ML20132H236
| 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: |
| 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
'
.
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_