ML20096C162
| ML20096C162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20096C160 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8409050121 | |
| Download: ML20096C162 (2) | |
Text
_
p, +,,
I UNITEJ STATES
?
'3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO. 106 TO LICENSE NO. OPR-49 IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY CENTRAL IOWA POWER COOPERATIVE CORN BELT POWER COOPERATIVE DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER DOCKET NO. 50-331 1.0 Introduction By a letter dated August 29, 1978, and a revision dated November 5, 1981.
The Iowa Electric Light and Power Company (licensee) requested the following changes to the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) Technical Specifications:
1.
a revision to the containment airlock testing frequency; 2.
addition of a flange "0"-ring to penetration no. 213; 3.
deletion of several valves from the Table 3.7-2 for type C testing; 4.
addition of several valves to Table 3.7-2 for type C testing; and 5.
testing of certain valves in the reverse direction of the applied pressure.
By a letter dated January 17, 1984, the Commission denied the licensee's request to exempt the core spray isolation valves, and the RCIC and HPCI condensate return isolation valves from Type C testing.
By a letttr dated March 16, 1984, the licensee amended its request to retain the cor6 spray isolation, and RCIC and HPCIC condensate return valves in the Technical Specifications for Type C testing.
2.0 Evaluation In our letter dated January 17, 1984, we provided our evaluation of the licensee's request for exemptions from certain requirements of the Appendix J.
In our Safety Evaluation accompanying our response, we also provided our evaluation for the licensee's request for changes to the DAEC Techn1<:al Specifications, and found the requested changes accc3 table, with the exception of the changes deleting the Core Spray isolation valves, and RCIC and HPCI condensate return isolation valves from Type C testing requirements.
The licensee has since added the Core Spray isolation valves, and RCIC and HPCI condensate return valves to the Technical Specification for Type C testing. We, therefore, conclude that the licensee's revised request for changes to the DAEC Technical Specifications is acceptable.
0409050121 040024 PDR ADOCK 05000331 P
i
.. The licensee has indicated'that the implementation of the requested changes
.for Type 'B testing of the~ containment penetrations 213A and 213B, and Type C testing of containment isolation valves M0-4423, CV-2410, M0-2400, M0-2238, CV-2211, M0-2000, M0-1902,.M0-1933, and M0-2006 require plant modifications to be scheduled in the future.
We have, therefore, deleted
-the impacted penetrations and valves from this action, and will consider those items in a: separate action after the licensee's schedule for modifications is received.
3.0 Environmental Considerations This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendmen~t 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this 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 this amendment.
4.0 Conclusion We have 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 this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
M. Thadani Dated:
August 24, 1984 L
.,.--