ML20234D903
Text
_
~
e D. V '
M w.
[f ysJ p3 Env b.w J g - d.Q.... __
w D E P A RTM ENT OF H E ALTH, EDU A 1 AND WELFAEE 1
b PUsLIC HEA.LTH StaVICE W ASHlWoToW si, D. C.
su s sav cr ents inn viese as,. DRE:TOB 4
.Mi 8 0 963 M*-
09 90
//f r., ' #,t Mr. Robert Lowenstein, Director p-- 'i's ti;ft.51
-4 Division of Licensing and Regulation M 2 4 563'-
U. S. Atomic Energy Coasnission g
Washington 25, D. C.
- g7:.: s~'~
g 6
Dear Mr. Lowenstein:
Ct
\\
Once a construction permit hearing is scheduled on the Bodega Bay Re. to",
we will forward to you a report containing all of our comments, including a swunary-of background levels and a report from our Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control. Since there has been some interest in the seismological aspect of this site, I am enclosing a copy of our staff's comments on seismology. It is our intention to include these comments in the report to be forwarded to you after a hearing is scheduled. These comments are being transmitted to Mr. Alexander Grendon, California Coordinator of Atomic Energy Development and Radiation Protection.
We hope that the information contained herein vill be of some assistance to you and your staff.
Sincerely yours, 0h"-
i i j
James G. Terrill, Jr.
(
Deputy Chief Division of Radiological Health Enclosure
.1 I.
v.
/,N CJ
/. '..4
.,,Q
." ' 6 ol k,, '
Q
/
9709220220 851217
'/
3 PDR FDIA
. f /hj. '
'g FIRESTOBS-665 PDR A
i i
^ r,q@c ~ g - [d[ -
_pi L
l 3
-}
i PRrt. M HARY DRA q Uls Cyg For Administrative Use 0-IV l
l A Review of the Seismic Fcctors Pertaining to the Bodega Bay AtoeLic l
l Power Unit - Number 1 based upon the following information from the Preliminary Hazard Summary Report by tha Pacific Cas and Electric Company
,,.. d 3.- ; ~-
I V
l 1.
Plant Site and Environment n,
4; 2.
Appendix 4
~
3.
Appendix 5 N.
4 Amendment number 1 6;
.[.
S.
Amendment number 2 l
...,. ~.
'v This report was prepared at the request of the Nuclear Facilities Eny" al
~~
j
' Analysis Section, Technical Operations Branch, Division of I diological Ecalth, USPHS and is submitted to the Section for review and.is to be considered as only a portion of the ovar='all review being conducted by the Section.
(After tha
)
Section's review the notation PRILDEMARY M shall be removed and this review may be issued as a separate report.)
e Submitted byt Bruce W. 'Haxwell Norman 8. Farha 1
Name Nama I
Coelogist Coologist l
Title Title l
j Technical Operations Branch, DRE Technical Operations 3 ranch, DRE Organization p
Organization 1'
Data submitted: May 16, 1963 e
l j,
.Ar Pages 8 and 9 revised May 20, 1963 Page 9 revised Mai 28, 1963.
i Addapeca - 6/13463
- ,s.
i %h-,.
\\
N' i
.a
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ '
Y5 i
}
A.
1 In section V of the Preliminary Hazard Surst.ary Report.there is this statement:
"A prehminary Geological reconnaissance of Bodega Head was conducted by Mr.
Clark E. McMuron, Consulting Engineering Geologist, in 1958, for the compsny l
to recom.cnd suitable power plant sites on Bodega Head. When the company hac acquired the property at the South end of the Head, it retained Dames and Koore,-
)
1 Soil Mcchenics Engineers, to conduct. geophysical and seismic survey of the si.ucted sito and a prelin.inary su.;urface exploration. In 1960, Drs. Don Tocher, I
l Scie:aologist,. and Willia; Quaide, Ccologist, both a. that time with the University t
of California", were retained to make a detailed study of the selected site from I
th.c standpoint of seismology and geology. Professor George Housner, of the California Institute of,Tachnology, was retained to interpret the studies of Tocher and Quaide and to recommend structural design critaria for the plant".
e s
It appears that the predictions of Dr, Tochar ware used by Professor Housner
=
to provido design critc..c for the planc. This seems to be borna out by thc=
l i
statements-in Exhibit n mber 48, " Consultants' Reports of Geologic and Saismi,c.
Conditions at the Propv ed Bodega Bay Power Planc Site and Summary of Those t
Reports", presented before the California Public Utilities Coanission dated July 6, 1962. This exhibit statas that Professor G. W. Housner was retained to interpret the findings of Drs. Tocher and Quaida and deris a structural seismic desigt. criteria. Tb[raisnoindicationhorathatProfessorHousnermadean
,?
/
independent evaluation of the probability of the maximum sarthquake intensity to be expected. It is understood that Dr. Tocher is one of the forac.ost seis-mologists in California; however, we do not baliava that the asc.ty of t.ha public
.4 should rest solcly on 'hs, analysis of one man 'as appears' to be the case here.
\\
1 t
1
>1
-N'W 4 '$ v H.4.9 a,qg%
'8'd"'
O
)
s.
It would seem desirable sinca each human being is subject to error to have another seismologist make an independent evaluation of the maximum probable intensity at the site. Even if Dr. Housner had made an independent evaluation of the intensity expected it would seem desirable from the standpoint of the company, the state of California, and the public to have an independent evaluation made by a seismologist who is not in the employment of the Pacific Cas and glectric Co.
This is particularly important because several more large reactors are son-1 tee 9 sted for.this sits.
The assignment of a probable intensity of eight (HNI) to the Bodega Head Region raises some questions as to the analysis which are not answered in the Hazards Summary Report. The San' Francisco earthquake of April 18, 1906 is reported as intensity XI MMI at San Francisco in the Earthquake History of the United Statas, Part II, "Stroncer Earthquakes g California 3pd, Western Nevada" by H. O. Wood and N. H. Hack revised by R. A. Eppley, published by the U. S. Department of,
~
Coccerce in 1961.
According to this publication the greatest slip, 21 feet, was in Marin County which includes at least half of Bodega Bay. The report f!urther states that "at Santa Rosa, although 19 miles from the rift, destruction was great and apparent intanairy higher than et most other points of cocparable dis-tancas (from the fault). The district lien directly inland from the region of greatest motion on the San Andreas fault," which would be the Bodega Bay Region.
l
.4 3l 2
l
^
4
,,,, -.. - - - -. ~
-+ _.-~-
_;~*3~,~~^~~~~'"~~^
'~
~ --- $
~>
7 l
1 e
e l
This is supported by the repcrts from the book, The Califorr.is Earihouckes l
g 1906, edited by David Starr Jordan, 1907, in the following series of excorpts by the authors:
i i
"The Earthquake Rif t of April 1906',' by David Starr Jordan, Pres-
.l ident of Stanford University, i
i
- p. 9 "We know that the center is in the sea because where the rift enters j
the land the motion was more violent and the effects of the shock i
a greater than at any other point along its extent." (This is the i
Point Arena arch.)
- p. 15 "The spreading wave (seismic) displa:ml or destroyed est of the houses in the villages of Manchester and Point Arena, vracking
{
the magnificent lighthouse of solid' masonry on the Point itself...
..... In Mendocino County the horisontal displacement is about sixteen feet.
In Marin County, wherever it is exactly measured,
=
it is si:steen feet'seven inches.
Southward it becomes less."
- p. 17 "Through this region (Marin County) the shock was very violent, and numerous cracks parallel with the main c, rack in the bay extended'along the shores."
- p. 18 "At Marshall the Humble Hotel was throw. bodily--and upright--into the bay, the " boarders unharmed'; and at aristocratic Inverness, on l
l Tomales Bay, three sumer cottages suffered the same face."
l f
- p. 19 A train standing at Point Reyes Station was thrown on its side.
- p. 32 "There are distinct traces of great disturbance across Burbanks famous orchard at Sebastopol, but it is not clear that......the
.4
, underlying rock is res.11y broken. Here on a slope linas of fruit i
3 IP -.,
[.
y=-.-
.sw
,ea w
71
[) -
c A
b y
y-I e [
-.g
- h. g a q 'h.'
M'
[t-u-
. m '.. a6..w.,
g.
-e.
. +.
p i
,', 4-,
. 'i e
. 'i
r s t a
)
1 trees were shifted, a well was moved bodily three or four feet, and a crack about one fourth mile long extended across a neigh-boring field, its direction paralled with that of the Tomales rift."
- p. 59 "It was much less severe in San Francisco than anywhere along the rife in Marin or Mendocino Counties."
Although the Santa Rosa destruction was attributed to poor construction, the same type of construction does not appesr to be unique as shown by the following:
"The Destructive. Extent of the California Earthquake," by Charles Dericth, Jr., Associate Frofessor of Structural Engineering, University of California,
- p. 114 " Proportionately speaking, Santa Rosa's loss was greatet chan that of San Francisco....'.~
But it is.my judgement that the shock was less serious in the northern city than in San Francisco. How then k
should the general destruction' be axplained? The brick buildings a
of Santa Rosa were carelessly constructed."
I
- p. 131 "The most general destruction by aarthquake*in San Francisco was observed in ordinary brick buildings.
Brick walls were usually thin, of careless bond, and built with lime mortar of lictie strength."
i
- p. 188
" San Jose, about forty miles to the south and east of San Francisco, is thirteen miles,to the east of the fault line.....
The earth-l quake destruction was appalling......
Again we find chacp con-struction with line mortar, weak framing and insufficient anchor-ing for floors and roofs."
. 4,
\\
4 3
3:
~.
i I !
m e
e "The Investigates of the Califerata L C ; '," by erove Earl
' }.
Gilbert, of the U. 8. Geological Surwy.
- p. 145 "The natural foundaties of naMand is pindlar to that of San Jose, e
and its distance from the earthquake origin is about the same, hat f
i i
the injury to its baildings was decidedly less; and Santa Besa standing on ground apparently firmer them that at Oakland er San Jose and havias a some shat ' greater distance fram the fault, was nevertheless shakas with extreme vistence."
It appears, therefore, the destruction at gasta Rosa is valid evidence of the greater intensity along the sognenc of the fault in Maria County.
9 e
i
}
i 4
f
/
e J
i s
l 4
e
,,5 i
I, i
J s
- e g
)
9 9
q l
l l
l I-i
,A e
i I
t
]
i.
l 5
t
. a e.
s
- fl
. M
~
-~ v m v~ e,.or, s m.,.
,.,,..,,4
^
()
e4)
?rclir.nsry Issards Samcary Report Apper. dix 4 by Drs. Tocher and Qua'dt 4
"The following description of effects of the shock (othat than fault
- c-tes
~
(Laws on, trace phenorena) was made by Prcfessor J. N. LcConte and Mr. A. S. Wright 1905, page 191). 'Kear Bodeta Head the bridge over Salmon Creek was'somewhat twist 6d.
boycad this a good sized hotel previously used as a suamer resort was badly
'.us vtccked by the earthquake. It was moved on its foundation and rendered unfit fcr The building was close to the sand dunes and probably rested on hs.ntacion.
sandy deposits. The barn was completely wrecked'" Although this destruction may have been due to soft ground, it should occassion some concern an to the maximum The destruction is typical of intensity expec,ted in the Bodega Head Region.
~
Modified Mercali Intensity IX not VIII as is reported by Tocher and Quaide to be the maximuu probabic intensity at the site.
Drs. Tocher and Quaide also state, "At least one and perhaps two' or more mejor These may earthquakes can be expected near t'he site within the next century.
be as strong, or even somewhat stronger than the California earthquake of
=
April 18, 1906".
I __
It would seem appropriate therefore to design for an in cnsity of X MMI or When the unit is designed to withstand the appropriacc' intensity, greater.
particular attention should be given to itams whose faf
- are coal / renuit it.
ae release of activity. "These include reactor core, faal elemants, can' safety rods, support [ug positioning me.nbors, reactor prescut o ves$.;, pi: asy
.~
safety coolent loop, piping systema, the heat excha.ngers, ir.itre kartleuler devicso, eurger.cy watsr systes, coa.taissent heilding structures.
ct t e.' i.. sSc r.; ; 1; givs: to out of A ase moventr.: batwsa a3b er G trcue tr&&
1 b
l I
t y
- -. - ~.....,
y,_,.
U,
--)
1 er machinery and particularly to piping. We believe that this should.not placa
- r. great burden on the company since, according to their own censultant Dr. G.
W. Housner in an article titled'" Design of Nucisar Power Reacters Against Earth-quakes". published in the Proceedings of the second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. I, page 141, he says'"It should be noted that in many instances the structures of a nuclear generator are well suited to resist earthquake forces and can withstand horisontal accelerations of 0.5g or even 1.0g without requiring any appreciable strengthening over ordinary operating dssign, thus the relatively large design accelerations mentioned above are in general not difficult to meet and do not usually reqdire any appreciable additional cost to meet the earthquake requirements. This can be expected, however, only if earthquake considerations are kept in mind from the beginning of the design. If careful thought is not s
given from the beginning of the design the cost of earthquake protection may be appreciably increased." Es further says on page 143 " pipes connecting two pieces of equipment must be designed so as not to be pulled apart when the equipasic begins vibrating. In fact', all piping, whether for steen or water, must be n
designed and supported so as to resist asianic forces. More careful attention-
~
must be given to details in piping than is the usual practice when designing industrial installations. This problem is particularly severe in.the ease of nuclear raatters because of their very extensive piping systmas". On page 144 i
he says "In the prasant state of knowledge, the design of the nuclear rasetor must be made for the worst possible senditions and it would not seem advisable
,e to reduce the danign'ariteria en the bases of saesssed geological marits of the site".
. kr 7
,4 3
..,._...~._.. _ m..E._-.._=
I l
==
I
~
4
)
U It should be reiterated that barring proof as to the characteristics of th4.
j pressure supression system under all conditions including earthrakas, baffles j
should be included as they are in Ihmebc1t Eey Reacter pressure suppression system.
Also in the above book edited by David starr Jordan was the following commaants
" Local Effects of the California Earthquake of 1906", Stephan Taber, l
stanford University.
I
- p. 274 "It was the first anotion that snapped off branchas, overturned oak trees v
'and wrecked buildings in the immediate vicinity of the fault line; and i.
i.
b although this motion extended for a considerable distance, the damage i
it caused was limited to a belt not over a mile distant, from the fracturs".
t These findings of stephen T'aber agree with tbs. statement found in the Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. I, "On the Damage of Fukui Earthquake and the pastructive Power of Earthquake of such A Kind", by
~
Professor Y. Sakabe
- p. 546 "I feel it absolutely undeniable that the shock notion plays the main ~
t;I past on the destruction naar the episenter".
{
Because of the possibility of earth shock as described aheve, and. since the Bodess. ree.ctor site is approximately 1500 feet from the western limit of the fcult aone, wa, would lika to know if this faster has been considered by Dra.
Tocher, Quaids, and Rousner in the fornn:.lation.of tha saisme evaluation of the
.s plan *: siteanddesigdcritsria.
~
e 4
9
. th I
.g e
0 e
(,
I l
--- ~~..--
.)i
=. +.-.y.;-...-. ;-;,-wyg ; ; y n;
- =
+
I.
j
.a)
)
j y __
U i
J.GL.;S 1035 6.
../ one seismologist has made an analysis of the atte :o; 6ne
...n r y s
..:e. ale earthquaha intensity.
It would be desirable to have.
.. ;.,, c.i, t esployed by the Facific Ces and Electric Company make ac
- s.. s :.'...vejuation.
.. cap.;ec maximum intensity of Modified Mercali Intensity VIII and n
.a:, crateria based on HMI II is open to some question. Further investh
- .w probability of a MMI of I or greater at the site es j
.,a 4 6. V a b e b e t.,
3.
--rth shock motion as well as wave motion has contributed significantly
~
cnc destruction in the area near the active portion of the fault.
In tv tot 1906 earthquake, it played the main part in the destruction at distances of one mile on either side of the active area of the fault. Th's magnitude of destructive forces should 'be investigated because the Bodega reactor i
n site is approximately 1500 feet from the western limit of the favit sone.
j l
4.
Particular attention during design and construction should be given to the assismic qualities of the piping systems.
5.
The characteristics of surgins standing waves, etc. un' der all conditions includias earthquakes should be investigated before baffles are deleted from the pressure suppression system.
i i
Tk.!.,..,. 0/ $.*f.,..'
f/ W.h tt d
L.
Bruce W. Maxwell
/
Norman 3. Farha Coelegist Geologist
.4 9
i
'.1 2A
. ~.
~ \\
[>
w~
..)
ADDENDUH 10 " REVIEW OF TRE SEISMIC FA::TOLS PERTAINING 20 ' DIE BODEGA BAY ATOMIC POWER UNIT - NW1BER 1" DATED MAY 16, 1963 REVISED MAY 26, 1963 The maximum intensity at the site can not be predicted with any degree of g
certainty. The design criteria should be based on at least the maximum intensity known or thought to have occurred at Bodegs. If a safety factor is desired the design should, of course, be for a higher intensity.
The April 18, 1906 earthquake intensity at Sodegs Head is reported by the State Earthcuake Invertf eation Comittee Upon the QJ,jornia Entthauske,9,f Anr1J, JE,1906 to be 10 Rossi-Forel, equivalent to 10 c r greater on the Modified Mercali scale. Thus design for 10 HMI would 1:. in line with reported facts. In light of this, construction of plant etc. L.
.ny less than 10 MMI l
vould imply sanction of failure of reactor components.
- 1. cizontal forces on c.
Initial mover.:ent l'
the order of 1 g are to be expected from the earth shoc, along the fault.
Numerous slickensides, planes of slippage in the rock, are nt in the sea cliff west of the site. These are evidence of movec.ent he site but the age could not be determined and the presence of dire du
?ver the cliff during recent construction prevented examination of a c
' cal aras for evidence of a fault through the saddle in which the reac:
'11 be situated. Engineering geologists of the U. S. Geological Sur hasers.
Schlocker, Bonelli, Clebsch) are examining the site for evides:,f recent faulting and will prepare a report for the Department of Inte s..
June 13, 1963 DATE
'f.,,,m,-
MS : ;. :
SIGNAIVRE l
I l
Geolopist I
nn.E
. Je l
l
?
~. f
- m. _ _ _..... __ _.... _,. _..
..t
,yg
. + -
.w
_ _ _ _ _ _