ML20108F172

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 112 to License DPR-49

ML20108F172
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	02/26/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20108F162	List: ML20108F159 ML20108F172
References
NUDOCS 8503120351
Download: ML20108F172 (2)

Text

b UNITED STATES

, [

h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5

Ej WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.112 TO LICENSE NO. OPR-49 IOWA ELECTRIC' LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY CENTRAL IOWA POWER COOPERATIVE CORN BELT POWER COOPERATIVE DUANE ARN0LD ENERGY CENTER DOCKET NO. 50-331 1.0 Introduction On September 26, 1984, as supplemented October 26, 1984, the Iowa Electric Light and Power Company (the licensee) filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, a proposed amendment to its Facility Operating License No. DPR-49.

~ he amendment would approve revi: ions to its approved Security Plan and T

Guard Training and Qualification Plan.

The proposed change would delete from the security and guard training and qualifications plans commitments to utilize two types of shoulder-fired weapons.

10 CFR 73.55 requires that armed guards be immediately available to fulfill response requirements and to use force sufficient to counter.th'e force directed at them including the use of deadly force. Appendix B of 10 CFR 73.55 requires each guard to be qualified in the tse of assigned weapons. The licensee has complied with these requirements. Currently, DAEC response guards are trained in, and have immediately available, two types of shoulder-fired weapons. The licensee is now requesting that the counitment in the security and guard training and qualification plans be changed to eliminate one of the two weapons available to the guard force during a security event.

2.0 Evaluation NRC physical security requirements do not explicitly require that shoulder-fired weapons be available onsite for response purposes.

However, the staff has consistently maintained that either shotguns ot semi-automatic rifles (but not both) were necessary to satisfy the response requirements of Section 73.55(h), particularly in regard to neutralization of the threat as set forth in subparagraph (4)(111) of the Section.

This position is stated in paragraph 3.6 of NUREG-0908. The licensee's justification for deleting one type of response weapon from the site armanent is based on site specific considerations. The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposal in this regard and concluded that the compensating features identified (size and configuration of the defended area, and the proximity of offsite response forces) do reduce the need to maintain both types of defense weaponry. Accordingly, the staff finds that the amended Security 8503120351 850226 PDR ADOCK 05000331 P

PDR

s

, Plan for DAEC continues to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(b) through (h), and Appendices B and C to Part 73.

3.0 Environmental Considerations This amendment relates solely to safeguards matters and does not involve any significant construction impacts. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(12).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) r.o 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 discu.sec above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and saisiy 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.

Princip,a1 Contributor:

R. F. Skelton Dated:

February 26, 1985 i

. _.