ML20234F051

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Statements Prepared for PG&E 640506 News Conference Re Results of Util Trip to Alaska to Compare Earthquake Effects W/Those Which Might Be Expected at Bodega Head
ML20234F051
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Bodega Bay
Issue date: 05/06/1964
From: Southwick R
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Fouchard J
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234A767 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8709230013
Download: ML20234F051 (12)
v • d • e


Text

.

' ' ^

[ 2hf~

  • h'i [ ~.

p e r: r & ,.,

/

0)Q k [y G h t

>k Joe Fouchard, News Service Branch Hay 6, 1964

.<-l Division of Public Information, HQ g

1 Redney L. Southwick, Assistant to the

  • ,)

,. Manager for Fuhlic Infoinnation, SAN JCLE STATEHENTS ON RAE.1N M

- PI:RLS

) C ~~Mf Pacific Ces and Electric conducted a news conference this morning on their findings as a result of a trip to Alaska, comparing earthquake effects there with those which might be expected at Bodega Head. Attached are statements prepared for the news conference. Clips from local papers will be forwarded as tiny 3, become available.

Attachment As stated

.,' cc: ( Harold Price, Director of Rep lationy HQ, w/ attach.

Ro'litrEMaTe6GTesC~M.redoEof hagulation, HQ, w/ attach.

R. W. Smith, Compt. V., SAM, w/ettach.

, 't

(

"?

l' I ::

9

-'  :.- U .7, i r! \ isJ .

i

,. f;

  • t-a o

L.

{ -

9-Ai i

\

j .

1 l

i

~

e )

.I l

j i

r 8709230013 851217 PDR FOIA ppg i FIREST005-665 o

,4 i e

. , I

lff g l,
  • l

/

t .

P. O.ans E. ' N EWE .JU R EAU I 245 M AM KET STR E ET ]

SAN FRANCISCO 6, CALIP.

  • 4

'! . . . . , T ELEPHON E SU 14211 - 1 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ..  ;

F. F. MAlffZ p-l l

Mr. F. F. Mautz is the Chief Civil Engineer for P. G. and E. He has l.

l - . responsibility for the structural design of the Bodega. atomic plant. Mr.'Mautz ,

has been an engineer with P. G. and E. for 28 years, ever since his graduation '

l with honors as a civil engineer from the. University of California at- Berkeley :1

.i in 1936. since 1946 his responsibilities in the Company have included all '

phases of P. G. and E.'s thermal power plant design program, and certain civil structural design responsibilities for hydroelectric projects.- At an early 1

date, Mr. Mautz assumed a prominent role in the Company's-nuclear studies and i projects, including since 1957 studies and design of the Bodega atomic plant. .j l

f f f 1 s/6/64 1 d

'i f ..  !

, 1 i

i

^

i "l

'7.,_____,_..,..#___.____..,......,,,.,._....,,., .

-,m...,,,,.....J...,.,..,_m.,,., . , _ , .

o ,

  • 1

, . 1

> P. G. .no E. N EWd aU REAU I 245 M ARKET STREET

. SAN FRANCISCO 6. CALIF.

  • T ELE PHON E SU 14 211 REMARKS BY F. F. MAlfIZ  !

l Our purpose in going to Alaska was to observe directly the extent of damage to structures caused by the Alaskan earthquake and to determine, to the

[

- extent possible, the reason for riamage or lack of damage to structures there.

We were particularly interested in finding the relationship, if any, between the damage done by the Alaskan earthquake and our plans for the Bodega Bay nuclear plant. Our preliminary information about the Alaskan earthquake j had indicated that the damage in Alaska was largely due to unstable soil con-l l

l ditions, such as do not exist at our Bodega site. But, in the interest of com-  !

pleteness, and in order to learn all that might possibly bear upon our studies 1

of the safety of the Bodega Head reactor site, we wished to make a first hand inspection of the damage in Alaska.

We found essentially that the damage in the Alaskan quake was due to a combination of two factors: (1) poor foundation conditions, and (2) failure to follow known atructural design and construction standards for earthquake areas. ,

Major damage to structures, and usually the more spectacular type of damage, was due primarily to soils failures -- that is, massive slumping and sliding of the ground made possible by the presence of a bluff. This ground i

was of a type that would be expected to act in such a manner during heavy earthquake shocks. Such type of ground, as I have indicated, is not found at the Bodega reactor site.

Of particular interest was the manner in which important major struc-tures designed to resist earthquakes, such as power generating stations in the i

(more)

\ ., . . . . . . .+ ..

r .

(

i area, withstood the earthquake and subsequent shocks. These structures gave a good account of themselves. For example, none of the power plants in the earth-quake area was forced out of operation during the earthquake. because of mechani-1 cal, electrical or structural failure.

Our observations indicated that in every case where structures of any type vere built on good foundations, particularly on rock, they suffered little

)

or no damage, while those erected on unconsolidated materials or poor foimdations sufiered the greatest amount of damage.

Where the likelihood of earthquake forces was taken into account by the application of known principles in design and in. selection of' foundation condi-

, tions, as ve are doing at Bodega, structures withstood the earthquake and the  ;

I resulting after-shocks without ceasing to perform their primary function and with safety to persons in and about them. ,

1 s/6/64 4

5 k l

,....y,-g,3 ,,,,,,,.y.,..... .,

g.... 7, , , , , . , , , , , , . . . ,,, ., ., . , , , , . _

.a.

".* P. C. cao E. N EWS a U R E A U l 4

245 M AR KET STRE ET

. . S AN FRANCISCO S. CALIF. .

,,,,,, T E LE PHON E SU 14211 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES DR. GEORGE W. HOUSNER Dr. George W. Housner is a Professor of Applied Mechanics and Civil Engineering at California Institute of Technology. His special field is earth-1 quake engineering, and he is an international authority in this field. Among Dr. Housner's professional associations are: President of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; Director of the International Association of Earthquake Engineering; and a Director of the International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Eng16ering. As a consultant his experiences in-clude assignments for the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the California Water Plan. He has consulted on l l l

1 the seismic design of practically every nuclear reactor proposed for location in seismic areas, such as the five built or proposed in California and others in Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Japan.

l l

5/6/64 e

l 4

o I')

, . . , , . . , _ . , . . - ..-._........-.,..-,.,....y-.-,.,,,.,....

,..-.-..~...,...-m-r-' , - - + -

s Ji 9.;r, A'Q.W

(' a

[8 P. O. ad E. N E WS .4 U R E A U -

I- 24S M ARKET SvRE Ev

, . SAN FRANCISCO 6. CALIP. '

1 il, . . . , , ,

T ELE PH ON E S U 14 211 4 REMARKS BY DR. GEORGE W. HOUSNER

$ conclusions from our inspection trip to. Alaska may be summarized as follows: 1 J

1. The intensity of ground shaking in Anchorage in the frequencies ]

j pertinent to the design of nuclear power plants was not at all severe, as j

. - l evidenced by the fact that very few one story buildings were damaged and only j a very small fraction of un-reinforced masonry chimneys were toppled by the shock.

1

2. I saw no evidence of significant damage to any buildings designed.

and constructed in accordance with approved practice. On the contrary, even some relatively poorly designed and relatively weak buildings survived with only moderate damage.

t 3 Most of the serious damage to buildings was the result of large landslides in areas adjacent to bluffs. The landslides were the consequence of 1 failure of a thick layer of clay which is very soft and slippery when saturated.

News reports dramatir,ed those buildings which were damaged by landslides.

These reports have distorted the over-all picture of the earthquake effect. I estimate that at least 80% of the buildings in Anchorage survived undamaged..

4. Although there were few structures founded on rock in the region severely shaken by earthquake, those that were apparently came through without trouble.

5 There was ,nothing anomalous about this earthquake. The ground motions were consistent with our expectations of what such an earthquake should produce. Judging from the damage observed at ' Anchorage and that reported at Cordova, Seward and Whittier, a structure designed according to the criteria 3

t%;

^

s .-,.....w_,.,.~,.,w_.,,,,.-..,..,. .-..,-~,.A...._...37,,.-,,,, ,y,_ . , _ . ~ . , , ~ ,,m.,Q

.s. . <. . . . . .a ......_ r.  : u , . ..._._,_ s . . . _

, i. ( ,

(

2 being used for the Bodega Bay plant.vould have survived with$ut any damage and with relatively low stresses. . In fact, the structure being designed for the

. Bodega Bay plant would withstand earthquake forces approximately five times-

. those developed'at Anchorage.

6. There was nothin6 about the Alaskan earthquake that would indicate a necessity for reconsidering the earthquake design criteria for the Bodega Bay plant.

s/6/a i

)

1 l

i 1

', 4 e

i t

9 l l r

1 1

1 ',j l ..' 'A i j.

,..L_,-....~,.;,,__._.-,..,,.,

_, ,n 4 . . . i. w - -

  • 4
  • .g g . P. G. ord E. N E W E J U R E A U  !

Of '

245 M AR KET STR E ET 7 S AN FR ANCISCO 6. CALIF. .

, , , , , , T EL EPHON E SU 14 211 i

l f

i BIOGRAPHICAL N(TfES DR. HUGO BENIOFF Dr. Hugo Benioff is Professor of Seismology at the California Institute i

. of Technology. (Seismology is the scientific study of earthquakes.) He is an '  !

international authority on the mechanisms of earthquakes, and on seismic instru-1 ments. He has been associated with the Seismological Laboratory of the l

California Institute of Technology for 40 years. He has contributed chapters

{

I in scientific treatises and articles for the Encyclopedia Britannica on the l i

subject of earthquakes. Dr. Benioff is also the author of numerous scientific papers on this subject. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences as well as a number of geological, seismological, geophysical and astronomical societies, and has served as a consultant for the U. S. State Department and the U. S. Air Force as well as acting as chairman of the Consulting Board for Earthquake Analysis for the State of California's Department of Water Resources.

0 0 0 S/6/64

___'__C _E ' "_'_ _ ___5 $ --

.f-N . . .. .. m -

._.t.......n.-_.... . _ . . . . ,s . .s . n. - .

, . g

\ P. G..nd E. N EW5 JUREAU (

Vr 245 M ARKET STREET

. S AN FRANCISCO 6. CALIP.

.,,y T E L E P H O N E S U 1 4 211 j

RDfARKS Bf DR. HUGO BENIOFF Our trip to Alaska has reaffirmed much that we already know about 1

earthquakes. Nothing shown by the Alaskan earthquake vould indicate that the 1

- Bodega Head site is not safe. In my opinion the Bodega Head site is an excel- )

lent location for a nuclear reactor from the point of v.irw of earthquake hazards.

The reasons very briefly are these. Bodega Head prorides granitic rock into which the reactor can be buried. Althou6h the site is situated near the San 1 Andreas fault, this is not cause for alarm. Indeed, locations near active I

faults often provide better foundations for structures from the standpoint of earthquake hazards than do locations farther away. It is important for the ,

l public to realize that proximity to a fault is not the most important factor )

in determining the safety of a site from earthquake hazards.

9 I should like to speak somewhat reassuringly to the public about the l 6

San Andreas fault. This fault, which is a major and well-defined geologic j 9

feature of California, is an old geologic structure, having existed for some i

60 to 70 million years. The entire fault structure extends over 1000 miles j l

and varies in vidth from about IKK) to 2000 yards. In the Bodega area the 1906 i break was 13 miles east of the plant site. The possibility of the San Andreas fault shifting its course and rupturing elsewhere, such as through the Bodega i

Head reactor site, is so remote that for all practical purposes it may be dis- l regarded. -

h I do not believe an earthquake on the San Andreas fault could be very l much greater than the 1906 earthquake. Yet, the Bodega reactor structure, I am  !

informed, will be designed to withstand an earthquake force even twice that of  ;

the 1906 shock.  !

(more)

L.

' '~ ' ' '

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ~ ~_

[,.. .-. . . . . - . . . -.  : - n: - - u .. . :. -

[

Some observers have suggested that during a major movement of the San Anireas fault the reactor structure might be damaged by possible associated l

movement along a small auxiliary fracture that traverses the bedrock in the 1

reactor site. This fracture, however, has not moved si6 nificantly during the 1

past 40,000 years. During that time there have been perhaps 200 to 100 move-

, ments along the San Andreas fault of the general magnitude of the San Francisco I

earthquake. This is strong evidence that the stresses which gave rise to this I l

fracture dissipated lond ago and that no further movement along it is to be ex-pected. The reactor structure, however, will be designed to accommodate auxil-

, inry fracturing should it occur. 1 i

i I have treated the subject of the Bodega site at some length to make clear that any concern on the part of the public that the Alaskan earthquake shows the Bodega Head site to be unsafe is wholly unfounded. The Alaskan earth-quake merely reaffirmed knowledge we already had concerning the mechanisms by which earthquakes cause damage. It is our understanding of these mechanisms, I and particularly our understanding of the San Andreas fault system, that permits us to state confidently that the Bodega site is safe for a properly designed j plant.

Indeed, from the standpoint of earthquake hazards, I repeat that the Bodega Head site is an excellent location for a nuclear reactor. It would be l unfortunate if public misunderstanding about the nature of earthquake movements l Vere to lead to the impression that the site is unsafe.

l-s/6/64

.,. _, - . , .. ,.v w, -.. - - ,--,.7 , e.v.. m- -.-~t-+ m.-~ ,- , . . , - . ~~ s 4 s - ---+ e-%

%-  :;. . o 1.+. L , - -< i r a +. -a r < - ~i u ~ O'E '

G ---~ A ^?' **i'" "a ~ " " ' ' ~ ~

e Y p.e. s s. New[ .3URsAU b l ,

245 M AR KET STRE ET g SAN FRANCISCO 6. CALIP. ,

,, ,,,, T EL E PH ON E SU 14 211 BIOGRAPHICAL NUfES E. C. MARLIAVE

- Mr. E. C. Mar 11 ave is an engineering geologist. From 1939 to 1956 he j was Chief Engineering Geologist and was in charge of all geologic work for the.

California Department of Water Resources. In that work one of his primary re-sponsibilities was to determine the safety of sites for dams, tunnels, canals and power plants from the point of view of safety from earthquake hazards. The foundation conditions for most of the ma,jor dams proposed or constructed in California during this period vere required to be approved by Mr. Mar 11 ave.

.Since 1956 Mr. Marliave has been engaged in private consulting work. Among l his many professional associations, he has been honored by election to fellow- l ship in the Geological Society of America and by election as counsellor to the Engineering Geology Division of that Society. He has also been appointed as  !

that Division's liaison representative to the Hydraulic Division of the American l Society of Civil Engineers. He is presently retained for special consulting work by the California Department of Water Resources, the Delaware River Basin Commission, the City of Los Angeles and other California municipalities, as well as by a number of private organizations, such as P. G. and E., and by engineering firms, several of which have engaged him on assignments in foreign l countries.

5/6/64 1

9

.+ ,- -.s q 4w , p ,. w ees 4-a a.w .>. m , "#'e4W *~48*<*- ' * " Y

_ U - --- --

, , .* p. ./ .  % '. . r .

1

. y. .

g P. O..ad E. NEWb JU R E AU I

' 245 M ARKET STRE ET

, SAN FRANCISCO 6 CALIF. *

,, ,,,, T E LE PHON E SU *.4 211 l

REMARKS BY MR. MARLIAVE o 1

, In view of what has already been said by the other participants on i the Alaskan trip, I can be very brief.

The recent Alaskan earthquake again confirms certain. facts previously i known. One of the most important items in resisting earthquake damage is a j

. i

! good foundation. This is far more important than distance from an epicenter or j the surface break of a fault.

In the Anchorage area 70 miles vest of the epicenter a soft slippery i

clay underlying much of the residential section slid out from bluffs and se-l verely damnged many homes and buildings. In Valdez,120 miles east of Anchorage, and 40 miles east of the epicenter, the saturated soft glacial material under-I lying the town and dock area slumped and slid out into the harbor, destroying i the dock and severely cracking ground in the town.

3 3

In contrast, the City of Cordova, 75 miles southeast of the epicenter, I

which is founded on rock that is severely jointed, fractured and faulted, was h

undamaged. Even dishes and tall lamps on shelves did not fall. No damage to {

i buildings old or new was observed or reported. ]

This and other shocks such as the 1906 shock near San Francisco clearly demonstrate the importance of a firm foundation.

It is fallacious to suggest that damage that occurred at Anchorage and Valdez could occur ,on Bodega Head. Those foundation materials are markedly 4

different and it would be more appropriate to compare foundation rock at Bodega l

Head with the rock at Cordova, where no damage occurred. l

.l 1

s/6/64 "V3*% 4(4*1 IM O. + emet 4M.&' .q,, g 94 g w .q.9g, .,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20234F051&oldid=3193587"