ML20207G371
| ML20207G371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1999 |
| From: | Tam P NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| TAC-MA5228, TAC-MA5229, NUDOCS 9906110125 | |
| Download: ML20207G371 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- Ampq p
4 UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 4001
'\\
June 9,1999 MEMORANDUM FOR:
. Docket File-FROM:
Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate 11 g
Division of Licensing Project Management 4./s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION - FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION, ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED IN AN UPCOMING REVIEW ON SITE REGARDING REVISION 7 OF TF UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (TAC MA5228 AND MA5229)
The attached questions were transmitted by fax today to Mr. Gary Gilbert of Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) to prepare him and others for an upcoming review on site. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey a formal request for information or represent an NRC staff position.
Docket Numbers 50-413 and 50-414 Distribution PUBLIC R. Emch I
9906110125 990609 PDR ADOCK 05000413 p
' 1:[ dl O
(,D \\
l
i COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON REVISION 7 TO THE CATAWBA UPDATED FSAR TO BE ADDRESSED IN AN UPCOMING REVIEW ON SITE (TACs MA5228 AND MA5229)
General Comments on All Chaoters A large number of figures were revised by Revision 7. Has Duke considered the possibility of using simplified drawings in lieu of the shrunken plant drawings.
currently used in the UFSAR? Note that we had a telephone discussion with Mike Kitlen and Skip Copp on 4/8/97 regarding the same subject.
Paragraphs and sections were added to describe Duke's response to various generic letters and bulletins. This effort is commendable. However, one can ask why such information was not previously included in the UFSAR (viz.10 CFR 50.71(e)....the updated FSAR shall be revised to include the effect of....all analyses of new safety issues performed by or on behalf of the licensee at Commission request.)
Chapter i Section 1.5 - The listing of various types of topical reports has been revised to show the most current versions. The listing was also expanded, especially the parts regarding Duke topical reports; with the new entries very often showing versions dating sometimes years ago. What was the reason for these topical reports not previously listed?
Chaoter 3 Table 3-106. Page 6 of 20 is replaced. The new page is missing item 61,
" Differential Pressure Switch." Please look into this.
Chapter 4 Chapter 4 underwent substantial rewrite both in Revision 7 and Revision 6 (dated 1997). Reasons for such repeated rewrite?.
Section 4.2.1.3.1 - Rod Cluster Control Assembly. Several paragraphs were added to discuss the BWFC lonitrided Hybrid RCCAs. Was this an NRC-approved design change, or was this performed under 10 CFR 50.597 If the latter, please cite the onsite document, and the annual 50.59 summary report.
Section 4.2.3.1 - The paragraphs under Stress-Strain Limits have been rewritten.
What was the reason for this revision?
l J
1
~
- s..
2 Chapter 5 l
Section 5.3.1.7 - Why were the last two paragraphs regarding fasteners in pressure boundary applications in the BWI steam generator deleted?
Table 5 The information regarding volume control tank level indicator for leakage detection was deleted. Reason?
Chapter 10 Section 10.3.2 - Paragraph on page 10-18 regarding MSIV and main steam isolation bypass valves was revised. Is the revision the result of a design change?
If "yes", please cite the NRC approval document or Duke's 50.59 evaluation.
Chaoter 15 Section 15.3.3.2 - Reactor coolant pump shaft seizure. Changed from "no impact to core cooling capability" to "DNB is predicted to occur for this event, the extent of which is verified for each reload to be less than the maximum allowed by the dose analysis." What led to this change?
Section 15.6.5.2 - Revision 7 deleted the paragraphs on LOTIC (Long-Term Ice Condenser). What code / methodology took its place?
Section 15.6.5.2 - Last paragraph states that the maximum PCT for small breaks is 1715 degrees F. Letter, Peterson to NRC, dated 2/5/98 says 1595 degrees F.
Which value is correct?
t