ML18267A203

Redline SRP 2.5.3 2018

ML18267A203
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/25/2018
From:	Mark Notich NRC/NRO/DLSE
To:
Notich M
Shared Package
ML18186A630	List: ML18186A623 ML18267A203
References
NUREG-0800
Download: ML18267A203 (24)

Text

NUREG-0800 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.5.3 SURFACE DEFORMATION REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary- Organization responsible for the review of basic geologic and seismic information Secondary- None I. AREAS OF REVIEW Chapter 2 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) addresses the review of site characteristics that could affect the siting and safe design of the plant. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviews information presented by the applicant for an early site permit (ESP), a combined license (COL), an operating license (OL) or construction permit (CP) concerning the potential for tectonic and non-tectonic surface deformation. The SRP Section 2.5.3 applies to the reviews performed for each of these types of applications.

Requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations and guidance in NRCUS Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guides (RGs) specify the importance of geologic data in siting nuclear power facilities. During site characterization investigations for this section of the Final Revision 5 - July 2014 Draft Revision 6 - September 2018 USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN This Standard Review Plan (SRP), NUREG-0800, has been prepared to establish criteria that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff responsible for the review of applications to construct and operate nuclear power plants intends to use in evaluating whether the applicant/licensee meets the NRC regulations. The SRP is not a substitute for the NRC regulations, and compliance with it is not required. However, the applicant is required to identify differences between the design features, analytical techniques, and procedural measures proposed for its facility and the SRP acceptance criteria and evaluate how the proposed alternatives to the SRP acceptance criteria provide an acceptable method of complying with the NRC regulations.

The SRP sections applicable to a combined license application for a new light-water reactor (LWR) are based on RG 1.206, "Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition)."

These documents are made available to the public as part of the NRC policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. Individual sections of NUREG-0800 will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new information and experience. Comments may be submitted electronically by email to NRO_SRP@nrc.gov Requests for single copies of SRP sections (which may be reproduced) should be made to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section by fax to (301) 415-2289 by email to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov. Electronic copies of this section are available through the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/, or in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and management System (ADAMS), at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, under Accession No. ML18183A044.

ML13316C064

Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),) or Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) respectively, the applicant collects information related to surface deformation or subsidence due to faulting, The dissolution of carbonate rock or salt, and diapirism., and anthropogenic effects. The primary purpose for conducting these investigations is to determine site suitability in regard to whether there is a potential for future surface deformation that may affect the design and operation of the proposed nuclear power plant. This SRP section provides criteria for the review and acceptance of the basic data- gathering process and findings and to support the staffs assessment of the completeness of this information and the final safety decision to clearly establish whether there is a potential for surface deformation.

The NRC staff reviews the geologic, seismic, geophysical, and geotechnical information submitted by an applicant with respect to surface deformation (potential for tectonic and non-tectonic) potential. surface deformation. The technical information derives from various investigations: work that the applicant initiates and completes for the preparation of the application and information from the published findings in peer reviewed scientific literature; unpublished data or information acquired from interviews with knowledgeable experts.; and published or unpublished information from previous site investigations or investigations at nearby sites. The applicant reports thisstaff should identify information in itsthe application infor each of three areas defined by radii of 40 km (25 mi), 8 km (5 mi), and 1 km (0.6 mi) around the site., as defined in RG 1.208. The three areas correspond to, respectively, the site vicinity, site area, and site location. However, applicants need to report The design description should include any significant neotectonic (5.33 Ma to present) features found beyond these distance ranges, which that have athe potential to impact the site safety.

As part of the process for review of potential surface deformation issues, staff evaluates the technical information provided by the applicant, with a focus on the Quaternary Period. The Quaternary Period is defined as the geologic period that began approximately 2.6 million years ago (Ma) and continues to the present. Emphasis is placed on Quaternary-age features because evidence of surface deformation during the last approximately 2.6 million years generally indicates a potential for future surface deformation to occur.

In order to assure that the potential for tectonic and non-tectonic surface deformation at a proposed site is evaluated, the application should describe the effect of each cause of surface deformation. The staff may determine that one or more causes of surface deformation are not applicable or inconsequential to the proposed site, in which case further review of the cause of surface deformation as outlined in this SRP section is obviated.

The applicant providesstaff should evaluate the application for the specific information identified below. The design description should include geologic, seismic, geophysical, and geotechnical information in Safety Analysis Report (SAR)), Section 2.5.3 addressing the following specific topics that are the basis for the assessment of the potential for tectonic and non-tectonic surface deformation at the site:

1. Geologic, Seismic, and Geophysical Investigations. The reviewer assesses information provided by an applicant related to Quaternary tectonics, structural geology, stratigraphy, paleoseismology, geochronological methods used for age dating, and the geologic history of the site vicinity, area, and location. Staff reviews to Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 2 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

ensure that the information is complete; acceptably considers other studies carried out in the same areas; and is supported by detailed investigations conducted by the applicant. For coastal and inland sites near large bodies of water, staff should confirm that similar detailed investigations are to be conducted by the applicant for onshore and offshore geology and seismology. The applicant shall determine if The staff should evaluate the applicants determination whether surface deformation features are located beneath bodies of water and need toshould be considered in the assessment.

2. Geologic Evidence for Surface Deformation. The reviewer assesses information provided by an applicant for the site vicinity, area, and location to confirm presence or absence of surface tectonic (i.e., faults) and non-tectonic (e.g., growth faults; subsidence and collapse due to dissolution of limestone, salt or gypsum deposits, or salt diapirism, or anthropogenic effects) deformation.

3. Timing of Deformation. If deformation features are present in the site vicinity, area, or location, the The reviewer evaluates the information used to constrain the age of the most recent deformation event, and, if applicable, the ages of preceding events. for deformation features present in the site vicinity, area, and location. The reviewer determines whether the timing of deformation has been acceptably demonstrated, or estimated, by the applicants information. acceptably demonstrates, or estimates, the timing of deformation. Further, the reviewer assesses the sensitivity and resolution of the investigative methods applied by the applicant for acquiring the information.

3.4. Correlation of Earthquakes with Tectonic Features. The reviewer evaluates information presented by an applicant on all historically-reported earthquakes within the site vicinity in regard to hypocenter location accuracy and origin of source. The reviewer evaluates the proposed correlations between earthquake hypocenter locations and tectonic features in the site vicinity, to determine if these features have evidence of historical activity.

4.5. Relationship of Geologic featuresFeatures in the Site Vicinity to Regional Geologic Features. The reviewer examines information presented by an applicant on relationships between faults or other tectonic and non-tectonic deformation features in the site vicinity to the regional framework to determine that interrelationships are adequately described in regard to potential for inducing future surface deformation at the site.

5.6. Potential for Surface Deformation at the Site. The reviewer evaluates the assessment provided by the applicant for potential future surface deformation at the site. The reviewer determines that sufficient geological, seismological, and geophysical information has been provided to clearly establish whether there is a potential for future surface deformation at the site. If the potential for future surface deformation exists, the reviewer evaluates the information in the application that demonstrates the potential effects of surface deformation are within the design basis of the facility.

The reviewer confirms that information provided by the applicant is documented through Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 3 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

appropriate references to relevant published and unpublished materials. Illustrative materials provided to document site characteristics should include, but are not necessarily limited to, structural, tectonic, physiographic, topographic, geologic, gravity, and magnetic maps; geologic cross-sections showing soil horizons, stratigraphy, lithology, and structure; geologic maps of trenches and test pits; seismic reflection or refraction and other geophysical survey profiles; soil and core boring logs; geophysical borehole logs; aerial photographs; and Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) and satellite imagery. Some sites might require maps illustrating areas of subsidence, karst or other dissolution features, mechanically weak zones of soil and rock, paleoliquefaction features, irregular weathering conditions and weathering depths, landslide potential, locations of oil and gas wells, faults, and joints. Maps The reviewer should confirm that maps include superimposed plot plans of site facilities, site boundaries, and the relationship of all Seismic Category I facilities to subsurface geologic features. Locations In addition, the reviewer should identify locations of all site structures, borings, trenches, test pits, seismic reflection and refraction and other geophysical data collection profiles, and geologic cross-sections should also be included on plot plans. The reviewer should confirm that geologic terminology used should conformin the application conforms to that found in standard references.

Applying information derived from the application, other published and unpublished scientific literature, and the reviewers technical knowledge and professional judgment, the reviewer assesses the adequacy of geologic, seismic, geophysical, and geotechnical information cited in support of the applicant's conclusions concerning suitability of the proposed site.

Depending on completeness of the application, staff also might need to conduct a literature review at an appropriate level of detail. However, the application and its supporting information should enable staff to logically progress from data and assumptions to conclusions drawn without the need for an extensive independent literature review. Staff should evaluate thatwhether an applicant has provided all pertinent data, including information that may support alternative interpretations to data or conclusions formed by the applicant.

Review Interfaces Other SRP sections interface with this section as follows:

1. SRP Section 2.0, Site Characteristics and Site Parameters. For COL applications referencing a DC rule, review of the site parameters in the design control document (DCD) Tier 1 and Chapter 2 of the DCD Tier 212 1 submitted by the applicant is performed under SRP Section 2.0, Site Characteristics and Site Parameters.. Review of site characteristics and site-related design parameters in ESP applications or in COL applications referencing an ESP is also performed under Section 2.0.

2. SRP Section 2.5.1, Geologic Characterization Information. Review and acceptance of the applicant's basic data-gathering processes and findings that are presented in support of the geologic and seismic assessments, and completeness of this information, is performed under SRP Section 2.5.1 on Geologic Characterization Information..

1 Additional supporting information of prior DC rules may be found in DCD Tier 2, Section 14.3.

Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 4 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

Information in SRP Section 2.5.3 on the potential for surface deformation, including characteristics of Quaternary-aged faults, should be consistent with information reviewed in SRP Section 2.5.1.

3. SRP Section 2.5.2, Vibratory Ground Motion. Review of historical earthquake data to determine the ground motion response spectra (GMRS) and probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) is performed under SRP Section 2.5.2 on Vibratory Ground Motion.. Information in SRP Section 2.5.3 on the potential for surface deformation, including characteristics of Quaternary-aged faults, should be consistent with information used in SRP Section 2.5.2. Particular attention should be given to new information that has the potential to affect seismic source-zones that were developed in prior investigations.

4. SRP Section 2.5.4, Stability of Subsurface Materials and Foundations. Review of information concerning properties and stability of all soils and rock that may affect plant facilities under both static and dynamic loading conditions, including vibratory ground motions associated with the GMRS, is performed under SRP Section 2.5.4 on Stability of Subsurface Materials and Foundations..

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Requirements Acceptance criteria are based on meeting the relevant requirements of the following Commission regulations:

1. Applicable to a COL, or CP: Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)

Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Appendix A, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, General Design Criterion (GDC) 2, "Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena" as it relates to consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding area, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity and period of time in which the historical data have been accumulated.

1.2. Applicable to an ESP: 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1), Contents of Application; technical information. A Site Safety Analysis Report includes, in part, (vi) the geological characteristics of the proposed site with consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding area and (xii) an evaluation of the site against applicable sections of the SRP acceptance criteria.

2.3. Applicable to a COL: 10 CFR 52.79 (a)(iii). A Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is required that includesto contain information regarding the geological characteristics of the proposed site with consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and the surrounding area and with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, and time in which the historical data have been accumulated.

Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 5 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

3.4. Applicable to COL, ESP, CP, or OL: 10 CFR 100.23, Geologic and Seismic Siting Criteria. Subpart (c) of 10 CFR 100.23, requires that the geologic and seismic characteristics of the site and its environs be investigated in sufficient scope and detail to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed site;, to provide sufficient information to support estimates of the safe-shutdown earthquake ground motion;, and to permit adequate engineering solutions to actual or potential geologic and seismic effects at the proposed site. 10 CFR 100.23(c) further specifies that all geologic and seismic factors that may affect design and operation of the proposed nuclear power plant must be investigated, irrespective of whether such factors are explicitly included in 10 CFR 100.23(c)() (e.g., volcanic activity). Most importantly, 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2) also requires that the geologic and seismic siting factors considered for design include a determination of the potential for surface tectonic and non-tectonic deformations.

Sufficient geological, seismological and geophysical data must be provided to clearly establish whether there is a potential for surface deformation.

SRP Acceptance Criteria Specific SRP acceptance criteria acceptable, adequate to meet the relevant requirements of the NRC regulations identified above, are as follows for the review described in this SRP section. The SRP is not a substitute for the NRC regulations, and compliance with it is not required.

However, anthe applicant is required to identify differences between the design features, analytical techniques, and procedural measures proposed for its facility and the SRP acceptance criteria and evaluate how the proposed alternatives to the SRP acceptance criteria provide acceptable methods of compliance with the NRC regulations.

Appropriate sections of the following Regulatory Guides (RG)RGs are used by the staff for the identified acceptance criteria:

RG 1.208, A Performance-Based Approach to Define Site-specific Earthquake Ground Motion, describes methods acceptable for conducting geologic, geophysical, seismologic, and geotechnical investigations; and guidance on assessing surface-fault rupture and associated deformation at the site (Appendix C.2.4).

RG 4.7, "General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations," discusses the major site characteristics related to public health and safety that the reviewer considers in determining the suitability of sites for nuclear power stations.

RG 1.206, Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition, discusses guidance for COL applications for nuclear power plants (light-water reactors (LWRs)).

The reviewer should confirm that information provided in the application is complete, properly documented and consistent with applicable requirements of 10 CFR 100.23. The reviewer confirmsshould confirm that methods described in RG 1.208, or comparable methods, are Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 6 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

employed for identifying and characterizing surface deformation features; and that the material conforms tois consistent with the format suggested in RG 1.206. For evaluating completeness and acceptability of the application, the reviewer should use published and unpublished scientific information derived from various sources that present geologic, geotechnical, seismic, geophysical, and related pertinent data for the site vicinity and site area in which the site is located. These sources include the United States Geological Survey (USGS); other Federal and State agencies; and academia, industry, and non-governmental and professional organizations.

The reviewer shallshould ensure that investigations described in RG 1.208, and RG 4.7 are conducted with an appropriate level of thoroughness for the site vicinity, area, and location.

The reviewer should confirm that the results of investigations in the site vicinity, area, and location are consistent with the information used to develop tectonic and ground-motion models in the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) in Section 2.5.2.

1. Geologic, Seismic, and Geophysical Investigations. Requirements of GDC 2, in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi),or 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(iii) and 10 CFR 100.23(c) and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2),) are met andif the guidance in RG 1.208, and RG 4.7 are followed for this area of review or if discussions of Quaternary tectonics, structural geology, stratigraphy, geochronologic methods used for age dating, paleoseismology, and geologic history of the site vicinity, site area, and site location are complete, compare reasonably with studies conducted by others in the same area, and are supported by detailed investigations performed by the applicant. Site Staff should confirm that site vicinity, site area, and site location-specific geologic maps and cross-sections constructed at scales adequate to clearly illustrate surficial and bedrock geology, structural geology, topography, and relationship of power plant foundations and site boundaries to these features should beare included in the application. For sites located near bodies of water, the staff should confirm that the application should addressaddresses how investigations have been conducted to detect possible surface deformation features that might be located beneath water.

2. Geologic Evidence for Surface Deformation. Requirements of GDC 2 in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi) or 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(iii), and 10 CFR 100.23(c) and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2),) are met andif the guidance in RG 1.208, and RG 4.7 are followed for this area of review or if the applicant provides sufficient surface and subsurface information for the site vicinity, area, and location to confirm and characterize presence or absence of surface deformation (e.g., faulting, growth faulting, subsidence or collapse related to dissolution of limestone, salt or gypsum deposits, or salt diapirism and, anthropogenic effects, or paleoliquefaction) features.

The applicantstaff should also takeconfirm that the application takes into account the potential for blind faults.

3. Timing of Deformation. Requirements of GDC 2 in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50,

1. 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi) or 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(iii), and 10 CFR 100.23(c) and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2),) are met for this area of review if recognized surface deformation features (e.g., tectonic faults and non-tectonic features including growth faults) and features associated with a blind fault, are investigated in sufficient detail to constrain the Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 7 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

age of the most recent surface deformation event, and, if applicable, the ages of preceding deformation events. The staff will confirm that the application shall also provideprovides an acceptable evaluation of sensitivity and resolution of the exploratory geologic and geophysical techniques used to determine whether or not appropriate techniques were applied to assess the age of the most recent displacement.

4. Correlation of Earthquakes with Tectonic Features. Requirements of GDC 2 in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi) or 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(iii)),),

and 10 CFR 100.23(c) and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2),) are met for this area of review if the applicant evaluates all reported historical earthquakes within the site vicinity with respect to accuracy of hypocenter location and source of origin, and with respect to correlation to tectonic features. The staff will confirm that the applicant shall evaluateevaluated the potential for historical activity on tectonic features in the site vicinity. The The staff should confirm that the application should includeincludes a plot of earthquake epicenters superimposed on a map showing tectonic features in the site vicinity.

5. Relationship of Geologic Features in the Site Vicinity to Regional Geologic Features.

Requirements of GDC 2 in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi) or 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(iii), and 10 CFR 100.23(c) and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2),) are satisfied for this area of review if the applicant evaluates the relationships between faults or other deformation features in the site vicinity and the regional framework. The staff should assure that the application should provideprovides an acceptable evaluation of the relationships between the regional (tectonic and non-tectonic) framework and deformation features in the site vicinity, including growthsgrowth faults and growth fault systems. The applicantstaff should showconfirm that the application describes how this information is used in the evaluation of potential for future surface deformation at the site.

6. Potential for Surface Deformation at the Site. To meet requirements Requirements of GDC 2 in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi) or 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(iii), and 10 CFR 100.23(c) and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2),) are satisfied for this area of review, if the staff finds that the applicant shall assessassesses the potential future tectonic and nontectonic surface deformation at the site. The applicantstaff should provideconfirm that the application provides sufficient geological, seismological, and geophysical information to clearly establish whether there is a potential for future surface deformation at the site. If the potential for future surface deformation exists at the site, the applicationstaff must provideidentify information in the application that demonstrates the potential effects of surface deformation are within the design basis of the proposed facility. As stated in RG 1.208, staff should consider that it is prudent to avoid a site that has a potential for surface or near-surface deformation, as such sites will require extensive additional investigations.

It is important to note that no commercial nuclear power plant has ever been constructed on a tectonic feature with the potential for future surface deformation.

NRC regulations do not restrict building in an area with surface faulting potential, but if that potential exists, the regulations require that surface deformation must be taken Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 8 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

into account in the design and operation of the proposed nuclear power plant. It is questionable whether it might be feasible to design for surface deformation with any degree of confidence that safety-related structures, systems, and components would maintain their safety functions if surface displacements occur in the future. New designs under review do not consider fault related surface deformation beneath proposed sites.

Consequently, it is NRC policy (e.g., RG 1.208) to recommend that any site located on a surface or near-surface feature with a potential for future displacement be re-located to an alternate site Technical Rationale The technical rationale for application of these acceptance criteria to the area of review addressed by this SRP section is as follows:

Application of GDC 2 or 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi) for ESP applications, 10 CFR 52.79 for COLs and 10 CFR 100.23 providesrequires assurance that all geologic and seismic factors that might affect the design and operation of the proposed facility have beenare identified and adequately investigated and characterized.

Application of 10 CFR 100.23(c) requires that the geologic and seismic characteristics of the site and its environs be investigated in sufficient scope and detail to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed site;;, to provide sufficient information to support estimates of the SSE ground motion;, and to permit adequate engineering solutions to actual or potential geologic and seismic effects at the proposed site. Further, 10 CFR 100.23(c) also specifies that all geologic and seismic factors that might affect design and operation of the proposed nuclear power plant must be investigated.

Application of 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2) requires that the geologic and seismic siting factors considered for design include a determination of the potential for surface tectonic and non-tectonic deformations.

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES The procedures outlined below are used to review ESP and COL applications that do not reference an ESP to determine whether geologic and seismic information for the proposed site meets the Subsection II Acceptance Criteria of this SRP. As applicable, reviews of COLs include a determination on whether the content of technical specifications related to continued seismic surveillance is acceptable and whether the technical specifications reflect consideration of any unique geologic and seismic conditions that are identified.

For deviations from acceptance criteria, the staff should review the applicant's evaluation of how the proposed alternatives provide an acceptable method of complying with the relevant NRC requirements identified in Subsection II, Acceptance Criteria.

Procedures for staff review provide a process to determine that anwhether the applicant has Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 9 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

adequately performed investigations appropriate for fulfilling applicable requirements of 10 CFR 100.23(c) and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2). Based on 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2), an applicant is required to provide an assessment of the potential for surface deformation at the site related to both tectonic and non- tectonic phenomena. General guidelines an applicant may follow to determine presence and extent of surface deformation features in the site vicinity, area or location are found in Appendix C.2.4 of RG 1.208.

Review Process During the regulatory review process, the reviewer follows specific regulatory requirements promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations, the regulatory guidelines and the acceptance criteria in this SRP. The review process, with staffs responsibilities described within each step, is applied for CP, OL, ESP or COL applications.

1. Acceptance Review The acceptance review is a brief, high levelcompleteness and technical sufficiency review of the application to evaluate its completeness and identify safety issuesensure that could cause delay in subsequent phasesthe applicant has submitted the information required by the applicable regulations and contains sufficient information in scope and depth for the staff to conduct its detailed technical review within a predictable timeframe. The results of the review process.acceptance review will be used by the staff to determine whether to docket the application and conduct the technical review. Acceptance or rejection of the application by the staff for docketing and detailed review is governed by two criteria: (1) adherence to standard format for identifying and describing characteristics and features that might indicate a potential for surface deformation the following factors: (1) the number and safety significance of deficiencies; (2) the timing associated with the applicants ability to develop/prepare the supplemental information; and the certainty regarding the timeframe in which might adversely affect suitability of the site; and (2)the staff can review the specific portion of the application. Applications are acceptable for docketing when the provision of adequate information and documentation, as described in the requirements of GDC 2 in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi), 10 CFR 52.79 (a)(iii) and 10 CFR 100.23(c) and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2), RG 1.206, and 1.208) to enable an independent staff review of conclusions presented by the applicant. By acceptable, the application, is deemed acceptable for docketing.met.

2. Detailed Review of Application After the application is docketed, staff conducts a thorough, detailed technical review of material submitted in the application and identifies all potential safety issues related to surface deformation. The reviewer confirms that all interpretations in the application are based on generally accepted geologic practice and are supported by appropriate data and models. The reviewer confirms that alternative data sets, if available, are appropriately considered in development of the applicants assessment and Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 10 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

conclusions. The reviewer also considers any significant new information derived from site-specific geologic, seismic, geophysical, and geotechnical investigations that have not been considered or applied to tectonic and ground motion models used in the PSHA (Section 2.5.2).

(Section 2.5.2).

Literature Review The staff proceeds withconducts a literature search and review of relevant references (e.g., published geological reports, USGS professional papers and open-file reports, university theses, physiographic and geologic maps, and aeromagnetic and gravity maps) to acquire additional information on geology and seismology at the site vicinity, area and location with respect to surface deformation potential. However, as publication of data and results commonly lags behind completion of research projects a reviewer does not rely entirely on information submitted by the applicant or in published literature.

The reviewer identifies studies underway in the site region and obtains information on preliminary results of these studies. Special provisions might be required to examine proprietary data. The reviewer gives particular attention to models or data that have the potential to introduce alternative interpretations to the models or data in the application that might affect conclusions for safety or suitability of the site.

Development of Requests for Additional Information During the detailed technical review, staff develops requests for additional information (RAI) related to issues considered to be inadequately addressed in the application and that might affect conclusions for safety or suitability of the site. If insufficient data are provided in the application to support interpretations and conclusions presented, the staff will request that the applicant to provide additional clarifying information. Questions might arise from discovery of references not cited by the applicant that suggest alternative interpretations to the information and interpretations provided by the applicant. The RAIsRAI responses might indicate the need to conduct additional investigations. The detailed review schedule will commonly include public meetings with the applicant to ask clarifying questions and allow the applicant to present new data or other information to justify conclusions in the application. Staff reviews the applicant's responses to questions and remaining issues may be resolved by supplemental RAIs, public meetings, or by staff positions. A staff position is usually in the form of a requirement for the applicant to provide confirmatory information or to designaccount for a specific condition in a manner deemed to be adequate and consistent with requirements of 10 CFR 100.23.

Site Audit and Confirmatory Activities Staff will conduct a site audit to examine geologic features revealed by outcrops, trenches, test pits, surface and subsurface geophysical tests, and borehole data. For Section 2.5.3, staff will focus on geologic features within the site vicinity, area and Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 11 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

location that may indicate surface deformation. Staff prepareswill prepare a site audit report to document what staff did at the site and to aid in the development of the staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER). The report iswill be subsequently submitted to Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) and retained as a record.

As part of confirmatory activities for the site audit review, staff might conduct an independent geologic reconnaissance of the site vicinity and area as necessary to examine soil and rock samples from core borings and test pits and geologic features in trenches and excavations for other site facilities.

3. Review of Supplemental Information The Phase 3 review is the final phase for resolving all open safety-related issues, an activity commonly associated with staff review of the applicants responses to RAIs.

4. Geologic Mapping License Condition Under the COL or ESP approach defined in 10 CFR Part 52, the SER might have been written by staffLicenses, Certifications, And Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants the staff may have completed the SER and a license or permit may have been granted to the applicant before site excavations and geologic mapping of the excavations begin.

Thus, new geologic features might be discovered in plant excavations, which have the potential to affect site safety. To ensure that the safety implications of new information are reviewed, staff must identify clear statements must be provided in the site-specific portion of the COL application that commit the applicant commits to:

(1) Perform detailed geologic mapping of the excavations for safety related structures; (2) Examine and evaluate geologic features discovered in excavations for safety-related structures; and (3) Notify the NRC once excavations for safety-related structures are open for inspection by NRC staff.

A geologic mapping license condition will be proposed in the staff SER for each COL site where plant excavations and geologic mapping have not been completed prior to a license being granted. Likewise, a geologic mapping permit condition will be proposed in the staff SER for each ESP site. For those COL or ESP sites where plant excavations and geologic mapping take place prior to a COL or ESP being granted, staff will evaluate the plant excavations and mapping as part of the application review.

5. Procedures for Staff Evaluation of Specific Areas of Review Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 12 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

The staff followswill follow procedures for review based on the six specific Areas of Review defined in Subsection I to determine that anthe applicant has acceptably performed appropriate investigations for fulfilling applicable requirements of 10 CFR 100.23(c) and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2). While evaluating the six Areas of Review, reviewers will note all significant new information provided by anthe applicant or identified by the staff regarding seismic and tectonic information (e.g., a seismic source or new tectonic model that was not included in the site PSHA) and coordinate closely with the PSHA reviewer of Section 2.5.2 to ensure consistency forwith information used in the hazard analyses.

(1) Geologic, Seismic, and Geophysical Investigations. The reviewer evaluates the results of the applicants geologic, seismic, and geophysical investigations by conducting a literature review on topics that affect staffs understanding of the applicants safety analysis. The review should allow staff to determine that conclusions presented by the applicant are based on appropriate data for this review area and are consistent with both reports published by area experts and conclusions of staff. If conclusions and interpretations presented by the applicant conflict with the available literature andor staff disagree with the applicant's analysis and assumptions, the reviewer will require the applicant to submit additional information to further support the conclusions in question. For coastal and inland sites near large bodies of water, similar detailed investigations should include information regarding onshore and offshore deformation features.

In some cases, it might be possible to identify onshore expression of an offshore tectonic structure (i.e., a fault or fold) of potential concern. As expressedoutlined in RG 1.208, Appendix C, under this condition staff will find it is acceptable forif the aplicant to investigateinvestigates expression of the offshore feature in the onshore environment, along with other investigations of the offshore feature when possible, to better evaluate characteristics of the deformation feature in the site vicinity, area and location.

(1) Geologic Evidence for Surface Deformation. The reviewer evaluates that the applicant provides sufficient surface and subsurface information for the site vicinity, area, and location to confirm presence or absence of surface deformation features. This includes the reviewer conducting a literature search and comparing that body of knowledge with the applicant's data, to ensure that all evidence of surface deformation (e.g., growth faulting, subsidence or (2) collapse related to dissolution of limestone, salt or gypsum deposits, or salt diapirism, anthropogenic effects) identified in the literature has been considered by the applicant. If evidence of surface deformation is found, the reviewer should confirm that the applicant performed additional field investigations (e.g.,

geologic mapping, surface and borehole geophysical investigations, borings, or trenching) shall be carried out to adequately characterize the deformation features. The The staff should confirm that the application includes a distinction Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 13 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

should be made between tectonically-induced surface deformation and non-tectonic surface deformation resulting from growth faulting or collapse due to limestone or salt dissolution or, salt diapirism)., or as a result of anthropogenic effects.

In addition to geologic evidence that might indicate deformation, the reviewer should examine documented topographic and geomorphic evidence should be examined and their use documented (e.g., linear features interpreted from topographic maps, low and high altitude aerial photographs, satellite imagery, LiDAR). Data Staff should confirm that data to assess presence of surface deformation is obtained by anthe applicant from surface methods such as:

imagery analysis, geologic reconnaissance and mapping and subsurface methods such as geophysical surveys at ground surface as well as in boreholes; geologic and geotechnical logging of soil materials and rock core in boreholes, and geologic mapping of trenches and test pits to define paleoseismic features and fault surfaces (including growth faults) or collapse features. The nature and extent of investigations to determine whether or not shallow subsurface deformation features exist (e.g., blind faults, folds related to blind faults, growth faults, dissolution caverns, salt diapirism) are likely to exist will vary in degree of detail and extent required based on geologic context of the specific site.

In the central and eastern United States (CEUS) region, defined in NUREG-2115, earthquake-generating faults typically do not extend to the ground surface or there is insufficient overlying Quaternary soil or rock to constrain the timing of deformation. In the Westernwestern United States, many Quaternary faults are exposed at the ground surface and might be more readily characterized with respect to surface deformation potential if appropriately aged geologic formations or units exist at the site of deformation. Tectonic deformation features (including faults related to subduction zones) can exist as blind faults that might be expressed on the surface or near-surface by actively growing folds or areas of uplift and subsidence.

(2)(3) Timing of Deformation. The reviewer evaluates the applicants assessment for the ages of past deformation events to determine if a sufficient technical basis has been established for the age estimates. The reviewer determines whether geochronological methods used by the applicant are based on generally acceptable procedures, such as those described in NUREG/CR-5562 or Paleoseismology. InMcCalpin (2009). For cases forin which the applicant employs unusual or untested age determination techniques, staff will require documentation of the techniques including verification of the precision and accuracy of associated ages. Accuracy and precision of all age-dating techniques used in the applicant's analysis should be carefully documented and considered in the analysis of deformation potential. In general, staff should confirm that multiple samples should beare analyzed, and more than one dating method is applied to each geologic element that is significant in estimating age of a paleodeformationdeformation event.

Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 14 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

(3)(4) Correlation of Earthquakes with Tectonic Features. The reviewer assessesevaluates how the applicant has investigated correlation of earthquakes with potential tectonic sources in conjunction with consideration of SRP Section 2.5.2. Historical Staff should confirm that historical earthquake data derived from review of SRP Section 2.5.2 are compared with known tectonic features in the site vicinity and a determination is made regarding whether any earthquakes can reasonably be associated with these tectonic structures. This The staff should confirm that this determination includes an evaluation of the hypocentral error estimates of the earthquakes. When available, earthquake source mechanisms should be evaluated with respect to fault type (reverse, normal, and strike-slip) and characteristics such as orientation and slip history. The The reviewer shall assure that the applicant shall evaluateevaluates the relationship of fault parameters to earthquake magnitude. This type of assessment will likelyshould provide insights on the potential for future surface displacements. . In addition, staff should confirm that the application contains information on small earthquakes correlated to growth fault movementsfaults or fluid injection or withdrawal should be considered in, as appropriate areas, to discern between tectonic activity and man human-induced events or toand determine the potential for future movementsmovement on growth fault systemsfaults.

(4)(5) Relationship of Geological Features in the Site Vicinity to Regional Geological Features. The reviewer evaluates relationships of tectonic structures in the site vicinity with regional tectonic structures by using a literature review to determine that the applicant's evaluation of the regional tectonic framework is reasonable. The reviewer confirms that conclusions reached by the applicant are based on acceptable geologic principles and have considered appropriate geologic and geophysical data. The reviewer considers the resolution accuracy of the investigation methods used by the applicant.

(5)(6) Potential for Surface Deformation at the Site. The reviewer evaluates the information provided by the applicant to characterize past surface deformation events in the site region. The reviewer then assesses the applicants approach for integrating this information into an assessment of the potential for future surface deformation at the site per 10 CFR 100.23 (d)(2). The assessment should distinguish between tectonic and nontectonic surface deformation. If the potential for future surface deformation exists at the site, the reviewer will confirm that information in the application must demonstratedemonstrates that the potential effects of surface deformation are within the design basis of the proposed facility.

Review Considerations Specific to 10 CFR Part 52 Application Type

1. Early Site Permit Reviews 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart A, Early Site Permits specifies the requirements and procedures applicable to the Commissions review of an ESP application for approval Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 15 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

of a proposed site. Information required in an ESP application includes description of geologic, seismic, geophysical, geotechnical, and hydrologic characteristics of the proposed site. The applicantstaff shall proposeensure that the application includes geologic site characteristics that will form a set of values for design and construction of a new plant to be built at the site.

At the COL stage and in the absence of certain circumstances, such as a compliance or adequate protection issue, 10 CFR 52.39, Finality of early site permit determinations precludes the staff from imposing new site characteristics, design parameters, or terms and conditions on the ESP. Accordingly, the reviewer, for SRP Section 2.5.3 shall ensure that all geologic characteristics that pertain to surface deformation and that could affect the design basis of SSCs important to safety-related SSCs, are reflected in the site characteristics, design parameters, and terms and conditions of the ESP.

Nevertheless, this requirement does not relieve the applicant or permit holder from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 52.6(b) to notify the NRC of new information having a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security that might be developed following issuance of an ESP.

In order to verify that no geologic features or conditions exist beneath the safety-related structures at the site that could compromise plant safety, the staff proposeswill propose a permit condition requiring an applicant to: (1) perform detailed geologic mapping of the excavations for safety related structures; (2) examine and evaluate geologic features discovered in excavations for safety-related structures; and (3) notify the NRC once excavations for safety-related structures are open for inspection by NRC staff.

2. Combined License Reviews NRC staff reviews a COL application referencing a certified standard design to determine that sufficient information is provided to demonstrate that site characteristics fall within specified site parameters of the DC rule. Should the actual geologic site characteristics not fall within the certified standard design site parameters; the COL applicant willmust demonstrate by some other means that the proposed site is suitable for the proposed facility.

In order to verify that no geologic features or conditions exist beneath the safety-related structures at the site that could compromise plant safety, the staff proposeswill propose a license condition requiring an applicant to: (1) perform detailed geologic mapping of the excavations for safety related structures; (2) examine and evaluate geologic features discovered in excavations for safety-related structures; and (3) notify the NRC once excavations for safety-related structures are open for inspection by NRC staff.

NRC staff reviews a COL application referencing an ESP to determine that sufficient information is provided to demonstrate that the design of the facility falls within the Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 16 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

site characteristics and design parameters specified in the ESP as applicable to this SRP section. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.79(b)(2), if the design parameters of the facility do not fall within the site characteristics, the application shall include a request for a variance from the ESP that complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.39 and 10 CFR 52.93., Exemptions and variances.

In the absence of certain circumstances, such as a compliance or adequate protection issue, 10 CFR 52.39 Finality of early site permit determinations, precludes the staff from imposing new site characteristics, design parameters, or terms and conditions on the ESP at the COL stage. Consequently, a COL application referencing an ESP need not include a re-investigation of the site characteristics that have previously been accepted in the referenced ESP. However, long-term environmental changes and changes to the region resulting from human activities or natural causes might introduce changes to the site characteristics that are relevant to the design basis.

Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.6, Completeness and Accuracy of Information, the applicant or licensee is responsible for identifying changes of which it is aware, that would satisfy the criteria specified in 10 CFR 52.39. Information provided by the applicant in accordance with 10 CFR 52.6(b) will be addressed by the staff during the review of a COL application referencing an ESP or a DC.

For a COL application referencing either an ESP or DC or both, the staff should review the corresponding sections of the ESP and DC Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER)FSER to ensure that any ESP conditions, restrictions to the DC, or COL action items identified in the FSERs are appropriately handled in the COL application. Per 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1), a DC will provide site parameters postulated for the design. For a COL application referencing a DC, the reviewer verifies that the applicant has provided a basis for each of the site parameterparameters as stated in the DC site parameters summary table.

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The review should document the staffs evaluation of geologic and seismic site characteristics with respect to the relevant regulatory criteria. The evaluation should support the staffs conclusions as to whether the regulations are met. The reviewer should state what was done to evaluate the applicants safety analysis report. The staffs evaluation might include verification that the applicant followed applicable regulatory guidance, performance of independent calculations, and/or confirmation of appropriate assumptions. The reviewer might state that certain information provided by the applicant was not considered significant to staffs understanding of safety and, consequently, was not reviewed in detail. Although the reviewer might summarize or quote the information offered by the applicant in support of its application, the reviewer should clearly articulate the bases for the staffs conclusions.

1. Early Site Permit Reviews Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 17 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

A typical staff finding at the conclusion of the review can be illustrated as follows:

The staff has considered information provided by the applicant in support of the license application about the determination of the potential for surface tectonic and non-tectonic deformation at the site and site suitability. The information reviewed includes data from the site vicinity, area, and location related to geoscience investigations; geologic reconnaissance for the site vicinity; the staffs independent review of published literature; and discussions with knowledgeable geoscientists with the USGS, State Geological Surveys, local universities, consulting firms, or other non-governmental and professional organizations.

As a result of this review, staff concludes that geologic, seismic, geophysical, and geotechnical investigations and information provided by the applicant in accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi), 10 CFR 100.23(c), and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2) provide an adequate basis to establish the potential for future surface deformation to occur at the site, which could affect the design and operation of the proposed facility.

2.1. Combined License, Construction Permit, and Operating License Reviews If staff completes review of geologic and seismic aspects of the site related to potential for surface deformation and confirms that the applicant has met all applicable requirements (i.e.,

appropriate portions of GDC 2 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.79(a)(iii),

10 CFR 52.79(a)(iii), 10 CFR 100.23(c), and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2)) and guidelines (i.e.,RG 1.208, 4.7, and 1.206), the conclusion in the SER should state that investigations and analyses performed and information provided support for the applicant's conclusions regarding suitability of the proposed nuclear power plant site in relation to potential for future surface deformation. Licensing and permitting conditions established by staff to resolve any significant deficiency identified in the application should be stated in sufficient detail to make clear the precise nature of the concerns and the required resolution. The reviewer should also evaluate the application is also reviewed for any potentially significant new information derived geologic, seismic, geophysical, and geotechnical investigations in the site region that had not been previously applied to tectonic and ground motion models used in the PSHA, and provide that information has been identified to reviewers in SRP Section 2.5.2.

For COL applications that do not reference a previous ESP, staff evaluation findings will include the evaluation findings identified abovebelow for ESP reviews. For a COL referencing a previous ESP, staff should refer to the pervious ESP and include an evaluation of any new pertinent information that might have been discovered after the ESP was issued that affects the design and operability of the proposed facility. For a CP application, staff evaluation findings will be similar to the ESP findings. For an OL application, staff findings will include an evaluation of excavations for safety -related structures.

6. Early Site Permit Reviews Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 18 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

A typical staff finding at the conclusion of the review can be illustratedof an ESP is as follows:

The staff considered information provided by the applicant in support of the license application about site suitability, including the determination of the potential for surface tectonic and non-tectonic deformation at the site. The information reviewed includes data from the site vicinity, area, and location related to geoscience investigations; geologic reconnaissance for the site vicinity; the staffs independent review of published literature; and discussions with knowledgeable geoscientists with the USGS, State Geological Surveys, local universities, consulting firms, or other non-governmental and professional organizations.

As a result of this review, staff concludes that geologic, seismic, geophysical, and geotechnical investigations and information provided by the applicant are in accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi), 10 CFR 100.23(c), and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2) and provide an adequate basis to establish the potential for future surface deformation to occur at the site, which could affect the design and operation of the proposed facility.

7. Combined License, Construction Permit, and Operating License Reviews A typical staff finding at the conclusion of the review for a COL, CP or OL is as follows:

Information reviewed for the proposed nuclear power plant concerning potential for surface deformation is summarized in SER Section 2.5.3. Staff concludes that the site has been adequately evaluated for the potential for future surface deformation that may affect the design and operation of the proposed facility and meets requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 2; 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi), 10 CFR 100.23(c), and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2). This conclusion is based on the applicant having met the requirements and guidelines of:

1.(1) GDC 2 (Design Bases for Protection against Natural Phenomena) of Appendix A (General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants) to 10 CFR Part 50 (Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities) with respect to protection against natural phenomena such as faulting and resultant vibratory ground motion.

2.(2) 10 CFR 100.23(c) ("Geological, seismological, and engineering characteristics) with respect to the adequate evaluation of geological, seismological, and engineering characteristics of a site and its environs as affecting tectonic and nontectonic deformation of the site. In complying with this regulation, the An applicant also meetscan comply with the following applicable guidance into meet this regulation: RG 1.208 (A Performance-Based Approach to Define Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion); RG 4.7 (General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants); and RG 1.206 (Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition).

3.(3) 10 CFR 100.23(d)(2) ("Geologic and Seismic Siting Factors) with respect to Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 19 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

determination of the potential for surface tectonic and nontectonic deformations.

In order to verify that no geologic features or conditions exist beneath the safety-related structures at the site that could affect the design and operation of the facility, the staff proposes a license condition requiring an applicant to: (1) perform detailed geologic mapping of the excavations for safety related structures; (2) examine and evaluate geologic features discovered in excavation for safety-related structures; and (3) notify the NRC once excavations for safety-related structures are open for inspection by NRC staff.

For COL reviews, the findings will also summarize the staffs evaluation of requirements and restrictions (e.g., interface requirements and site parameters) and COL action items relevant to this SRP section.

V.IV. IMPLEMENTATION The staff will use this SRP section in performing safety evaluations of DC, COL, or ESP applications submitted by applicants pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52., Licenses, Certifications, And Approvals For Nuclear Power Plants, or CP and OL applications submitted by applicants pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. The staff will use the method described herein, to evaluate conformances with Commission regulations. If the applicant proposes an alternative method for complying with specified portions of the Commissions regulations, the applicant must demonstrate the acceptability of its alternate method.

VI.V. REFERENCES

4. 10 CFR Part 52.

1. 10 CFR 100.23, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, Part 52. Title 10, Energy.

1.2. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, "Geologic and Seismic Siting Criteria,"

§100.23, in 10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria." Part 100, Title 10, Energy.

5. U.S. Department of the Interior, Divisions of Geologic Time-Major ChronostartigraphicChronostratigraphic and Geochronologic Units,

3. U.S. Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 2010-3059, July 2010. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3059/.

2.4. GDC 2U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, "Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena," GDC 2 in Appendix A, "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 20 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

Utilization Facilities." Part 50, Title 10, Energy.

3.5. K.K.E. Neuendorf, J.P. Mehl, Jr., and J. A. Jackson, Editors, "Glossary of Geology,"

Fifth Edition (revised), American Geosciences Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, 2011.

4.6. McCalpin, James P., Paleoseismology,, International Geophysics Series, Vol. 95, 613 pp, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 2009.

5.7. RG 1.208,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A Performance-Based Approach to Define Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGuide 1.208, Washington, DC.

6.8. RG 4.7,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGuide 4.7, Washington, DC.

6. RG 1.206, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition,

9. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGuide 1.206, Washington, DC.

7.10. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Sowers, J.M., et al, Dating and Earthquakes

- Review of Quaternary Geochronology and its Application to Paleoseismology, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, NUREG/CR-5562, 1998.

Washington, DC.

Technical Report:

8.11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Electric Power Research Institute, U.S.

Department of Energy, Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Technical Report, NUREG-2115, 2012, Washington, DC, NUREG-2115, 2012Palo Alto, CA.

Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 21 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT TheThis Standard Review Plan contains voluntary information collections contained in the Standard Review Plan are covered by the requirements of 10 CFR PartParts 50, 10 CFR Part 52, and 10 CFR Part 100, and that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval (OMB), under control numbers 3150-0011, 3150-0151, and 3150-0093, respectively. Send comments regarding this information collection to the Information Services Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011, 3150-0151, and 3150-0093) Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

PUBLIC PROTECTION NOTIFICATION Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request forcollection of information or an information collection requirement unless the document requesting document or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 22 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

Standard Review Plan Section 2.5.3 Description of Changes Section 2.5.3 Surface Deformation This SRP section affirms the technical accuracy and adequacy of the guidance previously provided in Revision 4, March 20075, July 2014, of this SRP. See ADAMS Accession No. ML070730597.ML13316C064. Changes include an increased focus on the determination of the potential for surface tectonic and nontectonic deformations and on the sufficiency of geological, seismological and geophysical data to make that determination. The technical changes incorporated in Revision 56, dated May 2013July 2018, include the following:

In general and throughout; updated text with editorial and clarifying statements and changed the title of the SRP as shown above.

Otherwise:

I. AREAS OF REVIEW

a. Clarified the link to 10 CFR 100.23(c) and removed Appendix A language

b. Clarified review interfaces especially with respect to SRP Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.4

c. Clarified the emphasis on Quaternary aged features

d. Removed outdated EPRI references

e. Removed review of PSHA assessment, inserted direct link to SRP Section 2.5.2

a. Updated SRP to reflect risk-informed regulation to focus on causes of surface deformation that affect the site.

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

a. Enhanced and clarified the link to 10 CFR 100.23 (c), 10 CFR 52.17 and 10 CFR 52.79

b. Removed references to RG 1.132, 1.138, 1.165, 1.198 III. REVIEW PROCEDURES

a. Modified the review process based on lessons learned from recent reviews Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 23 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016

b. Added information regarding Site Safety Audits and RAI development based on lessons learned from recent reviews c.a. Added specific detail concerning the Geologic Mapping License Condition Added reference to McCalpin (2009).

Revised Acceptance Review section to be consistent with NRO Acceptance Review Office Instruction.

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Clarified and updated findings based on applicable regulations (100.23(d)(2),

100.23(c), 10 CFR 52.17, 10 CFR 52.79 and GDC 2.

V. IMPLEMENTATION Clarified and updated text according to recommendation by DARR VI. REFERENCES

a. Removed the following references:

i. RG. 1.165 ii. RG. 1.132 iii. RG. 1.138 iv. RG. 1.198

v. UCRL-ID-115111 vi. NUREG-1488 vii. NP-4726A viii. EPRI Report TR-102293

b. Added the following documentsreferences:

NUREG-2115

c. Updated the following references:

Geologic Time Scale, US Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 2010-3059 Glossary of Geology Revision 5 - July 2014 2.5.3 - 24 Draft Revision 6 - September 2016