ML20128E399

Informs That NRC Initiated Review of Util 921215 Application for Changes to TS for Operation of Unit 2 in Cycle 6.Util Should Resubmit Determination of NSHC Based on Specific Analysis for Unit 2.Comments Encl

ML20128E399
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	02/04/1993
From:	Martin R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Tuckman M DUKE POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 9302100421
Download: ML20128E399 (4)

Text

- - - _ - _ _ _ _ _

J. 2 _

. February 4, 1993-Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 Mr. M. S. Tu kman Vice President, Catawba Site

-Duke Power Company 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745

SUBJECT:

CATAWBA 2 CYCLE 6 RELOAD We have initiated our review of your application dated December 15,1992, for changas to the Technical Specifications for operation of Catawba Unit 2 in Cycle 6. As part of your submittal, you considered the changes which were identical to thost made previously for Catawba Unit 1 to be administrative in natura and, thus, determined that they met the criteria for a No Significant hazards Consideration (NSHC). However, since these changes are necessary to allow a significant modification to the plant, we have determined that they-cannot be considered as an administrative change. Therefore, you are requested to resubmit your determin= tion of NSHC based on a specific analysis for Catawba Unit 2. In addition, the enclosure identifies some changes to-your proposed TS which appear to be necessary. These changes were di: cussed with members of your staff who agreed to expedite the submittal of the revi,ed information.

Sincerely,

/s/

Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ericlosure:

See next page DISTRIBUTION: DMatthews Catawba R/F Glainas

! Docket ElleL RMartin ACRS (10), P-315 NRC & Local PDRs LBerry SVarga PDil-3 R/F _

004', 15B18 JJg::hoff. Ril arritt PDil-3][$bPDij3/PJ4 3 D: h3 mE L. BER h b Rfikkid N D h thews mc 2 / 793- b {/93- L

}/ L[/93 lifFICIALRECORDCOP'Y l FILE NAME: G:\CATABWA\C2C6.RLD 9302100421 930204 - ,

PDR ADOCK 05000413 P PDR bb\ g i n

_ . . - - - _ _ . _ . - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - _ - _ - - . - - - - - - . _ - . _ - - - _ _ . _ _ - - - - - - - . - . _ _ - - - - - - - _ - - . . _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - . L-_._._ . - - _ - - _ - - . . . - . - _ - - - - - - - - - . - . - - - _ _ - . _ . - . _ . - . -

\ .t j

1. pt3 **toq'o UNITED STATES

.}'

~g f' ,

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g R WASHINGTON, D. C 20555 k.....j February 4, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 Mr. M. S. Tuckman Vice President, Catawba Site Duke Power Company 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745

SUBJECT:

CATAWBA 2 CYCLE 6 RELOAD We have initiated our review of your application dated December 15, 1992, for changes to thc Technical Specifications for operation of Catawba Unit 2 in Cycle 6. As part of your submittal, you considered the changes which were identical to those made previously for Catawba Unit 1 to be administrative in nature and, thus, determined that they met the critreia for a No S!qnificant Hazards Consideration (NSHC). However, since these. changes are necessary to allow a significant modification to the plant, we have determined that they cannot be considered as an administrative change. Therefore, you are requested to resubmit your determination of NSHC basad on a ,pecific analysis for Catawba Unit 2. In addition, the enclosure identifies some changes to your proposed TS which appear to be necessary. These changes were discussed with members of your staff who agreed to expedite the submittal of the revised information.

Sincerely, f)

Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Divisien of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nucivar Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

1-l

.1 .- ,

i t

Mr. M. S. Tuckman Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station cc:

Mr. R. C. Tutrell Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief Regulatory Compliance Manager Project-Branch #3-Duke Power Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4800 Concord Road 101 Marietta Street, NW.' Suite 2900 York, South Carolina 29745 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. A. V. Carr, Esquire North Carolina Electric Membership Duke Power Company Corporation 422 South Church Street P. O. Box 27306 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esquire Senior Resident Inspector Winston and Strawn Route 2, Box 179 N 1400 L Street, NW York, South Carolina 29745 Washington, DC 20005 Regional Administrator, Region II North Carolina MPA-1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 600 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 P. O. Box 29513 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Mr. T. Richard Puryear Bureau of Radiological Health Nuclear Technical Services South Carolina Department of Manager Health and Environmental Control Carolinas District 2600 Bull Street Westinghouse Electric Corporation Columbia, South Carolina 27602 P. O. Box 32817 Charlotte, North Carolina 28232 Mr. G. A. Copp Licensing - EC050 County Manager of York County Duke Power Company Yo>k County Courthouse P._0. Box 1006 York, South Carolina 29745 Charlotte, North Caro ~ lina 28201-1006 Richard P. Wilson, Esquire Saiuda River Electric Assistant Attorney General P. O. Box 929 South Carolina Attorney General's Laurens, South Carolina 29360 Office P. O. Box 11549- Ms. Karen E. Lono Columbia, South _ Carolina 29211 Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice Piedmont Municipal Power Agency P. O. Box 629 121 Village Drive Raleigh, North Carlina 27602

Greer, South Carolina 29651 L

L u .

,j' ,.

L ENCLOSURE COMMENTS ON APPLICATION FOR. TECHNICAL SPECIFICAT10tl (TS)

CHANGES TO SUPPORT CATAWBA UNIT 2 IN CYCLE 6

1. You proposed to change Figure 2.1-1 to 3ake it applicable to both units by deleting the portion that previously applied to Unit 2. Accordingly, it would ,ippear that TS 2.1.1, page 2-1, should be proposed for a similar modification.

2. The No Significant Hazards Consideration (NSHC) inappropriately considered the changes to be administrative in nature. A new flSHC should be submitted with a plant-specific NSHC analysis.

3. The reasons for including proposed changes to TS 6.9.1.9 are not clear since, apparently, Topical Report DPC-NE-1004A is not relied upon and does not provide any of the basis for operation of either Catawba uni t at this time.

- - - - - -- _