ML20072K691
| ML20072K691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072K632 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303300700 | |
| Download: ML20072K691 (2) | |
Text
_
o%
UNITED STATES g/ y,
[g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
Oj CASHINGTON,0. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 83 TO LICENSE NO. DPR-49 IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY CENTRAL IOWA POWER COOPERATIVE CORN BELT POWER COOPERATIVE DOCKET NO. 50-331 DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER 1.0 Introduction By letter dated August 20, 1982, as revised on November 24, 1982, the Iowa' Electric Light and Power Company, (the licensee), submitted a request to amend the Facility Operating License DPR-49 for the Duane Arnold Energy Center.
The proposed amendment will permit the licensee to perform a manual stroke test on the mechanical snubbers in the forthcoming February 1983 refueling outage in lieu of the required functional test.
The justification for delaying the implementation of the surveillance requirements for functional testing of mechanical snubbers until the first scheduled refueling outage beginning after June 30, 1983 is the lack of availability of a reliable test machine for conducting the required tests.
2.0 Evaluation During the February 1983 refueling outage, the licensee proposes to perfonn a manual stroke test of a representative sample of mechanical snubbers in place of the functional test required by the Technical Specifications.
Section 4.6.H.3 of the Technical Specifications states, that at least once every eighteen months, during shutdown a representative s' ample of each type of snubber in use in the plant shall be functionally tested either in place or in a bench test.
the licensee states that the implementation of this surveillance requirement for functional testing of mechanical snubbers cannot be accomplished because of the lack of availability of a reliable test machine. The licensee appears to have made a reasonable effort to obtain the equipment necessary for the performance of. functional tests, and has detennined that the equipment will not be available during the February 1983 refueling outage. The license proposes a manual stroke tes.t as the most meaningful alternative.
In our review of the proposed specification change, we evaluated the mechanical snubber functional test acceptance criteria.
The acceptance criteria of Section 4.6.H.5 of the technical specifications require that, the force that initiates free movement of the snubber rod in either tension-or compression is less than the specified maximum drag force; the drag furce on any snubber shall not have increased r: ore than 50% since the last functional 8303300700 830310 PDR ADOCK 05000331 P
i.
test; activation (restraining action) is achieved within the specified range of velocity or acceleration in both tension and compression; and snubber release rate, where required, is within the specified range in compression or tension, or the ability of the snubber to withstand load without displacement.
Manual stroke testing will provide sufficient assurance that the mechanical snubbers will remain free to move as required for normal plant operation and anticipated t.ansients. The fact that the snubbers have the capability to move through the required range of motio' will confirm that design loading n
in piping and other fluid systems components will not be exceeded during operation. The absence of unusual sounds or other abnormalities in snubber motion that are detected durirg manual stroke testing also offers evidence that the snubber is capable of perfonning until the next refueling outage beginning after June 30, 1983.
Based on the above we conclude that delaying the plant schedule beyond the schedule outage would be unwarranted and that the licensee's proposal is acceptable.
3.0 Environmeltal Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environme' tal impact.
Having made this determination, we have n
further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the.public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) 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.
Date: March 10,1983 Principal Contributor:
H. Shaw F. L. Apicella
- --