ML20210K313
| ML20210K313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/18/1995 |
| From: | Shear G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210J835 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-218 NUDOCS 9708190221 | |
| Download: ML20210K313 (2) | |
Text
I h
January 18, 1995 EM
SUBJECT:
FILTERING OF SAMPLES E)(G Dea We received your January 6,1995, letter outlining your concerns regarding the counting of the filtrate from water samples we collected during 1994 in regard to Wingfoot Lake.
In your letter, you referenced a January 5,1995, telephone conversation with Mr. William Snell of my staff, who stated to you that the water samples were filtered, but the filtrate was not counted. Although not stated in your letter, several days prior to the January 5 discussion with Mr. Snell, you had contacted the Region III office and indicated your concerns to Mr. Mike McCann. Mr. McCann had reiterated your concerns to Mr. Snell.
Prior to responding to your concern,.Hr. Snell contacted the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (0 RISE) to discuss their protocol for counting water sam)1es and to verify whether they had filtered the samples, and if they had, wiether they had counted the f.iltrates. Because Hr. Eric Abelquist, who has the lead responsi'ility for the Goodyear Wingfoot sample o
analysis was not available, Mr. Snell spoke with Mr. Abelquist's associate.
Hr. Snell was told the samples were filtered, but the filtrate was not counted. This was the information which was provided to you on January 5.
On January 9, Hr. Snell contacted Mr. Alelquist as a followup to verify that the sample filtrate had not been counted. Mr. Abelquist stated the filtrate had indeed been counted for the first nine water samples, and those results had been provided to us in May 1994. Mr. Snell found this information in our files and mailed a copy to you on January 10. Another copy is enclosed.
You will note that only two of the filtrate samples had measurable results above the minimum detectable levels, and those results were well below the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) levels for gross alpha and gross beta in
$g drinking water. The sample numbers for the results provided in the May 19, g
1994, ORISE letter are the same as the control numbers for the water sample m
Rm results provided in the July 15, 1994, inspection report on the Goodyear "s
Wingfoot facility (Report No. 999-90003/94040(DRSS)). Comparing these numbers Q
will allow you to identify the location where each sample was taken.
The fact bo-that the filtrate results sere not attached in the July 15, 1994, inspection
@@S report was an oversight :;nc we apologize for any confusion this may have gg caused.
oma SEO The additional three water ramples that were collected and analyzed several months after the first nir.e samples were also filtered, but the filtrate for these samples were not counted. Based on the fact that no evidence has been found of radioactivity in excess of NRC release limits in the results of the
,j(.
mim e :,a n,,,
4l t au mm m.
.mn h
M reqv,,
e
~ -
t
-, 7_ )
(~,
y
, q:
i first nine water samples, the sediment samples, the soil samples, and the filtered water from the last three water samples, we see no need to recount the last three water samples.
In your January 6,1995, letter you also raised a concern that the second fish was not a bottom feeder as was the first fish. As you know, the results of the analysis of the first fish were invalidated by ORISE when a quality control (QC) check found a reagent blank with activity above acceptable limits. This required us to obtain another fish. Unfortunately, when the nets were retrieved from Wingfoot Lake when we went back to collect another fish, they did not contain a bottom feeder. Therefore, we used the fish we had available in the net. ' Subsequently, because of the difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory analysis due to the extremely low levels of radioactivity present in the fish, as well as the inability to acquire adequate data with which to compare the results, we found the fish results to be of negligible value. We therefore, decided to obtain lake sediment samples which would more readily represent the levels of radioactivity in the lake.
We then collected five sediment samples which we used in conjunction with the lake water sample to assess the level of radioactivity in the lake. This made the concern over whether the fish was or was not a bottom feeder no longer relevant. To reiterate what was provided in the July 15, 1994 report, none of the sediment samples or the water sample from Wiiigfoot Lake showed radioactivity in excess of NRC release limits.
As an additional note, the enclosed May 19, 1994, letter from ORISE provides the results of the first fish sample. These results were based on a gamma 4
spectrometry analysis in which the minimum detectable level was much too high for the levels of radioactivity of concern. As a result, the results are meaningless, which is why an alpha spectrometry was requested.
Hopefully, this will address your concerns.
Sincerely, Original Signed By Gary L. Shear, Chief Fuci Cycle and Decommissioning Brr.nch
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/o enc 1:
W. L. Axelson, RIII J. L. Caldwell, RIII H. Rhee, Senator De Wine's Office C. Arnold, Senator Glenn's Office J. Holtshouser, Goodyear M. Bolas, Ohio EPA j
- 0. B Ohi epartment of Health f./ y DOCUMENT NAME: B TR 4..
c-c.o...
s.
.../ in
-c.n..
...<i i g g...
.<.i.
0FFICE RIII E
RIII N
NAME Snell w G.S Shear /70 DATE 01/it/95 01/d/95 ncevern 0r0000 rnPY