IR 05000271/1993028

Safety Insp 50-271/93-28 on Stated Date.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Remp,Mgt Controls,Quality Assurance Audits,Meterological Monitoring Program,Quality Control Program & Implementation of Offsite Dose Calculation

ML20059D713
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	12/22/1993
From:	Joustra J, Peluso L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059D699	List: IR 05000271/1993028 ML20059D694
References
50-271-93-28, NUDOCS 9401100045
Download: ML20059D713 (7)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Report N /93-23 Docket N License N DPR-28 Licensee: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corocration RD 5 Box 169 Brattleboro. Vermont 05301 Facility Name: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Vernon. Vermont Inspection Conducted: November 29 - December 3.1923 w

N-l t

-

m22 93 Inspector: /

l m

fg/[ Laurie Peh[so, Radiation Specialist Date !

Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)  !

[ Facilities Radiological Safety and j Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)

Approved by:

J hbh AwIA th A. Joustra, @ef, ERPS, FRSSB, /'/.B/93 Datt IIi isicn of Radiatiod Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)

Areas Insoected; Announced safety i, Na of die Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) including: managems o -, .a ols, quality assurance audits, meteorological monitoring program, quality control progr.ua for analytical measurements, and implementation of the above programs and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).

Results: Within the areas inspected, the licensee continued to maintain an effective REMP.

l The responsible individuals were knowledgeable with respect to implementation of the above programs. No safety concerns or violations of NRC requirements were identified.

l I

l l

l

!

l 9401100045 931227 PDR

'

ADOCK 05000271 O PDR

, .

DETAILS 1.0 Individanic Contacted Licensee Personnel E. Cummings, Sr. Environmental Engineer, Yankee Atomic Electric Company R. Gerdus, Chemistry Engineer, Chemistry Department D. Girroir, Senior Mechanical Engineer

• J. Herron, Technical Services Superintendent F. Lipinski, System Engineer, Instrument and Control

• J. Meyer, Operations Support M. Morgan, Engineer, Instrument and Control

• A. Parker, Audit Group Supervisor

• S. Racz, Quality Services Engineer

• S. Skibniowsky, Chemistry Manager D. Voland, Chemistry Assistant-Environmental

• R. Wanczyk, Plant Manager

• M. Watson, Instrument and Control Manager (Acting)

1.2 Nuclear Reenlatorv Commiccion MRC) Personnel

• P. Harris, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those individuals present at exit interview on December 3,199 Other licensee personnel were also interviewed during this inspectio .0 Purpose l '

l The purpose of this inspection was to verify the licensee's capability to implement the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) and the Meteorological Monitoring Program (MMP) according to Technical Specifications (TS), the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), and appropriate procedures during normal and

'

emergency operation .0 Manacement Controls Oreanization The inspector reviewed the organization responsible for the imMementation of the REMP and discussed with members of the Radiological Envhonmental Serzices Department any changes since the last inspection conducted in July 1992. There have been no significant changes in the oversight of the REMP since the previous inspection.

'

.

.

3.2 Oualitv Assurance Audits The inspector reviewed the Quality Assurance Audit Report for the REMP as part of the evaluation of the implementation of Section 6.2.B.5.d.iiiTS audit requirement The audit was performed by members of the Quality Assurance Audit Group .

from January, 25 - February 5,1993, according to TS audit requirement )

The audit report (VY-93-02), dated March 12,1993, covered the stated objectives, utilized a technical specialist, and was of sufficient technical depth l to assess the REMP. The inspector noted that the QA audit verified that the l Sections 3.9 and 4.9 of the REMP TS had been implemented by the Chemistry Department members. There were no findings in the area of the REM The inspector also reviewed the licensee's audit tracking system for followup on findings and corrective actions and noted that the licensee had an effective tracking system. The inspector reviewed the previous audit report and audit disirepancy status reports and noted that the findings from the previous audit had been close .3 Annual REMP Report The inspector reviewed the Annual Radiologied Environmental Surveillance i Report for 1992, as well as selected analytical data for 1993. The report i provided a comprehensive summary of the analytical results of the REMP i around the Vermont Yankee site and met Section 6.7.C.3 TS reporting i requirements. Records of the analytical results indicated that all samples were l collected and analyzed as required and the lower limits of detection specified in the licensce's TS were met. No obvious omissions or trends were identifie During May 1992, tne licensee collected the required semiannual sediment samples from the North Storm Drain Outfall (NSDO). The initir.1 result of one sample was a concentration of 4063 i 84 pCi/kg (Co-60), which exceeded the TS reporting level of 3000 pCi/kg (dry). The licensee immediately issued a Potential Reportable Occurrence (PRO) which prompts the licensee to take appropriate action (s). The license 9 reanalyzed the sample by splitting the sample into fractions and determined ' e concentration to be 1500 80 pCi/kg, which is below the reporting leve The inspector assessed the licensee'. rnethods for reanalysis and determined the methods to be acceptable. The inspector noted that the licensee considered the initial sample result as an outlier because the Co-60 was not homogeneously distributed throughout the sample, contained a hot particle, and

-.

.

.

was not representative of the NSDO. The inspector reviewed the analytican results from each sample location for 1992 and the first half 1993 and determined that the detection of Co-60 in the one sample from the NSDO was not an anomaly; Co-60 had been detected in certain sediment locations around the vicinity of the NSDO with concentrations ranging from 33 - 1500 pCi/kg over the past one and one half year Based on the above review and discussions with the licensee, the inspector determined that the licensee's actions were appropriate and timely and that the licensee routinely collects and analyzes samples as require .0 Radiological Environmental Monitorine Program Direct Observations The inspector examined selected samplig stations to determine whether samples were being obtained from the locations designated in the TS and the ;

ODCM. These sampling stations included air samplers for particulates and l

'

airborne iodines, the composite water sampling station, several milk sampling stations, grass locations, and a number of thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)

stations for measurement of direct ambient radiation. All reviewed air sampling equipment and the composite water sampler were operational at the time of the inspection. The TLDs were placed at the designated locations as specified in the ODCM. The inspector witnessed milk collection from several local farms and determined that the milk samples were obtained from the locations specified in the ODCM and that milk sample collection was performed according to the appropriate procedur The Chem 4try Assistant-Environmental has responsibility for collecting the environmental samples. During this inspection, the inspeWr noted that the licensee had recently initiated a " hands-on" training progran to prepare the Senior Environmental Engineer, from the corporate office located in Bolton, Massachusetts, to assume the duties of the Chemistry Assistant when require The Senior Environmenl Engineer is very knowledgeable in the area of the REM .2 Review of the REMP Procedures The inspector reviewed the procedure OP-4605, Environmental Radiological Sampling nod Analysis as part of the evaluation of the implementation of the REMP in accordance with TS and the ODCM. The procedure included airborne, milk, sediment, and water sampling methods, direct radiation measurements using TLDs, and the method for the land use census. The

.

.

reviewed procedures were concise and provided the required direction and guidance for implementing an effective REM In addition to the procedure review, the inspector reviewed'the calibration results of the dry gas meters for the air samplers. The calibrations were performed as scheduled using the appropriate procedure and the results were within the licensee's acceptance criteri ,

Based on the above review and discussions with the licensee's representatives, the inspector noted that members of the Chemistry Department demonstrated a very good understanding of the program and had implemented an effective REM .0 Ouality Assurance and Ouality Control for Analvtical Measurements The inspector reviewed the licensee's programs for quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) to determine whether the licensee had adequate control with respect to sampling, analyzing, and evaluating data for the implementation of the REM The quality control program for analysis of environmental samples was conducted by the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL), located in Framingham, M The laboratory participated in the EPA-cross check program and had in place internal QA programs such as a blind duplicate program and an intralaboratory quality control program. The inspector reviewed the YAEL Semi Annual QA Status Reports for the second half of 1992 and the first half of 1993 which contained the results from the above programs. The inspector noted that the analytical results were in agreement, with few exceptions. The responsible person reviewed all results and investigated disagreement The inspector noted that the licensee continues to maintain a good quality assurance program to ensure that the REMP sample results are thoroughly reviewed by the Chemistry Assistant-Environmental. Any results that appear suspect are recounted and reviewe Based on the above reviews and 'discussicus with the licensee, the inspector determined that the licensee had very good QA and QC programs, j

!

6.0' Meteorological Monitorine Promm The inspector reviewed the licensee's MMP to determine whether the instrumentation and equipment were operable, calibrated, and maintained. The Instrument and i

'

Control Department maintained all sensors at the main and backup towers. A contractor performed the semiannual channel calibrations in accord with TS requirements using the licensee's procedure l

,.

l

!

.

The inspector compared the wind speed, wind direction, and delta temperature outputs !

of the primary and backup towers located at the relay N use to the control room l I

outputs. The comparisons were in agreement. The inspector reviewed the calibration results of March and June 1993 for the above parameters and noted that the calibration results were generally within the licensee's acceptance criteria, however ,

there were some exceptions. Some of the "as left" calibration results for the wind l speed and wind direction were out of specification. The licensee generated work i orders and made the appropriate corrections in a timely manner. This was not a j safety concern, however, management should not allow the "as left" results to remain i

out of specificatio ;

The inspector noted that the instrumentation and chart recorders were operable at the tirce of the inspection, with one exception. The inspector noted that one chart recorder in the reiay house was not printing. This was documented on the Operr.tions daily surveillance log sheets and had been entered as a work order request. The inspector noted that licensee's actions were appropriat Based on the above inspector observations, record review and discussions with the licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee continued to implement an effective MM .0 Offsite Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases Although the radioactive gaseous effluent control program was reviewed during the previous inspection (NRC Inspection Report No 50-271/93-25 for details), the inspector examined selected monthly offsite dose calculations to verify that Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.I.1 had been met during this inspectio The inspector reviewed the offsite dose calculation results for the months of July, :

'

August, September, and October 1993. The inspector noted that the third quarter dose to the public was 1.44 mrem. The highest monthly dose in the third quarter was 1.24 mrem in September. The dose during October was 0.0022 mre The TS states in part that if the estimated monthly doses due to gaseous effluent releases from the site to creas at and beyond the site boundary would exceed mrem to any organ, then verify that the Augmented Offgas (AOG) and Radwaste l Ventilation Filter (HEPA) Systems are operating. The inspector noted that the AOG and the Radwaste Ventilation Filter Systems were operating during September as required by TS. The testing methodology for HEPA was questionable, therefore, the inspector stated that the testing method for the Radwaste Ventilation system including the acceptance criteria (Operating Procedure 4501, Filter Testing) will be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio l l

.. . . . _ . - -- _ .

t. <.

I 7 I

Based on the above review and discussions with the licensee's representatives, the

.

inspector determined that the licensee met TS requirement and the projected doses to ;

'

, the public were within regulatory limit .;

1 ,

! 8.0 Exit Interview l f l The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in' Section 1.1 of this inspection report at fra conclusion of the inspection on December 3,1993. The

>

inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection. The  ;

licensee acknowledged the inspection findmg ;

I E

i >

I i

>

b

'!

l I

I

~

l

-

.m . -- - , , . - - . , , ~ . . _ _