ML20083M676

Exposure Evaluation Rept for 800208-25. Info Deleted

ML20083M676
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	02/25/1980
From:	BOSTON EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20083M663	List: ML20083M676
References
FOIA-83-791 NUDOCS 8404180278
Download: ML20083M676 (7)

Text

.

3 W.,,;,.

. ft).g4 DaIc!

7/76/:0 i

.harne: 7

n.,i,,

DELETED

~S6cial Security No.:

DELETED Conalsany:

Graver Cla::ilicatinn:

i nt. A: ION I Olt EXi'00UltU EVA:.UATIUN IIEPOllT:

0 toit oo:tmeter; Film DacIge or TLD No._

O Damaged Dosimeter, Film Datige or TLD No.-

- 0 Ovi:rexPo:use in. estigation i

i Off:cale Dosiencier Dodmeter Not Worn Inconsistent Do:imetry Re:ults 1

Other (Specify)

EXPO 3URE EVALUAT'lON: (ine.lude natme of wo[rl: c:timatet! c>:po*tuc from !!'.*!P rec Dosimetry Data, TimcheepinD Data, and/or other Dosimetry Data, ant! Survey Repor t Dars.)

Puiod of OUESTIONAGLE EXPOSUllE:

From_: 2/s/80 To: 2/25/80

~

n See Attachment I

flames of parties and certain other identifying details have been removed in order to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the individuals involved.

(,3 1

e~

8404180278 840314 Total Estimatect Exposure PDR FOIA WWSOB3-M1 PDR Nhole Detly:

H0 Mrem Skin '

' Mrem E):tremi:c::

f.irem

'lGNATURES:

ht

( M -st.-

'~

Eniployee

./

m.-

St svisor -

t L

Ji ve:tig&in, n

at r

!, g -, -

f 1

9 f

J v

s f f4'j,b*

d

-noen. :. na :=: ' -

p,,

A.

State =ent of Occ urrence and Sequencia of Events 1.

At about 1500 on 2/25/B0, H.P. Technician, R. A. Oliveira, i

made a routine Thermoluisipesent Dosimeter (TLD) processing run to determine TLD data for several personnel.

2.

At about 1615, results of the 'fLD run were received from RS Landauer.

Mr. Oliveira informed W. Guest, acting H.P. Records Supervisor, who then immediately informed A. R. Trudeau.;ThF TLD report indicated an exposure of 5.39 Rem had been received by DELETED With the previous TLD reading of 2/8/80~,

~

DELETED net reported exposure for the first quarter of 1979 was possibly 5.98 Rem.

cn i

5Y-

^

3.

DEE At about 1630, R. Gray of Landauer was contacted for verification of'the 5.39 Ram.~ data.

This data was confirmed y [@

at about 1640.

a 3

4.

B. Sklar from the BECO. Torus st'aff was called to ascertain bb Ej what DELETED

. job was and his work location for 2-25-80 5?%g He indicated thst DELETED was a foreman and that he had ooog worked between columns #16 and f1 installing a Torus support

.5.5 g -

saddle near column 91.

3m;*

b g g g.

5.

An investigation into the reason for processing DELETED u F.5.'o EE02l TLD indentified don 1 purposes:

'" c $ T a.

His pocket d'osimeter (POD) and TLD total by R.E.P.

card E8g*

showed a dose of 1.485 Rem for the current quarter, and B"tE,

% % @ +' )

b.

His POD total for one entry on 2-25-80 indicated an

" E 5 'o j abnormally high total.of.250 mrem.

omhh gy 6.. M. G. Hensch was notified of the potential problem at about ggy7 1650 Z "O U a A de' tailed radiation survey was performed at about 1715, 7. between columns #16 and 11. General area dose rates varied from 25 to 80 mR/hr with a maximum dose rate of 100 to 1,50 mR/hr directly beneath a shielded six inch pipe. Maximum contact dose rates on top of the-shielded pipe were about 80 to 100 mR/hr and beneath.the shielded pipe were about 2 to 3 R/hr. Whole body exposure from the levels at contact beneath the shielded pipe were not possible due to the shielding geometry: Maximum whole PLPE body Dose Rate 250 mR/hr beneath I /N elbow at shield-v ), Bottom of shiciding' ,4 I <ll' ~ inc. l Bottom of to floor 18" E s ^30" pipe to floor 1 ( V angin \\ 8 g Shielding - %" sheets & blanket -e 9s y -1eem.====.xc

[; _.., _ f M 4.',. ] 2 0 C 0. 7:: :::.':.'.;;.:;;;, B." Exposure Evaluation Information" 1. A complete review of. DELETED work assignments has been performed and verified by discussions with DELETED The most recent TLD processing had been on 2/8/80, therefore, the detailed evaluation process commenced as of that date. 2. . DELETED "?OD data from 2/8/80 through 2/25/80 was as follows: (2/8 9 0340 TLD reading 590) 2/8 35 (RWP 80-34 3) 2/10 45 2/11 50 2/12 35 2/13 40 2/14 55 + 15 (R.E.P) 2/16 80 2/17 50 2/18 50 2/19 25 + 5 (R.E.P) 2/20 45 + 5 2/21 70 2/22 80 + 5 (R.E.P) 2/25 280 T4T mrem by POD His TLD and POD vere always worn together in the pocket of the protective clothing when not worn together on his personal clothing. 3. As a foreman, DELETED._ was in charge of a work crew and spent' his time in radiation areas with this work crew. He always worked with the crew, therefore, his radiation expo-sure dose should be approximately the same as that of the This is the only job that. DELETED . has been assigned crew. e, at PNPS. In performing his job, at least 90% of the time in 5 L._ the Torus compartment was spent in an area identified as the dsa " work area" and the remaining time was spent in the other Te ?? areas of the Torus compartment receiving and moving materials j," g to the " work area". His work crew consisted of the following ,g personnel: D55% 57,g Name SS No. Dates on Work Crew o o o :.5 Dubia DELETED 2/18,19,20,22 5.c g 0.o ;;;,a Drinkwater DELETED 2/B,13,14,16,17 bggg Horan DELETED 2/14 "85.0 Keefe DELETED 2/12,13,14 i E.o.3 roster DELETED 2/13,18,21,

• c3i Lubin DELETED.

2/8 l EE5" McAndrews ~ DELETED 2/8,10,11,12,13,16,17,18,19,. ~ 0 " E.E 20,21,22,25 k { {# Manning DELETED 2/8,10,11',12,13,14,16,17,18,.; ..c s a 19,20,21,25 oaxx Nacaula ~ DELETED.- 2/10,~11,12 l3{j Symonds del.ETED ,.m,,_, ' V iT22m pfgg/ j a Ward 22nski ' DELETED. " - -,20!:0.'"_M ::n!. F#Vr2 _7;,*-. ,. m. m ,,....m

.x-t.= ~.............. - S O'U' . g >/rs 4. Tha POD data for each m2mbar of tha work crew w. ' _and showed, the following results: ac also reveived t On a day to day comparison the work crew exposure a. and DELETED exposure were reasonably similar based on actual time in the work area. b. The total exposure received by members of the work crew who were most often assigned to work for DELETED DELETED since 2/8/80 was also reviewed: Name Dates Dose Dosimetry DELETED 1/2-t2/25 1180 TLD & POD DELETED 1/2-+2/25 900 TLD & POD Ds: 3ES DELETED 1/16-+2/25 990 TLD & POD E"b .2 3 ". s s. f '8 c. The total exposure received by other members of the .E4"2 work crew through 2/27/80 was as follows: o5IE ccc5 Name Through Date Dose Dosimetery %#2m []y} DELETED 2/27 965 POD 83.2 y gyy DELETED 2/18 595 TLD & POD

• c3E 8%"*

DELETED 2/25 845 B"EE POD 5E@# DELETED' 2/27 925 POD "2 5 $ oaww DELETED 2/2G 760 TLD m C 'E M E333 DELETED 2/26 465 TLD & POD R e '5 E. DELETED 2/26 710 POD DELETED 2/26 820 POD DELETED 2/19 540 TLD_ 5. The TLDs of some members of the work crew were also processed periodically throughout their period of work assignment and indicated satisfactory results when compared with POD data. These individuals are: Name Date TLD DELETED./ 2/19 540 (terminated) DELETED 2/20 6'60 l DELETED 2/18 200 DELETED 2/17 800 l DELETED 1/25 120 DELETED 1/31 90 DELETED 2/5 100 DELETED 2/23, ____ 9 3 0, E Y. --10 cm c. nc = = - i

..g, - --Mer..;;; ;;: ; f.U'M ^ vWa 6. The survey data for the work areas of DELETED crew was reviewed and indicated average general area dose rates of 5 to 20 mR/hr with maximum general area dose rates of 50 to 70 mR/hr. The specific work assignment of the work crew was installation of new TORUS saddles and the work area encompassed about 25% of the TORUS compartment in the Southwest corner. 7. As a maximum possible evaluation of the dose to DELETED the total time signed into the work area was calculated, minus 5 minutes as dress up time for each entry, without any reduc-tion in time for travel to and from the work area ( 100 feet 7, down stairs and a ladder) or for undressing prior to being 3gg signed out on the RWP. If the maximum general area dose rate _gg is 60 mR/hr, then all the time spent in the area would result

1. k=

in an exposure of 1 mR/ minute. The following is a list of the .g o g amount of time spent in the Torus compartment for each day ..g following the 2/8/80 TLD reading: 555s 5?%g Date Minutes ooog .S.5 g " 2/8 265 3 o ",a 2/10 275 bggg 2/11 350 " 8 5.7 2/12 215 EEo2 2/13 275

• ?

2/14 185 c 08%* 2/16 375 3"EE 2/17 305 %#7" 2/18 315 "25% 2/19 160 oaww 2/20 305 m.C T % 2/22 330 EU23 2/25 340 E S 'u E 240 3F3T Assuming ~that DELETED.. was in the maximum general area dose rate field for each of these minutes, his maximum potential dose would have been 3.935 Rem. C. Conclusion The most probable explanation for the inconsistency is that DE-LETED TLD was willfully exposed by a co-worker without his knowledge. The reasoning behind the conclusion is as follows: 1 His POD total for the period was consistent with that of his crew members based on time in the work areas. 2. His POD wa's never off-scale and was always worn in close proximity to this TLD on his person. 3. The TLD and POD comparative data for other memebers of the work crew showed no abnormalities. 4 The survey data indicates that, for DELETED - to have received the amount of exposure identified to TLD, for SC C$ 2,7;M"r~ ~. f d' 3

~

v. c.~n G

yin 6.9 tTMID _would hav.c had to spend more

F. *,

.f. 1-- ,s th'n period 2/8 through 2/25, _ he,ctime in the work area thUn all t 9.'.? ' l area dose would have had to been spent--iTr~very n.tgh rates location. Even the POD data of 280 for 2/25/80 is questi S. has supervised most of his co-workers at prior job. locations and as a foreman or general foreman he has had o DELETED 6 to take disciplinary action against some of the co-workers. h i d, will be assigned a total of,9'4O mrem for t e per o DELETED _. 2/ /80 through 2/25/8'O'.. . 7. 5 1 .x. ... ~. ' ..=... -

r s:.

, 1, .. q;,, 9...; - _

v. -..

y;. .c.:.: g ;....-. .,.s ~ .y. ........1 .. ;.;-n. ..z .-.~.,:. 2.*. -l .... :.:~.. -. .. = v..:. .;.a.

Y s.

,.s., .i-:.- .t .a. :.> ..e. .c.. .s- - +. - - . -. :.= + ~ - . ~.. m .w.:~.u.-.. A. .s. .. e. .u.. ..........._.2_.....--.____.__.......... 1 w.:. .m. ~ . ~.., r. s .z ...h.. 1.. ..e

z..

~ s s - I 1 Names of parties and certain other identifying details have been removed in order to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of_the_ persona 1_ ['

(~ ,., - l.,. %CG.:.7Y.:.:..w.-.. _9 8. At about 1745, T. Fulton of Landauer was contacted for pro- ~ cessing of the QA (3rd) chip in DELETED TLD card. 9. At a. bout 2130, C. Anderson.of Landauer arrived at PNPS to process the QA chip. Results received at about 2200 indica-ted that the TLD card had apparently been dosed, to approxi-mately 5 Rads. 10. DELETED t _ TLD card and two other TLD cards were esposed to about 5 Rads, calculated dose, using a 50 Ci Cs '37 source: "R" Chamber (25R) - Result TLD card - Result i 12401 5.0 028283 5.5 X2251 5.3 099384 5.36 12435 5.3 " 102312 37.O DELETED j 11. At 'about -1100 on 2/26/B0, the same cards exposed to calculated 5' Rad dose on 2/25 wece exposed to 1.2 Rads, calculated dose, using the 'same 50 Ci source: "R" Chamber - Result TLD card - Result i 12287 a) 0.956 028283 1.34 b) 0.980 099384 .,_ l.25

1. 12341 a) 0.998 I_ 102312 1.32 b) 1.032 DELETED j

12. At about 1300 on 2/26/80, the same cards were again exposed to a calculated exposure of 5 Rads. TLD card Results 028283 6.42 099384 6.08 102312 6.39 DELETED { 13. All QA chip results vare consistent with the il & results.

1. 2 chip 14.

The exposure tests identified in 10, to evaluate the response characteristics of the TLDs.11, and 12 were perfo the test results in 10,for Although DELETED than anticipated reading, the re-verification in 12. indicates. TLD indicated a h the initial exposure test.that the 7 Rad result was likely due to poor g l l l Names of parties and certain other identifying details have been removed in order to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the individuals involved.}}