ML19210D980

Informs of Results of Review of Volcanologic Portion of Safety Repts Performed in Response to Ctr for Development Policy 791024 Request.Volcanic Hazard Guideline Established Before Estimation of Site Volcanic Risk

ML19210D980
Person / Time
Site:	05000574
Issue date:	10/24/1979
From:	Newhall C DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, HANOVER, NH
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7911290119
Download: ML19210D980 (3)

Text

-

NRC hEBLIC i)()qUM)MT ROOLI

h. . e t Dartmouth College HANOVER . NEW HAMPSHIRE 03735 JMW W W'1 Depannent ofEuth Sciences . m. (603) 646-1373 D

DOCKET NUMBER

\c.aI I 90%

EXPORT.lMPORT. .]. [$$W_ NF

- . . f f I c

@% October 24, 1979 us eeifo ,

i k.c.i i & ,

~ N Chairman Joseph M. Hendrie

{ %w Noy l4 /97gy .

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission %m,, % /J/

Was..nington, DC  %% -

9

Dear Chairman Hendrie:

atQ I am a Ph.D. candidate in geology (volcanology) and have had the opportunity to review the volcanologic portion of the safety reports relating to the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant

1. 1. The original recuest for this review was from the Center fo Development Policy (letter attached) , but three considera-tions have brought me to write to you directly rather than provide my review to the Center for Development Policy, namely:

1. I believe there is a critical need for development of volcanic hazard guidelines analogous to the seismic ha::ard guidelines, before we can begin to properly evaluate volcanic risk of a specific site.

2. There are substantial scientific shortcomings in the volcanologic reports for PNPPil, which as a scientist I have a moral obligaticn to call to your attention.

p

3. I work part-time for the U.S. Geological Survey (on general volcanic problems, not on the specific case of nuclear power plant siting). In view of your formal working agreements with the U.S.G.S., I feel it would be inappropriate for me to participate through any public interest group.

As a concerned volcanologist, I am anxious to assist in bringing us to a batter understanding of volcanic risks for both the specific Philippine site and for any sites in volcanic terrain.

In the first instance I would like to share with you my review of the volcanologic portion of the PNPPiil safety documents; the establishment of general guidelines will clearly recuire the concerted and coordinated efforts of a number of volcanologists and engineers, but I would be pleased to assist that process in any way that I can.

I look forward to hearing from you.

1434 199 Sincerely yours, D' N :.!/I Christopher Newhall Graduate Student Enclosure 7911290 ifs

og onnarg

• N' W 5%.N. , Dartmouth College HANOVER NEW HA.'.tPSHIRE\$03755 U U k k ?

.U.^:1

,mh,,)

'% Depitment ofEarth Sciences 'Tn. (603) 646-1373 October 24, 1979

1. $[$E Y Fe. Lindsay Mattison * --

Center for Development Policy hl 225 4th Street, NE ~,, OV 14137'0# -IF Washington, DC 20002 g 3g0 wm },j ,

Dear Mr. Mattison:

g ,g ta Thank you for your call of September 20 and for the opportunity to examine the volcanologic portions of the PSAR and other documents relating to the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant #1. As I indicated to you over the phone, I am familiar with Philippine volcanic terrain and am very

, interested in the Mt. Natib case, in the general case of nuclear plant siting in volcanic terrain and in the value of suca studies in the understanding of volcanic hazards in general. However, because I work part-time for the U.S.

Geological Survey and because they already have an excellent formal working agreement with the N.R.C. for evaluating geologic hazards, it 1ould be inappropriate for me to provide the review which you requested.

This is, as'you know, one of the few proposed or estab- .

lished nuclear sites in the world which lie on a recently-active volcano. >With rapidly growing populations and/or power needs in many volcanic areas of the world (most notably but not restricted to the circum-Pacific, Caribbean and Mefiterranean areas), I think it is unlikely that this will be the last such proposal. The questions of volcanic risk at such sites are critical, tough questions; some important advances are being made in the field of volcanic hazard assessment, but much remains to be done. I believe that the best approach to these questions is to encourage the N. R.C. to initiate the process at once to establish volcanic guidelines analogous to the seismic guidelines.

Before the seismic guidelines were established, geologists found it virtually impossible to agree on what constituted an " active" fault and how much risk each fault presented; now I am sure that similar disagreements will arise with respect to " active" volcanoes, and there will be many other questions of how to quantify or otherwise evaluate specific risks. The worst volcanic disasters in recorded history have been truly devastating, and the recent geologic record contains evidence of eruptions (eg. Toba, Sumatra) as much as 2 orders of magnitude (100 times) larger than the big Krakatau eruption. The questions boil down to the prchabilities Ik)

Mr. Lindsay Mattison page 2 24 October 1979 of specific kinds of activity, what engineering measure can protect against the milder volcanic hazards, and what hazards are essentially beyond the engineers' art.

I strongly hope that the N.R.C. will address these general questions before it attempts to evaluate the specific questions of the Philippine site. For the immediate purpose of the preliminary hearings on the Philippine site, I am enclosing the names and phone numbers of several volcanologists who might be able to help you. I have not discussed this matter with any of the people on the list.

Sincerely yours, Christopher Newhall Graduate Student Enclosure CN/gm ,

)434 201

.