ML20237L286
| ML20237L286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/08/1987 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.099, RTR-REGGD-1.099 ACRS-2517, NUDOCS 8708280037 | |
| Download: ML20237L286 (20) | |
Text
c
' ? '.
g gs-a6/7
{Pi?{1 Tot #vE
~
l ye CERTIFIED COPY J
L L 4
DATE ISSUED: August 8,1987
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON METAL COMPONENTS JULY 24, 1987 WASHINGTON, D.C.
l The ACRS Subcommittee on Metal Components met on July 24, 1987 in Washington, D.C. to review the broad scope amendment to the GDC-4 rule.
In addition, status reports were heard on dosimetry, Regulatory Guide 1.99, Rev. 2 on pressure vessel vessel irradiati e damage, and BWR drywell shell corrosion.
Notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register on July 14, 1987 (Attachment A). The schedule of items covered in the meeting is in Attachment B.
A list of handouts kept with the office copy of the minutes is included in Attachment C.
There were no written or oral statements received or presented from members of the public at the meeting.
E. Igne was cognizant ACRS Staff member for the meeting.
Principal Attendees ACRS P. G. Shewmon, Chairman NRC Staff C. Y. Michelson, Member R. Bosnak 3
E. Rodabaugh, ACRS Consultant J. Richardson j
M. Vagins j
T. Sullivan J. O'Brien j
S. Lee W. LeFave C. Y. Cheng
)
K. R. Wichman E.Q B. J. Elliot 3 ' k g, h DF31GNATED ORIGINAL gB2 37 870B08 Certified By_
s
l
)
ik Minutes / Metal Components 2
Meeting, July 24, 1987
+
Others R. P. Kennedy, Structural Mechanics Consulting T. C. Esselman, Altran Corp.
R. Gamble, Novetech Coip.
S. Bush, Review & Synthesis Assoc.
S.
A.' Swany, Westinghouse Elect. Corp.
K. K. Dwivedy, Virginia Power B. F. Sepelak, Duquesne Light Co.
E. R. Johnson, Westinghouse Elect. Corp.
W. F. Guerin, Westinghouse Ele.ct. Corp.
W. R. Mikesell, Robert L. cloud Assoc.
J. F. Walters, Babcock & Wilcox Co.
M. K. Punatar, Babcock & Wilcox Co.
H. Ecker, NUS Corp.
R. J. Fergusson, Virginia Power G. P. Milley, Stone & Webster Eng. Co.
M. F. Testa, Duauesne Light Co.
j A. Hughes, MITRE H_ighlights:
1.
R. J. Bosnak, RES, discussed the final broad scope rule to Amendment GDC-4 of Appendix A, 10 CPR Part 50, which would allow exclusion of dynamic effects of postulated pipe rupture in all high energy ( 275 F and 200 psi) piping meeting rigorous acceptance criteria. The amendment to GDC-4 is the final rule, whereas the new SRP 3.6.3 which implements the amendment is being published for public comment. This amendment allows the application of leak-before-break (LBB) technology in 4
qualifying high energy piping systems at nuclear power plants to eliminate dynamic effects of postulated pipe ruptures. The amendment i
l depends on advanced fracture mechanics techniques which have been experimentally validated and requires evaluations.for water hammer, fatigue, environmental effects, erosion, corrosion, creep, leak detection, and indirect sources of pipe rupture.
In response to subcommittee questions, the Staff stated that 1) in some cases the feedwater lines might be ruled out for LBB consideration because of
i,.
. Minutes / Metal Components 3
Meeting, July 24, 1987 water hammer,' 2) ISI including volumetric inspections are being looked at by the ASME, and 3) Reg. Guides may be written to delineate detail evaluations necessary to implement the amended GDC-4 rule.
1 l
The scope of the final rule includes all ASME Class 1 and 2 piping (or the equivalent).in all reactor types which satisfy rigorous acceptance l
L criteria.
Dynamic effects ascociated with pipe ruptures may be excluded from the design basis. But containment. design and ECCS performance are not impacted.
However, alternative equipment qualification design basis, based on LBB can be submitted for NRC review and approval in a limited number of case-by-case situations.- In reply to questions,.the Staff stated that 1) Class 3 and lower pipe class rating were eliminated from LBB consideration because of lack of volumetric inspection, and 2) that the NRC Staff will entertain alternative equipment qualifications that may have a relaxed environmental profile based on LBB concept on a case-by-case basis.
l
\\ W e-impacts analysis were performed for this amendment. Tht elimina-tion of pipe whip restraints, jet impingement barriers, high strength threaded fasteners and large snubbers from heavy components in operating plants and plants under construction is permitted.
For future plants, dysmic effects of energy pipe ruptures can be eliminated from the design basis when LBB is demonstrated. Averted worker radiation expo-sures are measured in several (possibly many) 10,000's of man-rems.
Cost savings are measured in several (possibly many)$100 millions.
Public safety is not significantly impacted.
l
~ _ ____ _ __ _ _ -_ _ _ __
i Minutes / Met'al Components 4
i j.
Meeting, July.24, 1987:
'il. Bosnak,' discussed safety issues relating to the amended GDC-4 rule.
Approximately 15,000 pipe whip restraints in service today of varying sizes and designs (installed at a cost of about $2 billion (1985) in i
direct cost; if stretched out schedule, maintenance costs and finance i
cos',s cre included the total increases to about $6 billion. More than i
120,000 experience years have been accumulated with pipe whip restraints, without even one instance of where a pipe whip restraint was needed to perform a safety function.
R. Bosnak further stated that foreign experience is similar.
Pipe whip restraints can degrade safety by limiting thermal expansion where contact between-the pipe whip restraint and pipe inadvertently occurs due to difficulties with maintaining tolerances and alignments in pipe whip restraints. Lack'of 1
adequate clearance may cause cracks to grow at locations not now protected against pipe rupture because of modified stresses resulting from pipe-restraint contact.
Pipe whip restraints also limits accessibility for and diminish effectiveness of inservice inspection I
while increasing worker radiation exposures.
The effects of reducing the number and capacity of large snubbers on heavy components with respect to public health and safety have not been generally quantified. Positive effects result from having more reliable snubbers. Negative effects result from lower resistance to very large earthquakes (2 or 3 times SSE) and severe accidents. Redesign of heavy coSponents supports (limited only to nodifying snubbers and replacing
-high strength fasteners) is permitted to reduce occupational radiation, exposures, and to improve maintenance and reliability. The presence of jet impingement barriers does tut result in similar safety problems, l
Minutes / Metal Components 5
l Meeting, July 24, 1987 however, their elimination is. permitted because these devices are recognized now as being unnecessary and because they impede access and l
cause increase irradiation exposure.
j Twenty-eight public comment letters were received.
Each commenter supported the proposed rule in part or entirely. The citizens' group also supported the proposed rule but expressed certain legal reser-vations. The public comments did lead to certain changes in the proposed rule and SRP 3.6.3.
1 1
R. Bosnak spent some time discussing. heavy component support de-sign / redesign, and relaxation.in requirements for heavy component (steam generators, coolant. pumps,reactorpressurevessels,etc.) Support design / redesign was either not mentioned or not recommended in the 1
1 original request for rulemaking, Generic Letter 84-04,.the USNRC Piping
)
Review Committee Reports, or the proposed limited scope rule. However j
in the final limited scope rule, the Commission permitted limited i
redesign of PWR primary loop heavy component supports excluding pipe rupture loads, in primary coolant loops. This decision has been effective since May 12, 1986. This broad scope rule expands that i
decision to all reactor types.
Commission Position: When LBB is demonstrated for a specific piping system at a specific plant, dynamic effects (missile generation, pipe-whipping, pipe break reaction forces, jet impingement' forces, decom-pression waves within the ruptured pipe and dynamic on non-static compartment pressurization) of postulated pipe ruptures in the system
(
__---_-_____._.___---____--_--------A-----------------------------
Minutes / Metal Components 6
Meeting,. July 24, 1987 under review may be' eliminated from the design basis of the connected heavy components, their supports, and their internals.
Redesign of 1
heavy component supports to eliminate dynamic effects of pipe rupture in operating plants and plants under construction is limited to replacing i
high strength fastener material with more' ductile materials, and to reducing the number and/or capacity of snubbers.
For future plants when j
LBB is demonstrated, heavy component supports will be designed using j
current NRC criteria and current industry codes.
Pipe rupture dynamic effects in systems which do not qualify for LBB will remain in the design basis, SRP 3.6.3 implements the final broad scope GDC-4 amendment. The SRP will be published for public comment in August or September 1987.
With rescoct to design criteria on static pressurization for structural evaluation and bar-iers separating high energy piping from essential equipment, R. Bosnak, stated that SRP's 3.6.1= and 3.6.2 applied.
But at i
the CRGR meeting on July 22, 1987, it was recommended that design basis for compartment pressurization be relaxed.
C. Michelson objected to its relaxation, stating that safety related equipment in compartments be protected from pipe pressur*'ation effects. This matter is presently being resolved by the NRC.
CRGR also recommended that treatment of containment, ECCS and equipment qualification need further evaluation for possible design basis relaxation.
S. Bush, Review & Sythesis Assoc, discussed the likelihood of failure of primary piping in PWRs or BWRs in earthquakes greater than the safe.
Minutes / Metal Components 7
Meeting, July 24, 1987 shutdown earthquake (SSE) with failed lateral supports.
Results of his study are as follows:
l Expects no primary pipe. failures to about 0.5G assuming failure of the lateral supports.
!I Seismic experience, simulated tests and analyses confirm piping resistance to about 0.5G.
Probabilistic fracture. mechanics confirm the low probability.
of primary pipe cracking.
I I
Indirect failure have acceptable low values.
1 Analytic studies with large assumed cracks do not fail until well above the SSE valve, i
i Based on the above study, S. Bush, recommends the fcilowing on primary i
systems only:
Some lateral restraint should be retained i
-l l
Bolting mechanical properties (ductility) on heavy component supports should be reviewed, i.i IGSCC in BWR piping must be minimized and; 1
i i
1 l
__-_______________j
1 Minutes / Metal Components 8
Meeting, July 24, 1987 J
Eliminate low notch ductility on the skirt material.
R. Kennedy, Structural Mechanics Consulting, commented on the seismic design of heavy component supports.
His positions on the amended GDC-4 1
l rule are as.follows:
i l
i I
l
\\
Completely concur with the NRR Staff position that the l
elimination of. pipe whip restraints, jet impingement barriers, and high strength threaoed fasteners and reduction of large l
bore hydraulic snubbers from heavy components is desirable and should be encouraged.
These desirable goals are achieved by removing dynamic effects of postulated pipe ruptures from heavy component support j
design.
However, very little penalty is imposed by forcing a very conservative seismic design for heavy component supports.
1 Tall, narrow, heavy components with high center of gravity similar to reactor vessels, steam generators, and pressurizer have vulnera'oility to seismic-induced support failure unless lateral support is very conservatively designed. Heavy component support failures have been one of the primary causes of piping failures in past earthquaku.
R. Kennedy stated that two solutions exist to this problem for current plants.
It is adequate to delete the dynamic effects and design heavy
1 Minutes / Metal Components 9
Meeting, July 24, 1987 component supports for SSE only, at service Level D by current SRP I
criteria so long as either of the following exists:
1
~ Solution 1 The SSE should be sufficiently high so that the annual probability of it exceeding 2 times SSE is well below 10-4.
l Demonstrate that displacements and rotations of heavy compo-nents which might result from credible support failures should not lead to rupture of the reactor coolant loop piping.
1 Solution 2 i
When deleting the dynamic effects, we should maintain the seismic margin by either:
Design for factored SSE; 1.5 to 2.0 times the SSE, or Reduce allowable support loads; using Service level B allowables l
l l
The NRC has chosen the second approach in Solution 1, while R. Kennedy mildly prefers the second approach.
In conclusion, R. Kennedy stated that... "I can support the final broad scope GDC-4 Amendment (Leak-before-break rule) as it applies to heavy component support design / redesign. My previous reservations have now all been addressed."
L
Minutes / Metal. Components 10 Meeting, July 24, 1987 In new plants this seismic concern will be handled by increasing the SSE I
- values, l
W.-Mikesell, R. L. Cloud & Assoc., discussed the Beaver Valley Unit 2 application of the LBB rule.
He stated that implementation of this rule j
has a positive safety impact. A total of 40 pipe whip supports were eliminated, all inside of the containment Piping systems outside were considered but dropped from consideration because the restraints were all ready installed.
I C. Serpan, RES, provided a status report of. the research program on dosimetry. The objective of th.s program is to improve the reliability and accuracy of neutron dosimetry used to predict yeactor pressure vessel embrittlement. The program which was started in 1978 is essen-tially complete.
In 1988 documentation and limited follow-on work is expected. The program accomplished the following:
improved the accuracy of neutron dosimetry. procedures and measurements between +5-20%,
benchmarks have been established and are in use for regulatory reviews for flux spectrum calculations, devc?oped procedures that reduce uncertainties in reactor pressure vessel fluence calculations, and a Regulatory guide in dosimetry procedures is being written.
j Current scope of work include international cooperation with the UK on.
experiments on cavity dosimetry and shielding measurements, and with I
1
___-__-----_-_a
1 Minutes / Metal Components 11 Meeting, July 24, 1987 j
Belgium on experiments on measurements of low leakage core effects for l
pressurized thermal shock and plant life extension.
l N. -Randall, RES, presented a status report on Regulatory Guide 1.99, Rev. ?> " Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials." After 10 years of Revision 1 use, the following.were changes were made based on regression analyses by Guthrie and Odette of power reactor surveillance data.
Provide mean values of RT and states margin separately, NDT 1
Gives different chemistry factors for welds and base metal, l
l Includes copper and nickel in chemistry factor, l
The fluence exponent changes from 0.50 to 0.28 - 0.1 log F, Provides formula for through-wal1~ attenuation based on dis-j placement per atoms (dpa), and Tightens requirements for use of plant-specific data.
l The major public connents received impacted hydrostatic testing condi-I tion at BWR's and low temperature overpressurization (LTOP) setting at PWR's. With respect to BWR's the implementation of Revision 2 will cause hydrostatic test temperatures to increase.
This causes two problems, longer heat up times (allowable heatup rate at less than 5%
per hour at higher temperature) and the requirement of containment closure above 200 F will add outage time. On PWR's, a fixed LTOP set l
l point accentuates the impact of large adjustments of reference temperature on the operating window in temperature.
l-
Minutes / Metal Components-12 Meeting, July 24, 1987 The status of Reg. Guide 1.99, Rev. 2 is as follows:
Revision 2 is in office concurrence,before being submitted to the CRGR for approval to publish as a final guide, approval of the ED0 is being sought to amend the PTS rule (change the formula for RTRTS) to make it consistent with Rev.
2, implementation of Rev. 2 will cause pressure-temperature limits to raove upscale very significantly for some plants now using Rev. 1, Operational flexibility will be reduced on PWRs on heatup/cooidown and for BWRs on hydrotest, and pressure from the industry is forcing consideration of a number of regulatory requirements and safety margins.
l C. P. Tan, NRR, presented a status report on the Mark I drywell shell j
corrosion problem.
This concern occurred at Oyster Creek where water was observed coming from sand cushion drains during the 1980, 1983 and 1986 refueling outages.
Leakage was through a drain line gasket at the drywell to cavity seal.
Ultransonic thickness measurements were made in the spring of 1986. Measurements indictate wastage of the shell in two localized regions with circumferential lengths of about 21 and 35 feet j
respectively. Shell thickness was reduced from 1.115 in, to an average of 0.85 in with some local areas of about 0.75 in.
Cause of corrosion appears to be caused by water containing aggressive anions.
Results of structural analysis assuming 0.70 in, shell thickness indicate the' code stress allowables are met. The licensee's effort of a fix is a
s Minutes / Metal Components 13 Meeting, July 24, 1987-continuing. They will prevent future water incursions into the sand bed and utilize cathodic protection to control corrosion.
i A generic letter 87-05, on this matter was issued on March 12, 1987; This letter provides information on Oyster Creek problems and requ?sts.
information of drain lines, possible leakage from the refueling cavity-and other pertinent data and plans for inspection. All licensee have-l provided the requested information.
An action plan is being formulated i
to review and evaluate'the requested information. A safety evaluation l
is report is planned by the end of.1987.
NOTE:-
A transcript of tae meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. or can be purchased from ACE-Federal Reporters, 444 N. Capitol Street, Washington D.C. 20001 (202)343-3700 I
l l
Federal Register / Vol 52 No 134 / Tuesdry. My $4.Mf Mutiset M
3267) between 8:15 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
and the 4&sw allseted thesuderma be -
Boemd far this $redoedingMassitet of Persons planning to attend this meeting obtained by a psepaid telephone omil to' the M i.
&' H e AEanMoseM}" a'f are urged to contact the above named the cognizant ACRS stag mernber, Mr.
- ~,
individual one or two days before the Elpidio Igne llalephone 202/634-14HJ Thopas'S. Moose
~
scheduled meeting to be advised of any between a:15 A.M. anal koe P.M. Parsons s,aar f j
w changes in schedule, etc., which may planaing to attend this meeting are
& wa h h n w M w g o,-
l have occuned.
urged to contact the above named mated:Imly 7 iner.
' WaM*""
{
Dated July 8.1987, indlVidual one Or two days before the c p.m.ab wr, e.& t3OC C t
Morton W. Ubarkin, scheduled meeting to be advised of any Assistant. L ecutive Director for Project changes in schedule, etc., which may _
s,cm,ryop,e4 pore Q'65 am)jr(
Review.
have occurred.
(FR Doc.97-15e50 FDed 7-tH7; k
. e,,,,,
[FR Doc. 87-15947 Filed 7-13-87; 8 45 amJ De'ted: July 8,1987.
sw o coos neo-ei-m Marton W.thn-
' " ~ " " "
Assistaat Dewtive Dieserfor Avject SECURITIES APID EXC6WERE Review.
Advisory Committee on Reactor COM M (FR Doc e7-1504e Ned 7-18-47,8 46 em) g mmittee on Metal
,w,,, co,,,,,,
, g g % g.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Metal p et h.50-M M I Components will hold a meeting on July mpg 44 l
1 24,1987, Room 1040.1717 H Street, NW.,
Reconstitution of Atomic Safety and Wa shington. DC.
Ucensing AppealBoard; Texas Appe ving u
1 The entire meeting wCl be open to Utilities Electric Co. et al., Comanche Cha"8' public attendance.
Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 On Mey 7,1987, the CMeago Board n 'a for subject meeting shall ea Notice io hereby pen htdn Options Exchange,1nc.fCBOE" or,
Friday, fuly N.1987-a30 A.M. Unti/
accordance with the authority confened
" Exchange") evhrstled to the Securities the Conclusion ofBusiness by 10 CFR 2.787(a), the Chairman of the and Ex&enge Cesamiselon Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal
("Comunieelon"), pumuerrt to section The Subcommittee will review CDC-4 Panelhas reconstituted the Atomic 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Amendment (leak.before break rule),
Safety and ucensing AppealBoard for
.Ad of tes4 ("Act"): and Reie 19b-4 research programs on dosimetry, this construction permit amendment thmunder.* a pooposed mie dange to irradiation effects on pressure vessel proceeding. At the request of Dr. W.
amend CBOE Rule 18.33(al relating to materials (Regulatory Guide 1.99.
Reed Johnson to be replaced on ibe the schedule of fees t,o be deposited by Revision 2), and other matters (e.g.,
Board, the Chairman has assigned in his claimants in connection wish arbitration drywell shell corrosion).
stead Howard A.Wilber. As claims filed with the Exchange.
Oral statements may be presented by reconstituted, the AppealBoard for this
'ne proposed aanndrnants to Rule members of the public with the proceeding willconsist of the followmg 18.33(a) would increase the regoned concurrence of the Subcommittee members:
deposit from $300 to $400 where the
{
Chairman: written statements will be AWan S. Rosenthal. Chainnan amount in controversy is between i
accepted and made evallable to the Thomas S. More
$10,m and smo.Meme & emount i
Committee. Recordings will be permitted Howard A.Wilber in contamy is hn am and l
only during those portions of the
$50,000, the deposet fee wcwM be meeting when a tranectipt is being kept, Dated: July 7.1987.
decseeeed froen the cursent es00 fee to and questions rnay be esked only by C We Shoe *
$400. The current $500 fee would remain members of the Subcommittee,its Secretaryof the Appec/M.
unchanged for amounts in controversy j
consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring (FR Doc. 87-13s49 Filed 7-1S-87; o.,e6 amj between $50,000 and $100,000.s The i
to make oral sta tements shoedd notify on.tmeo cops meses-as depeelt see for alaimum 'where the emeunt
{
the ACRS staff member identified below in contro ses is betweem$1annan and as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
[ Docket Mos. 90-455-OL & 56-446-00 would hnpose a newSt000 eleposit ice During the initial portion of the Reconstitution of Atomic Safety and for allcasas exceeding gma nnn meeting. the Subcommittee, along with Ucensing AppeelSoord; Teams The proposed rule change was noticed any of its conssitants who may be Utilities Electric Co., et al., Cemenche in Securities Exchange Act Release No.
present, a ey exchange prelirniney Peak Steam Electric Station, t9ntes 1 24518 (May 27, tea 7),42 PR 30815 (June views regarding matte s to be l
and 2 considered during the balance of the 3,1987).Mo written comments were received by the Commission on the meeting.
Notice is bereby given that. In proposed rule %
The Subcommittee witl then hear accordance with the authority conferred
~
presentations by and hold discusalons by 10 CFR 2.787(a), the Chairman of the with mepeeestatives of the f4RC S(aff,its - Atonic Safety and ucensing Appeal E"
m consultants, and other insmeted Panel has reconstituted the Atom!c sc,,ues4.caos Ade 2asselosimium M e persons regarding this review.
Safety and Doensing Appeal Beerd for esCo depenu k repsed where de amenet te Further information regarding topics this opersling license pruno At the contrwarer is W==am emaao ad sanosa mioo to be discussed, whether the meetine request of Dr. W. Reed Johnson to be when h me m atem a beimma smoo has been cancelled or resche.duled. Se replaced on the Board, b Chamman
- fac$of "ianderthe cunent n d " " '"**'" ***"d"8 Chairman's ruling on requee(s {ar b has andgned in ble etand Howsmi A.
. w, e h opportunity to present oral statements Wilbar. As seoonstituted, the Agpeel emimum depwt s esquhad.
L_____-_____.
ATTACHMENT B
-T ' UR 1
}
JULY 16, 1987 j
e
\\
TENTATIVE AGENDA ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON METAL COMPONENTS MEETING 1
JULY 24, 1987
{
1 l
8:30 - 8:45 a.m.
1.
Chainnan's Opening Statement 1
and Connents - P. Shewmon 8:45 - 10:45 e.m.
2.
Review of Final Broad Scope GDC-4
)
Amendment (Leak-Before-Freak Rule) l P. Bosnak, RES l
vc.e < (t.
l l
Introduction & Resolution of i
q., g Public Comments 1
Staff's Position en Heavy l
g vn ki:
Component Support Design Licensing Implementations i
- j,-
- 1:
SRP 3.6.3 (acceptance criteria) 1 c,.-
n ;5
' a.; - n b
Y >
15 Minute BREAK at 10:00 a.m.
,e 11:00 - 12:00 N00N Consultants Recommendations on Heavy 2)
Component Support Design S. Bush
\\J C
_ i.
1, 4
1 Hour lunch at 12:00 Noon 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. 3 R. Kennedy
, ( 9 J, R. d a i b ;. r 4 fd.
I
- 3) - u. q '
2:00 - 2:30 p.m.
-4 Viaw on GDC-4 Amend. - W. Mickesell (President, O.
Robert L. Cloud Asso.,
Inc.)
2:30 - 3:15 p.m.
5 Status Report on Dosimetry Research 3
Program - C. Serpan, RES l
15 Minute BREAK at 3:15 p.m.
3:30 - 4:30 p.m. g6.
Status Report on Reg. Guide 1.99, Rev. 2 P. N. Randall, RES d.pc f.
1'.,;..a l
4:30 - 5:00 p.m.
Status of MKI.Stmwessb Fuvl Corrosion (y. 7.
- C. P. Ta n,
NRR l
5:00 p.m.
ADJ0 URN.
I l
ATTACHMENT C 1
LIST OF HAND 0UTS l
i 1.
Amendment to GDC-4 Final Rule Presentation by R. J.
Bosnak, Deputy Director, Div of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, July 24, 1987 2.
Likelihood of Failure of Primary Piping in PWRs or i
EllRs in Earthquakes Greater Than Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) With Failed Lateral Supports -
S. H. Bush 3.
Comments on Seismic Design of Heavy Component Supports
- Robert P. Kennedy, July 1987 l
4.
"A More Extensive Removal of Counter Productive Hardware, Such as Pipe Whip Restraints and Jet Impingement Shields and..." Federal Register, July 23, i
1986 - Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inv.
5.
LWR - Pressure Vessel - Surveillance Dosimetry Improvement Program - C. Z. Serpan, July 24, 1987 6.
Briefing on Rev. 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.99 " Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials" - N. Randall, July 24,1987 l
7.
Revision 2, Enclosure 1, N. Randall 8.
NRR Staff Presentation to the ACRS - C. P. Tan, Status of Mark 1 Drywell Shell Corrosion, July 24, 1987
--_.___ _ _ _ ________ _ 1
ATTACHNENT D E. IGNE METAL COMPONENTS 6'
ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON
't LOCATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW, Washington, D.C.
DATE July 24, 1937 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT: NAME AFFILI ATION A. iY.
i.1.*v:./ e s & tec 1.'
t. c e ~:
- n clW 7~. C.
b.s62 uM M Nant ded.
5 A. Swamt WanwasEEwc Ge:
E. R 30/tNSod k/estm e,/nw,a l
4/
v.xA/
A.n le f.ig U 0 j
/
L/
R'R Re/ nnedy 5-huhn/ MecGnw Enny;y (A f ck) e r ln
/WeA-l/10beuSe I
j KESHAB K.
DWIVEDY Virc74sz.ia l'MJ e r u
k'\\c
. C% )
N*
- l l
i.
&c rL s 4 c n.s, 6.;:.7 n
c
!? l
^
s f {
'{,*.
%,A
.M Sirtl[
x-k 1
l t
Lo.
R E. IGNE METAL COMPONENTS d
q ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON
)
LOCATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW, Washington, D.C.
j 1
DATE July 24, 1937 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILI ATION n,
%coss tur /R Fs/B6 /Mels Te n 6ct t nmd N R c / O R R /hFCF/EMFS coHN O'BREIG NRC /RES /DE / SSE B l
STnxent 75' usa Rs,nw + syrrinsa ns.rac 6AM LEG Nl'/NAR/ DEST /EH7s 8 ', l l Le F-M R.c'/ art /0 err / P48 40c /nr/ / hs'T /cMT@
- c. 3 (2eu v'# ulelAw uol/Uhi,/om'/sgg l
- 6. 7. E w or MRe / u%/o ssr/EN7g Gam b le.
A)ov/Tec a l<n[
p %u<
salac h N u 41 r
1
- ,,,r n.-
A'
E. IGNE
~
'ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON METAL COMPONENTS e
LOCATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW, Washington, D.C.
DATE July 24, 1937 ATTENDANCE LIST i
PLEASE PRINT: NAME AFFILI ATION l
W.2 Mi/cese //
72cbes L. d 4 us'4ssse.
1 CM/4LTG/ES 8/f 6 cock c (o / ccox ce l
MA MEHmn
- k. Put4ATAR B ABCo ck f Coll. (oy A6 eler d fe ker $ s/ d 3 Cw/).
l h'o c: : r r.T R i=m s s o r)
\\/ uRC, r ap p Q.v
.u em
\\
2v.c / M fi, m L:'i h;;o n a, & e <
(2LEtViv /3 mil.WY 57DwE :$. cog (b%ex Em, q9.
l NICHAEL F. NSW Dupasskt 4//fr co.
l Aa> Dup VIi fAf i
i i
s i
i 1
l l
l l
t l
l l
l l
a
E* 1GNE l
METAL COMPONENTS 3COMMlTTEE M[ETfNG ON q
3g[ g.g Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.
DATE.'
July 24,1987 4
ATTENDANCE LIST l
PLEASE PRINT:
l NAME BADGE NO.
AFFILIATION i n
- l
/h Q
',, i;/,
{
l? e b'
-i 7
3 l
j
/:l l - v / L.
('N r/ ll:x.
l
'e it
!/r
/
,c!
l'
/ /.- /
S. /
/
1 9
i i
(
,. i x
g th' f
't es l k.
(
l'., '
)
4 j t's
.e e
./
i
'L
. \\,..\\..
{-\\.,\\,c..
H, L
a, t.
~
L. < (, C c < r,
' t i,. $
3,i.
v,
~/
A!
e1
/Amd Ac A<d 6 - oms a u3 c.d 3
\\
c I,
\\;. c.. i n l4
/
'^
'% ?
c, i
.. v c __
e, i
i '! V,'
l',i.'Ju....
l4..,. -
'l(, -
l i
[
l , /
I.c 4: 1 ( f, g > <
l
'I I.
C r
.h
\\
li, * {<.
V.
K.
'1kivek Go106 LR (9bla 0DJev v
,l
[t-
R/
e e
t yN (J2a1 3's C c C lc' Y [t / ( (
S T (Erntitw li[ic7N m
a n-1%
i w ru lM ~.,,
u
&,+
4 (C n.it e 7B Th C - l' n 3 T) t c e sui l l(H r-l Ch'
,;/d L/;f E N 'S Mug(-
iL bc 47,,4'4
. - r f,'
,:%, p, N, i.
G q /.,l i
_ %It # 3dc
& -c u t R3kr bJ i % s( A ti I
i I
_.t
. 7 A'
t 'w r - s o
l
L' 5'
r_ q%.
f
[
_Q '(
&Ud NMias 509%
k/7nt I.
_ _. -. _ _ _