ML20107B386
Text
,.
__~___.
q
- y 4-j i
I.NCLOSURF ':0.1-
,t I'
DESCRIPTION OF VIO1ATIONS i
Jersey Central Power and Lirht Carpany
.[
j-Madison Avenue at runch kv1 Road horristown.' Mew Jersey 107960
'j 4
Docket No. 50-219
~
1 Certain activities under your license appear to he in violation of AEC regulations and license requirenents as indicated below:
=r 1.
10 CFR 20.105(b)(2), '"PernissibJe levels of radiation in unrestricted J.
. areas", requires. that radiation Icvels' in unrestricted areas be lim-1 ited so that if an individual vere continuounJy present in the area, he could not receive a dose in excess of 100 n1111rces in any seven I
- consecutive days.-
1,.
1 Contrary to this requirement, radiation levels existed for two se.ven day. periods, Noveraber 20 to Fovember 27, 1972, and November 27 to hecenber 3, 1972, in the unrestricted ares alone the cast 0
l I
fence, of such magnitudep that if an-individual had been continu-ously present in this area, he could have received a dose'of 161 millirema and 230 millirems for the respective consecutive seven hA.
day periods as measured by your fence line Josimetera.
10 CFR 20.202(a)(1), " Personnel monitorinp", requireo you to supply l
2.
f
. appropriate monitoring equipment to, and shall require the use o such equipment by: each individual who enters a restricted aren under such circumstances that he receives, or 19 likely to receive
~
a dose in any calendar quarter in excess of 25 percent.of the appli-cable value specified in-paranraph (a) of 10 CFR 20.101.
3 p
Contrary to this requirement, you failed to supply a filn badge or a pocket donitucter to an individual to assure cornliance with 10 CFR 20.101(a). Specificc11y. an off-site truck driver reunined at the 23 foot elevation of the reactor buildinc., for a period in 4
cxeccs of two hours on February 14, 1973. Ra<jintion icvels to 200 mil 11rees per hour cristed in the area such that he could have received a radiation dose in crcess of 25 percent ( 31? nrers) of the liuit specified in 10 CFR 20.101(n).
- 3.,10 CFR. 20,206(a), " Instruction of personnel, posting of noticen i ~
to employeco", requires, in part, that all indivi?.cair. working in or.frequentinr'any portion of a restricted are, shall be inforced of the. occurrence of rodioactive naterials or of radiction in such
' ~
portions of the restricted area.
14 (Q/( ?
13r 3
96b416b282 960213 2
PDR FotA i
DEKOK95-258 PDR
_2 -
Contrary to this requirement, you failed to provide such information
~
to an employce working in a restricted area on February 14, 1975.
Specifically, the employee was unloading new f ael from a truck at 4
the 23 foot elevation in the reactor building and was not informed i
of existing radiation levels up to 200 millirens per hour.
4 Technical Specification 6.2.P 2 (in lieu of 10 CFR 26.203(c)(2)),
requires that each " hip,h radiation arca" (100 millf roentpcn per hour or greater) in which the intensity of radiation is 1000 milli-roentren per hour or less shall be barricaded and conspicuously posted as a "high radiation arca"... Lach "high radiation area" in which the intensity of radiation is greater than 1000 milliro-entgen per hour shall be provided with locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry...
Contrary to this requirenent, hir,h radiation areas existed within the restricted area that were not posted, barricaded, or the entry controlled as identified below:
The outside cast door of the radwaste building and the large a.
pump room inside the building, were not posted.
Radiation Icvels to 300 and 1500 millirems per hour existed in the respec-tive areas on February 13, 1973.
1 b.
Areas at the 23 and 75 foot elevations in the reactor building g._
were not posted or entrys controlled by a barricade.
Radiation l
Icycls to 2C; ailliteras per hour existed in these creas on February 14, 1973.
I The area at the northeast corner of the raduaste building, the c.
/
drum storage roon inside the radwaste building, and the outside drum storage area were not posted or entrys controlled by a locked door.
Radiation levels to 1500 millirems per hour existed in these areas on February 13, 1973.
k'e noted that the first item in 4.c had been corrected prior to the completion of the inspection.
5.
10 CFR 20.203(b), Caution signs, labels, struci s, and controls", requires that each radiation area be conspicuously posted with a sfyn or slyns bearine the radiction caution syr,;bol and the words, " Caution -
Eadfation Area".
A ' Radiation t.rea" is defined in part 20 as any area accessible to personnel in which radiation exists, orfrinatine in whole or in part within licensed material, at such levels that a najor portion of the body could roccive in any one hour a dose in excess of 5 efilirens. or in any five consecutive davs a dose in crecss of 100 rnillirems.
4 0
I
s.
+ i Contrary. to this requirement, radiation levels greater than 5 millirens per hour, existed for periods of greater than one hour within your restricted area which were not posted with the required signs as identified below:
The area around a drur at the northeast corner of the radwaste n.
building; the areas adjacent to the cost and south doors of the raduaste building; the area around a drun on the south side of the radwnste building; the area.around the drurs stored north of the radunate building; and the north side entry to the out-side waste storage tanks were not posted.
Radietion levels up to 100 millirens per hour er.fsted in these areas on February 12.
1973. tie noted that the druns at the northeast corner and south side of the radwaste building had been recoved to shielded storage prior to the completion of the inspec-tion.
b.
The E3 Tip Drive area; the area adjacent to a drun on the operating floor; the area around the energency condenscrs; and the liquid poison storarc area in the reactor building were not posted.
Radiation levels up to 15 nil 11rens per heur existed in these areas on February 14, 1973.
C.
10 CFR 20.203(f)(1) and (2), " Caution signs, labcis, sinnaln, and Anid controls", requires that each container of licensed material bear a durabic, clearly vinible label showing the radiation caution symbol, the words " Caution - Radioactive Ifaterial", the liienti-fication of its radioactivo contents, and that the label provide suf ficient infornation to permit individucis handlinr or uning the container to take precautions to avoid or ninimize e>.posure.
Contrary'to this requirement, you failed to label the containerr.
Identified below:
i c.
A drum at the 23 foot elevation in the reactor building, druns identified in Iton 5a and the fiborrlann storace tarkn contair-inn chromated water.
7.
10 CFil 2p.203(c)(1), "Coution nignu. Inbels, sirrals, and controls',
l requjres that rooms or areas in which byprodect reterie.1 is unct' or stored in an amunt exceeding ten tiren the quartity of siich naterini specified in Appendix C to 10 CFD 2^ be conspicuoun)y posted with a sir.n or signs bearine the radiatien cauticr. svrbn1 and'the words:
" Caution P.adioac tive Fat er.t el".
soutrary to this requirenent, tbc doors on the south and cast si %
of the radvaste building were not pested.
W 8.
10 CFp. 20.201(b), " Surveys", requires that surveys be conducted as may be necessary to comply with the regulations contained in cach section. of Part 20.,' A " survey", as defined in Paragraph 29.201(a).ccans "an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to production use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of conditions. Yhen appropriate, such evaluation includes a physical
. curvey of.the location of naterials and equipment, and reasurenents of icvels of radiation or concentrations of radioactive material present".
Contrary to this requirement, you failed to rake such surveys.
as were necessary to assure compliance with the applicable parts of 10 CFR 20 as described in violations Nos.1 through 7.
Surveys vero conducted with the' intention of achieving this objective. how-ever, these surveys were not perforned at a sufficient number of locations on a tirely basis, consistent with existing radiolorical conditions.
9.
Technical Specification 6.2.C requires that standing instructions to the operating staff shall require that procedures defined in 6.2.B are to be followed in conducting activities identified there-in.
The subject procedurea are contained in Section 900, Oyster Creek Nuclear Electric Generating Station, Procedures Manun1.
Section 907, Item 907.4.1, Storage Facilities, states that drunred
' Y"d radioactive waste will be stored in the radwaste facility.
Contrary to this requirement, approxinately 25 drums of radicactive waste were stored in an outside area north of the radtrante facility on February 13, 1973. Furthermore, the subject area had been used for this purpose for a time period of approxirntely ore year, as i'
evidenced by survey records.
10.
Section IX, subsection 3-3.1.1 of your FDSAR states that Icakage and spills from tanks containing potentially radioactive wastes will be col-Iccted in catch basins, floor drains, and sunps, ana returned to the vaste systen for processing. Additionally, your letter dated Decenber 12, 1972, stated that the drains fror the catch basin at the outside waste storage tanks will be directed to the 1-0 rad-vaste surp.
Contrary to the.above, the drains fron the catch bnsin at the out-side storage tanks vere not directed to the 1-9 radvante surp, in-that plurs had been installed in ' the drains which ef fectively blocted drainare to the sunp and defeated the intent of the catch
' basin.
On February 13, 1973, the water that hnd collected in the catch basin was frozen solid, thus prevention access to the plugs i
for removal, f
s
1 i
e i
i 1
i ENCLOSURI: NO. 2 DES R_IP_ TION _OF SAFETY ITEMS C
t t
I Jersey Central Power and Light Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Rond Ibrristown, New Jersey 07900 l
Docket No. 50-219 Certain itens appear to raise questions concerning the safety of oper-ations as identified below:
Prudent practices dictate that a safety progran for protection of i
1, the health and safety of employees should:
(a) contain a systen of ranagement controls to assure that the program is naintained, (b) provido procedures and internal audits.to assure program quality, (c) provide specialized training requirerents for radi-ation protection personnc1 and, (d) include ectbods or procedures for the surveillance necessary to insure that enployees are suit-ably informed of and protected from the radiation hazards incident in their work.
>4 k Contrary to the above, the following deficiencies were observed during the inspection of your facilities and safety prorrar records:
Station Radiation Protection Procedures, Section 900, requirco a.
that erployees follow radiation safety ruics and procedures:
hovover, a proFran had not been implemented whereby Plant Managenent could be assured that individuals were fulfillinp
.i thi~ oblication.
b.
Administrative control mechanises had not been ieplenented l
relative to: internal audits or inspectionc vitl' respect to radiological practices: internal audits to establish a measure
)
of the radiation protection function: and forr.a1 reportine re-quiremente 'ty line orcanization of prorran deficiencies, pro-bien areas, and violations of plant procedurce nnd Arc regulntions.
A continnous.rndfological protection trainine pronrnm for plant j
c.
personnel had not been established. Specifically, there van no cvidence of training relative to and consistent uith the precent 97.f.7 -
4 I
i I
2-I The training use.
include in-h exposure Technicians did not radiological conditions and.hig l
program conducted for Radiat onding AEC requircae j
i I-structions or training regar 10 CFR 20.
had not been issued to assureto routin Standard Operating Procedurescontrol of stored chr t r with respect f leakare, open tank hatches andissued to d.
spections for the detection oAn Emergency Procedure had not bee evaluation pro-clude tank leakage or rupturc, a overflows.
There was no evidence of anloss to the env equipment, etc.
gram in the event of a gross osted at several locations dequately reficct the radi-2 Extended Radioactive Work Permits p dioactive Specifically, containers of radose rate in the Eeactor Building did not a
- labeled, e.
l]p ological conditions.
waste providing excessive erly posted.
d and radiation zones not prop ilding were being manually ca Haste drums in the radwaste bu fied radi-without a nadiation survey towere observed with identi I
f.
storage
-i Druns in ation levels up to 10 R/hr.
capping.
l ble effort to maintain low icve l
i.]
The expenditure of every reasona exposure i
in areas in radiation in ncy ray resultt of radiation safety of contamination and radiat o,are present or where i
2.
f the universally accepted precopi le in Section XII, Itcr 3 l
to keep per-to persons, is a "It is the policy of the companyi hin the re d that, and te supported in princ p f
TDSAR vhich states:sonnel radiation exposure w tticable."
to keep it as low as prac deficiencies were noted:
l 1
i Contrary to the above, the follow ny d radioactive waste containers ing assigned work; the floo Improperly stored and unidentifie h
h at various locations inside t e s to need of decon-a.
f exposure to pernonnel per ormroon in the radwacte buil rine where the rens large puer tamination which was a contwork was beinn performed in aradistion Ic i
l con-drain stoppape:were not aware of the exist ntwith respect to radiolor individuals and the general housekeeping trol was deficient.
T
l a,
i The program for disposal of solid vastc hac not been consis-tent vii.h the accumulation rate and storar.c capacity.
On-February 13, 1973, the waste drum inventory was about 600 drums, of which approxicately 25 druns were stored outside of tbc rad-vaste shielded facility.
I t
I
-l i
1 1
=
'N sk'8M
.i k
s i
1 l
3 i
i i
4
+
a s
,e r,
, - - -. - -. - - -. - +
l I
f l
I t.
l C
t i
0 1973_
I 6-Jersey. Central Power and Light Company Dockat No. 50-219 Attention: Mr. Ivan R. Finfrock Vice President of Power Generation Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey 07960 l
Gentlemen:
The attached RO Inquiry Report is forwarded for your information.
This report was previously cleared verbally by Mr. Don Ross of your staff for proprietary information. Distribution is being made by.
this office to the Public Document Room.
i I
Sincerely, t
i Paul R. Nelson, Chief Radiological'and Environmental Protection Branch
}
Enclosure:
8 RO Inquiry Report No. 50-219/73-03Q cc: Mr. T. J. McCluokay, Station Superintendent bec:
R0 Chief, Reactor Testing. & Operations Branch,110%
l R0 Chic.f, T.nviron.cental In:Isection Branch RO:UQ (S)
D" Ccntrc.1 riler RS (3)
Ditect orate of Licensing (13)
RO Direc+; ors (4';
PD" L,1,'D:t y
0 ns ic Di 11' State of Kw Jersey orricc >
..CRES
-6
.f:.O...
bh nunn..
...caat' en..... cab ihn.......catt m NW 3 =...
t r....
su m i= >
DAlt >
. 3[.h/.7.3..
.. A..
Fore AEC.Sta (Rev.913) AECM 0240
[$ OM 9,.
Oi e
]-
RO Inquiry Report No.-50-219/73-03Q Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Light Company (JCPL)
Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown New Jersey 07960 l.
License No. -
DPR-16 Facility:.
Oyster Creek, Forked River, New Jersey Descriptive
Title:
Fish Kill l'
Prepared by:
f-C. O. Callina, Ph.D., Radiation Specialist e
r A.
Date and Manner AEC was Informed:
I Articles were observed in local newspapera (cotmencing on or about February 17, 1973) and the matter was discussed with RO:I consultant.
Mr. John Reintjes (Atlantic Estuarine Fisheries Center, Beaufort, North Carolina) who had been in coasnunication with JCPL personnel and other agencies on_this subject. Also, J. P. Stohr, RO:1, was at Oyster Creek site on February 21, 1973 and observed dead fish along i-the banks and floating in the discharge canal as well as seagull activity in the area.
B.
Description of Particular Event or Ciretmastance:
Information obtained from the licensee and Mr. Reintjes indicated 4
that there had been a fish kill (thousands of 1 1/2 to 4 inch menhaden) c-neing on or about February 16 and 17,1973 in the Oyster Creek discharge canal. The nuclear power plant had been operating prior to and during the initial phases of this kill.
Y*
I omcc >
l p
io=== >
DATE >
s Perus AECalle (Rev,9-53) AECM 0240
.l-4-
~
=- -
e
]
?
o
- )
i Cold shock does not appear to have been the direct cause of the fish dying during this period of time. Subsequent similar fish kills were reported on February 18 and on February 21 and 22,1973.
The licensee has stated that the subsequent kills were, in effect, continuing phases of the original kill which commenced on February 16, 1973.
The correlation of these kills with any particular plant activity -is not known at this time, although the licensee reported that the plant was shutdown for approximately eight hours beginning late on February 18, 1973 during which time the discharge canal water temperature dropped from an ambient of approximately 5401 to approximately 330F. The licensee stated that it was his belief that the shutdown may have accelerated the fish kill which was al-ready in progress.
C.
Action by Licensec:
The licensee is evaluating these occurrences and has stated that RO:I will be inforned as to the results of their findings.
3
- -