ML20235D198
Text
_ _ -.
/
./'
s :.
y--
7
-s UNITED STATES GOV. 4 MENT 2demorandum To Files DATA: - October Ib,1963
.FROM Edson
. Case tant Director for F es Licensing, DL&R SUBJEcr:
CONFERENCE REPORT OF MEETINGS ON BODEGA 9/17/63 The attached conference report was prepared for meetings held in Bethesda on the morning and aftemoon of September 17, 1963.
1 i
8709250154 851217 FOIA PDR FIRESTOBS-665 PDR
- 4. g
?
- ?
Atttndu2; U. s. Geological Survay
[
(
ACRS A. Clebach f
R. H. Wilcox, Staff 0.G.C.
Regulation G. F. Badlock
'C. K. Beck
- P.G.&E.
g DIAR D. V. Kelly
- F. F. Mautz*
R. Iowenstein W. H. Nuttigg*
E. G. Case P. A. Crane R. H. Bryan F. N. Watson P.G.&E. Consultant J. F. Newell G. W. Housner, California Institute DIAR Consultants of Technology
- I N. M. Newmark,' University of Illinois G.E.
F. Neimmnn, Consultant R. A. Williamson, Holmes & Narver D. McDaniel, R. Iemon*
G. E. Consultant Mr. Sexton, John A. Blume Associates *
- PM session only.
9l7f 3 A f.'. ' /JC.
g 4 R go ppg,2 E. C CA sc, bca R s
1 l
)
1 e
I 4
u a1 f\\
~
(
AM Session (DL&R & Consultants _)
Mr. Case opened the morning session and asked Mr. Clebsch to report the information from the site.
Mr.ClebschstatedthatMr.Schlockerhadcalledhimon9/13toreportobserva-Three tions in the excavation, which vss now down to minus 20 ft. in part.
tty busy.
shift a day excavatin8 was keeping the on-site geologists pre I
These are on the faults have been observed in the excavation.
southwest side, 69 ft. south of the east-west centerline, near the excavation Two smn11 These are perimeter, and extendieg from elevation minus 11 to minus 20 ft.e of 700 to the ver vertical displacements, steeply dipping at an inches. The faults intersect One fault has an offset of one foot, the other at elevation minus 16 ft.
They may be due to The importance of these faults has not yet been evaluated.In order to get a better compaction, but they certainly are displacements.look at these fa minus 20-25 ft. to get the direction of the trend and a vertical trench around Mr. Tocher is nominally the perimeter to get attitude and better exposures.
He is working in charge of the geological work and has seen these faults.
quite closely with USGS people at the site.
The excavation is still 20-25 ft. above bedrock, and Cl fault, still a one foot displacement is quite significant.
The age of the sediments has been established as grea Thus, it could have slipped at any time from yesterday to 50 million years ago, so far as present information can tell, and 1906 cannot be ruled age.
out.
If there is no fault in the bedrock, it probably could be compa is open to argument.
fault, then there definitely is minor faulting through the site.
Dr. Newmark stated that a one foot displacement might not be crucial in a box-For any anticipated displacements over a fev inches, however, He knew of no buildings which type structure.
account vould have to be made in the design.
bridge a fault, however, Mr. Williamson mentioned the Taylor vinery, forI which some such experience is available.
that you cannot predict the ma6nitude of a future slip from the earlier one f Dr. Newmark noted that this showed planes of weakness, and that a 10-15 ft. slip along a main fault could cause movement of a foot or so on near-figure.
Since San Andreas earthquake epicenters tend t,o be 15-20 ml]es underground, the effect on such a minor fault vould not be much different by faults.
whether the epicenter was at Bodega or several miles away.
i
/
l
(
t
~
Mr. Case next began a discussion of seismic design by simmrizing discussions the staff had with Dr. Neenn regarding speculation upon expected movements He believed that the maximum earthquake at Bodega based upon past history.
the San Andreas fault was typical of what might occur at Bodega, and along that this was intensity X, experienced in the 1906 earthquake. Based on measured ground intensities of lovter intensity earthquakes, and extrapolating on a 2 to 1 basis for each numerical increase in intensity (VI to VII, etc. ),
one vould get lg for intensity X, and 4-5g for XII-XIII. Everyone agrees that this is too high, however, thus it is not 2 to 1 for the higher intensities, but instead follows a curved line, which, as Neumann vould draw it, would shov However, if one looks at the spread in the data at 0.66g for intensity X.
intensity VI, and extrapolates the upper bound of this spread, one then gets more like lg for intensity X.
Alsc, the 1936 earthquake released its energy If a for a long period of time, but saller earthquakes have been shorter.
short-duration (blast) earthquake occurred of 1906 severity, then the accelera-tion might vell be as high as lg.
Thus the maximum average acc.eleration for Bodega might be 0.66g, but lg is more of an upper limit.
Dr. Ne - nn generally agreed with this, but indicated that he was just not sure whether or not it was possible for a great earthquake to be of the " shock" type.
Mr. Case then asked Dr. Newmark whether Housner's response spectrum design as he (Newmark) would modify it provided adequate design margins for such higher ground accelerations of short duration.
Dr. Newmark indicated that there vould be little change in his d. raft report of The maximum ground accel-last June (copies distributed etc Chicago meeting).
eration provides the intercept at zero period on the response spectrum curve, but this is not too significant. Newmark expressed concern over the teay the applicant had drawn his curves at this end of the cpectrum, arvi preferred to He indicated that many important structures vould have.these see a log plot.He was afraid that seismographs have not picked up high frequency low periods.
vibrations from earthquakes due to their location on alluvium and insensitivity of the instruments, but he has observed them in nuclear blasts and believes that they vill occur on rock. He thus vould extend the peak of the spectrum curve horinenta.Uy to the zero period intercept.
Dr. Newmark would draw the spectrum by taking records of a large number of He was not earthquakes and drawing his curve just below the highest bumps.
too concerned about an additional fr.ctor of 2 in the size of the earthquake until he got a better definition of vbat vould be used for a damping factor.
Dr. Newmark thus indicated that the applicant should define a spectrum and These could then be examined for the effect of higher ground damping factors.
Here structures would not be of great concern since there would be motion.
yielding and therefore damping. Components which fail beyond the elastic range vould need a careful look. Components can and have been designed for Where analysic indicates high g forces, e.g., ships and nuclear submarines.
problems, it is possible to do such thir,gs as spring-mount equipment.
. ?
f l
,j*
~
(
/
-h-l u
I Dr.Bryanstatedthatwitha2/3gdesignforstructures,onecouldbesure that there was reserve strength. He asked whether it was also suitable to merelysaythatacomponentmustworkat2/3s(thusmightnotat.68g).
Dr.
Newmark would say, arbitrarily, to make it capable of withstanding twice this much. He was not completely convinced of the need for 18 design, and noted that this could be made up for with appropriate damping factors. He indicated that no damping factor greater than.02 should be used for equipment.
Dis-placements within components must also be analyzed, ard these are not sensitive I
to damping, There was further discussion of the effect of the displacement through the
'sito itself.
Dr. Newmark thought that it might be possible tr.J.lesign so that, after the earthquake, the plant would be impossible to run, Nt it could be ca).'c. He felt that there was a possibility that the design could provide for the displacements and that the containment could stay intact and maintain a specified leakage rate. On displacements, Newmark indicated that there vould be a six inch relative movement over a 100 ft, distance as the wave itself passes through. Thus, this is a minimum which must be accommodated, and 2-3 ft. would be desirable.
Mr. Case noted that P.G.&E. has agreed to instan double steam line valves, independent of earthquake problems.
L There vara some discussion of the damping curve in Amendment 4, but no one was sure what it applied to.
j There was mention of another report by Mr. St -Amands, which,Dr. Eeumann said he did not have too much disagreement with.
M:ntioned as potential critical components were the bottom entry control rod drives and the drywell lid.
Mr. Williamson pointed out that some people use a static snalysis for structures having periods less than 0.1 seconds.
Dr. Newmark said that, if so, they should not use the ground acceleration, but twice this value.
As an alternative for the applicant, Newmark suggested that he be required to put four strong motion earthquakes, normalized to.66g, on an analeg and check all components. He doubted that the applicant vould choose this approach.
Dr. Newmark also noted that some conservatism existed in that a large structure does affect the local ground conditions and lescens the local accele mtion pattern to some degree.
There was then considerable discussion <>f what to tell Housner & PG&E.
It was generally agreed to s' tick to 0.66g with safety factors and lg with no safety factor, but no impairment of safety function.
Mr. Williamson pointed to a similarity with the Japanese, who use 2/3g for structures and 15 tires tnis for components.
The meeting recessed at 11:50 AM and resumed at 1:20 PM.
k e
?
~.
(
l
-5 PM Session (with P.G.&E., et all)
Mr. Case stated that DIAR has had discussions with its consultants and then asked Mr. Neimnn to state his results concerning the maximum credible earth-quake.
Dr. Neumann described the correlation which he has developed between intensity
- and magnitude of California earthquakes.
Lowest intensities have been observed on granitic outcrops; highest on alluvium. We do not know the magnitude of the 1906 earthquake, hence must extrapolate from lesser shocks. The Coast and Geodetic Survey has called the 1906 quake intensity XI.
Nettmann vould regard this as being the value for alluvium, therefore, and would assign an intensity of X as a minimum value on rock. Another method he has applied, making use of intensity in " basement rock", confirms this value.
Dr. Neumann mentioned the possibility of a close-in earthquake of the shock wave type. He noted that rocks were reportedly thrown up from the ground during the Assam, India, earthquake. In 1906, a girl was thrown down two times and one fellow thinks he saw an elevated water tank go off the ground, then come down and collapse. From this, Net-nn has tentatively selected 1.2g for intensity XII.
Dr. Housner pointed out and Dr. Netmann agreed that all larger values are on alluvium.
Dr. Neumann thus indicated he would get a.66g for intensity X.
But, he also said that data was lacking at high intensities, and that he didn't know whether a
there could be a shock wave type of earthquake. With this type and its epicenter at Bodega Head, he didn't know whether it could get to a g.
In India, there was a lg vertical acceleration, and horizontal is ordinarily higher. 'lhus,
Neu=e.nn vould recd from his curves.66g and lg as an upper limit. He also stated that he didn't really know whether it would be X or XI.
Mr. Mautz criticized intensity reports as being emotional, but Dr. Net e nn stated that they were a way to get a great many measurements in a crude kind of way.
4 He pointed to good correlation of intensity vs. magnitude time and again.
Dr.
Housner quoted the definition of intensity X, including cracked ground, etc.,
as being not too indicative of acceleration.
Dr. Neinann admitted that the scale was weakest in describing the high ranges, and agreed it should be revised.
There was mention of a seismologist named Hershberger who thought that intensity and magnitude couldn't be correlated, but Neurann criticized him as a pessimist l
vhom he (Eeumann)never did agree with. Neumann also pointed out that emotions don't play the part,'in higher intensity earthquakes that they do in smauer ones.
l Dr. Housner asked whether Dr. Netunn's report would disagree with the use of
.66g and yield point stresses, at which point Mr. Case suggested a discussion of damping factors.
Dr. Newmark stated his difference of opinion with the applicant's curves on the low period (high frequency) end, and his need to know the damping factors..Dr.'Housner shoved' copies of a "Loblav plot" which would be used in design.
a u,
l Doctors Newmark and Housner then discussed the high frequency problem with no general agreement on how accurate instruments are to pick this up.
For the reactor building, Housner stated that it could be considered a concrete block on rock sitting 50-80% in alluvium. Dampingvillbe8-10%basedonthe It could otherwise be considered from the standpoint of earth building alone.
fixed, but in this case accelerations are smaller. The damping curve in Amendment l+ vas to apply only to this building, but can now be thrown out.
For FG&E-specified equipment (not GE equipment), Housner stated that a damping factor of p of 1% vill be used unless they are able to justify something else. In cases which are troublesome, they thus vould take a closer look.
This will be independent of frequency.
Dr. Housner described the method to be used in determining the excitation of equipment part way up in the building. There was considerable discussion of relative oscillations and how to design for this.
p Dr. Newmark remarked that, from a preliminary look at Housner's new curve, he felt much happier about the proposal.
Dr. Housner stated that he still felt that the design should be against a 1906 carthquake. Ground shaking close to a fault has not proven to be particularly violent, e.g., there are unreinforced brick chimneys that didn't come down.
His information on the 1906 quake vould indicate.33g and intensity VIII or I
less at Bodega.
Dr. Newmark noted that velocities vary roughly as acceleration, and that twice El Centro would indicate.66g as conservative, but that there is a finite possibility of greater peaks. Housner didn't think that high acceler-ation spikes vould effect velocity much, and repeated that he didn't think.66g could be exceeded at this site. He described several earthquakes to try to support this stand.
Mr. Case noted that Housner, in a paper of his ovn, had indicated that acceler-ations could be 2-3 times.33g, but Housner said this was a few miles from the surface trace on deep alluvium. Based on historical earthquakes, Housner vould still select.33g which takes no credit for less shaking very near the fault.
He said there is no evidence that a big earthquake could occur in a single ju=p, but he doesn't claim infallibility. He vould agree that.66g with yield point stresses would be reasonable, however.
There was some more discussion of reported incidents in California, but no Mr. Newell general agreement on what highest accelerations m16ht have been.
pointed out that wave's may combine in resonance in some places and be out of phase at others, thus chimneys not falling down may not be too significant..
Housner characterized an earthquake ss thunder from a vide source with myriads of waves.
l L
.3 e
O j
l
l l
,. Mr. Iemon next discussed what would be done regarding 2 components. These are being designed with Housner's recommendations. E has employed John A. Blume Associates of San Francisco as consultants on earthquake design.
Mr. Sexton of this Company indicated that most G components were lov in the building and therefore would see mostly ground acceleration. He described the analysis which was underway on the pressure vessel and control rod drives. Most vill figure in the elastic range at.66g, but he vould want to be able to go beyond yield at more than.6Cg as long as function was not impaired. E had planned to demonstrate through test that rod drives would function at.66g.
It is possible to test to Ig, but Iemon would not commit G to do this.
'McDaniel thought that there was probably no problem in going to Ig.
Dr. Bryan raised the question of items such as seals, electrical and electro-mechanical control system components. Lemon said these must work at.66g.
He stated that lots of the equipment is already designed at.33g.
2 vill re-aximine and test for.66g.
A preliminary look indicates that there is no yielding at.66.
Dr. Newmark asked that this be extended to lg with no hazard to the public. Lemon indicated control rod operation and safety pumps, but DIAR added the containment system and core spray, solenoid valve operation and valve seating as items that this should apply to.
...__m..
Dr. Housner said that beyond.66g they could go to 2%
J damping, so that there would be no problem stressvise and that deflections would,therefore,be the problem.
Dr. Bryan pointed to possible sloshing of water in the suppression pool uncovering the nozzles.
Dr. Beck summrized that it was not their intention to come to a quantitative answer at this time, but this was the first opportunity for the AEC consultants to come in, and that these infomal discussions were, therefore, in order. He summarized by stating that:
1.
Dr. Neumnnn's drafts include the suggestion that there may be evidences of historical ground motion in previous earthquakes larger than those which have occurred in California, and for which this plant is designed.
l 2.
Dr. Newmark's concern over dacping factors and the lov end of the i
response curve. He noted that agreement may have been reached on this.
J l
3 The need for providing, on equipment items, a margin as agreed to i
on structures, to insure continued operability. PG&E asked if lg would do it, l
to which Dr.' Inch replied that he vould be satisfied, but vould not want to j
impose it necessarily,.
l Dr. Housner indicated that his design curve is based on analog computer calcula-tions and a 1952 report.
Dr. Inck adjourned the meeting and said that they would be in further touch with PG&E after further discussions among themselves.
4 3_.
6 I
l
}
l i
I i
j MEMO ROUTE SLI
.- -_' Sa rae =6eut inis.
O j onn Arc.na (n. u.r u,P
_i w oe. a,,,,,n.
rorcon) m I
O$
i
\\,a unst)
.c f
i i ror actio
)mmas t
r
~
l rehard, DP [ M(
R ro,,,,,,,n.
t nnusus or.wns
, no,,
Attached is release from No. Calif. Assn Pro
. to om
~ Ma71 Tie M
- Prtco, 0, R<
~
\\
~
. i unet)
L; ~ / otn, R
~
mmu.s uuxus t
EG, BQ s
err
/C'~
KEG HQ e
e a-.~.
j/j
,po wnus
^
umanns ith, Corspl.1.
om
~
j
,i.
r
/
r-d unit) agu4ags ion hvick the r, for
]
Info tion,_S_AN
~
g10/9/64 t
d e-a su 70,cogy,,,,,
d
- e6) u.na,.3
- L-6 4
],,. rL. ~1 i
l q~ p{
'.. W( * %
(.,,
1 NORTHEpN CAL'FO be 2820 Telegraph AvenueNE BODE.D IATION
& - WS HE D AND HARBOR RELF'ASF : For Berkeley 5'.,
. ornia Se
> October 37, -
(Area Code :
1el:
- 5) 845-2077 or GROUP TO Cc,LE3347:' CNc"-
041-6399 YEAB Ergy ^.,,,3C E A ncisco (october 11)..yext weekend
^
vil1 ~ art-1ite of racific c a one year ha1+"
ao and Electric C ~,Pany," frcposed B d a
natruction "Ahe reactor a#
~
~
3Elon was fin hhed o", oc.ob ear Pover
..as ! et,.3 er 17th 1903 S
v e'evented gT L o
c z,r~a7g7 'OC ission, further buildin8, aw itin~
e then the a
o a construction 4' iC(.*nce fro'm Yorthern '^u-lifornia Acsociati
.cnic a t on to PT*U*rVe Eode
~
E*0- 00 Saturday, Octob H rbor vill al " Empty gole In The Head Day "
esa Bay t"-
elebrate the i
-.... roc, u e,u Entertal*~ent viil,
w c the controversy in tha dings of bodegg'
.-act year,
,ne^,
~
.ing Lu Watters' can A.1dre33 Shde> " a.nd the GoodTIEe Wahb pt--
' - Es t se 3.,. gndreas' Fault),"
oard "3'3" " Don't A
3 Pear:er r - "
^'
.- -_r dothering v m p-y
.. voe, o
.,,. : t u i y"
- h. d pet"*'
eE n
' ire c tc' "~~
.M'in 'ounty, whosa
-~
+
n"., 23A-3
.De "PG/j' p
. +
q.w' " eaker; v11, f nc., u z,e rogress, Tha c~~r
- ned u~"~eur geolc6i.
~ *atters
"-w"._
" ",,, " '.ruite t o r.
4 gv, and Dat.m Sponsoring ye Picnic
- - eacnec, nx L., Ve Secre tg.. y C '- -
- nvited
+'o attend and enjoy..gg ePort On the 3 remain er.h atest encourag<ng a,n.,*loF ento f 3 enery,
. Which "1.,>
c-enjcyed stiff OPP sition %
"^
- Test three yg
.Q Kn 1 6 5a:;
a, h :4u u u.t-ly
1
..,5
- s 5** =* =6aut ta88.
For coaev a
For cetica.
MEMO ROUTE SLIP w_
y' i 7..,2 4xc a ca... w., u, iun wot..no r. torn.
r,.i n.g_or
,t
[TO (Name.nd it)
IMITIALS REMARKS cswa s p,,y, Ec(v 4 u h a 3 w
D
\\
a#
TO (Name.nd unit)
MTIALS REMARKS M (',
v
];)
,y ny
.M" Jx
\\
u s
i 4,
\\
(
gg TO
_..n.._,
R__
c.
M.
b I.
y
,.O w < ~ _..n..,
R_.
p.. m m..
_ fI /
&Il
/0 L USE OTHER SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL REMARKS u, & covutNast -( PflfMTTNG OFTICE 1 57+22007
- E Y0 me
-S E
l 4
4
}
-t
l 10/11/63 2:45 p.:
f.
Mr.. Kosh, FE 8-3444 called -
construction He is. interested in obtaining copies of the/ permit that the Commission granted to Con. Edison and any formal Commission opinion and decision or statement that was issued in connection-with that permit, and any formal action that would be available re Ravenswood.
He is calling the Public Doc. Rm., but wants someone to call him to talk to him on this subject.
Audrey J,
I,/-
.&s
,.(
y p/, e, w t, v,,.>
f c"P p' p '[
,;c g
/
e
/
i L/
\\
p m J / x-, / - a f,> d s. /x u
. z. x /
3..a,,.as /
r..: /.~as,/ s /;
o 1 n
.A/
.y se
,-. v s A c yu - w.4 / x..a px 2
- 4. /
A te~ if / a 4 c.L,,/ e r ta
- v... /, ~ PM' y
s / tl,a 4 f //,//h / '/...,/
. -a<
,i-~~yi ka/Lw p
y i. / n A G.a d '... - ~L ' -
~
~
-i
'{
-