ML20245A837

Insp Rept 50-245/89-13 on 890517-18.Violations Noted Re Shipment of Package W/Removable External Radioactive Contamination in Excess of Limits & Failure to Supply Shipping Papers.Major Areas Inspected:Shipment of Pump

ML20245A837
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/09/1989
From:	Oconnell P, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20245A826	List: ML20245A824 ML20245A837
References
50-245-89-13, NUDOCS 8906220209
Download: ML20245A837 (4)

See also: IR 05000245/1989013

Text

.__

.

.

,

.

I

!

U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY 03EISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-245/89-13

Docket No. 50-245

License No. DPR-21 Category C

Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company

P. O. Box 270

Hartford, Connecticut 06101

Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1

Inspection At: Waterford, Connecticut

Inspection Conducted: May 17-18, 1989

Inspector: m [ PTf

P. O'ConnelY, Radiation Specialist, date  ;

'

FRPS, FF6SB

Approved by: . MM f 9

W. Pasciak, Chief, Facilities Radiation

Protection Section, Facilities Radiological /d/te /

Safety and Safeguards Branch

Inspection Summary: Inspection on May 17-18, 1989, (Report No. 89-13)

Areas Inspected: Reactive, unannounced inspection of the shipment of a high

pressure pump ard trailer with removable external radioactive contamination

fram the licensee's reactor site to a vendor site in Morristown, New Jersey.

Results: Three apparent violations were identified. 1) The shipment of a

package with removable external radioactive contamination in excess of the

limits specified in Table 10 of 49 CFR 173.443. 2) The failure to perform an

examination or appropriate test to ensure that contamination levels were

within the allowable limits. 3) The failure to supply the appropriate shippiry

pa m for a shipment of hazardous material.

h62gC

G

890609

05

m

5

1

_ .

- '

.

,

,

.

i

.

d

1

T TAIIS

1.0 Individuals Contacted

J. Sullivan, Health Physics Supervisor

M. Brennan, Radiation Protection Supervisor, Unit 1

E. Iaine, Radiation PrctMon Supervisor, Unit 2

7bchnical Sales Manager, Westinghouse RS

R.

G. Robertson, Sr.,ical Engineer

Flory, Radiolog

2.0 Purpose and Scope of Inspection

This inspection was a reactive, unannounced inspection of the shipment of

a vendor's high pressure pump and trailer from the licensee's reactor

site to the vendor's site in Morristown, New Jersey. Three days after

receipt, the vendor performed a survey and found renovable external and

internal radioactive contamination on the high pressure pump arri trailer.

3.0 Chronology of Events

On May 4, 1989, the ECEC 10000-3 a-long

high pressure

trailer arrived at the licensee's site. pump and

The apparatus tagisted of an

cons

open trailer deck onto which was mounted a water tank, positive

displacement pump, and motor. Prior to arriving at the licensee's site

the apparatus had been used at a different reactor site.

Between May 8 arxi 10,1989, the equij;mnnt was operated in such a manner

that the pump and trailer were positioned outside the radiation

controlled area (RCA). The eguipment was stationed outside the reactor

building, adjacent to the railroad access. Three hundred feet (six 50'

sections) of discharge hose ran from the pump into the reactor building,

which is part of the RCA, through the railroad access. Inside the reactor

building the hoses ran up several floor elevations, then across the

refueling floor, and into the reactor cavity.

The high pressure pump was used to power high pressure water spray

equipment to decontaminate equipment (i.e., cattle chute) by submerging

the hydrolazing spray discharge nozzle beneath the water level of the

flooded reactor cavity. After the reactor cavity was drained, the

reactor cavity floor was partially decontaminated with this equipment.

On May 11, 1989 the licensee released the high pressure pump, trailer,

and one section of discharge hose from their site. Prior to releasing the

equipment, the licensee found external contamination on the pump

discharge nozzle and five of the six sections of discharge hose. The

contamination on the discharge nozzle was anticipated because the

discharge nozzle had been used in the reactor cavity. The licensee

attributed the external contamination on five of the discharge hoses as

originating from the contamination on the refuelirxJ floor and did not

survey the hoses for internal contamination. The licensee retained

pmmmion of the discharge nozzle and the five hoses.

'

-

_ _ , _ - - _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ - _ . - - . - - - - - -

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

.

l

4

.' l

.

.

L- 3

I

On May 12, 1989 at approximately 3:00 p.m. the pump g trailer, and one ,

section of discharge hose arrived at the vendor's site in Morristown, New ]

Jersey. On May 15, 1989 at approximately 9:00 a.m., the vendor performed .

a uadividnation survey on the ptmp and trailer and found removable

-

radioactive contamination on tne equiptwrit. i

4. Surveys

Contamination surveys, performed by the vendor, on May 15 and 17, 1989

showed loose external contamination an: the trailer bed, the tank

fitting for the bypass hose, and the by-pass hose, which exemiul the

limits given in Table 10 of 49 CFR 173.443 for beta-gamma emitting

radionuclides. The limits are .22 dpt/cm^2 (2200 dpm/100cm^2) . The

trailer deck had the highest level of external contamination of

approximately 26000 dptV100 cm^2.  % e by-pass hose had over 15000

dptV100cm^2. This is an apparent violation of 49 CFR 173.443(a) which

states, in part, that m e amount of radioactivity on any single wiping

material shall not exceed the limits given in Table 10 of 49173.443

at any time durirg transport (50-245/89-13-01) .

Se interior of the water tank was also found to be contaminated with

contamination levels of up to 225,000 dpt/100 cm^2. No alpha

contamination was found.

The licensee released one 50 foot section of high pressure hose. A

subsequent survey showed loose contamination inside the hose ends of

approximately 5000 dptVswipe area. The vendor is keeping the eqdment at i

their facility pending final resolution of this matter.

Prior to releasing the apparatus the licensee did not perform a survey or

appropriate test to ensure that the apparatus was not contaminated. This

is an apparent violation of 49 CFR 173.475 which requires, in part, that

before each shipment of any radioactive materials package the shipper

shall ensure by examination or appropriate tests that the contamination

levels are within the allowable limits (50-245/89-13-02).

The trailer ard pump were shipped offsite containing a hazardous material

(i.e. Radioactive Material). The licensee did not supply shipping papers

with this shipment. This is an apparent violation of 49 CFR 172.200(a)

which requires, in part, that shipping papers which describe the

hazardous material armniny the shipment (50-245/89-13-03) .

Because there were no shipping papers which described the hazardous

material, the workers who rted the equipment ard other people who

may have come in contact with equignent were not aware of the

appropriate precautions to take when either handling or contacting this

equipment.

1

___ _____

- _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ -_

.-

,

a *

i

,

i 4-

N licensee stated that the agii,mant was not surveyed prior to beincy

released fram their facility because the equignent had not been used in a

Radiation Controlled Area (RCA) . h licensee's in.ucidares therefore did

not require a release survey on the equipnent. By the end of the

inspection period the licensee had not detennined how the equignent had

harma contaminated. The licensee could not determine whether or not the

agiimant arrived at their facility with the contamination. This was

because an initial survey had not been performed to ensure that the

equipnent was not cxantaminated when the high pressure punp and trailer

arrived on site. The licensee stated that they would evaluate the

practice of accepting agiimant that had been used at other nuclear power

stations without performing an initial survey or otherwise ensuring that

the equipnent is not contaminated when it arrives at the site.

The licensee retraced the supply line to the high pressure punp and

verified that the. water supply to the high pressure punp was not the-

contamination source. Analysis of the supply water tank and supply hoses

showed no contamination.

The high pressure punp was used to punp water to a hi r elevation. The

licensee is evaluating the possibility that water d have been

siphoned frcan the reactor cavity into the water tank. Surveys taken

May 16, 1989 showed that all of the discharge hoses which ran from the

punp to the reactor cavity were internally contaminated. It appears that

this could only have happened while, the discharge nozzle was stinnerged,

the punp not running, and the by-pass line on the punp not in a fully

closed position. The inspector noted that the licensee's procedure,

" Decontamination of Reactor Cavity", did not contain precautions to

ensure that the by-pass line was fully closal or a precaution not to shut

off the punp while the discharge nozzle was subnertjed. Such instructions

would lessen or eliminate the possibility that a siphoning effect could

take place.

5. Exit Meeting

The results of the inspection were dim,ic:<=ui with the Health Physics

Supervisor during a meeting on May 18, 1989 and during a telephone

conversation on May 23, 1989.

,,