ML20234B269
| ML20234B269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Bodega Bay |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1964 |
| From: | COMMERCE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234A767 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8709180338 | |
| Download: ML20234B269 (26) | |
Text
, -_
{ ,. _ _ . - . _ -' _ ...___.__.m. ]
k' ,' * . * -
<; 1
)
@$$$H EO, (0 - Z W
- i l - -
SEISMICITY AND TSUNAMI REPORT Me,Cny -
BODEGA HEAD, CALIFORNI A l The Division of Licensing and Regulation of the Atomic Energy Commis- l
[
sion, Washington, D. C., requested the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey ~ to report on the seismicity and tsunami condition of Bodega Head, California.
This report contains an evaluation of the seismic condition of Bodega Head f1 pi as defined by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company in numerous documents 4 submitted to the AEC.
- .. {
lis/]
In addition, comments are made on documents submitted by the U.S. Geologi-l T cal Survey as the material pertains to seismic hazards, 4
I (d l p and I y Dr. Pierre Saint-Amand who prepared a geologic and seismologic i M l i u study of Bodega Head under the auspices of the Northern California Associ-k I
% ation to Preserve Bodega Head and Harbor. The Survey also presents an in- l pk
- g. I dependently determined earthquake frequency pattern along the San Sndreas L tw
- g. fault, the most probable ground motions measured in acceleration and dis-r placement for a magnitude 8.2 on this fault near Bodega Head, and finally, G
.L an evaluation of the tsunami hazard at the same location. The Survey is in a unique position to perform this service because it has either the
- - 1 original documents or a complete file of historical data for earthquake L __li. seismology, engineering seismology, and tsunamis, and has made studies 1
j in these fields for approximately 30 to 40 years.
l !
In this report and all other geologic and seismic reports, submitted to ;
t
/
the AEC relative to the proposed reactor at Bodega Head, frequent reference !
is made to geological faults and in particular, the San Andreas fault. This ,
L !
i a
l 1
i 8709180338 851217 PDR FOIA I l
j.
FIRESTOB5-665 PDR 1
- i. .
. 268n0 .4
, . - - - ^ g heme heshi%d8 4 O hh- "" O
, y m v +. mme, m e .
3 + ee
_____.__._______-_,ysy*=w=9eea-e_ .
we a,-e, ap .-=.we %=s* ,
~ *Ne***7ww*'t e -
s' + m ' "/ ~ ~* e e -*'-w .t ,'- \
" r 4 ' >y*r **D j
e
(
i l
j' k'...
)
l t.
{ ..
[)
e, , ,
' .s
! 2 l 3 .
i is necessary in describing earthquakes because a fault is the only surface {
( 1
(
manifestation of previous earthquake occurrences. Geologists refer to
.g these faults or earth fractures as active or inactive, depending upon the l recentcy of movements. Active faults are associated with recent earth-t 1
- l. quake activity,- such as the earthquake belt around.the ' perimeter of the )
M Pacific Ocean and across Asia and along the Mediterranean Sea to the t
l Atlantic Ocean. An example of an inactive or relative inactive belt is L.t p.ig r.
the Appalachian system in eastern North America where there are extensive I
.g fault systems but only minor and infrequent tremors. I ElA r The San Andreas fault,which is of principal interest due to the prox-k#.1 ,
k; imity (within 1100 feet of the limits of the western zone) to the proposed l L -
site of Bodega Head reactor, is considered by geologists and seismologists hEl to be an active earthquake source. The fault extends southeasterly from a g,. point under the ocean about 300 miles from the Oregon coast (approximately i
u Q
L..
450 north latitude and 1300 west longitude) to the lower limits of the i i: Gulf of California. It intersects the California coastline at Point Arena e
p and continues in a nearly straight line (southeast) to the vicinity of w
[6 Gorman where it curves somewhat eastward. A few miles south of Gorman the fault curves westward slightly to become parallel to its original direction.
s.- .
Southward there is some doubt as to whether the observed faults are geologi-E _.J ,
cally extensions of the San Andreas, but the seismicity of southern and Gulf I \ of California leaves no doubt about its lower extension.
- 1 l l The San Andreas fault, which is a right hand strike slip fault (i.e.,
f.
1 motion is predominately herirontal) has been associated with two great '
.} - . _ w. .
''~(
3
. L . . . -,,% y.m .,, - - ;.777.... m r..-.,-- ,, ,
,----r-~~.-=. : , ~~ - m -e .< - - - -
q
- . ... - - . - . . . + . - - . - - . .. - - . . . - , .. ,
.y, ., . .
$)
}
F. -
...T l .
3' earthquakes in' 1857.and '1906. Other faults trending nearly. parallel l td this
. master fault show evidence of right hand displacement. Faults with~ trends-crudely at' right. angles to the San Andreas are predominately-left hand. type. .
In California the chief. left hand fault is the Garlock which exhibits topo-gre;ile evidence of activity without clear indication of' displacement in-N
{ historic time. The Ilhite Wolf fault, associated with'the 1952 Kern County
'l y'
w
. earthquakes, is roughly. parallel to the Garlock fault. The evidence indi-7' l cates principally dip . slip displacement on the faultiin 1952,l but some left k . hand strike slip motion was also established..
M in southern California there is evidence for accumulated shift of.
about 25 miles along the San Andreas fault since mid-Tertiary time. Some investigators believe much more herizontal motion has taken p. lace. , The
((
N e
fault is easily followed between 350'and 400~ north . latitude. Beyond these h
g limits it is deflected and complicated by. the Mendocino fracture zone to p the north and the Murray fracture zone to the south. Movements measured i along certain areas of this fault by the Coast and Geodetic Survey are :
g,[ approximately 2 inches per year. The relative motion indicates the west side of the fault is moving northward and the east side southward. The maximum horizontal shift observed after the 1906 earthquake was 21 feet at _. 1 l
n . The vertical motion during the same earthquake was no greater than 3 feet. This is typical of the earth motions resulting from California earth-
'I'
. quakes, i.e., much greater horizontal; than vertical. displacements. l Even though California and specifically,. the San Andreas- fault, are con -
sidered earthquake prone areas, they experience a' surprisingly low ~ number of ' :
I e
. ~ ~ ....a.....-.- ;
= = = = n==------- ~ ~+ J
~f,. ' ' . '- () ]
l-
, s ,
- . \
g 4 i l
r .
magnitude 6 and greater earthquakes. According to Richter, there 'have been I
i two " great" e'arthqUakes (1857 and 1906) on the fault and approximately 15 )
i earthquakes from 1800 to 1950 with magnitudes 6 to 7uplus within 75 miles l
s ', of this fault. Under magnitude 6 earthquakes are quite numerous and their i distribution is shown on the earthquake history map of California.
As noted in the report submitted by Tocher for earthquakes felt at or l
- I near Bodega Head, 1838-1960, nome of them were located at 8odega. Of the y '
58 listed earthquakes,14 were positively reported felt at Bodega or in i r. _
U Bodega Bay; two caused little or no damage and one in 1906 caused appreciable I I
h m
! damage and some surface fissuring.
l' l
d =.- q Studies of the seismicity along the San Andreas fault for the past 57 years show that a magnitude 6 to 6.9 earthquake occurs every 7 years on the F
. N, average and only one magnitude 7-7.9 earthquake occurs during this period.
? This fits the pattern determined by Gutenberg in Seismicity of the Earth N
.m which predicts a magnitude 8 earthquake about once every hundred years. In p.
Mi discussing the frequency of high magnitude earthquakes, it should be noted W.
Q W
that many reoccur in the same epicentral areas. Richter mentions ihree Ei Hondu, Japan earthquakes of 1897,1898 and 1905 with magnitudes from 7.9 to W 8.3.
j A number of zones in Italy, for example, Girifaleo (1626,1659,1783, l 1905); Monteleone (1659,1783,1905); Gerace (1720,1784,1791,1907); ex-i ,
b perienced damaging earthquakes. According to Davis, Valparaiso, Chile was ll L
)
destroyed in 1822 and again in 1906. Skopje, Yugoslavia, of recent memory, I
was totally or partially destroyed in 1963,1921,1555 and 518.
E lt t
t l a
- ,...egn.m w e -a. . % . . .+ me ** * * * "
- fl -
.j j, it
6
'\
j d * * . ] 1
[
b, ),
4 1
1" l .
5
.} - -
In order to design and construct earthquake resistant structures it is necessary to know not only the above mentioned seismicity information about i i ' l
~
destructive earthquakes, but also the displacement, velocity and acceler- ;
} !
, ation of ground motions and the response characteristics of structures to
! these motions. Since 1933 the Coast and Geodetic Survey has made these J r 1
% measurements of strong earthquakes in the Western United States and in (f . Latin America. All interested parties in this investigation are aware of 1
2_
+- l, this work and the data collected have been used extensively by all. There is i y
17.[d general uniformity. In the interpretation of the direct recorded strong motion j data at El Centro, San Francisco and Seattle. However, there is some dis-m g persion in the computed results when attempts are made to extrapolate from i
p.y ' I p magnitude 6-7 earthquakes to magnitude. 8.2 (San Francisco,1906). Computa- l ps >
l
[ tions are necessary since no magnitude 8 earthquakes have ever been recorded G '
Qrif by strong motion seismographs. It was hoped that such equipment might record
{
W at least one high magnitude earthquake aftershock in Alaska (1%4) but to i
g date, not one has occurred. Such information, if available, would have b
ig been invaluable for this report.
k i Using the seismicity and strong motion information available for earth- l n quakes along the San Andreas fault and near Bodega Head, it is possible to b
define the vibratory motions produced by these earthquakes. The surface U geology of Bodega Head is well defined due to the careful excavation that has l T been performed by the applicant and his excellent cooperation with all par-i ties studying the structure. The quartz diorite bedrock, even though frac-i p
, tura. and crushed during geologic time, (probably more than 40,000 years ago)
- 4 4
l s
0
- m. . . ...% . p $b. -
- ' -~~ '"###*~*"'
g 4
~~V 2
}
gu . -
l Lt w
q
()
- i. .. . \
) i 1 (
i -
6 i I
l~ is acceptable as go'od foundation rock for reactor support. The fab 1 ting )
evidenced in the lower limits of the pit is a matter of some concern; how-I j
ever, according to geologists who have studied its character there is
,. l general agreement that it is not of recent origin.
g .
p in determining ground vibrations generated by a magnitude 8.2 eerth-
-(. j, quake on the San Andreas fault in the vicinity. of Bodega Head, it is neces-sary to evaluate (1) the intense shaking of the ground at the proposed h
hj reactor site caused by seismic waves propagated outward from the fault and j V5
.... also, from the actual permanent displacement (fling) along the fault of the i s = l site and (2) possible dislocations within the site due to rupture by the l m
rer 1 main fault, a branch of the main fault, a minor auxiliary fault, or other !
~
y sources such as landslides, etc.
i.2
{ The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale has frequently been ased to define g earthquake motions. At best and only when the intensities are associated
-5 k
iG l
with estimated ground wave periods can these scale ratings be used for I estimating accelerations. Considering a magnitude 8.2 earthquake, Tocher g: and Trealde estimate intensity Vill on the quartz diorite bedrock at the fg site and an intensity X in the fault zone. They recommend the power plant
~~
structures should be designed to resist an earthquake of WJ-Vill, or to d' ~
provide a margin of safety WJ-IX.
l ) Saint-Amand suggests a minimum intensity of WJ-IX on Bodega Head for a L
I similar earthquake; WJ-X if significant landslides occurred during the main :
earthquake; WJ-XI if major faultir.g occurred on Bodega during the main earth-quake. His findings agree well with Richter's table of published relations t
1 4
1 l- < ,
i _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . , . . . . . _ _ - t Q
- r. .. - - . _ . _ . . . . _ . . .._.- _ _ . - . - _ ._.._:.
4 * ,
?:
( .. - . . ;
I. 1 ,
(J _
-). !
.-)
=
I ! .
': 7 i i C of magnitude and intensity. However, .it should be noted %at Richter states
.I :
that the correlation is rough and applies to intensities on " ordinary
=4 4
ground " According to Neumann, who has made exhaustive studies of intensity i , '
! .l j ratings, magnitude determinations and strong motion seismogram intensities
'I on granitic basement rock (same as at Bodega Head) would be approximately lM. ,
l Ii one grade lower or a maximum of W-X.
i
- u. j Eaton gives W-lX as a reasonable estimate of the 1906 intensity at the l i
0 1 1 1j site based on tha fact that the reactor would be sited on quartz diorite i1 l {y lt bedrock and that recorded maximum intensities of the 1906 earthquake near
)
hie h Bodega appear to be somewhat smaller than Richter's averages would suggest.
C ',
e o Using the Gutenberg and Richter (1942) semi-empirical relationship W-Vill, l WE IX, and X yleid accelerations of .15 g, .32 g, and .69 g, respectively.
i i,a Neumann after exhaustive consideration of intensity and recorded strong y- j k
E-motion data gives a range of .67 g to 1.0 g for a magnitude 8.2 earthquake !
1 Cr on the San Andreas fault near Bodega Head. I
[
Housner (Benioff and Tocher agree) employed the response spectrum. tech- !
(
,f ,
nique to determine the destructive action of the ground motion. Although l L%. i y/, this method is generally preferred to the intensity analysis, it has l specific limitations as the spectrum assumes a recorded earthquake acceler-
,d ation. Since no magnitude 8 shock has ever been recorded, the data must be g s, extrapolated from a lower magnitude recording such as El Centro (1940),
1 Olympia (1949), etc.
Benioff in describing the motion at the fault states that it is effec-i F
tively an uni-directional fling or pulse which radiates ' outward from the e,
e s
6
} l E
-.s.., . .- -
, . ,.. . .. . ,y. ,,m .y ;. ,, ,. ... p.m.y y , y.,.__ -7
- x.,. .,,.,- .x , _ . . , _
. _ . , c ... g ;
]- '
. ;. y . . . -
'p L) J- l i . 8
( ,! , . i
[ i fault. "Although ,the waves begin in the form of a single uni-dir*ectional ;
! 1 pulse they are quickly transformed into oscillatory forms by reflections, !
- +
i refractions and change of type owing to the layering of the crust and the I
variations of wave speed with depth. Although the vibratory wave amplitude
)
! is small at the fault it increases rapidly with distance from the fault so b tiq that frra about 2 miles to 12 miles, it is approximately constant, if the !
t geology is uniform......" This explanation does not agree with results ;
- of earthquake effects since the larger intensities are indeed observed for q
- c. t, ipll lp e_ r larger earthquakes. Moreover, as pointed out by Eaton from the very defini-- ;
Ej i tion of magnitude and the seismologist's ability to compute magnitudes from d
g% :l relatively short period body waves, there ,is good indication that the ampli-
. g tude of waves radiated from relatively small areas of the fault surface in-
{6:_,
j creases approximately ten times between magnitudes 6-7 and 7-8.
The Coast and Geodetic Survey having access to these reports and having p;.-
- 3. ; evaluated independently the response spectrum and the intensity versus strong ,
J._ j F . motion data, recommends 125- 2/.3 g at periods from 0.3 see to 0.7 see for ho i
i g=;.-
J.
the level , __. _ , ,
and 59 g l
- y. ,'
\
s ri L
{
Relative to the possible dislocations in the site or adjacent parts of l b; Bodega Head during a major earthquake, there is a scarcity of data upon which 4 to quote an accurate probable displacement. In considering the geology of l l b, J j j ., the site, most of the observers (Schlocker, Bonelli, Tocher, etc.) believe l 1 -
that the site is." safe" because of the quartz diorite formation ard the lack l'{ l f,l of evidence of recent faulting in the' shaft. No major faults were found and i i f
,l d -- .
_ _ ._ _ __ i!
l
~, .(y
.i.,.-, . . . . - ~ .
V _;* , .
f ,A*
- J
[j 9
i the field evidence suggests that most, if not all, of the fracturing, i i
( . shearing, and faulting in the quartz diorite is very ancient. This is j 3
confirmed by the exaralnation of the terrace deposits overlying the quartz diorite which failed to reveal any faulting in the terrace deposits. Even i i though such evidence (lack of recent faulting in the shaft) was observed l pT '
l in excavating the shaf t, it must be emphasized that this survey covered t
1-
. . , _ an infinitesimal segment of the geological structure associated with the ,
h5 San Andreas fault. Therefore, it is assumed if such concentrated surveys p were extended to other areas even very close to the proposed site, that I
- h. positive evidence of recent faulting could be found. Moreover, the fact that large earthquakes of offsets on a number of minor faults in sympathy br 1 E with a large displacement on the causative fault cannot be disregarded.
- s. 1
[ Certainly in the case of the Point Reyes Peninsula during the 1906 earth- !
k?f quake the displacements in bedrock indicate that faulting does occur w
1~.m outside of the San Andreas fault zone in sympathy with large displacements
% within the zone. Such an occurrence of offsets on Bodega Head during p;
d;T future earthquakes is a definite possibility. Based upon the very likely G
L
[ existence of such faults, the Survey believes that displacements of at r least 2k feet, similar to that experienced at Point Reyes, must be con-
[ sidered likely at Bodega Head.
g Another factor for consideration in evaluating Bodega Head as a possible I
site for a reactor is the probability of a damaging tsunami. It is well l
established that the San Andreas fault extends into the ocean along the t northern coast of California. Since 1898 there have been two submarine '
I I
4 4
l -
. . _ . _ ; -: r. '-
- . . _ . , . - . . - . ~ - - . . . -
t._ _ .= _._ . _ _ . , _ . _ _ . . . . _ _
_ _ _ . _ . _ _ . ... _ _ _. _ . m . _ . - .- - . .._2
')
i.: . L) .
f '
6 .
f ' 10 j earthquakes along this fault that could have potentially generated"a tsunami.
I Moreover, there is a possibility that the next great earthquake of magnitude j ; greater than 8 along this fault could occur off-shore.
Now, it might be in order to digress briefly and say something about tsunami causes and propagation since neither the applicant (PG&E) nor the. l
] consultants have discussed this matter in their documents. For the most part, 1
i tsunamis are generated by submarine earthquakes or earthquakes located close l
i b to caastal areas. The causes of tsunamis are not well established because y only a small percentage of submarine earthquakes generate measurable water p.
waves. The most common explanation calls for the displacement of submarine j fl blocks of the earth 8s crust. Since it has been observed on land that great i k
P e4 earthquakes have caused uplifts of 30-50 feet and affected crustal blocks hundreds of miles long and up to a hundred miles wide, it is easy to con- ,
g ceive of such a crustal movement under the ocean generating a huge water wave.
sF iz Slides along the coasts are also throught to be the source of tsunamis.
e ,
- Tsunamis frequently originate at great oceanic troughs where great l EE masses of unconsolidated material which, disturbed by an earthquake, may C.f:
[. slide into the depths, displacing a great amount of water. Dr. Benioff, some years ago, suggested a possible correlation between tsunamis and great surface waves with periods over a minute. This was remarkably con-L.__J firmed during the recent Prince William Sound earthquake where waves of a
'j \
few feet were generated in the Gulf of Mexico, in other'1arge bodies of a
l water and in many swinning pools throughout the United States.
It is not surprising that the tsunami peril was not mentioned by PG&E O and others because with the exception of a wave, reported generated by a
_p--
y.- wn.. s e =queo em enw ~w $
4 Y 2_T_E~_T_EE_'_ ___E~~
~~~~~~'~~# 7~~~~ " " ~ " "~" ~
l g . .. . .
f.
F -
t .
11 i 1
?
k local earthquake on December 21, 1812, th,ere is no record of a destructive j
- i f tsunami generated along the coast of California. The 1812 wave reportedly reached land elevations of 50 feet at Gaviofa, 30-35 feet at Santa Barbara, j l and 15 or more feet at Ventura. 1 i
f Inasmuch as historical records for laca11y generated tsunamis are so j
' \
sparce, the dimensions of tsunamis that have been established through rela-
}! tively frequent occurrences in Japan should be considered. lida has done i 2
. [g_, I '
considerable work in establishing statistical relationships on the available i I c Japanese data, using both earthquake magnitude and focal depth. His formu-las show a small tsunami will be generated for a shallow earthquake of magnitude 6t-7. He shows disastrous tsunamis generated for shallow k earthquakes with magnitudes of 7 3/4 or greater. The nagnitude of 7 3/4
%... ]
[j corresponds to a fault length of 120 km and a ground displacement of 5.4 t..I
~
mel'3rs ,
hi^
..f Based on lida's formulas, a tsunami classified as destructive will have l a height of about 10 meters or greater. The earthquake of March 3,1933, off 'l the Sanriku coast of Japan had a magnitude of 8.3 and was of shallow focal
=
G depth; the wave rose to heights of 23 meters on the. coast. The recent '
e
((~ Alaskan earthquake had a magnitude of 8.4; maximum waves of 30-35 feet 3 .
were reported at Kodiak and may have been exceeded elsewhere. Local waves D
of 15-20 meters were reported for the Chile tsunami of May 1960 (earthquake magnitudeofSttoSk). These support lida's formula as being reasonable
' (even though far from being rigorous evidence) and suggest that his con-I j j clusions for the Japanese area may apply approximately in other areas. -
t .
t
! i k e i h .
,...rmr.. .i.-w. - -
i;(, b
- . - ..,,_,.-...,n.-.--.-.-n. .n c., n . - -m
._ .. 2 .2-_ , .a._.__-.__ . _ . . . _ .
)
(j' t>
12 l .
in confirmation of these facts, it is 'in order to tabulate s'ome sta-l tistics for a few major tsunamis generated in different geographical areas, i Prince William Sound - March 28,1964 - 610 N,147.5 W, Magnitude 8.4. !
,I i Cordova 65 miles (Stat) 30 feet i Kodiak 210 35 1
4 Seward 85 30
~i Sitka 495 23 9 ,: Crescent City 1,620 13
)i San Francisco 1,890 7
?
Chilean earthquake - May 22,1960 - 380 S, 73.50 W, Magnitude 8t.
4 Talcahuano, Chile 90 miles (Naut) 1 feet !
w .. , Valparaiso 312 EQ Antofagasta 875 a k Crescent City 5 529 10.9 feet M Hilo, Hawaii Kanaisi, Japan 5,704 9,150 35
[.y , 12.9 feet
- w. ' i s., j Aleutian earthquake - March 9, 1957 - 51 N,1750 W, Magnitude 8.3. !
r i u,J Adak, Alaska 80 miles (Naut) 26(?) feet L Unalaska 355 4.5 feet a Kahalui Hawaii 2 11.2 ;
[*? Valpara; iso, Chile 384 7,,005 6.7 gl,. .
y Kamchatka earthquake - November 4,1952, 52hD N, 1590 E, Magnitude St.
Attu, Alaska 460 miles (Naut) 8.0 feet E Adak Hilo, Hawaii 893 6.9 sc 893 7.9
- m. San Francisco 2,265 8.1 3,420
(
w.
Talcahuano, Chile 8, ,
l Aleutian earthquake.- April 1,1946,53)D N,1630 W, Magnitude 7.4.
Scotch Cap, Alaska 100 miles 80 feet Hilo, Hawaii 2,280 35 (?)
j San Luis Obispo,
- )
California 1,435 B}
, Honshu, Japan earthquake - March 2,1933, 39? N,144)S E, Magnitude 8.9.
Sgoya Japan 190 miles (Stat) 30 feet '
Tanoha,ta 140 27 Koyatori 130 40 e Ryori Sirahama 140 63(Plus)
Harota Atumari 145 77 -
- i I
') ;
t==. .- ,,. - -.. -~ - - - -
a.:
,$ ?
i .
j i 1
l*l..... ,,-
()
.)
i i 1 .
13 l
l
- Even though little is known about tsunami generation and the propagation-
)
i i
h of the tsunami in open water where the velocities range up to'500 or 600 l
miles per hour and the wave lengths may be a hundred miles long, there is I i
-,i l
certainly positive evidence that a potential exists for a tsunami along the l
} n
- . California coast, particularly along the San Andreas fault off the California O coast. In reviewing the wave heights generated by these and other submarine L
y
- earthquakes, it would not be unexpected for an earthquake approximately 250-M V \
miles from Bodega Head to produce a wave height of 25 feet above mean sea l l
1 l~ ..i level. Therefore, the Survey recommends that adequate protection be provided M '
{gj for the proposed Bodega Head reactor site against a potential tsunami having
[
., .., p a wave height of 25 feet above mean sea level.
ift , Before summarizing the conclusions of this report it is order to comment n . ...
h w
- on the trendous amount of work that has been performed by the PG&E Company, l l
ga its consultants, the scientists and engineers of the AEC, etc., consultants y and the interested public. Each one is aware of their great responsibility 2,; .
in the decisions to be reached in the near future relative to either
@ licensing or refusing a license for a reactor at Bodega Head, California.
{,T This responsibility is explicitly emphasiced by the statement of the Honorable y, Chester Holifield of California "I feel that one large reactor incident g_ would cause such great loss of life that it might preclude any further j des slopment in the industrial field if it should occur...."
f %
Neumann states, "While there can be no quarantee that an eard quake j greater than the 1906 shock will not occur in the Bodega Head area, the i history of earthquakes in active seismic areas leads one to believe that i .
this is not lively.... Theoretical considerations lead one to believe that i -
I
,_ .n, , . .
- s I 4 "
t ._ . -. -- -- -
Ui.,;* .. .
t.
c) ; ) '
I r .
. 14-1 .
l if certain tect' nic o processes are underway in.the' deep crustal rocks of the i' '
earth in a given region, these processes will be repeated over very long I i i
- j >
periods of time.....perhaps many centuries--before the patt' ern changes."
i 1
1- l' 1
Eaton in his report succinctly and profoundly stated "Few places on '
l 7 ,
H ;
earth are exposed to more certain earthquake risk than are those along the r
!" - l 1
- i c i San Andreas fault in northern and southern California. Acceptance of i 1
- j. f'.
1 j Bodega Head as a . safe reactor site' well establishes a precedent ' that will l l' j make it exceedingly difficult to reject any proposed future site on the t
c- > z
@ i grounds of extreme earthquake risk." {
ph
- l g ; The Survey, fully aware of the e>haustive and comprehensive studies !
er . t '
4 e... made by all participants, believes that the conclusions reached by its U scientists are adequate and sufficiently complete so that the AEC may 7 -
% employ them in rendering a judgment.
M~
m ra*-
CONCLUSIONS l
Qe ,
(1) The seismicity study of the San Andreas fault area near the propose. )
l MI gdj ,
Bodega Head reactor shows the possibility of a magnitude 8.2 earthquake about i
i i
P yfs once every 100 years. All actions relative to this site should be contingent )
(L ._ upon the occurrence of a large magnitude earthquake during the lifetime of a E' reactor.
(2) The characteristics of the ground vibrations tolerable at this site
\
are: acceleration of ground motions .0.Nm .% g for periods of 0.3 to 0.7
- 4 I
- seconds for which the structure and all of its elements should be designed;
- 1. 6
)i e G g for the same period range is the limit for which critical elements wi,11 1
iail but not release fission material.
e O
h 4
5 * .
lE '<. 1
- l. { - ~"* * -
.s t- m _ ...- . . _ .
fa a
) e ,
()
)
, , t.
.- 1 s ,
e 4
i - 15 t
! (3) The're is a definite potential for 'a tsunami to affect th'e Bodega e
i 11 is therefore recommended that any proposed reactor be so 1
Head site, 1 1 .-
. !' constructed that tsunami wave heights of 25 feet above mean sea level will P ,
! i not impair its operation and the safety of the surrounding population
).
FT -
'i
~j ,1
.-.w p.q i
l
- l l; -
+ ,
4<,;
- r. , ,
1 ..-
l %i Cy U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey l Ed Washington, D. C. 20230 ,
l E.-*.
~
! May 18,1964 i
- e. .. .
- (-pe
.N C":'
Y t l
o ,\.
N r a ru ~
l I; .'
l [ .-*%
,m.
I W '
l g m,
v->
\. .
I g 6-g -
i ..
e W b l- .
b i i t
l .
i -
Is r
. 1
. N4 l . , t- -.~.- - 4
.y . --,m m,m,.--.,_,,,,,,,,,,_m,,_____.,_. .,,.,,_,_ _ _ ,__ ,_, _ ,
, 4
, a l l ., ,
O f
_)
j i 8 8 8 8 I i 1 t I i-
- - - - - - - - l j ..-. 420o 115' c
,f ,
i i
> - . CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKES -
- MAGNITUDE 6 AND GREATER i l )
{ l 1906 1963
+
'\l AND //.AJOR FAU!.TS-I
] -4
- 6c e v , w w. a \m [. k .40 j
t r.-i -
S i t-p:~I 1, -
n Nil \ .
@l p.
t e. .ss l
t
,o$. ,
h, s N-n L,
\, .\ s
~
N Ee \'
) 's\ I i l hw f $ 0..\ \
s,N
~,
l
'c,[) s
-35* *'o ,
3 5 *-
\ ca . ~
g
(;
<s~e -
w L.
~
. x N MAG 6.0 6.9 ,
N ....
\
O MAG 7.0 7.9 ' h+ s N
,s
, @ MAG 8.0> x
{
,~,
4 -,;g 3-
.. , , wo- , , ,.
k i s t #
, . . ~ . - -.~.-L-..- . . . , _ .-
I, . - . i
,)
} ,
. .) - ;
i .
I -
} - SHOCKS OF MAGNITUDE 6 AND OVER-CALIFORf21 A REGION -
(
} ,
pfAlq G.C.T. Lat. N Lono. W M ~
j i 1906 Apr. 18 13: 12.0 38 123 83 .
t o
1906 Apr. 19 00:30 32 57 115 57 6+
'. [f , 1907 Sept. 20 01:54 34.27 117.17 6 O 1908 Nov,
- g 4 08
- 37 367 1177 6t?
'r r.-
.} 1909 Oct. 28 '06:45 40.27 124.17 6+
" . 1910 May 15 15:47 33.77 117 47 6
- _. l p 1911 July 1 22:00.0 37} 121) 6.6
(
71 1915 June 23 03:59 32.8 115.5 n2 6t {
hf' p 1915 June 23 04:56 32.8
)
115.5 6t O' 1916 Oct. 23 02:44 34 9 t: ' 118.9 6 C.w 1918 Apr. 21 22:32:25 33) 117 6.8
),1 1922 Mar. 10 11:21:20 35)
- . 120t 6h
{
[~ 1923 Jan. 22 09:04:18 40) 124} 73 )
h Kk, 1923 July 23 07:30:26 34 117} . 6).
E*5 1925 June 29
,'i5. 14:42:16 34.3 119.8 6.3 l
{
S -,
' 1926 Oct. 22 12:35:11 36) 122 6.1 1926 Oct. 22 13:35:27 36) 122 6.1 y 1927 Sept. 18 02:07:07 37)
. 118) 6 s 1927 Nov. 4 13:50:43 34}
I 121t 7.5 a
1932 June 6 08:44:22 40) i 124t 6.4 O
o l
f
!l . .
Iki .
p .. ,, ... 7 _.. 7 .; . m .s , ,. ,7 m e.7 g c. - - ;. v n , n - - -
l m .-- & ~",'""~r=" ""
i+
g _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . - - - - - .-
y ) 4
~
i 1933 . Mar. 11 01:54:08 33.6 118.0 6.3 1
1934 Jan. 30 20:16:31 38 118t 6. 5 '_ !
l l l
1934 June 8 04:47:45 35.8 120.4 6.0 1937 Ma r . 25 6.0 l
f 16:49:03 33.5 116.5
)
l f 1940 Feb. 8 08:05:59 39& 121t 6 1 i l
- , 1940 May 19 04
- 36:41 32.7 115.5 7.1 4 1942 Oct. 21 16:22:14 33.0 116.0 6) f 1946 Mar. 15 13:49:36 35.7 118.1 6t
- s. -
FJ 1
1947 Apr.
10 15:58:06 35.0 116.6 6.4 L "$ ,
1948 Dec. 4 23:43:17 33.9 116.4 6.5 N[; g. .. .
j
- . T" 1948 Dec. 29 12:53:28 39 5 120.1 6.0 l F* l
((.
ua' 1951 Oct. 8 04:10:36 40t 124t 6
\
l H
L r 1952 July 21 11:52:14 35.0 119 0 7.7 I K 1952 July 21 12:05:31 35.0 119 0 6.4 E:
g 1952 July 23 00:38:32 35 4 118.6 6.1
)
c; ;
{~ 1952 July 29 07:03:47 35 4 118.9 6.1 Era 1952 Nov. 22 07:46:38 35.8 121.2 6 g;. '
iE 1954 Mar. 19 09:54:29 33.3 116.2 6.2
.5@
L~~ 1954 Dec. 21 19:56:25 41 124 6.6 p.-
%a 5
L f
P e
' u- . . . . . . . . . - . . , . . - - . .- .- . . . . - . . . - . . . . .
it
5 _____.._ .. _. . . . . _ .. . .
- / .
~
o .:)
l ,.
s ,
~
SHOCKS OF MAGNITUDE 6 AND OVER-CALIFORtil A REGION -
! P.dl.E G.C.T. Lat. N Lono. W M -l '
6 .
' 1906 Apr. 18 13: 12.0 38 123 8.3 i
i 1906 Apr. 19 00:30 32 57 115.57 6+
i 1907 Sept. 20 01:54 34.27 117.17 6 D' -
1908 Nov.- 4 08:37 l
367 1177 6t?
p! 1909 Oct. 28 06:45 40.27 124.1? 6+
i--- /
'4 1910 Wy 15 15:47 33.77 117 47 6 i
1911' July 1 22:00.0 37t 121) 6.6 l'
$$! 1915 June 23 03:59 32.8' 115 5 6t
\ $6 1
y?
1915 June 23 04:56 32.8 115.5 6t Q
y 1916 Oct. 23 02:44 34 9 118.9 6 Q:. 1918 Apr. 21 22:32:25 33) 117 6.8
[; 1922 Mar. 10 11:21:20 35) 120t 6k u 1923 Jan. 22 09:04:18 40) 124h 7.3 t*5 l
1923 July 23 07:30:26 34 117t 6}
k w..
1925 June 29 14:42:16 34.3 119.8 6.3 i
- 5. ~. '1926 Oct. 22 12:35:11 36) 122 6.1 !
V bc' 1926 Oct. 22 13:35:27 1 'h. 36) 122 6.1 1
\
L 1927 Sept. 18 02:07:07 37) 118f 6 s 1927 Nov. 4 13:50:43 34} 121t 7.5 l., 1932 June 6 08:44:22 40t 1- 124t 6.4 i
u e c :
I:
l l
.l el l.;____.._.;__..._.-.-_..___, -
.[.
2 . . . a ---.--.--~.--s -- - - - - - - - -
f:- -
u J.
m 8 I i s e i i g 4 i i -
J' .
t ,-
- . - -_ _ . . _. 42 0
- s.
115'
< _ . cal.lFORNIA EARTHQUAKES -
l MAGNITUDE 6 AND GREATER .
{- .
l* 1906-1963 e
- AND MAJOR FAULTS -
M
-I
-4
- e
\ i ,
~
l ('
h" 1 -
{i , .
h u y s .
.A 4[,N,'
b ,
- 5/ .s e '
g N,
.1 i.,
'N N -
b Te f.. gi. . hA ,,
3 ,
I-= T4 o kss I
%D .\y/
- Ae r - '
35 - J
.--u.
-35' o ,
e 4
(
j/ -
e MAG 6.0.6.9 %
sy
'f rd- flu.y ..-- 1.
6 O MAG 7.0 7.9 ,1
@ MAG 8.0> 4, */
'4 t- k 4e%g~,; g 120- ,-
.., , , , ,_..f.,
- j . .
3 i >
i j . . , . . _ . . .
- {I
- 1. .i 4
= 3 f.
,t
- r. .
g g 4
j a
J .
1933 Mar. 11 01:54:08 33.6 118.0 6.3 I
j ~1934 Jan. 30 20:16:31 38 .
118) 6.5' 1934 Jur - 8 ' 04:d:45 35.8 120.4 6.0 1
!. . i 1937 Va r . 25 16:49:03 33.5 116.5 6.0 l g 1940 Feb. 8 08:05:59 39) 121t 6 1
}. : 1940 May 19 04:36:41 32.7 115.5 7.1 i i
- 1942 Oct. 21 16
- 22:14 33.0 116.0 6) (
1946 Mar. )
{ 15 13:49:36 35.7 118.1 6t .!
1
%. 1947 Apr. 10 15:58:06 35.0 116.6 6.4
{
[ .; 1948 Dec. 4 23:43:17 33.9 116.4 6.5 a I k:~j 1948 Dec. 29 12:53:28 39.5 120.1 6.0 I
kel I g t 1951 Oct. 8 04:10:36 tot 124t 6 I 2.=
] 1952 July 21 11:52:14 35.0 119.0 7.7 p-' I s
w 1952 July 21 12:05:31 35.0 119.0 6.4 l
1952 July 23 00:38:32 35 4 118.6
{5 y
c 6.1 1952 July 29 07:03:47 35 4 118.9 6.1
- y. 1952 Nov. 22 07:46:38 35.8 121.2 6 i
g yr 1954 Mar. 19 09:54:29 33.3 116.2 '6.2 1 1954 Dec. 21 19:56:25 41 124 6.6 6{
L,z
!~
e-i.
I k
i
, V .- . :~-=.-..---~
- - - - - - - =r==-,=~--- - -
l ' ,,,.,.+,,.,~,,. -;~,-.,.,ee---.-~mn,n,--e- i yy_ q , ; gyr r~y;Ty-v*77:' p } v "'~ m2. '"[ *~~*~;T * ~"~"~~~' ", ~"' ' T :' T
- ' '~&
f ,
- e. ,
l- o.
r -
- i i
g
- ** , OFFICE OL JRE CHAIRMAN
,.c p . ',pm " 1 l
[
i y . p.f l .,...~. ..- (Date)
,...,s...>.g-"
e t
1-
.n. . . ,
. 1 I TO: .D (/ J
- t. .
g l
k
' . .s
. a l
b For Information
- ._ ., . r; . J. . j E D/2 For Appropriate Handling
- [*:
)
' : 4 For preparation of reply for Chairman's j
- c. . . ..m,f*,__,,.;;;.
..,e.
. ' cs. h signature (Refer to Manual Chapter 0240) 1
, ; ;,., * .4 .: 4 .. .. ~. =.s.. . O. J
- l l:f. . ,7 -..* u'r:.; M- .;&'.; .,cc. 7 _.Y. __, . m..
-- e.::= _,,~d, For discussion a.t Commissioner's )
. - __.- ~ . _- .
w . ,--.-.;- Information Heeting ,
~ , ..
r ::_. :, = ~ w, - - :l
%'+~;*.,.~.-~.w.: ,g W * " M i? : - R d.i 2 '". For distribution to other Commissioners
%f~J,r-:.t:T=L4 rs.' F:.?=.,-;CI~ i p- l QJ.,;i.!!_.*C. .ll(! _. .y43._ 7, ;.:"T ~~ 11y toa
-..v.-=-;.,.:_;.w..y.-;;
' OGg( g, . -
~ " %.
,.c
~ ?. 3 9..,_. .
y ;
. . _.. ; . -- _ M J . ' : \ -
,_ ,f
. . rr r. **+ - .
O
t
- j 7- ~ g ; , + r n .g . g g y g u' a .,;. -
, REMARKS: ,
. g.,, . Q\.g y ) {
- y. go, . e .,. . fw
.. ......m. -
. . . .. . . .- c , .
m,n..;,.y:~,g .x.. r.r..f.
e - ... ..a
.~.-;~3
. .w.~m ...m g.s.w :u w.. 4 . , .: ,i
\
c ..
. ~;;. .s ;
- - ,
- . ,_y . .~.f. i 2 . - '? -- ...v ,
'.r ;
.e. 4 -m p ,-'**
.w:.?. w.*,% ' p :-E w.;u' s.M. u --* . ' \t
% [y.IF'g;I *
,p- .
p.x W.Xa'y.se "~%% . .w==r.f_ - .- - :A.'.'Fh&.:c-~m"
%w a. . ',-_
___ f 4*
p:
'g 6 w: ;.;n,_
- Hee d 0.f. Dir, of ReEn.
1,s y;, ;;.a - :.. 4 L ....g; w.x ~" ~m .'"
~ 5~;:.r. ~- - . . >
<3 ,
.. ,\
w .12. .
?.-S ': %. 2_..M. .-T".='..' e d%_.p .. &. Date _i__ p. z 4.g___.u '.
- . . = 1.: .. . .ev m u
- .: .. w . . . .. : ., n, I'I --
. . _...?. '. ;;;; 7 ,. , / -,. 1inie ___; .,_f__4_3__/______ Howard C. Browna Jr. l
.w..., .. . . s. s . . . _ . . -. ,. .. ,-.
For the Chairman f' ..
+ -
H S T __________
..' *
- 3 2 e . A k i. < ^* . i - ...J.*.* . .
j 7
i _ . .._ .- , . . . . . . .
w-. -.
&c
.m
.?
s
i 5 . - . -
\
. 4
{ .:. g., m ,
h ' f QTW 'fr="
).. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ -
NO.t 1
1
,%,' Q.
DR-966 l DATE 5-26-6 RECEbYED DA3'.MUMENTs REPORTS OTHER:
@ml WM. E IENhTIT .(Cocaissioner) 3
' 'LTM, M EMO:
c x & encl OTHER:
)
ORIO,s CC 8
)
- T oi 1 rep'd cy of each rec d .Af g ANSWERED SeaborE (cy forwarded DR for approp '
coascWAA(NC4
?
handling by the Office of HBrown) acT60msescassamy ] eso Actson hacresAny ]
CON ar8NT ] , 8Y8 POST OFFICE F ALE CODE Doeket No. 50-205 :- ,
> CLAssir.:
..c.,no ., 4 ein j U a so. no,
.,,....m -nu N
/
om.cRwnon, ma n. v=i.-ae t Ltr. enclosing r
g ,,E 3,.- L ,. ,~1 i
l 1
I I
' 2. M r* T l TMu e ved n ~
cy~ F J CTION j and/or-,
{ v/ Suppl Fily s w i r-4
[ / ys i l
- . ;-- l Eucco.unts.
4 em %Y w i I Document A.h3808--Commissioner Bennett'sDissenting I
respect to Bodega Bay. _ _ , , _ -
_._- l Opinion t .1y D f) vit Mlgp; g
..M
- m
~d ( TFIk. 0F h DIREC _,
b.a, L .
__.a
~
j --f j J' $h < <
-l ,
r w*-w /
Y I
pId'tyibvtirn: 1. --PDR, .t wu*
f' WEuRu.i HQ.
1 - PDR, SAN .[,
- u. s.nowie exrnor commesson MAIL CONTROL FORM ronuun ac g
p y yy ~ t. mNma e,r,ca, ,,u-, .... E Se 'igJ,4ty' r
2, ~- m.v.s 4,,,,4
-a . .. .on.a, '
'8'sentig E.d . *Ehf]." E.5'*
- > E-#Yd!$b*kw awa=..w,4 4
R. Q*E?%~~==.-, ,
- 'N O . -
. W, "D?***%:m:ww. . .,
":3- . . . ~ ~ _ w ~ l
.g.q.....g
,w,,m -,,:s;g,W.:..q.. m
,.,,4
.e "w, v. . m , .
..L,,,.
. 1
~ %+G . ,. 2 *
- y. ,. . _4:- -m ,w_.sa - -a;=, 7, ~;pm. :m.u y,--g?-+ ._n g::6:;, u. . . a a,yw.,mm.
[ ~~,4%~.:' r 4r,.ex~, , - a~~ . ~.. - C.,g g y- y.. y 4.c:,,_ . ,a . _m ,, g.,m , - 7.g %g,--+&O%:f** 0
- ~ .y gmsp% .Q .m.n., v=,.a .A ,-e e:%y ~w-~ ~ -gy ,,,,
., g.p, .:- a c:- :pn y y.n y-e-- .
. p.
y
=Q n- ~-Mm g
W%_#. TSV4le~~&bMW.,[u y ar.-e %j~~['" f. m
-.n w =u.%w-w.9 4['"g w
- e*
=.
Q &. .,,...,q
. &m s (c~.& $,., &e
-- e ..m o.,N[. -',' 'l f. f*
[e .".i'A' :,~O'[J' , I
. - ~-
&, -L .
-. % y r Nk-N5h N,L.,
- a. .K.pp(g"... ,.'. '" . ., e 3. f 5- ,*. m . _
. s' ' Iw %.1 h,_5. . m %[*,f ,k.N7.v*I" , .'n .n2. . . c_
~:; .s.,-.=*. y ".",,"** m_
','.h .-- -tam ., a .p
.w _.J, ,
.. y".. , :? ~'. g ~n. u..'
o E c.
.'*."*,-7,~'"h n.
- . . l.~ ~- ~~ ? .. ~ ~,m "- ,g ; ; ; .rg~.
- .~,g"k'. 4. :7we % e , :.san:.;3. p.~=Q; ; .
,% . / .s 7 . . . . .
7 . .,,, , T
"? , . - ; ; .
W ,; .
.".,+.3 %_"*"..,.
! 9eg .,.g n... w
.e.
.'n
- . ~
u ..
- w ?, ,h . - w ~, , , - ;.a < "-
- ' Q. ..w ,, f ;* * ..--na.., '/.-e.es4,.'**e%., ,j - ,,
. **e.=- i
-,. ~ -, ".h , .
_.a n.
~
. - - ~ -
~~ w ,:,.:. -~ .
, ~. r- ~
%.,~.. . - ~> - . .
. a ~ s
, .. . , ~ ::q. . L ,, c . , - ,... - - . -
~ .
,~
-y z ..n.a* - .- 'y , a d
_ e-4 tz E
u
. +
1
.A
..' I
--__------_N
L \ _L-. . . - . _ - . . . .. - -. ._ _. = .
=- - -
p -ae
\. c
-[ .
i .
q
,.-.y,._ . . r. . , ,
H,IC 0.i118 S.-3 8P.I; 4
j
[
a yL #'gwwde rag. e grn' 1
p
.r RP.A
- i. M. w m :) .
ge /.'< w / 4< c.# s. - -
By DON ENGDAHL. the rea or cv/t to PG&E's.
The possibilities of a disas.
calculation . of a ' " maximum
~
2 trous earthquake caused radia.
t- credible acddent" In the plant, Ii tion accident at the proposed Bodega Bay nuclear power plant entnpares it W a W hic o
I are explored in a publication by Energy Comrnission study of the St. Louis Citizens Commit- major accidmts, and concludes: j
' tee for NuclearInfonnation. -In the."un!]kely but possia L
. The searing criticism of'the t:le situation" of a westerly or i Pacific Gas & Electric Co. southwesterly wind at -Bodega power plant proposal was re. Ficadi"nearly everyone" in Bo- l I
- leased today and produced dega Bay "would die.within the
- 1' as searing a reaction from a first day."
[ utilities company spokesman, -In Santa Rosa, "many of
.e who called it " astounding for (Contlemed en Page 10, Col 3) s its deceitfulness. . . sabotage." . - + 1 The magazine, Nuclear Infor-s mation, deals with the possibill-ty that an earthquake along the
' San Andreas ' fault zone near the site might cause release of radiation. - !
1 It warns that " innumerable 1
variables intervene to decrease or magnify any reactor acci.
I
' dent," and says not ,enough 1
data is available to accurately
., predict results. . i But.it adds the splitting of ,
N011TW3Y.3,M391,. m i
l . .g .
.WWO3 $333 F
g 4 g $[""3 M i
r c3Mr.a
. i e
F
-- - L5 l
_a4
____.________ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - ^
i- ,
~
,,. :
- i } ~- . _ . . _ _ ,
w.~. .
o u~ o~ ;
~ ~ - ;- .
t<
Article Raps A-plant Siter 1 i PG&E Replies: ' Sabotage' ;
(Continued from Page 1) tive vessel, releasing products commodate limited shiiting of the.C.
the people exposed would be of nuclear fission to the atmos- underlying bedrock.
C very sick," and in San Fran- phere. Although the company empha .'
f cisco, with the *rnore likely" It is critical of PGLE for not, sized it does not expect any)l condition of a northwest wind evaluating the results of such an' movement if any occurs At i
and- a temperature inversion accident in its application to the' J
' -ordition that would trap . re- AEC for permission to build the "would a fractionnot of an amount inch," the to more than'!
leases, the article s culates plant. - amendment says an "incredly 3
( that some would be 11, there It reviews statements by some ble" one-foot movement wouldJ mean no damage or impair. '
)
J would be long-term radiation geologists-including a t e a m !
effects, and finds the "sugges- from the U.S. Geologleal Survey ment of function and even with tion" that crops would have to -that a 1906 magnitude earth- a twofoot mcdement the reac-
. tor su pression system would re- ,
t be destroyed and agriculture re- quake might produce shifts of stricted "for distances of hun- rock of Bodega Head itself, and main tact.
, i dreds of miles." says it is " unreasonable" not The "Nue' ear Information ar- i 8
)
j The St.,14uis group is de- to consider an earthquake as a tic!c says "an expert in carth quake resistant structures said scribed as' a committee of " credible cause of the maximum the techniques for (protecting the i
- credible accident" to the plant.
!dega scientists articleand waslaymen; written bytheItBo-is "also unreasonable," the reactor) had been devcloped un ?
der AEC auspices and the im.' l
! ILindsay Mattison, a layman, article says, to " rely on the fact p rtant information about ite re-and Richard Daly, holder of a that all the radioactivity will be b mains classified."
. master's degree,in electrical contained in the intact drywe!!."
Mr. Stroub says it is PG&E's 'I
' engineering and with a back- (The drywell, as defined by concept, that it is "not radical) lu ground as an assistant mathe. PG&E, is the steel shell sur. or unusual," and called the ar !C' i
J
- matician at the Argonne Labor. rounding the reactor, plus as-tiele's statement ~" ridiculous."
atory. Both are magazine staff sociated pumps and piping.)
i members. .
Mr. Stroube said today that The article says, after discus-}Cr The article was reviewed and the reactor "wlil be designed slon of the possibility of radio i active releases from the plant,!g
~, approved by the publication's so carefully that even under the
[,
, scientific advisory board, made most severt earthquake action that with "such an accident pos-l'#
up of 25 scientists. that scientists expect it would
\'
['
I products."
sibic, and in fact made more[/
not breach and release fission likely by the siting of the Bo-dega Reactor . . . PGLE's case PG&E Reacts" Hal Stroube, PG&E press rep. What the authors of the ar before the AEC will not be un-/
i L ticle contested . . ."
resentative, called the article a tulatm,are dning, which he said, is The"pos.issues, it says "must be)
J g an accident w!!!
- " completely one sided review of i
not happen. given the most deep and scarchJ s L the Bodega situation . . ."
The w ri t e r s "never ap- The article, however, s a y a ing attention by experts of com l c '
r othe hazards of such an acci plete integrity. The public musti F proached PG&E and asked for dent m u be fully acquainted with cxact.)
facts or explanation . . . the avoided . ,s t be evaluated, not article is astounding for its de- ly such in the arisks involved for pthem'fs-project."
L ceitfulness. It is biased and in- New Design flammatory . . ..a clever and In an editorial note on Thel Peaceful Atom, the magazine dangerous sabotage not only of It deals also with a recent the Bodega project but by ex. PG&E amendment to its appli- poses the problem of "llow can cation that offers a
- design con- we balance the value of a nu-tension, of the nation's civillan cept" for bedding the reactor cicar operation against the risk
- f. eMmk power program, all done on sand and surrounding it with,of possible harm, and thus de '
with a pseudo scientific air of a compressible material to ac-l cide whether the project is wor;h authority." -
j The heart of the Nuclear In-Iformation argument Is that an dOIDE "
I' earthquake mighi result in a It says an " independent evalua-tion of the benefits of a nuclear.
breach of the reactor's protec - power p1a n t, over and above a
i those p' of a ant is also conventional needed." power l I
A 4
l (
.a ,
7 - . .
7 l
a p/ ! /
}.
'( .
3 .
} -
. , / /
V
.. /, _ . , . _ - - _ _ _ - .
F ROed: D UNENTs D ED Noa Y
LTR. W EMO: REPORTr a tmet w )
OTHER
\' l TOi, OR 80.s cc: OTHEAs l
{ . e t- 4 ; .# @M v' ACTION *""' ***
- R Y
] CONCURRENCE DATE ANSWERED:
eso ACTIO*e sescseeARY ]#WW ] BTI CLAsstr. g POST OFFICE FILE COD E: (
b REG. MO:
h DESCRIM40N Odest Se Unclaestfwd) SEFERRED DATE RECElWED BY l DATE
- u. .
F. NTam2rYAB gesEMIREPW l
-- 57 mmam NEAD,CU.N. 31W88 I4F ' '
, z.d.,
l tgfagpL M it'. i
.. N ENCLocuRgg m
ir l P
_ ac - #8%88 B. Emmesed far Mr.
I re %
Onse Fishedyl I 5 .:
~'^ti..
. . .,_p i N-
- ., u, New ARxei l
j o,
-w .'
I g> -
- i. .
s . .,,,.
p ,
i i
l _;
P
,4_ .
. _. sn
.. ./. ,, . .!
pg oc 8 W. G. SOVEWafMSNT PRINTime OFFICEa 1984+YOS 409
- u. s. m oxic rsenoy coxxission MAIL CONTROL FORM ronu(840) ac.ms
.s .a M.m, y
.t-sm in.4r A*T l
l
! Y r 1 .
\
4 l
l l
\
l
- . . . . . _ . . ., . , , . , , . . . , . . . ,,, __ _ __ , , , , _ , , , . _ , , . , , , . , ,; l Y
1
--.........,~.,,,...~.,y.,3.....%..,._,,..,e.,
, . . _ , . , , , , . , _ , , , , , , _ , ,,