ML20245J735

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 65 to License DPR-45

ML20245J735
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	04/26/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20245J716	List: ML20245J713 ML20245J717 ML20245J728 ML20245J735
References
NUDOCS 8905040236
Download: ML20245J735 (2)

Text

_ _ - _ - _ - - - _

OOa vy ;

1. l.

• UNITED STATES 1

.8" n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

[ . WASHINGTON, D, C. 20655

, k*****) .

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 65 TO POSSESSION-0NLY LICENSE NO. DPR-45 o

LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR)

DOCKET NO. 50-409

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On April 27, 1987, Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) announced that the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) would be permanently shutdown because of economic reasons and on April 30, 1987 the shutdown was completed. On June 12, 1987, all fuel had been removed from the reactor and stored in the Fuel Element StorageWell(FESW). By letter dated May 22, 1987, DPC requested that Provisional License No. DPR-45 for LACBWR be amended to a possession-only status. Amendment No. 56 issued on August 4, 1987 established the possession-only license status.-

By letter dated December 21, 1987, as revised February 22, 1988 and October 13,  ;

1988 DPC submitted a proposed decommissioning plan and proposed SAFSTOR '

TechnicalSpecifications(TS). By letter dated February 15, 1989 DPC requested  !

early action on the proposed SAFSTOR TS related to fuel storage for the diesel j fire pumps.

2.0 EVALUATION As an operating nuclear power plant, LACBWR had approved operational TS, .

I meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36 and 50.Ma. Since the reactor has  !

been permanently shutdown and now has a possession-only license, many of these

+

TS may be revised. In this proposed amendment DPC proposed to amend the TS requirements for storage of fuel for the fire pump diesel engines to accommodate the installation and use of new fuel tanks. l In its February 22, 1988 submittal DPC proposed the following TS on diesel fuel i storage to demonstrate that fire pump diesel engines would be operable:

"Each fire pump diesel engine shall be demonstrated OPERABLE (a) At least once per 31 days by verifying that the fuel storage tank for A unit contains at least 270 gallons of fuel or for B unit contains at least 108 gallons of fuel."

This proposed TS would allow a minimum of 270 gallons of fuel for the A unit diesel engine tank or 108 gallons in the B unit tank.

8905040236 890426 PDR N

P ADOCK 05000409 PNU

. l In its February 15, 1989 submittal DPC proposed early action on this TS because two new tanks of 265 gallon capacity each are being installed to replace the older differently sized tanks. OPC now proposes that the TS for diesel engine fuel storage read as follows:

l 1

"Each fire pump diesel engine shall be demonstrated OPERABLE (a) At least once per 31 days by verifying that the fuel storage tank for A unit contains at least 150 gallons of fuel and for B unit  !

contains at least 150 gallons of fuel."

This proposed TS would require 150 gallons'of fuel in both tanks and is therefore l more conservative than the February 22, 1988 proposed TS.

DPC has stated that each fire pump diesel consumes a maximum of 10 gallons of fuel per hour. The 150 gallons of fuel for each diesel engine would therefore allow each engine to operate for 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> without refueling. We agree that this is an adequate running time for most emergencies and is sufficient time to

, replenish the fuel supply from an existing 20,000 gallon fuel tank located j onsite.  !

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

i This amendment involves a change to a surveillance requirement for diesel engine fuel. - An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact .

has been published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on April 24, 1989 (54 FR 16437).  !

Based on the Environmental Assessment the Comission concluded that the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has determined that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration because it results in conservative requirements for the storage of fuel for fire pump diesel engines and allows the installation and use of new, more reliable fuel tanks.

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 ende,gered 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 common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: Peter B. Erickson Dated: April 26, 1989 1

1