ML19322B175
| ML19322B175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1970 |
| From: | Sharpe R JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS |
| To: | Case E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-AT(49-5)-3011 NUDOCS 7912020032 | |
| Download: ML19322B175 (3) | |
Text
]
{}
]
7 - - -- - -
.]
...m.
. _ m.
EATE CP DOCUMENT DATE REC 71VED N 3.:
John A. Stinus & Assestates
& 29 M W 70 2
FRoets San Freacises, Calif.
MEMO:
REPORT:
OTHER:
LT R.
Roland L. Sharpe g
OTHER:
ORIG.:
CC:
TOs Y % Cate 1
f.ZTION NECESSAav O
CONCURRENCE O
DATE ANSWERED NO ACTION NECESSARY O CCM M ENT C
av:
~~
PCFT OFFICE FILE CODES
~
\\ % 269-70-287 CLASSIFs g
,,,, yo, REFERRED TD DATE RECEIVED BY DATE DESCRIPTION: (Must Be Unclassified)
Ler furnishing info os general review A. Dromerick 3-4-70 for seismic design of the zeewee W/2 cys for action hyro. facilities as they relata to DISTRIBUTICNs Oconee Phaelear Station ( Duke Peuer 010 ENCLOSU RES:
m Reg file ey 5 t x !=505-?
R. Pries in Staff
^l dej LL.J.L.
Boyd r
&{ fi 'X'W Y* ****
~
.---im oam17 R Eu x R R.,
zarss/ Lens 3 qys
..,9 v LL
- FSX,
- '.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION MAIL CONTROL FORM roau ^EC-stes (8 60) s Wuo eevannuant eninTsne ontess see.ois 7912020D32 g L
(')
O J O H N A. B L U M E A S S O C I A T E S, E N G I N E E R S
- t.ma':2
$5'uY.s"u Ye5N
~
612 HOWARD STREET
- SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 - (415) 397 2525 m
April 29, 1970 S
Mr. Edson G. Case, Director y
'(,
(
^
Division of Reactor Standards
, -.s
~,/.','
- ~ '
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
" 7.'
7 C
Washington, D.C.
20343 Contract.No.
AT(49-5)-30ll Blume Project No.
2085511
Subject:
Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Duke Power Company Final Safety Analysis Report Docket Nos. 50-269, -270, -287
Dear Mr. Case:
In accordance with your request, we have conducted a general review of the data received on April 20 concerning seismic design of the Keowee hydroelectric facilities as they relate to the Oconee huclear Station.
We hava the following comments:
3 1.
We understand that the Keowee and Little River Dams, intake canal dikes and submerged weir were approved during the Construction Permit phase.
Therefore, we have not reviewed these items.
2.
An equivalent static load approach has been used in the analysis of all the hydroelectric facilities. This approach is justified in analysis of structures which may be considered essentially rigid but is not necessarily justified in the analysis of other structures and components. The applicant should present justification that the equivalent static load approach is appropM. ate for the following structures and components:
Intake Structure Powerhouse Concrete Substructure and Steel Superstructure, Spillway Concrete Gate Structure, Tainter Gates and Anchorage, and Substructure Concrete Control Building 3.
We assume that the Emergency Breaker Vault is a critical facility.
l If this is so, drawings should be submitted.
4.
The effects on the dams and structures of earthquake-generated waves on Lake Keowee have not been discussed. Their effects should be evaluated.
1312 /
ConwM
Mr. Edson G. Case April 29, 1970 5.
The seismic design of Jocassee Dam has not been discussed.
If this Dam is critical, as we assume it is, the effects of its failure on the other dams and on the Nuclear Station should be evaluated or an analysis presented that eubstantiates its seismic adequacy.
Very truly yours, JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS b
W
%% (
Roland L. Sharpe Executive Vice President RLS:nik f