IR 05000219/1975008
Text
,
.
--
. _ -
...... -
'
.
- ....
.
'*
-o
,
'l
-
II:I Form 12 (Jan 75) (Rev)
i U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION l
.
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORC1! MENT L M{-
+ '#
.
,
,
REGION I
,
IE Inspection Report No:
_50-219/75-08 Docket No:
50-219 l
'*
Licensee: Je'rsey' Ceheral Power and Light Company (JCP&L)
License No: DPR-16
[
Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Priority:
'
- i Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Category:
C
,
Safeguards
.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OC) at Group:
Iscation: Forked River, New Jersey
.
.
.
Type of Licensee BWR, 650 MWe (GE)
s Type of Inspection:
Environmental, Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection:
March 18-20. 1975 Dates of Previous Inspection:
March 10-14. 1975 Reporting Inspector:
R. JI Boris, Radiation Specialist DATE Accompanying Inspectors:
None DATE DATE DATE Cther Accompanying Personnel:
None DATE
,M/7[k-.
'/ /9'/7f Reviewed By:
X (.
'
DATE J. P.'Stohr, Senior # Environmental Scientist
,
_.
,
I l
A
9604230010 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-250 PDR g
.
--
~
. _ -
.
..
-..
. _ - --
. -. -
'
.
.
.
'
t i'
'-
.
.
I
'
,
.
SUMMARY Ci FINDINGS
- <+
..
'f.
Enforcement Action (Environmental Monitoring)
Deficiencies The following items, reported by the licensee in Semi-Annual Report No. 11, covering operations between July 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974, were found to be in noncompliance with the Technical Specifications, Section 4.6.B(3).
1.
Surface water sampled at five locations was not analyzed for U.
- 'j Ra-226 and Ra-22G between July 2, 1974 and October 22, 1974, an interval greater than four weeks.
(Details, Paragraph 4.d)
'
2.
Well water sampled at six locations was not analyzed for U, Ra-226 and Ra-228 between July.5, 1974 and December 19, 1974, an interval exceeding 12 weeks.
(Details, Paragraph 4.e)
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items (Environmental Monitoring)
ggQq None identified Design Changes None Other Significant Findings (Environmental Monitoring).
i A.
Current Findings (Unresolved Items)
't
'
None B.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items None identified C.
0ther Current Findings 1.
The licensee switched radiological analysis vendors as of November 18, 1974.
2.
The inspector also reviewed the circumstances surrounding tha missing air particulate samples reported by the licensee's letter of August 26, 1974. There are no further questions in
'
>
'
this matter.
(Details, Paragraph 4.b)
,
"
\\
'
L
_
.
-
-
_ ~.
- -
. -. -.... - -
-. -. -
. - -
. -.. - -
- -.
. -. - -
'
-.
j-
.:
y
+
~.
,
<
1'
-2-t
,
l
'
' Management Interview
,
$?
On March 20, 1975,- following the inspection onsite, a meeting was held i;
at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The following individ-l
'
uals were in attendance:
,
Mr. R. J. Bores, Radiation Specialist, USNRC, IE:I Mr. D. A. Ross, Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations, JCP&L Mr. D. L. Reeves, Chief Engineer, OC Mr. E. J. Growney,' Technical Engineer, OC Mr R. L. Stoudnour, Staff Engineer, OC
,
During this meeting, the following items were discussed:
A.
Analyses of Surface and Well Water Samples
,
The inspector stated that Appendix A, Technical Specification 4.6.B(3)* requires, in part, that surface water be sampled at five locations and analyzed for U, Ra-226 and Ra-228 every four weeks and well water be sampled at six locations and analyzed for U, Ra-226 and Ra-228 every 12 weeks. The inspector stated that the records revealed that surface water had not been analyzed for
~
U, Ra-226 and Ra-228 between July 2, 1974 and October 22, 1974, an interval exceeding four weeks, and well water had not been syyq analyzed for U, Ra-226 and Ra-228 between July 5,1974 and December 19, 1974, an interval exceeding 12 weeks. The inspec-tor noted that these items of noncompliance had been reported by the licensee in the semi-annual operating report covering this period. The inspector stated that the licensee's corrective action in this-matter was inadequate to prevent recurrence of these items.
(Details, Paragraphs 4.d and 4.e)
B.
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Relating to Radiological Environmental Monitoring Programs The inspector discussed a number of items related to the assurance that the environmental monitoring programs are conducted as re-quired and that the results of the radio-analytical measurements are valid.
Items discussed included:
1.
The establishment of management audit program to assure that the environmental sampling and analytical requirements are-met.
i
'
- The detailed description of the operational environmental moni-toring program is contained in Section B.II.6 of Amendment 65 of the Application for a Reactor License, as referenced by Sectibn
4.6.B(3) of the Technical Specifications.
,
'
'
,
j.
.
- -. -
.
.
. --
-
_.
-.
...
-
.
... - -
-.
..
.
'
'-
.
,
-3-
,
,-
t 2.
The review of current sampling, preparation and analytical
,
procedures to assure that the samples analyzed are represen-tative of the required media and the results are valid.
,
Ea
'
3.
The review of analytical results on a timely basis to assure that atypical results can either be confirmed or disproved and that all required analyses were performed.
4.
The establishment of a program to use low-level spike sam.
ples, duplicate samples and split samples to verify analyti-cal quality.
The licensee stated that these areas would be reviewed and appro-priate action would be taken.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
'
C.
Environmental Sampling Techniques The inspector discussed the' procedures used to sample several media including:
j 1.
Recommended methods of taking soil and silt samples.
2.
The use of hcl and NaHS03 in watet samples to prevent plate-out of selective ions on container walls.
SUNN 3.
The location of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD's) so as to minimize shielding by surrounding structures.
The licensee stated that these areas would be reviewed and appro-priate action would be taken.
(Details, Paragraphs 4.a, 4.d and 4.g)
D.
Personnel and Storage Space
.,
!
1.
The inspector expressed concern that as presently conducted, the environmental program is dependent on plant operations, in that personnel who normally collect the environmental samples may not always be available when necessary. The inspector noted that the current set of samples was collected March 10, 11, 13, 17 and 18, 1975 and was not ready for shipment to the centractor until March 20, 1975.
-
l l
. _. _.
__
.
_ _ _ _ _. _..
_.. _ _
_ _... -. _
_
_
. _ _. _
.
. '
..
.
,,
..
-4-
.
d
,
2.
The inspector also discussed the possibility of contamination
'of environmental samples in the present storage facilities.
a s,4 '
.. : j The licensee stated that the above items would be reviewed. - (De-
'
taila,' Paragraph 6)-
l E.
Transformer Areas
'
'
The inspector stated that in his site tour he noted that the trans-former areas were not cofferdammed to contain the transformer oil
in the event of a rupture or major spill. The licensee stated that e
this was being evaluated and appropriate action would be taken.
_
,
(Details, Peragraph 9)
>
,
e
'
?
'
i 2%*l
.
t
,
l
!
-_
_
.
..
_
.
_
.
_.. _..... _
. _.
..
_. _
'
'
.
, -.
-
.
1j
-
l l
DETAILS
.
- i 1.
Individuals contacted j
A
.Mr. J.~ Carroll, Station Superintendent, OC Mr. D. Reeves,'. Chief Engineer, OC Mr. E. Growney, Technical Engineer, OC
'
Mr. R. Stoudnour, Staff Engineer, OC Mr. D. Weigle, Engineering Assistant, OC
i Mr. C. Konta, Chemical Foreman,.OC Mr. N. Cole, Shift Foreman, OC.
!
Mr..D. Ross, Manager,' Nuclear Generating Stations, JCP&L Mr. M. Roach, Environmental. Scientist, JCP&L Mr. A. Hetyei, Environmental Scientist, JCP&L Mr. L. Lanese, Safety and Licensing Engineer, General Public
'
Utilities (GPU)
Mr. H. Kurtz, Oyster Creek Marina-
)
Mr. and Mrs. H. Baumgardt, Sands Point Marina 2.
General The inspection consisted of a review of the environmental monitor-f ing programs at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station site.
l Forked River, New Jersey, encompassing both the radiological and nonradiological aspects of these programs. The licensee's current ggpq operational environmental monitoring requirements are specified in the Technical Specifications, Section 4.6.B(3).
The licensee has no current Technical Specifications covering the nonradiological j
aspects but requirements are expected for these areas in the near
l future in conjunction with the conversion to the Full Term Opera-ting License. The licensee has received a NPDES (National Pollu-tant Discharge' Elimination System) Permit, effective January 31, i
1975 from EPA, regulating the-thermal and chemical discharges
from the plant.
In addition, the Final Environmental Statement J
,
for Oyster Creek lists a number of conditions recommended for the l
protection of the environment.
Areas examined during this inspection. included selected air sam-pling, precipitation collecting and gamma dosimetry (radiogas i
measuring) stations, representative sampling and analytical pro-cedures.and program results, quality. assurance as related to-
.
these programs, meteorology, chemical ~and thermal monitoring j
of discharges,.the status of programs relating to the shipworm
,
studies.:the removal of wood from Oyster Creek, dredging the
intake and discharge canals and bank stabilization, fish impinge-ment monitoring, and the entrainment and thermal effects studies.
l
.
-
,
.
I
.i
-
e
-
i
.
.
-
.
-6-The inspection consisted of a selective review of records, proce.
dures and results, interviews with the licensee and other person-l
','i
- /
nel and observations by the inspector, t*:
1, 3.
Organization and Administration The inspector reviewed the organization and administration of the environmental monitoring programs at OC with specific attention to changes effected since the last inspection of this area. With respect to the radiological monitoring program, the organization and administration were essentially the same as reported in RO Inspection Report No. 50-219/73-16. The program is under the supervision of Mr. Stoudnour, Staff Engin9er, who reports through Mr. Growney, Technical Engineer to Mr. Carroll, Station Superin-
tendent.
The licensee stated that sample collection and check-off lists are used to assure that all required samples are collected
,
on schedule and the results are logged for evaluation. The li-censee stated that the results are routinely evaluated by Mr.
Stoudnour and on a semi-annual basis by Mr. T. Potter of Pickard, Lowe and Associates, Inc., Washington, D. C.
The licensee stated that the nonradiological monitoring programs and special studies are under the direction of Mr. W. Baldwin, Environmental Affairs Department, JCP&L.
The licensee stated that film badges used as part of the radiologi-gygg cal monitoring program continue to be supplied and processed by Radiation Detection Company, Sunnyvale, California.
Teledyne Isotopes, Inc., Westwood, New Jersey had performed all the radio-logical analyses of environmental samples and supplied TLD's for environmental monitoring until November 18, 1974.
At that time both the TLD and radionnalytical programs were transferred to Radiation Management Corporation (RMC), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
All radiological environmental samples are collected by HP person-nel with the exception of some clam and marine life samples which are collected by a local fisherman.
4.
Radiological Monitoring Program Table B-II-1, Section B.II.6 of Amendment 65 to the Application for Reactor Operating License, referenced in Section 4.6.B(3) of the Technical Specifications (hereafter referred to as Table B-II-1 of the TS) describes the applicable requirements for this program.
a.
Gamma Dosimetry (Radiogas)
Table B-II-1 of the TS requires that 20 stations be monitored for gamma dose (radiogas) by film badge at 4 week intervals.
,
e
..
~._
_
.
_
__
_ _ _
_
_ _
..
.
.
.
.
.
-7-f The inspector reviewed the results of the film badges since
,
the third quarter 1973 and noted that nearly all results were
.,,
reported as O mrad each month. The licensee stated that the 6"1 Jl7 film badge program would probably be discontinued when the new TS are implemented.
i The licensee is continuing to evaluate TLD's with which to monitor the monthly environmental gamma radiation. Prior to November 18, 1974 the Teledyne TLD badge with CaSO (Dy) was
employed at each of the 21 film badge locations. After the above date the RMC dosimeters, CaSO (Tm), were used at each
location including the three background locations.
Two monthly TLD's (providing four individual measurements) and a quarterly TLD are used at each station. -The review of the 1974 data revealed a typical monthly dose in the range of 4 to 6 millirem. Only the monitoring station at the meteorol-ogy shack appeared to be influenced by plant operations.
The inspector observed that the TLD's were attached directly to power line poles and little consideration was given to the orientation of the TLD's with respect to the direction of the plant. The inspector discussed with the licensee methods of minimizing shielding from surrounding structures. The li-censee stated that these areas would be evaluated and appro-priate action would be taken.
j gj2 i
b.
Airborne Activity Table B-II-1 of the TS require that airborne particulates be sampled at five locations and analyzed for gross beta activ-ity every two weeks and for gross alpha every 12 weeks.
The inspector examined selected sampling stations and noted all were operating at the time of inspection. The licensee j
stated that the air particulate filters (Gelman Type E) and the charcoal cartridges (Cesco Type b) were changed every two weeks and in the alternate weeks the samplers were checked for proper operation. The licensee stated that the pumps are changed out of service every six months for preventative maintenance. Electric interval timers and dry gas meters are used in conjunction with. differential
,
pressure measurements to determine the volumes of air sam-pled. The flow rates are controlled by flow regulators to
nominally 1 cfm.
i
,
.
,
I
_~
-
,
.
,
.
.
.
-8-l
The inspector reviewed the results of the air particulate
,
analyses since the third' quarter 1973 and noted that gross jyj beta analyses were performed.on two-week samples from eight
"pg sampling locations, including three background locations in i
excess of 20 miles from the station. Gross alpha analyses were performed each 12 weeks, as required.
In addition,
-
gamma spectral analyses were performed on each particulate filter. The inspector noted that the latest results re-ceived from the radioanalytical contractor were for the samples collected on January 14, 1975.
The' inspector discussed with the licensee the missing air
'
particulate filters collected on August 12 and 13, 1974 and i
reported to the Director, IE:I in a letter dated August 26, 1/y i
'3 1974. The licensee stated that further investigation into the matter indicated that those filters were sent to the
"
vendor (the glassine envelopes contained evidence of
.'
particulates) and it now appears that the filters were misplaced by the vendor. The licensee has increased sur-ve111ance in this area with appropriate check sheets to assure that a11' appropriate samples-are collected and sent to the contractor. The inspector stated that he had no
>
further questions in this matter.
The inspector reviewed the results of the charcoal cartridge
%hhk x analyses since the third quarter 1973.
The results indicated that the I-131 activity was less than the detectable concen-tration on almost all filters.* The Minimum Detectable
'
Concentrations (MDC) reported through the first half of
1974 ranged from about'0.01 to 0.08 pCi/m. During the second half of 1974, however, Teledyne's MDC reached 0.20 pCi/m3 The records were unclear as to whether these values
,
had been corrected for decay to the middle of the two-week l'
sampling period. The licensee was unable to clarify this.
The apparent cause for this decrease in sensitivity was given as the long delay between the sample collection and analyses. Following the change to RMC, the I-131 concentra-tions were reported in the range from < 4 x 10-3 to < 6.2 x
,
- 10-3 pCi/m3 s
J The charcoal analyses reported by Teledyne also indicated
the presence of Cs-137 and Co-60 regularly.
The inspector
"
reviewed the licensee's action in this regard since the
!
.
- The I-131 activity on the charcoal cartridge for the two-week interval ending April 10, 1974 for a location six
'
miles from the plant was reported as 7.8 x 10-2 pCi/m,
The date of analyses was reported as May.1, 1974 No
'
- '. if unusual gaseous releases were reported from the' plant E
during this period.
'"
>
.
i a
q-er n
,wr a
+ - -s rn,
-
s
"
,w--r
.v
-.en-
,e
-.e-
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
.
..
.
-
.
-9-Cs-137 levels reported on the charcoal were a factor of 10 higher than reported on the Gelman Type E prefilter. To re '
solve the problem, the licensee used two prefilters and also
.
4:
submitted several unused charcoal cartridges for analysis.
The results of these analyses indicated approximately the same levels of Cs-137 on these cartridges, indicating a prob-able contamination of the filters before use, or of the analy-l tical instrumentation. No Cs-137 or Co-60 were reported on
'
the cartridges subsequently analyzed by RMC.
c.
Rain Water Table B-II-1 of the TS requires that rainwater from five sta-tions be analyzed every four weeks for gross beta in the sus-pended and in the dissolved fractions.
The review of the licensee's records indicated that all the required samples were collected and analyzed appropriately.
The licensee also employs three background rainwater stations (greaterthan20milesfromthepignt). Typical results i
l range from 0.1 to 0 8 nanocuries/m for suspended and 0.1 to 1.5 nanocuries/m$ gross beta for the dissolved fraction.
No significant difference was noted between the background
and indicator stations.
FNNd d.
Surface Water Table B-II-1 of the TS requires, in part, that surface water be sampled at five locations every four weeks and analyzed for a number of specified nuclides, including U, Ra-226 and Ra-228.
The inspector discussed with the licensee recommended sampling procedures and the use of 2% hcl with NaHS03 in water samples to help prevent the selective plate-out of ions on the con-tainer walls. The licensee stated that these items would be evaluated for all water samples and appropriate action would be taken.
The inspector reviewed the results of the surface water analy-ses since the third quarter 1973 and noted that all-the re-quired samples were taken, in addition to a background sample each period, and all the analyses were performed with the following exceptions. No surface water samples were analyzed for U, Ra-226 and Ra-228 from July 2, 1974 to September 23, 1974, an interval exceeding four weeks. The inspector stated
,
l
_ _. _ _
i.
,
,..
'.
,,.
>
-10-that this was in noncompliance with the requirements.
The li-censee stated that the vendor had apparently changed some pro-cedures and arbitrarily dropped these analyses without notify-ing the licensee. The. licensee further stated that this was hyj)
one of the reasons for changing radioanalytical vendors. The F4 inspector noted that the reported analyses lagged many weeks after the samples were taken, such that the licensee did not know which analyses were performed until several months later.
In the review of the data since the vendor switch, the inspec-tor noted a similar delay in getting the results from the
'
vendor. The' inspector stated that switching contractors, by itself did not appear to be adequate to prevent recurrence of similar noncompliance items in view of the current delays in obtaining the results.
(Few analytical results were avail-able at the time of inspection for samples taken since November 18, 1974.)-
,
The period in which the U, Ra-226 and Ra-228 analyses were omitted was also the period in which the reported MDC for I-131 in water also increased significantly.
Sampling Date Reported MDC for I-131 in pCi/1 l
prior to 7/2/74
<
7/2/74
<
7/29/74
< 100 yyy 8/26/74
< 200 9/23/74
< 100 10/21/74
< 100 11/18/74 (RMC)
<
It was also noted that this is the same time interval during which the air particulate filters were lost.
(Paragraph 4.b)
The inspector also discussed the results of the H-3 analyses
".-
with the licensee in that all the results were reported below u
,
the MDC, < 1000 pCi/1.
Since ambient levels of H-3 insurface
'
water are typically of the 200 to 400 pCi/1 level, no increase in the ambient H-3 levels would be seen until the levels had doubled or tripled. The licensee stated that the MDC for H-3 in water would be reviewed and appropriate action would be taken.
c.
Well Water Table B-II-1 of the TS requires that well water be sampled from six wells and that specified analyses be performed at
,
i b
i 1.
$
J w
-,-e,
,--
,-
ew
,- -
n-e
,-~.---,-u
--r w-
~_
_
.
.
.
.
.
-11-4-week and 12-week intervals.
U, Ra-226 and Ra-228 analyses-are included in those to be performed every 12 weeks.
<p The inspector reviewed the results of these analyses since
the third quarter 1973 and noted that all the required sam-ples were taken. None of the well water samples were analyzed for U, Ra-226 and Ra-228 between July 5, 1974 and December 17, 1974, an interval in excess of the 12 week requirement. The licensee was informed that this was in noncompliance with the requirements and noted that it was reported in the 6-month report. The inspector stated that the same type items re-lated to prevention of recurrence, delay in analyses, hcl addition and MDC for H-3 discussed in Paragraph 4.d were applicable to well water. The licensee stated that these areas would be evaluated.
f.
Vegetation Table B-II-1 of the TS requires that vegetation be sampled every four weeks at five locations and analyzed for gross beta activity.
The inspector reviewed the sampling procedures used and ob-served vegetation sampics awaiting shipment to the vendor for ks%d analysis. The current shipment consisted primarily of ever-green twigs and branches, since as the licensee stated, the requirement specifies four-week samples and during the winter months, no other vegetation is normally available.
The review of the results indicated all of the samples were taken as required and were appropriately analyzed.
The in-spector discussed the meaning, or lack of meaning, of gross beta activity with respect to the types of vegetation sampled.
The licensee stated this was realized and would be remedied with the implementation of the new TS.
g.
Soil and Silt Table B-II-l of the TS requires that soil be sampled every 4-weeks at five locations and analyzed for gross beta activ-ity, and that silt be sampled every 12 weeks at 5 locations and analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta activities.
The inspector reviewed the sampling procedures for these media with the licensee. The licensee stated that a trowel was used to sample the upper 1/2 inch of soil over a 1-foot
.
.
I
. -
.
_
.
-. -
..
_
- -
-
-.
.'
.
.
,-
.
- 12 -
square area. The inspector noted that the soil was very loose and because of its sandy nature, most fall-out activity would
- -i likely be leached beyond the upper 1/2 inch of soil. The li-
\\Yf censee also stated that the trowel was also used to obtain the silt samples. The inspector discussed this sampling -
technique with respect to obtaining a representative silt-sample from the streams or bay. The licensee stated that
'
these sampling procedures would be reevaluated.
,
The inspector reviewed the results of the sample analyses since the third quarter 1973 and noted all of the required samples were taken and analyzed. The latest reported re-suits were for November 1974.
h.
Other Media Table B-II-1 of the TS also requires that other media such as crops and clams be analyzed at specified frequencies. -The
{
inspector reviewed the available data since the third quarter i
1973 and noted that all the required samples were taken and analyses were performed. No increase in activity was seen
'
that could be attributed to plant operations.
P 5.
Quality Assurance as Related to Environmental Monitoring The inspector discussed with the licensee a number of items related to the assurance that the environmental programs are conducted as required and that the results of analyses are valid.
Items dis-cussed included:
a a.
The establishment of a management audit program to assure that sampling and analytical requirements are met.
!
b.
The review of current sampling, preparation and analytical
,
procedures to assure that representative environmental sam-
"
-
pies are taken and appropriately prepared, and that all analyses are carried out in a timely manner.
Familiarity
with instrumentation used, backgrounds, efficiencies, chemi-j cal yields, and computational methods used are essential to
~
evaluate results.
c.
The review of the analytical results in a timely manner,
,
such that atypical results can be either verified or resolved
^
with further analyses or resampling, if necessary, within the same time period.
,
4 i
-.. -. -
__
.
-
_ -.
,1
-
.
.,
.
.-
,
i i-13-
,
[
I d.
The establishment of a program to verify the quality of analytical work by submitting low-level spike samples, dupli-cate. samples and split samples to the contractor as blind gg samples for analysis.
,
The licensee stated that these areas would be reviewed and appro-priate action would be taken.
6..
Personnel and Storage Areas
.
The inspector discussed the collection of environmental samples and their preparation for shipment to the vendor for analyses.
,
The inspector noted that samples collected during the previcus
~
week were still at the licensee's facility on Thursday of the following week.
,
The inspector discussed with the licensee the colicction of sam-ples and their prompt dispatch to the vendor for analysis. The analyses of samples for I-131 needs to be performed av soon as
. practicable after collection. The licensee stated that currently plant personnel are involved in the above procedures and their availability is governed to some extent by plant operations.
In addition, their union contract states that they need not collect samples during inclement weather.
(It rained 2-1/2 days during the week that the current set of samples were collected.) The. licensee stated that the manpower needs and availability for the environ-S 'I mental programs would be reviewed.
The inspector also discussed the area used for storage and prepara-tion of the samples for shipment since this area lacked space and '
were also used for other activities.
The licensee stated that this area would be evaluated also in light of the close proximity l
of the storage area to the plant and possible contamination of environmental samples.
7.
Chemical and Thermal Monitoring of Discharges The inspector reviewed with the licensee the chemical and thermal monitoring program for discharges from the plant. The licensee
!
received the NPDES Discharge Permit for Oyster Creek Nuclear'
)
Generating Station from EPA, effective January 31, 1975..The
!
inspector reviewed the licensee's records since this time to determine the types and methods of monitoring conducted by the licensee. Water quality parameters being monitored include:
maximum temperature of discharges, the maximum change in water l
'
,
I
.
.
_
-
-
._
._
__
_
_..
._ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __
.:W'
'
L
.
t
- 14 -
I temperature from the intake to discharge, the temperature of the.
"
discharge at the U. S. Route 9 bridge, pH,. free available chlorine, total suspended solids, BOD, fecal coliform and intake velocity.
,
.
"$y S
^U':
The inspector reviewed the' chlorination procedures and measurements
.
,
i of chlorine residuals. The licensee stated that each section of
'
the condenser is chlorinated for 1/2 hour, every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, with 1/2 hour wait between sections. The licensee stated that a daily grab y
sample is taken during chlorination and analyzed for free available-chlorine by.the orthotolidine-arsenite method.
The review of-selective logs indicated that all free available chlorine levels were < 0.1 ppa. The licensee stated that the NPDES Permit requires that a continuous chlorine monitor be installed by May 1,1975.
Id The inspector reviewed selected logs indicating that the dilution pumps were operated whenever the intake temperature of the water was less than 60 F.
The'recent intake, discharge and Oyster Creek at U. S. Route 9 temperature charts were also reviewed. The li-
,
'
censee stated that the condensers are backwashed, usually on a daily basis, to clear them of weeds, sfit and other debris. The licensee stated that the need to backwash was based on increased circulation pump amperage (increased backpressure) and the back-wash typically was 5 to 15 minutes daily. The review of the. tem-
'peratures at the intake and discharge verified the length of the
,
gagg backwash cycle. No temperature increase was noted at the U. S.
Route 9 bridge as a result of the backwash procedure.
The inspector also reviewed the chromated water treatment with respect to releases from the plant. The licensee stated that the chromate was removed from the water via ion exchange columns and that no chromated effluent was released. The effluent containing
< 30 ppb chromate was returned to the condensate storage system via the radwaste system. The ion exchange resins were disposed
-
through the solid waste handling. The licensee stated that all the outside storage tanks were now emptied of the chromated water.
(
.
i 8.
Meteorology The inspector reviewed the licensee's current meteorological pro-
gram and the status of the updated program for Oyster Creek. The current program is as described in RO Inspection Report No. 50-219/
73-19 except that the temperature sensors had been removed from the tower approximately a year ago and were not replaced. The
licensee stated that this instrumentation was to be used on the new tower but was never installed.
'
...
' ' [. *
g i
d
.,g.
,
,.-
-
, -..,
._
-.,
,,
.,
.m
.n so
'
'
.
.
f-15-A GPU representative stated that the new meteorological tower was put into service about two weeks ago to supply data for both the-Forked River and Oyster Creek sites. He stated that about two 4-;4 months of data were accumulated with it prior to this time. He
'Li stated that as of the present time the data is summarized by mini-comp: ster but is not fed into the OC control room. After the planned shut-down of OC at the end of this month, recorders and the necessary telemetry will be installed so that the new system, meeting Regulatory Guide 1.23, will be operable for OC by June 1, 1975.
The representative further stated that the tower is equipped with Teledyne Model 50.1 wind speed, wind direction sensors at 33, 150 and 400 feet, Rosemount 104 MP temperature sensors at these same levels, EG6G Model 110 dew point sensors at 33 and 400 feet, and
-
a visibility detector at 150 feet. EG&G is currently contracted
,
to maintain the instrumentation, Digital Graphics receives the data for evaluation and Pickard, Lowe and Associates prepare the seteorological summary from this data for the 6-month reports.
9.
Transformer Areas During the course of the inspection the inspector toured the sta-tion transformer areas and noted the lack of curbing or cofferdams around the transformers. The licensee reported that an evaluation j;,4 was being made of the transformer areas, as well as, all storage tanks onsite, to assure that any oil or chemical spills would not reach the intake or discharge waters. The licensee stated that in the event of a transformer rupture or major spill, the oil would now drain into the discharge canal, either directly or through a nearby storm drain. The licensee stated that some action would be taken in this matter to prevent spills from entering the waterways or otherwise causing adverse effects.
'
10.
Bank Stabilization Program The inspector reviewed the status of dredging the intake and dis-charge canals and the bank stabilization programs.
The licensee stated that the intake canal from the railroad bridge on Forked River was dredged during April to July 1974, and the discharge canal as far as the railroad bridge on Oyster Creek was dredged from November 1974 through February 1975.
About two weeks of work remained to be done on the Oyster Creek site.
The spoils were deposited adjacent to the canal in the general area from which they were extracted. On the intake side the bank stabilization is essentially complete with the exception of one or two small areas.
,
,
'
.
.
-16-The spoils were leveled, the banks were riprapped below the water-line and asphalt covered above that level.
While less dredging was required on the discharge side, several more weeks of work are required to finish dredging, and landscaping that area. Most of the banks are already finished and asphalted.
,
,u-The inspector inquired as to any plans for redredging in the future or dredging beyond the U. S. Route 9 bridge in Oyster Creek.
The licensee stated that with the banks stabilized no further need to dredge was anticipated, and there were no plans to dredge beyond U. S. Route 9 in Oyster Creek. All dredging that was performed was done onsite and all spoils were deposited onsite.
11.
Removal of Wood from the Discharge Canal The inspector reviewed the status of the removal of pilings, trashwood, bulkheads, etc., from the discharge canal.
The 11-censee stated that a contractor was selected to perform this work and the contract was to be signed momentarily, such that opera-tions to remove tree stumps from the discharge canal and creek area could begin about March 31, 1975. The licensee anticipated that this phase would last from 3 to 5 weeks. Removal of pilings, etc., associated with the marinas would begin after June 1, 1975 following the formal transfer of the marinas to the licensee.
12.
Nonradiological Ecological Studies EE The inspector reviewed the status of the programs to be initiated by the licensee with regards to (a) the shipworm activity studies in the Barnegat Bay system, and (b) the impingement monitoring, the entrainment, and the thermal effects studies.
The licensee stated that the shipworm activity study in the Barnegat Bay system was to be a nine-month extensive study.
Three consultant firms were being considered for this study and the proposals for the study were currently being prepared.
The other studies have been submitted to consultant firms with requests for study proposals, prior to requesting bids.
These studies should be contracted within the next several weeks.
13.
Thermal Plume Monitoring The licensee stated that since August 1974 thermal plume data were gathered at monthly intervals. Measurements were taken by F
h
i
.
'
.
.
-17-boat of water temperatures at 1, 3 and 5 foot depths in Barnegat-
'
Bay, salinity measurements were made at the water surface and the bottom, and water velocity measurements were obtained at each loca-4..
'^ -
tion. The data are obtained from a number of fixed points, as
,
well as, from points along and in the thermal plume at the time of sampling.
14. Discussions with Marina Operators The inspector talked with several marina operators after the site inspection.
Discussions included the inspector's review of the radioactivity in clams caught in this area during the last year and analyzed by the licensee's contractor which indicated no increases in activity over those clams from the background station.
,
The inspector also reviewed a copy of a monthly report from the marina operators' consultant, Dr. Turner, concerning their independent shipworm studies in the bay. The marina operators stated that the complete studies would be turned over to the NRC after the marina sales were formalized.
&
f