ML19224D576
| ML19224D576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1979 |
| From: | Hiestand O MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907120639 | |
| Download: ML19224D576 (9) | |
Text
.
MORGAN. LEWIS & BOCKlUS CoV N GE LGR S AT LAW isco M STnttT. N. W WA s m NGTON. D. C. 2c o36 Trtre 0%c coz e'2 - s c o o Ca e t t A; car ss M 2% E E:JCW mc. n.m July 3, 1979 Harold R.
Denton Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Reg".lation U.S.
Nuclear Regulctory Cortission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Show Cause Petition To Suspend Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 for Dairyland Power Cooperative's La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor
Dear Mr. Denton:
Dairyland Power Cooperative (Dairyland or DPC) is in receipt of your letter dated June 19, 1979 enclosing a copy of the petition dated May 21, 1979, filed by Anne K. Morse re-questing that an order he issued to suspend Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 for Dairyland's La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR).
In your letter you also indicated that this petition is being treated as a request to initiate a show cause proceeding under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.206 and that appropriate action will be taken on the petition within a reasonable time.
As the Commission recently noted in Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly), CLI-78-7, 7 NRC 429, 432-33 (1978)
The Director, upon receipt of a request to initiate an enforcement proceeding
. is not required to accord presumptive validity to every assertion of fact, irrespective of the degree of substantiation.
he is free to rely on a variety of sources of information including the comments of the licensee on the factual allegations.
(emphasis added).
'\\l 7tr JoJ 15!
790712aggp p
MORGAN. Lewis & BocKlUS 4
Harold R.
Denton July 3, 1979 Page Two Dairyland believes that the petition filed by Ms. Morse is without merit and should be denied in its entirety.
Accordingly, Dairyland submits the following comments on the factual allegation contained in her petition in order to assist NRC in its inquiry with respect to this petition:
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that Ms. Morse is a member of the Coulee Region Energy Coalition (CREC), an organization which is participating as an intervenor in two proceedings related to LACBWR which are currently pending before NRC licensing boards.
These proceedings involve (1) Dairyland's application to convert LACBWR s provisional operating license to a full term operating license, and (2) Dairyland's application for a license amendment authorizing the expansion of the capacity of the LACBWR spent fuel storage pool.
Ms. Morse has appeared as CREC's representative in both of these proceedings and a number of the allegations which she has made in her petition are similar, if not identical, to the contentions which CREC has raised in these proceedings.
Dairyland believes that the NRC licensing proceedings related to LACBWR which are already pending provide an appropriate and adequate forum within which to consider these issues and that they need not be reconsidered by NRC within the context of a show cause proceeding, Mo r eo ve r',
several of the allegations in her petition are related to issues which have already been addressed and re-solved by the NRC in connection with earlier amendments to the LACBWR operating license.
There is simply no need for NRC to re-hash these issues again at this juncture.
In Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point),
CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 1/7 (1975), the Commissirin established the general rule that parties must be prevented from using 10 C.F.R.
S 2.206 procedures as a vehicle for reconsideration of issues previously decided or for avoiding an existing forum in which they more logically should be presented.
(emphasis added).
See also Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly),
7 NRC at 433-35.
)'aJ 1 /6L EF ia4
MORG AN. LEWIS 6 BOCKlUS Harold R.
Denton July 3, 1979 Page Three It also should be noted that "the standard to be applied in determining whether to issue a show cause order is whether substantial health or safaty issues [have] been
.. a mere dispute over factual issues does not suffice."
raised Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly), 7 NRC at 432-33 (emphasis added)
NRC is simply not required to institute a show cause proceeding "whenever [it] receive [s] information ad-verse to the integrity of existing nuclear power safety or safe-guards systems."
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Strategic Special Nuclear Materials), CL1-77-3, 5 NRC 16 21 (1477).
The petition filed by Ms. Morse essentially contains allegations pertaining to seven separate issues related to the operation of the LACBWR plant.
While Dairyland does not believe that any of the allegations contained in the petition raise
" substantial health or safety issues," each of these allegations will be addressed seriatim below.
No. 1 Ms. Morse asserts that LACBWR is dependent upon "un-limited continuous venting of the containment" and that this practice is unsafe.
The original LACBWR design provides for such ventilation of the containment building.
Continuous sentilation of the containment building during normal operations facilitates access by plant workers for inspection and maintenance purposes.
Of course, the containment building can be isolated when and if necessary, Moreover, actual releases from reactor systems to the atmosphere through the stack are controlled through a gas recombiner, holding vessels, filters, and sensitive monitoring instrumentation.
There has never been a release which exceeded limits established by Technical Specifi-cations or created any significant hazard to plant workers or the public.
Contrary to the implication contained in the petition, NRC nevel directed Dairyland to limit venting to 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year pending further evaluation.
Rather, NRC requested Dairyland to limit venting or provide an evaluation justifying such venting.
Dairy _ land provided this evaluation.
The venting of containment at LACBWR has been reviewed by the NRC Staff,,in the past and the recent evaluation which Dairyland submitted is currently under-going additional review by the Staff.
The petition raises nothing new with respect to this issue.
MORGAN. LEWIS & BOCKlUS Harold R.
Denton July 3, 1979 Page Four No. 2 Ms. Morse asserts that the WES analysis of LACBWR entitled Liquefaction Analysis for La Cross (sic) Nuclear Power Station " casts doubt upon the ability of LACBWR to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 100.10(4) (c) (1). "
In its Preliminary Safety Assessment of the Liquefaction Potential at LACBWR based on this WES analysis, the 3RC Staff concluded that the seismic stability conditions do not present an immediate hazard to the LACBWR plant and that continued operation therefore does not present a hazard to the public health and safety because of liquefaction potential.
While Dairyland believes that the WES analysis is neficient in a number of respects and greatly overstates the
.iquefaction potential at the site, Dairyland and its consultant, Lames & Moore, have undertaken a comprehensive investigation of the liquefaction potential at the LACBWR site.
By letter dated April 30, 1973, the NRC Staff approved the scope of this investi-gation and urged Dairyland to proceed with the soil sampling, lab testing, and analysis designed to provide additional information on this subj ect.
The soil sampling was completed on June 2, 1979.
The status of this ongoing investigation was outlined by Dames &
Moore at the recent ACRS Subcommittee Meeting held on June 30, 1979.
The show cause petition provides no new facts or additional data with respect to this issue which would in any way undermine the continuing validity of the Staff's original assessment.
No. 3 Ms. Morse asserts that LACBWR fails to meet the re-quirements of Appendix J to Part 50 related to containment leakage, particularly with respect to electrical penetration leakage.
The technical specifications for LACBWR contain more stringent individual penetration leakage requirments than other reactors.
Appendix J to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 establishes a com-bined leakage specification for all penetrations.
Dairyland has requested that its technical specifications be revised to incorporate the requirments contained in Appendix J.
This re-vision would standardize reporting requirements with current bbb l O f!
MORGAN. Ltwls & BOCKlUS Harold R. Denton July 3, 1979 Page Five regulations and many of the occurrences referred to in the petition which were reportable under the existing technical specifications would not he 'onsidered reportable under the Appendix J standards.
Pcit t to February 1979, leakages have been observed as a result of tests across both containment barriers simultaneous:y only on two occasions.
It should be noted that nearly 9,000 individual penetration leak tests have been conducted since 1968.
Many of the leakage tests were simultaneous type tests conducted to determine leakage both toward the containment and toward the atmcsphere.
- Moreover, Dairyland has recently replaced and/or improved the insulation, sealant, and fittings associated with many of the penetratians, including the electrial penetrations and has observed a signifi-cant reduction in leakage rates as a result.
The Class A Integrated Leak Rate Test performed on May 17, 1979 illustrates the overall containment integrity of LACBWR is well within the Technical Specification limits.
The Class A Integrated Leak Rate Test results include leakage from electrical penetrations which were repaired immediately afterward.
The La Crosse facility is one of few reactors required to meet overall limits of.1% of containment air volume per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (this limit is ha7" that of many reactors) and in the recent test, leakage of.05 of con-tainment volume per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> was observed and documc <
The assertions and the accompanying data presented in the petition with respect to the leakage issue are based on earlier occurrences and completly ignore the results of the most recent Class A test as well as the substantial efforts which Dairyland has exerted in the past several months to reduce penetration leakage.
No. 4 Ms. Morse assert that LACBWR has had and continues to have " problems relative to Force Circulation Pump 1A" and that operation of LACBWR with a single loop " unduly endangers" the public health and safety.
LACBWR replaced ;he seals on the 1A Force Circulation Pump during the recent outage, and has placed this pump, and the loop back into service.
Dairyland has ex-perienced no problems with this pump and has operated on both loops during cycle E operation.
In any event, operation without lA Force Circulation Pump has always been a permissible mode of operation at LACBWP., ant the practicality of such operation has been actually demonstrated during recent plant operations.
The question of single
=
l
MORG AN. LEWIS & BOCKlUS Harold R.
Denton July 3, 1979 Page Six loop operation of LACBWR has been extensively reviewed by the NRC Staff in connection with the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP).
In its April 19, 1979 transmittal to Dairyland on this subj ect, the Staff summarized this revieu and concluded that
" operation with less than all loops in service at LACBWR is acceptable and no facility or Technical Specifications changes are required."
Nos. 5 and 6 Ms. Morse has made several allegations concerning fuel failures at LACBWR.
This issue has also been raised by CREC in connection with the pending licensing proceedings referenced to above.
The conditi;n of the LACBWR was reviewed by an ACRS Subcommittee on January 26, 1978.
License Amendment No. 11 to Provisional Operating License No. DPP-45 specifically contemplates that a certain amount of leakage it.m the LACBWR fuel assemblies would be permissible.
Testimony to the ACRS by NRC Staff personnel specifically addressed fuel condition.
The burn-up limitations which were imposed in this amendment, were for the purpose of maintaining fuel integrity.
At no time have emissions to the environment or radiarien exposure to plant personnel ever been abnormally high in any respect.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 137, Monday, July 18, 1977, a notice of an Abnormal Gecurrence Event -- Degraded Fuel Rod Incident.
This report in the Federal Register discussed the details of the fuel rod failures at the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor.
It mentioned that although this event was not the first incidence of fuel rod failures at LACBWR, the extent and degree of the previous failures were significantly less than for this occurrence.
It mentioned that the precise nature of the significance to public health of a major degradation of fuel integrity could vary from no effect to a health hazard.
The NRC concluded with this announcement:
The consequences of this event were a reductiot in electrical generating capacity, increased radiation levels in the reactor coolant, and various other areas at the plant, and a pos-sible extended refueling outege to bbb bbI
MORGAN. LEWIS & BOOKlUS Harold R.
Denton July 3, 1979 Page Seven evaluate the extent of fuel damage and to recover missing pieces of fuel and cladding located within the reactor vessel.
There were no personnel exposures to radiation and no radioactive releases to the environs in excess of regulatory iimits as a result of this occurrence.
No health hazards resulted nor were any likely. Page 36898 (em?hasis"aHded).
The limitations imposed in License kv.ndment 11 were designed to ensure thet the overall fuel condition at the end of Cycle 5 would be better than at the end of Cycle 4 In point of fact, the fuel condition at end of Cycle 5 was signifi-cantly improved over the fuel condition at end of Cycle 4 The burn-up limitations imposed in this amendment served their essential purpose and Dairyland does not believe that any appreciable benefit would have been derived by removing all of the remaining Allis-Chalmers fuel assemblies from the reactor prior to the beginning of fuel Cycle 6.
On the other hand, utilizing this fuel is higl.'" ' sirable from the standpoint of maintaining reactivity rates.
This Licensing Amendment also placed certain informa-tional gathering requirements on Dairyland.
These requirements included taking a sample for radiochemistry analysis following each reactor shutdown or startup which exceeded a certain rate so that this sampling would be performed whenever a scram occurred.
Ms. Morse contends that these reports are " violations" or " reports of a violation" when in fact they only reported to NRC the requested chemistry results following shutdowns as re-quired to keep the staff of the NRC fully aware of fuel conditiot.
parameters.
The initial startup produced random samplings showing alpha concentrations of reportable amounts.
No reportable off-gas emissions occurred.
The samples reported were taken during the first five days of the startup process when the reactor uas initially returned to normal circulation modes.
Through the year following the report which Ms. Morse referred to, the alpha con-centrations in the primary system diminished considerably.
J a sl
MORGAN. Ltwr, & Bocxius Harold R.
Denton July 3, 1979 Page Eight Finally, License Amendment No. 16 to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 specifically authorized Dairyland to resume cperations during Cycle 6 with the combination of the remaining Allis-Chalmers and the new Exxon Nuclear fuel and the burn-up limitations contained in that amendment to limit potential fuel defects.
This amendment concluded that "there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be en-dangered by operation in the proposed manner."
This amendment also expressly acknowledged that "the number and extent of failed assemblies is within that expected and predicted by the NRC Staff in our Safety Evaluation supporting cycle 5 operation " Ms. Morse's allegations to the contrary notwithe;anding, the NRC specifically addressed and resolved all of the questions related to the con-dition of the LACBE.
.el which she raised in her petition when NRC issued this recent amendment.
No. 7 Ms. Morse'- last set of allegations are directly re-lated to the LACBWR spent fuel pool proceeding now pending before the Atomic Safecy and Licensing Board in which she
's a participant.
Essentially, she assercs that no more spent iuel snm. td be produced until such time as D<iryland's proposed spent fuel pool expansion is approved by NRC.
Contirued operation of the facility during the balance of Cycle 6 v 11 praduce no more additional spent fuel than the amount produceo if the facility would shut down at this time.
There is no requn ement for a full care off load capability in reactor spent Tuel pools and, contrary to Ms. Morse's assertion, Dairyland does noc believe that the absence of such a capability is " generally refarded as irresponsible."
There are many other operating reacto_s similarly situated to LACBWR in this ' regard (i.e., without such a capability while their spent fuel pool expansion license amendment applications are pending before NRC).
The NRC Staff implicitly rejected these allegations when it ic;ued License Amendment No. 16 authorizing LACBWR to resume operations for Cycle 6.
The petition providee no additional information or data on this subject which affects the continuing validity of that determination.
3hb
MORGAN. lewis & BOCKlUS Harold R. Denton July 3, 1979 Page Nine For all the foregoing reasons, Dairyland respectfully submits that the petition filed by Ms. Morse should be denied in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted,
_ f 7
u
),. u _
O. S. Hiestand Attorney for Dairyland Power Cooperative
/mbl cc:
Dairy)at.d Service List
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter,of
)
Docket No. 50-409
)
Amendment to DAIRYLAND POWER COOFERATIVE
)
Provisional Operating
)
License No. DPR-45 (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has on this day been effected by personal delivery or first class mail on the following persons:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chrm.
Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comn.is sion Commission Washingten, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr, Ralph S.
Decker Board Panel Route 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Box 190D Commission Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Oceanography
- Appeal Board University of Uashington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Seattle, Washington 98195 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 hs
-2 Colleen Woodhead, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard J.
Goddard, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard Shimshak Plant Superintendent Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Fritz Schubert, Esquire Staff Attorney Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue, South La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Coulee Region Energy Coalition Coulee Region Energy P.
O. Box 1583 Coalition La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 P.
O.
Box 1583 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Attn:
Anne K. Morse
~ _
~ - _
f if
-u u
L.
4 o
I O.
S. Hiestand Dated:
July 3, 1979
.> s ';
,