ML053050011: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 23: Line 23:
Fwd: TMI-1 Cycle 15 SG Inspection Report RAI Response (TAC MC4619)
Fwd: TMI-1 Cycle 15 SG Inspection Report RAI Response (TAC MC4619)
: David, I've attached the list of questions from Emmett Murphy.
: David, I've attached the list of questions from Emmett Murphy.
Thank you, Nadiyah Morgan Project Engineer US NRC (301) 415-1016 CC:              John Boska; Peter Tam; Richard Laufer
Thank you, Nadiyah Morgan Project Engineer US NRC (301) 415-1016 CC:              John Boska; Peter Tam; Richard Laufer From:            Emmett Murphy To:              Nadiyah Morgan Date:            10/27/05 5:20PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From:            Emmett Murphy To:              Nadiyah Morgan Date:            10/27/05 5:20PM


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Line 33: Line 31:
: 2. Response to NRC Question 1 - It is stated in the Table that for ID volumetric indications located in the expanded tubing a depth value of 80% through wall was the assumed leakage threshold. What is the justification for this value being higher from the 67% through wall threshold value used for the ID IGA flaws in the kinetic expansions in the upper tubesheet?
: 2. Response to NRC Question 1 - It is stated in the Table that for ID volumetric indications located in the expanded tubing a depth value of 80% through wall was the assumed leakage threshold. What is the justification for this value being higher from the 67% through wall threshold value used for the ID IGA flaws in the kinetic expansions in the upper tubesheet?
: 3. Response to NRC Question 1 - It is stated in the Table that a +Point voltage of 2 volts was used as the leakage threshold for axial and circumferential ID indications. What is the basis for this threshold value? Is it a lower bound of voltage data for cracks which are 100% through wall?
: 3. Response to NRC Question 1 - It is stated in the Table that a +Point voltage of 2 volts was used as the leakage threshold for axial and circumferential ID indications. What is the basis for this threshold value? Is it a lower bound of voltage data for cracks which are 100% through wall?
CC:              Peter Tam
CC:              Peter Tam Mail Envelope Properties (43627F53.D60 : 10 : 700)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mail Envelope Properties (43627F53.D60 : 10 : 700)


==Subject:==
==Subject:==

Latest revision as of 12:50, 14 March 2020

E-mail Regarding TMI-1 Fuel Cycle 15 Steam Generator Inspection Report
ML053050011
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 10/28/2005
From: Nadiyah Morgan
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Distel D
Exelon Corp
Tam P
References
TAC MC4619
Download: ML053050011 (2)


Text

From: Nadiyah Morgan To: David.Distel@exeloncorp.com Date: 10/28/05 3:43PM

Subject:

Fwd: TMI-1 Cycle 15 SG Inspection Report RAI Response (TAC MC4619)

David, I've attached the list of questions from Emmett Murphy.

Thank you, Nadiyah Morgan Project Engineer US NRC (301) 415-1016 CC: John Boska; Peter Tam; Richard Laufer From: Emmett Murphy To: Nadiyah Morgan Date: 10/27/05 5:20PM

Subject:

Fwd: TMI-1 Cycle 15 SG Inspection Report RAI Response (TAC MC4619)

I am forwarding the licensee response that I got from Peter. I have three questions about this response I would like to discuss by phone with the licensee. Those questions are as follows:

1. Response to NRC Question 1 - It is stated in the second paragraph that structural integrity requirements for the CM analyses included an axial tensile load of 1340 lbf. The staff notes that the structural acceptance criteria for ID IGA in the free span in the kinetic expansions are based on a maximum MSLB axial load of 3140 lbf. In addition, maximum SBLOCA loads at TMI-1 are 2097 lbf. The staff is currently completing a review of the T-H analysis supporting the 1340 lbf load which was used to evaluate accident leakage at TMI-1. Assuming this is approved, the staff agrees that use of this load is appropriate for evaluating MSLB leakage, the staff does not believe this load is appropriate for structural integrity evaluations.
2. Response to NRC Question 1 - It is stated in the Table that for ID volumetric indications located in the expanded tubing a depth value of 80% through wall was the assumed leakage threshold. What is the justification for this value being higher from the 67% through wall threshold value used for the ID IGA flaws in the kinetic expansions in the upper tubesheet?
3. Response to NRC Question 1 - It is stated in the Table that a +Point voltage of 2 volts was used as the leakage threshold for axial and circumferential ID indications. What is the basis for this threshold value? Is it a lower bound of voltage data for cracks which are 100% through wall?

CC: Peter Tam Mail Envelope Properties (43627F53.D60 : 10 : 700)

Subject:

Fwd: TMI-1 Cycle 15 SG Inspection Report RAI Response (TAC MC4619)

Creation Date: 10/28/05 3:43PM From: Nadiyah Morgan

Created By: NSM@nrc.gov Recipients exeloncorp.com David.Distel (David.Distel@exeloncorp.com nrc.gov owf4_po.OWFN_DO JPB1 CC (John Boska)

PST CC (Peter Tam)

RJL CC (Richard Laufer)

Post Office Route exeloncorp.com owf4_po.OWFN_DO nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 740 10/28/05 03:43PM Mail Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard