ML20234E356

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notifies That J Schlocker Preparing Final Rept on Bodega Head in Response to AEC .Schlocker Will Be Available on 640416 to Discuss Rept.Comments on Util Amend 6 Encl
ML20234E356
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Bodega Bay
Issue date: 04/10/1964
From: Baker A
INTERIOR, DEPT. OF, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
To: Price H
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234A767 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8709220361
Download: ML20234E356 (10)
v • d • e


Text

i 4

-( IN REPLY MEFEM TQq

. UNITED STATES 1 H 13i

% ) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1 W GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WASHINGTON 25. D.C.

I OFFICE OF THE DIR ECTOR

.Mr. Harold L. Price Director of Regulation U.-S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington 25, D. C.

a

Dear Mr. Price:

In response to your letter of April 1 Julius Schlocker of our staff is preparing a final report on Bodega Head. This report will be in draft form and will be patterned along the guidelines given to _

Mr. Anderson by Dr. Beck of your staff. We plan to have Mr. Schlocker ,j available to discuss it with your staff on April 16 in accordance-l with the arrangements discussed with you by telephone on April 9. J.1 1

It is our plan to have Mr. Schlocker and Mr. Lemmon from our Menlo Park .#

office in Washington a day or two in advance of your ACRS meet.ing.

Mr. Lemmon is one of our senior geologists with wide professior.a1 l

experience in the western States and he has studied the Bodegu Head I

reactor site in company with Mr. Schlocker and Mr. Bonilla.

I Sincerely yours, j 1

,/

Arthur A. Baker Acting Director )

I l

l l

ECC'd Of. Dir. Of IIGg%

Dato.___'f=1hle.y____  ;

Tim e _._ _ _ _ jr_Ao_ _ _ _____

dd.

8709220361 851217 H sr ~ ~~~~~~ h~ ~ ~-

PDR FOIA FIRESTO85-665 PDR . 1 J

l j

g- ww . _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . . _ . . . , _

y s. - e / -l7 f. , f ,$ l A' .- (L,a;. t , G(

r t p I .

I c. 7 fj // /// // _l _

D. /"T. //////G/c .; s uff

1. n i,.5

.W

, _ , . .._. ~ . - -

$_*j i Job 4004 gg, y gj -

Comments on PGLE Amendment No. 6 -

l 1

This amendment differs from Amendment No. 4 principally in the deletion

of certain material jaugmenting of existing rnaterial to amplify the data on damping factorsy and expansion of the spectrum in the short period end.

In addition, a requirement has been added for insuring safe shutdown under earthquake ground motions,resulting in spectrum functions twice as great l as those used for design. All in all, there has been very little modifica-tion to' the original position of PG&E as described in Amendment No. 4.

The following are specific comments:

There has been some concern, particularly on the part of Dr. I)Tewmark, I

with the shape of the spectrum in the low period r'egion. A rough spot )

check of the spectrum presented in Amendment No. 6 for curves repre- l l

senting 0% and 2% damping indicates that the ordinates of the curve for

~

i 0% damping are somewhat lower than those obtained from TID 7024.

. l This variation is perhaps academic in the sense that no real structure A

has a damping as low as 0%. However, it may be significant becuase the 0% curve is used to interpolate the ordinates for other curves having finite values of damping. These variations are as follows : ,

e

i 1

. .ms ~ ~. ~. . . .-- .-... .- ~ ~ ~ r -- -

r. . u :._.u. ..v .

s .

  • 8'

. .s . f ) ]

t . .

-l.,

.t 1

-)

~Page2 .

(

Ac c e le ration , %[

~

Period (sec) Amendment 6 TID 7024 I 0, 10 .12 5 14 0 0,08 92 .12 0 0.05 50 .

58 0.03 38 38 't

.{

There was considerable discussion at he S.iptember 16 meeting relating ]

to the approaches to be used where reeponse of the building itself is a factor in modifying the response of equipment items within. This point is not even mentioned in Amendment 6 It should at least be specified that interaction effects with the~ building will be taken into account whe re such inte raction is significant. Otherwise, if this feature is left to the '

discretion of the designer it is' quite probable that the basic spectrum will be used without modification for all cases.

It should be noted that such interaction may become a significant factor J if PGLE modifies their design to allow for slippage on the fault or faults which run beneath the reactor foundation. If this modifications involves providing an annular space surrounding the structure, the ' response of the structure is thereby modified and with it the response of all equipment .

l items within. This fact is also true, although to a lesser' degree, if the annular space contains a frangible mate. rial. - Consequently, building

. . . - - _ . , = = = . . .

_ _._m._ .,_ . _ .

, .. . ,. ) 3 j

s Page 3  ;

i

\

' response should be one of the items mentioned in the criteria. l 1

The criteria presented applies to horizontal ground motion. The crite ria relating to vertical ground motion is not mention.ed, and should be stated.

  • 4 i

i In the course of various meetings between the Atomic Energy Commis-sion and PGLE representatives, notably on September 16 and August 6, the Atomic Energy Commission had expressed a desire for having an extra margin of strength for ground motions in excess of 66%g. Am end-j ment No. 6 provides no assurance that there is such a margin, and in c.

fact, as now worded,would permit strains beyond the yield point at 66%g in critical items, including control rods. j The effectiveness of energy absorption through inelastic strains in over-

, stressed structures is widely recognized as a principal factor in their ability to survive earthquakes. However, it should be realized that de-sign approaches which attempt to quantitatively consider energy absorp-tion through inelastic strains are embryonic in nature and are not accepted mgineering practice. Hence, there is an element of experim entation in-rolved in t. heir use. Consequently, if the design approach of PGLE for britical equipment components is based on this concept,such design should

\ ,-=- - _ __ -

a. n -- - - - - - - - -

- -- a . 7- - ~ - ~ ~.--; .=~_ r:<m:--

~

l i a-1 . .. -

, e ) '

i Page 4 be backed up by more than computation. There are a number of elements of uncertainty here which call for caution. The combination of a basic spectrum curve which conceivably might be too low,i.n-thie-region and

' certainties in estimating the effect of the building response on the

.. . , . //

Q'?.f.'.'.,,.' 3 = :. >

.3a sic input t,o accelerations which are too low.

These, coupled with a design which permits inelastic strains, could lead l

'to malfunction of the control rods. Andt her possibly significant factor , l could be radiation embrittlement witl i:s unfavorable effect on ductility.

i Hence, strains should be mamtainect w:, thin the elastic range af 66%g l

unless sufficient conservatism is incorporated in the earthquake forces

.r.wbd(- l applied to critical equipment items and unless e<lequate tests are made to '

verify adequacy of the inelastic design approach. '

i a

6 1

Q a& l e

e

/

~ g .,; ? f b 05 A

p .>9P \

lj \

f)-C C W.lf I

{

88Tu CONGItESS Bo Sessrox IN T11E SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES l

Arun,13 (legislative day, MAncu 30), 1964 j i

Mr. McNanasu (for Mr. Escrx) introduced the following joint resolution; l l which was read twice and referred to the Joint Committee on Atonne Energy i l

1 JOINT RESOLUTION l

With respect to the proposed location of a nuclear power plant at Bodega Head, California.

Whereas the Pacific Gas and Electric Company proposes to con-struct a nuclear power plant at Bodega Head, Sonoina County, California, within one thousand feet from the rift zone of the San Andreas fault, and has already expended l

ahnost $4,000,000 for excavation and other site develop- I ment for such plant; Whereas the Good Friday earthquake of 1964, centering in Alaska, with tremors reaching into California, is the latest of numy in the Pacific Basin that have demonstrated over the years the continuing danger of earth movement along tho major faultlines of the basin; ,

Whereas the San Andreas fault, which traverses Bodega Head, II

f 9

is one such major fracture in the earth's crust whose move-ment caused the San Francisco earthquake of 1906; l

Whereas Doctor J. P. Eaton, the seismic hazards investigator of the Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, in a re-port prepared in September 1963 for the Atomic Energy Conunission,~ concluded that Bodega llend "is not an ade- l quately safe location for a nuclear power plant"; l l

Whereas, subsequent to the period covered by Doctor Eaton's l I

study, a fault was observed in the sediments above bedrock at said site, and stilllater in October 1903 when the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's excavation at the site reached J forty feet below sea level it was discovered that this geologic fracture extends into the bedrock foundation of the Inuposed power plant; Whereas the Atomic Energy Commission then requested a see-

.ond study of said site by the Geological Survey, resulting in a second report prepared in December 1903 by Doctor Julius Schlocker and Doctor Manuel G. Bonilhi who sum-marized the situation as follows:

" Faults that occurred on Point Reyes peninsula in rock l I

similar to that of Bodega IIcad as a result of the earthquake faulting that occurred in 1900 indicate that if some future carthquake, in which fault displacements comparable to those i that occurred on the San Andreas fault zone in 1906, took place near Bodega IIcad, rupturing of near-surface granitic bedrock would be expected somewhere on Bodega IIcad."

Whereas an internationally known seismologist, Doctor Pierre Saint-Amands, head of the Earth and Phtnetary Sciences Division, Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, Cali-

> fornia, has publicly stated with respect to said site that "a

/

3 worse fotmdation situation would be diflicult to . envisage;"

and Whereas despite these warnings and despite the fact that no construction permit yet has been obtained for such plant, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company is proceeding with its plans and preparations for use of said site for such plant:

1 Now, therefore, he it 1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives i

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 1

l 3 That the Atomic Energy Conunission is directed to make a 4 full and complete report to the Joint Committee on Atomic 5 Energy of the Congress with respect to the extent of the I . 6 Conunission's investigation into the risks to the public health 7 and safety involved in locating a nuclear powerplant at said l 8 site, including in such report an account of the consideration i 1

9 given to the dangers cited in the reports with respect to 10 the site by the Geological Survey; and be it further i

11 Resolced, That the Atomic Energy Commission shall 12 withhold the granting of any permit for construction of l

1 13 a nuclear powerplant at Bodega Had until the Commis-  ;

14 sion can certify to the Congress, with reasonable scientific 15 assurance, the geologic adequacy and seismic safety of said 'I 16 site.

i h---- -- _ _ _ - _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ . _ _ _

Aa7 Sc

$E 9' Y'"

O i

wNs 2w +t

]

yE-b a.

.n tL CL*

9,2 S g=

0 N% S w eso Ui g~

l l

- - n ui l o na e N aC, )

m i te G it Of ne I

od oI a

r o

x 9

1 0)

, o m

m Oy T iI t

aa E

r 3 C t t EL Ucog e M ic in n o Dg l Ld do r o

a J y Me g r YJ O eB s o

pt f

(

A d y

a

,h t

oE e

n

, S o ra R e t

c Oy E pt n

A M

iv der oim t

R hlea t p Nc A l a rt s f eA ig e r

S or e S

Ee: Tt tc weo M l

( d n

3 a Ror Gs NsE Ne I

p p .

s a M r 1 L

r a i ec OS e ri n y r w C 0 n2 Or J hl a r e

t cfo l

I At d

T i a 8 e 8

W R w

T i

a a*

a

  • s 8.. '

FAGM:

  • D A TE OF DOCUMENT: DaTE RECEIVED N O.;
v. 3. . e .pi, . ' .i r ? *i'r lh-lJ-r.'

J?*1"

. . _ - 13-in l L.1-768

'. 7 . 1 M " */ 'f,* ' LTR. M EMO: REPORT: OTHER:

' e <

il p1 .. s. ( 'L.w & -" sus e

.u s -

TO: .

..a,+ 1.L 3 . .  ?

.L.,,,;,,,, ORIG.: CC: __OTH ER:

, a o . . . t, I.' 2 '3 i s 'l.1 '. _O .,

.'. s 4-s. 1fj' O ACTION NECE95AR Y CONCURRENCE D 47E ANSWENEDs CLA53:F: . . . . POST OF FICE - - .. FILE CODE:

s ngo no.  !

i

.(. . ; .-

Uo . , (,. (. * .-

DEseniPTioN:~ _ . _* Mutt He Unclamhesi)

~~~ - R( F r a ng o ro

. _ . . . . . . . J. sc' . /_ .

f-

'REcgivgD S V ' #

__. i l OArg l ' DATE U:. ,iaL '

a % 321:a.: e . ;s.n -

1 (

< -.. !;1 l' '"I 3 j; ' .U .3 '

.i. ~ ~ 1 < cs  ;-13(

'O."..' s[ [. I T.111'; '1 L '7 #

'CL J I

V .s ' O ' . L *

  • 3

' ith .r. ."29'4 / u on vr'.1 lu..,

ENC L.09 U R ES: Q1 y_gpg3;9 , , fic h I ;, ~

ltr.

f -1.t ) - . j .

1.. .y -- -. -

.. /

.c.. . _s L._i n.. h \, -

/

,/ 1 .. O r e , 'm.!_.d .' . _'.'_/ .'. f 3 e

' i i l

. , 'l.. ,,,4 .: A g j

/

.: w . . . . s_,"- l ,

REMARK 9:

j i

' e ,

'A 1 n. #., *^~^M.,. . . _ _ . . _ . . . '_,'.,'m ','V._._..

~ . . .. i 1m~. -

"1- e ^ ' .s" 4

.._. ,_t / '

l 4 i

u. s. nome e.wnor comussrox
o ...o .. - ~r m . m . o,n x... 2 ...... MAIL CONTROL FORM ronuu, ucaus e l I

1 1

1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20234E356&oldid=3227064"