IR 015000004/1998009
| ML20249A152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 015000004 |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1998 |
| From: | Courtemanche S, Joustra J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20249A150 | List: |
| References | |
| 15000004-98-09, 15000004-98-9, NUDOCS 9806160111 | |
| Download: ML20249A152 (5) | |
Text
_ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l-i U.S.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
l INSPECTION REPORT
'
Report N /98-009 Docket N ! CA License N Licensee: J. L. Shepherd & Associates
Address: 1010 Arroyo Avenue, San Fernando, California 91340-8095 Other Locations inspected: Fox Chase Cancer Center,7701 Burholme Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania inspection Dates: May 28,1998
.
Inspector: > % 6 6
'
Steven Courtemanche '
' date Health Physicist Approved By-. k b/3/iP J@ A. Joustra, Act ng Chief ' date Nuclear Materials Safety Branch 3 Divis:on of Nuclear Materials Safety
'
)
? REe10; U 2 ll, c 8o 1 j N ,
I 9906160111 990603 PDR STPRO ESOCA ;
.. .
_,
.
l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY J. L. Shepherd & Associates NRC Inspection Report No.150-00004/98-009 The safety inspection was limited to the activities conducted under a general license authorized under 10 CFR 150.20(a). The licensee performed the five-year maintenance of a J. Shepherd & Associates Model 81-14R irradiator at the customer's facilities in Philadelphia,
!
Pennsylvania. No safety concerns were identified.
!
!
,
i l
. ,
l
!
l I
il Inspection Report No.150-00004/98-009 G:DNMScoCWORKVNSPRPTR177719
. _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ -
-_ ____ _________-___ _ _______ _ _- _ _
l l .
l
'
REPORT DETAILS 1. Five-YearMaintenance )
a. Inspection Scope The inspector observed the licensee pedorm the five-year maintenance check of the customer's J. L. Shepherd & Associates (Shepherd) Model 81-14R irradiator, b. Observations and Findinas The customer possessed a Shepherd Model 81-14R irradiator which contained a 6000 Curie ceslum-137 source (nominal loading as of February 28,1992). The inspector observed the licensee repair the door interlock connected to the alarm system and the micro switch enabling the irradiator to only irradiate towards the floor and one wall in a 90 degree arc. The licensee cleaned all of the electrical connections, checked the joints, and replaced wom screws. The gear sha't was filed by the licensee to improve the !
smoothness of the operation of the source drive mechanism. The gear and chain '
mechanism was tightened to ensure proper operation of the tower lift mechanis c. Conclusions No safety concems were identifie I 11. Training i a. Insoection Scope a . .
The inspector reviewed the licensee's training records and interviewed personne :
b. Observations and Findinas The inspector determined that the individual performing the five-year maintenance on the customer's Shepherd irradiator was the one listed on the reciprocity request sent to Region 1. A review of the records by the inspector indicated that the individual had received the required training to perform the work authorized under the request. The inspector determined that the individual appeared to be knowledgeable about the regulations and the work he was performing by interviewing the individua c. Conclusions No safety concems were identified.
l l
l 1 Inspection Report No.150-00004/98-009 G:ONMSOoCWoRK\lNSPRPTVt177719
___________ _ _ _____ ___________________________________ ____________ -
- _ - _ - - _ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
...
- . lit. Radiation Surveys l
L Inspection Scope
!
! . The inspector observed the licensee perform a radiological survey and made confirmatory radiation exposure level maarurements l Observations and Findinas l
The licensee performed a radiation exposure level measurement with a GM survey meter to ensure that the source drive mechanism was properly aligned and that the i source was not left in a partially shielded condition. The licensee's measurements (
i indicated that the sealed source was in the proper, shielded position. The inspector confirmed the licensee's measurements by performing a radiological survey of the same area. The inspector's and the licensee's measurements were within 10 per cent of each other (i.e., about 1.0 millirem per hour). Conclusions No safety concems were identife IV. Radiation Protection Insoection Scooe The inspector reviewed the licensee's radiation protection program in relation to the activities performed at customer's facilitie . . Observations and Findinos The inspector observed that licensee personnel wore assigned dosimetry consisting of a film badge from Landauer Inc. The inspector determined that the film badge provider was NVLAP-approved as required by 10 CFR 20.1501(c)(1), that film badges were retumed to the supplier for processing at the required monthly interval, and that the licensee's exposure to radiation did not exceed the regulatory limits for an occupational worker. The inspector examined the licensee's survey meter and determined that it was calibrated within the requirea interval and was operating properly, c Conclusions No safety concems were identife V. Exit Meeting The inspector reviewed the inspection findings with licensee personnel at the close of the inspechon informing the individual that no safety concoms had been identified, l
2 Inspection Report No.150-00004/98-009 G:ONMScoCWoRKMNSPRPTWt177719
- _ ___ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ____ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
.
..
L PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Ucensee Michael Novak, Field Technician
l
'
t
!
l
!
i I
!
!
!
l l
! . .
I #
I l
l
.
3 Inspection Report No.150-00004/98-009 G:ONMSDOCWORKVNSPRPTVt177719