ML19209C361
| ML19209C361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1979 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Peterson T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209C362 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910150159 | |
| Download: ML19209C361 (10) | |
Text
.at R C POg 8(g....
fg UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR FIEGULATORY COMMISSION
-p WAhicsGTON. D. C. 20655
'+, *....o September 11, 1979 Docket No. 50 409 Mr. Thomas Peterson Route 1, Box 362A Prairie du Chien, Wistonsin 53821
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Your letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated July 4,1979, identified a number of items related to the operation of the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) that are of concern to you. We perceive your concerns to involve:
Two Petitions Currently Before the NRC Nuclear Power Plant Lifetime NRC Responsibility for the Health and Safety of the Public Our response to each of these items is presented in the enclosure.
We note that you have concluded, based on infomation you have gathered, that LACBWR is not working as well as other plants in Wisconsin and that LACBWR's design involves continuous venting of radioactive gases. NRC does not have responsibility for evaluation of the perfomance of nuclear plants except as it affects the health and safety of the public and therefore we do not evaluate the economic perfomance of a facility. However, the LACBWR has been operated within the safety limits and operating technical specifications that are reviewed and approved by the NRC to provide safety margins equivalent to those at all other nuclear power plants in the United States.
You are correct, the LACBWR is designed for continuous containment ventilation and is operated in this fashion. Any radioactive gases disr.harged to the atmosphere, via the 350 foot concrete stack, are within tho safe limits permitted by the technical specifications. These limits are low and do not pose a hazard to the health and safety of the public.
I hope this letter and enclosure are responsive to your request.
Sincerely, b
Dennis L. Ziemann, ef Operating Reactors Branch #2
' vision of Operating Reactors i
knclosurk:
}l'b l27 s state 7910150
RESPONSE TO MR. PETERSON'S INQJIRY DATED JULY 4, 1979 Two Petitions Currently Before the NRC 1.
Spent Fuel Pool Modifications By letter to the NRC dated April 20, 1978, Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) proposed to increase the storage capacity of the Fuel Element Storage Well (FESW) at LACBWR from 134 to 440 fuel assemblies.
The NRC intention of evaluating the DPC proposal was published in the Federal Register on May 25,1978 (item 43-22462).
Petition for leave to intervene was filed by the Coulee Region Energy Coalitior. (CREC) dated June 27, 1978, relative to plant modification to increase spent fuel storage capability. The NRC safety evaluation of the proposal was issued on July 13, 1979.
NRC Staff Motion For Summary Disposition On The Pleadings (Spu.
Fuel Pool Modifications) was submitted on behalf of the U. S. hRC staff before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on July 30, 1979.
2.
Motion Dated May 21, 1979, To Suspend Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, Anne K. Morse requested the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Office of Inspection and Enforcement to suspend Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 for the operation li?6 128 g41C*
/
m m.ms-m n
mammao mss e >
m
2-of Dairyland Power Cooperative's Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR), Docket No. 50-409, because continued operation of said plant is claimed to be inimical to the health and safety of the public.
The NRC intention of evaluating the motion to suspend the Provisional Operatirig License for LACBWR was published in the Federal Register on June 26,1979 (item 44-37352).
All of the above !etters and reports including DPC additional information letters responsive to NRC questions dated June 7, July 11, August 7, Septeobe 25, October 4 and November 29, 1978, and January 4, January 31, February 14, March 1, May 17, June 21, June 26, and Juiy 11, 1979, were placed in the La Crosse Public Library, 800 Main Stret, La Crosse, Wisconsin 34601 waen issued or reviewed by NRC.
Nuclear Power Plant Lifetime Construction Authorization No. CAPR-5 dated March 29, 1963, authorized Allis Chalmers to con tr.uct the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor at Genoa, Wisconsin.
Typically, nuclear power plants are licensed for a forty (40) year period from the construction authorization date. LACBWR is one of the 11 oldest nuclear power plants in the United States. As such, it is being reviewed in the Systematic Evaluation Progam (SEP), which includes a detailed com-parison of the original design criteria with current design criteria to identify deviations from cur:ent criteria and to detennine if upgrading is required. The Full Term Operating License, FTOL, for the remaining lifetime of LACBWR will not be issued until the SEP is completed. LACBWR is currently operating under a Provisional Operating License dated August 28, 1973, and at the present time, there is no technical reasons for shutting down the LACBWR in the interest of the health and safety of the public.
NRC Responsibility for the Health and Safety of the Public The NRC is responsible for the licensing and regulation of nuclear power plants.
Before a company can build a power plant at a particular site, it must obtain a construction pennit from the NRC. As a major part of the application for a construction pemit, the company files a Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR). This document presents the design criteria and preliminary design infomation for the proposed reactor and comprehensive data on the proposed site. The report also discusses various hypothetical accident situations and the safety features which will be provided to prevent accidents or, if they should occur, to mitigate their effects on both the public and the facility's employees. Ie addition, the company must submit a caiprehensive Environmental Report providing a basis for the evaluation of the environmental impact of the proposed plant. Further, information must be submitted for use by the Attorney General and the NRC staff in their reviews of the antitrust aspects of the proposed facility.
1146 129 e.
+aw ws-.e
-w..-
-4 s-
-+a
=e,-en---w,-ei----
. When an a;' plication is submitted, it is first subjected to an acceptance review to detemine whether it contains sufficient information to satisfy the Commission requirements for a detailed review.
If the application is not sufficiently compl ate, the staff makes specific requests for additional information.
In addition, when the PSAR is submitted, a substantive review and inspection of the applicant's quality assurance program, covering design and procurement, is conducted. Guides for the preparation of the documents, detailing the kind of.information needed, have been developed by the staff to aid companies in preparing acceptable applications.
Copies of all correspondence and filings relating to the apt..ication are placed in Public Document Rooms (for LACBWR - La Crosse Public Library, 800 Main Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601) and are available to every member of the public.
The staff reviews a construction permit application to detemine if the public health and safety will be fully protected.
If any portion of the application is considered to be inadequate, the staff requests the applicant to modify the plant so that it will be acceptable.
If the appropriate modifications are not made, the application is rejected.
The application is reviewed to determine that the plant design is consistent with NRC Rules and Regulations, regulatory guides and other regulatory require-ments. Design methods and procedures of calculations are examined to establish their validity. Checks of actual calculations and other procedures of design and analysis are made by the staff to establish the validity of the applicant's design and to determine that that applicant has conducted his analysis and evaluation in sufficient depth and breadth to support required findings with respect to safety.
During the staff's review, the applicant is required to provide such additional infomation as is needed to complete the celuation. The principal features of the staff's review can be summarized as follows:
1.
A review is made of the population density and use characteristics of the site environs, and the physical characteristics of the site, including seismology, meteorology, geology and hydrology, to detemine that these characteristics have been evaluated adequately and have ueen given appropriate consideration in the plant design, and that the site charac-teristes are in accordance with the siting criteria (10 CFR Part 100),
taking into consideration the design of the facility including the engineered safety features provided.
2.
A review is perfomed of the facility design, and of programs for fabrication, construction and testing of the plant structures, systems, and components important to safety to determine that they are in accord 1146 130 w
we--e.-
-w-
+
=
. with tha regulations, regulatory guides, and other requirements, and that any departures from these requirements have been identified and j usti fied.
3.
Evaluations are made of the response of the facility to various anticipated operating transients and to a broad spectrum of hypo-thetical accidents. The potential consequences of these lupo-thetical accidentt are then evaluated conservatively to determine that the calculated potential offsite doses that might rnalt, in the very unlikely event of their occurrence, would not exceed the guidelines for site acceptability given in 10 CFR Part 100.
4.
A review is made of the applicant's plans for the conduct of plant operations including the organizational structure, the technical qualifications of operating and technical support personnel, the measures taken for industrial security, and the planning for emergency actions to be taken in the unlikely event of an accident that might affect the general public. An important aspect of this review includes an assessment of the applicant's programs for quality assurance and quality control to assure compliance with the Commission's requirements.
These reviews form the basis for determining whether the applicant is technically qualified to operate the plant'and whether he has established effective organizations and plans for continuing safe operation of the facility.
5.
Evaluations are made of the design of the systems provided for control of the radiciogical effluents from the plant to determine that these systems can control the release of radioactive wastes from the station within the limits specified by the regulations and that the applicant will operate the facility 1r such a manner as to reduce radioactive releases to levels that are as low as is reasonably achievable.
This review is conducted by members of the NRC staff and its consultants over a period of about a year. To the extent feasible and appropriate, the staff makes use of previous evaluations of other reactors approved for construction or operation, and previous evaluations of various aspects of reactor design described in topical reports, to expedite its review.
The licensing process includes the consideration of programs proposed by an applicant for a construction pennit to verify plant design features and to confirm design margins. The licensing process includes consideration of basic research and development programs necessary to assure the resolution of safety questions associated with safety features or components. The applicant must identify any research and development work that will be conducted to confirm the adequacy or to resolve any safety questions associated with the design of a particular facility, along with a schedule for completion of that
\\ \\ !;6 W
. research and development work. All such safety questions must be resolved prior to operation of the facility. After completion of construction, nuclear power plants are subject to operating license procedures and requirements. Data obtained from research and development programs on particular facilities and from the Commission's safety research program are factored into these licensing reviews.
When the review and etaluation of the application progresses to the point that the staff concludes that acceptable criteria, preliminary design infomation and financial infomation are documented adequately in the application, a Safety Evaluation Report is prepared. This report represents a summary of the review and evaluation of the application by the staff relative to the anticipated effect of the proposed facility on the public health and safety.
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), an independent statutory committee established to provide advice to the NRC on reactor safety, reviews each application for a construction permit or an operating license for a commercial nuclear. power plant. The ACRS is composed of a maximum of fifteen members who, though not NRC employees, are appointed by the NRC for terms of four years each. The members are experienced, technically trained individuals selected from various technical disciplines, having applicable experience in industry, research activities, and in the academic area. The ACRS also makes use of consultants in specialized technical disciplines.
As soon as an application for a construction pemit is docketed, copies of the PSAR are provided to the ACRS. Each application is assigned to a project subccrnmittee, usually made up of four to five ACRS members. During the course of the review by the staff, the ACRS is kept informed of the staff's requests for additional infomation from the applicant and of meetings held, so that the subcommittee chaiman is aware of any developments that may warrant a change in the plant.
In those cases where the plant is a " standard design" and the site appears generally acceptable, the subcommittee review does not begin until the staff has nearly completed 40 detailed review of all the safety-related features of the proposed facility. Where new or modified concepts of special site con-siderations are involved, tem ACRS subcommittee begins its fo wal review earlier in the process, selecting 9apropriate stages in the staff rey;ew to begin a series of meetings with the applicant and staff.
Nomally, before the full Committee considers a project, the staff provides its Safety Evaluation Report for the C1mmittee's infomation. This staff report and the report of the ACRS subctmmittee fom the basis for Committee consideration of a project. Special attention is given to those items which 11(6 132
. are of particular safety significance for the reactor involved and any new or advanced features proposed by the applicant. The full Committee meets at least once with the staff and with the applicant to discuss the application.
These meetings are open to the public. When the Committee has empleted its review, its report is submitted to the NRC in the fom of a letter to the Chaiman, which is made public.
The staff prepares one or more supplements to the Safety Evaluation Report to address the safety isses raised by the ACRS in its report and to include any other information made available since issuance of the original Safety Evaluation Report.
Either concurrently with or separately from the radiological safety review, an environmental review is perfomed by the staff and its consultants to evaluate the potential environmental impact of the proposed plant, as well as to provide comparisons between the benefits to be derived and the possible risk to the environment. After completion of this review, a Draft Environmental Statement (DES), containing conclusions on enviromental matters, is issued.
The DES is circulated for review and comments by the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies as well as by individuals and by organizations representing the public. After receipt of all comments and resolution of any outstanding issues, a Final Environmental Statement (FES) is issued and also is mada public.
The law requires that a public hearing (s) be held before a construction permit may be issued for a nuclear power plant. Soon after an application is docketed the NRC issues a notice of the hearing (s) which will be held after completion of the safety and environmental reviews.
In addition, the hearing is advertised in several newspapers in the vicinity of the proposed facility and a public announcement is issued by the NRC. Opportunity is afforded to interested members of the public to participate in the hearing.
Interested parties may submit uritten statements to the licensing board to be entered into the hearing record,
- hey may appear to give direct statements as limited participants in the hearing a-they may petition for leave to intervene as full participants in the hearing, thereby being granted the right of cross-examining all direct testimony in the proceeding. At an early stage in the review process, potential intervenors are invited to meet informally and discuss with the staff their concerns with respect to the proposed facility.
The public hearing (s) is conducted by a three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Boud (board) appointed from the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel.
The board is composed of one lawyer, who acts as chairman for the proceeding, and two other technically qualified persons.
11'6 133 The Safety Evaluation, its supplements and the Final Environmental Statement are offered as evidence by the staff at the public hearing (s). The hearing (s) may be a combined safety and environnental hearing or, in the case of a split application, separate hearings. The board considers all the evidence which has been presented, together with findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the parties and issues an initial decision.
If the initial _: cision regarding NEPA and safety matters is favorable, a construction pemit is issued to the applicant by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The board's initial decision is subject to review by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board on its own motion, or if exceptions are filed by any party to the proceeding.
Under certain circumstances the initial decision may be reviewed by the Commissioners.
Prior to a decision on a construction permit, Commission regulations provide that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may authorize limited amounts of work to be carried out prior to the issuance of the construction pemit.
This authorization is known as a Limited Work Authorization (LWA). The regulations provide for the authorization of two types of work. Under one type, he may authorize site preparation work, installation of temporary construction support facilities, excavation, construction of service facilities and certain other construction not subject to the quality assurance requirements.
Under the second type of LWA, he may authorize the installation of structural foundations.
Any LWA may be granted only after the hearing board has made all of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) findings required by the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 for the issuance of a construction pemit and has detemined that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed site is a suitable location for a nuclear power reactor of the general size and type proposed from a radiological health and safety standpoint. The second type may be granted if, in addition to the findings described above, the hearing board detemines that there are no unresolved safety issues relating to the work to be authorized.
It should also be noted that the Commission's regulations also provide that hearing boards commence hearings on the LWA as soon as practicable after issuance of the FES but no later than 30 days after its issuance. The hearing board is also directed to issue an initial decision on NEPA findings and site suitability. The LWA may not be granted unless there is a favorable dccision on these matters.
The law requires that antitrust aspects of a nuclear power plant license application must be considered in the licensing process. The antitrust infomation submitted by the applicant is sent to the Attorney General 11?6 134
' for his advice on whether activities under the proposed license would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. Upon receipt, the Attorney General's advice is promptly published and opportunity is provided for interested parties to raise antitrust issues. An antitrust hearing may be held based on the recommendations of the Attorney General or on the petition of an interested party.
In any event, the NRC must make a finding on antitrust matters in each case wheretheissueisrajsed. Antitrust hearings are held separately from hearings on environmental and safety matters.
When the construction of the nuclear facility has progressed to the point where final design information and plans for operation are ready, the applicant submits the Final Safety Analysis Report in support of an application for an operating license. The FSAR sets forth the pertinent details on the final design of the facility, including final containment design, design of the nuclear core, and waste handling system. The FSAR also supplies plans for operation and procedures for coping with emergencies.
Again the staff makes a detailed review of the information. Amendments to the application and report 2 may be submitted from ti.ne to time. The staff prepares a Safety Evaluation Report (re the operating license) and, as during the construction permit stage, the ACRS again makes an independent evaluation and presents its advice to the Commission by letter. This second Safety Evaluation Report and its Supplements, the ACRS meetings and their letter to the Commission are available to or may be attended by the public.
A public hearing is not mandatory prior to the issuance of an operating license. However, soon after acceptance of the operating license application, the Commission publishes notice that it is considering issuance of the license.
The notice provides that any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding may petition the NRC to hold a hearing.
The requirements for a valid petition are the same as those described at the constructicn permit stage.
If a public hearing is held, the same deci:; ion process described for the construction permit hearing is applicable.
Each license for operation of z. nuclear reactor contains Technical Specifications, which set forth the particular safety and environmental protection measures to be imposed upon tre facility, and the conditions of its operation that are to be met in order to assure protection of the health and safety of the public and of the surrounding environment.
1106 135
=
.. 'In addition to the design review and the responsibilities described above, the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement assures by onsite inspections that each utility is operating its facility in accordance with the detailed provisions of its operating license, technical specifications, and operating procedures. These inspections, which may include a review of plant operating records, review of operating procedures, observation of operation, and inspections of various, inspection: plant components and systems, may extend over a peri of several days. The are performed by experienced personnel with a broad background in nuclear power. Specialists such as in the field of fire protection, electronics, security, health physics and others are available to the Reactor Inspectors as required. The inspections of nuclear power reactors, generally unannounced, are normally performed on a minimum frequency of once per month.
11'6 136
_ _-