ML19254D804
| ML19254D804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910300186 | |
| Download: ML19254D804 (2) | |
Text
.-
i
.e NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM f *am'%
UNITED STATES
!\\
c#%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.[mJJy v b'elC
\\
~Y/
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1
o, A* s.
7g g
001 ~ o 1979 97 9[$
i
-~N Q Docket fio. 50-70 c$sge*
MEMORAT4DUM FOR: Chairman Hendrie
/
Commissioner Gilinsky X Q'
Commissioner Kennedy CocmissionEr Bradford Commissioner Ahearne FRCM Harold R. Denton, Director Office of fiuclear Reactor Regulation (S_lgned: Lu y, cnau THRU:
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
It1FORMATI0:1 REPCRT Ori SEISMOLOGY /GE0 LOGY REVIEW 0F THE GENERAL ELECTRIC TEST REACTOR (GETR)
On October 24, 1977, the NRC staff ordered General Electric to shot down the GETR due to evidence of faulting at the site. After extensise inves-tigation by General Electric and review 3f the results of this investigation by the NRC staff and its consultants, the staff issued, by letter dated September 27, 1979, its evaluation of the seismology and geclogy of the GETR site. A copy of this evaluation is enclosed for your information.
The staff has concluded that a surface offset of two and a. half meters
'could occur bens 4 the GETR and therefore should be a des'(gn basis.
Because this is greater than the one meter offset proposed by General Electric,'as a design basis, the staff does not intend to continue its review of the GETR as currently designed and analyzed by General Electric.
This position is presented in the enclosed letter which transmitted the staff':. evaluation to General Electric and other participants iri the proceedi ng.-
3~,
- r.7-J
's
- r. G. g Harold R. Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Geoscience Branch Safety Evaluation Report Input 2.
Letter to General Electric dated September 27, 1979 10
.f 3
- - i U,
cc: W/ enclosures OGC SECY OPE See next page
Contact:
C. Nelson, NRR
'910300 (h 492-7435 g[$o* 4?
General Electric Company cc w/encincure(s):
California Depai tent of Health ATTN:
Chief, Environmental Radiation Dr. Harry Foreman, Member Control Unit Ato-ic Sa fe y and Licensing Scard Raciciegic Health Section Box 395, Mayo 71 P Street, Re:m 495 University of Minnesota
- le,,
Minnea;;,ii s, t.,innesota ::4:e-Sa:-amer.to, California Mcn:ratie Fcnald V. Dellu-s Ms. Barbara Shockley ATTN:
Ms. Nancy Snow 1550 Sc:kta,n R:ad General Delivery, Civic Center San Lcren:c, Califernia 94550 Station Oak'. and, California 94504 Advis: / Cc mittee en Reactor Sa f = ;;a rcs Friends of the Earth U. 5. N;: lear Regula: cry C mmissier ATT ;:
W. Ancre-Sai: win, 5 squire Washin;;cn. D. C.
20555 Legal Dire:: r 3v.a.e..,..
.c.. a. a..
San Francis:0, California 94105 Jed 5:mit, Escuire l) s. } E3.[. ).". d fi f B l u.+
f S
h h..
),
c
)s
' N. }
t.
.w, 9
s g
(s : ( n, :u. a' e a.y t?
- a 10,,a San r.ranciste, Ca...ilicrnia Ee r:e r: Gr ssman, Esc., Chai rman A::mic Safety and Licensing Scard U. 5. Nuclear Regula:Ory Commission Washin :en, D. C.
20555
,(
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board U. 5. Nuclear' Regula::ry Commission Wasni nc, ton, D. C.
20555 Ge:rge 5dgar, Esquire M:rgan, Lewis & 50ckius 15:0 M Street, NU
" I
~4"
~
1 ')
Was ni n; ten, -D.
C.
20035
\\
', /ja vy'o a ato U* 'TED sT/4TEs I
NUCLEAR r,
.ULATORY COMMISSION g
g a eNGTCN, D. C. 20555
^ '
~ $
o, y
%, " '. f' September 27, 1979 Docket No. 50-70 f1r. R.. W. Da.aitzel, Wnager Irradiation Processing Product Section General Electric Company Vallecitos Nuclear Center P. O. Box 460 Plea:anton, California 04566
Dear fir. Darmitzel:
The NRC staff has reviewed the nformation regarding the proper seismic and geologic design bases for the General Electric Test Reactor (GETR) submitted in response to the October 24, 1977 Order to Shcw Cause.
The enclosed repor'.
"Geosciences Branch Safety Evaluation Report Input" documents the staff's review.
This report, with its conclusions (pages 7-10), defines the current NRC staff position regarding the proper seismic and geologic design bases for GETR. Although your submittals of September 4,11 and 12,1979, are not discussed in the enclosed evaluaticn we have reviewed them sufficiently to determine that they do not alter our conclusions.
Tha staff's conclusion that a surface offset of two and a lf meters could cccur beneath the GETR (Paragraph II(5)) is in excess of the one meter surface offset to which the modified GETR facility has been analyzed by your staff.
Therefore we do not intend to continue our review of the GETR as currently analyzed. This includes the further staff evaluation necessary to define the maximum vibratory ground motion in terms of an effective acceleration and appropriate response spectra.
Furthermore, while you may propose to analyze the GETR using the seismic and geologic design bases in the enclosed report, we are not aware of any structure which has been analyzed or built for this ty p of seismic loading and it is our current view that an analytical argu-ment cannot be formulated which would conclusively support the ability of a structure such as GETR to withstand a two and a half meter surface offset.
1 s
.)
9ppew
Mr. R. W. Darmitzel You are requested to inform the staff of your intent to pursue your challenge to the staff's October 24, 1977 Order which directed the shutdown of the GETR facility.
Si nc a r-ely, h Harold R. Een on, Director Office of Nt: lear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Geosciences Branch Safety Evaluation Report Input cc w/ enclosure:
See next page t '
S
/
O t
A
.u. ;-
General Electric Company cc w/enclosu.re(s):
California Department of Haalth ATTN:
Chief, Environmental Radiation Dr. Harry Foreman, Member Control Unit Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Radiologic Health Seci*00 Box 395, Mayo 71 P street, Room 495 University of Minnesota Sacramento, California 95134 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Honorable Ronald V. vellums Ms. Barbara Shockley ATTN:
Ms. Nancy Snow 1590 Sockma,n Road General Delivery, Civic Center San Lorenzo, California 94530 Station Oakland, California 94604 Adviscry Committee on Reactor S a f+ ;> a rds Friends of the Earth U. 5.
aclear Ragulatory Commissien ATTN:
W. Andrew Baldwin, Esquire Washi ; ton, D. 5.
20555 Legal Director 12 Spear Street San Francisco, California 94105 Jed Somit, Escuire
[Ilftdti) j(jjg(fiP3FO:larn(-
100 Bush Street jj(([jf f Suite 304 San Francisco, California 94104 Herbert Grossman, Esc., Chai rman Acomic Safety and 1.icensing Board U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washincton, D. C.
20555 g*
Mr. Gustave A.' Linenberger, Me.nber Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Washi ngton, D. C.
20555 George Edgar, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Sockius
*^^rr 1500 M Street, NW Weshington, D. C.
20036
\\
s
),
Show Cause Proceeding Geosciences Branen Safety Evaluation Report Input GE Test Reactor Site /Vallecitos Nuclear Center Septemoer 6,1979 I.
3ACXGROUND In July 1977, the Gecsciences Sranch was requested to perform a review of the geology and seismology aspects of the General Electric Company's acclication to renew the Operating License of the General Electric Test Reactor (GETR) at Pleasanten, California. As part of the documentaticn for the license renewal application, the General Electric Ccmcany (GE) submitted re orts en the geology and seismology of the site and vicinity (URS/Jchn A. Blume, 1973a; URS/ John A. Blume, 1973b; Engineering Decision Analysis Comoany, Inc. (ECAC), 1976).
Preliminary review of these repcrts caused the staff to become concerned that a actentially serious safety situaticn existed at the site wnich hadnotbeenadetuatelydefinedinthelicensee'ssubgittals.
Specifically, the staff recognized that the GETR is located within an
~
active tectonic environment abcut. 2 '<ilcmeters east of the Calaveras fault zcne, is about one kilometer south of the Williams fault as ma:ced by Hall (1952) and, as shcwn in the licensee's report (URS/ John A. Slume, 1973a), a lineaticn passed directly through the plant site. The existence of :he lineation caused the staff to become concerned that a potential existed for fault offset beneath the GETR structures. We met with GE on August 4,1977 and made them aware of eur preliminary fincings anc Jf the scoce Of investigation that we then considered would :e necessary
- : nservatively evaluate the e DUPLICATE DOCUMENT 3 n j' "
- {1
~,
Entire docuntent previously entered into system under:
ANO No. of pages:
Appendix ^
464 dg-g United States Department of the Interior GECLCGICAL SURVEY
\\
RESTCN. VA. :tC4:
In Reply Refer To:
Mail Stop 905 SE? 5 1379 Mr. Harold Centen Direc ce of the Office of Nuclear React r Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Washingt:n, D.C.
20555 Cear Mr. Centen:
Transmitted herewith, in respense tc the recuest of your staff, is' cur review of the geologic and seismologic da a relevant to the General Electric Test Reac:cr at 'tallecitos. California.
This review as prepared by Earl 3rabb, Darrel Herd and James F.
Cevine. Assistance was provided by Robert H. Morris.
Sincerely yours,
,-t
~4 ct w/: b +f.:
,/
, 1
(
/
,-t H. William'Menard Direct:r Enclosure A
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously C te Ercrec Yecri.
.,. d/
entered into system under:
2,7 0, 9. 6 5 % Q 7
%d n.,
'-I No. of pages:
/
e
c-s
{(g~>:(ri United States Department of the Interior s - :,.f GEOLOGICAL SCF.VEY RESTON. VA. 2:09 In Reply Refer To:
Mail Stop 908 82? 1 ~ 0,1 Mr. Earold Denton Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor=nission Washing ton, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
The enclosed supplement should be added to the U.S. Geologi cal Survey status review dated September 5,1979, of the Genera 1 Electric Test
~
Reactor Facility Docket No. 50-70.
Sincerely yours, A
fi
- /
/ o,
(.1 j au' g %
(I
'H. William Menard.j
//
s Director Enclosure y
s...
Q
\\
0
- - A
=;
\\
h(
-
- l \\.'.'.,
O'W !i.er:are : cd's
- EJr:I: $;;tth -
y lt:t ?; c H C S t r.ici Ei ' u wl 2 f
r
=m-
Robert E. Jackson Page 2
- Jahns, R.H.,
1979, Evaluation of seismic hazard at the General Electric Test Reacecr Site, California:
for General Electric Company, February 1979.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Cc= mission, 1973, Show cause proceeding, safety Evaluation report input, GE Test Reactor Site /
Vallecitos Nuclear Center, Aagust 17, 1973.
My observations and study of this area leads =e to the conclu-sion that the shears cbserved in exploratcry trenches 3-2, 3-1/
3-3, and H are capable surface faults.
Review of the field data and earthquake magnitude s Of examples of surface faulting through-out the ',crld, includir.g a newiv described example of reverse-slip faulting (Rothe and o thers, 197'), confirm the general statement o f the U.
S.
N.
R. C (1978) do. ment.
The N.R.C.
staff position is stated. on pages 6-9, and my comments follow for the numbered conclusions (2) to (5) :
(2)
The everall appearance of the shears, their parallelism, their recurrent activity, and the presence of some strands well in front of the hill front, all support a tectonic origin.
They appear to be part of a :ene of shears or f aults that does not conform exactly with the Verona fault as mapped by Herd (1977).
The widespread development of dip-slip striations on fault planes suggest a major dip-slip component that appears to be anomalous for a fault that is both subparallel to and near the Calaveras fault :ene.
This orientation of striations could be the result of a.ccabined f ault-ing-folding mechanism, since many of the regional f uit and fold structures are of simila; stri%e and since the foldi.g of late Ceno:oic deposits is widespread in the vicinity of Livermore 'a. ley.
The pessible development of starter faults, er cf smaller displace-
=ent values frem either sece.:dary distributed effects of folding, or frem the detachment of surface faults by late Ceno:cie deposits of the deeper, pri=ary f ault displace =ents appears to =e to be pcssible, but is not verified or well documented for this area.
(3)
The conclusion ?nat the Verona fault is capable within the meaning of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 is proved by the separa-
- cas of the acdern scia by the 3-2, 3-1/3-3, and H shears.
(4)
The N.R.C.
(1973) description of the faults exposed in the exp;0ra:Ory trenches as having the potential for an estimated 2.5 meter ne: slip offse: On a reverse-oblique fault with a dip of
- 3c o 500 is obtained by several mecheds and is supported by both the new explora
- Ory trench dcra and by the
~'--=a-veridwide data bank of information on the relationships between earthquake magni-tude to faul: rup:62e length and maximum surf ace displacemen:.
The est;= ate as : mea ib' e with the curren: estima es of : :21 faul:
Leng:n (3.2 km :: 12 tn), the Observed striations alcng :he shears exposed :y :ne explora::ry trenches, v::h striati:ns tha: vary fr:
reverse-slip :: s tr ike-s i;;,
and the veridwide f au_: ruptu.e data Sie==cns, 13 7' and the field da:a f:r the 5an Fernande eartnquake Of _3 1 and :ne II Asnam, Algeria earthquake of 1934.
The encellen; i
umentati:n of offsets of :p :: 1.] meter for the =cdern scia expcsed by the trenches defines the =cs: pr:bas
-ans; n f:r a 13*p
^!,~
iu 7
Robert E. Jac.<so n Page 3 future offset.
The lack of definitive offset data for earlier displacements on these shears, and the historic variations between earthquake magnitude and associated amount of offset that occurs during each new event, requires that a larger displacement
~alue be used to provide a conservative estimate of potential offset.
The 2.5 meter net slip value of the N.R.C.
report (1973) is reasonable for a fault with a length of between 8.2 and 12 km and the observed 1 m offset of the modern solum; it is coasistent with the dispersion of data shown on the worldwide data for earthquake magnitude to maximum displacement relations (Sle== ens, 1977, Figure 25).
The maximum earthquake magnitude described for the Verona fault
- ene is listed as 6 to 6 h.
My review of the possible f ault parameters, the 3.2 to 12 km length, the surface displacement of 1 to 2.5 m, and the San Fernando and El Asnas case histories of 6.4 and 6.7 magnitude, respectively, all indicate a potential magnitude of about 6.5 : 0.5, for an earthquake generated by faulting.that is limited to the Verona f ault zone.
The matter of earthquake recurrence is important if a probabilistic ana_ysis is used for assessing the earthquake risk.
Table A-l of the report by Engineering Cecision. Analysis Company (1979, Probability analysis of surface :.'pture offset beneath reacecr building, General Electric Test wa&rtor: for General Electric Co.) indicates that the three shears, 3-2, 3-1/3-3, and
.H, have cumulative offsets of more than 80, 40 anq 20 feet respectively.
This amcunt of of fset, if it cccurnd in the inferred 70 to 195,000 yr period implies a high frequency of earthquakes if each event involves an average displace =ent of 1 m.
Alternatively, if longer recurrence intervals are used, then the average offset is likely to be much greater than 1 m, or the of.'J2t at depth could be much greater.
I recommend that your staff position be an up-dated modifica:icn of the August 17, 1978 report.
The new data dces not suggest a need for substantial changes in rationale or content from the basis used in the earlier report.
SiL;erely ycurs,
% %A.
w:
Cavid 3.
Slemmons Consulting Geolcgist 1oa f ;
4 -
,J
Appendix C DAVID B. SLEMMONS CONSUL 7'NG GECLCGIST 1%5 GCLOEN VALLEY ROAD EENO NEVACA 895C6 - (702) 972 8877 August 9, 1979 Robert E. Jackson, Chief
[jQ09 h5 iNhk
[ [ht bridit, Wit.
Geosciences Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission Washington, D C.
20666
Dear Bob:
I have finished my review of the report, " Probability Analysis of Surface Rupture Offset beneath Reactor Building General Electric Test Reactor," as prepared by EOAC, Inc.
This letter su=marices my assessment of the methodology and basic data used for this report.
The FOAC report follcwr, the probabilistic approach of Cornell.
I believe that the basic seismologic cycle that appears to occur on many faults involves progressive strain, earthquake-micreearthquake build-up of activity, at times with smaller faulting events or creep, a main shock, and a decay period of decreasing activity.
Earthquake sequences on adjoining or connecting faults may vary the cycle.
This is a. deterministic process and the probabilistic approach u.=ed for this report
' may not adequately represent the risk.
In addicibn, the numerical values used for the probabilistic analysis, alttcugh they are listed with three significant figures, are based mainly on assu=ed ages of older soils, en scattered radicue:ric ages of the =odern solum, and on limited field data.
The overall effect is that the results are presented with an aura of scientific accuracy and precision that =ay be misleading.
My cecrients are reper ed under the three topics :
basic assump-tiens, tempcral relaticas, and displacement data.
Basic Assu== icns:
1.
The analysis assumes that there is adequate data for a probabilistic analysis using a ?cissen =cdel.
The Poisson
=cdel assumes spatial and temporal independence of all ear.h-quakes, and that an adequate, statistically valid data base is available.
?cssible difficulties wid bcth of these assumpti ons are not discussed.
Many faults e.e'"'-
cnrandem patterns of activity in terms of '.ccatica, si:e, and frequency of cccurrence, and resui: frra 'a-=
uis:
precesses cf gradual or sporadic strain accumula :.cn, felicwed by ec= plex ep:.sedes of energy release.
The faulting may be in ma n episodes caly, may have smaller fere-and after-events, Or may be interspersed w.:n
? age i cf 4 1oa e
^71 i
i
Robert E. Jackson Page 2 assismic creep.
In complex soner the displacement may be triggered by or be coupled with displacement of other faults.
The earthquake size and amount of displacement may vary from event to event.
The appropriateness of a probabilistic approach with a Poisson distribution is not discussed.
2.
The basic parameters of time since last displacement and/or recurrence interval and the amcunt of that displacement must be adequately known for success of the probabilistic approach.
I do not believe that the present data base pemnits this type of analysis.
3.
It is assumed from ta= poral relations that the paleo-sols which were developed locally can be correlated directly with the sea level fluctuations of a worldwide nature, and this, in turn, is accurately, determined by marine oxygen isotope data of Shackleton and Opdyke (1973).
These corre-lations and their error bands are not adequately established for this analysis.
4.
The analysis appears to assu=e that the three f aults, 3-2, 3-1, 3-3 and H have separate histories.
The possibility of simultaneous distributed displacements on two or more fault strands connecting at depth or a single cumulative displacement on one strand has not been evaluated, nor have the analytical problems associated with possible randem-nonrandem patterns of occurrence, or their nonrasdem effects
.on maximen pcssible displacement.
1 Ace of Solum and Paleosols:
1.
The most important f actor in the analycis is time.
Table 4.1 s-a ri:ed, without discussion of the limita:icns of the detailed supporting data, the cbserved offsets in fee:
for Jhears 3-2, H and 3-1/3-3 for various assu=ed er inferred ages.
These values are mes accurate for the modern scium, which has some radicmetric dates.
The age relations canno:
he directly determined, however, and the discussion of he age of :nis scil is given in terms of phrases dealing eith mean residence ages, extent of contamination by "medern" carbon and with the understanding that the soil developed during a peried in which the climate varied.
Samples from apparently similar heri: ens have ages that differ by facecrs of al=cs: 2X.
The age of the paleescis, listed as ranging fr:m 17,000 to 20,000, fr== 70,000 to 125,000 and from '23,000
- 125,000 are determined by correlation rather than by absciate dating techniques.
2.
The werk of Roger Morriscn, presented crally at the 1375 Geci:g cal Scciety of America Annual Meating in Salt Lake City, suggested tha there are de: ens Of buried scils in the 3,-
y^
i
Robert E. Jackson Page 3 Lake Bonneville sedimentary sequence.
The full and detailed stratigraphic / climatic record with many periods of moderate to strong soil formation suggest difficulties in making correla-tions with the marine record, unless absolute dates are avail-able.
The correlation used in the probability analysis makes use of dates listed with up to three significant figures.
The assumed dates =ay be valid, but no quantitative verification is possible at this time and the errors =ay be large.
Diselacement Data:
1.
The data of Table A-1 suggest that the m 30 recent of fset on the 3-2 shear, which underlies the Gr.3 site and has a low-angle reverse-slip mechanism, has an average displacement of 1.8 ft. and a maximum displacement of 3.0 ft.
The known tendency cf reverse faults to rupture with new, short-cut paths (Sle==ons, 1977, p. A33 to A37) suggests the potential for future f aulting in the 1,320 f t.
interval between 3-2 a:.d 3-1/3-3 faul.s.
The 72 fcot width of the reactor building and the 80+ ft. displacement of the paleosols suggest a reccurrence interval measured in thousands of years and a higher risk than proposed by the analysis.
The data presented by Shlemon in the Earth Sciences Associates 1979 report shows that the earlier events could have displace =ents larger than that shown by the youngest offset, although more frequent, but smaller, displace-ments are nc: precluded.
'The. potential for rupturing at the GETR is considhged in formula 5-14 for time equal to 128,000 to 195,000 years, with an annual probabil'ity of an offset beneath the reacecr building that is
~'
less than 4.5 X 10 and 3.0 X 10 ', respectively.
The greater than 80 f t, displacement of the 3-2 fault with its low dip under the site suggests the possibility of rupturing by short-cut path." t). rough the GETR site.
The average displacement shcwn by _ne 3-2 trenches appears to be about 1.8 ft.
Su= mary:
1.
I believe that the deterministic =echanism that applies to faul: parameters and associated earthquake si:es is ccm=cnly acce=panied by nonrandem patterns of activity in terms of location, size, frequency of cccurrence and time histories of activity.
I believe that a precabilistic approach that assumes a
Poisson distributica may not be appropriate for risk analysis of the potential for surface rupturing.
2.
The use of a probabilistic approach requires adequate and accurate r.umerical data and a basic nderstanding cf the character of the prcblem.
The presen: analysis is deficient in se.eral imper:an: aspects:
j,
,o J
Robert E. Jackson Page 4 (1) There are no definitive dates, or dates that are expressed with an accurate appraisal of the errers involved.
No accurate dates are available for the paleosols; the dates used are assumed and =ay be in error in the first si<;nifi-cant figure.
(2) The only exact displace =ent for the faults is the most recent event, with separations of up to 3.0 f t.
The n"~Her of offsets and amount of displace =ent for all of the paleosols is not known.
Larger offsets are possible.
(3) The cumulative separations of 3-2 and 3-1/3-3 shears are minimal values and the true offsets are greater than 80 and 40 ft.,
respectively.
These displacements, if caused by 3 ft. displacements during each event, i= ply much shorter recurrence intervals and much higher risks than the results of the analysis suggest.
(4) The mode of origin of the shears has not been resolved and the geccetry of the faults, their relations at depth and their relationship to the major faults of the region are all uncertain.
These relations affect the possibility of whether or not "short-cut" faults =ay eventually rup-ture the GETR site, and determine the type of probabilistic modelling assumptions that should be made to assess the potential for surface faulting at the GETR site.
'In st==ary, I do not believe that adequate data ik.available for the use of the probabilistic approach used in the IOAC repCrt.
Sincerely yours,
'1%e4' C xl %wrd r
l
/
Oavid 3.
Sle= mons Consulting Geologist 19*e 7-
Appendix 0 STAT: ce :Aurenmu-me itscuncts actNcy ammuwoo,ucww.t -
- graaTutNT Op ::N3tyVA11Ct.
CMSICN CF ' MINES AND GECt.CGY Oms;CN raEACCUARTES f ate aslNTH 17t!!T. ICCM f *.41 1AC2Asa NTQ..A 75414 2
%. v e-**
- n August 16-- 19M h OYS.hl O
O b f lR.
,h,
~
Mr. Rccer: Jackscn Chief. Geosciences 3rancn J-y U.S.
.uclear Regulaury Cecnission
.f
- ~.
Wasnington, D.C. 20555
-i E-p o
.s ear 3cc:
Ne staf# of te California Jivision of Mines anc 3eclogy (0:MG) nas reviewec all of =e su:mi-ad reccc.s regarding ne 3eneral Electri: Tes: Reac:Or (3ETR) 3: :te
'lallecit:s luclear Center near Live ncre. Enclosec is a cecy of ?-eprin Icecial Ruelica:icn 56, ' Geologic Evaluation of :ne teneral Electric Test Reacter Site,
'lallecit:s, Alameca County, California, unica recorts cur fincings. As you knew, staf' nave alsc been present in a nucce" of tecnnical discussions regarding me
- ecicgy and seismicity of
- ne site and nave examined trencnes wni:n nave been ex:avated y the licensee at the recuest of te U.S. Nuclear Regulat:ry Commission (NRC). We nave ne folicwing ceservaticns:
1.
3e thrus: dis:lacement alcng faults near -he GE R facility can be inter reted as tec=nic Off-set er lancslice.
It is the s sff's finding :na: anile neitner interpretation can be definitively confir-.ed, landsliding is a : referred ::nclu-sien. ? lease ncte that in this letter and in :ne re crt, dis:lacements are called faults, regardless of the in erpretation of me techanism of meir Origin.
- 2. ' Rece:itive cisplacement is evident alcng :ne faults wnica nave been ex:csed in
- Me trencnes. Tne 0;mulative effect of rese cis=lacements is significant.
Cis iscenen; is ::nsidered to nave occurred before and curing Hol:cene time.
3.
- is a sta c:nclusien :na: ac:rcximately :nree fee: Of surface dis lacemen:
a: ce reac.or site re resents a :nsera,ative jucgment as = ce ground u::ure
.nien mign: :e associated witn ai=er :ne landsli:e inter:re:ation er ce te =ni: :cceis of Or. 0.3. He-c.
-" e :ea< gr und a :aleraticn assccia:ed 3: n e si a ras :een ;ererally 2
- nsi:erec :y ::MG staff, ass;=ing :c:a an ear.ncua.<e :ccur~nce a
=e -esc Or al:n; re 10 <flemeter 'le-na flui: :cs alatec :y J.3. Her: anc a
.5 magni ace aven: al:ng ne "alaveras faul, wni:n is a:cr:xima:eiy :wo niles dis: ant frem me 3E R 1:ca-i:n. In :ur ::ini:n, a 0.3g ;eak 10:alers f n seculd :e acecua a
'cr :ian: :es';n.
~' feu nave iny :uestions -egar:ing :ne ::ntan: Of ne re:ce: Or ny remarts
- ncer m s it, : lease : nc nesita a :: ::n ac: me.
/'
Si ncerely'.
'd O
Ni &
O James. ?av b,
I
\\
g I: ate Iac':q's-Ere' : r1 i
i
/
%7
~'05300
>c/
o :p%D PQ RP L
kW d'
$6 0 60@U ]u m 3
3
o PREPRI.':T SPECIAL PUELICATICfl 56 J (INIMIhl
& p q(h U NI!3ilYttl ll jb i
GECLCGIC EVALUATICtl CF THE GE?iERAL ELECTRIC TEST REACTCR SITE VALLECITOS, ALNEA COUlfrf, CALIFCR! IIA By I
Salem Rice 2
Elgar Stepnens 3
C.%rles Real August,1979 CALIFOR!!IA CIVISICfl CF MI!!ES AfiD GECLCGY
? \\
Rescurces Building, Recm 1241 1416 i;fnta Street, sacruento 95314
?
1.
3eci: gist, San.:nncisco Cistrict Of#i:
2.
3eci: gist, Sacreento istri:- Iffice, 3.
Seis::ci:qist, Iactmen:o Distrie: Cf":
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT po v19(o I
Entire document previously entered into system under:
O No. of pages:
O