ML12102A236: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| page count = 3 | | page count = 3 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter:Lehman, Bryce From: Sheikh, Abdul Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:21 PM To: Thomas, George; Lehman, Bryce Cc: Erickson, Alice; Plasse, Richard | |||
==Subject:== | |||
RE: Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook Ok. Please do not communicate any information. | |||
From: Thomas, George \ýV-Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:19 PM To: Lehman, Bryce; Sheikh, Abdul Cc: Erickson, Alice; Plasse, Richard | |||
==Subject:== | |||
RE: Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook Bryce, What I was trying to say was that the ASTM C1293 "Standard Test Method for Determination of Length Change of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction (also known as the Concrete Prism Test or CPT)" test is similar to Canadian test CSA A23.2-14A and is adopted from the Canadian Standard, and therefore, to address Abdul's concern, may be more effective than C1260 test in identifying ASR reactivity in granite aggregates. | |||
My source for the information is the attached PCA guide specification document -see Section 5.1.2 and Note 5. The ASTM C1567 test is a fast alternative to C1293. It is OK to convey a concern to the licensee but I agree with Rick Plasse that we should not be telling the licensee what to do over the phone. We can critique their test plan when they have a finalized plan for testing, or take a position elsewhere such as the TIA response if we have a firm one.Thanks.George __From: Plasse, Richard Sent: Wednesday, Novembar 30, 2011 2:17 PM To: Lehman, Bryce; Thomas, George; Sheikh, Abdul Cc: Erickson, Alice | |||
==Subject:== | |||
RE: Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook I am not saying anything to the licensee until NRC staff has a firm position. | |||
Shouldn't product of TIA address which standards are appropriate? | |||
From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:13 PM To: Thomas, George; Sheikh, Abdul Cc: Plasse, Richard; Erickson, Alice | |||
==Subject:== | |||
RE: Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook I agree that standard may not be adequate for detecting reactive granite; however, I think George Thomas was trying to comment that ASTM C1293 is similar to the Canadian standard and may be more effective at detecting reactive granites. | |||
George could you comment on that?If that is the case then it may be unnecessary to discuss the Canadian standard, especially with the licensee.Thanks, B/ryce From: Sheikh, Abdul Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:36 PM To: Erickson, Alice; Lehman, Bryce; Plasse, Richard | |||
==Subject:== | |||
FW: Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook I had an action item from this morning's call about the correct ASTM standard number. The correct number is ASTM C1260. As noted below, this ASTM standard is not as effective as the Canadian Standard. | |||
Can you please pass this information to the licensee. | |||
I did not write the telephone number.From: Sheikh, Abdul Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:01 PM To: Raymond, William Cc: Auluck, Rajender; Lehman, Bryce; Conte, Richard; Modes, Michael; Chaudhary, Suresh; Thomas, George | |||
==Subject:== | |||
Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook a. Mr. Katayama from Japan stated that: 1. ASTM C289, C227, and C295 tests for aggregates cannot identify ASR reactivity for slow expansive aggregates. | |||
: 2. ASTM C1260, that is an improvement from the previous standard, cannot also effectively identify ASR reactivity in granite aggregates. | |||
: 3. Tests specified in Canadian standard CSA A.2.23.2-14.A can identify ASR reactivity in granite aggregates. | |||
If Seabrook has granite aggregates, it is better to test them in accordance with CSA A.2.23.2-14.A. | |||
: b. Professor Sauoma stated that to determine the structural integrity of ASR affected concrete structures, it is better to perform non-linear analysis to capture the effect of cracking in concrete.It may be useful to pass this message to the applicant. | |||
Abdul From: Raymond, William Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:32 PM To: Sheikh, Abdul | |||
==Subject:== | |||
RE: ASR OK, thanks.Too bad.Bill From: Sheikh, Abdul Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:30 PM To: Raymond, William | |||
==Subject:== | |||
RE: ASR No From: Raymond, William Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:44 AM To: Erickson, Alice 2 Cc: Sheikh, Abdul | |||
==Subject:== | |||
RE: ASR Alice, Will these slides be put into Adams to be available publically? | |||
There is information here that might be useful to the licensee's. | |||
Bill From: Erickson, Alice Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 8:42 AM To: Raymond, William | |||
==Subject:== | |||
ASR Bill, Let me know if you can get to them through this zip file. Meanwhile, I will try to fix the SharePoint issue.3}} | |||
Revision as of 04:23, 2 August 2018
| ML12102A236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/2011 |
| From: | Sheikh A H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lehman B C, George Thomas Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2012-0119 | |
| Download: ML12102A236 (3) | |
Text
Lehman, Bryce From: Sheikh, Abdul Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:21 PM To: Thomas, George; Lehman, Bryce Cc: Erickson, Alice; Plasse, Richard
Subject:
RE: Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook Ok. Please do not communicate any information.
From: Thomas, George \ýV-Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:19 PM To: Lehman, Bryce; Sheikh, Abdul Cc: Erickson, Alice; Plasse, Richard
Subject:
RE: Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook Bryce, What I was trying to say was that the ASTM C1293 "Standard Test Method for Determination of Length Change of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction (also known as the Concrete Prism Test or CPT)" test is similar to Canadian test CSA A23.2-14A and is adopted from the Canadian Standard, and therefore, to address Abdul's concern, may be more effective than C1260 test in identifying ASR reactivity in granite aggregates.
My source for the information is the attached PCA guide specification document -see Section 5.1.2 and Note 5. The ASTM C1567 test is a fast alternative to C1293. It is OK to convey a concern to the licensee but I agree with Rick Plasse that we should not be telling the licensee what to do over the phone. We can critique their test plan when they have a finalized plan for testing, or take a position elsewhere such as the TIA response if we have a firm one.Thanks.George __From: Plasse, Richard Sent: Wednesday, Novembar 30, 2011 2:17 PM To: Lehman, Bryce; Thomas, George; Sheikh, Abdul Cc: Erickson, Alice
Subject:
RE: Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook I am not saying anything to the licensee until NRC staff has a firm position.
Shouldn't product of TIA address which standards are appropriate?
From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:13 PM To: Thomas, George; Sheikh, Abdul Cc: Plasse, Richard; Erickson, Alice
Subject:
RE: Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook I agree that standard may not be adequate for detecting reactive granite; however, I think George Thomas was trying to comment that ASTM C1293 is similar to the Canadian standard and may be more effective at detecting reactive granites.
George could you comment on that?If that is the case then it may be unnecessary to discuss the Canadian standard, especially with the licensee.Thanks, B/ryce From: Sheikh, Abdul Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:36 PM To: Erickson, Alice; Lehman, Bryce; Plasse, Richard
Subject:
FW: Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook I had an action item from this morning's call about the correct ASTM standard number. The correct number is ASTM C1260. As noted below, this ASTM standard is not as effective as the Canadian Standard.
Can you please pass this information to the licensee.
I did not write the telephone number.From: Sheikh, Abdul Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:01 PM To: Raymond, William Cc: Auluck, Rajender; Lehman, Bryce; Conte, Richard; Modes, Michael; Chaudhary, Suresh; Thomas, George
Subject:
Items identified in Today's Meeting Relevant to Seabrook a. Mr. Katayama from Japan stated that: 1. ASTM C289, C227, and C295 tests for aggregates cannot identify ASR reactivity for slow expansive aggregates.
- 2. ASTM C1260, that is an improvement from the previous standard, cannot also effectively identify ASR reactivity in granite aggregates.
- 3. Tests specified in Canadian standard CSA A.2.23.2-14.A can identify ASR reactivity in granite aggregates.
If Seabrook has granite aggregates, it is better to test them in accordance with CSA A.2.23.2-14.A.
- b. Professor Sauoma stated that to determine the structural integrity of ASR affected concrete structures, it is better to perform non-linear analysis to capture the effect of cracking in concrete.It may be useful to pass this message to the applicant.
Abdul From: Raymond, William Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:32 PM To: Sheikh, Abdul
Subject:
RE: ASR OK, thanks.Too bad.Bill From: Sheikh, Abdul Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:30 PM To: Raymond, William
Subject:
RE: ASR No From: Raymond, William Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:44 AM To: Erickson, Alice 2 Cc: Sheikh, Abdul
Subject:
RE: ASR Alice, Will these slides be put into Adams to be available publically?
There is information here that might be useful to the licensee's.
Bill From: Erickson, Alice Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 8:42 AM To: Raymond, William
Subject:
ASR Bill, Let me know if you can get to them through this zip file. Meanwhile, I will try to fix the SharePoint issue.3