ML19327B738

Responds to Re NRC Involvement in 1981 Spill of Radioactive Matl at Plant & Advises of Consideration of Enforcement Action Against Licensee

ML19327B738
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	11/01/1989
From:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Slaughter L HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML17056A402	List: ML19327B738 ML19327B739
References
NUDOCS 8911090324
Download: ML19327B738 (7)

Text

[n, i

..~

c..,...,....,%g fy n

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

o n

(

,i WASHINGTON, o, C. 20656 i

jf November 1, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

20515 i

Dear Congresswoman Slaughter:

I am responding.to your letter of September 21, 1989, regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) involvement in the 1981 spill of radioactive material at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 1.

You expressed concern because Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation allowed the condition to persist, uncorrected, since 1981..

i

'7; The NRC staff became fully alerted to the potential magnitude of the problem on August 21, 1989.

As a result of concern about the presence of the material and the length of time it had been

! allowed to remain in place, the staff dispatched an Augmented Inspection. Team (AIT) to the site from August 22 to 28, 1989, to review the' situation.

The AIT concluded in the enclosed inspec-tion report of October 2, 1989, that Niagara Mohawk had used the 225-foot elevation sub-basement of the radwaste building as a long-term liquid radioactive waste storage facility since July 1981. ' Niagara Mohawk has initiated efforts to decontaminate the 4

sub-basement and currently anticipates that cleanup activities will be completed'by March 1990.

You'also-expressed concern over NRC's oversight of the spill from i

1981 to the present.

As is the practice with other facilities, the NRC's Resident Inspector staff and region-based inspectors routinely inspect the facility.

However, it is impractical for

these inspectors to observe all activities that occur at the site.

In general, our resident inspectors spend a considerable portion

.of their time focusing on site operations and systems which have a direct-impact on reactor s:fety.

Since our inspections are directed toward the most safety-significant plant activities and systems on an auditeo basis, the NRC requires licensees to make timely notification to the NRC of certain events.

From our review of this matter, it has become apparent that, at various times, some members of our inspection staff were aware of the existence of some contamination in the 225-foot elevation sub-basement.

However, they were not aware of the magnitude of the problem.

Although the condition was an undesirable one, the AIT. inspection revealed that the radiological safety impact off site was negligible and worker exposures were within regulatory guidelines.

The space was locked and controlled to prevent N

81Uf7p3e f&

k

L 1,.

-2 b

unnecessary exposure to personnel working at the facility.

Accordingly, this was not a space that would be routinely visited by'our inspectors during their periodic tours of the site.

In hindsight, the condition in the sub-basement ir, something that should have been more vigorously pursued by the NRC.

Af ter evaluating the sub-basement condition, the NRC is con-sidering whether the licensee violated NRC regulations by failing to assess the acceptability and consequences of using the room as i

a liquid radwaste holding facility, and, if so, what enforcement action is appropriate.

We are also concerned that the licensee did not notify the NRC of'the situation that existed in the sub-basement.

As a result of the Nine Mile Point incident, the NRC staff sur-veyed all otner U.S. nuclear power facilities to determine if similar conditions existed.

Only one other situation was identified and it is currently under review.

Because of the

. isolated nature =of this incident and'its limited safety signifi-cance, NRC does not believe that any changes to current regulatory requirements'are necessary; however, we are in'the process of reviewing.our inspection procedures for appropriate modification.

'It is my view that our on-site inspectors need to periodically evaluate the utilization of various areas in nuclear power plants l

to detect changes in use which may not have been properly evaluated by the licensees.

1 I want to assure you that the Commission is concerned that the condition of'the Nine Mile Point'radwaste building had been allowed to persist and is considering enforcement action against I

the licensee.

We will send you a copy of any enforcement action L

taken on this matter.

Sincerely,

\\..k. k Kenneth M.

Carr 1'

?

Enclosure:

AIT Inspection Report 50-220/89-80 r

c.--,

p.

- ~

/g%,(G m

g UNITED STATES

[

j HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N

3 i

Is, f

REolON I t

***f 4M ALLENDALE ACAO s,

.g KING OF PRVsslA, PENNSYLVANIA 040a

c. w L

OC T 0 1 1983 Docket No.

50 220 L

License No.

DPR 63 EA No.

89 179 Wiagara Mohawk Power Corporation i

ATTN: Mr. Lawrence Burkhardt Ill Executive Vica President Nuclear Operations 301 Plainfield Road Syracuse, New. York 13212 Gentlemen:

Subject:

NRC Region 1 Auomented Inspection Team of the use of tfie Radwaste Building sub-(AIT) Inspection (50 220/89 80 basement as a long term liqui 1 waste retention facility at Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 This letter refers to the August 22-28, 1989, AIT review of the use of the 5

Unit 1 Radwaste Butiding sub basement as a long-term liquid waste retention facility. The AIT' inspection, led by W. Pascist of this off

. inspection, an exit interview was held with you and members of your staff to discuss the inspection findings. The Ali report is attached as Enclosure 1.

We are concerned that the sub basement was used as a liquid radwaste hold facility since July,1981, without adequate review of the acceptability or consequences of using the room in this manner.

defer decontamination of the sub basement, or of the decontamination anticipated.

Consistent with the telephone conversation betweet Mr. James Willis and myself on.0ctober 2,1989, we have arranged an enforcement conference for October 23 1989, at 11 a.m. in the Region l' office. At that enforcement conference, please be prepared to discuss your use of the

~

sub basement as a' long-term liquid radwaste holding facility without conducting u

an appropriate safety evaluation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59; and, your fL11ure to notify the NRC in accordance with the reporti 1

10 CFR 20.403 u

discuss any co. At the enforcement confarence, you should also be prepared to aggravating or mitigating circumstances of which the NRC should b L

Your cooperation with us is appreciated.

l',

Sincerely, kk l

L Malcolm R. Knap rector Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards l'

Enclosure:

NRC Region I Augmented Inspection Team Report No.

1 50 220/89 80

/

q

'g

.) '

a Niagara Mohawk Power Cbrporation 2

oc w/encls:

. J. Ddries, Pnsident C. Mangan, Senior Vice President L. harkhardt, III, Dcocutive Vice President J. Perry, Vias President Quality Assuranos, Nuclear J. Willis, General Station Superintendent C. hrry, Vice President Nuclear Engineerirq ard Licensing J. F.' Warden, New York Omsumar Prt:rtaction M Onnnor & Wettarhahn Troy B. Qannar, Jr., Dequizu Gary D. Wilscm, Senior Attorney John W. Faib, Esquire Director, Power Division, Departaant of Public Farvice, State of New York' Stata of New York, Dagm L.-6. of Iaw j

F. Scullin,- Jr., U.S. Attorney p

C. Benedict, Assistant U.S.' Attorney Licensing Project Manager, NRR i

Public Document Rocat (PGt).

Incal Public Document Rocza (IPGt)

L Nuclear Saf Information Centar (HSIC)

I' NRC Resident I'

' State of New York E l

l I'

N 1

(

'\\.

. _.. _.. -. - _ ~.- _ -..._,-..,,..- _.~.._.....,...--..... -...

_..-.. _._..__._,._,..~,_.

.m...._..,

I.

p.

[..

a

.f i

t 5

U.S. NUCTAR REGUIA7QW CDtESSICH REGICM I Repert No.

50-220/89-80 Docket No' 50-220 License No.

DPR-63 Licensee:

Niagara Pehawk Power Correration E Erie Br.nalevart:1 West Swicuse, New Yoric 13202 Facility Name: Nine Mile Point Unit 1 IrWdon At: Scriba; New York li----- Eion Conducted: Atanust 22-28, 1989 M

-d uwm:

L sin.lsy I

T. Opllins ChiefN. #d RSB, NRR Staf b"

nel 9/tt/g9 R. I4,--:L, Radiat1Dn PiMist, RI Data 1

l YJL A?

wa-R. Laura, int, RIRes2G-r. Ii, :--:-t, y

@ta/

Mile Po

?/

k

$fft.kf J. lae, Sr.

th Physicist,(NRR ptW 4 c::.--

[ _

9L j>y R. FEGs.

. Sr. Health Physig et, NRR Eaty Approved by:

m5 M/e[Bf W. FLsc2Ec, m Landar, Facilities Radiaticri Protecticra Secticri, RI

/Djeta TN

/$

h

i t

a

. 0 2

Insoection Summary:

Inspection conducted on August 22 28.1989 (Inspection Report 89 80)

Scope of Inspection:

of the licensee using the Radwaste Processing Building s

the history of use of the sub-basement, review of the radwaste equipment, identification of present radiological conditions of the room and contents, evaluation of onsite and offsite radiological safety consequences, and review of licensee's past and planned corrective actions.

Results:

used by the licensee as~ a liquid radioactive waste s since July,1981. The licensee's environmental monitoring program was reviewed and found to be adequate.

Split sample water analyses indicated r.o detectable leakage of sub-basement liquid to perimeter drains.

The radiological safety impact offsite was negligible and worker exposures were within reculatory guidelines. The licensee has initiated the construction of a robot to be used in the clean-up and decontamination of the 225' elevation sub-basement Two problems were~ identified as follows: the licensee 1

evaluations to assess the acceptability and cor.sequ(en)ces of using thedid n sub basement as a liquid radwaste helding facility; and c

NRC of flooding the sub basement, of the decision to defe(2)decontami atidid not no

-(Details, Section 4).the sub-basement, or of the costs and extent of decont r

n on of L

1 l'.

l

\\

\\

l i

\\

\\.

?

Details 1.0 Persons Contacted & Present at Exit t

1.1 Niacara Mohawk

• J. Endries, President

• L. Burkhardt Executive Vice President

• J. Willis, General Superintendent, Nuc. Generation

• K. Dahlberg, Station Superintendent, NMP1

'M. Colomb, huc. Reg. Compliance'Oirector

• R, Abbott, Station Superintendent, NMP2

• R. Remus, Superintendent, Chemistry & Radiological Management

• H. Master, III, Supervisor incident Investi

• W. Bandla, Assistant Operations Supervisor,gation NMP1 D. White, Compliance & Verification Tech.

• J. Aldrich, Special Assistant to NMP3 Supervisor

+

• R. Randall Operations Supervisor NMP1 y

• M. Dooley,, Regulatory Compliance,~

W. Hansen, Mgr..of QA Audits t

T. Newman, Supv. of QA Surveillance R.'Burtch, Jr.

Public Relations

• E. Gordon, Supe,rvisor Radiological Support 1

• J. Duell Su

• G. Browne,ll,pervisor Chem. & Radiochemistry Nuclear Regulatory Compliance L.

• E. Leach, Generation Specialist

• N. Spagnoletti

• C. Gerber, Supe,rvisor RadwasteManager Corporate Health Physics H. Wagner, Assistant Supervisor Radwaste 1.2 U.S. Nuclear Reoulatory Comission

• M. Knapp, Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, RI

• W. Pasciak, Chief, Facilities Radiation Protection Section, RI

• R. Loesch, Radiation Specialist, RI

• T. Collins, Section Chief, Sect. A RSS, NRR 1:

R. Pederson, Senior Health Ph NRR 1.

• R. Laura, Resident Inssector,ysicistNineNilePoint,RI W

J. Lee, Senior Health >hysicist, NRR.

• 8. Cook, Senior Resident Inspector, hine Mile Point, RI

• R. Temps, Resident inspector, Nine Mile Point, RI

• Denotes those individuals who attended the exit meeting on L

.a August 28, 1989.

The Mrp: tors also contacted other licensee personnel.

n L

f.

(.-

y i

yf,,

e f.'

4 e

2.0 Purpose The purpose of this augmented team inspection was to review and determ the following matters:

. Establish the circumstances under which the sub basement was flooded in 1981; Identify the present condition of the room, including radio 6ctive material. inventory, radiation and contamination levels, isotopic contents of the water and air and leakage paths:

Determine if the room has been used since its initial flooding for further material any of these use/ water storage' and the circumstances associated with 3

s; a

Assess the radiological impact of use of this room for water storage on plant workers and determine whether an evaluation per 10 CfR 50.59 had been performed to support use of th6 room for storage;-

]

Assess the offsite radiological impact of the use of this room for~

liquid waste storage;

]

Assess any radwaste system design or operational inadequacies identified; q

Assess the scope, extent and timeliness of the licensee's corrective actions; Determine if NRC was or should have been notified of this situation; i

Determine environmental monitoring adequacy; obtain independent i

measurements if possible; and, Determine if there are other places onsite where radwaste is being l-stored in an t.nalogous manner. is a copy of the Memorandum from W. Russell to M. Knapp o

establishing the Augmented Inspection Team and specifying the inspection L

objectives and scope.

L

- 3.0 Background I:

p.

3.1 Original Facility Design o.

Nine Mile Point Unit 1 became operational in 1969.

As originally designed, the Radwaste Processing Building, located on the east side of the Reactor Building, housed the storage and processing equipment i

,1 4

,f

.,....,, - _ _ _. _ _ _,. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _. _... ~... _ -,. - _ _ _

(;

t

. i h

L 5

r necessary to properly process, package and ship radioactive wastes generated during normal plant operations. Liquid wastes and their l

relateo storage tanks were segregated into the following five basic t.

categories:

l.

1 Low conductivity waste High conductivity,.

Waste Collector Tank non chemical waste High conductivity, Floor Drain Collector Tank A

che:tcal waste Wasta Neutralizina Tank

- Filter backwashes

. Spent resins Waste Building Fi}ter Sludge Tank Spent Resin Tank

~

through a Waste Collector Filter to remove suspe Waste Demineralizer to remove dissolved impurities.

The final purified water was sent'to one of two. Waste Sample Tanks to allow for-Storage Tank for recycling back to the reactor syste High conductivity wastes collected in the Floor Drain Collector Tank Drain Sample Tank.were filtered by a floor Drain Filter prior to storage After chemical analysis the wasta liquid was either discharged to the lake or further pro, cessed by the chemical waste system, s

High conductivity (chemical waste) from the Waste Neutralizing Tank consisted of liquid from the laboratories, decontamination operations and acid and caustic rinses that resulted from the regeneration of resins. Upon neutralization, the waste was sent to the #11' Waste Concentrator which concentrated the liquid through evaporation. Some i

liquid was evaporated after which it was condensed and recycled to the Waste Collector Tank.

processed through a Concentrated Waste TankThe concentrated " ev a Concentrated Waste Volume Tank, mixed with the appropriate solidification chemicals and placed into 55 gallon drums for eventual shipment to a waste burial site.

When the various filters became exhausted, the filter media were i

backwashed from the filter columns into the Waste Building Filter.

Sludge Tank.

This slurry was then processed through a centrifuge to remove most of the free liquids.

The liquids were routed to the Floor Drain Collector Tank while the resins were transported via a hopper for placement into 55-gallon drums for storage and later shipment offsite.

c Spent resins from the demineralizers were transferred to the Spent Resin Tank.

The spent resins were processed by the same centrifuge mentioned above and were then loaded into drums for ultimate offsite disposal.

i I

,m

~.-..m

. ~.

-.._.,,..._..m

. +.,..,.. - _... - - -, -. -.

.. _. _, _ _... _ _ _,, -. _. - _ _,... -... ~.. ~.

a c y,,

,2 q l

1 i

i k;

6 t

1 Tne 225' elevation of the Radwaste Processing Building is a thick shield walls into five working areas:sub-basement storage areas A and 8, and the east equipment aisle see fill aisle

. Figure 1).,The room is the lowest point in the radwaste building contains two floor drain sumps.

The #11 sump is located in the east equipment aisle and the #12 sump is located at-the west end of the operator's aisle.

from routine washdownsThe sumps were used for the collection of waste ~

j addition, the sumps re/decontaminations of the processing line.

In i

ceiveo additional inputs from other sources within the radwaste building.:Both the floor and the lower portio the walls were painted with a protective coating to facilitate o

decontamination of the room.

The room was designed to receive

's processed wastes in the form of dewatered resins and sludges, transferl the waste material into 55 gallon drums, provide temporary storage capability, and to make final transfer to a loading dock for shipment in shielded casks.

t During normal operations, empty drums were loaded onto a drum elevator and lowered to the-225' elevation where they were automatically loaded onto carriers which hung from a monorail track. The drums were routed into the fill aisle where a vibrating bed automatically lifted up-of the drums. Waste from the centrifugeunder the carrier 3 located on the 261' elevation >

passed down through a ho>per to the 225 elevation. and was loaded into 1

drums under control of t se radwaste operators working from the operator's aisle.

Waste from the weste concentrator stored in the Concentrator Waste Volume Tank was mixed with chemicals in a m located on the 236' elevation and was used to fill drums at a

.I different location in the fill aisle. The operator had the capability to remotely cap the drums. However to facilitate the further drying R

1 of the waste product, the drums wer,e routinely left o>en, and capped p

only prior to shipment. The filled drums were routed >y the monorail conveyor system to storage locations in the A and B storage aisle.

3.2 Operational History

{(

During the first few years of operation J L

determined that the as built liquid hand"19691971), the licensee ing systems were undersized and would have to be supplemented with additional capacity to adequately handle future demands. Occasionally, when backlogs of unprocessed liquids were experienced, incoming liquids would back up from the two sum)s into the sub-basement, resulting in a few inches of waste water on t te floor. However, when the backloc' was correcte the 225' elevation would be decontaminated and returneito operation.

to operational problems being experienced with the centrifuge, a flat-bed filter system was installed in 1972. This unit was essentially a shallow container, the bottom of which was a movable.

1 l.

V J

l 1

II 7

h

-)

-l HS'y 3ua Q g g y 9'

1 j.

.l A

5 f-y f

I o

• t

'I 8

l

• v" 2

+I V v1

.A

4. -v.$.

w y

C

)

6 7.25/

' v)

J 7,

+.

p 4

.i.

x ~-

4 3,

N f

CC p

L 4

<c g

l

.9

~

o Y

f U1 o

u o

e a

N, E

S 5

V m

a 8

- j,:

~

l.N

~

G w

I 1

3 h

J n

1

,i )

Floor Plan 225' Elevation Sub-base.:nent Radwaste Building F1gure 1

1 3

e,

.l

,gw 8

)

r u

porous belt. Waste was forced through the belt; the from the bottom was recycled. At the aspropriate time move the' filtered waste for transfer tarough i hopper,to 55 gallon j

T drums Since. bead type resins from the Spent Resin Tank would not holt d 4

together when dr shipping casks. y, they were transferred and dewatered directly in the '

e After 1973, use of the #11 waste concentrator was. curtailed due to operational difficulties. To continue processing oa L

outside vendor was' brought in to dewater and/or so5erations, an idify wastes from the Floor Orain Sample Tank and the Waste Neutralizing Tank. Durin the 1973 1974 period,-an addition was built onto the Radwaste

. Processing. Building. This addition housed a new #12 waste concentrator, a concentrated waste storage tank and supporting equipment and effectively replaced the inoperable #11 waste evaporator which was removed and scrapped in 1976. During the 1977-1979 burial site requirements drastically decreaseo the allowable waterperiod, content of waste.

Therefore, the licensee shifted the dewaterin sludges and resins from the flat-bed filter to predominately in g of cask dewatering.

After this time, the drum processing ' area on the 225' elevation sub-basement was not used except for storage of approximately 150 previously filled drums.

3.3 Other Radwaste Storage Areas During the course of the inspection, the Radwaste Building was toured.

by the inspectors several times and numerous licensee personnel were questioned regarding the likelihood of there being an analogous location onsite where radwaste may be stored in a manner not consistent with the facility design. No such areas were found by inspectors nor were any identified by the licensee or their staff.

4.0. Summary of the 1981 Floodina Event m

?

The inspectors reviewed operations and waste logs for the period of July 4, 1981, to July 20 1981, in order to determine the sequence of events leading to the flooding. During the Unit I startup on July 5,1981, higher i

t than normal conductivity was noted in the low conductivit waste water process stream (Waste Collector Tank). The hi he(high purity)l n

r than norma conductivity in the process stream caused a more rapid de letion of the of the waste demineralizer. resins in the waste demineralizer. The licens L

low conductivity stream processing.The evolution of demineralizer changeo At the same time, this evolution f

creates large volumes of high conductivity waste because of the resin regeneration and resin transfers involved.

During this period (July 5-7), the #12 waste concentrator in the high i

t conductivity process stream was out of service for extended periods. Since I:

the waste concentrator is the only means for reducing conductivity to a low t

[ ',.

I f "

9 1

-enough level tnat the water can be transferred to the low conductivity s

stream, all high conductivity waste is stored in holdup tanks whenever the,

e~

waste concentrator is out of service.

the domineralizers were being changed out and the waste concentrator w out of service, both the low and high conductivity process streams were unavailable and large amounts of waste water were being generatec.

i By July 7, all radwaste tanks were full. However, the very process needed to return the low conductivity processing system to operation would also generate additional waste water. In particular, regeneration of the domineralizer was essential for establishing low conductivity stream l

processir.g. Since no additional waste storace tanks were available, the licensee elected to overflow the radwaste storage tanks with the intention cf using the 225' elevation sub-basement area as a temporary storage area. '

Apparently, consideration was not given at the time of this decision to the potential impact of room flooding on the drums of solid waste which were stored' at that location. Further, the licensee did not perform a safety evaluation of using the sub basement as a liquid radwaste holding facility under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.

i flooded the sub basement area' to just above the 229' elevation. At the timeT of the flooding there were approximately 150 most of which we,re filled with radioactive was,te made up mostly of filter 55 sludges and spent resins. As was discoverad in October,1981, the water floated many of the waste storage barrels off of their carriers, resulting in tippino and spilling of the contents of many into the water. Late on July 7, tfie waste concentrator was returned to service and rocessing of the high conductivity stream started.

Processing of the hi h conductivity

. stream was not successful however, because the transfer poi t between the high and low conductivit sthe flooded 229' level. y streams is-the equipment drain sump located on The flooding at the.229' level allowed flow from the high conductivity to the low conductivity process streams and.thus recontaminated the low conductivity processed water. The occurrence of the recontamination problem is further evidence that a safety evaluation had not been performed prior to the flooding event.

In order to reestablish separation.between the high and low conductivity streams, it was first necessary to reduce the water level to below the 229' elevation. On July 8, the licensee therefore began a controlled discharge of water to Lake Ontario from the 50,000 gallon Waste Surge Tank at a rate of 30 gallons per-minute in order to make the surge tank available for storage of the water currently flooding the 225' and 229' elevations. The licensee notified the NRC of this discharge by letter dated October 30, 1981, but did not describe the flooding of the 225' elevation or its consequences Reference July). By July 10 level recovery in the radwaste tanks had begun (. O 9.1 s

16, decontamination of the 229' elevation was initiated.

In August and September,1981, attempts were made to decontaminate the 225' level.

These efforts were discontinued in October,1981, based upon radiation protection priorities. Decontamination efforts are more fully discussed in Section 7.1.

In October,1981, after the licensee terminated their initial decontamination effort of the July,1981, flooding event, it was decided m

• '+-j1r

'F w-D 9-W'=*

9-w pp9 ere-Wawee ww w

a-mm+-

m

-W w M we er4%mr----r-_we,-----'ww-e-,e-m'rmm-r---.--wm

--a-w-

-n---

- -a9

--- - - - = * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * *

.py

...\\

r 10 ifoot until decisions on ultimate clean up were made.tha was maintained to help control potential airborne contamination.A depth of one decision to defer decontamination of the sub basement The i

5.0 Current Status of Room The ' inspector. reviewed radiological' survey data and analyses the-licensee to support three cecontamination efforts of the 225' elevatio

-(1981,1985, and 1986), video tapes recorded during a remote'-rob

'n September 1986, and recent surve radiological. conditions of the 225'ys of the area, to determine the elevation. These decontamtnation efforts and surveys are described in detail in Section 7. An exact of the operating log for the system. accounting of the barrels an disposed of as radioactive waste during the 1985 decontamination (see Section 7.1. However based on the licensee's knowled and review of a s)tatus boar,d within the 225' elevation sub ge licensee estimates there are no more than 150 barrels [the

~

basement, the.

is that there are 130 barrels resin and filter sludge. The v) ideo recording by the SURVEYOR of expended powdered fi' ter/ ion exchange drum storage areas in September, 1986 shows 55 gallon drums in disarra Many of these drums were off the conve,yor system and -lying in variousy..

' orientations. Several drums were lying on their. sides without their tops and with their contents spilled out.

The practice when the system was in operation was to leave the tops off the drums until just before shipment to promote drying of the contents. The video recording indicated some corrosion had occurred on the drums. The extent of damage to the drums was drums when they were initially filled, it is believed th u

contact dose rates associated with some of these drums is as high as 500 R/hr. This is the estimated dose' rate at the surface of some dru the shielded walls of the room. Dose rates at the entrance to th gate were less than 10 mR/hr. Contamination levels are discussed below.

In November 1985 performed on, an ac,cessible barrel in preparation for the 1986an is decontamination effort.

Based on the results of this analysis (and the p

assumption of 150 barrels in the area) the licensee's "best estimate" of L

the total radioactive material in the area is 7570 Curies. Currently licensee is maintaining 10 to 18 inches of water on the floor of the. the elevation to minimize the drying of the resin / sludge material and reduce 225' the potential for radioactive particulates from becoming airborne. During this inspection, the licensee sampled water from the area at the bottom of the stairs leading to the operator's aisie. The isotopic analysis of the l

sample indicated concentrations of cesium-137 cobalt-60 and manganese-54 of 5E 3 uti/ml, 3E-4 uti/ml and 3E-5 uti/ml, r,espectively. However, since the majority of the spilled resins are located in the rear of the sub-basement, the sample obtained may not be representative of actual concentrations in the storage aisles. Assuming that the water at the bottom l

L

3 -

i

(

ll of the stairs is representative of the water throughout the room, these results indicate that less than 4 Curies radioactive material in the area) is disso(less than 0.05 percent of the lvec in the water standing on t u

floor. Samples of the water in the area at the bottom of the stairs leadi,

to the operator's aisle were also analyzed by the NRC results were in agreement with those of the licensee. (see Section 6.0) a l The inspector reviewed airborne contamination survey periods of access to the area. These suryc area:. An airborne' survey taken in the(oper)ys indic the maximum permissible concentration MPC of 10 CFR 20 for restricted inspection Au ator's aisle during this contaminatio(n, gust 24,1989) indicated 4.8% of MPC. In addition to airbort' the licensee a removable surface contaminationlso performed an area radiation survey and a i 225' elevation and the 229' eleva(tion a)ccess.y of accessible areas of the.

smear surve Dose rates just above the surface of the water in the operator's aisle and the fill aisle were measured at up to 200 mR/hr and up to'2500 mR/hr respectively. The dose rates in the operator's aisle were measured by means of an extendable prot survey instrument (teletector the dose rates in the fill ais)le were measured with a te extended from the area of the stairs, and

(

down the elevator shafts from the floor above. Smear samples on the 229' elevation were measured at up to 94,000 dpm/100 ca^2 on the landing inside the locked access gate, up to 30,000 dpm/100 cm^2 outside the locked acces i gate, and up hese dose rates and contamination levels are n to 450,000 dpm/100 cm^2 on the stairs leading to the 225' elevation.

T with what would be expected in areas of a radwaste processing building.

6.0 Environmental and Onsite Impacts The inspector reviewed results of the itcensee's Environmental Monitoring Program, plant layout and design, plant system drawings and records of effluent discharges to determine if radioactive material spilled on the 225' elevation area is being or has been inactvertently released to the environment. Possible means of radioactive release from the 225' elevation include release of water to the surrounding ground through some unidentified leakage in the room or a release to the air of any airborne radioactive material from the room. The inspector noted that the 225' elevation was originally designed as an area of high potential for airborne activity.

As such the ventilation was designed so that air from the 225' elevation is taken,into the exhaust ventilation system.

This air is exhausted throu plant's stack. gh a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA)ided in th filter into the,

An alarming Continuous Air Monitor is prov path before the HEPA filter.

There have been no indications of radioactive materials being released other than what is normally expected by this path.

Surveillance of the stack radiation monitors to assure operability is routinely performed in accordance with plant Technical Specifications and reviewed by the NRC during routine transportation and effluent inspections.

~

~

• C F

s t

12 J

As noted in Section 5, air concentration measurements in the room are generally below 10'4 of MPC.

In reviewing the possible pathways for release of liquid radioactive f

material from the 225' elevation sub basement, the inspector noted that the '

lower levels of the plant are recessed into the bedrock underlying the-facility. A drain system has been provided surrounding the plant buildings

'at1the bottom of the back fill area between the plant walls and the bedrock walls.

pipe that channels water to a sumo.This perimeter drain system cons At the exterior of the radwaste building, this piping-is at the 225' elevation. Any groundwater flowing into the channel would-be collected in the sump and pumped to the plant Storm Drain System.

Similarly would be collected and pumped Into the storm drain.any leakage from the Ra In response to an NRC-Information Notice, the licensee has been monitoring the discharge at the

' storm drain system on a weekly basis since August,1981. Between June.

1979, and August,1981, it was monitored on a monthly basis. The results of this monitoring program do not indicate any leakage of radioactive material from the Radwaste Building or any other buildings onsite.

The inspector requested that.the licensee draw a-sample from the perimeter drain sump however, there was not enough flow in the discharge header with the sump;

. pumps running to get flow out of the sample point at the top of the discharge pipe. The licensee did, however, manage to obtain'a water sample and smear samples from the internals of the pump located in the sump b partially disassembling the system. No detectable activity was found, ywhich further indicates no leakage from the 225' elevation sub-basement. It is the conclusion of the inspection team that leakage of radionuclides from the room is negligible.

The inspectors revisited an issue of offsite environmental contamination i

raised in the second half of 1981. The )ublic concern expressed over cesium-137 detected in milk samples in tae area of.the plant (Reference 9.2) and a related report of anomalous environmental water sample results (Reference 9.3) were reviewed with the licensee in terms of whether the contamination of the 225' level could have contributed to these concerns.

No pathway of radioactive material from the 225' level to the environment was identified; therefore, the conclusions drawn in References 9.2 and 9.3 remain valid.

During the inspection, liquid samples from the floor of the operator's aisle of the 225' elevation and the plant storm drain were split between the licensee and the NRC for purposes of intercomparison.

The samples were 1:

analyzed by the licensee using normal methods and equipment.

The 1RC samples were sent to the NRC reference laboratory, Department of Energy Radiolooical and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL), Idaho Falls,,

Idaho, for analysis.

alpha, and by gamma spectroscopy.These samples were analyzed for stron L

L L

l

[

V:..

h ll' 13 l

The results of these sample measurements indicated that all of the measurements were in agreement.

in Table 1.

The results of this comparison are listed !

L l

In addition, the inspector performed surveys of the general area radiation levels and removable contamination, from accessible areas L

.that confirmed the licensee's survey results.outside the locke 7.0 Corrective Actions 7.1 Past Corrective Actions Subsequent to the spill that occurred in July,1981, the licensee attempted a manual cleanup. At this time, the water level in the roora was 3 to 4 feet deep. The all sump was unclogged and the water level l

was lowered. The water / sludge mixture was being pumped to a cask liner

.for shipment. During October, 1981, while the licensee was conducting decontamination of the operator's aisle 4

currents, which were caused by a decreasing water level in the room, caused a barrel' to float-around the east corner of the room. The barrel had a dose rate of approximately 300~ R/hr on contact. Prior to this the licensee.

off their carriers. The cleanup effort was terminated, at approximately 1.3 person rem had been expended. Most of the sludge in

. the operator's aisle had been removed. The room water level was pumped down to'about a one foot depth and maintained that way to minimize airborne contamination July.1985, nor was any. No further cleanup actions were taken until additional solid radicactive waste put in the 1 room for storage. It: was stated by the licensee that in the years following the July,1981, flooding event, on occasion the room was used to accomodate slight overflows, but there were no significant additional flooding events like the one that happened in July,1981.

During' July and August,1985, the licensee again attempted to clean up 1

the room and sent a crew into it to initiate desludging. The decontamination effort initially involved setting up plywood dans on both sides of the stairs in the operator's aisle. Sludge was vacuumed off the floor in the area between the dams. The decontamination of th room was not completed since it was clear from the ex operator's aisle that the level of effort and person perience in the reas that would have been incurred to complete the decontamination were significantly underestimated.

dose rates, manual decontaminaThe licensee then decided that, because decontamination was necessary. tion was not feasible and that robotic robotic methods for decontaminating the area.The licensee began active In the spring of 1986, the room was entered to desludge and remove two

. drums in the west aisle. This was done to allow access for a robot the licensee was planning to bring onsite to survey the room. The licensee -

b!

... _ _. _ _ -. _. _ _ _. _..... ~.. _. _ _ _...... _ _ _. - _ _. _ _ _.. _...,. _ _

t

.e,

," ? :l ;;.,

l

(-

cc 14 Split Sample Analysis Comparison 225' Sub basement Water Sample Radionuclide NMP (UC/ml)

RESL (uC/mi) l Cobalt 60 f 2.39 + - 0.09;)E 4 (2.49 +/ 0.13;IE-4 Cesium-134 J7.51 4

- 0.39 )E 5 6,3 -/- 0.6 JE b Cesium 137 f5.35 + - 0.17?E3 (5. 41 +/.0.19 lE-3 i

Manganese-54 (3.02+/-0.21JE5 (2.8 +/ 0.4 DE-5 Strontium 90 NAF (3.15 +/- 0.14)E-5

}*

Gross Alpha NAF (3

+/ 5

)E 9 Perimeter Drain Water Sample Radionuclide.

_NMP (uC/ml)

RESL (uC/ml)

. Cesium 137 ND (1.5 +/-2.3JE-8 Potassium-40 ND (9

+/- 3 JE-7 Gross Alpha NAF (2.8 +/ 0.5 )E-9 Gross Beta NAF (1.4 +/- 0.4 )E-8 4

i

. NOTE:

NMP - Nine Mile Point RESL Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Idaho NAF Not analyzed for ND Not detected L.

Table 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - ^ ^

- - - ~ ^ - ~ -

y o

h

(

15 obtained a robot (SURVDOR) in the early sumer of 1986 for video surveying the room. The robot was sent into the 225' elevation sub basement in September,1986. A videotape of the conditions was 3

made.

As noted previously in this report, the videotape indicated

'many of the drums had floated off their carriers and were spread in disarray around the storage aisles. Some of the drums were lying on their sides with their contents sp)lled out.

1 7.2 Planned Corrective Actions 225' elevation sub basement.The licensee's plan is to clean, d As noted above 150 barrels of filter sludge in this area, so,me of which have tippedth over and spilled their contents.

The Itcensee estimated that if the area was cleaned using manual methods approximately 150 person rem wou'd be expended.

The licensee has contracted with an outside vendor '

to build and deliver a Tethered Remote Operating Device TROD.

The i

person rem as compared to 150 person penditure of app u',e of the TROD will result in the ex i

decontamination.

rem estimated for manual e

The TROD is a teleoperated, electro hydraulic system which will ride on the overhead conveyor present in the area and will be operated i

remotely from the 261 elevation of the l'u11 ding.

Niagara Mohawk Radwaste Department will operate t.he TROD and is in charge of the i

cleanup effort.

i

. (As low As Reasonably Achievable) Plan for the cleanup 1

The t

ALARA Plan will contain the methodology and detailed instructions on the cleanup operation.

Although the ALARA Plan was not available fo discussed with radwaste supervision the cleanup metho the inspector

{

The operator's aisle will be decontaminated manually because

ne monorail l

barrel carryino system does not go through this aisle. The TROD will be lowered to the 225' elevation throvoh the west elevator and then connected to the monorail track.

It will be used to decontnainate all areas except the operator's aisle and the east equipment aisle.

Two L'

drums located in the fill aisle will first be desludged and removed.

i Next, the mest aisle will be decontaminated using the TROD, and the test equipment aisle will be decontaminated manually. The TROD will i

t then be used to clean out the drum filling misle and then the 'A' and

'B' storage areas.

Other equipment in the area, such as control i

^

m e

....,.._,m.,.,

,m,,,

,-vw_,--,,,,,_-,w

c'

.e i

16 i

panels and the conve decontamination of afor system, will then be removed.

Final l surfacts and removal of all equipment associated with the earlier druming operation will be completed then the area will be repalated.

planned to becin the last week in September,1989 months. The IIcensee stated that the effort will c,ost between $

and to take seven 52.0 million.

The inspectors did not find evidence that the NRC had been notified of this estimate or the cleanup plans prJor to this i

inspection.

l, 7.3 Timeliness of Licensee's Corrective Actions I

i The flooding of the 225' elevation sub basemen their contents.

The racioa was monitored for leakage. ctive material was contained and t,)e room i

t'e a safety concern since it was contained. While initialThe lice decontamination was attempted and terminated in October,1981, no 4

further work was initiated until August 1985. Work was not i

reinitiated until August,1945, because, station management assig low priority'hese other projects itcluded of the Un to the cleanup and diverted financial resources to other p'ojects.

rculation pe replacement oute the Austerit Pro ran developed to deal with eincreasingcostofebuilding Unit

,a mapor radwaste processin the licensee initiated a second manual cleanup, wh i

soon after starting. At that point i

Proposal' was let for a robotic system.the cleanup i

i In July 1988, a ' Purchase Order' to initiate design was issued, and in Ju y,,1989, a design was selected and system ordered.

In sumary sub basemen,t for approximately a four year time span :

1985.

with the situation in the room during tha,t period.The tea t

8.0 Exit intervi,3 conclusion of toe inspection on August 28. L989.The t6am The team sumarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings.

i

.t e

.w rw,----.~wvmn e,-,na,w-~,

a.-.mm,-

w,--.m

= ~ - -,

--,.~.---,,---n~,------

,,-----.,,--ew

~

a l :Q '

.l L

k I

l 17

[

l

~

o 9.0 References i

9.1 letter from Nia dated October 3bara Mohawk Power Corporation t i

of Waste Surge Tank water to Lake Ontario),, 1981 (de i

9.2 Dalton. Sierra Club Radioactive Waste Cam c

'1981.

i 9.3 Preliminary Notification of Event or Unusual Occurrence. PN0181 (Anomalous Environmental Water Sample Measurements), dated December 12, 1981.

t f

f

\\

h I

f i

i-e t

-,. 4 essa 0anse0 mown powso eoennmentia e

4%

e..

Octe6s4 $#, 8988 r

M4. tersed C. Naques, NAsake United Statn 6 steer Replate%y teme, tepien 1 ell Pa44 Aveense Klas cf F4m44(a, PA 19484 s

tot Deekst No. 50.tt0 Pest Hg. Naynu, Det Asty 8 9, 1981, af ter fout mentha ei 4egusMag sudage and dandag i;

statosp, a centeelled d44cAaret og figuid uddeas44va maata ints Lakt Onta44e totating 5.3 an44u ecounted at the N4aa Nga Pe4ng that #1 gentaating (el'1*y.

taalsoed 4a4ein in esupuanas essa fw44eamenent Techodsal Spestyast4n t.4 l.k 4 a, report datadilag lI) et saun et the asteaas and (!!) seMas talten te reduct the (taquency and angndend

~

'e( futste Aslamu.

• i Sincerely, r./f4 Tilbau t. lespgu Viss PraMisnt hatest Gananatian TEL//6/

Enetoss/m l

au L

gi46..II j

'NOVt WI "

g a me.s N

agli

%-/+///4(r El--

- -~ - - -

- - - - - ~ ~

~

e, l.

CApSt3 06 nel Lat.8A88 The follow 6cs cond6ttens directly or 4 Jtesetty asseesstated the release of liqu64 redtemative taste 6ste hessaato.ta July 198t1 11 ne influa of floor drstn waters late the.Rae.aste feellity during the first wee 6. of July 8988 easeeded the storege tapeetty of the ersteeraad.the prosesslag i

capabilities of the taste Coneonorater. fit and 843 Fleet Drata &saple Tanks, the Floor Desta Collester Tank, the elasts Neutraliter Tank.ande the Baste ausse Tank were all filled er meerir filled with high een.

duettvity liquid weste.

2)

The performance of the Radmaste dentneraliser was unsa.

pectedly peer during the latter part of the autage, resulting la considerable downstee, frequent resta regenerattens and a backlog of "cleaa vaste (ie, radio.

T active liquid waste with a condusttrity less thaa 20uahes/es),

en 3) ne processing of apprestaately 500,000 gallens ef torus C*

l water in the early part of the autage rielded a high la.

ventory of filter sludge and necessitated additional resia regenerat tens.

l 4)

The cation tank latorsi network, an integral part of the t

resta regeneratten erstes, was readjusted during the cutage and required about one week downtime. This further reduted

?

the frequency of permissible Radweste destneraliter regen.

erstions and the associated processing of egitposet desta wat e rs.

5)

Csess contamination of equi t drain s ta Radmaste C3 But! ding 229' elevattun wat gh condus tr floor desta -

filter sludge waters free Radweste 228' elevation was inni.

neat unless pesept action was talen.

la response to the backlog of Rndwaste watera noted abees, swerSt settens, including 11guld waste discharge to take Catario, wes, evalu-ated.

To prepare for a potential discharge, the 80.000 galles saate Surge Tank (en a continuous retirculattan mode) was sampled and isotspi.

sally manaysed on July 7,1981. Finally ce July 8,198t. conditica 88 noted above dictated no alternative recen,sess and the discharge eeM Perstaeat data associated with the rettaae.is listed on Table 81. h discharge conformed with all 10CFR2C and Baviressental feehaisal Spesifl*

l cation limits regarding aus!!de concentretiens and quaatities.

j

-!+

E~-

1

I ACTION PIAX Nice Mlle Patat al has cWe a sante6ame effort la porose years to 11 alt

)

the d&scharge of 11,6d radioastive weste late Laha entar&e. for eumspie.

4 tu the 42 month perted between late 1977 and July 1981, less theat & curses I

of !!autJ waste es, discharged. This value, on the average, repreessna ealy about 12% of the destge.eblestive release goa6 of I ansies/ year 4

(Ravaronssotal techelsal Spostf tcations. Seattaa 2.4).

Desp&te presset capab6Lilles to stay sell withta 10CPRJO and.destga ok joestre diosharge &&a6tations during morant operet&ea, several manammer are now under sensideretten ('), plasme6 for tap 6amensatten.(**) er akseedy be6ag Aaplemented (***)

whish should further enhamas the stataea s teamit.

J n

l seat toward the 80CFR60 ALARA sensept and redere the frogsaary and esgattisee of future liquid redtoostive discharges.

8)

The procesetag of filter sludge material through a newly i

installed phase separator thereby redestag consentrater inputs (").

• n 2)

The procurement of two large capacity, seat. portable.

l standby desineraltssrs for uso duttag Radoeste domineral.

g 1sers downtises (if r.ecessary). ('")

ca 3)

The installatten of an addittensi l$gpo evaporator for the processing of high conductivity waste. (")

4)

Replacement of the Waste Surge Tank with a new tank of

~

!arger capacity.

(')

5) 1%e installatten of either er both an additional storage

' ft tank and an additional desineraliter in the Radmaste Com.

P185.

(*)

O O

i 2

1 4

g

++ ; n.7.,* 7. m y.~nss,. n._,,,.

.., +.,.

c.

~

ym y;

n

.g. a.4 9,

a.

,[ At.J;h3 -[.'.

.. ),

g

).

~

9

.)

TASLB I Tank Discharge Rate (gpa)

M i

Dilution mater Plaw (gys) 3.1188 Batah MPC (WC1/al) 1.93 5 i!

Aativitr Consentistion la 01scharpe Coat (WC1/al) 7.48 4 i

% MPC in Discharge Canal at i.

~

.,1 T

h

?

s e-l 8

t i

i e -

e e

3 l

m

A l

4 b O FIIASOFF I

\\

fff 4

\\

?

001 1 0 1981 i

l Docket Nos. 50 220

}

50*233 p"

. Mr. Peter Dalton Q.'

r,'jr ;;,

Sierra Club Radioactive Waste Campaign h

Mil /y h !

EOP 3364 Main Street J g IS$

i Suffalo, NY 14214 g5 6' 4

%u %=.N i

W

Dear Mr. Dalton:

k l

1 as responding to your letter to Mr. rhl15p Polk o Ns#I

i 1981.

ne 19, inspect the Nine Nile Point and James A. Fit Patrick reactors to determin!

source of radioactive cesium in alik f rom the area near these plants.

report HUS-3620. "*9 b iluetteasupport of your request, you enclosed a copy of the Sierra Club c In cf the tes!= te.acentretic:;s in [nvironmental Hilk Samples and their Significance at the Nine Mile Point James A. Fit Patrick Sites."

t i

Hembers of my staff have prepared the enclosed response to the Sierra Clu This response is based primarily on the results of routine inspections ri ort.

i at the Nine Mlle Point and James A. Fit Patrick plants during February 1981.j Those routine inspections included the review you requested concerning the high concentrations of cesium 137 in milk.

i These inspections also included review of elevated levels of iodine 131 in milk that are sention i

Club critique.

available until af ter the date of your letter to Mr. Polk.We realiz j

inspection reports (Nos. 50 220/8102 and 50 333/8105) are also enclosed Copies of these l

In brief, the average levels of cesium 137 in milk near the site have not been consistently higher than the rest of the State.

both the observec cesium 137 and iodine 131 concentrations in Our assessment of v

area is that, from the information available, one cannot determine precise t

the relative contributions of fallout and reactor effluents to the dete I

radioactivity.

The dose to the general pubitc l

and regardless of the source, would be only a s, mall fraction of thatat the observi received from natural background radiation.

well below regulatory limits even if one made en assumption that allThis sm

[

observed radioactivity case from the reactors.

L o

[

k E Y E

r

1 Mr. Peter Dalton 2-L If you have Sny questions or require additions) information regarding this satter please contact me.

\\

$1ncerely, I

\\

(Menn! M4N J UR n.C.inehome t

l Victor Stello, Jr., Otrector Office of Inspection and (nforcement j

[nclosures:

es stated Distribution V5te11o. It i

RDeVoung. 1[

i HThornburg, IE LHigginbothan. IE-J8vchanan, It l

Slurns. ELD FCongel, NRR TMo NRR l

'Glaith,A1 C$ akenes,R!

t i

Record Note:

Original craft response prepared by R1 (Ref: Nemorandus i

from G. H. $atth to F. Congel, NRR, 7/29/41).

NRR/051/ RAS concurs in this response that incorporates additional suggested information (Ref: Meso-e rendus F. J. Congel to L. J. Cunningham, 8/t7/81).

i ELO (5. Burns) has no l

1ega) objections; ELD editorial-suggestions have been incorporated.

//j,.A A > ; A8/'

I i

L l

r i

o r

I WPU:JD RSI:,!f// R

. q R59':.q NE 0:

IE D

(

5520 J86chanan LE ningh

%HiQginbothan urg ung 10 5/25/81 /$/,c/81 /#/;/81

/s/g/81

6

/81 g

, 81 JP/ig/81 i

I

t i

j

[nclosure

{

RESPONSE 10 SitRRA CLU8 REPORT ON HIGN CE51UM LtVtL5 IN MILK AT THE WINE Milt istNT AND i

JAMt5 A. Flf2 PATRICK $11t$

j As part of a routine inspection conducted at the Nee Mile Point (MP) and the James A. Fit: Patrick (JAF) Nuclear Power Plants on bbruary 913 and 2417, 1981, Ntt staf f investigated the elevated levels of Cestus 137 (Cs 137) in slik j

observed in 1979.

In conjunction with this investigation, the following were reviewed:

(

1.

State of New York, Department of Environmental Conservation Environmental Radiation Sulletins.

i 2.

NMP and JAF site environmental monitoring progran data arid effluent data.

3.

NUS 3620. "An Evaluation of the Cesius Concentrations in Environmental Milk Samples and their Significance at the Nine Mlle Point - James A.

Fit: Patrick Sites."

i i

Based on a review of the above, it does not appear possible to rule out the l

MP-JAF plants as a source of some of the Cs 137 in milk, although neither does it appear likely that the This view is taken for the fo) lowing reasons: plants are the only source.

1.

There is no evidence of high Cs 137 levels in the air near the site (see Table 1).

?

L 2.

There is no evidence of high Cs 134 levels in the air near the site or in l

l fact, of Cs 134 even being observed routinely in the air near the site.

l l

The Cs 134 concentrations measured at about 41: miles SW from the site are l

indistinguishable from Cs-134 background levels and have large uncertain-i ties associated with them (see Tab e 2).

3 3.

Analyses for cesium are performed using gamma ray spectroscopy. Thus, if l

CS 134 were present in a sample, it would be detected along with Cs 137.

1 4

The average levels of Cs-137 in allk near the site have not been consis-tently higher than the rest of the state (see Table 3) and Cs 134 has not been routinely detected in area ellk samples.

In addition, the ratto of Cs-134 tu Cs 137 from plant airborne effluents could not be used to determine the expected ratic of Cs 137 present in milk from fallout to that from the plants because the ratio of Cs 134 to Cs-137 in airborne effluents was not consistent for 1979 (0.09 to 1.96).

Also, other f actors such as precipitation patterns, f arming pectices, etc., were not taken i

into consideration.

. -~~--:.. - - -.

" - - ~

• 2*

[nclosure t

tegardless of the source of the (s+137, the observed concentrations in milk result in relatively los coses to humans.

Even the hi Si DC1/1 (measurec at 11censee monitoring station 25),ghest concentration.

would produce a whole*

boey espesure of only 0.10 oren/sonth to en adult (critical Individual) and 0.89 aren/ month to an infant liver (critical organ), which is calculated using methodology presented in Regulatory Guide 1.109 for masimus esposed individuals one assuming that the milk remained at this concentration for a month.

The measured level of 53 pti/1 did not appear to persist for more than one month and was not identified at any other sampling stations. Those doses are a small fraction of natural background and of the 25 oren/ year regulatory limit for members of the general public that is required by the (PA Uranium fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR 190).

G l.

,1

a o

t

)

TABLE 1 CE51UM 137 !N NY Alt SAMPL(58 Average Concentration for

{

Period in 10 8 pct / mane Date' Oswoo Co.

Albany i

1974 2nd Q 1.3 (13) 4.9 (12)

{

1975 - 13t Q 1.3

<2 i

1975 2nd Q

3. 4

1. s l

1975 3rd Q

1. 2

< 1. 2

{

1975 4th Q

< 1. 0 2.2 1977 1st Q (0.8 0.3 1977 2nd Q 1.2

1. 0

{

1977 - 3rd Q (1.5

<0.6 l

1977 - 4th Q.

<1.1

<0.7

• 0ata f rom State of New York. Department of Environmental Conservation, Environmental Radiation Bulletins.

• • Number of samples in parentheses, j

h r.

l

[

i 1AllE 2 i

t CE510M 134 IN WY AIR SAMPLE 5' L

i i

Average for period in 10 8 pCi/nl**

\\

i

Scriba, i

p s 4 h al. $V,

Albany, i

Date Osweoo Co.

(backoround) l t

1974 + 1st 0 (0.8(12)

<t(14) l 1974 2nd Q

<0.7(13)

(2(12) 1974 3rd Q

<1 (12)

<1 (10) l 1974 4th Q

< 0. 7 (14) 1.3 1 1.1 (12) 1975 1st Q (0.8

<1 i

1975 2ne Q 1.121.0 1.2 1 1.0 2

1975 3rd Q

<0.9

< 1.1 1975 4th Q

<0.9

<1.3 1

1977 1st Q (0.7 (0.4 1

1977 - 2nd Q (0.7

<0.5 1977 - 3rd Q (1.4 (0.6 1977 4th Q

<0.9

<0.6 1979 - 1st Q

<0.6

<1.5 i

• 0ata from State of New York, Department of Environmental Conservation.

Environmental Radiation Bulletins.

$lallar date other years between 1971 1979 are not avilable for comparison.

• • Number of samples in parentheses l

l k-n l

-1 1,

... _. _ _.,,. ~ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _... _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _. _..,. _..,... _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _..,... _ _ _ _ - _ -,.

'i r-TABLE 3 CE51UM 137 IN NY MILK SAMPLE 5*

l.

Averate Concentration for o

Period in 0C1/1**

Location of Date Oswooo Co.

Background

Backaround Station 1971 35 (11) 21(22)

Massena 1973 12 (11) 11 ())

Massena-1974

<22 (11)

(15(12)

Massena 1975 22 (13) 20(12)

Massena 1976 1st Q 20 (2) 20 (3)

N. Hempstead 1976 - 2nd Q 22 (2) 19 (1)

Syracuse 1976 3rd Q 22 (3) 15 (3)

N. Hempstead 1976 4th Q (17 (3)

(17(22)

$rooklyn 1977

<22(11)

(11 (4)

Syracuse 1978 - 3rd Q 17 (5) 21 (1)

Massena 1978 - 4th Q 19 (2) 15 (1)

N. Hempstead 1979 - 3rd Q (12 (3) 19 (1)

Syracuse

• Data froe State of-New Ycek, Department of Environmental Conservation,

[nvironmental Radiation Sulletins.

t

• • Number of samples in parentheses, f

t l

b i

DCS N

• N/A W

Date 12/11/81 geEL'w1 NARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR tlNUSUAL OCCURREhCE--PNO-!-81-1 This croliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of P055!8LE safet>

pubH-interest significance.

The inforestion is as initially received without ver or evaluation, and is basically all that. is known by !E staff en this date.

catica Fact!:ty: Nine Mile Point. Unit 1 (Niagara Licensee Emergency Classificatfor Mohawk Power Corp. ) and J. A.

Fitzpatrick (Power Authority of the Nettftcation of Unusual E)

Alert State of New York) Scriba. New York Site Area Emergency (Docket Nos. 50 220; 50-333 )

General Energency I

Not Applicable S ub.'e c t :

ANOMALOUSENVIRONMENTALWATERSAMPLEbEASUREMENT5 On Dece'nber 2.1981, the itcensees reported to the NRC anomalous results of w i

collected at several farms located in the prevailing downwind area, in the vi tne two plants.

farms from which milk is regularly sampled. Sampling was conducted th i

One June sample one July sample, and t August samoles showed posittve results.

All four samples con,tained very similar lev of Cs-134 (about 15 pCi/1), Cs.137 (about 20 PC'/1). Mn.54 (about 6 pC1/1), a (acou. 9 pCi The M censee/1).

Three of the samples had very.similar levels of Co.58 (about 4 pCi s had previously detemined that the June July samples had been slightly contarinated (12 pCi/1 of Cs-134 and Cs-137) through reteents and supplies used i the saLmpling, and made efforts to eliminate any! sources of contamination from fu samples.

Soil and grass collected at each farm

• contained only expected naturally activi ty.

None of the above sample results wert of a level which would have requi I

reporting by the licensee's technical specifications.

Because of the very similar levels of activity, it seems valikely that the detected activity actually existed in the sanpled water nources in that the four samples were collected at different times, the water sources!are at various distances from the p and all sources have various volumes and rates 6f dilution. These fac expected to result in different levels of activity in each location if the source of conta:Hnation were airborne plant releases.

pathway from the plants to the water sources sampled.Th6re appears to be no w Irrespective of the source of dose in excess of the 10 CFR 50 Appendix 1the contamination, the m Palat C limit water were used for drinking ove,r the course, of,one year. of 15 aren/yr < f the sample The licensees have stated, however, that none of the four water sources ar6 used for drinking water.

licensees plan to collect additional samples in! December, including sediment The CONTACT:

T. Jackson. 488-1207; R. Bores. 488.th13 l

O!5TRIBUT10N:

H. St. O f /9 MNB8/!f t Phillips)/M/

E/W l!#

W111ste Landow Chairman Pallacino ED0 NRR IE

• M55 0!A Conen. Gilinsky AE00 i

RES Conen. Bradford PA Air Rights M [,

MAIL:

Conn. Ahearne MPA SP s'g '

NP0J/JM IE TAS l

Com. Roberts ELO ADM: Doc. Ngt.

ACRS Regional Offices 8gN.b.d 3

SECY

.4 TH! Resident Section / /3 5 CA r V f~

R! Resident Office Regien 1 Form 83 (Rev. Sept. 16, 1981)

Castr:yeo ;revi:us acttien

7-O a

and rcre complete water samples- (up and downstream o itcensees consider it a possibility that there will be pedia i Th !

associated with this round of sampling.

and attant i Annual Environmental Program Reports covering i

results in the keep Region I apprised of any developments.

The licensees will contin:

This PN is issued for information only.

will not issue a press release, and the licensees do not plan time.

sue one at th',

i om i

r e

f a

?

e e

e

.I 4

h' 1

t

} '

o y

l'

-