ML20059M568
| ML20059M568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059M566 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010050059 | |
| Download: ML20059M568 (3) | |
Text
_
9 m e,g I[o
. Io UNITED STATES g
w.[,, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION F$,
\\... + }l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20%5 SAFETY E'.'ALUAT10W BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.170 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-49 IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY CENTRAL 10ilA POWER COOPERATIVE CORN BELT POWER COOPERATIVE DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER DOCKET NO. 50-331
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 31, 1988, Iowa Electric Light and Power Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) Technical Specifications (TSs). The primary changes consist of revisions to the reporting i
requirements for iodine concentrations in reactor coolant, in accordance with the guidance of NRC Generic Letter 85-19. Several additional changes are pro-posed to correct omissionc or deletions of itemt approved in previous amendments, to. clarify wording, or to reflect current surveillance intervals. The proposed changes to update the plant staff qualifications, specified in Section 6.0, Administrative Controls, were addressed in separate correspondence and were approved in Amendment No.166, issued July 6,1990.
1 2.0 EVALUATICN i
The licensee has proposed to revise the resorting requirements identified in Surveillance Requirement 4.6.B.I.h of t1e DAEC TSs. Currently, when the iodine-131 dose equivalent exceeds 50% of the equilibrium value, a written report to the NRC Region III office is required within 10 days.
Revised TS 4.6.B.I.h refers to a new specification, 6.11.1.h, which describes the revised reporting requirements.
These revised requirements state that a i
report of the results of specific activity analysis in which the primary coolantexceededthelimitsofTS4.6.B.I.hshallbesubmitted(totheNRC) on an annual basis within 60 days after January 1.
The contents of.the report are further identified in proposed TS 6.11.1.h.
This change is consistent with the guidance provided in NRC Generic Letter (GL) 85-19, " Reporting Requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes," dated September 27, 1985. The GL. stated that the NRC staff had determined that the reporting requirements for iodine spiking could be reduced from a short-term resort to an item which is to be included in an annual report. The content of tie annual report as specified in the licensee's proposed TS 6.11.1.h is identical to the information contained in the GL. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed TSs 4.6.B.I.h and 6.11.1.h and the deletion of the special report requirement of TS 6.11.3.b are_ acceptable.
9010050059 900929
{DR ADOCK 0500o331 PDC
1 D
i 1
. l The licensee further reques ad changes to TSs 6.3.1 and 6.4.1 and Figure 6.2-1
{
to update the standards for plant staff qualifications. These requests were superseded by letters dated November 3,1989 and February 26, 1990; the revi-sions were approved by the staff in Amendment No.166, dated July 6,1990.
Additional changes requested by the licensee are administrative or editorial in nature and are described below. The Table of Contents, pages iv-vi, is revised to add Sections 5.6, 6.14 and 6.15, and Tables 3.14-1, 4.14-1, 4.14-2, 3.15-1, 4.15-1, 4.15-2, 3.16-1, 3.16-2, 3.16-3, 6.11-3a and 6.11-3b.
The page number for Table 6.11-1 is also revised. These item: were added to or revised the DAEC TS in Amendments 109,128 and 135 (dated January 14, 1985, January 4,1986 and August 26 1986,.espectively); however the Table
{
of Contents was not revised to refle,ct the changes. These changes are editorial and are, therefore, acceptable.
Surveillance Requirements 4.5.B.2 and 3 are revised to specify the " active" l
components of the Residual H. t Removal (RHR) Service Water system are l
demonstrated to be operable as required. This is merely a clarification, L
consistent with the existing Bases, to indicate that the individual pumps i
and valves are to be demonstrated operable, as opposed to requiring s system test. An editorial change is also included to clarify that there are only two RHR Service Water subsystems. These changes are editorial and are, l
therefore, acceptable, l
Surveillance Requirement 4.6.A.2 and the associated Bases are revised to reflect the completion of inservice inspection and testing requirements performed at the end of 6 effective-full-power years. The revision retains the requirement that the next surveillance capsule shall be withdrawn at 15 effective-full-power years and tested in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, l
Appendix H.
As stated in the revised Bases, the results of the surveillance
(
testing performed following 6 effective-full-power years have been incorporated into the curves of Figure 3.6-1.
With the completion of the previously required surveillance, this is an administrative change and is, therefore, acceptable.
Surveillance Requirement 4.6.D.4 was added to the DAEC TSs by Amendment 102, dated June 25, 1984, and inadvertently deleted by Amendment 105, dated August 24, 1984.
Restoration of this requirement is an administrative change and is acceptable.
Table 3.14-1, Action 20 is revised to more explicitly state the radioactive effluent sampling requirements and criteria when certain liquid effluent monitors are inoperable. This clarification will make the wording of ACTION 20 consistent with TS 4.14.B.3 end Table 4.14-2.
This clarification is editorial and is, therefore, acceptable.
l
\\
. Table 6.11-1 is revised to restore the reporting requirement for the Annual Safety / Relief Valve Challenge report approved in Amendment 96, but inadvertently deleted in Amendment 109. Also, Appendix I reporting requirements are added to Table 6.11-1.
These requirements, described in TSs 6.11.1.f and g, were i
added by Amendment 109, but were inadvertently left out of Table 6.11-1.
Also, Amendment 109 relocated Table 6.11-1 to pages 6.11-8 and 9, but failed to delete the Table from pages 6.11-12 and 13. Therefore, pages 6.11-12 and 13 can be deleted. These changes are administrative and are, therefore, acceptable.
]
1 Finally, pages 6.11-15 and 6.13-1 were deleted in Amendment 133. These
) ages may be removed from the DAEC TS (deleted pages 6.11-14 and 6.12-1 1ad previously been removed). This change is editorial and is acceptable.
On the bases discussed above, the staff finds the proposed changes to be acceptable.
3.0 FNVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the instal-i.
l 1ation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as i
l defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the i
amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be 1
released offsite and that there is no significant ircrease in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards considen tion and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). This amendment also involves changes in record-J kee)ing, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, witi respect to these items, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for J
categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 551.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental imsact statement or environmental assessment need be i
prepared in connection with t,1e issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSIOy 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 (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security _or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: James R. Hall Dated: September 28, 1990
.. - - -