ML19260E170

Discusses Review of Volcanologic Portion of Safety Repts. Critical Need for Development of Volcanic Hazard Guidelines Analogous to Seismic Hazard guidelines.791024 Ltr to Ctr for Development Policy Encl

ML19260E170
Person / Time
Site:	05000574
Issue date:	10/24/1979
From:	Newhall C DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, HANOVER, NH
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19260E172	List: ML19260E170 ML19260E173 ML19260E177
References
NUDOCS 8002130590
Download: ML19260E170 (3)

Text

b hb QM Dartrnouth College HANOVER NEW HAMPSHIRE 03753 D

4 Depanment ofEanis Sciences m. (603) 646-1373 October 24, 1979 Chairman Joseph M. Hendrie United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC

Dear Chairman Hendrie:

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 Plar.t

1. 1. The original request for this review was from the Center for Cevelopment Policy (letter attached), but three considera-tions have brought me to write to you directly rather than provife my review to the Center for Development Policy, nc.mel,.

1. I believe there is a critical need for development of volcanic hazard guidelines analogous to the seismic ha:nrd 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 PNPP#1, which as a scientist I have a moral obligation to call to your attention.

3. I work part-time for the U.S. Geological Survey (r general volcanic problems, not on the specific case of nuc.sar power plant siting) . In view of your formal working agreementz 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 better understanding of volcanic risks for both the si ccific Philippine site and for any sites in volcanic terrair In the first instance I would like to share with you my review of the volcanologic portion of the PNPP#1 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.

Sincere 1y yours,

{l iY:h

= Christopher Newhall Graduate Student Enclosure 80021ao _

5 10

g g _ ___ __

N y nd' rm Dartmouth ColleSe sanovna saw saurssias oi753 q.,g@?'N Y Depanment ofEanh Sciences ~ m. (603) 646-1373 Ni"Y October 24, 1979 Mr. Lindsay Mattison Center for Development Policy 225 4 th Street , NE Washington, DC 20002

Dear Mr. Mattison:

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 such 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 would 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 Mediterranean 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 chan the big Krakatau eruption. The questions boil down to the probabilities

% $L.

Mr. Lindsay Mattison page 2 24 October 1979 of specific kinds of activity, what engineering measure can protect against the milder volcanic hazards, and whar hazards are essentially beyond *he 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/qm