IR 05000309/1993016
| ML20045H400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1993 |
| From: | Joseph Furia, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045H395 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-93-16, NUDOCS 9307200171 | |
| Download: ML20045H400 (7) | |
Text
c.
,
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-309/93-16 Docket No.
50-309 License No.
DPR-36 Licensce:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Augusta. Maine 04336 Facility Name:
Maine Yankee Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At:
Wiseasset. Maine Inspection Conducted:
June 28 -July 2.1993
.O E
7-6 '/J Inspector:
_i
~
J.# uria,'SinIor Radiation Specialist, date Facilities Radiation Protection Section (FRPS),
,
'
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB), Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)
Approved by:
.,/
Mo E d3
/W. Pasciak, Chief, FRPS, FRSSB, DRSS date Areas Insoccted: Announced inspection of the transportation, radwaste and radiation protection programs including: management organization, shipment of radioactive materials, processing of radwaste, Quality Assurance, training and ALARA.
Results. The licensee continued to maintain an effective transportation and solid radwaste processing program. A notable licensee strength in the area of Quality Assurance was also observed.
9307200171 930712 PDR ADDCK 05000309 G
n.-
- .
DETAILS 1. Eersonnel Contacte<1 1.1 Licensee Personnel
- R. Blackmore, Plant Manager
- D. Caristo, Radiological Programs Section Head
- J. Frothingham, Quality Programs Manager R. Hayward, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- E. Heath, Radiological Controls Section Head K. Knight, Training Instructor
- S. LeClerc, Quality Programs Section Head
- G. Leitch, Vice President - Operations
- R. Nelson, Corporate Engineering Manager
- S. Nichols, Technical Support Manager M. Readinger, Radiation Protection Supervisor T. Shippee, ALARA Coordinator
- C. Smith, Radwaste Coordinator a' P. Stover, radiological Controls Technician
- J. Weast, Licensing Engineer
- W. Wicks, Supervisor, Skills Training 1.2 NRC Personnel
- C. Battige, Reactor Engineer Intern C. Marschall, Senior Resident Inspector
- W. Olsen, Resident Inspector
- J. Yerokun, Project Engineer i
1.3 Other Personnel
- P. Dostie, State of Maine Nuclear Safety Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on July 2,1993.
2. Transoortation and Radwaste Since the last inspection in this program area, the licensee had hired a new Radwaste Coordinator. The previous Radwaste Coordinator left the licensee's employment in November 1992, while G1e new Radwaste Coordinator began his employment with the licensee in April 1993. While no specific regulations or requirements exist for the qualifications of someone filling this position, the licensee selected a highly qualified professional formerly employed by a major radwaste contractor, i
l
]
"
..
.
2.1 TransnortatiOR The licensee's transportation program for radioactive materials was under the direction of the Radwaste Coordinator, who reported through the Radiation Programs Section Head to the Radiation Protection Manager. Shipment manifests and associated documentation were prepared utilizing computer codes developed by WMG, Inc.
The records for the following shipments of radioactive material were examined as part of this inspection:
Shipment #
Activity (Ci)
Volume (cu ft)
Type 92-W-15 1.26E+02 158.1 Resin 92-W-16 2.25E+01 28.0 Filters 92-W-17 9.11E+01 158.1 Resin 92-W-18 9.13E+00 94.3 Filters 93-L-1 7.58E-03 571.2 Laundry 93-L-2 7.99E-03 571.2 Laundry 93-V-3 N/A N/A New Fuel Packages 93-V-4 N/A N/A New Fuel Packages All shipments were determined to be in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal regulations (CFR), Parts 100-177, and Title 10, CFR Parts 20, 61 and 71.
A review of licensee documents required under Title 10, CFR Part 71 (for NRC approved shipping casks) and Part 30 (transfer of licensed material to another licensee) was also conducted. The licensee maintained a comprehensive set of documents on all NRC approved shipping casks, including the Certificates of Compliance for each. A review of the licensee's files did indicate a weakness in compliance with Part 30 however. Licenses on file for Interstate Nuclear Services (INS), which processed the licensee's laundry, and for SEG, which sorted and processed some licensee Dry Active Waste (DAW), were determined to be outdated. Both licenses on file had expired, and Maine Yankee did not have on file either the new license or a copy of the letter of timely renewal for these licenses. The licensee indicated that this would be promptly addressed, and it will be reviewed during the next inspection in this area.
2.2 Radwaste The licensee's radwaste systems included the dewatering of resins, and the collection of filter cartridges and DAW. These activities were conducted
,
-
.
.
.
.
"
,
.
under the direction of the Operations Department (for resin dewatering) and the Radwaste Coordinator.
The licensee divided its plant radioactive water treatment systems into two process streams, hydrogenated and aerated. The hydrogenated system encompassed the primary letdown system, which included mechanical filters and cesium demineralizers, together with interfaces to the plants waste gas system. Spent resins from the demineralizer were transferred to tank TK-85, then to tank TK-109, and from there to a liner for dewatering. Spent filter cartridges were collected in a liner and stored in the radwaste bunker adjacent to the Auxiliary Building.
Aerated water systems processing was accomplished utilizing a five vessel Duratek demineralizer system, which had replaced the original plant waste evaporator in the early 1980's. Spent resins from this system could be directly transferred to a liner for dewatering, or sent to TK-85. Dewatering was accomplished utilizing a small pump, although a closed circuit television system had been added to allow for better processing control and to reduce the risk of overflowing the liner. Liners were processed in a shielded container located in the Auxiliary Building.
DAW was collected from throughout the Restricted Area and sent to the LSA Building, where it was sorted into compactable and non-compactable materials, with the compactable materials processed into B-25 type containers. The licensee had recently installed a new box compactor, and the first boxes processed with this new system showed a 50% increase in compaction ratio from the previous compactor. Long term licensee plans also included the potential utilization of a waste processor, such as SEG (a Westinghouse Company) for waste sorting, segregation, incineration and/or supercompaction, as appropriate.
The licensee utilized scaling factors for isotopic identification of waste stream products. Representative plant smears were collected on an annual basis and submitted to the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL) for total isotopic analysis. Results were utilized to determine scaling factors for hard to measure nuclides. Results were compared to previous years' data to check for potentially anomalous data. On a quarterly basis, plant smears were analyzed on site to verify that plant conditions had not changed significantly between the submission of samples to the YAEL. In line sampling of spent resins being sluiced to a disposal liner were collected on a batch basis and submitted to YAEL on an as needed basis, not to exceed one per fuel cycle. Other infrequent waste streams were sampled on an as needed basis.
At the time of this inspection, the licensee, like all licensee's in the state of
-
-
.
.
.
.
Maine, was denied access to the Barnwell Low-Level Waste Management Facility. As such, the licensee had begun to utilize its Low-Level Waste and Equipment Temporary Storage Building (LLWETSB) to hold processed radwaste. To date, the licensee had placed three B-25 type boxes of compacted DAW in this facility. Design of the facility was based on storing not more than 7000 curies of radioactive material. Based upon current generation rates for radwaste, the facility appeared more than adequate to hold five years worth of processed radwa*. The licensee was awaiting the results of a statewide referendum to allow Maine to enter into a compact with the state of Texas, which would develop, construct and operate a low-level
radwaste disposal facility that would accept wastes generated in Maine.
The licensee's program for the collection, processing and storage of
.
radioactive wastes was determined to be generally good.
'
3. Assurance of Ouality
.
The licensee's program for assurance of quality in the radwaste and radiation protection areas included program audits and periodic surveillances, and continued to be operated in a highly professional manner. As part of this inspection, a review of Quality Assurance activities in these areas since July 1992 was conducted. The licensee conducted two audits of the Radiation Poection program, MY-92-03B and MY-93-03 during that time frame. Both audits included the use of technical specialists in addition to professional
,
auditors. Both audits identified deficiencies (one each) and observations / recommendations for program improvement. The deficiencies were of program areas that did not adversely affect the public health and safety, and were promptly addressed by the radiation protection staff. Audit MY-92-09, conducted in December of 1992, included the radwaste program and the Technical Specification required Process Control Program. Again technical specialists were included as part of the audit team. No deficiencies were identified in this audit.
In addition to the audits, the licensee conducted three surveillances of radiation protection and radwaste activities. These surveillances (92S-031,92S-054 and 93S-005) were conducted by the assigned functional area specialist within the Quality Assurance Section. Areas examined included: Health Physics Information System (HIS) and dosimetry records; shipment oflow-level waste stored in the spent fuel pool; and, instrument source checking. All deficiencies identified in these surveillances were promptly addressed by the appropriate licensee staff.
.
'
F; -
.
4. Training The licensee's training program for radwaste and transportation included specialized technical training for selected members of the radiation protection staff, together with general radwaste training for*all radiation workers.
Specialized technical training was presented by the radwaste coordinator to the two radiation protection technicians assigned to the radwaste and transportation area. A weakness identified in this area was the lack of programmatic support provided by the Training Department to the Radwaste Coordinator for preparation and presentation of course material. This was the same weakness noted in early 1992 for all radiation protection technical area training. In addition to in-house technical training, the licensee also utilized periodic vendor training in this area. Courses presented by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. and WMG had been presented to members of the licensee's staff in the past three years.
For general radiation workers, the licensee presented radwaste as a section of the Advanced Rad Worker Training course. The block of training on radwaste lasted approximately one hour. A notable weakness in this training was the apparent lack of review of the course material by plant radiation safety personnel. The instructor's manual contained several notable errors, including a description of plant liquid waste processing as including the use of a waste evaporator (which has been laid-up and not in use for a decade), and the continued availability of the Barnwell Low-Level Waste Disposal Site to the licensee. As discussed in paragraph 2.2 above, the licensee has not had access to that facility.since January 1,1993.
In addition to the weaknesses noted above, the inspector identified additional weaknesses in the Advanced Rad Worker training in the area of radiation protection. As part of the training, workers are given a classroom exercise where they dress out in protective clothing in accordance with a training Radiation Work Permit and work on a valve in a supposed radiation setting.
The area was posted as contaminated and as a High Radiation Area.
Weaknesses noted in instructor performance included: failing to note students leaving their dosimetry and security badge on a step-off pad and proceeding to a frisker station; failing to note students not closing the gate leading to the mock-up area which in the plant would be a Plant Technical Specification violation for failure to provide a barrier to a High Radiation Area; and failing to note that students were not verifying that the frisker being used was in calibration at the time of use, and that the instrument had not been source checked that day. This is of particular concern, as the licensee was cited in 1992 for having personnel using friskers that had not been source checked in accordance with plant radiation protection procedures. Licensee management indicated, at the time of the exit interview, that these weaknesses would be
-. -
..
_..
_
-
. _ _
_.
.
-.
.
.
.
I
^
investigated, and corrected as necessary.
4. Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on July 2,1993. The inspector summarized the purpose,
'
scope and findings of the inspection.
i l
-
.
-