ML19331B549
| ML19331B549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1980 |
| From: | Mcmullen R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331B489 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-598, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8008120415 | |
| Download: ML19331B549 (7) | |
Text
,
s, O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC C0iPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 0,L.
)
50-323 0.L.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
)
Unit Nos. I and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD M. MCMULLEN Q.
By whom are you employed, and describe the nature of your work?
A.
I am a geologist employed by the Geoseismic Branch, Division of Engi-neering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Connission.
In my work as a geologist for the Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission Staff my duties generally include:
(1) the evaluation of geological aspects of sites for nuclear power generating facilities by analysis and interpretation of the geological data submitted to the NRC in support of applications for construction and operation of nuclear facilities bued on my experience and based on pertinent infomation in the geological literature; (2) development of criteria for review of the geological aspects of nuclear facility sites; and (3) acting as consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff on geologic engineering matters.
gg08190
1
. Q.
Would you detail your professional qualifications?
A.
A copy of my professional qualifications is attached. 11y professional qualifications were admitted as evidence in this proceeding following Tr. 8480 as part of my direct testimony in tne Diablo Canyon hearings conducted by the Atanic Safety and Licensing Board.
Q.
Would you summarize the scope of your testimony?
A.
This testimony is designed to respond to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's (Appeal Board) Question 9 set forth in the Appendix to pacific Gas and Electric Comoany (Diablo Canyon fluclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-598, Slip. Op. (June 24,1980). Basically, my I
testimony states that as a matter of conservative analysis for NRC review purposes the November 4,1927 Lompoc earthquake (M 7.3) is still assumed by the USGS to have occurred on the Hosgri Fault. However, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as an advisor to both the flRC and to the State of California for purposes of conservatism in' design of other facilities, such as the LNG facility to be located at Point Conception, California, in the Lompoc Fault area of California also assumes that the 1927 Lompoc earthquake may have occurred at a dif-ferent locality than assumed for the Diablo Canyon review. This assumption is due to the ambiguities with respect to the exact location of the 1927 Lompoc earthquake. By letter of July 29, 1980, attached to
s
. this testimony, the USGS confims that there is no change in its posi-tion regarding the Diablo Canyon Station as stated in its transmittal to the NRC, dated April 29, 1976. Thus, as stated in the USGS letter:
... no data in the LNG reports [for the Point Conception LNG site] provide a basis for the USGS to change our position regarding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Station as stated in our transmittal to NRC, dated April 29, 1976. Even though the LNG reports provide additional data there still remain ambi-guities in the location of the November 4,1927 earthquake.
These ambiguities require the conservative assumption that all candidate faults, such as the Hosgri and Lompoc faults, be considered as structures on which the earthquake could be located...."
Q.
Appeal Board Question 9 states:
In addition to answering our questions about infomation from the Imperial Valley earthquake, we would like the parties to address Paragraph E on page 6 of the McMullen affidavit (included with the Staff Response to Joint Intervenors' Motion to Peopen). That paragraph states that, "in its geologic and seismologic review of the Point Conception LNG site, the USGS reported that ' existing evidence favors asso-ciation of the 4 Nov.,1927 (M 7.3) Lompoc earthquake with an east dipping reverse fault such as the Offshore Lompoc or similar reverse fault 10 km to the south that offsets the seafloor '" Does this USGS statement reflect either evidence not presented in the Diablo Canyon hearing or a change in the USGS position based on evidence already in the record? In any event, discuss that statement's implications for this Case.
A.
The document from which the statement quoted in Appeal Board Question 9 was taken reflects information that was not presented at the Diablo Canyon hearings, as the work postdates the Diablo Canyon hearings.
It does not, however, represent a change in the USGS position as indicated in the attached letter dated July 29, 1980 from the USGS.
b J
c
' i Q.
Does it have an impact on the Diablo Canyon case?
A.
No.
Q.
Explain.
A.
The USGS position on this subject is summarized on page 8 of its report transmitted by April 29, 1976 letter to Rusche from Coulter (SER Supple-ment 4, May,1978 Appendix C), in which it states:
" Figure 1 shows that segments of the Hosgri fault zone, the Lompoc fault, Purisima fault, and Lion's Head fault occur within the error circle of Gawthrop and error ellipse of Engdahl for the 1927 earthquake. However, all of the faults are outside of the area designated by Smith as the ' inferred distribution of aftershock sequence of the 1927 earthquake.'
The 1927 earthquake, therefore, cannot be unequivocally located on any one of these faults. The Hosgri fault, however, is closer to the center of the estiaate of error than the other faults and, therefore, must be considered as a possible fault on which to locate the earthquake."
That position was reaffimed by the USGS witnesses during the ASLB hearings on January 10,1979 (Tr. 8194-11-22 and 8315,13-21). The witnesses were cross examined during this session about evidence that both supported the Hosgri as the possible source mechanism for the 1927 earthquake, and evidence that favored other faults as possible source mecnanisms (Tr. 3199, 18-25, 8231, 19-23, 8242, 4-22; 8307, 17-25; S308,1-18 3311, 2-25; and 3315-1-12).
i
. The LilG report (USGS,1980) is another piece of evidence favoring the occurrence of the subject earthquake on structures other than the Hosgri.
It, like the earlier data, however, do not rule out the Hosgri as a source for the 1927 Lompoc earthquake.
Q.
What is your conclusion with respect to the more recent geologic data?
A.
My conclusion is that the USGS statement cited in the McMullen affidavit of May 5,1980 does not impact the Diablo Canyon case because the source mechanism of the 1927 Lompoc earthquake remains equivocal, and for conservatism it must be assumed that it could have occurred on the Hosgri fault zone.
i l
b
- ~ _ __
RICHARD 3. MCMULLEN PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS GEOSCIENCES 3 RANCH DIVISION OF SITE SAsr u AND ENVIRCNMENTAL ANALYSIS NUCLEAR REGULAICRY CCMMISSICN I an a Senior Geologist in the Geosciences 3 ranch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Nuclear Regulatory Cocunission.
My present duties in this position include:
(1) the evaluation of geological l
aspects of sites for nuclear power generating facilities by analyzing and interpreting the geological data submitted to the NRC in supporr i
l of applications for construction and operation of nuclear facilities in light of my background and pertinent information in the geological
[
literature; (2) developing criteria; and (3) acting as consultant to the Regulatory staff on engineering and construction natters.
Af ter completion of three years in the Marine Corps I attended the University of Florida and graduated in 1959 with a 3.S. degree in Geology. During my professional employment, I have completed correspondence courses in soils engineering and quarrfing specscred by the Arny Engineer School at Ft. Selvoir, 7a., and short courses in the effects of ground notions en structures, airphoto interpreting, Place Tectonics, and Engineering Seismology". At the October 1968 internaticnal meeting of the Association of Engineering Geologists, I was co-author and speaker of a paper entitled " Investigations for a New Panama Canal." I also presented a paper at the March,1974 9th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Section of the Geolo5ical Society of America entitled " Geological Aspects of Evaluating Nuclear Power Plant Sites." I an a registered Geologist and Engineering Geologist in the State of California.
After graduation, I verked as a field geologist with the Corps of Engineers in Florida conducting field geological investigations for flood control structures, levees, canals, military installations, radar sites, and missile launching complexes. I evaluated and vroce reports concerning the stratigraphy, geologic structure, groundwater conditions, and foundation engineering aspects regarding these facilities in Florida and several of the West Indies Islands. In 1963 I was assigned to the Corps of Engineers Canaveral District Office at Cape Kennedy, Florida, first as a staff engineering geologist, and later as District Geologist. My duties were to assist in the planning, direction and the evaluation of the results of geological and foundation studies for nissile launch pads and associated facilities for the NASA Manned Lunar Landing Program, the Air Force and the Navy.
l l
I l
l l
l i
2 I acted as consultant to other govern =ent agencies and architectursl engineers in developing design features of structural foundations; monitored the performance of foundations during and after constructioni and recommended and nonitored necessary foundation treatment techniques such as vibraflotation, grouting, surcharging, devatoring and compaction. I wrote reports on the investigations, geology, foundation conditions and foundation construction activities regarding e'asse projects.
In 1967 and 1968 I spent 6 nonths and 1 month respectively participating in the geological investigations for preposed sea level canal routes in ? rama. n e region investigated consisted I
of complex structures of volcanics and folded and faulted sedimentary strata. Among the techniques employed in this study were field geologic napping, geophysical surveying, bore hole I
photography, and core borings. In 1968, I was transferred to the Huntsville, Alabama Corps of Engineers Division which was responsible j
for the siting, design and.constructior-of 15 to 20 (later reduced to 4) Safeguard antiballistic missile installations throughout the "nited States. My dueles were to participate in the site selection and site validation activities and in the planning and carrying out of geological and geocachnical investigations to develop foundation I also design parameters for construction of the missile complexes.
served as cachnica3 consultant during design and construction to other government agencias, architectural engineers, and contractors.
I have been a member of the Regulatory staff since January 1971 and have participated in licensing activites for at least twenty-five nuclear facilities including Summer, Nine-Mile Point, Washington Nuclear 2, Pebble Springs, and Indian Point. n ese activities consisted of review of the geological aspects of the sites as presented by applicants and usually an independent evaluation conducted by a review of the most pertinent literature, site visits, and conversations with i
knowledgeable individuals or agencies. I have previously castified as an expert witness on geological natters at the following proceedings:
McGuire Construction Permit (C?), and Cperating License (OL) Hearings; Callaway, CP; Indian Point 3 (OL), and Summer CF.
__,