IR 05000409/1987014

Insp Rept 50-409/87-14 on 871013-16.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiation Protection & Radwaste Mgt Programs,Past Open Items,Plans for post-shutdown Staffing & Incidents & Events

ML20236J555
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	10/30/1987
From:	Greger L, Miller D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236J549	List: IR 05000409/1987014 ML20236J546
References
50-409-87-14, NUDOCS 8711060171
Download: ML20236J555 (7)

Text

l- + l p94? ,..

ag & , +. q fh

'

'.U.;SiNUCLEAR.REGOLATORYCOMMISSION

"^

, REGION III .

j !

,]

i .H...ReporkNo.'50409/87014(DRSS) ' 1 'I

'l

"

.

I L . Docket No.!.50-409 ,

License No. DPR-45 ,j

.r

' Licensee: Dairyland power. Cooperative 2615 East Avenue ~-- South 1 W i ,

nLaCrosse, WI.:54601 ,

'

Facility Name: LLacrosse' Boiling' Water Reactor

..

.,.-

Inspection At: .. Lacrosse BWR Site, Genoa, Wisconsi_n .

.

) , j Inspection Conducted- October 13-16, 1987  ;

fL$,$2$$b-Inspector: D. E. H111er /0/29/8'1 )

Date t

,l . Approved By: L .' R . -G ae , Chief 8/ Date87 ]

<

Facilities-Radiation Protection

'

l Section, .!

,

i

- '

'. Inspection Summary

.]

Inspection on October 13-15 1987 (Report No. 50-409/87014(DRSS)) ,

!

A,reas Inspected: Routine unannounced in.spe: tion.of portions of the licensee's j'

radiation protection and radwaste management programs. .Also. reviewed were

'

past open items, plans for post-abutdown staffing,'and incidents and event 'i Results: No violations or deviations ~wereLidentifie ;

l I

l

!

,

!

, ,

,

'

O

'

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - --_______

gfQ,l -

Q w ,

,

q gjf , j gy g j~

.j'

"

j (j DETAILS q

l J

)

i 1.- Persons" Contacted

• L. Goodman,. Operations Engineer

• L'. Nelson,' Health 1 and Safety Supervisor -

-

i

• J..Parkyn, LACBWR Superintendent P.-Shafer, Radiation Protection Enginee '*R. Wery, Quality Assurance Supervisor

'l

• K. Ridgway; NRC. Senior Resident Inspector l

• L. Greger, Chief, Facilities Radiation Protection' 3 Sect:on, NRC Region.III l

.-

.;

The: inspector also contacted'other license'e personnel'

• Denotes.these present at the. exit meetin !

'

L Genera This inspection,.which began on October 13, 1987,,. was conducted:to;

examine portions of the licensee's-radiation protect':co and'radwaste management ^ programs. .The-inspection included a review of past'

.. inspection. findings, plant' tours, a review of posting and labeling, j licensee records and reports,' post-shutdcwn radiation. protection ,

organization, and discussions with plant personnel. Independent 'j radiation.and-contaminationisurveys were performe J j

'

1 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings q

'(Closed)l Violation (409/87006-02): Release'of unanalyzed liquids. The 1

. inspector reviewed the licensee's. response dated July 28, 1987. The ;

licensee revised Operating Manual, Volume 1, Integrated Plant Operations,- 1 Response Procedure for' Alarm E14-3 (high level!in waste water storage tank) to clarify the immediatel actions required to be taken upon receipt of this alarm. Operations personnel have' been instructed:in the:

procedure change and reinstructed in the necessity to closely: monitor j waste tank levels during high river water level periods. Also, the licensee has a- budget proposal to install automated isolation valves between waste water tanks. The licensee's corrective actions appear adequat .

(Open) Open Item (409/87006-01): Failure to correct iodine isotopes for radioactive decay during sampling, and need to make necessary corrections-to past semiannual report The licensee revised-Section 8.11 of Procedure HSP-06.6, Sampling and Analysis of SPING ,

'

Particulate -and Charcoal Filters to include proper decay factors. The ;

t ' revision appears proper. The licensee's review of past semiannual ,

reports to assess need for revision is yet to be performed; the review .I will be examined during a future inspectio i LL 2 g

= _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - -

y +

ff n ,

q .e , s $' >{

W

,

pgg .

'Q ,

M <

o .

.

'.

M' (Closed)_OpenItem(409/85015-02): :Additionof. social:securitynumbers

'

to i compute r - do se '. records . The' licensee has added the numbers to the i computer dose' recor'ds; j thel records now appearuto be. NRC-5 equivalent, j (Closed)'OpenItem(409/84014-01): Review licensee's' method of l f i j determining liquid radwaste. effluent nonitor, alarm setpoints. . The- ,fp inspector' reviewed the . setpoint 'meth'od%h1db is described in the . T fy 11censee's 00CM.. The method:appearsLadeq'unte and prope M-' a

.' ' O.) .

>

4 .' ' Organization'n'and Management Controls 't

.s I

<

.The' inspector reviewed'the licenseets organization and management'.. ,

.l controls for the radiation protection and radwaste programs including  ;

- changes in the organizational structure and staffing, effectiveness 'off < j procedures and other management techniques used to implement these Y  ;

programs, and experience concerning self.-identif fcation and correction'of i program implementation weaknesse .;

J

'

, i- . .

Since permanent reactor shutdown on Aprii 30, 1987, the' Health Physics /

Chemistry (HP/C) staff at the station'has'been reduced from nine'to si ,

.The current staffing is an engineer, super, visor, and four technicians; " <

-three' technicians have terminated employment at the statio '

The' licensee:is covering all shifts with'a HP/C. technician to meet g

technicalspecificationrequirementsforfirebrigadeandemergency7@ir

,

c fresponse shift staffingL. 1To cover allLshifts, vacations for HP/C , i technicians-have been cancelled and overtime work is necessary.(about four hours per

technician per week). JThe : licensee is considering adding -

one HP/C technician. position to. permit vacations. The licensee has-submitted technical specification change requests to reduce requirements  ;,

.for shift staffing. 'It appears that the HP/C. staffing'is minimally i adequate to perform required routine duties and. provide radiation 1 protection. coverage.of radiological work. Radiological work has diminished significantly since the plant'wasishutdown 'and.defuele Total. station staff has been reduced from about 120 to about 75;.28 of, the 75 are security personnel. Further reductions,may take place as a technical specification requirements are, reduced. 1 i

,

'u ,

t o

>#

c

'l The licensee .is continuir:g self-identification prrigrams such as audits, ,'

assessments, and tho Radiological Occurrence Report system; the results l of these programs 1were not specifically reviewed during this inspection. ,

'

i No violations or deviations were identifie ? \

. External Exposure Control and Personal Dosimetry  ;

!

The inspector reviewed the licensee's external exposure control and'

personal dosimetry programs, including: clunges in facilities, equipment, personnel, and procedures; required records, reports, and notifications; effectiveness of management techniques used to implement,> '

<

these programs and experience concerning < self-identification and l correction of program implementation weakneise )

!

.\

.

.

.

,

'

,

7f: 3 .t '

b i .} .

._

h ) _

f! , V

[ M N i'

p>j/ n There have.been no significant changes. in the-licensee's. external exposure control and assessment-program since previously described in Inspecti.on Report No.- 50-409/85015(DRSS).

.

l Theinspectbrselectivelyreviewed. exposure. records'forthefirstand a-secondcals(darquarters1986. Forms NRC-4 were selectively reviewed and: "

found to mWt regulatory requirements. The estimated dose received-

' during '1987 %h/ough September was about 57 person-rems. .The estimated b dose foroSe'ptember was about five. person @ms The inspector.. selectively' reviewed Rabjation Work Permits (RWPs) and associated surveys for work being dond dsring the. period of the

,O inspec. tion. Theinspectorfound1postedLcop.les.ofactiveRWPsdifficult

>/ -

to read because the handwriting on 'the posted RWPs was barely legibl This matter was discussed with a licensee representative who stated that the RWPs are normally typed, and that RWP writers will-be reminded to

, continue to doss No other significant problems were note i'

,3 No violat. ions or deviations were identifie ]

7/[

gt Internal'ExJosure Control and Assessment

',i aa The ' inspector reviewed the licensee's internal exposure control and

assessment programs, including:E changes in facilities, equipment, g personnel, Land procedures affecting internal exposure control and j g personnel assessment;. determination whether engineering controls, p~3.> respiratory equipment, and assessment of.i.ndividual intakes meet j

• {. regulatory requirements; required recordr, reports, and notifications; e effectiveness of' management techniques died to implement these programs and experience _concerning self-identification and correction of program implementation. weaknesse The licensee's program for controlling internal exposures includes the use 'of respirators and equipment, the .contro.1 of surface contaminants, and the control of airborne radioactivity 'A selecteo review of airborne radioactivity survey results was made. No significant problems were  !

noted; The licensee perfof ids routine whole body counts on radiation workers

.,vice

^

each year and Wenever an intake is expected. The inspector ,

'/,/ reviewed whole body'coutit results for counts conducted during 1987 to j date. No result eiceeding the 40 MPC-hour control measure was note Some station personnel carry small long-term body burdens of Co-60 and elevated counts are e.xpected; the small body burdens carried by these

-

persons (maximurn of(aht 20 nanocuries) do not interfere with assessment of current intakes 60t are readily. identifiable by whole countin The licensee's respiratory protection program remains as described in Inspection Report No. 50-409/85005(DRSS).

3 The inspector noted that contracted security' personnel are not included

.

in the routine whole body counting program. The inspector discussed with ,

( the. licensee during the inspection and at the exit meeting the {

desirability of including some of these persons in the progra <

f

-

• '

'jf

]yf * !

l No violations or deviations werf identifie ) Control of Radioactive Materials and contamination The inspector cursorily reviewed the licensee's program for control of I radioactive materials and contamination, including: adequacy of suppFj, I #g maintenance, and calibration of contamination survey and monitoring

>

equipment; effectiveness of survey Sethods, practices, equipment, and ,

procedures; adequacy of revNw and dissemination of survey data; and l effectiveness of methods d control cf radioactive and contaminated

'

materf al '

t ,

During tdurs of radiologically controlled areas, the inspector noted that

,bleanlinefs has deteriorated since the previous inspect'on conducted

/ ' luring Septeinber 1987. Also, per anal contamination events have

, apparently increased over the past six months. Although no demarked contaminated areas were entered, both the inspector and an accompanying NRC inptyidual had shoq contamination exceeding the alarm setting on the accen control whole bctly contamination frisker following a plant tr.u These matte,r,s wereg Mscused during the exit meetin The inspector reviewed the licensee's method of monitoring laundered protective clothing. The licensee uses a hand held portable survey instrument with a side window G-M tube to monitor individual pieces of

/ '

laundered protective clothing. The clothing is considered acceptably i clean if less than 2000 cpm / probe area 1.s detected. When geometry considerations are factored in, this method of monitoring and consideration of acceptability may not detect hot particles of sufficient activity to produce substantial skin doses. According to the licensee, hot particles have rarely deen seen at LACBWR. However, LACBWR has

<

experienced fuel degradation in the past and may experience hot )

. particles as radioactive system piping internals are decontaminated j 1/

and/or disassembled. The inspector discussed with the licensee during and at the exit meeting the desirability of upgrading the inspection laundered pr?t /ctive clothing monitoring capabilities so that hot particles o# rhrestcanbeidentifie No violatf oris or deviations were identifie s

'

,

! , Liq.uid Radioactive (Wastes The inspector reviewed the licensev s liquid radwaste management program, including: determination whether changes to equipment and procedures were in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59; determination whether liquid radioactive waste effluents were 'n accordance with regulatory requirements; adequacy of required records, reports, and notifications; determination whether poqess and ef fluent monitors are maintained,  !

calib,rhed, und operated a's required; end experience concerning ,

idWf fication and correction of programmatic weaknesse l The ins sct6r reviewed the licensee's p ocedures for and methods of calibrating the liquid radwaste eff hent monitor and establishing it's ,

alarm setpoin No problems were note !

L\  !

9 t 1'

/ 1

5

/ j

\ f

\

'l 3:. . .

7. .y .

; 3 . ..[

. .. ;. ; 3.y; ; . ;

g v 4 *

.

-

.-

I The inspector selectively reviewed records of recent liquid effluent .

batch releases. The release concentrations and quantities are within

'

.

ODCM limits. However, the release concentrations and quantities have ..

increased since reactor shutdown. The licensee stated that the increased - -

,

concentrations resulted from cleaning of materials deposited in tank .

bottoms over the years, and limited capability for cleanup of the liquids ..

before release. The licensee stated that additional cleanup equipment is included in their FY88 proposed budge No violations or deviations were identified: } Solid Radwaste Handling Incident ~

Using approved procedures., the licensee filled and dewatered a High . .

.'

Integrity Container (HIC) with resins and sludges. The filling and dewatering was performed in the Waste Treatment Building -(WTB). In late April, the PIC (containing 118 cubic feet of wastes) was transferred from .p the WTB to a truck mounted shielding cask for transport to burial. The exposure rate at two meters from the projected vertical planes from the 0. . ' . ,

sides of the truck trailer were found to exceed 00T limits. The HIC - '

was returned to the WT J'-

On September 15, 1987, two HP/C personnel attempted to add water to the HIC, stir the contents, and again dewater the HIC in an attempt to strip .4 some radioactive materials from the resins and return them to the spent .

resin storage tank, thereby reducing the radiation levels surrounding the I

HIC. While performing this evolution, the licensee did not closely .; +

monitor the water / resin level in the HIC while adding water because of the high exposure rates near the HIC; the HIC overflowed and about >

0.5 cubic feet of water / resin contaminated the outer surface of the HIC and the floor beneath. Subsequent partial cleanup of the spilled material '* ".';

resulted in about two person-rem dose; further exposure is anticipated to .O complete the cleanu f ,

'

During review of this event, the licensee informed the inspector that no procedure existed for the nonroutine attempt to reduce the activity contained in the HIC and that little internal review was performed before the evolution was attempted. The Operations Reeiew Committee (0RC) has ,

since reviewed the spill incident and determined that future such - *

evolutions for which no procedures exist must be reviewed by the ORC before performance. No additional problems were noted. This violation f was identified by the license The corrective actions appear adequate;

therefore, nc item of noncompliance was issue .

No violations or deviations were identified by the inspecto [

10. Inspector Unescorted Access .

' A NRC Region III individual who accompanied the inspector for a portion of the inspection experienced difficulty receiving unescorted access to A7e the plaat facility even though his security and radiological training t -i ,

status was documented to the licensee by NRC Region III, The difficulty -f . .

'

...-

,

. . - -

,

y ,

&g.;g

_ } ;b

. f)f.* *

O' . .

R

.

was' experienced because the rlicensee's Security. Director'was absent from

?"' the'sitejand procedures were not in' place ~to provide the security

. briefing in his absence. This matter was discussed at and after the exit

,

<

meeting with the plant. manager. 'According to. licensee personnel, procedure will.be.. implemented to allow-the guard captain'or lieutenant to I provide security. training in the' absence of the Security. Director. Due 3 Lto the small plantistaff size, provisions may not'be.available to provide ti initial unescorted access authorization on other than the normal. day shift. This matter will- be further reviewed during a future? inspectio (0 pen Item 409/87014-01)

'

11. Exit Meetin The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Section.1).

~

.at the conclusion of'the inspection on October.15, 1987. The inspectors  ;

summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The inspector also

'

y

' discussed the.likely information content of the inspection rep' ort with

'

regard _ to documents or, processes reviewed.by the ~ inspector during the  !

inspection. The licensee identified no.such documents / processes as

. proprietary. In-response to cortain items discussed'by the inspector, the licensee:

. Acknowledged'the' inspector's comment about the desirability of '

including.some security personnel in portions of the routine whole body counting' program. (Section 6) 1 Acknowledged the inspector's commcnt concerning the desirability-of; upgrading, laundered protective clothing monitoring capabilitie (Section 7) Acknowledged the inspector's comment concerning apparent deterioration.of cleanliness in portions of station building (Section7) Stated that provisions for authorizing unescorted access to NRC personnel would be reviewed and revised as necessar (Section 10)

i

. . . l

!

<

k

6'-i - _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __J