ML20126E097

Forwards 740408 Anonymous Ltr.Submits Excerpt from Hearing Re Re Webb Allegations Re Co-60 Buildup in Condenser Cooling Water Discharge Sys.Discusses Results of 710210,16 & 17 Investigation

ML20126E097
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Big Rock Point  File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	05/02/1974
From:	Phillip G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20126E096	List: ML20126E091 ML20126E097 ML20126E102
References
NUDOCS 8101100854
Download: ML20126E097 (4)

Text

^

sc' t k

UNITED STATES pf 7 e i l ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i ) DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS REGION 111 k #14rgs o' 799 ROOSCVELT ROAD ggg,,g,gogg GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 6o137 0 12)856-2660 May 2, 1974 Memo to Files CO?iSU)fERS POWER CatTAW (BIG ROCK POIFI)

CHARIIVOIK, MICHIGAN - LICENSE NO. DPR-6 (DOCKET NO. 50-155)

A!J2GATION On /.pril 12, 1974, Region III, Regulatory Operations received the attached letter dated April 8, 1974 from an unidentified individucl.

A review of Region III Files conducted on April 15 revealed that allegations concerning the Big Rock Point f acility Isade by Mr.

Richard E. Webb during a limited appearance at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. I hearing at Port Clinton, Ohic, on December 8,1970, had been the subject of an investigation per- '

formed on February 10, 16 and 17, 1971.

The following is an excerpt from the statements Isade by Webb as they appear on pages 220 through 224 of the hearing transcript:

' "I have witnessed discussions about cobalt 60 injected into the condenser cooling water discharge stream, which was originally planned, hoped it would dilute in Lake Michigan.

But according to what the people were saying there, people in charge of the radiological aspects of the plants, they were saying it was depositing out, building up in the bottom sediment.

The water is slightly warmer and the fish are attracted by the warmer water.

I have seen a dredger be brought in to dredge and relocate that sediment; I don't know for what purpose; to hide it maybe, But or the thing to make it deeper and hope it will flush out. ,

that discouraged me is that wasn't reported in the next monthly l report to the Atomic Energy Cocnission.

I Then I had left and I never made a determination whether it was in fact reported, in all fairness. But at that time it should have been reported, it wasn't."

l 8/0//OO W .

' *r o.

( .

Q

. 2=

On yebruary 10, 1971, Webb, who at that time was a graduate student at Ohio State University, was interviewed at his residence by E. J. Brunner, Reactor Inspector, and G. A. Phillip, Investigation Specialist, Region III, to obtain any additional information he might have relating to the allegations he had made at the hearing. Webb stated he was employed at Big Rock Point from May to December 1967 as an associate engineer. One of the six allegations made by Webb was that cobalt 60 might heve built up in the cooling water discharge channel sediment which was dredged up and possibly hidden.

Webb stated he was not claiming that the company had exceeded the Connission's limitations on the maximum permissible concentrations of radioactive materials released to uncontrolled areas. He wondered,

' however, whether there was a build up of radioactive material in the laka around the discharge channel. Webb stated that the need for dredging out the discharge channel was discussed at a management meeting sometime during his employment, and he wondered whether the question of dredging arose because company officials knew, or suspected, there was a build up of radioactive material in the sediment. He stated the channel was dredged out in September 1967 but he did not know where the sediment had been deposited. He said he considered it a distinct possibility that the sediment had been dumped in some remote area or unmarked spot in the lake to hide the

, fact that radioactive material had been building up in the lake near the plant because of the plant's operation.

Webb went on to say that some of the facility's employees fished at the point where the discharge channel feeds into the lake. He indicated the water is somewhat varmer there, and the fish are attracted to that spot. On one occasion, he observed an employee, who had caught a number of fish, walking toward the parking lot when the radioactivity officer saw him. The radioactivity officer said to the employee that be should check the fish he had caught, because they might heve radio-active material in them. The employee responded by saying that a little radioactive material would not hurt him. Webb interpreted this event ,

as an indication facility management asight have been aware radioactive I material was building up in that area.

g 9 4

6

)

1 f

l p

..-.- - . - . . . . -- -- -- ~. - . ~ . - -

t

. ( -

4 .

3 During the visit to the Big Rock Point facility on February 16 and 17, 1971, J. H. Snierek, Reactor Inspector, and G. A. Phillip, Investigation Specialist, Region III were advised that samples of the bottom sediment of the discharge channel had never been taken for analysis by Consumers Power Company nor had they engaged a contractor to perform this service. It was learned, however, that Argonne National Laboratory had conducted environmental surveys at

- Big Rock Point in 1970. On February 23, 1971, Argonne National feborato 7 furnished preliminary results of these surveys which indicated the maximum cobalt 60 activity detected was present in a sample of the bottom sand at the outfall of the discharge channel 200 Det out in the lake. This was 6.75 pCi/gm. This concentration ,

in inedible sand is roughly one fourth the 30 pCi/ml (30 pCi/s) annual average concentration permitted by 10 CFR 20 in liquid affluents to unrestricted areas. The cobalt 60 activity measured in the discharge channel water during a batch release was 1.1 pCi/1, about one thirty thousandth of the 30 pCi/mi (30,000 pCi/1) annual average concentration permitted by 10 CFR 20 in liquid affluents to unrestricted areas.

Facility officials stated that because of the prevailing wind direction in the area, silt and stone drift in to plug up the discharge channel at its mouth beyond the monitoring point. For this reason, it had been necessary to clean out this buildup every two or three years.

The official stated that the channel was scheduled for dredging when warmer weather arrived in 1971. It was indicated the channel had been dredged on three previous occasions. Those dates were July 6, 1964, September 7,1967 and September 25, 1969. ,

The silt and sand removed from the discharge channel during these operations was spread on tho' shoreline on either side of the channel.

A clamshell digger was used for this operation. The material was not taken out into deeper water and then dumped.

The facility officials stated that the beach was surveyed with a Thyac survey meter equipped with a GM probe with a thin and window af ter each dredging operation. No readings above background were ever obtained. The drag line and tracks of the clamshell vehicle 6

e 8

e l

I 1

I were smeared before it was allowed to leave the site. These smears always showed less than background readings. An analysis of shoreline sand samples obtained af ter the dredging that took place on September 25, 1969 was performed by Tracerlab. The results of their analysis were  !

furnished in a letter dated June 9,1970. A copy of this letter was  !

obtained during the investigation and is attached to this memorandum.

The dredging operations were not reported to the Commission according to facility officials because these operations were considered to be -

of a routine nature and no radioactivity had been detected as a result of the surveys performed following these operations.

The information obtained during this investigation did not substantiate that the licensee had failed to comply with the Commission's regulations or operated unsafely in those matters referred to in the allegations made. No items of noncompliance or safety items were noted during the investigation. During the interview with Webb on February 10, 1971, which was subsequent to his employment at Big Rock Point in 1967, he provided all of the information he had concerning matters he considered improper or questionable relating to that facility to the RO III investigators. Since these matters, including the dredging operations, were covered during the investigation conducted in 1971, Region III plans no further action on the matter at this time.

G. A. Phillip Investigation Specialist

Enclosures:

1. Ltr from unidentified individual dtd 4-8-74

2. Ltr from Tracerlab dtd 6-9-70 4

9 e

4 h eine

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