ML20245D874
| ML20245D874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245D870 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905010208 | |
| Download: ML20245D874 (2) | |
Text
,,
[
o UNITED STATES g
[
p, _
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7.
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~s...../
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.157 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-49 IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY CENTRAL IDWA POWER COOPERATIVE CORN BELT POWER COOPERATIVE DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER DOCKET NO. 50-331
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 14, 1986, the licensee proposed that certain changes be made to the Duane Arnold Technical Specifications, Section 6, " Administrative Cnntrols." Following discussions between the staff and the licensee, the licensee withdrew, in a letter dated March 25, 1987, several of the proposed changes and revised others. As a result, the only changes finally proposed for NRC approval are primarily editorial in nature. The staff's evaluation of
-these changes is given below.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 TS 6.5.1.6.c - The proposal to delete reference to Appendix "A" is acceptable because Technical Specifications are no longer divided into Appendix "A" and Appendix "B".
The change is editorial in nature.
2.2 TS 6.5.2.7 - The proposal to change the first line from "The Safety Comittee shall review:" to "The Safety Comittee shall be responsible for. the review of:" is acceptable because the revised wording is consistent with that used in the Technical Specifications for most recently-limsed plants, i.e., it makes this Specification consistent with the NRC staff's objectives that the Safety Comittee members not be overburdened by performing all the details involved in the review process but should be responsible for assuring that adequate reviews have been perfonned, whether done by the Comittee or by others.
2.3 TS 6.5.2.8.h - The proposal to change " design change request" to " design change package" is acceptable because it is editorial in nature and makes the phrase consistent with plant-specific terminology.
2.4 TS 6.8.2 - The Proposal to insert ", as indicated in Specification 6.5.1.6," after the words " Operations Comittee" in line 2 of TS 6.8.2 is acceptable because it makes the wording consistent with that of TS 6.5.1.6.
8905010200 890418
~
PDR ADOCK 05000331 P
PNU
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S I
This amendment relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or require:nents. 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 nf this amendment.
4.0 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not ce inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
R. Benedict Dated: April 18,1989
-. _ ~ - _ - _ - -. - - - - -
--