|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:Alexander D. Sterio Plant Manager Nine Mile Point P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| ~ Constellation,, (315) 349-5205 Alexander.5terio@Constellation.com Technical Specifications NMP1L3523 May 12, 2023 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-63 and NPF-69 NRC Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| 2022 Annual Radioactive Environmental Operating Report for Nine Mile Point Units 1and 2 In accordance with the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) and Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP2) Technical Specifications, enclosed is the Annual Radioactive Environmental Operating Report for NMP1 and NMP2 for the period of January through December 2022.
| |
| This submittal does not include any regulatory commitments.
| |
| Should you have questions regarding the information in this submittal, please contact Jeremy Kerling, Manager, Site Chemistry and Radwaste, at (315) 349-1683.
| |
| Sincerely,
| |
| ~~1 Alexander D. Sterio
| |
| - ~
| |
| Plant Manager, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Constellation Generation Company, LLC ADS/KES
| |
| | |
| ==Enclosure:==
| |
| Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Llc 2022 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Cc: NRC Regional Administrator, Region 1 NRC Project Manager NRC Resident Inspector S.Veunephachan,NRC
| |
| | |
| NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, LLC 2022 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT
| |
| | |
| JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AND NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION 2022 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT
| |
| | |
| Intentionally left blank I
| |
| ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT January 1, 2022 - December 31, 2022 for JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Facility Operating License No. DPR-59, Docket No. 50-333 NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 Facility dperating License No. DPR-63, Docket No. 50-220
| |
| . NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 Facility Operating License No. NPF-69, Docket No. 50-410 Constellation Energy Corporation
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................... 1-1
| |
| | |
| ==2.0 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Program History ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Site Description ......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Program Objectives ................................................................................................... 2-2 3.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Sample Collection Methodology ............................................................................ 3-17 3.2 Analyses Performed ................................................................................................ 3-23 3.3 Sample Locations ................................................................................................... 3-24 3.4 Land Use Census ................................................................................................ 3-41 3.5 Changes to the REMP Program .......................................................................... 3-42 3.6 Deviations and Exceptions to the Program ......................................................... 3-42 3.7 Statistical Methodology ....................................................................................... 3-43 3.8 Compliance with Required Lower Limits of Detection (LLD) ........................... 3-46 3.9 Regulatory Limits ............................................................................ :.................. 3-47 4.0 SAMPLE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| TABLES IN BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION FORMAT .. .4-1 5.0 DATA EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION ................................. :................................ 5-1 5.1 Aquatic Program ................................................................ *....................................... 5-5 5.2 Terrestrial Program ................................................................................................. 5-13 5.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 5-29 5.4 References ........................................... ,................................................................... 5-30 6.0 REPORT PERIOD ANALYTICAL RESULTS TABLES ................................................ 6-1 7.0 HISTORICAL DATA TABLES ....................................................................................... 7-1 8.0 QUALITY ASSURACE/QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM ....................................... 8-1 8.1 Program Description ................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Program Schedule ..................................................................................................... 8-1 8.3 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................................... 8-2 1
| |
| 8.4 Program Results Summary ............................ :.......................................................... 8-3 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETRY COMPANY ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE STATUS REPORT ................................................................................... 9-1
| |
| | |
| LIST OF TABLES I . . . Page Table 3.0-1 Reqmred Sample Collection and Analysis JAFNPP ............................................ 3-2 Table 3.0-2 Rtuired Sample Collection and Analysis NMP Unit 1 ................ , ...................... 3-6 Table 3.0-3 Rjquired Sample Collection and Analysis NMP Unit 2 ..................................... 3-10 I . .
| |
| Table 3.3-1 EnvironmentaJ Sample Locations ..................................................................... ,. 3-25 Table 3.8-1 R~quired Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analysis Ldwer Limit of Detection (LLD) ...................................................................... *.. 3-46
| |
| * Table 4.0-1 jdiolo)lic~l Environmental Monitoring Proll'am Mnual Summary .................. 4-2 Table 6:.1 Concentrat10ns of Gamma Emitters m Shorelme Sediment Samples ................... 6-2 Table 6-2 cdncentrations of Gamma Emitters in Fish Samples ....................................... 1... 6-3 Table 6-3 C~ncentrations .of Tritium in Surface W arer Samples ...... :..... ,, .........*., .... ,........ ,... 6°4 Table 6-4 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Surface Water Samples iFitzPatrick _.._................................................................ *.. *..._. .......... *****,:******* .......... 6-5
| |
| :Oswego Steam Station................................................. ,..................................... 6-5 Nine Mile Point Unit 1 .............................................................. ; ... .-.................. 6-6 loswego City Water******* ................................. ;............................................. :... 6-6 rine Mil< Point Unit 2 *............................................ :....................................... 6-6 Table 6-5 E1~::~;:::~:~~-~:e p7i~: : .~=~*l:~ . ~~'.' .~.8.=_~,_~.~~~~-.~~~~~ . . . ;_. . 6-8 (Jul-Dec) ................................_................................ ,... 6-9 Table 6-6 Environmental Airborne Particulate Samples Onsite Sample Locations
| |
| !Gross Beta Activity (Jan~Jun) ............................................................... :. 6-10 (Jul-.Oec) ....:............................................................. 6-11 Table 6-7 E111vironmental Charcoal Cartridge Samples - Offsite Sample Locations
| |
| -131 Activity (Jan-Jun) ................................................................. 6-12 (Jul-Dec) ................................................................_. 6-13
| |
| [
| |
| Table 6-8 E1~:::::::iharcoal C*;: : ;:~'.e'. ~.~:'.:.8.~=~l~.~~~~~~~'. . . . . ,. 6_ 14 r:
| |
| (Jul-Dec) ................................................................. 6-15 ii
| |
| | |
| LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
| |
| Table 6-9 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Quarterly Composites Air Particulate Samples ........................ '. ............................... :.............................. 6-16 Offsite Sample Locations- !8\ 2 nd , 3rd , 4th Qtrs ., .......................................... 6-16 Otisite Sample Locations- I5\ 2n, 3rd, 4 th Qtrs ...... :.. ;................. :.............. '. ... 6-18 Table 6-10 Direct Radiation Measurement Results .............................................................. 6-19 Table 6-11 Concentrations of Iodine-131 and Gamma Emitters in Milk Samples Sample Location No. 55 ................................................................................. 6-21 Sample. Location No. 77 (Control) . ...... '. ..........................................................
| |
| . 6-22 Table 6-12 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Food Product Samples .............. ,........... 6-23 Table 6-13 Milk Animal Census*....... :...................,..... '. ............................. , ............................ 6-24 Table 6-14 JAF Residence Census ......................... :.................. *****************************:* .. ** .......... 6-25 Table 6.,15 NMPNS Residence Census ......... :.................................................
| |
| . . .'..................... 6-26 Historical Environmental Sample Data Table 7-1 Shoreline Sediment Control ................................................... :................... 7-2 Table 7-2 Indicator ............ ;................ ;............................ *............. 7-3 Table 7-3 Fish Control ............................................................................................ 7-4 Table 7-4 Indicator ...................................................................... 7-5 Table 7-5 Surface Water Control ......................... :....... ,...................................... 7-6 Table 7-6 Indicator ............*............ .'........................................... 7-7 Table 7-7 Surface Water Tritium
| |
| * Coiitrol* ................*....................... ;............................... 7-8 Ta_ble 7-8 Indicator ...... :.... :......... ;.......... ,.................................... 7-9 Table 7-9 Air Particulate Gross Beta Control ......................................................................................... 7-10
| |
| * Table 7_..:10
| |
| * Indicator ................ :.................. :............................... 7-11 Table 7-11 Air Particulates Control ...................................... :.............................. 7-12 Table 7-12 Indicator ................................................................... 7-13 iii
| |
| | |
| LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
| |
| Historical Environ ental Sample Data (Continued)
| |
| Table 7-13 i
| |
| Air Radioiodine Control .................................................................. ;.. 7-14 Table 7-14 Indicator ........................................ ,., ............... ,......... 7-15 Table 7-15 Environmental TLD Control ............ ,........................................................ 7-16 Table 7-16 Site Boundary .......................................................... 7-17 Table 7-17 Offsite Sectors ......................................................... 7-18 Table 7-18 Special Interest .... :.................. ................................. 7-19 Table 7-19 Onsite Indicator ....................................................... 7-20 Table 7-20 Offsite Indicator .... :..................... ;............................ 7-21 Table 7-21 Mi k Control ................................ :.................................... 7-22 Table 7-22 Indicator ..............................:................... ;................. 7-23 Table 7-23 Food Products . Control ...................................................................... 7-24 Table 7-24 Indicator ................................................................... 7-25 i
| |
| Table 7-25 NMPNS Groundwater Control ................... :.... ;............................................ 7-26 Table 7-26 Indicator ........... ,..... :........... ;................. ;................... 7-27 Table 7-27 J , NPP Groundwater Control .*..... ~ ............................................................. 7-28 Table 7-28 Indicator .......... , .. ;...................................... ;.............. 7-29 Quality Assuranc / Quality Control Program Interlaboratory Intercomparison Prpgram Table 8-1 EcJert & Ziegler Analytics ............................_.......................................................... 8-5 Table 8-2 DqE's Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) ................... 8-7 Table 8-3 E J Environmental Radioactivity Cross Check Program ................................... 8-8 IV
| |
| | |
| LIST OF FIGURES
| |
| _Figure 3.3-.1 New York State Map********************************************************:***:*************_.*************** 3-33 Figure 3 .3-2 Off-Site Environmental Station and TLD Locations Map ............ ,................ ,........ 3-34 Figure 3.3-3 On~Site Environmental Station and TLD Locations Map ............................. ,, ....... 3-35 Figure 3.3-4 Milk and Surface Water Sample Locations Map .................................................. 3-36 Figure 3.3-5 Food Product, Fish and S_horeline Sediment Sample Locations Map .................... 3-37 Figure 3.3-6a James A. FitzPatrick Nearest Residence ............................................................... 3-38 Figure 3.3-6b Nine Mlle Point Nuclear Station Nearest Residence .......................... ,................ 3-39 Figure 3.3-7a James A. FitzPatrick On-Site Groundwater Monitoring Wells Map .................. 3-40 Figure 3 .3-7b Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station On-Site Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Unit 2 Storm Drain Outfall Map ..................................... 3-41 V
| |
| | |
| 1.0 PURPOSE The Annual Ra iological Environmental Operating Report is published in accordance with the James A. PitzPatrick 1uclear Power Plant (JAPNPP) Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), Part I, Section 6.1., Section 6.6.2 Nine Mile Point 1 (NMPl) Technical Specifications and Sectiqn 5.6.2 of the Nine Mile ~o'int Unit 2 (NMP2) Technical Specifications. The ODCM requires that the results from the annua[ Radiological _Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) be provided to the Nuclear Regula~ory Commission by May 15th of each year. .
| |
| This report dlscribes the Radiological
| |
| * Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), the implementation lof the program, and the results obtained as required by the ODCM. The Feport also contains the an~lytical results tables, data evaluation, dose assessment, and data trends for each environmental s~mple media. Also included are results of the land use census, historical data, and the Environmental I aboratory's performance in the Quality Assurance Interlaboratory Comparison Program.
| |
| The REMP is a comprehensive surveillance program, which is implemented to assess the impact of site operations n the environment and compliance with 10 CPR 20, 40 CPR 190 and 10 CPR 72.
| |
| Samples are co~lected from the aquatic and terrestrial pathways applicable to the site. The aquatic I ,
| |
| pathways include Lake Ontario f1sh, surface water and lakeshote sediment. The terrestrial pathways include airbom, particulate and radioiodine, milk, food prnducts and direct. radiation.
| |
| Durmg 2022 there were 2,220 analyses performed on environmental media collected as part of the REMP. These results demonstrated that there is no signi~cant or measurable radiologieal impact from the operation I
| |
| of the James. A. PitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Unit 1 or Nine Mile Point Nuclear Unit 2. The 2022 results for all pathways sampled are consistent with the previOus five-y,ar historical results and exhibited no advers~ ".ends.. . .
| |
| In summary, the analytical results from the 2022 Radiological Environmental Momtormg Program demonstrate tha~ the routine operation atJames A. PitzPatrick, Nine Mile Point 1 and Nine Mile Point 2 had no signifi9ant or measurable radiological impact on the environment. The program::continues to demonstrate trat the d9se to a member of the public, as a result of the operation of all sites, remains significantly be ow the federally required dose limits specified in 10 CPR 20, 40 CPR 190 and 10 CPR 72.
| |
| 1- 1
| |
| | |
| ==2.0 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| | |
| The James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, owned by Constellation, and Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and Nine Mile Point Unit 2, owned by Constellation are operated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensee, Constellation Energy Corporation. This report is submitted in
| |
| . accordance with James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Part 1, Section 6.1 to License DPR-59 Docket No. 50-333, Appendix A (Technical Specifications) Section 6.6.2 to License DPR-63, Docket No. 50-220 for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1, and Appendix A (Technical Specifications) Section. 5.6.2 to License NPF-69, Docket No. 50-410 for Nine Nile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2. This report covers the calendar year 2022.
| |
| James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP), Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMPl) and Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP2) Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) requirements reside within each unit's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). Throughout this report, references will .
| |
| be made to the ODCM. This refers to each unit's ODCM.
| |
| 2.1 PROGRAM HISTORY Environmental monitoring at the Nine Mile Point site has been ongo,ing since 1964. The program includes five years of pre-'operational data, which was conducted prior to any reactor operations.
| |
| In 1968, the Niagara Mohawk Power Company began the* required pre-operational environmental site testing program. This pre-operational data serves as a reference point to* compare later data obtained during reactor operation. In 1969, the Nine; Mile Point Unit 1 Reactor, a 628 megawatt electric (MWe) Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) began full power operation. In 1975, the James A.
| |
| FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, owned and operated at that time by the New YorkPower Authority, began full power operation. The FitzPatrick plant, an 892 MWe (rated) BWR, occupies the east sector of the Nine Mile Point site, approximately 0.57 miles east of Nine Mile Point Unit 1. In 1988, the Nine Mile :Point Unit 2 Reactor also owned and operated by Nine Mile Point N:uclear Station, LLC, began full power operation. This 1363 MWe BWR is located between the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and FitzPatrick sites.
| |
| In 1985, the individual Plant Effluent Technical Specifications were standardized to the generic Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications, much of which was common to the two reactors, and subsequently Nine Mile Point Unit 2.. Subsequent Technical Specification amendments relocated the REMP requirements to the ODCM for all three plants . Data generated by the Radiological Environmental Monitoring :Program (REMP) is shared between each unit. On November 21, 2000, the ownership and operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant was transferred from the New York Power Authority to Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. The Facility Operating License No: DPR-59 and Docket No. 50-333 remained the same and in March 2017, ownership and operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
| |
| . was transferred to Exelon Generation Company, LLC. On November 7, 2001, the ownership of the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and 2 facilities was transferred to Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG). Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, operates the two facilities. In March 2012 Constellation Energy merged with Exelon Generation and prior to March 25, 2014, Exelon Generation was an intermediate 50.01 percent parent company of CENG, which is the parent company owner of 2-1
| |
| | |
| Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC. Following the transfer, Exelon Generation reqiained an
| |
| . intermediate paient company and became the co-licensee of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC
| |
| * and the operator ofNMPl and NMP2. Exelon Generation Company, LLC took over ownership and operation of the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and 2 facilities in 2014. In February 2022, a newly-formed company, Constellation Energy Corporation, separated from Exelon Generation Company and become the stana-along owners of James A. FitzPatrick, Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and Nine Mile Point Unit 2. j In summary, th ee Boiling Water Reactors, which together generate 2883 MWe, have operated collectively at t~e Nine Mile Point site since 1988. A large database of environmental results from the ex~osure patlways have been collected and analyzed to evaluate the potential impact frdm reactor operations.
| |
| 2.2 SITE DESCRI TION I
| |
| The Nine Mile Point (NMP) site is located on the southeast shore of Lake Ontario in the town of Scriba, approxirliately 6.2 miles northeast of the city of Oswego. The nearest metropolitan area is located approxir+/-iately 36 miles southeast of the site. The reactors and support buildings occupy a small shoreline portion of the 1600-acre site. The land, soil of glacier deposits, ri/)es gently from the lake in all direc1*ons. Oswego County is a rural envirortrrient, with about 15% of the land devoted to agriculture.
| |
| 2.3 PROGRAM O JECTIVES The objectives lfthe Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) ~re to:
| |
| I. Measure '"1~ evaluate the effects of plant operation on the environs, and to verify the effectiveness of the controls on radioactive material sources,
| |
| : 2. Monitor nJural radiation l~vels in the environs of the NMP nuclear site, *
| |
| : 3. DemonstraJe compliance with the requirements of applicable federal regulatory agencies, site Technical Specifications, and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.
| |
| 2-2
| |
| | |
| 3.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION To achieve the objectives listed in Section 2.3, an extensive sampling and analysis program is conducted every year. The James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP), Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) consists of sampling and analysis of various media that include:
| |
| * Air
| |
| * Fish
| |
| * Food Products
| |
| * Milk
| |
| * Shoreline Sediment
| |
| * Surface Waters In addition, direct radiation measurements .are performed using thermo luminescent dosimeters (TLDs). These sampling programs are outlined in Table 3.0-l; Table 3.0-2, and Table 3.0-3. The JAFNPP and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS) REMP sampling locations are selected and verified by an annual Land Use Census. The accuracy and precision ofthe program is assured by participation in an Interlaboratory Comparison Quality Assurance Program (ICQAP). In addition to NMPNS's participation in the ICQAP, sample splits are provided to the New York State Department of Health for cross-checking purposes.
| |
| Sample collections for the radiological program are accomplished via a coordinated effort between s.ite Chemistry and site Environmental. The site staff is assisted by a contracted environmental
| |
| . company, EA .Science and Technology, .
| |
| Inc. (EA).
| |
| 3-1
| |
| | |
| TABLE3.0-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Exposure Pathway Number of Samples Sampling and Type of Analysis and
| |
| -and/or-Sample _ _and-Sample Locations <*l . Collection Frequency <*l _ Erequency AIRBORNE Radioiodine Samples from 5 locations: Continuous sample Radioiodine Canisters:
| |
| and Particulates operation with sample Analyze weekly for
| |
| : a. Three samples from offsite locations in different sectors of collection weekly or I-131 the highest calculated site average D/Q (based on all as required by dust licensed site reactors) Particulate Samples:
| |
| loading, whichever is Gross beta radioactivity
| |
| : b. One sample from the vicinity of a community having the more frequent highest calculated site average D/Q (based on all licensed following filter change (bl, site reactors) composite (by location) for gamma isotopic (c)
| |
| : c. One sample from a control location 9 to 20 miles distant quarterly (as a minimum) and in the least prevalent wind direction(d)
| |
| DIRECT 32 stations with two or more dosimeters placed as follows: Quarterly Gamma dose monthly or RADIATION (e) quarterly
| |
| : a. An inner ring of stations in the general area of the Site Boundary
| |
| : b. An outer ring in the 4 to 5 mile range from the site with a station in each of the land based sectors. There are 16 land based sectors in the inner ring, and eight land based sectors in the outer ring.
| |
| : c. The balance of the stations (eight) are placed in special interest areas such as population centers, nearby residences, schools, and in two or three areas to serve as control stations 3-2
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.0-1 (continued)
| |
| RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Exposure Pathway Number of Samples Sampling and Type of Analysis and and/or Sample and Sample Locations <*l Collection Frequency <*l Frequency INJESTION Milk a. Samples from milch animals in two locations within 3.5 miles Twice per month, Gamma isotopic and distant having the highest calculated site average D/Q. If there April through 1-131 analysis twice are none, then one sample from milch animals in each*ofthe December(samples per month when three areas 3;5 to 5.0 miles distant having the highest calculated will be collected in milch animals are on site average D/Q (based on all licensed site reactors) (h)
| |
| * January through pasture (April through March ifl-131 is December); monthly
| |
| : b. One sample from milch animals at a controllocation (9 - 20 detected in November (January through miles distant and in a less prevalent wind direction) (d) and December of the March), if required (c) preceding year)
| |
| Fish a. One sample of two commercially or recreationally important Twice per year Gamma isotopic(c) species in the vicinity of a site discharge point analysis of edible
| |
| : b. One sample of two species (same as in a. above or of a species portions with similar feeding habits) from an area at least 5 mile distant from the site(c)
| |
| Food Products a. In lieu of the garden census as specified in Part 1, Section 5.2, Once during harvest Gamma isotopic (c) samples of at least three different kinds of broad leaf vegetation analysis of edible (such as vegetables) grown nearest each of two different offsite. portions (Isotopic to locations oh highest predicted site average D/Q (based on all include 1-131) licensed site Reactors)
| |
| : b. One sample of each of the similar broad leaf vegetation grown at least 9.3 miles distant in a least prevalent wind direction sectold) 3-3
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.0..:f.(continued)
| |
| RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Exposure Pathway Number of Samples Sampling arid Type of Analysis and and/or Sample and Sample Locations (a) Collection Frequency (a) Frequency WATERBORNE Surface Cf) a. One sample upstream (d) Composite sample over Gamma isotopic
| |
| *a one month period (g) analysis monthly
| |
| : b. One sample from the site's most downstream cooling water intake Composite for Tritium quarterly(c)
| |
| Sediment from One sample from a downstream area with existing or potential Twice per year Gamma isotopic Shoreline recreational value analysis semiannuanyCc) 3-4
| |
| | |
| NOTES FOR TABLE 3.0-1 (a) It is recognized that, at times, it may not be possible or practical to obtain samples of the media of choice at the most desired location or time. In these instarn;es, suitable alternative media and locations may be chosen for the particular pathway in question. Actual locations ( distance and directions) from the site shall be provided in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Calculated site averaged D/Q values and meteorological parameters are based on historical data (specified in the ODCM) for all licensed site reactors.
| |
| (b) Particulate sample filters should be analyzed for grnss beta 24 hours or niore after sampling to allow for radon and thoron daughter decay. If gross beta activity in air particulate samples is greater than 10 times a historical yearly mean of control samples, gamma isotopic analysis-shall be performed on the individual samples.
| |
| (c) Gamma isotopic analysis means the identification and quantification of gamma emitting radionuclides that may be attributable to the effluents from the plant.
| |
| (d) The purpose of these samples is to obtain background information. If it is not practical to establish control locations in accordance with the distance and wind direction criteri,a, other sites which provide valid background data may be substituted.
| |
| (e) One or more instruments, such as a pressurized ion chamber, for measuring and recording dose rate continuously may be used in place of, or in addition to, integrating dosimeters. For the purpose of this table, a thermoluminescent dosimeter may be considered to be one phosphor and two or more phosphors in a packet may be considered as two or more dosimeters. Film badges shall not be used for measuring direct radiation.
| |
| (f) The "upstream sample" shall be taken at a distance beyond significant influence of the discharge.
| |
| The "downstream sample" shall be taken in an area beyond, but near, the mixing zone, if practical.
| |
| (g) Composite samples should be collected with equipment (or equivalent) which is capable of collecting an aliquot at time intervals which are very short (e.g., hourly) relative to the compositing period (e.g.,
| |
| monthly) in order to ensure that a representative sample is obtained.
| |
| (h) A milk sampling location, as required in Table 5 .1-1 of the ODCM, is defined as a location having at least 10 milking cows present at a designated milk sample location. It has been found from past experience, and as a result of conferring with local farmers, that a minimum of 10 milking cows is necessary to guarantee an adequate supply of milk twice per month for analytical purposes. Locations with less than 10 milking cows are usually utilized for breeding purposes which eliminates a stable supply of milk for samples as a result of suckling calves and periods when the adult animals are dry.
| |
| In the event that three milk sample locations cannot meet the requirement fot 10 milking cows, then a sample location having less than 10 milking cows can be used if ah adequate supply of milk can reasonably and reliably be obtained based on communications with the farmer.
| |
| 3-5
| |
| | |
| TABLE3.0-2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Exposure Pathway Number of Samples Sampling and Type of Analysis and
| |
| ,___ _ _ _ ____,,nd/or-SamplP-------------and*Bample-bocations-<*)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ eoUection-Freqnency-<*}---l----Frequenc*~------
| |
| AIRBORNE Radioiodine and Samples from five locations: Continuous sampler Radioiodine Canisters Particulates operation with sample Analyze once per week
| |
| : 1) Three samples-from offsite locations in different sectors of the collection weekly for I-131 highest calculated site average D/Q (based on all site licensed or as required by dust reactors) Particulate Samplers loading, whichever is Gross beta radioactivity .
| |
| : 2) One sample from the vicinity of an established year round more frequent following filter change (b) community having the highest calculated site-average D/Q (based on all site licensed reactors) Composite (by location) for gamma isotopic (c)
| |
| : 3) One sample from a control location 10-17 miles distant and in analysis once per three at least pr~valent wind direction (d)
| |
| * months (as a minimum)
| |
| /
| |
| Direct Radiation (e) 32 stations with two or more dosimeters to be placed as follows: an Once per three months Gamma dose once per inner ring of stations in the general area ofthe site boundary and an three months outer ring in the 4 to 5 mile range frorri the site with a station in each land based sector(*). The balance of the stations should be placed in special interest areas su9h as population centers, nearby residences, schools and in two or three areas to serve as control stations.
| |
| <*) A(this distance, 8 wind rose sectors, (W, WNW, NW, NNW, N, NNE; NE, and ENE) are over Lake Ontari6.
| |
| 3-6
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.0.:2 (continued)
| |
| RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Exposure Pathway and/or Number of Samples Sampling and Type of Analysis and Sample and Sample Locations (a) Collection Frequency (al Frequency WATERBORNE Surface (t) 1) One sample upstream Composite sample over Gamma isotopic (c) one month period (g) analysis once per month
| |
| : 2) One sample from the site's downstream cooling
| |
| * water intake Composite for once per three months tritium analysis Sediment from One sample from a downstream area with existing or Twice per year Gamma isotopic (c)
| |
| Shoreline potential recreational value analysis INGESTION
| |
| : a. Milk 1) Samples from milk sampling locations in three locations Twice per month, April Gamma isotopic (c) and within 3.5 miles distan~e having the highest calculated . - December (samples 1-131 analysis twice per site average D/Q. lfthere are none, then one sample from will be collected in month when animals are milking animals in each of three areas 3.5- 5.0miles January - March if on pasture (April -
| |
| distant having the highest calculated site average D/Q 1-131 is detected in December); once per
| |
| . (based on all site licensed reactors). November and month at other times December of the (January - March) if
| |
| : 2) One sample from a milk sampling location at a control preceding year) required location (9 - 20_ miles distant and in a least prevalent wind direction) (d) 3-7
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.0-2 (continued)
| |
| RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Nine Mile Point Unit 1
| |
| >-----------'""xposure-Pathway-and/or*--------~Number-of-Sample<<----------------Sampling-and 'fype-of~nalysis-and Sample and Sample Locations (a)
| |
| * Collection Frequency <*l Frequency
| |
| : b. Fish 1) One sample each of two commercially or recreationally Twice per year Gamma isotopic (c) important species in the vicinity of a plant discharge area (h) analysis of edible portions twice per year
| |
| : 2) One .sample_ each of the same species from :;in area at least .
| |
| 5 miles distant from the site-<d)
| |
| : c. Food Products 1) Samples of three different kinds of broad leaf vegetation Once per year during Gamma isotopic (c)
| |
| (such as vegetables) grown nearest to each of two different harvest season analysis of edible
| |
| * off-site locations of highest calculated site average D/Q portions (Isotopic to (based on all licensed site reactors) include I-131 or a separate I-131 analysis
| |
| * 2) One sample of each of the similar broad leaf vegetation may be*performed) grown at least 9 .3 - 20 miles distant in a least prevalent once during the harvest wind direction season 3-8
| |
| | |
| NOTES FOR TABLE 3.0-2 (a) It is recognized that, at times, it may not be possible or practical to obtain samples of the media of choice at the most desired location or time. In these instances, suitable alternative media and locations may be chosen for the particular pathway in question and may be substituted. Actual locations (distance and directions) from the site shall be provided in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Highest D/Q locations are based on historical meteorological data for all site licensed reactors.
| |
| (b) Particulate sample filters should be analyzed for gross beta 24 hours or more after sampling to allow for radon and thoron daughter decay. If the gross beta activity in air is greater than 10 times a historical yearly mean of control samples, gamma isotopic analysis shall be performed on the individual samples.
| |
| (c) Gamma isotopic analysis means the identification and quantification of gamma-emitting radionuclides that may be attributable to the effluents from the facility.
| |
| (d) The purpose of these samples is to obtain background information. If it is not practical to establish control locations in accordance with the distance and wind direction criteria, other sites, such as historical control locations which provide valid background data may be substituted.
| |
| (e) One or more instruments, such as a pressurized ion chamber, for measuring and recording dose rate continuously, may be used in place of, or in addition to, integrating dosimeters. For the purpose of this table, a thermolumiriescent dosimeter may be considered to be one phosphor, and two or more phosphors in a packet may be considered as two or more dosimeters. Film badges shall not be used for measuring direct radiation.
| |
| (i) The "upstream sample" should be taken at a distance beyond significant influence of the discharge. The "downstream sample" should be taken in an area beyond but near the mixing zone, if possible.
| |
| (g) Composite samples should be collected with equipment (or equivalent) which is capable of collecting an aliquot at time intervals which are very short (e.g., hourly) relative to the compositing period (e.g., monthly) in order to assure obtaining a representative sample.
| |
| (h) In the event commercial or recreational important species are not available as a result of three attempts, then other species may be utilized as available.
| |
| 3-9
| |
| | |
| TABLE3.0-3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Nine Mile Point Unit 2
| |
| - Exposure Pathway -- ...... NumberoCSamples - -- - Sampling arid -- Type of Analysis and and/or Sample and Sample Locations (a) Collection Frequency (a) Frequency
| |
| : a. Direct Radiation 32 routine monitoring stations (bl, placed as follows: Once per three months Gamma dose: once per three months
| |
| : 1) An inner ring of stations, one in each meteorological sector in the general area of the Site Boundary
| |
| : 2) An outer ring of stations, one in each land base meteorological sector in the 4 to 5 mile {c) range from the site
| |
| : 3) The balance of the stations should be placed in special interest areas such as population centers, nearby residences, schools, and in one of two areas to serve as control stations (d) 3 - 10
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.0-3 (continued)
| |
| RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Nine Mile Point Unif2 Exposure Pathway Number of Samples Sampling and Type of Analysis and and/or Sample and Sample Locations (a) Collection Frequency (a) Frequency AIRBORNE Radioiodine and Samples from 5 locations: Continuous sampler Radioiodine Canister:
| |
| Particulates , operation with sample I-131 analysis weekly.
| |
| : 1. Three samples from off-site locations close to the site )Joundary collection weekly, or (within one mile) in different sectors of the highest calculated Particulate Sampler:
| |
| more frequently if annual site average ground-level D/Q (based on all site.licensed required by dust loading. 1. Gross beta radioactivity reactors) (e) analysis 2: 24 hours
| |
| : 2. One sample from the vicinity of an established year-round following filter change (f)'
| |
| community having the highest calculated annual site average
| |
| : 2. Gamma isotopic analysis on ground-level D/Q (based on all site licensed reactors) (e) each sample where gross
| |
| : 3. One .sample from a control location at least 10 miles distant and beta activity is > 10 times in a least prevalent wind direction (d) the previous yearly mean of controi samples, and
| |
| : 3. Gamma isotopic analysis (g) of composite sample (by location) once per three months WATERBORNE
| |
| : a. Surface 1. One sample upstream (d) Ch) Composite sample over 1) Gamma isotopic analysis (g) one month period (i) once per month
| |
| : 2. One sample from the site's downstream cooling water intake (h)
| |
| : 2) Tritium analysis of each composite once per three months 3 - 11
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.0-3 (continued)
| |
| RADIOLOGICAL ENVffiONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUffiED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Exposure Pathway Number of Samples Sampling and Type of Analysis and and/or Sample and Sample Locations Cal Collection Frequency Cal Frequency
| |
| : b. Ground Samples from one or two sources if likely to be affected Gl Grab sample once per Gamma isotopic (gJ and tritium three months analysis once per three months
| |
| : c. Drinking One sample each of one to three of the nearest water supplies that When I- 13 1 analysis is 1) I- 13 1 analysis on each could be affected by its discharge (kl performed, a composite composite when the dose sample over a two week calculated for the period Cil; otherwise, a consumption of the water composite sample is greater than 1 mrem per monthly year OJ
| |
| : 2) Composite for gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses (gJ monthly
| |
| : 3) Composite for tritium analysis once per three months
| |
| : d. Sediment from One sample from a downstream area with existing or potential Twice per year Gamma isotopic analysis (gJ Shoreline recreational value.
| |
| 3 - 12
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.0-3 (continued)
| |
| RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUffiED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Exposure Pathway Number of Samples Sampling and Type of Analysis and and/or Sample and Sample Locations (a) Collection Frequency (a) Frequency INGESTION
| |
| : a. Milk 1. Samples from Milk Sampling Locations in three locations within Twice per month, 1) Gamma isotopic (g) and I-131 3.S miles (e) April - December (ml analysis twice per month when animals are on pasture
| |
| : 2. If there are none, then one sample from Milk Sampling Locations (April - December) in each of three areas 3.S - S.O miles (e)
| |
| : 2) Gamma isotopic (g) and 1-131
| |
| : 3. One sample from a Milk Sample Location at a control location analysis once per month at 9 - 20 miles distant and in a least prevalent wind direction (d) other times (ml
| |
| : b. Fish I. One sample each of two commercially or recreationally important Twice per year Gamma isotopic analysis (g) on species in the vicinity of a plant discharge area (n) edible portions twice per year
| |
| : 2. One sample of the same species in areas not influenced by station discharge (dl 3 - 13
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.0-3 (continued)
| |
| RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Numoer oCSamp es Sampling and Type of Analysis and and Sample Locations (a) Collection Frequency (a) Frequency
| |
| : c. Food Products 1) One sample of each principal class of food products from any At time of harvest (p) Gamma isotopic (g) and I-131
| |
| *area that is irrigated by water in which liquid plant wastes have analysis of each sample of been discharged (o) edible portions
| |
| : 2) Samples of three different kinds of broad leaf vegetation (such Once pet year during the as vegetables) grown nearest to each of two different off-site harvest season locations of highest calculated annual site average D/Q (based on all licensed site reactors)C 0 l
| |
| : 3) One sample of each of the similar broad leaf vegetation grown Once per year during the at least 9.3 miles distant in a least prevalent wind direction harvest season 3 - 14
| |
| | |
| NOTES FOR TABLE 3.0-3 (a) Specific parameters of distance and direction sector from the centerline of one reactor, and additional descriptions where pertinent, shall be provided for each and every sample location in Table 3.0-3. Refer to NUREG-0133, "Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants,"
| |
| October 1978, and to Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position on Environmental Monitoring, Revision l, November 1979. Deviations are permitted from the required sampling schedule if specimens are unobtainable because-of such circumstances as hazardous conditions, seasonal unavailability (which includes theft and uncooperative residents), or malfunction of automatic sampling equipment.
| |
| (b) One or more instruments, such as a pressurized ion chamber, for measuring and recording dose rate continuously, may be used in place of, or in addition to, integrating dosimeters. Each of the 32 routine monitoring stations shall be equipped with two or more dosimeters or with one instrument for measuring and recording dose rate continuously. For the purpose of this table, a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) is considered to be one phosphor, two or more phosphors in a packet are considered as two or more dosimeters.
| |
| Film badges shall not be used as dosimeters for measuring direct radiation.
| |
| (c) At this distance, eight wind rose sectors, (W, WNW, NW, NNW, N, NNE, NE, and ENE) are over Lake Ontario.
| |
| (d) The purpose of these samples is to obtain background information. If it is not practical to establish control locations in accordance with the distance and wind direction criteria, other sites, which provide valid background data, may be substituted.
| |
| (e) Having the highest calculated annual site average ground-level D/Q based on all site licensed reactors.
| |
| (f) Airborne particulate sample filters shall be analyzed for gross beta radioactivity 24 hours or more after sampling to allow for radon and thoron daughter decay.
| |
| (g) Gamma isotopic analysis means the identification and quantification of gamma-emitting radionuclides that may be attributable to the effluents from the facility.
| |
| (h) The "upstream"_ sample shall be taken at a distance beyond significant influence of the discharge. The "downstream" sample shall be taken in an area beyond but near the mixing zone.
| |
| (i) In this program, representative composite sample aliquots shall be collected at time intervals that are very short (e.g., hourly) relative to the compositing period (e.g., monthly) in order to assure obtaining a representative sample.
| |
| G) Groundwater samples shall be ta~en when this source is tapped for drinking or irrigation purposes in areas where the hydraulic gradient or recharge properties are suitable for contamination.
| |
| (k) Drinking water samples shall be taken only when drinking water is a dose pathway.
| |
| (1) Analysis for I-131 may be accomplished by Ge-Li analysis, provided that the lower limit of detection (LLD) for I-131 in water samples found on Table 3.8-1 can be met. Doses shall be calculated for the maximum organ and age group.
| |
| 3 - 15
| |
| | |
| NOTES FOR TABLE 3.0-3 (continued)
| |
| (m) Samples will be ;collected January through March if I-131 is detected in November and December of the preceding year. ,
| |
| I (n) In the event two !commercially or recreationally important species are not available after three attempts of collection, then two samples of one species or other species not necessarily commercially or recreationally important may be; utilized.
| |
| (o) Applicable only tb major irrigation projects within 9 miles of the site in the general down current direction.
| |
| (p) If harvest occurs 'more than once/year, sampling shall be performed during each discrete harvest. If harvest occurs continuously, sampling shall be taken monthly. Attention shall be paid to including samples of tuberous and root food products.
| |
| 3 - 16
| |
| | |
| 3.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION METHODOLOGY 3.1.1 SHORELINE SEDIMENTS \ ..
| |
| Shoreline sediment is collected at one area of existing or p9tential recreational value. One sample is also collected from a location beyond the influence bf the site. Samples are collected as surface scrapings to a depth of approximately one inch and then are placed in plastic bags, sealed and shipped to the lab for analysis. Sediment samples are analyzed for gamma emitting radionuclides.
| |
| Shoreline sediment sainple locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1 and shown in Figure 3.3-5.
| |
| 3.1.2 FISH Samples of available fish species that are commercially or recreationally important to Lake Ontario, such as Lake Trout, Brown Trout, Smallmouth Bass and Walleye, are collected twice per year, once in the spring and again in the fall. Indicator samples are collected from a combination of the two onsite sample transects located offshore from the site. One set of control samples are collected at an offsite sample transect located offshore 8-10 miles west of the site.
| |
| Available species are selected using the following guidelines:
| |
| : 1. A minimum of two species that are commercially or recreationally important are to be collected from each sample location. Samples selected are limited to edible and/or sport species when available.
| |
| : 2. Samples are composed of the edible portion only.
| |
| Selected fish samples are frozen immediately after collection and segregated by species and location. Samples are shipped frozen in insulated .containers for analysis. Edible portions of each sample are analyzed for gamma emitting radionuclides.
| |
| Fish sample locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1 and shown in Figure 3.3-5.
| |
| 3.1.3 SURFACE WATER Surface water sampies are taken from the respective inlet canals of the JAFNPP and NRG's Oswego Steam Station. The JAFNPP facility draws water from Lake Ontario on a continuous basis. This is used for the "downstream" or indicator sampling point for the Nine Mile Point site. The Oswego Steam Station irilet canal draws water from Lake Ontario at a point
| |
| * approximately 7 .6 miles west of the site. This "upstream" location is. considered a control location because of the distance from the site, as well as the result of the lake current patterns and current patterns from the Oswego River located nearby.
| |
| *samples from the JAFNPP facility are composited from automatic sampling ~quipment which discharges into a compositing tank. Samples are collected monthly from the compositor and analyzed for gamma emitters. Samples from the Oswego Steam Station are also obtained using automatic sampling equ.ipmen( and collected in a holding tank. Representative samples from 3 - 17
| |
| | |
| this locatipn are obtained weekly and are composited to form a monthly composite sample. The monthly samples are analyzed for gamma emitting radionuclides. A portion of the monthly
| |
| -sample ff!om each of the locatio.ns is saved and composited to form quarterly composite samples, hich are analyzed for tritium.
| |
| In addition to the sample results for the JAFNPP and Oswego Steam Station collection sites, datk is presented for the Nine Mile Point Uriit 1 and Unit 2 facility inlet canal samples abd from the City of Oswego drinking water supply. The latter three locati~ns are not required Thy the ODCM. These locations are optional sample points, which are collected and analyzed fo enhance the sµrface water sampling program .. Monthly composite samples from these three locations are 'analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides, and quarterly composite samples Je analyzed for tritium. * .
| |
| Surface ~ater sample locations are listed 1.n Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1 and shown in Figure 3.3-4.
| |
| . I 3.1.4 AIR PARTICULATE / IODINE The air simpling stations ~equired by the ODCM are located in the general area of the site boundaryj The sampling st~tions are sited within a distance of 0.2 miles of the site bqundary in sectors with the highest calculated deposition factor (D/Q) based on historical meteorological data. Thfse stations (Rl, R2, R3, and R4) are located .in th~ E, ESE, and SE sectors as measured! from the center of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 Reactor ~uilding. The ODCM also requires that one of the four air sampling stations be located in the vicinity of a year-round community. Station R4 fulfills this requirement and :is located I .
| |
| * in the Sf sector at a distance of 1.8 miles. A fifth station required by the ODCM is a control l9cation designate~ as Station RS. Station RS is located 16.2 miles from the site in the NE meteorological sector.
| |
| * In additioh to the five ODCM required locations, there are 10 additional .sampling st~tions. Six of these slampling stations* are located within the site boundary of NMPNS and JAFNPP and are desiJated as Onsite Stations D1, G, H, I, J, and K. One air sampling station js located offsite in the southwest sector in the vicinity of the City of Oswego and is d~signatedias Station G OffsiteJ Three remaining air sampling stations are located in the ESE, SSE, and SSW sectors and rang9 in ~istance from 7.1 to 9.0 miles. These are designated as Offsite Stations D2, E, and F reswect1vely. .
| |
| * Each _stati~n collects airborne particulates usi~g glass fiber filters (4 7 millimeter diameter) and rad1010dme usmg charcoal cartridges (2:xl ,mch). The samplers run contmuously, and the charcoal 6artridges and particulate filters are changed on a weekly basis. Sample volume, is determin~d by use of calibrated gas flow meters located a:t the sample discharge. Gross beta analysis iJ performed on each particulate filter. Charcoal cartridges are analyzed for ra:dioiodine using ga~ma spectral analysis. The-particulate filters are composited quart~rly by location and analyzed for gamma emitting radionuclides.
| |
| - I .
| |
| Air samp~ing station locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1 and shown in Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3.
| |
| 3 - 18
| |
| | |
| 3.1.5 TLD (DIRECT RADIATION)
| |
| Thermo luminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure direct radiation (gamma dose) in the environment. Environmental TLDs are supplied and processed quarterly by Stanford Dosimetry. The vendor utilizes a Panasonic based system using UD-814 dosimeters, which contain three CaSO 4 phosphor elements under 1000mg of lead and one lithium borate element.
| |
| : 1. Environmental TLDs Environmental TLDs are placed in five different geographical regions around site to evaluate effects of direct radiation as a result of plant operations. The following is a description of the five TLD geographical categories used in the NMPNS and JAFNPP Environmental Monitoring Program and the TLDs that make up each region:
| |
| TLD Geographical Category Description Onsite TLDs placed at various locations within the site boundary, with three exceptions, are not required by the ODCM. (TLD locations comprising this group are: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7*, 18*, 23*, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 47, 103, 106 and 107)
| |
| Site Boundary An inner ring of TLDs placed in the general area of the site boundary in each of the 16 meteorological sectors. This category is required by the ODCM. (TLD locations comprising this group are: 7*, 18*, 23*, 75*, 76*, 77*, 78*, 79*, 80*, 81*,
| |
| 82*, 83*, 84*, 85*, 86* and 87*)
| |
| Offsite An outer ring of TLDs placed 4 to 5 miles from the site in each of the eight-land based meteorological sectors. This category is required by the ODCM. (TLD locations comprising this group are 88*, 89*, 90*, 91 *, 92*, 93*, 94* and 95*)
| |
| Special Interest TLDs placed in special interest areas of high population density and use. These TLDs are located at or near large industrial sites, schools, or nearby towns or communities. This category is required by the ODCM. (TLD locations comprising this group are: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15*, 19, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56*, 58*, 96*,
| |
| 97*, 98*, 99, 100, 101, 102, 108 and 109)
| |
| Control TLDs placed in areas beyond significant influence of the site and plant operations. These TLDs are located to the SW, S and NE of the site at distances of 12.6 to 24. 7 miles. This category is also required by the ODCM. (TLD locations comprising this group are 8*, 14*, 49*, 111 and 113)
| |
| * TLD location required by the ODCM, TLD 98 required by NMP 1 and NMP2 ODCM 3 - 19
| |
| | |
| Alth0ugh the ODCM requires a total of 32 TLD stations; environmental TLDs are also placed at additional locations not required by the ODCM, within the Onsite, Special Interrst and Control TLD categories to supplement the ODCM required Direct Radiation readilngs.
| |
| I I
| |
| Two I dosimeters are placed at each TLD monitoring location. The TLDs are sealed in polyethylene packages to ensure dosimeter integrity and placed in open webbed plastic holders and attached to supporting structures, such as utility poles.
| |
| I I
| |
| Environmental TLD locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1 and show in Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3.
| |
| : 2. JAF~PP Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)
| |
| In or!:ler to provide adequate spent fuel storage capacity at JAFNPP, Entergy constructed an 011site Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). On April 25, 2002, the ISFS~ facility was placed in service.
| |
| TLD~ are used to monitor direct radiation levels in the vicinity of the ISFSI facility.
| |
| Twdve TLD locations were established around the ISFSI pad on the perimeter fence. Six additional TLD locations are located at varying distances from the pad to determine dose I
| |
| rates I at points of interest relative to the storage area and are designated as optional locat1ons. Background data was collected starting in October 2000 at eight of the TLD I
| |
| locat~ons on the perimeter fence. The remaining locations were established in October 2ooi:.
| |
| Two I dosimeters are placed at each TLD monitoring location. The TLDs are sealed in poly~thylene packages to ensure dosimeter integrity and placed in the field using a supporting structure such as a fence or other immovable object.
| |
| ISFS~ TLD locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1.
| |
| : 3. NMFNS Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)
| |
| In 01;der to provide adequate spent fuel storage capacity at NMPl and NMP2, NMPNS constructed an ISFSI onsite west of NMPI. During 2012 the NMPNS ISFSI facility was I
| |
| placed into service.
| |
| TLDk are used to monitor direct radiation levels in the vicinity of the ISFSI facility. Sixteen TLD!locations were established around the site boundary. Background data has been collected from:the initiation of the NMPNS REMP TLD program in 1985.
| |
| In ad~ition, 14 Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeters (OSDLs) are located around the I$FSI and in areas where personnel are assigned routine work activities. These locations are drsignated as optional locations. Background data was collected starting in June 2011.
| |
| ISFSI OSLD and REMP TLD locations are listed in Section 3 .3, Table 3 .3-1 and REMP TLDs are snown in Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3.
| |
| 3 - 20
| |
| | |
| 3.1.6 MILK Milk samples are routinely collected from farms during the sampling year. These farms include one indicator location and one control location. Samples are normally collected April through December of the sample year. If plant-related radionuclides are detected in samples in November and December of the previous year, milk collections are continued into the following year starting in January. If radionuclides are not detected in the November and December samples, then milk collections do
| |
| * not commence until April of the following sampling year. Milk samples were not collected in January through March of 2022 as there were no positive detections of radionuclides in samples collected during November and December of 2021.
| |
| The ODCM also requires that a sample be collected from a control location nine to twenty miles from the site and in a less prevalent wind direction. This location is in the south sector at a distance of 16 miles and serves as the control location.
| |
| Milk samples are collected in polyethylene bottles from a bulk storage tank at each sampled farm. Before the sample is drawn, the tank contents are agitated to assure a homogenous mixture of milk and butter fat. The samples are chilled, preserved, and shipped fresh to the analytical laboratory within thirty.:.six hours of collection in insulated shipping containers.
| |
| The milk sample locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1 and shown on Figure 3.3-4.
| |
| 3.1.7 FOOD PRODUCTS (VEGETATION)
| |
| * Food products are collected once per year during the late summer harvest season. A minimum of three different kinds of broad leaf vegetation (edible or inedible) are collected from three different indicator garden locations. Sample* locations are selected from available gardens identified in the annual census that have the highest estimated deposition values (D/Q) based on _historical site meteorological data. Control samples are also collected from available locations greater than 9.3 miles distance from the site in a less prevalent wind direction. Control sainples are of the same or similar type of vegetation when available.
| |
| Food product samples are analyzed for gamma emitters using gamma isotopic analysis.
| |
| Food product locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1 arid shown on Figure 3.3-5.
| |
| 3 - 21
| |
| | |
| 3.1.8 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM The Nuclbar Energy Institute (NEI) Ground Water Protection Initiative was established to determind the potential impact Nuclear Power Plants may have on the surrounding environm~nt due to unplanned releases of radioactive liquids. Under NEI 07-07, Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative Final Guidance Document, August 2007, ground water monitori~g is accomplished through sampling of the water table around the plant andanalyzing it for gamma emitters and tritium.
| |
| * In additidn .to the groundwater monitoring requirements specified in the ODCM; NMPNS started mbnitoring groundwater in October.2005 and has been monitoring the plant dewatering systems a~ part of the response to Generic Letter 80-10. . .
| |
| JAFNPP has 22 groundwater wells. Groundwater Monitoring well samples collected in 2022 were analyzed annually for plant-related gamma emitters, gross alpha and strontium, and quarterly for tritium.
| |
| * NMPNS has 19 groundwater wells and three piezometers. NMPNS Groundwater Monitoring wells are analyzed annually for plant-related gamma emitters, gross alpha, and stroi,itium, and quarterly for tritium.
| |
| Ground +ter results are dt,c.umented in the =ual R.a~iological Effiuent Release Report.
| |
| H1stor1cai groundwater data 1s presented m Section 7, Historical Data Tables.
| |
| 3 -22
| |
| | |
| 3.2 ANALYSES PERFORMED Environmental sample analyses are performed by a contract laboratory. The following analyses were performed:
| |
| : 1. Air Particulate Filter Gross Beta
| |
| : 2. Air Particulate filter Composites Gamma Spectral Analysis
| |
| : 3. Airborne Radioiodine-:- Gamma Spectral Analysis
| |
| : 4. Direct Radiation using Therrnoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs)
| |
| : 5. Fish- Gamma Spectral Analysis
| |
| : 6. Food Products (vegetation)-' Gamma Spectral Analysis
| |
| : 7. Milk:-' Gamma Spectral Analysis, 1-131
| |
| : 8. Shoreline Sediment - Gamma Spectral Analysis
| |
| : 9. Special Samples (soil, food, bottom sediment, etc.)- Gamma Spectral Analysis IO. Surface Water Monthly Composites . Gamma Spectral Analysis, 1-131
| |
| : 11. Surface Water Quarterly Composites Tritium
| |
| : 12. JAFNPP Groundwater Biennial, Annual and Quarterly Samples - Gamma Spectral Analysis, Gross Alpha, Strontium, Tritium and Hard-to-Detect Analyses
| |
| : 13. NMPNS Groundwater Annual arid Q{!arterly Samples - Gamma Spectral Analysis, Gross Alpha, Strontium, Tritium and Hard-to-Detect Analyses 3 - 23
| |
| | |
| 3.3 SAMPLE LOCATIONS This section protides maps illustrating sample locations. Sample locations referenced as letters and numbers on ,he report period data tables are consistent with designations plotted on the,,maps.
| |
| This section alsd contains an environmental sample location reference table (Table 3.3-1). This table contains theI following information:
| |
| : 1. Sample Medium
| |
| : 2. Map Designktion (this column contains the key for the sample location and is consistent with the designation bn the sample location maps and on the sample results data tables)
| |
| I
| |
| : 3. Location Description
| |
| : 4. Degrees andi Distance of the sample location from the site I
| |
| 3.3.1 LIST o FIGURES 1
| |
| Figure 3 .3-1 New York State Map
| |
| . I Figure 3.3-2 Off-Site Environmental Station and TLD Locations Map Figure 3.3-3 Onsite Environmental Station and TLD Locations Map I
| |
| Figure 3.r4 Milk and Surface Water SampleLocations Map Figure 3.3-5 Food Product, Fish and Shoreline Sediment Sample I_,ocations Map I
| |
| Figure 3.3-6a James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Nearest Residence i
| |
| Figure 3.3-6b Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Nearest Residence I
| |
| Figure 3.3-7a James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant On-Site Groundwater Monitoring Wells Map Figure 3J7b Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station On-Site Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Unit 2 Storm Drain Outfall Map 3 -24
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.3-1 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE MAP FIGURE MEDIUM OCATION DESCRIPTION DEGREES & DISTANCE <1l ESIGNATION UMBER Shoreline Sediment 05* igure 3.3-5 840 at 1.2 miles 06 igure 3.3-5 ang's Beach, Control 232° at 4.8 miles ish 02* igure 3.3~5 ine Mile Point Transect 290° at 0.4 miles 03.*
| |
| * Figure 3.3-5 62° at 0.8 miles 00* Figure 3.3-5 237° at 5.9 miles Surface Water 03* Figure 3.3-4 itzPatrick Inlet 53° at 0.6 miles 08* Figure 3.3-4 Oswego Steam Station Inlet (Control) 237° at 7.6 miles 09 igure 3.3-4 P Unit 1 Inlet 319° at 0.3 miles 10 igure 3.3-4 Oswego City Water 240° at 7.8 miles 11 . igure 3.3-4 P Unit2 Inlet (Split intake with two locations) 336° at 0.3 miles 353° at 0.3 miles ir Radioiodine and Rl* Figure 3.3-2 1 Station, Nine Mile Point Road 92° at 1.8 miles articulates R2* Figure 3.3-3 Station, Lake Road 107° at 1.1 miles R3* igure 3.3-3 3 Station, Co. Rt. 29 133° at 1.4 miles R4* Figure 3.3-3 4 Station, Village of Lycoming, Co. Rt. 29 145° at 1.8 miles RS* igure 3.3-2 5 Station,-Montario Point Rd. (Control) 42° at 16.2 miles D1 igure 3.3-3 1 Onsite Station 71° at 0.3 miles GOn igure 3.3-3 245° at 0.7 miles H igure 3.3-3 73° at 0.8 miles I FigureJ.3-3 95° at 0.8 miles J Figure 3.3-3 109° at 0.9 miles K Figure 3.3-3 Onsite Station 132° at 0.5 miles GOff Figure 3.3-2 G Offsite Station, Saint Paul Street 226° at 5.4 miles D2 igure 3.3-2 2 Offsite Station, Rt. 64 118° at 9.0 miles E igure 3.3-2 Offsite Station,. Rt. 4 162° at 7.1 miles F igure 3.3-2
| |
| * Offsite Statibn, Dutch Rid e Road 192° at 7.6 miles earest Residence (NMP) Based on NMP Unit 2 Centerline - Refer to Figure 3.3-6b earest Residence (JAF) Based on JAF Centerline - Refer to Figure 3 .3-6a (1) Degrees and distance based on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Reactor Centerline rounded .to the. nearest 1/10 of a mile.
| |
| * Sample location required by ODCM 3 - 25
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued)
| |
| ENVIRONMENT AL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE MAP FIGURE LOCATION DESCRIPTION DEGREES & DISTANCE <1l MEDIUM DESIGNATION NUMBER Thermo luminescent 3 Figure 3.3-3 Dl Onsite 71 ° at 0.3 miles Dosimeters (TLD) 4 Figure 3.3-3 D2 Onsite 143° at 0.4 miles 5 Figure 3.3-3 E Onsite 180° at 0.3 miles
| |
| __6_ -- -- - -- Eigure 3.3-3 _F Onsite _ - -- _ - -- - - - -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - __113_"__ - _at __ 0.5 miles ____
| |
| 7* Figure 3.3-3 G Onsite 245° at 0.7 miles 8* Figure 3.3-2 RS Offsite Control 42° at 16.2 miles 9 Figure 3.3-2 Dl Offsite 80° at 11.4 miles 10 Figure 3.3-2 D2 Offsite 118° at 9.0 miles 11 Figure 3.3-2 E Offsite 162° at 7.1 miles 12 Figure 3.3-2 F Offsite 192° at 7.6 miles 13 Figure 3.3-2 G Offsite 226° at 5.4 miles 14* Figure 3.3-2 DeMass Rd., SW Oswego - Control 227° at 12.5 miles 15* Figure 3.3-2 Pole 66, W. Boundary - Bible Camp 240° at 0.9 miles 18* Figure 3.3-3 Energy Info. Center - Lamp Post, SW 268° at 0.4 miles 19 Figure 3.3-2 East Boundary - JAF, Pole 9 830 at 1.4 miles 23* Figure 3.3-3 H Onsite 73° at 0.8 miles 24 Figure 3.3-3 I Onsite 95° at 0.8 miles 25 Figure 3.3-3 J Onsite 109° at 0.9 miles 26 Figure 3.3-3 K Onsite 132° at 0.5 miles 27 Figure 3.3-3 N. Fence, N. of Switchyard, JAF 60° at 0.4 miles 28 Figure 3.3-3 N. Light Pole,N. of Screenhouse, JAF 68° at 0.5 miles 29 Figure 3.3-3 N. Fence, N. ofW. Side 65° at 0.5 miles 30 Figure 3.3-3 N. Fence, (NW) JAF 57° at 0.4 miles 31 Figure 3.3-3 N. Fence, (NW) NMP-1 279° at 0.2 miles 39 Figure 3.3-3 N. Fence, Rad. Waste-NMP-1 298° at 0.2 miles 47 Figure 3.3-3 N. Fence, (NE) JAF 69° at 0.6 miles 49* Figure 3.3-2 Phoenix, NY-Control 168° at 19.7 miles 51 Figure 3.3-2 Liberty & Bronson Sts., E of OSS 234° at 7.3 miles 52 Figure 3.3-2 E. 12th & Cayuga Sts., Oswego School 227° at 5.9 miles 53 Figure 3.3-2 Broadwell & Chestnut Sts. Fulton H.S. 183° at 13.7 miles (I) Degrees and distance based on Nme Mile Pomt Umt 2 Reactor Centerlme rounded to the nearest 1/10 of a mile.
| |
| *Sample location required by ODCM 3 -26
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued)
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE MAP FIGURE LOCATION DESCRIPTION DEGREES & DISTANCE (ll MEDIUM DESIGNATION NUMBER Thennoluminescent 54 Figure 3.3-2 Mexico High School 115° at 9.4 miles Dosimeters (TLD) 55 Figure 3.3-2 Gas Substation Co. Rt. 5-Pulaski 75° at 13.0 miles (Continued) 56* Figure 3.3-2 Rt. 104-New Haven Sch. (SE Corner) 124° at 5.2 miles 58* Figure 3.3-2 Co Rt. lA-Novelis (E. of E. Entrance Rd.) 222° at 3.0 miles 75* Figure 3.3-3 Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Reactor Bldg. 354° at 0.1 miles 76* Figure 3.3-3 Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Change House 25° at 0.1 miles 77* Figure 3.3-3 Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Pipe Bldg. 36° at 0.2 miles 78* Figure 3.3-3 JAF. E. ofE. Old Lay Down Area 850 at 1.0 miles 79* Figure 3.3-3 Co. Rt. 29, Pole #63, 0.2 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 120° at 1.2 miles 80* Figure 3.3-3 Co. Rt. 29, Pole #54, 0.7 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 136° at 1.5 miles 81* Figure 3.3-3 Miner Rd., Pole #16, 0.5 mi. W. of Rt. 29 159° at 1.6 miles 82* Figure 3.3-3 Miner Rd., Pole# 1-1/2, 1.1 mi. W. of Rt. 29 180° at 1.6 miles 83* Figure 3.3-3 Lakeview Rd., Tree 0.45 mi. N. of Miner Rd. 203° at 1.2 miles 84* Figure 3.3-3 Lakeview Rd., N., Pole #6117, 200ft. N. of Lake Rd. 226° at 1.1 miles 85* Figure 3.3-3 Unit 1, N. Fence, N. ofW. Side of Screen House 292° at 0.2 miles 86* Figure 3.3-3 Unit 2, N. Fence, N ofW. Side of Screen House 311° at 0.1 miles 87* Figure 3.3-3 Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of E. Side of Screen House 333° at 0.1 miles 88* Figure 3.3-2 Hickory Grove Rd., Pole #2, 0.6 mi. N. of Rt. 1 97° at 4.5 miles 89* Figure 3.3-2 Leavitt Rd., Pole #16, 0.4 mi. S. of Rt.I 112° at 4.3 miles 90* Figure 3:3-2 Rt. 104, Pole #300, 150 ft. E. of Keefe Rd. 135° at 4.2 miles 91* Figure 3.3-2 Rt 51A, Pole #59, 0.8 mi. W. of Rt. 51 157° at 4.9 miles 92* Figure 3.3-2 Maiden Lane Rd., Power Pole, 0.6 mi. S. of Rt. 104 183° at 4.4 miles 93* Figure 3.3-2 Rt. 53 Pole 1-1, 120 ft. S. of Rt. 104 206° at 4.4 miles 94* Figure 3.3-2 Rt. 1, Pole #82, 250 ft. E. of Kocher Rd. (Co. Rt. 63) 224° at 4.4 miles 95* Figure 3.3-2 Novelis W access Rd., Joe Fultz Blvd, Pole #21 239° at 3.7 miles 96* Figure 3.3-2 Creamery Rd., 0.3 mi. S. of Middle Rd., Pole 1-1/2 199° at 3.6 miles 97* Figure 3.3-3 Rt. 29, Pole #50, 200ft. N. of Miner Rd. 145° at 1.8 miles 98* Figure 3.3-2 Lake Rd., Pole #145, 0.15 mi. E. of Rt 29 102° at 1.2 miles (1) Degrees and distance based on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Reactor Centerline rounded to-the nearest 1/10 of a mile.
| |
| * Sample location required by ODCM, TLD #98 is applicable to NMPl and NMP2 ODCM 3 -27
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued)
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS MAP , FIGURE 1 LOCATION DESCRIPTION DEGREES & DISTANCE <l SAMPLE DESIGNATION NUMBER Thermo luminescent 99 Figure 3.3-2 NMP Rd., 0.4 mi. N. of Lake Rd., Env. Station RI 92° at 1.8 miles Dosimeters (TLD) 107° at I.I miles 100 Figure 3.3-3 Rt. 29 & Lake Rd., Env. Station R2 (Continued) 101
| |
| _figure _3 .J-3 __ R_!. 2~ 0_._7mi. S.Qfl,ak~Rd., ~ny._St~tio~ RL -- - - -- --- ---- -
| |
| 133° at 1.4 miles 102 Figure 3.3-2 EOF, Rt. 176, E. Driveway, Lamp Post 175° at 11.9 miles 103 Figure 3.3-_3 EiC, East Garage Rd., Lamp Post 268° at 0.4 miles 104 Figure 3.3-2_ Parkhurst Rd., Pole #23, 0.1 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 102° at 1.4 miles 105 Figure 3.3-3 Lakeview Rd. Pole #36, 0.5 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 199° at 1.4 miles 106 Figure 3.3-3 Shoreline Cove, W. ofNMP-1, Tree on W. Edge 274° at 0.3 miles 107 Figure 3.3-3 Shoreline Cove, W. ofNMP-1, 30 ft SSW of#106 273° at 0.3 miles 108 Figure 3.3-3 Lake Rd., Pole #142, 300 ftE. of Rt. 29 S. 105° at 1.1 miles 109 Figure 3.3-3 Tree North of Lake Rd., 300 ft E. of Rt. 29 N 104° at 1.1 miles 111 Figure 3.3-2 Control, State Route 38, Sterling, NY 214° at 21.8 miles 112 Figure 3.3-2 EOF, Oswego County Airport Control 175° at 11.9 miles 113 Figure 3 .3-2 Baldwinsville, NY 178° at 24.7 miles Cow's Milk *Figure 3.3-4 55** Indicator Location 97° at 8.7 miles 77* Figure 3 .3-4 Control Location 190° at 16.0 miles Food Products 632* Figure 3.3-5 Control Location - Somerville 19*0° at 16.0 miles 633* Figure 3.3-5 Indicator Location - (E) Onsite Garden 90° at 0.66 miles 634* Figure 3 .3-5 Indicator Location - (ESE) Onsite Garden 109° at 0.64 miles 635* Figure 3.3-5 Indicator Location - Southeast Onsite Garden 131° at 0.62 miles (1) Degrees and distance based on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Reactor Centerline (2) Food Product Location 240 required by JAFNPP ODCM
| |
| * Sample location required by ODCM
| |
| ** Optional sample 3 - 28
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued)
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE LOCATION FIGURE MEDIUM LOCATION DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION NUMBER Thermo luminescent 1-1
| |
| * ISFSI West Fence, South End of Storage Pad Dosimeters (TLD) 1-2* ISFSI West Fence, Center of Storage Pad JAFNPP ISFSI 1-3* ISFSI West Fence, North End of Storage Pad 1-4* ISFSI North Fence, West End of Storage Pad 1-5* ISFSI North Fence, Center of Storage Pad 1-6* ISFSI North Fence, East End of Storage Pad 1-7* ISFSI East Fence; North End of Storage Pad 1-8* ISFSI East Fence, Center of Storage Pad 1-9* ISFSI East Fence, South End of Storage Pad 1-10*
| |
| * ISFSI South Fence, East End of Storage Pad 1-11
| |
| * ISFSI South Fence, Center of Storage Pad 1-12* ISFSI South Fence, West End of Storage Pad 1-13** ISFSI Building and Grounds Garage, East of Pad 1-14** ISFSI Tree ~100 yards South of Pad 1-15** ISFSI Transmission Line Tower South of Pad at East /West Access Road 1-16** ISFSI Perimeter Fence ~100 yards West of Pad on Pad Centerline 1-17** ISFSI North Fence of Main Switch Yard on Pad Centerline I-18** ISFSI North Inner Perimeter Fence at Lake Shore on Pad Centerline Optically Stimulated 233** ISFSI West Northwest Fence Luminescence ISFSI West Southwest Fence 234**
| |
| Dosimeters (OSLD) 235** ISFSI South Fence NMPNS 236** ISFSI South Southeast Fence 237** ISFSI Southeast 238**
| |
| ISFSI East Southeast Fence
| |
| * Sample location required by ODCM
| |
| ** Indicates Optional TLD location 3 -29
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued)
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE LOCATION FIGURE NUMBER LOCATION DESCRIPTION DEGREES & DISTANCE Cl)
| |
| MEDIUM DESIGNATION Optically Stimulated 239** ISFSI East Fence Luminescence 240** ISFSI Northeast Fence Dosimeters (OSLD)
| |
| - - --- - - - -- - - - - '241-*-*- - -- - - - - -ISFSINorthFence NMPNS ( continued) 242** ISFSI Northeast Fence 243** ISFSI North Northwest Fence 244** ISFSI Northeast Fence 245** ISFSI Northeast Fence 246** ISFSI East Northeast Fence Groundwater MW 1, 5-13, 15-21 Figure 3 .3-7b Down Gradient Wells - Indicators 258' to 78' at <0.3 miles NMPNS GMX-MW-1 Figure 3.3-7b Upland Well - Control 160' at 0.3 miles MW-14 Figure 3.3-7b Upland Well- Control 187' at 0.2 miles PZ-1-PZ-8 Figure 3.3-7b Piezometer Wells North NMPl Reactor Building PZ-9 Figure 3 .3-7b Piezometer Wells - Control South NMPl on Transformer Road (1) Degrees and distance based on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Reactor Centerline
| |
| **Indicate optional TLD/OSLD Locations 3 - 30
| |
| | |
| TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued)
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE LOCATION FIGURE LOCATION DESCRIPTION MEDIUM DESIGNATION NUMBER JAFNPP MW-1 (A) Figure 3.3-7a Southwest of Reactor Building Ground Water MW-1 (B) Figure 3.3-7a Southwest of Reactor Building Monitoring Wells MW-2 (A) Figure 3.3-7a Northwest of Reactor Building
| |
| . MW-2 (B) Figure 3.3-7a Northwest of Reactor Building MW-3 (A) Figure 3.3-7a Northwest of Reactor Building MW-3 (B) Figure 3.3-7a Northwest of Reactor Building MW-4 (A) Figure 3.3-7a Northeast of Reactor Building MW-4 (B) Figure 3.3-7a Northeast of Reactor Building MW-5 Figure 3.3-7a Northwest Edge of Property MW-6 Figure 3.3-7a North/ Northwest Edge of Property MW-7 Figure 3.3-7a North Edge of Property MW-8 Figure 3.3-7a North I Northeast Edge of Property MW-9 Figure 3.3-7a Northeast Edge of Property MW-10 (A) Figure 33-7a Southeast of Reactor Building MW-10 (B) Figure 3.3-7a Southeast of Reactor Building MW-13 Figure 3.3-7a West of Reactor Building MW-14 Figure 3.3-7a East of Reactor Building MW-15 Figure 3.3-7a South of Reactor Building MW-16 Figure 3.3-7a Northwest of Reactor Building MW-19 Figure 3.3-7a Northwest Edge of Property MW-20 Figure 3.3-7a Southwest Edge of Property (Control)
| |
| MW-21 Figure 3.3-7a South of Reactor Building (Outside protected area)
| |
| (Control) 3 - 31
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3.3-1 New York State Map Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant y
| |
| ~ =---__J
| |
| . 1111CA t I N+;'WYORI<
| |
| 3 - 32
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3.3-2 OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL STATION AND TLD LOCATIONS KEY:
| |
| 0 TLD LOCATION 6,. ENVIRONMENTAL STATION Lake Oswego County Ontario New York SCALE IN MILES Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station 0 2 3 4 5 IWSWI 123.75° St. R\e3 146.25° ISSWI 168.75° 3 - 33
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3.3-3 ONSITE ENVIRONMENTAL STATION AND TLD LOCATIONS KEY:
| |
| D 0
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL STATION TLD LOCATION 1
| |
| Lake Ontario 58.25*
| |
| ENE 78.75" WNW 1 Mile Radius L____
| |
| ,II l"'
| |
| lskaflood 258 .75 101.25*
| |
| WSW J
| |
| l Q.
| |
| ESE SW 123.75" SSW 8 SE 191.25* 188.75" SSE Scale
| |
| .1 (tenths)
| |
| I I I I 0 (miles) 1 3 - 34
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3.3-4 MILK AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS KEY: Lake 0 SURFACE WATER LOCATION Ontario
| |
| ~ MILK SAMPLE LOCATION Oswego County New York SCALE IN MILES 0 2 3 4 5 lwswl Control -
| |
| St R1t 31. Sld'lg NY
| |
| [SE]
| |
| 213.75° 146.25° ISSWI 168.75° ISSEI 3 - 35
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3.3-5 FOOD PRODUCT, FISH, AND r
| |
| SHORELINE SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS KEY:
| |
| Q FISH 6,,. FOOD PRODUCT SHORELINE SEDIMENT Lake Ontario Oswego County New York Nine Mile Point SCALE IN MILES Nuclear Station 0 2 3 4 5 rn lwswJ ISWI fil]
| |
| st.Rte3 146 .25° ISSWI 168 .75° 3 - 36
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3.3-6a 1
| |
| JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NEAREST RESIDENCE
| |
| .N' Q -Year-Round Residence
| |
| £1. -Seasonal Residence LAKE ONTARIO 1 MILE RADIUS
| |
| --90 ESE 123. 75 SE SSW 191. 25 180 168, 75 146, 25 0 1
| |
| -------------------- Miles 2
| |
| 3 - 37
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3.3-6b 1
| |
| NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION NEAREST RESIDENCE Q- Year-Round Residence J(
| |
| a- Seasonal.Residence LAKE ONTARIO 1 MILE RADIUS N
| |
| I ESE SE 123,75 Miner Road 213.75 SSE 180 146.25 Scale 1
| |
| 0 2 Miles 3 - 38
| |
| | |
| MW-5 LAKE 0~1TARIO MW-9
| |
| \ MW-6
| |
| \
| |
| \
| |
| D ( ----- \
| |
| 0 ,1 0
| |
| I
| |
| .J Power Plant Warehouse MW-16 Admin Building MW-2 (B) MW-4 (A)
| |
| MW-2 (A) I-+-!====~ MW-4 (B) CJ
| |
| !ii MW-13 1--t---t--t1.n E
| |
| .E Ill 0
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| I-MW-1 (A)
| |
| MW-1 (B) Training
| |
| **- -**H*-*- - * -*~ - -
| |
| :::J 1
| |
| J(
| |
| ~ , )
| |
| FIGURE 3.3-7a 1-;/
| |
| JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ON-SITE GROUNDWATER ffttiilttt ; I MONITORING WELLS o_ _ _s~o'==- 10-0_ ~1,,, so~'""""2~0-0_ ~2s_o-= 300
| |
| - ' - Monitoring Well Location I ~ ~=---~===
| |
| YARDS 3 - 39
| |
| | |
| FIGURE 3.3-7b NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR POWER STATION ON-SITE GROUNDWATER 1 LAKE ONTARIO MONITORING WELLS AND UNIT 2 STORM DRAIN OUTFALL Monitoring Well Location K Unit 2 Storm Drain Outfall 001 MW-5
| |
| ~ - Storm Drain Outfall 001 11 .25
| |
| '\...---"""'
| |
| Is \' \ \
| |
| '\, .\\
| |
| ~:;v-15 ~ *'
| |
| \ ")
| |
| r ed - ___ . --*--__ . . ---C\ \\~
| |
| ***, I 123.75
| |
| . IPZ-61 \
| |
| ID
| |
| !PZ-3,,
| |
| m \\\\\\,\
| |
| 146.25 SCALE (YARDS)
| |
| @ MW-B 119 and PZ-9 0 100 200 300 groundwater wells are located south of Lake IGMfMW11 Road near the Haz-Waste building. Lake Road f
| |
| 3 - 40
| |
| | |
| 3.4 LAND USE CENSUS The ODCM requires that a milch animal census and a residence census be conducted annually out to a distance of 5 miles. Milch animals are defined as any animal that is routinely used to provide milk for human consumption.
| |
| The milch animal census is an estimation of the number of cows and goats within an approximate I 0-mile radius of the Nine Mile Point site. The census is done once per year in the summer. It is conducted by sending questionnaires to previous milch animal owners, and by road surveys to locate any possible new owners. In the event that questionnaires are not answered, the owners are contacted by telephone or in person. The Oswego County Cooperative Extension Service was also contacted to provide any additional information.
| |
| The residence census is conducted each year to identify the closest residence in each of the 22.5 degree meteorological sectors out to a distance of five miles. 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. Eight of the site meteorological sectors are over Lake Ontario; therefore, there are only eight sectors over land where residences are located within five miles.
| |
| In addition to the milch animal and residence census, a garden census was performed for the 2022 growing season. The census is conducted each year to identify the gardens nearest the site, within a 5-mile radius, that are to be used for the collection of food product samples.
| |
| 3 - 41
| |
| | |
| 3.5 CHANGES TO THE REMP PROGRAM There were three new onsite gardens added in 2022 to satisfy vegetation sampling requirements. Based upon the results of the 2022 Land Use Census, there were no other changes to the 2022 sampling program.
| |
| 3.6 DEVIATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROGRAM The noted exceptions to the 2022 sample program address only those samples or monitoring requirements which are required by the ODCM. This section satisfies the reporting requirements of Part I, Section 5.1.3 of the JAFNPP ODCM, Section D 6.9.1.d of the NMPl ODCM and Section D 4.1.2 of the NMP2 ODCM.
| |
| 3.6.1 ODCM Program Deviations The following are deviations from the program specified by the ODCM in 2022:
| |
| 08/19/22-08/26/22 Oswego Steam Station (08, Control) composite sampler was unable to obtain samples due to pump being inoperable. Manual sampling occurred during the period of pump inoperability.
| |
| 08/01/22, 08/15/22, 05/05/22 & 11/14/22 Offsite Air Station H-Off flow was above target range upon collection of routine cartridge changes. Adjustments made to lower flow.
| |
| 3.6.2 Air Sampling Station Operability Assessment The ODCM required air sampling program consists of five individual sampling locations.
| |
| The collective operable time period for the air monitoring stations was 43,800 hours out of a possible 43,800 hours. The air sampling availability factor for the report period was 100%.
| |
| Air sampling equipment found inoperable were returned to service. Identification oflocations for obtaining replacement samples were not required.
| |
| 3 -42
| |
| : 3. 7 STA TIS TI CAL METHODOLOGY There are a number of statistical calculation methodologies used in evaluating the data from the I
| |
| environmental monitoring program. These methodologies include determination of standard deviation, the mean and associated error for the mean, and the lower limit of detection (LLD).
| |
| 3.7.1 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION The mean (X) and standard deviation(s) were used in the reduction of the data generated by the sampling and analysis of the various media in the JAFNPP and Nine Mile Point Radiological Environmental Monitoring Programs (REMP). The following equations were utilized to compute the mean (X) and the standard deviation(s):
| |
| : 1. Mean n
| |
| X I xi i =I N
| |
| Where, X = estimate of the mean
| |
| = individual sample N, n = total number of samples with positive indications Xi = value for sample i above the lower limit of detection.
| |
| : 2. Standard Deviation 1/2 S=
| |
| (N -1)
| |
| Where, X = mean for the values of X s = standard deviation for the sample population 3 - 43
| |
| | |
| 3.7.2 ESTIMATION OF THE MEAN & THE ESTIMATED ERROR FOR THE MEAN In accordance with program policy, when the initial count indicates the presence of plant-related radionuclide(s) in a sample, two recounts of the sample may be required.
| |
| When a radionuclide is positively identified in two or more counts, the analytical result for the radionuclide is reported as the mean of the positive detections and the associated propagated error for that mean. In cases where more than one positive sample result exists, the mean of the sample results and the estimated error for the mean are reported in the Annual Report.
| |
| The following equations were utilized to estimate the mean ( X) and the associated propagated error.
| |
| : 1. Mean X=
| |
| N Where:
| |
| X = estimate of the mean
| |
| = individual sample N, n = total number of samples with positive indications Xi = value for sample i above the lower limit of detection.
| |
| : 2. Error of the Mean 112 ERROR MEAN = [.-£ z=l (ERROR) ]
| |
| 2 N
| |
| Where:
| |
| ERROR MEAN = propagated error
| |
| = individual sample ERROR = 1 sigma* error of the individual analysis N, n = number of samples with positive indications
| |
| * Sigma (cr)
| |
| Sigma is the Greek letter used to represent the mathematical term Standard Deviation.
| |
| Standard Deviation is a measure of dispersion from the arithmetic mean of a set of numbers.
| |
| 3 - 44
| |
| | |
| 3.7.3 LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION (LLD)
| |
| The LLD is the predetermined concentration or activity level used to establish a detection limit for the analytical procedures.
| |
| The LLDs are specified by the ODCM for radionuclides in specific media and are determined by taking into account the overall measurement methods. The equation used to calculate the LLD is:
| |
| 4.66 Sb LLD=
| |
| (E)(V) (2.22) (Y) exp (-AM)
| |
| Where:
| |
| LLD = the a priori lower limit of detection, as defined above (in picocuries per unit mass or volume)
| |
| Sb = the standard deviation of the background counting rate or of the counting rate of a blank sample, as appropriate (in counts per minute)
| |
| E = the counting efficiency (in counts per disintegration)
| |
| V = the sample size (in units of mass or volume) 2.22 = the number of disintegrations per minute per picocurie Y = the fractional radiochemical yield (when applicable)
| |
| A = the radioactive decay constant for the particular radionuclide
| |
| ~t = the elapsed time between sample collection (or end of the sample collection period) and time of counting The ODCM LLD formula assumes that:
| |
| : 1. The counting times for the sample and background are equal
| |
| : 2. The count rate of the background is approximately equal to the count rate of the sample In the ODCM program, LLDs are used to ensure that minimum acceptable detection capabilities are met with specified statistical confidence levels (95% detection probability with 5% probability of a false negative). Table 3.8-1 lists the ODCM program required LLDs for specific media and radionuclides as specified by the NRC. The LLDs actually achieved are routinely lower than those specified by the ODCM.
| |
| 3 - 45
| |
| | |
| 3.8 COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIRED LOWER LIMITS OF DETECTION (LLD)
| |
| JAF ODCM, Part 1, Table 5.1 -3 , NMPl and NMP2 ODCM Tables D 4.6.20-1 and D 3.5.1-3, respectively, specifies the detection capabilities for environmental sample analysis (see report Table 3.8-1). JAF ODCM, Part l , Section 6.1 , NMPl ODCM, Section D 6.9. l d and NMP2 ODCM, Section D 4.1.2 requires that a discussion of all analyses for which the required LLDs specified were not routinely achieved be included in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.
| |
| Section 3.8 is provided pursuant to this requirement.
| |
| 3.8.1 All sample analyses performed in 2022 as required by the ODCM, achieved the Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) as specified by JAF ODCM, Part 1, Table 5.1-3, NMP l and NMP2 ODCM Tables D 4.6.20-1 and D 3.5. 1-3, respectively. See Table 3.8-1 for required LLD values.
| |
| TABLE 3.8-1 REQUIRED DETECTION CAPABILITIES FOR ENVIRONMENT AL SAMPLE ANALYSIS LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION (LLD)
| |
| Airborne Particulate Food Water or Gases Fish Milk Products Sediment Analysis (pCi/L) (pCi!m3} (pCi/kg, wet) (pCi/L) (pCi/kg, wet) (pCi/kg, dry)
| |
| Gross Beta 4 0.0 1 H-3 3000 (a)
| |
| Mn-54 15 130 Fe-59 30 260 Co-58, Co-60 15 130 Zn-65 30 260 Zr-95, Nb-95 15 1-131 15 (a) 0.07 I 60 Cs-134 15 0.05 130 15 60 150 Cs-137 18 0.06 150 18 80 180 Ba/La-140 15 15 (a) No drinking water pathway exists at the Ni ne Mile Point site under normal operating conditions due to the direction and distance of the nearest drinking water intake. Therefore, the LLD value of 3,000 pC i/liter is used for H-3 and the LLD value of 15 pCi/liter is used for 1-131.
| |
| 3 -46
| |
| | |
| 3.9 REGULATORY LIMITS Two federal agencies, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Environmental Protection Agency, have responsibility for regulations promulgated for protecting the public from radiation and radioactivity beyond the site boundary.
| |
| 3.9.1 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):
| |
| The NRC, in 10 CFR 20.1301, limits the levels of radiation in unrestricted areas resulting from the possession or use of radioactive materials such that they limit any individual to a dose of:
| |
| * less than or equal to 100 mrem per year to the total body.
| |
| In addition to this dose limit, the NRC has established design objectives for nuclear plant licensees. Conformance to these guidelines ensures that nuclear power reactor effluents are maintained as far below the legal limits as is reasonably achievable.
| |
| The NRC, in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, establishes design objectives for the dose to a member of the general public from radioactive material in liquid effluents released to unrestricted areas to be limited to:
| |
| * less than or equal to 3 mrem per year to the total body, or
| |
| * less than or equal to 10 mrem per year to any organ.
| |
| The air dose due to release of Noble gases in gaseous effluents is restricted to:
| |
| * less than or equal to 10 mrad per year for gamma radiation, or
| |
| * less than or equal to 20 mrad per year for beta radiation.
| |
| The dose to a member of the general public from Iodine-131, tritium, and all particulate radionuclides with half-lives greater than eight days in gaseous effluents is limited to:
| |
| * less than or equal to 15 mrem per year to any organ.
| |
| The NRC, in 10 CFR 72.104(a), establishes criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
| |
| During normal operations and anticipated occurrences, the annual dose equivalent to any real individual who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed:
| |
| * 25 mrem per year to the total body,
| |
| * 75 mrem per year to the thyroid, and
| |
| * 25 mrem per year to any other organ as a result of:
| |
| : 1. Planned discharges of radioactive material, radon and its decay products excepted, to the environment,
| |
| : 2. Direct radiation from ISFSI, and
| |
| : 3. Any other radiation from uranium fuel cycle operations in the region.
| |
| 3 - 47
| |
| | |
| 3.9.2 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
| |
| The EPA, in 40 CFR 190.10, Subpart B, sets forth the environmental standards for the uranium fuel cycle. During normal operation, the annual dose to any member of the public from the entire uranium fuel cycle shall be limited to:
| |
| * less than or equal to 25 mrem per year to the total body,
| |
| * less than or equal to 75 mrem per year to the thyroid, and
| |
| * less than or equal to 25 mrem per year to any other organ.
| |
| 3 - 48
| |
| | |
| 4.0 SAMPLE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| TABLES IN BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION FORMAT All sample data is summarized in table form. The tables are titled "Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary" and use the following format as specified in the NRC Branch Technical Position:
| |
| Column
| |
| : 1. Sample Medium
| |
| : 2. Type and Number of Analyses Performed
| |
| : 3. Required Lower Limits of Detection (LLD), see Section 3.8, Table 3.8-1. This wording indicates that inclusive data is based on 4.66 Sb (sigma) of background (See Section 3.7).
| |
| : 4. The mean and range of the positive measured values of the indicator locations
| |
| : 5. The mean, range, and location of the highest indicator annual mean. Location designations are keyed to Table 3.3-1 in Section 3.3
| |
| : 6. The mean and range of the positive measured values of the control locations
| |
| : 7. The number of non-routine reports sent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTE: Only positive measured values are used in statistical calculations.
| |
| 4 -1
| |
| | |
| TABLE 4.0-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022*
| |
| INDICATOR LOCATION (b) OF HIGHEST NUMBER OF TYPE AND NUMBER LOCATIONS: MEAN ANNUAL MEAN; LOCATION & CONTROL LOCATION: NONROUTINE MEDIUM (UNITS) OF ANALYSES* LLD(a) (f)/RANGE MEAN (f)/RANGE MEAN (f)/RANGE REPORTS Shoreline Sediment GSA (4):
| |
| (pCi/kg-dry) (Gamma-Spectrum Analysis)
| |
| Cs-134 150 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-137 180 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Fish GSA (18):
| |
| (pCi/kg-wet)
| |
| Mn-54 130 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Co-58 130 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Fe-59 260 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Co-60 130 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Zn-65 260 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-134 130 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-137 150 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 4- 2
| |
| | |
| TABLE 4.0-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022*
| |
| INDICATOR LOCATION (b) OF HIGHEST NUMBER OF TYPE AND NUMBER LOCATIONS: MEAN ANNUAL MEAN; LOCATION & CONTROL LOCATION : NON ROUTINE MEDIUM (UN ITS) OF ANALYSES* LLD(a) (f)/RANGE MEAN (f)/RANGE MEAN (f)/RANGE REPORTS Surface Water H-3 (20): 3000(c) <LLD 08 270 (1/4) 270 (1/4) 0 (pCi/liter) 7.6 MILES at 237° GSA (60) :
| |
| Mn-54 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Fe-59 30 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Co-58 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Co-60 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Zn-65 30 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Zr-95 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Nb-95 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 1-131 15(c) <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-134 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-137 18 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Ba/La-140 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 TLD (mrem per Gamma Dose (128) (i) (d) 5.6 (116/116) TLD #85 (g) 8.7 (4/4) 5.1 (12/12) 0 standard month) 4.1-9.0 0.2 MILES at 292° 8.5-8 .9 4.5-5.7 4-3
| |
| | |
| TABLE 4.0-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022*
| |
| INDICATOR LOCATION (b) OF HIGHEST NUMBER OF TYPE AND NUMBER LOCATIONS: MEAN ANNUAL MEAN; LOCATION & CONTROL LOCATION: NONROUTINE MEDIUM (UN ITS) OF ANALYSES* LLD(a) (f)/RANGE MEAN (f)/RANGE MEAN (f)/RANGE REPORTS Air Particulates Gross Beta (265): 10 18.4 (212/212) R-4 19.0 (53/53) 18.4 (53/53) 0 (10E-3 pCi/m 3) 10.1-32.9 1.8 MILES at 145° 10.1-32.9 8.8-32.1 1-131 (265): 70 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 GSA (20):
| |
| Cs-134 50 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-137 60 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Milk GSA (36): (e) (h)
| |
| (pCi/liter)
| |
| Cs-134 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-137 18 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Ba/La140 15 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 1-131 (36):
| |
| 1-131 1 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Food Products GSA (14):
| |
| (pCi/kg-wet) 1-131 60 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-134 60 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-137 80 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0 4-4
| |
| | |
| TABLE NOTES:
| |
| * = Data for Table 4.0-1 is based on ODCM required samples only.
| |
| (a) = LLD values as required by the ODCM. LLD units are specified in the medium column.
| |
| (b) = Location is distance in miles and direction in compass degrees based on NMP-2 reactor center-line rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile. Units in this column are specified in medium column.
| |
| (c) = The ODCM specifies an 1-131 and tritium LLD value for surface water analysis (non-drinking water) of 15 pCi/liter and 3000 pCi/liter respectively.
| |
| (d) = The ODCM does not specify a particular LLD value to environmental TLDs.
| |
| (e) = The ODCM criteria for indicator milk sample locations include locations withi n 5.0 miles of the site. There are no milk sample locations within 5.0 miles of the site. Therefore, the only sample location required by the ODCM is the control location. There was one optional location for 2022. The data is being included in the summary.
| |
| (f) = Fraction of number of detectable measurements to total number of measurements. Mean and range results are based on detectable measurements only.
| |
| Example: Mean of detectable measurements (detectable measurements/total measurements)
| |
| Minimum detectable-Maximum detectable (g) = This dose is not representative of doses to a member of the public since this area is located near the north shoreline which is in close proximity to the generating facility and is not accessible to members of the public (See Section 5.2.4, TLDs).
| |
| (h) = Data includes results from optional samples in addition to samples required by the ODCM.
| |
| (i) = Indicator TLD locations are: #7, 15, 18, 23, 56, 58, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98**. Control TLDs are TLDs located beyond the influence of the site (TLD #: 8, 14 and 49).
| |
| ** NMP 1 and NMP2 additional TLD 4-5
| |
| | |
| 5.0 DATA EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION Introduction Each year the results of the annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) are evaluated considering plant operations at the site, the natural processes in the environment, and the archive of historical environmental radiological data. A number of factors are considered in the course of evaluating and interpreting the annual environmental radiological data. This interpretation can be made using several methods including trend analysis, population dose estimates, risk estimates to the general population based on significance of environmental concentrations, effectiveness of plant effluent controls, and specific research areas. The report not only presents the data collected during the 2022 sample program but also assesses the significance of radionuclides detected in the environment. It is important to note that detection of a radionuclide is not, of itself, an indication of environmental significance. Evaluation of the impact of the radionuclide in terms of potential increased dose to the individual, in relation to natural background, is necessary to determine the true significance of any detection.
| |
| Units of Measure Some of the units of measure used in this report are explained below.
| |
| Radioactivity is the number of atoms in a material that decay per unit of time. Each time an atom decays, radiation is emitted. The curie (Ci) is the unit used to describe the activity of a material and indicates the rate at which the atoms are decaying. One curie of activity indicates the decay of 37 billion atoms per second.
| |
| The mass, or weight, of radioactive material that would result in one curie of activity depends on the disintegration rate or half-life. For example, one gram of radium-226 contains one curie of activity, but it would require about 1.5 million grams of natural uranium to equal one curie. Radium-226 is more radioactive than natural uranium on a weight or mass basis.
| |
| Smaller units of the curie are used in this report. Two common units are the microcurie (µCi),
| |
| which is one millionth (0.000001) of a curie, and the picocurie (pCi), which is one trillionth (0.000000000001) of a curie. The picocurie (pCi) is the unit ofradiation that is routinely used in this report.
| |
| Dose/Dose to Individual The dose or dose equivalent, simply put, is the amount of ionizing energy deposited or absorbed in living tissue. The amount of energy deposited or ionization caused is dependent on the type of radiation. For example, alpha radiation can cause dense localized ionization that can be up to 20 times the amount of ionization for the same energy imparted as from gamma or x-rays. Therefore, a quality factor must be applied to account for the different ionizing capabilities of various types of radiation.
| |
| When the quality factor is multiplied by the absorbed dose, the result is the dose equivalent, which is an estimate of the possible biological damage resulting from exposure to any type of ionizing radiation. The dose equivalent is measured in rem (roentgen equivalent individual). In terms of environmental radiation, the rem is a large unit. Therefore, a smaller unit, the millirem (mrem) is often used. One millirem (mrem) is equal to 0.001 of a rem.
| |
| The term "dose to individual" refers to the dose or dose equivalent that is received by members of the 5- 1
| |
| | |
| general public at or beyond the site boundary. The dose is calculated based on concentrations of radioactive material measured in the environment. The primary pathways that contribute to the dose to an individual are the inhalation pathway, the ingestion pathway, and direct radiation.
| |
| Discussion In the United States, a person's average annual radiation dose is 620 mrem. About half that amount comes from naturally occurring rad ionuclides. Radon and thoron gases account for two-thirds of this exposure, while cosmic, terrestrial, and internal radiation account for the remainder. The other half comes from manmade sources and is mostly from diagnostic medical procedures.
| |
| The pie chart below shows a breakdown of radiation sources that contribute to the average annual U.S.
| |
| radiation dose of 620 mrem . Nearly three-fourths of this dose is split between radon/thoron gas (naturally occurring) and diagnostic medical procedures (manmade).
| |
| Sources of Radiation Exposure in the United states Source : NCRP Report No. 160 (2009) lndL&trial & Ccns1A'Tti!r 0=..opational\
| |
| -:0 . 1'16 Products 2'1(,
| |
| Tsrui'ial (sail) 3'16
| |
| -:1;-:
| |
| Radon a nd Theron l\i.
| |
| 37'!(, 't$.
| |
| ;,*p*;*~. "' N uclea- M ed icine I'f 12%
| |
| Natt.ral Sou~es - 50% Manmooe Sou~es - S0°/4 .
| |
| * -310 mi lirem (0 .31 ~em ) Medical Proca:!11* -310 millirem (0.31 rem) 36'1(,
| |
| 5-2
| |
| | |
| There are three separate groups of radionuclides that were measured and analyzed for in the 2022 environmental sampling program.
| |
| : 1. The first of these groups consists of the radionuclides that are naturally occurring. The environment contains a significant inventory of naturally occurring radioactive elements. The components of natural or background radiation include the decay of radioactive elements in the earth's crust, a steady stream of high-energy particles from space called cosmic radiation and naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes in the human body like Potassium-40.
| |
| A number of naturally occurring radionuclides are present in the environment. These are expected to be present in many of the environmental samples collected in the vicinity of the Nine Mile Point Site. Some of the radionuclides normally present include:
| |
| * Beryllium- 7, present as a result of the interaction of cosmic radiation with the upper atmosphere
| |
| * Potassium-40 and Radium-226, naturally occurring radionuclides found in the human body and throughout the environment Beryllium-7 and Potassium-40 are especially common in REMP samples. Since they are naturally occurring and are abundant, positive results for these radionuclides are reported in some cases in Section 6.0 of this report. Comparisons of program samples to naturally occurring radiation are made throughout this section to help put program results into perspective and to aid the reader in determining what, if any, significant impact is demonstrated by the REMP results.
| |
| : 2. The second group consists of radionuclides that may be detected in the environment as a result of the detonation of thermonuclear devices in the earth' s atmosphere. Atmospheric nuclear testing during the early 1950's produced a measurable inventory ofradionuclides presently found in the lower atmosphere, as well as in ecological systems. In 1963, an Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty was signed. Since the treaty, the global inventory of manmade radioactivity in the environment has been greatly reduced through the decay of short lived radionuclides and the removal of radionuclides from the food chain by such natural processes as weathering and sedimentation.
| |
| This process is referred to in this report as ecological cycling. Since 1963, several atmospheric weapons tests have been conducted by the People's Republic of China and underground weapons testing by India, Pakistan & North Korea. In some cases, the usual radionuclides associated with nuclear detonations were detected for several months following the test, and then after a peak detection period, diminished to a point where most could not be detected. Although reduced in frequency, atmospheric testing continued into the 1980's. The resulting fallout or deposition from these most recent tests has influenced the background radiation in the vicinity of the site and was evident in many of the sample media analyzed over the years. Fallout radionuclides from nuclear weapons testing included Cesium-137 and Strontium-90. The highest weapons testing concentrations were noted in samples collected for the 1981 REMP. Cs-137 was the major byproduct of this testing and is still occasionally detected in a few select number of environmental media.
| |
| : 3. The third group consists of radionuclides that may be detected in the environment are related to nuclear power technology. These radionuclides are the byproduct of the operation of light water reactors. These byproduct radionuclides, the same as those produced in atmospheric weapons testing, are found in the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station fallout. This commonality makes a determination of the source of these radionuclides, which may be detected in environmental samples, difficult. During 2022, there were no plant-related radionuclides detected in the REMP sampling.
| |
| 5-3
| |
| | |
| A number of factors must be considered in performing radiological sample data evaluation and interpretation. The evaluation is made using several approaches including trend analysis and dose to an individual. An attempt has been made not only to report the data collected during 2022, but also to assess the significance of the radionuclides detected in the environment as compared to naturally occurring and manmade radiation sources. It is important to note that detected concentrations of radionuclides in the local environment as a result of man' s technology are very small and are of no, or little, significance from an environmental or dose to an individual perspective.
| |
| The 2009 per capita average dose was determined to be 620 mrem per year from all sources, as noted in National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) Report No. 160. This average dose includes such exposure sources as industrial & occupational, consumer products, terrestrial, cosmic, internal, nuclear medicine, medical procedures, radon and thoron. The 2009 per capita dose rate due to naturally occurring sources was 310 mrem per year. The per capita radiation dose from nuclear power production nationwide is less than 1 mrem per year.
| |
| The naturally occurring gamma radiation in the environs of the Nine Mile Point site, resulting from radionuclides in the atmosphere and in the ground, accounts for approximately 50 mrem per year. This dose is a result of radionuclides of cosmic origin (for example, Be-7) and of primordial origin (Ra-226, K-40 and Th-232). A dose of 50 mrem per year, as a background dose, is significantly greater than any possible doses as a result of routine operations at the site during 2022.
| |
| The results of each sample medium are discussed in detail in Sections 5.1 and 5.2. This includes a summary of the results, the estimated environmental impact, a detailed review of any relevant findings with a dose to an individual estimate where appropriate, and an analysis of possible long-term and short-term trends.
| |
| During routine implementation of the REMP, additional or optional environmental pathway media are sampled and analyzed. These samples are obtained to:
| |
| * Expand the area covered by the program beyond that required by the ODCM
| |
| * Provide more comprehensive monitoring than is currently required
| |
| * Monitor the secondary dose to an individual' s pathways
| |
| * Maintain the analytical data base established when the plants began commercial operation The optional samples that are collected will vary from year to year. In addition to the optional sample media, additional locations are sampled and analyzed for those pathways required by the ODCM. These additional sample locations are obtained to ensure that a variety of environmental pathways are monitored in a comprehensive manner. Data from additional sample locations that are associated with the required ODCM sample media are included in the data presentation and evaluation.
| |
| When additional locations are included, the use of this data is specifically noted in Sections 5. 1 and 5.2.
| |
| Section 6.0 contains the analytical results for the sample media addressed in the report. Tables are provided for each required sample medium analyzed during the 2022 program.
| |
| Section 7.0, titled Historical Data Tables, contains statistics from previous years' environmental sampling. The process of determining the impact of plant operation on the environment includes the evaluation of past analytical data to determine if trends are changing or developing. As state- of-the-art detection capabilities improve, data comparison is difficult in some cases. For example, Lower Limits of Detections (LLDs) have improved significantly since 1969 due to technological advances in laboratory procedures and analytical equipment.
| |
| 5-4
| |
| | |
| 5.1 AQUATIC PROGRAM The aquatic program consists of samples collected from three environmental pathways.
| |
| These pathways are:
| |
| * Shoreline Sediment
| |
| * Fish
| |
| * Surface Water Section 6.0, Tables 6-1 through 6-4 present the analytical results for the aquatic samples collected for the 2022 sampl ing period.
| |
| 5.1.1 SHORELINE SEDIMENT RESULTS A. Results Summary Shoreline sediment samples were obtained in April and October of 2022 at one offsite control location (Lang's Beach located near Oswego Harbor) and at one indicator location (Sunset Bay) which is an area east of the site considered to have recreational value.
| |
| A total of four sediment samples were collected for the 2022 sample program, two indicator and two controls. No plant-related radionuclides were detected in the 2022 shoreline sediment samples.
| |
| The following is a graph of the average Cs-137 concentration in shoreline sediment samples over the past 17 years. The graph illustrates sample results that are less than the ODCM-required LLD of 180 pCi/kg (dry). No Cs-137 has been detected in shoreline sediment samples since 2008.
| |
| Shoreline Sediment Cs-137 LLD Value 180 - - - - - .,. - - ~ - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - .,. - - - - - - - - - - . - - * - - * - - '" - - - - -
| |
| CONTROL INDICATOR 60 0
| |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~#~~##
| |
| 5-5
| |
| | |
| B. Data Evaluation and Discussion Shoreline sediment samples are routinely collected twice per year from the shoreline of Lake Ontario. Samples are collected from one indicator location (Sunset Bay), and one control location (Lang's Beach). Samples were collected from both the indicator and control locations in April and October 2022. The results of these sample collections are presented in Section 6.0, Table 6-1 , "Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Shoreline Sediment Samples - 2022". Potassium-40 (K-40), Thorium-228 (Th-228) and Thorium-232 (Th-232) all naturally-occurring isotopes, were the only radionuclides detected in the sediment samples.
| |
| C. Dose Evaluation The calculated potential whole body and skin doses which may result from the measured Cs-137 concentrations in previous years are extremely small and are insignificant when compared to natural background doses.
| |
| The radiological impact of Cs-13 7 measured in the shoreline sediment can be evaluated on the basis of dose to an individual. In the case of shoreline sediments, the critical pathway is direct radiation to the whole body and skin. Using the parameters provided in Regulatory Guide 1.109, the potential dose to an individual in mrem per year can be calculated. The following regulatory guide values were used in calculating the dose to an individual:
| |
| * A teenager spends 67 hours per year at the beach area or on the shoreline,
| |
| * The sediment has a mass of 40 kg/m 2 (dry) to a depth of2.5 cm,
| |
| * The shoreline width factor is 0.3, and
| |
| * The maximum 2022 LLD concentration of <0.070 pCi/g (dry).
| |
| Using these conservative parameters, the potential dose to the maximum exposed individual (teenager) would be 0.00024 mrem/year to the whole body and 0.00028 mrem/year to the skin. This calculated dose is very small and is insignificant when compared to the natural background annual exposure of approximately 52 mrem as measured by control TLDs in the vicinity of the site.
| |
| D. Data Trends Cesium-137 was not detected at the indicator and control sample locations from 2008 through 2022.
| |
| The general absence of Cs-13 7 in the indicator and control samples can be attributed to changing lake levels and shoreline erosion. Recent soil samples, from locations beyond any expected influence from the site, have contained levels of Cs-13 7 equal to or greater than the concentrations found in shoreline samples collected in the past. Cesium-137 is commonly found in soil samples and is attributed to weapons testing fallout.
| |
| The previous 18-year data trend for indicator and control shoreline samples showed an overall downward trend in concentration measured at the indicator sample locations.
| |
| Cesium-137 was not detected at the indicator or control locations for 2008 through 2022.
| |
| This continues to support the long term decreasing trend in Cs-137 concentration in shoreline sediment samples.
| |
| 5-6
| |
| | |
| Shoreline sedi ment sampling at the indicator location commenced in 1985. Prior to 1985, no data was available for long term trend analysis.
| |
| Section 7 .0, Tables 7-1 and 7-2 illustrate historical environmental data for shoreline sediment samples.
| |
| 5.1.2 FISH SAMPLE RESULTS A. Results Summary A total of 18 fish samples were collected for the 2022 sample program. The analytical results for the 2022 fish samples showed no detectable concentration of radionuclides that would be attributable to plant operations at the site or past atmospheric weapons testing.
| |
| Since 2002, Cs-137 has not been measured in fish samples. Over the previous 20 years prior to 2004, Cs-137 has been detected at a combination of both the indicator and/or control locations. (Refer to Tables 7-3 and 7-4). These low levels of Cs-137 represented no significant dose to an individual or impact on the environment.
| |
| The 2022 fish sample results demonstrate that plant operations at the Nine Mile Point Site have no measurable radiological environmental impact on the upper levels of the Lake Ontario food chain. The 2022 results are consistent with previous year's results in that they continue to support the general long-term downward trend in fish Cs-137 concentrations over the past 25 years. Cesium-137 was not detected in fish samples collected from 2004 to 2022 at indicator locations.
| |
| B. Data Evaluation and Discussion Fish collections were made utilizing gill nets at one location greater than five miles from the site (Oswego Harbor area) and at two locations in the vicinity of the lake discharges for the NMPNS and the JAFNPP facilities. The Oswego Harbor samples served as control samples while the NMPNS and JAFNPP samples served as indicator samples. All samples were analyzed for gamma emitters. Section 6.0, Table 6-2 shows individual results for all the samples collected in 2022 in units of pCi/kg (wet).
| |
| The spring fish collection was made up of nine individual samples representing three separate species. Lake Trout, Brown Trout and Smallmouth Bass were collected.
| |
| The summer fish collection was comprised of nine individual samples representing three individual species. Lake Trout, Smallmouth Bass and Walleye were collected.
| |
| C. Dose Evaluation Fish represent the highest level in the aquatic food chain and have the potential to be a contributor to the dose to an individual from the operations at the site. The lack of detectable concentrations of plant-related radionuclides in the 2022 fish samples demonstrates that there is no dose to an individual attributable from operations at the site through the aquatic pathway. Some Lake Ontario fish species may be considered an important food source due to the local sport fishing industry. Therefore, these fish are an integral part of the human food chain.
| |
| 5-7
| |
| | |
| D. Data Trends The positive detection of Cs-1 37 in fish samples ceased in 2003. The graph below illustrates the mean control and indicator Cs-137 concentrations for 2022 and the previous 17 years. Results are consistently well below the ODCM-required LLD value of 150 pCi/kg (wet).
| |
| ANNUAL MEAN CONCENTRATION FISH Cs-137 I LLDValue I 15() - - - - - - ~- - I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... - - ..... - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - -
| |
| CONTROL 120 INDICATOR CCl,l
| |
| ::r;
| |
| '-' 90
| |
| '=Ji uQ.
| |
| I, 60 30 The general long-term trend for Cs-137 has been decreasing since 1976 and is most probably a result of the cesium becoming unavailable to the ecosystem due to ion exchange with soils and sediments and radiological decay. The concentrations of Cs- 137 detected in fish since 1976 are considered to be the result of weapons testing fallout. The general downward trend in concentrations will continue as a function of additional ecological cycling and radiological decay.
| |
| Between 1997 and 1998, a consistent level of Cs-13 7 was measured in fish. After 1998, the number of positive detections dropped off. The 1996 through 2022 results, as a group, are the lowest Cs-137 concentrations measured over the existence of the sample program.
| |
| Section 7.0, Tables 7-3 and 7-4 show historical environmental sample data for fish.
| |
| 5.1.3 SURFACE WATER (LAKE)
| |
| A. Results Summary The ODCM requires that monthly surface water samples be taken from the respective inlet water supplies of the JAFNPP and NRG Energy's Oswego Steam Station. In conjunction with the required samples, three additional Lake Ontario surface water locations are sampled 5-8
| |
| | |
| and analyzed. These additional locations are the Oswego City Water Intake, the NMPl Intake and the NMP2 Intake. Gamma spectral analysis was performed on 24 monthly composite samples from the ODCM locations and on 36 monthly composite samples collected from the additional sample locations. The results of the gamma spectral analyses showed that only naturally-occurring radionuclides were detected in the 60 samples from the five locations collected for the 2022 Sampling Program. Monthly composite samples showed no presence of plant-related gamma emitting isotopes in the waters of Lake Ontario as a result of plant operations.
| |
| The monthly surface water samples are composited on a quarterly basis and are analyzed for tritium. A total of 20 samples were analyzed for tritium as part of the 2022 REMP program. The results for the 2022 samples showed no positive detection of tritium above 500 pCi/L.
| |
| B. Data Evaluation and Discussion Gamma spectral analysis was performed on monthly composite samples from five Lake Ontario sampling locations. No plant-related radionuclides were detected in the 2022 samples. This is consistent with historical data, which has not shown the presence of plant-related radionuclides in surface water samples.
| |
| The tritium results for the JAFNPP inlet canal samples contained no positive detections. The 2022 results had LLD values that ranged from <167 pCi/L to <194 pCi/L. The ODCM Control location (Oswego Steam Station inlet canal) results showed one positive detection of 270 pCi/L and the other sample results had LLD values in the range of <175 pCi/L to
| |
| <186 pCi/L.
| |
| The Oswego City Water Supply is sampled to monitor drinking water quality and is representative of a control location due to its distance from the site. The city water inlet is located 7.8 miles west of the site in an "upstream" direction based on the current patterns in the lake.
| |
| The following is a summary of LLD results for the 2022 sample program:
| |
| Tritium Concentration (pCi/Liter)
| |
| Sample Location Minimum Maximum Mean (Annual)
| |
| JAF Inlet (Indicator)* <167 <194 <182 Oswego Steam Inlet (Control)* <175 270 204 NMP #1 Inlet <178 <192 <183 NMP #2 Inlet <182 <200 <190 Oswego City Water Supply <186 <196 <190
| |
| * Sample location required by ODCM The above LLD values are below the ODCM required LLD value of 3000 pCi/L. Analytical results for surface water samples are found in Section 6.0, Tables 6-3 through 6-4.
| |
| C. Dose Evaluation The radiological impact to members of the public from low levels of tritium in water is insignificant. This can be illustrated by calculating a dose to the whole body and maximum 5-9
| |
| | |
| organ using the maximurp LLD value and Regulatory Guide 1.109 methodology. Based on a water ingestion rate of 510 liters/yr and a maximum LLD concentration of 270 pCi/L, the calculated dose would be less than 0.0280 mrem per year to the child whole body and less than 0.0280 mrem per year to the child liver (critical age group/organ).
| |
| D. Data Trends There are no data trends for gamma emitters such as Cs-13 7 and Co-60 as historically these radionuclides have not been detected in lake water samples.
| |
| Tritium results for the 2022 lake water samples were consistent with results from the previous five years for both the indicator and control locations. The mean 2022 tritium concentrations were 204 pCi/L for the control and <182 pCi/L for the indicator locations.
| |
| For the previous five years, there were no positive detections for the indicator and control locations. This previous five-year data set is consistent with long term tritium results measured at the site. The indicator data from the previous l 0-year period, 2013 through 2022, tritium concentrations show no detectable levels of tritium measured. The 1999 mean control value of 365 pCi/L is the highest concentration measured since 1987 and is within the variability of results measured over the life of the program.
| |
| The following graph illustrates the concentrations of tritium measured in Lake Ontario over the previous 20 years at both an indicator and control location. Prior to 1985, the Oswego City Water Supply results were used as control location data as this location closely approximates the Oswego Steam Station, the current control location. There is no existing preoperational data for comparison to recent data.
| |
| Surface Water - Tritium LLD Value 3000 2500 CONTROL IN DI CA TOR B 2000
| |
| -=
| |
| ~
| |
| U 1500
| |
| =-
| |
| 1000 Historical data for Surface Water Tritium is presented in Section 7.0, Tables 7-7 and 7-8.
| |
| 5 - 10
| |
| | |
| 5.1.4 JAFNPP GROUNDWATER A. Results Summary A groundwater monitoring program is not required by the ODCM. The program is being implemented as the result of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Ground Water Protection Plan Initiative. 57 groundwater samples were collected from a number of locations shown in Section 3.3, Figure 3.3-7a and listed in Table 3.3-1.
| |
| A total of22 monitoring well locations were sampled for gamma emitters and tritium during the 2022 sample program using 20 indicator locations and two control locations. All sample results for 2022 groundwater monitoring program were less than the LLD for plant-related gamma emitters and strontium. Tritium was detected in groundwater monitoring samples at amounts consistent to historical results.
| |
| Also analyzed in 2022 were 13 samples for Strontium-89/90 and gross alpha in the dissolved and suspended fractions. All sample results for strontium were less than the LLD. The gross alpha suspended results for 3 locations exceeded the respective alert level and prompted analyses for select transuranics. Minor detections of uranium nuclides found at one location were likely due to regional background conditions.
| |
| B. Data Evaluation and Discussion Plant-related gamma emitters and tritium analyses were performed on indicator and control locations. No plant-related radionuclides were detected in the 2022 samples. This is consistent with historical data, whi'ch has not shown the presence of plant-related radionuclides in ground water samples.
| |
| Monitoring well tritium samples analyzed for the 2022 sample program were analyzed to an LLD of <200 pCi/L. The tritium results for the control locations ranged from <161 to 209 pCi/L and the results from the indicator locations ranged from <177 to 652 pCi/L.
| |
| C. Dose Evaluation There were no groundwater sources in 2022 that were tapped for drinking or irrigation purposes in areas where the hydraulic gradient or recharge properties support contamination migration; therefore, drinking water was not a dose pathway during 2022.
| |
| To assess the dose associated with tritium, the highest positive value of 652 pCi/L was used:
| |
| * Maximum tritium concentration 652 pCi/L (highest value)
| |
| * 510 liters of water consumed per year The theoretical dose to the whole body and maximum organ using the maximum value and Regulatory Guide 1.109 methodology were determined. The calculated dose would be <0.068 mrem to the child whole body and <0.068 mrem to the child liver (critical age group/organ).
| |
| D. Data Trends There are no data trends for plant-related gamma emitters or tritium as these radionuclides have not been detected in groundwater samples.
| |
| Groundwater tritium results are documented in the Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report for 2022. Historical data for groundwater tritium is presented in Section 7.0, Table 5 - 11
| |
| | |
| 7-27, Historical Environmental Sample Data, Ground water Tritium (Control), Table 7-28, Historical Environmental Sample Data, Groundwater Monitoring Wells Tritium (Indicator).
| |
| 5.1.5 NMPNS GROUNDWATER A. Results Summary A groundwater monitoring program is not required by the ODCM. The program is being implemented as the result of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Ground Water Protection Plan Initiative. Groundwater samples were collected from a number oflocations shown in Section 3.3, Figure 3.3-7b and listed in Table 3.3-1.
| |
| A total of 49 tritium samples were collected for the 2022 sample program using 20 indicator locations and two control locations.
| |
| A total of22 monitoring well locations were sampled for gamma emitters using 20 indicator locations and two control locations. A total of eight wells were sampled for Strontium-89/90 (Sr-89/90) during the 2022 sample program using eight indicator locations. A total of 22 monitoring well locations were sampled for tritium during the 2022 sample program using 20 indicator locations and two control locations. All sample results for 2022 groundwater monitoring program were less than the LLD for plant-related gamma emitters and Sr-89/90.
| |
| Also analyzed in 2022 were 8 samples for gross alpha in the dissolved and suspended fractions. All results were less than the LLD for gross alpha. One sample was analyzed for select transuranics. All results for select transuranics were less than the LLD.
| |
| B. Data Evaluation and Discussion Plant-related gamma emitters and Sr-89/90 analyses were performed on indicator and control locations. No plant-related radionuclides were detected in the 2022 samples. This is consistent with historical data, which have not shown the presence of plant-related radionuclides in ground water samples.
| |
| Monitoring well tritium samples analyzed for the 2022 sample program were analyzed to an LLD of 200 pCi/L. The tritium results for the control locations ranged from <1 81 to <191 pCi/L and the results from the indicator locations ranged from <1 73 to 267 pCi/L.
| |
| C. Dose Evaluation Sampling for groundwater, as found in Section D 3.5.1 of the NMP2 ODCM, was not required during 2022. There were no groundwater sources in 2022 that were tapped for drinking or irrigation purposes in areas where the hydraulic gradient or recharge properties support contamination migration; therefore, drinkingwater was not a dose pathway during 2022.
| |
| To assess the dose associated with tritium, the highest value was used:
| |
| * Maximum tritium concentration 264 pCi/L (highest value)
| |
| * 510 liters of water consumed per year.
| |
| The theoretical dose to the whole body and maximum organ using the maximum value and Regulatory Guide 1.109 methodology were determined. The calculated dose would be <0.027 mrem to the child whole body* and <0.027 mrem to the child liver (critical age group/organ).
| |
| 5 - 12
| |
| | |
| D. Data Trends There are no data trends for plant-related gamma emitters or Sr-89/90 as these radionuclides have not been detected in groundwater samples.
| |
| Groundwater tritium results are documented in the Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report for 2022. Historical data for groundwater tritium is present in Section 7.0, Table 7-25, Historical Environmental Sample Data, Ground water Tritium (Control), Table 7-26, Historical Environmental Sample Data, Groundwater Monitoring Wells Tritium (Indicator).
| |
| 5.2 TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM The terrestrial program consists of samples collected from four environmental pathways. These pathways are:
| |
| * Airborne particulate and radioiodine
| |
| * Direct Radiation
| |
| * Milk
| |
| * Food Products Section 6.0, Tables 6-5 through 6-12 present the analytical results for the terrestrial samples collected for the 2022 reporting period.
| |
| 5.2.1 AIR PARTICULATE GROSS BETA A. Results Summary Weekly air samples were collected and analyzed for particulate gross beta activity. For the 2022 program, a total of 53 samples were collected from control location RS and 212 samples were collected from indicator locations Rl , R2, R3, and R4. These five locations are required by the ODCM. Additional air sampling locations are maintained and are discussed in Section 5.2.1.B below. The mean gross beta concentration for samples collected from the control location (RS) in 2022 was 0.018 pCi/m3
| |
| * The mean gross beta concentration for the samples collected from the indicator locations (Rl , R2, R3, and R4) in 2022 was 0.018 pCi/m3* The consistency between the indicator and control mean values, demonstrates that there are no increased airborne radioactivity levels in the general vicinity of the site from plant effluents.
| |
| B. Data Evaluation and Discussion The air monitoring system consists of 15 sample locations, five required by the ODCM and 10 optional locations. The optional offsite locations are designated as D2, E, F and G OFF.
| |
| The optional onsite locations are designated as D l , G ON, H, I, Jand K. Each location is sampled weekly for particulate gross beta activity. A total of 794 samples were collected and analyzed as part of the 2022 program. Gross beta analysis requires that the samples be counted no sooner than 24 hours after collection. This allows for the decay of short half-life naturally-occurring radionuclides, thereby increasing the sensitivity of the analysis for plant-related radionuclides.
| |
| Section 6.0, Tables 6-5 and 6-6 present the weekly gross beta activity results for samples collected from the offsite and onsite locations.
| |
| The minimum, maximum and average gross beta results for sample locations required by the ODCM were as follows:
| |
| 5 - 13
| |
| | |
| Concentration pCi/m3 Location Minimum Maximum Mean Rl 0.010 0.029 0.0 18 R2 0.011 0.030 0.0 18 R3 0.011 0.029 0.0 18 R4 0.010 0.033 0.0 19 RS (control) 0.009 0.032 0.0 18 The mean weekly gross beta concentrations measured in 2022 are illustrated m the fo llowing graphs:
| |
| Air Particula te Filte r - Gross Beta 0.037 ----------------------l C O NTROL --INDICATO R 0 .032 + - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - <
| |
| ! 0.022 0.007 + - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - <
| |
| 0.002 +--+---+-+---+---+----,f---+--+---t-+--+---+-+---+---+----,f---+--+---t-+--+---+-+---+---+---l 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 2S 26 Week No.
| |
| Air Particulate F ilter - Gross Beta 0.037 C ONfROL --INDICATOR 0 .032 0.027
| |
| ~ 0.022 0.017 0.012 0.007 0.002 +--+---+-+---+--+---+-+---+--+---+-+---+--+---+- ---+--+---+-+----+--+---+-+----+--+---+~
| |
| 27 28 29 30 3 1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Sl 52 53 Week No.
| |
| 5 - 14
| |
| | |
| The fluctuations observed in the gross beta activity over the year can be attributed to changes in the environment, especially seasonal changes. The concentrations of naturally-occurring radionuclides in the lower levels of the atmosphere directly above the land are affected by time-related processes such as wind direction, precipitation, snow cover, soil temperature and soil moisture content.
| |
| C. Dose Evaluation Dose calculations are not performed based on gross beta concentrations. Dose to an individual as a resu lt of radioactivity in air is calculated using the specific radionuclide and the associated dose factor. See Section 5.2.2.C for dose calculations from air concentrations.
| |
| The dose received by an individual from air gross beta concentration is a component of the natural background.
| |
| D. Data Trends With the exception of the 1986 sample data, which was affected by the Chernobyl accident, the general trend in air particulate gross beta activity has been one of decreasing activity since 1981 , when the mean control value was 0.165 pCi/m3. The 1981 samples were affected by fallout from a Chinese atmospheric nuclear test which was carried out in 1980.
| |
| The mean gross beta concentration measured in 1969 to 2022 are illustrated in the following graph:
| |
| Air Particulate Filter - Gross Beta 0.400 0.350 CONTROL 0.300 INDICATOR 0.250
| |
| ~
| |
| e
| |
| :;. 0.200 uC.
| |
| 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000
| |
| °' °'r-- !") r--
| |
| °'°'-
| |
| If)
| |
| °'°'
| |
| !") r--
| |
| -- - °'-
| |
| If) (")
| |
| IO 00 00 0 N
| |
| °' °' °' °' °'°'- °'
| |
| 0 0
| |
| N 0
| |
| N 0
| |
| N 0
| |
| N 0
| |
| N 0
| |
| N The trend for the previous five years represents a base line concentration or natural background level for gross beta concentrations. This trend is stable with minor fluctuations 5 - 15
| |
| | |
| due to natural variations. The change in concentrations over the period of 2012 through 2022 is very small. This is illustrated by the following graph:
| |
| Air Particulate Filter - Gross Beta 0.03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
| |
| 0.G25 + - - - - - - ----1 CONTROL INDICATOR 0.02 .........- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- ------------'!
| |
| t'l
| |
| =
| |
| :-;:;0.ot5 uQ,,
| |
| 0.01 0.005 0
| |
| 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 The mean annual gross beta concentration at the control station (RS) has remained steady with a narrow range of 0.014 pCi/m 3 to 0.018 pCi/m3* The mean annual concentrations for the indicator stations for this same time period were simi lar to the control and ranged from a minimum of 0.014 pCi/m3 to a maximum mean of 0.018 pCi/m3 in 2013.
| |
| Historical data of air particulate gross beta activity are presented in Section 7.0, Tables 7-9 and 7- 10.
| |
| 5.2.2 QUARTERLY PARTICULATE COMPOSITES (GAMMA EMITTERS)
| |
| A. Results Summary Fifteen air monitoring stations are maintained around JAFNPP, NMP l , and NMP2. Five of the 15 air monitoring stations are required by the ODCM and are located offsite near the site boundary and offsite as a control location. 10 additional air sampling stations are also maintained as part of the sampling program. Together, these 15 continuous air sampling stations make up a comprehensive environmental monitoring network for measuring radioactive air particulate concentrations in the environs of the site. Annually, the 15 air monitoring stations maintained around JAFNPP, NMPl and NMP2 provide 794 individual air particulate samples which are assembled by location into 60 quarterly composite samples. The quarterly composites are analyzed using gamma spectroscopy.
| |
| 5 - 16
| |
| | |
| No plant-related gamma emitting radionuclides were detected in any of the air particulate filter samples collected during 2022. The gamma analysis results for the quarterly composite samples routinely showed positive detections of naturally occurring Be-7.
| |
| B. Data Evaluation Discussion A total of 15 air sampling stations are in continuous operation and located both onsite and in the offsite sectors surrounding the Nine Mile Point Site. Each of the weekly air particulate filters collected for the quarter is assembled by location to form quarterly composite samples. The quarterly composite samples required by the ODCM are composite samples assembled for RI , R2, R3, R4 and RS. Other sample locations not required by the ODCM, for which analytical results have been provided, include six onsite locations and four offsite locations. The analytical results for the 60 air particulate filter composites in 2022 showed no detectable activity of plant-related radionuclides.
| |
| The results of the quarterly composite samples are presented in Section 6.0, Table 6-9.
| |
| C. Dose Evaluation The calculated dose as a result of plant effluents is not evaluated due to the fact that no plant-related radionuclides were detected in 2022. The monthly air particulate sampling program demonstrated no offsite dose to an individual from this pathway as a result of operations of the plants located at the Nine Mile Point Site.
| |
| D. Data Trends No plant-related radionuclides were detected during 2022 at the offsite air monitoring locations.
| |
| The 10-year database of air particulate composite analysis shows that there is no buildup or routine presence of plant related radionuclides in particulate form in the atmosphere around the site. Historically Co-60 was detected in each of the years from 1977 through 1984 at both the indicator and control locations, with the exception of 1980 when Co-60 was not detected at the control location. The presence of Co-60 in the air samples collected during these years was the result of atmospheric weapons testing. Co-60 was again detected in an offsite 2000 indicator sample and was the only positive detection of Co-60 since 1984. The detection of Co-60 in the one 2000 sample was an isolated event associated with effluents from the NMPl facility. There have been no subsequent measurable concentrations of Co-60 in the environment surrounding the NMP site.
| |
| Historical data shows that Cs-137 is the fission product radionuclide most frequently detected in the air particulate filter composites. Cs-137 was detected in each of the years from 1977 through 1983 at both the control and indicator sampling locations. The presence of Cs-137 in the air samples collected during these years was the result of atmospheric weapons testing. Cesium-137 was again detected in 1986 as a result of the Chernobyl accident. Since 1986 there have been no detections ofCs-137 in the environment surrounding the NMP site.
| |
| Historical data for air particulate results are presented in Section 7.0, Tables 7-11 and 7-12.
| |
| 5 - 17
| |
| | |
| 5.2.3 AIRBORNE RADIOIODINE (1-131)
| |
| A. Results Summary Iodine-131 was not detected in any of the 794 samples analyzed for the 2022 program.
| |
| B. Data Evaluation and Discussion Airborne radio iodine (1-131) is monitored at the 15 air sampling stations also used to collect air particulate samples. There are five offsite locations, required by the ODCM. 10 air sampling locations are also maintained in addition to those required by the ODCM. Six of these stations D 1, G, H, I, J and K are located onsite. D2, E, F and G are the optional stations located offsite. Samples are collected using activated charcoal cartridges. They are analyzed weekly for I-131.
| |
| The analytical data for radioiodine are presented in Section 6.0, Tables 6-7 and 6-8.
| |
| C. Dose Evaluation The calculated dose as a result of I-131 in plant eflluents is not evaluated due to the fact that no 1-131 was detected in 2022. The 1-131 sampling program demonstrated no offsite dose to an individual from this pathway as a result of operation of the plants located at Nine Mile Point.
| |
| D. Data Trends There was no 1-131 detected in any of the samples, collected from the 15 sample stations, for 2012 through 2022.
| |
| In 2011 , I-131 was detected at all 15 sampling locations over a three-week period. The positive detections were the result of the Fukushima event. Prior to then, there had been no positive detection ofl-131 in air samples collected from 2002to2010.
| |
| I-131 has previously been detected in samples collected in 1986 and 1987. The 1986 detection of 1-131 was the result of the Chernobyl accident and the 1987 detection was the result of plant operations.
| |
| 1-131 has been detected in the past at control locations. Control samples collected during 1976 had a mean I-131 concentration of 0.60 pCi/m3* During 1977 this mean decreased to 0.32 pCi/m3, and further decreased by a factor of 10 to 0.03 pCi/m3 in 1978.
| |
| Iodine-13 1 was not detected in samples collected from the control location during 1979 - 1981 and 1983 to 1985. lodine-131 was detected once at the control location during 1982 at a concentration of0.039 pCi/m3.
| |
| Historical data for 1-131 are presented in Section 7 .0, Tables 7-13 and 7-14.
| |
| 5 - 18
| |
| | |
| 5.2.4 DIRECT RADIATION THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETERS (TLD)
| |
| A. Results Summary Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure direct radiation (gamma dose) in the environment. As part of the 2022 environmental monitoring program, TLDs were placed at a total of 72 different environmental TLD locations (32 required by the ODCM and 40 optional locations). These TLDs were placed, collected and read each quarter of 2022. As a result of placing two TLDs at each location, the results presented in this report are the average of two TLD readings obtained for a given location.
| |
| The TLDs were placed in the following five geographical locations around the site boundary:
| |
| * Onsite (areas within the site boundary, includes TLD #s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 23, 24, 25, 26; TLD #s 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 47, 103, 106, 107 are excluded). The Onsite TLDs are optional and used for plant operations only.
| |
| * Site Boundary (area of the site boundary in each of the 16 meteorological sectors: Only TLD results that are not affected by radwaste building direct shine, includes TLD #s 7, 18, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84; TLD #s: 23, 75, 76, 77, 85, 86, 87 are excluded)
| |
| * Offsite Sector (area four to five miles from the site in each of the eight-land based meteorological sectors, includes TLD #s: 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95)
| |
| * Special Interest (areas of high population density, includes TLD #s 15, 56, 58, 96,87,98*)
| |
| * Control (areas beyond significant influence of the site, includes TLD #s 8, 14, 49)
| |
| * TLD applicable to NMP 1 and NMP2 ODCM All geographical locations are required by the ODCM with the exception of the Onsite area which was optional. Description of the five geographical categories and the designation of specific TLD locations that make up each category is presented in Section 3.1.5, TLD (Direct Radiation) of this report.
| |
| A summary of the 2022 dose rates for each of the five geographical locations is as follows:
| |
| Dose in mrem per standard month Geographic Category Min Max Mean Onsite (Optional) 4.3 14.0 5.9 Site Boundary (Inner Ring)
| |
| * 4.3 6.1 5.0 Offsite Sectors (Outer Ring)* 4.0 5.9 4.9 Special Interest* 4.2 5.7 4.9 Control* 4.5 5.7 5.1
| |
| * Geographical locations required by the ODCM Comparison of annual mean dose rates associated with each geographical location indicate that there is no statistical difference in annual dose as a function of distance from the site boundary. The measured annual dose rate at the nearest resident to the site was consistent 5 - 19
| |
| | |
| with the dose rates measured at the site boundary and control locations. The results for the Site Boundary, Offsite Sectors and Special Interest (Offsite) were well within expected normal variation when compared to the Control TLD results.
| |
| The results for the 2022 environmental TLD monitoring program indicate that there was no significant increase in dose rates as a result of operations at the site. The Hydrogen Water Chemistry system and the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in use at the JAFNPP and NMPNS did not measurably increase the ambient radiation exposure rate beyond the site boundary.
| |
| B. Data Evaluation and Discussion Direct Radiation (Gamma Dose) measurements were taken at 72 different environmental locations during 2022, 32 of which are required by ODCM. These locations are grouped into five geographical location categories for evaluation of results. The five categories include: Onsite, Site Boundary, Offsite Sector, Special Interest and Control locations. All categories are required by the ODCM with the exception of the Onsite TLDs. Onsite TLDs are placed at various locations within the site boundary to provide additional information on direct radiation levels at and around the NMPl, NMP2 and JAFNPP facilities.
| |
| Onsite TLD results ranged from 4.3 to 14.0 mrem per standard month resulting in an average dose rate of 5.9 mrem per standard month in 2022.
| |
| The highest dose rate measured at a location required by the ODCM was 9.0 mrem per standard month. This TLD, (TLD 85) represents the site boundary maximum dose and is located in the NNW sector along the lakeshore close to the plants (TLD #s: 23, 75, 76, 77, 85, 86 and 87) are influenced by radwaste buildings and radwaste shipping activities. These locations are not accessible to members of the public and the TLD results for these areas are not representative of dose rates measured at the remaining site boundary locations.
| |
| Offsite Sector TLDs, required by the ODCM, located 4 to 5 miles from the site in each of the 8-land based meteorological sectors ranged from 4.0 to 5.9 mrem per standard month with an average dose rate of 4.9 mrem per standard month.
| |
| Special Interest TLDs from all locations ranged from 4.2 to 5.7 mrem per standard month with an average dose rate of 4.9 mrem per standard month.
| |
| The Control TLD group required by the ODCM utilized locations positioned well beyond the site. 2022 Control TLD results ranged from 4.5 to 5.7 mrem per standard month with an annual average dose rate of 5 .1 mrem standard month.
| |
| TLD analysis results are presented in Section 6.0, Table 6-10.
| |
| C. Dose Evaluation 2022 annual mean dose rates for each geographic location required by the ODCM (excluding TLD #s: 23, 75, 76, 77, 85, 86, 87) are as follows:
| |
| Site Boundary: 5.0 mrem per standard month (TLD #s: 7,18, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84)
| |
| Offsite Sectors: 4.9 mrem per standard month (TLD #s: 88, 89, 90, 91 , 92, 93, 94, 95)
| |
| Special Interest: 4 . 9 mrem per standard month (TLD #s: 15, 56, 58, 96, 97,98*)
| |
| Control: 5.1 mrem per standard month (TLD #s: 8, 14, 49)
| |
| * TLD 98 required by NMPNS ODCM 5 - 20
| |
| | |
| The measured mean dose rate in the proximity of the closest resident was 5.0 mrem per standard month (TLD #s: I 08, 109) which is consistent with the control measurements of 5.1 mrem per standard month.
| |
| The mean annual dose for each of the geographic location categories demonstrates that there is no statistical difference in the annual dose as a function of distance from the site. The TLD program verifies that operations at the site do not measurably contribute to the levels of direct radiation present in the offsite environment.
| |
| D. Data Trends A comparison of historical TLD results can be made using the different geographical categories of measurement locations. These include Site Boundary TLDs located in each of the 16 meteorological sectors, TLDs located offsite in each land based sector at a distance of 4 to 5 miles from the site, TLDs located at special interest areas and TLDs located at control locations. Site Boundary, Offsite Sector and Special Interest TLD locations became effective in 1985; therefore, trends for these results can only be evaluated from 1985 to the present.
| |
| The following graph illustrates TLD results for the Control, Site Boundary, Offsite Sectors and Special Interest groups from 2003 through 2022:
| |
| TLD Data - Yearly Mean 6 .0 H Control a Site Boundary aOffsite Special Interest t-5.0 -**
| |
| ~
| |
| 1.0 - -
| |
| The 2022 TLD program results, when compared to the previous 10 years, showed no significant trends relative to increased plant originated dose rates in the environment. The trends are due to a change to calculations regarding transit exposure based on recent ANSI Standard directives.
| |
| Historical data for the various TLD groupings are presented in Section 7.0, Tables 7- 15 through 7-20.
| |
| 5 - 21
| |
| | |
| 5.2.5 MILK A. Results Summary A total of 36 milk samples were collected during the 2022 program and analyzed for gamma emitting radionuclides using gamma spectroscopy. In addition, each sample undergoes an iodine extraction procedure to determine the presence of Iodine-13 I (1-13 I).
| |
| Iodine- I 31 , a possible plant-related radionuclide, is measured to evaluate the cow milk dose pathway to an individual. 1-131 was not detected in any of the 36 milk samples collected in 2022 from the two milk sample locations.
| |
| Gamma spectral analyses of the milk samples showed only naturally occurring radionuclides, such as K-40, were detected in milk samples collected during 2022.
| |
| Potassium-40 was detected in all indicator and control samples. Potassium -40 is a naturally occurring radionuclide and is found in many environmental sample media.
| |
| The 2022 results demonstrate that routine operations of the JAFNPP, NMPI , and NMP2 resulted in no measurable contribution to the dose to the public from the cow/milk pathway.
| |
| B. Sampling Overview Milk samples were collected from one indicator location and one control location. The ODCM requires that three sample locations be within five miles of the site. Based on the milk animal census, there were no adequate milk sample locations within five miles of the site in 2022. Samples were collected from two farms located beyond the five-mile requirement to ensure the continued monitoring of this important pathway. The indicator location was located 8.7 miles from the site. The control samples were collected from a farm located 16.0 miles from the site and in a low frequency wind sector (upwind). The geographic location of each sample location is listed below:
| |
| Location No . Direction From Site Distance (Miles) 55 E 8.7 77 (Control) s 16.0 Indicator location #55 and Control location #77 were sampled from April through December. Sampling occurs during the first and second half of each month. Samples were not required to be collected during January through March of 2022 due to 1-131 not having been detected in samples collected during November and December of 2021 , as stipulated in the ODCM.
| |
| C. Data Evaluation and Discussion Each milk sample is analyzed for gamma emitters using gamma spectral analysis. The I- 13 I analysis is performed using resin extraction followed by spectral analysis for each sample. Iodine-131 and gamma analysis results for milk samples collected during 2022 are provided in Section 6.0, Table 6-11.
| |
| Iodine-131 was not detected in any indicator or control milk samples analyzed during 2022. All I-131 milk results were reported as Lower Limits of Detection (LLD). No plant-related radionuclides were detected in any milk sample collected in 2022.
| |
| Potassium-40 was the most abundant radionuclide detected and found in every indicator 5 -22
| |
| | |
| and cpntrol sample collected. It is a naturally-occurring radionuclide and is found in many of the environmental media samples. Cesium-137 was not detected in any indicator or contrbl milk sample collected in 2022. .
| |
| I
| |
| _In addition, two samples were analyzed for Strontium-89 (Sr-89) and Strontium-90 (Sr-96) and all results were below their respective LLD.
| |
| D. Dose Evaluation The ,alculated dose as a result of plant effluents is not evaluated due to the fact that no
| |
| * plant related radionuclides were detected.
| |
| The , ose to an individual from naturally occurring concentrations of K-40 in milk and otherj environmental media can be calculated. This calculation illustrates that the dose receiled due to exposure from plant effluents is negligible compared to the dose received from naturally occurring radionuclides. Significant levels of K-40 have been measured in envir nmental samples. A 70-kilogram (154 pound) adult contains approximately 0.1
| |
| * micrdcuries ofK-40 as a result of normal life functions (inhalation, consumption, etc} The dose to bone tissue is about 20 mrem per year as a result of internal deposition of j
| |
| naturally-occurring K-40.
| |
| I E. Data !Trends .
| |
| Man-riade radionuclides are not routinely detected in milk samples. In the past thirty years, Cs-137 was onlydet~cted in 1986, 1987, and 1988. The mean Cs-137 indicator activities for t~ose years were 8.6, 7.4 and 10.0 pCi/L, respectively. Iodine-131 was measured in two milk ~amples collected in 1997 from a single sample location, having a mean concentration of 0.35 pCi/L and was of undetermined origin. The previous detection was in 1986 with a ~ern concentration of 13.6 pCi/L. The 1986 activity was a result of the Chernobyl acc1dent. 1 The ~omparison of 2022 data to historical results o~er the operating life of the plants shows that a:s-13 7 and I-131 levels in milk dropped to less than the lower limit of detection since 1988j - * -
| |
| Historical data of milk sample results for Cs-137 and 1-131 are present~d in Section 7.0, Tables 7-21 and 7-22.
| |
| I 5.2.6 FOOD PfODUCTS (VEGETATION)
| |
| A. Resut15 Summary ,. . .
| |
| There were no plant-related radionuclides detected in the fourteen food product samples I . -
| |
| colleeted and analyzed for the 2022 program.
| |
| Detedtable levels of naturally occurring K-40 were measured in all of the indicator and contrbl samples collected for the 2022 program. Beryllium-7, a naturally.:.occurring radiohuclide, was also detected in three samples collected in 2022.
| |
| * These results are consirtent with the levels measured in 2021 and previous years. . .
| |
| The esults of the 2022 sampling program demonstrate that there is no measurable impact 1
| |
| on the dose to the public from the garden pathway as a result of plant operations.
| |
| 5 - 23
| |
| | |
| B. Data Analysis-and Discussion Food product samples were collected from three indicator locations and one control location.
| |
| The indicator locations are represented by nearby gardens in areas of highest D/Q (deposition factor) values based on historical meteorology and an annual garden census.
| |
| The control location was a garden 16.0 miles away in a predominately upwind direction.
| |
| Edible food product samples collected during 2022 included Swiss chard, collard greens,
| |
| _cabbage and leaf lettuce. The leaves of these plants were sampled as representative of broadleaf vegetation, which is a measurement of radionuclide deposition. s'amples were collected during the late summer/fall harvest season. Each sample was analyzed for gamma emitters using gamma spectroscopy.
| |
| The analysis of food product samples collected during 2022 did not detect any plant- related radionuclides. Results for the past five years also demonstrate that there is no buildup of plant-related radionuclides in the garden food products grown in areas close to the site.
| |
| Naturally-occurring Be-7 was detected in three of the food product samples. The results for naturally-occurring radionuclides are consistent with the data of prior years.
| |
| Analytical results for food products are found in Section 6.0, Table 6-12.
| |
| C. - Dose Evaluation The calculated dose as a re_sult of plant effluents* is not evaluated due to the fact that no
| |
| * plant-related radionuclides were detected. The food product sampling program demonstrated no measurable offsite dose to an individual froin this pathway as a result of operations of the plants located at Nine Mile Point.
| |
| D. Data Trends Food product/Vegetation sample results for the last five years demonstrate that there is no chronic deposition or buildup of plant-related radionuclides in the garden food products in the environs near the site. The last positive indication was for Cs-13 7 which was detected at one indicator location in 1999 with a concentration of 0.007 pCi/g (wet).
| |
| Historically, Cs-137 had been detected in 10 separate yearssince 1976 ranging from a maximum mean concentration of 0.047 pCi/g (wet) in 1985 to a minimum of 0.004 pCi/g (wet) in 1980. The trend for Cs-137 is a general reduction in concentration to non-detectable levels in samples collected during the 2000 through 2022 sample programs.
| |
| Historical 'data of food product results are presented in Section 7.0, Tables 7-23 and 7-24.
| |
| 5.2.7 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS A. Results Summary The ODCM requires that an annual land use census be performed to identify potential new locations for milk sampling and for calculating the dose to an individual from plant effluents.
| |
| In 2022 a milk animal census, a nearest resident_ census, and a garden census were performed.
| |
| 5 -24
| |
| | |
| B. Data Evaluation and Discussion A la1jld use _census is conducted each year to determine the utilization of land in the
| |
| * vicinity of the Nine Mile Point site. The land use census consists of two types of surveys. A milk animal census is conducted to identify all milk animals within a distance of 1Or miles from the site. This census, covering areas out to a distance of 10-miles exceeds the 5-mile distance required by the ODCM.
| |
| A to~al of 110 milk cows and 5 6 heifers were observed. There are no farms with milkililg animals with the 5-mile radius of the site. The results of the milk census, showing the aJplicable sectors and direction and distance of each milk location, are found in Section I
| |
| 6.0, Table 6., 13. .
| |
| The ~econd type of census conducted is a residence census. The census is conducted in order to identify the closest residence within 5 miles in each of the 22.5 degree land-based metebrotogical sectors. There are only eight sectors over land where residences are located withih 5 miles. The survey for 2022 found no new construction in residential areas for both IFitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point since* 2016. The results of the nearest residence census, showing the applicable sectors and direction. and distance of each of the nearest resid6nce, are found in Section 6.0, Table 6-14 and Table 6-15. The nearest resident locat1ons are illustrated in Section 3.3, Figure 3.3-6a and Figure 3.3-6b.
| |
| The results of the nearest residence census* conducted in 2022 required no change to FitzP~trick or Nine Mile Point ODCM's closest resident location.
| |
| A gatdenI census is performed to identify appropriate garden sampling locations and dose calculation receptors. The 2022 garden census identified a total of 43 gardens for consi!deration for the sampling program. Garden si1mples were collecte? from three onsite locations (633, 634 and 635) as well as a control location (632, Summerville) identified in censtls as active for 2022. See Table 3.3-1 for 2022 sampling locations.
| |
| 5.2.8 . JAFNP)DIRECT RADIATION, THERIVIOLUMINESCENT DOSll\1ETERS (TLD) lndepen1ent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)
| |
| A. Results Summary Therloluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure direct radiatio~ (gamma dose~ in the lo?alized environment of_the ISFSI pad. Eighteen TLD l~cation~ are in pl~ce ,
| |
| around the penmeter of the ISFSI pad. TLDs were placed at these locat1(ms pnor to loadmg t.he fillst storage casks for baseline dose rate determinati.on in the general area of the pad.
| |
| Ther. were no new casks in 2022. As of the last ISFSI Campaign which ended in the fourt quarter of 2019, there are a total of 32 casks stored at the facility.*
| |
| * The analysis of offsite doses from direct radiation measurements, presented i.n Section
| |
| * 5.2Ajof this report, concludes that there is no signific;mt difference in annual dose to the public at or beyond the site boundary. The measured annual dose rate at the nearest resid~nce to the site was consistent with the dose rates measured at the site boundary and the offsite control locations. The results for the Site Boundary, Offsite Sectors, and Special I
| |
| Inter st (offsite) were well within expected normal variation when compared to the 5 - 25
| |
| | |
| Control TLD results. The results for the 2022 environmental TLD monitoring program indicate that there is no significant increase in dose rates as a result of operations at the
| |
| * site. The use of hydrogen injection and the implementation of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at the FitzPatrick plant did not measurably increase the ambient radfation exposure rate at or beyond the site boundary. The lack of a dose rate increase at or beyond the site boundary is consistent with design calculations performed to evaluate compliance with 10 CFR 72.104(a).
| |
| The measured results of the 2022 TLD monitoring program demonstrate compliance with the offsite dose limits to members of the public specified in 40 CFR 190 and 10 CFR 72.104(a).
| |
| B. Program Design An array of eight TLD locations was established around the perimeter of the ISFSI pad 18 months prior to facility usage. Six months prior to the facility bepoming operational, an additional 10 TLD locations were established at areas of interest on the facility perimeter.
| |
| These preoperational TLDs were used for baseline dose rate determination. The TLDs are placed, collected and read each quarter. Two dosimeters are placed at each location and the average of the two dosimeters is reported. The quarterly results are compared to baseline data to assess the contribution to ambient dose rates in the vicinity of the storage facility from casks as they are placed on the storage pa_d.
| |
| C. Dose Evaluation A maximum dose rate of235.l mremper standard month above the baseline dose rate was measured at the west perimeter fence. This result was due to locating the four casks from the 2018 ISFSI Campaign in close proximity to this TLD location. The lowest measured dose rate of2022 was 23.0 mrem per standard month above the baseline dose rate and was measured at the east perimeter fence.
| |
| An evaluation of Site Boundary TLDs and Control TLDs results for 2022 shows that there is no increase in dose rate at or beyond the site boundary: A detailed discussion of this evaluation is found in Section 5.2.4. The Environmental TLD results for this period show no significant difference in control and site boundary dose rates compared to 2021.
| |
| 2022 DOSE IN MREM PER STANDARD MONTH Minimum Maximum Mean Site Boundary 4.3* 6.1 5.0 Control 4.5 5.7 5.1 5 - 26
| |
| | |
| 5.2.9- NMPNS DIRECT RADIATION, THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETERS (TLD)
| |
| I Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)
| |
| A. Res~lts Summary I
| |
| TLDk are used to measure direct radiation (gamma dose) at the site boundary and I
| |
| Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeters (OSLDs) are used to measure direct radiation (gamma dose) in the localized environment of the ISFSI pad. 16 TLDs are locatFd around the site, one in each of the 16 compass sectors, and 14 OSLDs are located arou*d the perimeter of the ISFSI pad and specific areas of interest. OSLDs were placed at these locations prior to loading the first storage casks for baseline dose rate determination in the general area of the pad.
| |
| During 2022, five casks were moved to the storage facility. The total number of casks in stora~e is 50.
| |
| The implementation and loading of the ISP SI project has resulted in no increase in dose at the site boundary or to the public. The analysis of offsite doses from direct radiation mea~urements, presented in Section 5.2.4 of this report, concludes that there is no significant difference in annual dose to the public at or beyond the site boundary. The measured annual dose rate at the nearest residence to the site was consistent with the dose rates, measured at the site boundary and the offsite control locations. The results for the Site Boundary, Offsite Sectors, and Special Interest (offsite) were well within expected norrrial variation when compared to the Control TLD results. The results for the 2022 I
| |
| envi~onmental TLD monitoring program indicate that there is no significant increase in dose :rates as a result of operations at the site. The implementation of the ISPSI at the NMBNS plant did not measurably increase the ambient radiation exposure rate at or beyohd the site boundary. The lack of a dose rate increase at or beyond the site boundary I
| |
| is corsistent with design calculations performed to evaluate compliance with 10 CPR 72.104(a).
| |
| The measured results of the 2022 TLD monitoring program demonstrate compliance with the dffsite dose limits to members of the public specified in 40 CPR 190 and 10 CFR 72.104(a).
| |
| B. Progfam Design I
| |
| An array of 10 OSLD locations was established around the perimeter of the ISPSI pad and four bSLD locations were placed in specific areas of interest 12 months prior to facility usage.I These pre-operational OSLDs were used for baseline dose rate determination. The OSLDs I are placed, collected and read each quarter. In October 2022 the OSLD collection changed to semi-annual. There were three quarters of OSLD results used in the calcu,lations below. Two dosimeters are placed at each location and the average of the two dosimeters is reported. The quarterly results are compared to baseline data to assess the contribution to ambient dose rates in the vicinity of the storage facility from casks as they are placed on the storage pad.
| |
| I 5 - 27
| |
| | |
| C. Dose Evaluation The pre-operation minimum and maximum dose rates were 2.9 and 6.3 mrem per standard month, respectively. During 2022, the maximum dose rate of 19.6 mrem per standard month was measured at OSLD location 233, Erosion Fence 291 Degrees from Center Point.
| |
| The following table presents the pre-operation dose rate data and the operational dose rate data for 2022:
| |
| Pre-Operation 2022 OSLD Sector mrem per Standard mrem per Standard Number month Month 233 WNW 3.5 19.6 234 *WSW 2.9 8.0 235 s 4.2 4.6 236 SSE 3.8 4.0 237 SE 3.0 3.3 238 ESE 3.5 4.2 239 E 4.0 8.5 240 NE 3.6 6.9 241 N 5.1 7.2 242 NE 6.3 4.7 243 NNW 4.8 7.4 244 NE 4.6 4.0 245 NE 4.0 6.0 246 ENE 4.8 7.4 An evaluation of Site Boundary TLDs and Control TLDs results for 2022 shows that there is no increase in dose rate at or beyond the site boundary. A detailed discussion of this evaluation is found in Section 5.2.4. The Environmental TLD results for this period show no significant difference in control and site boundary dose rates compared to 2021 and preoperational data gathered in 2012.
| |
| 2022 DOSE IN MREM PER STANDARD MONTH Minimum Maximum Mean Site Boundary 4.3 6.1 5.0 Control 4.5 5.7 5.1 5 - 28
| |
| | |
| ==5.3 CONCLUSION==
| |
| | |
| The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) is an ongoing program implemented to measure and ~ocument the radiological impact of Nine Mile Point facility operations on the local
| |
| . environment. Tfe program is *designed to detect and evaluate small changes in the radiological environment surrpunding the site. Environmental media representing food sources consumed at the higher levels of the food chain, such as fish, food products and milk, are part 9f a comprehensive sampling progra+. Results of all samples are reviewed closely to determine any* possible impact to the environment or to an individual. In addition, program results are evaluated for possible short-term and long-term hiJtorical trends.
| |
| The federal go~rnment has established dose limits to protect the public from radiation and radioactivity. Tfe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies a whole-body dose limit of 100 mrem/yr to ~e received by the maximum exposed member of the general public. This limit is set forth in Section 1301, Part 20, Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 20). The Environmental Ptotection Agency (EPA) limits the annual whole-body dose to 25 mrem/yr, which is specified in Sedion 10, Part 190, Title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 190).
| |
| Radiation exposu~e to members of the public, calculated based on the results of the REMP, is extremely sm~ll. The dosej to members of the publ~c from operations at the Nine Mile_ Point sit_e, based on environmental measurement and calculations made from effluent releases, is determmed to be a fraction of limits lset forth by the NRC and EPA.
| |
| The REMP cont4ues to demonstrate that the effluents from the site to the enviroil/Ilent contribute no significant or even measurable radiation exposures to the general public as confirmed by the sampling and analysis of ]environmental media from recognized environmental pathways. Based on TLD
| |
| . results there was po measurable increase in radiation levels beyond the site boundary as a result of the hydrogen water chemistry and ISFSI programs. Environmental radiation levels measured at the nearest residence are at the background level based on control station TLD results. The only measurable radiological imp!ct on the environment continues to be the result of atmospheric weapons testing conducted in the ~arly 1980's, the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and the March 1
| |
| 11, 2011, accide1 t at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
| |
| The REMP did not detect . any plant-related radionuclide in the sample media collected during 2022. Dose froiy man-made sources in the environment is very small when compared to the dose originating from naturally-occurring sources of radioactivity.
| |
| Radiation from haturally-occurring radionuclides such as K-40 and Ra-226 contributed the vast majority bf the, total I
| |
| annual dose to members of the general public. The dose to* members of the public, resulting from plant operations, is extremely small in comparison to the dose contribution from natural backgroJnd levels and sources other than the plants. The whole body dose in Oswego County due to ndtural ~ources is approximately 50 mrem per individual per year as demonstrated by control environiriental TLDs. The fraction of the annual dose to an individual, attributable to site operation, remaids insignificant. * *
| |
| * Based upon the lverall results of the 2022 Radiological Environmental M~nitoring Program, it can be concluded that the levels and variatiop of radioactivity in the environment samples were consistent with backgrou~dl ~evels. Effluents from the site to _the environment contribute no signific.ant or even measurable radiation exposures to the general public. *
| |
| * 5 -29
| |
| | |
| ==5.4 REFERENCES==
| |
| : 1. U.S. Nucl~~r _Regt1fo,tory CQmmission Regulatory Guide 1.109, Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFRPart 50, Appendix I, March 1976.
| |
| : 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 Regµlatory Commission Branch Technical Position to Regulatory Guide 4.8, An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, Revision 1, November 1979.
| |
| : 5. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (N~RP),_Environmental Radiation Measurements, NCRP Report No. 50, 1975.
| |
| : 6. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Natural Background Radiation in the United States, NCRP Report No. 45, 1975 ..
| |
| : 7. National Council on Radiation Protection and Me~surements (NCRP), Cesium-137 from the Environment to Man: Metabolism and Dose, NCRP Report No. 52, 1977.
| |
| : 8. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Radiation Exposure from Consumer Products and Miscellaneous Sources, NCRP Report No. 56, 1977.
| |
| : 9. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Radionuclide Release into the Environment: Assessment of Doses to Man, ICRP Publication 29, 1979.
| |
| I 0. Glasstone, Samuel and Jordan, Walter H., Nuclear Power and Its Environmental Effects, First Edition, American Nuclear Society; La Grange Park, Ill., 1980.
| |
| : 11. Schleien, Bernard. The Health Physics and Radiological Health Handbook. Scinta, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland, 1992.
| |
| : 12. U.S. l)epartment of Health and Human Services. Preparedness and Response in Radiation Accidents, National Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Rockville, Maryland 20857, August 1983.
| |
| : 13. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, NCRP Report No. 93, 1987.
| |
| : 14. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Exposure of the Population in the United States and Canada from National Background Radiation, NCRP Report No. 94, 1987.
| |
| : 15. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, NCRP Report No. 160, 2009.
| |
| : 16. Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, INPO 11-;-005, November 2011.
| |
| 5 - 30
| |
| | |
| 6.0 REPORT PERIOD ANALYTICAL RESULTS TABLES Environmental slmple data is summarized in table format. Tables are provided for select sample media and contaih data based on actual values obtained over the year. These values are comprised of both positive valJes and LLD (Lower Limit of Detection) values where applicable.
| |
| I The LLD is the smallest concentration of radioactive material in a sample that will be detected with 95% probability and with 5% probability of falsely concluding that a blank observation represents a "real" signal (see Section 3.7.3 for detailed explanation).
| |
| * When tJie initial haunt of a sample indicates the presence of radioactivity, two recounts are normally performed. Whe~ a radionuclide is positively identified in two or more counts, the analytical results for that radionuclide !are reported as the mean of the positive detections and the associated error for that mean (see Section 3.7.2 for methodology).
| |
| i Many of the tables are footnoted with the term "Plant-Related Radionuclides". Plant-Related Radionuclides are radionuclides that are produced in the reactor as a result of plant operation, either through the activlon or fission process.
| |
| * 6- I
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-1 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SHORELINE SEDIMENT SAMPLES - 2022 Results in Units of pCi/kg (dry)+/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE COLLECTION K-40 Co-60 Zn-65 Cs-134 Cs-137 others 1*
| |
| LOCATION*** DATE SUNSET BAY* (05) 04/25/22 16830 +/- 794 < 58 < 111 < 66 < 70 < LLD 10/14/22 14940 +/- 749 < 61 < 137 < 73 < 58 < LLD LANG'S BEACH (06, Control) 04/25/22 9665 +/- 571 < 51 < 100 < 61 < 53 < LLD 10/14/22 5904 +/- 523 < 42 < 104 < 56 < 57 < LLD
| |
| * Sample required by the ODCM
| |
| *** Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure _3.3-5 t Plant-related radionuclides 6-2
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-2 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN FISH SAMPLES - 2022 Results in Units of pCi/kg (wet)+/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE COLLECTION DESCRIPTION K-40 Mn-54 Co-58 Fe-59 Co-60 Zn-65 Cs-134 Cs-137 Others t LOCATION***
| |
| * DATE OSWEGO HARBOR* (00, Control) 05/10/22 Lake Trout 2687 +/- 440 < 47 < 61 < 128 <.59 < 115 < 74 < 62 < LLD 05/10/22 Brown Trout 3009 +/- 565 < 73 < 73 < 150 < 66 < 162 < 79 < 89 < LLD 05/10/22 Smallmouth Bass 2944 +/- 418 < 64 < 60 < 119 < 72 < 154 < 83 < 68 < LLD 09/08/22 Lake Trout 1 3021 +/- 510 < 53 < 41 < 123 < 52 < 120 < 63 < 45 < LLD 09/08/22 Lake Trout2 3096 +/- 444 < 63 < 44 < 114 < 59 < 120 < 61 < 70 < LLD 09/08/22 Smallmouth Bass 4761 +/- 625 < 64 < 60 < 180 < 85 < 159 < 83 < 96 < LLD NINE MILE POINT* (02) 05/10/22 Lake Trout 2921 +/- 473 < 62 < 55 < 142 < 82 < 106 < 57 < 55 < LLD 05/10/22 Brown Trout 3918 +/- 546 < 72 < 66 < 168 < 61 < 169 < 75 < 56 < LLD 05/10/22 Smallmouth Bass 4150 +/- 486 < 66 < 63 < 144 < 69 < 113 < 49 < 46 < LLD 09/08/22 Lake Trout 1 2982 +/- 477 < 69 < 65 < 115 < 73 < 126 < 75 < 72 < LLD 09/08/22 Lake Trout 2 2489 +/- 424 < 77 < 73 < 179 < 84 < 198 < 79 < 64 < LLD 09/08/22
| |
| * Smallmouth Bass 2487 +/- 481 < 57 < 59 < 112 < 38 < 111 < 35 < 44 < LLD FITZPATRICK* (03) 05/10/22 Lake Trout 1875 +/- 589 < 65 < 74 < 148 < 83 < 141 < 79 < 74 < LLD 05/10/22 Brown Trout 3211 +/- 466 < 55 < 42 < 131 < 57 < 102 < 73 < 43 < LLD 05/10/22 Smallmouth Bass 3543 +/- 410 < 46 < 50 < 108 < 55 < 118 < 61 < 57 < LLD 09/08/22 Walleye 1 3427 +/- 472 < 59 < 55 < 79 < 55 < 96 < 37 < 58 < LLD 09/08/22 Walleye 2 3383 +/- 485 < 71 < 68 < 130 < 71 < 138 < 63 < 76 < LLD 09/08/22 Smallmouth Bass 2904 +/- 378 < 47 < 41 < 86 < 58 < 118 < 55 < 50 < LLD
| |
| * Sample required by the ODCM
| |
| *** Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-5 t Plant-related radionuclides 6-3
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-3 CONCENTRATIONS OF TRITIUM IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES - 2022 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE COLLECTION DESCRIPTION H-3 LOCATION*** DATE FITZPATRICK* (03, INLET) 01/03/22 - 04/01/22 First Quarter < 167 04/01/22 - 07/07/22 Second Quarter < 194 07/07/22 - 10/02/22 Third Quarter < 172 10/02/22 - 01 /03/23 Fourth Quarter < 194 OSWEGO STEAM STATION* (08, CONTROL) 12/31/21
| |
| * 04/01/22 First Quarter < 175 04/01/22 07/01/22 Second Quarter < 186 07/01/22 - 09/30/22 Third Quarter < 184 09/30/22 - 12/30/22 Fourth Quarter 270 +/- 64 NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1** (09, INLET) 12/31/21 - 04/01/22 First Quarter < 181 04/01/22 - 07/01/22 Second Quarter < 180 07/01/22 - 09/30/22 Third Quarter < 178 09/30/22 12/30/22 Fourth Quarter < 192
| |
| * OSWEGO CITY WATER** (10) 12/31/21 ~ 04/01/22 First Quarter < 189 04/01/22 - 07/01/22 Second Quarter < 187 07JO 1/22 - 09/30/22 Third Quarter < 196 09/30/22. - 12/30/22 Fourth Quarter < 186 NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2** (11, INLET)
| |
| .12/31/21 - 04/01/22 First Quarter < 200 04/01/22 - 07/01/22 Second Quarter < 192 07/01 /22 - 09/30/22 Third Quarter < 185 09/30/22 * - 12/30/22 Fourth Quarter < 182
| |
| * Sample required by the ODCM
| |
| ** Optional sample location
| |
| *** Corresponds to.sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4 6-4
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-4 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES - 2022 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE COLLECTION 1-131 Mn-54 Co-58 Fe-59 Co-60 Zn-65 Nb-95 Zr-95 Cs-134 Cs-137 Ba-La-140 LOCATION*** DATE
| |
| ~-FITZPATRICK*.(03; INLETr ..
| |
| 02/02/22 < 0.8 < 2 <2 <5 < 2 <4 < 2 <5 < 2 < 2 < 7 03/04/22 < 0.8 < 2 <2 <4 < 2 <3 < 2 <3 < 2 < 2 < 7 04/01/22 < 0.9 < 2 <2 <4 < 2 <3 <2 < 3 < 2 < 2 < 5 04/29/22 < 0.9 <2 < 2 <5 < 2 <3 <2 < 3 < 2 < 2 < 6 06/02/22 < 0.6 <2 < 2 <4 <2 <3 < 2 < 3 < 2 <2 < 6 07/07/22 < 0.7 < 2 < 2 <4 < 2 < 3 < 2 < 3 < 2 < 2 < 7 08/01/22 < 0.8 < 2 <2 <4 < 2 < 3 < 2 < 3 < 2 < 2 < 5 09/01/22 < 0.8 < 2 <2 <5 < 2 <4 < 2 <4 < 2 < 2 < 6 10/02/22 < 0.4 < 1 <2 <4 < 2 <3 <2 < 3 < 2 < 1 < 4 11/03/22 < 0.9 < 1 < 2 <4 < 2 <3 <2 < 3 < 2 < 2 < 6 12/05/22 < 0.9 < 1 < 2 <4 <2 <3 <2 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 6 01/03/23 < 0.6 <2 <2 <4 < 2 < 3 < 2 <4 <2 < 2 < 6 OSWEGO STEAM STATION* (08, CONTROL) 01/28/22 < 0.4 < 2 <2 <4 < 2 <3 < 2 <3 < 2 < 2 < 5 02/25/22 < 0.7 < 2 <2 <5 < 2 <4 < 2 <4 < 2 < 2 < 5 04/01/22 < 0.7 < 1 < 1 <3 < 1 < 2 < 1 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 4 04/29/22 < 0.9 <2 < 2 <5 < 2 <4 < 2 <4 <2 <2 < 6 06/03/22 < 0.7 <2 < 2 <4 < 2 <4 < 2 <4 <2 < 2 < 6 07/01/22 < 0.8 <2 < 2 <4 <2 < 3 < 2 < 3 <2 < 2 < 5 07/29/22 < 0.7 < 2 <2 <4 < 2 < 3 < 2 < 3 < 2 < 2 < 5 09/02/22 < 0.9 < 2 <2 <4 < 2 < 3 < 2 <3 < 2 < 2 < 6 09/30/22 < 0.7 < 2 <2 <4 < 2 <3 < 2 <3 < 2 < 2 < 6 10/28/22 < 0.6 < 2 <2 <4 < 2 <4 < 2 < 3 < 2 < 2 < 5 12/02/22 < 0.6 < 2 <2 <4 < 2 <3 < 2 < 3 <2 <2 < 7 12/30/22 < 0.7 < 2 <2 <5 < 2 <4 < 2 <4 <2 <2 < 6
| |
| **Sample required by the ODCM
| |
| *** Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4 6-5
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-4 (continued)
| |
| CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES - 2022 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE COLLECTION 1-131 Mn-54 Co-58 Fe-59 Co-60 Zn-65 Nb-95 Zr-95 Cs-134 Cs-137 Ba-La-140 LOCATION*** DATE NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1** (09, INLET) 01/28/22 < 7 <2 <2 <4 <2 <3 <2 <4 <2 < 2 < 5 02/25/22 < 9 <2 <2 < 5 <2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <2 < 5 04/01/22 < 10 <2 <2 < 4- < 2 <3 <2 < 3' <2 <2 < 6 04/29/22 < 9 <2 <2 <4 < 2 <3 <2 < 3 <2 <2 < 5 06/03/22 < 10 <2 <2 <4 <'2 <3 <2 < 3 <2 <2 < 6 07/01/22 < 8 <2 <2 <4 < 2 <3 <2 < 3 <2 <2 < 5 07/29/22 < 7 <2 <2 <4 < 2 <3 <2 < 3 <2 <2 < 5 09/02/22 < 10 <2 <2 <5 < 2. <4 <2 < 3 <2 <2 < 6 09/30/22 < 13 <3 <3 <6 < 3 <6 <3 <5 < 3 < 3 < 8 10/28/22 < 8 <2 <2 <5 < 2 <4 <2 <4 < 2 <2 < 5 12/02/22 < 10 <2 < 2* <4 <.2 <3 <2 < 3 <2 < 1 < 5 12/30/22 < 9 <2 <2 <5 < 2 <4 <2 <4 < 2 < 2 < 7 OSWEGO CITY WATER** (10) 01/28/22 < 5 <1 < 1 <3 < 1 <2 <1 < 2 < 1 < 1. < 3 02/25/22 < 7 <2 <2 *< 4 <2 <3 <2 < 3 <2 <2 < 5 04/01/22 < 9 <2 <2 <4 <2 <3 <2 < 3 <-2 <2 < 6 04/29/22 < 8 <2 <2 <4 < 2 <3 <2 < 3 <2 <2 < 5 06/03/22 < 10 <2 <2 < 6 <2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <2 < 6 07/01/22 < 9 <2 <2 <4 < 2 <3 <2 <3 <2 <2 < 6
| |
| '07/29/22 < 7 <2 <2 <4 < 2 <4 <2 <3 <2 <2 <4 09/02/22 < 11 <2 <2 <5 < 2 <.4 <2 <4 <2 <2 <6 09/30/22 < 10 <2 <2 <5 < 3 <4 <2 <4 <2 <2 < 8 10/28/22 < 7 <2 <2 <4 < 2 <4 <2 < 3 <2 <2 < 5 12/02/22 < 12 <2 <2 <4 < 2 <4 <2 <4 <2 < 2 <6 12/30/22 < 8 <2 <2 < 5. <2 <4 <2 <4 < 2 < 2 <6
| |
| ** Optional sample location
| |
| *** Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4 6-6
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-4 (continued)
| |
| CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES - 2022 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE COLLECTION 1-131 Mn-54 Co-58 Fe-59 Co-60 Zn-65
| |
| * Nb-95 Zr-95 Cs-134 Cs-137 Ba-La-140 LOCATION*- DATE NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2"" (11, INLET) 01/28/22 <7 <2 <2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <3 <2 <2 <5 02/25/22 <9 <2 <2 <5 <2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <2 <6 04/01/22 < 10 <2 <2 <5 <2 <3 <2 <3 <2 <2 <6 04/29/22 <9 <2 <2 <5 <2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <2 <7 06/03/22 <9 <2 <2 <4 <2 <3 <2 <3 <2 <2 <5 07/01/22 <7 <2 <2 <4 <2 <3 <2 <3 <2 <2 <5 07/29/22 <8 <2 <2 <4 <2 < 4* <2 < 3 <2 <2 <5 09/02/22 < 12 <2 <2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <3 <2 <2 <7 09/30/22 <8 <2 <2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <3 <2 <2 < 5 10/28/22 <7 <2 <2 <5 <2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <2 <6 12/02/22 < 13 <2 <2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <2 <7 12/30/22 <9 <2 <2 <5 <"2 <4 <2 <4 <2 <2 <T
| |
| ** Optional sample.location.
| |
| *** Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4 6-7
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-5 ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE PARTICULATE SAMPLES - OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 2022.
| |
| 3 GROSS BETA ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m +/- 1 Sigma COLLECTION DATE R1* R2* R3* R4* RS* D2** E** F** G**
| |
| 12/28/21 - 01/04/22 23 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 25 +/- 2. 24 +/- 2 27 +/- 2 27 +/-2 23 +/- 2 24 +/-2 26 +/- 2 01/04/22 - 01/11/22 16 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 19 +/- 1
| |
| * 19 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 21 +/-1 20 +/- 1 18 +/-1 18 +/- 1 01/11/22 - 01/18/22 20 +/- 1 26 +/- 1 29 +/- 2 29 +/- 2 26 +/- 2 29 +/-2 26 +/- 1 29 +/-2 29 +/- 2 01/18/22 - 01/25/22 28 +/- 2 *22 +/- 1 26 +/- 2 24 +/- 2 25 +/- 2 24 +/-1 26 +/- 2 25 +/-2 27 +/- 2 01/25/22 - 02/01/22 23 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 23 +/-1 21 +/- 1 27 +/-2 22 +/- 1 02/01/22 - 02/08/22 21 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 25 +/- 2 26 +/- 2 21 +/-1 19 +/- 1 22 +/-2 22 +/- 2 02/08/22 - 02/14/22 19 +/- 1 23 +/- 2 24 +/- 2 23 +/- 2 26 +/- 2 21 +/-2 24 +/- 2 22 +/-2 22 +/-2 02/14/22 - 02/22/22 19 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 20 +/-1 19 +/- 1 21 +/-1 . 21 +/-1 02/22/22 - 03/01 /22 22 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 24 +/- 2 22 +/- 1 20 +/-1 23 +/- 2 21 +/-2 22 +/- 2 03/01/22 - .03/08/22 22 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 18 +/-1 16 +/- 1 21 +/-1 21 +/-1 03/08/22 - 03/15/22 19 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 22 +/- 2* 21 +/- 1 18 +/-1 21 +/-1 03/15/22 - 03/22/22 19 +/- 1* 19 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 17 +/-1 17 +/- 1 16 +/-1 19 +/-1 03/22/22 - 03/29/22 11 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 *14 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 11 +/-1 12 +/- 1 12 +/-1 12 +/-1 03/29/22 - 04/05/22 17 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 15 +/-1 . 16 +/- 1 18 +/-1 18 +/-1 04/05/22 - 04/12/22 12 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 9 +/-1 12 +/-1 11 +/- 1 12 +/-1 12 +/-1 04/12/22 - 04/19/22 14 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 12 '+/- 1 16 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 12 +/-1 12 +/- 1 12 +/-1 14 +/-1 04/19/22 - 04/26/22 18 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 14 +/-1 14 +/- 1- 18 +/-1 18 +/-1 04/26/22 - 05/03/22 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 16 +/-1 18 +/- 1 17 +/-1 16 +/- 1 05/03/22 - 05/10/22 16 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 18 +/-1 18 +/- 1 19 +/-1 17 +/-1 05/10/22 - 05/17/22 16 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 17 )+/- 1 16 +/-1 18 +/- 1 18 +/-1 17 +/-1 05/17/22 ° 05/24/22 14 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 13 +/-1 15 +/- 1 14 +/-1 14 +/-1 05/24/22 - 05/31 /22 14 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 13 +/-1 13 +/- 1 15 +/-. 1 15 +/- 1 05/31/22 - 06/07/22 16 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 17 +/-1 17 +/- 1 18 +/-1 17 +/- 1 06/07122 - 06/14/22 15 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 10 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 16 +/-1 14 +/- 1 12 +/-1 12 +/-1 06/14/22 - 06/21/22 10 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 06/21 /22 - 06/28/22 20 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 19 +/-1 18 +/- 1 18 +/-1 19 +/-1
| |
| * Sample required by the ODCM
| |
| ** Optional.sample location 6-8
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-5 (continued)
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE PARTICULATE SAMPLES -OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS -2022 3
| |
| GROSS BETA ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m +/- 1 Sigma COLLECTION DATE R1* R2* R3* R4* R5* 02** E** F** G**
| |
| -- -- -- -~------- - - - - --- ------ ----
| |
| 06/28/22 --~ 07/05/22--~ 12-+/-- 1-- --- 13-:1:-1-- - -+/ 10 -+/- 1- -11 r1----~11-+/--1~-- +/- - ----14 +/- ----11-+/- 1-~ -- -~---
| |
| 07/05/22 - 07/12/22 18 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 07/12/22 - 07/19/22 18 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 07/19/22 - 07/26/22 25 +/- 2 24 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 25 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 24 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 07/26/22 - 08/02/22 19 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 18 +/- 17 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 08/02/22 - 08/09/22 19 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 31 +/- 2 21 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 08/09/22 - 08/16/22 16 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 08/16/22 - 08/23/22 22 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 24 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 08/23/22 - 08/30/22 18 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 08/30/22 - . 09/06/22 12 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 09/06/22 - 09/13/22 16 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 09/13/22 - 09/20/22 19 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 09/20/22 - 09/27/22 14 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 14 +/- 14 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 09/27/22 - 10/04/22 13 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 15 +/- 12 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 10 +/- 1 10/04/22 - 10/11/22 19 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 17 +/- 18 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 10/11/22 - 10/18/22 25 +/- 1 30 +/- 2 28 +/- 1 28 +/- 2 28 +/- 1 26 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 24 +/- 1 26 +/- 2 10/18/22 - 10/25/22 22 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 10/25/22 - 11/01/22 13 +/- 13 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 11/01/22 - 11/08/22 29 +/- 2 27 +/- 1 28 +/- 1 33 +/- 2 27 +/- 1 29 +/- 2 31 +/- 2 29 +/- 2 29 +/- 2 11/08/22 - 11/15/22 14 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 11/15/22 - 11/22/22 15 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 11/22/22 - 11/29/22 28 +/- 2 27 +/- 2 25 +/- 1 29 +/- 2 26 +/- 2 25 +/- 1 29 +/- 2 29 +/- 2 28 +/- 2 11/29/22 - 12/06/22 22 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 12/06/22 - 12/13/22 23 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 12/13/22 - 12/20/22 10 +/- 11 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 10 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 12/20/22 - 12/27/22 16 +/- 19 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 12/27/22 - 01/03/23 28 +/- 2 28 +/- 1 28 +/- 1 26 +/- 1 32 +/- 2 26 +/- 2 27 +/- 2 28 +/- 2 24 +/- 1
| |
| * Sample required by the ODCM
| |
| ** Optional sample location 6-9
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-6 ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE PARTICULATE SAMPLES - ONSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 2022 GROSS BETA ACTIVITY 1 OE-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma COLLECTION DATE 01- G""' H** I** J** K-12/28/21 - 01/03/22 24 +/- 2 23 +/-2 23 +/-2 22 +/- 2 22 +/- 2 25 +/- 2 01/03/22 - 01/10/22 20 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 01/10/22 01/17/22 28 +/- 2 26 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 24 +/- 1 26 +/- 1 26 +/- 1 01/17/22 - 01/24/22 26 +/- 2 32 +/- 2 24 +/- 2 23 +/- 2 22 +/- 1 26 +/- 2 01/24/22 - 02/01/22 22 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 02/01/22 - 02/07/22 18 +/- 1 24 +/-2 24 +/- 2 19 +/- 2 18 +/- 1 25 +/- 2 02/07/22 - 02/14/22 21 +/- 1 23 +/-2 21 +/- 1 25 +/- 2 22 +/- 1 25 +/- 2 02/14/22 02/21/22 21 +/- 1 21 +/-1 20 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 02/21/22 - 02/28/22 21 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 02/28/22 - 03/07/22 22 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 03/07/22 - 03/14/22 19 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 21 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 03/14/22 - 03/21/22 20 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 03/21/22 - 03/28/22 13 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 9 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 10 +/- 1 03/28/22 04/04/22 17 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 04/04/22 04/11/22 13 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 04/11 /22 - 04/18/22 13 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 04/ 18/22 - 04/25/22 14 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 24 +/- 2 04/25/22 - 05/02/22 18 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 05/02/22 - 05/09/22 18 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 05/09/22 - 05/16/22 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 05/16/22 05/23/22 14 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 05/23/22 - 05/30/22 10 +/- 1 10 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 05/30/22 - 06/06/22 19 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 06/06/22 - 06/13/22 12 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 17 .+/- 1 17 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 06/13/22 - 06/20/22 19 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 06/20/22 06/27/22 18 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 21 +/- *1 20 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 22 +/- 1
| |
| ** Optional sample lo.cation 6- 10
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-6 (continued)
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE PARTICULATE SAMPLES - ONSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 2022 3
| |
| GROSS BETA ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m +/- 1 Sigma COLLECTION DATE 01- G''.. H,... ,.... J** K,...
| |
| 06727/22---07705722 n +/- ~13~1--ro~r--10 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 07/05/22 - 07/12/22 15 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 24 +/- 2 24 +/- 2 17 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 07/11 /22 - 07/18/22 23 +/- 1 20 +/- 1 24 +/- 1 20 +/-1 19 +/- 1 20 .+/- 1 07/ 18/22 - 07/25/22 24 +/- 2 25 +/- 2 25 +/- 1 25 +/- 2 25 +/- 2 26 +/- 2 07/25/22 - 08/01/22 15 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 08/01/22 - 08/08/22 19 +/- 1 25 +/- 2 24 +/- 1 25 +/- 2 21 +/- 1 23 +/- 2 08/08/22 - 08/15/22 15 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 08/15/22 - 08/22/22 21 +/- 1 24 +/- 1 33 +/- 2 25 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 08/22/22 - 08/29/22 21 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 08/29/22 - 09/05/22 16 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 15 +/- 1. 16 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 09/05/22 - 09/12/22 16 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 09/12/22 - 09/19/22 21 +/- 1 (1) 24 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 24 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 09/19/22 - 09/26/22 18 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 09/26/22 - 10/03/22 12 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 10 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 10/03/22 - 10/10/22 18 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 10/10/22 - 10/17/22 28 +/- 2 27 +/- 2 32 +/- 2 25 +/- 1 25 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 10/17/22 - 10/24/22 22 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 10/24/22 - 10/31/22 16 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 22 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 10/31/22 - 11/07/22 32 +/- 2 37 +/- 2 27 +/- 1 19 +/- 1 28 +/- 2 28 +/- 2 11/07/22 - 11/14/22 15 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 10 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 I
| |
| 11/14/22 - 11/21/22 13 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 9 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 11/21/22 - 11/28/22 33 +/- 2 28 +/- 2 30 +/- 2 20 +/- 1 35 +/- 2 32 +/- 2 11 /28/22 - 12/05/22 18 +/- 1 16 +/- 1 18 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 12/05/22 - 12/12/22 23 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 24 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 25 +/- 1 23 +/- 1 12/12/22 - 12/19/22 15 +/- 1 15 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 11 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 12/19/22 - 12/26/22 15 +/- 1 17 +/- 1 12 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 14 +/- 1 13 +/- 1 12/26/22 - 01/02/23 29 +/- 2 29 +/--2 28 +/- 2 25 +/- 1 31 +/- 2 29 +/- 2
| |
| - Optional sample location (1) See Section 3.6 Deviations and Exceptions to the Program 6 - 11
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES - OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 2022 1-131 ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m3 +/- 1 Sigma COLLECTION .
| |
| DATE R1* R2* R3* R4* R5* D2** E** F** G**
| |
| 12/28/21 - 01/04/22 < 35 < 34 < 37 < 43 < 18 < 41 < 43 < 43 < 37 01/04/22 - 01/11/22 < 18 < 17 *< 18 < 10 < 21 < 20 < 21 < 21 < 19 01/11/22 - 01/18/22 *< 17 < 17 < 18 < 13 < 30 < 27 < 28 < 29 < 19 01/18/22 - 01/25/22 < 19 < 19 < 20 < 18 <9 < 17 < 18 < 17 < 21 01/25/22 - 02/01/22 < 25 < 19 < 26 < 31 < 30 *< 28 < 28 < 15 < 26 02/01/22 - 02/08/22 < 19 < 19 < 21 < 22 < 21 < 20 < 21 < 18 < 22 02/08/22 - 02/14/22 < 18 < 19 < 18 < 14 < 14 < 14 < 14 < 14 < 19 02/14/22 - 02/22/22 < 17 < 14 < 17 < 23 < 24 < 24 < 23 < 10 < 17 02/22/22 - 03/01/22 < 18 < 18 < 18 < 20 < 19 < 9 < 19 < 20 < 20 03/01/22 - 03/08/22 < 16 < 15 < 16 < 12 < 12 < 12 < 8 < 12 < 16 03/08/22 - 03/15/22 < 13 < 14 < 14 < 17 < 17 < 9 < 18 < 18 < 14 03/15/22 - 03/22/22 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 19 < 18 < 9 < 18 < 18 < 20 03/22/22 - 03/29/22 < 20 < 18 -< 18 < 23 < 10 < 23 < 23 < 23 < 20 03/29/22 - 04/05/22 < 20 <.19 < 19 < 19 < 19 < 9 < 19 < 19 < 19 04/05/22 *- 04/12/22 < 29 < 27 < 26 < 15 < 15 < 15 < 15 <7 < 28 04/12/22 - 04/19/22 < 16 < 17 < 16 < 9 < 16 < 17 < 16 < 17 < 16 04/19/22 - 04/26/22 < 27 < 27 < 27 < 13 <.28 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 27 04/26/22 - 05/03/22 < 14 < 14* < 13 < 8 < 14 < 14 * < 14 < 15 < 14 05/03/22 - 05/10/22 < 21 < 22 < 21 < 27 < 25 < 26 < 11 < 26 < 21 05/10/22 - 05/17/22 < 15 < 15 < 15 < 12 < 25 < 27 < 25 < 27 < 15 05/17/22 - 05/24/22 < 10 < 9 < 9 < 13 < 12 < 6 <.12 < 13 < 9 05/24/22 - 05/31 /22 < 31 < 29 < 28 < 16 < 15 < 9 < 14 < 15 < 30 05/31 /22 - 06/07/22 < 27 < 26 < 26 < 19 < 17 < 19 < 11 < 18 < 26 06/07122 - 06/14/22 < 10 < 18 < 18 < 26 < 25 < 26 < 24 < 12 < 19 06/14/22 - 06/21/22 < 34 < 13 < 30 < 25 < 24 < 24 < 23 < 11 < 32 06/21 /22 . - 06/28i22 < 14 < 16 < 16 < 15 < 15 < 15 < 15 <7 < 16
| |
| * Sample required by the ODCM
| |
| ** Optional sample location 6 - 12
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-7 (continued)
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES - OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 2022 1-131 ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/--1 Sigma COLLECTION DATE R1* R2*
| |
| * R3* R4* R5* D2** E** F** G**
| |
| 06/28/22-;_; 07/05/22 ,,t3 - ---~-< 29 ,::--29-----* <21--- ------,:-20 < 21 ------<20 < r1--- <31 07/05/22 - 07/12/22 < 18 < 16 < 17 < 7 < 14 < 15 < 14 < 15 < 18 07/12/22 - 07/19/22 < 25 < 24 < 22 < 28 < 24 < 26 < 10 < 25 < 24 07/19/22 07/26/22 < 26 < 10 < 24 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 19 < 9 < 25 07/26/22 - 08/02/22 < 29 < 27 < 28 < 19 < 18 < 18 < 18 < 9 < 29 08/02/22 - 08/09/22 < 20 < 18 < 19 < 19 < 18 < 18 < 12 < 19 < 8 08/09/22 - 08/16/22 < 22 < 21 < 22 < 18 < 18 < 10 < 18 < 19 < 23 08/16/22 - 08/23/22 < 22 < 20 < 21 < 17 < .17 < 18 < 17 < 9 < 21 08/23/22 - 08/30/22 < 15 < 14 < 14 < 27 < 26 < 27 <* 26 < 12 < 15 08/30/22 - 09/06/22 < 19 < 19 < 19 < 12 < 27 < 27 < 27 < 27 < 19 09/06/22 - 09/13/22 < 27 <*25 < 25 < 10 < 23 < 23 < 23 < 23 < 27 09/13/22 09120/22 < 25 < 24 < 24 < 11 < 25 < 25 < 24 < 24 < 25 09/20/22 - 09/27i22 < 24 < 23 < 23 < 12 < 27 < 27 < 27 < 27 < 24 09/27/22 - 10/04/22 < 26 < 25 < 25 < 28 < 26 < 11 < 26 < 26 < 27 10/04/22 - 10/11 /22 < 11 < 10 < 10 < 24 < 23 < 23 < 23 < 10 < 11 10/11/22 - 10/18/22 < 22 < 21 < 21 < 16 < 16 < 10 < 15 < 16 < 22 10/18/22 - 10/25/22 < 21 < 20 < 20 < 9 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 21 10/25/22 - 11/01/22 < 20 < 19 < 19 < 12 < 28 < 28 < 28 < 28 < 20 11/01/22 - 11/08/22 < 27 < 26 < 26 < 12 < 28 < 28 < 27 < 28 < 27 11/08/22 - 11 /15/22 < 24 < 24 < 24 < 10 < 19 < 19 < 19 < 20 < 25 11/15/22 - 11/22/22 < 26 < 26 < 26 < 16 < 42 < 41 < 41 < 42 < 27 11/22/22 - 11/29/22 < 19 < 19 < 19 < 20 < 21 < 21 < 20 < 9 < 19 11 /29/22 - 12/06/22 < 29 < 29 < 29 < 38 < 39 < 40 < 39 < 17 < 29 12/06/22 - .12113/22 < 16 < 7 < 15 < 14 < 15 < 13 < 14 < 15 < 16 12/13/22 - 12/20/22 < 22 < 21 < 9 < 23 < 24 < 24 < 24 < 10 < 21 12/20/22 - 12/27/22 < 22 < 21 < 21 < 14 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 18 < 21 12/27/22 - 01/03/23 < 27 < 26 < 25 < 23 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 11 <9
| |
| * Sample required by the ODCM
| |
| ** Optional sample location 6-13
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES - ONSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 2022 3
| |
| 1~131 ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m +/- 1 Sigma COLLECTION DATE 01- G** H..,. 1- J** K**
| |
| 12/28/21 - 01/03/22 < 46 < 19 < 48 < 47 < 45 < 21 01 /03/22 - 01 / 10/22 < 15 < 14 < 32 < 33 < 31 < 33 01/10/22 - 01/17/22 < 11 < 11 < 21 < 22 < 20 < 22 01/17/22 - 01/24/22 < 19 < 11 < 19 < 19 < 18 < 13 01/24/22 - 02/01/22 < 36 < 24 < 36 < 37 < 29 < 16 02/01/22 - 02/07/22 < 19 < 21 < 42 < 43 < 40 < 44 02/07122 - 02/14/22 < 17 < 15 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 12 02/14/22 - 02/21/22 < 13 < 21 < 29 < 30 < 31 < 28 02/21 /22 - 02/28/22 < 27 < 16 < 26 < 28 < 27 < 12 02/28/22 - 03/07/22 < 14 <"8 < 13 < 13 < 14 < 7 03/07/22 - 03/14/22 < 30 < 12 < 29 < 30 < 13 < 28 03/14/22 - 03/21/22 < 28 < 17 < 26 < 27 < 25 < 12 03/21/22 - 03/28/22 < 13 <9 < 31 <"31 < 30 < 29 03/28/22 - 04/04/22 < 32 < 17 < 32 < 14 < 32 < 32 04/04/22 - 04/11/22 < 27 < 12 < 27 < 11 < 26 < 26 04/ 11 /22 - 04/ 18/22 < 12 < 8 < 17 < 16- < 17 < 16 04/18/22 - 04/25/22 < 23 < 12 < 24 - < 23 < 25 < 17 04/25/22 - 05/02/22 < 26 < 9 < 26 < 25 < 13 < 23 05/02/22 - 05/09/22 < 23 < 12 < 25 < 24 < 12 < 25 05/09/22 - 05/16/22 < 18 <7 < 13 < 18 < 18 < 19 05/16/22 - 05/23/22 < 14 < (l < 14 < 14 < 9 < 14 05/23/22 - 05/30/22 < 20 < 14 - < 21 < 20 < 17 < 20 05/30/22 - 06/06/22 < 23 < 12 < 22 < 11 < 23 < 22 06/06/22 - 06/13/22 < 23 < 21 < 11 < 23 < 24 < 23 06/13/22 - 06/20/22 < 27 < 34 < 28 < 28 < 12 < 28 06/20/22 - 06/27/22 < 26 < 18 < 27 < 27 < 11 < 26
| |
| ** Optional sample location 6-14
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-8 (continued)
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES - ONSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 2022 1-131 ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma COLLECTION DATE D1** G** H** I** J** K""'
| |
| ~6/27/22---*07/05/2r--------* <-24* .. --<~28--* * --<9 24--- _:<25 24 07/05/22 - 07/12/22 < 13 < 18 < 30 < 32 < 31 < 32 07/11/22 - 07/18/22 < 31 < 11 < 29 < 31 < 31 < 13 07/18/22 - 07/25/22 < 12 < 29 < 25 < 28 < 27 < 27 07/25/22 - 08/01/22 < 26 < 13 <8 < 24 < 24 < 27 08/01 /22 - 08/08/22 < 15 < 21 < 14 < 14 < 14 < 10 08/08/22 - 08/15/22 < 18 < 11 < 15 < 18 < 18 < 8 08/15/22
| |
| * 08/22/22 < 30 < 12 < 29 < 30 < 29 < 13 08/22/22 - 08/29/22 < 28 <7 < 11 < 28 < 27 < 30 08/29/22 - 09/05/22 < 23 < 9 < 21 < 11 < 25 < 25 09/05/22 - 09/12/22 < 21 < 12 < 10 < 23 < 22 < 22 09/12/22 - 09/19/22 < 25 (1) < 24 < -11 < 26 < 26 09/19/22 - 09/26/22 < 29 < 12 < 28 < 30 < 13 < 31 09/26/22 - 10/03/22 < 25 < 12 < 26 < 12 < 27 < 26 10/03/22 - 10/10/22 < 20 <6 < 19 < 11 < 21 < 21 10/10/22 - 10/17/22 < 25 < 11 < 1.1 < 26 < 27 < 27 10/17/22 - 10/24/22 < 26 < 11 < 25 < 27 < 27 < 11 10/24/22 - 10/31 /22 < 29 <9 < 12 < 31 < 32 < 31 10/31/22 - 11/07/22 < 31 < 19 < 13 < 35 < 33 < 33 11/07/22 - 11/14/22 < 25 < 14 <8 < 24 < 25 < 26 11/14/22 - 11/21/22 < 30 < 13 < 29 < 31 < 30 < 14 11/21/22 - 11/28/22 < 27 < 14 < 25 < 27 < 27 < 12 11 /28/22 - 12/05/22 < 29 < 14 < 12 < 30 < 30 < 30 12/05/22 - 12112/22 < 21 < 17 < 20 < 21 < 21 < 14 12/12/22 - 12/19/22 < 29 < 24 < 29 < 29 < 12 < 30 12/ 19/22 - 12/26/22 < 31 < 10 < 27 < 31 < 31 < 13 12/26/22 - 01/02/23 < 22 < 29 < 10 < < 25 < 24
| |
| ** Optional sample location (1) See Section 3.6 Deviations and Exceptions to the Program 6 - 15
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-9 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN QUARTERLY COMPOSITES AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES - 2022 3
| |
| Results in Units of 1 0E-3 pCi/m +/- 1 Sigma OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE COLLECTION Be-7 K-40 Mn-54 Co-58 Co-60 Zn-65 Nb-95 Zr-95 Cs-134 Cs-137 LOCATION DATE R1* 12/28/21 - 03/29/22 120 +/- 11 < 30 <2 < 2 < 1 < 5 < 3 < 5 <2 <2 03/29/22 - 06/28/22 108 +/- 10 < 21 < 1 < 2 < 1 <3 < 2 < 4 < 1 < 1 06/28/22 - 10/04/22 104 +/- 11 < 20 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 10/04/22 - 01/03/23 79 +/-9 < 18 <1 < 1 < 1 < 2 <2 < 3 < 1 < 1 R2* 12/28/21 03/29/22 110 +/- 10 < 18 < 1 <1 < 1 < 3 <2 < 3 < 1 < 1 03/29/22 06/28/22 112 +/- 14 < 31 < 2 < 1 < 3 < 5 < 3 < 5 <2 < 2 06/28/22 - 10/04/22 112 +/- 13 < 24 < 1 <2 < 1 < 3 <3 < 3 < 1 < 1 10/04/22 - 01/03/23 72 +/- 10 < 16 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 R3* 12/28/21 - 03/29/22 85 +/- 10 < 17 < 1 <2 < 1 < 3 <2 < 3 < 1 < 1 03/29/22 - 06/28/22 109 +/- 11 < 18 < 1 <3 < 1 < 3 <3 <4 < 1 < 1 06/28/22 10/04/22 104 +/- 10 < 16 < 1 <2 < 1 < 3 < 1 <3 < 1 < 1 10/04/22 01/03/23 85 +/- 9 < 22 < 1 <2 < 2 < 3 <2 <4 <2 < 1 R4* 12/28/21 03/29/22 94 +/- 10 < 19 < 1 < 1 < 1 <4 < 2 <3 < 1 < 1 03/29/22 - 06/28/22 104 +/- 12 < 25 < 1 <2 < 1 < 3 < 2 <2 < 1 < 1 06/28/22 - 10/04/22 105 +/- 11 < 19 < 2 <2 < 1 < 3 <2 < 3 <2 < 1 10/04/22 - 01 /03/23 100 +/- 10 < 25 < 1 <2 < 1 <3 <2 <2 < 1 < 1 RS* t2/28/21 03/29/22 95 +/- 14 < 27 <2 <3 < 1 <3 <2 <4 <1 < 1 03/29/22 - 06/28/22 105 +/- 12 < 30 <2 <2 < 1 <4 < 3 <6 <2 < 2 06/28/22 - 10/04/22 101 +/- 9 < 16 < 1 <2 < 1 < 3 <2 <2 < 1 < 1 10/04/22 - 01/03/23 70 +/- 11 < 32 <2 <2 < 1 < 5 <2 <5 <1 < 1
| |
| * Sample required by the ODCM 6 - 16
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-9 (continued)
| |
| CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN QUARTERLY COMPOSITES AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES - 2022 3
| |
| Results in Units of 10E-3 pCi/m +/- 1 Sigma OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE COLLECTION Be-7 K-40 Mn-54 Co-58 Co-60 Zn-65 Nb-95 Zr-95 Cs-134 Cs-137 LOCATION DATE D2** 12/28/21 - 03/29/22 101 +/- 9 < 17 < 1 <2 < 1 < 2 <2 < 2 <.1 < 1 03/29/22 - 06/28/22 121 +/- 14 < 31 <.2 < 3 < 2 < 5 <4 < 5 <2 < 1 06/28/22 - 10/04/22 83 +/- 9 < 18 < 1 <2 < 0 < 3 <2 < 3 < 1 < 1 10/04/22 - 01 /03/23 98 +/- 9 < 18 < 1 < 1 < 1 <4 <2 < 3 < 1 < 1 E** 12/28/21 - 03/29/22 99 +/- 11 < 19 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 <2 <2 < 1 < 1 03/29/22 - 06/28/22 113 +/- 11 < 24 < 1. < 2 < 1 <3 <2 <4 < 1 < 1 06/28/22 - 10/04/22 108 +/- 14 < 27 < 2 < 2 < 1 <4 <2 <4 < 1 < 1 10/04/22 - 01/03/23 74 +/- 13 < 20 < 1 < 2 < 2 <4 < 2. < 3 < 2 < 1 F** 12/28/21 - 03/29/22 95 +/- .12 < 21 < 1 <2 < 2 < 3 < 3 <4 < 1 < 1 03/29/22 - 06/28/22 98 +/- 12 < 21 < 1. <2 < 1 < 3 < 2 <3 < 1 < 1 06/28/22 - 10/04/22 106 +/- 10 < 15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 2 < 3 < 1 < 1 10/04/22 - 01/03/23 80 +/- 9 < 25 < 1 <2 < 1 < 2 < 1 <3 < 1 < 1 G** 12/28/21 - 03/29/22 81 +/- 12 < 16 < 1 < 2 < 1 <4 < 2 <2 < 1 < 1 03/29/22 - 06/28/22 92 +/- 10 < 21 < 1 < 2 < 1 < 3 < 2 <4 < 1 < 1 06/28/22 - 10/04/22 87 +/- 11 < 16 < 1 < 2 < 1 <2 < 2 <3 < 1 < 1 10/04/22 - 01/03/23 92 +/- 14 < 28 < 2 < 2 < 1 <3 < 2 <4 < 1 < 1
| |
| ** Optional sample location 6 - 17
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-9 (continued)
| |
| CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN QUARTERLY COMPOSITES AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES -2022 3
| |
| Results in Units of 10E-3 pCi/m +/- 1 Sigma ONSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE COLLECTION Be-7, K-40 Mn-54 Co-58 Co-60 Zn-65 Nb-95 Zr-95 Cs-134 Cs-137 LOCATION DATE D1** 12i28/21 '03/28/22 96 +/- 11 < 36 <2 < 3 <1 <4 <.3 <4 < 2 <2 03/28/22 - 06/27/22 110 +/- 12 < 20 <1 < 1 <1 <3 <2 <4 < 1 < 1 06/27/22 - 10/03/22 116 +/-9 < 25 <1 < 2' < 1 <3 <2 <4 < 1 < 1*
| |
| 10/03/22 01/02/23 91 +/-9 < 22 .< 1 < 1 < 1 <2 <2 ,<4 < 1 < 1 G..., 12/28/21 03/28/22 102 +/- 10 < 16 < 1 <1 < 1 <3 <2 <3* <1 < 1 03/28/22 - 06/27/22 130 +/- 12 < 27 < 1 <3 <2 <4 <3 <4 <2 < 2 06/27/22 - 10/03/22 104 +/- 11 < 22 < 1 <2 < 1 <2 < 1 <3 < 1 < 1 10/03/22 - 01 /02/23 86 +/-9 < 22 < 1 <2 < 1 <4 <2 <3 < 1 < 1 H"* 12/21)/21 - 03/28/22 89 +/- 13 < 27 <2 <3 <2 <4 <3 <6 <2 <2 03/28/22 06/27/22 97 +/- 11 < 18 <1 < 1 < 1 <3 <2 <2 < 1 < 1 06/27/22 - 10/03/22 102 +/- 13 < 14 <1 <3 < 1 <3 <2 <4 <2 < 1 10/03/22 - 01 /02/23 97 +/- 12 < 32 < 1 <2 < 1 <4 <3 <3 < 1 < 1 1** 12/28/21 03/28/22 91 +/- 9 < 13 < 1 <2 < 1 <3 <2 <4 < 1 < 1 03/28/22 - 06/27/22 115 +/- 10 < 21 < 1 <2 < 1 <2 <2 <3 < 1 < 1 06/27/22 - 10/03/22 88 +/- 10 < 23 < 1 <2 <2 <3 <2 .< 4 < 1 < 1 10/03/22 '01/02/23 42 +/- 8 < 17 < 1 <2 <1 <2 <2 <3 < 1 < 1 J** 12/28/21 - 03/28/22 85 +/- 9 < 18 <1 <1 <2 <3 > .< 2 <3 < 1 < 1 03/28/22 06/27/22 113 +/- 15 < 37 <2 <2 <2 <4 <4 <6 < 1 <2 06/27/22 - 10/03/22 96 +/- 9 < 17 < 1 <2 < 1 <2 < 1 < 3* < 1 < 1 10/03/22 01/02/23 101 +/- 9 < 16 < 1 <1 <0 <3 <2 '< 3 <1 < 1 K** 12/28/21 - 03/28/22 109 +/- 12 '-< 27 <.1 <3 < 1 < 3 <3 <5 <.1 < 1 03/28/22 06/27/22 126 +/- 12 < 22 <1 < 2 < 1 <4 <3 <4 < 2. < 1 06/27/22 - 10/03/22*
| |
| * 105 +/- 14 < 32 <2 <3 < *1 <4 <3 <3 <2 < 2 10/03/22 - 01 /02/23 80 +/- 9 < 25 <2 <3 <2 <3 <2 <4 <2 < 1
| |
| ** Optional sample location 6 - 18
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-10 DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS - 2022 Results in mrem/std. Month +/- 1 Sigma LOCATION JAN -MAR APR-JUN JUL- SEP OCT-DEC DEGREES & DISTANCE NO. DESCRIPTION (1) 3 D1 Onsite 13.8 +/- 0.6 14.0 +/- 0.6 11.0 +/- 0.4 13.7 +/- 0.7 71° at 0.3 miles 4 D2 Onsite 5.1 +/- 0.2 5.5 +/- 0.2 5.8 +/- 0.3 5.6 +/- 0.2 143° at 0.4 miles 5 E Onsite 5.1 +/- 0.2 5.5 +/- 0.2 5.8 +/- 0.2 5.5 +/- 0.2 180° at 0.3 miles F-0nsit 4~6-+/--0~3 ~0-+/--0;2 ~4-+/--0:2 5.2-+/--0.1 213°*at*0:5-miles 7* G Onsite 4.3 +/- 0.2 4.4 +/- 0.1 4.9 +/- 0.2 4.6 +/- 0.2 245° at 0.7 miles 8* R5 Offsite Control 4.8 +/- 0,2 5.3 +/- 0.2 5.7 +/- 0.2 5.4 .+/- 0.2 42° at 16.2 miles 9 D1 Offsite - State Route 3 4.5 +/- 0.2 4.9 +/- 0.1 5.4 +/- 0.3 5.0 +/- 0.2 80° at 11.4 miles 10 D2 Offsite 4.2 +/- 0.2 4.5 +/- 0.1 5.1 +/- 0.2 4.7 +/- 0.2 118° at 9.0 miles 11 E Offsite 4.2 +/- 0.2 4.6 +/- 0.2 5.1 +/- 0.2 4.6 +/- 0.2 162° at 7.1 rriiles 12 F Offsite 4.2 +/- 0.2 4.7 +/- 0.3 5.0 +/- 0.2 4.6 +/- 0.3 192° at 7.6 miles 13 G Offsite. 4.6 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.1 5.1 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.2 226° at 5.4 miles 14* DeMass Rd., SW Oswego - Control 4.7 +/- 0.2 5.1 +/- 0.2 5.5 .+/- 0.3 5.0" +/- 0.2 227° at 12.5 miles 15* Pole 66, W. Boundary - Bible Camp 4.8 +/- 0.3 4.9 +/- 0.2 5.6 +/- 0.3 5:1 +/- 0.2. 240° at 0.9 miles 18* Energy Info. Center - Lamp Post, SW 5.2 +/- 0.2 5.5 +/- 0.2 6.1 +/- 0.3 5.7 +/- 0.2 268° at 0.4 miles 19 East Boundary- JAF, Pole 9 5.0 +/- 0.2 5.2 +/- 0.2 6.1 +/- 0.2 5.5 +/- 0.2 83° at 1.4 miles 23* H Onsite 5.0 +/- 0.2 5.0 +/- 0.2 5.7 +/- 0.2 *5.4 +/- 0.2 73° at 0.8 miles 24 I Onsite 4.3 +/- 0.2 4.4 +/- 0.2 5.0 +/- 0.2 4.7 +/- 0.2 95° at 0.8 miles 25 J Onsite 4.6 +/- 0.2 4.9 *+/- 0.1 5.5 +/- 0.2 5.0 +/- 0.2 109° at 0.9 miles 26 K Onsite 4.4 +/- 0.1 4.6 +/- 0.2 5.3 +/- 0.2 4.7 +/- 0.2 132° at-0.5 miles 27 N. Fence, N. of Switchyard, JAF 23.0 +/- 1.1 22.4 +/- 0.9 17.1 +/- 0.8 20.9 +/- 1.1 60° at 0.4 miles 28 N. Light Pole, N. of Screenhouse, JAF 25,6 +/- 1.6 25.0 +/- 1.2 19.6 +/- 1.0 24.3 +/- 1.5 68° at 0.5 miles 29 N. Fence, N. ofW. Side 25.4 +/- 1.6 24.8 +/- 1.8 18.9 +/- 1.3 22.8 +/- 1.6 65° at 0.5 miles 30 N. Fence, (NW) JAF 13.2 +/- 0.7 13.1 +/- 0.7 10.6 +/- 0.5 12.8 +/- 1.3 57° at 0.4 miles 31 N. Fence, (NW) NMP-1 7.0 +/- 0.3 7.5 +/- 0.2 8.0 +/- 0.3 7.5 +/- 0.3 279° at 0.2 miles 39 N. Fence, Rad. Waste-NMP-1 _ 10.7 +/- 0.4 9.9 +/- 0.6 10.0 +/- 0.4 9.8 +/- 0.5. 298° at 0.2 miles 47 N. Fence, (NE) JAF 7.5 +/- 0.4 7.8 +/- 0.5 7.2 +/- 0.3 7.7 +/- 0.3 69° at 0.6 miles 49* Phoenix, NY - Control 4.5 +/- 0.2 5.0 +/- 0.2 5.3 +/- 0.2 4.7 +/- 0.2 168° at 19.7 miles 51 Liberty & Bronson Sts., E. of OSS 4.7 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.2 5.4 +/- 0.3 4.9 +/- 0.1 234° at 7.3 miles 52 E. 12th & Cayuga Sis., Oswego School 4.6 +/- 0.2 4.7 +/- 0.2 5.3 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.2 227° at 5.9 miles 53 Broadwell & Chestnut Sts., Fulton H.S. 4.8 +/- 0.2 5.0 +/- 0.1 5.6 +/- 0.2 5.1 +/- 0.2 183° at 13.7 miles 54 Mexico High School_ 4.4 +/- 0.2 . 4.6 +/- 0.3 5.2 +/- 0.2 4.6 +/- 0.1 115° at 9.4 miles 55 Gas Substation Co. Rt.
| |
| . 5-Pulaski 4.3 +/- 0.1 4.7 +/- 0.1 5.3 +/- 0.3 4,7 +/- 0.2 75° at 13.0 miles
| |
| -56* Rt. 104-New Haven Sch: (SE Corner) 4.4 +/- o*.2 4.7 +/- 0.2 - 5.3 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.2 124° at 5.2 miles 58* Co. Rt. 1A-Novelis (E. of E. Entrance Rd.) 4.8 +/- 0.2 5.0 +/- 0.3 5.7 +/- 0.3 5.1 +/- 0.2 222° at 3.0 miles 75* Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Reactor Bldg. 7.2 +/- 0.3 7.9 +/- 0.3 8.1 +/- 0.4 8.3 +/- 0.4 354° at 0. 1. miles
| |
| . 76* Unit 2, N. Fence, N.' of Change House 6.1 +/- 0.3 6.4 +/- 0.4 6.8 +/- 0.3 6.4 +/- 0.3 25° at 0.1 miles (1) Direction and distances based on NMP-2 reactor centerline.
| |
| * TLD required by ODCM 6 - 19
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-10 (continued)
| |
| DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS - 2022 Results in mrem/std. Month +/- 1 Sigma LOCATION JAN -MAR APR-JUN JUL- SEP OCT-DEC DEGREES & DISTANCE NO. DESCRIPTION (1) 77* Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Pipe Bldg. 7.0 +/- 0.3 7.6 +/- 0.5 7.6 +/- 0.3 7.4 +/- 0.3 36° at 0.2 miles 78* JAF. E. of E. Old Lay Down Area 4.8 +/- 0.3 5.1 +/- 0.1 5.9 +/- 0.2 5.3 +/- 0.2 85° at 1.0 miles 79* Co. Rt. 29, Pole #63; 0.2 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 4.4 +/- 0.2 4.7 +/- 0.2 5.2 +/- 0.2 . 4.7 +/- 0.2 120° at 1.2 miles 80* Co. Rt. 29, Pole #54, 0.7 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 4.6 +/- 0.2 4.9 +/- 0.1 5.6 +/- 0.2 6.0 +/- 0.2 136° at 1.5 miles 81* Miner Rd., Pole# 1~. 0.5 mi. W. of Rt. 29 4.5 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.2 5.2 +/- 0.2 4.9 +/- 0.3 159° at 1.6 miles 82* Miner Rd., Pole# 1-1/2, 1.1 mi. W. of Rt. 29 4.6 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.1 5.3 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.2 180° at 1.6 miles 83* Lakeview Rd., Tree 0.45 mi. N. of Miner Rd. 4.8 +/- 0.3 5.0 +/- 0.2 5.5 +/- 0.2 5.2 +/- 0.2. 203° at 1.2 miles 84* Lakeview Rd., N., Pole #6117, 200ft. N. of Lake Rd. 4.7 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.1 5.5 +/- 0.2 5.0 +/- 0.2 226° at 1.1 miles
| |
| * 85* Unit 1, N. Fence, N. ofW. Side of Screen House 8.5 +/- 0.3 8.8 +/- 0.3. 8.9 +/- 0.4 8.7 +/- 0.4 292° at 0.2 miles 86*
| |
| * Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of W. Si_de of Screen House 7.8 +/- 0.3 8.4 +/- 0.4 8.5 +/- 0.4 8.4 +/- 0.4 311° at 0.1 miles 87* Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of E. Side of Screen House 7.6 +/- 0.4 8.6 +/- 0.4 8.8 '+/- 0.4 9.0 +/- 0.5 333° at 0.1 miles 88* Hickory Grove Rd., Pole #2, 0.6 mi. N. of Rt. 1 4.5 +/- 0.2 4.7 .+/- 0.2 5.3 +/- 0.2 4.9 +/- 0.2 97° at 4.5 miles 89* Leavitt Rd., Pole #16;0.4 mi. S. of Rt. 1 4.7 +/- 0.2 4:9 +/- 0.1 5.6 +/- 0.3 4.9 +/- 0.2 112° at 4.3 miles 90* Rt. 104, Pole #3o*o, 150 ft. E. of Keefe Rd. 4.4 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.1 5.3 +/- 0.3 4.9 +/- 0.2 135° at 4.2 miles 91* Rt. 51A, Pole#59, 0.8 mi. W. of Rt. 51 4.2 +/- 0.2 4.6 +/- 0.2 5.0 +/- 0.2 4.6 +/- 0.2 157° at 4.9 miles 92* Maiden Lane Rd., Power Pole, 0.6 mi. S: of Rt. 104 4.9 +/- 0.2 5.5 +/- 0.2 5.9 +/- 0.2 5.3 +/- 0.2 183° at 4.4 miles 93* Rt. 53 Pole 1:1, 120ft. S. of Rt. 104 4.6 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.2 5.3 +/- 0:2 5.0 +/- 0.2 206° at 4.4 miles 94* Rt. 1, Pole #82, 250ft. E. of Kocher Rd. (Co. Rt. 63) 4.4 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.2 5.4 +/- 0.3 4.8 *+/- 0.2 224° at 4.4 miles 95* Novelis W. access Rd., Joe Fultz Blvd., Pole #21 4.1 +/- 0.2 4.3 .+/- 0.1 4.9 +/- 0.2 4.3 +/- 0.2
| |
| * 239° at 3.7 miles 96* Creamery Rd., 0.3 mi. S. of Middle Rd., Pole 1-1/2 4.4 +/- 0.2 . 4,6 +/- 0.2* 5.3 +/- 0.2. 4.7 +/- 0.1 199° at 3.6 miles 97* Rt. 29, Pole #50,:200ft: N. of Miner Rd. . 4.2 +/- 0.2 4.6 +/- 0.1 5.1 +/- 0.2 4.6 +/- 0.2 145° at 1.8 miles 98 Lake Rd.; Pole #145, 0.15 mi. E. of Rt. 29 4.6 +/- 0.2 5.3 +/-'0.3 5.6 +/- 0.3 5.1 +/- 0.2 102° at 1.2 miles 99 NMP Rd., 0.4 mi. N. of Lake Rd., Env. Station R1 4._5 +/- 0.2 4,9 +/- 0.2 *5.3 +/- 0.2 4.7 +/- 0.2 92° at 1.8 miles 100 Rt. 29 & Lake Rd. Env. Station R2 4.3 +/- 0.1 4.8 +/- 0.2 5.1 +/- 0.2 4.5 +/- 0.2 107° at 1.1 miles 101 Rt. 29, 0.7 mi. S. of Lake Rd. Env. Station R3 4.0 +/- 0.2 4.4 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.2 4.3 +/- 0.1 133° at 1.4 miles 102 EOF/Env. Lab, Rt. 176, E. Driveway, Lamp Post 4.5 +/- 0.2* 5.0 +/- 0;3 5.2 +/- 0.3 4.8 +/- 0.2 175° at 11.9 miles 103 EiC; East Garage Rd., Lamp Post 5.2 +/- 0.2 5.6 +/- 02 6.2 +/- 0.3 5.6 +/- 0.3 268° at 0.4 miles 104 Parkhurst Rd., Pole #23, 0.1 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 4.5 +/- 0.2 4.9 +/- 0.2 5.3 +/- 0.2 4.8 +/- 0.2 102° at 1.4 miles 105 Lakeview Rd., Pole #36, 0.5 mi. S. of Lake Rd. 4.5 .+/- 0.2 5.1 +/- 0.2 5.4 +/- 0.2 4.7 +/- 0.2 199° at 1.4 miles 106 Shbreline Cove, W. of NMP-1, Tree on W. Edge 5.6 +/- 0.2 5.9 +/- 0:2 6.5 +/- 0.2 6.0 +/- 0.3 274° at 0.3 miles 107 Shoreline Cove, W. of NMP-1, 30ft. SSWof#106 5.3 +/- 0.2 5.7 +/- 0.2 6.3 +/- 0.2 5.7 +/- 0.3 273°, at 0.3 miles 108 Lake Rd., Pole #142, 300 ft. E. of Rt. 29 S. 4.7 +/- 0.2 5.0 +/- 0.2 5.3 +/- 0.2 5.0 +/- 0.1 105° at 1.1 miles 109 Tree.North of Lake Rd., 300 ft. E. of Rt. 29 N. 4.7 +/- 0.2 4.9 +/- 0.2 .5.6 +/- 0.3 5.0 +/- 0.2 104° at 1.1 miles 111 Control, State Route 38, Sterling, NY 4.2 +/- 0.2 4.6 +/- 0.1 5.0 +/-*0.2 4.5 +/- 0.1 214° at 21.8 miles 112 EOF/Env. Lab, Oswego County Airport 4.5 +/- 0.2 4.5 +/- 0.1 5.0 +/- 0.2 4.4 +/- 0.1 175° at 11.9 miles 113 Control, Baldwinsville,.NY 4.4 +/- 0.2 4.7 +/- 0.2 5.1 +/- 0.2 4.5 +/- 0.2 178° at 24.7 miles (1) Direction and distances based on NMP-2 reactor centerline.
| |
| * TLD required by ODCM 6-20
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-11 CONCENTRATIONS OF IODINE-131 AND GAMMA EMITTERS IN MILK SAMPLES - 2022 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE COLLECTION 1-131 K-40 Cs-134 Cs-137 Ba-La-140 Others 1*
| |
| LOCATION*** DATE
| |
| -- - --- ~------ - -- -- - ----- - - - - - ---- ------~SAMPbE-bQGA:flQN*~-(55) - --- - --- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - - --- -~------------------------- -------~~~---- --------
| |
| 04/04/22 < 0.8 1279 +/- 92 < 9 < 8 < 9 < LLD 04/20/22 < 0.8 1279 +/- 79 < 8 < 6 < 6 < LLD 05/02/22 < 0.7 1051 +/- 81 < 8 < 8 < 9 < LLD 05/23/22 < 0.8 1140 +/- 85 < 8 < 8 < 6 < LLD 06/06/22 < 0.6 1063 +/- 98 < 9 < 6 < 6 < LLD 06/29/22 < 0.8 1350 +/- 80 < 9 < 7 < 8 < LLD 07/06/22 < 0.9 1182 +/- 86 < 8 < 8 < 8 < LLD 07/25/22 < 0.9 1074 +/- 66 < 8 < 6 < 8 < LLD 08/08/22 < 0.6 1209 +/- 64 < 6 < 6 < 7 < LLD 08/22/22 < 0.8 1223 +/- 90 < 9 < 9 < 6 < LLD 09/06/22 < 0.9 1557 +/- 87 < 8 < 8 < 14 < LLD 09/19/22 < 0.9 1236 +/- 74 < 7 < 6 < 6 < LLD 10/03/22 < 0.6 1562 +/- 110 < 10 < 8 < 7 < LLD 10/17/22 < 0.9 1249 +/- 96 < 8 < 10 < 9 < LLD 11/07/22 < 0.7 1238 +/- 113 < 10 < 9 < 8 < LLD 11/21/22 < 0.9 1377 +/- 85 < 7 < 8 < 8 < LLD 12/05/22 < 0.6 1339 +/- 113 < 10 < 10 < 10 < LLD 12/19/22 < 0.8 1369 +/- 77 < 7 < 6 < 7 < LLD
| |
| ** Optional sample location
| |
| *** Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4 t Plant related-radionuclides 6 - 21
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-11 (continued)
| |
| CONCENTRATIONS OF IODINE-131 AND GAMMA EMITTERS IN MILK SAMPLES - 2022 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE LOCATION***
| |
| COLLECTION DATE 1-131 K-40 Cs-134 Cs-137 Ba-La-140 Others r SAMPLE LOCATION* (Control, 77) 04/04/22 < 0.8 1325 +/- 99 < 10 < 11 < 10 < LLD 04/20/22 < 0.9 1235 +/- 94 <8 <7 <8 < LLD 05/02/22 < 0.8 1345 +/- 93 <9 <9 <6 < LLD 05/23/22 < 0.9 1335 +/- 82 < 8 <8 < 8 < LLD 06/06/22 < 0.6 1329 +/- 93 <8 <9 <7 < LLD 06/29/22 < 0.8 1351 +/- 91 <9 <7 < 11 < LLD 07/06/22 < 0.8 1375 +/- 84 <8 <8 <7 < LLD 07/25/22 < 0.8 1137 +/- 81 <8 <6 <7 < LLD 08/08/22 < 0.7 1285 +/- 73 < 8 <7 <7 < LLD 08/22/22 < 0.8 1081 +/- 80 <7 <8 < 8 < LLD 09/06/22 < 0.8 1392 +/- 96 <9 <7 < 14 < LLD 09/19/22 < 0.9 1322 +/- 84 <9 <9 <7 < LLD 10/03/22 < 0.6 1294 +/- 77 <8 <8 < 11 < LLD 10/17/22 < 0.8 1337 +/- 105 < 8 <9 < 7 < LLD 11/07/22 < 0.7 1258 +/- 80 <6 <9 <9 < LLD 11/21/22 < 0.9 1162 +/- 92 <8 < 10 < 7 < LLD 12/05/22 < 0.4 1542 +/- 121 <8 <9 <6 < LLD 12/19/22 < 0.9 1428 +/- 104 <9 < 10 < 10 < LLD
| |
| * Sample required by the ODCM
| |
| *** Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4 t Plant related-radionuclides 6-22
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-12 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN FOOD PRODUCT SAMPLES - 2022 Results in Units of pCi/kg (wet) +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE COLLECTION Be-7 K-40 Zn-65 1-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 Others *r LOCATION-* DATE Somerville*-(Gontrol;-632 07/28/22 Swiss Chard 222 +/- 63 3277 +/- 229 < 52 < 24 < 26 < 25 <LLD 07/28/22 Collard Greens < 217 3127 +/- 272 < 45 < 20 < 22 < 27 <LLD 07/28/22 Cabbage < 243 2822 +/- 263 < 31 < 25 < 29 < 21 <LLD E Onsite Garden* (633) 07/13/22 Leaf Lettuce < 326 3731 +/- 304 < 63 < 43 < 33 < 37 <LLD
| |
| * 07/27/22 Swiss Chard 465 +/- 149 3462 +/- 339 < 76 < 30 < 33 < 26 <LLD 07/27/22 Collard Greens < 342 4096 +/- 296 < 62 < 33 < 33 < 28 <LLD 07/27/22 Cabbage < 257 3786 +/- 277 <.56 < 27 < 29 < 27 <LLD ESE Onsite Garden* (634) 07/13/22 Leaf Lettuce < 239 3119 +/-244 < 49 < 31 < 25 < 25 <LLD 08/03/22 Swiss Chard < 384 5063 +/- 431 < 69 < 33 < 33 < 32 <LLD 08/08/22 Collard Greens < 301 5880 +/- 375 < 70 < 26 < 32 < 28 <LLD 08/08/22 Cabbage < 302 4613 +/- 330 < 60 < 25 < 36 < 32 <LLD SE Onsite Garden* (635) 07/13/22 Leaf Lettuce 617 +/- 160 5674 +/- 370 < 78 < 40, < 35 < 33 <LLD 08/03/22 Swiss Chard < 328 4869 +/- 360 < 68 < 32 < 27 < 31 <LLD 08/08/22 Collard Greens <-298 4935 +/- 305 < 65 < 30 < 29 < 28 <LLD
| |
| * Sample required.by the ODCM
| |
| *** Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-5 t Plant-related radionuclides 6-23
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-13 MILK ANIMAL CENSUS 2022 Number of Town or Location Distance(2) Milk Animals Area(a) Designation (I) De~rees(2) (Miles) (Cows)
| |
| Mexico 55* 97 0
| |
| 8.7 60 Granby 0 77** 190 16.0 50 (Control)
| |
| MILKING ANIMAL TOTALS: 110 (including control locations)
| |
| MILKING ANIMAL TOTALS: 60 (excluding control locations)
| |
| NOTES:
| |
| * Milk sample location
| |
| ** Milk sample control location (1) Reference Figure 3.3-4 for locations 55 and 77 (2) Degrees and distance are based on NMP-2 Reactor Building centerline (a) Census performed out to a distance of approximately 10 miles 6 - 24
| |
| | |
| TABLE 6-14 JAF RESIDENCE CENSUS 2022 Meteorologic~l Map Sector Location Location<*> Direction<2> Distance<2>
| |
| N i * - - -
| |
| NNE I * - - -
| |
| NE I * - - -
| |
| ENE I I * - - -
| |
| E II 80 Sunset Bay Road A 830 1.04 miles ESE 161 Lake Road B 116° 0.7 miles SE I 1216 County Route 29 C 143° 1.07 miles SSE i 1146 County Route 29 D 152° 1.29 miles s 294 Miner Road E 179° 1.57 miles SSW I 210 Lakeview Road F 213° 1.65 miles SW I 319 Lakeview Road G 230° 1.45 miles WSW I 85 Bayshore Drive H 242° 1.81 miles w j * - - -
| |
| WNW * - - -
| |
| NW i * - - -
| |
| I - - -
| |
| NNW I
| |
| * NOTES: I
| |
| * This meieorological sector is over Lake Ontario. There is no residence within five miles (1) Correspdnds to Figure 3.3-6a (2) Direction and distance are based on JAFNPP Reactor Building centerline 6-25
| |
| | |
| . TABLE6-15 NMPNS RESIDENCE CENSUS 2022 Meteorological Map .
| |
| Sector Location Location<1) Direction(2) Distance<2)
| |
| N * - - -
| |
| NNE * - - -
| |
| NE * - - -
| |
| ENE * - - -
| |
| *E 116 Lake Roa.d A )00° 1.29 miles ESE 161 Lake Road B 104° 1.11 miles SE 1216 Cqunty Route 29 C 125° 1.35 miles SSE 294 Miner Road D 162° 1.59 miles s 356 Miner Road *E 171° 1.57 miles SSW 281 Lakeview Road F 208° 1.18 miles SW 319 Lakeview Road G 217° 1.11 miles WSW 85 Bayshore Drive H 237° 1.38 miles w * - - -
| |
| WNW * - - -
| |
| NW * - - -
| |
| NNW * - - -
| |
| NOTES:
| |
| * This meteorological sector is over Lake Ontario. There is no residence within five miles (1) Corresponds to Figure 3.3~6b (2) Direction and distance are based on NMP-Unit 2 Reactor Building centedine 6- 26
| |
| | |
| 7.0 HISTORICAIJI DATA TABLES I
| |
| Sample Statistids from Previous Environmental Sampling I
| |
| I The mean, minimum value and maximum value were calculated for selected sample mediums and
| |
| * I isotopes. 1 Special Consid1rations:
| |
| : 1. Sample da~a listed as 1969 was taken from the NINE MILE POINT, PREOPERATION SURVEY,' 1969 and ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT FOR NIAGARA MOHAWKJ POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, NOVEMBER 1970.
| |
| I
| |
| : 2. Sample resplts listed as 1974 and 1975 were taken from the respective Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Nuclear Station. Sample results I
| |
| listed as 1Q86 through the current year were taken from the respective James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Po\\7er Plant Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports.
| |
| i
| |
| : 3. Only measured values were used for statistical calculations.
| |
| I
| |
| : 4. The term ¥DL was used prior to 1979 to represent the concept of Lower Limit of Detection (LLD). MDL= Minimum Detectable Level.
| |
| I I
| |
| 7-1
| |
| | |
| TABLE7-1 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA SHORELINE SEDIMENT Results in pCi/g (dry)
| |
| LOCATION: CONTROL
| |
| * Isotope Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969t ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
| |
| 1974t ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
| |
| 1975t ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
| |
| 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 *<LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD* <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD * <LLD <LLD <LLD* <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 -<LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD_ <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * Langs Beach- beyond influence of the site in a westerly direction.
| |
| ** No data. Sample not required until new technical specifications implemented in 1985.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7-2
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-2
| |
| - . -- - HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA SHORELINE SEDIMENT Results in pCi/g (dry) ',
| |
| LOCATION: INDICATOR*
| |
| Isotope _ Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-'60 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. .Max. Mean 1969t ** ** ** **- ** ** ** ** **
| |
| 1974t ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
| |
| 1975t ** "** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
| |
| 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.14 0.15 0.15 <LLD. <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD. 0.15 0.17 0.16 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.11 0.17 0.14 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.06 0.06 0.06 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.06 0.10 0.08 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.06 0.07 0.06 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.06 0.07 0.07 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.05 0.05 0.05 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.04 0.05 0.05 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.04 0.04 0.04 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.06 0.09 - 0.08 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.06 0.06 0.06 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.04 0.04 0.04 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <:LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD -<LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLff <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD_ <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD. <LLD <LLD <LLD -<LLD <LLD. <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD ~LLD 2020 <LLD .<LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD .<LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| .2022 <LLb <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * Sunset Beach - closest offdite location with recreational value.
| |
| ** No data. Sample not requied until new technical specifications implemented in 1985. - _
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7-3
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-3 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA FISH Results in pCi/g (wet)
| |
| LOCATION: CONTROL
| |
| * Isotope Cs-137 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969t No Data No Data No Data 1974t 0.94 0.94 0.94 1975t <MDL <MDL <MDL 1995 0.017 0.023 0.019 1996 0.018 0.022 0.020 1997 0.012 0.030 0.021 1998 0.013 0.013 0.013 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 0.021 0.021 0.021 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * Control location is at an area beyond the influence of the site (westerly direction).
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7-4
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-4 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA FISH Results in pCi/g (wet)
| |
| I LOCATION: INDICATOR* (NMP/JAF)
| |
| Isotope Cs-137 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969"!" 0.01 0.13 0.06 1974t 0.08 4.40 0.57 1975t 1.10 1.70 1.38 1995 I 0.016 0.022 0.019 1996 I 0.016 0.025 0.020 1997 i 0.014 0.023 0.018 1998 0.021 0.021 0.021 1999 j 0.018 0.021 0.020 2000 I <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 I <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 0.016 0.016 0.016 2003 i <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 I <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 , <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 i <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 : <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 I <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 I <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 *<LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 i
| |
| <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 !
| |
| <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 ! <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * Indicator locations are in the general area of the NMP-1 and J.A. FitzPatrick cooling water discharge structures.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to ~e pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7-5
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-5 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA SURFACE WATER Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: CONTROL t Isotope Cs-137 Co-60 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969H * * * * *
| |
| * 1974tt * * * * *
| |
| * 1975tt * * * * *
| |
| * 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD, <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * No gamma analysis performed (not required).
| |
| t Location was the City of Oswego Water Supply for 1969-1984 and the Oswego Steam Station inlet canal for 1985-Present.
| |
| tt 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7-6
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-6 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA SURFACE WATER Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: INDICATOR i" Isotope Cs-137 Co-60 Year Min. ' Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969H * * * * *
| |
| * 1974i"i" * * * * *
| |
| * 1975H * * * * *
| |
| * 1995 <LLD I <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD I <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD : <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD I
| |
| <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 <LLD : <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD I <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD l <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD I <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD I <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD I
| |
| 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD I <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD I <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD ! <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD 1
| |
| <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD 1
| |
| <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD : <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * No gamma analysis perfortned (not required).
| |
| t Indicator location was the NMP 1 Inlet Canal for the period 1969-1973, and the JAF Inlet Canal for 197 4-Present.
| |
| tt 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7-7
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-7 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA SURFACE WATER TRITIUM Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: CONTROL*
| |
| Isotope Tritium Year Min. Max. Mean 1969t No Data No Data No Data 1974t <MDL <MDL <MDL 1975t 311 414 362 1995 230 230 230 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 190 190 190 1999 220 510 365 2000 196 237 212 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD * <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD 270 204
| |
| * Control location is the City of Oswego, drinking water for 1969-1984 and the Oswego Steam Station inlet canal for 1985-Present.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7-8
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-8 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA SURFACE WATER TRITIUM Results in pCi/liter I
| |
| ! LOCATION: INDICATOR*
| |
| Isotope Tritium Year I Min. Max. Mean 19691* No Data No Data No Data 1974t 380 500 440 1975t 124 482 335 1995 I 320 320 320 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 160 160 160 1998 I 190 190 190 I
| |
| 1999 I 180 270 233 2000 i 161 198 185 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 I 297 297 297 I
| |
| 2003 i <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 I <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 I <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 I <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 i'
| |
| <LLD <LLD <LLD I
| |
| 2015 ! <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 I
| |
| <LLD <LLD <LLD I
| |
| 2019 : <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 ; <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * Indicator location was the ~ - I Inlet Canal during the period 1969-1973, and the JAF Inlet Canal for 1974-Present.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to ,be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7-9
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-9 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR PARTICULATE GROSS BETA Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: CONTROL*
| |
| Isotope Gross Beta Year Min. Max. Mean 1969t 0.130 0.540 0.334 1974t 0.001 0.808 0.121 1975t 0.008 0.294 0.085 1995 0.006 0.023 0.014 1996 0.008 0.023 0.014 1997 0.006 0.025 0.013 1998 0.004 0.034 0.014 1999 0.010 0.032 0.017 2000 0.006 0.027 0.015 2001 0.006 0.034 0.016 2002 0.008 0.027 0.016 2003 0.004 / 0.032 0.015 2004 0.008 0.032 0.016 2005 0.008 0.034 0.019 2006 0.007 0.033 0.016 2007 0.008 0.028 0.016 2008 0.007 0.031 0.015 2009 0.007 0.030 0.016 2010 0.004 0.026 0.014 2011 0.008 0.034 0.018 2012 0.005 0.025 0.016 2013 0.006 0.031 0.016 2014 0.006 0.030 0.016 2015 0.008 0.038 0.016 2016 0.008 0.023 0.014 2017 0.005 0.028 0.015 2018 0.007 0.029 0.014 2019 0.008 0.024 0.015 2020 0.009 0.026 0.016 2021 0.011 0.027 0.018 2022 0.009 0.032 0.018
| |
| * Locations used for 1977-1984 were C offsite, D1 offsite, D2 offsite, E offsite, F offsite, and G offsite. Control location R5 offsite was used for 1986-Present (formerly C offsite location).
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 - 10
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-10 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR PARTICULATE GROSS BETA Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: INDICATOR*
| |
| Isotone Gross Beta Year Min. Max. Mean 1969t , 0.130 0.520 0.320 I
| |
| 19741" 0.003 0.885 0.058 I
| |
| 19751" ' 0.001 0.456 0.067 1995 0.004 0.031 0.014 1996 '
| |
| I 0.006 0.025 0.013 1997 !
| |
| 0.001 0.018 0.010 1998 ' 0.002 0.040 0.015 1999 0.009 0.039 0.017 2000 I i
| |
| 0.005 0.033 0.015 2001 I 0.004 0.037 0.016 i
| |
| 2002 0.006 0.026 0.016 2003 0.005 0.035 0.015 2004 1 0.003 0.036 0.016 2005 I 0.007 0.041 0.019 2006 0.005 0.035 0.015 2007 , 0.007 0.028 0.016 2008 I 0.004 0.030 0.016 2009 I 0.006 0.032 0.016 2010 0.005 0.030 0.015 2011 1 0.007 0.034 0.018 2012 i 0.004 0.031 0.016 2013 0.007 0.032 0.016 2014 0.007 0.028 0.016 2015 0.007 0.041 0.016 I
| |
| 2016 I 0.008 0.025 0.015 I
| |
| 2017 0.004 0.025 0.014 2018 0.005 0.029 0.015 2019 ; 0.008 0.026 0.014 2020 I 0.008 0.030 0.016 I
| |
| 2021 I 0.008 0.030 0.018 2022 0.010 0.033 0.018
| |
| * Locations used for 1969-1973 were Dl onsite, D2 onsite, E onsite, F onsite and G onsite. Locations used for 1974-1984 were Dl onsite, D2 onsite, E onsite! F onsite, G onsite, H onsite, I onsite, J onsite and K onsite, as applicable. 1986 - Present: locations were Rl offsite, R2 offsite; R3 offsite, and R4 offsite.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 - 11
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-11 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR PARTICULATES Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: CONTROL**
| |
| Isotooe Cs-137 Co-60 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969t * * * * *
| |
| * 1974t * * * * *
| |
| * 1975t * * * * *
| |
| * 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * No data available (not required prior to 1977).
| |
| ** Locations included composites of offsite air monitoring locations for 1977-1984. Sample location included only R5 air monitoring location for 1985-Present.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 - 12
| |
| | |
| TABLE7-12 IDSTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR PARTICULATES Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: INDICATOR**
| |
| Isotope Cs-137 Co-60 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969t * * * * *
| |
| * 1974t * * * * *
| |
| * 1975t * * * * *
| |
| * 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.0048 0~0048 0.0048 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD <L.LD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| \
| |
| 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LJ.,D <LLP <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * No data available (not required prior to 1977).
| |
| ** Locations included composites of onsite air monitoring locations for 1977-1984. Sample locations included Rl through R4 air .
| |
| monitoring locations for 1985-Present.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 -13
| |
| | |
| TABLE7-13 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR RADIOIODINE Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: CONTROL*
| |
| Isotope Iodine-131 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969t ** ** **
| |
| 1974t ** ** **
| |
| 1975t <MDL <MDL <MDL 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD ,<LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD. <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD, <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 0.034+ 0.093+ 0.055+
| |
| 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013. <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD, <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * Locations D1 offsi~e, D2 offsite, E offsite, F offsite and G offsite used for 1976~\984. Location RS offsite used for 1985-Present.
| |
| ** No results - I-131 analysis not required.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to. be pre~operational for the site. 1974 an,d 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| t Iodine concentrations attributed to fallout from Fukushima accident.
| |
| 7 - 14
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-14 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR RADIOIODINE Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: INDICATOR*
| |
| Isotope lodine-131 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969t ** ** **
| |
| 1974t ** ** **
| |
| 1975t 0.25 0.30 0.28 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD. <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 0.02It 0.114 0.055t 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * Locations used for 1985 - Present, were Rl offsite, R2 offsite, R3 offsite, and R4 offsite.
| |
| ** No results. I-131 analysis not required.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| t Iodine concentrations attributed to fallout from Fukushima accident.
| |
| 7 - 15
| |
| | |
| TABLE7-15 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem/standard month LOCATION: CONTROL* (2>
| |
| Year Min. Max. Mean Preopt (Note I) (Note 1) (Note 1) 1974t 2.7 8.9 5.6 19751* 4.8 6.0 5.5 1995 (3.4) 3.4 (5.7) 4.9 (4.4) 4.2 1996 (3.4) 3.4 (5.6) 5.6 (4.3) 4.2 1997 (3.7) 3.9 (6.2) 5.2 (4.7) 4.6 1998 (3.7) 3.7 (5.6) 4.8 (4.4)4.2 1999 (3.6) 3.7 (7.1) 4.7 (4:6) 4.4 2000 (3.7) 3.7 (7.3) 5.5 (4.7) 4.3 2001 (3.6) 3.9 (5.4) 5.0 (4.4) 4.4 2002 (3.3) 3.4 (5.5) 5.2 (4.3) 4.1 2003 (3.3) 3.4 (5.5) 4.8 (4.2) 4.2 2004 (3.3) 3.3 (5.9) 5.9 (4.3) 4.5 2005 (3.3) 3.4 (5.1) 4.5 (4.1) 4.0 2006 (3.3) 3.3 (5.3) 5.3 (4.1) 4.3 2007 (3.2) 3.2 (5.8) 5.8 (4.4) 4.6 2008 (3,3) 3.3 (5.1) 5.1 (4.1) 4.3 2009 (3.2) 3.2 (4.8) 4.8 (3.9) 4.0 2010 (2.8) 2.8 (4.6) 4.6 (3.9) 3.9 2011 (2.6) 2.6 (5.5) 5.5 (4.0) 4.1 2012 (3.6) 3.6 (5.0) 5.0 (4.0) 4.2 2013 (3.2) 3.2 (4.9) 4.9 (3.9) 4.0 2014(3) 3.3 5.0 4.1 2015 3.0 5.4 4.1 2016 3.6 5.2 4.2 2017 3.7 4.9 4.3 2018 3.7 4.9 4.2 2019 3.3 5.6 4.8 2020 4.8 6.2 5.5 2021 4.6 5.9 5.2 2022 4.5 5.7 5.1
| |
| * 1LD #8 and 14 established 1974, TLD #49 established 1980, 1LD #111 established 1988, TLD #113 established 1991.
| |
| ,* 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for JAFNPP.
| |
| (1) Data not available.
| |
| (2) Data in parentheses is control data determined using TLDs #8, 14, 49, 111 and 113.
| |
| (3) Starting in 2014, only data from locations 8, 14, and 49 are reported.
| |
| 7 - 16
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-16 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem per standard month LOCATION: SITE BOUNDARY**
| |
| Year Min. Max. Mean Preopt * *
| |
| * 1974t * *
| |
| * 1975t * *
| |
| * 1995 3.5 5.1 4.4 1996 3.2 5.3 4.1 1997 3.5 5.9 4.6 1998 3.7 5.1 4.4 1999 3.3 7.5 4.7 2000 3.6 6.8 4.5 2001 3.6 5.3 4.5 2002 3.5 5.1 4.3 2003 3.2 4.9 4.3 2004 3.3 6.4 4.4 2005 3.4 4.8 4.2 2006 3.5 4.7 4.1 2007 3.2 5.4 4.3 2008 3.2 4.8 4.0 2009 3.1 4.5 3.9 2010 3.3 4.3 3.9 2011 3.1 5.3 4.1 2012 3.6 4.8 4.1 2013 3.5 4.7 3.9 2014 3.3 4.6 3.9 2015 2.9 5.1 4.0 2016 3.5 4.8 4.0 2017 3.6 4.7 4.0 2018 3.5 4.7 4.0 2019 3.0 5.6 4.6 2020 4.5 6.3 5.3 2021 4.0 7.9 5.1 2022 4.3 6.1 5.0
| |
| * Data not available (not required prior to 1985).
| |
| TLD #23, 75, 76, 77, 85, 86 and 87 are in close proximity to operational buildings along the north boundary. This boundary is the lakeshore and is considered to be generally not accessible to the public. These locations are not used in the site boundary dose determination.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| ** TLD's used for statistics: 7, 18, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 & 84.
| |
| 7 - 17
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-17 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem per standard month LOCATION: OFFSITE SECTORS**
| |
| Year Min. Max. Mean Preopt * *
| |
| * 1974t * *
| |
| * 1975t * *
| |
| * 1995 3.2 5.2 4.3 1996 3.2 5.3 4.2 1997 3.5 5.8 4.4 1998 3.5 5.0 4.2 1999 3.6 5.6 4.4 2000 3.4 6.6 4.5 2001 3.6 5.4 4.4 2002 3.1 5.3 4.2 2003 3.4 4.8 4.1 2004 3.2 6.7 4.4 2005 3.2 4.7 4.0 2006
| |
| * 3.3 4.4 4.0 2007 3.1 5.1 4.2 2008 3.2 4.5 3.8 2009 , 3.3 4.5 3.9 2010 3.0 4.4 3.9 2011 3.0 5.3 4.0 2012 3.5 4.6 4.0 2013 3.2 4.5 3.8 2014 3.2 4.4 3.8 2015 2.9 4.8 3.9 2016 3.3 4.6 3.9 2017 3.4
| |
| * 4.8 4.0 2018 3.1 - 4.7 3.9 2019 3.2 5.6 4.5 2020 4.5 6.4 5.2 2021 4.2 5.5 4.8 2022 4.0 5.9 4.9
| |
| * Data not available (not required prior to 1985).
| |
| ** Includes TLD numbers 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 - 18
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-18 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENT AL TLD Results in mrem per standard month LOCATION: SPECIAL INTEREST**
| |
| Year Min. Max. Mean Preopt * *
| |
| * 1974t * *
| |
| * 1975*!* * *
| |
| * 1995 3.6 4.8 4.2 1996 3.2 5.1 4.2 1997 3.5 6.2 4.6 1998 3.7 5.6 4.4 1999 3.6 7.1 4.6 2000 3.6 4.7 2001 3.8 5.4 4.4 2002 3.5 5.5 4.2 2003 3.4 5.5 4.3 2004 3.0 5.9 4.2 2005 3.4 5.1 4.1 2006 5.3 4.1 2007 3.0 5.8 4.3 2008 3.1 5.1 4.0 2009 3.1 4.5 3.8 2010 3.2 4.7 3.9 2011 2.9 4.9 4.0 2012 3.4 4.7 4.0 2013 3.2 4.5 3.8 2014 2.9 4.3 3.8 2015 2.5 4.6 3.9 2016 4.4 3.9 2017 3.5 4.5 3.9 2018 3.5
| |
| * 4.7 3.9 2019 3.0 5.6 4.6 2020 4.7 6.3 5.3 2021 4.2 8.4 5.2 2022 4.2 5.7 4.9
| |
| * Data not available (not required prior to 1985).
| |
| ** Includes TLD numbers 56, 58, 96, 97 and 98.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 - 19
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-19 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem per standard month LOCATION: ONSITE INDICATOR**
| |
| Year Min. Max. Mean Preopt * *
| |
| * 1974t 3.1 10.6 5.7 1975t 4.6 16.0 7.3 1995 3.5 28.6 6.2 1996 3.1 32.6 6.4 1997 3.5 28.8 8.1 1998 3.6 28.8 6.2 1999 3.3 28.4 6.6 2000 3.7 16.5 5.6 2001 3.8 14.5 5.6 2002 3.5 13.6 5.3 2003 3.2 12.9 5.3 2004 3.3 13.2 5.4 2005 3.4 14.1 5.4 2006 3.5 14.4 5.3 2007 3.2 14.8 5.6 2008 3.2 13.8 5.2 2009 3.1 13.6 4.9 2010 3.3 13.3 4.8 2011 3.1 13.0 5.1 2012 3.5 11.8 4.9 2013 3.3 12.2 5.0 2014 3.3 12.9 4.9 2015 2.8 13.2 5.1 2016 3.5 11.3 4.8 2017 3.6 12.7 5.0
| |
| * 2018 3.5 12.6 5.0 2019 3.0 13.2 5.4 2020 4.5 14.7 6.1 2021 4.0 13.8 5.9 2022 4.3 14.0 5.9
| |
| * No data available.
| |
| ** Includes TLD numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (1970 - 1973). Includes TLD numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 23, 24, 25 and 26 (1974-Present).
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 -20
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-20 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem per standard month LOCATION: OFFSITE INDICATOR**
| |
| Year Min. Max. Mean Preopt * *
| |
| * 1974t 2.4 8.9 5.3 1975t 4.5 7.1 5.5 1995 3.9 5.7 4.4 1996 3.3 4.1 1997 3.7 6.2 4.7 1998 3.9 5.6 4.5 1999 3.8 7.1 4.6 2000 3.8 7.3 4.6 2001 3.7 5.9 4.6 2002 3.6 4.4 2003 3.1 5.5 4.4 2004 3.2 6.5 4.5 2005 3.6 5.1 4.2 2006 3.9 5.3 4.2 2007 3.4 4.9 4.3 2008 3.3 4.0 2009 3.3 4.1 3.8 2010 3.5 4.0 3.7 2011 3.2 4.8 4.0 2012 3.6 4.3 4.0 2013 3.5 4.3 3.9 2014 3.3 4.2 3.8 2015 3.0 4.5 3.9 2016 3.7 4.5 4.0 2017 3.5 4.3 4.0 2018 3.6 4.2 3.9 2019 3.3 5.0 4.4 2020 4.5 5.8 5.1 2021 4.0 5.2 4.8 2022 4.2 5.4 4.7
| |
| * No data available.
| |
| ** Includes TLD numbers 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 - 21
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-21 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA MILK R esu Its m. p C"/rt 1 1 er LOCATION: CONTROL**
| |
| Isotope Cs-137 1-131 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969t * * * * *
| |
| * 1974t * * * * *
| |
| * 1975t * * * * *
| |
| * 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * No data available (sample not required).
| |
| ** Location used was an available milk sample location in a least prevalent wind direction greater than ten miles from the site.
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 -22
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-22 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA MILK Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: INDICATOR Isotope Cs-137 1-131 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 19691" * * * * *
| |
| * 19741" 1.6 39 10.5 0.70 2.00 1.23 19751" 6.0 22 16 0.01 2.99 0.37 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.25 0.44 0.35 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * No data available (sample not required).
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 -23
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-23 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA FOOD PRODUCTS Results in pCi/g (wet)
| |
| LOCATION: CONTROL*
| |
| Isotope Cs-137 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969t ** ** **
| |
| 1974t ** ** **
| |
| 1975t ** ** **
| |
| 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 .<LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * Locations was an available food product samplefocation in a least prevalent wind direction greater than ten miles from the site.
| |
| ** No data available (control samples not required).
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 - 24
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-24 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA FOOD PRODUCTS Results in pCi/g (wet)
| |
| LOCATION: INDICATOR*
| |
| - ... . -~ -
| |
| Isotope Cs-137 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969t ** ** **
| |
| 19741" 0.04 0.34 0.142 1975t <MDL <MDL <MDL 1995 0.011 0.012 0.012 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 0.013 0.013 0.013 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 0.007 0.007 0.007 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2003 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2004 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2006 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2008 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2009 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2010 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2011 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 .<LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2017 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2018 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2019 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2020 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2021 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2022 <LLD <LLD <LLD
| |
| * Indicator locations were available downwind locations within ten miles ofthe site and with high deposition potential
| |
| ** No data available (control samples not required).
| |
| t 1969 data is considered to be pre-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.
| |
| 7 - 25
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-25 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA NMPNS GROUNDWATER WELLS TRITIUM Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: CONTROL(a)
| |
| Isotope TRITIUM Year Min. Max. Mean 2005 <854 <854 <854 2006(b) <447 <825 <636 2007 <442 <445 <444 2008 <427 <439 <431 2009 <411 <418 <415 2010 <172 <410 <341 2011 <408 <424 <415 2012 <363 <499 <420 2013 <365 <38i <374 2014 <404 <493 <433 2015(c) <108 215 <151 2016 <161 <199 <181 2017 <183 234 <193 2018 <178 <234 <205 2019 <178 <199 <189 2020 <176 <179 <178 2021 <192 <199 <196 2022 <181 <191 <186 (a) Control well locations (2) are upland wells located south of the protected area.
| |
| (b) Required LLD change to 500 pCi/1 from 1000 pCi/1.
| |
| (c) Required LLD changed to 200 pCi/1.
| |
| 7 - 26
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-26 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA NMPNS GROUNDWATER WELLS TRITIUM Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: INDICATOR(a)
| |
| Isotope TRITIUM Year Min. Max. Mean 2005 <854 <871 <863 2006(b) <462 <933 <823 2007 <440 <461 <445 2008 <427 <439 <433 2009 <406 <424 <413 2010 <287 611 <384 2011 <407 <428 <414 2012 <314 <499 <395 2013 <365 82o(c) <382 2014 <365 <493 <436 2015(d) <106 947 <196 2016 <108 749 <211 2017 <183 435 <201 2018 <176 470 <203 2019 <154 366 <197 2020 <172 252 <185 2021 <171 246 <192 2022 <173 . 267 <192 (a) Indicator locations are down gradient wells located in the owner control area.
| |
| (b) Required LLD change to 500 pCi/1 from 1000 pCi/1.
| |
| (c) Re-sample tritium concentration= <459 pCi/1.
| |
| (d) Required LLD changed to 200 pCi/1.
| |
| 7 - 27
| |
| | |
| TABLE7-27 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA JAFNPP GROUNDWATER WELLS TRITIUM Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: CONTROL Isotope TRITIUM Year Min. Max. Mean 2007 <909 <909 <909 2008 <852 <923 <889 2009 <836 <848 <842
| |
| . 2010 <398 <850 <717 2011 . <395 <594 <436 2012 <363 1036 <530 2013 <342 <710 <529 2014 <383 <791 <532 2015 <723 <934 <793 2016 <864 <902 <888 2017 <775 <930 <833 2018 <182 219 <193 2019 <178 <199 <192 2020 <180 <182 <181 2021 <184 <185 <185 2022 <161 209 <185 7 - 28
| |
| | |
| TABLE 7-28 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA JAFNPP GROUNDWATER WELLS TRITIUM Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: INDICATOR (a)
| |
| Isotope TRITIUM Year Min. Max. Mean 2010 <410 1049 <794 2011 <390 <689 <421 2012 <356 <787 <417
| |
| '2013 <338 <720 <395 2014 <383 <791 <490 2015 <723 1149 .<796 2016 <864 <902 <886 2017 <775 <930 <834 2018 <184 654 250 2019 <172 482 230 2020 <175 402 208 2021 <173 334 <194 2022 <177 652 266 (a) Indicator locations are down gradient wells located in the owner control area.
| |
| 7 - 29
| |
| | |
| 8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/ QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM 8.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), Part 1, Section 5.3 requires that the licensee participate in an Interlaboratory Comparison Program. The Interlaboratory Comparison Program shall include sample media for which samples are routinely collected and for which comparison samples-are commercially available. Participation in an Interlaboratory Comparison Program ensures that independent checks on the precision and accuracy of the measurement of radioactive material in the environmental samples are performed as part of the Quality Assurance Program for environmental monitoring. To fulfill the requiremerit for an _Interlaboratory Comparison Program, the Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE) E11vironmental Services laboratory *has engaged the services of Eckert &
| |
| Ziegler Analytics, Incorporated in Atlanta, Georgia, The Department of Energy's (DOE) Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) located in Idaho Falls, Idaho, and Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) in Golden, Co.
| |
| The Interlaboratory Comparison providers supply sample media as blind sample spikes, which contain certified levels of radioactivity unknown to the analysis laboratory. These samples are prepared and analyzed by the Teledyne Brown Engineering Environmental Services laboratory using standard laboratory procedures. '
| |
| 8.2 PROGRAM SCHEDULE SAMPLE PROVIDER SAMPLE LABORATORY ECKERT & ZIEGLER MEDIA ANALYSIS ANALYTICS Milk I-131 2 Milk Mixed Gamma 2 '
| |
| Air I-131 2 Air Mixed Gamma 2 Soil Mixed Ganim.a 2 SAMPLE LABORATORY SAMPLE PROVIDER MEDIA ANALYSIS DOEMAPEP Air nr-HPti:I 1 Vegetation Mixed Gamma 2 SAMPLE LABORATORY SAMPLE PROVIDER MEDIA ANALYSIS ERA Air Gr-HPfa , ?.
| |
| Water I-131 2 Water Mixed Gamma 2 Water H-3 2 TOTAL SAMPLE INVENTORY 20 8- 1
| |
| | |
| 8.3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Each sample result is evaluated to determine the accuracy and precision of the laboratory's analysis result. The sample evaluation method is discussed below.
| |
| 8.3.1 SAMPLE RESULTS EVALUATION Analytics:
| |
| Analytics evaluation report provides a ratio of TBE's result and Analytics' known value. Since flag values are not assigned by Analytics, TBE evaluates the reported ratios based on internal QC requirements, which are based on the DOE/MAPEP criteria. The ratio of 0.80 to 1.20 is evaluated as acceptable. The ratios of 0.70 to 0.80 and 1.20 to 1.30 are evaiuated as ~cceptable with warning.
| |
| DOE/MAPEP:
| |
| DOE Evaluation Criteria (Handbook for the Department of Energy's Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP), Revision 13 (June 2012), pp 9-10, retrieved from http://www.id.energy.gov/resl/mapep/handbookv13.pdf)
| |
| MAPEP' s evaluation report provides an acceptance range with associated flag values.
| |
| The MAPEP defines three levels of performance:
| |
| * Acceptable (flag= "A")- result.within+/- 20% of the reference value.
| |
| * Acceptable with Warning (flag= "W") - result falls in the+/- 20% to+/- 30% ofthe reference value.
| |
| * Not Acceptable (flag= "N")-bias is greater than 30% of the reference value.
| |
| Note: The Department of Energy (DOE) Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) samples are .created to mimic Conditions found at DOE sztes which do not resemble typical environmental samples obtained at commercial nuclear power facilities.
| |
| False positive/negative testirig
| |
| * and sensitivity evaluations are used in radiological performance* evaiuations. The specific analytes used for testing vary among performance evaluation test sessions.
| |
| The MAPEP program uses false positive testing to identify laboratory results that indicate the presence of a particular radionuclide in a MAPEP sample when, in fact, the actual activity of the radionuclide .is far below the detection limit of the measurement. Not acc~ptable ("N")
| |
| performance, and hence a false positive result, is indicated when the range encompassing the result, plus or minus the total uncertainty at three standard deviations, does not include zero (e.g., 2.5 +/- 0.2; range of 1.9 - 3.1). Statistically, the probability that a result can exceed the absolute value of its total uncertainty at three s~andard deviations by chance alone is less than 1%. MAPEP uses a three standard deviation criterion for the false positive test to ensure confidence about issuing a false positive performance evaluation. A result that is greater than three times the total uncertainty of the measurement represents a statistically positive detection with over 99% confidence.
| |
| Sensitivity evaluations are routinely performed to complement the false positive tests. In a sensitivity evaluation the radionuclide is present at or near the detection limit, and the 8-2
| |
| | |
| difference between the report result and the MAPEP reference value is compared to the propagated combined total uncertainties. The results are evaluated at three standard deviations. If the observed difference is greater than three time the combined total uncertainty, the sensitivity evaluation in "Not Acceptable". The probability that such a difference can occur by chance alone is less than 1%. If the participant did not report a statistically positive result, a "Not Detected" is noted in the text field of the MAPEP performance report. A non-detect is potentially a false negative result, dependent upon the laboratory's detection limit for the radionuclide.
| |
| False negative tests are also performed in combination with the sensitivity evaluations. In this scenario, the sensitivity pf the reported measurement indicates that the known specific activity of the targeted radionuclide in the performance evaluation sample should have been detected, but was not, and a "Not Acceptable" performance evaluation is issued.
| |
| The uncertainty of the MAPEP reference value and of the reported result at three standard deviations is used for the false negative test.
| |
| The false positive/negative and sensitivity evaluation tests are conducted in a manner that assists the participants with_ their measurement uncertainty estimates and helps ensure they are not underestimating or over inflating their total uncertainties. If the total uncertainty is over inflated to try to pass a false positive test, it will result in a "Not Detected" if the test is actually a sensitivity evaluation, and vice versa for a false positive test. False negatives and failed sensitivity evaluations can also result from underestimating thy total uncertainty.
| |
| An accurate estimate of measurement uncertainty IS required for consistent performance at the acceptable level. ,
| |
| ERA:
| |
| TheERA's evaluation report provides an acceptance range for control and warning limits with associated flag values. The ERA's acceptance limits are established per the USEPA, National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC), state specific Performance Testing (PT) program requ1rements or ERA's SOP for the Generation of Performance Acceptance Limits, as applicable. The acceptance limits are either determined by a regression equation specific to each analyte or a fixed percentage limit promulgated under the appropriate regulatory document.
| |
| 8.4 PROGRAM RESULTS
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| The Interlaboratory Comparison Program numerical results for the TBE Environmental Services laboratory are provided oh Table 8-1 thru Table 8-3:
| |
| * 8.4.1 ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS, DOE MAPEP, and ERA QA SAMPLES RESULTS For the TBE laboratory, 142 out of 150 analyses performed met the specified acceptance criteria. Seven anaJyses did not meet the specified acceptance criteria and were addressed through the TBE Corrective Action Program. NOTE: Two analyses (soil for Tc-99 and U-238) that didnot meet acceptance criteria was performed for TBE information and is not on the list ofrequired ICP analyses. A summary is found below:
| |
| 8-3
| |
| : 1. The Analytics March 2022 AP Ce-141 result was evaluated as Not Acceptable. The reported value for Ce-141 was 60.9 pCi and the known result was 42.0 pCi/L (1.45 ratio of reported result vs. known; TBE's internal acceptance range is 0.70 - 1.30). This sample was used as the workgroup duplicate with a result of 45.7 (109% of known) and was also counted on a different detector with a result of 50.9 (121 % of known). This was .
| |
| TBE' s first failure for AP Ce-141. (NCR 22-04)
| |
| : 2. The MAPEP February 2022 Urine U-234 & U-238 results were evaluated as Not Acceptable. TBE's reported values of 0.142 and 0.0254 were above the known upper ranges of 0.0096 and 0.0134 respectively for U-234 and U-238. These spiked values were below TBE's typical MDC for urine client samples. The samples were re-prepped using a larger sample aliquot and counted for 60 hours as opposed to 48 hours. The recount results were 0.00732 for U-234 and 0.0119 for U-238 (both within acceptable range). MAPEP urine samples will be flagged to use a larger sample aliquot and counting time than typical client samples. MAPEP did not include any urine cross-check samples in August. (NCR 22-05)
| |
| : 3. The ERA MRAD September 2022 AP Pu-238 was evaluated as Not Acceptable. The reported value was 38.8 pCi and the known result was 29.9 (acceptance range 22.6 -
| |
| 36.7). The AP filter was cut in half prior to digestion (shared with Fe-55) but should have been complete digested together and aliquotted afterwards like typical client samples. This is the first failure for AP Pu-238. (NCR 22-19)
| |
| : 4. The ERA October 2022 water Uranium result was evaluated as Not Acceptable. The reported value was 10.54 pCi/L and the known was 8.53 (acceptance range 6.60 9.88) or 124% of the known (acceptable for TBE QC). The 2-sigma error was 3.2, placing the reported result well within the acceptable range. This sample was used as the workgroup duplicate with a result of 8.2 +/- 2.9 pCi/L (also within the acceptable range). All other QA was reviewed with no anomalies. (NCR 22-20)
| |
| : 5. The Analytics AP Co-60 result was evaluated as Not Acceptable. The reported value was 207 pCi and the known was 174 (141% of the known). TBE's internal QC acceptance is 70 - 130%. All QA was reviewed with no anomalies. This sample was used as the workgroup duplicate and counted on a different detector with a result of 167 pCi (114%
| |
| of the known). This is the first failure for AP Co-60 average result ratio compared to the known is 109%. (NCR 22-21)
| |
| : 6. The MAPEP August 2022 water Tc-99 result was evaluated as Not Acceptable. The reported value was 1.86 +/- 0.414 Bq/L for this "false positive" test. The evaluation of the submitted result to the 3 times the uncertainty indicated a slight positive. This sample was used as the workgroup duplicate with a result of 0.88 +/- 0.374 Bq/L. All QC was reviewed, and no anomalies found. This is the first unacceptable since the resumption of reporting water Tc-99 for the 3rd quarter of 2020. TBE to known ratios have ranged from 94-109% during this time. (NCR 22-22)
| |
| The Inter-Laboratory Comparison Program provides evidence of "in control" counting systems and methods, and that the laboratories are producing accurate and reliable data.
| |
| 8-4
| |
| | |
| Table 8-1 Analytics Environmental Radioactivity Cross Check Program Teledine Brown Engineering Environmental Services TBE Identification* Known. Ratio ofTBE to MonthMear Matrix. Nuclide Units Reported Evaluation (bl Number Value (a) Analytics Result Value March 2022 E13706 Milk Sr-89 pCi/L 80.3 96.8 0.83 A Sr-90 pCi/L 12.7 12.6 1.01 A E13707 Milk Ce-141 pCi/L 62.3 65 0.96 A Co-58 pCi/L 158 164 0.96 A Co-60 pCi/L 286 302 0.95 A Cr-51 pCi/L 314 339 0.93 A
| |
| /
| |
| Cs-134 pCi/L 155 182 0.85 A Cs-137 pCi/L 210 223 0.94 A Fe-59 pCi/L 211 185 1.14 A 1-131 .pCi/L 88.0 96.7 0.91 A Mn-54 pCi/L 169 164 1.03 A Zn-65 pCi/L 238 246 0.97 A E13708 Charcoal 1-131 pCi, 79.9 87.1 0.92 A N(1l E13709 AP Ce-141- pCi 60.9 42.0 1.45 Co-58 pCi 118 107 1.11 A
| |
| *co-60 pCi 218 196 1.11 A Cr-51
| |
| * pCi 251 221 1.14 A Cs-13.4 pCi 129 118 1.09 A Cs-137 pCi 156 145.0 1.07 A Fe-59 pCi 124 120.0 1.03 A Mn-54 pCi
| |
| * 120 107 1.12 A Zn-65 pCi 162. 160 1.01 A E13710 Soil Ce-141 pCi/g 0.123 0.103 1.19 A Co-58 pCi/g 0.254 0.263 0.97 A Co-6.0 pCi/g 0.493 0.483 1.02 A.
| |
| Cr-51 pCi/g 0.603 0.543 1.11 A Cs~134 pCi/g 0.268 0.292 0.92 A Cs-137- pCi/g 0.399 0.431 0.93 A Fe-59 pCi/g b.320 0.296 1.08 A Mn-54 pCi/g 0.263 0.263 1.00 A Zn-65 pCi/g 0.407 0.395 1.03 A E13711 AP Sr-89 pCi 83.2 97.4 0.85 A Sr-90 pCi 12.7 12.7 1,00 A (a) The Analytics known value is equal to 100% of the parameter present in the standard a_s determined by gravimetric and/or volumetric hJeasurements made during standard preparation (b) Analytics evaluation based on TBE internal QC limits:
| |
| A = Acceptable - reporte_dresult falls within ratio limits of 0.80-1.20 W = Acceptable with waminfl,- reported result falls within 0. 70-0.80 or 1.20-1.30 N = Not Acceptable reported result falls outside the ratio limits of< 0. 70 and > 1.30 (1) See NCR 22-04 8-5 (Page 1 of 4)
| |
| | |
| Table 8-1 Analytics Environmental Radioactivity Cross Check Program Teledi:ne Brown Engineerin9 Environmental Services TSE Identification Known Ratio of TBE to Month/Year Matrix Nuclide Units Reported Evaluation (bl Number Value (a) Analytics Result Value September 2022 E13712 Milk Sr-89 pCi/L 71.1 89.1 0.80 A Sr-90 pCi/L 12.0 13.6 0.88 A E13713 Milk Ce-141 pCi/L 148 161 0.92 A Co-58 pCi/L 178 189 0,94 A Co0 60 pCi/L 229 260 0.88 A Cr-51 pCi/L 486 456 1.07 A Cs-134 pCi/L 220 252 0.87 A Cs-137 pCi/L 203 22~ 0.92 A Fe-59 pCi/L 174 173 1.01 A 1-131 pCi/L 75.9 94.2 0.81 A Mn-54 pCi/L 269 282 0:95 A Zn-65 pCi/L 364 373 0.97 A E13714 Charcoal 1-131 pCi 81.4 83.6 0.97 A E13715 AP Ce-141 pCi 102 91 1.12 A Co-58 pCi 118 107 1.11 A Co-60 pCi 207 147 1A1 N(2l Cr-51 pCi 310 257 1:21 w Cs-134 pCi 148 142 *1.04 A Cs-137 pCi 137 125 1.:10 A Fe-59 pCi 115 98 1.18 A Mn-54 pCi 168 159 1:os A Zn-65 pCi 240 211 1.14 A E13716 Soil Ce-141 pGi/g 0.288 0.284 1.01 A Co-58
| |
| * pCi/g 0.320 0.334 0.96 A Co-60 pCi/g 0.445 0.459 0.97 A Cr-51 pCi/g 0.883 0.805 1.10 A Cs-134 pCi/g 0.410 0.446 0.92 A Cs-137 pCi/g 0.447 0.465 0.96 A Fe-59 pCi/g 0.314 0.305 1.03 A Mn-54 pCi/g 0.489 0.499 o:ea A Zn-65 pCi/g 0.666 0.660 1.01 A E13717 AP Sr-89 pCi 87.5 98.3 0.89 A Srs90 pCi 12.6 15.0 0.84 A (a) The Analytics known value is equal to 100% of the parameter present in the standard as determined by gravimetric .and/or volumetric measuremeryts made during standard preparation (b) Analytics evaluation based on TBE internal QC limits:
| |
| A ,; Acceptable - reported result falls within ratio limits of 0.80-1.20 W = Acceptable with warning - reported result falls within 0. 70C0.80 or 1:20-1.30 N = Not Acceptable - reported result falls outside the ratio limits of< 0. 70 and> 1.30 (2) See NCR 22-21 8-6 (Page 2 of 4)
| |
| | |
| Table 8-2 DOE's Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP)
| |
| Teledyne Brown Engineering Environmental Servn::es TBE Identification Known Acceptance Month/Year Matrix Nuclide Units Reported Evaluation (b)
| |
| Number Value (a) Range Value I February 2022 22-GrF46 AP Gross Alpha Sq/sample 0.402 :1.20 0.36-2.04 A Gross Beta Sq/sample 0.669 i0.68 0.341 -1.022 A I
| |
| 22-MaS46 Soil Ni-63 Bq/kg 645 '780 546 1014 A Tc-99 Bq/kg 526 778 545 -1011 N(3) 22~MaSU46 Urine Cs-134 Bq/L 1.67 f77 1.24 - 2.30 A Cs-137 Bq/L 1.50 1.56 1.09-2.03 A Co-57 Bq/L 4.93 5.39 3.77 - 7.01 A Co-60 Bq/L 2.13 2.06 1.44- 2.68 A Mn-54 Bq/L 4.83 5.08 3.56-6.60 A U-234 Bq/L 0.142 0.0074 0.0052 - 0.0096 N(4J U-238 Bq/L 0.0254 0.0103 0.0072 - 0.0134 N(4l Zn-65 Bq/L 4.71 4.48 3.14- 5.82 A 22-MaW46 Water Ni-63 Bq/L 28.6 34.0 23.8 44.2 A Tc-99 Bq/L 8.59 7.90 5.5-10.3 A 22-RdV46 Vegetation Cs-134 Sq/sample 6.61 7.61 5.33- 9:89 A Cs-137 Sq/sample 1.50 1.52 1:06-1.98 A Co-57 Bq/sample 5.11 5.09 3.56-6.62 A Co-60 Bq/sample 0.0162 (1) A Mn-54 Bq/sample 2.42 2.59 1.81 - 3.37 A Sr-90 Bq/sample 0.684 0.789 0.552 - 1.026 A Zn-65 Sq/sample 1.44 1.47 1.03 1.91 A August2022 22-MaS47 Soil Ni-63 Sq/kg 14.6 (1) A Tc-99 Sq/kg 994 1000 700 1300 A 22-MaW47 Water Ni-63 Bq/L 24.4 32.9 23.0-42.8 A N(S)
| |
| Tc-99 Sq/L 1.9 (1) 25-RdV47 Vegetation Cs-134 Sq/sample 0.032 (1) A Cs-137 Bq/sample 0.891 1.08 0.758 - 1.408 A Co-57 Sq/sample 0.006 (1) A Co-60 Sq/sample 4.04 4.62 3.23 - 6.01 A Mn-54 Sq/sample 2.01 2.43 1.70-3.16 A Sr-90 Sq/sample 1.25 1.60
| |
| * 1.12-2.08 w Zn-65 Sq/sample 6.16 7.49 5.24-9.74 A (a) The MAPEP known value is equal to 100% of the parameter present in the standard as determined by gravimetric and/or volumetric measurements made dlfring standard preparation (b} DOEIMAPEP evaluation:
| |
| A Acceptable - reported result falls within ratio limits of 0.80-1.20 W= Acceptable with warning- reported result falls within 0. 70-0.80 or 1.20-1.30 N = Not Acceptable - reported result falls outside the ratio limits of< 0. 70 and> 1.30 (1) False positive test (2) Sensitivity evaluation (3) To-99 soil cross-checks done for TBE information only- not required (4) See NCR 22-05 (5) See NCR 22-22 8-7 (Page 3 of 4)
| |
| | |
| Table 8-3 ERA Environmental Radioactivity Cross Check Program Teledyne Brown Engineering Environmental Services Identification TBE Reported Known Acceptance Month/Year Matrix Nuclide Units Evaluation (bl Number Value Value<a) Limits March 2022 MRAD-36 Water Am-241 pCi/L 68.3 74.6 51.2 - 95.4 A Fe-55 pCi/L 797 1140 670 -1660 A Pu-238 pCi/L 146 147 88..4-190 A Pu-239 pCi/L 69.9 71.9 44.5 - 88.6 A Soil Sr-90 pCi/kg 8050 6720 2090-10500 A AP Fe-55 pCi/filter 148 127 46.4-203 A Pu-238 pCi/filter 29.9 29.6 22.3-36.4 A Pu-239 pCi/filter 51.6 49.7 37.2-60.0 A U-234 pCi/filter 59.9 67.3 49.9-78.9 A U-238 pCi/filter 59.0 66.7 50.4- 79.6 A GR-A pCi/filter 95.6 94.2 49.2 -155 A GR-B pCi/filter 71.2 66.8 40.5 101 A April 2022 RAD-129 Water Ba-133 pCi/L 61.7 62.9 52._3 - 69.2 A Cs-134 pCi/L 80.9 81.6 68.8- 89.8 A Cs-137 pCi/L 37.4 36.6 32.1 -43.3 A Co-60 pCi/L 103 97.4 87.7-109 A Zn-65 pCi/L 318 302 272- 353 A GR-A pCi/L 26.9 20.8 10.4- 28.3 A GR-B pCi/L 49.7 51.0 34.7-58.1 A U-Nat pCi/L 56.3 "68.9 56.3- 75.8 A H-3 pCi/L 17,000 18,100 15,800 -19,000 A Sr-89 pCi/L 65.3 67.9 55.3- 76.1 A Sr~90 pCi/L 42.1 42.7 31.5 49.0 A 1-131 pCi/L 25.7 26.2 21:8-30.9 A September 2022 MRAD-37 Water Am-241 pCi/L 111 96.2 66.0 - 123 A Fe-55 pCi/L 850 926 l1/2l,4 1350 A Pu-238 pCi/L 62.1 52.6 31.6- 68.2 A Pu-239 pCi/L 139.5 117 72.5-144 A Soil Sr-90 pCi/kg 3350 6270 1950- 9770 A U-234 pCi/kg 1684 3350 1570-4390 A U-238 pCi/kg 1658 3320 1820-4460 N1~i AP Fe-55 pCi/filter 71.9 122 44.5 - 195 A Pu-238 pCi/filter 38.8 29.9 22.6-36.7 Nll)
| |
| Pu-239 pCi/filter 14.5 13.0 9.73 15.7 A U-234 pCi/filter 78.0 71.5 53:0 ~ 83.8 A U-238 pCi/filter 79.7 70.9 53.5 -84.6 A GR-A pCi/filter 62.8 55.5 29.0 - 91.4 A GR-B pCi/filter 70.9 64.8 39.3-97.9 A October 2022 RAD-131 Water Ba-133 pCi/L 76.2 79.4 66.6-87.3 A Cs-134 pCi/L 28.0 30.5 23.9-33.6 A Cs-137 pCi/L 202 212 191 -235 A Co-60 pCi/L 52.4 51.4 46.3 - 59.1 A Zn-65 pCi/L 216 216 194- 253 A GR-A pCi/L 19.7 16.9 8.28 - 23.7 A GR-B pCi/L 49.8 53.0 36.1 - 60.0 A U-Nat pCi/L 10.54 8.53 6.60- 9.88 Nl~J H-3 pCi/L 13,900 15,100 13,200 - 16,600 A Sr-89 pCi/L 59.7 64.5 52.3- 72.5 A Sr-90 pCi/L 32.9 37.3 27.~ -43.0 A 1-131 pCi/L 26.9 24.4 20.2 28.9 A (a) The ERA known value is equal to 100% of the parameter present in the standard as determined by gravimetric and/or volumetric measurements made during standard preparation.
| |
| (b) ERA evaluation:
| |
| A = Acceptable - Reported value falls within the Acceptance Limits N = Not Acceptable - Reported value falls outside of the Acceptance Limits (1) See NCR 22-19 (2) U soil cross-checks done for TBE information only - not required (3) See NCR 22-20 8-8 (Page 4 of4)
| |
| | |
| ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETRY COMPANY ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANC'E STATUS REPORT January - December 2022 Prepared By:
| |
| r=- .-
| |
| <i,dbd
| |
| ~
| |
| Date: J /J_ i /_2--?...
| |
| Approved By: tlie{il~ Date: s/avt,b-?e Environmental Dosimetry Company
| |
| - 10 Ashton Lane Sterling, MA 01564 9- 1
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ..................................... :................................................................................. iii EXECUTIVE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| .....................................................................................~ ...., .................. iv I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 A. QC Program ...........................................................*.................... :........................ 1 B. QA Program .......... , ............. ,........................................................... :................... 1 II. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA ................ ***************;************'********************** 1 A Acceptance Criteria for Internal Evaluations ......................................................... 1 B. QC Investigation Criteria and Result Reporting ................................. ,................. 3 C. Reporting of Environmental Dosimetry Results to EDC Customers.; ........*........... 3 1_11. DATA
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| FOR ISSUANCE PERIOD JANUARY-DECEMBER 2022 ................. 3 A. General Discussion ....................... :................................................ :.. '................... 3 B. Result Trending ... ; ........................................................................... :'................... 4 IV. STATUS OF EDC CONDITION REPORTS (CR)**************************:***'********',****************** 4 V. STATUS OF AUDITS/ASSESSMENTS .. ,....................................................................... 4 A. Internal. ....................... *............................................................... .- .... :: .................. 4 B. External ............... :...... *.... :........... ,...................................................... ,................ 4 VI. PROCEDURES AND MANUALS REVISED DURING JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022 ... 4 VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... ,, ........................................................... 4 VIII. REFERENCES ............................................................................. :............. :................... 4 APPENDIX A DOSIMETRY QUALITY CONTROL TRENDING GRAPHS
| |
| * LIST OF TABLES *
| |
| : 1. Percentage of Individual Analyses Which Passed EDC Internal Criteria, January - December 2022 5
| |
| : 2. Mean Dosimeter Analyses (n=6), January - December 2022 5
| |
| : 3. Summary of Independent QC Results for 2022 5
| |
| | |
| EXECUTIVE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| Routine quality control (QC) testing was performed for dosimeters issued by the Environmental Dosimetry Company (EDC) .
| |
| During this annua_l period100% (72/72) of the individual dosimeters, evaluated against the EDC internal performance acceptance criteria (high-energy photons only), met the criterion for accuracy and 100% (72/72) met the criterion for precision (Table 1). In addition, 100% (12112) of the dosimeter sets evaluated against the internal tolerance limits met EDC acceptance criteria (Table 2) and 100% (6/6) of independent testing passed the performance criteria (Table 3). Trending graphs, which evaluate performance statistic for high-energy photon irradiations and co-located stations are given in Appendix A.
| |
| One internal assessment was performed in 2022.There were no findings.
| |
| | |
| I. INTRODUCTION The TLD systems at the Environmental Dosimetry Company (EDC) are calibrated and operated to ensure consistent and accurate evaluation of TLDs. The quality of the dosimetric results reported to EDC clients is ensured by in-house performance testing and independent performance testing by EDC clients, and both internal and client directed program assessments.
| |
| The purpose of the dosimetry quality assurance program is to provide performance documentation of the routine processing of EDC dosimeters. Performance testing
| |
| * provides a statistical measure of the bias and precision of dosimetry processing against a reliable standard., which in turn points out any trenc;:ls or performance changes. Two programs are used:
| |
| A. QC Program Dosimetry quality control tests are performed on EDC Panasonic 814 Environmental dosimeters. These tests include: (1) the in-house testing program coordinated by the EDC QA Officer and (2) independent test perform by EDC clients. In-house test are performed using six pairs of 814 dosimeters, a pair is reported as an individual result and six pairs are reported as the mean result.
| |
| Results of these tests are described in this report.
| |
| Excluded from this report are instrumentation checks. Although instrumentation checks represent an important aspect of the quality assurance pr,ogram, they are not included as process checks in this report. Instrumentation checks represent between 5-10% of the TLDs processed.
| |
| B. QA Program An internal assessment of dosimetry activities is conductfld annually by the Quality Assurance Officer (Reference 1). The purpose of the assessment is to review procedures, results, materials or components to identify opportunities to improve or enhance processes and/or services. * **
| |
| * II. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA A. Acceptance Criteria for Internal Evaluations
| |
| : 1. Bias
| |
| , For each dosimeter tested, the measure of bias is the percent deviation of the reported result relative to the delivered exposure. The percent deviation relative to the delivered exposure is calculated as follows:
| |
| where:
| |
| H( = the corresponding reported exposure for the ith dosimeter (i.e., the reported. exposure) .
| |
| Hi = the exposure delivered to the ith irradiated dosi,m,eter (i.e., the delivered exposure)
| |
| : 2. Mean Bias
| |
| * For each group of test dosimeters, the mean bias is the average percent deviation of the reported result relative to the delivered exposure. The mean percent deviatfon relative to the delivered exposure is calculated as follows:
| |
| where:
| |
| H; = the corresponding reported exposure for the ith dosimeter (i.e., the reported exposure)
| |
| Hi = the exposure delivered to the ith irradiated test dosimeter (i.e., the delivered exposure) n = the number of dosimeters in the test group Precision For a group of test dosimeters irradiated to a given exposure, the measure of precision is the percent deviation of individual results relative to the mean reported exposure. At least two values are required for the determination of precision. The rneasure of precision for the ith dosimeter is:
| |
| where:
| |
| H; = the reported exposure for the ith dosimeter (i.e., the reported exposure)
| |
| R= the mean reported exposure; i.e., H= LH;(~)
| |
| n = the number of dosimeters in the test group
| |
| : 3. EDC Internal Tolerance Limits All evaluation criteria are taken from the "EDC Quality System Manual,"
| |
| (Reference 2). These criteria are only applied to in.dividual test dosimeters irradiated with high-energy photons (Cs-137) and are as follows for Panasonic Envirdhmental dosimeters: +/- 15% for bias and +/-
| |
| 12.8% for precision.
| |
| | |
| B. QC Investigation Criteria and Result Reporting EDC Quality System Manual (Reference 2) specifies when an investigation is required due to a QC analysis that has failed the EDC bias criteria. The criteria are as follows:
| |
| : 1. No investigation is necessary when an individual QC result falls outside the QC performance criteria for accuracy.
| |
| : 2. Investigations are initiated when the mean of a QC processing batch is outside the performance criterion for bias.
| |
| C. Reporting of Environmental Dosimetry Results to EDC Customers
| |
| : 1. All results are to be reported in a timely fashion.
| |
| : 4. If the QA Officer determines that an investigation is required for a process, the results shall be issued as normal. If the QC results prompting the investigation have a mean bias from the known of greater than +/-20%, the results shall be issued with a note indicating that they may be updated in the future, pending resolution of a QA issue.
| |
| : 5. Environmental dosimetry results do not require updating if the investigation has shown that the mean bias between the original results and the corrected results, based on applicable correction factors from the investigation, does not exceed +/-20%.
| |
| Ill. DATA
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| FOR ISSUANCE PERIOD JANUARY-DECEMBER 2022 A. General Discussion Results of performance tests conducted are summarized and discussed in the following sections. Summaries of the performance tests for the reporting period are given in Tables 1 through 3 and Figures 1 through 4.
| |
| Table 1 provides a summary of individual dosimeter results evaluated against the EDC internal acceptance criteria for high-energy photons only. During this period100% (72/72) of the individual dosimeters, evaluated against these criteria, met the tolerance limits for accuracy and 100% (72/72) met the criterion for precision. A graphical interpretation is provided in Figures 1 and 2.
| |
| Table 2 provides the bias and standard deviation results for each group (N=6) of dosimeters evaluated against the internal tolerance criteria. Overall, 100% (12/12) of the dosimeter sets, evaluated against the internal tolerance performance criteria, met these criteria. A graphical interpretation is provided in Figure 3.
| |
| Table 3 presents the independent blind spike results for dosimeters processed during this annual period. All results passed the performance acceptance criterion. Figure 4 is a graphical interpretation of Seabrook Station blind co-located station results.
| |
| | |
| B. Result Trending One of the main benefits of performing quality control tests on a routine basis is to identify trends or performance changes. The results of the Panasonic environmental dosimeter performance tests are presented in Appendix A. The results are evaluated against each of the performance criteria listed in Section II, namely: individual dosimeter accuracy, individual dosimeter precision, and mean bias.
| |
| All of the results presented in Appendix A are plotted sequentially by processing date.
| |
| IV. STATUS OF EDC CONDITION REPORTS (CR)
| |
| No condition reports were issued during this annual period.
| |
| V. STATUS OF AUDITS/ASSESSMENTS
| |
| : 1. Internal EDC Internal Quality Assurance Assessment was conducted during the fourth quarter 2022. There were no findings identified.
| |
| : 2. External None.
| |
| VI. PROCEDURES AND MANUALS REVISED DURING JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022 Two procedures were reissued with no changes as part of the 5 year review cycle.
| |
| VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The quality control evaluat.ions continue to indicate the dosimetry processing programs at the EDC satisfy the criteria specified in the Quality System Manual. The EDC demonstrated the ability to meet all applicable acceptance criteria.
| |
| VIII. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. EPC Quality Control and Audit Assessment Schedule, 2022.
| |
| : 2. EDC Mariual 1, Quality System Manual, Rev. 4, September 28, 2020.
| |
| | |
| TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL DOSIMETERS THAT PASSED EDC INTERNAL CRITERIA JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022! 1), (2l Panasonic Environmental 72 100 100 1
| |
| . ( )This table summarizes results of tests conducted by EDC.
| |
| 2
| |
| ( lEnvironmental dosimeter results are free in air.
| |
| TABLE 2 MEAN DOSIMETER ANALYSES (N=6)
| |
| JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022(1), (2l 4/25/2022 43 1.2 1.8 Pass 4/27/2022 62 6.2 1.0 Pass 5/05/2022 99 2.3 0.7 Pass 7/26/2022 34 -2.6 1.2 Pass 7/27/2022 81 0.6 1.7 Pass 8/07/2022 107 -3.5 0.7 Pass 10/27/2022 52 1.8 0.9 Pass 11/02/2022 76 2.0 0.9 Pass 11/07/2022 27 7.0 0.7 Pass 01/24/2023 38 1.5 1.7 Pass 01/26/2023 115 -0.3 2.0 Pass 02/14/2023 49 2.3 4.0 Pass 1
| |
| ( )This table summarizes results of tests conducted by EDC for TLDs issued in 2022.
| |
| 2
| |
| ( lEnvironmental dosimeter results are free in air.
| |
| TABLE 3
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF INDEPENDENT DOSIMETER TESTING JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022! 1), !2l 1st Qtr. 2022 Millstone -0.6 0.6 Pass 2 nd Qtr.2022 Millstone -3.9 1.0 Pass 3r Qtr. 2022 Millstone 0.1 0.5 Pass 41 Qtr.2022 Millstone -2.6 1.2 Pass 41 Qtr.2022 PSEG PNNL 48mR 1.1 1.5 Pass 41 Qtr.2022 PSEG(PNNL) 95mR 0.7 0.3 Pass 41 Qtr.2022 PSEG PNNL 143mR 2.3 0.8 Pass 41 Qtr.2022 PSEG PNNL 190mR 1.4 0.8 Pass
| |
| . 41 Qtr.2022 SONGS -5.6 1.1 Pass 1
| |
| ( )Performance criteria are +/- 15%.
| |
| 2
| |
| ( )Blind spike irradiations using Cs-137
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX A DOSIMETRY QUALITY CONTROL TRENDING GRAPHS ISSUE. PERIOD JANAURY - DECEMBER 2022
| |
| | |
| INDIVIDUAL ACCURACY ENVIRONMENTAL FIGURE 1 16--,-----------~-------------------~--------------.
| |
| 14-12-4
| |
| *2
| |
| -6
| |
| *10
| |
| *12
| |
| * 14
| |
| -16_,.,.,- -...,- -...,- -...,---.,- --.,- --.,- -...,- --.,- --.,- -...,. ---.,- - -,-- -,-- -,-- -,-- -,-----,,,
| |
| ///////////////// /
| |
| PROCESSING DATE 9 - 10
| |
| | |
| INDMDUAL PRECISION ENVIRONMENT.AL FIGURE2 1146-,.------------~---~-------------
| |
| 12 1D I!
| |
| 6 4
| |
| z 0
| |
| 2 en u D (~ *!
| |
| -1 **
| |
| ** . . .. . . . . . * * * * * * * * * *
| |
| * e
| |
| .. i I
| |
| [f -4
| |
| .J!.
| |
| -6 I
| |
| '81
| |
| -1D
| |
| *12~
| |
| -14
| |
| -16_.
| |
| ///////////////// /
| |
| PROCESSING DATE 9 - 11
| |
| | |
| MEAN ACCURACY ENVIRONMENTAL FIGURE 3 16 14 12 10 8
| |
| 6 . .
| |
| 4 2 . .
| |
| * G
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 CD -2
| |
| 'I- -4
| |
| -6
| |
| -8
| |
| * 1D
| |
| -12
| |
| * 14 19.**JS.a
| |
| *16-
| |
| / ~' / ~/ ~~' ~' .:1' /
| |
| PROCESSING DATE
| |
| -1' / / /
| |
| 9 - 12
| |
| | |
| SEABROOK CO-LOCATE ACCURACY FIGURE4 20 1B 16
| |
| .J 12 10 B
| |
| 6
| |
| ~ li -. . . . *
| |
| ~
| |
| co * . *
| |
| --8
| |
| *10
| |
| *U
| |
| *14
| |
| *16
| |
| *18
| |
| *20
| |
| ::r"' .:;- .,
| |
| ..... .,,... $ .:}> ~,. . ~ ,o"' -o" .rl' ~ ~. .y 3/ ~ -,l' -0 EXPECTED AELD EXPOSURE (mRISTD. QUARTER 9 - 13}}
| |
