ML20205C185: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:* | ||
~s March 29, 1999 | ~ s March 29, 1999 | ||
) | ). | ||
t NOTE TO: | t NOTE TO: | ||
Christopher 1. Grimes, Director License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU: | |||
P. T. Kuo, Chief Engineering Section License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: | |||
Sam Lee, Sr. Materials Engineer Q[ | |||
Engineering Section License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | Engineering Section License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | ||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
==SUMMARY== | ==SUMMARY== | ||
OF CONFERENCE CALL WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE | OF CONFERENCE CALL WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE 4 | ||
On March 23,1999, the staff (Richard Wessman, DE; Kamal Manoly, DE/EMEB; John Fair, | REGARDING STAFF REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON INDUSTRY'S EVALUATION OF METAL FATIGUE EFFECTS FOR LICENSE RENEWAL By {{letter dated|date=November 2, 1998|text=letter dated November 2,1998}}, the staff issued a request for additional information (RAl) to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on the industry's evaluation of fatigue effects for license renewal. These questions relate to the Electric Power Research Institute (EDRI) reports on the industry's evaluation of fatigue effects for license renewal. | ||
DRIP /PDLR; and Sam Lee, DRIP /PCLR) had a conference call with NEl (Doug Walters, NEl; | On March 23,1999, the staff (Richard Wessman, DE; Kamal Manoly, DE/EMEB; John Fair, DE/EMEB; Keith Wichman, DE/EMCB; Joseph Muscara, RES/EMMEB; Fred Bower, DRIP /PDLR; and Sam Lee, DRIP /PCLR) had a conference call with NEl (Doug Walters, NEl; i | ||
staff of the industry's approach in responding to the staff questions. NEl's agenda for the | John Carey, EPRl; and Bob Nickell, EPRI). NEl requested the conference call to inform the staff of the industry's approach in responding to the staff questions. NEl's agenda for the i | ||
l NEl | conference callis attached. | ||
believes that these factors are sufficient to address the recent Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) fatigue data which is the subject of the staff RAl. The staff clarified that the RAI requested the industry to discuss the impact of the ANL data. Thus, if the industry relies on the PVRC factors in addressing the ANL data, it should include a discussion of the technical basis for the PVRC factors, specifically addressing size effect, surface finish, and data scatter. | l NEl indicated that the industry's position on the environmental effects on fa plant-specific fatigue analysis is not necessary, based on the results presented in the EPRI reports. The industry's approach in responding to the staff RAI would be to rely on the recommendation * ' rom the Pressure Vessel Research Council (PVRC) regarding the available factors to addrro moderate environmental effects in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Ill, fatigue design curves. The PVRC factors are 4 for carbon steel and low-alloy steel and 2 for stainless steel. The industry believes that these factors are sufficient to address the recent Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) fatigue data which is the subject of the staff RAl. The staff clarified that the RAI requested the industry to discuss the impact of the ANL data. Thus, if the industry relies on the PVRC factors in addressing the ANL data, it should include a discussion of the technical basis for the PVRC factors, specifically addressing size effect, surface finish, and data scatter. | ||
~ | |||
9904010096 990329 PDR | 9904010096 990329 PDR REV9P ERO C | ||
/ | |||
<gg 4 | |||
b,F) | |||
~ | |||
NEM% | NEM% | ||
.,~ | .,~ | ||
~\ | ~\\ | ||
2 Alternatively, the industry could orovide a technical basis for why the ANL data is not applicable. | 2 Alternatively, the industry could orovide a technical basis for why the ANL data is not applicable. | ||
In response to staff RAI number 4, the industry indicated that one of the EPRI reports has | In response to staff RAI number 4, the industry indicated that one of the EPRI reports has compared the " weighted average" approach with the " standard" approach and found no algnificant differences. However, EPRI indicated that correlations published in the literature using this method were not consistent. The staff clarified that the question elso requested an assessment of test data scatter on the applicability of the " weighted average" approach used in the EPRI reports. | ||
compared the " weighted average" approach with the " standard" approach and found no algnificant differences. However, EPRI indicated that correlations published in the literature using this method were not consistent. The staff clarified that the question elso requested an assessment of test data scatter on the applicability of the " weighted average" approach used in the EPRI reports. | |||
At the conclusion of the conference call, NEl indicated that they would provide the staff with a schedule for responding to the staff RAI at a later date. | At the conclusion of the conference call, NEl indicated that they would provide the staff with a schedule for responding to the staff RAI at a later date. | ||
==Attachment:== | ==Attachment:== | ||
As stated Project 690 DISTRIBUTION: | As stated Project 690 DISTRIBUTION: | ||
. Central Files ; | |||
PUBLIC PDLR R/F J. Fair,0-7E23 K. Manoly, O-7E23 R. Wessman,0-7E23 J. Strosnider,0 7D26 J. Muscara, T-10E10 K. Wichman, 0-7D4 DOCUMENT NAME:A:knf_clI.wpd OFFICE | PUBLIC PDLR R/F J. Fair,0-7E23 K. Manoly, O-7E23 R. Wessman,0-7E23 J. Strosnider,0 7D26 J. Muscara, T-10E10 K. Wichman, 0-7D4 DOCUMENT NAME:A:knf_clI.wpd OFFICE PDLR DE:EMEB:(A)BC DE:DD, | ||
DE:EMEB:(A)BC | PDLR:3C PDLR:D NAME Slee # KManolyF RWeIsiian J PTKuof/k CGrimes[f-g 3/ 799 3/W /99 3/:'d/99 3/ 71/9 9 1 | ||
DATE 3/#/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY | |||
L 2 | L 2 | ||
/ | |||
Alternatively, the industry could provide a technical basis for why the ANL data is not applicable. | Alternatively, the industry could provide a technical basis for why the ANL data is not applicable. | ||
In response to staff RAI number 4, the industry indicated that one of the EPRI reports has compared the " weighted average" approach with the " standard" approach and found no significant differences. However, EPRI indicated that correlations published in the literature using this method were not consistent. The staff clarified that the question also requested an assessment of test data scatter on the applicability of the " weighted average" approach used in the EPRI reports. | In response to staff RAI number 4, the industry indicated that one of the EPRI reports has compared the " weighted average" approach with the " standard" approach and found no significant differences. However, EPRI indicated that correlations published in the literature using this method were not consistent. The staff clarified that the question also requested an assessment of test data scatter on the applicability of the " weighted average" approach used in the EPRI reports. | ||
At the conclusion of the conference call, NEl indicated that they would provide the staff with a schedule for responding to the staff RAI at a later date. | At the conclusion of the conference call, NEl indicated that they would provide the staff with a schedule for responding to the staff RAI at a later date. | ||
Attachment As stated Project 690 l | Attachment As stated Project 690 l | ||
.-,m,-- | |||
.--s- | |||
? | ? | ||
V MARCH 23 CONFERENCE CALL'WITH NRC ON FATIGUE 3 PM | V MARCH 23 CONFERENCE CALL'WITH NRC ON FATIGUE 3 PM | ||
. PROPOSED AGENDA 1. | |||
ournos's of c 'l Doug Walters 2 | |||
Brief review of industry fatigue position John Carey 3. | |||
Industry approach to responding to RAls John Carey/ Bob Nickell 4. | |||
Conclusions John Carey/ Bob Nickell 5. | |||
Actions for closure All Attachment | |||
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _}} | |||
Latest revision as of 19:10, 7 December 2024
| ML20205C185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/29/1999 |
| From: | Samson Lee NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Charemagne Grimes NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-690 NUDOCS 9904010096 | |
| Download: ML20205C185 (4) | |
Text
~ s March 29, 1999
).
t NOTE TO:
Christopher 1. Grimes, Director License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU:
P. T. Kuo, Chief Engineering Section License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Sam Lee, Sr. Materials Engineer Q[
Engineering Section License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF CONFERENCE CALL WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE 4
REGARDING STAFF REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON INDUSTRY'S EVALUATION OF METAL FATIGUE EFFECTS FOR LICENSE RENEWAL By letter dated November 2,1998, the staff issued a request for additional information (RAl) to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on the industry's evaluation of fatigue effects for license renewal. These questions relate to the Electric Power Research Institute (EDRI) reports on the industry's evaluation of fatigue effects for license renewal.
On March 23,1999, the staff (Richard Wessman, DE; Kamal Manoly, DE/EMEB; John Fair, DE/EMEB; Keith Wichman, DE/EMCB; Joseph Muscara, RES/EMMEB; Fred Bower, DRIP /PDLR; and Sam Lee, DRIP /PCLR) had a conference call with NEl (Doug Walters, NEl; i
John Carey, EPRl; and Bob Nickell, EPRI). NEl requested the conference call to inform the staff of the industry's approach in responding to the staff questions. NEl's agenda for the i
conference callis attached.
l NEl indicated that the industry's position on the environmental effects on fa plant-specific fatigue analysis is not necessary, based on the results presented in the EPRI reports. The industry's approach in responding to the staff RAI would be to rely on the recommendation * ' rom the Pressure Vessel Research Council (PVRC) regarding the available factors to addrro moderate environmental effects in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Ill, fatigue design curves. The PVRC factors are 4 for carbon steel and low-alloy steel and 2 for stainless steel. The industry believes that these factors are sufficient to address the recent Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) fatigue data which is the subject of the staff RAl. The staff clarified that the RAI requested the industry to discuss the impact of the ANL data. Thus, if the industry relies on the PVRC factors in addressing the ANL data, it should include a discussion of the technical basis for the PVRC factors, specifically addressing size effect, surface finish, and data scatter.
~
9904010096 990329 PDR REV9P ERO C
/
<gg 4
b,F)
~
NEM%
.,~
~\\
2 Alternatively, the industry could orovide a technical basis for why the ANL data is not applicable.
In response to staff RAI number 4, the industry indicated that one of the EPRI reports has compared the " weighted average" approach with the " standard" approach and found no algnificant differences. However, EPRI indicated that correlations published in the literature using this method were not consistent. The staff clarified that the question elso requested an assessment of test data scatter on the applicability of the " weighted average" approach used in the EPRI reports.
At the conclusion of the conference call, NEl indicated that they would provide the staff with a schedule for responding to the staff RAI at a later date.
Attachment:
As stated Project 690 DISTRIBUTION:
. Central Files ;
PUBLIC PDLR R/F J. Fair,0-7E23 K. Manoly, O-7E23 R. Wessman,0-7E23 J. Strosnider,0 7D26 J. Muscara, T-10E10 K. Wichman, 0-7D4 DOCUMENT NAME:A:knf_clI.wpd OFFICE PDLR DE:EMEB:(A)BC DE:DD,
PDLR:3C PDLR:D NAME Slee # KManolyF RWeIsiian J PTKuof/k CGrimes[f-g 3/ 799 3/W /99 3/:'d/99 3/ 71/9 9 1
DATE 3/#/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
L 2
/
Alternatively, the industry could provide a technical basis for why the ANL data is not applicable.
In response to staff RAI number 4, the industry indicated that one of the EPRI reports has compared the " weighted average" approach with the " standard" approach and found no significant differences. However, EPRI indicated that correlations published in the literature using this method were not consistent. The staff clarified that the question also requested an assessment of test data scatter on the applicability of the " weighted average" approach used in the EPRI reports.
At the conclusion of the conference call, NEl indicated that they would provide the staff with a schedule for responding to the staff RAI at a later date.
Attachment As stated Project 690 l
.-,m,--
.--s-
?
V MARCH 23 CONFERENCE CALL'WITH NRC ON FATIGUE 3 PM
. PROPOSED AGENDA 1.
ournos's of c 'l Doug Walters 2
Brief review of industry fatigue position John Carey 3.
Industry approach to responding to RAls John Carey/ Bob Nickell 4.
Conclusions John Carey/ Bob Nickell 5.
Actions for closure All Attachment
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _