ML20147C862

Forwards 780201 USGS Review of Potential Faulting at Subj Site.Feels Staff Should Not Take Firm Position Until After Its Review.W/Encl ANO:7809250067

ML20147C862
Person / Time
Site:	Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png
Issue date:	02/03/1978
From:	Gammill W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Goller K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7812180425
Download: ML20147C862 (2)

Text

_ _ _ __

g W W B '"

. 'o UNITED ST A TES ,*"

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y

g /

5, . -l WASWNGToN o. C. 20555

'% . . . . . p' FEB 3 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: Karl Coller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, DOR FROM: William P. Gammill, Assistant Director for Site Technology, DSE

SUBJECT:

ACTION PLAN - GE's RESPONSE TO NRC ORDER ON GETR Reference is made to the memorandum f rom A. Schwencer to Victor Stello, Jr., dated January 23, 1978, subject as above. The proposed plan calls for completion of our review by late February in preparn-tion for a pre-hearing conference which might take place as early as February 28, 1978.

• The action plan noted that we do not intend to get USGS concurrence on the SER because of the short time involved. I would note that it is not our practice to obtain USGS concurrence on our SER's. However, inasmuch as we have requested the USGS views on the potential for surface faulting at the Vallecitos site, I feel that it would be unwise for the staff to take a firm position on this issue before we have a complete understanding of the USGS views. This is especially true in light of the status of review which we received from the USGS on February 1, 1978, a copy of which is enclosed.

In order to expedite our review, we are attempting to schedule a meeting with the principal USGS reviewers. However, I am not at all optimistic about our ability to complete our review and establish a firm position in time for the SER to be published in February. I will keep you informed with respect to our efforts to complete the review.

U- -

c.% s s s William P. Gammill, Assistant Director for Site Technology Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See attached page 781218046 6

s .

Karl Goller FEB 3 1970 cc w/ enc 1:

E. Case V. Stello i H. Denton D. Muller

1. Schwencer F. Burger C. Stepp R. Hofmann R. Jackson J. Kelleher 4

S

y wea  !

, i

^ .

p.: ~

IN;u M O United states Department of the Interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY s., , e RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092 January 30, 1978 ,,'.,,%i

,%., /z . . .

i rS .i m,fl't]i,/{!'

. vu , ,. k:'-

[j'..

{ FE3 2 797g y ,)

Mr. William P. Gammill ' A *3 jaj;g,g4ren Assistant Director for Site Technology ' A. ,

. w s.m.,

Division of Safety and Environmental Analysis E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation g

,, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, D. C. ~29555 sh /

Dear Mr. Ga 11:

Enclosed please find a status review by R. R. Morris concerning .

the GETR site, Vallecitos, California, dated January 20,'1978.

This review was read to Mr. Hofmann of your office over the telephone on January 25, 1978, in order to provide USGS input for the meeting being held at that time. This is, therefore, a confirmation copy of that telephone conversation.

Sincerely,

' .r f//NIk Penelope M. Hdnshaw

, Staff Geologist for Special Programs Office of Environmental Geology 4

7gg2967

Status Review Vallecitos, Calif.

Robert H. bbrt ir, January 20, 1978 l.. . ,

General Electric: C.ompany General Electric Test Reactor

, Vallecitos, California

, , NRC Docket No. 50-70

.' Geology The U.S. Geological Survey has been requested by the Nuclear ,

Regulatory Commission to evaluate the proposal submitted by the General ElectricCompanywhichpostulatesmovementof1malonga.hypothetlcal northeast-dipping (15') thrust fault at the GETR (General Electric

~

Test Reactor) te. Three possible conditions are considered: (1) the fault impinges on the northeast side of the base of the reactor vessel, (2) the fault impinges on the central portion of the base of the vessel, and (3) the fault impinges on the southwest base of the

., vessel.

SW NE O i

1 l y 15*

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

i. _,:.. ..

. ' . .. . / ,

t i

In evaluating this ptoposal the mst simi.lar recent earthquake with sufficient sletailed data availabic and upon which comparative assessment can be made is the San Fernando earthquake of February 9, .

f '

l 1971 (nirphy,1973). This earthquake was of 6.4 magnitude and produced 2.4 m (7.9 ft) .of net slip along a thrust fault dipping 35' to the east.

I t 4

Higher-than-expected accelerations fran that earthquake were observed

'I at several points. Also, the duration and area of strong ground

/ .i .

motion were extensive for this earthquake.

j ..<, ~

General Electric Company postulates 1 m (43.3 ft) along a fault i

at Vallecitos. In-the trench excavation of the Verona fault, reverse dip slip of about 5 m (15 ft) was observed. Insufficient geologic data I were available to determine if this amount of slip occurred as one l episode or as multiple episodes of faulting or if the 5 m is net or i apparent dip slip. Considering the lack of definitive proof of movement

on the Verona fault and the fact that the San Fernando earthquake produced 2.4 m (7.9 ft) of net slip the 1 m of movement postulated by I. . . General Electric Company does not seem to provide adequate. conservatism.

Reference Mzrphy, L. M. , sci. coordinator,1973, San Fernando, California, earthquake of February 9, 1971: U.S. Dept. Commerce, 432 p.

a J

e 4

e f .*

5, .

2 o{ 4

.i. _? .

- -. ,. w -, , , , , ,-- ., , , . . , , , , , , , , . . , . - -.r,.. ,, ,, ,