IR 05000409/1986001
| ML20235E156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235E141 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-409-86-01, 50-409-86-1, NUDOCS 8707100440 | |
| Download: ML20235E156 (7) | |
Text
i
. .
.
.
APPENDIX SALP BOARD REPORT U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
.-.
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE 50-409/86001 Inspection Report'
Dairyland Power Cooperative Name of Licensee La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Name of Facility January 1,1985 - June 30,1986 Assessment Period l
h7100440870706 ADOCK 05000409.
G PDR ,.
_ b
, _ _ _ _ ____
- . .
-
La Cro.sse Boiling Water Reactor 1. a. Summary of Meeting with Dairyland Power Cooperative on October 9, 1986 The findings and conclusions of the SALP Board are documented in Report No. 50-409/86001. They were discussed with the licensee on October 9,1986, at the Region III office in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. The licensee's regulatory performance was presented in each functional area. Performance in each functional area was found to be acceptable. Performance in the areas of Surveillance and Inservice Testing, Fire Protection, and Licensing Activities remain'a Category 1. While the performance rating in Maintenance /
Modifications declined from a Category 2 to a Category 3 due to the high number of equipment failures which resulted in scrams and reportable events. The performance rating in the new area of Outages was given a Category 3 based upon the number of problems encountered during the 1986 refueling outage.
While this meeting was primarily a discussion between the licensee and the NRC, it was open to members of the public as observers.
The following licensee and NRC personnel were in attendance on October 9, 1986:
b. Dairyland Power Cooperative J. W. Taylor, General Manager J. Leifer, Assistant General Manager J. Parkyn, Plant Superintendent L. Goodman, Plant Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator E. G. Greenman, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects D. C. Boyd, Chief, Projects Section 2D E. R. Schweibinz, Chief, Technical Support Staff I. Villalva, Senior Resident Inspector J. Strasma, Public Relations Officer J. A. Zwolinski, Project Director, NRR/ DBL J. Stang, Licensing Project Manager, NRR/ DBL Visitors S. Burmaster, Coulee Region Energy Coalition
_ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ .
. a
'
ERRATA SHEET Facility: La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor SALP Report No: 50-409/86001 Page Line Now Reads Should Read 4 18 Category 2 Category 1 16 33 Category 2 Category 1 Basis for Change: Additional information provided by licensee subsequent to SALP issuance
_ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _
.
'
.
'
. ]
III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS The overall regulatory performance of the LACBWR Plant has continued at satisfactory level during the assessment period. Performance in the ea of Fire Protection declined from a Category 1 to a Category 2. Per rmance l in the area of Maintenance / Modifications declined from a Categor to a Category 3 due to the high number of equipment failures ich suited in ,
reactor scrams. Performance in the area of Outages te a Category 3 )
i this period due to the number of problems encounter ur' g the 1986 l refueling outage.
l Rating Last Period b ating This Period January 1, 1985 -
July 1, 1983 Functional Areas December 31, June 30, 1986
'
A. Plant Operations 2 2
'
B. Radiological Controls 2 h 2 C. Maintenance / Modifications 2 3 D. Surveillance and f, Inservice Testing 4(Y1 1 E. Fire Protection 2 F. Emergency Preparedness 2 2 G. Security 2 2
- 3 H. Outages I. Quality Programs d Administrate Controls Affecting ality 2 2 J. Licensing ctivities 1 1 K. Traini and Qualification **
E ctiveness 2
O
!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _-__-
.
.
=
,
-
III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS The overall regulatory performance of the LACBWR Plant has continued at a satisfactory level during the assessment period. Performance in the area of Fire Protection declined from a Category 1 to a Category 2. Performance in the area of Maintenance / Modifications declined from a Category 2 to a Category 3 due to the high number of equipment failures wnich resulted in reactor scrams. Performance in the area of Outages is rated a Category 3 this period due to the number of problems encountered during the 1986 refueling outage.
Rating Last Period Rating This Period July 1, 1983 - January 1, 1985 -
Functional Areas December 31, 1984 June 30, 1986 A. Plant Operations 2 2 B. Radiological Controls 2 2 C. Maintenance / Modifications 2 3 D. Surveillance end Inservice lesting 1 1 E. Fire Protection 1 1 F. Emergency Preparedness 2 2 G. Security 2 2 H. Outages *
1. Quality Prograrr and
,
Aan<1nistrative Controls Affecting Quality 2 2 J. Licensing Activities 3 1 K. Training and Qualification Effectiveness **
- Not Rated for SALP 5
- Not Rated (new functional area for SALP 6)
I
.____________________ _ -
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
L.._-........
.
.
.
.
the completion of facility modifici.tions to improve the fi e protection program did not incicJe installation of an are wide fire detection system in the control room. The li nsee committed to installing an area wide fire detection sy em in the control room at the exit meeting of July 11, 1 5.
- Adequate control of combustibles was observed by t inspectors, although special mention was made reg ding the storage of combustible materials in the electric quipment room and implied throughout the plant. The ins ectors indicated that combustible materials not esse ial for routine operation should be removed. Improv ent in this area is desirable.
Also reviewed during this inspection was the re brigade composition and training portion of the li ee's fire protec-tion program. The fire brigade composit' nd training conformed to the guidelines of Appendix 10 Branch Technical Position 9.5-1, although four brigade tra' ing program implementation weaknesses were identi . One additional concernnotedregardedthecurrent1p@tsee'spolicyonnormally designating the Shift Supervisor a fire brigade leader.
This practice is discouraged by A ix A. The licensee was encouraged to reconsider the us he Shift Supervisor as the fire brigade leader.
t of their staff during the Management involvement and sup inspection was appropriate e circumstances and the licensee was willing to listen and uss inspector raised concerns.
Observations by the reside inspector of site conditions generally indicated excel nt housekeeping practices. Problem areas identified were pr ptly corrected and do not appear to be repetitive. Manage nt and staff appear to take a positive attitude towards hous eeping and fire prevention.
2. Conclusion The licensee is .ted Category 2 in this area with continued strength in the rea of housekeeping.
3. Board Recomm dations
'
None.
F. Emergency Pr aredness 1. Analy s Tw inspections were conducted during the sal.P period, one r tine inspection and one exercise. The routine inspection was onducted in April 1985 and resulted in the closing of 14 open
_
- _--___-_- _ _. . _ _ - _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
- . _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ - ______ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ,
'-
- ,
.
the completion of facility modifications to improve the fire protection program did not include installation of an area wide fire detection system in the control room. The licensee committed to installing an area wide fire detection system in the control room at the exit meeting of July 11, 1985.
- Adequate control of combustibles was observed by the inspectors, although special mention was made regarding the storage of combustible materials in the electric equipment room and implied throughout the plant. The inspectors indicated that combustible materials not essential for routine operation should be removed. Improvement in this area is desirable.
Also reviewed during this inspection was the fire brigade composition and training portion of the licensee's fire protec-tion program. The fire brigade composition and training conformed to the guidelines of Appendix A to Branch Technical Position 9.5-1, although four brigade training program implementation weaknesses were identified. One additional concern noted regarded the current licensee's policy on normally designating the Shift Supervisor as the fire brigade leader.
This practice is discouraged by Appendix A. The licensee was encouraged to reconsider the use of the Shift Supervisor as the fire brigade leader.
Management involvement and support of their staff during the inspection was appropriate to the circumstances and the licensee was willing to listen and discuss inspector raised concerns.
Observations by the resident inspector of site conditions generally indicated excellent housekeeping practices. Problem areas identified were promptly corrected and do not appear to be repetitive. Management and staff appear to take a positive attitude towards housekeeping and fire prevention.
2. Conclusion The licensee is rated Category 1 in this area with continued strength in the area of housekeeping.
3. Board Recommendations
'
None.
F. Emergency Preparedness 1. Analysis Two inspections were conducted during the SALP period, one routine inspection and one exercise. The routine inspection was conducted in April 1985 and resulted in the closing of 14 open
i
.
-s ,
i*
i D DA/RYLAND
[#/hh[ COOPERATIVE e o sox si7 2eisEAST AVE SO LACROSSE.
(608) 788-4000 JAMES W. TAYLOR Genzrat Manager November 7,1986 In reply, please refer to LAC-11951
. . DOCKET NO. 50-409 Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 SUBJECT: DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR)
PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45 SALP 6 BOARD REPORT #50-409/86001 REFERENCE: 1) NRC Letter, to J. Taylor dated September 30, 1986.
Dear Mr. Keppler:
The SALP Inspection Report (Reference 1) covering the period from January 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986 included a decline in the rating for Fire Protection for the subject period as compared with the previous assessment.
This letter is to address the reasons which we, as the licensee, feel that the Fire Protection rating at the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor should be reclassified as a Category I instead of the Category II which was assigned for this SALP 6 period.
Fire Protection has been rated as Category I for the 2 previous SALP rating periods due to the degree of licensee attention in both the day-to-day fire protection as well as design and facility changes. The current SALP period contained the inspection on Appendix R scheduled for each reactor and resulted in the finding of one Severity Level 5 violation on " failure to hydrostatically test fire extinguishers." The Appendix R inspection team also raised several issues which required additional follow-through for resolution.
These issues were raised as a move towards close-out of the Fire Protection process which has evolved continually since the 1975 fire at Browns Ferry.
The licensee was given credit for prompt corrective resolution to a question regarding separation in the Cribhouse. The LACBWR staff was encouraged and
- given confidence by the results of the inspection. The NRC Fire Inspection Team was very complimentary regarding the attitude of the facility personnel toward fire protection and the significant improvements which had been made.
_Ct > r o n ,4 n / //
w yr-
'
NOV 1 2W WPl.2.42
_ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ .
_ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ .__
\'
, ,s
Mr. Jcmes G. Keppler, Regional Administrator November 7,1986 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission IAC-11951
.'
It is our understanding that the Appendix R Inspection at the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor was one of the finest in the country. Therefore, it is our feeling that a Category I rating would be most appropriate.
The other section of Fire Protection is day-to-day adherence to a firm commitment in the area of housekeeping. During the SALP period, good housekeeping at IACBWR was frequently mentioned by NRC staf f personnel touring the facility. Also, the SALP Report (Reference 1) states " observations by the Resident Inspector of site conditions generally indicated excellent housekeeping practices. Problem areas identified were promptly corrected and do not appear to be repetitive. Management and staf f appear to take a positive attitude towards housekeeping and Fire Protection." It has been the experience of LACBWR staff personnel in its interaction with a number of NRC personnel, to have attention to housekeeping rated well above average -
their a sse s sment s. This is consistent with our previous performance for which we received a Category I rating. Based on the quality of housekeeping combined with the excellent performance in the Appendix R Inspection, we respectfully r eq ue st that you again review the rating of LACBWR in Fire Protection. We feel our performance in the ' fire Protection area merits a Category I rating.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, we would be please to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
, g,fffddfh '
p' /
JWT:JDP:sks cc: Document Control Desk NRC Resident Inspector Roby Bevan, LACBWR Project Manager
.
WPl.2.42 -2-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _