ML20236T374
| ML20236T374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236T372 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712010193 | |
| Download: ML20236T374 (2) | |
Text
- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
d Sa nto 8,I o
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
(
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.148 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-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 application dated January 30, 1987, Iowa Electric Light and Power Company (the licensee), proposed an amendment to the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC)
Facility Operating License No. DPR-49 to extend the DAEC Integrated Plan (the Plan) two years beyond the current expiration date of May 3, 1987 The proposed amendment does not change the Plan itself.
The Plan requires that the licensee follow the schedule of the DAEC plant modifications mandated or proposed by NRC, or identified by the licensee.
The proposed amendment does not involve changes to plant systems, components, or Technical Specifications.
The Integrated Plan was originally approved in Amendment No. 91, dated May 3, 1983.
The objective of the Integrated Plan is.to integrate all planned DAEC plant hardware and operations modification schedules over a period of five years to assure that individual tasks are performed in an efficient and cost / resource effective manner.
2.0 EVALUATION On May 3, 1983, the Commission approved Amendment No. 91 to the DAEC operating license incorporating a license condition which requires the licensee to follow its plan for integrated scheduling of hardware and operations-related modifica-tions for the DAEC (the Plan). The license condition was extended by Amendment No.125 on July 9,1985.
l The approved Plan identifies two categories of modification schedules.
Schedule A identifies modification schedules established by the prevailing Rules and Orders.
Schedule B consists of modification schedules of:
(1) regulatory items identified by the NRC which would result in plant modifications, procedure revisions, or changes to staffing requirements; (2) items perceived by the licensee as potential NRC requirements; and (3) all major DAEC tasks resulting from mandates of agencies other than the 1
NRC, or the tasks identified by the licensee.
I I'
hk P
y e
5 o 0 The Plan has been in existence for a period of four years.
The licensee submits semiannual reports which cover proposed activity.for the next five years.. Our review of the original Plan approved in Amendment No. 91;and the updates in the semiannual reports indicates that none of the items in Schedule A was delayed.
In Schedule B for the period between May 3, 1985 and May 3, 1987, only 12 items were delayed.
Of the 12 items delayed in Schedule B, only two are regulatory items identified by NRC which have implementation dates committed to by the licensee.
The other ten items were initiated by the licensee. The delays of the two regulatory items identified by NRC have been for a good cause.
We, therefore, find that the Plan has been helpful in maintaining firm control on DAEC modification schedules.
The Plan has also contributed to our continued awareness of the projected activities of the licensee over a period of five years.
This knowledge has facilitated negotiations with the licensee on any differences in the NRC and the licensee positions related to realistic scheduling of NRC-mandated modifications.
Because the Plan is the same as was previously approved and provides for systematic and orderly implementation of modifications which are intended to enhance the plant safety, and the experience with the Plan has been good, we find that the extension of the Plan for an additional two years will continue to promote safe operation of the plant.
We, therefore, conclude that the extension of the Plan is acceptable.
3.0, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS This amendment relates to administrative requirements.. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
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 anc' 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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Anthony J. Cappucci, Jr.
Dated: November 25, 1987
_m
. _ _ _ _. _ _ -. + - -.