IR 05000271/1986003

Insp Rept 50-271/86-03 on 860203-06.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Implementation of Radiation Protection Program,External Exposure Controls, Internal Exposure Controls & ALARA

ML20154J233
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	03/03/1986
From:	Bicehouse H, Cioffi J, Shanbaky M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154J224	List: IR 05000271/1986003 ML20154J219
References
50-271-86-03, 50-271-86-3, NUDOCS 8603100534
Download: ML20154J233 (6)

Text

. _ - _ _ _ _ _

i .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N ,

Docket N ,

License N OPR-28 Priority Category C Licensee: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor RD 5, Box 169 Ferry Road i

'

Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 l

l Facility Name: Vermont Yankee Inspection At: Vernon, Vermont Inspection Conducted: February 3-6, 1986 Inspectors: LA . h(k N date JepnA.Cioffi,Radt'afionSpecialist,FRP5 l

I (I b -

Henry J! Bicehouse, Radiation Specialist, 3 date ERPS Approved by: gf/. # J Mohammed hanbaky, sffie7_, F@S 3[date [I Inspection Summary:

Inspection conducted on February 3-6,1986 (Inspection Report No. 50-271/86-03)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of radiological controls during the current piping replacement outage. The scope of the inspection covered the N-2 safe-end work with respect to the following elements: im-l plementation of the radiation protection program, external exposure controls, internal exposure controls, and ALARA. The inspection involved 74 inspector

'

l hours on-site by two region-based inspectors.

'

Results: No violations or deviations were identified during this review, i

!

l i

! 0603100534 060303

PDR ADOCK 05000271 l

G PDR

,

._ ________

DETAILS Personnel Contacted S. Clark, Numanco Alara Supervisor

• R. Leach, Chemistry and Health Physics Supervisor, VY

• R. Morrissette, Plant Health Physicist

• J. Pelletier, Plant Manager, VY

• 0. Reid, Cperations Superintendent, VY J. Schleser, Numanco Alara Supe visor D. Tolin, Whole Body & Respiratory Systems Engineer, VY C. Wend, Health Physics Manager, Morrison-Knudsen C Other licensee and contractor personnel were contacted or interviewed during the course of this inspectio * Attended the exit interview on February 6,1986 2.0 Purpose The purpose of this routine inspection was to review the licensee's occupational radiation protection program supporting the current piping replacement outage with respect to the following elements:

• Implementation of the Radiation Protection Program

• External Exposure Control

• Internal Exposure Control

• ALARA 3.0 Implementation of the Radiation Protection Program The licensee's program for controlling radioactive materials and contam-ination, providing surveillance and monitoring and establishing and main-taining administrative radiological work controls was reviewed relative to criteria and commitments in:

-

10 CFR 19.11, 19.12, 20.201, 20.203 and 20.401;

-

Technical Specifications 6.5, " Operating Procedures";

-

AP 0502, " Radiation Work Permits," Revision 15 (September 13,1985);

and

-

FVY 85-52 and its attachmen The licensee's performance relative to these criteria and commitments was determined by:

-

interviews and discussions with C&HP Assistants and Technicians and selected radiation workers; ci

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

. 3

-

review of selected RWPs governing the N2 safe-end work activities, supporting surveys and other records; and

-

direct observation and measurements during plant tour Within the scope of this review, no' violations or deviations were note The inspector noted that the licensee's Health Physics staff were con-trolling work activities supporting the installation of the N2 safe-end There was continuous Health Physics coverage for all the observed drywell activities, and positive control over drywell entries and exit Radiation workers were properly briefed prior to entering the drywel The inspector also observed good ALARA practices such as strict controls to minimize unnecessary waiting in radiation areas prior to commencement of wor .0 External Exposure Control The licensee's outage external exposure control program was reviewed against criteria and commitments provided in:

-

10 CFR 20.101, 20.102, 20.104, 20.105, 20.201, 20.202, 20.203 and 20.401;

-

Technical Specification 6.5, " Operating Procedures";

-

AP 0501, " Radiation Protection Standards," Revision 9 (September 20, 1985);

-

AP 0502, " Radiation Work Permits," Revision 15 (September 13, 1985);

-

AP 0503, " Establishing and Posting Controlled Areas," Revision 8 (June 21, 1984);

-

AP 0506, " Personnel Monitoring," Revision 9 (August 12,1985);

-

AP 0529, " Health Physics Incident Reports," Revision 0 (August 12, 1985);

-

Licensee's letter (FVY 85-52), " Vermont Yankee Radiation Exposure Control Program For The Recirculation Pipe Replacement Project,"

(May 31, 1985) and its attachmen The licensee's performance relative to the criteria and commitments was determined by:

-

interviews and discussions with licensee and contractor health ph{sicspersonnel;

-

observations and measurements during tours of the drywell, and reactor butiding;

.

. 4

-

review of RWPs and supporting surveys for the N2 piping replacements;

-

review of logs, health physics incident reports and other records; and

-

examinatten of exposure reports and other records related to twenty radiation worker Within the scope of this review, no violations or deviations were note The licensee appeared to be implementing a generally effective external exposure control program in the areas reviewe .0 Internal Exposure Control The licensee's program for control of airborne radioactive contamination, internal exposure to radioactive materials and respiratory protection during the outage was reviewed relative to criteria and commitments provided in:

• 10 CFR 20.103 and 20.401;

Technical Specifications 6.5, " Operating Procedures;" and

FVY 85-52 and its attachmen .1 Airborne Exposure Control The licensee's air sampling and engineering controls for airborne radioactive contamination were reviewed relative to the criteria and commitments above and:

• AP 0501, " Radiation Protection Standards," Revision 9 (September 9, 1985);

• Department Procedure (DP) 4531, " Radioactive Contamination Surveys," Revision 9 (May 31, 1985); and

OP 4533, " Airborne Radioactive Concentration Determination,"

Revision 8 (May 8, 1984).

The licensee's performance relative to the criteria and commitments was determined by:

observation of air sampling durin: plant tours;

review of air sample analyses and other records; and

• discussions with health physics personne _. _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

.

. 5 i

!

Within the scope of this review, no vtulations or deviations were observe The licensee appeared to be implementing dn air sampling program in accordance with established procedure '

5.2 Internal Exposure Assessment The licensee's implementation of in vivo bioassay assessment of possible internal exposures to workers was reviewed relative to the criteria referenced in Section 5.0 of this report and:

- -

AP 0529, " Health Physics Incident Reports," Revision 0 (August 12,1985)

'

The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined by:

'

-

discussions with the Whole Body & Respiratory Systems Engineer and other health physics personnel; I -

review of bioassay, contamination survey and other records and reports for selected radiation workers; and

-

examination of MPC-hour determinations and exposure tracking ,

procedure Within the scope of this review, no violations or deviations were noted.

'

6.0 ALARA program The licensee's "As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable" ( ALARA) Program for the outage was reviewed during Inspection No. 50-271/85-28, and updated in Inspection No. 50-271/85-39. During this inspection, revised exposure

estimates for piping replacement and other outage activities were reviewed

, and discussed with cognizant licensee and contractor health physics ,

! personne t

,

Within the scope of this review, the inspector noted that:

i l

-

estimated exposures for pipe replacement work have remained steady

! since the initial increase from approximately 1375 man-rem to J

approximately 1800 man-rem. The licensee stated that the initial increase in exposure estimates was due to the relatively low decon-i tamination factor achieved during the decontamination of the

"

Recirculation Residual Heat Removal System piping; and i

i -

as of February 4, 1986, all outage related work totalled 1350.5 man-i rem, with 1101 man-rem specifically originating from the piping

{ replacements.

I

- - .

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

.

.

. 6 l l

'

7.0 Exit Interview

!

The inspector met with the licensee's representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 6, 1985. The inspector sum:narized the purpose and scope of the inspection and findings as described in this repor !

T l

l l

l l

,

I

.

I f

I l I

l

!

i l

- . . . - .. . . . _ . . - , - - - - - . - - - - - - . _ - . . _ . . , . - , - - - . - . .- - __ - _ - -