NL-10-053, Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2009

Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2009

ML101390564
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	05/13/2010
From:	Robert Walpole Entergy Corp, Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	Document Control Desk, NRC/FSME, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NL-10-053
Download: ML101390564 (241)

Text

-Entergy Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, N.Y. 10511-0249 Tel (914) 734-6710 Robert Walpole Manager, Licensing NL-10-053 May 13, 2010 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Stop O-Pl-17 Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants Units 1, 2 and 3 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2009 Indian Point Units 1, 2 & 3 Docket Nos.50-003, 50-247, 50-286 License Nos. DPR-5, DPR-26, DPR-64

Dear Sir or Madam;Enclosed please find one copy of the Entergy Nuclear Operations,

Inc. (Entergy)

Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) site Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for the period January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009.This report is submitted in accordance with facility Technical Specification section 5.6.2 for DPR-5, DPR-26, and DPR-64, Indian Point Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

No commitments are being made by this report.Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Mr. Reid Tagliamonte, Acting -Radiation Protection Manager at 914-736-8401.

Sincerely yours I RW/as Enclosure cc: w/o enclosure Mr. John P. Boska, Senior Project Manager, NRC NRR DORL Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region 1 Mr. Theodore B. Smith, Project Manager NRC Resident Inspectors Office, Indian Point Energy Center Mr. Francis J. Murray, Jr. President and CEO NYSERDA Mr. Paul Eddy, New York State Dept. of Public Service Mr. Tim Rice, New York State DEC T ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 1,2, AND 3 Docket No.50-003 Indian Point Unit 1 (IP1)Docket No. 50-247 Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2)Docket No. 50-286 Indian Point Unit 3 (IP3)January 1 -December 31, 2009 I,/

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pacle 1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

1-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2-1 2.1 Site Description 2-1 2.2 Program Background 2-1 2.3 Program Objectives 2-1 3.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3-1 3.1 Sample Collection 3-1 3.2 Sample Analysis 3-1 3.3 Sample Collection and Analysis Methodology 3-1 3.3.1 Direct Radiation 3-1 3.3.2 Airborne Particulates and Radioiodine 3-2 3.3.3 Hudson River Water 3-2 3.3.4 Drinking Water 3-2 3.3.5 Hudson River Shoreline Soil 3-3 3.3.6 Broad Leaf Vegetation 3-3 3.3.7 Fish and Invertebrates 3-3 3.3.8 Hudson River Aquatic Vegetation 3-3 3.3.9 Hudson River Bottom Sediment 3-4 3.3.10 Precipitation 3-4 3.3.11 Soil 3-4 3.3.12 Groundwater Samples 3-4 3.3.13 Land Use Census 3-4 3.4 Statistical Methodology 3-6 3.4.1 Lower Limit of Detection and Critical Level 3-6 3.4.2 Determination of Mean and Propagated Error 3-7 3.4.3 Table Statistics 3-8 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4-1 4.1 Direct Radiation 4-3 4.2 Airborne Particulates and Radioiodine 4-4 4.3 Hudson River Water 4-5 4.4 Drinking Water 4-5 4.5 Hudson River Shoreline Soil 4-6 4.6 Broad Leaf Vegetation 4-6 4.7 Fish and Invertebrates 4-6 4.8 Aquatic Vegetation 4-7 4.9 Hudson River Bottom Sediment 4-7 4.10 Precipitation 4-8 4.11 Soil 4-8 4.12 Groundwater 4-8 4.13 Land Use Census 4-8 4.14 Conclusion 4-9

5.0 REFERENCES

5-1 APPENDICES:

A. ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS A-1 B. RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM B-1 RESULTS

SUMMARY

C. HISTORICAL TRENDS C-1 D. INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM D-1* JAF Environmental Laboratory" GEL Laboratories

• AREVA NP Environmental Laboratory (un-numbered pages)ii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE Page A-1 Sampling Locations (Within Two Miles) A-5 A-2 Sampling Locations (Greater Than Two Miles) A-6 A-3 Additional Sampling Locations A-7 C-1 Direct Radiation, Annual Summary, 1999 to 2009 C-3 C-2 Radionuclides in Air, 1999 to 2009 C-5 C-3 Radionuclides in Hudson River Water, 1999 to 2009 C-7 C-4 Radionuclides in Drinking Water, 1999 to 2009 0-9 C-5 Radionuclides in Shoreline Soil, 1999 to 2009 c-1i1 C-6 Broad Leaf Vegetation

-Cs-137, 1999 to 2009 C-13 C-7 Fish and Invertebrates

-Cs-1 37, 1999 to 2009 C-15 iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE Page A-1 Indian Point REMP Sampling Station Locations A-2 A-2 Lower Limit of Detection Requirements for Environmental Sample Analysis A-8 A-3 Reporting Levels for Radioactivity Concentrations in Environmental Samples A-9 B-1 Summary of Sampling Deviations, 2009 B-2 B-la 2009 Air Sampling Deviations B-3 B-ib 2009 TLD Deviations B-3 B-ic 2009 Other Media Deviations B-3 B-2 ODCM Annual Summary, 2009 B-4 B-3 2009 Direct Radiation, Quarterly Data B-9 B-4 Direct Radiation, 1999 through 2009 Data B-10 B-5 2009 Direct Radiation, Inner and Outer Rings B- 11 B-6 Environmental Airborne Particulate Samples -2009 Gross Beta Activity B-1i2 B-7 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Quarterly Composites of Site Air Particulate Samples, 2009 B-14 B-8 Environmental Charcoal Cartridge Samples -2009 1-131 Activity B-16 B-9 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Surface Water Samples, 2009 B-1 8 B-10 Concentrations of Tritium in Surface Water Samples, 2009 B-20 B-11 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Drinking Water Samples, 2009 B-21 B-12 Concentrations of Tritium in Drinking Water Samples, 2009 B-23 B-1 3 Concentrations of Radionuclides in Shoreline Soil Samples, 2009 B-24 B-14 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Broad Leaf Vegetation Samples, 2009 B-26 iv LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

TABLE TITLE Page B-15 Concentrations of Radionuclides in Fish Samples, 2009 B-37 B-16 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Aquatic Vegetation Samples, 2009 B-41 B-17 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Bottom Sediment Samples, 2009 B-42 B-18 Concentrations of Radionuclides in Rainwater Samples, 2009 B-44 B-1 9 Concentrations of Gamma Emitters in Soil Samples, 2009 B-46 B-20 Concentrations of Radionuclides in Monitoring Well Samples, 2009 B-47 B-21 Land Use Census -Residence and Milch Animal Results, B-60 2009 B-22 Land Use Census, 2009 B-61 C-1 Direct Radiation Annual Summary, 1999 to 2009 C-2 C-2 Radionuclides in Air, 1999 to 2009 C-4 C-3 Radionuclides in Hudson River Water, 1999 to 2009 C-6 C-4 Radionuclides in Drinking Water, 1999 to 2009 C-8 C-5 Radionuclides in Shoreline Soil, 1999 to 2009 C-10 C-6 Broad Leaf Vegetation

-Cs-1 37, 1999 to 2009 C-12 C-7 Fish and Invertebrates

-Cs-137, 1999 to 2009 C-14 D-1 QA Program Schedule D-2 D-2 Ratio of Agreement D-3 D-3 Interlaboratory Comparison Program D-5 v SECTION I EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (AREOR) contains descriptions and results of the 2009 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) for the Indian Point site. The Indian Point site consists of Units 1, 2 and 3. Units 1, 2 and 3 are owned and operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Unit 1 was retired as a generating facility in 1974 and, as such, its reactor is no longer operated.The REMP is used to measure the direct radiation and the airborne and waterborne pathway activity in the vicinity of the Indian Point site. Direct radiation pathways include radiation from buildings and plant structures, airborne material that might be released from the plant, cosmic radiation, fallout, and the naturally occurring radioactive materials in soil, air and water. Analysis of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), used to measure direct radiation, indicated that there were no increased radiation levels attributable to plant operations.

The airborne pathway includes measurements of air, precipitation, drinking water, and broad leaf vegetation samples. The airborne pathway measurements indicated that there was no adverse radiological impact to the surrounding environment attributed to Indian Point Station operations.

The waterborne pathway consists of Hudson River water, fish and invertebrates, aquatic vegetation, bottom sediment, and shoreline sediment.

Measurements of the media comprising the waterborne pathway indicated that there was no adverse radiological impact to the surrounding environment attributed to Indian Point Station operations.

This report contains a description of the REMP and the conduct of that program as required by the IPEC Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, herein referred to as ODCM. This 2009 AREOR also contains summaries and discussions of the results of the 2009 program, trend analyses, and potential impact on the environment, land use census, and inter-laboratory comparisons.

During 2009, a total of 1199 samples were obtained out of a planned load of 1203 samples. Table B-1 presents a summary of the collected sampling results.An investigation of groundwater contamination with tritium and other radionuclides has been ongoing since 2005 and continued throughout 2009. This investigation of potential onsite sources of contamination is not the focus of this Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report; however, in 2006, Entergy agreed to several changes in the REMP to assure that all pathways were being evaluated.

Specifically, two new groundwater wells (non-drinking water) were 1-1 designated as "boundary wells" and were sampled as groundwater samples for tritium and strontium-90 analyses and also gamma spectroscopy analysis.

These wells (MW-40 and MW-51) were designated as REMP sample stations 104 and 105. In 2009, an offsite well to replace these two wells was established as sample station 106 at the Lafarge plant south of, and adjacent to, Indian Point. Once it was established, further sampling for REMP purposes at MW-40 and MW-51 was suspended.

A 2006 change was made to the existing fish and invertebrate samples and shoreline sediment samples. The locations and frequency remained the same; however, strontium-90 was added, as also now is Ni-63, to the required analyses.

These additions were observed for the sampling and analyses conducted in 2009. These changes were captured in the ODCM. Groundwater sample results for 2009 are summarized in Table B-20.In summary, the levels of radionuclides in the environment surrounding Indian Point were within the historical ranges, i.e., previous levels resulting from natural and anthropogenic sources for the detected radionuclides.

Further, Indian Point operations in 2009 did not result in exposure to the public greater than environmental background levels.1-2 SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Site Description The Indian Point site occupies 239 acres on the east bank of the Hudson River on a point of land at Mile Point 42.6. The site is located in the Village of Buchanan, Westchester County, New York. Three nuclear reactors, Indian Point Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and associated buildings occupy approximately 35 acres. Unit 1 has been retired as a generating facility.

Units 1, 2, and 3 are owned and operated by Entergy Nuclear.2.2 Program Background Environmental monitoring

ýand surveillance have been conducted at Indian Point since 1958, which was four years prior to the start-up of Unit 1. The pre-operational program was designed and implemented to determine the background radioactivity and to measure the variations in activity levels from natural and other sources in the vicinity, as well as fallout from nuclear weapons tests. Thus, as used in this report, background levels consist of those resulting from both natural and anthropogenic sources of environmental radioactivity.

Accumulation of this background data permits the detection and assessment of environmental activity attributable to plant operations.

2.3 Program Obiectives The current environmental monitoring program is designed to meet two primary objectives:

1. To enable the identification and quantification of changes in the radioactivity of the area, and 2. To measure radionuclide concentrations in the environment attributable to operations of the Indian Point site.To identify changes in activity, the environmental sampling schedule requires that analyses be conducted for specific environmental media on a regular basis. The radioactivity profile of the environment is established and monitored through routine evaluation of the analytical results obtained.The REMP designates sampling locations for the collection of environmental media for analysis.

These sample locations are divided 2-1 into indicator and control locations.

Indicator locations are established near the site, where the presence of environmental radioactivity of plant origin is most likely to be detected.

Control locations are established farther away (and upwind/upstream, where applicable) from the site, where the level would not generally be affected by plant discharges.

The use of indicator and control locations enables the identification of potential sources of detected radioactivity, thus meeting one of the program objectives.

Verification of expected radionuclide concentrations resulting from effluent releases attributable to the site is another program objective.

Verifying projected concentrations through the REMP is difficult since the environmental concentrations resulting from plant releases are consistently too small to be detected.

Plant related radionuclides were detected in 2009; however, residual radioactivity from atmospheric weapons tests and naturally occurring radioactivity were the predominant sources of radioactivity in the samples collected.

Analysis of the 2009 REMP sample results supports the premise that radiological effluents were well below regulatory limits.2-2 SECTION 3 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION To achieve the objectives of the REMP and ensure compliance with the ODCM, sampling and analysis of environmental media are performed as outlined in Table A-1 and described in section 3.3.3.1 Sample Collection Entergy Nuclear Northeast Nuclear Environmental Monitoring (NEM)personnel perform collection of environmental samples for the Indian Point site, with the exception of groundwater and fish/invertebrate samples.The groundwater (monitoring well) samples are collected by a contracted environmental vendor, GZA Geo Environmental, Inc.Assistance in the collection of fish and invertebrate samples was provided by a contracted environmental vendor -Normandeau Associates, Inc.3.2 Sample Analysis The analysis of Indian Point environmental samples is performed by the James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) Environmental Laboratory in Fulton, New York. The JAFNPP lab at Fulton currently analyzes nearly all samples, except for groundwater samples and some tritium and strontium analyses on other media. These samples were analyzed at other New York State Department of Health Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) certified laboratories.

3.3 Sample Collection and Analysis Methodology 3.3.1 Direct Radiation Direct gamma radiation is measured using integrating calcium sulfate thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), which provide cumulative measurements of radiation exposure (i.e., total integrated exposures in milli-roentgen, mR) for a given period. The area surrounding the Indian Point site is divided into 16 compass sectors. Each sector has two TLD sample locations.

The inner ring is located near the site boundary at approximately 1 mile (1.6 km). The outer ring is located at approximately 5 miles (8 km) from the site (6.7- 8.0 km), see Figures A-1 and A-2.3-1 An additional TLD sample site is located at Roseton (20.7 miles north)as a control, and there are eight other TLD sample locations of special interest.In total, there are 41 TLD sample sites, designated DR-1 through DR-41, with two TLDs at each site. TLDs are collected and processed on a quarterly basis. The results are reported as mR per standard quarter (91 days). The mR reported is the average of the two TLDs from each sample site.3.3.2 Airborne Particulates and Radioiodine Air samples were taken at eight locations varying in distance from 0.28 to 20.7 miles (0.4 to 33 km) from the plant. These locations represent one control at sampling station 23 (A5) and seven indicator locations.

These indicator locations are at sampling stations 4 (Al), 5 (A4), 27, 29, 44, 94 (A2), and 95 (A3). The locations are shown on Figures A-I, A-2, and A-3. The air samples are collected continuously by means of fixed air particulate filters followed by in-line charcoal cartridges.

Both are changed on a weekly basis. The filter and cartridge samples are analyzed for gross beta and radioiodine, respectively.

In addition, gamma spectroscopy analysis (GSA) is performed on quarterly composites of the air particulate filters.3.3.3 Hudson River Water Hudson River water sampling is performed continuously at the intake structure (sampling station 9, Wal) and at a point exterior to the discharge canal where Hudson River water and water from the discharge canal mix (sampling station 10, Wa2); see Figure A-I. An automatic composite sampler is used to take representative samples.On a weekly basis, accumulated samples are taken from both sample points. These weekly river water samples are composited for monthly gamma spectroscopy analysis, and quarterly for tritium analysis.3.3.4 Drinking Water Samples of drinking water are collected monthly from the Camp Field Reservoir (3.4 miles NE, sample station 7, sample designation Wbl)and New Croton Reservoir (6.3 Mi SE, sample station 8); see Figure A-3. Each monthly sample is approximately 4 liters and is analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides.

They are also composited quarterly and analyzed for tritium.3-2 3.3.5 Hudson River Shoreline Soil Shoreline soil samples are collected at three indicator and two control locations along the Hudson River. The indicator locations are at sampling stations 53 (Wcl), 28, and 17. The control locations are at sampling stations 50 (Wc2) and 84. Figures A-1, A-2, and A-3 show these locations.

The samples are gathered at a level above low tide and below high tide and are approximately 2-kg grab samples. These samples are collected at greater than 90 days apart and are analyzed by gamma spectroscopy and for strontium-90.

3.3.6 Broad Leaf Vegetation Broad leaf vegetation samples are collected from three locations during the growing season. The indicator locations are sampling stations 94 (Ic2) and 95 (Icl), and the control location is at Roseton, sampling station 23 (Uc3).See Figures A-1 and A-2. The samples are collected monthly, when available, and analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.

These samples consist of at least 1 kg of leafy vegetation and are used in the assessment of the food product and milk ingestion pathways.3.3.7 Fish and Invertebrates Fish and invertebrate samples are obtained from the Hudson River at locations upstream and downstream of the plant discharge.

The indicator location (downstream sample point) is designated as sampling station 25 (Ibl) and the control location (upstream) is at Roseton, sampling station 23 (Wb2). See Figures A-1 and A-2. These samples are collected in season or semiannually if they are not seasonal.

The fish and invertebrates sampled are analyzed by gamma spectroscopy, for Sr-90 and for Ni-63.3.3.8 Hudson River Aquatic Vegetation During the spring and summer, aquatic vegetation samples are collected from the Hudson River at two indicator locations (sampling stations 17 and 28) and one control location (84); see Figure A-3.Samples of aquatic vegetation are obtained depending on sample availability.

These samples are analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.

3-3 3.3.9 Hudson River Bottom Sediment Bottom sediment and benthos are sampled at four locations:

three indicator locations (sampling stations 10, 17, and 28) and one control location (84), along the Hudson River, once each spring and summer;see Figure A-3. These samples are obtained using a Peterson grab sampler or similar instrument.

The bottom sediment samples are analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.

3.3.10 Precipitation Precipitation samples are continuously collected at one indicator location (sampling station 44) and one control location (23); see Figure A-3. They are collected in sample bottles designed to hinder evaporation.

They are composited quarterly and analyzed for tritium.They are also analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.

3.3.11 Soil Soil samples are collected from two indicator locations (sampling stations 94 and 95), and one control location (23) on an annual basis;see Figure A-3. They are approximately 2 kg in size and consist of about twenty 2-inch deep cores. The soil samples are analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.

3.3.12 Groundwater Samples Based on recent site hydrology evaluations and the addition of a number of groundwater sampling wells, two monitoring wells were installed in 2006 and designated as REMP sample stations 104 (MW-40) and 105 (MW-51). These wells have sample points at six different elevations which were specifically designed to be representative of groundwater moving towards the site boundary.

In 2009, an offsite well at the Lafarge plant (106) was established to replace MW-40 and MW-51. These groundwater sample locations are shown in Figure A-3.Groundwater samples from MW-40 and MW-51 were obtained quarterly for the first half of the year and thereafter once semi-annually at Lafarge. Samples are analyzed for tritium, Sr-90, Ni-63 and by gamma spectroscopy.

3.3.13 Land Use Census Each year a land use census consisting of milch animal and residence surveys is conducted during the growing season to determine the current utilization of land within 5 miles (8 km) of the site. These 3-4 surveys are used to determine whether there are changes in existing conditions that warrant changing the sampling program.For example, the milch animal census is used to identify animals producing milk for human consumption within 5 miles (8 km) of Indian Point. This census consists of visual field surveys of the areas where a high probability of milch animals exists and confirmation through personnel such as feed suppliers who deal with farm animals and dairy associations (See Tables B-21 and B-22).Visual inspections were made of the 5-mile area around the Indian Point Site during routine sample collections and emergency plan equipment inspections in the area throughout the year. An extensive land survey was conducted of the 5-mile area in an attempt to identify new residential areas, commercial developments and to identify milch animals in pasture. Previous locations were visited and verified by dispatching Nuclear Environmental Technicians to the various locations.

Note: These actions were taken while performing quarterly environmental badge change out and field inspections through out the four surrounding counties." Orange County was surveyed during through the summer and fall.* Rockland County was surveyed during summer and fall.* Putnam County was surveyed during the summer and fall.* Westchester County was surveyed during the spring, summer and fall.Although there are presently no animals producing milk for human consumption within 5 miles (8 km) of the site, the census is performed to determine if a milk-sampling program needs to be conducted.

A residence census is also performed to identify the nearest residence(s) to the site in each of the 16 sectors surrounding Indian Point. See Table B-22.A garden census was not performed, as the ODCM allows sampling of vegetation in two sectors near the site boundary in lieu of a garden census. The sectors are chosen to be in the pre-dominant wind directions.

3-5 Note: An aerial survey was not conducted of the 5-mile area this year.3.4 Statistical Methodoloqy There is a number of statistical calculation methodologies used in evaluating the data from the Indian Point REMP. These methods include determination of Lower Limits of Detection (LLD) and Critical Levels (Lc), and estimation of the mean and associated propagated error.3.4.1 Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) and Critical Level (Lc)The LLD is a predetermined concentration or activity level used to establish a detection limit for the analytical procedures.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies the maximum acceptable LLDs for each radionuclide in specific media. The LLDs are determined by taking into account overall measurement methods. The equation (from the ODCM) used to calculate the LLD reduces to: LLD = 4.66 K Sb, where: Sb = standard deviation of the background count rate, and K consists of variables, which account for such parameters as:-Instrument characteristics (e.g., efficiency)

-Sample size-Counting time-Media density (self-absorption)

-Radioactive decay-Chemical yield In the ODCM program, LLDs are used to ensure that minimum acceptable detection capabilities for the counting system are met with specified statistical confidence levels (95% detection probability with 5% probability of a false negative).

The LLD is defined as an "a priori" (before the fact) limit representing the capability of a measurement process and not as an "a posteriori" (after the fact) limit for a particular measurement.

Table A-2 presents the ODCM required LLDs for specific 3-6 media and radionuclides as specified by the NRC. The LLDs actually achieved are usually much lower since the ODCM required LLDs represent the maximum allowed.The critical level (Lc) is defined as that net sample counting rate which has a 5% probability of being exceeded when the actual sample activity is zero (e.g., when counting background only). It is determined using the following equation.Lc = ka Sb (1 + TbTs)0 5 in cpm where: k, = 1.645 (corresponds to a 95% confidence level)Sb = standard deviation of the background count rate = (Rb/Tb)°5 Rb = background count rate (cpm)Tb = background count time (min)T, = sample count time (min)For the REMP, net sample results which are less than the L, value are considered not detected, and the L, value is reported as the "less than" value, unless otherwise noted. Values above the Lc are considered positively detected radioactivity in the environmental media of interest (with a 5% chance of false positive).

3.4.2 Determination of Mean and Propagated Error In accordance with program policy, recounts of positive samples are performed.

When the initial count reveals the presence of radioactivity, which may be attributed to plant operations, at a value greater than the Lc, two recounts are performed to verify the positive results. The recounts are not performed on; air samples with positive results from gross beta analysis, since the results are always positive due to natural background radioactive material in the air, or tritium in water samples, since an outside contractor provides these activities.

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 sample result is available, the mean of the sample results and the estimated error for the mean are reported in the Annual Report.The mean (X) and the propagated error (PE) are calculated using the following equations:

3-7 N I xi X= i=1 N where: Xi= value of each individual observation N = number of observations p (ERRi)2 PE = __________

N where: ERRi = 1 sigma error of the individual analysis N = number of observations 3.4.3 Table Statistics The averages shown in the summary table (Table B-2) are the averages of the positive values in accordance with the NRC's Branch Technical Position (BTP) to Regulatory Guide 4.8 (Reference 14).Samples with "<" values are not included in the averages.It should be noted that this statistic for the mean using only positive values tends to strongly bias the average high, particularly when only a few of the data are measurably positive.

The REMP data show few positive values; thus the corresponding means are biased high.Exceptions to this include direct radiation measured by TLDs and gross beta radioactivity in air, which show positive monitoring results throughout the year.In the data tables B-6 through B-20, values shown are based on the Lc value, unless otherwise noted. If a radionuclide was detected at or above the Lc value in two or more counts, the mean and error are calculated as per Section 3.4.2, and reported in the data table. Values listed as "<" in the data tables are the Lc values for that sample, unless otherwise noted. If multiple counts were performed on a sample and a radionuclide's values are "< Lc " each time, the largest critical level is reported in the data table.The historical data tables contain the annual averages of the positive values for each year. The historical averages are calculated using only the positive values presented for 1999 through 2008. The 2009 average values are included in these historic tables for purposes of comparison.

3-8 SECTION 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The 2009 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) was conducted in accordance with Indian Point's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual ODCM. The ODCM contains requirements for the number and distribution of sampling locations, the types of samples to be collected, and the types of analyses to be performed for measurement of radioactivity.

The REMP at Indian Point includes measurements of radioactivity levels in the following environmental pathways.Hudson River Water Shoreline Soil Fish and Invertebrates Aquatic Vegetation Bottom Sediment Airborne Particulates and Radioiodine Precipitation Drinking Water Terrestrial Broad Leaf Vegetation Direct Gamma Radiation Soil Groundwater An annual land use and milch animal census is also part of the REMP.To evaluate the contribution of plant operations to environmental, radioactivity levels, other man-made and natural sources of environmental radioactivity, as well as the aggregate of past monitoring data, must be considered.

It is not merely the detection of a radionuclide, but the evaluation of the location, magnitude, source, and history of its detection that determines its significance.

Therefore, we have reported the data collected in 2009 and assessed the significance of the findings.A summary of the results of the 2009 REMP is presented in Table B-2. This Table lists the mean and range of all positive results obtained for each of the media sampled at ODCM indicator and control locations.

Discussions of these results and their evaluations are provided below.The radionuclides detected in the environment can be grouped into three categories:

(1) naturally occurring radionuclides; (2) radionuclides resulting from weapons testing and other non-plant related, anthropogenic sources;and (3) radionuclides that could be related to plant operations.

4-1 The environment contains a broad inventory of naturally occurring radionuclides which can be classified as, cosmic ray induced (e.g., Be-7, H-3) or geologically derived (e.g., Ra-226 and progeny, Th-228 and progeny, and K-40.) These radionuclides constitute the majority of the background radiation source and thus account for a majority of the annual background dose detected.

Since the detected concentrations of these radionuclides were consistent at indicator and control locations, and unrelated to plant operations, their presence is noted only in the data tables and will not be discussed further.The second group of radionuclides detected in 2009 consists of those resulting from past weapons testing in the earth's atmosphere.

Such testing in the 1950's and 1960's resulted in a significant atmospheric radionuclide inventory, which, in turn, contributed to the concentrations in the lower atmosphere and ecological systems. Although reduced in frequency, atmospheric weapons testing continued into the 1980's. The resultant radionuclide inventory, although diminishing with time (e.g., through radioactive decay and natural dispersion processes), remains detectable.

In 2009, the detected radionuclide that may be attributable to past atmospheric weapons testing consisted of Cs-137 in some media. The levels detected were consistent with the historical levels of radionuclides resulting from weapons tests as measured in previous years.The final group of radionuclides detected through the 2009 REMP comprises those that may be attributable to current plant operations.

During 2009 Cs-137, 1-131, Sr-90 and tritium (H-3) were the only potentially plant-related radionuclides detected in some environmental samples.H-3 may be present in the local environment due to either natural occurrence, other man-made sources, or as a result of plant operations.

Small amounts of H-3 were detected in groundwater boundary wells in 7 of 40 samples at levels which were much lower than the required Lower Limit of Detection (3000 pCi/L); however, they were detectable.

Cs-137 and Cs-134 are both produced in and released from fission reactors and were introduced into the environment from the accident at Chernobyl in 1986. Because Cs-134 has a short half-life relative to Cs-137, Cs-134 from Chernobyl is not likely to be present in 2009. Cs-137 is ubiquitous in the environment from atmospheric testing debris and a lesser amount from the Chernobyl accident.

In 2009, there were three detections of Cs-137 in shoreline soil (2 indicator samples and one control sample). In bottom sediment there were seven positive detections of Cs-137 (6 indicator samples, and one of two control samples.)

The two discharge canal samples, separated by only three months, were quite dissimilar

-with the June result indistinguishable from the control location and the September result 4-2 significantly higher. Compared to 2007-2009 results for comparable samples, the September value appears exceptional but is consistent with historical values. A sample of aquatic vegetation at Lents Cove showed activity greater than the critical level but less that the lower limit of detection.

It is being reported positive, due to its relation to the critical level, but not significant.

The fact that there was no Cs-1 34 present (recent plant releases would contain Cs-134) and that there was detection also at a control location indicates that the activity may be due to atmospheric weapons testing, with some contribution from plant releases from several years past.All preliminary results for Sr-90 in fish and invertebrate samples are questionable and under review. When available, re-analyzed and certified results will be provided.1-131 is also produced in fission reactors, but can result from non-plant related anthropogenic sources, e.g., medical administrations, such as in previous years. 1-131 was not detected in 2009 in aquatic vegetation indicator and control locations.

Co-58 and Co-60 are activation/corrosion products also related to plant operations.

They are produced by neutron activation in the reactor core. As Co-58 has a much shorter half-life, its absence "dates" the presence of Co-60 as residual from releases of both radionuclides in the past. If Co-58 and Co-60 are concurrently detected in environmental samples, then the source of these radionuclides is considered to be from recent releases.When significant concentrations of Co-60 are detected but no Co-58, there is an increased likelihood that the Co-60 is due to residual Co-60 from past operations.

There was no Co-58 or Co-60 detected in the 2009 REMP, though they (Co-58 and Co-60) can be observed in historical data.In the following sections, a summary of the results of the 2009 REMP is presented by sample medium and the significance of any positive findings discussed.

It should be noted that naturally occurring radionuclides are omitted from the summary table (Table B-2) and further discussion.

4.1 Direct Radiation The environmental TLDs used to measure the direct radiation were TLDs supplied and processed by AREVA NP via the JAF Laboratory.

In 2009, the TLD program produced a consistent picture of ambient background radiation levels in the vicinity of the Indian Point Station. A summary of the annual TLD data is provided in Table B-2 and all the TLD data are presented in Tables B-3, B-4 and B-5. TLD sample site DR-40 is the control site for the direct radiation (DR) series of measurements.

4-3 Table B-3 provides the quarterly and annual average reported doses in mR per standard quarter for each of the direct radiation sample points, DR-1 through DR-41. The table also provides the sector for each of the DR sample points. Table B-4 provides the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values in mR per standard quarter for the years 1999 through 2008. The 2009 means are also presented in Table B-4. Table B-5 presents the 2009 TLD data for the inner ring and outer ring of TLDs.The 2009 mean value for the direct radiation sample points was 14.0 mR per standard quarter -a slight and insignificant decrease from 2008. At those locations where the 2009 mean value was higher, they are within historical bounds for the respective locations.

The DR sample locations are arranged so that there are two concentric rings of TLDs around the Indian Point site. The inner ring (DR-1 to DR-16) is close to the site boundary.

The outer ring (DR-17 to DR-32) has a radius of approximately 5 miles from the three Indian Point units. The results for these two rings of TLDs are provided in Table B-5. The annual average for the inner ring was 14.6 mR per standard quarter and also average for the outer ring was 14.3 mR per standard quarter.The control location average for 2009 was 15.1 mR per standard quarter.Table C-1 and Figure C-1 present the 10-year historical averages for the inner and outer rings of TLDs. The 2009 averages are consistent with the historical data. The 2009 and previous years' data show that there is no measurable direct radiation in the environment due to the operation of the Indian Point site.4.2 Airborne Particulates and Radioiodine An annual summary of the results of the 2009 air particulate filter and charcoal cartridge analyses is presented in Table B-2. As shown, there were no radionuclides detected in the air attributable to plant operations.

The results of the analyses of weekly air particulate filter samples for gross beta activity are presented in Table B-6, and the results of the gamma spectroscopy analyses of the quarterly composites of these samples are in Table B-7.Gross beta activity was found in air particulate samples throughout the year at all indicator and control locations.

The average gross beta activity for the eight indicator air sample locations was 0.013 pCi/m 3 and 4-4 the average for the control location was 0.013 pCi/m 3.The activities detected were consistent for all locations, with no significant differences in gross beta activity in any sample due to location.

Gamma spectroscopy analyses of the quarterly composite air samples showed that no reactor-related radionuclides were detected and that only naturally-occurring radionuclides were present at detectable levels.The mean annual gross beta concentrations and Cs-137 concentrations in air for the past 10 years are presented in Table C-2. From this table and Figure C-2, it can be seen that the average 2009 gross beta concentration was consistent with historical levels. Cs-137 has not been detected since 1987. This is consistent with the trend of decreasing ambient Cs-1 37 concentrations in recent years.The charcoal cartridge analytical results are presented in Table B-8."Less than" values are presented as sample critical level (L.). There was no 1-131 detected (LLD = 0.07 pCi/m 3) in the charcoal cartridge samples, which is consistent with historical trends.From the data, it can be seen that no airborne radioactivity attributable to the operation of Indian Point was detected in 2009.4.3 Hudson River Water A summary of the radionuclides detected in the Hudson River water is contained in Table B-2. Data resulting from analysis of monthly Hudson River water samples for gamma emitters, and H-3 analysis of quarterly composites, are presented in Tables B-9 and B-1 0, respectively.

No radionuclides other than those that are naturally occurring were detected in the Hudson River Water samples. Additionally, Table C-3 indicates the absence of Cs-1 37 which is consistent with historical data.4.4 Drinking Water The annual program summary table (Table B-2) contains a summary of the 2009 drinking water sample analysis results. Results of the gamma spectroscopy analyses of the monthly drinking water samples are in Table B-11 and results of tritium analysis of quarterly composites are in Table B-12. Other than naturally occurring radionuclides, no radionuclides were detected in drinking water samples.A summary and illustration of historic trends of drinking water are provided in Table C-4 and Figure C-4, respectively.

An examination of the data indicates that operation of the Indian Point units had no detectable radiological impact on drinking water.4-5 4.5 Hudson River Shoreline Soil A summary of the radionuclide concentrations detected in the shoreline soil samples is contained in Table B-2. Table B-13 contains the results of the gamma spectroscopic and strontium-90 analyses of the shoreline soil samples.In addition to the naturally occurring radionuclides, Cs-137 was identified in the Hudson River shoreline soil samples in 2009. Cs-137 was detected at the Verplanck location in both samples (averaging 143 pCi/kg) from that location, for a total of two positive values out of eight samples from indicator locations.

Cs-137 was detected at the control location (Manitou Inlet) in one of two samples (99 pCi/kg). The average concentration for the indicator locations that had positive indication of Cs-137 was 143 pCi/kg-dry with a maximum concentration of 148 pCi/kg, dry.An historical look at Cs-137 detected in shoreline soil at indicator and control locations can be viewed in Table C-5 and Figure C-5. Cs-137 has been and continues to be present in this media, both at indicator and control locations, at a consistent level over the past ten years.Cs-134 and Cs-137 are both discharged from the plant in similar quantities.

The lack of Cs-134 activity is an indication that the primary source of the Cs-137 in the shoreline soil is legacy contamination from weapons fallout.4.6 Broad Leaf Vegetation Table B-2 contains a summary of the broad leaf vegetation sample analysis results. Data from analysis of the 2009 samples are presented in Table B-14. Analyses of broad leaf vegetation samples revealed only naturally occurring radionuclides.

Table C-6 contains an historical summary and Figure C-6 is an illustration of the broad leaf vegetation analysis results. The detection of low levels of Cs-137 has occurred sporadically at both indicator and control locations at relatively low concentrations for the past ten years and not at all in the last five years; however, Cs-137 was not detected in 2009.4.7 Fish and Invertebrates A summary of the fish and invertebrate sample analysis results is presented in Table B-2. Table B-15 contains the results of the analysis of fish and invertebrate samples for 2009. There were no plant related radionuclides detected as a result of the GSA.4-6 Strontium-90 was added to the analyte list in 2007. Ni-63 was added with an ODCM revision in 2009. No Ni-63 was found in 2009. Results for Sr-90 in all fish and invertebrate samples are under review and not reliable.

When the certified results are available they will be submitted as an addendum to this report.A summary of historical fish and invertebrate analytical data is presented in Table C-7 and illustrated in Figure C-7. Available data are consistent with historical trends.4.8 Aquatic Veqetation A summary of the aquatic sample analysis results is presented in Table B-2. Table B-16 contains the results of the analysis of aquatic vegetation samples for 2009.The laboratory reported positive Cs-137 (17.3 +/- 4.1 pCi/kg) at Lents Cove. This is an amount between the Critical Level and the LLD.Activity-free samples would, about 5% of the time, show a positive result due to normal background statistical fluctuations.

In the historical record, a 17 pCi/kg result was reported for a 2005 aquatic vegetation sample. There are about five samples per year, varying from 3 to 10, going back to 2005. No 1-131 was detected.4.9 Hudson River Bottom Sediment A summary of the Hudson River bottom sediment analysis results is presented in Table B-2. Table B-17 contains the results of the analysis of bottom sediment samples for 2009. Cs-137 was detected at 6 of 6 indicator station samples and at one of two control station samples.This frequency of detection is not unusual. Cs-134 was not detected in any bottom sediment samples. The lack of Cs-134 suggests that the primary source of the Cs-137 in bottom sediment is from historical plant releases over the years and from residual weapons test fallout. Notably, the discharge canal bottom sediments were 232 pCi/kg and 1810 pCi.kg on samples taken three months apart. There is nothing in release data and in monitoring well data that corresponds to this difference, yet the larger result is significantly different from other indicator and control locations from 2009 and the historical record. The average in 2009 is 493 pCi/kg. This is consistent with historical annual average concentration for indicator locations.

The first samples (June 2010) of the current year will be examined for their corroborative value.This detection of Cs-137 in bottom sediment generally decreased from an average of 1200 pCi/kg in the early 1990s to 500 pCi/kg in the mid-4-7 1990s to a recent value of 250 pCi/kg over the last three years. Cs-1 34 has not been detected in bottom sediment since 2002.4.10 Precipitation A summary of the precipitation sample analysis results is presented in Table B-2. Table B-18 contains the results of the precipitation samples for 2009. Other than naturally occurring radionuclides, no radionuclides were detected in precipitation samples.A review of historical data over the last 10 years indicates tritium had been detected in both indicator and control precipitation samples in 1999; however, there have been no instances of positive values since that time.4.11 Soil A summary of the soil sample analysis results is presented in Table B-2. Table B-19 contains the results of the soil samples for 2009. Other than naturally occurring radionuclides, no activity was detected in any of the soil samples.4.12 Groundwater A summary of the groundwater samples for 2009 is contained in Table B-2. Data resulting from analysis of the groundwater samples for gamma emitters, tritium analysis, and Sr-90 are given in Table B-20.Tritium was detected at very low concentrations in 7 of the 40 groundwater samples analyzed.

The amount detected ranged from 193 to 329 pCi/L and averaged 244 pCi/L -which are well below the required LLD of 3000 pCi/L.Other than tritium, there were no potentially plant-related radionuclides detected in the groundwater samples.4.13 Land Use Census A census was performed in the vicinity of Indian Point in 2009. This census consisted of a milch animal and a residence census. Results of this census are presented in Tables B-21 and B-22.The results of the 2009 census were generally same as the 2007 census results. The New York Agricultural Statistic Service showed there were no animals producing milk for human consumption found 4-8 within 5 miles (8 km) of the plant. Field observations also yielded no milching animal locations within five miles.The second part of this census revealed that the two nearest residences in different sectors are located 0.44 miles (0.71 km) ESE and 0.73 miles (1.13 km) S of the plant. The 2009 land use census indicated there were no new residences that were closer in proximity to IPEC.The ODCM allows the sampling of broad leaf vegetation in two sectors at the site boundary in lieu of performing a garden census. Analysis results for these two sectors are discussed in Section 4.6 and presented in Table B-14, Table C-6 and Figure C-6.4.14 Conclusion The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program is conducted each year to determine the radiological impact of Indian Point operations on the environment.

The preceding discussions of the results of the 2009 REMP reveal that operations at the station did not result in an adverse impact on the environment.

The 2009 REMP results demonstrate the relative contributions of different radionuclide sources, both natural and anthropogenic, to the environmental concentrations.

The results indicate that the fallout from previous atmospheric weapons testing continues to contribute to detection of Cs-137 in some environmental samples. There are infrequent detections of plant related radionuclides in the environs;however, the radiological effects are very low and are significantly less than those from natural background and other anthropogenic sources.4-9 SECTION 5 REFERENCES

5.0 REFERENCES

1. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Nuclear Environmental Monitoring Procedures, Radiological Support Procedures, Indian Point Station.2. U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Regulatory Guide 4.8, Environmental Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants, December 1975.3. Eisenbud, M., Environmental Radioactivity, Academic Press, New York, 1987.4. Glasstone, S., and W. H. Jordan, Nuclear Power and Its Environmental Effects, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, 1980.5. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, 1977.6. Cohen N., and Eisenbud M., Radiological Studies of the Hudson River, Progress Report Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University Medical Center, December 1983.7. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)

-Effluent Streams and the Environment February 1979.8. J. W. Poston, Cesium-137 and Other Man-Made Radionuclides in the Hudson River: A Review of the Available Literature, Applied Physical Technology, Inc., report to NYPA, September 1977.9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPC-520/1 80-012, Upgrading Environmental Radiation Data, August 1980.10. Andrews, Howard L. and Lapp, Ralph E. Nuclear Radiation Physics, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972.11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Branch Technical Position to Regulatory Guide 4.8, An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, November 1979.12. Eichholz, Geoffrey G., Environmental Aspects of Nuclear Power, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, 1985.13. Kelly, J. J. (Ed.), Effluent and Environmental Radiation Surveillance, ASTM STP #698, Philadelphia, PA, 1978.14. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Radiological and Environmental Services Department Environmental Surveillance Procedures.

15. Knoll, Glenn F., Radiation Detection and Measurement, first edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1979.5-1

16. Dixon, Wilfred J., Introduction to Statistical Analysis, third edition, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1969.17. National Council on Radiation Protection.

NCRP Report No.94, Exposure of the Population in the United States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation December 1987.18. National Council on Radiation Protection.

NCRP Report No. 62, Tritium in the Environment, March 1979.19. IPEC Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Units 1,2 and 3 20. Kuhn, W.,et al., The Influence of Soil Parameters on Cs-137 Uptake by Plants from Long-Term Fallout on Forest Clearings and Grasslands, Health Physics Journal, 46(5), p. 1083, May 1984.21. Garner, J.,et al., High Radiocesium Levels in Granite Outcrop Vegetation and Reductions Through Time, Health Physics Journal, 60(4), p. 533, April 1991.22. McGee, E., et al., The Variability in Fallout Content of Soils and Plants and the Design of Optimum Field Sampling Strategies, Health Physics Journal, 68(3), March 1995.23. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Safety Evaluation for Amendment

1. 45 to Unit 1 Provisional Operating License, January 1996.24. U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.13, Performance, Testing, and Procedural Specifications for Thermoluminescence Dosimetry:

Environmental Applications, November 1979.25. Office of Environmental Management, Semi-Annual Report of the Department of Energy, Quality Assessment Program, EML 617, June 2003.26. Office of Environmental Management, Semi-Annual Report of theDepartment of Energy, Quality Assessment Program, EML 618, December 2003.27. McFarland, R.C., et al., The Counting Room: Special Edition, Radioactivity and Radiochemistry, Caretaker Publications, Atlanta, Georgia, 1994.28. Bevington, P.R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw Hill, 1969.29. ENN-LI-1 02, Corrective Action Process 30. Technical Information Document 2003-011 "Justification for the Removal of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Blind Spike Program at IPEC" 5-2 APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX A Environmental media are sampled at the locations specified in Table A-1 and shown in Figures A-i, A-2, and A-3. The samples are analyzed according to criteria established in the ODCM. These requirements include: methods of sample collection; types of sample analysis; minimum sample size required;lower limit of detection, which must be attained for each medium, sample, or analysis type, and environmental concentrations requiring special reports.Table A-1 provides the sampling station number, location, sector, and distance from Indian Point, sample designation code, and sample type. This table gives the complete listing of sample locations used in the 2009 REMP.Three maps are provided to show the locations of REMP sampling.

Figure A-1 shows the sampling locations within two miles of Indian Point. Figures A-2 and A-3 show the sampling locations within ten miles of Indian Point.The ODCM required lower limits of detection (LLD) for Indian Point sample analyses are presented in Table A-2. These required lower limits of detection are not the same as the lower limits of detection or critical levels actually achieved by the laboratory.

The laboratory's lower limits of detection and critical levels must be equal to or lower than the required levels presented in Table A-2.Table A-3 provides the reporting level for radioactivity in various media. Sample results that exceed these levels and are due to plant operations require that a special report be submitted to the NRC.In addition to the sampling outlined in Table A-i, there is an environmental surveillance requirement that an annual land use and milch animal census be performed.

See Tables B-21 and B-22 for the milch animal and land use census.A-1 TABLE A-1 INDIAN POINT REMP SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS SAMPIING 4 SAMPLE~STTIN ESGNAIO ~&~~ LOCATION ~ DISTANCE SAMPLE TYPES ~3 DR8 Service Center Building Onsite -Direct Gamma 0.35 Mi (SSE) at 158' iet am Al Onsite -0.28 Mi (SW) at Air Particulate Al Algonquin Gas Line 24 aiidn Al 234° Radioiodine A4 Air Particulate 5 A4 NYU Tower Onsite -0.88 Mi (SSW) Radioiodine at 2080 DRI0 Direct Gamma 7 Wbl Camp Field Reservoir 3.4 Mi (NE) at 51' Drinking Water 8 Croton Reservoir 6.3 Mi (SE) at 1240 Drinking Water 9 Wal Plant Inlet (Hudson River Intake)* Onsite -HR Water 0. 16 Mi (W) at 2730 RWae Wa2 Onie-HR Water 10 ** Discharge Canal (Mixing Zone) Onsite -0.3 Mi (WSW) at 249' HR Bottom Sediment 14 DR7 Water Meter House OnsiteDirect Gamma 0.3 Mi (SE) at 133D** HR Aquatic Vegetation 17 ** Off Verplanck 1.5 Mi (SSW) at 202.50 HR Shoreline Soil** HR Bottom Sediment Cortlandt Yacht Club 20 DR38 (AKA Montrose Marina) 1.5 Mi (5) at 1800 Direct Gamma** Precipitation A5 Air Particulate, A5 Radioiodine 23 DR40 Roseton* 20.7 Mi (N) at 3570 Direct Gamma Ic3 Broad Leaf Vegetation

• • Soil Ib2 Fish & Invertebrates 25 Ibl Downstream Downstream Fish & Invertebrates

• • Air Particulate 27 ** Croton Point 6.36 Mi (SSE) at 1560 Radioiodine DR41 Direct Gamma** HR Shoreline Soil 28 DR4 Lent's Cove 0.45 Mi (ENE) at 0690 Direct Gamma IHR Bottom Sediment** HR Aquatic Vegetation Air Particulate 29 ** Grassy Point 3.37 Mi (SSW) at 196' Radioiodine DR39 Direct Gamma= Control location= Locations listed do not have sample designation locations specified in the ODCM HR = Hudson River R/S = Reuter Stokes A-2 TABLE A-1 INDIAN POINT REMP SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS SAMPLING, S 4 AMPLE~LOCOATION

~ IDISTANCE SML YE STATION~?

DESIGNATION

~_ ~ ~ ~ f YE 33 DR33 Hamilton Street (Substation) 2.88 Mi (NE) at 0530 Direct Gamma 34 DR9 South East Corner of Site OnsiteDirect Gamma 0.52 Mi (S) at 1790 35 DR5 Broadway & Bleakley Avenue Onsite -Direct Gamma 0.37 Mi (E) at 0920'iet am 38 DR34 Furnace Dock (Substation) 3.43 Mi (SE) at 141° Direct Gamma** Precipitation 44 ** Peekskill Gas Holder Bldg 1.84 Mi (NE) at 0520 Air Particulate

• • Radioiodine 50 Wc2 Manitou Inlet* 4.48 Mi (NNW) at 3470 HR Shoreline Soil Wcl HR Shoreline Soil 53 White Beach 0.92 Mi (SW) at 226'DR1 1 Direct Gamma 56 DR37 Verplanck

-Broadway & 6th Street 1.25 Mi (SSW) at 202' Direct Gamma 57 DR1 Roa Hook 2 Mi (N) at 0050 Direct Gamma 58 DR17 Route 9D -Garrison 5.41 Mi (N) at 3580 Direct Gamma 59 DR2 Old Pemart Avenue 1.8 Mi (NNE) at 032' Direct Gamma 60 DR18 Gallows Hill Road & Sprout Brook 5.02 Mi (NNE) at 0290 Direct Gamma Road 61 DR36 Lower South Street & Franklin Street 1.3 Mi (NE) at 0520 Direct Gamma Westbrook Drive 62 _ DR19 (near the Community Center) 5.03 Mi (NE) at 0620 Direct Gamma Lincoln Road -Cortlandt 64 DR20 (School Parking Lot) 4.6 Mi (ENE) at 0670 Direct Gamma 66 DR21 Croton Avenue -Cortlandt 4.87 Mi (E) at 0830 Direct Gamma 67 DR22 Colabaugh Pond Road -Cortlandt 4.5 Mi (ESE) at 1140 Direct Gamma 69 DR23 Mt. Airy & Windsor Road 4.97 Mi (SE) at 1270 Direct Gamma 71 DR25 Warren Ave -Haverstraw 4.83 Mi (S) at 1880 Direct Gamma 72 DR26 Railroad Avenue & 9W -Haverstraw 4.53 Mi (SSW) at 2030 Direct Gamma Willow Grove Road & Captain 73 DR27 Faldermeyer Drive 4.97 Mi (SW) at 2260 Direct Gamma 74 DR12 West Shore Drive -South 1.59 Mi (WSW) at 2520 Direct Gamma 75 DR31 Palisades Parkway 4.65 Mi (NW) at 2250 Direct Gamma 76 DR13 West Shore Drive -North 1.21 Mi (W) at 2760 Direct Gamma 77 DR29 Palisades Parkway 4.15 Mi (W) at 2720 Direct Gamma 78 DR14 Rt. 9W across from R/S #14 1.2 Mi (WNW) at 2950 Direct Gamma= Control location Locations listed do not have sample designation locations specified in the ODCM HR = Hudson River R/S = Reuter Stokes A-3 TABLE A-1 INDIAN POINT REMP SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS SýMUq APE LOCATION~

DISTANCE, ~ SAMPLE TYPES~STATION DESIGN4ATION

___________

_____ ___ _______79 DR30 Anthony Wayne Park 4.57 Mi (WNW) at 2960 Direct Gamma 80 DR15 Route 9W South of Ayers Road 1.02 Mi (NW) at 3170 Direct Gamma 81 DR28 Palisades Pkwy -Lake Welch Exit 4.96 Mi (WSW) at 310' Direct Gamma 82 DR16 Ayers Road 1.01 Mi (NNW) at 3340 Direct Gamma 83 DR32 Route 9W -Fort Montgomery 4.82 Mi (NNW) at 3390 Direct Gamma** HR Aquatic Vegetation 84 ** Cold Spring

• 10.88 Mi (N) at 3560 HR Shoreline Soil** HR Bottom Sediment 88 DR6 R/S Pole #6 0.32 Mi (ESE) at 1180 Direct Gamma 89 DR35 Highland Ave & Sprout Brook Road 2.89 Mi (NNE) at 0250 Direct Gamma 89_DR35_ (near rock cut)90 DR3 Charles Point 0.88 Mi (NE) at 0470 Direct Gamma 92 DR24 Warren Road -Cortlandt 3.84 Mi (SSE) at 1490 Direct Gamma A2 Air Particulate 94 A2 IPEC Training Center Onsite- 0.39 Mi (S) at Radioiodine 1c2 1930 Broad Leaf Vegetation

• • Soil A3 Air Particulate A3 Meteorological Tower Onsite -Radioiodine Icl 0.46 Mi (SSW) at 2080 Broad Leaf Vegetation

• • Soil MW-40 Boundary Well, lower parking Onsite -0.21 mi (SW) Groundwater 104

• lot 105 MW-51 Boundary Well, middle Onsite -0.18 mi (SSW) Groundwater parking lot 106 Lafarge Monitoring Well 0.63 mi SW Groundwater

= Control location= Locations listed do not have sample designation locations specified in the ODCM HR = Hudson River R/S = Reuter Stokes A-4 FIGURE A-1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS Within Two Miles of Indian Point N Peekskill Rockland County G Indian U3)Point ZýIbl [D 72]1 Hudso n / ,c l , 12 River c11(I Bucd Verplanck 38 Key: A -Waterborne:

Surface (HR) Wa#o -Direct Radiation Sample Location DR#E -Air Particulate

& Radioiodine A#-HR Shoreline Sediment Wc#Westchester County 1 mile Ic# -Broadleaf Vegetation tbl -Fish and Invertebrates (where available downstream)

A-5 FIGURE A-2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS Greater Than 2 Miles From Indian Point N[ Roseton (20.7 mi. N) : @ ic3 Upstream:

Ib2 Orange County Bear Mountain Bridge 0©9 Putnam County@(D@0 1 5 miles Rockland County Key: 0 -Direct Radiation Sample Location DR#IZ -Air Particulate

& Radioiodine A#<C>- HR Shoreline Sediment Wc#0 -Waterborne:

Drinking Wb#Westchester County Ic3 -Broadleaf Vegetation Ib2 -Fish and Invertebrates (where available upstream)A-6 FIGURE A-3 SAMPLING LOCATIONS Additional Sampling Locations N Ro-seton (201 mi N):23: p Orange County Bear Mountain Bridge 10: 41*, 106: gw -,_Putnam County Cold Spring (10.88 rMO N): 84 Y 28: 17: T 29: N-104f105:gw Westchester County 08: dw Rocktand County 27: U 5 m 5 miles Key: ii- Air Particulate

& Radioiodine V -Aquatic Vegetation

• -HR Bottom Sediment p -Precipitation dw -Drinking Water 4C>- HR Shoreline Sediment gw -Ground Water Boundary Monitoring (see detailed site map)A-7 TABLE A-2 LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION (LLD) REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS (a)(b)Co581 ;ARR 30I AIRBORN FOOD ANLYI WATER P~ARTICU -LATES FIS MIL PODCT SDIEN (piL OR GASES ( pCi/kg, wet) (p(~ikg/L)e (pCi/kg, dry)Gross f34 0.01 H-3 2, 000 (c) ________ ______Mn-54 15 130 _____Fe-59 30 260 Co-58 15 130 Co-60 15 130 Zn-65 30 260 Zr-Nb-95 15 1-131 1 (d) 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 Sr-90 1 W 5 5,000 (a) This list shows required LLD's, but other radionuclides are considered.

Other identifiable peaks from gamma spectroscopy shall also be analyzed and reported in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.(b) Required detection capabilities for thermoluminescent dosimeters used for environmental measurements are given in Regulatory Guide 4.13 (Reference 27).(c) LLD for drinking water samples. If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 3000 pCi/L may be used.(d) LLD for drinking water samples. If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 15 pCi/L may be used.(e) The Sr-90 water LLD is only for groundwater samples locations 104 and 105 (see Table A-1)A-8 TABLE A-3 REPORTING LEVELS FOR RADIOACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES H-3 20,000'8a)

Mn-54 1,000 30,000 Fe-59 400 10,000 Co-58 1,000 30,000 Co-60 300 10,000 Zn-65 300 20,000 Zr-Nb-95 400 1-131 2 (b) 0.9 3 100 Cs-134 30 10 1,000 60 1,000 Cs-137 50 20 2,000 70 2,000 Ba-La-140 200 300 Sr-90 8 40 (a) For drinking water samples. This is the 40 CFR Part 141 value. If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 30,000 pCi/L may be used.(b) If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 20 pCi/L may be used.A-9 APPENDIX B RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM RESULTS

SUMMARY

APPENDIX B B.1 2009 Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Summary The results of the 2009 radiological environmental sampling program are presented in Tables B-2 through .B-20. Table B-2 is a summary table of the sample results for 2009. The format of this summary table conforms to the reporting requirements of the ODCM, NRC Regulatory Guide 4.8 (Reference 4), and NRC Branch Technical Position to Regulatory Guide 4.8 (Reference 14). In addition, the data obtained from the analysis of samples are provided in Tables B-3 through B-20.REMP samples were analyzed by various counting methods as appropriate.

The methods are; gross beta, gamma spectroscopy analysis, liquid scintillation, radiochemical analysis, and TLD processing.

Gamma spectroscopy analysis was performed for the following radionuclides; Be-7, K-40, Mn-54, Co-58, Co-60, Fe-59, Zn-65, Zr-95, Nb-95, Ru-103, Ru-106, 1-131, Cs-134, Cs-137, Ba/La-140, Ce-141, Ce-144, Ra-226 and AcITh-228.

Radiochemical analyses were performed for 1-131 and Sr-90 for specific media and locations as required in the ODCM.B.2 Land Use Census In accordance with Sections IP2-D3.5.2 and IP3-2.8 of the ODCM, a land use census was conducted to identify the nearest milch animal and the nearest residence.

The results of the milch animal and land use census are presented in Tables B-21 and B-22, respectively.

In lieu of identifying and sampling the nearest garden of greater than 50 M 2 , at least three kinds of broad leaf vegetation were sampled near the site boundary in two sectors and at a designated control location (results are presented in Table B-14).B.3 Sampling Deviations During 2009, environmental sampling was performed for. 12 media types addressed in the ODCM and for direct radiation.

A total of 1199 samples of 1203 scheduled were obtained.

Of the scheduled samples, 99.7% were collected and analyzed for the program. Sampling deviations are summarized in Table B-1; discussions of the reasons for the deviations are provided in Table B-1 a for air samples, B-1 b for TLDs and B-1 c for other environmental media.B.4 Analytical Deviations One fish sample could not be re-analyzed for Ni-63, due to a lack of sufficient mass of the unused remnant.B.5 Special Reports No special reports were required under the REMP.B-1 TABLE B-1

SUMMARY

OF SAMPLING DEVIATIONS 2009~ MEIA ~ TOTAEDLE NUMBER OF SAMPLING ~REASON FOR MDASAMPDLESD D~EVIATIONS*

EFFICIENCY 0% DEVIATION SAMPLE MEDIA PARTICULATES IN AIR CHARCOAL FILTER TLD HUDSON RIVER WATER DRINKING WATER SHORELINE SOIL BROAD LEAF VEGETATION FISH & INVERTEBRATES AQUATIC VEGETATION HUDSON RIVER BOTTOM SEDIMENT SOIL PRECIPITATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLES 416 416 164 32 32 10 61 23 5 8 3 8 25 99.5%99.5%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%See Table B-la See Table B-la N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTALS 1203 4 99.7%TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES COLLECTED

=* Samples not collected or unable to be analyzed.1199 B-2 TABLE B-la / B-lblB-ic TABLE B-la 2009 Air Sampling Deviations STATION ~ WEEK 'PROBLEM I ACTION~S TO PREVENT RECURREN ,E~N.Y.U. Tower 6/23/2009 64 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br /> lost due to GFI trip N.Y.U. Tower 12/112009

-12/1512009 Damage to station from fallen tree; not restored until 12/16/09 GRASSY POINT 6/30/2009 Power turned off inadvertently from inside the building; 97 hour0.00112 days <br />0.0269 hours <br />1.603836e-4 weeks <br />3.69085e-5 months <br /> outage IGRASSY POINT 8/17/2009 Repeat of previous outage; maintenance has placed tag on breaker; 99 hour0.00115 days <br />0.0275 hours <br />1.636905e-4 weeks <br />3.76695e-5 months <br /> G P1outage TABLE B-lb 2009 TLD Deviations STATION f#N QUARTER PROBI6EM-I ACTIONS'TO PREVENT RECIURRENCý~

j None TABLE B-Ic 2009 Other Media Deviations H STTIO SAMPLE SCHEDULE FPROBLEMn ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE HUDSON RIVER 1/16/09 -1/23/09 Frozen sample line; grab sample taken HUDSON RIVER 1/23/09 -1/30/09 Frozen sample line; grab sample taken HUDSON RIVER 1/30/09 -2/6/09 Frozen sample line; grab sample taken B-3 TABLE B-2 ODCM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

-2009~ 4~ LOCATION OF HIGHEST TYPE ANDTOTAL INDICATOR LOCATIONS-.

ANNUAL MEAN:NUBRO MEDIM (UNITS) NUjMBER OF LOCATIONS AN~D CONTROL N LL (b)G~O NON-ROUTINE DIRECT RADIATION TLD Reads N1 14 (160/160)

IWest Shore Drive -North 15.2(4/4)!(mR / standard quarter) 164 N/A 9.9120.8 1.21 Mi (W) at 276' DR13 13.9-16.6 0 B-3 19.9 (4/4)/19-20.8 AIR PARTICULATES 0013(3601364)

1. 4 Algonquin Gas Line AND RADIOIODINE GB (467) 0.01 028 Mi (SW) at 23400.013 (52152)(pCi/m 3) B-6, B-7, B-8 -0.026 0.013 (52/52) / 0.004-0.024 0.003-0.025 1-131(466) 0.07 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 GSA (36) 0.05 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-1 34 GSA (36) 0.06 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-1 37 SURFACE HUDSON RIVER WATER (pCi/L) H-3 (8) 3000 (c) <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 B-9, B-10 GSA (24)Mn-54 15 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Co-58 15 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Fe-59 30 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Co-60 15 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Zn-65 30 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Zr/Nb-95 15 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 1-131 15 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-134 15 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-137 18 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Ba/La-140 15 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 (a) Positive values above L,; Groundwater above MDC (b) Required a priori LLD; see Table A-2 (c) Not a drinking water pathway; the required LLD is 3000 pCi/L B-4 TABLE B-2 ODCM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

-2009 DRINKING WATER (pCi/L) B-11, B-12 GB (24)4 4 4 1. 1 4 H-3 (8) 2000 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 GSA (24)Mn-54 15 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 Co-58 15 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 Fe-59 30 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 Co-60 15 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 Zn-65 30 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 Zr/Nb-95 15 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 1-131 15 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 Cs-134 15 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 Cs-137 18 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 Ba/La-140 15 <Lc <Lc N/A 0 HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE SOIL GSA (10)(pCi/kg -dry) B-13 Cs-1 34 150 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 143(2/8)1

1. 17 Off Verplanck

1. 50 Manitou Inlet Cs-137 180 <L -149 1.5 Mi (SSW) at 202.50 99(112)1 0 143 (2/2) / 137 -149 <L, -99 Sr-90 (6) 5000 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 a i I (a) Positive values above L,; Groundwater above MDC (b) Required a priori LLD; see Table A-2 (c) Not a drinking water pathway; the required LLD is 3000 pCi/L B-5 TABLE B-2 ODCM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

-2009 t3MiJU/-%jL'-M-VEGETATION (pCi/kg -wet) B-14 GSA (61)1-131 Co-60 Cs-1 34 Cs-1 37 60 N/A 60 80<Lc<Lc<Lc<Lc<Lc<Lc<Lc<Lc<Lc<Lc<Lc<Lc 0 0 0 0 FISH AND INVERTEBRATES GSA (23)(pCi/kg -wet) B-15 Mn-54 130 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Co-58 130 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Fe-59 260 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Ni-63 100 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Co-60 130 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Zn-65 260 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-134 130 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-137 150 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Sr-90 (27) 5 TBD TBD TBD 0 AQUATIC VEGETATION GSA(5)(pCi/kg -WET)Co-60 NONE <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 1-131 NONE <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-1 34 NONE <Lc <Lc <Lc 0#28 Lents Cove Cs-137 NONE 17.3 (1/4) / <L -17.3 0.45 Mi (ENE) at 0690 <Lc 0"17.3 (1/2)/ <L, -17.3 (a) Positive values above L,; Groundwater above MDC (b) Required a priori LLD; see Table A-2 (c) Not a drinking water pathway; the required LLD is 3000 pCi/L B-6 TABLE B-2 ODCM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

-2009 (pCi/kg -DRY)GSA(8)Co-60 Cs-1 34 Cs-1 37 NONE 150<Lc<Lc<Lc<Lc 180 493 (6/6) /65- 1810#10 Discharge Canal 0.3 Mi WSW 1021 (2/2) / 232 -1810<Lc<Lc#84 Cold Spring 20.7 Mi (N) at 356'224 (112)!<L , -224 0 0 0 SOIL (pCi/kg -DRY) GSA(3)Co-60 NONE <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-1 34 150 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-137 180 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 PRECIPITATION GSA(8)(pCi/L) .H-3 3000 (c) <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Co-60 15 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-134 15 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 Cs-137 18 <Lc <Lc <Lc 0 (a) Positive values above L,; Groundwater above MDC (b) Required a priori LLD; see Table A-2 (c) Not a drinking water pathway; the required LLD is 3000 pCi/L B-7 TABLE B-2 ODCM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

-2009 (a) Positive.

values above L,; Groundwater above MDC (b) Required a priori LLD; see Table A-2 (c) Not a drinking water pathway; the required LLD is 3000 pCi/L B-8 TABLE B-3 2009 DIRECT RADIATION, QUARTERLY DATA (mR per STANDARD QUARTER).Station ID Sector 1st Quarter 2nd Qua rter 3rd Quarter ý 4th Quarter Mean Yearly DR-01 N 15.53 +/- 1.27 13.82 +/- 0.51 15.48 +/- 0.96 15.54 +/- 0.57 15.1 60.4 DR-02 NNE, 13.85 +/- 0.74 13.33 +/- 0.66 15.58 +/- 1.49 15.86 +/- 1.47 14.7 58.6 DR-03 NE 11.81 +/- 0.77 10.70 +/- 0.40 12.56 +/- 0.52 12.50 +/- 0.61 11.9 47.6 DR-04 ENE 13.18 +/- 0.91 12.72 +/- 0.74 14.24 +/- 0.72 13.71 +/- 0.78 13.5 53.9 DR-05 ENE 13.32 +/- 0.78, 12.61 +/- 0.53 14.56 +/- 0.69 14.00 +/- 0.70 13.6 54.5 DR-06 ESE 13.82 +/- 0.71. 13.38 +/- 0.88 14.37 +/- 0.65 14.64 +/- 0.82 14.1 56.2 DR-07 SE 15.92 +/- 0.93, 15.28 +/- 0.57 16.74 +/- 1.67 16.97 +/- 0.70 16.2 64.9 DR-08 SSE 12.22 +/- 0.75 11.73 +/- 0.64 12.76 +/- 1.10 12.31 +/- 0.72 12.3 49.0 DR-09 S 13.26 +/- 0.85 12.30 +/- 0.50 13.90 +/- 0.64 14.45 +/- 0.81 13.5 53.9 DR-10 SSW 13.64 +/- 0.84- 13.56 +/- 0.64 13.86 +/- 0.89 15.24 +/- 0.71 14.1 56.3 DR-11 SW 10.95 +/- 0.67 9.85 +/- 0.42 10.89 +/- 0.60 11.19 +/- 0.67 10.7 42.9 DR-12 WSW 15.32 +/- 0.90 14.22 +/- 0.39 15.24 +/- 0.80 16.15 +/- 0.84 15.2 ,60.9 DR-13 WSW 19.46 +/- 1.48 18.99 +/- 0.84 20.38 +/- 1.03 20.80 +/- 0.94 19.9 79.6 DR-14 WNW 12.95 +/- 0.87 12.59 +/- 0.55 -14.12 +/- 1.60 13.85 +/- 0.74 13.4 53.5 DR-15 NW 12.68 +/- 0.68 12.05 +/- 0.75 13.16 +/- 0,80 13.58 +/- 0.75 12.9 51.5 DR-16 NNW 14.35 +/- 0.97 13.57 +/- 0.76 15.08 +/- 1,16 14.59 +/- 0.69 14.4 57.6 DR-17 N 14.29 +/- 0.73 13.31

• 0.74 14.98 +/- 1.47 15.19 +/- 0.97 14.4 57.8 DR-18 NNE 13.71 +/- 0.98 13.58 +/- 0.58 14.15 +/- 0,85 14.79 +/- 0.55 14.1 56.2 DR-19 NE 14.69 +/- 0.69 13.79 +/- 0.49 15.56 +/- 1.02 14.99 +/- 0.65 14.8 59.0 DR-20 ENE 13.22 +/- 0.82 12.02 +/- 0.69 13.41 +/- 0.91 13.57 +/- 0.63 13.1 52.2 DR-21 E 13.84 +/- 0.89 13.23 +/- 0.70 14.70 +/- 0.92 14.26 +/- 0.86 14.0 56.0 DR-22 ESE 11.05 +/- 0.70 10.58 +/- 0.77 11.64 +/- 1.39 11.32 +/- 0.70 11.1 44.6 DR-23 SE 13.24 + 0.95 13.16 +/- 0.48 14.43 +/- 0.80 14.43 +/- 0.59 13.8 55.3 DR-24 SSE 14.30 + 0.82 13.76 +/- 0.65 14.38 +/- 0.95 15.24 +/- 0.56 14.4 57.7 DR-25 S 12.85 +/- 0.72 11.63 +/- 0.55 12.68 +/- 0.62 12.36 +/- 0.48 12.4 49.5 DR-26 SSW 13.54 + 1.00 12.91 +/- 0.88 13.68 +/- 0.62 14.36 +/- 1.22 13.6 54.5 DR-27 SW 13.50 +/- 0.78 12.28 +/- 0.40 13.84 +/- 1.15 13.57 +/- 0.58 13.3 53.2 DR-28 NW 19.65 +/- 1.22 18.48 +/- 0.59 20.65 +/- 1.07 19.55 +/- 0.57 19.6 78.3 DR-29 W 14.52 +/- 0.75 12.97 +/- 0.90 14.96 +/- 0.75 14.38 +/- 0.93 14.2 56.8 DR-30 SNS 14.49 +/- 0.67 13.07 +/- 0.72 15.30 +/- 0.76 14.76 +/- 0.68 14.4 57.6 DR-31 WSW 16.56 +/- 0.81 15.42 +/- 1.50 17.23 +/- 1.12 16.37 +/- 0.58 16.4 65.6 DR-32 NNW 13.35 +/- 0.95 11.43 +/- 0.49 13.41 +/- 1.07 13.04 +/- 0.67 12.8 51.2 DR-33 NE 13.49 +/- 0.87 13.31 +/- 0.60 12.97 +/- 0.98 14.12 +/- 0.86 13.5 53.9 DR-34 SE 12.87 +/- 0.78 12.16

• 0.40 13.00 +/- 0.69 13.30 +/- 0.51 12.8 51.3 DR-35 NNE 13.14 +/- 0.72 12.46 +/- 1,.08 14.38 +/- 1.17 14.27 +/- 0.98 13.6 54.3 DR-36 NE 14.11 ,+ 0.82 14.30 +/- 0.82 14.60 +/- 0.75 14.7,4 +/- 0.45 14.4 57.8 DR-37 SSW 13.18 +/- 1.09 12.57 +/- 0.61 13.98 +/- 1.04 14.65 +/- 0.73 13.6 54.4 DR-38 S 11.40 + 0.79 11.71 + 1.32 12.06 +/- 0.55 12.75 +/- 0.68 12.0 47.9 DR-39 SSW 14.95 +/- 0.95 14.47 +/- 0.94 15.62 +/- 0.71 16.02 + 0.61 15.3 61.1 DR-40** N 14.95 + 1.07 13.88 +/- 0.55 16.57 +/- 0.81 15.22 + 0.78 15.2 60.6 DR-41 SSE 13.05 +/- 1.04 12.19 +/- 0.79 12.88 +/- 0.85 13.88 +/- 0.64 13.0 52.0 AVERAGE 13.9 13.1 14.4 14.5 14.0 56 Data not available** Control Location B-9 TABLE B-4 DIRECT RADIATION, 1999 THROUGH 2009 DATA (mR per Standard Quarter Basis)DR-02 DR-03 DR-04 DR-05 DR-06 DR-07 DR-08 DR-09 DR-10 DR-1I DR-12 DR-13 DR-14 DR-1 5 DR-16 60.5 47.8 53.8 54.2 54.0 63.8 51.3 53.3 56.6 44.4 67.0 76.0 53.2 53.6 59.0 7.2 1.9 3.6 2.3 3.1 3.6 2.9 2.8 2.1 2.0 4.1 3.7 1.9 3.8 2.5 00.4 53.6 44.0 46.8 48.4 46.4 55.6 47.2 47.2 53.2 40.8 60.8 68.0 50.0 46.4 55.2 79.2 50.0 58.8 57.2 56.8 68.8 56.4 58.0 60.0 47.2 76.0 80.4 56.0 60.0 62.8 OU.4 58.6 47.6 53.9 54.5 56.2 64.9 49.0 53.9 56.3 42.9 60.9 79.6 53.5 51.5 57.6-, -- 1" 4 4 -- -4 DR-17 DR-18 DR-1 9 DR-20 DR-21 DR-22 DR-23 DR-24 DR-25 DR-26 DR-27 DR-28 DR-29 DR-30 DR-31 DR-32 60.1 56.4 59.4 53.8 54.7 45.6 55.6 56.6 49.4 54.9 54.6 67.2 63.4 62.0 70.5 52.6 3.0 2.1 2.3 3.3 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.3 2.5 3.3 8.6 7.9 5.9 5.3 3.2 56.4 52.4 55.2 47.6 50.0 40.4 49.6 49.2 44.8 50.4 46.8 57.2 54.8 52.4 62.0 46.0 66.8 58.8 61.6 58.8 58.8 50.8 58.8 60.0 52.8 58.8 59.2 78.8 74.0 71.2 78.4 57.2 57.8 56.2 59.0 52.2 56.0 44.6 55.3 57.7 49.5 54.5 53.2 78.3 56.8 57.6 65.6 51.2 DR-33 46.4 9.5 34.0 55.2 53.9 DR-34 52.8 4.6 43.2 60.8 51.3 DR-35 56.0 3.8 48.8 61.2 54.3 DR-36 60.7 4.9 52.4 70.4 57.8 DR-37 54.5 2.9 48.8 58.8 54.4 DR-38 51.7 3.1 48.8 58.4 47.9 DR-39 61.9 3.8 55.2 66.4 61.1 DR-40** 63.2 6.1 54.8 75.2 60.6 DR-41 52.3 3.6 44.4 58.0 52.0 Average 56.8 50.4 62.6 56.1** Control Location B-10 TABLE B-5 2009 DIRECT RADIATION Inner and Outer Rings (mR per standard quarter basis)~ninner Ring OuterRing~

Sectr Anual Annual~Ri'~1D ~Rng1~ ~Average Averaqe DR-01 DR-17 N 62.6 42.6 DR-02 DR-18 NNE 59.8 58.6 DR-03 DR-19 NE 48.5 60.7 DR-04 DR-20 ENE 55.8 55.2 DR-05 DR-21 E 56.7 57.5 DR-06 DR-22 ESE 57.4 46.5 DR-07 DR-23 SE 66.6 58.1 DR-08 DR-24 SSE 50.6 58.9 DR-09 DR-25 S 54.9 50.4 DR-10 DR-26 SSW 58.8 55.7 DR-11 DR-27 SW 45.5 53.7 DR-12 DR-28 WSW 63.1 78.5 DR-13 DR-29 W 82.1 57.8 DR-14 DR-30 WNW 55.3 59.0 DR-15 DR-31 NW 53.6 65.3 DR-16 DR-32 NNW 59.4 53.0 Average 58.2 57.0 B-11 TABLE B-6 IPEC ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE PARTICULATE SAMPLES -2009 GROSS BETA ACTIVITY pCi/ m 3+/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE STATION #Week W eek 4n5 4 94 95 23** 27 29 1 44 Number I Date 7 7IIIII 1 1/5/2009 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.019 +/- 0.002 0,018 +/- 0U001 0.019 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0,018 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 -0.001 +/- 0.000 2 1/13/2009 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 3 1/2(0/2009 0.023 +/- 0.002 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.019 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.021 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.022 +/- 0.001 4 1/27/2009 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.026 +/- 0.002 0.022 +/- 0.001 0.019 +/- 0.001 0.023 +/- 0.002 0.023 +/- 0.002 0.022 +/- 0.001 0.023 +/- 0.002 5 2/3/2009 0.022 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.022 +/- 0.001 0.023 +/- 0.001 0.025 +/- 0.002 0,020 +/- 0.001 0.024 +/- 0.001 0.024 +/- 0.002 6 2/10/2009 0.024 +/- 0.002 0.022 +/- 0.002 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.021 +/- 0.001 0,020 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.022 +/- 0.002 7 2/17/2009 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0,001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0,001 8 2/24/2009 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 9 3/3/2009 0.016 + 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0,018 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 10 3/10/2009 0.018 +/- 0,001 0.017 + 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.001 0,020 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.002 11 3/17/2009 0.024 +/- 0.002 0.023 +/- 0.002 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.024 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.001 0,022 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 12 3/24/2009 0.019 +/- 0.001 0.019 + 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.001 0,020 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.001 0.019 +/- 0.001 13 3/31/2009 0.009 + 0.001 0.011 + 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.012 4 0.001 0,008 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 14 4/7/2009 0.005 +/- 0.001 0.009 + 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.006 +/- 0.001 0,008 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0,008 +/- 0,001 15 4/14/2009 0.019 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.015 4 0.001 0,014 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 16 4/21/2009 0.019 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.019 +/- 0.001 0,019 +/- 0.001 0.021 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0U001 17 4/28/2009 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0,001 0,013 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 18 5/5/2009 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0,012 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 19 5/12/2009 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.006 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.006 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 20 5/19/2009 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 21 5/26/2009 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.019 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 22 6/2/2009 0.006 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0,008 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 23 6/9/2009 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.013 4 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 24 6/15/2009 0.004 1- 0.001 0.006 +/- 0.001 0.005 +/- 0.001 0.004 +/- 0.001 0.005 +/- 0.001 0,004 +/- 0.001 0.006 +/- 0.001 0.006 +/- 0.001 25 6/23/2009 0.005 +/- 0.001 0.004 +/- 0.001 0.005 +/- 0.001 0.005 +/- 0.001 0.003 +/- 0.001 0.003 +/- 0.001 0.005 +/- 0.001 0.002 +/- 0.001 26 6/30/2009 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.004 +/- 0.001 0.003 +/- 0.001 Control sample location B-12 TABLE B-6 (Continued)

IPEC ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE PARTICULATE SAMPLES -2009 GROSS BETA ACTIVITY pCi/n 3 +/-ý I Sigma SAMPLE STATION #[Week WeekEnd 4 5 94 95 23** 27 29 44 Number Date I i I 27 6/30/2009 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 28 7/7/2009 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.006 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 29 7/13/2009 0.005 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 30 7/21/2009 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 31 7/28/2009 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.012 -0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 32 8/4/2009 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 .0.015 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 33 8/11/2009 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.020 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.002 0.017 +/- 0.001 34 8/17/2009 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.002 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 35 8/24/2009 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 36 9/1/2009 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 37 9/9/2009 0.019 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 38 9/15/2009 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 39 9/22/2009 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 40 9/29/2009 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 41 10/6/2009 0.006 +/- 0.001 0.006 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.005 +/- 0.001 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 42 10/14/2009 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 43 10/20/2009 0.011 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 44 10/27/2009 0.019 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.008 0-001 45 11/3/2009 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.00!46 11/10/2009 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.013 +/- 0.001 47 11/17/2009 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.008 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.007 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 48 11/24/2009 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.014 +/- 0,001 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 49 12/1/2009 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.009 +/- 0.001 50 12/8/2009 0.010 +/- 0.001 0.000+/-1O0.000i 0.013 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.012 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 51 12/15/2009 0.021 +/- 0.001 0.0+/- 0,iX1000 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.017 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.016 +/- 0.001 52 12/22/2009 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.018 +/- 0.002 0.016 +/- 0.001 0.015 +/- 0.001 0.010 + 0.001 0.014 +/- 0.001 0.006 + 0.001 0.010 +/- 0.001* Control sample location B-13 TABLE B-7 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN QUARTERLY COMPOSITES OF SITE AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of I OE-3 pCi/n r +/- I Sigma SAMPLE LOCATIONS

-1 ST QTR 2009 ..Nuclide Algonquin Sta #4 NYU Tower #5 Croton Point #27 Training Bldg #94 Met Tower #95 Roseton #23 ** Grassy Point #29 Peekskill

1. 44 Be-7 142.3.+/-

14.4 144.3 +/- 14.7. 141.4 +/- 15,7 156.8 +/- 15.8 133.6 +/- 13.9 140.1 +/- 14.0 127.0 +/- 11.7 156.4 +/- 14.9 Cs-134 < 0-6 < 0.8 < 0.6 < 0.9 < 0.9 < 1.0 < 0.6 < 0.9 Cs-137 < 0.6 < 0.3 < 0.5 < 0.3 < 0.8 < 0.5 < 0.3 < 0.4 Zr-95 < 1.8 < 1.1 < 1.5 < 1,5 < 0.9 < 1.7 < 1.1 < 1.2* Nb-95 <, 0.7 <,0.9 < 1.6 < 1.2 < 1.2 < 1.4 < 0.8 < 0.8 Co-58 < 0.8 < 0.6 < 0.5 < 1.2 < 1.0 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.6 Mn-54 < 0.3 <'0.6 < 0.3 < 0.8 < 0.7 < 0.3 < 0.5 < 0.6 Zn-65 < 1.1 < 1.4 < 1.6 < 1.7 < 1.8 < 1.2 < 1.4 < 2.3 Co-60 < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.5 < 0.6 .< 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.3 < 0.5 K-40 < 4.2 < 5.8 < 5.7 46.7 +/- 10.7 41.0 +/- 8.8 < 5.6 < 3.3 < 7.2** Control Sample Location SAMPLE LOCATIONS

-2ND QTR 2009 Nuclide Algonquin Sta #4 NY'U Tower #5 Croton Point #27 Training Bldg #94 Met Tower #95 Roseton #23 ** Grassy Point #29 Peekskill

1. 44 Be-7 93.1 +/- -11.1 127.7 +/- 13.2 118.0 +/- .11.1 121.9 +/- 10.3 103.7 +/- 10.0 89.0 +/- 10.0 121.4+/- 10.2 114.3 +/- 13.0 Cs-134 < 0.7 .< 07 < 0.6 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.7 .< 0.8 Cs-137 < 0.5 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.4 < 0.5. < 0.6 Zr-95 < 1.2 < 1.1 < 0.8. < 1.0 < 1.3 < 1.1 < 1.4 < 1.5 Nb-95 < 1.3 < 0.9 < 0.4 < 0.8 < 0.9 < 1.0 <; 1.1 < 1.6.Co-58 < 1.0 < 0.8 < 0.5 < 0.4 < 0.5 < 0.8 < 0.4 < 0.6 Mn-54 < 0.4 < 0.8 < 0.2 < 0.2- < 0.3 < 0.7 < 0.6 < 0.8 Zn-65 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.4 < 1.3 <.0.7 < 1.3 < 1.5 < 1.8 Co-60 < 0,9 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5' < 0.3 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.7 K-40 < 4.4 < 5.9 < 3.5 < 3.0 < 3.1 48.5 +/- 8.8 47.2 +/- 6.6 < 5.5** Control Sample Location B-14 TABLE B-7 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN QUARTERLY COMPOSITES OF SITE AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of 10E-3 pCi/ rd +/- I Sigma SAMPLE LOCATIONS

-3RD QTR 2009 Nuclide Algonquin Sta #4 NYU Tower #5 Croton Point #27 Training Bldg #94 Met Tower #95 Roseton #23 Grassy Point #29 Peekskill

1. 444 Be-7 126.0 +/- 13.5 123.2 +/- 14.7 161.0 +/- 15.3 134.7 +/- 14.5 128.3 +/- 11.2 119.3 +/- 13.3 156.8 +/- 13.3 140.1 +/- 14.7 Cs-134ý < 0.6 < 0.9 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.7 < 0.3 < 0.6 Cs-137 < 0.4 < 0,7 < 0.6 < 0.5 < 0.2 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.7 Zr-95 < 1.3 < 1.5 < 1.4 < 1.5 < 0.6 < 1.3 < 1.1 < 1.7 Nb-95 < 1.0 < 1.2 < 1.2 < 1.4 < 0.9 < 1.4 < 0.5 < 1.0 Co-58 < 0.4 < 1.0 < 0.9 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.7 < 1.1 Mn-54 < 0.5 < 0.8 < 0.6 < 0.8 < 0.3 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.9 Zn-65 < 0.8 < 2.2 < 1.8 < 1.1 < 0.6. < 1.3 < 0.7 < 2.0 Co-60 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.3 < 0.5 K-40 < 4.1 38.0 +/- 9.7 49.2 +/- 10.3 < 5.2 < 4.1 < 4.6 < 4.0 41.4 +/- 11.6* Control Sample Location SAMPLE LOCATIONS

-4TH QTR 2009 Nuclide Algonquin Sta #4 NYU Tower #5 Croton Point #27 Training Bldg #94 Met Tower #95 Roseton #23 Grassy Point #29 Peekskill

1. 44 Be-7 94.9 +/- 12.6 110.0 +/- 17.8 100.7 +/- 13.4 103.9 +/- 12.1 101.5 +/- 11.6 84.5 +/- 12.0 100.5 +/- 11.5 94.6 +/- 10.1 Cs-134 < 0.9 < 1.3 < 1.1 < 0.8 < 0.3 < 0.8 < 0.6 < 0.6 Cs-137 < 0.3 < 0.8 < 0.5 < 0.7 < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.6 < 0.3 Zr-95 < 1.5 < 1.7 < 2.2 < 1.1 < 0.9 < 0.9 < 0.9 < 1.2 Nb-95 < 1.3 < 2.4 < 1.7 < 1.6 < 1.1 < 0.8 < 0.9 < 1.5 Co-58 < 0.9 < 1.7 < 1.4 < 0.6 < 0.6 < 0.9 < 0.5 < 0.8 Mn-54 < 0.7 < 1.2 < 0.8 < 0.4 < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.4 < 0.3 Zn-65 < 2.4 < 2.7 < 2.3 < 1.3 < 1.8 < 1.1 < 1.0 < 0.9 Co-60 < 0.6 < 1.4 < 0.4 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.4 < 0.4 K-40 < 10.1 < 10.3 48.3 +/- 11.6 < 7.0 < 6.8 < 5.9 < 5.0 < 10.5** Control Sample Location B-15 TABLE B-8 IPEC ENVIRONMENTAL CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES -2009 1-131 ACTIVITY pCi/ M 3+/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE STATION #I ~ i ~ ~ 1 27 29__________________________

I _______________________________________

___________________________

_________________________

__________________________

___________________________

______________________________

__________________________

_________________________

________________________________

K 0.046 0.040 K 0.027 0.0 17 0.036 K 0.025 K 0.026 0.037 Number Date __________

__________

__________

__________

____________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 01/05/09 01/13/09 01/20/09 01/27/09 02/03/09 02/10/09 02/17/09 02/24/09 03/02/09 03/10/09 03/17/09 03/24/09 03/31/09 04/07/09 04/t4/09 04/21/09 04/28/09 05/05/09 05/12/09 05/19/09 05/26/09 06/02/09 06/09/09 06/15/09 06/23/09 06/30/09 K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K 0.046 0.015 0.020 0.020 0.026 0.022 0.019 0.021 0.024 0.021 0.020 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.031 0.025 0.042 0.033 0.026 0.017 0.027 0.023 0.024 0.040 0.012 0.023 0.016 0.024 0.018 0.024 0.014 0.027 0.013 0.014 0.021 0.019 0.025 0.021 0.014 0.022 0.022 0.019 0.028 0.022 0.020 0.019 0.016 0.035 0.026 K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K 0.027 0.020 0.023 0.021 0.021 0.016 0.022 0.020 0.021 0.014 0.017 0.023 0.014 0.018 0.014 0.016 0.014 0.025 0.021 0.032 0.018 0.022 0.021 0.022 0.015 0.018 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.017 0.021 0.014 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.020 0.018 0.027 0.017 0.017 0.022 0.019 0.015 0.015 0.018 0.034 0.018 0.016 0.018 0.020 0.026 0.020 0.036 0.026 0.022 0.032 0.029 0.028 0.010 0.034 0.018 0.027 0.020 0.027 0.020 0.023 0.024 0.025 0.025 0.029 0.021 0.041 0.017 0.022 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.022 K K K K K 0.025 0.018 0.023 0.013 0.023 0.017 0.022 0.017 0.027 0.013 0.023 0.019 0.026 0.022 0.020 0.018 0.014 0.019 0.019 0.024 0.018 0.011 0.025 0.018 0.010 0.017 K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K 0.026 0.017 0.014 0.027 0.031 0.027 0.015 0.024 0.016 0.019 0.012 0.019 0.021 0.018 0.013 0.021 0.017 0.024 0.018 0.036 0.022 0.020 0.018 0.022 0.017 0.036 0.037 0.021 0.022 0.028 0.026 0.022 0.023 0.025 0.017 0.028 0.020 0.022 0.021 0.030 0.020 0.032 0.026 0.021 0.016 0.034 0.025 0.021 0.029 0.033 0.025 0.030** Control sample location B-16 TABLE B-8 (Continued)

IPEC ENVIRONMENTAL CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES -2009 1-131 ACTIVITY pCi/ m3 +/- 1 Sigma SAMPLE STATION #Week Week End 4 5 94 95 23** 27 29 44 Number I Date I _ I I I I I I 1 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 07/07/09 07/13/09 07/21/09 07/28/09 08/04/09 08/11/09 08/17/09 08/24/09 09/01/09 09/09/09 09/15/09 09/22/09 09/29/09 10/06/09 10/14/09 10/20/09 10/27/09 11/03/09 11/10/09 11/16/09 11/24/09 12/01/09 12/08/09 12/15/09 12/22/09 12/29/09 K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K 0.015 0.020 0.023 0.021 0.019 0.020 0.029 0.022 0.014 0.029 0.027 0.024 0.019 0.025 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.029 0.020 0.029 0.039 0.023 0.017 0.014 0.028 0.022< 0.023< 0.019< 0.022< 0.025< 0.023< 0.020< 0.023< 0.022< 0.022< 0.025< 0.027< 0.024< 0.022< 0.011< 0.021< 0.015< 0.026< 0.016< 0.017< 0.023< 0.029< 0.038< 0.025< 0.022 0.014 0.018 0.017 0.027 0.020 0.010 0.616 0.018 0.027 0.015 0.022 0.026 0.029 0.021 0.017 0.021 0.019 0.023 0.019 0.021 0.027 0.025 0.017 0.019 0.030 0.018 K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K 0.015 0.025 0.017 0.018 0.015 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.018 0.026 0.019 0.016 0.019 0.024 0.020 0.023 0.023 0.022 0.020 0.022 0.026 0.015 0.018 0,021 0.024 0.021 0.020 0.019 0.009 0.021 0.018 0.023 0.030 0.027 0.026 0.035 0.025 0.029 0.029 0.024 0.030 0.036 0.025 0.015 0.030 0.024 0.042 0.018 0.033 0.018 0.034 0.030 0.022 0.022 0.027 0.022 0.026 0.011 0.017 0.020 0.026 0.025 0.026 0.019 0.017 0.019 0.014 0.021 0.014 0.021 0.021 0.019 0.032 0.027 0.017 0.016 0.024 0.019 0.015 0.022 0.014 0.022 0.014 0.024 0.060 0.029 0.018 0.017 0.030 0.012 0.028 0.026 0.021 0.024 0.018 0.024 0.030 0.018 0.038 0.016 0.021 0.019 0.027 0.015 0.023 0.024 0.023 0.021 0.025 0.026 0.020 0.029 0.018 0.015 0.020 0.021 0.025 0.026 0.024 0.032 0.019 0.021 0.025 0.019 0.036 0.025 0.029 0.031 0.039 0.023** Control sample location B-17 TABLE B-9 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/liter.

+/- 1 Sigma#9 PLANT INLET (HUDSON RIVER INTAKE)Date 1/30/2009.2/27/2009 3/27/2009 4/24/2009 5/29/2009 6/26/2009 NUCLIDE 1-131 Cs- 134 Cs-137 Zr-95 Nb-95 Co-58 Mn-54 Fe-59 Zn-65 Co-60 K-40 Ba/La-140 K K K K.K<K<35.18 +/-<3.51 0.76 0.73 1.35 0.98 0.78 0.76 2.23 1.62 0.68 5.82 2.03 K K<.K K 26.66 +/-K 3.85 0.64 0.87 1.79 1.30 0.97 1.00 2.77 1.88 0.80 7.29 2.58< 2.62< 0.84< 0.72< 1.37< 0.94< 0.84< 0.67< 2.13< 0.93< 0.81 46.54 +/- 5.99< 1.91 K K K K<K 49.28 +/-<5.52 0.58 0.81 1.60 1.22 0.93 0.74 2.43 0.96 0.70 6.71 3.16 K K K K ,K K K K 98.16 +/-K 4.68 0.93 0.78 1.77 1.18 0.98 0.83 2.98'1.85 0.81 9.21 2.90 K<K K K K K 47.4 +/-K 3.33 0.87 0.77 1.41 0.98 0.89 0.76 2.26 0.94 0.70 6.21 2.12 Date [ 7/31/2009 8/28/2009 9/25/2009 10/30/2009 11/25/2009 12/31/2009 NUCLIDE 1-131 < 6.38 < 4.49 < 5.06 < 4.81 < 3.04 < 6.10 Cs-134 < 1.22 K 1.04 < 0.82 < 0.69 < 0.45 <.0.70 Cs-137 < 1.07 K 0.94 < 0.68 < 0.94 < 0.61 < 0.98 Zr-95 < 2.06 < 2.06 < i.55 < 2.09 < 1.32 < 2.20 Nb-95 < 1.80 < 1.34 < 1.05 < 1.37 < 0.93 < 1.63 Co-58 < 1.22 < 1.06 < 0.86 < 1.16 < 0.69 < < 1.25 Mn-54 < 1.04 < 0.83 < 0.68 < 1.05 < 0.63 < 1.05 Fe-59 < 4.02 < 3.38 < 2.35 < 3.49 < 1.85 < 3.69 Zn-65 < 1.45 < 1.14 < 1.61 < 2.36 < 0.78 < 2.42 Co-60 < 1.00 < 1.02 < 0.68 < 1.09 < 0.67 < 1.16 K-40 80.67 +/- 11.48 112.8 +/- 10.49 69.13 +/- 6.17 185.7 +/- 12.05 32.6 +/- 4.07 ,176.8 +/- 12.10 Ba/La-140

< 3.85 < 2.78 < 2.82 < 3.99 < 2.03 < 4.22 B-18 TABLE B-9 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/liter

+/- 1 Sigma#10 DISCHARGE CANAL (MIXING ZONE)Date 1/30/2009 2/27/2009 3/27/2009 4/24/2009 5/29/2009 6/26/2009 NUCLIDE 1-131 < 3.89 < 4.79 .< 3.10 < 6.47 < 4.75 < 4.03 Cs-134 < 0.52 < 1.16 < 0.90 < 1.02 < 0.73 < 1.01 Cs-137 < 0.79 < 0.88 < 0.79 < 0.85 < 1.01 < 0.83 Zr-95 < 1.80 < 2.21 < 1.76 < 2.09 < 1.89 < 1.85 Nb-95 < 1.25 < 1.42 < 1.05 < 1.38 < 1.15 < 1.22 Co-58 < 0.99 < 1.06 < 0.95 < 1.13 < 1.11 < 0.95 Mn-54 < 0.80 < 1.16 < 0.82 < 0.82 < 0.98 < 0.86 Fe-59 < 2.86 < 3.43 < 2.56 < 3.33 < 2.94 < 2.77 Zn-65 < 0.93 < 2.30 < 1.89 < 1.10 < 2.18 < 0.96 Co-60 < 0.77 < 0.90 < 0.85 < 0.90 < 1.16 < 0.91 K-40 84.89 +/- 8.68 113.3 +/- 11.60 89.08 +/- 9.27 105.6 +/- 9.92 42.97 +/- 9.02 107.8 +/- 9.29 Ba/La-140

< 2.68 < 2.99 < 2.33 < 3.76 < 3.90 < 2.96 Date 7/31/2009 8/28/2009 9/25/2009

[ 10/30/2009 11/25/2009 12/31/2009 NUCLIDE 1-131 < 5.65 < 4.72 < 7.11 < 4.66 < 3.08 < 5.99 Cs-134 < 0.85 < 0.83 < 0.62 < 0.60 < 0.55 < 0.69 Cs-137 < 1.13 < 1.04 < 0.76 < 0.91 < 0.79 < 1.08 Zr-95 < 2.23 < 1.79 < 1.75 < 1.83 < 1.40 < 2.40 Nb-95 < 1.43. < 1.53 < 1.34 < 1.29 < 0.94 < 1.69 Co-58 < 1.45 < 1.17 < 1.08 < 1.03 < 0.81 < 1.35 Mn-54 < 1.20 <.1.12 .< 0.91 < 0.85 < 0.80 < 1.14 Fe-59 < 4.35 < 2.96 < 2.74 < 2.83 < 2.37 < 3.48 Zn-65 < 3.13 < 2.76 < 2.11 < 1.20 < .1.70 < 1.45 Co-60 < 1.34 < 1.23 < 0.80 < 0.83 < 0.75 < 1.06 K-40 37.93 +/- 11.11 24.0 +/- 8.60 61.19 +/- 9.04 401.7 +/- 12.49 90.02 +/- 7.88 408.1 +/- 15.17 Ba/La-140

< 3.53 < 3.26 < 4.07 < 2.70 < 2.38 < 4.04 B-19 TABLE B-10 CONCENTRATIONS OF TRITIUM IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES -2009 (QUARTERLY COMPOSITE SAMPLES)Results in Units of pCi/l +/- 1 Sigma STATION CODE PERIOD DATE TRITIUM First Quarter 03/27/09 06/26/09 <410 PLANT INTAKE (HUDSON RIVER) Second Quarter 06/26/09 09/25/09 <409 (09, INLET) ** Third Quarter 09/25/09 12/31/09 <409 Fourth Quarter 12/31/09 12/31/08 <424 First Quarter 03/27/09 06/26/09 <410 DISCHARGE CANAL Second Quarter 06/26/09 09/25/09 <409 (10, MIXING ZONE) Third Quarter 09/25/09 12/31/09 <409 Fourth Quarter 12/31/09 12/31/08 <424** Control Sample location B-20 TABLE B-11 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN DRINKING WATER SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/liter

+/- I Sigma CAMP FIELD RESERVOIR Date: 1/13/2009 2/10/2009 3/10/2009

! 4/14/2009 5/12/2009 j 6/15/2009 NUCLIDE 1-131 < 3.04 < 2.36 < 1.80 < 2.15 < 2.79 < 2.25 Cs-134 < 2.97 < 2.38 < 2.39 < 1.33 < 1.67 < 1.26 Cs-137 < 2.54 < 2.30 < 1.52 < 1.99 < 2.31 < 1.56 Zr-95 < 4.96 < 3.68 < 2.59 < 2.60 < 3.58 < 2.68 Nb-95 < 2.58 < 2.22 < 1.61 < 1.38 < 2.57 < 1.77 Co-58 < 2.82 < 2.46 < 151 < 1.55 < 2.77 < 1.64 Mn-54 < 2.27 < 1.92 < 1.92 < 1.68 < 2.36 < 1.72 Fc-59 < 6.37 < 6.63 < 5.04 < 4.45 < 4.51 < 4.45 Zn-65 < 6.92 < 4.76 < 4.30 < 4.61 < 5.70 < 2.56 Co-60 < 1.79 < 1.81 < 1.52 < 1.61 < 2.77 < 1.90 K-40 194.4 +/- 35.67 82.13 +/- 20.85 < 18.16 < 15.92 < 22.59 < 20.76 Ba/La-140

< 3.59 < 2.56 < 1.33 < 2.41 < 3.69 < 1.89 Date [ 7/13/2009 8/11/2009 9/22/2009 1 0/27/2009 11/16/2009 12/15/2009 NUCLIDE 1-131 < 2.65 < 1.81 < 2.43 < 2.03 < 2.47 < 2.27 Cs-134 < 2.19 < 1.00 < 1.73 < 2.12 < 1.67 < 1.42 Cs-137 < 1.95 < 1.61 < 2.02 < 1.60 < 2.43 < 1.49 Zr-95 < 2.76 < 1.96 < 2.48 < 3.21 < 3.55 < 3.01 Nb-95 < 1.96 < 1.45 < 2.45 < 1.76 < 2.23 < 1.49 Co-58 < 1.93 < 1.48 < 1.98 < 1.70 < 1.67. < 1.79 Mn-54 < 2.36 < 1.63 < 1.98 < 1.60 < 2.23 < 1.14 Fe-59 < 3.83 < 3.96 < 6.11 < 4.17 < 4.92 < 3.64 Zn-65 < 4.61 < 1.83 < 6.64 < 2.49 < 5.24 < 4.76 Co-60 < 2.31 < 1.69 < 2.62 < 1.69 < 2.71 < 1.37 K-40 88.98 +/- 21.80 < 16.41 < 31.25 < 17.44 90.82 +/- 22.37 < 12.62 Ba/La-140

< 2.87 < 1.85 < 3.14 < 1.72 < 3.82 < 1.92 B-21 TABLE B-i1l(Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN DRINKING WATER SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/liter

+/- 1 Sigma NEW CROTON RESERVOIR Date 1/13/2009 2/10/2009 3/10/2009 4/14/2009 5/12/2009 6/15/2009 NUCLIDE 1-131 < 3.29 < 2.51 < 2.29 < 2.34 < 3.11 < 2,34 Cs-134 < 1.34 < 2.50 < 2.05 < 2.38 < 1.85 < 2.63 Cs-137 < 2.86 < 2.26 < 1.78 < 1.84 < 2.91 < 2.30 Zr-95 < 4.06 < 4.46 < 4.21 < 2.60 < 4.52 < 4.22 Nb-95 < 2.55 < 2.83 < 2.28 < 1.81 < 2.39 < 1.74 Co-58 < 2.01 < 2.21 < 1.86 < 1.61 < 3.34 < 2.34 Mn-54 < 2.58 < 2.15 < 2.13 < 1.50 < 2.82 < 1,70 Fe-59 < 6.34 < 4.17 < 3.84 < 4.85 < 4.81 < 5.95 Zn-65 < 5.68 < 4.28 < 4.29 < 4.29 < 6.92 < 3.95 Co-60 < 2.31 < 2.39 < 2.22 < 1.70 < 3.09 < 2,03 K-40 458.6 +/- 36.17 < 14.38 < 23.64 76.26 +/- 18.83 196.5 +/- 38.41 < 22.63 BaILa-140

< 2.71 < 2.52 < 2.23 < 2.41 < 3.86 < 2.58 Date 7/13/2009 8/11/2009 9/22/2009

] 10/27/2009 11/16/2009 j 12/15/2009 NUCLIDE 1-131 < 2.32 < 2,27 < 2.29 < 1.77 < 3.19 < 2.22 Cs-134 < 2.89 < 1.71 < 2.50 < 1.58 < 2.76 < 2.84 Cs-137 < 2.11 < 1.50 < 1.43 < 1.51 < 2.02 < 1.96 Zr-95 < 4.27 < 3.00 < 3.57 < 2.73 < 3.63 < 3.24 Nb-95 < 2.28 < 1.96 < 2.16 < 1.48 < 2.19 < 2.05 Co-58 < 2.53 < 1.86 < 2.02 < 1.24 < 2.12 < 1.59 Mn-54 < 2.07 < 1.67 < 1.95 < 1.57 < 2.00 < 2.77 Fe-59 < 6.05 < 4.46 < 4.73 < 3.84 < 3.89 < 4.60 Zn-65 < 7.09 < 2.32 < 5.74 < 3.35 < 5.86 < 4.53 Co-60 < 2.44 < 1.99 < 2.28 < 1.37 < 2.69 < 2.18 K-40 < 30.61 92.2 +/- 17.79 88.56 +1- 21.59 < 16.41 < 22.63, 82.5 +/- 20.35 Ba/La-I140

< 1.31 < 2.68 < 1.65 < 1.62 < 2.47 < 2.81 B-22 TABLE B-12 CONCENTRATIONS OF TRITIUM IN DRINKING WATER SAMPLES -2009 (QUARTERLY COMPOSITE SAMPLES)Results in Units of pCi/I +/- 1 Sigma STATION CODE ] PERIOD DATE -TRITIUM First Quarter 12/15/08 03/10/09 < 403 CAMP FIELD RESERVOIR Second Quarter 03/10/09 06/15/09 < 416 Third Quarter 06/15/09 12/15/09 < 406 Fourth Quarter 12/15/09 09/23/08 <416 First Quarter 12/15/08 03/10/09 < 403 NEW CROTON RESERVOIR Second Quarter 03/10/09 06/15/09 < 416 Third Quarter 06/15/09 12/15/09 < 406 Fourth Quarter 12/15/09 09/23/08 < 416 B-23 TABLE B-13 CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN SHORELINE SOIL SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg 1 1 Sigma Sample COLD SPRING LENTS COVE MANITOU VERPLANCK WHITE BEACH Location SHORELINE SHORELINE SHORELINE SHORELINE SHORELINE Date 6/10/2009 6/10/2009 6/10/2009 6/15/2009 6/15/2009 Client ID 1SS842409 ISS282409 ISS502409.

ISS172409 ISS532409 Req. CL Radionuclide (pCi)Be-7 < 232.5 < 369.4 < 438.5 < 187.3 < 158.7 1-131 < 52.7 < 79.1 < 87.6 < 24.0 < 24.4 Cs-134 75 < 25.6 < 27.5 < 33.0 < 18.6 < 19.9 Cs-137 90 < 26.2 < 43.7 < 37.9 137.1 +/- 28.6 < 15.5 Zr-.95 < 48.1 < 70.9 < 77.6 1< 38.9 < 30.4 Nb-95 < 31.4 < 47.6 < 53.1 < 28.2 < 15.3 Co-58 < 27.0 < 46.8 < 52.2 < 26.1 < 15.4 Mn-54 < 29.7 < 38.9 < 41.8 < 25.8 < 16:4 Zn-65 < 41.3 < 59.7 < 151.6 < 83.1 .< 47.5 Fe-59 < 83.7 < 106.6 < 119.2 < 62.4 < 43.8 Co-60 < 25.9 < 35.0 < 26.6 < 29.2 < 21.3 Ba/La-140

< 31.2 < 71.2 < 89.9 < 36.9 < 15.7 Ru-103 < 27.1 < 37.3 < 52.4 < 20.4 < 17.9 Ru-106 < 245.4 < 342.4 < 434.5 < 296.6 < 194.7 Ce-141 < 47.9 .< 76.6 < 70.5 ,<. 38.8 .< 27.5 Ce-144 < 184.4 < 302.4 -< 294.7 < 157.2 < 116.4 AcTh-228 388.2 +1- 81.1 1630.0 +/- 168.5 1726.0 +1- 210.8 367.1 +/- 102.0 < 65.0 Ra-226 1554.0 +/- 476.3 4418.0 +I- 869.9 3291.0 +1- 755.6 < 568.1 685.5 +/- 321.7 K-40 29810.0 +1- 862.6 20010.0 +/- 942.0 13020.0 +/- 922.9 14990.0 +/- 780.8 10730.0 +/- 544.0 Sr-90 3000 < 180 < 170 < 170 < -170 < 780 B-24 TABLE B-13 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN SHORELINE SOIL SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma Sample COLD SPRING LENTS COVE MANITOU VERPLANCK WHITE BEACH Location SHORELINE SHORELINE SHORELINE SHORELINE SHORELINE Date 9/8/2009 9/8/2009 9/8/2009 9/9/2009 9/9/2009 Client ID ISS843609 ISS283609 ISS503609 ISS173609 ISS533609 Req. CL Radionuclide (pCi) I I I__Be-7 < 211.7 < 319.0 < 325.1 < 205.0 < 190.1 1-131 < 58.6 < 87.5 < 66.8 < 49.0 < 39.6 Cs-134 75 < 24.7 < 34.5 < 24.3 < 20.8 < 19.0 Cs-137 90 < 36.0 < 42.9 99.2 +/- 31.6 148.7 +1- 28.0 < 24.2 Zr-95 < 54.5 < 77.3 < 52.0 < 42.8 < 36.9 Nb-95 < 37.0 < 37.1 < 40.1 < 34.5 < 31.4 Co-58 < 40.8 < 50.1 < 26.6 < 27.8 < 24.5 Mn-54 < 34.5 < 47.5 < 36,6 < 31.9 < 22.8 Zn-65 < 104.1 < 66.0 < 51.7 < 92.9 < 73.3 Fe-59 < 122.4 < 121.3 < 121.5 < 68.6 < 79.8 Co-60 < 35.6 < 12.1 < 38,3 < 19.1 < 19.7 Ba/La-140

< 40.1 < 62.6 < 62.0 < 38.1 < 47.2 Ru-103 < 32.1 < 48.7 < 38.5 < 25.2 < 23.3 Ru-106 < 330.0 < 392.1 < 276.6 < 310.3 < 261.2 Ce-141 < 49.3 < 70.9 < 60.3 < 38.3 < 44.0 Ce-144 < 183.6 < 338.0 < 220.4 < 159.6 < 151.7 AcTh-228 523.0 +/- 13023 1574.0 +/- 175.6 954.3 +1- 152.8 487.4 +/- 97.4 < 83.3 Ra4226 < 659.6 2770.0 +/- 793.4 1245.0 +1- 599.7 < 579.5 794.8 +/- 386.7 K-40 33190.0 +/- 1202.0 16240.0 +/- 965.9 16050.0 +/- 917.3 14260.0 +/- 793.2 11550.0 +/- 602.9 Sr-90 3000 < 110 < 100 < 230 < 91 < 310 B-25 TABLE B-14 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma#95 Meteorological Tower Sample Location MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER Date 4/28/2009 4/28/2009 5/19/2009 5/19/2009 5/19/2009 6/23/2009 Client ID IBV951709S1 IBV951709S2 IBV952009SI IBV952009S2 IBV952009S3 IBV952509S1 Req. CL RAGWEED MULLEN RAGWEED MULLEIN GRAPE LEAF CATALPA Radionuclide (pCi)Be-7 610.7 +/- 68.4 2835.0 +/- 186.7 1256.0 +/- 76.2 1230.0 +/- 104.0 559.3 +/- 71.3 2041.0 +/- 134.3 1-131 50 < 9.72 < 18.33 < 10.79 < 14.98 < 12.87 < 12.68 Cs-134 50 < 6.13 < 12.95 < 7.22 < 13.46 < 9.36 < 13.32 Cs-137 50 < 6.23 < 15.55 < 6.44 < 10.73 < 6.49 < 12.25 Zr-95 < 14.72 < 29.40 < 13.55 < 20.16 < 11.59 < 18.03 Nb-95 < 9.40 < 17.69 < 7.88 < 14.08 < 8.25 < 11.07 Co-58 < 9.15 < 15.05 < 6.49 < 9.91 < 8.07 < 12.32 Mn-54 < 8.50 < 17.66 < 6.85 < 10.38 < 7.55 < 10.91 Zn-65 < 14.39 < 24.46 < 18.42 < 26.01 < 21.55 < 30.12 Fe-59 < 21.26 < 44.53 < 23.48 < 28.61 < 18.14 < 34.21 Co-60 < 10.94 < 14.06 < 9.06 < 11.84 < 9.05 < 14.03 Ba/La-140

< 6.65 < 17.56 < 8.22 < 9.38 < 7.24 < 13.01 Ru-103 < 7.58 < 17.14 < 7.19 < 9.54 < 7.50 < 11.06 Ru-i06 < 91.85 < 127.30 < 73.58 < 98.16. < 67.44 < 119.20 Ce-141 < 11.08 < 23.08 .< 10.46 < .12.92 < 10.32 < 14.60 Ce1t44 < 41.48 < 94.59 .< 39.20 < 54.26 < 38.58 < 65.34 AcTh-228 < 26.88 < 65.80 .53.1 +/- 21.0 < 32.62 < 28.11 < 43.32 Ra-226 < 144.30 515.4 +/- 268.3 < 126.30 < 172.40 206.5 +1- 97.2 < 221.90 K-40 6617.0 +/- 253.9 6733.0 +/- 378.0 8078.0 +/- 235.1 5999.0 +/- 290.3 4612.0 +1- 237.1 3906.0 +/- 264,3 B-26 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma#95 Meteorological Tower Sample MET TOWER Location METTOWER Date _6/23/2009 6/23/2009 Client ID IBV952509S2 IBV952509S3 Req. CL BURDICK RAGWEED Radionuclide (pCi) I Be-7 2854.0 +/- 139.4 2417.0 +/- 148.2 1-131 50 < 11.52 < 13.99 Cs-134 50 < 7.27 < 13.45 Cs-137 50 < 11.41 < 9.18 Zr-95 < 16.78 < 20.55 Nb-95 < 12.80 < 10.07 Co-58 < 9.20 < 12.43 Mn-54 < 9.52 < 12.68 Zn-65 < 31.04 < 29.69 Fe-59 < 28.74 < 29.54 Co-60 < 12.15 < 13.35 Ba/La-140

< 15.25 < 12.17 Ru-103 < 10.86 < 10.78 Ru-106 < 103.90 < 119.60 Ce-141 < 15.77 < 14.79 Ce-144 < 62.90 < 56.47 AcTh-228 < 37,90 < 46.57 Ra-226 345.9 +/- 165.0 < 217.30 K-40 7143.0 +/- 291.2 7546.0 +/- 372.8 B-27 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma#95 Meteorological Tower Sample MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER Location Date 7/20/2009 7/20/2009 7/20/2009 8/17/2009 8/17/2009 8/17/2009 Client ID IBV952909S1 IVB952909S2 IBV952909S3 IBV953309SI 1BV953309S2 IBV953309S3 Req. CL RAGWEED BURDOCK CATALPA RAGWEED GRAPE LEAVES CATALPA Radionuclide (pCi)Be-7 12642.0 +1/- 159.2 1535.0 +/- 116.6 1267.0 +1- 141.6 1550.0 +/- 179.9 1377.0 +/- 128.5 2267.0 +/- 214.9 1-131 50 < 17.13 < 11.87 < 15.97 < 21.18 < 15.45 < 24.13 Cs-134 50 < 16.25 < 10.72 < 18.71 < 13.29 < 15.77 < 25.69 Cs-137 50 < 14.27 < 11.13 < 13.01 < 18.26 < 11.95 < 16.20 Zr-95 < 23.84 < 22.37 < 24.55 < 30198 < 21.60 < 18.32 Nb-95 < 15.95 < 9.91 < 14.53 < 15.39 < 15.13 < 15.01 Co-58 < 11.44 < 11.01 < 14.63 < 15.48 < 12.16 < 16.42 Mn-54 < 14.00 < 11.43 < 15.49 < 19.13 < 13.76 < 18.15 Zn-65 < 19.09 < 30.32 < 33.42 < 24.76 < 32.65 < 59.66 Fe-59 < 32.68 < 35.99 < 38.30 < 52.71 < 23.70 < 37.41 Co-60 < 11.93 < 11.71 < 13.38 < 19.63 < 13.65 < 18.64 Ba/La-140

< 13.72 < 13.52 < 20.36 < 18.64 < 15.41 < 32.48 Ru-103 < 13.41 < 11.32 < 15.84 < 14.64 < 10.59 < 17.33 Ru-106 < 141.60 < 102.20 < 111.70 < 186.10 < 115.20 < 170.70 Ce-141 < 19.71 < 13.62 < 16.68 < 24.05 < 15.13 < 23.53 Ce-144 < 81.75 < 57.19 < 70.98 < 106.00 < 62.39 < 92.62 AcTh-228 < 46.43 < 36.55 < 59.80 < 76.44 < 44.11 < 54.22 Ra-226 < 272.60 262.1 +1- 165.2 < 220.20 530.9 +/- 239.9 < 202.00 < 324.00 K-40 7113.0 +/- 335.2 7631.0 +/- 337.1 4255.0 +/- 333.1 6530.0 +/- 411.7 4566.0 +/- 308.0 5179.0 +/- 436.9 B-28 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma#95 Meteorological Tower Sample Location MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER MET TOWER Date 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 10/20/2009 10/20/2009 10/20/2009 Client ID IBV953709S1 1BV953709S2 IBV953709S3 IBV954209S1 IBV954209S2 IBV954209S3 Req. CL RAGWEED GRAPE LEAVES RAGWEED MULLEN BURDOCK Radionuclide (pCi) MULLEN Be-7 3336.0 +/- 180.7 854.1 +/- 131.2 940.4 +/- 135.6 5812.0 +/- 266.0 2011.0 +/- 155.9 992.1 +/- 150.2 1-131 50 < 14.67 < 13.27 < 16.71 < 17.41 < 12.38 < 18.24 Cs-134 50 < 18.23 < 17.63 < 10.23 < 18.55 < 15.96 < 11.49 Cs-137 50 < 15.88 < 15.87 < 16.49 < 15.09 < 12.72 < 14.69 Zr-95 < 23.03 < 28.25 < 21.50 < 21.93 < 17.17 < 24.26 Nb-95 < 14.24 < 17.46 < 15.81 < 15.70 < 12,47 < 15.75 Co-58 < 14.32 < 16.09 < 16.41 < 15.23 < 17.09 < 20.67 Mn-54 < 12.80 < 14.47 < 15.80 < 16.52 < 15.11 < 20.14 Zn-65 < 31.69 < 39.02 < 45.77 < 47.21 < 31.56 < 45.37 Fe-59 < 39.53 < 35.54 < 25.11 < 43.33 < 37.63 < 38.02 Co-60 < 14.94 < 19.50 < 16.29 < 17.08 < 16,09 < 17.44 Ba/La-140

< 15.01 < 19.22 < 19.10 < 13.68 < 19,29 < 17.70 Ru-103 < 12.63 < 14.21 < 16.00 < 13.71 < 10.60 < 13.26 Ru-106 < 130.70 < 129.80 < 143.10 < 152.80 < 148.50 < 160.70 Ce-141 < 19.95 < 19.33 < 18.74 < 25.52 < 16.56 < 17.72 Ce-144 < 75.15 < 76.90 < 83.44 < 97.95 < 71.83 < 82.10 AcTh-228 < 54.90 < 55.21 < 30.55 < 63.34 < 65.64 < 68.09 Ra-226 < 257.00 368.6 +/- 232.1 < 310.90 679.1 +/- 299.8 < 219.20 < 345.40 K-40 5973.0 +1- 334.7 6641.0 +1- 406.6 4106.0 +/- 347.4 7584.0 +/- 416.1 5046.0 +/- 341.7 6061.0 +1- 455.5 B-29 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCilkg +/- 1 Sigma#94 IPEC Training Center TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG I nr tltfl Date 4/28/2009 4/28/2009 5/19/2009 5/19/2009 5/19/2009 6/23/2009 Client ID IBV941709SI IBV941709S2 IBV942009S1 1BV942009S2 1BV942009S3 IBV942509SI Req. CL EWICK MULLEN GRAPE RAGWEED BURDOCK CATALPA Radionuclide (pCi)Be-7 161.8 +1- 74.8 904.1 +/- 101.0 803.4 +/- 67.5 740.3 +/- 62.0 949.7 +1- 95.3 971.4 +1- 130.1 1-131 50 < 13.64 < 14.40 < 11.25 < 11.21 < 15.15 < 18.42 Cs-134 50 < 9.94 < 14.45 < 8.21 < 7.50 < 11.03 < 17.39 Cs-137 50 < 9.46 < 5.67 < 7.54 < 6.98 < 11.03 < 13.05 Zr-95 < 21.28 < 20.06 < 11.89 < 10.85 < 14.50 < 23.74 Nb-95 _ _ < 10.88 < 13.84 < 8.58 < 7.47 < 10.87 < 11.82 Co-58 < 11.14 < 10.74 < 6.68 < 8.18 < 10.58 < 13.94 Mn-54 < 10.50 < 10.18 < 5.75 < 6.79 < 13.74 < 12.02 Zn-65 < 33.81 < 35.09 < 10.84 < 18.06 < 26.58 < 42.63 Fe-59 < 34.35 < 37.23 < 18.27 < 23.53 < 26.02 < 57.00 Co-60 < 11.30 < 11.42 < 6.88 < 5.35 < 9.75 < 15.27 Ba/La-140

< 13.97 < 13.77 < 9.80 < 10.13 < 13.89 < 23.08 Ru-103 < 11.59 < 11.21 < 6.46 < 7.77 < 10.59 < 15.57 Ru-106 < 134.70 < 105.10 < 57.17 < 64.39 < 121.20 < 161.40 Ce-141 < 15.19 .< 13.57 < 9.63 < 8.15 < 12.49 < 16.25 Ce-144 < 68.62 < 60.40 < 39.56 < 33.91 < 44.60 < 77.08 AcTh-228 < 34.18 < 39.01 < 23.24 < 19.62 < 37.97 < 64.50 Ra-226 < 198.50 292.2 +/- 142.1 214.0 +/- 106.9 < 120.10 < 184.70 603.8 +/- 201.1 K-40 5390.0 +/- 313.1 5778.0 +1- 311.2 3621.0 +1- 162.3 6584.0 +/- 236.6 5391.0 +/- 296.7 3708.0 +/- 307.2 B-30 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in pCi/kg + 1 Sigma#94 IPEC Training Center.Sample TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG Location Date 6/23/2009 6/23/2009 Client ID 1BV942509S2 1BV942509S3 Req. CL, RAGWEED MULLEN Radionuclide (pCi) I Be-7 2183.0 +1- 141.1 2223.0 +/- 153.6 1-131 50 < 13.28 < 13.62 Cs-134 50 < 16.38 < 20.00 Cs-137 50 < 11.95 < 9.98 Zr-95 < 24.33 < 20.11 Nb-95 < 11.58 < 12.59 Co-58 < 11.84 < 11.77 Mn-54 < 12.52 < 11.70 Zn-65 < 34.54 < 34.73 Fe-59 < 37.56 < 32.10 Co-60 < 11.81 < 13.88 Ba/La-140

< 10.84 < 14.49 Ru-103 < 13.31 < 12.17 Ru-106 < 139.90 < 116.30.Ce-141 < 15.09 < 17.16 Ce-144 < 65.89 < 72.12 AcTh-228 < 40.67 < 37.34 Ra-226 359.1 .+1- 172.9 ....<.252.70 K-40 8700.0 +/- 376.6 6612.0 +/- 353.5 B-31 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- I Sigma#94 IPEC Training Center Sample Location TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG Date 7/20/2009 7/20/2009 7/20/2009 8/17/2009 8/17/2009 8/17/2009 Client ID 1BV942909S1 IBV942909S2 1BV942909S3 1BV943309S1 IBV943309S2 IBV943309S3 Req. CL MULLEN RAGWEED CATALPA MULLEN RAGWEED CATALPA Radionuclide (pCi) F T I _T Be-7 3438.0 +/- 178.5 1756.0 +/- 175.2 1262.0 +/- 136.9 2158.0 +/- 159.8 2702.0 +/- 242.0 3520.0 +/- 238.5 1-131 50 < 18.29 < 19.29 < 18.98 < 13.79 < 26.87 < 27.48 Cs-134 50 < 12.86 < 24.63 < 12.26 < 15.94 < 18.50 < 24.19 Cs-137 50 < 14.35 < 19.31 < 13.29 < 12,95 < 22.27 < 20.58 Zr-95 < 27.99 < 33.36 < 24.20 < 18,64 < 30.44 < 35.42 Nb-95 < 16.22 < 16.37 < 18.35 < 12.61 < 21.89 < 20.52 Co-58 < 16.48 < 17.22 < 14.96 < 10.39 < 19.81 < 21.09 Mn-54 < 16.00 < 18.11 < 15.58 < 10.75 < 21.34 < 23.34 Zn-65 < 21.51 < 44.20 < 40.34 < 41.30 < 58.90 < 58.49 Fe-59 < 37.63 < 63.01 < 43.93 < 38.93 < 68.14 < 56.29 Co-60 < 17.02 < 24.18 < 17.31 < 13.09 < 24.05 < 17.99 BalLa-140

< 21.37 < 19.66 < 19.46 < 19.50 < 32.03 < 29.84 Ru-103 < 16.38 < 19.68 < 13.93 < 13.05 < 19.66 < 22.64 Ru-106 < 160.00 < 205.20 <, 146.10 < 131.80 < 231.20 < 192.60 Ce-141 < 24.27 < 21.33 < 19.57 < 17.17 < 27.76 < 31.72 Ce-144 < 88.76 < 89.98 < 82.82 < 65.58 < 114.00 < 116.30 AcTh-228 < 53.19 < 84.57 < 57.65 < 41.34 < 83.78 < 72.04 Ra-226 1231.0 +/- 265.1 < 362.30 < 261.30 347.2 +/- 190.2 1223.0 +/- 350.9 < 364.60 K-40 8766.0 +/- 344.3 8751.0 +/- 497.3 4501.0 +/- 325.5 5404.0 +/- 337.4 8971.0 +/- 544.1 7017.0 +/- 424.3 B-32 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma#94 IPEC Training Center Sample TRAININGBLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING BLDG TRAINING:BLDG Location Date 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9115/2009 10/20/2009 10/20/2009 10120/2009 Client ID IBV943709SI 1BV943709S2 IBV943709S3 1V944209S1 IBV944209S2 IBV944209S3 Req. CL RAGWEED GRAPE RAGWEED MULLEN M WORT Radionuclide (pCi) MULLEN Be-7 5728.0 +1- 268.8 1101.0 +/- 148.8 3999.0 +/- 236.8 5384.0 +1- 227.7 2028.0 +/- 149.7 1932.0 +1- 202.5 1-131 50 < 17.38 < 15.41 < 24.57 < 14.18 < 13.09 < 17.93 Cs-134 50 < 21.82 < 12.13 < 25.99 < 10.12 < 15.33 < 14.83 Cs-137 50 < 15.46 < 16.52 < 16.75 < 15.60 < 13.51 < 20.13 Zr-95 < 32.33 < 30.66 < 33.01 < 25.12 < 21.03 < 27.32 Nb-95 < 15.70 < 14.85 < 24.87 < 15.17 < 16.62 < 17.98 Co-58 < 19.36 < 13.43 < 21.62 < 10.36 < 16.42 < 20.04 Mn-54 < 17.15 < 12.78 < 23.54 < 11.58 < 16.42 < 22.45 Zn-65 < 38.68 < 52.30 < 30.98 < 34.87 < 16.61 < 60.20 Fe-59 < 41.96 < 51.24 < 58.75 < 29.20 < 34.32 < 41.22 Co-60 < 18.32 < 22.03 < 24.95 < 13.18 < 14.21 < 23.90 Ba/La-140

< 7.79 < 16.51 < 24.52 < 14.70 < 15.18 < 24.32 Ru-103 < 15.40 < 17.38 < 17.62 < 13.47 < 12.84 < 13.64 Ru-106 < 190.90 < 181.50 < 254.90 < 112.40 < 142.60 < 140.90 Ce-141 < 21.26 < 21.81 < 28.39 < 17.81 < 16.87 < 20.72 Ce-144 < 105.80 < 99.17 < 108.00 < 89.87 < 77.66 < 104.90 AcTh-228 < 62.33 < 58.80 < 63.62 < 39.70 < 55.61 < 59.30 Ra-226 < 346.00 591.5 +1- 225.6 573.4 +/- 253.4 < 276.90 < 245.80 < 389.90 K-40 8241.0 +/- 468.7 7618.0 +/- 473.5 6532.0 +/- 427.9 6544.0 +/- 353.9 5441.0 +/- 345.7 7113.0 +1- 537.5 B-33 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg = 1 Sigma#23 Roseton **Sample Location Loctio ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON Date 4/27/2009 4/27/2009 4/27/2009 5/18/2009 5/18/2009 5/18/2009 Client ID IBV231709S1 IBV231709S2

]BV231709S3 IBV232009S1 IBV232009S2 IBV232009S3 Req. CL Req CL MULLEN BURDOCK THISTLE MULLEN BURDOCK RAGWEED Radionuclide (pCi) _____________________________

Be-7 683.6 +/- 97.3 247.7 +/- 50.7 < 92.67 934.4 +/- 114.7 1425.0 +/- 112.5 707.0 +/- 62.6 1-131 50 < 14.34 < 8.10 < 11.84 < 23.50 < 18.29 < 12.63 Cs-134 50 < 17.31 < 8.68 < 11.42 < 12.85 < 11.00 < 5.25 Cs-137 50 < 9.19 < 7.17 < 9.17 < 12.93 < 10.72 < 6.61 Zr-95 < 17.99 < 11.71 < 18.66 < 24.55 < 17.59 < 12.84 Nb-95 < 12.04 < 6.87 < 10.81 < 14.77 < 10.82 < 6.88 Co-58 < 12.02 < 6.63 < 10.19 < .13.01 < 10.74 < 6.85 Mn-54 < 9.94 < 5.37 < 9.27 < 10.80 < 9.16 < 6.55 Zn-65 < 33.45 < 18.96 < 32.13 < 34.55 < 30.77 < 17.99 Fe-59 < 32,40 < 22.11 < 32.86 < 40.36 < 41.50 < 25.14 Co-60 < 9.45 < 6.23 < 10.64 < 13.59 < 12.31 < 8.04 Ba/La-140

< 12.27 < 3.24 < 13.79 < 26.03 < 17.43 < 7.34 Ru-103 < 9.59 < 6.65 < 11.74 < 12.83 < 9.57 < 7.56 Ru-106 < 134.30 < 64.78 < 101.70 < 111.10 < 116.60 < 61.35 Ce-141 < 13.68 < 10.45 < 13.89 < 17.11 < 15.47 < 11.96 Ce-144 < 59.77 < 35.00 < 55.65 < 63.64 < 51.43 < 43.44 AcTh-228 < 43.48 < 24.61 <- 49.22 < 36.41 < 44.33 < 26.54 Ra-226 < 187.10 < 115.40 < 182.90 556.6 +/- 176.4 < 183.90 257.7 +1- 115.8 K-40 4513.0 +/- 331.6 8001.0 +/- 233.6 4687.0 +/- 293.5 4605.0 +/- 268.6 7815.0 +/- 330.5 6529.0 +/- 210.9** Control Sample Location B-33-1 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma#23 Roseton **Sample Location ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON Date 6/22/2009 6/22/2009 6/22/2009 Client ID IBV232509SI IBV232509S2 IBV232509S3 Req. CL BURDOCK RAGWEED MULLEN Radionuclide (pCi) rAIWEED Be-7 1423.0 +/- 108.9 3450.0 +/- 177.1 1491.0 +/- 118.5 1-131 50 < 12.47 < 16.01 < 14.09 Cs-134 50 < 8.16 < 18.45 < 14.63 Cs-137 50 < 10.56 < 9.88 < 10.41 Zr-95 < 17.87 < 23.03 < 21.53 Nb-95 < 10.80 < 13.81 < 12.18 Co-58 < 10.89 < 11.61 < 11.35 Mn-54 < 11.03 < 14.33 < 10.78 Zn-65 < 29.97 < 36.29 < 27.06 Fe-59 < 28.89 < 37.29 < 38.33 Co-60 < 12.79 < 12.01 < 13.10 Ba/La-140

< 9.73 < 16.21 < 12.13 Ru-103 < 10.49 < 13.31 < 10.86 Ru-106 < 87.53 < 117.80 < 93.07 Ce-141 < 14.84 < 19.70 < 13.86 Ce-144 < 62.95 < 86.68 < 59.89 AcTh-228 < 39.92 < 49.60 < 41.79 Ra-226 462.9 +/- 167.2 < 248.00 < 203.30 K-40 5469.0 +1- 257.5 7011.0 +/- 337.8 3455.0 +/- 243.8** Control Sample Location B-34 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma#23 Roseton **Sample ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON Location Date 7/20/2009 7/20/2009 7/20/2009 8/17/2009 8/17/2009 8/17/2009 Client ID IBV232909S1 1BV232909S2 IBV232909S3 IBV233309S1 IBV233309S2 IBV233309S3 RqCL MULLEN CATALPA RAGWEED MULLEN CATALPA RAGWEED Radionuclide (pCi) F I Be-7 3335.0 +/- 191.0 911.4 +/- 85.2 3368.0 +/- 187.0 5082.0 +/- 237.5 1657.0 +/- 158.4 2936.0 +/- 229.0 1-131 50 < 18.59 < 9.44 < 15.83 < 19.77 < 17.71 < 26.57 Cs-134 50 < 12.08 < 8.93 < 8.59 < 11.86 < 21.01 < 22.78 Cs-137 50 < 13.04 < 8.03 < 13.21 < 15.12 < 15.32 < 18.32 Zr-95 < 28.97 < 14.60 < 25.01 < 23.33 < 18.81 < 26.97 Nb-95 < 17.74 < 8.45 < 15.98 < 14.80 < 20.40 < 17.64 Co-58 < 14.73 < 8.74 < 12.62 < 16.45 < 14.23 < 14.58 Mn-54 < 15.14 < 8.22 < 12.11 < 13.82 < 16.81 < 12.47 Zn-65 < 25.36 < 26.96 < 44.27 < 39.34 < 40.60 < 51.14 Fe-59 < 32.29 < 24.91 < 40.54 < 43.17 < 48.06 < 59.89 Co-60 < 16.69 < 8.51 < 14.11 < 15.92 < 14.63 < 23.38 Ba/La-140

< 19.72 < 12.61 < 23.53 < 14.17 < 21.71 < 26.40 Ru-103 < 15.82 < 8.12 < 14.50 < 15.38 < 14.74 < 15.39 Ru-106 < 159.50 < 73.21 < 153.70 < 148.90 < 152.20 < 133.50 Ce-141 < 23.36 < 10.97 < 19.00 < 22.26 < 19.42 < 24.21 Ce-144 < 93.00 < 51.68 < 71.51 < 107.20 < 75.68 < 84.48 AcTh-228 106.0 +/- 42.5 < 30.75 < 62.82 < 56.07 < 56.52 < 55.53 Ra-226 747.9 +/- 253.6 < 159.60 < 269.20 699.7 +1- 267.7 < 289.30 < 331.80 K-40 6478.0 +/- 343.1 3467.0 +/- 208.9 7571.0 +/- 395.2 4914.0 +/- 325.2 4254.0 +/- 343.1 8930.0 +/- 548.9 Control Sample Location B-35 TABLE B-14 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BROADLEAF VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- I Sigma#23 Roseton **Sample ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON ROSETON Location Date 9/14/20.09 9/14/2009 9/14/2009 10/19/2009 10/1902009 10/19/2009 Client ID 1BV233709SI 1BV233709S2 lBV233709S3 1BV234209S1 IBV234209S2 1BV234209S3 Req. CL RGEE Rei.uCLdRAGWEED MULLEN CATALPA RAGWEED MULLEN BURDOCK lRadionuclidel (pCi) rIII-Be-7 2485.0 +/- 170.2 1869.0 +/- 159.6 1876.0 +/- 175.9 3679.0 +/- 231.9 1510.0 +/- 178.9 2658.0 +/- 162.9 1-131 50 < 17.49 < 18.75 < 18.06 < 21.13 < 23.45 < 17.30 Cs-134 50 < 23.59 < 12.24 < 21.08 < 20.76 < 26.91 < 14.13 Cs-137 50 < 15.82 < 16.11 < 17.77 < 13.15 < 19.35 < 12.26 Zr-95 < 29.00 < 25.29 < 33.69 < 22.40 < 42.77 < 21.81 Nb-95 < 17.17 < 10.16 < 16.85 < 15.77 < 21.31 < 13.95 Co-58 < 13.73 < 15.36 < 20.30 < 14.95 < 21.25 < 13.35 Mn-54 < 15.76 < 14.92 < 15.66 < 15.95 < 20.07 < 11.73 Zn-65 < 46.62 < 19.18 < 23.33 < 37.88 < 46.23 < 32.54 Fe-59 < 34.74 < 42.68 < 44.27 < 45.26 < 52.23 < 34.86 Co-60 < 13.40 < 19.88 < 19.13 < 16.66 < 23.19 < 17.15 Ba/La-140

< 15.61 < 15.82 < 27.93. < 16.75 < 28.31 < 15.70 Ru-103 < 16.39 < 15.03 < 15.89 < 15.08 < 18.88 < 12.10 Ru-106 < 156.10 < 155.40 < 203.50 < 163.80 < 197.00 < 122.20 Ce-141 < 23.05 < 20.07 < 24.11 < 19.04 < 23.48 < 18.16 Ce-144 < 94.83 < 93.06 < 97.64 < 87.68 < 109.60 < 82.28 AcTh-228 68.9 +1- 39.4 < 49.49 < 46.23 < 61.39 < 75.55 < 52.35 Ra-226 663.8 +1- 295.7 < 322.10 587.4 +/- 302.7 < 296.40 < 327.30 384.8 +/- 186.2 K-40 7706.0 +/- 391.3 6030.0 +/- 347.3 3453.0 +/- 325.9 6804.0 +/- 426.7 7431.0 +/- 492.6 5815.0 +/- 318.2* Control Sample Location B-36 TABLE B-15 CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN FISH SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma#25 Downstream (Hudson River)Sample VOP FISH VOP FISH VOP FISH VOP FISH VOP FISH VOP FISH Location Date 5/6/2009 5/6/2009 5/6/2009 5/7/2009 5/7/2009 6/18/2009 Client ID IFH251809S3 IFH251809S5 IFH251809S6 IFH251809S2 IFH251809S4 IFH252409S1 Req. CL CATFISH WHITE PERCH STRIPED BASS SUNFISH EEL BLUE CRAB Radionuclide (pCi) I I I I Be-7 < 194.8 < 253.6 < 331.7 < 269.7 < 250.0 < 269.4 1-131 < 17020.0 < 22020.0 < 29580.0 < 25560.0 < 19260.0 < 1126.0 Cs-134 65 < 9.2 < 7.8 < 8.8 < 13.3 < 10.1 < 18.9 Cs-137 75 < 7.6 < 10.4 < 12.5 < 10.6 < 10.6 < 19.4 Zr-95 < 35.4 < 49.7 < 52.2 < 42.7 < 40.8 < 56.0 Nb-95 < 48.5 < 65.2 < 60.6 < 56.4 < 51.5 < 26.7 Co-58 65 < 17.4 < 24.0 < 28.3 < 27.1 < 19.7 < 24.6 Mn-54 65 < 9.4 < 14.3 < 14.4 < 12.5 < 11.8 < 19.4 Zn-65 130 < 19.5 < 23.1 < 21.3 < 30.5 < 32.4 < 45.1 Fe-59 130 < 60.0 < 109.7 < 112.8 < 104.0 < 114.4 < 98.1 Co-60 65 < 8.3 < 13.3 < 13.3 < 13.0 < 10.1 < 17.0 Ba/La-140

< 985.8 < 1625.0 < 1693.0 < 1353.0 < 1361.0 < 202.7 Ru-103 < 39.7 < 50.8 < 61.6- < 49.6 < 47.1 < 31.5 Ru-106 < 84.2 < 134.1 < 143.7 < 147.5 < 105.3 < 190.0 Ce-141 < 66.3 < 91.4 < 114.2 < 84.5 < 82.5 < 51.6 Ce-144 < 56.5 < 70.4 < 87.9 < 64.6 < 62.7 < 96.5 AcTh-228 < 31.3 117.7 +1- 33.9 100.0 +1- 37.4 < 45.9 < 38.3 < 61.4 Ra-226 466.3 +/- 130.8 658.0 +/- 149.8 1332.0 +/- 215.4 300.1 +/- 158.7 654.4 +/- 150.1 < 315.1 K-40 3456.0 +/- 153.0 6131.0 +1- 237.8 7001.0 +/- 240.3 3694.0 +/- 232.4 3160.0 +/- 180.0 2512.0 +/- 301.7 Ni-63 100 < 47.0 < 79.0 < 48.0 < 92.0 < 94.0 < 97.0 Sr-90 5 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note I Note 1 Note 1 Note 1: Initial analytical results are indeterminate and are currently under review; final results to be forwarded separately B-37 TABLE B-15 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN FISH SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma#25 Downstream (Hudson River)Sample VOP FISH VOP FISH VOP FISH VOP FISH VOP FISH VOP FISH Location Date 8/16/2009 8/19/2009 8/26/2009 8/28/2009 8/28/2009 9/19/2009 Client ID IFH254106S6 IFH254109S1 IFH254109S2 IFH254109S3 IFH254109S4 IFH254109S5 Req.SRPED BASS BLUE CRAB SUNFISH CATFISH EEL WHITE PERCH Radionuclide (pCi) BAS Be-7 < 319.5 < 263.3 < 272.7 < 227.6 < 301.2 < 163.9 1-131 < 4702.0 < 2420.0 < 1947.0 < 1174.0 < 1572.0 < 181.9 Cs-134 65 < 12.2 < 15.2 < 18.6 < 13.6 < 21.0 < 15.0 Cs-137 75 < 18.0 < 16.8 < 17.8 < 12.8 < 18.5 < 15.7 Zr-95 < 63.9 < 38.9 < 52.9 < 40.5 < 49.5 < 32.9 Nb-95 < 61.1 < 37.9 < 54.6 < 37.5 < 48.5 < 29.2 Co-58 65 < 34.4 < 26.8 < 29.8 < 21.4 < 24.6 < 17.4 Mn-54 65 < 19.2 < 20.3 < 19.3 < 14.9 < 19.0 < 15.8 Zn-65 130 < 45.9 < 38.7 < 55.7 < 21.1 < 55.8 < 22.5 Fe-59 130 < 115.0 < 104.0 < 111.0 < 64.0 < 98.4 < 62.6 Co-60 65 < 19.7 < 16.9 < 17.4 < 13.5 < 20.1 < 16.2 BaILa-140

< 609.0 < 401.2 < 398.2 < 245.6 < 272.4 < 86.8 Ru-103 < 52.8 < 36.5 < 41.0 < 32.4 < 44.7 < 22.2 Ru-106 < 205.1 < 151.7 < 218.1 < 140.3 < 219.8 < 162.8 Ce-141 < 79.7 < 59.9 < 71.1 < 55.7 < 64.1 < 32.1 Ce-144 < 101.5 < 84.2 < 105.7 < 91.3 < 114.5 < 78.7 AcTh-228 < 67.9 < 75.0 146.4 +/- 60.4 63.5 +/- 39.1 < 58.0 131.1 +1- 40.6 Ra-226 1460.0 +/- 278.4 < 257.4 < 340.3 880.1 +/- 203.9 629.0 +/- 275.0 536.3 +1- 183.4 K-40 7697.0 +/- 294.9 2266.0 +/- 282.5 7167.0 +/- 365.9 8398.0 +/- 253.0 3329.0 +/- 284.7 6564.0 +/- 292.2 Ni-63 100 Note 2 < 95.0 < 76.0 < 81.0 < 80.0 < 90.0 Sr-90 5 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1: Initial analytical results are indeterminate and are currently under review; final results to be forwarded separately Note 2: Original analysis was cross-contaminated; inadequate remnant for re-analysis B-38 TABLE B-15 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN FISH SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma#23 Roseton (Control)Sample Lation ROSETON FISH ROSETON FISH ROSETON FISH ROSETON FISH ROSETON FISH ROSETON FISH Location 'Date 5/7/2009 5/7/2009 5/7/2009 5/8/2009 5/8/2009 8/19/2009 Client ID IFH231809SI IFH231809S3 IFH231809S4 IFH231809S2 IFH231809S5 IFH234109S4 Req. CL CATFISH STRIPED BASS WHITE PERCH EEL SUNFISH WHITE PERCH Radionuclide (pCi) I I I I Be-7 < 200.1 < 194.3 < 217.4 < 169.7 < 216.4 < 177.4 1-131 < 18800.0 < 17170.0 < 19470.0 < 14560.0 < 17540.0 < 1771.0 Cs-134 65 < 7.1 " < 5.3 < 6.2 < 5.0 < 9.4 < 6.5 Cs-137 75 < 9.5 < 7.4 < 8.9 < 7.0 < 9.3 < 9.5 Zr-95 < 39.3 < 34.5 < 39.1 < 28.8 < 42.1 < 35.8 Nb-95 < 51.0 < 38.7 < 49.2 < 36.6 < 54.6 < 32.4 Co-58 65 < 21.7 < 16.5 < 20.2 < 16.4 < 22,1 < 16.4 Mn-54 65 < 11.9 < 8.7 < 9.9 < 8.5 < 11.4 < 11.7 Zn-65 130 < 25.6 < 22.1 < 29.1 < 20.3 < 31.7 < 29.0 Fe-59 130 < 82.7 < 71.7 < 96.4 < 65.9 < 93.0 < 63.6 Co-60 65 < 9.7 < 8.1 < 9.1 < 5.7 < 10,6 < 11.4 Ba/La-140

< 1271.0 < 1032.0 < 1330.0 < 899.8 < 1339.0 < 258.7 Ru-103 < 39.6 < 36.3 < 39.5 < 32.7 < 40.5 < 30.3 Ru-106 < 113.6 < 87.1 < 109.7 < 87.7 < 113.2 < 113.2 Ce-141 < 81.7 < 61.4 < 72.0 < 34.9 < 75.2 < 45.5 Ce-144 < 66.2 < 54.2 < 57.0 < 40.0 < 57.5 < 62.3 AcTh-228 110.4 +/- 29.3 < 26.9 < 31.1 < 32.2 145.6 +/- 31.3 87.1 +1- 27.8 Ra-226 886.8 +/- 143.3 479.2 +/- 117.4 837.9 +/- 136.9 518.4 +/- 115.8 637.5 +/- 126.7 619.0 +/- 152.9 K-40 3180.0 +1- 158.2 4902.0 +1- 154.4 4798.0 +/- 171.0 3352.0 +/- 134.2 6355.0 +1- 190.8 4329.0 +O -192.6 Ni-63 100 < 62.0 < 45.0 < 74.0 < 49.0 < 63.0 < 98.0.Sr-90 5 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1: Initial analytical results are indeterminate and are currently under review; final results to be forwarded separately B-39 TABLE B-15 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN FISH SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg =L 1 Sigma#23 Roseton (Control)Sample ROSETON FISH ROSETON FISH ROSETON FISH ROSETON FISH ROSETON FISH Location Date 8/19/2009 8/26/2009 913/2009 9/4/2009 9/4/2009 Client ID 1FH234109S6 1FH234109S5 IFH234109S3 IFH234109SI I1FH234109S2 Req. CL BLUE CRAB SUN FISH STRIPED BASS CATFISH EEL Radionuclide (pCi)Be-7 < 254.4 < 211.4 < 215.1 < 142.7 < 317.6 1-131 < 2100.0 < 1308.0 < 979.7 < 482.6 < 704.4 Cs-134 65 < 14.4 < 13.2 < 19.4 < 7.8 < 21.6 Cs-137 75 < 12.0 < 12.0 < 15.6 < 9.0 < 23.8 Zr-95 < 43.2 < 35.6 < 50.2 < 29.5 < 62.6 Nb-95 < 47.6 < 38.8 < 41.5 < 23.2 < 54.0 Co-58 65 < 26.2 < 20.2 < 25.6 < 16.2 < 27.0 Mn-54 65 < 12.3 < 13.6 < 20.5 < 13.0 < 22.8 Zn-65 130 < 39.0 < 33.0 < 46.0 < 28.0 < 69.0 Fe-59 130 < 106.0 < 68.7 < 88.0 < 55.0 < 92.1 Co-60 65 < 17.2 < 15.9 < 18.4 < 9.1 < 21.7 Ba/La-140

< 392.6 < 257.5 <- 261.8 < 174.9 < 438.8 Ru-103 < 40.0 < 34.6 < 42.3 < 19.7 < 40.6 Ru-106 < 140.9 < 131.5 < 209.0 < 122.8 < 226.8 Ce-141 < 63.7 < 46.7 < 52.7 < 29.7 < 67.0 Ce-144 < 83.5 < 70.3 < 109.7 < 54.8 < 105.9 AcTh-228 < 49.5 < 48.3 < 72.6 < 37.2 < 84.8 Ra-226 < 226.8 802.1 +1- 185.4 < 308.6 435.6 +/- 150.4 < 374.2 K-40 2115.0 +/- 219.6 5101.0 +/- 235.5 4650.0 +/- 371.7 4372.0 +1- 229.9 4084.0 +/- 382,6 Ni-63 100 < 83.0 < 97.0 < 95.0 < 80.0 < 65.0 Sr-90 5 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1: Initial analytical results are indeterminate and are currently under review; final results to be forwarded separately B-40 TABLE B-16 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN AQUATIC VEGETATION SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg : I Sigma Sample Sample COLD SPRING LENTS COVE LENTS COVE VERPLANCK VERPLANCK Location Date 9/8/2009 6/15/2009 9/8/2009 6/15/2009 9/9/2009 Client ID IAV843609 IAV282409 IAV283609 IAV172409 IAV173609 MYRO MILLFOIL MYRO MILLFOIL MYRO Req. CL Radionuclide (pCi)Be-7 _ _ 167.8 +/- 47.7 618.9 +1- 57T5 407.5 +1- 53.8 148.5 +/- 56.5 < 77.5 1-131 30 < 10.8 < 9.1 < 11.1 < 8.8 < 13.5 Cs-134 30 < 9.2 < 4.6 < 7.6 < 11.0 < 10.3 Cs-137 40 < 6.9 < 6.6 17.3 * +/- 4.1 < 8.5 < 9.4 Zr-95 < 13.8 < 9.1 < 11.9 < 14.3 < 15.0 Nb-95 < 9.4 < 6.6 < 8.6 < 7.8 < 10.4 Co-58 < 9.6 < 5.9 < 7.3 < 9.9 < 7.2 Mn-54 < 7.8 < 6.0 < 6.1 < 9.5 < 6.0 Zn-65 < 11.9 < 8.4 < 16.9 < 20.0 < 24.0 Fe-59 < 21.1 < 15.5 < 17.8 < 21.8 < 25.2 Co-60 < 8.6 < 5.4 < 7..1 < 8.8 < 8.8 Ba/La-140

< 10.5 < 7.3 < 7.2 < 7.7 < 13.9 Ru-103 < 9.6 < 6.2 < 7.0 < 7.6 < 9.7 Ru-106 < 61.3 < 49.8 < 62.7 < 91.0 < 90.4 Ce-141 _ < 12.1 < 8.9 < 9.8 < 10.8 < 12.2 Ce-144 < 47.4 < 36.8 < 37.8 < 43.1 < 43.0 AcTh-228 131.8 +/- 27.4 73.7 +/- 19.2 312.5 +1- 29.1 < 29.6 133.2 +1- 29.6 Ra-226 _333.6 +/- 124.4 143.5 +/- 91.6 661.3 +1- 121.8 < 150.4 377.3 +/- 131.3 K-40 3974.0 +/- 199.2 2115.0 +1- 124.7 4317.0 +0 -176.6 2491.0 +/- 187.2 2823.0 +/- 188.6,* greater than critical level, but less than LLD B-41 TABLE B-17 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BOTTOM SEDIMENT SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma Sample Location COLD SPRING COLD SPRING LENTS COVE LENTS COVE VERPLANCK VERPLANCK Date 6/10/2009 9/8/2009 6/15/2009 9/8/2009 6/15/2009 9/9/2009 Client ID IBS842409 IBS843609 IBS282409 1BS283609 IBS172409 IBS173609 Req. CL Radionuclide (pCi) ....I_Be-7 < 326.2 < 378.3 < 444.7 < 301.0 < 164.0 < 376.9 1-131 < 59.3 < 87.5 < 83.8 < 103.5 < 33.8 < 81.3 Cs-134 75 < 29.1 < 45.4 < 35.6 < 64.8 < 23.6 < 46.4 Cs-137 90 < 40.1 224.3 +/- 45.3 287.3 +/- 47.5 223.8 +/- 47.9 65.5 +/- 21.1 337.8 +/- 49.0 Zr-95 < 47.6 < 81.3 < 62.6 < 74.0 < 40.7 < 76.1 Nb-95 < 38.9 < 60.8 < 50.4 < 59.8 < 24.3 < 46.1 Co-58 < 40.2 < 48.8 < 53.4 < 35.6 < 19.2 < 45.5 Mn-54 < 37.4 < 48.9 < 47.3 < 47.5 < 26.8 < 36.6 Zn-65 < 132.3 < 92.6 < 163.5 < 127.6 < 70.4 < 72.6 Fe-59 < 106,9 < 140.8 < 139.0 < 148.0 < 70.2 < 145.2 Co-60 < 44.4 < 46.7 < 53.5 < 57.4 < 22.9 < 40.0 BaILa-140

< 53.5 < 82.5 < 43.8 < 88.9 < 20.5 "< 82.7 Ru-103 < 38.7 < 53.3 < 51.4 < 55.4 < 29.2 < 34.4 Ru-106 < 361.3 < 526.6 < 437.0 < 604.3 < 222.7 < 330.3 Ce-141 < 61.6 < 73.2 < 89.4 < 64.6 < 43,1 < 68.5 Ce-144 < 224.2 < 360.7 < 343.7 < 241.5 < 164.7 < 235.4 AcTh-228 643.4 +/- 154.7 1305.0 +/- 208.3 816.9 +1- 184.0 960.3 +1- .177.7 426.9 +t- 87.9 1296.0 +/- 173.7 Ra-226 1196.0 +!- 645.1 4535.0 +/- 950.5 3622.0 +/- 919.0 3580.0 +/- 781.1 < 551.5 2775.0 +/- 719.5 K-40 33750.0 +/- 1318.0 22570.0 +/- 1279.0 22200.0 +/- 1168.0 14430.0 +/- 1107.0 7938.0 +/- 536.0 21560.0 +/- 1137.0 B-42 TABLE B-17 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN BOTTOM SEDIMENT SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma Sample DISCHARGE CANAL DISCHARGE Location CANAL Date 6/15/2009 9/9/2009 Client ID IBS102409 IBS103609 Req. CL Radionuclide (pCi) I _I Be-7 < 182.8 < 396.4 1-131 < 30.5 < 92.2 Cs-134 75 < 25.3 < 35.1 Cs-137 90 232.4 +/- 27.2 1810.0 +/- 65.3 Zr-95 < 34.0 < 69.3 Nb-95 < 27.2 < 45.5 Co-58 < 17.8 < 33.6 Mn-54 < 18.9 < 37.9 Zn-65 < 59.2 < 115.9 Fe-59 < 54.8 < 135.5 Co-60 < 31.1 < 38.9 Ba/La-140

< 26.7 < 33.2 Ru-103 < 21.6 < 55.3 Ru-t06 < 233.6 < 410.2 Ce-141 < 28.4 < 84.6 Ce-144 < 116.0 < 287.6 AcTh-228 386.6 +/- 77.3 963.5 +/- 164.2 Ra-226 711.5 +1- 418.6 2299.0 +/- 766.4 K-40 13900.0 +1- 705.6 20560.0 +/- 1064.0 B-43 TABLE B-18 CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN RAINWATER SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/L +/- I Sigma Sample PEEKSKILL PEEKSKILL PEEKSKILL PEEKSKILL Location RAINWATER RAINWATER RAINWATER RAINWATER Date 3/30/2009 6/29/2009 9/28/2009 12/28/2009 Client ID Req. CL IRF44QI09 IRF44Q209 1RF44Q309 IRF44Q409 Radionuclide (pCi)H-3 < 415.0 < 410.0 < 405.0 < 411.0 Be-7 < 42.7 75.8 +1- 25.0 < 39.3 < 32.7 1-131 <- 24.5 < 28.6 < 24.9 < 29.4 Cs-134 7.5 < 1.8 < 2.1 < 1.7 < 2.3 Cs-137 9 < 2.7 < 2.0 < 2.3 < 2.0 Zr-95 < 6.4 < 5.7 < 4.7 < 5.8 Nb-95 < 6.8 < 4.1 < 5.5 < 5.1 Co-58 < 4.1 < 3.2 < 3.0 < 3.4 Mn-54 < 2.7 < 1.7 < 2.2 < 2.7 Zn-65 < 3.7 < 4.7 < 6.8 < 7.4 Fe-59 11.2 < 10.0 < 12.8 < 11.4 Co-60 7.5 < 2.6 < 1.7 < 2.4 < 2.1 Ba/La-140

< 16.0 < 18.3 < 15.4 < 11.2 Ru-103 < 6.6 < 4.8 < 4.9 < 5.7 Ru-106 < 25.0 < 24.4 <- 24.7 < 22.2 Ce-141 < 12.3 < 8.7 < 10.3 < 9.4 Ce-144 < 24.5 < 15.9 < 22.0 < 15.7 AcTh-228 < 9.0 < 6.8 20.5 +1- 7.3 < 8.8 Ra-226 96.1 +/- 54.2 96.1 +/- 37.1 79.7 +/- 48.9 < 48.6 K-40 357.6 +/- 36.4 119.8 +/- 18.7 475.7 +/- 36.7 96.6 "+/- 22.3 B-44 TABLE B-18 CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN RAINWATER SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/L +/- 1 Sigma Sample PEEKSKILL PEEKSKILL PEEKSKILL PEEKSKILL Location RAINWATER RAINWATER RAINWATER RAINWATER Date 3/30/2009 6/29/2009 9/28/2009 12/28/2009 Client ID Req. CL 1RF44Q109 IRF44Q209 IRF44Q309 IRF44Q409 Radionuclide (pCi) I H-3 < 415.0 < 410.0 < 405.0 < 411.0 Be-7 < 42.7 75.8 +1- 25.0 < 39.3 < 32.7 1-131 < 24.5 < 28.6 < 24.9 < 29.4 Cs-134 7.5 < 1.8 < 2.1 < 1.7 < 2.3 Cs-137 9 < 2.7 < 2.0 < 2.3 < 2.0 Zr-95 < 6.4 < 5.7 < 4.7 < 5.8 Nb-95 < 6.8 < 4.1 < 5.5 < 5.1 Co-58 4.1 < 3.2 < 3.0 < 3.4 Mn-54 < 2.7 < 1.7 < 2.2 < 2.7 Zn-65 < 3.7 < 4.7 < 6.8 < 7.4 Fe-59 < 11.2 < 10.0 < 12.8 < 11.4 Co-60 7.5 < 2.6 < 1.7 < 2.4 < 2.1 Ba/La-140

< 16.0 < 18.3 < 15.4 < 11,2 Ru-103 < 6.6 < 4.8 < 4.9 < 5.7 Ru-106 < 25.0 < 24.4 < 24.7 < 22.2 Ce-141 < 12.3 < 8.7 < 10.3 < 9.4 Ce-144 < 24.5 < 15.9 < 22.0 < 15.7 AcTh-228 < 9.0 < 6.8 20.5 +/- 7.3 < 8.8 Ra-226 96.1 +. -54.2 96.1 +/- 37.1 79.7 +/- 48.9 < 48.6 K-40 357.6 +/- 36.4 119.8 +/- 18.7 475.7 +/- 36.7 96.6 +/- 22.3 B-45 TABLE B-19 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN SOIL SAMPLES -2009 Results in Units of pCi/kg +/- 1 Sigma sample ROSETON MET TOWER TRAINING BLDG Location.Date 9/28/2009 9/29/2009 9/2912009 Client ID 1S0233909

.IS0953909 IS0943909 Req. CL Radionuclide (pCi) I Be-7 1245.0 +/- 289.6 909.2 +/- 258.1 790.6 +/- 221.1 1-131 < 49.1 < 33.2 < 34.9 Cs-134 75 < 25.1 < 24.5 < 19.9 Cs-137 90 < 40.3 < 19.0 < 39,1 Zr-95 < 60.4 < 60.4 < 62.2 Nb-95 < 39.7 < 29.5 < 40.9 Co-58 < 35.1 < 27.4 < 25.7 Mn-54 < 38.8 < 30.9 < 27,1 Zn-65 < 135.4 < 74.0 < 110.3 Fe-59 < 100.7 < 78.9 < 95.4 Co-60 < 35.2 < 24.9 < 45.2 Ba/La-140

< 40.1 < 16.0 < 48.7 Ru-103 < 42.5 < 24.3 < 34.1 Ru-108 < 380.5 < 266.7 < 351.8 Ce-141 < 72.9 < 37.3 < 50.0 Ce-144 < 306.1 < 190.1 < 213.0 AcTh-228 991.5 +/- 150.1 456.0 +/- 103.5 549.1 +/- 127.1 Ra-226 1816.0 +/r 805.2 < 639.6 1839.0 +/- 607.8 K-40 15520.0 +/- 908.4 14540.0 +/- 866.2 19780.0 +/- 1032.0 B-46 TABLE B-20 CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-40 MW-40 Sample Name MW-40-027-006 MW-40-027-007 Sample Date 1/19/2009 4/13/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 148.0 198.0 +/- 145.0 Cs-137 18 < 3.86 < 4.57 Co-60 < 3.58 < 3.81 Sr-90 1 < 0.68 < 0.96 Ni-63 < 20.9 < 21.2 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-47 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-40 MW-40 Sample Name MW-40-046-007 MW-40-046-008 Sample Date 1/19/2009 4/13/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 148.0 152 +1- 137 Cs-137 18 < 3.0 < 3.4 Co-60 < 2.8 < 2.9 Sr-90 I < 0.57 < 0.71 Ni-63 < 22.2 < 23.2 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-48 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-40 MW-40 Sample Name MW-40-081-007 MW-40-081-008 Sample Date 1/19/2009 4/13/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 161 +1- 137 231 +/- 150 Cs-137 .18 < 4.0 < 4.8 Co-60 < 3.9 < 6.1 Sr-90 I < 0.65 < 0.82 N-63 < 20.9 < 24.2 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-49 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-40 MW-40 Sample Name MW-40-100-009 MW-40-100-0010 Sample Date 1/19/2009 4/13/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 148 262 +/- 156 Cs-137 18 < 3.9 < 4.4 Co-60 < 3.6 < 4.5 Sr-90 < < 0.72 < 0.68 Ni-63 < 22.4 < 21.7 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-50 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L+ 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-40 MW-40 Sam pie Name MW-40-127-009 MW-40-127-010 Sample Date 1/19/2009 4/13/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 148 152 +1- 137 Cs-137 18 < 3.9 < 4.8 Co-60 < 4.5 < 4.8 Sr-90 1 < 0.9 < 0.77 Ni-63 < 21.6 < 22.2 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-51 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-40 MW-40 Sample Name MW-40-162-007 MW-40-162-008 Sample Date 1/19/2009 4/13/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 148 142 +/- 137 Cs-137 18 < 3.7 < 3.9 Co-60 < 3.4 < 4.1 Sr-90 1 < 0.62 < 0.55 Ni-63 < 22.0 < 21.7 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-52 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-51 MW-51 Sample Name MW-51-040-010 MW-51-040-011 Sample Date 1/20/2009 517/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 192 203 +/- 176 Cs-137 18 < 3.3 < 4.7 Co-60 < 3.3 < 5.1 Sr-90 I < 0.97 < 0.83 Ni-63 < 18.7 < 21.1 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-53 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L+ 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-51 MW'51 Sample Name MW-51-079-010 MW-51-079-011 Sample Date 1/20/2009 5/7/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 148 < 181 Cs-137 18 < 3.7 < 5.1 Co-60 < 3.6 < 7.0 Sr-90 1 < 0.50 < 0.83 Ni-63 < 19.0 < 20.0 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-54 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCifL + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-51 MW-51 Sample Name MW-51-104-008 MW-51-104-009 Sample Date 1/20/2009 5/7/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 148 < 178 Cs-137 18 < 3.0 < 3.9 Co-60 < 2.4 < 4.0 Sr-90 1 < 0.50. < 0.80 Ni-63 < 23.3 < 27.1 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-55 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-51 MW-51 Sample Name MW-51-135-008 MW-51-135-009 Sample Date 1/20/2009 51712009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 148 < 171 Cs-137 18 < 4.3 < 4.7 Co-60 < 3.7 < 4.0 Sr-90 1 < 0.58 < 0.58 Ni-63 < 21.0 < 26.0 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-56 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-51 MW-51 Sample Name MW-51-163-008 MW-51-163-009 Sample Date 1/20/2009 51712009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 148 < 181 Cs-137 18 < 3.3 < 3.4 Co-60 < 3.5 < 3.8 Sr-90 1 < 0.70 < 0.61 Ni-63 < 21.4 < 21.5 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-57 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-51 MW-51 Sample Name MW-51-189-008 MW-51-189-009 Sample Date 1/20/2009 5/7/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 148 < 181 Cs-137 18 < 3.6 < 6.3 Co-60 < 4.2 < 6.1 Sr-90 1 < 0.56 < 0.64 Ni-63 < 21.1 < 21.4 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.B-58 TABLE B-20 (Continued)

CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MONITORING WELL SAMPLES Results in pCi/L + 3 sigma Monitoring Well MW-LAF Sample Name MW-LAF-002-012 Sample Date 11/19/2009 Radionuclide Req. MDC H-3 < 165 Cs-137 18 < 10.2 Co-60 < 12.7 Sr-90 I < 0.73 Ni-63 < 16.8 Note 1: Less than values "<" are Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) values.Note 2: A sample is positive if the result is greater than or equal to the MDC.Note 3: These are the first semi-annual results post-July's ODCM change B-59 Table B-21 LAND USE CENSUS -RESIDENCE and MILCH ANIMAL RESULTS 2009 The 2009 land use census indicated there were no new residences that were closer in proximity to IPEC. NEM maintains a complete nearest residence survey with updated distances.

No milch animals were observed during this reporting period within the 5-mile zone nor were listed in the New York Agricultural Statistic Service. There are no animals producing milk for human consumption within five miles of Indian Point.B-60 TABLE B-22 LAND USE CENSUS 2009 INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER UNRESTRICTED AREA BOUNDARY AND NEAREST RESIDENCES Distance to Distance to site Distance to site nearest resident, Boundary from Boundary from from Unit 1, Unit 2 Plant Vent Unit 3 Plant Vent superheater Address of nearest resident, Dec Sector Compass Point (meters) (meters) (meters) 2004 Census I N RIVER RIVER 1788 41 River Road Tomkins Cove 2 NNE RIVER RIVER 3111 Chateau Rive Apts. John St. Peekskill 3 NE 550 636 1907 122 Lower South St. Peekskill 4 : ENE 600 775 1478 1018 Lower South St. Peekskill 5 E 662 785 1371 1103 Lower South St. Peekskill 6 ESE 569 622 715 461 Broadway Buchanan7 SE .553 564 1168 223 First St. Buchanan 8 SSE 569 551 1240 5 Pheasant's Run Buchanan , S 700 566 1133 320 Broadway Verplanck 10 SSW, 755 480 1574 240 Eleventh St. Verplanck SW 544 350 3016 .8 Spring St. Tomkins Cove' .12 WSW RIVER RIVER 2170 9 West Shore Dr. Tomkins Cove 13 W RIVER RIVER 1919 7,12 Rt. 9W Tomkins Cove.14 WNW RIVER RIVER

• 1752 770 Rt. 9W Tomkins Cove 15 :, NW RIVER RIVER '1693 807 Rt: 9W Tomkins Cove 16 NNW RIVER RIVER 1609 4 River Rd. Tomkins Cove B-61 APPENDIX C HISTORICAL TRENDS APPENDIX C The past ten years of historical data for various radionuclides and media are presented both in tabular form and in graphical form to facilitate the comparison of 2009 data with historical values. Although other samples were taken and analyzed, values were only tabulated and plotted where positive indications were present.Averaging only the positive values in these tables can result in a biased high value, especially, when the radionuclide is detected in only one or two quarters for the year.C-1 TABLE C-1 DIRECT RADIATION ANNUAL

SUMMARY

1999-2009 Average Quarterly Dose (mR/Qua~rter)

Year -Infner Ring; Outer R~ing Cotl~Location 1999 15.0 15.0 16.0 2000 14.0 15.0 16.0 2001 15.0 15.0 17.0 2002 15.0 15.0 14.0 2003 14.3 13.9 14.7 2004 13.0 13.0 14.0 2005 14.1 14.1 15.9 2006 13.9 14.3 17.5 2007 14.4 14.6 18.8 2008 14.5 14.2 17.3 2009 14.5 14.2 17.3 14.3 14.4 16.0 1~9992008

<C-2 FIGURE C-1 DIRECT RADIATION, ANNUAL

SUMMARY

1999 to 2009 40.0 -35.0 30.0.25.0 (U a" 20.0 E m"U 10.0 5.0 0.0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 C-3 TABLE C-2 RADIONUCLIDES IN AIR 1999 to 2009 In Jilm 3 i 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01L c" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" L C< LcLc" Lc" Lc" Lc" LC< L C< LC< L C" Lc" Lr" Lc" Lc Historial Averge 0.010.01<Lc<c Critical Level (Lj) is less than the ODCM required LLD.<Lc indicates no positive values above sample critical level.C-4 FIGURE C-2 RADIONUCLIDES IN AIR -GROSS BETA 1999 to 2009 0.05 0.04 0.03 MAll Indicator Locations Control Location E 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 i ll i--7 0 0 i 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* Includes ODCM and non-ODCM indicator locations.

Gross Beta ODCM required LLD = 0.01 pCi/m 3 C-5 TABLE C-3 RADIONUCLIDES IN HUDSON RIVER WATER 1999 to 2009 (pCi/1L 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 191 190< Lc 432" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc 318 267 323 562< LC 553 618 386* Lc* Lc* Le" LC" LC" LC" Lc" Lc" LC" LC" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc<Lc" LC" Lc Histori9al Average 271 432 < Lc < Lc[ 1999-2008 Critical Level (Lj) is less than the ODCM required LLD.<Lc indicates no positive values above sample critical level.C-6 FIGURE C-3 RADIONUCLIDES IN HUDSON RIVER WATER 1999 to 2009-J a.2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1999 2000 Tritium ODCM required LLD = 3000 pCi/L 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 C-7 TABLE C-4 RADIONUCLIDES IN DRINKING WATER 1999 to 2009 (pCi/L)~t~t Year T3Cs 37 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009" LC" Lc" Lc" Lc" Le" Lc" Lc< L .c" Lc" Lc< L c" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc H jisto~rica[

Averg C<L 1 999-2008 C Critical Level (Lj) is less than the ODCM required LLD.<L, indicates no positive values above sample critical level.C-8 FIGURE C-4 RADIONUCLIDES IN.DRINKING WATER 1999 to 2009 0., 03 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1999 2000 Tritium ODCM required LLD = 2000 pCi/L 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 C-9 TABLE C-5 RADIONUCLIDES IN SHORELINE SOIL 1999 to 2009 (pCi/Kg, dry)Critical Level (L,) is less than the RETS required LLD.<Lc indicates no positive values above sample critical level.C-10 FIGURE C-5 RADIONUCLIDES IN SHORELINE SOIL 750 1999 to 2009 M.Indicator (Cs-1 34)650 LII Control (Cs-1 34)E Indicator (Cs-1 37)550 5- Control (Cs-1 37)450 350 250 150 50 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009-50 Cs-134 ODCM required LLD = 150 pCi/Kg, dry Cs-137 ODCM required LLD = 175 pCi/Kg, dry C-1 1 TABLE C-6 BROAD LEAF VEGETATION

-Cs-137 1999 to 2009 (pCi/Kg, wet)>Cs-1 37<1999 < LC 27 2000 28 < Lc 2001 7 < Lc 2002 14 16 2003 14 < Lc 2004 10 < Lc 2005 < Lc < Lc 2006 < Lc < Lc 2007 < Lc < Lc 2008 < Lc < Lc 2009 < Lc < Lc---815 22 Critical Level (Lj) is less than the ODCM required LLD.<L, indicates no positive values above sample critical level.C-12 FIGURE C-6 BROAD LEAF VEGETATION

-Cs-137 1999 to 2009 100 E3 Indicator (Cs-1 37)0l Control (Cs-i 37)80 60 40, 0 0F.40 20 2002 22,000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007. 2008 .2009 ODCM required LLD = 80 pCi/Kg, wet C-1 3 TABLE C-7 FISH AND INVERTEBRATES

-Cs-137 1999 to 2009 (pCi/Kg, dry)1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Le" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" Lc" LC" LC" Lc" LC" Lc" Lc" Lc I Historical Average< c<L 1999-2008 Critical Level (Lc) is less than the ODCM required LLD.<Lc indicates no positive values above sample critical level.C-14 FIGURE C-7 FISH AND INVERTEBRATES

-Cs-1 37 1999 to 2009 200 180 160 E\9 Indicator (Cs-1 37)El Control (Cs-i 37)140 120 100 0 80 60 40 20 NO IDENTIFIED Cs-137 IN PREVIOUS TEN YEARS HISTORY 0 1999 2000.2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Cs-137 ODCM required LLD = 150 pCi/Kg, wet C-1 5 APPENDIX D INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM APPENDIX D D.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 JAF Environmental Laboratory has engaged the services of Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Incorporated in Atlanta, Georgia.Analytics supplies 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 JAF Environmental Laboratory using standard laboratory procedures.

Analytics issues a statistical summary report of the results. The JAF Environmental Laboratory uses predetermined acceptance criteria methodology for evaluating the laboratory's performance.

The JAF Environmental Laboratory also analyzes laboratory blanks. The analysis of laboratory blanks provides a means to detect and measure radioactive contamination of analytical samples. The analysis of analytical blanks also provides information on the adequacy of background subtraction.

Laboratory blank results are analyzed using control charts.D-1 D.2 PROGRAM SCHEDULE SAMPLE PROVIDER SAMPLE LABORATORY ECKERT VIEER MEDI ANAYSISECKERT

& ZIEGLER MEDIA ANALYSISANLTC ANALYTICS Water Gross Beta 3 Water Tritium 5 Water 1-131 4 Water Mixed Gamma 4 Air Gross Beta 3 Air 1-131 4 Air Mixed Gamma 2 Milk 1-131 3 Milk Mixed Gamma 3 Soil Mixed Gamma 1 Vegetation Mixed Gamma 2 TOTAL SAMPLE INVENTORY 34 D.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.D.3.1 SAMPLE RESULTS EVALUATION Samples provided by Analytics are evaluated using what is specified as the NRC method. This method is based on the calculation of the ratio of results reported by the participating laboratory (QC result) to the Vendor Laboratory Known value (reference result).D-2 An Environmental Laboratory analytical result is evaluated using the following calculation:

The value for the error resolution is calculated.

The error resolution

=Reference Result Reference Results Error (1 sigma)Using the appropriate row under the Error Resolution column in Table 8.3.1 below, a corresponding Ratio of Agreement interval is given.The value for the ratio is then calculated.

Ratio of Agreement QC Result Reference Result If the value falls within the agreement interval, the result is acceptable.

TABLE 8.3.1 ERROR RESOLUTION RATIO OF AGREEMENT< 4 No Comparison 4 to 7 0.5 to 2.0 8 to 15 0.6 to 1,.66 16 to 50 0.75 to 1.33 51 to 200 0.8 to 1.25>200 0.85 to 1.18 This acceptance test is generally referred to as the "NRC" method. The acceptance criteria are contained in Procedure EN-CY-102.

The NRC method generally results in an acceptance range of approximately

+/- 25% of the Known value when applied to sample results from the Eckert & Ziegler Analytics Interlaboratory Comparison Program. This method is used as the procedurally required assessment method and requires the generation of a deviation from QA/QC program report when results are unacceptable.

D-3 D.4 PROGRAM RESULTS

SUMMARY

The Interlaboratory Comparison Program numerical results are provided on Table 8-1.D.4.1 ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS QA SAMPLES RESULTS Thirty-four QA blind spike samples were analyzed as part of Analytics 2009 Interlaboratory Comparison Program. The following sample media were evaluated as part of the comparison program.* Air Charcoal Cartridge:

1-131" Air Particulate Filter: Mixed Gamma Emitters, Gross Beta" Water: 1-131, Mixed Gamma Emitters, Tritium, Gross Beta* Soil: Mixed Gamma Emitters* Milk: 1-131, Mixed Gamma Emitters" Vegetation:

Mixed Gamma Emitters The JAF Environmental Laboratory performed 130 individual analyses on the 34 QA samples. Of the 130 analyses performed, 129 were in agreement using the NRC acceptance criteria for a 99.2% agreement ratio.There was one non-conformity in the 2009 program.D.4.1.1 ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS SAMPLE NONCONFORMITY Eckert & Ziegler Analytics Sample 6570-05, Fe-59 on Air Filter Nonconformity No. 2009-02 Corrective Action No. CR-JAF-2009-01758 A spiked mixed gamma on an air particulate filter sample supplied by Eckert &Ziegler Analytics, Inc., was analyzed in accordance with standard laboratory procedures.

The sample contained a total of nine radionuclides for analysis.

Nine of the nine radionuclides present were quantified.

Eight of the nine radionuclides were quantified within the acceptable range. The mean result for Fe-59 was determined to be outside the QA Acceptance Criteria resulting in sample nonconformity and subsequent corrective action. The filter was analyzed three times using three different detectors.

An average Fe-59 value of 153 pCi was reported.

The known result for the sample was 121 pCi as determined by the supplier.

All nine radionuclides values quantified at the E-lab were biased high when compared to reference values.D-4 INITIAL RESULTS ON FILTER (NON-CONFORMITY ON Fe-59)Sample Media: Filter Sample Date: 3/19/2009 Sample Analytics

1. E56570-05 Units: 1Ci Radionuclide JAF REFERENCE

%Recovery Ce-141 131 + 1.3 115 +/- 1.92 114%Cr-51 435 + 7.9 370 +/- 6.18 118%Cs-134 134 + 2.0 114 -1.9 118%Cs-137 150 +/- 1.8 135 +/- 2.25 111%Co-58 168 +/- 2.0 145 -2.41 116%Mn-54 191 +/- 2.1 155 L 2.59 123%Fe-59 153 +/- 2.3 121 +/- 2.02 126%Zn-65 233 +/- 3.9 189 +/- 3.16 123%Co-60 193 +/- 1.7 173 +/- 2.88 112%Reviewed JAF E-lab data from prior years and observed a high bias for this media starting in 2008. In November of 2007, a new 16SF source geometry was purchased.

The 16SF source geometry is a quarterly composite filter geometry.

It was very similar to the old 16SF geometry.

However, the petri dish used in our new 16SF source geometry is slightly deeper and the filters used in our new source geometry aren't as tightly packed as the old model. Sample geometry should match source geometry as close as possible to ensure accurate measurements are obtained.

Existing guidance for preparing a QC filter composite sample directs the use of extra material to ensure filters are compressed; however this was for the old 16SF source geometry.

Extra material to compress the filters when preparing the QC filter composite sample is no longer needed. We have stopped using extra material to compress QC filters when preparing for analysis.To validate the cause and resolution for exceeding 25% error on Fe-59, the QC sample was prepared again without using additional packing material.

The results were in good agreement and are presented below.REANALYSIS ON FILTER WITH OUT PACKING MATERIAL I Sample Media: Filter Sample Date: 3/19/2009 Sample Analytics

1. E56570-05 Units: pCi Radionuclide JAF REFERENCE

%Recovery Ce-141 107 -4.2 115 +/- 1.92 93%Cr-51 326 +/- 34.0 370 +/- 6.18 88%Cs-134 120 -3.2 114 +/- 1.9 106%Cs-137 131 -2.8 135 +/- 2.25 97%Co-58 141 +/- 4.1 145 +/- 2.41 97%Mn-54 164 +/- 3.4 155 +/- 2.59 106%Fe-59 126 +/- 6.1 121 +/- 2.02 104%Zn-65 202 +/- 6.5 189 +/- 3.16 107%Co-60 174 -2.8 173 +/- 2.88 100%D-5 The E-lab "Guidance for the Processing and Reporting of Blind Spike Quality Assurance Samples" was updated in the Procedures Reference and Laboratory Manual. In addition, a section was added to the guidance document concerning impact of future geometry changes to the JAF E-lab QA program. The following results were obtained on next available QA Spiked Air Particulate Filter.BLIND QA SPIKE SAMPLE FOLLOWING CHANGE Sample Media: Filter Sample Date: 9/17/2009 Analytics

1. E6838-05 Sample Units: pCi Radionuclide JAF REFERENCE

%Recovery Ce-141 232 +/- 2.1 234 +/- 3.91 99%Cr-51 180 +/- 8.2 188 +/- 3.15 96%Cs-134 111 +/- 2.3 105 +/- 1.75 106%Cs-137 156 +/- 2.2 158 +/- 2.63 99%Co-58 83.3 +/- 1.7 84.8 +/- 1.42 98%Mn-54 185 +/- 2.5 176 +/- 2.93 105%Fe-59 136 +/- 2.7 126 +/- 2.1 108%Zn-65 192 +/- 4.2 174 +/- 2.9 110%Co-60 132 +/- 1.7 137 +/- 2.28 96%Note: The geometry change did not have an impact on client filters as they are not compressed prior to analysis.

Additionally, no plant related radionuclides have been detected in client air particulate filter composites in the past 2 years.D-6 D.4.2 NUMERICAL RESULTS TABLES TABLE D.4.2-1 INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gross Beta Analysis of Air Particulate Filter SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE tD NO. MEDIUM ANALYSIS pCi +/-1 sigma pCi +/-1 sigma RATIO (1)06/18/2009 E6758-05 Filter 1. 15E+02 +/- 1.90E+00 GROSS 1.18E+02 +/- 1.92E+00 1.08E+02 +/- 1.80E+00 1.08 A BETA 1.16E+02 +/- 1.9 IE+00 Mean = 1.16E+02 +/- 1.1OE+00 06/18/2009 E6723-09 Filter 1.05E+02 +/- 1.82E+00 GROSS 1.04E+02 +/- 1.81E+00 988E+01 +/- 1.65E+00 1.07 A BETA 1.07E+02 +/- 1.83E+00 Mean = 1.05E+02 +/- 1.05E+00 12/10/2009 E6960-05 Filter 1.08E+02 +/- 2.56E+00 GROSS 1.07E+02 +/- 2.55E+00 BETA 1.07E+02 +/- 2.54E+00 Mean = 1.07E+02 +/- 1.47E+00 (I) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-7 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

Tritium Analysis of Water SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE ID NO. MEDIUM ANALYSIS pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma pCi/liter

+/-I sigma RATIO (1)3/19/2009 E6568-05 Water H-3 4.8 IE+03 +/- 1.64E+02 4.94E+03 +/- 1.65E+02 4.86E+03 +/- 1.65E+02 4.48E+03 +/- 7,48E+01 1.09 A Mean= 4.87E+03 +/- 9.5 1E+01 6/18/2009 E6757-05 Water H-3 9.39E+02 +/- 1.32E+02 9.55E+02 +/- 1.32E[) 9.71E+02 +/- 1.62E+01 0.99 A 9.95E+02 +/- 1.33E+02 Mean= 9.63E+02 +/- 7.64E+01 9/17/2009 E6842-05 Water H-3 1.05E+03 +/- 1.34E+02 9. 10E02 +/- 1.33E+02 9.91E+02 +/- 1.66E+01 1.00 A 1.01E+03 +/- 1.33E+02 Mean= 9.91E+02 +/- 7.70E+01 12/10/2009 E6957-09 Water H-3 1.49E+04 t 2.30E+02 1.45E+04 +/- 2.28E+02 1.40E+04 +/- 2.33E+02 1.04 A 1.43E+04 +/- 2.27E+02 Mean= 1.46E+04 +/- 1.32E+02 12/10/2009 E6958-09 Water H-3 1.45E+04 +/- 2.28E+02 1.43E+04 +/- 2.26E+02 1.45E+04 +/- 2.28E+02 1.40E+04 +/- 2.33E+02 1.03 A Mean= 1.44E+04 +/- 1.31IE+02 (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-8 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

Gross Beta Analysis of Water SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE ID NO. MEDIUM ANALYSIS pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma RATIO (1)03/19/2009 E6571-05 Water 2.34E+02 +/- 2.40E+00 GROSS 2.33E+02 +/- 2.40E+00 2.35E+02 +/- 3.92E+00 0.99 A BETA 2.3 IE+02 +/- 2.40E+00 Mean = 2.33E+02 +/- 1.39E+00 06/18/2009 E6763-05 Water 2.59E+02 +/- 2.60E+00 GROSS 2.61E+02 +/- 2.60E+00 2.77E+02 +/- 4.63E+00 0.93 A BETA 2.55E+02 +/- 2.60E+00 Mean = 2.58E+02 +/- 1.50E+00 09/17/2009 E6841-05 Water 2.20E+02 +/- 2.30E+00 GROSS 2.15E+02 +/- 2.30E+00 2.23E+02 +/- 3.72E+00 0.98 A BETA 2.20E+02 .+/- 2.30E+00 Mean= 2.18E+02 +/- 1.33E+00 (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-9 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued) 1-131 Gamma Analysis of Air Charcoal SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE ID NO. MEDIUM ANALYSIS pCi +/-1 sigma pCi +/-1 sigma RATIO (1)3/19/2009 E6544-09 Air 8.30E+01 +/- 155E+00 1-131 8.60E+01 +/- 3.04E+00 7.93E+01 +/- 1.32E+00 1.07 A 8.50E+01 +/- 3.2 IE+00 Mean = 8.47E+01 +/- 1.56E+00 6/18/2009 E6761-05 Air 9.20E+01 +/- 2.57E+00 8.79E+01 +/- 2.49E+00 1-131 9.47E+01 +/- 1.58E+00 0.95 A 8.90E+01 +/- 1.34E+00 Mean= 8.96E+01 +/- 1.27E+00 9/17/2009 E6840-05 Air 8.98E+01 +/- 2.63E+00 1-131 8.74E+01 +/- 2.98E+00 9.19E+01 +/- 1.54E+00 0.96 A 8.67E+01 +/- 3.04E+00 Mean = 8.80E+01 +/- 1.67E+00 9/17/2009 E683109 Air 9.24E+01 +/- 2.74E+00 9.17E+01 +/- 1.69E+00 1-131 9.17E+01 +/- 1.53E+00 1.00 A 9.13E+01 +/- 2.93E+00 1 Mean= 9.18E+01 +/- 1.45E+00 (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-10 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Water SAM[PLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE ID NO. IMEDIUM ANALYSIS pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma , pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma I RATIO (1)3/19/2009 E6569-05 Water Ce-141 1.22E+02 1.24E+02 1.23E+02 Mean = 1.23E+02++/-+/-+/-4.90E+00 3.6 1E+00 3.67E+00 2,37E+00 1.20E+02 +/- 2.01E+00I 1.03 A 4.11E+02 +/- 2.53E+01 Cr-51 3.73E+02 +/- 1.68E+01 3.87E+02 +/- 6.46E+00 1.04 A 4.27E+02 +/- 1.82E+01 Mean= 4.04E+02 +/- 1.18E+0 I 1.26E+02 +/- 3.99E+00 Cs-134 1.28E+02 +/- 3.13E+00 1. 19E+02 +/- 1.98E+00 1.06 A 1.25E+02 +/- 3.33E+00 Mean = 1.26E+02 +/- 2.02E+00 1.46E+02 +/- 4.33E+00 Cs-137 1.42E+02 +/- 3.03E+00 141E+02 +/- 2.36E+00 1.00 A 1.36E+02 +/- 3.1IE+00 Mean = 1.41E+02 +/- 2.04E+00 1.63E+02 +/- 4.38E+00 1.53E+02 +/- 3.03E+00 Co-58 1.53E+02 +/- 3.35E+00 1.51E+02 .- 2.52E+0O 1.04 A Mean= 1.56E+02 +/- 2.1OE+00 1.69E+02 +/- 4.50E+00 1.69E+02 +/- 3.34E+00 Mn-54 1.73E+02 +/- 3.40E+00 1.62E+02 +/- 2.70E+00 1.05 A Mean = 1.70E+02 +/- 2.18E+00 1.35E+02 +/- 4.85E+00 Fe-59 1.39E+02 +/- 3.46E+00 1.27E+02 +/- 2.1 IE+00 1.07 A 1.35E+02 +/- 3.81E+00 Mean = 1.36E+02 +/- 2.36E+00 2.13E+02 +/- 8.07E+00 Zn-65 2.12E+02 t 5.69E+00 I 97E+02 +/- 3.30E+00 1.05 A 1.97E+02 +/- 6.25E+00 Mean = 2.07E+02 +/- 3.90E+00 1.88E+02 +/- 3.69E+00 Co-60 1.89E+02 +/- 2.63E+00 1.80E+02 +/- 3.01E+00 1.05 A 1.88E+02 +/- 2.70E+00 Mean= 1.88E+02 +/- 1.76E+00 1-131**7.20E+01 6.87E+01 7.04E+01 Mean = 7.04E+01+/-+/-2.15E+00 1.07E+00 9.82E-01 8.65E-0 I 6.90E+01 +/- 1.15E+00 1.02 A (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.** Result determined by Resin Extraction/Gamma Spectral Analysis.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-11 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Water SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE ID NO. IMEDIUM ANALYSIS pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma RATIO (1)6/18/2009 E6722-09 Water Ce- 141 2.19E+02 2.18E+02 2.22E+02 Mean = 2.20E+02+/-+/-7. 10E+00 7.42E+00 4.21E+00 3.70E+00 2.16E+02 +/- 3.60E+04D 1.02 A 2.77E+02 +/- 3.12E+01 Cr-51 2.93E+02 +/- 3.14E+01 3.04E+02 +/- 5.08E+00 0.96 A 3.09E+02 +/- 2.02E+01 Mean = 2.93E+02 +/- 1.62E+0l 1.24E+02 +/- 4.58E+00 S1.27E+02

+/- 4.80E+00 Cs-134 1.38E+02 +/- 3.13E+00 1.26E+02 +/- 2.10E+00 1.03 A Mean= 1.30E+02 +/- 2.45E+00 1.40E+02 +/- 4.66E+00 Cs-137 1.44E+02 +/- 4.73E+00 1.46E+02 _ 2.43E+00 0.98 A 1.45E+02 +/- 3.01E+00 Mean= 1.43E+02 +/- 2.43E+00 6.74E+01 +/- 3.96E+00 Co-587.12E+0

+/- 4.14E+00 6.98E+01 t 1.17E+00 1.02 A 7.54E+01 +/- 2.55E+00 Mean= 7.13E+01 +/- 2.09E+00 1.07E+02 +/- 4.23E+00 Mn-54 1.07E+02 +/- 4.51E+00 1.04E+02 +/- 1.74E+00 1.03 A 1.07E+02 +/- 2.87E+00 Mean= 1.07E+02 +/- 2.27E+00 1.02E+02 +/- 5.50E+00 9.63E+01 +/- 5.65E+00 Fe-59 9.66E+01 +/- 3.75E+00 9.29E+01 +/- 1.55E+00 1.06 A Mean= 9.83E+01 +/- 2.91E+00 1.41E+02 +/- 8.34E+00 Zn-65 1.57E+02 +/- 8.56E+00 1.33E+02 +/- 2.22E+00 1.10 A 1.39E+02 +/- 5.26E+00 Mean = 1.46E+02 +/- 4.35E+00 2.53E+02 +/- 4.63E+00 Co602.43E+02

+/- 4.72E+00 Co-60 +/- 4.72E+00 2.37E+02 +/- 3.95E+00 1.04 A 2.42E+02 +/- 2.99E+00 Mean = 2.46E+02 +/- 2.42E+00 1-131**8.4 1E+0 I 9.26E+01 9.55E+0 1 Mean = 9.07E+i01+/-+/-++4 4.42E+00 4.28E+00 3.98E+00 1 .83E+00 8.83E+I01+/- 1.47E+00 1.03 A (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.** Result determined by Resin Extraction/Gamma Spectral Analysis.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-12 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Water SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB* I DATE I IDWNO. IMEDIUMIANALYSIS pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma RATIO (1)9/17/2009 E6837-05 Water Ce- 141 2.77E+02 2.69E+02 2.6 1E+02 Mean = 2.69E+02+/-+/-3.6 1E+00 6.49E+00 6.66E+00 3.33E+00 2.64E+02 +/- 4.40E+O0 1.02 A 2.24E+02 +/- 1.26E+01 Cr-51 2.1OE+02 +/- 2.22E+01 2.12E+02 +/- 3.54E+00 1.03 A 2.20E+02 +/- 2.82E+01 Mean= 2.18E+02 +/- 1.27E+01 1.26E+02 +/- 2.15E+00 i.21E+02 +/- 4.13E+00 Cs-134 1.25E+02 +/- 5.23E+00 1.18E+02 +/- 1.97E+00 1.05 A Mean = 1.24E+02 +/- 2.33E+00 1.77E+02 +/- 2.40E+00 Cs-137 1.76E+02 +/- 4.67E+00 1.77E+02 +/- 2.96E+00 1.00 A 1.79E+02 +/- 5.37E+00 Mean = 1.77E+02 +/- 2.50E+00 9.64E+01 +/- 1.91E+00 Co-589.90E+01

_+/- 4.02E+00 Co-59.E+1

+/- 4.2E+00 9.54E+01 +/- 1.59E+00 1.00 A 9.12E+01 +/- 4.23E+00 Mean = 9.55E+01 +/- 2.05E+00 2.14E+02 +/- 2.64E+00 Mn-54 2.08E102 +/- 5.07E+00 1.98E+02 +/- 3.30E+00 1.05 A 2.04E+02 +/- 5.96E+00 Mean = 2.09E+02 +/- 2.75E+00 1.55E+02 +/- 2.73E+00 Fe-59 1..52E+02

+/- 5.29E+00 1.41E+02 +/- 2.36E+00 1.08 A 1i.48E+02

+/- 6.36E+00 Mean = 1.52E+02 -2.90E+00 2.14E+02 +/- 4.25E+00 2.25E+02 +/- 8.57E+00 Zn-65 1.95E+02 +/- 3.26E+00 1.10 A 2.05E+02 +/- 9.89E+00 Mean = 2.15E+02 +/- 4.59E+00 1.55E+02 +/- 1.73E+00 Co-60 1.53E+02 +/- 3.42E+00 1.54E+02 +/- 2.57E+00 1.01 A 1.58E+02 +/- 4.1IE+00 Mean = 1.55E+02 +/- 1.87E+00 1-131**1.00E+02 9.91E+01 1.01E+02 Mean = 1.00E+02+/-+/-+/-1. 1 9E+00 3.05E+00 2.92E+00 1.46E+00 9.84E+01 +/- 1.64E+00 1.02 A (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.** Result determined by Resin Extraction/Gamma Spectral Analysis.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-13 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Water SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB* I DATE ID NO. IMEDIUM ANALYSISI pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma RATIO (1)12/10/2009 E6959-09 Water Ce-141 2.14E+02 +/- 8.89E+00 2.14E+02 +/- 4.58E+00 2.01E+02 +/- 9.53E+00 2.10E+02 +/- 4.60E+00 2.04E+02 +/- 3.41E+00 1.03 A Mean =5.40E+02 +/- 4.35E+01 Cr-51 5.37E+02 +/- 2.11E+1 5.54E+02 +/- 9.25E+00 0.97 A 5.36E+02 +/- 4.64E+01 Mean= 5.38E+02 +/- 2.23E+01 2.62E+02 +/- 7.33E+00 2.60E+02 +/- 3.69E+00 Cs-134 2.67E+02 +/- 7,12E+00 255E+02 +/- 4.26E+00 1.03 A 2.67E+02 +/- 7.12E+00 Mean = 2.63E+02 +/- 3.62E+00 1.64E+02 +/- 5.87E+00 Cs-137 1.82E+02 +/- 3.OOE+00 1.81E+02 +/- 3.02E+00 0.96 A 1.77E+02 +/- 5.71E+00 Mean = 1.74E+02 +/- 2.91E+00 2.18E+02 +/- 6.96E+00 Co-58 2.14E+02 +/- 3.28E+00 2.13E+02 +/- 3.56E+00 1.03 A 2.28E+02 +/- 6.54E+00 Mean = 2.20E+02 +/- 3.37E+00 1.99E+02 +/- 6.21E+00 Mn-54 1.94E+02 +/- 3.12E+00 1.79E+02 +/- 3.OOE+00 1.09 A 1.93E+02 +/- 6.25E+00 Mean = 1.95E+02 +/- 3.12E+00 1.85E+02 +/- 8.16E+00 Fe-59 1.90E+02 +/- 3.99E+00 1.79E+02 +/- 3.OOE+00 1.07 A 2.02E+02 +/- 8.10E+00 Mean = 1.92E+02 +/- 4.06E+00 3.82E+02 +/- 1.34E+01 Zn-65 3.72E+02 +/- 6.54E+00 3.48E+02 +/- 5.82E+00 1.10 A 3.96E+02 +/- 1.32E+01 Mean= 3.83E+02 +/- 6.64E+00 2.62E+02 +/- 5.43E+00 Co-60 2.60E+02 +/- 2.6 5E+00 258E+02 +/- 4.3 1E+00 1.01 A 2.58E+02 +/- 5.18E+00 Mean= 2.60E+02 +/- 2.65E+00 1-131**9.41E+01 9.37E+01 9.05E+0 I Mean = 9.28E+01+/-+/-+/-+/-2.I1 E+00 5.70E+00 6.83E+00 3 .05E+00 9.61E+01 +/- 1.61E+0C 0.97 A (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.** Result determined by Resin Extraction/Gamma Spectral Analysis.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-14 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Milk SMLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE I NO. IMEDIUM ANALYSIS pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma RATIO (1)3119/2009 E6545-09 MILK Ce-141 9.19E+01 8.83E+01 9.86E+01 9.36E+01 Mean= 9.3 1E+01++/-+/-8.41IE+00 8.48E+00 3.75E+00 3.55E+I00 3.25E+00 0.98 A 9.49E+01+/- 1.58E+OC 3.18E+02 +/- 4.44E+01 3.02E+02 +/- 4.52E+01 Cr-51 2.94E+02 +/- 2.04E+01 3.05E+02 -t 5.1OE+00 1.00 A 3.04E+02 +/- 1.74E+01 Mean = 3.05E+02 +/- 1.72E+01 8.97E+01 +/- 7.19E+00 9.17E+01 +/- 7.67E+00 Cs-134 9.25E+01 +/- 2.94E+00 9.37E+01 +/- 1.57E+00 0.98 A 9.26E+01 +/- 2.99E+00 Mean= 9.16E+01 +/- 2.83E+00 1. 1OE+02 +/- 7.56E+00 9.8 1E+01 +/- 7.53E+00 Cs-137 1.09E+02 +/- 3.15E+00 1.11E+02 +/- 1.86E+00 0.95 A 1.05E+02 +/- 3.17E+00 Mean= 1.06E+02 +/- 2.89E+00 1.I10E+02

+/- 7.89E+00 1.19E+02 +/- 8.32E+00 Co-58 1.19E+02 +/- 3.47E+00 1.19E+02 +/- 1.99E+00 0.98 , A 1.17E+02 +/- 3.48E+00 Mean= 1. 16E+02 +/- 3.12E+00 1.42E+02 +/- 8.5 1E+00 1.22E+02 +/- 8.28E+00 Mn-54 1.42E+02 +/- 3.61E+00 1.28E+02 _ 2.13E+00 1.05 A 1.30E+02 +/- 3.49E+00 Mean= 1.34E+02 +/- 3.22E+00 1.02E+02 +/- 9.68E+00 8.94E+01 _ 9.85E+00 Fe-59 1.13E+02 +/- 4.35E+00 9.99E+01 +/- 1.67E+00 1.01 A 1.01E+02 +/- 4.29E+00 Mean= 1.01E+02 +/- 3.78E+00 1.48E+02 +/- 1.58E+01 1.5 1E+02 +/- 6.52E+00 Zn-65 1.56E+02 +/- 2.60E+00 0.99 A 1.63E+02 +/- 6.63E+00 Mean= 1.54E+02 +/- 6.1I E+00 1.43E+02 +/- 6.60E+00 1.55E+02 +/- 6.9 1E+00 Co-60 1.34E+02 +/- 2.73E+00 1.42E+02 +/- 2.38E+00 1.02 A 1.46E+02 +/- 2.91E+00 Mean= 1.45E+02 +/- 2.59E+00 1-131**8.63E+0 1 1.02E+02 8.14E+0 I 7.73E+I01 Mean = 8.68E+01++/-.4+2.54E+00 7.17E+00 5.34E+00 3.59E+00 2.49E+00 7.93E+01 +/- 1.32E+00 1.09 A I I ____________________

6 1 (I) Ratio = Reported/Analytics (1) Ratio = Re ported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.** Result determined by Resin Extraction/Gamma Spectral Analysis.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-15 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Milk SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE ID NO. IMEDIUMIANALYSIS pCi/liter t1 sigma pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma I RATIO (1)6/18/2009 E6759-05 MILK Ce- 141 2.99E+02 3.00E+02 2.95E+02 Mean = 2.98E+02+/-+/-4-3.04E+00 6.5 2E+00 8.38E+00 3.68E+00 2.84E+02 +/- '4.74E+OC 1.05 A 4.17E+02 t 1.1IE+01 Cr-51 3.91E+02 t 2.61E+0 4.00E+02 +/- 6.69E+00 0.99 A 3.79E+02 +/- 3.51E+01 Mean = 3.96E+02 +/- 1.50E+01 1.78E+02 +/- 2.04E+00 Cs-134 1.55E+02 +/- 8.58E+00 1.66E+02 +/- 2.77E+00 1.01 A 1.72E+02 +/- 6.73E+00 Mean = 1.68E+02 +/- 3.70E+00 1.95E+02 +/- 2.14E+00 Cs-137 1.97E+02 +/- 5.28E+00 1.92E+02 + 3.20E+00 1.00 A 1.85E+02 +/- 6.96E+00 Mean = 1.92E+02 +/- 3.OOE+00 9.71E+01 +/- 1.59E+00 Co-58 8.91E+01 +/- 3.95E+00 9.19E+01 +/- 1.53E+00 1.00 A 9.06E+01 +/- 5.74E+00 Mean = 9.23E+01 +/- 2.38E+001 1.45E+02 +/- 1.95E+00 Mn-54 1..42E+02

+/- 4.54E+00 1.37E+02 +/- 2.29E+00 1.04 A 1.41E+02 +/- 6.56E+00 Mean = 1.43E+02 +/- 2.74E+00 1.30E+02 +/- 2.27E+00 Fe-59 1.29E+02 +/- 5.47E+00 1.22E+02 t 2.04E+00 1.05 A 1.26E+02 +/- 7.83E+00 Mean = 1.28E+02 +/- 3.27E+00 1.91E+02 +/- 3.66E+00 Zn-65 1.86E+02 +/- 8.64E+00 1.75E+02 +/- 2.93E+00 1.06 A 1.82E+02 +/- 1.26E+01 Mean = 1.86E+02 +/- 5.24E+00 3.18E+02 +/- 2.05E+00 Co-60 3.1IE+02 +/- 4.92E+00 3.12E+02 +/- 5.21E+00 1.00 A 3.1OE+02 +/- 6.99E+00_ Mean = 3.13E+02 +/- 2.93E+00 1_1_00 1-131**9.17E+01 9.38E+01 9.50E+01 Mean= 9.35E+01+-4-++/--+/--8.96E-0 I 2.70E+00 2.56E+00 1 .28E+00 1.02E+02 +/- 1.70E+00 0.92 A (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.** Result determined by Resin Extraction/Gamma Spectral Analysis.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-16 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)*

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Milk SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB* I DATE I ID NO. IMEDIUM ANALYSIS pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma pCi/liter

+/-1 sigma I RATIO (1)9/17/2009 E6839-05 MILK Ce-141 2.84E+02 2.74E+02 2.86E+02 Mean = 2.81E+02+/-++/-+/-7.5 5E+00 3.93E+00 7.43E+00 3.77E+s00 2.75E+02+/- 4.59E+00 1.02 A 2.16E+02 +/- 2.57E+01 1.93E+02 +/- 1.55E+01 Cr-51 1.93E+02 +/- '.55E+01 2.21E+02 +/- 3.69E+00 0.94 A 2.13E+02 +/- 2.86E+01 Mean = 2.07E+02 +/- 1.38E+01 1.17E+02 +/- 7.61E+00 Cs-134 1.30E+02 +/- 2.57E+00 1.23E+02 +/- 2.06E+00 1.01 A 1.27E+02 +/- 4.73E+00 Mean = 1.25E+02 +/- 3.1 IE+00 1.71E+02 +/- 4.94E+00 Cs-137 1.77E+02 +/- 2.88E+00 1.85E+02 +/- 3.09E+00 0.95 A 1.79E+02 +/- 5.63E+00 Mean = 1.76E+02 +/- 2.67E+00 1.06E+02 +/- 4.03E+00 Co-58 1.OIE+02 +/- 2,28E+00 9.94E+01 +/- 1.66E+00 1.01 A 9.29E+01 +/- 4.75E+00 Mean= 1.OOE+02 +/- 2.21E+00 2.15E+02 +/- 5.51E+00 2.22E+02 +/- 3.20E+00 Mn-54 2.06E+02 +/- 5.98E+00 2.06E+02 3.44E+00.

1.04 A 2.04E+02 +/- 5.98E+00 Mean= 2.14E+02 +/- 2.91E+00 1.49E+02 +/- 5.67E+00 Fe-59 1.59E+02 +/- 3.40E+00 1.47E+02 2.46E+00 1.05 A 1.56E+02 +/- 6.85E+00 Mean= 1.55E+02 +/- 3.17E+00 2.16E+02 +/- 9.24E+00 Zn-65 2.21E+02 +/- 5.43E+00 2.04E+02 +/- 3.40E+00 1.07 A 2.19E+02 +/- 1.07E+01 Mean= 2.19E+02 +/- 5.05E+00, 1.59E+02 +/- 3.67E+00 Co-60 1.62E+02 +/- 2.13E+00 I.60E+02 +/- 2.68E+00 1.00 A 1.57E+02 +/- 4.26E+00 Mean = 1.59E+02 +/- 2.OOE+00 1-131**9.36E+01 9.12E+01 8.91E+01 Mean = 9.13E+01 4-++/-1. 14E+00 2.82E+00 2.98E+00 1 .4213+00 9.86E+01 +/- 1.65E+00 0.93 A (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.** Result determined by Resin Extraction/Gamma Spectral Analysis.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-17 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Air Particulate Filter SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE ID NO. IMEDIUMIANALYSIS1 pCi +/-1 sigma, pCi+/-1 sigma RATIO (1)3/19/2009 E6570-05 FILTER Ce- 141 1.33E+02 1.3 I E+02 1.30E+02 Mean = 1.31E+02++/-1.69E+00 3.28E+00 1.52E+00 1.33E+00 1. 15E+02+ 1.92E+00 1.14 A 4.28E+02 +/- 1.01E+01 Cr-51 4.63E+02 +/- 1.94E+01 3.70E+02 +/- 6.18E+00 1.18 A 4.15E+02 +/- 9.20E+00 Mean= 4.35E+02 +/- 7.9tE+00 1.33E+02 +/- 2.20E+00 Cs-134 1.33E1.02 t 5.1OE+00 1 14E+02 +/- 1.90E+00 1.18 A 1.36E+02 +/- 2.40E+00 Mean= 1.34E+02 +/- 2.02E+00 1.52E+02 +/- 2.14E+00 Cs-137 1.44E+02 +/- 4.55E+00 1.35E+02 +/- 2.25E+00 1.11 A 1.53E+02 +/- 2.15E+00 Mean= 1.50E+02 +/- 1.82E+00 1.70E+02 +/- 2.30E+00 Co-58 1.65E+02 t 4.94E+00 1.45E+02 +/- 2.41E+00 1.16 A 1.69E+02 +/- 2.27E+00 Mean = 1.68E+02 +/- 1.97E+00 1.89E+02 +/- 2.46E+00 Mn-54 1.92E+02 t 5.32E+00 1.55E+02 +/- 2.59E+00 1.23 A 1.93E+02 +/- 2.52E+00 Mean= 1.91E+02 +/- 2.13E+00 1.58E+02 +/- 2.81E+00 Fe-59 1.42E+02 +/- 5.72E+00 1.21E+02 +/- 2.02E+00 1.26 U 1.58E+02 +/- 2.76E+00 Mean= 1.53E+02 +/- 2.31E+00 2.33E+02 +/- 4.53E+00 Zn-65 2.29E+02 +/- 9.63E+00 1.89E+02 +/- 3.16E+00 1.23 A 2.37E+02 +/- 4.59E+00 Mean = 2.33E+02 +/- 3.86E+00 Co-60 1.95E+02 1.89E+02 1.95E+02 Mean = 1.93E+02+/-+/-+1 .96E+00 4.34E+00 2.04E+00 1.73E+00 t.73E+02+/- 2.88E+00 I.12 A (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-18 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Air Particulate Filter 1AMLE IJAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE IDMNO. IMEDIUM ANALYSISI pCi +/-1 sigma pCi +/-1 sigma RATIO (1)9/17/2009 E6838-05 FILTER Ce- 141 2.36E+02 2.30E+02 2.30E+02 Mean = 2.32E+02+/-+/-4.09E+00 1.95E+00 4.44E+00 2.11 E+00 2.34E+02+/- 3.9 1E+OC 0.99 A 1.67E+02 +/- 1.58E+01 1.79E+02 t 8.12E+00 Cr-51 1. 88E+02 +/- 3.15E+00 0.96 A 1.94E+02 +/- 1.69E+01 Mean= 1.80E+02 +/- 8.17E+00 1.04E+02 +/- 4.61E+00 Cs-134 1.13E+02 +/- 2. 1E+00 1.05E+02 +/- 1.75E+00 1.06 A 1.17E+02 +/- 4.64E+00 Mean= 1.lIE+02 +/- 2.30E+00 1.57E+02 +/- 4.36E+00 Cs-137 1.51E+02 +/- 2.28E+00 1.58E+02 +/- 2.63E+00 0.99 A 1.61E+02 +/- 4.39E+00 Mean = 1.56E+02 +/- 2.20E+00 8.50E+01 +/- 3.53E+00 8.42E+01 +/- 1.83E+00 Co-58 8 .48E+01 +/-t 1.42E+00 0.98 A 8.08E+01 + 3.39E+00 Mean = 8.33E+0- +/- 1.74E+00 1.84E+02 +/- 4.87E+00 Mn-54 1.77E+02 +/- 2.57E+00 1.76E+02 +/- 2.93E+00 1.05 A 1.93E+02 +/- 5.02E+00 Mean = 1.85E+02 +/- 2.48E+00 1.40E+02 +/- 5.35E+00 Fe-59 1.41E.02 +/- 2.90E+00 1.26E+02 +/- 2.10E+00 1.08 A 1.28E+02 +/- 5.32E+00 Mean = 1.36E+02 +/- 2.69E+00 1.88E+02 +/- 8.32E+00 Zn-65 1.98E+02 +/- 4.35E+00 1.74E+02 +/- 2.90E+00 1.10 A 1.90E+02 +/- 8.48E+00 Mean = 1.92E+02 +/- 4.22E+00 Co-60 1.38E+02 1.32E+02 1.26E+02 Mean = 1.32E+02+/-+/-+3.45E+00 1 .86E+00 3.32E+400 1.71IE+00 1.37E+02 +/- 2.28E+00 0.96 A (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics.

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-19 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Soil SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE ID NO. MEDIUMI ANALYSIS pCi/g +/-_1 sigma pCi/g +/-1 sigma RATIO (1)6/18/2009 E6760-05 SOIL Ce-141 4.58E-0 1 4.39E-01 4.33E-01 Mean = 4.43E-01++/-+/-1.18E-02 2.42E-02 2.36E-02 8.95E-03 4.62E-01 +/- 7.72E-03 0.96 A 6.89E-01 +/- 6.85E-02 Cr-51 6.78E-01 +/- 1.IE-0I 6.52E-01 +/- 1.09E-02 1.03 A 6.46E-01 +/- 1.05E-01 Mean = 6.71E-01 +/- 4.19E-02 2.94E-01 +/- 9.32E-03 2.50E-01 +/- 1.93E-02 Cs-134 2.69E-0I +/- 1.9E-02 2.70E-01 +/- 4.511E-03 1.00 A 2.69E-01 -- 1.69E-02 Mean = 2.71E-01 +/- 6.82E-03 3.86E-0I +/- 1.02E-02 Cs-137 3.76E-01 +/- 2.09E-02 4.06E-01 +/- 6.78E-03 0.96 A 4.04E-01 +/- 1.85E-02 Mean = 3.89E-01 _+/- 7.43E-03 1.38E-01 +/- 7.57E-03 Co-58 1.37E-01 1.65E-02 1.50E-01 +/- 2.51E-03 0.97 A 1.61E-01 +/- 1.47E-02 Mean = 1.45E-01 +/- 5.84E-03 2.35E-01 +/- 9.13E-03 Mn-54 2.16E-01 +/- 2.13E-02 2.23E-01 +/- 3.72E-03 1.02 A 2.34E-01 +/- 1.69E-02 Mean= 2.281E-01

+/- 7.17E-03 2.14E-01 +/- 1.06E-02 Fe-59 1,88E-01 +/- 2.34E-02 1.99E-01 +/- 3.32E-03 1.04 A 2.16E-01 +/- 2.02E-02 Mean = 2.06E-01 +/- 8.17E-03 3.19E-01 +/- 1.57E-02 Zn-65 3.18E-01 +/- 3.37E-02 2.86E-01 +/- 4.78E-03 1.13 A 3.30E-01 +/- 3.01E-02 Mean = 3.22E-01 +/- 1.20E-02 Co-60 5.23E-01 4.97E-0 1 4.78E-0 I Mean = 4.99E-0 I++/-++/-9.15E-03 1.87E-02 1.56E-02 6.50E-03 5.07E-01 +/- 8.47E-03 0.98 A (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-20 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Vegetation SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE ID NO. IMEDIUMjANALYSIS{

pCi/g +/-1 sigma pCi/g +/-1 sigma I RATIO (1)6118/2009 1 E6762-05 i VEG Ce-141 3.93E-0 I 3.96E-0 I 3.87E-01 3.94E-01 Mean = 3.93E-01++/-++/-+1.26E-02 1.46E-02 6.92E-03 1.20E-02 5.94E-03 4.10E-01 +/- 6.85E-031 0.96 A 4.88E-01 +/- 5.04E-02 5.19E-0 / +/- 5.88E-02 Cr-51 5.33E-01 +/- 3.28E-02 5.78E-01 +/- 9.65E-03 0.95 A 6.47E-01 +/- 5.81E-02 Mean = 5.47E-01 +/- 2.56E-02 2.63E-01 +/- 1.09E-02 2.64E-01 +/- 1.50E-02 Cs-134 2.75E-01 +/- 7.31E-03 2.39E-01 +/- 3.99E-03 1.10 A 2.50E-01 +/- 8.19E-03 Mean = 2.63E-0I +/- 5.39E-03 2.65E-01 +/- 1.05E-02 2.72E-01 +/- 1.32E-02 Cs-137 2.50E-01 +/- 6.74E-03 2.77E-01 +/- 4.63E-03 0.95 A 2.66E-01 +/- 7.82E-03 Mean = 2.63E-01 +/- 4.94E-03 1.2 IE-01 +/- 7.80E-03 i.23E-01 +/- 1.06E-02 Co-58 1.18E-01 +/- 5.01E-03 1.33E-01 +/-2.22E-03 0.91 A 1.20E-01 +/- 7.39E-03 Mean= 1.21E-0 I +/- 3.98E-03 1.97E-01 +/- 9.87E-03 1.91E-01 +/- 1.29E-02 Mn-54 1.86E-01 +/- 6.51E-03 1.98E-01 +/- 3.31E-03 0.98 A 2.05E-01 +/- 8.74E-03 Mean = 1.95E-01 +/- 4.89E-03 1.68E-01 +/- 1.13E-02 1.83E-01 +/- 1.47E-02 Fe-59 1.64E-01 +/- 8.18E-03 1.77E-01 +/- 2.96E-03 0.97 A 1.71E-01 +/- 1.12E-02 Mean = 1.72E-0 I +/- 5.79E-03 2.37E-01 +/- 1.93E-02 2.52E-0l +/- 2,30E-02 Zn-65 2.33E-01 +/- 1.35E-02 2.53E-01 +/- 4.23E-03 0.98 A 2.73E-0I +/- 1.38E-02 Mean = 2.49E-01 -+/- 8.92E-03 Co-60 4.40E-0 1 4.27E-01 4.28E-01 4.16E-01 Mean = 4.28E-01+/-_+/-+/-1 .03E-02 1 .32E-02 6.96E-03 7,77E-03 4.93E-03 4.50E-01 +/- 7.52E-031 0.95 A (I) Ratio = ReportedlAnalytics (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-21 TABLE D.4.2 -1 (Continued)

INTERLABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM Gamma Analysis of Vegetation SAMPLE JAF E-LAB RESULTS REFERENCE LAB*DATE ID NO. MEDIUM ANALYSIS pCi/g +/- I sigma RATIO (1)9/1712009 E6832-09 VEG Ce-141 6.92E-01 6.91E-01 7.15E-01 Mean = 6.99E-01+/-+/-+/-1.50E-02 9.3 1E-03 1.55E-02 7.83E-03 6.54E-01 +/- 1.09E-02 1.07 A 5.12E-01 +/- 5.80E-02 Cr-51 5.44E-01 +/- 3*83E-02 5.26E-01 +/- 8.78E-03 1.03 A 5.69E-01 +/- 6.52E-02 Mean = 5.42E-01 +/- 3.18E-02 3.72E-01 +/- 1.25E-02 Cs-134 3.42E-01 +/- 7.99E-03 2.93E-01 +/- 4.89E-03 1.22 A 3.59E-01 +/- 1.24E-02 Mean = 3.58E-01 +/- 6.45E-03 4.76E-01 +/- 1.32E-02 Cs-137 4.57E-01 +/- 8.28E-03 440E-01 +/- 7.35E-03 1.04 A 4.44E-01 +/- 1.27E-02 Mean = 4.59E-01 +/- 6.70E-03 2.42E-01 +/- 1.08E-02 Co-58 2.50E-01 +/- 6.69E-03 2.37E-01 +/- 3.96E-03 1.03 A 2.43E-01 +/- 1.04E-02 Mean = 2.45E-01 +/- 5.47E-03 5.32E-01 +/- 1.44E-02 Mn-54 5.44E-01 9.24E-03 4.91E-01 +/- 8.20E-03 1.10 A 5.47E-01 +/- 1.41E-02 Mean = 5.41E-01 +/- 7.39E-03 3.88E-01 +/- 1.56E-02 Fe-59 3.97E-01 +/- 1.01E-02 3.50E-01 +/- 5.85E-03 1.10 A.3.71E-01 +/- 1.54E-02 Mean = 3.85E-01 +/- 8.05E-03 5.74E-01 +/- 2.50E-02 Zn-65 5.40E-01 +/- 1.58E-02 4.85E-01 +/- 8.10E-03 1.13 A 5.28E-01 +/- 2.40E-02 Mean = 5.47E-01 +/- 1.27E-02 Co-60 4.01E-01 3.97E-01 3.99E-01 Mean = 3.99E-01+/-+/-+/-+/-1.0 IE-02 6.33E-03 9.63E-03 3.83E-03 3.82E-01 +/- 6.38E-03 1.04 A (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics (1) Ratio = Reported/Analytics

• Sample provided by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Inc.A=Acceptable U=Unacceptable D-22 D.5 REFERENCES 8.5.1 Radioactivity and Radiochemistry, The Counting Room: Special Edition, 1994 Caretaker Publications, Atlanta, Georgia.8.5.2 Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, Bevington P.R., McGraw Hill, New York (1969).D-23 Laboratories LUC a member of The GEL Group Nc PO Box 30712 Chladeston, SC 29417 2040 Savage Road Charlestan, SC 29407 P 843.556.8171 F 843.786.1178 www.get.com 2009 INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM REPORT In accordance with US Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements, GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL)participates in an Interlaboratory Comparison Programs (ICP) that satisfies the requirements of both Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)

-Effluent Streams and the Environment", February 1979 and Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 2, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Inception through Normal Operations to License Termination)

-Effluent Streams and the Environment", July, 2007. Both guides indicate the ICP is to be conducted with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies (Cross-check)

Program or an equivalent program, and the ICP should include all sample medium/radionuclide combinations that are offered by the EPA and included in the REMP.Intercomparison samples were obtained from Eckert & Zeigler Analytics of Atlanta, Environmental Resource Associates of Arvada, Colorado and the Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP). Each provider has a documented Quality Assurance (QA) program and the capability to prepare Quality Control (QC) materials traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The ICP is a third party blind testing program which provides a means to ensure independent checks are performed on the accuracy and precision of the measurements of radioactive materials in environmental sample matrices.

The providers supply the crosscheck samples to GEL. Upon receipt, the laboratory performs the analyses in a normal manner. The results are then reported to the provider for evaluation.

The samples offered by ICP providers and included in GEL's analyses are gamma isotopic analyses of an air filter, milk, water, soil and vegetation, Sr-89/90 in Milk and water and 1-131 in cartridges.

The accuracy of each result reported to Analytics, Inc is measured by the ratio of GEL's result to the known value. Accuracy for all other results is based on statistically derived acceptance ranges calculated by the providers.

An investigation is undertaken whenever the ratio or reported result fell outside of the acceptance range.A summary of GEL's results is provided in the tables below for the required sample matrix types and isotopic distribution.

Delineated in the table are: the Sample Number or Study ID; Analysis quarter and year; sample media; specific radionuclide; its unit; its result; the known values supplied by the providers; GEL's ratio to the known value or acceptance criteria provided by the provider; evaluation criteria.GEL analyzed 31 samples for 151 parameters in 2009. All results except one met the acceptance criteria and are discussed below.* The root cause of the Sr-90 failures was determined to be a batch quality control issue. The carrier yield for the second separation was greater than 100%. The elevated yield caused the Sr-90 result to be biased low. Even though the yield fell within its acceptance range, if oroblern solved D-24 GEL Laboratories, LLC February 2, 2010 2009 Interlaboratory Comparison Study Page 2 of 5 adjusted to reflect recoveries typically observed in this procedure, the sample results would be within the acceptance range.Quarter I Sample Analyte I GEL Known Acceptance Sample Number Year Media Unit Nuclide Value value Range/Ratio Evaluation E6582-278 1It/ 2009 Cartridge pci 1-131 7.77E+01 7.94E+01 0.98 Acceptable E6584-278 11 / 2009 Milk pCi/L Ce-141 9.78E+01 9.49E+01 1.03 Acceptable E6584-278 1st/ 2009 Milk pCi/L Co-58 1.23E+02 1.19E+02 1.03 Acceptable E6584-278 W' /2009 Milk pCi/L Co-60 1.50E+02 1.42E+02 1.05 Acceptable E6584-278 1W /2009 Milk pCi/L Cr-51 2.97E+02 3.05E+02 0.97 Acceptable E6584-278 1' /2009 Milk pCi/L. Cs-I 34 9.06E+01 9.37E+01 0.97 Acceptable E6584-278 let 12009 Milk pCi/IL Cs-137 1.16E+02 1.11E+02 1.04 Acceptable E6584-278 161/ 2009 Milk pCiIL Fe-59 1.16E+02 7.61E+00 1.16 Acceptable E6584-278 10*/2 0 09 Milk pCi/L 1-131 7.97E+01 7.93E+01 1.01 Acceptable E6584-278 VSI /2009 Milk pCi/L Mn-54 1.33E+02 1.28E+02 1.04 Acceptable E6584-278 Pt / 2009 Milk pCi/L Zn-65 1.72E+02 1.56E+02 1.1 Acceptable E6585-278 lSt/2009 Water pCi/L Ce-141 1.22E+02 1.20E+02 1.02 Acceptable E6585-278 11 /2009 Water pCi/L Co-58 1.59E+02 1.51E+02 1.05 Acceptable E6585-278 1at /2009 Water pCi/L Co-60 1.92E+02 1.80E+02 1.06 Acceptable E6585-278 1' /2009 Water pCi/L Cr-51 3.92E+02 3.87E+02 1.01 Acceptable E6585-278 11/ 2009 Water pCi/I Cs-134 1.19E+02 1.19E+02 1.00 Acceptable E6585-278 1 /12009 Water pCi/L- Cs.-137 1.44E+02 1.412E+02 1.02 Acceptable E6585-278 1 / 2009 Water pCi/IL Fe-59 1.28E+02 1.27E+02 1.01 Acceptable E6585-278 1t1/2009 Water pCi/L 1-131 7.55E+01 6.90E+.01 1.09 Acceptable E6585-278 It / 2009 Water pCi/L Mn-54 1.80E+02 1.62E+02 1.11 Acceptable E6585-278 1st / 2009 Water pc. , Zn-65 2,24E+02 1.13 Acceptable RAD -76 11 / 2009 Water pCi/L Gross Alpha 51.3 52.3 27.3-65.5 Acceptable RAD- 76 1P/12009 Water pCi/L Gross Beta 41.9 46.1 31.0-53.3 Acceptable RAD -76 1st / 2009 Water pCi/L H-3 3760.0 4230 3610- 4660 Acceptable RAD -76 11 (/2009 Water pCi/L 1-131 25.1 22.2 18.4-26.5 Acceptable RAD -76 11 / 2009 Water pCi/LI Sr-89 72.8 65 52.7- 73.0 Acceptable RAD -76 1,/12009 Water pCi/L Sr-90 36.5 41.9 30.8-48.1 Acceptable E6729-278 2nd / 2009 Cartridge pCi 1-131 9.27E+01 9.55E+01 0.97 Acceptable E6730-278 2n / 2009 Milk pC&L Sr-89 8.51E+01 1.12E+02 0.76 Acceptable Not E6730-278 2'n /2009 Milk pCi. Sr-90 1.09E+01 1.67E+01 0.65 Acceptable E6731-278 2n / 2009 Milk pCi/L Ce-141 2.84E+02 2.84E+02 1 Acceptable E6731-278 2m /2009 Milk pCVL Co-58 9.48E+01 9.19E+01 1.03 Acceptable E6731-278 2d / 2009 Milk pCi/L Co-60 3.15E+02 3.122+02 1.01 Acceptable GEL LaboratorieS LLC P0O 30712 SC29417 2040 Savage Road A84a56&171

!"84&7o&1171 www.qquan D-25 GEL Laboratories, LLC February 2, 2010 2009 Interlaboratory Comparison Study Page 3 of 5 21w 12009 4,00E+02 E6731-278 Milk pCi/VL Cr-51 4.04E+02 1.01 Acceptable E6731-278 2nd /2009 Milk pCi/L Cs-134 1.58E+02 1.66E+02 0.95 Acceptable E6731-278 2nd /2009 Milk pCi/L Cs-1 37 1.92E+02 1.92E+02 1 Acceptable E6731-278 2rd 12009 Milk CpCi/L Fe-59 1.23E+02 1.22E+02 1.01 Acceptable E6731-278 2nd /2009 Milk pCi/L_ 1-131 8.98E+01 1.02E+02 0.88 Acceptable E6731-278 2d /12009 Milk pCi/L Mn-54 1.42E+02 1.37E+02 1.04 Acceptable E6731-278 2nd /2009 Milk pCi/L Zn-65 1.79E+02 1.75E+02 1.02 Acceptable E6732-278 2w / 2009 Water pCi/L Ce-141 2.29E+02 2.16E+02 1.06 Acceptable E6732-278 2d /12009 Water pCi/L Co-58 7.21E+01 6.98E+01 1.03 Acceptable E6732-278 2nd /2009 Water pCi/L Co-60 2.42E+02 2.37E+02 1.02 Acceptable E6732-278 2nd /2009 Water pCi/L Cr-51 3.11E+02 3.04E+02 1.02 Acceptable E6732-278 2d 1 2009 Water pCi/L Cs-134 1.37E+02 1.26E+02 1.09 Acceptable E6732-278 2nd /2009 Water pCi/L Cs-I37 1.51 E+02 1.46E+02 1.04 Acceptable E6732-278 2nd /2009 Water pCi/L Fe-59 9.04E+01 9,29E+01 0.97 Acceptable E6732-278 2nd /2009 Water pCi/L 1-131 8.52E+01 8.83E+01 0.97 Acceptable E6732-278 2nd /2009 Water pCi/l. Mn-54 1.07E+02 1.04E+02 1.03 Acceptable E6732-278 2m / 2009 Water pCi/U. Zn-65 1.38E+02 1.33E+02 1.04 Acceptable MAPEP 09-GrF20 2nd / 2009 Filter Bq Gross Alpha 0.069 0.35 >0.0 -0.696 Acceptable MAPEP 09-GrF20 2nd / 2009 Filter Bq Gross Beta 0.297 0.28 0.140 -0.419 Acceptable MAPEP 09-GrW20 2nd/ 2009 Water Bq/L Gross Alpha 0.506 0.64 >0.0 -1.270 Acceptable MAPEP 09-GrW2O 2nd/ 2009 Water Bq/L Gross Beta 1.337 1.27 0.64 -1.91 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS20 2nd / 2009 Soil Bq/kg Co-57 -0.30 0.00 -Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS20 2nd /2009 Soil Bq/kg Co-60 3.6 4.113 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS20 2nd / 2009 Soil Bq/kg Cs-1 34 468 467 327-607 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS20 2nd 12009 Soil, Bq/kg Cs-137 622 605 424-787 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS20 2nd /2009 Soil Bq/kg Fe-55 844.7 983 688- 1278 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS20 2nd /2009 Soil BQ/k9 K-40 608.7 570 399- 741 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS20 2nd /2009 Soil Bq/kg Mn-54 322.3 307 215- 399 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS20 2nd / 2009 Soil Bq/kg Ni-63 550.3 514.9 360.4 -669.4 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS20 2nd / 2009 Soil Bqlkg Sr-90 262.33 257 180-334 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS20 2rd /2009 Soil Bq/kg Zn-65 261 242 169 -315 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW20 2nd /2009 Water Bq/L Co-57 18.8 18.9 13.2-24.6 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW20 2nd / 2009 Water Bq/L Co-60 16.8 17.21 12.05 -22.37 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW20 2nd / 2009 Water Bq. L Cs-134 21.9 22.5 15.8-29.3 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW20 21d / 2009 Water q/JL Cs-137 0.0 0 -Acceptable.I MAPEP 09-MaW20 2nd /2009 Water Bq/L Mn-54 15.1 14.66 10.26-19.06 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW20 2nd / 2009 Water Bq/L Ni-63 52.7 53.5 37.45-69.55 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW20 2 nd / 2009 Water Bq/L Sr-90 7.43 7.21 5.05- 9.37 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW20 2r / 2009 Water Bq/L Zn-65 14.6 13.6 9.5- 17.7 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF20 2-d / 2009 Filter Bg Co-57 1.347 1.30 0.91 -1.69 Accetable GEL Laboratories L, POlnn3072 aa6ndin,SC29A17 2M Sav~ge Poad Ciwndn, SC 29407 PMSaSU171 Fba?67&1173

~WWW.co~m D-26 GEL Laboratories, LLC February 2, 2010 2009 Intertaboratory Comparison Study Page 4 of 5 MAPEP 09-RdF20 2"d / 2009 Filter Bo Co-60 1.413 1.22 0.85- 1.59 Acceotable MAPEP 09-RdF20 2nd /2009 Filter BQ Cs-134 2.763 2.93 2.05 -3.81 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF20 2"d /2009 Filter BQ Cs-137 1.487 1.52 1.06- 1.98 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF20 2nd / 2009 Filter Bq Mn-54 2.403 2.27 1.5896 -2.9522 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF20 24 / 2009 Filter Bq Sr-90 0.692 0.64 0.448 -0.832 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF20 2nd /2009 Filter 8q Zn-65 1.613 1.36 0.95- 1.77 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV20 2nd /2009 Vegetation ug/sample Co-57 2.557 2.36 1.65- 3.07 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV20 2'm1 2009 Vegetation ugjsample Co-60 -0.010 0.00 -Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV20 2 nd / 2009 Vegetation ug/sample Cs-1 34 3.430 3.40 2.38 -4.42 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV20 2nd /2009 Vegetation ug/sample Cs-137 0.907 0.93 0.65- 1.21 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV20 2nd /2009 Vegetation ug/sample Mn-54 2.353 2.30 1.61 -2.99 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV20 2d / 2009 Vegetation" ug/sample Sr-90 1.160 1.26 0.882 -1.638 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV20 2nd / 2009 Vegetation ug/sample Zn-65 1.350 1.35 0.948 1.760 Acceptable E6843-278 3 rd / 2009 Cartridge pCi 1-131 9,54E+01 9.21E+01 1.04 Acceptable E6844-278 3 Id / 2009 Milk pCi/. Sr-89 1.19E+02 1.07E+02 1.12 Acceptable E6844-278 3 Id / 2009 Milk pCi/L Sr-90 1.68E+01 1.88E+01 0.89 Acceptable E6845-278 3 ,d / 2009 Milk pCi/LI Ce-141 2.83E+02 2.75E+02 1.03 Acceptable E6845-278 3 Id / 2009 Milk pCi/L Co-58 1.04E+02 9.94E+01 1.05 Acceptable E6845-278 3 rd / 2009 Milk pCii- Co-60 1.58E+02 1.60E+02 0.99 Acceptable E6845-278 3 Id / 2009 Milk pCi/& Cr-51 2.43E+02 2.21E+02 1.1 Acceptable E6845-278 3 d 1/2009 Milk pCi/L Cs-134 1.23E+02 1.23E+02 1.00 Acceptable E6845-278 3 d / 2009 Milk pCiiL Cs-137 1.92E+02 1.85E+02 1.04 Acceptable E6845-278 3 rd 1 2009 Milk pCi/L Fe-59 1.64E+02 1.47E+02 1.11 Acceptable E6845-278 3 rd (2009 Milk pCi/L 1-131 1.01E+02 9.86E+01 1.02 Acceptable E6845-278 3 Id / 2009 Milk pCi/L. Mn-54 2.11E+02 2.06E+02 1.02 Acceptable E6845-278 3 Id / 2009 Milk p/L Zn-65 2.24E+02 2.04E+02 1.1 Acceptable E6846-278 3 d / 2009 Water pCi/L Ce-141 2.72E+02 2.64E+02 1.03 Acceptable E6846-278 3 rd / 2009 Water pCi/L Co-58 9.65E+01 9.54E+01 1.01 Acceptable E6846-278 3 d/ 2009 Water pCi/L Co-60 1.56E+02 1.54E+02 1.01 Acceptable E6846-278 3 Id / 2009 Water pCi/L Cr-51 2.21E+02 2.122+02 1.04 Acceptable E6846-278 3 rd/2009 Water pCi/L. Cs-134 1.18E+02 1.18E+02 1.00 Acceptable E6846-278 3 Id / 2009 Water pCJiL Cs-137 1.86E+02 1.77E+02 1.05 Acceptable E6846-278 3 /2009 Water pCi/L Fe-59 1.48E+02 1.41E+02 1.05 Acceptable E6846-278 3 Id / 2009 Water pCiIl 1-131 1.02E+02 9.84E+01 1.04 Acceptable E6846-278 3 Id / 2009 Water fCL. Mn-54 2.11E+02 1.98E+02 1.07 Acceptable E6846-278 3 Id / 2009 Water pCi/IL Zn-65 2.19E+02 1.95E+02 1.12 Acceptable RAD -78 3 w / 2009 Water pCi/a Gross Al pha 43.8 55.3 28.9-69.0 Acceptable RAD- 78 3 Id / 2009 Water pCi/L Gross Beta 53.6 64.7 44.8- 71.3 Acceptable RAD -78 3 r d(2009 .Water _pf H-3 9440.0 10000 8690 -11000 Acceptable GEL Lahoratories LLC P08003o712 CNr~esirn,SC29.417 2040 Savage Road Charles=n, SC 29407 PS43M.816all FN&13. 176.i8 swww.gnfqUn D-27 GEL Laboratories, LLC February 2, 2010 2009 Interlaboratory Comparison Study Page 5 of 5 RAD -78 3 r /12009 Water 0Ci.1-131 28.4 26.3 21.8-31.0 Acceptable RAD -78 3 d 1 2009 Water pCiI Sr-89 59.6 59.1 47.4- 66.9 Acceptable RAD -78 3 'd / 2009 Water PCV Sr-90 33.7 37.4 27.4-43.1 Acceptable MAPEP 09-GrF21 41" /2009 Filter Bq Gross Alpha 0.069 0.35 >0.0 -0.696 Acceptable MAPEP 09-GrF21 4" / 2009 Filter Bq Gross Beta 0.297 0.28 0. 140 -0.419 Acceptable MAPEP 09-GrW21 4t" /2009 Water 8q/L Gross Alpha 0.982 1.05 >0.0 -2.094 Acceptable MAPEP 09-GrW21 4t" / 2009 Water Bq/L Gross Beta 7.277 7.53 3.77- 11.30 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS21 4h" /2009 Soil Bo/k9 Co-57 572.30 586.00 410- 762 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS21 4h" 1 2009 Soil Bqlkg Co-60 332.3 327.000 229-425 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS21 4t" /2009 Soil Bqlkg Cs-I 34 0 0 -Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS21 4t /12009 Soil Bqgkg Cs-1 37 683 669 468-870 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS21 4" / 2009 Soil Bqgkg Fe-55 810.0 796 557 -1035 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS21 4t / 2009 Soil Bc/kg K-40 401.3 375 263- 488 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS21 40 /2009 Soil Bq/kg Mn-54 834.7 796 557- 1035 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS21 41" /2009 Soil Bq/kg Ni-63 640.0 680.0 476- 884 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS21 41" / 2009 Soil Bq/kg Sr-90 423.30 455 319-592 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaS21 4h /2009 Soil Bq/kq Zn-65 1293 1178 825- 1531 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW21 4= 1 2009 Water Bq/L Co-57 35.7 36.6 25.6- 47.6 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW21 4m 1 2009 Water Bq/L Co-60 15.3 15.4 10.8- 20.0 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW21 4t /2009 Water Bq/L Cs-I 34 31.6 32.2 22.5-41.9 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW21 4h 1 2009 Water Bq/L Cs-1 37 40.4 41.2 28.8-53.6 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW21 41" / 2009 Water BqJL Mn-54 0.07 0.00 -Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW21 4h / 2009 Water Bq/L Ni-63 45.8 44.2 30.9-57.5 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW21 4h / 2009 Water Bq/L Sr-90 16.40 12.99 9.09- 16.89 Acceptable MAPEP 09-MaW21 40 /12009 Water Bq/L Zn-65 28.9 26.9 18.8 -35.0 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF21 4h 1 2009 Filter Bq Co-57 6.730 6.48 4.54-8.42 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF21 41 /12009 Filter Bg Co-60 1.127 1.03 0.72- 1.34 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF21 4= /12009 Filter Bj Cs-134 0.034 0.00 -Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF21 41 12009 Filter BQ Cs-I 37 1.397 1.40 0.98 -1.82 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF21 4"h 12009 Filter Bq Mn-54 5.697 5.49 3.84-7.14 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF21 4h /12009 Filter Bg Sr-90 0.778 0.84 0.585 -1.086 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdF21 4= /2009 Filter Bg Zn-65 4.350 3.93 2.75-5.11 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV21 4" /2009 Vegetation ug/sample Co-57 8.333 8.00 5.6- 10.4 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV21 40 /2009 Vegetation ug/sample Co-60 2.637 2.57 1.80-3.34 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV21 4" /2009 Vegetation ug/sample Cs-134 -0.014 0.00 -Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV21 4) / 2009 Vegetation ug/sample Cs-137 2A443 2.43 1.70-3,16 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV21 4"1 /2009 Vegetation ug/sample Mn-54 8.407 7T90 5.5- 10.3 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV21 4m 1 2009 Vegetation ug/sample Sr-90 1,577 1.78 1.25-2.31 Acceptable MAPEP 09-RdV21 4- /2009 1 Vegetation ug/sample Zn-65 -0.029 0.00 -Acceptable G EL Liboratories LLG POBox 30712 Ctarsesion.

SC 29417 2040 Savage Road Gmaraiie9, SC 29407 -843J5U171 F343.716&117"6 w~,41Cr D-28 A AR EVA AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ANNUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE STATUS REPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 EL 034/10 (24%A k~Le(%~A~Prepared By:/ ~1)Date: 0 3 ic ; \Date: 3(-z-1 '0 Approved By:ýý Q AREVA NP Environmental Laboratory 29 Research Drive Westborough, MA 01581-3913 Telephone:

(508) 573-6650 Fax: (508) 573-6680 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION

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

1 A. Quality Control Programs for Environmental Sample Analyses .......................

1 1. Inter-laboratory and Third Party .............................................................

1 2. Intra-laboratory

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

.2 B. Quality Control Programs for Environmental Dosimetry

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

2 1. Inter-laboratory and Third Party ...........................................................

2 2. Intra-laboratory

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

3 C. Quality Assurance Program (Internal and External Assessments and Audits) ...... 3 II. Performance Evaluation Criteria ........................................

4 A. Acceptance Criteria for Environmental Sample Analysis ...............................

4 1. Internal Process Control Samples 4.................................

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

4 2. Backgrounds

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

6 3. B lanks ...........................................................................

6 4. NRC Resolution Criteria .......................................................................

6 5. D O E Evaluation C riteria ............................................................................

7 B. QC Investigation Criteria and Result Reporting forEnvironmental Sample A nalysis ...................................

I ....................................

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

7 1. QC Investigation Criteria ....................................................................

7 2. Reporting of Analytical Results to Laboratory Customers

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

7 C. Acceptance Criteria for Environmental Dosimetry

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

8 1. Internal and Third Party Evaluations

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

8 D. QC Investigation Criteria and Result Reporting for Environmental Dosimetry

... 9 1. QC Investigation Criteria .....................

I ...............................................

9 2. Reporting of Environmental Dosimetry Results to Laboratory Customers 9 E. Self-Assessment Program ...............................................................................

10 II1. QUALITY CONTROL SYNOPSIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSES ....... 10 A. General Discussion

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

10 B. Result Sum m ary ............................................................................................

10 1. Analytics Environmental Cross Check Program ..................................

10 2. Summary of Participation in the MAPEP Monitoring Program............

11 3. ERA PT Program and New York ELAP PT Program ...........................

11 4. Process Control Program for REMP Analyses ......................

11 FAADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-10 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

5. Process Control Program for Environmental Analysis of Additional R adionuclides

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

12 6. Analytical Blanks ...............

,........................................

12 7. Overall Data Summary for the Reporting Period January-December 2009...............................................................................................

..........

...12 8. Summary of Environmental Quality Control Results by Year ..............

12 IV. QUALITY CONTROL SYNOPSIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL Dosimetery

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

13 A. General Discussion

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

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

13 V. Status of Condition Reports (CR) .......................

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

14 VI. Status of Audits/Assessm ents .......................

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

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

14 A .Internal .....................................

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

..14 B .E xternal ...............

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

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

14 VII. UPDATED PROCEDURES ISSUED DURING JANUARY-DECEMBER 2009 ...........

14 V III. R E FE R E N C E S ....................................

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

15 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDIX A INTER/INTRA-LABORATORY, ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ANALYTICS, DOE, AND ERA/ELAP QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM RESULTS APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETRY QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM RESULTS F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF TABLES 1. AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS BY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA, AND ANALYSIS CATEGORIES

-JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 2. AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSS CHECK PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

3. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MIXED ANALYTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM RESULTS -AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

4. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY APPROVAL PROGRAM PROFICIENCY TEST RESULTS -AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

5. AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (REMP) INTRA-LABORATORY ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS CONTROL RESULTS BY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA, AND ANALYSIS CATEGORIES

-JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 6. AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (REMP) INTRA-LABORATORY AND INTER-LABORATORY DATA

SUMMARY

BIAS AND PRECISION BY MEDIA -JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 7. AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES INTRA-LABORATORY AND INTER-LABORATORY BIAS AND PRECISION BY ANALYSIS TYPE -JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 8. AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ALL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES INTRA-LABORATORY AND INTER-LABORATORY BIAS AND PRECISION BY ANALYSIS TYPE -JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 9. AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ENVIRONMENTAL BIAS AND PRECISION BY YEAR 10. PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL DOSIMETERS THAT PASSED E-LAB INTERNAL CRITERIA -JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 11.

SUMMARY

OF THIRD PARTY DOSIMETERY TESTING -JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 12. PERCENTAGE OF MEAN DOSIMETER ANALYSES (N=6) WHICH PASSED TOLERANCE CRITERIA -JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 13. AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY CONDITION REPORT (CR) STATUS -JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 14. UPDATED INSTRUMENTATION/ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES RELEVANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETRY ISSUED DURING JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 F:,ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-V

1. INTRODUCTION This report covers the Quality Assurance (QA) Program for the environmental monitoring aspects of the AREVA NP Environmental Laboratory (E-LAB) for 2009. The AREVA NP Environmental Laboratory QA Program is designed to monitor the quality of analytical processing associated with environmental, bioassay, effluent (1OCFR Part 50), and waste (10CFR Part 61) sample analysis, as well as dosimetry processing.

Due to the broad scope of quality control programs in which the E-LAB participates, this report covers only the following categories:

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) analyses, additional environmental analyses that are outside the typical REMP scope, and direct radiation monitoring using environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs). QA activities associated with waste analyses (1OCFR 61), effluent analyses (1 0CFR 50), bioassay analyses, and personnel dosimetry are presented in separate reports.This report includes:* Intra-laboratory QC results analyzed during the reporting period.Inter-laboratory QC results, analyzed prior to the reporting period, for which"known values" were not previously available.

Inter-laboratory QC results, analyzed during the reporting period, for which"known values" were available.

Any other inter-laboratory QC results for which performance results are not available will be included in the next annual report.Manual 100, "Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan", Revision 13 (Reference 1), became effective on June 4, 2009, and Manual 120, "Dosimetry Services Quality System Manual", Revision 15 (Reference 2), became effective on October 16, 2009. The text of this report reflects the latest revisions of these manuals, as do the trending graphs and any data evaluations performed after the effective date.A. Quality Control Programs for Environmental Sample Analyses 1. Inter-laboratory and Third Party The E-LAB participates in the following inter-laboratory and third party quality control programs for environmental radioanalyses: " Environmental Crosscheck Program administered by Eckert &Ziegler Analytics, Inc.,* Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) Proficiency Test (PT)Program or equivalent State administered ELAP PT program," Department of Energy (DOE) Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP)The E-LAB purchases single-blind QC matrix spike samples from Eckert& Ziegler to verify the analysis of sample matrices processed at the E-LAB. The E-LAB's Third-Party Cross-Check Program provides environmental matrices encountered in a typical nuclear utility REMP.The Third-Party Cross-Check Program is intended to meet or exceed the F:%ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-I inter-laboratory comparison program requirements discussed in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15, revision 1.-The MAPEP program is administered by the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) and consists of four media (water, soil, vegetation, and air filter) submitted twice each year. The MAPEP samples are designed to evaluate the ability and quality of analytical facilities performing sample measurements that contain hazardous and radioactive (mixed) analytes.The ERA PT program and state administered ELAP PT programs consist of radionuclides in water submitted twice per year. These programs are used to maintain certification with the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP). The certification is necessary to perform analysis for projects that must meet EPA regulations for the Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation

& Recovery Act (RCRA), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).2. Intra-laboratory The internal QC Program is designed to include QC functions such as instrumentation checks (to insure proper instrument response), blank samples (to which no analyte radioactivity has been added), instrumentation backgrounds, duplicates, as well as overall staff qualification analyses and process controls.

Both process control and qualification analyses samples seek to mimic the media type of those samples submitted for analysis by the various laboratory clients. These process controls (or process checks) are either actual samples submitted in duplicate in order to evaluate the precision of laboratory measurements, or blank samples which have been "spiked" with a known quantity of a radioisotope that is of interest to Laboratory clients. These QC samples, which represent either "single" or "double blind" unknowns, are intended to evaluate the entire radiochemical and radiometric process.The E-LAB administers the QC program in accordance with an annual quality control and audit assessment schedule (Reference 3). The plan, which is approved on or before January 1 5 th of each year and reviewed for adequacy at monthly LQARC meetings, describes the scheduled frequency and scope of quality assurance and control actions considered necessary for an adequate program. The magnitude of the process control program combines both internal and external sources targeted at 5% of the routine sample analysis load.B. Quality Control Programs for Environmental.

Dosimetry 1. Inter-laboratory and Third Party The E-LAB participates in the following inter-laboratory and third party quality control programs for Panasonic environmental dosimeters:

F:ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-2 0 Third-party testing conducted by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

• In-plant testing programs conducted by various users of E-LAB dosimetry.

Under the third party program, sets of six dosimeters are irradiated to ANSI specified testing criteda by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories and are submitted for processing as "unknowns." The bias and precision of TLD processing is measured against this standard (Reference

4) and are used to indicate trends and changes in performance.

Standard test methods for in plant testing of Panasonic whole body and extremity dosimeters are described in the E-LAB report entitled "In Plant External Dosimetry Quality Assurance Testing Program" (Reference 5).This protocol provides standard test methods that may be used at plant sites utilizing E-LAB dosimeters.

Clients have developed their own dosimetry test procedures modeled after Reference

5. Results of In-plant testing programs are not included in this report.2. Intra-laboratory The in house testing program conducted by the E-LAB QA Officer, involves in-house irradiations of sets of six Panasonic environmental dosimeters according to the schedule given in Reference

3. These dosimeters are submitted for processing as "unknowns." The bias and precision of TLD processing is measured against criteria given in Reference 2 and are used to indicate trends and changes in performance.

Instrumentation checks, although routinely performed and representing between 5-10% of the TLDs processed, are not presented in this report.C. Quality Assurance Program (Internal and External Assessments and Audits)During each annual reporting period, at least one internal assessment is conducted in accordance with the pre-established schedule in Reference

3. In addition, the E-Lab may be audited by prospective customers during a pre-contract audit, and/or by existing clients who wish to conduct periodic audits in accordance with their contractual arrangements.

A National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) audit is performed every two years as part of maintaining certification to perform EPA-related analyses.An internal assessment of Dosimetry Services activities is conducted annually by the E-LAB QA Officer (Reference 3). The purpose of this assessment is to review analytical procedures, results, materials or components to identify opportunities to improve or enhance processes and/or services.

In addition, a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) audit is performed triennially of the dosimetry services area.F:ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-3 II. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA A. Acceptance Criteria for Environmental Sample Analysis The E-LAB has adopted a QC acceptance protocol based upon two performance models: For those inter-laboratory programs that already have established performance criteria for bias (i.e., MAPEP, and ERA/ELAP), the E-LAB will utilize the criteria for the specific program.For inter-laboratory or third party QC programs that have no preset acceptance criteria (e.g. the Analytics Environmental Cross-check Program), results will be evaluated in accordance with E-LAB internal acceptance criteria.

Replicate analyses, performed in support of third party QC programs, will also be evaluated for precision in accordance with E-LAB internal acceptance criteria.1. Internal Process Control Samples Internal Process Control (PC) results are evaluated in accordance with two separate E-LAB acceptance criteria.

A full discussion of the analytical services acceptance criteria can be found in Reference

1. The first criterion concerns bias, which is defined as the deviation of any one result from the known value. The second criterion concerns precision, which deals with the ability of the measurement to be faithfully replicated by comparison of an individual result with the mean of all results for a given sample set. Quality control deviations falling outside the E-LAB acceptance criteria are discussed in the appendices.(a) Bias For each analytical measurement tested, the bias is the percent deviation of the reported result relative to the expected value (value of the spike known by comparison with or derivation from a standard reference material).

The percent deviation relative to the known is calculated as follows: (H;-HI)1 0 0 H 1 where: H, = the value of the ith measurement in a category being tested Hi = the actual quantity in the test sample as defined by the spike The Laboratory internal criterion for bias is that an analysis is considered in agreement if the value is within +/-20% of the known value. If this condition is not met, the two-sigma range about the analyzed value is established.

If the known value falls within the specified range, the analysis is considered in agreement.

F:ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-4 Deviations from this general criterion, for specific radionuclides, are given in Table 1 and Reference 1.E-LAB acceptance criteria are applied when the sample concentration is 10 or more times the method MDC. Otherwise, the "known value" and associated uncertainty are compared to the measured result and uncertainty using a two-tailed standard statistical test at the 95% confidence level.(b) Precision For a group of test measurements containing a given spiked level, the precision is the percent deviation of individual results relative to the mean reported measurement.

At least two values are required for the determination of precision.

The percent deviation relative to the mean reported measurement is calculated as follows: where: Hl= the reported measurement for the ith analytical measurement H = the mean analytical measurement H' 1 n = the number of samples in the test group The E-LAB criterion for precision is that an analysis is considered in agreement if the individual value is within +/-20% of the mean value. If this condition is not met, the two-sigma range about the analyzed value is established.

If the mean value falls within the specified range, the analysis is considered in agreement.

Deviations from this general criterion, for specific radionuclides, are given in Tables 1.(c) Mean Bias For each group of analytical measurements tested, the mean bias is the percent deviation of the mean reported result relative to the expected value. The mean percent deviation relative to the expected value is calculated as follows: 5 F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-Hil where: H = the mean analytical measurement H = the actual quantity in the test sample as defined by the spike 2. Backgrounds As discussed in Reference 1, backgrounds represent the ambient signal response, recorded by measuring instruments, which is independent of radioactivity contributed by the radionuclides being measured in the sample. Backgrounds will not normally contain any three-sigma statistically positive activity of the target parameters.

The background signal is subtracted from the sample's signal.3. Blanks Wherever possible, equivalent media for preparing laboratory processing blanks will be used. Synthetic matrices may be used for bioassay if equivalency is proven.4. NRC Resolution Criteria Some Laboratory clients use the NRC Resolution Criteria to evaluate double blind Part 50 performance.

NRC Resolution Criteria are based on an empirical relationship that combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of the program. As "Resolution" increases, the acceptability of one's measurement becomes more selective.

Conversely, as"Resolution" decreases, agreement levels are widened to account for the increase in uncertainty.

F:ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-6

5. DOE Evaluation Criteria The Radiological

& Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) inter-comparison program, MAPEP, defines three levels of performance:

Acceptable, Acceptable with Warning, and Not Acceptable.

Performance is considered acceptable for a mean with a bias 20% of the reference value for the analyte. Performance is acceptable with warning for a mean result bias of >20% but 30% of the reference value. If the bias is greater than 30%, the results are deemed not acceptable.

The MAPEP includes low activity "sensitivity tests" and individual radionuclide-free "false positive tests." B. QC Investigation Criteria and Result Reporting for Environmental Sample Analysis 1 .QC Investigation Criteria Summarized below are the investigation criteria applied to QC analyses that failed E-LAB bias criteria.

The Condition Report process tracks investigation results.(a) No investigation is necessary when an individual QC result falls outside the QC performance criteria for bias or precision.(b) Investigations shall be initiated when the mean of a QC process batch or the mean of three consecutive individual QC processes is outside the performance criterion for bias. Investigations shall also be initiated when more than one sample in a QC process batch or the mean of three consecutive individual QC processes is outside the performance criterion for precision.

2. Reporting of Analytical Results to Laboratory Customers A similar set of guidelines was developed, applicable to reporting of results. The guidelines are as follows: If an investigation is required for a process (normally after consecutive QC process check failures), and if the QC results requiring the investigation have a mean bias from the known of greater than +/-(applicable E-LAB bias criterion

+5%) for environmental processing then the Laboratory Quality Assurance Review Committee (LQARC) shall meet to determine the disposition of client results.F:ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-7 C. Acceptance Criteria for Environmental Dosimetry 1. Internal and Third Party Evaluations (a) Bias For each dosimeter tested, the measure of bias is the percent deviation of the reported result relative to the delivered exposure.The percent deviation relative to the delivered exposure is calculated as follows: (Hi-Hi)1 0 0 Hi where: Hl= the corresponding reported exposure for the ith dosimeter (i.e., the reported exposure)Hi = the exposure delivered to the ith irradiated dosimeter (i.e., the delivered exposure)(b) Mean Bias For each group of test dosimeters, the mean bias is the average percent deviation of the reported result relative to the delivered exposure.

The mean percent deviation relative to the delivered exposure is calculated as follows: (H i- H i) 1 0 where: Hi= the corresponding reported exposure for the ith dosimeter (i.e., the reported exposure)H. = the exposure delivered to the irradiated test dosimeter (i.e., the delivered exposure)n = the number of dosimeters in the test group (c) Precision For a group of test dosimeters irradiated to a given exposure, the measure of precision is the percent deviation of individual results relative to the mean reported exposure.

At least two values are required for the determination of precision.

The measure of precision for the it dosimeter is: F:ýADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-8 (HR)100 where:= the reported exposure for the ith dosimeter (i.e., the reported exposure)H = the mean reported exposure; i.e., H =n = the number of dosimeters in the test group (d) E-LAB Internal Tolerance Limits Tolerance limits for bias and precision applied to in-house and accredited third party testing were adopted on November 13, 1987. These criteria are only applied to individual test dosimeters irradiated with high-energy photons (Cs-1 37 or Co-60) and are as follows for Panasonic Environmental dosimeters:

+/- 20.1% for bias and +/- 12.8% for precision.

D. QC Investigation Criteria and Result Reporting for Environmental Dosimetry 1 .QC Investigation Criteria E-LAB Manual 120 (Reference

2) specifies when an investigation is required due to a QC analysis that has failed the E-LAB bias criteria.

The criteria are as follows: (a) No investigation is necessary when an individual QC result falls outside the QC performance criteria for accuracy.(b) Investigations are initiated when the mean of a QC processing batch is outside the performance criterion for bias.2. Reporting of Environmental Dosimetry Results to Laboratory Customers (a) All results are to be reported in a timely fashion.(b) If the QA Officer determines that an investigation is required for a process, the results shall be issued as normal. If the QC results, prompting the investigation, have a mean bias from the known of greater than +/-20% for environmental dosimetry, the results shall be issued with a note indicating that they may be updated in the future, pending resolution of a QA issue.(c) Environmental dosimetry results do not require updating if the investigation has shown that the mean bias between the original results and the corrected results, based on applicable correction factors from the investigation, does not exceed +/-20%.F;'ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-9 E. Self-Assessment Program In accordance with Reference 1, the E-LAB has established a Self-Assessment policy where all Laboratory staff members are strongly encouraged to continually evaluate laboratory activities for quality enhancements, cost savings, and time savings.Ill. QUALITY CONTROL SYNOPSIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSES A. General Discussion Two-year trending graphs are provided in Appendix A of this report to allow evaluation of trends or biases. In the event that an analysis does not meet E-LAB performance criteria, a brief explanation is included on the graph. It should be noted that MAPEP and ERA/ELAP samples are evaluated against criteria specific to those programs.

Therefore, only MAPEP sample results which fell in the "Warning" or "Non-Agreement" categories will be addressed in Appendix A.Beginning in 2009, ELAP samples are no longer included on the trending graphs due to the unique way in which the acceptance limits are calculated.

If any questions arise regarding previous analyses, please refer to the annual status report corresponding to the sample analysis date. In all cases, the QC database is available for each individual analysis to back-up the data presented on the graph.B. Result Summary During this annual reporting period, thirty-two nuclides associated with seven media types were analyzed by means of the E-LAB's internal process control, MAPEP, ERA/ELAP and by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics QC programs.

Media types representative of client company analyses performed during this reporting period were selected.Presented below is a synopsis of the media types evaluated.

Air Filter Charcoal (Air Iodine) Water Milk Sediment/soil Vegetation Fish 1. Analytics Environmental Cross Check Program During this period the Eckert & Ziegler Analytics cross check program provided 426 individual environmental analyses for bias and 426 for precision evaluation (Table 1). Of the 426 analyses evaluated for bias, 98.6% (420/426) of all results fell within E-LAB acceptance criteria.

Of the 426 analyses evaluated for precision, 99.8% (425/426) fell within E-LAB tolerance limits. Appendix A graphically summarizes the results by two-year trending graphs.Table 2 provides a report of the E-LAB's participation in the Eckert &Ziegler Analytics' cross check program for the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first three quarters of 2009. Using the E-LAB's internal acceptance F:ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-10 criteria as the basis of evaluation, 141 out of 142 mean results were within agreement criteria.

The single failure pertained to the gross alpha analysis of the 1 t quarter 2009 water sample and was addressed by Condition Report (CR) 09-21.2. Summary of Participation in the MAPEP Monitoring Program.During this reporting period, two sets of MAPEP samples were processed and reported (Table 3). Using the DOE acceptance criteria as the basis of evaluation, 65 out of 74 mean results came within agreement criteria.For MAPEP 20, six results fell into the "warning" category as follows: Pu-238 and Pu-239/40 on the filter, Cs-137, Mn-54, and K-40 in soil, and Am-241 in water. CR 09-12 and CR-09-13 were issued to investigate the plutonium and americium low biases, respectively.

CR-09-14 was issued to investigate the high biases in soil, including Zn-65, which was "not acceptable".

Two results for MAPEP 21 fell into the "warning" category, as follows: Pu-239/40 in water and Am-241 in water. CR 09-12 and CR-09-13 remain open to investigate the plutonium and americium low biases, respectively.

3. ERA PT Program and New York ELAP PT Program During this reporting period, a total of 18 individual results were evaluated by the New York State Department of Health ELAP program. Using the evaluation criteria set by NELAP, 100% (18/18) of the radionuclides were"Satisfactory".

Table 4 provides a report of the Laboratory's participation in this PT program.The AREVA NP Environmental Laboratory (Lab ID# 11823) maintained NELAP accreditation from the New York State Department of Health through the Environmental Laboratory Approval Program for the following methods for both potable and non-potable waters:* Gross Alpha, Method EPA 900.0* Gross Beta, Method EPA 900.0* Iodine-131, Method ASTM D4785-00a* Photon Emitters, Method EPA 901.1" Radioactive Cesium, Method EPA 901.1" Tritium, Method EPA 906.0 4. Process Control Program for REMP Analyses The E-Lab internal (intra-laboratory) process control program evaluated 478 individual analyses for bias and 133 analyses for precision for standard REMP media and nuclides.

The results are summarized in Table 5.Of the 478 internal process control analyses evaluated for bias, 99.8%met Laboratory acceptance criteria.

Also, 95.5% of the 133 results for precision were found to be acceptable.

F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-11 Table 6 presents the internal process control data combined with Eckert &Ziegler Analytics cross-check data (evaluated for bias and precision) and individual MAPEP analyses (evaluated for precision only) for standard REMP media and nuclides.

For this data set, 99.2% of the 904 analyses evaluated for bias and 99.0% of the 705 analyses evaluated for precision met Laboratory acceptance criteria.To support the efforts required for the EPRI Groundwater Monitoring Program at client sites, the E-LAB performs low-level QC testing specifically for H-3 in water. The E-LAB prepares these spikes internally using a low activity H-3 spike obtained from Eckert & Ziegler Analytics.

Activities ranged from approximately 1,700 -9,000 pCi/L. A chart of low activity H-3 spike performance is provided in Appendix A. All 2009 analyses were within the acceptance criteria.5. Process Control Program for Environmental Analysis of Additional Radionuclides To support the efforts of various monitoring programs at client sites, the E-LAB performs low-level analyses of additional nuclides that are not normally included in a standard REMP. The QC analysis results for these nuclides are presented in Table 7 by analysis type. Eighteen of 19 analyses (94.7%) evaluated for accuracy met E-Lab acceptance criteria.One hundred percent of the 60 analyses evaluated for precision met the E-LAB acceptance criteria.6. Analytical Blanks During this reporting period, statistically positive activity, (activity greater than three (3) times the standard deviation) was not reported for any of the 149 environmental analytical blanks analyzed.7. Overall Data Summary for the Reporting Period January-December 2009 The intra- and inter-laboratory QC data for all environmental process control nuclide analyses, evaluated to internal E-LAB performance criteria, are summarized in Table 8, presented by analysis type.Excluded from this table are evaluations of MAPEP and ELAP samples for accuracy, as these samples are evaluated to program specific acceptance criteria.

Nine hundred fifteen of 923 individual results evaluated to internal E-LAB performance criteria (99.1%) fell within the E-LAB bias acceptance criteria, while 99.1% of the 765 analyses passed the acceptance criteria for precision.

8. Summary of Environmental Quality Control Results by Year The historical summary of the E-LAB process control program performance for the environmental monitoring function is provided in Table 9. For 2009, 99.1% of the analyses fell within the E-LAB acceptance criteria for bias as compared to a historical percentage of 97.0. Similarly, 99.1% of the analyses evaluated for precision met the E-LAB acceptance criteria as compared to 99.4% of analyses for the 33-year operating history.F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-12 Trending graphs associated with the performance results for this program are given in Appendix A.IV. QUALITY CONTROL SYNOPSIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETERY A. General Discussion Summaries of the performance tests for the reporting period are given in Tables 10 through 12 and Appendix B. Results are presented only for performance tests conducted under well-characterized conditions.

Results are reported for the twelve-month period January-December 2009.Table 10 provides a summary of individual dosimeter results evaluated against the E-LAB internal acceptance criteria for high-energy photons only. During this period, 100% (84/84) of the individual dosimeters, evaluated against these criteria met the tolerance limits for accuracy and 100% (84/84) met the criterion for precision.

Table 11 presents the third-party testing results for dosimeters processed during this annual period. The mean percent bias and standard deviation for each group of six dosimeters are shown.Table 12 provides the performance results for each group (N=6) of dosimeters evaluated against the internal tolerance criteria (third party and in-house irradiations).

Overall, 100% (14/14) of the dosimeter sets evaluated against the internal tolerance performance criteria met these criteria.B. Result Trending One of the main benefits of performing quality control tests on a routine basis is to identify trends or performance changes. The results of the Panasonic environmental dosimeter performance tests are presented in Appendix B for a two year period. The results are evaluated against each of the performance criteria listed in Section II, namely: individual dosimeter bias, individual dosimeter precision, and mean bias.All of the results presented in Appendix B are fade corrected to the irradiation date and plotted sequentially by processing date. This allows assessment of performance without the confounding effect of the variation in number of days between irradiation and readout. Therefore, the results include any bias produced by the fade algorithm.

If fade is not corrected to the date of irradiation, the possibility of a bias due to signal fading exists. When Dosimetry Services processes a TLD, the software calculates a fade correction using one half the number of days between the processing date and the anneal date. The use of the midpoint for fade correction can bias the results of performance tests of TLDs irradiated at either the beginning or end of a wear period. Results for performance tests conducted near the beginning of the period will be biased low and those irradiated near the end of a period will be biased high, assuming there are no other system biases.For individual Panasonic environmental TLDs processed in 2009, 100% of the 84 tests came within the E-LAB bias and precision tolerance limits. All 14 F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-13 Panasonic environmental TLD test sets (mean bias, n=6) were reported within the internal tolerance criteria for bias.V. STATUS OF CONDITION REPORTS (CR)Table 13 provides a synopsis of CR activity for environmental processing during 2009.Twenty-two condition reports were closed and nineteen were opened during this reporting period. As of December 31, 2009, a total of eight CRs remain open, two of which are older than 6 months.VI. STATUS OF AUDITS/ASSESSMENTS A. Internal Corporate QA Audit No. 09-11, was conducted from July 6, 2009 through July 10, 2009. The audit was conducted to verify compliance with E-LAB QA Manual 100 and Dosimetry QA Manual 120. There were no findings or recommendations pertaining to the E-LAB.One additional internal QA assessment was conducted for processes involved in the environmental monitoring area during 2009. Internal Assessment 09-02 evaluated areas of the E-Lab Quality Assurance Program applicable to NELAC accredited techniques.

Condition reports were issued to document the findings from this assessment, and recommendations were entered into the E-Lab task tracking system.B. External A National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) audit was conducted from May 6, 2009 to May 8, 2009 in the Dosimetry Services area. No nonconformities were reported.

Recommendations were entered into the E-Lab task tracking system.The Exelon Nuclear audit, No. SR-2009-23, was conducted from August 10, 2009 through August 14, 2009. There were three findings issued. The E-LAB responded to these items and the findings were closed on October 1, 2009.VII. UPDATED PROCEDURES ISSUED DURING JANUARY-DECEMBER 2009 A list of procedures, pertaining to environmental monitoring, which were updated during 2009 is included in Table 14.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-14 VIII. REFERENCES

1. AREVA NP Environmental Laboratory Manual 100 "Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan", Revision 13, June 4, 2009.2. E-LAB Manual No.120, "Dosimetry Services Quality System Manual", Rev. 15, October 16, 2009.3. AREVA NP Environmental Laboratory 2009 Quality Control and Audit Assessment Schedule.4. American National Standard for Performance Testing of Extremity Dosimeters, ANSI N13.32-1995 (Draft), Health Physics Society, 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd., Suite 402, McLean, VA 22101.5. "In-Plant External Dosimetry Quality Assurance Testing Program," E-LAB, Revision 2, December 1986.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-15 TABLE 1 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS BY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA AND ANALYSIS CATEGORIES JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-16 TABLE I AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS BY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA AND ANALYSIS CATEGORIES JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 (Continued)

A. Percent Bias Acceptance Criteria520 (or within 2 sigma of known, see Reference 1)For Gross Alpha and Beta 25 (or within 2 sigma of known)For Sr-89/90 25 (or within 2 sigma of known)B. Percent Precision Acceptance Criteria20 (or within 2 sigma of mean, see Reference 1). Exceptions as above.F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-17 TABLE 2 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSS CHECK PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

'~ ~ RATIO"~SAMPLE% QUARTERL, SAMPLE NUCUDE UNT EO-E KON E A/ PERFORMANCE INUMBER ; Y'EAR MEDIAl. ~NT VALU~EII VALUW~tE -, ~EVALUATIONI E6346-162 4 /2008 'Water Gross Alpha" PCiL ....104 ...114 0.91 Agreement E6346-162 4,/2008 Water Gross Beta pCi/L 208 204 1.02 Agreement E6347-162 4"/2008 Water I-131LL pCi/L 57.5 64.1 0.90 Agreement E6347-162 4 th/2008 Water 1-131 pCi/L 54.3 64.1 0.85' Agreement E6347-162 4"/2008 Water Ce-141 pCi/L 209 224 0.93 Agreement E6347-162 4h/2008 Water Cr-51 pCi/L 299 288 1.04 Agreement E6347-162 4i/-2008 Water Cs-134 pCi/L 141 157 0.90 Agreement E6347-162 4V2008 Water Cs-137 pCi/L 134 140 0.96 Agreement E6347-162 4 t/2008 Water Co-58 pCi/L 115 122 0.94 Agreement E6347-162 45-2008 Water Mn-54 pCi/L 172 178 0.97 Agreement E6347-162 4 t/2008 Water Fe-59 pCi/L 122 117 1.04 Agreement E6347-162 4th/2008 Water Zn-65 pCi/L 203 214 0.95 Agreement E6347-162 4F"/2008 Water Co-60 pCi/L 154 156 0.99 Agreement E6348-162 4'72008 Water Sr-89 pCi/L 78.8 97.7 0.81 Agreement E6348-162 4t"/2008 Water Sr-90 pCi/L 14.1 13.4 1.05 Agreement E6349-162 45/2008 Water H-3 pCi/L 10300 10200 1.01 Agreement E6350-162 41h/2008 Charcoal 1-131 pCi 53.1 53.6 0.99 Agreement E6351-162 4 /2008 Filter Gross Alpha pCi 72.3 63.2 1.14 Agreement E6351-162 41/2008 Filter Gross Beta pCi 127 113 1.12 Agreement E6352-162 4 W/2008 Filter Ce-141 pCi 112 119 0.94 Agreement E6352-162 4"'/2008 Filter Cr-51 pCi 152 153 0.99 Agreement E6352-162 4-/2008 Filter Cs-1 34 pCi 77.8 83.6 0.93 Agreement E6352-162 45/2008 Filter Cs-137 pCi 76.8 74.6 1.03 Agreement E6352-162 Filter Co-58 pCi 63.1 64.9 0.97 Agreement E6352-162 4t7/2008 Filter Mn-54 pCi 91.8 94.6 0.97 Agreement E6352-162 4h/2008 Filter Fe-59 pCi 60.4 62.5 0.97 Agreement E6352-162 4"/2008 Filter Zn-65 pCi 110 114 0.96 Agreement E6353-162 4th/2008 Milk 1-131LL DCi/L 72.4 79.9 '0.91 Agreement E6353-162 49F2008 Milk 1-131 pCi/L 74.3 79.9 0.93 Agreement E6353-162 4'72008 Milk Ce-141 pCi/L 184 191 0.96 Agreement E6353-162 4"/2008 Milk Cr-51 pCi/L 235 246 0.96 Agreement E6353-162 4"/2008 Milk Cs-134 pCi/L 125 134 0.93 Agreement E6353-162 4'/2008 Milk Cs-137 pCi/L 119 120 1.00 Agreement E6353-162 4 W/2008 Milk Co-58 pCi/L 105 104 1.01 Agreement E6353-162 4 /2008 Milk Mn-54 pCi/L 152 152 1.00 Agreement E6353-162 4F/2008 Milk Fe-59 pCi/L 107 100 1.06 Agreement E6353-162 4h/2008 Milk Zn-65 pCi/L 177 183 0.97 Agreement E6353-162 4h/2008 Milk Co-60 pCi/L 135 133 1.01 Agreement F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-18 TABLE 2 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSS CHECK PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Continued)

E6559-162 lst/2009 Water Ce-141 pCi/L 114 120 0.95 Agreement E6559-162 ls/2009 Water Cr-51 pCi/L 365 387 0.94 Agreement E6559-162 Ist/2009 Water Cs-i 34 pCi/L 107 119 0.90 Agreement E6559-162 1s/2009 Water Cs-137 pCi/L 136 141 0.96 Agreement E6559-162 1s/2009 Water Co-58 pCi/L 145 151 0.96 Agreement E6559-162 lst/2009 Water Mn-54 pCi/L 165 162 1.02 Agreement E6559-162 ist/2009 Water Fe-59 pCi/L 128 127 1.01 Agreement E6559-162 ls/2009 Water Zn-65 pCi/L 192 197 0.97 Agreement E6559-162 ls/2009 Water Co-60 pCi/L 184 180 1.02 Agreement E6560-162 1 s/2009 Water Sr-89 pCi/L 80.5 94.5 0.85 Agreement E6560-162 ls7/2009 Water Sr-90 pCi/L 14.9 15.1 0.99 Agreement E6561-162 lst/2009 Water H-3 pCi/L 4090 4480 0.91 Agreement E6562-162 1it/2009 Charcoal 1-131 PC! 70.5 79.4 0.89 Aqreement E6563-162 lst(2009 Filter Gross Alpha pCi 140 122 1.15 Agreement E6563-162 Ist/2009 Filter Gross Beta pCi 168 153 1.10 Agreement E6564-162 1st/2009 Milk I-131LL pCi/L 72.9 79.3 0.92 Agreement E6564-162 lst/2009 Milk 1-131 pCi/L 69.1 79.3 0.87 Agreement E6564-162 1St/2009 Milk Ce-141 pCi/L 91.7 94.9 0.97 Agreement E6564-162 ls'/2009 Milk Cr-51 pCi/L 300 305 0.98 Agreement E6564-162 lst/2009 Milk Cs-134 pCi/L 85 93.7 0.91 Agreement E6564-162 1 s/2009 Milk Cs-137 pCi/L 115 il1 1.04 Agreement E6564-162 lst/2009 Milk Co-58 pCi/L 121 119 1.01 Agreement E6564-162 1st/2009 Milk Mn-54 pCi/L 135 128 1.05 Agreement E6564-162 lst/2009 Milk Fe-59 pCi/L 109 99.9 1.09 Agreement E6564-162 lst/2009 Milk Zn-65 pCi/L 155 156 0.99 Agreement E6564-162 Ist/2009 Milk Co-60 pCi/L 146 142 1.03 Agreement E6565-162 ls'/2009 Milk Sr-89 pCi/L 80.1 97.7 0.82 Agreement E6565-162 ist/2009 Milk Sr-90 pCi/L 14.5 15.6 0.93 Agreement The percent difference of the mean value from the known value exceeded the Manual 100 criterion for accuracy.

CR 09-21 was issued to investigate the failure.2 Eckert & Ziegler Analytics changed the filter preparation method by reducing the thickness of the filter coating from 0.85 mg/cm 2 to 0.5 mg/cm 2.An instrument recalibration, performed with a .5 mg/cm 2 coated filter, yielded an increase in alpha efficiency of 16%. Application of the new efficiency to the measured result yields a percent difference from the Analytics known value of -1.1%.3 These results were erroneously decay corrected to 03/20/09 rather than the true reference date of 03/19/09.

This table reflects the results as reported to Analytics, prior to correction.

All corrected results, other than gross alpha in water, met the agreement criteria.

CR 09-29 was issued to address the reference date error.F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-19 TABLE 2 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL, CROSS CHECK PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Continued)

<o' AMOtE OA R SAP E"EEOTEP Nf Is~ ~RATIO PROM-AG SNUMB ER- ~YEAR- ~MEDIA VALUNTS ~EPOiE.KON VAU ~PEVALUMATINC I ANALY~TICS.

E6711-162 2n"/2009 Water Gross Alpha pCi/L 272 281 0.97 Agreement E6711-162 2n"/2009 Water Gross Beta pCi/L 157 141 1.11 Agreement E6712-162 2nd/2009 Water I-131LL pCi/L 83.5 88.3 0.95 Agreement E6712-162 2n 9 Water 1-131 pCi/L 87.4 88.3 0.99 Agreement E6712-162 2n09 Water Ce-141 pCi/L 206 216 0.96 Agreement E6712-162 n/2009 Water Cr-51 pCi/L 290 304 0.95 Agreement E6712-162 2 nd/2 0 0 9 Water Cs-134 pCi/L 111 126 0.88 Agreement E6712-162 2 nd/2 0 0 9 Water Cs-137 pCi/L 148 146 1.02 Agreement E6712-162 2n"/2009 Water Co-58 pCi/L 70.3 69.8 1.01 Agreement E6712-162 2n9/2009 Water Mn-54 pCi/L 107 104 1.03 Agreement E6712-162 2n0 Water Fe-59 pCi/L 97.7 92.9 1.05 Agreement E6712-162 2n/2009 Water Zn-65 pCi/L 142 133 1.07 Agreement E6712-162 2n/20 09 Water Co-60 pCi/L 231 237 0.97 Agreement E6713-162 2 nd/2 0 0 9 Water Sr-89 pCi/L 77.8 91.1 0.85 Agreement E6713-162 2 n/2009 Water Sr-90 pCi/L 13.1 13.6 0.96 Agreement E6714-162 2nd/2009 Water H-3 pCi/L 12300 13300 0.92 Agreement E6715-162 2 d/2 0 0 9 Charcoal 1-131 pCi 92.5 95.1 0.97 Agireement E6716-162 2n"/2009 Filter Gross Alpha pCi 102 118 0.86 Agqreement E6716-162 2nd/2009 Filter Gross Beta pCi 60.3 59.3 1.02 Agreement E6717-162 2n"/2009 Filter Ce-141 pCi 79.7 85.6 0.93 Agreement E6717-162 2n/2009 Filter Cr-51 pCi 116 121 0.96 Agreement E6717-162 2 nd/2 0 0 9 Filter Cs-I 34 pi 46.9 49.9 0.94 Agreement E6717-162 2nd/2009 Filter Cs-137 pCi 59.8 57.9 1.03 Agreement E6717-162 2 nd/2 0 0 9 Filter Co-58 pCi 27.4 27.7 0.99 Agreement E6717-162 2n/2009 Filter Mn-54 pCi 41.0 41.3 0.99 Agreement E6717-162 2nd/2009 Filter Fe-59 pCi 34.8 36.9 0.94 Agreement E6717-162 2nd/2009 Filter Zn-65 pCi 52.4 52.9 0.99 Agreement E6717-162 2n/-2009 Filter Co-60 pCi 88.3 94.0 0.94 Agreement E6718-162 2 nd/2 0 0 9 Milk I-131LL pCi/L 94.7 102 0.93 Aqreement E6718-162 2nd/2009 Milk 1-131 pCi/L 97.7 102 0.96 Agreement E6718-162 2nd/2009 Milk Ce-141 pCi/L 275 284 0.97 Agreement E6718-162 23d/2009 Milk Cr-51 pCi/L 395 400 0.99 Agreement E6718-162 2n7/2009 Milk Cs-134 pCi/L 146 166 0.88 Agreement E6718-162 2nd/2009 Milk Cs-137 pCi/L 187 192 0.97 Agreement E6718-162 2n/b2009 Milk Co-58 pCi/L 90.0 91.9 0.98 Agreement E6718-162 2n52W009 Milk Mn-54 pCi/L 138 137 1.01 Agreement E6718-162 2nd/2009 Milk Fe-59 pCi/L 130 122 1.06 Agreement E6718-162 2d/ 2009 Milk Zn-65 pCi/L 185 175 1.05 Agreement E6718-162 2nd/2009 Milk Co-60 pCi/L 316 312 1.01 Agreement FAADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-20 TABLE 2 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ECKERT & ZIEGLER ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENTAL CROSS CHECK PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Continued)

SAPE QUARTER/ SAMPLE REOTE A~NOWNN> PROMAC NUMBER YER MEDIA ~'NUCLIDEi>

UNITS VA MFVLE -E'ALYIS EVLATO E6823-162 3r /2009 Water Gross Alpha pCi/L 275 324 0.85 Agreement E6823-162 3r/2009 Water Gross Beta pCi/L 281 287 0.98 Agreement E6824-162 3T/2009 Water I-131LL pCi/L 100.9 98.4 1.02 Agreement E6824-162 3rl/2009 Water 1-131 pCi/L 87.7 98.4 0.89 Agreement E6824-162 3rd/2009 Water Ce-141 pCi/L 258 264 0.98 Agreement E6824-162 3rd/2009 Water Cr-51 pCi/L 199 212 0.94 Agreement E6824-162 3 Or/2009 Water Cs-134 pCi/L 108 118 0.92 Agreement E6824-162 3T/-2009 Water Cs-137 pCi/L 175 177 0.99 Agreement E6824-162 3rd/2009 Water Co-58 pCi/L 94.8 95.4 0.99 Agreement E6824-162 3rd/2009 Water Mn-54 pCi/L 200 198 1.01 Agreement E6824-162 3 rT/2 0 0 9 Water Fe-59 pCi/L 146 141 1.04 Agreement E6824-162 3 rd/2 0 0 9 Water Zn-65 pCi/L 198 195 1.01 Agreement E6824-162 3d/-2009 Water Co-60 pCi/L 149 154 0.97 Agreement E6825-162 3rd/2009 Water Sr-89 pCi/L 88.9 105 0.85 Agreement E6825-162 3rd/2009 Water Sr-90 pCi/L 18.1 18.5 0.98 Agreement E6826-162 3"F/2009 Water H-3 pCi/L 13500 14100 0.96 Agreement E6827-162 3rd/2009 Charcoal 1-131 pCi 89.5 92.0 0.97 Agreement E6828-162 3r7/2009 Filter Gross Aliha .pCi 251 265 0.95 Agreement E6828-162 3rd/2009 Filter Gross Beta pCi 239 235 1.02 Agreement E6829-162 3d/2009 Milk 1-131LL DCi/L 97.2 98.6 0.99 Acqreement E6829-162 3 rd/2 0 0 9 Milk 1-131 pCi/L 104 98.6 1.06 Agreement E6829-162 3 rd/2 0 0 9 Milk Ce-141 pCi/L 270 275 0.98 Agreement E6829-162 r/2009 Milk Cr-51 pCi/L 217 221 0.98 Agreement E6829-162 3rd/2009 Milk Cs-134 pCi/L 111 123 0.90 Agreement E6829-162 3 rd/2 0 0 9 Milk Cs-137 pCi/L 188 185 1.02 Agreement E6829-162 3r"/2009 Milk Co-58 pCi/L 99.2 99.4 1.00 Agreement E6829-162 3m/2009 Milk Mn-54 pCi/L 210 206 1.02 Agreement E6829-162 3rd/2009 Milk Fe-59 pCi/L 159 147 1.08 Agreement E6829-162 3rd/2009 Milk Zn-65 pCi/L 209 204 1.02 Agreement E6829-162 3rd/2009 Milk Co-60 pCi/L 160 160 1.00 Agreement E6830-162 3 rd/2 0 0 9 Milk Sr-89 pCi/L 91.8 107 0.86. Agreement E6830-162 3,d/2009 Milk Sr-90 pCi/L 18.1 18.8 0.96 Agreement 034-21 TABLE 3 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MIXED ANALYTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM RESULTS AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY MAPEP-09-RdF20 MAPEP-09-RdF20 MAPEP-09-RdF20 MAPEP-09-RdF20 MAPEP-09-RdF20 MAPEP-09-RdF20 MAPEP-09-RdF20 MAPEP-09-RdF20 MAPEP-09-RdF20 MAPEP-09-MaS20 MAPEP-09-MaS20 MAPEP-09-MaS20 MAPEP-09-MaS20 MAPEP-09-MaS20 MAPEP-09-MaS20 MAPEP-09-MaS20 MAPEP-09-MaS2O MAPEP-09-RdV20 MAPEP-09-RdV20 MAPEP-09-RdV20 MAPEP-09-RdV20 MAPEP-09-RdV20 MAPEP-09-RdV20 Fiter Filter (Bq/filter)

Filter (Bg/filter)

Filter (Bq/filter)

Filter (Bq/filter)

Filter (Bq/filter)

Filter (Bq/filter)

Filter (Bg/filter)

Filter (Bq/filter)

Filter (Bq/filter)

Soil (Bq/kg)1-Jan-uv U.l(lz U.2ZUb I-l.b AC 1-Jan-09 Cs-1 34 2.85 2.93-2.7 1-Jan-09 Cs-1 37 1.576 1.52 3.7 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 1-Jan-09 Co-57 1.302 1.30 0.2 1-Jan-09 Co-60 1.196 1.22 -2.0 Acceptable 1-Jan-09 Mn-54 2.36 2.2709 3.9 Acceptable 1-Jan-09 Pu-238 0.1394 0.17631 -20.9 Warning'1-Jan-09 Pu-239/240 0.1246 0.157-20.6 Warning 1 1-Jan-09 Sr-90 0.571 0.640-10.8 Acceptable 1-Jan-09 Zn-65 1.374 1.36 1.0 Acceptable

• q -*1-Jan-09 Cs-134 521 467 11.6 Acceptable Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jan-09 Cs-1 37 750 605 24.0 Warning'Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jan-09 Co-57 0.33 N/A N/A Acceptable Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jan-09 Co-60 3.97 4.113 N/A Acceptable Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jan-09 Mn-54 387 .307 26.1 Warning Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jan-09 K-40 714 570 25.3 Warning2 Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jan-09 Sr-90 250 257 -2.7 Acceptable Soil Bc/kg) 1-Jan-09 Zn-65 317 242 31.0 Unacceptable' Veg.(Bq/sample) 1-Jan-09 Cs-134 3.22 3.40 -5.3 Acceptable Veg.(Bq/sample) 1-Jan-09 Cs-137 0.984 0.93 5.8 Acceptable Veg.B /sample) 1-Jan-09 Co-57 2.50 2.36 5.9 Acceptable Veg.(Bq/sample) 1-Jan-09 Co-60 0.037 N/A N/A Acceptable Veg.(Bq/sample) 1-Jan-09 Mn-54 2.37 2.30 3.0 Acceptable Veq.(Bq/sample) 1-Jan-09 Sr-90 1.184 1.260-6.0 Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdV20 Vel. Bq/sample) 1-Jan-09 Zn-65 1.52 1.354 12.3 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 Am-241 0.506 0.636 -20.4 Warning'MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bg/L) 1-Jan-09 Cs-1 34 19.9 22.5 -11.6 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 Cs-1 37 0.045 N/A I N/A Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 Co-57 18.11 18.9 -4.2 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1 -Jan-09 Co-60 16.58 17.21 -3.7 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 H-3 337 330.9 1.8 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 Fe-55 52.1 48.2 8.1 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 Mn-54 14.67 14.661 0.1 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 Ni-63 43.4 53.5 -18.9 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 Pu-238 0.987 1.18 -16.4 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water.(Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 Pu-239/240 0.689 0.853 -19.2 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 Sr-90 6.66 7.21 -7.6 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 U-234 I 2.84 2.77 2.5 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 U-238 2.92 2.88 1.4 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW20 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jan-09 Zn-65 J 13.36 13.6 -1.8 Acceptable

'CR-09-12 was issued to investigate these negative biases. zCR-09-14 was issued to investigate these positive biases.09-13was issued to investigate this negative bias.CR-FAADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-22 TABLE 3 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MIXED ANALYTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM RESULTS AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY Continued REPORTED MPEP< : SAMPLE ~ MATRIX/ REFERENCE RADIO-. MEAN ~ %VPEUEANC IDUISDATE NUCLIDE ~VALUE~ Bq~is IS EVALUATION~

B /nits~ IBqun MAPEP-09-RdF21 Filter (Bqlfilter) 1-Jul-09 Cs-1 34 -0.006 N/A Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdF21 Filter (Bg/filter) 1-Jul-09 Cs-137 1.437 1.40 2.6 Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdF21 Filter (Bg/filter) 1-Jul-09 Co-57 6.7 6.48 3.4 Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdF21 Filter (Bg/filter) 1-Jul-09 Co-60 1.010 1.03 -1.9 Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdF21 Filter (Bg/filter) 1-Jul-09 Mn-54 5.77 5.49 5.1 Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdF21 Filter (Bg/filter) 1-Jul-09 Zn-65 4.44 3.93 13.0 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaS21 Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jul-09 Cs-1 34 1.7 N/A Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaS21 Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jul-09 Cs-137 730 669 9.1 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaS21 Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jul-09 Co-57 624 586 6.5 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaS21 Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jul-09 Co-60 342 327 4.6 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaS21 Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jul-09 Mn-54 880 796 10.6 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaS21 Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jul-09 K-40 403 375 7.5 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaS21 Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jul-09 Sr-90 410 455 :-9.9 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaS21 Soil (Bq/kg) 1-Jul-09 Zn-65 1328 1178 12.7 Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdV21 Veg.(Bq/sample) 1-Jul-09 Cs-134 0.02 N/A Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdV21 Veg.(Bq/sample) 1-Jul-09 Cs-137 2.41 2.43 -0.8 Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdV21 Veg.(Bg/sample) 1-Jul-09 Co-57 7.63 8.0 -4.6 Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdV21 Veg.(Bq/sample) 1-Jul-09 Co-60 2.46 2.57 -4.3 Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdV21 Veg.(Bq/sample) 1-Jul-09 Mn-54 7.75 7.9 -1.9 Acceptable MAPEP-09-RdV21 Veg.(Bq/sample) 1-Jul-09 Zn-65 -0.10 N/A Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Am-241 0.811 1.04 -22.0 Warningi MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Cs-134 28.6 32.2 -11.2 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Cs-137 40.9 41.2 -0.7 1 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Co-57 34.8 36.6 -4.9 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Co-60 14.67 15.4 -4.7 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 H-3 585 634.1 -7.7 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Fe-55 58.9 60.8. -3.1 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Mn-54 -0.082 N/A Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Ni-63 39.6 44.2 -10.4 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Pu-238 0.0111 0.018 N/A Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Pu- 1.260 1.64 -23.2 Warning 2 MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Sr-90 12.06 12.99 -7.2 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Tc-99 8.89 10 -11.1 Acceptable MAPEP-09-MaW21 Water (Bq/L) 1-Jul-09 Zn-65 27.8 J 2629 3.3 Acceptable These results are being addressed in conjunction with CR 09-13.2 These results are being addressed in conjunction with CR 09-12.F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-23 TABLE 4 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY APPROVAL PROGRAM PROFICIENCY TEST RESULTS AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY PWGAMA 2262 04/07/09 Water pCi/L I Cs-137 88.3 87.5 78.5 -96.4 Satisfactorv PWGAMA 2262 04/07/09 Water pCi/L Co-60 101 107 97.3- 117 Satisfactory PWGAMA 2262 04/07/09 Water pCi/L Zn-65 312 318 282 -354 Satisfactory PWIODINE 2264 4/07/09 Water pCi/L 1-131 21.8 23.0 18.9- 27.2 J Satisfactory PWGAMA 2762 09/29/09 Water pCi/L Co-60 63.2 66.8 59.8 -73.8 Satisfactory PWGAMA 2762 09/29/09 Water pCi/L Zn-65 154 171 150 -192 Satisfactory PWIODINE 2764 09/29/09 Water pCi/L 1-131 14.5 15.1 12.0-18.2 Satisfactory F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-10 24 TABLE 5 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (REMP)INTRA-LABORATORY ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS CONTROL RESULTS BY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, MEDIA, AND ANALYSIS CATEGORIES JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 Iodine (LL1 3 I 0 1 3 I 0 o3 0 Sr-90 0 00 0 Gamma 0 0 0 0 Sr-90 0 0 0] 0 H-3 0 0 6 0 Gamma 0 0 0 0 Iodine (LL) 0 0 0 0 Gross Alpha: 5 1 8 0 Gross Beta 6 0 10 2 Gamma 26 0 56 2 Iodine (LL) 0 0 0 2 Sr-89 0 0 0 0 Sr-90 3 0 0 0 Tritium 23 0 24 0______NumberInRange:4477 1 127 6 Peenta ftoiWPressed 99.8 0.2 95.5 4.5 478 133 Si) lid andI PrreCiSifl on IaUsrL In I able t, IL/) SomeI rrecisi1r uawa generated from non-posIuv~e cllent samples for speciric contractual evaluations.

F:AADM IN\CORRES\EL 034-10 25 TABLE 6 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (REMP)INTRA-LABORATORY AND INTER-LABORATORY DATA

SUMMARY

BIAS AND PRECISION BY MEDIA JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 Wross Alpha _11 -I _ u Gross Beta 267 0 12 0 Gamma 54 0 87 0 Sr-90 0 0 2 0 Gamma-Quantitative 168 0 12 0 Gamma 0 0 I 16 0"Sr-90 0 I 0 4 0 IV .M , , ____,__....

________ .______ ,____ ,________

,_ __________,_____

Gamma 120 0 120 0 Iodine (LL) 15 0 15 0 Sr-89 6 0 6 0 Sr-90 6 0 6 0 Gamma 0 0 36 0 Sr-90 0 0 5 .0 H-3 0 0 6 0 Gamma 0 0 27 0 Iodine (LL) 0 0 0 0 Sr-90 0 0 3 0 Gross Alpha 14 4 20 0 Gross Beta 18 0 22 2 Gamma 144 2 205 3 Iodine (LL) 12 0 12 2 Sr-89 12 0 12 0 Sr-90 15 0 16 0 Tritium 35 0 42 0 T0bNtul etmnber.Rarnde"'

1 897 7 698 7 eiqn oTotPc 1 99.2 0.8 99.0 1.0 6t 904 705 (1) Bias and Precision as noted in Table 1. (2) Data includes intra-laboratory and Analytics cross-checks evaluated for accuracy and precision and MAPEP samples evaluated for precision only.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-10 26 TABLE 7 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES INTRA-LABORATORY AND INTER-LABORATORY BIAS AND PRECISION BY ANALYSIS TYPE JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 WaterF 0I 0 1 4 0 Soill 0 1 610 Water 3 0 0 0 Water 3 0 5 0 V. Pu-238 Filter 0 0 2 0 Soil 0 0 j 0 0 Water .0 0 40 Filter 0 0 2 0 Soil 0 0 0 0 Water 0 0 4 0 Water[ 2 0 j4 0____Wate 0

• 0 2 0_____Water 0 Water 2 0 6 0 X1. U-238 Wnftnr I 2 0 6 0 18 1 60 0 94.7 5.3 100 0 19 60 (1) Bias and Precision as noted in Table 1. (2) Data includes intra-laboratory and Analytics cross-checks evaluated for accuracy and precision and MAPEP samples evaluated for precision only.

034-27 TABLE 8 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ALL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES INTRA-LABORATORY AND INTER-LABORATORY BIAS AND PRECISION BY ANALYSIS TYPE JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 i I if ~ -44 ~~~Air Filter 267 0 12 0 Water j 18 0 22_ 2 Air Filter 54 0 87 0 Charcoal-Quantitative 168 0 12 0 Food 0 0 16 0 Milk 120 0 120 0 Soil/Sediment 0 0 36 0 Vegetation 0 0 27 0 Water 144 2 205 3 Milk 15 0 15 0 Vegetation 0 0 0 0 Water 12 0 12 2 Rilk 6 0 6 0 Water 12 0, 12 0 V1. Sr-904ýO'-W-

~ ; r ~Air Filter 0 0 2 0 Food 0 0 4. 0 Milk 6 0 6 0 Soil/Sediment 0 0 5 0 Vegetation 0 0 3 0 Water 15 0 16 0 Soill 0 [0 26 1 0 Water 1 35 1 0 142 1 0 034-28 TABLE 8 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ALL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES INTRA-LABORATORY AND INTER-LABORATORY BIAS AND PRECISION BY ANALYSIS TYPE JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 Continued WaterI 0 0 1 4 1 0 Ssoil 00 6 0 Water 3 00 0 0 Water 3 I 0 50 Water 3 0 5 0 X111PU7230, Filter 0 0 2 0 Soil 0 0 0 0 Water 0 0 4 ..0 Filter 0 0 2 0 Soil 0 0 0 0 Water 0 0 4 0 Water 2 00 Water 2 0 4 0 Water 0 0 2 0 Water 1 1 4 0 n 111. U-234 2 6 I 0 I 915 8 758 -7 99.1 0.9 99.1 0.9 923 765 m 034-29

• TABLE 9 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ENVIRONMENTAL BIAS AND PRECISION BY YEAR zuu f 798 17 97.9 488 1 99.8 2006 689 5 99.3 589 2 99.7 2005 1069 3 99.7 507 0 100.0 2004 1294 10 99.2 862 2 99.8 2003 828 13 98.5 515 1 99.8 2002 863 7 99.2 471 3 99.4 2001 578 22 96.3 394 2 99.5 2000 574 18 97.0 448 1 99.8 1999 467 13 97.3 357 2 99.4 1998 496 7 98.6 432 4 99.1 1997 515 11 97.9 363 0 100.0 1996 907 24 97.4 800 3 99.6 1995 403 12 97.1 267 0 100.0 1994 529 14 97.4 336 1 99.7 1993 443 29 93.9 312 1 99.7 1992 728 21 97.2 797 1 99.9 1991 770 19 97.6 822 4 99.5 1990 728 34 95.5 761 2 99.7 1989 689 28 96.1 710 4 99.4 1988 632 22 96.6 632 1 99.8 1987 702 27 96.3 718 3 99.6 1986 813 27 96.8 815 0 100.0 1985 718 25 96.6 682 0 100.0 1984 837 31 96.4 850 0 100.0 1983 794 36 95.7 798 4 99.5 1982 585 30 95.1 743 12 98.4 1981 443 29 93.9 404 1 99.8 1980 442 37 92.3 490 1 99.8 1979 1978 4a77 199 20 90.9 354 16 95.7 242 20 92.4 361 14 96.3 0 07 0"14 7 (1) Bias as noted in Table 1, Precision as noted in T 1.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-30*

TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL DOSIMETERS THAT PASSED E-LAB INTERNAL CRITERIA JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009(l') (2)rdI I IIbUI I1L, Environmental 84 1 100 100 I Environmental

(')This table summarizes results of tests conducted by E-LAB and the Third-party tester.(2)Environmental dosimeter results are free in air.TABLE 11

SUMMARY

OF THIRD PARTY DOSIMETER TESTING JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009(1)' (2)(')Performance criteria are the same as the internal criteria.1 2)Results are expressed as the delivered exposure for environmental TLD. ANSI HPS N13.29-1995 (Draft) Category II, High energy photons (Cs-137 or Co-60).TABLE 12 PERCENTAGE OF MEAN DOSIMETER ANALYSES (N=6) WHICH PASSED TOLERANCE CRITERIA JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009(1)' (2)Panasonic Environmental(2) 14 1 100 1 (1)This table summarizes results of tests conducted by E-LAB and the Third-party.

tester.(2)Environmental dosimeter results are free in air.F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-31 TABLE 13 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY CONDITION REPORT (CR) STATUS JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 CR 08-01 23-Jan-08 23-Mar-09 3rd qtr. 2007 Analytics environmental cross check filters failed bias criteria for gross alpha CLOSED-The paperwork was checked for errors, the sample was recounted, and a new alpha filter was used to calibrate the alpha/beta system. None of these actions produced a reason found for the failure. Two subsequent sets of Analytics filters were acceptable.

Since the precision for the failed filters was <5% over. time and among different calibrations, it appears that variability in the preparation of the filters themselves may be the cause of the failures.

Prior to 2003, the bias and precision acceptance criteria for gross alpha on a filter were +/- 25%.Assuming that variability in either the absorption or source distribution of the filters is responsible for the variation in the observed accuracy, LQARC approved a change in the criteria to +/- 25.CLOSED- Updated QC summary reports containing results with accurate decay corrections were sent to clients as required.

E-Decay correction errors Lab Procedure 790, Laboratory Batch Quality Control Handling, CR 08-09 07- Mar-08 19-May-09 on past QC Summary was created to formalize the required steps to create an Report. accurate QC Summary Report. The signatures of the preparer and an independent reviewer are now required on QC Summary Reports.CLOSED -These QC samples contain Ba-133 to approximate an energy close to 1-131. The samples were counted on the manual germanium detectors instead of the automatic sample The mean of three changer, The sample geometry on these detectors is more consecutive charcoal sensitive to summing than the changer. Ba-133 summing CR 08-23 22-Jul-08 25-Mar-09 corrections have been determined for each manual detector.PCs failed the accuracy Charcoal cartridges containing Ba-133 and counted on the manual detectors have been corrected for summing. All Ba-133 corrected data is within the acceptance criteria.

There is no effect on client charcoal cartridges which are analyzed for 1-131 concentration.

CLOSED -The gamma spectrometry analysis report was found Zr-95 missing from to be missing the Zr-95 result when greater than 29 nuclides CR 08-30 15-Oct-08 22-Apr-09 aare reported.

Sixty-nine reports for five clients were affected.analysis report Updated reports were sent to clients. A multi-page report was developed and approved for use on 04/14/2009.

F:ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-10 32 TABLE 13 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY CONDITION REPORT (CR) STATUS JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 (Continued)

CR INITIATION~

CLOSE-OUT DESCRIPTION

~ < STATUS AS OF12/3OW109; DAT DATE~ ____________________

CLOSED -The investigation indicated that either the duplicate was not the same sample as the original or that severe settling occurred in the sample container.

The reason could not be verified since the original sample had been discarded.

In the Gross beta analysis of a future, samples will be labeled to ensure that they are not Grossambeta analysis oe a discarded until the duplicate evaluation is complete.

Also, CR 08-36 4-Nov-08 26-Mar-09 water sample failed the because decay correction is not applied to gross beta analyses, Manupiale 10duplicates for this analysis will be submitted simultaneously.

duplicates Training was conducted and the entire laboratory staff was counseled to ensure that water samples are shaken vigorously and the analysis aliquot is taken immediately after shaking, and to ensure that sample labels are double-checked when retrieving samples for analysis.CLOSED -All spectra associated with the two MAPEP water samples were reviewed, and no improvement was noted in the peak start/stop selection by the analyst. Multiple counts were performed using different detectors and were analyzed by different people. All of the stored spectra provide virtually identical results for Pu-238. The problem does not lie with the instrumentation or the analyst's selection of peak regions.Four sample aliquots were subsequently submitted for the MAPEP Series 19 Pu- MAPEP 21 water. The first two were processed using standard 238 in water fell into the environmental methods the third and fourth were processed warning category with a using a sample fusion preparatory step. This was performed to-28.6% bias determine if the oxidation state of the plutonium provided by MAPEP was not being converted completely during the process. There appears to be no benefit in modifying the preparation method as the bias for all samples remains consistently at (-20-25%).

MAPEP Series 21 samples contained both Am-241 and Pu-239/240 and were reported with-22.0% and -23.2% biases. Continued problems with environmental transuranic analysis required a new Condition Report. This CR was closed and further investigation into the negative bias will be documented in CR 09-33.FAADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-33 TABLE 13 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY CONDITION REPORT (CR) STATUS JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 (Continued)

CR# ~INITIATION CLOSE-OUTz DESCRIPTION 4STATUS AS OF 113/0~ ~ DATE, .~DATE~ __________

__________________________

CLOSED -The MAPEP AP filter was counted 3 times on the same gamma detector.

Background spectra, with and without a sample holder were reviewed and no Co-60 was detected.

All 3 counts of the MAPEP filter identified the 1173 peak and 2 identified the 1332 peak. The root cause appears to be the low uncertainty reported by the E-LAB. Only one of 42 other Labs MAPEP Series 19 Co-60 reported a lower uncertainty than AREVA, and this Lab also on a filter fell into the not failed the test. The distribution of results reported by the CR 08-39 18-Nov-08 26-Mar-09 acceptable category due various participants showed that ten Labs reported results to reporting a false between 0.02 and 0.03 Bq, the highest frequency.

However, positive result. the uncertainties reported by these Labs were sufficiently large that they passed the false positive test. Since the distribution of reported results centers roughly around the value reported by the E-Lab, and since Co-57 was also present on the filter at a concentration of 1.5 Bq, it appears that the source of the Co-60 found on the filter could be a contaminant in the Co-57 source used rather than contamination obtained at the E-LAB.CLOSED -The root cause of this QC failure was not MAPEP Series 19 Sr-90 determined conclusively.

It appears that a low-level in soil was a false contaminant bled through the separation columns on only one positive test. No result of the strontium-90 samples and due to the low activity level, CR 08-40 18-Nov-08 21-Dec-09 was reported by the cannot be positively identified.

The second analysis result was CR 08-40 1p ed the within the acceptance criteria of the MAPEP program as a false AREVA Lab due to inconsistent results positive check. However, due to the inconsistency, neither (positive and negative), value could be reported.

The previous MAPEP test, series 18, had a successful Sr-90 in soil test with a bias of -7.3% and the subsequent MAPEP test, series 20, had a bias of -2.7%.CLOSED -A new chemist, recently trained to perform sample Gamma spectrometry preparation did not specify the correct geometry in LIMS. This results generated using chemist also performed the gamma spectrometry analyses and CR 08-41 26-Nov-08 26-Mar-09 incorrect efficiency files did not identify the error. All affected results were updated and were reported to three reissued.

The chemist was counseled and retrained on proper customers, geometry selection.

Finally, the software was revised to make it easier for a reviewer to identify similar errors.CLOSED -The filter was retrieved prior to disposal in its original One client AP sample bag which was inside a larger bag containing empty filter bags from another client. A designated storage area for air filters and in the trashi other small samples separate from the sample preparation area was established.

The sample control staff was counseled concerning proper sample handling.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-34 TABLE 13 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY CONDITION REPORT (CR) STATUS JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 (Continued)

CR 08-43 17-Dec-08 07-Jul-09 U-232 tracer verification, YA942324-A was outside the limits of Procedure 730.CLOSED -The U-232 tracer was assigned the original certificate value, not the concentration obtained from the verification analysis.

The LIMS data were reviewed to ensure that the correct tracer concentration was recorded.

Procedures 720 and 730 were revised to allow for broader verification limits for tracers requiring radiochemical processing as part of the verification.

No client results required updating since recalculation of analysis results for the change in the tracer known value would result in a change in the reported value of less than 1/3 of the acceptance criteria for the analysis.

A similar situation for Th-229 tracer, discovered during the investiqation of this CR was similarly corrected.

CLOSED -No errors were identified with either the chemistry data or the source certificates.

The cause of the failure was investigated in conjunction with CR 09-04, which involved Fourth Qtr 2008 P61 Fe- another process check failure for Fe-55. No definitive cause for 55 Process Checks failed the failures was determined.

In order to ensure accuracy of CR 09-02 20-Jan-09 07-Aug-09 Manual 100 criteria for client results, the senior radiochemist is performing Fe-55 precision analyses for all Part 50 and Part 61 samples. The process will be closely monitored to see if any procedural steps need enhancement.

In addition, an Fe-55 spike will continue to be processed with each batch of samples.CLOSED -The samples were reprocessed from the container Ql-2009 Fe-55 P61 PC submitted for the process checks and from the master stock CR 09-04 18-Feb-09 25-Aug-09 failed with high bias. solution.

Both sets passed the Manual 100 accuracy criterion.

Corrective actions are the same as those documented for CR 09-02.The gross beta count rates for a few environmental water CLOSED -Based upon the analysis of six duplicate samples, samples were measured the omission of Step B.2.g did not have a significant effect on to be higher than expected.

Recounts of the gross beta activity determination.

Procedure 320 was these samples over a 24 revised to add a hold time between sample preparation and CR 09-06 24-Mar-09 14-Apr-09 hour period showed a analysis and to clarify the use of a desiccator to store the significant decrease in samples. No change was made to the requirement to dry the the gross beta count samples in the oven (Step B.2.g). Analysts were retrained on rathes forsomessbeampl Procedure 320 and the necessity of adhering to the written rates for some samples,.

rcdrs A review of Procedure procedures.

320 revealed that Step B.2.g was not performed.

CLOSED -The spreadsheet was revised, documented, and a Ra-224 decay correction V&V was performed, to allow for Ra-224 decay using this CR 09-10 11-May-09 08-Jul-09 sample collection to option. E-Lab radium procedures were revised to incorporate sadiumple cltion stop this Ra-224 decay correction, and worksheets were revised to radium separation step allow chemists to record the radium separation time.F-\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-35 TABLE 13 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY CONDITION REPORT,(CR)

STATUS JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 (Continued)

DECITION STTSAS OF 12/31109k Ra-228 samples have precipitate which may be causing unusual matrix spike results and incorrect recovery values CLOSED -E-Lab Procedure 305 was revised to incorporate additional steps, if required, to allow the Chemist to perform and document changes or additional steps taken to dissolve the solids.MAPEP Series 20 Pu-238 and Pu-239/240 on a filter fell into the warning category with mean biases of -20.9% and -20.6%, respectively.

OPEN -The MAPEP Series 21 filter was processed by the Part6l chemist with acceptable results. The apparent cause of the Series 20 failure is a small container of tracer, stored in the environmental chemistry lab., that may have concentrated over time. To verify this, an aliquot of MAPEP 21 water (which also showed a low bias for Pu) is being reanalyzed in the environmental chemistry lab., using the Part 61 tracer. There is no impact on client results, as the E-Lab does not process any environmental samples for transuranic analysis.MAPEP Series 20 Am-241 in water fell into the waming category with a mean bias of -20.4%.OPEN -The apparent cause of the Series 20 failure is a small container of tracer, stored in the environmental chemistry lab., that may have concentrated over time. To verify this, an aliquot of MAPEP 21 water (which also showed a low bias for Am-241)is being reanalyzed in the environmental chemistry lab., using the Part 61 tracer. There is no impact on client results, as the E-Lab does not process any environmental samples for transuranic analysis.MAPEP Series 20 Gamma in soil fell into the warning and "not acceptable" categories with mean biases for several nuclides ranging from +24% to +31%.CLOSED -It was determined that, due to the extremely fine nature of the soil particles, the material settled over time to a more compact geometry than the calibration height. A recount of the sample with additional soil added to reach the calibrated geometry produced results that were within 10% of the MAPEP values for all nuclides.

The sample preparation technician was trained on techniques specific to soil samples with very fine granules.Gamma spectrometry analysis reports sent out with incorrect sample receipt date.CLOSED -Review of the analysis report code revealed that the sample receipt date on the report was pulled from the sample reference date field in the LIMS database.

Further review confirmed that all other data was correct. This incorrect database link occurred during a revision to the report. The analysis report has been revised and all affected reports were updated and sent to clients.'

The QA officer counseled the programmer and the reviewer on the importance of verifying the accuracy of all data appearing on a report, form, or screen, whenever a change is made, in accordance with Procedure 600.F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-36 TABLE 13 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY CONDITION REPORT (CR) STATUS JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 (Continued)

CR 09-18 30-Jun-09 21-Dec-09 Discrepancies in Procedure 365 CLOSED -Fe-55 and Ni-63 weight and recovery calculations were performed differently depending on whether the LIMS calculations were used or the worksheet was used. The discrepancy is a result of accounting for the recovery aliquot in two different, but equally valid ways. There is no impact on customer results since the final calculated concentrations of Fe-55 and Ni-63 are the same using both methods. For clarity, the calculations were removed from the worksheet.

CLOSED -The same chemist prepared the second quarter cross-check samples for gross alpha analysis while being First Qtr 2009 Analytics observed by a senior chemist. The second quarter results were environmental water -3.2% from the known value. The senior chemist observed the CR 09-21 20-Jul-09 29-Dec-09 cross-check failed processing chemist prepare another aliquot of the first qtr.Manual 100 accuracy cross-check water and also the third qtr. samples. The gross criteria for gross alpha alpha reanalysis results showed biases within Manual 100 analysis.

criteria.

Corrective actions included instructing the processing chemist to take her time and increase the rinses and policing performed for gross alpha\beta analysis of water samples.CLOSED -The "TPU 1-Sigma" heading on the report was inappropriately changed to "TPU 2-Sigma" for some clients during the last revision of the analysis report routine. The incorrect TPU header occurred because the programmer didn't Typographical error realize that the analysis reports include the TPU results identified on calculated at 1-sigma despite the counting uncertainty value CR 09-22 23-Jul-09 17-Nov-09 environmental gamma requested by the customer.

Originally, the V&V of the revision spectrometry analysis to the report did not consist of a test of all of the special cases report. of the report. All affected clients were contacted; and updated reports were issued. Procedure 600 was revised to require that all permutations of a revised software product are tested: In addition, the testing must be reviewed by two independent people who are knowledgeable of the required specifications.

OPEN -One action item resulting from Internal Assessment 08-02, on Source Preparation, remains open. The verification Corrective Actions from attempt on the Th-230 secondary standard 9414-C was outside CorItiverl Athe Procedure 720 criterion.

A new standard was received from CR, 02 1-grnal A entra08n NIST and has been verified.

The old standard was used only to prepare matrix spikes and control spikes for select clients. The impact of using this source after the verification due date is being evaluated.

FAA~DMlN\C0RRES\EL 034- 3 37 TABLE 13 AREVA NP ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY CONDITION REPORT (CR) STATUS JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 (Continued)

~W4A~ ~ (OPLt4) (L8Q CR# INITIATION.

CLOSE-OU~T DESCRIPTIONST USAOF13/0 DATE__ 4DAT E _______ _______________

OPEN -The AREVA IS department immediately limited access to "read-only" for all but a limited number of employees During the 2009 designated by the Lab Manager. Procedure and manual files in EXELON audit, the E- the E-Lab library directory were compared to those stored in the Lab file server directory corporate document storage system. All of the documents in CR 09-26 13-Aug-09 containing E-Lab the E-Lab library directory were identical to the controlled manuals and procedures copies in the corporate system, for the items compared.

Other did not have security directories requiring security controls were identified and set to controls "read-only".

The E-Lab has monitored these directories to assure that controls remain in place, and will continue to monitor them quarterly.

This CR is ready to close.CLOSED -The root cause of the missed five-year review was that it was never added to the "Next Review Date" index for procedures.

This is a second index maintained in addition to The five-year review for regular procedure index. The "Next Review Date" indices were Procedure 466 was eliminated, and the Procedure and Manual indices were revised CR 09-28 02-Oct-09 22-Dec-09 missed and the Manual to allow sorting by "Next Review Date". The project Index listed the wrong administrator was counseled on the requirement to make sure revision for Manual 100. that all dates are updated when issuing a revised procedure or manual index. In addition, Procedure 010, was revised to incorporate all of the steps required to revise and issue a procedure or manual.OPEN -The reference date used to calculate the 1 8I Quarter First quarter Analytics Analytics Environmental cross-check samples was in error by environmental cross- one day. There is no impact on client results, as the changes in CR 09-29 22-Oct-09 check reference date was concentrations are not sufficient to cause any of the analyses to in error by one day. fail the Manual 100 accuracy criteria.

All results are being updated, however, and are discussed in the 2009 annual quality assurance report.OPEN -The apparent causes were determined to be an Client EDD file had unsatisfactory turnaround time for independent review of the CR 09-30 22-Oct-09 incorrect sample receipt completed receipt paperwork, and lack of management date notification of the error so that it could be corrected on the analysis report and in the EDD. Corrective actions are pending.One of 5 gamma OPEN -A single spiked water sample, containing 3 qualification samples radionuclides, was used as a gamma instrumentation.

CR 09-31 30-NOV-09 failed Manual 100 qualification sample. The sample was counted five times, and accuracy criteria for all 3 the results of one count failed the Manual 100 accuracy criteria nuclides for all three nuclides.

The reason for the failure is under investigation.

OPEN -The client sample in question was an analytical blank.A review of all projects requiring batch QC was performed.

The 21-Dec-09 H-3 MDC for one client required MDCs for the blanks were not listed on the analysis sample not <400pCi/L reports for all projects, however, the analysis reports do not need to be updated as the required MDCs were met for the blanks. Corrective actions are pending.FAADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-38 TABLE 14 UPDATED ,INSTRUMENTATION/ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES RELEVANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETRY ISSUED DURING JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 120 Sample Storage and Accountability 20 09/30/09 vIUdltwu UIjjv~aI UI Uz,-i~ftI1 LU P1CXLW Part 50 sample disposal under LIMS control. Added verification of disposal methods by CHO/Haz Waste personnel.

Clarified storage of Part 50/61 liquid scintillation vials. Deleted sewerage disposal ootion. Added a reference.

Minor editorial changes. Slight changes Preparation of to order of steps for ease of processing.

Environmental and Eliminated duplication in several 305 Bioassay Media for 24 08/10/09 sections.

Added a new 0.5 L Marinelli Analysis of beaker geometry.

Updated Ra-228 Gamma Ray Emitters preparation and counting sections for CR 09-11.Preparation and Analysis of Environmental Water Minor editorial changes. Added ability to 320 and 27 .09/15/09 modify non-EPA drinking water hold Soil/Sediment/Sludge times if a client requested it and Samples for Gross management approved.Alpha and/or Gross Beta Radioactivity TheIDetermination o Minor editorial changes. Section A.1 Envirnmeintal MVegetation

/Food Crops sample 340 Environmental Media 11/30/09 preparation steps were revised to Using Anion incorporate enhancements made to the Exchange madectouthe Chromatography procedure.

Reagents section: 15. Nickel carrier -replaced "preparation of' with The Determination of "commercially available solution".

5 5 Fe, 6 3 Ni, 8 9'9 0 Sr, 24. Strontium tracer values were 2 4 1 Am, 2 4 2 cm, changed from "5,000 -10,000 dpm/ml," 365 2 4 3 1 2 4 4 Cm and 2 3 8 pu, 16 11/25/09 to "5,000 -20,000 dpm/mL". The sample 2 3 9/2 4 0 pu, 2 4 1 pu in fraction volume taken for ICP analysis Environmental and was clarified for Fe-55 and Ni-63.Bioassay Matrices Weight notations in the procedure and FORMS were deleted to conform to the LIMS process.FAADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-10 39 TABLE 14 UPDATED INSTRUMENTATIONIANALYTICAL PROCEDURES RELEVANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETRY ISSUED DURING JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 (Continued) 368 The Determination of Sr-89,90 in Environmental Media Via Cerenkov Counting 13 11/20/09 Changed iM HNUJ to 8M as necessary in various sections of the procedure.

Changed the amount of 3% EDTA nnse solution to 10OOmL for a 2000g milk sample. The soil method (Strong Acid Leach) section of the procedure was changed to reflect the method that elicits the best recovery for a majority of the soil samples routinely processed.

The flow chart was corrected to reflect procedural chanaes.Precaution number 5 in the previous revision erroneously stated that Ra-224 may be in equilibrium with Th232. This The Determination of revision corrects "Th-232" to "Th-228" as 382 Radium Isotopes .In 5 07/10/09 this is the correct parent\daughter Bioassay Matrices equilibrium condition for Ra-224. No changes were required of the software as the decay correction calculation correctly uses the Th-228 half-life.

Precaution number 5 in the previous revision erroneously stated that Ra-224 The Determination of may bein equilibrium with Th232. This Radium Isotopes in revision corrects "Th-232" to "Th-228" as 385 Environmental 8 07/10/09 this is the correct parent\daughter Matrices by Alpha equilibrium condition for Ra-224. No Spectrometry changes were required of the software as the decay correction calculation correctly uses the Th-228 half-life.

Precaution number 5 in the previous The Sequential revision erroneously stated that Ra-224 Determination of may be in equilibrium with Th232. This Isotopic Uranium, revision corrects "Th-232" to "Th-228" as 395 Thorium and Radium 5 07/10/09 this is the correct parent\daughter in Environmental equilibrium condition for Ra-224. No Matrices by Alpha changes were required of the software as, Spectrometry the decay correction calculation correctly uses the Th-228 half-life.

Operation and Calibration of the Revised to add the correct AREVA NP 430 Beta-Gamma 15 05/25/09 Protection of Proprietary Information Coincidence Units for statement.

1-131 Development, Step E.7 was revised to require the 600 Documentation, 13 11/02/09 analyst to ensure that all possible Verification, and permutations of the end product are Validation of tested, and to require that two F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-40 TABLE 14 UPDATED INSTRUMENTATION/ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES RELEVANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETRY ISSUED DURING JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 (Continued)

If IU'VJI IUtI It JIJI I IVIUWI yUV1UIU U0 the required specifications review the V&V. Quality impact: This change will significantly improve the V&V process.Minor editorial changes. Added a 692 Report Generation 4 09/29/09 reference.

Added a description of Using LIMS sample disposal reports.Modified the equipment history section to permit use of a FORM or logbook.Quality Control of Modified the FORM for ease of use.710 Laboratory 20 08/06/09 Added dosimetry references and Instrumentation descriptions of calibration, QC and maintenance.

Updated the liquid scintillation background statements.

Reformatted the entire procedure for ease of use. Added a reference for Beta-Gamma counter QC. Modified the Beta-715 Preparation of 21 07/14/09 Gamma QC limit to 6% based on the Tolerance Charts newly added Reference.

Specified that the 1-sigma value be compared to the 1% value for nuclear instruments.

Verification criteria for radioactive standards and source matrices were Preparation of revised. Source verification forms were Radioactive added to enable better documentation of 720 Standards and 21 06/18/09 prepared sources. Process check Source Matrices solutions with the exception of C-14 shall be valid for two years. Quality impact: enhanced due to non-ambiguity and better documentation.

Preparation and Verification criteria for stable carriers and 730 Verification of 23 06/15/09 radiotracers were revised to ensure Carriers and consistency with procedure 720.Radiotracers cstyiper7 758 Good Laboratory 0 07/07/09 New procedure created.Practices Guidelines for Revised the procedure to reflect the new deionized water systems installed in the 765 Maintaining the ELGA 4 05/18/09 environmental

& part 50/61 lab areas.MEsteCs 1Quality Impact: enhanced due to state of Systems the art water quality.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-41 TABLE 14 UPDATED INSTRUMENTATION/ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES RELEVANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETRY ISSUED DURING JANUARY -DECEMBER 2009 (Continued)

Laboratory Quality Assurance and Control Programs 770 4 09/29/09 UuPII~dLa 51arnpie suUmlIaI bWps were added to indicate when duplicate samples should be analyzed at the same time as the reference samples. Sample preparation steps were added for MAPEP soil and vegetation samples. A step was added to require that internal assessment reports be issued within 30 days of completion of the assessment.

A step was added to define internal assessment findings and recommendations and require that findings be documented in a Condition Report. Quality impact: Improved quality through timely documentation of assessment findings and recommendations.

Several steps were added to make the Laboratory Batch procedure flow better. Flexibility to start 790 Quality Control h0316/09 sample analyses prior to creation of the Handling batch QC samples, with management approval, was added. Unnecessary sections of FORM 790.2 were deleted.Calibration of the A precaution was added to allow a grace 1014 Panasonic UD-710A 12 11/03/09 period of +/-33% to the calibration TLD Reader periodicity requirement.

Daily Quality Control A step was added to require that the 1030 the Panasonic 11 11/03/09 room temperature and humidity be UD-710A TLD recorded in the logbook each day the Reader instrument is used.Re-e -F:XADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-42 APPENDIX A INTER/INTRA-LABORATORY, ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ANALYTICS, DOE, AND ERA/ELAP QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM RESULTS FAADMtN\CORRES\EL 034-10 A-1 2008 -2009 Environmental Am-241 Accuracy Results for Alpha Spectrometry 35 _25 -15 A-5-15A-35F ------ T- ---35 1 -n- _Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 SeD-08... ...... .....A PC* MAFEP Zero--- L De-~ ~ -- ----- ------Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Ill e ....... .r _v Date CR-09-13 was issued to investigate these negative biases.F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-2 2008 -2009 Environmental Am-241 Accuracy Results for Gamma Spectrometry 35-25-15-A'I)0 5-5 A A PC Zero Control lirrits-15-25-A-35 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Date Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 F:VADMIN\CORRESTEL 034 A-3 2008 -2009 Environmental Ba-133 Accuracy Results 40 30 20 U)10 0 7~A A PC* ELAP Zero--Control limits A AA-10-20-30 A-40 -Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Date F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-4 2008 -2009 Environmental C-14 Accuracy Results U)35 25 15 5-5-15-25 A FPC Zero__ -Control linits A-35 --Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Date Sep-09 Dec-09 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-5 2008 -2009 Environmental Ce-141 Accuracy Results (U 30 20 10 0-10-20-30 Jar 2-A -A Ak A A A A 4 iI7 rA I~~ -A PC.0 Analytics!

Zero-Control in -its n-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Analysis Date Dec-09 F:ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-6 2008 -2009 Environmental Charcoal Filter Accuracy Results 35 25 15 I A A.A U)ro 0 5--5-15-A PC S Analytics--_ Zero--Control limits A AI A 1 0 A A k A AAA 4 A~A A A A-251-35 -Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Date All 2008 charcoal results originally reported without the application of summing corrections were updated in accordance with CR 08-23. The graph reflects the updated data.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-7 2008 -2009 Environmental Co-57 Accuracy Results 30 -- .- ---.. .... .20i--I l O 10d 04-10-201 U.I a A PC U MAAPEP--_ Zero-- -Control.nimits U .1 U U I a Ir 411 M A S- m -i- ----------------------- Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Analysis Date Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-8 30 20 10 0-10-20-30 Ja 2008 -2009 Environmental Co-58 Accuracy Results 4i S AA0'* eA* 6 A PC 0 Analytic Zero--- Control linits)U.S A A S U'I 4 F V A AAA A-nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn-mm-mA

-!A n-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Analysis Date*Apr-09 Jul-09 Dec-09 Oct-09 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-9 2008 -2009 Environmental Co-60 Accuracy Results 60 A PC 40 2 Analytics 20 2-f -Z m~ 4L ..46* &&.Zero Q -- -- Control linits-K ELAP-60 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Analysis Date F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-10 2008 -2009 Environmental Cr-51 Accuracy Results 30~20L ---A 10 to 0 A (A A 1 A-101-20 ...-30 ..............-

Jan-08 Apr-08 Ai 14b S 0 00 S S A PC* Analytics Zero--- Control Units A I U -1~S S I 0 S S.S Jul-08 Oct 4 a;:----08 Apr-09 Jul-09 Dec-09 Jan-09 Analysis Date Oct-09 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-1 1 2008 -2009 Environmental Cs-134 Accuracy Results 40 ------ --30 (h/U 10 0-10-20 jp X ~AAi 0 2~ A A PC'

• Analytics U MAFEP Zero--- Control., limits"0 ELAP-09 J*-30 40 Dec-07 Mar-08 Sep-09 Dec Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Analysis Date FAADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-12 2008- 2009 Environmental Cs-I 37 Accuracy Results 40 -.......30 & PC 20- ---------0 Analyticsi 10~ a. m= MAPEP 0U U ,- Al .- Zero~-10~ ~ At*A- Control-20 --------lirrits 30. ELAP-30 .J(" ---Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Analysis Date CR-09-14 was issued to investigate the positive biases in the MAPEP soil sample.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034'A-13 2008 -2009 Environmental Fe-55 Accuracy Results (A (U 0 35 -25 s F 15-5-15 __-25 D--Dec-0M--------------------

A NA A PC U MAPEP Zero-. -Control lirnits T A 4 7 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Date Sep-09 Dec-09 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-14 2008 -2009 Environmental Fe-59 Accuracy Results 30 10 ... .... .U) A4 A A 2o 0 -- -00 A-10-20 K ....-30 -Jan-08 Apr-08 A 0 T S S S 0* a s m imnu m 0 S a S S S a-A PC 0 Analytics Zero--- Control__rnits Ak 0-S 0 0 L-Jul-08 F -~ -- ----Oct-08 Jan-09 Analysis Date Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-15 2008 -2009 Environmental Gross Alpha Filter Accuracy Results 35 ..............

... .....1 I 151 A.. -5A I l.-I t..5-25 ---35 ------- --- .Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Date 0 Analytics' Zero----- Control lirrits F:ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-16 2008 -2009 Environmental Gross Alpha Water Accuracy Results 60 40 J 20--mmm mm mm mm m m --------------------m n ml mm m-ii cn'U 1A A* A A S A& PC* Analytics* ELAP Zero--- Control lirmits-p --it-20-40 -1 I A 0 S S S+1 A A-60-F F--T Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09_ _ Date The percent difference of the mean value from the known value exceeded the Manual 100 criterion for accuracy for one set of Analytics samples. CR 09-21 was issued to investigate the failure.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-17 2008 -2009 Environmental Gross Beta Filter Accuracy Results 35 ----25 (n 15S*A A A 5 A-15-15 A ,PC* Analytics Zero.-- Control liits,-25-35 -T Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Date Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 F:\ADMINXCORRES\EL 034Ai8 A-1 8 2008 -2009 Environmental Gross Beta Water Accuracy Results 40 20-20-40-60.1 Dec-07 Mar-08 AAS* A A A AA A A PC 0 Analytics.* ELAP Zero-=- Control limits A U -S 0 I I t Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Date Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 FAADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-19 2008 -2009 Environmental H-3 Accuracy Results 0)40 30 20 --10 .A XI 0- A A-10 A A-20 ---30-40 -- ..Dec-07 A A A A A U Analytics MAAPEP Zero Control linits ELAP AA Al= --= -- A =AA AA i ep-09 Dec-09 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 S Analysis Date F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-20 2008 -2009 Low Level Environmental H-3 Accuracy Results 40 30 20~10- 4 X~A PC* Analytics A CA MG A A a MAI-tr A A UI-10-20-30-40-1 A A A ,,A A*AA A p A A A A A Zero=-= --- nl r-ntr01V limits)K ELAP Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Analysis Date F:AADMINCORRES\EL 034 A-21 2008 -2009 Environ mental 1-131 Accuracy Results for Gamma Spectrometry 40-30 20-10-0-10 7 5 S n m m m 0 =0 , FPC S Analy I Zero~tics,'A'U ID 0 0 0 U S* I I-20 -1 A S S I E.A S Control linits-30-40 -Dec-07 I q Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Analysis Date Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Two individual Analytics results fell outside the accuracy criterion.

No investigation was necessary per Manual 100 F:'ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-22 2008 -2009 Low Level Environmental 1-131 Accuracy Results 40 30 20 10 d'U!A PC* Analytics* MAPEP Zero-,- Control lirmits Xs ELAP-10 --20-30 AI ,am,0 a A S--A 0 S U 0 a A*A 0-40 1--...Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Analysis Date Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 F:AADMIN\CORRESTEL 034 A-23 2008 -2009 Environmental K-40 Accuracy Results 35 , 25 15* U U U U U)(M iI 52* MAPEP Zero Control imnits-5-15-25-35 --'Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Date CR-09-14 was issued to investigate the positive biases in the MAPEP soil sample.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-24 2008 -2009 Environmental Mn-54 Accuracy Results 30 20 -I -.10-1!....'m m m m A A A A A4A I.S S S S U m m U.II A A PC* Analytics* MAPEP Zero-- ,- Control limits UI-Wu -*jA-A A-10 I 0 9 1 OPW-30, Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 i m m m--m- -m.m- -------m t I Oct-08 Jan-09 Analysis Date Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 CR-09-14 was issued to investigate the positive biases in the MAPEP soil sample.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-25 2008 -2009 Environmental Ni-63 Accuracy Results 35 --- --_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---.-. -- .---_ _ __ ___ __25-2 15 51 A 0u A A-5 1-15 I--I--25 A PC* MAPEP Zero--- Control limits-35 1 --Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08.... .....- ... ....F ....--- -.. ... .....- .... .Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Date Sep-09 Dec-09 F:\ADMIN\CORRESXEL 034 A-26 2008 -2009 Environmental Pu-238 Accuracy Results 30 20 i 10 (n 0-10 M A PC* MAPEP Zero-- -Control linits-20--30 -I U"U------------------------------

2 I-40 .. .Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08-- -T- -rl Dec-08 Mar-09 Date Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 CR-09-12 was issued to investigate these negative biases.F:ýADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-27 2008 -2009 Environmental Pu-239 Accuracy Results 30 20 1 ................- ---C', (U 10 0-10-20-30 A U PC MAPEP f U !:-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Zero-_ -Control linits-40 --I Dec Date CR-09-12 was issued to investigate these negative biases.F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-28 2008 -2009 Environmental Ra-226 Accuracy Results----------------------U,'U 35 25-15 5-5-15--25-A A A A A PC Zero-,- Control lirmits-35 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08_-'-Dec-08 Date Mar-09--Jun-09 Dec-09 Sep-09 F:AADMIN\CORRESXEL 034 A-29 2008 -2009 Environmental Ra-228 Accuracy Results 35 '-...25!15 .I APC Mn i A-5 J-151--25-35 --Dec-07 k Zero-=- Control limits M-09 Jun0 -S -D-----------0--

Mar-09 Jun-0.9 Sep-09 Dec-09 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Date F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-30 2008 -2009 Environmental Sr-89 Accuracy Results 60 40 20 -CO n3-. p 0 Analytics Zero--- Control lirrits 0-20-40-60.-80 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun** 8 t S 5:-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Date Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-31 2008 -2009 Environmental Sr-90 Accuracy Results 60 40 20 0-20 0 0 0 U m (n w U A PC 0 AnalyticE m ZAPEP S -,Zero I S~i4 0 0 I 171 It A-40-60-m n Control imnits-80 1-i-Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 Analysis Date F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-32 2008 -2009 Environmental Tc-99 Accuracy Results 35 25 d 15-7--------------------

m- mm --m m-a m m im 0 MAPEP Zero-i Control limits-5 U U-15 --25 m i i i m-35 Dec-07 Mar-08 J Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Date Mar-09 II I Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-33 2008 -.2009 Environmental Th-230 Accuracy Results 35 25-15 -5 -i!A A A A PC Zero--- Control lirrits-15 A-25 1-35 1- .Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Date Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-34 2008 -2009 Environmental U-234 Accuracy Results 35-25 4 Inl 15 5--5 -A.A A A m A P A U -A-15-* IMAPEP Zero--Control lirrits Sep-09 Dec-09-25 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Date Mar-09 Jun-09 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-35 2008 -2009 Environmental U-238 Accuracy Results 35 252 15- A A A1 m---------------iA-

--m A A U A .(n m F0 IO 5--5 A PC m MVIAPEP Zero.-Control lirrits A-151-25-35 , Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Date Sep-09 Dec-09 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-36 2008 -2009 Environmental Zn-65 Accuracy Results 60 --A PC 401 2 Analytics 20 IM A Zero--- Control linmits-40 K ELAP-60 -..Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Analysis Date CR-09-14 was issued to investigate the positive biases in the MAPEP soil sample.F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 A-37 APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETRY QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM RESULTS F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034-10 B-1 2008 -2009 Environmental TLD Individual Accuracy Results 25 15--------------

A A 0 A m1, A (U M 5-5 A PC 0 Battelle Zero-" Control limits-15-25 4---Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Read Date Jul-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 F:\ADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 B-2 2008 -2009 Environmental TLD Individual Precision Results 25 15 A PC 0 Battelle Zero C 0 5-5 m m Control limits-15-25 1-Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Read Date Jul-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 F:XADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 B-3 2008 -2009 Environmental TLD Mean Accuracy Results 25 -- ------ -------_ -----A= PC 15 I A Battelle A A 5 A A & A A A A A A A AA CO x Zero-5A A-5--- Control-15 limits-25 Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 Analysis Date F:AADMIN\CORRES\EL 034 B-4