ML062090338

Email: (PA) Questions for NRC About the Reactor Head Closure Studs AMP (XI.M3) as Described in the GALL Report

ML062090338
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	05/28/2006
From:	Jackson W - No Known Affiliation
To:	Jennifer Davis, Wen P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
%dam200612, TAC MC9669
Download: ML062090338 (3)

Text

James Davis :Question for NRC About the Reactor Head Closure Studs AMP (XI.M3), as described in the GALL Report -Page 1 From: "wilbur jackson" <JacksonWR@msn.com>

To: "James Davis" <jad @nrc.gov>, "Peter Wen" <PXW @nrc.gov>

Date: Sun, May 28, 2006 7:53 PM

Subject:

Question for NRC About the Reactor Head Closure Studs AMP (XI.M3) as described in the GALL Report Gentlemen --

I want to know if you agree with me that the following situation reflects an error in the GALL Report.

Background:

The 1995 Edition of ASME Section Xl, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-G-1, Item B6.30 (Reactor Vessel Closure Studs, when removed) required both a surface AND a volumetric examination.

The requirement for both examinations was correctly reflected in the description of the Detection of Aging Effects program element for the Reactor Head Closure Studs AMP in the GALL Report, Revision 0, which was based on the 1995 Edition of ASME Section XI through the 1996 addenda.

Between 1996 and 2001 there was a change in the ASME Section XI requirements for Examination Category B-G-1.

The 2001 Edition of ASME Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-G-1, Item B6.30 (Reactor Vessel Closure Studs, when removed) requires a surface OR a volumetric examination.

However, the wording has not been changed to reflect the code change in the description of the Detection of Aging Effects program element for the Reactor Head Closure Studs AMP in the GALL Report, Revision 1, which is based on the 2001 Edition through 2003 addenda of ASME Section XI. So, now the GALL Report recommends more examinations than the ASME Section XI code edition on which Revison 1 of the GALL Report is based.

I consider the failure to change the description in this program element to be a error in the GALL Report, Revision 1.

QUESTION:

Do you agree with me?

Is there any NRC process [similar to a licensee's procedure or drawing discrepancy process] whereby one documents errors of this sort in NUREGS?

Best regards, Bob Jackson 6165-826-7542 CCO: "Erach Patel" <erachp@comcast.net>

Sc:*termp\GW }0 O~.000ITM P- .... i....... . .i. . . . . . i. . -.- * =* ... . .. ,, .-... Page Mail Envelope Properties (447A37D7.E09: 19 : 32265)

Subject:

Question for NRC About the Reactor Head Closure Studs AMP (XI.M3) as described in the GALL Report Creation Date Sun, May 28, 2006 7:52 PM From: "wilbur jackson" <JacksonWR@msn.com>

Created By: JacksonWR@msn.com Recipients nrc.gov OWGWP01.HQGWDO01 JAD (James Davis) nrc.gov -

TWGWPO04.HQGWDOO1 PXW (Peter Wen) comcast.net erachp CC (Erach Patel)

Post Office Route OWGWPO01.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov TWGWPO04.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov comcast.net Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1736 Sunday, May 28, 2006 7:52 PM TEXT.htm 2978 Mime.822 7059 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail

[temp\GW}OO0Ol1.TMP Page2ji Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled