ML20014E435

Responds to to Chairman Jackson in Which Recipient Expressed Concerns About Possible Sale of Pilgrim Station & About Waste Disposal Issues.No Application for Transfer of License Received by NRC as of This Date

ML20014E435
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	12/17/1998
From:	Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Lampert M MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENERGY
Shared Package
ML20014E433	List: ML20014E432 ML20014E435 ML20014E436
References
NUDOCS 9812290311
Download: ML20014E435 (2)

Text

.

[g* 88 8t UNITED STATES

• ~

F j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

WASHINGTON, D.C. 30565-0001

,o December 17, 1998 L

Ms. Mary Elizabeth Lampert l

Massachusetts Citizens for Safe Energy Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332

Dear Ms. Lampert:

I am responding to your letter to Chairman Jackson of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated October 6,1998, in which you expressed concems about the possible sale of the Pilgrim Station and about waste disposalissues. Although we are aware that Boston Edison Company (BECo) has announced plans to sell the Pilgrim Station to Entergy Nuclear Generating Company, to date we have not received an application for transfer of the license, nor have we seen any contract of sale between BECo and Entergy. Therefore, we are not in the position to render a view on any terms or conditions of the sale. When an application is submitted for approval of the transfer of the license, the NRC will not approve such an application unless it finds, among other things, that the new licensee is financially qualified to both operate and decommission the plant.

As discussed in detail herein, our regulations require that licensees maintain a written record of the disposal sites or site surveys of radioactive contamination, and that these records be available for,our inspection. However, our regulations do not require that these records be submitted to the NRC. The radiological environmental monitoring programs required by the NRC are sufficiently comprehensive to provide an adequate assessment of the radiological impact of plant operation on the offsite environment. The available monitoring data for the Pilgrim Station support the conclusion that operation of the facility has not resulted in any significant environmental impacts.

I Section 20.2002 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reculations (10 CFR 20.2002), which replaced 10 CFR 20.302, allows disposal of materials contaminated with low levels of radioactivity under some conditions not otherwise authorized in 10 CFR Part 20, and if reviewed and approved by the NRC staff. We have searched our records and found 9at the NRC did approve one disposal under 10 CFR 20.302 on May 4,1993. We have enclosed inspection Report 93-17 for your information regarding this disposal. Until 10 CFR 20.304 was rescinded on January 28,1981, BECo could make onsite disposals without NRC's approval if certain conditions were met. We are not aware of any disposals made under the provisions of this regulation. "Subpart L-Records" of 10 CFR Part 20 contains NRC's requirements for maintaining records for radiation protection, including 10 CFR 20.2108," Records 4 y este disposal." This regulation would include disposal by burial in soil authorized under old parts 10 CFR 20.302 and 304. In addition, Section (g) of 10 CFR 50.75," Reporting and recordkeeping fcr decommissioning planning," requires maintenance of (1) records of spills or any unusual occurrences involving the spread of contamination in and around the facility and (2) documentation of as-built drawings and modifications of structures and equipment in restricted areas in which radioactive materials are used and/or stored and of locations of possible inaccessible contamination such as buried pipes.

9812290311 981221 CF ADOCK O f3

- vew

i i

E. Lampert !

As to your concems regarding decommissioning, licensees determine how much sampling and l

analysis are needed to adequately characterize the site on the basis of available historical onsite rediation survey records and known history of site uses regardless of who may own the plant at the time it enters decommissioning. This initial site characterization stady is performed l

for the purpose of decommissioning planning and estimating decommissioning costs.

l After decommissioning activities are completed, the licensee must furnish additional documentation of radiological evaluations to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria contained in "Subpart E-Radiological Criteria for License Termination" of 10 CFR Part

20. The licensee's radiological environmental monitoring program is maintained in effect i

throughout the entire decommissioning process so that the potential environmental impacts of l

alt decommissioning activities are monitored. The NRC periodically inspects the licensee's decommissioning program throughout the decommissioning process erd reviews the licensee's i

final radiological survey data. The NRC can, if needed, perform an independent radiological review of the survey data. The NRC can also,if needed, perform an independent radiological survey of the licensee's site to verity the licensee's compliance with regulatory requirements.

The NRC will terminate the license only when it is satisfied that the licensee's site is remediated l

to the levels specified in the regulations.

Thank you for sharing your concerns with the NRC. I trust you find this letter responsive to your concems.

j Sincerely, i

t Qltk! (

g /. w u ~~s r

t I

r uel J. Col ' s, Director jA Office of No ear Reactor Regulation

)

Enclosure:

Inspection Report 93-17 t

cc w/o encl: See next page b

u.,$**,

' UNITED STA TS NUCLEAR REEULATORY COMMIS$1:N f

a l

REGloN I 5

6 475 ALLENDALE ROAD f

KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 1M06-1415 p

SEP 2 l 1993-Docket No. 50-293 E. 'Ihomas Boulette, PhD Senior Vice President - Nuclear Boston Edison Company Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Rocky Hill Road Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360

Dear Dr. Boulette:

SUBIECT:

Inspection No. 50-293/93-17 This letter refers to the safety inspection conducted by Ms. I.aurie Peluso of this office on August 30 - September 3,1993, of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-35 at the Pilgrim site, Plymouth, Massachusetts and to the discussions of our findings held by Ms.

Peluso with Mr. Kraft and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during this inspection, involving your Radiological Environmental i

f Monitoring Program, are important to public health and safety and are described in the NRC g'

Region 1 Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.

j Within the scope of this inspection, we noted that the Chemistry Department continues to mainatin an excellent Radiclogical Environmental Monitoring Program and that the responsible individuals were qualified and knowledgeable with respect to the above program.

No safety concerns or violations of NRC requirements were identified in your program.

No response to this letter is required. Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely, T

md y~

(J es H. Joyned ef Pacilities Radio

'J Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards C

Enclosure ggg g g p.

...--.a

)

9 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

.C REGION I Peport No.

50-293/93-17 Docket No.

50-293 Ucense No.

DPR-35 l

Licensee:

Boston Edison Company RFD #1 Rocky Hill Road P1vmouth. Mn==nchusetts 02360 Facility Name:

Pilerim Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:

Plymouth. Mmachusetts Inspection Conducted:

Aueust 30 - Scotember 3.1993 P

t c.9h dr>

Inspector:

~ - - -

Laurie Peluso, Radiation Specialist Date i

Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS) p.

Facilides Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB) l

• MW/A Approved by:

e 6bert J.

s, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, Date Division a, Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)

Areas Insoected: ALnounced safety inspection of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring i

Program including: management controls, quality assurance audits, meteorological monitoring program, quality control program for analytical measurements, and implementation of the above programs and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).

Eesults: Within the areas inspected, the licensee continued to maintain an excellent REMP.

The responsible individuals in the Chemistry Department were qualified and knowledgeable with respect to implementation of the above programs. No safety concerns or violations of NRC requirements were identified.

j 4

TOTR. P.11

-9 3'M3L N 4pg.

c u

e DETAII3 l

p;,.

-l '

1

.J l 1.0 Individuals enne-..A

.c 1.1 IJoensee Personnel j

• G. Basilesco, Senior Compliance Engineer i

.. A

• N. Desmond, Compliance Division Manager j

• F. Pamulari, Quality Assurance Department Manager

.+

~

• R. Gay, Senior Compliance Engineer i.1,-

• E. Kraft, Vice President Nuclear Operations <

rc,

D. IzVitere, General Test Division i

• R. Izwis, Radiological Training Support. y... t -.i.

,/..

,i r

+

• P. MaAson, Communications Specialist

• D. Montt, Chemist.y Division Manager....;+/.

C. Morrill, General Test Division

• M. Most, Chemistry Supervisor.. r >.,

.,: ~

n. *

• L. Schmeling, Plant Manager l

K. Sejkora, Senior Environmental Engineer l

J. Spangler, Emergency Preparedness Manager

[

• L. Wetherell, Radiological Protection Manager

,., A. Williams, Station Services Section Manager.

l

,.. i. :..

p,.;,. -

I 1.2 Nuclear Reculatory Commission (NRC) P&sennel 3

s,.

• A. Cerne, Resident Inspector

• J. Macdonald, Senior Resident Inspector i

. Denotes those individuals present at exit interview.on September 3,.1993..

/

,:,, Other licensee personnel were also contacted or interviewed during this l

jnSpeClion. t I'-'-

'2 2.0 Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to verify the licensee's capability to implement the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) and the Meteorological 4

Monitoring Program (MMP) according to Technical Specifications (TS), the.Offsite. m Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), and appropriate procedures during normal and e - -

emergency operations.. sc ! -

i- %

...-3...

..r..

. s.-

1 k?

gy.

4

L l

l V

3 l

3.0' Management Controls j

l l

3.1 Orzanization J

l The inspector reviewed the ore.dzetion and administration of the REMP and s

discussed with members of the Chemistry Departrnent any changes since the i

j last inMaa conducted in September 1992. -Members of the Chemistry Department have responsibility for the REMP. There have been no significant i

changes in the oversight of the REMP since the previous inspection.

l 3.2 Chaihv Aasmr.cz _%dhe and Surv m..e

,t' 1

i ne inspector reviewed the Quality Assurance Audit and Surveillance Reports as part of the evaluation of the implementation of the TS requirements. Audit i

Report 92-01, " Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program", was r

i

]

reviewed during the last inspection. The licensee stated that an audit of the REMP is scheduled to be conducted during September 1993. The inspector j

reviewed the audit schedule and plan and noted that the REMP audit was

~i l

planned according to the frequency specified in the Technical Specifications l

and the scope of the audit plan was appropriate for the REMP. Tne 1993.OA j

l i

Audit results wiH be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.

l J

f l

De inspector reviewed the surveillance reports that supplement the audit.

Dese surveillances included the Beach Survey, Garden Census, Air Particulate

]

and Air Iodine Piher Collection, and Milk and Vegetable Sampling. The l

inspector noted that the surveillances were based on the TS requirements and j

probed for performance and procedural weaknesses. No weaknesses were l

found during these surveillances. De inspector noted that a qualified technical speciaUst performed the surveillances. De inspector determined that the surveillances were of sufficient technical depth to supplement the REMP audit.

1-3.3 Annuadsport j

j De inspector reviewed the Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring i

Program Report for 1992, as well as the selected analytical data for 1993.

j De report provided a comprehensive summary of the analytical resu!ts of the REMP around the Pilgrim site and met the TS reporting requirements. De j

reviewed resuhs indicated that all samples were collected and analyzed as required by TS. No obvious omissions or anomalous data were identified.

i i

D l

l I

a.

4 n

l 4.0 Radioloeical Enviranmental Monitorine Procram

/

l i

4.1 Direct Observations i

i l

%e inspector examined selected sampling stations to determine whether i

sample: were being obtained from the locations designated in the TS and the j

i ODCM and whether air samplers were operable and calibrated. Dese j

sampling stations included air samplers for particulates and airborne iodines, j

i the co.nposite water sampling station at the discharge canal, and a number of l

thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) stations for measurement of direct ambient radiation. De inspector witnessed the weekly exchange of charcoal j

cartridges and air particulate filters at selarsaet sampling stations, a water grab I

l sample from an indicator surface water location, and the weekly water j

coUection from the composite water sampler located at the discharge canal.

3 l

All reviewed air sampling equipment and the con.posite water sampler were l

operational at the time of the inspect. ion. De TLDs were placed at the j

1 i

designated locations as specified in the ODCM. Sample coDection was j

performed according to the appropriate procedures. The observed air j

i sampling equipment was weU maintained, and the associated air volume l

measurement equipment was in calibration at the time of the inspection.

l l

l l

4.2 Review of the REMP Procedures i

. De inspector reviewed a number of procedures as part of the evaluation of the implementation of the REMP in accordance with TS and the ODCM. The i

foUowing procedures were reviewed.

j-l e 7.12.25, " Air Particulate and AirIodine Filter Preparation and j

CoUection" e 7.12.30, " Surface Water Sampling" e 7.12.40, " Exchanging TLDs"

{

e 7.12.70, "Er.virorunental TLD Quality Assurance Program De inspector noted that the above procedures have been updated and revised.

ne reviewed procedures were concise and provided the required direction and guidance for isnplementing an effective REMP.

In addition to the procedure review, the inspector reviewed the calibration results of the volume meters for the air samplers. De calibrations were i

perfonned as scheduled and results were within the licensee's acceptance 1

criteria.

As part of this inspection, the inspector reviewed the licensee's program J

concerning IB BuUetin No. 80-10 (issued May 6,1980), Contamination of I

i 4

i A

i i

.l

(

i h

5 f

Nonradioactive System and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored, Uncontrolled i

l Release of Radioactivity to Environment". De inspector discussed the 4

implementation of IE BuUetin No. 80-10 with mesnbers of the Chemistry l

l Depamnent. De inspector reviewed the site plan, each of the discharge l

l points and sampling locations for the yard drain systems. De discharge drains l

are routinely sampled and analyzed and the results are reviewed by the

[

responsible individual. The inspector also discussed with the licensee the method for identifying au potential sources of release from the site and the l

t inclusion of these sources in the program. He inpr determined that the l

program is effective and facilitates the identification of potential sources of j

radioactive liquids and solids within and from the facility.

During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the relocation and placement of f

i l

slightly radioactively contaminated construction sod within the licensee owner-controUed boundary in accord with an NRC approved 10 CFR 20.302(a) application. He inspector examined the re-location site. De inspector l

l determined that the relocated soil is not located in the near proximity of the -

l wetlands and would not likely be affected by them. Because this area is i

owner-controUed, members of the public have limited access to this onsite area. De licensee's surveys indicated that no dose rates above the normal i

background levels for the area were detected. De inspector noted that the j

licensee collected and analyzed sufficient soil samples to fully characterize the l

l f material prior to the relocation. The inspector also noted that the licensee had 1

accurately quantitized the amount of the soil to be moved based on records of the number of loads of material stored. De licensee had performed adequate l

l surveys and measurements prior to, during and after the relocation of this material. De inspector concluded through discussions with the licensee l

review of applicable records and direct inspection of the areas, that the j

licensee conducted this project thoroughly and appropriately. Radiological i

l impacts from this soil to the public and the environment are negligible. The j

inspector had no further question in this area.

l I

4 Based on the above review and discussions with the licensee personnel, the f

J j

inspector determined that the licensee has implemented an exceUent REMP.

4.3 Envimm...-- tal Dosimetry Procram Comnarison r

l ne results of the NRC 'ILD Direct Radiation Monitoring Network are published quarterly in NUREG-0E37. His network provides continuous l

measurements of the ambient radiation levels around 72 nuclear power plant l

sites throughout the United States. Each site is monitored by approximately 30

(

to 20 TLD stations in two concentric rings extending to about five miles from

+

1 the nuclear power plant.

i I

f f

}-

6 l

One purpose of this network is to provide a means of comparing the results of

~)

the direct radiation monitoring programs conducted around individual nuclear l

power plants.with that of the nationwide NRC program. Derefore, several l

NRC TLDs are collocated with adetM licensee TLD stations. De NRC i

employs the Panasonic Model UD-801'ILD that consists of two elements of lithium borate activated with copper and two elements of calcium sulfate activated with thulium. The two calcium sulfate elements are used to j

j determine the environmental exposure level during normal operations. Twelve NRC TLDs (one at each collocated station) are collocated with licensee TLDs j

at the Pilgrim site.

s j

ne licensee currently places two types of Panasonic environmental TIDs, one Model UD-801 and one Model UD-814, at each specified monitoring location.

Both TLDs consist oflithiuin borate elements activated with copper and l

calcium sulfate elements activated with thulium. ne UD-801 contains two j

lithium borate and two calcium sulfate elements. De UD-B14 contains one l

lithium borate and three calcium sulfate elements. Only the five calcium sulfate elements are used by the licensee to determme environmental exposure l

1evels during normal operations.

t i

During this inspection, the inspector compared the monitoring results of the collocated TLDs for 1992 and the first half of 1993. For both the NRC and i

the licensee, the results are provided in Table I as the net exposure result i j

random uncertainty, expressed as one standard deviation. Table 1 also includes i

the NRC ' historical average" data for each location as a basis for comparing the quarterly NRC results to those measured previously; these historical averages also provide a means of comparison with the results of the licensee.

i l

The data begin in 1983 and include the data through the first quarter of 1993.

l De reported values are the mean i I standard deviation for all quarters for l

which net data were available. The relatively small standard deviations for the i

historical averages indicate that the NRC results have remained consistent over

_the ten-year period, with one exception. De quarter?y results for location

.NRC 1 (the onsite Overlook Area) have been higher than the historical average since 1991. NRC 1 is subject to exposure to scattered radiation from N-16 l

turbine shine during periods of operation. The introduction of hydrogen water chemistry during 1991 somewhat enhanced this phenomenon. De quarterly l

.7LD results for this location are typically higher than the historical average when the plant is operating and lower than the historical average (2nd quarter d

1993) when the plant is shut down (background level). nis variation in exposure with power operations accounts for the higher standard deviation for j

the historical average for this location.

..ne licensee's quarterly results during 1992 were sightly higher than those of l

mhe NRC. His difference may be due to different transit doses, differences in j

}

l

I l

=

i 7

f time of field exposure, and specific 'IID Jocation variations. With the above uncertainties and variabilities considered, the results of the two sets of TLDs are in good comparison.

'Ihe inspector noted that the EnviierJr.;.1 Program Manager of the Chemistry Department tracks, trends, and reviews the ~11D results including l

l those of the NRC collocated TLDs.

r I

Based on the above review, the inspector determined that the licensee continued to maintain an excellent environmental dosimetry program.

j i'

is 5.0 O=13tv A=tiarance and Onality Control for Analveiemi unimy. _ _ __,

De inspector reviewed the licensee's programs for quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) to determine whether the licensee had adequate control with respect to sampling, analyzing, and evaluating data for the implementation of the REMP.

The quality control program for analysis of environmental samples is conducted by l

the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL), located in Framingham, MA.

l The laboratory conducts a blind duplicate program, an intralaboratory quality contro!

program, and participates in the EPA-cross check program to verify the quality of laboratory analyses. The inspector reviewed =atar'ad results from these programs and j

p noted that the reviewed results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria.

I i

The inspector noted that the licensee continues to maintain an excellent quality i

l assurance program to ensure that the routine and non-routine REMP sample results j.

are thoroughly reviewed by the Environmental Project Manager. Any results that appear suspect are recounted and reviewed.

Based on the above reviews and discussions with the licensee, the inspector de'ennined that the lice.nsee had excellent QA and QC programs.

I 6.0 Mero1orical Monitorine Program MMP)

I The inspector reviewed the licensee's MMP to determine whether the instrumentation i

i and equipment were operable, calibrated, and maintained. The Emergency i

Preparedness Division has oversight for surveillance, calibration, and maintenance of l

the meteorological instrumentation and equipment. Calibrations are performed weeldy r

and quarterly and surveillances are conducted daily, weekly, and biweekly by l

i technicians of General Tect Division using the vendor operation manual.

l 5

Calibrations and surveillances were performed accordmg to the requirements specified in the Emergency Preparedness Procedure, EP-AD-421, " Surveillance, Maintenance i

l O and Calibration of McDAP Equipment". "Ihe inspector reviewed this procedure and I

4 y

y.m_.-

y

l 8

temperature "at the primary and back-up meteorological towers: All reviewed

~ /)'

the most recent calibration results for wind speed, wind direction, and delta calibration results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria and all calibrations I

were performed according to the frequencies required by the procedure.

he inspector witneased the weekly calibration of the meteorologicalinstrumentation at the primary tower, including an examination of the strip chart recorders located in i

the mntrol room to verify the expected response to the calibration. De calibration results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria. The inspector noted that the chart remrders in the control room and the instrumentation at the primary tower were operable and well maintained at the time of the inspection.

hW on the above inspector obserations, record review and discussions with the licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee continued to implement the MMP effectively.

7.0 Exit Interview he inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1.1 of this irtpection report at the conclusion of the inspection on September 3,1993. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and fmdings of the inspection. He,

licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.

l O

f I

e l

i i

2 e

1,._,

Enviroceental TLD Btonitorirg Resuts (mR/perwt) fee 1992 eral free hair 1993*

Centerison of MRC TLDs Cettreced wkh Pilgrim TLDs D

E le oren 2rd e.cn 3rd esca 46 ween to an 7ad vur emC Aveten" 9

NRCI 102.8 i 3.s 93.213.8 113.413.8 71.612.5 109.113.7 41.4 i 1.6 43.0128.2 tit OA 107.014.4 117.319.7 120.9 i 5.2 70.0 i J 7 119.3 i 6.5 44.312.2 NRC 2 17.011.1 14610.9 20 8 i 1.1 14.610.9 16.7 i I.0 15.810.9 16.712.8 Pvt. FA 20J i 0.7 20.711.0 20.710.5

. I8.5 i 1.1 19.5 i 0.6 1d.310.9 NRC 6 13.4 i 1.0 12.8 i 0.8 15.6 i 1.0 13.510.9 13.210.9 15.710.9 I4.4 i 1.5 rtLJo 16.8 i 0.4 15.910.6 16.110.6 16.010.7 15.310.6 16.510.7 NRC7 17.1 i 1.1 17.9 i 1.0 19.0 t 1.1 16.410.9 16.411.0 20.8 i 1.0 18.312.6 FIL WR 20.610.7 19.710.8 20.310.9 19.610.9 19.210.6 20.1 1.1.0 NltC 13 12.5 i 1.0 12.0108 15.1 i 1.0 11.510.8 12.8 1 0.9 13.7 i 0.5 13.4 i 1.8 FIL ER 15.610.7 I4.8 1 0.4 15.410.5 15.010.4 14.710.6 14.910.9 NRC 22 14.1 i 1.0 10.310.8 15.1 i 1.0 12.610.3 13.410.9 14.710.8 13.5 i 2.1 FIL htP 17.210.7 16.1 1 0.9 15.510.4 16.110.7 15.9 i 0.6 15.610.9 NRC 25 12.8 i 1.0 13.310.9 14.411.0 13.710.9 12.910.9 15.010.8 14.0 i 1.9 FIL WR 15.710.9 15.010.7 15.210.5 15.410.8 15.310.6 15.410.6 NRC 30 15.2 i 1.0 15.710.9 16 2 i 1.0 15.010.9 14.8 i 1.0 18.910.9 16.0 i l.3 FIL MS 18.3 i 0.4 17.610.5 18.210.7 Is.1 10.5 17.310.6 18.710.6 NRC 37 15.0 i 1.0 13.910.9 16.1 i 1.0 13.010 t 13.410.9 14.9 i 0.8 14.3 i 1.9 Pit SP 16.210.7 15.110.6 15.510.8 15.310.9 14.510.6 15.1 1 0.7 NRC38 10.710.9 Il.2 i D.8 82.610.9 10.710.8 NC 12.9 i 0.5 13.1 1 2.3 Fil. MB 16.110.7 15J i 06 17.412.7 15.410.5 NC 14.410.9 NRC 4) 15.7 i t.0 14.010.9 16.7 i 1.0 14610.9 15.111.0 16.210.9 15.7 i 1.9 FIL NF 15.210.9 17.510.5 87.310.8 17.510.6 17.510.6 85.410.9 NRC 47 14.011.0 13.710.9 16.4 i 1.0 14.510.9 12.910.9 NC 14.9 i 1.9 rit EW lF.B i 0.4 17.110.4 16.610.7 17.710.6 15.510.7 17.810.8 NRC48 15.5 i 1.0 17.7 i 1.0 18.311.1 iB.0 i 1.0 13.910.9 NC 15.712.2 FfL EW lf.S i 0.4 17.1 1 0.4 16610.7 17.710.6 15.8 1 0.7 17.810.8 Att des en shewn n the cet temit i i mandsed devierion h Ae rendem eneemirwies.

• All cet reselts ove in endlivecctgene (mR) and ete norrwfimito e 9&dey sporter.

" NRC historkel everage ftem 1983 (in veint) thecush 1993 (1st quarte-).

NC = no eengevisonbecsoes des eve not enilette(dv to subsing er demmged TLD)

y' wa ACTl0N t

R I

EDO Principal Correspondence Control k

t FROM DUE: _ /06/98 EDO CONTROL: G19980639 11 DOC DT: 10/19/98 FINAL REPLY:

Reprecentative Edward J. Markey TO:

Chairman Jackson FOR SIGNATURE OF :

• • GRN CRC NO: 98-0984

{

Travers, EDO DESC:

ROUTING:

[ RECORD OF PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-Travers CONTAMINATION PRIOR TO TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP Thompson.

l FROM BECO AND PECO. (Mary Elizabeth Lampert)

Norry

,M Blaha Burns Miller, RI DATE: 10/26/98 Paperiello,NMSS ASSIGNED TO:

CONTACT-NRR Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

1 Raf. G19980624.

MQ RCTIDLl. DRfE: 2o3ohnsh MR.R REcE1VEo ochber al,1998 klR.R Re.unge,: cohc,kwag.o ACTION D '"

huon DUE TO I4RR DIRECf0R'S OFFi" N/3 bf _

$?Imernwn BY wa_ klewA i

i

]

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:

CRC-98-0984 LOGGING DATE: Oct 23 98 ACTION OFFICE:

EDO AUTHOR:

EDWARD MARKEY, REP AFFILIATION:

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ADDRESSEE:

CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE:

Oct 19 98 FILE CODE: IDR 5 PILGRIM

SUBJECT:

SALE OF PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BY BOSTON EDISON.... MAINTAIN VITAL RECORDS OF SITE CONTAMINATION.....

ACTION:

Signature of EDO DISTRIBUTION:

CHAIRMAN, COMRS SPECIAL HANDLING: OCA TO ACK CONSTITUENT:

MARY E LAMPERT i

NOTES:

i DATE DUE:

Nov 6 98 SIGNATURE:

DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

Y t

i I

N c

I l

EDO -- G980639 i