ML20117K413
| ML20117K413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20117K402 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9606110205 | |
| Download: ML20117K413 (3) | |
Text
l psnouq p*
UNITED STATES g
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. ensam anns o
4.....l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 214 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-49 IES UTILITIES INC.
CENTRAL IOWA POWER COOPERATIVE CORN BELT POWER COOPERATIVE DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER DQCKET NO. 50-331
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 21, 1995, as supplemented August 8, 1995 and December 15, 1995, IES Utilities Inc. (licensee) submitted a request for revision of the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC). The request sought to make several administrative changes to various sections of 3
i the DAEC TS.
The first change to the TS replaces the surveillance condition when an Emergency Service Water pump or loop is inoperable (the surveillance required demonstration that the opposite train's Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) was operable) with an OPERABILITY verification of the opposite train's EDG. The amendment modifies the TS to require a determination within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> that the other EDG is not affected by a common cause failure. The i
determination may be made by evaluation or test. The EDG conditional surveillance will still be required each 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. The second change to the i
TS revises the format and language of TS Section 5.5 to clarify the requirements and state the capacity of the spent fuel pool and vault storage in order to remove ambiguities in the wording and to be more consistent with j
the Improved Standard TS guidance. The third change revises the list of Operations Committee responsibilities (Section 6.5.1.6) to eliminate Committee review of procedures implementing Security and Emergency Plans. The fourth change corrects wording in the operating license to be consistent with i
Amendment 47.
1 The additional information contained in the supplemental letters dated j
August 8, 1995, and December 15, 1995, was noticed in the Federal Reaister on
{
February 2, 1996 (61 FR 3953).
2.0 EVALUATION
)
Surveillance Requirements - One change to the surveillance requirements replaces a surveillance (4.8.E.2) that had the potential to require unnecessary starts of Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs).
The existing TS surveillance for the Emergency Service Water (ESW) System requires that if an i
l 4
9606110205 960605 i
PDR ADOCK 05000331 p
ESW pump or loop becomes inoperable, then the opposite train's EDG must be i
physically tested to demonstrate that it is operable. The staff agrees with the licensee that this is an unnecessary and burdensome test unless there is some reason to believe that a common-mode / common-cause failure exists between 3
the two ESW trains, or between the inoperable ESW train and the opposite EDG.
The change modifies the TS surveillance to require that the EDG supported by the operable ESW loop be verified to be operable. The staff finds this change to be acceptable.
The second surveillance requirement modifies the requirements for testing an EDG when the other EDG is inoperable and brings the TS into close agreement with the Improved Technical Specifications (NUREG-1433, revision 1). The modification requires the licensee to determine within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> that the OPERA 8LE EDG is not inoperable due to common-cause failure.
If it is detemined to be OPERABLE, within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (and every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> thereafter) it i
must be manually started, brought up to synchronous speed, and verified to deliver rated voltage and frequency. This testing confines the capability of the OPERABLE EDG. The staff finds this change to be acceptable.
Spent Fuel and New Fuel Storage - The changes to the spent fuel and new fuel storage TS eliminates ambiguities in the wording of the existing TS but retains the existing limits on spent fuel and new fuel storage. The limit on the number of spent fuel assemblies that can be stored in the spent fuel pool i:; based on Amendment 195 to the TS (February 22,1994). The limit on the number of new fuel assemblies is based on the UFSAR and the physical capacity of the new fuel storage vault. The fomat of the changes is consistent with the Improved Standard TS. The staff finds these changes acceptable.
Operations Committee Responsibilities - In Generic Letter 93-07, the staff provided guidance for changes to the TS to remove the audit of the emergency plans, security plans, and their implementing procedures from the list of responsibilities of the company's nuclear audit and review group. Parts 50 and 73 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reaulations (10 CFR) include provisions that are sufficient to address these requirements. The licensee's changes follow the intent of Generic Letter 93-07, which provided guidance on removal of TS audit responsibilities from the Operations Committee. The staff finds these changes acceptable.
Operating Licensee - In Operating License (0L) Section 2.C(4), there was an erroneous reference to a preceding paragraph in the OL. The error was made in Amendment 47 that supported recirculation piping safe end replacement. The modification corrects the section by adding references to letters submitted by the licensee in support of the safe end replacement. The staff finds these changes 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.
4.0 ENVIROMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS This amendment chages a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility com>onent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or c,1anges 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 proposed findings that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such findings (60 FR 49938 and 61 FR 3953)). 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 in)act statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection wit) 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 5,1996 l
- - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ - -