ML20035E960
| ML20035E960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1993 |
| From: | Joseph Nick, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035E953 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-271-93-06, 50-271-93-6, NUDOCS 9304200119 | |
| Download: ML20035E960 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000271/1993006
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
,
Repon No.
50-271/93-06
Docket No.
50-271
License No.
Licensee:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
i
Brattleboro. Vennont 05301
Facility Name:
Vennont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
.
Inspection At:
Vemon. Vennont
Inspection Period:
March 9 - 12.1993
Inspector:
_
3 !33 8
J. gk, %diatioli S ' list
D' ate '
FscTities
son Prot
ion Seeion DRSS
,
/
1
/
Approved by:
MM / a /
OLf3
' Walt Pashink Chi
Date
Facilities Ra ration Protection Section, DRSS
Areas Inspected:
Storage of radioactive materials, radwaste processing, transponation of
radioactive materials, staffmg levels, staff qualifications, training, quality assurance, radwaste and
transponation procedures.
Results: The radwaste and transponation program was generally effective in safely disposing of
radioactive materials.
Areas toured in the facility were well maintained and exhibited good
housekeeping. The radwaste processing was performed by qualified individuals with documented
training and qualifications. The assurance of quality, including audits and surveillances, was
comprehensive and detailed. Improvements were noted in the processing ofliquid radioactive waste
and radwaste/transponation procedures. Weaknesses were noted in the timeliness of updating waste
stream analysis data, in revising scaling factors, and in following certain procedures. One violation
was identified regarding the classification of radioactive material for disposal and is described in
Section 8.0 of this mpon.
l
9304200119 930409
ADOCK 05000271
G
i
e
-
s
-
e
__
.
t
i
e
DETAILS
l
1.0
Persons Contacted
1.1
Licensee Personnel
- R. Wanczyk, Plant Afanager
- S. Jefferson, Assistant to Plant Manager
- R. Pagodin, Operations Superintendent
- E. Lindamood, Ralation Protection hianager
"R. Grippardi, Quality Assurance (QA) Supervisor, YNSD
,
l
- A. Parker, QA Audit Supervisor
- S. Berger, Radwaste Coordinator
i
- J. McCanhy, ALARA Engineer
- J. Meyer, Project Engineer, OSD
R. Morrisette, Training
i
'
M. Thornhill, Radiation Protection Assistant
'
!
,
1.2
NRC Personn_e_1
t
l
H. Eichenholz, Senior Resident Inspector
- P. H~arris, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those pmsent during the exit meeting
2.0
Pumose
The purpose of this announced inspection was to assess the licensee's implementation of the
radiological contmis for radioactive waste and transportation. Program elements reviewed
included transportation of radioactive materials, storage of radioactive materials, radwaste
processing, organization and stafGng levels, staff qualiGcations, training, quality assurance,
and radwaste/transponation pmcedures.
3.0
Facility Tours
j
3.1
Radwaste Systems
l
A facility tour was conducted of the liquid mdwaste processing system area, the spent fuel
l
pool area, the radioactive material soning area, the decontamination unit, temporary storage
and staging areas, and mdwaste processing tanks. The Dry Active Waste (DAW) compactor
was not being used for compaction, but was improvised as a sorting table for manual sorting
of low level radwaste items for compaction, laundering, or other disposal. DAW was being
sent to a vendor for processing, but the Process Control Program (PCP) did not reflect this
change. The PCP stated that DAW was compacted on the licensee's site. The licensee had
replaced the liquid radwaste processing system. This change had been reflected in the PCP
but the FSAR still eferenced the old system. The licensue stated that the PCP and the
i
.
.
. - .
._
.
._ -
_
-.
- _ _ _ _ _ - _
..
t
3
,
FSAR were being revised to incorporate these changes. All areas were well maintained and
exhibited good housekeeping practices.
!
3.2
Radwaste Storace
The licensee maintained a separate area outside the pmtected area for future tempomry
>
storage of solid and pmcessed radwaste. The facility was empty and not being used at the
_
time of this inspection. A warehouse (North Warehouse) within the pmtected area was being
used to stage radioactive material for shipment. The warehouse was also used to store new
resins, empty mdwaste containers, irradiated hardware, and other miscellaneous items under
the control of the radiation protection group. The licensee had approximately 89 drums of
contaminated oil tempomrily stored in one area of this facility until processing or disposal
i
could be arranged. Some of the oil was genemted over eight years ago and a small number
of drums were found to be leaking. The leakage could be attributed to the unheated
.
l
atmosphere that caused freezing and thawing to occur. Although the leakage was contained,
l
l
the building had no fire alarm or suppression system. The inspector expressed concerns
l
regarding the potential for an unmonitored release to the atmosphere in the event of a fire.
l
The licensee had performed a safety evaluation in 1987 for storage of radioactive liquids and
I
material in this warehouse. The safety analysis results were used to establish controls to
limit the consequence of a fire. The licensee placed a limit or 'he total number of dmms
containing cornbustible/ flammable materials to 100 and a limit on the number of Low
Specific Activity (LSA) boxes containing combustible / flammable materials to 30.
Additionally, the maximum contact dose rate on any one dmm was limited to 100 millirem
per hour. The number of drums and LSA boxes of radioactive material stored in the
l
warehouse were within the licensee's design basis and safety analysis. The licensee was
investigating different disposal options, but no definite plans were made for the removal or
-
disposal of the contaminated oil.
.
I
The licensee also maintained a few closed storage containers outside the plant but within the
'
protected area for the short term storage of Dry Active Waste (DAW). DAW was placed
in these containers until they were filled and arrangements could be made for processing or
l
disposal.
4.0
Organization and Staffig
The radwaste organization had changed since the last inspection. The radwaste coordinator
was replaced when the former coordinator left the company. The new caordinator was
responsible for processing, packaging, sorting, classification, and shipment of radwaste.
Contaminated laundry shipments were also coordinated by this individual. The individual
was qualified and had completed recent training in radwaste and transportation regulations.
In addition, the Plant Health Physicist position was filled by an individual from outside the
company. The Plant Health Physicist reponed to the Radiation Protection Manager and
maintained a staff to handle technical issues in radiation protection and radwaste. The
i
n
~
- ,
,
,
s.
, - . -
,
- -
. _.
-
,
,
1
)
'
4
individual had adequate qualiGeations and experience for the position.
5.0
Training
The training department maintained the training and qualification documentation for the plant
staff. A sample of records for personnel qualincations and training completion was reviewed
to determine the licensee's compliance with procedural commitments. For the personnel
records sampled, training was performed on a biennial basis in the area of mdwaste r.nd
radioactive material shipping. The training for supervision and management was conducted
by a competent vendor. Technician and mdwaste opentor training was conducted on the
licensee's site and covered the appropriate pmcedures, systems, and regulations for radwaste
J
packaging and shipping operations. The frequency of training was in accordance with
licensee procedures.
!
6.0
Radwaste Processine
The licensee perfonned liquid radwaste processing on site. The dewatering was done by a
liquid radwaste system (RDS-1000) from Chem-Nuclear Systems. A new liquid radwaste
processing system had n placed the centrifuge system in late 1991. Changing to the new
system represented a major program improvement. The new system impmved efficiency and
,
reduced total personnel exposure for individuals performing the radwaste processing,
j
The licensee monitored Gye main waste streams including cleanup phase separator
filters / spent resins, Dry Active Waste (DAW), condensate phase separator filters / spent
'
resins, waste demineralizer bead resins, and spent fuel pool and Control Rod Drive (CRD)
system filters. The licensee annually evaluated the scaling factors, used to estimate the
'
activity of hard to measure radionuclides in the waste stream, when samples were sent off-
l
site for laboratory analysis. The inspector expressed concern that the results from samples
taken in early 1992 had not been updated until October 1992. The timeliness of the analysis
is considered a weakness in the licensee's sampling program.
4
The licensee used computer software developed in-house to assist in classification of waste
and preparing shipment manifests. Classification and shipping calculations wem veriGed on
a random sample of some shipping records. No deGeiencies were identiGed.
There was one radwaste processing and radioactive material shipment activity completed
during the period of this inspection (shipment number 93-16). The inspector observed
different aspects of the processing and prepantion of spent resins for shipment. The
personnel involved with this operation were knowledgeable of the procedures and regulations
penaining to mdwaste and transportation. The emergency information provided to accident
responders was tested by calling the emergency information number in the early morning of
j
the day after the shipment left the site. The licensee had implemented pmcedural changes
to ensum that preliminary information is readily available to emergency responders. A
radiation protection shift technician provided the timely and correct infonnation to the
l
i
_ _ .
._
_,_
! .
l
.
5
inspector in a mock accident scenario.
7.0
Records
The licensee maintained files on 128 radwaste shipments in 1992. As of the date of this
!
inspection, there were 16 radwaste shipments for 1993.
The inspector reviewed a
l
representative sample of the files for reguhtory compliance. The shipments consisted of
'
material prepamd for burial at the low level radioactive waste burial site in Barnwell, S.C.
l
and radioactive material sent to various waste processors. Some shipments were processed
l
and placed in High Integrity Containers (HICs) in preparation for direct burial. The
remaining shipments were sent to vendors for compaction, incineration, or other processing.
Most shipment records wem completed and reviewed by qualified individuals and were well
organized. The inspector noted that some files had not been reviewed by the Plant Health
Physicist as required by the licensee's procedure. This shows a lack of attention to detail and
compliance with procedures. The computer program for classification and shipping was used
correctly and all supponing documentation was well maintained.
8.0
Ouality Assurance
The main components used for the assurance of quality in radwaste and transponation are
periodic surveillances conducted by the Yankee Nuclear Quality Assurance Group, a biennial
l
review of the Process Control Pmgram (PCP), and an audit of major vendors. The
!
Radiation Protection Depanment had also committed to a self-assessment progmm.
The last audit by the Quality Assurance group was conducted in August 1992 (Audit Repon
92-09). The areas reviewed in the audit included the PCP and implementing procedures,
l
organization and staffing, radwaste classification, radwaste packaging and shipment, waste
l
stream monitoring, radwaste volume reduction, radioactive material receipt, and
training / qualifications. Two QA auditors and two technical specialists were the members of
the audit team. The audit was comprehensive and documented some minor weaknesses and
three main observations. Observations from the auditors included weaknesses in the waste
stream monitoring progmm, maintenance of administrative controls for the mdwaste
pmgram, and a recommendation for evaluation of contaminated soil. Among the weaknesses
!
in the waste stream monitoring program was the timely update of the scaling factors for
waste characterization. The auditors reponed that the waste stream analysis data had been
received from an outside laboratory in May 1992, but had not been updated in the computer
program. The report also stated that the concentrations of some isotopes had changed by a
factor of ten or more. The audit team recommended updating the scaling factors as soon
,
as possible. Corrective action by the licensee was not timely, and the scaling factors were
not updated until October 1992. The inspector expressed concern that shipments were
'
prepared for disposal between the time of updated scaling factors had been received from the
outside laboratory and the time the computer data base was updated. Eight shipments were
prepared and shipped for disposal within this period of time. Upon a request from the
i
'
'
. . - - - , -
-.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
6
inspector, the licensee analyzed the isotopic content for four shipments sent in September and
October 1992 using the updated information and found that one shipment (shipment #92-109
sent on October 5,1992) would have changed from Class A waste to Class B waste.10 CFR 20.311 states that the licensee who transfers radioactive waste to a disposal facility must
follow 10 CFR 61.55 to classify the waste correctly and record the classincation on the
shipment manifest. 10 CFR 61.55 provides din:ction for classi6 cation and stabilization
requirements for disposal. Since the waste was not correctly classiDed using the most recent
data available, this is an apparent violation. (50-271/93-06-01)
The Quality Assurance group had conducted surveillance on appmximately twenty percent
of the radwaste shipments for burial and one radwaste handling operation in 1992. As of
the date of this inspection, no surveillances had been performed for 1993. The operations
were determined to be satisfactory with no major concems.
9.0
Procedures
The procedures for the radwaste program were reviewed and no denciencies were noted.
The last QA audit repon had recommended that a procedure should be developed for
analyzing the radioactive waste streams. This procedure was written and implemented at the
time of this inspection. The new procedure (OP 2527, Sampling and Analysis for Radwaste
Classification) was a good program improvement, but lacked a specific time requirement for
updating scaling factors based on annual waste stream analysis data. The last QA audit
repon also recommended revisions to radwaste pmcessing and handling procedures. The
recommendations were comprehensive and contributed to an overall improvement in the
procedures. The licensee had incorporated all the audit report's recommendations into
revisions of the procedures.
10.0 Exit Meeting
A meeting was held with licensee representatives at the end of the inspection period on
March 12,1993. The purpose and scope of the inspection were reviewed and the Gndings
of the inspection were discussed,
i
l
L
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .