Geological Engineering - Geologic Site Criteria for Nuclear Power Plant Location

This article presents a series of guidelines by which the geologist can evaluate the likelihood of surface faulting and its probable extent at any given site in Southern California and Nevada. The information is intended primarily for geologists concerned with establishing design criteria for proposed nuclear plants. The geologic problems involved in the location of a nuclear power plant are fundamentally no different from those for other types of installations. They fall into four main categories: foundation stability, landslides and slope stability, shaking due to earthquakes, and surface faulting. For problems in the first three categories the foundation engineer, the geologist, and the seismologist can provide criteria for plant location and design, and these problems can generally be economically handled by appropriate design measures for a project of the magnitude of a nuclear plant. However, problems in the last category — surface faulting — are more difficult to handle and require a unique evaluation. Accordingly, this paper will deal primarily with the problem of establishing design criteria for surface faulting, particularly as it affects nuclear facilities. A nuclear reactor is a power source that for greater safety is contained in a heavy, air-tight structure, just as gas, oil, water, and other power sources must be contained. Surface faulting is significant in that it may reduce the integrity of the containment by affecting critical exterior piping or by breaching of the containment. A similar significance exists relative to dams or tanks for the storage of water, gas, or oil, except that in these latter examples the breaching of the container automatically releases the fluids to do their damage. This is not necessarily the case with the rupture of a reactor containment structure because the function of the containment is totally protective, i.e., it is necessary only in the event that radioactive products are released from the reactor, and there are many other safeguards to pre- vent this release even if the containment is ruptured. At the present time, nuclear power plants must be located near large sources of water for cooling the steam generated. The construction of an industrial facility of any kind on the coast line is esthetically distasteful to most people since, unfortunately, there is not enough coast to fulfill all the needs and all the desires of all the people. In most cases where industrial facilities encroach on the lives of citizens, there is no mechanism other than zoning laws by which a person can effectively protest. But in the case of a nuclear facility, the public hearing required by the Atomic Energy Commission provides a forum for dissent, as in recent case histories, and the question of safety provides objectors with a weapon for fighting the construction of the plant. The nature of a public hearing for a nuclear plant is such that the prospective owner and operator must prove that there is no undue hazard, whereas the objectors need only demonstrate that there is a reasonable doubt. It is in this situation that geology becomes the Achilles Heel of nuclear power plant location. For his investigation, the geologist has natural exposures of rock at the ground surface and a limited number of trenches and drill holes to give him a fairly complete picture of the distribution of the various rock types. From the surficial data, he must infer three more dimensions — depth below the surface, past time, and future time. Unlike many problems faced by engineers, the geologist has only this one set of data from which to reach a conclusion — he is unable to reproduce the natural sequence of events in order to obtain another set of data for comparison. Hence, by the very deductive nature of a geologic conclusion, it is difficult to prove a geologic conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt even to other geologists — and perhaps one should say especially to other geologists because the experience and background of a geologist will strongly influence his conclusion, and no two geologists have exactly the same experience and training. The engineer and the public official would like the geologist to conclude that faulting cannot occur at a given site or to assign a numerical value to the probability of its occurrence — but no responsible geologist can do either of these things. Since government officials and others must make decisions that affect the public safety, it would seem that the geologic profession must attempt to establish criteria and