IR 05000219/1973017
Text
-
'
,-
i
. _,
' ' :.
.
.
.
a e
y U.S. A'IOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
.
.
.
t DIRECTORATE OF REGUIATORY OPERATIONS
$
,
':
'
REGION I
- re
.
a f;-
,
w
.
,
,
73-17 Docket No.:50-219
RO Jnspection Report No.:
'
'
'
i;c. Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Light Compa'ny License No.:
DPR-16 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Statbn Pfiority:
-
-
Forked River, New Jersey 08731 '
Category:
'
-
,
,
Incation:
Forked River, New Jersey 08731-
,
.
.
.
.
.
Type of Licensee:~
.
.
Iype of Inspection: Snecial. Unannounced
-
.,
-
,
. Dates,of Inspection: October 23, 1973
.
C:tes of NM/ddddlidd$difthM October 23, 1973 Management Interview
,
Mf/
.SWhdlilbhInspector: 1/WJ' l.
Ad*
>
Principal FRED N.
UKANUbHLP, Kadiation/ bpecialis t Date
m@
.
.
NONE A3 companying Inspectors:
Date
,
l
-
-
.
,Date
.
,
.
_
Date
,
.
.
Date NONE Cther Accompanying P.crsonnel:
.
.
Date
'
A
-
R, viewed by: /
V' [ //M N 7
- /,' 0 3 i
'
ROBERT O. McCLINTOCK, Senior Radiation Specialist
~
'Date
i
-
Date
.
,
e
.
f
.
.
-
.
.
9604120059 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR
_
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action 1.
10 CFR 20.201(b) - Surveys inadequate to show compliance with 20.103.
(See paragraph 4b, 4c)
'
2.
10 CFR 20.201(b) - Surveys inadequate to show compliance with 20.101.
'
(See paragraph 3c)
Safety Items 1.
Food and beverages in potentially contaminated area. (See paragraph 3b)
2.
Poor housekeeping in waste barrel storage area. (See paragraph 2a)
3.
Absence of licensee supervision of contractor operativa. (See paragraph 4D)
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Not covered in this inspection Unusual Occurrences Not covered in this inspection Management Interview The following licensee representatives attended a meeting held in Mr.
- kWI Carroll's office on the af ternoon of October 23, 1973:
Mr. Joseph Carroll - Station Superintendent Mr. John Sullivan - Technical Engineer Mr. Thomas Quintense - Project Engineer Mr. Edward Scelsky - Radiation Safety Officer Mr. Edward Growney - Technical Supervisor The inspector discussed each of the violations and safety items.
In addition he discussed his conclusion that the primary deficiency was the lack of supervision by Jersey Central Power and Light Company over Hittman's activities.
o
.
DETAILS 1.
Pers ons Con tac ted Joseph Carroll, Station Superintendent John Sullivan, Technical Engineer John Quintense, Project Engineer Edward Scalsky, Radiation Safety Officer Edward Growney, Technical Supervisor Donald Kaulbach, Health Physics Foreman James Hill, Hittman Corporation Supervisor Hittman Corporation technicians working at site 2.
Organization and Administration The inspector asked Jersey Central Power and Light Company (JCP&L)
representatives whether the waste barrel removal operation, being conducted by representatives of the Hittman Corporation, was being done under the authorization of the Maryland license held by the Hittman Corporation or under the authorization of the license held by JCP&L. A licensee representative replied that JCP&L was the responsible licensee, and had issued Radiation Work Permits covering the Hittman operation, af ter discussing and approving the proposed procedures.
3.
Equipment and Facilities a.
The inspector visited the waste barrel storage area and the u,q location of the waste barrel removal operation. Housekeeping in the was te barrel storage area was very poor.
A pile of broken lumber, paper and cardboard packing material was present.
Several of the bags of water treatment chemicals in a large stack had burst, allowing the contents to form open piles of powder on the floor.
There was a heavy coating of liquid absorbent material on the floor and a coating of dust and dirt on everything in the area.
A canister type respirator was left on top of one
barrel of waste.
Operations Observed A crew of technicians under the supervision of a representative a.
of the Hittman Corporation, were seen to be engaged in removing barrels from one of the storage bays to a loading platform.
A
)
shielded sliding door was raised long enough to allow one barrel to pass through the opening, then lowered. A technician measured and recorded the dose rates at contact and at one foot from the side of the barrels, while another took two wipes, one on each side.
Typical dose rates were 600-800 mR/hr at contact, 95 mR/hr at one foot.
Barrels having contamination levels above 1500 dpm/
100 cm2 were moved f rom the loading platform by means of a fork lift truck, and placed in wooden boxes.
They were then loaded
'
e
._
.
.
.
-3-onto the truck that was used for shipment off tge site. Barrels with contamination levels below 1500 dpm/100 cm were loaded directly onto the truck, also by means of a fork lif t.
s, b.
An essentially empty Hittman Corporation cargo trailer was located near the barrel handling operation. This trailer se rved as a change room, for removal and donning of protective clothing, and also as a wipe counting center. A partition, about two thirds of the width of the trailer, separated the two areas. A table in the counting area supported the counting equipment. The other end of the same table was stocked with doughnuts, coffee, a coffee pot, coffee cups, etc.
c.
The technicians were seen to be equipped with caps, protective shoe covers, coveralls, and double gloves.
Sleeves and cuffs were appropriately taped. Personnel dosimetry consisted of whole body film badges and self-reading pocket dosimeters covering 0-200 mrem and 0-1 rem ranges. The inspector noted that, during his observation period, the same individual took all the wipes. When this technician was questioned he said that wipe taking had been his only assignment.
The inspector subsequently questioned the Hittman Corporation supervisor about extremity monitoring equipment for the " wipe-taker" and learned that none had been provided.
It was conceded that the right hand of this individual would be exposed to a significantly greater extent than his whole body. The Hittman Corporation representative
,ggy said that finger dosimeters would be provided for the man assigned to take wipes.
d.
The technicians were questioned as to the frequency with which they read their dosimeters.
They replied that they do so every 10 or 15 minutes, per instructions.
5.
Personnel Monitoring; Surveys, Survey Records a.
Licensee representatives stated that the waste barrel removal job had been started on October 10, 1973. A review of the personnel monitoring records on hand indicated that the exposures of the technicians involved in this operation were all below 900 mrem.
Forms AEC-4 had been completed and were on file.
b.
The inspector met with the Health Physics Foreman, and asked to review records of air particulate surveys done in the waste barrel storage area.
Two samplings were found to have been taken and analyzed, one on October 10,111973 and one on Octoberf5,1973. The former reflected 10-uCi/ml, the latter-y 1.5x10 uCi/ml gross beta gamma activity. Isotopic angfyses are not done unless the airborne activity exceeds 3x10 uCi/ml.
'
c.
The inspector asked whether barrel handling and moving operations were in progress at the time the above samples were taken. A licensee representative said that grab samples were taken at various times, but that there was no attempt to relate the
.-
.
4-activities by personnel in the area with the time the samples were collected. The inspector commented that the presence of personnel, and the movement of barrels, would seem likely to increase airborne activity levels.
d.
The inspector asked the Health Physics Foreman if he, or any of his technicians, had ever evaluated the adequacy of the radiation being provided by Hittman Corporation representatives during the waste barrel removal operation.
He responded in the negative, adding that the policies to be followed had been discussed and eventually approved, but that this was done in advance of the operation.
.
$