ML20141E744 - Revision history

StriderTol: StriderTol Bot change

2024-12-11T20:23:46Z

StriderTol Bot change

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 11 December 2024
Line 19:		Line 19:

	=Text=		=Text=
	{{#Wiki_filter:. . _ .		{{#Wiki_filter:.. _.
	p y m'o ,		y m'o p
	UNITED STATES		UNITED STATES y '* g [ g g
	; y '* g [ gg NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION		NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION j p WASH WGTON, D. C. 20555 X.'.u }
	. j p WASH WGTON, D. C. 20555 X.'.u }~~...~~
	SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION MASONRY WALL DESIGN. IE BULLETIN 80-11 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.		SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION MASONRY WALL DESIGN. IE BULLETIN 80-11 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
	MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336 In the Safety Evaluation (SE), the staff concluded that except for three walls qualified by the licensee via the use of the energy balarce technique to resist the out-of-plane forces, items 2(b) and 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11 have been fully implemented at the Milistone 2 facility for the remaining safety related walls. The SE also included a staff position in the energy-balance technique and stated that the implementation of this position was required to render the walls acceptable to the staff.		MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336 In the Safety Evaluation (SE), the staff concluded that except for three walls qualified by the licensee via the use of the energy balarce technique to resist the out-of-plane forces, items 2(b) and 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11 have been fully implemented at the Milistone 2 facility for the remaining safety related walls. The SE also included a staff position in the energy-balance technique and stated that the implementation of this position was required to render the walls acceptable to the staff.
	By a {{letter dated\|date=October 28, 1985\|text=letter dated October 28, 1985}}, the licensee informed the staff of the results of the reanalysis of the three walls. The reanalysis is based on the linear elastic working stress methodology consistent with the staff acceptance erfteria delineated in SRP Section 3.8.4, Appendix A. In the reanalysis, t he finite element model is used to define the wall geometry to account for the plate action (the original analysis used one-way span assumption). The results of the reanalysis indicate that the three walls can now be qualified on the basis of the working stress criteria and the calculated stresses in the walls are within the staff allowables.		By a {{letter dated\|date=October 28, 1985\|text=letter dated October 28, 1985}}, the licensee informed the staff of the results of the reanalysis of the three walls. The reanalysis is based on the linear elastic working stress methodology consistent with the staff acceptance erfteria delineated in SRP Section 3.8.4, Appendix A.
			In the reanalysis, t he finite element model is used to define the wall geometry to account for the plate action (the original analysis used one-way span assumption).
			The results of the reanalysis indicate that the three walls can now be qualified on the basis of the working stress criteria and the calculated stresses in the walls are within the staff allowables.
	Based on the above findings, the staff concludes that the issues regarding energy-balance technique at Millstone 2 have been resolved, and there is a reasonable assurance that all safety related rrasonry walls at Millstone 2 will withstand the specified design load conditions without impairment of wall integrity or the performance of the required safety functions.		Based on the above findings, the staff concludes that the issues regarding energy-balance technique at Millstone 2 have been resolved, and there is a reasonable assurance that all safety related rrasonry walls at Millstone 2 will withstand the specified design load conditions without impairment of wall integrity or the performance of the required safety functions.
	-Principal Contributor:		-Principal Contributor:
	N. Chokshi l		N. Chokshi 8601080299 851220 PDR ADOCK 050 36 L}}
	1 8601080299 851220 )
	PDR ADOCK 050 36 L}}

StriderTol: StriderTol Bot change

2021-12-12T17:00:56Z

StriderTol Bot change

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:00, 12 December 2021
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\| document type = SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT--LICENSING & RELATED ISSUES, TEXT-SAFETY REPORT		\| document type = SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT--LICENSING & RELATED ISSUES, TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
	\| page count = 1		\| page count = 1
			\| project = TAC:60116
			\| stage = Other
	}}		}}

Line 24:		Line 26:
	SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION MASONRY WALL DESIGN. IE BULLETIN 80-11 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.		SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION MASONRY WALL DESIGN. IE BULLETIN 80-11 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
	MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336 In the Safety Evaluation (SE), the staff concluded that except for three walls qualified by the licensee via the use of the energy balarce technique to resist the out-of-plane forces, items 2(b) and 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11 have been fully implemented at the Milistone 2 facility for the remaining safety related walls. The SE also included a staff position in the energy-balance technique and stated that the implementation of this position was required to render the walls acceptable to the staff.		MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336 In the Safety Evaluation (SE), the staff concluded that except for three walls qualified by the licensee via the use of the energy balarce technique to resist the out-of-plane forces, items 2(b) and 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11 have been fully implemented at the Milistone 2 facility for the remaining safety related walls. The SE also included a staff position in the energy-balance technique and stated that the implementation of this position was required to render the walls acceptable to the staff.
	By a letter dated October 28, 1985, the licensee informed the staff of the results of the reanalysis of the three walls. The reanalysis is based on the linear elastic working stress methodology consistent with the staff acceptance erfteria delineated in SRP Section 3.8.4, Appendix A. In the reanalysis, t he finite element model is used to define the wall geometry to account for the plate action (the original analysis used one-way span assumption). The results of the reanalysis indicate that the three walls can now be qualified on the basis of the working stress criteria and the calculated stresses in the walls are within the staff allowables.		By a {{letter dated\|date=October 28, 1985\|text=letter dated October 28, 1985}}, the licensee informed the staff of the results of the reanalysis of the three walls. The reanalysis is based on the linear elastic working stress methodology consistent with the staff acceptance erfteria delineated in SRP Section 3.8.4, Appendix A. In the reanalysis, t he finite element model is used to define the wall geometry to account for the plate action (the original analysis used one-way span assumption). The results of the reanalysis indicate that the three walls can now be qualified on the basis of the working stress criteria and the calculated stresses in the walls are within the staff allowables.
	Based on the above findings, the staff concludes that the issues regarding energy-balance technique at Millstone 2 have been resolved, and there is a reasonable assurance that all safety related rrasonry walls at Millstone 2 will withstand the specified design load conditions without impairment of wall integrity or the performance of the required safety functions.		Based on the above findings, the staff concludes that the issues regarding energy-balance technique at Millstone 2 have been resolved, and there is a reasonable assurance that all safety related rrasonry walls at Millstone 2 will withstand the specified design load conditions without impairment of wall integrity or the performance of the required safety functions.
	-Principal Contributor:		-Principal Contributor:

StriderTol: StriderTol Bot insert

2020-06-27T00:45:41Z

StriderTol Bot insert

New page

{{Adams
| number = ML20141E744
| issue date = 12/20/1985
| title = Sser Supporting Use of Energy Balance Technique to Resist Out of Plane Forces Re Masonry Wall Design (IE Bulletin 80-11)
| author name =
| author affiliation = NRC
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation =
| docket = 05000336
| license number =
| contact person =
| document report number = IEB-80-11, TAC-60116, NUDOCS 8601080299
| package number = ML20141E736
| document type = SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT--LICENSING & RELATED ISSUES, TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
| page count = 1
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:. . _ .
p y m'o ,
UNITED STATES
; y '* g [ gg NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
. j p WASH WGTON, D. C. 20555 X.'.u }...
SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION MASONRY WALL DESIGN. IE BULLETIN 80-11 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336 In the Safety Evaluation (SE), the staff concluded that except for three walls qualified by the licensee via the use of the energy balarce technique to resist the out-of-plane forces, items 2(b) and 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11 have been fully implemented at the Milistone 2 facility for the remaining safety related walls. The SE also included a staff position in the energy-balance technique and stated that the implementation of this position was required to render the walls acceptable to the staff.
By a letter dated October 28, 1985, the licensee informed the staff of the results of the reanalysis of the three walls. The reanalysis is based on the linear elastic working stress methodology consistent with the staff acceptance erfteria delineated in SRP Section 3.8.4, Appendix A. In the reanalysis, t he finite element model is used to define the wall geometry to account for the plate action (the original analysis used one-way span assumption). The results of the reanalysis indicate that the three walls can now be qualified on the basis of the working stress criteria and the calculated stresses in the walls are within the staff allowables.
Based on the above findings, the staff concludes that the issues regarding energy-balance technique at Millstone 2 have been resolved, and there is a reasonable assurance that all safety related rrasonry walls at Millstone 2 will withstand the specified design load conditions without impairment of wall integrity or the performance of the required safety functions.
-Principal Contributor:
N. Chokshi l
1 8601080299 851220 )
PDR ADOCK 050 36 L}}