ML12053A094
| ML12053A094 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/2011 |
| From: | Murphy M Division of Engineering |
| To: | Meena Khanna Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0357 | |
| Download: ML12053A094 (2) | |
Text
/
Martin, Robert (4'
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, Septemt blee 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? If differences 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 To: Mendiola, Anthony; Ulses, Anthony; Casto, Greg; Dennig, Robert; Bailey, Stewart; Taylor, Robert; Lupold, Timothy; Mitchell, Matthew; McMurtray, Anthony; Wilson, George; Murphy, Martin; Mathew, Roy; Tate, Travis; Martin, Robert; Harrison, Donnie; Circle, Jeff; Klein, Alex; Pham, Bo; Auluck, Rajender; Pelton, David; Kulesa, Gloria; Manoly, Kamal; Miranda, Samuel; Mitman, Jeffrey; Karipineni, Nageswara; Rahn, David; McConnell, Matthew; Goel, Vijay; Sahay, Prem; Som, Swagata; Scales, Kerby; Matharu, Gurcharan; Laur, Steven; Snodderly, Michael; Sheikh, Abdul; Bedi, Gurjendra; Lin, Bruce; Franke, Mark; McCoy, Gerald; Boyle, Patrick; Martin, Robert; Kulesa, Gloria Cc: Hiland, Patrick; Howe, Allen; Galloway, Melanie; Lubinski, John; Wilson, George; Lee, Samson; Evans, Michele; Giitter, Joseph; Farzam, Farhad
Subjdct: Questions/Issues related to North Anna Seismic Event Importance: High
- All, PIs note that the licensee has indicated that they plan to submit their restart document to us this Friday.
Having said that, we'd like to request that all technical BCs, as applicable, identify any high priority questions, e.g., related to fuel, etc. be submitted to Bob Martin and myself by 2:30 pm today. The plan is for us to share these questions with the licensee by COB, today, and provide them with an opportunity to hold conference calls with us tomorrow to discuss, as needed. We would like to send whatever high priority questions we have today, so that at least they can consider them prior to issuing their document. PIs. note that this is by no means intended to be an all inclusive list.
In going forward, we will discuss a "systematic" approach in issuing the questions to the licensee at the 1:30 pm meeting today.
Thanks so much for all of the support and we'll see you at 1:30.
Meena Khanna, Branch Chief Mechanical and Civil Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (301)415-2150 meena.khanna@nrc.pov 2