ML13127A333

From kanterella
Revision as of 16:24, 17 July 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Email from J. Poehler to G. Cheruvenki, Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis
ML13127A333
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 02/14/2012
From: Poehler J C
NRC/NRR/DE/EVIB
To: Cheruvenki G S
NRC/NRR/DE/EVIB
References
FOIA/PA-2013-0030
Download: ML13127A333 (2)


Text

Poehier, Jeffrey J From: Sent: To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Poehler, Jeffrey Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:34 PM Cheruvenki, Ganesh FW: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Core Plate Hold Down Bolt SE Input ME6248 -(2-14-12).docx Ganesh, I meant to include you as well.From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:34 PM To: Purtscher, Patrick

Subject:

RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Pat, the whole 1 st paragraph of Section 3.2.1 could be clearer. I reworded this paragraph to eliminate some unnecessary details.I fixed footnote 2.For Figure H-7, I agree that the lower bound could be higher at 0.1 dpa especially if you only considered the data points that are Type 304. However, I'm not sure if the 75% would work with the stress analysis for VYNPS since they determined 14% relaxation.

The stress analysis only showed 113% margin over the ASME Code allowable for some scenarios.

I'm not sure an additional 11% of preload reduction would result in a one-to-one reduction in the percent margin, but would definitely reduce it. At any rate, Figure H-7 is just one data point supporting VYNPS's estimate.

If you look at the GEH curve, it is also a best-estimate curve.Please review the changes which are marked up in the attached revision.Thanks, Jeff From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, February I4V2012 1:53 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey

Subject:

RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Jeff, The 3 rd 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-1 75, 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 15 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 16