IR 05000409/1990002
| ML20024F907 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1990 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024F898 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-409-90-02, 50-409-90-2, NUDOCS 9012270132 | |
| Download: ML20024F907 (9) | |
Text
- - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
l Report No. 50-409/90002(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-409 License No OPR-45 Licensee:
Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue - South La Crosse, WI 54601
Facility Name:
La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR)
Inspection At:
LACBWR Site, Genoa, Wisconsin Inspection Conducted: October 30 - November 2 and 28, 1990
-][MS%uzdm Vh Inspector:
-rt"
/
A. G. Januska Date Accompanied By:
B. L. Hamrick Approved By: % d/Newb
/ d// /[o t
M. C. Schumacher, Chief Fate Radiological Controls and Chemistry Section Inspection Sununary Inspectior on October 30 - November 2 and 28, 1990-(Report No. 50-409/90002(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine ur. announced inspection of the licensee's radiation protection program including: organization and management controls (IP 83750, 84750), external and internal exposure controls (IP t 750), training (and qualifications (IP 83750), radiological controls (IP 83750), audits IP 83750), radwaste program including:
gaseous, liquid and solid radwaste (IP 84750), confirmatory measurements program including analysis of radio-active samples (IP 84750), the radiological environmental monitoring program (IP 84750), review of actions on previously identified open items and plant tours.
Results: Overall, licensee performance was generally adequate but showed evidence of lack of attention to detail which may reflect excessive workload for the Health and Safety Supervisor.
The evidence included problems with gamma spectroscopy calibrations, lack of significant progress on a hot particle program, delay in updating the scaling factors used for classifying radwaste, problems with portal monitor calibration, and a missed audit of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP).
A violation was identified for failure to perform a required audit of the P,EMP (Section 9).
9012270132 901214 PDR ADOCK 05000409 O
. - -. _
.
_.
..
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
_
_--
- _ - _ _ _ - _ _
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted 1 ' L. Nelson, Health and Safety Supervisor J. Parkyn, Plant Manager y. Schroeder, Senior Health Physics Techniciar.
F R. Wery, Director of Quality Assurance
]
fPresentattheExitMeetingonNovember2,1990 Participated in telcon of November 28, 1990 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(0 pen) Open Item (409/89001-01):
Licensee to establish an aggressive formal program for the identification and control of g
hot particles, and for skin dose calculations.
Time constraints on Health and Safety personnel as a result of the normal work load and the licensee's inability to fill the position of Radiological Protection Engineer to coordinate this effort are the main contributing factors for lack of progress on this open
,
item. - Although no progress has been made in developing a program some equipment monies have been included in the 1991 budget submittal. As part of this program the licensee is considering relocating or shielding the current laundry facility to reduce backgrounds and increase the sensitivity of laundry monitoring equipment for hot particle detectlon and has issued F.C. 45-90-13 I
to install a particulate monitor to continuously sample the air in the laundry area, b.
.(0 pen) Open Item (409/89001-02):
Licensee tu send a sample of the 1989 spent resin shipment for waste characterization and update the burial si te's record.
The licensee has made no progress on this open item because of higher priority items. Although these resins were collected while the reactor was operating, the decay between collection and disposal may have changed the 1984 scaling-factors previously used.
The licensee agreed to send this sample for analysis by December 4,1990 and send the results to the burial site for updating. The licensee further agreed to send a sample of the next shipment for analysis which will represent nonoperational cleanup.
3.
Organization and Management Controls (IP 83750,84750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's organization and management controls.
The Health and Safety Department consists of one Supervisor and five technicians.
It suffers from the lack -of a Radiation Protection Engineer (Section-2a) which imposes a heavy burden on the Health and Safety Supervisor (HSS).
This position has been vacant for more than a year.
The licensee is currently advertising in appropriate technica. publications.
.
,,
_..
..
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
External Exposure Control and Personal Dosimetry (IP 83750)
The. inspectors reviewed the licensee's external exposure control including changes in facility, equipment and personnel.
Program changes were minimal. -Licensee exposure records for 1989 and 1990 to date indicated no personnel doses in excess of 10 CFR 20.101 limits and no whole body dose above five. rem.
Collective whole body doses were 15.15 rems in 1989 L(whole body)'and 6.24 rems (through September 1990).
The 100 point SAFSTOR radiation program initiated in November 1987 has been. implemented as required. Although dose rates fluctuate from quarter to quarter as different equipment operation is encountered, overall, plots of the values indicate a slight decline. The licensee maintains a Radiation Occurrence Report (R0R) program which monitors external exposure, personnel contamination and internal dose, surface contamination, and administrative control violations.
In 1989-10 RORs were issued. One R0R was for a hot particle which was investigated. thoroughly and a conservative dose assigned to the person involved.
Six of the remainder were for control violations and three for various other infractions. The 1990 to date total of-R0R's is three.
No violations or deviations were identified.
' 5.
Control of Radioactive Material and Contamination, Surveys and Maintenance (IP 83750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for the control of radioactive
' material and contamination including equipment, implementation, adequacy
'of results_and effectiveness of the progpam. The licensee is maintaining the site's contamination area at 5939 ft, a level that was attained in January 1989.
Records reviewed-indicate that contamination surveys are-being1 performed at an appropriate frequency for both contaminated and noncontaminated areas of the site. Areas with contamination levels exceeding established limits are flagged and promptly cleaned by operations personnel.
'
Radiation workers on the job are monitored for personal contamination.
In addition, the licensee relies on whole body monitors placed strategically at the second floor turbine building exit and at the security building exit from the restricted area.
The security building monitor, a PCM-6, requires personnel to pass through it and sounds an
,
' alarm if it is not used properly; the turbine building monitor, a PCM-1A, is unattended and may be bypassed without causing an alarm. The inspectors observed no evidence that this monitor was being bypassed.
Personnel are directed to use the monitor when exiting and instructions
.
posted near it explain how to respond to an alann and when to contact
- heal th physics.
However, personnel are not given training on this procedure which is a weakness.
Surveys performed as a result of an alarm are noted in the personal contamination log with no followup assessment except for facial contamination. The log indicated a decrease in personal contamination events (PCE's) from 151 in 1989 to 80 so far in 1990 with PCE's involving contamination on the skin declining from 43 to
.
-
-.
-,
. -
- - -
.,
.-
-
...
-
.
,
- - _ -_
- - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _. _. - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _. _
l
.
.
13. The readings ranged up to 300 cpm with no further evaluation.
The only facial contamination logged during the period was eva!..ed at 10000 dpm and proper measures were taken to determine that an internal exposure had not occurred.
The inspect.rs determined that the licensee does r.ot use a radioactive source for calibrating the whole body monitors but instead uses an electronic pulser to set the alarm level to 100 cpm above background.
The licensee checks whole body monitor operability daily with a radio-active source.
However, radioactive sources are not used to confirm that this setting echieves the desired level of sensitivity or to establish a relationship between monitor readout (cpm) and contamination levels (dpm). The licensee has agreed to purchase radioactive sources for celibration and to confirm that the monitor alarms at the appropriate sensitivity (0 pen item 50-409/90002-01.)
'
No violation: or deviations were identified.
6.
Radioactive Waste (Ip 84750).
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's solid and liquid radwaste progr as including processing, storage, releases, adequacy of required records reports and notifications, a.
Solid The licensee's shipments since the last inspection in this area consisted of 80 barrels of dr," active waste and four cylindrical tanks with slight internal contaminations from a decormiissioned reactor formerly in Piqua, Ohio. 1te inspectors examined the paperwork package for the shipments and found that they contained all the necessary documents, that pre and post locding sorveys were performed and were within regulatory limits and that shipment contents were catagorized properly.
The licensee has 23 barrels on hand in onsite storage, some of which contain combinations of radioactive and nonradioactive hazardous ma terial s,
b.
Liquid The inspectors reviewed selected liquid release forms and found them to be complete and within 10 CFR 20 limits.
One release form was corrected during the inspection when it was determined that the geometry used for qeantifying the tank contents was a factor of three nonconservative (Section 8). This was the only liquid release based on this improper calibration wh1ch occurred in October 1990 and it had no regulatory consequence.
The inspector's review of the calibration of the release monitor indicated it was satisfactory.
No violations or deviations were identified.
-
_ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ - _ _ - _ _ _
--
_
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
7.
GaseousEffluents(IP84750]
Records of gaseous effluents as monitored by a particulate, iodine and gaseous monitor were examined. Kr-85 is the only gaseous nuclide in the fuel inventory and the monitor is calibrated with a Kr-85 gas standard on an 18 month schedule.
Effluent records examined showed no gaseous activity above background.
Calibration records were examined and found to done according to the appropriate procedure.
No problems were noted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
ConfirmatoryMeasurementsSampleAnalyses(IP84750J Three standards (500 ml Marinelli beaker, air particulate and a charcoal adsorber) were treated as unknowns and analyzed by the inspectors and by the licensee.
The licensee analyzed them in both the radiochemistry and environmental laboratories.
The results are listed in Table 1 and the acceptance criteria in Attachment 1.
The licensee achieved 14 agreements out of 24 comparisons.
All agreements were achieved on the charcoal adsorber analyses and on the Marinelli analyzed in the environmental lab.
The Marinelli analysis performed in the radiochemistry lab yielded all (four) nonconservative Jisagreements. The results averaged 35 % of the NRC values.
Examination of the calibration data revealed thct wrong calibration data had been entered on October 11 and 12, 1990 dnd that the updated files had not been adequately reviewed.
When the appropriate Marinelli data was used, it resulted in all agreements.
The air particulate filter results indicated six conservative disagreements in eight comparisons with the agreements being conservative also. The overall average conservatism including agreements was 37%.
The licensee analyzed a vendor supplied standard and comparison of his results with the certificate values verified the bias.
,
Discussion with the licensee indicated that the air particulate standard had been prepared in-house using NBS traceable material.
Disagreements occurred in the past when in-house prepared standards were used and were resolved by calibrating with the venuor supplied standard mentioned above.
The licensee indicated that this geometry will be recalibrated using the vendor supplied standard and a new standard purchased for the next calibration.
A Fuel Element Storage Well (FESW) sample split with the licensee will be analyzed for Gross Beta, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Fe-55, and the results sent to Region 111 (0 pen Item 50-409/9C002-02).
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
, Audits (IP 83759,84750)
The inspector reviewed the annual QA audit performed of LACBWR Health Physics and Chemistry.
It was extensive and of adequate depth.
The inspectors noted that a number of minor findingt in the audit report as well as some inspector observations suggest lack of attention to details.
The heavy workload of the HSS and, possibly, some complacency
--
_
_ - _ _ _ _ _ ____ ______
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - -. _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _. _ - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_
_
,
,
,
within the department may be contributing factors.
The inspector was informed after the inspection that these matters were discussed in a meeting between the HSS and the HP technicians on November 2, 1990.
A licensee review of audit requirements in June 1990, identified the failure to perform a required audit of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP).
The failure was reported in Licensee Event Report (LER) No. 90-03, dated July 6,1990, where it was attributed to a scheduling error.
However, the problem was not promptly corrected and the audit remained undone until November 1990 when it was noted to be in progress during the current inspection. This is a violation of Technical Specification 6.5.2.8.j which requires audit of the REMP and its results at least once each twelve months (Violation 50-409/90002-03).
One violation was identified.
,
10.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring (IP 84750)
The inspectors selectively reviewed licensee and State of Wisconsin environmental monitoring reports covering calendar years 1988 and 1989.
These reports indicated that environmental monitoring was conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Radioactivity in most media was below minimum detectable concentration (MDC) except for naturally occurring potassium-40 and bery111um-7 in certain media. As expected, the review identified isotopes of plant origin only on bottom sediment at the river discharge point.
No violations were identified.
11.
Open~ Items 0)en items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, w11ch will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the port of the NRC or the licensee or both. Open items disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Sections 5 and 8, 12.
Exit Interview
-
The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the-inspection on November 2, 1990.
The inspectors discussed matters that appear to be contributing to a Radiation Protection program weakness including staffing weaknesses, gamma spectroscopy calibration weaknesses, lack of calibretion of a portal monitor and failure to audit the program.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors comments.
Licensee representatives did not identify any documents or_ processes reviewed during the inspection as proprietary.
Followup-telephone discussions were held with licensee representatives on November 28, December 11, and December 13, 1990. The licensee was informed that a citation would be issued for the missed REMP audit because timely corrective action was not taken.
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, Fourth Quarter 1990, 2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements.
--;._-__
.
..
.
_..... _..... _ __.-_..__ _ ____. _ _..,.,.._..
-
.
-.
--
.
.. _. - _ _ __ _ _ _ _... _ _ _..._ _. _ _.. _. _.. _ _ _.m
.
j
-
.
TABLE 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REBULATORY COMMISSION
'
REGION 111 CONFIRMATORY MEASURENENTS PROGRAM FACILITY:
LACBWR i
4TH QUARTER 1990
'
l S3 MPE E~ ~ ~ EUELID E ~ ~ UEC'EhEI' uke ~E RRI'~ EiCIUdE~ ~ ~EiEIEEEI'~ E diiU~ ~ EE 56LI~
..........................................................................
A!R PART 00-57 4.30E-04 2.71E-05 5.55E-04 2.00E-05 1.29 15.9 A-STD CD-60 9.13E-03 2.23E-04 1.21E-02 1.07E-04 1.33 40.9 A
- RAD-CHN CD-109-7.33E-02 1.27E-03' -1.04E-01 1.45E-03 1.42 57.7 D
CS-137. 2.09E-02 2.54E-04 3.00E-02 2.85E-04 1.44 82.3 D
' AIR PART C0-57-4.30E-04 2.7tE-05-5.00E-04 1.79E-05 1.35 10.9 D
STD CO-60 9.13E-03 2.23E-04 1.30E-02 1.72E-04 1.42 40.9
ENVIR-CD-109 7.33E-02 1.27E-03 9.24E-02 1.13E-03 1.26 57.7 D
C5-137 2.09E-02 2.54E-04 3.10E-02 2.70E-04 1.48 82.3 D
L!O.NAR CD-57 6.29E-04 6.45E-05 2.34E-04 1.68E-05 0.37 9.0
STD CO-60-1.52E-02--3.13E-04 4.97E-03 1.06E-04 0.33 48.6 D
RAD-CHN CD-109 1.23E-01 2.71E-03 4.44E-02 1.22E-03 0.36 45.4 D
CS-137 3.46E-02 3.74E-04 1.20E-02 1.55E-04 0.35 92.5 D
T LIO MAR-C0-57 6.29ELO4 6.45E-05 6.02E-04 4.19E-05 0.96 9.8 A
STD CO-60 1.52E-02 3.13E-04 1.54E-02 2.60E-04 1.01 o48.5 A-
.ENVIR.
CD-109 1.23E-01 2.71E-03 1.0tE-01 1.85E-03 10. 8 2 45.4 A
CS-137 3.46E-02 3.74E-04 3.63E-02 3.73E-04 1.05 92.5 A
CHAR CO-57 4.76E-04 4.30E-05 4.54E-04 1.74E-05 0.95 11.1 A
STD CD-60 1.11E-02 3411E-04 1.01E-02 1.69E-04 0.91 35.7 A
RAD-CHN CD-109 9.22E-02 2.07E-03 8.62E-02 1.31E-04 0.93 44.5 A
CS-137 2.47E-02 3.76E-04 2.49E-02 2.54F-04 1.01 65.7 A
CHAR CD-57.
4.76E-04 4.30E-05 5.16E-04 1.00E-05 1.08 11.1 A
'STD:
CD-60 1.llE-02 3.llE-04 1.06c-02 1.50E-04 0.95 35.7 A
'ENVIR CD=109.9.22E-02 2.07E-03 7.79E-02 9.06E-04 0.84
.44.5 A
CB-136 2.47E-02 3.76E-04 '2.57E-02 2.27E-04 1.04 65.7 A
i L MAR CO-57 6.29E-04 6.45E-05 6.63E-04 6.54E-05 1.05 9.8 A
REANAL CO-60 1.52E-02 3.13E-04 1.47E-02 4.34E-04 0.97 48.6 A
RAD-CHM CD-109 1.23E-01 2.71E-03 1.36E-01 5.47E-03 1.11 45.4 A
CS-137 3.46E-02 3.74E-04 3.48E-02 5.68E-04 1.01 92.5 A
13-Nov-90
- -..
..-.
.. -
. -. -.. - - -. - - - ----- -.-~. -..---,
- - - - -...
.
.
TEST RESULT 5:
A - AGkEEMENT D = DISAGREEMENT N
NO COMPARISON CR11ERIA RELAXED
+ =
I
...
....
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALY11 cal. MEAStlREMENTS Ihis attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability test:
and veri f icat ion nmasuremente..
The criteria are based on an empitical relationship which combinos prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program, in these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty.
As that ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to f ewer signif icant f igures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed category of acceptance.
RESOLU110N RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERE_NCE VALUE A reement J
d NO COMPARISON 4-
0.5 - 2,0 8-
0.6 - 1,66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 200 -
0.85 - 1.18 Some discrepancies may result from the use of different equipment, techniques, nnd for some specific nuclides.
These may be factored into the acceptance ct iteria and identified on the data sheet.
_
_ _ - _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. - _ _. - -.