ML12052A310

E-mail from M. Khanna, NRR to M. Murphy, NRR Questions/Issues Related to North Anna Seismic Event

ML12052A310
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	09/14/2011
From:	Meena Khanna Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Murphy M Division of Engineering
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0357
Download: ML12052A310 (1)

Text

Murphy, Martin From: Khanna, Meena Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:00 PM To: Murphy, Martin Cc: Murphy, Emmett; Martin, Robert

Subject:

RE: Questions/Issues related to North Anna Seismic Event Thanks Marty and Emmett From: Murphy, Martin ________

Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:28 PM To: Khanna, Meena; Martin, Robert Cc: Murphy, Emmett

Subject:

FW: Questions/Issues related to North Anna Seismic Event Question for North Anna/Dominion regarding SGs.

This is an inclusive question and should not be interpreted by the licensee as only pertaining to the Unit going into refueling.

Marty From: Murphy, Emmett Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:59 PM To: Murphy, Martin

Subject:

RE: Questions/Issues related to North Anna Seismic Event OK, Marty, this is what I have:

Describe the evaluations, inspections and analyses of the steam generators (SG) to ensure the acceptable condition of the steam generator (SG) supports, SG tubes and other SG internals (tube support structures, steam separation equipment, J-nozzles, wrapper and wrapper supports, blowdown piping, etc.). Are all steam generators being inspected? If not, what is the justification for limiting the inspection scope? This justification should include a description of the relative alignment of the tube u-bend planes among the different SGs. Are they parallel to one another, or are they at different angles relative to one another? The staff notes that the SGs are not axi-symmetric. For example, the AVBs support the u-bends in the direction normal to the plane of the u-bend, but not against in-plane motion. 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 SGs at the site, how has this been taken into account in selecting the most limiting SG or SGs for inspection? Ifdifferences in the condition of the SG (or SGs) and its components are noted relative to earlier inspections, what criteria will apply in determining whether the inspection should be expanded to any remaining uninspected SGs?

From: Murphy, Martin Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:59 PM To: Murphy, Emmett

Subject:

FW: Questions/Issues related to North Anna Seismic Event Importance: High Can you formulate the questions on the SGs by 2:30 based upon the thoughts you laid out for Cecil?

From: Khanna, Meena Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:14 PM

/