'REGULATORY FORMATION DISTR IBUTION 'S EM (BIDS)
AGCBSSION NBR 8212210037 DOC ~ DATE 82/12/14 NOTARIZED~, NO ¹ FAOIL:50 '275 Diablo Oanyon Nuclear ipower .'Plantr 'Uni~t ii Pacific Ga 05000275 BYNAME.50»323 Diablo Canyon Nuclear 'Power Planti 'Unit 2r Pacific Ga 05000323 AUTH AUTHOR AFFILIATION InteriorrDept.of r National;Park Ser vice '~RE~CIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIA'TIOP KERRIGANiJBD<, .NRC No Detailed, Affiliation Given 'SUBJEQT! Provides Natl Register of Historic, Places eligibility notification of tplant Archeological Si,te 'SLO 2,
Documents'OCKET'" DISTRIBUTION ICODE: tCO028 „COPIES RECIPIENT iCOPIES RECIPIENT ICOPIES ID DECODE/NAME ('TTR 'ENCL ID:CODE/NAME L'TTR ENCL NRR L83»BC 06 7 L7 NRR L83 LA 1 1 NL! ORNL 1 1 BUCKLEYrB~ 1 1 INTERNAL! ELD/HDS1 1 NRR NORRI'Sr J 1,1 NRR/DE/AEAB 20 1 .1 NRR/DE/EEB 16 1 1 .NRR/DE/HGEB 21 NRR/DE/SAB, 18 1 1 NRR/DS I/AEB 19 1 1 N S I/METB 15 1 1 NRR/DS I/RAB 17 1 G FIL'4 1 1 RGN5 1 .'1 .EXTERNAL! AGRS 6 I6 LPDR 03 '2 2 NATL LAB '21 5 i5 NRC,PDR 02' 1 NSI~C -05 1 1 NTIS ,1 1 NOTES! ,-1 1 )TOTAL NUMBER,OF COPIES REQUIRED ! „LITETR 38 ENCL >38 o W~)JRf" wf y' ' " I'" y'3 ,rr Pic ~ C (. t r Qr,'R w L q $ s R,ys3 I i, Rh W f,J h ry W «,'.,..-l f Iy sri ~ I,' 'I rc R rIJI '"JX3 Q f e i>c, ''w 4r ye Icy wy I( ~ f '1RjWI'RR Iy r.I R'RQ ~ Jrhhf Whyrc 'R cry,") r WJ g f R A w3 r L Ow3 RrR f r,l'3 f >wh 1 =fl )llc ,",,' s3 ~ hh sR 1 A wJI r r P r.» A R3 ir fw',J jr hl I ~ q Ih Q r f r t t g f 0 'JJlw'r s>s3 yf tfy', rwsJ h cw J'R hif,c c 1 r f rs '3 R IJ s whrc ryy r'ty J y,» f(rhp rplt(3 rk3 IXII,Q I h tl'l II ww IRri f r 3 r R'A ' R,'R Il'-.0 '". IJ'R,JJ s c : fhfcl I JRT.I;hf XqY l I 37 I,,yh R 4;, j R Ig'.-lL<'.lj,R ' 'tJR3nxJ'JJ,fr,pw'R, >y3'w 'JMqr'y y, tfhh I >,3 v x(;Rx I ii Jh ch WW If) rr Jl )hrRr, I'l wc3Wcr"hI ', I' Whs'3', "' rr'>»'yi I hlw~w. RX Rhrh '"> <'3C "I ', 'g 0 ''J'" gs3 I'"gygwj'IR I» R vh It Jhcx I }I 'R'),Jh "R ' T II hay )I <,').II'R cr rh I RR":,J; fl I 3 IA R y wr l cR3 pWJ 'W W f ~ ~ g ) fsyIQWth I L k'1 y 'I II I f i,o q w ' 3J R I f,]X f 34 IAy "hw,) r irW ])Jf > s) WJ sh JI ,'R<1,I ) ",, fyh,'I,R X '«RR 'I ;) s ilr,1 y ,RX J," i'h I'I, ji sic J „I'ytf > ." R Jiw 3 lc~hh I f j I wl JINNI s„W» IWR II,', ~+7 Os >/y r 0 I United States Department of the Interior 0 Jp NATIONALPARK SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 m assr.v REFEa vo: g/0 OEC I'4 l982 The Director of the National Park Service is pleased to inform you of our determination pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and Executive Order 11593 in response to your request for a determination of eligibilityfor inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Our determination appears on the enclosed material. As you know, your request for our professional judgment constitutes a part of the Federal planning process. We urge that this information be integrated into the National Environmental Policy Act analysis and the analysis required under section 4 (f) of the. Department of Transpor tation Act, if this is a transportation project, to bring about the best possible progr am decisions. This determination does not serve in any manner as a veto to uses of property, with or without Federal participation or assistance. The responsibility for program planning concerning properties eligible for the National Register lies with the agency or block grant recipient after the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has had an opportunity to comment. F We are pleased to be of assistance. in the consideration of historic resources in the planning pr ocess. Attachment 82i22i0037 82i2i4 I PDR ADQCK 05000275 P PDR yV DETERMINATlON OF ELIGIBIUTY NOTIFICATION National Register of Historic Places National Park Service Name of property: Diablo Canyon Archeological Site OSLO-2 Location: San Luis Obispo County State: CA / Request submitted by: NRC/J'anis D. Kez~gan Date received: 11 1 82 Additional information received: Opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer: El E I ig ib le CINot Eligible C]No Response Comments: The Secretary of the Interior has determined that this property is: KIEligible Applicable criteria: D CI Not Eligible Comments: This pzopestp is a smtticomponent stzatified site»n th aP'gott 4 feet at midden. The ear liest ho~son is consistently dated by C—and Obsidian hydvation at 9320 B.P. The hunting period (middle) hobson is dated at 5100-7520 B.P. and the Eatest hobson the chumash is dated at 930 B.P. This site is Eikely to yield important information on a v~ety of anthropological and history'ical questions and is probabEy pa>'t of the previously listed Rancho Canada de '-Eos osos y pechos y 2slay az'cheoEogicaE cks tx'Oct » CI D ocum entation in su fficient (Please see accompanying sheet explaining additional materials required) e e of the National Register WASO-28 Date: N 0 I p D TRIBUTION: NTRAL FILE NRR RDG GB RDG NAY I g DSE RDG ty~ Dr. Dames g. Davis State Geologist California Division of Hines and NinthGeology'416 Street Sacramento~ California 95814 Dear Jim: VTe appreci.ate your keeping us. informed about investigations Qf a, possible extension of the San Kigue&to fault recently conducted, by your staff. Your actions in bringing this investigation to our attention early and your close communi.cation with as during the investigation permitted appropriate actions to be taken. Similarly, ~our actions in bringing to our attention apparent offsets in the sea'cliff north of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant permitted the staff to make an early assessmcnt of these features. Pe also appreciate the assistance of George Cleveland and Dave Wagner during our investigation of the apparent offsets on May 4, 1978. Documentation of our evaluation is in preparation. Uith best regards. Sincerely, Original Sig edby >.C. Steps J. Carl Stepp, Chief Geosciences Branch Division cif'Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation bcc: H. Denton W. Gammill R. Hofmann J. Stepp P. Grew DFFICE9F 8URNAMEW DATE~ s/ o NRC FORM 818 (976) NRCM 0240 gf UI 8 OOVERNMENT FRINTINO OFFICEI Idled 825428 ~ e I I \ I \ ~ p J I r t I I' I I J r I I f I I . - ~- «" f, e ~ If I 17 Rp <6 Oil QD Hr. James F. Devine U. S. Geological Survey Itail Stop 905 National Center South Lake Drive Reston, Virginia ,22092 'ear Jim: You are requested to review and comment on appendix DLL-11 of amendment 50 which you have, and section 2 of enclosed amendment 52 of the report entitled "Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5M Hosgri Earthquake" submitted by the Pacific Gas 6 Electric Company. We are expecting within two weeks a revised study fiom PCM that will address, among other things, apportioning earthquake probabilities among the various faults according to their recent movement rates. You will be requested to include this in your review, also. Sincerely, = D RIBUTION: ANTRAL FILE NRR RDG GB RDG J. Carl Stepp, Chief DSE RDG .Ceosciences Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure: As stated bcc: W. Gammill J. Stepp R. Hofmann T. Cardone D D '-7 D f SURHAME~ Cardone b--RBHofmann. - JQStepp ——- OATR+ ...... 9lj.6.O.7...... 9/Lh../zz ----9/4c /7-7----. NRC EORM 518 (9-76) NRCM 0240 4 Ul 0 OOVdRHIIEHTPRIHTIHO OffICC(IIOTC 64~% E ',, E ~ J PE I' SE S, S SEIE ,; J" s jr~ E~Lj~syriEEEPri r.;rP E..I, ~ „=- ", «» E g >>~fcJ 'S ~ JEi IJ . S-, J $ ~ I ES, S g f S I II E ~ I" ~ ~ E E «EI ~ ~ 0 S l II „SE 'g ! PP J EISA . E I.JI Sg ~ SEE-"E, J J ) f EI4 3 JJDI I ~ T Eh. James P. Devine U.S. Geological Suxvey %lail Stop 905 National Center - South Lake Drive Reston, Virginia 22092 Dear Jim: I recently transmitted to you by my letter dated January 26, 1977, two documents pertaining to Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant site! l. A letter dated November 19, 1976, fram James Qeocaris; 2. A letter dated November 3, 1976, fram Prof. James H. Brune. The ACRS Subcommittee on the Diablo Canyon site requested our written responses to these twa letters, Hy letter of January 26 asked you to review-the two lett~ra as expeditiously as posHble and provide your comments ta us. X also asked you to provide an estimate of the amount of time that would be required for you to respond. To date I have had no response from you. X wauld appreciate yaur response as soon as possible so that we may provide the informatian that the ACRS Subcommittee requested. Please let me know a timetable within wh1ch you expect your revMv of these items will be completed. Sincerely yours, Original S!gnad 4Y L.N. HsIisr J. Carl Stepp, Chief Geosciences Branch Div1sion of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis cc: H. Denton DISTRIBUTION: Q. Gaaunill Docket File 50-323 D. Allison NRR Rdg. DSE Rdg. GB Rd. /47t5S4/y 4 BURNAMBW Stepp:1m WGammill 5/Q/77 ~5/ /77 NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 A U, 0, OOVBRNMBNTPRINTINO OPPICB< 1070 02~24 if ilcc crt Ic.i '. a' 'IJfr ~ I I ~ "l»c.lc ' I Ir, r ~ .» ~ r ~ l J ' fct It I r I I I I 'I Il »I 4 JAN 36 1977 Mr James Pi Devine UiS ~ Geological Survey liail Stop 905 National Center South Lake Drive Reston> Virginia 22092 Dear Jim: This is to request that the UiS. Geological Survey review the attached docunents pertaining to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Sita> Letter dated 19 November> 1976 from James Geocaris Letter dated 3 November> 1976 from-Prof+ James Ni Brune The Geocaris letter concerns the possible length of the Hosgri faulti Qe realize that you have already addressed this problem in your past letters to uso However~ we desire your advisee on whether Mri Geocaris is introducing new material and wish pou to address his questions specificallyi Dri Brune's letter concerns a possible transient high accelera- tion pulse which might be caused by rapture propagation along the Hosgri faulti Several references given by Dri Brune over the telephone are also enclosed to assist in your evaluation of the safety consequences and reasonableness of his hypothesisi Since the ACRS subcommittee has requested our written responses to these two letters, we ask that the review be made as ex- peditiously as possibleo Please give me an estimate of the amount of time your review will requirei Sincerely> OTlgiOai Signed Q~J >„C. Steps J i Carl Stepp, Chief Geology/Seismology Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis 2.7S Enclosures: As stated CoNs II+ 5 ll t James F0 Devine 2 ccrc 1s/o encl: RS Boyd RS DoYoung Js Panzazella P» Shuttle@orth " v/enc1.! w0 Qammill JS Stepp R, Ho&ann RS IfcHullen PSJ0 Williams Distribution Central File NRR Rdg0 DSE Rdg0 GSB RDg0 ~ 'orrlcc~ GSB:DSE ) SURNAMc~ RHofmann: lm JS gi' «r nArc~ 1 /gT7 7 1 g/VV Form hEC.51S (Rcv. 9.53) hKCM 0240 Q U, 0, OOVCRNMCNT PRIM 1INO OPPICCI ISPA 020 104 A l L g 1 For frlEMO ROUTE SLIP See me about this. For concurrence. action. form hKC-9S (Rev. hfay 14, 1947) hKCM 0240 Note and return. For slcnature. For Information. ! TO (Name and unit) INIBALS REMARKS I DATE you this morning. TO (Name enid unit) TO (Name and unit) FROM (Name and unit) REMARKS Vi.c~ 4r.. P» /'.N.%.d,l ++~ 'Thomas G. Mccreless cv-~ .r ~.'g f'.: g . g~". „, gD . 634-1374 11/11/76 cC'.~ .~)3 USE OTHER SIDE FOR ADDITIONALREMARKS CPO r tell 0 - its-455 UIIIVERSITY()I: Qi'.IFOR'XIA. SAN DIEGO ~ tr IIFIIIII.I.EW ~ I))'Vlb ~ III'VltL' Ol AFtt EI.F.'o ~ ~ ~ 'A'F ~ ' I IIIVFIIIIIIK „SAIt 1)IVt:0 IAN FRAFI(:Ist:0 l E II AIIIlAII % iI'iI* t ~ t I ~ INSTITUTE OF GEOPHYSICS AND ~ ~ 5XXMMKKXNQMII'A t. ~ . PLANETARY PI.IYSICS JOLLA, CALII'oRNIA xx')et 92093 LAJQLLA LABQRAToRIEs A"025 3 November 1976 ~ ~ ~ J Executive Director Advisory Cmmission on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission llashington, D. C. 20550 ATTENTION: ltort La Barkan This letter is written at the request .of.l1r. JaPIes Geocaris, and its purpose is to explain the phenome'non of high frequency eneroy focussing by a propagating earthquake rupture and its possible relevance to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The ph nomenon of focussing of high frequency energv by a propagatin source is well known in physics. An'elementary example is the high frequenc of sound heard from an approaching train as compared" to the relatively lowe frequency heard when tne train is receding. Benioff used the principle to explain asymmetry in the intensity of shaking froml t..e kern County, California earthquake of 1952. I'numerous o.her seismoIogists have since. used it to explain similar amplitude asyozIetries., In simplest terms, it is focussing of a narrow beam of high frequency energy in the direction of rupture. The simplest theoretical representations of the phenomenon suggest that very high accelerations, several times the acceleration of gravity, migl be produced in a narrow beam (+ 5') in the direction of a propagating earth- quake rupture under certain special conditions. Unfortunately, at this time it is not possible to determine to what ex'tent these conditions can occur in actual earthouakes. The phenomenon has been verified and studied to a limited extent in laboratory models zlId in numerical computer models, but again, it is not possible as yet to verify that the relevant conditions in these models occur in natural earthquakes. There is good evidence that for many earthquakes amplitudes at relatively lar e distances have been increased several fold by rupture focussing. For near- ierd strong motion of importance in structural design the data is too liII:ited to be certain of the importance of the phenomenon, N. La Barkan Page -2- 3 Hovember 1976 but several recent strong motion records, including'he Pacoima Dam record of the San 'Fernando earthquake (tl = 6.4, a = 1.25g) and the Nelindy Ranch record of the Bear Valley earthquake of September 4, 1972 (H = 4.7, a = .69g) may have been affected by rupture focussing. From elementary considerations, it is apparent that rupture focussing , could be of great importance in designing and siting critical structures {such as nuclear power plants) near active faults. On the other hand, it is possible that some presently unkhown factors might prevent the phenomenon from being as dang'erous as first appears from these elementary considerations In the case of the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor, given the assump- tions that the San Simeon-Hosgri fault system is a continuous active fault coming within 5 km of the Diablo Canyon nu !ear power plant, focussing by rupture propagation ~m~orthwest to soutneast) could lead to anomolous high accelerations, possibly greater than 2g. At the present time it is not possible to say what the probability of such high accelerations is. Many of the factors necessary for estimating the probability are being inten-. sTvely studied and should be much better understood in a Pear or two. JAMES H. SRUHE h Professor of .4eophysics JNB/nar cc: J. Geocaris ~ ~ VI~ I a4< I ~ I a@ sal)VIII C9 Biography Born . November 23, 1934 Modesto, California Education Ph.D. (Geophysics), Columbia Universi y 1961. B.S. (Geophysical inginee ing), University of Nevada, 1956. Professional Experience Associate Director7 nst" ute o". Geophysics anc Planeta~ Phys. cs, Univer. of Cali orn'a, San "'ego, 1"73- 1976. Chairman, Geologica~ Resea c.". D''sion, Sc 'pps ".nsti=u:e o= Oceanogra '.::. Professor of Geopnysics, Un:ve sity of Cal'forn'a, Sa.. Diego, '«69- Associate Professor of Geophysicss Cali=o"nia "nsti " e cf Te .. logy 1965-1969; = erv'sor, = is-...o~ an- ==a"-=c-.. (===". =': he== -;.- Adjunct Associate Professor of Geology, Columbia iniversity, 1964.- Geophysicist, U. S. Coast anc Gecdetic =u.vey, 196~. Research Scientist; Columbia Un:versity, 195S-1963. -Zxplora~ion ?esearch, Chevron G'1 Company, '95?. Exploration Geophysics, .Chevron Oil Company, 1956. Honors President,- Seismological Society o Amer=ca, 1970. Vice P esident, Seismological Society o" Amer'ca, '969. oar of Di ectors, Seismological Socie —;- of Americas '967-1972. Grove Karl Gilbe t Award in Seism'c Geolo-y '967. Nomina.ed New vora'cademy o Sc'ences,', 1966, men-e . 970 . Fellow, American Geo nysical Union, 1967. ~ . First recipient of J. B. Nacelwa..e Award by A.G.U., 962. Arthu . Day Awa d (Foreign Co-op. Research) 1 72 Professional ae;-..bershios Geolog'cal Society of Ame ica Seismologic=l.Societ~s of America 4 American Geophys'cal Union Nationa .-e"earch Council Scholarshi s and Fello':Ishi s University Fellowship in Geophysics, Columbia Univers" ty, 1957. Higgins Fe'owship, Columbia Un ve . ity, 1956. Hax Flei chman, University o. Nerada, two years. Jones-Hoover Scholarship, Uni'ers'ty of Nevada, one year. Committees National Research Council, Seismologica'ociety of America. .repre"entative, 1967-1970 . NAS-NAE Committee Advi"ory to Envi."'onmental Science 'Services Administration, 1970-1973. IRH y Majraphy 'James beil Brune Page Two Comnittees (cont) Panel on Solid Earth Geophysics, Ifational Committee Advisory to ESSA, National Research Council, 1960. Panel on Seismology, 'fAS-bAE Committee on the Alaska earthauake, 1965. Governor's Earthquake Council, 1971. Panel on St ong-Ifotion Seismology, sfational Academy of Scien es, 1971-1974. Committee on Seismology, IIAS-HPC, 1971-1973. Research Seismology; Earth structure; Ea thcuake source mecha-..=sm; Tectonics; Heat flow; Explosions as seismic sources; Seisnic wave dispers'on; Free oscillations of the Earth; Uorrzl mode and ray theory; Seismic noise; Hiero-. earthauakes. ~ ~ Listed I American:fen of Science "Nho's h"no in the Nest s 6/74 'L ll l «« Decenber 8, 1976 James Geocaris, Esq. Brent Rushforth, Esq. Center for Law in the Public Interest Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Drive « 10203 Santa Honica Drive Los Angeles, California 90067 Los Angeles, California 90067 fedos. In the Hatter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Cany'on Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) Docket Hos. 50-275 O.L. and 50-323 O.L. '.-.;."';,,': This is'n .response to your'etter of November 19, 1976 suggesting th ': —-'"need for.further consideration of the possibility of a Hosgri-Sa --'."'„" .:.. Gregoria fault link up. As you are aware, the USGS report of April 29, :.'':.":;=" '..;"; ~ .-.',.==...-.'. 1976; did consider all the available information bearing on this question...-':.,";.:-:.: '":.'-,:-: A;Specifically, it was assumed that the Hosgri fau'1t connected with faults ....'..-;-:.:„-',-'~', ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '.v ~i ".-';";.";-'...The NRC. and its consultant, the USGS, are presently reviewing the inf'or- -,:;":;""mation presented at an earlier n eting of tho Los Angeles Basin Geo-:: ~ '.'.=.-',:,:.'; logical.Society M determine whether any substantial'ew information .':, '.." ':-;"';;,:: exists which would have an effect on the seismic design of Diablo Canyon. ~ ~ ":::.':,"t In the meantime, we": would welcome any new infonaation whfch has not";..;'":-;.-":;"-.".:.-.',;—,'.-.';.-'„."'.". -=:--,:,-'='::.,previously been furnished to'he USGS; .- Hr.::Tour tellotte and; I, woold -"--;:.:-::;;-„',:.-,:;,.-. -::~-;-"-be milling to«meet with you"to.discuss this:.matter.further'hi)e.vte,«,'!ik.'-..-='-:='".'':.,:.i',,'. , =;.-:--',-":are:-.in San'Luis Obispo;;for:the environmental hearings"..„:"-,-: "Counsel for NRC Staff DR/LPDR ,„,::,:;„.::Formal. Files cc: Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Dr MHliam E. ' orr>ccrc Hartin '.'rthur C. Gehr,'sq.'" ~ .-.:,-.'..'"; ". '.. " Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq. ..Atomic Safety and Licensing ',. 'rs. -Elizabeth Apfelberg .... " Appeal Board Andrew J. Skaff, Esq. ', .... Atomic Safety and Licensing ,'- " Hs; Raye F1eming .'.-...... : Board Pane1 .:.,';, .;;--:.-,-:. p.";„ Nr. Frederick Eissler . ..'"'' .:. Docketing and Service Section ',.'.:„"-.':: -., ': Hr. Gordon Silver rs. an ra 1 ver OfLD « N r ...He 'EG.1iara 2 CornwelL. Tel ephone oncurrence '«« ~ ', c D;-Davis SVRMANcnn Nr. Paul C. ynlnntlne hy Denni ' Allison Yal'e I-. 'Con .J. TourteU.at e n, Es'q. « '««. «8 4 .««« Distribution 0'ocket File LWR-1 File D. Allison E, Hylton DEC g 0 )F6 Docket Nos.: 50-275, 50-323 I HEHORA,"tOUtd FOR: John F. Stolz, Chief, Light Mater Peactors Branch fto. 1 FROtl:, 0. Allison, Project ttanager, Light Mater Reactors Branch Ho. 1 S|JBJECT: DIABLO CANYON SEISHIC DESIGt< BASIS The intervenors'ttorney has in itten to the ACRS and the staff questioning whether the magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Hosgri fault is a sufficient design basis for Diablo Canyon in light of the possible connections of this fault with other faults to the North. The ACRS has requested that Me pro- vide response fron U.S.G.S. Copies of this correspondence are enclosed. Jim Devine at U.S.G.S. has been working .on an answer for ateut 3 weeks now and will provide a response soon. This subject was discussed in the U.S.G.S. report concerning Diablo Canyon. 'In its rapport the U.S.G.S. assumed that these postulated connections are real and dismissed any conseauen need to use an earthquake larger than magnitude 7.5,due to the nature of the result- ing fault system. The U.S.G.S. is checking to determine exactly what was done at the recent seminar in Los Ange'les before responding. Onwinal S>gned By Dennis P. Allisan Dennis P. Allison, Prospect Panager Light Mater Reactors Branch tto, l Division of Prospect ttanagoment Enclosure: as stated cc: B. Pusche E. Case R. Boyd P,. DeYoung D. Yassallo .. R. Heineman J. Knight I. Sitweil Y. Kapur H. Denton I Gami 1 1 J. C. Stepp R. Hogan J. Tourtellotte . 0. Davis os r>crW OUR,'%Able ~ DATE~ T 4 y~y,R ALOD ~4 ~o UNITED STATES :.-..'i, hagi'.;"; NUCLEAR REGULATORY CQMIVllSSIQN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SAFEGUAROS o "g' REACTOR +~GATI WASHlNGTON, D. C. 20555 Hovember 29~, 1976 D, Allison POTENTIAL LENGTH OF THE HOSGRZ FAULT NEAR THE DIABLO CANYON SITE \ Attached is a copy of a letter to the ACRS from the Center for Law in the Public Interest'which points out, that some respected geologists have again, recentLy, expressed the view that the Hosgri fault could link with other fauLts forming a system about 300 miles long The Diablo Canyon Subcommittee Chairman has requested that we obtain comments from you and U S. Geological Survey on the significance of this information and its impact og the postulated magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring on the Hosgri fault. J+ Cw McKxnley, ief Prospect Review anch No Attachafent: Center for Law Ltr dtd Li/19/76 cc: B Rusche E, Case R Boyd R, DeYoung R Heineman H. Denton W, Garmill Ci Stepp D, Okrent ~J ~ ~ t~ 7 o t ' >( ~ ~ ~ ~ e .C) . r ) ) CENTER FOR LAN D>.>>D Ot ttt>t5tCCS IH THE PUOLlC INTEREST tl~ Stol tt ~ 0 0 t020D DAKOTA MOt»C* t>OuiCvh»O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 vent~ >> fu >>1% ~ >~ma> ~ alJ flu>ttlat tt ~ > ~ «p> Xp> > Alt6 f>f2>> 1LOO>t Cuishot '>> >o>>> I ~H >It >> Am@ >>>>ol A,'tt(MQ>oAI J Stuht t 8'4>~ LC>D *HCCLCS, CALI/OA>>IAOOOO' gt5 ~ tW> >' »>>~>r t +r»~» tt V>t4 » leo'iver»>» Ws >ti » ~t~ TClCf»D»C. Ib)> ~ th ~ S'SD ~ ~ Rl>W: ~ M»>o fq a~ »»> 5th~ , t:fg !.C'/ >u'j SI>>14~ 2y ftt f g~ t>>>pa(', f ~p>t+>h>AO 5>l*»t l lM>l PDMttt>5'tAAtlVt 05$ >CCtt DD>>>IQ >> >8 5 g>>rQ ~W4»h» 0~*@5'+ IP>v'5 i> h>Itlf SkhhAi 5 ~i>u>5 U.S. Vt5>T>AG ffLl evf~A ~tl» h:i.:. -.': frf. ~5 AF>'lSGll"> .'. ic.E 6?1 as>>lr Stag tv~ a fiih D te'St tie.AC?vtl b>it t.bentli>S P>>t5 At% Mo WeD L5~4 D PDW>>>% 39 November 1976 ~ llr. Dade Vl. Hoeller Chairman Advisory Corr~ittee on Reactor Safeguards ~ Nuclear Regulatory Comzaission ~ washington, D.C. 20555 Pear Sir: ~ p ' Re are attorneys for several Xntervenors in the ~ Dj.ablo Canyon Nuclear Generating Station operatinct license hearings. tie are sure you are a -are that the Diablo Caryon matter is now before nur Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards'. Your Committee is fccusint3'on the seismic hazarQs .posed hy the Hosgri fault which runs 2-1/2 miles offshore from the plant site. 5 En our investigations regarding seismic hazards at Diablo Canyon,'nformation that could affect the niag- nitudc of an earthquake at the plant site has cone to our attention that.-the Committee has not considcrec7o Mvisory yet .'t, present, your Cori.-.,ittee is evaluating the seisric hn"ards posed by a fault approximately 100 @tiles in length kno' .. as thc liosgri. Recently, rcspccted qcologists work:ing on Calf'ior»ia faulting hove e~:prc-s d t'.ic v'"w t'.tat t'ie llo gri links uli to anothftr nort>ll:c t.crly trcnclittg cckstct3 .fault,. tllc Soll Grei Ori.o p to for:ll dl'lc 300 )'ill c long fatilt s"st.clil ru»n'ing fxc:;..> Poi»t Concl, pcitin (tl c sout!ica:-.t: cr~T uf t:!ic. 1ln."gri ";nuit) eric] libel.mini~ .i>itlt t'.>t. san A-.Qrc't: faltlt nn: t;lt. 1'. tnci5 co ( tll . nor t.tl"c 1: lie) 0 C t:llc 'n t, c;c)rio "nuit.) . 1'clr cyazplcf 1'rdf'.".; .ne 1 )i Si1»L'r, Chairaan ot'hc 'lc.;iartr,:cttt of (-:cology at thc.. tttiivcrsitp of Cctj.iform:tia at„. ~ «tnta Ct u:., «gprc>ts:-,c d tile vx5:i.i'n 0 pre'tt.'.ltttloti tc5 tl:c Lo>c tl<;clcs ltllin cico)oq j<.'al Sc)c:ic'I.'}'tl NctvL'tltltclr,. )tt7t't tha(. :hc lln."imari hnd.5an (Jrccgot.io;lrc~ joinccl 'l:l OnL~ fault. As wc uncover::tancl, it thc.llo.'lett'j attcl B,t'tl Grcic;orio lrc.'llotll wt.ll ttiapllc 0 Hr. D.".('.c 30. Hccllcr 3.9 Novcmbcr l(376 un«r t»nty»e in an area of a fcw doyen miic near Point Suy on'he Central California coa t. Apparently,, if this area was better mapped 'hy geological surveying expeditions, the linkage of the two faults coulQ bc morc convincingly established or refuted; He be3.ieve that, the Advisory Committee shoulQ knoM whether the Hosgri, is a 100 or a 300 mile long 'efinitively gaul't bofors it settles upon an estinate of earthguahe mag- : nitude and other aspects oi the seismic evaluat'ion for the Diablo Canyon nuclear. plant. We believe that it would bc ' most inappropriate for the AQvisory Committee to continue ~ their analysis on. the basis of a 100 m3.1e long fault without ~ examining the views of thc severa3. reputable geologists who ar'e familiar wit:h the relevant. data and believe that the '.fault to be 300 miles long. Pe urge you to consult geologists and DSGS ( . in the universities ho.are fami3.iar with Central '.* ~ California coastal faulting 'to determine the state of know- : . ~ ledge regarding the possib"c San Gregorio-Hosgri linkage and, . especially, what new surveys feasibly could he underta.;cn in the near futUre to establish or refute the'xistence oX the. .link.- ~ 0 I II Xn your investigation of this matter;~ ve~ ur(3e you especially to seek: out viewers of reputable,. independent geoloc;i ts. Throughout the historv'f the siting anQ con- struction of the Diablo Canyon plant,;independent'cientists . have 'ounded the warnin(3s about offshore 'faulting that helve ~ prov(;n true, only to be i(3nored by the Nuc:lear Regulatory Co~xi .sion and Pacific Gas and I:lcctric .Comp:lny. For example, during the const':ruction licensiniv'hase, gcolni„.ist Robert Curry, i'!lo recently ha done worl on the geo3ogical di,a.ter tlM Teton Dam, 3 arned Ches Cor".",i:si Qn and u"i1 ity compo!ly al>out offshor(.' au3.ting ?3llt thi8 omPii!i&ioll riever or(EGl'e(3 "urvcys for fault" unitclr tllc occ.an rior c;i(l t.lr utility take off..l>o'rc surv(v.',. Nore rcccnt1}, Clarence !"133. Ch .ar.'n .n- of tllc ('cnloqv Dc:~;»-t-r,;c»t at tll: Univor:»jty of C'l3.ifornia at Lo" ~ ~ e ~ a All(3('.3 .- l~ubli-'l:tl a dcf in i t:ivc:1'r t:.l.i:3 c 1n (in(.c (3 ir«eiii'::cr 26, '976 f'i'~) /el 3 Yolu!.l: 1') t) pp ~ 3.2g ).-129>l j 8c L. tl (1 fsiil('3s'.,l l't(.'(3\ll 1- ~ ~ tol y Cuil:li:(sion l;.o(il() «QJ;no(i'3c()c!Q h L 1('j>(late"t 41 ttn Lil>31( thol~ t.llc "".n:(:iry 19 I) s clpo)-t: .')y oi l ci:~1!>'ul>'!tl')lo!it:f: '> f t,hr a. xi st (in('i A f. s.! i(l 3.() 0 mile lollg ?to;: J 1 .i faul t. (i'a:1 tron 4'c'ru::t thc. A()vi."o)".y Commit telo will i:on(?ui.f: a thol ougll invr..'lti .at:ion of. tile potential lac':()1 i-.'lan Gl'< (ill ko lilll lg .w t.h p]()!)ily attclltinn t;n t.llc vi('.wl: oC l(>)>utall)(l ini)('})('ni)ent Soj i. nt.i ~LS a;1 lp(ill sin tll('t;aff O t t;ho t)ui ~ )'( Bcqulatciry CQ'ilillj.:1:lion. )le 1Ioul() apl>l cciat.r. henri»(~ .1(i'.» you e I b r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.J ~ 0 ~ ' hr. Dade M. Noeller ~ 3m 19 November l976 regarding your plans for such an inve'tigation at your earliest convenience. Yours sincerely, Brent t4. Rushforth r~~Pyfg. '~~~Kg~ James Geocaris 'Cco ' ~ r 7 Dale. Bridenbaugh'. Phillip Crane, Jr. Richard Hubbard Ninor 'regory .Dr. David Okrent James Tourtellotte 0 ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Os ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 r ~ FOR LAW (tO~O OS (ItuSr((S tN THE PUBLlc INTEREST LC(tAL S(A(l IOtOS 4AHTA HOHICA bOLILCVAIIO t~ ~ 'rctpt H 'ENTER ?W0 trrr ~ I fp4~lo (~ I th( JO rr 4 ~ (+5 JIPTH FLOOIt CIAtnf rr m L m ~ 0 $4(HI H AqQHPIlll A tHCwlS MPst 'I J 5t~fr 5uQINS LO5 AHOCLCb CALIFOAHIAOOOd7 @HI 4 hl+Y5 ii~ A lips vlrclr L 5(JIAlttQ Srr(ltt lr IlltvIPItrt I@PAIL H SAM ZCLCJIIQIrclQISI ~ r ~ ~ ~ $ $ ~ 1 SLII&$EAHS'ng&g t'I 4 ~@PI 5IADv 3(W JAQK StbtUw ~ al tISPid > StttH(~ aOaOHiS(4iintr O(aC(l( St(*uit L u04LL (4~t( ~QM rrLRa~ glJO4i Ir Irrkrrt45(tt tAtrrOS u WSAt $ LM~LL ML(t~ e&5IHG IELLOWS rr(trr(ltrrQLt(tt QlPV4~ (~It h4A 0 IQQ(L 5 Q(QQAA5 JAPI C (CI~( 19 November 1976 ~ 4 F05(tits Mr. James Tourtellotte'r. Dow Davis Office of Executive Legal Director BETH 042 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashingtonr D C ~ 20555 Gentlemen: A few days ago one of us talked with Hr. Dais regarding new information on the fault running 2-1/2 miles offshore 'from the Diablo Canyon plant site. Several reputable geologists who have done extensive work on the California coastal faulting now believe that the Hosgri fault links up to'he San Gxegorio fault to form a massive 300 mile long , fault system that, in turn, runs into the San Andreas. fault north of San Francisco. Several of the geologists who holi . this belief ax~ now reporting their views publicly. For example, Professor Eli Silver, Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Univexsity of California at .Santa Cruz, reported s is view earlier this month at a pxogram sponsored by the Lo". Angeles Basin Geological Society that the Hosgri- and San G: gorio formed a single fault system. Ne realize that some of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissio..'s consultants at U.S.G.S. do not share the views of Silver and others regarding the connection of the Hosgr3. and San GxQgorio. However, we beleive this divergence oZ scientific opinion over a matter that could affect. the mag- nitude of i credible earthquake at the Diablo plant, site should:"e :esolved so that, the Commission's seismic analysis proceeds rta a realistic basis. Re do not think the seismic anal>"-i >r Diablo Canyon should proceed upon a fundamental assay"'. the length of the f=ult and the potential magnitu:;e 5f an earthquake on the fault< with which several . reputable ~cientists disagree. v 4 0 A ' I Hr.'8ames Tourtellotte .8'K,~os Davis ' Xn light of this new information, we would like to me t with you and the Diablo Canyon project manager, Mr. Dennis Allison, to discuss this matter of the Hosgri-San Grego io link. Ne are interested especially in discussing geologic surveys of the possible site of the Hosgri-San Gregorio linkage around Point Sur that might confirm or refute the connection of the two faults. lf such surveys are feasible, we believe that it. is the regulatory responsi- bility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to undertake then be=ore the Diablo plant is licensecl. Frankly, gentlemen, our investigation of the history of this case has left us most unimpressed with the regulatory zeal of the Comaission. Your decision not to require surveys for offsho e faulting during the construction license phase and your apparent foot-dragging in confirming the work oZ Hoskins and Griffins is incomprehensible to us. He txust- that p with operating licensing of the Diablo plant imminent your evalu tion of the potential Hosgri-San Gregorio linkage will be more thorough and prompt. Yours sincerely, (.]8 l)e<)lA Brent N. Rushforth ~ ~ James Ceocaris Cce Dale 3ridenbaugh Phillip Crane, Jx. Rich ".d Hubbaxd Grege ~ Minor ~\ ~ gUN 14 876 Hr. James F Devine U. S. Geological Survey Nail Stop 908 - National Center South Lake Drive Reston, Virginia 22092 Dear Jim: Enclosed for your information and comment is a "Preliminary Draft of Design Spectra for Diablo Canyon Reactor Facility," by M. M. Newmark. I understand'that this report will be submitted to the ACRS prior to the June 25-26 meeting. Therefore, I would appreci- ate any comments or views which you might have on the report by June 16, 1976. Sincerely, O-ig,nai Signed by W.P.Gammill P. Gananill,'illiam Assistant Director for Site Technology Division of Site Safety and. . Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure: As stated DISTRIBUTION: Docket File (50-275) NRR Rdg DSE Rdg VPG Rdg OPPICR~ DSE'l +URHAMCW 1ms OATR + 6/ll/76 Form hEC.318 (RdT. F 53) hZCM 0240 k V d OOYRRNMRNT PRINTINO OPPICKI 1074 42d Idd IP ' ~ / S. I NRC FORM'95 U.S. NUCLEAR BEGULATORV C ISSION DOCI'. GER IZ-W')'4, Fl E AOI«IIl R NRC DISTRIBOTIC}NFoR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL DOCUMENT TO: '", ~~Mr Rusche US Dept of Interior DATE OF Reston, Va 4-29-76 DATE RECEIVED H W Coeller 4-29«'76 CILETTEB QNOTORIZED PROP INPUT FORM NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED « RIORIGINAL RlUNC LASS IF I ED one signed OCOPV DESCRIPTION ENCLOSURE Lgr trans the following: GeOlogy & Seismo1'ogy Review'...... (l cy encl rec'dg PLAl& NAlP.: Diablo Canyon l & 2 'Mi SAl«ETY ACTION/INFORMATION ENVIRO 5-3-76 ASSIGNED AD: ASSIGNED AD : BRANCH CHXEF: BRANCH CHXEF ~ PROJECT MANAGER; PROJECTASST'OR MANAGER ; LIC. SST.: Qo o LIC~ INTERNALDISTRIBUTION ~ ZEHS NRC PDR MKIK «S ERNST I'&E BENAROYA BALLARD SPANGLER GOSSXCK & STAFF ENGINEER N IPPOLXTO SITE TECH SE KNIGHT OPERATING REACTORS GAMMILL 2; SIHWEIL STELLO STEPP PA!JLICKI HULMAN OPERATXNG TECH L'ROJECT MANAGEMENT REACTOR SAFETY HISENHUT SITE ANALYSIS BOYD ROSS SHAO VOLI2IER P, COLLINS NOVAK BAER BUNCH HOUSTON ROSZTOCZY SCHWENCHR J, COLLINS PETERSON CHECK GRIMES KREGER MELTZ HELTEMES AT & X SITE SAFETY & E SKOVHOLT SALTZMAN ANALYSXS RUTBERG DENTON & MULLE EXTERNAL OISTR IBUTION CONTROL NUMBER BROOKHAVEN NATL LAB LPDR' /-vlsO ~ o NATL LAB TXC RFG V-IE ULRIKSON(ORNL) NS LA PDR ASLB CONSULTANTS op II ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~gNT Og ~ / 0 United States Department of the Interior 0 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092 File Regulatory Docket q APR 39 1976 lz g ~@- cF "7~/ Mr. Benard C. Rusche Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corloission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Mr. Rusche: Transmitted herewith, in response to your request, is a review of the geologic'and seismologic data relevant to the Di lo Canyon Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (NRC'Docket Nos.' and 50-323 OL).'ower This review was prepared by F. A. McKeown and J. F. Devine of the U.S. Geological Survey. Mr. McKeown was assisted by Holly Wagner, David McCulloch and Robert Yerkes in the preparation of portions of this review; Mr. Devine was assisted by Robert Page and Wayne Thatcher in the preparation of portions of this review. We have.no objection to your making this review par t of the public record. Sincerely yours, Loti>8 Director Enclosure - g~~ he 4 8i; 4 -., , (( (!~:29)878 ma ~.. QP ii ~OQ)TIQy o~ 1p)6 1916 Q g~ i('(')i@8 I 4> d 1 1' 1 ~ > > ~ 1 ~ 'tr t 1 I ~ 4V ~ 1 V ~ ' t 1 . ~ ~ ~ 0 1 ~ '> ~ 1 ~ ~ > S 4 't>VQ ~ t- ~ 'U ~ ~ ~ 4 'I f' 1 >1 ' - - ~ 4 t v ~ = ~ ~ 1 V ~ = ~ ' - * ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ 4 ~ 1 >- 1 ~ 1. t 1 *- ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ F t 1 ~ — ~ 1 It 1 ~ ~ 1> ~ t \ ~ ~ V t ~ I W ~ 4 t 1 ~ t* ~ >1 '1>F t> ~ ~ 1 ~ 4 > V 1 t t 'I ~ ~ . ~ ~ t1" t> t. ~ 1- \ ~ II V ~ ~QNT Of Q Q 0 ~ ~E $0 United StatesI)epartment of the Interior 0 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESTON, 'VIRGINIA 22092 APR 28 f976 tie. leonard. C; Rusche O)rector of tha office of Hucleat', Reactor Regulation U,S. Nuclear Regu'latorg Comafss)on 'Mashington, D.C. 20565 Dear t~lri Rusche'ransnitted herewith, in response to. gout request, fs a revf@< of the. geologic and seismologic data relevant 'ta the Mablo Canyon Nuclear Peter Station, Units l and 2 {RK Cocket. bios. 50-276 OL and 59-323 QL). This review i~as. prepared by IF:. A..tlckeoyn and'. F. Devine of the lj.S. Geological Survey. V~r. NCKeo':m @as assisted bg golly Wagner, Qav)d VxCB)och and Robert Yerkes 5q the preparation of portions of this reyiei. Hr. Devine t;Ias assisted bj Robert Page and Hayne Thatcher 4n the, preparation of portions of this rev)eu. Ue have- no. objection to your mak)ng Sids revue;I part of the public record. 'inceralg yours, Enclosure q~c 8 t Let's Clean Up America For Our 200th Birthday U ll U d tt I I U , t tt > I I ~ 1 y» IgyE Ugg ~ Uttl I ~ Qr ' I 0 )It, Ii E ht H I U '' ~ ~ U I I i U li IE 4 I 'I N J I U 1 „U,t 1, tl E' I' I t y Uyl ~ I II 'I 't I ~ I y I UI I F' f. U I I I It U„ UU I I * ll I I Ul I t y I y y Ultlt U 'R8gUIBtOQI DOck8't pggypyg Qgg gyp pppgypyg g0gpggy F!l8 DIABLO CANYON SITE, UNITS 1 AND 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AEC DOCKET NOS. 50-275 AND 50-323 ~4PP~%~" Geology and Seismology This is a review of the geological and seismological information contained in Amendments 31, 32, 34, 37 and 40 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) foi the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant site. The review also includes a discussion of questions concerning the size of an earthquake to be expected on offshore fault zones raised by some California scientists since review of the amendments. The amendments were prepared by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGSE) in response to a request in a letter dated February 12, 1975, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). for certain additional information relevant to design basis earthquake issues, which have been the principal problems requiring additional earth sciences information and analyses. To support assertions in the FSAR through Amendments ll, 19, and 20, five requests for information (referred to as questions in the Amendments) were made. 2.17. Provide additional discussion and arguments for determining the maximum earthquake that can be expected on faults of various ranks within the San Andreas system. Relate the discussion to historic seismicity. 2.18. Provide additional documentation, including seismic reflection profiles, on the intersection of the Hosgri fault zone with the Transverse Range faults. Include geologic maps southward of those provided in the FSAR showing the structural relation- ships of the Transverse faults and structures having a nor th- west trend. I ~ p ~ ~ I I %I ~ ) g I 2.19. Provide additional documentation, including seismic profiles, on the northern reaches of the Hosgri fault zone. Include a fuller development of your views on the structural relationship of the Hosgri fault to the San Simeon fault. 2.20. Provide additional information on the location of the 1927 event, together with its probable mechanism. Discuss probable relationships of this event to the geologic structure in the region. 2.21. Provide your evaluation of the maximum credible earthquake on the Hosgri fault zone. Assuming this event occurs along the segment of the Hosgri fault zone nearest the site, evaluate its response spectrum at the site and compare it with the> design response spectrum. The response in the FSAR to the questions has provided considerable additional geologic and seismologic information and analyses. Many uncertainties in the data and interpretations still exist. Among the most important of these are: (1) the location and mechanism of the 1927 earthquake, (2) the exact relation of the Hosgri fault zone to faults in the Transverse Range system and the San Simeon fault, (3) the continuity of some faults, (4) the relative amounts of dip-slip and strike-slip movement on the Hosgri fault zone, (5) the sense of displace- ment on parts of the Hosgri zone, (6) identification and correlation of acoustical units, and (7) kinematic relations among different fault zones. In addition to these uncertainties, some information shown on the profiles is not shown on the maps and vice versa, and some profile data are not included that are important to evaluate the extension or character of some faults. Because geologic maps developed from seismic reflection profiles are based upon much interpretation that may differ among several interpreters, it was necessary for the purposes of our 0 IC ~il.'l«>15/i a P.t'e -A= * Ig review to make independent interpretations of the seismic profiles. These independent interpretations are somewhat different than the interpretations presented in Amendments 31 and 32. The major differences are brief'ly described in appropriate sections of this review. Although some changes in, and additions to, geologic and seismologic details have been made in Amendments 31, 32, 34', 37 and 40 compared with previous data in the FSAR, no major changes can be made in our conclu- sions that were stated in the review of the FSAR, and Amendments 11, 19, and 20, which was transmitted to the NRC from the Director of the United States Geological Survey by letter of January 28, 1975. The pertinent statement in our previous conclusions was as follows: "Earthquakes along the EBZ presumably would not be as large as expected on the San Andreas/ fault, however, from the information presently at hand we can find no evidence that would preclude the occurrence of an earthquake as large as events characteristic of subparallel strike- slip faults, which bound basins, such as the Santa Naria, in the San Andreas system and which do not transect structural provinces." The size of an earthquake on faults that bound basins was not specified in this conclusion. For reasons stated in subsequent parts of this review, however, the magnitude of the design basis earthquake for ~ the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor site should be about 7.5 and located on the Hosgri fault zone. This is based principally on the fact that the November 4, 1927, earthquake had a maanitude of 1As defined in the FSAR, EBZ refers to the East Boundary fault zone, which is the Hosgri fault zone. " I "I ~ pv v t If'I f g%gtv Q (~ I l) ~ ih 7.3 and that the best estimates of its location indicate that it could have occurred on the Hosgri fault. Furthermore, the range in magnitude is compatible with the largest recorded or estimated magnitudes of earthquakes that have occurred on subsidiary faults in the San Andreas system. Selected comments important to an evaluation of the amendments are outlined below. Amendment 31 NRC guestion 2.18 On figures 8 and 9 relative displacement on the Hosgri fault between Point Buchon and Point Sal is shown to be down on the east. On figure 10 relative displacement on the southern extension of the Hosgri fault south of Point Sal is down on the west, which is compatible with the argument that the Hosgri fault is the east boundary of a portion of the Santa Maria Basin. Changes in direction of relative movement, however, are very suggestive of lateral displacement, which may have occurred after development of the basin and bounding faults. On page 9, reference is made t'o figure 11 as evidence that no scarp-forming seismic events have occurred on the southernmost part of the Hosgri fault since prior to the Wisconsinan stage of the Pleistocene. It is true that no offset of the ocean floor is evident on figure ll. However, close inspection of figure 11 shows offset of the post-Wisconsinan unconformity when sighting along it or placing a straightedge along the mapped trace. Also, faulting of the post- Wisconsinan sediments cannot be precluded because a change in acoustical hl } r signature is evident across an upward projection of the fault shown in figure ll. The change in the acoustical signature of unit A2 across the fault is quite clear and may be evidence of lateral movement on the fault. It is not clear from the profiles in figures 13a and 13b that the disturbed zones in them that are inferred to represent the liest Hosgri fault are the same. At least three additional faults can be inter- preted in the profile of figure 13b. Also a disturbed zone appears to be between stations 133 and 136 in the profile of line 13a. Kelez, Bartlett, and Polaris survey lines crisscross this area and evidence from them to support or negate the suggested correlation of disturbed zones is not apparent. An independent interpretation of the seismic profiles in the offshore area from about Point Sal to about five miles south of Point Arguello indicates that the Hosgri fault extends at least five miles south of Point Arguello and does not turn eastward as suggested in Amendment 31. Although the Lompoc fault zone appears to have offset the sea floor, and may, therefore, be considered capable of movement again, its length of only about eight miles as inferred by the applicant appears to be incompatible with a magnitude 7.3 earthquake. An independent interpretation of the seismic profiles in the area of the Lompoc fault differs from that of the applicant in that it shows that the Lompoc fault zone is about 20 miles long; the longest single fault in the zone is about 15 miles in length. Furthermore, the displacement is interpreted to be dip slip or possibly oblique slip; rather than reverse slip as suggested by the applicant. NRC guestion 2.19 As noted in the previous section, the sense of displacement on the southern part of the Hosgri fault is up on the west side, figure 1 (N), and therefore is not compatible with its being primarily related to basin development. However, an alternative interpretation suggests the displacement on the Hosgri fault in figure 1 to be down on the west. Figure 1 (N) has three buried faults not shown on Plate I. This leads to questions concerning the interpretation of some of the data in the report. Another instance of faults shown in profile but not on a map is seen from comparison of figure 4 (N) and Plate I. The correlation of faults between Lines 16 and 12 (figures 3 (N) and 4 (N)) is questionable. A profile along Line 14 would help. Also, an interpretation of Line 10 should be included. Although the straight coast line between Cambria and Point Estero 'suggests that the extension of the San Simeon fault is just offshore; data are lacking to prove this. None of the data presented in Amendment 31 preclude the San Simeon fault from intersecting the Hosgri fault offshore between Cambria and Point Estero. The two faults even as shown on Plate II (N) are less than 2.5 miles apart and could very well be tectonically coupled to each other by an en echelon or anastomosing series of faults which is characteristic of faults in the coast ranges. Such coupling of the Hosgri and San Simeon faults is supported by C J 'p - "l '( WQ interpretation of stratigraphic sections recently reported by Hall (1975). He infers that "...the San Simeon and Hosgri faults are part of the same system,..." and that 80 km or more of right slip has occurred along the system during the last 5 to 13 million years. Figures 7a (N) and 7b (N) are very puzzling. They show an inflection in the sea floor over the Hosgri fault and a drastic change in the thickness and acoustical signature of unit A2, assuming A2's correlative with A2. In addition to vertical displacement, lateral displacement, which is not mentioned, could be interpreted from these profiles. However, the basis for separating A2'rom A3 is not apparent. Similarly, it is not apparent why unit A', east of the fault, is terminated. It appears to continue to the east edge of these profiles. On figure lla (N) the A2 unit east of the fault at station 119. is correlated with the Monterey formation (p. 8, NRC guestion 2.19, Amendment 31), but the signature of the A2 unit west of this fault is completely different. This inferred lithologic change, as elsewhere, suggests lateral displacement. NRC guestion 2.20 On page 10 it is reasoned that both the Hosgri and West Hosgri faults can be eliminated as sources of the 1927 earthquake because neither the sea floor nor the post-Wisconsinan unconformity are offset in the epicentral area of the earthquake. This reasoning is not satisfactory because typically surface rupturing of a fault is discon- tinuous, and offset may not be detected if the displacement had a I ) I'1 I/* large lateral component. Furthermore, as stated on page 4 of this review, the base of post-Wisconsinan sediments is offset, and a fault in the sediments cannot be precluded in figure ll. The evidence, therefore, to eliminate the Hosgri fault as the source of the 1927 earthquake is inadequate. As previously stated, the length of the Lompoc fault appears to be incompatible with the magnitude of the 1927 earthquake. Figure 1 shows that segments of the Hosgri fault zone, the Lompoc fault, Purisima fault, and Lion's Head fault occur within the error circle of Gawthrop and error ellipse of Engdahl for the 1927 earthquake. However, all of the faults are outside of the area designated by„Smith as the "inferred distribution of aftershock sequence of the 1927 earthquake." The 1927 earthquake, therefore, cannot be unequivocally located on any one of these faults. The Hosgri fault, however, is closer to the center of the estimate of error than the other faults and, therefore, must be considered as a possible fault on which to locate the earthquake. Amendment 32 NRC Question 2.17 Although this section contains descriptions and explanations of the "kinematics of structural behavior in the south-central California region..." contemporary seismic activity is not fully explained. Also, we do not agree with some statements given as fact. For example, on page 2 it is stated as fact that the 1927 H.7.3 earthquake occurred on the Lompoc fault. This is not fact but a highly controversial f b, II assumption. Item 2 on page 2 of this amendment indicates that the Lompoc and San Andreas are the only faults in the southern Coast Ranges that "reflect substantial late quaternary surface deformation." As defined on page 3 of this amendment, "substantial" clearly includes the San Simeon fault, which as stated on page 7 of this review may be coupled with the Hosgri fault. The attempt to explain the large magnitude by using the logic that. the Lompoc fault is in a transition zone between the Coast Ranges and Western Transverse Ranges applies to other faults in the zone including the southern part of the Hosgri fault. Amendment 34 NRC guestion 2.21 The maximum credible earthquake of 6 1/4 - 6 1/2 on the Hosgri fault zone used in this section to derive peak site ground acceleration is unacceptable because as stated previously the 1927 earthquake with a magnitude of 7.3 cannot be precluded from having occurred on the Hosgri fault. Although we believe that the 1927 earthquake should be used to estimate the safe shutdown earthquake, fault length-magnitude relationships have also been considered. The uncertainties in these relationships and the assumptions involved in the use of them are well known. Nevertheless, we may consider that the Hosgri fault is about 90 miles (144 km) long, or even greater if it is coextensive with the San Simeon fault. The part of this total length that may rupture during an earthquake is highly conjectural, particularly in view of the complex tectonic style of the faults in question. However, using a reasonable 4' ~ J 10 factor for continuous rupture along a discontinuous zone of deformation, in our judgment, it is prudent to consider magnitude 7 as a possible minimum magnitude based on this criterion above, exclusive of the consideration of the 1927 earthquake. Recen'tly some earth scientists in California have discussed the possibility that the Hosgri fault zone not only may intersect or be coextensive with the San Simeon fault, but that the San Simeon fault may connect with the San Gregorio fault, presumably in the vicinity of ttonterey Bay. It is argued that these three faults could comprise a system that may make it capable of generating a magnitude 8 earthquake. Available data, although incomplete, do not substantiate this inferred \ system of faults in the sense that it is a long linear fault along which major movements are occurring and, therefore, is. capable of a magnitude 8 or larger earthquake. It is well known that earthquakes with instrumentally measured magnitudes of 8+ generally occur along major discontinuities that may be either subduction zones or transform faults. In western, North, America the only such discontinuity recognized is the San Andreas fault. Not only is there no record of a magnitude 8 earthquake on the offshore system, but significant differences in tectonic style exist between that system and the San Andreas fault, which strongly suggest that the great length of rupturing associated with magnitude 8 earthquakes on strike-slip faults would not occur. These differences are outlined below: 11 (1) As stated previously, an interpretation that the San Simeon intersects the Hosgri fault zone offshore between Cambria and Point Estero cannot be precluded. Such an intersection would permit a nearly straight line continuation of the Hosgri zone. However, interpretations by Hoskins and Griffiths, the applicant, and Wagner all show continuation of the Hosgri zone or branches of it north of any postulated intersection. If the San Simeon fault does not intersect the Hosgri zone, then they are en echelon to each other as original(y interpreted by Hoskins and Griffiths. The tectonic style of this area, therefore, is one of branching or en echelon faults. (2) Data on the relationship of the San Simeon fault to the San Gregorio fault have not been provided by the applicant nor were they requested. The Hosgri fault zone is comprised of many discontinuous, anastomosing, and en echelon faults as interpreted by both Wagner and McCulloch, and the applicant. Relationships between HSS zones appear to be similar to the style of faulting in the coast ranges: an anastomosing, en echelon pattern unlike that of the San Andreas fault Offshore faults north of Point Piedro Blancas do not form a single continuous fault. Greene and others (1973) show the San Gregorio fault connecting with the onshore Palo Colorado fault northeast of the Sur- Nacimiento fault zone. Furthermore, the San Simeon fault if projected northwest immediately offshore is truncated by the Sur-Nacimiento zone (Crowell, 1975). These relationships appear to preclude any similarity to the continuous style of the San Andreas fault. "~ 12 (3) The Hosgri zone and the San Simeon fault are considered in this review as part of the San Andreas system of faults. This interpretation is made because (a) of evidence of lateral movement along the Hosgri fault zone and the San Simeon fault, (b) these faults like coast range faults are subparallel to the San Andreas fault, and (c) the regional stress field responsible for the plate boundary movements concentrated along the San Andreas fault may reasonably be expected to cause lateral movement on subparallel faults. Nuch geologic and seismologic evidence, however, shows that the major plate boundary movements are occurring on the San Andreas fault. Speculation that the major movements now occurring on the San Andreas fault should transfer tens of miles to another part of the system, which is discontinuous and nonlinear, within a few decades or perhaps several hundred years cannot be supported with available geologic evidence. (4) The Hosgri fault zone and San Simeon fault are recognized as the eastern boundaries of offshore basins with large vertical displace- ments. The evidence for this is compelling, and the presence of the companies. In our review we basins is reason fori exploration by oil have not disputed this evidence, but argued that the displacement on these basin-bounding faults in the current stress regime may have a large component of lateral displacement should an earthquake occur on them. These faults apparently do not form crustal plate boundaries which suggest that both their length and depth are not of the order of plate boundary faults and probably would not support earthquakes as large as those that occur along crustal plate boundary faults. 13 The suggestion that the Hosgri-San Simeon-San Gregorio faults comprise a system capable of a magnitude 8 earthquake is a legitimate and serious question, which has been considered since discovery of the Hosgri fault zone by Hoskins and Griffiths (1971). It is our current judgment, however, based upon the data in the fSAR, data in the literature, ,.some work in progress within the USGS, present concepts of earthquake s /source areas along the west coast of the U.S., and the arguments given, above that such faults have not been demonstrated to be capable of generating magnitude 8+ earthquakes. In essence the Hosgri, San Simeon, and San Gregorio faults, even if par ts of a common zone of deformation, have the dominant characteristics of subsidiary faults within the San Andreas system. Such subsidiary faults have no record of or estimate of earthquakes larger than magnitude 7.5 on them. Conclusions Although the FSAR includes a considerable amount of new information and analysis, the only change that can be made in the original conclusions transmitted to the NRC on January 28, 1975, is to be more specific in our estimate of the design basis earthquake. This is based upon the following facts and judgments. 1. The Hosgri fault zone is more than 90 miles long and may even 1 be tectonically coupled to the San Simeon fault as they are within 2.5 miles of each other and both form parts of the eastern boundary of the Santa Maria basin. f 14 2. Narked changes in thickness and signature of acoustical units across the Hosgri fault zone in several profiles indicates evidence of lateral slip. This was noted in our review of January 28, 1975, but such changes are even more abundant in the profiles of Amendment 31. Right lateral movement is reported for the San Simeon fault. These data suggest that displacements on the Hosgri fault are related to the highly active San Andreas plate-boundary system. 3. The length of the Lompoc fault appears incompatible with the magnitude of the 1927 earthquake. 4. The Hosgri fault is closer to the center of the estimates of error of both Engdahl and Gawthrop than any other fault. It is therefore a possible source of the 1927 earthquake. 5. guestionable evidence related to vertical displacement on the Hosgri fault in the epicentral area of the 1927 earthquakes does not eliminate it as a source. Surface rupture is generally discontinuous, and if lateral slip occurred, it probably would not be detected. Offset of the base of post-llisconsinan sediments and probable faulting of them is evidence of post-Pleistocene movement. For the above reasons and discussions given in the review, we conclude that the 1927 earthquake could have occurred on the Hosgri fault and that a similar earthquake with a magnitude of about 7.5 could occur in the future anywhere along the Hosgri fault.-- ) J J j V 15 6. We recognize the suggestion that the Hdsgri, San Simeon, and 'i San Gregorio faults may comprise a system capable of magnitude 8 earthquakes. It is our judgment,.~however, that these faults are sub- sidiary faults within the San Andreas system and such faults have not been demonstrated to be capable of magnitude 8+ earthquakes. 7. We repeat our opinion that, for sites within 10 km of the surface expression of a fault, the description of maximum earthquake ground motion by means of a single acceleration value may not be an appropriate representation. Consequently, we feel that an appropriate earthquake for this site should be described in terms of near-fault horizontal ground motion. A technique for such a description is presented in the Geological Survey Circular 672 entitled "Ground Motion Values for Use in the Seismic Design of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System" (Ref. 4). It is our intention that the ground motion values as exemplified by Table 2 "Near-fault horizontal ground motion" of Ref. (4) for magnitude 7.5 be used to form the basis of a description of the earthquake postulated to have the potential for occurring on the Hosgri fault at a point nearest to the Diablo Canyon site subject to the conditions placed on these values in Ref. 4. The earthquake so described should be used in the derivation of an effective engineering acceleration for input into the process leading to the seismic design analysis. 'v. ~ U 16 It is intended, also, that this potential earthquake be considered in addition to all earthquakes considered previously by the applicant during the construction permit review process. References Bonilla, M. G., and J. M. Buchanan (1970), Interim report on worldwide historic surface faulting: U.S. Geol. Survey, open-file report no. 1611. Engdahl, E. R. (1975), Teleseismic locatiop of the 1927 Lompoc earthquake: TERA Technical Report, Berkeley, Calif. Greene, H. G., Lee, H. H. K., McCulloch, D.S., and Brabb, E. E., 1973, Fault Map of the Monterey Bay Region: U.S. Geol. Survey Mis. Map MF-518. Hall, C. A. (1975), San Simeon-Hosgri fault system, coastal California: Economic and environmental implications: Science, 190, p. 1291-1293. Hosgins, E. G. and Griffith, J. R., 1971, Hydrocarbon Potential of Northern and Central California Offshore: . Am. Assoc. of Pet. Geo. Men. 15, p. 212-228. Page, R. A., D. M. Boore, I/. B. Joyner and H. W. Coulter (1972), Ground motion values for use in the seismic design of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System: U.S. Geol. Survey Circular 672. San Andreas Fault in Southern California edited by John C. Crowell: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 118, 1975. ~ g ~ T 4 P l 0 *' BrGUI.A roB Y coMMIssloN DO+gT+I4 Ul I B IJBC FOBM 195 v.s. NvcLEnB 1 I2 76) .6'0- Z ~~ g~a (» FILE I4VMIIEB DISTR II3U I'ION FDB,;RT 60 DOC I ENCLOSVBE 'ESCBIPTION i 3'4'of.the Ltr trans the following: Review of Amdt 31, 32,, & FSAR...... 'ith regard to seismology..;.in draft form..... -n,p'„ I g'l 1TEM REC"D IN DISTRIBUTION SECTION 2"17-76 PLANT l@lK: Diablo Canyon 1 & 2 SAFETY FOR ACTION/INFORMATION HNVXRO 2-17-76 ehf ASSIGNED '~ no ASSXGNED AD : 14ANCFI CiiXEP: P. V BRANCH CHIEF : PROJECT ~~ANAGHR; PRO JL'CT 11ANAGER: LXC ~ ASST. Q~) ~urn ~~ LXC ASST'NTEIINAI DISTRIBUTION REG "7y~s'r;U$ SAEKX 1 HIGURCLZECH 1"XLL'&H JLDDKAH XHDHSr.o HRNST ~CIIPOZMl4 BHNAROYA ~I/»LT.ARD Q~iQ IA+hgS SPANGLER GOSSXCK & STAFF ENGXLIE~ER NG XPPOLXTO SXTE TL7CH Xj'gE UACC KNXGHT OPERATXNG REACTORS GAM1XLL S XIIINEXL STELLO STEPP i'ji PAMLXCliX IIULYiAN Ii~+-M OPERATING T"CH PROJECT MANAGE}IHNT RHACTOR SAPETY EXSHNIIUT SITE ANALXSXS BOYD ROSS SFIAO VOLLIFER P. COLLINS NOU/ K BAHR BUNiCH HOUSTOil ROSZTOCZY SC1NENCHR J. COLLXNS PETHPSON C}IHCIi GRXHHS IiREGER MELTZ IIELTHMHS SITE SAI'I'.TY & ENVIR SKOV}IOLT SAT.TZI!AN ANALYSIS RUTBHRG Di',NTON & [email protected] EX IEII."JAI.DISTRIBU1ION CONTROL NUMBER T.PDR '~BE ~i~+])~Pc NATL I.hB BIYOOKIIAVI'",N NATI'AB TXC RHG, V"XE ULIGKSON(ORNL) NPgC LA »DR CONS UI.TAI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ Fg ~ 1 gA. Oc 'v 6 ~ Q 'States Department of the Interior I l0 United l 0 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY R ESTON, VIRGINIA 22092 MLQ + January 12, 1976; 8 GC5 nb Mr. William P. Gammill Chief, Site Analysis Branch ,Division of Technical of Nuclear ReactorReview'ffice Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Bill: Enclosed is a revised draft review of the Amendments 31, 32 and 34 of the FSAR for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Diablo Canyon site, Units 1=and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323. This review was prepared by Frank A. McKeown, who reviewed the geology, and James F. Devine, who reviewed the seismology. Mr. McKeown,was. assisted by Holly Wagner, David McCulloch,'and Robert Ye'rkes; Mr. Devine was assisted by Robert Page and Wayne Thatcher. Sincerely yours, Fred N. Houser Deputy Chief Office of Environmental Geology I% Enclosure +c Oi s OgUTIOy 'Z m R 4'+7 Ip)6.1916 ~ \ ~ p ~ Draft Rcvgcw F. A. HcK~ (Geology) J. F. Dev%8 (Seismology) Diablo Canyon FSAR Amendments 31, 32 and 34 January 12, 1976 PACIlIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON SITE, UNITS 1 AND 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUN~TY; CALIFORHIA AEC DOCIKT HOS. 50-275 AND 50-323 Geology and Seismology / This is a review of the geological and seismological information / contained in Amehdmcnts 31, 32, and 34 of,the Final Safety Analysis Report (1SAR) fdr the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant site. Amendment 37, conta'ining important discussion of the ground respons'e pertinent was received in early November and too J.ate to be consideredto'eismicity, in this review. The amendments were prepared by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) iri response to a request in a letter dat d February 12, 1975, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for certain additional information relevant to design basis earthquake C issues, which have been the principal problems requiring additional earth sciences information and analyses. To support assertions in the I FSAR 'through Amendments,ll, 19 and 20, five requests for information (referred to as'uestions in the'Amendments) were made. 2. 17. Provide additional discussion and arguments for determining thc maximum earthquake that can be expected on faults of various ~anks within the San A»drcas system. Relate the discussion to historic scismi:city. 2. 18. Provide additional documentation, including seismic .reflection profiles, on .the intcrs'ection of thc )losgri'ault "onc with thc Yransvcrsc Range faults. Include geologic maps south~ ard of thgsc provided in the l:SAR showing thc structural relation- ships of thc Transvcrsc faults and structures having a northwest trend. H 1 ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ 2. 19. Provide.additional documentation, including seismic profiles, on thc northern rcachcs of thc Ilos'gri fault zone. Include a fuller dcvclopmcnt of your views 'on, the structural relationship af thc llosgri fault to thc San Simeon fault. 2. 20. Provide additional informat'ion on thc location of the 1927 event, togcthcr with its probablc mccha»ism. " Discuss probable relationships of this cvcnt 'to thc geologic structure in the region. / 'I 2.21. Provide your evaluation of the maximum credible earthquake on the.llosgri'ault zone. Assuming this event occurs along the of thc Ilosgri fault zone nearest the site, evaluate 'egment its response spectrum at the site and compare it with the design response spectrum. The 're'sponse in the PSAR 'to the questions has provided considerable additional geologic'nd seismologic information and analyses. However, unaiubiguous answers to the questions haVe not been achieved. Hany uncertainties in the data .and interpretations still exist. Among the most important of these. are: l) the location, and mechanism:of'he 1927 earthquake, 2), the exact relation of the Ilosgri fault zone to faults in the Transverse Range system and the San Simeon fault, 3) the continuity of some faults, 4) the relative I amounts of dip-slip and strike-slip movemcnt on, the Ifosgri fault;one, 5) the sense of displacement on parts of the Hosgri zone, 6) identification and correlation of acoustical u'nits, and 7) kinematic relations among different fault zones. In addition to these uncertainties, some information shown on the 2 profiles is not shown on the maps and yi'ce versa, and some profile" data are not included that are important to evaluate the extension or character of some faults. Because geologic maps developed from seismic ~ ~ ~ ~ reflection profiles are based upon much interpretation that may differ among, several interpreters, it was necessary for the purposes of our review to, pa/qq independent interpretations of the se'ismic profiles~. These independent interpretations are somewhat different than the ~ . interpretations presented in Amendments 31 and 32. The major / differences are briefly described in appropriate sections of this review. 1, Although soee changes in, and additions to, geologic and seismologic details have been made in Amendments 31, 32, and 34 compared,wi.'th previous data in the FSAR, no major changes .,can be made in our. conclu- sions that were stated in the review of the 'FSAR, and Amendments 11, 19, and 20, which was transmitted to the FRC from the Director of the United States Geological Survey by letter of January 28, 1975. The pertinent statement in oor previous conclusions was as follows: "Earthquakes along the .EBZ presumably would no't be as large as expected on. the San Andreas however, from the information fault, / 1 presently at'hand we can find no evidence that would preclude the / / occurrence of an earthquake as large as events characteristic'of / subparallel strike. slip faults, which bound basins, such as, the Santa h/aria, in the San Andre'as system and which do nnt'ransect structural ~ provinces." The size of an earthquake on. faults t:hat bound basins \ was not. specified in this conclusion. For reasons'stated in subsequent As defined in the FSAR, EBZ refers to the East Boundary fault zone, which is the Hosgri fault .zone. I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ parts of this review, however, the magnitude of the design basis for'j>c Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor siteI'art)aqua);c should be jp thc range of 7.0 to 7.5 and located on the Ilosgri. fault "onc. This is based principally o'n thc fact that the Ãovcmbcr'4, 1927, earthquake had a magnitude'f 7. 3 and that thc best, estimates of its location indicate tha't i6 could have occurred on the Hosgri fault. Selected comments important to--an evaluation of Amendments 31, 32, and 34 are outlined below. Amendment 31 NRC Question 2.18 On figures 8 and 9 relative displacement on the Hosgri fault between Point Buchon and Poiht Sal is'hown t'o be do~m on the east. On figure 10 relative displacement on the southern 'extension of. the Hosgri fault south of Point Sal is down on the west, which is compatible with .the argument „that the Hosgri fault is the east boundary of a pcrtion of the Santa )laria Basin. „Changes 'n direction of'elative movement 1 however, are very'suggestive of lateral displacement, which may have occurrred after develop'ment. of the basin and bounding faults. On page 9, reference is made to fi'g.. 11 as evidence that no scarp-forming seismic events have occurred on the southernmost part of the l)osgri. fault since prior to the h'iscon'sinan stage of the PIcistoccne. It is true that no offset of thc ocean floor is cvidcnt \ ~ ~ on fig. 11. )!owcvcr, close inspection of fig. 11 shows offset of unconformity when sig)>ting along it'r placing a thc'ost-4'isconsinan 4 ~ 1' I ~ I ~ ~ straightedge along the mapped trace. ~ Also, faulting of the post- LBsconsinan sediments cannot be precluded because a change in acoutical signatqyq iq, qyi4qnt across an upward projection of the fault phoyp in figure ll. The change in'he acoustical s'ignature of unit A2 across the faul't is quite clear and may be evidence of lateral movement on the fault. It is not, c)ear fr'om the profiles in figures 13a and 13b that the 'disturbed zoned'in them that are inferred to represent the Hest llosgri fault are the same. At least, three additional faults can be inter-. preted in the-profile of figure 13b. Also a disturbed zone appears to be between stations 133 and 136 in the profile of line 13a. Kelez, Bartlett, and Polaris survey'inis criss-.cross this area and additional evidence from them to support or,n*egate the suggested correlation of disturb'ed zones should be described. An i.ndependent.interpretation of the seismic profiles in the offshore..area from about Point Sal to about five miles south of I Point Arguello-indicates that the,Hosgri fault extends at least five miles south of Point Arguello and does not turn eastward as suggested in Amendment 31. Although the Lompoc fault, zone appears to have offset the sea floor, and may therefore be'onsidered cayable of movement again, its- length of only about eight miles as inferred by the applicant appears to be incompatible with' magnitude 7.3 earthquake. An independent ihterpretation of the seismic profiles in the area of the 'Lompoc foul't di'ffers from that of the applicant in that it shows that the Lompoc 4) fault zone.is about twenty miles long; the longest single fault in the zone is about fiftee'n miles in length. Furthermore, the displacement is interpreted to be dip slip or possibly oblique slip,'ather than reverse slap aa suggested by,the applicant. ' NRC guestion 2.19 As not'ed in the previous section the sense of'displacement on the southern part of the Hosgri fault is up on the:wes't side, figure ' 1 (N), and therpfore is not compatible with its being primarily related to basin development. However, an alternative interpretation suggests the displacement on the Hosgri fault in figure 1 to be de on the west. Figure 1 (N) has three buried faults not shown on Plate I. This leads to questions concerning the interpretation of some of the data in the report. Another instance of faults shown-in profile but not on a map is seen from comparison of fig. 4 (N) and Plate X. The correlation of faults between Lines,16 and 12 (figs. 3 (N) and 4 (N)) is questionable. A profile along Line 14 would help. Also; an interpretation of, Line 10 should be included. Although t:he straight coast line between Cambria and Point Estero suggests that thc extension of the San Simeon fault is just offshore; data arc lacking to prove this. None of the data prcscnted in Amcndmcnt 31'reclude the San Simeon fault from intersecting the ftosgri fault offshore between Cambria and Poiht Estcro. The two faults even as shown on Plate II (N) are less than 2.5" miles .apart. I ~ and could very well be tectonically coupled to each other. by an en echelon I or anastomosing 'series of faults which is characteristic of fauJ.tp gp pQq coast ranges. Guch coupling of the Hosgri'nd San Simeon faults is supported by interpretation of stratigraphic sections recently reported by '1iall ~ (1975). He infers that. "—-the San Simeon and Hosgri faults are part of the same I system, —-" and', that 80 km or more of right 'slip has occurred along the system during the last 5 to 13 million years. Figs. 7a (N) and 7b (N) are very puzzling. They show an inflection in the seafloor over the Hosgri fault, and a drastic change in the thickness and acoustical signature of unit A2, assuming A2's correlative with A2. In addition to vertical displacement, lateral disp'lacement, which is not mentioned, could be interpreted from these profiles. However, the basis for separating A2'rom A3 is not apparent. Similarly it is not apparent why unit A', east of the fault, is terminated. It appears to continue to the east edge of these profiles. On figure. lla (N) the A2 unit east of the fault at station 119 is I correlated with the Honterey formation (p. 8, NRC Question 2.19, amend. 31), P P but the signature of the A2 unit west of 'this fault is completely different. This inferred .lithologic change, as. elsewhere, suggests lateral displacer;.ent. i 0 W NRC Question 2.20 On page 10 it is reasoned that both the Hosgri and West flosyrj. faults can be eliminated as sources of the 1927 earthquake because neither the sea floor nor, the post-Wisconsinan unconformity are offset in the epicentral area of the earthquake.. This reasoning is not satis- factory because'typically surface rupturing of a fault is discontinuous, 'I and offset may no't be detected if the displacement had a large lateral I component. Furthermore, as stated on page 4 of this review, the base of post-Wisconsinan sediments is offset, and a fault in the sediments cannot be precluded in figure 11. The evidence, therefore, to eliminate the Hosgri fault as the source of the 1927 earthquake is inadequate. As previously stated, the length of the Lompoc fault shown by the applicant appears to be incompatible with the magnitude'f the 1927 earthquake. / Figure 1='shows that segments of the Hosgri fault zone, the Lompoc fault,, Purisima fault, and Lion's Head fault occur within the error circle of Cawthrop and error el'lipse of Engdahg for the 1927 earthquake. However, all of the faults are outside of the area designated by Smith as the "inferred distribution of aftershock sequence of the 1927 earthquake." The 1927 earthquake, therefore, cannot be: unequivocally located on any one of these faults. The Hosgri fault, however, is closer to the center of the estimate 'of error than the other faults and, therefore, must" be considere'd as a possible fault on which to 1'ocate the earthquake. Amendment 32 NRC Question 2.17 Although this section contains descriptions and explanations of 9 the "kinematics of structural behavior in the south-central California region —-" con'temporary seismic activity is not fully explained. Also, we do not agree with some statements given. as fact. For, example, oy page g it is stated as fact that the 1927 M.7.3 earthquake o'ccurred on the Lompoc fault. This is not fact but a highly controversial'ssumption. Item 2 on page 2 of this amendment indicates that the Lompoc and San Andreas are the 1') only faults in the southern Coast Ranges that "reflect. substantial late Quaternary surface deformation." As defined on, page 3 of this amendment, "substantial" clear'y, includes the San Simeon fault, whiCh as stated on page 7 of this review may be coupled with the Hosgri- fault. The attempt to explain the large magnitude by using the logic that the Lompoc fault is in a transition zone between the Coast Ranges and Western Transverse Ranges applies to other faults in the zone including the southern part of the Hosgri fault. Amendment 34 NRC Question 2.21 The masimum credible earthquake of 6 1/4 - 6 1/2 on the Hosgri fault zone used in this section to derive peak site ground acceleration is unacceptable because as stated previously the 1927 earthquake with a magnitude of 7.3 cannot be precluded from having occurred on the Hosgri fault. Although we believe that the'927 earthquake should be used to estimate the safe shutdown earthquake, fault length-magnitude'elationships have also been considered. The uncertainties in these 0 I ' v 0 ~ ~ V relationships and the,.assumptions involved to use them are well known. Nevertheless we may consider that the Hosgri fault is about 90 miles (144 km) 3.ong, or even greater if't is coextensive with the San Simeon fault.- The part of this total length that may rupture during= an earthquake is highly conjectural, but we assume that one third of the fault. will rupture, which is about 48 km. This assumed 3,ength is supported somewhat if the range in S-P times for the aftershocks of the 1927 earthquake are considered. The range in times calculates to about 45 km . as shown hy Engdahl (1975). The fault length-magnitude. curve for strike-slip faults '(Bonilla and Buchanan, 1970, fig. 3) shows magnitude 7 for a 45 km rupture. In our judgment it is prudent to consider this as a possible minimum magnitude, exclusive of the consideration of the 1927 earthquake. 'Conclusions l Although the FSAR includes a considerable amount of new informa- tion and analysis, the only change that can be made in the original conclusions transmitted to the NRC on January 28, 1975, is to be more t -specific in our estimate of the design basis earthquake. This is based upon the following facts and judgments. 1. The Hosgri fault zone is more than 90 miles long and may even tectonically coupled to %he San Simeon fault as they are within. 2.5 miles of'a'ch other and both form parts of the eastern b'oundary of the Santa Maria basin. 0 S ~ ~, e ' 2. irked changes in thickness and signature of acoustical units across the 11osgri fault zone, in several profiles indicates evidence of lateral slip. 1'his was noted in our review of January 28,-1975, but pucj1 . changes are even mope abundant in thc profiles of Ancndment 31. 'Right: lateral movcmcnt is. reported for thc San Simeon fault. Thcsc data / suggest that displaccmcnts on the Hosgri fault are rclatcd to thc C highly active San Ppdreas plate-boundary s>stem. 3. Thc length! of the Lompoc fault appears incompatible with the magnitude of the 1927 earthquake. 0 4. The Hosgri fault is closer to the center of the estimates of error of 'both Engdahl and Gawthrop than any other fault., It is 'there-. ' fore a possible source of the 1927 earthquake. 'I 5. Equivocal evidence related to vertical displacement .on the Hosgri fault in the epicentral area of'the 1927 earthquake does not eliminate it as a source. Surface rupture is generally discontinuous', and if lateral slip occurred, it probably would not be detected. Offset of the base of post-Misconsinan sediments and probable faulting of- them is evidence of. post-Pleistocene movement. For, the above reasons and discussions'iven in the review, we conclude that the 1927 earthquake could" have occurred on the 1losgri I fault and that a similar earthquake with a magnitude in the range of X 7.0 — 7.5 could o'ccur in the future'anywhere'long'he 11osgri fault. 1 , C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6. We repeat our opinion that, for, sites 'within lQ km of the surface expression',of a fault, the description of'aximum earthquagp giougd motion or design motion by means of a single acceleration value and a standard response spectrum may not be an appropriate representation for design purposes. Consequently; we feel that it is appropriate that we describe the r Safe Shutdown earthquake for this site in terms of near-fault horizontal S ground motion.. The technique for such a description is presented in the Geological Survey Circular 672 entitled "Ground Motion ValueS for Use in the Seismic Design the Trans-Alaska System" (Ref. of Pipeline 4). ' It is our intention that the ground motion values as shown in Table 2 "Near-fault horizontal ground motion" of Ref. (4) for magnitude 7.0 and 7;5 be used as a description of the earthquake postulated to have the potential for occurring on the Hosgri fault at a point nearest to the Diablo Canyon site. 4 The conditions placed on these values as described in Ref. (4) p. 3-l3 also apply in this case, e.g. "They characterize free-field ground motion,..." The design values of motion should be derived by modifying the ground motion values to implicikely allow for non-linear energy absorbing mechanisms in the vibratory response of the structure and,.their application to appropriate response spectra as specified in Ref. (4) p.p. 2 and 3 and appendix B. It is intended, also, that this potential earthquake be .considered in addition to all earthquakes considered previously by .the applicant during the construction permit review process. ( 'W ~ w 0 ~ ~ P I 4 ~ ' V N ~ ~ ~ A ~ 13 r, References Cited Bonilla, M. G., and J. M. Buchanan (1970) Interim report on worldwide histoqgc surface faulting: U. S. Geol. Survey,'pen file report no. 1611. Engdahl, E. R; (1975), Teleseismic 1'ocation of the 1927 Lompoc earthquake: r TERA Technical Report, Berkeley, Calif. J Hall, C. A. (1975), San Simeon-Hosgri fault system, coastal 'California: Economic and:environmental implications: Science, 190, p. 1291-1293. Page, R. A., D. M. Boore, W. B. Joyner and H. W. Coulter (1972), Ground motion values for use in the seismic design of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System: U. S. Geol. Survey Circular 672. p Distribution Nos. 50-275 NRC PDR Docket 2 0 875 50-323 N0y Local PDR and Docket File LWR 1-3 File WPGammill Mr. Robert Morris JOsloond U. S. Geological Survey JCStepp RBMcMullen Engineering Geology Branch Denver Fedexal Center TJHirons Colorado 30225 DPAllison Denver, VKB.lson Dear Mr. Morris: , RHofmann Enclosed for your review are two reports referenced in Section 2.5 of the Diablo Canyon FSAR. The reports are entitled (1) "Teleseismic Location . ofI the 1927 Lompoc Earthquake," and (2) "Aftershocks of the 1927 Lompoc Earthquake." The applicant has also submitted, as proprietary information, a report entitled "Western Geophysical Company and Shell Oil Company Proprietary Seismic Reflection Data from the Offshore Region between Point Estero and Point Arguello: Basic Data, Xnterpretive Data and Discussion." A copy of the letter transmitting. the above report is enclosed. Xn addition, we e~ect the applicant to submit additional pxoprietary and non-proprietary information in response to our request for additional information dated November 14, 1975. A copy of our Novembex 14, 1975 letter is enclosed. Questions 2.22, 2.23, 2.24 and 2.g5 pertain directly to your area of review; The other two questions pertain to structural engineering aspects of the Diablo Canyon design. We will provide thc pertinent non-proprietary responses for your review when they are received. We will also make the proprietary infornation available for your review, and we will contact you regarding the detailed arrangements. Sincerely, Orlglnal ffgncd J)y Olan Parr Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Prospect Branch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosures & ccs: See page 2 'OfPICR> RL: p1-3 D ODParr OURNAMC+3P'L'-Al i on:mt I OATR 11/NV/75 11/a, /75 POTm hEC-318 (RCT. 9.3 3) hECM 0240 4 U, 4, OOVCRNMCNT PRINTINO OffICKI IOTA 444 I44 I, I IH 4 I I ~ ~ ~ *»' Il)"*««4 p « If 4 « 4 I Ih 4 « 't «kr 4 'I a « «H e 4 ~ « 4 ' T,« "I 4 I - t f ~ et 4 I HH I eae fW,' 4 4 4 It% Mr. Robert 5hrris NOY 2 0 1975 Enclosures: 1. Letter dated November 11, 1975 v/encls 2. Pacific Gas and Electric Letter dated November 12, 1975 v/o encl 3. NRC Letter dated November 14, 1975 cc- Mr. Prank McKeown (1) U. S. Geological Survey Engineering Geology 3ranch Denver Pederal Center Denver, Colorado 30225 Mr. James P. Devine (1) Department of the Xnterior U. S. Geological Survey 1htional Center~ Mail Stop 908 South Lake Drive Reston, Virginia 22092 OffICE~ SVRHAMC~ DATS + POTIR AEC.31S (RCT. 9.f3) hZCM 0240 Q V, S OOVSRNMSNT PRINTIH4 OffICSI f074 520 ISS J I 4 ti J '5 'A 1 R ) ( 4 I i I ft F4 ' H I * 4 ~ s,l UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 @75 NOY >g i975 Mr: James P. Devine U. S. Geological Survey National Center, Mail Stop 908 Reston, Virginia 22092 Dear Mr. Devine: Enclosed for your use is a copy of the following: "Western Geophysical Company and Shell Oil Company Proprietary Seismic Reflection Data from the Offshore Region between Point Estero and Point Arquello'asic Data, Interpretive Data and Discussion."- Please notify us of receiving this information submitted by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Diablo-Canyon Units 1&2 by returning a copy of this letter. The Proprietary Information (Copy No.6 under control No.'3031) should also be returned for final disposition, when of no further-use. 'illiamP. Gammill, Chief Site Analysis Branch Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: w/o Encl. v6ocket Pile J. Stepp R. Hofmann J. Osloond c K" Distribution NRC PDR Dockot Nos. 50-275 NOV 0 6 575 Local PDR and 50-323 Docket Pile (2) LWR 1-3 Pile HPGammill (w/o encl) JOsloond (w/o encl) Mr. Robert Morris JCStepp U. S. Geological Survey RBMcNullen Engineering Geology Branch TJHirons Denver Federal Center'enver, DPAllison Colorado 30225 VKWilson (w/extra cys) I RHofmann Dear Hr. 1'forris: 'Enclosed for your review are three copies of Amendment 37 to the Diablo Canyon PSAR. This amendment supplements Amendmcnts 31, 32 and 34 which were forwarded to you in August and September. Amendment 37 completes the applicant's responses to our formal requests for additional information. Ue do expect the applicant to provide us, next week, with copies of certain reports referenced in the FSAR and certain seismic profiles. These are items we have requested by telephone. Some of them will be submitted as pzoprietary information. Me will make these items available for your review and will contact you regarding the detaQ.ed arrangements when the items are received. Sincerely, Orieiual Signed by, Olan parr Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Mater Reactors Pro)set Branch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: Amendment 37 to,the Diablo Canyon PSAR (3) cc w/encl: Hr. Prank McKeown 0) U. S. Geological Survey Engineering Geology Branch Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 30225 5k e James Pe Devine V) Department of the Xnterior U. S. Geological Survey Center Hai Stop OPFlcs 3So th -Lake..priv '------...... -...... RL'LKL.1-...3. ..RL:LMR 1-...3.. SURMAMsp'onal 22092 ton, Virg DPA1lison mt -'---ODParr,... „... Ll/...... /.75...... 11./ ...... /..Z5.... Porxa hEC-318 (Re@. 9-3 3) hZCM 0240 4 u. s; oovssvMsNv ssiNviwo osricss sore.see-see \ J I 0 V II k .H ~ 1t I "'4 I P a ~ fl 'I I ,A ~ "> F Ir t 0 I Distribution = NRC PDR Docket Hos. 50-275 NOV,O 1975 Loc 1 PDR and 50-323 5 r ocket File (2) LWR 1-3 File WPGammill (w/o encl) JOsloond (w/o encl) Mr. Robert Morris JCStepp U. S. Geological Survey RBMcMullen EngineerIng Geology Branch TJHirons Denver Federal DPAllison Canter'enver, Colorado 30225 VHWilson (w/extra cys) RHofmann Dear Hr. Morris: Enclosed for'our review are three copies of Amandmant 37 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment supplements Amandmants 31, 32 and 34 which were forwarded to you in August and September. Amendment 37 completes the applicant's responses to our formal requests for additional information. Wa do expect the applicant to provide'us,next week, with copies of certain reports referenced in tha PSAR and certain seismic profiles. These are items we have requested by te1aphone. Some of them willbe submitted as proprietary information. We will make these items available for your ravIew and will contact you regarding the detailed arrangements when the Items are received. Sincerely, Original Signed by, Olan Parr .Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors 'ro)act Branch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: Amendment 37 to the Mablo Canyon PSAR (3) cc w/encl: Mr. Frank McKeown 0) U. S. Geological Survey Engineering Geology Branch Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 30225 Mr. James P. Devine (a) Q@AIJ'II/741 '/ , Department of the Wterior 1 U. S. Geolo ical Surve Ha ional Center Mail Stop 9 -3 1-3 orrIcc3S th-Lake-Driv RL:L! —RL:LWR'-C»-/l --- '" 4URNAMc3Re ton, Virgin 22092 DPA1 ison:mt 'DParr DATC~ ll/5/75 11/~ /7S Form ABC 318 (Rer. 9.$ 3) AKCM 0240 4 U, 4I OOVCRNMCNT PRINTINO OPPICCI IOTA 424 I44 e 'I II ~ ~ I' (Pl P/tt ~v P ~ I I Ptg( P, ~ ~ ( t ~ f P, ~ 0 il' w J ~ Cl, uNITED STATES NUCLEAB BEGULATOBY COMMISSION I'VASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket No 0-27 j323 NP 3 ~ ~9~> Mr. Robert M ris U. S. Geological Survey Building 25 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 SU~~i. AMENDMENT TO DXABLO CANYON REPORT The following docuIImnt material,staining to review of the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted separately for your information. Please notify our branch of receiving or not receiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (301) —492 —7258. PSAR Volumes Amendment No. To PSAR Dated Amendment No. To Environ. Rpt. Dated PSAR Volumes Amendment No; 34 To PS'ated 9/16/75 Other: Amendment sent around 9/19/75 Hi3.liam R. Gammill, Chief &i 1 Distribution SEP 1 8 1975 NRC PDR Local PDR Docket gable~ LWR, 1T3 Fille Docket Nos -275 WPGammill GIll JCStepp RBMcMullen TJHirons Mr. James Morris DPAllison . U. S. Geological Survey VHWilson Engineering Geology Branch RHoffman Denver Federal Center JOsloond DGIIver, Colorado 30225 Dear ?fr. Morxis: Enclosed fox'oux''eview aro three copies of Amendment 34 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment supplements Amendmcnts 31 and 32 which wex'e forwarded to you. this past Augusti These 3 amendments include most of the geology and seismology information which we e~ect the applicant to submit. The balance of this information should be submitted by October 15, 1975. SincerelyP Original Signed by, 0. D, Parr Olan. D Parr, Chief Light Mater Reactors Project Branch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: Amendment 34 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR (3) cc w/encl I g/& Mr. Frank McKcown (1) U.ST Geological Survey Engineering Geology Branch Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 30225 Mr. JG es Z. Devine (2) Department of the Xntcrior U. S. Geological Survey ~tional Center, Mail Stop 908 South Lake Drive Reston, Vir inia 22092 4 P P IC S 3P' RLILWR 1-3 U R NAM S 3P'L:LTJHi n% mjX ODParr:.-- ---:: 3P'ATS 9 //g/75 9 /I8'/75 I'orm hEC-318 (ReT. 9 33) hECM 0240 0 U, 8, OOVSRNMSNT PRINTINO OPPICSI I074 SSO ISS !L. - ~ I I ' I =-pig I I 4 FP ' r 't4 F " "K. K ~ V4L 0 'J~ „,'t ~ It 1 I I ~ 'I I tl 1 I -" ~ ~ 't r ~ F, II I g 4 F- I ~'4 'I = ,'3 N I,F )I 4 .I>' Kr FIt r ~ ~ Kg, ~ - P tt 4 I* IK 'I 4 *I c t % tr 1 'I, ~ ~ 4-3 t -trK', 'I I g P r tt rr 4 IK r r I I r r I' 4 I I I 1 UNITED STATCS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'tVASHINGTDIV,D. C. 20555 Doc'et No. 50 275/323 Hr. Robert H. I'1orris AUG 8 a tg76 U.S. Geological Survey Bl dg. 25 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 SUKrzcT: Amen'dment (32) to Diablo Canyon 182 Re P ort Tne following document material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted separately for your infoxmation. Please notify our branch of receiving'.,or not x'eceiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (30l) —492 — 7258. PSAR Volumes Amen@vent No. To PSAR Dated Amenchnent No. To Environ. Rpt. Dated PSAR Volumes 2 Other: '2~ Amdt. sent about 8-22-75 , tf. P. ammi 1 1,Chi ef Site Analysis Branch Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ~ oc OgUTIO~ e ~o b '~~6-in<~ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IVASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket No. 50 275/323 Dr. Carl Wentworth MG aa pig U.S.G.S. 345 Hiddlefield Rd henlo Park, California 94025 r Amendment (32} to Diablo Canyon 182 Report Tne following docznent material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted separately for your information. Please notify our branch of receiving-'or not receiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (301) —492 —7258. PSAR Volumes Amendment No. To PSAR Dated AmendInent No. To Environ. Bpt. Dated FSAR Volumes ' Amendment No. 32 To FSAR Dated 8-2Q"'75 (Rec 8-22-75) Other-. Amdt. sent. about 8-22-75 8?. M, P ..Gammi,l 1 Chi e f Site Analysis Branch Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation 0 cj~e MM011 en R. Hofmann J. Os 1 oond UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 No 50 275/323 Nr. Stan R. Brockman AUG 2 2 >975 U.S. Geol o'gi cal Survey Building 25 (D3) Den.ver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 SUmrer: Amendment (32) to Diablo Canuon 182 Report The following document material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted separately for your information. Please notify our branch of receiving'r not receiving t¹ subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (301) —492 —7258. PSAR Volumes Amendment No. To PSAR Dated Am~~ent No. To Environ. Rpt. Dated FSAR Volumes Amendment No. 32 To PSAR Dated 8-20-75 Rec ' 8-22-75 Other- Amdt. Sent. About 8-22-75 tt. P. Gammi11,Chi e f Site Analysis Branch Division of Technical Review Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation : Docket o fmann J. Osloond jtII) u~rrco s rArrs NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'L'VASHING'rON, D. C. 20655 Do ket No. 50-275/323 Nr. Robert H. Norris U.S. Geological Survey AU6 „" l;~7~ B]dg. 25 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 SU'~CT- Amendment (31) to Diablo Canyon lF2 Report A The following doctmmt material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is b ing transmitted s parately for your information. Please notify our branch of receiving'or not receiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (301) —492 —7258. PSAR Volum s ,Amendment No. To PSAR Dated Amendment No. To Environ. Rpt. Dated PS'olumes Amendment No. 31 To @SAR»t~ 8-18-75 (Rec'd 8-'19-,75) Other: I-~, IR M. P. Gammi 1 1,Clii ef Site Analysis 13ranch Division of Technical Review , Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cket Fi e R. HcNu cn J. Osloond 4 UNITEO STATES NUCLCAB BEGUI ATOBY COMMISSION L'YASHINGTON, D. C. 20SSS Docket No 50-275/323 R. Nr. Stan. Brockman MG 1975 U.S. Geoloical Survey 3 1 Building 25 (D3) Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Amendment (31) to Diablo Canyon 182 Report The following document material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is b ing transmitted separately for your information. Please notify our branch of receiving or not receiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (30l) — 492 — 7258. PSAR Volumes Amenchnent No. To PS'ated Amendment No. To Environ. Rpt. Dated FSAR Volumes dment No; 31 To PS'ated 8-18-75 Rec'. 8-19-75 Other: Amdt. sent about 8-21-75 ll. P.,ammi 1 l,Chi ef Site Analysis Branch Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc- Docket File Hofmann J. Osloond OgUTIO~ +r ('PP.6 0qS j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'I'VASR INGTON, D. C. 20555 Do L,et No. 50„275]323 Dr. Carl lien tl>orth AUG 3 U.S.G.S. 1 345 Middlefield Rd Menlo Park, California 94025 197'~~- Amendment (31) to Diablo'.Canyon 152.'Report The following docum nt material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted separately for your information. Please notify our branch of receiving'..or not receiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (301) —492 — 7258. PSAR Volumes Amendment No. To PSAR Dated Amendment No. To Environ. Hpt. Dated PSAR Volumes Amendment No. 31 To CESAR Dated 8-,18-75 (Rec' 8-19-75$ Other: Amdt. sent around 8-21-75 t<.P. Gammill,Chief Site Analysis Branch Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ~ ocket s e ct ul 1 en R. Hofmann J. Os 1 oond OgUTIOy ~o '~l6-i9>~ ~ 7 ~ 4 l~ Distribution NRC PDR AUG 2 0 1975 Local PDR Docket File (2) LWR 1-3 File WPGammill JCStepp Docket hos. 50"275 RBMcMullen and 50-323 TJHirons DPAllison VHMilson RHoffman Mr. James Morris U. S. Geological Survey Engineering Geology Branch JOsloond'ear Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 30225 Mr. Morris: Enclosed for your review are three copies of Amendment 32 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment supplements Amendment 31 which was forwarded to you on August 18, 1975. These amendments include most of the geology and seismology information which wa expect the applicant to submit at. this time. Sincerely, Original Signed bg, pinn PRIT Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Pro3ect Branch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosures Amandmant 32 to the Diablo Canyon PSAR (3) . 1-3 RL:LWR 1-3 OPPICC 3P' """ "'b 5'I'DParr U IIN A M 4 DPAllison:mk 3P'AT43P'LPP 8/pgP/75 8/ia /75 Form hEC-318 (Rev. 9.33) hXCM 0240 U, 4, OOVCIINMENTPIIINTINO OPPICKI IOT4 444 144 ~' i'/V h ' ~ w .nI Distribution Docket File AUG 3O t975 NRC PDR Local PDR LVR 1-3 File WPGammill JCStepp Docket Nos 50-275 RBMcMullen aad 50-323 TJHir'ons DPAllison VHWilson RHoffman Mr. James F. Devine JOsloond Department of the Interior U. S. Geological Center, HailSurvey'ational Stop -908 South Lake'Drive Reston, Virginia 22092 3)ear Mr. Devine'. Enclosed for your review are two copies of Amendment 32 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amondmoat supplements Amendment 31 which was forwarded to you on August 18, 1975. These amendments include most of the geology and seismology information which we expect the applicant to submit at this time. It is currently estimated that the remainder willbe submitted 'at the end of this month. Sincerely, Driginnl Signed by Own Parr Olan D. Parr,. Chief Light Mater Reactors Pro)ect Branch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: Amendment 32 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR (2) DATRIL OSRICS~ RL: LiK. 1-3 RL:L 1-3 DPAllison:mk OD arr' SIIRNAMCW ~ 8/W/75 8/bQ/75 Form hZC.318 (Rev. 9.53) hECM 0240 4 U. S OOVRRNMKNTRRINTINO ORRICIKI 1174 SSS ISS f.t ' f f ~ I \ II II I C I f h I' 'tp e Distribution Docket File (2) A"G 3 0 1975 NRC PDR Local PDR LlQ. 1-3 File WPGammill 50-275 JCStepp Docket Nos. RBMcMullen and, 50-323 TJHirons DPAllison VEB.lson RHoffman Mr. Prank McKeown JOsloond . U. S. Geological Survey Engineering Geology Branch Denver Federal Center Denvex, Colorado 30225 Dear Mr. McKeown: ! Enclosed for your review is a copy of Amendment 32 to the Diablo Canyon PSAR This amendment supplements Amendment 31 which was forwarded to you on August 18, 1975. These amendments contain most of the geology and seismology information which we expect the applicant to submit at'this time't is cux'rcntly estimated that the remainder will be submitted at the end of'this month. Sincerely, Original Signed by Oian Parr Olan D. Parr, Chief ~ Light Water Reactors Pro)ect Branch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing 'nclosure: Amendment 32 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR OPS ICSW @'M RL: l 1-3 SURNAMSW DPW son:mk ODParr DATCW a/p /75 8/ag /75 Form hEC-318 (RST. 9.33) hECM 0240 4 U, 4, OOVSIINMSNT PAINTINO OPPICKI ISN 444 'l44 t 4) I' ~ . Xi). -'.,4'f f.f -, > —,)', 4$ I, 54- -" p= 4C' f« lgi 4 -.4 4 - ( ~ 1 > .9 i.";~ I,, ~ 4( 'M4 't 4 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 4 M«M 4 44 r t. Att -.-I «J . . ~ t I 4 4 I , tt J4 4'tISM44 tVI «4I I ~ tl ~ 4 4 4 4 ~ 4 4«I 4 'tf. 4 -, l I f,'I 4 4 ,=n, I O'M f It 1 1 ', W1ii 4 4 4 Distribution NRC PDR Local PDR AUG 1 8 1975 Docket Fil LWR 1-3 File WPGammill CStepp Docket Hos. 50«2 RBMcMullen and 50-323 'JHirons DPAllison VHWilson RHoffman Mr. James Morris JOsloond U. S. Geological Survey Engineering Geology Branch Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 30225 Dear Mr. Ehrris: Enclosed for your roviev are three copies of Amendment 31 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment contains most of the additional information regarding geology and seismology of the Mablo Canyon site which ve mpect the applicant to submit at this time. It is currently estimated that the remainder will be submitted at the end of this monthd Sincerely, Original Signed by, Olan Parr Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Prospect Branch 1-3 of Reactor Licensing'ivision Enclosures Amendment 31 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR (3) pe/ OPPICB+ RL:L"""'"""""" -3 RL:LWR 1-3 son:mkcf""'"""'PA11 ODParr SVRNAMB~ I DATB3R Sag 7S Sgg4tl7S Form AEC.318 (Rcv. 9.33) hECM 0240 4 U, Sr OOVBRNMBNTPRINTINO OPPICBI IST4 ddd I44 +I "II.',")C' I 'll I! ~ fllgrr 4 ~ I li hr I. lit ih 1 ~ 4 \ Distribution Docket File NRC PDR AUG 1 8 1975 Local PDR LWR 1-3 File WPGammi11 l DO Cktt N08.~ CStepp and 50-323 RBMcMullen TJHirons DPAllison VHWilson Mr. Frank?fcKeotm RHoffman U. S. Geological Survey JOsloond Engineering Geology Bxanch Denver Federal Center Denver, "Colorado 30225 Dear Hr. NcKeown: Enclosed for your review is n copy of Amendment 3l to the Mablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment contains most of the additional information regarding geology and seismology of the Diablo Canyon site which ~e expect the applicant to submit at this time. It is currently estimated that the remainder Mllbe submitted at the end of this month. Sincex'ely, ~ Original Signed by, Olan Parr Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Pro)ect Branch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing E Enclosure: Amendment 31 to Diablo Canyon FSAR Oi PiCS~ RL,:,,L 1;„3,'"" """"'"„, RL:LWR""" ~P"'""1-3'"'"'" g -'PAI, s v R NAMir 5S is,on,: p1k, 0DParr OATK 8//7/75. 8/g3/75 5P'orm hZC.318 (Rcv. 9.55) hZCM 0240 0 U. S; OOVRRNMriNT PRINTINO OPPICKI 1074 SRS iSS I) v $ )4 r I J I 4 ~ 4 ' "I' ' p I ) ~ 4 -„46* 4 >'V "'-4 ' ') .( l~ .'-.) r il I 4 V ~ r I l I l,t l I'„~ 4I l 4 ~ p 4 I 4 I / t) ~ ) 7 4 Distribution Docket File NRC PDR AU6 1 8 1975 Local PDR LWR 1-3 File WPGammill CStepp Docket HosM~ RBMcMullen and 50-323 TJHirons DPAllison VHWilson RHoffman Mrs James F. Devine JOsloond Department of the Interior U. S. Geologicai Survey National Center, MaQ. Stop 908 South Lake Drive Reston, Virginia 22092 Dear Mr. Devine: Enclos'ed for your review are two copies of Amendment 31 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment contains most of the additional information regarding geology and seismology of the Diablo Canyon site vhich ve expect the applicant to submit at this time. It is currently estimated that the remainder vQ3. be submitted at the end of this month. Sincerely, Original Signad ipy Olan Parr Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Rater Reactors Pro)ect Branch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: Amendment 31 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR (2) ORRICS ~ 1-3 RL:/+1-3 SURNAME&OATS'L:LWRDP lison:mk 'DParr 8gf'/75 8/(7/75 Form hRC-318 (Rer. 9.33) hICM 0240 k U. O'OVSRNMSNT RRINTINO ORRICKI IOTA SSS ISS VV '' I ~ ' .hi ~ . ~ ~ I ~ ~ V 4 V I, f I I I * I UNITED STATES NUCLFAR REGULATORY COMViiSSlOR V>ASH>nCTON, D. C. >OPS." Docket No. 50-275|'323 Dr. Carl Ment< PSAR Volumes Amenknent No. To PSAR Dated Amendment No. To Environ. Rot. Dated FSAR Volumes Amendment No. To FSAR Dated —~HI—~ Amdt. n b W. P. Gammi 1 1, Chi ef Site Analysis Branch Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: Docket File R..Hc u en R. Hofrgqnn J. Osloong Villi'EO STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COViMISSiOM VJAS&lliVGTON,O. C. 20655 DxJ;et tx~o 50-275/323 AUG Hr. Stan R. Brockman 4 )g7g U.S. Geological Surey Building 25 (D3) Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 -Amendment (30) to Diablo Canyon Units 152 Report The following document material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted separately for your inforroation. please notify our branch of receiving'or not receiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (301) — 492 —7258. PSAR Volum s Zmena&nt info. . To PSAR Dated Amerrhnent No. To Environ. Rpt. Dated PSAR Volun™s Amendment No. 30 To FSAR Dated 7-31-75 '(Rec ' 8-1-75) Other: Amdt. Sent About 8-4-75 H.P. Gammill, Ch,ief Site Analysis Brahch Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: Do-cke-i: Fi 1 e Hofmann, J. Osloond UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMiBISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket No. 50-275/323 Hr. Robert H. Nor< is U.S. Geoloical Survey AUG 4 U7~ Bl dg. 25. Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Amendment (30) to Diablo Canyon Units 152 Report The following docIrnent material pertaining to revieI7 of the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted seoarately for your information. Please notify our branch of receiving',or not receiving the subject material by returr6ng a copy of this letter or phone (30l) — 492 — 7258. 'I PSAR Volumes Amen@nent No. To PSAR Dated Amendment No. To Environ. Bpt. Dated FSAR Volumes Amendment No. 30 To FSAR Dated 7-31-75 (Rec' 8-1-75) Other: Amdt. Sent About 8-4-75 Site Analysis Branch Division of Technical BevieI< Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: Docket Fi1 e cu en . J. Osloond e 0 f e~~ P Ig 4 +75 DXSTRIBUTXON:, ~ocket Pile NRR-RDG SAB Mr. P. A. HcZeown U,S. Geological Survey Building 25 (D-1) Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Dear Prank: Enclosed are summaries of our meeting with PG & E on Pebruary 7 and the ACRS subcommittee meeting on Diablo Canyon. l apologise for not having gotten these to you sooner. J. C. Stepp, Section Leader Seismology & Geology Section Site Analysis Branch, TR 'c: J. Osloond j~/ OP/ICE 4URHAMCW --,..... tepp!28.. 723/7S OATS ~ F4142 hEC-318 (ROT. 9.S3) hZCM 0240 4 U, 4, COVCRNMINTPRIHTIN4 OPPICCI 1474 524 144 I) C r i Pu 1 4 AEC DISTRI ION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MATE (TEMPO RARY FO R M) CONTROL NO: FILE' ROM: US Dept of In"erior DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHE R Reston, Va 22092 1-28-75 1-28-75 H W Corille TO: ORIG CC OTHER NN Gen. Gossick one signed 0 CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO: 0-2 323 D ESC R IPTION: ENCLOSURES: Ltr trans the following: Review of the geologic 6 seismologic data.... (1 cy encl rec'd) ' J NV f.k, PN "N ll PLANT NAME: Diablo Canyon 1 P 2 FOR ACTION/INFORMATION BUTLER (L) SCHWENCER (L) ZIEMANN(L) REGAN (E) W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies CLARK (L) STOLZ (L) DICKER (E) LEAR (L) W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies PARR (L) VASSALLO (L) KNIGHTON (E) SPELS W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies KNIEL (L) PURPLE (L) YOUNQBLOOD (E) W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies 9/gtoPies Pg/illC~ INTERNAL DISTR I BUTION REG FILE TECH REVIEW BENTON LIC ASST A/T IND ~SCHROEDER GR IMES R. DIGGS (L) B RAITMAN rOGC, ROOM PN506A MACCARY GAMMILL H. GEARIN (L) SALTZMAN ~@{MglNLQSTAF F KNIGHT KASTNER E. GOULBOURNE (L) ABEL CASE PAW LICK I BALLARD P. KREUTZER (E) G I AMBUSSO SHAO SPANGLER J. LEE (L) PLANS BOYD STE LLO M. MAIGRET (L) MCDONALD MOORE(L) HOUSTON ENVIRO S. REED (E) CHAPMAN ~DEYOUNG (L) NOVAK MULLER M. SERVICE (L) DUBE (Ltr) SKOVHOLT (L) ROSS >vapo, DICKER S. SHEPPARD (L) E. COUPE GOLLER (L) (Ltr) IPPOLITO KNIGHTON M. SLATER (E) PETERSON P. COLLINS TEDESCO YOUNGSLOOD H. SMITH (L) D. THOMPSON (2) DENISE LONG REGAN S. TEETS (L) KLECKER REG OPR LAI NAS PROJECT LDR G. WILLIAMS(E) EISENHUT FILE 5 REGION (3) BENAROYA V. WILSON (L) WIGG I NTON MOR R IS VOLLMER HAR LESS STEELE EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 1 —LOCAL 0$ C~ PDR~~es R-SAN/LA 1 —TIC (ABERNATHY) (1)(2)(10) —NATIONALLABS ~~ PD 1 — NAT LAB 1 —NSI C (BUCHANAN) 1 —W. PENNINGTON, Rm E-201 GT BROOKHAVEN — — 1 —G. ULRIKSON, ORNL 1 ASLB 1 CONSULTANTS — 1 —Newton Anderson NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN 1 AGMED (RUTH GUSSMAN) B-127 GT 1 —ACRS HOLDING/SENT Rm 1 —R. D. MUELLER, Rm E-201 GT 1 ( ~ b ~ I p Os ZCC.'Z7 PIL~jP>~Y gent P RL'"- ~y 6 AT~ .7 Q United States Department of the Interior 0 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092 6 ~ JAN ~8 ~75- 0 U.S. ATOIIIO EHEROY COIIIIISSIOR 1976 General L. V. Gossick Rtylal~ JAN 38 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ilail Scclha Washington, D.C. 20545. 0 zr 9 Dear General Gossick: Transmitted herewith, in response to a request by your staff, is a review of the geologic and seismologic data relevant to the Diablo Canyon Site, Units 1 and 2 (AEC Docket Nos. 50-275'nd 50-323 . This review was prepared by F. A. MCKeown and James F. Devine of the U.S. Geological Survey. We have no objection to your making this review part of the public record. ! Sincerely yours, irector Enclosure S6S Let's Clean Up America For Our 200th Birthday V ~ ~ f ~, V W V ~ V " ~ 'I ' 'l V E V I V ll V V- ~ I ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ W V ~ I ~ V ~ V Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Site, Units 1 and 2 San Luis Obispo County, California AEC Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 This is a final review of the geological and pertinent seismological data in the. Final Safety Analysis Report'(FSAR) and Amendments'l, 19, and 20 for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant site, Units 1 and 2. A preliminary review dated January 23, 1974, of the FSAR was transmitted to the Atomic Energy Commission by E. H. Baltz on Harch 28, 1974. The principal considerati'on in the preliminary review was that it did not provide information to evaluate adequately an offshore fault or structural zone that had been reported in the literature (Hoskins and Griffiths, 1971) since review of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR). Since the preliminary review of the FSAR the applicant and its consultants have conducted extensive geophysical surveys and made geological analyses of them to determine the offshore geology, most of which is presented in Appendix 0 of Amendment 19. Prior to the applicant's surveys the U.S. Geological Survey on behalf of the U.S. Atomic Energy Coomission had made a geophysical survey of a large part of the offshore structural zone. This information (Wagner, 1974) was open filed to the public in September 1974 and the applicant has used it extensively in Amendment 19, This final review therefore is directed mostly to evaluation of the data in Amendment 19, although all parts of the FSAR were reviewed. No field examin tion of the site was made in conjunction with review of the FSAR. The FSAR and its amendments contain a reasonably accurate description and evaluation of a large amount of geophysical and geological data. The geologic maps (Plates III and IV, Amendment 19) offshore of the southcentral c- 1 8 1 6 California coast agree in general with the offshore geologic map of Wagner (1974). In detail however the maps differ at many places. For example, the trends, location, and number of faults in Estero Bay shown on Plate IV differ from those shown in Plate I of. Wagner. A synopsis of the geology on Plates I, II, III, and IY is that the offshore Santa Haria basin is bounded on the east and west by major fault zones. Further, both fault zones are recognized as capable within criteria of the Atomic Energy Commission. The easternmost fault zone, called the East Boundary zone (EBZ) by the applicant and called the Hosgri fault zone (HFZ) -by Wagner (1974), is of primary importance because it passes within four miles of the site and is about 90 miles long. /As will be outlined in another part of the review, we do not concur with the applicant's conclusion that the current structural environment of both the off'shore and onshore areas is dominated by vertical movements. We do concur with the applicant that the faults exposed in excavation for the site and,in the cliffs near the- site apparently are not capable within AEC criteria. However, the age (80,000-120,000 years before present) of the youngest terrace materials was inferred by long-distance correlation of terraces (p. 2.5-33). We accept the correlation as probable but an absolute age determination would be highly desirable. As these faults and foundation conditions have been amply documented and have not appeared to present problems that could not be managed by engineering practices, they are not discussed in this review. Re ional Geolo The applicant's description of the regional tectonic features given in Amendment 20, (p. 2.5-7 through 2.5-13f) is quite adequate. In brief the C ) ~ I ~ 1 plant site is located in the South Coast Ranges structural'rovince which is characterized by northwest trending structural and geomorphic features. The applicant lists five major structural features (fault zones) in the region around the site (p. 2.5-9, Amend. 20). These are the San Andreas, Rinconada-San Marcos-Jolon,'ur-Nacimiento, Santa Lucia Bank and San Simeon faults at distances of 45, 25, 18, 28, and 18 miles from the site respectively (Table A, Amend. 19). All of these faults are considered capable by the applicant (p. 2.50-64, 65, Amend 19). The East Boundary fault zone at 2.5 to 4 miles from the site,is not listed as a major structural feature although it bounds the offshore Santa-f1aria basin as the Santa Lucia Bank fault does and is commensurate in size with the Santa Lucia Bank fault. We consider the East Boundary fault zone a major structural feature. Jn the vicinity of- the site, that is the Estero Bay-San Luis Range area, three principal fault zones. are discussed in addition to the East Boundary fault zone (p. 2.5-13c through 13f, Amend. 20).. These are. the West Huasna, Edna,,and San Miguelito faults at distances of 11, 4.5, and '2.5 miles from the site, respectively. Nearly all faults trend northwesterly. Highly deformed Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks occur between the faults. The available data do not indicate that any of these faults are capable according to AEC criteria. The trend of the Edna fault when projected to the northwest suggests that it could possibly intersect the EBZ in Estero Bay. The location and discontinuous style of faults mapped in Estero Bay however by both the applicant (Plate IY Amend 19) and Wagner (1974, Plate I) do not confirm. intersection of the Edna fault with the EBZ. As the EBZ is larger and closer to the site, consideration of the Edna fault as a source of earthquakes is of less importance 1" ~ ~ ~ 1 1 East Boundary Fault Zone As indicated previously in this review'and by the applicant (2.5D-9, Amend. 19) the East Boundary fault zone has been the structural feature of most interest and importance. Nearly all of the extensive geophysical explorati'ons conducted and analyzed during .the past year or so since the FSAR was first issued have been directed especially to defining this zone and its geologic relationship to contiguous features such as the Santa Maria basin, structures in the San Luis Range, and the Transverse Range structures projected, from the southeast. The importance of the EBZ and need to investigate it thoroughly was evident from the facts that it is less than four miles from the site, is more than 90 miles in length, and appears to have minor seismic activity associated with it. The applicant has made a commendable effort to define and explain the zone. We concur. with the applicant's description of the EBZ and his conclu- sion that it, is a faulted zone of inflection between the offshore Santa Maria Basin and the uplifted Coast Ranges'(p. 2.5D-37 through 2.5D-42, and 2.5D-98, Amend. 19). It appears therefore that the zone once was more closely related to the vertical tectonics associated with basin development than to transcurrent tectonics associated with plate boundaries. As recognized by the applicant, the'BZ may also be a "---part of the San Andreas continental margin transform fault system---" (p. 2.5D-41, .Amend.19).. Such northwest trending fault zones as the''EBZ, both offshore and onshore, have been considered by others (for example, Hamilton and Myers, 1966, p. 522 and figure 2, Atwater, 1970, p. 3525) to be part of a system of faults with right lateral movement. The applicant presents considerable data and arguments to support the concept"---that the current tectonic 1 l, ~ environment in the southern Coast Ranges and .adjacent offshore region is dominated by vertical movements associated with general uplift of the ranges." (p. 2.5D-63, Amend. 19). It is clear from the offshore seismic reflection profiles in Appendix A as well as mapping onshore that vertical separations of as much as several thousand feet occur in Pliocene and . older strata. Evidence of lateral separation is,less'clear, probably because lateral separation can rarely be demonstrated uriequivocally. The applicant concluded however that as much .as several thousand feet of lateral displacement may have occurred on the EBZ throughout.its history (p; 2;SD-41, Amend. 19). Evidence of lateral slip on the EBZ has been given by Wagner (1974, figure 13, p. 7). Similar evidepce is apparent in figure 5A (Appendix A) and,sections B-B',, and D-D'late VII,.where marked changes in thickness of acoustical units occur across faults and reverse sense of movemen't on the same fault is shown. Also, the San Simeon fault, which is considered the eastern boundary of the northern part of the Santa t1aria basin is reported to have about 1500 feet. of lateral. displacement. Incomplete fault plane solutions (Smith, 1974) are. used .by, the applicant in an attempt to demonstrate the dominance of vertical movements. All three solutions given by, Smith however'ave signifi'cant later'al components to the inferred fault mechanism. Additional seismological evidence that Coast Range faults currently have lateral movement on.-them is given'y Greene and others (1973, Sheet 2). These authors show on Sheet 2 predominant right-lateral movement in fault plane solutions of'arthquakes in Yonterey Bay near projections of northwest trending Coast Range faults.. As (1) nearly all of the evidence of lateral movement is in the youngest rocks, some of which may be Post-Misconsinan (Wagner, 1974, p. 13) C I ~ I 1 ~ and'(2) the mechanism of current earthquakes has a significant component of lateral movement, vertical movements may now be a subordinate component on faults in the EBZ as well as other major faults in southcentral coastal Cal iforni a. Conclusions We conclude from the evidence in the FSAR and literature that large vertical displacements occurred in the EBZ, mostly during the late Miocene and -Pliocene when the offshore Santa Maria basin was most actively developing. Most current tectonic activity however -is causing as. much or more lateral= as vertical displacement on northwest trending faults in the Coast Ranges and offshore region. Both the East Boundary zone and Santa Lucia Bank fault zone may have a first order genetic relation to the Santa Maria basin and consequently are not regional in the sense that they do not transect structural provinces such as the Transverse Ranges as the San Andreas fault does. They should be considered inextricably involved, however, with the strike-slip fault mechanics of plate boundary motions that are currently concentrated along the San Andreas fault. Earthquakes along the EBZ presumably would not be as large as expected on the San Andreas fault; however, from the information presently at hand we can find no evidence that would preclude the occurrence of an earthquake as large as events characteristic of subparallel strike slip faults, which bound basins, such as the Santa Maria, in the San Andreas system and which do not.transect structural provinces. 7 C S ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ V V V The portions of the Final Safety Analysis Report and Amendments ll, 19, 20 of the report entitled "Analysis of Offshore Seismicity in the Vicinity of the Diablo Canyon. Nuclear Power Plant" and"-- the Pacific Gas and Electric Company letter dated December 27, 1974, concerning seismic response and its enclosures have been reviewed. The seismological aspects of this site were previously investigated by the applicant and a review was prepared by the Seismological Division of the Coast and Geodetic Survey (since changed in organiza- P tion in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) dated . September 21, 1967. As evidenced by the previous discussion of the Geology, a large amount of new data has been developed offshore from the plant site. The; interpretation of these. data, as previously discussed, necessitate the placing of a moderate to large earthquake on either the East Boundary Zone or the Santa Lucia Bank faults. The applicant, in Amendment 20, has addressed the significance of this interpretation and has indicated a "potential for large earthquakes involving faulting over distances in the order of tens of miles: Seismic activity at this level can occur'along offshore faults in the Santa Lucia Bank region (the likely source of the Magnitude 7.3 earthquake of 1927)...." Elsewhere in the FSAR is stated "The East Boundary zone is considered to be seismically active...." ~ Our opinion, is I based on these statements and the current necessity of considering these two structures as having similar seismic potential. Due to the lack of instrumental data from sites within 10 km of the surface expression of a fault, it is difficult to describe the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ maximum acceleration, or velocity that would be recorded in this nearby zone. In addition, the correlation of any'of these parameters with damage is suspect in the near zones. On the other hand, there are numerous incidents of structures, extremely close to the fault undergoing movement and experiencing earthquakes, that experienced little or no damage. Also, it is apparent that the maximum peak acceleration does not continue to climb as one approaches closer to and reaches the fault break or as one postulates larger and larger earthquakes at 'a given point on the fault. The efforts by the applicant to consider the effects of earthquakes on existing records of strong motion from sites near to the earthquake fault in terms of the frequency content of the response spectra are worthwhile. However, a question of transferability still remains > (the .size of the event. in one case and the distance in another). Nevertheless," this analysis when used to match peaks of the- spectra (nearby and more distant sources) to the response of critical com- ponents is in our opinion an important technique for assessing potential damage. However, in conclusion, we believe that with the limit.of the present information as to the interpretation of the relationship of the, East Boundary fault to the Santa Lucia Bank fault, an earthquake similar to the November 4, 1927, event but occurring along the East Boundary Zone or the Santa Lucia Bank fault zone represents the maximum earthquake that is likely to occur near to the site. This event is in addition to the maximum earthquakes considered in the Construction Permit evaluation and subsequent hearings and reviews. As long 8 'I ~ ~ t; 4 C 'v le ) ~' ~ ~ 'as this interpretation remains valid, it is our opinion that the design value of 0.5 g used as a zero period acceleration in the development of the appropriate response spectra is inadequate. References Atwater, Tanya, 1970, Implications of plate'tectonics for the Cenozoic tectonic evolution of western North America: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 81, p. 3513-3536. Greene, H. G. and others,,1973, Faults and earthquakes in the Monterey Bay region, California: U.S. Geol. Survey map MF-518. Hamilton, ll. and Myers, M. B., 1966, Cenozoic tectonics'f the liestern United States: Reviews of Geophysics, V. 4, no. 4, p. 509-549. Hoskins, E. G., and Griffiths, J. R., 1971, Hydrocarbon potential of Northern and Central California offshore: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Memoir 15, p. 212-228. Smith, S.=-ll.; -'1974, Analysis of Offshore Seismicity .in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Report to Pacific Gas and Electric Company. llagner, H. C., 1974, Marine geology between Cape San Martin and Pt. Sal South-Central California Offshore: U.S. Geol. Survey open file report 74-252. r k %I ~ ~ k gal.''" < ~ Cy. UNITED STATES JPf') p ]915 ATOivlIC ENERGY COiMiVIISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545 rr~ 0 '4tCg 0>- Docket No 50-275/323 ~..F: A. Y~eown U. S. Geological Survey Building 25 (D-1) Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Subject: Diablo Canyon Suhnittal on.Requested Seismic Response The following document material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is enclosed for your informatiu«. Please notify our branch of receiving or not receiving the subject materiel by returning a copy of this letter or phone (301-973-7258). PSAR Volumes Amendment, No. To PSAR Dated'o Amendment No. Environ. Rpt. Dated FSAR Volumes AR ndment No. To PSAR Dated Other: Subject plant information received 12/30/74 on seismic res ' ical Design Class I structures and nxnponents — usin modified input r and damping values in MC Reg. Guide 1.61. W. P. GaInnill, Chief Site Analysis Branch Directorate of Licensing 'nclosure: As Stated cc- w/o Encl. Docket File J. Stepp J. Osloond 0 I JAB 7 1975 ~gI,IIGI r UiN!TEO STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMiSSION .pb WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545 r„ zo~ '~1tgI 0I--. Docket No. 50-275/323 Mr.. James Devine Hail Stop 905 U. S. Geological Survey National Center Reston, Virginia 22092 Subject: Diablo Canyon Suhnittal on Recpested Seismic Response The following document material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is enclosed for your information. t't 'Please notify our branch of receiving or not receiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (301-973-7258). PSAR Volumes Amendment No. To PSAR Dated'' Amendment No. To Environ. Rpt. Dated FSAR Volumes Amendment No. To PSAR Dated Other: Sub'ect lant informatio response of typical Design Class I structures and ccmponents —using mxLified in ut res nse tra 'd N. P. Gamrnill, Chief Site Analysis Branch Directorate of Licensing Enclosure: As Stated cc: sv/o Encl. Docket File + J. Stepp J. Osloond UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSI i WASHINGTON, D.C 20S45 ea g rd ~~III DEC 81 $74 Docket No. 50-275/323 Dr. Carl Vent@orth USGS 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, California 94025 Subject: DIABLO CANYON FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AND AMENDMENTS The following document material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted separately for your information. Please notify our branch of receiving or not receiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or Phone (301-973-7258). PSAR Volumes Amendment No. To PEAR Dated Amendemt No. To Environ. Rpt Da.ted FSAR Volumes Amendment No. 1-22To FSAR Dated l .Other: Subject material sent about 12/31/74, as requested by Mr. Fred Houser. Site Analysis Branch Directorate of Licensing. cc. ocket File F. Houser R. McMullen J. Stepp J. Osloond 0 gg%Cl ~+) UN1TED STATES 0 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMlSSlON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545 0 ~~fES DEC 3 g 1974 Docket No. 50-275/323 ~ + Dr. Carl Wentworth USGS 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, California 94025 Subject: TEKNEKRON, INC. REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON PLANT C The following document material pertaining to review of the subject nuclear facility is enclosed for your information. Please notify our branch of receiving or not re'ceiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (301-973-7258). PSAR Volumes-- Amendment No. To PSAR Dated'' Amendment No. To Environ. Rpt. Dated FSAR Volumes Amendment No. To FSAR Dated Other: Report entitled "Anal sis of Offshoie S ? Diab'lo Canyon Nuclear Pow'er Plant" b Stewart" S W. P. Gammill, Chief Site Analysis Branch Directorate of Licensing Enclosure: As Stated cc: w/ encl. acket File F. Houser R. McMullen J. Stepp J. Osloend ~ g ' NRC FORM 195 - - V.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIt"MION DOCKET NUMBER ,„'2i'ISI .o I z t$ FILE NUMB B DISTRIBUTION FoR PART 50 DOCI(ET A1ATERIAL NRC COrI N cl / +w n FROM: DATE OF DOCUMENT Hr Gammill US Dept'pf Interior 12-24-75 Reston, Va DATE RECEIVED F N Houser 12 O'LETTER LINOTOR IZE D PROP INPUT FORM NUMBER OF COVIEStRECEIVED ABORIGINAL ISVr CLASsIFIED II$ICOP Y /)onr ~ h I DESCRIPTION ENCLOSURE Ltr trans the following: Draft review of Amdts 31, 52, & 34 of the FSAR .....with regard to geology'..... ITEN REC"D FOR DXST IN DISTRIBUTION SECTION 2-17-76. t ~ '$ /',~ J 'lABLO CANYON 1 & 2 SAFETY FOR ACTION/INFORMATION 7-7b ehf ASSXGNED AD; n ASSXGNED AD : BTlANCH CHIEF: BRANCH CHIEF ~ PROJECTASST'NVXROIIANAGER: PROJECT IIANAGER: LXC~ LIC~ ASST, $ . INTERNALD IST R I BUT ION G FILE N~STEHS RO ~ ~ E ST X&E ~MRQEDZR. BENAROYA A+LARD ~D LA+ SPANGLER GOSSXCK & STAFF ENGINEER N IPPOLITO $ SITE TECH GAMMILL CAgr. KNIGHT OPERATXNG REACTORS INTEGER IMIR SXINEXL STELLO STEPP PAW ICKX HULMAN LI 3 OPERATXNG TECH PROJECT MANAGEMENT REACTOR SAFETY EXSENHUT SITE ANALYSIS BOYD ROSS SHAO VOLLIIER P, COLLXNS NOVAK BARR BUNCH HOUSTOii ROSZTOCZY SCHIPENCER J, COLLXNS PETERSON CIIECK GRXHHS NELTZ HELTEIIES AT & I SITE SAFETY & ENVIR SKOVHOLT SALTZHAN ANALYSIS RUTBERG DENTON & I~iULLER EXTLIENALOISTRIBUTION CONTROL NUMBER LPDR ScC,~~~~pu NATL LAB BROOKI VEN NATL LAB TIC REG V-XE ULRIKSON(ORNL) N~SC LA PDR ASLB CONSULTANTS ~CD QSEI, r NBC FORM ISS (2-76) tg ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ United Sta.tea epartment oE the Interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WV~ pP RESTOb/, VIRGINIA 2209'2 W~) e" December 24, 1975 ' ~EGg/ -. w 9ECE Enclosed is a draft review of the Amendments 31, 32 and 34 of the -'FSAR for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Diablo Canyon site, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323. This review was prepared by Frank A., HcKeown, who reviewed the geology,.and James F. Devine, who reviewed the seismology., Hr. HcKeown was assisted by Holly Vagnex, David HcCulloch, and Robert Yerkes; Hr. Devine was assisted by Robert Page and Wayne Thatcher. Me are transmitting this draft to provide a basis for discussions at our planned meeting in Bethesda on December 30. Sincexely yours, T --E- u< Fred N. Housex Deputy Chief Office of Environmental Geology Enclosure g'+g48 Oge+ 0> ,o ~ ' Q+ g ~ (O~gy.pP (9g I ~ ~ 1 ~ F. A. HcKeown (Geology), J. F. Dgiine (Seismology)'iablo ~yon . ~ ~ FSAR Amendments 3l, 32 and 34 I ~ ~ PACXFXC GAS AND ELECTRXC COHPANY DIABLO CR~TYON SITE, UNXTS 1 AND 2 SAN LUXS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AEC DOCKET NOS. 50-275 KID.50-323 'Geology and Seismology i'his is a xeview of the geological and seismological information contained in Amendments'31, 32, and 34 of the Final Safety Analy'sis Report (FSAR) for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant site. Amendment 37, containing important discussion of the ground response pertinent to seismicity, was received in eaxly November and too late to he considered in this review. The amendments were prepared by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGRE) .in response to a request in a letter dated February 12, 1975, from the Nuclear Regulatory Coa~ission (NRC),fox t ~ , 'k certain additional iriformation relevant to design basis earthquake ' issues, which have been the principal problems requixing additional i eaxth sciences information and analyses. To support assertions in the FSAR thxough Amendments ll, 19 an'd 20, five'equests for information (referred to as questions in the Amendments) were made. " 2.17. Prov'ide additional discussion and arguments for determining the maximum earthquake that can be expected on faults of various ranks within the San hndreas system. Relate the discussion to historic seismicity. 2.18. Provide. additional documentation, including seismic x'cflcction 'rofi'les, on the intcrs'ection of the flosgri fault.zoic with 'thc Transverse Range faults. Include geologic maps south«ard of those provided in the FSAR showing the structural relation- ships of the Transverse faults and structures having a northwest trend. 4 ~ p Provide additional documentation, including seismic profiles, on the northern roaches of thc i!osgri'ault zone. Include a fuller dcvclopmcnt of >our views on thc structural relationship of the 1!osgri Sault to thc San Simeon fault. 2. 20. Provide additional information on the location of .tho 1927 event, together with its probablo mechanism. Discuss probable relationships of this cvcnt to thc geologic structure in the region. 2.21. Provide your evaluation of the maximum credible earthquake on thc.l!osgri fault zone. Assuming this event occurs along the segment of the Flosgri fault zone nearest thc site, evaluate its'esponse spectrum at the site and compare it with thc design xesponso spectrum. The response in the CESAR 'to the questions has provided considerable additional geologic and seismologic information and analyses. However, unambiguous answers to the questions haVe not been achieved. Hany uncertainties in the data and interpretations still exist. Among the most important of these are: l) the loc tion and mechanism of the 1927 earthquake, 2) the exact'relation of the "Elosgri fault zone to faults in the Transverse Range s)stem and the 'San Simeon fault, 3) the continuity of some faults, 4) the relative amounts of dip-slip and strike-slip movement on the ifosgri fault ."one, 5) the sense of displacement on parts of the ilosgri zone, 6) identification and correlation of acoustical units, and 7) kinematic relations among different fault zones. In addition to these uncertainties, some information'hown on the I profiles is not shown on the maps and vice versa, and some profile data are not included that are important to evaluate the extension or character of some faults. Because geologic maps developed from seismic % ~ ' ~ ~ r reflection pxofiles are based upon much interpretation that may differ among several intexpxeters, it was necessary fox the purposes of our review to make independent interpretations of the seismic profiles. These independent interpretations are somewhat different tnan the interpretations presented in Amendments 31 and 32. The major differences axe briefly described in appropxiate sections of this review. Although some changes in, and additions to, geologic and seismol'ogic details have been made in Amendments 31, 32, and 34 compared with px'evious data .in the FSAR, no major changes can be made in our conclu- that were stated in the review of the FSAR, and Amendments 'ions 11, 19, and. 20, which was transmitted to the NRC from the Director of the United States Geological Survey by letter.,of January 28, 1975. The pertinent statement in our previous conclusions was as follows: "Earthquakes along the EBZ presumably would not be as large as expected on the San Andreas fault, however, from the information presently at hand we can find no evidence that would preclude the occurrence of an earthquake as large as events characteristic of subparallel strike slip faults, which bound basins, such as the Santa V . hfaria, in the San Andreas system and which do not transect structural, provinces." The size of an earthquake on faults tha't bound basins s'as not specified in this conclusion. For reasons stated in subsequent 1 As defined in the FSAR, EBZ refers to the East Boundary fault zone, which is the Hosgxi fault zone. \ ~ C ~ V A% parts of this review, however, the magnitude of the design basis caxthquake for the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor site should be in the range of 7. 0 to 7.S and located on the Ilosgri fault "one. This is based principally on the fact that-the Ni'ovcmbcr 4, 1927, earthquake 'ad a magnitude of 7.3 and that the best estimates of its location indicate that it could have occurred on the Elosgri fault. e Selected comments important to an evaluation of Amendments 31, 32, and 34 are outlined below. Amendment 31 ITIC Question 2.18 On figures 8 and 9 relative displacement on 'the Elosgri fault between Point Buchon and Point Sa" is sho~ to be down. on the east. On figure 10 relative displacement on, the southern extension of the Hosgri fault south of Point Sal is down on the west, which is compatible. with the argument that the Hosgri fault is the east boundary of a portion; of the Santa Haria Basin. Changes in direction of relative movement, C howevei, are very suggestive of lateral displacement, which may have occurrred after development of the basin and bounding faults.. On page 9,. reference is made ~o fig. 11 as evidence that no scarp-formxng seismic events have occurred on the southernmost part of the Ilosgxi fault since prior to the Nisconsinan stage of the Pleistocene. It is true that no offset of the ocean floor is evident on fig. 11. IIowcver, close inspection of fig. 11 shows offset of the post-h'isconsinan unconformity when sighting along it or placing a h le J~ 5 "''straightedge along the m ped trace. Also, faulting of .ie post- Wisconsinan sediments cannot be precluded because a change in acoutical signature is evident across an upward projection of the fault shown. in figure ll. The change in the acoustical signature of unit A2 across the fault is quite clear and may be evidence of lateral movement on the fault. a Xt is not clear from the profiles in figures 13a and 13b that the disturbed zones in them that are inferred to represent the liest EIosgxi fault axe the same. At least three additional faults can be inter-, pxeted in the profile of figure 13b. Also a disturbed zone appeaxs to be between stations 133 and 136 in the profile of line 13a. Kelez, Bartlett, and Polaris survey'ines criss-cross this area and additional evidence from them to support or negate the suggested ~ ~ ~ correlation of disturbed zones should be demonstrated. An independent interpretation of the seismic profiles in the offshore area from about Point Sal to about five miles south of Point Arguello indicates that the Hosgri fault extends at least five miles south of Point Arguello and does not turn eastward as suggested in Amendment 31. Although the Lompoc fault zone appears to have offset the sea Hoor, and may therefore be considered capable of movement again, its length of only about eight'miles as inferred by the applicant appears to be incompatible with a magnitude 7.3 earthquake. An independent ! interpretation. of the'seismic profiles in the area of the Lompoc fault differs from that of the applicant, in that it shows that the Lompoc l 4 ~ V We 'ault zone is about twenty-miles long; the longest single fault in .the zone is. about fifteen miles in length. lbrthexmore, the displace- ment is dip slip or possibly oblique slip, xathex than reverse slip as suggested by the applicant. NRC Question 2.19 As noted in the previous section the sense of.displacement on the southern part of the Hosgxi fault is up on the 'west side, figure 1 (H), and therefoxe is not compatible with its being primari.ly xelated, to basin development. However, an alternative interpretation suggests the displacement on the Elosgri fault in figure 1 to be do~ on the west. Figure 1 (H) has three buried faults not shown on Plate.X. 'his leads to questions concerning the interpretation of some of the data in the report. instance of4'nother faults shown in profile but not on a map is seen from comparison of fig. 4 (H) and Plate X. The correlation of faults between -Lines 16 and 12 (figs. 3 (H) and 4 (H)) is questionable. I A.profi.le along Line 14 would help. Also, an interpretation of Line 10 should be included. Although the straight coast line between Cambria and Point Estero- suggests that thc extension of the San Simeon fau1t is just offshore; data are lacking to prove this. Hone of'the data presented in Amcndmcn't 31 preclude the San Simeon fault from intersecting the Hosgri fault offshore between Cambria and Point Estero. The two faults even as shown on Plate II (N) are less than 2.5 miles apart. ~ V 0i ~ ~ and could very »ell be tectonically coupled to each other by an en echelon or anastomosing series of faults which is characteristic of faults in the coast ranges. Figs.'a (N) and 7b (N) are very puzzling. They show an inflection in the seafloor over the Hosgri fault, and a drastic change in the thickness and acoustical signature of unit A2, assuming A2's correlative with A2. ln addition to vertical dis}placement, lateral displacement, »hich is not mentioned, could be interpreted from these r profiles. However, the basis for separating A2'rom A3 is not apparent. Similarly it is not apparent why unit A,.east of the fault, is terminated. It appears to continue to the east'dge of .these pxofiles. On figure lla (N) the A2 unit east of the fault at station 119 is correlated with the Monterey formation (p. 8, NRC Question 2.19, amend. 31), but the signature of the A2 unit west of this fault is completely different. This lithologic change, as elsewhere, suggests lateral displacement. NRC Question 2.20 and Nest Hosgri On page 10 it is reasoned that both the Hosgri faults can be eliminated as sources of the 1927 earthquake because neither the sea floor nor the post-Nisconsinan unconformity are offset in the epicentral area of. the earthquake. This reasoning is not satis- factory because typically surface rupturing of a fault is discontinuous, and offset may not be detected if the displacement had a large lateral component. Furthermore, as stated on page 4 of this review, the base of post-Misconsinan sediments is offset, and a fault in the sediments I ~ ~ g cannot be precluded in figure ll. The evidence, therefore, to eliminate the Hosgri fault. as the source of the= 1927 earthquake is inadequate. As previously stated, the length of the Lompoc fault shown by the applicant appears to be incompatible with the magnitude of the 1927 earthquake. Figure 1 shows that segments of the Hosgri fault zone, the Lompoc fault, Purisima fault, and Lion's Head fault occur within the error circle of Gawthrop and error ellipse of Engdahl for the 1927 earthquake. However, all of the faults are outside of the area designated by Smith as the "inferred distribution of aftershock sequence of the 1927 earthquake." The 1927 earthquake, 'therefore, cannot be unequivocally located on any one of these faults. The Hosgri fault, however, is closer to the center of the estimate of error than the other faults and, therefor'e, must be considered as a possible fault on which to locate the earthquake. Amendment 32 NRC Question 2.17 Although-this section contains descriptions and explanations of the "—kinematics of structural behavior in the south-central California region —-" contemporary seismic activity is -not fully explained. Also, we do not agree with some statements given as fact. For example, on page 2 it is stated as fact that the 1927 H.7.3 earthquake occurred on the Lompoc fault. This is not fact but a highly controversial. assumption. Item 2 on page 2 of this amendment indicates that the Lompoc and San Andreas are the V ~ '1 ~ only. faults in the southern Coast Ranges that "reflect substantial late quaternary surface deformation." As defined on page 3 of this amendment,."substantial" clearly includes thc San Simeon fault, which as stated on page 6 of this review may bc coupled with thc- Hosgri fault. The attempt to explain the large magnitude by using the logic that the Lompoc'fault is in a transition zone between thc Coast Ranges ~nd Western Transverse Ranges applies to other faults in the zone including ~ the southern part of thc Hosgri fault. Amcndmcnt 34 NRC Question 2.21 The maximum credible earthquake of 6 1/4 - 6 1/2 on the Hosgri fault zone used in this section to derive pea}; site ground acceleration is unacceptable because as stated previously the 1927 carthqual;e with 'a magnitude of 7.3 cannot be precluded from having occurred on 'the Hosgri fault. Cdnclusions Although the FSAR includes a considerable amount of new informa- tion and analysis, the only change that can be made in the original conclusions transmitted to the NRC on January 28, 197S, is to be more specific in our estimate of the design basis earthquake. This is based upon the following facts and judgments. 1. The Hosgri fault zone i's niore than 90 miles long and may even be tectonically coupled to the. San Simeon fault as they arc within 2.5 I 4 t J ~ EI ~ 8 wan ~ ', 10 ,'+ miles of each other and both form parts of the eastern boundary of the ~ Santa.Feria basin. 2. Marked changes in thickness and signature of acoustical units across the Ho'sgxi fault zone in several profiles indicates evidence of lateral slip. This was noted in our review of January 28, 1975, but such . changes are even more abundant in the profiles of Amendment 31. Right lateral movemcnt is reported for thc San Simeon fault. These data suggest that displacemcnts on thc Hosgri fault are related to thc highly active San Andrcas plate-boundary system. 3. The length of the Lompoc fault appeaxs incompatible with the. magnitude of the 1927 earthquake. 4. The Hosgri. fault is closer to the center of the estimates of error of.'both Engdahl and Gawthrop than any other fault. Xt is there- fore a possible source of the 1927 earthquake. 5. Equivocal evidence related to vertical displacement on the Hosgri fault in the epicentral area of the 1927'arthquake does not eliminate I 'it as a source. Surface fupture is generally discontinuous, and if lateral slip occurred, it probably would not be detected. Offset of the base of post-8'isconsinan sediments and probable faulting of them is evidence of post-Pleistocene movement. For the above reasons and discussions given in the review, we t conclude that the 1927 earthquake could have occurred on the Hosgri fault and that a similar earthquake with a magnitude in the range of 7.0 — 7.5 could occur in the future anywhere along the Hosgri fault. C '.Il ~ CP1 o 11 6. Me repeat our opinion that, for sites within 10 km of the surface expression of a fault, the description of maximum earthquake ground motion by means of a single acceleration value and a standard response ll spectrum may not be an appropriate representation of the ground motion for design purposes. However, if a single acceleration value is to be designated by extension of the existing strong motion data base, the 0.5 g acceleration offered by. the applicant is .inadequate for representing . a magnitude 7.0 to 7.5 earthquake at a point on the 1losgri fault nearest the plant site when used in conjunction with a conventional analysis. The appropriate value should be developed in association. with a response spectrum taking into account the proximity of the fault, site conditions and the estimated larger earthquake than the magnitude 6 1/3 — 6.1/2 used by the applicant in these studies. ~ ~ ~ W ~ f ' o Ic:AIL 'TOMIC Eiw RGY COPdM lkerM'al VJASHlYGTOih. D.C. «3545 gee a < Docks t .'o: 50 275/323 ,I Mr. Fred A.,Houser Department of the Interior U. S. Geological Survey National Ctr, Mail Stop 908 12901 Suniise Valley Drive Reston; Virginia 22092 Amendment (19) To Diablo Canyon Report I' e P The following document. material pertaining to reviewer of the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted separately for your information. ~ ~ PSAR Uolumes Anendeeat No,. Ta PSAR Dated Dated, "AmendsOTHER'S nt No. To Environ. Rpt. PSAR Volumes Amendment Ho. 19 To CESAR Dated.ll/1 74 Reed. I Two more cpys. of amdt. sent about 12/10/74 as you requested. 'M. P. Gammi3,1, Chief Swl.e''.nalys3-s Br -'c ~ DL.L e.c to etc 0 I.icensin~q cc:~o cke t F ile J ~ Stepp R. McMullen J. Os'oond Distribution: Docket File LNR 1-3 Reading DEC. O~ 1974 LNR 1-3 File AEC PDR Docket Nos. 50-275 Local PDR and 50-323 NPGammill JCStepp, RE4Mullen TJHirons DPAllison VEfilson m'. Frank McKeown RHoffman U. S. Geological Survey ODParr Ehgineering Geology Branch Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Dear hk. McXeosrn: Copies of a report entitled, "Analysis of Offshore Seismicity in the Yicinityof the Diablo Canyon Nmlear Power Plant," were sent to you and Mr. Stan Brochnan separately on December 3, 1974. This report is referenced in Appendix 2.5D subnitted in Amendment 19 to the Diablo Canyon Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and in Section 2.5.6, submitted in Amendment 20 to the FSAR. Amendments.19 and 20 to the FSAR were sent to you with my letters of november 1, 1974 and Rnrenber 4, 1974. As mentioned, in those letters, we would appreciate receiving your evaluation of the geology and. seismology submittals by January 3, 1975. Sincerely, Original Signed by O. D. Parr Olan D. Parr, Cid.ef Light Water Reactors Project Branch 1-3 Directorate of Licensing cc: See page 2 'OfflCC~ LQIPpl-&. L:LWR 1-3 d U R HAM C DAlliPon:pg ODParr 3f'ATC~ ...... 1.2lvl74 12(VP4 Porm hEC.318 (RCT. 9.33) hZCM 0240 k 0, d OOVCRNMCNT PRINTIN4 OfflCCI IOT4 Old Idd C ~ 4 L ~ Lv '' ~ 'I ~ ~ ~ L L L V E OEC. 04 1S74-. Mr. Prank bhKcmm bfr. Stan Brodanan U. S. Geological Suvey National Earthquake Infoxmation Service, D-2 Denver Federal Center Building 25 Denver, Colorado 80225 I bfr. James F. Devine Department of the Interior U. S. Geological Survey National Center, Mail Stop 908 South Lake Drive Reston, Virginia 22092 Mr. Pred IIouser Department of the Interior U. S. Geological Survey National Center, Hail Stop 908 12201 Smrise Valley Drive Reston, Virginia 22092 Hr. Robert 1L Yarris U. S. Geological Slavey Building 25, Federal Center Denver, Golorado 80225 SUAHAMA% D*TS9H POTID hZC-318 (RcT. 9 53) AZCM 0240 4 U d. OOVCAHMSNT PAIHTINO OPPICCI IS'N 424 I44 ~ ~ +'ill >Q $ Q i ki ah l E II P d II eJ '4Q kR Fi 4 ~ UNITED STAT-"5 TOi>llC EH=>~GV'OMMISSIGJI'IS Vl*SHI24G7024h. O.C. 435 5 iloY 20. 1974 Docket i:o =" 50-275/323 Mr.- Stan Brockman . U.S..ideological Survey Building 25 (D3) Denver Federal Center Colorado 80225'enver, E h J ~ 2 I I h Sub ject: Amendment .(-20) to Diablo Canyon Repo'rt. 2 The -folloving document. material per'taining Fto revx,em: o f the. subject nuclear facility is b e ing transmitted. I E ' separately for your information 'I I ' F= PSAR Volumes AhhonIiooot No. To PSXR DaOoB Amendment No. To Environ. Rpt. Dated. ' J\ PSAK Volumes 'Nov. Amendm nt Ho. - To ~ PSAK, Dated. 8i,1974 !- h E - -1974 'I oTHER: Amdt.. s ent approx. Hov. 13, r F M. P..Gammill, Chief-- Site s'naalysLs '- Bxcnchh Direc torate of Licensing Docket File R. McMullen cc: R. Hofmann J. Osloond UNITED S:A TM i>) IC Kid iwG C COMMISSION VJASHINQTOIY. Q.Ci 235 5 ~ :.> - . ~ ~ -: vi Docket i o. 50-275/323 Hr. Robert '. ltorris U'.S. Geol ogi cal Survey-"- B) dg. 25, Federal Center Denver,. Colorado - 80225 t t I Subject: - Amendment-..(20) to Diablo Canyon Report ',-. 'I * Il I The following document. materi to'eview al pertaining ' of - tha subject nuclear fac" lity is,. b e ing transmit ted n separately for your .informati ll = PSAR Volumes / Amendment No. To PSAR Dated i P Amendm nt Ho. To Environ. Rp t. Dated 0 II CESAR Volumes I '20 -. -..'"".--.' Amendment Ho. To CESAR, Dated.- .1,974 i '- o E R.Amdt. se nt '-approx. Nov. 13,- 1974 P Gammill, Chief. Sate ~-nalysx,s E-cn"~ Directo- te of Licensing Docket File R. HcNullen R. Hofmann J. Osloond Distribution'ocket Fi1 LWR 1-3 Reading LWR 1-3 File ABC PDR Docket Nos. 50-275 Local PDR and 50-323 NOlJ'4 l974 WPGammill JCStepp RBMcMullen rr TJHirons, . DPAllison Mr. Prank McKeown VHWi1son U. S. Geological Survey Engineering G'eology Branch Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Dear Mr. NcKeovm: - Enclosed for your review is, a copy of Amendment 20 to the Diablo Canyon PSAR, This amendment contains revised material for Section 2.5 of the Diablo Canyon Pinal Safety Analysis Report. As mentioned in our letter of November 1, 1974, we would appreciate receiving your evaluation of the geology and seismology submitt'als by January 3, 1975.- Sincerely, O«84ai 8igaad by Clan Pa27 Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Project, Branch 1-3 Directorate of Licensing Enclosure: 20'mendment to, , Diablo Canyon„FSAR OffICE~ L:LWR 1~ L:QlQg-3 SURNAME~ TJHironQt1s ODParr /74. OAT@~ 11/g 11/g,f/74 orm ABC 3!8 IRev. 9.53) AECM 0240 OP@ Cdd Id dl40d S 44d d'70 j +~K g jet ~.n i „'1 «'4 '» k f .«~~»'.)f»('K« .K t» * \, *,„ . Kt kkPp.g p Kf» i'fls lK :V 5 .K,'-i/ ( I ~, Q, f;II f g I II ~ I ~ I li '1 f I fg I 'I I I I 'I ski I I I I ' I' k IO f I ~ k k I' *, ill ti: . fn I ( ,',%l tK» kl" » I (» I I 4 k 0, Distribution Docket File AEC PDR Local PDR LWR 1-3 Reading Docket Nos. 50-275 LWR 1-3 File and 50-323 WPGammill NOV ~4 97 JCStepp RBMcMullen TJHirons DPAllison Mr. James F. Devine VHWilson Department of the Interior U. S. Geological Survey National Center, hail Stop 908 South Lake Drive Reston, Virginia 22092 Dear Mr, Devine: Enclosed for your review are 2 copies of Amendment 20 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment contains revised material for Section 2.5 of the Final Safety Analysis Report. As mentioned in our letter of November 1, 1974, we would appreciate receiving your evaluation of the geology and seismology submittals by January 3, 1975. F Sincerely, Origin'.I -" oR-'S bX O],En PQIT Gian D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Project Branch 1-3 Directorate of Licensing Enclosure: ,- Amendment 20 to', Diablo Canyon FSAR LWR OFCICS~ L: L:L1% 1-3 SURfrAME~ TJHir ,cls ODParr 11/ g/74 11/if/74 OA5K~ Form AEC 318(Rev. 9-$ 3) AECM 0240 c~o cue re area.> 4ia a5a ',*l ll ~ ~ «I C ~ Pi . I «h C rf,' C C.' „) l wrL a» 'J"! ' C s ~ S / ~ a "a« 7 1 ~ s 1 - ' 'Jr ~ ~ ~ ~ r! r 'I Jl « ~ 'J« * ~ 7! 1 1 f J f « 'I ~ 1 f ~ 1 7 E 1 « 1 a 1 ~ «7 l f «a ~ /I 7 a'« ~ J J I . 7 «a 1 I-;1 l ««C " ~, y Pf JK 7 ! «.«w «1 « 7 fa E a J ~ ~ I « ' 'l 1 a«a !r ~7 «a« 1=! «a 1 ~ JJC, . I 17 ,7 «', l 1! r,l c alf Jfr *7,/a Cl,l~ N Distribution: Docket Fil AEG PDR Local PDR LWR 1-3 Reading Docket Nos. 50-275 LWR 1-3 File and 50-323 NOV 14»74 WPGammill JGStepp RBMcMullen TJHirons DPAllison .Mr. Fred Houser VHWilson Departmont of the Interior U. S. Geological Survey National Center, Mail Stop 908 12201 Sunrise Valley Dxive Reston, Virginia 22092 Dear Mr. Houser: Enclosed for your review are 3 copies of Amendment 20 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment contains revised material for Section 2.5 of the Diablo Canyon Final Safety Analysis Roport. As mentioned in our letter of November I, 1974, 've would appreciate xeceiving your evaluation of the geology and seismology submittals by January 3, l975. ,Sincorely, Original Signa/ Parr by'lan Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Pro)ect Branch 1-3 Directorate of Licensing .Enclosure: Amendment 20 to -Diabl'o Canyon 'FSAR L:LNR L'LWR 1-3 '%~ SURNAME~ TJHiro . ls ODParr 11/~g/74 0AQE+ ll/yy/74 Form ABC3fN IRov. 9-53) AECM 0840 oprr c44 10 or45&l 44o ohio It tl ~ ~ I > I'( I' 4 I I 1 ~ ' 4 1"sw I t I 4'l l e t' '» C ~ * ~ I r ! I 'I I'f4 re I I —, ~ ~ , I( e tr 4 f 4 tg Ir ' / 4 ~ S I 4 4 fIl I '\ l ';Pe f'C, 44 e l„ ' —e I~ I e ~ 4- ~ '. 44 f ''te , ~ 44 I te II «4 ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ I ~ I ee 4 C 44+ Distribution: Docket File LNR 1-3 Reading LWR 1-3 File AEC PDR Docket Nos. 50-275 Local PDR and 50-323 7< 1ltPGammill No~ 0 g $ JCStepp RBMcMullen TJHirons Mr. James F. Devine DAllison Department of the Interior VHÃilson U. S. Geological Survey National Center, Mail Stop 908 South Lake Drive Reston, Virginia 22092 Dear Mr. Devino: Enclosed for your review aro 2 copies of Amendment 19 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment contains PG5E's geology-seismology report and, in particular, a discussion of the offshore faults in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site. In order to maintain our licensing review schedule for Diablo Canyon, we would appreciate receiving your evaluation of this report by January 3, 1975. Yours truly, Ortglnal Signed by O. D. Parr Olan D. Parr, Chiof Light Mater Reactors Pro)oct Branch 1-3 Directorate of Licensing Enclosuro: Amendment 19 to Diablo Canyon FSAR (2) OPPICE3P. L: LI< 1-3 L,'@R 1-„3, SURNAME& D31ison:pg ODParr i.i/(/74 ll /(/74 DATE3P Form AEC-318 (Rev. 9.33) hECM 0240 Q U, S;OOVERNMENT PRINTINO OPPICEI 1074 520 ISO at. 1 hr N'4 IC >C-, ~ -r a .~ hbha>J l r - . ~ l» a 4 *'a, .a'hr ~ I e 4 .r 1 a ~ a-k, a r var r , a *,, w + ~ — I I, >444. ~ ~ hl' hhr a ~ Tr I, I ll,a'> 'aI > 'Jh,a '.ll. r,l',' .,4 ... "r...)e ~ , I : ~ lha * I ~ ~ IC l 1 r 'hale> 4 ~ J ~ ..'4 II, ~ f e I la„a l. ~ ~ e,inc ~ JJ ' -Distribution: Docket Fil'e LNR 1-3 Reading LNR 1-3 File AEC PDR Local PDR Docket Nos. 50-275 N01t 0 1 1974 and 50-323 NPGammill JCStepp RBMCMullen TJHirons Mr. Frank McKeown DAllison VHNilson U. S. Geological Survey Engineering Geology Branch Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Dear Mr. McKeown: Enclosed for your review is a copy of Amendment 19 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment contains PG5E's geology-seismology report, and in particular, a discussion of the offshore faults in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site. In order to maintain our licensing review schedule for Diablo Canyon, we would appreciate receiving your evaluation of this report by January 3, 1975. Yours truly, 'priglnal Signed bg p. D. parr Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Nater Reactors Project Branch 1-,3 Directorate of Licensing Enclosure: Amendment 19 to Diablo Canyon FSAR OFFICE~ A."l'NR.'l-;3 L:PJIQ 1-,3... SURNAME& DA~l ')on:yg ODParr DATEW 1P~/74 11/i/74 Porm AEC.318 (ROT. 9.53) hECM 0240 Q U, 81 OOVERNMENT PRINTIN4 OFFICEI 1074 624 IO4 Pt i« -/44/ 4 I '4> 'I ~ -/* / ' ~ ~ -4 4 4IC,ry t " II ),* ,4 > >4 4 /4 4 e»" UIQ 4 ' ~ ~ I' IP '« /',I/ k>, II/ 4 , .'~4- 1' 4 /4I PP 4 ~; ' >4 ~, > .4 4*.'> 4 ~ '4/> K~l< + 4- 4 / I «./4> 4 ~ ~ '1 ~ '/4IU ip 444 4>44>~AX > Distribution: Docket File AEC PDR Local PDR Docket Nos. 50«275 Noy 0 1 1974 WPGammill. and 50-323 .JCStepp RBMCMullen DAlljson TJHirons Mr. Fred Houser LWR 1-3 RekHing Department of the Interior LWR 1-3 File V. S. Geological Survey/ VHWilson National Center, hiail Stop 908 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, Virginia 22092 Dear htr. Houser: Enclosed for your review are 3 copies of Amendment 19 to the Diablo Canyon FSAR. This amendment contains PG4E's geology-seismology report and, in particular, a discussion of the offshore faults in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site. In order to maintain our licensing review schedule for Diablo Canyon, we would appreciate receiving your evaluation of this report by Januaxy 3, 1975. Yours truly, Original Signed by, 0. D. Parr Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Project Branch 1-3 Directorate of Licensing Enclosure: Amendment 19 to Diablo Canyon FSAR (3) OFFIC23F L: LWR 1-3 L:LWR 1-3 SURNAMSW ison:pga OS)a~a DATE~ 1///74 11/g /74 Foi AEC.318 (RST. 9-j3) AECM 0240 N U 0; OOVCRNMENTPRINTINO OPFICKI IOT4 020 l00 1 I . ~ LIF ~ ~ » r II ~ ily ~ «'L I 1 ~ I 4'»L IFB',j,»y)yd' I. I ~ y II 1 F I 4 4 F- »= I > ~ ~ 1 ' IIWII I I "4»'Py ~ ' J4»I.SP 44) 4I "1 1 Il » ~ I 4'..O' II 4 g 4ak ~ ~ " r.-L FI I 1 4 ~ '4 . I<"TIO. POR PART SO DUCE"-I MA- IAI 4 (~IPORARX POEM) CONTROL NO: 6876 CONSULTANT PRPi!: DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D. LTR TWX . RPT OTh" R United States -Department of the Xn erior Res ton, Virginiaj'22092 Elmer H. Baltz~ 7'-22-74 '-26-74 TO: ORXG CC 'TH:"R SENT AEC PDR XHOLD SENT LOCAL PDR XHOLD Mr. Gammill 1 signed CLASS UNCLASS PROP INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET ANO: 0-275/323 DESCRIPTION: ENCLOSURES: Ltr trans the following: (1) Track Chart (2) Copy of Inshore Ends of Seismic Reflection DIST PER J. I:OS~LOOND Profiles 1'0 to- 24. 4/h"ii!NV)Ndi'=~~L')Ugg'.=LI4 9 NOTE: AEC & LEAL PDR COPIES SENT TO R, GRAHAM $g FOR DIST go':tltot ( 1 cy ea encl rec-'d) Rej j,'e PLANT N>~ -'iablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 'FOR ACTXO:t/I:i=0~~ATION 7-29-7 BUTLER (L) SCHWENCER (L) ZXEMANN (L) REGAN (E) W/ CYS W/ CYS W/ CYS W/ CYS CLARK (L) STOLZ (L) DICKER (E) GAMMILL W/ CYS W/ CYS W/ .CYS W/ 2CYS ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~,PARR(L)g/WILSON VERA)~ALA.lG AAJ AN SLALOM'I 'i f I W/3 CYS W/ CYS W/ CYS W/ CYS KNXEL (L) PURPLE (r.) YOUNGBLOOD (E) W/ CYS W/ CYS W/ CYS W/ CYS INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION REG FILE'ECH REVIEW BENTON LXC ASST A/T XND GRIMES DIGGS (L) BRAITliAN ~CGC ~SCHROEDER GAlMILL GEARIN (L) . SALTZM>20 ~NTZXNG/STAFF i~rACCARY KASTNER GOULBOURNE (L) B, HURT CASE KNIGHT BALLARD KREUTZER (E) GXAl'fBUSSO PAWLXCKI SPANGLER r.EE (L) PLANS BOYD SHAO MAIGRET (1,) MCDONALD iMOORE (L)(LWR-2)'TELLO ENVIRO REED (E) CHAPi~fAN ~EYOUNG (L)(LIiR-1) HOUSTON MULLER SERVICE (L) DUBE w/input . SKOVHOLT (L) NOVAK DICKER SHEPPARD (L) ED COUPE GOLLER (L) ROSS KNIGHTON SLATER (E) PE COLLINS'PPOLITO YOUNGBLOOD SMITH (L) D. THOMPSON (2) DENISE TEDESCO REGAN TEETS (L) KLECKER REG OPR LONG - PROJECT MGR WILLIAMS (E) EISENHUT FILE & REGION (3) LAINAS WILSON (L) ~HIRONS(2t) MORRIS BENAROYA BLESS STEELE VOLLMER EXTERNAL DISTR1BUTION - LOCAL PDR San Luis Obis o, Cal. (HOLD) TIC (ABERNATHY) (1) (2) (10) -NATIONAL LABS . ~1-PDR-SAX/MlPCC8 1 - NSXC " - (BUCHANAN) 1-ASLBP(L/W Bldg, Rm 529) -BROOKHAVEN N T LAB ASLB 1-W, PEiNNINGTON) RmI E-201 GT 1-G ~ ULRIKSON) ORNL - P, R. BAVIS 1-B&M SWINEBROAD Bm E«201 GT „1-AGMED (RUTH GUSSMAN) 16 " ACRS HOLDING 1-CONSULTANTS Rm B-127 GT ANEWiMK/BLUE'rE/AGBABZAN 1-RD. ~ ."IUELLER) Rm F-309 A \ +Q) I ~ t 4+1 ~'r~g~w p ~() ' File CY, ~0- 75 ~ gg7 50,-323 r Q $0 United States Department of the Interior Vl 0 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092 July 22, 1974 Mr. William P. Gammill, Chief JUL.26 1974c Site Analysis Branch U.S. ATOMIC ENtkbY CQMI'AISSION Directorate of Licensing Regulatory U.S. Atomic'nergy. Commission Mail hction Washington, D.C. Gv Dear Mr. Gammill: Per our telephone conversation today, enclosed for your information is a copy of a track chart and a copy of the inshore ends of seismic . reflection profiles 10 to 24 and that were obtained by the Geological Survey aboard the USNS Bartlett in 1972. These profiles supplement later profiles made by the Survey in November, 1973 aboard the R/V Kelez as part of our AEC-sponsored project on California offshore geology and geophysics, and the Bartlett profiles are being used in our review of geologic conditions offshore from Diablo Canyon. Sincerely yours, Elmer H. Baltz Deputy Chief for Engineering Geology Office of Environmental Geology Enclosures Let's Clean Up America For Our 200th Birthday' 3 3 ' ~ 3 3, N I IN I N L 3 ~ 3 Uh'ITED STATES ATOivliC ENERGY COIM)MISS~~ V/ASH INC . ON, Q.C. 20545 July 3, 1974 Docke" No. 50- 5/323 Hr. V. V. ~~Ji ckey US Geological Survey Old Security Bank Building Boulder, Colorado 80225 Sno j ec t '- A~END~KNT (11) TO DlABLO CANYON REPORTS The folio«ing document material pertaining to reuse;.z of the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted ~ separately for your information. P SAR Volumes Amendment No. To PSAR Dated Amend-,ent No. 'o Environ. Rpt. Dated FSAR 'Volumes A-.end-..;en t Zo, 1 -To FSAR Dated 6/24/74 (Reed. 6/28/74 OTy.ER: Amdt. sent approx. 7/2/74. f illiam P. Gammill, Chief Si te Anal': sis Branch Direc tor. te of Licensing cc: 'cket File R. ifc~iiullen J. Osloond ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 'VMS) lli46 7ON, D.C. 205-'5 r July 3, 1974 t/AttS Tit~ Docke t No. 5W275/323 Hr. Fred N. Houser US Geological Survey Engineering Geology Branch Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 I l ec Sub j t:,AMENDMENT (11) TQ D~LQ C~QN REPORTS Tne following document material pertaining,'to review of "the subject nuclear facility is being transmitted 'separately for your information. PSAR Volumes emendmant Ro. To PRAR Dated Amendment No. To Environ. Rpt. Dated FSAR Volumes Amendment No. 11 To FSAR Dated 6/24 74 Reed. 6 28 0 THE R: Amdt. sent approx. 7/2/74. William P. Gammill, Chief Site Analysis Branch Director..te of Licensing cc:~ockat Pile R. McMullen J. Osloond J 4 AEC DI IBUTION POR PART 50 DOCEPT MA AL W (TEMPORARY FORM) CONTROL NO: 2801 FILE: CONSULTANT FROM DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR MEMO OTHER United States Department of the Interior Reston, Va. 22092 Elmer H. Baltz 3»28-74 4-2-74 TO s ORIG CC OTHER SENT AEC PDR SENT LOCAL PDR Mr. Gammill 1 signed CLASS UNCLASS PROP INFO INPUT NO S REC'D DOCKET NO'ESCRXPTXON: ENCLOSURES: Ltr trans the following: Prelimioar Review of aspects of geologic data presented in the ~ FSAR for the Diablo kX;I" IPI.IRK'o No'f Romoi/o PLANT NAME e Diablo Canyon Units 1 6 2 FOR ACTION/INFORMATION 4-3-74 BUTLER(L) SCHWENCER(L) ZIEMANN(L) REGAN (E) W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ .Copies CLARK(L) STOLZ(L) DICKER(E) W. PE GAMMXLL W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ 2 Copies ,GOLLER(L) VASSALLO(L): . KNIGHTON(E) " I W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies KNIEL(L) SCHEMEL(L) YOUNGBLOOD(E) W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION G FILE TECH REVIEW BENTON A/T IND AE >HENDRIE GRIMES LXC ASST BRAIIMAN OGC, ROOM P-506A BN SCHROEDER GRfMILL DIGGS (L) S ALLAN B, HURT MUNTZING/STAFF MACCARY KASTNER GEARIN (L) CASE KNIGHT BALLARD GOULBOURNE (L) PLANE GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKI SPANGLER LEE (L) MCDONALD BOYD SHAO MAIGRET (L) DUBE w/Inpu t MOORE (L) (BWR) STELLO ENVIRO REED (E) INFO DEYOUNG(L) (PWR) HOUSTON MULLER SERVICE (L) C. MILES SKOVHOLT (L) NOVAK DICKER SHEPPARD (L) B, KXNG P, COLLINS ROSS KNIGHTON SLATER (E) DENXSE IPPOLITO YOUNGBLOOD SMITH (L) REG OPR TEDESCO REGAN TEETS (L) PILE G REGION(3) LONG PROJECT LDR WADE (E) MORRIS LAINAS WILLIAMS STEELE BENAROYA HARLESS (L)(E)'ILSON VOLIkfER- EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 1 - LOCAL PDR 1 - DTIE(ABERNATHY) (1) (2X 10).NATIONAL LAB' 1"PDR-SAN/LA/NY 1 « NSIC(BUCHANAN) 1-ASLBP(E/N Bldg,gm 529) 1-GERALD LELLOUCHE 1 - ASLB(YORE '-W PENNINGTONB Rm E 201 GT BROOKHAVEN NAT. LAB 1-CONSULTANT'S 1"AGMED(Ruth Gussroan) 16 - CYS ACRS HOLDING NEWARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN RM- B-127, GT. 1-GERALD ULRXKSON...ORNL 1-RD..lfULLERWeF-309 GT Pp I ~p> 0 ~ '„>»>,'"x/ AoguT>>tory'V United S'tates Department of the Interior~ 0 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY -KASNNQT4N;-BG--2024Q- Reston, Va. 22092 March 28, 1 NOCRggy 50-323 UR~Q'PRE Mr. William P. Gamnd.lip Chief egypt Site Analysis 3ranch 5 Directorate of Licensing Office of Regulation U. S. Atomic Energy Commission ! Washington, D. C. 20545 ~(> Dear Mr. Gamnd.ll: Enclosed for your information is a preliminary review of aspects of geologic data presented in the PSAR for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear power plant site, units 1 and 2, California (AEC Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50 +3) o As you know, Mr. H. C. Wagner of our Office of Marine Geology is preparing a review of offshore geophysical data collected by the Geological Survey and by the applicant. We expect this review to be completed shortly. Sincerely yours, Elmer H. Baltz Deputy Chief for Engineering Geology Office of Environmental Geology Enclosure l ~ P ~ \= ~ I~ ~ s " II ~ r' . J ~ p ~ M V ~ ~p Preliminary Review Diablo Canyon, Calif. F. A. McKeown January 23, 1974 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon site, Units 1 and 2 San Luis Obispo County, California ~ AEC-Docket Nos. 50-275 and= 50-323- Geology A preliminary review of the geological and seismological data presented in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant site, Units 1 and 2, indicates the need I for additional information. The report appears to have included ~ .data and discussions of nearly all geologic and seismologic.features pertinent to the safe operation of the plant. One feature, however, for which adequate information is not provided is an offshore fault or structural zone which has been recognized since presentation and review of the Preliminary Safety. Analysis-Report (PSAR). The-principal geologic and seismologic features of importance to the site are small faults near or within the site area and large faults along which large earthquakes may occur several miles from the site. The occurrence of small faults that do not cut terrace deposits near and within .parts of the plant site is documented and explained in sufficient detail to accept them as noncapable faults within the definition of AEC criteria for capable faults,. The proposed four maximum earthquakes (pages 2.5-12 and -13) that could 4 affect the site are reasonable'. However, since these four possible earthquakes were proposed by Benioff and Smith (1967), a fault or structurally disturbed zone with a length of 90 miles or more that passes within 7 or 8 miles offshore of the site has been interpreted by Hoskins and Griffi'ths, (1971). Th'is structural'one i's discussed on pages 2.5-10, -ll, and '- -67 of the FSAR. As stated by the applicant on page 2.5-67 "Ava'ilable data. for the reported offshore structural zone are not conclusive for determining its extent, continuity, and state of activity." The applicant's descriptions of the, zone are taken from the work of Hoskins -and Griffiths who show it as a fault. Their interpretations of the displacements along the zone, which the applicant presumably accepts, do not indicate that the sea floor or Holocene deposits have I been offset. The basic data upon which the interpretations have been made, however, are not presented by either the applicant or Hoskins" an'd Griffiths. Seismic activity along and in the vicinity of the zone's shown in figures 2".5-3 and 2.5-3A and discussed on page 2.5-67 in the FSAR. It is probable that the accuracy of the 'locations of the earthquake epicenters shown in the figures is too poor to relate them conclusively to the zone; conversely, they cannot be disassociated from the zone. The question of whether the zone is a fault or contains faults that are capable within the definition of AEC criteria is therefore unresolved. 2 r ~ ' V )1 ~ I ~ ( 4 ( L ~( Because of the apparent length and proximity of the offshore zone to the site, consideration of the zone as another possible source of a maximum earthquake in addition to the four propcsed by the applicant may be necessary. Until definitive information is presented to demonstrate otherwise, prudence requires that the zone. be'onsidered capable. References Benioff, H., and Smith, S. W., 1967, Seismic evaluation of the Diablo Canyon site, Diablo Canyon, Unit 1: PSAR Docket'o. ( 50-275, and Diablo Canyon Unit 2,: PSAR Docket No. 50-323. Hoskins, E. G., and Griffiths, J. R., 1971, Hydrocarbon potential of northern and central California offshore, in Cram, I. H., ed., Future petroleum provinces of the United States —their geology and potential: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mem. 15, v. 1,, p. 212-218. ~ + ~ c,'( de.' > 4 'I j 4 r I January 28,,1974 50-275/323 Pr 6 0 Michey US Geological Survey'ld Security Banh, Building Boulder, Colorado 80302 Subject. ~HDHEHT HO 2 TO .DIABLO CAHYOH RSAR The following documents concerning our of the subject facility x@gg~~~~gg~g~ havereviewerKeen sent separately Notice of Receipt of Application. Draft Environmental Statement, dated Final Environmental Statement, dated Safety Evaluation, or Supplement No., dated Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License. Application and Safety Analysis Report, Vol. 2 Amendment No. to Application/SAR, dated l/lS/74 Construction Permit No. CPPR- , dated Facility Operating License No. DPR- , dated Technical Specifications, or Change No. , dated Other: Directorate of Licensing Site Analysis Branch R' %fi5%%fFs: IUXliam Gammill, hief ~MFd . Docket, Rile R McHullen J Stepp ~ 8 Don OFFICE e sURMAhtE ~ OATE ~ Fona AEC-318 (Rev. 9-53) AEChf 0240 cee c48 10 81455 1 445 078 ~ 1- «I 1= 4R.«> 4 g ~ Pa ~ 4 «hg ~ wR«h g «J4 11 *, l,(rr 1 ) 4'«p )~ I) R).R,Z r.. R,, '« Iv «*1 III 4 « ~ rr) 1 ~ .t h«i~- Ph«, ' 'lR, I ' d ~ « 11 ., " .«Ii Rr 4 r «r january 28~ 1974 Docket No. 50-2Z5/323 Hr. Pzed H. Rouser US GeoIogica1 Survey Engineering Geology Branch Denver Pedeza1 Center Denver, CoIorado 80225 Subject: AHEHDMEHX HO 2 TO DXASLO CAHYOH PShR The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility Notice of Receipt of Application. Draft Environmental Statement, dated Final Environmental Statement, dated Safety Evaluation, or Supplement No., dated Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit. Notice of Consideration of issuance of Facility Operating License. Application and Safety Analysis Report, Vol. g Amendment No. to Application/SAR, dated Construction Permit No. CPPR- , dated Facility Operating License No. DPR- , dated Technical Specifications, or Change No. , dated Other: Directorate of Licensing Site Analysis Branc MI%ian P Gammill» Chief cc: Docket Pike Ro HcHnllen J. Ste J., Oaloond OFFICE A SURNhhIE ~ OATE % Form AEC-318 (Rev. R-33) AEChf 0240 aeo caa-Ia-aI4aa-I 44a-ara 'I ,P ' 3»P ~ P , ".T h .. 33»',» «PL~«» h'."17'.'Tk". 'T,"waif>w 203>I'3~i'~'3! »Q'«QP~;"3|i'OJP~" t'TI)3 'hc.P I Pq P 'hf '' y lfghfgg)t, PP I Ph!h'- 3 « ~ "7i I" If'.([ ) I g ) VPPgg'I.I»PE' '' II( T «g'f I I, ', "I '>' ~ 3'V 'i "-"»~y f. )3'fhi'I 33 ',l ~ 3 . ', I)'I! 1 TT g( '( g!'g )fi Pfg,; »3" f'='i IT[,I 5 '' I ~ . 1' Jh, Il .'T fh ~, '.'I ' 3.1 » b =h - I ~ * ~ P) w 3 3- ZKSTBIBUTXON: Suppl o DBL ReacLing RPB-'5 Reading Orig: Hsteele (2) R. S. Boyd. Docket Ro. 50-275 J. F. Newell , 71r. Howard. H. Valdron U. S. Geolog1cal Survey Engineering Geology Branch Denver Federal Center Denver~ Colorado 80225 Dear Nr. caldron: For your information, T enclose a copy of' Safety Evaluation dateC January 23, 1968, prepared. by the Division of Reactor Licensing in the matter of Pac1f1c Gas and. Electric Conpany Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Comments prepared. by the U. S. Geological Survey are attached, as-Appendix D to th1s report. Sincerely +ours p Original signed by Robert L.~ Tedesco' Roger S. Boyd.~ Assistant Director for Reactor Prospects Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosnre: As stateC above cc: Nr. Ihdght M. Lemmon OFFICE > —4RL—--- -— DFYmu h SURNAME > HSteele 2/7/68 2/ / DATE I Porm AC-318 (Bee. 043) MLS.GOVKRNNKNTPRINTINC OAXKa I~2 I4~ F p :".'".0 Z'D C:k~Y~;E», ~ X<( 5ji» XD ZO»D ~fDE '03i». j.. C»'~-I ( ~) CldOZD.I.":~Z'XQ ':|,,uG...G ~fo~r~ii Su( j 0)'] I I I ~ p fl» A D i»D ID»'» AA.J, IIP" QJI ' ] I ft I DD V 1 Ik r IDA , t III)&pl DI, AI» I p A I ~ . AIA ~ » P A ~ » ".A. ~ 43DJ. 4 P-- = ~ »'5 f IDS f » ~ ~ ' VI DISTRISUTION: Suppl.. DRL Reading RP3-5 Reading Orig: HSteele (2) FEB '7 1968 R. S. 3oyd. Docket Ho. 50-275 J. F. Newell 1h'. Dwight N. Lemzen Assistant Chief Geologist U. S. Geologicil Survey U. S. Department of the Xnterior Room 4214~ GSA 3uilding Washington, D. C. 20242 Dear Nr. Lenunon: For your information, I enclose a copy of a Safety Evaluation dated. January 23, 1968, prepared. by the Division of Reactor Licensing in the matter of Pacific Gas and. Electric Company IKablo Canyon Ijtuclear Power Plant. Comments prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey are attached. as AppeIRlQc D to this reporto Sincerely yours, Qriginai signed by Robert.'.~ Tedesco oger S.~ 3oyd., Assistant Director for Reactor Prospects Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: As stated. above, RP/DRL RP3-5/DRL OFFlCE > Hstecle/cLK DFKnu SURNAME p DATE > 2/7/68 2/g ABC-318 (Rev. %arm ~) lAS,GOVERNMENTPRINTING OFF@2 i1~2I4%20 P : liOI'X(iF'XBTBX4 ~ J(,C'i v ~r'j«~AOv~ > .f~C. irGLV MQl= Q 6 =.ik ('): Load~h;. I'sO c'." v0 t v ~ ~ ~ ~ 4, HIPS XL~uo...x .T ~, V, vV ~ v V ~ V ' 1 r I I V r I ~ I ~ i ~ 4 I v, v,'V 1 ~ v 4A ~ VIV %4ll,f,vv \ v 'I k v r V l 'l4 ' i E* * fglv ) VV V v V V v 0 DISTRIBUTION: Suppl., DRL ReacLLng RPB-5 ReacU.ng Orig; HSteele (2) R. S. „Boyd. FEB -7 Bgg J. F. Nevell Docket No. 50-275 14r. William N. $Bd.te, Chief Division of River Basin Studies Bureau of Sport Fisheries and. Wildlife U. S. Department of the interior Uashington~ D. C. 20240 Dear Nr. Mhite-- For your information, I enclose a copy of a Safety Evaluation dated. January 23, 1968, prepared, by the Division of Reactor Licensing M the matter of Pacific Gas and, Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Pover Plant. Comments prepared. by the Fish aud. LlildlifeService are attached, as Appendices Q«l and. 6-2 to this report. Sincerely yours~ I I;,'I„„ii SIgned by 'gilbert L. Tedesco Roger S. Boyd,, Assistant erector for Reactor Prospects Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: As stated. above OFFICE p IqJIIRZ, RPB-"),/ SURIIAMEQ HStee e d.s DFKnuth DATE > 2/7/68 Porm Am'18 (Bev. !WN) IAS.COVtRNIQÃZPRINlXCOFACK iI~W 029 ~ ~ 1 i b hJ *4' .Ii.t >11, » ~ y tf bbb J ibt i. tf t ..~ ~ 1 1 ~ .b i 1 W „ I P, II', 1 ,I > >.b f ~ i 11 J','gu I 1 htt t I I \ I ~ fit 1>1 1, „ tb hftt ~ b hb ( «(.'» L'g f Eb yEh) h p D DISTRIBUTION: 'uppl DRL Reading RPB-5 Reading Orig HKaras R. S. BoycL D. F. Knuth Docket Eo. 50-275 'gg,N 2S 1S68 Nr. Ihight M. Lemmon Assistant Chief Geologist U. S. Geological Survey U. S. Department of the Xnteriox, Room 4212, GSA Building Mashington, D. C. 20242 Dear th. Lemmon: This supplements our letter to you dated. October 25, 1967 concerning the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Euclear Plant at the Diablo Canyon Site. Two copies of POCK Co's letter date4 December 14~ 1967 transmitting revised Page 2 to Amendment Eo. 5 to the application for license are attached, for your use. Sincerely yours~ Roger S. Boycl, Assistant Director for Reactor Prospects Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: Page'evised. 2 to Amendment Zo. 5 (2) OFFICE > aras/d.s SURNAME > 68 DATE > 1+>/68 1/II, AEC-318 9-53) Porm (IIov. LLS. GOVERNMKNTPRINTINCOFF KE:1~214<20 ~N ~ IPN P N NP( P ~ ~ 'I ' )lg, N g I \N 19 e P ~ IN ~ NP,' NNP I ~ ,'N P J PN'I I 1 ' ' NN' 'I N I J 1P lN I NING P ~, IN-,) ~ V l 4" lp,P 'I Q'& IN REPLY REFER TO: IIIT OS ( ~ly qV'Z UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND V!ILDLIFESERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 Mr. Harold. L, Price - Director of Regulations JAN 3 ]968 U. S, Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C, 20545 Dear Mr. Price: This is in response to Mr. Boyd's letters of July 31, and. August ll, 1967, transmitting Amendments Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report of the application by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a construction permit for the proposed. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant, San Luis Obispo County, California, Docket No. 50»275. The Service has reviewed, Amendments Nos. 1, 2, and. 3 and. has the following comments on the proposed environmental monitoring program contained. in Amendment No. 1 and on the cooling water intake str'ucture contained in Amendment No. 3: The proposed environmental monitoring program generally conforms to the recanmendations in our June 23 letter to the Commission; however, the applicant's proposal does not include collection and examination of water and, sediment samples which we recommended. and. consider a necessary part of'he monitoring program. Fish and. wildlife resources would be insured. of more adequate protec- tion from radiological hazards with implementation of the monitoring program along with,other proposed safeguards, provided. that water and. sediment samples are included in the program and. that initial liquid waste discharge limits are adjusted if considered. necessary. Specifications for the cooling water intake structure contained in Amendment No. 3 do not include adequate information for an analysis of possible effects on fish and, wildlife. The bar racks and traveling screens designed primarily to keep debris 'ut of the system could. serve the additional purpose of minimi- zing harm to fish and. Qlg+P'e provided that intake velocities were not limiting. Being'ognizant"of.".t1ie'>CommissionIs opinion that its regulatory authority does not apply to other than radiological hazards, we recommend th'aC"the Commission urge the Pacific Gas and Electric Company to consult with the Fish and. Wildlife Service and..the Resources Agency of California in establishing final design criteria for the intake structure. 4 hhg 4(7 ~ I (I 1 lr ~ *@I ' r ~ ' l. C 4 j t ~ V, 4 PI ~ r I I»I ~ ~ (» »P ' ~ „ f, ~ r- 4 , I ~ ~ I ' 4 ~ V 4 I ll ' p, g, r PIP r ~ I I V p pv ~ Phrs»h ~ ffi f) I ~ > ', rh, '' ~ 1 4 II >P '> - ~ jt ~ II 4 ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ I 'il fj' . 'i ~ I g7> ~ (p 7 4 ~ 'PCh .4 I fr, (» P 4 'V Il ". J t ' 4 II 4 Q '(( tf ~ffj ~ I ~ ~ 4 ~ I( I III P) =C 4 P 4 ~ rt Ih ~ ~ ~ I (P, ( 0 4 ~ 4 r « ~ tf 1,4 ~ ~ f ' ' 4' Ph t , h CI r' r I ~ P' I ~ 4 ~ I I P ~ IP I * ~ ( ~ 1 ~ r '4' I ' 4 4»tq rr ~ (I I hh 4 :«Ngg33S SO~03% 'P,lWH" . PSOlV1%|9383lli'OlV'S'0 " A98iti3 t 'Ifi/03 4) f ' fr 4 '6'"N "0 NNN6l" I G0 I ~ » 4 II 03hl3338 The opportunity for presenting our views on these amendments is appreciated.. t Sincere+ yours, G arence . Pautzke C'ommissioner 33 K ~ ~ ~ Z C) l- KJ +M K) lK K KW -J~.D ~ g ~ 1 ~C'A K ( C'DC. l @ K < 'I ~ r~ Cx CA K,< Jr% sl ~ s a en -a ~ Distribution Suppl. October 25, 1967 DRL Rdg. RPB-2 Rdg. Docket No. 50-275 Orig: HSteele (2) R. S. Boyd Tech.,Reviewer J.-F. Newell t Mr. Dwight M. T.emmon Assistant Chief Geologist U. S. Geological Survey " U. S. Department of the Xnterior Room 4214, GSA Building Uashington, D. C. 20242 Dear Iir. Lemmon: Two copies of Amendment No. 5 to the Pacific Gas and Blectric Company's facility license application are enclosed for your use. In addition to certain financial data, the amendment contains the Fourth Supplement, to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the proposed nuclear plant at the appli- cant's Diablo Canyon site Sincerely yours, 01iginal signed by, H, Steele ger S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Prospects Division of Reactor Licensing Bnclosure: Amendment Ho. 5 (2 cys) OFFICE > .....SRL'RP- sURNAME > ..HS.teele ~3- DATE W M/25/67 Form AEC-318 (Rov. !H3) V f.GOVERNMENTPRINTINGOFFKE ~P ~ 4 l V a h g(l LOlt~~l+ ffstlg;hI kV afooPP, .H „ 4 ~ »N I~1 gHT 0) C) ge UNITED STATES 0 4I DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SU RVEY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20242 SEP 21 1967 Mr. Harold. T ~ Price Director of Regulation U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 4915 St. Elmo Avenue Bethesda~ Maryland. 20545 Dear Mr. Price: Transmitted. herewith in response to the request of Mr. Edson G. Case dated. February 6~ 1967, i.s a review of the geologic and. hydrologic aspects of the license application of the Pacific Gas and. Electri.c Company, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Site. This review prepared. by Henry V. Coulter and. Eric L. Meyer of the Geological Survey has been discussed with members of your staff and. we have no objections to your making it a part of the public record,. Sincerely yours, Acti'n8 Director Enclosures Ix) e'Q P P ~ P I P ~ IP IP P I 'I ~ P Diablo Canyon Site AEC Docket 50-275 Hydrology The site is on the shore of the Pacific Ocean in San Luis Obispo County, near the mouth of Diablo Canyon Creek. The reactor is to be located. on a terrace on the left 'bank of the Creek at a grade altitude of 85 feet above mean sea level. Cooling water is to be obtained. from an intake at the ocean south of the reactor and. discharged. about 1,200 feet north of the intake. A spit of land. extends about 1,000 feet into the ocean between the intake and. discharge points. The reactor location would. not be affected. by floods of Diablo Canyon Creek, the only deve3oped. drainage nearby. The switchyard., however, is shown as occupying a part of the canyon where it could. be affected. by flooding. There are no reports of ground water developments in the vicinity of the site. Xt does not appear that the reactor would. affect fresh- water resources of the area. ~ Geology The analysis of the geology of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Site presented, in A.E.C. Docket No. 50-275 and. supplements was reviewed and, compared. with the available literature, and. the exploratory trenches. at the site were examined. on August 14-15,- 1966. The analysis appears to be carefully derived, and. to present an adequate appraisal of those aspects of the geology which would. be pertinent to an engineering evaluation of the site. l fe 4 Ife I f ke e! Lll . gl l ll e ~ -.* e ~ 'I ee+ +ff 1 e I h I e f ee„f'fe f' I ~ e e»I,, "~ - ( e''( ef fe','.,e '* .e,f(e ee l 4 ~ 'ef II ~ gee I' e ~ eel+ ry fry ~~ „ f fe f \ 4f e 1 Jl, ~ - 'A, ~ , ~ e. ~eg ee ~ Aeee, 4 I eA ~ ~ ei f $ I ee'l, k. - CPA V,V" ~ ee» e4 ~ I efff ~ ~ ~ ~ ee ~ a ~ e ~ f ~ ~ e eee ll ~ 1 f„ f f,' ',$ 0 f $ g, ~ *f-4 ( ~ 'ee ~ e fef ee ~ e Ie e' fee' > "~ f Me ~ ~ ,e e eff 4 ~ I e '" ( I ~ eee ee ~ e1 Minor foundation and, slope stability problems which may require small scale design modifications can be anticipated during the excava- tion phase of construction. Such modifications should, be within the limits of standard, engineering practice. There are no identifiable geologic structures which could. be expected to localize earthquakes in the immediate vicinity of the site. ,'Henry M. Coulter Eric L. Neyer ' C WP ' ~ ~ Pf AA ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ PPQ ~ I ' '.l (. '(i ~ Pv VA P ~ I' 'PP ~ P c 'I p,> .p-(AA A A ' ~ ( VAN P V <. ~ A I A ~ \ 'P AV ~ 5IA~, v - I g<'"+Ag&g ~ ~ v v S OPS ~~A~ +V' (gJ 5 )WVAWAg A v 1lVll September 19, 1967 Dis tribution: pi~! Supplemental Docket Eo 50-275 r~ DRL Reading RPB P2 Reading Orig: HSteele (2) R. S. Boyd OGC J. F. Newell Hr. Lfelvin A. Honson Branch of Permits Division of River Basin Studies Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Uildlife U. S. Department of the Xntcrior Lfashington, D. C. 20240 Dear kh. jonson: Xn accordance vith x'ecently established procedures, the Atomic Energy Commission has forvarded to the Pacific Cas and Electric Company a copy of the U. S. Pish and Uildlife Report containing comEIents .and recommendations on both radiological and non- radiological effects of the proposed operation of a nuclear power reactor at the applicant's Diablo Canyon site located in San Luis Obispo County, California. A copy of Dr. Morris'etter of September 15, 1967, .to Che appli- cant is enclosed for your information. You vill note that copies of the September '15th letter, together Wth the Pish and Uildlife Report have been sent to the appxopriate state and local officials in California. Sincerely yours, Orit;ideal simed by: Roger 8. Boyd Roger S.,Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: AEC ltr. to PGGZ dtd. 9/15/67 ART. ~ OFFICE P reteeeep RP HSteel SURNAME > dj DATE W 9/19/67 9/ 'P/67 Form AEC 318 (ndv. 043) II.S. GOVERN NENF FR IIVINGOFFICE e l~214'd20 RK' :««oXa *« I)$4@ ~ f> ~ rg h«C)L> «fe;mg .'4 .T. I R I ~ k ' I h ' ' ~ > lt f ~ ft ~ ~ f' ht the 7) ~ h'I ~ 'r II II II I'I b I k I« Rh h I~ I p K II hl ,Ill>I r h r d p R Rr ~ > f ~ 3 ~ r. f'7- «" «> L "«','fr y(g f) i~i ~ i gi RnO gy«74 .R)i 'l9QOS p k I R Rh Ij K ' * 1 Dis tributio Suppl.„ AUG 11 ISg DRL Reading RPB 2 Reading Orig: HSteele (2) Doclcet No. 50 275 R. S. Boyd Tech, Reviewer J P. Newell Hr. Dwight H. Lemmon Assistant Chief Geologist U. S. Geological Survey U. S. Department of the Xnterior Room 4214, GSA Building lfashington, D. C. 20242 Dear Hr. Lemmon: A copy of the Third Supplement to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report fox the nuclear reactor which Pacific Gas and Electx'ic Company proposes to construct and operate at its Diablo Canyon Site is enclosed for youx use. The supplement contains additional technical data in the form of answers to questions x'aised'y the Commission. Sincerely yours, Original signed by K Steele Roger S.~ Boyd,~ Assistant Director for Reactor Pro)ects Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: Third Suppl. to PSAR (Diablo Canyon Site) OFFICE W ..... Whuff SURNAME > ....HSj:eels/dj..... 8/10/67 DATE P Form AEC-318 (Rov. 943) U.S. GOVERN RENT PRINTING OEEIEE '. I ~2 II 420 UIQPQ «>Q JQJ Pg+ 'P„". Jqq<8 lIBUA, ;,rzilbae2 LEG 95 „"r)ibsen S 888 (2) elsaa&H :aix0 c' Elg08 ~ 5f XGliSiVSS) off09T LIGc)QH ~ ll f ~ I I jU ~ . P, ~ «U. ~ P lll, « IgU', ~, U) ««' ' ).,)ifl Il ll El', ~, "f Uf ~ W, j ~ I I, « 'll AIU) ''g«y UU) 0 ~ fl )'t I Il I,, S JIU) I ~ ll i U Dis tribution: AUG 11 86T Suppl,'RL Reading RPB 2 Reading Orig: HSteele Docket Ho. 50 275 (2) R. S. Boyd Tech. Reviewer J. F'ewell, Hr. lie'1vin A. Honson Branch of Permits Division of River Basin Studies Bureau of .Sport Fisheries and Uildlife U. S. Department of the Xnterior Uashington, D. C. 20240 Dear Ur. Ifonson: A Copy of the Third Supplement to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the nuclear reactor which Pacific Gas , and Electric Company proposes to construct and operate at its Diablo Canyon Site is enclosed for your use. The supplement contains additional technical data in the form of answers to questions raised by the Commission. Sincerely yours, signed by H.~ Steele 'riginal k Roger S.~ Boyd, Assistant Dixector fox Reactor Pro)ects Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: ! Third Suppl. to PELE (Diablo Canyon Site) OFFICE I 1hAhtyDDT AkDD SURNAME W --Nt e DATE > 8/10/67 Form AZC-318 (Rev. 043) III.COVERNIIENTPRINTINOOffIEE.1~2II-e20 4'1(.(f- .1Jf »i " ', '4 > a«' ,j ">4 '.14 4 f» f . P" $ 3 I'»Li.« fg f'> I ~ f ~ 1 ~C« I 14lf 'I '«' S" ~ «r.'» >«f ) ff f ««hatt( 4«"1 ((,» 8«( P . 4, ««.f ~J 4"»f4 < ~ f11 =3 Wf lie 4 4» "' 1 I« ' II ( ~ «f,»A 0 C»JJI ( j . Paf ia f. («4 f >4 ~ 1fXJ «J«,14 4 JP Jl I «1,11 4 I f,J ~ f) «'l1 11 1 DisSuppl.~tribution: DRL" Reading RPB 2 Reading Doclcet LTo. 50-275 JUL $ 1 f967 Orig: HSteele (2) R. S. Boyd Tech. Reviewer J. P. Newell kh'. Melvin A. jonson Branch of Permits Division of River Easin Studies Bureau of Spoxt Fisheries .and Wildlife Q. S. Department of the Xnterior Uashington, D. C. 20240 Dear Eir jonson: Copies of Amendments Hos. 1 and 2 to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's facility license application are enclosed for your use. The amendments consist of the First and Second Supplerents to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the proposed Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor, and contain additional technical data requested by the Commission. Sincerely youxs, Original signed by H. Steele Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Pro)acts Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosuxes: As stated above ~ OFFICE W RT. RD 4 SURNAME > ....HSteele/d).... 7/3l/67 DATE IP Porm AEC-318 (IIop. ~) II% NIIVPPNMNMYPPINIINNIIPPIPP~ IN~PI@ IIPII 'a i 1 1 1 a O' I c'>. U»l ". J) ~ a 4 1 .» $ <) * ~ 1 I ","'1',I f' U' a 'J 'I ,'ll JF) !f C'J, ) »)I .. *» 1 U J ~ '' „„S 1 ~), ~ 1 1 ', „ Jf U y, 'a » 3( '")™) '" 1 ~ » l ~ a f I 'J . LI I, Jtt' ~ F I, 1, fl 1'1 aa * 1' Distribution: Suppl. DRL Reading~ RPB 2 Reading JUL3~ Doclcet Lo. 50-275 F67 Orig: HSteele (2) R. S. Boyd Tech. Reviewer J. F. Newell Ih'. QUight H. Lemmon Assistant Chief Geologist'. S. Geological, Survey U. S. Department of the Xnterior Rom 4214, GSA Building Hashington, Q. C. 20242 Dear 5!r. Lemmon: Copies of Amendments Nos. 1 and R to Pacific Gas and Electric Cenpany's facility license application are enclosed for your useo The amendments consist of the First and Second Supplements to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for tho proposed Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor, and contain additional technical data, requested by the ComEIission. Sincerely yours, Original signed by H. Steele Rogex'. Boyd, Assistant Directox for Reactox Pro)acts Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosures: As stated above OFFICE p SURNAME > ...MS'ich+. 7/31/67 DATE > Porm ARC-318 (Rov. 043) U.S.GOVENNNENTPIIINIINGOFFICE I~2M&22 :BOOXN o':6X'X5 BP(i «galbss,'. M~4 grribssB 2 G<~."'g) 8$ 95g pH 'Qx <~8 r C~« f)JOG ~ 8 ~ F~» 1 &lr79LVGH ~ f",'04 L LXa~~sVi I'" IP C 'fd feria bmigivo ehat8 .H F »'F "I I '' ' '> DATEPF DOCUIIIENY:,' 'ATERECEIVED,, I NO.f '; <,'~ii I:,'.'',I Ii™APL,a kk @04-,'-O'-W8+,"' - '~v~v '!~i=~ka- . VkW>:Se;7 ",lQ3~i L'fR,, ', MEMO' ~EGA: OillER TO: ORIG.: CCI OTHER 9 c Qo repx'04llcQ8, ACTION NECESSARY Q CONCURRENCE Q DATE ANSVVERED) NO ACTION NECESSARY Q CoauuENT Q BY> CLASSIF.I POST OFFICE Pgg~gg $0-gg tSQM o OMX) REG. NOI REFERRED TO DATE RECEIVED BY DATE X.tro XurniaMag their coxwnts on the apollo oZ the PKE Coo d'or tbsp peopoae8 3)LGMO CQx+OG KQcleet')RQx, PLQxLtooooo oo v/1 c o R ACTXOH Ln Xe tO Our Caserne 2-6-67 Xtro ENCLOSURES: gjabrgbudionI Q su992o fQu (u>2R II/y uyg 00 NOT RE U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION MA(L CQQTRQg FQRM FORM AEC.8268 IB 60I YY U. S. COVRRNMENf PRINTING OFFICE: 19dd 235 SI9 r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ < r 4 IN REPLY REFER TO: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFESERVICE gL WASHINGTON 25, D. C. Mr. Harold L. Price JUN 2 3 1967 Director of Regulations U. S. Atomic Energy Comnd.ssion Washingtonp D. C. 205II5 Dear Mr. Price: This is in reply to Mr. Zdson G.. Case's letter of February 6, 1967~ requesting our comments on the application of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for license for its proposed. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, San Luis Obispo County, California, Docket No. 50-275.. The prospect would be located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean on the California coast about 12 ndles west southwest of San Luis Obispo, California. A pressurized water reactor, designed, for an initia1 output of 3~250 thermal megawatts, and an approximate net electrical output of 1,060 megawatts would be used, as a power source. A radioactive waste disposal system and, other facilities required for a complete and operable nuclear power plant would, be provided. Gaseous wastes would be vented to the atmosphere, and liquid wastes would be discharged to the Pacific Ocean via the condenser cooling water. Condenser cooling water would be pumped from the Pacific Ocean through traveling water screens and returned to the ocean at the water's edge in Diablo Cove. 5 Detailed design criteria far the cooling water system have not been finalized at this time. The applicant plans to initiate a radiological survey of the area about two years before plant operation. Details of this program have not been completed, but special emphasis willbe placed on the edible marine species which are present in Diablo Cove. The applicant has contracted for ecological studies of the marine env'tronment, and the Resources Agency of Ca1ifornia has made similar investigations. The results indicate that existing flora and fauna are a highly diversified mixture of warmwater and cold« water forms. These studies will be continued in order t'o adequately descxibe seasonal changes. Special emphasis will be placed on seaweed, which appears to be the chief source of organic activity. 2.3-25 I I~ T V ~ Ia.. - ~ "I I v, 'I ~ l il »V VL», jt I V ~ »I I ~ ~ 'll ~ ' ~ „» )J l ' » C t . *, » ~ »,I Ft I"I ~ "Ittjg » j' ~ V j / l J "i )I It I~ V V L I ) j fV » ~ ' . » F I ,I ~ ~ ~ . VFI f F ~ ' V ~ -' I ~ » C ~ I »tl It» I ~jt F I ~ »» 'Vt ,»FL r I ~ I ~ j 'I ~ l '8 I » t I Ftj I F VI 'II F» » n, . ~ ~- V t ' ~ , ~ ~ d. ~ q» W P F ~ l f" » V l rl I ~ V I I » L I » 'lt I t',n~ : L :a F ~ ~ JL 'l'I ~ 0 ~ ~ The area adjacent to the plant site is a small part of the larger coastal fishing grounds extending from slightly north of Point Buchon south to Point San ~s. Fish species present in the area include white sea bass, ungood~ greenling, sanddab, cabezon~ black rockfish and yellow rockfish. Shellfishes present include red, aba1one which is the most important and. black abalone, flat abalone~ and threaded abalone. i'he application indicates that the release of radioactive wastes would not exceed maximum permissible limits prescribed in Title 10~ Part 20, of the Code of'Federal Regulations. Although these limits refer to maximum leve1s of radioactivity that can occur in drinking water for man without resulting in any known harmful effects, operation within the limits may not always guarantee that fish and. wildlifewill be protected from adverse effects. If the concentration 9n the xeceiving water were the only consideration, ma>cbuum p~ssible lindts would be adequate criteria for determining the safe rate of discharge.. However~ radioisotopes of many elements are concentrated,'and, stored by organisms that require these elements for their normal metabolic Some organisms concentrate and store radioisotopes 'ctivities. of elements not normally required but which are chemically simU.ar to elements essential for metabolism. In both cases, the radionuclides are transferred from one organism to another through various levels of the food chain gust as are the, nonradioactive elements. These transfers may result in further concentration of radionuclides and a wide dispersion from the prospect area particularly by migratory fish, msmauQ.s, and, birds. In view of the shove, we believe that pre- and post-operational radiological surveys should be conducted by the applicant and include studies of the effects of radionuclides on se1ected organisms which require the waste elements or siud3.ar elements for metabolic activities. These surveys should be planned, in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service~ the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration~ and the Resour'ces Agency of California If the post«operationa1 surveys establish that the release of radioactive effluent at leve1s permitted under Title 10, Part 20, Code of Feder81 Regulation's, results in haimful.concentrations of radioactivity in fish and wildlife~ the data from the'adiological survey should serve as a guide to x'educe the discharge of radioactivity to acceptable levels The sport and, commercial fisheries in the prospect area are valuable public resources and should.'be protected from radioactive contami- nation. Therefore~ it is recommended that the Pacific Gas and ELectric Company be required to: t ~ he 4 ' g,, II re 'I I ) 41 41 J«»'ll 4 .»4 el ) 'C.ho'~.. ) '.» ~ * ~ «rr ~!i« tf.'. ~ v. 4 « I V " -4 V f I ~ )4.(J wL I+.Iihr'> Il ~ 'll - »rQ furr hk lr I 4 aP '=Pr'.. " JI,« se ~ «4 ~ ehi «P M, II ) . 5) . If 4 4 I 4 th) I' me 4 ) I ~ l 4 4 ~ 4 4 4 Qh e« 4w I 'f .4 l 4«) I,'I« . P .y 4 ~ '»'ll v ~ ( ~ ~, J 44 ll er 'eJ v r if«h) W ) ~ 4, h,f ~ I I ~ 4 rev I'. JI v '2. J' *4 gy ') *- 4 r l~ I 4,) ) il r 4, ~ I I «V* k \ ~ I a 'I ~ J « 4 ~ ( eflv 4'. ll e, 4 \ 4 I 'J ~ L,~ r-., «,i.'.v '.i<).~O, ~ .~ "ffr )V'.4' J 4 41 4 IIW, I fl ~ „~ r *4 I I 4 V I o ~ ~ 1. Cooperate with the Fish and Mld1ife Service, the Federal Mater Pollution Contx ol Administration, The Resources Agency of California~ and other interested state 'agencies in developing plans for radiological surveys. 2. Conduct or arxange for the conduct of preoperational ~ radiological surveys of selected, organisms'hat concentxate and, stoxe radioactive isotopes, snd of the environment including water and, sediment samples. These surveys should be conducted. by scientists. knowledgeable in the fish and wildlife field. 3. Prepare a xeport of the pre-operational radiological survey and provide five copies to the Secretary of the Interior for evaluation prior to project, operation. Conduct radiological surveys~ similar to those specified in xecommendation 2 above, analyze the data, and prepare and submit reports every three months during the first year of reactor operation and, evexy six months thereafter or until it has been conclusively demonstrated that no significant adverse conditions exi.st. Submit five copies of these reports to the Secretary of the Interior for distxibution to the appropriate State and Federal agencies for evaluation. Reduce the discharge of radioactive wastes to acceptable levels, ifthe post-operational surveys establish that the release of radioactive effluent at levels permitted'under Title 10~ Part 20~ Code of Fed.eral Regulations, results in hara~ concentra- tions of radioactivity in fish and wildlife. Me understand that it is the Comnd.ssion's opinion that its regulatory authority over nuclear power plants involves only those hazards associated with radioactive materials. Me have recommended, in past applications that before the permit is issued~ thermal pollution and othex detrimental effects to fish and wildlife which may result from plant construction and operation be called to the attention of the applicant., In this case, we believe that the applicant is aware of these pxoblems. 'The company has signed an agreement with the Resources Agency of California to conduct studies which would identify harmful effects resulting from other than radiological causes~ and to mitigate losses ifthey occur. However, we recommend that the following .observations be brought to the attention of the applicant. W ~ ~ V V ~ ~ V r hll h ~ ~, V tj W 1-, Ii l iZ . '.'., '«.«;~<< P.'.V="l) h V'I V I' r j,tvi, .t j kQ 5j gh ~ I W VSJ W W I ,hrv)j'- 'W 'I ~ I«h»«IW ,'I, J t g .WV, I" lh. W;' I ',W- J Jtg Jh" I Vl\ E h hll Wi « 'jhk ~ ) )i ~ h t ~ I .'".~4'.„g ~'V I WW W h) «W' W V P W » h -- 'h .ht ~, h.» v W ~ " ~ - . .Wf WP iJht 438 W ' ''3«J " 'vjhv h.'i I ~ < JI $ ,w 'v,w»8', w Jw .. > a», i ~ «V II 'I I W 'WW, / Ih, h vhr I ~ hl V ' h W t V, ~ V Vh JUWV I lj I.VJ ~ j. J '„ 'v» I ~ J, V )IV( I II'l .Vkl, W I "vr«jr-.,; Company engineers and consultants have made studies relating to temperature effects near the cooling vater outfall from the proposed nuclear plant. As a result of these studies, the following area temperature predictions wexe made: An area, enclosed by an isotherm 18o F. above ambient will not exceed 1/8 of an acre and wiU. be within 150, feet from the point of discharge; an isotherm 10o F. above ambient vould enclose an area 2.0 aires 50 percent of the time and 4.2 acres 20 percent of the time within 300 feet of the outfal3. and vould not extend than 15 feet below the surface; an isotherm 4o P. above 'ore ambient vould enclose an area of 15 acres 80 percent of the time, 32 acres 50 percent of the time, and 82 acres 20 percent of the time and vould, not extend more than 10 feet 'belov the surface. Because Diablo Cove is an area where varmwater and cold.-vater forms of a diversity of marine organisms intermingle, even a small temperature increase, could x'esult in an ecological imba1ance by eliminating the more sensitive cold-water forms. Mhether this vould prove harmful to the sport and commercial fisheries in adjacent'atex could only be determined by pre-operational and post-operational ecological studies. These studies should be in coopexation with the Fish and 8'ildlife Service and the'lanned Resources Agency of California. If the ecological studies establish that the heated effluent results in changes that are significantly detrimental to ff.sh and wildlife, as determined by the Pish and wildlife Service or the Resources Agency of California, corrective measures to reduce the temperature of the effluent should be taken. Further, that if fish and vildlife losses occurs compensation for such losses would be the responsibility of the applicant. Another problem vhich could adversely affect fish and, wildlife is the cooling water intake. Xt is anticipated that large volumes of ocean vater vould. be circulated through the plant with the intake at the water's edge. Various marine organisms would 'be drawn into the intake and destroyed unless a suitable screening device vere provided. The pre-operational ecological studies should. include a survey of the marine organisms present in the area of the intake in order to define their numbers and relative importance. In addition, a suitable intake screen should be provided. The Pish,and MQ.dlife Service and the Resources Agency of California should be consulted in designing the intake screen. In view of the Administration's policy to maintain, protect, and improve the quality of our environment, and, most particularly the water and air media, 'we request that the Commission urge the Pacific Gas and Electric Company to: ~ 0 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ' II 0 ~ I II ll 'k hi 0 F' 1 I lf ~ "" f ~ I . ~ 1 - ~ F 1 , . 1, 0 0 l k,g J 0 lt ~ ~ I >fka V .( N ~ I» J 'IIF 0 M«0 0 I ' ' ~ . 0 I ~,011 Fll I "Jlhf I 0, Lhfh) <»f, g 40« F I 4 0« J,I , ~ Il ' '. ~, ~ J', l."«V ~. 111 I J 0 0 f ' Jf' " I') fl 1 aa', h. =,'ff «g7 1, ~ 0 ~, ' 0 ~ 'i'.I 1 ~ 0'Z 0'Q » "l 0'»0>~- 0 0 hf lf 0 f 0 A 0 ~ 1 0 , I 'U,I ha, 0.' 0 ~ 0 'I 0 ~ I 1 . ~ 0 f 4 ~ F ~ . »0FF,V, '~ 1 FF lli~ h',)iS '000'3 I I' 0 1 0 lh 0 10 .r»a.";»,, 1 0 e' 0% ~ 0, 001 IF ilV ~ I 0 I '»1 ~ 0 Kf ""9 ) .' Ik f I r0 0 0 0 I ~ II 0 I ~ 4»V 0 ' ~ ~ I , n'S. ~ ~ 4 lJ ~ 41 ~ 1. Cooperate with the Pish and Wildlife Service and the Resource's Agency of.California and other interested state agencies in developing plans for ecology,c'al surveys; initiate these'urveys at least two"years before reactor operation; and continue them on a xegular basis during'operation or. uritil it has been 'onclusively demonstrated that no'ignificant adverse conditions exist. 2. Neet with personnel of the Pish and Wildlife Service and the Resources Agency of California at frequent intervals to discuss new plans and to evaluate results of existing surveys. 3. Nake such modifications in prospect structure and operation as may be determined necessary as a result of the surveys. Provide a screening device at the cooling water intake~ the specifications of which would be deter- mined in cooperation with the Pish and Wildlife Service and the Resources Agency of California. Provide compensation for any losses of fi'sh that may occur as a result of constructionand'Q.dlife orcyeration of the project. The opportunity for presenting our views on this prospect is appreciated. Sincerely yours, ACtlDg ommiss o er ~ 8 ~ 44 ~ ~ I "'IP I ff . ~ 48) ffa Q fI,)., '4« Ik,.ffff g 4Q I iT 144 ~ 4, ~ ~ I 'i4,4 ~ VXS V«ff)XX ~,)ffi ««ff,,l 4'.. lI.' X,l ') 4 Iff I X«44 ' 4' 41 4J«L.t 'I ~4 ~ 'I ~ y'IV»fff .4XX 4 4 ) 4 I 4 ~ 4".I .)3 I I4 XX 4»J ~ k'a-,u' Ph',«i. "J«I '1X 44 gW««fu ~, Iff )iX 44'4'4 'I'„'J )'J XE '. 4'iJ«f.).J 44".XJ".f ffVJ 4>4)..VJ I 4 'I„ 4 ~ 44 ~4«'I'4 ')Xffa" X« IXI.I')P).".~'' 4) '«J '4' l'I« 4 XXI«I I I 4» '4. »+ 4 X I 4444» I 1 X ~ 4) I) 4 4,«1 44 ,''4l )IX I) »44II g g ', 1 .X .X ~ I lt ll l'Ã AZ htlf'L9:1, Distribution:~ suyp1.~ ~CC 1, Duke Po~er Company (Oconee 1 8c 2) - May 2. Vermont Yankee (Vermont Yankee) - May 3. Public Service of Colorado (Ft. St. Vrain) - June II. PG8:E (Diablo Canyon 5. Philadelphia Electric (Peach Bottom 2 8c 3) - July 6. Virginia Electric (Surry 1 8: 2) - August 7. Jersey Central (Oyster Creek) - August 8. Public Service of N.J. (Burlington) - October Some of these project deadlines will likely slip from time to time. Therefore, I would expect to send you revised listings on a periodic basis. Sincerely yours, OIIynal sIgned by RolleI S. Boyd Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing D I th 4 /67 .. 0 0 C gQRCI gOy l~ UNITED STATES suppl. CCE v~, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DHL Hea ing WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545 AD/HP Heading Orig: H. S. Boyd 0 bcc: P. A. Morris ~)4II5 OI Monson.'istribution:S. Levine J. Mewell Mr. Melvin A. Konson D. Muller Branch of Permits H. Tedesco Division River of Basin Studies C. Long'. Bureau of Sports Fisheries 8I 7H.ldlife Ireland. U. S. Department of the Interior llashington, D. C. 20240 Dear Mr. Several applications for reactor construction permits or operating licenses are currently being reviewed by you. To aid you in scheduling wo on these various projects and to help in assuring that we receive your r ports in time to send to the ACRS for its review of particular applicati ns we have compiled a list of anticipated deadlines for receiving consults t reports on the various projects. Xn each case we would like to receive your report during the first week of the month bef'ore the project is considered by the ACRS. Considering this, the contemplated schedule f'r your sending reports to us is as follows: go- >G'y~ l. Duke Power Company (Oconee l 8 2) - May ~ 2, Vermont Yankee (Vermont Yankee) - May 3. Public Service of Colorado (Ft. St. Vrain) - June 4, PG8cE (Diablo Can on - June -'xg S 5. Philadelphia Electric (Peach Bottom 2 5 3) - July 6. Virginia Electric (Surry 1 % 2) - August 7. Jersey Central (Oyster Creek) - August 8. Public Service of'.J. (Burlington) - October Some of these project deadlines will likely slip from time to time. Therefore, I would expect, to send you revised listings on a periodic basis. Sincerely yours, Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director f'r Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing D H . h 4/l8 . 0 ( U' -Q f' DisSuppli.:~™tribution: DRL Rdg. '&PRSB,Rdg. Docket Ho. 50-2?5 Orig: HSteele (2) FEB 6 1967 E. G. Case R. S. Boyd K. Hoodard J. F. Newell %h'. Melvin A. Honson, Branch of Permits, Division of River Basin Studies Bureau of Sport Pis er e d . d U. S. Department of the Interior Uashingtons D. C. 20242 Deax'r jonson: Xn accordance uith the understandings uhich mere reflected in Secretaxy Udall's letter of Inarch 20, 1964 to Chairman Seaborg, I am forwarding herewith Volumes I and II of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report filed by Pacific Gas and Electxic Company for the proposed constxuction and operation of a pres- surized mater nuclear reactor at its Diablo Canyon site Ln San Luis Obispo County, California. The proposed reactor is designed for initial operation at 3250 thermal, megawatts. and Late would appreciate xec'eiving a xeport frcrn the Pish 7711dlifa Service concerning those features of the proposed reactor operation vhich xIight have radiological effects on fish and shellfish. On the basis of our tentative schedule fox'his pro)ect, it mould. be desirable to have your repoxt available fox'ur use by Apx'il 15s 1967 Sincerely yours, SgsllC~ d bye E Q Qg80 Edson G. Case, Deputy Director Division of Reactox Licensing Enclosures: As stated above OFFICE Ip DRL SURNAMED ..HSteele/d).. Bag @BC .. DATE > 67 ..?l /67 Po~ hZC-318 (IIov.M) V. a corasNc~r rplenro orncs 10-Osrol-3 ;«f05'0l fPf4, 8 e;2'I gh I - . f. $~ lac 5"'" |'»e) '. I C Aee ~ 4» ~ e «PQ« «231 004 P,Pk «'III ' ~ ~ N, I' Il I Il ~ . ~ «1 'I fi ' 1 I ,t ~ '1 I'<««h'i ~ le, «I 'll ~ « I I I j, < pe). \ ll ll tt ft 1,1 e 'I «P 1' I II J I «I tt li ~ P « Ice ~ If I, I ,3,'l' I "QI DistributioN: SNPPl.g~ DRL Rdg. FEB 1967 6 R&PRSB RdgN Orig: HSteele (2) Dochet Mo. 50-275 E. G. Case R. S. Boyd K. Woodard J ~ F Newell gh Dwight H Lemon Assistant Chief Ceologist U. S. Geological Survey U. S. Department of the Xnterior Room 4214, CSA Building Washington,. D. C. 20242 Deax Hr. Lemmen: Xn accordance with the understandings which were reflected by Secretary Udall's letter of March 20, 196$ to Chairman Seabox'g, X am forwarding herewith Yolumes X and XX of the Pxeliminary Safety Analysis Repox't filed by Pacific Cas and Electric Company for the px'oposed construction and .opex'ation of a pres- surized water nuclear xeactor at its Diablo Canyon site in San Luis Obispo County, California. Preliminary information relating to the Diablo Canyon site was transmitted to you with our letter of October 7, 1966. Ue auld appreciate receiving the results of a review by the Geological Survey of those geological and hydrological features of the proposed reactor location which may have a bearing upon our evaluation of the suitability of the proposed site. On the basis of our tentative schedule fox this pro/act, it would be desirable to have your report available fox our use by April 15, 1967. Sincerely yours, Original signed by F G. Case Edson C. Case5 Deputy Director Division of Reactox Licensing Enclosures: As stated above OFFICE IN ML... 5 SURNAME IN HSteegefd] RSB yd E ase OAVES I .....2l.3l67 1TOrm ~C-818 (IIOT. !HQ) II 5. OOTNNNNNNT PNINTINNOPTION 1~2T01W :UOAQt)fe3 s'QPxl," ~ I <~i &'s.i 'a~) 'L8-"a~ (r3 ~l ~ II) a k)140'g 4 I ~ & i aa')OO ah ~ FI ~ ~ tl a I 4,'» 4 ~ )r ~ I 'I 4 rl 'a ~ 1 I ~ » ) r t' 'I I I, 1 I ftl, h YI r 4 I , ~ r I ~, 1 I 4 14 ~ EI;1 Vp I' ) 1 I 'I 1. ~ 1 I' 1 t I > ~ -» ~ E 4'4 I 4 1 ~ 4 l a '), a ,Et a fl F Ih C V~ ~48gtt- fkld~r>4 10 ") lat) r,hg I Il I ~ 4 ~ 4 F 1 1 h OCT 1 2 1966 Hz ~ &ight H. &erne Am%steat Chief Cc cilogiot, '. 80 Otehegical Survey Rcm M4, GSA Saild D. C. in'aahingtcni 1hax Hr Xenxe: Gu'etter of Cckcbex"g, X/66 txnusud.ted to ~ux'STice a pmllnfnmy zeyart", prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Coayaxgr cn its yropased Diablo Canyon Site Zne1qaed aro tvo colored photograph T hich ahouM lm in"Orted Xn the envelope Xn Apymd1x 3 of that zap orb . Sixlccxelg $'oLQsp Original signed by: Roger S. Boyd'cn 00 Case, A-sistcnt Mrectox'd@via %en of Reactor Xicensiag Zacloauxes e Photcgnnyhs Distribution Su@pl. Prospect Ro. Olp) DHG Reading EhPRSB Reading bcc: E. G. Case P. dorian J. Reve Il R. 9. Boyd omcE > REcPRSB: DHL RSB SURNAME > 1 lO/1 lO/I~/66 DATE > Ponn AEC-318 (Rev. 043) 0, t, Cetttlllltet ttlttlte Ottltt 10-02201-0 r Jr ( 0 1 e %li',I '4 Distribution Suppl. rog. No. 419) DHL Heading HM'HSB Reading bcc: E. G. Case P. Norisn OCT 7 Ess, Z.,Newell H. S. Boyd )7h Mr. Dwight M. Lemmon Assistant Chief Geologist U. S. Geological Survey Room 4214, GSA 33uilding Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Lemmon: In accordance with the understandings which were reflected in Secretary U'ds11's letter of'arch 20, 1964~ I sm forwarding herewith a request for a preliminary site revi~ew submitted by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. This review involves the siting of the Company's proposed nuclear power plant at its site near Diablo Canyon, California. As you willpote, this site is quite near the Csyucos Site previously reviewed by the Geologics3. Survey. We would appreciate receiving, by early November 1966, a dxaft report of the results of a preliminary review by the Geological Survey of those geologica1 and hydrological features of the pxoposed reactor location which msy have a bearing upon our evaluation of the suitability of the proposed site. Please note that the information contained in the enclosure should not be released or discussed publicly at this time. Sincerely youlsp Original signed bg E. G. Case Zdson G. Case, Assistant Director Division of Reactor Licensing k Enclosure: Preliminary Site Rpt. OFFlCE P HgcPHS DHT HSB ase SURNAME > DATE W lo/6/66 lo /66 Form AEC-318 (Rev. 043) e, e. COYteNNENT telllnNO OenCC 1~2701 8 P ~ e 1 ~ e l1 14 )' I 1 g f I I I e ~ t «) ee ~ ~,, e F hf tL)0 ROUTE SLIP Seo me about tfils. For concurren For action. Form A - 3 (Reu. h(ay 14, 191 Note a~return. For sIEnature. For Information. TO (Name and I(lt) NITIALS REMA'ached are draft reports from the Geological Survey and Coast 6 Geodetic Survey concerning four sites proposed by the California Department of Water TO (Name a unit) I'IALS REMARKS Resources, Copies of these drafts have been pre- Dr, Mann viously transmitted to the ACRS and should be made final for review of the Committee at its July meeting. TO (Name and unit) REMARKS Subject to any comments you may have, I plan to Dr, Doan DATE request the Surveys to officially transmit these reports in their present form Tuesday, July 5. FROM arne and unit) Ed e C DATE 6/28 USE OTHER SIDE FOR ADDITIONALREMARKS GPO c43 16 77649 1 ~i'~ LGOGG~ig .i f,ALiaSCd f:v O~jS C "IJ, XXJLJQL.T g /JAN Cfi 9JIP ] y( t f C ~..i <* .~..G~i" f:.1 iiC11 l~w., ~ .6 j 0 ) ~',0 < vL XGAT'Gll O „:,iG ('„C '=,. f";6 Q f. ff.'1 'gllJ.i 'Gfi,'.i 4a''l ' ;. ~ Oll, . f l.'c f.AGE XD XIJG '«('i„ dgDla, ".),vv L:Njv L'„QL'0 ' " :LCD~ +de 4 4 g [ v'lJ -J 6gpw ka ~ Ogham i/46 '. f' 0'f i)LOJDa',i („CJ f QOLJJ ..V g GDOXfa. i. g ~f.~L gC':-; " - v'Yf '0 „.1kb~"cx COVCf.mJIJ( QCJTX < 1.3S f: XGDOLf:8 ~LO~ g -G, 44 Jw.ifC.",J '111Xi.'6- ~ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR s ' DRAFT Geological Survey May 26, 1966 Coulter San Luis Obispo County, California Cayucos Site g-p7A General j The Cayucos site is underlain by rocks of the Franciscan formation r which contains many intrusive serpentine bodies. The difference in physical properties between the Franciscan rocks and the serpentines and within the serpentine bodies themselves between massive serpentine and alter'ed and sheared serpentine is great. This dissimilarity in physical properties, primarily shearing strength, exercises a strong geologic control on slope stability and foundation conditions in terrain underlain by Franciscan rocks. There are no topographic indications of major landslide problems within the site area. Minor slope stability probelms related to cut-slope development during construction can be anticipated. Faults 'etailed mapping which would give diagnostic evidence concerning the presence or absence of large faults at or near the site is not availaHa and their existence there certainly cannot be precluded. High-angle shear zones with gouge development up to several feet in width are common. Such shear I zones are. characteristic in Franciscan rocks and are generally considered to relate to a geologically remote, not recent, period of tectonism. The active Nacimiento fault is located approximately 10 miles north-r'eismically east of the site. The nearest point to the site on the San Andreas fault is 40 miles, and the Santa Ynez and Big Pine faults pass within -,'pproximately 90 miles of the site. An undetermined number of offshore faults whose exact positions and trends are unknown have been postulated in the area approxi- mately 75 miles southwest of the site. ,ei e.; sr* 1 II' u*l "trill'*F',r,, 1 ~ 'h I, I s ~ \ ~ ~ ~ r , I Sel.smici't The Cayucos site is located within a zone of active seismicity. In I the period 1934 to 1962, 14 earthquakes with epicentral locations within 20 miles of the site have been recorded. Of these 14 earthquakes, seven had a Richter magnitude between 4.0 and 4.3 and the remainder were less than 4.0. Within the zone between 30 and 40 miles from the site three epicentral locations with Richter magnitudes of 6.0 and 6.5 have been recorded. The highest intensity assigned to the Cayucos area was VII H.M. associated with the earthquake of November 1927 with a Richter magnitude of 7.3 and an epicentral location 55 miles west of Point Arguello. Problems fecause of the complex stratigraphy, the general lack of continuous mappable lithologic units, and the intricacies of localized shearing and attendant structures, the recognition of ma)or throughgoing structural features in Franciscan terrain is difficult. Detailed regional mapping and structural analysis will be required to provide diagnostic evidence that may prove or disprove the existence of ma)or faults south»west of the Nacimiento fault in the vicinity of the Cayucos site. Massive serpentine is relatively stable in steep or vertical cuts whereas cut slopes in sheared serpentine are potentially unstable on slopes. greater than 1:l. Insofar as bearing capacity under foundations is concerned, the i shearing strength of massive serpentine is relatively high but decreases with increasing proportions of shearing and alteration. Veins of soft altered I material in hard serpentine may present special problems, Hence, for 'adequate l 'I I th I ~ ~ geologic evaluation of the Cayucos site accurate delineation of the distri- bution of serpentine bodies and of the degree of shearing and alteration within the bodies is required. Such delineation can best be pxovided by detailed geologic mapping combined with an adequate sampling and testing program designed to provide sufficient information on the physical properties of the various lithologic units undexlying the site to formulate adequate slope and foundation design criteria. r e E /' II g I g f f t A II P' UNITED STATES r- ~ ~ t DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERI Geological Survey DRAFT: May 1966 Coulter Ventura County, California Sycamore Canyon Site General The Sycamore Canyon site lies adjacent to the beach on the south flank of the Santa Monica Mountains. The site is underlain by a complexly folded, faulted and sheared sequence of Miocene sedimentary and intrusive igneous rocks. There is topographic evidence in Sycamore Canyon, beyond the limits of the site, of landslides in geologic environments similar to those existing within the site. Faults Three faults with large-scale stratigraphic displacement, the Sycamore Canyon fault, the Baudette fault sand the Serrano fault, and several subsi- diary faults of lesser displacement have been recognized within the site area. Diagnostic evidence as to whether or not any of these faults displace Pleistocene and/or Recent deposits is not available. The active San Gabriel fault lies 26 miles northeast of the site. The nearest point to the site on the Santa Ynez fault is 32 miles north; the Newport-Inglewood fault 36 miles east; the San Andreas fault 46 miles northeast; the Big Pine fault 45 miles north; the Garlock fault 52 miles north; and the White Wolf fault 56 miles north. An undetermined number of offshore faults whose exact positions and trends are unknown have been postulated in the Santa Barbara channel south of the site. The Sycamore Canyon site is located within a zone of active seismicity. Xn the period 1934 to 1962, 39 earthquakes with magnitudes of 3.0 to 3.9 4 8/ 'I ' /" E Il'k and epicentral locations within a radius of 20 miles of the site, have been recorded. Six of these earthquakes have epicentral locations less than 5 miles offshore from the site. There are three additional earthquakes with magnitudes of 4.1, 4.7, and 4.7 with epicentral locations within 5.5 and 6 miles respectively of the site. No maximum intensity records are available for the Sycamore Canyon area. Problems The following geologic problems are involved in the consideration of the Sycamore Canyon site. 1. The site is within the zone of intersection of several faults, the date of the latest movement on which has not been, and perhaps here for dearth of diagnostic stratigraphic criteria cannot be, established. 2. There is evidence of serious slope stability problems in the Sycamore Canyon area which may be found to affect either the site itself or the natural drainage system through the site. 3. The site is located in a zone of active seismicity the relation- ship of which to the faults through the site has not been established. 'FAIT 5 1 sa ~ ~ ~ UNITED STATES DEPAR'Q1ENT OF THE INTERIOR DRAFT: ?fay 1966 Geological Survey Coulter Ventura County, California Oxnard Site General The Oxnard site is underlain by at least 1,800 feet'of unconsolidated, saturated, predominantly fine-grained alluvium. The maximum elevation within the site is 10 feet above sea level and the relief is low. The general seaward slope offshore from the site is gentle, approximately 40 feet per mile; however, 1 mile west of the site this gentle slope is dissected by the steep declivity at the head of the Hueneme submarine canyon. Insofar as slope stability is concerned, this relationship imposes steep gradient rather than gentle gradient controls on the submarine topography. Faults Recognition of faults in an actively aggrading alluvial sequence of this type is virtually impossible without extremely detailed subsurface exploration. The nearest recognized seismically active faults, the Santa Ynez and Big Pine, are located approximately 30 miles north of the site. The nearest point to the site on the San Andreas fault is approximately 50 miles northeast. An undetermined number of offshore faults whose exact positions and trends are unknown have been postulated in the Santa Barbara channel south of the site. The Oxnard site is located within a zone of active seismicity. In the period 1934 to 1962, 54 earthquakes with epicentral locations within a 20-mile radius of the site have been recorded. Of these 54 earthquakes, four had a Richter magnitude of 4.0 to 4.7 and the remainder were less than 4I s s * - - s ''s ' t '1 „/ 'as uu ss a F ...' jt ',s 's, sI /san/ I ~ sss f ,4 . a> I) V l 4.0. Since 1769, six large earthquakes with estimated or recorded magni- tudes of 6.0 or greater have occurred within a 60-mile radius of the site. The highest intensity assigned to the Oxnard area was VEI H.bf. associated with Kern County earthquake of 1952 with a Richter magnitude of 7.7 and an epicentral location along the White Wolf fault approximately 75 miles north of the site. Problems During the Alaskan earthquake of 1964, extensive surface rupture, massive liquefaction flow slides on relatively gentle slopes and differential compac- tion were observed to have taken place in thick saturated alluvial sections similar to that underlying the Oxnard site. These effects were observed at epicentral distances ranging from 30 to more than 100 miles. The potentially unfavorable dynamic response characteristic of the alluvium at the Oxnard site combined with the steep gradient controls resulting from the location immediately offshore of the Hueneme submarine canyon suggests the gikelihood that comparable effects resulting from a major earthquake centered on any one of the active faults, located within 100 miles of the Oxnard site may be anticipated. C 1 ll l ~ UNITED STATES ~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF THE:INTERIOR DRAFT: May 1966 Cculter Geological Survey Tehachapi Site General The proposed plant site is located on the southeast edge of the San Joaquin Valley approximately 17 miles south of Arvin and ll miles north of Gorman. The site is underlain by silty sandstones of the Tejon formation of Eocene age which dip northwesterly at moderate to steep angles. The rocks of the Tejon formation are described as being weak when wet and slightly stronger when dry. Boring data indicate artesian groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the site and "suggest that serious hydrostatic uplift pressures may be encountered at foundation grade." Faults Five major seismically active faults showing evidence of recent primary surface rupture occur within a 20 mile radius of the site. Many additional faults with less prominent surface expression but with possibly equal or even greater potential effect on the site lie within this area. Evidence of a flowing spring and juxtaposed divergent'edding attitudes along the gully entering the plant site at the southeast corner suggest the presence of a fault traversing the site from southeast to northwest. Hater supply for the plant is to be taken from the aqueduct. To the extent that a continuous supply of water represents an operating requirement for the plant, consideration must be given to possible disruption of flow through the aqueduct in those many localities where the line crosses major fault zones between the Tehachapi Site and the ultimate source of water to the east. 1 II g lj I,'k * ~ A ~+ ~ ~ 0 'roblems In addition to the high regional seismicity of the area the following problems at the Tehachapi Site must be considered: Poor foundation conditions on weak, saturated, silty sandstone with potential hydrostatic uplift pressures at foundation grade. 2. Complexly faulted bedrock adjacent to and perhaps beneath the site. 3. Possible interruption of plant water supply by disruption of the aqueduct throughout a broad zone of seismically active terrain east of the site. ~~ e DRAFC REPORT ON THE SEISMICITY OF THE CAYUCOS, OXNARD SYCAMORE CANYON AND TEHACHAPX CALIFORNIA AREA In response to the request of the Division of Reactor Licensing of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Seismology Division of the Coast and Geodetic Survey has prepared this report on the seismicity of Cayucos, Oxnard, Sycamore Canyon, and Tehachapi,California, and their environs. The fault nearest Cayucos is the Nacimiento fault which is inland and trends northwest-southeast parallel to the, coast at a distance of about 8 miles from the site. The San Andreas has roughly the same orientation and is approximately 42 miles from the site at its nearest point. Historically, Cayucos has experienced macroseismic disturbance from at least sixteen earthquakes registering intensities above Modified Mercalli III. The strongest recorded intensity was MM VII caused by the earthquake of November 4, 1927, which occurred off Point Arguello about 75 miles from the site and had a magnitude of 7.5. This produced a maximum acceleration of 0.13g. On February 23, 1931, a small earthquake occurred in the immediate vicinity of Cayucos, a result of which a'aximum intensity of V was produced. Oxnard is in an area that is underlain by deep alluvial deposits and evidence of surface faulting is not readily detectable. However, to the north and east are a number of poorly defined faults of the transcurrent system prevalent in this region. The site is approximately 25 miles from the Santa Ynez fault and 50 miles from San Andreas fault. It has been subjected to seismic disturbances of MM intensity III at least 35 times during historic;,times. lg " ~ \ ' - 2 Intensity VII is the highest experienced and occurred on three occasions. The first on January 9, 1857, as the result of an earthquake near Port Tejon, distance, 50 miles; the second caused by a small nearby earthquake on December 14, 1912; and the third on July 21, 1952, as a result of the Kern County earthquake which was 55 miles dis tant and had a magnitude of 7. 7. The Sycamore Canyon site is located at a distance of about 26 miles from the San Gabriel fault, 32 miles from the Santa Ynez fault and 36 miles west of the Newport-Inglewood fault. The nearest point on the San Andreas fault is 46 miles to the northeast. It has been subjected to seismic disturbances of intensity III or more at least 42 times since 1769. A maximum intensity of VI was recorded as a result of 13 earthquakes ranging in distance from 10 to 210 miles. The Tehachapi site is very near the juncture of the San Andreas fault and the faults of the transcurrent system of southern California. It lies between two seismically active faults, the White Wolf, 11 miles to the northeast and the Garlock, 5 miles to the southeast and at a distance of 9 miles from San Andreas which lies to the southwest. It is an area of very high seismic activity. The most notable earthquake to occur here was the Kern County earthquake of July 21, 1952. It had a Richter magnitude of 7.7 and a maximum intensity of XI at a point near Bealville, 26 miles from the site which would have subjected the latter to an intensity of VIII and an acceleration of .27g. Using the criterion of the effect of a magnitude 8.0 earthquake on the nearest point of the San Andreas fault to each site the following effects are postulated: Cayucos, intensity VIII, acceleration 0.27g; Oxnard, intensity VII, acceleration 0.13g; Sycamore Canyon, intensity VII+ acceleration 0.23g. The intensity given II J' 'I t J l 4 'I "3- above for Oxnard refers to bedrock; however, the site is situated on 1800 ft of alluvial material so that the acceleration could be as much as 3.5 times higher. To evaluate further this estimated acceleration at Oxnard, a seismic measurement of the ground amplification factor is recommended. With regard to Tehachapi a magnitude 8 shock occurring at the nearest point on the San Andreas fault would cause an intensity at the site of X+ and a maximum acceleration of .70g. If the complex nature of the fault structure near the intersection of the Garlock and the San Andreas faults is taken into consideration, there is a high degree of probability that a shock of magnitude 8 could occur within 5 miles of the site in which case it would be subjected to intensity XI and a maximum acceleration of .9g. An excellent example of the earthquake forces encountered in this region is given in descriptions of the Kern County earthquake damage near Bealville in U. S. Earthquakes, 1952, page 17 and the publication "Earthquakes in Kern County, California during 1952," (see reference). Another factor for consideration in evaluating the coastal areas as a reactor site is the possibility of tsunami damage. For the most part, a tsunami is generated by a submarine earthquake or an earthquake located close to coastal areas although only a small percentage of earthquakes of this type have been known to generate measurable water waves. The vertical displacement of submarine blocks of the earth's crust is the most commonly accepted explanation of the cause of these waves. Since it has been observed on land that great earthquakes have caused uplifts of 30-50 feet and affected crustal blocks hundreds of miles long and up to a hundred miles wide, it is easy to conceive of such a crustal movement under the ocean generating huge water waves. Slides along the coasts are also I 4 thought to be possible sources of tsunamis and great earthquakes originating on the sides of deep oceanic troughs may cause huge masses of unconsolidated material lh to slide into the depths, displacing a great amount of water. It has been sug- gested also that there is a possible coupling mechanism between tsunamis and large surface waves with periods over a minute. Historically, these waves have had amplitudes considerably less than those transmitted directly from the sources. Along the coast of California there is no well established source areas for the generation of tsunamis. On December 21, 1812, there was a strong submarine earthquake (possibly 7 1/4-7 1/2 magnitude) off the southern California coast which reportedly generated a tsunami that reached land elevations of 50 feet at Gaviota, 30-35 feet at Santa Barbara, etc. However, it has not been possible to definitely substantiate these heights. So employing the results of Iida's work for estimating tsunami wave heights along the Japanese coast and realizing the fault movements along the California coasts are mostly strike-slip, it is estimated that tsunami run up (flooding) caused by locally generated tsunamis would not be more than approximately 30 feet. For tsunamis generated by distant sources such as Japan, Aleutians and the extension of the San Andreas fault off the west coast the tsunami run up at these sites would be approximately 30 feet above mean lower low water. In summary, the Survey believes that within the lifetime of facilities located 'I at the above sites and on rock, accelerations in the period range of 0.3 to 0.6 seconds should be taken into account in the designs as follows: Cayucos, 0.27g; Oxnard, 0.13g and as much as 3.5 times greater if on approximately 1800'f alluvium; Sycamore Canyon, 0.23g and Tehachapi 0.9g. For tsunami run up from distant severe marine earthquakes, the coastal sites should be protected to a vertical height of 30 feet above mean lower low water. This 30 feet level is ~ ~ 1 t l also adequate protection for any tsunami generated by local earthquakes along the coas t of southern California. U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Mashington, D. C. May 24, 1966 4 REFERENCES "United States Earthquakes, 1952," Leonard M. Murphy and William K. Cloud, U. S. Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Serial No. 773, 1954. "Earthquakes in Kern County, California during 1952," California Department of Natural Resources, Divis ion of Mines Bulletin 171, 1955. I g 4 4 I Jy C Iiqximum Dist;ance--Tntensity Date E icentral Area lntensitv (Iiiles) (I~i) C Cavueos Oxnard Sycamore Te'nachaoi 1769 July 28 Los Angeles region VZ|:|:-TX 05 v 40 v 1812 D c 21 Off Coast of So. Calif 110 lv 45 VX>: 75 Vj: 1852 Oct 26 San Simeon 135 T-XX% 1852 Nov 27-30 Ventura County 120 30 V 35 V 1855 July lo Los Angeles County 165 50 V 6 1857 Jan 9 Fort Tejon 115 V 50 Vii. 70 Vl (X) 1870 Jan 3 Bakersfield V 30 Xll- Xv": 1872 Impar 26 Owens Valley X-XZ 175 IV 170 lv 170 Xv 115 '883 Sept; 5 Ventur a V-Vl 120 = 10 V 35 XTT. 11T~ 1885 Apr 7 Bakersfield 30 1890 July 20 Bakersfield 3o (zv 1892 Feb 23 Baja California IX-X 250 X|:T. 210 V-VT VXX-XXU. S. 1893 Apr 0 Los Angeles region 711T-XX 160 1XT. 35 Vi 35 Vl 1896 Aug 17 Hanford lo5 (Tv) 1899 July 22 San Bernadino County VXXX loo zan 8o vz 1899 Dec 25 San Jacinto 130 V ~ y 4 ~ ~ II 1 * I l" ~ < 5 4 Iiaximum Distance --Intensity . Date E icentral Area Intensity (in.les) -= (i'i) e ~Ca eos Oxnard Sycamore Tehachaoi 1902 July 27 Santa Barbara County VlXT 6o xv (2 similar af tershocks July 31) 1902 Dec 12 Los Alamos 6o llew 1903 Jan 7 Baker sfield 30 XV' 1905 Mar 18 Bakers field 30 T.v': 1905 Dec 23 Bakersfield 30 zv+~ 1906 Apr 18 San Prancisco 28o (v) 1908 Sep 0 Bakersfield (2 shocks) 30 xvi'8o 1910 Nay 6 Near Bishop (zxz) 1912 Dec 10 Oxnard Nax. 25 V-VX 1915 Jan ll Los Alamos 6o xv 1915 Nay'8 Southern Sierra Nevada 8S (zvQ 1916 Oct 22 Tejon Pass 5 (v:t) 1918 i»a 6 Santa Vionica (V-Vl) 15 v 1918 Apr 21 Riverside County, lian 6.8 TX 125 zv 100 v-vx 1918 Nov 19 Santa iionica Bay 1919 Jan 25 Tejon Pass v 1919 Feb 16 South of i'Iaricopa 30 ZV~ J 4 4 e $ C E I'!aximum Distance--Xntens" ty e Date Z icentral Area (Ijiles) (IZj) e Cayucoa Oxnard Sycamore Tabac'. adi 1920 June 21 Xnglewood VXXX 1922 Ijar 10 Cholame Valley, I~!ag 6~ 100 XV:": 1925 June- 29 Santa Barbara, Idaho 6.3 1926 Jun 30 Kern River Canyon 3O-.( 1927 Jul 8 Bakersfield XV 30 1927 Nov 4 Off Pt. Arguello, Nag 7.5 XX-X 75 VXX 135 V-VX 155 XXX I 1930 Jan 15 34.2N., 116.931, Nag. 5.2 VXX(2) 100 V XXX-'933 1930 Aug 30 33. 9N., 118. 6tt, " 5. 2 VXX 40 XXX 10 VlX 1931 Feb 23 Templeton, Parkfield, Ivjax, Cayucos ajar 10 33.6N., 118.0U, Ijap 6.3 XX 80 VX 50 VX 110 (XV) " 1933 Oct 2- 33. 8N., 118. 1I'J, 5. 4 40 (V) " 1934 June 7 35. 9N. > 120. 5)12 6. 0 VXXX(2) 40 V 135 (XV) 110 (XXX) 1935 Jan 23 35.5N., 119.2N, 40 (XXX) 1940 Oct 10 33.8N., 118.4U, Il 15 V 1l 1941 June 30 34. 4N., 119. 6N~ 5 9 100 V 30 VX 1941 Sep 14 37. 6N., 118. 7V, I 185 (XXX) IV+ f> I'!Q.X3.MQBl D~ stance --Intens'y Date Z icentral Area Intense t ~ (ii» es) (iiii) Cayucos Oxnard ~S camo"e Tehac'haoi 1941 Sep 21 34. 9N. ~ 118. 9",i, iiag 5 5 ~i 1941 Oct 21 33. 8N., 118. 2)1, 5 . UII 55 XV 00 v " -1941 Nov 1LI. 33. BN., 118. 2ti, 5. 5 UII-VIII 40 V " 1942 Oct 21 33. ON., 116. Otl, 6. 5 VII 190 jV= " 19M June 18 33. 9N., 118. 23t, 4. 0 VI(2) 50 IIl " 1946 Mar 15 35. 7N., 118. 1H, 6. 3 VIII 125 U 120 V 70 U " 1947 Apr 10 35. ON., 116. 6tr, 6. iI VII 165 V 16O V 1948 Feb lo 36. 1N., 118. 8H, 4.6 VI 80( III) 1948 Apr 16 34. ON., 119. Ot'l, Il 10 VI " 1948 Dec 0- 33.9N., 116.@,l, 6.5 VII 155 VI 140 UI ll / 1949 Aug 27 3~. 5N., 120. 5H, g 9 70 I-III 75 90 " 1950 Feb 25 34. 6N., 119. 1$'1, 4. 7 VX 40 VZ 1951 Dec 25 32.8N., 118.4V, 5.9 VI 100 V 85 v 1952 July 21 35. ON., 119. ON, 77 X~ 110 VI 55 UII 65 VI 10 VIII (180 a tershocks; n.ag. 410 and over,, recorded at Pasadena fron July 21 to September 26; 6 aftershocks o 5.0 and over on the 21st). 4 Iiaximum D~ s~ance--Xn~ens'y 0 E ~ "cent al Area Xntens='t (iu. es) (> !) gal t ~Ca ucos Oxnarn Syctmove Tehacha o~ ~ 1952 July 25 East; of Caliente (2 30 lv-:: shocccs) 1952 Jul 28 Near B ar lioun~a3.n 20 XV': 1952 Jul 31 North of Calien~e 20 Xil"" 1952.Aug 22 35.3N., 118. 9't, Via@ 5.8 70 TV 80 iv 15 v II 1952 Aug -23 34. 5N., 118. 231, 0 6o I 5 v " 1952 Nov 21 35.8N., 121. 2t~, 6. o 35 ~ 140 xv 1954 Jan 12 0N. ol'1, 35. ~ 119. 5 9 55 V 65 v ll VX 1954 Jan 27 35. 1N., 118.6W, 20 V 1954 <~far 19 33. 3N., 116. 2il, 18o T.v 170 xv 1954 iiay 23 35. 0N., 119. OH, 5.1 10 XV Dec II 1954 16 39e 3Ne p 1 18r 2tl> 7 0 285(xv) 35o(xv) 35o(:v) 310(:zx) II 1955 Aug 7 35.4N., 118. 6V, go (zt- II 1955 Nov 21 35.4N., 118.7V, 4I 25 (~v) " 1956 Feb 9 31. 8N., 115. 9N, 6. 8 VENT.-XX 245 xv 260 |:v (m-U.s. ) " 1957 Jan 29 35. 9N. ~ 122. U'1, 4. 9 75 XV 1957 Liar 18 34. 1N. ~ 119. 2Y~ Ko vz C 4 k 1'h I h 4 rt 'I h C L'maximum . Dis tance --intens ity E icentral Area intensity = (liiles) '!Hi) ~Ca ucos 0-:oarQ Svca.,o s ~zena c.'1a oi 1958 July 13 30. 4N., 119. 5':!, -i~~ag >k. 7 25 V 40 XV 1959 Sept 30 3~. 0N., 120. 6~:.', 1l 1961 Jan 28 35.8N., 118. oiI, 70 (ZV) II 1961 Nov 14 34; 9N., 119. 011, II 1963 Feb 28 34. 9N., 119: 01'1, 5 0 7 V lntens'y at Site: ~aEstimated using Gutenberg-r"ichter lnt. vs Distance ( ) Estimated from nearby reports ~' t 1 ~ ~ ~y I II J NRC DISTRIBUTIO)N FOR PART 50 DOCKET I"IATERIAL (TEMPORARY FOR(Vi) ~ CONTROL NO: 'J.~N'ept of Commerce DATE OF DOC DATE R EC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHER Silver Springs, 'Md 4-10-75 4-22-75 I Van Der Hoven TO: ORIG CC OTHER SENT AEC PDR XX Mr Schroder one signed SENT LOCAL PDR CLASS UiUCLASS PROP INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D D . NO: XXXXXX 1 ~ 50-27 23 DESCRIPTION: ENCLOSUR ES: Ltr re our 1-23-75 ltr....trans the following''omments on the FSAR for Diablo Canyon 1&2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANT NAME Diablo Canyon 1 & 2 FOR ACTIOiN/li'wFORii)iATION 4-23-75 ehf BUTLER (L) SCH',YENCER (L) IEMANN (L) REGAN (E) IV/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies CLARK (L) STOLZ (L) DICKER (E) LEAR (L) W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies PARR {L) VASSALLO {L) KNIGHTOiU (E) SPB'JS-- ~ V<~/3:opies W/ Copies W/ Copies 'W/ Copies KNIEL (L) PURPLE (L) YOUNGBLOOO (E) LPI I W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INTERNALDISTRIBUTION R G TECH REVIEW ~ DENTOiU LIC ASST A/T IND ~ PDR SCHROEDER G R I iViES R. DIGGS (L) BRAITiviAN ~ OGC, ROOMi P.GOGA ~ieiACCARY GAI.'iMI LL(2) H GEARIN (L) SA LTZ)V(AN ~ GOSSICK/STAF F KNIGHT KASTNER E. GOULBOURNE (L) MELTZ CASE PAW LICK I BALLARD P. KfIEUTZER (E) GIAMBUSSO SHAO SPANGLER J. LEE (L) P LAX'S BOYD STELLO M. MiAIGRET (L) iVICDO(UALD MOORE (L) HOUSTON ENVIRO S. REED (E) CHAPivlAN DEYOUNG (I.) NOVAK MULLER M. SERVICE (L) DUBE (Ltr) SKOVHOLT (L) ROSS DICKER S. SI.IEPPARD (L) E. COUP".. GOLLER (L) (Ltr) IPPOLITO KNIGHTOiU M. SLATER {E) PETE RSOi~l . P. COLLINS TEDESCO YOUNG B LOOD H. SIVilTH (L) HARTF I E LD (2) DEN( IS E J. COLLINS RFGAN S. TEETS (L) KLECKER RLG OPR LAIiNAS PROJECT LDR G. WILLIAMS(E). E ISE iNHUT g[$Q@~iL.GIGA (2) BEN)AROYA V. WILSON {L) . WIGGINTON VOLLMiER HAR LESS R, INGRAiM (L) STEELE EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTI N — ( ~1 I OCAL PORE J.v i S D b( s Po— 1 —T!C {ABEIiNATHY) (1) (2) (10) —NATIONALLABS —PD R.SAN/LA/NY I KT LAB 1 —NSIC (BUCHANAN) 1 —W. PENNP.:GTON, Rm E-201 GT .1 BROOi I ~ Jf f I tl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ 4 O.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IQational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 April 10, 1975, R32 Mr. Frank Schroeder, Acting Director Division of Technical Review United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Mr. Schroeder: This refers to the letter of January 23, 1975 from William P. Gammill, Chief, Site Analysis Branch, Division of Technical Review requesting comments on the following: Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Final Safety Analysis Report Amendment No. 24 dtd. 1/15/75 These comments are attached. Sincerely, Isaac Van der Hoven Air Resources Laboratories Attachment cc: E.H. Markee, Site Analysis Br., USNRC 'L L I ~ I 5 f sr Comments; on,„. Diablo Canyon Site Units 1 and 2 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Final Safety Analysis Report Amendment 24,dated January. 15, 1975 Prepared by Air Resources Laboratories National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration April, 10, 1975 Using the latest available data of wind speed and dir ection (May 1973 through April 1974) at the 25-ft. level and corresponding temperature differences between 25 and 250 ft ,- we have calculated that for a ground level release there is a probability that a relative concentration of 1.8 x 3 10 sec m will be exceeded 5X of the time at a distance of 800 m downwind. The atmospheric stability was categorized according to the temperature gradient criter ia listed in AEC Safety Guide 1.23. The release time was assumed to be from 0-2 hours. For the long-term annual release a ground source was assumed. This is in . contrast to the 70-m release height assumed by the applicant (p. 2.3-24). Figure 1.2-22 shows the top of the tallest vent duct to be about 32 m above grade, while the adjacent reactor containment building is about 67 m in height above grade. We would thus assume that the vent release would be caught in the building wake. We calculate from the 25-ft. wind data that the highest annual average relative concentration gill be yt the 800-m o site boundary towards the NW at a value of .2 x 10 sec m ~. ~4 ~i s ,0 tr f' DIPZRIBUTXO7 Supp'RL Reading RPB-g Reading Orig: HSteele (2) R. S. Boyd. F. Docket Eo. 50-27, 1968 J. Nevell Iir. Leonard Hurpby Chief~ Seismology M.vision U. S. Coast 5 Geod,etic Survey ESSA - washington Science Center RocIDd.lie~ I'Iaryleml 20852 Dear 1h. Hurphy: For your information, X enclose a copy of a Safety Evaluation dated. January 23, 1968, prepared by the Division of Reactor Licensing in the netter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon nuclear Pomr Plant. Comments prepared by the U. S. Coast 8i Geodetic Survey are attached as Appendix E to thio report. Sincereiy"yours, I Origlnrl simed by Robert L. Tedesco I Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Prospects ~ Division of Reactor Xicensing Enclosure: As stated. above OFFICE Q ~/ RPB->/ HSteele/ s DFKnuth SURNAME W 2/7/68 -a(Z/68 DATE > Po~ AEC 318 (Rev. 943) 4%29 VS.COYQNllQtfPRINIINCOfvÃXs I~1 a }I a« ~ « I « *I I I «« ~ I ~ I i ««. ft.t(, ~ t'«« ~ « f ~ «« ~ ~ I « ~ ' ' ~ 1««t, «. ~ tt 5 ~ I «« I« t « «" «I" I It 1 « «« 'I 1ff ~ ~ ~ « DISTRIBUTION: Suppl. DRL Reading RPB-5 ReacLLng Ox'ig: BK&r&8 R. S. BoycL Doclret Ho. 50-275 D. P. Knuth JAN 23 1S68 Hr. LeonarIi Murphy Chi'ef, Seismology Division '. S. Coast 8o GeocLetic Survey ESSA - Uashington Science Center Rockville, Maryland. 20852 I Dear Ih. Murphy: This supplements our letter to you dated. October 25, 1967 concerning the Pacific Gas and. Electric Company's Qxclear Plant at, the Diablo Canyon Site. A copy of PRZ Co's lettex dated. December 14, 1967 transmitting revise4 Page 2 to Amendment Fo. 5 to the application for license is attached, for your use. Sincerely yours~ oger S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactox Prospects Division of Reactor Id.censing Enclosure: Revised. Page 2 to Amendment No. '5 OFFICE > ..IGNI~ FWK&Z&8/d.s SURNAME W /68 DATE+ ....I...1/~/68/ 1/ VA.COVERNNENTPRINTINO OFFICE: I~2 le%29 7 h >. Ll'W ~ Il f "«(„'',T" f W J, W W I .> ~ ' ( ' W V I ~, f IL w ~ I ',h t LL\I I h h ll ( ht I h" I I ' 'I e> W t I Lt ~ fh \ hh J W I h,~> ~ I'l J I ~ ' W \ W I ~ ~ ' h. Jh , I,.Jh'Wh J J W * Distribution: Supplemental. DRL Reading October 25, 1967 RPB-2 Reading Orig: HSteele (2)'. Docket Ho. 50-275 S. Boyd Tech. Reviewer J. F. Newell Mr. Leonard Murphy Chief, Seismology Division Coast 6 Geodetic Survey ESSA, - LTashington Science Center Rockville, Maryland 20850 Dear M'r. Murphy: A. copy, of Amendment No. 5 to the Pacific Gas and Electric facility license application is enclosed for your'ompany's use. Xn addition to certain financial data, the amendment contains the Fourth Supplement to the'Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the proposed nuclear plant, at the applicant's Diablo Canyon site. Sincerely yours, Original signed b7 l K Steels Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Prospects Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: Amendment No. 5 OFFICE P ----DRL: SURNAME > -.HSteeke dj--- 10/25/67 DATE W (Box'. Porm AEC-318 043) V S. GOVERNMENT PRl NRNG OfflCE ) 1~214<29 I - I .4 1 r .W/ K t C) fj p~ olo98 .8. u I I H I i DATE OF DOCUMENTs DATF..., %D I' NOs '''~Is-'s 'f~ j LTR.. MEMOs REPOR s I OTHERs TOs ORIG.) Cci OTHERs Harold Price 0 k ro duced ee raced ACTION NECESSARY Q CONCURRENCE Q DATE ANSWEREDs NO ACTION NECESSARY ~ COMMENT BYs C IF.s POST OFFICE FILE CODEs REG. NOs soczm so-zrs (Sea. Omz) DESCRIPTIONs IMvss Be Unclsssslfied) REFERRED TO DATE RECEIVED BY DATE ",Etre transp ($0 coyieg mc>8) TInepoxt (tm-page) an nm Seiaaicitg Oe The Fsuclear PLant At Bm N.aMo @agan Site, California>" dELted 9-18-67 Qx'e M)rrie Distribution)) 't-suppLL5 fQ.e SRovholt U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Q4)L CQNTRQL FQRQ FORM AEGG26S (840) 'kU, S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: l957-259-553 ~ &Codd 'd ) djd d» I ~ ' gH Ot U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENVIRONMENTALSCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 4p o P COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY O>ORs Oi + MD. 20852 'OCKVILLE, September 21, 1967 IN REPLY REFER TO'23 cod ~ Mr. Har old L. Price Director of Regulations U. S. At;omic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Dear Mr. Price: Xn accordance with your request, we are forwarding 10 copies of our report; on t;he seismicit;y of Diablo Can- yon, San Luis Obispo County, California. The Coast and Geodet;ic Survey has reviewed and evaluated t;he informat;ion on the seismicity of t;he area presented by She applicant; in their "Preliminary Safety Anal- ysis Report," and find 8ha8 i4 is sat;isfactory wit;h respect; to both dist;anh and nearby earthquakes. We have also included a si;ai;ement; aboui; t;he t;sunami run- up aC t;he sit;e. Xf we may be of furt;her assistance t;o you, please do not; hesit;at;e Co contact; us. Sincerely yours, ~ ~ e C.~ Tison, ~ ear Admiral, U E SA Director Enclosure r a f'w, vill/4~ p+4$ ~ ~'p p ~apip ra>l, v~p 1 ~ g1 ~ A I tllll V~AlL5, i. <(c ~a.. REPORT ON THE SEISMICITY OF THE NUCLEAR PLANT AT THE DIABLO CANYON SITE, CALIFORNIA At the request of the Division of Reactor Licensing of %1 the Atomic Energy Commission, the Seismology Division of ,~ a.v the Coast and Geodetic Survey has evaluated the seismicity of the area around the proposed reactor site in Diablo Can- yon, San Luis Obispo County, California, and has reviewed, the similar. analysis'made by the applicant in the Prelimi- nary Safety Analysis Report of the Nuclear Plant at the n Diablo Canyon Site, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The applicant's seismicity report,is complete for both nearby K and distant earthquakes which,may have affected the proposed site. The study of sources of the potential maximum earth- quakes along the San Andreas Fault, the Nacimiento Fault, the Santa Ynez Fault and the San Andreas aftershocks west of this fault includes not only a, review of 'the historical earthquakes but a discussion of those parameters related to the earthquake frequency spectrum as fault length, depth of fp focus, slip and duration of strong shaking. Eased upon the r eview of the seismic history and r e- lated earthquake frequency spectrum data and the related geologic considerations, the Coast and Geodetic Survey agrees with the applicants statement of 0.20 g at the site and on 1 Jv ~ '' ~ lf+,) N ~ l,P Q (jl g ( I rl cmweer~ I ~ ~ o ~ ~ L l~veesv 4 s t w lt c4N I l r g 4 l p ~ ~ Wr ~ ~ , S rock for She predicted 'maximum ground accelerations of She design earthquake and twice this value, 0.40 g on rock for R II safe shut-down conditions. We believe this value (0.40 g) would provide an adequate basis for designing proi;ect;ion against She loss of functions of components importanC 8o safety. For tsunami runup aC this site we recommend ahab it be protected 8o a vertical height of 30 feet above mean lower low water. U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Rockville, Maryland 20852 September 18, 1967 ~ y/ »» 1 ll»:""IVi3 '7g ~»pp7 $ Ep Q'r'"'i '8 p'»»rye'»»aery~ y «r»gap ) flAILR „. „'~:"."Tif."N A c» g '» I » 'L ~ » F C, ') ~ Distribution: Suppl. DRL Reading~ RPB 2 Reading AUG 11 1967- Orig: HSteele (2) 50-275 R. S. Boyd Docket Ro. Tech. Reviewer J. P. Newell lfr. Leonard Efurphy Seismology Division'hief, U. S. Coast and Ceodetic Survey ESSA - Uashington Science Center Rockville, maryland 20852 Dear Hr. Murphy: A copy of the Third Supplement to the preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the nuclear reactor, which Pacific Gas and Electric Company proposes to construct and operate at its Diablo Canyon Site is enclosed for your use. The supplement contains additional technical data in the form of answers to questions raised by the Commission'incerely yours, Original signed by H.~ Steele Roger S.~ Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Prp)acts Division of Reactor T.icensing Enclosure: Third Supple to PSAR (Diablo 'anyon Site) OFFICE W DRL:RP SURkAME ~ HSteele/5 8/10/67 DATE > Form ABC-318 (Bev. !hO) US. GOVERNMENTpeINTINC GEEIEE ~ 1~21 ~ e22 I I I l :noiducfi~faXC + .rqqs,a rfrri.'~r SSt Jf.Q 3aibs.-a S mZ (.",) eLo'c '"iso graf E I QUA hyoid .8 .8 VOiUr-'if ~ gf IJ v„~~M .< .'L . II ~ I I, ~ ~ 'lt' I II li rt It. II f Il,«fit I' Cf ~ J.:!'f> r It . ~ r ~ r gtr ««(I I I og,rl «v f I t,~y„, cf ,( «II pcs be~is fsnigiaO efsAB .H -f „ f, '' I I ~ II I «Cl f ~ r %r . t I 'I %l:JSIO I ',I gh)~LG&5BH YB~OIE8 I 2, Distribution g$ Suppl DRL Reading (( RPB 2 Reading Orig: HSteele (2) Docket Eo. 50-275 JUL 31 )96I R, ST Boyd Tech. Reviewer J. Fi Newell Hr. Leonard Hurphy Chief, Seismology Division Coast and Ceodetic Survey ESSA - Hashington Science Center Rockville, Heryland 20852 Dear 11r. Hurphy: Copies of Amendments"Nos ~ 1 and 2 to Pacific Cas and Electx'ic Company's facility license application ax'e enclosed for your use. The amendments consist of the First and Second Supplements to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the proposed Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor~ and contain additional technical data requested by the Comission. Sincerely yours, Original signed by H. Steele Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director fox Reactor 'Pro)ects Division of Reactor Licensing Knclosures: As stated above TIRT.~ '9 T2 OFFICE W SURNAME W .....HS.te.eLel~.. 7/31/67 DATE > poem AEC 318 (IIov.043) U.S. COVFRN kfHT ((Rl NT IN(> CFFICF 1~2 I1W20 $',xj. .'aoZ0 Lsd'i «3'ai Q "* QIqqu8 3rribos8 ill.G aalbsog R QCH (S) oLooaBH:i1s«0 byoi .8 «ovoLvo8 .RooT LJo779N ~ l ~ L II, ~ >wkl6 '.wr ~ w se A .. "s c' ' Distribution: ~cc'Lcr UNITED STATES Suppl ~= ~O ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DRK Heading 0 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545 AD/HP Heading ~S Orang. H. S. BoyIi ,o i+ bcc: P. A. Morris or4IIc CI APR I 8 I967 8. Levine J. Newell D. Muller 1IIr~ XOcN&rd Murphy H. Tedesco Chief, Seismology Division C. Long Coast 5 Geodetic Survey H. Ireland ESSA - Vashington Science Center Hockville, Maryland 20850 Dear Mr. Murphy: Several applications for reactor construction permits or operating licenses are currently being reviewed by you. To aid you in scheduling work on these various projects and to help in assuring that we receive your reports in time to send to the AORS for its review of particular applications we have compiled a list of anticipated deadlines for receiving consultant reports on the various projects. Tn each case we would like to receive your report during the first week of the month bef'ore the project is considered by the ACRS. Considering this, the contemplated schedule for your sending reports to us is as follows: l. Duke Power Company (Oconee 1 k 2) - May 2. Vermont Yankee (Vermont Yankee) - May // Q- 3. Public Service of Colorado (Ft. St. Vrain) - June g 4. PQ8:E (Diablo Can - June Q 3-'7 5. Philadelphia Electric (Peach Bottom 2 gc 3) - July j 6. Virginia ELectric {Surry 1 gc 2) - August 7. Jersey Central (Oyster Creek) - August ).I g 8. Public Service of N.J. (Burlington) - October ) Yi- I-/+ Some of these project deadlines will likely slip from time to time. Therefore, l would expect to send you revised listings on a periodic basis. Sincerely yours, OrIgmal sIgIIed by; Roger S. Boyd Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing d:th II/17/67 N I P Distribution: Suppl.+ DRL Rdg. RSPRSB Rdg. Orig: HSteele (2) Docket No. 50-275 E. G. Case FEB 6 1967 R. S. Boyd K. Voodard JJ F. Newell Hx. Leonard Hurphy Chief, Seismology Division ESSA - tfashington Science Center Rochville, kfaryland 20852 Deax't. Hurphy: In accordance vith the understandings which vere reflected in Chairman Seaboxg's letter of October 3, 1963 to Admixal Karo,. X am forvarding herevith Volumes X and XX of the Px'eliminary Safety Analysis Report filed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the proposed construction and operation of a pressurised vater nuclear reactor at its Diablo Canyon. site in San Luis Obispo County, California. Preliminary ipformation relating to the Diablo Canyon 1966. site was transmitted. to you vith our letter of October 7, Ue would appreciate x'eceiving the results of a review by the Coast and Geodetic Survey concerning seismological charactexistics of the proposed x'eactor location which may have'a bearing upon our evaluation of the suitability of the proposed site. vould On the basis of oux tentative schedule for this project, it be desixable to have your repoxt available for our use by April 15, 1967. Sincexely youxs, Original sisncd bX E. Q. Case Edson G. Case, Deputy Director Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosuxesx A,s stated above OFFICE > ..DRL SURIIAhlE y . HSteele/dj .. R,Sloyd Qa ye OAVZI .. 2g Poim ~C-818 (Rov. 943) p, 0, COYCIIIMCNTtllNTINOOIIICC 1~01& 'I'Og'0 lyQS $ 3 $'.1(' EPI,Q J,LLI ~ ~ ~ I y (.".) »$ 06. k()PE' 833 bxr '.~z o:" | I i gECIIP L ~ bit b 4 4 ~ I t - . t' n b I'lf I Et y,l, y'b I ll ' I typal 'lt 4& I I IP ~ I ' 'l (Pt „', 4 4 El I Q 4 I I I g IE C'~~~~dth 1III(f>b+I(g II>III') ~ I y ~yytb C'ap OCT 1 2 1S66 Mr. Xecnard. Murphy Chief~ Seism1ogy Mvision U S Coast &, Geodetic Survey ZSBA - UI:&in@ton Science Center BMg. Ho. 1i Rn. C-23 RcchvQle, Thailand 2023$ Dear I.h', Murphy: Cur lettex of October 7, Io|~6 transacted to your office c preliminary report prepared by Pacific t'as and Electric CcnIpany on its proposed XCablo Canyon Site, Zaclcsed are t0o colored photographs which shcuM be inserted in the envelope in Appendix 3 of that report. Sincerely yours> OIIginai signed iIy Roger S. Boyd son 6. Case~ Assistant Director Division of'eactor Licensing Zuclosures. 2 Photcgraphs Distribution 9) XBI'eading R&PRSB Beading bcc: Z. G. Case X'. Iforian O'. Resell R. S. Boyd B8cPRSB:DHL OFFICE > RSBoyd ~t ase SURNAME D DATE > 10/12/66 10/~/66 Form AEC-318 (Bev. ~) U, I, covcI))))c))t Ml))1)))o ofllcc 1~%61 3 l M 4' W'. ~ Kg) l l 1 I( i a F l' e =, ' ~ %p ) a A g",', 3«l'."',UP. II 4 ~ g K W !,' XA1 z,f, ',.PN14i I;v >l f 1 >'(y '~El t) <0 P ilk 43 Dis tribution '9) DRL Re ad ing EhPRSB Read'ing bcc: E. G. Case P. Norian pg 7 1966 J'. Newel1 R". S. Boyd'r. Leonard Murphy Chief', Seismology Division U. S. Coast 8c, Ge odet ic Survey ESSA - Mashington Sc ience Center o - %7s Bldg. No. 1 ~ Rm. C-23 Roclor1lle, Nary1and 20235 Dear Mr. Murphy: ln accordance with the understandings which were reflected in Chairman Seaborg's letter of October 3~ 1963 to Admiral, Karo~ I am forwarding herewith a request for a prel9mfaary site review submitted by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company., Tbis review involves the siting of the Company's proposed nuclear power plant at its site near Diab3.o Canyon~ California. As you wi11 note~ this s ite is quite near the Cayucos Site previously reviewed by. the Coast 5 Geodetic Survey. Ve would appreciate receiving, by early November 1966, a draft report of the results of' prelindaary review by the Coast 5 Geodetic Survey concerning seismological characteristics of the proposed reactor 1ocati on whhach may have a 'bearing upon our evaluation of the suit ability of the proposed site . Please note that the informat ion con- tained in the enclosure should not be released or discussed publicly at this time. Sincere~ yours'riginal signed by p. G, Case Zdson G. Case, Assistant Director Division of Reactor Licensing 'nclosure:. Prel iminary Site Rpt. WS3L, DRL DFFICE t R RS god: t SURNAME > DATE ~ 1O /6/66 10 66 1 orm hEC-818 (Rov. 0-53) l4 t COYttNNCHZ tNINTINO OttlCC 1~2Nl& , Il a hh ~ ~ ~ h h ,I Ih' lt „. 'l J)7 h I I I a l ll I 'll II ', I h 1 Il a ' p *a I a ih Ia 1 " I r J aa ~ h ah 1 a grFrT Q'hl QQ ~ ~ " 'l.'l. FD STA'K i h!U .LEAR REGULA!OBY COViis'!lSS'ON 'lVASRINGTOY, D. C. 20555 AUG 8 1 >975 Docket No. 50 275/323 Or. Issac Van der Hoven Air Resources Environmental Laboratories National Oceanic 5 Atmospheric Administration 8060-13 Street Silver Spring, t1d. 20910 - Amendment (31) to Diablo Canyon 182 Report The folio Rnenamene iso. 'Zo pBAR DeteQ e AmenRnent No. To Environ. Bgt. Dated FSAR Volmes Ammchn. nt No. 31 To pSAp. Dated " 8-.18-75 (Rec'd 8-19-75) other: Amdt. Sent Around 8-21-75 Le P, g. ~P H. P . Gammi 11, CIii e f Site Analysis Bra'nch Division of Tcchnical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Relation ket Fi J. Fa;-iro ent J. Os 1 oond ~ ~ UNlTED STATES LEAR REGULATORY COt'alhllSSION VJASHlNGTON, D. C. 20555 WV1S 197~ Docket No 50-275/323 Dr. Isaac Van der Hoven, Chief r, :.-,Air Resources Environmektal Laboratory . National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 8060 13th Street Silver Spring, dryland 20910 SUB'~- A~KND~<~T (27) TO DIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 REPORT " 9I fll 2tt Mj 1 facility is being tranmlitted separately for your infozration. Please notify our branch of receiving-or not receiving the subject material '~ — by retund~ a copy of this letter or phone (301) 492 —7258. N PSM Voluzes Ar~~t No. To PSAR Dab 8 5-2-75 (Rec'd 5/6/75) nt No To Environ. Rpt. Dated Other: Amdt. sent around 5/8/75 William P. Gammi3.1, Chief . Site Ana1ysis Branch Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Ebmctor Ebagulatian Cc: Docket File J. Fairobent J. Osloond 9 I MAR 28 1S74 Do ol> Eo. 50-275/323 Dr. Xssac Yan dcr Hoven, Chief Air Resources Environmeutal Laboratory National Oceanic 6 Atmospheric AdnLxdstration 8060 - 13th Street Silver Spriag, Kmyland 20910 Dear Dr. Van der Hovcn: Your assistance is requested in evaluating the meteorological analysis of diffusion characteristics as presented by the applicant for the Diablo Canyon Station. The Final Safety Anal''sis Reports have been submitted as part of the operating license application for tvo units in San Luis Obispo County> California. Voluke one (I) of the PSAR arith amendments 1 and 2 frere sent. to you separately (3/27/74). > Xn or'der to complate our position input scheduled for 3/29/74, 'our evaluation results are needed as ~lose to that date as posoipleo DZSTqkunON: Sincerely, Docket File L-Rdg L-S)J3 L>m/SS Qilliam P Cammf.ll, Chief > cc: 'QHrons Site Analysis Branch Et&rkee Directorate of Licensing Josloond L:SAB L:SAB SAB SAB OFFICE+ L: L: I SURHAMCW Jtnirobent:,b s Jgkgq gnat / OATC~ ..... 3./28/.7..4...... 3/...... /.7.4... --3/-----/74 Fo>m AKC-318 (Rov. 9 !'PO33) AKCM 0240 CAS'O $ 14$ $ I $ 20 2$ 4 8 E h, r U DISTRIBUTION: Suppl. DRL Reading RPB-5 Reading Wig: HSteele (2) FFg 7 19S8- R. S. Boyd. F. Newell Docket No. 50-275 J. )h. Donald. H. Pack, Acting Director Air Resources Laboratory Environmental Science Services Administration 8060 - 13th Street Silver Spring, Maryland. 20910 Dear Mr. Pack: For your information, I enclose a copy of a Safety Evaluation dated. January 23, 1968, prepared. by the Division of Reactor Licensing in the matter of Pacific Gas and, Electric Company Diablo Canyon nuclear Power Plant. Cmments prepared by ESSA are attached. as Appendices C-1 anal C-2 to this report. Sincerely yours, Original eigne< bf Robert L~ Tedesco ~ Roger S.~ Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Prospects Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: As stateC above RP/DRL RP/DRL OFFICE > 4 HSteeXe SURNAME P jets DATE> .. a. L 2/ /68 ARC-318 (Res. 043) Pona IAS.COVKRNMKYfPRIXANCCFRCE: i~214~ 1 t ")'. .4 4 :", OX~U~X;~'L'K ' - jP o j.c('~Pi -".'.i.'OiL, 'X. (") o.t'.'ue;"i':„x;-~ .8 888 ..V, Ggq "J" vo.~ .'~ I I I I '1L, u I' LI >O'I I If'I f I 'F f. I % p * Ip'l, -lJ LI 8 Iy Il I ff / ffl 'lI 5 I Ig 1 I''1 II 1 ~ \ ' ff 'I *L,. At I ' I V4 boa~is fr I'XII' ~,." 1 I LI ~" t I*1 I Il I I I JXGi S K QJX CLZZ 40( I DATE R> '0 %%@@i QeveXoIeettE Ct Eeeitlt3IIEF OI+$~ .: s>TEBI@m) L'TR. IIEMO'I REPORT; OTHER'. TO! ORIG.: CC: OTHER: ACTION NECESSARY P CONCURRENCE Q DATE ANSWEREDt NO ACTION NECESSARY P COMMENT Q BYs CLASSIF.I POST OFFICE ~ U REG. NO: DESCRIPTION: (Must Be UncRsssifiect) REFERRED TO DATE RECEIVED BY DATE 'Ã~ 'tl'anno tile fciLLOULsg ag pr8p~ bg I the XBN, ~ Resources Xeno> io xosyons to om '7-25D 8-48~ 8-14 m4 8-17-6V 9/$ Ce~ ]Loiters: ENcLosUREst (g gag CGOh ggOOQ) Co~~ntg> dgte4 $4$-67» on Volse 1 5, 2 X'or Zion Station Unite 0 en' XSAR eaTL o Pe oe 4 S Sor- I,.c~nta date@-8-25<7TF on the PB& Ro 4 Lhoton Nuclear 84ation Co~ts, date4 8-2'> on Qigmoog N > 'Thh4 Supylenoat MG4'&LitOQS ~ QQpgiLo fila copies Eao 3. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION M4)L CPNTRPI. FPRM FCIRM AgQ 3RBS IB 60) YY V. 6, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: l966 335'519 ! I 'I «bee ~ ORfIONALFORM NIL IO MAYICE KDmON O0A I'0MR (II CFR) 101 II.0 UNITED =" STATES GOv 'RNMENT &memorandum TO Peter A.'orris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing SEP 1 1967 PROM ~ It.i Milton Shaw, Director Division of Reactor Development & Technology hhI ) h (V SUBJECT SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTS 0 r~ RDT !NS:5258 II r t 1 preference is made to the letters of July 25, 1967 and August 18, 1967, August ll, 1967, and August, 17, 1967, from the Division of Reactor Licensing, to the Environmental Science Services Administration refluesting comments on the following safety analysis reports respectively- ") I Zion Station Units 1 and 2 Commonwealth Edison Company Preliminary Safety Analysis Report I Volumes I and II dated July 12, 1967 I and Amendment No. 1 dated August 15, 1967 Diablo Canyon Site ~ Pacific Gas and Electric Company Preliminary Safety Analysis Report '',) Third Supplement dated July 31, 1967 Easton Nuclear Station h Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Volume I, dated August 1, 1967 Review by the Environmental Meteorology Branch, Air Resources Laboratory, ESSA, has now been completed and their comments are attached. Attachments: Three Sets of Comments (Orig. 6r 1 cy.) t r ~ rt, „ h )s C; if I ,r pi hh il th I CI f i) "1 'rtI 1 rhine r~ ri tt r h f I -.r 1 I I!tI .- 1' i ~- Buy U.S. Savings Bonrls Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan IIIO R0 'wh q e h tr r. * 'll'lit r'r h h „~ rr - ii* i ffRff0 rth+'4t trr ~ i, h,.i00 lr~ h hr>, rhvtirl r hi'* * '4 "."ttf > I rr» rrtrh. r8i+ 4-, I r, CP i s~ U lt P ANCE>VD Comments on Diablo Canyon Site Pacific Gas and Electric Company Preliminary Safety Analysis Report O' "TP'~'WC""""Y('f'1 Third Supplement dated July 31, 1967 I'~v HAIL c'x ill ct&~ VMCTloil Prepared by Environmental Meteorology Branch Institute for Atmospheric Sciences Environmental Science Services Administration August 28, 1967 In regard to question VII.G.5, it is obvious from the comparison made by the applicant that there is very little difference beyond the first 300 meters between using a virtual point source or a volumetric source technique to account for added building-induced diffusion. It should be pointed out that both techniques are an empirical means to account for a phenomena which is not clearly understood but which is observed. For comparative purposes it is interesting to note the ratio between concentrations without accounting for building turbulence and the volumetric approach. The table below shows the Diablo Canyon calculations compared to recent field tests at the National Reactor Testing Station conducted under inversion conditions and moderate wind speeds (u = 6.3 m/sec). II Distance (meters) Diablo Can on EBR-II Tests 100 3.5 200 4.2 300 9.8 400 6.2 3.9 600 3 ~ 2 700 3.2 800 2 ' 1000 2 ' Extrapolating the results, one would conclude that an, added dilution factor of 2.8 is reasonable at the site boundary of 800 m. I ~ re t Vta e=«' ", a 'I ' v I I 'ae a» 'a I a, a ~ ae r =v r- * ~, r V 4 al --r ll II -ev mat II -~l W~ ~ ' 'ei gf„» V.a ail, imaa,arV V ' ~ ) a Vf,l'5 v. ~ ve ~ e e aaaa „q, a a,a i '«a ea 4av'p w\ ')a pf O'.Ia' '] f](f v, ',a a 'f V V" " ~ .*. 'a ~ '". ~ »,."'., .,"a'»I ". ~ ~ f ''.i'~ '" ( .>.I,' 0'". i" >*: ff'tO"I"'.' pffft a u ~ a I ' ' re"- 'e '„'a a~''I, I ~ a. I'l'" e -h'. H "i -: . X ii.'if"'ale J» ja ae f P ~ >g«vt, I l i V' e I' a \» aaa f J ' ~d ~ E a ~ ~ ~ 'I a ~ a e v ~ 'a A Cfa a "=«'v "tV ca'e I I 4 ~ j ga i p »4 J v iv )f Qi, Dis tribution: Suppl.. DRL Reading RPB 2 Reading Orig: HSteele'(2) AUC 11 1967 '. S. Boyd Tech. Reviewer J. F. Newell Docket No. 50-275 Hr. Donald 'H. Pack, Acting Director Air Resources Laboratory Environmental Science Services Administration 8060 - 13th Street Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Dear Hr. Pack: A copy of the Third Supplement to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the nuclear:reactor which Pacific Gas and Electric Company proposes to construct and operate at its Diablo Canyon Site is enclosed for your, use. The supplement contains additional technical data in the form of answers to questions raised by the Commission. Sincerely yours, Original signed by P.~ Steele Roger S.~ Boyd, Assistant Director Xor Reactor Pro)acts Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: Third Suppl. to PSAR (Diablo Canyon 'Site) OFFICE P ... DRL/~ SURNAME> HSteele/d f DATE k ..-.8 .la .67-.——-- Form AEC-318 (Rev. 943) V.S,GOVERN NENT PIIINTINCOFFICE < I~-214 629 C 0: I :r rt.'"--'.CrrcxJ "cC W .Rqrr8 ~fuXbaA .Tl:6 ,aih< ~R < HSK (a) ';~I"saBff: )Xs0 %acr LXOUA ,.eQVg ef'8 X'7et.' ge ~ fC')9I LL"MEN .'i ' ~ v r Cl k' re err 7 . r ec hatt 'r'C, =" .'a' rr ' V I vle e S,tr rc,r ~ C Itc r*...c g I .'c > 'P Jt cm l ~' tJ e'e.rr' i ll ' ',la \ t frr e yd'eo~gih f<.oi~gis0 efesJ8 DX f ~ " 'C rt CI ~ v lf»g rm 'ttmll ')Jr lt lier lrlemm C 4 r. Distribution; 'Guppl' DRL Reading JUL 31 867 RPB 2 Reading Orig: HSteele" (2) Docket Uo. 50-275 R. S. Boyd Tech, Reviewer J. P. Newell Mr; Donald H." Pack, Acting Director Air Resources Laboratory Enviroxmenta1 Science Services'dministration 8060 -'3th Stx'eet Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Deax'er. Pack Copies of Amendments Mos. 1 and 2 to Pacific Cas and Electric Company's facility license application are enclosed for your use. The amendments consist of the First and Second Supplements to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the proposed Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor, and contain additional technical data requested by the Commission. Sincerely youx's, Original signed by g. Steele Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosures: As stated above OFFICE W .—-SRL RP SURNAME > ...ZRtea e.dj DATE > 7/31/67 AEC-318 (Hov. 943) Porm U.S.GOVERNMENTPRINTINGOFFICE:llpP 0 2I4%29 C :naia .Ifl'XJaiq ) ..fqqaee -gaihasFi JHt( gaibs99 S M'8 r<~U~ (s) "sLsaa8H :aix0 gft byoK .P. .3 >~+ i<>~ c~o>T'laweH ) 'I cc/r'c 1e t qS- ~ r'I f C'Ib JI() c c (r y I 444 I II c r e I ,, ~ 'iT.',')It YA 49oaie f~:mq>qo 8hs/P, + e e -i .'a I. C e ' er ! e f'9 I II e II) 4fiS J rr,S r CI err I'" g) III 'r I 1 t. ii s'I'Fts'IYr n'us&Nsrri RN ~sTr~uji,n Re@ape ~ j 'EMARKS: i Distribution: 8-suppl. file ys. (orig. in U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION MA|L | QNTQQf FQQM FORM AEC-326S. YY U. 5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I966—235 5I9 ;((, ' ' h thht Pr(p U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENVIRONMENTALSCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 April 25, 1967 'frqtff pt + INSTITUTES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR EARTH SCIENCES IN REPLY REFER TO: INSTITUTE FOR OCEANOGRAPHY R323 INSTITUTE FOR ATMOSPfIEIIIC SCIENCES h INSTITUTE f OR TELECOMMUNICATION SCIENCES ANO AERONOMY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE f SUPPOIIT SERVICES Mr. Roger S. Boyd Assistant Director for Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing m75 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 ~,( Dear Mr. Boyd, "I In reply to your letter of April 18, 1967 regarding the current list of reactor license applications now being reviewed by us, all but two now being reviewed have been completed and comments forwarded to you through the Division of Reactor Development and Technology. Our list with the date that the comments were forwarded is as follows: l. Oconee 1 and 2, 12/21/66; 2. Vermont Yankee, 12/13/66. 3. Pt. St. Vrain, 1/18/67. 4. Diablo Canyon, 3/20/67.'. Peach Bottom 2 and 3 (Being Reviewed). 6. Surry 1 and 2 (Being Reviewed). 7. Oyster Creek, 4/11/,67. 8. Burlington, 3/6/67. r I If there is any discrepancy please let us know as soon as possible. ( l Yours truly, r / (rr fag()("P( '( g ( g Donald HE Pack, Acting Director Air Resources Laboratory Institute for Atmospheric Sciences h CC: Dr. I. Van,der Hoven, EMB,ARL (r(r "I "I I f Ii „((rrt I (rr 'r~f h j 352 t F ~ r' rr ~IY "I hT ': f '( h('>'fj(A "t q'i'('IjI@f r'PpvI tpITi,'if~A pAT(7@pp>;;'TI II'I+p~ Distribution: ~glcr pp4, 4g UNITED STATES Suppl.'RL OM IC ENERGY COMMISSION Rea ing « AD/HP Heading 0 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545 Orig: R. S. Boyd d APR 1 8 f967 bcc: P. A. Morris r4rrs 0< S. Levine J. Hewell Mri Donall H. Pack D. Muller Acting Director R. Tedesco Air Resources Laboratory C. Long Env9.ronmental Science Services Administration R. Ireland 13th Street '060 I Silver Sprina, Maryland 20/10 Q 0 m/$ Dear Nr. Pack! Several applications for reactor construction permits or operating licenses are currently being reviewed by you. To aid you in scheduling work on these various projects and to help in assuring that we receive your reports in time to send to the ACRS for its review of particular applications we have compiled a list of anticipated deadlines for receiving consultant reports on the various projects. In each case we would like to receive your report during the first week of the month before the project is considered by the ACRS. Considering this, the contemplated schedule for your sending reports to us is as follows: 1. Duke Power Company (Oconee 1 &: 2) - May 4 2. Vermont Yankee (Vermont Yankee) - May 3. Public Service of Colorado (Ft. St. Vrain) - June 4. PG&cE (Diablo C ) - June 5. Philadelphia Electric (Peach Bottom 2 &: 3) - July I 6. Virginia Electric (Surry 1 8'4 2) - August 7. Jersey Central (Oyster Creek) - August 8. Public Service of N.J. (Burlington) - October Some of these project deadlines will likely slip from time to time. Therefore, I would expect to send you revised listings on a periodic basis. Sincerely yours, Original signed by: Roper S. Boyd Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing B yd: h I 1 /67 +)ROX: n>E.'(I~DCUIIIERr '~,'-",-„',, ~ .PPTj qrCEIYEiy,'; ."„AI.„'j~'~ Pa. j"~,",sh'ssg) nccex':TIcvcXessSell3 k, Eonhnolc~.!. '~P — 841 Q TOI 0 RIG.: CC: OTHER: H Pnce ACTION NECESSARY Q CONCURRENCE Q DATE ANSWEREDs NO ACIION NECESSARY Q COMMENT Q BYs C LASS IF POST OFFICE FILE CODEs 0-27>~ REG. NO: NCKM $ DESCRIPTION: /Aust Be UnciessiResi) REFERRED TO DATE RE C E IVED BY DATE 'Hero s4eittingt s/y ep.— R ACTIDH ENCLOSURESI (1 ceig xecEd) 8ZATtKR IREE C0~26$ TB. on the diablo HO lMce k 84ef 'Caqyun Sita, J.'aeific Qao ant KLectric e COep PXOPQX'84 3 20 67 REMARKS: 0-su@pl» Sile s gg' ~~csCc P Pygt y A+7 U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION NLAIL CONTROL FORM FORM AEC 326S. l8.6OI 4 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1966 235 5I9 'Q ~ 'P J ~ ~t 'I ~, ~ ~ I ', I I 0 I fO ~ ~ 1 w 1 ~ Harold L. Price Director of Regulation MAR3g .O~ I HAZARDS SUHHARY REPORT RDT:NS:S117 Reference is made to the letter of February 6, 1967, from the Division of Reactor Licensing to the Environmental Science Services Administration requesting comments on the following safety analysis report: Diablo Canyon Site Pacific Gas and Electric Company Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Volumes I and II dated January"18~ 1967 Review by the Environmental Meteorology 3ranch, Air Resources Laboratory, ESSA, has now been completed and by copy of this memorandum, we are transmitting their comments to Mr. P. A. Morris,. Director, DRL. cc: P. A, Morris, Director, DRL, w/attach, (Orig. & 1 Cy.)W.—~~ iW r %fp ., ~ 0- % &la ,1 "e l 1 ~ )g lg wp @pl ~.n i/~~' 4 M "3 N J C I'1 1 l f' y ~' I ,'l a»=~..~ e ~ 1 p 1 ~ J" y4 ~ ~ Comments on Diablo Canyon Site Pacific Gas and Electric Company Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Volumes I and II dated January 18, 1967 Prepared by Environmental Meteorology Branch Institute for Atmospheric Sciences March 20, 1967 As discussed in our comments on October 19, 1966, the important features of the transport and diffusion climate of the Diablo Canyon site are the high frequency of onshore winds from the west and northwest, the persistent occurrence of a marine inversion at about a height of 1000 to 2000 feet above sea level and the rough mountainous terrain rising to a height of over 1000 feet within a distance of 3000 feet from the shoreline. While at first glance the semi-permanent existence of a marine inversion would suggest poor dilution conditions, it is necessary to consider that good dilution usually exists under the inversion lid during the daytime onshore flow. Thus, an effluent released at the site near the ground would probably undergo considerable mixing in the first mile or so before being restri.cted in the vertical by the inversion aloft, The stabilizing effect of air trajectories over a smooth, cold water surface before reaching the site is rapidily changed to an unstable effect within a few hundred feet of travel over rough and heated inland terrain. The diffusion parameters used to calculate, the site dispersion factors (Table 2-4) are conservative. A ground source is assumed as well as inversion conditions (Pasquill F) with a wind speed of 1 m/sec for periods up to 24 hours. No credit is taken for the meandering of the wind direction over a 24 hour period, The adjust- ment to take into account building - induced turbulence amounts to a factor of 4 at the site boundary of 800m, which is reasonable. It is noted that a comprehensive on-site meteorological program is planned including a meteorological tower at the reactor site and on the 914-ft on-site hill's well as surface measurements at four other locations and a series of smoke and fluorescent particle tracer tests. In summary, no, unusual meteorological aspects are anticipated with regard to the safety analysis of the Diablo Canyon site. The assumption of a ground level source, low wind speed, inversion conditions and a constant mean wind direction over a 24-hour period is quite conservative. ;i tt ~ l D ~ r '1 ~, ( '1 Dis tribution; Supp]., +~'46 DRL Rdg. R&PRSB Rdg. HSteele Docket lfo. 50 275 Orig: (2) E. G. Case R. S. Boyd FFB 6 1967 K. Woodard J. P. Nevell Hr. Donald H. Pack Aix Resoux'ces Laboratory Environnental Science Services Administration 8060.13th Street Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Xlear th Pack: Enclosed are Volumes I and XX of the Preliminary'afety Analysis Report filed by Pacific Cns and Electx'ic Cmapany for the proposed construction and operation of a pressurised water nucleax reactor at its Diablo Canyon site in San Luis Obispo County, California. The px'oposed reactor is designed for initial operation at 3250 theaanl megawatts. Ue auld appreciate xeceiving a report fry the Aix Resources Laboratory, ESSA, on tho aeteozological aspects of the proposed xeactor location T1hich aight have a beaxing upon our safety reVieTFe On the basis of our tentative schedule for this project, it could be desirable to have your report available for our use by April 15, 1967. Sincexely yours,'riginnl signod be E. G. Cnsc Mson C. Case, Deputy Directox Division of Reactor Licensing Enclosures: As stated above OFFICE P SURNAME > Bagd, GCase DATE > ...2/3/82 2( (67. Form ~C-318 (Rev. 043) U. e. eepeeeetNT pIINTlee Opplee 1~01& hk'OL~EEcEJf.~NPEJ'JE, J{'„',,phCC (R) 4 4 ~ h~ ~ hhr'rgfhhJ t"', 'JJCgf'„,J-,', fj >" E>'X8J'004, ~ g .f 5 'J;<>V,'ah r ~ ~ I 4 ,it '4 '4 'h 'c I C.'11 hh JL li «Jh ~q Il 4 I ~ ' ' I tl Eh I L Llt JJ h 4 ~ I'h ''ck I Jt, 4 4 I I 4 4 tl ttct J '44' '4 tEC ch CI h ~ 4 f IC I I 4 t ~ 14 '44 4 4 ~ I I . » ~ ,,7PP- 'rORM NO. IO $ 010 I01 ,g LOITIOII CCA 00N. RK(f NO 17 . UN1TED STATES GOVERNMENT Memorandum Edson G. Assistant yp . Case, Director DATE: October Division of Reactor Licensing 21p 1966 FRpM . Harold Bernard., Acting Chief Environmental h Sanitary Engineering Br., RDT SQQJECT HAZARDS SUMMARY REPORT RDT: NS Reference is made to your letter of October 7, 1966, to the Environmental Science Services Administration requesting comments on the following: Preliminary Site Report Diablo Canyon San Luis Obispo County, California Dated September $0, 1966 The comments of the Environmental Meteorological Research Branch, ARL, are attached.. Attachments: Comments (orig. h 1 cy. ) ggLV Buy U.S. Savings 'Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan ~- ( J ..f ( ) 1 Comments on Preliminary Site Report Diablo Canyon San Luis Obispo County, California Dated September 30, 1966 Prepared by Environmental Meteorology Branch Institute for Atmospheric Sciences October 19, 1966 Two 'important aspects of atmospheric 'transport and diffusion at the Diablo Canyon site along the California coast are the prevailing flow from the west under a persistent low-level temperature inversion and the rough, mountainous terrain landward. As a consequence, because of a prevailing upwind overwater trajectory with inversion conditions which extend through an average depth of 1000 feet, initial diffusion from the proposed reactor site will be poor. However, as the air travels inland, a rapid transition takes place such'hat,- as Edinger f 1] points out from observations, "this surface based inversion is replaced by an actively convective~ slightly superadiabatic layer several hundreds of feet in depth by the time the air has passed only two or, three miles inland".This is generally typical of overwater to overland trajectories but the effect is intensified along this portion of the California c'oast because of rugged terrain and intensive surface heatingi The Diablo site especially, with 1000 ft terrain at the eastern boundary and peaks rising to almost 2000 feet within three miles, will experien'ce this effect, Thus, an important question to be answered is the extent of the'ransition zone from slow'o rapid dilution. The applicant seems well aware of this situation as evidenced by the planned meteorological investigations at 'the site, including measurements on a 100 ft tower on top of the 914 ft hill overlooking the site from the east. Special situations which also should be investigated include flow parallel to the coastline where presumably the forces which tend to break up the inversion would not be as effective as is the case with inland trajectories, Also, 'the actual trajectory,.of'ir which starts from the reactor site in a direction should be determined. For example, nighttime drainage 'eaward flow down Diablo Canyon might possibly travel seaward for only a short , dstance before being affected by the prevailing'esterly flow. This type of flow was observed by Pack and Angell $ 2] at Corral Canyon along the Malibu Coast. In summary, the Diablo Canyon site is liable to, experience relatively high on5ite effluent concentrations as a result of the rapid downward mixing of initially stable, elevated plumes. Beyond the site boundary at a distance of about a mile, the transition from slow to rapid diffusion will be complete Special cases such as flow parallel to the coast and seaward from the canyon should be considered." E T * PT I P C P P ~ I Et " ~ '5 I E ' 1 c T ~ C E PL ) ~ ~ P r I' 5 E ', I I L C A i 5 5 C P P V I 'E P I 4 E it t. I ~ 5 e P * P l E ' References I.l] Edinger~ J, G,, 1961: "Variability of Low Level Thermal Stratification Over Coastal Terrain in Southern California", University of California, Los Angeles, Weather Bureau Contract CWB»9666, 65 pp. I 2] Pack, D. H. and Angell, D. K., 1963: "A Preliminary Study of Air Trajectories in the Los Angeles Basin as Derived from Tetroon Flights", Mo thl Weather Review, Vol ~ 91, No 10-12, pp. 583-604. ~ ~ ~ ~ cw'~ ~'I ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ X ~ 1t ( . P„ ~ f ~ l ~ p ~pm@ ~ w.'~I = ~ i . sm ~ f g~ g ~ r ~ i ( ~ ~, - ~, ~ ~ W i ~ 'i ~ .-'' a'" " ">~ v. ~ g '' ~* 1 5 ~ 6 pl OCT T 2 t966 Ih. Xozsm B., Pack Acting 3ixeetor Air Resources Xeboratory BnrLx~te1 Science Services AfaiatstrtLtian 8060 13th Street SQver Spring, %upland 20glo Ibm'r Xhch: Our Retaker cd; Ceto'her f, ISN transvaal to pour o&ice e yreli&naxy report. yrcSIared "by Pacific Cas,'and ZLectrie Cempany m its XIxcyased 13iabIo Cmgrcn Site Shielded me two colored photcgrayhs eMch ahouht he inserted in the enve1,o~ in Appendix 3 cC'hat aport. Sillccxc3g Qonrsp OIiginal signed bf. Bngeg $, Bngd acn C. Case &siataut XCrector Biviaiaa oZ Reactor Td,censing Diatributicm SuppI. Prop. Ho. 419) I'LL Reading EhPRSB Reading G. Case 'cc.'. P. dorian J EesIe11 3, S 1hyl R&PRSB: 3RL OFFICE > RS 'yy3: h EG@se SURNAME > -moira/| 6— / /K DATE > Form AEC-818 (Rev. 043) e, e, COYCRNIICNl PIINTINO OfSICC 1~el I 1il e r) L Mr. Donald H. Pack Acting Director Air Resources Laboratory Environmental Science Services Administration 8060 13th Street Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Dear Mr. Pack: Enclosed herewith is a request for a preliminary site review submitted by the Pacific Gas and ELectric Company. This review involves the siting of the Company's proposed nuclear power plant at its site near Dia>lo Canyon, California. As you wil3. note, this site is quite near the Cayucos Site previously reviewed by'our group. 4'e would appreciate receiving, by early November 1966, a report of the results of a preliminary review by the Air Resources Laboratory on the meteorological aspects of the proposed reactor locationi which may have a bearing upon our evaluation of the suitability of the proposed site. Please note that the information contained in the enclosure should not be released or discussed publicly at this time. Sincerely yours, Original signed lIy , E. G, Case Zdson G., Case~ Assistant Director Division, of Reactor Licensing Enclosure: Preliminary Site Rpt. Distribution: "'9) DRZ Reading R8PRSB Read iTIg bcc: E. G. Case P. NoriMI ewell OFFICE I$ BRZMR.DM.... SBoy SURNAME P :t /66 DATE > lo/5 l /3 Form ~C-318 (IIov.0-S3) l4 $ , COV$$ $ $ $$$ $$1$ $ I$00$ $ IC$ 1~0l& 4' gg SS» 1, ~ I 4 h ~ J -= . ~ --= i» if"QQ 4r— Rh 4 ' rh + ~ + s,hr"", ~ YA I l'RSglt May 5, 1978 Docket Nos. 50-275 Im 50-323 Dr. Nathan N. Hewmark Consulting Engineerfhng Services 1211 Civil Engineering Building University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois 61801 Dear Dr. Newmark: Enclosed fs a final draft of our response to the Diablo Canyon Intervenors'pril, 1977 seismic interrogatories. He need to have you review these answers to ascertain that we have correctly characterized your positions on Diablo Canyon seismicity and structures, and also to ascertain whether your views on this matter are fn accord with those of the Staff. Since the replies are already overdue, we would appreciate your expediting your review of the document. 1 Me are also desirous of meeting with you and Dr. Hall at the earliest possible date to review interfaces of your testimony with that of the Staff and the I am informed .that the NRC Contracts Branch is in the process of working on your contract. Sincerely, L. Dow Davis Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosure cc (w/o encl.): Dennis Allison Carl Stepp OPPICCIP OELD OELD JT dVRHAMC~ DDa urte,l,l,ott DATC~ -5/-~- .78--" ...,5/.k/78..„...., ... PoroI hKC.$ 18 (Rev. 9.$ 3) hZChf 0240 N U, 0, OOVCRNMCNT PRINTINO OPPICCI 1074 ddd Idd 4 ~4 F U 8" ~ fl 'I I P I 'I ~ DI II ~ ~ fa April 21, 1977 Dr. Nathan H. Newmark Consulting Engineering Services 1211 Civil Engineering Building Urbana, Illinois 61801 SUBJECT.'REVIB< OF GRAFT RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 3 AND 4, DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 AND 2 (SEB:306, 1111) Dear Dr. Hewmark: !Je have recently received two interrogatories pertaining to the Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 application, which are related to the seismic re- evaluation of the plant. Enclosed please find two (2) copies of our draft responses to the interrogatories for your review. Your prompt review of the draft responses and your technical comments are hereby requested no later than tiay,6, 1977. He are also sending you a paper titled, "Assessment of Seismic Wave Effects on Soil-Structure Interaction" prepared by D. L. Bernreuter of Lawrence Livermre Laboratory for your review and coments. The conclusions reached in this paper may be brought into future ACRS deliberations and hearings. David C. Jeng, Section A Leader Structural Enaineering Broach Division of Systems Safety Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosuresr As Stated DISTRIBUTION: BCC W/0 ENCL: J. Knight BCC W/ENCL: D. Allison Central File I. Sihwei1 C. Stepp NRR-Rdg D. Davis SEB-Rdg WnS~/ran~ ~ OPPICK~ x278Q7 DSS SEB DSS: SEB ].~'S,ihwei 1 &VRHAMC~ ... PTKMq yf.. „DJqng y DATR~ ...Mb.J../7.?...... ae/../7X.... , .04/$ (l.?.?„„ NRC EORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 4 V'& OOVCRNM&NTPRINTINO OPPICCI IOT& &&~~ FI r ' 4 ~ 4 ' I 11 11 ~ ~ 1 4 ~ 4 1A 'I 'I pr Ak Ij 4 p ~ . ~ I ' ~ IV 4 4','~ 4 I, I 4 I, 4 4 4 4 1 F ' 4 ~ '4 4 '4 I ~ I II r 4 Vi I 4 g „ I ~ ~ 4 ~ I . 'I 4 ~ I * ~ 4 I» 4. 4 4 r 1 4 ' 1. 4 II ~ -.. = 4 4 4 4 FII IIV RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Interro ator No. 3 What reductions in the response spectra for the various buildings of the DCNGS, due to the large foundations of these buildings, constitute proper, conservative values for evaluating the seismic safety of the DCNGS? Please state each and every fact upon which you base this contention. RESPONSE It has frequently been observed that structures on large foundations appear to respond with less intensity to earthquakes than do smaller structures and more specifically, than does free- field instrumentation. Several researchers, e.g., Yamahara in 1970, N. Ambraseys in 1975 and R. Scanlan in 1976 (Refs. I thr u 3) have attempted to provide a rational explanation for this observed behavior. These references give, in general, a relation- ship between the average acceleration over the area of the foundations as a function of the relative foundation width compared to the predominent wave length of earthquake input motion. The NRC staff believes that the following reduction in response spectra for DCNGS structures should be allowed to realistically account for the above described observation: ' Af= Ao where Af = reduced acceleration for foundation A = acceleration for free field d R= 1- 5 but not less than 0.67 R = response spectra reduction factor = < seismic wave transit time providing a measure of the extent of acceleration averaging effect applicable to the foundation r This reduction factor "R" for DCNGS structures is eatablished based on studies of the spectrum amplification factors obtained from the recorded Pacoima Dam response spectra. The lower limit on R (i.e., 0.67) is kept purposely high for adequate conservatism in the application of this concept to DCNGS structures, in view of the small amount of data upon which the concept is based. More rigorous discussion of the technical bases for the above described concept is provided in Appendix C, Supplement No. 5 to the Safety Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, Units No. 1 and 2 (Ref. 4.). Consistent with the concept of a wave motion of earthquake deformation, there are torsions and tiltings of a building foundation. The torsional effects are accounted for by assuming an eccentricity of horizontal seismic force of 7A of the width of the structures. The tilting effects are judged minimal and neglected in the analysis. REFERENCES 1. Y. Yamahara, "Ground Motions during Earthquakes and the Input Loss of Earthquake Power to an Excitation of Buildings, Soils and Foundations," Vol 10, No. 2, 1970, pp. 145-161, Tokyo. 2. N. Ambraseys, "Characteristics of Strong Ground Mtion in the Near Field of Small Magnitude Earthquakes," Invited Lecture, Fifth Conference, European Committee for Earth- quake Engineering, Istanbul, September 1975. 3. R. H. Scanlan, "Seismic i!ave Effects on Soil-Structure Interaction," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 4, 1976, pp. 379-388. 4. N. Newmark, "A Rationale for Development of Design Spectra for Diablo Canyon Reactor Facility," September 1976. I DRAFT pf RESPONSE TO DCNGS INTERROGATORY NO. 4 N .4 What value for structural damping for DCNGS do you contend constitutes a proper, conservative value for use in evaluating the seismic safety of DCNGS? Please state each and every fact upon which you base this contention. RESPONSE The damping mechanisms to which structures, systems and components are subjected, are mainly of two kinds. One is material damping which corresponds to the internal or hysteretic energy dissipation within the structural material at the microscopic level. The other is system damping which is related to the energy dissipation at macroscopic level, such as, non-linear effects due to concrete cracking, plastic hinge formation, gap chattering, and interface forces at structural joints, supports, fasteners, etc. The NRC'taff believes that the structural damping values of Regulatory Guide 1.61 (Ref. I) are appropriate and conservative values for use in evaluation of the seismic safety of DCNGS. According to the Regulatory Guide 1.61, the maximum critical damping values used for the seismic analysis of equipment and large diameter piping is limited to 3% of critical, while the damping values for -2- DRAFT reinforced concrete structures is 7X of critical for the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). The technical justification for selection of the 3X damping value for nuclear steam supply systems, equipment and piping at the SSE level was originally based upon judgment of experienced experts such as Or. N. Newmark (Ref. 2). Recent on-site low amplitude damping tests have, however, verified the appropriateness of this selection. Figure 1 (Refs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) shows a plot of damping values as a percent of critical damping and the excited level of the primary coolant loop equipment of several plants. The curve shown is an approximate fit of the test data obtained. The data were obtained from forced exci tation tests (via use of vibration generators) and measured earthquake responses of plant systems and components. These values are for low amplitudes of excitation (generally judged to be less than OBE level). For larger amplitudes of excitation (SSE level), the damping would increase considerably. As can be seen from Fig. 1, the selection of 3 to 4/ damping value for NSS components and large diameter piping is considered to be conservative. From Figure 1, it is seen that observed damping values increase with increasing response amplitudes. This same trend is also shown in Figure 2, (Ref. 8), which is the results of a survey of several buildings in the Los Angeles area subject to the San Fernando Earthquake. The recommended 7C of critical damping at the SSE excitation level for reinforced concrete structures was also established primarily on the basis of engineering judgment combined with very limited test data available during the late Sixties to early Seventies. However, since the publication of Regulatory Guide 1.61 in 1973, considerable experimental damping data at low to medium excitation amplitude levels have been generated. Table 1 (Refs. 8 thru 16) is the results of a survey of these more recent data which provide supportive evidences for the selected 7X damping value applicable to reinforced concrete structures subjected to SSE level motions. It is noted that the damping values specified in Regulatory Guide 1.61 are, in general, applicable to seismic design of all nuclear plants. For the DCNGS which was originally designed for a safe shutdown earthquake of 0.40g, the damping values of Category I structures systems and components are likely to be greater in the event of a postulated safe shutdown earthquake of the order of 0.75g, resulting from the presence of the nearby Hosgri fault. This is due to the fact that the strain levels of the structures, systems and components are likely to be higher than those strain levels the plants are originally designed for. However, for conservatism, this likely increase 'in damoino values is disregarded and the values of \ 4- DRAFT Regulatory Guide 1.61 are used in seismic analysis of the DCNGS. As demonstrated in the above discussions, the selection of the damping values used for the analysis of the DCNGS is based on the results of many experimental investigations as well as engineering judgments of experts in the field of earthquake engineering. lie believe that these damping values are adequate and when used in conjunction with the NRC staff approved seismic design criteria, should yield conservative results f'r the evaluation of seismic design adequacy of the DCNGS. REFERENCES 1. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61, "Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants," Published October 1973. 2. N. Newmark, et al, "Seismic Design Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants," Journal of the Power Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, Nov. 1973, pp. 287-303. 3. Ibanez, P., et. al., "San Onofre Nuclear Genreating Station Vibration Tests," UCLA-'ENG-7073, August 1970. 4. Matthiesen, R.B., et. al., "San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Supplementary Vibration Tests," UCLA-ENG-7095, December 1970. 5. Smith, C.B., et. al., "Response of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to Earthquakes," UCLA-ENG-7151, July 1971. 6. EGCR Blast Test Project Group, "BLAST (Interim Report)", UCLA- ENG-7081, October 1970. 7. Smith, C.B., and Matthiesen, R.B., "Forced Vibration Tests of the Experimental Gas-Cooled Reactor (EGCR)," UCLA Report No. 69-42, August 1969. 8. G. C. Hart, M. Lew and R. DiJulio, Jr., "High-Rise Building Response: Damping and Period Nonlinearities," Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome 1973. 9. P. Jennings, et. al., "HystemticResponse of a Nine-Story Reinforced Concrete Building," Earth uake En ineerin and Structural D namics, Vol. 3, 1974. 10. N.M. Newmark, "Seismic Response of Reactor Facility Components," ASME First National Congress on Pressure Vessels and Piping, San Francisco, CA, May 1971. 11. J.A. Blume, "Summary of Current Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear Reactor Facilities," September 1967. 12. A. Morrone, "Damping Values of Nuclear Power Components," Westinghouse Corporation, WCAP - 7921. 13. J. Blume, "The Motion and Damping of Buildings Relative to Seismic Response Spectra", Bulletin of the Seismic Societ of America, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 231-259, Feb. 1970. 14. G. Hart, et. al., "Damping in Nuclear Reactors", Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome 1973. 15. Havil and, et. al., "A Study of the Uncertanties in the Funda- mental Translational Periods and Damping Values for Real Buildings," MIT Publication No. R76-12, February 1976. 16. Carpenter, et. al., "Structural Walls in Earthquake Resistance Structures, Experimental Program," Portland Cement Association, August 1975. O San Onofre Steam Generator — S. Fernando Earthquake San Onofre Steam Generator — Vibration Generators H Indian Point No. 2 Steam Generator 8 Oak Ridge EGCR Steam Generator X San Onofre Pressurizer — Vibration Generators b San Onofre Pump — Vibration Generators V Indian Point No. 2 Coolant Pump 6 CJ M H O l O 4 Linear Fit Curve 0 H 8 H ~ Qo 3 4 5 10 20 ~ 30 40 50 100 200 DEFLECTION, MILS Figure l.— Damping Values Associated with Primary Coolant Loop Equipment s ~ '18 BUILDINGKEY: 111 N. HOPE ST 6'I1 W. SIXTH ST re 6244 16 800 W. FIRST ST r 1640 N. MARENGO ye~ r 1760 ORCHID AVE OF r '14 r ~aPw ~ 1800 CENTURY PARK EAST 14724 ~ 1900 AVE OF THE STARS c 190'I AVE OF THE STARS r 3838 LANKERSHIMBLVD, p7 8244 ORION ~~cF O 14724 VENTURA BLVD ~ 15910 10 15250 VENTURA BLVD EJ 15910 VENTURABLVD I 159!0 ~ ~ 1901 0 8244 0 3838 ~ 15250 5 a ~ 1640 I R I3838 r '$1900 15250 Cl IU 6 1901 0 1900 ~ ~ 111 ~ STEEL BUILDINGS 1800 a1800 ~ r ~ 1760 r ~ 111 ~ 600 ~ REINFORCED CONCRETE r~ BUILDINGSIRC) 1760 14724 0 0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 '12 .14 BASEMENT FOURIER MODULUS AT NATURALFREQUENCY IGRAVITY SECONDS) IY(a auI)) Figure 2 Building Damping in Fundamental IVlode Versus Amplitude ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ I - ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ I I ~ ~ i ~ ' ~ I ~ s ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I I ~ I I. s s I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I s I I ~ I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ! I ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I I I ~ ~ I I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I ss ~ ~ I I I I I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ lo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I I ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ '. '. ~ s s I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - t4 P ~ - - 4 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 1. ItiTRQOUCT IOl< . It is normallyop assumed in the seismic analysis of structures that the free-field motion u:.I! ch l s us,'u as iAput i s the same f>. a Ig } no'n «> on a g i vega I eve I bc npa «h th~ s oun«, i . 'ofl mat. This represents a sim lif''.,p i ica.ion, as no all particles oi soil describe tne sa.-..e motion simultaneously. As the foundation mat of the structure is rigid in the horizontal direction, it will tend to avere age the ground motion. Abandoning the assumptionion 'rib'sendof the ~= ""> ~ 'p'' 'y '. inp.. a.ion .-.av iaad to a redo"-io~«as re'e«s i'Isg at i onamot ' ' "' .-e - - =oundation ma: wiil experience as .h oispgacement components.. will.'i cancel each other to a r ',certain extent. This is of consid erable the design of nuclear power interest for plants which are very stiff, large structures. To investigate these effects, the extremely complex phenomenon of the passage of a seismic wave has to be sin',plifi'ed considerably, Typically, the basemat is assumed to be ri'g'id anand th soil is represented by simple soi'I springs, e.gap Scanlan [1] shows that averaging a passing compressive wave for which the directioni ec ions o f wave propagation and seismic retion coincide results in a different effective "single-point" earthquake, which shakes the structure in the classical manner used for seismic analysis. tfewmai k [2j and Yamahara [3] use slightly. different approaches to derive at the same basic results as Scanlan. Both Newmark and Yamahara present some data to support their basic, results. Becauseecause of the potential importance of wave passage and the fact that a number of simplification must be introduced into the analysis it wou ld be use fu 1 to determine if the phenomenon actually exists. It is the purposeu of this paper to determine if wave passage effects can be determined from the simplified analyses currently used. 2. REVIEW OF BASIC THEORY AND RESULTS A number of slightly different approaches have been used to develop thee basicasic theoreory.. n [ is e most .complete and reasonably typical. Hence, his model and results can be used to identify the main simplifying assumptions common to most models and to obtain an order of magnitude estimate of the reduction of the free-field around motion projectedc e by the theory. In Scanlan's [[1JJ modelel, the basemat is represented by a rectangular rigid foundation , . resting on top of the soil and connected to the soil by a continuously distributed set of soil springs. The seismic input is'pa lie d at the base of the soil springs'and is assumed to be of the form u(t) = A Cos m t + p 7 n n n C s where a h„cos (u„s + p„) = FourSer expansion of surface accelerogran C = appropriate wave train velocity. ~or perfumed under the auspSces of the U.S. Enernergy Researchn & Development Administration under contract tlo. W-7405-Eng-48 y ' The term u x/C in eq. (1) approximates the fact that the wave train is traveling across the site. Scanlan considers two cases: the 'first case is when the soil particle motion is in i " ~ .i.on as t.. wave ls :r..v .ling ~rr 'he so"ond :s wnen the so! pa:".'cle motion is transverse to the direction oi the»ave motion. Scanlan shows that tne traveling wave can be replaced by an averaged time history applied simultaneously at the base of the soil springs. Scanlan found that for both cases that u (t) =~ A Cos /u'n t + 0 (2) ~ n L n nf where 1/2 2(l - Cos Rn 'A n 'Rn n Q L R n C s Tan q n 'n Rn C appropriate wave velocity s L = foundation dimension A plot of K /A is shown on Fi'gureu e 1, The important thing to note from Figure 1 is that ~ n n the theory predicts that the net effect of the traveling wave is to effectively reduce the "higher frequencies." High frequencies in this case are defined relative to the average traveling wave train velocity and the foundation dimension L. In addition, Scanlan found that a torsional motion wou ld be exes te d even in syametric structures. This torsional motion is generally not included in typical soil structure ' interaction anal ysis. For the syneetnc case, there is of course,.'no torsional motions induced when the same motion is input at every point under the, structure. Thus, it is not possible to come up with an expression conpletely equivalent to eq. (2). However, Scanlan shows that tot siona'1 behavior is very similar. I 3. CHOICE OF AH APPROPRIATE MAVE VELOCITY It is seen from eq. (2) and Figure 1 that the assumed wave train velocity is an extremely important parameter. If the important part of the ground motion is from surface waves, then the appropriate average velocity can be obtained. However, in the'reasonably near field of an earthquake, a number of complex arrivals give rise to the strong motion Thus, many of the arrivals recorded at two nearby instruments would be associated with the high apparent wave velocities of the lower layers, Oecause strong motion instruments are typically triggered at some threshold level, little data exists from actual earthquakes which can be used to estimate the wave velocities ' associated with the strong motion. Considerabl e da ta exis s from underground nuclear ' explosions which can be used t make reasonable estimates of the apparent wave train velocity, Tamura et al. [4] and Tsuchida et al, [5] published results obtained from two -3- d ifferent arrays of accelerometers located on soft alluvial nround. For both arrays the apparent wave velocity was computed by obtaining the time lags from a cross-correlation of the records reco."ded at the various instrumentss, Tamura. ~»I... . [».[' es;imated a wave velocity " " o naa,"iy ".'.;.ec as the trave velocity T""c"idaJV ~ ~ et a' [dg obb aire~ a so".ennuii gc = ".r variation in their results in that the wave velocity varied between 2.6 to 5.3 km/sec. lt should be noted that these velocities are much larger than the wave velocities of the near sureacd layers. /Cry siml .al resul is al e obtI i'n ~dd ii da~a obtained trom un~ergroun'Uc aar expl"'sions. son> is used. 'n th~s case, the recording arrays have a co+non time base. A number of different sets of data were examined and all gave similar results as obtained for the available earth- quake data - namely the apparent wave velocity of the traveling wave train is much higher than, the wave velocities of the near surface layers. 4. AHALYSIS OF AVAILABLEDATA A number of assumptions were made in the various analyses of the wave passage effect, such as, Scanlan's model. The validity of many of these assumptions are difficult to , determine. This suggests that it would be useful to assess the overall effect of wave passage on the response of structures. This can be done byy qua I s ta t >ve Iy comparing the overall response of structures to real traveling waves to that predicted qualitatively by equation (2) to determine if it is important. There are at leaeas t two ways tto dod this. First, the most ide'al case is to comparec m a free-field measurement with a measurement obtained in a building. Because so few cases where this is possible exist, we must also use a second method of comparing the response of an accelerometer located at the basemat of various groups of nearby buildings i~1th different basemat areas. By comparing these to the theory, we should be able to determine if the effect is important. One of the few useful cases is the comparison between the recording in the parking lot and in the Holly>cod storage building during the San Fernando earthquake. Hewmark [2] used this example as evidence for wave passage effects. Figure 2 gives a plot of the ratio of the Four>er Spectral amplitude of the parking lot motion divided by the motion recorded in the basement of the Hollywood storage building Hewmwmar k I 2] was a bl e to predict the differ- ence between the two spectra by using a wave velocity of 0.6 km/sec The value of wave -velocity used by Hewmark is very low as compared with the experimentally obtained wave velocities discussed above. 'f Although few additional cases exist of strong motion recorded both in buildings and nearby in the free-field, there are a number of cases where groups of buildings with different basemat areas have recorded data. lieie can uses eq. ((2)) tto obtainb an estimate of the effect various basemat areas. Figure 3 ilIustrates the averaging as a function of. frequency that would be expected for an average wave velocity of C -" 0.6 km/sec and 3 km/ sec for structures of effective length of 100'nd 300'. The ratio of the Fourier coefficients of the effective time histories for the two different structures is shown. From this figure, we see that the choice of C is very important. 'If, as indicated in Section 3, the appropriate wave velocity is that of the deeper layers (>3 km/sec) then wave passage is not very important, On the other hand, if the value of C used by Hewmark is appropriate, then wave passage effects should be important and observable. Figure 4 shows the location of a group of buildings in the Los Angeles area used in this study, as well as, the basemat areas for these buildings. Figure 5 shows the ratio of 0 -4- the 2"'amped relative velocity spectral amplitude of each building to that of the largest .- basemat t.th 3411 Milshire Building3. There are only slight differences between the two l' l d a'tc.. 5i'e, Of'lj ho ~lvolo>e o ..hoe C a:a i; .,s".on» b'cavsei j we are pr!T"";'y intere":ed in +he overall trend of the data rather than the fine structure of the spectral ratio. The 2'am'amp nd spectra was chosen to smooth out sonic of the violent fluctuations observed in the Fourier spectra and simp'.. 1'fi y interpretation. '' i.ll t,.'.",e t:qhl n fre;uencvt. 'ue u' end, sqteater..' +hen....3 Hz} w> lotttd ox ec'--.; " on e asis 0 Figure 3 -- changein the ratio is betvieen 1 and 3 Hz. However, the response shown on Figure 5 is consistent viith the choice ofo a higher wave velocity for frequencies greater than 3 Hz.. The 3411 Hilshire Building seems to have filtered the ground motion between 1 and 3 Hz as compared to the other buildings. 5. DISCUSSION AND CONClUSIONS'pace limitations preclude the presentation of othero er similarsemi ar data. E.g.,E. a record was obtained in a 14-stor-s ory buildiuilding within 2 km of the Hollywood storagee building.u ng. Thisis spectras ectra was very similarr too thata recorded in the parking lot at the Hollywood storage building and showed no evidence of averaging. Data obtainnd>ne a t th e Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant showed a considerable difference between the free-field and that recorded in the refueling building. Seed, et al. f6] were ablee touo accountacc for this difference [for frequencies greater than 3 Hz] by a soil stru cture interaction analysis neglecting any wave passage effects. The main conclusions that can be reached from this , is'h a t we nee d to actually measure 0 ~ the wave velocity to associate with the traveling wave. Thee avaiav '1 a bl e data seems to suggest a tis velocity is, much larger than the wave velocity of the near surface layers. In addition, comparisons with theor y arere mixedmi in that some some cases appear to support the theory and others do not. But any iinterpretation is difficult because the wave velocity is unknown and has such an important effect onn thee p henomenon. It appears we are seeing many complex effects that clearl y cannot'be lumped together in a simple averaging scheme. 6. ACKHOHLEDGHENTS This study was partly funded by the Nuclear Regulatory Cotamission. WOTlCE "This report was pre pared S an aeeOunt Or s'vnrk e yt e nhed States Government. Neither e nite tates nor the UnitedU States Energy Research 4 Dc,vcloevelopmcnt Administration, nor any eir employees, nor an'ry o their contractors. ors, or their cm ployce s, makes any completeness or usefulness of an i a aratus, ~ rod uctct or process disclosed y or sen s t at its use would not privately.owned ru:hts." infringe'4R r eference to a company or product name does not imply approval or recommendation of th d e niversity of California or the U.S. Energy Research &, Development Administration to thee exc Iusion of otheis that may be suitable." References f' ~ i' S-.~ ic lave E-fec s on Soil-Structure inter'c'' . e I quiche bing .n ~~r...g a,ic S., c., a l 0jna...>c,, ~ (1 «Io) I p 379- 68 [2] Newark, H. H;, Hall, M. J, andd i"organ,Ho J. R., Comparison of Building Responses and ree ie d Notion in Earthquakes," Proc. of the 6th World Conferencee on Ear thqua ke Enrineering, Vol. 3, (1977), 3-01-06. I [3 j d..Brat 3, h., G.(' cun t".0 ions Our ing Ear;h(",eke and .'Apu Loss of earthquake Power to an Excitation of Buildings," Soils and Foundations, ~'ol. 10 (19?0), pp 145-161. Tamura, Hoguchi, and Kato, "Earth uake Ob r [4] C., T., K., " on the Surface of Alluvial Soft Groundou , Proc.Pro of the 6th World Conference on Earth- [5] Tsuchida, H., Kurata, E., and Hayashi', S. , "Qbservation of Earthquake Response of Ground a an er ica Seismometer Arrays," Proc. of 6th Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2, (1977 ), 2-173-2-17 [[63j S eed, H. B., Valera; J., Tsai, C. F., and Lysmerr. J .. So>1-Structure Interact>on u ay in the Ferndale Earthquake .of June 7, 1975," resentation to the ACRS Seismic Subcommittee lheeting, February 7-9, 1977, Bethesda,ND. 1.0 ~ V ~ 2 0 I 0 2 8 "'0 12 '4 Figure 1. Wave Amplitude Reductions vs. Wave Number R , n'0 I l3 4- fg C3 Q 3 tl) ~ ' 2 C~~ 4 ~ t I I ~ ~ 10. 100 H'.=gLEi'1CX' M Figure 2. Ratio of 2X Damped Relative Yelocity Spectral Amplitude- Parking Lot/Hollywood Storage Building). 0 4, 3. 0, O. I j,o IO. 0 IOO.O FREQUENCY-- lfZ, Figure 3. Predicted Effect on the Ratio of the Fourier Amp1itude for a Building of an Effective Length L = 100'ivided by a Building of L = 300'. 8 8 U cf) C 0 0 cf F 50 Welsh(r z Blvd. 3uilding Hasemat Ratio Basemat Area ~ Location Area 10" to 3411 hilshire 1 - 3550 ltilshire 2.52 0.28 2 - 3470 Milshire 2.19 0.24 3 - 616 S, Norm. 1.26 0.14 4 - 3411 llilshire 9.1 1.0 Z 5 - 3345 Hilshi re 2.75 0 ~ 30 G - 3407 H.. 6th 2.17 0,24 Figure 4. Relative Location and Basemat Areas of Buildings Compared in figure 5, -9- 4 A ~ ~ ~A ~C I Vl ~4 IC 3, ~A ~0 ~4 OC sn 2. ~J ~4 Vl Vl 0.1 1,0 10. 0 IGG.O ~ 0,1 1.0 10. 0 IDD, FREQUENCY- XZ, FREQUENCY - XZ~ 4 ~ $4 3 3 ~ ~A ~4 ~4 I ~4 (W I 04 2 ~ ~ IC 2. Vl 5 2 Fl O ~ I ~i O W ~4 I 0. 0. O. I 1.0 10,0 100 0 0.1 1.0 10. 0 100.0 FREQUENCY XZ, r~ZQUEXCY-- XZ. 4 ~ Figure 5. Ratio of 2$ damped relative velocity spectra obtained in the basement of the buildings shown on Figure 4 to ths obtained in the basement of the 3411 OC Mi lshire Building. A 3550 Ifilshire 3470 Ili1shire C 616 5, V'ormandie ?. D 3345 Milshire E 3407 Il. 6th. ~ IA r 0. 0.1 10,0 rGG 0 EREQUva rY UZ 0 Mr. Paul Morton Room 642 28 Civic. Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Hr. Morton: At the request of Perry Amimoto, I am forwarding copies of various reports relating to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station. Enclosed is a copy of the Commission's Pinal Environmental Statement, with Addendum, and our Safety Evaluation Report with Supplements 1-4. He are in the process of locating other related documents and they will be sent to you in the near future. Sincerely, ~ J. C. Stepp, Chief ology and Seismology Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Enclosures: As stated DIST: DOCKET FILES~(50-275, 50-373) NRR Reading GSB Reading DSE Reading GWilliams JStepp C. OPPICE~ ST SURNAME3F3P'SE„.GWILLIAHS.,w 6/24/76 DATE Form AEC.318 >(EST. 9 33) hECbt 0240 0 U. S; OOVERNMENT PRINTINO OPPICEI 1014 SES 1SS lki t V <3 ll k 4 ' 1P p "I II e:a~~ ' t'0 1 ' '$f Ka 4 l ~ t- l rem ~,5 1 pJ 2Iir. Don Bernreuter Lawrence Livermore Labs P. 0. Box 808 3~5 Livermore, California 94550 Dear Don: Enclosed is a Preliminary Draft of the report "Design Spectrum for Diablo Canyon Plant Facility", prepared by Dr. Newmark. I am sending this to you for your information, but if you have comments l would appreciate your giving me a call. Uith best regards. Sincerely, I J. C. Stepp, Chief Geology and Seismology Branch Distribution: Division of Site Safety and Central File GSB Rdg Environmental Analysis NRR Rdg DSE Rdg Enclosure: As stated i" CVRH*MC~ DATC~ Form ARC-318 (RcT. 9.33) hZCM 0240 4 U, 4 4OVCRHMCNT rRIHTIN4 OrrICCI IC74 421 ICC e ~ H I r I ~ g)R g 1 576 Hr. Ted Beeston California Energy Commission 111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95825 Dear lir. Beeston: Pursuant to your request, enclosed, please find the most recent USGS "status of review" reports on the Diablo Canyon 'A 1 Nuclear Power Plant site. Those reports represent review of I ,I the latest studies conducted by utility. lk h) Sincerely, J. C. Stepp, Chief Geology and Seismology Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Enclosure: As stated cc: w/enclosure Q. Gammill 0. Parr D. Allison DISTRIBUTION: CENTRAL FILE NRR RDG GSB RDG DSE RDG OPPICC3P DSE:GS eURNAMC~ p JCStep :sb DATC~ 4/20/76 Im hBC.318 (Rer. 9.33) hBCM 0240 0 v e'ovcRNMcNT pRINTINo opplccl Ip74 ecaIee ' 'I ~ ' r t e m APR 20 ']976 Dr. N.,N. Hewmark Consulting Engineering Services 1211 Civil Engineering Building Urbana, Illinois 61801 Dear Dr. Newmark: Attached for your information is a copy of an internal memo I issued containing the minutes of the meeting we had on April 12, 1976, con- cerning the seismic design of Diablo Canyon. Please note Item (5) wherein it was noted that the applicant will be requested to submit a report including the final analysis of the plant seismic capabilities. You will be requested to review his findings and your report to us will essentially be an evaluation of the applicant's report. I will let you know how things develop in the near future. In the meantime, if you have any comments on the attached minutes, please let me know. Isa S. Sihweil Structural Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure w/o en. bcc: R. Heineman H. Denton R. Maccary R. DeYoung D. Allison go~ l OPPICd~ DHiNBZ7M7...... ISihweil~ p dVAHAMCW < DATd+ 04/gg/76 POrm hEC.318 (Rdt. 9-S5) AECM 0240 Q U, d, OOVCIIHMCNTPAINTIHO OPPICEI 1074 ~ 520 Idd O'El 9 'R "'~" . ~ ! gy,R AECy c~, 4 = " '=UNITED STATES '! . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 !'PR~ ~ 6-.:(976 i".~ ! . R. E. Heineman,.Director, Di'vision of Systems Safety, NRR R. R. Maccary, Assistant Director for Engineering,'HRU: ision -of Systems Safety, NRR —.- ! M'' MEETING BETWEEN SEB STAFF AND N NEWMARK CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES CONCERNING DIABLO CANYON, APRIL 12, 1976. '! ! !'efe'rence: "Seismic Wave Effects On Soil Structure Interaction" by R..H. Scanlan,.3rd SMIRT Conference, 1975. ! The SEB met with N. M. Newmark Consulting Engineering Services at the Dulles Airport- Holiday Inn to discuss seismic design requirements for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant on April 12, 1976. Representatives from the Division of Project Management and the Office of Executive .Legal Director attended.. A list of attendees is attached. ! Professor Newmark made a presentation on his proposal for the seismic , analysis of the Diablo'Canyon site'which treated modifications and redu'ctions of design response- spectra and considerations relating to ~ ,* . and At the'equest of the SEB, ratios were ' tiTting torsion. ductility ~ also discussed. After several exchanges of views'the following con- . " clusions were agreed upon: S The. applicant will be. asked to specify a magnitude 7.'5 earthquake ~ '. .at.-the'.HOSGRI fault with horizontal spectra -normalized .to 0.75g. Regu1ato'qy'uide'.60'spectral shapes may be used. Use of the HOSGRI. spectral shape will require- further justification since it is. believed 'that the HOSGRI spectral "shape was developed for lower magnitude earth- . . quakes. ' ~ ~ ~ ! 2. . A. reduction. in both h'orizontal and ver'tical respon'se spectra will be permitted depending on- the actual equivalent length of individual . ~ .".'uildings. This reduction recognizes that ground motions are not synchronized under structures durin'g earthquakes. In other words, different points in the foundation base slab will not,experience ~ :. = .the ma'ximum.free field ground. motion at the. same time. .The equiv- alent length of each individual structure |Iill-be. equal to the square 'root of the building. base slab area. The magnitude of the reduction factor shall be determined as the average of the value from the theoretical procedure given by Scanlan (see Reference) for a h'armonic wave and the value determined using the Pacoima Dam record obtained'in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The harmonic ~ ~ e t ~ ~ t ~ ' ! ! !' I 4 4' 'f I Heineman R. E. -2- wave in the Scanlan procedure will be assumed to have a -".frequency of 7 hertz. 3. Where such reduction in response spectra is used, the applicant will be asked to appropriately account for additional tilting and torsion which may result from the nonsynchronized earth- quake motions considered in item 2, above. In reevaluating the capability of the plant structure, systems and components, inelastic behavior may be relied upon to absorb the ground motion energy. Where such a behavior is relied upon, a ductility ratio not exceeding 1.2 may be used in determining seismic loads and motions. For each particular structure where this ductility is relied upon, the applicant will be asked to provide justification and bases for assuring that the increased strains and deformations will not affect the safety functions of the plant systems and structures. This ductility ratio is permitted by the SEB staff for near-field earthquakes, such as those associated with the HOSGRI fault, which tend to have shorter durations of strong motion. It is recognized that for short duration earthquakes, the use of elastic response spectra tends.to produce overly conservative results. It was also decided that the analytical work required to develop individual response spectra for the various plant buildings will be performed by the applicant and a report will be requested thereafter. The SEB staff and Dr. Newmark will review this report and only thereafter will finalize the SER for release. - The above procedure is a departure from currently imposed requirements. Items 2 and 3 taken together are felt to be an optional and acceptable. description of the seismic event which could lead to reduced seismic loads in'ome elements and increased loads elsewhere. Item=4 is of criteria which will produce a reduced, yet acceptable,a'relaxation 'argin of'safety. A technical base exists for permitting the reduced safety margin as indicated in item 4. .lQ >(Hi>~3< Isa S. Sihweil, Chief Structural Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety ec: Next page A I C tV g I III «W EJ ~ Cygne ~ 0 R. E. Heineman J / J ~E ~%%3 E 'I ~ I E ~ I " 'V ~ . cc: B..C. Rusche E. G. Case- .V..Stello . V,f "-H.- Oenton R. Boyd R. DeYoung ', R. Maccary I Gammill ~ 'l '; P ~ C. Stepp NRC Attendees VE I %% IV% ~ ~ ~ ~ E ;Em>mrClC. %, 4 * JV)% t ~ E ~ ~ ~ ' a V ~ 7 L I LIST OF ATTENDEES MEETING BETWEEN SEB STAFF AND N. M. NEMMARK CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES CONCERNING DIABLO CANYON, APRIL 12, 1976; N. M. Newmark N. M. Newmark Consul ting Engineering Services W. J. Hall N. M. Newmark Consulting Engineering Services D. P. Allison NRC/DPM .0. D. Parr NRC/Or M L. D. Davis NRC/Office of Executive 'Legal Director '. J. Grossman NRC/Office of Executive Legal Director I. Sihweil NRC/DSS geng NRC/DSS K Kapur NRC/DSS F.. Schauer NRC/DSS P. Kuo NRC/DSS J. O'rien NRC/DSS ~ ~ 0 4 f' r' H Apt:il 13, 1976 Dr. Nathan Newmark Consulting Engineering Service 1211 Civil Engineering Building University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois In the Natter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear w Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2) Docket Nos. -275 0. . and 50-323 O.L. Dear Dr. Newmark: Enclosed for your information is a copy of our reply to Scenic Shoreline's motion to establish a seismic committee for the Diablo Canyon Plant. Also included is a draft of the contentions being raised by the Diablo Canyon Intervenors. Page 5 of that document contains the contentions about geology and seismology. 4 I hope that these documents will help put the upcoming hearings into a better context for you. Sincerely, L. Dow Davis Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosures as stated DISTRIBUTION LIST: Davis Teurtellotte Shapar Engelhardt Grossman OELD Reading Formal Files Reg. Cent PDR/LPDR CRRlcd~ QF D ...O.ELO.. dVRHAMCW Oav.i.s.:.s.s,l...,., GBi.tner..... ..4/.. /.7.6...,...... 4/.fQ/7.6...... Poaa hEC.518 (RdT. 9-5 hECM 0240 4 U) dl aaVRRNMCNT PRINTlNO aRÃIC4l l074 414 ld4 Hl H H gP,8 ~ECy~ ID@I ~C p UNITED sTATEs 0 COMMISSION Op * NUCLEAR REGULATORY ~0 0, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ~O ++**+ APR 2 2 1976 E Dr. N. M. Newmark g. L5 Consul ting Engineering Ser vices 1211 Civil Engineering Building Urbana, Il 1 inoi s 61801 Dear Dr. Newmark: A meeting was held on April 20, 1976, between the NRC staff and PG8E. Dr. John Blume who is a consultant=-to PGEE was'also present. Me presented to PG&E the position'we 'Jointly developed on the seismic f 0~i|1 C, 1i d 1 f Ap 12th meeting sent to you with my letter dated April 20, 1976. Both 'we , PGSE and Dr. Blume were in general agreement with the approach developed, although they indicated more time is needed to assess its impact on the plant. Dr. Blume also indicated that, in addition to the Scanlan methodology and the information obtained from the Pacoima Dam record, he would like to use the approach developed by Yamahara. The Yamahara paper is attached for your information. Me did not object to Dr. Blume's suggestion since we believe the Yamahara paper to be not significantly different from the Scanlan paper. Regarding the ductility ratio of 1.2 which we decided we can'ive with, PG8E indicated that they would like to use higher ratios. Me explained that it will be very difficult to defend the use of a ductility ratio higher than 1,2, particularly for seismic Category I structures. For non-Category I structures, however, such as the Turbine Building and the Intake Structure, we said we may consider higher ductility ratios. To minimize actual seismic reanalysis and reevaluation efforts, PGEE indicated that they will attempt to utilize the ductility ratio directly in justifying a reduction in the input response spectra., Together with the reduction in the peak effective acceleration depending on the size, of'individual buildings, they hope to develop spectra lower than-the HOSGRI spectra normalized to 0.5g. Dr. Blume gave us a preliminary advance copy of his latest paper "Allowable Stresses and Earthquake Performance", a copy of which is attached. A final version of this paper will also be included in a future Amendment to the Diablo Canyon application. The applicant plans to use this paper to qualitatively justify the adequacy, of the plant design in future hearings we ~ RR HRA ' r.- 4'e r gpss iVR]?- 128$ APR 22 1975 Or. B. N, Hewmark ~ 2w on this plant. We told the applicant and Dr. Blume that we will begin a formal review of this paper. You are accordingly requestedd to review the paper for its technical content and provide us with your comments by May 10, 1976. The review of this paper is con- sidered a part of your effort on the Diablo Canyon plant and any time spent on its review may be, charged to the Diablo Canyon account. I am planning to closely monitor PGSH's efforts and I will keep you informed of any developments that may occur. P'lease let me know if you have any questions. Isa S. Sihweil Structural Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety Office of Vuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosures: As stated cc w/o encl: R. Heineman H. Denton R. Haccary R. DeYoung D. Allison, K. Kapur x27 DSS:SEB I I 0PPICC3P'UIINA pf ISihweil MC Knur 3P'ATC~ 04Ja.L,/.2.6 . VoroI hEC.318 (Rer. 9-33) hXCM 0240 4 V 5 OOVCIINQCNT PhlNTINO OPPICCI I II'2IIIOI h 1 f y W 4 lk Mrs. Richard Devine 1030 Farrell Road Grover City, California 93433 Dear Mrs. Devine: Your recent letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expressed your concern about the safety of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in view of its nearness to a fault. The Diablo Canyon plant is extremely well designed and constructed to resist earthquakes. Construction permits were issued in 1968 and 1970 for Units 1 and 2, respectively, at the Diablo Canyon site. Based on the investigations conducted at that'ime the plants were designed to withstand the following earthquakes: (1) A great earthquake of magnitude 8.5 along the San Andreas fault 48 miles from the plant. (2) A ma)or earthquake of magnitude 7.25 along the Nacimiento fault 20 miles from the plant. (3) A ma)or earthquake of magnitude 7.5 along the offshore extension of the Santa Ynez fault 50 miles from the plant. r (4) An aftershock of magnitude 6 '5 not associated with a known fault 6 miles from the plant. Effects on the Diablo CanyIIIn Units of an earthquake centered on the offshor'e fault about 3 1/2 miles from the site are being analyzed in detail by PG&E at our request. The NRd ."staff and consultants are independently evaluating potential shaking at the plant site that could be caused by an earthquake on the fault. Our evaluations will then be reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Following that review the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will hold public hearings and make,a decision concerning an operating 1icenSe for the plants. The plant must be shown to be safe before an operating license will be granted. E FN 1 ~ Nl ~ h» 1 I I E Ilk C ..h" * 1. " 1rr I ) ~ ONE - ~ F- ~ I h ~'v ' r ) FF I 1 1 F I J Er h ~ I { Mrs. Richard Devine I hope that this is responsive to your concerns about the safety of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.'lease contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, ,',.;~no~ Ipn~db), tl 9 OC1IIIcn Harold R. Denton, Director Division of. Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION: CENTRAL FILE NRR RDG GSB RDG J. Stepp B. Rusche E. Case L. Hulman W. Gammill D. Muller H. Denton R. Boyd W. Regan G. Knighton B. Youngblood M.'roff D. Eisenhut J. Yore E. Hughes D. Allison 0. Parr (NRR II726) DSE D E B DSE 0FFICS~ OELD H -gQ- SURHAMSW nn:s t p ton 3 3 31/'6 I/A)76 j//76 76 3l...L'.f,.l7 6. Form hZC-318 (Rsr. 9.H) hKCM 0240 Q V, S, OOVSRNMSNT FRINTIHS OFFIC I IOSA ~ S2d Idd ~ ~ ,r ~ q I I 1, ll UNITED STATES NUCLEAIR REGULATORY COIViMISSIObl WASIIINGTON, D. C. 20SSS SEE g g )97'et No ( 0-27 323 Mr. Stanley R~B ockman 'ranch of Seismicity 6 Risk Analysis Stop 968, Box 52046 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 SUE~- AMENDMENT TO DIABLO CANYON REPORT The following document material p~ining to review of the subject nuclear facility is being trananitteQ separately for your information. Please notify our branch of receiving'r not receiving the subject material by returning a copy of this letter or phone (301) —492 — 7258. PSAR Volum s Amendment No. To PSAR DateQ Amendment No. To Environ. Rpt. DateQ FSAR Volumes ."" Amendment No: 3'o PSAR DateQ 9/16/75 Other: Amendment sent around 9/19/75. Hi liam P. gammill, Chief Sate AnaJysz.s Branch Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: c et File R. Hofmann J. Osloond 1 January '28, 1934 Docket No. 50 275/323 Hr John H. Bird QS Army Eng Mst. Los Angeles Corps of Engrs - 300 H Los Angeles Los Angeles, Ca1ifornia 90012 Subject: GEOLOGXC AHD STABXLXTY XHFORHATXOH IH AHEHDHEHT HOo 2 TO DIABLO CAHYOH FIHAL SAFETY AHALYSXS REPORT E The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility xeextmmaittnddhr2:yuarttI~mlima have been sent separately for your use in review of this site Cl Notice of Receipt of Application. Draft Environmental Statement, dated U Final Environmental Statement, dated Safety Evaluation, or Supplement No., 'dated Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License. Application and Safety Analysis Report, Vol. g Amendment No. to Application/SAR, dated Construction Permit No. CPPR- , dated Facility Operating License No. DPR- , dated Technical Specifications, or Change No. , dated Other: Directorate of Licensing Site Analysis Bx'anch EIl %%5i%5@ william PE Cammill~ C ief ~ XXÃKQiMX cc: Docket File Ro HeHullen J Osloond OFFICE ~ SURNhl4E ~ DATE v Form ABC-3I8 (Rev. g-53) AECM 0240 CFO C43-IO-SI4a5-I 445-OTe 14 U r,, ~,* I V * 'a, a P, Jl ' ha ~ rt rv 1 II I" ~ ~ I I I I hr hh 4 . 7 I'V '. f„:ft."')"?i-.>,lfi2 'Tfj.'gf v'I'~. ".ZV2-1'- 9ftf I,. .",'; ', — ' ~ *, ~ 1 'r I 'rt w v'"' hh y j» Ithft >g Vyf > >>Q ivsg ft g'» — 'V . *J th 1 - I Ih It 1 r 1 V J" tfl„ljPghkh 1', ! J h 1 1 I ~ II,'I JV ll V %V, hlf It 1 'DESTRXBUTlOi Docket Pile 50-361 6+0-362 50-275 K 50-323 L:Rdg L:AD/SS 7 1924 .. L:SAB Station', Corps of Dr. Bob Whalen, Waterways Experiment Engineers'i-San Hwang, Tetxa Tech Hartin Vitousek, University of Hawaii Hsiang Pang, University of Delavaxe N. R. 'wallace, Bechtel inc.'. Orville T. lagoon, Corps of Engineers R. Weggel, University of California Q. EKllex', National Oceanic 6 Atmospheric Admi'nistration B. Wilson,.Consultant George Carayannis, U.S. Army Coastal Engineexing. Research Ce'nter AEC STAPP BACKGRO12lD HATE'GAL. ON TSUHAHIS Enclosed for your use are background material developed by the staff and their consultants relating to tsunamis for the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon sites. This information is in a form of excerpts from Safety Evaluation Reports on the sub)ect nuclear pover plant sites and a copy of staff summary analysis as Zollcrrs: (l} Safety Evaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3; dated October 1972. (2) Staff Summary on Local Ts~ Potential, San Onofxe Huclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3; dated June 1973. (3) Sugary'azards Analysis of the San Onofxe Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1; dated November 1963. (4) Safety Evaluation for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1; dated January'.968. (3) Safety Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Pawer Plant Unit 2; dated November 1969. L. G. HuLmn, Senior Hydraulic Engineer Site Analysis Branch Directoxate of Licensing Enclosures (5): As stated W. Horrison OFHCE~ L;S 9 S VRHhAlC~ ~H "man:~a %KM'/8 DATK~ 1/2/74 /74 I PA PA% Ill N ~ 4@tl ~ 44'S ~ l%7CI 1„ r~ AEC DIS~T.BUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MA 'L (TEMPORARY FORM) CONTROL NO: 4947 FILE: CONSULTANT FROM: DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR NEMO RPT OTHER Dept of the Army Washington, D. CD 20314 5-31-74 6-4-74 H. B. Willis TO: ORIG CC OTHER SENT AEC PDR W. P, Gammill 1 signed SENT LOCAL PDR CLASS UNCLASS PROP INFO INPUT NO C S REC'D DOCKET NO: XXX 50-2 /323 DESCRIPTION: ENCLOSURES: Ltr trans the following: Review Comments on Cut Slope at Diablo Canyon Power Plant ACKNOWLEDGED DO NOT REMOVE PLANT NAT1E: Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 ( 1 cy rec'd ) FOR ACTION/INFORMATXON - -74 GC BUTLER(L) SCEMENCER(L) ZIEMANN(L) REGAN(E) W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies / Copies CLARK(L) STOLZ (L) DICKER(E) P. Gamnill W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ 2Copies PARR(L) VASSALLO(L) KNIGHTON(E) " TT I T.T I n~ T.T I n TT I n ~ ~ T Ie T vv2 avv ~ ~ T vvgk,% v ~ e I vVyavv KNIEL{L) PURPLE (L) YOUNGBLOOD(E) W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION G FXL TECH REVXEW ENTON" A/T XND AEC PDR HENDRIE GRIMES 'XC ASST BRAI'ItfAN ROOM P-506A OGC, VSCHROEDER GAMMILL DIGGS (L) SALTZHAN HUNTZXNG/STAFF ? 1ACCARY B. HURT KASTNER GEARXN (L) CASE KNXGHT BALLARD GOULBOURNE (L) PLANS GIAHBUSSO PAWLICKI SPANGLER LEE (L) MCDONALD BOYD SHAO MAXGRET (L) DUBE w/Input MOORE (L) (BWR) STELLO ENVIRO REED (E) DEYOUNG (L) (PWR) HOUSTON MULLER SERVICE (L) INFO MILES SKOVHOLT (L) NOVAK DXCKER SHEPPARD (L) CD GOLLER(L) ROSS KNIGHTON SLATER (E) KLECKER P, COLLINS IPPOLITO YOUNGBLOOD SMITH (L) EXSENHUT DENISE TEDESCO REGAN TEETS (L) AOR FILE REG OPR LONG PROJECT LDR WADE (E) FILE & REGION(3) LAINAS WILLIAMS (E) DE THOMPSON (2) NORRIS BENAROYA HARLESS WILSON (L) VOLTE R EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 1- LOCAL PDR v TXC (ABERNATHY) (1)(2X 10)'NATIONAL LAB'S 1-PDR-SAN/LA/NY 1- NSIC{BUCHANAN) 1-ASLBP(E/N BldB,1tm 529) 1-GERALD LELLOUCHE 1- ASLB . 1-W. PENNXNGTON, Rm E-201 GT BROOKHAVEN NAT. LAB P, R DAVIS (AEROJET NUCLEAR) 1-CONSULTANT'S 1 ACHED(Ruth Gu~sman) 16- CYS ACRS HOLDING NEWARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN . RM-B-127, GT- 1-GERALD ULRXKSON...ORNL 1 "RD..MULLER..F-309 GT 'T 1-B & H SWXNEBROAD Rm E-201 r A I I I 4,, 1 4 ~ E, ; r Docket Fie DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF'THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS , WASHINGTON, D.C. 203IA I ATTENTION OFa- DAEN CWE»S 480-g yg 31 May 1974 ~ . 50- 323 Mr. William P. Gammill Chief, Site Analysis Branch Directorate of Licensing Regulation US Atomic Energy Commission D.C. 20545 'ashington, S JUN4 1974'.S. ACMIC EIIRRQI CDMIllSSlDll RoSolaooTr Mall SIIIIOE Dear Mr. Gammill: Your, request for review of the Stability Evaluation of the Power Plant ,Cut Slope of FSAR at Diablo Canyon Site, San Luis Obispo County, Cali- fornia has been completed by our Los Angeles District. Their review comments are inclosed. If you have questions on their comments, it is suggested .that you contact Mr. Fuquay, Los Angeles District, Area Code 213, 688-5470. Sincerely yours, 1 Incl HOMER B, WILLIS As stated Chief, Engineering Division Directorate of Civil Works ap„ i~< ,o g,g'p ~ ~ II C ~ y ~ p III C ~ 0 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS WASHINGTON) D.C. 203 I4 REPLY TO ) ATTENTIONOP) ) DARN C|IE S 31 May 1974 kh. William P. „Gammill Chief, Site Analysis Branch Directorate of Licensing 'Regulation US Atomic Energy Commission . Washington, D.C., 205''+5 Dear'r. Gammill: Your request for revim of the Stability Evaluation of the Po~Ier'lant Cut Slope of PSAR at. Diablo Canyon Site, San Luis Obispo County, Cali fornia hss been 'completed by our Los Angeles District. Their review comments are inclosed. If you have questions on, their comments, it is suggested that you contact Mr. Puquay, Los Angeles District, Area Code 213, 688 5470+ Sincerely yours,