ML15244A315
| ML15244A315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1987 |
| From: | Pastis H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709300088 | |
| Download: ML15244A315 (4) | |
Text
Docket Nos.:
50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President SEP 23 987 Nuclear Production Department Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Subject:
Elevated Levels of Radiocesiums in the Environment -
Request for Additional Information
Reference:
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 In a July 10, 1986 report, the staff reviewed the information you sent on elevated levels of radiocesiums in the environment around the Oconee Nuclear Power Plant. Three principal concerns were identified in the report. By letter dated April 17, 1987 you sent information responding to the report.
Region II has asked us to review your April 17, 1987 submittal.
To complete our review of these issues, we will need the information identi fied in the Enclosure. Please respond to this request for additional information within 45 days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely, Helen N. Pastis, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page NRC Local PDR PRC System PD#23 Reading MDuncan HPastis ACRS (10) j4y oq B79 ACRS(10)PDR ADOCK 05000269 OGC-Bethesda JPartlow EJordan SVa a/GLainas 3/DRP-I/II PD#-
DRP-I/II PD#II RP-I/II a
s/
Mb KJabbour, Acting PD 09/ RV87 09/
3 /87 09/OJ /87
Mr. H. B. Tucker Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Power Company Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cc:
Mr. A. V. Carr, Esq.
Mr. Paul Guill Duke Power Company Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 Post.Office Box 33189 422 South ChurchStreet 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
- 0. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
REVIEW OF DUKE POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF REPORT ON ELEVATED LEVELS OF RADIOCESIUMS IN THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND THE OCONEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- 1. As stated on page 1 of Ref.1, Duke Power Company (DPC) has monitored groundwater at the Oconee Nuclear Power Plant, although the plants Techni cal Specifications do not require such monitoring. Accordingly, DPC submitted some groundwater sampling data (Attachment 2 of Ref. 1) which show that migration from the chemical treatment ponds is not significant.
Since the data do not cover all of the years that the Oconee Nuclear.Power Plant has operated, confirm that Attachment 2 of Ref. 1 lists the princi pal groundwater sampling data obtained by DPC, or, if appropriate, state that data for the years prior to 1985 would still lead to the same conclu sion (i.e., migration of radionuclides from the chemical treatment ponds would not lead to exposure of a member of the public to a large fraction of the annual dose design objectives). If there are other data that would lead to a different conclusion, then provide such data.
- 2. Attachments 8 and 10 of Ref. 1 compare estimated concentrations of Cs-134 and Cs-137, respectively, in fish with the mean measured concentrations over the years 1976 through 1985. Supposedly, these attachments provide evidence that use of Oconee's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM),
which is based on the Regulatory Guide 1.109 model (hereinafter referred to as the RG model), is more likely to lead to overestimates of radiocesiums in fish rather than underestimates. However, the comparisons of the RG calculated concentrations with the mean measured values at large distances from the plant may not be valid if realistic dilution factors were not used in the analysis. Since the location of the sampling sites changed over the years (from 4.2 miles south southeast of the plant (i.e.,
location #067) to 0.8 miles east southeast (i.e., location #063)), it would appear that any additional dilution provided by the receiving water body should be taken into account before comparing the mean values at one location with the ODCM estimated values. Presumably, the estimated concentrations of radiocesiums in fish would be higher at the plant discharge area than at location #067.
Based on the data contained in Tables 1 and 2 of Attachment 12, it does not appear that the additional dilution provided by the receiving water body was taken into account.
- a. Provide the additional dilution factors that were used in the subject calculations, or
- b. If the additional dilution of the receiving water body was not taken into account, then revise Attachments 8 and 10 accordingly.
Provide the basis for the estimates. The revised attachments should show ODCM estimated concentrations for each sampling location.
- 3. In view of DPC's response to Question 2, provide a basis for maintaining that the models in the ODCM are sufficiently conservative for predicting doses to individuals from fish consumption, or commit to revising the dose calculation models for consumption of fish. If DPC decides to revise the models, then provide a schedule for submitting the revised ODCM for NRC's review. In revising the ODCM, DPC should determine whether the models for consumption of fish need to be revised for any other radionuclides.
- 4. In regard to the chemical treatment ponds, DPC did not state whether the radioactive inventory limit on CTP-1 and CTP-2 is applicable to each pond, or the sum of the activities of both ponds. In addition, based on the descriptive material provided by DPC (see Ref. 1, pages 6 and 7), it is not clear that DPC includes radionuclides deposited in the pond as part of the pond inventory. Describe the method by which DPC keeps track of the total quantities of radionuclides in CTP-1 and CTP-2 to assure conformance with the inventory limits in TS 3.9.4. Compare the estimated quantities of radionuclides in each pond (i.e., in the water and in the sediment) with the inventory limits, and provide the basis for the estimates.
- 5. Provide similar estimates (and their basis) for CTP-3.
REFERENCES
- 1. Letter with 14 Attachments from Hal B. Tucker, Duke Power Company, to NRC, dated April 17, 1987.