IR 05000029/1974008
| ML20148F257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1974 |
| From: | Nelson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Andognini G YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148F240 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011040731 | |
| Download: ML20148F257 (2) | |
Text
g;- um.~ a>nna ATOMIC Ef!ERGY CO .*MISSIOi!
. g * g../~'- j ~ ~ , ,, "
,
,
.
, 'g oinccionatt or ncou t.avo rev opr naisorn
'* [ * , , ,j
,, uccson s . . . . [::.=:
. , L ' . , /,
- 631 P AR4 AVtNUE 4
- , 9
'
KING oF PRUS$1 A, PENNSYLVANI A 19t.06 1974
'
AUG 7 Yankee Atomic Electric Company License No. DPR-3 '
ATIN: Mr. G. Carl Andognini Inspection No. 50-29/74-08-Assistant to Vice President ,
20 Turnpike Poad .
Westboro, Massachusetts 01581
Gentic=en:
'
-
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. Bores of this ,
office on July. 16-18, 1974 at Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Rowe, . . _ . ,
"
Massachusetts of activities authorized by AEC License No. DPR-3 and to the diccussions of our findings held by Mr. Bores with M Autio, Mr. Jones and other members of your staff at the conclusion .
-
,
of the inspectio ,
' Areas examined during this inspection are described in the Regulatory . . . _ . . . . .
Operations Inspeation Report which is enclosed with this lette M#ES Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations , ..
of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, 1
and observations by the inspector. . !
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or safety items were observe .
. In accordance with Section 2.790 of the AEC's " Rules of Practices", -
. Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this -
letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the AEC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this of fice to withhold such information from public disclosur Any such application must include a full statement of the *
reasons on the basis of which it is cla1med that the information
-
is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary *
information identified in the application is contained in a :
separate part of the document. If ue do not hear fron you in ;
this regard uithin the specified period, the report vill be
'
placed in the Public Document Roo .
-
pa '
.
g
.
-
- 1
'l R
?
-. 8 011o4g 7a7 ,
'
.
Yrnnkcc: Inc-iT1(Jerrcaruregary
}
- (}
^
., - f-
.
- * ~ -2- .. ,-.
' . ;h: :<=
.
. _
,
"...
5:
No reply to this letter is required; houcver, if you should have any questions concerning this inspection, ua vill be pleased to ,
discuss them uith you' .
- ss:
Sincerely,
, ::::;
e ,i[F ^
i: * #
M 5... '
aul R. Nelson, Chief ,
Radiological and Environmental . . ,
Protection Branch ;
- ..
Enclosure:
_ ..
RO Inspection Report No. 50-29/74-08
..
REGION I -
.-
RO Inspection Report Mo: 50-29/74-08 D 'dtyo : 50-29
. N Licensce: Yankee Atomic Electric Corpany License No: DPR-3
. :.=
- *
20 Turnpike Road *
Priority: i Westboro, Massachusetts 01581 Category C
. ._ /
Location: Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS), Rowe. Mas *
Typ'e of Licensce: 180 MWe, PWR (Westinghouse) .
<
Type of Inspection: Announ'ced, Environmental , ,.
,
Dates of Inspection: July 16-18, 1974 ;.., =:::
l:
. .
'.
. Dates of Previous Inspection: July 11 and 12, 1974 .
h Reporting Inspector; 2.du) 0. ?, offM g g,94 ,
pR.J.Borcs/RadiationSp,ccialist DATE I Accompanying Inspec tors: Nonc
.
.
p
!. .
.-
Other Accompanying Personnel: None Reviewed By: #O
_ _ b. '..b!.>L . 2 Ok'-
-
8'(, 7'/
hJ.P.Ste.r,SeniorEnvironr.cntalScientist .
DATE ~
^ / )
D // d 3 O
.. . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . . . . __ _
.
,,.
(
,
. .
'
<. :
.9,. =pj
' -
- -
?- .1 SU?DfARY OF FINDI"GS ,
Enforcement Action (Environmental Monitoring)' h
_
..,.
'
'
, None
.
47-
.
.
Licensee Action on Previous 1v Identified Enforcement Items ~;
(Environmental Monitoring)
- 5 None identified .
,
,
Design Chances ,
._ - # E [-1 None
.
^
3: ,
.
Unusual Occurrences [...
....... .
None ,
- ~ - 1.. .1 ,
-.
t .9 ....,
'
Other Significant Findings *
,
i .. =51 .:"g
.........
,
- - - > Current Findings - . ..
.,.,..,.,.
e")
,
, .,
None
--
.
D j Stat $s of Previously Reported Unresolved Items (Environmental Monitoring)
I...f
.
None identified , t
.
Management Interview On July 18, 1974, following the inspection, a meeting was held in the conference room-at Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Rowe, P.assachusett The following individuals were in attendance:
Mr. R. J. Bores, Radiation Specialist, USAEC, RO:I ,
p
'
!-
Mr. H. Autio, Plant Superintendent
-
.
, jJ Mr. W. Jones, Assistant Plant Superintendent Mr. N. St. laurent, Technical Assistant to the Plant Superintendent ..
Mr. J. Flanigan, Plant' Eealth Physicist
I" ' '
Mr. J. Parillo, Enginecr-in-Training j
,
,
.
.
}
.
U
-
-
- /
.
-,
r ,. ,-* e, ,. ..,,_,.7.- .y . . . , , , , - . ~ , , . [
,
- !
,. .
, , . . . . . .
,, ,
_
,
') -
.
.
~ , =-
The.following items were discussed: ;=
,
r ,
- ;q:, Air Particulate Activitics The inspector stated that'a number of anomalies were r caled in ;.:. 3 the radioanalytical results of the air particulate filter The ;,c,_
- aci
~
licensee stated that this area would be evaluated to ase *ain
'the cause.of these anomalies.. (Paragraph 4.a) ._2 7 g
' Airborne Iodines .
.) =)
The inspector stated that there appeared to be several discrepancies between the licensee's FSAR and Technical Specifications as ,/ 'l to how the airborne iodines were to be analyzed. The licetisce =*
,
stated that this matter would be reviewed and discrepancies eliid y' *:::':;;
inate (Paragraph 4.b) Quality Control in the Environmental Monitoring Program The inspector stated that the licensee's current quality control .f EE==
program should be upgraded in the area of environmental monitorin The licensee stated that this area would be examined and appropriate $.... .=
steps taken. -(Faragraph 5)
. Meteorology
'
'The inspector stated-that-the current meteorology program fell short of those described in Regulatory Guide 1.23. The licensee
- stated that this area was being evaluated by the Yankee Nuclear
.
Services Division, Westboro, and that their recommendations would - ,
be implemente (Paragraph 6) Non-radiolocical Monitoring The inspector stated that the current Yankee Atomic program did not .
provide f or pH or chemical monitoring of wastes discharged from the plant. The licensee stated that hearings for a discharge cza g
permit were scheduled for August, 1974, and the plant would 1 ple- - =
ment those requirements as necessary to fulfill the conditions of ...
"' '
the permi (Paragraph 7)
' Storace Tanks and Transfor.ers The inspector stated that his site tour included the transformer area and on-s'ite storage tank The transformers did not appear ,
to have adequate catch basins or cofferdans to prevent the run-off
of oil (in the event of a leak or transforcer rupture) into the rive i
$
.
. - . . . - . . . .
..
'
.
'.,
Similarly,the safety injection storage tank had no preventive p measure to prevent borated water containing 10-5 microcuries/c1
, ~
gross beta activity frca entering the river in the event of tank Icahage or rupture,
'Be licensee stated that the probics was realized and that a solution was being sought.. (Paragraph 8)
The inspector stated that no violations were found during this inspectio .
'
,
.
\
- =
)
I ...
a l:I
' .
-
.
!; .
{. .
,
.
e
^'T
- =;-,
l
.
.
W
.
. p
.
...
..;
. m
...
a
,
$
! g i
k
.
~ '
- . _
.
._
.
- - - = -- .
' ~
5 .
,
. =
,
DETAILS' Persons Contacted
}k. H. Autio, Plant Superintendent ;g Mr. W. Jones, Assistant Plant Superintendent
.
Mr. N. St. Laurent, Technical Assistant to the Plant Superintendent Mr. J..Flanigan, Plant Health Physicist '"+;
Mr. J. Parillo, Enginecr-in-Training fl Mr.'T. O'Dou, Student Health Physicist
' kk. J. Robinson, Environmental Engineering Manager, Nuc, lear Services ~
%
Division , Westboro ,1bs .
Mr. S. Farber, Radiological Engineer, Nuclear Services Division,
,
.h R
Wes'tboro, }bs l i
.Mr. M. Strumm, Associate Radiological Engineer, Nuclear l' Services j
[?
Division, Westboro , Ibs ' l j
' General M The inspection consisted of a review of the licensee's operational gg environmental monitoring program, encompassing both the' radiological and non-radiological aspects of these programs. The licensee lyf s currently has no environmental monitoring requirements but has
.
Since January, == ,
performed some radiological moni~toring since 196 E
~
1974, the licensee had been following the radiological monitoring program detailed in Section 11.6 of the FSAR submitted to AEC:DL for [5
approval. Areas examined during this inspection included a selective [
examination of sampling stations, sampling and analytical procedurcs, representative program results, interviews with personnt) and ob-
.
-
- servations by the inspecto . Organization and Administration The licensee stated that the environmental monitoring program was administered and supervised by the Environmental Engineering Depart-ment, Mr. J. Robinson, Manager,.of the Yankee Nuclear Services Division, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Westboro, !bss. Ik . S .
?
Farber has the responsibility in the radiological areas and }&. W. Davis
- in the non-radiological area Both individuals report to Mr. P. Little- '
field, who rcports to Mr. Robinson. The review and evaluation of environmental data for all the Yankee nuclear plants are performed ,
by this'gr'ou .
Sample collection for radiological analyses is supervised by Mr. J. Flanigan at YMPS. Mr. Flanigan reports through Mr. Billings, Health Physics and Chemistry Supervisor, to }&. Autio, Plant Super-intendent. The licensec stated that samples for radiological analysis were collected by the ebemistry and health physics technicians with .the exception of the aquatic camples (fish, aquatic vegetation,
[.']
.
I l
'
. . _
- , - . . - . _ _ . - ,
.
. . - - - . . . . .
. . !.
-
.; -
~
.
S. '
-
E L s.,. .g
-
.
. .
and sediments).uhich were collected by-Aquatec, Inc. The radiological [
analysis of all environmental sampics had been performed by Tcled>me ~'
,...
Isotopes, Inc., Ucstwood, M.J'., for about the past 5 or 6 year .h 38 Aquatec, Inc. , South Burlington, Vermont also performed selective .jp y studies in regard to temperature of the Deerfield River, thermal discharges, entrainment of organisms, and fish impingement at YUP "5 Radiological'Monitorine Procram ...
L:: :u
'
31 Air Particulate g ..
==
The' review of.the licensee's procedures and records $and discussions .a with the licensec revealed that the five named air sampling- 9 j
stations listed in the FSAR had been in operation since December 11, 1973. Two of the air sampling stations had been in operation since 1
- .]
1960. Air sampics per se were not taken during the early stages #
of operation but rather gum paper was 'used to sample dust f all from the air. The records further revealed that gross alpha, and gross (;; ..;j
- * beta analyses were performed on each particulate filter with gamma spectral and Sr-90 analyses being performed on monthly composites [.l. ][;
of the filters f rom each station since the beginning of 197 Q.;.;&.,
. . .
The inspector examined a number of sampling stations and observed 2
'
that the air pa'rticulates were co11ceted on Gelman Type E, 47 mm fiberglass filters. The flow rates were nominally 30 liters / fj
,
minute and the volumes of air sampled yete ueasured by temperaturc .f
'O compensating dry gas meter The licensee stated the dry gas .
meters were calibrated when installed in late 1973 and the present l plans called for periodic maintenance and recalibration of the b :
L sampling system. The inspector noted that the sampling heights,-
.
.
vere approximately three feet above the ground and that this close proximity may result in heavy dust loading of filters. The licensee stated that this matter would be evaluate The review of the air particulate analyses indicated that an l increase in gross beta activities was evident since February, 197 This increase (from about 0.06 to about 0.2 picoeuries/m 3) was ,.q seen at other f acilities during this time an,d was attributed to Chinese nuclent tests in 1973. Zr-95 in concentrations greater _ R than 0.004 picoeuries/m 3 was also seen since December,1973, on R .R y
air particulate filter composites. (This nuclide was reported
'
by other facilitics as well and was attributed to the same l:
'
cause as above.) The presence of other nuclidos were con-sistently reported in the air particulate composites including Co-60, Mn-54, Be-7, Cs-137 and Ag-110 Comparison of the
. reported activity concentrations of these nuclides with those . .;
.
I
.
4.
. . - - w- .ew m r, , e--- m - - - - . . . - , , - - * - -
._ . _
-
.
- . . -
. ,
. . ',
~
'
'j ,
,
- -
- .
n reported in the main stack vent revealed little , difference in [
ma gn itude . In some instances the environmental sample had 3 F
reported activity cencentraticas (::pproximately 1 picoeuric/m ) i
. greater than'those in'the stack. The inspector determined that the licensee did a quick measurecent of alpha and beta E activities of these filters before sending the filters to .;
Teledyne for complete analysis. The licensee stated these 5]
p j filters were counted in the same counter used to censure in- p
.
plant samples, i.e . , wipe survey samples , ef fluent sanples , etc . :D The inspector noted that the latter sa=ples may be orders of magnitude greater 'than the environmental samples. The ' possibility & 1 ic of contaminating the latter samples in this counterivas discussed, "~
The licensee stated that this would be evaluated asithe source of the unusual environmental air particulate results, ff Airborne Iodines
.
I
)
.
The inspector examined the airborne. iodine sampling programs, _ including the kinds of collectors used and method of analyse W;Q The licensee utilizes 2 inch deep by 47 mm diaceter cartridges manufactured by Barneby-Cheney using triethylene diamine (TEDA) _ ~"
activated charcoal. The licensee anticipates using the sate y
.
type of cartridges from Nuclear Consulting Services, Inc. (WCON),
.who the licensee stated, would perform collection efficiencies F
, _for both elemental iodine and methyliodide on each batch. A pre- p
"
liminary report on collection efficiencies, reviewed by the inspector, revealed that the 2 inch by 47 cm cartridge was com-parable to the 1 inch by 21/4 inch diaceter, Cesco B cartridge f '
for elemental iodines and that the fermer uns superior to the
-
.
Cesco B cartridge f or organic iodines under the conditions of the test. The current test program did not evaluate the collection
-
efficiency for inorganic lodine Review of the licensee's air iodine results revealed that all five of the sampling stations were in operation since December 11, .
1973 and that two of the stations had been in operation for several years prior. Prior to October, 1973, the iodine collection cartridges had been analy:cd as a monthly composite of the weekly cartridges from each station. Subsequent to that time each weekly cartridge was analy:ed individually. The review of the data showed no instances in which the I-131 activities were greater than the Minimum Detectible Activity (about 0.02 picoeuries I-131/
m). Current analysis of the charcoal cartridpes is 'perf orned by Teledyne, by low background beta counting of the iodine af ter its chemical removal frca the charcoal, l
t
\ .
L
-
- . ,
-
V
'
-7-
. .
. ,
(.- _
'
'
.
,
, . 7 7- .
i: O
. The inspector'noted that the methods lof iodine analysis, as i
'
indicated in 'the licensee's records, the FSAR and the Proposed ~
q
~
Technical Specifications, were not consistent. The licensee stated that continuation of the above analysis was planned and y
~
that the FSAR and Technical Specifications would be reviewed
.
and made consisten ,
. Environmental Gamma Radiation The licensee stated that the er.vironmental gamma rad'iation was 5 measured ont a monthly basis at 22 locations- (including 8 on the .
restricted area boundary) with CaSO 4:Dy loaded Teflon (DPTE) 'e N
thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Four phosphors' vere used
.
in each monitoring badge with appropriate filtering to assure .
a uniform response versus gamma energy. The dosimeters are annealed -
and read by Health Physics personnel at the plant. Calibration .,,,.,.
~~
of the system .(performed using 7-14 mrad exposures from an uranium plaque standard) was done monthl .,,;.,,.
.
aq.g -
The inspector reviewed all of the environmental TLD data and yg:.;
found typical monthly exposures were in the: range of 6 to 10 m Oi Film badges' were also' used at each location along with the TLD 7~ j badge Review'of the film data added little information a because of the lack of sensitivity to low level exposure .,,
"
The inspector noted that the levels of environmental gacca -
. radiation were not included in the licensee's 6-month environmental -
report Water .g The inspector reviewed the licensee's water sampling program, including the sampling procedures and analytical technique j d
The water sampling program was initiated in 1960 uhen water from several locations was analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta :
activities. The review of the results of this pregram indicated that 'the licensee had been sampling water at eight specified locations as of January, 1974. Records indicated that seven locations had been sampled for the past two year Water samples <
were analy:cd for gross alpha, gross beta, H-3, Sr-90 and by gamma spectral analysis. Typical results were: Gross alpha, 'i less than Minimum Detectible Activity (MDA); gross beta, from
< MDA to 4 picoeuries/1; Sr-90, < MDA to 2 picoeuries/1; gamma emitting nuclides, all < !DA; and H-3 all MDA (less than 2,000 picocuries/1) except for Sherman Spring. Beginning in January, '
,
1974, H-3 was analyzed by a gas counting technique resulting
"1 I
.
. .
r- -
-w w -~
... - - - - -.
..
. .. .
j
.
.
s .
-
\
'
.
in a much lower MDA (70 picoeuries/1) for H-3. Typical values fi"-
'~
since that ' tite were ' 220-270 picoeurics/1, within the expected
' -
range for surface wate ..
E -
-
In April, 1964, the licensec reported a.lcak in the ion exchange pit resulting in the release of radioactivity to the environmen The licensee subsequently was cited for exceeding the 10 CFR ~
Part 20 limits for E-3 to unrestricted areas. The Part 20 limit #"
'
for H-3 in water is 3X10-3 microcuries/cl or 3 microcuries/ The concentration released during March and April, 1965, was -
reported as 15 microcuries/ i
,
'
t This H-3 activity found its way into Sherman Spring, which * ;
has a flow rate estimated by the inspector to be several gallons i.;;
.per minute. The concentration of. H-3 in Sherman Spring has
.
-
declined over the years from a maximum of 15 microcuries/1 to the current level of about 0.01 microcuries/1 or 0.3% of the h:
10 CFR 20 licit. There was no indication of any additional .
leakage f rom the pit af ter it was repaired in 196 [
5 =?
- ~-
p; - Soil and Vegetation p
'
The inspector reviewed .the licensee's soil and vegetation sampling program and noted that this program extended back to 1960. The FE .
licensee has been sampling soil and vegetation at nine locations % :
The licensee's routine procedure involves E three times annuall k..ana
' " sending one-half of each sample to the radiological contractor '
for analysis and maintaining the remaining portion for future '
use or reference, if neede The results of the radiological
- .
analyses were reviewed. Gross alpha, gross beta, Sr-90 and
,
!?
gamma spectral analyses were performed for each of the samples.'
,
K-40, Be-7 and Ra-226 were the principal gatma emitting nuclides "'
found in terrestial vegetation samples. The inspector noted that the Ra-226 activities were generally much higher than the gross "!
alpha activitics. The reason for this was not evident since both :
Ra-226 and Th-228 (also reported present in most of the vegetation sampics) are both alpha emitters. For soil samples the chief .
gamma emitter was K-4 ,
' ; Bottom Sediments I :
The licensee's records indicated that bottom sediments have been '
,
sampicd in the Deerfield River (cight downstream locations and .
six upstream locations) three times annually. The licensee stated
'
that at least three kilograms of sediment were taken at each '
location so that a portion of the sample could be retained -
by the licensee for future reference. Sampling vas done by
- Ekman dredge, shovel, etc. , depending en location of sample and-I -
.
O au -
. - . . - . .
. .
.
I' < . -
- ':K:
, ,
li
.
..
river co'dition n The radiological' data indicated'that gross
<j alpha, gross beta, Sr-89, Sr-90 and gamma spectral *
analyses r..=
I were performed on each sample.- K1ple Syrup ,. . .;
- . .l
' The licensee has been sampling maple syrup for. radiological j6 analysis.at two locations cach year.. Sr-90 and gamma spectral ',.
analyses were performed on.cach sample. Review of the results
'
y
= = "
.
for the past several years indicated the presence of Ra-226
=#
(0.23 to 2.3 picocurics/1), K-40 (2.5 to 9.9 picoeuries/1) 9'"
and Sr-90 (0.26 to' O.41 picoeuries/ml)'.
' Fish and Aountic Plants $
The licensee stated that fish and aquatic plants were sampled ;
three times annually at two downstream and one upstream locations .
by Aquatec, Inc. Fish samples were analyzed.by Teledync for f T
.
H-3, Sr-90 and gamma ~ emitters. Aquatic plants were analyzed for $
Sr-90 and gamma emitter The results of this program were $
reviewed since'the fourth quarter 197 Es
.:5
'
- . ~.5.
4 Milk y
'~~~'
The licensee stated that the milk sampling program was begun
- in late.1973. The licensee stated that milk samples were ,
o collected monthly from one farm two miles from the site (nearest 4 farn) and another 13 miles away. The licensee's records indicated that milk was analyzed for Sr-90, gamma emitting nuclides and 1-131 (by radiochemical separation and low background F beta counting). The review of the results indicated that I-131 *
'
was <0.5 picoeuries/1 and Sr-90 was.ba the range of 6-8 pico .
curies / , Quality Control
'
The inspcctor discussed with the licensee the quality control exercised by the licensee over the radiolcgical analycic and environmental .
sampling programs. The following areas were included in this discussion: [ (a) Greater licensee familiarity with the analytical procedures and :.
cs .culation of results by contractors, (b) Closer revieu of radio- !'
logical data and the resolution of anomalous data, including a deter- b ='
mination of the effect of dust loading en air particulate results and 5 the use of in-plant equipment to count en.ironmental uampics, (c) More :
efficient use of spike and split rampleis to yield a nore meaningf ul evaluation of contractor work and (d) Use of hcl with sodium bisulfide to keep ions in liquid car.ples frca platin,~ out on the container wall The licensee stated that ti. .se areas ..ould bu ev.tiurited and appropriate action would be take .
.-<e
.w ,
u -
e u ~
-19-
'
, t l ej - -- * *
'
b
[j
'
. , "9
, ,
.
-
,
_ -,
,
' '
- g;_~ 1
" s e ~~ -
, '. .
=.
psee-- Meteorolocy
- l.:.a
,
The inspector reviewed the meteorology program being conducted +
~q E at YNPS. The' current meteorological instrumentation is located ,
on a 140 foot tower.- (The tower height . is comparabic _ to that of . . . . _
the building vent stack.) The licensee is recording windNspeed
' and wind direction with a C11 met C125 system'from the 30 0qot : -
Temperature sensors measure the temperatures at the
,
l5,g,_
. level onl and 140 foot icvels and yield a 4T value betvcen those~ height $Jjg The licensee stated that TRC (The Research Corporation of New Q..] ~
England) performed the routine calibration of the instrumentation =?!h and data reduction for YNPS. The inspector noted that most of tpe
-
airborne releases would be released at the 140 foot level angd ;
~
inquired as to the licensce's plans to add wind speed - win'd ,-
iss direction instrumentation at this level. The licensee stated tifa't
< the relatively poor reliability of this instrumentation had ' #[
E, stimulated the licensee to keep it at the lower level for case of The licensee further stated that the arca of meteorology -5 maintenanc , 55 was being evaluated for all of the Yankee plants by the Nucicar Services group at Westboro. He stated that the recommendations of 4?iE
-
that group would be followe . Non-radiolocical Monitoring *
- 7; .;"..
The inspector questioned the licensee as to the extent of the non-radiological monitoring and study programs being conducted. The ==
licensee stated that currently the only chemical monitoring per-
-
formed on plant vastes was pH measurements of the dcmineralizer discharges. The licensee stated that a hearing for a discharge k; permit was scheduled for August, 1974 with the US EPA and the -
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The licensee indicated that a number of discharge monitoring conditions would be imposed by the permit *
and would be implemented by the licensee. The inspector reviewed a report prepared f or the licensee by Aquatec, Inc. , detailing ig temperature variations of the Deerfield River and fish catch studie Preliminary studies were also conducted of plankton mortality and fish impingement. At the present time there are ho on-going studias j
being conducted on the titer by the licensc . Storage Tanks and Transformers
. ?K, As part of this inspection a site tour was conducted, including the gp]
~
intake and discharge areas, the chemical, dicsci fuel and waste storage tanks, and the transformer area. The inspector noted that diesel fuel and radwaste tanks were adequately diked to prevent any spillage or Icakage from entering the rive Similarily the acid and caustic storage tanks were provided with means of . ..;
.
-
S q
.
'
)
)
'
"1i
..
.~ /
_ _ _ _ _
. _
.
. ., j
,
. . , .,'<. *
-- (; , *
, ,
, ,
', * '
.. .. <
% . . ,
!:w.-..;
'dNb :
preventing releases to the environment. The' transformers, however, ,m,...,
were located such that any oil release as a result of a rupture or
leak 'vould find its way into the river. The grade sloped to the -
H river and'was provided with a.. drainage ditch'to carry rainwater .(and :. l any Icakage)-to the river. The 125,000 gallon safety injection
.
y storage tank-is located;up-grade.from the transformers. 'E .q
-
'contains approximately'117,000 gallons of'10-# nicrocuries/gcc.tank gross [j beta activity water with greater than 2200 ppa boron. In the event llj of a leak or spill from this tank, this water would'also drain = = .
s down into the rive .
- =';
problem to aquatic organisms The water in' the could river, cause as wella chemical toxicity /
as exceed *
="E9 10 CFR 20 radioactivity IcVels for releases. The licensee, M ed that the transformer problen was already being evaluated and the,,,,/ ;.,;
latter problem would'have-to be evaluated-with i i.]
...
e
"p
-
,.$'N3 e
, L'.*.! Nikbk'.
- .
n.: ,
i .
.
i=:
m=--
.
(::.
. I
-
Ui
, [.; ,
--
.
e
- i 9 '
.
- *
.r
. '
d i ,
e <
_ .._ _ . .. . .' '/ .. . _ . _ ..
!' .
_, _ . _ . . -. - _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ = . _ ,