[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