ML20234C804
Text
.
)
/
.ra f
A.
.p
.. y
- d
,f gr Rof '.
PRANK N E U M A'N N "
4 s4 s ronry-nnn AveMug N.E.
g SEATTLE, WASH 98108 PE
)' ))
July 20, 1963.
f 1
j g
Dr. Robert H. Bryan, F
7.
a Division of Licensing and Regulation, U. S. Atomic Energy Chamission, Washington 25, D.C.
[
Dear Dr. Bryan There is furnished herewith a revised version of ths= seis-a mological report on the proposed Bodega Head nuclear power plant. It in-j oludes modifications made in Chicago on the first six or seven pages of the text, a complete revision of the last half of the report because of new findings in the magnitude-intensity relationship, and1 sew illustra-tions. I am also suggesting adding the resultant horisontal motion graphs for El Centro to the report. The new magnitudo-intensity relaticoship j
seems sufficient in itself to establish W -10 as the minimun intansity at the epicenter of the 1906 shocks the basement. rock attenuation graphs pro-i vide the same answer through an entirely different technique.
l I am hoping this will expedite completion of a final report -4thout s
my waiting for your comments on the last part of the original report 1
^
which you had, planned to disouns in Chicago. I shall be har.7y to comply W
with any further modifications ' suggested by your group either by mail or
']
in another conference.
]
~
i I am planning now to send you sono comments on the Housner talks 1n Chicagos it was thought best to get my own report in order first. It may be that some of the Housner ideas should be taken care of by insert-ing additional material in this report.
4 The current report contains a memorandum concerning unfinished 11-l l
lustrations and other items.
l
'l Sincerely yours, MN
%=-r~
~
Frank Neumann.
4 m
l
' //
l!
s 1
%ilh,,)
OE " %.i N2 19ew O 6
'44 j 0
N l
. c.
1 r....,r;pb.gh
'i
.g 8709210420 851217 g:#o.W PDR FOIA FIRESTOBS-665 PDR.'
i 5157 a
- )
- .(...
u..
a
- ~ >.
> ~.. - -.
=
(.- gg
.g.-
T
(;,
M@EO.
Na L
$ r-l p1 Tils CoPT[45d-/*72/.8x 9 /u /c,s ci SEISMOLOGICAL ARAIJSIS OF BOIEGA BEAD, CALIF 2NIA.
- * ' -h -Q. j y.
(~ We u n.a - os Introduction. This report has been prepared at the request of.the Division of Licensing and Regulation of h Atomic Energy Commission. Its purpose is to:
analyze the seianology of Bodega Head, California the site of a nuclear power plant proposed by h Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to evaluate the==v4==
earthquake likely to be experienced a't the site and to es'timate from available seismic data h ground motions associated with such an earthquake.
Bodega Head is a peninsula extending from h California coast approximately 50 miles northwesterly of San Francisco. The head is adjacent to the San Andreas
. Fault.
'\\
=
The San Andreas Fault. h rim of the Pacific Ocean is h world's most active seismic belt. One of the principal features of this belt is W San Andreas Fault, one of the earth's greatest active faults. The general trend of the fault is shown by the broken line in Fig.1. The, maps are taken frca reference I
(2) and show all important shocks in the California-Western Nevada area. At h northern end the fault extends along the ocean floor to a zone off Cape Mendocino.
It enters. California near Point Arena and passes southeastward past Bodega Head to a point just off Golden Gate. It then crosses h coast again in San Mateo County and continues southward as shown into the San Bernardino Mountains. South '
of here there is some doubt as to whether the observed faults are geologically extensions of the San Andreas but the seismicity of Imperial County and Lower California leaves little doubt about the continued movement of deep crustal rocks in that area.
Beismic activity may be expected to continue ets in the past. The exset pattern of earthquake frequency along the fault, if one exists, will probably take several centuries of observations to reveal. However, according to available historical-data p, ;
h.'d L
m
=
=
.~.--. - -.
b 2
I 9
. (150 years) a great shock has occurred along the San Andreas Fault approximately every 70 yeags. The expectation of continued occurrence of major shocks is supported from tr4-n1= tion surveys which indicate very clearly that in certain areas the terrain on the southwest side'_of the fault is moving northwestward with' respect to the norhast side at the rate of about 2 inches per year (f).
In the epicentral area of the 1906 shock the stress induced by this gradual strain was relieved by an abrupt displacement along the fault of about'15 feet in rock and about 20 feet in unconsolidated deposits ( ).
More detailed historical data as ahown in Tables I and 8 indicate that numerous strong shocks originated along the San Andreas Fault in the past 150 Y.
years. Moreover, reports of the U.S.. Coast and Geodetic Survey (6) show that einee its canvassing program was inaugurated in the early thirties the number of weak-shocks in the Bodega Bead orest are comparable with those reported from other areas.
A perusal of these data shows that in.all areas the San Andreas is currently a very active fault. We can conclude on the basis'of the seismic history of the
)
entire area that numerous lesser shocks will occur in the area in the next 100
)
t years and that it is likely that one or more shocks of damaging intensity may occur in that period. Sooner or later Bodega Head will be subjected to a damag-l ing shock.
~
Nature of earthquake intensity and intensity distribution. In the early thirties the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, the official earthquake investigation agency of the federal government, inaugurated a program of recording strong earth-quake motions on specially designed seismographs and collecting descriptive informa-C tion on earthquake effects in all areas shaken by earthquakes (6). The data were collected primarily to relate earthquake intensities to specific ground motions, and to provide the earthquake engineer with ground motion data from which he could 1
l
(.
3
()
estimate earthquake stresses in structures. Fifteen of the destructive earthquakes listed in Tab 4es I and II have been registered on strong motion s6ismographs-(See Table III)} Four of them represent shocks originating along the San Andreas
~
Fault.
The intensity at any point within a shaken area is a rating based on non-j professional observatichs of the general effects of ground vibrations on people i
and on inaniruste objects such as buildings, utility poles, trees, etc. The Modified Mercalli Earthquake Intensity Scale (V), the scale used in the United States, describes 12 grades of intensity using criteria of this kind.' 'The Coast and Geodetic Survey correlates descriptive information collected on questinm% cards and assigns the MM (Modified Mercalli) values for each localityi For California earth-qeiakes these intensity values are reviewed and confirmed by seismologists at the University of California (Berkeley) and at the California Institute of Technology
.+.
(Pasadena) before being published (6).
Earthquake intensity does not decrease uniformly as the epicentral distance increases but varies greatly depending on local geological conditions. Structures built on deep alluvium are shaken much more than those built vbere rock is close to the surface. Fig. 2 shows the intensity distribution chart for the eartMuake of April 13, 1949 in Puget Sound which provides an ideal region for such studies because all types of geological conditions are represented there. The figure shows that over the greater part of a ahakan area the intensity at any given epteentral dis-tance can differ between four and five intensity grades because of local geological conditions. This variation in intensity would be roughly equivalent to a 15 fold variation in ground motion.
In Fig. 2 the minimum intensity reported for a particular epicentral distance is considered 'to reflect basement rock conditions so that the lower curve on the chart may be interpreted as indicating the attenuation of intensity on basement rock A
.d.
a
s g
for this shock. If the curve is drawn on semi-log paper, as 'shown in the lower portion of Fig. 2, it becomes a right line showing that the attenuation rate is
+ - -
exponential in. character. Further information on basement rock intensity attenua-tion graphs will be found in reference (8).
In Fig. 3 are shown the basement rock attamustion graphs for the Imperial Valley earthquake of May 18,1940 and the Kern County earthquake of July 21, 1952 These graphs differ in slope from the Puget Sound graph, primarily due.to differ-ences in focal depth, but it is also apparent that the great mass of sedimentary rock that underlies the Central Valley of California constitutes a secondary basement rock feature that changes the pattern of basement rock graphs in that area.
The plotted points shew that out to 100 miles. this sedimentary rock layer evidently serves as a minimum intensity basement; beyond that the minianm intensities are uniformly one grade of intensity lower due to the absence of the sedimentary base-ment. The lower values beyond 100 miles represent a so-called granitic basement' (asinPugetSound). It will be shown later how the granitic basement graph can be tied in empirically with the (Richter) magnitude of an earthquake. Further study shows that while intensity attenuation in California is complicated by the presence of two types of basement it is clear that the sedimentary basement always produces a minimum intensity that is close to one grade higher than found in granitic base -
ment areas. (Iater discussion of instrumental data vill reveal that this means close to a doubling of the motion on the sedimentary basement.)
l The validity of this concept of basement rock intensity distribution is, in the Puget Sound area, substantiated by the fact that the circular character of basement rock intensity attenuation affords a new means of locating earthquake epicenters and these epicenters agree very well with instrumental epicenters (h).
Usually intensities en various kinds of overburden are substantially greater than on basement rock. Occasionally in limited areas observed surface intensities will
(
.]:.'l i;
I
.g-n,.~,,,,..n
-.~~.---..:.
--n n.::y.:.4 r. : i= :=~ m:., =: a,... -.,,r W W M = $
1, 1
(,
Y 5
( )
drop below the values expected for basement rock presumably because of localized structural variations in the basement rock. Such variations have been found.in
~
comprehensive, studies of microseise propagation (
) but do not vitiate the validity of t25e over-all basement rock attenuation concept.
In the paragraphs to follow this concept of basement rock intensity attenuation j
together with several other concepts and empirical relationships will be used to evaluate the maximum. intensity developed in the epicentral area of the 1906 earth-quake which is generally agreed to have reached a Richter magnitude of 8.2 and is quoted by the Coast and Geodetic Survey as having attained a, maximum W intensity -
of 11(l),
Earthquake magnitude and intensity.--Because of the vide publicity given the seismographic records of the 1906 earthquake the determination of the Richter -
magnitude is believed to be especially good. The observations of intensity were-not so satisfactory primarily because the Rossi-Forel intensity scale in use at that time did not provide intensity criteria that were adequate for present-day studies. Because it is highly desirable to correlate the 1906 magnitude with intensity as defined by the Modified Marcalli Intensity Scale of 1931 a summary is presented in Fig. 4 of results obtained from a study of the magnitude and intensity data published by the Coast and Geodetic Survey for California earth-quakes ( ).
Fig. 4 summarizes the results obtained from approximately 150 shocks of intensity M-5 and over. The vide range of magnitudes associated with each grade of intensity is an outstanding feature, yet there is a consistency about -
the correlation pattern that provides valuable information when properly inter-preted. Considering the facts of intensity attenuation revealed in Fig. 2 and many similar' studies, the fact that magnitude represents the amount of energy released at the focal point of a shock, and the fact that the granitic or
. da v
mg......m.%-.,
a m
.w
-4,
.7,..
-,,..., e 6 / -- y,
mm _ 4.p., %,
%.....,r..~,..-,..m.---
. J.
,m.
....-~L-....
.. Q ; w..
4 s'
l l
(L
~
1J 6
1
. sedimentary character of the basement rock'in inmediate epicentral' areas controls
- the observed intensities in those areas, there are no explanations for the wide I
range of. co1%1stion values observed other than those susmarized briefly in Fig. 4.-
l It is quite logical to assume that a given M intensity in an epicentral area may.
be the result of either a deep, high magnitude shock in a granitic basement area, or a shallow, low magnitude shock in a sedimentary basement area. Between these extremes there could be innumerable combinations yielding intermediate results.
Fig. 4 shows a remarkable consistency in the correlation between the minimum magnitudes reported for intensity grades 5'through 11. 'rhis probably results from -
'1 i
the greater number of shocks occurring in and near the southern Central Valley area where the massive basement of sedimentary rock is an outstanding feature of regional ~'
crustal structure. The other extreme of the correlation pattern, line a-b, is not
.j so well defined because of the infrequency of strong shocks (in recent years) in
~1 areas where so-called granitic basement rock. dominates and generally yields analler intensities for an earthquake of given magnitude. 'this is the situation in the Bodega Head area and the entire epicentral area.of the 1906 shock.
The writer's analysis of the El Centro record of-1940 is used to obtain an additional point on the line a-b which establishes the correlation between magni-tude and intensity in granitic basement areas. To obtain the marimas granitic basement intensity in Imperial?.Yalley in 1940 one could, in Fig. 3, simply anchor one end of the granitic basement attenuation graph (A-B) on the intensity data at 100 miles epicentral distance and draw a line parallel to other basement rock graphs for California. Atthecritical3-mileepicentraldistance(whichmarks the limit of increasing intensities) the intensity is M-7 8.
If one' accepts -
the granitic basement intensity of M-7 2 deduced for El Centro in the accelero-gram analysis in the top portion of Fig. 3, this also reduces to a granitic basement rock intensity of M-7 8 at the 3-mile limit. In other words there is strong justification for correlating the deduced maximum granitic basement intensity of l
g.
3
('.
. :.- z -.
~
s
(..
.)
(
7 MM-768 with the published Richter magnitude of 71. This is indicated in Figure 4 by a circled,X and the numeral 1.
It establishes line a-b as a legitimate graph v
for extending' tbe magnitude-intcusity correlation for granitic basement conditions into the higher ranges of magnitude and intensity.
esm%
Intensity in epiettitetral area of the 1906 earthquake.--Seismological evidence indicates that the entire San Francisco Bay area, including adjacent coastal areas,.
is in the granitic basement category. Having established a correlation between magnitude and granitic basement intensities.in the preceding paragraph and in Fig. 4 (line a-b) it is seen that if this graph is extended to' magnitude 8.2--
the well established magnitude of the 1906 shock--the corresponding intensity vin be W-lo. This would be the minimum epicentral intensity to be expected in
=
a similar shock in this general area, including Bodega Bay.
If in Fig. ', intensity slo is combined with the limiting epicentral distance 3
cf three miles it provides an anchor point for a granitic basement attenuation graph which can be drawn paranel to the other graphs. in the same figure. This will be very close to the sedimentary basement graph for the 1952 shock which is based on field data (fres questionnaf M cards) the same as the graph for the 1940 shock. Further justification for the 1906 graph is found in the fact that in San Francisco, 40 miles away, H. O. Wood ( ) found the minin== intensity to be equivalent to a low E7 which fits the deduced basement rock attenuation graph at that distance very well.
In summar$, all the evidence available from basement rock attenuation studies, and from a rather convincing correlation pattern between magnitude and intensity, points to %10 as being the epicentral intensity experienced in the 1906 earth-S quake. The historical evidence available frareference (%)--that some frame build-ings collapsed--does not contradict the criteria for MM-10 which state in part " severe i
S.
s' o
it
~
(
8
( )
- (damage) to well built wooden structures and bridges, some destroyed." Pages 190-3 3
g 195 of refer,ance (k) should be read to obtain a complete account of the violence
- N k of the groundinovements in the epicentral area.
In some areas all dairymen and y#
the cows they were tending were thrown to the ground. Intensities of this order WY l
S j vere not reported from anywhere in the 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake area where,
- V4 db at El Centro, the strongest ground motion ever registered on a seismograph was pYk obtained. The estimated intensity at El Centro was KA-8 3 v
Earthquake intensity and related ground motion.--The warimum vibrational acceler-ation registered on a seismograph is sometimes used as a measure of earthquake intensity even though without the pertinent periods stated this is technically inadequate. Fortunately the range of significant periods is limited so that u
m acceleration can be accepted in a restricted as a measure of intensity. Fig. 5 3
shows the very wide range of accelerations obtained for earthquakes of different intensity and type. The one outstanding feature of the various intensity-acceleration graphs is that for earthquakes of the same type the acceleration I
increases exponentially with respect to intensity. For each increase of one grade of intensity (up to MM-8) the acceleration is approximately doubled.
~
Beyond MM-8 no instrumental records are avai3able and the relationship between intensity and acceleration is subject to some conjecture.
As shown in Fig. 5 the records of strong seismic ground vibration can be l
divided into four types: (1) a close-up shock wave type of very short duration--
perhaps only a few seconds; (2) a type of th= aging earthquake motion most fre-quently registered on strc,ng motion seismographs and considered best adapted to i
engineering studies; (3) a type representing the average accelerations obtained for the various grades of intensity, and fintilly, (4) a type of elongated record obtained in the marginal areas of strong shocks. For engineering purposes the shock-wave type might best be considered a special case to be given consideration k,
h 9
U only after the more probable types of damaging earthquake motions have been studied. Ftp. 5 shows the intensities and accelerations associated with some of the more important earthquake motions registered on Coast and Geodetic Survey seismographs, the sources of the data being listed in the insert. It is the average intensity-acceleration relationship associated with these shocks tha't will be given primary consideration.
9 If the intensity-acceleration relationship established by line RB in Fig. 5 is extended beyond NK-8 it becomes apparent that the acceleration would reach 4 l
or 5g in an E 12 earthquake. Nothing in seismological litO ature would support such a conclusion. The evidence seems to be widely. accepted that accelerations I
' exceeding 1.0g have been noted by reliable observers, especially in the case of the g;reat Assam earthquake of 1897 This shock was felt nearly 2} times as far as the 1906 California shock and its magnitude is estimated to have been 8 7 I(5).
It is rated an MM-12 shock.
R. D. Oldham, Head of the Geological Survey of India, reported that vertical accelerations exceeded gravity because boulders were lifted 1
out of the ground without cutting the edges of their former seats and eyewitnesses reported seeing pebbles bouncing on the ground like peas on as drum head (5). In view of the apparent validity of such phenomena it would be reasonable to con-clude that seismic ace &lerations of relatively low frequency can reach values between 1.0 and 2.0g.
With this in mind the writer has changed the extrapolated portion of the graph in Fig. 5 from (a) to (b) which represents a change in the common ratio of the geometric progression from 2 0 to 1.0, to 15 to 1.0.
The l.
resulting acceleration for an MM-12 shock is about 15g. This would make the acceleration for NN-10 (estimated for the 1906 shock) about 0.6g. This represents l
a minimum estimate. If the uncertainties involved in this extrapolation are con-1 i
sidered, also'possible deviations from the mean relationship, which are so apparent I
e
4
=_u.
,C 10
(,)
.j
. in the data shown in Fig. 5, a possible maximum of 1.0g for an MM-10 shock would 1
not be unregaonable.
i Tb obtaiis a better understanding of the relationship between earthquake inten-i sity and related ground motion it must be realized that the duration of a disturbance plays an important role in governing intensity evaluations. This explains'why the accelerations assigned to a given intensity, in Fig. 5, cover such a wide range of values. A given intensity may be obtained by a ground vibration having high
~i 4
['
acceleration and short duration, from a ground vibration of average acceleration'and average duration, or from a ground vibration of low accelera$ ion and long duration.
While ground acceleration has been used in the preceding paragraphs to define the violence or magnitude of a ground vibration, acceleration alone as previously
. stated, is not sufficient to adequately define a vibration. It is known, however, that maximum accelerations are limited to a rather narrow band of ground wavec periods centering around 0 5 see. for average type' earthquakes. They may be as low as.25 second for nearby shocks or as high as l.00 sec. for distant shocks.
The earthquake engineer must know not only the accelerations associated with the various intensities but also the periods associated with them. Moreover, the ground wave of maximma acceleration is not necessarily the most damaging wave; much depends on the natural frequency of the structure shaken.
]
Fig. 6 gives a more comprehensive picture of the periods and amplitudes of l
the ground motions related to the various grades of intensity. Fig. 5 shows for instance, the maximum acceleration to expect for NM-6 in a shock-wave type of earthquake; Fig. 6 shows the range of Periods that might be asp.ociated with such an acceleration under varying circumstances such as focal death and local geo-logical conditions.
The diagbnal coordinates enable one to read off the corresponding vibrational 1
velocities and displacements associated with any combination of accelerations and 3-p 4
?
.x ~
.:.:-a..
.=
. a :.
.. s t
l
{~
n.
U periods. Fig. 6 reveals the tremendous ranges of periods and amplitudes' associated q
W vith various. type earthquakes exhibiting the characteristics of E 6.
To reduce v-such data to a working formula all the seismologist can do is select the type of earthquake most pertinent to the engineering problem and then select average values within that category. Because the velocity function for all intents and I
purposes serves as a yardstick for measuring relative accelerations and at the same time serves as a measure of the potential energy of earthquake waves of all frequencies it is fundamentally a more realistic measure of earthquake intensity
/.
j than acceleration. It is seen in Fig. 6 why E6 is assigned a vibrational velocity 1
of45cm/sec. The velocities associated with other intensities are indicated by
.the Roman numerals on the right-hand side of the illustration.
A simpler picture of the periods and amplitudes < involved in a damaging earth-i quake motion is obtained by referring to the period-amplitude graph of the El Centro ground motion which is also shown in Fig. 6.
S e graph is based on period-
)
amplitude readings made from the original accelerograph record and from velocity and displacement curves computed from the accelerograph record by methods of
~
integration. As the displacement curve was computed before evidence of a permanent displacement at El Centro uns revealed through tri=T = tion re-surveys the first 1
motion was interpreted as an approximately 4-second period wave, This is only partially true even though the permament displacement appears to have progressed i
w in a sinusoidal pattern. As practically the entire gnait of expectable earthquake periods was registered at El Centro this graph serves as an envelope to uover a wide variety of records of engineering interest many of which include only a limited range of periods. The writer has concluded from research on this and l
other strong motion records, and from a consideration of what actually. occurred
.i' in El Centro at the time of the 19% earthquake, that the intensity associated with this period--amplitude graph was 10(-8 3 as shown by the Roman numerals on the right side of Fig. 6.
ty, 2
3 3
35 a
O
a e
(s 12
()
In describing earthquake motions seismologists usually refer to that component of an instrumental record which shows the greatest amplitudes.
+
Maximum resultant motions are seldom used because it is a laborious proced-ure to combino components especially for high frequency wavens also, where integration is invo)ved in the analytical process some error is introduced in the selection of axis positions, a procedure that corresponds to determ-ining constants of integration. Fig. 7 shows the resultant accelerations, velocities and displacements determined by the writer (d) from the El Centro record of 1940 without taking into consideration the subse.quent finding ths6t a permanent displacement had occurred. Aside from showing titis displacement
~
during the first few seconds of motion Fig. 7 provides a fair picture of how resultant amplitudes compare with those of individual components. For true
=
i maximtan motions it is obvious that some' increase over recorded==4==
should be provided for, but ordinarily an increase of 10 or 20 per cent over maximum component values should suffice. Earthquake motions are so multi-directional that ourvilinear rather than linear motions dominate the picture as seen in Fig. 7.
Shock wave motions could provide an exooption to this rule. Ordin-arily this factor should be adequately taken care of it one tends to over-I estimate rather than underestimate some of the other uncertain factors asso-
- f ciated with seismio force problems.
l l
,.m.
?
r>.
i 1R t.)
v 9
patimate of maximum ground motions to expect from a 1906 type earthquake in the Bodega. Head area.--Not knowing what ground periods.would be dominant'in
~
such a shock t.he logical procedure would be to' assume an'El Centro type of m
motion which includes all expectable periods.- If M(-10 is to be attained with a maximum acceleration of.6 g, previously suggested as a possibility, it would 1'
mean that the amplitudes (acceleration, velocity and displacement) indicated ~in the Fig. 6 El Centro graph would need to be virtually doubled. This is con-sidered a minimum estimate. If HM-10 were to be associated with a maximum acceleration of 10 g the El Centro amplitudes shown in Figd.would need to be virtually tripled. This is considered to be a mav4== estimate of expectable
' ground motions that might result from another 1906 type earthquake and takes into consideration the possibility of a shock vave type of disturbance involving
=
higher accelerations than normally expected.
While there can be no guarantee that an earthquake greater than the 1906 shock will not occur in the Bodega Head area the history of earthquakes in active seismic areas leads one to believe that this is not likely. Some seismic aneas of the world are noted for shocks of great magnitude; some for shocks of lesser
\\
magnitude, and so on. Theoretical considerations lead one to believe that if 1
certain tectonic processes are underway in the deep crustal rocks of the earth, in a given region, these processes will be repeated over very long periods of time--perhaps many centuries--before the pattern changes. One would therefore expect the same order of stresses to be developed and ultimately relieved by the same type of earthquake mechanism accompanied by the same order of earthquake energy' release.
l 2
I
!l
- E e
fjh
~ - ' tr ~rrr Tr
- c ~~-:-- - e
'"'r*
-~
y CSavenstr - --.
1 > L,. i'_%,.<* ..J. g..L Vs%__*i L.'s G-M.a,*ig*; ;
io..,
Am*
__nn i.,.,*
.s,,
., g<...m
- gm.9 &,
_.<-y.., Q
.N-.
s.,~,,,,,%,.
,,.f,, --w.g. g,.-
,.y,-
.....s s-A*w w-.
g 9E:n " ***-
+1 :D **
/.*--
^
y, mn 1
-m a-
.~
s F#0Mt
- /
.DATE OF DOCUMENT:
DATE RECEIVED NOJ SA 0e% tebert 1 WA./ 7 8 43 7.W3 3337 I
b Santa desa, California 6T R.
inEMot -
AEPORTs OTHER:
g I
I Q R 4Q.3 CC; CTHER:
President Kenne@ (Lirweted to TR for Z
keto E
TION NECESSARY CONCURRENCE DATE ANSWERED:
NO ACTtON NECESSARY O
co""t"7 O
e vi CLA8 S4F,e POST OFFICE DLE CODE
_n DESCRIPTION: (Must Se Unclassified)
'EtL90(
era.No
' REF{3Jbtd~
DATE
\\ RECEIVED sy DATE 3Ar. opposing Bodega Bay' roaster propomd W FC&E.
C. Edwards 7-31 J
w/. SUPPL. TILE c P'3R AC T N 1
_ ENCLOSURE 8s 5 RA uss'5B 1
J v
M. Prime L31
~
1r/l Artra fbr ;Lafo R. Iowenstein 7.11 w/l Extra for ;Lafe m.
L Price 7-31 u/1Extrafor.Lafe i
REMARK $a 1
')
~
h il Roam Distribution 1 to formal f Lle As_
h4 8d8 m
~
1 to ABC PD Acm 1 to 24N (Seathmiak) en, v
- 41
.. ~
- " * ~ " = = = = = = =
h mm mzan c msnmn MAIL CONTROL FORM romu uc.ames g. f.._.. _ -
,,_m..,
(8-60}
a-
~~ y.ffa.;.-m ::-.-.,,.
L. u& ~:- ^ T~ L ~
--a: T..; i~ :
L'~~. r
. ~..L.'~E' ym,i.,..,... u--hD~L.t:; :;rL.W..,,:.m %...e w. s..G;.b.vJ.MM;..c.s%. w.c' s c-
.u
+5.....-
-26,5.v.%n:.;.,=a-ew 2+>_.9 ' :
..,p =.p.. w y w.7. -.:.,; 3..,A wn..,.m,.=. n,.T
.%.s.;;w a mW
.r.7; -. - - t..
x _
m p:,,.--.,.__
. w..,.
. w..-
...<,e.y,,,,.-
...q
.m.
2 g
..:.-~
g y -.:._.-.. ;
-..,.y 3. p y.. :
2.
. :.- ; ; S.
-2.. -
- _-.n...
y._.,.
s
.. J-L%g.:.
l
_-'~~.(.,,
- 7. ~ -.,w.
r---
.a 3
- w,. _
,Z g 'N;--
- ftw'm-ex.,r,'.. a-. +. -.'. v-_,,."
A 1
..a C:.
.e
,.,-- / w
~D..* $. d i','*2.,[ m{,
,u
,,a l
- n., m.., - - w a
.+
,... a _... '. "$. z : **_e% C.-.y. '",",p m.w.,.~,
,,s 7
,w
.W..=e*,
..,="n,g i*p"'*T""*"gW jA.f.., ~ W f, e.7~' - ' % e "j ';c ~
., y.
-* ?C t
-h....j r
..c,
- : na :.? r
.L
.c..- :- 'r, y'_*: ~..M.dg,,- ~.7 w.
c-g.-; y.~
.,.,,c.,
....,.,,...~......
.a.i.r r.# ~~
. g, ~.m ; ~-
t,.~ %~..r.e ;,, e - c.. N;.,c..
.g.~
- -. n.f m
...%_;--.x.
. -., ^
,,..e,-*7
?
-;'6
.a.
men
- e w.
ak
- f'
.g
,w am.
g g4
(.,..,
s py..
. ~
fe
...,-'*[
.v.
/.*
%~~
"M
- '[2, M '- :..' -* -.,.
- 8.,
... =
t.
s 1.w*."
E ensa.. E es., %s>
..ee v l
- ,w
"'4 s
6 G.e
)
o y
..u,_
E i
E m
.__._________________.__ij
..I
. o.r g -
(, ) *.
7 y
r-(
0FFICE be THE CHAIRMAN @ lile 90PX -86[
j 1[ LT W
e (Date)
TO:
i i
i For Information j
i
/N I
q For appropriate handling
?
l For preparation of reply for Chairman?s signature (Refer to Manual Chapter 0240)
For discussion at Commissioners' Information l
~
s.
Meeting 1
".~.':...-.,.a..
J w.
J e
-u.,._
., 1 For distribution to other Commissioners
.c -
4 s_
- i 2
-r
^,
- 3.. 1.... A,.__ J7.. !
Daily Log l
)
i T. :..:
L.-...........
,. R. :. :
Q (n
. 3..
.. ~ ~:
REMARKS:
O 1
l.,.l u l.: n' : 3 E y_.s. 3 :
.C
' N-v -S (EfMnM*M3%~csMs;::n' &.':-
-55
^ c.5 d-UJ L
( ')
.. 2..* ;f ' : r +...
g 4
g gM. 3 01963u
. s
.v. _. a
4 Cy
'T"ct rg;; *, *
.... -. _ = -.e..
- ..
- .m-
- -C
. t
-f aJ:E4.
...M. !
/
%g,
. :L.~.. -R:}T -5.. ^- 55-f;Y,.A&.k. !'?@
3,
%.. e,w, v
i~ u.....
c
... ~ _....
-' w, L
I e +,,
l
~ L 'y L;Jy._%
j Howard C. Brown, Jr.
..i For the Chairman
-_ J L 5337 uct i l
- i Ei i
i i
1 9w.J5
.-.-,.,-m
...a--
+.
g
,h') '
c p.tu.as m J Lte co. -
e f.
.,. s i
r' et M
,..u,,..'~..:.
,. i -
C s..
V.
~ gg u.6,
/
4 n
.NCS b
D
.P.a % e~","h' W~~'.".
I v,.
/ k.A s
l (p.: w.r:aa. &
.* $. A M M
?
gw jW4 'ip57, M ",,
I atu. a _ a.
w '1
/
n I
ll 8
'.., ud QLy C, /i
.i.4..
Lye, u L g,a'~'af 0
'U. p,. 4 % % c", _ %
=
.n asa~
g l cu Lulu _ I b XD 'C-Mu u.
,JL
-l w e (
~ F n
- 3. w
' 2e j w M e_,Az n w,} & J r27d I
'] -Q M*r> > Ma a:.Su; O
,1 h g.a 19%.,
- w m.
=
\\ ww o[s:1cnun i
e o
l
, g4 Wy M,
~
, :4.4 L
'\\,
gau,Anw w
'p d
5337n t
1
~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' "
i 74ViaQ;y a
.:. ?. 4.,,.,;,
' ~ -
.r...
e.
i 9
b.
_9.w-_
I
.. - _. v i
i
. ~
. 1
%. A. L t..
j
~
i t
. Q 9
'1
~
O
_ > -sd u.,'
M_M.s S
ww 4
3-QM M,
i
.,i j 2.,
m
.s..
l s
.s
}
.*g...
.g
..q w
J' w?
i
- ...r 1-e-
g t
3
.j s
j !
,y l
~
A.4.
/
t,
)
.,fi...,
4.
a-a 2
)
I. NQ6. Co'Tr HOBART-'
l i
t 12.B5 MARK WEST SPRudM Rb.*
.t r'
.a.,.\\
.,;.b,
5 ANTA 8M.A, cAuF d
l L.
w.
7 s
.s-
-.... s.;.
.t m==.
tz U M. (,. 3, t,.,"*',e e
.,a
'g i
, g $ '. -
' v...
.,1..
g, 9
.,s
\\.
s
.n J ',
kl i
N
- d
' 3 i
5 1,
f, j.,
g,,..
s "1!.
,t
,. c s
..?'.,=
i
's ' -
.L-
..n % l i
4 y ).. Y t.
.l D
S 1
, ; k.,....j.,,.
e
.: 3 -
. a '. /,.4 fj 4
\\
e i e
g..
~
/
..i
.i s
.1 I.
[ *I
.I*,.,I
<.1
" o j'
Z
- I<
g w
e,
E
?
, 3.... ' <. c 8
l
.}
w
>= w.
,,y,
.,,5 c.J LSO Y %
\\
ft"
',"..d
.,l
'S ta 4..
g s.
E w" Q g
[
,q a
i l
(*
W4 4
-e *s;
.j
~
<1'
,/*L,.,,.-
j n<,
tj ty g
- " l l.
. 7.'.e-M,r/.
6 m
se
?!
- 3.,.,
o
- )
4 t*
n
.., up
,.g.
a; D
's o
!cangj.s.3 w? cf (t) e t
.6 L.
t
+t h~i*. e vh.~/
2.'.
u uigg3.
k3o.&g}/
f L
c...:.g..
q.
.).. k).
...h.*
3 4
.e L.
k,
- f.,
a
' /
.}
.\\. s
'{,
f g
9 e 4 gy%
y eu C. E i.
e%
i
- q.,
y g b e
n
.s 7
V M
- t. 2, 5.F.F.E
- * -g.eeng-equ e I
a 4'
..'d M
'M k
sv
, ts s,
- ~ * - - * * ',
.,s.,,y,.se,-=~,,*+v q
.g (f.;%Ny-*? "F"
,e, y**
r
- f',15 *I.' I. *g Y,$[ I, 4.
P
[*
s.
e-
., +
i
,,f
. - - _ - - _ - - -. -