ML20215E235
| ML20215E235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Berkeley Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1983 |
| From: | Lim T CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, BERKELEY, CA |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215E220 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-811 NUDOCS 8612180412 | |
| Download: ML20215E235 (2) | |
Text
,
I 4
l N
{
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. BERKELEY p%5 thU.S. NRC BEREELEY
- DAVIS
- IRVINE
- LOS ANCELES
- RIVERSIDE
- SAN DIECO
- SAN FRANCISCO
, SANTA BARBARA
- SANTA CRUZ
'z PN 3: 05 I
0F WV sEREEt.r.r,c4i$pgp'E " $NS colt.EcE or ENciNEERrNo I
k DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR enc 1NEERING October 12, 1983 Director, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Docket No. 50-224 License R-101 Re:
Notification of liigh Dosimeter Reading
Dear Sir:
f Et In accordance withprovisions of.10CFR 20.403 (b) (1) we submit this j
notification to you of a possible exposure at our facility at about eighteen U
thousand millirem to one person. Full report will be submitted within thirty 1
days.
i At about 2.00 p.m. Tuesday, October 11, 1983 our Reactor Health Physicist was notified via telephone by our commercial dosimetry vendor that a personnel film packet submitted in early October as part of the routine shipment was processed nonnally and indicated an exposure of about eighteen rems. Vendor personnel stated that badge shield areas were detectable, that shield edge images appeargsharp, and that the exposure appeared similar to that expected if from Cs radiation.
The facility was surveyed at about 4.00 p.m. that day. No abnonnal readings were found. Maximum reading was 25 mrem /hr max, 6-8 mrem /hr general, with a Victorcen 470 survey meter in contact with the shield containing our "1Ci" calibration source. Physical inventory of all sources exceeding one millicurie showed each was in place and with no obvious evidence of tampering. Survey of the badge (film holder) in question showed no reading above background using a thin-end window G-M probe.
Prcliminary discussions with facility personnel indicated no abnormal treatment of this film packet.
It arrived in early August as part of a routine shipment and was stored at the RHP's desk with all other packets in the shipment. All packets were exchanged (put into service) on September 2, exchanged on September 30, and shipped to the vendor the following week. The packet, in the badge,was stored on the "in-tunnel" badge rack during the month. No other film packet from this group showed detectable radiation exposure. The packet assignec stated that he entered the facility only once during the month; he and one other person wearing a badge from this group walked through most of the main floor of the reactor room looking for a piece of equipment. Finding it eg22 2 86 %
/ Continued.....
GEORCE86-8Ig PDR Y*
~
l 3
/
y.
f
- - ~ - they left the room with it. At this time we know of no other time when the packet was anywhere other than in transit in the RHP's desk, or in the badge rack. We know of no time when the packet was not near at least
.one other packet of this shipment. Consequently, we have at this time no explanation for the dosimeter reading. Hence we cannot verify its validity as an indicator of a dose to a person. We are continuing the investigation and will submit a written report as required by 10CFR 20.405 (a).
Sincerely, T. H. Lim Reactor Supervisor Berkeley Research Reactor Facility
<c.
Reactor Hazard Comnittee, Chainnan Office of Environmental 4 Safety Reactor Administrator
'DiL/smt