ML20209E924

Safety Evaluation Rept Supporting Amend 53 to License DPR-45.Neither EIS Nor Environ Assessment Necessary

ML20209E924
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	09/05/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20209E891	List: ML20209E887 ML20209E912 ML20209E924 ML20209E942
References
NUDOCS 8609110389
Download: ML20209E924 (2)

Text

_

!e,.  %, UNITE 3 STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

r.

• wAsHmorow, p. c. aossa A...../

_ SAFETY EVALUATION RY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 53 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR)

DOCKET NO. 50-409

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated Jul 11, 1984 as amended September 17, 1985, Dairyland PowerCooperative(yDPC) (the licensee) requested to add Section 4.2.1.10 to the LACBWR Technical Specifications. Section 4.2.1.10 would add operational requirements on the Containment Butiding ventilation inlet and exhaust dampers.

_ 2.0 EVALUATION A letter to the licensee dated November 29, 1978 identified two areas of concern associated with the operation of the containment vent and purge valves while the plant is at power. These concerns relate to the following possible events: 1) a LOCA occurring while the isolation signals for opening the purge / vent valves are overridden, and 2) a LOCA occurring during purge / vent valve nparations. Both of these events could produce unacceptable radioactive releases. In response to the letter, the licensee has provided infonnation concerning the operation of its vent and purge valves. On the basis of the submittals, the staff issued safety evaluations (SE) on December 12, 1980; December 12, 1983; April 30, 1984; and January 15, 1985. These SE indicated that the licensee's approach is acceptable, pending the receipt of acceptable changes to the plant Technical Specifications.

By letter dated July 11, 1984, the licensee submitted proposed modifications to the plant Technical Specifications. The licensee subsequently revised the proposed Technical Specifications in a letter dated September 17, 1985. This evaluation deals with the acceptability of the proposed Technical Specifications by comparing them to the model technical specifications as they were provided to the licensee in a letter dated March 19, 1982.

The LACBWR proposed Technical Specifications, as revised by the September 17, 1985 letter, are in conformance with the guidelines provided in our letter dated March 19, 1982 and, therefore, are acceptable. These Technical Specifications require the valve seals to be replaced at least once every 5 years and the isolation valves to have a closure time of 10 seconds or less. The Itcensee also specified that inoperable dampers would be restored to an operable status within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, or the affected penetration would be isolated within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> by use of an automatic isolation damper secured in the closed position, or by a blind flange, or the reactor will be shut down.

0609110309 n60909 PDR ADOCK 03000409 P PDR

fe..

t u . .,

2-On the basis of the licensee's proposed modifications to the LACBWR Technical Specifications being in confomance with the guidelines provided to the licensee, the staff concludes that the proposed technical specifications are acceptable.

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 I area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has detemined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the h types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no

.- significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation

!- exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that i

_ this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the elig(ibility 51.22(c)9). criteriatofor Pursuant 10categorical exclusion CFR 51.22(b) set forth in no environmental 10 CFR impact state-

' ment nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the

issuance of this amendment.

r

f

4.0 CONCLUSION

J[

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, l[ .

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 Commission's y' 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: J. Ridgely Dated: September 5, 1986 L

t I

s k

.. - - - - - . - - . - - - -