ML062480362

Email: (PA) Fwd: Fyi: Forwarding What We Want Dci/Feb to Work at for the Pilgrim Flaw Growth Analysis

ML062480362
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	07/25/2006
From:	Ganesh Cheruvenki NRC/NRR/ADES/DCI
To:	Subbaratnam R, Christopher Sydnor Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
%dam200612, TAC MD2296
Download: ML062480362 (4)

Text

James Davis - Re: Fwd: FYI: Forwarding What We Want DCI/CFEB to Look at For the Pilgrim Flaw Growth Analyses Page 1 1 From: Ganesh Cheruvenki To: Christopher Sydnor; Ram Subbaratnam Date: 07/25/2006 11:39:24 AM

Subject:

Re: Fwd: FYI: Forwarding What We Want DCI/CFEB to Look at For the Pilgrim Flaw Growth Analyses Ram, We can have a group discussion with Jim Medoff, Chris and Jim Davis before we-talk to Kim and Matt.

Ganesh

>>> Ram Subbaratnam 07/25/2006 10:46 AM >>>

Ganesh/Kimberly:

You already have the package 25 for Pilgrim TLAA. I want to discuss this with you and Kim and Mat and want to start a dialogue with Entergy on this expanded scope ASAP, if that is what you think it is 1This is a spill over from the AMP/AMR audit, which James Davis and company just completed. If Kim/Mat agree that this truly a TLAA and that the applicant has to evaluate the effect of the crack growth, we need to deal with it quickly.

Please let me know how you folks want to proceed with this.

Thanks.

Ram Subbaratnam PM Pilgrim LRA, (301) 415 1478 I hope Jim plugged you in with this additional scope

>>> James Medoff 07/20/2006 9:16 AM >>>

Ram:

The new work request will be for a DCI/CFEB review of Entergy's amended response to Audit Question 508 on the Pilgrim License Renewal Application (LRA). In that question, we asked the applicant to identify all fracture mechanics and/or flaw growth analyses that comply with definition of a time-limited aging analysis (TLAA) in 10 CFR 54.3. Entergy's initial response to the audit question stated that there were no fracture mechanics evaluations but did identify three flaw growth evaluations with the potential to be TLAAs: (1) that for the control rod drive nozzle-to-end cap weld, (2) that for the reactor recirculation nozzle thermal sleeves, and (3) that for the N2F reactor recirculation nozzle. The applicant stated that none of these analyses met the definition of a TLAA but did not provide their bases for making this determination.

We told them that the response to Audit Question 508 would have to include their bases for making their determination.

On Tuesday (July 18, 2006), Entergy gave us the draft amended response to Audit Question 508 and their bases why the applicant felt that the analyses were not TLAAs for the application.

When the draft response are submitted onto the docket as an official amended response to Audit Question 508, we would like DCI/CFEB (Kimberly Gruss' Branch) to perform the following type of review of the amended response to Audit Question 508:

1. Review Entergy's bases for establishing the following flaw growth analyses are not TLAAs for the Pilgrim LRA:

(1) that for the control rod drive nozzle-to-end cap weld, (2) that for the reactor recirculation nozzle thermal

James Davis - Re: Fwd: FYI: Forwarding What We Want DCI/CFEB to Look at For the Pilgrim Flaw Growth Analyses Page 2 sleeves, and (3) that for the N2F reactor recirculation nozzle.

2. Provide DCI/CFEB's bases for concurring with or disputing Entergy's bases for determining that the stated flaw growth analyses are not TLAAs for the Pilgirm LRA. If DCI/CFEB does concur with Entergy, forward DCI/CFEB's basis for concurrence to us so that we can work it into our audit report.

3. Arrange for these analyses to be docketed as TLAAs on the LRA if DCI/CFEB determines that any of these flaw growth analyses need to be TLAAs for the LRA and request that DCI/CFEB review the TLAAs when they are submitted onto the docket and write an SER input for them. If this is the case, work out the review schedule and the RAI and SER due dates with Kimberly

4. Issue additional Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) on the Work Request if DCI/CFEB needs additional information in making its determination whether or not these analyses are TLAAs.

5. Provide 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of review time if DCI/CFEB concurs with Entergy's determination and additional hous if RAIs need to be issued or if any of these analyses need to be docketed as TLAAs for the LRA (Kimberly Gruss to work out with you how much additional resource hours will be necessary if this is the case).

Please incorporate these elements into the new work request for DCI/CFEB.

Thanks, Jim Medoff CCO: James Davis; James Medoff; Kimberly Gruss; Matthew Mitchell

cAtemp\GW)00001.TMP Page 1 1

. }O.tmpG 1.TMPPae. I Mail Envelope Properties (44C63B2C.FE3: 1: 35628)

Subject:

Re: Fwd: FYI: Forwarding What We Want DCJICFEB to Look at For the Pilgrim Flaw Growth Analyses Creation Date *07/25/2006 11:39:24 AM From: Ganesh Cheruvenki Created By: ,GSC@nrc.,gov Recipients nrc.gov OWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 KAG1 CC (Kimberly Gruss) nrc.gov OWGWPO03.HQGWDO01 JAD CC (James Davis) nrc.gov TWGWPO01.HQGWDO01 JXM CC (James Medoff)

MAM4 CC (Matthew Mitchell) nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 CRS (Christopher Sydnor)

RXS2 (Ram Subbaratnam)

Post Office Route OWGWPOO2.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov OWGWPO03.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov TWGWPO01.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 5451 07/25/2006 11:39:24 AM Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No

c:\temp\GWIOO01 .TMP Page 21 Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is not eligible for Junk Mail handling Message is from an internal sender 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