ML20010E883
| ML20010E883 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1981 |
| From: | Pomeroy P RONDOUT ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| To: | Okrent D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-CT-1353, NUDOCS 8109080471 | |
| Download: ML20010E883 (2) | |
Text
,
ci- /3f5 Roxoour Associates, IncoaroaATso pe>e. e/a/e>/
O P.O. Box 224, Stone Ridge, New York 12454 June 24, 1981
(
h NN\\9 e
s 6"p *6@
Prof. David'0krent
.i
-4 4
C Chairman, Extreme External Phenomena Sub-Committee S.
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 8
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 4',,
Qjb7 Washington, D.C.
20555 e
x
Dear Prof. Okrent:
As a consultant to the Advisory Conmittee on Reactor Safeguards, I am writing to express my continuing concern regarding the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake, its causative structure, and whether or not a similar event could occur in other oarts of the Coastal Plain in the eastern United States.
As you know, over the past several years, the U.S. Geological Survey has conducted a major research program in the Charleston area.
This program, funded by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission at a level of approximately one (1) million dollars per year has, presumably, had among its goals the deter-nination of the causal mechanism of the Charleston event and the determination as to whether the event was unique to the Charleston area or whether it could occur elsewhere. Most recently, the ACRS Sub-Committee on the Summer nuclear power plant heard testimony from the USGS and the NRC Staff to the effect that the Charleston event should be considered unique to the Charleston area and that the Cooke Fault was a possible causative structure.
Yet, the decollement hypothesis and others continue to be discussed vigorously; e.g. at the latest American Geophysical Union meeting and, in private conversations, several re-spected earth scientists, at least, admit the possibility that the Charleston event might not be unique to the Charleston area.
I would like to suggest that it is both important and timely that the ACRS review this question and that the Extreme External Phenomena Sub-Committee is the appropriate group to perform this review.
I would further like to suggest some agenda topics and a few individuals who might make important contributions.
1.
A selective overall review of the USGS research program point.ed specifically to:
What has the research program found about the causative structure of the Charleston earthquake?
What specifically is geologically and geophysically unique about the Charleston area such that the Charleston event occured there and could not occur elsewhere?
- CT-1353 PDR g
r m -
Prof. David Okrent
-2 June 24, 1981 Although the Charleston research program has amassed large amounts of important scientific data, much of it is not related directly to the two questions above and should not be reviewed by the Sub-Connittee.
I person-ally would be interested in hearing from the USGS and the NRC Staff how they formulated the position presented at the Summer hearing and from the USGS, particularly who participated in the position fonnulation.
I would also be interested in future directions for the research program i.e, what will be studied that directly relates to the above questions and what the time frame is, in their mind, for resolution of this problem which is criti-cal to siting along the entire Eastern Seaboard.
2.
Possible speakers. (20 minutes per speaker), In addition to USGS and NRC Staff personnel presenting the above summary (not more that 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> plus an hour for questions), the views of the following people should be solicited regarding the above questions.
a.
USGS Dr. Marty Kane Dr. Robert Hamilton Dr. Carl Wentworth b.
Other Personnel Dr. Leonardo Seeber, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbid University, Palisades, New York Dr. Gill Bollinger, Virginia Polytechnic Institute dnd State University, Blacksburg, Virginia Dr. Pradeep ~31wani, University of South Carolina Dr. Leland T. Long, Georgia Institute of Technology i
What I hope to achieve is a presentation to the sub-committee af what is known regarding the Charleston event and presentation of alternative hypotheses that may not be receiving full consideration at the present time. The overall purpose, of course, is not only to provide guidance to the NRC research program for future research directions but, more importantly, to insure that siting de-l cisions in the eastern United States continue to be made with the best possible l
and widest seismological, geophysical, and geological input.
With best regards, Paul W. Pomeroy PWP:gla l
P.S.
Two otaer possible presentators would be:
Prof. Lynn Glover, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Prof. Bob Hatcher, University of South Carolina y