ML20140B047

Forwards Listing of Evaluations Performed by DPC for Plant During 1996.Staff Preliminary Comments on Upcoming Site Review of Documents Re 10CFR50.59 Changes Also Encl

ML20140B047
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	06/04/1997
From:	Tam P NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC
References
TAC-M98326, TAC-M98327, NUDOCS 9706050282
Download: ML20140B047 (5)

Text

9 M00 7,&

UNITED STATES ij NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s*

t WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 4, 1997 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Docket File FROM:

Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-2 E*M Division of Reactor Projects - I/II (AA Office of Nucelar Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

CATAWBA UNITS 1 AND 2 - UPCOMING SITE REVIEW 0F DOCUMENTS RELATED TO 10 CFR 50.59 CHANGES (TAC M98326 AND M98327)

REFERENCE:

Letter, W. R. McCollum to NRC, March 31, 1997 The attached document, listing certain 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations that Duke Power Company performed for Catawba during 1996, and the staff's preliminary comments on the subject submittal, was sent to Duke Power company today by fax.

The sole purpose of the document is to prepare Catawba personnel for a site review on June 23 and 24,1997, of the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations performed in 1996.

The document does not constitute a formal request for information or represent a formal NRC staff position.

Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 Distribution

\\}ggk PUBLIC H. Berkow

)

Resident inspectors C. Casto I

l

\\

l f?fy J

C50058 9706050282 970605 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P

PDR

7-e l

J.- )

L i ;

y

.l f

~

J-t

(

i-i Site Review of 1996 10 CFR 50.59 Changes at Catawba

(

Reference:

Letter, W. R. McCollum to.. NRC, March 31,1997)

Please have the 10 CFR 50.59/ procedure for Catawba available.

i Please have the following;1o CFR 50.59 evaluations available:

l 1.

Exempt Change CE-3176~

I 2.=

Exempt Change CE-3705 3.

Exempt Change'CE-3759 4.

Exempt Change CE-4745 (or 4746) 5.

Exempt Change CE-4721 (or 4722)

{

6.

Exempt Change CE-7416 7.

Exempt. Change CE-7977 8.

Exempt Change CE-8126 j

9..

Exempt Change CE-8182

-i 10.

Exempt Change CE-8245 i

11.

Exempt. Change CE-8410 12.

Exempt Change'CE-61008 13.

Exempt Change CE-61162 14; Miscellaneous Changes Simulate Version 4 i

15..

~NSM CN-11371-1 16.

NSM CN-20396 17.

PIP 2-C97-0157 (or PIP 2-096-3250) 18.

Operability Evaluation 2/15/94 (or 2/18/94) l 19.

Operability Evaluation 6/28/94 20.

OP/1/A/6200/11 [ summary provided almost no information]

21.

AM/2/A/5100/07 [ summary too scanty]

l 22.

OP/2/B/6230/33, Change 4 Rev. 4 23.

OP/1/A/6550/14 i

24.

PT/1/B/4700/82 Please be prepared to discuss the following issues / observations. Do not provide any document. Many comments can be verbally answered by only a word i

or.a phrase. However, the licensee may consider providing some of the answers i

in writing.'

-.s

-l 1.

'The use of Duke-specific acronyms such as NC, ND, RN - The referenced report, which was submitted to the NRC'and is thus publicly available, very often provides no clues what these acronym are. This problem is most prominent in the " Exempt _ Changes" section.-- The staff has made a similar comment in Inspection Report 96-10 (August 23,1996) regarding the report. submitted for.10 CFR 50.59 changes made in 1995.

a

2..

Exempt Chang >e: CE-1593. Whatisystem does this pertain to7 l

3.

Exempt Chang'e CE-3316'. :This.is an example of an evaluation that provides the< essential information on. scope, depth, and details. Note also'the absence of Duke-specific acronyms.

l t

4.

Exempt Change.CE-3759., What.is;th'e "Nu' clear 06 Program"7 The

.l evaluationgis"too scanty in _ details, 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2) specifically l

t

+

s-

~

E a

f

requires "a ca:r.Tiary of the safety evaluation of each."

5.

Exempt Change CE-4203. What system / structure does this refer to?

6.

Exempt Change CE-4373. When did "lE0C7" take place?

It appears the changes were made before the current reporting period.

Explain.

7.

Exempt Change CE-4435. What system does this refer to?

8.

Exempt Change CE-4686 and 4687. Consider different ways to say "does not appear significant enough to be included in the FSAR."

9.

Exempt Change CE-4706. What system does this refer to?

10.

Exempt Change CE-4899. Does "1CAPG4030" refer to the auxiliary feedwater system?

11.

Exempt Change CE-5017. The evaluation says that no Technical Specification (TS) changes are required.

The staff notes that a TS change was effected via Amendments 152 (Unit 1) and 144 (Unit 2). The evaluation also says that FSAR changes are " attached"; this phrase probably does not belong in this report.

12.

Exempt Change CE-7040.

"The new regulator will not provide a reliable output pressure...." Do you mean the opposite?

13.

Exempt Change CE-7218. Which amendment (cite number) effected the change?

14.

Exempt Change CE-7930.

"Over the years, this calculation has been revised several times.....FSAR were not updated in conjunction with this new information." What are the reasons for the FSAR not being updated?

15.

Exempt Change CE-7998. What is the Red Book?

16.

Exempt Change CE-8245.

When would you request to amend TS 4.7.13.3(a)(2)?

i 17.

Exempt Change CE-61162.

Evaluation is missing.

10 CFR 50.59(b)(2) s l

specifically requires "a summary of the safety evaluation of each."

1 18.

Exempt Change CE-61214. What are these: DFCS CFPT?

19.

Exempt Change CE-61234. What is CLA?

I I

20.

FSAR 6.4.4.2.

What is the "NRC questionnaire"?

21.

FSAR Table 6-74.

The recently completed self-assessment Containment Integrity Review shows that a change to TS Table 3.6.1 should have been processed.

Is Catawba currently in non-compliance?

22.

NSM CE-4382.

What system does this refer to? What is ETSV?

23.

NSM CN-11347, CN-11352, CN-11354, CN-11355, CN-11360....

These are a 1

~

i'

=

few examples of evaluations'that provide the' essential information on scope, depth, and details. The clarity of these are in contrast to some in the " Exempt Changes" section.

24.

NSM CN-11375. Note that under " Description", the document stated that

...... design temperature will increase from 160 F to 2500'F....".

Presumably, it should be ".....160 F to 250 F....". Also, the subject i

of this NSM was involved in a violation in Inspection Report 96-05 i

(5/31/96). What is the status of that violation?

l 25.

NSM CN-21367.

Please provide the number of the amendment that resulted from the 9/13/95 request.

26.

NSM CN-50441. What system is involved? What do hydromotors do in this i

system?

27.

NSM CN-50443.

"This modification does involve a Structure...." Do you really mean "does a91 involve"?

28.

PIP 2-C97-0157.

Please cite the NRC inspection report, if any, which i

addressed this event.

t 29.

PIP 2-C96-3250.

Please cite the NRC inspection report, if any, which 1

addressed this event.

30.

PIP 0-C96-1824.

"A Tech Spec change to correct this non-conservative value is needed." When would this change request be submitted? What measures have been instituted to temporarily overcome the TS non-conservatism?

I 31.

PIP 0-C96-3241 and 0-C96-3266. These events were addressed in NRC IR 97-04'(February 18,1997). Are they now fully resolved?

32.

Section 6.0, Operability Evaluations.

Explain why all the entries are dated before 1996.

i 33.

Section 6.0, 7/1/94.

....it is considered that the Unit 1..... compensatory actions used during maintenance on IRF 859 will adversely...." Do you mean "....will agt adversely.... "?

34.

PT/2/A/4200/12 and PT/2/A/4200/01N. What were the. chances to these procedures? Also, the evaluations seem skimpy.

10 CFR 50.59(b)(2) specifically requires "a summary.of the safety evaluation of each."

.35.

PT/2/A/4400/01.

...therefore, this activity does involve an Unreviewed safety question." Do you mean "....does H21 involve...."? Also, the

)

next sentence apparently makes no sense.

36.

AM/1/A/5100/07. The evaluation just asserted that no USQ exists without l

a brief evaluation, 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2) specifically requires "a summary i

of the safety evaluation 'of each."

1 37.

AP/0/5500/39. Does the procedure address security provisions with the l

control room doors kept opened? This was probably reviewed by the staff

)

l

\\

1 i

._.~4.

m. _. -

y y

y l

?

)

+

l

,.W i

E/

[

i

]

~

~

(IR97-07;page4);please~ verify.

l q

38~

CP/0/B/8500/30.. Does Clam-Trol control clam growth?. If so.7 1s there l

. another procedure' in place"of'this one?

e L

39. -

IP/0/A/3200/12i What is SSPS?

40.

OP/1/B/6200/22;OP/1/A/6200/28,.andafewothers.

"This. change in no way make the procedure less conservative and has no impact on plant

- safety." Note that this statement does not seem to be a' summary of a 10 j

p CFR 50.59 evaluation.

l l

41.

OP/0/A/6200/26. What is " EMF"?

j i

42.

OP/0/B/6500/34.

"This' change does not warrant further review of the.

i l

FSAR for an unreviewed. safety question." This statement does'not seem l

- to be responsive to any provision of 10 CFR 50.59. Suggest avoiding l

. similar statements in future reports.

~43.

PT/1/A/4250/028.

"The probabilities have gone up slightly...... but are still 61 thin the NRC limits established for rotor missile j

probabilities.". Were these probabilities originally documented in the t

FSAR or UFSAR? Note that if they were so documented, 10 CFR 50.59 is only concerned if they are increased or not, and not the magnitude of l

- the-increase ("slightly").

j i

44.

PT/2/A/4400/09'.

"There are changes to any design limit or setpoint..._.-

l This modification will change the flow, temperature,......" You seem to have said the exact opposite to what you intended to say in these sentences.

j 45.

PT/1/A/4600/02A.

"Also, there are changes to the FSAR or Technical l

Specifications." You seem to have said the exact opposite to what you intended to say.

i 46.

TT/1/A/9200/88.

"There are Unreviewed Safety Questions associated with this test procedure."

If this statement is true, then this test cannot be performed under 10 CFR 50.59.

47.

TSM/96023671. Which amendment revised the Tech. Spec. regarding the l

humidistats?~

?

48.

Many changes in this report involve (future) UFSAR changes. When you

.l

' submit the next UFSAR revision, please consider providing a brief f

reference to the associated cl0 CFR 50.59 evaluations.

For example, i

- " Figure 9-89 modified as a result of CN-21343", " Table 3-106 revised as a result of CN-21339",.etc. l e

4-4 l

l 1

j

)

E a

a s

t j

.. I