ML17053B752
| ML17053B752 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1980 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rhode G NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007180520 | |
| Download: ML17053B752 (20) | |
Text
DISTRIBUTION T FILE RR022.
TERA
'RMattson
'NRC/PDR JKnight L/PDR RTedesco LB¹1 Rdg VNoonan NRR Rdg RHartfield, MPA DEisenhut OELD RPurple OIE (3)
JYoungbl!iood RMcMullen KKiper DLynch bcc; NSIC MRushbrook TIC
. PCheck ACRS (16)
LRubenstein ASchwencer JMill'er RVollmer INFORMATION - GEOLOGY - NINE MILE POINT, IIIESU6N tI U1IILl'~'IL!
JUL
~ j98D Docket No.:
50-410 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. Gerald K. Rhode Vice President System Project Manager'00 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse,'ew York 13202
Dear Mr. Rhode:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL UNIT 2 In the course of our continuing review of your geologic. investigation of the Nine Mile Point site, we have identified a
need for additional information.
this letter.
Tv Our request f'r this additional information is contained in the enclo t
v o of the present questions supplement questions previously enc osure o
transmitted in our letter dated October 1, 1979.
Specifically, Q361.26 supplements Q361.16 and Q361.27 supplements Q361.13.
If you have any questions regarding our request for additional information, contact Kenneth L. Kiper, Project Manager, at-301/492-7318.
I Sincerely,
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information - Geology cc w/enclosure:
See next page B. J.
Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No.
1 Division of Licensing
~D 800e1SOC DL:LB¹l KKiper/Qs~
V578O-'>-
OT 2 iCS3N SUSNA22SW DATs~
L B¹1 MDLynch 7'/8O" DL BJY 7/
/80 10 IC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCbf 0240 I
II I,
OOVSNNMSNT PNINTINO OPPICSI I ~ 2 ~
2 ~ 2 < 2 ~ 2
t p~ l,'
l"'g
~~ R~~<
Wp0 Cy
~p %~
I 0
th +
pj"
~>>*+~
UNITED STATES NUCJ EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SVASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 JUL 9
1Ssa tl 0
Docket No.:
50-410 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. Gerald K. Rhode Yice President System Project Manager 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202
Dear Mr. Rhode:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GEOLOGY - NINE MILE POINT, UNIT 2 In the course of our continuing review of your geologic investigation of the Nine Mile Point site, we have identified a need for additional information.
Our request for this additional information is contained in the enclosure to this letter.
Two of the present questions supplement questions previously transmitted in our letter dated October 1, 1979.
Specifically, Q361.26 supplements Q361. 16 and Q361.27 supplements Q361. 13.
If you have any questions regarding our request for additional information, contact Kenneth L. Kiper, Project Manager, at 301/492-7318.
Si ncerel y,
,)
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information - Geology cc w/enclosure:
See next page B. J.
Youngblood, Ch>e Licensing Branch No.
1 Division of Licensing
/
4l l
IV
ENCLOSURE NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-410 GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION Q361. 26 In your report entitled "Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Geologic 1
Investigation,"
(Vol. I, Section 4.7, paragraph 1), you state that the intensity of l
the shearing on the cooling tower fault does not appear to diminish toward the known extremities.
However, it i's not clear from your report where the southeastern extremity of this fault is and where either extremity of the drainage ditch t
fault is.
Accordingly, provide data which will indicate the length of the cooling tower and drainage ditch faults and show their relationship, or lack of relationship, to each other.
In your response, consider acquiring this information by running a detailed ground magnetic survey using a field magnetometer (e.g.,
a proton precession magnetometer).
This approach could be followed by trenching, if necessary.
If you choose to respond without doing a field survey using a magnetometer, indicate your reasons.
Q361.27 Indicate spatial and age relationships of the faults at Nine Mile Point to the geologic structures at the site proposed for the New Haven facility and to other geologic structures in the region, Furnish a man and the necessary data to support your conclusions.
Q361.28 Indicate the relationship among the thrust faults, the cooling tower fault, and the drainage ditch fault.
Specifically, indicate whether they connect as an integrated system and whether the thrust faults cut the other faults.
Q361. 29 Extend coverage of the lineament map (Vol. II, Plate 1-1) out to a radius of at least 5 miles.
Field check the lineaments to determine if they are reflections of unrecognized geologic structures.
Q361.30 Furnish additional discussion and documentation to support your conclusion that post-glacial reverse movement did not occur below 200 feet on the cooling tower fault.
Our concern in this matter is that if this fault had previous normal movement as you suggest, and if the displacement on this fault is presently zero at the 200 foot depth, then it appears that reverse movement must have occurred below the 200 foot level to bring the net displacement to zero.
Enclosure Q361. 31 In Section 3,2 of the Executive Summary, you conclude that any future displacements along the deformation structures at the site will involve very low strain rates.
Using the data available for these structures, provide a discussion as to why past Quaternary movements and possible future movements should be classified as slow (i.e., creep) versus rapid (1. e.
~ Sei smic).
Q361. 32 Our position regarding the dating of the age of the last movement on the faults based on an apparent temperature of mineralization is that this method should be used with caution.
Accordingly, provide your basis for discounting the possibility that frictional heat on the fault planes generated during deformation could cause the observed fluid inclusion temperatures.
Further, indicate your basis for discounting the possibility that fluids which deposited the calcite were heated above the ambient geothermal gradient.
Q361.33 In Appendix I-G of your report, you present results of uranium/thorium (U/Th) disequilibrium dates from samples of fault-plane calcite.
Indicate how this evidence affects your assessment of the most recent movements on the fault.
Oiscuss why the ages of 80,000 and 170,000 years before the present as determined by this technique, are not consistent with ages of faulting determined by other methods.
Our concern is that if there is sufficient uranium present in the sample to establish a
U - Th disequilibrium date, then there should be sufficient uranium and lead for a U-Pb, Pb-Pb, or U-fission track date.
Any one of these methods would be much more sensitive and meaningful if the calcite is older than 200,000 years.
If possible, provide a reliable date by one or more of the methods cited above if the 80,000 year date is to be discounted as you claim.
Q361.34 Substantiate the argument presented in Section 2.6 of your Summary that swelling stresses may have resulted from fluctuations in water level in Lake Iroquois.
Show that rocks at the site can develop a swelling stress under confined conditions with water pressure varying from 1 to 10 atmospheres.
Estimate how rapidly Lake Iroquois must have drained so that residual pore pressures could approach lithostatic pressures, In this evaluation, use the permeabilities determined by pumping test in the upper 200 feet of rock in this area.
Enclosure Q361.35 If the draining of Lake Iroquois provides a plausible explanation for the Quaternary movement along the deformation structures at the site, then similar features should exist at other locations similarly affect-ed by the draining of Lake Iroquois.
The existence of similar structures only at such locations would provide evidence for your hypothesis.
Accordingly, determine the known distribution of such structures from a literature search and present a discussion as to whether this distribution favors your hypothesis.
1 4
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation JUL 9
1980 ccs:
Eugene B., Thomas, Esq.
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby 8
MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite'1100 Washington, D.
C.
20036 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Natural Resources Defense Council 917 15th Street, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20005 Mr. Richard Goldsmith Syracuse University College of Law E. I. White Hall Campus
- Syracuse, New York 13210 T,
K. DeBoer, Director Technological Development Programs New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1 - 2nd Floor Emoire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223
wl
(4yah hECy
~4
~o Cy
- ~i n
E O
C O~
+~
~0 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 2, 1980 ALL APPLICANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND OPERATING LICENSES Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
RE(VEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING EVACUATION TIMES This letter is being sent to all applicants for construction permits and licensees of plants under construction.
The purpose of the letter is a request for informa-tion regarding estimates for evacuation of various areas around proposed nuclear power plants.
The information sought is described in our letter of December 26, 1979 (copy enclosed).
The requested submittal date for this information was suspended by our letter of March ll, 1980.
Me are requesting that you submit evacuation time estimates on an accelerated basis to enable the NRC staff to identify, in a timely manner, those sites where evacuation constraints exist and special planning measures should be considered.
In some cases of extreme difficulty where a large population is at risk, special facility modifications may also be appropriate.
The information requested in the enclosure should b'e submitted by August 1, 1980.
This time is shorter than provided in the December 26, 1979 letter because of the need +or timely information and because the content of the information desired has been available to you for some months.
Units sharing the same site need not, of course, submit separate time estimates.
This special request for information has been submitted to the General Accounting Office and cleared by GAO as noted in the clearance block below:
Approved by GAO B-180225 (S80010)
Expires 80-09-30
- incerely,
Enclosure:
December 26, 1979 Letter w/Request for Evacuation Time Estimates cc:
Service Lists sen ut, r
Division of icensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
1 II
'I II t
<I J
~gg REPp
'4 PO
'n C
0
~
a lO0
~O
++**+
UNITED STATES NUCI EAR REGULATORYCOMMISSlON WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 December 26, 1979 APPLICANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND LICENSEES OF PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
RE(UEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING EVACUATION TIMES i
This letter is being sent to all applicants for construction permits, and licensees of plants under construction.
The purpose of the letter is a
request for information regarding estimates for evacuation of various areas around future nuclear power plants.
The requested information is in addition to that requested by the November 21, 1979, letter to all applicants for an operating license and licensees of plants under construction from Domenic B. Vassallo, Acting Director, Division of Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Although evacuation time estimates are expected to be prepared in the course of the upgrading of the state of emergency preparedness as previously specified submission of these estimates to the NRC is being requested on an accelerated time scale so that the NRC can identify those instances in which unusual evacuation constraints exist and special planning measures should be considered.
In some cases of extreme difficulty where a large population is at risk, special facility modifications may also be appropriate.
The information requested in the enclosure should be submitted no later than March 31, 1980.
Previous correspondence indicated. that efforts to develop a'odel'plan were continuing.
It now appears that the model plan will not be completed on a
schedule which will be of use in developing upgraded plans in the near term.
The upgraded plan development should therefore proceed on a site-specific basis.
Enclosure:
Request for Evacuation Time Estimates cc w/enclosure:
Service Lists
(.
I Brian K. Grimes, Director Emergency Preparedness Task Group Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
t<<C>>
lt' II,
,>>,u>>,
r
~ >>
P, I
t
'I lt It\\
Enclosure RE UEST FOR EVACUATiON TIME ESTIMATES (AFTER NOTIFICATION)
FOR AREAS NEAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
~ea Prior to recent NRC requests that means for prompt notification to the public be installed around each nuclear power plant site, a significant component of evacuation time estimates was the time required to notify the public of a need for evacuation.
Studies of actual evacuations that have taken place generally do not distinguish between the time required for notification, the time required to implement the evac~[tion, and the time required to confirm that an evacuation has taken plaice.
The estimates for time required for evacuations now requested relate primarily to the time to implement an evacuation as opposed to the time required for, notification.
These estimates.
may be based on previous local experiences (e.g.,
cnemical spills or floods) or may be based on studies related to population density, local geography and road capacities.
No standard method for making such estimates is identified for use at this time.
The basis for the method chosen should be described in the response.
As a check on the evacuation time estimates, comments on the time estimates made should be obtained from the principal local officials responsible for carrying out such evacuatio'ns.
Such comments should be included*in the submittal.
The format given below is appropriate for reporting to the NRC estimates of the time required to implement evacuation of areas near nuclear poser plants.
These estimates-,
are to be made for the primary purpose of making available, to those officials who would make evacuation decisions in an emergency situation, knowledge of the time required to complete one of the protective action options (evacuationj available for a particular potentially affected segment. of the population.
A second purpose of these estimates is to identify to all concerned those instances in which unusual evacuation constraints exist ana that special planning measures should be consiaered.
In some cases of extreme difficulty where a large population, is at risk, special facility modifications may also be considered.
Given a decision to evacuate rather than shelter in an actual
- event, fewer or more sectors or different distances than given in the reporting format might be evacuated should this be the chosen protective action.
For
- example, three 22-1/2'ectors might be initially evacuated in a downwind direction (the sector containing the plume and an adjacent sector on each side),
followed by the evacuation of other. sectors as a precautionary measure.
1/
Hans, J. M., Jr.,
and T, C. Sell, 1974 Evacuation Risks
-. An Evaluation, U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Research
- Center, Las Yegas, EPA-620/6-74-002.
i'
~
fi Formh't, for Re ortin" I'nformation Y
V The areas for which evacuation estimates, are requi'red must encompass the entire area within a circle of about 10 miles radi'us,'nd have o't ter boundaries correspon'ding to the plume exposure EPZ"."
These areas'are as follows:
D.i s tanc'e Area two, 180' ectors 5 miles.
2 miles four 90'ectors
'about 10 miles four 90'ectors~
'Estimates. for the outer sectors should assume-that the inner"adjacent".sectors-;.
are being" evacuated simultaneously.
To the exent practical, -tne",sector"
='.boundaries should not di.,vide densely populated areas.
Wnere a
di,recti'on'orresponding, to the edges of areas for which'stimates have. been,maae: i-
thought not to be adequately represented by the, time'stimates for'djacent~
.areas, an additional area. should be defi,ned and-a separate estimate: ma'de" f'r this: case.
The format for submittal shoulfd;include ooth. a table', and a'igure (overlaid on a map) which each give the information requested.in"'items';.
1 and'2. below.
Additional material may beprovided in associatea".text'..
'Re ui'red'nformation 1'.-,
Two';estimates are reques'ted in each of the. areas. defined'.in item'1 f'r--
- a general
.evacuation of the population (not including special facil'ities).."
A'best'stimate is requi,red and an aaverse weather estimat'e.is requifred.'..'or.
movement of tHe population.
2;;.
The total time requi.red to evacuate special facilities,(e. g...hospi't'als) wi'thin each area must. be speci. fied (best estimate and aaverse weath'er)";.
.3.
The time,required. for confirmation of evacuation shculd: be indicated;.-
Confirmation times may consider special instructions to. the public (e.g.,
'ying
'a hankerchief to a door or gate to indicate the occupant..has" l.eft the premises).
4.
Where plans and prompt notification systems have not'een pu-. in'lace-for areas'ut to about 10 miles, estimates of tne times required=. to evacuat'e:
until such measures are in place for the plume exposure,er r=.ency, planning,.
zone:(EPZ) should also 'be given..
Notification -times. greater.-than'15 minutes should be includea in the evacuation times and.footrotoo. to inaicate.the notification time.
5.
Where special evacuation problems are identified (e.g., in high population density areas),
specify alternative protective actions, such as sheltering, which would reduce exposures and the effectiveness of these measures.
ip 6.
A short background document should be submitted giving the methods used to make the estimates and the assumptions made including the routes and methods of transportation used.
This document should also note the comments of principal local officials regarding these stimates.
UNITE'0 STATES NUCEE ARiREGUlATORYCOMMISSIONu wASRINOT0Noc oo555 0
5 lao.'Eu POSTAGE'drIF EES PAID V 5 Nucfuie RoouIuiotv coouu Soon
) U.S.MAILt