ML20244D024
| ML20244D024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Satsop |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1984 |
| From: | Reiter L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Algermissen S INTERIOR, DEPT. OF, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235X376 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-462 NUDOCS 8408140040 | |
| Download: ML20244D024 (14) | |
Text
a.u w..
.a.
z:
D; x.:.2
.:.:..~.'
.. ~...
~
i -
+
'3 p f g L/ L 1
^
AUG 0 71964 DISTRIBUTION:
DCD 016 s
GSB RDG 1
l J
Dr. S. T. Algermissen U. S. Geological Survey P. O. Box 25046, M. S. 966 Denver, Colorado 80225
Dear Ted:
This is to request that tho USGS send representatives as observers to an NRC WNP-3 meeting.
The purpose of this meeting is.for WNP-3 to explain how they plan to respond to the questions in seismology and geology. As the geology /
seismology issues areethe most important issues facing WNP-3, they want to explore ways of resolving them before resuming construction at the site.
As the WNP-3 review is currently suspended, we are requesting that you send observers. We think two people, a geologist and seistnologist, would be appropriate for this meeting.
The meeting will be held onIAugust 23,1984, 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 Noon, Room P-118, Phillips Buildin W 20 Norfolk Ave., BethesJa, MD.
Sincerely I. eon Reiter, Acting Chief Geosciences Branch Division of Engineering
.b b
40007
~
g auccn o5000 8
L,g q
I%
J p o a.-
.....D.E.:.G B....M....
.QE:.G)B.,.....
i orne >
su.wAus ),SSrocoum:.s1..
...LRe e......
cAis )... 8/.7./24.......
.. 8/.
84.........
NAC FORM 318 00-80) NACM ONO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY use m iu - m +
'I g
i
/p
-l
\\
l l
\\
l MATERIAL FROM THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT FILE, i
APPENDIX A.10 CFR PART 100' 1.
Notes on meeting of staff, consultants and a group of western utilities.
2; Letter from Rogers to Ramsey and portion of revised draft of Appendix A.
l
~%.
--===%
1 e
s.
r l.
L PoIA 47 42 w
_._.g
l J
(
/
Draft i o.
1
!!ilhoa I
10/2/7j e*
J
(
'I l
l NOTE TO THE FILES
'l l
SU!c!ARY OF MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A GROUP OF WESTERN UTILITIES 1
i Date:
September';27, 1972 i
Tine:
9:00 a.m.
Purpose:
To discuss seismic and geologic siting criteria i
l Location:
Room P-422, Bethesda, Maryland l
Participants:
MEC:
RS (R. B. Minogue, J. L. Milhoan)
L (E. G. Case, part-tice) l NOAA:
J.
F.. Devine l
USGS:
H. W. Coulter, E. H. Baltz Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power:
E. Koffman Pacific Gas & Electric:
B. W. Shackelford i'
Southern California Edison:
P. J. West, H. B. Ray Public Service do. of Colorado:
S. Ross l
I Consultants:
W. F.-Swiger, S & W i
J. L. Smith, FUGRO, Inc.
]
s Dr. R. H. Jahns, Stan/ ford U.
1; 1
l 1
i L
1 J
l:
1 1
f 1
l l
1 l
i NWa.3 %ggg,_
g,,g g.
q,,
1.
t!se of the term " active ** fault in the sense of a fault carable of causing surface faulting in a manner inconsistent with widelv-used definitions of'
./
" active't bv geologists and seismologists.
It was agreed by. the group present that the definition and use of " active fault" in the criteria is not the same as other definitions used by geolo-gists.
It was observed that a footnote in' the criteria =akes this ob-servation also.
- Possible alternate terms such as " control fault" and " fault capable of causing surface faulting" were discussed. The majority of the group of western utilities present gave strongest support to the use of " control
- - f ault."
Mr. Minogue concluded the discussion on this topic by pointing out the purposeofthediscussionwasforthe_AbCstafftogetagoedunderstanding of coc:ments and not to agree on final wording.
II Possible lack of clarity in the criteria as regards the significance of lack of evidence concerning any of the tests of fault activitv.
Mr. Minogue acknowledged there has been confusion in use of :he cri:eria as regards the significance of evidence concerning any of the tests of fault activ!ty.
It was observed that the criteria are very specific in the legal sense and there may exist' problems in the use of the criteria by engineers since the criteria are written in legal for=.
It was also stated that if wording is changed as regards the significance l.
of lack of evidence concerning any of the tests of fault activity, then k
=
4 y
.. _. ~,.. -,,. _ -. _.
3 x
________.______--_____Q
f i
l 1
1
'4 r
a e
j ;
I the wording on required investigations would be strengthened.
l L-111. ' Reference in the criteria to."more than once {one movemenel in the past l
Definitive evidence regarding this test is non-existent 500,000 vears."
for many sites._
=
l Discussions concerning this topic included basis for wording in paragraph l
.f..*.
III(g)(1)! dating terms such as " absolute dating," " relative dating," and yes l
I "chronometric dating," and the importance of dating techniques.
I It was agreed that'the key point in the wording "more than once in the past years concerns " multiple movement" not the figure "500,000 years."
500,000 Mr. Minogue stated the AEC will consider the wording of paragraph -II,L(g)-(l)_.._l He stated the as regards the importance of relative dating techniques.
wording of the paragraph will bo looked at with the intent of rewording to place more emphasis on relative dating techniques.
Mr. Shackelford suggested new wording for the second sentence of paragraph III(g)(1) as follows:
"In the absence of data permitting absolute dating, it may be suf ficient to use other generally accepted techniques."
Mr. Minogua stated once again the AEC will review the words in this paragraph; Lack of clarity as to whether the reference in the criteria to "mapned IV.
fault traces, including all quaternary fault traces..." refers to surface traces or to 3-dimensional-mapping to great depths below the earth's surface.
Ageneraldiscussionwasheldonthis, subject. To answer the' concern of the utility group, Mr. Minougo stated it is not the intent to require l
t 6
'O M 888. _.
p -
4
f i
i
)
.l i '.
l A notice of the This meeting was requested by a broup of western utilities.
)
I
{
necting was circulated on September 6,1972. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss previously identified areas of concern with proposed Appendix A to 10 C?R Part 100, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants."
Mr; Minogue opened the meeting by listing the four areas of concern which had been identified to the Commission by the. utilities as topics for discussion,
(
l as follows:
n 1
1.
The use of the term " active
- f ault in the sense of a fault capable of' I
causing suzface faulting in a manner inconsistent with widely-used
.c a definitions of " active"'by geologists and seismologists.
2.
A possible lack of clarity in the criteria as regards the significance of l
lack of evidence concerning any of the tests of fault activity.
l 3.
The reference in the criteria to "more than once (one movement} in the past 500,000 years." Definitive evidence regarding this test is non-l existent for many sites.
l 4.
A lack of clarity as to whether the reference in the criteria to " mapped fault traces, including all quaternary fault traces..." refers to surface traces or to 3-dimensional mapping to great depths below the earth's surf ace.
.d..*-
Mr. Shackelford, speaking for the group of utilities, stated'all present had provided extensive written comments on the proposed criteria. He agreed that I
the topics for discussion would be restricted to the above topics identified by Mr. Minogue.
l I
e
-~
g g g w ese4.=,, we..m e % _.
=
. j 3-di=cnsional mapping. He stated the reference in the criteria to
" mapped fault traces, including all quaternary fault traces...". refers to surface traces or near surface traces. Mr. Coulter and Mr. Baltz f*
agreed " surface or near surface traces" uas. intended. Mr. Devine pointed i
out that when considered in context the fa'et that " surface or near surface traces"dieintendedisevident.
l V.
Conclusion of meeting
'At'the concIusion of the meeting, additional items not related to the I
No conclusions were topics identified for discussion were brought up.
reached on the additional items which were briefly discussed.
=
l The meeting was concluded by Mr. Minogue thanking the participants for
~ ' ~
their comments and recommendations.
l l.
l l
l 1
l i
I 4
4 4
--,~-y s
i l
I'.
I
?
~
s I
gg 13 N i
I 9
i Co::sissionur Rs= cry g
i Cou.iccionur Doub
~
i' L;VIS1:D DRA7T OF APPE:1 DIX A TO PART 100, "SEIS: ::C A:;3 C;0LCCIC SITIh*G C;;ITLRIA" Attac ted for your information is a prelir.inary d:cf: of,the ravised Sciccic and Ccolonic Siting Criccris. Uc are rc.;ucating co= cuts on this revised draf t frc:a Mr. !!ilton Shaw, ROT, Dr. !!cary coulter, f
USGS, and Mr. Jancu Devinc, ;;0AA.
4, This reviced draf t was developed af ter considering the ec=cnto of thirty-four' individuals and organizations who *sub._icted consents on the propoced rule. Tuo major chanacs which have boca cade ned which may precent probicas arc cs follous:
.j
'I o m u t 1.
The Safe Shutdoun Ecrthquake and the Opers:in; Ussis Earthquahe
... q. fl..% D 4hfh' have been defined in tcrns of geolo::y. cad scic c:.o;;y as voll as
(
s
/... > % S G the offect of such cartnquakes on the plant.
?
2.
The "durden of proof" question which Co=missioner R=cy rnised f.
in previous comorands has.been clarified.
a s
{ Eos Sn.tauQ. Advancco in tito state-of-the-art of Ocologic investigations -
1 gc e ;,,, g have bcon tchen into account by civing nore credit to throc ocwea.c M C dincnoional invcatications such as those obtained from off-
$,,) v 't M.c < F.uacshore Scologic curveys.
k
.:s.
.y
)
)
4 The Operating Das'is Carth luche han boca nede maniccory end
.. 6.n :.v t.,.
- i i
1 has been rulhted to thoco icons that are cafety--::1..ced inutcad E " ' # 81" of choco ite c that cro required for gentinued operr. tion, c.d i
- D.8t' *the rani =ua vibratory urcund acccicr tion of :':c Opera:1..; ::acia
- r v..;
- S.
- c.. rt Earthquaku has been coc at at lucst one-he # " - - -ai u l vi*aratcry
-~
j f 3.:..- s, heen,G,round accciorstion of the Scfc Shutdown I.cr:ihquske.
j f, v :, J.r.p m:.aJ t :i Wo expect to cubmit a rovinc.1 draft to the AC.'.S for its rovicu cnd
}".it commt by :!ay 1,1973, citer we reficct co=ce. s fron ::0.V., USG3, N.. C. 0
)
j t ?grf und :tr.1111 ton S.ic.u.
Our scheduled date for submittel of the final j
,. j,. gdraft to you ic June 20, l')73.
r-3 b2. *.*.* e (". '!
i
,3
' ' I-
'd*
L1MTf"1 T107.n's 3;i.:i:1. ? 4 JR i
j
(
Lostor Rogers
......,.e
.,3
.........R....j.'d ~ g.a.,.g._......
4
....E...S..: D,,S 0 RS:DSll
...'..RS 8 SI I
.1.,. *.'.....
l omec >
........,g, p!..
...,.m 1
VWpanciera:Jm be. Fl
'l
...!... I"9 5,5,4'U. ".
. v --
.. _.r m _
m,.,.....n1,..dnoc,uc
,LUo ne c >..
..t..
,s r
- n e-5,
. _.. ~ -.,b l
?
t
- L te sua a=. a a a n.1 a- - - - -,_
1%.
',. n -
c.,
t l
tr.u a 3 1$73 co:..ia lut.sr La wy 2~
~
w..:.Lastanat Daau 1
l l
l aciosuret 1
.'.s acated 1
cc w/cnc1:
L.'It. ::unt:ing; DPy 1;. J. Lloch,. DDR 1
l J. F. O' Leary, L j
E. G. Cane, L.,
S. d. 'itannuer, DRTA H. R. Denton, L
- R. R. II:ccary, L i
- 51. P. Gcc:=ill, L I
O.'A. /.rlotto, RS J
I 1
1 2
1 1
l 1
b.
j l
>=
k 1
1
+
1 T
4 4
d I
e s
6 1
i e
q 1'
1 l
+
5 e
unu q
f..
u
-a1 __
_y 2
.r,e
- t -
i 6,.,.,.o
- f)p
,( h f M A o.u i'r uo E ocr 3 oR Gc3 ATE R. ou A R Ic;HT*grt.
g.
(2)
Instrumentally we11-determined macro-seismiciW&er-e tacJer r!
l-fault located in the continental United States'Nof the Rocky a
s.f.
Nountain Front.: c+- I n-*1 an a.--Ha wei-1, -e e P+e+v t en-B-1 ee,-
I' u ' g#
venm At ;
(3) A relationship to an active fault according to characteristics (1) or (2) such that movement' on one could be
' g n,
- reasonably expected to be' accompanied by movement on the other.
lt
.s)Y In some cases,' the geologic evidence of past activity at or near the ground surface along a. particular fault may be obscured
~
at a particular sit.e.
This might occur, for example, at a site having a deep alluvial overburden.
For. these cases, evidence may
{
\\
exist elsewhere along the fault from which an evaluation of its characteristics in the vicinity of the site can be reasonably
=
based.
Such evidence shall be used in determining whether the fault is an active fault within this defin'ition.
1 P
M, Other valid geologic reasons may exist to-demomrtreee that a Ce fault which has one of the characteristics stated in (1) through (3) is not an active fault within this definition.. For example, some faults may lack deep-seated, long-term causes and be due to shallow short-term causes.
Association of a fault with geologic w
su ca$ o ; Pon,teve; otr Tna L Asrau Rcs teu o t n4cr Uutrco i structural features which are geologically old Tat least pro-
' Quat.ernary) may, in the absence of, conflicting evidence, demonstrate f
that the fault is not an active fault within this definition.
T H g.
APP L I C A uT S H A L:.t.
EVALuArc WH c n.t g.q, O R, be 6
LO4TH TM51PC CT" T~o'T"H C
(
l
{"7cm, r l $ A hJ A
oun_, e u.nz,m,m amum u -
ocre c.,ri c s l
a av couruceruc-a racoceanouc tevcanon riou i>si u s w L
Bcsr 'AV AIL A ELE GCO LOG LC' TVC H O L QUES, f-
.-.e
~ G wi am, ' ' " :n;n..n-...x
,..e,s.-..,"
m-
. E, 9% % >=
" =--
9
r o
y
)
APPLICATION OF PROPOSED SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC SITING' CRITERIA IN SELECTING DESIGN EARTHQUAKES 4
As an example of how the proposed Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria have been applied to a recent site for a nucicar power plant, the procedures tused in selecting the Safe Shutdown /, Design Basis) Earthquake for the McGuire Nuclear Station site in North Carolina are briefly described below:
1.
The lithologic, stratigraphic, and structural geologic conditions of the site and the region surrounding the site, including its geologic history, were determined and reported in the PSAR, page 2.5-1 and Appendix 2C (510.a.(1) - Criteria).
2.
The tectonic structures underlying the site and the region surrounding i
the site were identified in the PSAR, Appendix 2C, pages 2C-3 through 8 (910.a. (2) - Criteria).
3.
The physical evidence concerning the behavior during prior earthquakes of the surficial geologic materials and the substrata underlying the site were reported in Appendix 2C, page 2C-6 through 2C-10 of the PSAR.
(Il0.a. (3) - Criteria).
l 4.
The static and dynamic engineering properties of the materials under -
lying the site were report'2d in Appendix 2D of the PSAR (910.a.(4) -
Criteria).
i S.
Historically reported earthquakes which have affected or which could j
have affected the site, in.:1uding the date of occurrence, intensity, l
$~otA-O'7- %'2 M E 7.,
o..
4 and location of epicenter were listed in Appendix 2E of the PSAR. No historic earthquake caused a maximum acceleration of at least 0.lg (810.a. (5) - Critoria).
o 6.
The epicenters of historically reported earthquakes were correlated with tectonic structures and tectonic provinces in Appendix 2E, pages 2E-4 through 2E-6 of the PSAR (510.a.(6) - Criteria).
7.
For. faults which could have been significant in establishing the Safe Shutdown Earthquake', the applicant determined and reported that none were capable of causing surface faulting in Appendix 2E, page 2E-4 and 2E-5, of the PSAR (Il0.a.(7) - Criteria).
8.
The historic earthquakes of greatest intensity which were correlated with tectonic structures were reported in Appendix 2E, page 2E-6 (820(a)(1)(i) - Criteria).
9.
The historic earthquakes of greatest intensity which were correlated with tectonic provinces were reported in Appendix 2E, page 2E-6 and 2E-7 (520(a)(1)(11) and (iii) - Criteria).
10.
The earthquake producing the maximum vibratory acceleration at th, site, as determined from the information noted in (8) and (9) above, war.
designated the Design Basis Earthquake (corresponds to the Safe SPutdown Earthquake) and reported in Appendix 2E, page 2E-7 and defined by response spectra in figures 2E-A through 2E-D.
The characteristics of the under-lying soil material in transmitting the earthquake-induced motion. were 4
4 e
t 7_.
1
I 1
e.
.i-I 3-I i
taken into account in that, since the proposed' plant would be. located l
ll on rock, th'e maximum acceleration was' reduced from.14g..(Intensity VII s
(
a't the site) to.12g.
,11.' Based on applying the'above steps in a conservative. manner, the National I
' Ocean Survey concluded that the maximum acceleration 'should be.15g.
"j (I20(a)(1)(iv) - Criteria). The applicant has agreed to.1Sg as the l
maximum acceleration for the Design Basis Earthquake.
')
t i
i l
1 l
l 1
l
-l 1
4 l
l L
l w
r
. (.
9 l
6 rj
- p..c
_. 4 ip >
.+
_ - - _.. _._.. j. _ _ -.m u.. _
z..
.t,2..a. 1 J.E.J 1 :.... W '.1 y,
f g
4 1 s
1 m
w m;y,
~,, -
.4 4
v'.
I p 3 5...
p,
~.
?)
Docket No.:
50-508 I
i MEMORANDUM FOR:
George W. Knighton, Ch-fef, Licensing Branch No. 3. DL FROM:
Victor Nerses Project Manager, Licensing Branch No. 3. DL L
\\
SUBJECT:
WNP-3 MEETING DATE & TIME:
Thursday, August 23, 1984 3
9:00 am - 12:00 pm LOCATION:
P-110 Phillips Building Bethesda, Maryland PURPOSE:
The applicant will present to the staff the details of their position paper on subduction zone earthquake.
AGENDA:
See enclosed.
PARTICIPANTS :
WPPSS D. Coleman, et al NRC V. Herses, B. K. Singh, S. Brocoum, R. Savio 4
p,L, avr/~~ 7
, g uco PTT f __ ~.
pg Victor Herses, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3, DL
Enclosure:
Agenda cc: See next page Meetings between NRC technical staff and applicants.for licenses are open for interested members of the public, petitioners, interveners, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to "Open Meeting Statement of NRC Staff Policy",
43 Federal Register 28058,-6/28/78. Those interested in attending this meeting should make their intentions known to the Project Manager, Victor Merses, at (301) 492-7238, by no later than August 21, 1984
+a>pqLen......96:#n........ M Bha / a I