ML20140F357
| ML20140F357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140F350 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603310377 | |
| Download: ML20140F357 (3) | |
Text
-
I
% u:
+
UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D
j WASMNGTON, D. C. 20555
%,...../
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 46 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE LA CROSSE ROILING WATER REACTOR (LACRWR1 DOCKET NO. 50-409
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated December 12, 1985, (Reference 1) Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) (the licensee) requested changes to Append,ix A technical specifications of Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 for the La Crosse Boiling (Water Reactor (LACBWR).
The changes involve revision i
to fuel exposure burnuo) limitatiens for fuel assemblies not located on the periphery of the core for Cycle 11.
-2.0 EVALUATION
2.1 Background
The LACBWR, owned and operated by the Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) in Wisconsin, is a 165 megawatt (thermal) plant, built by Allis Chalmers.
Of the 72 fuel assemblies, 28 are designated as outer assemblies and 44 are interior assemblies. The core for the current LACBWR fuel cycle (Cycle 10) contains only Exxon Type III fuel. The present fuel exposure limit of 16,800 MWD /MTU for nonperipheral fuel assemblies was approved by the staff in the Safety Evaluation (SE) for Amendment No. 26 to the LACBWR license (Reference 2). A temporary change to the LACBWR Technical Specifications was granted in Amendment No. 28 (Reference 3) which allowed nonperipheral fuel assemblies'to be exposed to 17,200 MWD /MTU.
Staff approval of these changes was based on (1) improved LACRWR fuel performance in Cycle 7 as shown'by low off-gas and primary coolant activity and (2) a commitment by DPC to (a) continue to monitor the off-gas activity and to provide estimates of any increase in fuel failures, and (b) examine all the fuel assemblies in the core at the next efueling outage, both visually and by dry sipping, to confirm the integrity of the assemblies and to identify the location of suspected leakers.
2.2 Discussion and Evaluation The subject arnendment application (Reference 1) affects Technical Specification 4.2.4.2.5, the corresponding surveillance requirement Specification 5.2.17.5 and the Specifications Bases. The specific change is an-ircrease in the maximum average exposure limit of any fuel assembly not on the periphery of the core from the presently approved 16,800 MWD /MTU to 18,000 MWD /MTU. The licensee's justification 9603310377 860325 ADOCK O Q DR
, for this change is the continued good performance of the LACBWR Type III (Exxon) fuel as evidenced by no indication of fuel clad degradation or fuel degradation in the continuously monitored off-cas or the routinely monitored reactor coolant activities.
In response to commitments by the licensee and identified in the staff SE for Amendment 28 to License No. DPR-45, DPC conducted a detailed visual examination of all the fuel in the LACBWR core at the end of Cycle 7.
One failed fuel rod was found in a Type I (Allis-Chalmers) fuel assembly. The remaining 71 fuel assemblies were subjected to a dry sipping test. No Allis-Chalmers fuel has been used since Cycle 7 and no defective assemblies or fuel rods in an assembly have been observed in the subsequent Cycles 8 and 9.
This information as well as a summary of off-gas and coolant activity measurements for all fuel cycles was provided by the licensee in a Table of " Fuel Performance in the LACBWR" as an attachment to Reference 1.
The data base material for Cycles 8, 9 and the last part of Cycle 7 is an update of material previously provided near the end of Cycle 7 and is supplemented by information on core configurations and fuel assembly exposure for the recent fuel cycles. The observation was made that a total of 18 Type III assemblies have achieved exposures greater than 18,000 MWD /MTV with three assemblies greater than 20,000 MWD /MTU. These were peripheral assembles which are not subject to the Technical Specification restriction, but are intended to demonstrate the performance of Type III fuel at or above the proposed Technical Specification exposure limit for nonperipheral assemblies.
Based on the staff review of the information provided in Reference 1, the staff concludes that the licensee has satisfied the previous commitment to closely monitor the off-gas and reactor coolant activity levels and to perform visual and sipping examinations at appropriate refueling outages since Cycle 7.
The licensee has also included continued surveillance of coolant and off-gas activity limitations in the Bases for the subject Technical Specifications to assure that operation in subsequent cycles will not continue with significant quantities of failed fuel. The staff also concludes that there is reasonable assurance that the extension of the burnup limit on LACBWR Type III fuel rods to 18,000 MWD /MTU will not result in a danger to the health and safety of the public. Further extensions of the burnup
~
limit may be possible, provided there is no unacceptable increase in the incidence of fuel failures during future cycles of operation.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, i
1
~
. of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exoosure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categ)orical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b no environmental imoact statement nor environmental assess-
~
ment 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 Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 REFERENCES
1.
JamesW. Taylor (DPC),LettertoIohnZwolinski(NRC), LAC-11318, December 12, 1985.
2.
Dennis M. Crutchfield (NRC), Letter to Frank Linder (DPC),
with Amendment 26 to License No. DPR-45, November 6, 1981.
3.
Dennis M. Crutchfield (NRC), Letter to Frank Linder (DPC),
with Amendment 28 to License No. DPR-45, March 11, 1982.
Principal Contributor:
M. McCoy Dated: March 25, 1986