Text

James A. FitzPatrick - 2016 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report
	ML17131A248
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	05/11/2017
From:	William Drews; Exelon Generation Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	JAFP-17-0046
	Download: ML17131A248 (162)
	v • d • e

Exelon Generation

., JAFP-17-0046 May 11, 2017 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Exelon Generation Co., LLC James A. FitzPatrick NPP P.O. Box 110 Lycoming , NY 13093 Tel 315-342-3840 William C. Drews Regulatory Assurance Manager

Subject:

2016 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 License No. DPR-59

Dear Sir or Madam:

This letter transmits the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant's (JAF) Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, for the period of January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. This document is submitted in accordance with the Reporting Requirements of the Technical Specifications Section 5.6.2, and Appendix H of the Technical Requirements Manual "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)", Part 1 , Section 6.1 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. There are no new regulatory commitments contained in this letter. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed report, please contact Jeff Gerber, Chemistry Manager, at (315) 349-6635.

Sincerely, William C. Drews Regulatory Assurance Manager WO/JG/de

Enclosure:

2016 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report cc: Next Page JAFP-17-0046 Page 2 of 2

cc:

NRC Regional Administrator, Region I NRC Resident Inspector NRC Project Manager

Supervisor, Town of Scriba Route 8, Box 382

Oswego, NY 13126

JAFP-17-0046 Enclosure 2016 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report

ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 for JAMES A. FITZ PATRICK NUCLEAR POWER P LANT Exelon Generation Company, LLC Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 Docket No. 50-333 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 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....................................................................

............3-6 3.2 Analyses Performed..................................................................................................3-12 3.3 Sample Locations......................................................................................................3-13 3.4 Land Use Census .............

.........................................................................................3-27 3.5 Changes to the REMP Program.................

..................

.................

............................3-28 3.6 Deviation and Exceptions to the Program ................................................................3-28 3.7 Statistical Methodology ......

......................................................................................3-30 3.8 Compliance with Required Lower Limits of Detection (LLD) .......

........................3-33 3.9 Regulatory Limits .....................................................................................................3-35 4.0 SA MPLE

SUMMARY

TABLES IN BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION FORMAT....4-1 5.0 DA 5.1 TA EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................5-1Aquatic Program .........................................................................................................5-6 5.2 Terrestrial Program .......................................................

.................

...........................5-14

5.3 Conclusion

................................................................................................

................5-33 5.4 References.................................................................................................

................5-34 6.0 REPORT PERIOD ANALYTICAL RESULTS TABLES ..................................................6-1 7.0 HISTORICAL DATA TABLES .....

......................................................................................7-1

8.0 QUALITY

ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM..................

......................8-1 8.1 Program Description ..................................................................................................8-1 8.2 Program Schedule ................

......................................................................................8-2 8.3 Acceptance Criteria....................................................................................................8-2 8.4 Program Results Summary ........................................................................................8-4 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIME TRY COMPANY AN NUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE STATUS REPORT...............................................................

...............

.........9-1 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3.0-1 Required Sample Collection and Analysis................................................................3-2 Table 3.3-1 Environmental Sample Locations ...........................................................................3-14 Table 3.8-1 Required Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analysis Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) ...........................................................................3-34 Table 4.0-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Summary............

..........4-2 Table 6-1 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Shoreline Sediment Samples ...................6-2 Table 6-2 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Fish Samples FitzPatrick.....................................................................................

.......................6-3 Nine Mile Point ..........................................................................................

.........6-3 Oswego Harbor .............................................................................................

......6-3 Table 6-3 Concentrations of Tritium in Surface Water Samples Samples .....................................................................................................

................6-4 Table 6-4 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Surface Water Samples FitzPatrick............................................................................................................6-5 Oswego Steam Station ..................................................................

......................6-5 Nine Mile Point Unit 1 .......

.................................................................................6-6 Oswego City Water ......................................................................................

.......6-6 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 .......

.................................................................................6-7 Table 6-5 Environmental Airborne Particulate Samples-Offsite Sample Locations Gross Beta Activity (Jan-Jun) ............

......................................................6-8 (Jul-Dec) ..................................................................6-9 Table 6-6 Environmental Airborne Particulate Samples-Onsite Sample Locations Gross Beta Activity (Jan-Jun) ............

....................................................6-10 (Jul-Dec) ................................................................6-11 Table 6-7 Environmental Charcoal Cartridge Samples-Offsite Sample Locations I-131 Activity(Jan-Jun) ................................................................6-12 (Jul-Dec) ................................................................6-13 Table 6-8 Environmental Charcoal Cartridge Samples-Onsite Sample Locations I-131 Activity(Jan-Jun) ................................................................6-14 (Jul-Dec) ................................................................6-15 LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table 6-9 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Quarterly Composites of JAF/NMPNS Site Air Particulate Samples PageOffsite Sample Locations - 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd ,4 th Qtrs ...................

............................6-16 Onsite Sample Locations - 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 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 Sample Location No. 55 .............................................................................

......6-21 Sample Location No. 77 (Control) .............................................................

......6-22 Table 6-12 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Food Products ....................................... 6-23 Table 6-13 Milk Animal Census 2016 .................................................................................. 6-24 Table 6-14 Residence Census 2016.......................................................................................6-25 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 Control ..................................................................... 7-8 Table 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 Particul atesControl ................................................................... 7-12 Table 7-12 Indicator ................................................................. 7-13 LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Historical Environmental Sample Data (Continued)

Page Table 7-13 Table 7-14 Air Radioiodine Control ..................................................................

7-14 Indicator ................................................................ 7-15 Table 7-15 Environmental TLD Control .................................................................. 7-16 Table 7-16 Site Boundary........................................................ 7-17 Table 7-17 Table 7-18 Offsite Sectors....................................................... 7-18 Special Interest...................................................... 7-19 Table 7-19 Onsite Indicator..................................................... 7-20 Table 7-20 Offsite Indicator .................................................... 7-21 Table 7-21 Milk Control .................................................................. 7-22 Table 7-22 Indicator ................................................................ 7-23 Table 7-23 Food Products Control .................................................................. 7-24 Table 7-24 Indicator ................................................................ 7-25 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Program Interlaborat ory Intercomparison Program Table 8-1 Eckert & Ziegler Analytics................................................................................ 8

-6 Table 8-2 DOE's Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) .............. 8-9 Table 8-3 ERA Environmental Radioactivity Cross Check Program................................8-10 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 3.3-1 New York State Map ..............................................................................................3-20 Figure 3.3-2 Off-Site Environmental Station and TLD Locations Map..........

............................3-21 Figure 3.3-3 Onsite Environmental Station and TLD Locations Map ............

............................3-22 Figure 3.3-4 Milk and Surface Water Sample Locations Map ..............

..................

....................3-23 Figure 3.3-5 Nearest Residence, Food Product, Fish and Shoreline Sediment Sample Locations Map ...........................................................................................3-24 Figure 3.3-6 Nearest Residence-JAF Locations Map

.......................................................

...........3-25 Figure 3.3-7 JAF On-Site Ground Water Monitoring Wells Map ........

................

......................3-26

1.0 PURPOSE

The Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report is published in accordance with the James A.FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), Part I, Section 6.1.The ODCM requires that the results from the annual Radiological Environmental MonitoringProgram (REMP) be provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by May 15th of each year.This report describes the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), the implementation of the program, and the results obtained as required by the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The report also contains the analytical results tables, data evaluation, dose assessment, and data trends for each environmental sample media. Also included are results of the land use census, historical data, and the Environmental Laboratory's performance in the Quality Assurance Intercomparison. The REMP is a comprehensive surveillance program, which is implemented to assess the impact of site operations on the environment and compliance with 10 CFR 20, 40 CFR 190 and 10 CFR 72. Samples are collected from the aquatic and terrestrial pathways applicable to the site. The aquatic pathways include Lake Ontario fish, surface waters and lakeshore sediment. The terrestrial pathways include airborne particulate and radioiodine, milk, food products and direct radiation. During 2016 there were 2,181 analyses performed on environmental media collect ed as part of the REMP. These results demonstrated that there is no significant or measurable radiological impact from the operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The 2016 results for all pathways sampled are consistent with the previous five-year historical results and exhibited no adverse trends. In summary, the analytical results from the 2016 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program demonstrate that the routine operation at the James A. FitzPatrick site had no significant or measurable radiological impact on the environment. The program continues to demonstrate that the dose to a member of the public, as a result of the operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, remains significantly below the federally required dose limits specified in 10 CFR 20, 40 CFR 190 and 10 CFR 72.

2.0 INTRODU

CTION The James A. FitzP atrick Nuc lear Power Plant is owned and operated by Exelon Generation Company, LLC. This report is submitted in accordance with Offsite Dose Calculation Man ua l, Pa rt 1, S ection 6.1. This report covers the calend a r y ear 2016. 2.1 P ROGRAM HI STORY Environmental monitoring at the Nine Mile Point site has b een ongoing since 1964. The progra m includes five y ea rs of pre-operational data, which was conducted prior to a ny re actor operations. In 1968, the Niaga ra Mohawk Power Company began the required pre-operational environmental site testing program. This pre-operational da ta se rves as a reference point to compare later data obtained during re actor operation. In 1969, the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 re actor, a 628 megawatt e le ctric (MWe) Boiling Water R eactor (BWR) began full power operation. In 1975, the James A. FitzP atrick Nu c lear Power Plant, owned and operated at that ti me by the New York Power Authority, began full power operation. The FitzP atrick plant, an 892 MW e (rated) BW R, o ccupies the ea st s ector of the Nine Mile Point site, approximately 0.57 miles ea st of Nine Mile Point Unit 1. In 1988, the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 re actor also owned and operated by Nine Mile Point Nu c lear Station, LLC, began full power operation. This 1363 MW e BWR is located be tw ee n the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and FitzP atrick sites. In 1985, the individual Plant Effluent T echnical Sp ecifications we re standardized to the generic Radiolog ical Effluent T ec hni cal Sp ecifications, much of which was comm on to the two re actors, and subsequently Nine Mile Point Unit 2. Subsequent T echnical Sp ecification amendments relocated the REMP requirements to the OD CM for a ll three plants. Da ta generated by the Radiolog ical Environmental Monitoring P rogram (REMP) is sha red, but each utility reviews a nd publ ishes their own annual report. On Nov ember 21, 2000 the own ership and operation of the James A. FitzP atrick Nuc lear Power Plant was transfer red from the New York Power Au thority to Entergy Nu c lear FitzP atrick, LLC and Entergy Nu c lear Operations, Inc. The Facility Operating L icense No. DPR-59 and Docket No. 50-333 remained the sa me in March 2017, ownership and operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant was transferred to Exelon Generation Company, LLC. On Nov ember 7, 2001, the own ership of the Nine Mile Point Unit I and I I facilities was tran sfer re d to Constellation Energy Nu c lear Group. Th e se two facilities a re operated by Nine Mile Po int Nu c le a r Station, LL C. Exelon Generation Company, LLC took over ownership and operation of the Nine Mile Point Unit I and II facilities in 2014.

In summary, three Boiling Water R eactors, which together genera te 2883 MWe, have operated coll ective ly at the Nine Mile Point site since 1988. A large datab a se of environmental results from the exposure pathways have b een collected and analyzed to evaluate the potential imp act from r e actor operations.

2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The Nine Mile Point site is located on the southeast shore of Lake Ontario in the town of Scriba, approximately 6.2 miles northeast of the city of Oswego. The nearest metropolitan area is located approximately 36 miles southeast of the site. The James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant and support buildings occupy a small shoreline portion of the 702 acre Nine Mile Point site , which is partially wooded. The land, soil of glacier deposits, rises gently from the lake in all directions. Oswego County is a rural environment, with about 15% of the land devoted to agriculture. 2.3 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) are to: 1. Measure and evaluate the effects of plant operation on the environs and to verify the effectiveness of the controls on radioactive material sources. 2. Monitor natural radiation levels in the environs of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant site. 3. Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of applicable federal regulatory agencies, including Technical Specifications and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.

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) 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 thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). These sampling programs are outlined in Table 3.0-1. The JAF REMP sampling locations are selected and verified by an annual Land Use Census. The accuracy and precision of the program is assured by participation in an Interlaboratory Comparison Quality Assurance Program (ICQAP). Sample collections for the radiological program are accomplished by a dedicated site environmental staff from both the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Stations (NMPNS) and James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP). The site staff is assisted by a contracted environmental engineering company, EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. (EA).

TABLE 3.0-1 REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Exposure Pathway and/or Sample Number of Samples (a) and Locations Sampling and Collection Frequency (a) Type and Frequency of Analysis AIRBORNE Radioiodine and Particulates Samples from 5 locations: a. 3 Samples from offsite locations in different sectors of the highest calculated site average D/Q (based on all licensed site reactors) b. 1 sample from the vicinity of a community having the highest calculated site average D/Q (based on all licensed site reactors) c. 1 sample from a control location 9 to 20 miles distant and in the least prevalent wind direction(d) Continuous sample operation with sample collection weekly or as required by dust loading, whichever is more frequent Radioiodine Canisters: Analyze weekly for I-131 Particulate Samples: Gross beta radioactivity following filter change (b), composite (by location) for gamma

isotopic(c) quarterly (as a minimum) DIRECT RADIATION(e) 32 stations with two or more dosimeters placed as follows: 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 8 land based sectors in the outer ring c. The balance of the stations (8) are placed in special interest areas such as population centers, nearby residences, schools, and in 2 or 3 areas to serve as control stations Quarterly Gamma dose monthly or quarterly Fish a. 1 sample of each of 2 commercially or recreationally important species in the vicinity of a site discharge point b. 1 sample of each of 2 species (same as in a. above or of a species Twice per year Gamma isotopic(c) analysis of edible portions. from the site(d) Food Products a. In lieu of the garden census as specified in Part 1, Section 5.2, Once during harvest Gamma isotopic(c) analysis of Exposure Pathway TABLE 3.0-1 (Continued)

REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Sampling and

Type and Frequency and/or Sample Number of Samples (a) and Locations Collection Frequency (a) of Analysis INGESTION Milk a. Samples from milch animals in 3 locations within 3.5 miles distant having the highest calculated site average D/Q. If there are none, then 1 sample from milch animals in each of the 3 areas 3.5 to 5.0 miles distant having the highest calculated site average D/Q (based on all licensed site reactors)(h) b. 1 sample from milch animals at a control location (9 to 20 miles distant and in a less prevalent wind direction)(d) Twice per month, April through December (samples will be collected in January through March if I-131 is detected in November and December of the preceding year)

Gamma isotopic and I-131 analysis twice per month when milch animals are on pasture (April through December); monthly (January through March), if required(c) with similar feeding habits) from an area at least 5 miles distant

samples of at least 3 different kinds of broad leaf vegetation (such as vegetables) grown nearest each of two different offsite locations of highest predicted site average D/Q (based on all licensed site Reactors) b. One (1) sample of each of the similar broad leaf vegetation grown at least 9.3 miles distant in a least prevalent wind direction sector(d) season edible portions. (Isotopic to include I-131)

TABLE 3.0-1 (Continued)

REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Exposure Pathway and/or Sample Number of Samples (a) and Locations Sampling and Collection Frequency (a) Type and Frequency of Analysis WATERBORNE Surface(f) a. 1 sample upstream(d) b. 1 sample from the site's most downstream cooling water intake Composite sample over a one month period(g) Gamma isotopic analysis monthly.

Composite for Tritium analysis quarterly(c) Sediment from Shoreline 1 sample from a downstream area with existing or potential recreational value Twice per year Gamma isotopic analysis semi- annually(c)

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 instances 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 gross beta 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months or more after sampling to allow for radon and thoron 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 criteria, 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 3 milk sample locations cannot meet the requirement for 10 milking cows, then a sample location having less than 10 milking cows can be used if an adequate supply of milk can reasonably and reliably be obtained based on communications with the farmer.

3.1 SAMPLE

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY

3.1.1 SHORELINE

SEDIMENTS Shoreline sediment is collected at one area of existing or potential recreational value. One sample is also collected from a location beyond the influence of the site. Samples are collected as surface scrapings to a depth of approximately one inch. The samples are placed in plastic bags, sealed and shipped to the lab for analysis. Sediment samples are analyzed for gamma emitting radionuclides.

Shoreline sediment sample locat ions are listed in Section 3.3, Ta ble 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 Brown Trout, Chinook Salmon, 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 Sec tion 3.3, Table 3.3-1 and shown in Figure 3.3-5.

3.1.3 SURFACE

WATER Surface water samples are taken from the respective inlet canals of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (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 inlet canal removes 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 equipment which discharges into a compositing tank or bottles. Samples are collected monthly from the compositor and analyzed for gamma emitters. Samples from the Oswego Steam Station are also obtained using automatic sampling equipment and collected in a holding tank. Representative samples from this location 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 from each of the locations is saved and composited to form quarterly composite samples, which are analyzed for tritium. In addition to the sample results for the JAFNPP and Oswego Steam Station collection sites, data is presented for the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and Unit 2 facility inlet canal samples and from the City of Oswego drinking water supply. The latter three locations are not required by the ODCM. These locations are optional sample points, which are collected and analyzed to enhance the surface water sampling program. Monthly composite samples from these three locations are analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides, and quarterly composite samples are analyzed for tritium. Surface water sample locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1 and shown on Figure 3.3-4.

3.1.4 AIR PARTICULATE / IODINE The air sampling stations required by the ODCM are located in the general area of the site boundary. The sampling stations are sited within a distance of 0.2 miles of the site boundary in sectors with the highest calculated deposition factor (D/Q) based on historical meteorological data. These stations (R1, R2, R3 and R4) are located in the E, ESE, and SE sectors as measured from the center of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 Reactor Building. The ODCM also requires that a fourth air sampling station be located in the vicinity of a year-round community. This station is located in the SE sector at a distance of 1.8 miles and is designated as Station R4. A fifth station required by the ODCM is a control location designated as Station R5. Station R5 is located 16.2 miles from the site in the NE meteorological sector. In addition to the five ODCM required locations, there are ten additional sampling stations. Six of these sampling stations are located within the site boundary and are designated as Onsite Stations D1, G, H, I, J, and K. These locations are within the site boundary of the NMPNS and JAFNPP. One air sampling station is located offsite in the southwest sector in the vicinity of the City of Oswego and is designated as Station G Offsite. Three remaining air sampling stations are located in the ESE, SSE, and SSW sectors and range in distance from 7.1 to 9.0 miles. These are designated as Offsite Stations D2, E and F respectively. Each station collects airborne particulates using glass fiber filters (47 millimeter diameter) and radioiodine using charcoal cartridges (2x1 inch). The samplers run continuously and the charcoal cartridges and particulate filters are changed on a weekly basis. Sample volume is determined by use of calibrated gas flow meters located at the sample discharge. Gross beta analysis is performed on each particulate filter. Charcoal cartridges are analyzed for radioiodine using gamma spectral analysis. The particulate filters are composited quarterly by location and analyzed for gamma emitting radionuclides. Air sampling station locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1 and shown on Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3.

3.1.5 TLD (DIRECT RADIATION)

Thermoluminescent 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 sixteen 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 8 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, 113)

TLD location required by the ODCM Although 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 Interest and Control TLD categories to supplement the ODCM required Direct Radiation readings. Two 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. Environmental TLD locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1 and show on Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3. 2. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)

In order to provide adequate spent fuel storage capacity at the FitzPatrick plant, Entergy constructed an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) onsite. On April 25, 2002, the ISFSI facility was placed in service. TLDs are used to monitor direct radiation levels in the vicinity of the ISFSI facility. Twelve 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 rates at points of interest relative to the storage area and are designated as optional locations. Background data was collected starting in October, 2000 at eight of the TLD locations on the perimeter fence. The remaining locations were established in October 2001. Two dosimeters are placed at each TLD monitoring location. The TLDs are sealed in polyethylene packages to ensure dosimeter integrity and placed in the field using a supporting structure such as a fence or other immovable object. ISFSI TLD locations are listed in Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1.

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 plant related 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 2016 as there were no positive detections of plant related radionuclides in samples collected during November and December of 2015. 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 two 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 samples 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 and shown on Figure 3.3-5.

3.1.8 GROUND

WATER MONITORING PROGRAM The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Ground Water Protection Initiative was established to determine the potential impact Nuclear Power Plants may have on the surrounding environment due to unplanned releases of radioactive liquids. Under NEI 07-07, Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative Final Guidance Document, August 2007, ground water monitoring is accomplished through sampling of the water table around the plant and analyzing it for gamma emitters and tritium. In November of 2007, JAF drilled 5 ground water wells along the north edge of the property next to the lake. Starting in March 2010, 16 additional monitoring wells were drilled in the area of the reactor building and nearby SSC's (see Section 3.3, Figure 3.3-7). In August 2013, 3 additional monitoring wells and 2 piezometers were installed on site. Samples obtained from these wells are analyzed on a quarterly basis to determine gamma emitters and tritium concentrations. Ground water samples are analyzed for gamma emitters using gamma isotopic analysis and tritium using liquid scintillation detector. Ground water results are documented in the Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report. 3.2 ANALYSES PERFORMED Environmental sample analyses are performed at the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) Chemistry Laboratory or 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 Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs) 5. Fish - Gamma Spectral Analysis

6. Food Products (vegetation) - Gamma Spectral Analysis 7. Milk - Gamma Spectral Analysis and I-131

8. Shoreline Sediment - Gamma Spectral Analysis 9. Special Samples (soil, food, bottom sediment, etc.) - Gamma Spectral Analysis 10. Surface Water Monthly Composites - Gamma Spectral Analysis, I-131 11. Surface Water Quarterly Composite - Tritium 12. Ground Water Quarterly Samples - Tritium

3.3 SAMPLE

LOCATIONS This section provides maps illustrating sample locations. Sample locations referenced as letters and numbers on the report period data tables are consistent with designations plotted on the maps. This section also contains an environmental sample location reference table (Table 3.3-1). This table contains the following information: 1. Sample Medium 2. Map Designation (this column contains the key for the sample location and is consistent with the designation on the sample location maps and on the sample results data tables) 3. Location Description 4. Degrees and Distance of the sample location from the site 3.3.1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.3-1 New York State Map Figure 3.3-2 Off-Site Environmental Station and TLD Locations Map Figure 3.3-3 Onsite Environmental Station and TLD Locations Map Figure 3.3-4 Milk and Surface Water Sample Locations Map Figure 3.3-5 Nearest Residence, Food Product, Fish and Shoreline Sediment Sample Locations Map Figure 3.3-6 Nearest Residence-JAF Locations Map Figure 3.3-7 JAF On-Site Ground Water Monitori ng Wells Map TABLE 3.3-1 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE MEDIUM MAP DESIGNATION FIGURE NUMBE R LOCATION DESC RIPTION DEGREES & DISTANCE (1) & (2) Shoreline Sediment Fish Surface Water Air Radioiodine and Particulates 05* 06 02*

03*

00* 03*

08* 09 10 11 R1* R2*

R3* R4* R5*

D1 G H I J K G D2 E F Figure 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-4 Figure 3.3-4 Figure 3.3-4 Figure 3.3-4 Figure 3.3-4 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Sunset Bay Langs Beach, Control Nine Mile Point Transect FitzPatrick Transect Oswego Transect FitzPatrick Inlet Oswego Steam Station Inlet (Control)

NMP Unit 1 Inlet Oswego City Water NMP Unit 2 Inlet (Split intake with two locations) R1 Station, Nine Mile Point Road R2 Station, Lake Road R3 Station, Co. Rt. 29 R4 Station, Village of Lycoming, Co. Rt. 29 R5 Station, Montario Point Rd. (Control) D1 Onsite Station G Onsite Station H Onsite Station I Onsite Station J Onsite Station K Onsite Station G Offsite Station, Saint Paul Street D2 Offsite Station, Rt. 64 E Offsite Station, Rt. 4 F Offsi te Sta tion, Dutch Rid g e Road 84º at 1.2 miles 232° at 4.8 miles 290° at 0.4 miles 62° at 0.8 miles 237° at 5.9 miles 53° at 0.6 miles 237° at 7.6 miles 319° at 0.3 miles 240° at 7.8 miles 336° at 0.3 miles 353° at 0.3 miles 92° at 1.8 miles 107° at 1.1 miles 133° at 1.4 miles 145° at 1.8 miles 42° at 16.2 miles 71° at 0.3 miles 245° at 0.7 miles 73° at 0.8 miles 95° at 0.8 miles 109° at 0.9 miles 132° at 0.5 miles 226° at 5.4 miles 118° at 9.0 miles 162° at 7.1 miles 192° at 7.6 miles (1) Degrees and distance based on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Reactor Centerline rounded to the nearest 1/10 of a mile. (2) Degrees and Distances updated by Global Positioning System (GPS) in 2006.

Sample location required by ODCM TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued) ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE MEDIUM MAP DESIGNATION FIGURE NUMBER LOCATION DESCRIPTION DEGREES & DISTANCE (1) & (2) Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLD) 3 4

5 6 7* 8*

9 10 11 12 13 14* 15*

18* 19 23*

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 39 47 49* 51 52 53 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 D1 Onsite D2 Onsite E Onsite F Onsite G Onsite R5 Offsite Control State Route 3 D2 Offsite E Offsite F Offsite G Offsite DeMass Rd., SW Oswego - Control Pole 66, W. Boundary - Bible Camp Energy Info. Center - Lamp Post, SW East Boundary - JAF, Pole 9 H Onsite I Onsite J Onsite K Onsite N. Fence, N. of Switchyard, JAF N. Light Pole,N. of Screenhouse, JAF N. Fence, N. of W. Side N. Fence, (NW) JAF N. Fence, (NW) NMP-1 N. Fence, Rad. Waste-NMP-1 N. Fence, (NE) JAF Phoenix, NY-Control Liberty & Bronson Sts., E of OSS E. 12th & Cayuga Sts., Oswego School Broadwell & Chestnut Sts. Fulton H.S. 71° at 0.3 miles 143° at 0.4 miles 180° at 0.3 miles 213° at 0.5 miles 245° at 0.7 miles 42° at 16.2 miles 80° at 11.4 miles 118° at 9.0 miles 162° at 7.1 miles 192° at 7.6 miles 226° at 5.4 miles 227° at 12.5 miles 240° at 0.9 miles 268° at 0.4 miles 83° at 1.4 miles 73° at 0.8 miles 95° at 0.8 miles 109° at 0.9 miles 132° at 0.5 miles 60° at 0.4 miles 68° at 0.5 miles 65° at 0.5 miles 57° at 0.4 miles 279° at 0.2 miles 298° at 0.2 miles 69° at 0.6 miles 168° at 19.7 miles 234° at 7.3 miles 227° at 5.9 miles 183° at 13.7 miles (1) Degrees and distance based on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Reactor Centerline rounded to the nearest 1/10 of a mile. (2) Degrees and Distances updated by Global Positioning System (GPS) in 2006.

Sample location required by ODCM TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued) ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE MEDIUM MAP DESIGNATION FIGURE NUMBER LOCATION DESCRIPTION DEGREES & DISTANCE (1)& (2)Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLD)

(Continued) 54 55 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* 98 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Mexico High School Gas Substation Co. Rt. 5-Pulaski Rt. 104-New Haven Sch. (SE Corner)

Co Rt. 1A-Novelis (E. of E. Entrance Rd.) Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Reactor Bldg. Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Change House Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Pipe Bldg.

JAF. E. of E. Old Lay Down Area Co. Rt. 29, Pole #63, 0.2 mi. S. of Lake Rd. Co. Rt. 29, Pole #54, 0.7 mi. S. of Lake Rd. Miner Rd., Pole #16, 0.5 mi. W. of Rt. 29 Miner Rd., Pole # 1-1/2, 1.1 mi. W. of Rt. 29 Lakeview Rd., Tree 0.45 mi. N. of Miner Rd. Lakeview Rd., N., Pole #6117, 200ft. N. of Lake Rd. Unit 1, N. Fence, N. of W. Side of Screen House Unit 2, N. Fence, N of W. Side of Screen House Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of E. Side of Screen House Hickory Grove Rd., Pole #2, 0.6 mi. N. of Rt. 1 Leavitt Rd., Pole #16, 0.4 mi. S. of Rt.1 Rt. 104, Pole #300, 150 ft. E. of Keefe Rd.

Rt 51A, Pole #59, 0.8 mi. W. of Rt. 51 Maiden Lane Rd., Power Pole, 0.6 mi. S. of Rt. 104 Rt. 53 Pole 1-1, 120 ft. S. of Rt. 104 Rt. 1, Pole #82, 250 ft. E. of Kocher Rd. (Co. Rt. 63)

Novelis W access Rd., Joe Fultz Blvd, Pole #21 Creamery Rd., 0.3 mi. S. of Middle Rd., Pole 1-1/2 Rt. 29, Pole #50, 200ft. N. of Miner Rd. Lake Rd., Pole #145, 0.15 mi. E. of Rt 29 115° at 9.4 miles 75° at 13.0 miles 124° at 5.2 miles 222° at 3.0 miles 354° at 0.1 miles 25° at 0.1 miles 36° at 0.2 miles 85° at 1.0 miles 120° at 1.2 miles 136° at 1.5 miles 159° at 1.6 miles 180° at 1.6 miles 203° at 1.2 miles 226° at 1.1 miles 292° at 0.2 miles 311° at 0.1 miles 333° at 0.1 miles 97° at 4.5 miles 112° at 4.3 miles 135° at 4.2 miles 157° at 4.9 miles 183° at 4.4 miles 206° at 4.4 miles 224° at 4.4 miles 239° at 3.7 miles 199° at 3.6 miles 145° at 1.8 miles 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.

(2)Degrees and Distances updated by Global Positioning System (GPS) in 2006.

Sample location required by ODC M

TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued) ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE MEDIUM MAP DESIGNATION FIGURE NUMBER LOCATION DESCRIPTION DEGREES & DISTANCE (1)& (2)Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLD) (Continued) Cow's Milk Food Products 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 111 112 113 55** 77* 144* 484* C2* Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-4 Figure 3.3-4 Figure 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-5 NMP Rd., 0.4 mi. N. of Lake Rd., Env. Station R1 Rt. 29 & Lake Rd., Env. Station R2 Rt. 29, 0.7 mi. S. of Lake Rd., Env. Station R3 EOF/Env. Lab, Rt 176, E. Driveway, Lamp Post EIC, East Garage Rd., Lamp Post Parkhurst Rd., Pole #23, 0.1 mi. S. of Lake Rd. Lakeview Rd. Pole #36, 0.5 mi. S. of Lake Rd.

Shoreline Cove, W. of NMP-1, Tree on W. Edge Shoreline Cove, W. of NMP-1, 30 ft SSW of #106 Lake Rd., Pole #142, 300 ft E. of Rt. 29 S. Tree North of Lake Rd., 300 ft E. of Rt. 29 N Control, State Route 38, Sterling NY EOF/Env. Lab, Oswego County Airport Control, Baldwinsville, NY Indicator Location Control Location Indicator Location - Whaley Indicator Location - O'Connor Control Location - Flack 92° at 1.8 miles 107° at 1.1 miles 133° at 1.4 miles 175° at 11.9 miles 268° at 0.4 miles 102° at 1.4 miles 199° at 1.4 miles 274° at 0.3 miles 273° at 0.3 miles 105° at 1.1 miles 104° at 1.1 miles 214° at 21.8 miles 175° at 11.9 miles 178° at 24.7 miles 97° at 8.7 miles 190° at 16.0 miles 139° at 1.6 miles

132° at 1.4 miles 222° at 15.4 miles Nearest Residence (NMP) Based on NMP Unit 2 Centerline - Refer to Figure 3.3-5 Nearest Residence (JAF) Based on JAF Centerline - Refer to Figure 3.3-6 (1)Degrees and distance based on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Reactor Centerline (2)Degrees and Distances updated by Global Positioning System (GPS) in 2006.

Sample location required by ODC M** Optional samp le TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued) ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE MEDIUM LOCATION DESIGNATION FIGURE NUMBER LOCATION DESCRIPTION Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLD) I-1*I-2*I-3*I-4*I-5*I-6*I-7*I-8*I-9*I-10*I-11*I-12*I-13**I-14**I-15**I-16**I-17**I-18**ISFSI West Fence, South End of Storage Pad ISFSI West Fence, Center of Storage Pad ISFSI West Fence, North End of Storage Pad ISFSI North Fence, West End of Storage Pad ISFSI North Fence, Center of Storage Pad ISFSI North Fence, East End of Storage Pad ISFSI East Fence, North End of Storage Pad ISFSI East Fence, Center of Storage Pad ISFSI East Fence, South End of Storage Pad ISFSI South Fence, East End of Storage Pad ISFSI South Fence, Center of Storage Pad ISFSI South Fence, West End of Storage Pad ISFSI Building and Grounds Garage, East of Pad ISFSI Tree ~100 yards South of Pad ISFSI Transmission Line Tower South of Pad at East /West Access Road ISFSI Perimeter Fence ~100 yards West of Pad on Pad Centerline ISFSI North Fence of Main Switch Yard on Pad Centerline ISFSI North Inner Perimeter Fence at Lake Shore on Pad Centerline

Sample location required by ODC M** Indicates Optional TLD locatio n

TABLE 3.3-1 (Continued) ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS SAMPLE MEDIUM LOCATION DESIGNATION FIGURE NUMBER LOCATION DESCRIPTION Ground Water Monitoring Wells MW-1A MW-1B MW-2A MW-2B MW-3A MW-3B MW-4A MW-4B MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10A MW-10B MW-13 MW-14 MW-15 MW-16 PZ-17 PZ-18 MW-19 MW-20 MW-21 MW-CST(A) MW-CST(B)

Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-7 Southwest of Reactor Building Southwest of Reactor Building Northwest of Reactor Building Northwest of Reactor Building Northwest of Reactor Building Northwest of Reactor Building Northeast of Reactor Building Northeast of Reactor Building Northwest edge of property North / Northwest edge of property North edge of property North / Northeast edge of property Northeast edge of property Southeast of Reactor Building Southeast of Reactor Building West of Reactor Building East of Reactor Building South of Reactor Building Northwest of Reactor Building North / Northeast of Reactor Building North of Reactor Building Northwest Edge of Property Southwest Edge of Property South of Reactor Building (Outside protected area) West of Reactor Building West of Reactor Building BUFFALO BUFFALO ROCHESTER ROCHESTER SYRACUSE SYRACUSE UTICA UTICA ALBANY ALBANY 135 MI.135 MI.38 MI.38 MI.230 MI.230 MI.CANADA CANADA PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY CONNECTICUT CONNECTICUT MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS VERMONT VERMONT NEW YORK CITY NEW YORK CITY LAKE ONTARIO LAKE ONTARIO FIGURE 3.3-1 FIGURE 3.3-1NEW YORK STATE MAPNEW YORK STATE MAPNEW YORKNEW YORK NINE MILE POINT SITE:

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit - 1

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit - 2

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant NINE MILE POINT SITE:

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit - 1

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit - 2

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant

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 five 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 ten 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 Exte nsion 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 cen sus, a garden census was performed for the 2016 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.

3.5 CHANGES

TO THE REMP PROGRAM Based upon the results of the 2016 Land Use Census, there were no changes to the 2016 sampling program. 3.6 DEVIATION AND EXCEPT IONS TO THE PROGRAM The noted exceptions to the 2016 sample progra m address only those samples or monitoring requirements which are required by the ODCM, Part I, Table 5.1-1. This section satisfies the reporting requirements of ODCM, Part I, Section 5.1.1.c.1. 3.6.1 ODCM Program Deviations The following are deviations from the program specified by the ODCM:

03/24/16 - 03/29/16 Air Station R2 Offsite sample pump was inoperable for approximately 126 hours0.00146 days 0.035 hours 2.083333e-4 weeks 4.7943e-5 months . Out of service time was determined based upon sample pump run time integrator. The inoperability was due to loss of power to the sample station. No corrective actions were required to restor e power to the station. (AR 02647640 stated alternate power supply was used to provide power and follow up requested on breaker and switch) 07/18/16 - 07/26/16 Air Stations R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 Offsite samples were not shipped in a timely manner. The I-131 concentration was not determined within the one week requirement. Vendor Laboratory received samples on 08/03/16 and all samples met the required Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) for I-131. 10/29/16 - 11/01/16 Air Station R1 Offsite sample pump was inoperable for approximately 61 hours7.060185e-4 days 0.0169 hours 1.008598e-4 weeks 2.32105e-5 months . Out of service time was determined based upon sample pump run time integrator. The inoperability was due to sample pump overheating when installed cabinet cooling fan failed. Sample pump and the cooling fan were replaced.

10/25/16 - 11/01/16 Air Station R4 Offsite particulate filter was found misaligned in filter housing resulting in partial sample collection for approximately 168 hrs. Technician installing particulate filter validated position as procedure requires. Cabinet cooling fan was not operating during the 10/25/16 particulate filter change. Maintenance replaced the cabinet cooling fan later that day. Turning the sample pump on and off, to support fan replacement, may have disturbed the particulate filter positioning.

3.6.2 Air Sampling Station Operability Assessment The ODCM required air sampling program consists of 5 individual sampling locations. The collective operable time period for the air monitoring stations was 43,733 hours0.00848 days 0.204 hours 0.00121 weeks 2.789065e-4 months out of a possible 43,920 hours0.0106 days 0.256 hours 0.00152 weeks 3.5006e-4 months . The air sampling availability factor for the report period was 99.6%. Air sampling equipment found inopera ble was returned to service. Identification of locations for obtaining replacement samples was not required.

3.7 STATISTICAL

METHODOLOGY There are a number of statistical calculation methodologies used in evaluating the data from the 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 TH E MEAN AND STAND ARD DEVIATION The mean (X) and standard devi ation(s) were used in the reduction of the data generated by the sampling and analysis of the various media in the JAFNPP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP). The following equations were utilized to compute the mean (X) and the standard deviation(s):

1.Mean n X X i i 1 N Where, X = estimate of the meani = individual sample N, n = total number of samples with positive indications X i = value for sample i above the lower limit of detection.

2.Standard Deviation2/1)1(2)(1

N X i X n i s Where, X = mean for the values of Xs = standard deviation for the sample population

3.7.2 ESTIMATION

OF THE MEAN & THE ESTIMATED ERROR FOR THE MEAN In accordance with program policy, when the in itial count indicates the presence of a 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 n X X i i 1 N Where, X = estimate of the mean i = individual sample N,n = total number of samples with positive indications X i= value for sample i above the lower limit of detection 2.Error of the Mean2/1 1)(2n i ERROR MEAN ERROR N Where, ERROR MEAN = propagated error i = individual sample ERROR = 1 sigma* erro r of the indivi dual analysis N, n = number of samples with positive indications *Sigma ()Sigma is the Greek letter used to represent the mathematical term StandardDeviation. Standard Deviation is a measure of dispersion from the arithmetic mean of a set of numbers.

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 radionu clides in specific media and are determined by taking into account the overall measurement methods. The equation used to calculate the LLD is: Where: LLD 4.66 S b (E) (V ) (2.22) (Y ) exp (t )LLD = the a priori lower limit of detection, as defined above (in picocuries per unit mass or volume) S b= the standard deviation of the background counting rate or of the counting rate of a E = b l a n k s a mple, a s a pp r op r i ate (in cou nts pe r mi nute) the counting efficiency (in counts per disintegration)

V = the sample size (in units of mass or volume) 2.22 = the number of disintegra tions per minute per picocurie Y = the fractional radiochemi cal yield (when applicable) = the radioactive decay constant for the particular radionuclidet = 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 equal2.The count rate of the back ground is approximately equal to the count rate of the sampleIn 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.

3.8 COMPLIANCE

WITH REQUIRED LOWER LIMITS OF DETECTION (LLD)

ODCM, Part 1, Table 5.1-3 specifies the detection capabilities for environmental sample analysis (see report Table 3.8-1). ODCM, Part 1, Section 6.1 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 2016 as required by the ODCM, achieved the Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) as specified by ODCM, Part 1, Table 5.1-3. See Table 3.8-1 for required LLD values.

TABLE 3.8-1 REQUIRED DETECTION CAPABILITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION (LLD)

Analysis Water (pCi/l) Airborne Particulate or Gases (pCi/m 3) Fish (pCi/kg, wet) Milk (pCi/l) Food Products (pCi/kg, wet) Sediment (pCi/kg, dry)

Gross Beta 4 0.01 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 I-131 15 (a) 0.07 1 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 Nine 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 pCi/liter is used for H-3 and the LLD value of 15 pCi/liter is used for I-131.

3.9 REGULATORY

LIMITS Two federal agencies, the Nuclear Regulato ry 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 Regula tory 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 bodyIn addition to this dose limit, the NRC has es tablished 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, Appendi x 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 orless than or equal to 10 mrem per year to any organThe 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 orless than or equal to 20 mrad per year for beta radiationThe dose to a member of the general public fr om Iodine-131, tritium, and all particulate radionuclide's with half-lives greater than 8 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 occu rrences, the annual dose equivalent to any real individual who is located bey ond the controlled area must not exceed: 25 mrem per year to the total body75 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 productsexcepted, to the environment2.Direct radiation from ISFSI3.Any other radiation from uranium fuel cycle operations in the region3.9.2 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 bodyless than or equal to 75 mrem per year to the thyroid andless than or equal to 25 mrem per year to any other organ

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 Medium2.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 S b (sigma) of background (See Section 3.7).4.The mean and range of the positive me asured values of the indicator locations.5.The mean, range, and location of the highes t indicator annual mean. Location designations arekeyed to Table 3.3-1 in Section 3.3.6.The mean and range of the positive me asured values of the control locations.7.The number of non-routine reports sent to the Nu clear Regulatory Commission.

NOTE: Only positive measured values are used in statistical calculations.

TABLE 4.0-1RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

JANUARY - DECEMBER 2016*INDICATORLOCATION (b) OF HIGHESTNUMBER OFTYPE AND NUMBERLOCATIONS: MEANANNUAL MEAN; LOCATION &CONTROL LOCATION:NONROUTINEMEDIUM (UNITS)OF ANALYSES*LLD(a)(f)/RANGEMEAN (f)/RANGEMEAN (f)/RANGEREPORTSShoreline SedimentGSA (4):(pCi/kg-dry)(Gamma-Spectrum Analysis)Cs-134 150<LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-137 180<LLD <LLD <LLD 0FishGSA (18):(pCi/kg-wet)Mn-54 130<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Fe-59 260<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Co-58 130<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Co-60 130<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Zn-65 260<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Cs-134 130<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Cs-137 150<LLD <LLD <LLD 0 TABLE 4.0-1RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

JANUARY - DECEMBER 2016*INDICATORLOCATION (b) OF HIGHESTNUMBER OFTYPE AND NUMBERLOCATIONS: MEANANNUAL MEAN; LOCATION &CONTROL LOCATION:NONROUTINEMEDIUM (UNITS)OF ANALYSES*LLD(a)(f)/RANGEMEAN (f)/RANGEMEAN (f)/RANGEREPORTSSurface WaterH-3 (8):3000(c)<LLD <LLD <LLD 0(pCi/liter)GSA (24):Mn-54 15<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Fe-59 30<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Co-58 15<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Co-60 15<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Zn-65 30<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Zr-95 15<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Nb-95 15<LLD <LLD <LLD 0I-13115(c)<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Cs-134 15<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Cs-137 18<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Ba/La-140 15<LLD <LLD <LLD 0TLD (mrem perGamma Dose (128) (i)(d)4.6 (116/116)TLD #87 (g)7.8 (4/4)4.2 (12/12) 0standard month)3.3-8.20.1 miles at 333º7.3-8.23.6-5.2 TABLE 4.0-1RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

JANUARY - DECEMBER 2016*INDICATORLOCATION (b) OF HIGHESTNUMBER OFTYPE AND NUMBERLOCATIONS: MEANANNUAL MEAN; LOCATION &CONTROL LOCATION:NONROUTINEMEDIUM (UNITS)OF ANALYSES*LLD(a)(f)/RANGEMEAN (f)/RANGEMEAN (f)/RANGEREPORTSAir ParticulatesGross Beta (265)

1015.0 (212/212)R-415.3 (53/53)14.4 (53/53) 0(10E-3 pCi/m 3)7.6-25.41.8 miles at 145º8.0-25.48.3-22.5I-131 (265)

70<LLD <LLD <LLD 0GSA (2 0):Cs-134 50<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Cs-137 60<LLD <LLD <LLD 0MilkGSA (36): (e) (h)(pCi/liter)Cs-134 15<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Cs-137 18<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Ba/La140 15<LLD <LLD <LLD 0I-131 (36)

I-131 1<LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Food ProductsGSA (9): (pCi/kg-wet)I-131 60<LLD <LLD <LLD 0 Cs-134 60<LLD <LLD <LLD 0Cs-137 80<LLD <LLD <LLD 0 TABLE NOTES:

(a) (b) = =

= Data for Table 4.0-1 is based on ODCM required samples only. LLD values as required by the ODCM. LLD units are specified in the medium column. Location is distance in miles and direc tion in compass degrees based on NMP-2 reactor center-line rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile. Units in this column a re specified in medium column. (c)= The ODCM specifies an I-131 and tritium LLD value for surfac e water analysis (non-drinking water) of 15 pCi/liter and3000 pCi/liter respectively. (d)= The ODCM does not specify a particular LLD value to environmental TLDs.(e)= The ODCM criteria for indicator milk samp le locations include locations within 5.0 miles of the site. There are no milksample 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 2016. The data is being included in the summary. (f)= Fraction of number of detectable measurements to total num ber of measurements. Mean and range results are based ondetectable measurements only. (g)= This dose is not representative of doses to a member of the public since this area is located near the north shoreline whichis 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, 5 8, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93

,94, 95, 96 and 97. Control TLDs are TLDs located beyond the influence of the site (TLD #: 8, 14 and 49).

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 2016 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. Evaluati on of the impact of the radionuclide in terms of potential increased dose to man, 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 radioactiv e 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 of radiation that is routinely used in this report. Dose/Dose to Man 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 man). 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 man" refers to the dose or dose equivalent that is received by members of the 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 man 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 radionuclides. 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).

There are three separate groups of radionuclides that were measured and analyzed for in the 2016 environmental sampling program. 1.The first of these groups consists of the radionuclides that are naturally occurring. Theenvironment contains a significant inventory of naturally occurring radioactive elements.The components of natural or background radiation include the decay of radioactive elementsin the earth's crust, a steady stream of high-energy particles from space called cosmicradiation and naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes in the human body like potassium-40.A number of naturally occurring radionuclides are present in the environment. These areexpected to be present in many of the environmental samples collected in the vicinity ofthe Nine Mile Point Site. Some of the radionuclides normally present include:

Beryllium-7, present as a result of the interaction of cosmic radi ation with the upperatmosphere

Potassium-40 and Radium-226, naturally occurring radionuclides found in thehuman body and throughout the environmentBeryllium-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 th at may be detected in the environment as aresult of the detonation of thermonuclear devices in the earth's atmosphere. Atmosphericnuclear testing during the early 1950's produced a measurable inventory of radionuclidespresently found in the lower atmosphere, as well as in ecological systems. In 1963, anAtmospheric Test Ban Treaty was signed. Since the treaty, the global inventory of manmaderadioactivity in the environment has been greatly reduced through the decay of short livedradionuclides and the removal of radionuclides from the food chain by such naturalprocesses as weathering and sedimentation. This process is referred to in this report asecological cycling. Since 1963, several atmospheric weapons tests have been conducted bythe People's Republic of China and underground weapons testing by India, Pakistan & NorthKorea. In some cases, the usual radionuclides associated with nuclear detonations weredetected 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 thesemost recent tests has influenced the background radiation in the vicinity of the site and wasevident in many of the sample media analyzed over the years. Fallout radionuclides from nuclear weapons testing included Cesium-137 and Strontium-90. The highest weaponstesting concentrations were noted in samples collected for the 1981 REMP. Cs-137 wasthe 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 2016, there were no plant-related radionuclides detected in the REMP sampling. 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 man. An attempt has been made not only to report the data collected during 2016, 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 man 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 e nvirons 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 2016. 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 man 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 man 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 locati ons 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 2016 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.

5.1 AQUATIC

PROGRAM The aquatic program consists of samples collect ed from three environmental pathways. These pathways are:

Shoreline Sediment*Fish*Surface Wate rsSection 6.0, Tables 6-1 through 6-4 present the analytical results for the aquatic samples collected for the 2016 sampling period. 5.1.1 SHORELINE SEDIMENT RESULTS A.Results Summar yShoreline sediment samples were obtained in April and October of 2016 at one offsite control location (Lang's Beach located near Oswego Harbor) a nd at one indicator location (Sunset Bay) which is an area east of the site considered to haverecreational valu e.A total of four sediment samples were collected for the 2016 sample program, twoindicator and two control. Cs-137 was not detected in samples collected from theSunset Bay indicator location or the Lang's Beach control location during 2016. Noplant-related radionuclides were detected in the 2016 shoreline sediment sam ples.The following is a graph of the average Cs-137 concentration in shoreline sedimentsamples over 20 years. This graph illustrates a general downward tre nd in the Cs-137 concentrations since 1995. No Cs-137 has been detected in shoreline sediment samples since 2 007.

B.Data Evaluation and DiscussionShoreline sediment samples are routinely co llected twice per year from the shorelineof Lake Ontario. Samples are collected from one indicator location (Sunset Bay),and one control location (Lang's Beach). Samples were collected from both theindicator and control locations in April and October 2016. The results of thesesample collections are presented in Section 6.0, Table 6-1, "Concentrations ofGamma Emitters in Shoreline Sediment Samples - 2016". Potassium-40 (K-40) andRadium-226 (Ra-226), Thorium-228 (Th-228) and Thorium-232 (Th-232) all naturally-occurring isotopes, were the only radionuclides detected in the sedimentsamples.C.Dose EvaluationThe calculated potential w hole body and skin doses which may result from themeasured Cs-137 concentrations in previous years are extremely small and areinsignificant when compared to natural background doses.The radiological impact of Cs-137 measured in the shoreline sediment can be evaluatedon the basis of dose to man. In the case of shoreline sediments, the critical pathway isdirect radiation to the whole body and skin. Using the parameters provided inRegulatory Guide 1.109, the potential dose to man in mrem per year can be calculated.The following regulatory guide values were used in calculating the dose to man:

A teenager spends 67 hours7.75463e-4 days 0.0186 hours 1.107804e-4 weeks 2.54935e-5 months per year at the beach area or on the shoreline,*The sediment has a mass of 40 kg/m 2 (dry) to a depth of 2.5 cm,*The shoreline width factor is 0.3, and

The maximum 2016 LLD concentration of <0.084 pCi/g (dry).Using these conservative parameters, the potential dose to the maximum exposed individual (teenager) would be 0.00028 mrem/year to the whole body and 0.00033 mrem/year to the skin. This calculated dose is very small and is insignificant when compared to the natural background annual exposure of approximately 50 (this was different in previous years) mrem as measured by control TLDs in the vicinity of the site.

D.Data Trends Cs-137 was not detected at the indicator and control sample locations from 2008through 2016.The general absence of Cs-137 in the indicator and control samples can be attributedto changing lake levels and shoreline erosion. Recent soil samples, from locationsbeyond any expected influence from the site , have contained levels of Cs-137 equalto or greater than the concentrations found in shoreline samples collected in the past.Cs-137 is commonly found in soil samples and is attributed to weapons testingfallout.The previous ten year data trend for indicator shoreline samples showed an overalldownward trend in concentration measured at the indicator sample locations. Overthe previous ten year period maximum concentration at the indicator locations was 0.04pCi/g (dry) in 2007. Cs-137 was not detected at the indicator location for 2008 through2016. This continues to support the long term decreasing tren d in Cs-137 concentrationin shoreline sediment samples. Cs-137 was not detected in the control samplescollected over the previous ten years.Shoreline sediment sampling at the indicator location commenced in 1985. Prior to1985, no data was available for long term trend analysis.Section 7.0, Tables 7-1 and 7-2 illustrate historical environmental data for shorelinesediment samples.

5.1.2 FISH SAMPLE RESULTS A.Results SummaryA total of 18 fish samples we re collected for the 2016 sample program. The analyticalresults for the 2016 fish samp les showed no detectable concentration of radionuclidethat would be attributable to plant operations at the site or past atmospheric weaponstesting. Since 2002, no Cs-137 has been measured in fish samples. Over the previous20 years prior to 2003, Cs-137 has been detected at a combination of both the indicatorand/or control locations. (Refer to Tables 7-3 and 7-4). These low levels of Cs-137represented no significant dose to man or impact on the environment.The 2016 fish sample results demonstrate that plant operations at the Nine Mile Point Site have no measurable radiological environmental impact on the upper levels of theLake Ontario food chain. The 2016 results are consistent with previous year's resultsin that they continue to support the general long-term downward trend in fish Cs-137concentrations over the last 25 years. Cs-137 was not detected in fish samplescollected from 2003 to 2016 at indicator locations.B.Data Evaluation and DiscussionFish collections were made utilizing gill ne ts at one location greater than five milesfrom the site (Oswego Harbor area) and at two locations in the vicinity of the lakedischarges for the NMPNS and the JAFNPP facilities. The Oswego Harbor samplesserved as control samples while the NMPNS and JAFNPP samples served asindicator samples. All samples were analyzed for gamma emitters. Section 6.0, Table 6-2 shows individual results for all the samples collected in 2016 in units ofpCi/g (wet).The spring fish collection was made up of 9 individual samples representing threeseparate species.

Brown Trout, Smallmouth Bass, and Walleye were collected.The fall fish collection was comprised of 9 individual samples representing threeindividual species. Chinook Salmon, Smallmouth Bass and Walleye were collected.Due to the inability to gill net walleye a second independent sample of ChinookSalmon was used. Results recorded in Tabl e 6-2 labeled sample results as ChinookSalmon 1 and Chinook Salmon 2.C.Dose EvaluationFish represent the highest level in the aquatic food chain and have the potential to be a contributor to the dose to man from the operations at the site. The lack ofdetectable concentrations of plant-related radionuclides in the 2016 fish samplesdemonstrates that there is no dose to man attributable from operations at the site throughthe aquatic pathway. Some Lake Ontario fish species may be considered an importantfood source due to the local sport fishing industry. Therefore, these fish are anintegral part of the human food chain.

D.Data Tr endsThe positive detection of Cs-137 in fish samples ceased in 2003. The graphbelow illustrates the mean c ontrol and indicator Cs-137 concentrations for 20 16 and the previous fourteen ye ars.The general long-term decreasing trend for Cs-137, illustrated in the graph below, 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 th e result of weapons testing fallout. The general downward trend in concentrations will continue as a function of additional ecological cycling and radiological decay. The data trend shows a consis tent level of Cs-137 measured in fish between 1997 and 1998. After 1998, the number of positive detections drops off as noted in the five year trend. The 1995 through 2016 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 and analyzed. These additional locations are the Oswego City Water Intake, the NMP1 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 2016 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 2016 REMP program. The results for the 2016 samples showed no positive detection of tritium above 500 pCi/L.

B. Da ta Ev a luation and Discussion Ga mma sp ec t ral analy sis was performed on mo nthly composite samples from five Lak e O nt ario sa mp l in g lo cati ons. No plant-related radionu c lides were det ected in 2016 samples. This is c on sistent w ith histori cal data, w hich has not shown the p resence of pl a nt-related ra dionu c lides in surface water samples.

The trit ium results for the JAFNPP i nlet canal samples c ont a ined no posi tive det ec ti o ns. The 2016 results had LLD va lues that ranged from <336 pCi/l to <

477 pC i/l. The OD C M Control lo ca t ion (Os wego St ea m Station inle t canal) result s sho wed no positive det ec tions and the sa mple results had LLD va lues in the range of <191 pCi/l to <4 73 pC i/l. Tr itium was not det ected in any of the t we lve optional Lake O nt ario samples coll ec ted in the 2016 prog ram. The Os wego City Water Supply is sampled to monitor drinking water qu a lit y and is re p rese ntat ive of a control lo ca t io n due to its distance from the site. The ci ty water inle t is lo cated 7.8 m iles west of th e sit e in an "upstream" direc t ion based on the cu rrent pa tt erns in the lak e. The fol lowing is a summary of LLD results for the 2016 sample prog ram: Sample Locati on Tritium Con ce n tr ation pCi/liter Minimum M aximum Mean (A nn u al) J A F I nl e t (Indi ca to r)* <336 <477 <399 O s we g o S t ea m I nl e t (C on t r ol)* <191 <473 <363 N M P #1 I nl e t <190 <474 <360 N M P #2 I nl e t <188 <464 <359 O s we g o Cit y W a t e r S u pp ly <186 <471 <358

Sample loca tion required by ODCM The a bove LLD va lues are be low the ODCM required LLD va lue of 3000 pC i/l. Analy ti cal re sults for surface water samples are f ound in S ec t io n 6.0 , Ta bles 6-3 th r ough 6-4. C. Dose Ev a lu ation The radiologi cal imp act to me mb ers of the public from lo w level s of tritiu m in water i s insig nifi cant. This can be illust rated by calc ul ating a dose to the whole body and maximum organ using the maximum LLD va lue and Reg ul a to r y Guide 1.1 0 9 me th odolog y. Based o n a water ingest ion rate of 510 liters/yr and a m aximum LL D con ce n trat ion of <477 pC i/l, the c alcula ted d os e would b e less than 0.049 mrem per year to the child whole body and less than 0.049 mrem per year to the child liver (critical age group/organ).

D.Data Tr endsThere are no data trends for gamma emitters such as Cs-137 and Co-60 as historicallythese radionuclides have not been detected in lake water samples.Tritium results for the 2016 lake water samp les were consistent with results fr om the previous five years for both the indicator and control locations. The mean 2016 tritiumconcentrations were <363 pCi/l for the control and <399 pCi/l for the indicator locatio n.For the previous five years, there were no positive detections for the indicator and controllocations. This previous five year data set is consistent with long term tritium resultsmeasured at the site. The indicator data from the previous ten year period, 2007 through2016, tritium concentrations show no detectable levels of tritium measured. The 1999 mean control value of 365 pCi/l is the highest concentration measured since1987 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 locationclosely approximates the Oswego Steam Station, the current control location. There isno existing preoperational data for comparison to recent data.Historical data for Surface Water Tritium is presented in Section 7.0, Tables 7-7 and 7-8

5.2 TERRESTRIAL

PROGRAM The terrestrial program consists of samples collected from four environmental pathways. These pathways are:

Airborne particul ate and radioiodine

Direct Radiation

Milk*Food ProductsSection 6.0, Tables 6-5 through 6-12 present the analytical results for the terrestrial samples collected for the 2016 reporting period. 5.2.1 AIR PARTICULATE GROSS BETA A.Results SummaryWeekly air samples were collected and analyzed for particul ate gross beta activity. Forthe 2016 program, a total of 53 samples were collected from control location R5 and212 samples were collected from indicator locations R1, R2, R3, and R4. These fivelocations are required by the ODCM. Additional air sampling locations are maintainedand are discussed in Section 5.2.1.B below. The mean gross beta concentration forsamples collected from the control location (R5) in 2016 was 0.014 pCi/m

3. The meangross beta concentration for the samples collected from the indicator locations (R1,R2, R3, and R4) in 2016 was 0.015 pCi/m

3. The consistency between the indicator andcontrol mean values, demonstrates that there are no increased airborne radioactivity levelsin the general vicinity of the site from plant effluents.B.Data Evaluation and DiscussionThe air monitoring system consists of fifteen sample locations, six onsite and nine offsite.

Each location is sampled weekly for particulate gross beta activity. A total of795 samples were collected and analyzed as part of the 2016 program. In addition,optional offsite and onsite air sample locations are maintained from which weeklysamples are collected. The optional offsite locations are designated as D2, E, F and G.The optional onsite locations are designated as D1, G, H, I, J and K.

Gross beta analysis requires that the samples be counted no sooner than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months 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 we ekly 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: Location Concentration pCi/m 3MinimumMaximum Mean R1 0.008 0.023 0.015 R2 0.008 0.024 0.015 R3 0.009 0.022 0.015 R4 0.008 0.025 0.015 R5 (control) 0.008 0.022 0.014 The mean weekly gross beta concentrations measured in 2016 are illustrated in the following graphs:

The f lu c tu a tions obs erved in the gr oss beta acti vi t y over the year can be a tt r ibuted to changes in the environme nt, e sp ecially s easonal changes. The c on cent ra tions o f na tu rally-o cc u rr in g radionuclides in the lo wer levels of the a tm osph ere di r ec tly above the land are affected by time-related pro ce sses such as w in d direc tion, precipitation, snow c over, soil temperature and soil mois ture conte nt. C.Dose Ev a lu ation D os e calc ulat ions are no t performed based on gr oss beta c on ce ntra ti o ns. D ose to ma nas a result of ra d io ac t iv it y in air is calc ulated using the sp ecific radi onuclide and the a ssociated dose fa c tor. See S ec t io n 5.2.2.C for dose calculation s from ai r c on ce nt ra tion s.The dose rece ived by man from air gr oss beta con ce ntra tion is a component of the na tu ra l b ackgr ound.D.Da ta TrendsWith the ex cept ion of the 1986 sam ple data, which was affected by the Ch er noby l acc id e nt , the general t rend in air p ar ticulate gr oss beta ac ti v it y has been one o f decreasing ac tivi ty since 1981, when the m ean co ntrol value was 0.165 pC i/m 3. T he 1981 samples were affected by fallout from a Chinese a tmo s ph eric nucl ear test w hi c h was carried out in 1 980.Th e m ean gr oss bet a con ce nt ration m ea su red in 1969 to 2016 ar e ill u strated in th e follo w ing g ra ph:

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 due to natural variations. The change in concentrations over the period of 2007 through 2016 is very small. This is illustrated by the following graph. The mean annual gross beta concentration at the control station (R5) has remained steady with a narrow range of 0.014 pCi/m 3 to 0.018 pCi/m

3. The mean annual concentrations for the indicator stations for this same time period were similar to the control and ranged from a minimum of 0.015 pCi/m 3 to a maximum mean of 0.018 pCi/m 3 in 2011. 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 the Nine Mile Point Site. Five o f the 15 air monitoring stations are required by the ODCM and are located offsite near the site boundary and offsite as a control location. Ten additional air samplingstations are also maintained as part of the sampling program. Together, these fifteencontinuous air sampling stations make up a comprehensive environmentalmonitoring network for measuring radioactive air particulate concentrations in the environs of the site. Annually, the fifteen air monitoring stations maintained aro u n dthe Nine Mile Point Site provide 795 individual air particulate samples which areassembled by location into 60 quarterly composite samples. The quarterly composites are analyzed using gamma spectroscopy.0.0000.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.0302007200820092010201120122013201420152016 pCi/m3Air Particulate Filter -Gross BetaINDICATORCONTROL No plant-related gamma emitting radionuclides were detected in any of the air particulate filter sample s collected during 2016. The gamma analysis results for the quarterly composite samples routinely showed positive detections of Be-7 and K-40. Both of these radionuclides are naturally occurring. B. Data Evaluation Discussion A total of fifteen air sampling stations ar e in continuous operati on and located both onsite and in the offsite s ectors surrounding the Nine Mile Point Site. Each of the weekly air particulate filters collected fo r the quarter is assembled by location to form quarterly composite samples. The quarterly composite samples required by the ODCM are composite samples assembled for R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5. Other sample locations not required by the ODCM, fo r 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 2016 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 2016. The monthly air particulate sampling program demonstrated no offsite dose to man from this pathway as a result of operations of the plants located at the Nine Mile Point Site (NMP). D. Data Trends No plant related radionuclides were detected during 2016 at the offsite air monitoring locations. The ten 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 NMP1 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. Cs-137 was again detected in 1986 as a result of the Chernobyl accident. Since 1986 there have been no detections of Cs-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. 5.2.3 AIRBORNE RADIOIODINE (I-131)

A. Results Summary Iodine-131 was not detected in any of the 795 samples analyzed for the 2016 program. B. Data Evaluation and Discussion Airborne radioiodine (I-131) is monitored at the fifteen air sampling stations also used to collect air particulate samples. There are five offsite locations, required by the ODCM. Ten air sampling locations are also maintained in addition to those required by the ODCM. Six of these stations D1, 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 effluents is not evaluated due to the fact that no I-131 was detected in 2016. The I-131 sampling program demonstrated no offsite dose to man from this pathway as a result of operation of the plants located at Nine Mile Point.

D. Data Trends There was no I-131 detected in any of the samples, collected from the 15 sample stations, for 2012 through 2016. 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 of I-131 in air samples collected from 2002 to 2010. I-131 has previously been detected in samples collected in 1986 and 1987. The 1986 detection of I-131 was the result of the Chernobyl accident and the 1987 detection was the result of plant operations. I-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/m

3. During 1977 this mean decreased to 0.32 pCi/m 3, and further decreased by a factor of ten to 0.03 pCi/m 3 in 1978. I-131 was not detected in samples collected from the control location during 1979 - 1981 and 1983 to 1985. I-131 was detected once at the control location during 1982 at a concentration of 0.039 pCi/m

3. Historical data for I-131 are presented in Section 7.0, Tables 7-13 and 7-14.

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 2016 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 2016. 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)

Site Boundary (area of the site boundary in each of the 16 meteorological sectors: Only includes 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, 97)

Control (areas beyond significant influence of the site, includes TLD #s 8, 14, 49) 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 2016 dose rates for each of the five geographical locations is as follows: Geographic Category Dose in m rem pe r st anda rd month Min Max Mean Onsite (Option al) 3.5 11.3 4.8 Site Boun d ary (Inne r Ring)

3.5 4.8 4.0 Offsite Secto rs (Oute r Ring)

3.3 4.6 3.9 Speci al Interest

3.5 4.4 3.9 Cont r ol

3.6 5.2 4.2

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 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 2016 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 FitzPatrick plant 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 2016, 32 of which are required by ODCM. These locations are grouped into five geographi cal location categories for evaluation of results. The five categories include: Ons ite, Site Boundary, Offsite Sector, Special Interest and Control locations. All ca tegories 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 radi ation levels at and around the NMP1, NMP2 and JAFNPP facilities.

Onsite TLD result results ranged from 3.5 to 11.3 mrem per standard month resulting in an average dose rate of 4.8 mrem per standard month in 2016. The highest dose rate measured at a location required by the ODCM was 8.2 mrem per standard month. This TLD, (TLD 87) represents the site boundary maximum dose and is located in the NNW sector along the lake shore close to the plants (TLD #s: 23, 75, 76, 77, 85, 86 and 87) are influenced by radw aste buildings and radwaste shipping activities. These locations are not accessible to member s 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 3.3 to 4.6 mrem per standard month with an average dosed rate of 3.9 mrem per standard month.

Special Interest TLDs from all locations ranged from 3.5 to 4.4 mrem per standard month with an average dose rate of 3.9 mrem per standard month.

The Control TLD group required by the ODC M utilized locations positioned well beyond the site. 2016 Control TLD results ranged from 3.6 to 5.2 mrem per standard month with an annual average dose rate of 4.2 mrem standard month.

TLD analysis results are presen ted in Section 6.0, Table 6-10. C.Dose Evaluation 2016 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: 4.0 mrem per standard month (TLD #s: 7,18, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84)Offsite Sectors: 3.9 mrem per standard month (TLD #s: 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95)Special Interest: 3.9 mrem per standard month (TLD #s: 15, 56, 58, 96, 97)Control: 4.2 mrem per standard month (TLD #s: 8, 14, 49)

The measured mean dose rate in the proximit y of the closest resident was 4.0 mrem perstandard month (TLD #s: 108, 109) which is consistent with the control measurements of4.2 mrem per standard month.

The mean annual dose for each of the geographic location categories demonstrates thatthere 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 thelevels of direct radiation present in the offsite environment.D.Data TrendsA comparison of historical TLD results can be made using the different geographicalcategories of measurement locations. These include Site Boundary TLDs located ineach of the 16 meteorological sectors, TLDs located offsite in each land based sector ata distance of 4 to 5 miles from the site, TLDs located at special interest areas and TLDslocated at control locations. Site Boundary, Offsite Sector and Special Interest TLDlocations became effective in 1985; therefore, trends for these results can only beevaluated from 1985 to the present.

The following graph illustrates TLD results for the Control, Site Boundary, Offsite Sectors and Special Interest groups from 2000 through 2016:

The 2016 TLD program results, when compared to the previous ten years, showed no significant trends relative to increased dose rates in the environment. Historical data for the various TLD groupings are presented in Section 7.0, Tables 7-15 through 7-20.

5.2.5 MILK A. Results Summary A total of 36 milk samples were collected during the 2016 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-131 (I-131). I-131, a possible plant related radionuclide, is measured to evaluate the cow milk dose pathway to man. I-131 was not detected in any of the 36 milk samples collected in 2016 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 2016. K-40 was detected in all indicator and control samples. K-40 is a naturally occurring radionuclide and is found in many environmental sample media. The 2016 results demonstrate that routine operations of the Nine Mile Point Site 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 2016. 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 2016 due to I-131 not having been detected in samples collected during November and December of 2015, as stipulated in the ODCM.

C. Data Evaluation and Discussion Each milk sample is analyzed for gamma emitters using gamma spectral analysis. The I-131 analysis is performed using resin extraction followed by spectral analysis for each sample. I-131 and gamma analysis results for milk samples collected during 2016 are provided in Section 6.0, Table 6-11. Iodine-131 was not detected in any indicator or control milk samples analyzed during 2016. 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 2016. K-40 was the most abundant radionuclide detected, and found in every indicator and control sample collected. K-40 is a naturally-occurring radionuclide and is found in many of the environmental media samples. Cs-137 was not detected in any indicator or control milk sample collected in 2016. D. 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. The dose to man from naturally occurring concentrations of K-40 in milk and other environmental media can be calculated. This calculation illustrates that the dose received 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 environmental samples. A 70 kilogram (154 pound) adult contains approximately 0.1 microcuries of K-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 naturally-occurring K-40. E. Data Trends Man-made radionuclides are not routinely detected in milk samples. In the past thirty years, Cs-137 was only detected in 1986, 1987, and 1988. The mean Cs-137 indicator activities for those years were 8.6, 7.4 and 10.0 pCi/liter, respectively. I-131 was measured in two milk samples collected in 1997 from a single sample location, having a mean concentration of 0.35 pCi/liter and was of undetermined origin. The previous detection was in 1986 with a mean concentration of 13.6 pCi/liter. The 1986 activity was a result of the Chernobyl accident. The comparison of 2016 data to historical results over the operating life of the plants shows that Cs-137 and I-131 levels in milk dropped to less than the lower limit of detection since 1988. Historical data of milk sample results for Cs-137 and I-131 are presented in Section 7.0, Tables 7-21 and 7-22.

5.2.6 FOOD PRODUCTS (VEGETATION)

A. Results Summary There were no plant-related radionuclides detected in the nine food product samples collected and analyzed for the 2016 program. Detectable levels of naturally occurring K-40 were measured in all of the indicator and control samples collected for the 2016 program. Be-7 and Th-228 both naturally-occurring radionuclides, were also detected intermittently in samples collected in 2016. These results are consistent with the levels measured in 2015 and previous years. The results of the 2016 sampling program demonstrate that there is no measurable impact on the dose to the public from the garden pathway as a result of plant operations. B. Data Analysis and Discussion Food product samples were collected from two 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 15.4 miles away in a predominately upwind

direction. Food product samples collected during 2016 included both edible and nonedible vegetation. Nonedible samples include: grape leaves, horseradish leaves, rhubarb leaves, squash leaves and pumpkin leaves. The edible vegetation used in this year's sampling was cabbage. The leaves of these plants were sampled as representative of broadleaf vegetation which is a measurement of radionuclide deposition. Samples 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 2016 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, K-40 and Th-228 were detected in 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 EvaluationThe calculated dose as a result of plant effluents is not evaluated due to the fact that no plant-related radionuclides were detected. The food product sampling programdemonstrated no measurable offsite dose to man from this pathway as a result of operations of the plants located at Nine Mile Point.D.Data TrendsFood product/vegetation sample results for the last five years demonstrate that there isno chronic deposition or buildup of plant-related radionuclides in the garden foodproducts in the environs near the site.The last positive indication was for Cs-137 wh ich was detected at one indicator locationin 1999 with a concentration of 0.007 pCi/g (wet).

Historically, Cs-137 had been detected in ten separate years since 1976 ranging from amaximum 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 nondetectable levels in samples collected during the 2000 through 2016 sample programs.Historical data of food pr oduct results are presented in Section 7.0, Tables 7-23 and 7-24.5.2.7 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS A.Results SummaryThe ODCM requires that an annual land us e census be performed to identify potentialnew locations for milk sampling and for calculating the dose to man from plant effluents.In 2016 a milk animal census, a nearest resident census, and a garden census wereperformed.B.Data Evaluation and DiscussionA land 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 ofsurveys. A milk animal census is conducted to identify all milk animals within a distance of 10 miles from the site. This census, covering areas out to a distance of 10 milesexceeds the 5 mile distance required by the ODCM.A total of 225 milk cows and 167 heifers were observed. Additionally approximately30 goats were counted at one location during the survey. Attempts to contact theland owner were made by phone, post card and visitation but no response wasreceived. The milking/non-milking status of these approximately 30 goats is currentlyunknown. There are no farms with milking animals with the 5 mile radius of the site.

The second type of census c o n d ucted 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 meteorological sectors.

There are only eight secto rs over land where residences are located within 5 miles. The survey for 2016 found new construction located in the South Sector at 294 Miner Road, Lycoming, New York. The location was determined to b e 1.5 7 miles away from the center of the JAF Reactor Building at the 179 degr ee line. The new location is closer than the pr eviously used 2 6 8 Miner Road address, which was 1.59 miles away at the 173 degree line.

The results of the nearest residence census, sh owing the applicable sectors and direction and distance of each of the nearest residence, are found in Section 6.0, Table 6-14.

There was 1 change identified in the 2016 census

. A new residence was found in the S meteorologi cal sector an d it has been added to the residence census table. The nearest resident locations are illustrated in Section 3.3, Figure 3.3-5.

The results of the re sidence census conducted in 20 16 requ ired no chang e to FitzPatrick ODCM's closest resident location. A garden census, not req uired by the ODCM, is performed to identify appropriate garden sampling locations and dose calculation receptors. The 2 0 1 6 garden census iden tified a total of 63 gardens for consideration for the sampling program. Garden samples were collected from two locations (144 and 484) as well as a control location (C2) identified in census as active for 2016.

See Table 3.3-1 for 2016 sampling locations.

5.2.8 DIRECT

RADIATION, THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETERS (TLD)

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)

A. Results Summary Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure direct radiation (gamma dose) in the localized environment of the ISFSI pad. Eighteen TLD locations are in place around the perimeter of the ISFSI pad. TLDs were placed at these locations prior to loading the first storage casks for baseline dose rate determination in the general area of the pad.

As of the last ISFSI Campaign which ended in the fourth quarter of 2013 there are a total of 21 cask stored at the facility. The increase in dose rate is limited to the general area of the storage facility. The implementation and loading of the ISFSI project has resulted in no increase in dose at the site boundary or to the public. The analysis of offsite doses from direct radiation measurements, 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 normal variation when compared to the Control TLD results. The results for the 2016 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 radiation 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 2016 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 becoming 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 pad. C. Dose Evaluation A maximum dose rate of 50.7 mrem per standard month above the baseline dose rate was measured at the north perimeter fence. The lowest measured dose rate of 2016 was 12.2 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 2016 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 2015. 2016 DOSE IN MREM PER STANDARD MONTH Minimum Maximum Mean Site Boundary 3.5 4.8 4.0 Control 3.6 5.2 4.2

5.3 CONCLUSION

The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) is an ongoing program implemented to measure and document the radiol ogical impact of JAFNPP operations on the local environment. The program is designed to detect and evaluate small changes in the radiological environment surrounding 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 of a comprehensive sampling program. Results of all samples are reviewed closely to determine any possible impact to the environment or to man. In addition, program results are evaluated for possible short-term and long-term historical trends. The federal government has established dose limits to protect the public from radiation and radioactivity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies a whole body dose limit of 100 mrem/yr to be 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 Protection Agency (EPA) limits the annual whole body dose to 25 mrem/yr, which is specified in Section 10, Part 190, Title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 190). Radiation exposure to members of the public, calculated based on th e results of the REMP, is extremely small. The dose to members of the public from operations at the Nine Mile Point site, based on environmental measurement and calculations made from effluent releases, is determined to be a fraction of limits set forth by the NRC and EPA. The REMP continues to demonstrate that the effluents from the site to the environment 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 no 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 impact on the environment continues to be the result of atmospheric weapons testing conducted in the early 1980's, the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, and the March 11, 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The REMP did not detect any plant-related radionuclide in the sample media collected during 2016. Dose from man-made sources in the environment is very small when compared to the dose originating from naturally-occurring sources of radioactivity. Radiation from naturally-occurring radionuclides such as K-40 and Ra-226 contributed the vast majority of the total 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 background levels and sources other than the plants. The whole body dose in Oswego County due to natural sources is approximately 50 mrem per individual per year as demonstrated by control environmental TLDs. The fraction of the annual dose to man, attributable to site operation, remains insignificant. Based upon the overall results of the 2016 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, it can be concluded that the levels and variation of radioactivity in the environment samples were consistent with background levels. Effluents from the site to the environment contribute no significant or even measurable radiation exposures to the general public.

5.4 REFERENCES

1. 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, 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 Regulatory 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 (NCRP), 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 Measurements (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. 10. 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. Department 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.

6.0 REPORT

PERIOD ANALYTICAL RESULTS TABLES Environmental sample data is summarized in table format. Tables are provided for select sample media and contain data based on actual values obtained over the year. These values are comprised of both positive values and LLD (Lower Limit of Detection) values where applicable. 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 the initial count of a sample indicates the presence of radioactivity, two recounts are normally performed. When 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). 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 activation or fission process.

SAMPLECOLLECTION f LOCATION***

DATE Sunset Bay (05) *04/18/1618390+/-992<66<155<70<84<LLD10/14/1617460+/-778<56<157<64<74<LLDMEAN17925+/-658 Lang's Beach (06 Control)04/18/1610250+/-645<66<135<62<64<LLD 10/14/169007+/-470<35<88<35<36<LLDMEAN9629+/-879

Sample required by the ODCM

- - Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-5 f Plant related radionuclides TABLE 6-1 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SHORELINE SEDIMENT SAMPLES - 2016 Results in Units of pCi/kg (dry) +/- 1 Sigma OthersK-40Co-60Zn-65Cs-134Cs-137 SAMPLE COLLECTIONDESCRIPTIONK-40Mn-54Co-58Fe-59Co-60Zn-65Cs-134Cs-137 f LOCATION***

DATE FITZPATRICK * (03)***

05/11/16 Walleye2996+/-177<17<18<37<19<40<16<20<LLD05/11/16Brown Trout3291+/-241<40<38<79<41<95<46<42<LLD05/11/16Smallmouth Bass3534+/-170<18<18<32<18<40<18<18<LLD 09/13/16 Walleye3398+/-506<54<63<151<60<151<56<67<LLD09/13/16Chinook Salmon3434+/-427<41<53<112<36<117<50<44<LLD09/20/16Smallmouth Bass4029+/-349<35<38<95<27<77<36<36<LLD NINE MILE POINT * (02)***

05/11/16 Walleye3566+/-247<31<27<66<30<62<27<35<LLD 05/11/16 Brown Trout3963+/-189<22<23<46<22<53<23<24<LLD05/11/16Smallmouth Bass4118+/-225<24<26<47<20<49<23<25<LLD 09/13/16 Walleye2973+/-317<31<37<81<28<67<29<41<LLD09/13/16Chinook Salmon3791+/-528<61<51<126<68<149<51<55<LLD09/13/16Smallmouth Bass3813+/-562<63<77<104<70<154<68<78<LLD OSWEGO HARBOR (CONTROL) * (00)***

05/11/16 Walleye4048+/-209<22<20<43<23<37<19<21<LLD05/11/16Brown Trout4021+/-165<18<16<35<17<38<17<20<LLD 05/12/16Smallmouth Bass2913+/-225<33<32<63<32<72<32<34<LLD09/13/16Chinook Salmon

¹3547+/-337<41<37<84<43<100<35<52<LLD09/13/16Chinook Salmon

²3545+/-583<73<84<170<85<155<62<81<LLD09/13/16Smallmouth Bass2332+/-376<46<43<96<51<93<42<51<LLD

Sample required by the ODCM

- - Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-5 f Plant related radionuclides Others TABLE 6-2 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN FISH SAMPLES - 2016 Results in Units of pCi/kg (wet) +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE COLLECTION DESCRIPTION H-3 LOCATION***

DATE12/29/15-03/29/16 First Quarter<33603/29/16-06/30/16Second Quarter<34406/30/16-09/29/16Third Quarter<477 09/29/16-01/03/17Fourth Quarter<438 OSWEGO STEAM STATION* (08, CONTROL)12/31/15-04/01/16 First Quarter<38204/01/16-07/01/16Second Quarter<191 07/01/16-09/30/16Third Quarter<473 09/30/16-12/30/16Fourth Quarter<404 NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1** (09, INLET)12/31/15-04/01/16 First Quarter<38004/01/16-07/01/16Second Quarter<190 07/01/16-09/30/16Third Quarter<47409/30/16-12/30/16Fourth Quarter<39612/31/15-04/01/16 First Quarter<38204/01/16-07/01/16Second Quarter<18607/01/16-09/30/16Third Quarter<471 09/30/16-12/30/16Fourth Quarter<394 NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2** (11, INLET)12/31/15-04/01/16 First Quarter<38604/01/16-07/01/16Second Quarter<18807/01/16-09/30/16Third Quarter<464 09/30/16-12/30/16Fourth Quarter<397*Sample required by the ODCM

- Optional sample location

- - Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4 FITZPATRICK * (03, INLET)

OSWEGO CITY WATER** (10)

CONCENTRATIONS OF TRITIUM IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES - 2016 TABLE 6-3 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLECOLLECTIONI-131Mn-54Co-58Fe-59Co-60Zn-65Nb-95Zr-95Cs-134Cs-137Ba-La-140LOCATIONDATE FITZPATRICK* (03, INLET)***01/28/16<0.9<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<602/26/16<0.5<2<2<4<1<3<2<3<2<2<5 03/29/16<0.9<1<2<4<1<3<2<3<1<1<6 04/27/16<0.5<4<4<9<4<8<4<6<3<3<9 05/31/16<0.1<1<2<4<1<3<2<3<1<1<6 06/30/16<0.6<2<2<4<2<3<2<3<1<2<6 07/28/16<0.5<1<2<4<1<3<2<3<1<1<5 08/29/16<0.7<2<2<4<2<3<2<3<2<2<5 09/29/16<0.7<1<2<4<1<3<2<3<1<1<5 10/26/16<0.8<2<3<6<2<5<3<5<2<3<8 11/28/16<0.2<3<3<7<3<6<3<5<2<3<9 01/03/17<0.4<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<7 OSWEGO STEAM STATION* (08 CONTROL)***01/29/16<0.8<2<2<4<2<3<2<4<2<2<7 02/26/16<0.5<1<1<3<1<2<1<2<1<1<5 04/01/16<0.5<1<1<3<1<2<1<2<1<1<5 04/29/16<0.7<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<1<2<7 06/03/16<0.5<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<6 07/01/16<0.4<2<2<4<2<3<2<3<2<2<7 07/29/16<0.7<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<6 09/02/16<0.6<1<1<3<1<2<1<2<1<1<5 09/30/16<0.6<2<2<4<2<3<2<3<1<2<6 10/28/16<0.6<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<6 12/02/16<1.0<2<2<4<2<3<2<4<2<2<6 12/30/16<0.5<1<2<4<1<3<2<3<1<1<4

Sample required by the ODCM

- - Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4 TABLE 6-4 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES - 2016 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLECOLLECTIONI-131Mn-54Co-58Fe-59Co-60Zn-65Nb-95Zr-95Cs-134Cs-137Ba-La-140LOCATIONDATE NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1 (09, INLET)***01/29/16<10<1<2<4<1<3<2<3<1<1<602/26/16<12<1<2<3<1<3<2<3<1<1<6 04/01/16<7<1<1<2<1<1<1<1<1<1<3 04/29/16<14<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<7 06/03/16<15<2<3<7<3<5<3<5<2<2<10 07/01/16<11<1<2<4<1<3<2<3<1<1<6 07/29/16<13<2<2<6<2<5<3<5<2<2<8 09/02/16<13<1<1<3<1<2<1<2<1<1<5 09/30/16<13<1<2<4<2<3<2<3<1<1<6 10/28/16<12<2<3<6<2<5<3<5<2<2<7 12/02/16<10<1<1<3<1<2<2<3<1<1<5 12/30/16<11<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<6 OSWEGO CITY WATER (10)***01/29/16<12<1<2<4<2<3<2<3<1<2<6 02/26/16<10<1<1<3<1<2<1<2<1<1<4 04/01/16<10<1<1<3<1<2<1<2<1<1<4 04/29/16<14<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<6 06/03/16<13<2<2<4<1<3<2<4<2<2<5 07/01/16<14<2<2<6<2<4<2<4<2<2<7 07/29/16<9<2<2<4<2<4<2<4<2<2<5 09/02/16<14<1<1<3<1<2<1<2<1<1<6 09/30/16<14<1<2<4<2<3<2<3<1<2<7 10/28/16<9<1<2<4<2<3<2<3<1<2<5 12/02/16<14<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<8 12/30/16<10<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 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma TABLE 6-4 (continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES - 2016 SAMPLECOLLECTIONI-131Mn-54Co-58Fe-59Co-60Zn-65Nb-95Zr-95Cs-134Cs-137Ba-La-140LOCATIONDATE NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2* (11, INLET)***01/29/16<13<2<2<4<1<3<2<3<1<2<602/26/16<11<1<2<3<1<3<2<2<1<1<5 04/01/16<12<1<1<2<1<2<1<2<1<1<4 04/29/16<13<2<2<4<2<3<2<3<2<2<7 06/03/16<13<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<7 07/01/16<15<2<2<4<2<3<2<3<1<2<6 07/29/16<12<2<3<7<2<5<3<5<2<2<8 09/02/16<15<1<1<3<1<2<1<2<1<1<5 09/30/16<15<2<2<4<2<3<2<3<2<2<7 10/28/16<12<2<2<5<2<4<2<4<2<2<7 12/02/16<14<2<2<4<2<4<2<4<2<2<6 12/30/16<8<2<2<4<2<3<2<3<2<2<5

Sample required by the ODCM

- - Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma TABLE 6-4 (continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES - 2016 R1*R2*R3*R4*R5*D2**E**F**G**12/29/15-01/05/1618+/-120+/-121+/-122+/-121+/-119+/-119+/-117+/-121+/-101/05/16-01/12/1615+/-116+/-116+/-116+/-117+/-120+/-117+/-117+/-117+/-101/12/16-01/19/1622+/-123+/-117+/-120+/-117+/-115+/-118+/-117+/-119+/-101/19/16-01/26/1613+/-113+/-112+/-112+/-111+/-110+/-114+/-115+/-112+/-101/26/16-02/02/1617+/-119+/-116+/-120+/-119+/-115+/-119+/-119+/-119+/-102/02/16-02/09/1615+/-113+/-114+/-114+/-115+/-115+/-115+/-116+/-115+/-102/09/16-02/17/1614+/-111+/-112+/-111+/-113+/-112+/-115+/-113+/-112+/-102/17/16-02/23/1614+/-114+/-115+/-115+/-112+/-114+/-114+/-116+/-116+/-102/23/16-03/01/1615+/-116+/-115+/-113+/-113+/-113+/-116+/-116+/-213+/-103/01/16-03/08/1614+/-115+/-112+/-116+/-112+/-112+/-113+/-19+/-113+/-103/08/16-03/15/1613+/-113+/-112+/-113+/-112+/-113+/-113+/-16+/-114+/-103/15/16-03/22/1610+/-111+/-19+/-110+/-18+/-110+/-110+/-110+/-110+/-103/22/16-03/29/1616+/-1(1)15+/-114+/-114+/-116+/-116+/-118+/-117+/-103/29/16-04/05/1617+/-117+/-114+/-117+/-117+/-120+/-117+/-116+/-114+/-104/05/16-04/12/1617+/-117+/-118+/-118+/-119+/-115+/-119+/-119+/-117+/-

104/12/16-04/19/1619+/-118+/-120+/-122+/-117+/-117+/-120+/-118+/-121+/-104/19/16-04/26/1619+/-117+/-118+/-118+/-116+/-118+/-118+/-120+/-119+/-104/26/16-05/03/1612+/-112+/-112+/-112+/-111+/-111+/-112+/-113+/-112+/-105/03/16-05/10/168+/-18+/-19+/-18+/-110+/-111+/-1 9+/-110+/-18+/-105/10/16-05/17/1611+/-113+/-116+/-113+/-110+/-112+/-111+/-112+/-113+/-105/17/16-05/24/1612+/-115+/-113+/-125+/-215+/-117+/-115+/-116+/-117+/-105/24/16-06/01/1623+/-123+/-122+/-121+/-120+/-119+/-120+/-122+/-123+/-106/01/16-06/07/1613+/-112+/-19+/-117+/-114+/-111+/-115+/-113+/-113+/-106/07/16-06/14/1611+/-19+/-19+/-111+/-111+/-110+/-19+/-111+/-110+/-106/14/16-06/21/1610+/-113+/-112+/-112+/-112+/-

111+/-113+/-113+/-114+/-106/21/16-06/28/1616+/-113+/-113+/-116+/-116+/-117+/-117+/-115+/-116+/-1

Sample required by the ODCM

- Optional sample location (1)-Sample lost due to equipment failure COLLECTION TABLE 6-5 ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE PARTICULATE SAMPLES - OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 201 6 GROSS BETA ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma DATE R1*R2*R3*R4*R5*D2**E**F**G**06/28/16-07/06/1617+/-116+/-114+/-119+/-123+/-117+/-114+/-115+/-113+/-107/06/16-07/12/1623+/-124+/-221+/-120+/-119+/-119+/-119+/-118+/-123+/-107/12/16-07/19/1616+/-116+/-115+/-114+/-115+/-115+/-116+/-115+/-117+/-107/19/16-07/26/1617+/-118+/-117+/-116+/-118+/-114+/-117+/-119+/-117+/-107/26/16-08/02/1612+/-113+/-111+/-112+/-112+/-112+/-112+/-112+/-111+/-108/02/16-08/09/1613+/-112+/-114+/-113+/-111+/-113+/-111+/-113+/-112+/-108/09/16-08/16/1616+/-118+/-116+/-119+/-117+/-120+/-118+/-116+/-117+/-108/16/16-08/23/1617+/-117+/-115+/-114+/-112+/-111+/-115+/-114+/-115+/-108/23/16-08/30/1615+/-117+/-119+/-118+/-117+/-118+/-115+/-117+/-113+/-108/30/16-09/07/1619+/-118+/-114+/-120+/-117+/-117+/-117+/-117+/-118+/-109/07/16-09/13/1615+/-116+/-116+/-116+/-114+/-113+/-115+/-116+/-114+/-109/13/16-09/20/1617+/-116+/-118+/-115+/-116+/-114+/-114+/-113+/-115+/-109/20/16-09/27/1614+/-115+/-114+/-116+/-115+/-114+/-116+/-115+/-113+/-109/27/16-10/04/1613+/-111+/-113+/-112+/-111+/-110+/-19+/-111+/-110+/-110/04/16-10/11/1616+/-114+/-115+/-116+/-118+/-116+/-118+/-116+/-115+/-110/11/16-10/18/1614+/-117+/-116+/-116+/-115+/-115+/-116+/-116+/-119+/-210/18/16-10/25/169+/-110+/-111+/-19+/-111+/-111+/-111+/-112+/-111+/-110/25/16-11/01/1614+/-210+/-19+/-113+/-110+/-18+/-17+/-110+/-112+/-111/01/16-11/08/1615+/-116+/-116+/-115+/-116+/-116+/-116+/-118+/-116+/-111/08/16-11/15/1615+/-113+/-116+/-116+/-114+/-113+/-115+/-116+/-116+/-111/15/16-11/22/1620+/-119+/-122+/-122+/-120+/-121+/-121+/-122+/-119+/-111/22/16-11/29/1612+/-111+/-110+/-18+/-111+/-19+/-110+/-17+/-111+/-111/29/16-12/06/1610+/-18+/-111+/-112+/-110+/-112+/-18+/-111+/-112+/-112/06/16-12/13/1614+/-112+/-112+/-111+/-111+/-115+/-111+/-112+/-113+/-112/13/16-12/20/1617+/-115+/-119+/-115+/-115+/-114+/-116+/-112+/-119+/-112/20/16-12/28/1617+/-117+/-117+/-116+/-116+/-115+/-117+/-115+/-118+/-112/28/16-01/04/1712+/-113+/-112+/-113+/-112+/-111+/-111+/-111+/-111+/-1

Sample required by the ODCM

- Optional sample location COLLECTION DATE TABLE 6-5 (continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE PARTICULATE SAMPLES - OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 201 6 GROSS BETA ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma D1**G**H**

I**J**K**12/28/15-01/04/1618+/-122+/-117+/-120+/-119+/-119+/-101/04/16-01/11/1614+/-119+/-117+/-118+/-115+/-117+/-101/11/16-01/18/1618+/-121+/-118+/-122+/-118+/-119+/-101/18/16-01/25/1610+/-111+/-19+/-110+/-113+/-112+/-101/25/16-02/01/1618+/-119+/-117+/-119+/-118+/-118+/-102/01/16-02/08/1614+/-112+/-115+/-115+/-114+/-117+/-102/08/16-02/15/1613+/-114+/-115+/-115+/-115+/-113+/-102/15/16-02/22/1615+/-113+/-115+/-115+/-114+/-114+/-102/22/16-02/29/1614+/-115+/-112+/-113+/-112+/-110+/-102/29/16-03/07/1615+/-116+/-114+/-113+/-113+/-113+/-103/07/16-03/14/1617+/-113+/-113+/-114+/-115+/-115+/-103/14/16-03/21/169+/-110+/-110+/-19+/-111+/-113+/-103/21/16-03/28/1616+/-117+/-115+/-114+/-117+/-115+/-103/28/16-04/04/1616+/-117+/-115+/-115+/-118+/-115+/-104/04/16-04/11/1619+/-119+/-118+/-120+/-117+/-119+/-104/11/16-04/18/1620+/-121+/-119+/-117+/-120+/-120+/-104/18/16-04/25/1619+/-121+/-117+/-119+/-119+/-118+/-104/25/16-05/02/1614+/-113+/-113+/-110+/-112+/-113+/-105/02/16-05/09/167+/-18+/-19+/-18+/-18+/-17+/-105/09/16-05/16/1614+/-112+/-112+/-113+/-112+/-113+/-105/16/16-05/23/1614+/-116+/-123+/-114+/-116+/-114+/-105/23/16-05/31/1623+/-126+/-126+/-120+/-123+/-121+/-105/31/16-06/06/1613+/-111+/-114+/-114+/-114+/-113+/-106/06/16-06/13/1610+/-112+/-110+/-111+/-111+/-110+/-106/13/16-06/20/1610+/-113+/-113+/-112+/-112+/-

113+/-106/20/16-06/27/1617+/-118+/-114+/-116+/-117+/-117+/-1

- Optional sample location DATE TABLE 6-6 GROSS BETA ACTIVITY 10E-3 p Ci/m 3 +/- 1 Si g ma ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE PARTICULATE SAMPLES - ONSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 201 6 COLLECTION D1**G**H**

I**J**K**06/27/16-07/05/1616+/-115+/-114+/-114+/-115+/-114+/-107/05/16-07/11/1621+/-221+/-122+/-220+/-120+/-222+/-207/11/16-07/18/1615+/-116+/-114+/-118+/-114+/-115+/-107/18/16-07/25/1617+/-116+/-118+/-116+/-116+/-116+/-107/25/16-08/01/1613+/-115+/-112+/-114+/-114+/-113+/-108/01/16-08/08/1614+/-113+/-116+/-114+/-114+/-114+/-108/08/16-08/15/1618+/-114+/-118+/-116+/-117+/-117+/-108/15/16-08/22/1615+/-116+/-113+/-116+/-116+/-116+/-108/22/16-08/29/1617+/-117+/-116+/-116+/-119+/-118+/-108/29/16-09/06/1618+/-116+/-116+/-116+/-116+/-114+/-109/06/16-09/12/1619+/-118+/-120+/-121+/-117+/-118+/-109/12/16-09/19/1613+/-113+/-113+/-112+/-114+/-112+/-109/19/16-09/26/1617+/-116+/-119+/-116+/-117+/-118+/-109/26/16-10/03/1614+/-113+/-112+/-113+/-113+/-115+/-110/03/16-10/10/1619+/-117+/-118+/-116+/-117+/-115+/-110/10/16-10/17/1616+/-112+/-114+/-113+/-113+/-113+/-110/17/16-10/24/1613+/-113+/-114+/-112+/-114+/-115+/-110/24/16-10/31/1616+/-111+/-119+/-110+/-111+/-111+/-110/31/16-11/07/1616+/-117+/-118+/-116+/-115+/-118+/-111/07/16-11/14/1617+/-113+/-113+/-113+/-113+/-114+/-111/14/16-11/21/1622+/-124+/-127+/-125+/-128+/-227+/-211/21/16-11/28/169+/-17+/-16+/-18+/-17+/-18+/-111/28/16-12/05/1614+/-112+/-112+/-116+/-113+/-115+/-112/05/16-12/12/1613+/-112+/-114+/-112+/-112+/-110+/-112/12/16-12/19/1617+/-119+/-118+/-116+/-119+/-118+/-112/19/16-12/27/1619+/-116+/-117+/-117+/-117+/-119+/-112/27/16-01/03/1713+/-114+/-112+/-114+/-114+/-114+/-1

- Optional sample location TABLE 6-6 (continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE PARTICULATE SAMPLES - ONSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 201 6 GROSS BETA ACTIVITY 10E-3 p Ci/m 3 +/- 1 Si g ma COLLECTION DATE R1*R2*R3*R4*R5*D2**E**F**G**12/29/15-01/05/16<11<26<26<24<13<23<23

<23<2601/05/16-01/12/16<39<40<37<43<45<14<42

<46<3801/12/16-01/19/16<31<31<12<25<25<24<13<26<3101/19/16-01/26/16<30<29<16<24<23<10<23<24<31 01/26/16-02/02/16<34<34<12<41<40<21<42

<37<3502/02/16-02/09/16<61

<23<61<47<45<46<46<18

<6002/09/16-02/17/16<36<37<36<15<28<28<28<28<36 02/17/16-02/23/16<21<21<21<20<20<20<11<21<21 02/23/16-03/01/16<20<9<21<18<6<19<18

<39<2003/01/16-03/08/16<11<11<11<29<29<11<28<28<11 03/08/16-03/15/16<33<33<32<19<36<37<36

<33<3303/15/16-03/22/16<24<24<23<9<21<21<21<20<24 03/22/16-03/29/16<14<58<14

<15<27<27<28<28<1403/29/16-04/05/16<34<16<35<13<36<35<35<36<35 04/05/16-04/12/16<43<43<44<42<22<41<41<43<44 04/12/16-04/19/16<32<17<32

<14<33<32<32<31<3204/19/16-04/26/16<12<27<28

<20<35<36<36

<35<2804/26/16-05/03/16<25<25<25

<36<36<36<15<36<2505/03/16-05/10/16<22<21<21<12<29

<30<29<29<2205/10/16-05/17/16<32<32<13

<42<41<20<41<41<3205/17/16-05/24/16<35<35<35

<35<15<35<34

<33<3505/24/16-06/01/16<24<24<24<8<19<19<19

<19<2406/01/16-06/07/16<11<27<27<28<27<14<27<28<26 06/07/16-06/14/16<31<31<31<27<27<10<27

<27<3106/14/16-06/21/16<13<31<31<14<34<34<34<35<32 06/21/16-06/28/16<50<50<50<22<41<42<40<41<50

Sample required b y the ODCM** Optional sample location COLLECTION TABLE 6-7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES - OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 201 6 I-131 ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma DATE R 1*R 2*R 3*R4*R5*D 2**E**F**G**06/28/16-07/06/16<44<44<45<33<32<13<32<32<1907/06/16-07/12/16<31<32<32<26<59<63<60<60<31 07/12/16-07/19/16<42<43<18<29<30<27<30<30<42 07/19/16-07/26/16<65<64<25<53<53<53<21<55<65 07/26/16-08/02/16<39<39<16<14<36<36<36<38<39 08/02/16-08/09/16<39<16<38<31<31<32<31<11<38 08/09/16-08/16/16<11<20<20<29<28<28<15<29<20 08/16/16-08/23/16<27<27<28<7<17<18<18<18<27 08/23/16-08/30/16<41<41<40<23<23<9<22<23<41 08/30/16-09/07/16<17<17<6<22<22<21<22<8<17 09/07/16-09/13/16<32<32<35<14<30<32<31<31<33 09/13/16-09/20/16<13<25<25<8<20<20<21<21<32 09/20/16-09/27/16<29<29<29<14<26<26<27<26<29 09/27/16-10/04/16<33<33<14<15<38<37<36<37<33 10/04/16-10/11/16<35<34<34<26<26<11<26<26<35 10/11/16-10/18/16<24<24<23<10<29<29<28<28<24 10/18/16-10/25/16<30<30<12<38<35<36<19<35<30 10/25/16-11/01/16<53<33<13<38<38<37<36<15<33 11/01/16-11/08/16<35<28<34<16<29<29<16<28<34 11/08/16-11/15/16<21<21<22<10<23<23<24<23<22 11/15/16-11/22/16<29<29<30<16<38<39<37<38<30 11/22/16-11/29/16<22<22<8<20<20<19<20<10<23 11/29/16-12/06/16<28<12<27<27<27<11<26<26<26 12/06/16-12/13/16<23<23<23<26<14<26<26<27<22 12/13/16-12/20/16<23<13<23<29<28<29<29<10<23 12/20/16-12/28/16<26<26<10<30<30<29<31<12<26 12/28/16-01/04/17<22<12<22<23<23<23<23<8<22

Sample required b y the ODCM** Optional sample location DATE TABLE 6-7 (continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES - OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 201 6 I-131 ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma COLLECTION D 1**G**H**I**J**K**12/28/15-01/04/16<10<28<26<26<27<2701/04/16-01/11/16<35<21<15<35<36<36 01/11/16-01/18/16<47<33<18<48<49<49 01/18/16-01/25/16<20<33<8<20<20<20 01/25/16-02/01/16<21<38<47<46<49<48 02/01/16-02/08/16<52<65<51<28<52<51 02/08/16-02/15/16<31<20<12<31<32<31 02/15/16-02/22/16<16<9<6<16<16<16 02/22/16-02/29/16<17<23<18<10<18<18 02/29/16-03/07/16<26<7<10<27<26<26 03/07/16-03/14/16<40<13<35<17<39<37 03/14/16-03/21/16<24<11<8<23<23<22 03/21/16-03/28/16<11<6<30<28<30<29 03/28/16-04/04/16<32<36<14<31<33<33 04/04/16-04/11/16<41<19<41<41<17<42 04/11/16-04/18/16<33<35<35<13<32<35 04/18/16-04/25/16<28<30<11<29<29<30 04/25/16-05/02/16<32<10<33<33<14<34 05/02/16-05/09/16<21<10<8<21<21<20 05/09/16-05/16/16<27<35<10<26<25<27 05/16/16-05/23/16<28<20<27<10<29<29 05/23/16-05/31/16<24<11<9<25<24<23 05/31/16-06/06/16<20<30<20<8<20<19 06/06/16-06/13/16<26<15<10<25<25<25 06/13/16-06/20/16<24<34<9<23<23<22 06/20/16-06/27/16<47<23<19<50<49<48

- Optional sample location DATE TABLE 6-8 I-131 ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma ENVIRONMENTAL CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES - ONSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 201 6 COLLECTION D 1**G**H**I**J**K**07/05/16-07/11/16<54<14<22<53<53<5307/11/16-07/18/16<38<48<20<37<36<37 07/18/16-07/25/16<61<69<61<25<62<62 07/25/16-08/01/16<41<42<13<34<34<35 08/01/16-08/08/16<12<42<32<31<32<32 08/08/16-08/15/16<31<22<32<31<31<14 08/15/16-08/22/16<22<10<13<23<23<22 08/22/16-08/29/16<19<17<7<18<17<18 08/29/16-09/06/16<18<24<10<24<25<25 09/06/16-09/12/16<13<37<37<36<20<37 09/12/16-09/19/16<35<34<28<27<35<12 09/19/16-09/26/16<12<40<17<39<40<39 09/26/16-10/03/16<36<13<34<34<34<33 10/03/16-10/10/16<14<29<12<29<29<28 10/10/16-10/17/16<14<29<12<29<29<29 10/17/16-10/24/16<33<33<33<14<33<32 10/24/16-10/31/16<39<18<43<44<43<45 10/31/16-11/07/16<40<39<39<40<40<41 11/07/16-11/14/16<9<29<12<30<29<28 11/14/16-11/21/16<12<41<17<41<40<43 11/21/16-11/28/16<24<28<11<29<28<28 11/28/16-12/05/16<30<23<9<23<23<24 12/05/16-12/12/16<27<10<11<27<27<28 12/12/16-12/19/16<33<25<14<32<32<32 12/19/16-12/27/16<43<28<17<43<45<43 12/27/16-01/03/17<29<24<30<29<30<12

- Optional sample location TABLE 6-8 (continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES - ONSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS - 201 6 I-131 ACTIVITY 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma COLLECTION DATE SAMPLEBe-7K-40Mn-54Co-58Co-60Zn-65Nb-95Zr-95Cs-134Cs-137 LOCATION R1*12/29/15-03/29/1695+/-11<9<1<2<1<3<3<5<1<103/29/16-06/28/16121+/-11<21<1<1<1<2<1<3<1<106/28/16-09/27/16122+/-14<29<2<2<2<4<2<5<2<209/27/16-01/04/1792+/-10<20<1<2<1<2<1<3<1<1 R2*12/29/15-03/29/1685+/-11<18<1<2<1<3<2<3<1<103/29/16-06/28/16123+/-18<29<2<2<1<3<3<5<2<206/28/16-09/27/16110+/-11<13<1<2<1<3<2<3<1<109/27/16-01/04/1769+/-10<12<1<1<1<3<2<4<1<1 R3*12/29/15-03/29/1689+/-12<15<1<2<1<2<2<3<1<103/29/16-06/28/16155+/-13<17<1<2<1<1<1<3<1<106/28/16-09/27/16141+/-13<23<2<2<2<4<1<5<1<109/27/16-01/04/1776+/-12<26<1<3<1<4<3<5<2<1 R4*12/29/15-03/29/1687+/-13<31<2<2<1<3<2<4<1<103/29/16-06/28/16135+/-11<27<1<2<1<3<2<3<1<106/28/16-09/27/16142+/-10<2<3<2<4<3<5<1<109/27/16-01/04/1767+/-6<11<1<2<1<3<2<3<1<1 R5*12/29/15-03/29/1690+/-10<13<1<2<1<5<2<4<2<103/29/16-06/28/16123+/-13<30<1<2<1<3<2<4<1<106/28/16-09/27/16118+/-11<18<1<2<1<4<3<4<1<109/27/16-01/04/1784+/-8<18<1<1<1<3<1<3<1<1*Sample required by the ODCM 18 +/- 5 TABLE 6-9 CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN QUARTERLY COMPOSITES OF JAF/NMPNS SITE AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES - 2016 Results in Units of 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS COLLECTION DATE SAMPLEBe-7K-40Mn-54Co-58Co-60Zn-65Nb-95Zr-95Cs-134Cs-137 LOCATION D2**12/29/15-03/29/1687+/-14<21<2<4<2<6<4<8<2<203/29/16-06/28/16111+/-13<24<1<2<1<2<2<4<1<106/28/16-09/27/16113+/-12<1<2<1<4<2<3<1<109/27/16-01/04/1771+/-8<1<2<1<2<2<3<1<1 E**12/29/15-03/29/16138+/-13<28<1<2<2<3<2<4

<1<203/29/16-06/28/16119+/-13<1<1<1<2<2<3

<1<106/28/16-09/27/1699+/-9<17<1<1<1<3<2<3

<1<109/27/16-01/04/1772+/-13<26<2<2<1<3<2<4

<2<1 F**12/29/15-03/29/1686+/-13<33<2<4<2<5<4<6

<2<203/29/16-06/28/16117+/-10<16<1<1<1<1<1<2

<1<106/28/16-09/27/16166+/-12<22<2<2<1<4<2<3

<1<109/27/16-01/04/1778+/-9<20<1<2<1<2<2<4

<1<1 G**12/29/15-03/29/1676+/-14<28<2<4<2<4<4<7

<2<203/29/16-06/28/16158+/-15<10<1<2<1<2<1<4

<1<106/28/16-09/27/16133+/-12<18<1<2<1<3<2<3

<1<109/27/16-01/04/1766+/-7<19<1<1<1<3<2<3

<1<1** Optional sample location Results in Units of 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma OFFSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS 20 +/- 7 17 +/- 6 19 +/- 6 COLLECTION DATE TABLE 6-9 (continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN QUARTERLY COMPOSITES OF JAF/NMPNS SITE AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES - 2016 SAMPLEBe-7K-40Mn-54Co-58Co-60Zn-65Nb-95Zr-95Cs-134Cs-137 LOCATION D1**12/28/15-03/28/16120+/-14<27<1<3<2<4<3<6<1

<103/28/16-06/27/16121+/-11<28<1<2<1<3<2<3

<1<106/27/16-10/03/16124+/-20<23<1<2<1<4<3<5

<1<110/03/16-01/03/1783+/-10<30<2<2<2<4<2<5

<2<2 G**12/28/15-03/28/1696+/-12<9<1<1<1<2<1<3<1<103/28/16-06/27/16161+/-13<18<1<1<1<2<1<2<1<106/27/16-10/03/1682+/-21<23<2<4<1<4<5<7<2<210/03/16-01/03/1761+/-8<25<1<2<1<3<2<4<1<1 H**12/28/15-03/28/1673+/-9<19<1<1<1<3<2<4<1<103/28/16-06/27/16117+/-12<25<1<1<1<2<2<4<1<106/27/16-10/03/16117+/-12<13<1<2<2<4<2<4<1<110/03/16-01/03/1772+/-7<12<1<2<1<2<2<3<1<1 I**12/28/15-03/28/16105+/-11<21<1<2<1<3<2<3<1<103/28/16-06/27/16117+/-16<36<2<2<1<3<2<5<1<106/27/16-10/03/1694+/-10<10<1<2<1<3<2<4<1<110/03/16-01/03/1783+/-13<19<2<3<2<4<2<4<1<2 J**12/28/15-03/28/1685+/-14<37<2<4<2<7<5<7<2<203/28/16-06/27/16127+/-11<20<1<1<1<2<2<3<1<106/27/16-10/03/16111+/-8<19<1<1<1<3<1<3<1<110/03/16-01/03/1772+/-10<15<1<1<1<2<2<3<1<1 K**12/28/15-03/28/1672+/-12<14<2<2<2<4<3<4

<2<103/28/16-06/27/16116+/-11<26<1<1<1<3<2<3

<1<106/27/16-10/03/16100+/-11<22<1<2<2<4<2<4

<1<110/03/16-01/03/1786+/-9<15<1<2<2<3<2<4

<1<1** Optional sample location COLLECTION DATE TABLE 6-9 (continued)

CONCENTRATION OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN QUARTERLY COMPOSITES OF JAF/NMPNS SITE AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES - 2016 Results in Units of 10E-3 pCi/m 3 +/- 1 Sigma ONSITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS LOCATION DEGREES & DISTANCENO.DESCRIPTION (1) & (2)3D1 Onsite11.0+/-0.511.3+/-0.58.6+/-0.47.6+/-0.371º at 0.3 miles4D2 Onsite4.3+/-0.34.5+/-0.24.2+/-0.24.4+/-0.3143º at 0.4 miles 5E Onsite4.0+/-0.24.7+/-0.24.4+/-0.24.5+/-0.2180º at 0.3 miles 6F Onsite3.5+/-0.23.9+/-0.23.8+/-0.24.0+/-0.2213º at 0.5 miles7*G Onsite3.5+/-0.23.9+/-0.23.6+/-0.24.0+/-0.2245º at 0.7 miles 8*R5 Offsite Control4.5+/-0.25.1+/-0.24.8+/-0.25.2+/-0.242º at 16.2 miles9D1 Offsite - State Route 33.9+/-0.34.2+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.5+/-0.280º at 11.4 miles10D2 Offsite3.8+/-0.24.1+/-0.23.7+/-0.24.2+/-0.2118º at 9.0 miles 11E Offsite3.7+/-0.34.0+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.1+/-0.2162º at 7.1 miles 12F Offsite3.7+/-0.24.1+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.4+/-0.2192º at 7.6 miles 13G Offsite3.8+/-0.24.2+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.4+/-0.2226º at 5.4 miles14*DeMass Rd., SW Oswego - Control3.8+/-0.24.2+/-0.24.1+/-0.24.3+/-0.3227º at 12.5 miles 15*Pole 66, W. Boundary - Bible Camp3.5+/-0.23.7+/-0.13.6+/-0.24.1+/-0.2240º at 0.9 miles 18*Energy Info. Center - Lamp Post, SW4.4+/-0.24.7+/-0.24.4+/-0.24.8+/-0.3268º at 0.4 miles19East Boundary - JAF, Pole 94.1+/-0.24.6+/-0.24.3+/-0.34.7+/-0.283º at 1.4 miles23*H Onsite4.6+/-0.25.0+/-0.24.6+/-0.35.0+/-0.373º at 0.8 miles24I Onsite4.1+/-0.24.4+/-0.24.1+/-0.24.4+/-0.295º at 0.8 miles 25J Onsite3.9+/-0.24.3+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.4+/-0.2109º at 0.9 miles 26K Onsite3.8+/-0.24.2+/-0.24.0+/-0.34.4+/-0.2132º at 0.5 miles 27N. Fence, N. of Switchyard, JAF19.0+/-1.218.6+/-1.114.5+/-0.811.0+/-0.660º at 0.4 miles 28N. Light Pole, N. of Screenhouse, JAF23.9+/-1.623.3+/-1.013.8+/-0.714.5+/-0.668º at 0.5 miles 29N. Fence, N. of W. Side21.0+/-1.419.4+/-1.415.5+/-1.311.9+/-0.565º at 0.5 miles 30N. Fence, (NW) JAF9.9+/-0.710.3+/-0.88.2+/-0.66.8+/-0.557º at 0.4 miles 31N. Fence, (NW) NMP-16.4+/-0.36.7+/-0.36.7+/-0.36.4+/-0.3279º at 0.2 miles 39N. Fence, Rad Waste-NMP-19.0+/-0.410.6+/-0.510.9+/-0.610.2+/-0.4298º at 0.2 miles 47N. Fence, (NE) JAF6.0+/-0.46.1+/-0.25.4+/-0.34.9+/-0.369º at 0.6 miles49*Phoenix, NY - Control3.6+/-0.23.8+/-0.13.7+/-0.23.8+/-0.2168º at 19.7 miles51Liberty & Bronson Sts., E. of OSS4.0+/-0.24.2+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.2+/-0.2234º at 7.3 miles 52E. 12th & Cayuga Sts., Oswego School3.7+/-0.24.0+/-0.23.8+/-0.24.1+/-0.2227º at 5.9 miles 53Broadwell & Chestnut Sts., Fulton H.S.3.8+/-0.24.4+/-0.24.3+/-0.24.4+/-0.2183º at 13.7 miles 54Mexico High School3.6+/-0.24.0+/-0.13.8+/-0.24.0+/-0.2115º at 9.4 miles 55Gas Substation Co. Rt. 5 - Pulaski3.8+/-0.24.0+/-0.23.8+/-0.24.1+/-0.275º at 13.0 miles56*Rt. 104 - New Haven Sch. (SE Corner)3.5+/-0.23.9+/-0.23.8+/-0.23.9+/-0.3124º at 5.2 miles 58*Co. Rt. 1A - Novelis (E. of E. Entrance Rd.)4.0+/-0.24.4+/-0.24.3+/-0.24.2+/-0.2222º at 3.0 miles 75*Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Reactor Bldg.7.2+/-0.37.4+/-0.36.8+/-0.36.7+/-0.4354º at 0.1 miles 76*Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Change House5.6+/-0.35.6+/-0.25.1+/-0.25.4+/-0.325º at 0.1 miles (1) Direction and distance based on NMP-2 reactor centerline

(2) Degrees and distances updated by Global PositioningSystem (GPS) in 2006.

TLD required by ODCM TABLE 6-10 DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS - 2016 Results in mrem/std. Month +/- 1 Sigma JAN - MAR APR - JUN JUL - SEP OCT - DEC LOCATION DEGREES & DISTANCENO.DESCRIPTION (1) & (2)77*Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of Pipe Bldg.6.1+/-0.36.3+/-0.25.8+/-0.35.8+/-0.336º at 0.2 miles78*JAF E. of E. Old Lay Down Area4.0+/-0.24.3+/-0.24.2+/-0.34.5+/-0.285º at 1.0 miles 79*Co. Rt. 29, Pole #63, 0.2 mi. S. of Lake Rd.3.7+/-0.24.0+/-0.23.7+/-0.33.9+/-0.2120º at 1.2 miles 80*Co. Rt. 29, Pole #54, 0.7 mi. S. of Lake Rd.3.8+/-0.24.1+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.3+/-0.3136º at 1.5 miles 81*Miner Rd., Pole # 16, 0.5 mi. W. of Rt. 293.7+/-0.23.9+/-0.23.8+/-0.24.0+/-0.2159º at 1.6 miles 82*Miner Rd., Pole # 1-1/2, 11 mi. W. of Rt. 293.8+/-0.24.0+/-0.13.7+/-0.24.1+/-0.2180º at 1.6 miles 83*Lakeview Rd., Tree 0.45 mi. N. of Miner Rd.3.6+/-0.23.8+/-0.13.8+/-0.24.1+/-0.1203º at 1.2 miles 84*Lakeview Rd., N., Pole #6117, 200ft. N. of Lake Rd.3.9+/-0.24.1+/-0.24.0+/-0.24.3+/-0.2226º at 1.1 miles 85*Unit 1, N. Fence, N. of W. Side of Screen House7.6+/-0.58.0+/-0.67.8+/-0.47.6+/-0.6292º at 0.2 miles 86*Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of W. Side of Screen House7.8+/-0.37.8+/-0.47.6+/-0.57.8+/-0.4311º at 0.1 miles 87*Unit 2, N. Fence, N. of E. Side of Screen House8.2+/-0.58.1+/-0.47.3+/-0.37.6+/-0.4333º at 0.1 miles 88*Hickory Grove Rd., Pole #2, 0.6 mi. N. of Rt. 13.8+/-0.23.9+/-0.23.8+/-0.24.2+/-0.297º at 4.5 miles 89*Leavitt Rd., Pole # 16, 0.4 mi. S. of Rt. 13.9+/-0.24.3+/-0.24.1+/-0.24.5+/-0.3112º at 4.3 miles 90*Rt. 104, Pole #300, 150ft. E. of Keefe Rd.3.8+/-0.24.1+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.2+/-0.2135º at 4.2 miles 91*Rt. 51A, Pole #59, 0.8 mi. W. of Rt. 513.7+/-0.23.9+/-0.23.7+/-0.14.1+/-0.3157º at 4.9 miles 92*Maiden Lane Rd., Power Pole, 0.6 mi. S. of Rt. 1044.1+/-0.24.5+/-0.14.2+/-0.24.6+/-0.2183º at 4.4 miles 93*Rt. 53, Pole 1-1, 120ft. S. of Rt. 1043.7+/-0.34.0+/-0.13.7+/-0.24.2+/-0.2206º at 4.4 miles 94*Rt. 1, Pole #82, 250ft. E. of Kocher Rd. (Co. Rt. 63)3.5+/-0.23.9+/-0.13.7+/-0.24.0+/-0.2224º at 4.4 miles 95*Novelis W. Access Rd., Joe Fultz Blvd., Pole #213.4+/-0.23.6+/-0.13.3+/-0.23.7+/-0.2239º at 3.7 miles 96*Creamery Rd., 0.3 mi. S. of Middle Rd., Pole 1-1/23.6+/-0.23.9+/-0.23.7+/-0.24.0+/-0.2199º at 3.6 miles 97*Rt. 29, Pole # 50, 200ft. N. of Miner Rd.3.6+/-0.24.0+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.1+/-0.2145º at 1.8 miles98Lake Rd., Pole #145, 0.15 mi. E. of Rt. 294.0+/-0.34.2+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.2+/-0.2102º at 1.2 miles 99NMP Rd., 0.4 mi. N. of Lake Rd., Env. Station R14.0+/-0.24.3+/-0.24.0+/-0.24.3+/-0.292º at 1.8 miles100Rt. 29 & Lale Rd. Env. Station R23.9+/-0.24.2+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.3+/-0.2106º at 1.1 miles 101Rt. 29, 0.7 mi. S. of Lake Rd. Env. Station R33.4+/-0.33.6+/-0.23.5+/-0.23.9+/-0.2133º at 1.4 miles 102EOF/Env. Lab, Rt. 176, E. Driveway, Lamp Post3.7+/-0.33.9+/-0.13.5+/-0.24.0+/-0.3175º at 11.9 miles 103EIC, East Garage Rd., Lamp Post4.4+/-0.24.7+/-0.24.4+/-0.24.8+/-0.2268º at 0.4 miles 104Parkhurst Rd., Pole #23, 0.1 mi. S. of Lake Rd.3.6+/-0.24.0+/-0.23.7+/-0.24.1+/-0.2102º at 1.4 miles 105Lakeview Rd., Pole #36, 0.5 mi. S. of Lake Rd.3.8+/-0.24.1+/-0.23.8+/-0.24.1+/-0.2199º at 1.4 miles 106Shoreline Cove, W. of NMP-1, Tree on W. Edge4.7+/-0.25.0+/-0.24.9+/-0.35.0+/-0.3274º at 0.3 miles 107Shoreline Cove, W. of NMP-1, 30ft. SSW of #1064.6+/-0.24.9+/-0.34.9+/-0.24.9+/-0.2273º at 0.3 miles 108Lake Rd., Pole #142, 300ft. E. of Rt. 29 S.3.9+/-0.24.1+/-0.23.8+/-0.24.1+/-0.2105º at 1.1 miles 109Tree North of Lake Rd., 300ft. E. of Rt. 29 N.3.9+/-0.24.1+/-0.23.9+/-0.24.3+/-0.2104º at 1.1 miles 111Control, State Route 38, Sterling, NY3.3+/-0.23.8+/-0.23.4+/-0.23.8+/-0.2214º at 21.8 miles 112EOF/Env. Lab, Oswego County Airport3.6+/-0.23.7+/-0.13.3+/-0.23.9+/-0.3175º at 11.9 miles 113Control, Baldwinsville, NY3.4+/-0.23.7+/-0.23.4+/-0.23.9+/-0.3178º at 24.7 miles (1) Direction and distance based on NMP-2 reactor centerline

(2) Degrees and distances updated by Global PositioningSystem (GPS) in 2006.

TLD required by ODCM TABLE 6-10 (continued)

DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS - 2016 Results in mrem/std. Month +/- 1 Sigma JAN - MAR APR - JUN JUL - SEP OCT - DEC SAMPLECOLLECTIONI-131K-40Cs-134Cs-137Ba-La-140 f LOCATIONDATE Sample Location** 55***04/04/16<0.61274+/-113<6<8<13<LLD04/18/16<0.61351+/-71<5<5<8<LLD 05/09/16<1.01406+/-79<5<6<5<LLD 05/23/16<0.71247+/-82<6<7<11<LLD 06/06/16<0.31416+/-70<6<6<7<LLD 06/20/16<0.61189+/-150<13<14<3<LLD 07/05/16<0.61289+/-124<9<9<10<LLD 07/18/16<0.21276+/-97<8<6<10<LLD 08/08/16<0.71184+/-89<7<7<6<LLD 08/22/16<0.51427+/-84<9<10<7<LLD 09/06/16<0.41467+/-113<9<11<12<LLD 09/19/16<0.81193+/-93<8<9<11<LLD 10/03/16<0.71228+/-91<6<9<8<LLD 10/18/16<0.61275+/-53<3<4<4<LLD 11/07/16<0.61291+/-112<9<11<10<LLD 11/21/16<0.61312+/-58<4<5<7<LLD 12/05/16<0.51194+/-94<7<9<9<LLD 12/19/16<0.61289+/-68<6<6<9<LLD

Sample required by the ODCM

- Optional sample location

- - Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4 f Plant related radionuclides TABLE 6-11 Others Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma CONCENTRATIONS OF IODINE-131 AND GAMMA EMITTERS IN MILK - 2016 SAMPLECOLLECTIONI-131K-40Cs-134Cs-137Ba-La-140 f LOCATIONDATE Sample Location* 77(Control)***04/04/16<0.61329+/-105<7<8<11<LLD04/18/16<0.61426+/-73<6<6<6<LLD 05/09/16<0.81245+/-84<7<6<9<LLD 05/23/16<0.91448+/-87<6<7<10<LLD 06/06/16<0.51349+/-65<4<5<9<LLD 06/20/16<0.81029+/-133<9<15<13<LLD 07/05/16<0.51006+/-101<7<12<14<LLD 07/18/16<0.21160+/-123<9<9<11<LLD 08/08/16<0.51543+/-123<7<10<13<LLD 08/22/16<0.41239+/-73<5<6<8<LLD 09/06/16<0.71452+/-118<9<10<6<LLD 09/19/16<0.51307+/-77<6<7<6<LLD 10/03/16<0.81482+/-104<7<8<13<LLD 10/18/16<0.81235+/-42<3<3<4<LLD 11/07/16<0.61446+/-82<7<7<7<LLD 11/21/16<0.71372+/-57<4<5<6<LLD 12/05/16<0.61269+/-77<8<8<9<LLD 12/19/16<0.41405+/-63<4<6<5<LLD*Sample required by the ODCM

- Optional sample location

- - Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-4

f Plant related radionuclides CONCENTRATIONS OF IODINE-131 AND GAMMA EMITTERS IN MILK - 2016 Results in Units of pCi/liter +/- 1 Sigma Others TABLE 6-11 (continued)

SAMPLECOLLECTION Be-7K-40Zn-65I-131Cs-134Cs-137 f LOCATION***DATE FLACK (C2*)09/06/16HORSERADISH LEAVES410+/-973510+/-265<46<37<23<22<LLD09/06/16PUMPKIN LEAVES1716+/-1424614+/-251<44<36<23<22<LLD 09/06/16RHUBARB LEAVES3758+/-240<68<55<31<32<LLD WHALEY (144*)09/07/16CABBAGE366+/-943269+/-247<56<39<27<27<LLD 09/07/16HORSERADISH LEAVES4525+/-329<50<59<23<34<LLD 09/07/16SQUASH LEAVES416+/-1992536+/-323<43<52<33<36<LLD O'CONNOR (484*)09/07/16HORSERADISH LEAVES436+/-1462458+/-241<53<42<26<26<LLD 09/07/16RHUBARB LEAVES4177+/-252<50<35<21<28<LLD 09/07/16GRAPE LEAVES924+/-1302631+/-246<37<46<24<29<LLD

Sample required by the ODCM

- Optional sample location

- - Corresponds to sample location noted on Figure 3.3-5 f Plant related radionuclides

< 265< 319< 256 Others TABLE 6-12 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN FOOD PRODUCTS - 2016 Results in Units of pCi/kg (wet) +/- 1 Sigma TABLE 6-13 MILK ANIMAL CENSUS 2016 Town or Area(a) Location Designation(1) Degrees(2) Distance(2) (Miles) Number of Milk Animals (Cows) Richland 80 89° 9.7 25 Mexico 14 55* 72 125° 97° 100° 9.1 8.8 9.6 52 60 38 Granby (Control) 77**

190

° 16.0 50 MILKING ANIMAL TOTALS: 225 (including control locations) MILKING ANIMAL TOTALS: 167 (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 TABLE 6-14 RESIDENCE CENSUS 2016 Meteorological Sector Location Map Location(1) Direction(2)

Distance(2) N * - - - NNE * - - - NE * - - - ENE * - - - E 80 Sunset Bay Road A 83° 1.04 miles ESE 161 Lake Road B 116° 0.7 miles SE 1216 County Route 29 C 143° 1.07 miles SSE 1146 County Route 29 D 152° 1.29 miles S 294 Miner Road E 179° 1.57 miles SSW 210 Lakeview Road F 213° 1.65 miles SW 319 Lakeview Road G 230° 1.45 miles WSW Bayshore Drive H 242° 1.81 miles W * - - - WNW * - - - NW * - - - NNW * - - - NOTES:

This meteorological sector is over Lake Ontario. There is no residence within five miles (1) Corresponds to Figure 3.3-6 (2) Direction and distance are based on JAFNPP Reactor Building centerline

7.0 HISTORICAL

DATA TABLES Sample Statistics from Previous Environmental Sampling The mean, minimum value and maximum value were calculated for selected sample mediums and isotopes. Special Considerations:

1.Sample data listed as 1969 was taken from the NINE MILE POINT, PREOPERATIONSURVEY, 1969 and ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT FOR NIAGARAMOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION,NOVEMBER, 1970.

2.Sample results listed as 1974 and 1975 were taken from the respective Annual RadiologicalEnvironmental Operating Reports for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Nuclear Station. Sample resultslisted as 1986 through the current year were taken from the respective James A. FitzPatrickNuclear Power Plant Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports.

3.Only measured values were used for statistical calculations.

4.The term MDL was used prior to 1979 to represent the concept of Lower Limit of Detection(LLD). MDL = Minimum Detectable Level.

TABLE 7-1 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 1969f ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1974f ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 197 5f ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.027 0.027 0.027 <LLD <LLD <LLD 199 4 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 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 199 9 <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 200 4 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2005 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 200 6 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2007 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 200 8 <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 20 1 1 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 20 1 2 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 20 1 3 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 20 1 4 <L LD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 201 5 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <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.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

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 1969f ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1974f ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 197 5f ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.25 0.32 0.2 9 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.28 0.30 0.29 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.12 0.14 0.13 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.12 0.14 0.13 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.18 0.46 0.32 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1994 <LLD <LLD <LLD 0.06 0.37 0.22 <LLD <LLD <LLD 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 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <L LD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD *Sunset Beach - closest offsite location with recreational value.

- No data. Sample not required until new technical specifications implemented in 1985.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-3 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA FISH Results in pCi/g (wet)

LOCATION: CONTROL

Isotope Cs-137 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969f No Data No Data No Data 1974f 0.94 0.94 0.94 197 5f <MDL <MDL <MDL 1989 0.028 0.043 0.034 1990 0.033 0.079 0.045 1991 0.021 0.034 0.029 1992 0.019 0.026 0.022 1993 0.030 0.036 0.033 1994 0.014 0.031 0.022 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 *Control location is at an area beyond the influence of the site (westerly direction).f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-4 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA FISH Results in pCi/g (wet)

LOCATION: INDICATOR * (NMP/JAF)

Isotope Cs-137 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969f 0.01 0.13 0.06 1974f 0.08 4.40 0.57 197 5f 1.10 1.70 1.38 1989 0.020 0.044 0.034 1990 0.027 0.093 0.040 1991 0.018 0.045 0.029 1992 0.014 0.030 0.024 1993 0.018 0.035 0.028 1994 0.015 0.023 0.019 1995 0.016 0.022 0.019 1996 0.016 0.025 0.020 1997 0.014 0.023 0.018 1998 0.021 0.021 0.021 1999 0.018 0.021 0.020 2000 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 0.016 0.016 0.016 2003 <LL D <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 <L LD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD *Indicator locations are in the general area of the NMP

-1 and J.A. FitzPatrick cooling water discharge structures.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-5 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA SURFACE WATER Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: CONTROL f Isotope Cs-137 Co-60 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969ff * * * * *

1974ff * * * * *

1975ff * * * * *

1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1994 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 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 <LL D <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 <L LD <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 *No gamma analysis performed (not required).

f Location was the City of Oswego Water Supply for 1969

-1984 and the Oswego Steam Station inlet canal for 1985

-Present.ff 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-6 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA SURFACE WATER Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: INDICATOR f Isotope Cs-137 Co-60 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969ff * * * * *

1974ff * * * * *

197 5ff * * * * *

1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1994 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 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 200 3 <LLD <LLD <L LD <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 *No gamma analysis performed (not required).f Indicator location was the NMP 1 Inlet Canal for the period 1969

-1973, and the JAF Inlet Canal for 1 974-Present.ff 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-7 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA SURFACE WATER TRITIUM Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: CONTROL

Isotope Tritium Year Min. Max. Mean 1969f No Data No Data No Data 1974f <MDL <MDL <MDL 197 5f 311 414 362 1989 143 217 186 1990 260 320 290 1991 180 200 190 1992 190 310 243 1993 160 230 188 1994 250 250 250 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 200 3 <L LD <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 *Control location is the City of Oswego, drinking water for 1969

-1984 and the Oswego Steam Station inlet canal for 1985

-Present.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-8 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA SURFACE WATER TRITIUM Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: INDICATOR

Isotope Tritium Year Min. Max. Mean 1969f No Data No Data No Data 1974f 380 500 440 197 5f 124 4 82 335 1989 135 288 225 1990 220 290 250 1991 250 390 310 1992 240 300 273 1993 200 280 242 1994 180 260 220 1995 320 320 320 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 160 160 160 1998 190 190 190 1999 180 270 233 2000 161 198 185 2001 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2002 297 297 297 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 *Indicator location was the NMP

-1 Inlet Canal during the period 1969

-1973, and the JAF Inlet Canal for 1974

-Present.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

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 1969f 0.130 0.540 0.334 1974f 0.001 0.808 0.121 197 5f 0.008 0.294 0.085 1989 0.007 0.039 0.017 1990 0.003 0.027 0.013 1991 0.007 0.028 0.014 1992 0.006 0.020 0.012 1993 0.007 0.022 0.013 1994 0.008 0.025 0.015 1995 0.006 0.023 0.014 1996 0.008 0.023 0.014 1997 0.006 0.025 0.013 1998 0.004 0.03 4 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 *Locations used for 1977

-1984 were C offsite, D1 offsite, D2 offsite , E offsite, F offsite, and G offsite. Control location R 5 offsitewas used for 1986

-Present (formerly C offsite location).f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-10 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR PARTICULATE GROSS BETA Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: INDICATOR

Isotope Gross Beta Year Min. Max. Mean 1969f 0.130 0.520 0.320 1974f 0.003 0.885 0.058 197 5f 0.001 0.456 0.067 1989 0.007 0.041 0.017 1990 0.006 0.023 0.014 1991 0.006 0.033 0.015 1992 0.005 0.024 0.013 1993 0.005 0.023 0.014 1994 0.006 0.024 0.015 1995 0.004 0.031 0.014 1996 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 0.005 0.033 0.015 2001 0.004 0.037 0.016 2002 0.006 0.026 0.016 2003 0.005 0.035 0.015 2004 0.003 0.036 0.016 2005 0.007 0.041 0.019 2006 0.005 0.035 0.015 2007 0.007 0.028 0.016 2008 0.004 0.030 0.016 2009 0.006 0.032 0.016 2010 0.005 0.030 0.015 2 011 0.007 0.034 0.018 2012 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 2016 0.008 0.0 0.015 *Locations used for 1969

-1973 were D1 onsite, D2 onsite , E onsite, F onsite and G onsite. Locations used for 19 74-1984 were D1onsite, D2 onsite , E onsite, F onsite, G onsite, H onsite, I onsite, J onsite and K onsite, as applicable. 1986 - Present: locationswere R 1 offsite , R 2 offsite , R 3 offsite, and R 4 offsite.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-11 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR PARTICULATES Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: CONTROL **

Isotope Cs-137 Co-60 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1 969f * * * * *

1974f * * * * *

197 5f * * * * *

1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1994 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 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 200 3 <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 <LL D <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 *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 monitoringlocation for 1985

-Present. f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-12 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR PARTICULATES Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: INDICATOR **

Isotope Cs-137 Co-60 Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969f * * * * *

1974f * * * * *

197 5f * * * * *

1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1994 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 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 200 3 <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 *No data available (not required prior to 1977).

- Locations included composites of onsite air monitoring locations for 1977

-1984. Sample locations included R1 through R4 airmonitoring locations for 1985

-Present. f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-13 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR RADIOIODINE Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: CONTROL

Isotope Iodine-131 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969f ** ** ** 1974f ** ** ** 1975f <MDL <MDL <MDL 1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1994 <LLD <LLD <LL D 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 *Locations D1 offsite, D2 offsite, E offsite, F offsite and G offsite used for 1976

-1984. Location R5 offsite used for 1985

-Present.** No results - I-131 analysis not required.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP. Iodine concentrations attributed to fallout from Fukushima accident.

TABLE 7-14 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA AIR RADIOIODINE Results in pCi/m 3 LOCATION: INDICATOR

Isotope Iodine-131 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969f ** ** ** 1974f ** ** ** 1975f 0.25 0.30 0.28 1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1994 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <L LD <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 0.021 0.11 0.055 2012 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD *Locations used for 1985 - Present, were R1 offsite, R2 offsite, R3 offsite, and R4 offsite.

- No results. I

-131 analysis not required.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP. Iodine concentrations attributed to fallout from Fukushima accident.

TABLE 7-15 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem/standard month LOCATION: CONTROL *

(2) Year Min. Max. Mean Preopf 1974f 1975f 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (Not e 1) 2.7 4.8 (2.9) 2.9 (3.7) 3.7 (3.8) 3.8 (2.6) 2.6 (3.4) 3.4 (3.1) 3.1 (3.4) 3.4 (3.4) 3.4 (3.7) 3.9 (3.7) 3.7 (3.6) 3.7 (3.7) 3.7 (3.6) 3.9 (3.4) 3.4 (3.4) 3.4 (3.3) 3.3 (3.3) 3.4 (3.3) 3.3 (3.2) 3.2 (3.3) 3.3 (3.2) 3.2 (2.8) 2.8 (2.6) 2.6 (3.6) 3.6 (3.2) 3.2 (Note 1) 8.9 6.0 (6.4) 5.6 (6.0) 5.9 (5.4) 5.3 (5.0) 4.7 (5.6) 5.2 (5.0) 4.6 (5.7) 4.9 (5.6) 5.6 (6.2) 5.2 (5.6) 4.8 (7.1) 4.7 (7.3) 5.5 (5.4) 5.0 (5.5) 5.2 (5.5) 4.8 (5.9) 5.9 (5.1) 4.5 (5.3) 5.3 (5.8) 5.8 (5.1) 5.1 (4.8) 4.8 (4.6) 4.6 (5.5) 5.5 (5.0) 5.0 (4.9) 4.9 (Note 1) 5.6 5.5 (4.7) 4.6 (4.8) 4.6 (4.5) 4.3 (4.1) 3.9 (4.4) 4.3 (4.1) 3.9 (4.4) 4.2 (4.3) 4.2 (4.7) 4.6 (4.4) 4.2 (4.6) 4.4 (4.7) 4.3 (4.4) 4.4 (4.3) 4.1 (4.2) 4.2 (4.3) 4.5 (4.1) 4.0 (4.1) 4.3 (4.4) 4.6 (4.1) 4.3 (3.9) 4.0 (3.9) 3.9 (4.0) 4.1 (4.0) 4.2 (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 *TLD #8 and 14 established 1974, TLD #49 established 1980, TLD #111 established 1988, TLD #113 established 1991.f 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.

TABLE 7-16 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem per standard month LOCATION: SITE BOUND ARY ** Year Min. Max. Mean Preopf * *

1974f * *

197 5f * *

1989 4.5 5.2 4.8 1990 4.5 5.4 4.8 1991 4.3 5.5 4.8 1992 3.7 4.6 4.2 1993 3.8 4.8 4.3 1994 2.8 4.9 4.0 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 20 06 3.5 4.7 4.1 200 7 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 *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 thelakeshore and is considered to be generally not accessible to the public. These locations are not used in the site boundary dosedetermination.f 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.

TABLE 7-17 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem per standard month LOCATION: OFFSITE SECTORS **

Year Min. Max. Mean Preopf * *

1974f * *

197 5f * *

1989 2.5 6.8 4.9 1990 3.6 6.3 4.7 1991 3.6 5.8 4.7 1992 2.9 5.0 4.1 1993 3.4 6.3 4.5 1994 3.0 5.1 4.0 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 *Data not available (not required prior to 1985).

- Includes TLD numbers 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-18 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem per standard month LOCATION: SPECIAL INTEREST **

Year Min. Max. Mean Preopf * *

1974f * *

197 5f * *

1989 2.1 6.4 4.9 1990 3.2 6.3 4.8 1991 2.9 5.6 4.4 1992 3.0 4.8 4.1 1993 3.2 5.8 4.5 1994 2.9 4.8 4.1 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 1 999 3.6 7.1 4.6 2000 3.6 7.3 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 3.5 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 3.5 4.4 3.9 *Data not available (not required prior to 1985).

- Includes TLD numbers 15, 56, 58, 96, 97 and 98.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-19 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem per standard month LOCATION: ONSITE INDICATOR **

Year Min. Max. Mean Preopf * *

1974f 3.1 10.6 5.7 197 5f 4.6 16.0 7.3 1989 2.7 13.1 6.0 1990 3.6 12.9 5.5 1991 3.2 11.6 5.4 1992 3.2 5.6 4.3 1993 3.1 13.6 5.2 1994 2.8 14.3 5.1 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 *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).f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-20 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL TLD Results in mrem per standard month LOCATION: OFFSITE INDICATOR **

Year Min. Max. Mean Preopf * *

1974f 2.4 8.9 5.3 1975f 4.5 7.1 5.5 1989 2.8 6.4 4.6 1990 3.8 6.1 4.8 1991 3.4 5.8 4.5 1992 3.1 5.2 4.1 1993 3.2 5.7 5.0 1994 3.0 5.1 4.1 1995 3.9 5.7 4.4 1996 3.3 5.5 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 5.5 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 4.2 200 7 3.4 4.9 4.3 2008 3.3 4.5 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 *No data available.

- Includes TLD numbers 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-21 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA MILK Results in pCi/literLOCATION: CONTROL **

Isotope Cs-137 I-131Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969f * * * * *

1974f * * * * *

197 5f * * * * *

1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1994 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 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 <L LD 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 201 3 <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 *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.f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-22 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA MILK Results in pCi/liter LOCATION: INDICATOR Isotope Cs-137 I-131Year Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean 1969f * * * * *

1974f 1.6 39 10.5 0.70 2.00 1.23 1975f 6.0 22 16 0.01 2.99 0.37 1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 1994 <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD 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 <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 *No data available (sample not required).f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-23 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA FOOD PRODUCTS Results in pCi/g (wet)

LOCATION: CONTROL

Isotope Cs-137 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969f ** ** ** 1974f ** ** ** 197 5f ** ** ** 1989 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 0.008 0.008 0.008 1994 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1995 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1996 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1997 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1998 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1999 <LLD <LLD <LLD 200 0 <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 <L LD <LLD <LLD 2013 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2014 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2015 <LLD <LLD <LLD 2016 <LLD <LLD <LLD *Locations was an available food product sample location in a least prevalent wind direction greater than ten miles from the site.** No data available (control samples not required).f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

TABLE 7-24 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA FOOD PRODUCTS Results in pCi/g (wet)

LOCATION: INDICATOR

Isotope Cs-137 Year Min. Max. Mean 1969f ** ** ** 1974f 0.04 0.34 0.142 197 5f <MDL <MDL <MDL 1989 0.011 0.011 0.011 1990 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1991 0.039 0.039 0.039 1992 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1993 <LLD <LLD <LLD 1994 0.006 0.012 0.010 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 *Indicator locations were available downwind locations within ten miles of the site and with high deposition potential.

- No data available (control samples not required).f 1969 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the site. 1974 and 1975 data is considered to be pre

-operational for the JAFNPP.

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 requirement for an Interlaboratory Comparison Program, the Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE) Environmental 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 MEDIA LABORATORY ANALYSI S SAMPLE PROVIDER ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS MilkI-131 4MilkMixed Gamma 4AirI-131 4AirMixed Gamma 4SoilMixed Gamma 2SAMPLE MEDIA LABORATORY ANALYSI S SAMPLE PROVIDER DOE MAPEP AirGr-Beta 2VegetationMixed Gamma 2SAMPLE MEDIA LABORATORY ANALYSI S SAMPLE PROVIDER ER A WaterI-131 2WaterMixed Gamma 2 WaterH-3 2TOTAL SAMPLE INVENTORY 28 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, 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 0.79 and 1.21 to 1.30 are evaluated as acceptable with warning. DOE Evaluation Criteria (Handbook for the Department of Energy's Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP), Revision 13 (June 2012), pp 37-38, retrieved from http://www.id.energy.gov/resl/mapep/handbookv13.pdf ) MAPEP: MAPEP's evaluation report provides an accep tance range with associated flag values. The MAPEP defines three levels of performance: Acceptable (flag = "A"), Acceptable with Warning (flag = "W"), and Not Acceptable (flag = "N"). Performance is considered acceptable when a mean result for the specified analyte is +/- 20% of the reference value. Performance is acceptable with warning when a mean result falls in the range from +/-20% to +/-30% of the reference value (i.e., 20% < bias < 30%). If the bias is greater than 30%, the results are deemed not acceptable. False positive/negative testin g and sensitivity evaluations are used in radiological performance evaluations. 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 acceptable ("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 standard deviations by chance alone is less than 1%. The 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 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 comb ination with the sensitivity evaluations. In this scenario, the sensitivity of 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 eval uation tests are conducted in a manner that assists the participants with their measurement uncertainty estimates and helps ensure they are not under estimating 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 under estimating the total uncertainty. An accurate estimate of measurement uncertainty is required for consistent performance at the acceptable level. ERA: The ERA'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, NELAC, state specific performance testing program requirements 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 on Table 8-3.

8.4.1 ECKERT

& Z IE GLER ANALYTICS, DOE MAPEP, and ERA QA SAMP LES RESULTS For the TB E labora tory, 156 out of 160 analyses performed met the sp ecified ac ceptance cr it eria, for a 97.5 agreement ratio.

Four analyses (Milk - Sr-90, Vegetation - Sr-90, and Water - H-3 samples) did not meet the specified acceptance criteria for the following reasons and were addressed through the TBE Corrective Action Program.

Note: The Department of Energy (DOE) Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) samples are created to mimic conditions found at DOE sites which do not resemble typical environmental samples obtained at commercial nuclear power facilities.

Teledyne Brown Engineering's MAPEP 2016 air particulate cross ch eck sample is n ow being provided to TBE by Analytics.

MAPEP's policy is to evaluate as failed nonreported nuclides that were reported in the previous study. Since the Sr-90 was reported in the previousMAPEP study but not in this study M APEP ev aluated t he Sr-90 for Soil as failed. NCR 16-14The MAPEP 2016 Sr-90 i n v egetation was e valuated a s f ailing a f alse p ositive te st. Inreviewing t he data that was r eported v s t he d ata in LIMS, i t w as foun d t hat t he error w asincorrectly reported as 0.023 rather than the correct value of 0.230. If the value had been reportedwith the activity and correct uncertainty of 0.301 +/- 0.230, MAPEP would have evaluated theresult as ac ceptable. NCR 1 6-14Teledyne Brown Engineering's Analytics' March 2016 milk Sr-90 result of 15 +/- .125 pCi/L was higher than the known value of 11.4 pCi/L with a ratio of 1.32. The upper ratio of 1.30 (acceptable with w arning) w as exceeded. A fter an ex tensive review o f t he data it i s b elieved t he technician did not rinse the filtering apparatus properly and some cross contamination from one of the internal l aboratory s pik e s amples m ay h ave been transferred t o t h e analytics s ample. W e feel t he issue is specific to the March 2016 Ana lytics s ample. NCR 1 6-26Teledyne Brown Engineering's ERA 2016 sample for H-3 i n w ater w as ev aluated as failing. A r esult o f 918 pCi/L w as reported i ncorrectly d ue to a d at a entry issue. If the correct value of 9180 had been reported, ERA woul d h ave evaluated the r esult as acc eptable. N CR34Teledyne Brown Engineering's Analytics' December 2016 milk Sr-90 sample result of 14.7+/-.26 pCi/L was higher than the known value of 10 pCi/L with a ratio of 1.47. The upper ratio of1.30 (acceptable with warning) was exceeded.

The technician entered the wrong aliquot into theLIMS s ystem. T o ach ieve a lower e rror t erm T BE uses a larger aliquot o f 1.2L (Normally w e u se.6L for client samples).

NCR 16-35 IdentificationReportedKnownRatio (c)Month/YearNumberMatrixNuclideUnitsValue (a)Value (b)TBE/AnalyticsEvaluation (d)March 2016E11476MilkSr-89pCi/L 9786.71.12 ASr-90pCi/L 1511.41.32N(2)E11477MilkI-131pCi/L85.982.21.05 ACe-141pCi/L 10698.41.08 ACr-51pCi/L 255 2431.05 ACs-134pCi/L 134 1301.03 ACs-137pCi/L 174 1611.08 ACo-58pCi/L 123 1171.05 AMn-54pCi/L 141 1171.21 WFe-59pCi/L 152 1311.16 AZn-65pCi/L 193 1791.08 ACo-60pCi/L 259 2441.06 AE11479 APCe-141pCi 6981.10.85 ACr-51pCi 242 2011.20 WCs-134pCi98.1107.00.92 ACs-137pCi 136 1331.02 ACo-58pCi91.9 970.95 AMn-54pCi98.696.21.02 AFe-59pCi98.8 1080.91 AZn-65pCi 131 1470.89 ACo-60pCi 209 2011.04 AE11478CharcoalI-131pCi85.388.30.97 AE11480WaterFe-55pCi/L 1800 16661.08 AJune 2016E11537MilkSr-89pCi/L94.494.41.00 ASr-90pCi/L13.415.40.87 AE11538MilkI-131pCi/L96.894.51.02 ACe-141pCi/L 129 1390.93 ACr-51pCi/L 240 2760.87 ACs-134pCi/L 157 1740.90 ACs-137pCi/L 117 1200.98 ACo-58pCi/L 131 1420.92 AMn-54pCi/L 128 1251.02 AFe-59pCi/L 132 1221.08 AZn-65pCi/L 235 2351.00 ACo-60pCi/L 169 1730.98 A(a)Teledyne Brown Engineering reported result.(b)The Analytics known value is equal to 100% of the parameter present in the standard as determined by gravimetric and/orvolumetric measurements made during standard preparation.(c)Ratio of Teledyne Brown Engineering to Analytics results.

(d)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 0.70-0.80 or 1.20-1.30. N = Not Acceptable, reported result falls outside the ratio limits of < 0.70 and > 1.30.(2)NCR 16-26 was initiatedANALYTICS E NVIRONMENTAL RA DIOACTIVITY CRO SS CHE CK PROGRAM TELEDYNE BRO WN ENGINEERING E NVIRONMENTAL S ERVICES (PAGE 1 OF 3)

IdentificationReportedKnownRatio (c)Month/YearNumberMatrixNuclideUnitsValue (a)Value (b)TBE/AnalyticsEvaluation (d)June 2016E11539CharcoalI-131pCi86.189.40.96 AE11540 APCe-141pCi 10599.81.05 ACr-51pCi 216198.01.09 ACs-134pCi 113 1250.90 ACs-137pCi94.586.61.09 ACo-58pCi 101 1020.99 AMn-54pCi88.890.20.98 AFe-59pCi 8287.50.94 AZn-65pCi 174 1691.03 ACo-60pCi 143 1241.15 AE11541WaterFe-55pCi/L 164 1860.88 ASeptember 2016E11609MilkSr-89pCi/L 9090.90.99 ASr-90pCi/L13.313.70.97 AE11610MilkI-131pCi/L80.471.91.12 ACe-141pCi/L81.3 930.87 ACr-51pCi/L 198 2360.84 ACs-134pCi/L 122 1360.90 ACs-137pCi/L 119 1191.00 ACo-58pCi/L92.297.40.95 AMn-54pCi/L 156 1521.03 AFe-59pCi/L97.590.61.08 AZn-65pCi/L 189 1791.06 ACo-60pCi/L 131 1350.97 AE11611CharcoalI-131pCi52.459.90.87 AE11612 APCe-141pCi67.563.61.06 ACr-51pCi 192161.01.19 ACs-134pCi91.492.60.99 ACs-137pCi93.980.81.16 ACo-58pCi 6666.40.99 AMn-54pCi 104 1041.00 AFe-59pCi60.561.80.98 AZn-65pCi 140 1221.15 ACo-60pCi 11991.91.29 W(a)Teledyne Brown Engineering reported result.(b)The Analytics known value is equal to 100% of the parameter present in the standard as determined by gravimetric and/orvolumetric measurements made during standard preparation.(c)Ratio of Teledyne Brown Engineering to Analytics results.

(d)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 0.70-0.80 or 1.20-1.30. N = Not Acceptable, reported result falls outside the ratio limits of < 0.70 and > 1.30.ANALYTICS E NVIRONMENTAL RA DIOACTIVITY CRO SS CHE CK PROGRAMTELEDYNE BRO WN ENGINEERING E NVIRONMENTAL S ERVICES(PAGE 2 OF 3)

IdentificationReportedKnownRatio (c)Month/YearNumberMatrixNuclideUnitsValue (a)Value (b)TBE/AnalyticsEvaluation (d)September 2016E11613WaterFe-55pCi/L 1990 16701.19 AE11614SoilCe-141pCi/g0.1530.1750.87 ACr-51pCi/g0.4820.4411.09 ACs-134pCi/g0.2700.2541.06 ACs-137pCi/g0.3130.2991.05 ACo-58pCi/g0.1770.1820.97 AMn-54pCi/g0.3400.2851.19 AFe-59pCi/g0.2060.171.21 WZn-65pCi/g0.3880.3351.16 ACo-60pCi/g0.2840.2521.13 ADecember 2016E11699MilkSr-89pCi/L 9574.21.28 WSr-90pCi/L14.7 101.47N(3)E11700MilkI-131pCi/L97.597.41.00 ACe-141pCi/L 136 1430.95 ACr-51pCi/L 247 2800.88 ACs-134pCi/L 164 1780.92 ACs-137pCi/L 120 1260.95 ACo-58pCi/L 139 1460.95 AMn-54pCi/L 126 1290.98 AFe-59pCi/L 114 1250.91 AZn-65pCi/L 237 2440.97 ACo-60pCi/L 168 1780.94 AE11701CharcoalI-131pCi95.6 980.98 AE11702 APCe-141pCi91.797.70.94 ACr-51pCi 210192.01.09 ACs-134pCi 122 1221.00 ACs-137pCi93.986.41.09 ACo-58pCi 92 1000.92 AMn-54pCi93.788.51.06 AFe-59pCi84.985.40.99 AZn-65pCi 176 1671.05 ACo-60pCi 151 1221.24 WE11730 APSr-89pCi79.7 920.87 ASr-90pCi 1012.50.80 AE11703WaterFe-55pCi/L 2180 18001.21 W(a)Teledyne Brown Engineering reported result.(b)The Analytics known value is equal to 100% of the parameter present in the standard as determined by gravimetric and/orvolumetric measurements made during standard preparation.(c)Ratio of Teledyne Brown Engineering to Analytics results.

(d)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 0.70-0.80 or 1.20-1.30. N = Not Acceptable, reported result falls outside the ratio limits of < 0.70 and > 1.30.(3)NCR 16-35 was initiatedANALYTICS E NVIRONMEN TAL RA DIOACTIVITY CRO SS CHE CK PROG RAMTELEDYNE BRO WN ENGINEERING E NVIRONMENTAL S ERVICES (PAGE 3 OF 3)

IdentificationReportedKnownAcceptanceMonth/YearNumberMediaNuclideUnitsValue (a)Value (b)RangeEvaluation (c)March 201616-MaW34WaterAm-241Bq/L0.008(1)ANi-63Bq/L12.412.38.6-16.0 APu-238Bq/L1.49001.24400.871-1.617 APu-239/240Bq/L0.7290.6410.449-0.833 A16-MaS34SoilNi-63Bq/kg 11401250.0875-1625 ASr-90Bq/kg8.15(1)A16-RdF34 APU-234/233Bq/sample0.16200.16500.116-0.215 AU-238Bq/sample0.1630.1720.120-0.224 A16-GrF34 APGr-ABq/sample0.6081.200.36-2.04 AGr-BBq/sample0.80600.790.40-1.19 A16-RdV34VegetationCs-134Bq/sample10.1010.627.43-13.81 ACs-137Bq/sample6.05.623.93-7.31 ACo-57Bq/sample13.300011.88.3-15.3 ACo-60Bq/sample0.013(1)AMn-54Bq/sample0.0150(1)ASr-90Bq/sample0.301(1)N(4)Zn-65Bq/sample10.5009.66.7-12.5 ASeptember 201616-MaW35WaterAm-241Bq/L0.6260.814.570-1058 WNi-63Bq/L12.417.212.0-22.4 APu-238Bq/L1.231.130.79-1.47 WPu-239/240Bq/L0.03180.013(1)A16-MaS35SoilNi-63Bq/kg 724 990693-1287 ASr-90Bq/kg 747 894626-1162 A16-RdF35 APU-234/233Bq/sample0.1600.150.105-0.195 AU-238Bq/sample0.1570.1560.109-0.203 A16-RdV35VegetationCs-134Bq/sample-0.103(1)ACs-137Bq/sample5.645.543.88-7.20 ACo-57Bq/sample7.386.814.77-8.85 ACo-60Bq/sample4.814.863.40-6.32 AMn-54Bq/sample7.47.275.09-9.45 ASr-90Bq/sample0.7740.800.56-1.04 AZn-65Bq/sample5.465.43.78-7.02 A(1)False positive test.(a)Teledyne Brown Engineering reported result.

(b)The MAPEP known value is equal to 100% of the parameter present in the standard as determined by gravimetric and/orvolumetric measurements made during standard preparation.(c)DOE/MAPEP evaluation: A=acceptable, W=acceptable with warning, N=not acceptable.

(4)NCR 16-14 was initiatedDOE's MIXED ANALYTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (MAPEP)TELEDYNE BRO WN ENGINEERING E NVIRONMENTAL S ERVICES (PAGE 1 OF 1)

IdentificationReportedKnownAcceptanceMonth/YearNumberMediaNuclideUnitsValue (a)Value (b)LimitsEvaluation (c)May 2016RAD-105WaterSr-89pCi/L48.948.237.8 - 55.6 ASr-90pCi/L25.028.520.7 - 33.1 ABa-133pCi/L53.158.848.7 - 64.9 ACs-134pCi/L40.943.334.6 - 47.6 ACs-137pCi/L84.878.470.6 - 88.9 ACo-60pCi/L 108 10291.8 - 114 AZn-65pCi/L 226 214193 - 251 AGr-ApCi/L38.962.732.9 - 77.8 AGr-BpCi/L41.939.226.0 - 46.7 AI-131pCi/L24.126.622.1 - 31.3 AU-NatpCi/L4.684.643.39 - 5.68 AH-3pCi/L 7720 78406790 - 8620 ANovember 2016RAD-107WaterSr-89pCi/L43.043.333.4-50.5 ASr-90pCi/L30.033.624.6-38.8 ABa-133pCi/L47.854.945.4-60.7 ACs-134pCi/L72.981.867.0-90.0 ACs-137pCi/L 189 210189-233 ACo-60pCi/L58.464.558.0-73.4 AZn-65pCi/L 243 245220-287 AGr-ApCi/L37.268.435.9-84.5 AGr-BpCi/L35.133.922.1-41.6 AI-131pCi/L23.526.321.9-31.0 AU-NatpCi/L49.251.241.6-56.9 AH-3pCi/L 918 98208540-10800N(5)MRAD-25 APGr-ApCi/Filter56.871.223.9-111 ATeledy ne Brow n Engineeri ng report ed result.T he ERA know n val ue is equal t o 100% of t he parameter present i n t he standar d as determi ned by gravimetric and/orvolumetric measurements m ade duri ng standar d preparation.ERA evaluation:

A=acceptable.

Report ed result falls withi n t he Warni ng Limits. N=not acceptable.

Report ed result fallsoutsi de of t he Control Limits.

CE=check for Error. Report ed result falls withi n t he Control Limits and outsi de of t he Warni ng Limit.(5)ERA E NVIRONMENTAL RA DIOACTIVITY CRO SS CHE CK PROGRAMTELEDYNE BRO WN ENGINEERING E NVIRONMENTAL S ERVICES (PAGE 1 OF 1)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... i ii EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

............................................................................................................ iv I.INTRODUCTION

.........................................................................................................

A.QC Program .....................................................................................................

B.QA Program

......................................................................................................II.PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA .................................................................A.Acceptance Criteria for Internal Evaluations

......................................................B.QC Investigation Criteria and Result Reporting

.................................................C.Reporting of Environmental Dosimetry Results to EDC Customers

...................III.DATA

SUMMARY

FOR ISSUANCE PERIOD JANUARY-DECEMBER 2016 ...............A.General Discussion

...........................................................................................B.Result Trending

................................................................................................IV.STATUS OF EDC CONDITION REPORTS (CR) .........................................................V.STATUS OF AUDITS/ASSESSMENTS

........................................................................A.Internal ..............................................................................................................B.External ............................................................................................................VI.PROCEDURES AND MANUALS REVISED DURING JANUARYDECEM BER 2016 VII.CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

...............................................................VIII.REFERENCES

.............................................................................................................APPENDIX A DOSIMETRY QUALITY CONTROL TRENDING GRAPHS LIST OF TABLES Page 1.Percentage of Individual Analyses Which Passed E DC Internal Criteria,January - December 20165 2.Mean Dosimeter Analyses (n=6), January - December 20165 3.Summary of Independent QC Results for 20165 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Routine quality control (QC) testing was performed for dosimeters issued by the Environmental Dosimetry Company (E DC) . During this annual period, 100% (72/72) of the individual dosimeters, evaluated against the E DC 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% (12/12) of the dosimeter sets evaluated against the internal tolerance limits met E DC 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 w as performed in 2016. There were no findings.

I.INTRODUCTIONThe TLD systems at the Environmental Dosimetry Company (E DC) are calibrated andoperated to ensure consistent and accurate evaluation of TLDs. The quality of thedosimetric results reported to E DC clients is ensured by in-house performance testingand 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 performancedocumentation of the routine processing of E DC dosimeters. Performance testingprovides a statistical measure of the bias and precision of dosimetry processing against a reliable standard, which in turn points out any trends or performance changes. Twoprograms are used:

A.QC ProgramDosimetry quality control tests are performed on E DC Panasonic 814Environmental dosimeters. These tests include: (1) the in-house testing programcoordinated by the E DC QA Officer and (2) independent test perform by EDCclients.

In-house test are performed using six pairs of 814 dosimeters, a pair isreported 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 instrumentationchecks represent an important aspect of the quality assurance program, they arenot included as process checks in this report. Instrumentation checks represent between 5-10% of the TLDs processed.

B.QA ProgramAn internal assessment of dosimetry activities is conducted annually by theQuality Assurance Officer (Reference 1). The purpose of the assessment is to review procedures, results, materials or components to identify opportunities toimprove or enhance processes and/or services.II.PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA A.Acceptance Criteria for Internal Evaluations 1.BiasFor each dosimeter tested, the measure of bias is the percent deviation ofthe reported result relative to the delivered exposure. The percentdeviation relative to the delivered exposure is calculated as follows:where: = the corresponding reportedexposure for the i thdosimeter (i.e.,the reported exposure)

H i = the exposure delivered to the i th irradiateddosimeter (i.e., the delivered exposure) 2.Mean BiasFor each group of test dosimeters, the mean bias is the average percentdeviation of the reported result relative to the delivered exposure. The mean percent deviation relative to the delivered exposure is calculated asfollows:where: = the corresponding reported exposure for the i th dosimeter (i.e., the reported exposure) = the exposure delivered to the i th irradiated test dosimeter (i.e., the delivered exposure) n = the number of dosimeters in the test group 3.Precision For a group of test dosimeters irradiated to a given exposure, themeasure of precision is the percent deviation of individual results relativeto the mean reported exposure. At least two values are required for the determination of precision. The measure of precision for the i th dosimeteris:where: = the reported exposure for the i thdosimeter(i.e., the reported exposure) = the mean reported exposure;i.e., n = the number of dosimeters in the test group 4.EDC Internal Tolerance LimitsEDC (Reference 2). These criteria are only applied to individual testdosimeters irradiated with high-energy photons (Cs-137) and are asfollows for Panasonic Environmental dosimeters: +/-

15% for bias and +/-12.8% for precision.

B.QC Investigation Criteria and Result Reporting E DC Quality System Manual (Reference 2) specifies when an investigation isrequired due to a QC analysis that has failed the E DC bias criteria. The criteriaare as follows:

1.No investigation is necessary when an individual QC result falls outsidethe QC performance criteria for accuracy.

2.Investigations are initiated when the mean of a QC processing batch isoutside 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.

2.If the QA Officer determines that an investigation is required for aprocess, the results shall be issued as normal. If the QC results,prompting the investigation, have a mean bias from the known of greaterthan +/-20%, the results shall be issued with a note indicating that theymay be updated in the future, pending resolution of a QA issue.

3.Environmental dosimetry results do not require updating if the investigation has shown that the mean bias between the original resultsand the corrected results, based on applicable correction factors from theinvestigation, does not exceed +/-20%.III.DATA

SUMMARY

FOR ISSUANCE PERIOD JANUARY-DECEMBER 2016 A.General DiscussionResults of performance tests conducted are summarized and discussed in thefollowing sections. Summaries of the performance tests for the reporting periodare given in Tables 1 through 3 and Figures 1 through 4.Table 1 provides a summary of individual dosimeter results evaluated against the E DC internal acceptance criteria for high-energy photons only. During this period

, 100% (72/72) of the individual dosimeters, evaluated against these criteria metthe 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 + Standard deviation results for each group (N=6) ofdosimeters evaluated against the internal tolerance criteria. Overall, 100%(12/12) of the dosimeter sets evaluated against the internal toleranceperformance criteria met these criteria.

A graphical interpretation is provided inFigure 3.Table 3 presents the independent blind spike results for dosimeters processedduring this annual period. All results passed the performance acceptancecriterion.

Figure 4 is a graphical interpretation of Seabrook Station blind co-located station results.

B.Result TrendingOne of the main benefits of performing quality control tests on a routine basis isto identify trends or performance changes. The results of the Panasonic environmental dosimeter performance tests are presented in Appendix A. Theresults 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 processingdate.IV.STATUS OF E DC CONDITION REPORTS (CR)No condition reports were issued during this annual period.

V.STATUS OF AUDITS/ASSESSMENTS A.Internal EDC Internal Quality Assurance Assessment was conducted during the fourthquarter 2016. There were no findings identified.

B.External None.VI.PROCEDURES AND MANUALS REVISED DURING JANUARY - DECEMBER 2016Several procedures were reissued with no changes as part of the 5 year review cycle.VII.CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe quality control evaluations continue to indicate the dosimetry processing programsat the E DC satisfy the criteria specified in the Quality System Manual. The E DCdemonstrated the ability to meet all applicable acceptance criteria.VIII.REFERENCES 1.EDC Quality Control and Audit Assessment Schedule, 2016.2.E DC Manual 1, Quality System Manual, Rev. 3 , August 1, 2012.

TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL DOSIMETERS THAT PASSED EDC INTERNAL CRITERIA JANUARY DECEMBER 2016 (1), (2)Dosimeter Type Number Tested % Passed Bias Criteria

% Passed Precision Criteria Panasonic Environmental 72 100 100 (1)This table summarizes results of tests conducted by E DC. (2)Environmental dosimeter results are free in air.

TABLE 2 MEAN DOSIMETER ANALYSES (N=6) JANUARY DECEMBER 2016(1), (2) Process Date Exposure Level Mean Bias %

Standard Deviation

% Tolerance Limit +/-15% 4/22/2016 40 3.5 0.7 Pass 4/29/2016 80 1.8 0.7 Pass 5/10/2016 70 1.8 1.8 Pass 7/25/2016 33 2.4 1.5 Pass 8/2/2016 56 2.4 1.6 Pass 8/2/2016 123 0.7 1.4 Pass 10/25/2016 28 2.9 1.0 Pass 10/29/2016 93 3.2 1.8 Pass 11/6/2016 61 0.0 1.6 Pass 1/30/2017 39 1.4 2.5 Pass 1/31/2017 76 2.2 1.3 Pass 1/31/2017 101 -1.7 1.5 Pass (1)This table summarizes results of tests conducted by E DC for TLDs issued in 2016.

(2)Environmental dosimeter results are free in air. TABLE 3

SUMMARY

OF INDEPENDENT DOSIMETER TESTING JANUARY DECEMBER 2016 (1), (2) Issuance Period Client Mean Bias %

Standard Deviation %

Pass / Fail 1 st Qtr. 2016 Millstone -0.2 1.0 Pass 2 nd Qtr.2016 Millstone -3.4 3.0 Pass 2 nd Qtr.2016 Seabrook 1.8 0.8 Pass 3 rd Qtr. 2016 Millstone 3.0 2.4 Pass 4 th Qtr.2016 Millstone .0.9 3.9 Pass 4 th Qtr.2016 Seabrook -0.2 0.7 Pass (1)Performance criteria are

+/- 3 0%. (2)Blind spike irradiations using Cs-137 APPENDIX A DOSIMETRY QUALITY CONTROL TRENDING GRAPHS ISSUE PERIOD JANURY - DECEMBER 2016

ML17131A248

Text

Subject:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosure:

2.0 INTRODUCTION

3.1 Sample

SUMMARY

5.3 Conclusion

8.0 QUALITY

1.0 PURPOSE

2.0 INTRODU

3.0 PROGRAM

3.1 SAMPLE

3.1.1 SHORELINE

3.1.3 SURFACE

3.1.8 GROUND

3.3 SAMPLE

3.5 CHANGES

3.7 STATISTICAL

3.7.2 ESTIMATION

3.7.3 LOWER

3.8 COMPLIANCE

3.9 REGULATORY

4.0 SAMPLE

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

5.1 AQUATIC

5.2 TERRESTRIAL

5.2.4 DIRECT

5.2.8 DIRECT

5.3 CONCLUSION

5.4 REFERENCES

6.0 REPORT

7.0 HISTORICAL

8.0 QUALITY

8.1 PROGRAM

8.2 PROGRAM

SUMMARY

8.4.1 ECKERT

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search