ML20126E512

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 43 to License DPR-45

ML20126E512
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	06/07/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20126E490	List: ML20126E487 ML20126E502 ML20126E512
References
NUDOCS 8506170104
Download: ML20126E512 (3)

Text

.

• puuvq% ~

UNITED STATES f n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ;p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...../ .

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 43 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-409

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By application dated September 29, 1982, Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC)

- (the licensee) requested a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) of the la Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR). The proposed amendment would revise TS 2.4.1 and 4.2.2.5 for Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Safety Valve (S/V) operability and surveillance requirements. Additional revisions were proposed in the areas of reactor vessel nil-ductility transition tem-perature, post-accident radiation monitoring instrumentation, emergency core cooling systems, and facility organization. This safety evaluation addresses only RCS S/V requirements.

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Detennination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 1983 (48 FR 49583). No comments or requests for hearing were received.

2.0 EVALUATION The changes proposed by the licensee, discussed in detail below, establish explicit operability and surveillance requirements for RCS S/V's consistent with requirements contained in ASME Sections VIII, 1962 Edition and ASME Section XI,1974 Edition including Summer 1975 Addenda as well as the Boiling Water Reactor Standard Technical Specifications (BWR STS).

In the licensee's proposed changes, existing TS 2.4.1 has been deleted and TS 4.2.2.5 hac been revised with a new RCS S/V limiting condition for operation.

Existing Specification 2.4.1 requires that the RCS be protected from over-pressurization by S/V's with a combined relieving capacity of 610,000 lb/hr at 1426 psig. Specification 4.2.2.5, as currently written, requires that the maximum S/V pressure settings not exceed the limitation of ASME Section VIII,1962 Edition and Nuclear Code Cases applicable as of June 1962.

g6170104850607 p ADOCK 05000409 PDR

2-The proposed Specification 4.2.2.5 requires a minimum of two RCS S/V's be oper-able at temperatures greater than 212 F with one valve set to lift at 1390 psig 1% and the second valve set to lift at either 1390 psig 1% or 1426 psig 1%. With one or more valves inoperable, the inoperable valve (s) must be made operable or the unit placed in hot shutdown in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and cold shutdown in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Associated surveillance requirements specify S/V set pressure 4

testing in accordance with the schedule and requirements of ASME Section XI, 1974 Edition including Summer 1975 Addenda.

ASME Section VIII,1962 Edition, Paragraph UG-133 requires that S/V set pressure be at or below the mcximum allowable working pressure of the protected vessel when at operating temperature. It further specifies that if multiple S/V's are used, only one S/V need to be set at or below the maximum allovable working pressure. The additional valves may be set to open at or below 105% of the maximum allowable working pressure.

The maximum allowable working pressure for the LACBWR RCS is 1400 psig at 650 F as stated in TS 2.2.1. Thus, the setpoints prescribed in the proposed TS 4.2.2.5 are consistent with existing TS 4.2.2.5 requirements and those contained in ASME Section VIII, 1962 Edition and, therefore, are acceptable, The proposed setpoint tolerance value of 1% is consistent with existing BWR STS requirements and is acceptable. However, as addressed in the proposed basis, if valve test data demonstrate setpoint drift less than or equal to 3% of the specified setpoint, the valve test will be considered satisfactory.

This allowance for setpoint drift is considered acceptable to the staff for two reasons:

a. The 3% tolerance is consistent with ASME Section VIII,1962 Edition and Nuclear Code Case N-1271,1972 specifications.

b. The S/V's, which must be removed for testing, will be reset to 1% of the specified setpoint prior to reinstallation even if the setpoint is found within the 3% tolerance.

The licensee's application also proposed the addition of Bases for TS 4.2.2.5.

The staff has reviewed the Bases which provide the background and supporting information for TS 4.2.2.5 and has determined that the Bases are consistent with the TS and are, therefore, acceptable.

i 6

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 and changes to the surveillance requirements. 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 inoividual or cumu-lative 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 eli exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility criteria Pursuant for categorical to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental 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 will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, andsuch (2) public activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the copron defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This Safety Evaluation has been prepared by W. G. Guldemand and R. Dudley.

Dated: June 7, 1985.

-