ML19346A345
| ML19346A345 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1981 |
| From: | Linder F DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-02-01.B, TASK-02-03.A, TASK-2-1.B, TASK-2-3.A, TASK-RR LAC-7594, NUDOCS 8106190176 | |
| Download: ML19346A345 (10) | |
Text
N _,. [ ts. '
D DA/RYLAND
[k COOPERAT/VE. po sox sa. ais EAST AV SOUTH. L A CROSSE. WISCONSIN M601 (008) 788 4 000 June 16, 1981 In reply,~please refer to LAC-7594
~
DOCKET NO. 50-809 U.
S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission 7
ATTN:
Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director f
q Division of Licensing
(
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation f
-9 Division of Operating Reactors Q g 2 S 193g p,,,
Washington, D. C.
20555 88
SUBJECT:
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE c \\/
LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR) s
\\
PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45 (O[\\
SEP TOPIC II.1.B, POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; SEP TOPIC II.3.A, HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION
Reference:
(1)
DPC Letter, LAC-7387, Linder to Eisenhut, dated February 27, 1981.
Gentlemen:
- Enclosed find Safety Evaluation Reports (SER's) for Populatian Distribution (SEP-II. l. B) and Hydrologic Description (SEP-II.3.A) which we have prepared for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor.
Our letter, Reference 1, identified topics for DPC to submit for NRC evaluation.
The subject topics were 'isted in the schedu]2, submitted with Reference 1.
If there are any questions regarding this letter, please contact us.
Very truly yours, DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE W
ggt,+
~
Frank Linder, General Manager 3DP:FL:af cc:
J. G. Keppler, Reg. Dir., NRC-DRO III NRC Resident InspectorL 106l'80lb Y
%. 3 l
'f
- c-LA CROSSE POILING WATER REACTOR SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM
- SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT TJ)PIC II.l'.B POPULATION DISTRIBUTION The safety objective of this topic is to assure that the exclusion arca, low population zone, and population center distance are in conformance with the requirements of 10CFR100 as reissued August 1,
.1980.
The review was conducted in accordance with the guidance given in NUR2G-75/087, " Standard Review Plan", Section 2.1.3,
" Population. Distribution", Revision 1.
The adequacy of emargency ptoparedness planning for the area surrounding the plant including the low population zone will be assessed by the Commission in a separate review effort.1 Tho ' region surrounding the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor is of low population and rural in character.
The population density within a 5-mile radius of the plant is 13.6 persons per square milel based upon population dispersions used in the La Crosse Boil-ing Water Reactor Safeguards Report (ACNP-65544)2 as updated using the prliminary 1980 census fig"res for Vernon County, Wisconsin.
The region has exhibited a stable population for the period 1960-1980 with rural townships along the river showing a modest growth and the incorporated Village of Genoa showing a decline.
No significant transient population is present.1 Individuals transient in the area are generally sports fisherman, U. S. Army Lock and Dam workers, and passengers in cars passing on state trunk highways.
Actual estimates were based on figures from the Wisconsin State Department of Transportation and were based on methodolog outlined in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP 1, Revision 1, " Criteria for Prepar-ation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants", Appendix 4.
The average seas:,nal transient population should not exceed 20% of the permanent population.
Much of the growth in number of individuals present is offset by residents absenting themselves daily during the work week for jobs in the La Crosse area 20 miles north.
The nearest incorporated city to the plant is La Crosse, Wisconsin, approximately 20 miles to the north with a 1930 initial census popu-lation of 48,000 to 49,000.
The growth of the La Crosse area has principally been in urbanized areas to the north of the city and the incorporated area population is expected to remain stable.
i 4
):
ks The exclusion area of LACBWR lies within a 1109-foot radius circle contered on the Reactor Building.
This area is determined in accordance with the requirements of 10CFR100.ll.7,1 as it defines the boundar_ at which radiation exposure to an individual in the two hours following the onset of the postulated fission product release would not exceed 25 Rem whole body or a total radiation dose of 300 Rems to the thyroid from iodine exposure.2 The low population zone was earlier defined in 10CFR Part 100 as "that area immediately surrounding the exclusion area which contains residents, the total number and density of which are such that there is a reasonable probability that appropriate protective measures could be taken in their behalf in the event of a serioud accident".2 For LACBWR, a 3-mile radius circle was used.
The upgraded Radiol-ogical Emergency Response Flanl now defines the Emergency Planning Zone as a 5-mile radius surrounding the plant.
The post event plume exposure doses were cr,1culated to determine an early notification radius.1 The result "4 calculations indicated that Environmental Protection Agency Protective Action Guidelines for sheltering (which are 20% of the levels utilized for requiring evacuation) of 1 Rem /hr whole body exposure and 5 Rems / hour thyroid exposure from iodine are not exceeded at 1-1/4 miles.
10CFR100.ll.a.2 defines the low population zone as the area in which exposure for the duration of the accident does not exceed 25 Rem whole body or 300 Rem to the thyroid from iodine exposure.
The LACBWR dose rates at 1-1/4 miles are below these limits; therefore, 1-1/4 miles is a conservative estimate of the low population zone.
Reasonabic protective measures can be taken for all individuals within a 5-mile radius of LACBWR;l therefore, this requirement of SRP Section 2.1.3 is satisfied for the low population zone.
The population center distance is defined as 2-1/2 times the low Population Zone distance (10CFR 100.ll.a.3) which for LACBWR is 1.67 milec.
10CFR 100.3.c restricts reactor sites so that no population center of greater than 25,000 persons shculd exist within this dis-tance for the normal operating life of the plant.
No population centers of greater than 25,000 people exist within approximately 18 miles of the plant and no population. area within a 5-mile radius currently exceeds 1,000 individuals or has any potential to Aeach 25,000 in the next 30 years; therefore, this requirement is met.
We conclude that the exclusion area, low population zone and population center distances specified for LACBWR are in compliance in 10CFR100 as revised August 1, 1980.
This completes the evaluation of this SEP topic.
Since the plant site conforms to current licensing criteria, no additional SEP review is required.
- ac Aes
O
~
F REFERENCES (1)
" Upgraded Radiological Emergency Response Plan", docketed to the U._ S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April _2,1981, DPC Letter LAC-7446, Linder to Eisenhut.
(2)
"La' Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Safeguards Report.(ACNP-65544)", prepared for the United States Ator M Energy.
Commission under AEC Contract No. AT (ll-1)-ba0, - revised August 1967 by the Atomic Energy Division of.Allis-Chalmers.
l
+
r L
t x
t
- - ~... -..
' p,
" '~
~
~
o s
LA CROSSE POILING WATER REACTOR SYSTENATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT TOPIC II.3.A HYDROLCGIC DESCRIPTION The ~ safety objective of this topic is to insure that an adequate hydrologic description of the site exists.
This enables review of.other SEP topics to be measured against the water levels listed in this-topic.
This review was conducted-'in accordance with the guidance given in NUREG-75/087, " Standard Keview Plan",
Section 2.4.1,
" Hydrologic Description".
The reactor site is in the Mississippi River valley.
In the vicinity of..the site, this valley is deeply cut into highly dis-sected' uplands.
From La Crosse to Prairio du Chien, the v&lley varies between L-1/2 and 4-1/2' miles in width.
The valley walls rise sharply 500 to 600 feet from river level.1 There is little or no agricultural use of the river valley ficor, which consists primarily of marshy land, islands between river channels, and extensions of a low-lying flood plain cut by ponds, sloughs, and meandering stream channels.. Numerous short, steep-sided valleys that have been cut into the uplands by tributary streams intercept the main river valley.
The valley walls of both the main and tributary channels are wooded.
The flat upland areas and some of the tributary valleys are cultivated and grazed.1 The main channel of the river varies greatly in width above and below the site.
A series of dams-are operated by the U. S. Army Corps of. Engineers for' navigational purposes.
Above dam No. 8 (about 3/4 mile north of the site), the river is nearly four miles wide. - Between dam No. 8 and the site, the river is 1500 to 2000-feet wide.
Below the site, tne river is relatively narrow for a
. distance of 20 miles, then gradually widens as the river approaches dam No. 9, 33 miles south of the site.1 The. site is on a filled-in area south of the Genoa steam plant.
Therefore drainage at the site must be provided.
There is allowance for runoff from the high' valley walls-to the east.
The site is favorably ~1ocated with respect to this runoff, however, because of 1-
.~
two short valleys. eas' af:the bluffs bordering the site.
One valley drains to the north and one to the south, so that only precipitation that falls on the bluff adjacent to the site and on a small portion of the upland area contributes tocrunoff
-directly'across the site.' ~This runoff is presently channeled along the hichway and railroad to prevent interference with travvic.I No' problems of flash floods have occurred at the site.
For'a distance of 40 miles downstream of the site, virtually all municipal water supplies for cities and townT along the river are obtained from ground water.
On the basis of readily-available published records, the nearest major city using the river water for direct human consumption is Davenport, Iowa, about 195 miles downstream.
The nearest user of river water for industrial purposes is the steam-power plant in Lansing, Iowa, acout 15 miles doenstream.. River water is used at this plant for condenser cool-
.ing.
There is no-other known user of river water for industrial purposes between the reactor site and Prairie du Chien, 40 miles down-river.1 The latest data on floor magnitude and frequency is a 1979 U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers document.2 The determined m.gnitudes and frequencies are:
Flood Return Flow Elevation Frequency
'{ Cubic Feet Per Sec.)
~(Feet Above MSL) 5 Year 134,000 10 Year 161,000
- 50. Year-224,000 635.21 100 Year 254,000 637.2 500 Year 321,000 640.0 The normal water elevation is identified as 620.0' MSL with the low water level at 615.4' MSL.
The site fill is at 639' MSL (Fig. 3.3).
The overall average annual flowrate (1930-1955 at La Crosse, Wis-
.consin) is 27,970 cfs.
The drainage area of the Genoa reactor site is 64,700 square miles.3 Structures containing safety-related equipment are listed below, together with their floor elevation.
There are no openings below grade which would contribute to significant flooding due to the presence of ground water.
The base :of the reactor containment vessel is located below grade, however, since it is designed-as a pressure vessel,;it is watertight, and its entrance and emergency airlocks are installed above 640' MSL.
The gas storage vaults and pipe tunnel from the Turbine. Hall to the Reactor Building are also below grade.. The flooding of the pipe tunnel and gas storage vaults if experienced would not-impair safe shutdown of the plant.
i
}- )
. o MSL Structure Level Reference Drawinc Turbine Building 640'0" Sargent & Lundy B <
Ground Floor Framing Plan o
LACBWP Generator Plant Crib House 640'0" Sargent & Lundy B Crib Mcase Foundation Plans LACBWR Generator Plant 1B Emergency Diesel 641'0" Sargent & Lundy A Generator Diesel Generator Building Floor and Roof Plans As much equipment is on pedestals, the use of floor elevations is conservative.
The 1965 flood which reached 638.2 feet MSL is considered at least a 200-year flood.2 The facility, while not operational at that time, was constructed.
The warning available to the facility of flood cresting is 4-5 days following crest at Minneapolis, Minnesota."
No major water infiltrations occurred at the site and had the plant been operational, shutdown would not have been required.
Based on the hydrologic projections of the U.
S.
Corps of Engineers,2 it is evident that LACBWR's interface with the hydrosphere is of adequate design to protect asainst major river flooding.
Actual experience in a 200-year flood indicates a very adequate margin for plant safety.
We conclude that the plant site adequately reflects a proper design to protect against floods of long return periods and that the hydro-logic description provided is adequate.
This completes the evaluation of this SEP topic, s.
.S, c
,k
- REFERENC5;S :
(1).
"La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor S ifeguard 3 Report
'(ACNP-65544)," prepared for the United States Atomic Energy Commission under AEC Contract No. AT(ll-1)-850, I
revised August 1967 by the Atomic Energy Division of
'Allis-Chalmers.
'(2)
" Upper Mississippi River Water Profile River Mile 0.0 to River Mile'847 5", by Servier, November, 1979, prepared by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Technical Flood
' Plane Management Task Force of the Upper Mississippi Basin Commission, as interpreted by Warren Gebert, U. S.
~
Geological Survey, Madison, Nisconsin to John Parkyn, Dailyland Power Coop #rative, April 30,.1981, by phone.
(3)
U.
S.
Department of Interior, Geological Survey Water Resources Division, " Geology and Hydrology of a Reactor Site Near Genoa, Vernon County, Wisconsin", by Alfred Clebsch, Jr.,- and Eric L. Meyer, August 1962.
(4)
U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, La Crosse, Wisconsin Office, Bruce Zimmerman to John P7rkyn, Dairyland Power Cooper-ative, June 15, 1981, by phone.
O '>4r o
Ii t+(k) s#
/g Y-IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) l.0 l# m m
$ $ Ell
_ -l ' 5 22 llll!M l
, em
.q
.g l 1.25 "l 1.4 i.6 o
l 4
N si; g{he 7
i(,,;,;(
7 I
i y
w y
4#
O ik>+~99Ri?!
%;<[5
/}
RO<>
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
- lle a anl@LE l.0 I.I 1" EM 1
g
'l.25 IA
' l.6 L
i
/
6" 4
1
+4
- r4
+
4,M//r/
~ ~ ~ ~ ^
~
//
- k a4%
<> v?
4tb "+$
O d..-,
-9 y
s i. _. -
ish
'^ #
- k UNE
(
,G
- ....,,,,, e':
, soa.
4fM l6IV 3 -v.:
. w}, ;
- p*.-'.
- .y_
-~
r['q{ V _17_ ~._37,y[QQ_
- .cz.$ f,b K":51 fa r+.. a$.
s
- c l
2p v
h,Md i;
3',
is
/
k7MRiN
$A.., -#.;&, F
~
~
JAMjf ~,,1 [ m_. 4..
.* ~ ' i'.,_
w r
n
,-- 1%g
=
w
_b j{
' ggnigyng;
., E P._'i
=
mu
,o
'm ? '*?. ) h
$0
.o
- r..m.. - d.i v -
~: mus t cc-M. s..rc
{
4 S,g
'i.,
y
'NO b hb.
2 Site Topography prior to installation of U. S.
Lock & Dam No. 8 at Genoa, Wisconsin and fill for site of La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor 3/4 miles south of Genoa.
U. S. Geological Survey Topographical Map -
15 Minute - Stoddard, WI - Minnesota - Iowa.
N4330 - W9100/15 - 1924.
'~
~
P00R BRIGINAL
I
.."4 a
- k'b"
/
m,W.,
- % + esk2.%..-- !
, %. )
7 v.,c,
.v i
w.
.Ni h f
b WNW#
Y$
J
~
.t S y (-T g = $!V~t:F,S Q _
. f3 i ; 2'-:.-L..Qv4
~.d$ &g.
. :.:Y-9'?dre.-}4lj.h,.n.s h M* % (kks?l{N: s
-sA%4.
-~
ll; :p R,
-.WEh",.1WMQ 7^t k
t am %
www ',,qu#+91(1b T-411b '}%,,
i pr.a 2
is
~%. ;.=. f:y" ;' ' l :9,N. n c m.....- 4
,.43.gg 3 ' 4,
.G LL a. V u; % ;1.4 ~, c g
,QiL'y,k-bd-l.%g'/(.hWs,QS7
\\.
~ip. ; :. / &
- T.4@Fg.'taySh u.dhr> S!E p
?
.. \\.-
743644M 4 n e
- gy ngy. v.
a i
Site Topography after installation of U.
S. Lock & Dam No. 8 and the fill for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor.
U. S. Geological Survey Topographical Map -
15 Minute - Stoddard, WI - Minnesota - Iowa.
U4330 - W9100/15 - 1965.
P00R ORIGINAL
~'~