05000482/FIN-2012004-10: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = Licensee | | identified by = Licensee | ||
| Inspection procedure = | | Inspection procedure = | ||
| Inspector = C Long, C Peabody, C Speer, G Guerra, J Laughlin, J Watkins, L Ricketson, N Greene, N Makris, N O | | Inspector = C Long, C Peabody, C Speer, G Guerra, J Laughlin, J Watkins, L Ricketson, N Greene, N Makris, N O'Keefe, R Kopriva, S Hedger | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = Technical Specification Section 5.7.1.a requires, in part, that each entryway to high radiation areas not exceeding 1.0 rem per hour at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or from any surface penetrated by the radiation shall be barricaded and conspicuously posted as a high radiation area. Contrary to this requirement, on September 11, 2012, the licensee was performing a routine review of surveys and identified that an area in the pipe chase of the 1988 foot elevation of the auxiliary building was an unposted high radiation area. Survey WCNOC-1209-0092, dated September 7, 2012, documented dose rates of 250 mrem per hour on contact and 120 mrem per hour at 30 cm, but only showed a level 1 posting, which is characterized as a radiation area. Thus, on September 11, 2012, a health physics technician was sent to verify the dose rates and posting as documented by the survey. The technician determined the maximum dose rates to be 220 mrem per hour on contact and 100 mrem per hour at 30 cm. These readings were documented in survey WCNOC-1209-0148. The area was immediately barricaded and conspicuously posted as a high radiation area. This issue was documented in the licensees corrective action program as condition report 00057185. Using the Occupational Radiation Safety Significance Determination Process, the inspectors determined the finding had very low safety significance (Green) because: (1) it was not an ALARA finding, (2) there was no overexposure, (3) there was no substantial potential for an overexposure, and (4) the ability to assess dose was not compromised. There is no crosscutting component because this is a licensee-identified finding. | | description = Technical Specification Section 5.7.1.a requires, in part, that each entryway to high radiation areas not exceeding 1.0 rem per hour at 30 centimeters from the radiation source or from any surface penetrated by the radiation shall be barricaded and conspicuously posted as a high radiation area. Contrary to this requirement, on September 11, 2012, the licensee was performing a routine review of surveys and identified that an area in the pipe chase of the 1988 foot elevation of the auxiliary building was an unposted high radiation area. Survey WCNOC-1209-0092, dated September 7, 2012, documented dose rates of 250 mrem per hour on contact and 120 mrem per hour at 30 cm, but only showed a level 1 posting, which is characterized as a radiation area. Thus, on September 11, 2012, a health physics technician was sent to verify the dose rates and posting as documented by the survey. The technician determined the maximum dose rates to be 220 mrem per hour on contact and 100 mrem per hour at 30 cm. These readings were documented in survey WCNOC-1209-0148. The area was immediately barricaded and conspicuously posted as a high radiation area. This issue was documented in the licensees corrective action program as condition report 00057185. Using the Occupational Radiation Safety Significance Determination Process, the inspectors determined the finding had very low safety significance (Green) because: (1) it was not an ALARA finding, (2) there was no overexposure, (3) there was no substantial potential for an overexposure, and (4) the ability to assess dose was not compromised. There is no crosscutting component because this is a licensee-identified finding. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:45, 30 May 2018
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000482/2012004 Section 4OA7 |
| Date counted | Sep 30, 2012 (2012Q3) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Licensee-identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | |
| Inspectors (proximate) | C Long C Peabody C Speer G Guerra J Laughlin J Watkins L Ricketson N Greene N Makris N O'Keefe R Kopriva S Hedger |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |