ML20042F637
| ML20042F637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1990 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Connors L NEW JERSEY, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042F638 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-80-10, NUDOCS 9005090188 | |
| Download: ML20042F637 (8) | |
Text
.-
_+
.j
'[
UNITED STATES o
~g 8'
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- f waswiworow. o. c. nosss MAY 0 31990 j
%.....,/
I The Honorable Leonard T. Connors, Jr.
New Jersey Senate forked River, New Jersey 08731 1
Dear Mr. Connors:
RE: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, forked River, New Jersey A
Your letter dated March 30, 1990, to Chairman Zech regarding a spill of. radio-active water at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station on March 10, 1990, was referred to me for reply.
In your letter, you expressed concern about
.c information you received in an anonymous letter, and you requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take every possible action to in-vestigate this matter immediately.
I am responding to your request.
1 On March 13, 1990, the NRC became aware of this occurrence, and the NRC Senior Resident Inspector at Oyster Creek initiated an investigation of this matter that same day. Subsequently, on March 21, specially trained inspectors from the NRC Region 1 office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania were dispatched to the site to assist in the inve 1igation.
GPU Nuclear Corporation, the operator and licensee of the facility, advised the NRC that an event occurred on March 10, 1990, during operation of the No. 2.
auxiliary boiler, during which the system deaerating feedwater tank overflowed and spilled onto the boiler house floor. The auxiliary boiler supplies heating steam to the radioactive waste evaporators. A leak in one of the evaporators resulted in the transport of radioactive material from the evaporator to-the l
auxiliary boiler system. The water that. spilled in the boiler house was treated as radioactive, and actions were-initiated by GPU Nuclear Corporation to monitor and clean up the spill. SPU Nuclear Corporation performed radio-logical surveys to moniter for release of rad _ioactive material into the. storm drain sy(which were clogged) y off site.Because of standing water in the floor stem and consequentl drains and the negative results of the initial surveys of the catch basin, GPU Nuclear Corporation originally concluded that no radio-active material had been transported outside the radiologically controlled-I area. However, subsequent monitoring at a different~ location indicated that a small amount of radioactive water had, in fact, been released into the site storm drain system. The storm drain. system ultimately discharges into Barnegat Bay.
This release was unmonitored and uncontrolled.. GPU Nuclear Corporation per-
[
formed an evaluation of the amount of radioactive water that was actually released to the environment through the storm drain system and concluded that the quantity was very small (approximately 60 microcuries)..was well within the l
limits specified by the plant operating license, and posed no threat to the-l health and safety of the public.
{
S
-J Mf$$$$$h?
[j
'f u
e Tne Honorable Leonard T. Connors, Jr. Three tanks of water that vent directly to the atmosphere were also monitored, and no radioactive material was detected. GPU Nuclear Corporation also moni.
tored the auxiliary boiler combustion exhaust.. In the event of a tube leak in the boiler, the radioactive material would be released to the boiler exhaust stack, thus initiating a ground-level release. Again, no activity was de-tected. GPU Nuclear Corporation performed an evaluation in which it was assumed that all the radioactive water in the boiler was released by this pathway over a 2. hour period, and estimated exposures at the site boundary were calculated to be less than 1 millirem.
The NRC's independent investigation of this matter confirmed GPU Nuclear Corporation's conclusion that the radioactive release to the environment was insignificant. However, as discussed in detail in NRC Inspection Report 50-219/90-06, dated April 20, 1990, the NRC determined that the requirements for proper evaluation of the consequences of operating the auxiliary boiler system with contaminated radioactive water and for controlling potential release points of radioactive material were not adhered to. These requirements are specified in NRC Bulletin 8010, " Contamination of Nonradioactive System and Resulting Potential Unmonitored. Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity to the Environment," and Oyster Creek Procedure 106.2.1.- In addition, the NRC concluded that Oyster Creek Procedure 828.8 was inadequate in.that it did not identify any corrective action, including a safety evaluation, upon detection of radioactivity in the site auxiliary boiler system.
As a result of the NRC's investigation of this matter, a Notice of Violation was issued on April 20, 1990, as a part of NRC Inspection Report 50 219/90 06.
The potential for a violation related to this event was' discussed in a meeting with GPU Nuclear Corporation senior mana g ment personnel at the plant site on March 23, 1990.
I trust that this information is responsive to your concerns.
N@M W C,Marley "
Thomas E. fiurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation identical Letters to:
The Honorable Jeffrey W. Moran The Honorable Christopher J. Connors New Jersey Assembly Forked River, New Jersey 08731 0FC
- LA:PDI-4
- Plt: PDI-4
- PM:PDI.4
- TICTEDITDR
- PD : PDi'-A
- ADR1
~
a.!...:................:........... g....___........__.......
NANE
- SNorris:1m*
- ADromerick* fopRHernan*
- BCalure* for :J5tolz*
................ :.............. :............................. :.........f.o.r..
0.....:
hj'
- 4 /2790
- 4 / 2y90
- 4 / 2y90
- 4 / 2V90
- 4 43 /90-
- 4 ha /90 TE 6FC
- D:DRP
- ADP
- ~ lb ~
.L....:
RAME_,ySVarga*
- JPtrtlow*
- ~Murley
,.....:.............:............:...M........:........__...:.............:___.........
FATE : 4 / 24/90
- 4 / 25/90
- [/
0
~~~
0FFICIAL ifEt'0MTtDW~~~
. Document Name:
GT 5351
- Previous'y ConcJrred
m
+
~
.8 v-3
}
e
.s.
e l
y DISTRIBUTION
- Focket F11e. (50-219) w/cy of inc'oming -~
NRC PDR w/cy of incoming-Local PDR w/cy of_ incoming.
i 1
- ED015351 H
EDO RiadTng_.
T..Murley/F;Miraglia(12G18)-
f
- J.-Partlowi(12G18)'
PDI-4 GreenL-Ticket File _ (w/cy of ' incoming).'
lS.'Varga'(14E4)
D.:Boger (14A2)
-J. Stolz
' S'.. Norris A. Dromerick R. Hernan OGCT Secy 90-0360:
'J. Taylor (17G21):..
D. Mossburg PMAS.(ED0f-5351) w/cy;of incoming;(12G18).
B. Clayton' 14E4)
W.1 Russell' 12E23)
D.Crutchfield(7D24).
F.Gillespie(12G18)~
W..Kane(Region 1))
T.. Martin (Region 1 9
i '
i a
i 1
_l I
'l e
i E
[-
3 -,
)'
r
r
{l K
, l.
j v
L y
1.1
~
-2 This release was urn nitored and uncontrolled. GPU Nuclear Corporation per.
formed an evaluaticn of the amount of radioactive water that was actually released to the environment through the storm drain system and concluded that the quantity was very small (approximately 60 microcuries), was well within the limits specified by the plant operating license, and posed no threat to the health and safety of the public.
Three tanks of water that vent directly to the atmosphere were also monitored, and no radioactive material was detected. GPU Nuclear Corporation also moni.
tored the auxiliary boiler combustion exhaust.
In the event of a tube leak in the boiler, the radioactive material would be relcased to the bo'ler exhaust stack, thus-initiating < ground. level release. Again, no activity was de.
tected. GPU Nuclear Corporation performed an evaluation in which it was assumed that all the radioactive water in the boiler was released by this pathway over a 2-hour period, and estinated expotures at the site boundary were calculated to be less than 1 millirem.
The NRC's independent investigation of this matter confirmed GPU Nuclear Corporation's conclusion that the radioactive release to the environment was insignificant. However, as discussed in detail in NRC Inspection Report 50 219/90 06, dated April 20,1990, the NRC detemined that the requirements 1
for proper evaluation of the consequences of operating the auxiliary boiler system with contaminated radioactive water and for controlling potential release points of radioactive material were not adhered to..These requirements are specified in NRC Bulletin 80-10. "Contaaination of Nonradioactive System and Resulting Potential Unmonitored, Uncontrc11ed Release of Radicactivity to i
the Environment," and Oyster Creek Procedure 106.2.1.
In addition, tha NRC concluded that Oyster Creek Procedure 828.8 was inadequate in that it did not identfy any corrective action, including a safety evaluation, upon detection of radioactivity in the site auxiliary boiler system.
As a result of te NRC's investigation of this matter, a Notice of Violation was issued on n il 20, 1990, as a part of NRC Inspection Report 50-219/90 06, j
The potential cor a violation related to this event was discussed in a meeting with GPU Nuclear Corporation senior management personnel at the plant site on March 23,1990.
I trust that this information is responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely, l
Thomas E. Murley, Director 1
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation JC
- LA:PDl.4
- PM:PDI-4
- PM:PDl
- TECH EDITOR
- PD:PDI 4
.ADR1 N
...... :.....y.......... :.......... J3.. :.......- 4
.p~.,..........k......:......(....
RAME- :SNo81s: 1m
- ADromeric P:
..,..:............._:........ g% % RHernan O
uh.:JStolz
- BB ger IhTE
- 4//$90
- 4 /)3/90(I
- 9 /M/90 M17Y90
- $ /G/90
_q4/2MO NC
- D:DRP y
- ADPp
- D:NRR V
......' :., *..-...... :......g '. :............y:............. :..............
iAME (
g
- JPartlow y
- TEMurley jh~~I 7 {~~"~"
- " ~ " ~ l " ~ " "{ " "~ l ~ """ " ~ ~ " l ~ ~ " ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ "l ~ " ~ "" ""
S?$nt?5e?GNsu n *"* "N&W-l I
y i
i
. [p1sog,q'o, UNITED STATES 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
~,
g p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
- ...+
30 %
4 W
The Honorable Leonard T. Connors, Jr.
" % % Senate yha.udc.,
s 90rked River, New Jersey 08731 i
w The Honorable Jeffre W.-
oran Q
" J 'p g
- h se cf D & ttee
'M Forked River, New Jersey 8731 i
The Honorable Chrisjopher
. Connors ll esse of C:hgates MO Lh Forked River, New Jersey 731
.Connors)Morancend
Dear onnors:
RE: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Forked River, New Jersey Your letter dated March 30, 1990, to Chhiivan Zech regarding a spill of radio-active water at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station on March 10, 1990, was referred to me for reply.
In your letter, you expressed concern about information you received in an anonymous letter, and you requested that the l
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take every possible action to in-l Vestigate this matter immediately.
I.am responding to your request.
1
+
l 09 March 13,1990, the NRC became sware of this occurrence, and the NRC Senior Resident Inspector at Syster Creek initiated an investigation'of tH.s matter that same day. Subsequently, on M:rch 21, specially trained inspectors from the NRC Region I office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania were dispatched to the site to assist in the investigatior..
GPU Nuclear Corporation, the cperator and licensee of thefacility, advised the NRC that an event occurred on March 10, 1990, during operation of the No. 2 auxiliary boiler, during which the system deaerating feedwater tank overflowed and spilled ento the boiler house floor The auxiliary boiler supplies heating steam to the radioactive waste evaporators. A leak in one of the evaporators resulted in the transport of radioactive naterial from the evaporator to the-auxiliary b311er system.
The water that cpilled in the boiler house was treated as radioactive, and actions were initiated by GPU Nuclear Corporation to monitor and clean up the spill. GPU Nuclear Corporation performed radio-logical surve/s to monitor for release of radioactive material into the-storm drain system and consequentl drains (which were clogged) y off site. r3ecause of standing watcr in the floor 4
and the negative results of the initial curveys of the catch basin, GPU Nuclear. Corporation originally concluded that no radio-active material had been transper.ted outside the radiologically controlled area. However, subsequent monitoring at a different. location indicated that a small amount of radioactive water had, in fact, been released into the site storm drain system. The storm drain system ultimately discharges into Barnegat Bay.
~
I
. This release was unmonitored and uncontrolled. GPU Nuclear Corporation per-formed an evaluation of the amount of radioactive water that was actually released to the environment through the storm drain system and concluded that the quantity was very small (approximately 60 microcuries), was well within the limits specified by the plant operating license, and posed no threat to the health end safety of.the public.
Three tanks of water that vent directly to the atmosphere were also monitored, and no radioactive material was detected. GPU Nuclear Corporation also moni-tored the auxiliary boiler combustion exhaust.
In the event of a tube leak in the boiler, the radioactive material would be released to the boiler exhaust stack, thus initiating a ground-level release.
Again, no activity was de-tected. GPU Nuclear Corporation perfonned an evaluation in which it was W
assumed that all the radioactive water in the boiler was released by this W
pathway over a 2-hour period, and estimated exposures at the site boundary were calculated to be les' than 1 millirem.
The NRC's independent investigation of this matter confirmed GPU Nuclear Corporation's conclusion that the radioactive release to the environment was insignificant. However, as discussed in deteil in NRC Inspection Report 50-219/90-06, rated April 20, 1990, the NRC determined that the requirements for proper evaluation of the consequences of operating tn( auxiliary boiler system with contaminated radioactive water and for controlling potential
\\
release points of radioactive material were not adhered to. These requirements are spec"ied in NRC Bulletin 80-10. " Contamination of Nonradioactive System and Retulting otential Unmonitored, Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity to the Environment," and Oyster Creek Procedure 106.2.1.
In addition, the NRC concluded that Oyster Creek Procedure 828.8 was inadequate in that it did not
' identify any corrective action, including a safety evaluation, upon detection of radioactivity in the site auxiliary boiler system.
As a result of the NRC's investigation of this matter, e Notice of Violation was issued on April 20, 1990, as a.part of NRC Inspection Report 50-219/90-06.
\\
The potential for a violation related to this event was discussed in a meeting with GPU Nuclear Corporation senior canagement personnel at the plant site on March 23, 1990.
I trust that this information is responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuciear Reactor Regulation s1
_\\
3 g,
v, A
h
.c-
,,'4~
.. pa nov
((*,3(,g
- 0
~%
UNITED STATES
.hgf [pE[
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- /
W ASHINGToN, D. C. 20$$5 p.
1 EDO Principal Correspondence Control g
QY FROM:
DUE: 04/MO EDO CONTROL: 0005351 -
DOC DT: 03/30/90 FINAL REPLY:
Leonard T. Connors, Jr., Jeffrey W.
- Moran,
& Christopher J. Connors New Jersey General Assembly TO:
Chairman Zech FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- GRN CRC NO: 90-0360 Murley DESC:
ROUTING:
ENCLOSES ANONYNOUS LETTER CONCERNING OYSTER CREEK TMartin, RI k
.DATZ: 04/10/90 ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
NRR Murley SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
NRR RECEIVED: APRIL 10. 1990 ACTION:
]DR&RiV@GA[-
NRR ROUTING:
MURLEY/MIRAGLIA PARTLOW RUSSELL CRUTCHFIELD
- dd p g g>_ N!If GILLESFIE MOSSBURG n
ACTION
\\
'DUE TO NRR DIRECT 0k ew,r s, u.-
i k -
-I..
s l \\,
1 l-(' * ;
4..
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRBSPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET.
PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-90-0360 LOGGING DATE: Apr 9 90 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:-
Leonard Conners AFFILIATION:
NJ, GENERAL' ASSEMBLY LETTER DATE:
Mar 30 90' FILE CODE 4-
SUBJECT:
Forwards an anonymous letter concerning-Oyster Cree).
ACTION:
Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:-
Chrm.
SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:
DATE DUE:
Apr 24 90 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATIO!!:
]
i k
j q,5_
d-p - s o Ilmt 7lv ( A EDO --- 005351 p