IR 05000029/1989007
| ML20245A658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1989 |
| From: | Oconnell P, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245A640 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-89-07, 50-29-89-7, NUDOCS 8906220108 | |
| Download: ML20245A658 (5) | |
Text
a
]
,.
.
'
i l
i
!
i U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
q Report No.
89-07 Docket No.
50-29 J
Category C
License No.
DPR-3 Priority
--
Licensee: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 580 Main Street Bolton, Massachusetts 01740-1398 Facility Name: Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted:
May 24-26, 1989 Inspected By:
dm /
(-/- P/
P. O'Connell, Radiation Specialist date 5/7/8f Approved By:
.
fr/ A W. Pasciak," Chief, Facilities I dgte Radiation Protection Section Inspection Summary: Inspection conducted on May 24-26, 1989. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-029/89-07.
,
J Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of the licensee's. radiation
protection )rogram. Areas reviewed included: licensee actions on previous findings, c1anges in the radiation protection program, and ALARA.
Results: Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. Three open items were reviewed and closed.
B906220100 890609 I
DR ADOCK O
t
--
-
- _ -
-
_ - _ _ - _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _.
-
.
,
!
.
I
-
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted 1.1 Licensee Personnel
- M. Vandale, Radiation Protection Engineer, P. Hollenbeck Radiation Protection Engineer,
- L.Bozek,QualityAssuranceSupervisor, i
- R. Mellor, Technical Director,
- J. Geyster, Radiation Protection Engineer,
- T. Shippee, Radiation Protection Senior Engineer,
- G. Babineau, Radiation Protection Manager.
l 1.2 NRC Personnel J. MacDonald, Senior Resident Inspector,
- M. Markley, Resident Inspector.
Other personnel were also contacted or ',nterviewed during the course of
'I
'
this inspection.
- Denotes those who attended the exit meeting on May 26, 1989.
2.0 Purpose and Scope of Inspection This inspection was a routine unannounced Radiological Controls inspection.
Areas reviewed included: status of previously-identified items, program changes and improvements, and ALARA.
3.0 Licensee Actions on Previous Findings 3.1 (Closed) Unresolved Item 88-21-01. Proper use of BZA air sample results for determining airborne radioactivity concentrations. The inspector reviewed a draft revision (Rev. 4) to procedure AP 8102
" Plant Airborne Radioactivity Surveys". The revision sets criteria for using BZA air sample results to determine airborne radioactivity concentrations. Although the revision was still in draft form it had already.been through the review and. approval process by the Plant Operations Review Committee. This item is closed.
3.2 (Closed) Notice of Violation 88-21-02. Failure to follow radiation protection procedures. The inspector verified that the licensee had -
licensee'y implacnted the corrective actions specified in the adequatel s response letter BYR 89-26 dated February 10, 1989. This item is closed.
._ - -_ - _ - -
-___ -.
_
.
i
-
.
,
.
(Closed Notice of Violation 88-22-01. Failure to post the shield tank cavity) CAUTION"or" DANGER,HIGHRADIATIONAREA".Theinspector 3.3 reviewed the licensee's corrective actions which included issuing memo RP 89-2 to the radiation protection (RP)formance in this area. Thedepartment members stressed the importance on improving per licensee also initiated the Radiation Protection Postings Surveillance Program. Under this program, a RP supervisor tours weekly the facility
and verifies that postings are in accordance with the surveillance sheet. The inspector noted that this program was not incorporated into the licensee's RP procedures. The licensee stated that this program has had positive results and they would evaluate the method to best l
incorporate this program into their RP procedures. The inspector will review how this program is incorporated during a future inspection.
This item is closed.
NRC Inspection Report number 88-04 identified a concern regarding the calibration of portable radiation monitoring instruments (R0-2As). ANSI
N-323-1978 states that, for the configuration used by the licensee, the source to detector distance should be at least 50 cm 7 x the maximum detector width).The licensee calibrates the detector at a 25.5(cm position. In response to this concern, the licensee conducted a study (EL 682/88 dated February 7,1988) which verified that the geometry used by the licensee is acceptable. The inspector reviewed the data from this study and had no further questions on this
!
matter.
NRC Inspection Report number 88-04 also identified a concern regarding the lack
!
of daily quality control charts to track the performance of the laboratory l
counting equipment. This equipment included the whole body counter the gross alpha and gross beta air sample counters, and the multichannel analyzer used l
for gamma isotopic analysis of air samples. The licensee now uses a quality control chart to track the performance of the whole body counter, however, the licensee has not established control charts for the above mentioned instruments in the counting room. A cognizant RP Engineer reviews the background and source checks for the counting rcom equipment daily. These results are kept in tabular form. This practice would not necessarily identify adverse trends or a positive / negative bias in the counting systems. The proper use of control charts would identify such trends or bias.
l The inspector noted that the control chart for the whole body counter graphically displayed an upward trend which lasted for several weeks before the instrument failed the daily source check. The licensee subsequently readjusted the instrument. The inspector stated that an improvement could be made in the area of identifying trends in the system and adjusting the equipment before the equipment fails a quality control test. During the exit meeting on May 26, 1989
the licensee stated that they would begin using control charts for the counting room equipment. This item will be reviewed during a future inspection.
The licensee uses a printout of the calculated lower limit of detection (LLD)
for the gross alpha and gross beta air sample counting equipment based on the
,
different, background count times, sample count times, and background count I
rates normally encountered. The inspector considered this to be a good practice in that it makes it easier for the technician to determine the LLD and the l
possibility for calculation errors are not as great.
l l
l
L
_- - _ -_ -_-_
-
-
.
,
.
The inspector noted that criteria for an acceptable LLD were not specified in the licensee's airborne radioactivity survey procedures or air sample data sheets. The inspector stated that the licensee should routinely verify that their procedures for evaluating airborne radioactivity concentrations are such that the process can quantify airborne radioactivity concentrations that are less than some fraction of the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) of radioactive materials in air. This would take into ac:ount the air sample counting system LLD, collection efficiency, counting system efficiency, and volume collected. The inspector selected data and verified by calculation, that thecountingsystemLLDwassufficientgiventheefficienciesandthevolumes l
collected. The licensee stated that they would establish criteria for acceptable
LLDs for the counting equipment, taking into account the efficiencies and minimum volume collected.
4.0 Changes The inspector noted that the licensee had made several improvements in the RP Department. Materials and equipment improvements included:
- a laundry (monitor. Previously the licensee surveyed the clothing PCs detection efficiency than hand frisking.
- elbow monitors. The licensee upgraded their personnel contamination monitors, which are used by personnel exiting the radiation controlled area (RCA), to include elbow monitors.
]
- new locking gates on the Waste Hold-up Tank and Activity Dilution and I
Decay Tank moat accesses.
- a new solidification drumming station.
- use of strippable paint. During the past outage the licensee used strippable paint to decontaminate the shield tank cavity (STC). The
,
licensee stated that the results were positive considering the dose
!
reduction, radwaste minimization, and contamination control achieved. The licensee also used submersible paint in some areas of the STC with favorable results.
The licensee continued to have a low turnover rate for the RP Department personnel. The licensee, in the past year, hired one RP technician to replace an
,
employee who quit. The only other personnel loss was an Engineering Assistant in
'
the Dosimetry Department who accepted a position in a different department. The licensee hired a contractor to fill this position and plans to hire a permanent replacement. The licensee hired two additional radwaste decontamination technicians.
_ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_
]
- - -
_.
,
.
,-
i
-
.
-
1 I
The licensee anticipates that the Radiation Protection Manager (RPM) will transfer to the corporate office sometime during the summer of 1989. Currently
!
the licensee is evaluating qualifications of applicants to replace the RPM. The licensee stated that the RPM will not transfer to their corporate cffice until a replacement RPM has been hired.
Program changes included the licensee's implementing their " hot particle" PAC ". The PAC consists program and implementing their " Plant ALARA Committee-(dvis)e the Plant of senior station technical supervisory personnel who a Superintendent on matters related to exposure and contamination reduction. The findings and recommendations of the PAC will be reviewed during a future inspection.
5.0 ALARA The inspector reviewed the licensee's final plant erposure records for 1988. The licensee exceeded their ALARA goal for 1988 by approximately 17%. The ALARA goal was 194 man-rem and the total exposure was 227 man-rem for. 1988 (33 man-rem over their goal).
The Outage Maintenance Support exposure exceeded the ALARA goal of 8.6 man-rem by ap3roximately 27 man-rem. The licensee stated that this was primarily due to the A_ ARA Engineer not knowing, at the time he established the department goals, what Engineering Design Change Request (EDCR) work was to be completed during the refueling outage. The inspector stated that this is an area that needs more attention if ALARA estimates are to be realistic. The licensee stated that they
are now performing longer term budgeting which will result in better ALARA.
planning.
The inspector noted that, for several. job tasks, the estimated man-hours were significantly different than the actual man-hours. The licensee stated that they
estimate man-hours for were compiling a data base by which to more accurately / job tasks during the 1988 specific tasks. The licensee closely tracked man-hours outage and expects that this will provide a better data base to use in estimating man-hours (and man-rem) during the next refueling outage.
,
The licensee also stated that 1988 was the second year in which they tracked exposure by department as well as by specific job task. The inspector reviewed the ALARA goals for 1989 for each department the licensee set the department l
goals based ont the lower of the 1987 or 1988 department exposures, and taking into account the work scope anticipated for the upcoming year. The inspector noted that a more challenging goal could be utilized. The licensee stated that they would review their rathod for establishing ALARA goals. These items will be reviewed during a future inspection.
The licensee is evaluating the feasibility of employing different methods of source term and " hot particle" reduction. These methods include increased primary system letdown, crud bursts, and primary system decontamination.
5.0 Exit Meeting
'
The ins >ector met with licensee management listed in section 1.0 on May 26, 1989. T1e findings of the inspection were discussed at that time.
(
_.
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.