ML19211C571
| ML19211C571 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Swift A HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001130199 | |
| Download: ML19211C571 (2) | |
Text
[pa asogIo UNITED STATES g
y
- e g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
.E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.m The Honorable Al Swift United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Swift:
This letter is in response to your letter of September 25, 1979 regarding the geologic and seismologic review for the proposed Skagit Nuclear Power Project near Sedro Woolley, Washington.
Both the NRC Staff and the U. S. Geological Survey agree that the proposed site for the Skagit project is a region of complex geology. This fact is reflected in the extensive review and assessment of the Skagit application over a five year period; greatly in excess of the average 12 to 18 month period required for most nuclear reactor sites. The U. S. Geological Survey is continuing with a geologic mapping program for this region and we strongly endorse this effort. NRC Staff geoscientists maintain awareness of these mapping efforts and constantly review all new information in order to assess any impact on siting decisions being made for the Skagit Nuclear Power Project.
It is important to note that the final definition of the seismic design bases for a nuclear power plant must also include consideration of the engineering design process employed for plant structures, systems and components, as well as the various functional requirements necessary for safe operation. The information available from both the scientific and engineering disciplines must be synthesized to arrive at the engineering methodology that will yield optimum design parameters for the plant in question. The optimum parameters are those that yield adequate seismic resistance while not adding unnecessary restraint to systems that must remain free to accomodate the themal and other movements inherent in nomal operation, or unnecessary structural supports that impede nomal operation and inspection.
As noted in the transmittal letter for the USGS supplemental repcrt on the Skagit project (H. Menard to H. Denton September 17,1979) certain proprietary seismic profiles that could bear on the final outcome of the review had not at that time been received by the Survey. These profiles were subsequently received, and on October 18, 1979 the USGS provided the NRC Staff with addi-ticaal infomation developed from a preliminary review of the recently received seismic profiles in conjunction with previously available seismic profiles and continued field mapping in Skagit county. The NRC Staff detemined that the new information could potentially affect the Staff's safety evaluation for the Skagit Nuclear Power Project and imediately 1739 191 soot uo f
Congressman Swift requested a delay in the hearings scheduled to begin on October 25, 1979 before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the Skagit proj;ct. The final Staff evaluation will await a more thorough review of the new infor-mation by the USGS and will reflect our full evaluation of the significance of this information.
I trust that the above is responsive to your concerns.
If you desire further information on this matter please do not hesitate to call upon us.
Sincerely, Original signe i by R. G. Smith bLeeV.Gossick Executive Director for Operations s
1739 192
I
~>
e 8
AL SWIFT COM MITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN 20 Distnicv, wamesustos CO M M ERCE p=M
[d3 Evsam Cemca Ongt25$ Of tIJt I.initCD 6tated su.co--TTEE o~
(2 2-COM M UNICATIONS Batueemeeans C,mca A
3fjouge of Representatites
- 20. n o.a. m.u (ace) 732-4500 su co* "'TT== ca n@0n, D.C 205M ENEngy AND powgm 1-400-542 1385 1911 Lonewonvu House opmca h -
WAanseestcN. D C. 20913 (202) 225-2005 September 25, 1979 Mr. Harold Denton Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
First, let me thank you for the prompt response of your office in supplying me with a copy of the U.S. Geological Survey's letter to you dated September 17, 1979, on the two proposed nuclear plants in my Congressional District.
I have reviewed the letter with several geologists and I have some serious questions I would like the NRC to address. Geologists familiar with that particular area say there are a nu=ber of young faults in the general area of the proposed power plants by Puget Sound Power and Light Company. As explained to me, these younger faults are more susceptible to possible seismic activity. However, the U.S.G.S.
advisory letter deals with these faults only fleetingly, spending little time in analyzing what the concerns might be. The U.S.G.S. in its own letter notes that there are " major uncertainties" regarding some of the geological framework. Because of this, and the complex geological makeup of the region, I think it is necessary the NRC require the U.S.G.S. to carry out further mapping and evaluation of the a rea site for this facility, paying particular attention to these yo:ng faults before any action approving the applicant's limited work authorization.
Ic is vital that a complete and accurate geological portrait of the region is available in developing any design for any possible plant. I think further study in this area will go a long way tourd resolving some of the legitimate concerns people in my district have raised about the geolegical framework of the actual general site locale.
Your prcmpt attention to this would be appreciated. Again, thank you for your cooperation.
1739 193 Rec'd Off. EQO T
s Il Cate.
.lQ
?.
~ **~'
\\
\\
0 Tim e........ h J{
Al u,
.C.
THIS STAT 1 ONERY PRINTED oN PAPER MADE WITH RECYcLEb FtBERS 7 91002 03 ' lg,
AS/r" m-D
~ M o& _d