ML20202H244
| ML20202H244 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202H235 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607160245 | |
| Download: ML20202H244 (2) | |
Text
'o UNITED STATES
^g 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 133 TO LICENSE NO. DPR-49 IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY CENTRAL IOWA POWER COOPERATIVE
'N CORN BELT POWER COOPERATIVE DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER DOCKET NO. 50-331
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By a letter dated January 9, 1986, the Iowa Electric Light and Power Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications for the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC).
The licensee proposed to revise the Technical Specifications to (a) conform to the Commission's rule 10 CFR 50.49 related to environmental qualification of safety related electrical equipment, (b) achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications, (c) correct some errors caused by previous amendments due to incorporation of Technical Specification pages which were not up to date, and (d) correct some typographical errors.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee has provided the following justification for the changes to various sections of the DAEC Technical Specifications:
1) page iv of the Table of Contents, item 6.13 is changed to read
" Deleted" because Section 6.13 on environmental qualification is being deleted by this proposed Technical Specification change.
2)
On page 1.1-4, these headings are changed to read correctly " Safety Limit" and " Limit Safety System Setting".
This language was inadvertently changed in a previous amendment.
3)
In Table 3.2-8 on page 3.2-8, Remark 2, the wording is changed to reflect the wording of Amendment 110.
Amendment 123 inadvertently deleted the statements approved in Amendment No. 110.
4)
On page 3.5-17, spelling error is corrected in first and second sentence = of last paragraph (operabililty - operability).
5)
On page 3.7-13, the words "must be taken out of power operation" have been added to the end of paragraph 6.c.
These words were inadvertently removed by Amendment 114.
6)
On page 3.8-10, the word "for" is added to clarify the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph.
8607160245 060709 DR ADOCK 0000 1
/
., 7)
On page 6.10-3, Section 6.10.2.9 is changed to remove the ambiguity between the lifetime record retention requirements of Section 6.10.2.9 and the five year record retention requirements of Section 6.10.1.
On page 6.10-3, Section 6.10.2.12, regarding record retention for environmental qualification, is deleted because it has been superseded l
by 10'CFR 50.49, and subsequent sections are renumbered.
8)
Page 6.11-15 which contains the notes to Table 6.11-2 is deleted, because the Table 6.11-2 was deleted by Amendment 105.
9)
Page 6.13-1, Section 6.13 on environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment is deleted because it has been superseded by the Commission rule 10 CFR 50.49.
Our. review of the licensee's request shows that.the changes (1), (6) and (7) are being made for clarification only and are acceptable.
The changes (2), (3), (5) and (8) are being made because previous Technical Specification Amendments inadvertently incorporated Technical Specification pages which had since been amended by other amendments.
The changes (2), (3), (5) and (8) are, therefore, acceptable.
The change (4) is made to correct a spelling error and is acceptable.
The last change (9) deletes equipment qualification requirements for safety-related electrical equipment.
These requirements have been superseded by 10 CFR 50.49.
Because the licensee now complies with 50.49, a separate Technical Specification in this area is no longer necessary.
Therefore, change number (9) is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S 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.
The staff has determined that the amendment 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 4
Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment 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: July 9, 1986
-.