ML20098B832
| ML20098B832 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1984 |
| From: | Browne S CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20098B820 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8409260306 | |
| Download: ML20098B832 (36) | |
Text
..
- r, e e o3D%b ccgEn g 1
'84 SEP 25 P2:56 S ptember 21, 1984 2
"T I .? : ;! t w-3 UNITEb#kTkkbFAMERICA S
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
5 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6
In the Matter of )
7
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
8 and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
9 ~
)
10 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
11 12 13 14 APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN A. BROWNE 15 IN RESPONSE TO JOINT CONTENTION IV (THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETERS) 6409260306 840921 PDR ADUCK 05000400 T PDR 1
\
2T u
.v .*
3 Q.1 Please state your name, address, present occupation
=1 and employcr.
2 A.1 My.name is Stephen A. Browne. My business address 3 -is: Shearon Harris Energy & Environmental Center, Route 1, Box 4 327,lNew Hill, North Carolina 27562. I am employed by Carolina
.5 Power & Light Company ('!CP&L") as Project Specialist - Health
~
6 Physics. In this position I am' responsible for the technical
'7 direction of the personnel dosimetry program for all CP&L nu-8 clear plants.
9 g,2 . State your educational background and professional 10 work experience.
11 -A.2 I have-a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from 12 Union College. I received a Masters of Science degree in Envi-13 ronmental Health Engineering from Northwestern University. A 14 summary of my professional experience and qualifications is 15 - contained in Attachment A to this testimony. For the last 16 eight years.I have been directly involved with the supervision 17 and direction of dosimetry programs using thermoluminescent 18 dosimeter ("TLD") systems manufactured by Harshaw, Teledyne and 19 Panasonic, the major manufacturers of TLD systems used in the 20 United States today. Recently I have been a consultant to the 21 National Bureau of Standards ("NBS") as a technical expert in 22 assessing and evaluating personnel radiation dosimetry proces-23 sors under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Pro-24 gram ("NVLAP").
il .
Q.3 Describe the major responsibilities of your position
' l- -at,CP&L.
2 'A.3 In my current position, I am responsible for techni-3 cal-and quality assurance management of the CP&L dosimetry pro-4 gram. The scope of these responsibilities includes supervision 5
of the following types of activities: preparation and pro-6 cessing of TLD' badges,. data processing, establishment of meth-7 ods and procedures for all phases of dosimetry operations, 8 . calibration and maintenance of dosimetry equipment, establish-9 ment of quality assurance standards, performance of quality 10 control inspections and checks, training and qualification of 11 dosimetry staff, performance of tests, development of new meth-12 ods and systems, and maintenance of official personnel exposure
~13 history records, 14 Q.4 What is the purpose of your testimony?
15 A.4 The purpose of my testimony is to address the-re-16 maining issue of Joint Contention IV which can be stated as 17 foll'ows: Can the TLDs'and measuring equipment and processes to 18 beLused at the Harris Plant measure occupational radiation 19 ' doses with sufficient accuracy to comply with NRC regulations?
20 (Tr. 2218, August 10, 1984 Conference Call).
21 My testimony demonstrates that the TLDs to be used at the
~22 . Harris Plant and CP&L's processing techniques are sufficiently 23 accurate to comply with the American National Standards Insti-24 tute (" ANSI") standard (wh1ch has been proposed as an NRC rule 25 on TLD accuracy), the International Commission on Radiological 4
11 s 4
e
- Protection ("ICRP") standard, as well as the interpretation of 1
the current regulatory standard suggested by the Board. There-2 ' fore,.'there is no merit to the remaining issue in Joint
'3 contention IV.
4 'Q.5 .How is your testimony organized?
5 A.5 First I:will describe the manner in which TLDs are to 6 be used and processed at the Harris Plant. I then will explain 7 the-standards for TLD accuracy which have been proposed by or-8 ganizations involved with radiation protection and which have 9 been suggested by the Board and demonstrate that CP&L's program 10 is consistent with all such standards. Finally, I will explain 11 _CP&L's program for maintaining the accuracy of its TLD pro-12 cessing system and mitigating the most frequently observed
- 13 causes of inaccuracy.
14 HQ .6 What are TLDs?
15 A.6.'"TLD" stands for thermoluminescent dosimeter, which
~ 16 is a device used for measuring exposure to radiation. When a 17 TLD is irradiated'by ionizing radiation, some energy is ab-18 corbed and stored. If the TLD subsequently is heated, some of 19 the stored energy is released as light which can be detected 20 and measured. The quantity of light released is proportional 21 to the dose received by the individual wearing the TLD.
.22 Q.7 What type of TLDs will be used at the Harris Plant?
23 A.7 We plan to une Model UD-802 AQ TLDs manufactured by 124 Panasonic. The manufacturer's technical specifications of 25 those TLDs are set forth in Applicants' Exhibit .
Q.8 How will TLDs be used at the Harris Plant?
1 A.8 TLDs will be used to perform routine monitoring of 2 personnel. The objective of routine monitoring is to assess 3 the cumulative dose to individuals for official exposure 4 record-keeping purposes.
.5 Q.9 Why are TLDs the chosen method for routine moni-6 toring?
7 A.9 TLDs are nearly ideal for routine monitoring because 8 they are rugged, reliable, accurate, and sensitive. TLDs are
'9 capable of measuring the dose from the types and energies of 10 radiation which represent significant external exposure hazards
.11 in nuclear power plants. For instance, for beta radiation, the 12 TLDs proposed for the Harris Plant are capable of measuring 13 dose over the energy range from about 0.1 to 2.3 MeV. Betas 14 - below 0.1 MeV are too weak to be a significant external hazard,
-15 while betas above 2.3 MeV are very rare. For gamma radiation,
-16 ths TLDs have a usable energy range from about 40 kev to 7 Mev.
17 Gamnas above this range are rare and gammas below this range 18 contribute relatively little to the total dose in nuclear power 19 plants. With appropriate calibration, the TLD also can be used 20 for neutron monitoring in the event that such monitoring is 21 necessary.
22 Q.10 When are TLDs worn?.
23 A.10 TLDs are worn continuously by individuals while work-24 ing'in the radiologically controlled areas of nuclear power 25 plants. -
Q.ll How frequently are TLDs processed?
1 A.ll TLDs are processed to obtain official dose readings 2 at least monthly. Some TLDs are processed more frequently for 3 exposure control purposes.
4 Q.12 Are there relevant standards for the accuracy re-5 quired in routine monitoring?
6 A.12 Yes. The International Commission on Radiation Units 7 and Measurements ("ICRU"), the ICRP, and the National Council 8
for Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP") have
~
9 addressed the' issue of accuracy for individual monitoring and 10 published recommendations in ICRU Report 20, ICRP Report 35 11 (which superceded ICRP Report 12) and NCRP Report 57. These 12 organizations are considered to be authorities in the field of 13 radiation protection and measurements, and their recommenda-14 tions are the basis for radiation protection practice and reg-15 ulations in countries throughout the world.
16 Q.13 What accuracy level do these institutions recommend?
17 A.13 NCRP Report 57 (1978) states:
18 The measurement accuracy desirable in person-nel dosimetry depends on the radiation level to be 19 measured. At the level of the MPD [ Maximum Per-missible Dose] a measurement accuracy of + 30 per-20 cent should be achieved. If the dose equivalent to critical organs is less than 1/4 of the MPD, 21 personnel monitoring is not required and a lower level of accuracy (e.g., a factor of 2) is accept-22 able.
23 " Instrumentation and Monitoring Methods for Radiation Protec-24 tion," NCRP Report 57 (1978) at 63.
l t
0 ICRU Report 20 (1971) contains the following language con-1 cerning accuracy:
2 It is suggested that when the MALE [ Maximum Dose Equivalent) is comparable to the maximum per-3 missible dose, an accuracy of + 30% be achieved.
When the MADE is considerably less than the MPD, 4 less accuracy is' acceptable (e.g., at a level equal to 0.1 of the MPD an uncertainty of as much 5 as a factor of three seems acceptable).
6 " Radiation Protection Instrumentation and Its Application,"
7 ICRP Report 20 (1971) at 7.
8 ICRP Publication 12 (1968), which was referenced by the 9 NRC Staff (" Affidavit of Seymour Block in Support of Summary 10 Disposition of Joint Contention IV," January 25, 1984, at 2) 11 and by the Board (" Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions for 12 Summary Disposition") April 13, 1984, at 11-12) (hereinafter 13 " April 13 Memorandum") for their interpretation of the accuracy 14 requirements, has been superceded officially by ICRP 15 Publication 35 (1982), which states the following concerning 16 the measurement of shallow and deep doce equivalent:
17 If these quantities are of the order of the relevant annual limits, the uncertainties should 18 not exceed a factor of 1.5 at the 95% confidence level. Where they amount to less than 10 mSv (1 19 rem] an uncertainty of a factor of 2 at the 95%
confidence level is acceptable.
" General Principles of Monitoring for Radiation Protection of Workers," ICRP Publication 35 at 25. In general, all of these 22 organizations recommend accuracy standards in the range of + 30 23 to 50% at dose levels approximating the annual dose limit of 5 24 rem. At lower dose levels (1 rem), uncertainties on the order 25
y.
of 100% -or more are considered acceptable. The standards do 1
not even propose that individual monitoring be required at dose 2
levels less than 25 to 30% of the annual dose limits.
3 Although the above-standards are in general agreement on 4 the subject of accuracy, they are not specific enough to be 5
used as the basis for evaluating the performance of dosimetry
.6 . systems. For this reason, ANSI N13.11-1983 was established to 7 provide specific criteria for testing the performance of 8 dosimetry processors.
9 Q.14 What is the ANSI standard?
10 A.14 ANSI N13.11 (1983) is the current standard used for 11 testing.the performance of dosimetry processors under the NBS 12 dosimetry' accreditation program, and as such it is the most 13 widely used standard for the accuracy of dosimetry in the nu-14 clear industry.
15 The ANSI standard sets the tolerance level at 50% for 16 doses from 0.03 to 10 rem and at 30% for doses from 10 to 500 17 rem. The ANSI performance criterion specifies that for a se-18 ries of dosimeter measurements the sum of the average absolute 19 bias (P) plus the standard deviation (S) must be less than the 20 specified tolerance level (L). The mathematical expression of 21 the criterion is:
- 22 P+S < L 23 The average absolute bias is a measure of the deviation of the 24 average measured dose from the true dose, while the standard 25 deviation is a measure of the variation or spread of the L
, y - -
~6s .z u ;(.
4 ind'ividual dosimeter' measurements about the average measured 1 dose.
2 Q.15 Do the TLDs to be used at the Harris Plant satisfy 3 the ANSI: standard?
4 ;A.15 Yes. The Panasonic TLDs to be used at the Harris 5 Plant-were tested in 1982 and 1984 and found to meet the per-6 formance-specifications ~of ANSI N13.11-1983. In 1982, testing
^7 -was conducted at.the University'of Michigan by Dr. Phil Plato 8 as part of a study sponsored by the-NRC.. During the study the 9 TLDs'were irradiated to a variety of radiation sources whose
10
, calibrations were verified by NBS. The methods used during 11 this study are documented in Performance Testing of-Personnel 12 Dosimetry Services-- Revised Procedures Manual, NUREG/CR-2892 13 .(February 1983), and the results of testing are documented in
' 14 Performance' Testing of' Personnel-Dosimetry Study - Final Report 15 Test 3i-NUREG/CR-2891,'page no. 18-(February 1983)
II :(Attachment B hereto). In these reports, CP&L is listed as 17 processor number.187. In 1984, similar testing was conducted
'18 to meet the NVLAP accreditation performance test requirements.
x19 Again, the testing was conducted at the University of Michigan, 20 which was selected by NBS as the official testing lab for the 21 LNVLAP. The results of this testing have been forwarded to NBS 22 and CP&L, but have not.been published.
23 As the table shows, using Panasonic TLD's, CP&L achieved I 24 the following performance for categories I through VIII in 25 these two tests:
l
- - _ _ _ _ - - - _ . - . . . _ _ _ _ . - . - - . . _ _ - - _ . _ - _a
I
- r. .
g- _ .. (-
Performance Performance ANSI l Category Radiation Type (P+S) (P+S) Limit i
2 I X-ray Accident .24 .18 .3 3 Gamma Accident .15
. I I -- .10 .3 III -X-ray Shallow .11 .18 .5 4 .12 .16 X-ray Deep .5 IV Gamma .06 .10 .5 5 ,V Beta .30 .28 .5 VI Gamma & X-ray 6 Shallow .06 .19 .5 Gamma & X-ray Deep .16 .18 .5 7 'VII Gamma & Beta Shallow .16 .29 .5 ;
8 Gamma & Beta Deep .11 .10 .5 VIII Gamma & Neutron * .09 .5 9
- CP&L did not participate in this test category in 1982.
The tolerance limit is 0.3 for Categories I and II and 0.5 for all other categories. Thus CP&L passed the tolerance limit for all categories in which it participated during each test.
These tests demonstrate that the Panasonic TLDs proposed for the Harris Plant meet the accuracy requirements which have been endorsed by the national consensus standard of ANSI.
Q.16 As the Board noted, in the development of the ANSI standard the criterion was relaxed by-changing the passing for-mula from P+2S < L to P+S < L. How would the performance of the TLDs to be used at the Harris Plant compare to the more re-strictive criterion?
21 A.16 First, it should be noted that while the criterion 22 was. relaxed from 25 to S, the maximum value for L was tightened from 2.0 to-0.5 for low doses. However, the following table 24 shows CP&L results compared to the criterion of P+2S < L. As 9
a--_-_-__-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ .
can be seen, CP&L passed the more restrictive criterion for all 1
categories in which it participated during each test except the 2 accident x-ray category in 1982. In my opinion, it is not re-3 alistic to expect that an individual could receive accident 4 level exposures to x-rays in a nuclear power plant.
5 1982 CP&L 1984 CP&L Performance Performance 6 Radiation Type (P+2S)
Category (P+2SL _ Limit 7
I X-ray, Accident .37 .29 .3 8 II Gamma, Accident .14 .21 .3 III X-ray Shallow .16 .26 .5 9 X-ray Deep
.22 .25 .5 IV Gamma .09 .17 .5 10 V Beta .36 .37 .5 VI Gamma & X-ray Shallow .12 .26 .5 11 Gaatma & X-ray Deep .23 .28 .5 VII Gamma & Beta Shallow .22 .41 .5 12 Gamma & Beta Deep .17 .18 .5 VIII Gamma & Neutron Deep * .15 .5 g
- CP&L did not participate in this category in 1982.
Q.17 is the ANSI standard compatible with other na-tionally recognized standards?
A.17 In general, yes. Only ICRP 35, which defines the acceptable uncertainty in routine monitoring at a specific con-fidence level can be effectively compared to the ANSI standard.
For doses on the order of the annual limit (5 rem), ICRP 35 states that the uncertainties s.1ould not exceed 50% at the 95%
confidence level. This can be expressed in mathematical terms (in an equation similar to the expression of the ANSI standard) as:
24 l* :
P + 2S 1 0.5 1 'For doses below 1 rem, ICRP 35 recommends that the uncer-2 tafaties not exceed-100% at the 95% confidence level. Mathe-
-3 matically, this is expressed as:
4 P + 2Sl1 1.0 5 ; The following table sliows/ the relationship between the 6 ANSI and ICRP standards for the simple case where P=0 (i.e.
7 systematic bias is zero):
8 Dose Range (rem) ANSI ICRP 9 0 0 " S < 0. 5 S10.5 L10 5 b 10.0 S .5 S 1 0.25 10-500 S < 0.3 S 1 0.25
- ICRP does not clearly address this dose range.
As the table shows, there is relatively good overall agreement-between ANSI and ICRP under the simple case when P=0, especially at the dose levels which are most common in practice (doses less than 1 rem).
When P 0, as is usually the case, the comparison of the
. ANSI and ICRP standards becomes more complex. For the most 18
. common dose range (less than one 1 rem), ANSI becomes more re-19 strictive than ICRP. For doses between 5 and 10 rem ICRP is 20 more restrictive. For doses above 10 rem, the standard which 21 is'more restrictive depends on the actual values for P and S.
22 The following examples illustrate that ANSI is more re-23 strictive than ICRP for doses less than 1 rem.
l
g~
, y- .
Example-1 1 Assume P=0.2 and calculate the maximum. permissible 2 S'according to the ANSI and ICRP formulas.
3 Formula P Maximum S
-4 ANSI P+S < 0.5 0.2 0.3 5 ICRP P+2S < l.0 0.2 0.4 6 As can be seen ICRP allows a larger S for a given P.
7 Example 2 8
Assume S=0.2 and calculate the maximum permissible 9
value for P according to ANSI and ICRP formulas:
.10 Formula S Maximum P 11 ANSI P+S < 0. 5 0.2 0.3 12 ICRP P+2S < 1.0 0.2 0.6 13 Again, ICRP allows a larger P for a given S.
14 Thus, overall, the ANSI standard and ICRP recommendations are 15 relatively compatible, especially at the dose levels which are 16 most common in practice (doses less than one rem).
17
_Q.18 Is CP&L committed to maintaining the ANSI standard at 18 the Harris Plant?
19 A.~18 Yes. A quarterly TLD intercomparison program has
-20 been established with the University of Michigan. This program 21 follows the format of the ANSI performance test, except that
- 2 CP&L has added two additional radiation categories which are 23 applicable to the radiation types and energies found in its nu-24 clear plants, and has dropped the accident categories which
differ from other categories only in the dose level. This pro-1 vides a regular, independent test of the TLD system against the 2 ANSI criterion.
3 Q.19 Which two categories have been added by CP&L?
4 A.19 CP&L has added new categories for low energy beta and 5 for mixtures of low energy beta with high energy photons.
6 These two categories are designed.to test more fully the TLD 7 system capability under exposure conditions which are similar 8 to those which can occur under certain working conditions in 9 the CP&L plants.
- 10 Q.20 What results have been obtained in those categories?
11 A.20 The results for these two categories in tests con-12 ducted during the first quarter of 1984 are shown below:
13 CP&L Performance 14 Radiation Type (P+S) Limit 15 Beta (low) shallew .40 .5 Gamma (high) & Beta (low) shallow .26 .5 16 Gamma & Beta deep .22 .5 17 It should be noted that this test represented the first actual 18 exposure of CP&L TLDs to these categories. The calibration 19 factor used during these tests was based on the best available 20 information in the literature prior to the test, rather than on 21 experimental data specific to the CP&L system. Based on these 22 test results and additional beta dosimetry studies performed by 23 CP&L in conjunction with the University of Lowell during 1984, i
24 adjustments have been made so that future performance can be 25 expected to improve significantly.
5 8_
Q.21 Are there any existing regulatory requirements that 1 specify TLD accuracy?
2 A.21 No. I understand that the Board views 10 C.F.R. Part 3 20 as establishing implicit limits for TLD accuracy. In my 4 opinion,1Part 20 sets limits on the maximum recorded quarterly 5 and yearly dose to various parts of the body, but does not spe-6 cifically set forth an accuracy standard for measurement of 7 dose.
8 Q.22.What' accuracy standard has been suggested by the 9 Beard?
10 A.22 With regard to the NRC regulatory standards for radi-11 ation dose to individuals, the Board initially noted:
12 There is no indication of any latitude or permissible variance in the application of these 13 standards that would give the Board guidance con-cerning the accuracy required in dosimetric proce-14 dures.
15 From this statement, I believe that the Board is in basic 16 agreement with m'y earlier statement that the regulations 17 contain no explicit standard for accuracy. However, the Board 18 derived an implied standard of accuracy from 10 C.F.R. 19 9 20.407(b), which provides for a statistical summary report of 20 ' recorded doses. The Board's interpretation was stated as fol-21 lows:
22 The Board derives from these regulations an implication that the required radiation exposure 23 control ia in terms of integer values in rem units.
24 April 13 Memorandum at 9.
l
The Board has clarified this language, based on the NRC 1 Staff's guidance:
2 The Board accepts the Staff's guidance as cited, and we note that the specification of the 3 limit on the uncertainties as 50 percent is com-patible with our reading of the regulations as 4 specifying integer values at occupational exposure levels.
5
-~Id. at 12. The Board also stated:
6 As noted above, the Board accepts the Staff's 7 guidance in terms of the ICRP recommendation that at a dose level of 2 rem, 1 rem uncertainty is 8 acceptable.
9 Id. at 16.
~
10 By these statements, the Board appears to suggest 50% as 11 an accuracy standard without reference to a specific confidence 12 teyct, 13 After suggesting 50% as the standard, the Board expressed 14 its interpretation of the confidence level requirement as fol-15 tows:
16 The essential issue from the Board's point of view is that reasonable worker radiation protec-17 tion and demonstrations of regulatory compliance are not compatible with the acceptance of perfor-18 mance with a standard deviation of 0.5. Conven-tional interpretation of the 0.5 standard devia-19 tion would be that at the 95 percent confidence level an individual dose estimate would be uncer-20 tain by + 100 percent. This range or latitude is not compatible with the Board's reading of the 21 regulations as calling for controlling radiation doses to workers with a resolution to integer val-22 ues at 1 rem and above.
M. at 16. I must note, however, that this statement overlooks 1
the fact that, according to the ANSI criterion, the sum of the 2 bias plus the standard deviation -- not just the standard 3 deviation -- must be within 0.5. But in any case, the Board 4 appears to consider the 95% confidence level to be appropriate.
5 Combined with previous statements, the standard which the Board 6 seems to have suggested is 50% at the 95% confidence level.
7 The Board also suggested an alternative interpretation for 8 the accuracy standard as follows:
9 As the Board has outlined above, we believe that NRC regulations require that personal 10 dosimetry be carried out in a manner such that the results can be relied upon to be accurate to inte-11 ger values or one significant figure for doses of a few rem. Such performance could be achieved by 12 limiting acceptable bias to 10 to 20 percent and variability or the standard deviation also to 10 13 to 20 percent.
14 This proposal is different from the Board's other I_d . at 19.
15 suggestions in the April 13 Memorandum since no confidence 16 level is specified and ranges, rather than single values, are 17 provided for bias and variability. It could be interpreted as 18 allowing a bias of 20% and standard deviation of 20% at the 95%
19 confidence level, thus yielding a total uncertainty of 60%
20 rather than 50% as espoused earlier.
21 In its ruling on the CP&L motion to reconsider its order 22 on summary disposition, the Board suggested what appears to be 23 a third interpretation of the accuracy standard:
The issue that we are leaving in (the licens-in9 proceeding) reflects our view that the exist-1 ing regulations do embody a standard of accuracy.
They require that the Applicants' dosimetry pro-2 gram reliably distinguish between doses of 2 and 3 rems and between 3 and 4 rems; that is to say, er-3 rors of larger than half a rem are not permitted.
4 Tr. 2218-19, August 10, 1984 Conference Call.
5 I am unable to reconcile this statement with the Board's 6 previous statements to the effect that an accuracy level of 50%
7 may be required. The standard suggested at the time of the 8 conference call would result in a different accuracy level for 9 each dose level. Only at a dose of 1 rem would an error of 10 0.5 rem represent 50% uncertainty.
11 Q.23 What conclusions have you drawn regarding the Board's 12 suggestion of an implied standard for TLD accuracy?
13 A.23 I have carefully analyzed the Board's statements 14 regarding accuracy and reached the following conclusions:
15 First, as acknowledged by the Board, NRC regulations do 16 not presently contain any explicit guidance on the accuracy re-17 quired in dose measurements. As noted by the Board in its 18 ruling on Applicants' motion for reconsideration, the NRC's 19 rulemaking proceeding will resolve the question of the accuracy 20 for Applicants and all other licensees. Tr. 2217-18, 21 August 10, 1984 Conference Call.
22 Second, the Board has not articulated a single, unambigu-23 ous technical standard for accuracy against which CP&L TLD per-24 formance could be measured.
s Third, the various statements made about accuracy by'the 1
Board are not entirely consistent with the guidance of the pre-2 valling standards established by ANSI and ICRP. Applicants are 3 committed, however, to maintaining, at a minimum, the ANSI 4 standard.
5 Q.24 Would you consider a requirement of accuracy within 6
50% at the 95%' confidence level for doses of a few rem to be an 7 appropriate standard for TLD accuracy?
8 A.24 No. This standard was suggested by the Board, 9 relying, in part, on ICRP 12 (1968). However, as I have noted, 10 ICRP 12 has been superceded by ICRP 35 (1982) which provides 11 more recent and specific guidance on the subject of accuracy in 12 routine monitoring. For doses on the order of the annual limit 13 (5 rem) ICRP 35 states that the uncertainties should not exceed 14 -50% at the 95%' confidence level. Therefore the standard sug-15 gested by the Board is essentially consistent with the recom-16 mandations of ICRP 35 for doses on the order of 5 rem or 17 greater. However, 5 rem is the annual exposure limit and the 18 actual annual exposure of most workers is below this level. In 19 fact, less than 10% of the workers monitored at the d.B. Rob-20 inson Plant (CP&L's operating pressurized water reactor 21 ("PWR")) received annual doses during 1983 greater than 1 rem.
22 The. Robinson Plant is a single-unit, Westinghouse-designed PWR 23 similar to the Harris Plant. At dose levels below 1 rem, ICRP 24 35 recommends that the uncertainties not exceed a factor of 2 25 (100%) at the 95% confidence level. This recommendation is
- k ',
] '
essentially. equivalent to the ANSI criterion of P+S 0.5, as I 1
previously explained in response to question 17. Although the 2 Board's' interpretation that accuracy should be within 50% for 3 doses'of..a few rem is appropriate for doses of 5 rem or 4 greater, in my opinion it is not appropriate or cor.aistent with 5 ICRP or ANSI ^ recommendations for doses of 1 rem or less, which 6 constitute the majority of actual exposures received.
7 Q.25 Do the TLDs to be used at the Harris Plant nonethe-8 less comply with an accuracy requirement of 50% at the 95% con-9 fidence' level as suggested by the Board?
10 A.25 Yes. As previously shown, P+2S was less than 0.5 for 11 all categories during the 1982 and 1984 tests.
12 Q.26 The Board also suggested that acceptable performance 13 could be achieved by limiting bias and variability to 10 to 14 20%. Do the TLDs to be issued at the Harris Plant meet this 15 criterion?
16 A.26 Yes. During the 1984 ANSI tests, no individual cate-17 . gory had either bias or standard deviation greater than 20%.
18 During the 1982 ANSI tests, no individual category had a stan-
-19 dard deviation greater.than 20%, and only one category had a 20 bias greater than 20% (beta--24%). During both the 1982 and 21 -1984 tests, the average b'ias and standard deviation for all 22 categories was less than 10%. A table setting forth the bias 23 and standard deviation as separate values has been prepared and 24 is attached to this testimony as Attachment C. As the table 25 shows, the results achieved by CP&L more than meet the Board's 26 performance criteria.
Q.27 Would you consider-a standard of accuracy within 1/2 l' rem'as suggested by-the Board to'be an appropriate standard for 2 TLD accuracy?
3 A.27 No. A' standard worded in this'way represants a dif-4 forent level of accuracy on a percentage basis at every dose 5 level. The following table shows how the percent error allowed 6 would vary as a function of dose. At both high and low doses,
'7 the allowed error is unreasonable. '
A standard is incomplete if 8 it does not cover both high and low' doses. Thus, the defini-9 tion of accuracy stated above is not useful in practice.
10 Dose Absolute Error Percent Error Allowed 11 0.1 0.5 500%
0.5 0.5 100%
12 1.0 0.5 50%
2.0 0.5 25%
13 5.0 0.5 10%
10.0 0.5 5%
Q.28 What steps will CP&L take to ensure that the TLD sys-tem at the Harris Plant continues to meet the applicable stan-dard~for accuracy? ,
A.28 As stated in NUREo-2891, four common reasons for poor performance of dosimetry processors.were observed during the ;
1982 tests at the University of Michigan. These causes of in-accuracy were: 1) use of incorrect calibration factors; 2) dosimeter variability; 3) clerical errors; and 4) poor
. calibration for accident doses. CP&L has taken steps to mini- -
mize errors in each of those four areas.
Q.29 How does CP&L seek to minimize the use of incorrect 1
calibration factors?
2 A.29 Extensive quality control measures are applied to the 3 processing of TLDs and recording of individual doses to ensure 4 accuracy. With regard to incorrect calibration factors, CP&L 5 has taken the following approach. First, calibration factors 6 have been determined for the TLD system based on irradiation of 7
TLDs to NBS traceable radiation standards for beta, gamma, 8 x-rays, and neutrons. Second, these correction factors have ]
9 been verified by the tests performed at the University of 10 Michigan in 1982 and 1984, which were discussed previously, and 1
11 by the on-going quarterly intercomparison program previously i 12 mentioned. If calibration factors were not valid, the perfor-13 mance on these tests would so indicate. Third, a monthly in-14 house cross-check program is in operation. Under this program, 15 blind audit TLDs irradiated with an NBS traceable dose standard 16 are processed on each TLD reader. The performance limit (P+S) 17 of 0.3 is more restrictive than the ANSI limit of 0.5. Ecurth, 18 each TLD reader is calibrated semiannually and following any 19 maintenance which affects calibration. A preventative mainte-20 nance program is followed for all equipment. Fifth, a daily 21 calibration check using TLDs irradiated to known doses using
=
22 NBS traceable standards is performed. The performance limit 23 for this check requires the accuracy to be within 15%. Sixth, 24 numerous critical parameters in the TLD reader are monitored 25 automatically prior to reading each TLD badge to ensure 26 stability of equipment during operation.
- ^
=
_Q.30 How accurate is CP&L's semi-annual calibration equip-
'l ment?
2 A.30 The acceptance criterion for semi-annual calibration 3 of TLD readers requires that 10 TLDs be road at each of 5 known 4 dose levels ranging from 0.25 to 4.0 rem. At each dose level, 5 the average observed reading must be within 1 10% of the actual l 6 -irradiated dose and the percent standard deviation must not ex-7 ceed'10%.
8 Q.31 What about the daily calibration check of TLD reading 9 equipment?
.10 A.31_For daily TLD reader calibration checks, TLDs are 11 read after.being irradiated to the following known doses:
12 0.5 rem and 4.0 rem. Each TLD must read within 1 15% of the
'13 actual irradiated dose. If a reading within 1 15% is not 14 obtained,-the check is repeated two more times; if the check 15 fails two out of three. times, the TLD reader is removed from 11i6 service. If the observed dose:is outside 1 25% of the actual 17 dose, all-TLD readings since the last satisfactory check are 18 reviewed to determine whether they are valid.
19 Q.32 What steps are taken to minimize dosimet er 20l variability?
21 A.32 CP&L performs an initial acceptance test on each TLD 22 prior to placing it in service. This test identifies TLDs 23 whose response to known radiation doses falls outside approxi-2,4 mately the 99% probability level relative to the mean of a sam-25 ple of at least 500 TLDs. P..c samples containing less than 500 g - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
l l
n' TLDs, the acceptance criterion requires the TLD response to be 1
within + 15% of the irradiated value. TLDs which fail initial 2 I acceptance testing are returned to the manufacturer for re- !
3 placement. After being placed in service, all TLDs undergo 4 semiannual quality control checks to detect any change in re-5 sponse. The same procedures and acceptance criteria are used 6 during these quality control checks, and any TLDs which fail 7 are removed from service.
8 Q.33 Are steps taken to prevent clerical errors?
9 A.33 With regard to clerical errors, CP&L has implemented 10 automatic data processing techniques and detailed verification 11 procedures. Individual dose records are maintained using a 12 computer system. The TLD readers are interfaced to this com-13 puter system, and most TLD readings are transferred elec-14 tronically to the assigned individual's dose history record.
15 Of course, no data is transferred to the computer system prior 16 to a technical review of the data,, and built-in checks ensure 17 the data is tranferred completely and correctly. Through elec-18 tronic transfer and automated data processing techniques, the
'19 opportunity for clerical errors is greatly reduced.
20 Although some data is still entered into the computer sys-21 tem manually, all manual data entry is independently verified 22 by a different individual. In many cases, the data entry is
-23 actually verified twice by two different individuals. In addi-24 tion, hard copies of all source documents are retained perma-25 nently on microfilm to backup the. computer record system.
e Q.34 What steps has CP&L taken with regard to poor 1
calibration for accident doses?
2 A.34 With regard to poor calibration for accident doses, 3 CP&L'has performed in-house tests which establish the dose re-4 eponse of the TLDs up to doses of 100 rem. The response is es-5 sentially linear'within approximately + 15%. In addition, CP&L 6 has participated in and passed the accident dose categories 7 during ANSI performance tests in 1982 and 1984. The ANSI acci-8 dent. test range is 10 rem to 500 rem. This verifies that poor 79 calibration for accident doses is not a problem at CP&L.
10 Q.35 Has CP&L undertaken other measures to minimize the 11 potential for poor TLD performance?
12 A.35 In addition to the specific quality control measures 13 described above which address the major reasons for poor per-14 formance noted in NUREG CR-2891, the overall quality assurance 15 program-includes: (1) detailed written procedures for the per-16 formance of all routine dosimetry operations; (2) formal 17 training and qualificatic n for all operating personnel; and (3) 18 formal supervisory review of all quality control records. All l
19 of these measures ensure that TLDs will be used and processed 20 correctly at the Harris Plant.
21 In addition, as part of the overall quality control ef-22 fort,.CP&L has applied for accreditation of its dosimetry labo-23 ratory under the recently announced Dosimetry Processor Labora-24 tory Accreditation Program administered by the NBS. CP&L has 25 successfully completed the performance testing requirements for
4 e acc.aditation. The on-site inspection of CP&L by NVLAP asses-1 sors was completed in late August.
2 Furthermore, while CP&L is confident that its dosimetry 3 program is in compliance with NRC regulations, additional im-4 provement's are always being made in an effort to maintain a 5 state-of-art program. Recently, major studies have been com-6 pleted in the areas of beta and neutron dosimetry. These 7 studies were designed to characterize the response of the TLDs 8 to the typical radiation spectra found in CP&L's nuclear plants 9 and to use this knowledg6 to improve the accuracy of measure-10 ment of personnel doses. CP&L continually seeks to upgrade the 11 quality of its dosimetry program through the better training of 12 personnel, new equipment, and improved procedures.
13 Q.36 Please summarize your opinion of the adequacy of 14 CP&L's TLD system for use at the Harris Plant.
15 A.36 In my opinion, CP&L has a well-established, state-of-16 the-art dosimetry program which has operated successfully for 17 over ten years. The program employs up-to-date equipment and 18 facilities. Within the last three years CP&L has invested well 19 over one million dollars in TLD equipment and has committed 20 over $200,000 more this year for additional equipment to sup-21 port the Harris Plant. A highly trained and experienced staff 22 is maintained to provide dedicated support to the dosimetry 23 program. The central support staff includes four professional 24 personnel, five technicians, and two clerks. Each cperating 25 plant, including the Harris Plant, also maintains or will
- e. e maintain a separate dosimetry staff headed by a dosimetry fore-1 ,,n. The program is operated under detailed quality assurance 2 procedures which incorporate elaborate quality control checks
~3
_on all~ aspects of dosimetry processing and record keeping.
4 CP&L's.use of TLDs satisfies all applicable NRC regula-l 5 tions,-is'in substantial compliance with the standards of the
-6 nationally and' internationally recognized organizations in the
'7 field, and conforms to the. ANSI N13.11 standard that is the 8 basis for the.NVLAP program and the proposed NRC rule. Thua, 9 .the dosimetry program to be established at the Harris Plant,
'10 utilizing Panasonic TLDs'and CP&L's calibration and quality 11 control program, has already demonstrated a consistent degree L
12 of accuracy _in. radiation doses measurement to ensure compliance
[.
, 13 with' NRC regulations and is adequate to protect worker health
'14 and safety.
uuI 11p b
4 1
ATTACHMENT A Stephen A. Browne Harris Energy & Environmental Center Carolina Power & Light Company New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Education and Training B.S. degree in Physics, Union College (1971)
M.S. degree in Environmental Health Engineering, Northwestern University (1974)
Professional Societies Health Physics Society -
Experience /
A.
1972 to 1974 - Radiation Safety Officer, Packard Instrument Company, Downers Grove, Ill.
B. 1974 to September 1978 - Health Physicist, General Electric Company, Knolls Atomic Power. Laboratory, Windsor, Conn.
September 1978 to April 1979 - Lead Engineer,~ General Electric Company, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory,, Windsor, Conn.
C. April 1979 to October 1981 - Senior Specialist - Dosimetry, Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, N.C.
October 1981 to present - Project Specialist - Health Physics, Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, N.C.
l
,,,,m-,, ,- ---c - - , . - - - - , ----,_y,-.-- - , ,,.,-
ATTACHMENT B t - '
- o NUREG/CR-2891 Performance Testing of Personnel Dosimetry Services Final Report of Test #3 Manuscript Completed: November 1982 Date Published: February 1983
{ Prepared by -
P. Plato, J. Miklos
~
The University of Michigan School of Public Health Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Prepared for Division of Facility Operations Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC FIN 81049
y-
" , *r t.
0 l
l Table 3 eestimmed. ,
TI VII Till III 17 Y I II Cama t I rey ~ Camme + Beta Cens + l Comma I rey Deep . Neutron I Radistica I rey Dney Cams Beta Shs11aa Deep Shallow Categories Accident Accident Shallow l
l Dosimeter j Code m mber 0.1335 0.1005 0.5300 0.3693 0.0891 0.1902 0.0526 ~1.7145 182 0.5024 0.0627 0.8957- 0.8006 0.0931 183 1.2 m 184 0.5416 0.1631 0.1881 0.1196 0.0831 0.2052 0.1710 0.0843- 0.1900 185 0.1297 0.0919 0(1723 H
1868- m 0.1041 0.1228 0.0614 0.3053 0.0583 0.1594 0.1640 0.1060 187 0.2406 0.1052 0.2434 0.3791 0.8830 0.6737 0.5767 0.3368 0.9632 188 0.9337 0.6027 1.0567 0.6499 0.2607 0.3423 0.3385 0.2740 0.4060 0.3176 0.2812 189 0.2355 0.1600 0.3993 0.6199 0.1700 0.5538 0.3569 0.3696 0.4432 0.3945 0.1453 190 , 0.5470 0.5344 191*
0.5534 0.2076 1.4166 0.6948 0.3518 0.7508 0.4031 0.6550 192 0.3187 0.1155 1.4559 0.0499 0.1220 3.3129 0.1167 0.1235 0.1860 0.3201 193 1.9733 0.7837 3.0410 0.0966 0.0652 0.2885 1.6137 0.3667 0.1670 0.0818 0.1844 194 1.0326 0.5363 1.4322 1.0703 195*
0.2982 0.2348 0.3628 0.4340 196 0.4493 0.1022 0.1111 0.3294 0.2351 0.1173 0.1225 0.0939 197 0.3867 0.1307 0.4789 198*-
ATTACHMENT'C O
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT ANSI-N13.ll-1983 PERFORMANCE TESTING COMPARISON-2nd Otr 1982 1st Otr 1984 j CATEGORY DESCRIPTION DEPTH P S P +S P _S P +S L I Accident, Low-Energy 1 Photon Deep .11 .13 .24 .07 .11 .18 .3 II Accident,'High-Energy Photon Deep .06 .04 .10 .09 .06 .15 .3 III Low Energy Photons Shallow .06 .05 .11 .10 .08 .18 .5 Deep .02 .10 .12 .07 .09 .16 .5 IV High Energy Photons Deep .03 .03 .06 .03' .07 .10 .5 V ' Beta Particles Shallow .24 .06 .30 .19 .09 .28 .5 VI Photon Mixtures Shallow .00 .06 .06 .12 .07 .19 .5 Deep .09 .07 .16 .08 .10 .18 .5 VII Photon plus Beta Shallow .10 .06 .16 .17 .12 .29 .5 Deep .05 .06 .11 .02 .08 .10 .5 VIII Photon plus Neutrons Deep - - -
.01' .07 .09 .5 Average .08 .07 .13 .06 .09 .17 P = Performance quotient = (Reported-Delivered)/ Delivered S = Standard deviation of P L = Tolerance limit
9 Applicants' Exhibit _
s_..,..
Joint Contention IV
.._ Docket No. 50-400 OL
-11 Le J
4 1 .
/
Specifications of TL Badge'and TL Badge Hanger (Thermoluminescent Dosimeters)
Y a
G A
y s
t e
>.m9 9 9- t c y-- - - p.*+- e -dy.- 7 -ww-. 4y 4 -9p----r-g97-..m--.-yay-wegw- ywg--s,---egpw w-eyy+w-3y ywv - ee g -- wev y v w w ere ew p y e-m---.
~ '
.w .
m SPECIFICATION OF TL. BADGE.
MODEL SPECIFICATIONS UD ,801A' UD-802A UD-803A UD-804A '
UD-806A UD-807A UD-808A.
UD-809A Ub-811A
+
UD~-815 A l
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRI AL 1:0., LTD.
MATSUSHITA INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO.,.LTD.
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT 1-1, 3-CHOME,flNAZU-CHO, T0YONAKA OSAKA, 561 JAPAN Spec:ficatior.s sunject c change without no::cc.
4
m e
s
.. y MODEL SPECIFICATIONS TL Badge : UD-802A group Refer to the GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS for common specifications.
(3 i-L 1. Model number : UD-802AQ , UD-802AR , UD-802AS
- 2. Use : Personnel monitoring
'3. Applicable reader : UD-710A, UD-702E,,UD-720A
- 4. Appearance.- : Fig.'l
- 5. Element and shield : Table 1 composition
- 6. Measurable rays and y.x rays (10 kev s 10MeV) Imren s 1000 rem range (Rough energy evaluation is possible)
B rays (0.5MeV s 4Mev) 10 mrem s 1000 rem
[ Measurablerangeisinthecasewheresingle)
( kind-of rays is measured. /
- 7. Recommended hanger : DD-875A, UD-885A
- 8. ID number : Specified serial numbers (7 digits at maximum) are punched.
- 9. Label : The labels shown in Fig. 1 are sticked.
- 10. Weight- : Less than grams.
- e. a ;
~-""
m
- n . e, U- O
.g g -
,.- . - . . - . . . , , - -c.o c-- . - . - . . ~ . .
T
..__.,-_...y. -
l 3 D C Y 9 'l l *.'l
/ .....
i Jl
__ 40
[
Fig. 1 Appearance of TL Badge: UD-802AQ (The figure also applies to UD-802 AR and UD-802AS)
Table 1 Element and shield composition of TL. Badge
-UD-802A group Element Phosonor Shield El- "Li gn 604 7(Cu) Plastics 14mg/cm2 E2 nLi nE 2 04 7(Cu) Plastics 160mg/cm 2 E3 l CaSO4 (Tm) Plastics 160mg/cm 2 E4 CaSO4 :Tm) l Lead 0.7mm thick
- The.thic'. ness of the hanger 11 not included. To obtain the total thickness when r
the had;e is placed in th* nang r, refer to the specificat.Ons of the han=er
..and add.that thicaness i:r e 3:n element.
m-- . - . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ~
SPEC NO. E-BDG/GS-1 SPECIFICATION OF TL BADGE-
- GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS 9
JANUARY 1983
.~.
LliATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.
lMATSU' o H!TA .INDUSTRI AL EQUIPMENT CO. , LTD.
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT.
il-1, 3-CHOME, INAZU-CHO, T0YONAXA
~
OSAKA, 561' JAPAN
~
- Specifications subject to change without no:1ce.
1
CCNTENTS
. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
- 1. GENERAL'.......................................................................
2
- 2. APPEARANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
............................... 2
- 3. DETAILED COMMON SPECIFICATIONS ......................... 3
'3-1 Thermo1uminescence phosphor ....................... 3 3-2 Element Thickness ........................................... 4 3-3 Measurement Range ........................................... 5
'3-4 Fading................................................................. 5 3-5 Tribo-thermo1uminescence ............................. 5 3-6 Light Response ................................................. 5
.3 - 7 S e n s i ti v i ty . .. . . .. .. .... .. . . .. ... . .. .. . ... . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. 5 3-8 Life Time .............:............................................. 6 3-9 Working Conditions ......................................... 6 3-10 Bit Form.at of O.otical Code Hole on the TL Badge . 7 E
- 4. GUARANTEE ................................................................... 7 Appeddix 1. ..................................................................... 7' Fig. 1 .................'........................................................ 9
-Fig. 2 ......................................................................... 10 Fig. 3 ......................................................................... 11 Fig. 4~......................................................................... 12 I
_ _ ___ _ -___ ______ -_. )
-INTRODUCTION These specifications areEcommon to all National /Panasonic
- TL Badges. As for detailed specifications, such a s phosphorous materials and shield combinations, refer to the
" Specifications.for each TL Badge model."
For many measurements and dosage assessment applications, 11e National /Panasonic TL Badge must be used with a TL Badge Hanger.
As for the National /Panasonic TL Badge Hanger, refer to the
" Specifications common to all TL-Badge Hangers" and the "Specif5 cations for each TL, Badge Hanger model."
.d s
e e
l
- 1. GENERAL The TL Badge is a thermoluminescence dosimeter for measurement of integral dose of radation.
Elements (up to four) are mounted on an element plate.
The element plate is put in the badge holder.
The element is made of a thin layer of thermoluminescence phosphor. A radiation shield is provided on the badge holder.
An identification number (up to seven digits) is provided on the badge and automatically read by a reader.
The b,adge is measured without the necessity of taking the element plate out from the badge holder. The element plate is locked to the badge holder to prevent deliberate removal of the plate.
- 2. APPEARANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
, Figure 1 (a), (b), (c) shows the appearance of the TL Badge. Depending on the use, three types are available; one-window type, two-window type, and no-window type.
An extremity dosimeter shown in figure 1 (d) is also available. Forty-bit optical code holes can be made in the badge holder to provide the ID number, etc.
Figure 2 shows the sectional view anc the dimensions of the TL Badge. (Though it shows the one-window type UD-802A, the figure also applies to other types.)
Figure 3 shows the enlarged sectional view of the element.
i I
i
Virtually mono-layer of granular phosphor (average granule diameter is 90u) is formed on the thin resin substrate. The phosphor is covered with a protective, transparent film.
3 DETAILED COMMON SPECIFICATIONS 3-1 Thermoluminescence phosphor Deperding on specific measurement, four kinds of phosphor are mounted on the plate in various combinations.
.nLi:nB Or(Cu) The phosphor is made of tissue-equivslent Li:B.07 with Cu doped as an activator. Natural abundant material-nLi and nB is used for Li and B. The phosphor is sensitive to y.x rays and 8 rays and somewhat sensitive to low-energy neutron.
l nLi and nB in ngin B.OJCu) n mention-
'Li,"B,0,(Cu) i ed above are replaced by enriched material 'Li and "B. The phosphor has little sensitivit, to neutron rays. The response to Y X rays and B rays is equivalent to "Li:nB.0,(Cu) 7_
l P
< I
?
r.
r.
c t
'Li: %.0,(Cu) nLi and nB in nLi nB.O.,(Cu) mentioned above are replaced by enriched material
'Li and 2*B. The phosphor has high sensitivity to low-energy neutron rays.,
The response to Y.x rays and 8 rays f
f is equivalent to nLi,nB,0,(Cu).
CaSO,(Tm) The phosphor is made of non-tissue-equivalent CaSO, with Tm doped as an activator. Since the phosphor has high sensitivity it is used to evaluate low dose in combination with metal shield. Without metal shield, it shows over response to low-energy y.x rays, and is used for energy evaluation of Y.X rays. The phosphor has little sensitivity to neutron rays.
3- 2 Element Thickness a) Phosphor layer: Approx. 15 mg/cm 2 b) Substrate: Approx. 11 mg/cm 2 c) Tr ansp'are nt cover film: Less than 28mg/cm2 C
33 Measurement Range a) Li B.0,(Cu) elements: 10 mrem to 1000 rem
("Co-y ray equivalent) b) CaSO (Tm) element: 1 mrem to 200 rem
("Co-Y ray equivalent)
~4 Fading a) Li B,0,(Cu) elements: Less than 10%/ month, b) CaSO (Tm) element: 3%/ month, at the room temperature (25 C) 3-5 Tribo-thermoluminescence a) Li 2 3.0,(Cu) elements: Lower than detection limit, b) CaSO (Tm) element: Lower than detection limit.
~-6 Light Response (light sensitivity and light fading) c) L1 2 B.0,(Cu) clemen s: Lower than detection limit, b) CaSO (Tm) element: Lower than detection limit, where mounted in the badge holder.
37 Sensitivity uniformity of element There are three classes in the nominal uniformity of element: Class 0, Class R, and Class S. The class is indicated in the seventh digit of the model number.
(Example: UD-802AQ, UD-802AR, UD-802AS etc. )
l e a
a Nominal uniformity indicated by the classes are as follows:
1 Class Nominal uniformity Q Percentage standard deviation g 5.0%
R Percentage standard deviation g 7.5%
S Maximum to minimum deviation g 230%
It is assumed that the uniformity is evaluated using the reader with rank correction function.
In evaluating uniformity, Class Q sometimes shows a percentage standard deviation of 5 to 6% and Class R does 7 to 8% depending on the exposuring method and sampling method.
T-3 Life -Time Repeated use: 300 times, Total exposure: Lower than 10 rem
("Co-Y ray equivalent) 3-9 Working Conditions Temperature: -100 C s 40 C (Fading increases above 35 C.)
Humidity: Less than 80% RH (without dripping)
For precautions before measurements, refer to the handling instructions.
-E -
1 I
t f
, ?- 10 Bit Format of Optical Code Hole on the TL Badge t
The bit format of the optical code hole is shown 1 r l in Fig. 4.
The 40 bits are used as follows; 5
28 bits : Number code (7 digits) 4 bits : Model code r
j 6 bits : Element sensitivity correction code 2 bits : Parity code (Odd parity)
- 4. GUARANTEE ,-
One year from date of delivery.
Replacement of new badge shall constitute a fulfillment of all obligations to the purchaser. The Panasonic will not be responsible for any damage resulting from improper use.
Please read the handling instructions carefully before use.
f Appendix 1.
Model number format The model number of TL Badges is constituted as follows;
.----- e- ,e..
U D -
8 L ,1, , , 2,; A LO_t,3,;
(i)> y(u u
\ i <
ii)(iii)
Common Common term term l
- =
- 1 1
l o
(1) . A code defining the composition of the element and ;
I shield.
l 0l1l to l1j 5 l
. Codes from l0l1l to l 1l1 l are assigned to standard
- specification badges and the composition is fixed.
. Codes from l1l 2l tol1l4 l are assigned to special specification badges and the composition is deter-mined by the purchaser. (Refer to (iii).)
In this case, the reader parameter must be set according to the badge composition. The badge defining parameter.for the UD-702E manual operation reader cannot be varied.
. Code l115l is assigned to the reader calibration badge.
(11) A code defining the nominal unifor.aity class.
~
(Refer to 3-(7) . )
lii) Special code When a special specification code (betweenlli2land
! 1 14 I) is assigned to term (i), many TL Badges contain-ing the same model numoer will result. To identify these badges, a serial number is assigned to the badges.
For example, UD-812AQ has many variations: UD-812AQl, CD-812AQ2, ... and incorrect readings will result when UD-812A01 is read by the reader given the badge defining parameters for UD-812AQ2.
The special code may be assioned to the standard ')
\ cadges when neces,ar;. -
l E-
'A
. p A
0
.a m
M t
1 g S
o X
U T
\
e 3 3
o e C &
C g s
06'OO '
2 L o 4 -
. # c 8
Og lc l=
O f
'g g -
A
' ~
O "
3 0
/ e C
O 2_
_ 9 _
i
/5 l l
! l
- 5E e
~
l r, 6.
_ , , , , . ___ . _. . . g a j
_ _ __ __ . g __ _ _ ,
r --- < =. .r m~ 'O a .. . - - -
I, {.~ w.4. .,r. L' ~. ,e - da y ,
f, y
- ol _
t3 _ o l .. !._ .
E I - _.. . _. ,_ _r[4. J 2J, t ) '
L d;
() - G h Q--G C . _. 7. 5 _ _
l 2'3 r - . - - - . - .
e A , A Section AA H l ! w r) 8 :
~ - - -- 4 4- ,
8 .I l r -
l Irii' llG . . u i~^31 AN U!\NNNxssraNsxx,msdI I i a i r--I
,i
_ _ . . 1 l .s... ._
-- Tj T !"'.!. '" ~ ' 1 - t p --- g g-- -- -.. ~t - - J-- , i, t _ _ B5'f H [- 2-V 71 ] [u_x 74 pi__ j_ 1 ,
s...,,.
o
[ y, /?'I *-7,?%] g , g s -
O- Q, b .4__
J 7 5 _
I m- -
& ?S g. ?_S _..
. ___p_. y ?9 . _ _
4.9_ . _ . . . - . . _ . . . . _ . _ -
Section DB Fig. 2 3ectional view of the TL Badge
( UD-UO2A as an example ).
Ji (w 3-
> .4 4
- it,
,x E.k a
r3
- ?
r 2
.a J)
Ql 4
4
)]
E
( Phosphor layer Transparent cover
(' APPROX. 15 mg/cm2 ),- ( < 28 cg/cm )
\ /
\ e
\ f
'//
\ ^
/ /
,M. w_ _. as.u_
\ n v v
,_ N //
Plastic substrate
\ ( APPROX. 11 mg/cm 2 )
Fig. 3 Enlarced ceetional view of the element.
~
- u- l l
i p2 rd.
tb
- bX y'
,.C
- -g PT a.
[$
bl h
f
'I Rank Badge ID code
/g Furity ' '
code code lo*
106 104 code I
O0000000000000000000 8 42 1 .
84 2 1 00000000000000000000
- -arit'r . . , i a . . > . u a code '
Rank 108 10 ' 10' 10' co'a ' I3 code Fig. 4 Bit format of optical code hole.
~
- - . . - - _ _ , - , . - - - , - - - - - - , - - - - . . . - - , , - - - . . - - - - - . . . - ~ - , - - -
SPECIFICATION OF TL BADGE HANGER MODEL SPECIFICATIONS r ,-
UD-854A UD-874A UD-875A UD-876A UD-885A UD-886A UD-887A MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL C0., LTD, MATSUSHITA INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO., LTD.
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT l-1, 3-CHOME, INAZU-CHO, T0YONAKA OSAKA, 561 JAPAN Specifications subject to change without notice, u
- y .
MODEL SPECIFICATIONS r TL Badge Hanger : UD-854A(H)
~
Refer.to'the GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS for common -
specifications.' ,
M' l. Model number :. UD- 854 A UD-854AH
- 2. Type . :- Open type for one badge
- 3. Applicable.TL E'dge- : UD-801A, UD-815A (Examples)
~
4.~ App'e'rance' a : Fig. 1
- 5. Body materiali : ABS resin
. 6.. Front wall. thickness : For element-l' open
. for element 2 plastics 160 mg/cm 2 for. element 3 plastics 160 mg/cm 2
.for element 4 plastics 160 mg/cm 2
- 7. Attaching device : An alminium~ clip y -(with a nylon strap :
UD-854 AH only)
- 8. Color : c '; e , h slight smokiness.
-9. Weight. : Less than
~
grams.
k
- s. .
.+ ,-
,g'.
[
.s x
t h k pl J
, 20 __
, 4 s
+
W 1
r -
4.
_ i9 _
9
.c-
< ' 'r, Fis;. .1 Structure of hancer: 'UD-854A.
T i
,h.'
- a. r.. c5o m me SPEC NU. E-HGR/GS-1 SPECIFICATION OF TL BADGE HANGER GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS JANUARY 1923 MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.
MATSUSHITA INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT C0., LTD.
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT l-1, 3-CHOME, INAZU-CHO, T0YONAKA OSAKA, 561 JAPAN Spe c if i c a- i c.r.S SUO"iCCt tO Char.gO 'ithOut
- r.Ot iC C .
L 1
i 1
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .....................................................................
1
- 1. GENERAL ................. ........................................ ............. 2
- 2. CONSTRUCTION ............................................................... 2
- 3. SHIELDING ..................................................................... 3'
- 4. GUARANTEE ..................................................................... 3 Reference ........................................................................... 4 Appendix 1. ....................................................................... 5 Appendix 2. ....................................................................... 6 O
/
e t
e i
e
INTRODUCTION These specifications are common to all National [Panasonic TL Ba'dge Hangers. As for detailed specifications regarding ,
each hanger, re.fer to the " Specifications for each TL Badge Hanger model."
For many measurements and dosage assessment applications, the National /Panasonic TL Badge must be used with the TL Badge Hanger.
As for the National /Panasoni: TL Badge, refer to the 1
"Speci,fications common to all TL Badges" and " Specifications i '
for each TL Badge model."
m W
- s. , i .. , q .
- = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- 1. General The TL Badge Hanger serves as both a wearing case and as an additive shield for the TL Badge. Except for special cases, TL Badges should be placed in tne hanger before being used.
There are three kinds of hangars: an open hanger for single' badges, a closed hanger for single budges, and a closed hanger for two badges.
- 2. Construction The three above hangers a e shown in Fig. 1.
A y-B TL Badge is encased in an open hanger, a closed hanger, and also in the right side of the closed hanger for two badges. The hangers are available in several thickness depending on the y-8 TL Badges used.
The UD-809A neutron TL Badge is placed in the left side of the closed two-badge hanger.
The open hanger has a window for the 8 badge. The closed hanger's window is sealed with a 3 mg/cm 2 thick plastic film, making its wall thickness slightly larger for the 8-rays.(skin dose) estimatin.g element. The projection shown in Fig. 1 (b) and (c) provides a wall thickness of 1000 mg/cm for the deep dose estimating element.
Closed hangers are designed so that they cannot be easily opened without special jigs. There is a sosce for a label c:. cach surf ace.
~
l'
- 3. Shielding 3-1 Shielding for Y-8 TL Badges The front wall of the hanger is made of plastic.
The thickness of each model is specified in the specifications for each model.
When a TL Badge is encased in a hanger, the total thickness for the Y.x and S rays is obtained by adding the hanger thickness to the badge shield thickness. Examples are shown in Appendix 1.
3-2-The shield for a neut,ron badge An additional cadmium-made shield for the UD-809A neutron badge can be formed on the left side of the closed two-badge hanger.
- 4. Guarantee This cuarantee is cood for three months from the date of deliverv. This guarantee does not cover problems caused by misuse, abuse, or negligence.
Panasonic will repair or replace, at no charge, your'TL Badge Hanger if any problem develops during the guarantee period due to design or workmanship defects.
(Refer to "TL Badge Handling Instructions" for handling.)
a Appendix 1. An example of calculation of total wall thickness Example : UD-808A TL lladge in UD-887A llanger '
l l
l l
Shield 1Vall
, 7,g g y l EI" ment Phosphor thtckness thickness mar s thickness l of UD-808A of UD-887A '
7 11 l' 1 1. i Plastics Plastics Plastics 2 007(Cu) 1 2 2 2 For G-ray (skin dose)
, 14 mg/cm 3 mg/cm 17 mg/cm
- i. - - - - - - - evaluation including
' 7 11 Plastics M2 Li Plastics Plastics 2 007(Cu) 4 2
0-ray en rgy correction.
60 mg/cm 3 mg/cm 63 mg/cm M3 Plastics Plastics Plastics y-ray energy evaluation CaSO4(Tm) 2 2
160 mg/cm 840 mg/cm 1000 mg/cm by comparing with E4.
7 11 M4 Li 2 BO7(Cu) 4
' Plastics Plastics Plastics .
Deco dose evaluation 160 mg/cm 840 mg/cm 1000 mg/cm
Appendix 2. Model number format The model number of the TL Badge Hanger is constituted as follows; I
U' D -
S S 7 A (H) 1 -
T l l l l l (i)(ii-) (iii)(iv) (v)
Common Common term term (i) Type code 5 ------ Open type 7 ------ One-badge closed type 8 ------ Two-badge closed type (ii) Front wall thickness code (Refer to the figure below.)
(iii) Nylon strap code H ------ Nylon strap provided (iv) Special code A serial number is assigned to the special specifications hangers.
(v) Color code T ------ Transparent m _5-
I D1 o
, )
Y 3
/I l 3 %
%- % b .
(a)Cne-badee (b)0ne-badge open type (c)Two-badge closed type closed type Fir. 1 CyFic'l '.ppearsnce of CL Badre hanger
{
i L
____ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _