IR 05000409/1998001

Insp Rept 50-409/98-01 on 980420-23.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Mgt & Control,Spent Fuel Safety & Radiological Safety

ML20216B947
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	05/07/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20216B935	List: IR 05000409/1998001 ML20216B931
References
50-409-98-01, 50-409-98-1, NUDOCS 9805190023
Download: ML20216B947 (13)

Text

. 1

'

I l

l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION lil i

!

l Docket No: 50-409 l License No: DPR-45 Report No: 50-409/98001(DNMS)

l Licensee: Dairyland Power Cooperative i

2615 East Avenue-South Lacrosse, WI 54601 i

!

Facility: La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor

!

l Location: La Crosse Site, Genoa, Wiscons!n Dates: April 20-23,1998 I inspectors: D. Nelson, Radiation Specialist P. Lee, Radiation Specialist Approved By: Bruce L. Jorgensen, Chie Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I

9005190023 980507 PDR ADOCK 05000409 0 PDR

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor NRC Inspection Report 50-409/08001(DNMS)

This routine decommissioning inspection covered aspects of licensee management and control, spent fuel safety, and radiological safety.

l . Overall, the licensee's performance during decommissioning activities was very good. All l activities inspected were conducted in compliance with the Decommissioning Plan, the Quality Assurance Program and the Technical Specification Facility Manaaement and Control

. The licensee performed appropriate safety reviews prior to conducting limited dismantling of reactor components and system . The licensee's deficiency reporting system was adequate for current facility activities and staf Spent Fuel Safety

. Fuel Element Storage Wellinstrumentation and alarm systems, along with chemistry and cleanliness controls, were adequate to assure the safe storage of fue Radioloaical Safety

. The licensee's effluent and environmental monitoring programs were in compliance with the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and regulatory requirement . The radiation protection program was effective in implementing the requirements of the Decommissioning Plan, the Quality Assurance Plan and the licens . Concerns identified in the licensee's training program for shipping HAZMAT materials were addresse . Housekeeping throughout the facility was excellen !

1 .

Report Details l

Summary of Plant Activities l

l l Activities during the inspection period were limited to routine ongoing GAFSTOR activities and the limited dismantlement cf the feedwater syste .0 Facility Management and Control

General The inspectors conducted reviews of ongoing activities in order to assess overall management and controls. Specific events and findings are detailed in the sections belo .2 (Closed) VIO 50-409/94002-07(DRSS)

The licensee failed to include the functions and use of fuel handling tools and cranes during the biannual fuel handlor certification training program. A review of the 1995 and 1997 certified fuel handler training records indicated .

I that the biannual training had included the hands on use of fuel handling tools and cranes. This violation is close .3 Oroanization. Manaaement and Cost Controls at Permanently Shut Down Reactors Inspection Scope (36801)

The inspection evaluated whether the licensee's SAFSTOR organization, staffing and qualifications met the requirements of the Quality Assurance (QA) Program and the Decommissioning Plan. The inspection also evaluated the licensee's deficiency and concern identification and corrective action tracking programs and the licensee's General Employee Training Program (GET). Observations and Findinas There have been no changes in the licensee's SAFSTOR organizatien since the last inspection. The Plant Manager, the technical staff, members of the Operations Review Committee and the Safety Review Committee remain unchanged from that inspectio l

!

l La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) has a small staff and most of them have worked together since before the plant shutdown in 1987. Staff members indicated that t

because the staff is small, the concems they raise are quickly brought to management's attention. This is reiected in the licensee's concern identification and corrective action

tracking programs. Essentially, concerns and/or deficiencies are identified in two documents, the Radiological Occurrence Report (ROR) and the incident Report (IR). The RORs are used to report minor radiological concerns or deficiencies while the IR is used -

to report all other concerns, deficiencies and safety issue There were only three RORs written in 1997 and none through April 23,1998. The inspectors reviewed the 1997 RORs and noted that two had identified significant finding One reported that a Radiation Protection technician had inadvertently exited the Turbine Building change room without using the Personal Contamination Monitor and a guard was

_ _ - _ - _ - - _ - - _ _ _ - -

.

observed entering a contaminated area without the proper protective clothing. In both cases corrective actions were taken immediately and those corrective actions were documented in the ROR. Interviews with station personnelindicated that they were aware of RORs and were not hesitant in using the RORs to report concerns or deficiencie The inspectors reviewed the five irs written in 1998. In all but one case the irs reported equipment malfunctions or surveillance test failures. The other IR reported water bubbling from the ground in the Switchyard. During an interview with the Technical Support Engineer, who is responsible for the IR program, the engineer indicated that the irs had been used prima-ily to report equipment problems or test failures. irs require management review and by reporting problems or failures in the irs the licensee ensures that these problems are known by management and are addressed in a timely manne Since LACBWR has a small staff and the staff seems willing to bring their concerns directly to management, the ROR and IR programs appear to be adequate for identifying and correcting employee concerns. However, the licensee acknowledged at the exit meeting that when decommissioning activities expand in the future and contract personnel are brought onsite these programs may need to be reevaluate The inspectors reviewed the training records for the licensee's 1998 GET training. The content of the course appeared to meet the requirements of the licensee's procedures and the attendance sheets indicated that those workers who were required to attend the training had attended the trainin Conclusions The licensee's SAFSTOR organization, staffing and qualifications appeared to have met the requirements of the Quality Assurance Program and the Decommissioning Plan Staffing The licensee's ROR and IR programs appeared to be sufficient for identifying and correcting deficiencies and employee concern The General Employ'ee Training program (GET) had been implemented in accordance with licensee procedures and NRC requirement .4 Safety Reviews. Desian Chanaes. and Modifications at Permanentiv Shutdown Reactors Inspection Scope (37801)

The inspection evaluated whether the licensee had established an adequate program to idenSfy unresolved safety questions resulting from any facility design changa, test, experiment, or modification during SAFSTO , .. .

.. . .

. _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.

I Observations and Findinas l The inspectors reviewed five safety reviews (evaluations) that had been completed since the last inspection. Those safety reviews addressed the removal of the feedwater system, the sound-powered telephone circuit and the Containment Building freight door as well as the removal and replacement of the 1B air compressor and the update of the l general site lighting. The inspectors' reviews indicated that the licensee had applied the l

'

appropriate rigor of engineering and management review required for each activit There were no unreviewed safety questions identified or changes required to the technical specification During the inspection period the licensee continued to dismantle the feedwater syste The removal of plant equipment was performed in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan and Technical Specifications. Potentially contaminated materials and equipment from the dismantlement were stored in B-25 metal boxes. The boxes will be used as the l

shipping containers for shipping the materials and equipment to a waste processing

!

facility. At the waste processing facility the waste will be surveyed and segregated and the contaminated waste will be sent to a waste disposal facility for buria )

In the last inspection report (50-409/97001(DNMS)) the inspectors reported that the l

'

licensee had no formal training program for the individuals performing safety evaluations or reviews. Since that inspection, the licensee has established and implemented a formal training program for conducting safety evaluations or reviews. The licensee indicated, however, that the curriculum for the class was in flux and could change pending internal reviews of the licensee's safety review process or the release of new regulatory guidanc c. Conclusions The licensed configuration of the facility was not changed without the appropriate licensee safety reviews. The safety review training program appeared to be adequate to meet the staff's need for conducting those review .5 Self-Assessment, Auditina. and Corrective Action at Permanently Shutdown Reactors a. Inspection Scope (40801)

The inspectors reviewed the results of the 1997 audit of the Corrective Actions program to determine if the audit met the requirements and guidance in the Quality Assurance Pla b. Observations and Findinas The audit was somewhat limited in scope and range, but a number of Open items and Nonconformances were idcntified, ranging from failure to post procedurally required notices to a recommendation for removing text from an administrative procedure. No safety significant findings were identified in the audi Open items from other Corrective Actions Audits were also addressed in the audit. All but one of them appeared to be administrative in nature. Comments from the Checklist Remarks section of the audit indicated that an Open item (Audit 17-96-01, item "A") had

.

identified the need to verify corrective actions performed for Incident Reports and LER This item was closed in the audit. The Technical Support Engineer indicated that the item had been closed, in part, because a tracking system used to monitor the status of incident Peports and LERs had been reinstate The limited scope of the audit appeared appropriate, there were very few irs and only one LER written during 1997 and the first quarter of 199 c. Conclusions

,

The 1997 audit of the Corrective Actions program appeared to have met the requirements j and guidance in the Quality Assurance Pla .0 Spent Fuel Safety General i

j The inspectors conducted the inspection to verify the safe wet storage of spent fuel at LACBWR. Specific findings are detailed in the sections below.

l l Spent Fuel Pool Safety at Permanentiv Shutdown Reactors

!

a. Inspection Scope (60801)

.

The inspection evaluated whether the spent fuel pool instrumentation, alarms and

! leakage detection systems were adequate to assure the safe wet storage of spent fue The inspectors also reviewed the Fuel Element Storage Well (FESW) chemistry and cleanliness control programs to determine if the program adequately protected the integrity and cooling of the fuel.

! b. Observations and Findinas

\

FESW instrumentation consists :.f water leve! and temperature. Water level as well as l  ;

FESW Cooler Inlet and FESW Cooler Outlet temperatures are displayed in the control

'

l room. The FESW water level transmitter is also fitted with an alarm. The inspectors l reviewed the 1997 calibration and alarm set point records for the FESW water level i transmitter and determined that the calibrations had been preformed in a timely manner

! and the set points had been properly set.

l As a further check on FESW water level, operators are required to directly observe and l record the water levelin the FESW daily. A review of the operator logs determined that the operators had complied with this requiremen FESW cleanliness controls were observed to be adequate. The licensee maintained a cover over the FESW to control access to the pool and to exclude foreign matter from i entering the pool. To further enhance these controls the licensee indicated at the exit meeting that a rope barrier would be erected around FESW following the inspectio A review of the 1997 FESW water chemistry analysis results indicated that all parameters were within the limits specified in HSP-7.2, " Sampling of FESW." A review of the

l l

I

.

l laboratory Quality Assurance program results also indicated that the laboratory had performed the analyses in accordance with laboratory procedures and within the scope of the Laboratory QA progra Conclusions The spent fuel poolinstrumentation and alarms systems appeared to be adequate to assure the safe wet storage of spent fuel. The FESW chemistry and cleanliness control programs also appeared adequate to protect the integrity and cooling of the fue .0 Radiological Safety General The inspectors conducted reviews of ongoing activities in order to assess the overall radiological safety program. Specific findings are detailed in the sections belo l Occupational Radiation Exposure a. Inspection Scope (83750_}

The inspection examined and evaluated the occupational radiation safety progra Specific areas evaluated included staffing changes, training of personnel, external exposure control, internal exposure control, control of radioactive materials and contamination and maintaining occupational exposure As-Low-As-Reasonably-Achievable I

(ALARA). Observations and Findinas l l

There were no significant changes in the staffing or management of the radiation l protection (RP) program since the last inspection. The Radiological Safety program l continued to be staffed by three technicians, one foreman and the supervisor (Health and l Safety Supervisor).

The inspectors reviewed the GET records for 1998. The inspection included reviews of the content of the course and the course attendance records. The records indicated that all station personnel who were required to receive GET training had attended the GET training classes. The records also indicated that required radiation worker training had j been conducted during the GET training classe A review of the external dosimetry records for the first quarter of 1998 indicated that the doses accurately reflected the low level of activities during the quarter. Of the approximately 50 personnel who were issued external dosimetry (film badges),40 percent received no dose,90 percent received a dose of less than 50 millirem (mrem) and only one individual received a dose of greater than 90 mre The licensee's procedures require that all individuals who enter contaminated areas be body counted every 6 months. The records indicated that for the first quarter of 1998 the licensee hcJ complied with these requirements and no one received an uptake of radioactive materials.

l 7

.

The inspectors reviewed a sampling of direct radiation survey results and smear sample results for the first quarter of 1998. Station procedures require that direct radiation surveys be performed quarterly in all accessible areas within restricted areas. The records of the 1998 results indicated that the licensee had complied with these requirement I Stat.on procedures require that smear surveys be performed once a week in normally contamination free areas of the restricted areas and once a month in identified contaminated areas within restricted areas. The records of the 1998 results indicated that the licensee had complied with these requirements. Contamination levels within restricted areas remain low and the most heavily contaminated area in the reactor sub basement remain at about 60,000 counts per minute (cpm) per 100 centimeters square The inspectors reviewed the licensee's 1997 Annual ALARA Review and noted that it was very limited in scope as well as content. The review was limited to reporting the total j

" accounted for" and " unaccounted for" dose for each workgroup within the facility. The review also reported improvements in the dose tracking system and noted that doses accurately reflected the low level of work preformed within the facility during 1997. The inspectors agreed that this basic approach was appropriate during limited work activities en low dose equipment. In response to questions about future ALARA reviews the licensee indicated, at the exit meeting, that the scope and content of the Reviews would be significantly expanded when activities in the facility increase and there is the potential for significantly higher station dos c. Conclusions l The licensee had adequately trained personnel, controlled external and internal l exposures, controlled radioactive materials and contamination and maintained i occupational exposures ALARA. In addition, staffing had been maintained in accordance with station procedures and the Decommissioning Plan and the 1997 ALARA review was l

adequate for the level of work performed at LACBWR during 199 .3 Radioactive Waste Treatment. and Effluent and Environmental Monitorina a. Inspection Scope (84750)

The inspectors reviewed the 1997 QA Audit of the ODCM/ Environmental program, the 1998 operability records for the licensee's primary and secondary effluent monitors, the 1997 Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Reports and results from the Interlaboratory Confirmatory Measurements Program. The inspectors also accompanied a radiation protection technician during the col!ection of filters from off-site environmental air monitoring station b. Observations and Findinas The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual was last revised in 1996 (Revision 4) and the 1997 QA Audit concluded that the Radioactive Effluent Controls and Radiological Environmental Monitoring Programs had been implemented in compliance with the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The inspectors concurred with that conclusion after reviewing the 1997 effluent monitor operability and calibration records (Inspection

.

Report 50-409/97001(DNMS)), the 1997 air filter sample records, results from the 1997 Interlaboratory Confirmatory Measurements Program and the 1997 Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Report J The 1997 QA Audit of the ODCM/ Environmental program was essentially a checklis ;

The auditor answered a series of questions by checking either"yes" or"no." Although limited in format, the range of questions appeared to have addressed most of the imponant components of the effluent and environmental monitoring programs. A few findings were reported in the audit but they were minor in nature and only required a i procedural change to correc l l

'

The review of the 1997 Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Reports indicated that all calculated offsite doses were below the ODCM limits which were based on 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1, and 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2. For gaseous effluent releases the maximum organ dose from all radionuclides was 3.24 E-5 mrem and for liquid effluent releases the cumulative annual total dose was approximately i 6.74 E-1 mrem. The Environmental Monitoring Report reported that there was some activity in sediment collected from the discharge outfall, there was insignificant plant-attributable radionuclides in all of the other samples collected (air, milk, fish, vegetation and river water).

Environmental thermoluminesent dosimeters posted within and around the facility during 1997 indicated that the doses from direct radiation measured were within the limits ;

specified in the regulations. The highest doses were found in areas that had been j previously identified by the license I A review of the results from the Interlaboratory Comparison Program indicated that LACBWR's onsite laboratory analysis of environmental samples compared favorably with those of their contractor. No problems with the analyses were identified in the 1997 Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Report A review of the 1998 effluent monitoring program indicated that pnmary and secondary stack monitors and containment monitors were operational during the first quarter of 1998. The records also indicated that the liquid discharge monitor was operational during batch liquid waste releases and samples from the drained waste tank were collected and analyzed in the licensee's onsite laborator No problems were noted during the collection of filters from four offsite air monitoring stations. The radiation protection technician indicated that one of the monitors, which had been sitting on the ground, would be raised and put on a platfor c. Conclusions The 1997 QA audit of the ODCM/ Environmental program, the 1998 operability records for the licensee's primary and secondary effluent monitors, the 1997 Effluent and i Environmental Monitoring Reports and results from the interlaboratory Confirmatory Measurements Program indicated that the Effluent and Environmental monitoring programs had been implemented in accordance with the ODCM and NRC regulation l -

l Solid Radioactive Waste Manaaement and Transportation of Radioactive Materials i

a. Inspection Scope (86750)

The inspectors toured the restricted areas to determine if the licensee had been in compliance with their program for identifying and storing radioactive waste. The inspectors also reviewed the shipping documents for two radioactive materials shipments made by LACBWR during the first quarter of 1998, interviewed the individual responsible for ensuring that the shipments were made in compliance with NRC and Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements and reviewed the training documents for the licensee's training course on transportation of HAZMAT material b. Observations and Findinas During tours the inspectors observed that contaminated materials from the limited dismantlement of the feedwater system had been stored in a large steel container. The inspectors noted that the container had been properly and clearly marked and labeled as containing contaminated materials. Other containers and plastic bags holding radioactive waste were also color coded and marked as containing radioactive materials or wast During the period from January 1,1998 to April 9,1998, the licensee made two shipments of radioactive materials from the LACBWR facility. Both shipments contained radioactive filters and water samples that had been shipped to an offsite laboratory for analyses. LACBWR was the shipper of record for both shipments. The records maintained by the licensee for the shipments were excellent. These records showed that the shipments had been made in full compliance with the applicable NRC and DOT requirement Inspection Report 50-409/97001(DNMS) identified a concern regarding training records not identifying the specific NRC and DOT shipping regulations that had been addressed during the training. This was identified as a concern because the DOT requires that shippers and packagers of hazardous materials be trained in their specific areas of responsibility and the specific training should be documente Following that inspection, the licensee scheduled formal HAZMAT transportation training for the staff who were involved in shipping radioactive materials. That training was conducted on March 11,1998. A review of the training records indicated that the content and the documentation of the content of the course had met the training requirements of NRC and DOT transportation regulation Conclusions Tours of the restricted areas indicated that the licensee had been in compliance with their procedures for identifying and storing radioactive waste. Reviews of the shipping documents for radioactive materials shipments made by LACBWR during 1998 indicated that the shipments had been made in compliance with NRC and DOT requirements. The training documents indicated that the licensee's training for shipping HAZMAT materials was adequate to meet NRC and DOT requirement :

~

.

l Tours of the Facility

l Inspection Scope (83750 and 86750)

l The inspectors toured the reactor building, the turbine building, the pump house and the l containment building.

l Observations and Findinas Housekeeping in all of the buildings was excellent, all areas appeared to be clean and well maintaine .0 Exit Management Meeting l

The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on April 23,1998. The licensee acknowledged the findings as l described in these Report Details. The licensee did not identify any of the documents or

processes reviewed by the inspectors as proprietar ,

l l

l 11 l l

l l

l

. i

-

i

.  !

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

• M. Wilchinski, Shift Supervisor l

'J. Jiracek, Plant Maintenance i

• A. Hansen, Health Physics Foreman

• R. Christians, Plant Manager

• R. Cota, Training / Security Supervisor

• D. Egge, Quality Assurance

• L. Nelson, Health and Safety Supervisor l

I *M. Johnson, Tech Support Engineer l *R. Lewton, Plant Electrician l *M. Moe, Burns Security

• J. Henkelman, Quality Assurance / Control Technician l * Denotes those attending the exit meeting on April 23,1998.

l

! The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel in various departments in the course of the inspectio LIST OF ACRONYMS USED

!

l ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable cpm counts per minute DOT Department of Transportation FESW fuel element storage well IP Inspecticq Procedure IR Inspecticn Report LACBWR La Cr 'sse Boiling Water Reactor mrem millirem NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual QA Quality Assurance RP radiation protection l SAFSTOR safe storage SFP Spent Fuel Pool TS Technical Specification

!

i

.

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ACP-04.1, " Design and Facility Change Control," Revision 23, dated 10/17/97 LACBWR Training (GET) Attendance Sheets, dated 2/05/98,2/12/98,2/19/98/ and 2/26/98 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 4, March 1996 Radioactive Effluent Report and Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report, dated February 12,1998 l Radiological Occurrence Reports: 97-001,97-002 and 97-003 HSP 7.2, " Sampling of FESW" l

l Annual ALARA Review, dated February 9,1998

!

l Direct Exposure Rate Surveys: 1/08/98,1/21/98 and 1/20/98 Smear Survey Results: 4/07/98 and 4/20/98

' Annual Report for 1997 - Report of Changes, Tests and Experiments, dated February 23,1998 l I

l Quality Assurance Audit Report of ODCM/ Environmental Program, dated 2/5/97 l

l Quality Assurance Audit Report of Corrective Actions, dated 10/31/97

Shipping Documents: 1/7/98,4/9/98 l

l l

l

!

l

.

!

l