ML20207T280
| ML20207T280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1986 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205H658 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-68, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 GL-82-33, NUDOCS 8703230390 | |
| Download: ML20207T280 (10) | |
Text
n _
+ o UNITED STATES g
8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\...../
Docket Nos.: 50-369, 50-370 and 50-413, 50-414
y MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr. ,
Executive Director for Operations FROM: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
BACKFIT DETERMINATION REGARDING THE SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM - MCGUIRE AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATIONS, UNITS 1 AND 2 By letter of March 25, 1986, Duke Power Company requested that certain positions by the NRC (February 28,1986) and staff Catawba in its(SSER Safety)
- 5 Evaluation regarding the Reports for McGuire Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) be processed as a plant-specific backfit in accord-ance with 10 CFR 50.109 and NRC Manual Chapter 0514 Duke also requested that a related License Condition 9(b) in the Catawba, Unit 2, low power license be deleted from the full power license when issued.
Generic Letter 82-33 (Supplement I to NUREG-0737," Requirements for Emergency Response Capability") specified not only that five minimum Critical Safety Functions be displayed, but stated that the " minimum information to be provided shall be sufficient to provide information to plant operators about..." those functions (Paragraph 4.1.f). While GL-82-33 permits licensees to select specific parameters through which to display the necessary information, the discretion to select parameters does not relieve licensees from providing
" operators with the information necessary for safe reactor operation under normal, transient, and accident conditions" (Paragraph 4.1.c). The staff SERs for McGuire and Catawba clearly demonstrate that Duke has not satisfied the perfonnance standard established by GL-82-33. Examples of Duke's failure to satisfy GL-82-33 include: (1)thecompleteabsenceofaRadioactivityControl 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 Critical Safety Functions.
Furthennore, while GL-82-33 pennits licensees to select specific parameters j for display, Duke displays no specific parameters on its 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 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 and a draft of the staff position, which was subsequently issued on December 26, 8703230390 870319 SNNCE -68 PDR
a .
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 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 1962, 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 McGuire/ Catawba SPDS in March 1984, and implementation of the McGuire SPDS and Catawba SPDS in November 1984 and April 1,1985, respectively, is unavailing. As the staff positions were set forward during the pertinent tim 6 frame, 1982-1984, and not February 1986, any reliance on the last paragraph of the Appendix NRC Manual Chapter 0514 to base a claim to 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 implement 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 as backfits to which 10 CFR 50.109(b) applies and License Condition b) fpr 9(qualify 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 formally appeal the technical basis for the staff's position on this matter.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File OELD NRC PDR ACRS(10)
Local PDR s JPartlow PRC System ~EJordan NSIC BGrimes PWRf4 Rdg MDuncan DHood BJYoungblood Rdg
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES HThompson EICSB/DPA SL/EICSB/DPA BC/EICSB/DPA AD/DPA PM/PDf4/DPA 0 ELD
- JKramer:ct *SWeiss *FPosa *CERossi *DHood *GJohnson 06/03/86 04/18/86 ,
04/18/86 04/18/86 06/03/86 04/18/86 LA/PD#4 D/PD#4 ACT. D/DPA NRR D/NRR l
- MDuncan *BJYoungblood TMNovak DEisenhut HDenton 04/18/86 06/03/86
9 H. B. Tucker -1984, as Section 18.2 of the NRC's Standard Review Plan, to an.INP0-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 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 McGuire/ Catawba SPDS in March 1984, and implementation of the McGuire SPDS and Catawba SPDS in November 1984 and April 1, 1985, respectively, is unavailing. As the staff positions were set fomard during the pertinent time frame, 1982-1984, and not February 1986, any reliance qn the last paragraph of the Appendix NRC Manual Chapter 0514 to base a claim M tacit approval is -
unfounded. In fact, the staff SERs stated that the licensee's SPDS does not fully meet the applicable requirements of Supplement I to NUREG-0737 and con-cluded that.it was only acceptable to implement 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 as backfits to which 10 CFR 50.109(b) applies and License Condition 9(b) fpr 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.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page
t, .
-p.
V. Stello, Jr. - 2.-
~ ~~
1984, as Sectioni18.2 of the NRC's Standard-Review' Plan, to an INP0-NUTAC committee (including'a, Duke representative).. It should also be noted that prior to November 1984 -the staff issued SPDS SERs for other plants consistent with 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, Duke's argument that the February 1986 SERs are untimely responses to their submittal of a description of the McGuire/ Catawba SPDS in-March 1984, and implementation of the McGuire SPDS 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 implement the SPDS on an interim basis.
In view of the above, the staff positions which Duke challanged 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 as backfits to which 10 CFR 50.109(b) applies and License Condition b) for9(qualify Catawba Unit 2 has not been deleted from the full pcwer license. Accordingly, the staff proposes to deny Duke's request for backfit treatment.
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
V. Stello, Jr. 1984, as Section 18.2 of the NRC's Standard Review Plan, to an INPO-NUTAC committee (including a Duke representative). It should also be noted that prior to November 1984, the staff issued SPDS SERs for other plants consistent with 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, Duke's argument that the February 1986 SERs are untimely responses to their submittal of a description of the McGuire/ Catawba SPDS in March 1984, and implementation of the McGuire SPDS 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 implement the SPDS on an interim basis.
In view of the above, the staff positions which Duke challanged 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 as backfits to which 10 CFR 50.109(b) applies and License Condition b) for 9(qualify Catawba Unit 2 has not been deleted from the full power license. Accordingly, the staff proposes to deny Duke's request for backfit treatment.
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE y 5F PWRf4/DPWR-A PWRf4/DPWR-A PWRf4/DPWR-A EISCB AD/DPWR-A
- DHood/ rad *MDuncan
- BJYoungblood *FRosa *ERossi 04/sf/86 04/1</86 04/15/86 04/fg/86 04/st/86 lt ,
05/c3/Y' OELD (NhD/DPWR-A D/NRR
- Johnson TNovak HDenton 04/,(/86 04/ /86 04/ /86 L
7
~
Victor Stello, Jr. -
In view of the above, the staff positions challenged by Duke were taken long before the backfit rul became effectivo and, therefore, do not fall within the scope of the rul . As a result, the staff positions do not qualify as backfits under 10 CF 50.109, and Lice e Condition 9(b) for Catawba' Unit 2 should not be delete from the full po er license. Accordingly, we propose to deny Duke's reque t.
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: H. Thompson
Contact:
D. Hood, x28060 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File PRC System PWRf4 Rdg MDuncan DHood KJabbour
.D.5lt .
PWR#4/DPWR-A
\
PWFJgf}PWR-A DU l*
PWR#4/DPWR-A EIC B 0h AD/DPWR DHood/mac MDuncan BJYoungblood i '
FRosa ERossi 04/l[/86 04/l$'/86 04/;y /86 04//g /86 04// d86 IELD DD/DPWR-A D/NRR O)bhwjon TNovak HDenton Q4/I! /86 04/ /86 04/ /86
,h '
n, w a ,.,
l D ll,jp
g . h O i
6
'I w
l I
?
1 mw a
- O aeea- e 6 4 6-e m as- m
{
. me m m, et E
f I
l i
l - -
e e ma m 9 w
,m . -- ,
' m-
-m e
9 e=-
m-m -
w* *w-M-- O # _ _ ,
- " "M em mmmm. ,
w * -- , m, ,,, _ _,
.._-.--g---e-- ,----. . - --- - - - -- -- - - -_.~ .- - - .-_ __,, - , .- - _ ---.3-,-, -,-e ,m--, , ,, -
a m -Em._,- a. _ - - a a aa. a,,a u ,_ -- - - - - - - - -- - - ---
e
- 1 1
,h .
/.. t
. . s
~
5 ' '
.~,
~
s e.e, i<' ,
{
~ \
4 ' ,.
(
'j . . +
g,,, '--
- - .b ,i ,, -. . g ,h .
{
,' i 1 '
, rw
'-.c, >
O i
l [
l '
w
- w i
- l. -
s ,s
.' f4 s
s%
l
- , . s
.t. _
83
.g 8
.y '
Ki6 l* .'
- . )'..y., .
_.r I ' ' ' ' .
,K]
Q'MV{w'%% Y _ - . 'y.' $,,%('. .. *
.a <' -.
. 4. S , - *-, _
e
-a.
. ~.
- ;NITED STATES
[ p, NUCLEAR TaGULATORY COMMISSION j C j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
% ....../
Docket No. 50-400 Mr. E. E. Utley, Senior Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction Carolina Power and Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Utley:
Subject:
Shearon Harris Backfit Considerations In your submittals dated February 6,1986, Serial Nos. NLS-86-054 and NLS-86-055, you stated that you consider two design changes to be plant specific backfits in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109. Your staff most recently discussed these issues in a meeting with NRR personnel on May 2, 1986. We have considered your written positions and the subsequent Technical discussion and provide our comments below.
Letter dated February 6, 1986, Serial No. NLS-86-054 states that the proposed Technical Specification in Section 3.7.1.3 of the " Proof and Review" Technical Specification for Shearon Harris Unit 1, forwarded to you by letter dated January 30, 1986, would limit the operation of the eight-inch containment purge and exhaust valves to less than one thousand hours per calendar year. You state that to meet the one thousand hour proposed limit would require design modifi-cations and revisions to operating procedures and requested that the NRC staff review this requirement as a plant specific backfit in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109.
In regard to the backfit aspects of the issue, Carolina Power and Light Company tendered an application for an Operating License for Shearon Harris Unit 1 by letter dated June 26, 1980. Docketing occurred on December 22, 1981. The staff has been requiring restrictions on containment purging during operation as of 1975. The second paragraph on page 6.2.4-11 of Branch Technical Position CSB 6-4, Revision 1, " Containment Purging During Normal Plant Operations" dated 1975, states that plant designs should not rely on the use of containment purge on a routine bases. Furthermore, page 6.2.4-12 of the above cited Branch Technical Position states " Purge system designs that are acceptable for use on non-routine basis during normal plant operation can be achieved by providing additional purge and vent lines." Revision 4 to the " Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications for Pressurized Water Reactors" dated September 28, 1981, reaffirmed the staff's use of a limit on containment purging during normal operation. Moreover, recently licensed plants such as Catawba 2, River Bend, and Diablo Canyon, Unit 2 have purging limits of 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br />,1000 hours and 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> per calendar year, respectively.
FOIA-B7-%
M3
. . . m Mr. E. E. Utley '
t Implementation of this requirement is. widespread and well known. .The staff has; identified its concern on containment purging as far back as 1975 which
- ' predates your docketing date of December 22, 1981 and thus would not be characterized as a backfit .in.accordance with 10 CFR 50.~109. Therefore, we deny your request for-backfit status.
However, we believe-.there-is technical merit to the concern that you raised on the containment purging. limit and that continuing our discussions during the
" Proof and Review" phase of the Shearon Harris Technical Specifications. review i
- is warranted.
~
'In regard to the "backfit" aspec'ts =of the second issue, your letter of February 6,;
1986, Serial _ No. NLS-86-055, responded to the staff letter of January 21, 1986,' which provided our evaluation of your conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 2 dated December 1980. We stated in that letter that we would require, by first refueling outage, that either the accumulator pressure or-level instrumentation be environmentally qualified. Your letter of February 6, 1986 states that you consider this design change to be a plant specific backfit as discussed in-10 CFR 50.109.
Regulatory Guide-1.97, Revision 2 was issued in December 1980 which is approxi-mately one year prior to the docketing of your operating license application-l 1.e., December 22, 1981. Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 is applicable to
, all nuclear power plants and is cited as a guide in 10 CFR 50.49. We do.not 4
believe that this requirement is a backfit in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109..
'Therefore, your request is denied. However, .in our May 2,1986 meeting, your staff discussed the technical basis as to _why neither the accumulator level or L pressure instrumentation were required during the post-accident phase. Your
. rationale was that the accumulators are a passive system and the level and pressure variables are monitored as required by the Technical Specifications during' normal operation to maintain the accumulators in an "as-ready" condition.
Safety grade isolation valve. position indication is provided,-power to the
. valves is locked out at the circuit breakers and no immediate operator action is required until power is restored to the isolation valve. Furthermore, the emergency response facilities information system computer would record the
- ~ accumulator pressure and level variables during and following an accident thus providing data which would indicate whether or not the accumulators performed their design function. As you are aware, you have the option to formally appeal the technical basis for the staff's position'on this matter.
t l Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
-cc: See next page t
h 1
y j.- - - q;r va -
v[
'Mr.1E.-E. Ut' ley
- Carolina Power.& Light. Company Shearon. Harris t
,, :CC* .
' George F.' Trowbridge, Esq. Mr. Travis Payne,:Esq.
. Shaw, Pittman, Potts_& Trowbridge - 723 W.: Johnson Street
- ' ;1800 M-Street, NW Post' Office Box 12643 '
. -Washington, DC :20036 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
~
~
.RichardLE.' Jones,'Esq.. - Mr. Daniel F. Read:
Associate General Counsel CHANGE LCarolina Power'&. Light. Company Post Office Box 2151 411.Fayetteville Street Mall Raleigh, North Carolina 127602 Raleigh . North Carolina 27602 .
Bradley W. Jones,' Esq. .
Jo Anne Sanford, Esq. ~
,. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Special Deputy-Attorney General. - Region II State of North Carolina 101.Marietta Street
. . Post Office Box 629. . Atlanta, Georgia 30303
-Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
. Richard D. Wilson, M.D.
Thomas S. Erwin',-Esq. 725 Hunter Street
'115 W. Morgan Street: Apex, North Carolina 27502
'Raleigh, North. Carolina 27602
~
Regional. Administrator,. Region II ~
Resident' Inspector / Harris NPS- _
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
c/o U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Connission 101 Marietta Street Route 1, Box 315B .
Suite 2900 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Atlanta,. Georgia 30303 Charles D. Barham,;Jr., Esq. Mr.-Robert P. Gruber Vice President & Senior Counsel Executive Director Carolina Power:& Light Company Public Staff - NCUC.
Post Office Box-1551 ' Post Office Box'991 Raleigh,. North Carolina 27602 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 4
Mr. John Runkle, Executive Coordinator Dr. Linda Little Conservation Council of North Carolina Governor's Waste Management Board 307 Granville Road 513 Albermarle Building ,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Mr. Wells Eddleman 806 Parker Street Durham, North Carolina' 27701 lMr. George Jackson, Secretary
, ~ E Environmental. Law Project ;
, . School of Law,:064-A University of North' Carolina LChapel Hill, Nortn Carolina 27514 t
I
~ .
t w
f-
- , - . - --s, -,,-,m e , , - - , . ._ . ..---,-,--e,e.,n,vw,-,m-+-,,-,-~--s-r.,,-a w--~---+-n-+-w -m w w--n --a w rm , -,,v,-