ML20234E211
Text
'
.- +
/
(
073
~
f. j.er i
EBASCO SERVICES 4
INCORPORATED
/
/
(h
/l UTILITY C O N S U LT A f T S - ENGINEERS -CONSTRUCTOR j
TWO RECTOR STREET NEW YORK 6. N.Y.
CAOLE ADDRESS"EBASCOE" LEON ARD F. C. R ElCH LE vier enc ioc r November 23,19&
1 Mr. Harold Price, i
Director of Regulation
]
l U.S. Atomic Energy Commission i
i Washington 25, D. C.
i l
Dear Mr. Price:
This is to request clarification of a point in the AEC's report "
SUMMARY
ANALYSIS BY THE DIVISION OF REACTOR LICESING IN i
THE MATTER OF PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY BODEGA HEAD NUCLEAR
{
POWER PLANT", Docket No. 50-205, dated October 26,19tA. The point is whether the report's "..
conclusion that Bodega Head is not a suitable location for the proposed nuclear power plant at the present stage of our knowledge" was in any way related to the fact that the proposed nuclear plant was a boiling water plant.
Our interpretation is that if it had not been for the ground l
shear problem specifically associated with the Bodega Head site, the l
plant as a boiling water plant would have been approved. We are j
lead to this interpretation by the following excerpt from the report:
"In all respects except one the proposed design of the Bodega Nuclear Power Plant provides reasonable assurance that the plant can be built and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
{
However, the single exception is quite important if onc accepts the credibility of an earthquake of sufficient magnitude to cause a major displacement of foundation rock underneath the plant." We believe the report, in alluding to the one exception, is referring to the possibility of shear displacement of foundation bedrock at the Bodega Head site, and that neither a boiling vater reactor nor a pressurized vater reactor vould have been approved for the Bodega Head site with-4 out experimental verification and experience background. Are ve correct in this interpretation?
Similarly, in the case of the Summary Hazards Analysis for 1
the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit No.1 (Docket No.
c'...,.
50-206), we assume that from a seismology and seismic design point of view, the plant was approved, not because it was a pressurized water plant rather than a boiling water plant, but that the nearest
}
"t 073 8709220313 851217 Rec'd Off. Dir. of R 3*
ggie,j/j_J E d ---
,3 A )
v..
M i
EDANCO SERVICES 073 iNC0AF0aATEO Mr. Harold Price November 23, 1964 known active faults are approximately 22 miles from the San Onofre site and that there are other important seismologic and Seologic differ--
ences between the Bodega Head site and the San Onofre site.
Are ve not correct in believing that either a pressurized water plant of the Yankee or the Connecticut Yankee type, or a boiling water plant of the Dresden, Big Rock Point or Humboldt Bay type vould have been approved for the San Onofre site?
We vould appreciate any comments you vill cake to clarify the matter.
Sincerely yours, WC.SuAddi_.
IECR: ee
\\
\\
\\
07?
- __