ML20107A201
Text
a.
g UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION OtMECTOM ATE OF REGULATOMY OPER ATaONS nEctow e 1
631 P ARK AVENUE KING oF PRUS$1 A, PENN$YLVANI A 19406 00T 3 01973 P. J. Knapp INSPECTOR'S EVALUATION OF OYSTER CREEK STATION BASED ON INSPECTION OF SEPTEMBER 5-7, 1973 The conditions at Oyster Creek observed during our inspection are not indicative of a good radiation safety program. Radiation levels are higher than necessary.
There are areas of contamination that could be easily cleaned up.
Housekeeping is very bad. Nobody in the Health Physics Group has time to accomplish what could be censidered'their normal duties.. They spend all their time " putting out fires," run-ning from one incident to the next, so that a normal, routine atten-tion to smear surveys, checking on activities of personnel including surprise' audits of work habits, monitoring of personnel, etc., never
. takes place.
One of their' supervisors spends so much time on un-essential details that he had no time to investigate a contamination spill that took place two weeks before.
.The number one cause of the poor radiation safety program is lack of management control. Management knows that employees are violating RWPs, but cannot (or will not) do anything about it.
They find signs torn i
down, barriers removed, RWPs destroyed, but no corrective action is taken.. We suggested that maybe someone should mop up the contaminated Efd crud on the floor at one area in the reactor building. The reply was "Why bother? The stuff won't go anywhere." We said that since we were able to remove the material by wiping with a tissue, it seemed that it could easily be tracked around by anyone walking through the area. The reply was "That's why we have step-off pads and contamination zones."
They would not need dozens of contamination zones if they cleaned the place. They still do not have a Radiation Protection Supervisor, so there is no strong leadership--no one seems to take on any respon-sibility for anything.
There is no rapport among the Health Physics people or between them and the rest of the workers.
I am sure that the hourly radiation technicians would not turn in one of their fellow bargaining unit workers for a viola-tion of Radiation Protection Procedures. At least, it has never happened as far as I could determine from talking to Supervision. One supervisor stated ~that they have no, mechanism for disciplining violatorn that is at all effective.
The average employee (and some foremen) is so uninformed about radiation levels that they have no idea of dose rates in their own daily work areas.
If it were not for pocket dosimeters, I am sure many would show up as overexposures every quarter.
4 9604120183 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258-PDR
.1 j
~
'Their reorganization hiring is badly bogged down. They have had 6 months i
since they committed themselves to:do something and they have only moved
'# t~
one employee into an assistant radiation technician job so far. Appar-ently, JCPL has not given the Station Superintendent the money and author-I ity he needs to get some people on board.
We should keep in mind, however, that no matter how many people they hire, they will never have an effective program as long as the general attitude of their employees remains the same.
One item was discussed that was not included in the report:
testing of charcoal filters for halogen' removal efficiency. Their-testing frequency is 0.K., however, they have only freon leak-tested their filters in the i
past. This has apparently been accepted practice up to now. The licensee i
is aware of this and is looking into the requirement for testing halogen removal efficiency. We did not pursue this item.
Q&w John Mann 68
[ h, 774-3 i
Ralph Meyer i
e 9
e e
4
[
9 I
U. S. ATO:!)C F.N1;nGY CO:P!ISSIO:.
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPEPATIONS R1:GION 1
,' C
.R0 Inspection Report No.:
50-219/73-14 Docket No. :
50-219 Licensee:
Jersey Central Power & Light Co; License No.: DPR-16 Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Priority:
Morristown, New Jersey Category:
C Location:,, Forked River, New Jersey BWR, 1930 Mwt Type of Licensee:
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: September 5, 6, 7, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection:
August 28, 29, 1973 8Mh
[Og/-[.S dd Reporting Inspector:
A k.-
J Mann, Radiation Specialist DATE
/ /2.) 3 C
Accompanying Inspectors:
s_.-ro t, DATE R.h.Meyer,[adiationSpecialist DATE Other Accompanyin; Personne}:
None DATI:
J3 Review d By:
P. J. Knapp, Senior, Facility Radiological Protection Section