ML20198K760
| ML20198K760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1997 |
| From: | Eselgroth P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Decamp W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710240119 | |
| Download: ML20198K760 (4) | |
Text
_
4 October 15, 1997 William decamp Jr., Trustee
' Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch P. O. Box 243 island Heights, NJ 08732
SUBJECT:
- OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR WATCH LETTER TO EDITOR
Dear Mr. decamp:
This refers to your Internet communication sent to Mr. Neil Sheehan, Public Aff airs Officer, of this office, on September 30,1997. Your communication contained a copy of your letter to Editor, dated September 14,1997, in which you asked six questions related to the recent dumping of radioactive soil from Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station at the Ocean County Landfill. Some of the questions include multiple related questions.
Our response to your questions, based on our current understanding, is attached, in the response to your questions, we describe why the Oyster Creek release of contaminated soil to the Ocean County Landfill is not considered significant radiologically with respect to public health and safety due to the low levels of radioactivity involved. However, we would also like to point out that we are concerned about this uncontrolled release of radioactivity and are addressing this issue with the licensee, GPU Nuclear.
We hope that this is responsive to your questions, if you have additional questions, please contact me at (610) 337-5234.
Sincerely,
?
Peter W. Eselgroth, Chief Projects Branch No. 7 Division of Reactor Projects
Attachment:
Response to Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch Questions 7
\\
\\
cc w/ encl:
- K. Tosch, DEP, State of New Jersey
(
~
N. Raynor, Ocean County Landfill s'
9710240119 971015
@ll.l4 lf kihhh PDR ADOCK 05000219 H
PDR l
. a g
' William decamp, Jr.
2 Distribution w/ encl:
Region i Docket Room (with concurrences)-
Nuclear Safety information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident inspector PUBLIC -
W. Axelson, DRA C. Hehl, DRP P. Eselgroth, DRP D. Haverkamp, DRP T. Kenny, DRS A. Keatley, DRP
- K. Kennedy, OEDO R. Eaton, NRR/PD 13 R. Correia, NRR F. Talbot, NRR.
DOCDESK Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)
DOCUMENT NA,ME: G:\\ BRANCH 7\\ DECAMP.LTR-o um.ni. ine.c.i. in in. we c - copy minout.u.cnm.nt/.neto.ur.
r - copy with attachm nt/.ncio.ur.
N* = No copy l0FFICE Rl/DRP r/ -
l RI/0RA l
RI/0RA RIf &
l RI/DRP l
R m
o m
lNAME : /, DH$ffGTap DChawa@tl(
NSheehan?/g#s -J4ffM-PEselgroth l0 ATE //~ 10M5/97 10/ if /97 10//f /97/
1W
/97 10/
/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 4
.w-
8 ATTACHMENT l
RESPONSE TO OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR WATCH OUESTIONS Question '1: What is in the dumped soil that makes it radioactive? In order to be radioactive some isotope must be involved, is it tritium? Plutonium?
Uranium? Strontium? What is it? Press reports do not say,
Response
The soil contained trace amounts of cobalt 60; the maximum concentration measured was 0.028 picoeuries per gram of soil. For perspective, NRC's
" Current Guidelines on Acceptable Levels of Contamination in Soil and Groundwater on Property to be Released for Unrestricted Use," dated January 1992, indicates that a maximum of 8 picocuries of Cobalt 60 per gram of soil may remain in place on a case-by case basis without incurring any undue health and safety concern. While NRC does not use this value as a typical releas limit, in comparison, a concentration of 0.028 picoeuries per gram has less safety consequence and would not constitute a health and safety concern.
Question 2: The generally accepted scientific standard is that a radioactive substance remains a concern for approximately 10 times its half life. What is (or are) the half-lives of the radioactive substance (s) in the soil?
Response
Cobalt-60 has a half life of 5.26 years. However, in view of the extremely low initial concentration, the half-life is irrelevant relative to any health and safety concern.
Question 3: How much more radioactive soil might be present at the Ocean County Landfill? Does the landfill ha.
radiation monitors? And how was this radioactive soil discovered a idfill?
l
Response
We have no information that would lead us to believe that there is any licensed materialin excess of NRC regulatory limits at the Ocean County Landfill. The licensee, GPU Nuclear, inadvertently disposed of one dumpster containing an estimated one ton of this soil. Upon remeJiation efforts, three dumpsters of soil (much greater than one ton) were removed from the landfill l
in order to better assure complete cleanup. In view of the extremely low initial concentration of Cobalt-60 in the material that was inadvertently dumped, any remaining material from that occurrence would be inconsequential relative to health and safety, and environmental impact.
Your question regarding landfill radiation monitors would most appropriately be addressed to the operator of the Ocean County Landfill. Questions concerning capabil: ties of the Ocean County Landfill should be directed to N. Britt Raynor at (9081657-5100. However, trace concentrations in soil would not usually be detectable, except by laboratory analysis.
4 2
Soil was identified as missing by GPU Nuclear the day after the dumpster containing the soil was inadvertently removed from the site, it was determined that a contractor removed the wrong dumpster to the landfill by
- mistake, Question 4: How did the soil get radioactive in the first place? If it came from leaking pipes - as one account states - how much more radioactive soil is present onsite at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station? Does GPU even know? What is the status of the water table? What are the implications for the possibility of this industrial site being one day put to another use?
Response
An NRC inspection report will discuss this matter based on infortnation developed by our inspectors. A copy will be provided to you upon issuance, in accordance with current decommissioniag criteria, if, in the future, the licensee elects to decommission and release the Oyster Creek site for unrestricted use, the site will be required to be characterized and remediated (as necessary) to meet a residual radiation level of not more than 25 mrem per year, from all pathways, including groundwater.
Question 5: Why was Oyster Creek's radioactive soil mixed with eelgrass? Is any of tb
" soil" actually dredge spoils? If not, wh, did GPU mix radioactive soil with i
non-radioactive eelgrass? Or is the eelgrass radioactive?
Response
The soil was mixed with eelgrass inadvertently in September 1996. Our understanding is that the soil was excavated from the west side of the site.
No radioactivity was measured in the eelgrass.
Question 6: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection claims that they have sophisticated radiation monitoring at Oyster Creek. If so, how did this contaminated soil slip through? What other radioactive substances could have slipped through, and how much?
Response
As indicated above, the manner of removal of this material from the site was unplanned. The very low levels of radioactivity involved in this occurrence would make detection highly improbable. Questions concerning radiation monitoring capabilities of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection should be directed to Mr. l(ent Tosch at 609-984-7700.
S S