ML20207H850

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-409/86-11 on 861201-04.No Violations Noted.Response to Weaknesses Summarized in Encl App Requested within 45 Days.Lack of Progress Noted in Emergency Preparedness.Meeting Scheduled for 870106
ML20207H850
Person / Time
Site: La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date: 12/31/1986
From: Shafer W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: Taylor J
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
Shared Package
ML20207H857 List:
References
NUDOCS 8701080172
Download: ML20207H850 (3)


See also: IR 05000409/1986011

Text

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

~

.

a

DEC 311986

Docket No. 50-409

Dairyland Power Cooperative

ATTN: Mr. J. W. Taylor

General Manager

2615 East Avenue - South

La Crosse, WI 54601

Gentlemen:

This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. N. Williamsen

and others of this office on December 1-4, 1986, of activities at Lacrosse

Boiling Water Reactor authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-45 and to

the discussion of our findings with Mr. Roger Christians and others at the

conclusion of the inspection and per telephone conversation with Mr. Christians

December 8, 10, 12, 15 and 18, 1986.

[

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.

No violations of NRC requirements were identified during the course of this

inspection. However, weaknesses were identified which will need corrective

action by your staff. These weaknesses are summarized in the attached

Appendix to this letter. As required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, IV.F.

any weaknesses that are identified must be corrected. Accordingly, please

advise us within 45 days of the date of this letter of the corrective action

you have taken or plan to take, showing the estimated date of completion with

regard to these exercise weaknesses.

In addition, there are open items and

improvement items identified in the attached report.

We are concerned with the lack of progress made in the area of emergency

preparedness at the LACBWR facility.

For the last several years we noted that

your emergency preparedness program was improving; however, the last two

inspections at your facility clearly indicate that more management attention

is needed to resolve the continuing weaknesses that exist in your program.

We understand, from our conference call with Mr. John Parkyn on December 31,

1986, that you will meet with us in our office on January 6, 1987 to discuss

these issues further.

Please note that the next emergency preparedness exercise should include the

objective of demonstrating recovery and reentry management.

NO

09

jh

.\\

a

.

-,

Dairyland Power Cooperative

2

g

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

Sincerely,

" Original air ed by W.D. Shafer"

W. D. Shafer, Chief

Emergency preparedness and

Radiological Protection Branch

Enclosures:

1.

Appendix, Exercise

Weaknesses

2.

Inspection Report

No. 50-409/86011(DRSS)

cc w/ enclosures:

J. Parkyn, Plant Superintendent

DCS/RSB (RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch

Resident Inspector, RIII

John Stang, NRR

Virgil Kanable, Chief

Boiler Section

Mary Lou Munts, Chairperson

Wisconsin Public Service

Commission

Spark Burmaster, Coulee

Region Energy Coalition

Collette BlumMeister (SLO),

WI Div. of Emergency Government

W. Weaver, FEMA, RV

M. Carroll, FEMA, RVII

D. Matthews, 0IE, EPB

i

RIII 7 c p/2 2l's& pCs5 f

g 65

A

RIII

RIII

RIII

R

,

pT

yIg W

Williamsen/ims

Allen

Snell

Wiw

pr

ss{c/ss

* !

,g

. .

.

. .

. ... - .

-

.

--_

-.

-.

.

.

'

i

I

<

APPENDIX

EXERCISE WEAKNESSES

El.

Communications with the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota were inadequate

in that the scope and content of the information provided was marginally

sufficient to allow the states to formulate appropriate protective actions.

(0 pen Item No. 409/86011-01) (See Section 5.b and 5.e)

<

2.

Notifications to the NRC failed to meet the requirements of

10 CFR 50.72(a)(3) which requires notification immediately after

notification to the State and local agencies, but not later than

one hour after the declaration of an Emergency Class.

(0 pen Item

j

No. 409/86011-02) (Section 5.b)

3.

The Offsite monitoring team demonstrated numerous inadequacies and

failed to find the plume centerline.

(0 pen Item No. 409/86011-04)

,

(See Section 5.d)

i

I

4

f

i

1

4

4

)

l

l

,

- ~ . , . -

,_...r-

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

_ . , . _ . ,

..,_,__,,,,,%.,._m_

r-.-.y

3.,

y

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

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

7, , , _ _ , . . . . . ~ . , , , . . . , . - - . _ - . _ . - _ . , ,