ML20057G084
| ML20057G084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1993 |
| From: | Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Berg W DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057G085 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9310200153 | |
| Download: ML20057G084 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000409/1993001
Text
OCO
.
!
l
00T
C 1993
Docket No. 50-409
Dairyland Power Cooperative
ATTN:
Mr. W. L. Berg
General Manager
2615 East Avenue-South
La Crosse, WI 54601
Dear Mr. Berg:
SUBJECT:
ROUTINE SAFETY INSPECTION AT THE LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Messrs. R. Paul and
!
C. Cox of this office on September 3 and September 22-24, 1993, of activities
at La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR), authorized by NRC Operating
License No. DPR-45, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. J. Parkyn
and others of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
i
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during
the inspection.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and
interviews with personnel.
Based on the results of this inspection, certain of your activities,
concerning staff changes made in 1993, appeared to be in violation of NRC
requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice).
The
early retirements of three mechanics and one instrument and control (I&C)
technician in August 1993 left the LACBWR staff with only one fully qualified
mechanic and one I&C technician. This was in violation of the minimum
staffing levels required by your Decommissioning Plan and is of particular
concern because one of the key objectives of your Decommissioning Plan is to
maintain qualified and trained staff to fulfill the goals of your
i
Decommissioning Program. When this concern was raised at the exit meeting on
September 24, 1993, Mr. Leifer of your staff provided the following immediate
corrective actions:
1.
Two mechanics and one I&C technician from the Genoa 3 coal plant would
be assigned to the LACBWR staff. All three personnel assigned had
'
previously been maintenance personnel on the LACBWR staff.
2.
The two mechanics' duties would only involve LACBWR until they were
fully qualified.
Once fully qualified, they would be available for
Genoa 3 assignments when not required for LACBWR assignments.
The one
I&C technician was already considered fully qualifieri at LACBWR and
would still be available for Genoa 3 assignments when not required for
LACBWR assignments.
1900n}
9'[ \\
9310200153 931006
ADOCK 05000409
G
'
,
l
-
-
Dairyland Power Cooperative
2 OCT
6 1993
1
3.
Quality Assurance would increase surveillances on LACBWR to ensure
required maintenance was being completed.
l
4.
Future proposed staffing changes would under go a safety review for
impact on the Decommissioning Plan prior to implementation.
]
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your
,
l
response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this
i
Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future
inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is
necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
l
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
l
this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC
l
Public Document Room.
,
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
,
l
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
Original Sir,* 97 WH!!am Snell
William Snell, Acting Chief
Reactor Support Programs Branch
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-409/93001(DRSS)
See Attached Distribution
II
I
RI
Rill
3
us jp
N
Mc
ik at er
1
10/g/93
'
.ox
)
g
V
Dairyland Power Cooperative
3
GCI
6 ijTi
Distribution
cc w/ enclosures:
J. Parkyn, Plant Superintendent
OC\\LFDCB
Virgil Kanable, Chief
Boiler Section
Charles Thompson, Chairman
Wisconsin Public Service
Commission
Spark Burmaster, Coulee
Region Energy Coalition
Robert M. Thompson, Administrator
WI Div. of Emergency Government
Chief, Radiation Protection Section
WI Department of Health and
Social Services, Division of Health
bcc:
PUBLIC
l
1
.
Dairyland Power Cooperative
Docket No. 50-409
La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor
License No. R-28
During an NRC inspection conducted on September 3 and September 22-24, 1993, a
violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the " General
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2,
Appendix C, the violation is listed below:
Section 6.2 " Organization and Responsibilities" of the La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor (LACBWR) Decommissioning Plan requires the organization of the SAFSTOR
staff at LACBWR to have three mechanics and two instrument and control (I&C)
technicians reporting to the Plant Manager as indicated in Figure 6-1.
Contrary to the above, as of August 20, 1993, only one mechanic and one I&C
technician was assigned to the SAFSTOR staff at LACBWR reporting to the Plant
Manager.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Dairyland Power Cooperative is
hereby required to submit a written statement of explanation to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III, within 30 days of
the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).
This
reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and
should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation, or, if
3
contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps
)
that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that
'
will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full
compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the
time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be
issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or
revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Where
good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response
time.
i
Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois
thist,^ day of October 1993
-