ML20059L187
| ML20059L187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1994 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lampert M DUXBURY NUCLEAR ADVISORY COMMITTEE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059L191 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9402030266 | |
| Download: ML20059L187 (7) | |
Text
-~
~ - - +
6 r
l' p
o "" %
IO d
B UNITED STATES e
4 ii NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ik j/-
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-o001 January 27, 1994 Ms. Mary Elizabeth Lampert,. Chair Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee 148 Washington Street i
i Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332
Dear Ms. Lampert:
I Enclosed is our response to the questions you sent us in your letter dated c.
l December 1, 1993, regarding the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. 'These questions were based on a news article in the Duxbury Reporter.
It is my l
understanding that the Duxbury Supervisors received a briefing from the Boston L
Edison Company (BECo) on January 3, 1994, on their progress in securing a j
a L.
dredging permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
[
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.(NRC) has not been involved in the
.i i
early activities relative to the issuance of a permit to BEco for the dredging planned for 1995 or beyond. We are aware that BEco is seeking the required 3
permits from the appropriate Federal agencies.
It is our understanding'that-
'the actions being considered by BECo are preliminary'at this time.
If BEco decides to dispose of material that contains radioactive material at any location. other than.a licensed low level radioactive waste disposal site, it must submit a request for approval to the NRC since it is not located in an Agreement State. At that time, the NRC would evaluate the proposal-considering potential impact to the public and the environmental and'other regulations and agreements.
If BEco requests approval to dispose of such 1
material offsite, the NRC would publish a notice in the Federal Reaister to solicit comments from the public.
1 Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Enclosure:
As stated i
i I
i i
f, I
in" M Mk IEC FRE CMiB1 C#PY 310014 L
'1
n January 27, 1994 Ms. Mary Elizabeth Lampert, Chair Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee 148 Washington Street Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332
Dear Ms. Lampert:
1 Enclosed is our response to the questions you sent us in your letter dated December 1,1993, regarding the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. These questions were based on a news article in the Duxbury Reporter.
It is my understanding that the Duxbury Supervisors received a briefing from the Boston Edison Company (BECo) on January 3, 1994, on their progress in securing a dredging permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not been involved in the early activities relative to the issuance of a permit to BEco for the dredging planned for 1995 or beyond. We are aware that BEco is seeking the required permits from the appropriate Federal agencies.
It is our understanding that' the actions being considered by BEco are preliminary at this time.
If BECo decides to dispose of material that contains radioactive material at any-location other than a licensed low level radioactive waste disposal site, it must submit a request for approval to the NRC since it is not located in an Agreement State. At that time, the NRC would evaluate _ the proposal considering potential impact to the public and the environmental and other regulations and agreements.
If BEco requests approval to dispose of such material offsite, the NRC would publish a notice in the Federal Reaister to solicit comments from the public.
Sincerely,
~DMisNTi($lGNEf1BY Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
- previously concurred
,/
y 0FFICE PDI-3:LA Ph[:PM
'*NMSS
- PRPB PDI-3:Qhb NAME StjttIe RIaI/n:dt JAustin LCunningham WButler DATE I / H/94 M/94-
-1/11/94 1/11/94
/ /[/94 j
kD _
'EDO [
0FFICE
- TECH ED
- ADRI
- DRPE:D
- ADP m vv
\\
/
NAME-RSanders JCalvo SVarga LJCallan jdTrurley JThylor
! k93 DATE 01/06/94 1/11/94 1/11 /94 1/12/94 l/)I?94
/
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
. --- (
i j
J.J DISTRIBUTION:
" Docket Filet (50-293);w/ incoming NRC & Local PDRs (w/ incoming)
EDO #0009591 J. Taylor J. Sniezek H. Thompson J. Blaha T. Murley/F, Miraglia L. J. Callan, Acting PDI-3 Reading S. Varga J. Calvo W. Butler OGC OPA OCA SECY # CRC-93-1096 NRR Mail Room (ED0 #0009591) (12G18 w/ incoming)
N. Olson C. Norsworthy L. Mitchell R. Eaton w/ incoming S. Little J. Linville, RI i
/
i
'l i
.j
- J QUESTIONS ABOUT CONTAMINATED SAND AT THE PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 1.
Who determined that the sand contained " minute" quantities of radioactive material and what is the basis?
Answer:
The Boston Edison Company (the licensee) made the determination'that the sand contained minute quantities of radioactive material.
The-basis for this characterization appears to be the sampling and analysis program undertaken by the licensee for this material. Two of the 14 samples showed detectable concentrations of cobalt-60, a radionuclide that is present in liquid effluents from the Pilgrim plant. The analysis used to determine the level of radioactive material in these two samples was more sensitive than is required by the licensee's technical specifications for analyzing environmental samples.
These results are of little radiological significance.
The Final Environmental Statement related to operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (FES-OL), published in May 1972 by the' U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, examined radiation doses to members of the public who might come in contact with water-borne effluent radionuclides that could accumulate in the sediments near the plant.
The FES-OL estimated, for example, that individuals fishing in the discharge canal of the Pilgrim plant for 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> per year would receive a dose of about 0.004 millirem per year. We believe that any radiation doses to members of the public which may be associated with radioactive materials detected in the recent sampling of the intake canal would be smaller than the 0.004 millirem value presented in the FES-OL.
This value is' well within the 3-15 mrem per year design objectives of Tit 1.10 of the Code of Federal
.legulations (10 CFR) Part 50 that the licensee must meet.
For perspective, the average radiation dose that U.S. citizens receive each year from natural background radiation (including radon) is 300 millirem.
2.
Who performed the analysis of the r,c.d?
Answer:
The licensee performed the laboratory analysis of the sand using an approved station procedure.
l 3.
Were other radioactive contaminants identified?
-i Answer:
Yes.
The analysis also identified K-40, Cs-137, and Uranium / Thorium and their associated daughter decay products.
It should be noted that K-40 and Uranium / Thorium are found naturally in the environment and that Cs-137 also exists in the environment as a product of atmospheric atomic weapons testing. Additionally, in the FES-OL, it was recognized that radioactive material would be discharged into
-the environment from operation of the plant.
The report cites
.l
y
,.t f
g,/,
_, anticipated annual releases of Co-60 and Cs-137 in.the amounts of 1.1 and 0.36 curies, respectively, based _on full-power operation.
As such, it is reasonable to expect that' radioactive material would '
occasionally be detected _in and around the plant's environment.
4.
What are the rules and regulations relating to release of radioactive material in plant effluents.
Answer:
There are numerous regulations and additional controls imposed by rules that require a licensee to monitor and control the release of radioactive material in plant effluents and to monitor the environment for radioactivity. These are listed below.
-10 CFR 20.1302(b)
Limits the concentration of radioactive material in dispersed effluents to the annual average concentrations in Appendix B.
-10 CFR 20.1301(d)
Incorporates EPA environmental radiation standards (25 mrem /yr) into 10 CFR Part 20.
-10 CFR 50.34a and Sets design objectives and technical 10 CFR 50.36a specification requirements for effluents.
I
-General Design Monitoring radioactivity releases.
Criterion'64
-Appendix I As low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) des;;. objectives (3-15 mrem /yr) for gaseous and iquid effluents (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I).
In addition to the regulations, licensed power reactors have technical specifications (license conditions) for effluent and environmental monitoring.
These specifications require a licensee to have programs that limit effluent releases and a radiological environmental monitoring program to determine the impact of plant operation on the environment.
i l
I
j7; pg
. w%D m.. ~4n;sgg
,., +
c--
r.
ACTDM i
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE: 12/27/93 EDO CONTROL: 0009591 DOC DT: 12/01/93 FINAL REPLY:
.M2ry Elizabeth Lampert Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee TO:
Chairman Selin FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN CRC NO: 93-1096 Murley DESC ROUTING:
DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATED SAND FROM Taylor DISCHARGE CANAL - PII4 RIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Sniezek Thompson Blaha Martin, RI OGC-DATE: 12/10/93 Bernero, NMSS ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
/
NRR Murley SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
Coordinate w/NMSS.
ACTION NRR RECEIVED:
DECEMBER 14, 1993 DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S ~.xiCE NRR ACTION:
DRPE:VARGA
[
NRR ROUTING:
TEM /FJM BY C2b /791 JC
/_
i R
' 9j l OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-93-1096 LOGGING DATE: Dec 10 93 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
MARY ELIZABETH LAMPERT AFFILIATION:
MA (MASSACHUSETTS)
ADDRESSEE:
CHAIRMAN SELIN LETTER DATE:
Dec 1 93 FILE CODE: IDR-S PILGRIM
SUBJECT:
DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATED SAND FROM DISCHARGE CANAL -PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION ACTION:
Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN, DSB SPECIAL HANDLING: NONE CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:
DATE DUE:
Dec 24 93 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
1
)
l EDO --- 009591 i