 5-6-85 5-20-85 6-3-85 6-17-85 7 ~0. 18 <0. 18 <0 ~ 23 <0. 14 <0 ~ 27 <0. 20 16 <0. 18 <0. 16 <0. 18 <0. 13 <0.44 <0.20 50 <0.19 .<0.17 <0.22 <0. 15 <0. 25 <0.20 55 <0. 18 <0. 17 <0.27 <0. 12 <0. 26 <0. 22 60 <0.15 <0.17 <0.29 <0.10 <0.35 <0.31 4 <0.21 <0. 16 <0.18 <0.13 <0. 20 <0.17 40* <0.16 <0. 16 <0.21. <0.14 <0.18 <0. 16 Station 7-8-85 7-22-85 8-5-85 8-19-85 9-9-85 9-23-85 7 i0.24 i0.15 <0.39 %.0.28 ~0 22 <0.24 16 <Q. 22 <0 15 <0.44 <0.39 <0.38 <0.20 50 ~0,27 ~0.19 ~0.27 ~0.26 ~0.37 <0.22 55 <Oo33 19

'0.

<0.40 <0. 28 <0.27 <0.25 60 i0.38 ~0.21 ~0.41 ~0.28 <0.25 <0.27 4 <0.20 <0. 16 <0. 29 <0. 23 <0. 17 <0.49 40 ~0.27 i0.14 ~0.25 ~0.22 <0.31 <0.21 Control result. Technical Specification location'1)

Iodine 131 results are corrected for decay to the sampling atop date ~

~ -90.

TABLE 14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATION OF IODINE - 131 IN MILK (1)

Results in units of pCi/1'iter + 2 sigma Station 10-7-85 10-21-85 11-4-85 11-18-85 12-2-85. 12-16-85 7 <0.25 ~0.29 ~0. 23 i0.32 c.0.40 <V. 21 i16 <0.42 <0.27 <0. 21 <0.39 <0. 22 <0.21 50 <0.25 <<0.35 ~0.19 <0.20 <0.24 <0.26 55 <0.38 <0.32 <0. 26 <0.22 <0. 25 <U.25 60 <0.20 <0.35 <0.45 <0.28 <0.24 <0. 18 4 <0.22 <0.34 <Oo 21 <0.30 <0. 21 (0 ~ 22 404 <0.44 <0.29 <0.43 <0.29 <0.20 <0.20 Control result. Technical Specification location (1) Iodine 131 results are corrected for decay to the sampling stop date .

TABLE 15 MILK ANIMAL CENSUS SPRING 1985 Number oa Number of Towa or Area(a) ~Census Ma ~De ress Milk Animals Scriba 1(b) 114'istance 220'6*

190 3.0 miles 5.9 None 44C 2 195' 8.0 ND 190' 4.5 2C (b) 162'6 2.2 lc (b) 1.5 None New Haven 8 33C 9 5.2 42C 4* 7.8 78C 45 8.0 None 10(b) 130'5'13'25'30'46'30'07'41'07 2.6 33C 5 7.2 45C 11 8.5 40C 7* 5.5 69c 48 2.9 None Mezico 12 11>> 5 70C 13 11. 2 2C 14 9.8 70C 15 114'20'00'15'104 10.8 37C 17 10.2 43C 18 10.0 48C 19 10 5 42C ll.

182'.2

.132'234 20 2 None 60m 9.5 35C 50% 8.2 150C 55* 90'3'5'3.2'8 9.0 54C 21 10 5 75C 49*44'2 7.9 1G(2)

Ric~d 85 10 2 40C 23 92 10.5 75C Oswego 8.8 None Hannibal 220 15.0 30C Volney 9.5 None XOTDLS: 1158 Cows 1 Goat C~ Cows G>> Goats Milk sample location

0' Milk sample control location 4** e New locatioa ND ~ Did not wish to participate in the survey (1)- Refereaces Figure 4 (2) Goat is not currently producing milk None>> No cows or goats at that locatioa. Location was a previous location with cows or goats.

(a) ~ Ceasus performed out to a distance of approzimately ten miles.

(b)- Location within three miles (Technical Specification requirement).

-92

TABLE 16 1985 RESIDENCE CENSUS Map~1~ Meteorological Location Location Sector De rees Distance N

NNE NE ENE Sunset Bay A E miles Lake Road B ESE 1.1 miles County Route 29 C SE 1.4 miles Miner Road D SSE 1.6 80'02'30'63'70'03'28'38'.4 miles Miner Road E S 1.6 miles Lakeview Road F SSW 1.2 miles Lakeview Road G SW 1.1 miles Bible Camp Retreat H WSW 0.9 miles W

WNW NW NNW

This meteorological sector over Lake Ontario. No residence within three miles.

(1) Corresponds to Figure 3.

93

I TABLE 17A CONCENTRATION OF GAHMA EHITTERS IN FOOD PRODUCTS Resul(s in units, of pCi/g (wet) + 2 sigma Collection Sample Site Date Description K-40 I-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 Others N 9-16-85 Cabbage <0.15 2,0%.0.26 <0.021 <0.019 <0.015 <LLD 0 9-16-85 Beet Greens <0.23 3.52%.35 <0.032 <0.027 Q. 0479).021 <LLD P 9-16-85 Collard Greens <0.16 4.37+0.44 <0.021 <0.017 <0.017 <LLD N* 9-16-85 Swiss Chard <0.29 3.37&.41 <0,047 <0.033 <0.033 <LLD 9-16-85 Tomatoes <0.08 1.14+0.13 <Q.013 <0.00& <0.009 <LLD S 9-16-85 Tomatoes <0.08 1.65%. 17 <0.013 <0.010 <0.010 <LLD

'R 9-16-85 Tomatoes <0.15 2.34+0.27 <0.023 <0.017 <0.018 <LLD N* 10-28-85 Tomatoes <0.09 2.31+Q.23 <Q.Q14 <0.011 <0.011 <LLD

Control result Reeulte iu uolte of activity ~er gram wet weight 1

-94

TABLE 17B CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA KNITTERS IN FOOD PRODUCTS Results in units of pCi/kg (wet) + 2 sigma Collection Sample Site Date Description Be-7 K-40 I-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 Others N 9-16-85 Cabbage <150 205 $ -260 <21 <15 <LLD 0 . 9-16-85 Beet Greens <230 3520%350 <32 <27 47+21 <LLD P 9-16-85 Collard Greens <160 437$ -440 <21 <17 <17 <LLD M+ Swiss Chard <290 33702410 <47 <33 <33 <LLD 9-16-85'-16-85 Tomatoes <<80 11404130 <13 <8 <9 <LLD S 9-16-85 Tomatoes <80. 1650+170 <13 <10 <10 <LLD R 9-16-85 Tomatoes <150 2340&270 <23 <17 <18 <LLD N* 10-28-85 Tomatoes <90 2310+230 <14 <11 <11 <LLD

Control result

-95

TABLE 18 COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS

'NTERLABORATORY Analysis Date 'Medium Site Reference No. EPA Result (1) Site Result (2)

Beta 3/85 Air Filter QA 85-23 36.0t 8.7 44.0+1.6 (3)

(pCi/filter) 45.0+1.7 45.5+1 .7 Beta e/es Air Filter gA 85"91 4 4.$ -5.0 60.2+9;8 (3)

(pCi/filter) 61.4+5.9 5 9.$ -5.8 Tritium 6/85 Water gA 85-53 241Q.351 2600+100 (4)

(pCi/liter) 2600+100 270$ -200 Tritium 10/85 Water QA 85-111 1974+345 1900+100 (4)

(pCi/liter) 2100+200 200@.200 I-131 3/85 Milk QA 85-15 9.0+1 .6 7.%.0.9 (4)

(pCi/liter) 8.0+1 0 7.$ -0.9 I-131 8/es Water gA 85-79 33.(H 6.0 33.9+13.5 (3)

(pCi/liter) 35.6+17.5 38.0+15.2 I-131 12/85 Water gA 85-134 4 5.N-9.0 51.1+27.9 (3)

(pCi/liter) 53.5+7. 9 48.&7.2

-96

I TABLE 18 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS AnalYsis Date Medium Site Reference No. EPA Result.(1) Site Result (2)

Gamma 1/85 Food QA 85-7 3 5.0+10.4 42.9+10.9 (3)

(I-131) (pCi/kg) 44.6+10.8 4 4.0+17.8 Gamma 1/85 Food QA 85-7 29.$ .8.7 35.~S.6 (3)

.(Cs-137) (pCi/kg) 38.0+5.0 39.$ -6.9 Gamma 1/85 Food QA 85-7 1382+120 1200+120 (3)

(K-40)* (pCi/kg) 1270+130 1190%120 Gamma 7/85 Food qA 85-70 35.$ .6.0 37.$ -3.0 (3)

(I-131) (pCi/kg) 39.0+2.0 36.$ -3.0 Gamma 7/85 . Food QA 85-70 29.$ -5.0 31.Q-5.2 (3)

(Cs-137) (pCi/kg) 33.6A.3 34.8>4.9 Gamma 7/85 Food QA 85-70 1514+76 1340+130 (3)

(Z-40)+ (pci/kg) 1380+140 1300+130

-97

I TABLE 18 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS Analysis Date Medium Site Reference No. EPA Result (1) Site Result (2)

Gamma 2/85 Water QA 85-8 48.(H &.7 38.4+12.6 (3)

(Cr-51) (pCi/liter) 43. 6+7. 6 4 3.0+12.3 Gamma 2/85 Water QA 85-8 20.(H 8.7 17.$ -2.3 (3)

(C 60) (pCi/liter) 18.9+2.5 18.4+1 .3 Gamma 2/85 Water QA 85-8 55.%-8.7 55 4%6.1 (3)

(Zn-65) (pCi/liter) 49.7+5. 1 54.&5.3 Gamma ~ 2/85 Water QA 85-8. 25.08 7 28.3+10.1 (3)

(Ru-106) (pCi/liter) 30. 8+10-3 36.3+13.0 Gamma . 2/85 Water QA 85-8 35.0& 8.7 29.$ 2.2 (3)

(Cs-134) (pCi/liter) 30.3+2.3

28. 1+2.3 Gamma 2/85 Water QA 85-8 25.(H-&.7 22.9L2.2 (3)

(Cs-137) (pCi/liter) 22.5+1.2 20.Q-2.0

-9&

TABLE 18 (Continued)

XNTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS Analysis Date Medium Site Reference No. EPA Result (1) Site Result (2)

Gamma 4/85 Water QA 85-34 15.0I-5.0 15.1+3.9 (4)

(Co-60) (pCi/liter) 17.4+5.0

12. 1+4.9 Gamma 4/85 Water QA 85-34 15.0I-5.0 15.8I-3.4 (4)

(Cs-134) (pCi/liter) 12.7<.7 21.3I.5.4 Gamma 4/85 Water QA 85-34 12.0I-5.0 11.1+3.6 (4)

(Cs-137) (pCi/liter) 15.4+4. 1 15.6I-6.7 Gamma 6/85 Water QA 85-49 4 4.0I.5.0 62.7+40.6 (3)

(Cr-51) (pCi/liter) 67.3%3.8 65.8I4 9.2 Gamma 6/85 Water QA 85-49 14.0I.5.0 24.0I-8.8 (3)

(c so) (pCi/liter) 19.0%. 1 17.6I 6.9 Gamma 6/85 Water QA 85%9 4 7.0}-5.0 52,8I.3.2 (3)

(Zn-65) (pCi/liter) 52.3+16. 1 51 .8+16.0

TABLE 18 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS Analysis Date Medium Site Reference No. EPA Result (1) Site Result (2)

Gamma 6/es Water QA 85-49 62.(H 5.0 83.0+12.3 (3)

(Ru-106) (pCi/liter) 84.6+43.8 77 7+6be3 Gamma 6/8S Water qA 85-49 35. (H-5.0 35 ~ 7+10.9 (3l

( Cs-134) ( pCi/liter) 33.5+8.1 35.5t 8.7 Gamma 6/es Mater qA 85-49 20.N-5.0 2 3. 2+7 .3 (3)

(Cs-137) (pCi/liter) 23.2+7.9 22.4+7.0 Gamma 10/8S Water gA 85-108 21.N-5.0 37.9&21.9 (3J (Cr-Sl) (pCi/liter) 49. 7+29.4 46.3g 9.3 Gamma (Co-60) 10/85 'ater (pCi/liter) qA 85-108 20 ~ (H-5.0 24.2+7.1 (3) 19-6+3.6

"'22'+6.0 Gamma 10/85 Mater gA 85-108 19.0t-5.0 19.7+6.7 (3)

(Zn-65) (pCi/liter) 34.5+12.3 32.6+11.5

-100

TABLE le (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAH RESULTS Analysis Date Medium Site Reference No. EPA Result (1). Site Result (2}

Gamma 10/85 Water gA 85-108 20.lH.5.0 36.4+23.0 (3)

(Ru-106) (pCi/liter) 44.1+37.9 4 2. 3I.3 5.5 Gamma lo/es Water gA 85-108 20.Qf 5.0 16.7+3.0 (3)

( Cs-134) (pCi/liter) 19-3%.9

17. 7+5.0 Gamma 10/85 Mater QA 85-108 20.%-5.0 20.&4.7 (3)

(Cs-137) (pCi/liter) ~

19. 6+3.0 21.2+5.3 Gamma lo/es .Water QA 85-11Z 18. (H 5.0 20 N.3.4 (3l (co-6o) (pCi/liter)

Gamma 10/85 Mater gA 85"112 18.0+5.0 17.8+3.b (3)

(Cs-134) (pCi/liter)

Gamma 10/&5 Water QA 85-1'lZ 18.0+5.0 21.6+3.4 (3}

(Cs-137) (pCi/liter)

-101

l TABLE 18 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS Analysis Date Medium Site Reference No. EPA Result (1) Site kesuit (2)

Gamma 3/85 Air Filter gA 85-23 6.(H8.7 8.tH.2.0 (3)

( Cs-137) (pCi/filter) 8.0+1.9

8. 1+2.5 Gamma 8/85 Air Filter QA 85-91 8.0f 5.0 9.1+1.9- (3)

(Cs-137) (pCi/filter) 11.5+2 1

9. Q-2.0 Gamma 6/85 Mi1k gA 85-61 ll.tH 6.0 <20.0 (4)

(I-131) (pCi/liter) (27. 0

~14.0 Gamma 6/85 Mi110 qA 85"61 11.0+5.0 13.6+4.7 (4)

(Cs-137) (pCi/liter) ll. &f3.8 9.5+3.2 Gamma 6/85 Milk gA 85-61 1525+76 1400+140 (4)-

(x-.40)* (pCi/liter) J.290+130 1410+140 Gamma 10/85 Milk QA 85-115 4 2.0+10.0 31.(H-3.0 (4)

(I-131) (pCi/liter) 33.0+3 ~ 0

34. (H.2.0

-102

TABLE 18 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS Analysis Date Medium Site Reference No. EPA Result (1) Site Result (2)

Gamma 10/85 Milk gA 85-115 56.0+9.0 57.&5.8 (4)

( Cs-131) (pCi/liter) 62.3%) .2 5 4.0+5.4 Gamma 10/85 Milk gA 85-115 154(H76 1250+130 (4)

(X..40)* (pCi/liter) 1260+130 1250+130

-K-40'results reported as mg per unit of total potassium for EPA result only-(1)-Results reported as activity + the standard deviation. of the error.

(2)-Results reported as activity + the error (2 sigma).

(3)-Analyzed at the site environmental laboratory.

(4)-Analyzed at a vendor laboratory.

-103

I ~ L TABLE 19 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS Sample Map Figure Location Degrees and Medium Designation Number Description Distance (1)

Shoreline 05* Figure lA Sunset Bay 80't 1.5 miles Sediment 06 Figure 1A Langs Beach, Control 230' t 5. 8 miles 07 Figure lA Nine Mile Point 275't 0.3 miles Fish 02* Figure 1A Nine Mile Point Transect 315't 0.3 miles 03* Figure 1A FitzPatrick Transect 55't 0.6 miles 00* Figure 1A Oswego Transect 235't 6.2 miles Surface Mater 03* Figure 1A FitzPatrick Inlet 70't 0.5 miles 08* Figure 1A Oswego Steam Station Inlet 235't 7.6 miles 09 Figure 1A NMP Unit 1 Inlet 305't'0.3 miles 10 Figure lA Oswego City Mater. 240't 7.8 miles

-104

)

TABLE 19 (Continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS Sample Map Pigux'e Location Degrees and Medium Designation Number Description Distance (1)

Air R-1* Figure 1A R-1 Station, Nine Mile Point Road 88 at 1.8 miles Radioiodine and R-2* Figure 2 R-2 Station, Lake Road 104't 1.1 miles Particulates R-3* Figure 2 R-3 Station> Co. Rt. 29 132't 1.5 miles R-4* Figure 2 R-4 Station, Co. Rt. 29 143't 1.8 miles R-5* Figure lA R-5 Station, Montario Point Road 42 at lb.4 mal.es Dl Figure 2 Dl On-Site Station 69't 0.2 miles D2 Figure 2 D2 On-Site Station 140't 0.4 miles Figure 2 E On-Site Station 175't 0.4 miles Figure 2 F On-Site Station 210't 0.5 miles Figure 2 G On-Site Station 250't 0.7 miles H Figure 2 H On-Site Station 71't 0.8 miles Figuxe 2 I On-Site Station 98't 0.8 miles

-105

TABLE 19 (Continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS Sample Map Figure Location Degrees and Medium Designation Number Description Distance (1)

Air Figure 2 J On-Site Station 110't 0.9 miles Radioiodine and Figure 2 K On-Site Station 132't 0.5 miles Particulates Continued Figure 1A G Off-Site Station, Saint Paul Street 225't 5.3 miles Thermo- Figure 2 Dl On-Site Station 69 at 0.2 miles luminescent Dosimeters Figure 2 D2 On-Site Station 140't 0.4 miles (TLD)

. Figure 2 E On-Site Station 175 at 0.4 miLes Figure 2 P On-Site Station 210 at 0.5 miles 7* Figure 2 G On-Site Station 250't 0.7 miles Figure 1A R-5 Off-Site Station 42't 16.4 miles

~ ~

Figure 1A Dl Off-Site Location 80't 11.4 miles 10 Figure 1A D2 Off-Site Location 117't 9.0 miles

-106

TABLE 19 (Continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS Sample Map Figure Location Degrees and Medium Designation Number Description Distance (1)

Thermo- Figure 1A E Off-Site Location 160't 7.2 miles luminescent Dosimeters 12 Figure 1A F Off-Site Location 190' t 7. 7 miles (TLD)

Continued 13 Figure 1A 0 Off-Site Station 225 at 5.3 miles 14* Figure 1A Southwest Oswego - Control 226't 12.6 miles

] 5* Figure 2 West Site Boundary 237 at 0.9 miles 18+ Figure 2 Energy Information Center 265 at 0.4 miles 19 Figure 2 East Site Boundary 81't 1.3 miles 234 Figure 2 H On-Site Station 70't 0.8 miles 24 Figure 2 I On-Site, Station 98 at 0.8 miLes 25 Figure 2 'J On-Site Station 110't 0.9 miles 26 Figure 2 K On-Site Station 132't 0.5 miles 27 Figure 2 North Fence, JAFNPP 60 a t 0.4 mile s

28. Figure 2 North Fence, JAFNPP 68't 0 ' miles

-107

TABLE 19 (Continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS Sample Map Figure Location Degrees and Medium Designation Number Description Distance (1)

Thermo- 29 Figure 2 North Fence> JAFNPP. 65't 0.5 miles luminescent Dosimeters 30 Figure 2 North Fence, JAFNPP 57 at 0.4 miles (TLD)

Continued 31 Figure 2 . North Fence, NMP-1 276't 0.2 miles 39 Figure 2 North Fence, NMP-1 292't 0.2 miles 47 Figure 2 North Fence, JAFNPP 69't 0.6 miles 49* Figure 1B Phoenix, NY - Control 170't 19.8 miles 51 Figure lA Oswego Steam Station, East 233't 7.4 miles 52 Figure 1A Oswego Elementary School, East 227't 5.8 miles 53 Figure 1B Fulton High School 183't 13.7 miles 54 Figure 1A Mexico High School 115't. 9.3 miles 55 Figure 1A Pulaski Gas Substation, Rt. 5 75't 13.0 mal.es 56* Figure 1A New Haven Elementary School 123't 5.3 miles 58* Figure 1A Co. Rt. 1 and Alcan 220't 3.1 miles

-108

d)

TABLE 19 (Continued)

ENVIRONHENTA'L SAHPLE LOCATIONS Sample Map Figure Location Degrees and Medium Designation Number Description Distance (1)

Thermo- 59 ~

Figure 2 Environmental Lab, JAFNPP 95't 0.5 miles luminescent Dosimeters 75 Figure 2 North Fence, NHP-2 5 at 0.1 miles (TLD)

Continued 76* Figure 2 North Fence, NMP-2 25't 0.1 miles 770 Figure 2 North Fence, NHP-2 45't 0.2 miles 78* Figure 2 East Boundary, JAFNPP 90't 1 0 miles 79* Figure 2 County Route 29 115't 1.1 miles 80* Figure 2 County Route 29 133't 1.4 miles 814 Figure 2 Miner Road 159't 1.6 miles 82* Figure 2 Miner Road 181't 1.6 miles 83* Figure 2 Iakeview Road 200't 1.2 miles 84* Figure 2 Lakeview Road 225't 1.1 miles 85* Figure 2 North Fence, NHP-1 294't 0.2 miles 86" Figure 2 North Fence, NHP-1 315't 0.1 miles

-109

TABLE 19 (Continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS Sample Map Figure Location Degrees and Medium Designation Number Description Distance (1)

Thermo- 87* Figure 2 North Pence, NMP-2 341't O.l miles luminescent Dosimetere 88* Figure 1A Demeter Beach Road 97't 4.8 miles (TLD)

Continued . 89* Figure 1A Leavitt Road ill't 4.1 miles 90* Figure 1A Route 104 and Keefe Road 135't 4.2 miles 9]* Figure 1A County Route 51A 156't 4.8 miles 92< 'igure 1A Maiden Lane Road 183't 4.4 miles 93+ Figure 1A County Route 53 205't 4.4 miles 944 Figure 1A County Route 1 and Kocher Road 223't 4.7 miles 95* Figure 1A Lakeshore Camp Site 237't 4.1 miles t

96* -Figure 1A Creamery Road 199 at 3.6 miles 97* Figure 2 County Route 29 143't 1.b miles 98* Figure lA Lake Road 101't 1.2 miles Figure 1A Nine Mile Point Road 88't 1.b miles

l TABLE 19 (Continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS Sample Map Figure Location Degrees and Medium Designation Number Description Distance (1)

Thermo- '00 Figure 2 County Route 29 and Lake Road 104 at 1.1 miles luminepcent Dosimeters 101 Figure 2 County Route 29 132't 1.5 miles (TLD)-

Continued 102 Figure 18 Oswego County Airport 175't 11.9 miles 103 Figure 2 Ehergy Information Center, East 267't 0.4 miles Cows Milk Figure 4 Indicator Location 107't 5.5 miles 16 Figure 4 Indicator Location 190't 5.9 miles 50 Figure 4 Indicator Location 93't 8.2 miles Figure 4 Indicator Location 95't 9.0 miles 60 Figure 4 Indicator Location 90't 9.5 miles Figure 4 Indicator Location 113't 7.8 miles 40k Figure 4 Control Location . 223't 15.0 mij.es

TABLE 19 (Continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS Sample Map Figure Location Degrees aud Medium Designation Number Description Distance (1)

Pood Products Figure 3 Indicator Location 122't 2.3 mlles O* Figure 3 Indicator Location 96't 1.8 miles Figure 3 Indicator Location 10l't 1.9 miles Figure 3 Contro1 Location 223't 15.0 miles q* Figure 3 Indicator Location 123't 2.2 miles SA Figure 3 Indicator Location 143't 1.9 miles R* Figure 3 Indicator Location 114 at 1.5 miles

-Technical Specification location .

(1) Degrees and distance based on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 reactor centerline.

-112

TABLE 20 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-220 OSWEGO COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK JANUARY DECEMBER 1985*

Location (b) of.

Type and Indicator Locations! Highest Annual Mean: Control Location: Number o f Medium Number of Mean (f). Location 6 Mean (f) Mean (f) Honroutine (Units ) A~nal ses LLD(a) Ran e R~an e ~Ran e Reports Shereline GSA(4):

Sediment (pCi/kg-dry) Cs-134 150 <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-137 180 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Co-60 N/A <LLD <LLD 0 Fish GSA (18);

(pC1/kg~et)

Mn-54 130 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Fe-59 260 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Co-58. 130 <LLD <LLD 0 Co-60 =-

130 <LLD <LLD <LLD Zn-65 260 <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-134 130 <LLD <LLD <LLD Cs-137 150 30 (12/12) JAF: 31 (6/6) 34 (6/6) 18%4 0.6 at 55'8-44 2e-47

-113

TABLE 20 (Continued)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-220 OSWEGO COUNTY STATE OF NEW YORK JANUARY - DECEMBER 1985*

Location (b) of Type and Indicator Locations t Highest Annual Mean: Control Location: Number of Medium Number of Mean (f) Location 6 Mean.(f) Mean (i) Nonroutine (Units) Renal sss LLD(a) Ran a Ran e ~Ra orts Surface H-3 (8):

Water (pCi/liter) H-3 3000 530 (4/4) JAF: 530 (4/4) ?78 (4/4) 250-1200 0.5 at 70'50-1200 230-370 GSA (24):

Mn-54 15 <LLD <LLD Fe-59 30 <LLD Co-58 15 <LLD Co-60 15 <LLD <LLD Zn-65 30 <LLD <LLD <LLD Zr-95 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD Nb-95 15 0 I-131 15(c) <LLD <LLD

-114

TABLE 20 (Continued)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-220 OSWEGO COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK JANUARY DECEMBER 1985*

Location (b) of Type and Indicator Locations: Highest Annual Mean! Control Iocation: Number o f Medium Number of Mean (f) Location & Mean (f) Mean (f) Nonroutine (U its) A~nal saa iLD(a) Ran a Ran e Ran e ~Ra orts Surface Cs-134 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD Water (pCi/liter) Cs-137 18 <LLD <LLD <LLD (Continued)

Ba/La-140 15 <LLD <LLD Air Gross Beta: 0.01 0 023(208/208) R-2 0.024(52/52) 0;024(52/52)

Particulates (260) 0.010-0.044 1.1 at 104 0.010-0.040 0.013-0.043 (pci/m3)

I-131(260): 0.07 <LLD <LLD GSA (60)!

Cs-134 0.05 <LLD <LLD <LLD Cs-137 0.06 <LLD <LLD

-115

TABLE 20 (Continued)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

NlNE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-220 OSWEGO COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK JANUARY - DECEMBER 1985*

Location (b) of Type and Indicator Locations: Highest Annual Control Location: . Number of Mectium Number of (f) Location & Mean Mean.'ean (f) Mean (f) Nonroutine (Units) A~nal aaa LDDtta) Ran a Ran e Ran e R~anrra TLD Gamma (d) 16.6(117/117) TLD~ 85 33a4(4/4) (g) lb.1(8/8)

(mrem per Dose (125)! 11.8-38.2 0.2 at 294'8.0-38.2 13.6-20.0 quarterly period)

Mi1k GSA (18)!

(pCi/liter C5-134 15 (e) (e}

Cs-137 18 (e) (e) <LLD Ba/La-140 15 (e) (e)

I-131 (18)!

I-131 (e) (e)

Food Products GSA (7)!

(pCi/kg&et)

I-131 60 <LLD <LLD Cs-134 60 ~ <LLD <LLD <LLD Cs>>137 80 47 (1/6) 0 47 (1/6) <LLD 47 1.8 at 96'116 47

1 TABLE 20 (Continued)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-220 OSWEGO COUNTY, STATE OF NEM YORK JANUARY - DECEMBER 1985+

Table Notes:

Data for Table 20 is based on Technical Specification required samples only.

N/A % Not applicable (a) LLD values as required by the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications effective January 1, 1985. LLD units specified in medium column.

(b) ~ Location is distance .in miles and direction in compass degrees based on NMP-2 reactor centerline. Units for this column specified in medium column.

(c) The Technical Specifications do not specify a particular LLD value for surface water analysis (nonMrinking water) for I-131. A, value of 15 pCi/liter is used here and represents the most recent guidance fxom the NRC.

(d) ~ The Technical Specifications do not specify a particular LLD value fox environmental TLDs. The NMP-1 Of Sitef Dose Calculation Manual contains specifications for envix'onmental TLD sensitivities..

(e) The Technical Specification criteria for indicator milk sample locations includes locations within 5.0 miles of the site. There are'o milk sample locations within 5.0 miles of the site. Therefore, the only sample location required by the Technical Specifications is the control location.

(f) ~ Fraction of number of detectable measurements to total numbex of measux'ements.

The results for TLD 085 must be evaluated with the knowledge that this TLD is in close proximity (300-500 feet) of the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 reactor building and the radwaste buildings. This TLD, as weU. as other TLDs in this area, are adjacent to the lake shoreline which is a restricted area to members of the public. There are no residences or private property near this area.

ao ORs e e

FICURH IA OFF-SITS HNVIRQOIHNTAL STATION AND TLD LOCATIONS SCALK 01 MILKS

~ ~

LMEND LAKE 10 Nl Paloohl 07 ON T ARIO hoao Oeh t&,

APS o

05 55 N 0 05 pg okh TLD lOCATION

~c 5MI ~ ~s a Veeaco Icaea veecco las saeda

~5 h HNVIROIOKNTALSTATION Iheae Cele faeaaeea MP1 aaaa leach

~ I 15 I e 00 a

00 Sl 5 IO

~ eacs IS A Y R H I Iso C

~N G

~ aM 51 em aea ae SI 0 Kl woe ~

o S L.

C 5

A cX 5 C Ohceo Ceeaoaa

~ahha c

eats

~a aa e

P R 5 45 Ioh o ~ Ceaaaoe V eaVSO 1

\

sva

l5 5a)te'5 Corners

)tung sr's s HincUo lw ttnrl I I tt tt tl M l5

<<rgae'I C)t tort) t))we45 OIs)e 5 FIGURE I-B 5 Corners A L R M 0 OFF SITE ENVIRONMENTAL teals l Russ M)t'5 Comer Mao STATION AND It 5 ra email I )5 102 Urrton trees TLD LOCATIONS es loomis. l5 ~5 (SOUIERN) N Crenel s fest

~ Inn r)rattle to ~ >>ttl I) ni ran r tea

~ one n Peal Corners

~ ten>> a>> arte) s g Comers Ha nlbal Deltal etse r- n ~

FULTO r

NaN l SAL L )rrureluamrr 53 0

ter R A N ~ I I IM

)tsnnba) Mg>> D Center

>>an>> n ltaII ~

tall M atra n II >> emd sa 0+

uuarltnr

~

t 0 M ~ >> +o

~tnHt~t ttalr Ie.

55

~

g n>> nl.

fg 1

Pew.r. Z)r) ~

~

I CAYUGA nrlr )r)rr)<<en South Crantry a

~a nnl ana M

~ l en (HQ amen>> I la l)

IWA>>al hoonht .

~t~t OHOHDAGA COUH1Y Pe Sswcwt a I

4 ~ let lt n~ ~

49 w st a rp A - Environmental TLD Locati'on )h Sjll'Kerr DnM 5)hers

l I

N JAF CAKE 0 hRI ~v D1 0

0 o ~ I (ii FIGURE 2 ON-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL STATION AND TLD LOCATIONS

~ Envim>nnental Station A TLD Location II1 ~

. l 0

-120

FIGURE S Sr<arrl Shorn Sr<<< tora NEAREST RESIDENCE AND FOOD PRODUCT LOCATIONS Ramona Beach Nine Mile Point Site Mite txoint SCALE OF NlLES Shore As E Wa~t Texas Arrtrrrra G Sieaep WSW ct ~4 he ef 41 Lake Ontario SE ~ o ttew I leven tea T0I

~ <I I Gate eel<I

~ lira tammon<ts I

~ rx<x 'E Y N Iaerrlxn M ko SSE S

S I L.

hosttn'I Comer M E eX I SI e

trattetr

/ WL 15 51

~ < 4<x i

I 1$

Wa ~ ~ oxm $1 15 4$ ~

rs l<n+ 4 o~ s w 0 uxor"' 45 1$

45 MinIUo Monger'I

~ xxrx I xl

~

e I xx 4$

OI Rrgarr>

Startler CIttard 0 Raxx DrAI's ttrrrrt Comers P A L E R M 0

)5 4$

te<rts Ross Comers 45 Mitts Cat its

$1 xnngaaa

~ I IS Y 0 N 45 45 Qo~Orxrrr<y Y

/ East ate<me

LAICAL Ore>>a

'I 10 L ONTARIO saeaas oM>>

Nine Nile Point Site C Ii sac>>a 5 L' FIGURE 4 loess Daas Iala Oaae Iaaasaas lkoeI HIM ANIHAI CENSUS AND HIM SAHPK MCATIONS I

A V E "N

~ <<MMIlra MMeM MII ~

0 C 10 L

~ 5 I X I

/ OOeOI Schmo

~I la

'I Ceaes 4 ego e

k<raa Doer t l

0 Dales R M 0 Isola Dea

~ I ~ l saD DISII

'l MD Sa>>D N loess SaeaDaa CMora SIIO S

N lMMI

~ I Ho Aal N N > I A I.

R A N

I" FIGURE 5 NEI)'ORK STATE MAF gake ante<~

ROCHESTER SYRACUSE BUFFALO ALBANY~

NEW YOR K Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit I Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant NEW YORK CfTY

-123

) 't i@1P -18234 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION

~ NIAGARA JNf'OHAWK a~ P SOO C:ate eOuiC:VaeO WC:SY SYRACUSE, N.Y. IS202 THOMAS S. LEMPGSS VCC PACCOCHC~CAII GCleCRATON April 30, 1986 f

Dr. Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia; PA 19406 RE: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit I Facility Operating License DPR-63 Docket Vc o. 50-220

Dear Dr. Morley:

In accordance with the Technical Specifications for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit I, we are enclosing the Annual Radiological Environ-mental 0 crating Re ort for the period January, 1985 through December, 1985.

Data presented in this report also provides documentation of the Preopera-tional Monitoring Program for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit II.

/

Very truly yours,

~ ~C~

Thomas E. Lempges Vice President Nuclear Generation TEL/HJF/tg Enclosure cc: Document Control Desk

ML18038A158

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Dr. Morley:

Navigation menu

ML18038A158

Text

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Dr. Morley:

Navigation menu

Search