IR 05000333/1986006
| ML20205T042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1986 |
| From: | Shanbaky M, Sherbini S, Tuccinardi T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205T039 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-86-06, 50-333-86-6, NUDOCS 8606130038 | |
| Preceding documents: |
|
| Download: ML20205T042 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-333/86-06 Docket No. 50-333 License No.
DPR-59 Priority Category C
Licensee:
Power Authority of the State of New York P. O. Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093 Facility Name: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At:
Scriba, New York Inspection Conducted: May 19-23 1986 Inspectors:
M(/[9 b
'
~
S. Sherbini, Radiation Specialist, FRPS date FPRPB. DR
'W/$
$/l-/l986
/
,
f. ort.E.Tuccinardi,RadiationSpecialist, date FRPS, EPRPB, DRSS Approved by:
M5 3 tI A
//e/[/9fr/
M. M. ShanEaky, Chief, Ff ilities Radiatior.
~dite '~
-
Protection Section, EPRPB, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 19-23, 1986 (Report No. 333/86-06).
Areas Inspected: This inspection was a special, announced dosimetry inspection, which. included the following areas: management and staffing, training and qualifications, equipment and facilities, calibrations, dosimetry procedures, dose assessment, quality control / quality assurance.
Results: No violations were identified as a result of this inspection.
8606130038 860606 PDR ADOCK 0500
G
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Personnel Contacted Licensee Personnel
- R. Converse, Resident Manager W. Fernandez, Superintendent of Power
- E. Mulcahey, Radiological and Environmental Services Superintendent
- R. Patch, Quality Assurance Superintendent
- G. Vargo, Radiological Engineer
- M. McMahon, Dosimetry Supervisor L. Johnston, Quality Assurance Supervisor NRC Personnel A. Luptak, Resident Inspector
- Denotes attendance at the exit interview.
2.0 Status of Previously Identified Items 2.1 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (333/85-24-01) Implement ALARA review for prioritizing radwaste modifications.
The licensee's procedures for ALARA review at the corporate level and at the site were reviewed.
Both procedures appeared to adequately cover major aspects of person-rem reduction.
Randomly selected work instructions written at the corporate offices on radwaste modifica-
.:ons were also reviewed.
These work instructions were found to have i.ad ALARA reviews both at the corporate level and at the site prior
'
to issue. Work instructions that are generated at the site receive one ALARA review at the site. The coordination and prioritizing of work is performed on site.
2.2 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (333/85-30-02) Provide guidance to personnel responsible for writing RWPS on dosimetry placement.
The FitzPatric Radiation Protection Manual (RPM) was reviewed for the appropriate dosimetry placement guicance. The RPM was found to include the information contained in Information Notice 81-26, Part 3, Supplement 1 on dosimetry placement.
3.0 Introduction The licensee uses a Panasonic TLD system for the personnel dosimetry system of record. The dosimeter currently in use.is the UD-801 four-element dosimeter. This design is to be replaced by the UD-812 four-element design.
The remainder of the hardware will be unaffected by this
i
.
.
change. However, dose assessment software will have to be changed, and licensee commitments concerning upgrading of software are to be directed to the new dosimeter design.
The extremity dosimeter is the Panasonic, single-element UD-807 finger dosimeter design.
The personnel dosimetry program is under the direct supervision of the Dosimetry Supervisor, who reports to the Radiological Engineer, who in turn reports to the Radiological and Environmental Services Superintendent.
4.0 Training and Qualifications The qualifications of the staff supervising the technical and administra-tive aspects of the dosimetry program were reviewed. The staff appeared to be well qualified. The training programs for supervisory personnel and technicians were also found to be adequate.
The programs included both in-house training on procedures and equipment, as well as participation in outside courses and user groups.
Despite participation in such prograns, however, there appeared to be evidence of technical isolation from current practices and trends in the industry.
The reason for this is unclear, but it appears that management is currently devoting more attention to improve the technical depth of the dosimetry staff.
5.0 Dose Assessment Methodology The methods (algorithms) used for calculating the doses from the dosimeter readings were reviewed. These methods were found to be inadequate for quantification of skin doses.
The reason for this deficiency is that the equations used were derived on the basis of data that included only higher energy beta emitters.
Expected beta fields in the plant are of consi-derably lower energy, and the currently used algorithms will likely lead to under estimation of the skin dose.
The licensee stated that an improved algorithm will be developed for the UD-812 dosimeter on the basis of more extensive beta irradiations covering a sufficiently wide range of beta energies.
This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (333/86-06-01).
6.0 Extremity Dosimetry A review of the dose assessment methodology and test data for the extre-mity dosimeter revealed inadequacies in the dose assessment algorithm and anomalies in the photon irradiation data. The inadequacies in the algo-rithm were due to similar factors to these discussed in item 4.0 above.
The anomalous data was obtained from tests of the dosimeter res-ponse to high energy photon irradiations.
The licensee was Mable to offer an explanation for the anomalous data.
The licensee stated that the irradiation experiments will be repeated and the response of the dosimeter to gamma rays will be better characterized and understood.
Following completion of these irradiations, a series of beta irradiations are to be
.
.
carried out, similar to those to be carried out for the UD-812 as dis-cussed in 4.0 above.
The results of these irradiations are to be used to derive suitable correction factors for extremity dose assessment.
This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (333/86-06-02).
7.0 Quality Control and Calibration A review of the methods used to calibrate the dosimetry system and to conduct quality control revealed that significant improvements are needed in this area. The licensee relies on methodology currently in use in the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) testing to carry out these functions. These methods were not designed for purposes of calibration or QC, and do not possess the required sensitivity. One of the results of the licensee's reliance on NVLAP methodology is that the TLD system is being calibrated to fairly wide tolerances (mean deviation not more than 50's) compared to the calibration tolerances required of the self-reading dosimeters ( 10*s).
Furthermore, the QC program involved use of QC dosimeters once a day, as opposed to the current good practice of using several QC dosimeters for each tray of fifty dosimeters. The licen-see stated that the calibration methodology, calibration tolerances, and QC practices currently in use will be reviewed and upgraded methods will be developed.
This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (333/86-06-03).
8.0 Irradiation Facility The licensee currently uses two types of gamma ray irradiators:
an enclosed type irradiator and panoramic irradiator.
The enclosed irradia-tor is to be discontinued because of scatter problems, and the panoramic irradiator will be used for gamma irradiations. A new ionization chamber and associated electronics will be used to measure the exposure rates at the irradiation locations. Several problems remain to be resolved, how-ever, before this irradiation facility can be considered fully opera-tional. The area containing the irradiator is enclosed in a steel mesh cage and is therefore not environmentally controlled. The operating requirements for the ionization chamber electronics must be evaluated to ensure that the system will function properly in the current environment of the facility.
The ionization chamber should be calibrated using an NBS-traceable source.
Suitable thermometer and barometer must be provided to allow application of correction factors to the ionization chamber readings.
Finally, tests should be conducted to ensure that the scatter characteristics within the irradiation area do not present a problem.
This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (333-86-06-04).
.
.
9.0 procedures The procedures relating to the dosimetry operation, including self-read-ing (or direct-reading) dosimeters were reviewed. They were found to be inadequate in several respects. These inadequacies included errors, both typographical and technical, inconsistencies between procedures and other station policy statements and training material, as well as vague sections that did not provide explicit directions for performing certain operations.
The inspector pointed out many specific instances of these weaknesses to the licensee.
The licensee stated that the dosimetry procedures will be reviewed with a view of improving them and removing errors and inconsis-tencies.
New procedures will also be developed to cover the revised methods of calibration, QC, the new UD-812 dosimeter and algorithm, the revised extremity dosimetry algorithm, and the upgraded irradiation facility.
This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (333-86-06-05).
10.0 Exit Interview The Inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in section 1.0 of this report) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 23, 1986.
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.
!
.
..
.
_ _.
_
_
-