ML20235C471
Text
i 1
- *1 f.;.v~ ~ - - -
"-~En -w
- =
%~-
u-- - -
h' :.ff I
(
m ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
~~
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON O.C. 20545 I
_y l
May 13, 1964 1l~;
MEMORANDUM TO H. L. PRICE, DIRECTOR OF REGULATION FROM DR. H. J. C. KOUTS, CHAIRMAN - ACRS.
SUBJECT:
BODEGA BAY ATOMIC PARK, UNIT NO. 1 i
At the ACRS Meeting on June 12-13, 1964, we should like to consider in detail the following, questions, on which the statements that have been presented to us are still not clear:
1.
We wish to be sure we understand the specific methods to be used to analyze the ability of structures to withstand earthquake oscillations.
Some new features of the analysis were introduced at our 55th meeting.
2.
Will the applicant modify the frequency spectrum used (El Centro,1936) to account for the rock foundation of the Bodega reactor structure?
3.
What measures are proposed to assure that the reactor can be maintained safely in a shutdown condition indefinitely if all vital lines to the reactor building are severedi 4.
What is the degree of damage to the reactor building and the reactor to be expected from shear displacement along any line crossing the reactor building shafti This analysis should not assume a size of displacement.
What is desired is damage as a function of displacement. What displace-u ment leads to fracture of the concrete structure? What displacement would rupture the containment? What displacement would lead to rup-ture of the primary reactor systcm?
It is vital that these judgements be based on features of the system as it is to be built, and not be supported only in general terms. The effects of both shear and tensile strains should be considered.
5.
What measures will be taken to protect against tsunamis greater in size than the breakwater at Bodega Bay would suppress'.
We should also like to be able to discuss with your consultants these ques-tions and the answers of the applicant, as was the practice in previous meetings. But to avoid having the pressure of time contribute to any un-certainty as to positions taken or their meanings, we are planning a two-day meeting to be devoted entirely to the Bodega Bay reactor.
8709240464 851217 -
F1 REST 085-665 PDR.
)
c
_ ug+
- - ~. w n ;,m.,a s %,,2
.(
(
s 1
1 l
To:
H. L. Price May 13, 1964 i
i We further believe that the applicant should be made aware that shear dis-placements of from one to two feet are considered credible by some, and that the primary question we now face concerns the ability of the plant to with-stand such displacements without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.
t t
__m..__________
o
't.
ITE)6 FOR DISClBSION BY PG&E I.
Assuming that components and systems important to nuclear safety must be designed to withstand a relative dispiscement in the foundatirn material of 2 feet in any direction in a horizontal or vertical plane, describe the design of the following components or systems in sufficient detail to show that the design proposed vill withstand the assumed displacement and remain functional in the event of an after shock of a magnitude of mm T in the respects indicated:
A.
Containment System - Pressure integrity and lesktightness should be i
unimpaire d.
In particular, indicate the minimum distance between the outside of the building and the bedrock or sediment interface.
Describe the type of frangible material to be used at the sides and bottom of the building, or the criteria for the selection of a suitable material and the scope of the research and development program to be conducted to establish its suitability.
j B.
Primary System - Ability to reliably isolate the system upstnam of any possible rupture should be unimpaired and the pressure integrity and leaktightness of the isolation valve should be unimpaired.
C.
Control Rod Drives System - Ability to shutdown the reactor and to maintain the reactor shutdown should be unimpsind.
D.
Reactor Shutdown Cooling System - Ability to cool the shutdown reactor indefinitely should be unimpaired.
given II.
Assuming that the design expectations /in (I) above an not realir,ed in the event of a major earthquake on the San Andnas fault at or near Bodega Head to the extent that the containment and primary system fail and the primary means of core shutdown and core cooling do not perform as anticipated, describe the auxiliary systems and/or redundancy
50 '
1
-2 in primary systems for core shutdown and decay heat cooling in sufficient detail to show that the nactor can ce shutdown, maintained in the shutdown conditicrt, and cooled sufficiently to avoid core meltdown for several days without reliance on off-site power.
4 e
o 5
DRAFT CKBecksv1 l
5/12/64 1
Besic Assesstion:
2 feet of horisontal slippage and up to 6" of vertical movement.
In ceasequence, there most bes (1) only incipient damage and no impairinent of reseter buildiang (2) ortmary steam lines not brokeng (3) eswrnency coolina erecess still functientag.
1.
To accomplish this for the reactor buildian, dat design and what meteri.=1s will be required?
2.
To secomplish this for the prfinary steam lines, what physical arrangement, expension joints, torties loops, etc., are required?
(ground slippage may be under the reactor building, under the turbine building, or between the buildings.
3.
To accomplish this for the energency cooling systems: (a) how many independent decay heat removal systems will there be; (b) dat will be the alternate sources of power for recirculating pumps; (c) what location and design will the connecting lines have to prevent the same slippage froms incapacitating all (in particular, are there independent connections to the vessel itself in case the primary steam nossles should be aheared?); (d) what tiene factors of protection will aech system provide?
4.
From abocks, precursor tremors, or after shocks, attendant to a
- 2. foot slippge, if control rods should be jasuned, (a) dat sumiliary means of reactor shutdoun will there be!;(b) dat are alternative power sources and access lines to the reactor for this system?
i I
.a V
2 II. Aemeurtless
( feet of horisontal slippage and up te.1% feet of vertical slippage.
In conso w e: (a) reactor building will be dassged and contaissment may be partially imparted; (b) primary steam 11 ass' will be sheared outside of the risetor buildirg; (c) outside power lines are sheared; (d) same stressing and damage inside the building will occur.
It still must be shoum: (a) that the reacter can be shutdown; (b) i that sufficient power and water searcos will femacties to pedvoet decay heat meltdown.
1.
Is there certainty that the reacter comid still be sheedown by the normal or by the alternative eyetess? What are the arrangsmasats (pumps, power sources, connecting lines) which give confidence in this?
2.
How extensive will be the dange to the building? h t components within the building could be inactivated? (to answer, since slippage may occur 1
with any orientation, assues the orientation giving the highest vulnerability of vital coerponents).
3.
How and where are auxiliary power sources and connecting lines arranged to insure that emergency cooling systems will operate after ey foot sli,,sge.
4.
What is the Lacetion, arrangement of connecting lines (ineleding ceanections to the vessel) of alternative emergeoey cooling systmas drich will insure sufficient cooling to prevent decay heat meltdount h e time f
l schedules of protective coverge are providedt l
'3 L III.
If, despite preparations and expectations, sufficient damage does oecer to inactivate aestgency cooling systems and core esitdoun is inesimaata Can any heroic "last ditch" measure be taken such as pusping s.-
1 in sufficient water to fill the building and the excavation above core level?
Bow mock time seuld be required" What equipment and ceanections?
1
{
Feasibility?
)
b.
If major fractions of fission geoes are released into the contaissent structure, there is the probles of leakage from a building which may
- be damaged, or of pressure builday from decay heat. Ukat simple "last ditch" maaeure can be taken to "wesh dous" and de-irressurise the containment buildies? What equipment and connections would be requiredt
~
What is the feasibility and likelihood of success under catastrophic accident conditions?
or.
..-wa l'NITED STATES CC RNMENT
. Memorandum To
- Joe Fouchard, Jews Service Branch oxrt: September 21, 1964 Div,ision,of Public,Information, HQ u-idoJkwuk R'odney L. Southwick, Assistant to the I' ROM Manager for Public Information, SAN SUIy ECT: CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ACTION PI:RLS Attached is a story from the Santa Rosa Press Democrat of September 20, 1964, noting that the California Assembly Conraittee on Rules has set November 13, 1964, for public hearing on matters related to nuclear power reactors.
The first paragraph refers solely to the PC&E Bodega Head reactor which is the subject of two resolutions adopted in the preceding year--one (H.R. 585) by Assemblyman Alquist of San Jose calling for a study of the matter and report to the Assembly by the fifth legislative day of 1965; the other (H.R. 373) by Assemblyman Burton (now Congressman from San Francisco) called for a Department of l
Health study of the reactor and proposed location.
Both refer to potential hazards due to location near San Andreas fault.
1 It is possible that a third resolution referred to the Rules Cocunittee will also come up -- one (H.R. 22, 1964) by Assemblyman Stevens to consider the proposed Malibu reactor site in view of its location "100 feet f rom a major f ault".
Stevens' resolution suggests that because of general fault areas in California this is a matter of concern to the whole State because of atomic energy's promise and potential hazards.
Stevens notes the Malibu reactor "has capacity beyond any now in operation".
There also is a resolution in Coamiittee by Assemblyman Tom Waite, former Atomics International employee, for an investigation of needs for developing nuclear energy in California.
It has been hoped
$1,000 (correct) might be made available for such a study.
As discussed with you and Bob Lowenstein today, it would be advisable to see Assemblyman Bane, who announced the hearing, to furnish him a full information kit on AEC's Regulatory program, safety programs, etc., so that he will understand the AEC role in relation to reactor safety.
In this, Gene Blanc, California Atomic Energy Coordinator, concurs wholeheartedly.
Blanc was advised by the Rules Committee staff the Bodega issue only would come up.
Apparently, however, Bane has
. L. f.; r
,. 9.. 6.. : A.h l W '
,y 3%
$ 2 [>
~
&709Z7kW
a.
e
~
A k
u September 21, 1964 Joe Fouchard.
~
The best way of learning what may be. expected is to different ideas.
see.the man.
Any discussions with him, or members of his staff, or other Committee members, if Bane suggests such a course, would be limited strictly to The merits of individual. cases, critics or proponents procedures.-
shall be absolutely avoided.
- Attachiuent:
Clip, as stated.
1 Harold Price, REG, HQ, w/ attach.
cc:
Robert Lowenstein, REG, HQ, w/ attach.
Richard L. Doan, REG, HQ, w/ attach.
R. W. Smith, Comp 1.
V., SAN, w/ attach.
/
m' a,, i. w a :. ~ p. a'
.,...ta.,,
x.
l i~
1' s
4 1
l l
l
)
1 i
- - - - - - ~ < - - ~ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 C. ' N < ~.* < -.. -
.,w
(
4)
I 4
i
..u 4as'E.c..e Bogeg A Plani Heannq Set By
' Assembly Unit so,<..i e. n.
- m. w w.,
SACRAMENTO - The A s-i sembly Rules Committee hs e scheduled a hearing in Sacra-mento Nov.13 on the Pacitic Gzs and Electric Co. pro;msed I nuclear power plant on Bodega Hesd Assemt,:s man Tom Eane. G San Fernando, said it c com-mittee will irsestigate nm.1 for
?>ssib e c'.a g e 11 la Aivr as peace time industrial tiret
.of atomie encr;y are deuhped o:.f
_..'t.
3
j MEMO ROUTE SLIP see me acout inia.
r., c oncur,er.
r., action.
PbrIll A EC-03 (Rev. May 14 lH7)
Note and return.
For signature. * '
For information.
(Narre a..d unit)
IMTIALS REMARKS Clifford K. Beck
'Phe question of how tolandle this matter vill be Marvin M. Mann Christopher L. Hendet9'In dincunned at the next ntnfT maeting _.
T> particularly Richard L. Iban as to what our ansvers should be if' Bane asks TO (Name and upst)
/
INTIALS REMARKS whether the AEC would agree to furnish a witness p
\\pl 7
f 4
3 g(f ', ()
at his hearings to describe AEC regulatory o^TE C
x, s
i nrocedures.
TO (Na%e and unit)
IMTIALS REMARKS
/
/
OATE
/
/
FROM (Name and umt)
REM ARKS R. Lowenstein CNE EO.7 0110/2/64 DATC U'4E OTHIh SIDE FOR ACDificuL REMARKS 37C eb) 16 7%4.1 i
l 1
- - _ - _ _ _ _ - ' - " ' ' - ' - - " ~ ~ - - - -, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
f s
O..m
~
y
(
(
3
~
~,..
ET o
~ ~ ~
.!.. l< 0*< $A4<.?,1/u
- * ~
PG6E Expert s /a r
stroube gives no inuin, a wh t ch'nees he refem to. we 1,etter Disputed must rely on the company's EDITOR: How can we trust sworn test:meny. that is, the anything said by representa.
exclusion area at the Bodega tives of Pacific Gas and Elec.
Head plant fif constructed) is tdc Co.?
expected to be apprortmately In his letter in your cokamn Sept. 3, Hal Stroube-2:'S acres. und a perind of of PG&E's stomic information akut five years of operation specialist, disparaged sworn
. Is expected to be required be-testimony of the etunpanfa ex.
fore the public would be al.
perts regarding the proposed lowed access to the area.
atomic plant on f$odegs } lead I
j He leads us to believe one of Truly J feel Mr. Stroube has comnut:ed disservice to his two things:
under.,
1-Testimony given e mpany and his co-workers cath by PG&E representatives by attempting to discredit tes.
at Public Utilities hearings in timony PG&E experts gave 1962 is not reliable, or under oath, 2-Mr. Stroube is not now Opponents to construction of giving correct data-Since your paper and other ge tomic plant at Bodega northern California p a p e r s Eay ha\\e enntendM Sat carried no record of p E nwer should have have changes in requirements by p;anned construction 1 M thu the Atomic Energy Commis, p; ant, anc Mr. Stroube con-sion relative to exclusion area firms tha: we've been right or length of time required be-a along. If plans M 1962 fore free access will be per.
been advanced consider-
' mitted to the area surrounding naf}.in be past two 3 ears, the pir.nt. And since Mr. g one wonders what thes might be in 1966
!! is interestmg U.a: he ad-mi"eo adsance, in the pan two ) ears. Smee the compam-expected the plant to be undeh construction and nearly com-p;eted by now. What if opp Dents had not b(en at!e to de.
lay construction? Would the company have proceeded with mcompiete and faultv plans?
M* sinube contirmA lhat they wou!d have done w MARION RtlEBEL Bodega Bay asa,=
t v-
_ f h L ys *3 % "-
)
A PG&E Repo>rt on
>m Bodega He.ad,
~
)
The Pacific Gas e.v' '
Mlectric Company told the.
.\\ tomic Enert;., commis h sion yesterday that t he 't
, proposed nucle.u-powei ert
-pla n t at Ibd. ga Head muld wit h s i a n d earth-quake forces "f ar greater
! than eser recorded in Cali-
' fornia.
The PG1E hlef the state-ment in reply to an AEC let-l ter of August 26 asking for i further details on how "cer-tain vita! cquipment" and pipes would hold up under earthquake conditions.
S p o k e s m e n for PG&E,
- ; which maintains its poweri plant would be safe at Bode i ca ifcad esen though the site'.
Li en ihn San indreas fault.
ant ther h":,c1 the AEC would nuld ine I;nel puth nearings on the controversial
. ola n t sometime in Decem; ber The AEC s.ud PG&E's statement would be escluat-ed by the Amisory Commit-tee on Itcactor Safeguards before any further action is; taken.
l I
J J
_____-__--____-_____-_a
e-e.
U s.,,
7,*,
f FOh IMMEDiATE liMLFASE l
l l
I" kch JihiG AMU MOHK
- ObMGA LATA
' Pacific Cas anu Electric Company has advicea the Atomic Energ:' Cor-mission that substantial safet:, margins included in the desigt: of vital equip-for the bodega 'ny atomic power plant assure it will withstand earthquake
-ment activity as great as postuiutec cy the AEC in a recent series of questions directed to the Company.
"ne AEC, in a letter isst month, inquired about PG&E's design con-ciderations for certain plar.t equipment and structures.
In its letter the AEC ot.tlined hypothetical earthquake forces at Bodega Head far greater than e cer recorded in California and askec ?S&E to show how its plant design could accom-mcdate them.
PG&E. in its reply to the AEC today, explained its design criteria, stating that chey " antair. substantial margins of safety against failare, and provide for containter t and safe plant shutdown in the event of earthquakes" as large as those th eretical-y posed cy the AEC in its letter.
~~.e AEC ir. qui:, van * :.e latest of several ir, which it has asked FG&E r
i to elaborate on various aspects of the proposed safety design of the Sodega Iny atomic plant.
In this manner the AEC secures from a utility, prior to public hearings, the ietailed :.nfo: nation required for full consideration of the Cnm-pany's application Isr a pe: it to cuild a nue_ % r-fueled power plant.
i b) - 2I4 -b,
0-a sv F-~.
4 s
\\,
[,
ie/
-t 9
29 A mt.u nt.Y,f st;k'al, j
e'di Tr.Jin,i Code.
O D.
8
. f't:ts't,2. 22till l. hint 22]M.) in the Unternmentfederal ahl a: e. survivorw and. dis-
- .1 d s.o in ihr p:. rt ic i p.it i< enpt.. gram by memlier., hf the State Teachers' Itetire.
J.,
... r.. iwr elr4 ley llo. ut-dor of Iln. Spealsr pro Tetitpfere.
sn s
A"PNNTMF NT OF COMMITTEE ON ENGROSSMENT AND M "'.
i i rlo '.if p[\\ #.
Speaker l'nruh had '
)
)
ENROLLMENT
\\
,,._4 % g_
llec ~ nntonsured thitt C
S peal.e r }.ro Tenipore
('hairen.nt ), Her, nint Unruh as the mem.
..ppointeil Mewro l'nu ers (bers of the Standing ('ntutnittee no Kngrowment ntnl Enrollenent.
hD-C
^ v LA r
RESOLUTIONS i
- t The following resolution was offered ;
.I'(U h c c
by.\\-,emhlvman Stevens :
House Resolution No. 22 llelative in locating'n nucionr renctoc nt.\\f alifeu ref Wnter nnd Power han propn ed
\\E t.
R
- (qyvd Will:l'!!A A The 1.o* Aiuele Tiepar t ment l t of n enpacity
% l.
o un b. the 5f abbn ne ca nf n nuctenr pou rred grueranne p an en,w m operatinn ; nnd i
caman..it s urcanintions, base rspec>ned the itew that such n pinnt wnuWill !
bc3 n:rl i bn..f an.
ld not he k
0,,J k
Stalibu n ren ; and the residential recreational charncter of theced at the propn=ed site would be within 100 in !.cepbu with Will:h'l:AS. Such n cractor if pla ar reological fault; and not only the fullent and most
.t to the an f luit they funy develnp
~ \\ $-
t h qs Wili:lti:A i A proposal of fl ts nature requiveuperple fers..( n un
> : ial v. but a full disclosure j t nnd
(
'paa.-r L a:nf.emc.. annonne in rcepcct to the desirability of anch prn ec s ;Wlil::si:Ar. The uan n new j
an that the **ucern of the Q
'A 4
ggY which habis hath prntnite
- e ie r. far sarinus sites throughant the Sta te,
.hn.a..nm..n t l rly in view of the many arean i
...H n the llahbu area is widely shared. part cu a to n4 nu ar none schmic f ault. now, therefore, he bly Itules it P.,..ti r.1 her II e.t urmMy of the State of Californht. That the Anem ttca far atudy the j
o.
Namd rea b <tirected to nsed n to an npprnpriate interim canum Slalibu neen.
Ah e c pourred generntine etant in theto repart its findued and reennnnendatinns
..f it.e incation of a nucient f ihr ruc. Itrentar sc sinn g
-nhje. i m.: 1..
- t. ipure such interim conunitten.. it-i e..tuure not later than the rif th caten.ar da, o 1.d a n. re.
g
- M t g
lic,. aion read, and referred by the Speaker pro Tempore to the of tim k { ""
3
(,nounmee on Rules.
(4 INTRODUCTION. FIRST READING, AND REFERENCE
^^
OF ASSEMBLY DILLS (RESUMED) r eine bills were introdneed. ntal read the Orst t me:
C ~m d i
Hy Assemblyman T.~
/. :'
Arcmbly Constitutional Amendment No. 2: State of California h
i;.t."- A cesnhttinn to propose to the propic of t eby amending Section l
- u. :ne.. m%nt to the Constitution of the State, p
Ar 4 [V. relating to the ennsent calendar.
dM by the order of the Speaker pro Tempore.
~e in add
(
f 1:....
Assembly Bill No. 42: By hemblyman Hane-An act Phr.pirr O (commencing with Section 9430) to Part 1 of Div s onk M _ Q.mt, j
ii 2
d Title 2 nf the Government Code, relating to the consent calendar, mhl at desk by the order of the Speaker pro Tempore.
W m.
i i
--~, _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,__