IR 05000271/1989006
| ML20245J355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1989 |
| From: | Loesch R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245J349 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-271-89-06, 50-271-89-6, NUDOCS 8905040107 | |
| Download: ML20245J355 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _
]
,,
' :)
..
..
>
l U.S. NUCEAR REX 3ULA70RY 03EISSION
,
l
REGION I
l Report No.
50-271/89-06 g
l l
Docket No..
50-271 License No.
IRP-28 Priority Category C
-
Licensee:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation RD 5, Box if9-Ferry Road Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 Facility Name:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:
Vernon, Vernont I
Inspection Conducted:
April 3 - April 7,1989 l
' '
4/IJ/ff Inspectors-
,
R.Loesch, Radiation Specialist date i
(
!
Approved by:
M v/bl/k7 M.M.Shanbaky, 011ef, Fgcilities Radiation
~ ' date Protection Section
!
I J
l
Inspection Summary: Inspection conducted on April 3-7, 1989 (Inspection Report No. 50-271/89-06)
Areas Insixcted: Routine inspection of the Iow level Radwaste Storage Facility and Radiation Protection Supervisor qualifications.
]
Results: No violations identified.
j
!
i i
I I
8905040107 890427 TT)R ADOCK 05000271
)
__________________________o
- _ - _ - _.
-
e
..
.
,
!
DETATIS 1.0 Persons contacted 1.1 Licensee Personnel
- J. Pelletier Plant Manager
- R. Wanczyk Operations Superintendent
- R. PacJodin Technical Services Superintendent
- B. Grippardi Quality Assurance Supervisor
- B. Inach Radiation Protection Supervisor
- P. Manley Radwaste Assistant 1.2 Other Personnel
- M. Strum lead Radiological Engineer, Yankee Atomic E. Tarnuzzer Senior Environmental Ergineer, Yankee Atomic B. Sherman Department of Public Service, State of Vermont
- denotes those individuals attending the exit meeting on April 7, 1989.
2.0 Purpose of Inspection
'Ihis inspection was a routine, announced inspection to review the followirg areas:
- Iow level Radwaste Storage Facility; and
- Qualifications.
3.0 Status of Previous Inspection Findings
,
I (Closed) Unresolved Item 85-22-11: NRC Review of the LIIM Facility.
j l
See Section 4.0 of this inspection report.
/
4.0 Iow Invel Radwaste Storage Facility
'Ihe inspector reviewed the following aspects of the licensee's Ina Invel Radwaste Facility:
- technical basis and scope of 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation; and
- adequacy of radiological procedural controls.
l
__
_.
_
--.
.__ _-.
_
_ _
.
.
.
.
.
The review was with respect to criteria contained in:
- 10 CFR 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation";
- Generic letter 81-38, " Storage of Im-level Radioactive Wastes at Power Reactor Sites", Nov. 10, 1981;
- IE Circular 80-18, "10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations for Changes to Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems", August 22, 1980;
- Regulatory Guide 1.143, " Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste Managerrent Systems, Structures, and Conpanents Installed in Light-Water-cooled Nuclear Power Plants"; and
- NUREG-0800, " Standard Review Plan", Appendix 11.4-A, Design Guidance for Tenporary Onsite Storage of Im-level Radioactive Waste, July 1981.
The evaluation of the licensee's performance in this area was based on:
- Review of the following documentation:
" Safety Evaluation for Increased Temporary Storage of Im IcVel Radioactive Waste at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station",
Revision 3, dated February, 1989; i
- Memo, M.J. Marian to D.A. Reid, OPW 130/89, dated February 24, 1989;
- Calculation WC-353, Rev.1, "Im Level Waste Storage Facility 50.59 Safety Evaluation, February 1989;
- Calculation WC-792, " Dose Rate Relationships for Onsite IIW Storage Pad Facility", February 1989;
- Calculation WC-794, " Spontaneous Ignition Calculation for IIW Onsite Storage Modules", FebruaIy 1989;
- Calculation WC-802, " Thermal Analysis for Im level Radwaste Storage Casks", February 1989;
- Users manual, HICI3AS, "A canputer code to Estimate Hydrogen Gas Concentration In Radwaste Shipping Cbntainers", Version 2.2, dated March 15, 1985; and
- Draft licensee procedure OP 2505, "Radwaste Transfer Cask, ISA Box, Handling for On Site Storage."
- tours of the facility; and discussions with licensee personnel.
-
l
i
______.._.__1..___
___
__
..
s
..
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were identified. The inspector reviewed the scopa and technical basis of the 50.59 safety evaluation relating to floods, tornados, seismic events, fire, hydrogen gas generation, container drop accident and site radiological dose projections.
In addition, the operating procedure was evaluated against the assumptions and rm-andations made to assure that the facility will not operate outside of the bounding conditions of the safety evaluation.
Overall, the safety review performed Yankee Atomic for Vemont Yankee appeared thorough and with sound cal basis. However, the following weaknesses were not in the implementation of either Yankee Atomic's rm-wrdations as occumented in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) or in the licensee's site operating procedure:
- Plant procedure OP 2525 was still in draft fom and had not yet been fomally approved.
- Both Generic letter 81-38 and the SER had rm= ended periodic security patrols of the storage area. As of this inspection, Radiation Protection (RP) had not formally coordinated with security to incorporate the LIM facility into their surveillance pwgaie. When brought to the licensee's attention, the RP department initiated the menary coordinating effort.
- Calculations relating to the stability of stacked containers subjected to a design base tornado (300 nph winds) lead to a rammerv3ation that to avoid a potential tipping problem, a minimum of tuo containers be maintained on ground level when stacking is required. She inspector noted that the proposed site layout plan and procedure OP 2505 did not guarantee that this condition would always be maintained. In discussions with engineers from Yankee Atomic, it was noted that the size ard weights of the containers were based upon initial container specifications.
Modifications have since been made to the containers that have increased both their base footprint and weight. Additional calculations performed during the inspection utilizing the updated parameters indicate that the tipping potential no longer exists. Yankee Atomic stated that they will inform the licensee of this change in the SER. This, in effect, allows the licensee more flexibility in container placement to minimize offsite exposures.
- No acceptance criteria was specified for surveillance that would be performi on the reactor water resin containers for hydrogen gas b2ildup. Th? licmeca stated that the appropriate guidance wou]d be in'.:orporated into an existing premdure for explosive gas sampling.
- The on Site Storage Contains I.CCC's) am designed with sampling tubes
<
at om end for detemimtion of liquid buildup. The inspector questioned I
the effectiveness of this sanpling method if the OSSC was not placed in a level position (i.e. the tube was at the high end of a contaimr). The licensee stated that when assembling the containers on uneven grourx1, y
the sampling tube will be positioned as appropriate to allow the detecticn or my accumulated liquids.
)
i i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ -
l
___ -. - _ - _ _ _
_
_ -_ _ ___ _
_
_ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _
-
.,.-
.
.
- Although procedure OP 2505 allowed for tracking of activities (Ci's),
volumes (cu.ft.) and offsite dose rates (mrenVyr) at the site boundary for each addition to the storage site, it did not allow for tracking of either the site totals for volume, activity limits or the site administrative limit of 1 mrutVyr at the site boundary were not exceeded.
The licensee stated that a computer program would be developed that would track these totals and inform them when they were approaching the limits so that the appropriate actions could be taken.
- The inspector reviewed the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) dose factors determined by Yankee Atcaic for estimating mrutVyr at the site boundary based upon both direct and skyshine exposures from the conta_ers. It was noted that to stay within the established guidelires for site boun:lary exposures, strong management oversight and tight administrative controls will be mary on the placement of containers to maximize self shielding and minimize dose.
Resolution of these weaknesses and control of site boundary doses upon LUM facility activation will be evaluated in a future inspection (50-271/89-06-01).
5.0 Qualifications The inspector reviewed the c; qualifications of the recently appointed l
Radiation Protection Supervisor with respect to Technical Specification 6.1, " Organization", and ANSI N18.1-1971, " Selection and training of nuclear power plant personnel."
Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. The inspector determined that Radiation Protection Supervisor's combination of formal education, technical training and past experience meets the requirements of ANSI N18.1-1971 as referenced in T.S. 6.1.
6.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1 of this report) on April 7,1989. The inspector summarized the php, scope and findings of the inspection. No written material was pIUvided to the licensee.
l d
J
,
--_