ML20236C056

Discusses Meeting W/Westinghouse on 670818 Re Problems Related to Reactor Internals Under Combined Earthquake & Blowdown Loadings.Westinghouse May Choose to Present More Evidence on Listed Points

ML20236C056
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date:	08/21/1967
From:	Newmark N NATHAN M. NEWMARK CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:	Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20236A877	List: ML20236A874 ML20236A896 ML20236A920 ML20236A950 ML20236A959 ML20236A975 ML20236B012 ML20236B016 ML20236B024 ML20236B067 ML20236B072 ML20236B116 ML20236B278 ML20236B286 ML20236B312 ML20236B315 ML20236B345 ML20236B356 ML20236B362 ML20236B403 ML20236B420 ML20236B436 ML20236B440 ML20236B476 ML20236B480 ML20236B506 ML20236B514 ML20236B522 ML20236B539 ML20236B547 ML20236B550 ML20236B560 ML20236B571 ML20236B594 ML20236B612 ML20236B630 ML20236B635 ML20236B650 ML20236B655 ML20236B670 ML20236B686 ML20236B695 ML20236B701 ML20236B705 ML20236B708 ML20236B726 ML20236B737 ML20236B748 ML20236B755 ML20236B793 ... further results
References
CON-AT(49-5)-2667, FOIA-87-214 NUDOCS 8707290326
Download: ML20236C056 (2)

Text

A i

I

-t %f4?a l

- \

NATHAN M. NEWMARK CONSUL /rlNG ENGINEERING SERVICES 1114 CIVIL ENGINEERING BUILolNG URBANA. ILLINOIS 618o1 1

21 August 1967 1

i Dr. Peter A. Morris, Di rector j

' Division of Reactor Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Re: Contract No. AT(49-5)-2667 Diablo Canyon Plant l Discussion with Westinghouse Engineers' i

Dear Dr. Morris:

In accordance with the suggestion made at our meeting in Bethesda on 15 August 1967, several engineers f rom the Westinghouse Corporation  ;

visited me on Thursday, 18 August, to discuss some of the problems ]

related to the reactor Internals under combined earthquake and blowdown '

loadings. Those present were Floyd Moschini, George Bohm, Romano Salvatori, Roger C. Nichols, all of Westinghouse, and myself.

The Westinghouse people understood that I could not give them design advice nor did my discussion commit DRL in any way. I listened to their presentation and suggested that they make a formal submittal, through channels, with regard to any points on which our previous formal discussions, including that on 15 August, indicated questions which still )

needed answers. ,

Although my position and I believe that of your personnel, is l l that we cannot compromise on the earthquake harard for the maximum earth-quake, and must insist on response spectra (or earthquake . ground motions used for computer analysis) representative of a broad-band earthquake similar to a combination of earthquakes B and D as presented by the applicant, with a maximum ground acceleration of 0.4 g for no loss of function for safe shutdown I might be willing to. consider adequately conservative methods of analysis, and choice of damping factors and otner f actors, that take into account the conditions in the yield range provided that the safety of'the reactor is not impaired.

1

\

With this philosophy in mind and subject to presentation of adequate supporting data Westinghouse may choose

• to present more evidence-on the following points. j

1. The assumption that only two of the six lateral supports of /

the internal assembly take shear may be restudied to take into account some of the shearing forces that may be carried by other than the two most heavily loaded supports, provided that this can be done without undue , &y) deformation.

j 8707290326 870721 NO 214 PDR gg  !

r;;es Dr. Peter A. Morris 21 August 1967 J

2. The damping factor of one percent used for the no loss of function conditions may be restudied to justify possibly a higher value, perhaps of two percent, provided that this is done as a function of stress and deformation level, and that this stress or deformation level is consistent with safety.

3 For the combined earthquake spectrum, i .e. , for earthquake _

excitations B and D coabined, as representative of a possible extreme earthqutke, and wi th concurrent blondown conditions, higher strain l levels may be used than those implied by yield limits, provided that l major yielding is limited to values which would not impair the capability of safe shutdown.

4 Although for the maximum earthquake of 0.4 g,there will l be no loss of function for safe shutdown, it may be that the allowable l code limits would be exceeded for the 0.2 g design earthquake combined j wi th blowdown. If this proves to'be the: case, information may be submitted l to indicate under what conditions the code lind ts would not be exceeded, j either for the individual earthquakes, acting separately, or for some  ;

lower level of combined earthquake, or for some slightly increased stress )

or deformation level.

l Consideration of these items will await submittal of the necessary data and justification. No indication was given by me as to any action that might be taken in advance of such presentation and justification.

I indicated that I thought it would be desirable for any future conferences of this sort to be arranged through your office in order that a representat;ve of DRL could be present.

Very truly yours, hbh N. M. Newmark NMN:dp cc: W. J. Hall e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _._____ _ _ _ __________ __.____ _ _ _