ML19207B477

Supplemental Testimony of Es Cheney Re Alternative Site Comparison,Submitted on Behalf of Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power.Goshen,Hanford & Pebble Springs Are Better Sites than Skagit

ML19207B477
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	07/12/1979
From:	Cheney E SKAGITONIANS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (SCANP)
To:
Shared Package
ML19207B476	List: ML19207B475 ML19207B477
References
NUDOCS 7908300010
Download: ML19207B477 (15)

Text

.

e

,, ; . ?* * ' .b

.q.=...,.3.,.,,,

ej . .sp V. '

'.\

. 3 1

&'f, ., -, ,9..\ ,

qa , *- ~. - :.

A ..>'

', . ' gss_.'&aG\

.. . e

.e9

.'l

.C .gct i'

" ( 3 *p,'

,. . y. .

... j ' -

%:~ :y INTERVENORS SUPPLEMgx2AL TESTIF.ONY ON ALTERNATIVE SITE COMPARISON E. S. Cheney 12 July 1979 750.530mio cA.em) vs .w.

9

SUMMARY

The applicants have identified six alternative sites for the Skagit nuclear plants. With the exception of the hazard of a nearby oil refinery at Cherry Point, Washington, non-geological f actors do not seem to be critical in choosing between these sites. Preliminary geological analyses indicate that Cherry Point and Skagit should be eliminated because they are adjacent to faults in a region of high seismicity. Goshen is better than Skagit, but because it is in the same region of high se: smicity ar.d may be too close to f aults, it probably is, at best, marginal. Hanford, Pebble Springs, and Ryderwood clearly are superior sites compared to Skagit, but this preliminary study is not sufficient to endorse chose as nuclear power plant sites.

This evaluation dif fers markedly from the evaluations of the applicant's (Bechtel, 1979, p. 50) and the NRC's (Leech, et. al.,

1979, p. 13, 15) which concluded that the Skagit was the superior site in western Washington. The NRC even concluded that no known geological, seismological, or geotechnical reason preclude con-struction of nuclear power plants at any of the six sites (p. 14, 18).

Because detailed geological mapping of bedrock and surfical sediments must still be undertaken before the Skagit area can be evaluated in detail, additional delays may be minimized by moving the proposed Skagit plants to Hanford.

_,_ msaw

O 9

e 808Wk%

90830

INTRODUCTION The applicants have identified six alternative sites for the Skagit nuclear plants:

Skagit in Skagit County, Washington Goshan in Whatcom County, Washington Cherry Point in Whatcom County, Washington Hanford, in Benton County, Washington Pebble Springs in Gilliam County, Oregon Ryderwood in Lewis County, Washington Of these, I have only studied Skagit in detail (Cheney, 1978 a); so evaluation of the other five sites is preliminary and, thecefore, comparable, to the screening that might be done in the initial selection of nieas for further evaluation as potential nuclear power sites.

Table 1 compares the six sites. The information contained in the table indicates tnat Cherry Point and Skagit are unacceptacle sites and Goshen is, at b'st, marginal; whereas, Hanf ord, P ebble Springs, and Ryderwood z .e clearly superior to Skagit md Goshen.

bO8393 NON-GEOLOGICAL ACTORS The prefiled testimony of Leech et. al. (1979) indicates that non-geological f actors are not critical in choosing between the six sites (Tab.' ? 1). However, Leech et al. do indicate that on socio-economic grounds, Skagit is less desirable than either Hanford or Pebble Springs.

Transmission costs are not critical in the selection of sites.

Electricity is already transmitted from the hydroelectric plants east of the Cascades to western Oregon and western Washington. The transmission costs from Skagit are obviously minimal for Puget Sound Power and Light because the site is within its service area.

How eve r, the Oregon utilities, which own 50% of the proposed plants, would experience lesser transmission costs if the plants were to be located at Ryderwood. If the plants were located at Hanford or Pebble Springs, the transmission costs to the Oregon utilities probably would be somewhat less than from the Skagit, Goshen or Cherry Point sites which are more distant from the utili-ties service areas. Transmission costs to Washington W:tter Power, which owns 10% of the proposed plants, would be minimal if the plants were in Hanford or Pebble Springs. In summary , although the transmission costs to Puget Sound Power and Light would be least if the plants were at Skagit, when all of the utilities are considered, the transmission costs are probably leeit from Ryderwood, and Hanford and Pebble Springs are even better than Skagit.

N

GEOLOGICAL FACTORS The limiting f actors in choosing between the six sites identi-fied by the applicant are geological. Skagit and Cherry Point are unacceptable because they are in an area of high seismicity and are adjacent to faults. Additionally, Skagit has potential landslide problems and its water intake wells adjacent tc the Skagit river cannot be protected because flood-control structures will not be allowed. Cherry Point may have a potential for liquifaction.

Goshen, about 8 miles northeast of Bellingham, appears to be a marginal site. It is in the same area of high seismicity as the Skagit and Cherry Point sites, but it is more distant from the Bellingham Bay-Lcke Chaplain f ault. The suitability of the site wouln depend critically upon investigation of the age of the Vedder

. Mountain fault which passes within 5 miles of the site.

Ryderwood, Hanford, and Pebble Springs all appear to be good candidate sites. Ryderwood is in the same area in which Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1975) independently identified two good candidate sites.

BOB 3bt CRITIQUE OF THE APPLICANTS' AND THE NRC'S EVALUATION OF SITES The applicants' (Bechtel, 1978) and the NRC's (Leech, et al. , 1978) evaluations of the alternative sites deserve some response. In this section I will note some differences in the geological evaluations in those reports and in Table 1 of this report.

Skagit Although Leech et al. (1979, p. 19) and the applicant (Bechtel, 1978, p. 13) expect no landslides, the report of R. H. Blunden (1978) suggests differently.

Leech and others consider the Shuksan thrust, which is three miles west of the plant site, to be the closest significant fault.

This fault is not significant in that it is not capable. What is significant is that the USGS (Whetten testimony of June, 1978) believes that his is not the easterly dipping Shuksan thrust fault, but a somewhat younger westerly dipping th' ec fault. This contro-versy indicates how poorly known the geology of the Skagit site is.

Leech, et al. 1979 and the applicants (Bechtel, 1978) fail to mention that the Day Creek and Gilligan Creek f aults (noted by Whetten) and the inf erred Hamilton f ault (Cheney, 1978 a) pass within three miles of the plant site.

Although Leech et al. consider the Devil's Mountain f ault 13 miles south of the plant site to be capable (p. 19) they do not consider it a hazard because they assume that an earthquake on it w"uld be less than 6.0 to 6.5 M, p. 20). However, if this assump-808352

tion is wrong and the earthquake is >6.8 M, acceleration at the plant site could exceed 0.35g (C heney , 1978 a, Table 3 ) .

Leech et al. believe that the controlling earthquake at Skagit would be associated with the subduct oceanic plate at a depth of 50 km or more below the site (p. 20) and that attenuation from such a grest depth would cause acceleration to be less than 0.35g. However, this would not be the controlling earthquake. The controlling ,

earthquake would be comparable to the shallow 1946 or 1872 earth-quakes. The 1946 earthquake was 7.3 M, less than 30 km deep, and on a preferred f ault plane solution that was northwesterly and right lateral (Rogers and Hasegawa, 1978). The 1946 earthquake was spatially asscaiated with the Beaufort Range f ault; a neter of historic displacement has been noted on this f ault ( Roge rs , S ep-tember, 1978, personal communication). Furthermore, the 1872 earthquake, which was somewhere in the northern Cascades, probably in the vicinity of Ross Lake (Malone and Bos, 1979), was shallow and about 7.3 M (C heney , 1970 a, Table 5) . Because the causitive structure of this earthquake has not been identified, and because the earthquake is in the same geological province as the Skagit site, according to CFR Part 100, Appendix A, the 1872 earthquake must be assumed to occur at the plant site. A 7.3 M earthquake within 15 miles of the plant site could exceed 0.35g (Cheney 1978 a, Table 3). F urthe rmo.re , because the 1872 and 1946 earthquakes were greater than equal to 7.3 M, the maximum credibl.e earthquake must be correspondingly larger.

The problem of preserving the integrity of the coolant water is not addressed by Leech et al., 1979, or by the applicants (Bechtel, g383b3

1978). Dunne (1979) points out that the bend of the Skagit River where the Ranney wells are planned cannot be stabilized without rip rap. The Wild and Scenic River Act presumably excludes such engineering structures.

Cherrv Point This site is within five miles of what Leech et al. term the Northern San Juan Island Fault, which I considered to be part of the BB-LC (Cheney, 1978 a). The presence of this fault and the presence of this site in the same seismic province as the Skagit suggests that 4

the controlling earthquake for the two sites is the same.

There appears to be considerable disagreement as to the age of the sediments at Cherry Point. This is significant because a till reportedly overlies a silt that dips as high as 7* (Easterbrook, 1963, Bechtel, 1978). Such lash and laterally persistant dips in a silt are surely tectonic as Gower (1978) notes. Bechtel cites Gower (1978) as stating that the silts are pre-Frazer (older than 13,000 to 20,000 years), but Easterbrooa explicitly states that Frazer and older sediments do not crop out in the area. He shows the area around Caerry Point underlain by the Bellingham drif t that has locally been dated at 11,000 to 12,000 years B. P. Thus the defor-mation at Cherry Point would appear to be very youag, def orma tion of such young strata would not be a desirable feature at a nuclear site.

Leech et al. point out that extent and age of the Northern San Juan Island fault have not been de termined and that to do so would be di f ficult, costly, time-consuming, and possibly futile (p. 26).

Although such determinations may be costly they should be relatively 808354

easy. Seismic reflection profiling at low frequencies discovered the f ault in the bedrock, and such surveys could be used again.

Presumably, some experimentation with higher frequencies would be needed to find those that will penetrate the overlying unconsolidatea sediments and still have enough resolution to detect any faulting in these sediments. If the f ault strikes eastward as Leech et al.

imp ly , it might be traced onto land. The overlyina sediments could ,

then be drilled to date them paleontologically or radiometrically.

Even if the fault does not strike landward, seismic reflection profiling might recognize the landward extension of the sediments overlying it, so that the cediments could be sampled by drilling.

The Boulder Creek and Vedder Mountain faults may need to be evaluated for this site. However, evaluation of these' faults is described below in the discussion of the Goshen site.

Goshen Because it is the same seismic province as Skagit, Goshen has many of the came problems as Skagit. The site is, therefore, probably unacceptable. Furthermore, it is only 17 miles distance f rom Northern San Juan Island f ault (the BB-LG).

The southwesterly striking Boulder Creek and Vedder Mountain faults may pass within five miles of the site, and thus they would have to be evaluated. According to Miller and Misch, 1963, the Boulder Creek f ault does not cut the middle Eocene Huntingdon formation, and this relationship should be easy to confirm by geology (contrary to the opinion of Leech e al. , p. 22, 26).

'fhe southwesterly striking Vedder Mountain f ault might be more di f ficult to evaluate because it is covered by Pleistocene sediments.

g[38'.[CU

Howeve r, conventionel seismic reflection profiling across the strike of this f ault should indicate whether it cuts the Miocene and Pleisto-cene sediments in the Bellingham basin.

Ryderwood Numerous small f aults are known in the vicinity of the Ryder-wood site. Leech et al. (p. 24) consider that adequate definition and delineation of these f aults might be possible but time consuming and costly due to the lack of marker units. The presence of Tertiary, Early Pleistocene, and Late Pleistocene strata in this area (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Table 3) suggests that the faults can be dated.

In f act without such a possibility, the two sites in the area would not have been considered by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (p. 39) . In ,

this respect Ryderwood may be superior to Skagit.

80825G

_g_

DELAYS Changing the Skagit plants to the Hanford or Pebble Springs sites might not result in great-r delay than persisting to insist that they be at Skagit. The applicants have not yet undertaken the detailed geclogical mapping of bedrock and surficial sediments at scales greater than one inch = one mile (1:62,500) that is regarded as necessary by geoscientists f amiliar with the area to evaluate the ,

Skagit area (Cheney, 1978 a, Appendix 2; Cheney, 1978 b). The applicants' apparent reluctance to do such mapping suggests that they would not be able to complete it within a year. P resumably ,

Goshen or Ryderwood would take equally long to map. In contrast, the Hanford Site has already been licensed for WPPSS numbers 1, 2 and 4, suggesting that additional studies at Hanford would be mi ninal. Similarly, geological investigation at Pebble Springs are well advanced.

Therefore, assuming that the costs of delay are important, the applicants might find it advantageous to cite the proposed Skagit plants at Hanf ord. This consideration may be especially important, because absolutely no assurance exists that if the applicants or disinterested third parties were to map the area around Skagit at scales greater than 1:62,500, all geological problems would disappear.

I n f a ct , the reverse is highly likely.

,v

>O'jj SITES FOR FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS Because the hazards caused by the destruction of a plant by earthquakes are not nearly as serious for a fossil fuel plant as for a nuclear power plant, the requirements for siting fossil fuel olr.nts are not nearly as stringent. A preliminary study by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1975, Figure A-6) shows that most of Puget Lowland, including must of the service area of Puget Sound Power and ,

Light, is suitable for fossil fuel sites. Of the six alternative sites, only the Skagit site was eliminated as a fossil fuel plant site in this study.

SC83b8

REFERENCES:

BECHTEL, INC, 1978: A comparative analysis of geologic and seismologic conditions of the alternative sites to the Skagit Nuclear Power Proj ect. Peport submitted Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in behalf of Puget Sound Power and Light Co. , 55 p.

BLUNDEN, R. H., 1978: Review of bore hole logging for the proposed Skagit Nuclear Power Plant near Sedro Wooley, Washington; Report No. C277/2 prepared for Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Plants, 12 p.

CHENEY, E. S., 1978: Interim report on the seismic and the geologic hazards to the propcsed Skagit Nuclear Power Site, Sedro Wooley, Washington (6th revision), submi tted May 1978 as prefiled testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C., 128 p.

CHENEY, DR. ERIC, May 1978: Prefiled testimony on geologic mapping, Puget Sound Power and Light, et al., Docket Nos.

STN 50-522 and STN 50-523, Pg. 11,420 DUNNE, T., 1979: Memo to E. S. Cheney dated 11 June, 1979, 2 p.

EASTERBROOK, D. J., 1975: Geologic map of Western Whatcom County, Washington; U. S. Geol. Surv. Map I-854-3, Scale 1:62,500 EASTVEDT, R. B., 1979: Testimony on bulk transmission system requirements associated with alternative sites for the Skagit Nuclear Generating Facilities; prefiled testimony as Appendix B of Leech, et al., 1979, 2 July 1979, 31 p.

GOWER, H. D., 1978: Tectonic map of the Puget Sound Region, Washington, showing locations of faults, principal folds and large scale Quaternary deformation; U. S. Geol. Surv. Open File Report 78-426, 17 p.; Map Scale 1:250,000.

LEECH, P., DVORAK, A., LEFEVRE, H., WINTERS, T., STULL, E., and EASTVEDT, R., 1979: NRC Staff testimony on alternative site comparison; prefiled testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2 June 1979, 110 p.

MALONE, S. D., and BOR, S-S, 1979- Seismic attenuation patterns in Washington State from intensity data; Seis. Soc.. Amer.

Bull.,v. 69, in cress.

REFERENCES g',}i/S Page 1

MILLER, G. H., and MISCH, P., 1963: Early Eocene angular unconformity at Western front of Northern Cescades, Whatcom Co.,

Washington; Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, Bull. 47,

p. 163-174.

MILNE, U. G., ROGERS, G. C., RIDDIHOUGH, R. P., McMECHAN, G. A.,

and HYNDMAN, R. D., 1978: Seismicity of Western Canada:

Canadian Jour. Earth Sco. v. 15, p. 1170-1193.

ROGERS, G. C., and HASEGAWA, H. S., 1978: A second look at the British Columbia earthquake of 23 June 1946; Seis. Soc Amer.

Bull., v. 68, p. 653-675.

WHETTEN, DR. JOHN H.: TestLmony of May 1978; Puget Siund Power and Loght Co., et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-522 and STN 50-523, Pg. 11,010.

WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS, 1975: Executive stimmnry Siting Study; available from Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington, 57 p.

REFERENCES Page 2 80S M

" PEBBLE CRIIERIA IIARFORD SPRINGS RYDERWOOD 60SilEN SKAGIT CilERRY P0llil Comparable to Terrestial Comparable to Comparable to Frobably similar Ecology Skagit (1) Skagit (1) to Skagit Skdste and Pebble Springs (1)

Aquatic Ecology Comparable to Comparable to Frobably sistler Comparable to and Resources Skagit (2) Skagit (2) to Skagit Skcgit and Febble Springs (2) h Socio-Economic Freferable to Preferable to Frobably stallar Less Destrable to h to Skagit than llanford or g Skagit (3) Skagit (3)

Pebble Springs (3) t p l I Approutmately Twice se Expensive as Approminately one lialf as expensive as llanford or Pebble Springs (4) g g Transmission z Cost Western Washington (4)

Too Close to 011 Other g,gg,,,, (5) t once-thsough Cooling Bad (5) g sestomal in Area of Imv Seismicity (6) In Area of High Low Subarea (6) In Area of High Setssicity (6,11) Within Area of Seismicity (6,11)

Selsetetty liigh Seismicity (6,11)

[i Distance to 10 Miles; 2ts Hiles, not Hany Small Fa.Its 17 Hiles to BB-LC 9 Hilaus to BB-t4 <5 Hiles to BB-LC Faults Probably not Capable (1) to be Investigated at llate rasmage 13 Htles to Devils = Northern San Juan f Capable (7) (9) (10) Htn. Island Fault (10,12)

<5 Hiles from <5 Hiles to Several l L VeJJer Htn. Faulta in Skagit g $q Fault Valley (10)

, ~

Cont rol '. tnil Shallow Earthquake, Frobably >20 Miles Distant and Probably Shallow Earthquake, Frobably <20 Hiles Distant and Earthquake 17.3 to 7.5 H of 1946 and 1872 >7.3 to 7.5 H of 1946 and 1872 l

"otential f3r Hone (13) None (13) Low (13) ' low (11) Possibly Imv (13)

Landslides e Severe (14)

With Resvital Nonet Bednock (13) Honet Bedrock (13) Nonet Bedrock (13) Nonet BcJrock (13) Possiblyson rotential For Liquefaction Worm, None (13) Sediments Unpsutected on Wild d' Vunerability cf and Scenic River Ca Cooling Water Eliminated by Ellatunted by Regional investigitto.. of Not Strict!w Not Strict!) Best CanJigate Eliminated by Se i smic it y W Sites 1.ewie #3 and Regional Culturally impor-

7) Woodward-Clyda  ? valuated, but Evaluated, but (Figure D4)

I.ewie #2 in Sama Area

'[ }"

, Consultants 1975 Acceptchle Benton Acceptable Benton Seismicity (Figure D4) tant Area of Skagit Valley

'% 4

1. 1 to Nearby #1 la Hearby (Figuse pt) _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ - _

' H ANK I N* ' s' suits (:ANibillATl' 311FS HARGINAl. ItN it's f ra mi t O

TABLE 1: COMPARISON FO THE SIX ALTERNATIVE SITES:

References:

1) Leech, et al., 1979 Table 3

2) Leech, et al., 1979 Table 2

3) Leech, et al., 1979 Table 5

4) Eastvedt, 1979 Page 6

5) Leech, et al., 1979 Page 13

6) Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1975 Figure D4

7) Leech, et al., 1979 Page 30

8) Leech, et al., 1979 Page 28

9) Leech, et al., 1979 Page 24 Woodward Clyde Consulc. ants, 1975 Table 3

10) Cheney, 1978 Figure 12

11) Milne, et al., 1978 Figure 10

12) Leech, et cl., 1979 Page 26

13) Leech, et al., 1979 Table 1

14) Blunden, 1978 Format of Table: Note that boxes are drawn around the criteria under each site that make that site questionable for nuclear power plants.

80S362

>