ML20132H236

App to SALP 5 Rept 50-409/85-01 for Jul 1983 - Dec 1984

ML20132H236
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	07/31/1985
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20132H214	List: IR 05000409/1985001 ML20132H210 ML20132H236 ML20133A008
References
50-409-85-01, 50-409-85-1, NUDOCS 8508050280
Download: ML20132H236 (5)

See also: IR 05000409/1985001

Text

-. _ - _ -

.

i

SALP 5

APPENDIX

SALP BOARD REPORT

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE

50-409/85001

Inspection Report No.

Dairyland Power Cooperative

Name of Licensee

La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor

Name of Facility

July 1, 1983 - December 31, 1984

Assessment Period

!

..

O

. . _ _ _ . __. -. . - _ _ _ , _ _ , , . ._ , . _ - _ - - _ . _ __.

'

.

A. Summary of Meeting with Dairyland Power Company on March 28, 1985

The findings and conclusions of the SALP Board documented in Inspection

Report No. 50-409/85001 were discussed with the licensee on March 28,

1985, at the NRC Region III office in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. The

licensee's regulatory performance was presented and found to be

acceptable in each functional area. Following the NRC presentation,

Mr. John Parkyn, Plant Superintendent, made several comments and

observations. Generally, he did not disagree with most of the NRC

findings but stated he would provide written comments in two areas,

radiological controls and security. This was done by letter of April 18,

1985. The NRC consideration of those comments is contained in Section B.

The following licensee and NRC personnel attended the meeting.

Dairyland Power Cooperative

J. Parkyn, Plant Superintendent

R. Wery, Quality Assurance Supervisor

G. Boyd, Operations Supervisor

L. Goodman, Operations Engineer

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

J. Keppler, Regional Administrator

A. B. Davis, Deputy Regional Administrator

C. Norelius, Director, Division of Reactor Projects

D. Boyd, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2D

R. DeFayette, Inspection Project Manager

<

J. Wiebe, Former Senior Resident Inspector

N. V111alva, Pending Senior Resident Inspector

R. Dudley, Licensing Project Manager, NRR

B. Comments Received from Licensee

.

By letter of April 18, 1985, the licensee provided written comments on

the SALP Report in which they requested that corrections be made in the

section on radiological controls, and in which they objected to the

rating in security. The NRC resolution of these comments follows.

1. Radiological Controls

1.1 Licensee Comment

The licensee pointed out that on page 10 of the report a

statement is made (following the observation that radiation

exposure is 20% lower than 1983) that there were no major

outages in 1984. They pointed out that the refueling outage

of 1983 was not completed until January 1984, and that also in

1984 a control rod drive assembly failure to operate caused

additional exposure during the investigation of the reason for

the failure. The licensee commented that they consider the

20% reduction a significant accomplishment.

2

_ -_. - _

1

'

.

l

1.2 NRC Comment

The NRC acknowledges the correction concerning the maintenance

outage contributions to the 1984 personal radiation exposures,

but does not agree with the contention that the reduction in

personal radiation exposures for 1984 is a significant

accomplishment. This disagreement is based on the annual

personal radiation exposure history which indicates that with

the exception of 1983, the 1984 total exceeded the annual totals

since commercial operation of the plant began in 1970. Further-

more, the outage exposures for 1984 were not higher than normal

and therefore were not responsible for the high 1984 annual

exposure.

-

1.3 Conclusion

A correction has been made to the SALP Report (see Errata Sheet).

2. Security

The licensee stated five reasons why it did not agree with the

category rating of 2 in security.

2.1 Licensee Comment

"No items of noncompliance were identified. This represents a

decrease in the number of violations identified in the previous

SALP period in which three items of noncompliance were

identified."

NRC Comment

While the number of violations are considered in arriving at

the overall SALP rating, they are not the only criteria used,

nor does the absence of violations necessarily indicate

Category 1 performance.

2.2 Licensee Comment

" Security at LACBWR has performed very well and many compliments

have been given us by NRC personnel doing inspections,

particularly on the quality of our guard force and the

excellence of its records in training."

3

'

. .

NRC Comment

The quality of the guard force and their training records are

strong parts of the LACBWR security program. These strengths,

~

however, do not fully compensate for the concern regarding the

adequacy of security shift manning for back-shift periods. The

security forces' ability to compensate for equipment outages

and maintain the required response force is still unresolved.

The minimum manning level on back shift resulted in an inade--

quate number of armed responders being available on one occasion.

2.3 Licensee Comment

"The corrective actions taken when events occur are very rapid

and this was also referenced on page 10."

NRC Comment

Page 19 states: " Corrective action was taken in a timely

manner." There is no mention of "very repid" corrective

action however.

2.4 Licensee Comment

"The only observation at all, which was less than positive, was

that on the top of page 20 stating that the licensee's resources

.

have not provided for procurement of current state of the art

security equipment. -This is not true. The licensee has

provided the state of the art security equipment. .As matter of

fact, the licensee has gone beyond the regulatory requirements

significantly in the phasing in a back up tie to the security

computer so that its responsibilities may be picked up by

another computer should it go down. This shortens the amount

of time in which automatic surveillance is out of service."

NRC Comment

While NRC agrees that the security computer has been upgraded,

the remainder of the security equipment consists primarily of

equipment procured and in use since initial. implementation of

the 10 CFR 73 program several years ago. Package search and

explosives detection methodology, although adequate, cannot be

considered as state-of-the-art equipment.

2.5 Licensee Comment

"The licensee has also taken strongly a recommendation by one

of the NRC inspection personnel who suggested several years ago

that it would be wise to begin purchasing spares and establishing

periodic replacement of certain electronic and surveillance

4

.

components. Dairyland Power has committed money to this program

and has routinely replaced security components to increase the

reliability."

NRC Comments

The licensee's security system is an aging system. Purchasing

spares and establishing periodic replacement of certain

electronic and surveillance components is a necessity to keep

the system functioning adequately.

2.6 Conclusion

The security program at LACBWR is adequate with several strong

points as identified in the SALP report. However, several con-

cerns remain which should be addressed. Adequacy of security

force shift manning to compensate for equipment failure and

provide the required response force capability is a concern

which has not yet been resolved. Security resources and equip-

ment are maintained at the minimum level required by the

Security Plan and further consideration should be given to this

area.

The program is a SALP 2 category.

C. Regional Administrator's Conclusions Based on Consideration of Licensee

Comments

While the NRC acknowledges and appreciates the comments the licensee has

submitted on the SALP Report, for the reasons given above, we do not

believe a change is warranted in any SALP rating. I have concluded that

your ratings for the period (six "2's" and three "l's") are positive

indicators, especially with six of the nine functional areas showing an

upward trend in performance. You are to be commended for this effort and

I trust that this trend will continue.

i

l

l

l 5

!

i

L_