IR 05000184/1987002
| ML20237H553 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | National Bureau of Standards Reactor |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1987 |
| From: | Shanbaky M, Sherbini S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237H539 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-184-87-02, 50-184-87-2, NUDOCS 8709030320 | |
| Download: ML20237H553 (5) | |
Text
_
.
a U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-184/87-02 Docket No.
50-184 License No.
TR-5 Priority Catego ry
-
-
Licensee:
U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 Facility Name: Natienal Bureau of Standards Inspection At: Gaithersburg, Maryland Inspection Conducted: July 6-9, 1987 Inspectors:
s asl {s?
S. Sherbini, Radiatibn Specialist
'
dat'e b)
Approved by:
,1 42 %
$M h
Td2sl87 E[~ Shanbaky, Chief, Facilities Radiation
'date Protection Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection On July 6-9, 1987, (Report No. 50-184/87-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection to review radiation protection activities at the research reactor facility. Areas inspected included organization and staffing, training, surveys, dosimetry, posting, audits, instrument calibration, and records of personnel exposure and environmental program measurements.
Results:
No violations were identified within the scope of this inspection.
8709030320 870826 PDR ADOCK 05000184 G
. _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ -
__ -____- ___ -
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted W. Weber, Fealth Physicist C. Campbell, Physical Science Technician
- R. Carter, Chief, RRD R. Conway, Instrumentation Supervisor
- T. Hobbs, Chief, Health Physics I. Jensen, Physical Science Technician D. Nelson, Health Physicist
- T. Raby, Deputy Chief, RRD
- J. Wang, Supervisory Health Physicist
- Denotes attendance at the exit meeting.
2.0 Findings The radiological protection program at the research reactor facility was found to be adequate.
However several areas of weakness were identified and are discussed below.
These weaknesses were discussed with the licensee.
2.1 Organization and Staffing The level of staffing appears to be adequcte in most areas of the program.
However, important development work to upgrade the program has been pending for some time.
Discussion with the licensee indicated that this work remains pending because the staff is occupied with the daily activities cf the program and do not have sufficient time to devote to special projects or program improve-ments. The licensee stated that they expect this situation to improve in the near future and that the more important improvements will be addressed at that time.
The pending work in question is related to the program weaknesses discussed in this report.
Another factor that appears to weaken the program is the fact that the radiation protection responsibilities of the facility staff and the research personnel are not clearly defined.
This assessment is based on interviews with a number of the staff regarding the official functions of the health physics program at the reactor facility, as
well as review of the organization charts and job descriptions.
J Sint.1 many of the research projects involve work in radiation fields, I
the research personnel evidently bear some responsibility for their l
own radiation safety. However, the overlap with the responsibilities of the health physics staff is not clear.
The inspector discussed these concerns with licensee representatives and received differing opinions regarding the importanr1 of this finding. The licensee stated that the matter will be rtylewed, i
__ _______-_ _
--_ - _ - _
.
2.2 Training The inspector reviewed the training materials presented to all new personnel seeking access to the reactor facility.
The material presented was found to be clear, concise and easy to understand.
The slides used with the presentation were effective and well made.
The inspector identified two improvement items.
The first item concerns the sot;nds of the various alarms that may be heard at the facility.
Currently, these alarms are described but the trainees do not actually hear them.
The licensee stated that they are aware of this problem and arc in the process cf preparing a tape recording of the various site alarms to be played during training sessions.
The inspector
,
!
also noted that there does not appear tc be a clear site policy regarding radiation exposure of women of child bearing age as explained in U. S. NRC Regulatory Guide 8.13, " Instruction Concerning Prenatai Rodiation Exposure".
The inspector stated that the training program can be improved in this area by clearly stating the policy regarding exposure of women of child bearing age.
Currently, this topic is discussed in training sessions and is discussed in a copy o' a Federal Register Notice provided to trainees. However, these did not appear to be clear or concise. The licensee stated that they will review this matter and address it, if appropriate.
2.3 Surveys The radiation survey program was found to be well organized and a sufficient numbe: of surveys are baing conducted.
The surveys included area sarveys, smears for contamination, and air samples for airborne radioactivity.
2.4 Instrument Calibration The instrument calibration program was found to be well run and well documented.
The instruinents are calibrated using accepted good practice methods and NBS traceable sources.
One aspect that needs evaluation is the fact that the inspection sticker on the instruments indicated the date calibration was performed but gives no indication of the due date for calibration. Without knowledge of the calibra-tion frequencies of the instruments, the user cannot determine from the currently used sticker whether an instrument calibration is valid or has expired. The inspector discussed this program with the licensee.
The licensee stated that they have been reviewing this problem but have not yet arrived at a satisfactory solutio !
l I
'
1 2.5 Personnel Dosimetry
The personnel dosimetry system uses services by the Army and the j
Navy. The Army dosimeter is film and is used for beta and photon
measurements.
The Navy dosimeter is TLD and is used as an albedo l
dosimeter for gamma and neutron monitoring.
Both systems are accredited under the NVLAP program.
The site also provides a TLD q
dosimeter that is used for personnel who do not enter the restricted
)
areas on site.
These dosimeters are changed once a year.
The Ariny
!
and Navy dosimeters are changed twice a quarter.
The site also provides and processes extremity dosimeters.
In addition to the dosimeter of record, pocket ionization chambers (PIC) are also used.
A running total of personnel exposures based on the readings of the PICS is maintained and used for exposure reviews.
The inspector reviewed the dosimetry records and found these records to be well organized and current,
!
2.6 Environmental Monitoring Program l
The results of environmental measurements were reviewed and were found to have been performed according to an established schedule based on Technical Specification requirements.
These measurements included grass, soil, water, and TLD.
'
2.7 Audits
!
l
!
Records of the meeting of the various audit committees were reviewed.
l The committees were found 'o have met at the frequencies required by Technical Specification.
2nternal audits besides those required by i
Technical Specifications are also performed.
Review of the reports of some of these audits showed that the reports contained useful suggestions for improving the quality of radiological protection on
site.
2.8 Radioactive Sources The radioactive sources on site wera found to be well inventoried and tracked by location of use, act,/ity, and license.
Leak testing of sources requiring such testing was found to have been completed on schedule and is well documented.
2.9 Posting Posting was found to be generally adequate.
The inspector pointed out some faded signs that appeared in need of replacement. The licensee stated that these signs will be replaced.
The inspector al.so pointed out that some of the signs on the doors to some of the radiation laboratories were very small and looked more' like the signs used to mark shipping containers. The inspector stated thz.t although these signs satisfied the minimum requirements, they were not very conspicuous, and may be missed. The licensee stated that they will consider changing these signs to larger, more conspicuous ones.
- _- -__ -
2.10 Quality Assurance The QA program on site lacks a quality control program for survey and counting instruments.
QC for survey instruments normally involves source checks on the instruments before each use.
However, this is not performed as recommended in applicable industry standards.
The licensee stated that their survey instruments are
$r(
reliable and malfunction only infrequently.
The licensee also stated that the instruments are checked frequently by the health physics r
!
staff.
This area will be reviewed during a future inspection.
The inspector also noted that a QC program is not in place for the counting instruments, such as the proportional counters, liquid scintillation counters, and gamma spectrometers.
The inspector also noted that there are currently no requirements for performing calculations on a regular basis to ensure that the limits of detection of the various measurement instruments are sufficiently low to meet the required sensitivities. The licensee stated that they will review this matter and develop the necessary methodology to perform these calculations.
2.11 Procedures The inspector reviewed the health physics procedures and found that they were of inconsistent quality in that they were inconsistent in the depth in which they addressed the subject matter.
Some of the procedures gave detailed descriptions of the steps to be followed to accomplish the objective, and others were brief.
In many instances, it was not clear whether the procedure was addressed to the health physics staff or to the research and other radiation worker staff.
In general, the proceduces were found to be in need of a review to update them and to ensure that tney reflect current practice at the site. The inspector discussed these findings with'the licensee.
The licensee stated.that they believed their procedures were quite adequate for their intended purpose, but that they will review them and evaluate the need for changes.
3.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on July 9, 1987.
The inspector summarized the scope of the inspection and the findings.