ML19350C500
| ML19350C500 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1981 |
| From: | Devine T INTERIOR, DEPT. OF, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY |
| To: | Rolonda Jackson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104030428 | |
| Download: ML19350C500 (3) | |
Text
{ D
.L 4 5
y 7-7, I As 4,
o United States Department of the Interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESTON, VA. 22092 In Reply Refer To:
March 30, 1931 EGS-Mail Stop 106 Memorandum To:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief, Geosciences Branch, Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co::: mission From:
Assistant Director--Engineering Geology
Subject:
SONGS Interrogatories of March 9,1931 As promised by telephone on March 27, 1981, the following com=ents represent our (USGS) position on the questions for which you asked for our help.
Interrogatory No. 3 Do you contend that the Cristianitos Fault does not extend southward for a distance greater than 6000 feet offshore from its coastal expression?
Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 The USGS does not contend that the Cristianitos Fault (restricted use)
(see USGS letter of November 26, 1980, for a discussion of this definition) extends more than a mile offshore. The single fault located in the seacliff and mapped onshore as the Cristianitos Fault cannot be correlated with off-shore faults although several short, discontinuous fr.ults mapped at depth from seismic reflection profiles, and shown as fault :one "A" by Greene and Kennedy (1980a), may be associated with this fault.
Interrogatory No. 12 Is it your contention tha: the postulated rane of defor=ation which extends from the coastal exposure of the Cristianitos Fault toward the 0 D dies out before reaching the 0 D7 Answer to Interrogatory No. 12 This question cantains a dependent clause that is not accurate. Con-sequently, our answer must be in two parts. The USGS has not contended that it is a fact that the offshore "Cristianitos 2ne of Deformation" extends landward to the coastal exposure of the Cristianitos Fault. There are no data available to demonstrate that connection. As for the seaward extention of the "Cristianitos zone of Deformation," it is our contention that from the mapping of Greene and Kennedy (1980 b) the "Cristianitos :*one of Deformation" do 8104osoW B' g
2 continues to the area where it may merge or be truncated by the Offshore Zone of Deformation.
Interrogatory No. 13 Do you contend that there is not a structural relationship between the Cristianitos Fault and the OZD?
Answer to Interrogatory No. 13 As stated in our answers to interrogatories Nos. 3 and 12, the Cristianitos Fault cannot be correlated with the offshore faults but may be associated with several short, discontinuous faults mapped at depth from seismic reflection profiles. These offshore faults have been termed "Cristianitos Fault of Deformation" by Greene and Kennedy (1980b), and this zone may merge or be truncated by the OZD. However, with the major differences in style and age of movement between the Cristianitos Fault and the OZD, we do not contend that movement on one could be reasonably expected to be accompanied by movement on the other.
Second Set of Interrogatories Interrogatory No. 10 Have you requested the Applicants to have their consultants conduct more offshore seismic profiling or more research to clarify any unresolved questions or data voids which might exist in the offshore profiles which provide the data base for analyzing the structural relationships between the 07.D and the CZD and between the CZD and the Cristianitos Faults (restricted use) and the SONGS reactors? If you have not requested this, in light of the differences of opinions regarding interpretations of these structural relationships, justify your lack of requiring the Applicant to do t ore research and to
- provide more data to answer these questions regardir g the structural relation-ships involved, which are crucial in answering the question "Could movement on the OZD be reasonably expected to be accompanied by movement on the CZD, and cause ground motions at the SONGS site?"
Answer to Interrogatory No. 10 During the course of this ' review, the USGS has discussed with the NRC staff
.the offshore data voids. These voids are areas where seismic profile records were obtained but the data contained on these records were not interpretable.
This results not from instrumental problems or the lack of profiles but from the characteristics of the rocks in the area being profiled. Consequently, repeated surveys are not'11kely to result in obtaining better data.
1
o 3
Interrogatory No. 63 Describe in detail your current interpretation of the structural rela-tionship between the CZD and the Cristianitos Fault.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 63 The USGS contends that the Cristianitos Fault may be one of several structures (faults and folds) within the C:D as defined by Greene and Kennedy (1980a).
Interrogatory No. 100 If the following documents are not available at the LPDR, will the Staff make them available to the Intervenors without a formal request to the Executive Director, as agreed to informally in the past: the preliminary compilations of profile data which Greene and Kennedy prepared which resulted in their maps and reports in 1980.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 100 The seismic profiles obtained by Greene and Kennedy have been open filed and are available to the public. Greene and/or Kennedy have published several papers in the technical literature on the results of their work with these data, and these papers are available to the public. Also, the USGS administrative reports to NRC containing the review by Greene and Kennedy of all the applicants profiling data subamitted to NRC have been made available to the public by NRC.
Whatever preliminary notes, calculations, and thoughts that the authors may have had during their research and review are not required to be submitted to the Survey and consequently are not available for release.
. - James F. Devine
- vo