Information Notice 2002-03, Highly Radioactive Particle Control Problems During Spent Fuel Pool Cleanout: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 15: Line 15:
| page count = 7
| page count = 7
}}
}}
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONOFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIONWASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001January 10, 2002NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2002-03:HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE CONTROLPROBLEMS  DURING SPENT FUEL POOL
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES
 
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
 
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 January 10, 2002 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2002-03:                 HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE CONTROL
 
PROBLEMS DURING SPENT FUEL POOL


CLEANOUT
CLEANOUT


==Addressees==
==Addressees==
All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, holders of licenses for permanentlyshutdown facilities with fuel onsite, and holders of licenses for non-power reactors.
All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, holders of licenses for permanently
 
shutdown facilities with fuel onsite, and holders of licenses for non-power reactors.


==Purpose==
==Purpose==
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice to alertaddressees to recent issues involving evaluation and control of radioactive particles generated
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice to alert
 
addressees to recent issues involving evaluation and control of radioactive particles generated


during removal of material from a spent fuel pool prior to shipping the material offsite for
during removal of material from a spent fuel pool prior to shipping the material offsite for


disposal. The issue emphasized in this notice is that highly radioactive (hot) particles represent
disposal. The issue emphasized in this notice is that highly radioactive (hot) particles represent


a radiological hazard not just in terms of shallow dose to the skin or an extremity but also as a
a radiological hazard not just in terms of shallow dose to the skin or an extremity but also as a


deep or whole-body dose. It is expected that recipients will review the information for
deep or whole-body dose. It is expected that recipients will review the information for


applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems.
applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems.
Line 38: Line 50:


==Description of Circumstances==
==Description of Circumstances==
Toward the end of a 5-month spent fuel pool cleaning project, the Susquehanna Steam ElectricStation completed compacting irradiated components that had been temporarily stored in the
Toward the end of a 5-month spent fuel pool cleaning project, the Susquehanna Steam Electric


pool. Working under water remotely, the licensee had used an "advanced crusher and shearer"
Station completed compacting irradiated components that had been temporarily stored in the
(ACS) unit to compact control rod blades and local power range monitors. On October 12,
 
pool. Working under water remotely, the licensee had used an advanced crusher and shearer
 
(ACS) unit to compact control rod blades and local power range monitors. On October 12,
2000, the ACS was removed from the cask storage pit with a crane after apparently inadequate
2000, the ACS was removed from the cask storage pit with a crane after apparently inadequate


cleaning with a high-pressure spray Hydrolazer. The ACS was moved over the refueling floor
cleaning with a high-pressure spray Hydrolazer. The ACS was moved over the refueling floor


and into the reactor head washdown area for further decontamination prior to shipment offsite.
and into the reactor head washdown area for further decontamination prior to shipment offsite.


The ACS was not totally wrapped or sealed during this movement. Also, access to the ACS
The ACS was not totally wrapped or sealed during this movement. Also, access to the ACS
 
pathway over the refueling floor was not radiologically controlled during the move.
 
During the movement of the ACS, the refueling floor local area radiation monitor began to
 
alarm. The cause was a previously unidentified highly radioactive particle which had fallen from


pathway over the refueling floor was not radiologically controlled during the move. During the movement of the ACS, the refueling floor local area radiation monitor began toalarm. The cause was a previously unidentified highly radioactive particle which had fallen from
the ACS. The particle was later determined to be a 2.78 gigabecquerel (Gbq) [75 millicuries


the ACS.  The particle was later determined to be a 2.78 gigabecquerel (Gbq) [75 millicuries
(mCi)] Co-60 particle, reading approximately 8 sievert/h (Sv/h) (800 rem/h) at contact.


(mCi)] Co-60 particle, reading approximately 8 sievert/h (Sv/h) (800 rem/h) at contact.  The licensee stopped work, shielded and captured the particle, and initiated radioactive particlecontrol zone coverage for the entire refueling floor.  Additional actions undertaken at that time
The licensee stopped work, shielded and captured the particle, and initiated radioactive particle


included formation of a root cause event review team. The team's work led to upgraded
control zone coverage for the entire refueling floor. Additional actions undertaken at that time
 
included formation of a root cause event review team. The teams work led to upgraded


controls, surveying, more management oversight and more detailed planning and work
controls, surveying, more management oversight and more detailed planning and work


procedures for handling high specific activity particles.A search was then begun for additional hot particles on the refueling floor. Workers in particlecontrol zones were surveyed for particles every 15 minutes, and more protective clothing (PC)
procedures for handling high specific activity particles.
was required for certain work activities. The 15-minute control was a default stay time, and not
 
A search was then begun for additional hot particles on the refueling floor. Workers in particle
 
control zones were surveyed for particles every 15 minutes, and more protective clothing (PC)
was required for certain work activities. The 15-minute control was a default stay time, and not
 
based on dose calculations for the high-activity particles known to be present.
 
During the cleanup activities, more than 30 radioactive particles were found on the refueling


based on dose calculations for the high-activity particles known to be present.During the cleanup activities, more than 30 radioactive particles were found on the refuelingfloor.  Two high activity radioactive particles found on September 9 and December 6, 2000, had
floor. Two high activity radioactive particles found on September 9 and December 6, 2000, had


resulted in shallow-dose equivalent (SDE) exposures of 0.12 and 0.17 Sv (12 and 17 rem),
resulted in shallow-dose equivalent (SDE) exposures of 0.12 and 0.17 Sv (12 and 17 rem),
which is below the annual SDE limit of 50 rem. The licensee discovered two more high-activity
which is below the annual SDE limit of 50 rem. The licensee discovered two more high-activity


particles, a 0.78 Gbq (21 mCi) particle on November 28, and a 0.7 Gbq (19 mCi) particle on
particles, a 0.78 Gbq (21 mCi) particle on November 28, and a 0.7 Gbq (19 mCi) particle on


December 4, 2000; these particles did not result in significant exposure to personnel. No actual
December 4, 2000; these particles did not result in significant exposure to personnel. No actual


exposures in excess of any annual dose limits occurred during the cleanup activities.During a scheduled NRC health physics, rad-waste transportation, baseline inspection duringDecember 11-15, 2000 (Inspection Report Nos. 05000387/2000-009 and 05000388/2000-009, ADAMS Accession No. ML010250469), the NRC inspector identified significant weaknesses in
exposures in excess of any annual dose limits occurred during the cleanup activities.


the licensee's particle control program. The inspector noted that the licensee had failed to
During a scheduled NRC health physics, rad-waste transportation, baseline inspection during
 
December 11-15, 2000 (Inspection Report Nos. 05000387/2000-009 and 05000388/2000-009, ADAMS Accession No. ML010250469), the NRC inspector identified significant weaknesses in
 
the licensees particle control program. The inspector noted that the licensee had failed to


identify that conventional hand-held survey instruments using standard survey methods were
identify that conventional hand-held survey instruments using standard survey methods were
Line 80: Line 115:
underestimating the contact dose rates of the particles, thus underestimating the radiological
underestimating the contact dose rates of the particles, thus underestimating the radiological


hazards not just to the skin but in terms of whole body exposure. The licensee's evaluation had failed to consider properly and account for the potential forsubstantial dose to personnel from the high-activity particles. Specifically, the 15-minute worker
hazards not just to the skin but in terms of whole body exposure.
 
The licensees evaluation had failed to consider properly and account for the potential for
 
substantial dose to personnel from the high-activity particles. Specifically, the 15-minute worker


stay time was not adequate to prevent potential overexposures from the particles known to be
stay time was not adequate to prevent potential overexposures from the particles known to be


present in and around the refueling floor. The stay time would have allowed both SDE and total
present in and around the refueling floor. The stay time would have allowed both SDE and total


effective dose equivalent (TEDE) annual exposure limits to be exceeded.Four of the particles found ranged from 0.7  to 2.78 Gbq (19 to 75 mCi).  Had the particles beendirectly on the workers' PCs, the TEDE annual limit of 0.05 Sv (5 rem) could have been
effective dose equivalent (TEDE) annual exposure limits to be exceeded.


exceeded in 25 seconds to 2 minutes, and the SDE limit exceeded in 6 to 21 seconds, depending on the activity of the individual particle.In response to the NRC findings and a 0.17 Sv (17 rem) SDE exposure on December 6 from aparticle on a worker's boot, licensee management stopped all high-risk work, initiated a
Four of the particles found ranged from 0.7 to 2.78 Gbq (19 to 75 mCi). Had the particles been
 
directly on the workers PCs, the TEDE annual limit of 0.05 Sv (5 rem) could have been
 
exceeded in 25 seconds to 2 minutes, and the SDE limit exceeded in 6 to 21 seconds, depending on the activity of the individual particle.
 
In response to the NRC findings and a 0.17 Sv (17 rem) SDE exposure on December 6 from a
 
particle on a workers boot, licensee management stopped all high-risk work, initiated a


comprehensive events evaluation, requested on-site assistance by an industry expert team, and
comprehensive events evaluation, requested on-site assistance by an industry expert team, and


implemented improved training and communication of lessons learned in this area. DiscussionDuring previous similar processing of  irradiated components at Susquehanna in 1991,radioactive particles had been identified with external gamma dose rates greater than
implemented improved training and communication of lessons learned in this area. Discussion


100 rem/hr.  However, the plant failed to incorporate fully this previous experience and industry- wide experience into the planning for the 2000 fuel pool clean out project.  (NRC Information
During previous similar processing of irradiated components at Susquehanna in 1991, radioactive particles had been identified with external gamma dose rates greater than


Notice No. 90-33, "Sources of Unexpected Occupational Radiation Exposures at Spent Fuel
100 rem/hr. However, the plant failed to incorporate fully this previous experience and industry- wide experience into the planning for the 2000 fuel pool clean out project. (NRC Information


Storage Pools," also concerns highly radioactive particles.)Prior to the NRC baseline inspection, after the initial event, the work controls that the licenseehad implemented were not sufficient under the circumstances to evaluate and control the
Notice No. 90-33, Sources of Unexpected Occupational Radiation Exposures at Spent Fuel


potential radiological challenges posed by these extremely high activity particles. A Notice of
Storage Pools, also concerns highly radioactive particles.)
Prior to the NRC baseline inspection, after the initial event, the work controls that the licensee
 
had implemented were not sufficient under the circumstances to evaluate and control the
 
potential radiological challenges posed by these extremely high activity particles. A Notice of


Violation (failure to conduct adequate evaluation and survey) associated with a White finding
Violation (failure to conduct adequate evaluation and survey) associated with a White finding


(using the Significance Determination Process) was issued. These actions were taken because
(using the Significance Determination Process) was issued. These actions were taken because


of the substantial potential for exposure in excess of the annual limit for TEDE even though no
of the substantial potential for exposure in excess of the annual limit for TEDE even though no


worker dose limits were exceeded.During the regulatory conference for this violation, the licensee stated that it needed to improveits hot particle surveying, identification, handling, and control. The improvements included
worker dose limits were exceeded.
 
During the regulatory conference for this violation, the licensee stated that it needed to improve
 
its hot particle surveying, identification, handling, and control. The improvements included


more effective use of remote handling techniques, proactive staging of particle control zones, and aggressive treatment of potential sources of particles by using decontamination and
more effective use of remote handling techniques, proactive staging of particle control zones, and aggressive treatment of potential sources of particles by using decontamination and


filtration on systems that communicate with the spent fuel pool.The licensee noted that in cases like this where a contractor was used for a challengingradiological evolution, plant management oversight was essential. That oversight must focus
filtration on systems that communicate with the spent fuel pool.
 
The licensee noted that in cases like this where a contractor was used for a challenging
 
radiological evolution, plant management oversight was essential. That oversight must focus


on, and have sufficient resources to implement and maintain a sense of an acceptable radiation
on, and have sufficient resources to implement and maintain a sense of an acceptable radiation


culture and acceptable practices and standards for radiation work. According to the licensee, this can best be accomplished by direct ownership for significant, high-risk projects
culture and acceptable practices and standards for radiation work. According to the licensee, this can best be accomplished by direct ownership for significant, high-risk projects


demonstrated by the visible presence and direct oversight of the work by utility managers.Most importantly, this occurrence demonstrated a need to strengthen procedural controls tofocus attention on the large potential doses from these challenging radiological work
demonstrated by the visible presence and direct oversight of the work by utility managers.


environments.  The worker training program and job oversight must emphasize the most
Most importantly, this occurrence demonstrated a need to strengthen procedural controls to


important lesson learned from the event-that radioactive particles can present not only
focus attention on the large potential doses from these challenging radiological work
 
environments. The worker training program and job oversight must emphasize the most
 
important lesson learned from the eventthat radioactive particles can present not only


shallow-dose risks but, at higher activity levels, whole body dose risks, which can be much
shallow-dose risks but, at higher activity levels, whole body dose risks, which can be much


more significant. This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If you have anyquestions about the information in this notice, please contact one of the technical contacts
more significant. This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If you have any


listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager./RA/William D. Beckner, Program Director
questions about the information in this notice, please contact one of the technical contacts
 
listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.
 
/RA/
                                              William D. Beckner, Program Director
 
Operating Reactor Improvements Program


===Operating Reactor Improvements Program===
Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs
Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs


Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationTechnical contacts: James E. Wigginton, NRRJames D. Noggle, Region I301-415-1059610-337-5063 E-mail: jew2@nrc.govE-mail: jdn@nrc.govAttachment:  List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
 
Technical contacts: James E. Wigginton, NRR                  James D. Noggle, Region I
 
301-415-1059                            610-337-5063 E-mail: jew2@nrc.gov                    E-mail: jdn@nrc.gov


ML011790547*See previous concurrenceOFFICEREXBTech EdIOLBSC:REXBRORPNAMEEGoodwin*PKleene*GTracy*JTappert*Wbeckner*DATE12/20/20016/19/20018/20/20016/26/200101/08/2002
Attachment: List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices
______________________________________________________________________________________OL = Operating License


CP = Construction PermitAttachment 1 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUEDNRC INFORMATION NOTICES
ML011790547
*See previous concurrence


_____________________________________________________________________________________InformationDate of
OFFICE REXB              Tech Ed            IOLB          SC:REXB        RORP


===Notice No.        SubjectIssuanceIssued to===
NAME EGoodwin*            PKleene*            GTracy*        JTappert*      Wbeckner*
_____________________________________________________________________________________2002-02Recent Experience withPlugged Steam Generator
  DATE      12/20/2001      6/19/2001          8/20/2001      6/26/2001      01/08/2002


Tubes01/08/2002All holders of operating licensesfor pressurized-water reactors
Attachment 1 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED


(PWRs), except those who have
NRC INFORMATION NOTICES
 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Information                                          Date of
 
Notice No.                Subject                    Issuance  Issued to
 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2002-02          Recent Experience with            01/08/2002  All holders of operating licenses
 
Plugged Steam Generator                      for pressurized-water reactors
 
Tubes                                        (PWRs), except those who have


permanently ceased operations
permanently ceased operations
Line 155: Line 241:
been permanently removed from
been permanently removed from


the reactor.2002-01Metalclad Switchgear Failuresand Consequent Losses of
the reactor.
 
2002-01          Metalclad Switchgear Failures    01/08/2002  All holders of licenses for nuclear
 
and Consequent Losses of                     power reactors.
 
Offsite Power


Offsite Power01/08/2002All holders of licenses for nuclearpower reactors.2001-19Improper Maintenance andReassembly of Automatic Oil
2001-19          Improper Maintenance and          12/17/2001  All holders of operating licenses


Bubblers12/17/2001All holders of operating licensesfor nuclear power reactors, except those who have
Reassembly of Automatic Oil                  for nuclear power reactors, Bubblers                                      except those who have


permanently ceased operations
permanently ceased operations
Line 167: Line 259:
been permanently removed from
been permanently removed from


the reactor vessel.2001-18Degraded or Failed AutomatedElectronic Monitoring, Control,
the reactor vessel.
 
===Alarming, Response, and===
Communications Needed for


Safety and/or Safeguards12/14/2001All uranium fuel conversion,enrichment, and fabrication
2001-18          Degraded or Failed Automated      12/14/2001  All uranium fuel conversion, Electronic Monitoring, Control,              enrichment, and fabrication


licensees and certificate holders
Alarming, Response, and                      licensees and certificate holders


authorized to receive safeguards
Communications Needed for                    authorized to receive safeguards


information. Information notice is
Safety and/or Safeguards                      information. Information notice is


not available to the public
not available to the public
Line 184: Line 273:
because it contains safeguards
because it contains safeguards


information.2001-17Degraded and FailedPerformance of Essential
information.


===Utilities Needed for Safety and===
2001-17          Degraded and Failed              12/14/2001  All uranium fuel conversion, Performance of Essential                      enrichment, and fabrication
Safeguards12/14/2001All uranium fuel conversion,enrichment, and fabrication


licensees and certificate holders
Utilities Needed for Safety and              licensees and certificate holders


authorized to receive safeguards
Safeguards                                    authorized to receive safeguards


information. Information notice is
information. Information notice is


not available to the public
not available to the public
Line 199: Line 287:
because it contains safeguards
because it contains safeguards


information.2001-08,Sup. 2Update on Radiation TherapyOverexposures in Panama11/20/2001All medical licensees.2001-16Recent Foreign and DomesticExperience with Degradation ofsteamGeneratorTubes and Internals}}
information.
 
2001-08,         Update on Radiation Therapy      11/20/2001  All medical licensees.
 
===Sup. 2            Overexposures in Panama===
2001-16          Recent Foreign and Domestic      steam      Tubes and Internals
 
Experience with Degradation of    Generator
 
______________________________________________________________________________________
OL = Operating License
 
CP = Construction Permit}}


{{Information notice-Nav}}
{{Information notice-Nav}}

Latest revision as of 05:48, 24 November 2019

Highly Radioactive Particle Control Problems During Spent Fuel Pool Cleanout
ML011790547
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/10/2002
From: Beckner W
Operational Experience and Non-Power Reactors Branch
To:
References
TAC MB1382 IN-02-003
Download: ML011790547 (7)


UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 January 10, 2002 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2002-03: HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE CONTROL

PROBLEMS DURING SPENT FUEL POOL

CLEANOUT

Addressees

All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, holders of licenses for permanently

shutdown facilities with fuel onsite, and holders of licenses for non-power reactors.

Purpose

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice to alert

addressees to recent issues involving evaluation and control of radioactive particles generated

during removal of material from a spent fuel pool prior to shipping the material offsite for

disposal. The issue emphasized in this notice is that highly radioactive (hot) particles represent

a radiological hazard not just in terms of shallow dose to the skin or an extremity but also as a

deep or whole-body dose. It is expected that recipients will review the information for

applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems.

However, suggestions contained in this information notice are not NRC requirements; therefore, no specific action or written response is required.

Description of Circumstances

Toward the end of a 5-month spent fuel pool cleaning project, the Susquehanna Steam Electric

Station completed compacting irradiated components that had been temporarily stored in the

pool. Working under water remotely, the licensee had used an advanced crusher and shearer

(ACS) unit to compact control rod blades and local power range monitors. On October 12,

2000, the ACS was removed from the cask storage pit with a crane after apparently inadequate

cleaning with a high-pressure spray Hydrolazer. The ACS was moved over the refueling floor

and into the reactor head washdown area for further decontamination prior to shipment offsite.

The ACS was not totally wrapped or sealed during this movement. Also, access to the ACS

pathway over the refueling floor was not radiologically controlled during the move.

During the movement of the ACS, the refueling floor local area radiation monitor began to

alarm. The cause was a previously unidentified highly radioactive particle which had fallen from

the ACS. The particle was later determined to be a 2.78 gigabecquerel (Gbq) [75 millicuries

(mCi)] Co-60 particle, reading approximately 8 sievert/h (Sv/h) (800 rem/h) at contact.

The licensee stopped work, shielded and captured the particle, and initiated radioactive particle

control zone coverage for the entire refueling floor. Additional actions undertaken at that time

included formation of a root cause event review team. The teams work led to upgraded

controls, surveying, more management oversight and more detailed planning and work

procedures for handling high specific activity particles.

A search was then begun for additional hot particles on the refueling floor. Workers in particle

control zones were surveyed for particles every 15 minutes, and more protective clothing (PC)

was required for certain work activities. The 15-minute control was a default stay time, and not

based on dose calculations for the high-activity particles known to be present.

During the cleanup activities, more than 30 radioactive particles were found on the refueling

floor. Two high activity radioactive particles found on September 9 and December 6, 2000, had

resulted in shallow-dose equivalent (SDE) exposures of 0.12 and 0.17 Sv (12 and 17 rem),

which is below the annual SDE limit of 50 rem. The licensee discovered two more high-activity

particles, a 0.78 Gbq (21 mCi) particle on November 28, and a 0.7 Gbq (19 mCi) particle on

December 4, 2000; these particles did not result in significant exposure to personnel. No actual

exposures in excess of any annual dose limits occurred during the cleanup activities.

During a scheduled NRC health physics, rad-waste transportation, baseline inspection during

December 11-15, 2000 (Inspection Report Nos. 05000387/2000-009 and 05000388/2000-009, ADAMS Accession No. ML010250469), the NRC inspector identified significant weaknesses in

the licensees particle control program. The inspector noted that the licensee had failed to

identify that conventional hand-held survey instruments using standard survey methods were

underestimating the contact dose rates of the particles, thus underestimating the radiological

hazards not just to the skin but in terms of whole body exposure.

The licensees evaluation had failed to consider properly and account for the potential for

substantial dose to personnel from the high-activity particles. Specifically, the 15-minute worker

stay time was not adequate to prevent potential overexposures from the particles known to be

present in and around the refueling floor. The stay time would have allowed both SDE and total

effective dose equivalent (TEDE) annual exposure limits to be exceeded.

Four of the particles found ranged from 0.7 to 2.78 Gbq (19 to 75 mCi). Had the particles been

directly on the workers PCs, the TEDE annual limit of 0.05 Sv (5 rem) could have been

exceeded in 25 seconds to 2 minutes, and the SDE limit exceeded in 6 to 21 seconds, depending on the activity of the individual particle.

In response to the NRC findings and a 0.17 Sv (17 rem) SDE exposure on December 6 from a

particle on a workers boot, licensee management stopped all high-risk work, initiated a

comprehensive events evaluation, requested on-site assistance by an industry expert team, and

implemented improved training and communication of lessons learned in this area. Discussion

During previous similar processing of irradiated components at Susquehanna in 1991, radioactive particles had been identified with external gamma dose rates greater than

100 rem/hr. However, the plant failed to incorporate fully this previous experience and industry- wide experience into the planning for the 2000 fuel pool clean out project. (NRC Information

Notice No. 90-33, Sources of Unexpected Occupational Radiation Exposures at Spent Fuel

Storage Pools, also concerns highly radioactive particles.)

Prior to the NRC baseline inspection, after the initial event, the work controls that the licensee

had implemented were not sufficient under the circumstances to evaluate and control the

potential radiological challenges posed by these extremely high activity particles. A Notice of

Violation (failure to conduct adequate evaluation and survey) associated with a White finding

(using the Significance Determination Process) was issued. These actions were taken because

of the substantial potential for exposure in excess of the annual limit for TEDE even though no

worker dose limits were exceeded.

During the regulatory conference for this violation, the licensee stated that it needed to improve

its hot particle surveying, identification, handling, and control. The improvements included

more effective use of remote handling techniques, proactive staging of particle control zones, and aggressive treatment of potential sources of particles by using decontamination and

filtration on systems that communicate with the spent fuel pool.

The licensee noted that in cases like this where a contractor was used for a challenging

radiological evolution, plant management oversight was essential. That oversight must focus

on, and have sufficient resources to implement and maintain a sense of an acceptable radiation

culture and acceptable practices and standards for radiation work. According to the licensee, this can best be accomplished by direct ownership for significant, high-risk projects

demonstrated by the visible presence and direct oversight of the work by utility managers.

Most importantly, this occurrence demonstrated a need to strengthen procedural controls to

focus attention on the large potential doses from these challenging radiological work

environments. The worker training program and job oversight must emphasize the most

important lesson learned from the eventthat radioactive particles can present not only

shallow-dose risks but, at higher activity levels, whole body dose risks, which can be much

more significant. This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If you have any

questions about the information in this notice, please contact one of the technical contacts

listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.

/RA/

William D. Beckner, Program Director

Operating Reactor Improvements Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical contacts: James E. Wigginton, NRR James D. Noggle, Region I

301-415-1059 610-337-5063 E-mail: jew2@nrc.gov E-mail: jdn@nrc.gov

Attachment: List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

ML011790547

  • See previous concurrence

OFFICE REXB Tech Ed IOLB SC:REXB RORP

NAME EGoodwin* PKleene* GTracy* JTappert* Wbeckner*

DATE 12/20/2001 6/19/2001 8/20/2001 6/26/2001 01/08/2002

Attachment 1 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED

NRC INFORMATION NOTICES

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Information Date of

Notice No. Subject Issuance Issued to

_____________________________________________________________________________________

2002-02 Recent Experience with 01/08/2002 All holders of operating licenses

Plugged Steam Generator for pressurized-water reactors

Tubes (PWRs), except those who have

permanently ceased operations

and have certified that fuel has

been permanently removed from

the reactor.

2002-01 Metalclad Switchgear Failures 01/08/2002 All holders of licenses for nuclear

and Consequent Losses of power reactors.

Offsite Power

2001-19 Improper Maintenance and 12/17/2001 All holders of operating licenses

Reassembly of Automatic Oil for nuclear power reactors, Bubblers except those who have

permanently ceased operations

and have certified that fuel has

been permanently removed from

the reactor vessel.

2001-18 Degraded or Failed Automated 12/14/2001 All uranium fuel conversion, Electronic Monitoring, Control, enrichment, and fabrication

Alarming, Response, and licensees and certificate holders

Communications Needed for authorized to receive safeguards

Safety and/or Safeguards information. Information notice is

not available to the public

because it contains safeguards

information.

2001-17 Degraded and Failed 12/14/2001 All uranium fuel conversion, Performance of Essential enrichment, and fabrication

Utilities Needed for Safety and licensees and certificate holders

Safeguards authorized to receive safeguards

information. Information notice is

not available to the public

because it contains safeguards

information.

2001-08, Update on Radiation Therapy 11/20/2001 All medical licensees.

Sup. 2 Overexposures in Panama

2001-16 Recent Foreign and Domestic steam Tubes and Internals

Experience with Degradation of Generator

______________________________________________________________________________________

OL = Operating License

CP = Construction Permit