ML16341F271
| ML16341F271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1989 |
| From: | Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341F272 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-55305, TAC-68049, NUDOCS 8908140366 | |
| Download: ML16341F271 (20) | |
Text
August 1, 1989 DOCKET NOS.:
50-275 and 50-323 APPLICANT:
FACILITY'UBJECT:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PGItiE)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1
AND 2
SUMMARY
OF JUNE 12-16, 1989 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS GEOLOGY/SEISMOLOGY/GEOPHYSICS/TECTONICS, DIABLO CANYON LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM (LTSP)
(TAC NOS.
55305 AND 68049)
On June 12-16, 1989 the NRC staff and its consultants met with PGIlE in San Francisco, California to discuss Chapter 2 of PGImE's Final Report on the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program, submitted for review on July 31, 1988.
Attendees at the meeting are given in Enclosure 1.
The agenda for the meeting is given in Enclosure 2.
A copy of all the viewgraphs presented at the meeting have been transmitted to the meeting participants by PGSE letter dated July 25, 1989.
This material will be docketed and available for inspection at the PDR and the LPDR.
Enclosure 3 contains comments and questions by the NRC staff and its consultants that have resulted from the meeting.
We request that you consider the comments and respond to the questions as soon as possible, so that we may continue our review in this area.
If you have any questions regarding this
- request, please contact me.
Also included for your information are reports on the meeting from three NRC consultants.
Enclosures:
1.
Meeting Attendees 2.
Meeting Agenda 3.
NRC Comments and guestions 4.
Report by Robert D. Brown 5.
Report by D. Burton Slemmons 6.
Report by Keiiti Aki cc: w/enclosures
- see next page original signed by Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate' Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects DRSP/PD5 HRood 08/
/89 D PD5 sghton 08/
/89 DISTRIBUTION
~ki DC HBC1ayton Ggagchi HRood LReiter RMcMullen RRothman NRC 8
LPDRs EJordan JSniezek PD5 Plant File GKnighton ACRS (10) gi=ol 8'g108i40366 890801 PDR ADQCfth 05000275 PNU
E.
<<A
.~
t E
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 August 1, 1989 DOCKET NOS.:
50-275 and 50-323 APPLICANT:
FACILITY
'UBJECT:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1
AND 2
SUMMARY
OF JUNE 12-16, 1989 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS GEOLOGY/SEISMOLOGY/GEOPHYSICS/TECTONICS, DIABLO CANYON LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM (LTSP)
(TAC NOS.
55305 AND 68049)
On June 12-16, 1989 the NRC staff and its consultants met with PG&E in San Francisco, California to discuss Chapter 2 of PG&E's Final Report on the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic
- Program, submitted for review on July 31, 1988.
Attendees at the meeting are given in Enclosure 1.
The agenda for the meeting is given in Enclosure 2.
A copy of all the viewgraphs presented at the meeting have been transmitted to the meeting participants by PG&E letter dated July 25, 1989.
This material will be docketed and available for inspection at the PDR and the LPDR.
Enclosure 3 contains comments and questions by the NRC staff and its consultants that have resulted from the meeting.
We request that you consider the comments and respond to the questions as soon as possible, so that we may continue our review in this area.
If you have any questions regarding this
- request, please contact me.
Also included for your information are reports on the meeting from three NRC consultants.
Enclosures:
1.
Meeting Attendees 2.
Meeting Agenda 3.
NRC Comments and questions 4.
Report by Robert D. Brown 5.
Report by D. Burton Slemmons 6.
Report by Keiiti Aki cc: w/enclosures
- see next page Harry Ro
, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate Y
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IY, Y and Special Projects
I 4
Mr. J.
D. Shiffer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon cc:
NRC Resident Inspector Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Dr. R. B. Ferguson Sierra CLub - Santa Lucia Chapter Rocky Canyon Star Route Company Creston, California 93432 Ms. Sandra A. Silver 660 Granite Creek Road Santa Cruz, California 95065 Bruce Norton, Exq.
c/o Richard F. Locke, Esq.
P. 0.
Box 7442 San Francidco, California 94120 Managing Editor The Count Tele ram Tribune 3
Jo nson venue P. 0.
Box 112 San Luis Ob ispo, Ca 1 iforni a 93406 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 270 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas
& Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Dr. Gerard C.
Mong Radiological Materials Control Section State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Office Building 88 Sacramento, California 95814 Regional Adminstrator, Region V
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. Peter H. Kaufman Deputy Attorney General State of California 110 West A Street, Suite 700 San Diego, California 92101 Ms.
Nancy Culver 192 Luneta Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Michael M. Strumwasser, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General State of California Department of Justice 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 800 Los Angeles, California 90010
J
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Long Term Seismic Program Diablo Canyon CC:
Dr. Keiiti Aki Department of Geological Sciences University Park University of Southern California Los Angeles, Ca 1 ifor nia 90089-0741 Dr. Ralph J. Archuleta Department of Geological Sciences University of California Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, California 93106 Dr. Robert D. Brown, Jr.
U.S. Geological Survey Hail Stop 977 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, California 94025 Dr. David B. Slemmons Center for Neotectonic Studies MacKay School of Hines University of Nevada-Reno
- Reno, Nevada 89557-0047 Dr. Robert Fitzpatrick Building 130 Brookhaven National Laboratory
- Upton, New York 11973 Dr.
C. J. Costantino Building 129 Broo khaven Nati ona l Laboratory
- Upton, New York 11973 Dr. Michael Bohn Sandia Lab. - Organization 6412 Post Office Box 5800 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 Dr. J.
Johnson EQE 595 Harket Street - 18th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Dr. Steven H.
Day Department of Geological Science San Diego State University San Diego, California 92182 Dr. George Gazetas Dept. of Civil Engineering 212 Ketter Hall SUNY-Buffalo Buffalo, New York 14260 Dr. Jean Savy Hail Code L-196 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P. 0.
Box 808 Livermore, California 94550 Dr. Anestis S. Veletsos 5211 Paisley Avenue Mouston, Texas 77096 Dr.
Ken Campbell U.S. Geological Survey P.O.
Box 25046, Mail Stop 966 Denver. Federa,l Center
- Denver, Colorado 80225 Dr. H. K. Ravindra EQE 3150 Bristol Street, Suite 350 Costa Mesa, California 92626
ENCLOSURE I Attendees, Public Meeting on Geology/Seismology/Geophysics/Tectonics Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program June 12 - 16; 1989 NAME K. Aki Clarence R. Allen Shan Bhattacharya Bruce Bolt Frank W. Brady D. A. Brand Tom Brocher Bob Brown Glenda Chui Doug G. Clark Lloyd S. Cluff Kevin J. Coppersmith Jim Crouch James Davis P.
R. Davis Jerry P.
Eaton N. Timothy Hall Douglas H. Hamilton Kathryn L. Hanson I.
M. Idriss William R. Lettis Stephen Lewis Richard F.
Locke Cole McClure Dave McCulloch Marcia McLaren Richard McMullen Jay Namson Bruce Norton David W. Ogden Ben M. Page Leon Reiter Jan D. Rietman Harry Rood Robert L. Rothman Bimal Sarkar George Sarkesian W.
U. Savage Jean Savy David P. Schwartz Gerald Shi 1 ler Sandy Silver David B. Slemmons David L. Smith Paul Somervi lie George A. Thompson M. Tresler Yi-Ben Tsai C. Richard Willingham ORGANIZATION University of Southern California (NRC)
Consultant to PG&E PG&E Consultant to PG&E PG8IE PG&E USGS (NRC)
USGS (NRC)
San Jose Mercury University of Nevada - Reno (NRC)
- Crouch, Bachman and Associates, Inc.
California Division of Mines
& Geology Consultant to ACRS (NRC)
USGS (NRC)
Geomatrix (PG&E)
Earth Science Associates (PG&E)
Geomatrix (PG&E)
Consultant to PG&E Geomatrix (PG&E)
USGS (NRC)
PG&E Consultant to PG8E USGS (NRC)
PG&E NRC/RES/SSEB Davis and Namson TENERA (PG&E)
NRC/NRR/EGSB Consultant to PG&E NRC/NRR/PDV NRC/NRR/EGSB Bechtel (PG8E)
PG&E PG&E LLNL (NRC)
USGS (NRC)
Consultant to PG&E Mothers for Peace University of Nevada - Reno (NRC)
Earth Science Associates (PG&E)
Woodward-Clyde (PG&E)
Consultant to ACRS (NRC)
PG&E PG&E ExploraMetrics (PG&E)
r
CLOSURE 2
NRG/PG&E MEETING ON GEOLOGY/SEISMOLOGY/GEOPHYSICS/TECTONICS DIABLO CANYON LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM ONE CALIFORNIA STREET, ROOM 440 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, 94106 JUNE 12 -
16 1989 AGENDA MONDAY JUNE 12 1989 8:30 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
9:30 a.m.
10:30 a.m.
12:00 noon 1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
Introduction Regional Terminology:
Locations and Definitions of Geologic Structures University of Nevada Presentation Discussion U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Presentation Lunch USGS Presentation (Continued)
Discussion Regional Seismicity 1927 Earthquake Recent Instrumental Seismicity Tectonic History of the San Gregorio/
San Simeon/Hosgri Fault System Adjourn NRC/PG&E PG&E TUESDAY JUNE 13 1989 8:30 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
12:00 noon 1:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
Logic Tree Elements Hosgri Fault Zone Sense of Slip Slip Rate Down-dip Geometry Lunch Hosgri Fault Zone (Continued)
Adjourn PG&E LSC/WUS:sjm 6/7/89
NRG/PG&E MEETING ON GEOLOGY/SEISMOLOGY/GEOPHYSICS/TECTONICS DIABLO CANYON LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM ONE CALIFORNIA STREET, ROOM 440 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, 94106 JUNE 12 -
16 1989 AGENDA WEDNESDAY JUNE 14 1989 8:30 a.m.
12:00 noon 1:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
Hosgri Fault Zone (Continued)
Lunch Segmentation Definition Hosgri Fault Zone Adjourn THURSDAY JUNE 15 1989 8:30 a.m.
12:00 noon 1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
Char acteristics of Other Faults (PG&E)
Los Osos Wilmar Avenue San Luis Bay Lunch Characteristics of Other Faults (Continued)
Regional Tectonic Setting USGS Invited Presentation Discussion Adjourn PG&E Jay Namson FRIDAY JUNE 16 1989 8:30 a.m.
9:30 a.m.
10:30 a.m.
ll:30 a.m.
Discussion and Summary of Meeting NRC Caucus Discussion Close of Meeting LSC/WUS:sjm 6/7/89
ENCLOSURE 3
NRC Comments and guestions Resulting from the Diablo Canyon Meeting LTSP Geology/Seismology/Geophysics/Tectonics, June 12-16, 1989.
1.
The logic tree used to characterize the Hosgri fault zone seems to capture the suite of differences of opinion about the style of faulting.
There
- are, however, opinions other than PG&E's with respect to the weighting of the various parameters.
In certain areas along the fault zone the inter-pretations based on the geological information and the interpretations based on some geophysical (seismic reflection) interpretations appear to differ.
The dip of the Hosgri is a case in point.
PG&E's interpretation of its geophysical data is that it shows the Hosgri as a mainly steeply dipping fault.
This, a)ong with the geologic information, is interpreted as being indi cative of predominant strike slip faulting.
J. Crouch pre-sented seismic reflection data which he interprets as showing the Hosgri fault to be a low angle thrust.
Has PG&E looked at this information?
What is PG&E's interpretation?
Ooes PG&E agree with Crouch's dipping fault?
'How does PG&E reconcile this with the hypothesis of strike slip faulting?
Could the differences in the geophysical data be due to the data processing methods?
Also, many of PG&E's interpretations of vertical faults appear to be based on shallow high resolution data and there may not be strong evidence to extend them in depth as vertical. Provide PG&E's basis for determining the down dip geometry and the differences with those mentioned above.
2.
0.
B. Slemmons proposed that the Hosgri may be experiencing oblique fault motion at seismogenic depths and that this is being partitioned into strike slip and dip slip on the near surface faults.
As stated by George Thompson, this region may be responding similarly to the San Andreas region with the horizontal strike slip component of strain being accommodated on the Hosgri system and the compressional component being accommodated on the sub-parallel reverse faults and folds.
Provide a
discussion of these models their appropriateness and any implications of these concepts to the LTSP.
3.
Provide the new information presented at the meeting on the uplift rates across the Hosgr i fault zone, based on relative displacement of the
- basement, top of Miocene, the mid-Pliocene discontinuity, and the post-Wisconsin low stand, including the uncertainties in the analysis.
- Also, clarify the apparent conflict regarding the elevation of the 18 thousand year, late Wisconsin, low stand.
This is given as -120 meters in Table 3
and Plate 5 of the Response to guestion 431, but as -140 and -160 meters in the discussion, at the meeting on June 14, of the north Estero Bay slope break.
If the lower value is correct, provide the published source or other supporting data for this departure from globally established values.
If evidence supports both the lower value to the west of the surface scarp of the Hosgri, and the mapped
-120 meter level near the Hosgri scarp, discuss the rate of vertical fault slip thereby implied.
ENCLOSURE 3 (Continued)
Provide the analysis of the uplift rates across the Hosgri versus the lateral rate of displacement, and the variations along the length of the Hosgri as discussed at the meeting.
Include the basis for their measure-ment, the uncertainties, and a discussion of the geometry of the fault and its effects upon the evaluation of the vertical and horizontal displace-ments.
Also, summarize the evidence for strike-slip and dip-slip along the 16 kilometer reach of the Hosgri fault that extends from the western-most scarp at 59-meter ridge northward across the north Estero Bay slope break and explain how the geometry of the 30-meter high, scarp-like, part of the north Estero Bay slope break can be derived by right-lateral strike-slip.
Provide the tsunami analysis used to determine the location,
- moment, and magnitude of the 4 November 1927 "Lompoc" earthquake including the uncertainties, and the letter from Dr. Abe pertaining to his tsunami magni-tude determination and the Hilo tide gauge recording.
Discuss potential timing errors that arise from clock error, marking error, or other causes inherent in the San Diego or San Francisco marigrams.
Describe how the tsunami analysis technique has been calibrated against data.
Provide a discussion of the felt data for the 4 November 1927 mainshock and the aftershocks and how they relate to the proposed locations.
The isoseismal maps of the 4 November 1927 and the 29 Nay 1980 earthquakes were compared
- and, based on the comparison, arguments about the location of the 1927 event were made.
It may be inappropriate to make this kind of comparison since the strikes of the faults as determined from the focal mechanism studies appear to be different.
The differences in the radiation patterns for the two events could cause different felt data geometry even if the events were in the same location.
In U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
- 1223, "Seismic Intensities of Earthquakes of Conterminous United States--Their Prediction and Inter-pretation,"
Everenden, Kohler, and Clow used the observed intensity data from the 4 November 1927 earthquake and their predictive model to evaluate several estimates of the epicenter, fault length, and fault orientation of this event.
The authors conclude that, if the general applicability of the predictive model is accepted, the intensity data from the Lompoc earthquake require a location on or very near the Hosgri fault.
Provide a
discussion of the conclusion from this study in light of PGSE's analysis of the earthquake.
If the seismograms from the Santa Barbara Mood-Anderson instruments are available for the 4 November 1927 earthquake, it may be possible to get an accurate azimuth from a vector analysis of these horizontal instruments to help in establishing the. epicenter.
Also, re-read the S-P times from all the Santa Barbara records for this earthquake.
ENCLOSURE 3 (Continued) 9.
The seismogenic structure on which the 4 November 1927 earthquake occurred should be identified and evaluated for maximum earthquake potential and its closest approach to the Diablo Canyon site.
Account for this in both the probabilistic and the deterministic analyses.
10.
Provide a critique of the presentation made by Jay Namson.
Discuss and evaluate any consistencies or inconsistencies of his model with the PGIIE geologic and geophysical field data.
11.
Provide probabi listic and deterministic analyses (including a logic tree) for the hypothesis of a blind thrust and the inclusion of a Namson type model in the analysis of the compression of the San Luis-Pismo Block.
12.
Provide the new information which was presented at the meeting about the pull-apart basin at the San Simeon-Hosgri stepover.
13.
Trenching on the San Simeon fault zone indicates that there is an important strike slip component on the Hosgri fault of about' to 3 mm/year contributed by the San Simeon fault.
There may also be a
contribution from the Piedras Blancas zone.
Provide a discussion as to whether there is such a contribution and, if so, its size and" sense of s 1 ip.
14.
Displacements of 2 meters per event on the Los Osos fault would suggest rupture lengths longer than those presented.
Provide the information used to determine the rupture lengths and discuss any inconsistency with 2 meter displacements.
15.
The fault segmentation-rupture length presentation made at the meeting for the Hosgri fault zone is in question.
Other segmentation points are possible.
Provide any new information presented at the meeting so that it can be reviewed prior to the source characterization meeting.
16.
Provide the new information presented at the meeting on the southwestern boundary zone of the San Luis-Pismo Block.
~
~