ML20132C487: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:._ | ||
[ | |||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg | \\ | ||
UNITED STATES | |||
.a 8 | |||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o | |||
gg p | |||
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 NOV 0 51984 MEMORANDUM FOR: | |||
George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing FROM: | |||
George Lear, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering | |||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
SNOW AND ICE LOAD - BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT NO. 2 E. Markeetof Meteorology and Effluent Treatment Branch (METB) has expressed concerns that a snow and ice load of 100 PSF should be used in the design of Category I Structures at BV.2, whereas the applicant only used 72 PSF in the design. METB brought up this issue in the draft SER (February 24,1984), | SNOW AND ICE LOAD - BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT NO. 2 E. Markeetof Meteorology and Effluent Treatment Branch (METB) has expressed concerns that a snow and ice load of 100 PSF should be used in the design of Category I Structures at BV.2, whereas the applicant only used 72 PSF in the design. METB brought up this issue in the draft SER (February 24,1984), | ||
and the applicant's response (July 30,1984) stated that 72 PSF for snow and ice was sufficient Finally, METB issued a memo to G. Kni (August 21,1984) disagreeing with the applicant's positions (ghton | and the applicant's response (July 30,1984) stated that 72 PSF for snow and ice was sufficient Finally, METB issued a memo to G. Kni (August 21,1984) disagreeing with the applicant's positions (ghton see enclosure for all the references). We concur with the METB's position and suggest that the applicant be requested to provide confirmation that all the Category I Structures at B.V.2 can safely withstand a snow and ice load of 100 PSF. | ||
In addition, we sent you our SER on July 26, 1984. To date, we have not | If requested, we will be able to discuss the re-evaluation criteria with the applicant. | ||
received any responses from the applicant to the open and confirmatory items contained in the SER. However, in order to resolve these open items, we need prompt responses from the applicant. We suggest to have a meeting in Bethesda with the applicant to resolve the outstanding issues. | In addition, we sent you our SER on July 26, 1984. To date, we have not received any responses from the applicant to the open and confirmatory items contained in the SER. However, in order to resolve these open items, we need prompt responses from the applicant. We suggest to have a meeting in Bethesda with the applicant to resolve the outstanding issues. | ||
A=*- | A=*- | ||
George | George r, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering | ||
==Enclosure:== | ==Enclosure:== | ||
As stated cc: | As stated cc: | ||
I. Spickler E. Markee M. Ley L. Heller D. Jeng | J. Knight I. Spickler E. Markee M. Ley L. Heller D. Jeng | ||
< K. Le.u Qtf \\ \\ \\(pDL\\L l | |||
Qtf \ \ \(pDL\L | .}} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:12, 12 December 2024
Text
._
[
\\
UNITED STATES
.a 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
gg p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 NOV 0 51984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing FROM:
George Lear, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
SNOW AND ICE LOAD - BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT NO. 2 E. Markeetof Meteorology and Effluent Treatment Branch (METB) has expressed concerns that a snow and ice load of 100 PSF should be used in the design of Category I Structures at BV.2, whereas the applicant only used 72 PSF in the design. METB brought up this issue in the draft SER (February 24,1984),
and the applicant's response (July 30,1984) stated that 72 PSF for snow and ice was sufficient Finally, METB issued a memo to G. Kni (August 21,1984) disagreeing with the applicant's positions (ghton see enclosure for all the references). We concur with the METB's position and suggest that the applicant be requested to provide confirmation that all the Category I Structures at B.V.2 can safely withstand a snow and ice load of 100 PSF.
If requested, we will be able to discuss the re-evaluation criteria with the applicant.
In addition, we sent you our SER on July 26, 1984. To date, we have not received any responses from the applicant to the open and confirmatory items contained in the SER. However, in order to resolve these open items, we need prompt responses from the applicant. We suggest to have a meeting in Bethesda with the applicant to resolve the outstanding issues.
A=*-
George r, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
J. Knight I. Spickler E. Markee M. Ley L. Heller D. Jeng
< K. Le.u Qtf \\ \\ \\(pDL\\L l
.