ML20234D097

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Comments on Jp Eaton Rept Entitled Geologic & Seismologic Investigations of Proposed Nuclear Power Plant on Bodega Head,Sonoma County,Ca, for Seismological Phase
ML20234D097
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Bodega Bay
Issue date: 10/11/1963
From: Neumann F
NEUMANN, F.
To: Bryan R
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234A767 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8709210520
Download: ML20234D097 (5)
v • d • e


Text

_ . _ .

i

  • . (

' . f

  • l rRANK NEUMANN 4 5 4 6 FORTV-FIFTH AVENUC N.E.

. 4 I .O$

S EATTLE WAS H,. 9 51 D S h- -

-]

October 11, 1963. [Eile Ce;l/. .

  1. ?)

Dr. Robert H. Bryan, Chief, {

Research and Power Reactor Safety Branch, 1 Division of Licensing and Regulation, U. S. Atomic Energy Comission, Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Dr. Bryans Thank yau for the copy of Dr. Jerry P. Eaton's report entitled " Geologic and Seismic Investigations of a Pro-l posed Nuclear Power Plant Site on Bodega Head, Sonoma County, California".

l l Enclosed are some comments on the seismological phase of the report. I am also mailing to Mr. Hadlock today some com-i ments on Dr. Pierre Saint-Amand's report entitled " Geologic l'

, and Seismologic Study of Bodega Head".

l Very truly ydurs, Yk - cssus ~

Frank Neumann.

9

w .- .;

l N '

e

. /.

% - A, s q! ,/

/

n ey'o,21os2o em" 3 pgesson-66s PD" -

j

i'* ( l I

% ~ . . .

b S- l

, EAlo Cay _ f b Comments on J. P. Eaton's Part lI - Seismic Hazard Evaluation". I (Appearing in U. S. Geological Survey's report entitled " Geologic I Seismic Investigation of a Porposed Nuclear Power Plant Site en Bodega Head, Sanoma Co., California". Dated September, 1963)

By Frank usumann 1

l 1

In its broad conclusions Dr. Eaton's report supports the maximum '

intensity and the maximum accelerations suggested by the writer in various drafts on the Bodega Head seismic problem. It is a valuable commentary on 1 i

reports submitted by other seismologists and points up the differences that exist in the thinking of some of this country's leading seismologists on problems of the Bodega Head type.

To the writer the outstanding feature of all the reports (by, Housner, I i

l Tocher and Quaide, St. Amand, and Eaton) is that all of them write as though '

the solution were solely a matter of correct " judgment' on the part of the j vriter. Not one of them has drawn adequately on the vast amount of data (instrumental and descriptive) collected by the U.S. Coast & Geodetic 1 Survey over a 30-year period to back up his judgment. The fact is that -

l although these data vero collected to solve problems of the tjpc AEC nov faces seismologists in general tend to ignore them. The writer's report is different from all othe"s in that factual information rather than personal opinion or judgment is the foundation on which the conclusions are based.

The charts summarizing'these factual data are furnished so that the reader as well as the writer is in a position to exercise his judgment as to the degree of validity.

\

l \

l \

\

) . . [

q--, y u . - - ..~ m.~. -.q

~

, s

- - , 3. y--.-- rw - n ~ r - - -,-- - ~~ - ..-_-+-t__

__ 7 ___ _7___ ___7.<f_* _ A

l

. o c  ;

o

.2 ,

It is for this reason that the writer is not in sympathy with Eaton's ]

comments (p. M, par. 2) stressing "the tenuous nature oflsome of the l ccientific judgments that must be made". (l.a far as the. Writer knows *

-l 1

Eaton has not yet seen the charts in the writer's AEC preliminary reports.)  :

1 Although certain new and fundamental relationships concerning earthquaho l l

l intensity and related ground motions have been developed in the last 30 l years at the Coast & Geodetic Survey and the University of Washington ]

other investigators either do not know about them or are reluctant'to l

accept them as authoritative. They simply offer their judgments on out- )

i moded seismological knowledge and F' ton is commendably honest in admitting ]

that such judgments are indeed tenuous.  !

I On page 45 Eaton takes up Saint-Amand's (apparently original) concept j of pelmanent fault displacement being a " fling" and, perhaps, a source of danger to be considered. From the El Centro record, where a limited  ;

l degree of " fling" vas registered on a seismograph, from photographs of little damaged houses setting only a few yards from fault displacements showing many feet of displacement or " fling", and from the intensities found along faulted areas there is little reason to believe that this sc .:alled fling is any more significant as a vibrational pher.omenon than any other type of recorded and. observed vibration. Contrary to the vriter's belief IIousner argues that the i' ntensity is actually -less along a fault trace than at short distances away from it.  ;

On page 45 (last par.) St. Amand and Eaton refer to Richter's (1.950) relationship betwee ~ magnitude and intensity which covers'certain " average conditions". The writer suggests that Fig. 4 in his report now under reviev  ;

in the L & R Division is more informative than the Richter relationship l

l

?

y c ___ s - . .___m a

i quoted by St. Amand because it covers extreme as well as averace conditions.

Fig. 4 chown directly the rance of intensities that could be expected in a 1906 type of shock; the minimum is I&f-10 on granitic rach (not IM-9 as cuggested by Eaton as a possibility) and if the bacement rock vere of the California Central Valley type it could go to MM-ll. Eaton suggetto that becauce of " local conditions" and other factors along the fault 1N-10 cannot be ruled out. The Fig. h chart argues that 141-10 is a basic minimum intensity I for a 1906 type chock on granitic basement and there is no reason for reducing it.

The peak accelerations cuggested by Eaton (par. 2, p. h6) do not differ l appreciably from the writer'c. The advantage of the writer's treatment of this cubject is that Figure 5 (of the writer's Bodega Head report now in i preparation) shown all of the expectable deviations from average values in i the intensity-acceleration relationship.

The criticisms of Housner's approach to the maximum acceleration problem (pp. h6 and 47) reflect in general the writer's views. As stated in previous

. correspondence Housner's theory that earthquake energy is radiated from a I completely planar source has received only very questionable acceptance in ceicmological circles. Some engineers are likely to cater to it because it provides arguments for underestimating earthquake forces.

Eaton's discussion (pp. h7 to 50) of possible fault dislocations on Bodega Head should in my opinion be taken seriously. All I might add by way of suggesting another approach to the problem is this: Geologists can evidently chov that'the faulting co apparent on Bodega Head must have occurred thousands (38,000?) of years ago, on the Point Reyes Peninsula l

l N'

'??- ~

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ --  ?- -

~

there was definitely faulting in 1906. The question is, vould a geologic.

Survey of the Peninsula also reveal only faulting that was at least 30,000 years old and would that in itself provide " proof" that "no more faulting -

could occur in sympathy with further movements along the San Andret.s? If the same broad pattern of ancient faults were found on the Peninsula it would establish the fact that even the absence of active faulting over a 38,000 year period does not establish perpetua3 immunity from future faulting.

l Seattle, Wash.

October 11, 1963.

l4 l

l

)

k, lI , .

~.'t,A 1

- ~-r-- . . , , . , _ __

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20234D097&oldid=3194416"