ML20203H316

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 50 to License DPR-45

ML20203H316
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	07/15/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20203H300	List: ML20203H295 ML20203H303 ML20203H316
References
NUDOCS 8608040366
Download: ML20203H316 (2)

Text

)

g/ s h )[og UNITED STATES l

1. N o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 p W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%......o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.50 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR)

DOCKET NO. 50-409

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By application dated February 21, 1986, Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC)

(the licensee) requested a change to Technical Specification 4.2.2.2 of the la Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR). The amendment request involves two minor wording changes regarding reactor coolant chemistry.

2.0 EVALUATION Technical Specification 4.2.2.2 currently states, "The time above the normal coolant chemistry limit should not exceed 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> per incident nor 2 weeks per year." The proposed license amendment states, "The time spent above the normal coolant chemistry limit..." The word " spent" was added between the words " time" and "above" to clarify the current technical specification.

Additionally, the licensee proposes to modify the followup statement which specifies the limiting condition for operation. The current statement reads, "When the single incident normal limit is exceeded an orderly shutdown shall be initiated..." The proposed statement reads, "If either time limit is exceeded an orderly shutdown shall be initiated...."

The revised wording of the reactor coolant chemistry specification clarifies, without changing, the actions to be taken if the coolant conductivity, pH, or chloride concentration are above the normal limits. The staff has determined that these wording changes help to clarify the specification and therefore concludes this license amendment is 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 area 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 the 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 this amendment 8608040366 860715 PDR ADOCK 05000409 P PDR

s 5 .

-~

involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 61.22(b) no environmental impact statement nor environmental assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4.0 CONCUISION 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 (21 such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's reculations and the issuance of this amendment will not he inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: J. Stang and R. Ruck Dated: July 15,1986 O

e

_ _ _ _