ML20239A641
"Draft Meeting" is not in the list (Request, Draft Request, Supplement, Acceptance Review, Meeting, Withholding Request, Withholding Request Acceptance, RAI, Draft RAI, Draft Response to RAI, ...) of allowed values for the "Project stage" property.
Text
. -.. =. _ -. -.
6 f.
j
)
A Files Edson G. Case. Acting Diredor I.. n 1 /
'O V
'g hgy"n Rivision of Reester Ideensing
.;l.
ACRS METING ON BOIEGA RAY W MAY 8, IM go - RM" l
l 1
maring me mer acas metEm sedesa mer. Peas== =ka l
to e ibe me,re,.see.si, of ne.e.t i.-t
- ten, i
,a.tionar2,.i. ve.,e. to its.iuty to. sm.
wh,aues.. no,1aseme.t of
.s of a ur.e e ta.e ikl escarring at er meer Bedega Eend as W San Andreas fenit.
Dr. am=ener, PGM's==8==a1=gi sal saasultat, sketehed a gg..
Gemis a the blaakbeard skisti was genere127 statine to i--
that Agearibe4 la henadment No. Y ef the PGH applicatism.
@5 3
Es iadiented that h alearenas betwoon the wall of W
^
aantatsment wesel eat the reek interface was appearimakmir jb
'18 inches. Be stated that 'a movement of 12 inshes alms the Shaft fennit would result la a week movement towards the
..-g;5
^~P" eestat====t vessel of only 4 imahes, staae 'the fanit is e a miner ehere of the vaaster pit. Es stated that this i{
acessent weale be ahoorbed by the frangible material.
W between the esetainment vessel ame h reek ame wealt ' "
'g. * ' ;# t t,
sesult in little if my 4amese of the samervte side of : 4,, y c,
!Y the sent=4====t.
Ramoner went as to indieste that even
"'r
~ ~~-?
3 greater movements, my to as unsk as two to three seet,'
i osale be tolerated along the shaft fan 1% withest less at.
,. %g A
E." Sl
, esatainment integrity er h ability for safe roaster ;,y' n. :4
.m Q..
sk.4een becamme of the orientaties of the Shaft fanit ' -
g ie y
Y.,
la W soaster pit med besesse of voit spasos 1sterier to the oestainment. Essover, he seem little if any
- an c -
l 'K.5 quantitative ladiostian of what interier emness Aaside' 3
i,
.W
. the ecstainment midst be sayeeted if the movemmat along i T2,i, the fenit were great esaugh to erush the containment walls. When asked aheat vibratism design,Ismener listed tes differest valans of eseelaretten to be ' applied
)
at the 6ey ame bottaa of W ecstainment vessel. N Q,a relaties of these members to the maxisena expected greest
'i t
\\
aseelarettaa of.33 g listed in PGM Amendment No. 6 was met eyparent to me, p
Dr. Eevaark wee later asked by the ACES his epiaica,s
//l to whether the PGM design represented en acceptab3e 7 h
appreseh from a vibration and displacement steng-l/*'
87091G0045 851217 h.1.d s. ;j.y ideWp PDR FOIA FIRESTOS5-665 PDR 1.,., $...,,c 5
0FTICE >
b i..
]
SURNAME >
l, DATE>
.l Form ABC-818 (Rev.9-43)
- s. s..smanes, enumes mies se eston-e
/
4 6'
~,.(
p
}
s f4 h Files
> 2
Eis Weepease indicated that althead he had eene eye'effic reservations win the PGE design, partieslar3y win to i
vibratica espects s4 hid freguessies, he beliswd het r
it was passible to psovide a design that wea1A'withstead 7
the expected earthquake effnets, isolating a soldive" displacement of two feet, Me stated the in his opinian s
the vibration eriteria were about 85% too low in he hid j
ftegnesey regles.
em.
y This oral judsoment espressed by Dr. Newmad e4 he ACRS c
a meeting was e variasse with ur previous meerstenting
. _ - i..
of his opiaiens. % meerstanding was primartir based on idih 41seussions wie him in a aseting at 5sthesea en ' April ik
~_
vin samhers of the ACES, me a subsequent meeting in i..-s Baro 14 Pries's offies %d afteameen in a diesession Trr ettenest by Pr(se, Mean, Lowenstein, Eenderson and Case.
.h -
At thd time I eneerstood Dr. Newmark to believe that M.
the vibraties eriteria propenWA'by P045 in Aussammat No. 6 4?
were spyrosimetely 9% tee les la the hid fasteeney
$g regiaa. Also, he stated that a12ench he believed the g.
it midt be WIsasible to prories a desip suitable for
~
withstanding about ene feet displassumat, such a tesis i
+
_i.-
weald,be sismifissatly 41ritreat from that deseribee.
i WM hy PO E la Assadment Ee. $. Parthey he ladiested h at.
l T%
's the dility to assign fer eisplemensate of too fIset arc, ;.
l i
creater was a ansk more difficalho if act isqpensible, ' ' ~
ggg4..g~frs j
.s,, J v.wf (t.Q i g,;.
L P P* '
anoortsking.
w,,.
In a private 41seessian thab'I hele wie Mr. irillimmsen ' h ;. '
iN
--N "
i-
~
en the esas eate, I asked him whether he was still -4 c.
Qg
, gG3,' - - c, '.r ? r conserase with he~ potential effects of aftershoeks W it en the aestmimaammt staustare after the frangible asteirtal..,.. p, l Ei=3j had bees' erushed by en essened lares displacessat. lee, W [>
MW told me that he het gatheses from Bousser's passestaties i -
$_ M
-e d h et there had been same sk e ge in the'essian proposed by.
~ '
POE et the AC25 mesting free that esseribet La Ammoements 6 ase T, which resmited La taking me esweit for the (
~
[
J restraining effects se the eestainment valls of the sur=,
rounding weeks me sediments. For this sessen Williamsen
'" i stated that his semunats em PGE's Amendment Is. T with respeet to this point, which wene faraished to the rega.
latory staff an April Ele should be disregarded. Be 414 indiente, however, that his meersteading of his matter was set too sleer ama that he felt %e Gesign; proposals of PGE should be desumented in writing in aradh mose.,.
g ; p$ g?#
y
- detall, i
Pf i
s.f,I.2 e
j OWICE >
I sunsAuE >
DATE >
- e. s. essenament veievise emes so-ests 4 4
l?
Form ABO.816 (Rev.948) g j
s I
w -r,.w
..m....g%,..,
r, t
{}
[o-jd['
Draft -
j giz, c;,g" v j
- R. A, Williknis 8/20/64 4
4 Bodega Bay Atomic Park N
Comments on Amendment 8 The following comments are offered regarding this amendment..
- 1. Provisions for Relative Displacement The applicant proposes to provide the flexibility needed h, vital
" umbilical" features to withstand a three foot relative displace-ment between the reactor building and adjacent structures.. This l
proposal appears to be entirely feasible in the case of inherently l
flexible elements such as cable, and conduit and low pressure 1
l piping of small diameter. If the item does not require lateral 1
support to resist effects of earthquake vibrations, the medsures needed in these cases are not elaborate, and consist largely of i
providing slack or free length and avoiding any detrimental con-i straints.
.j J
To preclude degradation of reliability, structurally significant plastic strains should not be permitted in vital umbilical features.
Such a requirement calls for more special measures to increase inherent flexibility as, for example, flexible joints in pipe..
I The steam line from reactor to turbine is an example of this situ-k I
ation, although the steam line, perhaps, cannot be considered as 4
1 vital as other features, because of the presence of check valves to
.]
(// w?
h g/n sw,
[~-
s t it.
La 2de& w s~s
m 7,
- -4:.
(-
().
a y..
f minimize the consequences of rupture. In the case of the steam line, flexibility is insufficient to tolerate a three foot displacement without development of plastic strains, based on the configuration shown in the PHSR. Therefore, if reliability comparable to that of Class 1 items is required, the contemplated design would require modification to incorporate greater flexibility. Bellows joints in j
this line may afford a m eans of absorbing a three foot displacement and withstanding the effect of earthquake vibrations at the same time without overstress.
There are certain limitations in the use of such joints, particularly with regard to the combination of pressure, diameter and movement 1
capability. The 1100 psi pressure of this installation, 20 inch pipe diameter, and a rotational motion capability of about' 3 to 4 con-stitute requirements beyond the limits of standard off-the-shelf 1, j components, and cali for special design. While there is considerable
$j l
reason to believe that a bellows joint can be designed for these con-i 3
8 1
ditions, it has not been possible to posiitively verify'that this is so.
]l:.
The applicant states that the steani line, (presumably as shown in the PHSR, of carbon steel material, and without intermediate joints)
- i will absorb a three foot displacement without failure, but recognizes i
that the stresses are greater than the yield stress. Presumably,
!(
also the computed values approach the ultimate tensile strength of 1l I
the material. (It is to be noted that computerd values of stress above i
}
i 2
.Z.
I i I
e
(,
h yield are fictitous and do not accurately indicate structural 1
behavior). The applicant's competition evidently implies the l
1 complete absence of earthquake bracing between the extreme
- ends of the pipe. Otherwise, the restraining forces imposed on j
the pipe by the bracing would lead to a computed stress greater j
than ultimate for carbon steel.
The applicant's concept apparently visualizes yielding of pipe and supports. A building structure of ductile material can tolerate strains at least several times the strain at yield. In most piping systems, too, a single self-limiting cycle of yielding due to thermal effects is an accepted possibility at initial startup of the system.
On the other hand, the behavior of building structures under ex-ternal loads causing strains far above yield has bee.n studied ex-tensively; in the case of piping, no such body of knowledge exists.
Furthermore, the biaxial stress condition in piping reduces duc-tibility to some extent. It is quite possible' that the version of the I
1 steam line as contemplated by the applicant in Amendment 8 could 3
survive the displacement and earthquake effects in an overtrained i l condition without actual rupture. However, the probability that this l
I
)
is so is not beyond a reasonable doubt and is too low to be acceptable
)
l 1.f the integrity of this line is considered as being absolutely vital.
i l
{
.1 i 1 iI
!l t-9
.fs o.
$/ *
[
An important related problem is the integrity of the valve located
- just outside the containment. Protection from high momentr, thrusts, and: shears may not be' capable of achievement' solely by
-j using " adequate' anchors and bracing beyond the double isolation valves'.', but may require, in addition,.more flexibility in the pipe -
than now exists.
1 1
In principle, the relative displacement problem might be avoided I
1 by anchoring the turbine building to the reactor structure, but this i
creates a number of other problems. Among these are the transfer '
of forces at the junction and provisions for differential settlement and sliding of the turbine building.
1
- 2. Reactor Containment Structure -
h The reactor substructure (cylindrical reinforced concrete enclosure).
l q
l is extremely massive, with exterior walls at least five feet thick, and has numerous floors and radial walls. ' Gravity, operating and I
seismic loads,- and additional loads due to displacement do not cause severe stresses in this structure. Therefore, if reinforced with sufficient reinforcing steel to insure ductile behavior in resisting i'!
the imposed loads', there is a high degree of assurance that this struc-I ture would remain undamaged under the simultaneous effects of earth-f
)
quake vibrations and displacement, up'to the point where the displace-A ment brings the wall of the pit into contact with the' structure. Beyond i
this_ point, there is the possibility that the containme'nt wall would be '
breached locally at locations of point or line contact.'
g g
e,i_?,ei.-
enw eewe 4,
-+ma* **tt e *4**We*> ;* 7 6W
,. +
Ni
):' c
~
C
- O q,o;
)-
F
.)
i
- 3. Equipment Within Containment Structure j
l It is possible to design the. emergency diesel generator, station l
battery, and associated controls to resist the vibrations trans-l mitted by the structure. Equipment of this nature has been designed to survive' shock and vibration environments in ships and submarines -
[J B
much more severe than the earthquake effect considered here.
.Where integrity is dependent upon functioning of umbilical features,.
)
the' design of such features should meet'the requirements stated f
in Section 1..
f
-[ 3
- 4. Remote Power Sources
-j.
' It is questionable whether transmission of power from remote l
sources can be considered as reliable as on-site power, particularly with regard to the 220 Ky lines crossing the San Andreas fault. ' De-.
struction of towers in'the fault zone is a possibility if located on the
)
i rupture plane, and is very likely more credible than faulting at the 9i site itself. Rupture of lines or tower failure due to the large hori-
!l 1
zontal displacements known to occur on the San Andreas fault could'
,f conceivably happen in the case of short spans,.
j-i;.
Co11aspe of transmi,ssion towers due to earthquake induced landslides
(
1 must also be considered at every tower along any portion of the line-i where the terrain is' susceptible to s uch slippage. Existing towers 4
, g t
O[
o -
1
1:L
+ 2..
4.,-
g.
,,7 s-L
, and substations located within' 35 miles or so of the San Andreas t
fault 'may be subjected to' ground motion severe' enough to cause major damage and'1oss of function,'if not properly designed for -
+
g
.this contingency.
1
' In spite of previous earthquake damage to' California power faci-.
f 11 ties, California power companies as of 1952 had not applied anti-seismic measures to existing installations throughout the; entire system.: Because of this, substations and other' electrical-equipment suffered severe damage in the Kern County earthquake I
of 1952. If the Ignacio substation referred to in the PHSR (page III-25, Section K-2) is existing, it may be no more' seismic resis-tant than the damaged substations mentioned above.. Needless to say; depende.bility' of the emergency power supply is reduced to the extent that reliance is placed on such features.
-. ' r Reliability of the 12 Kv line is subject to the considerations just discussed in connection with the 200 Kv tine. Here the credible i
fault displacement is much less, although the spans may aiso be e
1 shorter.
~
i l
1' I'
i 1
1 3
- t 1
. I.
t 1
t.
o 4 -
i "t -
- '**4
'r
f
,y is * [#
g --gE F,v 4 S **e.s,
- m. ed I-4 s
"p g,
- -,9
.N
((((p.,,.,
,,g q
p
.g
e%.,,
s
['I'
" 'H;.
> e.
~
u a* g.g/
l
.. 'drW.A Moseassa6& ALT MnessueQ
- D=%*
F F 4Cga
.S$4,
e r=s....+o.
A s- +f.,
..4.
..ww s
! Daft OF Docus4NT:.. - ' Daft RECT peDa
. '. lp[
k Wiillamammen 9
pt.
ame nan.
mE90R1e OTHE9L x
10, ORIGa CC, 01HER:
R. L. Doess* DLrectar s with $ sys of attadament Roaster Lieomaing ACTION NECE55ARY Q
CONCURRENCE., g.,4.* ,Q DATE AN5WEREDi s
ComfNT,i i,.
- O
'n NO ACilON NECE55ARY Q
. A.s : p? /..t...f CM$$1F.,
PC510FFICE FILE CODE 4
.J
. ap -
. ' n.
..t Is A Rf G NO E h528 DATE DESCRIPTIO6i Was 6e Uncleonthod)
REFikRED TO
. DETE. :
0 - o. RECEIVED gy 1tr transmitting 5 espies of sea-arrats reisting to Amenteent 8 et Caos S/21 e
o
=
c.
g.-
we,0-,,
e x
.1
~.
o 4-
- 4..
1
- \\
1 l
?
?
.T g
V
,p
]
..-.h g.
s s
,v 7,
, p
.... s
.-- K.
l
\\
MAIL CONTROL FORivi rogjc:
k
- u. s. 4tomic tuonor commission 265
- r.. p., g7
- v.- - -.-
m.,
N. shw a m.%
g..
~
.,.m a y/iw.~p.... ;...m.-.2..w. :... -....
--.:. s
.s u.
s
., ~ ~..
~ ~ ~
y
.~
+-
.,.,.c.-
(I'QY. W, e"W,..ry m- ~..,.,.,..
z me-
,p o.ar
.w.. y
. * ' die.D gN 4MNvesY
- d YaI
- N M'.A. M
.. T,m4
- g,def.]T,,.. we.,.'.j/.,, f.,d_%
j p..d..h
.3 ;m,,*. r
.q W.
v..
1 z;,,,_.......f..y e.
p*
..n. **.. ;. N.
i.
... s
- s... e.....ra..
.'u..,,._'" m.--.m. %..;.*t
. a a....-... w n s,.,.w. %.
l
.se q ' 's' y s,.,~,r:.y.=
...~,..a..-
~
4 h i.='R : T 3 -~~~ -;~.
- ;.' M.,.;;, v.,.,,.h ; c&, g.
..,W
- s
.T ; g-m c
.D
". :.;.,., y.,..:;-g*, w.-
.n w.
e
., ~-
w r -..
.,.g. -.% sJy; g.. q. Q q A=w
.y
. t,.,. g,,.g,.,,,.=.g
- ' "*~g~",,,.
r-.
,, u e.,.r q-.
_;;;;,_q e-Q
.g.
,l 4
..& new
- "**" *==a'l"U=W%h.. 4,,, a.
.,e.e*4 Q.m;"
- . n. f '
',.,. *w @gne A, _,,4."&,4.g,($ a+ ya.p..:^
w-a
~-+
a....e:---
~ ;.ar.~
w w wse
..q y.,
.s
,u
,_.u
%*' y s c-*. 4. ~*'*. 2..!
a 3
~" W*
- h.
w e.4r mae.
$. ";~=,.',-g 7.o a-O,
b_
M; '.~_
c, j
v?.;A.y i
- 'y(' hs. w.s_. -
- =.;.,.
p'
. **4* %
w'
- f;* ' < ; ' N."'qa.s =__.- t.,;..'
yW tw..:a.fr 'S"*".e'".'d1"4,* * ;C...-,1,9 :.
cc -
ws 4
=.a...y
.=~.=....*;r...*-".a.-.-
.or
..~e
.a.
, p+
~ ~. -
i 4
..w
+.
w.
w.
.- =p-r.-a.m
.4
.. W.8-.~..-
A
. 5 g
.. %.s *
.* +4
- w
,...,.-... :,; J h. +;,,.,...,8...s=.pam
- 9 v., gat.ier, y y,
..c-
- a.
- -. ~.
.s w
7"-** 64+0=*4 to.
s=,,==.# N "*-
=.m.%
.,,,*.1 ;~- --
+=...e
.,.,,'n y.c.
3
.g.
wt.
p". *1
. ;.g..u.
.fa..s,...ar.**4 ry -.
.v
- ::. m.
a,,,i, r."7.n -,.r w*.'* c. +,i._,--4.;...IA,...
.A'.-
, J3 g
..--O,*-
J 4 ***
t,
- *W L, _4-
....g%-....
ts
=,,,.c.-.
o
,, n,,,,,;.
.~e
.g..%.
g g s.
1-
,7w
.- Q,,.~ ~ = = -
>",.; %.3,y.y
.=.#,l4,2g, c
,----M. g m ors:
. w +-,_
f_T,
m.
>-... e.,-
. m m -, <.
. r,....3,..-_,
x s
- ,. +..
~
...E."*...
4.', D Y,[.
"'. i dy. * * ' " ' '
mang ge n.,g.,,,,,gy M,.
,g,,,,,Jesew.o.*.,ag v amme.4AS.peu.
13,..4
.--is.g e'* it
~~ar' do.v..-h[
"* ti J
- a. m. Hr.
4 s
.^ ~.
t.
g w.
g
. n
.a p
..+ _
M4p.
-6
.m.
4 "p,yd C
34 meg,
M.4, L1 s'
I F
K.
1
+
k
?
______________.__2_.
i