Erratum for “Thermal-Hydraulic Study: Arkansas Cooling Reservoir”

Abstract

The writers appreciate Jackson's discussion on seismic design aspects of nuclear power plant structures. Although the scope of the present paper does not extend to a comparison of seismic r equirements for the containment with those of the UBC, the i ssue raised is important and deserves comment. The Atomi c Energy Commission is charged with establishing and e nforcing standards for protecting the general public from the harmful effects of nuc lear power plant by-products. Engineers will concur that such protection is e thically and legally necessary. For this reason , extremely conservative methods are empl oyed in establishing the seismic design criteria for safetyrelated (Class I) structures and equipment of nuclear power plants. Structures, equipment and systems not related to nuclear safety are considered to be in an entirely diffe rent category. It would be normally uneconomi cal and, therefore, unwarranted to design these structures and systems to the same stringent seismic requirements as the containment a nd other Class I ite m s , as these structures and systems need not r e main functional e ither for the OBE or DBE, if it can be shown that public health and safety aJanuary, 1971, by Herbert S. Riesbol, James B. Anderson, Fred H. Wend, and Harlan T. Holmes (Proc. Paper 7811). b March, 1971, by Jacob K. Aldersebaes and Karl Wiedner (Proc. Paper 7957).