ML20235B571

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 57 to License DPR-45

ML20235B571
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	09/15/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20235B532	List: ML20235B530 ML20235B555 ML20235B571
References
NUDOCS 8709240148
Download: ML20235B571 (4)

Text

_

I

'- enn l

+ UNITED STATES l

[ - - g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l y, j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.....,/ I SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE- 0F NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION )

SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 57 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45

^

LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR) l DOCKET NO. 50-409

)

i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

l On April 27, 1987 Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) announced that their 1 La Crosse Boiling Water (LACBWR) would ba permanently shutdown because  ;

of economic reasons and on April 30. 1987, the shutdown was completed. i On June 12, 1987, all fuel had been removed from the reactor'and stored 1

in the Fuel Storage Basin. By letter day May 22,1987(LAC-12234),OPC 1 requested that Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 for LACBWR be  ;

j amended to a possession-only status. License Amendment No. 56 issued on l August 4,1987 established'the possession-only status.  !

By letter dated June 19, 1987 (LAC-12265), DPC submitted a proposed amendment to the LACBWR Technical Specification (TS). The proposed amendment is the first in a; series of TS changes to bring them into 1 agreement with the possession-only license. The proposed changes fall'  ;

.into three categories: (1) removal of Inservice Inspection (ISI).  ;

requirements; (2) change of operating statements to non-operation' state-ments; and (3) the removal of operability requirements for nuclear instrumentation.

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was published in j the FEDERAL REGISTER on August 12, 1987 (52 FR 29913)'. No requests for hearing and no public comments were received.

2.C EVALUATION A. Removal of Operation Status of LACBWR, 1.3 The licensee proposes to revise TS Paragraph 1.3, Principle Activities, to change " operation of the reactor" to possession of the reactor." This change is to bring the TS into agreement with the possession-only license amendment previously issued. The staff has reviewed this proposed change and finds it to be acceptable.

B. Removal of Inservice Inspection Requirements, 3.0.10.f and 3.0.11 The'11censee proposes to delete TS Paragraph 3.0.10.f. and Section 3.0.11, and the Bases for Section 3.0.11. Section 3.0.10 specifies surveillance requirements for inservice inspection and testing of ASME Code Class 1, 2. and 3 components. Paragraphs a. through e.

8709240148 870915 PDR ADDCK 05000409 P PDR- _ _

of Section 3.0.10 remain unchanged, still requiring inservice inspection and testing of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components, pumps and valves in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler l and Pressure Vessel Code. Paragraph 3.0.10.f applies specifically '

to the inservice inspection of all non-conforming service sensitive lines identified in NUREG-0313 Rev 1, Technical Report on Material Selection and Processing Guidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping.

NUREG-0313 gives technical guidance in the selection and processing of materials used in austenitic stainless steel reactor coolant systems to prevent intergranular stress corrosion. The requirements in the subject paragraph and sections were placed in the LACBWR TS by Amendment No. 34, dated October 14, 1983 along with changes in other TS areas, at the request of the Commission. Paragraph 3.0.10.f specifies more frequent inservice inspections, 36-month intervals ,

vs. 80-month for the normal code frequency and Section 3.0.11  !

specifies that any replacement or repairs to ASME class 1, 2, and 3 lines will confonn to the NUREG-0313 guidelines.

I Since LACBWR has been placed in permanent shutdown, none of the l systems considered to be Class 1 and 2 will now be in high temperature- !

high pressure service. Therefore, there would be no Class 3 systems; I however, DPC has administrative 1y named Class 3 systems in Admin-  !

istrative Control Procedures, ACP 3.3, and some of these systems will remain in service such as the Fuel Storage Well and Cooling System, Component Cooling System, and Demineralized Water System.

These systems will still be maintained under TS Section 5.0 and tested under Section 3.0.10. The deletion of ASME Code Class 1 and .

2 maintenance and surveillance requirements will be addressed in  !

another amendment application. The deletion of the NUREG-0313 TS is l being requested at this time because the third 36-month inservice inspections are due but are no longer necessary.

The deletion of Section 3.0.11 concerning replacement and repairs to Class 1, 2, and 3 lines in conformance to NUREG-0313 is also no  ;

longer necessary since NUREG-0313, Rev 2 excludes inspection of piping systems that never operated over 200*F and are under four  ;

inches nominal diameter. '

The staff has reviewed this Sroposed change and agrees that with the shutdown of the facilit/ the requirements of NUREG-0313 no longer apply to LACBWR and can be deleted without increasing any i potential risks. Therefore, the changes are acceptable.

r t

C. Deletion of Nuclear Instrumentation Operability Requirements Conditions 3, 4, and 5, Section 4.1.3 The licensee proposes to delete TS Section 4.1.3 which presently requires at least one of the two source range channels to be operable in Conditions 3 (Hot Shutdown), 4 (Cold Shutdown), and 5 (Refueling). The reactor is pennanently shutdown and the fuel and neutron source have been permanently removed from the vessel; therefore, there is no longer a source of neutrons.

Since there is no operational condition in TS to cover this situation, the licensee has chosen to comply with all present TS requirements for Operational Condition 4 until the TS can be modified to the permanent shutdown condition. In Operational Condition 4, one nuclear instrument is required to be operable (maintained and tested) but is no longer needed since there is no source of neutrons.  !

The staff agrees that neutron monitoring is no longer required and the deletion of the source range monitoring requirement will not  ;

increase the safety risks of the shutdown reactor and is, therefore ;

acceptable.

D. Modification of Structural Integrity Requirements for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components, TS 5.2.2.23 and Bases 4/5.2.2.23 l

The licensee proposes to modify the structural integrity requirements for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components to limit these requirements to only those systems used to safely store the ,

irradiated fuel.

l As discussed in A above, ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 are no longer applicable to LACBWR since it is permanently shutdown; however, the licensee chooses to maintain this requirement until a later amendment when they will be removed or modified. This amendment limits the ASME Code maintenance and surveillance to only those systems needed for the safe storage of the fuel and will include the administratively designated Class 3 systems mentioned in A above. )

l The staff has reviewed the above change and finds it to be  ;

acceptable.

E. Modification of Reactor Core Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO),

4.2.4.1 The licensee proposes to modify LC0 4.2.4.1, which presently i specifies the reactor core power limit of 165 Mwt, to reflect the i shutdown status of LACBWR.

The staff has reviewed the above change and finds it to be j acceptable.  ;

q

. 4 .

I

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves an administrative change and a change to a l requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility compo- j nents 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 the types, of any j effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant j increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. 1 The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amend- 1 ment 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)&(10). Pursuantto'10CFR51.22(b)noenvironmentalimpact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection .

with the issuance of this amendment. f i

4.0 CONCLUSION

l 1

The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (S2 FR 29913) on August 12, 1987. No public comments were received.

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

that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of l

l the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner.

l and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the l Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be I inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.

I Principal Contributor: K. R. Ridgway Dated: September 15, 1987 l

l l

1 i

l I l

l l

i i

I

_____-__ a