DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
Transcription
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
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
Similar documents
ICB: Antigua Citizenship by Investment
At icbworldwide.com, we provide the complete guidance of Antigua citizenship by investment. Antigua is one of the newest and most attractive providers of second citizenship. Contact ICB for some more details! Fill the form to enquire regarding Antigua citizenship by investment program! Visit Us: https://www.icbworldwide.com/
More information