IR 05000309/1993012
| ML20045H265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Jang J, Peluso L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045H261 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-93-12, NUDOCS 9307200028 | |
| Download: ML20045H265 (14) | |
Text
.
.
__
.
\\
l l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!
REGION I
'
Report No.
50-309/93-12 Docket No.
50-309 l
License No.
DPR-36 Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station 83 Edison Drive i
Augusta. Maine 04336 i
Facility Name:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Inspection At:
Wiscasset. Maine Inspection Conducted:
June 7-18.1993 Inspectors:
M2b/fx}A~c
/)
- /rt/r3 Laurie Peluso, Radiation Specialist Date Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
,~ N i
. yL eembs
Jason C. Jang, Senior Radiation Specialist Date '
ERPS, FRSSB, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)
/f
,i,'- /
..
,
Approved by:
j
'b.
', './/
2I'i3
,
44Jobed J Bores, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, DRSS Date I
Areas Inspecte11 Announced safety inspection of the radiological environmental monitoring
and radioactive effluent control programs including: management controls, quality assurance audits, QA/QC of the measurement laboratory, meteorological monitoring program, calibrations of radiation monitoring systems, air clerming systems, and the implementation of the above progmms and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).
Results: Within the areas inspected, the licensee has effectively implemented the above programs. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identified.
9307200028 930709 l
PDR ADOCK 05000309 G
PDR.
-
_
_ _ _...
_ _._ _,_
.
DETAILS 1.0 Individuals Contacted 1.1 Licensee Personnel
,
- N. Caristo, Radiation Programs Section Head
- J. Hebert, Manager, Licensing and Engineering Support
- W. Lach, Chemist
- D. Izmieux, I&C Section Head
- S. Nichols, Technical Support Manager
- J. Niles, Assistant Manager, Operations Department
R. O' Clair, Environmental Specialist
'
G. Pillsbury, Assistant Manager, Technical Support
- P. Radsky, Chemistry Section Head
- M. Veilleux, Manager, Planning and Scheduling
- J. Weast, Lic nsing Engineer 1.2 NRC
- W. Olsen, Residen. Inspector
- K. Battige, Reactor Engineer, Intern 1.3 State of Maine
)
- P. Dostie, State Nuclear Safety Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on May 28,1993.
Other licensee employees were contacted and interviewed during this inspection.
2.0 Purnose The purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee's capability to implement the following areas during both normal and emergency operations.
(1)
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), including the implementation of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).
(2)
Meteorological Monitoring Program (MMP).
(3)
Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Control Programs (RECP).
(4)
Dose Assessment for the Publi.
3.0 Review of Unresolved _, Jinns (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-309/91-20-01): Evaluation / Verification of the (1) Plant Vent Stack (PVS) isokinetic sampling method and application of PVS flow rate, (2)
sample nozzle to verify isokinetic sampling, and (3) upgrade software of the offsite dose calculation program (METPAC) to accept flow instrumentation data.
The licensee completed this item on January 27, 1993. The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation and/or verification results for the following areas.
,
(1)
Validity of using velocimeter times PVS cross-sectional area to determine flow rate [(ft/ minute)(square feet)].
(2)
Volumetric flow rate calibration based on a 3-point calibration on the lower third of calibration curve.
(3)
Calibration of PVS volumetric flow meter.
(4)
Determination of the PVS flow rate.
(5)
Verification of the accuracy for the volumetric instrument.
(6)
Comparison of the flow rate change between new rate and historical data.
(7)
Calibration of the flow indicator for isokinetic nozzle.
(8)
Revision of Chemistry procedures for quantification of the total releases and dose calculations.
(9)
Evaluation of the effect of actual PVS flow rate on dispersion factors used in ODCM, including upgrading the METPAC program.
Based on the reviews of the above evaluation and verification results, the inspector determined that the licensee's performance of all calibrations and verifications listed above were very good and technically sound. Corrective actions, such as upgrading the METPAC program and procedures, were also very good. This item is closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-309/92-05-01): Perform the primary calibration for the PVS radiation monitoring system to ensure proper operation through the normal and emergency operating ranges.
The licensee completed the primary calibrations for the PVS. The inspector reviewed the primary calibration data and verified the conversion factor [ Ci/cc/ cpm]
independently and the comparison was good. The licensee also performed a secondary calibration (transfer calibration) after the primary calibration. The inspector compared i
the secondary calibration results performed in 1988 and 1992. The inspector found that similar calibration results were obtained. This item is close _ - _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ -
-_
.
4.0 Radiolocical and Environmental Monitorinn Procram (REMP)
4.1 Oreanizati.An The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization and discussed with members of the Technical Support Department any changes made since the last inspection I
conducted in April 1992. In July 1992, the position of Principal Engineer (direct technical support for the Environmental Specialist) was deleted after the engineer j
retired. As of April 1,1993, the Environmental Specialist responsible for the j
REMP, was moved from Licensing and Engineering Support to the Radiation Programs Section of the Technical Su.pport Department.
!
l In the interim (July 1992 until April 1,1993), the Environmental Specialist l
reported to the Emergency Preparedness and Environmental Engineering Section Head, who was located at the Corporate Office in Augusta, Maine. Because of logistics (specifically, the section head was in Augusta and the Environmental Specialist was rnmediately adjacent to the site), the licensee had considered (since i
Apnl 1992) a reorganization as a means of technically and administratively supporting the REMP through plant involvement. With the reorganization, the REMP will be supported by personnel of the Radiation Programs Section.
The Environmental Specialist currently reports to the Radiation Programs Section
,
Head, who reports to the Manager of Technical Support through the Assistant
!
Manager. The Manager of Technical Support reports to the Plant Manager. At the time of the inspection, the Radiation Programs Section had responsibility for the REMP for two months. The inspector stated that the effectiveness of the organizational change will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
Based on interviews with personnel and observation of personnel implementing the REMP, the inspector determined that the above changes were generally smooth and that no negative impact on the REMP was evident thus far.
4.2 Qunlity Assurnnee Audit The inspector reviewed the following licensee's Quality Assurance Audit Report as part of the evaluation of the implementation of Technical Specifications.
MY-92-02 " Chemistry / Radiological Effluent Technical Speci6 cations
(RETS)/REMP/ODCM", dated June 22,1992.
The MY-92-02 audit had been conducted during the period of May 4-8 and 12-13, 1992. The audit was performed by members of the Quality Programs Department and technical specialists. The audit covered the stated objectives and was of suf6cient technical depth to assess the above programs.
-
_ _____ - -- _- ___
l
.
MY-92-02 audit identified one deficiency and four observations in the'REMP area, none were of safety significance. The deficiency was assigned to the appropriate department and the response was timely. The audit followup to the deficiency was timely and the deficiency had been closed.
4.3 Review of Annual Report The inspector reviewed the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 1992, as well as the 1993 analytical results and the results of the Land Use Census required by the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)/ Technical Specifications (TS). The reports provided a comprehensive summary of the analytical results of the REMP around the Maine Yankee site and met ODCM/TS reporting requirements. Records of the analytical results for 1993 indicated that samples were collected as required and the lower limits of detection specified in the licensee's ODCM/TS were met. No obvious omissions, trends, or anomalous measurements were identified.
4.4 Direct Observations
,
The inspector examined selected environmental sampling stations to determine whether samples were being obtained from the locations designated in the ODCM/TS and whether the air samplers were operable, calibrated, and maintained. These stations included air samplers for particulate and airborne iodines, automatic composite water samplers, a number of thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) stations for direct ambient radiation measurements, milk, and vegetation. All the air sampling equipment was operational and the gas meters for the air samplers were calibrated at the time of the inspection. TLDs were placed at their designated locations, and the water compositors were operating and taking samples. Milk and vegetation samples were available and collected from the locations specified in the ODCM/TS. The inspector witnessed the contractor collect marine algae samples. Although sampling and analysis of this sample type is not required in the ODCM/TS, it does, however, demonstrate th&t the licensee collects and analyzes additional environmental media. Sample collection was performed correctly according to the appropriate procedure.
Based on independent observation and interviews with the licensee personnel, the inspector determined that personnel were knowledgeable and qualified with respect to the REMP.
4.5 Implementation of the REMP The inspector reviewed the licensee's following Environmental Procedures as part of the examination of the implementation of the REMP as described in Section 5.8 of the Technical Specifications.
.
.
--
.-
-
.
-.
.
.
6
- No. 26.1, " Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program",
No. 26.301, " Environmental Media Sample Collection Methods".
- Procedure 26.1 describes the major elements and responsibilities of the REMP at the site.
Procedure 26.301 contains requirements for sample collection frequencies, techniques, and locations for various environmental sample media.
Guidance for sample preparation, shipping and record keeping is provided in this procedure. Calibration methods for the flowmeters and dry gas meters for the air samplers, and the thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and TLD reader are also
provided.
All the environ. mental samples were sent to Yankee Atomic Electric Company Environmental Laboratory (YAEL) for analysis. The results are reviewed and returned to the licensee where they are reviewed by the licensee. The results are reported in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.
,
The inspector reviewed the most recent calibration results for the flowmeters and gas meters for the air samplers and noted that all reviewed calibration results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria.
During the review of procedure 26.301, the inspector noted that the procedure had been revised. The inspector reviewed the differences between revision 4 (also reviewed during a previous inspection) and revisions 5 and 6. Revisions 5 and 6 had no significant differences. However, there were differences between revision 4 and revision 5.
The inspector noted that the changes were administrative.
The procedure changes were enhancements that included a
'
computer program to compute TLD calibration results and revised guidance on the dry test meter used to calibrate the dry gas meters and the flowmeters for the air samplers.
'
Based on the above procedure review and interviews with the licensee, the inspector determined that the procedures were technically sound, detailed, and provided the required direction and guidance for implementing an effective program.
l 5.0 Ouality Assurance /Ouality Control of Analytical Measurements for the REMP The inspector reviewed the licensee's programs for quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) of analytical measurements to determine whether the licensee had adequate controls with respect to sampling, analyzing samples, and evaluating data for implementing the REMP. The quality control of analytical measurements is conducted
'
by the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL), located in Framingham, M A.
YAEL conducts an intralaboratory quality control program to assure the validity and J
--
_
.
.
,
reliability of analytical data.
The laboratory participates in the EPA cross-check program, required by the ODCM/TS, and a blind duplicate quality assurance program.
The results of each of the programs are documented in the Annual Report and were in agreement.
Based on the above reviews, the inspector determined that the licensee had in place comprehensive QA/QC programs for the REMP.
6.0 Meteorolonical Monitorine Program (MMP)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's Meteorological Monitoring Program (MMP) to determine whether the instrumentation and equipment were operable, calibrated, and
-
maintained.
Members of the Instrument and Controls (I&C) Department maintain all the sensors on the meteorological tower.
The vendor uses the licensee's procedures to perform quarterly calibrations. The inspector reviewed the following calibration procedures and the most recent calibration results.
No. 6-100-1, " Weekly Meteorological System Calibration Check" e
"
No. 6-100-2, " Quarterly Calibration of the Meteorological System" e
The inspector noted that the calibrations were performed as scheduled, the procedures were well written and provided the required direction and guidance for implementing the required tasks, and the results were within the licensee's acceptance criteria.
The meteorological tower is equipped with wind speed, wind direction, and temperature sensors at the 33 and 196-foot elevations. The inspector compared the meteorological parameters between the computer and the analog chart recorder outputs located in the Control Room. The results were in agreement taking into account variance in the output data of the analog chart r da~
The inspector noted that the sensors on the tower and the strip charts were operating at the time of the inspection.
Based on the above review, the inspector determined that the licensee implemented the meteorological monitoring program very effectivel.
7.0 Radioactive Liauid and Gaseous Effluent Control Pronrams (REC 19
.
i 7.1 Ornanization and Procram Channes The inspector reviewed the organization and discussed with members of the radioactive effluent control program any changes since the last inspection of this area, which was conducted in April 1992. There were no significant changes in i
the organization, nor were there changes in the RECP since the last inspection.
7.2 Qpality Assurance Audits The inspector reviewed Audit Report Number MY-92-02, Radiological Effluents portion. There were no findings or observations identified in the Effluents area.
The audit was performed by a member of the Nuclear Quality Assurance Department (NQA) and the technical specialists. The inspector determined that the audit covered the stated objectives, was thorough and of sufficient technical depth to assess the quality of the prograrn.
7.3 Review of the Semiannual Effluent Release Rfports The inspector reviewed the semiannual efHuent release reports for 1991 and 1992 as well as the available 1993 data. The licensee met TS (Technical Specification)
reporting requirements. These reports provided total released radioactivity for liquid, gaseous and particulate effluent.
No obvious omissions, anomalous measurements or trends were identified.
8.0 Implementation of tl e RECP The inspector reviewed the following radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent release procedures and selected release permits as part of the examination of the implementation of the ODCM and TS requirements.
- 3-7-1-1, Liquid Radioactive Waste Discharge
- 3-7-1-2, Gaseous Radioactive Waste Discharge The inspector noted that the procedures were updated to implement new 10CFR20 requirements. The inspector found that the above procedures were sufficiently detailed and provided the required direction and guidance to effectively control effluent releases.
The inspector also noted that the reviewed release permits were complete and met the requirements for sampling and analyses at the frequencies and lower limits of detection established in the Technical Specification.
9 Based on the above review and discussion with the licensee, the inspector determined that the licensee had implemented the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent control program effectively.
9.0 Qtlibrations of Effluent / Process Radiation Monitoring Systems (RMS)
The inspector reviewed the calibration procedures and the most recent calibration results for the following effluent / process RMS to determine the implementation of TS requirements.
Liquid Radwaste Effluent Monitor (RM 3801)
- Service Water Effluent Line Monitors (RMs 2601, 2602, and 2603)
- Steam Generator Blowdown Monitor (RM 1601)
- Plant Vent Stack Noble Gas Monitors (RMs 3902X and 3902Y)
L tste Gas Holdup System Monitor (RM 3091)
The Instrument and Controls Department had the responsibility to perform the electronic and radiological calibrations for the above RMS. The inspector reviewed the primary calibration results (plant vent stack and liquid radwaste effluent RMS) and determined that the licensee conducted excellent primary calibrations. The inspector noted that the licensee conducted excellent secondary radiological calibrations for the RMS listed above.
During the previous inspection, the inspector identified one weakness in the transfer calibration (secondary radiological calibration) technique.
The licensee used two strengths of solid sources, rather than three sources, to obtain calibration factors and
,
'
linearity tests. The licensee stated at that time that the procedures would be reviewed and updated, as appropriate.
As a result of the previous inspection conducted in April 1992, the licensee added another solid source and calibrated the plant vent stack and liquid radwaste effluent RMS using three strengths of solid sources. The licensee then calculated the conversion factor and the linearity using a statistical method. The inspector reviewed these calibration results and the results were excellent.
During this inspection, the inspector found that the licensee updated RMS transfer calibration procedures, including (1) using three strengths of solid sources to calculate calibrations factors and (2) linearity tests using a statistical method, such as the linear regression method. The licensee stated that all effluent / process radiation monitoring systems will be calibrated using the new procedures.
Based on the above review and discussions with the licensee, the inspector determined that the licensee has an effective calibration program for the effluent / process RMS. The j
inspector had no further questions in this area.
I
.
.
10.0 Air Cleaninn Systems The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures and most recent test results to determine the implementation of the Technical Specifications for the (1) containment air filtration system, (2) control room air filtration system, and (3) spent fuel storage building air filtration system.
- Visual Inspections e In-Place HEPA Leak Tests
- In-Place Charcoal Leak Tests System Air Flow Tests
- Delta Pressure Tests Laboratory Tests for the Iodine Collection Efficiencies
>
All reviewed test results were found to be within the licensee's Technical Specification limits.
Based on the above review and discussion with the licensee, the inspector determined that the licensee implemented the Technical Specification requirements effectively.
I1.0. Comparisons of the Projected Dose Calntiation ProgrEtt During this inspection, the inspector performed an independent verification of the licensee's capability for calculating projected doses to the public resulting from discharges of radioactive liquids and gases to the environment. The licensee calculated the projected dose to the public prior to discharge of radioactive liquids and/or gases based on the data incorporated into the radioactive liquid and gaseous discharge. The inspector also used the same parameters contained in the discharge (e.g., dilution factor, total amount of radioactivity released, meteorological data, etc.) to calculate the maximum projected doses to the public for intercomparison. The ?icensee used its computcr code and the NRC used the "PCDOSE code".
The PCDOSE code was developed by Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (EG&G Idaho, Inc.) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The code was designed to calculate the maximum projected radiation dose to an individual and the average dose to the population due to radionuclides in radioactive liquid and airborne effluent releases from a nuclear power plant. The code was designed for normal operation rather than for emergency situations. The code was developed from the methodology found in both NUREG-0133 and Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Revision 1). The PCDOSE code serves as a basis of comparison with similar programs conducted by individual utilities which operate nuclear power plants.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) for site specific parameters and current methodology for the noble gas, liquid,
.
-
-
i
.
and particulates (including tritium and iodines) release pathways. This ODCM was reviewed by the PORC and approved by the Plant Manager as required by the Technical Specification on April 1,1993. The inspector found that the ODCM contained two dose calculation methods, Method I and Method II.
Method I:
Method I is a simple method to compute the projected dose to the public prior to release of radioactive liquids, gases, and particulates. Method I used conservatism in order to control the effluent releases. Method I is being used by the Chemistry Department at the site.
.
Method It Method II is an in-depth method to compute the realistic doses to the public. Method II is being used by the Nuclear Services Division, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Bolton, Massachusetts for the Semiannual Report.
Comparisons of projected dose calculations were performed using Me-thod II, with the exception of noble gases, during this inspection. Method I was used for the noble gases.
The comparison results of the noble gas release pathway were based on 3 radionuclides released through the Primary Vent Stack, and specific meteorological values. The intercomparison results were excellent, as shown in Table 1.
The comparison results of the liquid r%se pathway were based on 4 radionuclides released through a routine pathway. ine intercomparison results were also excellent as illustrated in Table 2.
The comparison results of the radioiodine and particulates release pathway were based on 4 radionuclides. The intercomparison results were excellent, as shown in Table 3, with the exception of the total body. Total body doses calculated using the NxC's and the licensee's processes were 4.94E-4 mrem and 2.61E-4 mrem, respectively. The NRC's total body dose included dose from the ground plane (2.33E-4 mrem). However, when this component was subtracted from the total body dose (4.94E-4 mrem), the comparison was excellent, as shown in Table 3.
Based on the above comparison results and reviews, the inspector determined that the licensee conducted an excellent dose calculation program.
l l
l l
__
_ _ _
_
._
_
_
_
_
,
~
..
12.0 Exit Interview
'
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1.1 of this inspection report) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 18,1993. The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
l i
,
-c
._
-
.
Table 1. Noble Gas Dose Projection Comparisons
(Release Source: Plant Stack Vent)
Method I t
Gamma-Air Beta-Air (mrad)
(mrad)
NRC 9.93E-7 1.10E-5 Licensee 9.86E-7 1.10E-5
Table 2. Dose Projection Comparisons for Liquid Release (Method II)
Adult Organ Dose NRC Licensee
(mrem / release)
i Bone 4.87E-8 4.87E-8 Liver 6.84E-7 6.84E-7 Total Body 6.63E-7 6.63E-7 Thyroid 9.02E-6 9.02E-6 Kidney 6.71E-7 6.71E-7
. Lung 6.18E-7 6.18E-7 GI-LLI 6.87E-7 6.87E-7 s
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -. _
.
.
'
-
.:
,
l
Table 3. Dose Projection Comparisons for Tritium, Iodine, and Particulates All Pathways Without Site Specific Parameter Correction (Method II)
.
Adult Organ Dose NRC Licensee (mrem)
Bone 2.92E-4 2.71E-4 Liver 3.99E-4 3.71E-4
'
Total Body *
4.94 E-4 *
2.61 E-4
'
2.61E-4 * *
Thyroid 2.61E-4 2.61E-4 Kidney 1.37E-4 1.27E-4 Lung 4.50E-5 4.18E-5 GI-LLI 7.99E-5 7.45E-5
- Total Body Dose = (Doses from all pathways) + (Dose from Ground Plane)
- Dose excluding the ground plane dose.