ML20080G254
| ML20080G254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1984 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W., JOINT INTERVENORS - SHEARON HARRIS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080G234 | List: |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8402130322 | |
| Download: ML20080G254 (28) | |
Text
. -_, .
2 DONcTED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6 February 1984C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ;; - . o.
ma BEFORE THE A'IVMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOABD Glenn O. Bright Dr, James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of .
CAROLINA POWER. AND LIGHT CO. et al. )
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 ani 2) ASLBP Ho. 82-468-01
} OL Joint Intervenors' Response to Sur_ary and Update to Disposition on1 Joint Contention IV - Discovery of J.I.
Thermoluminescent Dosimeters on Joint IV This response is filed under an extension of time agreed to When not reach by Applicants '%attorney Judge Kelley was lef tthe Baxter.4For a message aboutofthis convenience theagreement.
Board and parties, we address herein the Staff's "Respense" (which in our opinion is just another motion for summary disposition) received II-6-84, insofar as possible; further response to it will be filed within the time allowed by the NRC rules.
, We would resp ectfully calls tlie attention of the Board, the Applicants and the Staff to the pronosed rules on "imoroved personnel dosimetry processing"'49 FR 1205-1211, January 10, 1984 Please
, y consider these responses to be updates of discovery on Joint IV.
First, contrary to both~ Aunlicants' and Staff affidavits, the A Commission states that."... the NRC recognizes that sone licensees en o
use pocket ionization chambers for the puruoses of recording the offici-hr. al whole body dose of individual enployees and that this .ia an no8 Mg a'c'ceptable nethod of providing dosimetry services in ancordance LO with (section)' 20.202 of the NRC regulations" (49 FR 1209) (Undate to Staff Interrogatory 19 on Joint IV: such personal ionization nonitors exist and are available and NRC.says they comply with its rules)
. .. - . J.
~~
1 + 3k0 9 (Update to Auplicants ' InterrogatoryA IV-1(a ) and (b): If accurately 4
calibrated, the Commission says that pocket ionization chambers can be used for officially recording whole body doses to individuals, see 49 FR 1209; These instruments are .n_ecessary because of the unreliabil'ity of data from TLDs which require lab processing to be read. NRC states, 49 FR 1208, that in their nost recent tests, "Six percent of all models of dosineters failed every category attempted and 44% passed every category attenuted .. 50% of all models sub$1tted for testing did not successfully pass all categories for which they were tested. The highest overall passing ratex . . . ' was 94% for high-energy photons in the protection dose range, and the lowest passing rate of 55% was achieved for low-energy photons in the protection dose range.
"An alternative nethod of examining the overall performance of dosimetry processors would be to examine the performance index, P, of each of the dosimeters irradiated without regard to S.
When the reported dose estimate is connared with the delivered dose, 78% of the dosineters tested during the third round were within 1 30% of the correct delivered dose. When the individual results l are evaluated using criteria of f 50% of the correct delivered dose, 89% of all processed dosimeters meet this criterion ... NRC considers
! that improvement on the eart of nost EM dosimetry processors is needed ..."
We reconfirm our resnonse to Joint IV-2(b) that i 30%
is not accurate enough to ensure AIARA (how can you know the dose is as low as can be achieved if you don't know what the dose is?
The range of plus or minus 30% is a snan of 60% of the reported dose.
-Notice that NRC, 49 FR 1208, confirms that nost dosineters don't meet all criteria for acceptance (56% don't); and that 11% of I
- processed dosimeters don't come within 50% of delivered dose and 22% are outside the plus or minus 30% range in the 3d round i
1 p ANK T 4, % f p l/0- 42 o f /LlMAEAN 2 W of NRC tests. Joint Intervenors also note Table 8 of MUREG/CR 2891 which shows that In test #3, 4% of dosimeters were not within _+90%
tolerance limits (5% in test #2 and 9% in test #1); 6% in test 3 were not within + 70% in (8% in test 2 and 1h% in Test 1).
~ Page
+ vihw c<fes %.a %
24 of NUMEG/CR .28941 showing this entire table is appended to this response / discovery update g
&Paperformance This 8,cwOtJLC DocM.hy denw. W MSW is ridiculously bad. You can obviously be off more than 90% above an actual dose, de but it's hard to get more than 90% below the actual dose,100%
below being the limit,beyond which common sense indicates the #
2 5 result must'be in error (i.e. showing a negative radiation dose).
CP&L states (affidavit in suonort of sun-iary disnosition at 9) that they are processor number 187 in NUREG/CR 2891. On page 18 thereof, the lP/ + S (" performance", see p. vil of NUFRG/C9 2891 defining Table 3 there'of, which p.18 is part of) for processor 187 in category V Beta is shown'to be 0 3063, i.e. over 30% error.
Moreover, this was with a less stringest error-meas'uring criterion, PI + S 1cas than or equal to L, instead of the criterion LP) + 2S less l than or equal to L that was used in previous tests (see p.h of FURFG
/CR2891)'. Examining nages D.24 and D.25 of WUSEG/04 2891, we find (line h32, p. D24) that in the accident acategory 1D, Y + 2S is above 30% (.3701: 0,111tlus_2 x .1295), the L or limit criterion.
Thus CP&L passed this category because the terion had been made less stringent,-allowing them' to take % + MS, below the Limit.
Moreover, (line 1433) the dosimeter w!th the highest P, 2844,
( is the highest dose (337.90 mrem). Mama that's nearly 30% earror by ituself.
Further, NUREG/CR 2891 says L is 0.2 for low doses, e.g.
30 mrem (p.h). O D-241Line 1h33, col. 4 thereof, shows P of 0.20h8 l
for a dosimeter with a dose reading 17.85 mrem. It also shows [
a P of .3057 (more than 30% error on ninus side), column 11)od 6
1 4
These errors -violate the criterion given in CP&L's affidavit (of S.A. Browne at p.11 (error limit of 30% for doses between 10 and 500 mrem) also. Similar violations of that limit are
. found in line 1448, p.D-25, with a P of .k3h19 in col 2 for a dose of 155.nrem, and. a P of .3517 in col. 5'for a dose of j P-is.the percent error-in reoorted dose vs. act.lal p.4 N/C9 2891) 250 mrem.4 Surely CP&L has not been forthcoming or accura e Q
.in it's resoonse _ to discovery, and'in its affidavit, by saying Ji there is no' evidence of errors'thct violate anolicable standards, Comnare answer to 16(c)(1) and (ii), 8/1/83 by Apps.
or so'it -would appear to Joint Intervenors.4 We bel $ eve these errors violate - ALARA and uk show a "we do only diat the rules O}hWWISQ fla9U & & K thbre CeCCup g make us do" attitude byCP/cL for low-level radiation. xJoint 7 2ntervenors balieve-that accurate measurenent of low-level radiation ndoses is essential to protect the health and safety not 'only under current rules (cf. N90 at of. nuclear workers, especially if low-level radiation49 is FR 120$ sunra) found to have more serious effects than NRC and CP&L now believe.
END of this discovery update.
.We note that NRC is proposing (k9 FR 1209).to require processors of dosimeters to pass a qualification for N_ational Bureau of Standards accreditation (NVLAP procedures of 15 CFR 7b).
At page 1210, NRC goes on' to say.that testing for this will begin in January 1984 Joint Intervenors believe that this contention is: not a collateral attack 'on this ' rule proposal (since the proposed
{ rule came out 'about' a year and a half-after the contention was given 1t o; the Board, the pronosed rule may attack the contention), but is
~in fact' consistent.with it.- Given that'this rule is to be coniidered withinthe next few months ' and that CP&L has not yet met its requirements (they've applied:.Browne affidavit at n.5, item 5),
it would bel prenature to raule out this contention until this rule'is acted upon. .We would also' cite.the points from the NURED/CR 2891 and NRC notice of pronosed rule' (laid out above) m_
)
i as reasons why CP&Lrs motion for sumnary disposition should be denied. .NRC has found, 49 FR 1206, that "there is a need to evaluate the nerformance of nersonnel dosimetry nrocessors ...
and that there is a need for " improvement on the part of most dosimetry processors ... (including) conpetency requirements" 49 FR 1209.
Update to discovery: Joint Intervenors note, re IVuk(a) and (b), that Applicants' own affiant Browne says (p.4 of affidavit in supnort of motion for summary disposition) that "SRPDs are knocked off-scale very easily by dronning or bumping them and are insensitive to beta radiation." That's clearly a nroblem with the self-reading personal dosimeters (SRPDs) that can make then completely unsuitable to check the TLD readings with, that makes them very error prone, etc. Re Applicants' interrogatory IV-5(a) we reconfirm, see above answer and former answer to IV-h(a).
Applicants ' affiant Brownzg, affidavit at p.E 6, item 8, says that SRPDs can be used to estimate dose to a worker who lost a (We believe SRPDs are significantly less accurate than TLDs.)
TLD "with only slightly less accuracy". A Yet he 's also said that the SRPDs are not sensitive to beta radiation, which can be a substantial componnent of the dose to a worker in a nuclear This appl $es to Interrogatory IV-7(a) also, as an update.
plant. (end of update)
Argument vs. summary disposition: Auplicants' own affiant says SRPDs are not sensitive to beta radiation and ere error-Drone.
Thus, the lack of real-time monitoring from TLDs is a problem.
Browne 's affidavit says (pn 7-8) that the individuals working in the plant have a current dose reading that depends on the SRPD'between times the TLDs are read. But he admits the SRPDs radiation are insens'tive' to beta gand can be thrown off-scale by be? ng bumped. (n.5'
~
Is it reasonable to believe all workers will always known when their
't
SRPDs get bunped? Browne's statenents about beta surveys when SRPDs are used are only vague generalities. There is no reason to believe SRPDs will give an accurate real tine dose, and TLDs do not, aus the contention states.
p.10 iten 12 Browne asserts Ahat Joirt Intervenors have not specified conditions of exuosure, radiation type, energy, dosineter design, and irradiation geonetry. (We do address error levels and inaccuracies above, citing the Connission itself as well as NUREG CR 2891). But Joint Intervenors think that that's CP&L's under all exposure conditions, geon4tries etc.
problen: to maintain A LARA, accurate records are needed.
Inaccuracies of plus or ninus 50% are just not acceptable. Minus 50% means the dose is only half recorded.
Bro;wne fails to address the Connission's observation (i h9 FR 1205) that " Personnel dosineters annear to be capable of providing consistently accurate information on the anount of radiation received, provided the dose recorded by the dosimeter is above the detection threshold, e.g. about 20 nrens for photons."
Thus, exposures of up to 20 nrem could go undetected multiple times , even if dosimeters wer nrocessed accurately and consistently and interpreted correctly (as the NRC notes is recuired for adequate dose estinates, 49 FR 1205).
In sum, there are two kinds of errors that are inportant even if every condition Browne clains is net, were net: doses under 20 mrem not being recorded, and errors on individual dosimeters
+ 20 which are either large negative values, or fall outside tee j;%30% or or 4
j; 50% the rules require. We have a case of a whole class of CP&L dosimeters with errors or plus or_ninus 30% (see above re NUREG/CP. 2891 Apnendix D). The kinds of errors we allege, and the percentages, are real, Browne_and the NRC give the nordentages: NUREG/CD 2891 shows errors. An individual dosed beyond safe linits, or unknowingly
1
'* e dosed, is in trouble. With errors of + $0% as Applicants assume is OK, the cumulative dose of an individual is a blur, not an accurate As Low As Reasonably number. We believe ALARA means what it says:
Achievable. To lower the ernosure, you've got to know the exposure.
We have pointed out ahove instances of CP&L's violating the criteria a
for exposure recording accuracy Browne himself ouotes or states, Staff's argument (see e.g. end of page 3 and beginning of p.h above).
("resnonse" of II-3-84 at 2-3) is defeated by this data.
Finally, Joint Intervenors nrotest that Applicants and Staff misinterpret our position on pressurized ionization monitoring.
The contention says " Applicants should be required to use portable pressurized ionization nonitors in radiation hazard We believe areas to e orroborate the exposures indicated by TLDs."
that the use of areams monitoring to back up personal dosimetry is standard health uhysics nractice; and that prescurized ionization monitoring is appropriate because it identifies specific radionuclides present, reads fairly fast, and is nortable and can reco.d data. Pressurized ionization monitors for high dose rates, e.g. at plant effluent stacks (radiological effluent f
I release poihts) do exist, contrary to Staff's statenents at p.5 of II-3-84 Remmense "13fA.oCX OM"P.I.davif
. The gronitor picks up the contaminants in the air which can contribute to internal dose, and which are (by disintegrating) delivering external dose by beta and gamma rddiation. The use of a PI monitor thus strengthens radiation (see St'aff " Resp"
! prctection for workers. If they only neigh 23 pounds and can be put where _ workers are working, they can back up the TLDs.
Staff seems to say (p.5 ibid) they can nessure up to 100 megarads I
an hour, which is consistent with what we understand of plant stack P.I. monitors. However, the 100 MR number may be a type.
We submit that Staff admits 100 megarads unless they correct kny error in this number.
_, ,, sua For the above reasons, sumnar"/ disposition should fa J int p
Further discovery update to Staff: o$d$n[IV.
Interrog tory 14: See 19 FR 6-1205-11 as cited above; see also NUREG/CR 2891, e.g. Table _s h,5 & 7, and as cited above. Int 15 See NUREG/CR 2891. Int 16: See NURFG/
CR 2891, though it doesn't appear to deal with manufacturers exnlicitly.
Check also NUREG/CR 2892 & citaticns by Applicants' affiant Browne, p.9, his affidavit re sunnary disp.; In';errogatory 17: We still don't e.6. pn 3-4 know what " generation" means. but see abovejre Harris dosineter test errors and failures to neet, e.g. 30% error between 10 and 500 nrem 3 etc. We IAlso note that "A performance testing program, by itself, will not deternine whether the trocessor actually treats its routine client's dosineters with the sane conpetency eccorded to dosineters received from the PTL"(NRC's test contractor)(h9 FR 1208) j l.e SQI O (Qco M otun3,p.HI A4 R & /CJ& 'g_gqj i.e. the tests CP&L had, tliey evidently knew were a best. A blind test of an outfit that processes its own dosineters is basically impossible. Thus, CP&L's results nay be extra-careful so far, CR but still had nienty of errors, e.g. those cited a bove from NURFB/ 2891.
Interrogatory 18: Staff cited a 23 lb, nortable, un to 100 MR/hr device, Block affidavit of II-3-84, p.5, but didn't identify it.
We believe it could do the job. You must know its identity, he's
-your encloyee. Interrogatory 21: see above updates. Interrogatory 22:
See above updates, here & elsewhere in this response / discovery update, to Apps and/or to Staff. Interroga^ tory 23: see discussion of Applicants' affiant Browne's statements re this re SRPDs, pp 5-6 supra.
2.-6 'M /W[(orJJ SHORT LIST of FACTS IN DISPUT! tion JoIMT IV L. The contention speaks for itself as to what it says. CR/
- 2. Panasonic TLDs wouldn't neet the IP( + 2STL criterion in NUnFGl2891 (e.g. line 11;232 p.D-2h thereof, cited on p. 3 above) in accident conditions.
3 Harris TLDs are shown to violiate the 30% error criterion for radiation between 10 mren atd 500 nren, see un 3-h above, and the criterion of 0.2 for below 20 mrem, see p.3 above.
- h. SRPDs aren't sensitive to beta and can be nade useless by bunning.
There is no assurance every bunn will be detected. Yet workers will work based on exuosure levels " allowed" by SRPD readings between TLD readings.
LD * ,
-9 5 Apolicants' connuter-based dosimetry systen inexornorates the problem stated in iten 4 above.
'6. Personal ionization nonitors can be They're carriedpocket at all tines.
(see 49 FR 1209, last column, bottom) . meters.
- i. Portable pressurized ionization monitors weighing no more than 23 lbs, with a range up to 100 MR/hr, are available.
- 8. Such monitors can be put almost anywhere p_eonle are working.
- 9. Such PI monitors can identify individual nuclides present in a work area.
- 10. Portable ionization nonitors can have recording equipnent attached to then to neasure integrated dose.
- 11. Applicants' pencil dosimeters (see 8/1/8) response to J.I.'s discovery at p.16) are accurate within j; 10%, which is better than the TLDS limit (as clained by' Applicants) of j; 50%'in nost cases and j; 30% in accidents or high dose conditions.
on exposures.
- 12. ALARA requires accurate information4 j; $0% errors in exposure data would NRC nrevent has effective action)to found (49 FR 1206 reduce exuosures in nan 7 cases.that nereonnel dosimetry m 13 are innortant and that test "Results also indicated that the whole body or whole body and s[in dose received by occupational 17 exposed versonnel may often be considerably different from that recorded."(ibid) 14 NRC has proposed tightening the rules for dosimeter urocessing performance beyond that of ANSI N1311 by requiring N8tional Buareau of Standards accreditation of processors. (49 FR 1205-1211, esp at1209) 15 SRPDs are not sensitive to beta radiation, which neans that when they are used to back up TLDs, no beta record would be available, without PI monitoring or other added backup, leading to the problem of beta dose being different fron that recorded (cited by NRC 49 FR 1206).
- 16. The_ requirements of 10 CFR 20.?OP(a)(1) and(2) cannot be net effectively witbout dose assessment more accurate than d; 50% as to the amount actually received, unless the recorded exuosure is set as measured exuosure plus mcximum error range, as Joint Intervenors propose.
l t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLTAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION In the matter of CAROLINA POWER k LIGHT CO. Et al. ] Docket 50-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 ) 0.L.
CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE
' Joint Intervenors Resnonse to Board I he.eby certify that copies of Ordew s ervaun n 3070%. ora me WB Request 5for Clarifidation of, and Objections to, Bd. Order of 1-27-8h-and of Joint Intervenorst Resnonse tn %- n - n4 nne4+4rv -usu Iy, '
d 17 t.S cmM updote w G5 w t .IV l us' 'Ros HAVE been served this 6 day of p,w ep y 1981, ponse doceested) by deposit in the US Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose nanes are tarked with an asterisk, for whom service was acconplished by includinst letter of Bruno Uryc Jr NRC to Wells Eddleman, re nine hangers, vaeviousiv sa"ved to Applicants and to Judge Kelley for the Board.
JudEes Ja tes Kelley, Glenn Bright and James Carpenter (1 copy each)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
US Nuclear Regulatory.Comission
. Washington DC 20555 George F. Trowbrid 6 e (attorney for Applicants)
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge R.uthanne G. Miller 1600 M St. NW ASLB Panel Washington, DC 20036 USNRC Washington DC 25 5 5
- Phyllis Lotchin, Ph.D.
, Office of the Executive Legal Director Attn Docke ts 50-400/401 0.L. 108 Bridle Run USNRC Chanel Hill NC 2751h Washington DC 20555 l
- Dan Read l , Docketing and Service Section (3x) CEA?LT/FLP 1
Attn Docke ts 50-h00/h01 0.L. .
Raleigh,7707 NC Waveross Office of the Secretary h7606 a
- ""' Li"d* "* Littl*
neton DC 2055'# Governor's Waste Mgt. Bd.
b B.I d
- John Runkle -
Granville Rd - E" 8 Chapel Hill Ec 2751k
- Bradley W. Jones
- Robert Gruber USNRC Region II o~Travi s Payne Exec. Director 101 Marietta St.
Edelstein & Payne Public Staff Atlanta GA 30303 Blex 12601 Box 991 Raleigh NC 27605 Raleigh NC 27602 o R$ :hard Wilson, M.D. Certified by h 729 Hunter St.
Apex NC 27502
b {
VC Std &f'ded4YT
- LIST OF TABLES - Pag 2 Response % Eusw Ddp 04 3 odF LM/ .1Tg64y
- 1. Alphabetical listing of the 56 processors that participated., ]
in Test #3 and that reported their doses before the end 8
of the pilot study.
- 2. Distribution of dosimeter types in the two three-month 9
testing periods of Test #3. .. ,
- 3. Results of processor performance (IPl + S) in the 'NRC' 13 Pilot Study Test #3.
) 4. Summary of tha number of dosimeter types that I participated in each category and the passing rate for all three tests of the pilot study. 20 Summary of the number of dosimeter types that parti-
)5. cipated in Categories III through VII of Test #3 and the
- passing rate among this group of five beta-photon 21 categories in the protection dose range.
{6. Average bias, lPl, and precision, S, terms at each depth of each category for Test #3. 22
- 7. Dosimeter types that showed the worst test results in each category' for Test #3. 23 Performance of individual dosimeters irradiated during
)8. the three tests of the pilot study. 24
- 9. Performance of individual dosimeters irradiated within each category during Test #3. 25
- 10. Performance of individual dosimeters irradiated for test #3 and examined by type of dosimeter and type 26 of processor.
- 11. Recalculation of pass / fall results for Category VIII with the ratio of photon / neutron dose equivalent from moderated californium-252 changed from 0.30 to 0.18. 29 T
e 1
k
~
i.
g M EG cf2Mt
,e,1 3 es .
I II III IV V T1 Vt1 VIII I rey Ceems t I rey deems + Sete seeme +
Radiaties I rey Goems shallow Deep M1ew Bnap Bestsen Categoriae Ass Meat Assident Shallow Beep Ceems Beta i
Doetaster
- l Code unsber 1s2 0.5024 0.1335 0.1005 0.5300 0.M93 0.0s91 0.1902 0.0526 ~1.7k65 183 0.0627 0.8957 0.0006 0.0931 0.5416 1.29W 184 105 0.1297 0.0919 0.1631 0.1881 0.11M 0.0831 0.1723 0.2052 0.1710 0.0843 0.1908 186*- p on 187 0.2406 0.1052 0.1041 0.1228 0.0614 0.3053 0.0583 0.15M 0.1MO 0.1060 ISS 0.9237 0.6027 1.0M7 0.6499 0.2434 0.3791 0.8830 0.6737' O.5767 0.3368 0 M32 189 0.2355 0.1608 0.3993 0.6199 0.2607 0.3423 0.3385 0.2740 0.4060 0.3176 0.2812 190 0.5470 0.5344 0.1700 0.5538 0.3M9 0.36M 0.4432 0.3985 0.1453 1918 ,
192 0.3187 0.1155 1.4558 0.5534 0.2076 1.4164 0.6M8 0.3518 0.7500 0.4431 0.4550 193 1.9733 0.7437 3.0410 0.0M6 0.0499 0.1220 3.3129 0.1167 0.1235 0.1860 0.3201 1M 1.0326 0.5M3 1.4322 1.0703 0.0652 0.2885 1.6137 0.3667 0.1670 0.0814 0.1M4 1956
, IM 0.2982 0.2344 0.3628 0.4340 1,, 0. - 7 0. m , 0. 789 0.M 93 0.1022 0.1 m 0.32M 0.2 m 0.1 m 0. m , 0. 39 l 1,.e.
9
229/
,o tJ#es cte Table 4. Susmary of the number of dosimeter types that participated in each category and the passing rate for all three tests of the pilot study.
Test #1* Test #2* Test #3 -
5/78 to 10/78 11/78 to 4/79 11/81 to 4/82 Number Passing Number Passing Number Passing Radiation Test Categories 37 39% 42 55%
Accident, low-energy photons 44 23%
I.
51 82%
Accident, high-energy photons 61 46% 53 62%
II.
14% 34 53% 53 55%
III.' Iow-energy photons 35 77% 54 87% 64 94%
IV. High-energy photons 62 ,
60% 39 69% 57 86%
V. Beta particles 42 56% 36 65% 54 59%
VI. Photon mixtures (III&IV) 42 39 47% 56 84%
VII. Photons (IV) plus beta particles (V) 40 45%
48% 29 66% 47 72%
VIII. Photons (IV) plus neutrons 30 .
48% 62% 75%
Av; rage weighted by number of dosimeter types
- Note: The test categories for Tests #1 and #2 were defined differently than for Test #3. The results from Tests #1 and #2 have been regrouped to be as compatible as possible with the categories defined for Test #3.
l-J Li
't I'9 -
- 21 k [ ] f Ik
. Table 5. -Summary of the number of dosimeter types that participated in
', Categories III.through VII cf Test #3 and the passing rate among this group of five beta-photon categories in the protection dose range.
i Number of Dosimeter Types That: Dosimater Types Percent ,
passed all categories attengted* 34 49%
- failed at least one estegory attempted
- 36 '
51%
70 100% 7 attempted and passed all five categories 17 39%
attempted but did not pass all five categories 27 61%
44 100%
- Note: Some processors chose to participate in a few, but not all, of the five beta-photon categories.
I l
i I
l I
- l i.
I t
b T
f
' ~
22 Table 6. Average bias, l Pl , and precision, S, terms at each depth of each category for Test #3.
Number of Dosimeter Radiation Test Category Depth Types Average lPl Average S
- 1. Accident, low-energy photons Deep 42 0.2327 0.1879 II. Accident, high-energy photons Deep SI 0.0872 0.1217 III. Low-energy photons Shallow 53 0.3342 0.2825 Low-energy photons
- Deep 53 0.2352 0.2218 III.
High-energy' photons Deep 64 0.0741 0.1321 IV.
Beta particles Shallow 57 -0.1890 0.1431 V.
VI. Photon mixtures (III&IV) Shallow 54 0.3065 0.2963 Deep 54 0.2104 0.1889 VI. Photon mixtures ' (III&IV)
Photons (IV) plus beta particles (V) Shallow 56 0.1699 0.1418 VII.
VII.' Photons (IV) plus beta particles (V) Deep 56 0.1172 0.1992 VIII. Photons (IV) plus neutrons Deep 47 0.1457* 0.2326*
0.1887 0.1936 Avorage weighted by number of dosimeter typ.es
- Note: The average bias for Category VIII changes to 0.1388 and the average precision changes to 0.2257 when 0.18 is used for the ratio of photon to neutron dose equivalent rates for moderated californium-252 (see Table 11). The average bias and precision terms shown above are based on the ratio of 0.30 actually used for Test f3.
i
.. , - , , . - - ~ - - --- ,, , . . . . . . - - -. - - , - - - - , . - - .
I 4
ll -
2' NugE6 CR 2F4/ RS Table 8. Performance of individual dosimeters irradiated during the three tests of the pilot study.
l l
i l
Dosimeters Within the Indicated T larance Limit for P (Eq.1) _,
M aranu -
Test #3 Limit Test #1 Test #2 37% 42%
+ 10% 27%
73% 78%
62%
i 30%
86% 89%
78%
i 50%
92% 94%
_+ 70%
86%
95% 96%
_+ 90%
91%
e l
l l
e 5
1 d
'i i
i '
! 23 l 1 :
r
- Table 7. Dosimeter types that showed the worst test results in each category for Test #3.
l Dosimeter No. of Dosimeters
. Catego ry Code No. _
lPl + S P S With P i t (1)
I 193 1.9733 0.7988 1.1745 0 154 1.2386 0.6042 0.6344 0 194 1.0326 0.6406 0.3920 3
~
II 193 0.7837 0.0928 0.6909 0 188 0.6027 -0.4337 0.1691(2) 2 194 0.5363 0.4706 0.0658(2) 0 III 123 3.2830 1.3097 1.9733 2 193 3.0410 2.1249 0.9162 1 105 3.0338 1.7315 1.3023 4 IV 169 0.8551 -0.0729 0.7822 14 115 0.6632 0.0497 0.6135 14 126 0.6625 0.4259 0.2366(2) 7 V 192 1.4166 0.8700 0.5466 0 203 0.9154 0.7884 0.1270(2) i 183 0.8957 0.7901 0.1057(2) 0 VI 193 3.3129 2.8667 0.4463 0 139 3.1979 0.6938 2.5401 14 115 3.0229 0.8099 2.2131 8 VII 168 3.3777 0.7165 2.6613 14 161 1.5481 0.8661 0.6820 5 158 0.9984 0.6419 0.3565 5 VIII 182 1.7145 0.6919 1.0226 10(3) 173 1.6222 0.0965 1.5257 14 184 1.2909 0.1686 1.1223 14 l
l
( The pass / fail criterion is lEl + S < L where L = 0.3 for Categories I and II and L = 0.5 for Categories III through VIII.
( These dosimeter types show small precision terms (S < 0.25) and large, but correctable, biases.
( }This dosimeter type showed excellent test results for the first two test months but a large bias for the third test month.
l
Category VIII. The six calibration dosimeters were ,
from californium-252 assumed
- to be processor determines the correct response factor for their dosimeter to '
moderated californium-252 source using the six calibration dosimeters, de-termination of the dose delivered to the 15 test dosimeters sh t 3., Pass Fall Criterion
' The Standard has alwap required (see Page 4 of the Standard) that a performance index be calculated for each dosimeter by:
H (q, 3)
P = H' where: P = performance index H'= reported dose H =~ delivered dose For each group of test dosimeters, the average performance index, P, associated standard devciation, S, are calculated.
4 The pass / fail criterion for the draft of the Standard used for Tests !
- 2 required that:
(Eq.2) lP) + 2S 1 L i.
where the tolerance limit, L, varied from about 0.3 for accident doses above 10,000 mrem.
' pass / fall criterior was changed to:
(Eq. 3) 1Pl + S 1 L d
'In Appendix B (page 23) of theULTS Standard, section of this the p i
I
, to be 0.18. The effects of this ratio are shown in the RES report.
i I'
. .a. . __ __ . _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ ._.. . _ .. _ _ ._. _ _ _ . , _ , . . _ . . - - _ _ , _ _ . - _ _ .
I APPENDIX D ,
Test #3 data for all. processors that reported doses before the end'of the pilot study.
Each depth of each category requires three lines (example shown):
Line 1: Processor code number (101)
Category number (1)
Depth (D =. deep, S = Shallow)
Type of dosimeter (TLD)
P (.-0.2313)
%. [ IM f S
lPl(0.0909)
+ 5 (0.3222)
L (0.3000)
Line 2: Values of P for 15 test dosimeters. AP value of 99.9999 is the code for a voided dosimeter. (-0.3102 -0.2791 - 0.3937...)
Line 3: Values of the delivered dose for 15 test dosimeters. (24.28 122.08 21.19. . .)
4 e
i J
I-
~}
t
, ./
1 101 10 T1n -0.2?t3 0.0909- 0.3722 c.10GO
? -o.310? -0.S F91 -b. 3(17 -0. 7765 -0.3%9 8 -0.ua13 -0.te.54 2324 -3.19 70 -0.1891 -0.3264 -0.1809 -0.1844 -0 75.35 2F5.23 286.12- 32.36 143.59 128.74 1772 -0.0957 -0.kS42 414.67 329.32 1 24. 28 172.CA .?1.1% '107.21 10.97 10.38 4 101 2C TLS C.0818 0.0546 0.4612. O.!Guc 0.0387 0.0524 0.0911 0.0832 0.0573 5 -J. 012 3 u. sv 12 . 0.1 ? A1 -u.0%s i 0.u.s d 6 9.c 211 -0.6256 0.1475 0.0904 -0.0298 222 13 119.68 36.33 53.63 301.20 21 63 146.60 34.43 i 6 10.33 '11.SM 214. t.4 110.55 64.4C .97.H0 26.02 7 ;o 1 35 110 0. 3ta b 0.2785 u.felf C.Stut C.3661. 0.5 35 2 0.3443 0.0591 -0.0044 i e s.4 3 ?? 3.i144 0.0026 0.7653 u.0544 0.%971 0.5665 0.1422 0.0349 0.1434 51.24 4396.73 6239.18 122.74 70 31 o 4%.3% 141.50 643.lu 2eu.60 1754.4 7 5 213. 27 159.59 1444.64 550.7712593.51 10 101 3C T10 0.2537 0.?nd2 U.4820 0.500C 11' J. 0917 0.4854 -0.6C96 0.???? 0.0497 0.5761 0.5514 0.0787 0.0289 0.0968 0.3323 0.!!44 4404.13 36.17 3103.58 0 32E3 0 0965 86.64 0.0075 49.63 12 60.25 PN2.40 454.38 184.09 123n.45 3619.46 112.65 1019.75 388.78 8889.54 13 I fat '4C TLD J.u258 0.9446 u.0704 0.5000 0.u22? G.0247 C.CC50' O.0011 0.071f G.0415 -0.0048 0.0328 0.0467 0.0931 0.0220 -0.0719 0 03f7 0.0969 -0.0249 14 1% sa.7u 61.43 233.44 2247.54 1221.24 1680.24 5420.11 3096.43 492.31 2790.13 78.28 393.28 370.65 136.75 1999.83 i i t. 101 61 TLD -C.1(49 0.1055 .0.304" 0.%uoG ,
! 17 -0. 22 77 -0.1?^0 -0. 3 211 -0.15 21 -0. 3 5 7 $ -0.2574 -0 1433 -0.1282 -0.1462 -0.0211 -0.1127 -0.2255 -0.1686 -0.0814 -0.1182 le 192.56 5564.02 2142.23 9RS.35 A47.CP 276.04 712.06 8545.31 732.04 332.01 896.00 225.95 2225.28 5007.57 1065.97 r
14 141 f4 110 C.?tR7 0.1038 0.1225 0.500C
?c' u.1%st 0.3209 G.14c7 0.243G G.21PC 0.?381 0.2993 o.1564 0.1018 0.2106 0.2717 0.4314 0.3195 0.1564. 0.0078 21 15%. 43 177.91 279.07 427.35 336.61 2140.42 t>272.54 631 26 235.98 1115.1% 271.28 223.56 5001.73 203.21 625.10
?? iJ1 of fl0 0.2!*4 0.1274 0.'e25 0.5 LOC 21 u. 2 7 t.7 0.1651 0.1167 0.2358 C.1421 0.?650 0.4063 0.1355 0.1727 0.1545 0.3381 0.4706 0.2751 0.1342 -0.0274
- 24 151.41 142.84 229.73 156.05 285.40 1857.73 5013.26 537.03 191 87 952.80 209.25 183.60 4313.37 158.70 565.52
- i. 75 1d1 75 110 -0.0fl0 0.064e C.15uo L.5000 l 2e -9.1943 -C.1735' O.0346 -0.1059 -0.1501 -0.0470 -0.0413 0.00 40 -0.C486 -0.1034 -0.0846 -0.1692 -0.0762 -0.0746 -0.0856 i
>F 245.41 404.12 4G15.oS 2116.04 1929.5 7 314M.oS 808.40 453 14 851 36 1388.58 218.47 1384.23 427.56 859.07 382.78 .O i 54 101 70 llo 0.0395 b.0$0c J.045% G.50CC 0.0088 0.0363 -0 0100 P' i ?% L.1701 C.0493 0. C 32 9 -0.02 78 0.0160 0.0732 0.1265- 0.10S0 0.0600 0.0329 -0.0091 -0.6193 j Ta 43.73 142. 9a 1u01.13 14 39. 5 A 497.L3 2096.45 337.34 315.61 566.01 551.84 100.91 892.23 232.95 458.36 156.56 j 't 101 PC TLD -0.0444 0.09?9 0.157? 0.5000
- 12 u.0461 f.11t G -c.C C94 -0.0023 0.CeCC -0.7091 -0.0756 -0.04 e 3 -0.1317 -0.0447 -0.'1417 -0.1377 -0 1194 -0.1002 -0.1714 I 22 167).84 216.36 55%.69 1002.12 301.94 7022.95 792.09 1467 53 4203 44 1674.68 396.13 2725.33 323.65 333.39 3620.75
! $* 10 2 55 lip C.C16M u.0631 0.u 789 U.Suda 2' O.0165 C.oc47 0.0176 -0.0715 0.0142 0.0143 0.0673 -0.04C4 0.1338 0.1445 0.0045 -0.0266 -0.0066 -0.0775 0.0226
't 192.56 %So4.02 7142.?3 GPO.05 A47.4A 27e.04 712.06 8545 31 732. 04 332.01 896.01 226.02 2224.67 5007.89 1065.90 i 17 1u3 10 fi c -0.0453 0.247u C.2563 U.4uc0
- 'e u.07 20 -G.5467 0.6644 0.0176 -0.14Ci -0.1231 -0.1993 -0.1377 0.C318 -0.1029 0.0344 -0.0341 -0.1059 -0.0777 -0 1266 15.18 54.06 337.90 32.59 44 46. 84 2?u. 74 127.42 17.95 225.71 147.64 37.45 50.30 16. 30 207.33 105.14 j 'O lu ) Ff TLC -C.2578 0.1979 0.455t 0.$000
- 41 -9.2 3 75 -0.2 20 7 -0.3 ?a6 -0.17 73 -0.2448 -u.1904 -J.1134 -0.12'O -0.0974 17.12
-0.S236 49.91 -0.2414 78.88 -0.2907 105.57 -0.2347 37 60 -0.1781 20.03 -0.1407 153.49 1 4? 190.76 6u.93 5f.16 41.40 63.63 62.39 162.26 87.67 i 4' 10 3 15 180 0.c'e8 0.10e7 0.1455 U.*CLC 44 J.0175 C.1673 u.0 441 -0.?lt i 0.0947 0.0413 -0.0177 0.1556 0.0066 0.1404 -0.1298 0.1134 0.1180 -0.0270 0.1138 75.13 206.58 9187.99 1
j 4% 213.48 251.96 t,43.41 48.49 7976.25 6Ac.54 4488.91 1013.?3 71.53 318c31 309.11 7229.96 48 lun 3r 110 G.L447 u.cht? u.1714 u. ted L C. L'un -0.068 u G.GL4* u.??86 -J.Do78 0.1618 0 1883 0.1434 0.G266 0.1188 0.1314 -0.0193 0.1192 4
j 47 J. ~d44 b.le7P 53.C3 145.82 6485.64 4* 151.uS 76% .t.O 4M*. 44 14.?) 5630.14 40t . 74 310s:.64 715.3u 50.49 224.69 218.20 5103.50
%% 1 )) 4f Tir -J. L i sJ D.w901 0.1461 U.5000 50 -J.11'1 -C.J1?' -C.1 Ei3 -0.0526 0.6324 -0.13Ci 0.b247 0.04C4 0 1633 -0.0169 -0.0140 -0.1225 -0.1355 -0.1691 -0.1086 41.51 l
61 16R.41 214.44 en%7.72 ;33.77 47.47 1348.le 170.04 543c. 29 2 976. R4 1881.73 4432.91 875m.08 4325.17 104.71
101 %! IID C.!!%L b.?998 u.434) C.%nc(
1.1152 C.J540 1.6506 -0.4641 0.001P u.2R32 0.1595 0.1156 u.1193 0.1544 -0.0328 0.C332 0.1872 0.1673 0.0573 i 41 J
'4 741.01 144.42 e'4.a7 137s.%4 2Si.05 24 o. C ? 4J1.42 127.59 4998.86 660.uS 1281 08 181.00 2687.09 520.01 401.98
IJT 65 TLD C.r!60 0.0744 0.1154 C. 6C 0 0 4* .4.ua7J 0.1111 6.0514 0.u0$8 -0.05C4 C.04e1 -0.0112 -0.0123 U.1961 0.0234 -0.0837 -0.0078 0.1710 0.0591 -0.0328 l
57 597. 14 19.1H 299.56 2n99.92 2262.4e 47h7.10 124.14 170.e3 485 61 324.51 485.62 3637.45 145.18 1528.73 270.88.
i l 'P 1 11 6C ILD G.L428 0.1600 0.15?t u.H 0L
'S -0 9?RS G.?493 0.117 2 -D .1316 -0.1 *
- L -L t %' 4 0.u673 Q.u4C2 0.3H73 0.0296 0.u301 -0.125 2 0.1565 -0.0853 0.1337
{
__ - - m. ~ . e .
,,,2 0, ,,5 ,0
- 1,30 .01. ,, 14. 1. >>15.50 47 1.1. ,05,... 2,03.15 14. ,6 . 0,.23 77 , 00,2.,4 1,2.,, ,,, ,2 ,6.,,0 j 1?At 1A3 4C FILP c.OCA7 0.0560 0.0627 0.5004 005 . 04e . . 15, ... ,64 1167 -0.1137 0 0141 0.0394 u.u163 -0.0545 -u.0042 -0.be33 0.045-0074 0.ii9. . . 4 5,
!!at 2256.64 54 .=.' 4 1226.25 63.69 234.79 1697.bf 5544.19 3111 04 494 31 2801.49 78. 60 394 30 372.16 137.31 20ef.97 -
55 fit s C.75ft 0.1057 C.et%7 0.5000 1384 133 11P4 0.7670 c.9015 0.6614 G.7142 0.e!%; 6.P367 C.7839 u.6451 0.8715 0.5403 0.7410 0.8317 0.7306 1.0500 e.8013 ,
! 13pe 147. 96 5564.07 7147.23 440.0% A47.9A ,276.04 712.06 0545.31 732.04 332.01 894.41 226.92 2224.67 5007.09 1965.94 l 1347 181 75 FIL9 0.7387 0.0610 0.PtCe 0.500C i I?PA 0.4.12% 0.7619 0.7119' O.6454 u.7147 0.8184 0.e153 0.7075 0 4517 0.7759 8.7998 0.7508 8.7526 S.6262 S.7411 1
13s9 245.79 405.90 1512.99 7181.90 3545.85 3156.59 a09.77 464.42 t33.66 1390.42 214.91 1347.91 428 51 860 91 3e3 49 1390 1A3 7C FILM 8.G190 0.0542 6.0471 0.540C 1391 0. 04 76 0 0590 0.1121 0.0459 0.0719 0.0451 0.0034 -0.0438 -0.0551 -0.0453 0.0560 S.1162 0 03e9 0.0L47 0.0624 j 1397 94.11 143.54 459.06 1445.h4 3013.*45 7104.9 8 338.71- 316.49 568.32 554.08 101.33 P95.86 333 90 466 23 157.28 '
1393 184 4C FLO -0.lf93 0.3576 0.5416 0.5000 i 1394 -0.1975 -C.1095 -C.1717 -0.09 0 0.1284 -0.1314 0.3371 -0.1533 -0.1678 -0.1210 -0.9923 - 0.8653 -0.9915 -0.0708 -0 41.51 0219 13c5 348.41 214.34 4e57.73 13n.27 42 62 1381 53 120.04 5422.57 2979.93 1877.11 4432.91 8754.00 4325.17 104.71
! 1354 194 AC Ta n, 0.1486 1.1223 1.2509 0.5000 4.2221 1397 -0.1051 -0 0109 -0.1968 = 0.1699 -0 1136 -0.1479 -0.1017 -0.08 04 -0.1400 -0.1766 -0.1474 -0.1966 -0.0995 -0.0907 1?9e 402.72 166.62 1720.44 4712.96 2126.4s 2210.20 1491.03 40 3. 76 704.55 4407.95 3343 44 377.19 173.35 318.77 561.05 1355 185 In TLD 0.0203 0.1044 0.1257 6.3000
-1400 -0.0271 -0.0187 0.0247 -0.1676 0.0200 0341.28 0230 0 0610 0 0626 0.0374 0.1240 -0.2639 0.0797 9.0049 0.1682 0.0834 1401 96.00 270.66 127.54 17.89 725.62 37.30 50.09 16.23 266.49 104.72 15.12 53.84 336.53 32.45 2C TLD -C.0421 0.0499 0.0919 0.3000 e
1402 185
-0 0436 -0 0620 -0.1060 -0.1420 -0.0478 0.0158 -0.0247 -0.0658 -0.0634 -0.0440 -0 00m3 -0.0145 -0.0003 -es0844 19 .9 4 0.0584
! 14u1 07.31 1 7. 05 49.71 78. 56 105.15 37.45 152 47
- 1604 9 9. 35 63.64 55.53 41.72 43.38 62 63 161.30 *
! 1409 185 35 TLn =0.0495 0.1136 0.te31 0.5000 1406 0.0437 0.3243 ~6.0143 0.1481 -0.2443 -b.705N -0.0015 -0.0148 -0.0646 -0.1330 -0.2220 0.0056 -0.0931 14.98 -0.0105 0.0346 206.16 9169.47 l
' 1407 219.29 366.09 697.74 48.77 7960.31 690.07 4479.56 1014.01 71.63 318.34 308.49 7215.39 p 14C 4 185 3C T10 0.0467 0.1414 0.1881 0.90GC 1409 0.0594 0.0177 -0.0171 0.1654 -0.7613 0.1290 -0.0055 -0.0206 0.1867 0.2283 -0.0310 0.001 7 0.0392 -0.0174 0 0305 $$
- 52. 53 145.53 6472.57 1410 191 97 258.42 492.52 34.42 Sn19.64 487.11 3162.24 715.77 50.56 224.71 217.76 5093.21 1411 195 40 TLD -0.0154 0.1040 0.119e 0.50CC 1417 -0.0107 C.0414 -0.2410 0.0184 0.7291 -0.0043 -0.0130 -0.0748 -0.0387 -0.0420 -0 1017 -0.0048 -0.0640 -0.0499 0.1128 41.34 l 1411 366.92 213 17 4229.92 137.71 42.45 1375.53 119.55 5794.55 2967. 64 3063.08 4414.93 8722.55 4307.62 104.29 1414 184 55 TID 0.0C42 0.0789 0.0mit 0.5000
-0.0090 0.0619 0.0 581 -0. 2415 -0.C201 0 1124 0.0074 -0.0171 0.0126 -0.0198 0.0472 0.0386 0.05e1 -0.0231 -0.0048
! 1415
, 1416 781. 00 155.04 e54.94 1376.39 250.07 749.02 401.02 327.59 4998.86 660.0P. 12 50. 99 181.02 2686.79 519.99 681 93 -
1417 185 65 TLn 6.0371 0.1152 0.1773 0.5c00 141M b.0462 0.1779 C.0204 -0.1189 -0.1C23 0 16&C 0.7089 0.02 34 -0.C150 -0.2320 0.0904 0.1423 0.1886 0.0799 -0.1191 14.96 29P.78 2891.Si 1999.48 4768.98 124.08 405.52 484.29 319.02 484.21 3426.03 144.10 1524.27 270.19 l
1 1414 500.85 i 1470 185 6C TLD 0.Ce98 0.1154 0.2C52 C.5000 0.8 l 1471 0.1053 0.2510 L.1280 -0.0943 -0.0 36! 0.1144 0.2279 0.1345 0 0476 -0 254.26 1544 404.52 0.14213145.68 0.1521 128.39 0.1761 1272.94 0.1320 212 00 1472 422.42 65.44 236.70 2405.89 1803.40 42 A9.67 106.69 354.36 380.89 1421 185 75 TLD -0.0r71 0.0449 0.1710 0.50CC 1874 -0.0095 0.0 647 -0.2389 -0.0150 -0.71n9 -0.0531 -0.0882 -0.04 32 -0.1272 -0.1881 -0 0756 0.0267 -0.1315 S.0041 -0.0971 9
1475 359.42 242.33 "C03.60 741 14 17R7.73 360 10 641.60 5062.25 482.34 394.16 024.55 4299.15 2842.83 2170.09 996.e4 l 1476 145 7C Tin -C.0314 0.0524 0.ht43 0.900C
! 1477 0.0146 0.0732 0. C1 A2 -0.0360 -0.0110 -0.0494 -0.09 36 0.04 40 -0.0964 -0.0563 -0.0805 -0.0335 -0.0177 -0.0327 -C.0966 I
147A 179.44 153.75 2c9e.A2 426.34 1325.25 237.5? 393.85 3063.04 277.79 243.71 200.12 2989.28 1578.95 809.12 590.02 l 1425 1A% 4C FLD -0.0471 0 0a16 0.1008 0.5000 l 1410 -0.1??e 0.067 9 -c,2 78 7' -0 16n2 -0.2442 -0 0458 -0.0681 0.0264 -0.0856 -0.1391 -0.0523 -0.1373 -0.1084 -0.0002 -0.0845 l 1431 430.04 165.59 17d9.45 4707.90 PuSv.19 7196.67 1481 97. 401 41 775.36 4457.16 3341.96 374.41 172.14 309.06 554.45 i
'9bl437 187 1C TLD C.1111 0.1295 0.7446 0.3000 0.0872 0.0058 0.2844 0 1416 i 1433 3.1049 0 1371 0.1205 0 204A 0.G7e5 0.156L 0.1002 0.0935 50.30 0.1289 16.300.2106 207.33-0.3057 105.14 15.18 54.06 337.90 32 59
- 14'4 96.84 220.74 117.42 17.d5 725.73 347.64 37.45 1435 187 2C T10 -C.C641 0.0411 0.1092 0.3000 1416 -0.0165 -0 0612 -u.05A0 -0 0341 -c. 6Al -0.1126 U.0250 -0.u825 -0.0304 -0.1405 -0.0454 -0.0926 -0.1011 17.12 49.91 1s. 88 105.57 37.60 -e.0612 20.03-0.0014 153 49
- 1437 100.26 60.93 56.16 43.90 63.63 6?.88 161 95 87.67 1412 197 35 FLD C.C541 0 04MO 0 1041 L.5CCC 1 1439 0.3430 0 0005 -G.0 231 0.0n46 0.05e4 0 0800 J.1074 -0.'0109 0.0032 0.1349 0.0417 0.0455 0.o64s e.0e92 0 1130 ,
e
- - ~ -
g .
(
71 77 3i..c. 309.ii 7229.20 15.i3 26.597.95
,99.i5 .p... 79,,... esi.4 44 91 10 . 05 1440 2 , . ,, , 6. 1 147 1C fin C.0217 0.1911 0 1228 0.5000 0.0066 0.1414 -0.1330 0 0505 0.0559 0.0972 0.1183 j
1461 1442 J.p639 0.00Ao -c.0?55 -0.1102 0.0645 0.0941 0.1120 -0.1071 50. 66 225.16 218.20 5103.50 53.03 145.82 6485.64 34.49 152.27 259.94 4e*.92 0.0122 0.uh14 0.5000 5610.15 4 P A. 01 3168. 64 717.22 1441- C.0028 -0.0363 1444 14 7 4r 780 -(.C292 0.0391 0.0101 0.0069 -0.0322 -0.0443 -0.0451 104.71 41.51 144* -0.0584 -C.0516 -C.657 3 -0.0526 -C.C 42 6264' -0.0055 -0.0170120.04 5822.57 2979.93 1877.11 4432.91 8758.00 4325.17 1161.55 1446 ' 3Ah. 41 214.04 iP57.79 138.27 0.3051 0.5000 i
1447 187 55 710 C.2!T2 v.06el l
_.y> 1444 u.1995 0.3419 741. w2 155.00 454.97 1376.59 c.1692 C.2545 24u.05 0.SS17 240.02 401.02 0.241d 327.55 0.2553 4998.06 0.1325 660.08 1250.99 0.2411 0.3195 141 02 2686.79 0.2394 519.99 401 930.2651 1449 t.0026 0.05,%7 0.L*t3 6.5000 1450 187 65 TLD C.0172 -0.0700 -0.1945 -0.0162 -0.0188 1451 0.0595 0.1944 0.046# 0.0290 -u.2239 -0.00te -0.0519 -0.02 31 0.C092 0 0723 1482 504.00 79.46 300.90 2910.50 2005.93 4784.66 124.46 370.55 4e5.54 319.87 445.42523637.45 -0.1532 145.1 6C TLO -(.CS24 0.b670 0.It%4 0.500C i
1451 147
-0.0997 0.0935 -C .0P94 -0.1019 -0.1212 -0.1038 -0.0377 -0.u2 71 -0.1412 -0.0587 -0.10 54 -0.1753 l 1484 1485 425.12 e5.e4 23 P.11 2420.77 1 A12.17 4104.78 107.04 329.95 141 93 254.98 405.78 3154.13 1 0.6593 0.0647 0.1640 0.5000 l
1456 187 75 TLD i
1487 0.0465 349.86 0.0331 242.42 !C05.32C.0467 742 47 0.2000 1791.d1 361 0.0262 07 643.21 0.11855074.730.0463 483.47 0.1270 395.15 325.37 0.104311,33 04 0.1287 2049.260.0696 2173.12 0.092 999.24 1458 7C TLD -C.0457 0.0603 0.1060 0. 500C 0.0210 -0.0176 -0.0029 -0.0693 0.0262 -0 1548 -0.1263 -e.0969 1
145c 187 l
1460 0 0188 -C.0049 -0 0690 -0.00$5 -0.1012 -0 09s8 -0.0163 i
1461 176.16. 154.37 2105.16 428.04 133C.45 238.54 395.46 3075. 56 278.92 1C FilW -C.2594 0.0A49 4.9217 0.3000 7 3 -0.9453244.70
-0.7221 200.9
- 1462 188
-0. A953 -0.41 A1 -0.p t ea -0.7651 -0. A199 -0 9537 -0.8459 35.63
-0.85 47.6500 -0 0227 197.25 15.51 -0.9272104.72
-0.8883 -0 15.12 -0.7 5 336.53 32.45 652 7 53.04 i 14t1 17.77 224.81 326.02 14e4 86.45 219.84 127.11 55 -0 0313 -0.5238 1465 184 20 F I L P -C. 433 7 0.1490 0.4021 0.3000 37.45 19.94 152.87
-099.85 9655 60.6A -0.4 766 -C.4570 18.56 105.15 43.72 -0 451062.63-0.432 0 -0.5403 87.31 -0.6684 -0.5797 -0 4077 -0.5136 -0 3254 -0 421 e 1466 161.30 17.05 49.71
-j 55.91 631e 1467 ~ 1.0567 0 5006 58 1A8 15 F II P -0.5 066 *0.5501 63
-1.0300 -1.0000 -1.0030 1.0506 -1.hb00 -0.5653 -0.8146 -0.3590 -0 3020 -0.5602 -0.1240 -0.8406 -0.06e4 -0 1468 74.98 206.16 1149.47 1469 44.77 7960 31 690.01 4476.50 1014.01 71 63 318.34 300.49 7215.39 '"
1470 215.29 344.09 #97.74 0.6449 0 5000 4
1471 1AA 30 F I L M -0. 2 329 0.4169 0.2399 -0 1742 0.3226 0.0307 -0.7760 f
1472 -0.2104 -0.4969 C.0558 0 45/5 -0.7366 -0.3441 -0.7371 -0.0919 -4.0111 24.47 5615.04 487.11 3159.48 715.77 50. 56-0.3770 224.71 217.76 5093.21 52 93 145.53 6472.57 1471 151.97 254.42 492.52 4C
- IL P -L. C814 0.1920 0.2434 0.5000 1474 IPS 0 0344 0.2108 0.0548 0.2095 41.34 0.0120 -C.lE89 0.0166 0.174C 104.29 j 1475 1416
-3.0189 1^4.92 213.17 4829.92 137.71 42.45 1*75.93 -0 1715 -0 0799 -0.3102 -0 37 33 -0.3438 -0.0304119.55 5798.55 2 C. 200A 0.3741 0.50-Jo
-1 0000 0.1991 0.1601 0.2543 0.1346 0.0450 1477 188 55 F I L P -C. C484 i
1474 -0.1147 -0 0949 -0.0 e20 -0.1264 -u.L7A2 -0.1251 -0.1522 -0.14 53 -0.1998 l 1474 779 36 154.67 e53.5A 1373.67 249.52 240.02 401 02 327.59 4995.860 4505 6 5 FILM -G.t fit 0.2220 0.r410 0.5000 .
660.00-0 75s41250.99
-0.3387 101 14P0 188 1481 -0.4622 -1 0000 -1.0000 -1.0000 -0.4283 -0.1456 -0.5970 -0.67S1 -0.6696 -0.5925 -0.4045 -0 6565 i
! I4A2 502.50 79.24 300.12 2902.09 2003.15 4768.58 124.08 369.33 444. 29 319.02 486.50 0.'17R1 0.t117 0.500G 3638.63 1 0 7105 -0.2503 1491 1A4 6C FILM -0.4156 l
1584 -0.7164 -0 3906 -0.2605 -0.6e44 -0.678P -0.3170 -0.5313 -0.63 50406.48 254.26 -0.5799 -0 4807 3154.50 129.02 -0.2864 1278.14 -0.603 213.42 8 -0.3 1485 471. 79 65.64 237.65 2413.45 1A05.99 4289.67 106.69 328.81 300.89 1496 188 15 F IL M =0.2985 0.2781 0.57e1 0.5000 0. 0219 0.1100 -0.4984 14P7 -0.54 23 -0.7 52 3 -c.4 703 -0.4*00 -0.7761 -0.1669 -0.2207 -0.2908 -0.1914 -0.1376 -0.0140 -0.0134 149M 369.14 242 3.9 5002.95 0.*16p 7D F IL P -C.0542 0.2426 740.73 178L.41 360.11 641 62 5062 0.5C00 00 482.31 394.25 324.55 208 0.1493 -0.0500 0 0049 -0.8891 0 0678 14P5 14A l
1490 0.0260 C.0407 -0.1P92 -0.0393 -0.04%2 -0.0740 -0.0860 -0.2850 -0.0280 -0 0152 l
l 1491 175.44 153.75 2G96.82 426.34 !?28.25 237.59 393.85 3063.08 277.79 GC FILM C. C it 5 0.8907 0.9632 0.*000 243.71 0.0219 -C.7476 200.12
-0.2049 i 1452
- 1R8 3.0357 0 6437 -0 2325 -0.3813 -0.3340 309.06 558.45 1494 0.174% 0.1286 -0. le 35 99.9499 -0.1654 -b.2316 -0.1349 I
! 1494 400.04 165.99 17J9.44 4747.82 2950.19 2196.67 1441.97 401.41 775. 36 4457.16 3341 96 321.34 1 0289 -0.0703 1499 189 1C TLO -C.1!11 0.0824 u.2195 0.3000 -0. 2104 -0. 2412 ' 0.15 55 -0.1050 -015.19 0813 -0.0354 33s.02 32 60
- 44. 20 -0.
1496 -0.13 05 -0.2746 -G.2161 -0.1683 -0.13 2 4 -0.16f 2 -0.1795 17.85 225.73 342.64 37.45 50.30 16.30 207.33 105.16 1491 96.84 ? ?9. 7 4 l*7.62 G.*000 0.0077 0.0309 0.0749 2[ 7L0 -C.0142 0.0866 0.leef i
149P 1A9 i
l 1499 0.0047 -0.0534 -0.0940 -0.1150 -0.1572 -0.2584 -0.0397 -0.1264 -0.1110 -0.14s3 -0.0823 -0 0 r i .
[
Table 1. Alphabetical listing of the 56 processors that participated in Test #3 and that reported their doses before the end of the pilot study.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Argonne National Laboratory Omaha Public Power District Arkansas Power and Light Pacific Gas and Electric Company Atomic Energy Industrial Iaboratories Pacific Radiation Corporation Battelle Pacific Northwest I4bontory Portland General Electric Company Bethlehem Steel Corporation Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Bettis Atomic Power 14boratory Power Authority of the State of New York Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Public Service Electric and Gas Company N Carolina Power and Light Company Radiation Detection Company Charleston Naval Shipyard Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co.
Consumers Power Company Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Duke Power Company Eberline Instrument Corporation Rockwell International R.S. Landauer Jr. and Company Florida Power and Light Company Harvard University Sandia National Laboratories Health Physics Northwest, Inc. Southern California Edison Teledyne Isotopes Houston Lighting and Power Company Tennessee Valley Authority ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Texas Utilities Generating Company Kansas Gas and Electric Company Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Union Electric Company Lawrence Livermore National Imboratory los Alamos National Laboratory Wited States Air Porce United States Army Mason & Hanger, Inc. Idaho National Engine _ering Laboratory Monsanto Research Corporation United 3tates Testing Company Naval Research Laboratory Virginia Electric Power Company New England Nucicar Corporation Washington Public Power System NLO, Inc. Welex Northeast Utilities Service Company Yankee Atomic Electric Co.
Nuclear Sources and Services, Inc.
l l
9 s
I i
9
41 J l4EEE Cp2gy RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are offered to help the NRC and other interested organizations to continue the momentum begun in 1975 to develop a nationally recognized testing program for personnel dosimetry processors.
- 1. A dosimetry testing program needs the backing of one or more regulatory agencies. The management that ultimately controls the funding of a dosimetry processing unit within an organization responds favorably to requests to improve, quality when regulatory pressures are exerted. . We recommend that a mandatory testing program be established based on the experiences gained during the pilot study.
- 2. Many processors participated in more categories than they actually thought necessary (e.g., the two accident categories and the categories involving low-energy photons)2 This was done partly in the belief that their regulatory agency will eventually require such participation. We recommend that guidelines be developed for the test categories required of generic types of processors (e.g., nuclear power plants, commercial processors, etc.).
1
- 3. The spirit of the development of the HPSSC Standard and the subsequent )
pilot study.would be violated if the primary goal of processors was to pass a testing program with little or no regard for the relationship between We test results and the needs of radiation workers being served. i recommend that processors and regulators accept that different algo-rithms may be required for testing and for routine use.
- 4. The HPSSC Standard was not intended to be used to test direct-reading dosimeters.* However, it seems reasonable not to exclude these important dosimeters from testing and accreditation. An increase in the testing fees for direct-reading dosimeters would compensate the testing laboratory for the additional wo.rk required to prepare the dosimeters for frradiation and to read them after irradiation. We recommend that the testing laboratory 'be permitted to process (by following written pro-cedures supplied by the processor) as well as to irradiate direct . reading
' ~ dosimeters.
4
- 5. The HPSSC Standard was not intended to be used to test extremity A . dosimeters.* However, the comments made above concerning direct-
'New standards are currently in an early development stage for direct-reading and extremity dosimeters. Until the standards are completed (circa 1986), the procedures in the current Standard could be modified to permit testing of these two types of dosimeters. This would provide a valuable data base for the
> development of the standards for these two types of dosimeters.
42 reading dosimeters apply to extremity dosimeters as well. We recommend that the testing laboratory be permitted to accept extremity dosimeters for testing and accreditation.
- 6. Categories HI through VII represent a substantial test of a processor's ability since the type of radiation used for each dosimeter is not reported to the processor when the dosimeters are returned by the testing laboratory. A processor could defeat the sigsifficance of the Standard by - ;
passing one of these categories at a time (the type of radiation would then be known), or by retesting only in those categories failed. We recommend that, for Categories DI through VII, a processor be accredited only in those categories that were passed simultaneously.
e
?
' 9
+
e 9
-v -- -- ,,-- - - - -- , . -,n- - - - , -. , - , -
, ~--- ~ -- ,e - ,,
1; 40 p/J2EG CA 289 i .
h
- f'
+ i
- 5. The four primary reasons for the poor performance of some processors in Tests #1 and #2 are still evident in Test # 3. These are incorrect calibration factors, dosimeter variability, clerical errors, and poor i
- calibration for accident. doses, f
- 6. The best processor performance is observed in Category IV, high-energy photons in the protection dose range.
4
- 7. The worst processor performance is observed in Categories I, Ill, and VI which use low-energy photons. This is probably due to the fact that low-energy photons have large conversion factors from exposure to dose equivalent, and that many processors have not yet developed or adjusted algorithms to deal with the response of their dosimeters to low-energy photons.
e e
.,a k
-i
?$
.t 9
t 39
].
J
- 15. The results obtained from some processors (military and private industry) .
were slightly better than the results obtained from other processors when !
comparing the performance of individual dosimeters (see Table 10).
i Ir
- 16. Measurements made late in the pilot study showed the ratio of photen to ,
t neutron dose equivalent rates from the moderated californium-252 source y is actually 0.18 instead of the value of 0.30 used during Test #3. This correction in the ratio affected the pass / fall results of only cne out of the .
47 processors that participated in Category V111 (see Table 11).
CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are derived from the data produced from Tests
- 1, #2, and #3 of the pilot study, and from five years of discussions with -
dosimetry processors.
- 1. The HPSSC Standard shown in Appendix A is generally not a difficult standard to pass for a competent processor. It represents an acceptable measure of minimum performance, and is an appropriate basis for a regulatory program to accredit dosimetry processors.
- 2. The ' five-year pilot study of the HPSSC Standard has encouraged processors to devote considerable attention to proper calibration and quality control procedures. It has also developed a commonly accepted terminology (e.g., shallow and deep depths and the use of dose equivalent instead of exposure) which has helped standardize personnel dosimetry among most of the processors. ,
- 3. 'Much of the success of the pilot study and the improvements seen from Test #1 to Test #2 to Test #3 are due to the increased perception by most L
processors that a mandatory testing program is imminent. Many j
l'-
processors responded to the mounting pressures of a pending mandatory testing program by making significant improvements in their do'simetry system. Without the implementation of a mandatory program, further improvements are doubtful.
@ Although the tolerance limits in the HPSSC Standard represent a minimum l
level of performance, the results of Test #3 suggest that many processors l
can achieve bias, IPl, and precision, S, terms of less thr.n 0.1 each for test
! ' dosimeters.
I*
I!. .
1
<- ,v---n w..w., ,...e., -,-e--,,,w
N E6/cg y 1
- REFERENCES
- 1. Criteria for testing personnel dosimet J performance. Secretariat, Health Physics Society, 4720 Montgomery Lane, Suite 506, Bethesda, MD 20014 (June,1981).
- 2. Plato, P. and Hudson, G. Performance testing of personnel dosimetry services: final report of a two-year pilot study, NUREG/CR-1064, National _
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (January,1980).
.o
- 3. Plato, P. and Hudson, G. Performance testing of personnel dosimetry services: supplementary report of a two-year pilot study, NUREG/CR-1304, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (April,
- 1980).
- 4. Plato, P. and Hudson, G. Performance testing of personnel dosimetry services: procedures manual, NUREG/CR-1063, National Technical Infor-mation Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (January,1980).
- 5. Plato, P. and Hudson, G. Performme testing of personnel dosimetry:
alternatives and recommendations for a personnel dosimetry testing pro-gram, NUREG/CR-1593, National Technical Information Service, Spring-field, Virginia 22161 (August,1980).
- 6. Miklos, J. and Plato, P. Performance testing of personnel dosimetry services: procedures manual for Test #3, NUREG/CR-2892 National Tech-nical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (in press).
j^ 7. Schwartz, R. B. and Eisenhauer, C. M. Tlie design and construction of a D20-moderated Cf-252 source for calibrating neutron personnel dosimeters l used at nuclear power reactors, NUREG/CR-1204, National Technical l
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (January,1980).
- 8. Nash, A. E. and Johnson, T. L. Effect of badge position on the response of
!, . an albedo neutron dosimeter. Health Phys!cs, 39:989-991 (December,1980).
l*
- s
- 9. Mcdonald, J., Griffith, R., and Miklos, J. Measurements of Plato, P.,252 Cf source, NUREG/CR-2957.
L]j gamma-ray - dose from a moderated l! National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (in l]' press).
Id
,q R -
[
. _ . .- . ..