ML20106J973
See also: IR 05000219/1973016
Text
.
.
.
'
' .:
'
.
p
.
,
,
U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIC.
($$
.
-
.
.
g
,
'
3. -
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS.
Q
,
,
'
REGION I
.
,
.
.
.
.
PO In:pection Report No.:
50-219/73-16
Docket No.: 50-219
-
.
.
.Licensce: Jer'sey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L)
License No.: DPR-16
,,
'
'
-Pdority:
-
'
Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road
..
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
- Category:
C
]
.
'*
Location: Ovater Creek Nuclear Station (OC)
'
Forked River, New Jersey
-
-
.
-
.
.
.
Type of Licensee: 64 0 MWe - BWR (GE)
.
1
Iypeof. Inspection: Routine - Unannounced (Envir6nmental Monitoring)
-
.:
-
,
,
~
Dates,of Inspection: October 1. 1973
-
Dates of Previous Inspection: September 10-12,*1973
'
R porting Inspector:
6
sH *-
s,f,f y 3
-
C. O. Gallina[ Ph.D. , Radiation Specialist
'Date
j
.
,
'
Yg'
1
.
Ascompanying Inspec. tors:
Date
.
,
,
i
.
j
.Date
j
-
.
.
Date
,
.
.
.
-
Date
Cther Accompanying P.ersonnel:
None
Date
.
. . .
i
n
.
.
l
/
../
/
['] 3 C '-- i
// /Bi 7 ?
Rsviewed by:
"
..
J. P/ Stohr, Senior Environmental Scientist
'Date
)
'
.
-Dato
-
-
'
e
'
i
.
9604120087 960213
.
DEKOK95-258
, ,
- -
__
.
4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
S
n
Enforcement Action
None
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items (Environmental
Monitoring).
Thirteen violations were identified in RO Inspection Report No. 50-219/
73-03 relating to the failure of the licensee to perform the following
in accordance with OC Technical Specifications, Section 4.6, B(3):
A.
Measurement of atmospheric radiation every four weeks.
B.
Measurement of air particulate samples from five locations.
C.
Changing air particulate filters every two weeks.
D.
Gross alpha analysis on air particulate filters every twelve weeks.
E.
Soil samples from five locations every tour weeks.
F.
Vegetation samples from five locations every four weeks.
G.
Rainwater samples from five locations every four weeks.
H.
Domestic water samples from six locations every faitr weeks.
I.
Analysis of domestic water for Uranium, Tritium, K-40, Ra-226 and
Ra-228 every 12 weeks.
- %
J.
Surface water samples from five locations every four weeks.
K.
Silt samples from five locations every 12 weeks.
L.
Clam samples from three locations every four weeks.
M.
Analysis of clam samples for K-40, Sr-90, I-131, Cs-137, Co-58,
Co-60 and Zn-65 every twelve weeks.
The above violations were reviewed during the course of this inspection
and were found to have been corrected.
(Paragraph 4)
Design Changes
None
Unusual Occurrences
None
Other Significant Findings
A.
Current Findings
No violations were identified during this inspection.
.
_
- -.
..
. .
.._- ~ ._-. - --
- ._ - -
~ - -.~ ... -
.
. -
. - - .
a
j :-
,
,
J
_2-
J
B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Iters (Environmental
i
Monitoring)
.
None-1dentified.
,
Management Interview
10n October 1,1973 a meeting was held at the OC site with Mr. J. T.
. Carroll, Station Superintendent at' the conclusion of the inspection.
During this meeting the following items were discussed:
A.
Environmental Monitoring Programs:
The licensee stated that the overall environmental monitoring
program (radiological and non-radiological) for the OC site had
been reviewed and upgraded to meet current standards. This
'
upgraded program was to.be submitted to the AEC in conjunction
with the upcoming submission of Environmental Technical
i
Specifications scheduled for November 1,1973.
(Paragraph 3)
B.
Sampling and Analytical Procedures *
The licensee stated that in accordance with a request made by the
inspector, sampling, analytical and quality control procedures
si$4
utilized by the ' d aensee's consultant (Teledyne Isotopes of Westwood ,
New Jersey) would be forwarded to the inspector as soon as possible.
(Paragraph 6)
I
.
8
.
4
?
.
- DETAILS
-h
1.
Persons Contacted
Mr. . J. T. Carroll, Station Superintendent, OC
Mr. J. L. Sullivan, Technical Supervisor, OC
Hr. R.'L.
Stoudnour, Chemical Engineer, OC
2.
General
'
' The inspection consisted of a review of the licensee's operational
environmental monitoring program as delineated in Section 4.6, B(3)
2
of the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications,* conducted to deter-
mine the licensee's compliance ' therewith. The inspection included
a' detailed review of all environmental monitoring records from
January.1973 through September 1973, inclusively. Specific atten-
. tion was given to those aspects of the environmental program con-
ducted subsequent to the licensee's letter to DRO: Region I dated
May 22, 1973 describing the licensee's corrective actions with
respect to the violations identified in RO Inspection Report
No. 50-219/73-03 and R0 letter dated April 26, 1973.
The inspector noted that although various samples had not been taken
{
gg(i .
according to the OC Technical Specifications prior to June 1973, the
1
licensee appeared to be in compliance subsequent to that date and
within the time frame delineated in the licensee's letter of May 22,
1973.
3.
Organization and Administration
The inspector reviewed the organization and administration of the
licensee's environmental monitoring programs at the OC site with
. specific attention given to changes effected since the last inspec-
tion in this area.
The licensee stated that an individual had been
assigned to supervise the environmental monitoring programs at the
- site on a full time basis and that an engineering assistant had
also been assigned to aid
.2
this operation.
The inspector reviewed
'
the new functions in detail as well as any associated char.ges in the
mechanics of the environmental program initiated to-date.
- The detailed description of the operational environmental
monitoring program is contained.in Table B-II-1 of'Section
B. II. 6 of Amendment 65 of the application for a Reactor License.
Section B.II.6-is referenced by the aforementioned section of
the OC Technical Specifications.
,
,
.
/'
Y
.
.
..
-4-
The licensee stated that a program had been set up in June 1973
-
whereby closer control was maintained over environmental sampling
,'
schedules and the evaluation of resultant analytical data.
Sched-
uling check lists had been prepared and routine inspection of air
'
partic* alate sampling stations on a rotating basis had been initiated.
The licensee stated that charcoal cartridges had been installed at
all air sampling stations in order to measure airborne iodine and
that new pumps had been installed at all stations in order to alle-
viate the maintenance problems encountered earlier. The licensee
stated that all environmental monitoring programs (radiological and
non-radiological) were soon to be upgraded in conjunction with the
submission of Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) for the
OC site.
The licensee stated 'that this submission was scheduled
for November 1, 1973. The licensee also stated that the upgraded
environmental . monitoring program was being prepared in conjunction
with Dr. G. H. Whipple and Pickard, Low and Associates, Incorporated
in Washington, D. C.
4.
Review of Environmental Monitoring Records
The inspector reviewed all environmental monitoring records from
January through September 1973.
The inspector noted that various
radiogas, air particulate, well water and crop samples had not been
taken but that these omissions had occurred prior to the corrective
WWh
action proposed in the licensee's letter of May 22, 1973. The
)
,
inspector did note, however, that radiogas samples from January 16,
1973 through February 14, 1973 were higher than normal (up to 18
mrad above background where samples are normally at background levels)
and asked the licensee if any evaluation had been made as to the cause
'
of these higher readings. The licensee stated that these readings
had been evaluated but that no definitive cause could be attri-
buted to the higher readings. The inspector also noted a very
significant decrease in the activity normally being detectad in
crops (600 to 2000 pC1/ gram down to 16 to 41 pC1/ gram) and inquired
if any significant sampling or analytical procedure had been altered
to explain this drop in reported activity. The licensee stated that
,
he was unaware of any change of procedure but would look further
fato possible causes of this activity reduction.
'
-
.
.
,
. . _ .
-
_
-
-
= -
-
-
.
.
_.
, , ,
.
-5-
In reviewing all environmental data subsequent to the initiation of
the' licensee's corrective action as described in the aforementioned
'
),i f,
letter, the inspector noted that the licensee was conducting the
y
environmental monitoring program (radiological) in apparent con-
'~
formance with requirements as delineated in the OC Technical
Specifications.
5.
Data Evaluation
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for evaluating the
results of the environmental monitoring program at the OC site.
The licensee stated that all results were evaluated upon receipt
from Teledyne Isotopes of Westwood, New Jersey or Radiation Detec-
tion Company of Sunnyvale, California (film badges), the two pri-
,
mary consultants to OC in the environmental monitoring area.
The
licensee stated that due to the limited background of OC personnel
in these areas, all results were initially compared to preoperational
radioactivity levels for the various sampling locations and types.
The licensee stated that a table had been prepared showing the mini-
t
mum, average and maximum activity levels detected at the various
sampling locations before OC became operational and as long as
reported operational levels fell within this range, no further
evaluation was provided.
Should activity levels exceed the maxi-
mum preoperational values, further evaluation was provided pri-
3,4
marily by contact with the consultant providing the data (e.g.,
Teledyne Isotopes or Radiation Detection Company).
The inspector
verified documentation provided by the licensee showing instances
where this further evaluation had been utilized in the past. The
licensee stated that some in-house capability in this area would
in all probability be developed in the near future but that a
specific commitment could not be made at tFis time.
The inspector also questioned the licensee as to t'c degree of
evaluation provided at upper, management levels at the OC site,
JCP&L and General Public Utilities Corporation (GPU), the parent
organization.
The licensee stated that although further evalua-
tion of environmental data was provided at the OC site, evaluation
by JCP&L and GPU would have to be considered minimal at this time.
The inspector stated that this entire area would be re-evaluated
subsequent to the submission of the upgraded environmental program
to insure that an appropriate degree of supervision and evaluation
was being provided commensurate with the objectives and scope of
the environmental programs at the OC site.
,
0
_ , . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _
.
6
-6-
6.
Sampling and Analytical Procedures
The inspector stated that during the last inspection of the
environmental programs at the OC site (R0 Inspection Report
-
No. 50-219/73-03), the licensee stated that sampling, analytical
and quality control procedures utilized by the licensee's consul-
tant (Teledyne Isotopes) would be forwarded to the inspector for
review. The inspector stated that to date, these procedures had
not been received. The licensee stated that this was probably
an oversight and that the aforementioned procedures would be
forwarded to the inspector as soon as possible.
7.
Other Areas: Radiological and Non-radiological
The inspector noted that various other modifications had been
initiated with respect to the environmental monitoring program
at the DC site and reviewed these items with the licensee. These
itens included the following:
1) Addition of chromium and copp er analyses on various well water
sampics.
-
2) Removal of rubber covers from film badges at radiogas monitoring
stations.
W#
3) Evaluation of thermoluminescent dosimeters for measurement of
radiation levels (LiF for internal Health Physics and CaSO4 for
environmental monitoring).*
'
4) Development of procedures to be followed in the event of fish
kills.
&
1
1
I
- Results of this evaluation were inconclusive at the time of
the inspection.
,
f
-
.
.
.
[
.ersdy Jentral Power & Light ,1bmpany .
.
.
MEMOR ANDUM-
,
SUBJECT: .
Oyster Creek Management Audit Committee
November 9,1973
To'
Messrs. W. M. Creitz
H. M. Dieckamp
W. G. Kuhns
.R.'H. Sims
W. A. Verrochi
A Management Audit C'omittee for the Oyster Creek
Station is hereby established, consi:: ting of those to whom
this letter is addressed, and with myself as Chairmen. Mr.
Kenneth A. Greene, Nuclear Committee Coordinator in the
GPU Service Corporation, is designated as permanent Secretary
of the Committee.
The first visit of the Audit team to the Oyster
Creek site will be on November 30, 1973 at 10:00 A.M.
In
accordance with our telephone conversation, I am requestin6
Mr. Tom Crimmins, Mr. nager of Safety and Licensing, GPUSC,
to prepare an a6enda for the November 30 visit.
TV
'
'
Shepard Bartnoff
SB:DIT
cc to Messrs. d. T. Carroll
T. M. Crimmins
I. R. Finfrock
K. A. Greene
D. A. Ross
bec to Mr. J. P. O'Reilly
f
g
.
O
l
.
-
-
-
- -
.
a
p
.
.: ;
-
-
>
..
.
,
'
- 33
1
t. W , c -
Jersey Central Power & Light Company
o
-
y+ " . 9
i
- -:
MADISON AVENUE AT PUNCH BOWL ROAD = MORRISTOWN, N.J. 07960 * 201539-6111
, , , , , , , ,
o.noras
Puboc Vtilaties Corporation
_
y,
,r,,,.
t
-
November 8, 1973
!
i W'
i 3.7;).a--d., q
5
y,
,
r ,'T f
, f I'
3
'" '>L i f [
L
E,y;'
.[j y j,3 pN ",
'
-Mr. A. Giambusso
-
i-j
Deputy Director for Reactor Projects
i .,
Directorate of Licensing
-f
" . '
4
,/
G
United States Atomic Energy Commission
g+i
.
l}N
Washington, D. C. 20545
- r
Q
'a
..
,
Dear Mr. Giambusso:
{}
Subject: Oyster Creek Station
Docket No. 50-219
Closed Cooling tl:ter Systes., Lenka;c
-
This letter serves to report an unmonitored release due to leakage
from the reactor building closed cooling water system to the discharge canal
via the service water system.
This event is considered to be an conormal
occurrence as defined in the Technical Specifications , paragraph 1.15C.
-
Notification of this event, as required by the Technical Specifications ,
paragraph 6.6.2.a, was made to AEC Region 1, Directorate of Regulatory Oper-
ations, by telephone on Tuesday, October 30, 1973 and by telecopier on P.ednesday,
October. 31, 1973.
'
On September 14, 1973, leakage into the reactor building closed
cooling water system from a leak in the fuel pool coolin; system was identified
and isolated.
As a result, the closed cooling water system activity was
analyzed on several occasions with the highest concentration calculated to bc
1.9x10-4 pCi/ml in a sampic taken on September 26, 1973.
The activity was
identified to be primarily Cs 34 and Cs237
l
On October 19, 1973, leakage fror the closed cooling water systen
l
was noted as indicated by a decreasing level in the reactor building closed
cooling water system surge tank of up to 4-4.5"/hr.
(<1.0 gpm) .
The cause of the. release was a tube leak in the #1-2 reactor building
closed ' cooling water heat exchanger.
Operations personnel began isolating various conponents of the closed
cooling vater system in order to identity the source of leakage.
As noted
g
j
.above, the rate of Icakage from the system was conservatively estimated to be
j\\
1.0 gpm.
On October 22, 1973, a sample of the closed cooling water system
h
gros g og n g
s.m9
.
--
.
-
.
.
..
.
. .
- -
.
-.
h
-
t
i
.
b-
-
a
y
]
-
.
1
.
Mr. Giambusso-
-2-
November 8, 1973
-l
!
indicated a. concentration o'f 6.3x10-5 pCi/ml, indicating that leakage had oc -
j
, curred during ' the period' of September 26, 1973 through October 22,'1973. On-
October 29,1973, RBCCh' heat exchanger #1-2 was identified as the source of
. leakage . ' Prior to this date, it was not recognized that the leakage was to -
the environment.
A closed cooling water sample taken on October 30, 1973,
following repairs to the heat exchanger, indicates the present activity level
q
to be 2.5x10 5 pCi/ml.
consideration was given to sampling the service water discharge for
i
radioactive- concentrations during: the early stages of investigation into the
source.of leakage.
Due to the low activity IcVels present in the closed
- cooling water system.. the added dilution factor of 6000:1 would have made the
activity levels in the service water system below detectable lindts.
The release was evaluated using a leak rate of one. gallon per minute
,
l37 and 0.8x10-4 pCi/ml Csl34.-
_and the maximum conct..tration of 1.1x10- uCi/ml Cs
5
Using a discharge canal flow of 4.5x10 epm and the appropriate recirculation
factor of 3.76, the maximum concentration and perr'issible concentrations in.the
discharge canal at the site boundary due to the RBCCW 1eakage were:
.
"
Allowable MPC
1s ot' ope
Canal Concentration
(With Recirculation)* '
- 6 of MPC
Cs I37'
2.4x10-10 pCi/ml
5.4x10-6 pCi/ml
0.0044%
.
Csl34
1.74x10-10 pCi/ml
2.4x10-6 pCi/ml
0.0073*6
3
Based on Appendix B, Table 11,~ Column 2. of 10CFR20, and reduced by the
appropriate recirculation factor.
The release rate was, therefore, well within license limits and did
'
not threaten the' health or safety of the public.
A total of 14,500 gallons of water was estimated to have been released
over a ten-day period.
During this period, only four releases were made into
)
the discharge canal from the station. These totaled 6,300 gallons and were all
i
releases 1 from the laundry drain tank.
The releases were made on an unidentified
I
bases resulting in a discharge canal concentration ranging. from 3.3x10-9 to
7.8x10-10 pCi/ml over an accumulative time period of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
To prevent a repetition of this occurrence, the station operating staff
is determining the best technique for removing the activity from the RBCCW system.
j
'This will most likely be a temporary demineraliter flow path in the system.
-
1;
'Further,,the appropriate procedures will be' revised to require in the future,
prompt action .to identify the location of. a system leak plus sampling and -
J
-analysisiof-both the closed cooling and service water flow streams for detectable
1
activity.
,
4
1
a
.-
.
_
. .. - , . . . . .
-
. . - . .
-
. _ . .
..
.. .
-. -
_. . - . - .-. ,
b
L
F . ,
4
gl ;u* "
'
.
_ Qs
. ,
-
'
. . :
j '
.
)
3
November 8, 1973
l
.
_ Mr. .. Giambus s o -
-
.
i
d
E
' Enclosed are forty. (40) ~ copies of this report.
1
.ery t- .ily yours ,
.-.
-
}
p
f's
V & ~-
'
.
Donald A. Ross
,
Manager, Nuclear Generating Stations
a
4
- <
l
'DAR:cs
!
- Enclosures
r
I
' cc: . Mr. ' J. ' P. O'Reilly, Director
.
- .-
Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region I-
,
i
J
.
.
.
h
T
i
. ,
~
l
q'
I
1
s
.
L
i'
<
-
.-
3
a
f
f
4
4
/
5
r
N
4
y
p-
p
y
e
---e
.y
-,&
.a
. . -
s
- -