ML20234E730
Text
,.
J
(
(
j-
<J A
Files February 7, 1964 1
um p n e r, em Clifford Ee Beck, Deputy Director of Regulation DOCKET No. 50-205 JAM &If 31, 1964 At the close of an entended meeting en Jammary 30th between i
representatives of the Reguistory Staff, dCES, Coast and geodetic j
Survey,' geological Survey and 7363, darias dich the gestegy of the nedega plant site was extensively discussed, ter. Schlecker I
made it kneum that he had "three pages of questions" dich had.
met been diesessed (though he admitted that many questions en his list may have been discussed, he had set sheeked, and mock
.J eppertunity for discussion had been gives). Pleas were therefore innsediately made for the writer.to meet with Schlecker and Benilla i
en the Sellevias day to se over the questions diek remained un-discussed, and, if neccesary, to arrange easther embsequent j
I meeting with 936E to discuss any eignifiaamt.iesees.
Accordingly, em Jan. 31, the writer, Mr. game, Mr. Eselock of the ABC staff met with Schlamber.and Semilla. A summary of our discussion follows:
1.
Seklocker expressed extensive embarrassment and apelasised at length for having acted " stupidly" and caused himself, his chief, and the Ragulatory Staff much embarrassment en the preceding day.
He was further embarrassed at having to report that his extensive "three page list" of undiscussed questians was, he discovered en examination, fully discussed during the preceding day except for some minor and inconsequential points.
2.
Schleeker, heuever, had had it breesht to his attention i
by Mr. Andersee that his position en the probability of sarface ruptures em Bodega Bead in ease of another 1906 aarthquake, as expressed both in oral discussies and in his writtaa report, had been misundersteed. His real position, he stated, was'"the probability of surface ruptures en Bodega in case of amether 1906 earthquake l
is very low, but he the@t people should knee that there never-theless is a possibility that one might oceur."
Schlecker stated that his eseclusion in the writtaa report I
that a surface rupture en Bodega "neuld" escur did not represent his true epimies; he thought "ees might possibly occur"; further, OFTICE >
SURNAME >
DATE >
Rarm AEC-818 (Rev.9-63)
- u. s. eavesassnv emanae.mcs so-e27es-e 8709220493 851217 7 Mbbkfp ES
-665 PDR
. m e,yttee
( (
Feb. 7, 1% 4 s
Sehtesher stated his opinion that'the probability of a movement alens the " shaft fastt" was seasiderably lower still. The " shaft fasit" would be no more likely to move in any future earthquehe chas any one of mesy others en Bodega Esad. Upon qosetioning, Schlooker stated skat if ese hundred 1906 type earthquakes'should ecour, perhaps one er a
" fee" might cause serface ruptures en Bedegal would met agree that one rupture would appear in ten earthquakes (didn't went to be pinned down).
Besi11a believes the probability is lever than Schlocker does.
3.
Bonilla believes that the toesties of surface break within the 1'
Sam Andreas fanit is case of asether major earthquake would probably be slees to the 1906 break.
Schlecker aise thinks this is probable, but he believes it is possible that the break might appear at some other location.
4.
Sehteeker believes that movement along any fault en Bodega in a new earthquake is quite likely to be less than an inch ta magnitude "these might het aise believes that is one hundred er se 1906 type pfault lines"...
be a movement of some magnitude somewhere along Bodega a "a feet er ae".
3.
Beat 11a believes that the 1906 subsidiary ground settens at Inverness and probably Wittenburg occurred alems previessly sotablished fanit lines and that evidence of similst esisttag fault 11 ass en sedega has met been feend.
schlecker believes that detailed a==menatten of Sedags for 190s surface fanit has met been made (by Geslagic Survey): believes any motions at nedega in 1906 would ney be obliterstaid by the passage of times believes tepegraphy and aerial photographs do not show features en Bodess similar to these observed at Pt. Bayes.
6.
Schlecker, en several minor points, believest Mar 11 ave photographs of the sediment fault were chosen to a.
minimise the maguicude of the fault.
b.
Tscher's " breaking wave born of clay" indicating sliding motion along layers in the sediment could be intasyreted quita differently, theegh he sees no real significance either way.
o.
At %arker 39" Techer indicates more significance to the "diseentimmity in the fault" than schleeker thinks is justified.
d.
Schlecker does met agree with Techer en the significance of
%sneelinal foldias" in the sediment layers adjacent to the fault leasties; thinks the two may be a coincidence, s.
Schlecker indicated he did not went to "think he was botag unebjective" but did admit some emotional involvement with the differeness in viewpoints between himself and Techar and stated that he dess find osme satisfaattom in poda's present inclination to agree with him that the fanit in *ka -haft is tectonic in origin.
OFTICE >
SURNAME >
OATE>
m 82 (Ret M 8 8
- ***8a' ***ana*.'nce to--627st-e
(
t s
Mene to Files
~3-7.
Sehteeker believes that he and Bonills were "saght unprepared"
]
dth a good suplanatien der the absesse of a faalt in the sediment at the mertheast edge of the pit. Schlecker does met new fully agree with anderson that, after the clay sediments at that leasties were very old, they would not absorb a ground _ metten without retaining traces of that netten.
Schlecker thinks the elay, even after being old, might have absorbed a defesunstion without retaining a trace. He thtaks that the absence of a fanit at one er two other places may be'stattarly septained. Neverthe-less, Sohteeker now eencodes that he is fully convinced that the weight of evidence stearly sheve that the sediment faalt is very old. Schleeker claims esasiderable emperience with the celering of minarats in sedissats and eenits that movement fof even less than an inch" in the sediments steeg the faalt lines, as judged from the celer bands, has not eesurred within 500 er 1,000 years at least.
S.
sekleehar restated his belief that the ebeerved sediment featts were cansed is a stag *w event. Otherwise, there would be more breachlag, parallet 11 ass of break, and othar irregularities than now appast.
9.
Sehteeker and Bouilla both insisted that osaa of these points were of sufficient significance te justify any further meeting with the WER gee 14 stets.
espies to:
EL Pstee ISE Mana C.Benderson E, lowenstein 5.0. Case S. F. Radlock s
O,
J I
OFFICE >
SURNAME >
DATE>
N @ M
- u. s. sossaan v,e,.vi e, rect t
62768-s
a.
g ro 7
3 UNITED STATES GO s.4 MENT
/
f Memorandum c
^
in To
- Files l
- DATn: February 7,1964 l
f'DeutyDirector-PROM : Clifford K.
k, of Regulati suajEcT: CONFERENCE ON BODEGA WITH SCHIACKER AND BONILIA JANUARY 31, 1964 fo' M At the.close of an extended meeting on January 30th between representatives of the Regulatory Staff, ACRS, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Geological Survey and PG&E, 'during. which the geology of the Bodega plant site was extensively discussed, Mr. Schlocker l
made it known that he had "three pages of questions" which had not been discussed (though.he admitted that many questions on his -
l list may have been discussed, he had not checked, and much opportunity for discussion had been given). Plans were therefore inanediately made for the writer to meet with Schlocker and Bonilla on the following day to go. over the questions which remained un-discussed, and, if necessary, to arrange another subsequent meeting with PG&E to discuss any significant issues.
Accordingly, on Jan 31, the writer, Mr. Case, Mr. Hadlock of the AEC staff met with Schlocker and Bonilla.- A stanmary of our discussion follows:
)
i 1.
Schlocker expressed extensive embarrassment.and apologized we at length for having acted " stupidly" and caused-himself, his chief,
)
and the Regulatory Staff much embarrassment on the preceding day, j
He was further embarrassed at having to report that his extensive i
j.
"three page list" of undiscussed questions was, he discovered on
)
l-examination, fully discussed during the preceding day except ' for some minor and inconsequential points.
2.
Schlocker, however, had had it brought to his attention by Mr. Anderson that his position on the probability of surface ruptures on Bodega Head in case of another 1906 earthquake, as expressed both in oral discussion and in his written report, had been 4
misunderstood. His real position, he stated, was "the probability of surface ruptures on Bodega in case of another 1906 earthquake j
is very low, but he thought people should know that there never-theless is a possibility that one might occur."
Schlocker stated that his conclusion in the written report-that a surface rupture on Bodega "would" occur did not represent his true opinion; he thought "one might possibly occur"; further, O
_. - -. ~. _ - _ _.. - - - - -
(
(
Memo to Files Feb. 7, 1964 Schlocker stated his opinion that the probability of a movement along the " shaft fault" was considerably lower still. The " shaft fault" would be no more likely to move in any future earthquake than any one of many others on Bodega Head. Upon questioning, Schlocker stated that if one hundred 1906 type earthquakes should occur, perhaps one or a "few" might cause surface ruptures on Bodega; would not agree that one rupture would appear in ten earthquakes (didn't want to be pinned down).
Bonilla believes the probability is lower than Schlocker does.
3.
Bonilla believes that the location of surface break within the San Andreas fault in case of another major earthquake would probably be close to the 1906 break. Schlocker also thinks this is probable, but he believes it is possible that the break might appear at some other location.
4.
Schlocker believes that movement along any fault on Bodega in a new earthquake is quite likely to be less than an inch in magnitude but also believes that in one hundred or so 1906 type quakes "there might be a movement of some magnitude samewhere along Bodega's fault lines"...
"a foot or so".
5.
Bonilla believes that the 1906 subsidiary ground motions at Inverness and probably Wittenburg occurred along previously established fault lines and that evidence of similar existing fault lines on Bodega has not been found. Schlocker believes that detailed examination of Eodega for 1906 surface fault has not been made (by Geologic Survey); believes any motions at Bodega in 1906 would now be obliterated by the passage of time; believes topography and aerial photographs do not show features on Bodega similar to those observed at Pt. Reyes.
l 6.
Schlocker, on several minor points, believes:
l l
a.
Marliave photographs of the sediment fault were chosen to minimize the magnitude of the fault.
l b.
Tocher's " breaking wave horn of clay" indicating sliding motion along layers in the sediment could be interpreted quite differently, though he sees no real significance either way.
c.
At 'harker 39" Tocher indicates more significance to the
" discontinuity in the fault" than Schlocker thinks is justified.
d.
Schlocker does not agree with Tocher on the significance of
'bonoclinal folding" in the sediment layers adjacent to the fault location; thinks the two may be a coincidence, e.
Schlocker indicated he did not want to "think he was being unobjective" but did admit some emotional involvement with the differences in viewpoints between himself and Tocher and stated that he does find some satisfaction in PG&E's present inclination to agree with him that the fault in the shaft is tectonic in origin.
1 W
s
(
(
Memo to Files 7.
Schlocker believes that he and Bonilla were " caught unprepared" with a good explanation for the absence of a fault in the sediment at the northeast edge of the pit. Schlocker does not now fully agree with Anderson that, af ter the clay sediments at that location were very old, they would not absorb a ground motion without retaining traces of that motion.
Schlocker thinks the c'.ay, even after being old, might have absorbed a defonnation without retaining a trace. He thinks that the absence of a fault at one or two other places may be similarly explained. Neverthe-less, Schlocker now concedes that he f s fully convinced that the weight of evidence clearly shows that the sediment fault is very old. Schlocker claims considerable experience with the coloring of minerals in sediments and admits that movement "of even less than an inch" in the sediments along the fault lines, as judged from the color bands, has not occurred within 500 or 1,000 years at least.
8.
Schlocker restated his belief that the observed sediment faults were caused in a single event. Otherwise, there would be more branching, parallel lines of break, and other irregularities than now appear.
9.
Schlocker and Bonilla both insisted that none of these points were of sufficient significance to justify any further meeting with the PG&E geologists.
copies to:
HL Price r HM Mann C.Henderson R. Iowenstein E.G. Case G. F. Hadlock o
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _