ML20234D589
Text
__
Q.hf i
Edson G. Case, Assistant Director October 15,1%4 Division of Reactor Licensing Robert H. Bryan, Chief lacilities Standards, SS COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT BY N.M. NEWMARK ON BODEG A DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 1964 As requested. by Memo Route Slip, the following comments are of fered on " Revised Draf t of Report to AEC Regulatory Staff..
Seismic Effects on Bodega Bay Reactor" by N. M. Newmark, September 17, 1964.
l 1.
The report does not reflect consideration of information presented in l'G6E Anendment 9.
2.
The presentation of the author's ideas are presented much more clearly in this draf t than heretofore. The report still f alls to present a sound case in two respects, both of which should be made unequivocally clear for the benefit of all who will be involved in the immediate or future proceedings:
a.
There is no substantiation for 'he conclusion that, with respect to isolation of f aulting ef fects, the problems are "possible of solution within the range of currently available engineering knowledge" (page 17).
In previous sections of the report he discusses isolation of f ault.ing ef fects only by pointing out a few (roughly three) kinds of considerations that are involved (pages 6 and 7).
Possibly with reasoned judgment, he has ref rained from discussing this novel effort in reactor design in tems of pertinent avail.
able engineering knowledge. The AEC case, either for or against construction, should include whatever evidence can be brought to bear on the existence and applicability of available engineering knowledge.
b.
Willi amson, in particular, has given consideration to quite a number of pro!.lems, that have been discussed from time to time. The report does not seem to reflect 8709220136 051217 the scope of whatever methodical consideration Williamson PDR FOIA and Newmark have given the case.
Perhaps it is not FIRESTOB5-665 PDR considered desirable that this report should be lengthened by including discussion of " details".
Nevertheless the i
l OFFICE >
SURNAME >
DATE>
Form AEC-stb (Rev. 943)
- e. s. neve....: res. ten..erics to--627st-a f 7@ 9 22f $ 5"
r-s f4,
.l f-Edson G. Case 2
October 15, 1964 4
AEC should have, probably before a hearing, an accurate account of what these two have considered.
It would be of great advantage to be able to point to evidence that a thorough study has been done, and it seems important that the staff be aware of potential weak points.
j 1
3.
The second paragraph on page 3 (revised 9/30/64) uses " provisions" and " requirements" in an tredefinite sense, even from context. The sentence should be eliminated or made snore explicit.
ces J. J. Dikano, SS l
bec:
R. H. Bryan, SS l
t 1
1 l
1 J
l l
l
)
I i
i l
l FS:SS_
omcr >
SURNAME >
19/13/64.
om nn, ac.m m.,. m o
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ -.. - _ - _ _ _ - _