ML20234E820
Text
_
1
(
(.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT v
Memorandum EB 7 19c4 To
- Files DAra:
FROM : John F. Newell, Chief, Site-Environmental-Branch, Division of Licensing and Regulation susJEcT: SUM 4ARY & MEETINGS ON JAhUARY 29 AND 30,1964, WITH USGS AND PG6E CONCERNING GEOLOGY OF THE PROPOSED BODEGA BAY REACTOR SITE On January 29 and'30, 1964, meetinss were held in Room 107 at the Bethesda AEC building to discuss the report prepared by Julius S$hlocker and Manuel G. Bonilla of the U. S. Beological Survey entitled " Engineering Geology of the Proposed Nuclear Power Plant Site on Bcdega Hea,d, Socioma County,. California" and Amendment No. 5 of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's
~
Application to construct a reactor plant on Bodega Head. The USGS report sunnarizes and' interprets geological' observations made in connection with excavation ~of the proposed reactor pit on Bodega Head, and the PG&E Amendment No. 5, ' summarizes the i
findings of the PG&E consultants in geology and seismology based cn observations of the same area. These reports reflect signi-ficant differences in the interpretation of certain observations.
The discussions on January 29th was centered on the report submitted by USGS and was not attended by PG&E, though some of the differences with the PG&E repoit were discessed. The meeting y (/
/
8709220536 851217
~
PDR FDIA 5'.7 f7 2Q { 33 (- ~ ~ - ~ - --
~
)7 FIRESTO85-665 PDR
~ ' /Y'
'o
7 p
2-l on January 30th was attended by both USGS and PG&E and the discussion was centered on the PGb5 report and the differences I:
with USGS interpretations. Attendeeis at the meetings were as -
- ~,!
fo110was January 29 and 30. 1964 January 30. 1964 U. S. Geolonical Survey PG6E Dr. Anderson C. C. Whelchel Julius Schlocker F. Mautz Manuel Bonilla P. Crane Al Clebsch Dr. Bentoff (Consultant)
Dr. Tocher (Consultant)
U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey
' Mr'.' Mar 11 ave (Consultant)
- Leonard Murphy USAEC
[:'
H. Shapar (Part-time)
ACRS Dr. Kouts
~
Mr. Rogers
^
.i Dr. Geyer Mr. Wilcox USAEC L L. Price C. K. Beck M. Mann R. Lowenstein E. Case R. Bryan N. Watson G. Hadlock L. Kornblith J. Newell The discussions during both days covered many details of_the
.-1
- 1 geological observations most of which are described in the reports' i
e s
8 e
e e
w-
_.____m_____m._____m._n.._____
_...b.____
-_.--m
r
.I l{
{
i'j I
t 3
{
(.
j l
l
'l
.subeltted by both PG&E and USGS. The following is a topical j
if i
sumanary of the d'iscussions for the two days.
I r
1.
Fracturina and faulting in the bedrock' That the quarts-diorite bedrock is highly fractured and.
'N i
f aulted was verified by the shaf t excavation... There appeared 1
i to be general agreement between USGS and PG&E that this-i condition was a combination of tectonic activity and cooling.
m.:
USGS observed that the size of quartz-diorite blocks appeared to be smaller at the bottom of the pit excavation that at the
)
upper bedrock elevations in the pit. The PG&E geologists did.
f not disagree with this observation nor did they agree.
1 USGS and PG&E appear to be in general agreement tha? the zone I
of faults (called the shaft fault in the USGS report) was produced by tectonic action. Schlocker and'Bonilla of USGS
- 3
~~-
believes that slippage has occurred along the ruptures-in this fault zone on several occasions. They stated that evidence in the quartz-diorite formation was not available for making a conclusive determination as to the extent of. slippage, although i
they observed that sharply dipping dikes (one pegmatite and ona'-
leucodiorite) are offset by the shaf t f ault in a manner indicat-ing possible horizontal movement of several. feet. They described observations on the two dikes as indicating possible f
Interal movement of several feet, though they emphasised the
- )
L
+
- ens, 4WIW e g swieLesim >
6-+r
.e.,s.e,y
,e.,
e-gn.i e
M ai i
I
i
('
. l-Il unreliability of these observations for. predicting the
)
magnitude of any movement.
i t
They sta'ted that their interpretation of observations connected with'the pegmatite dike lndicated left lateral movement along the fault in the bedrock,'while their observa-
~I 1
tions of the'1eucodiorite dike indicated the possibility for lateral movement in the opposite direction..USGS and PQkE l
were generally in agressent that the extent of lateral movement could not reliably be determined by the meager evidence available e
in the bedrock.
f PG&E (Mar 11 ave) believes that movement in the shaft fault has' 1
been no' more than an inch. He believes the numerous fractures in
~ 'i the bedrock were caused by stresses induced by cooling and seismic action, that the fimetures have relieved the stresses in
- the rock formation and, hence, the possibility for large movement during an earthquake. Bentoff stated that he has calculated the maximum movement that could occur in a fault on Bodega due to a slippage of 20 feet (1906 earthquake) at Bodega Bay along the i
active part of' San.Andress (which is near the eastern edge of the i
fedit* sone) to be less than one-inch. Schlocker believes that the evidence indicates movement in the shaft fault has been on the order of feet.-
^
6 0
s e
e 8
- = *
-,aps e-saase g
_-e -== mio eteep, we
,se*=-g--
sep=a spaa we,,
e
{
4 l
- 2., Off sets in ' the sediments l
USGS believes the offsets'in the sediments overlying the bedrock to be directly related to slippage in the bedrock and that these offsets could have occurred during one tectonic i
event. -The USGS conclusion in this regard is based on observations of these offsets in the southwest wall'of the
~
q shaf t and the ability to trace faulting in the ' sediments for some 150 ' feet beyond the southwest wall of ' the 'shaf t.'
A i
maxisum of 14 inch' vertical' separation was observed in the J
i sediments on the shaf t wall, and USGS believes that the reversal
')
ls. )
in directions of dip of the fault observed'in this wall,' the-difference in thickness of sedimentary beds and the general l
l lack of matching sedimentary beds on opposite sides'of.'the fault all suggest that horizontal movement ou the fault has occurred. With respect to the reported measurements showing a maximum vertical separation in the sediments of 14 inches /
~
and Bonilla they believe that horizontal movement accounted for at least part of the " apparent" vertical offset. In this regard, they~
1 stated that calculations show a horizontal movement of about-13 feet would be necessary to account for the entire 14 inches of vertical offset.
I PG&E believes that offsets in the sediments were caused by landslides and subsidence.because none were found in the' sediments 1
overlying the bedrock at the northeast wall of the shaft,'and w,
-esi,e; w.g C.amw om.ne-unre d wa s - e we > %es e== s e w m
a
_._____._______._J
1 i,I -
("
.(
j i
f i
,d 1
6-
]
offsets were not' observed in the sediments overlying the bedrock fault zone within the pit beyond a distance of about i
fifty feet as measured from the southwest wall of the pit.
i In addition, efforts to locate the fault'in sediments easterly from the pit were not successful. Also, PC6E contends tihat gross slippage of the shaft fault would have ruptured the-sediments clear to the ground' surface. The' extension of'the sediment fault in the wouthwest wall of the pit could not be seen above elevation of-about minus 16 feet in the first trench constructed west of t,he pit. The second fault found in'
,K the vall of this trench, about eight or nine feet from the
~ ~i i
shaft fault alignment, was traced by both PG&E and USGS for a distance of about 150 feet at the plus 25 foot elevation. This f ault was not found at the plus 50 feet elevation. PGkE does not consider this fault to be related'to the shaft fault.
l
~
Since the sediments immediately overlying the bedrock in the eastern part of the pit consisted of a thick-layer of clay, l
USGS attributed the lack of-evidence (offsets) on the northeast wall to plastic deformation of the clay during tectonic-movement along the shaft fmult.
.j In connection with the observations in the trench, Schlocker and' Bonilla believe that faulting in the sediments " died out upward" i
l e
- ~ -
~, - - -
~
-l 2
7.
?
also' that the'"second" f ault observed in the trench that is about eight or nine feet from the alignment of the shaft.
fault, is related to the' shaf t f ault by '?en echelon" faulting.
They stated that tectonic faults of lateral movement are characteristically " discontinuous," "en echelon," and'
" branching":and that surface. ruptures observed'during the 1906 earthquake illustrated.these characteristics.
Bonilla stated that the fault in the sediments goes up over i
a bedrock ridge and the orientation of this ridge would have-required a landslide'to be 'phill..or in a direction opposite.
u to the slope of the' bedrock. Because of thic, both Bonilla and'
. ~;f Schlocker believe it highly unlikely that the sediment faults were caused by landslide or subsidence.
f PG&E (Tocher) stated that the clay, seam which truncates the-offset in the sediments observed in the trench west of the pit
]
indicates that offsets occurred before the clay seam and the overlying sediments were deposited, and therefore, if the offsets were caused by tectonic activity they would have occurred
- j considerably more than 42,000 years ago, based on the carbon 14 dating of wood found at elevations between plus 50 and plus 75.
i Schlocker and Bonilla are not in agreement with the PG&E theory' since they believe it more likely that the faulting died out 11 1
upward and the clay seam did not rupture because of.its
.1
(-
capacity for plastic deformation.
i:
I o<
l r
)
-i
(N
('
4 1
.- i 4
i 3.
Geologic Age USGS and PG&E were in general agreement on.the ages'of rocks; and sediments.
Quartz-diorite Bedrock -
80 million. years.
Bottom of pit is in" bedrock at elevation minus.73 (below.
I
~
sea level).
Fault in sediments found at plus 25 but not found at-plus 50.
t 1
-]
The minimam age of the younger (upper) sediments was placed'at about 42,000 years. The older sediments were estimated to-
'1 range in age from about 300,000 years to 800,000 years.
- 4
~
i i
There was general agreement between USGS and PG&E that no
]
evidence was presented as to observations in the bedrock in the.
shaf t that would be useful for dating the shaf t fault.
Dr. Anderson of USGS does not believe that any evidence pre-I sented to date would support " recency" of snovement along the shaf t f ault, but believes the last movement 'could have occurred "in the order of centudes" ago.
lThere,was also 1
general agreement that available evidence does not provide a
!j basis for dating the sediment f aults with any degree of precision.
4.
Relevancy of Point Reyes a
Schlocker and Bonilla reported that surface ruptures occurred I
in the vicinity of Point Reyes during the 1906 earthquake..
These were described by Gilbert (a geologist) following the '
e esp.
~, -..
e 9
(
(
-9 4
,I 1906 event. According to the report by Gilbert, ruptures 7
occurred at Inverness and at Mount Wittenberg. Inverness is
, 4 s
about 2,000 feet west of thewstern litnit of San Andreas, I
and the lateral movement at Inverness according to Gilbert, was approximately 2-1/2 feet. Schlocker and Bonilla found
' I i,
1 what they believed to be the rupture area described by
]
Gilbert with assistance from a resident of Inverness.
]
Schlocker and Bonilla believe the evidence at this location I
confirmed that a surface rupture occurred in 1906.
i Tocher stated his belief that "old" faults exist which have been "recently" active, and that f aults at Bodega Head have have not been recently active. Tocher also stated that he believed the bedrock moved at Inverness in 1906, but questi::ned j
i whether it moved two feet. Mar 11 ave stated that the sediments 1
moved two feet or more due to landslide but the rock moved l
"very little."
Schlocker and Bonilla stated that the 1
description by Gilbert, who was a conpetent geologist that made 4
l the observation following the 1906 earthquake, does not confirm Mar 11 ave's and Tocher's beliefs.-
At Mount Wittenberg, which is about one mile west of the San Andreas Fault Zone, neither USGS nor PG6E could locate the break
~ ~
described by Gilbert. Schlocker and Bonilla stated that the faulting crossed a ridge at about right angles in this ares and there was evidence that this was a fresh break in 1906.
WM
.---w.%-
%w..,
1
--_-.._..._____.m
f g
b i,
They stated that serial photos show many lines in this area l
)
which are faults and zones of weakness. PG&E consultants I
suggested that faulting in the sediments at Mt. Wittenberg was due to slumping instead of gross movement in the bedrock.
Based on the information in the Point Reyes area, which chowed I
about two feet or so movement in faults about the same distance from the San Andreas as the Bodega reactor site, Schlocker stated he would expect movement of this magnitude could occur at Bodega. Tocher agreed that he would expect movement in the Point
'l Reyes area, but said there is 'no evidence of recent slippage l
~
st Bodega. He stated that he "will not deny that it is possible, I
but believes _it is un1'ikely at Bodega," he would not recommend loca-I tion of a reactor at Point Reyes but he believes that the l
evidence on Bodega Head shows that no slippage has occurred for thousands of years. Schlocker and Bonilla stated that Bodega Head has not been examined in sufficient detail to establish that I
lateral movement has not occurred along any faults on Bodega Head.
In this regard they believe that weathering and lack of trees and other cover together with grazing of the area would have obliterated any surface signs of faulting in 1906. Also they do not believe that probabilities of rupture can be determined for Bodega Head based on presently available data. Tocher said that the probability for movement at Point Reyes area is higher than for movement'at Bodega. Schlocker believes there is no difference between the two locations in this regard.
- ~. - ~ ~.,.
,,.--a
f
(
s..
A-
- 11..
5.
Miscellaneous observations'concerninn San Andreas Fault' Zone and Bodens Head Leonard Murphy of U. S.' Coast and, Geodetic-Survey commented
~briefly about the San Andreas as follows:
Only three or four major earthquakes.have occurred along the San Andreas in recent times (150 years or so) and their positions are'not known within a few miles, and the exact position of the l
1906 earthquake.is not known. The San Andreas earthquakes occur.
at a depth of 15 to 25 miles.. It cannot be assumed that energy.
from'an earthquake is transmitted vertically.to the; surface -
y there is only the observation of what happens on the surface.
The Hypocenter usually disagrees by several miles with surface-effects. In California there have been innumerable small earth-quakes off the f aults, but the major ones are located along the fault systems. There is one earthquake per day felt in California on the average. Those of a magnitude of 6.5 to 7 and above are located on or close to the major known faults.,
l There was general consensus between USGS and PG6E that the Bodega reactor plant location.is approximately 1000 feet west of the
" western boundary" of the San Andreas f ault zone, and that. fault-ing exists outside of the commonly accepted zone boundaries.
In this regard,'Dr. Benloff stated his belief that the San Andreas fault zone is from 100 to 200 miles wide if a definition of the 8
8 e
e em
"*4" g ' N P' 58 I
ww m
e wy' gem.g
.,i sug '
ew. M w_,
^- gwp ow,
_s._---.
-__.-__-__---_a~--
(
(
c i
12 -
l-J i
fault zone would include all faults that have occurred along.
the San Andress.
.j Schlocker stated that his observations along the San. Andreas indicate that abundance of fractures and faults increases as J
the San Andreas is approached, and that the liklihood of' i
rupturing and lateral movement is greater adjacent to the fault zone than it would be somewhat further away.
Mar 11 ave and Tocher indicated that any area within five to ten miles of the San Andreas f ault, zone would be highly f aulted and
?
there would be no significant difference in hazard at five to ten
]
)
miles than at the distance of the Bodega site from the zone.
]
i.
Benioff stated that the vibratory motions from an earthquake vould be less adjacent to the fault than at the greater distance, although
.there would be a shock of short duration and the " fling" due ta the sudden movement on the San Andreas.
j ces H. L. Price i
C. K. Beck
'l M. M. Mann i
- d. Hadlock 3D
(,G R. Lovenstein R. Bryan 2
N. Watson E. G. Case T
=
g
'N*M*"'6.
e.
.a.aeu+d 2
we mm..
ge 4
A.___.--____-_____---..-
'~'
MEMO ROUTE SLIP I,
5*******'""*-
Prsrru A EC.F4 (ILw May14. 1847)
Not3 and esturn,
'*' c*acu" tace h For action.
i For signature.
70 (N2=s and unst)
For lef rem;tiog i
INITIAL.S C'**KS f
n ryan
_ E_ishteen sopies of these questians weas samt to em
_ the ACRB en 2/12/6k per instructicas frein R.' L. Fries.
\\
TO (Name and unit) f*IITIAts atMARKs
/h
? e 3
Gfh,.-
cn, f.) c L< n; V t:>yn,l N
_j ' ra.3/c
/
ca.. i...
TO (Name and unit)
INamt3 REmAAx3 V
64-5;c,- 2 or om h & f :'j'?{
FROM (Name and unft) atuangs E. G. Case i
PHONE fla DATE USE OTHEA $apg FOR ApglTegn4L aguAngs
- u. S. GovUINedENT PRINTING WTICE :1987+22007 L
<' h.
n e A,n.
j 6
+
4 t.
,t
&f
/ ", c op, e -
s <.1 m
ACKS 2b::/a 4 pee. t': P n c <
2/11/64 QUESTIONS RE BODEGA Tha basic issue to be considered is whether and to what extent there is a likelihood of differential ground motion,
" faulting", occurring during a future earthquake in the bed-f rock or sedimentary layers which would underlay the proposed reactor facility at the Bodega Head site.
The following I
questions are among those relevant to the basic issue:
l A.
On the bedrock at Bodega:
1.
What is the age of the bedrock?
2.
At what time was the bedrock first covered by sedi-i mentary layers?
3.
What significance is attached to the extensive faults on Bodega:
a.
What is the significance of the orientation of bedrock faults?
l b.
What is the age of the bedrock faults?
c.
Are any bedrock faults younger than others?
How is this determined?
4.
Is the bedrock fault significantly different in any way from others in the excavation or elsewhere on Bodega?
l a.
What was the cause of "the" bedrock fault?
b.
Was "the" bedrock fault occasioned by.one or by many different movements? - Evidence?
. c.
Can the extent of (a) lateral movement; (b) verti-cal movement in "the" bedrock fault be estimated?
d.
Can the age of the most recent movement along "the" bedrock shaft be determined?
e.
Did "the" bedrock fault move in the 1906 marth-quake?
How much movement may there have been, with the observational facts.before us as they now are?
j 5.
In another 1906 type earthquake, what is the likelihood
.~..
of movernent of (a) 1" or less; (b) 1-2 feet; -(c)T5 feet i
on (1) "the" shaft fault in bedrock, (2) other beditx:k faults under the proposed reactor site, (3) elsewhere f
on Bodega.
B.
On the Sedimentary Layers at Bodega:
i 1.
What is the age of the successive layers of sediment on Bodega?
How is this detenmined?
2.
What is the relationship (location) between "the" bed-rock shaft fault and the shaft fault in the overlying i
sediments.
)
i 1
3.
Assuming that the sediment offset was tectonic in i
l origin, did it occur all at one time or in several separate movements and what were the horizontal and l
vertical displacessents; what are the reasons for
___-____ _ U
L t 4.
What evidence exists for:
(a) tectonic. origin of the sediment offset; (b) non-earthquake origin of the sedi-ment offset; (c) for " smearing" of the original offset (however caused) by non-earthquake phenomena?
5.
What is the age of the sediment fault in years:
'A few hundred years; a few thousand years; greater than 40 thousand years; greater than a half million years?
What is evidence for this in (a) location of offset in sediment layers; (b) color banding of mineral layers; (c) other.
6.
What is significance of the age of the sediment fault, to likelihood and magnitude of possible future earth-quakes?
7.
How much lateral movement in the bedrock within the last 100 years could be accommodated by overlying sedi-ments without now being observable in the sediments?
8.
How touch displacement could occur in the bedrock at Bodega Head without rupturing the surface of the sedi-ments?
C.
Simpificance of Pt. Reyes Observations:
1.
How far away from (1) the 1906 trace in the San Andreas fault zone and (2) the western boundary of the zone did
________._____.____.__-_a
u l
1 1 surface ruptures occur at Point Reyes as a result i
of the 1906 earthquake?
2.
he was the snount of displacement (1) in the bedrock and (2) in the overlying sediments of ruptures which i
1 occurred in 1906 at Point Reyes outside the amin l
San Andreas fault zone?
i 3.
he was the cause of these ruptures?
I 4.
Did all of the 1906 ruptures outside the main fault
.i line at Point Reyes apparently occur along previous j
\\
fault lines and, if not, how many did?
I i
5.
he was the estimated ef2ne of movement along these I
previous fault lines prior to 1906?
6.
In regard to the likelihood of ruptures in the bedrock i
and ruptures in the sediments, what are the significant differences and similarities between Point Reyes and fe Bodega Head?
7.
ht is the probability of a rupture of the near surface granitic rock in the Bodega excavation should a 1906 earthquake recur in the vicinity of Bodega Head?
D.
Que_stions for Reactor Designers:
1.
h t maximum displacement of the bedrock will the reactor facility be designed to accommodate safely?
l 2.
he is the maximum displacement in the bedrock i
I
5 that the reestor fes111ty ooeld be designed to accommodate safely.
3.
he would be the extent of the daness to the facility if a rupture several feet of the near surface granitic rock at the reacter site should sceur?
4.
h t are the estimated off-site sensequences if a rupture of several ' feet of the near surface granitic rock et the reactor site should occur?
I t
l i
.i 1
l
y q
s hi a
c.
2/11/64' QUESTIONS RE BODEGA i
'The basic issue to be considered is whether and to.what I
}
. extent there is a likelihood of differential ground motion,.
" faulting", occurring during a future earthquake in the bed-rock or. sedimentary layers which 'would underlay the proposed-reactor facility. at the Bodega Head. site.
The following qu'estions are among those relevant to the basic issue:
1 A. 'On the bedrock at Bodega:
I 1.
What is the age of the bedrock?
l i
2.
At what time was the 6edrock first covered by s'edi-mentary layers?
I 3.
What significance is attached to the extensive faults on Bodega:
a.
What is the significance of the orientation of bedrock faults?
b.
What is the age of the bedrock faults?
1 c.
Are any bedrock faults younger than others?
How is this determined?
l 4.
Is the bedrock fault significantly different 16 'any way from others in the excavation or elsewhere on Bodega?
a.
What' was the cause of "the'? bedrock fault?
b.
Was "the" bedrock fault occasioned by one er by _
many. different movements?
Evidence?
O 6
)
. c.
Can the extent of (a) lateral movement; (b) verti-j cal movement in "the" bedrock fault be estimated?
l d.
Can the age of the most recent movement along I
l "the" bedrock shaft be determined?
i
- e..Did "the" bedrock fault move in the 1906 earth-
}
l quake?
How much movement may there have been, i
with the observational facts before us as they now are?
5.
In another 1906 type earthquake, what is the likelihood of movement of (a) 1"'or less; (b) 1-2 feet; (c))r5 feet on (1) "the" shaft fault in bedrock, (2) other bedfock f
faults under the proposed reactor site, (3) elsewhere
{
i on Bodega.
i l
B.
On the Sedimentary Layers at Bodega:
)
l l
'l.
What is the age of the successive layers of sediment j
on Bodega?
How is this determined?
2.
What is the relationship (location) between' "the" bed-l l
rock shaft fault and the shaft fault in the overlying sediments.
3.
Assuming that the sediment offset was tectonic in l
origin, did it occur all at one time or in several separate movements and what were the horizontal and vertical displacements; what are the reasons for the opinion held?
.L_
\\
~
p
., l' 'l :,.,,
l
.'bl^
-3'
....(f i
4.
. What' evidence exises for:
(a) tectonic origin'of the sediment. offset;; (b). non-earthquake. origin of ' the. sedi-1 ment _ offset; -(c) for'" smearing" of the original
-,h l
offset (however caused) by 'non-earthquake.-phenomena?
. 5.. What is the ~ age of the sediment fault. in' years:
ALfew hundred. years; a : few thousand. years; greater, than 40 thousand years;_ greater than a half million years?
What is evidence for this in~~(a) location of offset l
in sediment layers;. (b) color banding of mineral layers; (c) other, 4
6.
What is significance'of the age of the sediment fault, to likelihood and magnitude of possible future earth-quakes?.
7.
How much lateral movement in the bedrock within the last 100 years could be accommodated by overlying sedi-ments without now being observable in the sediments?
l 8.
How much displacement could occur in the bedrock at '
Bodega Head without rupturing the surface of the sedi-ments?
C.
Significance of Pt. Reyes Observations:
1.
How far away from (1) the'1906 trace-in the San Andreas fault zone and (2) the western boundary of the zone did 9
.. ~ -
_mm___
..m_---.-----
..=,
i N
. surface ruptures occur at Point Reyes as a result of the 1906 earthquake?
2.
What was the-amount of displacement (1) in the bedrock l
and (2) in the overlying sedLments o'f ruptures which occurred in 1906 at Point Reyes outside the main San Andreas fault zone?
3.
What was the cause of these ruptures?
4.
Did all of the 1906 ruptures outside the main fault line at Point Reyes apparently occur along previous-fault lines and, if not, how many did?
5.
What was the estbnated time of movement along these.
previous fault lines prior to 1906?
1 6.
In regard to the likelihood of ruptures in the bedrock 1
and ruptures in the sedhnents, what are the significant differences and similarities between Point Reyes and Bodega: Head?
'7.
What is the probability of.a rupture of the near surface
['
granitic rock in the Bodega excavation should -a-1906 l
earthquake recur in the vicinity of Bodega Head?
ii
~
D.
Questions for Reactor Designers:
I L
l 1.
What maximum displacement of the' bedrock will the l'
I-
]
reactor facility be designed to accommodate safely?-
l.
[
2.
What is the maximum displacement'in the bedrock'
+
u I
y i
~
j
y t
^
i ;.
.)
)
3 l
~5-
.\\
that-the reactor facility could be. designed to l
accommodate safely.
3.
What would be the extent of the damage.to 'the facility if a rupture several feet of the near~ surface granitic.
l
.I'i rock at'the reactor' site should occur?-
)
'4.
What are the estimated off-site cons'equences if a f
rupture of several feet of the' near' surface ' granitic -
]
rock at the reactor site should occur?
')
l 1
l i
1 i'
9 a
o f
8 1
t1:
)
1 i
I il l
3
.i 1 -
l j
1
__-____.-_____.____s.-
_%.__.__m___mM