ML20235B410

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Svcs Performed Re Bodega Bay & Malibu Reactors,Per Covering Work Under Contract AT(49-5)2667.Study to Outline Definitive Way Earthquake Resistant Design Provisions for Reactors at Locations Suggested
ML20235B410
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Bodega Bay, 05000214
Issue date: 10/19/1964
From: Newmark N
NATHAN M. NEWMARK CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES
To: Case E
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234A767 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8709240094
Download: ML20235B410 (1)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

f N'A T H A N . M . NEWMARK 111 TALBOT LABORATORY. URBANA. ILLINOIS CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES L 19 October 1964 e

5" $

x

. Mr. Edson G. Case,-Assistant Director ,s's o Division of Reactor Licensing -

l c U. S.. Atomic Energy Commission Q~

, n

^

Washington, D.C. 20545 c, g

_ r.L g --

2 Re: D_ocket No. 50-205 b. I N

d Doiike t No. 50-214 ,

O

, E u

Dear Mr. Case:

-gg

[

This refers to your letter of 3 September 1964 covering my work

. on Contract No. AT(49-5)2667. It is noted that this letter authorizes services:of my firm on the Bodega Bay Reactor for 15 days, and on the Malibu Reactor for 10 days.

Wi th regard to the Bodega Bay Reactor, seven days were reported in August, two days in September, and I have to date a total of one and one-half days in October. In view of the ' additional work that may be requi red before this comes up for hearing and the time required to appear at the public hearing on this project, i t may be desirable to increase the number of days authorized.

In connection with the Halibu Reactor, one day for myself and two days for Dr. Hall were reported in September, and to date this month approximately one day for myself and two days for Dr. Hall were involved.

~

This makes a. total of six days out of the ten days authorized. I expect it will take only a short while longer to prepare a report on this program, and unless my services will be needed at the public hearing, I think I can complete what I need to do on this project within the authorized number of days. However, should you decide to go further into the weakness in shear and tension of the shell in the Malibu Reactor, it may be necessary to authori ze addi tional time.

The contract also calls for additional studies. I should like to suggest that you give consideration to authorization of a study by me for the purpose of outlining in a definitive way earthquake resistant design provisions for reactors at locati ons in general. This would include a better and more consistent provision of design spectra and design stresses than have been used by the various design firms in their work to date. I believe that we can work up something that can be entirely consistent and reasonable for general application.

Very truly ours, uwnuv1.AY N. M. Newmark l

l NMN:dp O

8709240094 851217 PDR FOIA

i. . a '----] P I FIRESTOB5-665 PDR L________.___ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHING T014 25, D. C.

October 20, 1%4 Honorable Glenn T. Seaborg Chairman U. S. Atomic Energy Commission ,

og{

Washington, D. C.

3d'7 j Sub, ject: REPORT ON BODEGA BAY ATOMIC PARK - UNIT No.

N

Dear Dr. Seaborg:

At its fifty-fifth meeting on May 7-9,1%4 at Argonne, Illinois, and at its fifty-eighth meeting on October 7-10,1%4, the Advisory Com-mittee on Reactor Safeguards again considered the proposal of Pacific Gas & Electric Company to construct and operate a 1008 MW(t) boiling water reactor on Bodega Head north of San Francisco, California. The Committee had the benefit of oral discussion with representatives of the applicant and its consultants, with the AEC Regulatory Staff and its consultants, including staff members of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS) and of the reports cited below. Subcommittee meetings were held July 31, 1%2 and March 20,1%3 and members of the Committee again visited the excavated site on June 3,1%4. Numerous information meetings were held with the applicant, the AEC Regulatory Staff, and with consultants.

This proposal had been considered at the Cocnittee's forty-seventh meeting and reported on in its letter of April 18,1%3 which stated:

" Tentative exploration indicates that the reactor and turbine buildings vill not be located on an active ,

fault line. The Committee believes that if this point l i

is established, the design criteria for the plant are adequate from the standpoint of hazards associated with earthquakes. Careful examination of the quartz-diorite rock below should be made during building excavation, to j confirm this point. Furthermore, the Committee suggests that, during design, careful attention should be given t.o the ability of emergency shutdown systems to operate properly during and subcequent to violent earth shocks, and to the stress effects that might be introduced because the reactor building and the turbine building are to be l anchored in different geological formations. The need for  !

earthquake-induced shutdown and isolation of the primary system can be considered at a later tice."

l 6-7h%*f~)bh ${^

(

3 Honorable Gle n T. Seaborg October 20, 1964 The exploration suggested in the above comment has been completed, and the geoloCi c features discovered have led to further structural considerations in the design. These geologic features include frac-tures in the underlying rock. One has been identified as the so-called " shaft fault". The character, extent, and age of the most recent activity of this fracture are controversial. Nevertheless, the applicant has considered its significance in the proposed struc-tural protection.

Proximity of the site to the San Andreas fault system has been given careful consideration. The Counittee has been advised by several consultants that, during the life of the proposed reactor, there is a high probability that the reactor site will experience at least one major earth shock. There is associated with such an earthquake a remote possibility that the plant will be subjected to the effect of a shearing motion in the rock on which it would be built. The USGS and USC&GS have proposed values for the intensity and accompany-ing earth motions, including shear, which could be anticipated during the vorst earthquake. Determination of these values has been hampered by lack of authoritative historical records and reliable measurements.

The applicant and his consultants believe that lower values are more realistic. The Committee considers that the USC&GS and USGS values are conservative.

The applicant has proposed ethods for mechanical and structural design to meet the predicted seismic occurrences. The applicant also has proposed to design the building to withstand up to three feet of shear displacement along any plane at the site. The Committee believes that the engineering principles and general design proposed to incorpo-rate them are sound. These considerations afford that degree of assur-ance required for protection of the reactor in the unlikely event of the predicted maximum earthquake.

The USC&GS has recommended a design height for tsunami run-up at Bodega Head. The applicant stated that the facility design and safeguard pro-cedures will be such the plant would withstand such a tsunami cafely.

The Committee is of the opinion that the applicant's design objectives may be accomplished within the scope of present engineering knowledge.

Many details of the proposed design have not yet been completed. It is understood that the applicant vill continue to give careful attention to the following items during design and construction: limitations on the maximum reactivity of individual control rods; provisions to accommo-date possible seismic earth movements and shear displacement; consideration l

I o

7.sr

?

-(

l Honorable Glenn T. Seaborg - 3,.- October 20,.1964

.of. testing or other experimental verification of structural design features associated with earthquake protection; . provisions .to assure adequate cooling water.in case of damage to-normal'and emergency supply systems; core behavior during earthquakes; design and tests of critical plant components such as-instrumentation, isolation valves,

. and control rod operating mechanisms to withstand earthquake damage;

. additional considerations which may be needed if zirconium clad fuel is to be used.

The C'o nmittee recognizes that the applicant has accepted very conserva-tive values for earth shear movement, earthquake magnitudes, and tsunami he16 hts as design criteria. :These criteria should not be con-

'strued as precedents for use elsewhere.

With due consideration being given to the items discussed above, the Advisory Committee 'on Reactor Safeguards is of the opinion that the power reactor facility as proposed may be constructed at this site /

- with reasonable assurance that it may be operated without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.

Sincerely yours, y /..

Herbert Kouts -

Chairman l References Attached.

I

__L_--_

p ,

L lA Honorable Glenn T. Seaborg October 20, 1964 (Bodega Bay)'

References:

1. Amendment No. 2, Pacific. Gas & Electric Company, Bodega Bay Atomic Park - Unit No.1, dated April 5,1963
2. U. S. Department of the Interior letter to Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg,

' dated May 20, 1963, with attachments.

y 3 Amendment No. 3, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Bodega Bay Atomic Park, dated June 13, 1963

4. Amendment No. 4, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, dated August 9,1963 5 . U. S. Department of the Interior letter dated September 25, 1963 to Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg with attached report, TEI-837, " Geological and I Seismic Investigations of a Proposed Nuclear Power Plant Site on Bodega Head, Sonoma County, California", dated September 1963
6. U. S. Department of the Interior letter dated January 16, 1964 to Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, with attached report, TEI-844, " Engineering Geology of the Proposed Nuclear Power Plant Site on Bodega Head, Sonoma County, California", dated December 1963 7 Amendment No. 5, Pacific Gac & Electric Company, Bodega Bay Atomic Park, dated January 22, 1964.

' 8. Amendment No. 6, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, dated March 16, 1964.

9 Amendment No. 7, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, dated March 31, 1964.

10. Amendment No. 8, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, dated July 20, 1964.
11. Amendment No. 9, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, dated September 16, 1964.
12. U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey report " Seismicity and Tsunami Report, Bodega Head, California" dated October 1964.

13 U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey report " Engineering Geology of the Proposed Nuclear Power Plant on Bodega Head, Sonoma County, California", dated October 1964.

4

)

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20235B410&oldid=3226835"