ML11161A001

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

NRR E-mail Capture - Prairie Island Ngp Unit 2 - Request for Clarification of 180-Day SG Tube Inspection Report
ML11161A001
Person / Time
Site: Prairie Island  Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/20/2011
From:
- No Known Affiliation
To: Thomas Wengert
Plant Licensing Branch III
References
Download: ML11161A001 (6)


Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: DiPasquale, Sam J. [Sam.DiPasquale@xenuclear.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:32 PM To: Wengert, Thomas Cc: Ricker, Jeffrey; Vincent, Dale M.

Subject:

RE: Prairie Island NGP Unit 2 - Request for Clarification of 180-Day SG Tube Inspection Report (TAC No. ME5085)

Attachments: PINGP response to NRC SG report questions.pdf

Tom, Per your request, I have attached PINGPs response to your questions below.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Regards, Sam Sam J. DiPasquale, P.E.

Xcel Energy l Responsible By Nature Senior Licensing Engineer 1717 Wakonade Drive East, Welch, MN 55089 P: 651.388.1121x7350 F: 612.330.6247 E: sam.dipasquale@xcelenergy.com From: Wengert, Thomas [1]

Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 10:12 AM To: Vincent, Dale M.

Subject:

Prairie Island NGP Unit 2 - Request for Clarification of 180-Day SG Tube Inspection Report (TAC No. ME5085)

Dale, The NRC staff is reviewing the Prairie Island NGP 2010 Unit 2 180-Day Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report, submitted by letter dated November 12, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103190514), and request the following clarifications in order to complete the review:
1. Please confirm that Tables 3 through 20 list all of the indications detected during the 2010 outage (e.g., there were no indications sized with a rotating probe that were left in service).
2. Please confirm that no degradation was observed during the secondary side inspections and the plug inspections.
3. Please discuss the nature of the single axial indication in the tube in row 1, column 8 in steam generator 21. Has cracking in the row 1 and 2 u-bend regions been observed since the in-situ stress relieving of this region?

1

4. For the tube that was in-situ pressure tested, please discuss whether any leakage was observed and whether there was any change in the eddy current signal (other than that attributed to test repeatability) as a result of the in-situ pressure test (if a post in-situ pressure test inspection was performed).

Please provide an email response to the above questions, or alternately I can arrange a teleconference with the technical staff to discuss.

Tom Wengert Project Manager - Prairie Island NRR/DORL/LPLIII-1 (301) 415-4037 2

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 73 Mail Envelope Properties (71AC1869DEB82E47AAC75C450F60546A0DC137E28E)

Subject:

RE: Prairie Island NGP Unit 2 - Request for Clarification of 180-Day SG Tube Inspection Report (TAC No. ME5085)

Sent Date: 4/20/2011 5:32:14 PM Received Date: 4/20/2011 5:32:23 PM From: DiPasquale, Sam J.

Created By: Sam.DiPasquale@xenuclear.com Recipients:

"Ricker, Jeffrey" <Jeffrey.Ricker@xenuclear.com>

Tracking Status: None "Vincent, Dale M." <Dale.Vincent@xenuclear.com>

Tracking Status: None "Wengert, Thomas" <Thomas.Wengert@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: enex04 Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2116 4/20/2011 5:32:23 PM PINGP response to NRC SG report questions.pdf 738918 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: