ML20093K912
| ML20093K912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1984 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8410180224 | |
| Download: ML20093K912 (2) | |
Text
x;
~
.a' 56-DuuE POWER COMPANY P.O. BOX 33180 CHARLOTTE, N.O. 28242 HAL B. TUCKER umm M ""
2."""",.
October 16, 1984 Mr. Harold R.- Denton, Director
~ Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation
'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.. Washington, D. C.
20555
-Attention: Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4
-- Re : Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414
Dear Mr. Denton:
Mr. T. M. Novak's letter of August 17, 1984 requested additional assurance
~
that the Catawba Unit 1 Technical Specifications did not contain additional errors similar to the requested changes to Specification 4.7.1.2.1 for the Auxiliary Feedwater System.
First 'of all, Technical Specification 4.7.1.2.1 as issued on July 18, 1984 was not inconsistent with the Catawba FSAR. The values reflected in the specification were consistent with the nominal pump parameters in FSAR Section 10.4.9.. - Our. request 'to change the acceptance criteria of Specifi-cation 4.7.1.2.1 to reflect the less restrictive assumptions of the FSAR Chapter 15 accident analysis did not make the present specification incon-sistent'with the FSAR as certified in my letters dated July 3 and 17,1984.
Furthermore, our certification of the Catawba Unit 1 Technical Specifications <
did not guarantee that the document was error free nor that future changes wouldn't be necessary. Rather, we certitied that, to the best of our know-ledge, the Catawba Unit 1 Technical Specifications were an accurate reflection
, of the as-built plant and the FSAR. Further reviews of these Teor.ical Specifications, especially pump surveillance specifications, have not identified any generic problems. The few problems that have been identified-and changes requested, were of an editorial nature. Our experience to date has indicated that the extensive review program described.in my letter of July 3,1984 has resulted in Technical Specifications that have required far fewer changes than were typically requested on previously licensed units.
Very truly yours,
<dk Hal B. Tucker-ROS: sib 0410180224 841016 PDR ADOCK 05000413 p
PDR 30A/
(O
g-
~
Mr. Harold R. Denton,-Director October 16,.1984 Page Two i
)
- cc: Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RegionLII 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.
. Attorney-at-Law P. 0.. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Palmstto' Alliance
'21351 Devine Street-Columbia, South Carolina 29205-Mr. Jesse L. Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 L. '
)
.