ML20205T042

Insp Rept 50-333/86-06 on 860519-23.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Dosimetry Program for Personnel Monitoring,Including Mgt & Staffing,Training & Qualifications,Calibr & Qa/Qc

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: IR 05000333/1986006 ML20205T034 ML20205T042
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. DPR-59 Priority Category C

Licensee: Power Authority of the State of New York

P. O. Box 41

Lycoming, New York 13093

Facility Name: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant

Inspection At: Scriba, New York

Inspection Conducted: May 19-23 1986

' ~

Inspectors: M(/[9 b

S. Sherbini, Radiation Specialist, FRPS date

FPRPB. DR

, 'W/$ $/l-/l986

/

f. ort.E.Tuccinardi,RadiationSpecialist, date

FRPS, EPRPB, DRSS

Approved by: M5 3 tI A

M. M. ShanEaky, Chief, Ff ilities Radiatior.

-

//e/[/9fr/

~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 3

PDR ADOCK 0500

G

.

.

DETAILS

1.0 Personnel Contacted

Licensee Personnel

• R. Converse, Resident Manager

W. Fernandez, Superintendent of Power

• E. Mulcahey, Radiological and Environmental

Services Superintendent

• R. Patch, Quality Assurance Superintendent

• G. Vargo, Radiological Engineer

• M. McMahon, Dosimetry Supervisor

L. Johnston, Quality Assurance Supervisor

NRC Personnel

A. Luptak, Resident Inspector

• Denotes attendance at the exit interview.

2.0 Status of Previously Identified Items

2.1 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (333/85-24-01) Implement ALARA

review for prioritizing radwaste modifications.

The licensee's procedures for ALARA review at the corporate level and

at the site were reviewed. Both procedures appeared to adequately

cover major aspects of person-rem reduction. Randomly selected work

instructions written at the corporate offices on radwaste modifica-

.:ons were also reviewed. These work instructions were found to have

i.ad ALARA reviews both at the corporate level and at the site prior

'

to issue. Work instructions that are generated at the site receive

one ALARA review at the site. The coordination and prioritizing of

work is performed on site.

2.2 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (333/85-30-02) Provide guidance to

personnel responsible for writing RWPS on dosimetry placement.

The FitzPatric Radiation Protection Manual (RPM) was reviewed for

the appropriate dosimetry placement guicance. The RPM was found to

include the information contained in Information Notice 81-26, Part

3, Supplement 1 on dosimetry placement.

3.0 Introduction

The licensee uses a Panasonic TLD system for the personnel dosimetry

system of record. The dosimeter currently in use.is the UD-801 four-

element dosimeter. This design is to be replaced by the UD-812 four-

element design. The remainder of the hardware will be unaffected by this

i

.  !

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.

!

_ _ -

. _ _ .