1. business and industrial
2. company
3. annual report

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
RADIATION PROTECTION AND RELEASE PREVENTION ELEMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
NOVEMBER 1, 2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2010
SECTION I
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
SECTION 11
BUREAU OF X-RAY COMPLIANCE
SECTION 111
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION
SECTION IV
BUREAU OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
SECTION V
BUREAU OF RELEASE PREVENTION
1
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
RADIATION PROTECTION AND RELEASE PREVENTION ELEMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
NOVEMBER 1, 2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2010
Section I – Office of the Director
Highlights of the Monthly Report
1. Hope Creek License Renewal – Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS) Subcommittee Meeting
On November 3, 2010, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Plant License
Renewal Subcommittee met in Rockville, MD to discuss the license renewal application (LRA)
for the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS). Both PSEG Nuclear and the NRC made
presentations to the Subcommittee. Two BNE engineers participated via teleconferencing.
There were no comments made by the public during the meeting.
The presentations centered on the “Safety Evaluation Report (SER) with Open Items, Related to
the License Renewal of Hope Creek Generating Station”. The SER (with open item) was issued
by the NRC on September 30, 2010 and summarizes the NRC’s review of the HCGS LRA; the
results of the NRC on-site LRA audits and inspections; and PSEG’s responses to the NRC’s
requests for additional information (RAIs). One open item and two confirmatory items are
identified in the SER.
An item is considered open if the NRC has not finished its review of the item at the time of the
issuance of the SER. The HCGS open item stems from recent industry events involving leakage
from buried or underground piping, requiring additional information in order for the NRC to
complete its evaluation of the HCGS buried piping program.
An item is considered confirmatory if the NRC and the applicant (i.e., PSEG) have reached a
satisfactory resolution but the applicant has not formally submitted the resolution. Hope Creek’s
confirmatory items pertain to inaccessible medium voltage cable not subject to environmental
qualification requirements and effects of reactor coolant environment on fatigue life of
components and piping.
Both PSEG and the NRC addressed the open item and confirmatory items in their respective
presentations. PSEG also addressed the site description and operating history of Hope Creek. In
addition, PSEG summarized its aging management programs.
2
PSEG provided an overview of the HCGS containment, including the ultrasonic testing (UT) of
the metal drywell shell that was performed during the 2010 and previous refueling outages. The
investigation into the small reactor cavity leak that exists when the reactor cavity is flooded
during refueling outages was discussed. PSEG provided up-to-date information obtained during
the on-going refueling outage which included UT results and the fact that the four 4-inch drywell
air gap drains were found to be plugged, apparently from the time of plant construction. The
plan for unplugging the drains and monitoring the drywell shell was discussed.
The NRC provided an overview of the HCGS license renewal review. The NRC concluded that
on the basis of its review and pending satisfactory resolution of the open and confirmatory items,
the requirements for license renewal contained in 10 CFR 54.29(a) have been met.
The full ACRS is tentatively scheduled to meet with PSEG and the NRC to discuss the HCGS
license renewal application on May 12, 2011.
The ACRS Subcommittee hearing for the Salem Generating Station is scheduled for December
1, 2010.
OTHER INFORMATION
Nuclear Power Plant Operation
Oyster Creek
Exelon began the 23rd refueling outage at Oyster Creek on November 1, 2010. During the outage
significant large scale projects were completed. These include:












Refuel reactor
Replace a variety of in-core equipment, e.g. drives, monitors, control rod blades
Visual exam of reactor internals
Replace a section of pipe in the Service Water System and in the Emergency Service
Water System
Replace a Core Spray Pump Motor
Replace a Reactor Recirculating Water Pump motor and two seals
Inspect torus with divers, repair coating as needed and de-sludge
Overhaul and replace a variety of valves
Replace two main electrical transformers
Perform coating inspections on 5 bays in the drywell sand bed region
Perform integrated leak rate test on the primary containment
Inspect and test turbine/generator equipment
Operators began startup from this outage on November 30, 2010 and the connected the plant to
the grid on December 1, 2010, marking the end of a 30-day outage.
3
2. Bureau of X-Ray Compliance (Bureau) Database Enhancements Released
In November, the Bureau implemented several database enhancements that will increase
efficiencies in collecting revenue and tracking the status of radiation safety survey submittals.
The Bureau already boasts a greater than 99.6 percent collection rate on machine source
registration fees. However, a small percentage of facilities habitually pay their fees late (up to
nine months late) costing the state additional resources to re-invoice and mail the invoice
billings. The regulations provide for the assessment of late fees of $25.00 per machine
registration per month that the fees remain unpaid. In the past, these fees were assessed
manually, through enforcement actions, which was very time consuming. One of the database
enhancements implemented is the automated assessment of late fees on all invoices that are past
due. The Bureau anticipates more timely payment of future invoices with the implementation of
this new feature. In addition, enhancements were also implemented that permit the Bureau to
more accurately track radiation safety surveys that were returned to facilities for more
information.
Original signed by
_________________
Paul Baldauf, P.E.
Director
4
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
RADIATION PROTECTION AND RELEASE PREVENTION ELEMENT
November 1 - 30, 2010
SECTION II – BUREAU OF X-RAY COMPLIANCE (BXC)
A.
From the Chief’s Desk
Contact: Paul Orlando (609) 984-5809
Database Enhancements Released
In November, the Bureau implemented several database enhancements that will increase
efficiencies in collecting revenue and tracking the status of radiation safety survey submittals.
The Bureau already boasts a greater than 99.6 percent collection rate on machine source
registration fees. However, a small percentage of facilities habitually pay their fees late (up to
nine months late) costing the state additional resources to re-invoice and mail the invoice
billings. The regulations provide for the assessment of late fees of $25.00 per machine
registration per month that the fees remain unpaid. In the past, these fees were assessed
manually, through enforcement actions, which was very time consuming. One of the database
enhancements implemented is the automated assessment of late fees on all invoices that are past
due. The Bureau anticipates more timely payment of future invoices with the implementation of
this new feature. In addition, enhancements were also implemented that permit the Bureau to
more accurately track radiation safety surveys that were returned to facilities for more
information.
License Renewal Statistics
The expiration date for radiologic technology, radiation therapy and nuclear medicine technology
license renewal is quickly approaching. All licensees were issued renewal invoices in October
2010.
B.
License Renewal Statistics as Of November 30, 2010
Licenses Invoiced
License Renewed Renewed On-line
22,941
12,192 (53%)
7,915 (65%)
Registration and Support Section
Contact: Ann Martz Phone: (609) 984-5464
Machine Source Registration and Renewal Fees
The Bureau has completed initial machine registration invoicing for the fiscal year 2011
registration period. During November, the Bureau began sending second notices with assessed
late fees for those who failed to pay their fees on time. Two hundred forty registrants, (A-F
group), were issued past due late fees of $25.00 per machine on November 15, 2010. The
Registration and Support Section continues to invoice registrants for new x-ray equipment as it is
5
installed. These invoice amounts contain initial application fees and prorated registration fees
invoiced. The table below represents monthly and year to date activities.
Machine Source Fees Invoiced and Collected for FY 2011
Invoiced
Collected
Fiscal YTD
Fiscal YTD
Fiscal YTD
Nov 2010
Nov 2010
Invoiced
Collected
Adjustments
$15,943
$463,033
$2,767,147
$2,414,379
$12,791
Percent
Collected
87%
Machine Source Unpaid Registration Fees
Registrants are provided a 60 day period from the invoice due date to pay their annual renewal
registration fees. First time late or non-payers are issued an Administrative Order. Repeat
offenders are issued Administrative Orders, late fees, and subject to penalties. For fiscal year
2010, the Bureau cited 26 registrants a first offense for failing to pay fees. Additionally, the
Bureau cited 14 registrants a repeat offense(s) for failing to pay registration fees. As of October
31, 2010, all but three registrants have complied with their Orders. For the three non-compliant
registrants, additional enforcement actions have been taken.
Registrants
Total
Issued
Unpaid as of
Nov 30
Compliance
Rate
1st Time Non-payment
Repeat Non-payment
26
14
2
1
92%
93%
Additional
Enforcement
Issued Nov
2
1
Technologist Certification License and Renewal Fees
The Technologist Certification Section continues to invoice individuals for initial licenses and
examinations as they occur. The table below represents monthly and fiscal year-to-date activities.
All renewal invoices were mailed as of September 30, 2010.
Technologist Certification Examination & License Fees
FY 2011 Invoiced & Collected
Monthly
Monthly Fiscal YTD
Fiscal YTD
Invoice Type
Invoiced
Collected Invoiced
Collected
C.
$480
$480
$1,760
$1,920
Examinations
$5,400
$5,540
$42,180
$41,920
Initial Licenses
$3,140 $367,880
$2,018,860
$1,107,720
Renewal Licenses
$9,020 $373,900
$2,062,800
$1,151,560
Totals
Machine Source Section
Contact: Ramona Chambus (609) 984-5370
The machine source section is charged with the responsibility of inspecting all x-ray machines
used within the state. Below is a summary of the inspection initiatives that the section is
engaged in.
Medical Diagnostic Quality Assurance Inspections
6
One initiative of the machine source section is the inspection of medical facilities that perform
diagnostic x-ray procedures to ensure that they have implemented a quality assurance program.
Department regulations require that each facility implement a program of its x-ray equipment
that includes the periodic performance of quality control tests and in-depth annual equipment
performance testing by Department certified medical physicists. The goal of the quality
assurance program is for facilities to ensure optimal operation of the x-ray equipment in order to
achieve high quality diagnostic x-ray images while simultaneously maintaining/reducing patient
radiation exposure to acceptable levels. As part of the Bureau’s inspections, image quality and
patient radiation exposure metrics are gathered and evaluated as an indicator of facility
performance. These measurables are reported to the facility along with the results of similar
facilities performing similar x-ray studies.
Image Quality
As part of the Bureau’s quality assurance inspection program, an x-ray image of our image
quality (IQ) phantom is taken and scored by the inspector in six criteria: background density,
high contrast resolution, noise and artifacts, density uniformity, low contrast detail and low
contrast resolution. Additionally our database calculates an overall image quality score which is
reported to the facility.
A report is generated and sent to each facility at which an IQ film was done. This report
identifies which category (excellent, good, fair or poor) each of the six tests and the overall score
the IQ falls into. The report explains IQ and its determining factors. Facilities with poor IQ
scores are asked to consult with their physicist and determine the cause of the poor IQ, take
corrective actions to improve IQ, and send a report of their findings and corrective actions to the
BRH within thirty days.
In November 2010, IQ evaluations were performed on ninety-seven x-ray units with the
following results:
56 units (57.7%) had excellent image quality scores.
36 units (37.1%) had good image quality scores.
5 units (5.2%) had fair image quality scores.
0 units (0%) had poor image quality scores.
Entrance Skin Exposures
Entrance skin exposure (ESE) is a measurement of the radiation exposure a patient receives from
a single x-ray at skin surface. There are three main factors that affect ESE: technique factors,
film-screen speed, and film processing. A key element of our strategy is to ensure that facilities
are aware of their ESE and to encourage them to take steps to reduce their ESE if it is high.
When the Bureau conducts inspections to determine compliance with New Jersey Administrative
Code 7:28, a measurement of entrance skin exposure (ESE) is taken. ESE is a measurement of
the amount of radiation exposure that a patient receives during a radiographic examination. A
report containing the results is sent to each facility at which an ESE measurement was taken.
This report categorizes the facilities measured ESE as low, average, high or extremely high.
7
Facilities with extremely high ESE readings are asked to consult with their physicist and
determine the cause of the extremely high ESE, take corrective actions to reduce the x-ray
machine ESE, and send a report of their findings and corrective actions to the BRH within thirty
days.
Medical Facilities
Prior to the implementation of quality assurance regulations in May 2001, baseline data revealed
that twenty-five percent of New Jersey facilities had extremely high patient radiation exposure.
These facilities are delivering unnecessary radiation exposure to its patients. The Bureau has
documented a steady decrease in the number of facilities with extremely high patient radiation
exposure since the implementation of its quality assurance program.
In November 2010, ESE measurements were calculated on fifty-five x-ray units that
performed lumbo-sacral spine x-rays. One unit (1.8%) had extremely high ESE
measurements.
In November 2010, ESE measurements were calculated on twenty-two x-ray units that
performed chest x-rays. No units (0%) had extremely high ESE measurements.
In November 2010, ESE measurements were calculated on twenty x-ray units
performed foot x-rays. No units (0%) had an extremely high ESE measurement.
that
Dental Facilities
The Bureau collected baseline ESE data on dental x-ray machines for two years and after
evaluating this data, established the ranges for four ESE categories similar to those in the
medical quality assurance program (low, average, high and extremely high). When this data was
examined it revealed that twenty percent of New Jersey dental machines had high or extremely
high ESE. Facilities with extremely high ESE are delivering unnecessary radiation exposure to
its patients.
Dental facilities use three speeds of film: D, E, F or Insight. (Insight is the branded name of
Kodak’s F speed film). Dental facilities also use two types of digital imaging: direct radiography
(DR) or computed radiology (CR); also referred to as phosphor storage plates (PSP). Slower
speed films require higher patient radiation dose to produce an acceptable image. D is the
slowest speed and requires sixty percent more radiation than F to produce an acceptable image.
Direct radiography requires the least radiation.
An inexpensive way to reduce radiation is to change to a faster speed film. Our research
determined that F speed film costs only five cents more per film then D speed. No changes in
equipment or processing are necessary to use a faster speed film. While direct radiography
systems have the lowest average ESE, they do require the purchase of new, more costly
equipment.
When the Bureau conducts inspections to determine compliance with New Jersey Administrative
Code 7:28, a measurement of entrance skin exposure (ESE) is taken. A report is generated and
sent to each facility at which an ESE measurement was taken. This report gives the ESE and
8
identifies which category the ESE falls into. The report explains ESE and its determining
factors. Facilities with extremely high ESE readings are asked to consult with their film
representative or physicist and determine the cause of the extremely high ESE, make changes to
reduce ESE, and send a report of their findings and corrective actions to the BRH within thirty
days. The table below depicts the current ESE ranges for the various imaging systems used.
ESE Ranges Measured in Milliroentgens (mR)
Film Speed
Low
Average
High
D
E
E/F,F,Insight
Image
Receptor
CR (PSP)
Digital
0 to100
0 to 75
0 to 50
101 to 285
76 to 190
51 to 150
286 to 350
191 to 245
151 to 205
Extremely
High
≥351
≥246
≥206
0 to 35
0 to 20
36 to 170
21 to 110
171 to 215
111 to 160
≥216
≥161
In November 2010, ESE measurements were calculated on three dental x-ray units that
used D speed film. No units (0%) were measured as having extremely high ESE.
In November 2010, no ESE measurements were calculated on dental x-ray units that used
E speed film.
In November 2010, ESE measurements were calculated on four dental x-ray units that
use E/F, F or Insight speed film. No units (0%) were measured as having extremely high
ESE.
In November 2010, no ESE measurements were calculated on dental x-ray units that used
DR digital imaging.
In November 2010, no ESE measurements were calculated on dental x-ray units that used
CR digital imaging.
Dental Amalgam Inspections
Effective November 1, 2009, all dental facilities that generate amalgam waste were required to
install amalgam separators (N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1 et seq.). In March 2010, the Bureau met with
Division of Water Quality staff to discuss the dental amalgam requirements and to develop an
amalgam questionnaire. This questionnaire would be provided to each dental facility when they
are scheduled for an x-ray inspection. During each inspection, the inspector verifies the
information on the questionnaire and visually inspects that an amalgam separator has been
installed. In November 2010, four amalgam questionnaires were collected. The total dental
amalgam questionnaires collected for FY2011 is two hundred and ninety-seven (297).
Inspection Activity and Items of Non-compliance
9
A three-page Inspector Activity Report of inspections performed, enforcement documents issued
and a description of the non-compliances found follows this report.
D.
License Renewal Statistics as of November 30, 2010
Licenses Invoiced
License Renewed
Renewed On-line
22,941
12,192 (53%)
7,915 (65%)
Technologist Certification Section
Contact: Al Orlandi (609) 984-5890
The Section continued to process license and examination applications, investigate complaints
and respond to inquiries during the month of November. Statistical information is attached at the
end of the Bureau report. In addition to its regular business functions, the following highlights
are reported:
Radiologic Technology License Renewal Update:
On December 31, 2010, 22,941 radiologic technology and nuclear medicine technology licenses
will expire. On August 25, 2010, license renewal invoices were generated totaling $2.02 million
in projected license renewal revenue. All invoices were mailed as of September 29, 2010. A
licensed technologist can renew his/her license on-line using the Department’s Business Portal or
mail the invoice to the Department of Treasury. Processing time via on-line renewal is
immediate and a license is issued within three days. Renewals sent by mail take up to six weeks
to process.
Annual School Fee:
In November 3, 2010, all 55 Radiologic Technology Board of Examiners approved schools of
radiologic technology were invoiced for their 2011 annual fee. The total assessment is $33,600.
Payment of the annual fee is required by January 4, 2011. As of November 30, 2010, six schools
(11%) have paid their annual certification fees.
School of Radiologic Technology Inspections:
A school of radiologic technology that is approved by the Radiologic Technology Board of
Examiners (Board) must comply with the Board’s approved curriculum and N.J.A.C. 7:28-19.
On November 18, 2010 and November 30, 2010, the schools of dental radiologic technology
sponsored by the Center for Dental and Medical Training and Berdan Institute were inspected.
The Bureau will soon issue its findings to each school.
Staff Training:
10
In support of DEP’s Customer Service initiative, on November 9, 2010, Ms. Doris Heffner
attended and completed Customer Service training. Other section staff will be scheduled once
training is made available.
Interdepartmental Cooperation:
In May 2009, the Department of Law and Public Safety’s Board of Medical Examiners filed an
“Administrative Action Complaint” against a physician’s license. This complaint contained
several allegations involving the physician’s radiologic practices which include “Delegating to
an unlicensed person the performance of radiologic services requiring a license”, “Failure to
comply with responsibilities of a physician utilizing radiation-emitting equipment” and “Aiding
performance of repeatedly negligent and /or incomplete radiologic studies and issuing inflated
billing”. On November 23, 2010, Al Orlandi provided testimony for the State at the
Administrative Law hearing regarding the physician’s radiologic practices. The hearing is
expected to continue until February 2011.
E.
Mammography Section
Contact: Ramona Chambus (609) 984-5356
Stereotactic Facilities Inspected
The Mammography Section inspected three facilities with stereotactic/needle localization breast
biopsy units. There were no Administrative Orders and Notices of Prosecution issued. A total of
nine of the 60 planned stereotactic facility inspections have been performed since July 1, 2010.
Mammography Facilities Inspected
Mammography facilities are inspected by the Bureau’s certified MQSA inspectors under the
Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). Any areas of non-compliance discovered
during MQSA facility inspections are classified into one of three categories: Level 1, Level 2
and Level 3. Level 1 and Repeat Level 2 non-compliances are the most serious and the facility
June receive a warning letter from the FDA. The facility has fifteen days from the date of the
inspection to respond to the FDA detailing the corrective actions they have taken. Level 2 and
Repeat Level 3 non-compliances are considered serious. The facility must respond with their
corrective actions within thirty days. Level 3 non-compliances are considered less serious and
the facility is expected to correct the non-compliance in a timely manner. Inspectors will review
facility corrective actions at the next annual inspection.
The Mammography Section inspected sixteen facilities in November. There were two facilities
found to have non-compliance issues. A total of 56 of the 224 facilities scheduled to be
inspected under the current FDA MQSA contract have been inspected to date. The contract will
expire on July 31, 2011.
Facility Non-compliance Discovered
11
There were no facilities with Level 1 non-compliances.
There were two facilities with Level 2 non-compliances.
Medical audit & outcome was not done for the facility as a whole.
Failed to produce documents verifying that the radiologic technologist met the continuing
education requirement of having taught or completed at least 15 continuing education
units in mammography in 36 months.
There were no facilities with Level 3 non-compliances.
A table of inspection details can be found at the end of the BRH report.
F.
Enforcement Services Section
Contact: Jennifer Daino (609) 984-5359
Penalty Collection Efforts
Thirty-nine facilities with outstanding enforcement actions from FY 2010 have been referred to
collections. Twelve facilities have resolved their outstanding penalties. Additionally, Twentyone technologists with outstanding enforcement actions from FY 2010 have been referred to
collections. Three of these technologists have paid their penalties and one has entered into a
payment arrangement with the collections agency. Below are charts to show enforcement
activity for the month.
BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FOR NOVEMBER 2010
Total
Admin.
Orders
Issued
Admin.
Orders
Effective
Admin.
Orders
Pending
Admin.
Orders
Closed
Total
Notices of
Prosecution
Issued
Effective
Notices of
Prosecution
Pending
Notices of
Prosecution
Closed
Notice of
Prosecution
Total
Formal
Enforcement
Documents
24
10
13
1
16
8
8
0
40
PENALTY AMOUNT ASSESSED AND COLLECTED FOR ACTIONS ISSUED
Total Amount
Assessed in
November 2010
Total Amount
Assessed for FY 11
to Date
Total Amount
Collected for FY 11
Assessments
12
Total Amount
Collected in FY 11
for Previous FY
Assessments
Total
Amount
Collected in
FY 11
$7,900.00
$ 53,350.00
$ 34,700.00
$ 5,500.00
$ 40,200.00
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FOR NOVEMBER 2010
Total
Admin. Admin.
Admin. Orders
Orders
Orders Effective Pending
Issued
1
0
1
Total
Effective
Pending
Notices of
Notices of
Notices of
Prosecution Prosecution Prosecution
Issued
0
0
0
Total
Formal
Enforcement
Documents
1
PENALTY AMOUNT ASSESSED AND COLLECTED FOR ACTIONS ISSUED
Total Amount
Assessed in
November 2010
Total Amount
Assessed for
FY 11 to Date
Total Amount
Collected for
FY 11Assessments
$ 0.00
$ 600.00
$ 300.00
13
Total Amount
Collected in FY 11
for Previous FY
Assessments
$ 2,250.00
Total Amount
Collected in
FY 11
$ 2,550.00
NJDEP BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH
INSPECTOR ACTIVITY REPORT
12/06/2010
Page 1 of 3
11/01/2010 THROUGH 11/30/2010
Inspector: ALL
Number of Inspections Performed
Inspection
Type Inspection Description
Facilities
Inspected
33
Machines
Inspected
1
ROUTINE INSPECTION
8
NO SHOW
1
12
STEREOTACTIC INSPECTION
3
3
15
QA INSPECTION ROUTINE LEVEL 1
60
102
17
QA VIOLATION INSPECTION ON SITE
2
2
20
ESE INSPECTION
1
1
22
NON-QA INSPECTION - HOSPITALS
2
5
26
DENTAL ESE INSPECTION
5
6
107
176
Total On-Site Inspections:
6
Machines
Audited
57
8
1
93
93
4
5
18
OFFICE QA VIOLATION RESPONSE REVIEW
8
8
23
OFFICE TECH CERT INSPECTION
2
2
14
15
Number of Enforcement Documents Issued
NOV
AO
NOP
Amount of Penalties
9
13
8
$3,600
14
36
1
OFFICE VIOLATION RESPONSE REVIEW
Total Office Inspections:
Machines
Uninspected
46
0
NJDEP BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH
INSPECTOR ACTIVITY REPORT
12/06/2010
Page 2 of 3
11/01/2010 THROUGH 11/30/2010
Inspector: ALL
Violation
Code
Glossary
Information
Description Non-Compliance
Number of Violations
By DN By Cod
Violations Cited Non-QA
Analytical
A-002
21.6(a)1
Testing safety devices every six months.
1
1
A-005
21.6(a)3
Finger or wrist personnel monitoring equipment not provided.
2
2
A-013
21.3(a)2
A clearly visible label with the words "CAUTION: HIGH INTENSITY XRAY BEAM" not located in a conspicuous location near the x-ray tube
housing
1
1
A-014
21.3(a)3
A clearly visible warning light with fail-safe characteristics the "X-RAY
ON" is not energize an x-ray tube
1
1
C-006
17.7(c)
Requirements for film badges not met.
1
1
G-004
2.11(b)
Failed to make records available for inspection by the Department.
1
1
15.10(b)2
Relocation survey completed and submitted within 60 days
1
1
8.2(c)
A copy of the radiation safety survey was not provided to the
Department as requested.
1
1
REG 7
3.9(b)
Owner notify Dept of sale, relocation or disposal
1
1
REG2
3.1(c)
no copy of registration on file
1
1
14.4(t)5
Provision shall be made for two-way aural communication between the
patient and the operator at the treatment control panel.
1
1
19.3(c)
x-rayed humans without a valid NJ license
2
2
Cabinet
G
Radiographic
R-330
REC
REC-003
Registration
Therapy 1 Mev and Above
TA-091
TC
TC-001
14
Total Violations Cited Non-QA
Violations Cited QA
Quality Assurance
QA-010
22.5(a)1
QA manual not complete.
QA-011
22.5(a)2
QC tests from Table 1 (Radiographic) not performed at the required
intervals.
QA-012
22.5(a)3
Medical Physicist's QC Survey not performed at required interval or all
tests not performed.
15
2
2
10
10
3
3
NJDEP BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH
INSPECTOR ACTIVITY REPORT
12/06/2010
Page 3 of 3
11/01/2010 THROUGH 11/30/2010
Inspector: ALL
Violation
Code
Glossary
Information
Description Non-Compliance
Number of Violations
By DN By Cod
Violations Cited QA
Quality Assurance
QA-032
22.5(j)
Did not keep test record for at least one year.
1
1
QA-037
22.6(a)2
QC tests from Table 2 (Fluoroscopic) not performed at the required
intervals.
3
3
QA-063
22.7(a)2
QC tests from Table 3 (CT) not performed at the required intervals.
1
1
Total Violations Cited QA
20
Total Violations
34
16
TECHNOLOGIST CERTIFICATION SECTION
MONTH OF NOVEMBER
LICENSE
CATEGORY
Licenses Renewed
Total Licensed
Exams Scheduled
Investigations Conducted
Licenses Verified
Expired Licenses
Unlicensed
NOP’s Issued
Penalty ($)
Licenses Sanctioned
Approved Educational Schools
School Applications Evaluated
JRCERT Reaccreditation Reports
Evaluated
School Inspection Conducted
Total Programs Evaluated
Clinical Applications Approved
P
O
D
I
A
T
R
I
C
R
A
D
M
E
D
I
C
I
N
E
T
H
E
R
A
P
Y
5
143
853
15
4
-
39
1,957
11,837
327
3
3
1,400
33
-
30
156
1
-
2
42
-
1
16
-
1
207
1,230
6
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
2
109
R
A
D
Initial Licenses Issued
C
H
E
S
T
D
E
N
T
A
L
N
U
C
D
I
A
G
N
O
S
T
I
C
38
1,858
9,554
251
-
R
A
D
R
A
D
R
A
D
17
O
R
T
H
O
P
E
D
I
C
R
A
D
U
R
O
L
O
G
I
C
R
A
D
T
O
T
A
L
M
O
N
T
H
FY
TO
DATE
TOTAL
DUE
THIS
FY
-
1
6
1
-
-
83
4,198
N/A
0
0
599
0
3
3
$1,400
2
58
0
537
12,192
23,678
5
11
3,050
5
18
23
$8,550
4
N/A
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
45
8,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
-
-
-
-
0
4
5
-
-
-
-
2
2
109
2
10
445
11
18
900
INDUSTRY
PHYSICIAN
HOSPITAL
GOVERNMENT
Bureau of Radiological Health
Mammography Section
November 2010
TOTAL
MONTH
0
0
12
12
4
6
0
0
16
18
56
63
FDA Violations Level 1
FDA Violations Level 2
FDA Violations Level 3
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
10
7
Registrations
Stored
Canceled
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
10
8
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
3
3
9
9
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Notice of Prosecution
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Registrations
Stored
Canceled
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
Type of Facility
MQSA
Facilities Inspected
Machines Inspected
Stereotactic
Facilities Inspected
Machines Inspected
18
FY TO
DATE
TOTAL
DUE THIS
FY
224
60
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
RADIATION PROTECTION AND RELEASE PREVENTION ELEMENT
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION
NOVEMBER 1, 2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2010
SECTION III - BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION
OFFICE OF THE BUREAU CHIEF
Transformation Initiatives
A General License spreadsheet that was being maintained was deemed redundant and
discontinued.
In keeping with customer service and the transformation initiatives, licensees that have
requested termination will be assessed special invoices that cover only the period during
which the license was active.
Customer Service
Emelia Taubel, Maxine Williams and Patricia Gardner attended Customer Service
training.
As part of our outreach initiatives an email list serve was created for the Agreement State
Program.
Contact:
A.
Patricia Gardner (609) 984-5400
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS PROGRAM
Diffuse NARM, Source and Special Nuclear Material, General Licensing &
Decommissioning
Diffuse NARM
Inspection
During an inspection of activities at the Township of South Brunswick wells, staff
discovered that a radium removal system had been installed and operated at an unlicensed
location. An Administrative Order was issued giving South Brunswick 45 days to come
into compliance.
Contact:
Karen Flanigan
(609) 292-1938
Meeting
Staff met with representatives from Water Remediation Technology, LLC (WRT) to
discuss the licenses of water treatment systems which use the company’s Z-88 media to
remove radium.
19
Contact:
Jenny Goodman
Karen Flanigan
(609) 984-5498
(609) 292-1938
Source and Special Nuclear Material
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (SMC)
SMC appealed NRC’s granting of authority of Shieldalloy’s license to the Department in
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. On November, 9, 2010, the Court issued a decision that
vacates the NRC's grant of authority over the Shieldalloy facility and remands this case to
the NRC to provide a better rationale for its decision. The court found that the NRC
failed to provide a sufficient rationale regarding why Shieldalloy's ongoing
decommissioning activities would not be disrupted by the transfer of authority. The DC
Circuit decision is stayed for 52 days to allow the filing for a motion for reconsideration.
Contact:
Jenny Goodman
(609) 984-5498
General Licensing
In vitro registrations were recently sent to the Department from the NRC. New Jersey in
vitro registrations were mailed to the 6 facilities that held them with the NRC.
Contact:
Jenny Goodman
(609) 984-5498
Decommissioning
One license was terminated. A review of laboratory data was provided for Picatinney
Arsenal. A meeting was held on the former Gloucester Titanium Company (GTC) site in
Gloucester City. A site visit to GTC was conducted on November 10, 2010.
Contact:
Jenny Goodman
(609) 984-5498
Medical, Industrial, and Reciprocity
During the month of November, 2010 the Radioactive Materials Program (RMP)
responded to six (6) radiation incidents:
On November 2, 2010, at 3:50 a.m., a member of the Radioactive Materials Program
(RMP) was informed by Trenton Dispatch that a load of municipal solid waste (MSW)
from the New York City Department of Sanitation (NYCDOS) had set off the radiation
alarm at an incinerator in Newark. The load was rejected and returned to the NYCDOS.
New York City radiation control officials were notified.
On November 2, 2010, at 6:35 a.m., Trenton Dispatch also informed a member of the
RMP that a second load of MSW from the NYCDOS had set off the radiation alarm at an
incinerator in Newark. The load was rejected and returned to the NYCDOS. New York
City radiation control officials were notified.
20
On November 9, 2010, Trenton Dispatch informed the RMP that a load of MSW from the
NYCDOS had set off the radiation alarm at a waste hauler in Jersey City. The load was
rejected and returned to the NYCDOS. New York City radiation control officials were
notified.
On November 19, 2010, at 6:05 a.m., Trenton Dispatch informed a member of the RMP
that a load of MSW from the NYCDOS had set off the radiation alarm at an incinerator in
Newark. The load was rejected and returned to the NYCDOS. New York City radiation
control officials were notified.
Also on November 19, 2010, Trenton Dispatch informed the RMP that a load of MSW
from a waste hauler in Fairfield had set off the radiation alarm at an incinerator in
Newark. The load was rejected and returned to Fairfield pending proper disposition. On
November 22, 2010, the load was taken to a facility in Newark where it was dumped
under the supervision of a consultant. A single plastic bag was identified as the cause of
the elevated readings. The material was identified as I-131. The bag was returned to the
Fairfield facility to be held for decay-in-storage. The consultant would return in a few
months to survey the bag and ensure it had decayed to background levels prior to its
disposal. The remainder of the load was released for routine processing.
On November 25, 2010, at 2:40 a.m., Trenton Dispatch informed a member of the RMP
that a load of MSW from the NYCDOS had set off the radiation alarm at an incinerator in
Newark. The load was rejected and secured at the incinerator until a DOT form was
issued on the next business day, November 29, 2010. New York City radiation control
officials were notified.
Contact:
William Csaszar
(609) 984-5555
Exercises
On November 4, 2010, a member of the RMP participated in the REDZONE tabletop
exercise that concerned an emergency response scenario. Individuals from the Federal,
State, county and local levels of government were involved, as were private sector
organizations.
Contact:
William Csaszar
(609) 984-5555
Routine Activities of the Radioactive Materials Program
11/1/10 – 11/30/10
Contact:
Number of Amendments Received:
Number of Renewals Received:
Number of Initial Applications Processed:
Number of Licenses merged: (since becoming
an Agreement State)
Number of Terminations:
Number of Reciprocity Requests Received:
Number of Incidents:
Number of Inspections:
William Csaszar
(609) 984-5555
21
42
22
25
615
31
39
5
7
B.
RADON SECTION
Outreach
The Radon Program exhibited at the NJEA Convention held on November 4-5, 2010 in
Atlantic City.
Information was provided to the Essex County Cancer Coalition who exhibited at the
Chronic Disease Summit held on November 4, 2010 in Somerset.
Publications- We have received the revised Information You Should Know brochure, as
well as copy of a prototype brochure, as requested from the Office of Communications.
This brochure is currently under in-house review.
The Office of Communications is continuing work on the New Construction postcard
with the draft expected to be completed by mid-December.
Paperwork was submitted for the re-order of 2500 Tier Maps.
Training- Staff attended the “Media 101” session which was presented by Angelene
Taccini- Director of Communications to members of the Communications Committee on
November 5, 2010. The purpose of the session was to provide an overview of the media
in relation to DEP, including what makes a good story, broadcast coverage, protocols for
working with the media, and basic media training.
Give-Aways- We received our order for 4906 newsprint pencils and payment has been
issued. This item is made from 100% recyclable newspaper and will be used as a giveaway at various outreach events to promote radon awareness and testing.
Radon Poster Contest- We received 411 posters for a record-breaking year! First, second,
and third place winners were selected as well as 12 honorable mentions. New Jersey’s
first, second and third place winners were entered into the National Radon Poster
Contest. Two of our posters (second and third place winners) were selected for the
national top ten posters where members of the RadonLeaders.org community were able
to vote online for their top three favorites. Results from the voting, as well as the national
judging, will be used to determine the winner who will be announced next month.
We are currently in discussions with a printer to possibly have posters made from our
winners which we would like to send out to the schools as well as for distribution at
various outreach events.
Letters were prepared and reviewed which will be sent to the winners, as well as
associated school principals, teachers, and mayors. All participants will be sent a
certificate of appreciation as well as pencils and radon informational brochures for their
fine work. Venues for the awards presentations will be determined by the associated
school at a later date.
22
National Radon Action Month (NRAM) - Letters were prepared and reviewed, and order
forms and Radon Action Partnership Packets were updated, revised, and reviewed in
preparation for NRAM. In addition, a paycheck insert was also sent to Treasury for
possible inclusion in paychecks issued in January 2011.
Letters as well as packets have currently been sent to the Office of Local Government
Assistance to be sent electronically to all mayors. In addition, letters have also been sent
to the radon professionals, and will also be sent to all local and county health officials in
the near future.
Orders forms for outreach materials are currently being received and processed. Radon
Partner letters have been prepared and reviewed and are being sent out with each order.
Participants are encouraged to join RadonLeaders.org which is an online learning and
action network hosted by CRCPD in close collaboration from AARST and EPA. This
online platform continues the collaborative efforts needed to support the goal of doubling
the lives saved from radon-induced lung cancer within five years. RadonLeaders.org
connects radon stakeholders through interactive tools including forums as well as maps to
track where activities are taking place throughout the country and features information
and resources to help facilitate action and radon risk reduction.
Radon Awareness Program (RAP) - Reimbursement paperwork has been received from
the Warren County Health Department for the purchase of 150 test kits Paperwork has
been reviewed and submitted for payment. Initial information received from the
laboratory identified a 14.7% test kit return rate. An additional update will be requested
from the laboratory next month.
Updated information was received from the laboratory identifying a 41.7% test kit return
rate for the Bergen County Department of Health Services.
Payment was issued to the Passaic County Department of Health.
Coupons were received from the Essex County Cancer Coalition as requested. Test kit
usage rates will be determined.
Participation forms were revised to include additional reporting requirements.
Newborn Pilot Program- Additional required reimbursement paperwork has been
received from the Somerset County Cancer Coalition as requested. Paperwork will be
reviewed in the near future and processed if determined complete.
Coupons were received from the Essex County Cancer Coalition as requested. Test kit
usage rates will be determined.
Contact:
Linda Z. Jordan
(609) 984-5434
23
Post-mitigation radon testing
Free post-mitigation tests are offered to any homeowner that has a mitigation system
installed. We will send test devices to verify the post-mitigation radon concentration.
During this month, there were two electret devices mailed to one homeowner. When the
box was opened upon return of the kits, one of the devices was open, thus rendering the
test invalid. The homeowner will be offered a retest.
Contact:
Charles Renaud
(609) 984-5423
Inspections
One mitigation business and measurement business were inspected in November. Both
inspection reports were completed.
Contact:
Charles Renaud
(609) 984-5423
Measurement and Mitigation Radon Certifications
A total of 43 radon professional applications were approved. They consisted of one
measurement specialist, one mitigation specialist and 41 measurement technicians. A
total of two professionals were moved from provisional to full certification status.
Business application approvals consisted of one measurement business and one
mitigation business.
Contact:
Anita Kopera
(609) 984-5543
Radon Hazard Subcode for Schools
The working group continues to prepare the revisions to the existing building code
requirements in N.J.A.C. 5:23-10 which will provide extensive detail for installation of
radon resistant construction techniques in schools located in Tier 1 (high radon potential)
municipalities. A conference call was held on November 30 and the issue of the fan test
was addressed and revised in the draft code. Another conference call will be scheduled
for mid-December to continue to review and refine the draft document.
Contact:
Anita Kopera
(609) 984-5543
“Snapshot” Document
A draft two-page “Snapshot” of New Jersey’s radon program was developed to provide a
brief overview of the current radon statistics and associated programs and facts. This
document will be used as an outreach fact sheet regarding the program and services
provided.
Contact:
Anita Kopera
(609) 984-5543
24
C.
NONIONIZING SECTION
Radiofrequency and Microwave Heaters, Sealers and Industrial Ovens
Inspections
One radiofrequency heat sealer was inspected this month.
Contact: Deborah Riggs Wenke
(609) 984-5521
25
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION
SUMMARY OF STATISTICS
Radon Information Line Calls - FY11
300
Number of Calls
250
200
150
100
50
0
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Information Packets Requested - FY11
Number of Packets
80
60
40
20
0
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Radon Certifications Issued - FY11
Number of Certifications
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
26
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Radon testing and mitigation data is submitted to the Radon Section monthly by all certified
radon businesses. This data has been collected for all building types since the implementation of
the radon certification regulations in 1991. According to N.J.A.C. 7:28-27.28 (a) and (e), Radon
test results and mitigation reports for October 2010 are due by December 1, 2010.
RADON TEST RESULTS
Number of Homes Tested
Number of Homes Tested for Radon
July 1, 2010 Through June 30, 2011
8000
40000
6000
30000
4000
20000
2000
10000
0
JU
L
A
U
G
SE
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
EC
JA
N
FE
B
M
A
R
A
PR
M
A
Y
JU
TO N
TA
L
0
Number of Tests
Radon Tests Conducted in
All Building Types
July 1, 2010 Through June 30, 2011
8000
40000
6000
30000
4000
20000
2000
10000
0
0
L
JU
G
U
A
T
V
P
C
O
SE
O
N
EC
D
N
JA
Y
R
B
A
PR
FE MA
A
M
27
L
N
A
JU OT
T
Radon testing and mitigation data is submitted to the Radon Section monthly by all certified
radon businesses. This data has been collected for all building types since the implementation of
the radon certification regulations in 1991. According to N.J.A.C. 7:28-27.28 (a) and (e), Radon
test results and mitigation reports for October 2010 are due by December 1, 2010.
RADON MITIGATION SYSTEM INSTALLATIONS
Number of Homes Mitigated
Number of Homes Mitigated for Radon
July 1, 2009 Through June 30, 2011
500
1000
400
800
300
600
200
400
100
200
JU
N
TO
TA
L
M
A
Y
A
P
R
M
A
R
FE
B
JA
N
D
E
C
N
O
V
O
C
T
Radon Mitigation Systems Installed
in All Building Types
July 1, 2010 Through June 30, 2011
500
1000
400
800
300
600
200
400
100
200
28
JU
N
TO
TA
L
M
A
Y
A
P
R
M
A
R
FE
B
JA
N
D
E
C
N
O
V
O
C
T
0
S
E
P
JU
L
0
A
U
G
Number of Systems Installed
S
E
P
0
JU
L
A
U
G
0
RADIATION PROT ECTION AND RELEASE PREVENTION ELEMENT
BUREAU OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING MONTHLY REPORT
NOVEMBER 1, 2010 - NOVEMBER 30, 2010
SECTION IV
SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES
Hope Creek License Renewal – ACRS Subcommittee Meeting
On November 3, 2010, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Plant License
Renewal Subcommittee met in Rockville, MD to discuss the license renewal application (LRA)
for the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS). Both PSEG Nuclear and the NRC made
presentations to the Subcommittee. Two BNE engineers participated via teleconferencing.
There were no comments made by the public during the meeting.
The presentations centered on the “Safety Evaluation Report (SER) with Open Items, Related to
the License Renewal of Hope Creek Generating Station”. The SER (with open item) was issued
by the NRC on September 30, 2010 and summarizes the NRC’s review of the HCGS LRA; the
results of the NRC on-site LRA audits and inspections; and PSEG’s responses to the NRC’s
requests for additional information (RAIs). One open item and two confirmatory items are
identified in the SER.
An item is considered open if the NRC has not finished its review of the item at the time of the
issuance of the SER. The HCGS open item stems from recent industry events involving leakage
from buried or underground piping, requiring additional information in order for the NRC to
complete its evaluation of the HCGS buried piping program.
An item is considered confirmatory if the NRC and the applicant (i.e., PSEG) have reached a
satisfactory resolution but the applicant has not formally submitted the resolution. Hope Creek’s
confirmatory items pertain to inaccessible medium voltage cable not subject to environmental
qualification requirements and effects of reactor coolant environment on fatigue life of
components and piping.
Both PSEG and the NRC addressed the open item and confirmatory items in their respective
presentations. PSEG also addressed the site description and operating history of Hope Creek. In
addition, PSEG summarized its aging management programs.
PSEG provided an overview of the HCGS containment, including the ultrasonic testing (UT) of
the metal drywell shell that was performed during the 2010 and previous refueling outages. The
investigation into the small reactor cavity leak that exists when the reactor cavity is flooded
during refueling outages was discussed. PSEG provided up-to-date information obtained during
the on-going refueling outage which included UT results and the fact that the four 4-inch drywell
air gap drains were found to be plugged, apparently from the time of plant construction. The
plan for unplugging the drains and monitoring the drywell shell was discussed.
29
The NRC provided an overview of the HCGS license renewal review. The NRC concluded that
on the basis of its review and pending satisfactory resolution of the open and confirmatory items,
the requirements for license renewal contained in 10 CFR 54.29(a) have been met.
The full ACRS is tentatively scheduled to meet with PSEG and the NRC to discuss the HCGS
license renewal application on May 12, 2011.
The ACRS Subcommittee hearing for the Salem Generating Station is scheduled for December
1, 2010.
Contact: Jerry Humphreys (609) 984-7469
OTHER INFORMATION
Nuclear Power Plant Operation
Oyster Creek
Exelon began the 23rd refueling outage at Oyster Creek on November 1, 2010. During the outage
significant large scale projects were completed. These include:












Refuel reactor
Replace a variety of in-core equipment, e.g. drives, monitors, control rod blades
Visual exam of reactor internals
Replace a section of pipe in the Service Water System and in the Emergency Service
Water System
Replace a Core Spray Pump Motor
Replace a Reactor Recirculating Water Pump motor and two seals
Inspect torus with divers, repair coating as needed and de-sludge
Overhaul and replace a variety of valves
Replace two main electrical transformers
Perform coating inspections on 5 bays in the drywell sand bed region
Perform integrated leak rate test on the primary containment
Inspect and test turbine/generator equipment
Operators began startup from this outage on November 30, 2010 and the connected the plant to
the grid on December 1, 2010, marking the end of a 30-day outage.
Contact: Rich Pinney (609) 984-7558
Hope Creek
On November 1, Hope Creek was in Day 17 of its sixteenth refueling outage (H1R16). On
November 11, Hope Creek’s main generator was synchronized to the offsite electrical grid,
ending H1R16 (duration: 26 days, 18 hours, 32 minutes). Following synchronization, Hope
Creek increased power in planned increments, reaching 100% power on November 16. Hope
30
Creek operated at 100% through the remainder of the month, with the exception of a brief down
power to 85% on November 20 for reactor control rod pattern adjustments.
Contact: Jerry Humphreys (609) 984-7469
Salem Unit 1
Salem Unit 1 ran at essentially full power for the entire month.
Contact: Elliot Rosenfeld (609) 984-7548
Salem Unit 2
Salem Unit 2 ran at essentially full power for the entire month.
Contact: Elliot Rosenfeld (609) 984-7548
NRC License Renewal Inspection at Oyster Creek
During the week of November 1, 2100, the NRC inspected aspects of the implementation of post
license renewal activities at Oyster Creek. The scope of the inspection included the results of
one-time inspections, and ongoing inspections of components such as the containment coatings,
cable vaults. The inspection also looked at changes to commitments and updates to the Final
Safety Analysis Report. This inspection is the final NRC inspection devoted to license renewal.
Future inspections will be part of the routine Reactor Oversight Program. One engineer from the
BNE observed the inspection. The results of the NRC inspection will be included in the resident
inspectors’ report for the fourth quarter 2010.
Contact: Richard Pinney (609) 984-7558
NRC Inspects Exelon’s In-service Inspection Program at Oyster Creek
The NRC inspected the results of Exelon’s in-service inspections of various components during
the Oyster Creek’s 23rd refueling outage. During an outage many key components become
accessible for non-destructive or visual inspection. The NRC inspector focused on reviewing the
results of these inspections and the methods and scope of the inspections. The results of the NRC
inspection will be included in the resident inspectors’ report for the fourth quarter 2010.
Contact: Ron Zak (609) 984-7458
Webinar on High Level Radioactive Material Transportation
On November 17, one BNE Engineer participated in a National Transportation Stakeholders
Forum web conference. During the one hour conference, representatives of the United States
Department of Energy (DOE) and Argonne National Laboratory discussed the present an
overview of Argonne’s Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system developed to track
individual containers (e.g., barrels) of radioactive material being shipped and/or stored in the
United States. The RFID system relies on sensors attached to containers of radioactive material
to supply radio frequency signals to RFID readers which transport the data via a secured internet
to secured servers running software capable of tracking the containers and determining
31
information such as sensor status, temperature, humidity, radiation level, battery status, etc. The
software is compatible with that used in the present DOE TRANSCOM Real-Time Tracking
System used to track carriers (e.g., commercial trucks) of radioactive material. Test results of
the integration of the RFID system into TRANSCOM system, along with future improvements,
were discussed.
Contact: Jerry Humphreys (609) 984-7469
Meeting with the Salem Plant Manager
A BNE engineer met with the Salem Plant Manager on November 30. Among the topics
discussed were: recent organizational changes, industrial safety and preparations for the
upcoming spring refueling outage at Unit 2.
Contact: Elliot Rosenfeld (609) 984-7548
Radioactive Materials Shipment Notifications
The Bureau of Nuclear Engineering is responsible for tracking certain radioactive materials that
are transported in New Jersey. Advance notification for these radioactive materials are in three
categories: 1) Spent Fuel and Nuclear Waste; 2) Highway Route Control Quantity Shipments;
and 3) Radionuclides of Concern. Each category has to meet certain packaging and notification
requirements established by the federal government. Below is a table representing the number of
shipments completed in November 2010.
Spent Fuel and
Nuclear Waste
0
Highway Route Control
Quantity Shipments
1
Radionuclides of
Concern
1
Contact: Rich Pinney (609) 984-7558
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
The BNE conducts a comprehensive Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)
in the environs surrounding New Jersey’s four nuclear generating stations. The program
collected 45 samples during the month of November 2010. The number and type of samples
collected are given in the table below.
Sample results are entered into the BNE’s database for tracking and trending of environmental
results. Data obtained from these analyses are used to determine the effect, if any, of the
operation of New Jersey’s nuclear power plants on the environment and the public. BNE staff
reviews all results to ensure that required levels of detection have been met and that state and
federal radiological limits have not been exceeded. Any exceedances, or anomalous data, are
investigated. The REMP includes the development of an Annual Environmental Surveillance and
Monitoring Report for the environs of the Oyster Creek and Salem/Hope Creek nuclear power
plants. The report, covering sampling results conducted during the prior calendar year, can be
found on the NJDEP website at http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/bne/index.htm, along with reports
from previous years.
32
Questions regarding specific test results or the annual environmental report can be directed to
Karen Tuccillo. Results of specific analyses can be obtained by request.
COUNT OF SAMPLES COLLECTED IN NOVEMBER 2010
SAMPLE MEDIUM
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
AIR FILTER
AIR CHARCOAL
MILK
WELL WATER
SURFACE WATER
15
15
3
6
6
TOTAL SAMPLES
45
Contacts: Karen Tuccillo (609) 984-7443, Compton Alleyne (609) 984-7455, or Paul E.
Schwartz (609) 984-7539
Update on Salem-1 Tritium Leak Remediation
During the month of November 2010, 18 well water split samples were collected and shipped to
the BNE’s contract laboratory for radiological analysis.
Contacts: Tom Kolesnik - (609) 984-7575
Update on Salem and Hope Creek Radiological Groundwater Protection Program (RGPP)
During the month of November 2010, 12 Salem RGPP well water split samples were collected
and shipped to the BNE’s contract laboratory for radiological analysis.
Contacts: Tom Kolesnik - (609) 984-7575
NRC Holds Public Meetings to Discuss Environmental Scoping Process for PSEG’s Early
Site Permit Application Review
On November 4, 2010, the NRC held two public meetings to discuss the Early Site Permit (ESP)
process and environmental scoping for a potential new nuclear plant at Artificial Island. The
meetings took place on the campus of Salem Community College, Salem, New Jersey.
Environmental Scoping is part of a process that the NRC uses to solicit public comments about
the ESP application. The scoping process helps determine the significant issues to be analyzed
in the upcoming environmental impact statement. During the meetings, individuals provided
comments both in favor of and in opposition to the ESP. The scoping period for the
Environmental Review ends December 14, 2010 with comments due directly to the NRC.
Additional information regarding the PSEG Early Site Permit Application, including where to
submit any comments, can be found on the NRC website at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors/esp/pseg.html#nrcdoc
Contacts: Tom Kolesnik - (609) 984-7575 or Karen Tuccillo - (609) 984-7443
33
NRC Holds Public Meetings to Discuss Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for Salem/Hope Creek License Renewal Application
On November 17, 2010, the NRC held two public meetings to discuss the draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) prepared as part of the Salem and Hope Creek License
Renewal Application. The meetings took place at the Salem County Emergency Services
Building, Woodstown, New Jersey. NRC staff presented the results of reviews to date and took
comments from the public. During the meetings, individuals provided comments both in favor
of and in opposition to license renewal. Based on its review, the NRC staff’s draft SEIS
preliminarily recommend that the Commission determine the adverse environmental impacts of
license renewal for the facilities are “not so great that preserving the option of license renewal
for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.” These recommendations are based
on five factors: 1) the analysis and findings in the NRC Generic Environmental Impact Statement
used for license renewal reviews; 2) the plant-specific environmental reports submitted by
PSEG; 3) NRC consultation with other federal, state and local agencies; 4) the NRC staff’s own
independent review; and 5) the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments received during
the environmental scoping process. Written comments on the draft SEIS must be submitted to
the NRC by December 17, 2010. Additional information regarding PSEG’s Application for
license renewal can be found on the NRC website at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/salem.html
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/hope-creek.html
Contact: Tom Kolesnik - (609) 984-7575 or Karen Tuccillo - (609) 984-7443
Update on Oyster Creek Tritium Monitoring
Results of the analyses for groundwater and surface water split samples by the BNE’s contract
laboratories can be found on the BNE website at:http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/bne/FinalOCH3.pdf.
During the month of November 2010, 37 surface water samples and 45 groundwater monitoring
well samples were collected and shipped to EPA’s NAREL and GEL Laboratories, respectively.
Contacts: Karen Tuccillo (609) 984-7443, Compton Alleyne (609) 984-7455 or Paul E.
Schwartz (609) 984-7539
Effluent Release Data
The BNE monitors the effluents released from all four (4) nuclear generating stations each
month. The reported effluents include gaseous, total iodine, total particulate and tritium released
to the atmosphere and water. Prior to August 2010, effluent release data had been reported in
scientific notation. Beginning with the BNE’s reporting of August 2010 monthly effluent data,
all data will be reported in whole numbers, or fractions thereof.
The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Forked River, NJ does not routinely release activity in
liquids to the environment. In the event of an unplanned release, the resulting activity will be
included in the licensee’s Annual Effluent Release Report, available through the USNRC
website at, http://www.nrc.gov, or the county public library system. Releases to the atmosphere
34
are from the 112-meter stack or various monitored building vents. At the Hope Creek and Salem
nuclear power plants, releases to the air and water are monitored each month and compared to
historic releases. Releases to the atmosphere are from various monitored building vents.
Effluent data for the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear power plants for October 2010 are included
below. October 2010 effluent data for the Oyster Creek nuclear plant were not available at the
drafting of this report. Effluent data for October 2010 shall be included in the December 2010
monthly report, which will be available in early January 2011.
PSEG Nuclear
Radioactive Effluent Releases
Nuclear Environmental Engineering Section
For the Period of 10-01-10 to 10-31-10
Hope Creek
Gaseous
Effluents
Effluent
Fission Gases
Iodines
Particulates
Tritium
Hope Creek Liquid
Effluents
21.17
0.00058
0.000002
0.001
Ci
Ci
Ci
Ci
0.0136
0
0
0.101
Ci
Ci
Ci
Ci
Ci
Ci
Effluent
Fission Products
Tritium
0.0022
115.9
Ci
Ci
0.0012
83.0
Ci
Ci
Salem Unit 2
Liquid Effluents
Salem Unit 2
Gaseous Effluent
Effluent
Fission Gases
Iodines
Particulates
Tritium
0.0147
9.6
Salem Unit 1
Liquid Effluents
Salem Unit 1
Gaseous Effluent
Effluent
Fission Gases
Iodines
Particulates
Tritium
Effluent
Fission Products
Tritium
0.0341
0
0
0.139
Ci
Ci
Ci
Ci
Effluent
Fission Products
Tritium
Ci = curies of activity
Contact: Paul E. Schwartz (609) 984-7539
35
Continuous Radiological Environmental Surveillance Telemetry System
Thirty-two Continuous Radiological Environmental Surveillance Telemetry (CREST) sites are
located in the environs of Oyster Creek, Salem I, II, and Hope Creek nuclear generating stations.
CREST is a part of the Air Pollution/Radiation Data Acquisition and Early Warning System, a
remote data acquisition system whose central computer is located in Trenton, New Jersey. Sites
are accessed via dedicated phone lines or cellular communication and polled for radiological and
meteorological data every minute.
The Air Pollution/Radiation Data Acquisition and Early Warning System is equipped with a
threshold alarm of twenty-five (25) microRoentgens per hour. The system notifies staff via text
messages and email alerts if the threshold is exceeded, providing 24-hour coverage of potential
radiological abnormalities surrounding each nuclear facility.
There were no alarms during the month of November.
Contact: Ann Pfaff (609) 984-7451
The following tables include the average ambient radiation levels at each site for the month of
November:
Artificial Island CREST System Ambient Radiation Levels
November 2010 Derived From One Minute Averages
UNITS = mR/Hr
AI1
.0068
AI6
****
AI2
.0071
AI7
.0061
AI3
.0069
AI8
.0060
AI4
.0076
AI9
.0077
AI5
.0069
AI10
.0058
Oyster Creek CREST System Ambient Radiation Levels
November 2010 Derived From One Minute Averages
UNITS = mR/Hr
OC1
.0071
OC5
.0059
OC9
.0061
OC13
.0054
**** indicates no data
OC2
.0058
OC6
.0062
OC10
.0057
OC14
.0056
OC3
****
OC7
.0058
OC11
****
OC15
.0080
Contact: Ann Pfaff (609) 984-7451
36
OC4
.0054
OC8
****
OC12
****
OC16
.0059
Air Pollution/Radiation Data Acquisition and Early Warning System Contract Scope
Expansion
Staff from DR DAS and Najarian Associates were at the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering's offices
in November to continue work under the contract scope expansion. DR DAS with Najarian
Associates is providing upgrade, repair and maintenance support for the CREST system because
the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering no longer has staff to complete technical fieldwork. While
onsite, DR DAS installed software on BNE laptops to create stand-alone communication centers
to poll the radiation monitoring sites in the event of a catastrophic failure of both the primary and
offsite back-up systems. Further details on the implementation of the scope expansion were
discussed with DR DAS, as well as extensive fieldwork completed. Monitoring station AI4 was
upgraded to wireless data transmission, cellular surveys to improve transmission were completed
at two stations and several other sites were checked and rebooted. This work brings the total
number of sites transmitting data wirelessly to twenty-seven of the thirty-two CREST stations.
Contact: Ann Pfaff (609) 984-7451
National Guard Exercise - Atlantic City International Airport
Bureau of Nuclear Engineering staff observed the 21st Civil Support Team Air National Guard
Exercise at Atlantic City International Airport on November 17, 2010. Lt. Col. Jesse Arnstein
hosted the visit and highlighted the capabilities of his staff and their equipment in responding to
radiological, biological and chemical events in New Jersey. The Bureau of Nuclear Engineering
is evaluating the possibility of partnering with the National Guard to provide support in nuclear
emergency events and exercises at the nuclear generating stations. Because DEP's personnel
shortages are making it increasingly difficult to fully staff field monitoring teams during
exercises and events, the Department has reached out to the National Guard for partnering
opportunities. After observing the exercise, logistics of a partnership were discussed, including
the National Guard's participation in field monitoring team training and the state-graded exercise
in 2011.
Contact: Ann Pfaff (609) 984-7451
IT Communications for Nuclear Emergency Response
To further improve electronic communications during nuclear emergency response events and
exercises, Bureau of Nuclear Engineering (BNE) and Office of Information Resource
Management staff visited the Emergency Operations Facility in Salem in November 2010 to
review hardware and software presently available for data and information sharing. OIRM staff
installed updated Citrix clients on BNE's computers in the facility to improve access. Several
pieces of communication hardware were recommended for replacement and OIRM is
investigating with the State Office of Information Technology the possibility of upgrading the
data lines from the emergency facilities to DEP's network in Trenton to speed communications.
Contact: Ann Pfaff (609) 984-7451
37
BUREAU OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
Plant Operating Performance - November 2010
HC
100
SA Unit 2
50
SA Un it 1
OC
0
Capacity Factor
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
EMERGENCY AND NON-EMERGENCY EVENT NOTIFICATIONS FOR
NOVEMBER 2010
Emergency events (EEs) at nuclear power plants are classified, in increasing order of severity,
as an Unusual Event (UE), Alert, Site Area Emergency (SAE), and General Emergency (GE).
Non-emergency events (NEEs) are less serious events that require notification of the NRC
within one to four hours. The nuclear power plants operating in New Jersey also notify the
BNE of NEEs. The BNE analyzes the NEEs as part of its surveillance of nuclear power plant
operation.
NOV 2010
JAN - NOV 2010
JAN - NOV 2009
EE
NEE
EE
NEE
EE
NEE
OYSTER CREEK
0
0
0
4
1
5
SALEM 1
0
0
0
5
0
2
SALEM 2
0
0
0
5
0
0
SALEM SITE
0
0
0
1
0
1
HOPE CREEK
0
0
0
2
0
9
38
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
RELEASE PREVENTION – DPCC
NOVEMBER MONTHLY REPORT
SECTION V
Plan Submission, Renewals and Amendments
Discharge Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure (DPCC) and Discharge Cleanup and
Removal (DCR) Plans are the means that regulated facilities use to show compliance with the
discharge prevention regulations. They present the facilities’ means of preventing the release of
hazardous substances, as well as response measures and equipment that are in place if a release
does occur. The review and approval of these plans, and their renewals and amendments, are a
primary purpose of the program. Plans are renewed on a three year schedule.
DPHS Output
This Month
FY 2011 to
date
Plans Received
0
0
Plans Initially Approved
0
1
Plans Denied
0
0
Plan Renewals Received
7
48
Plan Renewals Approved
2
23
Plan Renewals Denied
0
4
Plan Amendments Received
8
21
Plan Amendments Approved
9
35
The current backlog of plan renewals past their renewal date is 41, with 5 plans currently denied.
This is an increase of 4 in the number backlogged and a decrease of 1 in denied plans from last
month.
Inspections
In order to verify compliance with the discharge prevention rule requirements, three types of
inspections are routinely performed: annual, technical review, and compliance. Annual
inspections cover all aspects of compliance and are performed at facilities during each of the two
years between plan renewals. Technical review inspections are performed in conjunction with
plan and plan amendment reviews and are to ensure that the plan accurately reflects the facility.
Compliance inspections are a variety of less comprehensive inspections covering things like
upgrade schedules, booming requirements, or storage capacity determinations, and will be
performed only as resources allow, or if required such as when a facility claims its capacity has
fallen below the regulatory threshold.
39
DPHS Output
This Month
FY 2011 to
date
Annual Audits
12
60
Technical Review Inspections
9
43
Compliance Inspections
0
4
Follow-up Site Visits
3
13
Follow-up Document Reviews
9
26
Incident/Complaint Investigations
0
0
Enforcement Actions
When non-compliance is determined, enforcement action is taken. NOVs are issued by the
inspectors while still at the facilities. Some NOVs are for minor violations that have specified
time periods for compliance without penalty assessment. AONOCAPAs are issued to assess
penalties and specify corrective actions. NOCAPAs serve to only assess penalties. NOVs and
AONOCAPAs require tracking the violator’s return to compliance, including inspections and
review of paperwork. When an alleged violator requests a hearing on an enforcement action,
case management is the process of settlement or adjudication that results in a settlement
document or a contested case hearing.
DPHS Output
This Month
FY 2011 to
date
AO/NOCAPA
9
15
Notice of Violation
4
22
Settlements
2
9
Penalties are associated with AO/NOCAPAs and settlement documents. When an enforcement
action is appealed, the penalty is suspended. When an appeal is settled and a reduced penalty is
agreed to, the original penalty is cancelled.
This Month
FY 2011 to
date
New Penalty Assessments (Total Dollar Amount)
$22,550
$104,717
Payments Received
Penalties Cancelled
$13,817
$9,000
$66,817
$70,750
n.a.
$269,083
DPHS Output
Penalties Suspended
Discharge Confirmation Reports
Facilities are required to prepare and submit incident reports. Reports received by the Bureau are
assigned to staff for review. Upon review the incidents are entered on the FACITS database and
40
correspondence is sent to the facility. These records of discharges are used during annual audits
and the review of plan renewals. While no DCRs will be reviewed this fiscal year, they will be
logged and filed.
DPHS Output
This Month
FY 2011 to
date
DPHS Output
This Month
FY 2011 to
date
OPRA Information Requests
8
90
Referrals received
0
1
Referral responses issued
0
1
DCRs Submitted
5
40
DCRs Assigned
0
0
DCRs Accepted
0
0
Communications and Outreach
Prepare responses (not related to security) to referrals, OPRA requests, enforcement histories,
analyses of proposed legislation or regulations, fiscal notes, correspondence etc. after
determining the impacts on the programs and their ability to perform core functions.
Training
None
Other Items
Bureau management met with the new director to discuss progress on implementation of
some of the ideas the bureau generated on transformation.
Bureau Manager Atay, Supervising Engineer Pals, and Section Chief Reddy, along with
Director Baldauf, met with members of the Site Remediation program to discuss the Shell Sewaren facility.
Section Chief Reddy attended the Core Team meeting.
41
Bureau of Release Prevention - TCPA
Monthly Report – November 2010
Program Background
The Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA) (the Act), N.J.S.A. 13:1K-19 et seq., was
enacted in 1985 and became effective in January 1986. The goal of the Act is to protect
the public from catastrophic accidental releases of extraordinarily hazardous substances
(EHSs) into the environment. The impetus for the Act was the infamous December 1984
accidental release of methyl isocyanate at a plant in Bhopal, India that resulted in the
deaths of 2,500 people and significant releases with offsite impacts that occurred in New
Jersey in 1985. The TCPA Program rules, N.J.A.C. 7:31 require owners or operators of
facilities having toxic, flammable, and reactive EHSs at specified threshold quantities to
anticipate the circumstances that could result in accidental EHS releases and to take
precautionary or preemptive actions to prevent such releases by implementing a risk
management program. The key elements of a risk management program include process
safety information, process hazard analysis with risk assessment, standard operating
procedures, operator training, mechanical integrity/preventive maintenance, management
of change, safety reviews: design and pre-startup, compliance audits, EHS accident
investigation, employee participation, hot work permits, contractors, emergency
response, and inherently safer technology review. Number of facilities and processes
registered in the TCPA Program, the summary of the total EHS inventories currently
managed by the Program, and the summary of the potential impacts of the current
inventories of the EHS under worst case scenarios are shown in the following tables 1
through 4.
Table 1. Number of Facilities and Processes Registered in the TCPA Program
Sector
Number of Facilities
Number of Active
Processes
68
26
14
12
Chemical
42
Petroleum Refinery
4
Food
14
Water/wastewater
11
treatment
Power Generation
6
6
Other
12
14
89*
140
Total
* 87 active registrants, 1 in temporary discontinuance status
Maximum Number of
Processes per Facility
12
14
1
2
1
2
Table 2. Summary of EHS Inventory at Registered Facilities
Number of EHSs Handled
Total EHS Quantity (Pounds) at Registered Facilities
Total # EHS Hazard Units (H.U.) (1 H.U. = 1 multiple of an
EHS threshold quantity)
Range of EHS Registration Amount (Pounds) per Facility
42
66
254,315,703
54,152
100 to 16,000,000 (Toxic EHS),
119,700,000 (Flammable EHS)
Table 3. Summary of the potential impacts for Toxic and Flammable/Reactive EHS Worst Case
Scenarios*
Number of People
Impacted
250,000 – 12,000,000
50,0001 – 250,000
10,001 – 50,000
5,001 – 10,000
1,001 – 5,000
101 – 1,000
0 – 100
Total
Number of Toxic Worst Case
Scenarios
8
5
11
8
13
14
18
77
Number of Flammable/Reactive
Worst Case Scenarios
0
0
1
1
2
7
24
36
Table 4. Number of Toxic and Flammable EHS Worst Case Scenarios That Impact Public Receptors
Type of Public
Receptor
Number of Toxic Worst Case
Scenarios That Impact This
Type of Public Receptor
Commercial
Hospitals
Prisons
Recreation Areas
Residences
Schools
57
17
17
46
63
40
Number of Flammable and
Reactive Worst Case Scenarios
That Impact This Type of Public
Receptor
18
0
1
9
16
4
* The worst case scenario is the release of the EHS contents of the largest vessel in a process. For toxic EHSs, the vapor cloud of an
acutely toxic concentration is modeled to determine the downwind distance. For flammable and reactive EHSs, an explosion is modeled to
determine the distance of an overpressure wave. The distance of the worst case scenario then is used to estimate the population number that
could be impacted using Census data and also whether the worst case can impact other public receptors such as commercial entities, hospitals,
prisons, recreation areas, residences, and schools. Distances for toxic EHSs range from 0 to 25 miles, and distances for flammable and reactive
EHSs range from 0 to 1.3 miles.
New Covered Process Audits
The TCPA Program reviews all applications for new TCPA covered processes to ensure
the process incorporates good engineering practices and to verify that an appropriate Risk
management program is in place prior to introducing the EHS into the process. Reviewing RMPs
for new EHS processes will protect public health by minimizing the risk of accidental EHS
releases. The administrative review is completed in the office, and the technical review is
completed at the site.
In November 2010, one new covered process submittals was received from Veeco
Instruments Inc. The initial submittal was determined administratively incomplete. Veeco
submitted the requested information. The administrative and technical reviews are now pending.
43
Inherently Safer Technology Review Reports
Pursuant to rules adopted in 2008, facilities prepare Inherently Safer Technology (IST)
Review Reports and submit them to the Department for review. Facilities must evaluate
potential alternatives to reduce the EHS release amount, substitute less hazardous materials, use
EHSs in the least hazardous process conditions or form, and design equipment and processes to
minimize the potential for equipment failure and human error. Facilities are required to conduct
the IST review and to evaluate identified IST alternatives to determine whether they are feasible.
The IST alternatives are not mandated to be implemented. If the facilities decide to implement
any of the ISTs, the implementation schedule is required to be included in the IST review report
submitted to the Department. Facilities must submit updates to their IST reports every time they
update their process hazard analysis with risk assessment.
Table 5. Summary of IST Measures Implemented or Scheduled by Sector
Sector
Chemical
Water/
wastewat
er
Refinery
Food
Power
Other
Total
# of
Total # of
Facilities
IST
Submitte Measures
d an IST Implement
Report
ed or
Scheduled
# of Facilities
Reporting
One or More
Measures to
be
Implemented
Percentage
of Facilities
Implementi
ng
IST
Measures
Maximum
# of ISTs to
be
Implement
ed by a
Facility
41
13
77
15
18
7
44
54
11
4
# of
Facilities
Eliminated
EHS Use
by
Implement
-ing IST
0
2
4
14
6
7
85
10
35
1
9
143
2
9
1
4
41
50
64
17
57
48
3
7
1
4
11
0
0
0
0
2
(Note: This summary is based on the IST reports of 85 facilities submitted between September 2008 and January 2010)
This Month
TCPA Output
2nd Quarter
to date
FY 2011 to
date
New and revised initial IST reports received
0
0
1
Updated IST reports received
0
0
1
IST reports reviewed and letters issued
0
0
4
In November, no IST report activities occurred.
Current status of the initial IST reports is:
- 88 TCPA registered facilities
- 85 facilities issued in compliance letters
44
- 1 facility pending that is in temporary discontinuance status, additional information required to
be submitted prior to startup again
- 1 new facility pending review whose construction and startup has been delayed
- 1 new facility; review pending
Standard Compliance Inspections and Audits
The TCPA Program conducts on-site standard compliance inspections (SCIs) of facilities’
risk management programs (RMPs) to evaluate compliance with the TCPA rules. Also, the TCPA
Program conducts audits of existing facilities and audits of new covered processes at new and
existing facilities. SCIs are a comprehensive review of the facility’s risk management program
elements, which includes reviewing the facility’s policies and procedures in place for each program
element, the engineering documentation for each of the processes, the records and reports
demonstrating implementation of each program element, interviews with the staff and
management, and inspection of the process and control room areas. This will promote prevention
of accidental releases and efficient facility-wide management of EHSs. The program goal is to
conduct a SCI annually at each existing facility that has an offsite impact and all others triennially.
In November 2010, the TCPA program completed audits at the following facilities:
Valero Refining Co., Linde Gas North America, PSEG Fossil LLC Mercer Generating, COIM
USA, Lubrizol Advanced Materials
This Month
1st Quarter to
date
SCIs of existing RMPs completed
0
0
0
Audits of newly registered, new covered processes,
or existing facilities completed
Unannounced Brief Compliance Inspections
5
9
26
0
0
0
Preliminary determination letters (DCA or DCAA
sent (for audits conducted))
Signed CA, CAA, or Recommendation letters
issued
1
7
17
0/3/0
1/4/0
2/7/0
TCPA Output
FY 2011 to
date
Other Compliance Inspections
The TCPA Program conducts brief compliance inspections to follow up compliance
with issued enforcement actions, to determine TCPA applicability at non-registered sites, and to
investigate accidental releases.
The TCPA Program conducted the following the month of November 2010:
Non-registered site inspections: North Hudson Sewage Authority, Goya Foods Inc., Five Roses
Company LLC, Crystal Beverage Corp., White Toque Inc., Toscana Cheese Company, Givaudan
Flavors Corp., Amerigas Propane Inc.
Follow-up inspections: none
45
This Month
TCPA Output
Non-registered sites inspected for TCPA
compliance
Follow-up inspections for compliance with signed
CAs, CAAs, and enforcement actions
Accident investigations
2nd Quarter
to date
FY 2011 to
date
8
9
17
1
1
6
0
0
0
Enforcement Actions
When non-compliance is determined, enforcement action is taken, by issuing Prescribed
Enforcement Actions (PEAs). Notices of Violation (NOVs) are issued for minor violations that
have specified time periods for compliance without penalty assessment. Administrative Orders
and Notices of Civil Administrative Penalty Assessments (AONOCAPAs) are issued to assess
penalties and specify corrective actions. Notices of Civil Administrative Penalty Assessments
(NOCAPAs) serve to only assess penalties. NOVs and AONOCAPAs require tracking the
violator’s return to compliance, including inspections and review of paperwork. When an
alleged violator requests a hearing on an enforcement action, case management is the process of
settlement or adjudication that results in a settlement document, a Negotiated Enforcement
Action (NEA) such as an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) or Settlement Agreement, or a
contested case administrative hearing.
This Month
TCPA Output
2nd Quarter
to date
FY 2011 to
date
Issue AO/NOCAPA
1
3
5
Issue Notice of Violation
0
0
1
Settlements (Issue NEA)
0
0
4
Penalties are associated with AO/NOCAPAs and settlement documents. When an
enforcement action is appealed, the penalty is suspended. When an appeal is settled and a
reduced penalty is agreed to, the original penalty is cancelled.
The following enforcement actions were issued November 2010:
Prescribed Enforcement Actions: Valero Refining Co.
Executed Negotiated Enforcement Actions: none
TCPA Output
New Penalty
PEAs
Assessments
NEAs
(EAs issued)
Payments
PEAs
Received
NEAs
Penalties Cancelled (PEAs
rescinded or superseded by NEAs)
This Month
Dollar Amount
Number of
Cases
FY 2011 to date
Dollar Amount
Number
of Cases
18,000.00
1
71,563.00
5
0
0
64,941.19
4
0
2,400.00
0
0
1
0
0
78,983.29
93,769.90
0
7
3
46
TCPA Output
Penalties Suspended (PEAs with
hearing request)
This Month
Dollar Amount
Number of
Cases
19,203.00
FY 2011 to date
Dollar Amount
Number
of Cases
1
208, 147.79
14
Risk Management Plan Reviews
The TCPA Program reviews submitted Risk Management Plans (RMPlans) to determine
completeness and compliance with the TCPA rule. This is necessary to verify correct registration
information, worst case scenario data, and risk management program information. RMPlans are
submitted by facilities for corrections to an existing RMPlan and for complete updates of the
RMPlan, which are required every five years at a minimum and for specified major changes.
Office reviews of submitted RMPlans are completed by assigned environmental engineers.
This Month
TCPA Output
2nd Quarter
to date
FY 2011 to
date
RMPlans received
6
11
30
RMPlans reviewed
2
5
29
Annual Report Reviews
TCPA facilities are required to submit an annual report that summarizes their risk
management program activities for the year. The facilities’ preparation of annual reports
promotes effective risk management of EHSs and pollution prevention which minimizes the
potential for occurrences of accidental EHS releases. The TCPA Program issues reminder letters
to facilities prior to the upcoming due date of the annual report. The annual reports are reviewed
for completeness, and the TCPA Program responds with comments within 60 days of report
receipt.
This Month
TCPA Output
2nd Quarter
to date
FY 2011 to
date
Reminder letters issued
9
19
38
Reports received
8
16
27
Reports reviewed
13
17
31
Rulemaking
There was no rulemaking activity this month.
Fees
The TCPA program imposes fees to provide funding. This entails the generation of bills
and the collection of fees including issuance of the Annual TCPA Fee Schedule Report, which is
published in the New Jersey Register and mailed to all TCPA program registrants. This will
assure that the program has resources to fulfill the mandates of the Act and can continue to
prevent accidental releases of EHS.
The draft TCPA FY2011 Fee Report was prepared for management review.
47
Procedures and Guidance Documents Maintenance and Development
The TCPA program develops new SOPs and revises existing TCPA SOPs to provide
guidance to TCPA staff for the performance of the work functions. Also, the TCPA program
develops guidance documents to be used by the regulated community to facilitate compliance
with TCPA requirements. Finally, new and revised TCPA form letters (NJEMS templates) are
developed to communicate decisions on enforcement actions, risk management plan reviews,
annual/triennial report reviews, and new process reviews effectively.
No new or revised guidance documents were completed this month.
No new or revised SOPs were completed this month.
This Month
TCPA Output
2nd Quarter
to date
FY 2011 to
date
New & revised technical guidance docs. prepared
& distributed
New & revised SOPs prepared
0
0
0
0
1
4
Form letters revised (update NJEMS template
documents)
0
0
1
Communications and Outreach
Prepare responses (not related to security) to referrals, OPRA requests, enforcement
histories, analyses of proposed legislation or regulations, fiscal notes, correspondence etc. after
determining the impacts on the programs and their ability to perform core functions.
This Month
TCPA Output
2nd Quarter
to date
FY 2011 to
date
OPRA Information Requests - TCPA
0
0
0
Referrals received
0
0
1
Referral responses issued
0
0
1
Other Communications Activities:

none
Other Items

none
48