ML20236L706
Text
_-
~
WITED LTAES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENEGY C0le(ISSION
\\
In the Matter of
)
l
)
k FACIZIC GAS AND ELECTRIC C0MFANY
)
Docket No. 50Q3 j
)
)
(DLablo Canyon Unit 2)
)
)
)
)
l Reply of Ralph Vrana to Martin G. Malsch statement of Sept. 30, 1970
{
I i
r 1.
Mr. Halch's Peply to my Replies (a two page statement dated l
Sept. 30, 1970) states that my replies were in the nature of proffered testimony and should not ta included as part of the evidentiary record.
Yet I confined my comments to points made at the August 7,1970 hearing.
I did not aantion any new faulting in the area of concern even though I as involved in suchAhaervations at present. In the absence of a good
)
geologic map of the area, it becomes important to do this and I an
]
surprised that Mr. Malch does not insist on such mapping for the protect 4.on of all parties concerned.
Se two points I consider most crucial and which I presented at the
.i hearing are:
j (1.) Se need for adequate geologic mapping preferably within j
m radius of ten siles of the proposed plant.
(2)
An evaluation of the risk posed by the offshore epicanters.
he process of geologic mapping is a standard one needing no particularly I
sophisticated equipment. It is well within the capability of the applicant, althouGh at this stage it is best done by an independent party such as Clarence Eall of UCLA who has told me he intends to do it.
l Possible method.1 of evaluating the offshore epicenters were listed in my first reply (p.4,5,6).
Rese methods are expensive but the area 14 sufficiently interesting, particularly after the recent series of shocks, that other $roups may begin oceanographic operations dose outcome could be significant beyond the prosent concern.
2.,
0ther evidence continues to come to g attention concerning l
l northeast trending patterns in the ocean floor in the area of the epicenters.
It would be most efficient of everyones time that I describe them here but l
if Mr. Malch considers my previous replies as 'proff ered testimony" I em l
afraid he would take exception to this. May I refer the Board to H.
D.,
Palmer's article "Marino Geology of the Rodrigues Seamount" in the -
journal DEEP SEA RESEARCH vol II, No. 5, Oct.1964. Se map on page 748 l
and the text on p. 749 are particularly appropetate.
3 In ites 11 of Mr. Halch's reply of Sept. 30,1970, he submits that 4
geologic mapping of the Los Coos area by Fairbanks in 1904 and Jeanings in 1958 (Geologic Map of California, San Inis obispo sheet)do not indicate -
i a los Osos fault. Ikit even the Nacimiento fault is not mapped by Fairbanks.
8709100334 870729 PDR FOIA CONNORB7-214 PDR
4 I
1he 1958 map compiled by Jennings does not consider the Edna fault. A copy of the inder map used by Jana4aga is included. It shows that for the area covered by the Los osos fault,'Fairbanks map of 1904 was used. Whatever illa were in the Fairbanks map were incorporated in the 1938 map. It was
)
my impression, and I think the impression of any geologist, that wo h d to go further into a. description of the area than these maps (at scales of 1:250,000 and 1:125,000) offered.
g m
4.
While thits reply does not specifically mention every point taken up by Mr. Malche it is not intended that ailence is agreement. Since Mr.
I Malch's statement is so =4=41=* to the PG and E statement, many pointa have
- already been covered in g earlier replies.
l Respectfully subai ed, G
d 5e l
Ralph S. Vrana dated at San Lula obispo, California october 16, 1970 l
I l
l i
1 I
{
l i
j 1
4 i
I i
k 5'
,