ML19210A996
| ML19210A996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1967 |
| From: | Coulter H INTERIOR, DEPT. OF, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY |
| To: | Newell J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911010708 | |
| Download: ML19210A996 (5) | |
Text
.
a
-~
/
- _ _ nw.
p
~)
- '*.,\\.
{
A a.
t
^
'OMa DATE OF DOCUMENTi DATE RECEIVED NO.
N. 8. Dept. of the Zaterior Geological Survey 10-6-67 10-M7 3323 l
tra
- ufMO, aEPo=1, cinen.
Amahin't.cn, D. C.
(If. Coulter) x 8
CalG.s CC:
OfMEA:
Pr. Newell 1
ACTICN NECESSARY O
C NCuanENC:
O
^ ' ' ^ * * * * * * '
NO ACTION NECESSARYO C MMENT A55'F a O
90$1 OFFICE FILE CCDEs U
aEG. NC, DOCKET: 50-289 (surPL. car)
ICRIPTICNs (M ut Ao Unclassif.ed)
- r. trSD33 REFERRED TO DATE RECEIVED SY DATE
- Maumm11, inJ
- 1 co ;ry -- FGE ;.CTIQU
- tosuaEs, (g
)
teto en,1.
+n
'lizimay draft
- statement regarding
' geolog of the Three Mile Island tr _
c
- lear Station, dated 10-3-67
'y-"- gf, myp,3 t
.n,. _ o w.
inr~
%-r 1 Distributions 1-suppl. file ef
'4~ -e r5 et
"~
p Imine mn.,
/
u v ; ' * '. i ~ o.
i : i -~
iv j( l'
,-r
/
4_r
- u. s. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION I'
- u. s. oovensueur ensuri~a orrica: is 7-ase.ess MAIL CONTROL FORM Foaa AEC-326s
'o@B$OkubW6 1589 342 7911010 7 D(h
/[
'g
[
()
' '% ^
7~
\\
UNITED STATES 2
- [$ Ah.' 5
\\
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTEslOR I$w>
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WASHI NGTON, D.C.
20242 October 6, 1967 Mr. John F. Newell Division of Reactor Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Co=J.ssion 4915 St. Elmo Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20014
Dear Mr. Newell:
Transmitted herewith is a preliminary draft state =ent concerning the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Statien, A.E.C. Docket 50-289 Sincerely yours,
[h* k bt,C.-
4 Henry' W. Coulter Deputy Assistant Chief Geologist for Engineering Geology Enclosure bh 343 i
4 L
- 4) 4 4
8 4
e
n DRAFT ifWaldron 10/3/67 Metropolitan Edison Company Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Geology The analysis of the geology of the Three Mile Island Atomic Power Station presented in AEC Docket No. 50-289 and supplements was reviewed and compared with the available literature.
The analysis appears to be carefully derived and to present an adequate appraisal of those aspects of the geology that would be pertinent to an engineering evaluation of the site.
There do not appear to be any~ positively identifiable geologic structures that could be expected to localize earthquakes in the immediate vicinity of the site. Three probable faults are shown on the geologic map of the area (Appendix 2D--Addendum 1), the traces of which are projected near the site.
The actual existence of these faults, however, appears to be very tenuous (see Appendix 2A--
Addendum 1).
Even if any of these faults do exist, there is no evidence that they could have been tectonically active for at least the last 10,000 years and perhaps for as much as the last million years (see Appendix 2D, p. 30). The border fault of the Pennsylvania Triassic Basin lies approximately 5 to 6 miles north of the site.
Elsewhere in the eastern United States many of the earthquake epi-centers appear to be located in the immediate vicinity of comparable i
geologic structures.
m e,n A
m Neither footing design nor invert elevat. inn of the cooling water intake structure are given in the report.
Design of the structure should include plans for protection during a flood stage from either rapid sedimentation in the immediate vicinity of the structure, or from possible scour of the foundation by river currents.
If the invert elevation of the structure is based on a minimum pool elevation for the York Haven Reservoir, then the design bases for the York Haven Dam shuld be consistent with Class I struct.res at the reactor site.
Details of design of the dikes that are to protect the plant site are not given. These structures also should be designed so as to provide adequate protection against any excessive scour or erosion that may occur from river currents in effect during the maximum or design flood stage.
Logs of borings, as shown in Appendix 2A and in Figure 2A-2, indicate that foundation conditions in sound bedrock (Gettysburg Shale) under-lying the site should be adequate for the proposed facility.
During construction, however, some minor modifications of foundation design
- aay be required due to variations in the thickness of the weathered
- one on the Gettysburg Shale.
The relationship between rock struc-tures and potential shear strengths of the rock, as noted in Section 3.3, also may necessitate some modifications of design during construction in order to ensure the integrity of the more heavily loaded foundations.
x 1539 345 2
O q
e b
s.
.s 4#
Such modifications, however, should be within the li,aits of standard engineering design and practice.
s s'
] J d ')
34D k !
I.
b 9
4