ML20010C162
| ML20010C162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1981 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Finfrock I JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-02-04, TASK-02-04.B, TASK-2-4, TASK-2-4.B, TASK-RR LSO5-81-08-011, LSO5-81-8-11, NUDOCS 8108190206 | |
| Download: ML20010C162 (15) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:[, ,4 August 3,1981 Docl'et flo. 50-219 \\ '"b k/ ' LS05-81-08-011 rg ' &S'$f 6) lir. I. R. Finfrock, Jr. k hf v Y <j f r8 Vice President - Jersey Central W f c N Power & Light Company \\' _ ~ m\\'3/ 4' %" / q, [ g Q/ Post Office Box 388 Forked River, flew Jersey 08731
Dear fir. Finfrock:
SUBJECT:
SEP REVIEW TOPICS II-4, GE0 LOGY AllD SEIS!10 LOGY A!!D II-4.B. PR0XIMITY OF CAPABLE TECT0ilIC STRUCTURES IN PLAfiT VICINITY Enclosed is a copy of ot:r evaluation for Systematic Evaluation Program Topics II-4, " Geology and Seismology," and II-4.B. " Proximity of Capable Tectonic Structures in Plant Vicinity." These assessments compare your site condition, as described in the docket and references with the criteria currently used by the staff for licensing new facilities. Please inform us if your site condition differs from the licensing basis assumed in our assessments. Our review of thesa topics is complete and this evaluation will be a basic tr.put to tl:e integrated safety assessment for your facility unless you identify changes needed to reflect the existing site condi-tion at your facility. These topic assessments may be revised in the future if HRC criteria relating to these topics are modified before the Integrated assessment is completed. Sincerely, Dennis 11. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch f;o. 5 Division of Licensing 4 5 @5
Enclosure:
f As stated f// u.s6 h l cc w/ enclosure: gp See next page G108190206 810803 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P PDR ,EPB:DL% SEPB;pLq,,0RD#5:DL:PY 0QV S C D SEPB:Dg sumac >...I.C,M n,g,d k,. ,,RH e,rma n n,,,,,,.,WRufs),h ,J L,on)ba,. ,,Dg,h;,c,t)fi e,1d,,,,,,,,,,, ~ omcap 3 .7/I0.01. . 8/1/81.,,,,,,,,8/Ja/,01..,, ,$l.),/,81.,,,,, ,,g,h,/a,1,,,,, ,,,g/,,/,gl,,,,, ourp OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom mi--mm snc ronu us o>em Nncu em
a Mr. I. R. Fi nf rock, J r. cc G. F. Trowbri dge, Esquire Gene Fisher Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Bureau Chief 1800 M Street, N. W. Sureau of Radiation Protection Washington, D. C. 20036 380 Scotts Road enton, New Jersey 08628 J. B. Li eberman, Esqui re Berlack, Israels & Lieberman Commissioner 26 Broadway New Jersey DepartTent of Energy New York, New York 10004 101 Commerce Street Newar k, New J ersey 07102 Natural Resources Def ense Council 317 15th Street, N. W. Licensing Supervisor Washingt on, D. C. 20006 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station J. Knubel D. O. Box 388 BWR Licensing Manager Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Jersey Central Power & Light Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Resident Inspector Morri stown, "ew J ersey 07960 c/o U. S. NRC P. O. Box 445 Joseph W. Ferraro, J r., Eiqui re Fork ed Ri ver, New J ersey~ 08731 Deputy Attorney General. State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 1100 Raymond Boulevard Newark, New J ersey 07012 Ccean County Library Brick Township Branch 401 Chambers Bridge Road B ri ck T own, New J ersey 08723 Mayor Lacey Township P. O. Box 475 Forked Ri ver, New J ersey 08731 i Commi ss oner Department of Public 'Jtilities State of New Jersey 101 Commerce Street Newarx, New Jersey 07102 J. S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New Y orx 10007 mm m-qui-mm-m - M mm
SEP SAFETY TOPIC EVA'_UATION OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TOPIC II-4, GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY TOPIC II-4.E, PROXIMITY OF CAPABLE TECTONIC STRUCTURES IN PLANT VICINITY 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 I den t i f i ca ti on_ _o f S.a f ex.I s s u.e s ty The SEP topics addressed in this chapter are the geology portion of Topic II-4, Geology and Seismology and Topic II-4.C Capability of Faults in the Site Rejion. The wismology section of Topic II-4, Tcpics II-4.A, and II-4.C are addressed in > i to Specific Gr >und Resoonse Spectra for SEP Plants Located in the Eastern United States" (letter from D M. Crutchfield to SEP Owners, June 17, 1981).
- 1. 2
~ :re c' the Rev'ew N "e:_ ts ? t"e Cssta' Cree ( Carstruct:an Pe-H r e ', ' e n / t e Atric Err cv C.; {> _: 5 5 '. ' , I.O ;'. r ' i 'r< ^"A ^ ~ ' ; -* ' ~H 7 ' ~ ~ ;. *. 4 r. C.. . m C '. - ""- .p, y-$., e.,~. *, - fm O. ..[ ; #,, * .-.--w ~e q 2 S g t'
- h
- g .u s 6 -, .s .s u. ;* _.;
- m c.
.sm m" 5*; k g { p y' { { -. I k ) ._7'_.. -.' ~._; "
- p ^ c_
- 1.." [
' a
- m I a.
~ ,ar' y_o -3 .u w , 7, q;. -,;pq grp . ~ ;_ c-.m,.;... -g 7, q s,. . u g, ,e,. g 3 i C. "{ ,h5 U =
- ,3
[ '] }], ].3 ]# *]g ] - ]-{ , ];] } r ^ r s ._ ~._ a 2 - - 3 ..,. rm _,_w.;w, s s s ~. _we w 4, a +. w _ -p s., a r --r -.-., 3_ .,_.g-a_ -., a .~. ...-..; ' ogg',' E p - a. ' 3 - 2J - ;, g -, ' ~.. _,,.,; !-r
- __sj, u
, + +? ]g-;, ' 7 t,y ., ; g. s w . ' =.-..._, ~ + 4 4 y 3 M m N - [ = r. s ] 3 2.,, _g wq 1 1 y"
- =s e
e m, -.gi .e-. w s -_a m.- _-+ - =. .p ~ t ]F* -~ g* ] 2} '* 2.-- 2 -~ *, '.e j r. w r, p.-.- - s,..- ..,g ..2_ a vs s +,.- -* [",. -+ [ (, r,7, --,
- '~
,, - -,,,_4I 4 ',r s r,,, i g a t N s a Og" .,3" -'. ".: ] ~ ~ ^ ' ] = r e,.-- -.....r. u i s *-- -.t--.
- x i *
.v m s .-L..' x ~ 2 .m g'- )
- +
+ c3 -.~ c - ;_, ; p.. q c c. s,,,. e i M = Ai -I l-i =d E S
o s 2 REVIEW CRITERIA Current licensing criteria which governed our review of the safety' Seismic and issues addressed in this chspter include Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," and NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Chapter 2.5, Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3. e en-4 4 1 2-1 -g
m 3 RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES The geotechnical engineering aspects of the site are closely related to the topics covered in this chapter. They are addressed under Topics II-4D, II-4E, ana II-4F. Topic II-4F is dependent on information from this chapte". D em 4 3-1
.o t 4 REVIEW GUIDELINES Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, " Seismic and Geologic. siting Criteria for Nuclear Powar Plants" was used in this review to orotide guidance in defining tectonic provinces, and identifying and evaluating tectonic structures in the F site region to determine whether or not any of them are capable. Chapter 2.5.1 of NUREG-0800, Standard Review Pltn guided the staff in its assessment of geologic features in the site area related to the potential for faulting, subsidence or collapse, landslides, weatherir.g, or other fouraation instabilities. ' Chapter 2.5.3 of the SRP was utilized for guidance in considering the following subjects: The. structural and stratigraphic conditions of-the site and vicinity 1 (Subsection 2.5.3.1), any evidence of fault offset or evidence demonstrating the abseece of faulting (Subsection 2.5.2.2), earthquakes associated with faults (J>bsection 2.5.3.3), determination of age of most recent movement on -faults (>ubsection 2.5.3.4), determination of structural relationships of site area faults to regional faalts (Subsection 2.5.3.5), identification and descrip-tion of capable faults (Subsection 2.5.3.6), and zones requiring detailed fault investigations (Subsection 2.5.3.7). O F 4 h a 5 T f t 4-1 j
s 5 E"ALUTATION 5.1 Geolocy The site is located on the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (Fenneman 1938) along the New Jersey coast about 32 miles (51 kilometers) north-northeast of Atlantic City. The emerged Coastal Plain Province is from 100 to 2J0 miles (150 to 320 kilometers) wide and elevations are generally well below 500 feet (155 meters). The topography is flat to gently hilly with extensive marshlands. ~ An additional part of the Coastal Plain is submerged offshore and is part of the Continental Shelf. It is about the same width as the emerged portion and extends to depths of 500 to 600 feit (155 to 186 meters) below sea leval. The Coastal Plain is underlain by southeast dippings beds of semiconsolidated to unconsolidated sand, clay, silt and gravel ranging in age from Cretaceous through Tertiary and Quaternary (135 million years before present (mybp) to present). Non marine sediments of possible Jurassic age (195 mybp to 136 mybp) have been found beneath Cretaceous sed ments in borings at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina near Summerville, South Carolina; Ocean City, Maryload; Cape May, New Jersey and the Cosi; B-2 well on the New Jersey outer Continental Delf. The Coastal Plain slopes to the north, in the site region and is completely underwater northeast af Cape Cod. Valleys in the northern Coastal Plain are ~ drowned, forming the Raritan, Chesapeake. and Delaware Bays and Long Island Sound. The northeast-southwest regional structural trend which characterizes the Appalachian Mountains to the west is also present in the basement beneath the Coa-tal Plain. Superimposed on this trend is a major northwest-southeast . regional trend as reflected i;y depressions and highs in the basement surface such as the Southeast Georgia Embayment, the Cape Fear Arch, the Salisbury Embayment, and the Raritan Ethayment. The site overlies the Raritan Embayment. The Piedmont Province is about 35 miles (55 kilometers) northwest of the site at it closest approach. The Fall Zone is the physiographic boundary between the ?iedmont and Coastal Plain Provinces. The Piedmont lies within the much larger Appalachian mountain system. In addition to the Piedmont, the Appalachian mountain system encompasses from southeast to northwest, the Blue Ridge, Valley ar.d Ridge and the Appalachian Plateau physicgraphic provinces. The Piedmont, from the Hudson River in southern New York to the Alabama Coastal Plain, is nearly 840 miles (1350 kilometers) long. It varies in vidth from 20 miles (35 kilometers) at the narrowest in northern Virginia, to a maximum of 150 miles (240 kilometers) in the Carolinas. The Piedmont is underlain by metamorphic, volcanic, and sedimentary rocks forming complex structures trunc-ated by a pre-Triassic (225 mybp) erosion surface. The rocks are mostly Paleozoic and older (more than 250 mybp) gneisses and schists, some marble, and quartzite derivad from the metamorphism of older sedimentary and volcanic rocks. In Pennsylvania and Maryland the carbonates form valleys while the gneiss, schist, quartizite ar.d granitic rocks form uplands. In addition to the igneous and metamorphic rocks, about five percent of the Piedmont consists of unmeta-morphosed sedimentary rocks of Triassic age (Hunt 1967). These rocks fill down-faulted blocks or basins within the crystalline rocks and are mainly sandstones, conglomerates ano siltstones. The nearest Triassic basin to the site is the Newark Basin, located about 40 miles (54 kilometers) northwest of the site at it. closest approach. 5-1
+ o Ccmplex fault blocks similar to the Triassic-Jurassic basins exposed in the Piedmont have also been identified beneath-the sediments of the Coastal Plain and Atlantic Continental Shelf (Marine and Siple,1974; Rankin et al,1977; Ballard and Uchupi,1975; Brown et al,1972; Sheridan,1974; Roper,1980; Grim et al, 1980; and Mullins and Lynts, 1976. The'0yster Creek site is underlain by approximately 2000 feet of unconsolidated Coastal Plain sediments. The uppermost units from ground surface down consists of 10 feet and less of man-made sand fill, 15 feet of sand of the Late Pleisto-cene Cape May Formation (35,000 years old); 15. feet thick upper clay layer of Late Pleistocene to Late Miocene (35,000 years to 10 mybp), 60 feet of Cohansey sand of Miocene age (+10 mybp); and more than 100 feet sand of the Miocene (+10 mybp) Kirkwood formation (Woodward ana Moorehouse, 1975). Investigations of these soils were made in 1964, 1968 and 1973-1974, and included core borings and laboratory testing of undisturbed samples. Investi-ations were also conducted in similar materials at the Forked River site g/2 mile to the west of the site. The plant is founded un dense to very dense 1 sand of the Cohansey formation which has been demonstrated to be adequate to support it (Woodward and Moorehouse 1975). 5.2 II-4 B CAPABILIT-Y OF VAULTS IN THE SITE REGION ~ The closest known major fault to the site is the Cream Valley-Huntingdon Valley fault, which extends northeast frca West Chester, Pennsylvania to Trenton, New Jersey, and is about 45 miles (72 kilometers) from the site at its closest approach. This fault is in Wissahickon and other crystalline rocks, and is considered to be of Paleozoic age (570 mybp to 225 mybp). Minor earth-quakes have occurred in the vicinity of this fault system, for example the 11 March, 1980 magnitude 3.7 event but there is no evidence that the fault is capable. It does not displace Cretaceous sediments. A major, deep-seated, east-west wrench fault, the Cornwall-Kelvin fault, was postulated by Drake and Woodward (1963) to explain the curvature of the Appalachian system in southeastern Pennsylvania and the Kcivin seamount trend in the Atlantic Ocean. The trend of this postulated fault would project beneath the Coastal Plain and pass approximately 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of the site. The fault, if it exists, is pre-Mississippicn (345 million years) in age, most probably late Devonian (Drake and Woodward, 1973). The Appalachian curvature has also been postulated to have been caused by an early Paleozoic rift structure (Rankin,1976). Subsequent investigations have been a unable to confirm or disprove the existence of the Cornwall-Kelvin fault or the-rift structure. Many faults have been mapped in the Newark Triassic basin. The most significant of these are the Hopewell and Flemington faults which cross the Delaware River a few miles of each other near Lambertville, New Jersey. The Flemington fault continues to the north and northwest through central New Jersey to the edge of the Newark bar'1, while the Hopewell fault extends northeast to near the suth branch of the Raritan River. To the west the wo faults join south of Doylestown, c Penasylvania, where they became the Chalfont fault. Several thousand feet of vertical displacement have been mapped on the faults, and several miles of right lateral movement have been measured on the Hopewell fauit (Sanders, 1963). 4 5-2 h M r, rw
These faults displace Triassic rocks, therefore the latest movements are interpreted to have occurred during late Triassic or early Jurassic (200 mybp to 170 mybp). The nearest approach of this fault system is more than 50 miles (80 kilometers) northwest of the site. The Newark Tria'ssic Basin of New Jersey and New York is a half graben bounded on the northwest side by a northeast trending, high angle fault (Sanders,1963 and Van Houten, 1969). Ratcliffe (1971) describes this and related faults which he collectively terms the Ramapo fault system as follows: "in northern New Jersey and southeastern Ncw York State, the border fault system is expressed by a fairly straight fault trace marked by the topographic escarpment of the l Ramapo Mountains for which the fault is named. The Ramapo fault proper extends from Stoney Point, New York, on the Hudson River, southwest approximately 50 miles to Peapack, New Jersey. North of about Rockland, New York the fault becomes more diffuse into several splays and extends into the Hudson Highlands." Aggarwal and Sykes (1978) and Yang and Aggarwal (1981) identify a zone of seismicity approximately 30 kilometers wide centered on the Ramapo fault at zero to about 10 kilometers depth, based on data from the Lamont-Doherty, Consclidated Edison, and New England seismic networks. They conclude that ct.rrent seismicity in this_ zone is being controlled by reactivation of the northeast striking steeply southeast dipping faults that control the main structural grain in this area. The NRC staff in its findings regarding the Indian Point nuclear site concluded that, based on extensive investigations, the Ramapo fault system is not capable within the meaning of Appendix A, but it is likely that faults of the Ramapo system along with the numerous other faults in the Hudson Highlands may be localizing seismicity. The Ramapo fault system is located more than 60 miles (95 kilometers) northwest of the site. During the past decade much evidence for post-Mesozoic (younger than 65 mybp) deformation has been found (McMaster,1971; Jacobeen,1972; Spoljaric,1972; York and Oliver, 1976, Mixon and Newell, 1976; Prowell et al, 1975; and, Serendt et al, 1981). The closest known post-Mesozoic structures to the site are two minor, northeast-trending anticlines in coastal plain deposits located about 10 miles (16 kilometers) east of Trenton, New Jersey (Minard and Owens, 1966). The youngest material a;:parently involved in the folding is the Miocene Cohansey Formation (more than five million years old). 5poljaric (1972) reported faulting involving the basement and the overlying Cretaceous Potomac formation along the Fall Zone in the Newark, Delaware area approximately 75 miles (120 kilcmeters) west-southwest of the site. The feu;;ing has a predominant east-west trend with several minor north-south branch faults. Traces of the faults are not evident at the ground surface. A iubsequent report by Spaljaric (1973) defined basement faulting in the Red Lion area several riies southwest of Newark, Delaware. Spoljaric's paper sug-gests normal faulting involving only the Piedmont-like metalorphic rocks, mainly schist and gneiss, forming a northeast-trending graben with displaco-ments of up to 30 meters. No evidence indicating displacement of the overlying Cretaceous material was found. Studies performed to investigate the Summit Nuclear Power Plant site (Docket Nos. 50-450 and 451) confirmed Spoljaric's findings in the Red Lion area and showed that the basement fault complex extended south of the area described by Spoljaric, across the Chesapeake and 5-3
~ Delaware Canal. We and the U.S. Geological Survey concluded in the Summit Safety Evaluation Report that this faulting pre-dated the Merchantiville Formation and~is a least 65 million ycars old (NRC, 1975). 1 A LANDSAT (formerly called ERTS) linear is described in the Preliminary Safety i Analysis Report for the Atlantic Generating Station (AGS) as extending from Port Republic Great Bay, New Jersey, approximately due west towards Buena, New Jersey. The lineament coincides to some extent with an eliptical east-west - ~ gravity high (Bonini, 1965), and a magnetic anomaly shown on a magnetic map in the AGS Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (Figure 2.5.1-13). The area of the LANDSAT lineament was investigated by the Public Services Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) during investigations for the Atlantic Generating Station site by means of well-log analysis and field reconaissances. Data presented in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 796 (Brown et al., 1972) which included geologic cross sections, a structure contour map of basement, and structure contours and isopachs of identifiable Coastal Plain strata from the lower Cretaceous (Jurassic) through the Cenozoic, do not indicate a disruption of these strata in the vicinity of the linear. The gravity and magnetic i-anomalies likely represent either lithologic variation in the basement rocks or structure that does not significantly affect the Cretaceous 'and younger strata above it (NRC,1977). ~ During geological and geophysical investigations for the At' antic Generating Station (AGS) extensive offshore seismic reflection profiling was done. These lines extended northward from the AGS site to the offshore vicinity of the Oyster Creek site. There was no evidence for faulting in strata ranging from
- upper Miocene to Recent (10 mybp to Present).
'Although there is no indication of faulting in the vicinity of the site, it is possible that faults similar to some of those described above may be present in the basement rock in the area. However, if they do exist they are not capable within the intent of Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 100. Two NRC-funded geological and seismological research projects, the results of which are relevant to all sites located on the Atiantic Coastal Plain, have i been under way for the past several years. Then programs are: (1) the New England Seismotectonic Study by Weston Observatcry of Boston College, and (2) 3 Studies Related to the Charleston, South Carolina Earthquake of 1886 by the U.S. Geological Surley (USGS). 4 j A small part of the New England study is the investigation of the Northern Fall Line Zone of Central and Northern New Jersey (Thompson,1979). In this 7-study Thompson has identified, arrow linear zones cf seismic activity which he believes may represent fracture and fault zones. Scme of these alignments coincide with topographic linears and others with geophysical (aeromagnetics j and air gravity) anomalies. Several are characterizec by both Some suggestion of faulting in the basement rocks has been found along three of the linears. i The most direct evidence for faulting was found in l'orings in basement rock along a north, trending linear in northern Delaware, however, it is not one of the five seismic linears. The meaning of these data is not clear, but the ' staff concludes that they do not represent a hazard to the site because: (1) L -the seismic linears may not be real because too few earthquakes are involved .and there is likely a large band of 9.rror in epicentral locations; (2.) the i 4 f F 5-4 i ~. -. _.,. -..
s closest of these postulated linears is 30 miles (48 kilometers) west of the nsite;~(3) all. lines of evidence (LANDSAT imagery, aeromagnetic, air gravit and geologic evidence for faults) do not consistently apply to all linears;y, and (4) no evidence has been found for faults that cut Coastal Plain strata 3-younger than Miocene. In his summary of the FY 1979 New England Seismotectonic Study Activities P. Barosh, program coordinator, sees a spatial relationship between ongoing subsidence, seismicity, structural embayments (irregulatities in the outcrop of the contact between the Cretaceous of the Coastal Plain and Paleozoic metamorphic recks of the Piedmont), grabens, such as the Triassic-Jurassic basin.s, and high angle faults along the Atlantic Coast. He interprets this-observation to suggest that continental rifting which began in the Mesozoic Era is continuing today, and that this could be the source of eastern seismicity (Barosh, 1981). This hypothesis, which requires that eastern U.S. is in a tensional ~ stress regime, is in conflict with other current theories concerning the origin of seismicity in the eastern United States. These'other theories (Behrendt et al, 1981 and Seeber and Armbruster 1980) are based on the existince of a compressienal stress regime in eastern U.S. A wealth of new information has been obtained from the investigations in the Charleston, South Carolina region, but the generating mechanism for the continu-ing seismicity in the epicentral area of the 1886 earthquake is still not known. As a result of this new information numerous hypc heses have been developed about the origin of Charleston seismicity. These hypotheses can be grouped into three main categories (1) reactivation of a major thrust fault that underlies the entire Appalachian Mountains, Piedmont and Coastal Plain at depths of 6 to 15 kilometers; (2) reactivation of high angle basement faults; and (3) stress amplification near the boundaries of mafic plutons (NRC 1981). It has been the position of the staff, supported by our advisor the USGS, that Charleston seismicity is related to structure at Charleston and should not be assumed to migrate anywhere else in the Coastal Plain. Several of the hypotheses allow for the migration of this seismicity to other parts of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. The staff reviewed all of the available information from the Charleston study during the operating license review of the V. C. Summer nuclear site. Based on the weight of that information and advice frca the USG5 (Apperdix E to the Sumer SER, memorandum to R. E. Jackson from J. F. Devine, 30 December, 1980) we reaffirmed our car'ier conclusion that the Charleston 1 seismicity, including the 1S86, Mod %d Mercelli Intensity X Earthquake, is related to geologic structure in the Charleston area and should not be assumed to occur anywhere but in that area (NRC, 1981). i 5-5 ---a-m --w-c. s-- w m-y a.m.,--aw, 9-
o 6 Cot 1CLUSIOff We conclude that data that has beccme available since the original site review confirms the staff's conclusions made at that time, that there are no geologic hazards that would affect the safety of the Oyster Creek site. G e O O f 6-1
~_ i ,f REFERENCES 1. Aggarwal, Y. P. and L. R. Sykes,1978, Earthquakes, faults, and nuclear power plants-in southern New York and northern New Jersey:
- Science, 1
200: pp. 425-529. 2. Ballard, R. D. and E. Uchupi,1975, Triassic Rift Structure in the Gulf of Maine; Amer. Assoc. of Pet. Geologists Bull.; Vol.'59, No. 7, pp. 1041-1071, July, 1975. 3. Barosh, P. J.,1981, Relationship of Seismicity to Basement Tectonics.in ~ the Eastern United States and Adjacent Canada; Abstract - 4th Inter-national Conference on Basement Tectonics, August, 1981. 4. Behrendt, J. C., R. M. ~ Hamilton, H. D. Ackermann, J. V. Henry, and K. C. Bayer,-1981. Cenozoic faulting in the vicinity of the Charleston South Carolina, 1986 earthquake, Geology Vol. 9,- No. 3, pp. 117-122, March, 1981. 5. Bonini, W. E., 1965p Bouger Gravity Anomaly Map, of New Jersey, New Jersey - Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Research and Development, Bureau'of Geology and Topography, Geology Report, Ser. Bureau Geology and Topography Geogoly Report, SER No. 9, 10 pp. 6. Brown, P. M., J. A. Miller, and F. M. Swain, 1972, Structural and Stratigraphic framework, and spatial distribution of permeability of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, North Carolina to New York; U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper, 796, 79 pp. -7. Drake, L. and H. P. Woodward,1968~, Appalachian Curvature, Wrench Faulting, and Offshore Structures; Transactions of the New York Academy cf + Science Series II, Vol. 26, pp 48-63. i 8. Fenneman, N. M.,.1938,-Physiograpny of Eastern United States, McGraw Hill Cook Co., New York, 534 pp. 9. Grim, M. S., W. P. Dillon, and R. E. Mattick,1980, Seismic Reflection, Refraction and Gravity Measurements from the Continental Shelf Offshore from North and South Carolina; Southeastern Geology, Vol. 21, No. 4, Nov, 1980, pp. 239-249. 10. "unt, C. B., 1967, Physiography of the United States-W. H. Freeman Co. 11. Jacobeen, F. H. Jr.,1972, Seismic evidence for high angle reverse faulting in the coastal plain of Prince Georges and Charles County, Maryland; Md. Geol. Surv. Int. Circ., 13, 1-21. .,7 4 nm- ~. - -
~ 12. Jersey Central Power and Light Company,1970, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Forked River Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-363, June, 1970. 13. Marine, I. W. and G. E. Siple, 1974, Buried Triassic Basin in the Central Savannah River Area, South Carolina and Georgia; Geol. Soc. of American Bull., Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 311-320. 14. McMaster, R. L., 1971, A Transverse fault on the Continental Shelf off Rhode Island, Geol. Soc. America, Bull., Vol. 82, pp. 2001-2004. 15. Minard, J. P., and J. P. Owens,1966, Domes in the Atlantic Coastal Plain; U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 550-B, pp. B16-B19. 16. Mixon, R. B. and W. L. Newell,1976, Preliminary investigation of faults and folds along the inner edge of the Coastal Plain in nortbestern Virginia, US Geol Surv. Open File Report, 76-330, 22 pp. 17. Mullins, H. T. and G. W. Lynts,1976, Stratigraphy and Structure of the Northeast Providence Channel, Bahamas; Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., 60:1037-1053. 18. Prowell, D. C., B. J. O' Conner, and M. Rubin, 1975, Preliminary Evidence for Holocene movement along the Belair fault tone near Agusta, Georgia; U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, 75-680, pp. 1-15. 19. Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al.,1974, Preliminary Safety AnaTysis Report Atlantic Generating Station, Units 1 ana 2, Docket No.'s 50-477 and 478, March 1, 1974. 20. Public Services Electric and Gas Company 1970, Newbold Island Nuclear Generating Station Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-354 and 355. 21. Rankin, D. W., 1977, Studies related to the Charleston, South CarM 'na earthquake of 1886 - Introduction and discussion, in Rankin, ;. W., ed. Studies related to the Charleston, South Carolina earthquaxe of 1886 - A preliminary report: USGS Prof. Paper 1028A, pp. 1-16. 22. Rankin, D. W., 1976, Appalachian Salients and Recesses: Late Precambrian Continental Breakup and the Opening of Iapetus Ocean. Journal Geo physical Research, Vol. 81,.o. 32, pp. 5605-5619. 4 23. Ratcliffe, N. M., 1980, Brittle faults (Ramapo fault) and phyllonitic ductile shear zones in the basement rocks of the Ramapo Seismic zones New York and New Jersey, and their relationship to current seismicity;.'ield Studies of New Jersey Geology and Guide to Field Trips, pp. 278-313. 24. Ratcliffe, N. M., 1971, The Ramapo fault system in New York and acjacent northern New Jersey, a case of tec.onic heredity: Geological Society of Amer. Bull, v 82. p.125-142. 2
-l i I 25. Roper, P. J., 1980, Post-Jurassic Tectonism in Eastern North America; -Tectonophysics, 67 (1980), pp 61-80. 26. Sanders, J. E.,:1963, Late Triassic tectonic history of Northeastern United States: American Journal of Science, Vol. 261, pp. - 501-524. l 27. Seeber, L. and J. G. Armbruster, 1980, the. Charleston, S.C. Earthquake.and l -the Appalachian Detachment; in review. 28. Sheridan, R. E.,1974, Conceptual Model for the Block-fault Origin of the . North American Atlantic Continental Margin Geosyncline; Geol. pp~ 465-468. 29. Spoljaric, N.,1973, Normal Faults in Basement Rocks of the Northern Coastal Plain, Delaware; Bull. of Geol. Soc. of America; Vol. 84, No. 8, pp. 2781-2784. 30. Spoljaric, N.,11972, Geology of the Fall Zone-in Delaware, Delaware Geological Survey, Dept. of Investigations No. 19. 31. Thompson, A. J.,1979, Investigation of the Northern Fall Line Zone. in Central and. Northern New Jc sey; in New England Seismotectonic. Study Activities During Fiscal Year 1979; Prepared for NRC by J. P. Barosh. r 32. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,1972, Directorate cf Licensing, Safety Evaluation of the New Jersey Pcwer and Light Company, Forked River i Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-363. 33. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, -1958, Division of Reactor Licensing US AEC in the Matter of New Jersey Central Power and Light Company, Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-219, 23 Dec., 1968. 4 34. U.S. Atomic Energy Ccmmission, 1964, Hazard Analysis by the Research and i Power Reactor Safety Branch Divisicn d Reactor Licensing in the Matter of Jersey Central Power and Light Ccmpany, Oyster Creek i Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Docket No. 50-219, Sept., 1954, 35. U.S. Geological Survey, 1971, Letter to Harold Price, AEC, frca E. L. Hendrick3, USGS, Review of Hydrologic and Geologic Aspects of the l Newbold Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Decket No.'s 50-354 i and 355, 20 October, 1971. 36. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1981, Safety Evaluation Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Docket 50-395, Feb. 1981. 37. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977, Safety Eveluation Report Atlantic Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket No. 's 50-477 and 478, July, 1977. i i 38. U.-S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn, 1975, Safety Evaluation Report i Summit Power Station, Units l'and 2; Docket No.'s 50-450 and 451, NUREG 75/004, January 1975. i 3 f
p - 39. Van Houten, F. 'B.,1969, Late Triassic Newark Group, North Central New Jersey and Adjacent Pennsylvania and Guidebook of Excursions (Seymour Subitsky; ed.) Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, pp. 314-347. '40 Woodward-Moorhouse and' Associates, Inc., 1975, Geotechnical Study Proposed -Radwaste and Off-Gas Buildings Oyster Creek Power-Station; for GPU Service Corporation, Parsippany, N.J., 4 February 1975. 41. Yang, J. P. and Y. P.'Aggarwal, 1981, Seismotectonics of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 86,-No. 86, pp. 4981-4998, 10 June,-1981.
- 42.. York, J. E. and J. E. Oliva.r, 1976, Cretaceous and Cenezoic Faulting in Eastern North America; Geol. Soc. of America Bull., Vol. 87,
.pp. 1105-1114. e 1 k 5 4 1 4 O I 2 L r 4 ~' --}}