ML19345H149

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards IE Health Physics Appraisal Rept 50-409/80-10 on 800922-1003,notice of Violation & Significant Appraisal Findings
ML19345H149
Person / Time
Site: La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date: 03/05/1981
From: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: Linder F
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
Shared Package
ML19345H150 List:
References
NUDOCS 8105010052
Download: ML19345H149 (4)


See also: IR 05000409/1980010

Text

T'L

o

[a ctyo

\\

UNITED STATES

8 " 3 .,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

g

"

g

-c

REGION 111

g

[

799 ROOSEVELT ROAD

% . . . . . p*

GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137

Utr

gg)

.

. 7,-

-

3

p

+

Docket No. 50-409

S

P] ag % g81'b h {#

APg2'7

L

Dairyland Power Co ,erative

7

g

ATTN:

Mr. F. W. Linder

A

-

g

'4hg

General Manager

2615 East Avenue - South

//

La Crosse, WI 54601

g

4

-

Gentlemen:

The NRC has identified a need for licensees to strengthen the health

physics programs at nuclear power plants and has undertaken a signif-

icant effort to ensure that action is taken in this regard. As a

first step in this effort, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement is

conducting special team appraisals of the health physics programs, in-

cluding the health physics aspects of radioactive waste management and

onsite emergency preparedness, at all operating power reactor sites.

The objectives of these appraisals are to evaluate the overall adequacy

and effectiveness of the health physics program at each site and to

identify areas of weakness that need to be strengthened. We will use

the findings from these appraisals as a basis not only for requesting

individual licensee action to correct deficiencies and effect improve-

ments but also to inprove NRC requirements and guidance. This effort

was identified to you in a letter dated January 22, 1980, from

Mr. Victor Stello, Jr., Director, NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement.

During the period September 22 to October 3, 1980, the NRC conducted the

special appraisal of the health physics program at the Lacrosse Boiling

Water Reactor. Areas examined during this appraisal are described in

the enclosed report (50-409/80-10). Within these areas, the appraisal

team reviewed selected procedures and representative records, observed

work practices, interviewed personnel, and performed independent measure-

ments. We request that you carefully review the findings of this report

for consideration in improving your health physics program.

Findings of this appraisal indicate that significant weaknesses exist in

several areas of your health physics program. These include, organization

and managment, training, procedures, exposure control, instrumentation and

ALARA. These items are set forth in Appendix A, "Significant Appraisal

Findings." Your past performance in personal exposure and radiological

8105010064

Q

_ . - -

- .

-

.

-

- - - - - -

- . _ . - _ . .

.

-

..-

-

-

e

i

1

i

~

3

Dairyland Power Cooperative

2-

'4"

G81

-

-

l

1

!

effluent controls has been acceptable but we believe that the identified

weaknesses require correction to enable you to perform equally well in

future normal and offnormal situations.

Your present health physics

i

i

- program is considered adequate to support continued operation while

]

achieving acceptable corrective action for the identified weaknesses.

r

l

We recognize that an explicit regulatory requirement pertaining to each

significant weakness identified in Appendix A may not currently exist.

!

However, to determine whether adequate protection will be provided for

the health and safety of workers and the public, you are requested to

submit a written statement within twenty-five (25) days of the date of

,

I

this letter, describing your corrective action for each significant weak-

l

ness identified in Appendix A, including:

(1) steps which hav- been taken;

(2) steps which will be taken; and (3) a schedule for completion of' action.

I

This request is made pursuant to Section 50.54(f) of Part 50, Title 10,

Code of Federal Regulations.

During this appraisal, it was also found that certain of your activities do

j

not appear to have been conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements,

as set forth in the Notice of Violation enclosed as Appendix B.

A written

I

response is requ' ired.

You should be aware that the next step in the NRC effort to strengthen

i

health physics programs at nuclear power plants will be a requirement by

1

the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) that each licensee develop,

]

submit to the NRC for approval, and implement a Radiation Protection Plan.

1

Each licensee will be expected to include in the Radiation Protection Plan

sufficient measures to provide lasting corrective action for significant

i

weaknesses identified during the special appraisal of the current health

'

physics program. Guidance for the development of this plan will incor-

porate pertinent findings from all special appraisals and will be issued

'

l

for public comment early in 1981.

,

l

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, the enclosures,

,

4

and your response to this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document

j

Room, except as follows.

If the enclosures contain information that you or

l

your contractors believe to be proprietary, you must apply in writing to

l

this office, within twenty-five days of the date of this letter, to withhold

such information from public disclosure. The application must include a full

j

statement of the reasons for which the information is considered proprietary,

and should be prepared so that proprietary information identifi'd in the

,

j

application is contained in an enclosure to the application.

I

1

I

!

.

!

,

-e+

-,-em+e<,

+w-

  1. ,,

,

~.e.-,

--y.v .y

g-p=v's---'wv-*r"**

'*-N-*e*

  • ==F-W'e

't--**=*v=-,~


s-wws

a-w,--+

e-

+r-

-+re-

-- -

e.

4'rwrw+=-*-we---e

-w

- - - * - -- -

l

.

Dairyland Power Cooperative

-3-

!/j r

jggj

We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

Sincerely,

Mt

James G. Keppler

Director

Enclosures:

1.

Appendix A, Significant

Appraisal Findings

2.

Appendix B, Notice of

Violation

3.

IE Inspection Report

No. 50-409/80-10

cc w/encls:

R. E. Shimshak, Plant

Superintendent

Central Files

Reproduction Unit NRC 20b

AEOD

Resident Inspector, RIII

PDR

Local PDR

NSIC

TIC

John J. Duffy, Chief

Boiler Inspector

Mr. Stanley York, Chairman

Public Service Commission

!

i

i

.

v-

-

-m-

o

n

,--, .

,w---

, .- -- . , --+ - --- , - ,.

-

, - -

, - , , - -

..,.-,.,.,r,-

-

..-- --

.

.

Appendix A

>

Significant Appraisal Findings

Dairyland Power Cooperative

Docket No.

50-409

Based on the Health Physics Appraisal conducted September 22 to October 3,

1980, the following items appear to require corrective action.

(Section

references are to the Details portion of the enclosed report.)

1.

Organizational and managerial improvements are needed to resolve problems

regarding health physics technical expertise, supervisory personnel work-

load, staffing, technician performance, and radiation protection program

enforcement.

(Sections 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, and 3.d)

2.

The health physics technician training program requires improvement in

terms of documented initial and refresher training requirements, and con-

duct of emergency sampling and analysis training.

(Sections 4.a and 13)

3.

Procedural coverage and adherence need upgrading to include activities

not presently addressed and to resolve inconsistencies between procedures

and actual practices.

(Sections 6, 8.a, 8.c, 9.b, 11.a, and 11.c)

4.

The internal and external exposure control programs need upgrading to

incorporate formalized TLD spiking, TLD/ pocket dosimeter intercomparisons,

and whole body counter calibrations and to ensure the availability of a

sufficient supply of aespiratory protective devices for accident response.

(Sections 7.a and 7.b)

5.

The radiation survey program needs upgrading in terms of scope and

frequency of direct radiation surveys, contamination survey coverage,

and task oriented surveys.

(Sections 8.a and 8.c)

6.

The instrumentation program needs improvement to include calibration

acceptance criteria and to resolve problems regarding high range

-

(accident) noble gas monitoring, personal contamination detection,

and continuous air monitor calibrations.

(Sections 9.b, 9.c, 9.d,

9.e and 11.a)

7.

A formalized ALARA program needs to be developed.

(Section 10)

.-

.

.,

.,

_

. ,

... -

- .

.

-- .

. _ - .

- . - -

_