"Rept on Proposed Neuse Fault."
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
. 83040y 9DR 47 830831 A ADOCK 05000400 PDR REPORT ON THE PROPOSED "NEUSE PAULT" Prepared for CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY by EBASCO SERVICES, INCORPORATED January 31, 1983 I 0 l 1 r 1.0 INTRODUCTION Ferenczi (1959) was first to suggest the existence of a fault in the region of the Neuse River. He referred to it as the "Cape Lookout-Neuse River Fault Zone". His evidence was based on the following arguments: 1) The Castle Hayne Formation (of Eocene age) was not deposited north of the Neuse River. However, since then Castle Hayne outcrops have been mapped north of the Neuse River (Brown and others, 1972; Baum, 1981 and Otte, 1981). 2) The occurrence of silicified zones along the strike of the "fault zone". More recently, however, Otte (1981) has shown that the silicified zones are not restricted to the alignment of the postulated fault. Silicification resulted from the diagenetic alteration of siliceous sponges (Otte, 1981). 3) The abrupt change in depth to basement as recorded from two wells 24 kms apart (at Havelock and Moorehead City). More detailed work on depth to basement maps in this region shows that the change in depth is not oriented perpendicular to the trend of the postulated fault and bears no relation to it (Brown and others, 1972). Independently, and without reference to Ferenczi (1959), Gibson (1967 and 1970) suggested the existence of a "northwest-southeast positive element" parallel to the Neuse River. Evidence for this positive element was based on isopachous mapping and structural contouring of the Yorktown Formation (of Miocene age). More recent work by Baum (1981) indicates that if a "Neuse Fault" exists, it had no discernible effect on the deposition of the Trent Formation (of Oligocene age). The Trent Formation is equivalent to the River Bend Formation of (Card and others (1978) and both are older than the Yorktown Formation (Miocene). Baum and others (1978) citing the work of Ferenczi (1959) and Gibson (1967 and 1970) espoused the existence of a "Neuse Fault" (equivalent to the Cape Lookout-Neuse River fault zone). In later 'publications Harris and others (1979a and b) proposed a change in the location and orientation of the Cape Lookout-Neuse River fault zone (the Neuse fault). In so doing, they invalidated the third argument of Ferenczi (1959) for the existence of a fault. The new position resulted in having the two deep wells to basement on the same (north side) of the fault (Figure 1). To date, the literature does not advance any evidence of observed faulting, displacement, recognizable surface expression or associated seismicity that is directly or indirectly attributable to movement on a "Neuse fault". The postulated evidence for faulting so far was either disproved or is presently disputed by experts in Coastal Plain geology of North Carolina (Brown and others, 1972; Otte, 1981; Jones, 1982; Berggen and Aubry, preprint on file; Hazel and others, preprint on file). Therefore, in Ebasco's opinion, the indirect arguments that have been presented so far do not in any manner support the existence of a "Neuse Fault" in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. The evidence for and against the existence of a "Neuse Fault" is summarized below and discussed in greater detail in the remainder of this report. 1 1 POSTULATED EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A NEUSE FAULT l. Abrupt change in depth to basement between Havelock and Horehead City, N. C. (Ferenczi, 1959). 2. The restricted spatial distribution of the Castle Hayne Formation (Eocene) to the south side of the Neuse River (Ferenczi, 1959). 3. The occurrence of silicified zones along the alignment of the Neuse Fault (Ferenczi, 1959). 4 ~ The spatial distribution, petrology, and correlation of units of Eocene age (Baum and others, 1978 and Harris and others, 1979b). 5. The thickening of Cretaceous units north of the Neuse Fault (Harris and others, 1979b). 6. The present tilted attitudes of the Dupin Plain of early Pliocene age (9 m in 60 km), the Wacamaw-Canepatch Plain of Plio-Pleistocene age (2 m in 60 km), and the Socastee Plain, approximately 32,000 years old (4.6 m in 12 km) between the New River and Wilmington, N.C. (Zullo and Harris, 1979). EVIDENCE AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF A NEUSE FAULT 1. The change in depth to basement between Havelock and Morehead City, in light of additional well data, is neither coincident nor associated with the Neuse Fault (Brown and others 1972). 2. The Castle Hayne limestone has been shown to occur north of the limits known to Ferenczi (Brown and others, 1972 and Otte, 1981). 3. Silicified zones are not restricted to the alignment of the postulated zone and are the result of diagenetic alteration of silicious sponges (Otte, 1981). 4. Many stratigraphic experts dispute the stratigraphic subdivisions of the Castle Hayne and the Upper Eocene age assigned to its upper units by Baum, Harris, and Zullo (1978, 1979b) and Harris and Zullo, (1980) ~ Brown and others„ (1972), Hard and others (1978), Jones (1982), Berggen and Aubry (preprint on file), Hazel and others (preprint on file) consider the entire formation to be Middle Eocene. Facies changes and age relationships are not well enough agreed upon to define the specific depositional basins which Baum, Harris and Zullo infer were created by movement along the Neuse Fault. Even if Baum, Harris and Zullo's stratigraphic and age interpretations are accepted the spatial disposition of their units do not require movement along the postulated Neuse Fault to explain the prevalent depositional environment. 5. Structural contours on top of basement and on top of Cretaceous ,i units (Brown and others, 1972) do not show any evidence of movement along the postulated Neuse Fault. 6. The original slopes of the Plio-Pleistocene Coastal Plain terraces are not shown to have been initially horizontal. Given the extremely low tilts that are invoked the original attitudes of the plains must be demonstrated first in order to validate the conclusions that are reached. 7. The region of the postulated Neuse Fault is aseismic. (Figura 2.5.2-1 -2, SHNPP FSAR) ~ 2.0 DISCUSSION OF THE USE OF THE TERM NEUSE FAULT The first person to propose a northwest trending fault parallel to the Neuse River in the Coastal Plain was Ferenczi (1959). Ferenczi called the feature the Cape Lookout-Neuse Fault and gave three lines of evidence to support his conclusions: l. A difference in depth to basement across the fault based on 2 wells 24 km apart, one at Havelock and the other near Morehead City. Brown and others (1972) using additional well data generated a top of basement contour map which show the maximum slope change perpendicular to a north-south axis and not perpendicular to the proposed trend of the Neuse Fault. He interpreted the change in basement surface elevation to a steepening of slope away from the Cape Fear Arch. 2. Ferenczi also thought that the Castle Hayne Formation was not deposited north of the Neuse River and that the Neuse Fault provided a structural boundary limiting the basin of deposition, Brown and others (1972) and Otte (1981) both refer to outliers of the Castle Hayne beyond this boundary. 3. Finally, Ferenczi interpreted the occurrence of silicified Eocene outcrops aligned along his fault zone as evidence of faulting. Otte (1981) showed that the IJayne County outcrops are silicified because of the presence of silicious sponges which provided a ready source of silica. He also observed that the silicified sediments are more widespread than Ferenczi realized and are not restricted to his fault alginment. The next published reference to the "Neuse Fault" occurs in Baum and others (1978). This is primarily a biostratigraphic paper. However, the authors by referring to the work of Gibson (1967), who identified a positive element trending parallel to the Neuse River, and the work of Ferenczi (1959), consider this sufficient evidence to use the term Neuse Fault without providing any additional supporting evidence. Baum and others (1978) use the postulated Neuse Fault as part of a model to explain the distribution of the Eocene to 1fiocene strata and facies changes in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. It is important to distinguish here the difference between postulating a fault to create a model which will explain the deposition of the strata and proving the existence of a fault based upon stratigraphic evidence. At no point have any strata been shown to be offset by the Neuse Fault. The problems with the Ferenczi's work are discussed above and Gibson (1967, 1970) does not invoke faulting as an explanation for his "positive element". Thus the use of the term fault by Baum, Harris and Zullo (1978), Harris and others (1979a and b) and Harris (1982) should not be regarded as proof of its existence but merely as one convenient explanation of the distribution of Tertiary sediments in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. At this point it should also be noted that there are alternate models which explain the distribution of Eocene and KEocene formations in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, without recourse to faulting along the Neuse Fault. Brown and others (1972) propose that the stratigraphic framework and spacial distribution of the Atlantic Coastal Plain is controlled by northeast and north/south trending hinge zones. Gibson (1967, 1970) postulates a positive element north of the Neuse Fault, during the deposition of Miocene strata, however he does not attribute this positive element to a northwest trending fault. Otte (1979, 1981) attributes the facies distribution and thi'ckness of the exposed Eocene Castle Hayne Formation to structural control by the Cape Fear Arch and pre-existing topography.