IR 05000029/1990023
| ML20058K347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1990 |
| From: | Bores R, Peluso L, Struckmeyer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058K345 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-90-23, 50-29-90-23, NUDOCS 9012170162 | |
| Download: ML20058K347 (6) | |
Text
_-
.
.-
.
q t
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
REGION I
Report No: _
50-29/90-23 Docket No:
50-29 J
License No:
DPR-3 Licensee:-
Yankee Atomic Electric Comoany
.
580 Main Street
'
Bolton. Massachusetts 01740-1398-Facility Name:
Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:
Rowe. Massachusetts Inspection Conducted:
November 5-9. 1990 Inspectors:
ude
/bt e -
.plOn 90
,
Lf A.'Peluso, Radiation Specialist, dat'e
/
Effluents Radiation Protection Section 4.PS),
' Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB), Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, (DRSS)
l
$
~r
-/2/s*/ho
R. Struckmeyer, Radiatiof(Dosimetry d at'e ' -
Specialist, ERPS, FRSSB, DRSSJ Approved By:
M
/*MM@
'
R. J. Bords, Chief,,ERPS, FRSSBc DRSS date Insoection Summary:
inspection conducted on November' 5-9. 1990.
(NRC Insoection Report No-50-29/90-23)
.
l Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's liquid and r
gaseous radioactive effluent controis-~and the iadic19gical environmental
'
monitoring' programs.
Reviewed-areas included management controls, audits,
. Quality Control, implementation of the raciological environmental monitoring-program, the meteorological--monitoring program, and affluent control I
procedures.
Results:
Within the areas inspected, no violations were. identified, however, a persistent instrument drift-_ problem with a meteorological. chart.
l~
recorder was identified as an issueL(Section 5.6), and the lack of indication l-of timely supervisory / management reviews of calibration 'results was identified
in two areas (Section 4.4 and 5.6).
gR12170162 901206
"
ADOCK 05000029 Q
PDR i
,
,
.
-
,
.
_.
__
.
_
._
.
__
._.
.
._
_
_
__
,
!
'
.
l DETAILS
.
1.0
_ Individuals Contacted L
i 1.1 Licensee Personnel
- G. Be.bineau, Radiation Protection _ Manager l
B. Harvey,' Meteorologist, Bolton, MA -
,
- M. Hedges, Chemistry Manager
- T. Henderson, Assistant Plant Superintendent P. Hollenbeck, Radiation' Protection Engineer
- J. Kay, Technical Services Manager
- G. Maret, Technical Director
~
- W. Meyers, Senior. Environmental Scientist D. Rice, Plant: Engineer, Technical-Services
,
- N. St. Laurent, Plant. Superintendent ~
,
l.
l 1.2 flRC' Personnel
- T. Koshy, Senior Resident Inspector
- M. Markley, Resident Inspector -
- Denotes those present atithe exit meeting'on November 9, 1990.
2.0 Puroose-i The purpose of this routine safety _ inspection was to review the
[
licensee's ability to control the radioactive 1.iquid and gaseous; effluents and the implementation of the RadiologicalT Environmental
'
Monitoring Program (REMP), including.the meteorological monitoring program.
3.0 Audits
,
!
The inspector reviewed the following, licensee _QA Audit Reports to_
}
determine the extent of the licensee's'self-review of the. implementation of Technical' Specification requirements.
- Audit Report No. Y-89-02A, November 7-9, 1989
- Audit Report No. Y-89-02B, May.15-19, 1989
- Audit Report No. Y-90-02,
' July 23-27, 1990 The functional areas of these audits were Chemistry, Radi_ological..
Effluent / Environmental Monitoring Technical Specification (RETS),.and
'
Offsite Dose. Calculation Manual (0DCM). These audits appeared to be thorough, well' organized and of good technical depth to assess,the REMP,
!
effluent control programs, and the.0DCM.
The inspector noted that the audit identified three. deficiencies which were promptly and-adequately.
-
resolved by the licensee. No violations were identified.
,
x -
-
.
.
-
.
.-
. -.
..
.
.
.
,
.
_1
.
4.0 Liould and Gaseous ~ Effluent Control Procrams 4.1 Proaram Chanaes-
There were' no significant changes in the licensee's radioactive liquid l
-
and gaseous effluent control. programs since the previous inspection in July 1989.-
4.2 Semiannual Reoorts
,
L The inspector reviewed the semiannual radioactive effluent release
,
-reports for 1989:and the first half of 1990,-and:deterreined that the -
licensee met the. Technical Specification: requirements. ' No anomalous measurements, omissions or trends were noted.
No violations were.
identified.
'4.3 Liouid and Gaseous Release Permits.
'
The inspector reviewed selected radioactive'liquidf and gaseous release permits and determined that the TechnicaliSpecifications:and procedural requirements were met and, releases were properly control. led, _The inspector also reviewed selected Operations Department records to confirm that the udwaste tanks;were' circulated;for at least'30 minutes
-
prior to sampling.
The inspector also reviewed quality-contblL(QC) checks of:the. gamma spectrometry system in the Chemistry Laboratory and:noted QCichecks'were-biased positively. The inspector discussed this matter with thei
.
!
licensee.' The licensee stated that' reasons for the positive bias will be reviewed and corrected in the near future. -The inspector stated:that this. area will be reviewed during.a subsequent inspection.
l No violations were identified in this; area.
-
4.4. Air Cleanino Systems The inspector' reviewed the most recent surveillance = test results for the Control Room Emergency Air Cleanup System and the Plant 1 Ventilation Exhaust Treatment System; These tests were-conducted by:a-vendor using
-
- procedures approved by the Plant.0perations Review Comrrittee.' Yankee l
plant Procedure OP-9243, " Nuclear Air Cleanup' Systems Fil.ter Testing",-.
l refers to these vendor procedures and contains a provision for review by y
the Plant Chemistry Supervisor..The following inspection and, test results for the above air cleaning systems were reviewed. All reviewed results were within= the licensee's acceptance criteria.
j o Visual: Inspection
'a o In-Place HEPA Leak-Test.
o In-Place Charcoal' Leak Test o Pressure Drop Test-o Air' Capacity Test o Laboratory Test ~for. Iodine Collection, Efficiencies i
!
i
-.
_
_
m
,
.
.
.. - - -.
,
..,
U
.-
4.
I During the review of the above surveillance. test. results, the inspector-
!
noted that not all: of the licensee supervisory or management revie.a had
.
been completed at.the time of the-inspection.: The inspector found no--
,
licensee administrative, controls for timeliness of'these reviews.: The-I inspector also determined through discussions with the Chemistry Manager
"1 that he had received no formal training in this. area. The inspector stated that even if the provisions of the licensee's procedure were.
l implemented as written, the: reviews by the chemistry Manager,=without.
R additional training *would not appear.to ensure the technical. quality of the results. The licensee indicated that this area would be reevaluated.-
,
4.5 Monitor Calibrations The inspector reviewed the most~recent calibration results~for (1)
liquid and gaseous effluent monitors, (2) steam. generator blowdown tank-
-
.lonitor, and (3). primary vent stack noble gas monitor. The Instrumentation and Controls. Department had the responsibility. to aerform electronic calibrationiand the Radiation Protection Department 1ad the responsibility to' perform radiological calibration. ~ All reviewed calibrations.were performed as required and all reviewed-calibration results were within the licensee's; acceptance criteria..No.
violations weretidentified.
5.0 Radioloaical Environmental 'Monitorina Proaram IREMP)-
5.1 Proaram Chanaes The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization for the management of the.REMP.
There were no changes in'the licensee's REMP since-the previous inspection conducted in July'1989.
5.2 Direct Observations The -inspector examined various environmental sampling st'ations which include air. particulate and iodine samplers, thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) stations, milk' sampling stations.and broad leaf vegetation
.
gardens. All air sampling equipment 'at.the selected stations was -
operational-at the-time of. inspection.. All TLDs were locatediat the designated monitoring stations. The broad leaf vegetation samples.were available from-the gardens identified in-the ODCM. icow milk samples-
appeared to be available at the sampling farms.
No violations were identified in this area.
5.3 Annual Reoorts-
The inspector. reviewed ~the Annual Radiological Environmental Reports for 1989. This report provided.a comprehensive summary of the results 'of:
the REMP around the Yankee Rowe' site,.and met the' Technical Specification reporting requirements. ' The inspector-also reviewed the available 1990 analytical data for the REMP. No anomalous results or:
trends were noted. No violations were identified,
.
'
o
~'
_,
..
'
5.4 - Quality Control The inspector reviewed-the following QC ' procedures and ' analytical
,
results to determine ~the adequacy of.the. licensee's program.-
OP-4972,.Rev. 2,-
. Blind Duplicate Program for Contracted:
-
Radiological Environmental-Analyses
,
t (-
- DP-9715,:Rev._1, Environmental Dosimetry Service-Quality Control L
Program
a
o The inspector noted that' the analytical quality-control' resultsiforfl990t i
were within the licensee's acceptance-criteria.1 The inspector:
determined that the licensee was implementing the QC program:
a effectively.
There were no further questions in this area.:
'
q 5.5 Imolementation of the REMP.
The. inspector' reviewed the following licensee REMP procedures to assist in determining whether the program described in the TS was effectively implemented, i
- OP-4952, Rev. 17 Radi'ological Environmental 5 Sampling _
- OP-4971,~Rev. 2-En'vironmental Composite Samplerf 0perability
- OP-6606, Rev. 8 Totalizing Gas Flow Meter Calibration Check
- AP 9007,.Rev. 1 Receipt and' Review of Vendor Generated.
Analytical Data' for Surveillance Purposes
- DP-9730, Rev. 1 Preparing and Retrieving Environmental _TLDs for.
Field Application From the above procedure review, sampling equipment.and location review, results' review, and discussions _with the licensee, theiinspector determined that the licensee implemented the REMP: effectively and-satisfactorily.
No violations were11dentified in this area.
5.6 Beteoroloaical Monitorina Proaram
")
The inspector reviewed the: licensee's meteorological monitoring program to determine whether the' instrumentation and. equipment were operable, t
calibrated and maintained._ ?The inspector:also reviewed the most recent calibration results for-the' meteorological parameters-wind speed, wind direction and delta temperature at the 33-ft andfl95-ft elevation levels.
for the primary and secondary towers. The licensee used a contractor to perform _ the quarterly calibration' of. the meteorological equipment using the Procedure OP-4150, " Vendor Calibration and/or: Maintenance of the Meteorological Data Gather _ing. System Instrumentation".
-The-inspector noted that the calibrations were performed more frequently fthan required by,the TS. The inspector also noted that the calibrations of the
_
- j
.
l
.
l i
meteorological parameters were performed from the sensors on the.
'
meteorological tower to the chart recorders and computer in the control l
room to compensate line loss..
.!
I During the. review of the calibration results, the inspector noted that I
the the analog chart values for the. wind speed, wind direction, and--
.
temperature systemstwere found'to be'out of-tolerance on many occasions H
over the past couple of years due to recorder drift
'In' addition,'
i review of the TRC vendor procedure, Technical Standard-602, " Chart!
Recorder Calibration Data Sheet", revealed that the analog chart
recorders could not be_ satisfactorily adjusted-due to the--" span. adjust" and " upper end stop". potentiometers-being fully adjusted to the maximum-
-
position. The licensee representatives 1 stated that they were aware ~ofJ
_ r l
the analog recorder problem and after.one more-calibration in December
1990,. the licensee will thoroughly: review and evaluate the equipment
performance in order.to rectify this' situation. The licenseen representatives indicated that by March:3991, they expected to have finalized their recommendations forithe:fix. <The: inspector noted that-
.all calibration'results were within_the acceptance criteria after-readjusting the chart recorders.
The -inspector:also noted.that these
-
calibration forms had not been completed and reviewed by tho' Technical, Services Engineer and the Technical Services _ Manager on a consistent and
!
,
timely basis. The_ licensee representatives stated that they will-
.
complete and review all such calibration'.formsLon:a timely basis.
The-J inspector stated that the progress of the system upgrade will be:
reviewed during a subsequent: inspection. ;No violations were identified.
6.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted-in Paragraph
1.1 at the conclusion of-the inspection on November 9,o1990. The
"
inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and ' findings _.of the. inspection.
!
,
.i
-
_ _ _.-