ML20154J565

Application for Amend to License NPF-52,allowing Addl Time for Resolution of SPDS Issue.Fee Paid

ML20154J565
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	09/14/1988
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
NUDOCS 8809230069
Download: ML20154J565 (8)

Text

.o-^ ,y , , l Duke Fwn Company Hu 11 Tuser PO Box 33193 Vice President Charlotte, N C 28242 Nuclear Pnoduction l (704)373 4531 DUKEPOWER September 14, 1988 ,

l i

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 i Operating License Amendments

Dear Sir:

Attached is a proposed license amendment to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Operating License. NPF-52. This change will be required prior to startup following the second r9 fueling outage at Catawba Unit 2.

Attachment 1 conts' e 3 sed amendment to license condition 8(b) of operating license NPF-52. '

int would allow additional time for resolution of the Safety Parameter * :em issue.

This request is a- _ to the Catawba Unit 2 operating license. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFh 170.21, a check for $150.00 is enclosed.

~

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1) the appropriate South Carolina State Official is being provided a copy of this amendment request.

Very truly yours Hal B. Tucker PGLOS.D1/lcs Attachment i

l i

8009230069 000914 1 PDR ADOCK0500g3 ~

gph $5*

A e?"

m . .._ _ __ . . . _ . _ . . - _ _.

U. S. Nuclear Rsgulatory Commission Septembsr 14, 1988  !

Page Two xc Dr. J. Ncison Grace, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Region II.  !

101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323

'~

Mr. Heyward Shealy, Chief  ;

Bureau of Radiological Health ,

South Carolina Department of Health & l Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street '

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 l American Nuclear Insurers c/o Dottie Sherman, ANI Library i The Exchange, Suite 245 i 270 Farmington Avenue '

Farmington, CT 06032 ll

! M&M Nuclear Consultants '

i 1221 Avenue of the Americas 1 New York, New York 10020 1

INPO Records Center Suite 1500 1100 circle 75 Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn 1 NRC Resident Inspector ,

Catawba Nuc1 car Station l I

J i

i 4

3 i

i e

i l,

4

U. S. Nucle r Regulatory Commiesion Septembsr 14, 1988 Page Three liAL B. TUCKER, being duly sworn, states that he is Vice President of Duke Power Company; that he is authorized on the part of said Company to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this revision to the Catawba Nuclear Station Technical Specifications Appendix A to License No. NPF-35 and NPF-52; and that all statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, f '& 4 ..

Ital B. Tucker, Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of September, 1988.

tafy Public V' '#

LU0A)

S'gst\ \ Ilif fig 74..N..L.lihg' . . . . . . . ..:

My Cornission Expirost SU,/ O T 4 n ) 'M

-i ...

1 ,E 111 l. t Q

.4 m

a . .

rpd[i C Cb 3

8tietin(o

ATTAClfMENT 1 DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 LICENSE CONDITION (8)(b)

i 1

.- I

. . l (1) Requested Amendment Amend Facility Operating License NPF-52 License Condition (8)(b) to read:

Prior to December 8,1989, Duke Power Company shall add to the existing SPDS and have operational the following SPDS parameters: (a) residual heat removal flow, (b) containment isolation status, (c) stack radiation measurements, and (d) steam generator or steamline radiation.

The actual value of these and all other SPDS variables should be displayed for operator viewing in easily and rapidly accessible display formats.

(2) Discussion Supplemont 1 to NUREG-0737 required licensees to provide a Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS). The purpose of the SPDS is to provide a concise display of critical plant variables to control room operators to aid them in rapidly and reliably determining the safety status of the plant.

Duke provided a description of the Catawba SPDS on March 28, 1984. The Staff requested additional information in a letter dated September 14, 1984.

Duke responded in a letter dated October 18, 1984. On January 17, 1985, the NRC issued a full power operating license for Catawba Unit 1. L'oense Condition (12)(b) required the SPDS to be operational prior to April 1, 1985.

On May 14-15, 1985 an onsite design verification / validation audit was conducted by the NRC. Specific findings were documented in an audit report transmitted on September 10, 1985. The Staff issued another Request for Additional Information on October 31, 1985. Duke responded to this request and to the audit findings on November 27, 1985. In February, 1986, the NRC issued the low power operating license for Catawba Unit 2 along with Supplement 5 to the Safety Evaluation Report.

Supplement 5 concluded:

"... that the Catawba SFDS does not fully meet the applicable provisions of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737.

However, since the Staff did not identify any serious safety concerns with the existing system, the Catawba SPDS may be operated as an interim implementation until the open issues identified herein are resolved".

The SER identified five parameters and the backup display as modifications needing to be made to the Catawba SPDS. These requirements were imposed as License Condition (9)(b) of Facility Operating License NPF-48 and later as License Condition (8)(b) in NPF-52.

On March 25, 1986 Duke identified the requested changes as a plant-specific backfit and requested that the staff prepare a backfitting analysis. By letter dated June 13, 1986 the NRC denied Duke's backfit claim. On March 26, 1987 Duke appealed the Staff's denial of the backfitting claim.

s-l l

To help resolve this issue, the Staff and their contractors visited the McGuire site on June 29 to July 1, 1987 and reviewed the design and implementation of the McGuire/ Catawba SPDS with specific emphasis on the items in dispute. The Staff's conclusions were contained in a September 4, 1987 letter from J. H. Sniczek. In that report, the Staff concluded that 4 of the 5 parameters identified in Supplement 5 along with the backup displays should be added. One of the five parameters previously required, hot leg temperature, was already included as an input into SPDS.  !

On February 18, 1988 Duke submitted a proposed final resolution of this issue. On May 13, 1988 acceptance of our proposal by the Staff was ,

documented by S. A. Varga's letter. As noted in our February 18, 1988 l 1etter, we proposed implementation of the modifications to the SPDS at the l

! next Catawba refueling outages. It has been determined the modifications ,

i should be mado during non-outage time. Delaying the implementation of these  !

modifications by approximately 10 months will allow the modifications to be made on Unit 1 and Unit 2 in the same time frame. This will keep the units SPDSs equivalent. <

(3) Safety Analysis The purpose of the SPDS is to provide a concise display vi critical plant 4

variables to control room operators to aid them in rapidly and reliably determining the safety status of the plant. However, the SPDS is not a  :

safety-grade system and is not intended to fulfill the post-accident monitoring requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97. All parameters, including the additional parameters, are already provided in the control room. It in l therefore Duke's conclusion that extension of the date for modification of the Catawba Unit 2 SPDS until December 8, 1989 does not involve any adverse

. safety considerations. Addition of the hot leg temperature is a moot point since this parameter is already an input into the SPDS as acknowledged by J. ,

H. Sniezek's letter of September 4, 1987.  !

i (4) Analysis of Significant Hazards Consideration As required by 10 CFR 50.91, thir analysis is provided concerning whether the l proposed amendment involves sign.ficant hazards considerations, as defined by ,

, 10 CFR 50.91. Standards for determination that a proposed amendment involves l J

no 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. l i'

The proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the I

probability of an accident previously evaluated because the Safety Parameter i

Display System is provided as an aid to the operator, all parameters ,

displayed on the SPDS are provided separately in the Control Room, and SPDS ,

is not used for control functions. )

The proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or l

, different kind of accident than previously evaluated since the design and

! operation of the unit will not be affected.

I 1

4 l

The proposed amendment woe.1d not cause a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The extension of time in which to resolve the SPDS issue and perform required modifications would have no impact on safety margins since SPDS is an cperator aid and is not relied upon as a safety system.

i I

i

.i l

d

U. S. Nuclotr R:gulctory Cocniccion Septesber 14, 1988 Page Four bxc L. T. Burba A. V. Carr R. C. Futrell R. L. Gill R. M. Glover J. M. McGarry R. G. Morgan R. W. Quellette T. B. Owen N. A. Rutherford G. B. Swindlehurst J. G. Torre NC MPA-1 NCEMC PHPA SREC Group File: CN-801.01 l l

l l

4 l

l i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _