ML13219A034: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 02/14/2012
| issue date = 02/14/2012
| title = Email from J. Poehler to P Purtscher, Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis
| title = Email from J. Poehler to P Purtscher, Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis
| author name = Poehler J C
| author name = Poehler J
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR
| addressee name = Purtscher P T
| addressee name = Purtscher P
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000271
| docket = 05000271
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 2
| page count = 2
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Poehler, Jeffrey From:                      Poehler, Jeffrey Sent:                      Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:54 PM To:                        Purtscher, Patrick
==Subject:==
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
Thanks for your comments. I'll address.
Jeff From: Purtscher, Patrick        ,
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:53 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey
==Subject:==
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
: Jeff, The 3V sentence in Section 3.2.1 doesn't seem clear enough for the reader, I think it needs rewording.
Footnote 2, don't you mean displacement per atom?
Regarding Figure H-7 from MRP-175, I looked at it and I think 75% is a realistic lower bound, still better than the 50% line that is drawn, but more relaxation than the mean value. Would that 25% relaxation be a problem based on what we know?
Pat From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:25 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick
==Subject:==
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
Did you guys have time to comment?
From: Cheruvenki, Ganesh            .
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:07 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey
==Subject:==
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
Will do.
From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick
==Subject:==
Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
: Ganesh, As discussed yesterday, please peer review (technical only) my SE input for Vermont Yankee. Use TAC ME6248. Note that it is not a complete SE because Pani has the lead on the SE. He can integrate my inputs into the structure of his SE.
If you can give me comments by the end of the week that would be fine.
Pat, I copied you so if you have time to review your comments would also be appreciated.
: Thanks, Jeff 20}}

Latest revision as of 16:06, 4 November 2019

Email from J. Poehler to P Purtscher, Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis
ML13219A034
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 02/14/2012
From: Jeffrey Poehler
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Pat Purtscher
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2013-0139
Download: ML13219A034 (2)


Text

Poehler, Jeffrey From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:54 PM To: Purtscher, Patrick

Subject:

RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)

Thanks for your comments. I'll address.

Jeff From: Purtscher, Patrick ,

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:53 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey

Subject:

RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)

Jeff, The 3V sentence in Section 3.2.1 doesn't seem clear enough for the reader, I think it needs rewording.

Footnote 2, don't you mean displacement per atom?

Regarding Figure H-7 from MRP-175, I looked at it and I think 75% is a realistic lower bound, still better than the 50% line that is drawn, but more relaxation than the mean value. Would that 25% relaxation be a problem based on what we know?

Pat From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:25 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick

Subject:

RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)

Did you guys have time to comment?

From: Cheruvenki, Ganesh .

Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:07 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey

Subject:

RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)

Will do.

From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick

Subject:

Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)

Ganesh, As discussed yesterday, please peer review (technical only) my SE input for Vermont Yankee. Use TAC ME6248. Note that it is not a complete SE because Pani has the lead on the SE. He can integrate my inputs into the structure of his SE.

If you can give me comments by the end of the week that would be fine.

Pat, I copied you so if you have time to review your comments would also be appreciated.

Thanks, Jeff 20