ML20236Y381

Application for Amend to License NPF-52,changing License Condition 8(b) to Allow One Addl Fuel Cycle for Resolution of SPDS Issue Prior to Startup Following First Refueling Outage.Fee Paid

ML20236Y381
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/04/1987
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 NUDOCS 8712110283
Download: ML20236Y381 (6)

Text

s DUKE POWER GOMPAhY P.O. DoX 33189 3

CitARLOTTE. N o. 28242 j 11AL 13. TUCKER TELEPHONE vicsensommwr (704) 373-4531 NUOLEAR PaODt/CTM*M December 4, 1987

\

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Deck Washington, D. C. 20555 l

\

Subject:

Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-414 Operating License Amendment

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 first refueling outage at Catawba Unit 2.

Attachment 1 contains a proposed amendment to license condition 8(b) of operating license NPF-52. 'Inis amendment would allow one additional fuel cycle for resolution of the Safety Parameter Display System issue.

This request is applicable to the Catawba Unit 2 operating license. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 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,

,.3 cM $ L s~ -f

<"64 Hal B. Tucker l

ROS/1049/sbn ,

Attachment l q

ed k )g qf 8712110283 871204 i \\ h PDR ADOCK 0S000414 P PDR

-- - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ . - l

r:

R .- l l

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 4, 1987 Page Two xc: Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator L U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 i Atlanta, Georgia 30323 I Mr. Heyward Shealy, Chief ]

Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health &

Environmental Control 3 1

2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 I

Anierican Nuclear Insurers c/o Dottie Sherman, ANI Library The Exchange, Suite 245 270 Farmington Avenue Farmington, CT 06032 l 1

M&M Nuclear Consultants 1221 Avenue of the Americas-New York, New York 10020 1

INPO Records Center 1 l

Suite 1500 1100 Circle 75 Parkway l Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station )

q l

l l

l 1

1 l

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 4, 1987 Page Three HAL 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 amendment to the Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 2 operating license NPF-52; and that all statements and hatters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

j 2 .

" a'A71,e d,,7 Hal B. Tucker, Vice President i

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of December, 1987.

Yd Y ? JJ hm J

~

Mtgry Publ1 V ' ' #

sii o n i o ,,,

My Commission Expires: * '

t ERl6 0 tan,\ }

YL m< [ /9EY b'\ pu sc lts?

d

\- -

l kh"dk iggg g g ,,q t1 e

s ATTACHMENT 1 j j

DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT To FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 LICENSE CCNDITION (0)(b) 4

)

i l

l l

I

}

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

I Prior to startup following the second refueling outage, 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 cperator viewing in easily and rapidly  !

l accessible display formats.

(2) Discussion Supplement 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 i 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. License  :

Condition (12)(b) required the SPDS to be operational prior to April 1, I 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 SPDS 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 displcy as modifications l needing to be made to the Catawba SPDS. These requirements were imposed as License Condition (9)(b) of Facillt'y Operating License NPF-48 and later an l

License Condition (8)(b) in NPF-52.

On March 25, 1986, Dake 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.

l l

_ _ _____ -____ - _ A

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 diopute. The Staff's conclusions were contained in a September 4, 1987 letter from J. H. Sniezek. 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.

l Duke is preparing a proposed resolution of the SPDS issue. As will be proposed, the four additional parameters would be added along with changes to the bacxup display. With Staff acceptance of this proposed resolution, modification to the SPDS, including operator training and procedure revisions, could be completed within six months. As currently scheduled, the Catawba Unit 2 first refueling outage should be completed by late February, 1988.

(3) Safety Analysis The purpose of the SPDS is to provide a concise display cf critical plant 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 is therefore Duke's conclusion that extension of the date for modification of the Catawba Unit 2 SPDS until startup following the second refueling outage 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.

(4), Analysis of Sigt.ificant Hazards Consideration

_.- As required by 10 CFR 50.91, this analysis is provided concerning whether the proposed amendment involves significant hazards considerations, as defined by 10 CFR 50.91. Standards for determination that a proposed amendment involves 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.

The proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because the Safety parameter 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 different kind of accident than previously evaluated since the design and operation of the unit will not be affected.

The proposed amendment would 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 operator aid and is not relied upon as a safety system.