ML20151Z650

Discusses Predecisional Enforcement Conference Held on 980630 Re Insp Rept 50-409/98-02 & Exercise of Enforcement Discretion.Two Apparent Violations,Involving Failure to Implement Key Aspects of Maintenace Rule,Identified

ML20151Z650
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	09/17/1998
From:	Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Berg W DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
References
RTR-REGGD-01.160, RTR-REGGD-1.160 50-312-97-01, 50-312-97-1, 50-409-98-02, 50-409-98-2, EA-98-329, NUDOCS 9809220061
Download: ML20151Z650 (6)

See also: IR 05000409/1998002

Text

. _ . . _ . . - . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .. _ _.. _ _._ _ . _ . _ _

,

Septeniber 17, 1998 e

l

l l

EA 98-329 ,

Mr. W. L. Berg

,

,

General Manager *

l Dairyland Power Cooperative  :

3200 East Avenue S. '

P. O. Box 817

La Crosse, WI 54602-0817

SUBJECT: PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE SUMMARY (INSPECTION ,

'

(

REPORT NO. 50-409/98002(DRS)) AND EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT

DISCRETION ]

t ,

I' Dear Mr. Berg:

j

This refers to s,n inspection conducted from May 18 through May 22,1998, at the La Crosse l

,

Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR). Two apparent violations, involving the failure to implement  !

l key aspects of the maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65), were identified during this inspection.

The exit meeting for this inspection was conducted on May 22,1998. The inspection report 1

was issued to Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) on June 16,1998. On June 30,1998, at the

request of Region lil, a predecisional enforcement conference was held in the NRC Region 111

office to discuss the apparent violations.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information provided by

members of the LACBWR staff during the conference, the NRC has determined that violations

of NRC requirements occurred. At the conference, the LACBWR staff disagreed with some

material facts detailed in the inspection report and contested the apparent violations. Your staff

also disagreed with an assessment in inspection Report No. 50-409/98002(DRS), Section E4.1,

! which concluded the LACBWR staff did not have a clear unde standing of how the maintenance

rule applied to their shutdown facility.

During the conference, the LACBWR staff stated that they met the intent of the maintenance

rule, but hoped to get additional guidance from the NRC. The LACBWR staff's conclusion that

DPC met the maintenance rule was based, in part, on the following: (1) an NRC Safety

Evaluation, dated April 11,1997, stating that the NRC staff concluded that current maintenance

and testing programs were adequate to meet the requirements of the maintenance rule; (2) a ,

review of NRC Inspection Report 50-312/97-01 for Rancho Seco, stating that the licensee's use  !

'

- of existing programs (similar to LACBWR) was acceptable to me ut the maintenance rule; (3) the

good operability and reliability of the systems, structures, and cc.mponents (SSCs) associated j

,.

with the storage, control, and maintenance of spent fuel in a safe condition when the )

"

maintenance rule bacame effective; (4) a review of Regulatory Guide 1.160, " Monitoring the i

Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants," which affirmed the use of existing

(  !

<

L

i

i

9909220061 980917 i

PDR ADOCK 05000409 s

G PM {

l

i:

_ . _ . _ .~

!

-

, ,

!

W. Berg -2-

l

.!

programs for meeting the maintenance rule; (5) a favorable comparison of LACBWR plant l

practices relative to the spent fuel pool concems at other shutdown facilities; (6) a recent NRC l

inspection that concluded SSCs at LACBWR adequately assured the safe wet storage of spent i

fuel and adequately protected the integrity and cooling of the fuel; and (7) attendance at the

April 30,1998 Maintenance Rule Workshop for Decommissioned Plants that, in the LACBWR j

etaff's view, confirmed compliance with the maintenance rule. )

!

In response to some of the issues raised by the LACBWR staff, the following ob'servations can

be made:

i

in August 1996, the NRC issued regulations regarding the decommissioning of )

commercial nuclear reactor plants. This action included, in part, changes to existing j

regulations to clarify the applicability of these regulations to licensees that have i

submitted certifications to permanently cease operations in accordance with 10 CFR '

' 50.82. In particular, this rulemaking also included an amendment to the maintenance

rule to specify the applicability of the maintenance rule to decommissioning facilities. On

April 14,1997, the NRC issued Information Notice 97-18 to inform the industry of the

results of the NRC's maintenance rule baseline inspections. This generic l

communication, along with the April 30,1998 Maintenance Rule Workshop for j

Decommissioned Plants, clearly specified that the maintenance rule, in total, applied to

facilities such as yours.

.

Confusion regarding implementation of the maintenance rule at the La Crosse facility

existed among the NRC staff who processed your April 10,1996 request for license

amendment. This was exhibited in the wording of our Safety Evaluation dated April 11,

1997 supporting the approval of your request for license amendment. In retrospect, we -

acknowledge that the wording within the Safety Evaluation may have misled your staff in

believing that your procedures (prior to April 11,1997) were adequate to meet the

requirernents of the maintenance rule and that this contributed to the apparent

violations.2

= Inspection Report No. 50-312/97-01, which implied that Rancho Seco complied with the

maintenance rule with existing programs, was misleading in that the report documented

the licensee's conclusion regarding maintenance rule compliance, not the NRC's

conclusion. A baseline inspection will be done at Rancho Seco in the future to

determine compliance with the maintenance rule. l

ll

8 Notwithstanding, the NRC Safety Evaluation supported a license amendment for the

removal of a technical specification requirement and it appropriately concluded that the j

proposed action would not result in significant hazards or any other condition that would

preclude the approval of your requested amendment. The NRC is planning a review of all i

!

existing guidance on the maintenance rule at decommissioning plants and will enhance that

guidance as necessary. .

!

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

- . . - _ _-- __--- . - - _ - - - - - - - - - - . - - = - - -

-

.

W. Berg -3-

Regarding corrective actions, the LACBWR staff stated that they had not completed any

additional actions. Although they had reviewed every system to determine if it fell within the

scope of the maintenance rule, this effort had not been completed. When the NRC questioned

which SSCs were within the scope of the maintenance rule, the LACBWR staff responded that

the Fuel Element Storage Well and Fuel Handling systems were the only SSCs within scope.

When questioned whether electrical power needed to operate these systems and a source of

makeup for the storage well should be within the scope, the LACBWR staff responded that they

were not included because there would be sufficient time, before these were needed, to provide

altematives to the existing plant equipment. This was not consistent with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1)

which requires, " . . . all structures, systems, or components associated with the storage,

control, and maintenance of spent fuel in a safe condition . . ." be monitored.

However, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement,

and the Regional Administrator, to exercise enforcement discretion in accordance with

Section Vll.B.6," Violations involving Special Circumstances," of NUREG 1600," General

Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions (Enforcement Policy)," and

not issue a Notice of Violation in this case. The decision to apply enforcement discretion was

based on consideration of the following: (1) the acknowledged good condition of the licensee's

equipment and maintenance programs such that the safety significance of this issue was

minimal; (2) statements in NRC correspondence that contributed to the licensee's conclusion

that DPC met the maintenance rule; (3) the violation was not classified at a severity level higher

than Severity Level ll; and (4) the violation was noi willful. It should be noted that while the

actual safety significance of this situation is considered minimal, the regulatory significance of

failing to comply with any of the aspects of this regulation is considerable. Based on the above,

the NRC continues to stand by statements in the inspection report, that the plant staff did not

have a clear understanding of how the maintenance rule applied to their shutdown facility.

You are requested to respond to this letter to identify corrective actions you have taken to bring

LACBWR into compliance with the maintenance rule. This response should be provided within

30 days of the date of this letter. Should you have any questions conceming implementation of

the maintenance rule to your facility, you should contact Richard P. Correia (301-415-1009) of

the Quality Assurance, Vendor Inspection, and Maintenance Branch staff in the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

I

1

,

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

,

W. Berg -4-

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules and Practice," a copy of this letter and its

enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible,

your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information

so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.

Sincerely,

Original /s/ S. A. Reynolds for

John A. Grobe, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket No.: 50-409

License No.: DPR-45

Enclosure: Predecisional Enforcement Conference

Attendance List

cc w/ encl: Roger Christians, Plant Manager

B. D. Burks, Director, Bureau of Field Operations

J. Mettner, Chairman, Wisconsin Public

Service Commission

Spark Burmaster, Coulee Region Energy Coalition

State Liaison Officer

Chief, Radiation Protection Section

WI Department of Health and

Social Services, Division of Health

See Attached Distribution

DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\ LAC 091_.DRS

r c*.... g y moie.wmu m c co m .umm.nu.ncio.o. r cm . m u.ncio.o,. w . , e.

OFFICE Rlli _, lC Rill _ , [ Rill pp G Rill 6

NAME Farber:s&41)\ 4, GavulaTlf) Jorge' hen Black '

7

DATE 09/IL/98 09/n./981 V 09/lW98 09/ /l8

mayummmune nas e ======rr usuu as

OFFICE Rill / 6 RlllN Rill A/ Rlli

NAME ClayJ6n & BersoK Grobe A /

DATE 09fft/98 09// 798 \ 09/17/98 09// /98

$ dFFICIAL RECORD COPY / .

ag,ept

Y4sg re T

I

l

,

W. Berg -5- <

1

!

Distribution:

J. Goldberg, OGC w/enci

J. Lieberman, OE w/ encl

B. Boger, OGC w/enci

Docket File w/ nci # [ ,

1

' PUBLIC IG w/enci ,A D

Rill PRR enci l

S. Weiss, NRR w/ enc! I

'

M. Masnik, NRR w/enct

S. W. Brown, NMSS w/enci  ;

J. L. Caldwell, Rlll w/enci  ;

C. D. Pederson, Rlli w/enci

R. J. Caniano, Rlli w/enci .

'

Rlli Enf. Coordinator w/encI

TSS w/ encl

IEO (e-mail)

DOCDESK (e-mail)

Green w/o enct

n 1 P, C,70

.-

.. - - . . . - . . . _ - .. .- - - . - . . .

L

i

. , .

.

Pre-Decisional Enforcement Ccnference Attendance List

Dalryland Power Cooperative i

R. Christians, Plant Manager, LACBWR

B. Brimer, Director, Generation Support )

l

B. Wery, Director, Quality Assurance

M. Johnson, Technical Support Engineer .

I

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

!

C. Pederson, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Rlll l

l S. Black, Chief, Quality Assurance, Vendor inspection, and Maintenance Branch, NRR l

J. Gavula, Chief, Engineering Specialists Branch 1, Division of Reactor Safety, R!ll l '

B. Jorgensen, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Rlli

H. Clayton, Enforcement Officer, Enforcement and investigation Coordination Staff, Rill

,

R. Correia, Chief, Maintenance Section, NRR ,

!

P. Harris, Project Manager, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Directorate, NRR

-A. Dunlop, Reactor Engineer, Engineering Specialists Brancl i, Rill l

l M. Farber, Reactor Engineer, Engineering Specialists Branch 1, Rlil j

- E. Ford, Operatic is Engineer, Maintenance Section, NRR i

T. Simmons, Er ament and Investigation Coordination Staff, Rill

R. Landsman, t ,ineer, Decommissioning Branch, Rlll ,

,

I

L

l

!

'

I

l

l

l

l

4

l