IR 05000409/1993001
| ML20057G111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1993 |
| From: | Cox C, Mccormick J, Paul R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057G085 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-409-93-01, 50-409-93-1, NUDOCS 9310200188 | |
| Download: ML20057G111 (6) | |
Text
-I.
i I
DETAILS
.I 1.
Persons Contacted l
- J. Leifer, Assistant General Manager for Operations
- D. McKee, Director, Plant 0perations
]
- R. Brimer, Director. Generation Support Services
- R. Duncan, Genoa Site Manager j
- J. Parkyn, Plant ha. sager
'
- M. Polsean, Fire Prctection Supervisor
.
'B. Wery, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- L. Nelson, Health and Safety Supervisor
)
i
- R. Christians, Technical Scpport Engineer
- S. Raffety, Reactor Engineer i
- J. Lintelman, Plant Maintenance l
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting on September 24, 1993.
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel in various departments in the course of the inspection.
,
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas (IP 9_2701)
.
(Closed) Open Item (409/89001-01):
Licensee to establish an aggressive formal program for the identification and control of hot particles, and a
for skin dose calculations. The licensee purchased a Varskin computer i
program for skin dose assessment and in addition, a program was in
'
,
effect for particle identification and analysis. This item is closed.
i j
3.
Staffina and Manaaement Controls (IP 83722)
,
,
The Health Physics (HP) and Quality Assurance (QA) organizations remained essentially the same as described in Inspection Report No. 50-
$
!
409/92001(DRSS). However, there were several significant changes in the i
Plant Operations and Maintenance organizations since the last inspection.
The Operations Supervisor was removed from the LACBWR staff
,
in February 1993 resulting in the Operations and Maintenance staff reporting directly to the Plant Manager.
Further reductions in the
,
j LACBWR staff were encountered through an early retirement program
'
offered in June 1993. Three LACBWR mechanics and one I&C technician accepted early retirement in August 1993, leaving only one mechanic and one I&C technician on the LACBWR staff.
Inspection Report No. 50-409/92001(DRSS) identified concerns that future
attrition of experienced staff could make long term plant maintenance
'
questionable and raise issues of preservation of the historical perspective of maintenance activities. The early retirement of the mechanics and I&C technician heighten those concerns.
The one remaining mechanic and I&C technician were responsible in providirg inputs for
!
work planning, procedure review, and maintaining the Preventive Maintenance System records.
While mechanics and I&C technicians from
.
i 9310200188 931006 PDR ADDCK 05000409 G
.
-
.. -
__
.
_
..
!
.
'
.,
'
the adjacent coal plant were made available to assist the LACBWR staff, including some personnel that had several years experience at LAC 6dR,-
,
none of the mechanics were completely qualified according to the
,
'
maintenance qualification cards used at LACBWR.
In addition, the
inspectors questioned the ability of the personnel on loan from the coal
plant to provide good inputs into work planning at LACBWR and their ability to maintain the required records of maintenance activities.
Furthermore, reducing the LACBWR staff to one mechanic and one I&C
-)
'
technician is a violation of the LACBWR Decommissioning Plan (Violation
>
j!
No. 50-409/93001-01).
Review of the maintenance records indicated that all required surveillances were up-to-date and the backlog did not indicate any
.
problems in completing scheduled maintenance. However, the staff
{
,
j reductions had taken place only a few weeks prior to the inspection
therefore the impact of the staff reductions could not be determined.
A review of records indicated that Technical Specification 6.2.1.2
'
" Overtime Policy" was being met. Also the plant safety records indicated no increase in lost time accidents.
i Since the previous inspection, the offgas. system and filters, four inch
l leaders from the air ejector, seal inject heater, and gland steam generator and associated piping were removed with a dose expenditure of
'
about 15 person-millisieverts (1500 person-rem).
10 CFR 50.59 reviews were performed for each of the changet as required by procedures i
covering Facility Chm es; no problems were noted in the inspection of
selected reviews. Pms for the removal of the lower control rod drive
,
mechanisms with an associated dose of about six person-millisieverts
'
!
(600 person-rem) had been approved.
,
)
The station reactor engineer. and the plant manager were upgrading the
!
'
Off Site Dose Calculational Manual and the station was developing plans
]
to implement the revised 10 CFR Part 20 requirements.
,
.I One violation was identified.
!
,
4.
Trainina and Oualifications (IP 83723)
,
Training essentially remained the same as described in Inspection Report
,
j No. 50-409/92001. Review of the LACBWR training records indicated that
the required training for the LACBWR staff was being conducted.
'
l A concern was identified in the training of the mechanics that were being loaned from the adjacent coal plant to augment the LACBWR maintenance staff. A qualification card training system was developed
,
'
for the LACBWR maintenance staff prior to entering the SAFSTOR condition.
None of the mechanics on loan had completed qualification i
cards with the ex-LACBWR mechanics having only partially completed
.
t cards. The lack of completed qualification cards contributed to the violation identified in Section 3.
,
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
)
.
'I
..
_.__._______.._.._._._..._.-__,__,_..J
.
I S.
Audits and Appraisals (IPs 83722. 80721. 71707. 84101 and 867501 Audits continued to be conducted, documented, and reviewed as described in Inspection Report No. 50-409/92001(DRSS).
,
During this inspection, the Training, Technical Specification, and Procurement program audits were reviewed. Also reviewed was the Safety Review Committee independent audit of the Quality Assurance Program.
While there were no significant findings identified, it was noted that the audits were of good quality and were well documented.
I No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
External Exposure Control and Personnel Dosimetry (IP 83100)
During the previous inspection (Inspection Report No. 50-409/92002), it was noted that the condenser R meter used to determine the values for instrument calibrations was inoperable.
Since then, the instrument was repaired and recalibrated in accordance with the standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The licensee continued to perform the 100 point SAFSTOR radiation survey program initiated in November 1987. Occupancy in the containment continued to remain minimal except for routine surveillance and special jobs; the collective dose for 1992 was about 60 person-millisieverts (6 person-rem).
7.
Internal Exposure Controls (IP 83100)
During a previous inspection (Inspection Report No. 50-409/92002) the l
inspectors determined procedure "HSP 13.5 Whole Body Counting", was difficult to use to determine NPC-hrs from an intake of radioactive material.
Since then the procedure has been revised to clarify the methodology used to compute MPC-hours; the changes appeared adequatr, to l
correct the problem. Whole body counts of workers showed no radioactivity intakes have occurred since the previous inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Control of Radioactive Material and Contamination (IP 83100)
A review of records indicated that smear surveys were being performed as required and the contamination control program was not significantly chenged since the previous inspection. The station was attempting to decontaminate identified horizontal contaminated areas as time and resources permitted.
No violations or deviations were identified 9.
Fire Protection and Prevention Proaram (IP 64704)
,
l
!
..
.- -
- -. -..
..
_ _ _
-_
.
.
9.
Fire Protection and Prevention Procram (IP 64704)
The Fire Protection program was reviewed.
The inspectors noted that the
.
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for staffing the three members of the Fire Brigade were met. A concern was identified in that Central Alarm Station (CAS) watchstanders had to be initial responders in order to meet the three member TS requirements. However, the Security Plan allowed the Operations Shift Supervisor to suspend the Security Plan, including manning CAS, during emergencies.
No violations or deviations were identified.
j 10.
Operational Safety Verification (IP 71707)
A review of applicable logs and discussions with control room operators did not identify any problems and visual inspection of selected parameters indicated proper operation of the Fuel Element Storage Well (FESW) system.
Required surveillances were charted on a wall chart and maintained by the shift supervisors.
The chart was well organized and no delays were observed. Completed surveillances were readily available for review and had been well maintained.
Documentation of Operations Review Committee (ORC) minutes indicated that a proper quorum was present and required reviews of jobs, procedures, and technical specification commitments had been made. One experiment and its associated procedure was reviewed by the ORC in 1993.
The experiment was to determine the heat-up rate of the Fuel Element Storage Well (FESW) without cooling. A vertical string of four t
thermocouples was inserted into the FESW and cooling was secured.
Data was collected and the experiment secured. The Reactor Engineer was in the process of interpreting the data during the course of the inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Gaseous and Liouid Radioactive Waste (IP 84101)
The licensee's liquid and gaseous radioactive waste program was discussed in the previous Inspection Report No. 50-409/92001; there had been no significant changes since. A review of liquid and gaseous radwaste procedures, records of recent liquid discharges, and recent radioactive effluent reports was performed; no significant problems were noted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12.
Solid Radioactive Waste and Transportation (IP 86750)
The licensee's solid radioactive and transportation programs was described in Inspection Report No. 50-409/92001; thert iad been no
'
significant changes since. Records of several waste shipments made
'
since the previous inspection were reviewed.
.
.
t
.
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
13.
Surveillance-Plant Tours (IP 83100)
The inspectors made tours of the control room, and the reactor, waste treatment, and turbine buildings. Observations of instrumentation and
'
recorder traces, selected control room annunciators and panels containing nuclear instruments and other reactor protection system elements were made; no problems were identified.
The inspectors accompanied the Health and Safety Supervisor through the reactor building and found it to be generally clean and adequately posted and controlled.
.
,
14.
Operational Status of the Emeroency Preparedness Proaram (IP 82701)
!
Revision 13 of the Emergency Plan dated October 1992, was reviewed and approved in December 1992. The onsite ERFs were viewed and were as described in Revision 13 of the Emergency Plan.
A review of completed checklists indicated that the required inventories were completed. The inspectors reviewed the documentation of the monthly and annual communications tests listed in Table E-1 of the Emergency Plan.
The review indicated that the tests had been completed as required.
Training records for plant personnel were available. A brief review did not disclose any problem areas.
,
Documentation for an Unusual Event (UE) declared on June 8,1993 was reviewed. The UE declaration was ba:ed on a report of a tornado within five mile of the LACBWR site. The required notifications were timely and the documentation was complete.
l
!
The annual emergency preparedness exercise and other drill records were reviewed and found to meet the requirements of the Emergency Plan.
No violations or deviations were identified.
15.
Exit Interview The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee i
representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 24, 1993. The licensee did not identify any documents as proprietary.
,
,
I
-
_
_