ML20057A796

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Request for Relief on Various Components of RCS

ML20057A796
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	09/08/1993
From:	Martin R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Rehn D DUKE POWER CO.
References
TAC-M86811, NUDOCS 9309150321
Download: ML20057A796 (4)

Text

-

September 8, 1993 Docket No. 50-414 Mr. D. L. Rehn Vice President - Catawba Site Duke Power Company 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745

SUBJECT:

RELIEF REQUEST NO. 93 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 (TAC NO. M86811) l On June 17, 1993, you submitted a request for relief on various components of the reactor coolant system. While the submitted graphs and figures were detailed, the accompanying text providing the background and basis for the request were minimal. We request that the additional information identified on the enclosure be provided so that we may continue our review of this request for relief.

This requirement affects fewer than ten respondents, and therefore, it is not subject to the Office of Management and Budget review under P.L. 96 511.

Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

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

Enclosure:

Request for Additional DISTRIBLITION Information Docket File NRC/ Local PDRs l

cc w/ enclosure:

PDII-3 Reading See next page S. Varga G. Lainas D. Matthews L. Berry R. Martin 0GC E. Merschoff, RII G. Johnson

/

• See Previous Concurrence

]

/

n

\\ j\\,1 LA:PDII-31 P PN PDJh3 NRR/EMCB*

D.$ TI-3 OGC*

i Lyerry )i

,RMart'i n/rst GJohnson DMatthews MYoung 1/ 3/93 7/3/93 8/19/93 C /r"/93 9/30/93 1

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l

l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\CATAW3A\\N093-01.RR

,1 bhbb

^!

9309150321 930908 PDR ADOCK 05000414 l

P FDR

(

.y

~.

8 'i p s rfk UNITED STATES 5

5 spy #!

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

(,'*'

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055' 0001 September 8, 1993 Docket No. 50-414 Mr. D. L. Rehn Vice President - Catawba Site Duke Power Company 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745

Dear Mr. Rehn:

4

SUBJECT:

RELIEF REQUEST NO. 93 CATAWBA NUCIEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 (TAC NO. M86811)

On June 17, 1993, you submitted a request for relief on various components of the reactor coolant system. While the submitted graphs and figures were detailed, the accompanying text providing the background and basis for the request were minimal.

We request that the additional information identified on the enclosure be provided so that we may continue our review of this request for relief.

t This requirement affects fewer than ten respondents, and therefore, it is not subject to the Office of Management and Budget review under P.L.96-511.

l Sincerely, e

Ro ert E.f/hafN Martin, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

4 Request for Additional Information i

cc w/ enclosure:

See next page i

t

{

l 4

h 1

Mr. David L. Rehn Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station cc:

Mr. R. C. Futrell 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 4

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 11 North Carolina Municipal Power U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Number 1 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2900 1427 Meadowwood Boulevard Atlanta, Georgia 30323 P. O. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health Mr. T. Richard Puryear South Carolina Department of Nuclear Technical Service Manager Health and Environmental Control d

Westinghouse Electric Corporation 2600 Bull Street Power Systems Field Sales Columbia, South Carolina 27602 2709 Water Ridge Parkway, Suite 430 Charlotte, North Carolina 28217 Mr. G. A. Copp Licensing - EC050 County Manager of York County Duke Power Company York County Courthouse P. O. Box 1006 York, South Carolina 29745 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Richard P. Wilson, Esquire i

Assistant Attorney General Saluda River Electric South Carolina Attorney General's P. O. Box 929 Office Laurens, South Carolina 29360 P. O. Box 11549 Columbia, south Carolina 29211 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General Piedmont Municipal Power Agency North Carolina Department of Justice 121 Village Drive P. O. Box 629 Greer, South Carolina 29651 Raleigh, North Carlina 27602 1

ENCLOSURE i

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.

Regulation Permitting the Relief:

a.

Please identify the portion of the regulation under which this relief is requested and provide the associated basis for the request.

i b.

Please identify any conflict with the technical specifications.

c.

Is the relief associated with a 10-year 151 program?

d.

Does the request satisfy the time requirements (if any are required?)

i 4

1 2.

Code Requirements:

' j a.

In the Table IWB-2500-7, what figure designation (a, b, c, or d) represents the inner radius cladding examination volume, (803.140.

001, 002, 007, and 008?)

i 3.

Items:

l a.

What are the wall thickness, outside/inside diameters or radii that are necessary for calculating the area / volume that were not examined l

in each item?

j

===4.

Reason for Request===

j a.

What aspects of the geometry prevents 100% ultrasonic examination

[

j j

(UT)?

b.

What aspects of the UT methodology prevents 100% UT?

c.

Identifying percent examined.

1) What is meant by " Area of Loss?"

l 2

2) Why aren't the results of the volumetric examinations expressed in volumetric units (i.e. cube unitr)?

3) How does the axial and circumferential scan contribute to the total actual coverage percentage calculations.

4) Wi.y docs item B09.031.005 show all areas scanned and Attachmeat 1 lists the actual coverage at 42.60%? B09.031.005 is similar l

5) What is meant by " Examination coverage was not limited?"

i 5.

Alternate-4 a.

How will the most current UT be evaluated with respect to 10 CFR 50.59 criterion?

I b.

Will a system hydrostatic test be performed on these items at the end of the interval?

c.

What diffic91 ties are experienced with radiograph examinations?

d.

Can tSe volumetric examination be conducted from the ID?

l I

l i

1 l

.