IR 05000409/1981020
| ML20039C067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1981 |
| From: | Branch M, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039C060 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-409-81-20, NUDOCS 8112280371 | |
| Download: ML20039C067 (5) | |
Text
,
....
..
..
... -.
- _ - -. - - - - - - _. - - - -
.
..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-409/81-20 Docket No. 50-409 License No. DPR-45
!
Licensee: Dairyland Power Cooperative
'
2615 East Avenue, South-
' Lacrosse, WI 54601
'
Facility Name: Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor l
Enforcement Conference and Management. Meeting: Region III Office, Glen Ellyn, IL Management Meeting At: LACBWR Site, Genoa, WI inforcement Conference and Management Meeting Conducted: July 28, 1981 Management Meeting Con.ucted-September 25, 1981 0A" st.)f'*
/2 /// /6/-
Report Prepared By:
. W.
ra
& $. b d
Id-/8c/Fi Approved By:
R. L. Spes ector Division of Resident and Project Inspection Enforcement Conference and' Management Meeting Summary Enforcement Conference and Management Meeting on July 28, 1981 and Followup Management Meeting on September 25, 1981 (Report No. 50-409/81-20)
Areas Discussed: A combined enforcement conference and management meeting was conducted to. discuss operational events and problem areas at LACBWR which are of concern to the NRC. A followup management meeting was con-ducted to discuss licensee actions to rectify the problems discussed in the first meeting.
Results: No new items of noncompliance were identified as a result of the enforcement conference and management meeting.
b 8112280371 8112143 gDRADOCK 05000409.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _
_J
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Attendance Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC)
- F. Linder, General Manager
- J. Taylor, Assistant General Manager for Power
- R. Shimshak, Plant Superintendent
- J. Parkyn, Assistant Plant Superintendent
+L. Goodman, Operation Engineer
- S. Rafferty, Reactor Engineer
- H. Towsley, Quality Assurance Supervisor
+L. Kellyn, Assistant Operations Supervisor
+B. Zibung, Health and Safety Supervisor
- E Tremmel, Consultant to DPC (Burns & Rowe)
- M. Williams, Consultant to DPC (NES)
- T. Kettler, Consultant to DPC (NES)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- A. Davis, Regional Deputy Administrator, Region III
+R. Spessard, Director, Division of Resident and Project Inspection
+J.
Streeter, Chief, Projects Branch 2
- L. McGregor, Acting Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2B
- W. Forney, Senior Resident Inspector
- M. Branch, Resident Inspector
- R. Caruso, Licensing Project Manager (NRR)
- R. Heishman, Acting Director, Division of Resident and Project Inspection
- Denotes those present both at the combined enforcement conference and management meeting of July 28, 1981, and the management meeting of September 25, 1981.
- Denotes those present only at the cocbined enforcement conference and management meeting of July 28, 1981.
+ Denotes those present only at the management meeting of September 25, 1981.
2.
Items Discussed During the Combined Enforcement Conference and Management Meeting of July 28, 1981 Mr. A. B. Davis opened the meeting with a discussion of a civil penalty as a possible enforcement action as a result of a plant modification made on April 1,1981, to a containment building pressure sensing line.
Violations of 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1), Technical Specification 4.2.2.15 and Procedure ACP-04.1 were discussed. These matters were identified during Inspection No. 50-409/81-09 conducted by the resident inspectors on May 1-31, 1981.
-2-
~
.
Other items discussed which were identified during Inspection No.
50-409/81-09 were the violation of Technical Speci fication 4.0.2.2.1 involving the reactor safety system shutdown instrumentation set-points for both power-to flow channels being set at values in excess of the limit.and the violation of Technical Specification 4.2.2.22 involving failure to conduct measurement and ' analysis of gross beta and gamma activity and iodine activity following a power change greater than 15%.
In addition, the resident inspector outlined the following four areas where apparent management problems exist:
a.
Apparent Failure of Plant Management-to Initiate Timely Investi-gations and Corrections of Safety Significant Items Examples discussed were:
(1) Nuclear instrument prcblems.
(2) Operation at 85% power on the main steam bypass valve while the main turbine was removed from operation.
(3) Repetitiveness of unauthorized plant modifications.
(4) Nonconservative approach to problem resolution.
(5) Definition of operability which is inconsistent with the definition presently accepted by the nuclear industry, and lack of definition of compensatory measures to be taken when inoperable equipment is detected.
b.
Apparent Lack of Effectiveness of Independent Review Activities Example discussed was:
Lack of independent verification of nuclear instrument calibration, procedures, procedure changes, and test results.
c.
Apparent Lack of Effectiveness of the Onsite Review Committee and the Safety Review Committee Examples discussed were:
(1) Lack of tenacity in review process, especially members of the ORC.
(2) Failure to identify / correct significant procedural errors.
(3) Lack of documentation of indeper. dent views of committee members and lack of contrary or dissenting views on committee resolutions.
3-V
..
d.
Increasing Number of Operator Errors u-Examples discussed were:
(1) Training weaknesses.
(2) Failure of plant management and plant personnel to adhere to established plant procedures.
3.
Items Discussed During the Management Meep ag of September 25, 1981 Mr. J. Taylor discussed the status and proposed courses of action DPC has taken or will take to correct the weaknesses identified in management controls over the operation of the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor. The weaknesses and corrective actions discussed were as follows:
a.
Apparent Failure of Plant Management to Initiate Timely Investi-gations and Corrections of Safety Significant Items Mr. Taylor discussed this item in general and the specific examples of this weakness that were presented during the July 28, 1981, meeting with the exception of Item 2.a. (5) above.
Mr. Taylor indicated that DPC is pursuing the possibility of upgrading the nuclear instrumentation to correct the hardware problem.
Mr. Taylor also indicated that because of the limited size of the plant staff, a high priority cannot be assigned to all items.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the primary responsibility of the plant's staff is to ensure safe operation of the facility at all times.
Mr. Taylor stated that DPC is actively seeking budget approval for new employees, approximately seven professional and four nonprofessional positions, to supplement the present staff.
b.
Apparent Lack of Effectiveness of the Independent Review Activities Mr. Taylor made a commitment that an independent review will be conducted on all procedures issued or changed and in no case would the initiator of a document be the independent reviewer of that same document.
Mr. Taylor also indicated that the proposed in-crease in staff size will enhance the ability of the plant staff to conduct independent reviews.
c.
Apparent Lack of Effectiveness of the Onsite Review Committee and Safety Review Committee-Mr. Taylor discussed the actions that have been taken by DPC to ensure an independent and thorough review process.
Mr. Taylor stated that he had discussed with the Safety Review Committee (SRC) its responsibility and obligations. He said he ensured the members who are consultants that their contracts with DPC would not be jeopardized because of any of their committee
.
-4-d
'
..
decisions'or recommendations. He also stated that an effective tracking system has been developed by the SRC and that this system will also be utilized by.the Operations Review Committee (ORC).
Mr. Shimshak committed to have his staff review past ORC minutes to ensure all outstanding items were either closed or are being tracked. He also indicated that the ORC members would, to the maximum extent possible, be provided material to be reviewed in advance of ORC meetings.
The resident inspectors recommended that the utility review the charter of the ORC and ensure all requirements of the charter are being met.
The inspectors also pointed out that the formalized ORC and SRC committee minutes should reflect all dis-senting views on committee recommendations, d.
Increasing number of Operator Errors Mr. Taylor indicated that DPC management has discussed with the plant staff the NRC concern over the number of personnel / operator errors. He indicated that there had been an increased personnel /
operator awareness of the requirement for procedure adherence during all phases of plant operation. He also indicated that plant management will initiate timely and detailed investigations into all personnel / operator errors, that cases of personnel ignoring requirements will be dealt with harshly, and that positive actions will be taken in all cases to eliminate / minimize these errors. He also said steps are being taken to place more emphasis on written rather than verbal instructions.
4.
New Items Discussed Mr. Davis stated that the plant staffing was not in accordance with the Technical Specification requirements. He also indicated that the utility should either hire the required personnel or modify the Technical Specifications and that this matter should be resolved within 30 days.
Mr. Caruso indicated that the detailed description of plant staffing in the Technical Specifications is not typical of other plants and that NRR would consider a DPC request to change Technical Specification.
Mr. Davis also discussed the status of the escalated enforcement action under consideration that deals with the unauthorized modifi-cation to a containment building pressure sensing line.
-S-