ML20137K061

Documents Events Surrounding Discovery of Barrels Being Shipped from Plant to Richland Disposal Facility W/Different Radiation Exposure Readings than Were Listed on Shipping Manifest

ML20137K061
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	04/12/1995
From:	Robert Evans NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Cain C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20137J811	List: ML20137J805 ML20137J825 ML20137K000 ML20137K011 ML20137K055 ML20137K061 ML20137K078 ML20137K088 ML20137K102 ML20137K115 ML20137K791
References
FOIA-96-434 NUDOCS 9704040228
Download: ML20137K061 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ . _ _ . . -- __ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - __-_--_-___

j 6 ,.

t UNITED sTAfas 2 ' se;& ,$

% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i /. ,j #

i nEasoNiv j

44 ,

611 MYAN PLAZA oRIVE, SUITE 400

%.. . /g ARLINGTON, TEXA5 700110064 APR I 2 !995 1

MEMORANDUM TO: Charles L. Cain' Chief Fuel Cycle and Decomunissioning Branch l

Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

! FROM: Robert J. Evans, Health Physicist kn' Fuel Cycle and Decoeusissioning Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards I

SUBJECT:

INCORRECT SURVEY OF 8ARRELS SHIPPED FOR DISPOSAL FROM FSV

! The purpose of this memo is to document the events surrounding the discovery i of barrels being shipped from FSV to the Richland Disposal Facility, Benton l

! County, Washington, with different radiation exposure readings than were  !

l listed on the shipping manifest.

l On March 28, 1995, an SEG radiation protection technician surveyed seventeen

! 55-gallon barrels that were about to be shipped for disposal in Washington state. Five other drums (for a total of 22 drums) were also surveyed by this technician, but these five drums were not included in shipment SEG-FSV-033-95.

All 22 barrels were surveyed using one calibrated survey instrument. The results of the survey became part of the shipping manifest records. The  !

shipment, which included seven barrels that were surveyed by a different l technician, left the site at the end of March 1995. I On April 3,1995, the SEG radwaste supervisor, the person responsible for I shipment of radioactive material from FSV to Washington state for disposal, received a call from US Ecology, the operators of the disposal facility. The i firm informed the SES supervisor that nine drums had arrived at the site with radiation exposure levels higher than was listed on the manifest. The actual exposure rates were up to a factor of 10 above the rates listed in the manifest. For example, one barrel was listed as 1.5 milliress on contact but actually was 16 millirens on contact. A second barrel was listed as 7 millirems on contact but was actually 65 milliress on contact.

l SEG immediately dispatched a staff member from their Richland office to independently survey the barrels. The SEG-Richland person confirmed the findings and sent preliminary results to SEG-FSV. Additionally, a second survey of the five barrels still at the FSV site was performed by a different SEG radiation protection technician. Of these five barrels, two had readings that were a factor of 10 greater than the original surveys while the remaining three barrels had similar readings to the original surveys.

The instrument that was used by the radiation protection technician on the C2 barrels was inspected and calibration checked by SEG. The instrument passed a source response check on the day it was used and the instrument passed a calibration check on April 4,1995.

9704040228 970331

$URO 34 PDR

lo -

i Charles L. Cain i Immediate corrective actions taken included issuing' a radiological occurrence i report on the incident and placing the SEE technician that performed the j barrel surveys on administrative leave. PSC considered this technician to be i a " problematic" person with an " attitude" and asked SEG to remove him from the site. This technician was terminated by SEG on Thursday, April 6, 1995. (A l records falsification issue at FSV is currently under investigation by OI.

l The radiation protection technician that was terminated on April 6,1995, was 1 the author of all 14 backdated 1992 release survey forms and 4 of 20 backdated RWP survey forms.)

l Subsequent to the termination of the technician, SEE performed additional test i I surveys with the same survey instrument, an Eberline E520, that was used .  ;

I previously by the terminated technician. These test surveys readings were l

! compared to the readings measured by a different E520 instrument on the same  !

j- object. SEG noted that the two instruments measured different values at the l same point on the object. SEG's preliminary conclusion was that the survey 3

instrument used.by the " problematic" technician may have had a manufacturing j flaw. The survey instrueent's probe connections appeared to cause erroneous

. readings because of how the probe was connected to the instrtment. SEE then l informed the terminated employee that he was no longer terminated; however,

the technician remains on administrative leave pending further review. As a i short term followup item, SEE plans to contact the manufacturer about this i possible instrument flaw.

]

! The operators of the Richland Disposal Facility notified the State of l i Washington about the discrepancies in the survey readings. The State plans to l issue PSC a " warning letter" because of this incident. PSC will have to l

i' respond in writing to this letter when it is issued (state letters usually take about 2 weeks to reach the licensee).

This was the second incident involving a difference in disposal site identified readings and readings listed on the shipping manifest. In January

. 1993, the state informed SEG that an inner container was noted to have a i- contact dose rate of 500 rems / hour versus a manifest reading of 280 ress/ hour.

' The discrepancy was determined to be the result of variations in instrument

response (SEG quit using an ion chamber instrument and started using a GM tube

! after this first incident, the same instrument used by the state) or inconsistent survey techniques.

! Attachment

ROR 95-024 I

i

)

J j

l k

i

s .

Charles L. Cain l cc:

S. J. Collins, DRSS R. A. Scarano, DRSS C. L. Cain, FCDB R. J. Evans, FCDB J. Armenta, OI R. Wise, AC FCD8 File DOCUMENT NAME: 0:\FCDB\RJE\ BARRELS.FSV f

i s

-