ML20234E565
Text
- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~l , J ;_ .i
.s .
r
. . a,
)'
,, i
- 4 ,.,
For Administrative Use Only A Review of the Seismic Factors Pertaining to the Bodega Bay Atomic Power Unit - Number 1 based upon the following information from the Preliminary Hazard Summary Report by'the Pacific Gas and Electric Company:
1 Plant Site an'd Environment
%" ' 2 Appendix 4 4 j 3. Appendix 5 i' 4 Amendment number 1
^C 5. Amendment number 2
-b p .
u -
h? This report was prepared at the request of the Nuclear Facilities Environmental L
[ Analysis Section, Technical Operations Branch, Division of Radiological Health,
?'- USPHS and is submitted to the Section for review and is to be considered as g., ..
W only a portion of the over-all review being conducted by the Section.
1 Gjh e,=a g Submitted by: Bruce W, Maxwell Norman S. Farha l Name pf Name w
m; Geologist Geologist f.
m Title Title
[
t Technical 05erations Branch, DRH Technical Operations Branch, DRH
{ ,0 organization Organization Date Submitted: May 16, 1963 Revisions May 20,1963, May 28,1963 Addendum June 13, 1963 o r d 8709220435 851217
4 --6 FIRESTD85-665 PDR -
-- :4, y ?'
},, F.,,~ .-..--...+-4-.==== aw-ann . * - we -r~='
- g. v.
y r-In section V of the Preliminary Hazard Su= mary Report there is this statement:
"A proli=inary Geological reconnaissance of Bodega Head was conducted by Mr.
Clark E. McHuron, . Consulting Engineering Geologist, in 1958, for the company to recommend suitabic power plant sites on Bodega Head. When the company had
,; acquired the property at the South end of the Head, it retained Dames and Moore,
. Soil Mechanics Engineers, to conduct a geophysical and seismic survey of the
[. sc1ceted site and a preliminary subsurface exploration. In 1960, Drs. Don Tocher, i
m.
! - Seismologist, and William Quaide, Geologist, both at that time with the University E'
f of California, were retained to make a detailed study of the selected site from C t
[_i the, standpoint of seismology and geology. Professor George Housner, of the California Institute of Technology, was retained to interpret the studies of f--
, ( Tocher and Quaide and to recommend structural design criteria for the plant".
I !~ =. ,
i
' RfC C._ - It appears that the pru .ctions of Dr. Tocher were used by Professor Housner I. - . to provide design criteria for the plant. This seems to be borne out by the Eii 1 i h~ staccmen:s in Exhibit number 48, " Consultants Reports of Geologic and Seismic 8
j Tr '
)
?- Conditions at the Proposed Bodega Bay Power Plant Site and Summary of Those u
l 4 Reports", presented before the California Public Utilitics Commission dated y ,
July 6, 1962. This exhibit states that Professor G. W. Housner was retained to F l interpret the findings of Drs. Tocher and Quaide and derive structural seismic l design criteria. There is'no indication here that Professor Housner made'an independent evaluation of the probability of the maximum earthquake intensity 1
to be expected. It is understood that Dr. Tocher is one of the foremost seis-mologists in California; however, we do not believe that the safety of the public should rest solcly on the analysis of one man'as appears to be the case here.
1 _
[
______a
.t . . ........~...-..-.--------
()
' ~ ~
, ( ,
It would seem desirable since 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 I~~l made by a seismologist who is not in the employment of the Pacific Gas and Electric
' ; Co. This is particularly important because several more large reactors are con-l-
F templated for this site.
I "T
P I4{, The assignment of a probable intensity of eight OsdI) to the Bodega Head Region T. .
I rai'ses some question's as to the analysis which are not answered in the Hazards j f_ Su==ary Report. The San' Francisco earthquake of April 18, 1906 is reported as
[---. intensity XI EMI at San Francisco in the Earthquake History of the United States, Part II, "Stroneer Earthquakes of' California and Western Nevada" by H. O. Wood j f'.C F ~- ) and N. H. Heck revised by R. A. Eppley, published by the U. S. Department of en p:5 Cc=merce in'1961. According to this publication the greatest slip, 21 feet, was )
%C.. f in Marin County which includes at least half of Bodega Bay. The report further F-(. states that "at Santa Rosa, although 19 miles from the rift, destruction was f
great and apparent intensity higher than at most other points of comparable dis-l
] tances (from the fault). The district lies directly inland from the region of greatest motion on the San Andreas fault," which would be the Bodega Bay Region.
2 l
-4 r.
, , . -44 ,
.An-,,~
i
. .., ,._ .-...-.A. I l
\. ) ,3 This is supported by the reports from the book, The California Earthquakes '
o_f,1906, edited by David Starr Jordan,1907,' in the following series of excerpts by the authors:
"The Earthquake Rift of April 1906',' by David Starr Jordan, Pres- i ident of Stanford University.
m 1 p. 9 "We know that the center is in the sea because where the rift enters
)
s:-
y the land the motion was more. violent and the effects of the shock f -
greater ?
than at any other point along its extent." (This is the k
.J Point Arena area.)
p~ p. 15 "The spreading wave (seismic) displaced or destroyed most of the Fr P houses in the villages of Manchester and Point Arena, wrecking b~
the magnificent lighthouse of solid masonry on the Point itself...
r k+
In Kendocino' County the horizontal displacement,is about p;<t sixteen feet. In Marin County, wherever it is exactly measured,-
we it is sixteen feet seven inches.
Southward it becomes less."
r.s g p. 17 "Through this region (Marin County) the shock was very violent, C"
p- and numerous cracks parallel with the main crack in t:he bay g j E
,. extended along the shore.s."
i r-
/-" p. 18 "At Marshall the Humble Hotel was thrown bodily--and upright--into 1
p )
4 the bay, the. boarders unharmed; and at aristocratic Inverness, on Tomales Bay, three st=mer cottages suffered the same fate."
- p. 19 A train standing at Point Reyes Station wac 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
, underlying rock is really broken. Here on a slope lines of fruit J i
V 3
g
_2 . -
.. ~"
.7 i
_ - - _ . . .,1 . . . . .. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __
~
.s .. . 2. .
,7; ,
. . ., .s
.r )
. . ^
J
{ ,
, , .L !(
. a .
"The Investigation of.the California Earthquake,".by Grove Karl '
Cilbert,- of the U. S. Geological Survey, .s, , [>
1 i p. 245 "The natural foundation of Oakland is simil'r.c a .tha.t of San Jose,.
l and its distance from the earthquake origin is about the same, but l
l- p the injury to its buildings was decidedly less; and Santa Rosa i
- .- standing on ground apparently firmer than that s.
- Oak 1 cad or' San
[ ,j Jose and having a some what ' greater distinc'e from the fault, was
_. nevertheless shaken with extreme' violence."
6":
f- It appears, -therefore', the destruction at Santa Rosa is valid evidence of
.g@. the greater intensity along the segment of the fault in Marin County..
w.
p .=.-, -,
- e. . a Iw s.% g s :. i
- g. m j w- )
E
- =
1 i
- -_-- 1 3
1 e m~
1 i
e l
LJ
-h l
q q, . . . ._
5 flA
($ l
-g .
. v. . . . . _ . .
f-t
. w .. ,
s trees were shifted, a well was moved bocily three or f5ur feet, 4 and a crack about one fourth mile long extended across a neigh-boring field, its direction paralled with that of the Tomales rife."
- p. 59 "It was much less severe in San Francisco than anywhere along the M l rift in Marin or Mendocino Counties."
{ Although the Santa Rosa destruction was attributed to poor' construction, the same type of construction does not appear to be unique as shown by R- ,
the following:
fy sl ~ . "The Destructive Extent of the California Earthquake, by Charles C..
n -
rL~Q~ Dorleth, Jr., Associate Professor of Structural Engineering, m ._
( ..
University of California.
r- p. 114 " Proportionately, speaking, Santa Rosa's loss was greater,than that ,
- w. .
1.?.- of San Francisco..... But it is my judgement that the shock was gg _ ..
less serious in the northern city than in' San Francisco. How then u ,. '
should the general destruction be explained? The brick buildings en 4]
. ~ .
of Santa Rosa were carelessly constructed."
~:q
[O.;
- p. 131 "The most general destruction by earthquake in San Francisco was i.
r..
observed in ordinary brick buildings. Brick walls were usually k l thin, of careless bond, and built with lime mortar of little strength."
l _..l
- p. 188 " San Jose, about forty miles to the south and east of San Francisco, j 1
is thirteen miles to the east of the fault line..... The earth-J quake destruction was appalling. . . . . . Again we find cheap con-struction with lime mortar, weak framing and insufficient anchor-ing for floors and roofs."
P 7
'4 4
, . . . - . - - - . - - - ~ ~ ~ + - - - -
. (,) 9-
. . . l The Preliminary Hazards Su:: nary Report Appendix 4 by Drs. Tocher and Quaide . l states: "The following description of effects of the shock (odher than fault a
trace phenomena) was made'by Professor J. N. LeConte and Mr. A. S. Wright (Lawson, ')
1908, page 191). 'Near Bodeen Eesd the bridge over Salmon Creek was Somewhat' twisted.
Just beyond this a good sized hotel previously used as'a sucner resort was badly j wrecked'by the earthquake. It was moved on its foundation and rendered unfit for 1
l habitation. The building was close to the sand dunes and probably rested on -
{.- j; -
sandy deposits. The barn was completely wrecked'" Although this destruction may i
2 )
F have been due'to soft ground, it should occassion some concern as to the maximum 2
(C:
, , . intensity expected in the Bodega Head Region. The destruction is typical of
- h. Modified Mercali Intensity IX not VIII as is reported by Tocher and Quaide to be r..
~
f the maximum probable intensity at the site.
k ai e- ,
E, .
Drs. Tocher and Quaide also state, "At least one and perhaps two or more major f s.n j
->- earthquakes can be expected near the site within the next century. These may l
7 {
@ be as strong, or even somewhat stronger than the California earthquake of i F, .. ; . April 18, 1906". d y
e m
i-
{ It would s'eem appropriate therefore to design for an intensity of X MMI or greater.
Whan the unit is designed to withstand the appropriate intensity, particular attention should be given to items whose failure could result in the !
4 release o'f activity. These include reactor core, fuel elements, control and safety rods, supporting positioning members, reactor pressure vessel, primary coolent loop, piping systems, the heat exchangers, instrumentation, safety devices, emergency water system, containment building structures. Particular attention should be given to out of phase movement betvEen adjacent structures
. 6 i j Q.
gi
1 e 1
~,
bI ,
1 or machinery and particularly to piping. We believe that this should not place a great burden on the company since, according to their own consultant Dr. G.
W. Housner in an article titled " Design of Nuclear Power Reactors Against Earth-1 quakes" p'ublished in the Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Earthquake l
l 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 R and can withstand horizontal accelerations of 0.5g or even 1.0g without requiring l any appreciable strengthening over brdinary operating design. Thus the relatively l E Tl large design; accelerations mentioned above are in general not difficult to meet l
and do not usually require any appreciable additional cost to meet the earthquake requirements. This can be expected, however, only if earthquake considerations p- are kept in mind from the beginning of the design. . If careful thought is not r
Y-given from the beginning of the design the cost of earthquake protection may be l
f.-
p appreciably increased." He further says on page 143 " pipes connecting two pieces l g,"p. of equipment must be designed so' as not to be pulled apart when the equipmert y
~~
begins vibrating. In fact, all piping, whether for steam or water, must be 5.
?=
designed and supported so as to resist seismic forces. More careful attention
!?r t,_
must be given to details in piping than is the usual practice when designing r
industrial installations. This probicm is particularly severe in the case of nuclear reactors because of their very extensive piping systems". On page 144 he says "In the present state of knowledge, the design of the nuclear reactor must be made for the worst possible conditions and it would not seem advisable to reduce the design criteria on the bases of assessed geological merits. of the site".
W 7 -
[,
e
~
r
, L) '
It should be reiterated that barring proof as to the characteristics of the pressure supression system under all conditions including earthquakes, baffles should be included as they are in Humbolt Bay Reactor pressure suppression system. '
)
7.q Also in the above book edited by David Starr Jordan was the following cocraent: j t
" Local Effects of the California Earthquake of 1906", Stephen Taber,
- . _, Stanford University, c
- p. 274 "It w' as the first motion that snapped off branches, overturned oak trees F_ 9. and wrecked buildings in the immediate vicinity of the fault line; and m
p3 although this motion extended for a considerable distance, the damage L
{ it caused was limited to a belt not over a mile distant from the fractura".
E L.
These findings of Stephen Taber agree with the statement found in the Proceedings I of the Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. I, "On the Damage b
g of Fukui Earthquake and the Destructive Power of Earthquake of Such A Kind'.', by
[ Professor Y. Sakabe:
5 C*'L p. 546 "I feel it absolutely undeniable that the shock motion plays the main 7:
r part on the destruction near the epicenter". ;
j l Because of the possibility of earth shock ss described above, and since the j t.-
p Bodega reactor site is approximately 1500 feet from the western limit of'the C
fault zone, we would like to know if this factor has been considered by Drs. l Tocher,'Quaide, and Housner in the for=ulation of the seisme evaluation of the :
I plant site and design criteria. l J
1
. i O 9 j
4 2
8, ai
- _ _ - _ _ _ = ,
. ~< . . , . ..s.
.,s.. . 1. _ - - - _ _ _ _ . _ - - - -
')
.. .... 1
,)
()
l y .>. ... ,
3
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS -
l)
- 1. In summary only one seismologist.has made an analysis of the site for the I maximum probable earthquake intensity. It woul:1 be desirable to have a seismologist not employed by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company make an independent evaluation. ,
, i b
i '
2 The anticipated maximum intensity of Modified Mercali Intensity VIII and E
0 .
design criteria based on MMI IX is open to some question. Further investi-i MN gation as' to the probability of a MMI of X or greater at the site .is .
I-- l .
l rj g t.
advisable. . l h
> ... 3. Earth shock motion as well as wave motion has contributed significantly P
51 r
to the destruction in the area near the active portion of the fault. In the 1906 earthquake,' it played the main part in the destruction at distances t~ _
of one mile on either side of the active ar'ea of the fault. The magnitude
- k. i' ~.
A:t of destructive forces should be investigated because the Bodega reactor r-Ei site is approximately'1500 feet from the western limit of the fault zone.
-.3% .
p 4. Particular attention during design and construction should be given to the aseismic qualities of the piping systems, h
.r
- c. 5. The characteristics of surging, standing waves, etc. under all conditions f- including earthquakes should be investigated before baffles are deleted i5 from the pressure suppression system.
L_a,
Y '*' . , ., ' ?! " -) , , f , . . ".b.
!.yG:' n s Bruce W. Maxwell ,-
Norman S. Farha Geologist Geologist O y 9
x h .$
,4
' . . . . . . . ..-+-.w.. :. it
\ l.
i
- i !
t Q_ '
ADDENDUM TO " REVIEW OF TdE SEISMIC FACTORS PERTAINING TO THE BODEGA BAY ATOMIC POWER UNIT - NLDiBER 1" DATED MAY 16, 1963 REVISED MAY 28, 1963 The maximum intensity at tha site can not be predicted with.any degree of certainty. The design criteria should be based on at least the maximum intensity known or thought to have occurred at Bodega. If a safety factor '
is desired the design should, of course, be for a higher intensity, i The April 18, 1906 earthquake intensity at Bodega Head is reported by the I State Earthouake Investigation Committee Uoon the California Earthouake o_f,f i' Aer!1 18, 1906 to be 10 Rossi-Forel, equivalent to 10 or greater on the L- Modified Mercali scale. Thus design for 10 MMI would be in line with reported j
L facts. In light of this, construction of plant etc. for any less than 10 FBiI l y_. would imply sanction of failure of reactor components. Horizontal forces on !
p -
the order of 1 g are' to be expected from the earth shock or initial movement i along the fault.
-Q f Kunerous slickensides, planes of slippage in the rock, are present in the
- _4 r -
l! sea cliff west of the site. These are evidence of movement at the site but the age could not be determined and the presence of dirt dumped over the
"~
cliff during recent construction prevented examination of a critical area
[- for evidence of a fault through the saddle in which the reactor will b.e ,
P- situated. Engineering geologists of the U. S. Geological Survey (Messers. I gpg.j Schlocker, Bonelli, Cicbsch) are examining the site for evidence of recent pf ..
faulting and will prepare a report for the Department of Interior.
W:
zu m June 13. 1963 '.
$4 DATE C
- d. ,,e.,, Y*0! t ;, . '
[ SIGNATURE -
b j
^
Geolecist TITLE
- 7 e
A b
_ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -