PNO-I-81-130, on 811202,licensees Reported Anomalous Results of Flour Water Samples Collected in June,Jul & Aug from Farms Downwind from Plants.Some Contamination Occurred in Sampling.Soil & Grass Samples from Farms Tested Normal
| ML17053C969 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point, FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1981 |
| From: | Bores R, Todd Jackson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PNO-I-81-130, NUDOCS 8112210358 | |
| Download: ML17053C969 (6) | |
s Ga' i ra +
15
.F37 5568
=):5~
ter: ?l DJ~~KET ROG'1 l Q. "f-.~
?CIOZrGG~
Reference 9.3
.ELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OC OCS N '/A Date 12/11/81 URRENCE-"PNO"I"81-130 This preliminary notif1cation.consti'utes EARLY not1ce of events of POSSIBLE safety or public interest s'.gnificance.
.The information s as in1tially received without verifi-cation or evaluation, and is basical'ly all that. 1s known by IE staff on this date.
I Facility: Nine Mile Points Unit 1 (Niagara Licensee Emergency Classification:
Mohawk Power Corp.)
and J.
A.
Notification of Unusual
- Event, Fitzpatrick (Power Authority of the Alert State of Nevi York), Scribe, New York Site Area Emergency (Docket Nos.
50-220; 50-333)
. General Emergency X
Not Applicable ANOMALOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MATER SAMPLE )I)EASURENENTS On December 2, 1981, the licensees reported to the NRC anomalous results of water samples collected at several farms located in the preva]ling downwind area, in the vicinity of'he two plants.
Sampling was conducted three times from June through October, 1981 from farms from which milk is regularly sampled.-
One June
- sample, one July sample,'nd two August samples showed positive results.
All four samples conta1ned very s1milar levels of Cs-134 (about
and Co-60
{about 9 pCi/1).
Three of the samples had very. similar levels of Co-58 (about 4 pCi/1',.
The licensees had previously determined that th0 June-July samples had been sl1ghtly contami,nated (1-2 pCi/1 of Cs-134 and Cs-137) through reagents and supp11es used in the sampling, and made efforts to el1minate any sources of contamination from future samples.
Soil and grass collected at each farm contained only expected naturally occurring cti vi ty None of the above sample results were of a level which would have required eporting by the licensee's technical specifications.
Because of the very similar levels of activity.!it seems unlikely that the detected activi ty actually ex1sted in the sampled water )ources 1n that the four samples were collected at different times, the water sources are at various distances from the plant, and a11 sources have various volumes and rates of d1lution.
These factors would be expected to result in different levels of activfty in each locat1on if the source of
-contamination were airborne plant releases.
There appears to be no waterborne contamination pathway from the plants to the water sources sampled.
Irrespective of the source of, the contamination, the measured activity would Iiot produce a crit1cal organ (11ver) dose in excess of the 10 CFR 50, Append1x I, Pa) t C limit of 15 mrem/yr if the sampled water were'used for drink1ng over the course of'one year, The licensees have stated, however, that none of the four water sources arp used for drinking water.
The licensees plan to collect additional samples in December, 1ncluding sediment samples CONTACT:
T. Jackson, 488-1207; R. Bores, 488-1813 DISTRIBUTION:
H.
St.~//'hairman a
adino Conn. Gilinsky Comm. Bradford Comm.
Ahearne Comms.
Roberts CRS CA MNGEur'IO Phillips~
/N~/'DO NRR E
, )lg',~a.
~Ay Reg1onal Offices'"P Nil'Iste Landow NMSS OIA RES MAIL:
INPO.,'"
IE; TAS ADM:Doc. Mgt.
Br,'NI Resident Section 2~
Ill Resident Office Region I Form 83 (Rev.
Sept.
16, 1981)
Cess, oyad F.'svious edi:ion vrr
4
~
0
a"9~~+7.'4 P8P 21 J
~1~7 t<PC P.1 E)X'KET PQGf1 t Q. 7. >>"
PG04~834 and more complete water samples (up and downstream of farms as appropriate),
The licensees consider it a possibility that there will be media interest and attention associated with this. round of sampling.
The licensees, plan to continue to investigate and to publish the results in the Annual Environmental Program Reports covering 1981-.
The licensees will continue to keep Region 1 apprised of any, developments.
This PN is issued for information only.
The State of New York is being informed.
HRC will not issue a press
- release, and the licensees do not plan to issue one at this time.
A j
'0 0
Docket No.
50-220
~ License No.
DPR-63 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. John Endries President 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13212
Dear Mr. Endries:
Subject:
NRC Region I Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) Review of the February 21, 1992, Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Inadvertent Isolation of the Ultimate Heat Sink This letter transmits the AITreport for the inspection led by Dr. P. K. Eapen between February 22 and March 4, 1992.
This inspection assessed the circumstances,
- causes, personnel actions, and the safety implications of the inadvertent isolation of Unit 1 from Lake Ontario, the unit's ultimate heat sink. At the conclusion of this inspection, a public exit meeting was held on March 4, 1992, with you and other members of your organization to discuss the preliminary findings of the AIT.
The areas examined during the inspection, including matters important to protect the health and safety of the public, are identified in the enclosed inspection report.
Within these areas, the AITconducted detailed examinations of the gates and the pumps in the screen house bay and related indications in the control room; held discussions and formal interviews with, personnel involved in this event; reviewed relevant records including computer printouts before, during, and after the event, and trends of pertinent plant parameters; and evaluated the adequacy of established procedures, management oversight, and personnel training.
The AITconcluded that the causes for this event were: (1) Failure to follow the established work control process by various levels of personnel in multiple groups of your organization; (2) Inadequate management attention to assure that the workers understood and followed established procedures; (3) Inadequate communications within and among organizations participating in work activities; and,. (4) Failure to adequately consider the risks associated with test activities that affected multiple systems during shutdown conditions.