ML20056A405
| ML20056A405 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1990 |
| From: | Chawaga D, Oconnell P, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056A403 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-271-90-06, 50-271-90-6, NUDOCS 9008070238 | |
| Download: ML20056A405 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000271/1990006
Text
. . _ _ _ _ . _
_ _ _ _ .
__
_ . . _ _
_ _ . _ _
. _ _
_ . - - - _ _
..
..
,
.
,
F
l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
i
REGION I
'
.
Report No.
50 271/90 06
Docket No.
50-271
Category
C
License No. DRP 28
Priority
-
Licensee:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
RD 5, Box 169
Ferry Road
Brattleboro, Vermont 05301
facility Name:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Inspection At:
Vernon, Vermont
inspection Conducted:
June 18 - 22, 1990
l
Inspectors:
/5a/
7- 2 P ? v
!
M O'Connell, Radiation specialist
date
b - ,m
7 - LM- S o
D. Chawaga, Radiation Specialist
date
1
,,
.
7 2V-9e
Approved by
Pas Hik, Chief Fatt11 ties Radiation
date
ProtretionSection
,
Inspection Summary:
Inspection conducted on June 18 - 22, 1990
Iliisp_ection Report No. 50-Z71/90 06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of the radiological controls
brogram.Areasreviewedinclude:rganization, External Exposure Controls, and Contro5 of
Status of Previous 1
Identified Items
+
'
Results: One apparent violation and one non-cited violation were identified.
The apparent violation involved-two examples of failure to follow radiation
3rotection rocedures. The non-cited violation involved a failure to update the
rinal Safet Analysis Report to reflect the reorganization of the radiation
protection epartment,
f0080Oh!!
.
O
-
.
.
-
- . -
. -
--
- - .
-- - ,- --
_ _ _ _ _ _.__
. _ _ _
___
. _ _ _
_ . . _ . _ _
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _
f
.
..
..
i
,
l
P
DETAILS
i
1.0 Personnel Contacted
!
l.1
Licensee Personnel
'
- R. Grippardi
Quality Assurance Supervisor
-
- E. Lindamood
Radiation Protection Supervisor
- R. Morrissette
Plant Health Physicist
R. Pagodia
Technical Services Superintendent
,
,
).
- D. Reid
Plant Manager
i
- B. Wanczyk
Operations Superintendent
1.2 NRC Personnel
- H. Eichenholz
Senior Resident. Inspector-
- T. Hiltz
Resident Inspector
i
- Denotes attendance at the exit meeting on June 22, 1990.
2.0 Status of Previously Identified items
(Closed 88 02 03
The licensee's procedure for fuel movement did not
2.1
contain) administrative controls to ensure that the maximum distance b
the fuel and reactor pressure vessel was maintained.
The inspector verified that the licensee'had revised OP 1101, " Refueling
Activities", to incorporate administrative controls and precautions to
ensure that all fuel moves maintain the maximum distance between fuel and
in addition to administratively controlling'the movement of fuel
the
licensee's radiological controls for drywell access during fuel m,ovement
l
l
include: using alarming dosimeters for work in the upper drywell area
training of drywell workers as to the radiological hazards andensurIng
thatcommunicationsaremaintainedbetweenthedrywellcontrolpointand
the fuel handlers. This item is closed.
3
3.0 Organization
TheinspectorreviewedtheorganizationoftheRadiationProtection(RP)
'
Department as depicted in the June 1990 Organization Chart. Under the
.
currentorganizationboththeRPSupervisorandtheChemistrySupervisor
report to the Technical Services Superintendent. The RP-Supervisor is
responsible for the on site RP program including ALARA and radweste. The
Chemistry Supervisor is responsible for the chemistry and environmental
monitoring protrams. Prior to 1988 the RP Supervisor had responsibility for
both the RP ancl chemistry programs.
.
_
_
_.
-
. .
_ _ _ _ _ , ___
. . _ . .
,
.
..
,
.
3
The ins ector noted that Section 13.2.2.10 of the Final Safety Analysis
Report
hysic)s Su>ervisor had not been updated to reflect the 1988which describes the respo
Health
reorganization. Tie licensee's failure to update the FSAR to depict the
current organization was not in compliance with 10 CFR E0.71 fe)tha)n
requires that revisions to the FSAR be filed no less frequent 1y (4
which
annually and shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of six months prior
to the date of filing.
The licensee provided the inspector with a memo dated June 21, 1990 from
the Senior Licensing Engineer which recommended the deletion of Section
13.2 from the FSAR during the next revision. The inspector noted that the
recommendation had been approved. The inspector determined that
minor safety significance and the prompt corrective actions take-due to the
n by the
licensee, this finding met the criteria,
pecified in 10 CFR 2, Appendix C,
4
Section V. A. for a non cited violation. 50 271/90 06 01)
4.0 External Exposure Controls
The inspector conducted several tours of the facility and noted that areas
were )roperly posted. In general
from a radiation safety perspective, the
house (eeping and material condition of the facility appeared good.
4.1 Dosimetry
The licensee utilizes a contractor to procers the thermoluminescent
dosimeters used to monitor personnel exposures at the facility. The
inspector noted that the contractor held current accreditation under the
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAPS for processing
dosimeters. Individuals are routinely issued dosimeters whhch are NVLAP
'
accredited in
type of dosimeter,gories I through VII. The licensee utilizes a different
r te
a
which is NVLAP accredited in Categories I through Vill,
when it is necessary to monitor for neutron exposures,
l
Dosimeters are stored at the guardhouse. Pocket ion chambers (PICS) are
scanned by security guards at a frequency of once per day during non outage
periods and once per shift during outages. The licensee uses the daily scan
of the PICS to promptly become aware of unanticipated exposures and to
better track plant cumulative dose. For PIC exposure readings above 100
the exposure is reported to 1.he RP Department and the P,.C is rezeroed.
mR, Supervision stated that to their knowledge all PICS were scanned by the
5
^
security force on a daily basis.
However the inspector noted that the daily readings were always done on
thebackshift.Asaresult
the PICS issued to personnel working in the
plant on the backshift would not be subjected to the daily review cycle.
The PICS of personnel working on the backshift would not be scanned by the
security force for a period of as long as seven days. Exposures in excess
of 100 mR could go undetected for a period of seven days if the worker does-
not report the Plc reading to the RP Department. RP Supervision stated that
i
they would review the PIC surveillance program. This item will be reviewed
during a future %spection.
1
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
. . _
.
- ;
~
.
..
,
.
4
4.2 Radiation Work Permits
The licensee's Radiation Work Permit (RWP)d by RWPs. The program requiresprogram
be performed in the RCA which is uncoverne
an RWP for entry into any of the following areas: High Radiation Areas,
Airborne Radioactivity Areas, any area where general area contamination
level exceeds 10,000 dpm/100 cm 2, the TIP room, and the drywell. RWPs are
than 1/ quired for the following activities:2" inside diameter where radioactive gases or liq
also re
the opening of any line greater
the work area work in the Spent Fuel Pool, handling radioactive material
outsidetheRdA and when the estimated exposure for a job exceeds 1
man rem. Finally,, a RWP is required whenever deemed necessary by RP
Supervision.
The RWP program does not require workers to. consult with the RP Department
I
prior to: working in certain contaminated areas
cm*2?, working in areas with dose rates that can(less than 10,000 d W100
approach 100 mrem /1r.
opennng process lines that are less than 1/2". The inspector noted that it
could be possible for substantial amounts of work to be conducted in the
RCA without the RP Department's knowledge. RWP program performance will be
reviewed during extended outages for effectiveness during periods of
program stress.
4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Storage
The inspector noted that the licensee was storin
notabi
several local power ran
and a vacuum filter,
e Spent Fue1 Pool
SFP). The items were suspen d
in the SFP by wires which were secured to t
not locked in ) lace or otherwise secured so as to prevent inadvertent
removal from t1e
November 7, 1989, pool. The survey tags on the LPRMs, which were dated
indicated dose rates of up to 20 000 R/hr. The survey
tag on the vacuum filter was dated December 11,1988 and indicated a dose
rate of 900 R/hr.
The. inspector reviewed procedure DP 0545 " Fuel Pool Storage Requirements",
and noted that Section 2.b. states that " Items greater than 500 R/hr but
less than 100,000 R/hr shall be stored on thn fuel pool floor, or suspended
from the side of the pool and fastened with a rigid lockin
designed to prevent inadvertent removal of the material." g mechanism
The failure of the licensee to store the LPRMs and vacuum filter in
- !
accordance with the requirements specified in procedure DP 0545 was
identified as an apparent violation u Technical Specification 6.5.B which
'
states that " Radiation control standards an/ procedures shall be p
ared,
a> roved and maintained and made available 60 all station personne
'i
(50 271/90 06 02)
i
i
W
m
.
. ..
,
.
.
5
The inspector discussed this matter with several individuals from the RP
Department including a RP Assistant and the RP Supervisor. These
individuals were aware that the items were not stored in accordance with
the requirements of DP 0545. The licensee stated that, when DP 0545 was
issued in February 1990, they were cognizant that items were stored in the
SFP in a manner which was contrary te the requirements of DP 0545. The
inspector noted that, since February 1990, several licensee employees were
aware that the items were not stored in accordance with the requirements of
DP 0545 however actions to prom
were not effectively initiated.ptly correct the procedural noncompliance
TheinspectorreviewedRPprocedureReports,andnotedthatSection1.6statesthatwheneveranin
AP 0529, ' Health Physics incident
observes or becomes cognizant of events or conditions such as noncompliance
with radiation protection procedures or requirements, the individual shall
initiate a Plant Information Report. The licensee stated that a Plant
Information Report had not been initiated for the improper storage of items
in the SFP.
The failure of the licensee to initiate a Plant Information Report as
required by AP 0529 was identified as another example of an apparent
violation of Technical Specification 6.5.B. (50 271/90 06 02)
5.0 (ontrol of Radioactive Materials
The inspector reviewed station procedures and practices for survey and
release of material from the Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA)f station
No
.
discrepancies were observed by the inspector. However,in the last year,
a review o
Radiological Occurrence Reports (RORs)d been found on repeated occasions in
, generated with
indicated that radioactive material ha
areas outside of the RCA. In recent months the frequency of these
occurrences appears to be decreasing. The licensee has installed automated
contamination monitoring devices for survey of personnel and tools exiting
!
the RCA. Progress in this area will be evaluated in future inspection
efforts.
>
6.0 Exit Meetina
The inspector met with licensee personnel denoted in Section 1.1 at the
conclusion of the inspection on June 22theinspectionwerediscussedatthattIme.90.Thescope
19
I
!
!
_
_
_
_ - _ _ _ - _ -