ML20149G071
| ML20149G071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149G046 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801150019 | |
| Download: ML20149G071 (6) | |
Text
.
/
UNITED STATES o
~,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
g W ASHINGToN, D, C. 20555
>j
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 58 TO PROVISIONAL LICENSE NO. DPR-45 LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR)
DOCXET NO. 50-409
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On April 27, 1987 Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC, the licensee) announced that their la Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) would be permanently shutdown because of economic reasons and on April 30, 1987 the shutdown was completed. On June 12, 1987, all fuel had been removed from the reactor and stored in the Fuel Storage Basin. By letter dated May 22, 1987 (LAC-12234), DPC requested that Provisional License No. DPR-45 for LACBWR be amended to a possession-only status. License Amendment No.
56 issued on August 4, 1987, established the possession-only status.
By letter dated August 18, 1987 (LAC-12331), DPC submitted a Proposed Amendment to the LACBWR Technical Specifications (TS).
This proposed amendment is the second in a series of TS changes to bring them into agreement with the possession-only license. The proposed changes include the reduction of the fire brigade from five members to three, reassignment of training responsibilities for the fire brigade, deletion of the Training Supervisor position and reassignment of that position's res)onsibilities, changes to the Operations Review Committee (ORC) mem>ership due to the reduction in staff; and changes to the Facility Organization Chart. The submittal also refers to a previous organization change submitted to the staff for review on March 24, 1987 (LAC-12166),
which is an amendment to a submittal dated April 7, 1986 (LAC-11518).
The April 7, 1986, letter provided for organizational and title changes and updated the off-site organization Chart, Figure 6.2.1-1 to include these changes. The March 24, 1987, submittal reported two other organization changes, the new position of Assistant General Manager for Operations and the title changes of Director of External Affairs to Director of External Relations.
With respect to the proposed reduction in fire brigade size, we have miso considered an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix R Section III.H.
require!nents for fire brigades.
8801150019 esojo4 DR ADOCK 05000409 p
PDR l
. 2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION As an operating nuclear power plant, LACBWR had an approved fire protection program, meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48, Appendix A Criterion 3, and Appendix R.
The objectives of the fire protection system in an operating plant is to maintain the integrity of the engineered safety features and systems so that the safe shutdown capability and shutdown control of the facility are not lost. Since LACBWR has been permanently shutdown, the potential radiological hazard to the staff and public has been greatly reduced and will continue to be lessened with the )assage of time and the decay of fission and activation products. Althoug1 the fire protection systems importance is diminished because of the greatly reduced j
hazards, the licensee still plans to maintain the same systems that are described in their Final Safety Analysis Report of July 27, 1987. These systems consist of C0 floo61ng, halon flooding, portable extinguishers, sprinklersystems,ho$estationsandfirehydrants,portablesmoke ejectors, and a fire and smoke detection system consisting of 78 ionization type detectors and two thermal fire detectors located throughout the facility.
Since the facility is shutdown, protection of safe shutdown equipment and instrumentation is not required and only those systems that contain residual radioactivity such as the spent fuel, waste handling system, and systems containing activation products need be protected.
The spent fuel which contains essentially all of the dispersible radioactivity is under 16 feet of water; therefore, the threat of fire damage is only by loss of cooling / shielding water by boil off or leakage. The fuel pool is constructed of concrete and has a stainless steel liner so the potential for a significant pool water leak is not great and the loss of cooling water to the pool which might be caused by a fire would not require immediate. actions to repair or replace as the licensee estimates that with the heat load at the end of 1987, it would take five days to reach the boiling point and over two weeks to boil off water to near the top of the fuel. This would allow enough time to repair the system or provide an alternate supply.
In their August 18, 1987 letter, the licensee proposes to make several changes to Section 6 of their Technical Specifications (TS),
Administrative Controls, as follows:
A.
Reduction of the Fire Brigade Membership, Page 6-1 The Comissions Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0800, in Section 9.5 prescribes the criterion of Branch Technical Position (BTP) CMEB 9.5-1 for the review of applicant's SARs.
Paragraph C.3 of the BTP recommends that the operating reactor fire brigade should have five members on shift and this is the number DPC comitted to in their existing operational TS.
. Since they are now shutdown, the licensee proposes that the fire brigade membership be reduced from five members to three, since a fire no longer poses as significant a threat to the safety of the plant or the health and safety of the public as it did in operational service.
The proposal also removes the requirement that two LAC 8WR Plant Operators necessary for safe shutdown of the unit not be used as brigade members during a fire emergency.
National Fire Protection Association Code (NFPA-27-1975) does not specify the size of fire brigades or companies but states that companies may consist of two or more people trained in fire fighting and each company should have a leader. The staff has reviewed the effects of a fire on plant safety and potential hazards to the operating staff and the public and concludes that the consequences of a fire in a permanently shutdown and defueled facility as compared to i
an operating facility is similar to the risks expected in an independent spent fuel storage facility as covered by Part 72 of Chapter 10 of the Federal Regulations.
Part 72 requires that structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed and located so that they can continue to perform their safety functions effectively under credible fire and explosion t
exposure conditions and that explosion and fire detection and alarms and suppression systems be provided to minimize the adverse effect of fires and explosions on systems important to safety.
Since LACBWR meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R for operating reactors, it also meets or exceeds the Part 72 requirements for the protection against fire and explosion.
The licensee will continue the fire prevention program as it is described in the FSAR, in the backup assistance agreement with the Genoa Fire Department, and in the LACBWR Emergency Plan. The potential for fire has been substantially reduced because of the permanent shutdown and the need for safe shutdown capability is no longer required.
Therefore, the potential risks from a fire to the LACBWR staff are small and to the public even less and the staff concludes that reducing the fire brigade membership to three is acceptable. The staff also concludes that the licensee should be exempted from 10 CFR Part 50 Aapendix R Section III.H. with resaect to fire brigade members 11p size requirements because a five menser brigade is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)).
4 B.
Dairyland Power Cooperative Offsite Organization, Pages 6-2, 6-7, 6-8 and 6-11 In their submittal of April 7, 1986, DPC requested that the position of "Assistant General Manager-Power Group" be deleted and the LACBWR Plant Superintendent would then report directly to the General Manager. The proposal also requested that the TS be revised to state "General Manager", wherever "Assistant General Manager-Power Group appears on Pages 6-7, 6-8 and 6-11 such as Safety Review Committee (SRC) membership. The submittal also requested the title of manager, DPC Environmental Department be changed to Director of External Affairs.
In their submittal of March 24, 1987, DPC requested to amend the April 7 proposal by creating a new position of Assistant General Manager for Operations in place of the deleted position, but leaving the General Manager as a member of the SRC and the recipient of required reports and records.
In this amendment to the original proposal, the title of Director of External Affairs had been changed to Director of External Relations.
This position also renains a member of the SRC. Therefore the only changes are in the titles of positions and adding The General Manager to the Safety Review Committee.
The staff has reviewed the above organizational and title changes lt and, since they are merely administrative, find them to be acceptable.
C.
Dairyland Power Cooperative LACBWR Facility Organization, Pages 6-3 and 6-5 In their application for TS Arendment of August 18, 1987, the licensee, because of the facility shutdown and the resulting reduction in force, makes several organizational changes by deleting positions and reassigning responsibi ities.
The position of Training Supervisor has been deleted and his former duties and responsibilities have been assigned to a Shift Supervisor.
The application does not change the training program requirements, only the reassignment of overall training program administrative responsibilities.
The application also reassigns the Fire Brigade training program responsibilities from the Mechanical Engineer, who has been transferred to a corporate position and works only part-time for LACBWR, to a Technical Support Engineer who is familiar with the fire protection program.
The application also requests that the position of Instrument and Electrical Supervisor be deleted and the associated duties and
j
' responsibilities be assigned to the Operations Supervisor. This change removes the deleted position from Figure 6.2.2-1 and the Operations Review Committee (ORC) membership, Page 6-5.
To maintain ORC membership the position of Security and Safety Supervisor has been added to the ORC members.
The Operations Supervisor, to which the Instrument and Electrical Technicians have been assigned, has experience at LACBWR as an Operator, Senior Operator, and Shift Supervisor and as Operations Supervisor for over ten years and is therefore, well qualified to direct the technicians.
The Shift Supervisor, who has been assigned overall training program direction, also has experience as Operator, Senior Operator, Shift Supervisor, and prior to the facility shutdown had responsibilities for developing LACBWR training programs for the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation's accreditation. This accreditation has been received for training programs for managers and technical staff, shift technical advisor, operator-senior operator requalification, and general employee training.
Therefore, he is well qualified to administer the overall training program.
The Technical Support Engineer, to whom the fire brigade training has been assigned, has been at the LACBWR facility eleven years and has had various fire brigade assignments as a licensed operator and Shift Supervisor and participated in the DPC Appendix R review prior to the Commission's review. He is also responsible for LACBWR Emergency Planning. Therefore, he is qualified to administer the fire brigade
- training, The staff has reviewed the abov6 organizational changes and reassignment for the permanently shutdown condition and has determined that the assignments have been made to personnel who are qualified to direct these activities and, since the plant is not operating, the collateral responsibilities assigned to the above positions will not detract from the safety of the facility or the public and therefore, the changes are acceptable.
l 3.0 ENVIRON?tENTAL CONSIDERATION 1
This amendment involves an administrative change and a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted areas 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 i
the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative l
occupational radiation exposure.
t
- 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 categorical exclusion set forth in the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)&(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on May 7, 1986 (51 FR 16927) and September 23, 1987 (52 FR 35790). No public coments were received on either FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the pubile 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 comon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
X. R. Ridgway Dated:
January 4, 1988
_