ML13304A868
| ML13304A868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1981 |
| From: | Cardone A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rolonda Jackson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13304A869 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111160248 | |
| Download: ML13304A868 (33) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SEP 2 8 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences Branch, DE THRU:
<""'Stephan J. Brocoum, Leader Geology Section, GSB, DE FROM:
Anthony T. Cardone, Geologist Geology Section, GSB, DE
SUBJECT:
SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 NUCLEAR PLANT SITE The purpose of this memorandum and its attachments.is to compile and record the presentations to the San Onofre 2 & 3 hearing board made by Mr. David Phifer and myself in regard to faulting at the SONGS site postulated by Mr. Phifer. Also noted are the field trips meetings etc. in the same regard.
On June 25, 1981 Mr. Phifer made a presentation to the San Onofre 2 & 3 hearing board in which he presented information on 3 postulated faults on Camp Pendleton.
He named them the Horno Canyon, the Horno Summit, and the San Onofre Mountain faults. Attached is the transcript of Mr. Phifer's presentation to the hearing board made on June 25, 1981.
As a result of Mr. Phifer's statements, the board requested that the NRC staff evaluate the new information and report back to them. In order to get as much information as possible, expeditiously, I attended a field trip.to Camp Pendleton on June 27, 1981 to investigate the postulated faults. I was accompanied by the applicant and its consultants, Mr. Phifer, and personnel from the Camp Pendleton staff. Ken Lajoie of the U. S. Geological Survey also attended at the invitation of Mr. Phifer.
On the basis of this field examination.I requested that the Applicant perform some studies regarding the terraces that straddle the Horno Summit fault along San Onofre Creek and also along San Mateo Creek, and also to look along its trend for continuity as well as looking at the other faults for dating evidence and continuity. The Applicant provided a final documentation of the results of their studies on July 29, 1981.
A copy of the applicants report is attached.
I made a presentation, the transcript of which is attached, to the hearing board on July 31, 1981 in which I concluded:
- 1. There is evidence for strike-slip faulting along the trend of the postulated Horno Canyon fault. However along the inferred trend of the fault are two undeformed terrace levels that truncate the fault. This would indicate an age of faulting of at least 300,000 years old for the upper terrace level and of at least 120,000 years old for the terrace platform observed in the sea cliff. There is no basis for the existence of the Piedro de Lumbre leg of the Horno Canyon fault.
2 t44I~
SEP 2 8 1981
-2
- 2. The postulated San Onofre Mountain fault is evidenced by hummocky ground at the.base of a series of high, arcuate escarpments which are very indicative of landsliding rather than a tectonic origin. -Therefore, there is no evidence to support this fault as postulated by Mr. Phifer.
- 3. There is evidence of faulting along the trend of the postulated Horno Summit fault in several places. However, the terraces that straddle the fault at San Onofre and San Mateo Creeks, which are dated by Dr. Schlemon at 40,000 to 100,000 years old are not deformed.
The fault was described as having strike-slip movement of some 20 miles. However, the evidence for this presented by Mr. Phifer is erroneous for the following reasons. His estimate of right-lateral displacement of up to 20 miles on the fault was based on his observing San Onofre Breccia displaced "across a couple of miles of Eocene."
He stated that the breccia was picked up somewhere along the fault and moved to an area where no breccia is known to exist.
However, the evidence shows the breccia boulders were not moved by tectonic forces along the Horno Summit fault but most likely was moved some miles.dittant by truck from a quarry site to serve as road ballast. Also, the applicants air photo study indicate that there are no lineaments of structural origin that align with the postulated fault. Lastly, if the Horno Summit fault did exist-it would be approximately 5 miles.distant, at its closest point, from the plant site. Since the OZ is also 5 miles from the site, it is the more prominent of the two faults and would therefore be the controlling fault.
In conclusion, I did not see anything in Mr. Phifer's presentation regarding the postulated faults that might pose a hazard to the San Onofre site.
I have reviewed the additional information provided to the board by Mr. Phifer on July 31, 1981.
There is nothing in this new information that would cause me to change my conclusion stated above.
Geologist Geology Section Geosciences Branch, DE Attachments:
As stated
1417 and if we need to fill it in, we will do it&
that bsis..
MR. PHIFER:
Is that satisfactory?
JUDGE KELLEY: 'Well, why don't you go ahead, and 4 we will fill in as necessary.
5 PRESENTATION OF.
6 DAVID PHIFER 7
My name is David Phifer. I presently reside at 8
944 Styles Court, in Vista, California. I am currently 9
employed by a small engineering firm in North San Diego 10 County. I have been with that firm for two-and-a-half years.
I have no financial interest in the San Onofre 12 Nuclear Plant, or the companies associated with its 13 construction or operation.
14 Today I represent myself as a private citizen.
15 My background, educationally, I attended the 16 University of Washington from 1951 to 1955, and there received 17 a Bachelor of Science degree in zoology.
I attended the 18 Naval Post-Graduate School from 1970 to 1972.
About 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> 19 of my studies were in marine geology, oceanography, and 20 related sciences. I returned to the University of Washington 21 in 1977 and 1976 --
'76 and '77, and took two quarters of 22 work, about 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />, out of the Geology Department, and with 23 te Oceanography Department.
24 After returning to SanDiego in the spring of 15 1977, I periodically attended San Diego State University, in
.__._1418 graduate stat, taking courses under Dr.06rshall and a number of others.
3 My lifelong interest has been geology, although 4
I also graduated from the School of Hard Knocks, called the 5
U. S. Marine Corps, 21-and-a-half years service.
6 I have informally studied the geology of 7
Margarita P Quadrangle, at Camp Pendleton, and related areas, 8
since 1956, whenever the Marine Corps brought me back, and 9
have notes that go back before that period.
10 Sir, I will stop now, and if there is anyone who 11 has any questions, as far as my qualifications, or my 12 background, I would be pleased to answer them.
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think you have pretty well 14 covered it. Why don't you go ahead.
15 MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Chairman, only one very small 16 request:
17 Mr. Phifer, is your name spelled P-f-e-i-f-f-e-r?
18 MR.
PHIFER:
My name is spelled P-h-i-f-e-r.
19 MR.
CHANDLER:
Thank you, sir.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: You can go ahead.
21 MR. PHIFER: One more comment:
22 My history goes back to 1932.
I am 49 years old, 23 I guess that would make it.
24 As a personal friend of Tom Thompson and 25 Robbie Robinson, Auderbach(ph), in oceanography. They used to
1419 bounce me on their knees.
This morning, ladies and gentlemen, !embers of
- 2.
tbbreancadid.
the Commission, I am going to try to be brief and can tion.
I want to discuss it with you at I have new informatxn 5
three levels:
first off, present the data, then-I will try anato relate the data as in my interpretation I see iti 6try to keep data and interpretation separate.
I will do this on a local level first.
I will then do, nd relate it
-into an interpretation on a regional 10 level.
After I get done there,.I will wave my arms a little 11 bit for those guys who like plate tectonics.
There are three major unreported faults on For purposes of discussion, and for CampPendleton. Frproe ppers they will be called the Horno Canyon Fault, 14su-.equent papes whi embraces this, the Horno Summit Fault, which is this 16 in the center of Camp Pendleton, and the San Onofre 17 Mountain Fault.
About ten days ago the data started to fall 19 together. for me.
I saw of the displacement of some terraces, 20 and I went back on Saturday last to field check. The 1
structural features are there.
22 Let us talk about the H1orno Canyon Fault. Here 23 across a scarp that goes across the Roblar Road -
4 cretaceous plutons with jur6pliasic(ph) streams in them, Eocne, facing a thosand foot scarp.
15 against La Jola group Ec 1420 I sensed the up and the down, based on that scarp, and some other data.
3 Here at Horno Canyon, and I think it goes down 4
the trace, there are slicken sides on the surface, and 5
vertical surface gouges in the rock that go about ten to 15 6
- meters, and some small ones.
7 Just to the north, and I am going to talk terraces 3
now, because some of the evidence is geomorphic.
I am going 9
to talk lower terrace, number one.
A second terrace is in 10 green on my map. A third terrace is in yellow on my map, 11 and the fourth terrace in blue.
12 On each side of Horno Canyon, the fourth terrace, 13 the blue terrace, stands at 800 feet. This is aphysiographic 14 level.
This is not a terrace level, as such.
It probably 15 has alluvium afid colluvium on it; I just haven't been up 16 there yet.
17 South of Horno Canyon, what I correlate, and the 18 correlation is based on the position of the terraces relative 19 to one another, it stands at about 600 feet. That is 20 approximately. It is an interpretation, no facts now, just 21 interpretation, 200 feet vertical displacement.
22 If we trace down to Piedra del Hombre Canyon 23 just to the north of Bogus, WE can see terrace No. 2, the 24 green terrace, standing at aphysiographic, at an elevation of 1300 feet.
.1421 To the south, between Piedra del Hombre, and.
Bogus, the terra stands at 200 feet. Again, an interpretation.
That is 100 feet of vertical displacement.
It appears that the fault is a high-angle normal or reverse fault, with the last movement, as testified by 6
the slicken sides,being lateral, and that is why the question 7
marks are down here.
g There are slicken sides that go this way, and thern 9
are slicken sides that go that way --
or this way, whichever 10 way you want to call it.
11 The Horno Summit Fault-12 MR. PIGOTT:
Excuse me, could we have directions 13 on which way you are saying the slicken sides go?
"This 14 way" and "that way" don't show up very well on the record.
15 MR. PHIFER:
The slicken sides are close to 16 horizontal.
17 MR. PIGOTT: And the sense of movement? East-west 18 north-south?
If you could use those directions.
19 MR. PHIFER:
The sense of movement is northeast southwest.
The Horno Summit Fault:
Here, at Oceanside, in Lawrence Canyon, Pliocene San Mateo is faulted against Miocene San Onofre breccia.
Here, up the trace, and it is difficult to see, San Onofre breccia is juxtaposed against La Jolla group and
1422 probably Santiago.
2 Here, at Bogus Canyon, there is a hard sandstone.
3 marker bed that stands on the west side of the fault..1 4
think it is the west side --
Pardon me, just off the east.
5 side --
You can't see it --
again, overlying cretaceous 6
trebodites at Bogus Ammo Dump, if you drive by on the road.
7
- Here, on Horno Ridge, above Horno Canyon, at the 8
same elevation, trebodites, brown sandstone, probably 9
La Jolla group --
pardon me, probably Point Loma, but 10 cretaceous, surely, are butted up against Eocene massive 11 archosic sandstones. The zone is --
I don't know how wide, 12 but there is a zone there three or four meters wide. It is 13 purple. I think it is part of a hydrothermal alteration.
14 Here, crossing Range 214, just to the north of 15 the south fork of the San Onofre Creek, the fault is exposed 16 vertically for 30.
On the east side we see trebodites, 17 probably cretaceous.
On the west side, Eocene sandstone.
18 I cannot sense, from the topography the magnitude 19 of the slippage, or the magnitude of movement. I can tell 20 you the zone is kind of narrow. It is broken, broken, broken, 21 broken, but it is kind of broken.
You can-stick your fist in 22 it, and you can feel-it gouges there.
Down here, we have --
I saw a few more little fractures in the San Onofre down here on -Vandegriff Boulevard, and we can measure those.
1423 Here, at Mateo Canyon, on the north side, the hard sand-- same old hard sandstone caps the stream terraces, the same brown sandstone that we saw here.
4 Down on this side, the sandstone stands up on the 5
top of the stream terrace, stepping about 15 degrees to the west.
6 Down in the little hole next door, there is a 7
sliver, maybe 100 meters long. It dips at 15 degrees.
On 3
that projection, it is about --
the vertical displacement is 9
about 200 feet.
10 Something I have yet to verify, but here, also, 11 where the sandstone comes up, just beneath it, in the float, 12 there is all sorts of blue schist, and typical San Onofre 13 breccia material that does not crop out.
14 MR. PIGOTT:
Excuse me.
Tha is an area on the 15 map just south of San Mateo Creek, is that correct?
16 MR.
PHIFER:
Just south of San Mateo Creek.
.17 I would infer that since it is very difficult -to 18 get San Onofre breccia across a couple of miles of Eocene, 19 on a structural trend like this, that that San Onofre breccia 23 was picked up somewhere along on this line and moved to 21 there.
Therefore,my interpretation is that the sense of 22 movement is right lateral, the direction of movement is 23 northwest-southeast.
The San Onofre Fault --
By the by, this fault was mapped --
This is Moyle's map. This fault was mapped this far
1424 1
by Moyle.
It was 'apped this far by Moyle.
He put these 2
little fractures here.
Ee also picked up, and at least 3
Webber had it before, so Smitht u
have done it, this fracture.
4 The state map, and I.am told from the boya In San Francisco 5
that they compile it, that this data on this fault coming 6
across to about here is Smith's data.
7 Boss and erts, in
'58, basically said:
This is 8
a depositional contact in here, what I now show as a fault 9
contact.
It is a reasonable 'interpretation, in the rolling 10 terrain and poor exposures.
11 The San Onofre Fault looks to be a branch of 12 the Cristianitos, and it is mapped on all the big maps as 13 this fracture here. There is an inferred fault here. There 14 is an inferred fault here. There are a lot of little breaks 15 in between.
It is mapped as a depositional contact, Eocene 16 against Eocene under Miocene.
I think it is a fault.
17 There is a hell of a scarp that goes through 18 there.
I haven't been up there in years, but you have 19 Eocene near the top.
You have Eocene and Miocene butted 20 against each other, and if she underlies all the way, it is 21 kind of difficult to do.
I think it is a high-angle normal 22 fault.
23
/1 24 25
-1425 Geomorphz A pronounced scarp behind San Onofre Mountains, A pronounced scarp Across through Zulo area through Roblar Road; it's 1,000 feet high.
Aliso Creek, Horno Creek, Bogus Creek, Piedra del 5
Hombre Canyon(ph).
6 Horno:
A large drainage basin that, as.the 7
stream goes to the sea, cuts a knife edge through a block 0
8 coming up.
9 Piedra del Hombre; the same thing. The canyon 10 is not more than 20 meters wide on the bottom.
The drainage 11 basin is a mile or two across, a half mile.
12 Aliso Creek:
Almost trapped.
13 Bogus Creek:
Narrows down.
14 Terrace One:
Apparently unbroken.
Terrace One 15 the plant sits on Terrace One.
16 Terrace Two:
A hundred feet vertical offset 17 at Piedra del Hombre.
18 Terrace Three:
I don't know.
19 Terrace Four:
Someplace between 200 and 500 feet 20 of offset at Horno Canyon.
About 300 feet of offset back here.
21 This again is geographic evidence interpretation.
22 The last thing, the lineal trends; they fit.
23 This is a tier fault.
24 My conclusions:
The faulting is recent.
25 The lads from Woodward tell me that Terrace One
1 is something round.14 million years o la.
I wish somebodyl426 2
would correct me if that's not right. I understand that's on 3
the basis of amino acids.
4 I guess that these terraces which come up so well 5
and so nicely to the mountain are on the order of half a 6 million. I would say I base that on my guess on the physiograp'.y 7 of the degree of dissection. I can't prove it.
8 I am told that the offshore zone of deformation, 9
just above it, there's a 17,000-year surface.
10 My conclusion:
It's pre-Holocene, somewhat older 11 than the last 10,000 years.
12 It.'s post mid-Pleistocene. That's the window, I 13 think, and I'm not sure about the backside of the window.
14 Conclusion two:
Faulting is large scale. Maybe 15 vertical offsets of 500 feet or more. Maybe lateral offsets 16 of 20 miles.
17 Point three:
Based on the length of fault 18 breakage and Hausner's empirical correlation, we are looking 19 at something between 6.5 and 8. And my slight knowledge of 20 seismicity tells me that's about 1 g at the plant.
21 Let's see how it fits regionally.
22 I think it goes back here, up high, 2800 feet, 23 there's 150 feet of flatland basalt. There are a number of 24 little fractures, one of them which has about 26 million tons 25 of the highest grade ceramics you ever saw.
1427 1
The basalts were pushed up on that site and dropped 2
down on this site;.pushed up on the west and dropped down on 3
the east.
4 There's a big scarp that's part of the Deluse 5
Canyon back in there.
It looks like this big scarp goes 6
right through the Roblar-Luco Granite(ph) and back in here.
7 I can't prove that. Here's where it goes right there.
See 8
that piece of Luco granite right there? I can't prove that.
9 So it fits regionally. At least it's not contradictory.
10 Hooray.
11 I just talked to Monty. We aren't sure about 12 those basalts. Perry says that they're about 8 million years 13 old. The surface around it is flat as hell. They bake the 14 surface;,there is old soils underneath it.
I haven't gotten 15 back in there with a backhoe to jerk out any wood or whatever 16 else we can find.
I don't know.
We'll have to go back and 17 look at the data.
I think they're younger.
I think the 18 basalts are younger; therefore, the surface is younger.
And 19 if it's faulted off, it's faulted off.
20 Let's go to a little bit of --
Catalina Fault, 21 Rose Canyon, Elsinore, San Jacinto, San Andreas. Eric Frost 22 taught me how to do this. That's compression. That's 23 tension.
24 Now what we're seeing is a lot of vertical 25 displacement. We're seeing them on some tear faults. Here's
- t. the big one. Here's our little baby right here. Here's that little tear fault and she looks like that jumped up and that 3 went down. Here's that other little San Onofre. This looks 4
up.
The terrace is out here.. This looks down. There's 5 compression. She's getting pushed together.
6 And regardless of what some people have said, the 7
easiest way is up.
We're in the southwest quadrant of a shear couple.
9 Now may I suggest some additional lines of 10 evidence that I'm going to need somne help with?
I'm going 11 to try to get Monty to work with it.
12 Let's go to some places on this map, or, better 13 yet, let's go to some places on the other map.
Here at Horno Summit there's a little plug. They 15 say it's a tertiary plug. It's latite(ph), quartz latite.
16 I.thick we can drill it, Monty, and get the paleomag out of it.
I think it's right on the fault. I think it came
-through because it's weak there. The same thing at Cielo 19 de Calavera down in Carlsbad.
.0 Besides this, in my geotech work, I have been mapping all the little tears down here. The general trend is this way. There's some cross fractures, some tear fault.
I think we can go to Morro Hill on the south end of Camp Pendleton, another dachite(ph) plug and get paleomag Out of that.
1429 1
I haven't yet paid my $75 for the aerial 2 magnetics of this area. We ought to look at that.
3 Shawn Bealer(ph) just sent mac a first release of the gravity for this -=c=, the Santa Ana Sheet.
I hveri't had a chance to analyze that.
I don't see anything 6
startling around San Onofre Mountain on the first cut, but 7
then you never know about Bogus(ph) gravity.
8 Thank you for your attention.
9 I'd entertain any questions you may have.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: 'Thank you, Mr. Phifer.
11 Let's see if the counsel do have questions they 12 want to put to you.
13 Mr. Pigott?
14 MR.
PIGOTT:
I would prefer not to question 15 Mr. Phifer on a limited appearance basis at this time.
I 16 think this is probably the fullest statement we've had from 17 Mr. Phifer. Some of our people have in the last few days 18 talked to Mr. Phifer.
19 I would prefer not to respond until we have had a 20 chance to put together a responsible response.
21 MR. PHIFER:
Thank you. I am sorry I have talked 22 in fragments to some of your people. I did that because I 23 didn't realize the import of what I had.
I realized the 24 import; I didn't realize all the limitations, so you have 25 to go back and look at the map and tromp around the field I*
1430 1
until you know.
2 JUDGE V-VLLEY:
All right.
Let me ask Mr. Wharton.
3 Do you have questiornc 4
MR. WHARTON:
Yes.
It sounds quite Cignifi7cant 5
to us.
We would like to have a map and the data and have 6
an opportunity to talk to Mr. Phifer a little bit further if 7
we can arrange that with either Dr. Brune or someone else 8
from our side.
9 MR. PHIFER:
Sir, the map is public record.
10 That's why I came here today. My data is always at anybody's 11 MR.
WHARTON:
Yes.
But we're talking about the 12 lines that you have on the map which you have today. That's
.13 just what I would like to have.
14 MR. PHIFER: That's the only one I have. I 15 can' make another one in 20 minutes; okay?
16 MR. WHARTON:
I'd appreciate that.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
I would urge you, Mr. Phifer, just 18 as a general matter. Some or all of the parties may want 19 to file up and talk to you and I would request your cooperation 20 in answering their questions and so forth.
21 MR. PHIFER:
I work. And I would ask you not to 22 call me at my office because I have a job to do there for 23 another man and I have taken a little bit of his time now.
24 I would prefer that you do not.
2.5 For those of you who are geologists or lawyers
1431 and have shoes --
Ken LaJoy and I--
Ken is going to call me tonight. He's mapping the terraces, trying to correlate them up and down the coast. He has several lads working.
4 I promised him to take him up and show.him the terraces at 5
San Onofre on Saturday. No, we won't leave from the Colony 6 Kitchen in Oceanside at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, but we 7
will leave promptly and shortly thereafter.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me just ask Mr. Chandler.
10 MR.
CHANDLER: We intended to get a hold of 11 Mr. Phifer the other day without success. 'I think he has 12 presented an awful lot of material and we would certainly 13 like to consider it.
14 We would be most anxious to get a copy of this 15 map with the lines he's drawn on it.
I'd appreciate that.
f 16 MR. PHIFER:
It's yours.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Phifer, from the Board's 18 standpoint, what we normally do in a case like this and what 19 we would propose to do here is, when new information comes 20 to our attention that may have a bearing on a case and it's
'1 technical information, we will typically ask the staff, as an initial step, to evaluate it and report back to us and 23 see where we go from there, and I think that's what we will do in this case.
Let me thank you very much for coming and for
1432 sharing your information.
I think for a person to do this kind of work and come forward just as a private citizen is a very commendable thing and we appreciate it very much.
4 MR. PHIFER:
It was a hell of a decision.
JUDGE KELLEY:
I appreciate that too, sir.
6 MR.
PHIFER:
There are a lot of good men who 7 worked on this project; a lot of money in it.
I feel bad 8
about this.
We need the power, but there's 10 million people 9
downwind.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you, sir.
11 MR. WHARTON: *Mr. Phifer, what is the best number 12 and time to call you so I don't interfere with your work 13 time?
14 MR. PHIFER: After 6:00 at home.
15 MR.
WHARTON:
Could you write that down here, 16 please?
17 MR. PHIFER:
My home phone number for any of 18 you who may want it is area code 714, 726-1394.
19 MR. WHARTON:
Thank you very much, Mr. Phifer.
20 I really appreciate it.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
22 We will be in recess.
23 (Brief recess) 24/////
25 7',
1 evidenc i
this pr c
.*in.
It is inrespons
-oa 2
appea*ance s
- aent SUD7E KELLEY:
understand i: is not corinc n
4 as s t
- idnCe, bu: as ces escrbe'
- i.
5 Whereupon, 6
ANT:-ONY TCROMAS C:RONE 7
resumed the stand and, havring been prviusy
- l swc -. sy 8
the C'airman, was examined and testified furrner as:
ws:
10 WITNESS CARDONE:
This LS t.e ae -
11 MR.
?IOTT:
Could we have
- e 7.a urned ust 12 sic.htly, Mr.
- Cardone, so hat we can see I f
e i Le nce?
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
You are -onc to have to z z n
14 a mike too, I chink, Mr. Cardone, If wire wil acc e
15 you.
16 WITNESS CARDCNE:
This Ls te 7a a
ha-Mo.
17 offered to the 3oard 73 JUDGE KELLEY:
Aze you ticking that up?
Okay.
19 WITNESS CARDCNE:
on June 2Sth.
Z3 the --
his ocstulated faults and it is as '-
w i
his zi is the actual map that he drew.
t is not a cov.
22 Now, the faults that he postulated are the Horno 23 Summit fault, the-Horno-Canyon ;aults, the ?iedro de b
Z4 faults and tne San Onofre Mountain faults.
25 Now, parts of these postulated faults a are oaed
I in bv Movie, 1973.
This is Yovle's man as a mat e-1 fact.
Xnd they also sh-own on the zeologic mac of I
Califfornia, 1965.
Now,.1 am indicating that part of these 4
are shown or. these different macs, arid also on the fault map 5
of California, 1975.
6 And the parts that were previously shown cr 7
mapced are this inferred portion off the =iarno Summit fault,
-a portion here that is shown as a solid line which is a mappel 9
fault versus an inferred fault, and some an echelon type of 1
apparent structures, also Moyle shows this part as being ly shows this on this map,
'75. and a '73 map -
12 BY MR.
CkANDLER:
13 Q
Mr. Cardone, when. you say here andco2nt, tne 1+
record doesn't show, so 15 A
The Korno Summit fault that r previously indizated i&
is it parallels the coastline and is about four to five 17* miles inland from the coast.
And the --
in kind of a north 1S westerly direction as is the coast.
The Horno Sumi.t fault 19 is pe:zindicular to the coastline, trending northeast, scuth zL west, as well as the Pieadro e Lumbra fault.
ZT The San Onofre Aountain fault parallels the t
coastline and is a mile or two inland from the coast.
The z3 ortion that is shown as an inferred fault on the
{uboldt -
z4 or the Eorno Summit fault on the Moyle map is on the north 2S and --
the northwest end of the map, and their are indications
k4 cmIh south1-and.
2 The portion that is shown on the Mcyle map is I
on the northeast end of-the Piedro de Luinbre and the San 4
CO cre Aountain fault is also indicared on the :ayle map on 5
the north end of that oostulated fault by Phifer.
6 The Calirornia maos that ; earlier mentionec so 7
par-of the Horno Canyon fault and part or ene --
the nart 8
being the northeast part of what is inacated on -'e Phifer 9
mao of the Piedro de Leuabre fault also.
10 And I believe that is all that is shown on the 11 Ca=ifornia maps.
These others that are inferred by Movie IZ are not shown. on the map.
By the way, this is our :amiliar 11 Cristianitos fault
- here, if there is any -uestion about that.
I+
+ow, 1
we made a field examination on Saturday, 15 June 27th, a couple of days ater Mr.
Phifer appea2d er IS the 3oard, and we made a nurber of stops, and on the basis r7 o thi s i eld examination 1 reques ted that the Apicant per Ta fo some studies regarding the terraces that straddle the 19 Eaorno Summit fault in San Onofre --
along San Onofre Creek Z0 and also along San. Mateo Creek, and also to look along the z1 tend here to look for discontinuity or continuity, whatever ZZ the case bmiht be, as well as Looking at the other faults z3 for evidence --
for dating evidence as well as continuity Z4 or lack thereof.
zS The Applicant provided a final documentation of
e 1
heir studies _
couple of day o
July 29th, I :hik and on the basis of my own analysis and the analvsis crovcez
'by the Apolicants, and my field examinations, starting with 4
the Horno Canyon ffault, the --
specifically what P'^^=f Mr.
Phifer indicated was a strike-slip horizontal striatics 6,
on the wall of the Harno Canyon about in this area, anc some 7
inerred offset of the terraces in tis area.
8 He took this to indicate faulting.
Of course, 9
the striations -- there is little doubt about that indiig faulting, but in my opinion, e
is amisinter z
7of what is snown nere. The acarent offset of these --
this TZ yellow band of closed geometric figures is the alignment of 1
terraces, and they appear to turn here, but that LE due ori maily to differential erosion, where there is a thicker 15 deposit of San Matec --
no, San Onofre 3recc4a anf it this in this direction and you have more of the Miocene, or rather
- the --
Let me think a minute.
- Well, it is a
soft er :ormati4on IS that overlies the San Onofre 3reccia.
This was incised more 19 so in this area -
Q Mr. Cardone A
than it was here.
.t Q
This area, again A
t was incised more so south of wnere zne orno 2
Canyon: fault projects to the coastline than it was north o:
ZS that Korno Canyon projection, so this, indeed is an erosional
<6 T
I eazure versus offset due o faultinz, pius the --
I Locked Z,across the projection of this fault ana found thao there is I
no displacement of the terraces through here.
- Also, 4
Dr. Shlemon_
has mapped this entire area.
That is, he has 5
macped the 120,000 year old terrace along this entire line, 6
so there are two checkpoints, if one were to infer a coninu 7
ous fault here it is dated and truncated bv tne elevation 3
325 foot elevation terrace, which is according to Dr.
Shiemon 9
age dating approximately 300,C0O years old, and this one by 1(
the seacoast is 120,000 years old.
IT The Piedro de L=mbre fault, 1 think again, i
-e iz S shape in the terrace, the terrace aligment in:luenced 13 Mr Phifer to punt a fault here, as well as --
he was looking 14 at what he thought was similar or equivalent terraces across 15 this projection of the ault, but actually he was lcki 16 at two difernt types of terrace, one being the mari-e 17 terrace, and another was this terrace --
Lt is a stream 1S decosited terrace.
It is a fluvial terrace.
And he observed 19 the di4 ferance in elevation but that is no surprise, because 2a they are of different origin, so in my estimation that i
Zi nates this leg of the Piedro de Lumbre fault.
Z The-San Onofre Mountain fault passes through scme Z3 very hummocky ground here and which "s at the base of a high 24 escarpment on the east side of San Onofre mountains.
Now 2S this --
these characteristics Lamluenced Mr. Phier
=o put a
1 fault here, wnere c
think --
well, my opinion s
z that they are due to land
'd ing.
The h',mocky ground here 3
being a very obvious landslide feature, as well as the high 4t escarpment which is a back scarp of a landslide.
They are 5
arcuate which is quite indicative of a landsliding-And all 6
of this was inferred, probab-ly this was follow-ing a deposi 7
tional contact, versus any indicazion o faulting.
a Thirdly and lastly, the Humboldt --
the Horno 7
Sumit fault had indications of faulting at several places.
10 As a matter o: fact, probablv a half a dozen, includina here, It here.
There was at the firing range here, I
nk it is 11 214 firing ranging, there was an indication of faulting some 4 13 where within a terrace area here, and also in here, and a.
14 couale or otner olaces.
And that was orettv much a Long 15 trend, ana d
tink the strike was cretty much along The 16 strike or his postulated fault trend.
17 Well, the AppLicants :ound a continuous --
and IS observed that in a second field visit a continuous bed, 19 resistent sandstone bed that masses -- that scans the cro 2M jected Eorno Susit fault, which appears to be undisturbed.
ZI Also, these terraces --
Dr Shlemon has dated the terraces 22 from 40 to 100,000 years,
- believe, pretty much the same
- 23.
age terrace.
The lower terraces, these are uncerformed wher 2+
they span the Horno SLimnit fault.
.5 By the way, Mr Phifer had this as a lateral
gfault with a dispacement of some 20 miles, is the way stated it back in June 25th, and on the basis of observing I
some San Onofre Breccia here, and I guess it must --
the 4
situation must be that you don't find San Onofre 3reccia until you --
for 20 miles along this trend, where it would 6
have to --
where it would have had to originate.
T Well, the fact is that he was looking at some boulders of San Onofre Breccia which is used by the Camn Pendleton Personnel for road servicing. They were rather large boulders.
There is to my knowledge and the Applicants' 1
knowledge no indication of San Onofre out-rop or in-lace T-at San Onoifre in this area.
was transported, in oiher words.
.15 Now, alona with some discontinuity or a -emTon stratiotn or discontinuity along the Horno Summit fault here 17 and the undisturbed terraces, a --
the Applicants studid some air photos, and I have some air photos that you might look at.
They actually studied lineaments in the area and checked the lineaments to determine if they were of struc tural orig-in.
JUDG.
KELLEY:
Maybe you could pause-for just a 23
- moment, Mr. Cardone.
24 WITESS CARDONE:
They are on the table, there.
They were.
- JUDGE ELLEY:
Did you want to. ccoment on speci 2
fic features of the photos?
I WITNESS CARDONE:
Not --
no, not really.
And 4
here -
5 The bottom mart of that should be --
you can 6
see the result of the Lineament analysis --
there are a 7
ber of Lineanents that were looked at, and the result s -
this would be the resolution of whether -
JUDGE KELLEY:
I aim afraid we are losing you 10 entirely. 2artly the mike and partly this would be --
because 1t we don't know what this is.
1z WITNESS CORDONE:
Okay.
I may be zetting into T7 more detail than is necessary, but -
14 MR.
CHANDLER:
Staff tries to do a thorough 15 evaluation 16 JUDGE HAND:
I am sorry.
17 19 2a.
z1 2Z 23 24
2 describe on the record where the "heres" and "theres" are, 3
1 think it will be useful.
SWITNESS CARDONE:
This is the general area that 5
was looked at by the Applicant, where a lineament studv was 6
- made, and the area that --
of interest to us, here is the 7
San Onofre site..
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Could we identify this :-iure, this!
9 dash I or dash 2?
10 WITNESS CARDONE:
it is dash two.
11 MR.
CHANDLER:
Mr. Chairman,
- perhaps, if the 12 parties don't object, Z can provide a copy for the reorter 13
-to be included in the transcript.
14 It may be helpful.
it certainly. arries no 15 evidentiary weight.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
17 MR.
CHANDLER:
But it may ease our reference.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes,.please do.
19 m'GR.
PIGOTT:
I have no problem.
I. believe the 20 figures indicate that it is filed as a part of the FSAR, is 21 it act, Mr. Cardone?
22 JUDGE'KELLEY:
Yes.
So it would seem, 361.
23 WITNESS CARDONE:
The number is 361.27-2.
24 (Whereupon, figure 36T.27-1 was bound into the 25 transcript.)
SA SANIN'R NULA/EEATN TTO Unt 2
/
If
?AUL YA Fiur 6127.
1./8mnmn
4t 1 wL
- 7.
T a I 7 -*1 7
s Sat*-M"
- 1 r'&A V
W.
fo 0-
- t
- St
-NmS NULA GEEATN STAIO 7..~~Uit 2\\g &
./
5 IFiur 36
.1.27-Z I
U/78
JUG:
g T5-2 1
JUDGE ?ELLEY:
Right..
MR. ?IGOTT:.
Which would indicate an aswer to an 3
NRC Staff cu estion.
4 WITNESS CARDONE:
Correct.
5 MR. PIGOTT:
Which are a part of the FSAR.
6 WITNESS CARDONE:
May I go on?
7 JUDGE -KLLEY: Yes, do.
8 WITNESS CARDONE:
And the lineaments that 9
appear here were checked to determine their zrigin, and it 10 was found that on figure 361.27-1, that pretty much the 11 Cristianitos remains, the Cristianitos fault remains as the 12 structure observed in the lineament, the Lineaments.
13 So, the point being, after all this, that there 14 is no indication of any lineations which could trend along 15 either the San onoare Mountain fault or the Hormo sumit 16
- fault, which is an indication of either
- well, 17 discontinuous faulting, no prominent faulting, and/or old 1&
faulting 19 In addition, there were --
the geoPhysical 2a evidence La this area indicates there is no faulting to 21 coincide with any of these features postulated by Mr. Phifer.
22 There is no geamorphic evidence of faulting in this --
these 23
- areas, except the florno-Canyon fault, there is drainage 24 along that projection, but nothing to indicate recency or 25' prominence of the Horno Suzmit trend.
f 6024 TS-3 1
La tly, the ?-Orne Sui i
w ere, Iet us say, 2
a fault zone, is at its closest point five miles from the site,;
3 and the OZD, as you recall, is also five miles f:cm the site, 4
so there is no doubt that the prominent fault, the controlling 5
fault, would be the OZO.
6 So, to conclude, I don't see anything in Mr.
7 Phifer's postulated faults or presentation that ooses a hazard to the site.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you, Mr.
Cardone.
Could t 10 ask. you a couple of questions.
11 I gather you have. reviewed the App licants' 12 document of July 29, 1981?
13 WITNESS CARDONE:
Yes.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right. Do you substantially 15 agree with the conclusions reached by the Applicant?
16 WITNESS CARDONE:-
Yes.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you disagree in any significant 18 respect?
L9 WITNESS CARDONE:
No, I don't.
JUDGE KELLEY.
Could you sumrarize you q1 referred to a field trip, but could you sumarize the extent 2
of the Staff review?
I believe there were several such trips, 23 as to just what has been invoLved La your reaching these WT conclusions?
15WT'NESS CARDONE: Well, on the first day, we
-4 1 jstopoed, there were about ten stops Made in MhIs syste..
Of Z
faulting, and on that same
%ay, was able to satisfy mysel:
3 that the Horno Canyon fault, assuming it is continuous, is an 4
old fault, a non-capable fault.
5 I satisfied myself that the Piedra De Lmbre is 6
not a fault, at least in the -- this lower portion.
7 determined that there was a need to look further at the
.8 Horno Summit fault, and also, I was able to dismiss the San 9
Onofre Mountain fault on that first field day.
10
-JUDGE KLLEY:
Did Mr. ?hifer accompany the 11 group?
11 WITNESS CARDONE:
Yes.
- Yes, Mr. Phifer was there 13 on both field trips 14 JUDGE KELLEY:
And there was an opportunity for 15 interchange among those in the group?
16 WITNESS CARDONE:
Yes.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
Were there other field 18 trips?
I was under the impression that there were,'but 19 perhaps it was just by the Applicants.
20 WITNEss CARDONE:
The Applicant, I am sure, made 21 several.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
All right.
23 BY MR.
CIHADLE-R:
- 24.
(2 Mr. Cardone, you made how tany?
25 A
(WITNESS CARDONE)
Two.
JU GE KELEY:
Go
, were you goigo
- c.
E'If on the second trip?
You spoke of the first. You don't need to, but WTNESS CARDONE:I don't have to.
JUDGE KELLEY:
All right, fine.
All right, I 6
don't-MR.
WHARITON:
- Yeah, I am not going to cross examine.
Just one very brief question, a small poinz.
CROS S -ErXAMINATION 10 BY MR.
WHARTON:
11 Q
You did mention a standstone bed which was 12 undisturbed, but you didn't give any indication of the age 13 or age dating of what that would indicate.
14 A
(WITNESS CARDONE)
Well, it projects :nder some 15 7ocene beds, so it would be Eocene or older, which would be tens of millions of years.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Cardone.
M.
CHANDLER:
Thank you, Mr. Cardone.
At this time, r guess, I guess, Mr. Chairman, the next order is to have Mr. Cardone return to the stand for-JUDGE KELLEY:
Can I just ask a question or two and make a comment?
Z want to --
I don't remember whether we put this om the record, there was an indication earlier you 25 might call Mr. Phifer as a witness, and I believe You decided