ML18137A173: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Risk-Informed | {{#Wiki_filter:Risk-Informed Inservice Inspection Section XI, Appendix R April 17, 2018 | ||
-Informed Application In-service Inspection: RG 1.178 EPRI method based code case, including PRA quality, approved -could simply be made part of Appendix | |||
-visiting entire methodology Risk-Informed In | Original Risk-Informed Application In-service Inspection: RG 1.178 EPRI method based code case, including PRA quality, approved - could simply be made part of Appendix R WCAP method based code case review abandoned All issues that caused WCAP method code case review to be abandoned must be revived and resolved. | ||
-service | Rather then repeating EPRI method review, better to simply complete WCAP code case review then combine in Appendix R Completing WCAP code case review may require re-visiting entire methodology | ||
-ISI inspections as ISI inspections (e.g., FAQ)Overwhelming of relative importance measures with a few very high estimated risk welds.Quality of the PRA when using the relative importance | |||
Risk-Informed In | Risk-Informed In-service Inspections WCAP methodology needs some clarification All degradation mechanism in one weld versus every weld calculated Better definition of a segment Crediting of non-ISI inspections as ISI inspections (e.g., FAQ) | ||
-service | Overwhelming of relative importance measures with a few very high estimated risk welds. | ||
Quality of the PRA when using the relative importance measures Other? | |||
Risk-Informed In-service Inspections WCAP methodology needs some clarification PFM calculations used to estimate frequency for importance measures and for change in risk Applicability of newer PFM calculations Consistency with other applications that use PFM Other?}} | |||
Latest revision as of 02:53, 21 October 2019
| ML18137A173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/23/2018 |
| From: | Stephen Cumblidge NRC/NRR/DMLR/MPHB |
| To: | Steve Ruffin NRC/NRR/DMLR/MPHB |
| Cumblidge S, NRR-DMLR 415-2823 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18137A170 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML18137A173 (4) | |
Text
Risk-Informed Inservice Inspection Section XI, Appendix R April 17, 2018
Original Risk-Informed Application In-service Inspection: RG 1.178 EPRI method based code case, including PRA quality, approved - could simply be made part of Appendix R WCAP method based code case review abandoned All issues that caused WCAP method code case review to be abandoned must be revived and resolved.
Rather then repeating EPRI method review, better to simply complete WCAP code case review then combine in Appendix R Completing WCAP code case review may require re-visiting entire methodology
Risk-Informed In-service Inspections WCAP methodology needs some clarification All degradation mechanism in one weld versus every weld calculated Better definition of a segment Crediting of non-ISI inspections as ISI inspections (e.g., FAQ)
Overwhelming of relative importance measures with a few very high estimated risk welds.
Quality of the PRA when using the relative importance measures Other?
Risk-Informed In-service Inspections WCAP methodology needs some clarification PFM calculations used to estimate frequency for importance measures and for change in risk Applicability of newer PFM calculations Consistency with other applications that use PFM Other?