[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13078-13079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-6823]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-331]
IES Utilities Inc., Central Iowa Power Cooperative, Corn Belt
Power Cooperative, and Duane Arnold Energy Center; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of 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 licensee), for operation of
the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), located in Linn County, Iowa.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed 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 June 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 Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would
benefit from improvement and standardization of TS. The ``NRC Interim
Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear
Power Reactors,'' (52 FR 3788) contained proposed criteria for 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. The
``Final Rule'' (60 FR 36953) codified criteria for determining the
content of technical specifications. To facilitate 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
support of conversion by operating plants to the STS. For DAEC, the
Standard Technical Specifications (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.
Description of the Proposed Change
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 the 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.
The proposed changes from the existing TS can be grouped into four
general categories. These groupings are characterized as administrative
changes, technical changes--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-1433 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 are administrative in nature and do 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, systems, 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 within 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 Improved Technical Specifications 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 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
administratively 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, systems, components,
or variables are addressed in existing surveillance procedures which
are also subject to 10 CFR 50.59.
3. Technical 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 result in operation that will alter assumptions relative to
mitigation of an accident or transient event. Also, other more
restrictive technical 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
[[Page 13079]]
been shown to provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from
the ITS may be appropriate. In most cases, 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.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 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 content of the TS and are
acceptable. The increased clarity and understanding these changes 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 documents 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 found to be in conformance with the guidelines of
NUREG-1433 and the Final Policy Statement, 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. When 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-specific 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 plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be
provided that the health 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 significant increase in
the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed TS
amendments.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted area
as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect nonradiological plant
effluents and have no other environmental impact. Therefore, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed TS amendments.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed amendments, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. The principal alternative to this action would be to deny
the amendment request. Such action would not reduce the environmental
impact of plant operations.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the
DAEC.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 23, 1998, the
Commission consulted with the Iowa State official, Ms. Parween Baig,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State
official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
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 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, 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 11th day of March 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Richard J. Laufer,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-6823 Filed 3-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
