ML20070H578

Application for Amends to Licenses NPF-9,NPF-17,NPF-35 & NPF-52,separating TS Into Two (2) Vols for Each Station

ML20070H578
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba, McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	07/18/1994
From:	Tuckman M DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20070H583	List: ML20070H578
References
NUDOCS 9407210363
Download: ML20070H578 (5)

Text

F

-i h l DukeIbwerComparty MSnoww

- P.O. Box 1006 Senior VicePresident Onarlotte, NC28201-1006 Nuclear Generation

, (704)382-2200 Office .

(704)3824360 Fax DUKEPOWER ,

July 18,1994 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 Proposed Technical Specification Amendment to Reflect Separate Volumes for Unit I and Unit 2 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, attached are proposed license amendments to facility operating licenses NPF-9 and NPF-17 for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 respectively, and NPF-35 and NPF-52 for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively.

This proposed technical specification revision consists of separate volumes for each unit.

McGuire Nuclear Station will have two (2) volumes, Unit 1 and Unit 2 and Catawba Nuclear Station will have two (2) volumes, Unit 1 and Unit 2.

m We are proposing this chande be completed prior to the submittal of the license applications for the steam generator replacement project scheduled for September 30,1994.

Attachment I provides a technical discussion of the changes made to each manual, justification for the proposed changes, and the no significant hazards analysis supporting this revision. Attachment II provides the proposed amendment for McGuire Nuclear -

Station and Attachment III, proposed amendment for Catawba Nuclear Station. Attachment IV provides a summary of summary of changes associated with separate volumes and summary of editorial or administrative changes.

This complete reformatting and re-issuance of the respective technical specification manuals may be impacted by various other proposed technical specification revisions currently under review by the NRC Staff, or to be submitted before September 30,1994. Duke personnel will work closely with the NRC Project Managers to en,ure that each change is

' incorporated appropriately.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), a copy of this amendment request has been provided to the appropriate North Carolina aad South Carolina state officials.

Very truly yours, b1 MggUijke S. Tuckman -

A 9407210363 940718 -I PDR ADOCK 05000369 -

1 amu wwmp, P PDR i c

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. . Jufy 18,1994 Page 2 Attachments xc: (with copy of proposed technical specifications for both stations)

S. D. Ebneter Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323 (with copy of proposed technical specifications for Catawba only)

Heyward Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control ,

200 BuP. Street Columbia, SC 29201 (with copy of proposed technical specifications for McGuire only)

Dayne Brown, Director Division of Radiation Protection P. O. Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 (without copy of proposed technical specifications)

American Nuclear Insurers c/o Dottie Sherman, ANI Library The Exchange, Suite 245 270 Farmington Avenue Farmington, CT 06032 (without copy of proposed technical specifications)

M & M Nuclear Consultants 1166 Avenue of the Americans New York, NY 10036-2774 (without copy of proposed technical specifications)

INPO Records Center Suite 1500,1100 Circle 75 Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339 G. F. Maxwell, Sr. Resident Inspector (MNS)(with copy of McGuire TS)

R. J. Freudenberger, Sr. Resident Inspector (CNS)(with copy of Catawba TS)

V. Nerses, Project Manager, ONRR R. E. Martin, Project Manager, ONRR

U. S,. Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 18,1994 Page 3 Mike S. Tuckman, being duly sworn, states that he is Senior Vice President of Duke Power Company; that he is authorized on the part of said company to sign and file with the U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission these revisions to the McGuire Nuclear Station License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17, and Catawba Nuclear Station License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52; '

and, that all statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

k b.

Mike S. Tuckman Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of u u ,1994.

a Y/ltu kYxAJ J Notar) Pupic My Commission expires: bo 22, IM b c >

e I

Attachment I l

Technical Discussion The pmpose of the proposed amendment request for McGuire and Catawba Nuclear {'

Stations is to separate the Technical Speci6 cations into two (2) volumes for each station.

At present, the following situations are found in the single volumes of the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Station Technical Specincations in the Limiting Condition for Operation, Surveillance Requirements, and Design Features:

1) Numerous places where different operating parameters, setpoints, or numerical explanation are indicated for each unit on the same page.

I

2) Separate pages for the specific information covering each unit (e.g. separate  !

pages for the heatup and cooldown curves for Unit 1 and Unit 2).

3) Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.5 and Surveillance Requirement 4.0.6 outlines the method by which number 1 above is accomplished:

The proposed Technical Specincations in the two volume manuals will change the above as follows:

1) The pages will now contain the same information as found before with the exception of references to different units. The Unit I volume will only contain parameter and setpoint values applicable to Unit 1; the Unit 2 volume will only contain information applicable to Unit 2.

2) These pages will remain the same, however, they will be found only in the unit specific volume which they are defining.

3) Section 3.0.5 and 4.0.6 will be deleted. Since each unit's specifications will be located in a separate volume, no statements are necessary to indicate differences in parameters between units.

Justification for the Proposed Changes Since the proposed change is strictly administrative, no system parameters, setpoints or safety limits will be affected and therefore, the change will have no safety impact.

l At present, each station has a single volume which contains the speci5 cations covering both j units. In anticipation of the steam generator replacement project scheduled to begin in the  !

fall of 1994, we are requesting that the Technical Specifications reflect unit specific data.

Since the steam generator replacement project outlines a schedule for single units, the present documentation reflecting both units in one manual will make it difficult to facilitate technical specifications changes to a single unit. l

~

4 Analysis of Significant Ilazards Consideration As required by 10 CFR 50.91, this analysis is provided concerning whether the proposed amendments involve significant hazards considerations, as denned by 10 CFR 50.92.

Standards for determination that a proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards considerations are if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: 1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or 2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The ,)toposed amendments would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident. The separation of the existing technical specification manual into unit-specific volumes is a strictly administrative process which will not affect the probability or consequence of any accident.

They will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The changes do not have any impact upon the design or operation of plant equipment; therefore, they cannot serve to initiate a new type of accident.

The proposed amendments would not involve a reduction in a margin of safety. The changes would not impact the design or operation of any plant systems or components.

Based upon the preceding analysis, Duke Power Company concludes that the proposed amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92.

.