ML20205T042
| ML20205T042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1986 |
| From: | Shanbaky M, Sherbini S, Tuccinardi T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205T039 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-86-06, 50-333-86-6, NUDOCS 8606130038 | |
| Download: ML20205T042 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000333/1986006
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-333/86-06
Docket No. 50-333
License No.
Priority
Category
C
Licensee:
Power Authority of the State of New York
P. O. Box 41
Lycoming, New York 13093
Facility Name: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
Inspection At:
Scriba, New York
Inspection Conducted: May 19-23 1986
Inspectors:
M(/[9 b
'
~
S. Sherbini, Radiation Specialist, FRPS
date
FPRPB. DR
'W/$
$/l-/l986
/
,
f. ort.E.Tuccinardi,RadiationSpecialist,
date
FRPS, EPRPB, DRSS
Approved by:
M5 3
tI A
//e/[/9fr/
M. M. ShanEaky, Chief, Ff ilities Radiatior.
~dite '~
-
Protection Section, EPRPB, DRSS
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 19-23, 1986 (Report No. 333/86-06).
Areas Inspected: This inspection was a special, announced dosimetry inspection,
which. included the following areas: management and staffing, training and
qualifications, equipment and facilities, calibrations, dosimetry procedures,
dose assessment, quality control / quality assurance.
Results: No violations were identified as a result of this inspection.
8606130038 860606
ADOCK 0500
3
G
.
.
DETAILS
1.0 Personnel Contacted
Licensee Personnel
- R. Converse, Resident Manager
W. Fernandez, Superintendent of Power
- E. Mulcahey, Radiological and Environmental
Services Superintendent
- R. Patch, Quality Assurance Superintendent
- G. Vargo, Radiological Engineer
- M. McMahon, Dosimetry Supervisor
L. Johnston, Quality Assurance Supervisor
NRC Personnel
A. Luptak, Resident Inspector
- Denotes attendance at the exit interview.
2.0 Status of Previously Identified Items
2.1 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (333/85-24-01) Implement ALARA
review for prioritizing radwaste modifications.
The licensee's procedures for ALARA review at the corporate level and
at the site were reviewed.
Both procedures appeared to adequately
cover major aspects of person-rem reduction.
Randomly selected work
instructions written at the corporate offices on radwaste modifica-
.:ons were also reviewed.
These work instructions were found to have
i.ad ALARA reviews both at the corporate level and at the site prior
'
to issue. Work instructions that are generated at the site receive
one ALARA review at the site. The coordination and prioritizing of
work is performed on site.
2.2 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (333/85-30-02) Provide guidance to
personnel responsible for writing RWPS on dosimetry placement.
The FitzPatric Radiation Protection Manual (RPM) was reviewed for
the appropriate dosimetry placement guicance. The RPM was found to
include the information contained in Information Notice 81-26, Part
3, Supplement 1 on dosimetry placement.
3.0 Introduction
The licensee uses a Panasonic TLD system for the personnel dosimetry
system of record. The dosimeter currently in use.is the UD-801 four-
element dosimeter. This design is to be replaced by the UD-812 four-
element design.
The remainder of the hardware will be unaffected by this
i
.
3
.
change. However, dose assessment software will have to be changed, and
licensee commitments concerning upgrading of software are to be directed
to the new dosimeter design.
The extremity dosimeter is the Panasonic,
single-element UD-807 finger dosimeter design.
The personnel dosimetry program is under the direct supervision of the
Dosimetry Supervisor, who reports to the Radiological Engineer, who in
turn reports to the Radiological and Environmental Services Superintendent.
4.0 Training and Qualifications
The qualifications of the staff supervising the technical and administra-
tive aspects of the dosimetry program were reviewed. The staff appeared
to be well qualified. The training programs for supervisory personnel and
technicians were also found to be adequate.
The programs included both
in-house training on procedures and equipment, as well as participation in
outside courses and user groups.
Despite participation in such prograns,
however, there appeared to be evidence of technical isolation from current
practices and trends in the industry.
The reason for this is unclear, but
it appears that management is currently devoting more attention to improve
the technical depth of the dosimetry staff.
5.0 Dose Assessment Methodology
The methods (algorithms) used for calculating the doses from the dosimeter
readings were reviewed. These methods were found to be inadequate for
quantification of skin doses.
The reason for this deficiency is that the
equations used were derived on the basis of data that included only higher
energy beta emitters.
Expected beta fields in the plant are of consi-
derably lower energy, and the currently used algorithms will likely lead
to under estimation of the skin dose.
The licensee stated that an
improved algorithm will be developed for the UD-812 dosimeter on the
basis of more extensive beta irradiations covering a sufficiently wide
range of beta energies.
This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (333/86-06-01).
6.0 Extremity Dosimetry
A review of the dose assessment methodology and test data for the extre-
mity dosimeter revealed inadequacies in the dose assessment algorithm and
anomalies in the photon irradiation data. The inadequacies in the algo-
rithm were due to
similar factors to these discussed in item 4.0
above.
The anomalous data was obtained from tests of the dosimeter res-
ponse to high energy photon irradiations.
The licensee was Mable to
offer an explanation for the anomalous data.
The licensee stated that the
irradiation experiments will be repeated and the response of the dosimeter
to gamma rays will be better characterized and understood.
Following
completion of these irradiations, a series of beta irradiations are to be
.
4
.
carried out, similar to those to be carried out for the UD-812 as dis-
cussed in 4.0 above.
The results of these irradiations are to be used to
derive suitable correction factors for extremity dose assessment.
This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (333/86-06-02).
7.0 Quality Control and Calibration
A review of the methods used to calibrate the dosimetry system and to
conduct quality control revealed that significant improvements are needed
in this area. The licensee relies on methodology currently in use in the
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) testing to
carry out these functions. These methods were not designed for purposes
of calibration or QC, and do not possess the required sensitivity. One of
the results of the licensee's reliance on NVLAP methodology is that the
TLD system is being calibrated to fairly wide tolerances (mean deviation
not more than 50's) compared to the calibration tolerances required of the
self-reading dosimeters ( 10*s).
Furthermore, the QC program involved use
of QC dosimeters once a day, as opposed to the current good practice of
using several QC dosimeters for each tray of fifty dosimeters. The licen-
see stated that the calibration methodology, calibration tolerances, and
QC practices currently in use will be reviewed and upgraded methods will
be developed.
This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (333/86-06-03).
8.0 Irradiation Facility
The licensee currently uses two types of gamma ray irradiators:
an
enclosed type irradiator and panoramic irradiator.
The enclosed irradia-
tor is to be discontinued because of scatter problems, and the panoramic
irradiator will be used for gamma irradiations. A new ionization chamber
and associated electronics will be used to measure the exposure rates at
the irradiation locations. Several problems remain to be resolved, how-
ever, before this irradiation facility can be considered fully opera-
tional. The area containing the irradiator is enclosed in a steel mesh
cage and is therefore not environmentally controlled. The operating
requirements for the ionization chamber electronics must be evaluated to
ensure that the system will function properly in the current environment
of the facility.
The ionization chamber should be calibrated using an
NBS-traceable source.
Suitable thermometer and barometer must be provided
to allow application of correction factors to the ionization chamber
readings.
Finally, tests should be conducted to ensure that the scatter
characteristics within the irradiation area do not present a problem.
This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (333-86-06-04).
.
5
.
9.0 procedures
The procedures relating to the dosimetry operation, including self-read-
ing (or direct-reading) dosimeters were reviewed. They were found to be
inadequate in several respects. These inadequacies included errors, both
typographical and technical, inconsistencies between procedures and other
station policy statements and training material, as well as vague sections
that did not provide explicit directions for performing certain operations.
The inspector pointed out many specific instances of these weaknesses to
the licensee.
The licensee stated that the dosimetry procedures will be
reviewed with a view of improving them and removing errors and inconsis-
tencies.
New procedures will also be developed to cover the revised
methods of calibration, QC, the new UD-812 dosimeter and algorithm, the
revised extremity dosimetry algorithm, and the upgraded irradiation
facility.
This item will be reviewed in a future inspection (333-86-06-05).
10.0 Exit Interview
The Inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in section 1.0
of this report) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 23, 1986.
The
inspector summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the
licensee by the inspector.
!
.
..
.
_ _ .
_
_
-