ML25168A054
| ML25168A054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1983 |
| From: | Ebersole J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Palladino N NRC/Chairman |
| References | |
| Download: ML25168A054 (1) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Dr. Palladino:
May 17, 1983
SUBJECT:
ACRS REPORT ON THE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR During its 277th meeting, May 12-14, 1983, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the results of Phase II of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) as it has been applied to the La Crosse Boiling Water Reac-tor.
These matters were also discussed during a Subcommittee meeting in Washington, 0. C. on May 6, 1983.
During our review, we had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the Dairyland Power Cooperative (Licen-see) and the NRC Staff.
We al so had the benefit of the documents refer-enced.
The La Crosse plant is the third in Group 2 of the SEP to be reviewed; our review of the Yankee plant was reported in our letter dated April 19, 1983, and our review of the Haddam Neck plant is reported in our \
The La Crosse plant is unique in several respects.
It includes a boiling water reactor, designed and built by the Allis-Chalmers Company as part of the Atomic Energy Commission's Second Round Demonstra-tion Program and was subsequently turned over to the current Licensee.
It has been in commercial operation since 1969 but, like several other plants in the SEP, has not yet been issued a Full-Term Operating License (FTOL).
Of particular interest is the fact that, with an electrical power output of 50 MWe, it is the smallest commercial power reactor in operation in the United States.
In our report dated May 11, 1982 on the SEP evaluation of the Palisades plant, we commented on the objectives of the SEP and the extent to which they had been achieved.
Our review of the SEP in relation to the La Crosse plant has led to no changes in our previous findings regarding the extent to which the objectives of the SEP have been achieved and the manner in which the NRC Staff has conducted its review and assessment.
Of the 137 topics to be addressed in Phase II of the SEP, 36 were not ap-plicable to the La Crosse plant and 18 were deleted because they were being reviewed generically under either the Un resolved Safety Issues Pro-gram or the Three Mile Island Action Plan.
Of the 83 topics addressed 876
Honorable Nunzio May 17, 1983 in the NRC Staff's review, 52 were found to meet current NRC criteria or to be acceptable on another defined basis.
We have reviewed the assess-ments and conclusions of the NRC Staff relating to these topics and have found them appropriate.
The 31 remaining topics involved 70 issues relating to areas in which the La Crosse plant did not meet current criteria.
These issues were addressed by the Integrated Plant Safety Assessment and various resolutions have been proposed.
For 27 of the 70 issues included in the Integrated Assessment, the NRC Staff concluded that no backfit is required.
We concur.
For 21 of the remaining issues, changes to the Technical Specifications or procedures were recommended by the NRC Staff and agreed to by the Licensee.
For the 6 remaining issues for which the assessment has been completed, the Licensee has proposed hardware back fits for their resolution and the NRC Staff has found these proposals acceptable.
As has been the case for the other plants in the SEP, the Integrated Assessment has not been completed for a number of the issues, for which the Licensee has agreed to provide the results of studies, analyses and evaluations needed by the NRC Staff for its assessments and decisions.
All of these issues are of such a nature that hardware backfits may be required for their resolution.
The resolution of these issues will be addressed by the NRC Staff in a supplemental report.
Many of the issues still being evaluated by the Licensee relate to the effects of extreme environmental phenomena such as earthquakes, floods, and tornadoes, since the La Crosse plant was not designed to resist these phenomena at the levels that would be required by current criteria.
Use was made of a limited Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) in connection with the NRC Staff's evaluations.
Since a plant-specific PRA was not available for the La Crosse plant, the techniques used were similar to those used in similar circumstances for other plants in the SEP.
As in those other cases, we believe that the NRC Staff I s use of PRA was appro-priate and that suitable use was made of the results.
Our conclusions regarding the SEP review of the La Crosse plant are as fo 11 ows:
- 1.
The SEP has been conducted in such a manner that the stated objectives have been achieved for the most part for the La Crosse Plant.
877
Honorable Nunzio May 17, 1983
- 2.
The actions taken thus far by the NRC Staff in its SEP assessment of the La Crosse plant are acceptable.
- 3. The ACRS will defer its review of the FTOL for the La Crosse plant until the NRC Staff has completed its actions on the remaining SEP topics and the Unresolved Safety Issues and TMI Action Plan items.
Mr. Harold Etherington did not participate in Committee consideration of this matter.
References:
Sincerely, r-e1. f'~~L-Jesse C. Ebersole Acting Chairman
- 1.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, "Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Systematic Evaluation Program, La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor," Draft Report, NUREG-0827, dated April 1983.
- 2.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Safety Evaluation Reports, La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, Volumes 1-3, received April 15, 1983.
878