ML20125D204

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 42 to License DPR-45

ML20125D204
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	06/05/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20125D146	List: ML20125D142 ML20125D168 ML20125D204
References
NUDOCS 8506120277
Download: ML20125D204 (2)

Text

,

h o g UNITED STATES

[' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

• s.,...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 42 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-409 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By application dated October 18, 1984 as revised on January 10, 1985, Dairyland _ Power Cooperative (DPC) (the licensee) requested changes to License No. DPR-45 of the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor.

The proposed changes remove the quantity limitation of 100 millicuries each of any byproduct material and 100 milligrams each of any source or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated radioactively contaminated apparatus. The request would also remove the current limit of 10 curies of Cesium-137 in the fonn of a sealed source for instrument calibration.

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed l No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for i Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal l

Register on March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12143). No consnents or requests for l hearing were received.

2.0 EVALUATION In requesting the above changes, the licensee stated that they were necessary so that DPC would have greater flexibility in selection of radioactive sources l needed for calibration of radiation detection instrumentation. The staff has reviewed the proposed license conditions and has detennined that they

, are identical to the conditions nonnally included in licenses being issued to newly licensed plants. These new plant licenses place no restrictions on the amount or types of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material allowable for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components. The staff has also reviewed the licensee's technical specifications and has found that DPC has requirements similar to those in the Standard Technical Specifications for control and surveillance of sealed radioactive sources. In addition, the staff notes that commercially available calibration devices for radiation monitoring equipment often contain more than 10 curies of CS-137 and thus would be precluded from use l

under the current La Crosse license conditions. Hence, the staff concludes i

B506120277 850605 9 DR ADOCK O

that the 10-curies limit for Cesium-137 is overly restrictive and does not allow DPC sufficient flexibility in selection of sources for calibration of radiation detectors. Since the licensee's proposed license conditions are consistent with current NRC licensing criteria for new plants, the staff finds the changes to be acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no er.vironmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This Safety Evaluation has been prepared by R. Dudley.

Dated: June 5,1985.

- _- - . . _.