ML20029E940
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| ML20029E940 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/27/2020 |
| From: | Marlayna Vaaler Doell, Randall Fedors, Stephen Giebel, Leah Parks, Jessie Quintero, Bruce Watson Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs |
| To: | |
| S Giebel | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029E935 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML20029E940 (14) | |
Text
Lessons Learned On The La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Decommissioning Project Stephen Giebel, Marlayna Doell, Randall Fedors, Leah Parks, Jessie Quintero, Bruce Watson, CHP U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor
- AEC Demo. Reactor
- Allis-Chalmers Co.
- AKA The Tractor Reactor 2
LACBWR Background
- Located on the Mississippi River near La Crosse, WI
- Co-located with an Operating Coal-fired Power Plant
- Permanently Ceased Operations in April 1987
- Reactor Defueling Completed in June 1987 3
Regulatory History
- Provisional Operating License Granted in August 1973
- License Amended to Possession Only in August 1988
- LACBWR Decommissioning Plan (DP) Approved in August 1991 4
Recent Regulatory Activities
- Spent Fuel Elements to Dry Cask Storage in September 2012
- Reactor Vessel and Major Components Removed by 2015
- Possession Only License Transfer from DPC to La Crosse Solutions (LS) in May 2016 to complete the decommissioning
- LTP Amendment, Safety Evaluation, and Environmental Assessment Issued in May 2019
- Final Status Survey for License Termination in 2020 5
Key Lessons Learned
- Modifications or Alternatives to Current NRC Decommissioning Guidance (i.e., MARSSIM, RESRAD, etc.)
May Require Additional Staff Review Time
- New Decommissioning Approaches Without Adequate Supporting Information to Evaluate Technical Basis May Require Additional Staff Review Time
- Coordinate with the NRC and Other Stakeholders Early in the Decommissioning Process to Identify Potential Timeline Impacts 6
LACBWR Containment 7
Reactor Building Foundation 8
Reactor Building Foundation 9
Reactor Bowl Water Intrusion 10
Containment Venting -
Tritium Release 11
Circulation Water Discharge Pipe 12
Conclusions
- Although Alternative Decommissioning Approaches Can be Proposed, the Increased Review Time for Methodology and Dose Modeling Differing from the MARSSIM and RESRAD Guidance May be Significant
- Submissions Lacking Sufficient Detail to Establish the Technical Basis of Alternative Approaches May Require More Substantial Requests for Additional Information 13
Speaker Contact Information Stephen J. Giebel stephen.giebel@nrc.gov 301-415-5526 14