ML20133B308

FOIA Request for Eight Radiological Info Repts Initiated Between Periods of 960103 & 0416 & Ref on Page 27 of NRC Integrated Insp Rept 50-309/96-06

ML20133B308
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	10/02/1996
From:	Brack H CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL MONITORING, INC.
To:	Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
Shared Package
ML20133B292	List: IA-96-396, Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Forwards Documents Listed in App a in Entirety.App B Records Being Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exemption 6).Documents Encl Available in PDR ML20133B290 ML20133B308 ML20133B314 ML20133B319
References
FOIA-96-396 NUDOCS 9701030072
Download: ML20133B308 (8)

Text

_

a Center for Biological Menitsring, Inc.

BOX 144 HULLS COVE, ME 04644 288-5126 FAX: 288-2725 EMAIL: sbrack@ post. acadia. net World Wide Web at http://home. acadia. net /cbm/

F0lA/PA REQUEST

'~

October 2,1996 Director Carlton C Kammer'er-

~~

D

~

W k'

Div. of FOf and Public Services Related Case-11545 Rockville Pike Two Whiteflint Bldg.

Rockville MD 20852-2738

Dear Mr. Kammerer,

I would like to express appreciation for the new spirit of openness and accessability which characterizes the NRC under the direction of Chairperson Shirley Jackson. I would like to file a Freedom ofInformation request for the 8 radiological information reports " initiated between the periods of 01/03/96 and 04/16/96" and referenced on page 27 of the NRC Integrated Inspection Report 50-309/96/06 (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.). I contacted Leann Diehl at MYAPC about obtaining these reports. She indicates this information is proprietary and is not available to unauthorized persons (telephone call to CBM, Oct.1,1996).

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

1 Sincerely, r I)+ psYh

\\

b H.G.Brack" Center for Biological Monitoring cc William Brower John Zwolinski Shirley Jackson

=

9701030072 961231 PDR FOIA BRACK96-396 PDR

Center fer Biological Menitoring, Inc.

BOX 144 HULLS COVE, ME 04644 288-5126 FAX: 288-2725 EMAIL: sbrack@ post. acadia. net World Wide Web at http://home. acadia. net /cbm/-

Leann Diehl Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.

329 Bath Road

)

Brunswick Me. 04011

~

l

Dear Leann,

Thank you for the Morgan, Lewis and Bockius Report as well as for the Annual Radioactive Efflue ttRetEssiiliep'o'rt'as well as the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Rep 6i{;I have one other reqdbst: with respect to the NRC Integrate Inspectio eport 50-309/96/06, I am seeking the 8 radiological infordation reports

" initiated tween the periods of 01/03/96 and 04/16/96"(see pg. 27). jI requested these reports fro

'm Yerokun, and he indicated that although he had seep 4he reports, that he had disposed o the 'NRC no longer has any copies.Jould you kindly send me j

a copy of these 8 RIR's, or if t e vailablefrom-M5me Yankee, would you please send me a letter explaining why they are not available from Maine Yankee?

Thank you for your assistance with my requests.

Sincerel '

i

. G.Brack Director Center for Biological Monitoring cc:

Jay McCloskey

/

[' %

IM /

Proc. No. 9-301-6 Rev. No.

3 Page 7 of 10 g

~

Coov ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 2)

RADIOLOGICAL INCIDENT REPORT ggj NUMbtR SECTION I

[

DATE AND TIME OF INCIDENT: /-3-94 O / /O Location: Gnh House HOW RADIATION PROTECTION WAS NOTIFIED: ScCurdu noTEtd RC chk nomT PERTINENT DETAILS (Attach copies of surveys'ure)mples, etc. as necessary for sa documentation.

See Section 5.1.4 of Proced S P f_

07/h rle]

[

Was "for cause" testing recommended?

Yes Y No

/?nn}b kwO2 FRtVAREWWIGNAlURL DATE /-R-94 TIME 07co SECTION II RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS /RP PROGRAMS SECTION HEAD REVIEW Immediate Corrective Actions Taken (Including Notifications and Reports per 10CFR20 and/or 10CFR50.72)

D<

t:h t h f

/

Incident history files have been reviewed. ThereQere ' ere not similar occurrences to this event in the files.

This incident requires no further reports, documentation or follow-up

[ Long Term' Corrective Actions Recommended:

4'NfO ex e 8 s

/>

/ /d/94

.N

/

Ia rove this Incident Report incNdingtherecommendationswith Yesponsible sectierr, Head Date' the exceptions noted below:

k MW i e/AML uate l av(c Route to:

1.

Radiological Controls or Radiation Protection Programs Section Head 2.

Radiation Protection Manaaer 3.

Tech. Support Department Flanager 4.

Plant Manager 5.

ALARA Committee / RPM and Training Department 6.

File 19.11.4 7.

Tech File #19.1.1.1

Proc. No. 9-301-6 Rev. No.

3 Page 8 of 10 i

ATTACHMENT A (Page 2 of 2)

RADIOLOGICAL INCIDENT REPORT SECTiON III TECH SUPPORT DEPT. MANAGER REVIEW Y

I approve this Incident Report including the recommendations with the exceptions noted below.

&nuGn<skrvOxs T

Asr> T A42' deMAcd

/1 ALARA COMMITTEE REVIEW Required Department Manage't-Y/h6 Date A{..

/

SECTION IV PLANT MANAGER REVIEW j

/{ I approve this Incident Report including the recommendations with-the exceptions L

noted below.

/30 *J L o ~,.

/ M//

('/fka

' Plant Manager 2llSkt

' Date.

~

R2 TURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE RADIATION PROTECTION MANAGER.

SECTION V Approved recommendations have been implemented and docume tation is attachpp/4,or add to the appropriate Task List or Tracking System. (Identi icati bn i/ Task # F

).

Copies have been sent to:

(\\b bE 1 V

g Radiation Protec; ion Manager Training L

RP Required Reading i

l iMo 4/t NRC Resident c

( ~ Dite

M/ce t.,

Procedure 9-301-6 Rev. No. 3 Page 9 of 10 ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS FOR RIR 96-01 Iitic Gate House Portal Monitor Alarm Personnel Performing the Evaluation Ron Shippee RCS Executive Summ'arv At 0110 hrs on 1-3-96 the Radiation Controls (RC) check point was informed by Security that an individual had alarmed the gate house portal radiation monitor when to leaving the gate house. A Radiation Controls Technician (RCT) was dispatched to the gate house to investigate. The RCT observed the individual alarm the portal monitor. The RCT could not determine the location of the contamination on the individual. The individual was escorted to the RC checkpoint and was instructed to use the IPM 7/8 whole body monitors. The IPM 7/8 identified an area of contamination present on the front of the individual's left leg. This area was surveyed using a CM-7 frisker which alanned. This area was then surveyed using a GM frisker. The GM frisker indicated 35000 ccpm over a small area just above the left knee.

- After attempts to remove the contamination from the individuals pants with tape failed and the individual was asked to remove his pants. The pants were frisked and determined to be clean. A GM frisk of the area on the individual's left leg indicated 35000 ccpm over a small area of the skin. Decontamination of the area was accomplished using a moist cloth. The results of the decontamination were <100 ccpm with a GM frisker and the individual cleared the IPM 7/8 monitors.

Per pro # 9-303-5 a Personnel Contamination Report (96-02) was initiated.The individual was interviewed concerning his last exit from the Restricted Area (RA) and his activities prior to alarming the portal monitor at the gate house. (see attached) The individual was then allowed to leave the site.

Corrective Actions Based on the information provided during the interview the individual's path of travel from the RC check point to his locker, his locker and it's contents were surveyed. The Burns and Roe trailers were also surveyed. A direct frisk of all dosimetry storage boards at the RC check point was performed. (see attached surveys)

Eacts 1.

At 2130 hrs upon leaving CTMT the individual frisked his hands, feet and dosimetry. He then cleared the portal monitor in the steam / valve house.

,t

/

\\

T:\\RADCON\\RIR

Root Cause Analysis for RIR

[

]

Page 2 of 3 o

j

~.

j Root Cause Analysis for_RIR 96-01' Page 2 of 3 Gate House Portal Monitor Alarm I

i 2.

At the RC check point the individual using a CM-7 frisked his dosimetry and his hard hat.The dosimetry frisked clean, the frisk of the hard hat identified alpha contamination which was verified by an RCT. The dosimetry and hard l,

hat were placed on the floor of the IPM 7/8.-

~

j i

4 3.

The individual then entered and was monitored by the IPM 7/8 which alarmed.

The area indicated on the alarm display was the right leg. This area was -

surveyed by an RCT using a CM-7 and determined to be clean. Upon re-l monitoring the individual cleared the IPM 7/8.

4.

The individual then retrieved his hard hat and dosimetry, left the RC check point and proceeded to his locker in the locker room. In the locker room he changed clothes and proceeded to the Burns and Roe trailer. He returned to the locker room and collected his things prior to leaving site.

l t

5.

At the gate house, the individual alarmed the portal monitor. The security personnel notified the.RC check point and an RCT was dispatch to the gate j

house. The RCT observed the portal monitor alarm and then escorted l

individual back to the RC check point for further evaluation..

6.

The individual was surveyed and the contamination was identified on the I

individual's left leg.The contamination was identified as a discrete particle yielding 35000 cepm by GM frisker. Personnel contamination report #96-02 was initiated.

7.

The contamination was removed using a moist cloth and was saved for further analysis.

8.

The individual was re-surveyed determined to be clean and released the from l

the RA.

s 9.

The individual was interviewed as to his last entry into the RA and his travels j

and activities after leaving the RA.

j m

T:\\RADCON\\RIR l

Root Cause Analysis for RIR.

Pege 3 of 3 e-1

. Root Cause Analysis for RIR 96-01 Page 3 of 3 Gate House Portal Monitor Alarm i

l.

t 10.

A contamination survey was performed of the clean side areas traversed an' visited by the individual. No contamination was identified.

i 11.

All of the individual's personal items both hand carried and in his locker and thilocker it self were surveyed. No contamination was identified.

12.

A gamma spec. analysis was performed on the contamination removed from the individual. Results 0.109 micro curies of Co 60.

t l

l 13.

A series of evaluations was performed to determine how reliably this discrete particle was detected by the steam / valve house portal monitor, a CM-7 frisker

'l l

and a IPM 7/8 monitor.

l l

Conclusions

.i A.

The particle appears to have transferred from the individual's TLD to his leg.

3 This is a result of an inadequate survey performed at the restricted area exit by J

the individual.

l i

i Recommendations l

l I.

Establish a temporary watch at the portal monitors (IPM 7-8s).

II.

Implement use of a small article monitor.

h(

III.

l

• vW i

I i

T:\\RADCON\\RIR

'T /t h 3 OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE REPORT

13. SOME GOOD QUESTIONS TO ASK DURING THE MORNING MEETING:

A.

Is this or another acti.vity ongoing or likely to occur before corrective actions have been implemented?

b@ NO)

If so should we let it continue to occur without implementing some interim corrective measures?

(YES @ T"^P

}

B. Did this event have potent _al for serious personnel injury?

(YES If serious injury had occurr ould we be doing anything differently?

(YES/NO NA C.

f the probl involv compo r

ired by technical s

icat ons, wa the o po e train mpone er ut of service uring the peri the component was inopera le?

(

/NO/NA)

D. Kha y imil ipm or component) in the plant could have the

%tme..

cerns?

t ar e

C E. Was a lack of procedural guidance, training or knowledge a contributor to this event?

(YES/NO).

/4rrune If yes, are corrective action being taken to remedy the situation? (CRS-1)

{

S 0)

F. Does anyone have any questions or concerns not previously discussed?

(YES/NO)

G. Should we put something on the " Nuclear Network?"

(YES SUBMITTED BY: Joe Waldman APPROVED BY PSS:

Ic DATE/ TIME: M M Cr i

/

PRESENTED BY:

DATE/ TIME:

l

~

ll 4

i