IR 05000317/1986002

Insp Repts 50-317/86-02 & 50-318/86-02 on 860127-31.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Dosimetry Program, Including QA Documentation & Recordkeeping,Equipment & Facilities & Dose Assessment Software

ML20137X979
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	02/27/1986
From:	Mcfadden J, Shanbaky M, Sherbini S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137X952	List: IR 05000317/1986002 ML20137X948
References
50-317-86-02, 50-317-86-2, 50-318-86-02, 50-318-86-2, NUDOCS 8603120055
Download: ML20137X979 (4)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No /86-02 50-318/86-02 Docket N License No. DPR-53 O_PR-69 Priority --

Category C Licensee: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company P. O. Box 1475 Baltimore Maryland 21203 Facility Name: Calvert Cliffs'1&2 Inspection At: Lusby', Maryland Inspection Conducted: January 27-31, 1986 Inspectors: , Af AM 7b 985 for J. McFadden, Radi tion Sp cialist date Y, 'Q -z-/2 ]-//q gg S. Sherbini, Ra ation Specialist date

>

Approved by: M % /M M. M. Shatba~ky,. Chief, facilities Radiation

_2/27

' dats

/W/

Protection Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on January 27-31, 1986 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-317/86-02 and 50-318/86-02).

Areas Inspected: This was an announced dosimetry inspection which included the following areas: organization, qualification and training, quality assurance, documentation and record keeping, equipment and facilities, and dose assessment softwar Results: No violations were identified as a result of this inspectio gDR ADOCK g0M7

-

.

.

DETAILS 1.0 Personnel Contacted Licensee Personnel

• J. Lemons, Manager, Nuclear Operations Department

• Millis, General Supervisor, Radiation Safety L. Smialek, Senior Plant Health Physicist

• E. Reimer, Plant Health Physicist

• T. Goff, Dosimetry Supervisor

• C..Phifer, QA Specialist, Quality Audits

• S. Lowne, Licensing Engineer NRC Personnel, D. Trimble, Resident Inspector

• J. Schumacher, Reactor Engineer, Region I

• denotes attendance at the exit intervie .0 Introduction This was a special personnel dosimetry inspectio The emphasis was on organization, personnel qualifications, training, quality assurance, record keeping, dosimetry system hardware ard software, and irradiation facilitie The dosimetry section is under the direct supervision of a Dosimetry Supervisor. Personnel in the section include three Principle Dosimetry Technicians, four Dosimetry Technicians, and five Dosimetry Clerks. This staff is also in charge of internal dosimetry, whole body counting, and respirator fittin The Dosimetry Supervisor reports directly to the General Supervisor, Radiation Safety. Technical support for the General Supervisor Radiation Safety and the Dosimetry Supervisor.is provided by a Senior Plant Haalth Physicist and two Plant Health Physicist The personnel dosimetry hardware includes Parasonic automatic and manual readers, 801 and 802 dosimeters, self-reading dosimeters, several irradiation sources, and computer .0 Training and Qualification The qualifications of the dosimetry supervisor and principle technicians were reviewed and were found to be satisfactory. The training program was also reviewed and was found to be satisfactory with a single excep-tion. This involved one of the principle technicians, whose training was found to be slightly behind schedule. Discussions with the Dosimetry Supervisor indicated that this was of relatively minor consequence because

.

.

the individual in question already had long experience in the training topic in question. The licensee stated that the individual training is scheduled in the near future and the schedule will be followed closel This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (317/86-02-01),

4.b Procedures The dosimetry procedures were reviewed during the inspection. They were found to be generally well written and comprehensive. However, it was found that in many instances the actual operation of the dosimetry section did not coincide with the methods described in the procedures. In some cases, sections of the procedures were no longer in use and in other cases new practices had been instituted without being incorporated into the procedure As a result, the controlled procedures did not reflect cur-rent company practice This matter was discussed with the Dosimetry Supervisor and General Supervisor Radiation Safet The licensee stated that the situation will be correcte This follow-up item will be , reviewed in a future inspection (317/86-02-02).

5.0 Software The computer algorithms used in calculating doses from the TLD readings were examined as part of the procedure revie It was found that a large number of constants and factors were used in the process of converting readings to doses. It was also found that the sources of the values and the justifications for their use were not documented in any company refer-ence. This made evaluation of the algorithms very difficult or impos-sible. The matter was discussed with the Senior Plant Health Physicist and the General Supervisor Radiation Safety. The licensee stated that a clear and comprehensive documentation of the dose algorithm, together with explanation and justification of all constants and equations used in the algorithm, will be complete This item will be left as an unresolved item to be reviewed in a future inspection (317/86-02-03).

6.0 Quality Assurance The quality assurance program was reviewed and was fourd to be a good program. However, it was found that the UD-801 dosimeters, which are being used for neutron dosimetry, had not undergone the initial neutron response tests to ensure that the proper phosphors are in the proper locations in the dosimeters. The Dosimetry Supervisor stated that these tests will be conducted and that they will be completed within a few weeks of this discussio This follow-up item will be reviewed in a future inspection (317/86-02-04).

-_ . - - --

.

.

'

7.0 Dose Calculations The methods used in calculating the doses from the dosimeter readings were reviewed. The dosimeter-algorithm combination were found to be inadequate for quantifying beta doses accurately below a beta end point energy of about 1 MeV. The inspector discussed this limitation with the Dosimetry Supervisor, the Senior Plant Health Physicist and the General Supervisor Radiation Safet The licensee maintained that their administrative procedures, which include area surveys, phantom tests, and protective

clothing were sufficient to ensure that beta dosimetry capability at beta energies below 1 MeV were not neede The inspector pointed out that this position was not documented as a company policy since it was not reflected in the procedures or in the dose algorithms for TLD data analysi The inspector also pointed out that current practice at the site suggest that beta doses were being quantified at any beta energy, without any knowledge of the degree of uncertainty involved. The licensee stated that the beta dosimetry policy and supporting data will be documente This will include a review of TLD data that involved beta dose assessmen The licensee also will make their position explicit and will provide details showing that beta dosimetry capability. below 1 MeV end point energy is not required for compliance with NRC regulation This item will be left as an unresolved item to be reviewed in a future inspection (317/86-02-05).

8.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in section 1.0 of this report) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 31, 198 The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection. At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.

i

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

_ __

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _