-rc - - ~ - .e -~

pmyg...mm~ .gn.+ mm. *.% * ps y. '--,~e 'y.h. u- j.

l' )NEB ASCO SERVICES INCORPORdTED h

**

%.Two Worid ira::e Cemer. New York. KY.10048 i

.

, .

i

h!

.

.

'

Office of International Programs g mm9 9 9'

''D'

% h jMr. James Shea, Director

b *{ 'g~hph ibU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "

!-

Washington, D.C. 20555 d,

.- . f2 ' I ubject:[ PNPP Unit 1 - Volcanological Review by C. Newhall ]

S

@ h i I b 7. h p; W yQ':# , ,

i::.- Dear Mr. -Shea: . - -

'X_ . j"

,

Mr. Newhall is~ a lucid though specious writer who displays intimate*

. acquaintance with much current thought in the field of volcanology. However, iwithout even claiming to have set foot on the Bataan Peninsula, Mr. Newhall, '

a student, alleges that there are serious scientific shortcomings in thevolcanological studies for this plant. Ebasco categorically denics that ;allegation. Ebasco participants in the geological investigation leading to jthe NPC-Ebasco deter =1 nations and positions on the siting of PKPP-1 inclCded f

,

41 scientists and engineers, 18 with Ph.D degrees, who jointly have over.;

t500 can years of post-acade=ic experience. This group spent some 70 canyears of intensive effort of which 19 =an-years were on Bataan and in thePhilippines. A li'st of Ebasco staff participants, consultants and members 3

of the Technical Review Board is enclosed as Table 1. In addition,'

throughout the course of the investigation, they were assisted by as manyas six to eight Philippine counterpart staff scientists and engineers. N

Consultants who reviewed work in the Philippines with Ebasco staff and other ;co,nsultants included Dr. Alex McBirney, Professor of Tolcanology at theUniversity of Oregon and editor of the Journal of Volcanology and GrothermalResearch, and Dr. Arturo Alcaraz, the pre-e=inent Philippine volcanologistand author of numerous publications on volcanism in the Philippines. Thegeological work of Ebasco and the Ebasco consultants have withstood rigorouspeer review, most recently by expert consultants to the Philippine PunoCo==ission. Ebasco is confident that this work would withstand rigorous :

,

scientific interchange with Mr. Newhall.

We believe that much of Mr. Newhall's criticism is founded on several =ajor -

errone'ous preconceived ideas. First and. foremost, he appears to assu=e -

-

that Mt. Natib has been active during the Holocene, like all of the vol-sanoes he has studied. Secondly, he assumes that the techniques andprocedures applicable for the preparatica of a Ph.D thesis on Holocene

.

veic'anoes are necessarily useful, valid and applicable to a siting andSAR study on a relatively old, deeply weathered volcano. Tnirdly, he has iserious isunderstandings of the capabilities of the dati,,ng techniques usedin the study. Fourthly, he fails to adequately differentiate between thea=ount of infor=ation which can reasonably be obtained about volcanic :

.

[

l E RPO-

8003 200143_ - _ _ . - .

-

. _ . -n..._. - .,

, . ,*

. a- w. -.

*.o : .~. .

.

activity from the historical record and that which is available in thegeologic record. Because these and other erreneous assusprions for= the ;

int,ellectual underpinning for much of his review, cany of the conclusions . I

which he reaches are simply not supportable.

Mr. Newhall contributes to tha misapprehension that the Philippine plant~ ~

site is uniquely or dangerously exposed to geological hazards. As can be .

seen on the attached Figure 1 and Table 2, a nu=ber of nuclear power"

... plants .:4a the world are located closer to active volcances than is the_.

'~G[Philippineplant. Mtr Natib cannot be considered an active volcano by

'J,. g ..any ac,cepted definition;_in conventional geologic tercs, Mt. Natib is,

t-iextinct. "' c H ~-''

< -

. .- t . .

-- ''it' is particularly unfortunate that Mr. Newnall has seen fit to make the i~

kinds. of criticisms which he has cade given the fact that he did not reviewa substantial portion of the documents available that relate to. volcanism. |

As can be seen from the attached Table 2, over a' dozen documents andreports which describe volcanism, volcanic hazards, and the planned -

engineering and administrative response to them were not reviewed by ,

Mr. Newhall. -..

Fipally, Mr. Newhall urges the NRC to proceed to establish volcanologicalsiting and design criteria. Our considered. opinion is that the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency is the appropriate agency to lead any cove toward theestablishment of such guidelines, as is indicated by the distribution ofnuclear power plants.

Notwithstanding our consents above,16. Newhall has , produced a serious )review deserving of a serious scientific and technical response. That )

response is enclosed with this letter. ::a

Yours truly,

u - g

John T. Hazak''''

Project }bnager.

*

''NRT/PS/cq -

-

,

Enclosure: As above

cc: file.

M

#

|

.

.*

m - .n ,.

. ~ . . - .

. . . - . p.

' it

!..

An Analysis of Newhall Review of FNPP-1{*

.

.

.

Mr. Newhall has conducted an extensive and detailed review of a portion '

'

of the documents related to volcanology. A point by point discussion.

of his co=ments would be inappropriate at,this ti=e, and we have not -

,

atte=pted to do so. Comments on his most pertinent points follow.

J Need For Detailed Studies .'A n h. d * ~~'. ~~ T:

~ l Mr. Newhall's most fundamental criticism, and the one on which =any of.,Jis arguments are based, is that our failure to =ap and study Mt. Natib -

in detail leaves many of our conclusions in doubt. Newhall reasons thatg"with tha detailed geologic base one can then say exactly where, whenJand what types of eruptions occurred; without the detailed geolo'gy one |can only discuss generalities of eruptive style, age ranges and =inir.:s -

recurrence frequencies for various eruptive phenomena". This is not true.3The record that one gets from detailed =apping of the volcano, even if

, ,

we could get it, is highly unrepresentative. It has the same proble=s he" t

cited in dealing with the use of radiometric dates. It tells you only [about that part of the record that is preserved and visible. i$

Mr. Newhall's experience has apparently been confined to historically 3active volcanoes, except for studies in the San Francisco volcanic 3

field in Arizona, last active a few thousands of years ago. In contrast, fthe bulk of the rocks on Mt. Natib is over half a'tillion years old. Vol- '

canic breccia of laharic origin is the do inant rock. type. Lava flows Iare generally restricted to su==it areas and are of very limited extent. |Traceable ash layers are virtually absent in the volcanic pile. Tens 6

of meters of saprollte are developed over the entire cone, except on "

the young pyroclastic deposits on the east side. Due to the deep -

weathering and lush vegetation, exposures are limited to radial streavalleys and the steep interior walls of the caldera.

'

Although the pre' paration of volcanic hazard maps would have providedgvaluable information to city or industrial planners, our attention was}, focused on hazards to a single nuclear power plant site at Napot Point. ]Our perspective was and is directed toward determining hazards to one y

site f ro= all possible volcanoes, not the description of hazards to all jpossible sites from-one or more volcanoes. Under these circu= stances, '

a plan of action was developed to direct our resources to the attainmentof our final goals. Far from acade=ic mapping exercises and develop =entof hazard maps for Central Luzon, we were interested only in theevaluation of hazards from Bataan volcanoes to a nuclear power plantsite on the west side of the peninsula. To achieve this end, thefollowing gcals were set:

,

,

7 m . _- - . __ ; _- --

* *

. ., , ,~

* ' * *. ..

,

.

'1. Delineate sa=pl'e and date the absolute youngest deposits on Mt.Natib. An extensive program of SLAR i=agery, ther=al IR, and coloraL photography acquisition and analysis was co=pleted to aid in 4

'

, the location of the youngest volcanic deposits. These data, coupled -

with topographic and field information pointed i==ediately to thematerial on the eastern flank of the cone as the youngest on Mt.

Th' . =inor strea= dissection, lack of thick saprolite and theNatib. e.

unweathered appearance of the caterial =ake this deposit unique anddistinct on Mt. Natib. '

._ -

li 2. . Deter =ine the characteristic types, volumes and extent of volcanic- jf'k,_" , deposits on the cones. -

'

, ':', ~ Each of the different eruptive products that could be p'roduced by ' f'

the volcanoes (ash fall, pyroclastic flow, lahar, lava flows) ;

'present different potential hazards. -Therefore, one aim of the-

field program was determination of the relative volu=es of theeruptive products, their extent, distribution, and e= place =entcharacteristics. The lava flows, for exa:p.e, are restricted to fsu==it areas, are typically thick but not areally extensive, andare strongly topographically controlled. They are, therefore, not ;',

considered a potential hazard to the plant site.!

. ' Analysis of each hazard provided siting criteria that aided-in thechoice of the final site, and provided design guidelines for dealingwith those hazards deemed " credible".

3. Collect and analyze a suite of sa=ples to pr' vide geochronological,o,

geochemical, and paleo=agnetic data for development of a geologichistory and statistical analysis of eruptive probability.-

There is a tremendous difference between the study of active volcanoesin populated areas and the study of a several =illion year old conethat has had no activity in historic time. Mr. Newhall suggests thatwith detailed =aps and sections we would bc able to resolve "shortter= variations in eruptive style (e. g. , over 10's , 100's or 1000's

'', of years)"* (page 21). A resolution of 10 years..in 1 million is_0.00001. We know of no applicable method, stratigraphic or analytical,,

capable of this resolving power..

.,,

Age of Youngest Materials on Mt. Natib

Since one of the pri=ary goals of the field progra= was locating, =apping,sa pling and dating''the youngest deposits on Mt. Natib, a tre=endousa=ount of ef fcrt was expended in that direction.

Analysis of re=ote sensing data, tcpographic =aps , and field =appi. g allnsuggested that the pyroclastic =aterial on the east side of Mt. Nat'ib is,

the youngest eruptive caterial. The lack of a saprolite layer, distinctive

smooth surface, minical dissection by streams, and general unweathered , s

J

'

a~!

l

- _-

- _ . . .y,

!. . g . _- _ . . ,.

.- .. !

*.

.

. .

.

appearance indicate'the youth of the deposit. The unit was =apped and'found to be composed of several distinct flows; the stratigraphicallyyoungest flow was sampled for che=ical, paleomagnetic, and age-datinganalysis. .

Field data suggest that the 69,000 ybp age for these materials is reason-=able. The moderately consolidated nature of this deposit suggests that

^-it is older than the youngest deposits on Mt. Pinatubo, which are not

;

consolidated and are less than 10,000 years old. Thick (up to 100 meters) 4

sedimentary piles derived from this pyroclastic debris has been =apped in H

"several areas. It is hard to imagine that deposition,~

;

~

erosion, a6d.

. ][re-deposition- could occur in significantly shorter periods than we have }., suggested. . ,-

. . - - .q9,

3:o deposits were fo'und that were younger than this material. The Napot ituff; for exa=ple, was overlain by several tens of neters of saproliticbreccia units, and was therefore clearly much older than the eas.t side~ '

materials. Paleomagnetic work on sa=ples from the Unit 1 excavation ;yielded ages on the order of 500,000 to 700,000 years for younger 1

horizontal channel filling sediments and pyroclastics. Paleomagnetic4

ages for the Napot tuff are 1.6 my 1 0.25 ny. ~,

We do not share Newhall's opinion that C-14 is the method of choice fordat'16g volcanic samples less than 60,000 years old. At best, this is anoutdated textbook 'tatement. The choice of method depends on many factorssmor.e i=portant than age. One always hopes to find high uranium zircons i

for fission track ages, or high potassium rocks with a low atmosphericargon content. Newhall places a great e=phasis on C-14 dates, seeminglyunaware of the limitations of the techniques in actual practice. Hestates that " charcoal and wood are not well preserved on volcanoes intropical cli=ates," but appears to be unaware that even with a large i

degree of apparent preservation, significant alteration of the integrity -

of the original C-14 activity commonly takes place by recent action ofmicro and macro organisms and groundwater. In point of fact, everypotential sa=ple of organic matter in the young pyroclastic blanket wasdetermined to be too altered or conta=inated to date with C-14. Samplesfrom .the saprdlites which blanket the rest of Mt. Natib were all

''

obviously too altered for C-14 techniques to be useful in the unlikely, event that this highly weathered material is less than 60,000 years old.In point of fact, there is no reason to suspect that this saprolite isas young as 60,000 years.

Newhall's criticism of our geochronological technicues is apparently dueto his lack of understanding of K-Ar dating and those factors whichcontrol its limitation. He states that "the lower limit of this methodunder ideal circumstances is approximately 50,000 years; the lower limitselected by Ebasco for reliable K-Ar ages on Natib rocks is approximately180,000 - 200,000 years....". This is a critical =isunderstanding; fora number of his other criticies in both the section on geochronology andon probability of eruptions appears to be based on his erroneous opinien

, ,

that there was a big gap in the^ time range over which our dating methodswere applicable.

*

:

3*

.

q. , , -%.- . , - - - m .- -,,

,' .k'* *

,-.,

*..

4!I

The lower limit "of R-Ar dating "under ideal circumstances" is not 50,00'O hyears. (The La Scha=p volcanics at 20,000 years are well dated by K-Ar.) T

~

The lower limit is not set by the' age of a rock, but by the difference Tin.the 40Ar/36Ar ratio between the sample and atmosphere "under idealcircumstances", or the relative volumes of the radiogenic and atmospheric T

40 ;/36A Ar. The [components and the ability of the techniques to measureamount of 36Ar measured for all samples greatly exceeded that of the gas

~

extraction and mass spectrometer line blank as well as any absorbed ,

Ar component on the sample. The greatest amount of 36Ar measured I36

therefore resided in the rock and represents either argon dissolved in @, the silicate melt or incorporated atmosphere at the time of eruption. ir

{. < _- ~.-g.7 _

..

Had'he studied the data for other volcanoes, he would have seen that our~.

' lower' limits for K-Ar ages were not 180,000 - 200,000 years. The lower plimit.for K-Ar dating varies from one sample to the next, and was not" selected by Ebasco", but perhaps by mother nature. On Mt. Natib, the plower limit of the K-Ar method was exceeded only by the punice sa=ples, if,

primarily due to the relatively large amounts of atmospheric gases in- 5corporated by pumice eruptions. It was only af ter argon analyses 'c

revealed this large ctuospheric co:ponent that we rescored to the more [time censu=ing fission track method and the less well established U-Th

'

-

methods. }$.

His' statement that no K-Ar ages less than 200,000 years are to be expected [. is incorrect for the reasons given above. The 200,000 yrs. maximum age {-

reported for sample 476-3W (Pinatubo) can not be applied to any other isample. The fact is that for sa:ples 975-9W and 376-lG (both Pinatubo), [the atmospheric co=pon'ent was so overwhelming that its K-Ar age could be i:anywhere from one year to ten million years. Nevertheless, Ebasco [:

~

rec.ognizes and documents the necent activity of Pinat'ubo, using geo- Nchronology and other information. .

hWe do not feel that our statement in the PSAR about hot lahars is mis- :

' leading. We do feel that Mr. Newhall's statement that an eruption must I

have occurred at the tice that the boulder was reheated is cisleading,however, as it is true only if outgassing of the boulder was co=pleted.We also feel rhat his criticises of our dates of sa:ples 376-1G and

.

-

97529W from Mt. Pinatubo are unwarrented. In both ca'ses, the problem I

with the dating technique was the large atoospheric argon co=ponent,,

* Vithout which quite low upper limits could have been set on the a'ge ofthese samples.

Mr., Newhall'.s criticisms of our paleocagnetic dating techniques are !also based on a misunderstanding of the basic , concepts used in paleo- [magnetis=.

.

(a) No use was made of the inclination of the the Sore =anent fmagnetization for any dating purposes. The declination was ;used. [,

t.

(b) The declination of the Napot Pcint TRM direction has normal !.*

polarity and varies from 330 to 351 . inis var 1ation of 21 I. f,

.

,

6

y.._ =.v._ ~ ., , .,,.

. . . . ,- . j_

.,

;.. . *

.

)-

is la'rge,' larger than that found in non-pyroclastic entities."It has been assu=ed that this variation is due to rotation 4

of =agnetic vectors during cocpaction.

(c) The' study has shown a steady counterclockwise rotation of the~

,

declination of the TRM direction with time for radiometrically{dated'.sa=ples. This rotation is due to a tectonic rotation of

Luzon. The declinations thus can be used for relative dating. ." 1

The mean declination for Napot cbincides with that for Mt. ;San Cristobal, dated at 1. 60 1 0. 32 cy . This radiometric age |

,,. and the magnetic polarity place the San Cristobal rocks in the

4-

.

..XFJ!c . .liGilsa Normal Event of. the Matuyama Reversed Epoch. Thef.E N . statistically high noise level (21 ) i= plies that, the age of ," ~~ 0

*

the' tuff could vary by as much as 0.6 cy. Probability analysis,

based on the assu=ption of rando= cocpaction however, reduces.

'

-

this range to 0.25 my. Thus the Napot Tuff 1. 1.60 1 0.25 my. (Thus no circular reasoning was involved. . e mean declination iof the Napot Tuff was directly compared with the declination <

of the TRM in radiometrically dated lavas. Since the tuff '

overlies pyroclastics, the latter are older and probably of ;Early Matuyama age. *

, .

.

d

Newhall's su==ary points on this subject are seriously in error:~

(a) There are reliable age dates for Napot Point. These agreewith the detailed stratigraphic evidence that the Pointis well over 1 million years old.

(b) The youngest. rocks on Mt. Natib have clear,1y been dated.Sa=ples on the western flanks were dated by the methods bestsuited for them, the K-Ar and paleomagnetic methods.

(c) We do have reliable methods to date in the range 60,000 to200,000 yrs. A nu=ber of samples reported in the PSAR arewithin this range. Based on the large volume of data nowavailable on Mt. Natib, we can rest assured that there is noevidence of volcanic activity on Mt. Natib.in tens of*-

, '

thousands of years.

-..

Probability of Eruption

Newhall has. compiled data that purport to show that " serious" eruptions.'

in the Philippines'and Indonesia over the last 160 years have been =cres

frequent than presented by Ebasco. He does not give the data on this,so it is impossible to co= pare the eruptions we have counted, but weare confident that the reason for the difference lies in the fact thathe is. counting =uch s= aller eruptions and in many cases must be countingdifferent phases of a series of events as different eruptions rather2an a single one. Moreover, he has calculated his " volcanic explosi-*

,

!

O-'

D].

;..~, . . .-- - --

7~._ ,

.- - ?-

.

,. . . . - . . . ;.

.

- :.

'

vity index" in a way which includes. eruptions that would not havepresented a serious hazard. We believe that this has happened becausehe probably takes the cumulative discharge for a prolonged period of

_

activity and comes up ud ?.I' a large volume of ejecta and a high amount oftotal energy. Forourpurposeshowevegg it makes a great deal of diff-crence whether an eruption releases 10 ergs in a single explosion or ;over a period of . months, just as it is very dif ferent if a meter of ash ;is laid down in the course of a day or over a period of months. Mr. '. jNewhall may have found information on eruptions that we missed, but we j

.----did not ov.erlook two-thirds of them! .

'

,

Not withstanding this fact, Newhall's extrapolatons of eruption' rates*

3

',do differ radically from ours. The principal reason for the disc'repancy.

is that the two calculated rates are for two different things. Newhall's~

ra'tes are for serious,' individual eruptions of active volcanoes, which =ay;

be. separated in time by years, months or even weeks. Such rates may be ;

calculated from the historic record or from the geologic record of Holocene 1

activity. Data from Mt. Natib, however, spans over 2 million years.'

Ebasco's calculations, as stated clearly ir. the PSAR, are for majoreruptive events, perhaps lasting as much as hundreds or thousands of years

.

'. and consisting of one or more individual eruptions. The young pyroclasti':

blanket on the east side of Mt. Natib which is composed of several layers ,

of material separated by thin soil horizons represents one such event, andsever'al individual. eruptions. The statistical analysis, therefore, yieldsprobabilities of major eruptive events, not probabilities of individuallava flows, tephra eruptions, or pyroclastic flows.

Mr. Newhall quotes Walker's (1974) calculation that only 2 percent ofthe worlds active volcanoes erupted less than once in,10,000 years. jMr..Newhall suggests that Ebasco believes that Mt. Natib is one of the

select few percent of the world's volcanoes with long repose periods. '

On the contrary, the data collected by Ebasco indicates that Mt. Natibis not an active volcano, and therefore, would not even be consideredin Walker's calculation. According to Williams and McEirney (1979),there are tens of thousands of volcanoes in the world, only'500 of whichhave erupted during historic time. Mt. Natib is one of the tens ofthousands of inactive or extinct volcanic edifices. .To classify it as" active" and therefore subject to statistical calculations based on

historic data from other volcanoes in a gross mis-application of , '

'dvolcanologic co= mon sense". None of.the worlds " active" volcanoes aremantled with tens of meters of saprolite, or have mature, deeplydissected flanks with well developed radial drainages. The world's" active" volcanoes have typically'had many eruptive events younger than10,000_ years, while'Mt. Natib has had none. ,.

'

Tectonic Model ,

Mr. Newhall's criticisms of the tectonic model have little to do withthe issues of site safety, since, contrary to his apparent belief,Ebasco has at no time used the tectonic-model as a predictive tool of

,

DW ? 0m

h)f'[h ~h a|

7._ ,_ , ._ -

..

-

. .

-safety-related factors. Therefore, opinions as to the validity of themodel have little 1 pact on our basic conclusions. The model presentedwas used to explain the anomalous features of the central Eataan areseghent with respect to the seg=ents to the north and south. These ,

features are: the lack of seis=1 city below 100 km, the lack ofshoshonitic volcanism, the presence offshore of the West Luzon Trough, 9

and the significant che=ical changes through time and' space within the .

Mt. Natib volcano from tholeiitic in the western vents to clac-alkaline. 3

]in the eastern vent. The model presented accounts for these anomalies. |_Other models could also be for=ulated; and for that reason, the assess- #uent of volcanic risk to the Napot Point site considered all three vents

||J; 4t the ~ summit ,of Mt. Natib to be equal with respect to eruptive proba-bility. This is.. clearly a conservative approach, and is co=pletelyihdependent of the model. -

'viA few co==ents are in order about Newhall's discussions of relationships i

between subduction and the structure and eruptive activity of the over- L'

lying volcanoes. Some of the assertions he cakes are hypotheses that '

are popular at Dartmouth but are not generally accepted elsewhere. The [ideas about the relationships between the spacing and activity of !.' ' volcanoes and the segmentation of the subducted plate have been presented r

several times in print and at meetings and have been received with!

considerable scepticism. Th'e state =ent that there is a correlationbetween rates of subduction and volcanism is simply absurd. All one has !

to do is look at a few exa=ples, such as the Andes and Tonga-Kermadec,where subduction rates are high and volcanism is trivial or regions like fthe 6ntilles or Indonesia, where the rate of subduction is low and thereare many historic eruptions of great magnitude, to see that this is

'nonsense.

Eruption from the West Flank

s

hMr. Newhall makes a case that an eruption on the west flank of Mt. Natibis possible. 'We believe that the best evidence on this topic is the "

geologic record. Although a member of vents and parasitic coneshave formed in Sataan during the last 5 million years, no evidence of any-

ven Vest of the su--it of the major volcanoes has been found. All of theyoungest rocks on Bataan originated either at the suc=it of the conesor on the east side of the peninsula. No faults or other features # havebeen found which would provide a conduit for magmas originating under theeast side of the peninsula to erupt on the west side. Finally, alltectonic models suggested for the region agreed that volcanism willmigr' ate away from the trench (to the east on Eataan). We believe thatthese factors strongly sugge.st that an eruption'on the west side ofBataan is not credible, in the sense that the likelihood qf such an eruptienis s=all enough to warrant that it need not be taken into' account in designof the plant.

It should be stressed that the fact that there are no known vents on thewest side =eans that an eruption there would entail opening cf a new I

conduit. This is very different fro = an eruption fro: an established

- .

O

L

, _ . - . ._- -

-

]

0[ dkb i

''

'

.

~

vent, because it requires a cajor change in the structural and ther=alregi=e of the volcano and cannot occur without conspicuous premonitorypheno =ena that would be detectable long before an outbreak. Newhall ,

does not allow for this difference in any of his discussions, and it ;clea'rly has a fundamental bearing on whether or not the postulated events

~

can be anticipated and guarded against. [

The process of opening a new vent requires a major change in the stress ".

. regime and inevitably leads to large numbers of seis=ic chocks, changesin the grourdwater circulation, tilting, and in variour physical andchemical features of the volcano, such as gravitational field. Tliesecould not pass undetected. In 'those cases in which new vents have been

. : opened in an area that has not been the scene of previous activity, as'for exa=ple in'the Paricutin vent that opened in 1943, frequent tremorswere felt over a period of years, and a thermal anomaly and depression fof. the. ground were detected at least five years before the outbreak. We

fknow of no exception to this rule. I

?

Volcanic Hazards and Montoring

Mr. Newhall =akes a number of points on volcanic hazards, the monitoring * '

-

of. volcanic eruptions, and the administrative and engineering questionson t;hese topics. We believe that it is far core appropriate to focus

,on th'e practical question of anticipating events and taking precautionary (measures than to discuss hypothetical events. The possibility that an ieruption on the west flank, a major pyroclastic flow, collapse of the icaldera, or landsliding on a large scale could occur without detectable

.

precursory phenomina can be ruled out quite confidently. ~

Newhall states that surveillance could detect premonitory activity at'

Mt. Natib and in doing so, he essentially concedes everything. All the '

'other arguments are reduced to purely academic proportions. He raised

-fa number of questions about how this surveillance will be carried out,and what administrative procedures will be followed. Although they were

'

apparently not reviewed by Mt. Newhall, plans have been prepared detail-ing the specific engineering and administrative activities which will be

,

' required to ensure plant safety if any signs of eruptive activity are jdetected. These plans call for collection of several years of baselineinfcrmation from the volcanic monitoring program. Anomalous data.will

''mmedistely be brought to the attention of an internationally known groupi

of experts who will recoc: mend appropriate actions. Finally, engineering .

features are being designed into the plant to protect it fres relevant -

-volcanic hazards. The procedures and plans developed to date have been4

reviewed and approv'ed by the Philippine Ato:ic , Energy Co= mission. As corespecific plans and procedures are developed, they too will be submittedto regulatery bodies, as appropriate. ..

,

. .

.

.|

Ii

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

.

* *

.. .

'.

D'< 0

^>3 b

TABLE 1 g ML 3 .m'

e'

LIST OF EXPERTS CONTRIBUTING TO STUDIES'

.

E3ASCO GEOLOGY / CIVIL ENGINEERING STAFF~

i

J. J. Gilmore, Civil Engineering )

N. R. Tilford, Consulting Geology iDr. G. L. Stirewalt, Field Geology / Structural Geology

. ,

"Dr. I. N. Gupta, Seismology '

Dr. H. U.Acharya, Seismology-- Dr. U. Chandra,-Seismology '

" .:. ~ fe - . F. G. Snider, Field Geology'

']~- ^'R. Cannon, Field Geology / Geochemistry*

.

G. D. Qohnson, Engineering Geology 1.- ''

Dr. 3. S. Siegal, Remote Sensing l. H. W. Maxwell, Engineering Geology

Dr. Walter E. Newco=b, Field GeologyP. G. Scheible, Coordination & Quality AssuranceJ. G. Sullivan, ResearchDr. R. H. Hans=an, ResearchJ. E. Palmer, Ground Water :- J

,

G. L. Bain, Ground WaterDr. Z. A. Saleen, Ground Water

~

D. F. Unites, Ground Water-

I. Cilogl', Engineering Geology}

uA. L. Williams, Engineering GeologyM. Hayes, Engineering . GeologyD. G. Welsch, Engineering GeologyJ. G. Cusack, Engineering

'Dr. J. J. Healey, Earthquake Engineering.

W. E. Cleva, Document Control / Quality AssuranceJ. F. Ferguson, GeophysicsJ. L. Ehas , Soil Mechanics & Earthquake Engineering iK. S. Liu, Soil Mechanics

iDr. S. G. Khoury, Quality AssuranceA. R. Brown, Quality Assurance

- Dr. J. J. Shah, Soil Fhchanics'

Dr. F. F.-Yeh, Hydrology.

EBASCO ST'AFF CONSULTANTS '

Dr. P. C. Ragland, Geochemistry; Floriaa State UniversityDr. A. L. Odor, Geochronology; Florida State UniversityDr. J. deBoer, Paleomagnetis=/ Tectonics; Wesleyan UniversityDr. C.'W. Welby, Remote Sensing; NorEh Carolina State University

'

:**

TECHNICAL EEVIEW COMMITTEE

Dr. A. Alcarc:, Volcanism (Pounder & Por=er Chairman-Philippine '

Cc =ission of Volcanology)Dr. A. R. Mc31rney, Volcanism; University cf Oregen '

E. Oslick, Chief Licensing Engineer (Ebasce)'

E. P. O' Donnell, Chief Licensing Engineer (Ebasco).<

.

. . - . . .

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

,- :.. ..

.,

D ]h0 h 0 \' e

.

.

.

.

. -

.

TABLE 2 s'

.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITES, ,

. ,

, within.

- 150-Kilometers of '

Active Volcanoes:

*.

United States.

. Japan

Taiwan

Italy.

Mexico

iRepublic of the Philippines

.

*.

.

4

.

O

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

,'.. ., '. k- -,. ,

'

4S

: Undead States (See Figure 2 for location of Plants and Active Volcanoes)'- 5,

App rcxi=at ePlant Site Active Volcanoes Distance to Site Last Eruction ._

. ._

2

Skagit, Washington- Mt. Baker 45 1870 ;e

*

WNP3,5 (Satsop) . Mt. Rainier 125 1882 !,

.

Washington Mt. St. Helens 125 1854 ''

,

.

Trojan, Orego'n Mt. St. Relens 50 1854-

~

M.t. Ho.od 115 c.1801-

. . . _ _

t a _ v. - 2-4 ; +. Mt. Rainier 125 . 1882. . . = . - 2,

Pebble Springs. Mt. Hood 125 c.1801

Oregon-

D**0 D TYO~*

een .A llki.,

,

- .|

.

;

|

-.(

!

(!

e s,

4

.g #

.

e.

.

k

6 a

O

e

, --. y,.

,

. . . . . |

DT D @ 9 '?Wi Q"i asp J hkiksJaoan (See Figure 3 'for location of Plant Sites and Volcanoes)

.

Active Volcanoes Approximate LastPlant Site (Map Code) Within 150 km (map code) Distance to Site Eruption

'

km

lSendai (A) Sakura-jima (2) 35 1979 i

Kirishima (3) 60 1978 . ;Kaimon-Dake (1) ' 70 882 (?) i

Unzen (4) 120 1792Aso (5) 150

'

1979

!

^ Genkai (B) Unzen (4) 80 - 1792Aso (5) 135 1979,

_

Ikata-(C) Aso (5) 145 1979 j_

Takahaca (E) Haku-san (8) 130 1579

Oh1 (F) Haku-san (8) 115 1579- '

.

Miha=a (G) liaku-san (8) 90 1579'On-take (7) 135 1979

.

Tsuruga (H) Haku-san (8) 70 1579On-take (7) 125 1979 iYake-dake (9) 145 1963

C

Hamaoka (I) Fiji (6) 90 1707 -

Niigata (J) Niisata-yake-yama (12) 95 1974Nikko-shirane (14) 105 1889Kusatsu-shirane (11) 110 1939Agaki (13) 125 1251Nasu (15) 125 1963Sandai (16) 125 1954Asama (10) 135 1973

'

Adatara (17) 140 1900Azuma (18) 140 1950

.. s

Tokai #1 (K) Nasu (15) 90 1963Nikko-shirane (14) 110 1889Agaki (13) 130 1251Bandai (16) 130 1954

'Adatara (17) 130 1900A uma (18) 140 1950,

Tokai #2 (L) Nasu (15) 80 1963Adatara (17) 110 1900Nikke-shirane (14) 120 1589Eandai (16) 120 1954'Azuma (18) 120 1950Agaki (13) 140 1251

1-

-

. . . . . .

. . ..- .-

D *]D Tl '',j[" D

16wP o m 11. . a.

Active Volcanoes Approximate ~'*'

Last [Plant Site (map code) Within 150 kg Distance to Site Eruptionj - (r.ap code) kmi .

, . .

Fukushima #2 (M) 'Adatara (17) 65 1900 ;Azuma (18) 75 1950- -,

.' Bandai (16) 85 1954 .- ;1 Zao (19) 95 1939'

!.. Nasu (15) 100 1963

,

Fukushid #1 (N) Adatara (17) 60 1900,

i .b' . -rf% - - Azuma (18) 65 1950.

.

1~

Bandai (16) 80 1954

'- - Zao (19) 70 1939.

's. Nasu (15) 110 1963 i

j Kurikoma (20) 145 1950 ;!

?

Onagawa (0) Kuriko=a (20) 90 1950 I;

Zao (19) 95 1939 l,

* ~- Azuma (18) 125 1950

,

j Adatara (17) 135 1900 '

' ' . Bandai (16) 150 1954Tyokai (21) 150 1974 <

, <

=

.

-

; -

|

Ii

<

1

9

* * e

1

'.,

*.'l

a .

I

I

*~

|

|

r

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

_.

. ...... . .~

g* D D' Ia w .I\ .tO.b. m

Taiwan (See Figdre C for location of Plant Sites and Active Volcanoes) " '

.

Approf.ima:e- *ast.

Plant Site Active volcanoes Distance from Site E=ption,- (km)

~

First Nuclear Northern tip Volcano 80 1867,

Proj ect ,'

,

Second Nuclear Northern tip Volcano 75 1867*

Proj ect East Coast Volcano 145' 1854

iThird Nuclear Southern tip Volcano -45 1854 .'

Proj ect I

Tourth Nuclear Northern tip Volcano 65 1867 ,Project East Coast Volcano '15 1854

*:.

.

O

e

O

.

9 g

%%

OO

O

a

6*

- - , , , - _. -_

_ . .$.

7 . . -. . ..

. . . .. . . ..

:.

D**D *]D'9'V*~ -

00D o M.1.k a .

'

''

Italv +.

Approximate Last.

Plant Site Active Volcano Distance to Si e{km)Eruptien.t

- :

Garigliano Monte-Nuovo 45 1538 - ;E

-.

.. ,.. ..

- |,

?--

.- h

.. g

. . . . _

'Enxico. .. .

.

Approxi= ate 'Last'

.

P1'nt-Site: ~

Active Volcano Distance to Site (km) Eruption-

- a :. -

Laguna Verde Orizaba 120 1687 }i:

h

.

P

.%

*. ;

?_s

.

, j

Ia

:

59

d

. 9

.

* **e .

m

. *

%g

..

e

e

h

.

1

e

.

__ __ ._

- .-, . . . - - -

,

'- '

. e - D m m.D g| D 9 ,Rf' ] i

. -

bb d< J1 . i &4a - m

Philippines (3ee Figuge 5 for location of Plant Site and Active Volcano)',

Last,

App c:<ir. ate_

Plant Site Active Volcano Distance to Site EruptionDr.)

.

PNPP #1,

Taal- 100 1978'

:s

*s

I

m . +. .-

n y

".

4

.j:

s

:

* .

..

$

e a

6%

h

e

e

7,. . , . . - = - ~ _ _

~-

. . . ..

t .- - z .. i,. .

t-

"D'$ yAD"D !.

Bibliography for Table 2 ec .,n a.o

,

i's

. >

'%

1. , Geological Survey of Japan, 1968, Volcanoes of Japan,

2. Kuno, H., 1962; Catalogue of Active Volcanoes of the World ;:..

3. MacDonald, G.'A., 1972, volcanoes, New Jersey, Pre'ntice Hall'-

:.

.

s

4. Taiwan Power Company, 1978; 15th Annual Electric Power Survey , f-

-. :.-._

. 5. 'Wyle Laboratories; 1978, World Atlas -of Seismic Zones and Nu'elear Power Plants...

4 r 9;; ,.-.,. ..-.

-..

6. ....., 1978;. Main "ransmission System and Power Stations 'of Japan,

.

- i,

s.

**. ..,

.

:E

.

*

<

-

j-

-

.. .

*9

4

?. ..*

,

*.

*. I

1'

:5.

ss

F_

!..

.i

i " <

i *

e

k*

1. |.

|

.

$

|'

<

_ _ _ -. . _ - _ . . . .- _ - ~ _ . - _ , .-_

_ _. . . , , ,--

.- .

. . . . .- i. .. .

.

A]gk N(jljf [6 -

~ %Il !Am0

#"TABLE 3 b'' "

,

ITEMS NOT REVIEEED BY NEWiiALL.

1. Site Confirmation Report, Data Appendices I and II (Jan. 1976)

2. Preliminary ' Site Investigation Report (August, l'976) .

-. - ;

3. Geologic Razards to PNPP Unit 1 (July 1977),

j

4. PNPP Nnit 1 Volcanic Seismic Surveillance Program (August, 1977),

,

- *.

.. Responses to PAEC Questions of 21 July,1977 (undated)*S..

,

y6. N Report on the' Action Taken Regarding uhe PAEC/IAEA Site Safety <

'

, Recommendations.,

7. PAEC Status Report on Resolution of IAEA Mission Report Concerns (March 19, 1979)

8.'

Status Su==ary Report on the Resolution of Issues Raised by the 1978.IAEA Safety Mission to the Philippines by Charles A. Willis

1

9. Additional Studies Requested by NPC in Connection with LWA No. 5 (April 12,1979)- '

110. Additional PAEC Regulatory Staff Questions on Site Safety Issues-PNPP 1,(August 28, 1979) 1

~

11. Ebasco Input to Final Position Meco for Presidential Co= mission.

12.' ' Report of the Consultants to the Puno Com=ission (October, 1979)

13. Puno Commission Final Report (Nove=b er 15, 1979)

.. .

O 4

..

>

b +

s

|

|,

.

.

.

**.

y.. ' _ - . . _

---

* , . - ,

y. ,

--

- wt o-

-)-<

vi O. w u) Z c

.

FW L:.p-O_zcn -z

$ 311 S 3 0 U 3 8 W h1 N C< 3 i-

in w n n c Wo g,

- . .- g gg. - oo -

C- > 5UW L

.----- - o, *

,

J& W0 >0< eae.

~

- . . r.~

-. . --

..

O O.

%n ULD

3e Z.,

' oO O2 W|

.

- ;z EE Z< H F- C-U y) - C-d ~5a O J

s -.- 80 =

., g-

WQ f-

MEUREMIO ' ca um

N : :

. oSE*

OE ..

E EET ko N, N j

,

o.. --

n s2: Nh44 /

S

ST*Eus =

EEb.is.R

M$ C 2 -EL C h

c..k.kkbE_- . o-

.

'

o Ct,in v n n -

S31tS d O H 3 8 W O N-

,

.

8

~ _ . . . - -

. _ - _ _ _ _ ,

-'

.. , .-

-

. o, _a .

.. -~

| l Q

@ Mt. Baker' 4 E~ *

.

f SKAGIT, -'*,

*

o". _ ,g

5 !"

.

'

{ *

Z j

) w A S H I N |G 'T O N

< . .

~ m WNP 3,5SATSOP. Mt. Ranier*

WN P 1,2, 4 %

$ Mt.St. Helens HANFORD |\-o ,

TROJAN--

--

/*j -

PEBBLE jSPRINGS

'

| / -45 '^

j Mt. Hood

./r

!O i

!%

i

% O R E G O N

%

l

i1

T

%|

.

\'

-40_ _ _ _ _

_

.

0.. 50 100 150 200 ?co

SCALE Its KILOM ET ERS

EXPL A N A TION .

k Nuclearpowerplantsites LOC.ATION OF ACTIVE VOLCANOES AND ,

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN THE U. S.

Q Active volcanoes;

l

PHILIPPINE NUCLEAR ^ POWER PLANT UNIT NO.1 /.

; .; g,

NPC FIGURE 2.

) i-

,

~,_- ..,

._. _

... .. ...

.. .

EXPL A NA TIO N

.* Active volcanoes u& a

* Nuclear powerplant sites r%

Note: Numbers andletters adjacent to symbols correspon'd .

-

~

to volcanoes andplant sites listed in Tables 1 & 2.

-.

. ~~. <004_ '

. . ..

'-

~ .

- ij'

i-lj

3eo .z" ii

'

,

.

'.:

/ i

ao,-

,

c m.

4

ASEA ;

9'

D.. 3

.agoN

..

! 'NBE *. --g* H !'

N,

T GF 7,-

'

Na.asaki O ,

4 / .

2 *c ,

SHIKOK .

'

a c,,. K YUSH Ur

/ i~

I | ]' '

( ,,c e~,, s .

i,. , ,

t

'"

. : - %

!I

..

/ .

~

.

.+ y *

.-

2,8 Q H O. K K A I D e''

.

. !*

~

25 -'

9

% / e2s-

.

!.

24~s ;

/y

e23 D9,22e .

G _

f / U O0 *21

,,

20 *

/ *di gata / 19 0 p

1,8 $

1;/e5 g614 p 3.o11

'-

3 ,g\,K* o so 1cc iso 2cc .250

-/ *

T CALE s ts O P/, E T E F. S

,

_

. Tokyo /6o / ,

, f-

% LOCATION OF ACTIVE VOLCANOES AND/ 'I NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN JAPAN'

;_

c[ PHILIPPINE NUCLE AR POWER PLANT UNIT NO.1

,' NPC FIGURE 3,

,

-

' *

r.*' * W W .w. . * FIRST -- -

U NUCLEAR PRdJECT NORTHERN TIP.

(' \*w. ,

J ey-

b 449 - .,5- .SECOND l

\ NUCLE AR PROJECT 125*NY ! | FOURTH

* N NUCLEAR PROJECT.

* 4 ,

45 .

*

. '_- E AST COAST '9 'd

v0LCANOg24*N h,

T R .

Y EXP L A N A TIO N-x.

e.

h Nuclearpov.erplant sites% yU

tA iQ pproximate position of

& - osubmarine vo! canoes

s

.

T

23*N*

<A.

0

.

Q ..

%

0 .-

.

THIRD . T' NUCLEAR PROJECT-

%

. 22 N- yO so too- .

_ _ . _ _* h SCALE IN KILOMET ERS

,

SOUTHE RN TIPVOLCANO

LOCATION OF ACTIVE VOLCANOES AND- -

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN TAlWAN.

IPHILIPPINE NUCLE AR POWE R PLANT UNIT NO.1

NPC FIGURE 4

J

. e ,

,

* * ' '

, .; .' *. . .

16 N !#

!FN t-v,

|*e -=. ;- *

a.= ,

:

i. :'

1,

'

. ,

L U' Z O N k

is*N - r iI O . k

'

] = 5

2 -

,

PNPP UNIT 1 k ,gg

Bay

j fs :'

Y ;,

!1..

3

Taat -

14 N Volcano -

7

..

e

.

.~

- EXPL A NA TIO N '

f Nuclearpowerplantsite c

h Active volcrno ,,

o 50 imWm - -

S C A L E I N K ! L O t.* E T E R S

- LOCATION OF ACTIVE ' OLCANOES ANDNUCLEAR POWER PLANT' IN THE PHILIPPINES

PHillPPINE NUCLEAR PdWER PLANT UNIT NC.1NPC FIGJRE 5