ML20209D246
| ML20209D246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1984 |
| From: | Mcmullen R, Reiter L, Rothman R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082410749 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197 OL, NUDOCS 8408130189 | |
| Download: ML20209D246 (27) | |
Text
!'
12.
~'~ '
' ~ ~ '
..iu Gw L.
a=
.i -
13 t
, v, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATURY COMMISSION BEFORE IHE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos.50-27b OL PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
50-323 OL COMPANY
)
)
,I (Diablo Canyon Nuclear
)
Power Plant, Units 1 & 2 )
s l*
JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT L. ROTHMAN, RICHARD B. MCMULLEN, LEON REITER AND STEPHAN J. BROCOUM STATE OF MARYLAND
)
)
ss.
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY
)
Robert L. Rothman, Richard B. McMullen, Leon Reiter and Stephan J.
Brocoum, being of legal age and duly sworn, depose and say as follows:
I 1.
I, Robert L. Rothman, a seismologist, am employed by the Office of f
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. A copy of my professional qualificatlans is attached to this
(
i I, Richard B. McMullen, a geologist, am employed by the Office of nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulat'ory Comission. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached to this affidavit, i
I, Leon Reiter, a seismologist, am employed by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. A W as/So/8 W
=,
a $r.
=
=-
m 4
w;.w c.,
~.
...c e. u e.u
__s__-
_ 2__
.o
~
2-copy of my professional qualifications is attached to this affidavit.
I, Stepnan J. Brocoum, a geologist, am employed by the Ottice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commir. Lion. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached to this affida-
-1 vit.
I 2.
The purpose of this affidavit is to provide our evaluation of the i
seismological and geological information provided by Joint Intervenors as it may affect the seismic design basis for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP). We wish to emphasize that our analysis is based in some instances on preliminary data l
available tram recent earthquakes anc preliminary review of recent and ongoing geological studies.
However, to date, we have found notning to warrant changing our previous conclusions concerning the j
DCNPP seismic design basis, nor those determinations made by the Appeal Board in ALAB-644, 13 NRC 903 0981) which were challenged by Joint intervenors, as discussed below.
3.
We will address the specific 1ssues raised by the Joint intervenors in the section titled Specific Evidence in their Motion to Reopen i
J' the Record.
In items (a) and (b) of the Joint intervenors' Motion 4
'i they claim that the high ground motion recorded at the Coyote Lake Dam from the April 24, 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake and at victoria, from the Mexicali Valley earthquake of June 9, 1980 show that the o r*
~ - ~ = - ~ e _ = **= _w r e,yg-m_ ;y We 7* s o s;_ g
- m Qt = ye_ W t*_~.-~** w -* _ :_cg 7-*-emeo~_;
s.
L e e
~
.23
_ i___,_,_.
.,2.~,..
Newmark Spectrum substantially underestimates the force of a magnitude 7.5 event on the Hosgri Fault. As explained below, the recordings obtained from the April 24, 1984 Morgan Hill California earthquake at the Coyote Lake Dam abutment and from the June 9, 1980 Mexicali Valley, Baja California earthquake at the Victoria
.j station do not invalidate the Appeal Boards decision as to the adequacy of the Newmark Hosgri Design Spectrum.
I j
The Appeal Board considered the fact that the Newmark Spectrum had been exceeded by response spectra developed from ground motion
,l l
records obtained from two earthquakes with magnitudes less than the 1
postulated magnitude (M ) 7.5 Hosgri event, the Pacoima Dam record 3
from the 1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake (M 6.5) and the 3
Bond's Corner record of the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake (M 3
6.9) [ALAB-644 at 951) in reaching its decision as to the adequacy of the Newmark spectrum. This taken with the Appeal Board's l
finding that the size of near-field ground motion is not strongly dependent on earthquake size, indicates that the exceedence of the Newmark Spectrum by spectra from individual recordings are not i
cause to reject the Newmark Spectrum.
The Appeal Board stated, in making its decision, that future ground motion records may exceed i
those previously measured [ALAB-644 at 933). Also in discussing magni ude saturation [ALAB-644 at 932] the Board stated that "There l
cannot be total assurance that the measurements made in the near 5
l field to date sample all conditions that might result in large
....,.,. m -
m.
,,m
,---m s
z.u.. --
m m a.. %._ a _... s 4
local values of acceleration." The Appeal Board also considered the information presented to the Licensing Board of the existence of a peak acceleration of 0.% g measured close to an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 in making its decision [ALAB-644 at 931).
There are several factors to consider in evaluating the ground motion at Coyote Lake Dam and Victoria.
The Coyote Lake Uam record which has the hignest horizontal peak acceleration (1.29 g) recorded from an earthquake was made on the dam abutment.
It may be significant that the previous highest horizontal peak acceleration (1.25 g) record was from the Pocioma Dam abutment.
It is postulated that the Pocoima Dam ground motion may be abnormally amplified due to topographic effects.
Roger Scholl, technical director of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, attributes tne high acceleration at the Coyote Dam in part to the s
i dynamic amplification characteristics of the dam (Scholl, 1984).
The applicability of tne high accelerations recorded in the i
Mexicali Valley at Victoria to other sites, especially Diablo Canyon, a rock site, is brougnt into question by Mungula and Brune i
(1984, Intervenors' Attachment VII).
Iney state'that they can not say whetfier the accelerations they obtaineo from their modeling study of Mexicali-Imperial Valley earthquakes are reasonable for other environments such as environments with less sediment amplification or lower stress drop small events, i
.m_,._
m.,__
z.
o.
.g...
.m.._
L_
.m-Mgk u.1_
._mm rQM 3...
5-5 Joint Intervenorfs; claim that the? response spectra for.the Loyote Lakerecordings(ar,ecloseto\\and.exceedtheNewmarkdesignspectra tor Diablo Canyon,Lin.tne period ~ range 0.1 to 1 second. However, our comparison of Lthe Newmark Spectrum with the horizontal spectrum from the Coyote Lake Dam which has the peak acceleration of 1.299 shows that the Newmark spectrum exceeds tne Coyote Lake Dam spectrum _at all frequencies except above about 14.3 Hertz and between 0.89 and 1.8 Hertz.
The Joint Intervenors take exception to the Appeal Board's 1
characterization in ALAB-644 of the Bond's Corner record as j
distorted. At the reopened hearing in 1980 there was some discussion as to wnether Bond's Corner was an anomalous site since the records obtained there from the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake were hign relative to surrounding stations. A comparison of the i
i peak horizontal accelerations recorced for the Mexicali Valley earthquake as shown in Table 4.1 by Simons (1982, Intervenors' 4
~
Attachment VI) indicates that the Bond's Corner station (3S km from the fault) for this earthquake recorded higher values than all the j
stations as near as 20 km from the fault. Ihis le'nds support to the argument that Bond's Corner may have anomalous site conditions.
The doint Intervenors also state that the peak vertical accelerations recorded at Victoria from the Mexicali Valley earth-l quake exceed those predicted by the Newmark spectrum for Diablo i
Canyon.
Ine occurrence of high vertical accelerations (with
.. n.
..... n.. -
. _... _. = _ _., _
...__m 7 _
respect to the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake) was addressed during the 1980 reopened hearing. This issue was included in the Appeal Board's decision (ALAB-664 at 957-962).
In an engineering
?
context the Appeal Board pointed out that there is a low increase in total calculated stress, about one percent, resulting from an.
a increase of 50 percent of the vertical acceleration over the design value for the containment'shell. _
t An important consideration 1when assessing these high recorded 1
ground accelerations is whether they caused damage. We (Reiter and i
Rothman) visited the area around Coyote Lake Dam on May 3,1984 l
l where the high acceleration from the Morgan Hill earthquake was recorded. Although there had been media reports of an 18 inch deep crack in the dam, no obvious damage to the dam, to the shed in which the strong motion instrument is housed or in the vicinity of i
'}
the dam was observed.
Conversations with local residents indicated t
that damage to buildings had been minimal and consisted of some I
cracked windows, a few bricks which fell from a garden wall and
[
articles that fell from shelves. The IBM Santa Teresa Laboratory i
{
is located about 10 kilometers from the presumed hupture. This facility is instrumented with strong motion accelerographs.
It is reported (Homer Given, IBM, Personal Communication) that the peak i
j free field horizontal acceleration at this facility from the Morgan Hill earthquake was about 0.5 g and the maximum peak horizontal f
acceleration in the basement was about 0.4g.
The building was i
i
.-...,.-l
-...;..yw.y,
~
h
, p' s
A
[
_7 t
y i
r I
\\
l
. reportedly desfgned,to a response spectrum with a zero period anchor of 0.25g. rIt is reported that there $as no structural i
\\,
(
damage to'the building aid tihe tcomputers kept operating during the 1
?
In discussing the damage from the June 9,~'1980 t'
Mexicali Valley ' earthquake Simons and others (1981) indicate that i
the damage was surprisingly moderate in view of the high response g
spectrum at short periods. TheJointInterve'nor/sinferencethat theMorganHi(1andMexicalistronggroundmotionrecordingscast
~
doubt upon the adequacy of the Newmark Spectrum for seismic design at Diablo Canyon is not supported by these observations of little or no damage.
Indeed, it was pointed out (EERI,1984) that one of the lesso'ns learned from the Morgan Hill earthquake is that "There L
i is no evidenceithat there is a need to imphove structural requirements, but they do need to be applieb." N diess to say the
.i structural requirements at a nuclear power phnt such as DCNPP are i
i<
far more stringent than those used for the structures affected by j
the Morgan Hill earthquake.
4.
In their item (c), the Joint Intervenors state that "The data obtained from the Morgan Hill earthquake also establish that the Board's characterization of focusing on high stress drop as specu-i lative was erroneous." The Joint Intervenor's misconstrued the Appeal Board's characterization of focusing and high stress drop.
h The Appeal Board recognized the existence of both high stress drop and focusing. They addressed high stress drop [ALABl644 at 950]
j.
m.
~7, y c,7
- .-..- y
g.
-,.s J
e and said that the potential for high stress drop is accepted in seismology and high values for this factor are known to exist in some areas. The Appeal Board in addressing focusing [ALAB-644 at 945] noted that the Licensing Board had said that focusing is not a new phenomenon. What the Appeal Board considered speculative was
(
Dr. Brune's position that focusing and high stress drop could result in peak accelerations "...on the order of 2 g..." at Diablo 1
Canyon [ALAB-644 at 950]. We find nothing in.the Joint x
Intervenors' arguments that would increase the likelihood of such accelerations at Diablo Canyon.
5.
In item (d) the Joint Intervenors state that the Board's assumption about 4the strike slip nature of the Hosgri Fault has been discred-ited by recent studies and the June 20,'1984 Pt Sal earthquake, j
whichprovide evidence of thrust faulting in the vicinity of the
~
Hosgri Fault, and that thrust faults may result in higher grcund I
accelerations than strike slip faults. The Joint Intervenors reference three independent studies that support the conclusion i
that the region of the Hosgri fault is characterized by a major e
i l
component of thrust faulting, Eaton (1984, Intervenors' Attachment i
s VIII); Minster and Jordan (1984, Intervenors' Attachtrent IX); and l
Crouch and others (1984, Intervenors' Attachment V).
i 1
f The prevailing
- view at the time of the Appeal Board's decision was I
j and still is that the Hosgri fault was influenced by the right F-t
'l
'#7 4
, ' T~ 7
"]. 2
._,_[-N'
, ; : O'*,,
~~
'-**N~
""""'*"']***~"
,m-g a '.
/
lateral strike slip tectonics of the San Andreas fault system.
T
(
i There still is considerable evidence for strike-slip displacement on the Hosgri. fault as pointed out in the UbtiS report of April 29, y
1976, which is included as Appendix C in Supplement 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report, May, 1976.
s 1
It has not yet been demonstrated that there is not a significant
,1 I
component of strike slip faulting on the Hosgri fault. Crouch and others (1984, Intervenors' Attachment V) did not rule out strike s
slip but ste,ted that "... suggested late Cenozoic right slip offsets t
on northwest-trending faults in onshore and offshore central I
California may be overstated and that late Cenozoic basin morphology in central California may be due largely to compression rather than exclusively to wrench-style tecton1cs."
i Eaton (1984, Intervenors' Attachment VIII) studied six of the largest earthquakes that occurred near the coast of California, d
{
between Santa Barbara and Monterey, from 1978 to 1984.
Tne primary purpose of Eaton's study was to determine the focal mechanisms of i
i these six events and to try to relate them to faults exposed at the j
surface.
Eaton found that the faulting st'yle progressed from Santa j
Barbara-in the south from left lateral reverse oblique, through 3
j simple reverse, to rignt lateral reverse oblique and finally to i
right lateral strike slip near Point Suri. in the north. The three 1i southernmost earthquakes, which 11e about 30-135 km south of UCNPP,
)
- U [M
.T.l " $ "**# 9
- '9'"
- esg e,a yN e e Wm a
,-w--s e-4 =...-
,r
w w m.g m m -:
. s n, -,
v - --
L
=
_- ae resultea trom predominantly reverse faulting. The San dimeon earthquake of August 29, 1983 (about 80 km north of DCNPP), the Lt southernmost of the three northern earthquakes, results from N
oblique taulting with nearly equal reverse and right lateral components. The.two nortnernmost earthquakes (about 120 km and 150 km north of DCNPP) resulted from nearly pure right lateral strike slip faulting.
Based on this study it might be expected that in the region near DCNPP the faulting mechanisms would be of an oblique type somewhere between reverse and right lateral strike slip motion.
I
.Ii q
Minster and Jordan (1984, Intervenors' Attachment IX) calculate that west of the San Ancreas fault deformation must involve crustal snortining (compression) of 4 to 13 m/yr orthogonal to the San Andreas fault and 6 to 25 mm/yr or right lateral motion parallel to it. This motion is distributed over several faults west of the San Andreas and they indicate that the largest motion is right-lateral
}
strike slip, although they suggest that most of this 'is -probably on the San Gregorio tault.
-t i
Another study (Clark and Brabb, 1984) published in the same volume f
as the Crouch and others (1984) and the Minster and Jordan (1984) papers (Intervenors' Attachments V and lx) presents evidence for 150 km of right lateral strike slip faulting since late Miocene (12
]
million years before present) on the San Gregorio fault.
If this I
1 I
m u...
wrx.
.~~
,g,,..,..
-n c.-
y.
~
.. ~.'
11 -
L were true, geometric constraints would require substantial right lateral strike slip faulting on faults lying to the south of the San Gregorio fault, possibly including the San Simeon and Hosgri faults.
The interpretation of the seismic reflection profiles shown in the Crouch and others (1984 Intervenors' Attachment V) paper, the northernmost of which is about 15 km south of Diablo Canyon, suggests that the Hosgri fault system begins curving toward the 3
shore at depths of about 23 km.
If it is very conservatively assumed that the fault does not increase in depth as it is extrapolated to the northeast of the seismic reflection lines, it could pass under Diablo Canyon at a depth of about 21 km. However, observations of well-studied overtarust belts elsewhere suggest that thrust faults continue increasing in depth accelerated by ramping, and eventually flatten out along a common fault referred to as the sole fault at the base of the system of thrust faults, which is usually much deeper than 21 km. The model postulated by the authors shows the sole thrust to be 10 to 20 km deep.
In considering the ground motion that might result at DCNPP from an earthquake on a postulated thrust fault, it would be inappropriate l
to automatically assume the same magnitude for the earthquake under I
,I a thrust regime as was postulated under the assumption that.the J
j Hosgri was a long strike slip fault zone capable of a magnitude 7.5 L!
l 2
={
?
l?_
~
"~ ~' r
7 ~.' earthquake. It may well be that for a thrust type fault the maximum earthquake magnitude could be different and quite possibly [ less. ~ The Joint Intervenors postulate that a thrust rupture could initi-a ate at depth and propagate up-dip, toward the site causing much I higher accelerations than previously anticipated. The Pacoima Dam strong motion data on which Newmark based the DCNPP Hosgri spectrum is the result of just such an occurrence. Therefore, this type of ground motion (although from a magnitude 6.5 earthquake) is' already factored into the design of DCNPP. 1 The Joint Intervenors present an argument that a thrust event directly beneath the site could lead to a vertically propagating wave front which would minimize any reduction in foundation j acceleration due to the tau effect. The Appeal Board addressed the 1 l issue of tau effect and its relation to horizontally and vertically propagating waves. The Appeal Board indicates that the i Intervenors' complaint, that the tau effect is only appropriate for l i horizontally propagating waves, is poorly founded. The Appeal i Board stated that the record shows that the tau effect as viewed by f. Dr. Newmark encompasses both wave passage and wave inhomogeneity I effects. The Appeal Board concluded that despite the confusion j associated with the definition of tau in terms of wave passage, it i i is clear that the tau effect includes spatial inhomogeneties in the i !"m-~q.".y_ g T & _TZ --" E - " 'T, ; - ~'
- - " ~ ~ " " ' ~ - ~
-., _. ~. -. n p& 13 - wave motion over the foundation surface, a characteristic of virtually all seismic motion [ALAB-644'at 967]. Based on the above considerations we conclude that the new studies which suggest a greater component of thrusting on the Hosgri fault than had been previously assumed does not discredit the Board's findings concerning earthquake ground motions that could effect the j site. 6. Joint Intervenors' item (e) states that in light of the evidence for thrust faulting in the vicinity of the Hosgri fault, a recent study of the seismic potential of surface folding relating to the 1983 Coalinga earthquake (Stein and King,1984, Intervenors' Attachment X) bears on the extent of the seismic hazard at Diablo Canyon. The Joint Intervenors state that the 1983 Coalinga earthquake, i .l which occurred on a reverse fault concealed beneath active folds, 'l j provides a recent illustration of the possibility that further major faulting may lie concealed directly under or adjacent to the Diablo Canyon site. Based on earthquake fault plane solutions and geological information, the reverse fault with which the Coalinga Earthquake is associated extends from a depth of 4 km down to a depth of 12 l i l-i M'T?K.Q:)??']-Tl,_w u, ~~'n ' ~~ ~ ^~- _ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
,.m ..s_.. ,2 d,,.. ) ( km. The Pliocene-Pleistocene (2.0-0.5 million years old) strata overlying the reverse fault are deformed into an assymetrical fold with tens of feet of structural relief whose surface expression is a ridge. During the 1983 earthquake this ridge was uplifted about i meter. Based on topographic and geologic evidence, it is estimated that there have been 2 to 5 km of cumulative slip on the buried fault in the last million years which caused folding in the overlying sediments and caused the growth of the ridge (Stein, 1983). Similar relationships, that is strong geologic evidence for ~ recurrent displacements with substantial effects on the topography are also present in the epicentral areas of the 1980 El Asnam ] (magnitude 7.3), Niigata (Magnitude 7.5), and the 1952 Kern County (Magnitude 7.3) earthquakes. Examination of the Nekten (Crouch and others, 1984, Intervenors' Attachment V) seismic reflection data' across the Hosgri fault indicate that the thrust faults of the Hosgri fault zone either are ) truncated by the base of the Sisquoc formation (Pliocene) or extend ~ slightly up into this formation. Evidence of minor folding can be i seen in the sediment above several of the thrust faults but nowhere I is there any evidence of folding or topographic (bathymetric) i I-effects near the magnitude of those found in late Tertiary sedi-ments at Coalinga. This would suggest a substantially smaller rate 1 l ^'r-- - q gs^-L _. 3 _ s ': q3w ; TG~ T" _ ~" ~ ~ ~ - x
- -m mm-. - - .. z. y y of recurrence for large earthquakes on the Hosgri fault.'.,This finding is supported by the relatively low level of seism'ic'activi. ty in the area when compared to known active areas in California, n The Brune Affidavit (attached to the Joint Intervenors' Motion) states that it is not possible to eliminate the possibility of a concealed thrust fault even closer to the Diablo Canyon site than '1 j the data of Crouch and others (1984) suggest. The Brune Affidavit cites the folds and minor faults indicated on Plate 2 of the USGS d l Open-File Report 74-252 (Wagner, 1974) as being indications of t concealed thrust faults with surface projections as close as 2-3 km 1 I offshore. 5 Some of these offshore folds on Plate 2 (Wagner, 1974) may well be indications of thrust faults at depth. These folds are mapped entirely within the Miocene and pre-Miocene rocks, similar to folds mapped onshore (Hall,1979) and in an area of the seafloor which i was planed by erosion 10,000 to 15,000 years ago when it was subaerially exposed. Wagner (1974) indicates that these folds I j apparently developed during a period of tectonism in middle Miocene j (15 million years ago) time. He further states that these' folds i were themselves folded during another more restricted period of i j deformation during late Miocene or early Pliocene time. During a site inspection in June, 1984, staff geologists observed a re-folded fold, which is likely similar to those mapped by Wagner, ~ l e.- - - - - - ~ - - - -, -7 l
. m. m y .m c 16 - exposed along the sea cliff south of Diablo Canyon. The fold was-truncated by an ancient marine terrace demonstrating sthat the folding occurred at least prior to formation of that' terrace 80,000/120,000 years before present, but possibly several million ~ years before present. There is no evidence that the minor folding in sediments above faults of the Hosgri fault zone are currently active, nor are they of sizes comparable to those related to faulting at Coalinga. .I l 7. In their item (f) the Joint Intervenors claim that the Appeal i Board's finding that Diablo' Canyon is sited in_ an area of low to moderate seismicity has proven erroneous in light of the signifi-cant earthquakes that have occurred since 1978 along the coast of California. They base this contention on a paper by Eaton (1984, Intervenors' Attachment VIII) and try to make an argument for high seismicity in the Hosgri region. Eaton studied six earthquakes (magnitude range 3.9 to 5.9) that occurred over a large area near the coast of California, between Santa Barbara and Monterey. The. locations of these events extended a distance of almost 300 kilometers. The northernmost event was the Point Sur. earthquake of January 23, 1984 over 150 km from DCNPP and the southernmost event I was the Santa Barbara earthquake August 13,1978 about 135 km from DCNPP. The Point Sal earthquake of May 29, 1980 was the closest of these earthquakes to the Diablo Canyon site at a distance of about ._t, g, g '. +[ f a p[ I
t. mg=n
- a. ~ -. -,-
= __ a 17 _ 30 km. As already stated the primary purpose of Eaton's study was to determine the focal mechanisms of these six events and to try to relate them to faults exposed at the surface. Of the six L ] earthquakes only the Point Sal earthguake of May 29, 1980 appears to have an epicenter near the Hosgri fault zone. Nevertheless, Eaton found that the fault plane solutions he determined for this earthquake indicate a fault that strikes. . 1-1 diagonally across rather than parallel to the mapped strands of the Hosgri fault near the epicenter. The largest, by far, of these six earthquakes', (the magnitude 5.9 Santa Barbara event) occurred in the Transverse Ranges, a different tectonic setting exhibiting higher seismicity and recognized recent tectonic movement. It is inappropriate to take these earthquakes from a widely spread area and use them to imply a greater probability for the occurrence of a magnitude 7.5 or larger earthquake near the plant. i ) ] The Appeals Board's finding that DCNPP is sited in an area of low to moderate seismicity is correct particularly.when comparsd to l areas of high seismicity in California such as Cape Mendocina, the area near Hollister, Parkfield, the Imperial Valley, the area south { and east of Bakersfield and the San Jacinto fault zone (Real and others 1978) to name a few. t 8. The DCNPP is in the coastal region of California where there is considerable amount of ongoing research in geology and seismology. i e e t ms.~..--..- g..;.. y
g. g. 7n... ~ 18 - . ntormation and theories are constantly being made known. The New statt' has. proposed as a license condition a reevaluation of the seismic' des'ign bases for the plant. This study will incorporate the most recent information available. a At the the direction of the Commissioners, the Advisory Committee '{ on Reactor S'afeguards (ACRd) has reviewed the program the staff has proposed. This review has included a comprehensive presentation of s his research by Dr. Crouch ~ and discussions of Dr. Eaton's work. In i the1r letter to the Commissioners (dated June 20,1984), the ACRS .i j stated "We believe that the elements outlined in the NRC staff's proposal will provide a suitable basis for the seismic reevaluation. We believe also that the NRC staff's proposal is responsive to the July 14, 1978 ACRS letter in which the ACRS suggested 'tnat the seismic design of Diablo Canyon be reevaluated in about ten years taking into account applicable new information.'" The ACRS's final statement in their June 20, 1984 i j letter is " Based on the information developed in these meetings and t considering the above comments, we find no reason to alter the l .j conclusions stated in the Committee's report cate'd July 14, 1978 regarding operation of this nuclear plant." 4 [ 4 1 i P +=9erv
- r
- '*4*"
M" =
- r
}% '*]** _"M*
- "*N.--
'l ' 7 ' ~, * * * * *
. r.. ~.. a .a . p. In summary, the plant is currently designed for a large near field earthquake and the staff has reasonable assurance that the design is adequate.
- =m Robert L. Rothman
. b f:L3xpr.m*, i Richard B. McMullen EA y Leon Reiter / Y 5tepnpnJ.Brocoum Subscribed and sworn to before me this /s/ day of August,1984 b l D ; h - A *A Notary Puolic t / My Commission Expires: [/.//((o I t k ) \\ 4 I ..--e h. ~
pzew%mwm - m m. -m _m
- g. ~
w .4 References Crouch, J. K., S. B. Bachman, and J. T. Shay, 1984, Post-Miocene Compressional Tectonics Along The Central California Margin; in Crouch, J. K. and S. B. Bachman, Editors, Tectonics and Sedimentation Along the California Margin: Pacific Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Minerologists. Clark, J. C., E. E. Brabb, H. G. Greene and D. C. Ross, 1984, Geology of Point Reyes Peninsula and Implications 'for San Gregorio Fault History; in Crouch, J. K. and S. B. Bachman, Editors, Tectonics and Sediments Along the California Margin: Pacific Section,-Society of Economic Paleontologists and Minerologists. EERI, 1984, Earthquake of April 24, 1984 in Central California, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Newsletter Vol.18, No. 3. Eaton, J. P., 1984, Focal Mechanisms of Near-Shore Earthquakes Between Santa Barbara and Monterey, California, USGS Open-File Report 84-477. Hall, C. A. Jr., W. G. Ernst, S. W. Prior and J. W. Wiese,1979, Geologic Map cf the San Luis Obispo-San Simeon Region, California; U. S. Geolcgical Survey Map I-1097, 1:48,000. Minster, J. B. and T. H. Jordan,1984, Vector Constraints on Quaternary Deformation of th Western United States East and West of the San Andreas Fault; in J. K. Crouch and S. B.'Bachman Editors, Tectonics and Sedimentation Along the California Margin; Pacific Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Minerologists. Munguia, L. and J. N. Brune,1984, Simulations of Strong Ground 3 j Motions for Earthquakes in the' Mexicali-Imperial Valley, preprint. i } Real, C. R., T. R. Toppozada and D. L. Parke,1978, Earthquake i Epicenter Map of California 1900 through 1974, California Division j of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 39. t i Scholl, R., 1984, Calif. Quake Packed a Punch, Engineering News-Record, The McGraw Hill Construction Weekly, June 21, 1984, p. j 36. i Simons R. S.,1982, The Strong Motion Record from Station Victoria; l in Anderson, J. G. and R. S. Simons, Editors, The Mexicali Valley Earthouake of 9 June 1980, Newsletter, EERI, Vol. 16, pp. 73-105 1 l _ _ _ ~,,.. _, -- m m- -w w
- _,s k, 4a
=- - = N g w s t s-' 4
if e_ .m e.m +.. - Stein, R. S.,1983, Reverse Slip on a Buried Fault During the 2 May, 1983 Coalinga Earthquake: Evidence from Geodetic Elevation Changes; in Bennett, J. H. ar.d R. W. Sherburne, Editors, The 1983 Coalinga,. California Earthquakes; Special Publication 66, California Dept. of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Stein, R. S. and G. C.JP. King, 1984, Seismic Potential Revealed by Surface Folding: 1983 Coalinga, California Earthquake; Science, Vol. 224, pp. 869-872. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1976, Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-275 and 323. Wagner, H. C.,1974, Marine Geology Between Cape San Martin and i j~ Point Sal South-Central California Offshore; U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 74-252. i 6 1 i 1 t 1 i {;,.,..,ggy y- __,._m__.._.
p: n.n g. = e. - - - n 2, ..m ROBERT L. ROTHMAN GEOSCIENCES BRANCH DIVISION OF ENGINEERING U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Myn$meisRobertL.Rothman. Iampresentlyempicyed$sa Seismologist in the Geosciences. Branch,. Division of. Engineering, ~
- j Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 2055S.
- n ij PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
. 'h I received 'a B.S. degree in Geology frem Brooklyn College and M.S..and Ph.D. degrees in Geophysics from the Pennsylvania State University. I have been employed by the NRC since October 1979 as a Seismolegist in the evaluation of the suitability of nuclear power plant sites. My. areas of expertise include seismicity, rupture mechanics, seismic wave propagation and seismic instrumentatioc. I am new or have been responsible for the seismological safety review of approximately fifteen 4 nuclear power plant sites. 9, From 1975 threugh 1979, I was employed by the U. S. Air Force ' Technical Applicaticas Cen+er as.a Seismologist in the nuclear explosion cateccien
- u ; x=progrt=
.Iwas invc-lved in ~se'veral-projects of. this progrcm both as a Technical Project Officer and as a researcher. These projects included the detection of and the discrimination between underground explosiens and earthquakes, magnitude and yield relationship studies, seismic network detecticn and location capability studies, regional and teleseismic wave prepcgatica studies and projects to operate seismic instrument arri:ys i and automatic data processing and cer:1unicaticas systems. 1 l Frca 1955 through 197b I was employed as a. Seismologist by.the U. S$. Coast and Geodetic Survey. In this position I was. involved in: studies in the i 5 areas of engineering seismology, seismicity and. earthquake. aftershcck ' sequences. This work was performed.as part of a prcgram to investi. ate f seismic hazard in the United States. From19S9to196kandduring 1964-1965 I was an ingineering Geologist with the New York State Department'of Public Works. In this position, I conducted g20 physical field surveys in support of construction projects such as bricges, buildings and highways. 7 Professional Society Membershio American Geophysical Union Potomac Geophysical Society Seismological Society of America Society of Exploration Geophysicists e 4 'e =*s-ever +ge. *-] 8s94>.. _ _ WH"i, .U L ' L-i e 1
, _-., n n y_= ,~w. n;,.
- o _ w -----
2' LEON REITER LEADER, SEISMOLOGY SECTION GEOSCIENCES BRANCH ~ DIVISION OF ENGINEERING U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION My name is Leon Reiter..Ipresentlyresideat196bDundeeRoad, Rockville,. Maryland 20S50 and am employed as a Seismologist, Geosciences Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 20555. f-PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I received a Bachelor of Arts cegree in Geology from Brooklyn College in 1958, a Master of Science degree in Geology (Geophysics from the University of Michigan in 1968, a Master of Arts. degree in Mathematics from the University of Michigan in 1970 and a Ph.D..in Geology (Geophysics) from the University of Michigan in 1971. In the year following receipt ] of my Ph.D. I was a National Science Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellow at { the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Geophysics in La Jolla, California. From 1972 to 1976 I was an Assistant Professor.of Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma. During.the summer of 1975 I was.a visiting scientist of the U. S. Geological Survey National Center. for Earthquake Research in Menlo Park, California. I joined the NRC in August, 1976 as a Seismologist and-since August 1979 I have been Leader of the Seismology Section in the Geosciences-i Branch of the Division of Engineering. My research during my academic career has included the areas of crustal 4 explbration, seismic wave attenuation, midcontinent seismicity and tectonics, earthquake prediction and the application of seismic techniques to engineering problems. At NRC I have been actively involved in review of sites for nuclear facilities in all parts of the United States and in q several foreign countries. I have also taken a lead responsibility for { studies in the fields of strong motion seismology, near-field groundmotion, j and probabilistic risk assessments. 1 I am a member of the American. Geophysical Union, the Seismological Society i of America, the Society of Exploration Geophysicists and the Earthquake. Engineering Research Institute. I.have served as a member of'the Plate Interiors Working Group of the U. S. Geodynamics Committee, the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction and the Panel on National Regional and Local Seismograph Networks of the National Research Council-National i Academy of Sciences. I have authored or co-authored papers published in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, the Journal of the i Acoustical Society of America, the Proceedings of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and National Science Foundation Conference Proceedings. } 1 3 I 1 1 L, ww
- ~_
i X _u:
m m. ya - _4 -7_ --u .w, .f 3 -., w. 7 RICHARD B.'MCMULLEN-GEOSCIENCES BRANCH U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l My name is Richard McMullen. I am employed as a geologist in the Geo- ~ sciences Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reacto'r Regu lation, Washington, DC 20555. PROFESST.ONAL QUALIFICATIONS My present duties in this position include: the evaluation of the-geolo-gical aspects of sites for nuclear power generating facilities and to analyze and interpret the geological data submitted to the NRC in support a ~! of applicants for construction and operation of-nuclear facilities; the development of guides and criteria; and to act as consultant to the NRC Staff on geological matters. e After completion of three years in the Marine Corps I attended the University of Florida and graduated in 1959 with a B.S. degree in Geology. During my professional employment, I completed correspondence courses in soils engineering and quarrying sponsored by the Army Engineer School at Ft. Belvoir, VA., short courses in the effects of ground motions on struc-tures, and airphoto interpreting. I am.a registered Geologist and ^ Engineering Geologist in the State of California. After graduation I worked as a field geologist with the Corps of Engineers District Office in Jacksonville, Florida conducting field geological investigations for flood control structures, levees, canals, military S, installations, radar sites, and missile launching complexes. I evaluated and wrote reports concerning the stratigraphy, geologic structure, ground-U water conditions, and foundation engineering aspects regarding these facilities in Florida, Puerto Rico, Bahama Islands, several of the West Indies Islands, and Panama. In 1963 I was assigned to the Corps of Engineers Canaveral District Office at Cape Kennedy, Florida, first as a ,i staff Engineering Geologist, and later as District Geologist. My duties were to plan, direct and evaluate the results of geological and.founda-tion studies for missile launch pads and associated facilities for the ~ NASA in Manned Lunar Landing Program, the Air Force, and the Navy. I acted as consultant to other government agencies and architectural engi- ,f neers in developing design features of structural fottndations, monitored the performance of foundations during and after construction, and recom-mended and. monitored necessary foundation treatment techniques such as vibraflotation, grouting, surcharging, dewatering and compaction. I wrote reports on the investigations, geology, foundation design, and i i 1 construction regarding these projects. 1 l t In 1967, I spent 6 months participating in the geological investigations- 'l for proposed sea level canal routes in Panama. The region' investigated consisted of complex structures of volcanics and folded and faulted sedimentary strata. Among the techniques employed in this study were t $ 5 ,3 R ,- Q }i ,~ . - m- - ~ ~ - - - - n
( _. ~ .ww. -. w-, . -.u _ . a.7
- _w l'
o e 2 field geologic mapping, geophysical surveying, bore hole photography, and core borings. In 1968, I was transferred to the Huntsville, Alabama Corps of Engineers Division which was responsible for the siting, design and construction of 15 to 20 (later reduced to 4) safeguard antibalistic missile installations throughout the United States. My duties there were to plan and participate in investigations to determine the suitability of these sites for construction of the missile complexes. I performed geo-logical studies and some soil mechanics work to develop design parameters for foundations and excavations. I also served as technical consultant during design and construction to other ' government agencies, architectural engineers, and contractors. s I have been a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff since January 1971 and have participated in licensing activities for at least thirty sites for nuclear facilities. I i O i e 2 i ~~ ; ~_ ;.. _ m s m O.h h. _ m.-w..~~ n.-, r.i, s a
y . - ~ ..'. { t STEPHAN J. BROCOUM, Ph.D. GEOSCIENCES BRANCH DIVISION OF ENGINEERING ~ OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR' REGULATION U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION My name is Stephan J. Brocoum and I am presently employed as the Leader of the Geology Section in the Geosciences Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. PROFESSIOMAL QUALIFICATIONS I have a B.S. in Geology (1963) from Brooklyn Collece of the City 'l University of New York and a Ph.D. in Geology (1971) from Columbia University with a specialty in structural geology and metamorphic petrology. I also possess expertise in tectonics, stratigraphy, rock mechanics, fault identification and behavior, remote sensing, and structural analysis. 1 -l As leader of the Geology Section since May, 1981, I have been responsible for the technical accuracy and completeness of all documents concerning geology, such as Safety Evaluation Reports, which are issued .bL the.Geost.ien.ces Branch.. I supervise. and review the work of the ... geologists in the section, as well as coordinate the reviews with Project Management, the United States Geological Survey, State L Geological Surveys, utilities and their consultants, NRC consultants and national Laboratories. To date I have participated in the licensing activity of approximately fifteen sites. l From November, 1979, until May, 1981, I was a geologist in the Earth i Sciences Branch, Office of Research of the Nuclear Regulatory l Comission. I was responsible for developing regulations and regulatory j guides. I participated in developing the technical portion of 10 CFR Part 60 " Disposal of High Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologif i Repositories". I also coordinated about 24 people in preparing the Draf t Regulatory Guide 4.17 " Standard Format and Content of Site l Characterization Reports for High-level Waste Geolog,ic Repositories." i From Nov.,1976, until Nov.,1979, I was a Research Geologist at Gulf i Science and _ Technology Company (Gulf Oil Corporation), Pittsburgh, j Pennsylvania. I conducted research applying. computer enhan~ced digital imagery to hydrocarbon exploration and relating lineaments and tonal features on remote imagery to tectonic, fault and fracture history of s.edimntary basins. I also conducted regional and tectonic studies of 1 the Anadarko, Appalachian and Williston basins in the United States, i From June,1975 until Nov.,1976, I was Assistant Project Geologist at E. D'Appolonia Consulting Er.gineers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I conducted site and regional geology studies for Preliminary and Final Safety Analysis Reports for nuclear power plants sites in the United States and the Caspian Sea Coastal Plain of Iran. My responsibilities mee m +
- Re a
n% +~ m +e.ew .s.w m m a a
w-m .r 3-n- .. _ !=," g incidded' geologic mapping and reconnaissance of site and regionat geology, interpretation of aerial and space imagery, relating historical and instrumentally determined seismicity to regional faulting and. tectonics and the determination of tectonic provinces. c From August,'1973, until June, 1975,-I was Assistant Pro'fessor of r, L geology at Texas Christian University, Fort Worth. I taught ? undergraduate courses in structural geology, petrology, optical mineralogy and physical and historical geology, and graduate courses in structural geology, petrology and. tectonics. I continued my research on b the tectonic, metamorphic and strain history of the Sudbury Basin, J Ontario, Canada. A I M From July, 1971, until June, 1973, while a Research Scientist at Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University, I was a co-investigator of a research grant to study "The Structural Geometry and Tectonic History.of the Sudbury Basin, Canadian shield." The research. included studying the structural geology (eight months field capping) and petrology of the Sudbury Basin,. Southern Province, Grenville Frent, and the determination of the finite strain history of 'g the Sudbury Basin. 1 ror my Ph.D. thesis I used methods of field structural analysis and , and structural petrology to unravel the geologic history of the complexely deformed and highly metamorphosed gneiss belt in the Adirondack Lowlands, New York. I also spent two austral summers (1969 K and 1971) conducting field work in the Antarctic Peninsula which included the structural geology and petrology of sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks of several islands. I also conducted a photogeological study of the Boothia Peninsula, Northwest Territories, Canada (1967-1968). Prior to beginning graduate studies I spent four months (1963) on Fletcher's Ice Island (T-3) in the Arctic Ocean collecting geophysical data. While a graduate student I received a New York State Scholar Incentive Award, Graduate Teaching and Research Assistantships and Faculty Fellowships from Columbia University and the United States Antarctic Service Medal from the National Science Foundation. q I am a member of the following professional and scientific organizations: Geological Society of America American Geophysical Union Potomac Geophysical Society 1 Sigma Xi 1 r f*' T f,W 1**u -4=**-. myy + -p ...ge.a. .. -** *^ C2 ( js 4 gI9 s. _,}}