ML20141H868
| ML20141H868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/30/1997 |
| From: | Anand R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-683 NUDOCS 9708010237 | |
| Download: ML20141H868 (28) | |
Text
- - - -
- - - - - - ~. _. -.
pu utu
[-
UNITED STATES i
s j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2'
WASHINGTON, D.C. snana annt 4
%.....p July 30, 1997 i
ORGANIZATION:
Westinghouse Owners Group PROJECT:
Westinghouse Owners Group Generic Topical Reports For I
SUBJECT:
SUPMARY OF THE MEETING BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 4
COPMISSION AND THE WESTINGHOUSE OWNERS GROUP TO DISCUSS THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO THE i
WESTINGHOUSE PRESSURIZER AND CLASS 1 PIPING GENERIC TOPICAL
.y REPORTS rV On July 10, 1997, representatives of Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) met with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to discuss the responses to the staff's' request for additional information (RAI) relating to the initial review of generic topical reports (GTR) WCAP-14574, " License Renewal Evaluation:, Aging Management Evaluation for Pressurizer" and WCAP-14575, Licen'se Renewal Evaluation: Aging Management Evaluation for Class 1 Piping and Associated Pressure Boundary Components". A list of meeting attendees is provided as Attachment 1.
The WOG handouts are provided as Attachment 2 and.
l The WOG provided their preliminary responses to the staff's RAIs relating to WCAP-14574 by their letter dated May 30, 1997 and to WCAP-14575 by their letter dated June 13, 1997.
In the meeting, the WOG discussed those responses which had been modified from their initial responses to the staff's RAIs. The
~
WOG provided figures (Attachment 3) which were inadvertently not included in the responses submitted by their letter of May 30, 1997.
Responses to Pressurizer RAIs 3, 4, 6, 9,11,12, and 20 were presented, and additional information was provided. The following are the highlights of the Pressurizer RAls responses discussed in the meeting:
In response to RAI No. 3 WOG stated that the report would be revised to provide a commitment to hicorporate the industry position on fatigue j
i
- when it is available.
/
I
/
In response to RAI No. 4, WOG will clarify in the report that the staff did not endorsed the Pressure Vessel Research Council (PVRC) results.
Any plant specific evaluations of environmental effects on fatigue will be performed according to the criteria endorsed by the staff at the time of the evaluation.
In response to RAI No. 6, WOG stated that no weld failures were observed in 82/182 weld metal or welds on Alloy 600 in domestic plants. The-staff asked if there was any experience noted with the foreign plants.
The WOG stated that there was an event in the foreign plant but not for the similar application.
g yT)) s d }
gh/[O p
9700010237 970730 PDR TOPRP EMVWEST C
PDR J
TO
In response to RAI No. 9, WOG stated that the seal welded diaphragm is an alternate closure used when sealing with a standard gasket is not possible due to gasket seal damage. This alternate closure is intended as a short-term solution and is not widely used. This issue will be addressed on plant-specific basis.
In response to RAI No. II, WOG provided Figure 1 " Pressurizer Internal Attachment Welds" which is attached here as Attachment 3.
The figure shows the components attached to the inside of the pressurizer.
This information will be included in the report Section 2.3.4 " Internal l
Attachments Welded to the Cladding".
In response to RAI No. 12, WOG stated that no generic aging effects for Westinghouse pres, cizer thermal sleeves on the surge and spray nozzles had been identified.
The word safety nozzle in the response was incorrectly spelled for spray nozzle. WOG is not planning to submit formal changes to RAI responses that are simple, recognizable typographical errors: however WOG will correct them in the final submission of the report. WOG provided Figure 2 which is also attached here as Attachment 3.
The staff suggested that WOG should review the NRC Information Notice 97-46 "Unisolable Crack in High-Pressure Injection Piping" for its applicability.
In response to RAI No. 20, WOG stated that a new section would be added to the report which describes how the pre-service induced flaws are to be addressed on a plant-specific basis.
The WOG also discussed the responses to Class 1 piping RAIs.
The WOG stated that the WCAP-14575 report would be revised to incorporate the proposed industry position on fatigue when it is available.
The proposed industry position will address the report sections that covers the ISI requirements to manage effects of fatigue, structural integrity of the Class 1 piping using the flaw tolerance or leak-before-break analyses, and environmental effects for an extended period of operation. The staff indicated that neither the flaw tolerance approach nor the leak-before-break approach to manage the effects of fatigue was accepted by the staff in the past.
In the closing remarks, the WOG provided their current plans and schedule for submitting GTRs relating to license renewal. The WOG informed the staff that they intended to submit a fifth license renewal GTR on reactor vessel internals in August,1997. The WOG is considering one additional report on electrical cables, but has not made final decision to submit it for staff review.
I
r
' The WOG requested that staff review the responses to the RAls and provide feedback on the adequacy of the information provided, so that they can modify their reports on the pressurizer and the Class 1 piping.
6t.
W Rai K. Anand, Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 683 Attachments:
- 1. Attendance List l
- 2. Meeting Handouts l
cc w/atts:
See next page i
I i
]
l J
1
Meetina Summary HARD COPY 1 Docket File ~'s PUBLIC PDLR R/F OED0 RIV Coordinator, 0-17G21 E-MAIL:
S. Collins /F. Miraglia (SJC1/FJM)
R. Zimmerman (RPZ)
M. Slossom (MMS)
S. Weiss (SHW)
S. Meador (SAM)
L. Banic (MJB)
H. L. Brammer (HLB)
M. Hartzman (MXH)
J. Fair (JRF)
R. Wessman (RHW)
J. Strosnider (JRS2)
S. Droggitis (SCD)
S. Peterson (SRP)
G. Lainas (GCL)
- 8. Morris (BMM)
J. Moore (JEM)
G. Mizuno (GSM)
G. Holahan (GMH)
B. Sheron (BWS)
M. Mayfield (MEM2)
L. Shao (LCSI)
G. Bagchi (GX81)
R. Johnson (REJ)
C. Grimes (CIG)
PDLR Staff pt : 0d87
~.
Project No. 683 Babcock & Wilcox Owners Group Generic License Renewal Program cc:
Mr. Robert B. Borsum Regional Administrator, Region IV Framatome Technologies U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1700 Rockville Pike 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Suite 525 Arlington, Texas 76011 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. Dwight C. Mims Michael Laggart Director, Licensing Manager, Corporate Licensing Entergy Operations, Inc.
GPU Nuclear Corporation Route 3, Box 137G One Upper Pond Road Russelville, Arkansas 72P01 Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 4
Earnest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.
Chairman Shaw, Pittman, Potts Board of County Commissioners and Trowbridge of Dauphin County 2300 N. Street, NW Daughin County Courthouse Washington, D.C.
20037 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. J. W. Hampton U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Generation Vice President 475 Allendale Road Duke Power Company King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Oconee Nuclear Station MC: ON0 IVP William Dornsife, Acting Director P.O. Box 1439 Bureau of Radiation Protection Seneca, South Carolina 29679 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Mr. John R. McGaha P.O. Box 2063 Vice President, Operations Support Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995 Chairman Jacksonville, Mississippi 39286 Board of Supervisors of Londonderry Township Regional Administrator, Region II R.D. #1 Geyers Church Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 101 Marietta St., N.W. Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. J. E. Burchfield Compliance Mr. R. L. Gill Duke Power Company GLRP Licensing Coordinator Oconee Nuclear Site c/o Duke Power Company P.O. Box 1439 EC-12R Seneca, South Carolina 29679 P.O. Box 1006 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006
i
~
ATTENDANCE LIST i
July 10.1997 NRC MEETING WITH WESTINGHOUSE OWNERS GROUP LICENSE RENEWAL PRESSURIZER AND CLASS 1 PIPING AND ASSO. COMPONENTS i
HAME ORGANIZATION i
1.
Raj Anand NRC/NRR/DRPM/PDLR 2.
Frank Klaniea Westinghouse 3.
Mark Gray Westinghouse 4.
Ben Hood Westinghouse j
5.
Roger Newton WEPCo 6.
Charles Meyer Westinghouse /WOG 7.
Robert J. Pratt NRC/NRR/DRPM/PDLR 8.
Lee Banic NRC 9.
H. L. Brammer NPC/DE j
- 10. Mark Hartzman NRC/DE
- 11. P. T. Kuo NRC/PDLR
- 12. John Fair NRC/DE
- 13. C. I. Grimes NRC/PDLR
- 14. Stephen T. Hotzf FPL i
- 15. David Roth Va. Power
- 16. Michael Henig Va. Power
- 17. Tricia Heroux for EPRI
- 18. Bob Borsun B&WOG
- 19. George Roulett American Electric Power i
4 3
1 i
WOG/NRC Meeting
_ _ _ _ =
Generic Technical Report RAI's July 10,1997 One White Flint North 3B4 Rockville, MD i
Westinghouse owners Group 1
J 1
WOG Responses to Pressurizer RAIs
- Background
_ _.---_=
e Previous WOG/NRC meeting 4/22/97 to present " proposed" responses e Meeting summary issued 5/6/97 with meeting handouts attached e Responses submitted in OG-97-055,5/30/97 (Figures not included) e Responses assumed to be acceptable based on 4/22/97 meeting.
Westinghouse Owners Group 2
I
i
!s-n WOG Responses to Pressurizer RAIs
- Presentation Format e Only those Responses which have been " modified" from the " proposed"
~
Responses will be presented:
> Additionalinformation included in the
Response
Additional information will be added to the Report Westinghouse Owners Group 3
WOG Responses to Pressurizer RAIs
- Modified Items e Responses to RAls 3,4,6,9,11,12,20
)
have been modified e Responses will be reviewed - changes are highlighted on the overheads Westinghouse Owners Group 4
WOG Responses to NRC RAIs on the Pressurizer GTR, WCAP-14574, Rev. O e RAI No. 3 - For Step 2 of the " Position", describe how the proposed ISI program will provide a fatigue aging management program that will prevent failure of the pressurizer under current design-basis loads for the period of extended operation.
e Response to RAI No. 3 - Paragraph will be expanded:
> Industry-accepted criteria currently manage fatigue effects
> Adequacy ofinspection periods dependent on meeting CLB cyclic commitments a CLB definition noted to also include regulatory oversightprocess Westinghouse Owners Group 5
WOG Responses to NRC RAIs on the Pressurizer GTR, WCAP-14574, Rev. 0
.. ~,
% -=
e RAI No. 4 - Revise Step 3 of the 'Pos.' tion" description to eliminate the reference to the PVRC report, since the staff has not endorsed Ref.17.
e Response to RAI No. 4 - The PVRC reference will not be deleted:
n To provide WOG utilities with a complete current status of activities related to environmental effects.
A clarification will be added to note that the staff has not 3
endorsed the Ref.17 results at the time the report was
- written, s Plant specific evaluations should use NRC-endorsed approach.
Westinghouse Owners Group 6
l l
l l
WOG Responses to NRC RAIs on the Pressurizer GTR, WCAP-14574, Rev. 0 e RAI No. 6 - Evaluate IGSCC and describe the aging l
management program for welds and weld regions e Response to RAI No. 6 - No generic aging effects caused by IGSCC have been identified j.
m Materialselection l
m Fabrication qualification / control I
m Duration of off-normal chemistry is too short to cause degradation a Sensitization of welds minimized (RG 1.44) l l
n No weldfailures observedin 82/182 weldmetalorwelds on Alloy 600 (domestic plants) 1 I
I
(-
W.edinghouse Owners Group 7
l WOG Responses to NRC RAIs on the Pressurizer GTR, WCAP-14574, Rev. 0
('
.. :--m
,= -
e RAI No. 9 - Are manway gaskets in the scope of the LR Rule and are gaskets subject to an aging management review?
Describe seal-welded Alloy 600 diaphragms and perform an aging management review l
e Response to RAI No. 9:
l l.
> Manway gaskets 3.re within the scope of the Rule r
Manway gaskets are no1 subject to an aging management l
3 q
review because they are replaceable based on a one-time use a A description of Alloy 600 diaphragms is included in section i
2.3.2 a Seal-weldeddiaphragmisIntendedasshort-term solution, is not wldely used, to be addressed on plant-speclMc basis.
w iinehou own.r.oroup a
i l
lL- -
l f
i+
2 WOG Responses to NRC RAIs on the i
Pressurizer GTR, WCAP-14574, Rev. 0 z.,-.
msm:mm..
e RAI No.11 - Identify components welded to the inside of the pressurizer and discuss management of cracking of these welds e Response to RAI No.11:
I e Intemal components welded to the pressurizer (Sect. 2.3.4):
j
- spray head coupling - SA 213 type 304 SS l
j
- upper & lower heater support plate brackets - SA 240 type 304 SS
- surge nozzle retaining basket-SA 240 type 304 SS j
m Snd Material and weldments are not sensitized:
1
- Plate thickness
- Low heatinput during fabrication a No generic aging effects have been identified l_
s No aging managernentprogram is necessary i
Westinghouse Owners Group 9
4 l
4 j
WOG Responses to NRC RAIs on the j
Pressurizer GTR, WCAP-14574, Rev. O.
l
(
= - _ _ _
I e RAI No.12 - Discuss the age-related degradation experienced i
I by thermal sleeves.
e Response to RAI No.12:
> No generic aging effects forWestinghouse pressurizer thermal sleeves on the surge and spray nozzles have been identified
{
> Potentialdegradation
- flow induced vibration is not present in the pressurizer, limited to piping applications with cross flow
- thermal effects considered in the design Westinghouse Owners Group 10
- s.
2 WOG Responses to NRC RAIs on the Pressurizer GTR, WCAP-14574, Rev. 0
=------
e RAI No. 20 - Discuss if pre-service or service induced j
flaws require an aging management program o Response to RAI No. 20:
> There are no known service induced flaws
> Pre-service induced flaws are not caused.by aging, therefore an aging management review is not required by the Rule i
n New section will be added to the report which describes how these flaws are to be addressed on a plant-specific basis
)
Westinghouse Owners Group 11 4
4 l
WOG Responses to Class 1 Piping RAIs - Bach ound m.___
j e Class 1 Piping Report, WCAP-14575, submitted to NRC 8/28/96 e RAl's issued 4/18/97, letter from P.T.
i Kuo to Roger Newton, WOG l
e WOG responses to RAls submitted
~
6/13/97, OG-97-060 l
j Westinghouse Owners Group 12 t
4 3
lv l~
l WOG Responses to Class 1 Piping.
l RAIs - Presentation Format mm/.s>;.):4 k J >44%: 44 MM45UsX-M..
l e Each RAI will be paraphrased l
e Overview of response will be presented along with supporting information e Any resultant changes to the report will be noted e Clarifications about the question /
response should be raised.
i Westinghouse Owners Group 13 i
l l
WOG GTR Structure
._.;9 pg::
.v4.wwa:*yww%..
l e Section 2.0 - Scope, boundary, &
l descriptions e Section 3.0 - Degradation evaluations e Section 4.0 - Aging management programs Westinghouse Owners Group 14 i
.b a
l
s.
Class 1 Piping GTR Scope
.._m.
e Associated Pressure e Class 1 Piping Boundary
> RCS piping Components
- Hot, Cold, & X-Legs
> Branch Connections
> Auxiliary piping
> Special Nozzles
- PSARV
- T/Ws, Scoops,
- SIS
- T/Ss, Splitter Elbow
- RHR
> Welds
- WCS
> Class 1 Valve Bodies
- RVHVS sure Bounday
- RTDBS
> R C Pump Casing
- & Closure Boundary Westinghouse Owners Group 15 Class 1 Piping GTR Aging Effects Summary e identified potential e Non-significant aging aging effects:
effects:
m Fatigue s Corrosion a Corrosion a Irradiation embrittlement
. Irradiation embritt'ement Erosion a Thermal aging a Creep
= Erosion e Potentially significant
> wear aging effects:
a Creep a Wear a Suess relaxadon a Stress relaxation Fatigue m
Thermal aging a
Westinghouse Owners Group 16
et (2-p
,-ee+1J
-*-p--a.
p-L-
4 6.
_.+, __ _
.12 4
4__,._
m.4,,a,.
g._
__q g
g.,gaam..a____
a4 A4 - e 4+huw e,,A ea--ris,.
_,hy,,_
a.,,4 u4-a,,.
\\
s-4 WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping i
= _ _ _ _ _.-
1 e RAI No.1a - Describe the aging management program to address potential high-cycle fatigue damage due to flow-induced vibration, e.g., Class 1 thermowells e Response - Class 1 thermowells not considered a fatigue-sensitive item for license renewal VNtinghouse Owners Group 17 WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping e RAI No.1b - Explain intent of last sentence & how it was used for AMP.
e Response - Sentence explains why B31.1 piping did not need to be reanalized to new ASME Ill criteria.
AMP for fatigue is based on industry position & B31.1 requirements.
Westinghouse Owners Group 18 1
1 t
- WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping
, _ A.CtAW AV< m;% ;e &
W
- X%C%%%.
A o RAI No. 2a - Describe how Section XI ISI.is an alternative to licensing basis
~
criteria for fatigue.
o Response - Report will be modified to incorporate the revised proposed industry position on fatigue. Discussion will be clarified to explain how ISI requirements manage effects of fatigue.
Westinghouse Owners Group 19 s
WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping i
e RAI No. 2b - Clarify how flaw tolerance i
or leak-before-break is an alternative to licensing basis criteria for fatigue.
e Response - Report will be modified to incorporate the revised proposed industry position on fatigue. Discussion will explain how strucural integrity of piping will be demonstrated by FT&LBB.
Westinghouse Owners Group 20 l
WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping e RAI No. 2c - Clarify how environmental effects on fatigue are considered.
e Response - Report will be modified to incorporate the revised proposed industry position on fatigue which considers environmental effects.
Westinghouse Owners Group 21 WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping e RAI No. 2d-Describe test data for flow velocity criteria in Table 4-8.
e Response - Test data should be contained in PVRC report (ref 43).
e Update - Flow Velocity and Sulfur Content will be eliminated by PVRC & in report.
Westinghouse Owners Group 22
WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping MMy w>4
- AX MMACO
- W4C '
e RA/ No. 3 - Are there other aging management programs (besides ASME Code Ex'aminations) to be generically credited?
e Response - Only programs in Section 4 are included for generic approval.
l Individual plants may include other programs in their applications.
Westinghouse Owners Group 23 WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping e RAI No. 4 - Are there relevant components in inaccessible areas?
e Response - Plant-specific applications may include some. Current industry practices in 4.1 should address inaccessible areas. New programs in 4.2 include analyses as alternatives to inspections.
Westinghouse Cuers Group 24
~
I WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping e RAI No. 5 - Describe the review of Generic Communications.
e Response - Previous review done 3 4
years ago identified an extensive list of references considered to include all applicable aging effects. Review will be updated using current automated tools.
Westinghouse Owners Group 25 WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping e RAI No. 6 - Are boric acid corrosion activities consistent with GL 88-05?
e Response - Yes, on a generic basis.
Additional detail may be in the plant-specific application as deemed necessary by the utility Westinghouse Owners Group 26
l WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping e RAI No. 7-Discuss why the 6 attributes constitute an effective aging management program.
. e Respons.e - The attributes provide generic descriptions of effective programs with sufficient detail to explain how intended functions will be maintained.
Westinghouse Owners Group 27 WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping e RAI No. 8 - Will continuing commitments be addressed in plant-specific applications (vs. generically)?
e Response - Yes, those which are credited for aging management will be in the plant-specific applications.
Westinghouse Owners Group 28
I 9
s-WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping e RAI No. 9 - Provide aging management programs for stress corrosion cracking for certain items included in NUREG-1557.
e Response - The issues addressed in NUREG-1557 are not applicable to the Class 1 piping in the scope of this report.
Westinghouse (kners Group 29 WOG Responses to NRC RAIs WCAP-14575, Class 1 Piping e RAI No.10 - Provide an assessment for the cracking of thermal sleeves.
e Response - No safety concerns with loose thermal sleeves.
The higher thermal transient stresses on nozzles with thermal sleeves removed have been shown to be acceptable within a revised design basis.
Westinghouse Owners Group 30
l Status of WOG Submittals e RCS Supports, WCAP-14422, Rev. 2 -
submitted 3/4/97, DSER expected 7/97 e Pressurizer, WCAP-14574, Rev. 0 - RAls issued 1/14/97, Rev.1 expected 8/97 e RCS Piping, WCAP-14575, Rev. 0 - RAls issued 4/18/97, Rev.1 expected 8/97 e Containment, WCAP-14756, Rev. 0 -
j submitted 12/11/96, RAls expected 7/97 i
e RV Internals, WCAP-14573, Rev. 0 - to be submitted 8/xx/97, RAls expected 12/97 Westinghouse Owners Group 31
)
l Pressurizer Internal Attachment Welds i
Figure 1 l
2 t
1 i
.)
l
~
Spray Head Coupling 4
E
]
l Upper Heater Support
'b_
x Plate Bracket l
l l
^
i l
[
i k!
M Lower Heater Support
[
[
Plate Bracket h
xA i,
l t
l L_3
(
i j
_A-
~
7 Surge Nozzle l
y 7
Retaining Basket s
f s
, j i
p%
s V
/
~~
L m
u L
Thermal Sleeve Attachment Weld i
Figure 2 I
i l'
E I
a
)
'k-
{
J i
,g40.;
l p, 3 p __ _ _ _.._
1 L50 APPROX
~.81 APPROX g_
1.25 R.
BLEND f,
BLEND 1
i s
30' LO O R.
BLENG R.
If U f T
l
- g.,
s.125 MIN.Ct. AD0 LNG l
-98 APPROX 1-3.00
~
/
g9.co -
___ q S4RGE.. N0ZZLE THIS WELDIS FOR 45*0N H l.S DIA WELO SPOTS CIRCUMFERENCE OF THERMAL.
9(f APART TO Fli LD.
j SLEEVE
.010uAx LLEARANCE.
2
Heater and Heater Well Assembly Weld Figure 3 Stainless Steel Cladding 5
Penetrat o Veld 5
Lower Head 1
4 4
4 i
N
,,P 1
I v
Heater Well Heater To Heater Well 1
[
\\
4 Fillet Weld Heater g[l g u t
~ t' t,9 1
)
g I
I it
.I U
U
?*
Pressurizer Heater Assembly Figure 4 (D
9 10 5
3 1
2
/
F~
/ ;
h If l
C't+I-- WW
_- __.r6
-=)'
tr
/
h-.
A JEF%
%~
/
I '
6 4
11 Item Description i
Heater Sheath 2
Sheath End Plug 3
Adapter 4
Terminal Lugs 5
Hermetic Seal Receptacle 6
Rubber Booth / Lug Divider 7
External Insulation Material (Ceramic Insulator) 8 1/4" Bolt 9
1/4" lock Washer 10 1/4" Nut 11 Hermetic Pressure Seal i
...... -..~
~..
.-.-.~ -..-..... - -.-
=
t
-a.
e i
Instrument Nozzle Weld i
Figure 5 j
k i
Rolled Length
~
Nozzle to Clad Partial Penetration Instrument Nozzle' Weld i*
1 \\
7777; N
Y/H I
i Shell/ Head i
t i
I
.I f
i l
i I
?
4 i
l I
l i
i j
4 I
l 1
c,
-g-
a l
- The WOG requested that staff review the responses to the RAls and provide feedback on the adequacy of the information provided, so that they can modify their reports on the pressurizer and the Class 1 piping.
Ra. k., J Rai K. Anand, Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorate i
Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 683 Attachments:
- 1. Attendance List
- 2. Meeting Handouts I
cc w/atts:
See next page
(
i i
l i
l DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\WOG0710.MTS (0WNERS GROUP / AVL Disk)
To rscrive a copy of this document, indicate in the bcx: *C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure: "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure; "N" = No i
copy.
0FFICE PM:PDLR lc ME:PDLR. -c7lN D:PDLR
,,,_ l tb l
l 3
NAME RAnand: avl R.W RPrato W CGrimes ( /d DATE 07/is /97 07/(s(/97 07/22)/97*
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
,