ML20234D251
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, _
.ay . -
s
*'{,,
{'),- F' R A N K ' N E U M A N N 4 s4 s raftfy*FIFTM AVENu r N.E. s EATTLE. wAs H., g e s c s v-July 26, 1963. Dr. Robert H. Bryan, Division of Licensing and Regulation, U. 8. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington 25, D. C. ,s
' Dear Dr. Bryans ..
Enclosed are two memoranda coussenting'on'(1) Prof.
- Housner's processed memoranda distributed at Argonne Laboratories l on August 2,1963 and (2) statements made in the course' of his talks -
there. I presume you would want to know about any diffe;ionces in _ basic seismological concepts that' exist between us. Professor Housner is rather unique in American seismology in that' by training he is not a seismologist (so far as I know) yet is. almost prolitio in his elucidation of' seismological principles to the
. engineering profession. He speaks of his concepts as facts and,- .
since he seldom quotes the views of others, the listener may easily asstne his views represent those.of the entire seismological profes-sion. Caltech's seismologist Dr. C. F. Richter, who in 1957 wrote a-768-page book on " Elementary Seismology", frequently mentions Housner. as an earthquake engineer but says-little or riothing about his purely seismological concepts. Most seismologists would hesitate to question the late Dr. Gutenberg's conclusions on the interpretation of seismo-l logical data, or question other phenomena that virtually all seismolo-gists have accepted as authentio-for many years. .Housner ovidently places the results of his mathematical studies above everything else; to him they are the facts.- - Please let me know in case I can do 'anything that will help ~ mat-ters along. Sincerely your . Y^auR . wg Frank Neumann.
@ A e '
i-
;- m . v3 n ; g. v m '* % 1.,,,
- ']Ul. 20..1957h g1ATY;):
lCw I ~.\. Q* , f-, '..': *l3 q 'h':q['q j, s
, 0.,
~ ng
" 3 8709220026 851217 f-
' PDR FOIA #
- FIRESTD85-665 . PDR . Jq93.1
- n ,.. .
d* NOTES ON SI MEMORANDA DISTRIBUTED BY PROF.( jUSNER AT THE ARGONNE LABORATORIES ON JULY 2, 1963 l (By F. Neumann)
]
Memo No.1 Table I. Data from " United States Earthquakes 1933 61".. 1 y-This is a series of annual reports,many of which I authored. Ordinarily distance to fault was'not given, nor the durations; some of the tabular figures must be Housner's. Housner is evidently trying to tie magnitude in with something but not having much success. I used the same figures and, with distance and I acceleration as arguments, plotted the actual magnitudes. There was no j consistency anywhere. I(do not see what purpose the ,two Housner charts serve. Memo No.2 Table II. Soectrum intensities. 1 I have never seen any need for spectral intensities that are based on j (x-y) instead of y, where y is the motion of the ground and x the motion of the oscillator. In his 1952 paper on this subject he tried to relate it to MM intensity but there was poor agreement. He admitted that they j are not the same thing which is quite obvious. Again, I do not see the purpose of the chart. Memo No.3 Effect of ground on intensity of shaking. Housner evidently does not believe in the results published in my booklet '
" Earthquake Intensity and Related Ground Motion". The first sentence i is contrary to the findings of many seismologists especially those at the Pasadena (Caltech) Seismological lab. They found differences of 10 to 1 between alluvium and : ock motions; I have suggested a 22:1 ratioti, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, in blasting vibrations, finds ratios of approximately 30:1 between alluvium and rock. Housner admits it enuld be more than 2:1 if there was " appreciable model excitation" but apparently he has not observed it on " firm" alluvium. In my AEC report now in preparation, a ratio of 2:1 is suggested between " sedimentary basement k
i;, A L_--__________ _
~~ ~ -- -
-----~r -~ ~ - - -
1 i
~ '
. ( L -2 j j
- rock" and " granitic basement rock". What is "well known" about the 2:1 ratio as Housner states in his first sentence?
In showing an example, Housner's "best comparison" is rather unfortunate v- , in that we have no reliable record of the acceleration at long Beach and this is stated in the Coast Survey report. The horizontal components are so badly overlapped they are impossible to separate (I spent a long i time trying to do this right af ter the record was tained). The reported l
.23 g is open to doubt. The distance to the " maximum intensity" epicenter ;
near Signal Hill is 4 miles, not 17. This single example is entirely l i inadequate to prove Housner's 2:1 ratio idea. The Coast Survey currently )
- i adjusts its accelerometers to accomodate expectable accelerations l of .25 g on rock, .40 g on residual clay and shale, and .70 g on I
alluvium. This is a 3:1 ration intended to take care of good building
)
1 sites. As far as the Taft record is concerned, just what acceleration should l one expect for a shock of given magnitude at a given distance? I know 1 of no formula that would enable one to reach Housner's conclusion. Mrmo No.4 El Centro. May 18. 1940 earthauake ground motion. -
~
The U.S.C. & G.S. did not rate the inte sity at El Centro as IX but VII to VIII. Ulrib's report,to which reference is made, was a prelim- ' inary report; VII to VIII appears in the Survey's final reports. After special study of descriptive material, I judged it to be MM-8 3 See ray current report for further discussion. Where were the two farm houses 1000 ft. from the fault that were not
. damaged? Intensity or damage is primarily a function of distance to b
epicenter, not distance to fault. (Housner evidently does not accept I- this thesis, he believes in a " planar
- source of energy.)
,b
/, k.
~~ ~ ~ ^ " " ~ ~ ' ~
E1__ _n 1 r - - - - - .
l ( ( i
-3 j M:do No.5 Hebren Lake. Montana Earthouake.
l There is nothing special about the point raised that "a sizable' area in ! the epicentral region was subjected to almost the same level of acceler-v- 1 ations...as in West Yellostone or places 5 to 10 miles from the fault". j i Generally, however, the acceleration would be somewhat greater and the duration less as one gets closer to the epicenter, the intensity remaining the same. Writers frequently confuse acceleration a'n d intensity. Dixie Valley--Fairview Peak Earthquakes. - l
- i Without mention of the epicentral distance of the structurea (near the 1
f cult) that suffered only minor damage, this memorandum.has little or no sig ificance. . l l Mamo No.6 Acceleration adiacent to a fault produced by the slip displacement. l l l From the discussion of the El Centro record one would expect to learn j 1 just what this acceleration was at El Centro but it is not to be found. I i If one assumes that this first motion had the basic characteristics of a sinusoidal motion, which seems reasonable (the computed velocity and displacement curves have such characteristics), and assumes a resultant l velocity of about 35 cm/sec combined with a period of 3 5 or 4.0 second, the corresponding acceleration would be about .06 g. (This is shown in
~
all of my period-amplitude graphs for the El Centro motion, i.e. Fig.6 { of my report mailed on July 20,1963.) In fact, a wave of this order i of period and maximum acceleration can be drawn on the acceleration curves in Memo No. 6 if one tries to draw a curvilinear axis of such nature that the areas (of the high frequency waves) above this axis will equal the areas below it. I do not see eye-to-eye with all of Housner's reasoning in this memorandum, largely because we have different concepts on how earthquakes are ganerated (fault locks vs. uniform planar friction?). I think the high frequency
' waves were generated the instant the rocks were ruptured at the fault S
1 4 ___e.;
( () J+
'. '. ' lock, simultaneously with the start of the fault movement. The waves generated by these two events are independent wave forms that have dif.
~
forent dispersion characteristics. y Neither Housner's statementa of " fact" nor mine should be accepted at face value as facts which seismologists generally accept; it is all conjecture which may or may not have useful engineering application. I cannot see the purpose of this memo in the current' project. If the El Centro fault had been " greased" no energy could have been stored up and there would have been no earthquake. M:mo No.7 Damare to structures adjacent to the San Andreas Fault. San Francisco j earthquake. 1906. This heading is misleading. The official name is "The California
=
Earthquake.. .. ,"; it was Bodego Head's earthqake as much as San Francisco's, l both being about 40 miles from the epicenter. This is an extr2 ordinary document in that Housner, in the opening paragraph, int,roduces an entirely new concept of earthquake intensity, different from anything the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Caltech Seismological Lab or the Berkeley Seismological Station, use in there - -
^
l published evaluations of intensity. He states that "those structures dich have receihedd little or no damage are good indications of the : upper bound for intensity of ground motion. For example, if an unreinforced brick chimney was bot broken off, it is clear that the ground motion was not sufficiently intense to destroy the stronger chimneys". He wants to measure intensity by damage that was not done while everyone else measures it by damage that was done. All intensity scales and the people who use them are geared to using positive fact rather than negative assumptions in evaluating intesity from descrip. tive information so that, invariably, a published intensity means the
. maximum that can be derived from the descriptive data regardless of y
e _ - - - - 2
( ( _. -5 t ' the fact that other information could indicate intensities (in the -5 same town) that could be one, two, three or even four grades of intensity lower. v-Nevertheless, Housner uses this kind of logic to justify taking only that information from the Lawson report which yields the lowest, not the highest intensity. In item 3, for instance, he states that "only three or four houses were passed, and these were uni $jured except for broken chimneys a . He does not report that just beyond -this a hotel was badly wrecked and a barn near Bodega Head was completely wrecked. This is typical of virtually all of the 14 items Housner'inentions to show how low the intensities were. I could summarize many pages of notes that could be included or appended to this letter but they would all boild
, down to this same basic attitude. ,
P'erhaps the most amazing statement of all is the last paragraph in which he states "From the foregoing description of damage it can be concluded l that the intensity of gr und shaking in the vicinity of the fault was not remarkably intense. Except for cases of special ground conditions,
'~
the damage appears to be consistent with a modified-Mercalli intensity ~ rating of about VII to VIII. It also appears to be consistent with
~
ground motions whose maximum acceleration was approximately 15 to 20%g." For one thing, he does not describe the damage except that which applies to minimum intensity. This would be consistent in part with my conclusions if one agrees that intensities of VII to I were observed within say 30 l miles of the epicenter. Housner,would agree to the VII or VIII. I have spent muc) time and made many notes on the descriptive information in the State Commission's Report to find evidence that intensity along the faul-t might be less than a few miles back. No evidence has been found. it would take weeks to make a thorough study of the entire report but enough has been done in the general epicentral area to feel that this is a true statement. It is felt that if all the intensities were carefully g fr _ - _ _ _ _L
( ( .~ . re-evaluated on the MM scale the intensity distribution over the entire l shaken area would be very similar to that shown elsewhere for the Puget Sound sjpek of 1949 Maximum inten'sities would be registered on poor
.l ground out., to 100 miles or more. Epicentral distance and local geology ]
would be the controlling factors. Santa Rosa was one of the worst shaken towns in California.. 30 miles I
/ )
from epicenter. " Practically everyone on foot at the. time was throurr J 1 i to the ground...". Other evidence shows that some had difficulty standing, t others.did not fall. In the epicentral area at some places all men and !
,- l cattle were thrown to the ground, sometimes twice. In iha absence of strue-tures in the epteentral area these facts indicate that the intensity was _
quite as great in the epicentral area as in' Santa Rosa, probably the l 1
- most damaged town in California. (This follows the pattern of the :
Puget Sound shock in 1949.) In the last paragraph, p.4, how does Housner know that the maximum acceleration was approximately 15 to 20%f At Mr. Doda's ranch, 150 feet west of fault a daughter was lifted off the floor more than once; 1 a ranch hand saw water tank tower lifted vertically upward 5 feet and then j collapse in ruins. Was this 20%gf A bed was also lifted from the floor at Seaview near Fort Ross. . This entire memorandum is quite obviously an effort to downgrade
- intensities in epicentral areas and is contrary to all the conclusions reached by the writer in his booklet " Earthquake Intensity and Related Ground Motion". l 4
i s;
[- - J CGGIENTS ON VARIOU8 STATEMENTS MADE BT PROF. G.-W. HOUSNER . AT ARGONNE LABORATORIES OF A. E. C. ON JULY 2,1963. v-
', (ByF.Neumann) .
]
l
- 1. statement The longer the fault the sreater the energF release. -
)
Comment: This should be accepted with cautions some strong shocks' _ a show no surface faulting. Magnitude is the best measure of energy
-1 releases the area over which a shook is perceptible is perhaps the i i
i next best measure. I.have never seen any statist.ioal data to' tie in length of faulting with overgy releases it is primarily a theoretical conclusion that could be countered by the " fault lock" theory of Ben . - ioff which in the writer's opinion fits observed intensity distribution
. < =
in shaken areas better than Housner's " Planar" energy source theory. -
- 2. Statement: Frces O to 10 miles from a fault there is uniform response-(intensity because of focal depth. .
Comment: Is is found fra basement rock (ministan) intensity graphs that one can go to within 3 miles of an epicente'r before uniform maximtan' in- . tensity is reached. Elsewhere Dr. Housner tries to show that me.ximian - intensity occurs several miles from a fault. __ ; 4
~
j
- 5. Statements Farm houses along the El Centro Fault were not damaged.
Comment. In his distributed notes he gives distances to faults but not ! ; to opicenters. Epioentral distance, not fault distance determines the
- intensity.' In printed notes on the 1906 shook he oited a similar case t
i. that was 150 miles from the epicenter. Why. should there be damaget
- 4. Statement: The velocity spectrtan is a good measure of intensity. ]
Comment. In his 1952 report on " Intensity of Ground Motion During ' Strong Earthquakes" he concludes: "There is only an approximate agree- ,
, ment between the spectrian intensity of an earthquake and the Modified
- j. -
i 529.7 , n ,-.-.n .. .- a+- - . = ~ .w - = ..
=- -- -~
~
- {
( ( _ e' '
, , 2 Merot111 intensity. These two lo not measure prooisely the same thing.
and it isv, concluded that the spectrten intensity is more meaningful for engineering design". Actually, spoetral intensity is a measure of the differential motion between building (or oscillator) and ground, not a measure of the ground motion. I do not know of anyone but Housner who uses it.
~'
)
- 5. Statement: He gave impression that El Centro earthquak'e ' motion was about {
1 l the strongest that may be expected anywhere. l Comment: In the reference just quoted he concludes:" It l's estimated that i t1{ the maaimum ground acceleration to which a California city may be subject- _lf Ii ed is 0.66g or approximately twice that experienced at El Centro - ". The
,, writer has cited 0.7g as a minimum and 1.0g as a possible maximum for the mi il 1906 earthquake. 1
- 6. Statement: There is no peaking (of intensity) in.the vicinity of a fault.
Comment: All intensity distribution maps show that there is a peaking of basement rock (minimum) intensities in the immediate epicentral sons which
-I is either on or above a fault. This does not support Housner's planar
~
energy source theory on which the above statement is , based. i 4
- 7. Statements Faults move in jerks as shown by peaks on mooelerograms. , !
Coment Why then did the El Centro record show not only 5 peaks while the fault was slipping but a continuous series of peaks for 30 seconds after? The writer does not believe the various wave types are generated j in the manner suggested by Housner who also distibuted a note on the sub- i i ject. l
- 8. Statement: Long Beach epicenter was 17 miles from seismograph station. jj l.
Comment The intenrity distribution map shows maximum intensity at Sig- j- { nal Hill only a few miles away where aftershocks also centered. The l i i ep'icenter 17 miles away was a foreshock that triggered the Signal Hill shookm a rather common occurrence. f! Ii
--- - =- n_=a :===N
j
. , . . . . . . ~ . . . , ---=*i~.*+
c
~ .
. c ;
,r -
" ~
.' . 3
- 9. Statement: He disbelieves Gutenberg's otatenent that in the Imperial J
. I Valley 19,49 earthquake the motion on alluvita was 8 times greater than- -
" i on rock. )
1 Comment: I believe with outesb' erg that this actually did happent it is ! ecumonplaosforfourgradesofintensitytobereportedatthesameepik 3
,f 1 central ' distance but in different areas. This is equivalent to an 8-fold l
range in ground motion. f lo.-8tatements There were stronger motions 5 miles from the San Andreas Fault than right on it. , Ccament. This is challenged in comments on his -printed memorandum cover- _ ing this subject. - 1 l
- 13. Statement: Theenergysourceidplanarincharacter. =
Comments.The writer believes that all intensity distribution maps support the fault look concept -- that a fault plane becomes distorted thus pre-
^
l venting smooth motion along the fault surface. When accumulating stresses are sufficient to overcome the look this area' boocsies the focus of an earthquake and the source of maxistan anergy release. Basement rock at-tenuation graphs indicate a circular radiation of energy, not elliptical as called for by the planar energy concept. l l
- 12. statement. 0.5g is a reasonable estimate of the " upper bound" associated !
with any fault displaosment. He does not accept the observation that in , i I the great Assam earthquake of 1897 the vertical' accelerations exceeded g. I Comnent. In the writer's latest revision of his A.E.C. seismological're- ' h port the reasons are given for believing that g has been exceeded in vert-ioal motion of the ground. In the 1906 shook one person and a bed were. . thrown upward off the floor and or the ground a water tank was reported 3 to have raised up off the ground and then collapsed. l j
,1 k
) i o -_ ._ , . . . . .
, - = _ _ a
( ( ,
-( . - .
4. Y ~
- 13. Statement: One mile from the San Andreas Fault 0.2g was an upper limit in 1906. '
v- . . Ceemente Santa Rosa, in an alluvial' valley 30 miles from the epicenter and 18 miles from the fault, was perhaps the most severely damaged town in California. Compared with damage in other shocks the writer telieves .
./
the acceleration must'have been' alose to 0.2g here.with a duration very . auch longer than near the epicenter. . This'would not seem incompatible with an acceleration of 0.7 or 1.og at the epicenter.
- 14. Statement In citing factual data from the 1906 earthquake report Hous-
. i 1
nor cited the slight damage to Chittenden Bridge over the Pajarro River ,. which is practically on the fault. Comment: There is no lack of evidenos to show that even a large fault . displacement 18 not necessarily sooespanied by violent vibrations. The important thing is How far was it fres'the opioenter. In this case it . was 100 miles. - w j
- 15. Statement Could have a 1906 earthquake every day without damaging the 1
proposed power plant. -}
~
Comments Does Housner not know that all of the Coast Survey's strong i i 4 notion data show that intensity, which is equivalent to damaging po- ' m' tential, is a function of durationt This is indeed a rash statement ) i considering that 700 people were killed in 1906 and the damage in to- t
- i day's dollars would be between one and two billion dollars. 1
- 16. Statement: In California building designa provide for only about one- 1; 2!
fourth the theoretical earthquak's forces. . I Comment: The usual explanation for this is that structures absorb energy- } g4 and there are also other reasons that have more of an engineerids than j i seismological basis. I seldom if ever hear about what part resonance
' plays in building responses to earthquake' forces. All spectra represent.
1 f i.- - ~ , - . = - - . - - _ . . . . - - .,_-._.,.-.,.u.,_.-..-.a,
}j
b
, c . . .
( (
.v
- g j what are primarily maximum, or resonant (or near resonant) responses to a p. articular oarthquake motion. I am ready to believe that thous-ands of, structures withstand earthquake forces simply because they never experience resonances this means that they could easily experi- q I
once only about a fourth of the acceleration a series of resonant i vibrations would impress on them. /
/
/
0" 9 0
, - - 1
. i O *
/ ,
/
~
f a b 9 T 1, i I i 1
. I 1
l
. ? ..
~
- JL .-~~~, d 0 % *' -
, . . .,. m . n
. , s Q :;h~^-~ ..?, '
^
A' W . S FROM: . . . . .DATE OF DOCUMENT: .. .. _ . . . _DATE RECElWED NOJ M 188 *
.114med 7-EfWic 84 63 - 5k95 O $ # ', LT R. MEMO: REPOR.e OTHER:
T 08 L-) " 3 ORIGJ CCs OTHERs ' seemedy (terw reed to m tv monard a
,%,.) ACTION NECESSARY g CONCURRENCE DATE ANSWERED:
NO ACTION NECESSARY COMM ENT O en CLAS$1FJ POST OHICE FILE CODE: REG. Not
]
DESCRIPTION: (Must Be Uncia 6sified) REFERRED TO DATE RECEIVED Ey DATE Ltr. protesting ihm emelear peror plast ' l at Budogs. mm.mWas 8=7 w/aupolfm ey - F2 ACTION t 1 emsecomm4 a,a a whaam 1 LNCLOSuRESs -
. f' -
- M mae R T.
l i m/artro for i mem
=- is f m .-ta t se e L T.
I,- . lu/sxtr% fas info 6
~
r REMARKai a6 N"4 -2
! N R Distributions 1 = formal fj le /d s
1 AEC ?DR W( e w C d l'. sAs File s, ej r J (j
,- 9 *, c 1
# .. . . . . . v.s. noxic summor co==T= Riom MAIL CONTROL FORM ronx u.g-ases g.
W. J'T
- '. - wrc - m..w.~ -..-,'~- -
, an .d. .e > M.wn iP- .Fe u.
-%- - y*:~
.+ . ,,w L.!
d.,.
-; J. WI4Kw$.
3.;/ $ C T C.ha~,z.
%.- e7-'C vh;Mwn O.M~~ N % v.
e.
.Yp;m-
"**'**== ? "i. *"Mf*****j ' W. 2'. .-14'
; .: . ;'.%*5 =
m1,,,*..
. .vr ~
i'~.. m .-
.r--w-- z. . ".: w. 3 ,w+.
..; y q ~.;=. 3 y -- ' .
~ ~ r :t'y J M J M Z "*v c-..,..y--~.~~%- -
-eL
~*',,--*-,,,,.~,&.~
..G. ,,g j y p2*
.e-- "' -
- n. : .- \-&.m
;;,C.4 Il Q,.'.m 4, w'M ;.g M;-- a .
.4 ~ P ; '. L.-~ ~
1 ;; - pry N' ' "
.',y, ...-2~~**."'
0 .'-
~
\
l
- ~~$f P. m~.~k.,;,..-~~~~
., u--~~ .
%:Y..q s. N ? L %. E-I ~' -=~
,- ~
L. Y. :CW%s--. -
'* ?y 'M '"%:. ~L. W:A,
- g[Q.]..M.:%'*~;;*v.*.f- -
PAT $.t,..-- y.-{$;~-- 2]";'P j..;. u '. .,,
. , .y' '- ~..~ @. ; n.-." : .-y - %, . , .s,; .v . ,.a.- r, -','--~
. +
. ~.-..3
- .e p.,
4.
. * ~~. -- T .n - -' a, L. . .2 , .a ; _. - . , . . .
v..y..c: y s .~.~ m. 22.~.t,.
. :. C. a.,.. ...* ~ . . :*-*, ., ;.w. U , . , r %,'; 'f., e "- f'" ,' ,, == ** _. M. }\ ?L m.i.'./- L . '
to;j-[* ' j . ?**g 3 ""-'";. - , , " " * * - " V ~ ~. ~- n :n[y. ,r;7_-,~=~- .;-===~*,Q.- e .~. "~~ w .:-
. _ , ~ ' '
- :,.' :n L.c.-
- ? ;'
.. fL,
~ ~e .a .. - . = - - .:i;;=
*? - : '*-ra : T L -. . ' . . . ;_.., _
. ..- -- : '- :~~2 mx%
...~'.*W.'~,.s.... ..
&.~- MM -
w -- ,p.,_ *
~
..y
. , , .--2,.,
- w. . . . _
, a, - _ ,,- --5,-
; ;- - ~. _
.,.,.g~
e . . , - - pa:_--+.ab. .;r> . 's=v .+ :- : :=*sn..-+ - ' a. - ~ '---* .- .- -
@ ,.g - O WW'8 -
e g . 64+W.u-=. M .a he s.y v e % 4 u
, 4 ye E
' .7
= . . - . .
. . 71 ;' 4
.+~ Ms .0 6 .
~~ '
i
. 0FFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
~
/ b
[T (Date) ! i T0: _
)
l d 1 i, 5 i d For Information 1 P ! or appropriate handling
.S For preparation of reply for Chairman's
" ~ ~~
signature (Refer to Manual Chapter 0240)
%, ;_ e -- .. _ .s^ For discussion at Commissioners' Information f Meeting
--~ ;- - ..
.cn
-i N j ;.J. . . . . . .. ~, .. !
For distribution to other Commissioners
.- ; 7 w ;- %,,.rC -
u~ . . .= c g. .. .
- ..,>..- m. _.
a - p,ity tog
. go
**S *-
.a g g . #
~ .
< W J
@W.~. 7.&., . .. .d~ g ,f '.4G, .m.M'TGi
- n. Er,@; p %
- =~,,a.n-x= .
=- .--
,g=....:w
. = . --nc.3 A
m
- w. .z. - Q@
w
. _ ...., w . .. .- g-- . _ _ .
8 m.-. 5 7 e
~~._3... . .
,Y. -- ' l p y.J' *bd * - .,,, .les ye
- y. s . -
.3 ','~'.,_f";.% C -g;*-.,
",p / ,
m ,;,.: . i.:; ,,: ._ .=.
\ t,,,,J -8
\
._L-..: ~- -;-... j,.. . _ : .. . : ._ . ..# y ..g... y
,- C e4
~ -.
.~ ~ ~
v. g aus y ]
--7 1 2,
~- 6 1 1
1
-5 '
9 0 04
. "-c 3-
.'..,j For the Chairman
~-
5 k__ _. l se l E
.a i
Jl
~% A
- 4 * , .
V/ . ~7_ p.yg 2d [ g{l / s
,QQ o .
- cr . .g,, .M, gn
/
e President John F. Kennedy'- OM 5 IAg ylle C6
. ?!hite Housa >'
Yiashington, D.C. Re: Nuclear Power Plant at Bodega
Dear President Kennedy,
Bay, Califonnia Please use my le tter as one of many in protesting the
. I building the Nublear Power Plant at Bodega Bay, California.
e' j It seems to me that the indication of this proposal
} ' em)odies an attempt at furthering security for the' - i l ^ ', -people' of the world. However' it .also threa tens the ,
security and health of the people in the immediate area. I am sure there are areas of the United States i j less pophisted and less prone to endanger the lifes 7 '!
- /
l 1 of so many people that would better suit the building
-g r ! of the plant, if the building of 'such a plant is J l necessary. . ,
4 *
- ,a I Thank you for your attention. ,
e 1
.k
;g.gc; Respectfully, j 15 5 m, l
-/ l
..=. - . . t Josephine Henson
-w !
7 ^~' 969 Dolores Street l
@; San Francisco 10, . Calif. !
j _ , . < ,- [ ;
/ - cu 'l l
' O 'b Docgpo ~
%h!%6 s
. . ?
g - 5 m om,,c *b s ,
. 1
. en <o ro , . I A = a i 2:?4% m :5 .
~ ,
Mi.pW )
*- D K 3 g [$. O' :,7 .+ l
.; . s
'*[{Q \k 0qg~e Nl g[Tf 4 9 r - 'o \ 5495 :
L c ._ , . . _ ; .3 . _ _ . . .: ._ ... m . _ . . . . _ . . .
" ' * ' '^*'
*~"'1'~ ^"It 7-~-
i . . , l-
.. .~ _ _
y* y *
., w. w h. ,-, . . . .
. d' '. MY N7+8 y,y . --- --- .- _ _ - - _ .. _. _ -- .-. _ . . . . . - - - - - . . . -- . ..- .. . ... ... . m .
% . FROM.
- DATE OF DOCUMENT: DATE RECEIVED NOJ
,,. g g b $ 3 LTR. m , memos KEPORT: OTHER; SeabME (ferwarded to m by Eward E isown)
ACTION NECESSARY @ CONCURRENCE = Q DATE ANSWERED: NO ACTION NECESSARY COMMENT O eri CLAS $1F.s POST OFFICE FILE codes REG. Not DESCRIPT60N (Must Se Unclassified) REFERRED TO DATE RCCEIVED By DATE 14r. req. answers b sees om,etions in re to the propose:1 plant at k4egn head,. Stranis t 4-7 14/ suppl fiJe er - FJL & CTT'N e .a_.- ENCLOSURES: # " * * *
- N Pries 8-7
, ,., w/oxtracy, far safo 1 - - namtal en e L T.
i im/ extra sy, for info REMARKS: N A Distributions 1 - tornal J ile
~b 'y ~ . ..
J. . su TL .L% wso_ a .- - l6' 1 - AM PDa g. a.
~
- u. e novsamman enumme omes. ima-aime u.a. nome zuznar commas:ox MAIL CONTROL FORM ronx Arc.ssas
~
(8-60) 1, .,- . w --- _. .-..s.,.._. ..n,..,,,;
, . , % hw*
m.
+w emmaA,;.s.Ma .e 4.
- . ~ ;;.. ,;
,f_p T_ . vrn .;-~ -
- s. . ~ - p -- ; ,., ,. . _ . 9
-.+
i + M* .. ' w
.__.;.-.....p-
-- ;;;.v ; -
. ,; - in v
..::x.:: --- . . - :.y . m --
- u. '
N.-+ a
. .w. , -
.- - . ...x' w.*
?. * -- _ _ .;;' s:3 _-
.*.:-+ f. .e-*'#"*
.mQ.
v. whi.ur-Mf *Rg Q,. . m .,w,-- . r 1'q- ~~.71 " Q. :' j= '"** . "---Q+ y...@ #n Q. R,..Q~.
. RQe -~:.:- *q- -i;[ . ~ g %. % ~*., .,..g . . .t.
n.y _ T ., f.. w > y .s.v.-
.. _ m. ..;- na w- -q-_ #
, g*.-.1..*;;;
, q: 3 rf;m.w.
.%=p - .2,,.1+. . nma-a .7 e : .m ..s.ze ~x. _y.y. M
._. g,,,__
.m_p '.. z.g. :,: g-. .' '~s ..
~;
.s .
O M
*,b % N6 eI" * , * ",- g( .-
Jg;>s,+-w~n 5m"- %'g.a q *, . 4 ;;.' ' %M4* W p .-- '.. : .:a ~.L. i .q,, ... Q .;r . s ' A Q T"- Q S I Q"' ,% ! g.;yl5.f W y '.": & . &..A.,
" &,. 5... U f.. 2., % Y. ,,. 5 n W 5. 5.' *~ Y ~' .~ , j '_'
.--dh.
_ . - .a
,*'*G 4og _y * - *** ~ . , ese , ,, ,, 9 '* f "" "*gh'.
, , . _ -}=.. g,'--" * ' *
*, ). ,.ns-g spe. G ,
..e*~ .-? "* ' .1*,;.>+ ' * ~A ..
f; ' . h * ?? % '
** * ' , *. ' * * ~ ~
, -~..
- n. ...,-
n ~ , . q. . . . :. -- . ,J: . .'. .: 3%,..--m
. . s: :-~ ~..ft. :T.; a + - . ~%.. . ~. *r-~
- ," "A : ~ - :- x- - -
~
- ' + +. : ~-. m,. ,-. ; e , ;y .e.
4
,~.,. % ..
,-m
._-~ --
.e +,
< =, y--.~ ; ; j , te_ ...-T . . . - - y_.
- -. > < . e. - ww. . ~ . .< - ,- t , - . ~ , ,
f we gs. *h- w
.4*f 4
'M
, x, .
E 4
'S
i
\ .
i
. 'a *
' l ~
4, p." 7 ]U. .**Y O M.A h~ 's 4
- 5- -
t,cfICE OF THE CHAIRMAN l
/
[5 l
. (Date)
TO: - _ > _ l< h
' For Information 4 or appropriate handling For preparation of reply for Chairman's . ..; . -- . u.. ,.e ;,_. c . signature (Refer to Manual Chapter 0240) i s
- ~.,
~
~
- f. ,_..-r...
t .. For discussion at Connnissioners' Infctmation
.. r7 n:: ' . . . ..
Meeting
**^ ,. *+= ,e-- ;,n=- .
w
,me.
qse .
.,u ai
.= r * ~ , , ,",~ - i : . 9 ~5 2 For distribution to other Conunissioners
~ ~. :. .g. :, '
ci.;..#.
y --
. . . .., ..._ , ';--...-.w, p,ggy tog
.., , '.-..-- w..
-O._ . _,s..a .,,P,L. T :~i . REMARKS:
%. : .cm._,
,mr.,s._&,p; . :---
w~ :. :3w
~J V'? vf$TCc4'L*M ,h-:.g i Y ...r.r.'~
.5 4 + A *. ,.,.MQ ,1"*. y. .**, , _ g
* . v- J? ','. .. R *v** ,.e. '-
.a h M 01 t s,..- a
-~ '
WL ._ +-- .. - . " , . <o
/,
.;,_..z.
<;x _,', -v~ w _-ec ,i.,, .. < . .. % ;,w.--#. _---% .: %%,e.r.,:,g,.
. . ,.f ; g- ~7- p_ . . i ~ fsv';,T, s .
g.
;% 7, ,r
. ; :; .. a : -..n. m . .~_ . . ? ., .
- .: , x :, .
;~. ,, c...
5 7 .6,,[ ' ;" *^ Y .' rme
- e .. .{C f."*',' , ,, j *, " ^ -[. E'f;;
~
c r ' 7 . _ ., v,,.,, f ,2 % mia.
._ m-w . ., r ;-
- 4 c, .p" w s, . (S.
l 7- "., J
. \ m.
g . - 1 A h.'-
.s . .: . !
Qg s'
\ C,/
/ Howa C . B roun , J r .
. 4- For the Chairman 5496 l l
c . .- . .- - ..- 1 mr El E
. ?'
. 2-)
.=-
w________'__.- ._ _ _ N}}