\ :·· '•

Hr. ~11H am L. . Berg, Genera 1 Dairyland·Pi>werCooperative 3200 East Avenue· south P.O. Box 817' ·

- la Crosse, WI 54602-0817 · ·

April 11, 1997. ·, Manager ..

SUBJECT: ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT NO. 69 TO FACILITY POSSESSION ONLY LICENSE NO; DPR-45, LA CROSSE· BOILING WATER REACTOR (LA~BWR) TAC NO. M95276

Dear Hr. Berg:

The Co11111ission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 69 . to the Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) Possession Only License No. DPR-45, for the LACBWR facility and is in response to your ~pplication dal J April 10, 1996.

This amendment revises both thP body of the License and the Appe~d1x A Technical Specifications (TS) to the License. These changes to the Li.~ense and TS are structured to reflect the permanently defueled and shutdown status of the plaot. The amendment also removes the fire protection requirements,. radiological effluent controls, quality a~surance progr.am controls and administrative controls for the emergency and security plans from the Technical Specifications to licensee controlled documents.

A copy of our Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Co11111ission' s biweekly ltderal Regjster notice.

Docket No. 50-409

Enclosures: 1 . Amendment No. 69 to

License No. DPR-45 2. Safety Evaluation

cc w/enclosures: See next page

DISTRIBUTION: ·Qo.c:k8t.c.ftla,;·~409c .· PUBLIC POND r/f MFairttle

*SEE PR°EVIOUS CONCURRENCE .

Sincerely,

Original Signed by

Morton B. Fairtile, Senior Project Manager Non-Power Reactors and Deconmissioning

Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

TMartin SWeiss EHylton GH1ll (2)

OGC*

OGC (015-B-18) HWebber Region III CGrimes

. POND: PH J;/ ~ ~f POND: LA¥ ·· · HF1irtile '·· r EHylton ·· APH ·

2/28/97 1 /r9 /97 I /97 -tlFFICIAL RECORD COPY ·ciocUHENT NAME: G:\SECY\FAIRTILE\LACDEFTS.MBF.

1 4 ,, ~ .• "' 9704140262 970411 PDR ADOCK 05000409 p PDR

1 / .. . I !

. UNITED STATES .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WABHlf!IGTON, o .. c .. ~'

April u; 1997

Hr. ~i~li~m L. Berg; General Manager Da1ryland Power Cooperative 3200 East Avenue South P. 0. Box 817 La Crosse, WI 54602-0817

SUBJECT: ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT NO. 69 TO FACILITY POSSESSION ONLY LICENSE NO. DPR~45, LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR) TAC NO. M95276

Dear Hr. Berg:

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 69 to the Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) Possession Only license No. DPR-45, for the LACBWR· facility and is in response to your application dated April 10, 1996.

This amendw revises both the body of the License and the Appendix A Technical '. 1fications (TS) to the License. These changes to the License and TS are ~.ructured to reflect the permanently defueled and shutdown status of the plant. The amend~ent also removes the fire protection requirements, radiological effluent controls, quality assurance program controls and. administrative controls for the emergency and security plans from the Technical Specifications to licensee· tontrolled documents.

A copy of our Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice.

Docket No. 50-409

Enclosures: I. · Amendment No. 69 to

· License No. DPR-45 2. Safety Evaluation

cc·w;enclosures: See next page

Sincerely,

' ...,:--, -·~ """::£_ .....c-. •• I;:..;·- i.. L 1- ~ .b . -~ .. :. l. 't. l. •. \.£.'."

Morton B. Fairtile, Senior Project Manager Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning

Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

OairyJand, ~owe!". Cooperative

cc:

Fritz Schubert, Esq. Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue South La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601

Whieler, Van Sickle and Anderson Suite 801 25 W. Main Street

'Madison WI 5370J-j39g

Mr. Roger Christians, Plan~ Manager La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Dairyland Power Cooperative P. 0. Box 275 Genoa, .Wisconsin 54632

Town Chairman Town of Genoa Route l Genoa, Wisconsin 54632

Chairman Wisconsin Public Service

Co11111ission P. O. Box 7854 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854 ATTN. Hr. Lanning Smith

Regional Administrator Region Ill' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Convnission 801 Warrenvi1le Road Lisle, Illinois 60532~4351

. ,,.·

Docket No. 50-409 la Crosse Bofling.Water Reactor

/

, ...

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGL-ATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE

DOCKET NO. 50-409

LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR

POSSESSION ONLY LICENSE

Amendment No. 69 License No. DPR-45

l. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the· Commission or the NRC) has found that:

A. The application for amendment filed by the Dairyland Power Cooperative (the licensee) dated April 10, 1996 complies with the standards and requi~ements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; ·

B. Conitruction of the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor has been substantially completed in conformity with Construction Authorization No. CAPR-5, the application, the provisions of.the Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission;

C. The facility will be maintained in conformity with ttie application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission;

D. There is reasonable assurance: (i) that the activities authorized by this possession only license can be conducted without endan~ering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Commission;

E. The licensee is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized by this possession only license in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commission;

F. The licensee has satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 140 - "Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements," of the Commission's regulations;

'G. The issuance of this amendment.will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public and does not involve a significant hazards consideration;

. 9704140279 970411 PDR ADOCK 05000406 P PDR

- 2 -

H. The receipt, possession, and use of byproduct,· source and special . . nuclear materials as authorized by this license will be in. accordance with the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts JO, 40 and 70, · including 10 CFR Sections 30.33,. 40.32, 70.23 and 70.31; and

I. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Co::::iiission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

2. Possession Only License (POL) No. DPR-45, issued to Dairyland Power Cooperative is hereby amended .to ·read as follows:

A. This license applies to the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (herein "the facility" or "LACBWR") which is owned by the Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) and was formerly owned by the Convnission and operated by DPC under the provisions.of a Corrvnission contract and Provisional Operating Authorization No. DPRA-6 issued on October 31, 1969 (Docket No. 115-5). The facility is located in Vernon County, Wisconsin on the east bank of the Mississippi River, approximately one mile south of Genoa, Wisconsin and is described in the Safeguards Repcrt for Operating Authorization·(hereinafter Safet1 Analysis Report) filed by the Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, and subsequently converted to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 (Docket No. 50-409). By Amendment No. 63, dated August 18, 1988, the license was changed to Possession Only License No. OPR. 45.

B. Subject to the conditions and requirements incorporated herein, the Convnission hereby licenses the Dairyland Power Cooperative:

(1)

(2)

Pursuant to Section l04b of the Act and 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization facilities", to possess and maintain the facility at the designated locatirin in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in this license;

Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Part 70, to possess .at any time special nuclear material used as reactor fuel, in accordance wit~ the l imitatio11s for storage, as described in Section 2.2 FUEL STORAGE of Appendix A to this license;

(3) Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 to receive, possess, and use at any time any byproduct, source, and special nuclear material as sealed neutron or garrvna sources for reactor ·instrumentation and rarliation monitoring equipment calibration, and as fission .detectors in amounts as .required;

(4) Pursuant to the.Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source, or special nuclear materi~l without restriction to chemical or phys1cal ·form; for sanii;.le. analysis cir 'instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components; and

- 3 -

(5) Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts.30 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as were produced by the prior operation of the fa'cility.

c. ·This licerise shall be deemed to coritaiil and is subject to the conditions·specified in the following Commission regulations in 10 CFR Chapte~ I; ·Part 20, Section 30.34 ~f Part 30, Section 40.41 of Part 40, Seclions 50.54 and 50.59 of Part 50, and .Section ~0.32 of Part 70; and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, regulations and orders of the Conunisslon now or hereaft.er in effect; and is subjert to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:

(1) Maximum Power Level

The licensee is not authorized to operate the reactor. Fuel may not be placed in the reactor vessel.·

(2) Technical Specifications

The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 69, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall possess and maintain the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

(3) Physical Protection

The licensee shall fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved physical security, guard training and qualification, and safeguards contingency plans including amendments made pursuJnt to provisions of the Mi see 11 aneous Amendments and Search Requirements revision to 10 CFR 73.55 (51 FR 27817 and 27822) and to the authority of 10 CFR 50.90 and 10 CFR 50.54(p). The plan, which contains Safeguards Information protected under 10 CFR 73.21, is entitled, "Physical Security Plan for La Crosse Boili:1g . Water Reactor (LACBWR)," dated September 24, 1987 (LAC-12376) and as ame·nded by letters dated March 28, 1988, Revision 1 (LAC-12528) and April 28, 1988, Re~ision 2 (LAC-12549).

(4) Fire Protection

The licensee shall implement and maintain in effect all prov1s1ons of the facility Fire Protection Program as described therein and as approved by the NRC.

The . licensee may ma.ke changes to the approved Fi re Protection Program without prior NRC approval. only if those changes would not adversely affect the ability to maintain the fuel in the Fuel Element Storage· Wel 1. (spent fuel pool) in a safe condition in. the· event of a fire;

... ... ,·:

-

4 -

0. This Possession Only license supersedes and termihates in their entirety changes to the license issued in license Amendments: No. 17, July 27, 1979; No. 56, August 4, 1987: Nu. f:il. May 18, 1988; No. 63, August 18, 1988; and No. 66, August 7, 199!. ·

E. This amended license is.effective 30 days from the date of issuance and shall expire at midnight, March 29, 2031.

Attachment:

FOR THE NUCLfAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

!·. rl v, . . J 11 1_1•... • }. j· ·"!· ') '"f'(•·\ I' '

Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning

Project Directorate Division of Reactor Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Appendi~ A - Technical Specifications

Date of Issuance: ;..pdl 11, 1997

•.

LI

ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO.· 69

POSSESSION ONLY LICENSE NO. DPR-45

DOCKET NO. 50-409

Replace all of the pages of the Appendix A Technical Specifications with the attached pages.

•

.·

• Im -

DOCKET NO. 50-409

APPENDIX A

LICENSE NO. DPR-45

a

TECHNICAL SPECIFlr ATIONS FOR

LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR

. . ......

--- •-r TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1,. DEFINITIONS -------'-----------·---------.----------------------------------~ . 1-1

2. DESIGN FEATURES ------------------------·------------·----------------- 2-1

2.1 SITE -·-----·------------··---------·-~----·.--·------------------------ 2-1

2.1.1 Exclusion Area -~------------------------·-----~-----·-----·---- 2·1

2.2 FUEL STORAGE ··-··-----·---------------- ---·---------.-----------,-- · 2-1

2.2.1 Criticality --····------------------------------------- ------------ 2-1 2.2.2 Fue.I Restrictions ---- 7---------------·--------------------------- 2-1 2.2. 3 Drainage - -- - - - - - -.- - : • - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- • --- - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - 2-1 2.2.4 Capacity -- -· ~- -- - -· ---- ---- ------ - ---·----- ------------ --- - ---·- 2-1

3. APPLlf,;ABILITY 3-1

415. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ---------------------------------------· 4/5-1

4.1 FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING -·----------------------------~----- 4/5-1

4.1.1 General Fuel Storage,and Handling Requirements ----------·-- 4/5-1 4. 1.2 Fuel Element Storage Well ----------·-------------------------- 4/5-2

6. · ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS

6.1 RESPONSIBILITY --· • - • ---···---- ---- -·. - --·---- -- ---- • • ·. - -- -- - -- ---- 6-1

6.2 ORGANIZATION --- ---- -·--· - • - --- ------------·---- -- -- ----- ---- - -- ---- 6-f

6.3 FACILITY STAFF QUALIFICATIONS-------·-------------------------- 6-2

6.4 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ---c--·-·---·----------·-----·---·------ 6-2

6.4.1 ----------------------------------------·------------------------- 6-2 6.4.2 Programs - - -- • - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - --- - -- - --- - - · - -- -- - -- - - -- --- - - - - - - 6-3

6.4.2.1 Process Control Program --------~---·---------·------ 6-3 64.2.2 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual ------------~--------· 6-3 6.4.2.3 Radioactive Effluent Controls Program -----------~---- 6-3 6.4.2.4 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ------ 6-4

6.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ---'--------···--------------------·---- 6-5

6.6. HIGH RADIATION AREA ··-·---~-----~---------------------··'·------- 6-6

TS

\,

•

1. DEFINITIQNS . -· ,, =================================================================

·The following terms are defined so that unifor-n interpretation of these specifi­. cations may be achieved. When these terms appear in capitalizrd type, the following definitions apply in t.hese Technical Specifications.

ACTION

ACTION shall be that part of a specification which prescribes remedial measures required under designated conditions.

CHANNEL CALIBRATION

'.CHANNEL CALIBRATION shall be the adjustment, as necessary, oft• .. channel outputs such that it responds with the necessary range and accuracy to known values of the parametE':;· which the channel monitors. The CHANNEL CALIBRATION shall encompass the entire channel including the sensor and the alarm and/or trip functions. The CHANNEL CALIBRATION may be performed by any series of sequential, overlapping or total channel steps such that the entire channel is calibrated.

f.\,JEL HANDLING

FUEL HANDLING shall be the movement of any irradiated fuel within the Containment Building. Suspension of FUEL HANDLING shall not preclude completion of movement of the fuel to a safe, conservative position.

OPERABLE-OPERA Bl LITY

A system, subsystem, t.·ain. :"mponent or device shall be OPERABLE or rave OPERABILITY when it is capable of performing its specified function(s) and when all necessary attendant instrumentation, controls, a normal or an alternate electrical power source, cooling or seal water, lubricalior. or other auxiliary equipment that are required for the system. subsystem, train. component or device to perform its function(s1 are also capable of performing their related support function(s).

TS 1-1

, 2. DESIGN FEATURES =============~===:======================~========================

2.1 SITE

· EXCLUSION AREA

2, 1.1 The exclusion area shall be as described in the Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual,

2.2 FUEL STORAGE

CRITICALITY

22.1 The spent fuel storage racks are des:gned with a nominal 7.0 inch center­to-center distance between fuel assemblies in ea·:h individual rack assembly, with a boron impregnated poison plate between adjacent storage locations to ensure Ko.rt of~ 0.95 when flooded with unborated water,

FUEL RESTRICTIONS

2,2.2 Fuel stored in the storage well is restricted to fu;:il with stainless steel cladding which has a U-235 loading of~ 22.6 grams par axial centimeter of fuel assembly.

DRAINAGE

2.2,3 The Fuel Element Sto~age Well is designed and shall be maintained to prevent an inadvertent draining of the well below an elevation of 679 fl MSL.

CAPACITY

2.2,4 The Fuel Element Storage Well wa:; designed for a storage capacity of no more than 440 fuel assemblies, The maximum number of fuel assemblies stored in the Fuel Element Storage Well is limited to 333 spent fuel assemblies .

. TS .

• Mr. M. S. Tuckman

2·1

·. April Djstr1butjon:. , LCunningham

-

'·.:. ., .• -~--~ ._-, .. -~.· ... :- ...... -~ --=.-•• --.-.-,-----::-:-·

3. ~PP~ICABILITY

LIMITING CONDIT?'JN FOR OPERATION ==============================~====~=============================

3.1 · Limiting Conditions for Operation and ACTION requirements shall be applicable during the speCified applicable condition for eacn specification.

3.2 Adherence to the requirements of the Limiting C.ondition for Operation and/or astociated ACTION within the specified time interval shall constitute compliance with the specification. In the event the Limiting Condition for Operation is restor1:1J prior to expiration of the specified time interval, completion of the ACTION statement is not required.

3.3 Entry into specified .lpplicability state shall not be made unless the conditions of the Limiting Condition for Operation are met without reliance on provisions contained in the ACTION statements unless otherwise excepted.

SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS ================================================================= 3.4 Surveillance Requirements shall be applicable during the specified applicable conditions for individual Limiting Conditions for Operation unless otherwise stated in an individual Surveillance Requirement.

3. 5 Each Surveillance Requirement shall be performed within the specified surveillance interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval. ·

3.6 Performance of a Surveillance Requirement within the specified lime interval shall constitute compliance with OPERABILITY requirements for a Limiting Condition for Operation and associated ACTION statements unless otherwise required by the specification. Surveillance requirements do not have to be performed on inoperable equipment or on equipment not required to be OPERABLE. .

3. 7 Entry into a specified applicable condition shall not be made unless the Sui veillance Requirement(s) associated with the Limiting Condition for Operation have been performed within the stated surveillance interval or as otherwise specified.

TS 3-1

I '·

,

..4/5 . .PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

4.1 FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING

4.1. 1 . GENERAL FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING REQUIREMENTS

4 .1. 1.1 Irradiated fuel assemblies shall be stored underwater in spent fuel storage racks that are positioned on the bot!o.11 of the FL.al Element Storage Well or in approved on-site dry storage containers, or in an approved shipping cask.

4.1.1.2 During the handling of irradiated fuel assemblies that have been operated at power levels greater than 1 Mwt, the depth of water in the Fuel Element Storage Well shall be at least 2 feet above the active fuel, and only one fuel assembly will be moved at a time.

4.1.1.3 With the exception of a spent fuel shipping cask or transfer cask, the core spray bundle, the transfer canal shield plug .and the other components and fixt11res that are normally located and used within. the storage well, no objects heavier thar. a fuel assembly shall be handled over the Fuel Element Storage Well.

TS 4/5-1

•

I

.·' . '.

... FUEL _ST()RAG_E AND f:iANDUNG

. 4.1.2 FUEL ELEMENT STORAGE WELL

LIMiTING CONDITION FOR OPERATION ================================================================= The Fuel Element Storage Well (FESW) shall meet the following requirements:

a. Tt1e Fuel Elem&nt Storage Well water level shall be at least 16 feet above any irradiated fuel stored in thP spent fuel storage racks, and

b. Water in the storage well shall be maintained at a temperature~ 150°F.

APPLICABILITY: At all times.

a With water level less than 16 feet abo\e any irradiated fuel stored in the Fuel Elemer •• S: Jrage Well storage racks, take immediate action to rt:.;tore water level and suspend all operations involving FUEL HANDLING.

b With water temperature in the storage we:I above 1 S0°F, "..i actions to reduce water temperature to ~ 150°F within 24 hours and suspend any evolutions ir.volving FUEL HANDLING.

SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS =============~~==================================================

5 1 2. 1 The Fuel Element Storage. \Vell water level and FESW System water temperature shall be monitored at least once per 24 hours.

5. 1.2.2 The Fuel Element Storage Well water level ina1cation channel shall be. calibrated (CHANNEL CALIBRATION) at least once per 18 months.

TS 4/5-2

6. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS ··-··· ., _:

====~============================================================

6.1 RESPONSIBILITY . .

6. 1.1 The Plant Manager shall be responsible for overa:I facility operation and shall delegate iri writing the succession to this responsibility during his absence.

6. 1.2. A Control Room Operator shall be responsible for the Control Room comma.id function.

6.2 ORGANIZATION

6.2 1 FACILITY STAFF

6.2. 1 The facility orr:iriization shall be a!I follows:

a Each on-duly shift shall be cCJmpvsed of at least OM Certified Fuel Handler and one qualified Control Room,Operator when fuel is stored in the Fw1I Element Storage Well.•

b. A ciualified Control Room Operator shall be within visual and/or audio distance of the Control Room annunciators whenJuel is in the Fuel Element ~torage Well.

c. ·All h..iEL. HANDLING shall be directly supervised by a Certified Fuel Handler.

d. An ind1Jidual qualified in radiation protection procedures shall be on site when there is fuel on site or there is a potential for release of radioactive materials. Al least one additional Operator and one Health Physics Technician shall be on site when spent fuel or a spent fuel shipping cask _is being handled or when any evolutions are being conducted in or above the Fuel Element Storage Well. ·

• Shift crew composition may be one. less than the minimum requirements for a period of time not to exceed 2 hours in order to accommodate unexpected absence of on-duty shift crew members prL.vided immediate action is taken to restore the sh:'! rr~w composition to within the minimum requirements. This

··provision does not permit any·shift crew position· to be-unfilled upon shift change dlle to an oncomin1; .!-1111 crew member being late or absent.

_TS 6-1

;,OMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS· (Cont'd) ==============::::_==·=======================·==============-========.=== :

6.2.1.2 OVERTIME POLICY

The working hours of Operators, Certified Fuel Handlers, Mechanical Maintenance and Instrument & Electrical Technicians when performing dutie.s which may affect

·nuclear safety, and Health Physics Technicians, when performing radiation protection duties which may ~ffect the safety of the public, shall be limited.

In thEi event overtime must be used, the following restrictions shall be followed:

(1) The specified personnel shall not be perrriitted to work more than 16 hours straight, excluding shift turnover time.

(2) The specified personnel shall not be permitted to work more than 16 hours in any 24-hour period, more than 24 hours in any 48-hour period, nor more than 72 hour-; in any 7-day period.

(3) A break of at least B hours shall be allowed following overtime before the next schedL:led shift for the specified personnel, if the above limits are exceeded.

In the even! overtime must be used in excess of the above restrictions, the Plan\ Manager or 1-Jis designate, must authorize the deviation and the cause must be documented

6.3 FACILITY STAFF QUALIFICATIONS

6.3.1 Each member of the facility staff shall meet or exceed the minimum qualifications cf ANSI N 18. 1-1971 for comparable positions 1>xcept for the Health Physics Super~1sor who shall meet or exceed '.he qualifications of Regulatory Guide 1.8, September 1975.

6.4 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

6 4 1 In addition to the prcgrcims required by regulations, the programs specified in Section 6 4.2 shall be established, implemented and maintained.

TS 6-2

Ap~IN,l?TFV1 TIVI; .CONTRQ~~ •. (Ccmt'd) ., '·· .... , =================================================================

6.4.2. PROGRAMS

6.4.:C.1 PROCESS CONTROL PROGRAM (PCP!

a. The PCP shall be maintained.on site and will be available for NRC review.

b. Licensee-initiated changes to the PC? shall be submitted to the Commission in the annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the period in which the change(s) was made. This submittal shall contain:

Information to support the rationale for the change;

A determination that the change did not reduce the overall conformance of the solidified waste product to existing criteria for solid wastes; and

Documentation of the fact lhat the cha:1ge has been reviewed and found acc.::µtable by tlie ORC.

6.4.2.2 QFFSITE DOSE CALCULATION MANUAL CODCM}

1 he ODCM shall be maintained ty the licensee. Changes to the ODCM will be outlined in the annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report per Specification 6.5.1.1.d.

This submittal shall contain:

(1) Detailed information to support the rationale for the change. Information submitted should consist of a package of those pages of the ODCM to be changed with each page numbered and provided with an approval and dale box, together with appropriate analyses or evaluations justifying the change(s) and

(2) A determination that the change will not reduce the accuracy or reliability of dose calculations or setpoint determinations.

6.4.2.3 RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT CONTROLS PROGRAM

A program shall be provided conforming with 10 CFR 50 .. 36a for control of radio­active effluents and for maintaining the doses to members of the public from radioactive effluents· as low as reasonably achievable .. The program (1) shall be contained in ihe ODCM, (2) shall be implemented by operating procedures, and f3) shall include remedial action to be taken whenever the program limits are exceeded. The program shall include tl.e following elements:

TS 6-3

ADll,lllNISTRA"llVE CONTROLS·· (Cont"d) . = == === ======= = = = == ==-::..=.= ;= . .:. ·.: :..:;. ::;:;. =-= ~ -:;-.;:.::==.=. ~;:.-::.;: ~ = = =.::;== = = = == = == = = = = ==

(1) Limitations on the operability of radiriactive liquid and gaseous monitoring instrumentation, .including surveillance tests and setpoirit determination in. accordance with the methodology in the ODCM ·

(2) Limitations on the concentrations of radioactive material .released in liquid effluents to unrestricted arP.as conforming to 1 O CFR, Part 20, Appendix 8, Table 2, Column 2. ·

(3) Monito:-'.ng, sampling and analysis of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents in accordance with 1 O CFR 20 and with the methodology. and parameters in the ODCM. ·

(4) Limitations on the annual and quarterly doses or dose commitment to ·a member of the public from radioactive materials in liquid effluents released to unrestricted areas conforming to Appendix I to 10 CFR, Part 50. ·

(5) Determination or cumulative and proiP.l..•..: ! 1 contributions from radioactive effluents for the current .__.lr'1C:a: ,, 1arter and current calendar year in accordance with the methodolog1 an'" ,.,arameters in the ODCM at least every year.

(6) Limitations on the annual or quarterly air doses resulting from noble gases released in gaseous effluents to areas beyond the site boundary conforming to Appendix I to 10 CFR, Part 50. ·

(7) Limitations or. the annual and quarterlf doses to a member of the public frcm tritium and all radionuclides in par~:culate form with half-lives greater than eight days in gaseous effluents released Jo areas beyond the site boundary conforming to Appendix I to 10 CFR, 'part 50.

(8) Limitations on the annual dose or dose commitment to any member of the public due to release of radioactivity and to radiation from uranium fuel cycle sources conforming to 40 CFR, Part 190.

6.4 2.4 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRl·/1

A program shall be provided to monitor radiation and radionuclides in the environs or the .Pla.nt. The program shall provide representative measurements of . radioactivity in the highest potential exposure pathways. The prograrn shall (1) be · contained in the ODCM, (2) conform to the guidance of Appendix I to 10 CFR, Part 50 and (3) include the following:

TS 6·4.

' '

!.

..

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS • (Cont'd) ================================~=~===~==========================··

(1) Monitoring, sampling, analysis and reporting of radiation and radionuclides in the environment in accordance with the methodology and pc~ameters in the ODCM.

(2) Participation in an lnlP-rlaboratory Comparison Program to ensure that independent checks on ihe precision and accuracy of the measurements of radioactive material in the environmental sample matrices are performed as part of the Quality Ai;surance Progrc. .. 1 for environmental monitoring.

6.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

6.5. 1 ROUTINE REPORTS

In additi.on to the applicable reporting requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. the rollowing reports shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator of the Regional o·:'ice of. the NRC unless otherwise noted. ·

6.5.1.1 Reports required on· an annual basis shall be submiited by March 1 of each year and snail include:

a. A tabulation on an annual bas;s of the number of station, utility and othe.r personnel, including contractors, receiving exposures greater than 100 mRem/yrand their associated man rem exposure according to work and job functions, e.g., plant operations and surveillance, inservice inspection, routine maintenance, special maintenance (describe mai:itenance), waste processing, and fuel handling. The dose assignment to various duty functions may be estimates based on pocket dosimeter, TLD, or film badge measurements. Small exposures totaling less than 20% of the inaividual total dose need not be accounted for. In the aggregate, at leasi 80% of the total whole body dose received from external sources shall be assigned to specific major work functions. This tabulation is per the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.16, Revision 4, August, 1975.

b. A report containing a brief description of any changes, testing and expetiments conductt. 'under the criteria of 10 CFR 50 59, including a summary of the sarety evaluations of them.

c. An Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report which shall include summarized and tabulated results, including interpretations and. analysis of data trends, of environmental samples taken during the previous calendar. year. In the event that some results are not available for inclusion with the report, the report shall be submitted noting and · explaining the reasons for the missing results. The missing data shall be submitted as soon as possible in a supplementary report.

TS 6-5

' . . . .

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS - (Cont'd) =~=~============================================================= 0. .,,, • 0 '•"'•' ''M •';•' 0 ''\ ; '"' •(.,

·The report shall also include the following: a summary description of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program; a map of all sampling locations keyed to a table giving distances and directions from the plant, the results i;if the lntl;!rlaboratory Comparison Program, and a discuss.ion of all analyses in which the LLD was not achievable.

d. Radioactive Effluent Release Report

Paragraph (a)(2) of Part 50.36a, "Technical Specifications.on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors," of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that a report be made to the Commission annually. The report shall specify the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted· areas by liquid and gaseous effluents during the previous ye~;. With the exception of the collection of hourly meteorological data, the infonnation submitted shall be in accordance with Appendix B of Regulatory Guide 1.21 (Revision 1) dated June 1974 with data summarized on at least a quarterly basis.

This s;ime report shall include an assessment, performed in accordance wilh the Ortsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), of radiation doses to members of the public from radioai:uve liquid and gaseous effluents released beyond the effluent release boundary. This report shall contain any changes made to the ODCM during the previous twelve months.

6.6 HIGH RADIATION AREA

6.6. 1 In lieu of the "control device" or "alarm signal" required by paragraph 20 1601(a) of 10 CFR 20, each high radiation ;:irea in which the intensity of radiation, at 30 cm from the radiation source or surface that the radiation penetrates, is greater than 100 mrem/hr but less than 1000 "1rem/hr shall be barricaded and conspicuously posted as a high radiation area and entrance thereto shall be controlled by requiring issuance of a Special Work Permit (SWP). • Any individual or group of individuals permitted to enter such areas shall be provided with one or more or the following:

a. A radiation monitoring device which continuously indicates the radiation dose rate in the area.

• Health Physics personnel or.personnel escorted by Health Physics personnel shall be exempt from the SWP issuance requirement during the pedormance of their assigned radiation protection duties, provided they are following plant radiation protection procedures for entry into high radiation areas .

. ··.

TS 6-6

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS - (Cont'd) ····========~=~~===~~==========:=~========~=========================;··

b. A radiation monitoring device which continuously integrates the radiation dose rate in the area and alarms when a preset integrated dose is received. ·Entry into such areas with this monitoring device may be made after the dose rate levels in the area have been est.ablished and personnel have t.<:en made knowledgeable of them.

c. A health physics qualified individual (i.e., qualified in radiation. protection procedures) with a radiation dose rate monitoring device and who is responsible for providing positive exposure control over the activities within the area and who will perform periodic radiation surveillance at the frequency which will be establishea by the Health and Safety Supervisor or applicable SWP.

6.6.2. For each area with radiation levels greater than 1000 mrem/hr, al 30 cm (but less than 500 Rad/hr at 1 meter) from radiation source, or from any surface penetrated by the radiation, the control of Specification 6.6.1 shall be implemented and also:

( 1) Each e.1trance or access point to the area shall be maintained locked except during periods when access to the area is required. Positive control over each individual entry shall be by:

a. Maintaining the locked door keys under administrative control of the Certified Fuel Handler on duty or the Health and Safety Supervisor.

b. An approved SWP that specifies the doc;e rates in the immediate work areas and the maximum a:lowable stay time for individ ... als in that area.

9704140281 970411 PDR ADOCK 05000409 p PDR

TS

. •

UNITED STATES

NUCl.EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .. ,. .. ' . . .,,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 205M-0001

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFF ICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR RFj_" .. TION

SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 69 TO POSSESSION ONLY LICENSE NC . .JPR-45

DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE

LA-CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWRl

OOCKFT NO. 50-40~

1 . 0 INTRODUCTION

By le~ter dated April 10, 1996, Dairyland Power Cooperative (OPC or the licens~e) proposed to amend the facility Possrssion Only Li~ense No. DPR,45 and the Technical Specifications (TS) for the la Crosse Boiling Water Reattor (LACBWR or the· plant). These proposed-change~ to the License and TS are structured to reflect the permanently defunled and shutdown stat11s of the plant. The licensee proposes to amend the :s by removing the no longer needed sections, definitions or obsolete references related to reactor operations, and retaining a remainder that constitutes the proposed Oefueled Technical Specifications (OTS). DPC also proposes to remove the fire protection requirements, radiological effluent controls, quality assurance program controls and administrative controls for the emergency and security.plans to licensee controlled documents. D~~ used appropriate NRC guidance in transferring portions of the old TS to other licensing documents: the Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD), the Off•Site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), the Process CJntro 1 Program, the RadiJtion Protection Program, the Fire Protection Program or the Training Progro..n.

The plant was permarinntly shut down on April 30, 1987 and reactor defueling was completed on June ll, 1987. lll of the active reactor core components including spent fuel and control rods were transferred to the Fuel Element Storage Well which is the spent fuel storage pool·. License Condition 2.C.(l) prohibits reactor operation or placement of fuel back into the reactor vessel. By an NRC order dated August 7, 1991, the Decommissioning Pl an for the ·site was approved and implemented; this Plan proposed that the plant be maintained in a SAFSTOR mode and .it has been so maintained since being defueled. OPC envisioned a 30 to 50 year SAFSTOR interval prior to dismantlement. The term "SAFSTOR" derives from the NRC Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on decommissioning .of nuclear facilities (GEIS or NUREG-0586); it means that the facility is maintained in a condition of safe storage until decontamination and dismantlement is initiated.· However, some decontaminati.on or minor dismantlement could be required and appropriate during SAFSTOR .

• .

• ~ • .. <.- ... .' .~ ••

:y .. ; . '

- 2 -

3.0 EVALUATION llF PROPOSED CHANGES TO LICENSE CONDifIONS 2.C, 2;0, AND 2.E

The .staff restored.a previously .deleted License Condition. 2.C.(l) entitled: "Maximum Power Level," and revised it to state: "The licensee is not authorized to ~perate the reactor. Fu~l may not be plac~d in the reactor vessel." This license condition is a key re-1uirement of 10 CFR 50.82 for a plant that is being maintained in a decommissioning status.

License Condition 2.C.(2) "Technical Specifications" remains unchanged. It serves to make the TS an integral part of the license.

In License Amendment No. 61 dated May 18, 1988 and as· corrected by letter dated May 19, 1988, former License Conditions 2.C.(3) and 2.C.(4) were deleted. These license conditions separately dealt with the Physical Security and Safeguards Continqency Plans. As thP. Safeguards Contingency Plan is now a part of the Physical Security Plan, a new license condition, 2.C.(3) "Physical protection" replaces both the· former 2.C.(3) and (4).

Former License Condition 2.C.(6) "Fire Protection" was modified to eliminate reference to maintaining the plant in a "safe shutdown" condition in the event of a fire, as this requirement, derived from 10 CFR 50.48, relates only to operating reactors. The facility Fire Protection Program is structured to maintain the fuel i~ the spent fuel pool in a safe condition in the event of a fire. New license Condition 2.C.(4) which replaces the former 2.C.(6), allows the licensee to revise the Fire Protection Program if the changes don't decrease the level of protection of •he. spent fuel.

In License Amendment No. 66 dated August 7, 1991, former License Condit.ion 2.D was amended to provide a March 29, 2031 license expiration date. A new License Condition 2.E replaces the former 2.D and was amended to stat~: "Thi• amended license is effective 30-days from the date of issuance and shall expire at midnight, March ~9, 2031." The expiratinn date remains unchanged. A new License Condition 2.D has been added that . ·.~erly terminates all the former licenses and puts this new license in effect. The revised CAPO will be implemented simultaneously with the issuance of this license amendment, as it will contain requirements relocated from the TS.

Based on the above, the staff concludes that the LACBWR license contains the appropriate license conditions in Sections 2.C, 2.D and 2.E needed to safely maintain ·.:1e plant in the SAFSTOR configuration and is therefore, acceptable.

April. 8, 1997

.. - 3

4.0 EVALtiATION. OF PRO~OSED APPENDIX A TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES

The old or current TS, approved in License Amendmert No. 66, dated August 7, 1991, cons.ist of a· Table of Contents and six sections, as follows:

I. SIT[ 2 .. ·DEFINITIONS 3: APPLICABILITY 4/5. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMf.NTS 6. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS

. The new or proposed DTS and Table of Contents are reorganized with the old SITE Sectio~ 1 included in a new DESIGN FEATURES Section 2, as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS 2. DESIGN FEATURES 3. APPLICABILITY 4/5. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 6. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS

Sect ion 1. - old filTE now DEF!f 'JIONS

The old TS Section l SITE, contained information on site location and principal activities that has been replaced by License Conditions 2.A and 2.C.(l); therefore, the deletion of this old TS Section I is appropriate.

In the new DTS Section 1 DEFl~'ITIONS, the licensee proposed that the twenty derinitions and Surveillance Frequency Notation Table of the old Section 2 DEFINITIONS, be reduced to only four definitions as the deleted definitions and tabular value~ ·wer~ no longer valid in.the new DTS due to the permanently shutdown status of the plant. The staff rPviewed the material proposed for deletion, and verified that the sixteen del~ted definitions and table were no longer app)ic~ble, due to the shut~own and defueled status of the plant. The four remaining definitions were unchanged except for a minor improvement in the OPERABLE-OPERABILITY definition. The staff evaluated the four remaining definitions, the deletion of the table and the change to the one definition and found the proposed new DTS Section I. DEF IN IT IONS to be appropriate to the current plant status and, therefore, acceptable.

Section 2. - old PEFINITIONS now DESIGN FEAfURES

DPC properly used the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(4) to generate this new DTS section. The new Section 2 includes Subsections 2.1 SITE and 2.2 FUEL STORAGE. The new SITE subsection defines the exclusion area by reference to the ODCM, which is-appropriate per NRC Generic Letter 89-01. .The new FUEL · STORAGE subsection provides. {l) prevention of criticality requirements; (2) restrictions on type of cladding and U-235 loading of the fuel; (3)

··inadvertent fuel pool drainage restricL1ons;-and (l) a limit on the.maximum number of fuel elem~nts that can be stored in the pool. Thes~ four subsections are hew, licensee self-imposed restrictions on fuel pool oper•tions and are in addition to the pre-existi~g limits of old TS 4/5.l,

•,. ~. ' ._:,· ....... : ~. ··· ... ·. ·· .

..... .. r,~· •0114 .. . .le : . ·. >o,..

. ·~ 4 ~

which are ~arried over to the new OTS also, as Sections 4/5.1, and evaluated below. The allowed storage capacity of the Fuel Ele~1nt Storage Well remains unchanged at 333 fuel assemblies. Based on the above, the staff concludes that the riew DTS Settibn 2 is ac~eptable.

Se•: ion 3. - APPLICABILITY

This old TS section was retained in the new DTS, unchanged in number, title and content. It properly .defines the applicability of the limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements. Based on this, the 5taff concludes that Section 3 remains acceptable~

Section 4/5. - PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

The number and title of this old section was retai~ed in the new DTS. DPC proposed deletion of those portions of the old Section 4/5 that related to reactor operations and retained or relocated those requirements still relevant to the current SAFSTOR plant status·, as described below.

Old Subsections 4/5.l FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING. These subsections were retained in the new DTS with the following changes. The term "element" was replaced with "assembly," which more clearly describes the spent fuel bundles and Is, therefore, acceptable. The phrase" ... the.reactor upper cavity and/or" was deleteJ as it was pertinent only during fuel loading into the reactor, which is now prohibited: therefore, this deletion serves to remove an unnecessary requirement and is acceptable. A transfer cask

·was adJ~d as a component that may be handled ove; the fuel pool. The licensee performed an analysis of a shipping cask or other heavy load drop into the pool that as~umcd 1oss of all.gap activity in all 333 o.µ~nt fuel assemblies. This analysis was performed in Section 9.3 of the LACBWR Decommissioning Plan and previously found acceptable by the staff; therefore, it Is acceptable to allow a transfer cask to be handled over· the spent fuel pool. The licensee's addition of the term "CHANNEL CALI8RATION" to the surveillance requir~ment to ensure proper definition cf thu required prL.:edures is acceptable. Based on the above, ti;., staff concludes that the new DTS Subsections 4/5.1 are acceptable.

Old Subsections 4/5.1.2 FUEL ELEMENT STORAGE WELL. These old subsections, which prescribe mini. 1.Jm coverage of water over the spent fuel. and the maximum pool water tern, .rature, were retained in the n~w DTS with the following ad..:;• :on. T:., term "CHANNEL CALIBRATION" was properly added to the surveillar, ..: requirements tor water level indication in DTS 5.1.2.2. With the plant shut down since 1987, the spent' fuel is generating much less heat than when. the plant was in operation;. therefore, retention of the operating TS provisions and the addition of the term "CHANNEL CALIBRATION" is conservative. Based on the above, the staff concludes that retention of old Subs~ctiJns 4/5.1.2,· with the noted addition, is acceptab·I e.

. : .j Apri 1 9, 1997

···~· . . ~ ...

\.

... ~· 5 -

Old Subsections 4/5.1.3.FUEL ELEMENT· STORAGE WELL WATER CHEMISTRY. The licensee proposed relocation of this subs~ction to the.Radiation Pro.tecti o.n Program. The RacJ i at ion Protection Program is fully enforceable and inspectable arid, pursuanCto the' NRC's order of Au9ust· 7, 1991, ·· approving the licen~!!e's Decommissioning Plan, can only be changed using the require~ents and criteria of 10 CFR 50.5~. ·Based on the above, the staff concludes that the relocation of the fuel pool water chemistry

·program to the Radiation Protection Program· is acceptable.

01 d .Subsect i ans 4/5. I. 4 FUEL ELEMENT STORAGE WELL WATER SUPPLY. The licensee proposed the ~eletion of this subsection. This old TS served only to provide for the operability and surveillance of two water tanks on a once in seven day interval. Current daily evaporation and leakage losses are inconsequential. This low loss rate is due, in part, to the pool's being covered. The plant operating procedures ensure sources ·of make-up water. The pool level Indicators and area radiation monitors provide very early warning of lowered pool level. There are both a gravity feed and pumped sources of make-up water available. As the leakay~ 1nd evaporation rates have diminished to a very low ~Jvel and remained stable and ~n that the pool can sustain a much larger water loss other than leakage and evaporation without any safety consequences, the staff concludes that the deletion of old TS 4/5.1.4 is acceptable.

Old Subsections 4/5.2 CONTAINMENT BUILDING. The licensee proposed deletion of TS 4/5.2.1, 4/5.2.2, and 4/5.Z.3; all dealing with leak testing and maintenance of containment Integrity in the event of a losi­of-coolant accident (LOCA). The Containment Building was designed to contain and withstand the energy and .radiation releases resulting from the design basis LOCA. Sue/, an accident is no longer possible. However, the f~el pool is located within the Containment B~ilding and the consequences of fuel pool accidents must be considered. The worst fuel pool accident that could occur is the loss of all gap activity from the 333 fuel assemblies stored in the pool. As noted in the evaluation of the old Subsect icns 4/5.1 FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLI~. above, the consequences o. this accident were µreviously found acceptable by the staff. In that analysis it was assumed that the containment was not functional; therefore, the continued maintenance of the integrity of the ccitainment to resist LOCA forces or the loss of all spent fuel gap activity is not required. The licensee also proposed relocation of TS 4/5.2.4 VENTILATION SYSTEM EXHAUST, without change, to the ODCM by following the guidance of NRC Generic Letter 89-01. The ODCM is referenced in DTS Subsection 6.4.2.2, which requires the licensee to maintain the ODCM and provides the mechanism for changes to the ODf~. The ODCM is fully enforceable and

.. propo~~d·changes.are inspectable, This old subsection would therefore be completely eliminated from the TS. Based on the above, "the staff concludes that the deletion of old Subsections 4/5.2.J, 4/5.2.2, and 4/5.2.3 and relocation of old Subsection 4.5.2 to the ODCM are acceptable.

. . . . .

····.c.~~.11~~···

6 -

Old Subsections 4/5. 3 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS. The licensee proposed deletion of these subsections. These old TS subsections provided requirements for AC and DC power sources and distribution in support of reactor operations or to mitigate the conseq~ences of an accident.by providing electrical power for the safe shutdown of the reactor. This need no longer exists. The e~ectrical systems are also available, but not needed, to support fuel pool cooling ~nd ~o power the associated alarms, instruments ;,ind controls. If all power were lost at the site there would be a period of many weeks, during which DPC could restore power or r.1·ovide alternate sources of make-up water. After about two weeks, with. no iicensee action, the pool temperature would rise to about 114 F, a temperature significantly below the DTS upper limit of 150 F. Additionally, see analyses of old Subsections 4/5.1.4 and 4/5.2, above, for a discussion of fuel pool cooling and accident cJnsequences. As a reactor accident is no longer possibie and power to the fuel pool cooling components is not continuou"ly required for the reasons given above, the· staff conclud~~ .that deletion of old TS Subsection 4/5.3 is acceptable.

Old Subsec.ions 4/5.4 FTRE PROTECTION. The licensee proposed relocation of these subsections to the Fire Protection Program following the recommendations of NRC Generic Letter 88-12. Any proposed future changes to thP. Program must be performed under the requirements of License · Cond. ion 2.C.(4), which allows the licen.see to revise the Fire Protection Program if the changes do not decrease the level of protection of the spent fuel. The Fire Protection Program is inspectable and fully enforceable. Based on the above, the staff c~ncludes that the relocation of the requirements of old TS Sutsections 4/5.4 to the Fire Protectio~ Program is acceptable.

Old Subsections 4/5.5 INSERVICE INSPECTION. The licensee proposed the deletion of this subse~tion. This old subsection requires the inservice inspection and testing of ASME Class 3 components. By license Amendment No. 57, dated September 15, 1987, the Jtaff found that there were no Class 3 systems remaining at LACBWR; therefore, these requirements are unnecessary for the safe operation of the pl~nt in the SAFSTOR mode. Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that deleti~n of old Subsections 4/5.5 is acceptable.

Old Subsection~ 4/5.6 RADIATION MONITORING. The licensee proposed relocation of Subsections 4/5.6.l RADIATION MONITORS; 4/5.6.3 SEALED SOURCE CONTAMINATION to the Radiation Protection Program; and deletion of Subsections 4/5.6.2 POST-ACCIDENT RADIATION MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION. This oJd subsection would therefore be completely eliminated from the JS. The subsections proposed for relocation·would·be· transferred to· the Radiation Protection·Program. Any thange~ to this Program must be performed according to 10 CFR 50.59, as required by ttie NRC's order of August 7, 1991, authorizing decommissioning. The instrumentation in old TS 4/S.6.2. serv~d t6 provide informatfo~ rin radiation· levels d~ring and following a LOCA, an impossible event. These are high range instruments and would not be sensitive enough to detect radiation .releases resulting

. . . ' . .... ~ 7 ..

. from a fuel pool accid2nt. There are two lower range area radiation. monitors in the containment that are designed to respond to a fuel pool or fuel ~indllng accident. Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that· the relocation of old TS 4/5.6.l and 4/5.6.3 to the Radiation Protection Program and the deletion of old TS 4/5.6.2 are acceptable. ·

Old Subsections 4/5.7 RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS. The licensee proposed relocation of Subsections 4/5.7.l RADIOACTIVE LIQUID EFFLUENTS, 4/5.7.2 RADIOACTIVE GASEOUS EFFLUENTS, and 4/5.7.4 TOTAL DOSE to the POCH; and relocati~n of Subsection 4/5.7.3 SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE to the Process· Control Program (PCP). This t,1d subsection would therefore be completely eliminated from the TS. The proposed relocations are to be performed following the requirements of NRC Generic Letter 89-01. Both the ODCH and the.PCP are inspectaule and enforceable by the NRC and arP controlled by 10 CFR 50.59 criteria, a~ required by the NRC's order au~horizing cleco ..... iissioning dated August 7, 1991. Change procedures for the ODCM and PCP are controlled by new DTS Section 6.4.2 PROGP.AMS. Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that the proposed relocations to the ODCH and.PCP, as discussed abov~. are acceptable.

Old Subsections 4/5.B RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON. The licensee proposed relocation of these ~ntire subsections to the ODCM. The pr~posed relocation is to be performed fol lowing the guidance of NRC Generic Letter 89-01. As noted above, the ODCM is inspectable and enforceable. Change procedures for the ODCH are properly controlled by DTS Section 6.4.2 PROGRAMS. Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that the proposed re1ocation to the ODCM, as discussed abov&, is acceptable.

Ir mmary, based on the evaluati1.ns preserled above, the staff concludes that the n<?w DJS Section 4/5 PERFORMANCE REOUIRHIENTS is acceptable.

Section~. - ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS

.The title of thii Section was unchanged. DPC ~reposed the.following changes to the old TS Section 6: revision of two management and staff titles, deletion of old TS sections being relocated to other licensing documents, correction of a typographical error and de;etion of an obsolete footnote. Two new Subsections 6.4.2.3 RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT.CONTROlS PROGRAM and 6.4.2.4 RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT CONTROLS PROGRAM were added to the DTS. Those portions of the old TS still relevant to the current defueled plant status are retained in the DTS.

- 8 -

The new OTS Section 6 ADMINISTRATIVE' CONTROLS, like the old TS, properly defines directly or Lhrough reference to the QAPD: (1) plant staff responsibilities, qualifications and training, (2) f~cility organization, (3) shift crew composition, (4) safety review committees, (5) report.Ing, (6) plant procedures programs, .and (7) radiation protection programs.· All of the Section 6 changes are discussed in the following paragraphs:

Old Subsection 6.1 RESPONSIBILITY. This subsection.was retained except for a change In a management title from "Shift Supervisor" to "Control Room Operator." . With the·plant in a permanently defueled status, the former Shift Supervisor position, formerly part of the operating crew, has been replaced by the Control Room Operator position. The Shift Supervisor position is now~ facility management· position and is de~crib~d in the QAPD. The Control Room Operator is also a Certified Fuel Handler, trained and qualified to supervise operations and safely maintain the plant and stored fuel. Therefore, these title changes are acceptable as the . incumbents are qualified by training and experience to perform the defined tasks. The subsection retained its o;d number and title and was directly transferred from the old TS to the OT~. Based on the 1bove, the staff concludes that the new DTS Subsection 6.l is acceptable.

Old Subsection 6.2 ORGANIZATION. This sJbsection retains the same number and title in the DTS. All references to the "Shift Supervisor" position were removed and replaced by "Contro 1 Room Opetator." rh is chang~ is discussed and justified in DTS Subsection 6.1, above. In OTS Subsection 6.2.1.l(b) the following phrase was properly added to the last sentence: " ... when ..iel assemblies are stored in the Fuel Element Storage Well."

·In old ~uosection 6.2.1.1(2), which is retained, the following typographical error is corrected, "24-period" becomes "24-hour period." Otherwise, this paragraph remains unchanged. Old Subsection 6.2.1.l(e) has been retained but properly relocated as a footnote. [.!~~rl on the above, the staff concludes that the new DTS Subsection 6.2 i: ~~ceptable.

Old Subsection 6.3 FACILITY STAFF QUALIFICATIONS. This subsection was unchanged, retained its old number and title and.was directly transferred from the old TS to the DTS and i~ therefore acceptable. ·

Old Subsection 6.4 TRAINING. The licensee proposed relocation of the requirements of this old subsection to the Training Program. 10 CFR 50.36 does not require the training Program to be a part of the Technital Specifications. Changes to the Training Program will be controlled by the requirements of JO CFR 50.59, as required by the NRC's order of August 7, 1991, authorizing decommissioning. The Training Program is fully . enforceable and inspectable. Based on the above,· the staff concludes that· the relocation of the training req1.i'ircments in the· old TS to.the Training Program is acceptable.

'!'

Old Subsection 6.5 REVIEW AND AUDIT. The licensee proposes that the review and audit functions required by old TS 6.5 be relocated from the TS to the QAPD on the basis that these requirement~ are adequately controlled· in the QAPD. These requirements are necessary to ensure safe operation of the facll ity. The relocation of the old TS provisions to the QAPD, would not relieve the licensee of the r~quirements of 10 CFR 50.54 and IO CFR P;irt 50, Appendix B; therefore, an equal level of safety is ensured. The QAPO is inspectable and fully enforceable and such an approach would result in an equivalent level of regulatory authority while providing for a more appropriate change control process. The level of safety of plant operation, as discussed above, is unaffected by thi~ change. In addition, NRC and licensee resources associated with processing license amendments to thiS administrati\le control·may be used more effectively. The licensee properly used the guidance in NRC Administrative Letter 95-06 "Relocation of Technical Specification Administrative Controls Related to Quality Assurance." The staff ;n a separate review of the revised QAPD found the QAPD to be acceptable; see NRC letter to DPC dated . Based on the above, the staff concludes that the relocation of the old TS Review 'nd Audit requirements to the QAPD is acceptable.

Old Subsection 6.6 PROCEDURES. The licensee proposes to (1) delete portions of this subsection of the old TS, (2) to relocate old Subsections 6.6.2 and 6.6.3 to the QAPD, (3) to change the subsection number and name to OTS Section 6.4 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, (4) delete an obsolete footnote, and (5) add two new subsections to DTS Section 6.4. As old Subsections 6.4 and 6.5 were.relocated by removal from the TS, as discussed above, a gap in TS numbering would be incurred if this new DTS section was not renumbered as "6.4." The new title properly describes the contents of the new ~ection. Therefore. the TS number and title change portions of the proposed changes are acceptable. The remainder of the old Subsection 6.6 changes are evaluated below.

The staff evaluations of the deletions of Old Subsection 6.6.1 are as folltw: Old Paragraphs 6.6.l.a, 6.6.1.b, 6.6.l.c, and 6.6.1.g were references to written procedures covering the use of: (6.6.1.a) Regulator; Guide 1.33, (6.6.1.b) fuel handling, (6.6.1.c) equipment test and surveillance, and (6.6.l.g) implementation of the ODCM and PCP. The implementation and maintenance of these.procedures has been properly relocated to the approved QAPD. Old Paragraphs 6.6.1.d, 6.6.l~e. and 6.6.1.f were references to written procedures covering implementation of: (6.6.1,d) the Security Plan,. (5.6.1.e) the Emergency Plan, and (6.6.1.f) the Fire Protection Program; The requirements for the Security Plan and the Fire.Protection Prograr.1 are provided in License Conditions 2.C.(3) and 2.C.(4), respectively, of the POL; the Emergency Plan reference in this subsection 'as properly .deleted using the guidance of NRC·Generic Letter 93-07. Bas~d on the above, the staff co~cludds that.these deletions are acceptable. ·

. ,··

- 10 -

The l1ceniee proposed to relocate old Subsections 6.6.2 and 6.6.3 to the QAPD. These old subsections prescribed the review and approval process for new procedures and for temporary changes to existing procedures, respectively. These relocations were properly· implemented using the methodology described in NRC Administrative Letter 95-06. The NRC review

.of the QAPD is discussed in the evaluation of Old Subsection 6.5. Based on the above, the staff concludes that the relocation 'of. Old Subsections 6.6.2. and 6.6.3 to the QAPD 1s acceptable.

The licensee proposed deletion of a footnote at the bottom of Old TS page 6-8. The footnote provided a reference to a previous, obsolete, version of the TS and therefore its deletion is acceptable.

The license€ proposed the addition of two new subsections to DTS Section 6.4 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. These are DTS 6.4.2.3 RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT CONTROLS PROGRAM and DTS 6.4.2.4 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM. OTS 6.4.2.3 describes the La Crosse Radioactive Effluent Controls Program, and follows the guidance of NRC Generic · Letter 89-01. The licensee did not include iodines 131 and 133 in the program as they have sufficiently decaye~ since permanent plant shutdown in 1987. DTS 6.4.2.4 describes the La Crosse Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program by al so properly following the guidance of NRC Generic Letter 09-01, modified to reflect the permanently shutdown status of La Crosse. These two new subsections describe the programs and reference .the ODCH for the details of the programs. The program descriptions reference the regul at i ans in l O CFR Part 20, 10 cm Part 50 and 40 CFR Part 190, as appropriate. Based on the above, the staff concludes that the content and scope of these two new DTS subsections are acceptable .

. Old Subsection 6.7 CONTROL OF MAINTENANCE ANO TESTING ACTIVITIES. The licensee proposed a total deletion of this subsection. 10 CFR 50.65, the maintenance rule, requires that a permanently shutdown plant shall monitor the condition of all structures, systems and components needed to maintain the spent fuel in a safe condition. The staff has determined that the licensee has adequate programs and procedures in place to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.65. These programs and procedures are inspectable and enforceable. The old Subsection 6.7 was a carryover from reactor operations and a new such QTS is not required as discussed above. Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that deletion of old Subsection 6.7 is acceptable. Moreover, the staff concludes that the current maintenance and testing programs at La Cross~ are adequate to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.65 and, therefore, a new DTS 6.7 is not needed .

. • ..•.

- 11 •

Old Subsection 6.8 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. As old Subsections 6., and 6.7 were deleted from the TS, this subsectibn was renumbered as DTS 6.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. DPC proposed the deletion of the following paragraphs of the old Subsection 6.8, namely: 6.8.2 - Special Reports, 6.8.3 - Licensee Event Reports, and 6.8.4 - Immediate Notification Requirements. As there are no longer any limiting Conditions for operation.nor action statements for which such special reports are required, old Subsection 6.8.2 becomes obsolete. The requirements for licensee event reports are given In 10 CFR 50.73; hence, deletion of old Subsection 6.8.3 .avoids duplication and ambiguity; therefore, deletion of this requirement from the Administrative Controls portion of the DTS is appropriate. Likewise, the requirements for immediate notifications are given in 10 CFR 50.72; hence, deletion of o]d Subsection 6.8.4 avoids · duplication and ambiguity; therefore; deletion of this requirement from the Administrative Controls portion of the DTS is appropriate. Based on the above, the staff concludes that deletion of these th~ee old subsections is acceptable.

The licensee proposed that the Radioactive Effluent Release Report . submittal date given in ,old 6.8.1.l.d as "within 60 days after January .of·each year" be changed to "annually." This proposed change conforms to 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2) and is, therefore, acceptable. This appears in the new DTS 6.5.1.d.

As a consequence of the deletions of the three old subsections, described above, the licensee properly renumbered the new DJS Subsection 6.5:

Based on the above and the staff review of the p1oposed deletions, single change, renumbering, and the. remaining content of new DTS Subsection 6.5 REPORTING REQUIREMLNTS, the staff concludes that the new DTS 6.5 is acceptable.

Old Subsection 6.9 RECORD RETENTION. The licensee proposes that the record retention requirements of old TS 6.9 be relocated from the TS to the QAPD on the basis that these requiren.ents are adequately controlled in the QAPD. This old subsection would therefore be completely eliminated from the TS. The staff has reviewed the records retention portion of the QAPD and found it acceptable. NRC Administrative Letter 95-06 provided the methodology for such a relocation ·and the licensee properly followed this guidance. Based on the above, the staff concludes that the relocation of the record retention requirements from the TS to the QAPD is acceptable. ·

Old Subsection 6.10 RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM. The licensee proposed the deletio~ of this subsection fr6m the TS. The Radiatjon Protection Program is· also located in the Decommissioning Plan, which was approved by the NRC by an Order dated August 7, 1991, thus creating an ambiguous situation. The Program is mandated by 10 CFR Part 20; however, neither

·. ··.'·

g.

. ,·

-. .12 .-

Part 20 nor ·10 CFR Part 50 require that the Program be iricluded in the TS for a permanently shutdown plant.· The Radiation Protection· Program is enforceable and fully inspectable and is required by the NRC order of August 7, 1991, authorizing decommissionjng. Based on the above, the staff concludes that deletion df·this subsection from the TS is acceptable. ·

Old Subsection 6.ll HIGH RADIATION AREA. This subsection was renumbered as DTS 6.6 HIGH RADIAlION AREA, with the only change being a change in

.title in Paragraph 6.ll.2(l)a from "Shift Supervisor" to "Certified Fuel Handler" to reflect the changes eval~ated and approved in the review of old Subsection 6.1, above. Based on the above, the staff concludes that the personnel title ch~nge and subsection renumbering are appropriate~

In summary, based on the evaluations presented above, the staff concludes that the new DTS Section 6.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS is acceptable.

5.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the appropriate State of Wisconsin state official was notified of the proposed issuance. of the amendment. The state offici~l had no comments.

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendment changes· requirements with respect to installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC 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 the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (62 FR 11493). Accordingly, the amendment meets the ~ligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with· the issuance of the .amendment.

7. 0 CONCLUSIONS

The Commission has concluded, based on the c.onsiderations discussed above, that: (1) tnere is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will i.e conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not ·be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the pu~lic.

Principal Contributor: Mortons; Fairtile

Date: i\pril lL 1997