ML20118D251
| ML20118D251 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bodega Bay |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1964 |
| From: | Beck C US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210120037 | |
| Download: ML20118D251 (3) | |
Text
_-
'4 V
y m eem.
w UNITED STATES GOWeNMENT
_f.
e Memorandum e
1 j
1/
DATs: February 7,--1964-To Filer
] yd)[Thl(Y s
Clifford K. h,' De(puty Director rnou of Regulatiod
/
CONFERENCE ON BODEGA W1TE SCHIDCKER AND BON 11,IA
. sengcT:
JANCARY 31, 1964 60"2Y At the close of an extended meeting on Jaausry L30 tis between represents tives-- of the Regulatory Staf f, ACRS, Coast and Geodetic 5
Survey, Geolugical Survey and PG&E, during which the geology of-the Bodega plant site was extensively _ discussed, Mr. Schlocker 1
made it known that he had "three pages of questions" which had..
not bean discussed (though he admitted that many questions on his list may have bean discussed, he had not checked, and much opportunity for discussion had been given).- Plans were therefore a
immediately made for the writer to meet with Schlocker and Bonilla' on the following day to go over the questions which remained un-discussed, and, if necessary, to -arrange another subserjnnt meeting with PG&E to discuss any significant issues.
Accordingly, on Jau. 31, the writ.er, Mr. Case, Mr. T.adlock of the AEC Ptaf f met.with Schlocker and Bonilla. A sut: nary of our discussion follows:
1.
Schlocker expressed extensive embarrassment and apologized ler.ath for having acted "scupidly" and caused himself, his chief, at and the Regulatory Staff much embarrassent on the preceding _ day.
He was further embarrassed at having to report that his extensive
)
"three page list" of undiscussed questiona was, he discovered _-on examination, fully oiscussed during the preceding day except for some minor and inconsequential points.
2.
Schlocker, however, had had it brought to his attention by Mr. Anderson that his position on the probability of surface ruptures on Bodega Heri in ca:,e _ of-another 1906 earthquakt., as-expressed both in oral discussion and-ir. his written report, had-been misunderstood. His real position, he stated, was '"the probability of surface ruptures on Bodega in case of _ snother 1906 earthquake is very low, but he thought people should know that thers never-theless is a possibility that one might occur."
i Schlocker stated that his conclusion in the written report that a surface rupture on Bodega "would"_ occur did not represent his true opinion; he thought "oce might possibly occur"; further, i
9210120037 920520 PDR ORG NRCHIST PDR
~ - -.
i 2-Feb. 7, 1964 Memo to Files Schlocker stated his opinion that the probability of a movement along the " shaft fault" was considerably lower still.
The " shaft fault" would be no more likely to move in any future earthquake than any one of many others on Bodega Head. Upon questioning, Schiccker stated that if one hundred 1906 type earthquakes should occur, perhaps one or a "few" might cause surface ruptures on Bodega; would not agree that one rupture would appear in ten earthquakes (didn't want to be pinned down).
Bonilla believes the probability is lower than Schlocker does.
3.
Bonilla believes that the location of surface breai within the San Andreas fault in case of another major earthquake would probably be close to the 1906 break.
Schlocker also thinks this is probable, but he believes it is possible that the break might appear at some other location.
4.
Schlocker belicies that movement along any f ault on Bodega in a new earthqaake xs quite likely to be less tnan an inen in magnitude but also oelieves ' hat in one hundred or so 1906 type quakes there might be a movement of some magnitude somewhere along Bodega's fault lines"...
"a foot or so".
5.
Bonilla believes that the 1906 subsidiary ground motions at Inverness and probably Wittenburg occurred along previously established fault lines and that evioence of similar existing fault lines on Bodega i
has not been found.
Schlocker believes that detailed examination of Bodega for 1906 surface fault has not been made (by Geologic Survey); believes any moticas at Bodega in 1906 would now be obliterated by the passege of tbme; believes topography and aerial photographs do not show features on Bodega similar to those observed-at Pt. Reyes.
6.
Schlocker, on several minor peints, believes; Marliane photographs of the sediment fault were chosen to a.
minbmize the ragnitude of the f ault.
b.
Tocher's " breaking wave horn of clay" indicating sliding motion along layers in the sediment could be interpreted quite dif ferently, though he sees no real significance either way, h
At " marker 39" Tocher indicates more significance to the c.
" discontinuity in the f ault" than Schlocker thinks is justified, d.
Schlocker does not agree with Tocher on the significance of "monoclinel foldirg" in the se6Leent layers adjacent to the fault location;
)
thinks the two may be a coincidence, Schlocker indicated he did not want to "think he was being a
e.
unobjective" but did admit some-emotional irvolvement with the differences in viewpoints between himself and Tocher and stated that he does f1nd some satisfaction in PG&E's present inclination to agree with him that the fault in the shcf t is tectonic in origin.
1 1
Memo to Flies 7.
Schlocker believes that he and bonilla aert." caught unprepared" with a good explanation for the absence of a fault in the sediment at the northeast edge of the pit. hhlocker does not now fully agree with Anderson that, af ter the clay sediments at that location were very old, they would not absorb a ground motion without retaining traces of that motion.
Schlocker thinks the clay, even af ter being old, might have absorbed a deformation without retaining a trace. He tainks thac the absence of a fcult at one or two other places may be similarly explained. Nevertne-lese, Schlocker now concedes that he is fully convinced that the weight of evidence clearly shows that the sediment fault is very old. Schlocker claims considerable aperience with the coloring of miocrsis in sediments and admits that movement "of even less than an inch" ia the sediments along the fault lines, as judged from the color bands, has not occurred vithin 500 or 1,000 years at least.
8.
Schlocker restated his belief that the observed oediment faults were caused in a single event. - Otherwise, there would be more branching, parallel lines of break, and other irregularities than now appear.
9.
Schlocker and Bonilla both insisted that none of these points were of sufficient significance to justify any further meeting with the PG6E geologists.
copies to:
HL Pri.ce (
MM Mann C.Henderson R. Lowenstein p
E.G. Case G. 1. Hadlock i
y
.... _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _