ML20216F048
| ML20216F048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1998 |
| From: | Richard Laufer NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216F052 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803180234 | |
| Download: ML20216F048 (7) | |
Text
7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IES UTILITIES INC.
CENTRAL lOWA POWER COOPERATIVE CORN BELT POWER COOPERATIVE DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER DOCKET NO. S'D-331 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF l
NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-49 issued to IES Utilities Inc., (the i
licensee), for operation of the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), located in Linn County, Iowa.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT identification of the Prooosed Action:
The proposed amendment will revise the existing Technical Specifications (TS) in their entirety and incorporate the guidance provided in NUREG-1433, Revision 1, " Standard Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants BWR/4," dated April 1995. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's amendment request dated October 30,1996, as supplemented by letters dated Jene 10, September 5,17,25, and 30, October 16, November 18 and 21, December 8 and 15,1997, January 2,5,12,22 and 23, and February 10 and 26, 1998.
The Need for the Pronosed Action:
it has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would benefit from improvement 9803180234 900311 PDR ADOCK 05000331 P
i
(
e t
and standardization of TS. The "NRC Interim Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors," (52 FR 3788) contained proposed criteria for i
defining the scope of technical specifications. Later, the "NRC Final Policy Statement on TS improvement for Nuclear Power Reactors," (58 FR 39132) incorporated lessons learned since publication of the interim policy statement and formed the basis for recent revision to 10 CFR 50.36. T ' " Final Rule"(60 FR 36953) codified criteria for determining the content of technical specifications. To facilitiste the development of standard TS, each vendor owners' group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard TS. The NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the STS, made note of its safety merits, and indicated its j
support of conversion by operating plants to the STS. For DAEC, the Standard Technical Specifiestions (STS) are NUREG-1433, Revision 1, " Standard Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants BWR/4," dated April 1995. This document formed the basis for DAEC improved TS (ITS) conversion.
Descriotion of the P ooosed Chanae:
The proposed revision to the TS is based on NUREG-1433, and on guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. Its objective is to completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the existing TS. Emphasis is placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and understanding. The Bases section has been significantly expanded to clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each specification. In addition to NUREG-1433, portions of tie existing TS were also used as the basis for the development of the DAEC ITS. Plant-specific issues (unique design features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed at length with the licensee.
l The proposed changes from the existing TS can be grouped into four general categories. These groupings are characterized as administrative changes, technical changes -
t l
3-relocations, technical changes - more restrictive, and technical changes - less restrictive. They are described as follows:
1.
Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, renumbering, rewording, interpretation, and rearranging of requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or substantially revising an operational requirement. The reformatting, renumbering, and rewording processes reflect the attributes of NUREG-14?3 and do not involve technical changes to the existing TSs. The proposed changes include (a) providing the appropriate numbers, etc., for NUREG-1433 bracketed information (information that must be supplied on a plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to plant), (b) identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c) changing NUREG-1433 section wording to conform to existing licensee practices. Such changes t re administrative in nature and dn not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.
2.
Technical changes - relocations are those changes involving relocation of requirements and surveillances from the existing TS to licensee-controlled documents, for structures, systeme, components, or variables that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the improved Technical Specifications. Relocated changes are those existing TS requirements that do not satisfy or fall atta any of the four criteria specified in the Commission's Final Policy Statement and 10 CFR 50.36, and may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled documents.
The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described in Volume 1 of its October 30,1996, application titled, "Duane Arnold Energy Center lmoroved Technical Specif, cations Split Report and Relocated CTS Pages." The affected structures, systems, components, or variables are not assumed to be initiators of events analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and are not assumed to mitigate accident or transient l
4-i events analyzed in the UFSAR. The requirements and surveillances for these affected structures, systems, components, or variables will be relocated from the existing TS to administrative!y controlled documents such as the UFSAR, the BASES, or other licensee- -
controlled documents. Changes made to these documents will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate control mechanisms. In addition, the affected structures, systern:.,
J components, or variables are addressed in existing surveillance procedures which are also subject to 10 CFR 50.59, 3.
Techniccl Changes - more restrictive are those changes that involve more stringent requirements for operation of the facility or eliminate existing flexibility. These more stringent requirements do not resu't in operation that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an 4
accident or transient event. Also, other more restrictive tLAnical changes have been made to achieve consistency, correct discrepancies, and remove ambiguities from the specification.
4.
Technical changes - less restrictive are changes where current requirements are relaxed or eliminated, or new flexibility is provided. The more significant "less restrictive" requirements are justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the iTS may be appropriate. In most case-s, relaxations granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that have evolved from technological advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution of the Owners Groups' comments on the ITS. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 were reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable because they are consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations.
4
1 Environmentalimoacts of the Prooosed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to the TS.
Changes which are administrative in nature have been found to have no effect on the technical r:ontent of the TS and are acceptable. The increased clarity and understanding these changes I
bring to the TS are expected to improve the operators' control of the plant in normal and accident conditions Relocation of requirements to other licensee-controlled docum3nts does not change the requirements themselves. Further changes to these requirements may be made by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC approved control mechanisms, which ensures continued maintenance of adequate requirements. All such relocations have been i
four'd to be in conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1433 and the Final Policy Statament, and are, therefore, acceptable.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to enhance plant safety and to be acceptable.
Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed individually. SNhen requirements have been shown to provide little or no safety benefit or to place unnecessary burden on the licensee, their removal from the TS was justified. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to individual plants on a plant-Wific basis were the result of a generic action, or of agreements reached during discussions with the Owners Groups and found to be acceptable for DAEC Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 have also been reviewed by the NRC staff and have been found to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revisions to the TS were found to provide control of plani operations such that reasonable assurance will be provided that the bc:dth and safety of the public will be adequately protected.
These TS changes will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no
changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no signif: car,t increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Therefers, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiosc0 cal environmental i
impacts associated with the proposed TS arnendments.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted ares as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect nonradiologics; plant effluente and have no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that these are no significant nonradiological environmsntal impacts associated with the proposed TS amondments.
Altematives to the Pronosed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed amendments, any attematives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. The principal attemative to this action would be to deny the amendment request. Such action would not reduce the environmentalimpact of plant operations.
Afternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statemer.1 for the DAEC.
Aaencing.3,nd Persons Consultad:
in accordance with its stated policy, on February 23,1998, the Commission consulted
. with the Iowa State official, Ms. Parween Baig, regarding the environmentalimpact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
l i
F 1
1
- EINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the l
proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmentalimpact i
l statement for the proposed action.
l l
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's application dated October 30,1996, as supplemented by letters dated June 10, September 5,17,25, and i
30, October 16, November 18 arid 21, December 8 and 15,1997, January 2,5,12,22 and 23, and February 10 and 26,1998, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the local public document room located at the Cedar Rapids Public Library,500 First Street, SE., Cedar Rapids, IA 52401.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11* day of March 1998.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mt Richard J. Laufer, Project Manager Project Directorate lil-3 Division of Reactor Projects lil/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
l
-