ML063070219

E-Mail RAM: from Fred Mogolesko 8/7/06 12:01pm

ML063070219
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	08/07/2006
From:	Mogolesko F Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	Subbaratnam R NRC/NRR/ADRO
References
%dam200612, TAC MD2296
Download: ML063070219 (3)

Text

1iKent Howard - RE: RAM: .. ...... H. .a.d...RE:.RAM:.Page 111

-L From: "Mogolesko, Fred" <fmogole @entergy.com>

To: "Ram Subbaratnam" <RXS2@nrc.gov>

Date: 8/7/2006 12:01:46 PM

Subject:

RE: RAM:

Regarding the crack growth flaw evaluation issue: I thought your staffer indicated that he needed nothing from Pilgrim. Oh well, perhaps we all heard something different.

I have located the NRC communication that addresses the subject. I refer you to NRC letter dated 12/4/84 entitled IGSCC INPECTION PER August 26, 1983 Order. There is not associated TAC Number. The cover letter is followed by a SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATIVE TO INSPECTION AND REPAIRS OF THE REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM PIPING.

Please seek this letter in your records and if you can't find it easily, we can fax.

Fred

---

Original Message -----

From: Ram Subbaratnam [1]

Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:13 AM To: Ford, Bryan; Ellis, Douglas; Mogolesko, Fred Cc: Duc Nguyen; Dan Hoang; Ganesh Cheruvenki; James Davis; James Medoff

Subject:

Fwd: RAM:

Bryan & Fred:

Per direction from Jim here is a redirect for whatever action required.

Incidentally, do you guys owe the audit team a final update of the Q/A database, If so, can you give me a heads up on it, meaning when can I expect it ? Also, for the six sets of RAIs out there with Entergy, if you need a conference call or clarifications, please let me know.

From my side, I have one set of RAI on the works, consisting of three Qs: 2 on the Civil side being the formal RAIs from the audit and one from Electrical on the need for XI.E6 program for electrical cable connections. On the TLAAs, the staff is still working on the issue, perhaps you will get two (what about the 1987 Entergy submittal on the crack growth flaw evaluation document that Fred promised ?).

Hope this clarifies.

Ram Subbaratnam PM Pilgrim LRA US NRC, (301) 415 1478

>>> James Medoff 08/03/2006 10:22 AM >>>

RAM:

Please forward this to Brian Ford and Fred Mogolesko in clarification of the Question tracking and summary table we sent to them yesterday.

When the subsequent amendments of the LRA are made to close out our

I[K tiH oward - RE:RA M:.................... ... Page 2J questions on the Metal Fatigue TLAAs and the final revisions Commitments

1. 31 and #35 are made, to please ensure that the following modifications of the FSAR Supplment Sections A.2.2.2.1 and A.2.2.2.3 are made:

1. Supplement A.2.2.2.1 of the LRA to add a sentence that:

"The TLAA on Metal Fatigue of Class 1 Components includes Commitments #31 and #35 on the PNPS LRA."

2. Supplement A.2.2.2.3 of the LRA to add a sentence that:

"The TLAA on Environmental Effects of Reactor Water on Fatigue Life includes Commitment #31 on the PNPS LRA."

We only need to reference the Commitments in the UFSAR Supplement sections because the actual details of the Commitments will be included in the Tracking List for the LRA and the Commitment tracking list will get incorporated as a supplement to the UFSAR Supplement prior to the completion of the licensing review process. In turn, the UFSAR Supplement will get incorporated as a license condition in the renewed operating license for PNPS, when it is issued.

Thanks, Jim CC: "Ford, Bryan" <BFord@entergy.com>, "Mogolesko, Fred" <fmogole@entergy.com>

6:\1e__m--

F1 VZ W KOO --0-0-1_.T_M-P - Page 1 d c:\temjAGW}OO0O1 .TMP Page 1 Mail Envelope Properties (44D763D3.029: 13: 41001)

Subject:

RE: RAM:

Creation Date 8/7/2006 12:00:38 PM From: "Mogolesko, Fred" <fmogole@entergy.com>

Created By: fmogole@entergy.com Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 RXS2 (Ram Subbaratnam) entergy.com BFord CC (Bryan Ford)

Post Office Route TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov entergy.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3056 8/7/2006 12:00:38 PM Mime.822 1 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 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