ML12039A330

E-mail from C. Fletcher, Region II to E. Murphy, NRR, Et Al; Subject: Planned Inspections for North Anna Unit 1

ML12039A330
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	09/14/2011
From:	Fletcher C NRC/RGN-II
To:	Karwoski K, Murphy E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0357
Download: ML12039A330 (3)

Text

Rivera-Ortiz, Joel From: Fletcher, Cecil Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:04 AM To: Murphy, Emmett; Karwoski, Kenneth Cc: Murphy, Martin; Rivera-Ortiz, Joel

Subject:

RE: Planned Inspections for North Anna Unit I Emmett, You bring up some interesting points. I will check into them and get back to you.

By the way, there is no 75% completion call set up at this point, between the licensee and NRR. Do you guys intend on having a call with them to discuss their results?

Cecil From: Murphy, Emmett Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:22 PM To: Karwoski, Kenneth; Fletcher, Cecil Cc: Murphy, Martin

Subject:

RE: Planned Inspections for North Anna Unit 1 Cecil, I work in the Steam Generator and Chemical Engineering Branch, NRR. In terms of what you might be looking for, you might want to have a good look at their degradation assessment supporting this SG inspection. In particular, you might want to review the justification for inspecting SG Aas opposed to one or more of the others. Inspecting one SG for each unit seems reasonable if the U-bend planes are parallel for all three steam generators. It's not clear from information available to me that this is the case. Are they? The steam generators, including the tube bundles are not axi-symmetric. For example, the tubes are supported by AVBs normal to the plane of the u-bend. So, depending on the ground motion, the tube bundles of the different SGs may respond differently depending on how each SG is oriented relative to the ground motion. If the plane of the u-bends are not parallel among the three SGs, has this been evaluated such that SG A is concluded to have the most limiting orientation? If not, one might argue they should look at the other SGs as well. Also, a major focus of their inspection should be on whether there are any deltas in signal response compared to the most recent inspection. Widespread, noticeable deltas might also call into question whether additional SGs should be inspected.

From: Karwoski, Kenneth Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:59 AM To: Fletcher, Cecil Cc: Murphy, Emmett; Murphy, Martin

Subject:

Re: Planned Inspections for North Anna Unit 1 Cecil, This looks reasonable to me.

If anything comes out of these inspections, let us know.

Thanks, Ken Information in this record was deleted in accordance with .e Freedom of Informationj----

ACt an--i- t, I

From: Fletcher, Cedil To: Karwoski, Kenneth Sent: Sat Sep 10 09:32:22 2011

Subject:

FW: Planned Inspections for North Anna Unit 1 Ken, Due to the recent earthquake and subsequent events at NA, they have decided to perform eddy current on one SG in Unit 1 to ensure integrity prior to startup and I will be performing the SGISI for SG A only.

Their planned inspections are in the email just below.

Is there anything outside of the normal items that I should be paying particular attention to?

Cecil

"' Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 7:32 AM To._ece.CclIt()6 °mi°

• foCc:J(b)(6) t~ )6 - ] 1(b)(6) 1()6 ,I(b)(6 =

Subje-t: Planned Inspections for Nort Anna unit .

Cecil, Below I've identified the scope of inspections to be performed on Steam Generator A in Unit 1 at North Anna Power Station during the period September 10 through September 17. I also provided a brief description of our inspection schedule. The degradation assessment is currently out for review and comments and will be ready for your review next week.

Tony SG "A" ONLY The primary side work scope is defined to include:

i. There will be no visual inspection for evidence of leakage of previously installed plugs in the hot and cold legs since there are no installed plugs.

ii. Bobbin coil inspection of the full length of all tubes in service, except for the U-bend region of Row 1 tubes.

iii. Rotating coil inspection of the U-bend region of all Row 1 tubes in service (approximately 98 tubes).

iv. Rotating coil inspection of the hot leg top of tubesheet region (TSH +3 to TSH -3) of 993 tubes. The tubes selected for inspection will include a 50% sample of tubes in the defined special interest areas as shown in the Dominion Outage Plan documents.

2

v. Rotating coil inspection of the cold leg top of tubesheet region (TSC +3 to TSC -3) of 570 tubes.

vi. Rotating coil inspection of 100 additional locations of interest as defined by Dominion.

The secondary side base scope work includes:

i. SSI/FOSAR at the top of the tubesheet if possible loose parts are detected by ECT ii. Visual inspection of the internal blowdown piping and wrapper supports at the top of the tubesheet.

iii. steam drum visual inspection iv. 7th TSP visual inspection

v. J-nozzle visual inspections The primary work scope is scheduled to begin on Saturday September 10 mid day and end on Saturday September 17. We will have a common day off on Sunday September 11 and we are only running 1 robot. Bobbin inspections will last about 3 to 31/2 days and RPC exams will last another 3 to 3 1 days. Dependent on having no equipment issues we should finish by the end of that week.

(b)(6)

North Anna Power Station Mineral, Virqinia 23117 il(b)(6) _ ___/

_P@qer](b)(6)

[(b)(6) ff Dom.com.

CONFID TIALIT OTICE- his electronic ssage contain formation wWh may be I ally confide al and/or vileged a does not in any ase represent irm ENERGY OMMODI bid or offer relati thereto w ch binds e sender withou additional e ress written c firmation t hat effect. Th info tion is' tended so y for the indivi al or entity n ed above and cess by any ne else is up thoaize .if ar ot the intended ecipient, any d closure, copyi , distributio, or use of the ontents you f this in mation is rohibited and ybe unlawful. you have rec ved this elec onic transmis *on in err please ply imnae tely to the sen r that you hay eceived the ssage in error and delete it. ank yo 3