ML20133F649

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 44 to License DPR-45

ML20133F649
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	10/08/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20133F637	List: ML20133F634 ML20133F646 ML20133F649
References
NUDOCS 8510110172
Download: ML20133F649 (2)

Text

. g no.

o UNITED STATES

, g 8 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, C E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%...../

SAFETY EVALUATIOi! BY TPE OFFICE OF NilCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT fl0. 44 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45 DAIRYLAND P01!ER COOPERATIVE LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR)

DOCKET NO. 50-409

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By application dated March 21, 1984, Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC)

(the licensee) requested a change to the technical specifications of the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR)

The Systematic Evaluation Program Integreted Assessment for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (NUREG-0827), dated June 1983 required an evaluation of the consequences of Mississippi River low water level resulting from a failure of dans downstream and proposal of a technical specification change, if necessary to identify the alternate cooling water source in the event normal communication with the river were lost.

On March 8, 1984, Dairyland Power Cooperetive submitted an evaluation of the consequences of low water level and on March 21, 1984, submitted a proposed amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 which included a technical specification modification for this item. On February 22, 1965, the licensee submitted additional information required to complete the NRC review of this item.

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for

.*

• Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Register on May 23, 1984 (49 FR 21829). No comments or requests for hearing were received.

2.0 EVALUATION The proposed change adds a new pargaraph 4.2.23 to require the Denineralized

'/irgin Water Tank to be operable with a minimum water level of I foot. The focus of concern is the assurance that a water supply be available to provide cooling water if corrunication with the primary heat sink is lost. Based on the submittal, the NRC staff concludes that I foot of water in the Virgin Water Storage Tank is enuugh to last one hour at the maximum flow of water (one pump) to the shutdown condenser shell. An alternate source of water can be established in less than I hour thereby providing a continuous source l of cooling water. If no other sources of water ere available, the Emergency

Service Water Supply System can be used to supply water. No technical specifications which anticipate a loss of ultimate heat sink are necessary, since for a sudden loss of river water (dan break), the event could not be anticipated and for a slow loss, since the circulation water pumps and the low pressure service water supply pumps lose suction before the High Pressure Service Water / Alternate Core Spray pumps (HPSW/ACS), so that the plant cannot operate and would be shut devn prior to losing suction on the HPSW/ACS pumps. Therefore, sufficient warning is available for a slow loss of river water level and the existing required serveillance on these pumps is adequate to de+.ernire operability.

3.0 ENVIPONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillence recuirenents. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no sionificant increase in the amounts, and no significant charge in the types, s of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational rediation exposure.

The Commission has previcusly issued a proposed finding that this anendnent involves no significant hazards consideration and there has'been no public comment on such finding. Accordirgly, 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 environmental impact statevent er environmental asse:s-men't need be prappred in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4,0 CONCLUSION The staff has cor.cluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

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

P 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributor: Joel S. Wiebe.

Dated: October 8,1985 l

L __ _