ML20216J002

Summary of 870604 Meeting W/Util & Westinghouse in Bethesda,Md Re Steam Generator Snubber Reduction & leak- before-break Methodology Applied to Surge Line for Plant. List of Attendees & Viewgraphs Encl

ML20216J002
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	06/25/1987
From:	Mark Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8707020072
Download: ML20216J002 (25)

Text

I

,o

• l o

[pm arc 'g UNITED STATES y 3

' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION li E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

• % ...../ ,

2 5 JUN 1987 l Docket No.: 50-425 l i

APPLICANT: Georgia Power Company FACILITY: Vogtle, Unit 2

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD JUNE 4,1987, TO DISCUSS STEAM GENERATOR SNUBBER REMOVAL AND LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK AS APPLIED TO THE SURGE  !

LINE l

The staff met with the applicant and its representatives on June 4, 1987, in Bethesda to discuss steam generator snubber reduction and leak-before-break i methodology applied to the surge line for Vogtle Unit 2. Participarts are listed in Enclosure 1.

The meeting discussion opened by the staff asking if the applicant had any )

questions on the staff's May 22, 1987 letter on this subject which included i two clarifications on the leak-before-break (LBB) methodology. The applicant )

did not fully understand the staff's clarification regarding treatment of  !

branch lines in the LBB analysis. The staff explained that for those lines for which the LBB methodology is not being applied but which fall under the guidelines of SRP Section 3.6.2 and whose break loads could impact the LBB i lines, such impact would need to be considered in the LBB analysis in con-junction with safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) loads. The applicant  !

expressed its disagreement with the staff position and pointed out that i these loads should not have to be considered simultaneously with the postulated leakage crack. The staff and applicant discussed several options to I address the staff's position. These options are:

]

(1) Lines interacting with LBB lines could be included in the LBB l analysis.

(2) The piping network could be revieweo to determine if breaks on the i lines in ouestions could be limited within the guidelines of SRP l Section 3.6.2. l (3) Show that the effect of break loads on the LBB line from other ,

non-LBB lines is small.

(4) The LOCA/SSE loads and break loads could be decoupled, i.e., their effects would be considered separately.

The applicant indicated it planned to investigate the feasibility of the first three options while the staff stated it would consider the merits of option (4).

The applicant then discussed its technical evaluation of the proposed steair generator snubber reduction and application of LBB methodology to the surge ifne. The applicant's slides are included as Enclosure 2.

8707020072 870625 PDR ADOCK 05000425 A PDR

r s t In discussing its evaluation of the steam generator snubber reduction from 5 to 2, the applicant stated that no hardware changes are required for the remaining snubbers. The applicant stated (see slide 8 of Enclosure 2) that the location with maximum stress is the steam generator inlet elbow. The pipe stresses of the 2-snubber design are below the ASME Code allowable stress values by a sufficient margin. The applicant also indicated that a reanalysis of reactor coolant loop LBB is unnecessary because the difference in loads at the critical location for the 2-snubber and 5-snubber cases is small. Likewise, the applicant concluded that the revised nozzle loads for the 5-snubber case involve small changes with little impact.

The table on slide 13 of Enclosure 2 shows that the largest reduction in the factor of safety (FS) is for the snubbers with an FS of 2.9 for the 5-snubber case vs. an FS of 1.3 for the 2-snubber case.

At the conclusion of the snubber reduction presentation, the applicant reiterated its intent to submit a technical report including proposed FSAR changes. In addition, at the staff's request, the applicant agreed to submit test data which establish the load rating of the snubbers from the manufacturer, Paul Monroe.

In its presentation on the surge line LBB analysis, the applicant stated that the critical location is at the nozzle to the primary loop. The applicant stated that the surge line is of wrought or forged stainless steel rather than cast stainless steel. The applicant explained that the material toughness is limitedbythetoughnessoftheSgAWwelds. The staff suggested that the applicant verify the 959 in-lb/in value of J(IC) (see slide 18) since the staff'sgaluemaydiffer. The staff also explained that the maximum J of 3000 in-lb/in applies to thermally-aged cast stainless steel; thergfore, the applicant's J(App) values are not constrained to 3000 in-lb/in because the piping is not cast stainless steel. Appropriate margins should be demonstrated for SMAW weld properties. The staff indicated that the applicant should perform a tearing modulus (J-T) analysis similar to the Duquesne Light analysis on Beaver Valley.

's\

Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See next page h PDIjyNO$/II b PD PI/II MMiJ16P/ rad KRic man TSu ivan BJ ood 0603/87 06/15/87 06 7 06g/87 4

1

. s l

.. Enclosure 1 PARTICIPANTS NRC SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES K" hiller J. Bailey T. Sullivan 0. Batum K. Wichman 1 H. Shaw WESTINGHOUSE  !

S. Lee A. Ayoob M. Mayfield K. Chang H. Reponen S. Swamy W. Guerin i

1 lI I

. -)

• ENCLOSURE 2 l

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT UNIT 2 STEAM GENERATOR SNUBBER REDUCTION l

AND LEAK BEFORE BREAK APPLICATION TO AUXILIARY LINES GEORGIA POWER COMPANY 2ND MEETING WITH THE U. S. NRC JUNE 4, 1987

3

.i j

SCHEDULE

SUMMARY

KEY MILSTONE DATES FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES: SCHEDULE ACTUAL o PROGRAM INITIATION MARCH, 1987 MARCH,1987 l

o LETTER TO NRC ON TECHNICAL 5/1/87 4/29/87.

DESCRIPTION AND SCHEDULE o NRC CONCURRENCE / TECHNICAL APPROVAL 6/1/87 5/22/87 '

o STEAM GENERATOR SNUBBER REDUCTION NRC PRESENTATION OF RESULTS 6/1/87 6/04/87 <

SUBMITTAL OF FSAR CHANGES 7/1/87 NRC APPROVAL 9/1/87 o LBB APPLICATION TO AUXILIARY LINES l

SURGE LINE LBB PRESENTATION 6/1/87 6/04/87 SURGE LINE I' WCAP REPORT 7/1/87 RHR & ACCUMULhTOR LINE LBB- 8/15/87' PRESENTATION RHR & ACCUMULATOR LINE LBB 10/1/87 WCAP REPORT NRC APPROVAL FOR EXEMPTION 12/1/87 <

REQUEST ON SURGE, RHR AND ACCUMULATOR LINES

/

1

, 3 .g _

i 1

)1 Z

O W CO O O O -

O H I CL

& E

.J Z C W O > 4 Z J C C C & LO

> a CL - ,

C O Q. C-

-  % C U i O G CL OW C3 1 W CL J C. l P- CC C C J

- U U  !

E- O - Z ,

U G Z Z Z )

-m Z C U -

O W H ,

W W OW 1

.J -

0 J 'O W I W O j L N Z C & Z O IW i O CD W H O Z l . ;:- 'I u . Cri C g H O .Z. . . . . - C iJ {

Z - C - W I I C i O "3 r W O 1 Z

.j W O CD C CL I C Z D a C l C W H C U O & LO Z.

9 OC Oa O O LL O O C C CL i

.y a

W LL y

f a

C.

D I

I.

LA I ,

1 J

C i W -

i 9 9 WW W- O l C. >W -H CL >J .G D W C 0 ' - C &

Z LO Z W

- > c C SH S .J C

W W &

W Z C E C )

C EJ l W l O n O \

t Z E I

.I C i O J L W O

.J CE W i l

Z Z O O LO H H Z:

Z O O O ^

O D 'J C

D O

2 C

-

• W Z

- O

• W X Z O.

>- W W CD

• W W CD W * - - ,

• C G CE CD

• G Cg CD .O * .J H

• H . CD .J

• CD .J -

• C

• Z &

• W '

>=

• W .J K W W W W

• W W W &

• O <J

• V) CD CW Z

• CD 2 Z O

• G C

• w CD O -

• CD O - CL

• D F

• Ct D LL .J

• D LL .J CL Z LO .W 4

• CL Z W G Z W D C v 'Z *

• % W CD ~ &

O Z W CD G O

W

\

H Z 0 W -

Z O & M. H & N M H O O O 2

- Z O C C WO CD C .Z ;D - W

@ - H W W H W J - 2 H O W'

H W

C-W

.J d-E Z

C Ct

.J D E

CL H

M C

.J Z

C U W .W W D 0 W W D CL Z .J - Z

- E' Z Z 'O Z Z Z O 'O C

.J W - O LL W - O W O H W

• .J G .J C

• O .J C Z 4 W Z

• C * -

• Z -

• CE E W e5

• E W' e5 . J * - .J

• C'

• C O *

• k W

W H

(.D D'

W I

W H

D CE I

X D.

2 CD

,X D

• O W W L'

• W W Ct C

• CL ~C I * * *-

• I * * *. .* .I *

• d'

,.:,s'- s I

1

SUMMARY

OF STATUS o STEAM GENERATOR SNUBBER REDUCTION l REVISED SNUBBER CONFIGURATION ESTABLISHED RCL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS COMPLETED SUPPORT STRUCTURAL EVALUATION COMPLETED RCL LBB REVERIFICATION COMPLETE.D LOADS PROVIDED FOR SURGE LINE'LBB ANALYSIS-4 1

l l

}

L -

E i

e'*

}

I

)

I

'l I

SUMMARY

OF STATUS o LBB APPLICATION TO AUXILIARY LINES CMTR'S FOR PIPING AND WELDS IDENTIFIED FOR ACCUMULATOR,_ RHR & SURGE' LINES LOADING AT ALL WELD LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN CALCULATED FOR THE SURGE LINE CRITICAL LOCATION IDENTIFIED FOR SURGE LINE SURGE LINE LBB ANALYSIS COMPLETED ACCUMULATOR & RHR LINE LBB ANALYSES ARE PROCEEDING ON SCHEDULE i

]

i

)

I i

^4

(

J

, ., . < l

.,p..o i

][Y .

. i l

l ,

RESULTS OF RCL ANALYSIS FOR.

REDESIGNED SG UPPER SUPPORT ,

s j

i

, o SCOPE OF REDESIGN i I

REDUCTION OF STEAM GENERATOR SNUBBERS FROM FIVE TO TWO PER STEAM GENERATOR. i ALL OTHER PRIMARY EQUIPMENT SUPPORT DESIGN REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM UNIT 1 l l

1 rg . I: [

,\

W>

'9

)

I

. 4 e

4 I

e f

'0, e #g 8 e

/

e 4

k

\\

s

// s ah

\x; ,/ N % '

i l

e g,n ,, ,

g ,

, \

To RPV / ~

REDESIGNED STEAM GENERATOR UPPER SUPPORT SNUBBER ARRANGEMENT i

I C]

g O' I 1

RESULTS OF RCL ANALYSIS FOR.

REDESIGNED SG UPPER SUPPORT o RCL PIPING ANALYSIS REVISED SUPPORT STIFFNESS UPDATED RCL MODEL t

RCL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS I l

l OBE  !

SSE PIPE BREAKS ASME CODE STRESS EVALUATION

, i .

" a e

RESULTS OF RCL ANALYSIS FOR REDESIGNED SG UPPER SUPPORT o COMPARISON OF PIPE STRESS DATA (MAXIMUM OF ALL LOCATIONS)

SGi.i& 2Luv-EQUATION 9 FAULTED STRESS INTE.':SITY (P + DW + SSE +'LOCA + JET) 5-SNUBBER DESIGN 2-SNUBBER DESIGN ALLOWABLE 56.63* KSI 49.50 KSI 56.7 KSI

• HIGHEST DW, SSE, LOCA & JET COMBINED REGARDLESS OF LOCATION o COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM LOADS USED FOR RCL LBB EVALUATION ATCRITICALLOCATION([.

5-SNUBBER DESIGN : FA = 1962 KIPS MB = 28810 IN-XIPS 2-SNUBBER DESIGN : FA = 1982 KIPS MB = 28085 IN-KIPS-o COMPARISON OF SG NOZZLE LOADS (KIPS AND IN-KIPS) 5-SNUBBER DESIGN SSE LOCA F M F M SG INLET NOZZLE 499 23845 1270 47560 SG OUTLET NOZZLE 331 31960 743 40920 2-SNUBBER DESIGN SSE LOCA F M F M SG INLET NOZZLE 475 25187 1430 47800 SG OUTLET NOZZLE 350 33845 700 37000

e' e l SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF PRIMARY LOOP SHOWING WELD LOCATIONS l

'l Rt!Ctor y Pressure j

y P Vessel

nd N HOT LEG l

/

O

~

z _.

.L a e, vi n

. Reactor Coolant Pump Steam Generator A Cross-ovtR ttG Y s JI.

J O' l 1

l g I

/ l j

i q

l

4. STEAM GEN

' i l

ux us-3 ,

l0?Y, T$ ', h

' agg ypp. \

% e l\ f

- E f

i-

+

. LOOP 4 , g ,Q toop i, h

/  %

3 4K us-I '

LuK US-l .?

WK US-1 WK US-1 I

i i

Note: Loops 2 and 3 (not shown) symmetric to loops 1 and 4 l STEAM GENERATOR UPPER SUPPORT 8 .

l

. lo- l i

l

, ., o .

4 V

l

~

qHOTLEG j L. (

N' QRC QRC PUMP , . PUMP t

A e

. OOP4 LOOC 1 X i

1

, s -

>

\ -- "-'

l i ~ .

k .

" u-*

/ , .

Lau-s ~~

W LS*1 l ( het L&-

,;r., .

s g.

I 1

, Note: Loops 2 and 3 (not shown) symetric to loops 1 and A.

s STEAM GENERATOR LOWER SUPPORT 4

-r . .. . . . . . . -

e w

e

• E I i 4

7.2... (

m.

.t,.

RCP lt

\% n-s

g. l

< mm .

1 V:

GEN

. =,

\ n-a -

o /

yoor-e a

l REACTOR C001. ANT PUMP LATERAL SUPPORTS 6

N

, . r t

e h

m ]

S 3 6 4 ~0 1 5 4 1 6 2 7 3 2

)3 2- 1 1 )

~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 t

(/

/ /

e

/ / / / / / / / / / J

)

3r .

Fe + _

2 t 9 9 7 0 3 4 5 1 3 3

[

A .

1 5 A 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 C B m 1 1 2 1 O .

S L

-) A

(

gC S +

nO ,

iO , 2 d/ )

t s aw o ) E S

i u LE ,e r 4 4 S S ( -

r dS h 5 e i e( .hm 2 [

B i t . 9 9 5 1 3 4 5 / _

u l ,hsSr '9 4 4 9 8 5 T _

m, u u 6 1 3 3 5 9 5 W

2 5 i9 ER _

s as a rp. 1 4 6 2 2 4 7 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 6 8 4 1 SQ _

t r F 2 SS 1

i2 r ao o o

' k

[/ / / / /

(

)

s pr / / / / / / / I' //s pP dr ae 5 ) ++er un ob 1 1 4 1 1 7 1 4 8 3 4 llt 2 Soi Lb 4

3 2

7 2

7 6

3 5

9 3

7 2 6 2

4 6 2 7 aaS -

tnt t u n

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 4 6 2 1

3 2 mm r rl iec u S / eea Unm 1

pd  % 3 hhu 0 TTt ie c euR - 2

( ++A l

tE qr ee/

g e -

rr oy b uus Vrh at s ss sse i

m Sn eer rrt r ' PPS Pr o I

S ta

)

1 R - ++el

{

C 9 4 7 4 2 3 6 ttb Rer A S

F 1 3 2 2 3 8 2 6 7 9 hha ggw n 3 1 1 3 4 2 1 ii o e - eel G g WWl -

n A m dd e

i) dE aa(

t aS ee S oSl DD L( a = _

n ) ==

d i 6 )

e k 6 S t f 2 2 2 3 7 3 6 2 ABF (

l 2 0 0 6 9 0 6 0 2 1 u t 6 1 6 6 w 5 1 1 7 7 7 9 1 1

/ - -

a 1 1 7 4 4 9 1 y F' n .

1 ggt

" L )

m 2 0 nne iif b ) ( dda u 3, ) aaS n 4, oo s 2, ) ) s n s LLf n o r 1 3, 2, 4, n m

n n dd l e - l 2, 1 u u eer a p S a - 3- l l tt o r ( U r 1 S S o o llt t

r e ( e L L C C l uuc o t s t B

( ( s e aaa D

a r e s r a L l d l a

s s FFF L r L ( r r a o n b e e e e c c e )))

u r e

b u

p d r mp p i R i Y 123 S

U p

p S n miw B

r G

L e

o B e

B au B m t r

e i

T e

R T

1

- 3-R T

4 R

T t

V r

e t

r o

(((

s Y c e G P P a t G G C S 3 3 R C R

e o R N

]

l l

i RESULTS OF RCL ANALYSIS FOR 4

7 REDESIGNED:SG UPPER. SUPPORT l

_- - - E o CONCLUSION

. . - u.

RCL SEISMIC AND LOCA STRESS CHANGES ARE SMALL l PIPING STRESSES MEET ALL ASME CODE REQUIREMENTS -;

CHANGES IN EQUIPMENT NOZZLE LOADS ARE SMALL

)

RCL LBB RECONFIRMED WITH NEW LOADS PRIMARY EQUIPMENT SUPPORTS MEET ALL ASME  !

CODE REQUIREMENTS j

-l PRIMARY EQUIPMENT SUPPORT DESIGN MAINTAINED SIMILAR MARGIN AS COMPARED TO THE 5-SNUBBER CASE, EXCEPT FOR THE SNUBBER ASSEMBLY J

e J

4llIl

'- O Y~

T I

L I

B  ;

A T

S K

C A

R 64 C 10 )

33 R E PP O) S TW F I S

- - S 63 S K + r 70 S e 34 E N H z 8 AA R I T i .

SS T ( r S S + uy 8 L S A r M I W s.

s.

E I e U S D e.

P R

E eu c M I

Y L + P.

r .-

O T pd X A -

C A i e A N P S . M PR MA ( _

o 0 0 a .

i d

h c

n i

4 1

1, ,

9 e

n i

. L e

g r

u S

2 5

1 a

r o l t e -

a8a D8IQ .

r o

i d

c s m t h a s a a c e e e r _

n R V 5 t e _

i S n

. e 9 6 9 G . 1 2

{8 ,

s 7

2 1

, x E

a- .

FATIGUE' CRACK GROWTH ANALYSIS o POSTULATED INITIAL SURFACE FLAW DEPTH = 0.126 INCHES PER ASME SECTION XI o 1 TO 6 ASPECT RATIO FOR THE FLAW o FINAL. CRACK DEPTH IS LESS THAN 60% OF THE WALL THICKNESS I

i a

e J

4 e

4 e

, o 6 o LEAK RATES o LEAK RATES ARE OBTAINED USING TWO-PHASE FLOW FORMULATION -

NORMAL OPERATING TEMPERATURE = 650 DEGREES F, NORMAL OPERATING PRESSURE = 2235 PSIG.

o AVERAGE YIELD STRESS = 24.8 KSI AT 650 DEGREES F o 5 GPM LEAK RATE THROUGH A 2.9 INCHES LONG j THROUGH-WALL FLAW SUBJECTED TO NORMAL OPERATING LOADS.

i 4

I l

I l

1

, e **

• l l

CRACK STABILITY l o MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS = 1.415 INCHES 1 (NOMINAL WALL THICKNESS = 1.593")  !

l c MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH AT 650 DEGREES F IS 24.24 KSI o GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS l

CRITICAL FLAW SIZE USING LIMIT MOMENT APPROACH IS 12.6 INCHES LONG o LOCAL STABILITY ANALYSIS ]

BASED ON EPRI ELASTIC-PLASTIC FRACTURE HANDBOOK METHDD MATERIAL TOUGHNESS 1

TIG WELDS HAVE HIGH TOUGHNESS COMPARABLE TO BASE MATERIAL. (FROM EPRI NP 4768)

J(IC) = TYPICALVALU}SARE 3158 IN-LB/IN , T(MAT) = 500 TYPICAL TOUGHNESS FOR SMAW WELDS ARE l (FROM EPRI NP 476S)  !

J(IC) = 959 IN-LB/IN2, T(MAT) = 140 '

)

\

J(APP) = 2959 IN-LB/IN 2 FOR A 5.8 INCHES LONG THROUGH-WALL FLAW SUBJECTED TO (NORMAL + SSE) LOADS l

T(APP) = 17.5 i 1

JCAPP) = 3000 IN-LB/IN2 FOR A 2.9 INCHES LONG THROUGH WALL FLAW SUBJECTED TO 1.4 X (NORMAL + SSE) MOMENT T(APP) = 17.4

/

1*k .

• 4

'i k

MARGINS 1

o NUREG 1061 VOLUME 3 1 o FACTOR OF 10 BETWEEN'THE CALCULATED LEAK RATES AND THE LEAK DETECTION CAPABILITY o FACTOR OF'2 BETWEEN STABLE FLAW SIZE AND THE FLAW SIZE l YIELDING A LEAKAGE 10 TIMES THE LEAK DETECTION CAPABILITY o FACTOR OF 1.4 WITH RESPECT.TD (NORMAL + SSE) MOMENT o MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PRESERVICE INDICATION (SURFACE' FLAW)

WILL GROW TO LESS THAN 60% OF THE WALL'IN 40 YEARS: l WHEN SUBJECTED TO DgSIGN TRANSIENTS 1

,1 1

-i

' J' i 'i

,- O'8I..b l

CONCLUSIONS I

o NO MECHANISM IS KNOWN THAT CAN CAUSE THE LARGE SIZE-OF FLAW ASSUMED IN THE EVALUATION o THE FLAWS WILL REMAIN STABLE BOTH'FROM LOCAL AND GLOBAL STANDPOINT o LEAK RATES ~ARE DETECTABLE o MECHANISTIC CONSIDERATIONS SHOW THAT DOUBLE ENDED GUILLOTINE BREAKS NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED

.QO 1

. . 's e i Mr. J. P. O'Reilly

.. Georgia Power Company Vogtle Electric Generating. Plant CC:

Mr. L. T. Gutwa Resident Inspector Chief Nuclear Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Georgia Power Company P. 0. Box 572 P.O. Box 4545 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Mr. Ruble A. Thomas Deppish Kirkland, III, Counsel Vice President - Licensing Office of the Consumers' Utility Vogtle Project Council Georgia Power Company / Suite 225 Southern Company ServivN , Inc. 32 Peachtree Street, N.W.

P.O. Box 2625 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 i James E. Joiner Mr. Paul D. Rice Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman, Vice President & Project General Manager & Ashmore Georgia Power Company Candler Building Post Office Box 299A, Route 2 127 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Atlanta, Georgia 30303  ;

Danny Feig Mr. J. A. Bailey 1130 Alta Avenue Project Licensing Panager Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Southern Company Services. Inc.

P.O. Box 2625 Carol Stangler Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Georgians Against Nuclear Energy Ernest L. Blake, Jr. 425 Euclid Terrace Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge -

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20037 Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr.

Vogtle Plant Manager Georgia Power Company Route 2, Box 299-A Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. R. E. Conway Senior Vice President and Project Director Georgia Power Company Rt. 2, P. O. Box 299A Waynesboro, Georgia 30830

C ,.A j

, J 5 b'/2f  !

ko MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION

(::

oQ NRC PDR NRC Participants M. Miller L PDR T. Sullivan NSIC K. Wichman PRC System H. Shaw PD#II-3 Rdg S. Lee M. Duncan M. Mayfield 1 B. Kolostyak H. Reponen W. Troskoski (MNBB 6113)

OGC-Bethesda ACRS (10)

I l

l OTHERS bec: Licensee & Service List j 1

i i

i i

l l

l