IR 05000029/1976003
| ML19345A307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1976 |
| From: | Shanbaky M, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345A306 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-76-03, 50-29-76-3, NUDOCS 8011180681 | |
| Download: ML19345A307 (11) | |
Text
.
-
-..
_
-..
O-i
-
.
-
-
.
.
...
.
.
E:I Form 12
.
(Jan 75) (Rev)
f
~
'
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
.
,
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC:CiISSION
.
- .
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND CITORCE!Cir
.
.
.
REGION I
-
.,
,
.
E Inspection Report No:
50-29/74-03 Docket No:
50-29
- *
Licensee:
Yanke'e'Ntomic Electric Comoany
' License No:
'
i 20 Turnpike Road Priority:
Westborouch. Massachusetts 01581 Category:
c
~
Safeguar.is Location:
Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Y'!?S). Rowe. Mass.
~ Group:
~
Type of Licensee:
190 % wm
T,
- of Inspection:
ifnnm c meed. Envirennental Dates of Inspe'etion:
1/13-15/76
'
Dates of Previous Inspection:
1/12-16/76
'
,
Reporting Inspector:
W W
[
/3 7b
M. M. Shanbaky, Radiation Specialist DATE
'
Accc=panying Inspectors:
Nour
.
DATE
.
DATE DATE Other Acconpanying Perscnnel:
NONE DATE m y
.
-
!/ 3 !7(-
P2 viewed By:
_
.-
-
DATE J.P/Scohr,SeniorEnviron]entalycientisc
-
.
e
,
.:
'
, -
. _-,
t
.
-
..
.
.
.
s
'
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Enforer, ment Action (Environmental Monitoring)
A.
' items of Noncompliar2ce
.'
Violations None Identified e
2.
Infraction
None Identified 3.
Deficiencies None Identified Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Action (Environ-mental Monitoring)
No p::evious enforcement actions were taken in the area of environmental sonitoring.
.
Design Changes None Identified Unusual Occurrences None Identi#ied Other Significant Findings (Environmental Monitoring)
'
A.
Current Findings 1.
Unresolved Items a.-
External Radiation Monitortug.
(Details, Paragraph 4.a)
b.
Air Particulate Sampling.
(Details, Paragraph 4.b)
c.
Anti-foulant Biocide.
(Details, Paragraph 5.a)
.. - -
h Q
.
O Q HM g
omoe m
.
-
.
.
..
._
-
..
!.
.
.
.
.
,
-2-
.
d.
New Meteorology Program.
(Details, Paragraph 6)
.
fransformer 011 & Safety Injection Tank.
(Details, Paragraph 7)
2.
Infractions and Deficiencies Identiff.ed by the Licensee
'
None Identified
.
3.
leviations
'Jone Identified
.
B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items None Reported Management Interview On January 15, 1976, folicwing the inspection, a meeting was held in the conference room at Yrukee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS), Rowe, Massachusetts.
The following individuals were in attendence:
Dr. M. M. Shanbaky, Radiation Specialist, USNRC, IE:I Mr. D. R. Haverkamp, Peactor Inspector, USNRC, IE:I Mr. H. A. Autio, Plant Superintendent, YhTS
Mr. N. N. St. Laurent, Plant Assistant Superintendent, YNPS Mr. L. L. Staub, Technical Assistant to Plant Superintendent, YNPS Mr. L. L. Reed, Operational Quality Assurance, YNPS
Mr. W. D. Eillings, Chemistry and Health Physics Supervisor, YNPS Mr. D. A. Rice, Environmental Superviser, YNPS During this meeting the following items were discussed:
A.
External Radiation Monitoring (Details, Paragrah 4.a)
The licensee stated that the environmental thermeluminescent dosimeters (TLD) which are presently read at the plant will be read by an offsite serrice, so as to avoid a potential problem of con-tamination and unreliable TLD readings because of relatively high gamma background at the plant (0.16 millicad per hour).
,
The licenses stated that measurement of direct gamma exposure at the overlook area vill be evaluated and a limited TLD study vill be conducted to get better measures of the external exposure at that area.
,.
...
...
.
e-m-
.
~
gr j
.
.
,
1-3-
'
.
.
3.
Air Particulates (Details, Paragraph 4.b)
The inspector stated that counting the air particulate filters in the plant before sending them to Teledyne could involve a potential
"
contamination of the low-activity filters.
The inspector stated that the air intakes of the air monitoring stations were close to the ground (about 3 f.) which could lead to a high uptake of dust.
The licensee states : tat neither filter contamination nor filter dusting problems were experienced during previous years, however, this area
'
would be evaluated.
-
C.
Anti-foulant Biocide (Details, Paragraph 5.a_1 The licensee stated that the anti-foulant concentration of 3.6 ppm (Perculese AF-501), applied by the plant to the main condenser, has been used for the past four years with no noticeable detrimental
!
effect to the environment.
The licensee stated that further evalua-f tion of the compound and its toxicology ~would be conducted.
'
D.
Meteorology (Details, Paragraph 6)
The licensee stated that ground testing for the new meteorological
!
tower is now in progress and the completion of tower. construction
'
is expected during the spring of 1976.
The licensee stated that the whole new meteorological system is expected.co be operable in June 1976.
The licensee stated that with the new meteorological program the data vill be recorded on magnetic tapes and it will be reduced in a considerably shorter period of time than at present, as the meteoro-logical data reduction now takes about 6 months.
,
E.
Transforme.- 011 and Safety Injection Tank (Details, Paragraph 7 The licensee stated that further information on the evaluation of (1) the oil volume in the main plant transformer vs. the total void space in the crushed rocks basin under the transformer and (2) the consequences of a leak of borated water from the safety injection tank to the Deerfiela river, although having a very remote proba-bility, would 'se availab3e during a subsequent inspection.
' '.
'
.
...
_ _.,
~.
_
-.
.
-
- -, - _ _ _ _
i
.
.
.
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
-
Mr. H. A Autio, Plant Superintendent, YNPS Mr. N. N. St. Laurent, Plant Assistant Superintendent, YNPS Mr. L. L. Staub, Technical Assistant to Plant Superintendent, YNPS Mr. L. L. Reed, Operational Quality Assurance, TNPS Mr. W. D. Billings, Chemistry and Health Physics Supervisor, YNPS Mr. J. Shippee, Instrumentation and Control Department Head, YNPS Mr. S. Farber, Radiological Engineer, Nuclear Services Division, Westborough, Massachusetts Mr. D. A. Rice, Environmental Supervisor, YNPS
. Mr. E. Taylor, Shift Supervisor, YNPS Mr. W. Meyers Engineer Assistant, YNPS 2.
General
The inspection consisted of a review of the licensee's operational environmental monitoring programs, encampassing both the radio-logical and the non-radiological aspects of these programs.
The
'
licensee currently is performing environmental radiological mon-
.itoring in conformance with the Final Safety Analysis Report (FS AR).
In the non-radiological area, the licensee is conducting tests and surveillance as required by the federal Environmental Protection Agency Permit No. MA 0004367. No preparations had been made by the licensee toward Jmplementing the proposed environmental technical specifications (ETS) since the licensee is anticipating some major changes in the proposed ETS before they are finalized.
The lican-see stated that new centralized laboratories for all environ =entti sample analyses were approved by the Yankee Organization and the complet' ion of these facilities is expected in June or July 1977.
3.
Organization and Administration The environmental program for YNPS was supervised by Mr. D. A.
Rice, Environmental Supervisor.
Mr. Rice reports through Mr. W.
Billings, Health and Physics and Chemistry Head, to Mr. N. St.
Laurent, Plant Assistant Superintendent, who in turn reports to Mr.
H. Autio, Plant Superintendent.
The licensee stated that the radiological analysis of the environmental samples had been per-formed by Teledyne Isotopes, Inc. Aquatec, Inc., has been performing some of.the non-radiological environmental sample analyses and identification.
Chemical and thermal discharge monitoring were
i performed by the environmental and chemistry groups of the YNPS.
.
...
--.
a
.
_
.
_
_
. - __ _
f
-
.
.
.
,
i
.$.
-
.
-
.
.
4.
Radiological Monitoring Prograr-
,
a)-
Gamma Monitoring
,
During this inspection tne inspector noted that the environ-
,
j mental thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) were read in the
" environmental room" at the plant.
The licensee stated that
the gamma background in the environmental room was measured at j
0.16 mR/hr. The licensee stated that a control TLD was always used to correct for background in the room. The inspector
,
j stated that the gamma background in the room, even though a l
control TLD was used, could lead to an undesirable statistical error for the following two reasons:
1.
All the TLDs were not read at the same time, therefore, the control background is not representative of the back-ground detected by each environmental.TLD badge.
.
2.
The gamma background in the " environmental room" at the plant was several times the gamma exposure rate in the environment. The licensee stated that a comparative study will be conducted on the Teledyne and Harshaw
.
TLDs starting February 1976.
At the ecmpletion of this
'
study all the environmental TLDs will be read in an off-site facility at Southborough, Massachusetts (starting
July 1976).
f The inspector examined four of the five environmental gamma monitoring stations.
In addition to TLD, the licensee is conducting a study on film badge sensitivity to environmental levels of gamma exposures. The licensee stated that the fils
,
badge study will be discontinued at the end of January 1976,
,
since it was proven that the TLDs are more sensitive to low levels of radiation than the film badges. The inspector observed that there was no data collected about the direct gamma exposure at the overlook area. The licensee stated
that a pressurized ioniattien chamber will be used to measure the direct gamma exposure and a TLD will be installed in that
area, to obtain a measuro of the gamma exposure at chac area.
.
.
Nm e
Q
.
g MN g
.
d
,
s--,
-
e
--n
-
,
~,
-
-
a,r o
-
.
v avre s,w-s v
e
.
.. - -
._
.
-
..
I'
.
.
-
.
i '
-6-
-
.
The inspector reviewed and verified actions taken by the licensee, as stated in the licensee's letter to NRC,. Region I.
office,: dated 2/4/75, to prevent recurrence of film badge
,
contamination.
The inspector had no further questions in this i
area.
b)
-Air Particulates
!
The inspector examined four of the five air monitoring sea-tions listed in the FSAR.
The inspector verified'that all of the observed monitoring stations were in operable condition, however, it was noted that the air intakes cf the stations were in close proximity to the gr' und (facing the ground at o
about 3 ft. height).
The inspector discussed with the l'-an-j see the possibility of c high dust uptake by the air mo-
'ng systems due to close proximity to the ground.
The licensee stated that filter dusting. problems were not experienced
,
during previous years, however, this area vill be evaluated.
(Details of the environmental air monitoring system components l
are in RO:I Inspection Report No. 50-29/7408).
The inspector noted that the environmental air particulate filters were counted at the plant before sending them to Teledyne for analyses.
The inspector discussed with the
.
licensee the possibility or' contaminating the filters during-handling in the plant and the potential problems involved.~
The licensee stated that the instrument used for counting the filters was exclusively used for counting environmental samples
,
with low. levels of activity.
The licensee stated that no.
removable radioactivity existed in the counting room and the potential of contaminating the filters during counting in the plant is very minimal.
The inspector had no further-questions
i'n this area.
'
The licensee stated.that the air particulate filters were
ctunted in a proportional counter, (NMC with a DS-2 scaler),
with a background of 40-45 epm'at the beta 'laceau.
The inspector discussed the difficulties ' involved in obtainin'g satisfactory counting statistics with such a reircively high instrument background.- The licensee stated that the filters were only checked for unusually high activities before sending i
them to TeledyneLand the adopted results of the analyses are the Teledyne results.
The inspector had no further questions-in this area.
,,
.
}
-
.
...
-...
-!
-.
.
-
-
- ___ _.,
-_
,-_
. _.
..
i
.
.
.
.
.
-7-
.
c)
Other Environmental Media The inspector reviewed and discussed with the licensee the
"Offsite Environmental Radiological" reports for the period of January 1, 1974 to June 30, 1975.
Environmental media, sample location, and the analyses results summary are listed in the
"Offsite Environmental Radiological" reports.
The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time.
5.
Non-Radiological Monitoring a)
Anti-foulant Biocide The licensee is presently using a commercial biocide desig-nated "Herculese-AF-501" to control fouling organisss in the main condenser.
The inspector questioned the licensee about the chemical composition of the compound.
The licensee stated that afforts had been =ade to get more infor=ation about the compound, however, the vendor did not provide YNPS with the information, claiming that such information is proprietary.
The inspector reviewed the records and correspondence between TNPS and the vendor and noted that there was little toxicolog-
,
ical information supplied.
.
The licensee stated that during nor=al application of the ecmpound, it will be diluted to 3.6ppo before it reaches the discharge point. The fatal concentration of the compound to the rainbow trout was reported by the vendor, Herculese Co.,
Wilmington, Delaware to be 7 ppm.
The licensee stated that the compound has been applied three times a week for the last four years with no noticeable detrimental ef fects to the environ =ent.
The licensee stated that further evaluation of the co= pound and its toxicology will be conducted.
--
4
- e
-+*
g
-
.
_.
.
t'
.
.
.
-8-
' b)
Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies The licensee conducted a one year fiah impingement and entrain-ment study in accordance with the feferal EPA Permit Fo. MA 0004367. These studies were conducte i during -be period begir.-
ning January 1,1975 and ending Decentber 31,19/,.
The licen-see collected data about the mortality of zooplankton :nd phytoplankton due to passage through the condenser.
Screen wash was performed for 10 minutes for every.24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period and the impinged fish were collected. The fish was toxinemically identified and sorted into length and weight groups. Data for these studies is being analyzed and a final report will be
,
completed by April 1976.
c)
Thermal and Chemical Discharge The licensee is conducting his thermal and chemical discharge monitoring program in accordance with the effluent imitations and monitoring requirements specified in the EPA Permit 13. FA 0004367. Temperature is continuously measured and record d for both the intake and the discharge.
Discharge is also monitored for total suspended solids, oil and grease, and hydrogen ion concentration (pH).
A review of the licensee's monitoring results for the previously monitored parameters showed that the plant is operating within the specified EPA
.
Permit limits.
6.
Meteorologg The inspector reviewed the meteorology program being conducted at YNPS.
The meteorological instrumentations were essentially the same as described in RO Inspection Report No. 50-29/7408. Data for wind speed, direction, and AT(30-140 ft) were continuously recorded-on strip chart in the control room.
.
The inspector discussed with the licensee the implementation status of the new meteorological program at TNPS.
The licensee stated that ground testing is now in progress and the completion of the tower construction is expected during the spring of 1976 and the system will be operable in June 1976.
The licensee stated that data will be recorded on magnetic tapes which will facilitate speedy reduction of the meteorological data.
The inspector noted a delay in meteorological data reduction of about 6 months. The licensee stated that with the new meteoro-logical tower and instrumentation the data will be reduced within a considerably shorter time.
.
...
__.
-
m
-
...
...
-
- --.
--
-
-
. -
i
'
'
..
..
,
-9-
,
-
.
7.
Transformer 011 and Safety Injection Tank During a plant tour the inspector observed that the plant main transformer was provided with a crushed rocks basin.
The licensee stated that the' crushed rocks basin could retain the transformer oil, in the unlikely event of su oil leak and prevent it from reaching the Deerfield river. T ut licensee stated'that the transformer's oil volume is 7000 ballons and the total space volume in the 'erushed rocks is about 5500 gallons. The inspector noted that the transformer oil volume exceeds the total void space in the i
crushed rocks basin by about 1500 gallons.
The licensee stated thac~the evaluation of the potential effect of this difference would be reviewed and additional information would be available j
during a subsequent inspection.
,
During the onsite toe.r tbs inspector noted that the safety in-jection tank had no catch basin or sump to prevent run-off of borated water, in the event of a leak, (about 10-3 uCi/ml of gross
,
beta activity) to the Deerfield river.
The 11.ensee stated that a major tank leak incident had a very remote possibility, it was a risk benefit analysis situation, but that additional information concerning'this evaluation would be available during a subsequent:-
inspection.
~
8.
Quality' Assurance /Ouality Control (QA/QC) Program The inspector discussed with the licensee different aspects of the QA/QC program presently implemented in the area of environmental
!!
monitoring. ' The licensee stated that spiked or split environmental samples have frequently been sent to the contractor (Teledyne).
= Theinspector reviewed the licensee's procedures for sample collection and the licensee's_ sample tracking system.
The licensee stated that the environmental group was audited by the internal auditing group.'The inspector noted'that the environmental group audit was concentrated on the area of documentation.
The licensee stated that the auditing group was organized about one year ago and it is anticipated thac next audits will have more depth and be more comprehensive.
a I
+
+
e e e mm e
s
%
- Tr p--
em.
q y-mw
-.
...-
,
m-e#+y
-..
--- -
I
.
.
.
.....
.
-10-
-.
.
The inspector' discussed with'the licensee the delays in receiving the analyses results of some environmental samples frem the con-
.
'
tractor (about 6-7 weeks).
The licensee stated that the contractor was financially penalized for each day after 35 days from receiving the samples, (10% for each additional day af ter the 35 days). The licensee stated that he made frequent visits of the contractor's laboratories, however they were not documented.
The licensee stated that the Yankee Organization had approved a new centralized laboratory for environmental sample analyses and it was expected that this facility would be operable in June 1977.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
.
.
.
&
9
"*
Q S