ML20085M339
| ML20085M339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20085M330 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506290151 | |
| Download: ML20085M339 (2) | |
Text
.
pa ctruq 7b e
g UNITED STATES
- 4 E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'f WASHINGTON, D.C. m
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 212 TO FACILITY CPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-49 IES UTILITIES INC.
CENTRAL IOWA POWER COOPERATIVE CORN BELT POWER COOPERATIVE DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER DOCKET NO. 50-331
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 28, 1995, IES Utilities Inc. (licensee) submitted a request for revision of the technical Specifications (TS) for the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC).
Amendment 193 to the Technical Specifications incorporated extended allowable out-of-service times and surveillance test intervals for various instrumentation and made other changes to improve clarity and provide consistency with the NRC Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-0123) and the rest of the DAEC TS.
During a review of maintenance activities planned on the Main Steam Line Tunnel Temperature - High trip switches by the licensee, a question arose as to whether TS Table 3.2-A was inconsistent with the existing (i.e., original) plant design. Specifically, the TS MINIMUM OPERABLE CHANNELS PER TRIP SYSTEM requirement is "2/line."
It was not clear that with the physical design and the TS definitions of channel and logic, the "2 instrument channels /line/ trip system" requirement could be met.
Subsec,uent investigation by the licensee determined that the existing design of the system has not been modified since the original plant startup.
Also, the licensee decided to evaluate other entries in TS Table 3.2-A to determine if they were appropriate.
This evaluation identified other needed corrections or clarifications that improve TS clarity and consistency within the Table.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee checked each entry in Table 3.2-A against the current plant design and against the Architect / Engineer's design documentation to determine if (1) the as-built plant was configured as assumed in the design and (2) the TS clearly and accurately reflected the actual design and logic l
configurations.
The licensee also checked for internal consistence among entries in Table 3.2-A.
Based on this evaluation, the licensee submitted 9506290151 950614 PDR ADOCK 05000331 P
PDR l
?
various modifications to Table 3.2-A and its Bases. The TS changes do not alter the physical design or operation of the plant; they serve to describe more accurately and clearly the actual logic configurations and to improve consistency of the information in the Table. The licensee found the existing logic designs are in accordance with the Architect / Engineer's design documentation and are configured to provide the intended function. The clarifications do not affect the ability of any of the isolation logics to perform their intended functions, nor do they affect any assumptions contained in the plant safety analysis. The staff finds these changes to Table 3.2-A acceptable.
j The changes to the TS Bases support the submitted logic corrections to Table 3.2-A and provide additional information to describe more clearly the logic configurations. The staff finds the changes to the TS Bases to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Iowa State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
L
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S t
This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR
(
Part 20 or changes a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent 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 t
proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR I
20519). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility 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.
5.0 CONCLUSION
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, (2) such activities will be 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 public.
Principal Contributor: Glenn B. Kelly Date:
June 14, 1995 i
l l
l l
m.
_.y-