ML19261B961

Responds to 790104 Request for Documents Re Recent Geologic Investigation at Facility.Forwards List of Documents Available in PDR at Walnut Creek Ca,Related Correspondence & NRC Draft SER Input

ML19261B961
Person / Time
Site:	Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png
Issue date:	02/08/1979
From:	Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Taugher V ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA
Shared Package
ML19261B962	List: ML19261B961 ML19261B963
References
NUDOCS 7903090146
Download: ML19261B961 (61)

Text

__

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.

WASH 1NGTON, D. C. 20665 cf

[

February 8, 1979 Docket No.:

50-70 Mr. Victor L. Taugher Building Official County of Alameda Public Works Agency 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, California 94544

Dear Mr. Taugher:

I am pleased to respond to your January 4,1979 request for documents relating to recent geological investigations at the Vallecitos Nuclear Center.

As you probably know, the Comission issued an Order to Show Cause on October 24,*1977 which required that the General Electric Test Reactor be shut down in light of seismic concerns.

Details of the geological investigations and studies performed in response to that Order are contained in the General Electric Company (GE) documents listed in.

These documents are available fo-viewing in the public document room at:

Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Region V Office of Inspection and Enforcement 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 202 Walnut Creek, California 94596 You may also wish to contact GE directly to obtain these documents.

The majoriti of recent geological investigations have been conducted since August 1978 and will be the subject of a GE report expected by the end of February. The NRC staff must review this report prior to completing its evaluation. The staff has however, in the Order and a draft Safety Evaluation Report Input dated August 17, 1978, discussed its view of the geology based on evaluation of available information.

These documents as well as reports regarding our site visits during the current investigations are enclosed for your'information.

7003 09 g)Q b f

v..

Victor L. Taugher -

I trust that the information contained in this letter and enclosuresis responsive to your request.

Sincerely, "Yb4

]

Vi'ctor Stello,- Jr., Director Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1.

GE Geological Investigations

& Studies 2.

Ltr. to GE dtd. 10/24/77 transmitting Order to Show Cause 3.

Safety Evaluation Report Input dtd. 8/17/78 4.

Memo to Stepp dtd. 10/27/78 re: Site Visit 10/17/78 5.

Memo to Stepp dtd. 12/13/78 re: Site Visit 12/5-6/78 cc w/ enclosures:

See next page 4

O

General Electric Company cc w/ enclosure (s):

California Department of Health ATTN:

Chief Environmental Radiation Dr. Harry Foreman, Member Control Unit Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Radiologic Health Section Box 395, Mayo 714 P Street, Room 498 University of Minnesota Sacramento, California 95184 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Honorable Ronald V. Dellums Ms. Barbara Shockley ATTN: Ms. Nancy Snow 1890 Bockman Road General Delivery, Civic Center San 1.orenzo, California 94580 Station Oakland, California 94604 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Friends of the Earth U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

W. Andrew Baldwin, Esquire Washington, D. C.

20555 Legal Director 124 Spear Street Mr. R. W. Darmitzel, Manager San Francisco, California 94105 Irradiation Processing Product Section Jed Somit, Esquire General Electric Company 100 Bush Street Vallecitos Nuclear Center Suite 304 P. 0. Box 460 San Francisco, California 94104 Pleasanton, California 94566 Edward Luton, Esquire, Chairman Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 George Edgar, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, NW Washington, D. C.

20036

e General Electric Geoloaical Investications and Studies Date Subject Ltr. from GE transmitting response to 11/11/77 NRC Order to Show Cause re: resumotion of operation of the GETR issued by the Commission on 10/24/77.

(Geological Investigations).

Ltr. from GE transmitting addendum to 11/13/77 response of GE to the Order to Show Cause issued by Commission on 10/24/77.

Ltr. from GE transmitting Addendum to 12/05/77 GE's resp. on 11/11/77 to the Show Cause Order issued by the Commission on 10/24/77 re: the regional geologictectonic framework of the area surrounding the GETR site & its relationship to the postulated Verona fault.

Ltr. from GE transmitting:

01/05/78 Att.1 Photographs of the GETR foundation Excavation Att. 2 Preliminary logging data for trench dl & 3arings #1, 2 33.

Att. 3 List of engineering & geologic reports on file in the Office of the Alameda County Geologist which have been reviewed to determine their rele-vancy to the ongoing geologic investi-gations notari::ed 1/6/78.

Att. 4 CDMG 12/22/77 memo re: GETR Site Geology.

Ltr. from GE to NRC transmitting " Geologic 03/03/73 Investigation of the GETR Site."

Ltr. from GE trans... investigation of 03/15/73 foundation conditions GETR by Shannon &

Wilson, Inc. dtd. 6/73.

04/07/73 Ltr. from GE trans... Addendum I to

" Geologic Investigations of the GETR Site."

. Date '

Subject 05/22/78 Ltr. from GE trans... Documents referenced in " Geologic Investigations of the GETR Site."

07/05/78 Ltr. from GE trans... Reports of geo-logical investigations in Pleasanton, California.

08/18/78 Ltr. from GE - Proposed program for additional investigations of postulated Verona fault.

08/29/78 Ltr. from GE - Program for the resolution of the potential for surface faulting at the GETR site.

11/02/78 Ltr. from GE trans... Trench Logs.

11/29/78 Ltr. from GE trans... Trench Logs.

-,.ti. e r ;'/..

Enclosure.

U !TED OT/ TC':

4 e

v.

NUCLEAR r.:!CU LATCn'/ C^.* ** *!SS!CN

~

V.'A0l f t '.'O T O f.'. O. C. 2 * ~. 5

,,,,. 1 Ja:

i;t 1

, *s,.*

Doc::et :'os. 50-13 00,/0 c0-/3 50-183 and 70..../ c ',

I i

General O cctric Cornanv I.TT!!:

'tr. '. W. Dar:n..ael, ransger

• ) - ^ -. 2.,l n ~ P r ' ". ~ c Iris". ' ' < * '

-e

.. _. n. t'.

e

.e....r,,,

.,. 1,. :...,.,.. i m..

s,...

e,,...

a i..... -

v,,

c - ::

w...

.c. e.. a.n....,..

3.. e.... t,. 4..... c :..; a-4 C;ntiemen:

..s..,

. s. c r,... e....,..,._%.

y..

-c

..., 4. e. y..... 1 :. n,.. c., o....

u.. i.,

s,

~

s

.e.. r_.. e

4..it j........,,,,...,<...y..

i.,.,..,..s,,

,. c.,. _ _.,,

.....,s.

c orgl e :i :.) of ;r.c ures<.:: ccar uii:, cyci: on 7: 1rsday,

'.c.uar 27 1977, +:m ' y.3ral Il e: ric Test enc tor (0:2rc ing Licen:2 :c. T?-1) be picccc a d aisitni.':r safely in a cf d s;iu::o',in conci; ion 4.

-ur:,

r, c i s c ::?rae :

2.v, c :'.:sc pcr;ctr.' c;r rur a r orcar.

r why thi.s susa:nsica of activities sr.cul; rct

.,0 can';; ;unc.

Tha ecsi s for this action as '. ell as furth?r acticr.s that you er thu Cc.7.:i:sion nay take are se-for::: in the Orcer.

Sincerely,

./

w

-,y

/

% ' 4.%

Edson G. Case, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor P,egulation

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enclosures:

See next pace

, !!I.

HEU INFORDATI0tl In mid-July 1977, the NRC staf f initiated a review of the geology and seismology of the Vc11ecitos site in connection with,the application for iicense renewal of GETR.

A brief revicu of the updated infornation provided in support of the application indicated that difficult seiscalogic end geologic questions existed at the site and that tnere was insufficient information concerning the seismic ana geolooic characteristics of the area

.src d scussed with the licersee in "ugust at VNC.

The f2C staf f's concernr, i

1977 and the '2C staff indicated that additional ceolcgical and seis.ricricd inforna tion woule ce recuired.

At that time, the 'SC staff learred of a recently completed U.S. Geological Survey investigation of the region t.hich includes VNC.

Subsequently, on August 22, 1977, the NRC staff received an advance copy of the USGS cpen-file rcport, !!unter 77-639, unich contained an interpretation of the geology of Livernore Valley, California.

A neu geologic map..hich accompanied this report indicated thct the Verona fault, previously riapped approxinately 1/2 mile north of GETR, came within about 200 feet of GETR.

To cbtain acre information regarding the nature of the Verona faul t, a trench was dug by the licensee and inspected the week of October 10, 1977.

Members of the NRC staf f, gcccapanied by a member of the USGS, inspected tr.e O

e

. trench on October 13, 1977.

Although direct evidence of faulting could not be observed at that time, the possibility of thrust faulting could not be discounted.

Accordingly, the !;RC staff requested that the trench be allowed to dry out, that it be deepened at one end, and that the walls be cleaned up and thoroughly mapped to confirm that there was no evidence of the existence of the fault. Thi s work, and ccarletion of a second trench, was carried cut by the licensee.

On Oct: Der 20, a reoresentative of the licensee, in a teleph:re ccnver-sation with the NRC staff, reported that its geological consultants had identified evidence of faulting in both trenches.

A staff ge31cgist cr.d sei:me!cgist and a representative of USGS visitec the si:2 cn Oct;ber 22 to cbserve and evaluate the geolecic chara:teristics in the trenches.

Existence of the fault and evidence that it ni;ht ce " capable",

as that tern is used in 10 CFR Part 100, were confinned during our Octcber 22 investigation.

The significance of this new information is presented belcu.

GE0 LOGICAL AND SEISP.0 LOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE The GETR site is located in the Livermore Valley.

Geologically the site is within the Livermore Syncline and is approximately 7500 feet from the nearest splay of the Calaveras fault.

The site is within the trace of the Verona fault as postulated oy the USGS (USGS Open-File Report Number 77$689).

The Las Positas fault, if projected to the soutnwest, passes within about 10,000 feet of the site.

The Livernore Syncline, the Verona fault and the Las Positas fault must, on the basis of current information, be considered to be genetically related to movement on the Calaveras fault. The Calaveras fault is a major strand of the San Andreas fault system.

l'ovement on the San Andreas and associated faults is foccurring at about 6 cm per year.

The tectonic setting of the site nust be considered to be active.

The Calaveras fault is known to be noving in a right lateral strike slip direction which results in the rock nass west of the fault being noved northward relative to the rock nass on the east side of the f aul t.

The rate cf movement acrcss tnis f ault zcne can t neasurce in millineters per year.

The Verona fault trends approxinately northwest-southeast and at an angle to the north west trending Calaveras fault.

The. fault dips (apparently to the north) at a low angle. 11ovement on the Verona fault is of a trrust nature with the northern bicch being relatively thrust over the block to the south. On the basis of current information, this fault must be considered to be genetically related to the Calaveras faul t.

The genetic relationship of the Verona Fault to the known active Calaveras fault, the close proximity of the Verona fault to the Calaveras fault, and the evidence revealed by the October 20-22 investigations. lead us to ccnclude that the Verona fault should be considered to be capablb.

Vibratory ground motion at the site will likely be controlled by movement on either the Verona fault, on the Calaveras fault pr on both.

Our assessment of the earthquake potential of the Calaveras faul t, based on currently available data, leads us to conclude that the most severe earthquake associated with the fault would be in the nagnitude range of 7 to 7.5.

An earthquake of lesser magnitude, perhaps 6 to 6.5, would be cssociated with the Verona fault.

Based on tnese consicerations, eithcr the Calaveras or the Verona fault uculd be casable of prcdu:'ng grouno notions at the site with accelerations of sustained curatisr in excess of.75g if the earthquake s.ere to be centerec along the sectors of the fault nearest the GETR site.

Of particular significance in this situation is the fact that ar earthquake of this magnitude would be expected to produce offsets of the ground surface, or surface faulting, of several feet. Given the close proximity of the Verona fault to the Calaveras fault, movement on the Verona fault simultaneous with movement on the Calaveras fault would be expected to occur.

Based on th' highly active nature of the Calaveras fault, the high ground accelerations and, more incortantly, the vertical displacenent or surface faulting now associateo with the Verona fault, which have nct been considerec previously, we have concluded. that a potentially hazardous co.,dition may exist at VNC with respect to the continued operation of GETR for an extenced period of time, in that this facility has not been designed to u' thstar.d th:-sc severe earthquake ef fects.

4

. For these reasons, operation of the facility should not be continued for an extended period until such new in'ormation is ccepletely assessed.

Accordingly, in the absence of further 'nformation the staff concludes that such facility operation be suspended until all relevant information has been fully evaluated and unless resumption of operation is approved by the staf f.

IV.

GETR is primarily used in the production of radioisstop?3 for ridical diagnosis and therapy and for industrial purposes.

'le have civen careful consideration to the potential acverse impact on the availability of radio-i sotopes for the medical co.rmuni ty vhich may rcsul t frc: ccs:a-icn cf operation of GETR.

Of particular concern is the availcofiity cf technitit,

99n for use in the diagnosis of pulmon:ry enbelisms. A crit' cal situ: tion would result if the material presently in prccess '!cre not tid 2 availcble at the en'd of the present cycle on Thursday, October 27, 1977.

Extended discussic.s wi th the !?.C's medical consultants and other representatives of the medical community indicate that inmediate disruption of the supply of technetica 99n would have a significant inpact on the life saving uses of tnis caterial.

Indications are, however, that other suppliers may be able to make up cost of the deficit after the present batch is processed.

Steps are being taken to arrange alternate sources of supply.

V.

There arc'.a nuc.ber of other facilities at the W'O site.

These include the NTR, a 100 kwt light v tcr cooled and nedertt:d grif.ite e

. reflected reseach reactor which provides neutrons for experimental studies, for neutron radiography, and for the production of microfilter membranes. Operation is authorized by License No. R-33.

l t!hile NTR, like GETR, has not been evaluated taking into consi-deration design bases appropriate for the above seismological conditions, preliminary assessments suggest that failure of NTR structures and its rclated safety systems would noc result in consequences in excess of guidelines set forth in Commission regulations. Ho.:ever, the staff is considering in greater detail the need for further action, if any,

'wi th respect to NT;'.

Also located at the VNC site are the Vallecites Boiling. ater Reactor (V3WR) a deactivated (in 1963) facility from vhich all fuel has bean removec, and the ESADA-Vallecitos Experimental Superneat Reactor (EVESR), a deactivated (in 1967) reactor frem which all fuel has also been removed.

Neither of these facilities can be operated without prior NRC approval.

There are also several buildings in which material subject to Special Nuclear Material and Byproduct Material licenses are stored and used. The need for action, if any, on these l'icenses, is also under consideration by the NRC staff.

Certain of these activities are governed by licenses issued by the State of California, and we are in consultaticn with California concerning this matter.

GE has agrced that by Friday, October 28, 1977, it will provide to the NRC staff an assessment of all NRC-licensed activities at the VUC si te.

8-V.

For the reasons set forth in Section III above, and giving due consideration to the factors in Section IV above, the staff has.

concluded that public health, safety and interest requires that the facility be placed in a cold shutdown condition upon ccmpletion of the present cycle on October 27, 1977, pending further Order of the Commissica.

In view of the f' regoing and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of o

195', as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50, IT IS liEREBY ORCERED THAT:

1.

Pending further order by the Director, Of fice of Muclear Reactor Regulation, the GETR shall, upon ccmpletion of the present cy:iu on Thursday, October 27, 1977, be placed and maintair.ed safely in a cold shutdown condition.

2.

GE show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, s.hy the suspension of activities under Operating License No. TR-1 should not be continued.

The licensee may, within tv.enty days of the date of this order, file a written answer to this order under oath or affirmation.

Wi thin the same time, the licensee or any interested person may request a hearing.

Upon failure of the licentee to file an answer within the time specified, the Director, Of fice of Muclear Reactor Regulation will, without further notice, issue an order suspen, ding any further activities under Cperating License No. TR'-l pending conclusion of the proceeding before the Atenic Safety and Licensing Board in connection with renewal of thic license.

9_

In the event that a hearing is requested, the issues to be consicered at such a hearing shall be:

(1) What the proper seismic and geologic design bases for the GETR facility should be; (2) Uhether the design of GETR structures, systems and ccmponents important~ to safety can be nodified so as to remain functional considering the scismic design bases detenr.ined in issue (1)above; (3) Whether activities under Operating License No. TR-1 should be suspended pending evaluation of the foregoing.

~

tv-; %

Edson G. Case, Acting Director Of fice of !:uclear P.ecctor Regulation Dated this 24th day of October 1977 O

e w

,,rs..,Enciosure 3 e

..h,. f,,

)'

~ ): i t

..a s...

Show Cause Proceeding Safety Evaluation Report Input GE Test Reactor Sitc/Vallecitos Nucicar Center August 17, 1973 I.

BACKGROUND In July 1977, the Geosciences Branch was requested to perform a review of the geology and seismology aspects of the General Electric Company's application to renew the Operating License of the General Electric Test Reactor (GETR) at Pleasanton, California. As part of the docu~ men-tation for the license renewal application, the General Electric Company (GE) submitted reports on the geology and scismology of the site and vicinity (URS/ John A. Blume, 1972s; URS/ John A. Blume, 1973b; Engineering Dacision Analysis Company,'Inc. (EDAC), 197 6). Preliminary review of these reports caused the staf'f to become concerned that a potentially serious safety situation existed at the site which had not been adequately defined in the licensee's submittals.

Specifically, the staff recognized that the GETR is located within an active tectonic environment about 2 kilometers east of the Calaveras f ault zone and about one kilometer scuth of the Williams fault as mapped by Hall (1958) ; and, as shown in the licensee's report (URS/ John A. Blume,1973a), a lineation passed directly The existence of the lineation caused the through t'nc plant site.

staff to become concerned that a potential existed for fault offset beneath the GETR structurcs.

We met with GE on August 4, 1977 and made them aware of our preliminary findings and of the scope of investigation that we considered would be necessary to conservatively evaluate the carthquake and fault hazards at the site.

4

L. u.

.J a 2

On August 22, 1977, NRC received a copy of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) open-file report nucher 77-689 (Herd,1977) which contained an interpretation of the geology of the Livermore Valley, Ca,lifornia, including the area of the Vallecitos Nuclear Center. A new geologic map which accompanied the report placed a fault (the Verona fau?.t) immediately adjacent to the GETR.

The position of the Verona fault as mapped by Herd'(1977) coincidos with the position of the lineation sh'own in the CE license renewal submittal and is about one kilo =cter south of the Williams f ault as rapped by Hall (1958).

USGS personnel met with the NRC staf f and GE and its consultants on August 31, 1977.

At that meeting Dr. Herd revicwed the geologic evidence for the Verona fault.

In response to that meeting, GE subsequently excavated two trenches across the mapped trace of the Verona f ault. On October 21, 1977 GE reported to the NRC that its geologi. cal consultants had identified evidence of faulting in both trenches.

Mr. Hofmann and Dr. Jackson of the NRC and Mr. " orris of the USGS inspected the trenches on October 22, 1977.

Our inspection confirmed the existence of a low angle plane of movement across which near-surface beds are offset. We concluded that this plane could be a low angle thrust ' fault which, based on the evidence then availab'le, could be capable within the meaning of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.

As a result of these findings, and in consideration of the potential for a large earthquake on the nearby Calaveras fault which could cause ground motion exceeding that for which the facil.ty was designed, an Order to Show Cause why the facility o

et

3 shculd continue operation was issuet by the Co nission ca October 24, 1977.

GE responded to rSe Show Cause Order on November 11, 1977 with a report which argued that an ancient landslide is present and that the landslide accounts for the low angle shear planes observed in the trenches.

Consequently, GE argued that the existence of the Verona fault is unsupported by the available data. After reviewing this report we met with GE and its consultants and infor=ed them that the report did not adequately explain the evidence for faulting near the GETR.

He stated further that we believed an extensive investigation and approximately 18 conths to two years of review and interaction would be required to completely assess the geology, seismicity, and geotechnical engineering aspects of the GETR site as would be required for renewal of the license.

We also indicated that investigations necessary to. determine whether or not the Verona fault exists near the GETR and, if so, whether it should be considered capable within the meaning of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 would a

be of critical importance, GE was also provided with several requests for additional information.

On December 16, 1977, (letter, R. W. Dartmizel to V. Stello) GE took

~

the following position with reslect to the Show Cause Proceeding:

"while we (CE) strongly believe that the Verona f,ault does not exist, G.E. has agreed to base our analysis and modifications on two non-mechanistic conditions which are:

a) peak ground acceleration of 0.8g from the Calaveras fault b) a surface offset of 1.0 meters as a result of a hypothesired low angle thrust fault near GETR."

.2*'

'I e

/..

-4

=J J

e

% Since that time, GE has continued to acquire data and modify the exist-

.ing espping and geologic interpretations of the site arca and region.

We and our advisors, the USGS and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),

accompanied on several occasions by personnel from the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), have made visits to the site and vicinity to examine the results of investigations.

In addition, we have received two review letters from the USGS (Ictter, P. Hanshaw to W. Ga= milk Jan-uary 30, 1978 and letter H.

Coulter to E. Case, March 31, 1978).

We have also received =ctoranda f rom the COE (letter, T. Krukjian to J. Stepp, January 10, 1978) and frem the CDMG (letter P. Amimoto to J. Stepp, October 28, 1977 and letter, P. Animoto to J. Stepp, Decc=ber 29, 1977).

In addition to the field trips and mec, tings at the site and at the NRC Bethesda office, we have received a number of reports and addenda frc= CE

~

relating to its inv'estigations of the geological, geotechnical and scismic aspects of the site and vicinity.

These reports are:

~

~

(1) " Seismic and Geologic Investigations for the General Electric I.c Reactor Facility," July,1973, URS/ John A, Blume Associates; (2) " Seismic Analysis of the Reactor Building for the General Electric Test Reactor ' Facility,", July,1973, URS/ John A. Blume Associates,

$ngineers;

~

(3) " Evaluation of General Electric Test Reactor for Operating, Environ-

= ental, and postulated Accident Conditions," June, 1976, Engineering Decision Analysis Co. Inc. ;

(4) " Response to NRC Order to Show Cause dated 10-24-77," November 11, 1977,,

General Electric Company; we

=

w

L.'.

a

. 1 (5)

" Seismic Criteria and Basis for Structural Analysis of Reactor Building, Attachment 1," December 16, 1977, Engineering Decision Analysis Co., Inc.;

(6)

" Geologic Investigation General Electric Test Reactor Vallecitos, California, Preliminary," January,1978, Earth Sciences Associates;,

(7)

" Geologic Investigation General Electric Test Reactor Vallecitos, California," February,1978, Earth Sciences Associates; (8)

"Ceologic Investigation Gener 1 Electric Test Reactor Vallecitos, California, Addendum I, April,1978, Earth Sciences Associates; (9)

"Draf t Seismic Risk Analysis for General Electric Nuclcar Center Picasanton, California," December 5,1977, Tera Corporation; (10) " Determination of Vibratory Leads to be Combined with Fault Dis-placement Loads," March 1, 1978, Engineering Decision Analysis Co. Inc.; and (11) " Geologic Evaluations of GETR Structural Design Criteria Reports 1, 2, and 3," March,1978, Earth Sciences Associates.

We have reviewed the data provided in these reports. Our conclusions and the supporting bases contained herein represent our assessment, based on currently available data, of the earthquake vibratory ground motion, faulting and landslide hazards at the GETR site.

l e

9 D

e e

6 a

a L'

II.

Current Staff Position The infor=ation availab1( at the present time leads us to :enclude that:

(1) This evaluation represents our finding with respect to the Show Cause Proceeding. The infor=ation developed for this site does not teet the investigative require =ents of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100. Additional investigations which will be needed during a licer.se rencval~ effort are not specifically addressed in this evaluation.

(2)

Geologic data are indicative of a fault (the Verona fault) passing through the GETE site, and this f ault should be assumed to exist.

(3) The Verona fault should be assured to be capable within the ccaning of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and, therefore, to pose a potential for surf ace faulting near or ';encath the reactor site.

('4) 2.5 meters of net slip at the surface resulting from reverse-oblique covc=ent along a fault plane which could vary in dip angle from 10 to 60 degrees provides a reasonably conservative description of surface slip en the

.postu ated Verona fault during a single event.

l m

~~~~~~

u (5) !!axinum vibratory ground motion at the GETR site would result from a magnitude 7 to 7 1/2 carthquake centered on the sector of the Calaveras fault nearest the site. Acceleration peaks at the free-field surface could be slightly in excess of ig.

(6)

The horizontal vibratory ground motion at the GETR site result-ing from an earthquake of magnitude 6 to 6 1/2 centered on the Verona fault could contain acceleration peaks as high as lg.

However, the overall level and duration of shaking wculd be less than for a cagnitude 7 to 7 1/2 earthquake centered on the Calaveras fault approximately 2 kilometers from the site.

The effective value of acceleration to be used as a scaling parameter for Regulatory Guide 1.60 to describe the seismic

~

dec'gn basis ground motion at the CETR sita for this' event will be evaluated by Dr. N. M. Newmark.

(7)

Combined loadings caused by. fault offset at the surface and peak vibratory ground motion must be considered to act simultan-cously because there is no reasonabig <py to fo. recast:

a)

The Jecation of rupture inf r.k vi a, the mode of rupture propagation and the potu-.. t

.cce area for radiar.ed seismic energy, b)

The location of pos.sible fault acperities or other localized bedrock inhomogeneities which may control peaks c? strong ground motion.

s...

c)

The sequence of possible interaction among the Calaveras, the Verona and the Las Positas faults.

In view of the above and the virtual absence of near-field records of strong ground motion for larger carthquakes, there is insufficient evidence to support the proposition that peaks of a strong ground motion and affsets 'from surface rupturing will be separated in time.

(8) The available evidence suggests that the large landslide com-lex north of the GETR facility is inactive and peses no hazard to the plant.

III. Discussion 1.0 Geolog; 1.1 General The staff's geology review has been concerned with defining the earthquake sources in the site vicinity and evaluating the potential hazard of faulting and landsliding at the site. The GETR site is located in a highly active tectoni.

tvironment (Bolt and others, 1977; Lee and others,1971). Physiograpaically the site is within the Vallecitos Valley section of the larger Livermore Valley. Geologically both of these valleys lie within Livermore syncline and the central part of the Coast Ranges structurally related to the San Andreas fault system, a transform fault <

• 3 forns a -major sector of the boundary between the North Am'erican and Pacific lithospheric plates ertending from Cape Mendocino to the Gulf of California (Anderson, 1971).

Dif ferential movct ent across the lithospheric pIntes ccress this boundary is apparently occuriag at about 6 cm/yr with

y 9 e a

the Pacific plate moving northward relative to the North American plate.

This covc=ent results from a regional orientation of the caxi=us principal stress that is approxicately north-south horizontal (Nnderson,1971).

ihe sector of the San Andreas fault system in the vicinity of the San Francisec Bay consists of the main San Andreas fault and two, perhaps three other major members.

The eastern ost of these is the Cal'averas fault zone which passes

~

about 2 kilocaters vest of the GEIR site.

Geologic and geodetic data (Rogers and Nason,1971; Radbruch,1968'; Thatcher,1975) indicate that the Calaveras fault is noving in a right slip sense (rock cass on ' he west t

side of the faulting being coved northward relative to reck = ass on the east side of the fault). We consider the Livertere syncline and the major structural elements therein, including faults,.co cwe their

. existence to cove ent across the Calaveras fault. The faults significant to our review which we consider genetically related to the Calaveras are the Las Positas fault, which trends approxi=stely northeast-southwest across the Livermore syncline, and the Verona fault, which as interpreted is a low angle thrust within the southern flank of the syneline. The Creenville fault, which =ay also be considered a member of the San Andreas fault system, lies about 16 kilcmeters east of the GETR site (Herd,1977).

1.2 Verona Fault I,n rer?cnse to the Show Cause Order dated October 24, 1977, GE has submitted a number of geologic reports.

The report entitled, " Geologic Investigation of General Electric Test Reactor Site, Vallecitos, California,"' dated February 1978, and Addendu= I dated April 1978, compiles GE's investigations and s"- ari:es and modifies earlier conclusions. With respect to the existence of the Verona fault and the potential for surface faulting in the site area.this report cencludes:

- 10

~

"This investigation has disclosed several lines of evidence which indicate that neither the "Verona fault" nor any other active or capable fa' ult exists in the vicinity of the GETR."

This conclusion by GE is based pri=arily on the follcwing interpretations:

(1) Evidence presented for the existence of a fault is either erroneous or can be explained core easily by other geologic processes.

(2) The thrust of fsets or shear features observed in trenches 1 and 2 and in the large diameter borehole result from large scale land-sliding.

(3)

Continuous cappable stratigraphic units around Vallecitos Valley' preclude the existence of north-or northwest-trending faults which postdate deposition of the Liver: ore age gravels.

(4) A north-side up thrust fault is inconsistent with the structural

~

and stratigraphic relationships in the Liver = ore Valley.

(5) The regional tectonic framework indicates that the Livermore Valley region is in an extensional stress environment which argues against development of, or movement en, a thrust fault.

(6) The ' similarity and continuity of landforms and eros,ional surfaces between the Livermore Valley and Vallecitos Valley preclude significant faulting in the GETR site area.

O

.J

.a

- 11,-

The thrust of GE's response to the Show Cause Order ith respect to the question of surface faulting is that the Verona fault as postulated does not exist.

Investigations and information to date have increased our understanding of the site geology and have produced evidence for large scale landsliding in the site vicinity. The fault of.fset found in the excavated trenches could have been caused by this landslide.

However, GE has not undertaken investigations necessary to resolve this question. Morcover, the existence of a landslide near the site does not in any way preclude the existence of faulting there.

As dis-cussed below, evidence for faulting exists in areas away from the land-slide area. In fact, landsliding often results from oversteepening of slopes due to fault movement snd seismic shaking. We conclude that sufficient investigations have not been accomplished to date to show that faulting does not exist in the plant site area. This conclusion is based on the following observations:

(1) Of fsets observed in trenches 1 & 2 may be due to movements on a thrust fault or to movement of a large scale landslide. Suf-ficient investigations have not been undertaken along the proposed fault trace,in areas where landsliding definitely does not exist to the northwest and to southeast of the GETR site for us to assess' the presence or absence of faulting.

Areas to the northwest of the GETR show, both in the field and on aerial photographs, the presence of geologic features which are indicative of the existence

• SP**e' e **

,e e.

~

,*m-we.

12 e.a J

of faulting. Steeply-dipping Livermore gravel beds are truncated along a linear to curvilinear topographic escarpment.

Along the base of this escarpment are a number of sceps and springs.

(2) To the southeast of the GETR, the geologic log of the La Costa i

tunnel (California Department of Water Resources, 1966) suggests lov angle faulting and folding in an area th'rcugh which the post-ulated Verona fault would pass if projected castward.

In the sa=e general. area there is a, cajor abrupt change in the strati-graphic section above. the middle conglocerate unit of the Livermore gravels uhen co pared to the section to the north of the GETR.

This change can be explained either by the presence of a thrust fault or by an unconformity.

Presently,'it is clear only that this area is structurally coepicx and these observations could be indicative of post-Livermore gravels faulting.

(3)

The relationship between the Verona fault and the Las Positas fault has not been investigated and the area of the William's fault (Hall,1958)-La Costa tunnel intersection has not been investigated sufficiently to permit a satisfactory interpretation of the structure in that critical area (see above). Understanding this relationship becomes important in attempting to synthesize a tectonic medel for

~

fault development and fault covement in the Livermore valley.

Areas of intersection or merging of faults can be in a transitional stress state s

which usually leads to the development of fault patterns which are geologically complex such as en cchelon faults rather than a single planar fault surface.

Such cong3 cx patterns are dif ficul t to interpret' without extensive field investigations.

e

~~'~.

C.~-..

'.',,, [,,

(4) A prominent scuth-facing scarp and topographic breok does exist in the site area. To ascribe the origin of this scarp solely to mass vasting and crosion is not supportable based on the available data.

That is, fault movement explains these features just as well as erosional processes.

(5)

Existing geologic maps and texts o'f Vickery (1925), Hall (1958), Prince (1957), URS/Blume As~sociates (1973), and more recently Herd (1977) support the existence of the Verona fault and other faults in the GETR site area and vicinity.

In addition, to the northwest of the CETR site and along the general northwesterly projection of the Verona fault is the northwest-trending Pleasanton fault which is identified as a potentially active fault on the California Division of !!ines and Geology Special Studies Zones FSp, Dublin Quadrangle (Slosson, 1974).

Several authors (Burkland and Associutes, 1975; Judd Hull Associates, 1977; Carpenter, 1977) have assigned various locations to the Pleasanton fault.

At the present time,

".t is reasonable to conclude that the Pleasanton fault is a possible continuation of the Veronc fault.

(6) Recent seismological studies of earthquake fault plane solutions indicate that the Livermore Valley region is in northeast-southwest compression (Simila and Somerville,1978).and not extension as argued by the licensee. Morever, this indirect observation of the stress direction is consistent with the highly active regional

~

tectonic framework.

Northeast-southwest compression would support development of, and continued movement along, a northeast-dipping-

~

.- c F

=

~

14 thrust fault such as the Vcrons fault.

If extension vere occurring in this area, stresses would not be likely to cause the develop-ment of, or movecent along, a northeast-dipping thrust fault.

(7) The ages of geologic units in the site area have not been determined.

Of special concern are the ages of offset units observed near the ground surface in the trenches. As discussed later, such a determination is absolutely necessary in resolving the origin of the offset ob-served in the trenches.

(8)

Critical elements of the area geologic capping are still in question as eva enced by a continuing discovery and interpretation of tec-toni-deformation within the Livernore gravels with the increased acquisition of field information. The more recent geologic capping provided by CE contains substantially more geologic structures than the earlier versicas, indicating more post-Livermore tectonic defor=-

ation than would have been ascertained from GE's earlier napping.

(9) " :tolinears and the cause of seeps and ponds to the south of and in close proximity to the CETR site area have not been trenched or explained.

In tectonically active areas photolinears are often due to groundwater barriers or differ'ential erosion due to the presence of a fault.

(10) Questions concerning the relative stratigraphic position of Liver-mord gravel and younger stratigraphic units to the north and south of the postulated Verona fault have not been resolved. Without such stratigraphic information it is not possibla to determine that beds have not been dl.splaced vertically.

As stated above, e--

.=}

- s the origin of the offsets in the trenches has not been resloved.

Evidence which favors a large Jand:lide includes:

(1) photointerpr e-tation of landforms and oblique overflight pho'tographs, (2) the jumbled nature of subsurface materials, and (3) the presence of rotated blocks and shear surfaces as observed especially in trench 2 and along the i

ravine near trench 2 northwest of the GETR and (4) soils may be dated at an age when more humid climates were known to exist in the site area.

A serious question with regard to, the landslide versus fault origin of the offsets in trenches 1 and 2 relates to the age of the offset soil units. This has not been determined.

If the landslide is alder than the offset soils, then the observed thrust features must le attributed to some other more recent mechanism such as faulting.

The data currently available do not resolve the conflicting interpretations of geologic f eatures in the site area (e.g., topographic scarp, linear features, springs).

One interpretation is that faulting is the primary genetic cause of these features. This interpretation has been put foruard by a number of geologists who have worked in the site region [Vickery (1925), Hall (1958), Herd (1977)] and by the NRC staf f.

An alternate inter-pretation has been offered which would attribute the cause of the f eatures

'in the. site area solely to crosion and mass vasting. This interpretation is supported b'y data interpretations cade by GE's consultants.

'At the present time, sufficient data have not been provfi.d to resolve these con-flicting interpretations. For the Show Cause proceeding the licensee has, therefore, chosen to assume that a surface of fset of 1 meter'could occur as a result of movement on a hypothesized thrust fault.

9

(

'~

16 1.3 Surface Fault Offset Oa December 16,1977 [ letter, R. W. Darmitzel (GC) to V. Stello (NRC)], GE stated that a hypothetical offset displacement at the ground surface of 1.02 meters on a 15 degree shallow-dipping shear plane would be used to analyze the effects of surface rupture on the GETR structure.

This hypothetical fault displacement is based on an empirical relation of maximum surface displacement to total length of surface rupture (Earth Sciences Associates, 1978). The licensee assumes 8.2 kile=cters for the total length of the Verona fault. Utilizing data from Slemmods (1977), the licensee developed a plot of surface displacement versus rupture length for known faults. Utilizing a maximum rupture length in a single event of one-half the total mapped length or 4.2 kilometers for the Verona, a maximum surf ace displacement of 1.02 meters was esticated.

The licensee conciders this to be a very conservative value because the data set includes large faults along crustal plate boundaries.

We have concluded that a postulated 2.5 meters of net slip resulting from reverse oblique movecent along a fault plane which dips from 10 to 60 de'grees provides a reasonably conservative description of surface slip on the postulated Verona fault during'a single event.. Our judgement is based, in part, on our understanding and _eva,1uation of observations of faults offsets made following the 1971 San Fernando, California earthquake (Barrows and others,1973).

The~Verona fault,.

~.

including its northwesterly, projection along possibic splays of the Picasanton fault, has an estimated surface length of 12 kilo-r.cters (Hord,1977; Earth Sciences kasociates, 1978b), being a.I

.u..'-

. by or nerging with the Calaveras fault to the northwect and by joining with, or being truncated by, the northeast trending Las Positas fault in the general area of the La Costa tunnel. We believe that utilization of the San Fernando data is a reasonable basis for postulating the amount of offset that could occur on the Verona fault near the GETR because of similarity. The length of observed surface rupture during the San Fernando event was about 12-15 kilometers.

Movement was predominantly in a thrust sense with a substantial horizontal component. Assuming the Verona fault ruptures along its estimated trace, it would have a rupture length of about 12 kilometers.

Based on observations of a reverse thrust move-ment in the trench excavations near GETR and regional stress considerations which would support crustal compression (Lee and others,1971), we would anticipate the Verona f ault to undergo revarse movement as did the San Fernando area faults.

In addition, due to the orientation of the regional stress, the Verona fault should be expected to have a horizontal cocponent of covement.

In support of our judgement, we used two approaches to analyze the available information on reverse and reversc-oblique fault movement.

We first analyzed 179 observations of vertical surface offsets that oc-cured during the San-Fernando earthquake as compiled by Barrows and others (1973).

This analysis indicates that the mean of the observed vertical throw on a given fault break to have been about 34 centimeters

(.34 meters). Of the 179 observations, 97% were less than 1 meter and 5 observations equaled or exceeded 1 meter. The maximum vertical throw offset noted which exceeded 1 meter is 160 centimet ers (1.6 meters).

e C_.__'...._..;__..__

One meter of vertical offset exceeds the mean plus two standard deviations for the San Fernando data. Observations of of fsets in excess of the '

above values either reflect releveling which traversed some distance and several fault offsets or are not slip calculations (resultant of the dip-slip and strike-slip movement). The mean value of the horizontal movc=ent would be about 40 centimeters (.4 meters). Six of the 40 hor-icontal_ movement observations noted equalled or exceeded 1 meter with the ccximum being 190 centiuetcrs (1.9 meters). Using one meter of vertical throw, one meter of horizontal movement, and 55 degrees as an average dip, we cbtain 1.57 meters as a conservative representation of the average net' clip along the fault breaks. Such a statistical data interpretation must be viewed cautiously because consideration has not been given to possible bias in the data used in our evaluation.

For example, we have not analyzed how many tea turement were made on a given break or if the authors had a bias touard more measurements on smaller or larger breaks.

Bonilla* and others (1971) calculated slip vectors along an assumed fault plane,in the Orange Grove Avenue and Eighth Street areas that sustained surface rupture during the 1971 San Fernando event.

These calculations Indicate that 2.4 maters of net slip displacement took place.

It is also noted that, vertical displacement.for this location is distributed across a zone of breakage 200 meters wide which is complicated by a zone of shear-ing and thrusting and a zone of extension. At the present time, we do not have a compilation of direct measurements of net slip on individual surface ruptures.

a

_ 19 _

In order to provide further information on poscible fault displ :cuent, we used the approach of Slemmens (1977) and EDAC (1977) which relates maximum surfa.cc displacement to length of surface rupture.

For purposes of this analysis the Verona is assumed to be a reverse thrust fault with a rupture length of 12 kilometers as discuosed previously.

Slemmons (1977) performs an analysis which develops a best straight line fit to fifteen data points of reverse and reverse-oblique-slip faults. For a rupture length of 12-15 kilometert as observed after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, this relationship would predict a maximum net-slip value of 1.66 to 1.83 meters.

Actual net-slip observations at San Fernando indicate that the maximum net slip was about 2.5 meters.

Utilization of the relationship developed by Sicamons (1977) would have under estimated the maximum d.splacement by about 0.8 meters for a 12 kilcmeter rupture length. Using either a log normal distribution or the Student's t distribution, which may be more appropriate for small data sets, and the general technique of Park (1977), we obtain an exceedance probability of 26-30% for 2.5 meters of net slip.

That is, there is 70-74% confidence that the maximum displacement value predicted for a 12 kilomete' surface i

rupture vill be encompassed by the 2.5 meter value.

It is ale:r that this worldwide data set for reverse and reverse-oblique-slip faults is small'and has a wide variation in values.

Because of.this fact, the above ob'servation cannot be used in a rigorous sense with a high level of confidence. Uc do believe, however, that the above analyes do provide further support of our judgement.

e==m-*===

=o===m eio -.

3.*

. 2 0' _

s Based on the above considerations, we conclude that 2.5 eeters of net slip at the surface resulting from reversc-oblique movement along a fault plane which could dip 10-60 degrees provides a reasonably conserva-tive description of the. magnitude of of fset that might be anticipated as a result of. movement on the Verona fault during a single event.

The USGS indicated in their letter of January 30, 1978, that considering the fact that the San Fernando earthquake produced 2.4 meters (7.9 feet) slip, the one met [r of net-slip movement pastulated by GE does of net not seem to provide adequate conservatism.

'w'e have considered the recommendations of the USGS and our present ppsition takes into account those vicws.

2.0 Land sl id ing 2.1 General This section addresses the contention that there is evidence for a large-landslide complex northeast of the' GETR site, evaluates the stability of the postulated landslide complex ~against future movement, and discusses the potential for surficial failures.

The crest of the northwest-trending hills (Rocky Ridge) immcdiately northeast of the major building ccmplex at GETR is at an clevation of

~

The toe of the southwest f acing hillside is at about about' 1,200 feet.

elevation'600 feet. Near the GETR, the drop in elevation from the ridge

~

(elevation 1200 f eet) to the toe (elevation 600 feet) is typically 600 feet. The horizontal distance from the ridge _ to the toe varies from 2,800 feet to 4,800 feet and is typically 3,600.

k'ith a vertical drop of 600 feet and a horizcntal distance of 3,*500 feet, the average slope is 6 horizontal to 1 vertical.

.w

.2.2 L,rre La-d lide Cennicx

-w.,

2.2.1

, Evidence The detailed topogrcphic map, Figure 14, of the Geologic Invesig= tion by Earth Sciences Associates (1978b) for the GETR provides the config-uration of the hillside slopes northeast of the GETR complex.

In addition to the canyon sidewalls, three separate slope conditions can be identified from the ridge crest down to the toe of the hillside.

Relatively steep (1.7 Horizontal to 1 Vertical) amphitheater scarplike areas can be identified between about elevation 900 and 1,100 feet.

The central portion of the slopes is characterized by a relatively flat bench area typically between clevation 900 and 950 feet.

The toe of the hillside benches below elevation 900 feet consists of moderately steep slopes, typically 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The horizontal length of each of these areas is typically 1000 feet for the toe.

The above con-ditions combined with the bulbous, lobate-shaped toe of the slope are suggestive of old landslide deposits.

Evidence that the southwest facing hillside north of the GETR site con-tains a large landslide complex can be identified on high altitude) infrared air photos (Earth Sciences Associates, 1978b) of the hill front.

~

The high altitude photos clearly show a scarp-like feature.two-thirds of the way up the southwest facing hillside and the lowaltitude photos clearly sh'ow a scarp-bench-toe configuration frequently associated with large landslides.

Shear planes and low angle thrust fectures were identified in treaches (T-1 and T-2) and borings (EH-1, BH-2 and DH-3) located near the base of the hillside (Ref. Fig. 7, Earth Sciences Associates,1978b).

In addition, subsurface materials observed in trench 2 were jumbled and shcared. These features are typically observed at or near the toc of a landslide.

g

- 22 Shear planes and low angle thrust features were identified in trenches (T-1 and T-2) and borings (BH-1, EH-2 and BH-3) located near the base of the hillside (Ref. Fig. 7, Earth Sciences Associates,197Bb). In addition, subsurface materials observed in trench 2 were ju= bled and sheared. These features are typically observed at or near the tce of a landslide.

Although the chear plancs and lev cngle thrust features identified in the trenches and borings can be interpreted to be landslide fea:ures, we cannet rule out fault offset as the source of these features. Detersining the age of the youngest offset in trenches 1 snd 2 is an irpcrtant consideration in the evaluation of the large landslide cceplex. The age of the youngest offset in trenches 1 and 2 has not been docucented adequately. This point =ust be resolved before any cdecuate explanation of the origin of these offsets can be determined.

2.2.2 Possible origin Severa,1 conditions have been postulated by the licensee (Earth Sciences Ascociates,1978b) to have influenced formation of the landslide complex.

Large landslides ~ f this type in the Coast Ra'nges of California have been o

interpreted (Earth Sciences Associates,197Se) to have occurred at a ti e when:

(1) climatic conditions were wetter; (2) sea level stands were lovar; (3) Coast Range canyons were considerably steeper; and (4) crosion

' rates were much higher.

M

.o; 23 -

-J ;'

!.'c agree that the hillside was probuhly steeper and higher before any landslide occurred and steep slopes which are subject to high precipitatica rates have a high probability of experiencing landslides. Toe erosion as postulated by the applicant would further increase the landslide i

potential.

The occurrence of all or cost of these conditions concurrently in.the past could have caused the for ation of the large landslide cc plex northeast of the GETR and we cenisder the licensee's interpretatiens to be reasonable. Ecwever, to evaluate this hypothesis, the age (s) of cove =cnt(s) along offsets cbserved in trenches 1 cnd 2 =ust be determined and correlated with the history of past envirotz.catal. coaditic;as.

2.2.3 Relative Stability The stability of the landslide coepicx northeast of the GETR site deper.ds on the driving force. due to the ucight of caterials within the

.hi11s'ide complex, the strength of the geologic caterials, and the influence of the groundwater conditions on both the resisting and driving forces. A qualitative evaluatien of the stability of the ce= plex at

.the present time can be made by cecparing the current conditions with those 'mder which the co= plex was believed to have formed and assessing evidence from field cbservations'.

The primary evidence supporting the relative stability of the large

~

landslide co= plex-is that the postulated landslide = ass and headscarp.

~

area have been greatly codified by erosion. This has served to stabili e the tass in several ways.

First, erosion channels which dissect the slide

= ass provide for ef ficient drain:ge cf tlIc niide dabris.

The develeprent of an efficient drainage system en the surface of the slide minimizes

- 24 _

infiltratien of water durlag concentrated winter raf ts.

This enhances the relative stability of the = ass because (1) reduction of strength due to pore water pressures within the landslide = ass is minimized and (2) the weight of water contributing to the driving force is =ini=ized.

Second, the deep erosion channels observed on the slide mass also indicate that much of the original landslide =aterial has been removed from the landslide cocplex.

This has resulted in a decrease of the potential static diiving force thereby enhancing relative stability.

Some of the =2terials creded from the slide = ass continue to be deposited as alluvial fans along the base of the hill frcnt and serve as a minor buttress fill to impede movecent of the slide.

Other evidence supporting the relative stability of the large landslide complex is the existence of the broad flat bench.

The postulated landslide co= plex is assuced to consist of one or several rotational block failures.

These types of failures often result in adjustacnts of slope profiles to form banches similar to those observed i.n.the landslide complex. E to h for=ation reduces the gravity driving force acting on the block thereby increasing relative stability.

Based upon the conditions listed above, we.believe that a rotational bicek failure mode is most reasonable for the postulated landslide complex and that the slopes have adjusted to enhance the relative sta.ility of the failure mass.

~

~

e e

e

1. hh-'NW*D6 m6e*

Wh 6e g

e ene

.m.

/

25

~

u 2.2.4 Staff post ton 3: sed on our evaluation of the available information, it is the staff's opinion that the hillside north of the CETR site is a landslide complex which has become stabilized. We consider. reactivation of the lendslide highly unlikely under the envirennental conditions anticipated during the life of the plant. Additional data regarding (1) hcadscurp boundaries, (2) lateral linits of the slide, (3) identification of slip surfaces and bedding within the slide mass, (4) age dating of ycungest offseg and (5) quantitative stability analyses will be rcquired to confir: the above conclusion during the detailed safety review f6r license renevel.

Furfi ial landsliding 2.3 15ny stall, shallow landslides occur in the hills northeast of GETR.

Y.ost of these surficial landslides include debris slides, bank caving and slu ping, and earthflows ' involving soil, celluvial deposits, and older landslide debris.

Shallow landslides of the types centiened are coc=on on moderate to steep slopes in the Coast Ranges. They generally occur or are reactivated during the winter conths when precipitation in the area is highest. Their for=ation cnd reactivation is influenced predo=inantly by (Earth Sciences Associates, 1978b):

(1) the degree of slope, (2) concentration of ~ precipitation, (3) thick-ness of soil and colluvial deposits, (4) drainage chara'eteristics of the surficial =sterials, and (5) receval of toe support.

~

O e

~

~

e 7.

9

.s..~.

+

~.

26 Tne licensee has stated that the largest of these failures hos a plan area of about 1 1/2 acres and a =sxime thickness on the order of 4 to 5 feet. In general, the s=all landslide deposits are less than about 5 feet thick but locally are reported to be as much as 20 feet thick or more.

The earthfins and debris slides are believed to fail episodically with.only =inor downhill =:ve=cn: during a given event. "ovement.is generally believed to be slow although short surges of a few tens of feet have been reported. Many earthflows stabili:e before reaching the base of the hillside on uhich they originate.

Minor slu= ping and ban!: caving are corron along the crerstcepened banks of poorly censolidated naterials such as these near the site. The r.nss of caterial invol"ed in these failu' ras is relatively small and slump debris i.; gradually vashed do.ra the channel during seascnal concentraticus of precipitation.

We crpect that these relatively.cinor slope prccesses will continue to be active in the hills northeast of GETR as long as present envirenrantal conditions persist. However, based on our review of surficial land-sliding in the area, it is the staf f's judge aent that it is highly unlikely that any of these failure c:sses will reach or pose a thred to the CETR.

ed

.. ~.

3.0 Seistolocv

' d.;

3.1 Seismic Design Basis The seismic design hazards for th: CETR site include vibratory ground motion, fault offset at the surf ace beneath the unit and vibratory ground motion combined with surface offs 2t caused by postulated move-ment on the Verona fa' ult.

The licensee has provided an evaluation of these design hazards in reports by EDAC (1976, 1977) and has provided additional supporting discussion in a repcrt by Earth sciences I,ssociates (1978d). The staf f has reviewed these reports and has taken account of the analyses and conclusions contained in them in the preparation of this testimony.

This testinony is concerned with an cva*.uation of the nature and magnitude of the hazards of faulting and gracnd nation at the site.

3.2 Vibratory Creund Motion

.The CETR site is located in a complex fault envirennent 2.3 kilometers cast of the Calaveras fault, dicecity over the projected surface trace of the postulated Verona fault and within 3 kilometers of the Las Positas fault. The licensee's evaluation of vibratory ground motion at the GETR site is given in EDAC (1976 and 1977). The evaluation considered both recurrence probabilities of earthquake intensity at the site and =cximum carthquakes on the San Andreas,. Hayward and Calaveras faults (EDAC,1976).

Tha licensee concluded that a value of horizontal ground acceleration of 0.56 g is the appropriate effedtive value to be used to scalc Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra as the scis=le design basis vibratory ground notion

at the GETR site.

This conclus en is based in part on an a:sumed a>.!vua carthquake of magnitude 6.5 on the Calaveras fault.

In a later report the licensce adopted a seismic design basis vibratory ground motion described by a response spectrum having the shape of Regulatory Guide 1.60, but with amplification factors sceled to 0.8g for the GETR site (EDAC, 1977). This design basis was put forward by the licensee in response to preliminary indications of the level of conservatism that might be acceptable to the NRC staff and consultants. The licensee continues, houcver, to support 0.56g as being the proper reference acceleration for the site and considers this value to properly reflect the vibratory ground motion hazard there.

1.'e consider that the potential earthquakes sources that are important in assessing the vibratory ground motion hazard at the GETR site are the Calaveras fault, the Las Positas fault and the Verona fault. Max-imum carthquakes for these fcults would have magnitudes of 7 to 7' 1/2, 6 to 6 1/2 and 6 to 6 1/2, respectively.

A magnitude 7 to 71/2 earth-quake is estimated for the Calaveras fault.

Strike-slip faults sub-sidiary to and connecred to the San Andreas fault have generated max-imum carthquakes of magnitude about.7 to 7 1/2 based on the data of Coffman and Von Uake-(1973).

As previousl'y discussed in the geology section, the proposed Verona fault can be presumed to exist beyond the bounds of the area mapped by Ucrd and to merce with tha Calaveras fault.

This assumption yields a total lengt.h of about 12 kilometers.

Until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming, it must be presumed that the

29 -

Verona fault is structur:11y connceted to larger faults, and that a

major portion and possibly all of the 12 kilometers length could rupture during a single earthquake.

It is our conclusion, therefore, that the San Fernando earthquake of 1971 could be considered as an carthquake s1=ilar in size to a potential event on the proposed Verona fault. A larger earthquake (magnitude 8 to 81/2) could occur on the main San Andrcas fault, but due to its distance from the GETR site, approximately 50 kilometers, such an event would result in less serious ground motion at the site than could be caused by the potential events described above.

The GETR site is located 2.3 kilometers east of the Calaveras fault, about 3 kiloreters west of the Las Positas fault and uithin the fault one of the postulated Verona fault.

The level of grour.d motion hazard from the Las Positas is enveloped uithin the ground motion hazard f rom the Calaveras fault since the maximum expected earthquake on the Las Positas fault is less thsn that on the Calaveras fault and it is more distant from the GETR site.

Similarly, ground motion from the postulated Verona should be within that from the Calaveras fault.

The GETR site is within the near source region of both faults where attenuation of source energy is considered negligible. The vibratory ground moti

.t hazard at the site can therefore, be considered to result from a magnitude 7 to 7 1/2 carthquake on the Calaveras fault.

Numerous complexiities are involved 'in estimating carthquake ground motions as a site.

At distances greater than about 20 kilometers from the carthquake source, a fairly larga se: of observaticual data exists At distances closer to the source, however, the observatinnal data Oct

=4-eep

.ee ewe.

w

- = = =.

e--*

-w-4+--

+e=

i

- is relatively small. There is, in fact, a vir.tual absence of records of strong ground motion for locations close to large earthquake sources.

Any estimate of free-field ground motion at the GETR site must, therefore, b'c considered an extrapolation of data rather than supported by direct observations.

Simple source theory indicates tha't peak acceleration near the causative fault may be proportional ~to the stress conditions and rock physical. properties at the source, possibly independent of carthquake magnitude (see for example Brune, 1970). Limited cbservational data tend to support these theoretical results (Hankc and Jenhsen, 1976).

Duration of motion, including duration of high peahs is, however, a function of carthquake magnitude or source size.

The level and duration of acceleration near an carthquake scurce have been evaluated baced on the available data by Page and others (1972).

Their study indicates that -peak horizontal near-scurce acceleration for a nagnitude 7 to 71/2 earthquake could exceed lg and that the total duration of strong motion could be between 25 and 40 seconds.

The staff considers these values appropriate for_ describing the vibratory ground motion hazard at the GETR site due to a magnitude 7 to 71/2 earthquake centered on the Calaveras fault ar a distance of 2.3 kiloccters.

Ee'cause. of the potential presence of the Verona fault beneath.the site, combined), loading must be considered frcm both surface offset and the peaks of vibratory ground motion.

While it is possible that the peaks of strong ground motion nay subside prior to the onset of curface rupturing, it is our conclusion that these two hinde o*f free-field ground r tion o

3

• =w w.

.-..=*. -. = - = - -

.w-

.e

must be treated sicultanceusly be:ause of our incbi'ity to forecast the cource area of radiatad peaks of scistic energy, the possible interaction among the faults near and under the site, and the virtual absence of strong motion records in such proximity to potential source areas for large earthquakes. Hanks (1974), for example, considered, based on.the strong motion record written by'the 1971 San Fernando earthquake at Pacoima Dam, that the breakout phase indicative of near-surface rupturing occurred during the time interval of the strongest ground motien.

The licensee argues (Earth Sciences Associetcs, 1978d) that strong ground motion will travel at shear-wave velocity and that rupture will propagate at about 70 percent of shear-wave velocity.

Eccause of this velocity differcatial there would be a delay time at the site of several seconds between the arrival of the strcng motion and the propagating rupture. L'hile these' assumptions are not unrescenable, there exist many hneertainities such as those described above not encompassed by this line of reasoning.

It is our conclusion that suf ficient justification does not exist for separating in tinc the effects of streng ground motion and of f sets of surface rupturing.

G e

O 4

4 g

me a

emaw mh=.

ew.

g-.e

=, e memm +

e

REFERENCES

/.nderson, D.

L., 1971, ~he San Andreas Tault, Scientific !.nericen, V. 255, No. 5, pp. 53-66.

Earrous, A. G., Kahle, J. E., Weber, F. H., Jr., and Saul, R. B.,

1973,Ibp of Surface Breaks Resulting from the San Fernando California, Earthquake of February 9,1971; in San Fernando, California Earthquake of February 9,1971, U. S. Department of col =erce, Wa'shington, D. C.

Eolt, B.

A.,

Stifier, J.,

and Uhrhammer, R.,

1977, The Briones Hills

' Earthquake Swarm of January 8,1977, Contra Costa County, California

'Eull. Seism. Soc. America, V. 67, No. 6, pp.1555-1564.

Ecnilla, M.

G.,

Buchanan, J.

M.,

Castle, R.

O.,

Clark. M.

M.,

Fri aell, V. A., Gulliver, R. M., Miller, F. K., Pinkerton, J. P., Rcss, D. C.,

' Sharp, R. V., Yerkes, R. F., Ziony, J. I.,1971, Surface Faulting in the San Fernando, C tlifornia Earthquake, February 9,1971, Geological Survey Professional Paper 733, U. S. Geological Survey -

and National Oceanic and Atacspheric Adninistration, U. S. Departr.cnt of Interior U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.

C., p. 55-76.

Brune, J.

N., 1970, Tectonic Stress and the Spectra of Seismic Shear Uaves from Earthquakes, Journal of Gecphysical Research, Vol. 75, No.

26, pp. 4997-5009.

Burkland and Associates,1975, Geologic and Seiscic lia:ards Invertigatien, Propcsed Restaurtnt end Of fice Recodcling Site for :::. Vic Lu.-d.

Jr., Prepared for City of Pleasanton, 27 p.

California Department of Water Lcaources,1966, Final Geologic Report o.n the Construction of La Costa and Mission Tunnel, DWR, Div. of Design and Construction, Project Geology Report C-10.

Carpenter, D. W., 1977, Geologic Investigations for 'Sster Plan Formulation, Santa Rita Property, Prepared for Alc eda County Board Supervisors, 17 p.

Coffman, J. L., and Von Hake, C. A.,1973, Earthquake History of the U.

S., U. S. Dept. of Com=erce (NOAA), Publication 41-1, 208 p.

Earth Sciences. Associates,1975, Fault Investigation, Library Addition, Amador Valley High School, Pleasanton, California, Prepared for Amador Valley Joint Union High School District, 10 p.

Earth Sciences Associates, 197Ca, Geologic Investigation General Electric Test Reactor Vallecitos, California (Preliminary); Frepared for General Electric Co., Ples'santon, California.

Earth Sciences Associates, 1978b, Geologic Investigation General Electric Test Reactor Vallecitos, California; Prepared for General Electric Co., Pleasanton, California.

Earth Sciences Associatec,197Cc, Geologic Investigation Gcneral Electric Test Reactor Vallecitos, California, Addendut 1; Prepared for General Electric Co., Pleasanton, California.

2 Esr:h Sciences Asrociates, 197Sd, Ceologie Evaluations of GETP.

Structural Design Criteria, Prepared for General 1:lectric Co.,

Pleascuton, California.

Earth Sciences Associates,1978c, Landslide Stability General Electric Test Reactor Site, Vallecitos, California, Prepared for General Electric Co., Plansanton, California.

Engineering Decision Analysis Corpany, Inc.,1976, Evaluation of General Electric Test Reactor for Operating Environmental, and Postulated Accident Conditions, Criteria and Bases Sur ary for Structures, Pip.ing Systeps, and Cor.:ponents; Report for General Electric Co., San Jose, California.

Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Inc., 1977, Seiscic Criteria and Basis for Structural Ana]ysis of Reactor Building, Attachment.1; Prepared for Gancral Electric Co., Pleasantor, Ca lifo rni s.

Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Inc.,1978, Detertination of Vibratory Loads to be Combined with Fault Displacements Loads; Prepared for General Electric Co., Picasanton, California.

General Electric Co., 1977, Respcnse to NRC Order to Shou suse Dated 10/24/77; General Electric Co., Vallecitos Nuclear Center, Pl ea sa n ton, California.

Hall, C. A., Jr.,1958, Geology and Paleontology of the Pleasanton Area, Alameda and Control Costa Countics, California, Calif. Univ.

Pubs. Geol. Sci., v'.

34,.No. 1, 63 p.

Hanks, T.

C., 1974, The Faulting Mcchtnism of the San ?crnando Earthquake Jcurnal Geophysical Research, Vol. 79, No. 8, pp 1215-1229.

Hanks, T.

C., and D. Johnson, 1976, Geophysical Assessment of Peak Accelerations Eull. Seism. Soc. A=er., Vol 66, p. 959.

Herd, b. G.,1977, Geologic Map of the Las Positas, Greenville and Verona Faults, Eastern Alameda County, California, USGS Open-File Ecport 77-689, 25 p.

Judd Hull and Associates, 1977, Geologic Investigation for Proposed Civic Center Additions, Plcasanton, California, Prepared for City of Pleasanton, California, 24 p.

Lee, W. H. K., M. S. _Eaton, and E. E. Brabb,1971, The Earthquake Sequence

~

~

Near Danville, California,1970, Bull. Scism. ~ Soc. Am. V.

61, p. 1771-1794.

Page, R. A., Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Coulter, H. W.,1972, Ground Motion Values for Use in the Scismic Design of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System, U. S. Ceological c.urvey Circular 672, pp. 23.

+ ummesa ese -- - -= =

=>ee

=,em.m-ee.m.

- = - -

-oa emme

Princa, W. S.,1957, Earthquake Cencir'er tions et Preposed CtT?

Site, Ccner..1 Electric Ccepany Atocic Power Equiprcnt Departnant Etport, CFAP "o. 1050.

Rndbruch, D.

H., 1968, New Evidence of Historic Feult Activity in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties, California, i' Dickinson, W.

R., and Grant =, Arthur, eds., Proceedings of conierence on geologic proble=s of San Andreas. fault system: Stanford Univ. Pubs. Geol. Soc., V. 11, p. 46-54.

Rogers, T. H. and R. D. Nason, 1971, Active Fault Displacc= ant on the Calaveras Fault Zone at Hollister, California, Scismol. Soc. America, Bull., V. 61, Fo. 2, pp. 399-416.

Simila, G. and Goterville, N. 1978, Seis=icity of the Livermore Valley, California Resion (Abstract), Earthquake "otes Vol. 49, p. 27.

Slcrmons, D.

B., 1977, State-of-the-Art for Assossing Earthquake Encares in the United States Report 6, Misc. Paper S-73-1, United States f.rcy Corps of Engineers,I?aterwcys Experiment Station, '.'ichsburg, Missiscippi, May 1977.

Sicsson, J. E.,1974, State of California, Special Studies Zones, Dublin Quadrangle, California Division of Mines and Geelogy, Sacrzrento, California.

TERA Corporation, Inc.,1977, D.rsf t Saismic Risk Analysis for General E1.cctric "uclear Center, Pleasanton, California; Prepared for General Electric Co., Picasanton, California.

Thatcher, Wayne, 1975, Strain Accumulation of the Northern San Andreas Fa~ ult Zone since 1906, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 80, No. 35 pp. 4873-4380.

URS/ John A. Blunt pasociates, Engineers, 1973a, Seismic and Geologic Investigations for the General Electric Test Reactor Facility, Report for General Electric Co., Vallecitos Nuclear Center, Pleasanton, California.

URS/ John A. Blure Associates, Engineers,1973b, Scisnic Anclysis of the Reactor Building for the General Electric T.est Reactor Facility; Report for General Electric Co., Vallecitos Nuclear Center, Pleasan;on, California.

e e

e 6

. ~..

/' gas aesq*

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.'

I j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 t E'A.6. [y/

CCT 2 7 sys

%, v -

o...*

.T ORAIOCM TOR:

J. Carl Stepp, Chief Geosciences Branch, DSZ FRCH:

J. T. Greeves, Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Section Geosciences Branch, DSI R. E. ' Jackson, Leader Geology and Seis= ology Section Geosciences Branch, DSI SU3 JECT:

SITE 71 SIT - VALLECITOS NUCI. EAR CINT!* (CETR)

OCOBER 17, 1978 on Oc:cber 17, 1973, ve, our advisors, :he USGS, and our consultant, Dr. David Sle _.ons net with esprue :atives of the General Electric Cc=pany (GE) and their consultants to =ake preli=1 nary observations of trench excavatiens at the site. Also participating in this si:e visit were staff me=bers of the California Division of Id.ines and Geology (2C), a cr nsul:act :o the Advisory Co= sit:ee on Reactor Safeguards, and personnel fron the NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (!C'.SS). A list of attendees is attached.

Also at;tached is. nap of the approx 1= ate trench locatiens. At a brief crgani:acional =seting we indicated that the purpose of th:.s visit was to =ake prei"-dnary observations of the ongoing site investigations which had been proposed by GE and were the subject of an August 24,1978 eeting (Memorandus, R. E. Jackson to J. C. Stepp, September 6,1978). Since noce of the trench excava-ioas were completely logged and some detail was nissing, we indica:ed that we would like to visi: trenches 3, E and A during this visit. Later in the day ve decided, however, to visit trench D.

The rest of the day was spent visiting the relevant trenches vi h soma discussion of the interpretatien of featuras observed in those

'crenches. The discussions were open and interactive yet, bec.anse of the pre 11=1sary nature of the loggfsg, no final cenclusions or consensus opinions were reached.

Trench 3 which is located i==ediately :o the vert of CETR confi:med the existence of the large hrust offsets obse:ved in trenches 1 and I in he fall of 1977. In addition, relatively young soil uni:s appeared :o be offset by this move =ent but detailed logging and age dating at this locale has not been co=pleted. Trench 3 also indicated the presence of

2 J. Carl Stapp g 7

.i buried stream channel in the approxt=ste area of an observed airphoto linear. The southwest extension of trench B, which had not Suen logged, showed an apparent thrust or reverse fault offset in the approx 1= ate location of another airphoto linear. GE is currently logging tht: trench and has excavated nu=erous parallel trenches for the purpose of.tracicg this apparent fault. We vill enMne these trenches in detail during our next site visit.

Trench E is located to the vest of GETR sear Pleasancon, Califo:mia.

Logging' of this trench was about 50% co=pleted. This trench was originally considered as a contingency trench to trench C.

Trench C has not been excavated due to inability to gain access to the rivate property at its proposed location. Extensive discussions took place at trench E relating to whether or not it was founded in Livernere gravel units or younger alluvial-colluvial deposits. A nunbar of buried stream channel deposits were also noted in this exposure.

Trench A is an extensive backhoe trench approni=ately 2200 feet long located to the east of GETR. A nu=ber of possible shear or possible f ault offset areas were identified and further detailed logging in these areas was discussed. At approx 1=ately the 1245 f t.

narkar an area of deep weathered colluvial =acerial was intersected. Logging

~

of this sectien was not completed and only mini =al viewing was accocplished due to prcblet:s of trench caving and sloughing. GE indicated that further excavation vould be undertaken in this area.

Trench D, in the postulated landslide backscarp area on the hillside to the north of GETR was visited enl by some of individuals during the site visit. These individuals were:

Mr. Dwight Gilliland, GE Dr. David Sle=nens, USNRC Consultant Dr. Robert Jackson, USNRC Dr. Darrell Herd, USGS Dr. Eari 3rabb, USGS Mr. Robert Merris, USGS Mr. Salen Rice, C::MG Approx 1=ately 500-600 feet of exposure has been axcavated in this crea but no logging had been done. Continuous sand and gravel were observed to dip about 10 degrees north. No nor=al faults or pull-away structures were observed at this location. As a result of not discovering such structures at this locality, GE has proceeded to excavate a nu=ber of additional trenches in this headscarp area.

OCT

~ D78 J. Carl Stepp 3

During the visit, Mr. John Greeves visited trench 3 and a nu=ber of trench s within the postulated landslide ce= plex which were not logged. As noted above, large offsets occur and have been logged in the north end of trench 3 at :he toe of the hillside. Exa inatien of a nu=ber of shallev trenches (unlegged) uphill frc= trench B and vi:hin the postulated landslide co= plex did not indicate offsets or pull apart features which couId explain the large offsets a: :he toe of the. hillside. A few anc=alous features A.ipping 20-25 degrees and

he s=all headscarp of a recent surficial slide were observed. General discussion during :hese cbser 'acicus included the need for e=phasis on locating the backscarp surface of rupture; deter =inatien of the shear strength of =aterial along the failure plane, and deter =inatics of groundwater condi: ions.

Folleving the field visit, a brief su== arf zeeting was held. We indica:ed that we would be censidering recc=endations : hat we could provide :o GE as a result of our visit and would previde these re-cc==endaciens as soon as pessible. We noted that as a resul: of :he preper y access problen associated with :rench C and the discoveries during the ongoing progra=, GI has expanded the investigatien progra=

preposed during August. We also indicatad that until a =ain scarp and associated surface of rupture are located for the capped landslide ce= plex, tha: detailed stability analysis is of questienable value although seca limi:ed sa=pling and testing of =rterials nea: the

=apped ce are suggested. GE indicated that seis=ic reflection and refraction data vould be availabla in the nex: few weeks. We indicated that this infor=ation should b4 interpreted and for= ally sub=1t:ed for review. In su==atien we indicated that GE had underraken an extensive program :o reselse ou: standing questions and that a two day si:e visit would be tentatively scheduled for the Nove=ber 14, 15, 16 ti=e fra=e.

g.c., -

. wh

. E. Jacks Leader Geology and.Seis= ology Saction geosciend s Branch n

c e/

/ /Il h "

John T. Greeves, Geotechnical 2ngineer f Gentechnical Engineering See:1cn j

Geosciences 3 ranch, DSE At tach =ents :

As s:nted cc: See nez. page

OCT 2 7 yyg J. Carl Stepp.

4 cc: w/ enclosures R. OcYoung V. Stello B. Cri=es T. Carter D. Eisenhut D. Zie= ann T. Ippolito J. Hanchatt R. Kratske P. Check G. Lanis G. Knighton R. Ingram OISE (d)

R. Fraley, ACRS (16)

J. Stepp D. Swanson R. Savio E. Igne R. Jackson D. Muller J. Kelleher R. Denise J. Greeves J. Devine, USGS D. Herd, USGS R. Morris, USGS J. Davis, CDMG P. Ami=oto, CDMG PDR Local PDR L. Wighc, TERA D. Bernreuter, LLL

List of Attendees John Greeves USNRC/GB Robert Jackson USNRC/C3 Chris Nelson USNRC/FM Dan Swanson USNRC/0 ELD Robert Kratzke USNRC/NMSS Don Sternberg USNRC/I&E II Allen Johnson USNRC/I&E II Darrell Herd USGS Robert Morris USGS Earl 3rabb USGS Burt 'Sle= ens Univ. of Nevada Doug Haggatt GE Norn Fifer GE Ed Firestone GE Ton Crawford GE Dwight Gilliland GE Robert Darnitzel GE Glenn Barlow F0E Doug Tadon ESA Kent Mcitillan ESA John Baltrini ESA Bob Wright ESA

~

Julio Valera ESA Dick Willingha=

ESA Dick Harding ESA Niles Severy TERA Roy Shlenon ESA Ccusultant Ron Mack Ar=ador H. S. District Don Rathjen Ar=ador H. S. District Salen Rice CDMG Richard.Kilbourne CDMG Elgar Stevens CDMG George Thonpson ACRS Consultant

[ d,M 2 [-- k>4

% C @ D W,c.] " "~_~p

..E FGQ:.-,

s.

n,,7 -

c/

~~25

.f

-f'~

~=

Oh

? \\

' ffk'jhkh f fa

-reh, r

'/

{

^

7 e.g. $,4 - Ad.d w

gp N '

3'g\\

g+[kh,y.-

~ S' sk o

~

%p> r *?.nl's,i ',..

AJ' N.

,7 me

~,. p.

i.e i

~

..x

+

~.

~

v M. : E S. 77

/ h.) M h ~..

$f' "' [: [ bh

%.I.2

~ ' ' ' $-

_N :

f%.

?

g

~

.,3

t. ' 4,..

.N r.

g. @g, v+e.+

+

iY e

/

__p.-

a++:,~

.... t~a a,

,.m

~ Q-a

-. ~., y., ;-.

7

- p.

s, li

-pgg l

3

N

% @,i f i

}

'y 7

f '.

O y

yg

'j

! k 11, g'

f

-h_p eggpg 9

Fy. m, ",

C

=:

9

' tf

~:

. l.

?.S%']M'ET '-C.'_.O %

6

'e..

-7 t

kQ j,, w' i,.f.-y;., -

r b

diD-a.

a b,f-em

.w

. \\. G3 g..

<l-o

~~s

"~D '~ A.:.) )., - 8 Dp2:

.hk %

~

i;t m l';,; *

< iE

.m e cc.

> p,:

x =q 2 :; 3..; %). 'tN._

a=

2;g52.g, 3-

/

. r-

.-r-y

~

. - \\ i:x.. u. - ^,

=

ao =

/

n..

~

n

.., 4 '

..?'x. '

1^

-[

- Bs..w' e., b c:

y

.,e

-m :

f.

':7..

~

m. ~. c L.

v:

.xc~

Q. >..

~..

=m y.?

M

.!-;ruy%Y!.$.kg2.

't.

u.

s U[.'

j

.. ~. -

'Hk

% O. 'tr

' Y,.f. j..'.\\k.

5:

'Q v.h,

. c

../

v%

% z.

>y

'... Jc,-

gL 1

~

O

\\ '.s n.

.... g;.., s z.,.

s,..g 8...

y:

g,

g....'. ' n/

.e' UNITEo STATES

[,

.. t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION fh

[$

WALHINGTON. D. C. 20555

',Uk/ l ts,

• y DEC 1 3 1978

• +++*

MEMOPANDUM FOR:

J. Carl Stepo, Chief Geosciences Branch, DSE FROM:

R. E. Jackson, Leader Geology and Seismology Section Geosciences Branch, DSE J. T. Greeves, Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Section Geosciences Branch, DSE

SUBJECT:

T2TE VISIT - VALLECITOS NUCLEAR CENTER (CETR) - DECEMBER S and 6, 1978 On December 5 and 6, 1978 we, our advisors, the USGS, and our consultant, Dr. David Sle= mons met with representatives of the General Electric Company (GE) and their consultants to make observations of trench excavations at the site.

Also participating in the site visit were staff members of the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), a consultant to the Advisory Co==ittee on Reactor Safeguards, personnel from the NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and th'eir consultants, TERA Corporation. A list of attendees is attached. General Electric Company consultants provided a 1 1/2 hour presentation of the work they have accomplished to date with their preliminary interpretation.

Numerous questions were raised and discussed during the meeting relating to those interpretations.

The remainder of the two days was spent visiting the trenches with extensive discussion of the interpretation of features observed in those trenches. A great deal of discussion revolved about interpretations of soil horizons, th-ir ages, and offset of these horizons.

J. Carl 5:eer.r.-. -

..J

_ 9 1

w.

s.. J..

d.. ;

1. s

~.... u. e.e

• .I,

e, _ 9,

• u.. s.

=ws.C; 3

....... 2

...e.

..C....

w

..c u g.:...

,:. u. e.

.. g ;< ;*.., a g,* q *. O

.u u

u.

6;-

-g 9

t.

c..

"'8 v.

r*

- -, ' S 4.. n.,f e.. S G ec.4 1

o.

4.

0....u v.-.*

...?.

3.

'--A-C'-

r*v-6

'r**3*

.s. c... o..c 4.'y 1...e.c.

c..

-1.,

. s 9.

. c.. e i. r,..

k.co.gwe.,

.6.g a-.

s

• .tSe.'.a y

.e.. a... ;

a..

.....w..e5

,e... :. 3 ' 1... C D.. :.c...u......

..a.

..a.

......c.

p ".. vn.. -e.C}7 *Q_*oQ a0 eE6$ eg

• • • g U*...a 1

r e - -. -a a- -

o'

.u

.u.ne.

.aol. Q.:.:Se.S..e.e a.96SO CDSE...eC in

.u..e

... c.. C a.. e.e.

~

a 3a

- _ s.

. u..... g u.. A 3, G 1 4;..

a u. S :. a. :.4...

. u

..j

..... u.. e 5

,=e c..

ne.

v..,n

.S

...vo

..s...

.s c.

'. O u~,~ ***w"'.",

v" = 0

.'.'..'w'. '. '. e # C *. G.* ** ***S **'s**.'.'1**.*.'.

'..'..=.'.=u***.*y'

~

ye

. s

1... e a t.1.e 5 aa S w.._. e. c.. o. v...

4ec.

. c V,.. c.1

., w,.

1

e s..... e,

.o

...c.

k 4

.:. u. e.-.-..

C e C SQ

.4.

.e.,-.

m.:. a. e a. e

.,..C,eS.

s.< n.e..w.

v

... w '... e., X.:._. :..,

('.. C.

.c

. e 3...

4 S 2,

n.w....a

.aJ..1

.c.:...

6.

we.c f..

1

~

.e....=w.

?..-.S'.'.A*.'

... ' *

• e '.'. ~ ~. 2. .#.# ~ e *..~ ' * '. '. -. = -

'r-.-

ec a

u..e; f..

4.:..'.y

,... u,. c.

..c...n.

.n : :

sea.,;

.u. CSS

. c. n....c...

s..we5

.w,.4.nC

.s

.c2'.,

.,.C...c.

C :. ;;m.. u. c. k.. :.

A. m..<

e. w n. u. e O.. u. e 2 2.. ~. u.4 c

. v.

n

.J

..y

.. u.

a.. e 5

,e_1 C.

S.. : /. e

.O

. u., e.

., n.. %.. e.

. e.

..,..w...,_.:,

s

...w 6.

..w..

... nu

..:.,..-e--c--u

.'U

.u,

.....u..

-w

--e.

s, "r-

" S

'*Y.*.'.*.w=.=...

..w

's c*.'. ' ~. e *

1. j w"'.'.'..."*.?.'.

.= C '. ^.c 'a

... * > =.

. n.. u. 9..

u.

".. C u,...c s :. :..

u. g. p :.

. e g.: u.1.,.. u.... g. : g. 1 c :..: c c...

....,. m. s. a.

gw.

~.ae,

a1:_:...y

~...:.,......

~,

2, ena

1. a'.

s-

.. e. n u.. e a ~a, e

w r

m...

....=2 w,.e s..:,..

w

,. *...i.t, O.

c. u.

... eU

_./ V..

c..C s/

.. - 2:

e...

.c,...,

..cc.

a w

. u. u.. t,.

: c. e.. e.

. k. C.

, C... k.,

.s.

v...

v

.... c C,..

. c. ;.. e.. u.. o..g r_.,

.:_a.

C

..e

..s...

s

..<. u,. c S;.,

.C. a C.:

m

+

.e..e

. y w. < ;

I

$;-. e..n u.g g g.. f

=s _ J'. ~. ~. a.... u.. e.e u...=.

• ~

u.

1 w.

s...

.. g a..

., '.. - <.C

....j

1. w'. ".

...L,

.E :A C :. :.., C: u.. *

2.,... :...

o.=

.~-

~,

-s.

.a.

a.

.a.

.)

a

.s:

.... e. u.. c.......

...4.=

.... woc.

.. w... u,.c e. O:.nt s....

..a.

.u.e 18 O.:

.y.

.4c

..e

..c..

..e.

e n....e

..,: e.:0S.

..:.1

. u..., S e.

.se...

...ac e

s oe....c

...u

. u.. a,

.w.c.

..:c.

.1..,.

,. u. c c

.

u.. a...:.

=.3.

m,.......n.-.

..e..:..: k. '. z,.

c. g.c.e 7

a.#.3.e. e.

o.c. u. e s e 3 g.1.3 r o l d g.i g. e.J.+. e y. u a k 1."j D e 4.~..

". '.'

• e.C S a'.#

s w

.e...s....

1.

. S. e.

3w

.e.. C.

3. a

u. e

.O. e c,

u..,..e t..., e u...e..

.9,c. _ s v.

.cs T..

u w

w De Correlated 3CTOSS OneSe CI; Sets 30 prec1Se est1020e 0. 00:3.

C. #.* e *. O.* 1 C' '.#.# e ~. c- ~ '.

' #.#.# e '. e '.".' t C ^o 'w' * *- a*

C.#

O4.Se*.

C o* *.'. he "'Ve'o.

e.

Sge " Steri &lS 2 S Ob S e rve d.

c:.e e...,3.e ;.. c.1. }.

d...:.,

r,Ur UC..u.

a

. e.., i e ;. 3 r..

c1 u

...3 owsc.

ac

..c w

b.c.

ee...

Q4.3..4.. e r C ".. C 8. ".. *. *..'

• e C ^*

y i..c.i.

• ... ; g

u. g a ". n.

O.e-*V.

s v......

yr.

=

g a,

..n..s o

Sc'*.

O*

'. 7 e 5 0 '. '..

. ^*

• • e,.*....e-..*.

m.e 4.--

- -.. e.

s v

~

y w.

S.1.Ca..,w k:..

.a Dycw.4..S..

m.

r...e.,.e k. 1. E.,,..,

.e.

d

.e c

.w w.

.-~.t..c.e..

)

. yy

..ww....

\\.. C...

c... u.. w..

1.,w*

.. s.ma.g G.6

-s...

.....- :. A.; w... A * %.. s...

a.

...w a-C=

.< g..

,w..

..e 7..

.ne sS.:~e...;

% a.e - a.

a..

e O :

• a.

.... e

w. : S c *..

.ww c.

.e

......c.:

.a at.

s c

s;..

.-~2.:C.,

a.e.-

.n; 2,,.. e 1. C A.

a v n.

....,:. u.. e.

C.:

-3

2..:3., ;

C....... u...

y w.

te.e;.; e

-a%c.,.e y

.co n A.. g s.

~

T.

s.

w...;.eA.

s., C

.%.s...

....:._...~

.3a

..,S w

w.,

C.c e e.. u. e.

2as.,

,. u.. e.

~%,. c, C.4.: a. a.. S

e. X :..,a.e

.. 0,.;

4 0., r., s.

S w.

4

a. a.

.ac.

... us.6

(.y,, c..

,, <,, --..:...u.. :. C.u..

u.. s. C -

. ~;

.w

......c&

v.a.ws.

s

.. 3,.. E ".. C *. a.' ". #. )

w'. 2 " "y *. T.. ~ * *. e ' ';

e a. *..* u.* v* *. *

'y' '.' e.C e *.' *..

., p..

w

.s y

g..

:......aw

.,;. k. :

w c...,

%., a.

,.o...

. u.

ag..

.a.

a.

1 w.

n c. a.

1.

wry.c.a

.>.c.s:

a./ Vic..;.,

,:.a.e.c,

o. u. a.

r. T. a. C, Sw'..

. w, ;:.3 a.2

.u.

.. a.

.a

.~

a.e

.O.

O.: :.,.,...

..,.a..

S O

n. S

,e

., i,

,. y.... s.. t...:..

.C e

.,w 3..

... ca

.g

.....S.

.s.,

. L.c.

. b. o

. b.. E S -,w.

• b.... c..q =..

4..a..S..

v, 4 3.,1

.. w-

a..\\...;,. g " r.

b T*

• ..s3..

s

....w w.,

w.4 9

• )

~.%....S.

e.g

.. v..e.e....%..

....g

. *...y a

~.,,

7 w

.c e......

.g

..a.

.Ca.

.. a.-

4

.. a...,

Sc..

1 1

a. 7.., \\. :. 3.1

.e

3..

.s.ac m.....S

-L..5 C..-.e.

c-s..

.a

.. a...

4 s-.

4.

t..,.,

. 3. C..... c s.

.,.e.

r.

a. w, wE.

a01,

.,C.

,C..c

.. y

- e 1.,.-.

cw n.,

da..e.

4. : * : A. )-

,....q

s. e.,..w.c

..rS=.=..*.

s

e. ;.;. &. 6. C.,

,c

ua..

y.

4 wd..-...'

.s..;.C6 4,.,,,

. u. :..,

u.. w. c.

~;

.s w.e....

A

...e

..t a.i

.. b 2. b b, C e

...Cj

.Gw w.G.

w m, e..

.4iwV fCGe

%.J.C..*

.4

..... J

(;..

%. y *... -. k.. :.

.C',,... ;*..

,..,..ew 4

wT

.w

.,;,,e

• • %.. g.g C

. y y.... J

1..J g...e,..

....j

• J

-6E

...?*

A

,..J.

1.G..

G

..C.. J'.

...

..abC.

-...w

.. *.....e

.e g..

..w

". C y

.TwG..e

,.y.

2...c..

..;.....C..w.-

1. *...i.,

.w.+,

A m.

g e. 2

.'.et..

..A.

g..

... %. :.e 6.C&

wb.

L

.4

~

c..,.

4. e.1. S.

w.i n 4. J. S E E

m..J 4,.,..

1 e-w

..S

..e u..e.

c..s

... L.. b

.J a.

. b. 3

-". c.C 4..". w* 2 v" # *

.C'k..'*..*.*.**."'.t..

• b.*.*.'.**.

'..;..b..

4.;...e-3

...w a.

G v%~ S,..., 3. d :..,.

3

. s. 4,..e

1., 34 3.'. ". '...

e;

..c

. s. O., e 3..e t.

a e..

-'.s"

a.. w-.. h.

-..S 7,-

w...

S..a.ca.s a.

. C X ;.. e. c..

• 3 C..,

.,5

..s

...s Y.

G.. w k,.w...wG

.., 4

.b..,

.%. g

%..q e.., a..,.

J.=.,

.c.,.b.. *.$.

S*.C G.

c.e.

.k w

n

...S yyc..

.w

..e4

..n

. %.. C

..c

.E. *

~%..; Jh

.. e.. b..

.3 44

.w..g

..,.w.

..,.......L..-

..w

........ u.. - S. n:

s...

1. ; ;..

o 1-52 t

-.3 e. e w, e

.n,.

D..

.4 s.

6

.. g

.. w. c

-. ;S

1. a.. '.,. ;..

.e.

u

. u.. e

.wce,

~.;

w

a. s..,.. - e ;.

n. :.

.n :,.;........

.... L;

.O

..co.s.-

nw.,;..-.,e.

.. a 3 %...

-...a

u. o.m :aa;,..*,.

1 w.

.c..

.u v.

... u.. a.

..z..

sv.A

.s

.c.

'Ca*.*.*'.'*

O.*.* S E *. S C ' l..:

..n,..~.p.s.g

e...g

.. e S e ".

• e w.

..,..,.. og..g......g

,J

.w y

.w w

7 5..e.e

. G wEs.

4.. e,.,,., e. S. a O :. i. S s.o..., s. o..,.-

C C :. 2 4. e C k.).

.w

.....m.

.. wu s..

..w.4 4.4.

n.. C.. p c

.a. g D.,. w,'D c. 'D.... r, e.

G s. o. O.

C n.. n. b, 5

a K..

]

..w

...ww

.,S. ;w.. ~.

"."b.4 e S e.

o. J

4.....w......i...

a

... e c.

.C3e.

g.be..

k...e....M.<

(

8. -

O....*

.w

..e

i m..

a we..

.cfY e,.

s

...p.e..,

.(

..0.".~~.3.".

.'"i

• • '.5

~'.'.'c.~

1

.., ~~~.~.*.'.v'".

S.'.'"..*

ws y

e

%..u......,

'.'u...; e

.. g.. m u.

c..'.;.

.t.... c.a c. ; e.e.

w w.

a

.4.

.3e 3

.cf s.,

w.

c m;., 5 5. w 9 =..u.<.....

O.

...ae.

s..

a,.

C.w, e E..,, s.

.,.._kE.

wa r.

s*

..a.

.s -.

S.

/C 5 1

..,....,,..

~. y ;,. c ~. :.

. u...:3

,..e. w a... ;.,. w..

w.

-w.t......

....a t

. 4, e. e,..

.....a :. :~.......

.. e... a.

e..,....,>:.... - - y 1,.,

C - _ 7. '. c....

.a ow

.w

.y.

m..;. ;;;

.. u.. e.

I o.... u.... :.....

.,D.

~, C a.. E i,.

...c e.=4 2...c.:

.e a.....

w.

c.*

.e,. p a.,

. n e.......

....c

.. e. o. \\, a..,, a.

a........e

...aw

<e...

• - a, C 'a. :..c.c..

. u..... e...

..... : C e-l C : s a.. a S.

kes c.uw...

w..

w.

.s i v

,.. c.e c

Sp..... > c3 c.20 C.ec

.n.-. D e

..O

.. E,.,.

.e.

...S

.3..

5.

.,...,. c e w-

...c..

3..:,. F.g g :.; e e.

1 w'

...e

.a E.

u.

• .* 2 d.,x.E ~ e q..

6,.,2. ; C.. s c. ?.,

.1:

w a:

a s,

u...

w.

r c..**....1

., c.a.. k.. C. e c.. e. :.1 S

.,..=.C a s s e... g

. u.. c.....u.

a ct

..c u

e,-

..v...

O.

. u.. e.. 1. :.3.

.:. u.. t ~~-:

s.

1

. O.. u. s. t.e.

s

, t.. o u..

.~.e

.OC2 0;-

w sa

.....wa..

.v

...e v.

a.

....... u.. :.e w. S c...,, a

,k

,a

.a...e....

e...,,,. e n..e e a... C :.:.e E e.

u..e =... E

- u.. : e. =.

..,..e.

. u.. z. o u...p

.u..e..ES..

c. c. 9.

2:

u,.

.e

.e.. a :.

m

..c.

... a.' c us.:...a.

.a...

D;

......S a.e Cs e;.

u..

'.cv.

0.

..u.. :. C u.. u,. a. 5..

~

c..

a.:

s (c e.

.,..y,

.,a.,,...

.c. o....

..e.

.. :. e...

w5

..n.....:

i..

~

.w

.g,,

9s,; c...

f.

a.

..m..

.a.....

.....e.

3 e...,.

1..:

1

.12 4.

.e -,, e ew......a

. w o r. p.c.....

., u.

.w.o.

. C w. 2..:... u...

....y

- %. 1'.e,

.. c... u...

...... v w.e..

r. :

.L...3

.... L.. p e.

..C.

w...

..C

.......ca

.., u, c.

.g

.g n..

. 1...

..,.. <-.. _.. -........,*).

.s.

..w

-.e..

.w c.

%......".a 4... u. 4, e.

• '..Lc....

v..

; C e... ;

.u.....

4.... u. c.,

~"%.. c...VJ

.4

.t

.y C..w; m:. v. t.. w.......

....u.

~

-. u :.;.......

u..... ;w. g ).EuC --..aca.

O.

m. u.. C

,..e t.

.c.

.g....

c, e..e.

..c..-c e.

..a.

c...

p...

.,. C. g,.

...c..

.m f...

.w

.c 2...*.

.....e e.....

=.. :. a J.

.O a:....

c..%. C n e

%,. 3.4 0;. k. p

.e. :.2...

2 c o n c ;...;

• ... L. e.

.eJ c..-

o

....e. p,. r...r.-

S.... -.

L,.-.,. m. e

.,m.c.,,.....

2..

...=.. tc..

w.

...e.

w. w.. v,

a....~,;

. e n.p. g., a.

cy.w e>-

.O

. u.. : $.. E,... y

• e

--.n

. u.. c...-D.,

.s.u....

.. g g... g n..

y e. ?

3.

.........e

. s.,. w...

.....c.eS

...; ;. c. c.

.g.

cj,...:.

w..;e

u. e.. n. i. ;

.;:n.

2,..3.u

..u.

... u. c.

..,a..

o

,. n c.

.c

...3

.....w

.....w...w.

.:..c.

.. e.,. 1.; --..

.e

,. ;. u.... u. t

..e :

e :...a :

.c...a

. n -

e.

o u. ;,. S

.e :. a..

a...'

.e.t

. u.. t S. -... e.,

.n.

. u..,

.:..... c.J A

s 4l+/

J-Y /=.'

.'-E r ' --

jc

..J..

-.s O'D e,. e :

..u. S O,..,

ccu.

6 1

s.

.m

.C e-

.C..

.. c.

.s o..

c u.

us. C S C : 2,.. w. e S a

u

-.c.....C.,

p i h-n l

.ks. ' ',-

,O.. a.<...:

.:..e..

. C, e e,.,0 S s

- v

u..--

. sv

/

4 ac

.u.

.c r.....

.....:. e a.......q...:.......

G e., c a.a... : e =..

s

...m

~

o.

vemSC C.eaS

-..,..e.u..

.w

.....u.n=......

e..

s.-.

a.-

.a..-.c.

ss..e s..

a a.

. c. a )

)

w

>e

. +-

s

.. e b.

a..

s

.i

.w.

.a..;

t

~

...s

.s/..* 1..Ac.

m se d'L..

= -

--e

..c.

c. L *.1. m.

t+* e w-a i~,. ;

5 J..

C

.o

~

...c.

1 1.' : t

%,... e.

-e

.... w

~,

m.'E c..--

= ~. ~ v~.1 :.,

s e sJ b

...;4 C..c.....

7

.'...*,'t.c.

-e s.

• b.

,w.. % t.

e O....

b,. ;.

.e - :-.

.w.

.% e

.T

'./...;=..

e

.e s.. i..4

.e e

I~Je

' w*

, m. ;.

b.. =. w.

PVe

.r

%,* p '..z

e. -

=. ~... -

• .e....w n-e

%M j s. ei '

1. c. _ ;,* 7...*

e i

we q..

.we

.C... 3 m m..

.e..

w

".T'5

.?

. '?. q O.

e Gw...

d. 9. C.. :b.

1 i

a a

we

b... c. 't' d'.C w.

T a e, 6...a, wUw

=....

\\,J.e.. ; g b'.C *' C s...

4=

s-

".'}.

',.'.g.A,

.' ' C C

.J.

• ... %. %,. 0 R.C

~

)) *

~,..p;..e,.,

es o

.C..

s

.s..m...w..-

b = 7/.f

. v

)..

.-..n V. g

.w4 e

.4 O

y e 6.*Q 1-..w6 Y.

Q

./.

6.

e

$ 5..

3.....N 9 t.:.

se O. T; 0 LwCw.. w.s 9

E

9 e

1 >.. e..

.. '4 w. b e.. e

...b..

4 A,

.-Als

.L... g...... s. c. a.e bb 6 '

e.

• s. i, C.. ;... :.

..e.C..'.

t..

.m.......

• a=

,..se,

.,. Jr V.=.

m..s. t.%

p..

W.~c...C 1

4 Cw

..,t.

t/

c.e s. c.... ;.

a l. :..

s

.,.c m

.c 1

. S

..a....

==,4.,.-

s.

., e u e w..s.,:..e'.

.....g,.,

.. a..

I.*.

.C.

~..

w i

n.. c. '1.

,~>e n..

I' II "c.,.*..

• .., h k

. s..s w ff 4/.

J. $

5 e.'

g

. g a

..e.,

i.,.g..p g..

9...4 J.

..*m;...

.e is,.$....;.

..=9 It

.I J. *; ",.. k.

• • j a

.**=.

• w6ec,,--

.'" C

• 9 s. w _.4,/. 0 t

• • (*

'*....j..

"'.e '. g...

.w..

'l g..

O.,, ",. b.. w$. 4...

...J...

e'

.. a e

T.*.C *.** 7 *. : g sw M,....c..

Y G...

,.3,=.=

.a H

tg

,. =.,

• =..

.....G.

• d =.. ; 1

,,. c. w.. J. e

.'.w...'

._7

.g e

}gi*g

• 4..

O.

H

• • *,i J......A.

• ..-_3 A.<

• l l.

• • a.....em.m.,,

q..

M H

i..,,

C.

1*

,.3.'..-...

.. a s

C s...

• ..aw..

H ei e. w.. g.

.e i.

4

-.2 nw.r..S w.4 T. c.

. %...e r.w.L.....

. 2

.t

...re

• r H

w..'.%..,.#

H t'

.e..;

..3.

s* :

-or..-........-

.s..G tt n

.e

....w 9

.,6..

?

.,.,og 9

9

.c.

-.s;...;

......s

.w.".

't

• w.a

.s....C...a

.. L. s.;.

g..)..

.a*-

• e v w....

4.. a w r sc c.,..

--- :a-

,,,,...;C..

w-ww.

~.=..

w c,. :...

.....: s

v... a.

1 1..

pe.

a.

w.

U w... e :... w e... e O..: :. w a n

• ...s

. =.+..

.'<..,. q O..

v. c...

....C..

i..,... C S C.

.k...

...w

=c...c

.1 a*

H 81

• G. C'..J

.r

.1

. 4. g,*.

r

.w.

g*

'I II

• l' %. b

.f,* k.. D w 'b w. e; et u

r De U.e...'e o

• ..".e

']l., p q

(* e C. w

• m s)..

e...

f* a *.* :

Cs v 5y

.s'...... ie ';.

w

...e

.. =......

..c. 3

't

• ..." g e

? *.,3

.C 7.....

H C', 1.. ~

• '.:.u..,

gy gg

....m,.

.%..C.

w s.... C

(*. $. t...

..a...

7...

. b.. *. t. s -

'J.,

ww

. e} g "l...g. 4 '.**. J " q, $

.;E.G.A 1*

..%....J=..

'."..."9.g,,,

1

. w

,.,...:..w....

.s..,

.L

er

'.~c... T...-. : e c n )

...... w u.....,. x.,..

.~ -.

.3

• • .;. e

~

• ...g... w.....

.w...

.,".u..n...e, A'

I.

s.

".fq...a.

,,,..s...

".w...-..

.3...

y 4

.=

D A T E 08 DOC %WINT DAff REClivfD NO

1. Row p

James A. Dowd, Sr. Zoning Inv.

1/4/79 1/19/79 NRR-2743 t'a ute atre r o'-ta COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY x.

Of* *G CC 01Mta 10 llRDenton x

Aci.O.

ctssaa, a

co~cu ai~ct O

uo Actio=

cssuay O co--ta' O

.2/5/79 (L AL5er.,

Pubi 06 f act p egg copg.

Hif[ D DATE DE Sc#e sP T EON the Se Umlast+1dl Rf f ERRED TO DATE REQUEST FOR

\\

DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO RECENT 1/22/ 70 /

VSt414^K

/

GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION PERTINEN"

/

f/

TO IIEALTIl AND SAFETY, AND PARTI-P * * *N I

e,.oos.CULARLY REEATING TO STORACE T)F~

.//l-

/

s/1 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AT sj r.-

GETR EGCase g,

?

n r>,,n.. c h.

I, RBoyd t'

i #

RDeYoung RMattson

/

aty?c c c c pi e c e J.'.3 i' c : 1 ;L ' - *III ti*"

f or any rc;lY-A1;o a ciu.a O rld'~1 yellow contral ticket to Y'l.3cari (r.cn action co:pleted.

FORM N R C.32 6 5 U $ NUCLE AR REGUL ATORT (OMM*SSION s.

Mall CONTROL FORM

...,,,u