ML19294A548
| ML19294A548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1978 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Madgett J DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812140314 | |
| Download: ML19294A548 (3) | |
Text
1EaA f'pm atcgS UNITED STATES j
o L.'[ f' t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON 3%
$ (J.!!i;. s)
WASHINGTOf f, D. C. 20555
'o4ji
%[,"#
December 7,1978 Docket No. 50-409 Mr.JohnP.Ma[lgett General Manager Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue, South La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
Dear Mr. Madgett:
We have completed a preliminary review of your submittal dated October 26, 1978, regarding your proposed modifications to the fuel element stcrage well (FESW) at the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor, LACBWR. We find that additional information is required to continue our review.
Please provide responses to the items identified in the enclosure.
Sincerely,
)'3 (y ;,,,,
'x d. n u.
n.,
73
}
,a Dennis L. Ziemann, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc:
See next page 781214G3(Y n
9 Dairyland Power Coope ative Decer.ber 7, 1973 9
CC Fritz Schubert, Esquire Staff Attorney I
Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue,' South j
La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
- 0. S. Heistand, Jr., Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius i
1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 3.
R. E. Shimshak La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Dairyland Power Cooperative i
P. O. Box 135 Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 La Crosse Public Library 800 Main Street La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 i
i Coulee Region Energy Coalition ATTN: George R. Nygaard P. O. Box 1583 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 i
s
~.
ENCLOSURE LACROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-409 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED SPENT FUEL STORAGE EXPANSION RE0 VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.
Your response to question 13 (forwarded by letter dated September 28, 1978) did not indicate whether the dose rate of 10-30 mrem /hr with the s ater level in the Fuel Element Storage Well (FESW) at the 680 foot elevation, was as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
If you have determined that this dose rate is ALARA, please provide the basis for your finding. The basis should include an estimate of the incremental decrease in dose rate vs. increases in FESW water level above the 680 foot elevation and a detailed discussion of the reasons why (incluJing quantitative cost effectiveness criteria) the FESW level should not be maximized (i.e. maintained at or near the 700 foot elevation) so taat the dose rate will be minimized.
If you have determined that the dose rate is not ALARA and therefore that an increase in FESW level is needed to attain an ALARA dose rate, please propose a change to your Technical Specifications that appropriately reflects the proper level requirements.
2.
In your response to our question 4 (forwarded by letter dated September 28, 1978) you stated that the average accumulated data for the year of 1978 to date, snowed that the FESW pool concentration of radionuclides was about 3x10-3,uc/ml with a resulting dose rate of approximately 6.0 mrem /hr.
Is this dose rate typical of what is expected with expanded storage capacity? Indicate whether or not the expected dose rate is ALARA, and provide the basis for your conclusion. Your r espcnse should contain a discussion of the ability of the purification system to minimize the concentration of radionuclides in the water, including a description of the purification system average yearly operating time, flow rate, minimum decontamination factor (DF), capacity of the demineralizer resin bed, and criteria for resin replacement.
In particular, justify why (including quantitative cost effectiveness factors) an increase in system flow and/or minimum DF (eg. DF = 10) should not be utilized to further reduce the present dose rate resultina from the concentration of radionuclides in the pool water.
E