ML20127A236

Discusses Fault Investigation Re Core Borings,Seismic Reflection,Groundwater Well Monitoring & Remote Sensing Techniques to Try to Identify Fault & Age.Meeting Scheduled on 820728 to Discuss Possible Reporting Procedures

ML20127A236
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle, 05000000
Issue date:	07/26/1982
From:	Rolonda Jackson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20126D803	List: ML20126D800 ML20126D813 ML20126D826 ML20126D842 ML20126D863 ML20126D871 ML20126D887 ML20126D917 ML20126D942 ML20126D970 ML20126D978 ML20127A236
References
FOIA-84-430 NUDOCS 8207300348
Download: ML20127A236 (2)

Text

- _ - _ - .__ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _______- - _ -

7 J , ,

.f %e,(og ,< ," .-

'N ~ 4 UNITED SATES

/ -

E,,

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION #

'/

- [ i -

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20535 e, # .

/1

/

JUL 2 61952 -

MEMORANDUM - FOR: James P. Knight, Assistant Direct'or for Components & Structures Engineering

' Division of Engineering e

FROM: Robert E. Jackson, Chief

.Gensciences Branch Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

V0GTLE POST-CP FAULT INVESTIGATION I

An Open File Report (82-156) released by the USGS in February this year

[ postulated a fault seven miles south of the Vogtle plant, which is located

. near the Savannah River in Georgia.

i-The basis for hypothesizing the existence of the fault is the identification of possible Triassic rocks from well cuttings at a level approximately 400 ft.

higher than at a well four miles to the north, and some ground water informa-tion that suggests some differences in flow characteristics north and south of the postulated Millett fault. .

In' response to the suggestion that the inferred fault was Cenozoic in age, -

without 'a determination of an upper age limit, Georgia Power initiated a

" vigorous fault investigation including core borings, seismic reflection, ground water well monitoring, and remote sensing techniques to try to L

identify the fault, if present, and determine its age. They are at the

. last stages of the investigation, analyzing the data. and are requesting that we evaluate.their program, review their final reports, and resolve -

the problems as expeditiously as possible. They are anxious to resolve 1 the fault issue because they have many poterytial investors who.can help  !

fund the $2 million per day being spent on construction and the' total

$3 million to be spent on the fault investigation.

t ,

The OL-FSAR for the Vogtle site is due in September,1983, and the OL-SER is presently scheduled for mid-1985. The applicant has asked the NRC's help to resolve the faulting issue prior to the OL-SER. The applicant is attempting to sell a part interes6 in the plant and may be unable to do so if there is serious reservation about the suitability of the site because of the possible capability of the Millet Fault.

~

W b,$

f -

. 0; James P. Knight -

2- '

I.

t We have arranged to meet with Reubel Thomas, Vice-President o-L Company Services that manages the construction and licensing -

L utility, next Wednesday, July 28, to discuss possible procedur reporting their findings and NRC response, c

. . A obert E. Ja son', Chie- )

Geosciences ranch .

Division of gineering cc: R. Vollmer l D. Eisenhut L S. Brocoum B. Youngblood J. Grant I. Alterman A. Ibrahim R. McMullen .

e.

S r .

G 4

6 e

4 O

ei ..... . .. . . . . . . .

' .2 Ker UNITED STATES -

f'g_

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (,.,( es -

msmuorou. a. c. 2 ossa

..... AUG 0 21982 P f /.

Docket Nos.: 50-424/427 /

MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert E. Jackson, Chief 7 Geosciences Branch, DE ,

)/

THRU:  % m Stephan J. Brocoum, Leader Geology Section Geosciences Branch, DE FROM: Ina B. Alterman Geology Section Geosciences Branch, DE

SUBJECT:

VISIT TO V0GTLE PLANT AREA JULY 13 AND 14,1982 Plant Name: Vogtle Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos.: 50-424/427 Licensing Stage: Post CP Responsible Branch: LB-1; Jane Grant PM A visit to the Vogtle Plant area by myself and LPM, Jane Grant, was prompted by a request from the applicant as a post-CP fault investigation was approaching completion. The investigation was undertaken in response to a USGS Open File Report (82-156) that postulated a fault, the Millett Fault, seven miles south of the Vogtle plant.

The fault purportedly trends northeast-southwest, roughly parallel with the Coastal Plain strata, with the southeast side of the fault uplifted relative to the northwest. The fault is interpreted to offset the buried' Triassic-Cretaceous contact approximately 700' on the southeast side, with progres-sively smaller offsets up-section.

The basis for postulating the fault is the identification of well-cuttings as possible Triassic-age rocks at a level 400 ft. higher than at a well 4 mi to the north, and some ground water information that suggests some differences in flow characteristics north and south of the postulated

. Millett fault.

The applicant undertook a vigorous investigation, including 12 core borings -

4 on-the South Carolina side of the Savannah River and 8 on the Georgia side -

i straddling the postulated fault, down hole geophysical logs of each borehole, seismic reflection profiles along the Savannah River crossing the fault, hN  : .

G.4 a. *

! M G 0 2 tggg Robert E. Jackson ~

monitoring of ground water levels from an array of wells covering up to 2500 mi 2 of the area, and a remote-sensing study of possible surface linears using Landsat and other aerial photography.

As the investigation is nearing completion, Southern company Services (SCS),

which manages the licensing for Georgia Power, thought it prudent to let NRC staff observe their work in progress and some of their preliminary results.

Accompanying Jane Grant and myself for the day were J. Bailey, Licensing Manager for SCS, Gerald Grainger, SCS staff geologist, and Tom Crosby, Geologist for Bechtel .

In the morning we were briefed on the background of the investigation, the geology of the area, and the details of the various aspects of their investigation. We then examined three complete cores. VSC-2 and -4, from South Carolina, and VG-6, from Georgia. Several more cores were open and available for examination but time did not permit more than a cursory look.

In the cores examined, a distinctive lithic unit, a Middle Eocene gray marl showed little difference in elevation in cores from either side of the postulated fault. Gamma logs of these and other holes showed a distinctive signature for the marl and no offset on either side of the inferred fault.

Thus both cores and gamma logs showed that the marl, dated by fossils, was not offset. Nons of the cores showed any suggestion of systematic fracturing indicative of tectonic defomation. Some units had characteristic fractures, some parallel with core axis (vertical) and some at varying angles to the core over short intervals at depth, with hundreds of feet of unfractured strata above and below.

A brief look at a reflection profile showed two distinctive reflectors at some depth with no anomalies indicative of the inferred fault. The resolution of the reflection data, according to the applicant's consultant, is such that -

an offset of 50 ft or more should be recognized on the profile. 'The postu-lated Millett fault offset of the Triassic-Cretaceous contact is estimated to be 700 ft by the USGS. This was not observed on the record.

In the afternoon we drove through the area, viewing some of the drill holes being monitored for water levels, examined an exposure of the fossiliferous marl, and observed outcrops of a resistant chert-or chalcedony-deposit .

formed from'seconoary mineralization along the contact between two stratigraphic units, the Barnwell and Hawthorn Fomations. This ridge-forming deposit produces a short linear trend on Landsat and other photo imagery.

While.no conclusion can be drawn based on the observations during a single day's visit, the data seen indicate that if a fault is present it is not likely to be younger than Middle Eocene (50 million yrs old), and therefore would be considered non-capable. Final determination of the presence and capability of the fault will be made after the staff has carefully reviewed the final report of the investigation.

- u. v ..--ww-e. - , ,n--- ,m , -

~4--- -e ,-wne,-, _ wn, , ---v,-wme-,n,.v,,e, , ,ww,,v--,-

r -

~

AUG 0 21982

' Robert E. Jackson The applicant has expressed a desire to make a technical presentation at NRC headqua.'ters to summarize in detail the data and the conclusions after submitting a draft report. The purpose of the presentation and draft is to get staff input on the completeness of the study, or if, in the staff's judgement, more work is necessary to support their conclusions.

^

Ina B. Alterman, Geologist Geosciences Branch Division of Engineering cc: S. Brocoum L. Reiter B. J. Youngblood J. Grant P. Sobel A..Ibrahim t

e l

l .

/9

~

Southern CompanyServices n 5: : em e .:. : sa:em August 9, 1982-Mr. Jeffery Armbruster NSL-NS-432 District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 6481 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard Suite B Doraville, GA 30360 l

Dear Mr. Armbruster:

Enclosed is the final group of downhole geophysical logs for this inve'stigation. They are for VSC-4 and VSC-4A. VSC-4 is a nuclear log run through the drill stem. The logs for VSC-4A are for the 8" diameter observation well hole which was drilled adjacent to VSC-4. Hole 4A was only drilled to 475 feet'to penetrate the lower aquifier. Please treat as proprietary until official transmittal to the NRC or unlest specific written per-

-mission is granted for release. .

Yours truly,

k. e _g J. A. Bailey Project Licensing Manager ,

JAB /ssb Enclosure xc R. A. Jackson (w/ attachment)

• I. W. Marine (w/attachmer.t)

M. Hawkins (w/ attachment)

W. V. Conn (w/ attachment)

R. Morris (w/o attachment)

D. O. Foster (w/o attachment)

~

D. E. Dutton (w/o attachment)

O. Batum (w/o attachment)

R. A. Thomas (w/o attachment)

C. R. McClure (w/o attachment)

J. M. Grant (w/o attachment) 4

e e.

.e .

. c.m:

e 1. .+ . : -. ,. . <

o. ,

- s -

. .. .. . . ~ . . , . . . -.

, 7, s. .

. .: .. ..s.:. . - ., -..J,.,...c

.%e . u.w .:- ~

em- . . :- . .:. , . *. . . ,. . .t

.'.g..~

.... .p.,,:..~m. .:.~.r,.::k.:d. g., .u..  %;  %.sM.h. ..; y*c mg.3.:. Q s;..::-~p;..s. g:'

~.. .. .

. . . , ~. ..

.. . . . y. , . . ;;.Q..hy'.,,f ,.;

,d..R' . .u...:.,,1:: .:., :a..s%.., i.;s. .

.7

. . -# $'-; <y 4.y b h ;I'; h E hNMkk d . , g[Y .d[h'I.Nb'5.

-.=....,"$. h b f k ^ N .e.....

Nf*~~ .

. J , ,,, .* * '".- e ,, , . " . ' . " . . 3. ..r ...~.,,. J. . ,

4-_

^

_'h-

, ,,7.-

--g6. A;2 W M~.* P at /.j , .N. .;.;i. .s ,. g;g. g *;.

_ -? - - . ..' - i W* . - .* #+ #,,'."l".J'." $ ,.y'.h..iA.. ;e.G.w  %.. 'f.s*'.7E'#.../

• s.9 . ....* . G. ".4t.._ _" .". .- t..s ete.er sw

. .. Q.T.Ea . -.

t e

..s .

mee .,.E n eem

..E E 14_ v. . . f.4. 4.

• a. . # : '. .T E. 4 4 s " ! . ~. .f.".J.we =='. i.: - '

2 en.

. . e. . . . .. ... ./ . T ;; ..;.. ..' : . - j%.*. W. 4v.~e s'.

.. ' - J;.; E.r /. .. nl* ., T ' . . .

.C**, . . .

.,.,....;.,,,,,...~nwa 9/10/82 900@D00@ w...en. ,.'m.. n..

. .. .o

-_. . . -. -.- , ~

@@@D00 . BOB BLODNIKAR

...,e.....

-,. .s,c. , .s.

.,-. m. .~..r aww. -, '-- ..v.w.

,..~..v..,...

.c.. <g... . 3 .

Buck Ibrihim

, ,.4.. .. ;,. . . . . .a. .~. .. . s.....s..,

, t . . .: . . , .N:'i. a ..

. i.. .

Per the request of Cole McClure, enclosed ./J7

'~*

is a memo to Cole from Carl H. Savit on

.. s. . ..

~

his analysis of the Uniboom records. . ,. .

. . .- . .x .. , .-

r

-,.\ .

Regards, .

.. .. . / -

.s-A '. *. :p.' g.; f;q . * - . . .

- .'. . LC .;

r . .~;

L

, ._ _ - . . -. e.s-Q

" r* @. .. ~C f,.,,,,,.._

....' Enclosure ., W~"*

b. p .-~.4.?"2-.

,.0,

< a

. s

• y / t.

I. * ' 5 # ' * * '

,' * * * .. . .....? -. x,.., ....;, .,, . .l,;;W1 r. .. .*/.',.s'.'d, %, , . . , .

.... , . . . .., . . . s . u. . .f- . . s.#. " m. / .. a s .i, .. .r..,-

. ..t.

, . e. ., f,.e .

,. *; . .,? .g .g .,s......e.m t. . ., ,

....c.

? . , s v. . :,,.s ?.. . .

. .,.. .. . . , . . . . .~. .

?./ b...;:: "; .Qde. l& ca. \% .

• M.

.u ,,. . .: .*

. . . . . ~ c . . .- .

-.4 .* .

.,' N s.v. ?

,.. w . ,'**~J. -.

. . . y.. ygrAtet.'W. ' . L* = ' * ** *%"* * *

+ . *

) s *% - '

g ' 4-ii .. 4. .,. . A' . . s. s'..'....e

.. -. .. ., . + = .

- I 1..J , ,.,

N. . . .m . ;..:;,. .z

. ." . .. . . a w H' --_2'- .,a,6pi 's.'.t

.. ...r- . J.v-~~ d 9.= y*m p ..&. . d . .

.n -:_ i...^^ ^

. .e. ,e a. r.. 4 i.

.p . , . .

. ,, . .<-J.*- , . , . _ . . -

. .u. 7. .w.a. .

-.--.~a.-..- - e.=. " ,..' ,,

~

• * ~l ,.J t W.t i. .r.P. ..'ft.I i .**." ./.1/,,'- ...,.v"......,.4.

< ' - ( l ' E2 ..., . . , . .s

. 'r ' .o ~ '.'.N.

. ..*.r,Wa. . a. . ;' ' O " . '.' ' *

. .. . . . . . . . . _ _. _ . i ;3.." . . .' .;/ . s

• *> - .n., ..

,..,. .'. . .: + -,

. . . . -.w...... ..

. I. . . , ,

f . ' nu

• Wo: : -r ,'..N+.

. ' '!, .mm.m ?hw.' ." * ~ '

t .\. .:. e . :. u.y.:. e . . .t. .i6,.. , n.'.w. ; .R ;o r : n. k. ... W. . ' .:. >sp s..

,....;.. . . 7 , .; . - s .s_,. .

s .

e.n.ve 4>s n .

v .:

• .~....,. .* *.

.,y.

. ,.... ', . i

• __ _____ _ _- ._ m _ 4.. -- i_.1 s -. -

M -

" .-- k-M.N . . .ia.. 'arh..d :n 7.t.u..'..v.... 6'.A&.;.a w h v- - W h.= N.e.e.: use - w ^ ' h"'1 an' .- -

~

, ,' - e

. * +

s. . . .:. . ......-a-- .-.. . . . .~'.~._ _,.,. ....

o. , .

sannonnupOM September 9,1982 To: C. R. McClure FacM: Carl s. savit I have esamined the original 'Juiboom record, line 1, with particular attention to the feature at a time between 11 and 14 milliseconds between fix 13 and fin 14 that appears to represent a fault or fault-like daracteristic. The character of the reflection en both the up-thrown and down-thrown segments of that reflection appears to be substantially the same. 'the implication is that both segments are 4

lithologically identical and with approximately the same thickness relative to the wave-length of the received reflections. There appear to be no obvious diffraction patterns from this reflecting horison, h

. reflection immediately below is continuous across the fault or fault-like feature. A reflection several milliseconds above is also clearly continuous.

The etiology of the feature would appear, therefore, to be associated with material deposited on a karst surface rather than arising from a karst surface, meflections from a karst surface tend to be different in character, depending upon whether the reflection is from the surface or from a depression, and the sharp edges characteristic of karst surfaces tend to produce numerous dif f ractions. The fact that the fault-like feature is not present on a reflestor immediately below the

, displaced horison is consistent with the karst interpretation and inconsistent with tectonic causative factors. Movement subsequent to the deposition on the karst surface is ruled out by the continuity of the shallower reflector.

. pad '4

carl E. Savit i .

i Canf a rl l

S

}

f i

,_ . - -s -

m- -yme--em-,:

t 6 #

• s . ..

s >

.e., , ..*

._s- ., . ..'..;.s. *

• • .f.  %' ," .n.yl. t. .lf~. ' *y . *j- :

- w

- r.v ' ** ' .."....'.e".y-

..******k .

..g.... .?.gl,.,".'

) ~. s. c - a

. .,.. . . .. .. .. .. ..f..,- . ,

• .4. . n ,

o ., . . . ..

.s .s 5..- ...

..? .

e . .

.. . r

. , . . .~..

,,y

..,s ...g,

.,,~,.i. . , - . 1 .

..,s.. .:<.. .

~ *- . .. .

..'. . A .~.y."b

.:  ; * ~4, . . %

\*.

". ' - > s }s" :..r *. . . , , . . .

. .~ .

s .,

&.~ :.: : .:,"W:.

'~ b 'G..~,~c ~.:f.t ? *C..~.. r..

...,e,,.

. ? ~ j. .* . *m. r: :. ' .* r* .=.*

... g.....,. . ... , . ...

.. . .,..,e..~.;...fq . - , . . . .. ,, ...3 4 ,..

.g.,.,... . + c. .. . .. .

g 3

'k.,r.3

.s...,.

.~... ":::.

x.p,. p. .tp..;........rs'..~..'...

.. - , . s .

3.,. .,s r. .3. ,.e.._..

. r e ., ..

.s ..,...:, .c.,

t .. - ... .,,* p.q p p',.y,w .f..

., 'q s...,

..s.

., ., 3 .

n .* . .d *: ~  %?.

%*N

,. *t *a- -

a* n' ** ~~'!- ~ - -'+

• r,~j..... -

?s.. % .

.:..r.ts".T.

,w;, g..7,;..m > . .. v",~,...... - w . :.- ~. .?.. . e -'ws~r e' e.n .r .~,.- s ,'w' w.'~. ;n.*

. . . ~ . .. r- ..~

s = = . ,) . .., f. - - *p , g,,.;.a..K.,

. y W,s; :s. ....

.p y.'*%.,sa.:.i v, ., L f..V- . g v....', * " w .. ~ q .~.  ; y.

- . *: 'e~

rg..

4.,, ? ; ", ... , . . ,.

a..

c..,.._... , . . . .. . .. .,

i

.-- _ _,~ __.=-s-

.s.. .f... ..i.. .a . . .w .

6 _

.s x -

.X. .n.s._ _

A. w.v, nerM'.tsy'*.7..m --

W_._w .

h"* f M. g *;we:w,;W .. , . m%- _' .rre.c.9v.%t -.

4 -

/ M -;W.r.w . . '

p %.. ;._4..,. _ ;p.T_..

.- .- , -_ _.,.a.._- - - -

.......~~;..n.:..,... .:.,.% .-w ' w

a. .. ,w. .s

.. . .r . w.n...  :..a .~.u... e. w. i,.,,u..y

. ..:. . . .m t.~.n

.,. . . .~.q;.:;,,. ,;,;.g;.n.a

,:, ,a.,. ,a.-:.

... . v p; -

.....m .

,..,, . .m

% . n.,,. . . .. vm . .. ?w., %agg.= . ..g. w. .. ; .y,yg.

. . . : . . . .,..,,.,,.,.. .,., g. . .. .,, ,.

a . ., . w..a  :.: : . d. :.:.. m.g.m..ww.m..;:. .

m:, * ,.,, . u.a..ai;:: ,;; ,;.:..

~~--_..s . . - . ...__

. a . .__ ._ . . _ . .

m...,,.. . ., . . . . . . , , .p- c.,.> , .n.. .. . v..., w e. . s. . < .

. . . . u.....,;....s....

p y.;.y4:...p,.;,.9 % ,

M .

j....... N-.. .

T.W. CROSBY ,.y'

- r ,. . ;

. ..-.r.

1.. .

TO. . .. ..

.,s..

.c ..

1

.. .. v... ..

I

....?,.;I..

i . ..

j.. .. . i l , i.(

g J. j b bd .

FW

. .> .!i

, . , . .c. o

. re.h *. . i s .

I

, ~.~

l .., . . .. ...

yg phi;.

% :%.wc .l..~.

L [ ,- m

. ~ .g.-..

l .'

l.

1 l -s 3 ., ', . d * ,., [. .

l T^^ W;4.{_,y_3 ,

,...w. .;,g. .,. " . :

- . . - - -.- -- w-__. .,; ;,;,n , ,.

• J......

.g.m.e.f. s . . . . . . .%.

.. ,. . ......, . .t, : . ,( .&,

. #. l * *.w.

. e*a W.f;.3,

. y y, ., .s%. * - , . . . .gpy, .. ,

4.' ., % .. . . ,

. . n..\yf',; : ,.' t ,. ' ,W;:s .*.11* ,.,.,'s t

. y, W * *.)". . v. . 6p3A e..*

. .I.U'? ? .

j ,3 .

. . e. , s t; . . . , t.; .0 ,9.; e . t . s..  ?..

.-....,.M..

',.4.#.'.~., ...  : ......

, p*.' h .* . t'.. ..

.d. ..e'.,. .

. .%, . . ,x. y .,..t =.*

,. t*.,.,.

.y

.s , - . i . t; . :s .., p

,.. . . . . m .. .>.

..n

f. ...

.b.,., -

,..,e=. ..w.* .

'?

• )t....

y.) it. . *e .

• .,4....

f.,. ,.5. n.D. .=. . *** .

• d e. s , .xlye wT"'.Wr**"'

f .-. .. ... w m ,% , u m, .

.w. . .

=._.,.4..a,_ ...,,,,.m.3_......

..n.-... .

.t,..q....~..i.,~.

~ . . ..

.y..... . ,, . . . . .

__ ..~. .. . ., .;,;;.. g w .,

p,,.....e.,. * ".. .

, g ,,

. . * , . . :s s: . . > s , ,. y - * .+. . ..- .

.. ..., . a'.t "."

1 g od .s n ....e *..J,.g,.,.y.',,',.,.'.ggi.,,',,,t,. 4, M ,. . . ',,, $ j ,,e ' ,4,4 p'M,f y[(.*) l, .?ry.w ..p,M e .] ) g, '6 j. .,, ). ., >py'

. . ,,,qs.4 ef U.5.%.' . r't 'eW.. .

• * ". s. . *M . .d a ..i.*

tte.*k eO *L .F ['*. * *'r

. -. *'.,.* .' ; .i. *p. .. '.. ( .

.,.,,% .',r'.. * . *

.. . 9.

• g ,  ?! * * * ' / '. *; -

• I m_ . . , -

.- . ._ ~ - . a ~. .

! "FF . ' , . . . , . . , . . . , ,. - - , nm.... -

-4 ' ** = ***- ^* *

• . * i s

• 6114 A__1 ++ * . . -

• _ . - M I,.. ..a "e 'e ,-m. E a me .. -..h- *. ' " ' " ' '

' ~

Septsmber 10, 1982 MEMO RANDUM TO: Thomas W. Crosby, Bechtel Civil & Minerals FROM: Vernon J. Henry, Consultant

SUBJECT:

Re-examination.of Seismic Survey Records along the Savannah River for the Study of the Postulated Millett Fault As requested, I have re-examined the seismic records as presented in the Harding-Lawson Associates report. Specifically, two segments of each of the three records were examined:

1. The section from fix 13 halfway to fix 14 and

2. The section from fix 13 to mile marker 144.

In segment 1 the subject feature appears to be associated with an irregular series of reflectors displaying topographic relief of a

• blocky character. In my opinion, the feature is the result of erosion, collapse, and/or solution of the strata as represented by the seismic reflectors. I discern continuous, relatively flat-lying reflectors beneath the feature. I can not detect the presence of a fault structure in this record segment on any of the three figures shown in the report.

In segment 2, the subject feature occurs approximately 1/3 of the distance from fix 13 toward mile marker 144. On the high resolution Uniboom record (figure 3) , this area shows a very similar signature to that portion of the reflectors in segment 1. In my opinion, no structure is present that could not be attributed to erosion, collapse or solution. I do not detect a fault structure. On figure 4 the subject feature appears to show several feet of offset in the primary set of reflectors and a somewhat similar offset in a set of reflectors approximately .02 seconds directly below. While the of fset in the two reflector sets appear to suggest displacement within the upper .05

, seconds of the record, the deeper reflector set, in my opinion, is not unequivocally a real reflector. In this and several other areas of the record, it appears more to be a multiple of the primary set of reflector,s; in other parts of the record, the relationship is unclear.

In any case, the reflectors beneath these reflectors and below the bubble pulse in this section of the record do not show this of fset nor do they indicate a fault structure.

The 20 cubic inch record shown in figure 5 doesn't provide the ,

resolution necessary to identify the subject feature. However, the larger scale reflectors are shown to be relatively flat-lying and uniform in character and, in my opinion, do not show a fault attucture.

In summary, it is my opinion that the subject features resulted from ,

processes of erosion, collapse and/or solution but not due to faulting.

Vernon J. Henry

3,

[s urg .Io,, ~ UNITED STATES

,e -  ! , -o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ I wasMNGTON, D. C. 20555 3

,,,,, $EP 2 31982 Docket Nos.: 50-424-and 50-425 APPLICANT: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY FACILITY: ALVIN W. V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 -

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

- MILLETT FAULT STUDY

- A meeting was held at the NRC headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland on September 14, 1982. The applicant was represented by Georgia Power Company, Southern Company .

Services, Inc. and Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc. The NRC was represented by the Division of Engineering (GSB, HGEB) and Licensing (LB-1), NRR. A list of attendees is enclosed.

Georgia Power Company requested this meeting to present its findings and conclusions in the Millett Fault Study, which is an extensive investigation program undertaken by the applicant in response to a U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report (82-156) that suggested the existeoce of a fault approximately .

seven miles southeast of the Yogtle facility near Waynesboro, Georgia.

During introductory remarks, the applicant emphasized that the purpose of the Millett Fault Study was to address the NRC's concern of whether or not a capable fault (one that has moved once within the last 35,000 years or has had multFmovements within the last 500,000 years) does indeed exist, not

.whether a fault does or does not exist. As an overview of the study, the applicant

- summarized its investigative program, followed by more detailed presentations

. and discussions of acquisition of data, drilli~ng, field geological exploration,~

geophysical studies, groundwater evaluation, groundwatier modeling, surface water hydrology and seismicity. The applicant concluded that r.one of its data and/or evaluations supported the existence of a capable fault. The final report will be submitted to the NRC in mid-October. ,

Following the applicant's presentation, the staff commented that the overall program was excellent in scope and detail. .The staff agreed that the geological information, especially the stratigraphy as determined from core bo. *ngs and fown-h' ole geophysical logging, appeared to support the absence of a capable tault. However, the staff suggested the applicant discuss in greater detail the anomaly near Fix 13 found in the seismic reflection records for the shallow

• - reflector and review the evidence for the continuity of the deeper reflectors.

) .

e 4

Georgia Power Company -

2-The staff further requested that GPC: (1) provide the seismic reflection lines from the Savannah River Project, (2) use overlays of simulated with measured data on the pieziometric contour maps, and (3) compare the the USGS's measured pieziometric contour maps for both aquifers with that produced by the applicant.

The staff noted that upon receipt of the final report to the Millett Fault Study it would undertake a very rigorous, independent review, including appropriate contacts with local experts. During and/or following this review, a site visit and meeting would be held to discuss further details of the study.

If you have any questions concerning the above, please call J. Grant, Project Manager, at 301-492-7793.

. , / /.

,i . mnvs' Jane M. Grant, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. l' Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

~

List of Attendees

~

cc w/ encl.: See next page O

e e

• 0 &

4 e

s t

e 9

I

( .

{ , , ,

e . ..

Mr. Doug Dutton i yice President - Project ..'. . . _ . . . , . _ .

Management - - . . .

Georgia Pcwer Company P. O. Box 4545 .

Atlanta, Georgia 30302 - - --- - - --- -

cc: Mr. L. T. Gucwa Mr. Thomas W. Crosby Chief Nuclear Eng'ineer Bechtel Civil & Minerals, Inc.. ~

Georgia Power Company Fifty Beale S'treet P. O. Box 4545 Post Office Box 3965 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 San Francisco, CA 94119 Mr. Ruble A. Thomas Mr. C. R. McClure *

. Vice President Bechtel Civil & Minerals., Inc.

. Southern Services, Inc. Fifty Beale Street '

P. O. Box 2625 Post Office Box 3965 Bimingham, Alabama 35202 San Francisco, CA 94119, ,

Mr7 J. A. Bailey Mr. M. Wolff ~

Project Licensing Manager Bechtel Civil & Minerali."Inc.

.. Southern Company Services, Inc'. Fifty Beale St'reet .

" .t

' P. O. Box 2625 Post Office Box 3965 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 San Francisco, CA 94119 -

. George F. Trowbridge, Esq. ,.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge - - -

1800 M Street, N. W. ,,

Washington, D. C. 20036 ,

Mr. D. O. Foster Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Mr.' James P. O'Reilly .

Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100

. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr* WillianiS. Sanders Resident Inspector / Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Post Office Box 572 - -

llaynesboro, Georgia 30830 ,

[

. e

== .

t

. t 6

^

(

4

~ Mr. Jack Harris -

~ * '

Nuclear Regulatory Comission T - -- - -

Region II - - - '

101 Marietta SYrhet,' SGite 3100~

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 e Mr.' Gerald S. Grainger Southern Company Services, Inc.

Post Office Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 .

Mr. Jeffrey Armbruster District Chief .

U. S. Geological Survey -

6481 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard Suite B Doraville, Georgia 30360

^~

• Mr. Robert Morris * -

Engineering Geology ,

U. S. Geological Survey ,

MS-908 '

Reston, Virginia 22092 Dr. Walter Hayes Deputy for Research Applications .

U. S. Geological Survey

. Office of Earthquake Studies 905 National Center .

Reston, Virginia 22092 9

9 s

G G

e

• e e

4 e

4 e

.9 O

~6

7.; - -.

-o Ei. closure 1 L.

. Attendees Meeting - Millett Fault Study

^

September 14, 1982 -

i.

! NRC l

1. Alterman -

J. Hopkins A. Ibrahim l' S. Brocoum R. Jackson ~

D. Chery R. McMullen ,

J. Grant i

USGS ,

l t-R. Morris Georgia Power Company

D. Foster 1 . '

l Southern Company Services, Inc.

t R. Thomas .

J. Bailey l ,

l

.. 'Bechtel ,

J. Litehiser '

M. Wolff '

C. Farrell R. Blodmikar

• l G. Segol .

C. Michniuk J. Cassidy .

T. Crosby 1

K. Blom (Harding Lawson Assoc.)

L. Wood (S. S. Papadopulos & Assoc.)

l l

f

MEETING

SUMMARY

.?

SEP 2 31982 A/

Document Control (50-424/425). . ..

. . . . _ _ __l -- - - - -

NRC PDR '

- L PDR '

TERA-NSIC .-

LBf1 Rdg. .

MRushbrook -

Project Manager ,1r,ra n t -. . __

Attorney, OELD .

OIE Regional Administrator.-Region J PARTICIPANTS (NRC):

IA1terman ,

,JHopkins , '

Albrahim ' '

- ~ ~ '

SBrocoum RJackson

• DChery RMcMullen '

~

JGrant -

9 e a 4

.e t

. O e

e e

. e 9

6 *O

. On t

.  ?

i e

. _ _ _ . _