ML20094N827

Forwards Radiation Safety Committee Review of Univ Health Physics Staff & Evaluation of Staff Ability to Meet Regulatory Responsibilities,In Response to Question That Arose During Insp 50-166/94-01

ML20094N827
Person / Time
Site:	University of Maryland
Issue date:	11/17/1995
From:	Destler W MARYLAND, UNIV. OF, COLLEGE PARK, MD
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9511280188
Download: ML20094N827 (4)

Text

.

e u)

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND AT COLLEGE PARK GLENN L MARTIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY e A. JAMES CLARK SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING November 17,1995 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD SUILIECT: RPVIEW OF IIEALTII PIIYSICS STAFF RE: NRC INSPECTION No. 50-166/94-01 LICENSE No. R70 DOCKET No. 50-166 In response to a question that arose during our last facility inspection, enclosed is our Radiation Safety Committee's review of the University's health physics staff and an evaluation of our staff's ability to meet our regulatory responsibilities.

The staff in the Radiation Safety Office at that time included one senior Health Physicist and two junior Health Physicists along with two student assistants who worked at a level of approximately 1.5 person equivalents. In summary, the report found the HP staff to be working at full capacity with sufficient resources to meet all of our current regulatory obligations but unable to accept any expanded responsibilities.

During the development of this myiew, one of our three full-time HP professionals left the University In fulfillment ofits regulatory n:sponsibilities, the University has committed the

' financial resources to search for and hire a suitable replacement to fill this staff vacancy. This replacement position will be upgraded to a senior level health physicist so that the full time staff will include two senior Health Physicists and one junior Health Physicist.

9511280188 951117 of0 I

PDR ADOCK 05000166 l

l _ LL. _ _ _ PDR _ ,,, ,

I 107 ENGINEERING CLASSROOM BUILDING e COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20742 e 00t) 405-3868 l

1

r.

Review of Health Physics Staff University of Maryland Page 2 If you have any questions regarding the status of this search, please contract Mr. Leon Igras, Director, Department of Environmental Safety (301 405-3099)

Sincen:ly, h l William Destler, Dean A. James Clark College of Engineering c.c. Dr. Aris Christou, Chairman, Department of Mat. and Nuc. Engineering, UMCP Dr. Frank Munno, Chairman, Radiation Safety Committee, UMCP Mr. Leon Igras, Director, Department of Environmental Safety, UMCP ,

Dr. Walter Chappas, Director, Nuclear Reactor, UMCP  !

Mr. Steven Holmes, USNRC Mr. Tom Dragoon USNRC Mr. Seymor Weiss, UNRC i

l 1

i 1

l l

Review of the Radiation Safety Office Report of the Radiation Safety Subcommittee Charge to the Committee:

The UMCP RSC should periodically perform and document, as part of at least one of the RSC meetings per year, a myiew of the effectiveness of the radiation protection staff in such amas as radiological work practices, work monitoring, procedural compliance and survey adequacy. A documentation of the review should be made a matter of record by incorporating evidence of this review into the RSC minutes.

Report of the Subcommittee:

In response to the charge, a subcommittee of the Campus Radiation Safety Committee was formed and instructed to conduct a review of the Radiation Safety Office (RSO). The members of the Subcommittee were Vincent Adams, Material and Nuclear Engineering, Alice Mignemy, Chemistry and Biochemistry, and Sherry Pike, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Hom Point. At the time the review was conducted the Radiation Safety Office consisted of three full time Ilealth Physicists, one graduate student, and one undergraduate.

i In order to gather the necessary data, the Subcommittee solicited the opinions and  ;

comments of the principal investigators authorized to use radioisotopes and/or radiation producing instrumentation. The user were asked to respond to the following questions:

1) Has Radiation Safety been providing the day-to-day service which you need to carry on your research?

2) Have the Radiation Safety personnel responded in a timely manner to any special requests for assistance and/or training?

3) Have you had any particular problems in dealing with the Radiation Safety Office?

l

4) Do you feel that the Office is capable of handling that BIG emergency?

5) Are there any issues which the Office should be addressing - curmnt or future?

6) Have you ever been told by an inspector that your Radiation Safety Office is understaffed?

1 After a majnrity of the responses has been received, the Subcommittee met with members of the RSO.to discuss the findings and hear their concems.

In all 57 responses to the questionnaire were received. There was overwhelming satisfaction with the service the RSO is providing the researchers. Many praised the friendly, helpful nature of the staff and very few problems were noted. For example, one response said "I have to commend the personnelin this office. The nature of theirjob could be quite adversarial.

However, even when they have found a problem...they have been extremely helpful and more l important courteous". l l

There was concern over waste disposal and training. Several mentioned the timely nature of the volume of waste disposal and the space which the required containers take in small laboratories, but that is not within the perview of the RSO. A more substantive issue that the RSO might be able to assist with is the reduction of the volume of radioactive waste. This is a long term problem which involves the Campus and State and Federal regulators and will surely be an issue in the future. In regard to training. some thought that current radiation safety course was not offered in a timely manner, took too much time, or that the material covemd was not relevant to their needs.

While most researchers were positive or neutral in their opinion of whether there is adequate staff to meet the needs of an emergency, a concern was voiced that there was not ,

enough cross training or depth in the staff to be able to respond if someone was missing through vacation or illness. It was also pointed out that the staffis too busy performing its mandated duties to spend time working with faculty reviewing procedures and facilities to ensure the safest possible operations. The RSO is instead simply reacting to situations as they arise. .

In the meeting with Radiation Safety Office personnel the shortage of trained personnel was discussed. The Office is being stressed to the point that they are unable to address any new initiatives or responsibilities which may be forthcoming without seriously affecting their day-to-day service to the Campus. Also, the current staff does not necessarily have the required expertise in these potentially new areas. The point of training appropriate for the users of isotopes for radiolabeling of compounds in chemistry, biochemistry and molecular biology was raised. Curmntly there is not sufficient staff to address this issue or create an additional training program.

In summary, the Subcommittee finds that the RSO is performing its assigned tasks in a friendly, efficient and timely manner. However, there is concern that this performance may erode should extra burdens be placed upon them and that they have insufficient time to work on any development or training initiatives.

- - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . - - _ _ - . - . _ _ - - _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ -