ML20205T539
| ML20205T539 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1987 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0696, RTR-NUREG-696 GL-82-33, NUDOCS 8704070317 | |
| Download: ML20205T539 (3) | |
Text
-, -
= -
~ -. -. -.
l
_w 4
DUKE POWER COMPANY P.O. BOX 33180
^
CHARLOTTE. N.C. 28242 HAL B. TUCKER reLarnown (704) 373-4838 vioR -
nT ptE. LEAR PSODUCTRON i
March 26, 1987 i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Doctament Control Desk
. Washington, D. C. 20555 i
Subject:
-Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 cud 50-414 i
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 l
Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 Backfit Appeal i
Dear Sir:
i On March 25, 1986, Duke Power Company (Duke) requested that the NRC Staff prepare a backfitting analysis concerning changes requested by the Staff to the Safety l
Parameter Display Systems (SPDS's) at Catawba and McGuire (Attachment 1).
The change requests were made in a Safety Evaluation report for McGuire dated February i
l.
28, 1986 and in SSER-5 (February, 1986) for Catawba. Positions taken by the Staff j
in the essentially identical SER's for McGuire and Catawba would cause' Duke to change the design and operation of McGuire and Catawba from that consistent with already applicable regulatory staff positions. On June 13, 1986.the Staff rejected i
Duke's backfitting clain (Attachment 2).
)
After a thorough review of the staff's response, it is our conclusion that the j
Staff based their denial on an incorrect application of Manual Chapter 0514 and on j
an incorrect interpretation of 10 CFR 50.109.
On March 28 and 29, 1984 respectively, Duke submitted the descriptions of the l
Catawba and McGuire SPDS's. As noted in the staff's September 10, 1985 SPDS audit results, the Catawba (ar.d McGuire) SPDS is a sof tware application programed on an l
already existing computer system. The SPDS design consists of a' display containing
}
six critical safety function (CSF) boxes that use color and pattern coding to
]
convey the status of the function. The functions monitored are:
1) suberiticality, 2) core cooling, 3) heat sink, 4) integrity, 5) containment, and 6)
{
inventory. Secondary displays provide further information in the form of status l
trees, one for each CSF. The status tree displays are based on the Westinghouse Owners Group Emergency Response Guidelines (ERG's), which have been approved by the NRC.
Generic Letter 82-33 provides conflicting guidance for the SPDS design. Section 3.1 suggests that the SPDS design should be consistent with the function oriented 2
emergency procedures. However, the CSF's that are addressed by the ERG's are not identical to the five CSF's suggested by the NRC in'Section 4.1(f). By letters.
5 dated January 23, and November 27, 1985, Duke provided a comparison and discussion l
of the CSF's proposed by Generic Letter 82-33 and CSF's incorporated in the McGuire/ Catawba SPDS. The SPDS design currently in use at McGuire and Catawba J
I B704070317 870326 PDR ADOCK 05000369 00 p
PDR g
I
. A
o y
U. S. Nuciccr R2gulctcry Commiccicn March 26, 1987 I'
Page 2 4
4 provides the optimum enhancement to the operator's ability to comprehend plant l
conditions in situations that require operator action. - The NRC's proposed addition i
of CSF's that are inconsistent with the ERG's would be counter productive.
1 It remains Duke's position that the Staff's February, 1986 SER's were not timely within the meaning of the Manual Chapter.
Furthermore, the positions taken by the Staff in the subject SER's go beyond the guidance provided.in Generic Letter 82-33 and Standard Review Plan (SRP) 18.2.
The guidance to the Staff in Appendix A of Manual Chapter 0514 clearly indicates that such actions should be considered plant-specific backfits.
In denying Duke's backfit claim, the NRC Staff noted three reasons (meetings, SRP revisions and other plant SER's) that Duke should have been on notice as to the Staff's requirements for SPDS.
It is Duke's position that none of the examples I
cited by the Staff constitute valid regulatory staff positions in accordance with l
Manual Chapter 0514, Section 053.
I 1
NRC/NUTAC meeting - Positions discussed at meetings do not constitute o
)
j legal requirements, written commitments nor NRC Staff positions (5053).
i j
Draft of Staff position subsequently issued on December 26, 1984 as SRP o
1 Section 18.2 - The draft SRP was, by its very nature, not an approved regulatory staff position.
The formal issuance of SRP Section 18.2 on i
December 26, 1984 was after the submittal of the McGuire/ Catawba SPDS design in March 1984 and after implementation of the SPDS at McGuire in i
November 1984.
Furthermore, positions taken by the Staff in the subject SER's go beyond the guidance and acceptance criteria of SRP 18.2.
I
}
SPDS SER's issued on other plants - SER's issued on other plants are o
]
clearly not legal requirements on any other plant, nor ere they written l
)
commitments or approved NRC staff positions on any plant other that the plant for whom the SER was written.
Therefore, other plant SER's do not j
constitute applicable regulatory staff positions pursuant to 5053.
i It should also be pointed out that the last paragraph of the Staff's June 13, 1986 l
1etter denying the backfit incorrectly relied on 10 CFR 50.109(b). This portion of j
the Backfit Rule states:
r I
l
" Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to backfits imposed prior to October 21, 1985."
l Indeed there were applicable Staff positions, which were cited in Duke's March 25, 1986 letter, which predate the Backfit Rule.
These positions are set out in Generic Letter 82-33 and NUREG-0696.
It is Duke's position - as explained in a letter dated January 23, 1985, that the McGuire/ Catawba SPDS design met the intent l
of these positions.
The backfit was not created until the Staff issued SER's for McGuire and Catawba in February,1986, well af ter the effective date of the Backfit Rule.
lt_,_-.,._._.._,,___._.___.___.,__...,..___.___,..,_.__
l l
U. S. Nucl0nr Regulat:ry Cosmicci:n March 26, 1987 Page 3 Therefore based on the above showing that the Staff's June 13, 1986 denial of Duke's March 29, 1986 backfit claims was based on an incorrect application of 10 CFR 50.109 and Manual Chapter 0514, it is requested that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation reverse their previous denial.
Very truly yours, aAw-~
Hal B. Tucker ROS/10/sbn Attachment xc:
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator Mr. W. T. Orders U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC Resident Inspector Region II McGuire Nuclear Station 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dr. K. Jabbour Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D. C.
20555 i
Mr. Darl Hood Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. J. H. Sniezek, Deputy EDO U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station
t ATTACHMENT 1 Dune: POWER GOMPANY P.O. BOX 33189 ciums.orra x.c. ses4a HAI. n. TtlCEEn 88ECLSaa.
March 25, 1986 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention: Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Project Director PWR Project Directorate No. 4 Ret Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 McGuire Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370
Dear Sir:
On March 28 and 29, 1984, respectively, Duke Power Company (Duke) submitted the descriptions of the Catawba and McGuire Safety Parameter Display Systems (SPDS). The SPDS was developed by Duka and has been implemented in essentially identical form at Catawba and McGuire. An onsite design verification / validation audit was conducted by NRC on May 14 and 15,1985.
Results of the audit were transmitted on September 10 and October 31, 1985 for Catawba Unit 2 and on November 7, 1985 for McGuire.
Safety Evaluation Reports were recently received for the SPDS on McGuire (February 28, 1986) and Catsuba (SSER-5). As discussed below, positions taken by the Staff in the essentially identical SER's for McGuire and Catawba, would cause Duke to change the design and operation of McGuire and Catawba from that consistent with already applicable regulatory staff positions.
(1) Generic t.atter 82-33 Paragraph 4.1(f) notes that "The specific parameters to be displayed shall be determined by the licensee".- Contrary to this statement the Staff has required that additional, specified variables be added to the McGuire/ Catawba SPDS.
i (2) NUREG-0696, Function Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities
)
i Section II.E notes that the SPDS display any be individual plant parameters or derived variables aivina an overall system status (emphasis added). Conersry to this guidance the Staff has required that McGuire/ Catawba SPDS be redesigned / defined to include the actual value of all of the SPDS input variables as well as the additional variables noted above.
ff'
l Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director March 25, 1986 Page Two i
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109 and NRC Manual Chapter 0514 it is requested that the Staff provide an analysis which demonstrates that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or common defense and security to be derived from the imposition of the identified backfit and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation are justified in view of this increased protection.
As further evidence that the Staff's request constitutes a plant-specific backfit, it should be noted that the Staff's SER's were not timely with regards to implementation of the SPDS at McGuire and Catawba. Appendix A -
Guidaace for Makins Backfit Determinations, of NRC Manual Chapter 0514 notes:
...if a licensee has implemented a technical resolution intended to i
aset an applicable regulatory staff position, and the Staff for an extended period simply allows the licensee resolution to stand with tacit acceptance indicated by nonection on the part of NRC, then a subsequent action to change the licensee's design, construction, or operation is a backfic.
l As noted above, the description of the McGuire/ Catawba SPDS was transmitted to the NRC in March, 1984. The SPDS was implemented on both McGuire units in November,1984 as required by a Confirmatory Order dated June 15, 1984.
The SPDS was implemented on Catawba Unit 1 prior to April 1, 1985 as required by License Condition 12(b) of Facility Operating License NPF-35.
l Therefore, Duke considers that the recent SER's, dated February,1986, are l
not timely with respect to Duka's submittals and the required implementation dates for the SPDS.
On February 24, 1986, Facility Operating License NPF-48 was issued for Catawba Unit 2.
License Condition 9(b) required that the SPDS be modified j
to add five additional parameters as discussed in SSER-5.
Since this License Condition is contrary to the guidance of Generic Letter 82-33 and in the absence of a backfit analysis, it is requested that this license i
condition be deleted from the Catawba Unit 2 Full Power License when issued.
l Very truly yours, kr s
j Hal B. Tucker ROS:slb Attachment
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director March 25, 1986 Page Three Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr., Acting Executive Director for Operations xc:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 NRC Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station NRC Resident Inspector Catsuba Nuclear Station Dr. K. N. Jabbour Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Darl Hood Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co M asion Washington, D. C.
20555
,,.,_.m,__
ATTACHMENT 2
[g#K8CgD UNITED STATES o
E' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g.
p JUN 131986 Docket Nos.: 50-369, 50-370 and 50-413, 50-414 Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Department Duke Power Company Post Office Box 33189 Charlotte, NC 28242
Dear Mr. Tucker:
SUBJECT:
BACXFIT DETERMINATION REGARDING THE SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM - MCGUIRE AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATIONS, UNITS 1 AND 2 4
By letter of March 25, 1986, you requested that certain positions by the NRC staff in its Safety Evaluation Reports for McGuire (February 28, 1986) and Catawba (SSER #5) regarding the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) be processed as a plant-specific backfit in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109 and NRC Manual Chapter 0514. You also requested that a related License Condition 9(b)
I in the Catawba, Unit 2, low power license be deleted from the full power license when issued.
Generic Letter 82-33 (Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, " Requirements for Emergency Response Capability") specified not only that five minimum Critical Safety Functions be displayed, but stated that the " minimum infomation to be provided shall be sufficient to provide information to plant operators about..." those functions (Paragraph 4.1.f).
While GL-82-33 pemits licensees to select specific parameters through which to display the necessary infomation, the discretion to select parameters does not relieve licensees from providing
" operators with the infomation necessary for safe reactor operation under i
The staff SERs nomal, transient, and accident conditions" (Paragraph 4.1.c).
for McGuire and Catawba clearly demonstrate that you have not satisfied the perfomance standard established by GL-82-33.
Examples of your failure to satisfy GL-82-33 include:
(1) the complete absence of a Radioactivity Control safety function, and (2) failure to provide sufficient information to plant operators about Reactor Core Cooling and Heat Removal from the Primary System, and Containment Conditions, two of the other required safety functions.
Furthemore, while GL-82-33 pemits licensees to select specific parameters for display, you display no specific parameters on your SPDS. GL-82-33 was issued to all licensees and applicants on December 17, 1982, nearly three years prior to the effective date of the backfit rule.
The positions taken in the staff SERs were connunicated directly to Duke on I
several occasions. The staff made the Industry aware of its position as early as 1982 in a meeting with the NUTAC group which included representatives from Duke Power Company.
In September 1983, the staff provided similar comments i
and a draft of the staff position, which was subsequently issued on December 26, t
.{
H. B. Tucker.
1984, as Section 18.2 of the NRC's Standard Review Plan, to an INPO-NUTAC connittee (including a Duke representative).
It should also be noted that prior to November 1984, the staff issued SPDS SERs for other plants consistent with j
those issued for McGuire and Catawba. Therefore, Duke was aware of the NRC staff positions prior to the implementation of the McGuire/ Catawba SPDS.
Since the pertinent staff positions were available, first in December 1982, and in a more detailed form in December 1984, your argument that the February 1986 SERs are untimely responses to your submittal of a description of the i
McGuire/ Catawba SPDS in March 1984, and implementation of the McGuire SPDS i
and Catawba SPDS in November 1984 and April 1, 1985, respectively, is unavailing. As the staff positions were set forward during the pertinent time frame, 1982-1984, and not February 1986, any reliance on the last paragraph of the Appendix NRC Manual Chapter 0514 to base a claim of tacit approval is unfounded.
In fact, the staff SERs stated that the licensee's SPDS does not fully meet the applicable requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 and con-cluded that it was only acceptable to implemer.t the SPDS on a interim basis.
In view of the above, the staff positions which you challenged were taken long before the backfit rule became effective and, therefore, do not fall within the scope of the rule. As a result the staff positions do not qualify J
as backfits to which 10 CFR 50.109(b) applies and License Condition 9(b) for 1
Catawba Unit 2 has not been deleted from the full power license. Accordingly, your request is denied. However, as you are aware, you have the option to fonnally appeal the technical basis for the staff's position on this matter.
l Sincerely,
/
W Harold R. Denton, Director l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
cc: See next page l
i i
)
- i d
a Mr. H. B. Tucker Catawba Nuclear Station Duke Power Company cc:
North Carolina Electric Membership l
William L. Porter, Esq..
Corp.
Duke Power Company 3333 North Boulevard P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina.28242 P.O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 l
J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Bishop. Libeman, Cook, Purcell Inc.
i and Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 929 i
Washington, D. C.
20036 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 Senior Resident Inspector North Carolina MPA-1 Route 2, Box 179N Suite 600 York, South Carolina 29745 i
3100 Smoketree Ct.
P.O. Box 29513 l
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Regional Administrator, Region: II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connissioni 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Mr. C. D. Markham Power Systems Division Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Westinghouse Electric Corp.
4 l
P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Robert Guild, Esq.
2759 Rosewood Drive l
NUS Corporation Columbia, South Carolina 29205 2536 Countryside Boulevard i
Clearwater, Florida 33515 Palmetto Alliance 2759 Rosewood Drive I
Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President Columbia, South Carolina 29205 i
Carolina Environmental Study Group Karen E. Long 854 Henley Place Assistant Attorney General j
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208 N.C. Department of Justice l
l Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
P.O. Box 629 l
Assistant Attorney General Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 S.C. Attorney General's Office I
P.O. Box 11549 Spence Perry, Esquire Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Room 840 500 C Street 100 Memorial Drive Greer, South Carolina 29651 Washington, D. C.
20472 4
f Mark S. Calvert, Esq.
Mr. Michael Hirsch Federal Emergency Management Agency l
Bishop. Liberman, Cook, Office of the General Counsel Purcell & Reynolds Room 840 i
1200 17th Street, N.W.
l Washington, D. C.
20036 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.
20472 l
Brian P. Cassidy, Regional Counsel l
i Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region I J. W. McComach POCH l
Boston,' Massachusetts 02109 i
s-4 Mr. H. B. Tucker McGuire Nuclear S,tation Duke Power Company cc:
Dr. John M. Barry Mr. A. Carr Department of Environmental Health Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Mecklenburg County 422 South Church Street 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 Mr. F. J. Twogood County Manager of Mecklenburg County Power Systems Division 720 East Fourth Street Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Chairman, North Carolina Utilities Commission Mr. Robert Gill Dobbs Building 430 North Salisbury Street Duke Power Company Nuclear Production Department Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch J. Michael McGarry, III. Esq.
Division of Facility Services Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Department of Human Resources and Reynolds P.O. Box 12200 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Washington, D. C.
20036 Senior Resident Inspector c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 4, Box 529 Hunterville, North Carolina 28078 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 L. L. Williams Operating Plants Projects Regional Manager Westinghouse Electric Corporation - R&D 701 P. O. Box 2728 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
--e
-