ML20151G059

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 60 to Provisional License DPR-45

ML20151G059
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	04/11/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20151G055	List: ML20151G053 ML20151G057 ML20151G059 ML20151G077
References
NUDOCS 8804190190
Download: ML20151G059 (3)

Text

. , _ __ __ . _ . . . _

l

>D MGm

, I$g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y

j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5

l

% + .

• e ,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 60 TO PROVISIONAL LICENSE NO. DPR-45 l LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR) l DOCKET 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 due to economic considerations and on April 30,  !

1987 the reactor shutdown was completed. By June 12, 1987, all fuel had l been removed from the reactor and stored in the Fuel Element Storage Well (FESW). Dairyland Power Cooperative, in a letter dated May 22, 1987 l (LAC-12234) . requested that Provisional License No. DPR-45, for LACBWR, be amended to a possession-only license. Their request was granted by License Amendment No. 56, issued on August 4, 1987.

By letter dated November 12, 1987, (LAC-12434) as revised by letter dated January 29, 1988, (LAC-12484), DPC submitted proposed changes to the LACBWR Technical Specifications (TS) to reduce the shift crew size.

2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The licensee has requested to reduce the shift staffing because the plant has been permanently shutdown for decomissioning and the fuel removed from the reactor and placed in the Fuel Element Storage Well.

This request is supported by analysis of potential accidents that could  ;

still occur and the staffing needs to respond to these accidents. The requested changes would revise the following sections, based on a proposed crew composition of one shift supervisor with a Senior Reactor Operator License and one operator who is a qualified Control Room Watchstander: 1

a. Section 6.2.?.a - This section currently states that each on duty shift will be composed of at least the minimum shift crew  !

composition showa in Table 6.2.2.1. This table will be deleted and '

this section will be revised to state that "Each on duty shift  !

shall be composed of at least one Shift Supervisor with a Senior Reactor Operator License and one operator who is qualified as a Control Room Watchstander."

We find this requested change acceptable as ic provides adequate l personnel to monitor and respond to possible accidents at the facility which are significantly reducet. in potential effect with the reactor permanently shutdown.

8804190190 000411 PDR ADOCK 05000409 l P PDR I

l

- - - - - . . - - . - _ . . - - - ._ - _-,. _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _,-_____\

i l

! b. Section 6.2.2.b - This section which requires one licensed operator in the Control Room when fuel is in the reactor will be revised to state "A qualified Control Room Operator or Shift Supervisor shall be within visual and/or audio distance of the Control Room l annunciators.  :

I We find this change acce) table as there is no fuel in the reactor and we do not consider t1at full-time, dedicated monitoring of Control Room instrumentation is necessary. In addition adequcte I response time to alarms can be provided by the qualified i individuals within audio distance of the Control Room annunciators. ' , ,

c. Section 6.2.2.c - The requirements for two licensed operators in the Control Room during start-up, scheduled reactor shutdown and recovery from reactor trips will be deleted. -

We find this iaquested change acceptable as the conditions for l which this specification applies is no longer applicable for this <

facility since the reactor will not be refueled and will never start-up again.

d. Section 6.2.2.d - The requirement for an individual qualified in radiation protection procedures to be onsite when fuel is in the reactor will be changed to "an individual qualified in radiation protection procedures shall be onsite when there is fuel on site or there is a potential for release of radioactive materials."

1 We find this requested change to be acceptable since all fuel has been removed from the reactor and placed in the Fuel Element Storage Well.

e. Section 6.2.2.e - This section currently requires that all core i alterations shall be directly supervised by either a licensed l Senior Reactor Operator or Senior Reactor Operator Limited to Fuel i Handling, who has no other concurrent responsibilities during this operation. This section will be replaced by a new Section 6.2.2.c j which states that "All spent fuel handling shall be directly  !

supervised by either a Licensed Senior Operator or Senior Reactor Operator Limited to Fuel Handling." % addition, a new Section ,

6.2.2.d will be added that states "At least one additional Operator '

and one Health Physics Technician shall be onsite when spent fuel or a spent fuel shipping cask is being handled or when nonroutine evolutions are being conducted in the Fuel Element Storage Well.

We find these changes acceptable as all fuel has been renoved from the reactor and the TS will provide for adequate supervision and monitoring of work in the Fuel Element Storage Well.

3.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER. The staff has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Based on our environmental assessment we have determined that no environmental impact statement need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4,0 CONCLUSION A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility License and Opportunity for Prior Hearing was published in the Federal. Register on January 29, 1988 (53 FR 2662). No requests for hearing and no public coments were received.

The supplemental revision on this action provided by DPC letter dated January 29, 1988 (LAC-12484) did not change the application as described in the Notice. The January 29, 1988 revision proposed an additional requirement for an individual qualified in radiation protection to be onsite at all times when spent fuel is onsite in addition to the previously proposed requirenent for a Health Physics technician onsite when spent fuel or a spent fuel cask is being handled. The proposed TS as revised are more similar to the present TS which require an individual qualified in radiation protection to be on site when fuel is in the reactor.

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 comon defense and security nor the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: F. A11enspach Dated: April 11, 1988

-- -