ML20236T663

Responds to Items Discussed During 980415 Telcon.One Item Mentioned Associated W/Regulations in 10CFR40.Excerpts from Regulation Encl

ML20236T663
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	07/20/1998
From:	Barr K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Blockeyobrien AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 9807280318
Download: ML20236T663 (5)

Text

l

.'s I July 20, 1998 i

l gy 32 l l Q)- ', G ?,

Ms. Pamela 81ockey-0brien D23. Golden Valley Road Douglasville, Georgia 30134

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO ITEMS DISCUSSED ON APRIL 15, 1998 )

Dear Ms. Blockey-0brien:

i During our telephone conversation on April 15. 1998, you asked several .

)

questions and made a number of comments that I subsequently summarized into I i

six items. I have listed those six items and our responses in Enclosure 1 to ~{

\

this letter. One of the items you mentioned was associated with the regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. I have enclosed I some excerpts from that regulation as Enclosure 2. If you have any questions on the enclosures, you may contact me at 404-562-4653.

Sincerely, (Original signed by K. P. Barr)  ;

I Kenneth P. Barr I)

Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety y l l

Enclosures:

As stated a

stenarumE f{((]

- wwr

,04TE 7/ M /98 7/ /98 7/ /98 T/ /98 7/ /98 7/ /98 ' 7/ /98 Icorn /YEh M YES MD YES ED VES MD YES M YES MD YES MD

~

9007 l

P hp/ J V n""280318990720** ****ia' Aux #

L V  !

____:_-_ .)

RESPONSE TO ITEMS DISCUSSED ON APRIL 15, 1998 Item 1 Be-7 found in the environment around Hatch could come from the plant as well as cosmic interactions.

Resnonse to item 1 In January 1998, you indicated you thought that the levels of Be-7 found around Hatch were higher than natural backgrourid levels. In our previous letter dated April 9,1998, we provided information indicating that international radiological protection organizatioris consider the source of Be-7 to be cosmic ray interactions with matter in the at'mosphere. In our April

15. 1998, telephone call, you indicated that Be-7 could also be produced in nuclear reactors.

You are correct in that pressurized water reactors (PWR) use various chemicals to control reactor coolant water conditions that, by interactions with subatomic particles, can result in the ]roduction low levels of Be-7.

Specifically, Be-7 can be produced by tie interactions of protons and lithium nuclei contained in PWR reactor coolant system chemical additives. However.

Hatch is a boiling water reactor (BWR) and does not add lithium to the reactor coolant water. Consequently, any Be-7 detected around the Hatch plant site would be expected to have been produced by cosmic interactions.

Item 2 You believed: (a) the State of Georgia should issue an alert because you believed that fish around Hatch were contaminated. (b) a State report associated with water quality of State waterways should list radioactivity levels in addition to the chemicals it lists, and (c) there were internal communications problems between several departments of the State.

Resoonse to Item 2 During our discussion, I believe you realized these items were primarily the jurisdiction of the State but you wanted to discuss them with me. I assume you agree that items (b) and (c) are not issues for NRC since they deal with a State report on non-radioactive chemicals and internal State communications matters, respectively. You may wish to contact the State directly on all of these matters.

With regard to the item (a) the 1996 State environmental rnort states on page 4. for the fish samples in the vicinity of Hatch. "All results were within the normal background range (less than 30 pCi/Kg fresh weight for Cs-137) and do not indicate any influence from Plant Hatch". Since there has been no statistically significant detectable influence on the fish population due to Hatch, the action you proposed appears not to be appropriate.

Enclosure 1

2 Item 3 Release of Co-60 and Cs-137 from a nuclear power plant is a violation of the Clean Water Act.

Resoonse to Item 3 During our conversation, you stated you believed that the release of Co-60 and Cs-137 from nuclear aower plants was in violation of the Clean Water Act. As you know, the Clean Water Act is the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although NRC cannot interpret EPA regulations. I noted that EPA regulation. Title 40 CFR 122.2. Definitions, defines pollutants and specifically exempts radioactive materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. As I read that regulation, nuclear power )lant releases of radioactivity do not fall under the National Pollution )ischarge Elimination System established by EPA. For your information. Enclosure 2 provides some excerpts from 40 CFR 122.2. If you need additional information regarding the Clean Water Act and whether nuclear power plant liquid effluents violate the act, you may wish to contact the EPA directly.

Item 4 Contamination (Cs-137) found at Darien. GA came from Hatch.

Resoonse to Item 4 In our conversation, you stated that you believe that the Cs-137 found at Darien. Georgia was from Hatch. As you know, sources of the Cs-137 could be residual fallout from world-wide fallout due to weapons testing and the Chernobyl accident and from Hatch. Darien is 100 miles downstream from Hatch and shows a level of Cs-137 four times higher than samples from locations i closer to Hatch. The environmental report from the State provided a reasonable discussion and plausible explanation for the level detected.

Item 5 The river around Vogtle should be posted because of the levels of tritium and Cesium-137 found.

Resoonse to Item 5 In our conversation. you stated you believed that the river around Vogtle had high levels of tritium and Cs-137 and should be posted to alert the public.

As you know, the highest resorted tritium level in 1996 in river water was 2000 pCi/l H-3. However, t1e 1996 report indicates that no Cs-137 was detected in the river samples.

We discussed in the Jast that Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.109. Calculation of Annual Doses To Man rom Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents For the Purpose  ;

of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 50. Appendix I. provides methods '

acceptable to NRC for the determination of radiation doses to man from nuclear powe'r plant releases. Using RG 1.109 parameters, the maximum dose to an individual in a year from tritium is well below NRC limits. Therefore, there l is no basis for NRC to' recommend posting of the river to the State. However.

l you may wish to contact the State on this matter.

i

! Enclosure 1

. 1 I

i i

3 Item 6

{

Several questions were asked regarding waste oil.

Response to Item 6

(

During our conversation, you asked the following questions- . J

a. Where is the waste oil from Hatch being incinerated?

b. Were the areas around Hatch previously contaminated with oil cleaned up?

c. Was the ground water tested for oil?

d. Has the vendor incinerating the oil had their effluents tested for radioactit:ty?

With regard to item c. NRC has no regulations that require that ground water j be tested for oil so that-issue is outside NRC's purview. In an attempt to obtain information on questions', a, b and d, I conducted a review of Hatch inspection re3 orts for the last two years. I was unable to find any j information tlat would answer those questions. i I

I i

Enclosure 1 b

1 s

I l

I EXCERPTS FROM TITLE 40 - PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT l l

(Note: Underlining was added for emohasis.)

CHAPTER I--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PART 122--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ,

ELIMINATION SYSTEM i l

Subpart A Definitions and General Program Requirements {

Sec. 122.2 Definitions.

l The following definitions apply to parts 122, 123, and 124. Terms not defined in this section have the meaning given by CWA. When a defined ,

term appears in a definition, the defined term is sometimes placed in (

quotation marks as an aid to readers.

Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter I backwash, sewage, garbage. sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, i biological materials, radioactive materials (exceot those reaulated under the Atomic Enerav Act of 1954. as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et sec . )), heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt anc industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.

It does not mean:

(a) Sewage from vessels; or (b) Water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil and gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes are approved by authority of the State in which the well is located, and if the State determines that the injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources.

Note: Radioactive materials covered by the Atomic Enerav Act are those encompassed in its definition of source. byoroduct. or soecial nuclear materials. Examoles of materials not covered include radium and accelerator-oroduced isotooes. See Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group. Inc. 426 U.S. 1 (1976).

L Enclosure 2

_ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - .