ML20039B535

Comments on Earthquake Swarm Per ASLB 811210 Order.Applicant Rept Is Part of ASLB Record.Repts of NRC & Intervenors Should Also Be Included in Record If Applicant Rept Included.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20039B535
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	12/15/1981
From:	Raynard Wharton CARSTENS, A.S., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, GUARD, WHARTON & POGALIES
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8112230206
Download: ML20039B535 (12)

Text

.

DCtMETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'A1 DEC 21 N0:46 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES'

~

~ T r.E' James L. Kelley, Chairman 2L:'

Elizabeth B. Johnson Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

)

In the Matter of

)

Docket Nos. 50-361-OL

)

50-362-OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

)

COMPANY, _ET _AL.

)

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating

)

December 15, 1981 9

g Station, Units 2 and 3)

)

4

,V

)

& :C g; % '3 L

\\

l Dec COMMENTS BY INTERVENORS ON EARTHQUAKS SWARM 4

8/ggIA Ndk",,/jpw d;,

SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO BOARD ORDER hhd.

DATED DECEMBER 10, 1981 9\\

N

/ ? wp'@x f

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinafter referreM'F as "ASLB") by telephone conference and Board Order dated December 10, 1981, issued a call to the parties to submit additional comments and information regarding a swarm of earthquakes occurring near the

~

San Onofre site on November 6 - 9, 1981.

By way of preface to these comments it must be pointed out that Intervanors Bill Carstens, F.O.E.,

GUARD, and their attorneys of record have not, as of the morning of December 15, 1931, received a copy of the Applicants' reports dated November 18 and November 30, 1981, concerning the swarm of earthquakes.

The Board in its order states that by memorandum dated December 6, 1981, the Staff transmitted such documents "to the Board and parties".

While not disputing that such documents may have been sent on such a date, I,

Richard J. Wharton, Attorney for Intervenors, p503

$b?5SOE?Of$$$$21 l[

PDR

Carstens et al. have not received such documents nor, to my knowledge, have any other Intervenors as of 10 a.m. on December 15, 1981.

Intervenors, Cartsens et al. have received the Staff report dated December 11, 1981, sent by cover letter by Lawrence Chandler.

Attorney for Carstens et al. is leaving on December 16, 1981, for a long ago scheduled family'Christraas in Florida.

Intervenors F.O.E.

et al. is submitting these comments without the benefit of review of the report of Applicants.

Intervenors. Carstens et al. submits the following comments as required by the Board in their order of December 10, 1981.

1.

THE BOARD INVITED THE INTERVENORS AND STAFF "iO COMMENT ON THE TECHNICAL SIGNT.FICANCE OF THE EARTHQUAKE SWARM AND THE MERITS OF THE APPLICANT'S REPORTS.

Intrervenors, Carstens et al. have commitments from Dr. Brune and others at Scripps Institute of Oceanography to prepare an inde-pendent review of the events and using sophisticated scientific methods to locate the epicenters.

This is being done as a public service by Scripps and none of the participants, (who will be named in the report) are being compensated in any way.

This report will be sent by Dr. Brune and others directly to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'and the parties.

Intervehars will receive the report in the same manner and time as the parties, and do not know the contents of such report as of this writing and have agreed not to review or influence the report before it is sent to this board and the parties.

As of this writing Intervenors do not have a copy of the Appli-eent's report.

I will be requesting that the Applicant send a copy directly to Scripps Institute of Oceanography in care of Dr. James Brune.

If that report is received in sufficient time, an evaluation -

of the merits of the Applicant's report will be submitted.

2.(a)

SHOULD THE 7.PPLICANT'S REPORT BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD ON SEISMIC ISSUES?

i It is presumed by Intervenors that the November 18, 1981 Board notification of the seismic events of November 6 - 9, 1981, are part of the record.

The Applicant's report is in response to the Board notification.

As a result of the Board notification and the Appli-cant's response, this hearing board has requested further comments from all of the parties.

It is Intervenors position that the fundamental requirements of due process require that if Applicant's response to the Board notification is included in the record, then the reports of the Staff and the Intervenors must be included in the record.

Intervenors submit that the cccurrance of 20 seismic events on the CZD is relevant new evidence which must be considered by this board and that all of the evidence from all of the parties must be considered and made part of the record.

The record in the hearing ref]scts that it was assumed by the Applicants and the Staff that the recently discovered CZD was not a " capable fault" under Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations.

This board must determine whether the CZD is in fact a capable fault and more specifically whether it experienced movement at or near the ground surface at least once within the past 35,000 years, or has a structural relationship to a capable fault.

(See 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A III).

The Staff report on the recent earthquakes concludes that "the earth-quakes occurred in an area where the OZD and the projected CZD are near each other (1.5 km apart as depicted by Greene and Kennedy, Geologic Structure Maps - San Onofre Offshore, SONGS 2 and 3 SER.

~

Appendix F)".

. The Staff report locates the events at the projected merging of the CZD and OZD.

This is one of the areas in which there was a DATA VOID and about which more information is required.

The board should admit all new relevant evidence about.this recent seismic activity in-cluding the Applicant's report, the Staff report and the Intervenors' report so that the record may be complete.

2.(b)

WHICH OF YOUR PROPOSED, FINDINGS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD WOULD BE AFFECTED BY REOPENING THE RECORD FOR THIS AND POS3IBLY OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE EARTHQUAKE SWARM?

The following proposed findings of Intervenors would be affected by reopening the record:

1.

Finding 150 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff SER p. 2-46 states...,

"The age of most recent faulting along the CZD is unknwon."

This new evidence would establish the most recent faulting along the CZD at 4 weeks ago!

2.

Finding 151 "The seismic reflection data reviewed show that a fairly continuous fault zona extends south to southeastward offshore from San Onofre to within 1 kilometer of the OZD, where a projected connection is possible."

This new evidence indicates earthquakes at the projected connection of the CZD and the OZD.

It is proof of existence and activity of the CZD in that area previously referred to as a data void.

It also indicates that movement on the OZD is accompanied by movement on the CZD. l

3.

Finding 152 states that the locacion of the connection of the OZD and CZD is approximately 16 kilometers southeast of the site.

This is the approximate location of the events occurring on November 6 - 9, 1981, and indicates that the movement was on the CZD.

4.

Finding 154 "Mr. Cardone also agrees that it is possible that the C2D may be a branch of the OZD (tr. p. 6495, line 14, p. 6496 line 9).

The fact that recent earthquakes occurred on either the CZD or OZD at their projected point of connection indi-cates that the CZD is in fact a branch of the OZD.

5.

Finding 160 All of this finding is affected but most importantly the request of Kennedy and Davis to the NRC that:

"We feel that it is important that the Applicant assess the nature of this structural relationship and the possibi-lity that the Cristianitos Fault and its presumed of f-shore extencion may' represent a secondary fault in a wrench system including the OZD. "

6.

Finding 161 states that NRC Staff witness, Thomas.Cardone tastified that the NRC has not requested any research of the Applicants since the NRC received the

• eene and Kennedy report and the Davis and Kennedy letter.

This new evidence clearly shows that such assessment as requested by Davis and Kennedy is necessary and the possibility that the CZD is a secondary fault in a wrench system must be investigated instead of merely assuming that l

the CZD is inactive and of no consequence.

This new evidence clearly indicates that the CZD is a branch of the OZD, and may be part of a wrench tectonic system.

7.

Finding 162 concludes that the NRC has not requested the Applicant or U.S.G.S.

to perform any research regarding whether movement on the OZD could be accompanied by move-ment on the CZD.

This new evidence indicates that movement on the OZD could be accompanied by movement on the CZD.

8.

Finding 163 Y

NRC witness Cardone sums up the Applicant and Staff's entire case on the CZD by stating:

"Movament on the CZD for at least 120,000 years has not been accompanied by movement on the CZD.

Therefore, we conclude the CZD is noncapable."

4 This new evidence indicates that movement on the OZD has been accompanied by movement on the CZD as recently as 4 weeks ago.

9.

Findings 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 and 170 all refer to the age dating techniques used by Applicant in determining the age of the last movement on the CZD.

All methods used by Applicant and Staff are speculative and untested and i

not based ~on observed data.

Evidence of the recent movement on the CZD is the best evidence that the fault is capable under 10 C.F.R. Part 100.

The hearings should be reopened with the assumption that the CZD is capable and structurally related to the OZD and that raovement on the OZD could be reasonably expected to

~

be accompanied by movement on the CZD with the knowledge hhat the OZD ;1as been mapped to within 4 kilometers of the l

plant.

Further investigations should be made of the C D in the area presently marked as DATA VOIDS on the map of Greene and Kennedy to determine exactly how far onshore they ex-tend and whether the CZD is structurlly related to the ABCD features.

10.

Findings 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, and.178 all point out that the ABCD features (faults) are all structurally related to the Cristianitos Zone of Deformation as is the Cristianitos fault (see finding 160, 159, 156 and 138).

Since the Applicant and Staff have assumed that the CZD is inactive they have totally ignored the relationship between all of these faults.

Since all of these faults are close to or directly under-neath the plants, the Applicants and Staff have failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A Section J which requires detailed investigation to detsr-mine the need to design for surface faulting (See Conclusion of Law D2) 11.

Conclusion of Law D The new evidence supports the entirety of conclusion of Law D in that the Applicants have failed to conduct investiga-tions required by 10 C.F.R. Part 100 Appendix A, Sections II, III(j), IV(a) and (B), V(b) and VI(b) in that they have failed to determine the structural and tectonic relation-ships between the Cristianitos Zone of Deformation and the -

Offshore. Zone of Deformation.

The new evidence belies 1

the Applicants and the NRC Staff's expedient.and simplistic conclusion that the CZD is noncapable, thereby precluding any further investigation.

The record clearly shows that i

no further investigation of the structural and tectonic, significance of the CZD was performed after its discovery in August 1980.

It is significant that the discovery and report on the CZD was the only truly independent report prepared for the NRC Staff in these proceedings.

It is also sicnificant that its recommendations were ignored and that its significance was quickly explained away by the Applicants and Staff by simply stating that the CZD was noncapable and not worthy of further consideration.

This new physical evidence cannot be ignored nor can the obvious be continually explained away.

This new evidence necessitates that further investigations be performed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R., Part 100, and that the hearings be reopened to determine whether these requirements have been met.

2.(c)

DOES THE EARTHQUAKE SWARM CONSTITUTE GOOD CAUSE TO REOPEN THE RECORD FOR FURTHER HEARINGS?

According to the NRC Staff report,the earthquakes occurred in an area where the OZD and the projected CZD are near each other (1.5 km apart as depicted by Greene and Kennedy).

This is the location of the DATA VOIDS on the Greene and Kennedy map and the area 4

where Greene and Kennedy postulate that the CZD merges with or truncates the OZD.

_g_

a l

The record shows that this is a critical area about which little is known.

The ramifications of movement in this area are significant.

If the earthquakes were on the CZD it would by definition mean that the CZD is a capable fault within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. Part 100 Appendix A and that this fault has been mapped to within 4 kilometers of the plant and may very well extend under the plant itself as evidenced by the A and B features.

This raises the question of the possibility of surface faulting underneath the plant which under 10 C.F.R. Part 100 Appendix A V 2b must be fully investigated.

Surface faulting under the plant is the most hazardous seismic risk possible since no structure can be built to withstand surface faulting.

Hearings are required to fully adjudicate and determine this most serious issue.

If the movement was on both the OZD and the CZD as indicated by the Staff report, such movement would establish the CZD as a capable fault under 10 C.F.R. Part 100 Appendix A Section II g3 in that it demonstrates a structural relationship such that movement on one fault could be reasonably expected to be accompanied by covement oa tite other.

It is difficult to perceive how the NP.C Staff can conclude that the swarm of earthquakes occurred in the vicinity of the OZD and the CZD where these two zones are very close to each other and from this conclusion state that this new information which indicates recent movement on the CZD does not cause the Staff to reconsider their position regarding the capability of the CZD.

Since there is no explanation for this quantum leap in logic, the hearing should be reopened so that Intervenors may cross-examine the authors of this report as to the scientific basis for their

conclusion.

The basis for their conclusion cannot be determined from the report.

As of this. Writing Intervenors have not had an opportunity to review the Applicant's report.

Therefore Intervenors cannot comment on the need to cross-examine on that report.

However, since the issue of the capability of the CZD is of such importance in this case it would appear incumbent upon the board that any evidence received regarding movement on this fault 4

be subject te full cross-examination so that the opinions of the authors and the methods used may be fully evaluated.

I Respectfully submitted, bM I T) l$$l

},,

RICHARD J.

W RTON Attorney for ntervenors j

Carstens et al.

I i

(

i i

h s

~..

cco<m. r.

us, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO I

DEC 21. ymS4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING. BOARD UCQDiNG g

. C..

ERANCH In the Matter of

)

)

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,

)

Docket Nos. 50-361-OL

--ET AL.

)

50-362-OL

)

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,)

Units 2 and 3)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " COMMENTS BY INTERVENORS ON EARTHQUAKE SWARM SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO BOARD ORDER DATED DECEMBER 10, 1981" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 15th day of December 1981:

• Janes L.

Kelley, Esq., Chairman David R. Pigott, Esq.

Administrative Judge Samuel B.

Casey, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board John A. Mendez, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edward B. Rogin, Esq.

Washingotn, D.C.

20555 Of Orrick, Herrington &

Sutcliffe Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.,

A Professional Corporation Administrative Judge 600 Montgomery Street c/o Bodega Marine Laboratory San Francisco, CA 94111 University of California P.O. Box 247 Alan R. Watts, Esq.

Bodega Bay, CA 94923 Daniel K. Spradlin, Esq.

Rourke & Woodruff Mrs. Elizabeth B.

Johnson, 10555 North Main Street Administrative Judge Suite 1020 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Santa Ana, CA 92701 P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Richard J. Wharton, Esq.

University of San Diego Janice E. Kerr,' Esq.

School of Law J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.

Alcala Park Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.

San Diego, CA 92110 California Public Utilities Commission 5066 State Building Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks San Francisco, CA 94102 GUARD 3908 Calle Ariana San Clemente, CA 92672 4

O Charlee R.

Kocher, Esq.

A.

S. Carstens James Beoletto, Esq.

2071 Caminito Circula Norte Southern California Edison Co.

Mt. La Jolla, CA 92037 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel David 'd. Gilman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert G. Lacy Washington, D.C.

20555 San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

P.O. Box 1831

• Atomic Safety and Licensing San Diego, CA 92112 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.

Washington, D.C.

20555 1695 West Crescent Avenue Suite 222

• Secretary Anaheim, CA 92701 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Chief, Docketing & Service Charles E. McClung, Jr.,

Esq.

Branch Fleming, Anderson, McClung Washington, D.C.

20555

& Finch 24012 Calle de la Plata Lawrence Chandler, Esq.

Suite 330 Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 i

Richard J. Wna ton Attorney for I tervenors I