ML20033G498
| ML20033G498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach, FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1989 |
| From: | Ronald Bellamy NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Liza Cunningham Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004100107 | |
| Download: ML20033G498 (2) | |
Text
.
3.
UN6(D 590TE 5
[
'I NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMi$$lON
> g /(
,v p
n,,,,,,
478 ALLENDut ROAD
e**
KINO OF PRVsslA, Ps%sYLVANIA 1Hol
~
AJG 161989 HEMORANDUM FOR:
L. J. Cunningham, ion Branch Chief Radiation Protect Divisier of Radiation Protection and Energency Preparedness Chief R. R. I,ellamy,iation Safety and $4feguards 1
FROM:
Facilities Rad Branch, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Region 1
SUBJECT:
RADIATION HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH SPENT FUEL j
STORAGE (SFS) POOL WORK I
During June 1989, NRC Region I personnel reviewed the circumstances surrounding j
the unplanned exposure of several individuals who worked at the James A.
FitzPatrick Neclear Station (Reference NR; Region ! Inspection Report No.
$0 333/89 13 which is attached.
The individuals were involved in spent fuel had been(SFS), pool clean up activities.
storage
)
Our review found that the individuals exposed to radiation emitted frce an object floating near the surfi j
of the pool in close proximity to their work location.
Subsequent licensee l
radiation surveys of the object indicatec contact exposure dose rates on the object of about 1000 reentgens/hr.
Because the object was partially shielded no l
overexposure occurred.
The licensee believes that the radiation was emanating from a small object, ial.
possibly a hot particle, that had been ir. bedded in a piece of floating mater l
The licensee's initial review indicated the floating material may have been a piece of a five gallon plastic bucket. Tne buckets had been on the floor of the i
l SFS pool and had contained irradiated components.
The material and buckets were being prepared for disposal when apparently a small piece of bucket, with the was drawn into the underwater vacuum cleanin system.
> article in. bedded in it, leaner filters were bein piece of material slowly floated to the surf ace.g changed out, the ob ett on the
.ater, when the vacuum c The licensee has no yet analyzed the object to determine its origin.
The referenced inspection report contains a summary of the event and liter.see corrective actions.
I Our discussions with the contractor personnel involved in the clean up activities indicated the problem of objects floating to the surface of s >ent stations. ge pools is not a new problem and that this has occurred at otierFor example, co fuel stora vacuuming system had floated up in the the spent fuel storage pool at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Station in December 198L The filters were found to have floated at least 15 feet to the top of the spent fuel racks.
Licensee personnel speculated that the filters may have surf aced, then sank to the spent fuel storage racks. No unplanned personnel exposures occurred.
However, there was a potential for significant personnel exposure.
e aoagy y.eMnen 90041 oy
AU3 ! 6 Igg t
Activated material and components in the spent fuel storage pools emanate extremely high radiation dose rates.
Because of these dose rates and the potential for significant personnel exposures to occur through unusual means, as demonstrated above, we strongly believe that an Information Notice should be issued which reinforces and reiterates the need for licensees to raintain close vigilance of all spent fuel pool work activities.
Numerous cases have occurred where highly radioactive objects have been brought to the surface of SFS pools either by personnel error or by unusual circumstances (e.g. material floating to the surface or personnel raising material hung from ropes in the SFS pool). The information Notice should discuss some of the cases and identify corrective actions taken.
Topics that should also be covered include:
minimization or prevention of placement of floatable material into the SFS pools rnoval of floatable material from SFS pools enhancement of radiation monitoring around SFS pools to include placement of area radiation monitors around the pool or use of integrating alarming dosimeters during SFS pool work activities thorough evaluation of SFS pools from a radiological perspective to identify potential unplanned exposure situations The need for such ar, Information Notice has been discussed with Messrs. J.
Wigginton and J. Buchanan.
Although we would be most happy to draft the Notice, your staf f has indicated they have additional information they would like included in the Notice. We are willing to work with you as much as possible.
Because of on going licensee efforts to clean u storage capacity of these pools via re racking,p SFS pools and increase the we recommend issuance of the Notice in a timely fashion.
Sincerely,
.fk N
R. R. Bellamy. Chief Facilities R'.,diological Safety and Safeguards 'dranch
Attachment:
Inspection Report No. 50 333/89 13 CC:
M. Knapp, R1 W. Pasciak, R1 J. Wig inton eAvelanne,m,NRRe // M 3 D. Collins,Rlli Rll 1., Greger, B. Murray RIV G. Yuhas,,RV FRPS, R1 l
r l
].
)
~
~
i l
i i
p,)G 0 2 N l
i l
I D d.et No. 50-333 a
l Tcwer Authority of the State of Nw York
(
)
Jares A. Tit 2htrick No: lear Ptwar Plant t
1 A"Di W. TenmMe 1
Fasident Mare 9er P. O. B* 41 ly:m.irg, Hw York 13093 3
J 4
Gentlerman:
Sabjott I E Inspo t.on Report No. 50-333/49-13 A special radiolcgical controls inspm:: tion was card.ctad by Mr. R. L. Nimitz cf this office darirg the period of June 13-15, 1989. '!he purpose of this j
j irspection was to rwiw tw circurstanoes, waluaticris ard corrective actions ass.:citted with the uqplanned Wm of perscnnal cm June 12, 1989. '!he f:.niims of the inspe: tion vers Mmma=4 with yoJ ard==**vs of ycur staff cn June 16,1989. Anas rwiwad darirg the insporticn are discussed in the arclosed lE Inspection Report.
i one a;Tarent violation was identified and is described in the enclosed Motice of Violation. The violation irwolved ta radiological surveys for t
Tuel Peel work activities. Ycu are to s-, J to the Motice and d
fellcw the instructions catained there l
O.tr twiw fcurd that effective action was taken to avtrieve the cbject that was I
the s.:urce of radiatico for the unplanned personnal agceures. He also fctmd may have been present at the time. pzsclude expcmars trta similar acurves Wsich j
that effective acticn was taken to l
'!he done assessments performed for the 1
i l
persennel irwolved were ne=+*1e.
Hewwer, the urplamed expceures I
lack of effective oversight of radiologically si ficant Spent Fuel wask activities.
In ycur ruply, please prwide as to the acticms eich have t
l been or will he taken to ensurt perscamel in and artund the Fual f
j Pool vill be protected frta urplanned handlirg of hi l
radioactive +-ets and 5--
.i.
in or ruenved fate the Fuel
- Pool, i
4 Sincerely, j
- v.,6.v.; g. d Dr.
i i
try. sic R
'amy j
knmid R. Ballamy, Osief j
i Facilities Radiolcgical Safety l
and Safesards Brancin Divisicn of Radiatica Safety and Safeguards i
Erclosurve NRC Inspection Report No. 50-333/89-13 I
official Amoord copy l
l
'd O ) ") O 7
x p
[
le l
t i
j A.3 0 : lii9 i
l Pcwox Atitherity of the State 2
n!. New York oc v/encli J. Rtillip Bayne, Pnsident M. John C. Bn:ns, D:ecutive Vice Pnsident i
A. Klausnann, Senior Vloe President - kWraisal and Ctepliance servions t
R. L. Pate, Qaality Assemos intendent i
M. Wilve.rtiirg, Manager R ear Safety Evaluation l
Ga d C. Goldstain, Assistant General Ctunnel R. E. Beadle, Vice Prasident Maclear Sqport S. S. Zulla Vice President Raclamr Engineering l
R. Eums, Vloe President NJclear operation Dept. of Public Service, State of h York State of New York, Departnant of Iaw I.loensing Project PAnager, NRR Public tbounant Rocan (PIR) l Incal Public Document Rocn (IP[R)
Nrlear Safety Infomation Centr.r (NSIC) l KFC Pasident Insra. tor l
Sute of New York boc w/ arc 1:
Region I D:cket Rocrn (with ococurrences)
Panageant Assistant, CR% (w/o enc 1)
Section Chief, IRP J. Dfer, Eto K. Abraham, PAD (2) l i
1
]
j ICTICE OF VJOIATICN 4
New York Pcuar Authority Docket No 50-333 Jarms A. FitzPatrick luclear Pcuer Plant License No. DIR-59 As a result of the inspection oorducted on June 13-15, 1989, and in aoooniance with the " General Statament of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enfon:enant Actions," 10 CFR Pan 2, Arperdix C (Enforosmant Policy) (1989), the following violation was identified:
my be r-=n) to ocrply with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 and arerequires licensees to 10 CFR 20.201(b reasonable urder the circumstatoes to waluata the extant of radiation hazanis that my be present.
10 CFR 20.201(a) defines a survey, in part, as an J
e.aluation of the radiation hazanis incident to the primance of radioactive raterial. When apprcpriata, su2 an evaluation includes a physical survey of the location of materials and equipnant and measurinants of levels of radiation present.
cbntrary to the abcne, the surveys prwided to support on-going Spent Fuel Pool work on June 12, 1989 were inadequate to readily identify the presence of a highly radioactive object measuring up to 1000 R/hr on contact W11& appeared in the work area. Sum surveys wrw renammary ard resscnable to ensure ocmpliance with the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.101. As a result, several workers were *LW_ to radiation fields emanating from the object, ard received uqplanned armis.
i
'Ihis is a Severity Isvel IV Violation.
(Supplement IV)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the Power Authority of the State of New York is hereby required to an*=it to this office within thlzty days of the data of the lettar whid transmitted this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) the w 4 dve whid have been taken ard the results achleved; (2) corrective staps which be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the data when full ocupliance will be a&ieved.
khere good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending this resgise time.
f) WSJ[
']..g o
l
.................-.......,_........-., m..... -,.,,,
~
i i
l i
i t
1 i
U.S. )CC2 EAR RD2JUCCRt 029CSSICH RD3ICH I RapoM. No.
50-333/89-13 Docket No. 50-333 l.ioense No. DPR-59 Priority Category C Lioanneet Pwer Authority of the Stata of New York i
?.0. box 41
)
Inspectors:
MX 1-2 89
' R. L. Nimitz, Senior Radiation Specialist
' data
'<de P
N Apprl:r/ed by:
1 W. Pasciak,s gzief, y ilities Radiation
' Shth '
i Protection Section Inspection Surmary: NRC Inspection No. 50-333/89-13 Derformed on June 13-15,1989 Areas :.nspectad: 'Ihis iWlan was a special announced radiological oantro;.s 2nspection to twlew the cirumstances, evaluations and - 1.ive action associated with the unplanned exposure of several individuals the worked in close pruximity to a highly radioactive object fcuni in the strainer area of the Spent Fuel Storage Pool on June 12, 1989.
Results: one appazint violation of HRC was identified (Failure to perform surveys in accordance with 10 20.201; Details Section 7).
Several weaknesses were also identified in the oversi@t arus control of on-going work on the Refuelirg Floor.
1 i
m. e.,..v
......T l....
......v...a...
..sv. m.
,,..m. m a j
.............,.......,......w..
l b
i Details
}
1O IndiVid.1'dS CD*1tBeta$
i 1.1 New York Ptwer Authority
- W. Terran$ar, Resident Ma' agar
- R. Lisarc, Superirfandant of Power
- D. Johnson, Assistant Operation Superintendent
- E. M.ticahey, Radiological and Divim 74 Services supervisor
- T. Bergene, A1 ARA supervisor Radiological Engineering Geraral Sqpervisor
- G. Varyog
- J. Solini, Health Physics Genarsi suparvisor
- D. Linisey, Planning S.perintandant
- J. M:Carty, Radiation Protection Supervisor
- K. Pny, Refuel Floor Supervisor 1.2 PUC
- R. Plasse, IGC Resident Inspector
- Drcter those individuals attan$1rg the exit inseting on June 15, 1989.
'Ibe inspector also contacted other licensee and centractor personnal.
2.0 PurTr.se a'.d Scope of Inspection
'Ihis inspection was an annsurced special radiological omitrols ireim to review the cirumstances, evaluations, and corrective actions associatad with the unplanned exposure of several individuals who worked l
in close proximity to a highly radioactive object in the strainer area of a
the Spent Tuel Storage Pool Skiranar en June 12, 1989.
Radiation fields emanating frun the object caused the pocket dosisatars of one of the individuals to go off sale (>500 millirum whole body dose).
3.0 h iption of Event i
3.1 Backgrurd
'Ibe licensee has been cleaning up the spent Pual Storage Pool cwor the past several years. 'Ihe clean-up involves cutting w highly radioactive seterial (e.g. used control rod blades),ial in pmparation for shipment, v= = 4% of the floor of the spent Puel Storage Pool, -Aing antar and shipping of the =tW matarial to a licensed tarrial ground. She majority of this dis done underwater using neote t.solls.
l i
L d
--mo
~
r w
e -,
e
+-~em
- +
..:..:._w r.v.= ;. x x..-. m :..n. -- n.:.. ; x;. x :... ::....:.-...:. ; ; r;..c. e..
1 3
i i
'Ihe licensee experiame:1 acne prtblems with Spent Fual Storage Pool work in Febnary 1987 (Referince NRC Mi. No. 50-333/87-07). At that time an individal sustained an cuar=wn of an extrinity when handling retarial that was not surveyed preparly when the matarial was rumened frcut the Spent Tuel Storap Pool.
In.
- mie to the ever v n event, i
l the licensee enhanos:1 radiological controls for crming spent Fuel Storage Pool work.
Iuring this inspection, the also reviewed the iglementation of the corrective actions for the 1987 cuarexposure event.
(Refereme New York Power Authority
, No. JPN-87-028, dated May 21, 1987). 'Ihe pirpene of the review was to ensure all w..dve actions desc-ibed in the licensee's lettar were iglementad.
3.2 Snecifics At abxt 4:30 p.m. on June 12, 1989 thrwe contractor workars signed in on Radiation Work P.m.it No. 89-1536-S, " Pick-qp Bortm 'Ibbes/ General l
C3aanup."
'JVa of the contractors (Individuals A ard B) set @ the r*
_q support agaipment to perform un$erwater dose ruta measurements on eqaipant and matarla1 to be ries:Ned frta the Spent Fuel Storage Pool.
'Ibe set of aga.tpiont involved acwing lighting and underwater retar p
'Ibe thirti contractor E-_---4 the Refuel Floor. 'the l
contractors (Individuals A ard B) parf work the Spent Fuel Storage Pool were not prtwidad
- mig dos
'Jhe contractor
[ Individual C) mypirg the floor was pri:widad an =1==4 g dosimetar. '!he 9
- ndividuals had attended a pre-work briefing at about 3:30 p.m. cri June 12, 1989. Planned work activities for the shift warg dimmesm4 At about 4:45 p.m. on June 12, 1989 the two contractors (Individual A and B) performed a dose rata measurument of a bracket. 'Ihe measurement was perfomed without incident.
Iuring the period 5:00 p.m. to about 5:45 p.m. on June 12, 1989, the two t
contractors (Individual A and B) set up and moved several spent vacman cleanar filtars. 'Ihe filters were acwed to a ficw channel rack. Because the otrrtractors were experiencing difficulty in gripitirg the filters l
the ocritractors used unde.twater hooks to upright filters. 'Ihm was parformed during the period 5:45 p.m. to abcart 6:10 p.m. cn 12, 1989. 'Ihe uprightirg was necessary to parform dose rata measuruments on the sides of the filters. 'Ihese measurunents are used to dormine, l
in-part, the curie contant of eacts filtar.
At about 6:10 p.m. on June 12, 1989, a contractor radiaticm prt+-+4m technician (Individual D) was recpasted to perform a of the undervatar hook used to upright the filters. '!he hook ms removed by individuals A and C.
J Y
j l
i 4
4 r,,
.,,w
,,c,..
4 i
When the radiation protaction tamnician (Iniivi&aal D) arrived, he parfomed a survey of the hook as it was ruarwed. 'the tm:hnician (Irxiividaal D) roted a rendirg of about 300 millirseVhr on a joint of the undervatar took. Surveys of the heck and arma naar the hook by the radiation protmetion tatnician indicated that the radiation dose ntas were cxr.irg frm the general arma of the Fortheast oorner of the Spent Nel Storage Pool. The rortheast cornar achibited a general arma done rata of about 5,000 millirunVhr. At that time, abcut 6:10 p.m. cn June 12, 1989, the radiation protacticm tatnician the arma and ngaestad personnal to craeck their(Individual D) evacuated pocket dosimeters.
'Ibe ocotractor's (Inilviduals A, B and c) 0-500 millirus pocket dosinstan indicated off scale, abcut 360 millirem, and 80 milliram
)
respively. The radiatico protection te&nician's (Individual D) dosmeter indicated 40 millirem.
The radiation protection technician (Individual D) checked the tortheast comer and located a dose rat-of about 260 runVhr in the area of the Smr.; 'ruel Pool Skimer. This dose rata was located at the water level a!xut one foot below the.tvel of the Refuelitg Floor.
The Spent Fuel Storage Ptol operations werv imaMately haltad and licensee management was informed of the event.
1 I
4.0 Notification to the NRC The inspector reviewed the rotification of the event made by the licensee j
relative to reportirq requirements contained in 10 CFR 20,10 CFR 50, and
'hnctnical Specificatacns.
The inspector concluded that the event was ret required to be maims.
The licensee did nake a courtesy rotification of the event to the NRC i
resident inspector who eMmtly ratified HRC Regicm I maragement.
i No violations were identified.
5.0 Dose A=m==nent The inspector reviewed the dose asseaements armed by the licanone for the individuals involved in the event. The evaluated the adequacy of the licensee's done assessment by d -icns with permannel, by makirg ind radiation done rata measurements of the area, and i
by performing
"----d-,t time and acrtion stuiles for the involved irdividuals. The also revim#ed the adequacy of supplied i
dosinstry.
4
l 5
t Because the object produced non-unifom radiation done rotas and the iniividuals wore their dosimetry on their chests, the licensee partemad a time and motion stq for the individuals to detarmine the doses j
received by other poztlons of the body. '!he lower rticris of the body had the potential to have sustained a highar done that indicated py the chest TID body and pccket dosimetar.
The r considerw$ the licensee's does assessment to be remocrieble.
Se hi
. whole body ex dosimetar went off scale.posure was ruosived by the in11vidual whose
'!his iniividual recalved 780 millires thole I
I body and 960 milliram to the extremity raising his quarterly total to 1450 millirim whole body and 1630 milliran extrunity exposure. Dese exposures do not exooed the NRC limits.
l No violations were identified,
[
l 6.0 Training We inspector reviewed the trainirg and gaalifications of contractor pe.rsonnel involved in the June 12,.989 event.
We inspector review inilcated the contractors involved (Individuals A, B, C and D) had been prwided apprtpriate radiation worker training. Se inspector also detarv.ined that the procedurally required r. M briefing had been held prior to start of the work. 21s briefing was held at 3:30 p.m. on June 12, 1989 and inclu$ed a discussion of planned work setivities. The contractors were aware of radiological hazards with the material they wars handlirg.
The inspector reviewed the training and qualifications of the contractor radiation protection ta:hnician (Iniividual D) neo provided radiolagW1 cxwereoe of the work. The inspector detamired that the iniividual est i
I 7*:hnical specification qualification requirunants. The in11vidual had also been trained and testad in accordance with the licensee's qualification program.
i The r found however that when the contractcr radiation l
p en technicia,n was orlginally hired on March 25, 1989 the ccritractor did not meet the minimJa liaanoes qualification re,quirements to be considered a Senior Radiation Protection 'Dachnician. This is because the iniividual ;-:--
-M Navy experience Which the licanese's aaalification procedure required to be ra h =9 by a certain amount. ne redxtion would result in the iniividual not meeting minimum qualification requirements to be censidered a senior Radiaticas Protection
%chnician.
F
l 3
i 6
i However, licensee radiation protection pareannel authorized the iniividual to be considamd a Senior ticm Protaction 'h&nician.
The inspector's in$eperdant rwiw indicated that the individual did amet NRO reqairements to be ocmsidezwi a Senior Radiation Protaction l
7echnician when the individual was hired. The inspector noted that the licensee's awrwed pnh selection and qualification rw.dures regainnants were not adhand to when waluating the qualitioaticms of the ocotractor. 7he licensee's radiation protection management indicated this was an cuersight.
The licensee's coractive actions for this mattar are d4=m===d in section 8 of this zwport.
7.0 Padioloaical controls 1he inspector performed an independent rwiw of the adequacy and effectiveness of the adiological controls prwideia for the Spent Fuel Storage Pool clean-up cperation.
The inspector's evaluation was based on ind-i 4-A. rwiw of docunentation and log books associated with the scrk, discussions with personnel, indei -deg,t tours and rwiew of the Spent Fuel Storage Pool arma, ard parformance of irdei 4-.t radiatien survey measurements.
t The following catters wert zwiewed:
l adequacy of and adbarance to radiation work permits used to control s
the Spent Fuel Pool clearmy operations establishment and lamentation of appropriata procedures j
adequacy of radiol cal surveys performed during the clearMy l
cperation t
adequacy of Hot Particle w d m is supp and use of dosimetry including integrating alarming use of portable area radiatico acnitors use and adequacy of protective clothing j
Within the scope of this review, one apparent violation was identified:
j 10 CFR 20.201, Surveys, requires in section (b) that and liounces shall i
rake or cause to be made su2 survey as [1) may be necessary for the licarsee to ocmply with the regulaticms :.n 10 CFR Part 20, and (2) are reasonable under the ciraanstances to waluata the extant of re4=*im hazards that may be present.
i 10 GR 20.201 (a) defines, in part, a survey as an evaluation of the i
raiiation hazards incident to the presence of radioactive antarials.
When appropriate,ial and am4==t, and measurements of levels ofsud evaluation i 4
location of mater
}
radiation present.
4 l
4
- -.w ns~..
e re--
.-w
.,,,+---,,w,rwe,-v e
e,ew is---e-----*c
,e*-
.e*e*--e---*r w-e w +--
e-r- -,*
f 8
l 7
t
'Ibe inspector detamined that a pm-job radiation atrvey of the general work arma (northeast corner of the Spent Fual Storage Pool) was partnmed l
at about 4:45 p.m. cm June 12, 1989. '!his radiation arrvey indicated i
nomal genen1 area radiation leNels (2-3 millirw/hr).
Between 4:45 p.m. June 12,1989 and 6:00 p.m. cm June 12,1989, two contractors (individaals A and B) performed various work activities in the Spent Fuel Storage Pool, incittiir using undarvatar tools to pick up Ibron 7bbes on the noor,iltarsacwing li picking tp and setting e ing urderwater vacana filtars on right trderwatar vacuum ffuel channel racks, and perfohp1 does rata measurunents.
Unknown to the two contractor workars (Individual A and B), during the period a highly radioactive object (artisated to be 1000 riuVhr en contact) appeared in their work area. 'Ihis scuros prodooed done ntas to varicus part.s of the whole body of between 1000 millirimVhr to about 4700 millirw/hr.
turing this time period (4:45 p.m. to 6:00 on June 12,1989), the radiation protmetion technician (Individual D) assigned tn 'mver the Spent Fuel Storage Pool work was on stardby waiting in a iw dose ruta waitirg area. At no time during this period did he check dose ratas in the work area.
At about 6:00 p.m. on June 12, 1989 the radiation protac. ice technician t
(Individual D) was called to the work arma (northeast corner of the Spent Fuel Storage Pool) to check a tool for rumenal from the Spent Fuel Storage Pool. At that time he discx:nared general radiation fields of abcut 300 millirart/hr and ocr: tact dose ratas up to 260 rum /hr near the Spent Fuel Storage Pool Skinrner.
'Jhe inspector ccncluded that the radiological the period 4:45 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on June 12, 1989 were te to the presence of the highly ndioactive object that in the contractor's work area. She failure to provide adegaata radiatico marveys daring the work is an apparent violation of 10 CPR 20.201(b)
(50-333/89-13 01).
'the inspector also determined the folicwing:
'!he area ndiation monitor (ARM) on the refueling bridge, which was in the work arsa, was malfunctioning.
It was detarwined to be reading Icw by 80% (i.e., it indicated only 20% of the actual radiation field ).,'Ihis acnitar had been m1&retion chectand in i
september 1988. 1here wereao routine operability chedis made of the acmitor since that time.
i
---sm-en
i l
8 i
Al two wall rountad Amis were on the nceth ard east walls of the Re ing Floor, it wms unlikely, cans W W, that they oculd detact the radiation fr m a highly onctive mall object, float on the surface of the 1.
'!he detactor did not detet any si ficant radiaticri field onused by the 1000 rw/hr cb3ect.
l
'Ibert wen no lamental ARMS installed for the woric. 'these Ants would give an cation of general area radiation fields naar the work area.
'Ibe two contnetors (Individuals A and B) parToming the work were ret prwided intacgating alamirg dosinetars.
'Ibe radiation work parmit prwiding ocritrols for the work (RWP No.
l 89-1536-5) did not pzwide a set frequency for perfoming general arma radiation seisys.
'Ibe contracters (Individuals A and B) did not routinaly ctieck tiair pocket dosimeters for accurallated done because their dosiasters were I
under their protective clothing. No lamental dosiasters were prwided. 'Ibe RWP did not ocritain for ctasckirq ;+1-i dosimeters during work.off-scale durirg the work.(Nota:
Indi idual A's dosimeters went
)
I
'Ibe licensee's corrective actions for the abcwe matters are M=w in section 8 of this report.
'Ibe fo11cving other mattars ware brought to the licensee's attention:
~j l
'!he licensee used different tarainology on the RWP when referring to eqaipment to be surveyed when rem:Ned from the Spent Fuel Storage Pool as oca: pared to the tarninology used in procedures. It was.
unclear as to what was to be surveyed when reacNed from the Spent Fuel Storage Pool.
'the inspector observed perscrinal pass material across a Hot Particle l
Zcrie barrier without survey the antarial. Precedures prwidad limited guidance for Hot cle ocritrols.
i
'!he AIARA rwiew for the clean-qp of the Spent Fuel Storage Pool l
(dated February 15, 1989) did not address potential r= Mal _agical hazards associated with changing cut of vacaan cleanar filters or handling the fi.ltars underwater. 5he ir=
r= noted that the filtars released various sized cicuds of Birt underwater dien
' filtars were changed out and handled...la addition ens filter was crushed during handl en June 12, 1989 prior to the identification
,'of the highly radion vecbject.
i i
u.
m=w.
.m...a-er=a-
,-e...
e.m.-
i j
1 a
)
9 e
On April 18, 1989 emes of a hmken buchst floated to the surface of tne Fuel Pool. Se pieces amasured up to 500 mill on ocritact. An ALARA rwiew of the radiological i
significanoe of the floating pieces was rot made.
C Note 2e i
licensee's pruliainazy rwiew indicates that the obpect was a Hot Pezticle attached to a piece of broken bucket that floated to the surfaos during the work activities en June 12, 1989.)
Licensee oorzw.tive actions for the above matters are ' Ham===4 in section 8.0.
7.
Managarant ard Supervisory Cversidht he inspector reviewed the suparvisory and management oversight of the spent Nel Storage Pool clean-up operations.
Se follwirg was nceed:
Licensee a prwed procedures prwided clear descriptions of personnel ; responsibilities and authorities for the Spent Fuel i
l Storage Pool work.
one licensee individual was delegated as the Refuelirg Floor l
supervisor throughout the operations.
l l
Be following mattars were brought to the licensee's attenticru me inspector observed several exanples of poor cantamination I
w h ul Ce.g., passing acts out of a Hot Particle 2me). Se l
observation indicated 1 of attention to detail by persemal and t
weak supervisory oversight.
l he licensee established a standirg ordar entitled "S@ervisory CNazzight of Radiol ical Wo'k", DSO-08. 21s order prwides good guidance for perf oversight of radiological eensitive work i
activities. Al no clear freguancies for performances of audi oversight is
, it does insicate that and will perform periodic reviews of sensi
$chs. Se order the cotpletion of a Radiological Review 7 bra contained in the order. me performance of these rwiews per the licensee's order was highlighted in the licensee's reapcrine to the Phbruary 1987 extrumity over=T- -M event as a means to improve oversight of work actlvities (Referunas the licensee's May 21,198,
letter to NRC, JPN-87-028).
Inspector zwview indicated no rwiews were h==sted for the two and a half nonths by licensee eqpervisors of the s'g Pool work, a radiologically sensitive work a
- vity, contractors involved in the work however, had documented zwiews of their own work, m e failure to lament self zwiew process is conside:wi a weakness.
I
.. ~ -. -....
......... -.... ~ -.. ~. ~...
i 10 8.
Cbrrective Actions inspector Ma'== ions with licensee persconc1 indicated the hi@ly radioactive object identified at the Spent Mael Storage Pool Skimmer area was a }bt Particle e in a piece of plastic buchst. 1he object and piece of kucket had y been released handlinir of undervatar vaarJm fil or Day have been rol during handling of other underwater and.W.
The inspector met with the licensee's reprimentatives an June 15, 1989.
The licensee's representatives indicated tha follwing actions would be taken prior to resunption of Spent Mael Storage Pool clean-@ operations.
A conprehensive radiological of the Mael Storega Pool area and Spent Mael Pool clean-up be perfcened to i
locate any other potential highly radioactive objects.
Procedares would be issued or zwised to address clean-g of the i
pool debris that could float. PrMmas also wculd be rwined to clarify requirernnts for survey of materials to be remad frtan the Spent Fuel Storage Pool.
i i
. Rad olog cal Controls wculd be yr,r.dsi to require paraenal to wear alamirg dosimetars when arcund the pool or that portable W
area radiation acnitors be prw to acrLitor radiation dose ratas around the Spent Mael Storage Pool.
The licensee will prwide enhanced superviscry oversi@t of the Spent Mael Storage Pool operations.
4 Personnel involved in pool clean-up activities will be prwided training on the event and weinte zwised r - 4wes.
l Aosess to the-Mael Pcol c1 System will be strictly controlle:1 parformance o tien surveys of the systa to identify any hi y radioactive pieces. Also, an evaluation to detamine the el ical hazards associated with general w===
to the systarn will be the licensee will develop and implement enhanced rh for llot Particle controls for persanal working around the Spent Mael Storage Pool and rusming articles frtun the pool.
ihe quality assurance group will be directed to perfern an can11t of Spent Mael Storage Pool clearse operations to ensure prwicus Imc comitments have been implemented.
An evaluation of the lack of response of the spent Mael Storage Pool i
bridge radiation acnitor will be performed.
W
')) JQwf s'
l
\\
1 I
11 l
'!he follwirg additional acticrs will be undertaken:
t An evaluaticm will be performed of the selecticm critaria for radiaticm protmetion te2miciana.
4prcpriate does assessesnts will be unde for all parecenal involved in the event.
t The licensee issued a special kh M101) for retrieval of the object. 1he inspector cheerved preparetsans far the retrieval. She retrieval was parforned in a radiolcgical safe semer. 1he indivi& ml f
who retrieved the object with a long handled tool and placed it in a lead shield received minimal radiaticm egosure.
9.0 Ddt Meetina l
'Ihe inspector met with licensee w-- _ itatives (daruted in section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 15, 1989. She inspector sumarized the pupose, scope, and findings of the inspection. No writtan matarial was prwided to the licensee.
5 9
l k
i f
+
i
_