ML19212A228

Early Site Review for Facilities

ML19212A228
Person / Time
Site:	05000510, 05000511, Crane
Issue date:	01/31/1977
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-0131, NUREG-131, NUDOCS 7909040158
Download: ML19212A228 (30)

Text

EarIn NU REG-0131 Site Review u.s. ~veie,

Regulatory Conimission for Office of Nuclear

"*" ' ' "a9">atio" Blue Hills Site Docket Nos. 50-510 Gulf States Utilities Company and 50-511 January 1977

')

,..,r.

Available from National Technical Infomation Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price:

Printed Copy $4.50, Microfiche $3.00

.26

ilUREG-0131 Jo.ary 1977 EARLY SITE REVIEW BY THE U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY BLUE HILLS SITE DOCKET NO. 50-510 AND 50-511 y,,f.,,,

{,4,

%}

s'

'dN

TACLE CF CONTENTS E310 1.0 INTPODUCTIO'J A'43 GE*,ERAL DISCUSSID'i.

1-1 1.1 Introductien.

1' l.2 General Descriptian of Site.

1-2 1.3 Identification of Agents and Contractors.

1-4 1.4 Samrary of i'rincipal review ibtters.

1-4 2.0 SITE eb4R CTCRisTICS.

2-1 2.1 rieagra;9n ar.c Dr ~';rar b e 2-1 2.'

Naarby Irdastrial, Transportation and Military Facilities.

2-5 2.3 N te o ro l o rU.

'5 T.3.1 Regicnal Ci iratoloq,

2-5 2.3.2 Local "etcorology.

2-7 2.3.1 Onsite ' teorolo;ical Mea surene,ts Pr.T; ram 2-7 2.3.4 E hc et-T e rn (Acc'fent) Dispersion Estimates.

2-9 2.3.5 Long-Tenn (Routine) Dispersion Estima te.

2-13 2.3.E Conclusions.

2-13 2.4 Hydrology-2-13 2.4.1 Mydralo7,ic Descr1L ti an.

2-13 2.4.2 Probable thxi u, Flocd on Streams and Rivers.

2-14 2.4.3 Otner rotential Floods.

2-15 2.4.4 Cooling Water Canals and Channel Diversions 2-15 2.4.5 F looding Prctection Reauirer ents 2-15 2.4.6 Los Water Cr.nsideratic,s.

2-15 2.4.7 Envircnnertal acceptance of Ef fluents.

2-16 2.4 8 Crcundwate,'

2 -l f.

2.. 9 Conclusions 2-17

' e'.,..t v ? <.f?

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D Pace 2.5 teology and Seismology.

2-17 2.5.1 Regional Geology.

2-18 2.5.2 Tectonic Structures.

2-18 2.5.3 Site Geolocy.

2-21 2.5.4 Tectonic Provinces 2-22 2.5.5 Earthquake Activity and Geologic Structure.

2-22 2.5.6 Safe Shutdown Earthquake.

2-24 2.5.7 Operating Basis Eacthquake.

2-26 Stability of s ils and Foundations.

2-26 2.5.8 o

2.5.9 Foundations.

2-27 2.5.10 Eearing Capacity and Settlerent.

2-29 2.5.11 Lateral Earth Pressures.

2-3:

?.5.12 Liquefaction Potr:ntial.

2-30 2.5.13 Dynanic Soil Frope 'ies.

2-31

2..14 Slope Stability.

2-31 18.0 REVIEW BY ADVISCRv CCMMITTEE 0'4 REACTOR SAFER,UARDS.

18-1

21.0 CONCLUSION

S.

21-1

'i, ' ' :rh

,, <s a ii

APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A:

CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY SITE REVIEW r

THE BLUE HILLS SITE.

A-1 APPENDIX B:

BI3LIOGRAPHY FOR ELUE HILLS SITE W ETY EVALUATION REPORT.

E-1 n

G

• ' v'--

LIST GF FIGJRES P_qe FIG'jRE 1.2-1 G E '." Al LOCATICN OF BLUE HILLS SITE.

1-3 F IGURE 2.1 -1 3LUE HILL 5 SITE LOCTTICN.

2?

FIGURE 2.1-2 BLUE h LLS SITE E'CLUSIG'; MEA.

2-3 Fli!RE 2.3-1 DI;.ECT10'al FEEQUL*JCY Or WIND-DL',E H!LLS LITE.

2-E r, p - a g,g_*

iv

LIST OF TTBLES Mt TABLE 2.5-1 FOUt4 DATIO?4 DESIGi PARAMETERS.

i=

rg y

• . -.1 /,...,

1.0 INTRODUCTIpN AND GENERAL DISCL;s5 ION 1.1 Introduction The Gulf States Utilities Company (the applicant) filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) an application, docketed on July 30, 1974, for licenses to construct and operate the proposed Blue Hills Station Units 1 and 2.

The proposed site is located in Newton County, Texas approximately nine miles west of the Teras-Louisi3na border on the Toledo Bend Reservoir.

Since the time the applintion was docketed, on July 30, 1974, the appliant has 2 lounced three delay _ which resulted in an eight year delay of the inservice dates for both units. This was the result of a reevaluation by the applicant of its systen load growth. While it was not possible for the NRC staf f to proceed with the licensing ef fort toward the issuance of a construction pernit, the appli-cant stated that they wished to continae working with the NRC staff on the suita-bility of the Blue Hills site for a nuclear power plant and resolve all site related safety issues in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. On this basis, we have continued our review of the Prclininary Safety Ehalysis Report site related tssues; i.e.

predoninantly Chapter 2, and issue a Safety Evaluatian Report (this report) on tr.e site related safety issues.

We have completed our review, to the extent possible at this time, in the areas of seismology, geology, meteorology, hydrology, and in the area of hazards to a nuclear power plant which could a esult f rom man's activities The information provided for our review consisted of the preliminary Safety Analysis Peport including Arendments 1 through 5 to the application. Copies of this report and its amendments are available for public inspecticn at the U. S. Nuclear Regula-tory Comnission's Public Document Roon, 1717 H Street, *..W., Washington, D. C. and at the Newton County Public Library, Newton, Texas 75M6.

This report suaiarizes the results of our technical evaluation of the proposed Blue Hills site suitability for a nuclear power plant perfor"ed by the NRC staf f and delineates the scope of the technical matters considered in evaluating the..ita-bility of the site for a nuclear power plant. Additional details as to the sccpe and bases used by the NRC staff to evaluate the radiological safety aspects 73 n, r1

'. -. P D 4;

l-1

of proposed nuclear power plant sites are provided in the Nuclear Pegulatory Com-mission's Standard Revieu Plan For The Review Of Safety Analysis Reports For Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-75/087 (hereinaf ter also referred to as the Standard Review Pla'.).

The Standard Review Plan is the result of many years of experience b/ the NRC staff in establishing and prorulgating guidance to enhance the safety of nuclear f acilities and in assessing Safety Analysis Reports.

The applicant has filed an Environmental Report for the Blue Hills site to evaluate those matters relating to environnental impact assessrent which can reaconably be reviewed at this t'ue.

We will report on the results of our evaluation of the Environmental Report for the Blue Hills site in an Environr. ental Statement to oe issued about July :977.

This report and the findings contained herein can be referenced at sone future date should the applicant deciae to request the NRC sta ff to resume the review of their appiication to build a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site. At that tire we will require that the applicant identi ty any in'on a t..a describing the Blue Hills site contair.ed in the Preliminary Safety Aral 3 Report, including Arendrents 1 throagh 5 which has changed since the publication of this report.

A chronology of the principal actions related to cur review of the Blue Hills Station Units 1 and 2 Frelir i nary Safety Analysis Peport for site related ratters is included as Apnendix A to this report. The bibliography for this report is encloted as Appendix B.

1.2 General Description of Site Tne Blue Hills site is located in the northeast corner of Newton county, Texas, two riles soutnwest of Toledo Eend Reservoir and 17 niles east of Sam Pavburn Reservoir.

The site is about 25 miles east-northeast of Jasper and 10 niles north of Wiergate and Burkeville. The Tevas-Louisiana border is nine niles east of the site. State Highway 87 is a north-south route about two miles west of the site. Farn-to-Market Rcad 255 runs east-west about two niles soJth of the site. This road ends at Farn-to "arket Road 632, which runs north-south, and is approsi" ate.y 6.5 miles east of the plant site. Figure 1.2-1 of this report shows the general location of the site.

The Universal Transverse Merca*or coordinates of the site location are fC, 445, 607 meters and E 434,012 reters.

The elevation of the site is 270 feet above rean sea level. The locations of najor rivers and lakes are shown in Fiqure 1.2-1 of this report. Ficure 2.1-2 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report shows other rivers and creeks within five miles of the site.

h h A' l-2

S-a-

y 4

a d

4

.8' y

q

_ ~s E

.e,, i g

.a

-t

s. a.,

==

3 d

a 1

e u'

...i

?

j 4

3

• n 3 e a

.e

.r un.

5 i

i

..... - s,.:.*

z c.

1 u

i' _

a j

n

• = *

'?

i;

!. D O C e

me" m-C g

8 6

8

-0 w

s 8

8 9

9

)5 6

.e

(

s e

a we e- ~ *

.i

{R l

.w=*

c" g.

4 d5y

.}

=

.44' p

g C*.

.;- i,3

.4~h-4.

+

(5 s

• 1 e

2 11

a a

ti m

s. r.

6 e

m

~ )

4*%

t] '

• a v 31

,_. nw i;;"

++

C i+.f I

+

1. ","

• d*

'I

}

g

_2

- +

3.-

a c=

?!

.g f I N.g3 i

a V

O

~

-r y

a 4

g i

E C

j j -

y ers4g,

_{

],o

• +

I*

c1

~

\\*2

- a

" 15 f F91.

.j ' e oo

=

e, =,

5 LL o

,,4 i

g.%+

s A

4 6

O 4<./,

r g

1.h.

-8 g

y s

8 a I

SY

-a 8

sr-

),,

( '". s, ' -*{ 5,

s

' - - - - l '.

• w Y

-s*

..t k)8 z.

~

c 4

+

ba (s

k j

g a

5 H-il

{-

4_

O.

3 e/**

C a ~

g

_+.

-e,

~s n

/-

E

• z *o z

g F

-T 4<

I g

a E

q tJ s.

,7 4

\\

4 eW" y

y

.~

f E

O

(

,e

's a <..

,e y

',5, #

a.

3

,.,,, /,1 s

,' s gr l-i 1 o<

s.

. +.

qq.,\\

.'1

\\

~r % -- % 5 2

ae 4

E

+

'h I

6 d

. W./

m

/p I

i e$

i

!s 1O c.

a I-n.,

a r,

'w-p

=

we roo 0

0

v. v.

'i -;-

~

1-3

The site is composed of an area of abou. 3,016 acres. The site is totally owned by the applicant with the exception of the mineral rights within two parcels 01 land inside tne exclusion area. The exclusion area (radii s of 0.85 mile or 1,364 reters as measured fron the outside diameter of the contain-t building) is entirely within the site biundary.

1.3 Identification of Agents and Contractors Gulf ~tates Utilities Corpany of Beaunont, Texas was the soie applicant for facility license for Blue Hills Stttion Units 1 and 2 and subsequently has been the sole participant in the review of the Blue Hills site suitability for a nuclear power plant. Project managecent services for the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report was provided by Bechtel, through its Los Angeles Power Division, Houston Area Office.

Bechtel has had prime responsibility for developing infornation and analyses for the following areas that this review has been concerned with: hydrology, geology, seisaology, and foundations. The reteorological program and associated analyses have been conducted by Teledyne Geotech of Garland, Texas and Meteorology Pesearch Inc. o f A' +.adena, Ca l i f ornia. Geography and demography consulting services were provided by Dr. D. Huff of the University of Texas. Special geological consulting was perforced by C. O. Durham, Baton PGu]e, Louisiana.

Other consultants retained by the applicant to perform or verify studies for this review are identified in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.

1.4

$rra20f Principal Peview Matters _

This Safety Evaluation Report sucirarizes the results of the tech 1ical evaluation of the proposed Blue Hills site perforred by the NRC staf f.

Our evaluation included a technical review of the inforration and data subnitted by the applicant with emphasis on the following principal natters:

(1) We evaluated the population density and land use characteristics of the site en-virons and the physical characteristics of the site, including seismology, reteo-rology, geology, and hydrology to deternire that these characteristics had been adequately describe and were given appropriate consideration to determine the significant site related plant design parameters, and that the site characteristics were in accordance with the Connission's siting criteria (10 CFR Part 100).

(2) We evaluated the hazards to a nuclear power plant which could result from ran's activities; e.g., air crash, proximity of pipelines, etc.

(3) We evaluated the potential capability of the Blue Hi'is site to support the con-struction and operation of a nuclear power plant of tne general type and size being proposed for other e es in the United States under the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100.

1-4 3

'., t ) ;~-

e

>r

During our review, several ireetings (see Appendix A to tnis report) were held with representatives of the applicant and the applicant's contrcctors and consultants to discuss various technical matters related to our review of the Blue Hills site. We also visited the site to assess spe-ific saf"ty catters related +o our. eview of the Blue Hills site.

, ' s hab.

E

2.0 SITE CHARA_CTERISTICS The scope of the Blue Hills early site review does not include the design parameters for a specific nuclear power plant design. This infornction will be provided by Gulf States Utilities Company (the applicant) in a construction permit application in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 at a future date. However, the Blue Hills Sta. ion, Units I and 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and this Site Safety Evaluation Report has established an envelope of meteorological, hydrological, seisrological, geological, and foundation conditions for a nuclear power plant design.

These condition-provide an indication, in advance of the developrent of a specific nuclear power plant design, of the site related design requirements for a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site. The applicant has presented tr( results of their site investigations and analyses in Chapter 2 of the Blue Hills Station Un' l and 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.

2.1 Geography and Demography The 3]l6-acre Blue Hills site is located in tre northeast corner of Newton County, Texas, two miles southwest of Toledo Send Peservoir and is niles east of San Rayburn Reservoir. The site is about 25 miles east-northeast of Jasper, Texas. The Texas-Louisiana border is nine miles east of the site. State highway 87 is a north-south route about two niles west of the "ite.

Farn-to-Market Poad 255 runs east-west about two miles south of the site. This road ends at Farm-to-Market Road 092, which runs north-south, and is approximately 6.5 riles east of the plant site. Figure 2.1-1 shows the general location of the site, and Figure 2.1-2 shows the location of the designated exclusion area within the property boundary. No public highways, waterways,

or railroads traverse the exclusion area. The site is totally owned by the applicant with the exception of the mineral rights within two parcels of land inside the exclu-s:en area. The exclusion area (radits of 0.85 rile or 1369 reters as measured from the outside edge of the containment buildings) is entirely within the site boundary.

Wnen we resume our review of the application to build a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site, we will require that the applicant demonstrate that the mineral rights within those two parcels of land have been acquired so that they will have the authority to determire all activities within the exclusicn area as required by 10 CFR Part 100.

The 1970 population within 10 miles of the site is stated by the applicant to be about 1500 people, and the 1970 population within 50 niles is given as about 155,000. The applicant projects that the population within these distances will doubic by the year 2020. Transient population resulting from recreational activities near the Toledo Bend Reservoir occurs between four and five miles, and reached a total of about 23,000 during 1973. The applicant estimates a growth to about 63,000 per year by the year 2020 2 -1

• ^U~

~-fq m ;'

l l

s

(

L J

s i

/

s / BEECHWOOD

.l 43OOOOE TOLEDO

\\

CARMICHAEL s l/

BEACH p

7 9 RWA.

.a 6

?

Wlttow N

\\

CREAT ONAL AREA) 440mc F AIR,MOU v

's b 3451000 N n'

['

N i

h

,i..p 87

's

^

s, s'

l 5, t

, s' pn

% g)<,:'

I

,j

'o

.. ~, _,'

\\,

i c

'(

' ShBINE CO.

' NE(VTON CO.

[s

'y s,

q, t> ~, j *

~T,

'N,- 3/

5.

's

\\

,T s.

f i

\\

r'

~

t s.'N Nf c;:' 3447000N i,

s 4

I\\

l f

)) \\,' -

~,

/

3 s'

f

~

\\

- - - - y ~t.'

Is

/

i PLANT SITE

[

, ~, A., -

/

l / / ' '-

g h UTM N3445607

/

s

/

,/

OU u,'

r

\\

~

7" p '*

r s

WE ER ~ i CEM. O,*

k A

m k

)f hm W\\'

[

' -l '

• i

[

/

5

'/

,I "r'

i

>,, v h'j p.,

'..t }c,

(

l

,e

\\

~

lI-i

,, c; y

(,

3443000N

/

~

N (A 4 i

~s I

~'s. _,,.x,

1. ~~

e,

/

f

. g o.' '

l o

(

s

,o

}

ry g

MITCHELL

{

g

,0 N

/

, l'

[

c' x

s g.

3 g

'biAYFLOWER t'

j i

('

\\ 1,'/ / / i 440000E

'\\

4

)

J M : S

'V I

f' 8

f

(

/

,f l j

/ r

/

/ 1 e

/

'H g

s

~ ' PLEASANT g

% y'

/

l N

CHURCH 3 j

s,

~~'

s g,

(

\\l 4

' A t (n

'l

%{/

\\

I t'-

o

\\ '

l l

~

x T

3 Ts

~

A3OOool L'

I e

I l

I q

435000E Figure 2 1-1 Blue Hills Site Location GQ h'1 a

_W y

4

, r; D

e-o 2-2 o

W -f

(~

?~ Q

~

k 0

%sN*1 TULEdO BEND RES

• j*

g

g S

}

W=

4 w"%wdy i

SITE BOUNDA Y AND i*

E y

w

\\

f k

UNI AV GABLE k

N

( _]{]dM.. " i (j 'j N 599,360 FEET y _ $ W??,$" v[g,f;f

(

j]

E 4.076,310 FEET 3N LING O

m

[

J Oh

, \\

.k-METERS

+

r

,Y p%, UNIT 2

~

[

'p

_[g J] L JN 598,900 FEET j' SWITCH YARD a

. hs, g / q,k

_f w" g

~

v

- E 4,075,980 FEET t

I

(.

2

,l },

Q,) $U ")

} L^

}

s 0

k W(

0,!, QC ' IA b 0( ',

&H 3

6 I

' EX'CLUSION AREA'

)

(k [;,t IO s'

S

! 4 I 36 Q

\\-

EXCLUSION ARE A RADIUS S (g(,^-ldlRESTRECTED AREA P Yc Lp:

t%6.4$5 i'l%'s %

C }. <

O

/

k

\\

EShRICTE h

~

A A

i e

' %d\\ M;;

4 h"M E'.fi &g:[

%s w b, O

/ lr

.r v ACCESS ROAD y t i O

r w,' M )* M miM'A.,gIf 2

'f wh R

m e

TO 255 EE7 10,000 FOOT GAID BASED ON TEXAS 0

1000 2 3000 4000 5000 COORDINATE SYSTEM, CENTB AL ZONE.

GR APHIC SCALE OO Figure 2.1-2 Blue Hills Site Exclusion Area I' o o 1l n

,i.j

_a

The applicant has specified a low population zone of three miles radius. The population within that area is stated to be 10 for the 1970 census year, and the applicant estimates no more than 22 by the year 2020. No characteristics of the low population zone have been identified which would preclude the formulation of an acceptable energency plan for the residents within the zone, as required by 10 CFR Part 100.

There are no larqe comunities in the vicinity of the site. The largest unincorpo-rated area within 50 miles is the Fort Polk nilitary base with a population of 24,000 and located 33 miles east of the site. There are no corrtunities within 50 miles with a 1970 population of 25,000 or nore. This satisfies the 10 CFR Part 100 requirenent that a population center distance at least be one and one-third tires the distanca from the reactor to the outer boundary of the low population Zone.

In accordance with 10 CFR Part 100, of fsite doses from postulated design basis accidents are to be calculated at the exclusion area and the low population zone on the bases of the site reteorology, reactor therral power level, and the safety features that are to be engineered into the nuclear power plant. Pegulatory Guide 1.4 "Assur ption Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a loss-of-Coolant Accident f or Pressurized Water Reactors" specifies the allowable radiological consequences for the construction gernit review. Since the applicant has elected to identify at a future date a reactor thermal power level and safety features that wo;ld be engineered into a facility, we are unable to conclude on these r atters at this tire.

However, based on pi;t experience, we have found that a rinimum exclusion area dis-tance of 640 meters (0.4 nile), and a low population zone distance of 4500 eters (three miles), even with unfavorable atmospheric dispersion characteristics, usually provides assu ance that engineered safety features can be provided to maintain calculated dose-from postulated accidents within the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100.

We will require that the radiological dose consequences resulting from the desian basis accidents be evaluated on the basis of the atr'ospheric dispersion factors presented in Section 2.3.4 of this report and the guidance of Regulatory Guides 1.4

" Assumption Used for Evaluating the Potential Padiological Consequences of a Loss-of-Coolant Accident for fressurized Water Reactors" for tre proposed facility design and reactor thernal power level.

On the basis of these considerations, we conclude that the Blue Hills site can be acceptable under the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants of the general type and size being proposed for other sites in the United States.

8

.el 1

s 2-4

2.2 ficarby_ Industrialdransportation and Military Facilities There are no significant industries, waterways, airports, nininq activities, railroads, or military facilities within 10 miles of the Blue Hills site. The nearest najor roadway is State Hichway 87 which passes, at its closest approach, about two niles west of the site. The nearest pipeline is an eight-inch crude oil line passing about five miles southeast of the site, and the nearest railroad is a line of the Santa Fe Railroad 13 niles west of the site. Federal Airway V212 passes about five niles n.'rth of the site.

The nature and exte.it o 3ctivities at nearby industrial, militar), and transportation f acilities have been evaluated and we conclude that currently the e are no activities in the vicinity which have the potential for adversely affecting safety-related structures of any nuclear power pl3nt which may be proposed for the Clue Hills si'e nor which would require special design considerations for any plant propesed for the Blue Hills site.

2.

Meteoroloav Infonration concerning the atmospneric dispersion characteristics c a proposed nuclear power plant site is required in order that a deternination mc< be made that postulated accidental, r, well as -outine operatior 1, releases of adicartive raterials are within *.;C guidelines. Furthermore, regional and local climatological information, ir.cluding extreres of climate and severe weather cccurrences whicn rav 3ffect the safe design and siting of a nucle 3r plant at a proposed site, is required to insure that safety-related plant design and operat'n1 bases ure within NRC cuide-

line, The design uasis reteorological characteristics of a proposed site are det ?nnined by the tac staf f's evaluation of reteorolo ;ical inforratico in accordance with the proced;res presented in Sections 2.3.1 throujh 2.3.5 of the Standard Review Plan.

2. 3.1 Eejional Cliratolocy_

The applicant has provided a suf ficient description of the regional netecroloqical conditions of irportance to the safe design and siting of a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site.

The region of east-central Texas and west-central Louisiana experiences a subtropical maritime climate, with occasional influences of polar air from the north. The semi-perrunent high pressure systen of the westren Atlantic Ecean pushes tN 7 edominant south to southeast winds into the reginn laden with warm, roist air f rom the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, sunters are warm and hurid, with average high terperatures rear 90 degrees Fahrer.heit and Jaytine humidities near 60 percent. Temperatures eiceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit about 90 days each year. Occasional intrusions of polar air in the winter are usually of short duration.

Thus, winters are r ild with low te pera-tures averaging near 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Freezing ta:peratures occur about 30 days annually.

-5

,M, I

The proximity to the Gulf of Mexico also accounts for the abundant rainfall in the area, with annual amounts averaging about 50 inches. Rainfall varies slightly f rom month to ronth; however, small peaks in the rainfall occur in late spring due to airmass showers and in early winter due to frontal passages. Late summer-early fall generally has the least a: cunt of rainfall. Thundershowers are possible any month of the year.

curring an average of 70 days annually.

Snowfall is a rarity in the region, averaging less than one inch per year. However, occasional storms have dumped up to 10 inches of snow cn the ground (Leesville, Lnuisiana, February 13, 19'0). Une or two ice storms, some occasionally severe, may occur each year in the area. Similarl /, the rean annual number of days of hail in the region is one or two.

We would cor. sider a design load for roofs of safety-related structures of 30 pounds per square foot as proposed by the applicant, to be acceptable for loads due to snow at the Blue Hills site.

Between 1953 and 1974,116 tornadnes occurred within a 10,000 square mile area containing the site. Using the r ethods of Thom (Reference 7), this results in a recurrence interval of 670 years for a tornado at the plant site. The design basis tornado proposed by the applicant is similar to the design basis tornado parameters for Region I, as describea in Regulatory Guide 1.76, "Desi;n Basis Tornado for Nuclear Fower Plants," which we find acceptable for the site. These parameters include a maximum wind speed of 360 uiles per hour consisting of a maximun rotational speed of 290 miles per hour and a maximum translational speed of 70 miles per hour; a minimum translational speed of five miles per hour; a radius af naximum rotational speed of 150 feet; a pressure drop of three pounds per square inch; and a rate of pressure drop of two pounds 'er square inch per second.

Hurricanes and tropical storns also affect the site area. Eetween 1871 and 1974, the centers of five hurricanes and 18 tropical storms or hurricane remnants hcve passed within 50 miles of the site. Because the site is 95 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico, the velocities of wind from these storms are less at the site than at the Gul f Coast. Thus we consider an operating basis wind speed (defined as the "f astest mile" wind speed at a height of 30 feet with a return period of 100 years) of 90 miles per hour, as proposed by the applicant for the site, to be acceptable.

The " fastest mile" of wind recorde 1 at Port Arthur, Texas (about 80 miles south of the site, near the Gulf Coast) has been 91 miles per hour (August 1940).

Between 1936 and 1970, the site area experienced about 20 cases of atmospheric stagr.ation totalling about 70 days. The autumn conths had the highest f requency of cases.

The applicant has examined meteorological data from the region to select appropriate meteorological conditions in considering the design requirements for an ultimate heat sink as recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.27 " Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear n.

~ r,

• ' ' ' ~~~

2-6

Power Plants.'

On this basis, we have evaluated this information and conclude that the reteorological data presented in Section 9.2.5 Sf the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report is acceptable for analysis of the ultimate heat sink design concept (i.e.,

rechanical draf t cooling tower) described in Section 9.2.5 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.

2.3.2 Local Meteorology The applicant has provided suf ficient information for us to rake an evaluation of the local reteorological condit,ons of irportance to the safe desir;n and siting of a nuclear poacr plant at the Blue Hills site. Two years of data collected onsite are availabla to essess the local reteorological characteristics of the Blue Hills site as well as climatological data from Leesville, Louisiana (25 miles east of the site), Alexandria, Louisiana (75 niles east-northeast of the site), and Bronson, Texas 20 miles northwest of the site).

At Leesville the average daily maximum and ninimum terperatures rance between 93 degrees Fahrenheit and 70 degrees Fahrenheit in July, the warriest renth, and between 61 degrees Fahrenheit and 38 degrees Fahrenheit in January, the coolest renth. The extreme maxinun temperature recorded at Leesville was 107 degreas Fahrenheit; however, Bronson has recorded the extreme maximum terperature of.14 degrees Fahrenheit. The extrer.e minimum temperature recorded at Leesville has been zero degrees Fahrenheit.

Leesville receives about 54.4 inches of rain ar.nually. Ireci tion is usually abundant each ncnth of the year, ranging from 5.5 inches in Dt. -ber, the wettest month,

• 3.2 inches in Octoter, the average driest renth. Tne maximun 24-hour rainfall recorded at Leesville was 11.0 inches in February 19E6. However, in June 1886, a location near Alexandria received a torrential amount of 21.4 inches ithin a 24-hour period. Annual snowfall averages 0.7 inche, at both locations. The naxinum 24-hour snewfalls have been 10 inches at Leesville (February 1960) and 8.2 inches at Alexandria (January 1940). Heavy fogs (visibility of 1/4 mile or less) occur on about 40 days annually at Alexandria, with the re jority occurring in the winter months.

For the two year period of October 15, 1973 through October 14, 1975, about 26 per-cent of the time the windflow over the site, as reasured at the 33-foot level of the onsite neteorological tower, was from the south and south-southeast. Figure 2.3-1 shcws the d' ectional frequency of onsite winds. Winds were calm (windspeeds less than 0.6 mph) three percent of the tire at the 33-foot level.

.,-A

's

's' e.4l L 2.3.3 Onsite Meteorological Measurements Progran The onsite meteorological measurements program has been compared with the recomren-dations and intent of Pegu.itory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs. ' We conclude that the neteorolog al measurements program has produced data which, in turn, have been sunnarized to >' ovide sufficient reteorological description of the site and its vicinity for the pu ;ose of making atmospheric dispersion estimates for 2-7

N l

J l

16%

14 12 10

+

8 k

s g

2 W

~

3 09 E

i 9

1 Qe p}

S Figure 2.3-1. DIRECTIONAL FREQUENCY OF WIND-BLUE HILLS SITE. Onsite Data at 33 Feet Above Ground Level, October 15,1973 Through October 14, 1975. Bars Show the Direction From Which the Wind 3;uws. Calms cre Those Winds With Hourly Average Speeds Less Than 0.6 MPH.

e$.

E g,'

2-8

use in c;etermining the radiological consequences 01 accidental and routine airborne releases of ef fluents f rom a r.uclear powcr plant.

A IBO-f oot high reteorological tower, erected about E00 f eet west-southwes t of tt e prepused reactor site, became fully operational on October 10, 1973. Wind speed and d i rec tion, standard deviation of direction, and deapoint ter pera ture are reat ured at both the 33 and LED-foot levels of the tower.

/ertical temperatore di f ference reasuresents are nade betneen the 33 and 180-foot levels. A bient air te perature is taken at the ?3-foot level. Precipitation is neasured at 10 feet above ground level.

• n January 1974, additional wind sensors were adJed at the 67 and lod toot levels to provide interrediate data to describe the vertical wind crofile.

The applicant has provided joint f requency distributions of wind speed and direction by atenspheric stability class, based cn the vertical te'rerature gradient data collected onsite c; 1 the period October 15, 1973 to October 14, 1975. The distri-butions were for wi"a speed and direction tieasured at both the 33 and 180 foot levels alth the vertical te perature differente between the 33 and IbO-foot levels ne have concluded that the applicants' onsite retecrnlo:ical program conforms to the provisions of Pegulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Progran, and has produced two years (October 15, 1973 - Octobe 1"

1975) or cnsite meteorolel cal data which i

provides an acceptable basis to deter site atrospheric dispersion conditions, and no il tnerefore acceptable.

2.3.4 Short-Term (Accident) Dispersion Esti ates Tne 31ue Hills site is lccated in a forested terrain. The applicarit nas proposed a meteorological rcdel which considers the 'sneltering" ef fect of thP trees surrounding the reteorole;; cal tower in their calculations of atmospheric dispersion factors (X/O's) for the site. Trese /9's are smaller than thosc calculated which do not censicer the " tree sheltering effect. As a result of our evaluation of the appli-cant's reteorological rodel, we fin 1 that the cuantitative reduction of the //O's

roposed by the applicant due to the " tree shelterini ef f ec t is unwirranted based upon the lini ted in formatie ' available on this phencnenen at this time Tre following arovides tre basis for our conclusions on this matter

(1) The applicart concluded in their disoersion f actor analysis that the ef fects of

" tree sheltering" were nbserved primarily for Etatility Class G.

According to their r eth d af analysis tFe other stability clee ses they reviewed; i.e.,

Stability Class E and F, showed little shelterin' ef fe:t It is our assessment that it " tree sheltering" is cccurring, the ef fec ts sha id te apparent for al' stabiliti(

We have observed decounling of upper and lower-level winds at other sites where no trees are present. It is possible that the low-level wird reduction noted at the Blue Hills site riay be a conbiration of the ef fects of " stability-decoupling" 2-9

.g

and " tree sheltering.' The degree of X/Q reduction due to " tree sheltering" effects alone would need to be quantified before credit for it i, our X/Q evalua-tion could be allowed.

(2) The applicant concluded in their analysis that the proposed cleared area sur-rounding the finished plant would be significantly larger than the clearing sur-rounding the meteorological tower. Thus, we would expect the reteorological tower data ic *eflect lower wind speeds, and thus higher X/O values, than pre-dicted by the applicant to occur at the "as built" plant complex.

It is our assessment that the addition of buildings and attendant structures ray significantly reduce the ef fective area of the clea-ing surrounding the s. ant.

Thus, conparison of reteorological data collected at the nresent tower location and that at the f uture plant clearing may not dif fer sigr.ificantly; this dif fer-ence would need to be quantified before credit coulc be allowed in the X/Q's.

In sunnary, the NRC staf f agrees in principle with the applicant that sore " tree sheltering" ray be occurring at the lower levels of the present reteorological tower. However, we do not believe that the magnitude of this phenomenon at-tributed to occur at tre present tower 'Dcation has teen fully quantified, nor has it been correla ted to the reteorel,

?l concitions which would occur within the "as built" plant complex. On

• h.,

ba:is, we have not used the applicants analysis of " tree sheltering" effects in veloprent of accept-able X/Q estimates for the Elue Hills site.

In our calculation of short-tern dispersion estimates, we used a dispersion nodel codified from that described in Regulatory Guide 1.4, "Assur ption Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiciogical Consequences of a Loss-of-Coolant Accident fur Pressurized Water Reactors." This modified redel has incorporated re alts from recent field experiments in atrospheric dispersion. This nodel considers the following effects:

(1) lateral plume reander, as a function of atmospher ic stability, wind speed, and distance f rom the source, during periods of light winds and stable atrospheric conditions.

(2) boundary distance as a function of direction from the plant, (3) thE atmospheric dispersion conditio1s when the wind is blowing in a specific directirn, and (4) the fraction of time the wind can be expected to blow into each of the 16 corpass directions.

In our developient of short-term atmospheric dispersion estimates for the Blue Hills site we have modified the atmospheric dispersion model (Reference 6) and the assess-nent of short-tenn dispersion estimates described in Section 2.3.4 of the Standard 2-10

~

n ;,.

ep v i;,

s

Review Plan. These deviations represent a substantial change in the procedures used for determining atcospheric dispersion conditions aporopriate in assessing the potential of fsite radiological consequences resulting from a range of postulated accidental releases of radioactive naterials. These changes are based on cur review of relatively recent experimental data of atrospheric dispersion during stable atmo-spheric and light wind conditions, and on a recognition that our procedures should reflect variations in relative concentrations that occur as a function of wind direc-tion and varying site ;oundary distance with direction We did not fonrulate these changes specifically for the Blue Hills site; rather, we derised them on a generic basis to be applicable to Iost !ites. [ecause the topographic and ve9stative characteristics of several of the test sit, noted in the subsequent text, were sinil3* to those of the Blue Hills site, we C3nsider these changes appropriate for our analysis of the 6tnospheric dispersion conditions of the Blue Hills site.

Recently collected experirental data have established a basis for rore realistic evaluatians of atmospheric dispersion conditions during light wind and relatively stable atmospheric conditions. Quantitative atrospheric tracer studies representing ground level releases without the effects of buildings have been perforned at the River Bend, Three Mile Island, and Clinch River power reactGr sites and ai the Id3ho National Engineering Laboratory. These tests have shown that during stable atro-spheric conditions (as defined by the vertical terperature difference criteria in Pegulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Peteorological Program") when the wind speed is light, r.easured effluent concentrations are usually substantially lower than those predicted by the use of the traoitional prediction cur.es (Pet erence 17) of lateral and verti-cal plume spread.

Preliminary data from recent atmospheric dispersion tests at the Rancho Seco power reactor site, conducted to determine the combined effects of reander and building wake on relative concentrations, also indicate that during light wind and relatively stable atnosnheric stability conditions, reasured concentrations are generally lower than those predicted by the use of the traditional prediction curves. Further, the contributior, of building wake cavity mixing for reducing ef fluent concentrations is nasked by the plure neander during these conditions.

Using these test data, we have formulated a generalized and reasonably conservative, yet more realistic, assessmer rethodology for the relative concentration (X/Q) cal-culations used in design basis accident evaluations. This rethod is applicable to assuneo vent releasas, or releases from other building penetrations, at nost sites.

The NRC Reactor Site Criteria, i.e.,10 CFR Part 100, specify the limi ting doses to an individual located at any point on the boundary c f the exclusion area. Part 100 also references Technical Information Document TID-14844 (Reference 16) for further gu' dance on siting practices of the Conmission. However, these two documents are mutt on how the impact of directional dependent factors (exclusion boundary distance, dispersion rate, and wind frequency) should be assessed. To assess these direction-ally dependent factors, the model provides X/Q values at a constant probability level 2-11 IJ w.

for individu3ls at dif forent Incations en the exclusion bounJary. It considers directionally variable oclusion bo adary distar.ces ani site specific directional f requencies of atmospher ic di?persiJn cLnditiCn5 Using the rodified disper;ico r. 91, we rave ruie comervative as eseents of post-accident atnospheric dispersion canditions for the Blue Hills site.

In the rodel, we used the applicant's r eteorological dita f or two years of onsite cata collection (October 15, 1973 - October 14, 1975) with wind direction ard speed reasured at the 33-foot level. Data recovery f or this period and this level was 91 percent.

We have calculated val v fcr the various tir e periods folloainq an accidontal re-factor, c, of 1000 a

lease. We assured a ground-level relene with a building a squ3re meters, a value suggested by the applicant. If buil!'

re constrJcted CO

.i!I adjust car X/O this site that result in a dif ferent b;ii1ing wie factor, values in our construction rernit rrview.

The relative concentration far the 0-2 hour tire reriod which is exceeded no more than five percent of the tire is 1.1 s 10' seconds per cubic Peter at an exclusion distance of 1369 reters (rea:ured from the cutside edge of the containrent bui1Jin )s and suggested in the Freliminary Safety Araly'is Deport).

The relative concentraticn values for v3rious tire periods at the outer bound)ry of a Low Populatico Zone of 4803 meters are:

Time Periode X/JJeconds rer cubic roter) 0-3 hours

1. 7 x 104' S-24 hours 1.z x 10 1-4 days 4.8 x 10

0 4-30 days 1.4 x 10 for purposes of corparison, the following are the X/:) values calculated using the rodel c'escribed in Standard Peview Plan Section 2.3.4 The relative concentration for the 0-2 hour tire perivi which is exceeded no nore than five percent of the ti e is 1.4 x 10-seconds per cubic reter at an exclusion distance of 1369 meters (menored f rnn tre outside edge of t containment buildings and suggested in the Prel'.ninary Safety Analysis Peport)

The relative concentration value:, for various tir e periods at the oui.er boundary of a Low Population 2cre of 4%0 meters are:

Tme Period Mdscconds per cubic neterl 0-8 hours 1.8 x 10 8-24 hours 1.2 x 10

-5 1-4 days 4.8 x 10

-5 4-30 days 1.4 x 10 2-12

's.,>

,'~'>.G

2.3 5 t c rj;-Term (Routine) Di sr ers mn E s tir a tos We have m.ade reasera le estiu tes of aver w at. ovAeric dispersion cor litions for the Blue Hills site using our at; ospt eric disper sion "cdel for l on.; - t e re relenes (Petercnce 15,.

This rodel is based on tre "s t ra i pt-t ! rie !tajectcry % del" describ-cd in equlatory Guide 1.111. "Meth ds for Estiatirq Atmcspheric Transport and el ea ses f rc m L iqht.u te r-moled Peac to r. "

Dispersion of Gasecas Eifluents in Ecutine D

We assu ed a grnand-level release u ly and cer: ered the ef fects of airflow recircu-lation anj staccation. ?.eglecting plvet depletion ord radioactive de cav, the highest of fsite annual avc cr;e clitive concentratian of 4.1 v 10 seconR per cubic reter waald occar at the eist beundary 1369 "eters f rom tre reactor cot ricx, as described in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Peport.

2.3.6 Ccnclusinns The applicant has provided suf ficicnt informatien concerning those reteorolMical conditions which are of i'Tortance to the safe design arid sitin7 of a nuclear power plant at the Pl;e Hills site. The design basis tornado para"eters proposed for the site conforn to the provisions of Pegulatory Guide 1.76, 'Desian Basis Tornado for

'2 clear rewer Flants.

The applicants' cnsite reteoroicl cal program onforn s to tre i

provisions of Pegulator, Guide 1.23. "Dr.s ite "r teorological Program, and has prod;ced tv.o years (Gctober 15, 1973 - Octo!er 14, 1975) of onsite r'eteorolcgical data which crosides an acceptible basis to detervir.e site at ospherit dispersion conditions and eich was used by us to r ake toth conservative and r r31istic estimates of atnespneric dispersico characteristics for accidental and routira g3seous releases, respectively, f or the Blue hills s ite.

2.4 H,drolooy 2.4.1 H,droloqic Descr gtijn The Blue Hills site is located in the Mill Creek barin eiqht miles west-southwest of the Toledo Eend Eam The loaer portion of tFe Toledo Eend Peservoir is tetween the site and the da-Wnen the water level is at the top of tne spillay gates, the closest point of the rcservoir is dust over ore rile from the site. TFe site lies on a ridge tetaeen tw3 small creeks. Ccpperas and Mitchell Creeks are apcroximately a mile apart at the site. The proposed plant graJe is 273 feet above rean sea level; 97 feet above the top of the dam spillway gates, more than 50 feet above the higher creek bed (Mitchell Creek) near the site.

Copperas Creek, which is northaest of the site, flcus into Mill Creek approxirately 0.3 miles downstrer of the prcposed location for plant cooling towers (Freliminary Safety Analysis Report Figure 2.4-1), has a drainage area of approxirately four square miles and an estinated avera ge flow of 4.4 cubic feet per second.

Mitchell Creek, which is southwest of the site, flows into Mill Creek about 0.8 miles downstream of the mouth of Copperas Creek (Prelir>inary Safet y Analysis Peport Fiqure 2-13 h

'k

,.*7-

2.4-1), has a drainage area of approxinately five square niles and an estinated average flow of 5.5 cubic f eet per second.

tiill Creek, which follcws a northeasterly course to the point where it e pties into Toledo tend Reservoir approximately two miles fron the site, has a drainage area of approximately 20 scuire miles. A strean gage, a device to r easure stage, located below Mitchell Creek aboJt one half rile upstreim fron Toledo Cend Eeservoir, has been in operation s1rce July 1974. The arnual average flow estimated f rc~ the first nine conths of data was 26.5 cubic feet per second. This is more than the 19. 7 cubic feet per second estinated for "ill Creek using data from several nearby streams that have been gaged for about 20 years These nearby streans, however, show hinher tnan a verage flow f or the peried of tre Mill Creek cice record.

Toledo Pend Dan is located on the Sabire River at river nile 156.5, where the drainage area i s 7173 sa;are miles. The top of the dar is 1E5 feet above rean sea level, the top of the power pool (that portion of the reservoir used for hydroelectric pcwer generation) 172 feet above rean sea level, and the top of the cates 173 feet above rean sea level. At elevation 172 f eet above rean sea level, the reservoir covers 182,000 acres and contains alrost 4.7 nillion acre-feet of water. Water f ro' the reservoir is used for irrigation, runicipal and industrial water supplies, hydrceleutric power generation and recreation, The entire water su; ply for norral rend Peservoir.

plant operation would be obtained fror Toled3 2.4.2 probable Maxirum Flood on Strea s and Rivers There are no recorded data on floods in the "ill Creek Easin. The oroS3ble "a vir un flood elevation is estimated ta be 243 feet abose rean sea level rear the site; this is well below plant grade o f 270 feet above ean sea level. Pecause of this large f reeboard we concluded that tre probible raxirun flood does not constitute a threat to the Blue Hills site.

The probable raximum flood in the Mill Creek basin was based on the probable maxi"nr1 precipitation (fron U.S Weather Bureau Hydroreteorological Repcrt No. 33) during a 2 4-hour s torm. Due to the srall size of the basin, longer storn aeriods did not reed to be considered. The basin was divided into 14 runof f areas and the probable raximan flood flow for each wis computed using a nondirensional unit hydrograph developed from regional data. An initial loss of 1.0 inch, f ollowed b/ a continuous loss of 0.C5 inch per hour was used. C;e to the proximity of the Blue Hills site to the Toledo Eend Peservoir, La-ater corputations were nade using a conservative wa'er level of 190 feet above nean

'evel in the reservoir. Using these conservative assu ptions the applicant calculated tha water levels in the two creeks adj3 cent to the site; i.e., Copperas Creek and Mitchell Creek. Near the site, water levels ave higher in Copperas Creek than in Mitchell Creek, but the maximun level of 243 feet above mean sea levei for the probable raxirum flood is well below plant crade.

Because of this large f reeboard, wind wave ru up was not calculated.

2-14 3

I

Cn the basis of car review cf the applicant's analysis, we conclude that a probable raximun flood does not constitute a threat to the Elue Hills site.

2.4.3 Other Potential Floods Since no dar> exist in the Mill Creek basin, the Blue Hills site is not susceptible to a dam failure flood.

Surges and seiches on Toledo Ernd Peservoir will not af fect the site because it is rore than a rile aw3y and almost 100 feet above the normal reservoir water level.

There is no other large water body near the site.

Due to its inland location, the Blue Hills site is not susceptible to tsuna-i fl oodi n a Pelatively ruld winters in the site area preclude the possibility of ice flooding and associated damage to safety-related facilities.

2.4.4 Ccoling Water Canals and Channel Diversions The proposed coolirm water canals (ahich are not safety related), designed for a flow of 1200 cubic feet per second with 3.5 feet of f reeboard for wind w3ve ef fects. are well above the probable axinun flood level.

Channel diversirns in the Mill Croek basin will not af fect pla it operation becaJse none of this w3ter is used. The proposed ultimate heat sin ( design for a nuclear pcwer plant; i.e.,recF3nical draf t cooling tower, at the Blue Fills si a is not dependent u;2n Toledo Eend Peservoir water level.

In the extreme y unlikely event of l

the loss of water to the plant f rora the Toledo Bond Eeservoir, the applicant has stated that a nuclear power plant Could be Safel. shut down and raintained in safe shutdown for at least 30 days, using the ultimate heat sink desi,n (Sec tion 2. 3.1 o f this report) proposad by the a;.plicant.

2.4.5 Flooding Protect _ ion Pecairm ents The site, at elesation 270 feet above rean sea level, is well above the level of the probable maximu flood. The applicant has tonnitted to design the roofs of all safety-related bJildings and the site grading and dr3inage to prevent a threat to safety-related f acilities by the localized proSable maximum precipitation.

2.4.6 Low W;ter Considerations The norral water supply for tha station will be taken from the Toledo Eend Reservoir which has a total storage of 4.7 million acre-feet. Average annual regulated inflow is 2.7 million acre-feet and the 100-year low annual inflow is esticated by the applicant to 6

w n d.

be 0. 5 nillion acro-teet since the initial fillinq of the reservoir, in 1%

the lawest level was a t lf f,.5 fent atiove r ean sea level, on Septer ber N 1972. The ultimate heat sink de >ign proposed by the applicant (Sectian 2.3.1 af 'h:s rtiort) will not tie deptodent on the witer level in the Toledo f en j peservoir.

2.s.7 t r vir rg ent.11 Acuptanc e nt Effluents At our request, 'he a;wlicar.t provided an analysis of an accidental spill of liquid radioactive aste; A pastulated f ailure of a boron nanagn ent systert holdap tanA releasir.1 12;,000 gallons to the ground. vater was evaluated. This tank is expected to contain the highest tntal quantity of activity in a prn: nse i pl ant Tne analysis showed that all radionuclides will tm below the maxirum remissible concentrati n listed in the in CF R Part 20 Arpendig B at the point where "itchell Creek lenes the site exclusion area.

In addition, there is no present or projected future use of ar.y of tre surf ace witers in the Mill Creek t,a s i n. We conclude th:t there is little lik eliho.1 of conta-ination of petable water supplies outside the site exclusion area f rcr" an accidental spill.

2.4.8 G ro un -% 1 t_e r.

The site is located in sefiments of the Gulf Coastal P'.ain, which contain large quantities of water coTanly occurring under confined conditions. The per eible sands ontaining the groundvater are interbedjed with less perreable clays, silts and silty clays which act to confine the water in the sands In Newton and Jasier counties the r ajor aqJif ers are the Chicot, Eungeline and Jas;.e-with an aqalclude, t he E arkeville, se;n

'nl the Jasper from the other two overlying a wifers.

The total estinated use of groundwater in Newton and Jasper conties was 5? c'illion gallons per d)y in 1965 of which ricre than 4 niilion callers per day were produced in one well field to supply a paper r ill 63 c'iles f rom the site.

Of the balance, about five nillion gallons per day were for domestic and agricultural use and the rest was uncontrolled discharge f rom flowing weils.

Grcandwater beneat:1 the site occurs in two zones, both part of the Jasper Aquifer. A perched water table, within 20 f eet of the surf ace, is preser.t above localized lenticular clay interbeds. The r:ain water zone is at a ceptn of 70 to 80 feet below the site. Recharge is by percolati^n of water flc uing aroun:f tne overlying lenticclar clay bodies and by infiltration from Copperas Creek. Grounde ter rever:ent is to the northeast apparently toward Toledo Cend Reservoir.

Nearly all the wells within 10 miles of the site extract less than 10 callons per minute. There are no wells downgradient of the plant between the site and Inledo Cend Reservoir. Grundwater will not be used for plant operation; all the witer used

.' cone from Toledo Eend Peservoir.

a s.>'.

2-16

Gccur %3ter levels at tk site are at elevitions r3njing frCP 191 to ?l0 feet above r e a r, s e ' level, exclu jim the porche 1 wa ter tables To rrevent nrounla 4 ter hydrostatic loadin ; due to perc hed water tables, the a; plicant has 3tated that during rMnstru-tion, t h+

u; er clay s t ra tu i vill be re' Lved in the pl3nt area and re place j by (rp3cted sand bukfill he 'iroi this tu te accepts ie.

Lase 1 or oar rv31ultinn of the ;'rment urcadalter levels, tN ucraphy at tne site and t he ai rlicant 's cc rru t. ent to re~c se the hiqher perc hed wl+er table durin' construction, we crncluie that the proposed desicn in sis grounJoater 1cul of 215 feet abose rean sea level is consere tive and acceptable for use in thc desicn of a PJClelt power plant at the Blue " ills site.

2.4.9 C r n_c.l z._i o n s Cn tm ' nis of our rav.ew, we conclu1c ttat the flooi analy sis fc-the Elue Hills site i ets the criteria ir

1 a tory G aid + 1.59, "Cesign E 3 sis floods for *,;c lear Pov er M ants,' and that floodin1 does r.ot constitute a threat to the site.

a'e al u cccclude that there is little li6elibcod of contamination of potable water supplios Luts de of the site exclusion area f ror' an accidental release of liqui j ef fluents.

2.5 P.co l o : / an d Se i scolo l /

The seis tolo :/ and 9ealo,y review of this site addressed the cenlogic history c f the r eglun including L hysic';raphic, lithologic, stratigraphic ani

• ec t on i t.

setti m as well as the subrenicnal and site-specific geology and,eis.,nlcgf.

In addition to rosiening dita s a nitted in the Ireliminary E3fety *nalysis toport, '.RC sti f Geoloqists f

and sels~ ologists visited the m ito and its environs. Daring this visit we examired the regional geolog /.

ne also canferred with the applicanti consultants concr rning p rool er of geologic interrretatien in the site region.

On this basis we cenclud? that investigations perforced by the applicant have been suf ficient to adelJ3tol f as5ess site deOlo]iC Conditions in aCloidance with "SeisriC and Geolngic Siting Criteria for ' 3 clear F ower Flants, i;pendix L 10 CFR firt 100.

In ose review we have fcllowed the tectonic province approach as described in 10 CFP lart IB A; pendix A to deter-ire tte vibratory qround rotion corresponding to the safe shutdann earthquake. The seisticity and structur61 features of tne site region are r at clearly distinct f ro-those f Nnd generally throu jnc ut the rajor portion of the G ;1 f Coastal Plain Tectonic Frovince. Therefore, we have concluded as a resul t of our review that an earthquMe crod;cing inten;1tf VI of, the "odified Mercalli (MM) sClle at tre site, i.e.,

an acceleration of 0.07q should be considered in evaluating the safe shutda.,n eirthquS e.

We cortur with the applicant that the safe shutdown earthquMe of 0.13g represents an appropriate and conservative ref ererre acceleration for seisrtic design of str uctures at the Blue Hills site.

e,,

$ h. 4 h N g.kN q 2-17

2.5.1 Regional Geoloy esiographic province which is The site is located within the Gulf Coastal Plain th the onshor e portion of the Gulf Coast Goosyncline which extends under the Gulf of Mexico to the ed je of the cont i. ntal shelf. The sedimentary deposits i" the region range in age from Jurassic to

• • • *nd consist mainly of unconsolida ted sands, silts, clays, lirestone, and c halb with minor amounts of sal t.

The sedirents form a wedje that diverges seawarJ, exceeding 50,000 feet in total thickness. At least 20,000 feet of sedir ents unJerlie the Blue Hills s'te.

Due to consolidition of the thick sediant ar/ rection, the general dip of the strata increases qul fwird a t slightly grea ter av es than the present landsurface. Di'

, cates in resistance to erosion of the,euin, ris resulted in a series of linear topoqraphic belts which are parallel to the Gulf Coastline. The more resistant fo rma t io ns form landaard facin; c.ostas with relief up :o 400 feat or rore.

Seit dares which are corron to the east Texas region are not known to occur closer than appro<inately 55 niles from the site.

Inc pre-Mesozoic histor of events in the site reglan is unknown because the Paleozoic f

rocks are baried twneath thick Mesozoic and Cenozoic strata beyond reach of investinatory r ethods presen t1, known.

Evidence indicates trat the Gulf Coastal Plain Province was initiateJ from late Paleozoic orogenies The discontinuous Triassic sedinents in the region underlie erre than

,000 feet of Jsrassic sediments, which in turn are 2

overlain by more than 9,S00 feet of calcareoas sedirents of C 'aceous age.

The Tertiary sedinents in the region irClude "arine, Contintntal, '

'tdic defosits consisting of fine-7 rained clastic raterial with relatively little carbonate content in contrast to the Cretaceous sediments. In excess of 3,000 feet of Tertiary sediments underly the proposed site.

The Pleistocene terraces in the region, presuLed to hase developed during inter-glacial high sea levels, consist of four distinct terraces overlyinj the fiiocene and early Pliocene strata. They decrease in age and altitude going seaward. The names of the terraces from oldest to youngest are: the Willis (or Williana), the Eentley, the Montgomery, and the Frairie (or Eeaanont). They range in age from pproximately 1,000,000 years for the Willis to as young as 60,000 years for the Prairie.

2.5.?

Tectnnic Structures One of the structural features most significant to the site is the Sabine Uplift wnich is flanked on the west by the East Texas Basin and on the east by the North Louisiana Basin. It is a structural high up to 100 miles in extert, and is located approximtely 90 miles north of the proposed site. The Sabine Uplif t appears to have undergona dif f erential arching during "esozoic and Cenozoic time. The Sabine Unlift, superimpt _. on the sediments of the Gulf Coastal Plain, was nanifested in these 2-la e<-

sediments with the development of the Angelina-Caldwell Flexure or monocline. This flexure is located on the southern flank of the Sabine Uplift apprcximately 10 riles north of the proposed site. It is readily distinguishable by the abrupt change from the essentially flat-lying strata of the domal uplif t to the steeply dipping strata on the flank of the uplif t.

Anderson (Reference 1) describes the flexure as a zone two to five miles wide, along which the dip of the Tertiary and older sedirents increases from 45 feet to 250 feet per nile with an occasional dip as great as 316 feet per mile. The width of the flexure increases to the east and west aw;v from the Sabine River.

"e Fisher Fault Zone trends along the Angelina-Caldwell Flexure and is concentrated where the transitic n or flexure in the bedding is most prono;nced, a point where the potential for nornal faulting would be espected to be greatest. Tensioral stresses in the near-surface strata, resulting from bending of the strata over the Angelina-Caldwell Flexure, would be expected to develop shallow, no nnal faults, such as are for-d in the Fisher Fault Zone. The fault zone is five to 10 miles wide and the overall length of the zone ray be as much as 60 miles; if projected the fault zone would pass about 10 miles north of the site. Fault displacerent ranges fron 250 feet on taults in Sabine Parish, where the greatest flexure occurs, to tens of feet in C -- +;

': ' e: re is less pronounced.

sov,.._

In the site vicinity there may be faults (ncne are known to exist within a five r.ile radius of the site) of non-tectonic origin characterized by steep, near surface dips which becore less steep with depth and eventually pass into bedding planes.

Another characteristic of these faults is the thicker strata on the downthrown side, where accumulation occurred simultaneously with faul t nover:ent. They are referred to as growth faults and are predominantly of low stress, since they are shallow rooted.

They typically do not develop large strain and sudden stress releases which are characteristic of daraging earthqu3kes, and therefore, are not considered to present a hazard to the propCsed site.

We have questioned the capability of the f aults in the Fisher Fault Zone and their significance to the site. The following served a3 the bascs for our concern on this natter.

(1) Haldahl and Morrison (Pe'erance 2) investigated vertical crustal novements by reans of precise le<cl surveys in the Gulf Coast States, including the site region, and reported that the region north and northwest of the site is rising at a rate of one to five millimeters per year, while the coastal zone south of the site is subsiding at a rate of one to five millimeters per year.

(2) Faults in the Fisher Fault Zone appear on geologic raps to cut to the ground surface and to be capped by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The fault zone is not dated in the literature.

2-19

'e.' ' '

.3 m m-

(3) Lineaticos ot~crwed in Earth Rescurces Technology Satellite photos, which (ould have structural origin, trtnd in the direction of t"e site.

In responu to our < encerns the applicant prov1ded new preciso level data (Prelim nary Saf etj Analysis Report Fioure 2.5-53) which demonstrateJ that the axis of the vert! cal r:ovevnt is occurrin 4 in a rortheast-southaest, rather than the originally reported east-west directien, which obliquely crosses the axis of the Angelina-Ca dwell Flexure. On the basis of this later information on vertical crustal cove ents in the site regicn, the applicant concluded that present-cay vertical r:ove"ents do not fit the known structural f r3nework of the site region and, therefore, are not considered a thre3t to the site.

Tre Sabine Uplif t and Angelini Caldwell Flexure h3ve not had significant mcVen ent since the Williana terrace (early Pleistocene in age) was deposited across the uplift and flexure areas. Doering (Re'erence 3) shows that the terraces overl ying both structures have not been significantly uplif ted or warped. On the baa;s of lack of evidence of vertical move ent the applicant concludes and we agree that insofar as the Sabine Uplif t, the Angelina-Caldwell Flexure, and the Fisher Fault Zone are structurally interrelated, lack of activity cn the Sabine Uplif t and the Angelina-Caldwell Flexure during the gre3ter part of Fleistocene time suggests a similar inactiveness of the Fisher Fault Zone.

Seismic reflection sur.ey3 taken acrosr the fisher Fault Zcne produced profiles having inccrclusive information as to depth and age of faJlting. The record beca~e etscure at the elesations where they aight have been used to determine with confidence w ether faulting ter"inated at a sh3110w dcpth, and whether the faul ts were capped by h

dateable strata.

At our request, the applicant investigated whether terrates which cross the regional linea"ents observed on Earth Pesources Technology Satellite photos that trend toward the site could be utilized to help establish the age and significance of the lineaments.

As a result of the investigation, the applicant deternined that in the site are3 tha older terraces are too Ladly eroded to be of any use for dating, and that the Beauront (age: 150,000 to f,0,0n3 sears) is the oldest terrace useful for age dating the l i nea r,e n t s. Af ter evaluating the Eeauront and older terraces near the site and in otner areas, the applicant concluded that " Field examinaticn of terrace surfaces and of outcrops of terrace deposits and underlying strata along Earth e

urces Technology Satellite lineacents trending southwesterly toward the site has veriti?d that these deposi's display no evidence of deformaticn or of f set."

Another fault systen that trends within approximately 28 miles of the site is the Bancroft-Ma"ou fault systen, located to the south and consisting of en echelon, down-to-basin faults, having a total length of about 200 miles. The fault system is considered to be the result of corpact on of great thickness of sedinents. The i

faults in the system are growth faults which are shallow rooted and typically do not develop danaging earthquakes.

2-20 n.

.1 *'y

the basis of th ? ahr se evidence, we hive conclujmj t ha t t he re a re

. ealo<;i c f a.elts or other toctonic structures that present a poti-ntial hazarJ to the rrcmsed

site,

<.3.3 Si_te Gyolo p The Llue Hills site is lor = eu in the eastern part of the West Golf Coastal Plain, The m ssissippi Alluvial riain divides the Gulf Coistal Plain grovince into east ar,1 west set ents.

Ite prcpose. sito is characterized by ruesta-like low rolling rij:es which havo bro 3J tcps and stt 'p sites, and which parallel tre region)l strlho 0+ the be jd i r.;

The ground sur face elention at the site rances betaeen 200 and 2H f aet abase ran sea level.

The site is locited on t he slope of the Msatchie wold, which is an out-crrppinq of Ca t u ;u i for ation more resistant to erosion than the surrounding strata. The wold is a siquificant physiogr1phic rarber which dolincates the belted terr /in of the Gulf leastal Plain province.

Tnt litnologic units underljing the plant site, be ginning with the 'ipernest unit, are a 15-foot tnick sand stratum underlain by 17 feet of thick clay, which in tarn is uncerlain Dy the Il 3-f oot thick niddle s ind str3 tur of the Catahoala f orr,a tion.

Tre riddle sind ovFrlies the 77-fcot thick lower clay stratr, which ir turn overlies the lawor sinJ stratu-of undeterr intJ thickness.

Ir.e water table is in tne riddle sani at nera 'e elevation 203 feet ab3<e rean se s lepl.

f s t,,e result of the uplic2nt's cor prehensi <e investigator / rrogra", the "Fl ic w t states in the Ireliminary Safet/ Aralysis Vpart that-(i) N def ora tic' al zones, su:h ?s folds, f iss;res, slips, f aul ts, e j steirs,

have been found at the site.

(P)

"The nearest known salt Ne is a;wroximately 55 iles so2th cf the site.

(1) 011, q35, or othor nineral extraction has been or is present!, bo m condacted i

within a f1se mile radius of the site, and ground water extracticn in the vicinity of tN site is not suf ficient to cause subsurface subsicenc.e. Also there is no record of subsurface r,ining or otner similar underground workings in the area rhich rig"t create a suhsideice probler at the site.

(4) ill lineFents rece ;nized in a ten-nile radius of the site on s all-scale infrared and large-scale parcurocatic photography were investigated in 9e field.

M indication of fault of fset was observed. '

c 4

2-21

On th0 basis of our review of the information in the literature and field evidence developed by the applicant, we conclude that there are no geologic structures, or conditions resulting from ran's activities, such as r:ining or oil extraction, that present a hazard to the site. In addition, the problem of subsidence, such as is characteristic of the Houston, Texas area is not a f actor at the Flue Hills site.

2.5.4 Tectonic Provinces King (Reference 4) in his discussion of the tectonic rap of North America defines the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Flains as platforn deposits (Mesozoic and younger) that were laid over the deforred Faleozoic and older rocks of the Appalachian and Quachita fold-belts. The platfern deposits thicken and slope seaward from the exposed parts of these fold-teits, the baserent descending beneath them. From the State of New Jersey to the llano uplif t in central Texa; the landw3rd border of the platform deposits on Paleozoic base-ent is drawn at t.

edge of Cretaceous and (or) Tertiary deposits of the coastal plains, where they overlap on older rocks. These limits define the Coastal Plain. The Gu.f Coastai Plain Tectonic Province, in which the Blue Hills site is located, is that part of the Coastal Plain extending from west Florida westward and southsard into Mexico (Referente 5).

2.5.5 Earthquake Activity and Geologic Structure Tne historical earthquake activity nearest the site occurred about 15 miles northwest of the site in the vicinity of the towns of Yellowpine, Hemphill, and Pineland, Tex 3s (Peferences 6, 7, 3, 9).

hu erous earthquakes occurred in the Ptr phill area in 1Q64 Five of these earthquakes had Richter nagnitudes in the ranqe 3.4 to 4.4 and epicentral intensities near V (MM) (Reference 9).

Several additional smaller events were recorded on a high sensitivity seiscograph installed at Perphill in 1964. No other earthquakes besides those occurring in 1964 have been reported in this area. The earthquake activity is coincidant with a projection of a zone of snall faults, the Fisher Fault Zcne, and with the Angelina-Caldwell Flexure, a monocline involving rock units as young as Tertiary. As discussed in the geology section of this report, neologic evidence supports the conclusion that the faulting in the Fisher Fault Zone is related to the developnent of the Angelina-Caldwell Flexure and is not capable. Since the earthquake activity near Hemphill occurred prior to the start of filling at either Lake Sam Rayburn or Toledo Eend Reservoir (Reference 9), the earthquake activity is not reservoir related.

The largest earthquakes (References 6, 7, 9) within 200 riles of toe site were an earthquake with epicentral intensity VII (MM) in the town of Pusk, Texas about 100 niles northwest of the site in 1891, an earthquake with epicentral intensity VI ("M) at Donaldsonville, Louisiana about 190 miles from the site in 1930, and an earthquake with epicentral intensity V-VII (MM) near the towns of Mexia and Worthan, Texas about 180 niles f rom the site in 1932. It should be noted that the applicant ha. posed tne hypothesis that the dar: age at Rusk, Texas in 1891 was due to severe weather and not 2-22 o

'f' 4-i a

dn earthquake as reported. The damage reports from al) three of these events were very sparse (References 6, 7, 9).

The f elt areas were 18,500 square miles for the Donaldsonville earthquake,100 square miles for the Mexia-Worthan earthquake, and the Rusk earthquake was felt only in the town of Rusk.

Eased on an e+pirical relation between earthqu3ke m3gnitude (reasured on a region 31 magnitude scale developed by Nuttli.) and felt area (Peference 10), the Donaldsonville earthquake had a felt area no greater than that for a typical earthqu3ke of ragnitude 4.5, epicentral intensity V-VI (MM). Based on this analysis the Mexia-Wortham and Rusk earthquakes were ruch smaller th30 a typical earthquake of epicentral intensity VI (MM), i.e., the energy released by these events was less than that released by an average event of epicentral intensity VI (MM).

For the purpose of establishing the safe shutdown earthquake for nuclear power plants in tne Gulf Coasta. Plain, we recognize that different regions of this large province eshibit vas t!y dif ferent levels of seismicity. In particular, to arrive at the appropriate choice of the safe shJtdown earthquake for the Blue Hills site, we recognized four seismic zones: (1) the Mississippi Erbayment Earthquake Zone, (2) the Southern Cordilleran Front Zone, (3) the zore at the intersection of the Ouachita Tectonic Belt and the Wichita Structural Systen, and (4) a Gulf Coast Seismic Zone.

The Mississippi Erbayment Earthqu3ke Zone is a region of much higher seismic activity than the recainder of the eastern United States. It has also been the source region of the largest earthqu3kes in the eastern United States, the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes The closest approach to the site of the Mississippi Er.bar ent Earthquake Zone was established at the Monroe Uplif t during our review of the Grand Gulf site and the closest apprcach of earthquakes similar to the 1811-1812 series is considered to be near Merphis, Tennesset, over 340 miles from the site.

The Southern Cordilleran Front consists of a belt of Laramide folds and thrust faults extending southward from New Mexico ar.d Texas into central and eastern Mexico (References 4, 5).

Several earthquake epicenters are located along this zone including the Valentine, Texas earthquake of 1931 which had an epicentral intensity of VIII (MM). Tre epicentral intensity of the largest reported historical earthquake in this zone would be less than X (MM). This zone apparently intercepts the Gulf Coastal Plain and has its closest approach to the Blue Hills site approvirately 570 riles southeast of the site.

Within the remainder of the Gulf Coastal Plain (the region between west Florida and where the Gulf Coastal Plain is narrowed and partly intercepted by the outer folds of tne Cordillera in Mexico) there is very little seismic activity. Few small earthquakes, none larger than VII (MM), have been recorded.

One of the two intensity VII (MM) earthquakes that have occurred in the general area of interest, is the 1882 earthquake located near Paris, Texas. This e3rthquake was recently relocated by Docekal (Reference 7) based on a reevaluation of its effects and characteristics. The region of maximun intensity is located at the intersection 2-23 e-

of tre Cuachita Tectonic Belt and the Llichit3 S?ructural Sys This is 3 complex region where varion cu@lE x tectonic f or;.es have ac tej (Ref erence 4).

The Oaachita Tectonic Eelt is rN ognized in this area as a regior, of intense folding md thrust f aulti.1g which developed principally in Pennsylvanion tire.

The Wichita Structural S, stem inclJes a r. umber of block uplif ts and f 3 ult-bounded ca sins ar.d strik es ocrthwest-southeast in southern 061aho w and north-central Texas

" ' se rentation of the Withita Syst e a into the variou, crustal blncks of its presert configuration c re durin g several t tages of Pennsylvanian orogeny. Further add!nq to the tectonic co"plexity of this ar ea is the N vah3 Uplift, 1 nearly r. orth-south,tructure of sh3rnly uplif ted and f aulted Precambrian Mse ent r:aterial which also for' ed durina the Pennsylvanian o ro jen y (Refererce 5).

The Wraha Jh'if t apparEntly trends into tte Wichita Syste*, ard ternicates in the vicinity of tre Arbuckle R untains.

Nrerous earthgat epicenters, n me larger than epiccntril intensity VII D"d ),

coincide with each of these three tectonic units. Irci ef 7re, we conside r the 1982 earthqu3ke to t'e located in 3 tectoqic province separate from tFe retainier Of the Gulf f aastal Plain as sugjested by Mcekal (Referente 7) who relates the eartMaabe to the buried structures associated with the Arbuckle "auntains.

The closest aporuch of these s tructures to the site is aDout 207 ailes.

Active surf ace f aJIts are recognized in tr.e GJlf Coast, in t h e 'iu l f o f "u i c o,

actise slug faulting or gru th talltinJ i:. 31sc occurring. Thert are va-ious nodd s proponea f or tne r echanisi s of this t aalting; however, in view of the low le.el cf seit icity for the region, wo corclJje th3t the typical rove"ent on these ftults is 3 ': ult creep pro: css and does not release significant seic nic enern/ in the fcr: of e3rthmkos. We h ue, theref cre, not considered such f 3;lts to be cmhie of 9cneratin; significant e3rtr3 aves.

4 2.5.o Sa fe 5 h atd r.sn E a r th.J 3ke As discussed in 5cction <.S.5 of thi; report, we reco;nize f our seismic Icres within the lar ce Gul f Coa:tal Plains Tectoni. Provir.ce: (1) the Mississippi Ertay-ent Earthquake Z0ne, (2) th> zone in which the I N 2 Paris, Te/as earthquase occurred, (3) tre Southern Cordilleran Front Zone, and (4) the re ainJer of the Culf Coastal Flain (the G Jlf O ast Seisuc Z;ne) which includes tre Slue Hills site. Of tre forcer tnree zones, the touthern Cordilleran Front Zone and the zare in which the Paris, Tees earthquue occurred are so remote fro te, that the r esulting intensity at the site f rom the larlest historical e3rt:

ces located in these zunes is less than would occur at the sit; f rom a random earthquake 11c3ted in the Gulf Coast Seismic Zare, assur-in1 a conservative relation between intensity and epicentral distance (References 11, 12, 13), h ttli (Ref erences 11,12 ) ha s ta k en a critica l look at the ecicentral intensities of the larger earthwakes in the Mississippi E:nbayment Eartnq;abe Zone and has found that the earthq;ake of February 7, 1812 was the largest. He has estimated the epicentral intensity of this earthquake to be n r k/A N~

2-24

XI-XII (MM). If we accept this assessment and use a conservative relation between intensity and epicentral distance (References 11, 12, 13), the intensity from an earthquake of epicentral intensity XI-XII (MM) assumed to occur 340 miles fron the site could reach VII (MM) at the site. Though this e3rthquake righ+ be expected to produce a site intensity as great as or greater than a local earthquake in the Gulf Coast Seismic Zose, we believe t'e acceleration level would be greater for the latter event. Several lines of evidence lead to this conclusion. First, existing data on accelerations recorded at various Jistances from earthquakes reveals that high accelera-tions are unlikely at such large epicentral distances (Reference 14). This observation is in agreervnt with the theoretical considerations which predict more rapid spatial attenuation of the higner frequency waves responsible for higher acceleration levels.

Furtrernore, studies by Nuttli (References 11,15) on attenuation and ground motion in the midcontinent would indicate that much lower acceleration levels are appropriate.

Finally, r;uch of the da~ age produced by tne New Padrid earthquakes ray have been the result of soil failure (Peference 16), and studics on various types of soil failure injicate that long duration rotions with relatively low accelerations can produce such failure (Reference 17).

The largest historical earthquakes in the Gulf Coast Seismic Zene were the Rusk, Texas eartnquake of 1891, the Donaldsonville, Louisiana earthquake of 1933, and the Mexia-Worthar, Texas earthqaake of 1932. Eased on the discussic7 provided above, these earthqaakes were no larger tnan typical earthquakes of epicentral intensity VI (MM). Following the tectonic province approach describeo in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, this intensity was assu"ed to occur at the site in determinir] the safe shatdown earthq;a6e Froirical relaticrsnips between intensity and acceleration were used in assessing the t;rcund ration corresponding to a Madified "ercalli intensity VI earthquake occurring near the site. In 1954 Neurarn (Peference 18) developed an empirical relationship hete.een earthqa3ke intensity and ground acceleration. Mare recently Trifunac and

rady (Reference 19) have published a relation between intensity and acceleration wnich was developed usirg rany addition 31 observations. Trifunac and Crady's data essentially corrotorate the relationship published by Neu ann.

Utilizing either the Neu ann or the Trifunac-Brady relation between intensity and acceleration, the rean acceleration corresponding to a Modified Mercalli intensity of VI is about 0.07.

9 The applicant for the Blue Hills site has conserv3tively pecposed to use 0.13g for the safe shutdown earthquake acceleration lesel. Based on the Neu-ann or the Trifunac-Erady relationship, the intensity corresponding to a rean acceleration of 0.13g is VII (Pfi). As discussed above, earthquakes as large as this have not been observed ir the historical record of seismicity for the Gulf Coastal Plain except in the area of the Southern Cordilleran Front, the corplex region at the intersection of the Ouachita Tectonic Belt, the Wichita Structural System, and the Nemaha Uplif t, and in the hignly seismic area of the noi rn Mississippi Er.baynent.

2-25

- s b

Neither the high seisnicity nor the structural complexity found in these creas where large earthquakes hava occurred is present in the vicinity of the Blue Hills site.

However, the proximity of the site to the location of the Her"phiil earthquake activity ray warrant the additional conservatisn preposed by the applicant.

Theref ore, we concur with the acplicant that for the saf e shutdown earthqJake 0.139 represents an appropriate and conservative reference acceleration for seisnic design of structures at the Blue Hills site. The applicant has proposed to use Regulatory Guida 1.60, " Design Pesponse Spectra for Seismic Desi n of Nuclear Power Plants,'

9 response spectra scaled to this naxinum acceleration for the design of a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site.

2.5.7 Operatinq Basis Earthquake The applicant has proposed to use 0.079 for the acceleration level correspondinq to the operating basis earthquake. Eased on the Neumann or Trif ac-Brady relationship tetween intensity and acceleration, an acceleration of 0.079 s representative of i n t e n s i ty V I ('Si). Considering the low seismicity of the Gul Coast Seismic Zene, the proposed operating basis earthquake ap; ears conservative. The applicant has proposed to use Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Pesponse Spectra for Seisric Design of Naclear Fewer Plants, response spectra scaled to this raximum acceleration of 0.079 for the operatinl basis earthquake to be used for the design of a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site.

2.5.8 Stabili ty_of Soil s and Fc v 1a tions Ine topography of the proposed plant site is gently rolling with elevations varying from 230 to 250 feet above rean sea level, riant cr Me is at elevation 270 feet aboye rean sea level. The procosed plant site is to be located next to Mill Creek about two miles southwest of the Toledo Eend Rescrvair. The geologic setting is de-scribed in Section 2.5.1 of this report.

The soils investigations for the proposed plant site included 84 preliminary bor-ings up to 250 feet in depth, and 126 additional borings for engineering parposes up to 252 feet in depth. The latter borings included 88 undisturbed sa"ple borings and 12 continuous borings from which samples for testing wera obtained. These in-vestigations reveal that the sedimentary soils at the proposed plant site occur in five sequences, characterized as follows:

(1) Elevation 270 to 264 feet above mean sea level is an upper sand stratum con-sisting of a medium to fine sand, which is poorly graded, as well as some silty and clayey sands.

(2) Elevation 264 to 247 feet above rean sea level. an upper cla y stratum consist-ing of a hard, high plasticity clay which evidences overconsolidation.

r

-. n

,3 5/L,-

(3) Elevatien 247 to 134 feet above mean sea level is a niddle sand stratum con-sisting of redi n to fine sands with silt, and with sore scattt red clay sea s.

The water table is at on elevation of 203 feet above mean sea level.

(4) Elevation 134 to 57 feet 3bove rean sei level is a lower clay stratun con-sisting o. hard clays of low to high pl; sticity which also evidence overconsolidation.

(5) Elevation 57 feet aoove rean sea level to depth is a lower sand stratun apparently extending Lejend a depth of 250 feet and consists of redium to fine sands with sore silt.

Laboratory tests on soil specirens retrieved during the investination progra") includ-ed detenair.ations of shear strength, consolidation, dynamic properties, and seismic ro istance to earthquake effects. The only unusual behavior noted was the ancunt of expansion of the clay samples when extruded frce the sarple tubes; sore sa ples expanded up to 16 percent.

On the cases of our review of the geologic investigations and the laboratory analyses perforred on the soil 'ecirens by the applicant, we conclude that this inforration is adequate to serve as the basis for the design of safety-related plant structures 2.5.3 Foundations The plan for the support of safety-related plant structures is uncorplicated. The applicant has stated that upper clay and upper sand strata will be excavated. Deep plant foundations will rest directly on or in the middle sand stratum, i.e.,

the third sequence. Shallower plant foundations will rest on co pacted granular backfill supported by the riddle sand stratum.

Deeply founded structures will be the reactor building, auxiliary building, control building, and ultimate heat sink-nuclear service water cooling towers. Structures founded on back fill will be the fuel building, cooling water building, radnaste building, and diesel generator building. The applicant has stated that all fnunda-tions will be individual mats.

Our review and acceptance of the foundation design proposed by the applicant is based on an envelope of dimensions, structure depths, loadings, and stated assumptions.

Therefore, at the construction pernit application stage, we will require that the applicant valioate the applicability of the foundation design that we have reviewed to the specific nuclear power plant design proposed as follows:

(1) Table 2.5-1 of this report lists the parareters which serve as the bases for acceptability of the foundation design. The applicant will justify that for the specific nuclear power plant design proposed these parareters are satisfied.

2-27

Table 2.5-1 FOUNDMION DESIGN PARAMETERS Values expressed as Values expressej in feet t housand_p_ound_s_per sgua ro foot Plan Cepth Total ie t Structures Dimcnsions Below Grade Bearina Pressure [ )

Eearina Pressure (b)

Reactor Building 140 dieneter 35 6.6 2.4 Auxiliary Building 140 x 201 30 to 58 2.8 to 5.9

-4.2 to 1.4 (c)

Control Building 120 x 154 25 3.1 0.2 Ultimate Heat Sink and Nuclear Service Water Towers 120 x 294 30 2.9

-0.8 (c)

Fuel Building 75 x 125 5 to 10 3.1 1.9 to 2.5 s Radwaste Building 143 x 213 5

3.1 2.5 Diesel Generator Building 63 x 35 5

4.8

4.2 Notes

(a) Total bearing pressure is the weight of the structure divided by the bearing area of the foundation (b) Net bearing pressure is the total bearinq pressure less the ef fective pressure exerted by the soil to De cert ed by excavatico ta the fcur.dation eievation f(c) Ne';ative values of net bearing pressure indicate that the ef fective pressure before excavatian is greater than the pressure applied by the foundation of the structure s

(2) The applicant "ust subnit for our review and approval its criteria for construction control durirg f a) excavatirn and backfilling of the foundations, (b) rec edial foundation treat ent, (c) proof-rolling of the foundation, and (d) r eroval of unsuitable naterial: from the liddle sand stratum (3) Standard Penetration Test data in the midole sand strata should te provided for our review as co parative plots of blowcount and ef fective pressure.

Criteria for backfill s;pportin7 safety-related structures is presented in Section 2C.10.4 of the Frelir1rdry Safety fnalysis Report. Tre applicant has stated that back fill materials will be classified and compacted according to accepted standards of the Ar erican Scciety for Testing and Materials. For clean, sandy materials, a relative density greater than 80 percent will be attained. For naterial wi'h rore than 12 percent fines, at least 93 percent of the Modified Proctor density will be attained. Test fills will be constructed to assure that the rethod of compaction d; ring construction (type of equipment, number of coverages, etc. ) will s3tisf y the backfill criteria set forth in Section 2C.10.1 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis pepcrt.

On the bases of our review of tne applicant's proposed found3 tion design we conclude th3t it is acceptable. The applicability of this foundation design to a specific nuclear power plant design will bo derenstrated by satisf action of the validation req;irements stated herein at the construction permit stage.

2.5.10 Bearing Cajacity and Settlecent Tre large nat foandations su porting plant structures irpose relatively low net bear-ing pressures on tne structural fill and soils of the niddle sand stratum-Table 2C-3 of the Pre ti'inary Sa fety Analysis r eport indicates that net dynamic bearing pressures due to the safe shutdown earthquake are also relativolv Inu, and that the site soils have ado;uate bearing capacity. We agree with this conclusion.

As a result of excavation into the niddle sand stratum for the foundations of the plant structures, this stratum nay be expected to rebound, i.e., heave, about 1.5 inches. As the structural loads and backfill is placed during construction, the middle sand stratun will be recompressed about 1.5 inches, plus an additional 0.5 inch cue to the net loads isposed by the proposed plant structures. The estimated earthquake induced settle ent is about 0.1 to 0.2 inches.

Although these estinatej settle ents are small and the soil conditions are seemingly well understoud, the impact upon a specific nuclear power plant will be dependent upon the arrangement of the safety related structures and the differential settlerent between safety related structures. ConseqJently, when we resu e our review of the constructinn permit application, we will review the physical arrargement and loading of 2-29 s-s

-. +,

the applicant's safety related structures and the criteria for differential settlerent between these structures. This revitw of a specific plant design will enable us to deternine the reed, if any, for ronurents to be set in the riddle sand and lower clay strata to reasure heavc due to excavation.

In addition, we will also determine the need for settlement and tilt ronu ents to be established on safety related structures. Such reasurerents could help to explain the unusual amount of expansion of the apparently overconsolidated clays, confirm the preload of the middle sand stratum and insure that long-tern settlerent and dif ferential settlement effects will not pose an unexpected hazard to the plant.

2.5.11 Lateral Ejrth Fressares Criteria for the lateral earth pressure acting on subsurface foundations has been established. For static conditions, the active earth pressure coefficient is 0.27, the at rest coef ficient is 0.7, and the passive coef ficient, considering liriiting strains, is 1.59 For earthquake conditions, the dynamic passive pressure coef ficient, is based on the Mononabe - Gkabe method, as discussed in the Preli'inary Safety Analysis report (Peferences 73, 74, 75, and page 2.5-174).

The unit weight of the backfill (r.oist) is assured to be 126 paends per cubic foot.

On the basis of our review we consider the design criteria for lateral earth pres-sures to be acceptable.

2.5.12 L_iqu;f ac tion Potential The applicant analytically evaluated the liquefaction patential of the niddle sand stratum by co"parira the co puted dynacic stresses ind;ced in the site soils by the safe shutdown earthqulke to the resistance of these sare soils to cyclic stresses caring tests in the laboratory. An earthqJake r.otion having a dJration of 24 seCCnds, a peak acneleration of 0.13;, and a response spectrum enseloping that given in Pegulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Naclear Power Plarus, was assured to represent the particle rotion at the ground surface.

Conservative assu ptions regarding water table elevatico and soil layerirg were made.

The SHAKE progra, as described in the Freliminary Safety Analysis Report (page 2.5-174, and Peterence ES) was used to compute dynamic soil stresses. Undisturbed sa:ples of oil were used for the undrained cyclic triaxi31 tests.

Based on our review, we ccnclude that the assu ptions tnat the applicant has used in the analysis is conservative that the margins of safety deternined by the applicant for the various Conditions ara considered to be adequate, and that risk of liquefaction due to seismic ef fects is remote at the Blue Hills site.

?

2-3n mm

C 2.5.13 D<nanic Soil Properties The dynamic properties of the soils at the site were rieasured by cross hole seismic surveys and sr.all strain cyclic loading triaxial tests. The shear nodulus of the in-situ raiddle sand stratun (for deeply founded plant structures identified in Section 2.5.9 of this report) at small strains varies from about 21,000 to 150,000 pounds per square inch. The shear nodulus of the granular back fill (for backfill founded structures identified in Section 2.5.9 of this report) at small strains will be estirated from the relationships given in Table 2C-2 of the f reliminarv Safety Analysis Peport. For design purposes, the change in rodulus and da:" ping of the sand and clay with increasing strain was assured to agree with values published by the U"iversity nf California, as discussed in Prelininary Safety Analysis Report (Reference 67 and page 2.5-174).

We find this assurption to be acceptable for soils at the Blue Hills site.

Ecsed on our review, of the field and laboratory tests we conclude that the dynanic properties of the soils used in the appl' cant's analyses are reascnable for this site and are therefore acceptable.

2.5.14 Slope Stability.

The applicant has perforred stability analyses for perr:anent slopes surrounding the proposed piant area. All slopes will be constructeJ at two horizontal to one vertical.

f.ane of the slopes is, itself, seismic Categcry I.

The locaticn of these slopes with respect to the proposed locatier of saf ety-related structures is such that slope f ailure will not a f fect proposed safety related structures.

On the bases of our review we have deternined that none of the proposed slopes are near proposed safety related structures, so slope failures would not endanger these proposed structures. Therefore, we conclude, that the applicant', consideraticn of slope stability at the site is acceptable, "s

e

1. ~

2-31

18.0 REVTEW BY AD'!ISCRY CO'NITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS The Blue Hills site is expected to be reviewed by the Advisory Com:,ittee On Reactor Safeoards. We intend to issue a supplecent to this Safety Evaluation Report af ter the receipt of the Cccr:ittee's report to the Cor,r:ission relative to its review cf the Blue hills site. The supplerent will append a copy of the Comnittee's report drd Will address e3Ch of the co rents cade by the Co rittee, and will also descrite steps taken by the staf f to resclse any issues raised a; a result of the Cornittee's review.

r

> - p a

e * - w 18-1 5

21.0 CONC L US IO N_S.

Based on our analysis of the proposed Blue Hills site, we f. ave reached the following conclusions, subject to the conditions discussed in this report, for the site related issues cohered in the Blue Hills Station Units 1 and 2 Prelir.in3ry Safety Analysis Peport:

(1) Gulf States Utilities Compar/ has described, analyzed and evaluated the proposed Blue Hills site to establish the acceptability of the site for the Construction and operation of a nuclear power plant. This description and our evaluation have incluJed a definition of site para"eters which we would find to be accept-able for a nuclear poner plant at the proposed Blue Hills site.

(2) On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the Blue Hil's site is acceptable under the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 f or the constructiori and operation of nuclear power plant of the general type ard size teing proposed for other sites in the United States.

7.,e J n

.:. i,, s '.,

21-1

APPENDIX A CHROTLC'iY Of THE EARLY SITE PEVIEW FOR THE ELUE HILLS SITE This appendix presents a chect' ology of the principal actions daring the processing of the Blue Hills Station Units 1 and t c ;nstruction permit application and its subsequent conversion to an Early Site Feview. Tre fo'lcain; abbreviations are used in this appendix:

GSU Gulf States Utilities Cor pany SRC Uni'ed Sta tes '.uclea r RegJla tQry Corrission ACRS Advisory Corrittee on Peactor Saf eguards CP Construction Per":it LSR Early Site Peview PSAR Prelininary Safety Analysis Report LHS Elue Hills Station Units i and 2 June 2 7,1974 GSU tenders CP a; plication for iH5 June 28, 1974 Letter to G5U: Acknowledgerent of application and initiation of acceptance review.

July 3D, 1974 Letter to 'iSU: SHS PSAR accepted for 1Mieting; including requests for additional i n f o r" a t i o n.

Auc;;st 8, 1974 "eeting with GSU: Discussion of additional inforration required at docketing. (Meeting surrary da ted Eu pst 13,1974).

August 22, 1974 Letter from GSU: PSAR submitted for docketing.

AugJst 29, 1974 Letter to GSU: Review suspended d;e to lack of seisrologf information in docketed PSAR.

Septe-ter 6,1971 Letter from CSU: EHS inservice dates slip 2 years. CP not needed until July 1976, GSU will support licensing review.

Septe-ber 26, 1974 letter from GSU: Infornation on anticipated transients wi thoJt scrar:

Septe"ter 26, 1974 Letter from GS!J: Notice that GSU will submit additional selsnological information by November 1,1974.

4 hs %

m

October 28, 1974 tetter fron GSU: Additicnal seisnoloqical information submitted.

November 18, 1974 Letter to GSU: Seisrological information acceptable; requeet for additional information.

Noveruer 26, 1974 Letter from GSU: Advisinq that aaditional inforration would te sabnitted by Dece-ter 21, 1974.

December 2, 1974 Submittal of Arendment 1: Includes additional inferration requested in NRC letter dated July 30, 1974 and in August 8, 1974 reeting (reeting summary dated August 18,1974).

Decerber 18, 1974 Letter fran GSU: Subnitted additional information equested in NRC letter dated Novecter 18, 1974.

January 10, 1975 Letter to GSU: Transmitting radiological safety review schedule for PSAR.

January 13-14, 1975 Peeting with G5U in Fouston sad,oauront, Texas to discuss Quality Assurance questi s, utility staffing, and desian review effort.

Ja nua ry 22, 1975 Letter from GSU: Additional r(teorological data submitted.

January 23, 1975 Site visit by metecrology, fcundaticns, seismology, geology, hydrology, and accident analysis reviewers. (Meeting sunrary dated February 19, 1975.)

January 29, 1975 Letter to GSU: Confirmation of telephone call regarding inservice dates fCr BHS and request for inforration reaarding GSU project plans.

February ll, 1975 Transnittal fron GSU indicating the availability of deep seisnic reflection profiles near fh5 site.

February 11, 1975 Letter from GSU: Sunnary report by GSU on proposed BHS project plans and a GSU proposed FSAR review schedule.

February 13, 1975 Letter to GSU: Transmitting Round One Questions.

February 18, 1975 Submittal of Arendment 2: Additional information requested in August 8,1974 r eeting and in July 30, 1974 lettet March 3, 1975 Letter to ACRS: Identification of potential problem areas by NRC staff.

q A-2

March 21, 1975 Letter to G$li-Acceptability of GSU proposed PSAR review schedule.

April 7, 1975 Letter to GSU: Transmitted a notice to the Of fice of the Federal Register relating to acceptance of the PHS pSAR for NRC staf f review.

June 6, 1975 Letter from GSU: Submittal of seismic reflection profile and req;est for withholding from public closure.

i June 17, 1975 Submittal of Arendment 3: Organizational changes within GSU.

July 21, 1975 Ssbnittal of Arendrent 4: Responses to Round One Questions.

July 25, 1975 Letter from GSU: Errata Sheet for PSAR Arendment 4 August 6, 1975 Letter to GSU: Approval of re y st to withhold seistric reflection profiles from public disclosure.

September 15, 1975 Letter from GSU: Notice of termination of reteorological program at EHS.

Sep ten ber 26, 1975 Lett< r f ron GSU: Transmitting erergency core cooling systen analysis.

October 27, 1975 Letter fro-GSU: Transmitting additional infonration on site ownership.

October 30, 1975 Meeting with GSU to discuss the seismic reflection profiles provided to NRC by letter dated Jure 6, 1975. (Meeting surr'ary dated Noverber 10,1975).

November 10, 1975 Letter to GSU: Transmitting Notice of Hearing on EHS.

December 16, 1975 Letter to GSU: Transmitting Round Two Questions on site safety issues.

lanuary 14, 1976 Letter from GSU: Requesting that the NRC proceed with review of site safety issues only as an ESR.

February 2, 1976 Letter fron GSU: Transmitting seismic reflection profiles (revision of those sent in a June 6,1975 letter) and requesting they be withheld f rom public disclosure.

February 19, 1976 Letter to GSU: Stating that the NRC staff will proceed with a review of site safety issues for BHS ESR.

A-3

' 'ff ]

February 27, 1976 Letter fran CSU: Confirr.ation of the review schedule for site safety issues f or LHS ESR.

March 31, 1976 Letter f rcm GSU: Submitted topogra; n/ r ap of the reservoir area.

S,bmittinj seism ic reflec t ion prof iles and Anril 19, 1976 Letter f rc 6 reasesting ther Le withheld fro" public disclosure.

A7ril 26, 1976 Submittal of Am ed-ent 5: Fesponses to hunf Iwo Cuestions cn site safety issues Miy 10, 1976 Letter to GSU: Frocedural chan jes f or sob :ission of a cod. nts to 'MC.

J ane 21,19 76 L etter to GMI: Grant ing a ret 2est thtt the seismic reflection data o uti tted by ; ril 19, 1976 letter t e withheld fr o:" public disclos;re.

A; gust 19, 1976 Letter to G5'J: Charaing m dale for co"pletion o f fM5 f M due to

'. F workload priorities Arjast 25, 1976 Letter to 5 'J:

Froce br al charnes for.ahnission end'ents to safet/ evaluation r*,crts.

S 2pter ber 15, 1976 Letter from G5U:

t, ute an control of r1neral rights within site tosn ary.

0;tober 5, 1976 "eeting with G5') to din uss car conclusion on the G5U eteorolo ;ical r odel N etin] ; rief da ted fk tober 14, 1976).

a

,e 6 -

b /

A-4

+

-'l_u R

]

a.

. / f ',[,1 x-. '

~

Biht !' t iH fL LLUE hills.'.TL SAi[T-EF m '. i l i. L E r fW T 1

CJcutents rete t sei in Or de f *

rt, tr+

tnis S1fet/ [v11us!!7, D eArt, e x c l u j i r. 4 tnose listed in t h..

J.

1 cart' Pr e! 1 m r. ir f 5 3 t e t,e P,.s l his M rt, ay c.-

ttaired it the ca rce l

st1tsj ir tre b i c 1 r M, 0 -

9 re r? sm1 f 1-c ' i. r c +- is 01 t a t r.o s t ra j a r pur l i c ;itraries 9%.

"erts su mit'.ej ty tu applic m+ and (n 1 s,1; r Lales 3rd I>

,!.i t i c n <.ind Re Mla tory r,3 j de s l

niy te i-ete - it trs (cc "isv abl'c Vcif ont :n:

171'

'7 twt,

,,' i s h i m1 t a n,

t I

I C.

)r l'

W t r. n %nty hii.

1brarj,

.Nt'n, e us 77114 Le:1 tic jn u-'er t: repliej t

, ;n t s t r e 'v : < t.if f a

.1 refm er of in tnis E3te', E iluation

,mt e r e i r.

folless:

E TE rN 0;f 1

I e r i c a n ', i t icnal / 3nJ)re. Institute, 1772 r' ;, i M 1-137).

2ildirq Codt FG uire~cnts far M i r.1 ",

't s i,y I os s i n

ilfir,., cr <ther '+-

ture; W Ytrb,..i.

I 2

C.i l d.v i r,

J. L 1973 C1' ties nf the ' rited Sta tes v.

De, art e**

of Ca rerre, Environ rtal ?lta 'e vice, winin;ty, :

e m

3.

Cry, G.

a., 1965: T e c p i ca l C y c l or.e s o f the ',^ t r Atlantic Ecear. Tecrnical rn er 55, J

U.

5. Dep rt ent o f Cc r erce, Weather E,. T3,,

W, nir; ton, C

arsh s, J., 19 71 : :li atalogy at St.1.natin, Anticyclont; F '. t of the P -k / " antains, 17 4 - I H).

',0 Tettrical Memer3rde ELL t bL-sa, Lilver ";.r i r ), 4rjland.

4 5.

National Se,ere Storr, Ferecast Cet

<s, l!'

Listiy V Er ai s fnr tr e fried 1 M 3 -

1974 Nation 31 seanic ; At aseeric a t i n i s t r a t ': n.

<33 :1t,

p2;isred).

C.

L 3 gen dorf, J. F.,17 7;: A Fic;ra for.. 31 aa t i r. ]

• ospreric Discersin'. from a f, x h r r

iaer Sta+ ien.

h%4 Tet"nic31 ver r y.d r. U m.;L A i r F eso ;rce'. L a bo ra to r y,

SA, 4

! &,o Falls, Idaho 7.

Thon, C _

19 <

io n Mo irobabilitics t'a.tti v e trcr *. view, Uc t:,t,e r-om f o r J

1G63, cp 7 D-731 J

Iron, n.

C. 5.,13U

'u w 21 s t r i ta t i m o f E < t re t MW in t*<

zited Etates rn i!

of thc structural Disisten, roctedinjs rf tFe Enrit y. r; ietj f Eivi! Enlireec -.- l y iW cr. 1787-1 01.

3.

U.

5.,.-; ar tr en t e t Co r erc e, E n a rcr" en tol Da t a

<>r < 1ce, 1S74 J cal Ci'catoleqi 71 Cata, U r ul

.ary with Co earsti, Cata.1cer :ria, Lesisim 'htion51 Cli": tic Center, 4snevillo, N. C.

13.

U. 5. Itp artr ent o f Cornrce, w i rw en tal Da t a Se<,-ices, lm Local Cli atolo;ical D3t3, Are al S yra ry wi th Cc t ira ti v e Da ta-Inr t Ar'.hur, Texa s.

ilt' rii Cli"a tic C en9r, nsheville, L.

11.

U. S. DeLirt: ent of Corr erce, Envir onr ontal Cata ' ernce, I NS: C1 - W arapn/ nf tre United States No. 20, Clir. ate of Leesville, Louisiana. 'ational :11 itic Center, Asheville, 'i. C.

12.

U. 5. Copart' ent of Cerrerce, Enviram ental Dat.i 5erw ice: Tr opical Star:1 anj Atlantic Hurricane Articles from tha Mc nthl y We.ither P cv iew.

M;nthly PeviN published through Dece, ter l'875.

n

.-1 l

)

% LJ

AM

~M 13.

U. S. Department of Comerce Weather Bureau, 1964-Cliratography of tne United States No. 86-14 Supplereni f or 1951 th. cuch 1961, Louisiana. Wishin7 ton, D. C.

14 U. S. Department of Conr erce, Weather Eureau,196S: Climatolraphy of the Uni'.ed States No. E6-36, Supplerent for 1951 through 1960, Texas. Washinqton, D. C.

15.

Sagendorf, J. F. and J. T. Goll,1976: x00D00, Program for the Evaluation of Routine Ef fluent Releases at 'uclear Power Stations, (DRAFT).

U. S. '<uclear Regulatory Corrission, Office o. NJCiear Reactor Re w lation, Washington, D. C.

16.

DiNJr.no, J.

J., et al, 1962: C31culation of Distance Factors for Pnreer and Test Peactor Sites, AEC - Asailable as TID-14844 fron NTIS, Springfield, Va., 22151.

17.

Gifford, F.

A., Jr., 1963: An Outline of Theories of Diffusion in the Lower Layers of the Atmosph(re, Chapter 3 in Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1963, (D.

H.

Slade, Ed). Available as T!D-2419J from NTIS, Springfield, ia., 22151.

SE I S% 0GY / GE OLOGY 1.

Anderson. H. V.,1960, Geolog / of Sabire Parish, Louisiana, Louisiana G#.cgical Survej Eulletin 34, Ca ton Rouge, Louisiana, p. 164.

2.

Holdahl, S. P. and "arrison, N.

L., 1974 Pegional Investigations of Vertical Crustal Moverents in U. S., Using Precise Peleseling and Mareograph Data Te~tonophysics, a

Vol. 23, pp. n 3-33D.

3.

Ccering, J., 1956, Revied of Quatern3ry Surface For-ations of Gulf Coastal Region, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Eulletin 40, pp. 764-726.

4.

M ng, P.

B.,

963 Tre Tectonics of North America - A Discussion to Acco pany the Tectonic Map of Nor e America Sc=le 1:5,000,000, Geological Survey Professional Paper 623,

a shingtsn, D. C.

EarJley, A.

J., 1962, Structural Geology of North kerica, Harper '. Row, New York.

6.

Cof tan, J. L. and C. A. Von Lake,1973, Earth;uake History of the United States, NDAA-U. 5 Departnent of Co Terce Public8tions 41-1.

7.

00ccb al, J.,1970, EartMJakes of the Stable Interior, with E phasis on the M L continent, Ph. D. Dissertatico University of Nebraska.

8.

Penley, A. D.,1966. Seismic Activity 'ea-the Texas Gulf Coast Bulletin of the Associatia cf Engineering Geologists Vol. 3, pp. 33-33.

9.

Preliminary Safety Analysis Peport for the Blue Hills Station.

10.

'ottli, O. W. and J. E. Zollweg 1974, le Pelation Between felt Area and Magnitude for Central United States Earthquakes, SJlletin of the St.isnological Society of America, Vol. E4, pp. 73-E6.

11. * ;t tl i, O. W., 1973, The Mississippi Valley Earthlu3kes of 1811 and 1812: Intensities, Ground Motion and Magnitudes, BJlletin of the Seisrological Society of Arerica, Vol. 63, pp. 227-248.

12.

Nuttli, 0. W., 1976, Com ents on " Seismic Intensities, ' Size' of Earthquakes and Related Parameters" by Jack F. Evernden, Bulletin of the Seis-ological Society of America, Vol. 66, pp. 331-338.

13.

Gupta, I. N. and O. W. Nuttli, 1976, Spatial Attenuation of..tensit;es fcr Central U. S.

Earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society " America, Vol. 66, pp. 743-752.

14.

Donovan, N. C.,1973, A Statistical Evaluation of Strong Motion Data Including the February 9, 1971, San Fernando Earthquake, Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

g

,t s -

B-2

V_

15.

Nuttli, O.

W., 1973, Seismic Wave Attenuation and Magnitude Relations for Eastern North America, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 78; pp. 876-885.

16.

Fuller, M. L.,1912. The New Madrid Earth';uake, U. S. Geological Survey, Depart"ent of the Interior - Bulletin 494.

17.

Seed, H. B.,1968, Landslides During Earthquakes Due to Soil Liquef action, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Feundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, pp. 1053-1122.

18.

Neu ann, F.,1974, [arthquake Intensity and Related Ground Motion, Universi ty Press,

Seattle, Wash.ngton.

19.

Trifunac, M. D. and A. G. Erady,1975, On the Cerrelat.on of Seismic Intensity Scales with Feaks of Pecorded Strong Ground Motion, Eulletion of the Seisn'ological Society of A:. erica, Vol. 65, pp. 139-162.

4

• B-3

___.___.___.__...