ML20039E077
| ML20039E077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1981 |
| From: | Morisi A BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| To: | Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| 81-292, RO-81-01, RO-81-1, NUDOCS 8201060499 | |
| Download: ML20039E077 (1) | |
Text
B O STO N EDISON COMPANY GENERAL OFFICES MOD BOVLETON BTREET BOSTO N. M AS E ACN USETTs 0 219 9 A. V. M O RIst MANAGER NUCLEAR O PERATIONS BUPPORT DEPARTM ENT December 15, 1981
/L BECo. Ltr. 3 -292
\\
G gy Mr. Ronald C. Haynes, Director
['
4,,
~ 1 Office of Inspection and Enforcement
- g
- - en L!
Region I 37082A R/
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue
' 'e
,b
~ " W King of Prussia, PA 19406 x.
J.
Q License-Noi;DP635]
Docket No. 50-293 Anomalous Measurement Report Ltr. No. 81 Irish Moss Sample
Dear Sir:
On December 8,1981, Boston Edison received an analysis report from the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL) which indicated that a potentially re-portable concentration of Co-60 (361 + 17 pCi/kg) existed in an irish moss sample collected from the Discharge Canal Outfall (indicator station) on October 13, 1981.
At this time, an irish moss sample has not been collected at the control station (Ellisville).
On December 9,1981, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) was requested to collect an irish moss sample from the Ellisville station as soon as possible.
Since a fourth quarter control station analyses of an irish moss sample was un-available for comparison, the indicator sample was compared to the third quarter control station irish moss sample analyses.
From this comparison, the indicator station concentration of Co-60 is in excess of ten times the Lower Limit of Detection Co-60 concentration (17 pci/kg) of the control station in Ellisville.
The Co-60 concentration in the indicator station sample is due to the operation of disgrim Station.
The maximum dose to an individual consuming irish moss with this concentration of Co-60 (361 + 17 pCi/kg) for a full year would be only 9.6 x 10-3 mrem to the total body (childT and 7.26 x 10-2 mrem to the most restrictive organ (adult, GI-LLI).
The above doses were calculated as per Reg. Guide 1.109.
Clearly, the above calculated doses are not significant when compared to the natural background dose rate of about 80 mrem / year. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no risk to the health and safety of the public.
Very truly yours, 499 91 Q h b
J[.-
[ }6 N CK 050 DR
@ f)vM K- --