ML20155B797

Responds to 880725 Ltr Re Facility & Storage of Radioactively Contaminated Soil Onsite.Nrc Presently Performing Insps of Contaminated Dirt Pile Onsite.Insp Results Contained in Encl Insp Repts.W/O Repts

ML20155B797
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	09/12/1988
From:	Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Alexander L, Costello N MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
Shared Package
ML20155B801	List: ML20155B797 ML20155B804
References
NUDOCS 8810070084
Download: ML20155B797 (6)

Text

'

, . SEP 12 tagg o

The Honorable Nicholas J. Costello Commonwealth of Massachusetts $ enate Joint Committee on Energy State House, Room 540 Boston, Massachusetts 02133 The Honorable Lawrence R. Aleaander Commonwealth of Massachusetts House of Representatives Joint Committee on Energy State House, Room 540

. Boston, Matsachusetts 02133

Dear Messrs. Costello and Alexander:

This letter is in response to your letter to me dated July 25, 1933. In that  !

letter you asked several questions regarding Filgrim Nuclear Power Station and  ;

i their storage of radioactively contaminated soil onsite. You also expressed I concern about potential dumping of radioactive material in a lay-down area offsite.

In preparation for restart of the facility, the NRC is performing inspections in all areas of our regulatory jurisdiction. Included is the cont winated dirt pile onsite. During the period of August 18-20, 1988, the NRC performed independent measurements of samples of the dirt pile and of the lay-down area at the station with our mobile labor 3 tory. The results of that inspection are l

in the attached Inspection I;eport No. 50-293/88-29. Also attached as Enclosure l 1 are answers to your specific questions.

1 While the radioactivity measured in the dirt pile is low and does not pose a threat to public health and safety, we are concerned that the licensee has not taken adequate measures to ensure that wind erosion does not take place. We are currently pursuing a rssolution of this problem with the licensee. No radio .

activity was detected in the of f-site laj down area rentioned in your letter.

Thank you for your concerns. Please do not hesitate to cc.ntact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely.

Oric!ntl sic **d DI TILLIA'.! L L M T" William T. Russell Regional AdTinistrator OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AI 83-138 PART A - 0001.0.0 8810070084 S00+12 08/26/S8 \\

gDR ADOCK0500g) Qf

l l l

• t l ,.

l '

i j

Enclosures:

1 i 1. Detailed Responses to costello/ Alexander Letter of July 25, 1988

2. NRC Inspection Report No. 50 293/88-29 i j 3 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-293/82-20  !

4 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-293/81-04 i 1

4 cc w/ encl: l j K. Highfill, Station Director l R. Anderson Plant Manager 2 i J. Keyes. Licensing Division Panager i 4 E. Robinson, Nuclear Information Maniger l j R. Swanson, Nuclear Engineering Department Manager  ;

The Honorable Edward J. Parkey The Honorable Edward P. Kirby '

The Honorable Peter V. Foman B. McIntyre. Chaiman, Departant of Public Utilities '

i Chainnan, Plymouth Board of Selectmen -

i Chaiman Duxbury Board of Selectron  !

! Plymouth Civil Defense Director l l P. Agnes. Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Comonwealth of Massachusetts  !

, S. Pollard. Massachtsetts Secretary of Energy Resources -

l R. Shimshak MASSPIRG j Public Document Room (PDR) j Local Public Document Roon (LPDR) i 1 huclear Safety Infomation Center (NSIC) l 2

NRC Resident Inspector  !

CommonwealthofMassachusetts(2)  !

bec w/ encl-  ;

Region ! Docket Rnom (with concurrences)

R. Blough. DRP t L. Doerflein. DRP  !

D. Mcdonald, PM NRR  !

R. Bores, DRSS  !

5. Collins. DRP  !

I k/*

/l 4 ;K [ [/b' J. I V uciak RB 11any SEheter ller JA an 1.%ss ell S jDk.a TRSSB DRSS SLO O RA lG/8/ 8 9/5'/85 9/f/88 9/'{/88 9/( SS 9/ 33 IM Ub'*Q[twog 9 cjg 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

l >

l

?

i l

DETAILED RESPONSES TO COSTELLO/ ALEXANDER LETT2R OF 7/25/88 l 1  !

Question 1:

! How much radioactivity is in the 110,000 cubic foot pile of dirt? What  !

. measurements were made, when were the measurements made, where were samples taken from, and how were they analyzed? Has there been any additional material

) added to the site since measurements and samples were taken?

Answer:  !

)

4 The best estimate of the volume of the pile of dirt is 65,000 cubic feet.

1988

] DuringearlyAugust,dtoIncreasethedistancefromthewetlands.the better controlled an pile wasIts moved volume to an area where

was determined based on the number of truckloads snd the capacity of the trucks i needed for the move. Measurements were m:de by NRC of 30 samples taken from tne ,

pile (see NRC thatInspection Report 88 29)0.004 Based Curies on these 60.reasurement*, it is 1 .

estimated the dirt pile contains of Co There are other i radionuclides in the pile that were measured that are naturally occurring but i are due to fallout and not from rstesses from the reactor. During the movement 1 of the dirt, the licensee collected about 5 to 6 samples per truckload (140 1

truckloads) for future analysis. The measuremerts made by NRC were made using (

l 4

the NRC Mobile Radioanalytical Measurements Laboratory at the Pilgrim site.

They were analyzed using our low background germanium detector which is  !

! calibration traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The inspection report f j indicates from what truckloads NRC samples were collected. As of the time of f

NRC Inspection 88 29, the licensee was planning to add a small increment of sedimert to the pile. The sediment consisted of approxtr.ately 3800 cubic feet ,

of slit from the intake structure. The licensee stated that mrasurements had

] been made of this sediment and found that concentration: rai.;ed from 10 to 60 pti/kg of Co 60 (1 sti = 0.000000000001 Curies). l J Question 2: I Which 'small stills of coritaminated liquid and resin...during the last 15 years" )

is Mr. Bird referring to in his letter of feoruary 4 1988 enclosed to Mr.  ;

Hallisey? Whatamountsofradiationwereineachspl11and(whendid)eachspill j occur? Are the original test results still available? <

Answer: -

Two of the r.ost recent spills occurred in 1981 a.nd 1982. These are probably I being referred to by Mr. Bird, in addition to sone garlier spills. Both of these most recent occurrences were investigated by NRC inspectors. The inspection reports are attached. For information on other spills than those described in these inspect. ton reports, you should contact the licensee directly.

1 i

Enclosure (1)

- 2 1982 contaminated resin beads were being spewed out of the main stack

. i the turbine and reactor building and ground vicinity. This occurred

.use of a breakdown of a filter. Modifications were made to the plant prohibit this from happening in the future. This is describad in more tail in enclosed NRC Inspection Report No. 50 293/82-20.

$ in early 1981 a contaminated resin spill occurred from a fill valve near theoldadministrationbuilding. Details regarding this event are describe in enclosed NRC Inspection Report No. 50 293/81-04.

For more specific information regarding what Mr. Bird is referring to, you should contact him directly.

Question 3:

Has the dirt been protected from rain and wind? If so, what manner of protection has been used?

Answer:

The licensee had made some attempts to protect the dirt from wind and rain.

Plastic has been placed over the dirt to protect it from wind and rain erosion, and when it was recently moved it was placed on top of pastic. During the NRC Inspection No. 88 29, it was observed that much of the plastic had fallen off or had been blown off the piles. Hay bales had been placed all around the pile and it appeared that they would effectively contain small arounts of rain forced erosion of the piles. Also, an eight foot fence encircled the entire area with plastic sneet attached to the fence, somewhat controlling wind erosion. Either under heavy rain or strong wind conditions, it is not likely that the licensee's current methods would control erocion.

Question 4:

How much radiation is in the fill dirt asphalt and concrete that filled a gullyinthe"laydown"areaoffthePIlgrimaccessroad? When and w ure did this fill come from? How much fill has been dumped here since the plant opened?

Answer:

Several licensee representatives were asked these questions during NRC Inspection No. 88 29. :one of them thought that contaminated materials were ever deposited in the subject lay down area. At t result of a recent I

allegation, the licensee performed some limited surface sampling of the area and found no teactor associated radioactivity. Durin Inspection 88 29 NRC collected seven core samples from dirt and asphalf piles scattered about the area and found less than MDA (MDA: lowest level the instrument can detect) quantities. According to one licensee representative, during plant construction this area was set up with 3 small concrete plant which was dismantled after the station was completed. The area is currently used as a dump for i

3 non contaminated natural materials and stable fill such as sand, asphalt, concrete, bushes, r.tc. No licensee representatives that were questioned on this area during the 88 29 inspection knew of detailed records describing when how much, and what type of materials were dumped there, and none knew of dumping of contaminated materials.

Question 5:

Have there been any efforts to measure leachate from the contaminated dirt pile of the "lay down" area?

Answer:

The licensee has wells around the PNPS site for sampling of groundwater.

Measurement of groundwater samples from these wells has not detected Co-60 contamination. No wells have been placed around the la used for storage or disposal of contaminated materials.y down area as it is not Question 5:

Does Yankee Atomic have comparable storage piles of radioactively contaminated debris onsite?

Answer:

There are no comparable storage piles of radioactively contaminated debris onsite Question 7:

Are small spills of contaminated liquid and resins inevitable in nuclear power plant operations?

Answer:

Small spills occur from time to time at nuclear power facilities, but usually occur inside buildings in radiation controlled areas where they are easily dealt with and pose no risk to the public. Very infrequently spills will occur outside buildings and result in site contamination such as has occurred at Pilgrim. Even at Pilgrim where several small spills and inadvertent releases of radioactivity have occurred over the years, the risk to the public, even those individuals residing close to the plant, has been negligible.

Question 8:

How much radioactively contaminated debris is a licensee allowed to store onsite by the NRC? Is Boston Edison in compliance with current NRC waste disposal standards? If so, which standards? Has Boston Edison ever applied to the NRC for approval of special disposal procedure under 10 CFR Section 20.302?

Answer:

KRC does not placq limits on amount of contaminated debris that a licensee may store. What NRC does is place limits en radiation exposures that may be received by workers and the public and thereby indirectly controls amounts of radiation hazards onsite. Boston Edison has conformed to NRC waste disposal standards.

These standards are prcrulgated in 10 CFR 61. Boston Edison has not yet applied for a waiver to dispose of the dirt pile under 10 CFR 20.302. During the NRC Inspection No. 88 29, licensee representatives said that they intend to apply for such a waiver sometime after the plant becomes operational again.

1 j

l l

l l

l l

l l

U