ML20234F480

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of ACRS Subcommittee for Bodega Bay 640603 Meeting Re Excavation & Proposed Locations for Various Facility Structures
ML20234F480
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Bodega Bay
Issue date: 06/12/1964
From: Knuth D
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234A767 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8709230139
Download: ML20234F480 (2)


Text

-- - -- -

i^ ' e

, g ,o o. e

, UNITED STATES GOVEknMENT **

Memorandum To  : Files -

DATE: g g g gg l

('Ihru) Roger S. Boyd, Ch4 Research & Power React Safe +' anch rnou - '

Donald F. Knuth 4 /

Research & Pover , Reactor Safety Branch Division of Reactor Licensing SUBJEcr: ACRS SUB-00tMC'1 TEE MEETING AT BODMA BAY ON JUNE 3,1964, DOCKET NO. 50-205 t

The ACRS Sub-Ccmmittee for the Bodega Bay Reactor and its design consultant, K. V. Steinbrugge, met at the Bodega site to examine the excavation and the proposed locations for various facility structures. In addition, a short meeting was held be-tween the ACRS Sub-Committee members and PG&E representatives to discuss unresolved problem areas. Those attending the site tour and the meeting vere as follows:

'

  • C. C. Welchel PG&B D. V. Kelly PG&E

~*"',

F. C. Mautz PG&E

.__ M.B.Umy PG&E C, E. Joselin PG&E C. R. Van Garder PG&E E. C. Mar 11 ave PG&E, Consultant

'L -

H. C. Kouts ACRS D. A. Rogers ACRS kih C. R. Williams R. C. Stratton ACRS ACRS R. H. Wilcox ACES Staff

- . .'3;[. . . K. V. Steinbrugge ACES, Consultant:

.';, D. F. Knuth DRL

' ' ' ' - The ACRS questioned the suitability of the seismic design criteria that have been proposed by PG&E in view of the fact that the reactor is to be founded on bedrock viereas the basic seismic data on which the criteria are based vere obtained during the EL Centro earthquake from measurements made on alluvium. The

~

f ACRS pointed out that the response spectrum at high frequencies A

was more in question than that for low frequencies. PG&E personnel responded by stating that their consultants believed

  • that the spectrum as presented in the application was adequate for the Bodega site and that they would supply additional in-formationf Q scribe how the spectrum has been modified to take intog;he rock foundation at Bodega Head.

I 8709230139 851217 PDR FOIA 1 FIREST085-665 PDR . , - , - . . - , - , , . , , , - - . . . - - . . - - , , , ~ . - - - ~ ~ - , -

-y

) .
  • ^ .

\

, . - , ) )

Files The major portion of the meeting was devoted to discussions of the msgnitude of and design methods for accommodating shear displacements at the site. Mr. Mautz of PG&E stated that he was not convinced that a method of designing for displacements of as great as 2 or 3 feet was possible, ard that if the PG&E l geologists stated that such motion was credible that he would i be the first to recommend a different site. Mr. Mautz emphasized  !

that all of the PG&E consultants were in agreement that major  !

7 displacements along this shaft fault were too remote to be con-  ;

sidered credible.

i Mr. Steinbrugge stated that he knew of no structure which has

' been designed to withstand shear displacements of the magnitude discussed (2 to 3 feet). He further stated that he has authored technical papers on this subject and his position had been that

~ one should not build a normal structure across a fault zone  ;

vhere more than small shears are expected (small shears were '

~, 'h interpreted by him to mean fractions of an inch or a few inches atmost). Mr. Steinbrugge stated that he was not experienced ,

~~ in reactor designs but rather in the designs of normal structures, such as office buildings and the like. He indicated that he did not wish to state that a building design to accommodate 2 to 3 feet

, . _ of shear was impossible, but, rather that it would be extremely difficult and would require design techniques that are not A[

gg standard. From his comments it appeared that he had not examined the most recent design proposal of PG&E's seismic design con-Qg sultant, Dr. Housner. Other PG&E personnel present, particularly C. C. Welchel, were of the opinion that a structure designed as EE.[p proposed by Dr. Housner could accommodate displacements of the

('q magnitude suggested in the staff questions dated May 19, 1964.

m e: e  ;

q

[

-=' With respect to the staff questions, PG&E expressed the opinion )

that the questions were open ended, and that discussions over '

them could continue over ati extended period of time without  ;

, reaching any agreement. C. R. Williams.and R. C. Stratten i stated that, in their opinion, PG&E's position had been shifting at the previous ACRS meetings on Bodega, and PG&E's tone had been j "What do you gentlemen (the ACES) vant in the way of design?" d R. C. Stratton stated that PG&E needed to firm up their design {

proposals before a letter could be expected to be forthcoming i from the ACRS. He further stated that once PG&E had a firm  !

i position, a hearing would be in order to determine the adequacy I of the design regardless of the AEC's staff position.  !

t Further discussions as to the implications of the staff questions j vere deferred until the June 17, 1964 meeting with the AEC staff. -

cc: E. G. Case 1 F. N. Watson D. Knuth f

.g

.'~-,.n..,._n.n---.--. wr- ~ :.~- -e m~-~ ~ w~~ ~ m m~r m-w ~