ML19282B286
| ML19282B286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1979 |
| From: | Naventi R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903120422 | |
| Download: ML19282B286 (11) | |
Text
.
MEETING
SUMMARY
5 Dockot File jag 3 7 7g7g (7IIIC PDR)
LULdi FUR TIC NRR Reading LWR #4 File E. Case R. Boyd R. DeYoung D. Vassallo J. Stolz K. Kniel
- 0. Parr S. Varga L. Crocker D. Crutchfield F. Williams R. Mattson H. Denton D. Muller Project Manager: R. Naventi Attorney, ELD M. Service IE (3)
ACRS (16)
L. Dreher S. Rubenstein NRC
Participants:
H. Lefevre P. Sobel J. Stepp s
790312 o 4/2 1
4 4'NITED STATES y-NUCLEAR REGULATO,RY COMMISSION 3
j WASHiltGTON, D. C. 20555 z
\\,...../
JAN 171979 Docket Nos:
50-445 50-446 APPLICANT:
Texas Utilities Generating Company FACILITY:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCTOBER 24, 1978 MEETING ON GEOLOGY OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION A meeting was held on October 24, 1978 in Bethesda, Maryland with representatives from Texas Utilities Service, Inc. (TUST),
Dames and Moore (DSM) and H. J. Gruy and Associates, Inc.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the geology at the Cemanche Peak site and surrounding area.
The attendees are listed in Enclosure 1.
The meeting notice and agenda are included as Enclosure 2.
TUSI and their consultants responded to agenda item 3 by presenting information regarding seismic activity in the surrounding area.
They also described the seismic monitoring program for the site area.
Exhibits were provided to support their conclusions regarding low probability of seismic activity in the vicinity of Comanche Peak site.
Seismicity associated with hydrocarbon production was discussed including possibility for effects within area surrounding the site'.
Based on the discussions, we agreed that there..did.not appear to be any problems with seismicity for the Comanche Peak site.
The staff's informal comments (agenda item 1) were reviewed.
TUSI noted where the responses to these comments had been included in amendments 1 and 2 of the CPSES FSAR.
Those comments which had not been responded to were noted.
TUSI agreed to provide the following additional information:
1.
A photomosaic of the site area.
2.
Large scale surface maps and geologic cross-section of the site area.
, JAN 171979 3.
A set of well logs of wells in the site area.
4.
An independently prepared structural contour map of the site area.
5.
A falso color aerial photograph of the CPSES site.
6.
Definition of the term " depletion drive" as used in the FSAR.
The draft seismology-geology Q-l's (agenda item 2) were reviewed.
Clarifications were provided to questions.
With respect to question 361.25, it was agreed that the information regarding well drilling activity could be provided on a quarterly basis beginning in November 1978 rather than bimonthly as originally requested.
Asda Ron Naventi, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Proj ect Management
Enclosures:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Meeting Notice
1 7 I 79 Texas Utilities Generating Company ccs:
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street Washington, D.C.
20036 Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Project Manager - Nuclear Plants Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. H. R. Rock Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 Mr. G. L. Hohmann Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Richard Lawene, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General P. O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. R. J.
Cary Executive Vice President li General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201
ENCLOSURE 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES Texas Utilities Serice, Inc.
H. C. Schmidt C. Feist Dames & Moore F. Lozo E. McHuron C. Oliver H. J. Gruy & Associates W. C. Miller NRC H. Lefevre P. Sobel
- J. C. Stepp R. Naventi
- Part-time.
a ENCLOSURE 2 UNITED STATES
?
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g E
W ASHIN p TON. D. C. 20555
/
JAN 171979 OCT 121978 Docket Nos:
50-445 50-446 FBDRANIDI FOR: Steven A. Varga, G ief, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, DPM FROM:
R. Naventi, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, DPM
SUBJECT:
FORlllCOMING MEETING TO DISCUSS QUESTIONS AND 00bMENTS ON GEOLOGY FOR CDMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Ihte G Time:
October 24, 1978 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Location:
P-110 Phillips Building Bethesda, bhryland
Purpose:
To discuss geology at the CRSES site and surrounding area.
(Agenda in enclosure 1)
Participants:
Texas Utilities Service, Inc.
C. Feist, et. al.
h7C H. Lefevre R. Naventi qm g\\. \\\\olvow R. Naventi, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project bhnagement
Enclosure:
Agenda cc: See next page
~
At[ENDA JAN 171979 C0!'ANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEXAS I?TILITIES GENERATING COMPANY LOCKET NOS. 50-445/446 1.
Discuss all informal comments of March 28 and September 12, 1978 with particular emphasis on:
a.
_ Item 10 - Provide the referenced structural contour maps prepared by an independent organization such as GE0 MAP.
b.
Item 16 - Provide well logs as requested.
2.
Draf t Q-l's can be discussed if the Applicant has questions.
The NRC feels the following presentations should be made:
n.
Continuity of the Paluxy Sand - Glen Rose Contact (NRC Questions 361.1 and 361.22). The relevant field maps photos, notes, etc.
~
and other information used in the completion of this contact is to be available at the meeting, b.
Bi-monthly information regarding continuing hydracarbon exploration in site area (NRC question 361.25)
A.
What is the nature of the contact between the Paluxy Sand-Glen Rose? Conformal-noninformable? Figure 2.5.1-11 indicates a conformable contact.
3.
Discuss the expected use of water injection in hydrocarbon production within 5 miles of the site during the lifetime of the plant. Discuss the possibility of seismici_ty associated with hydro-carbon production within 5 miles of the site during the lifetime of the plant.
~
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION g'
7g COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEXAS UTILITIES CENERATING COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-445/446 361.16 Structural cross-sections (Figures 2.5.1-30 and 2.5.1-31) depict the (2.5.1.2)
Big Saline and older units as essentially flat-lying.
The overlying Strawn formation, however, is shown dipping rather steeply (roughly 100 f t/mi) to the east (Figure 2.5.1-23a).
Discuss.
361.17 As requested in NRC question 361.4, provide copies of the telephone (2.5.1.2) conversations with A. Uinslow and J. Montgomery, both of the U. S.
Geological Survey regarding the non-subsidence potential of the Cretaceous sandstone in the site vicinity.
361.18 The Strawn formation is apparently 400 f t. thicker in the Mid-Continent (2.5.1.2)
Petroleum Corp. No. 1 Squaw Creek Co. well than at the Gulf Oil Corp.
No. 1, D. McIntosh well (Figure 2.5.1-30).
Explain why a fault could not be more likely placed between these wells rather than between the two wells indicated on Figure 2.5.1-30.
361.19 On cross-section A-A' (Figure 2.5.1-30), a fault with approximately (2.5.1.2) 100 feet of displacement is interpreted between wells Gulf Oil Corp.,
No. 1, C. L. Campbell and Gulf Oil Corp., No. 1 D. McIntosh, Discuss the ratf.onale and basis for the necessity of placing a fault at this location.
361.20 Provide a discussion and figures as appropriate addressing why a fault (2.5.1.2) could not be interpreted between vells 4 and 4a (see Figure 2.5.1-24, Marble Falls-Structure Map.)
'~,
ms-..
n.-
JAN l' 7s 1979,
-2' 361.21 The response to NRC question 361.5 is incomplete.
Please discuss the (2.5.1.2) potential for hydraulic interconnection between Squaw Creek Reservoir Address in and faulting which may exist within 5 miles of the site.
particular a suggested E-W fault located between well numbers 4 and 4a (see Figure 2.5.1-17).
361.22 Insuf ficient positive evidence has been provided to enable the NRC (2.5.1.1) exist with-staf f to conclude that subsurf ace faulting does or does not in 5 miles of the site.
If faulting were to exist within this radius its non-capability can be shown by providing evidence demonstrating the continuity of a well-defined marker horizon such as the Paluxy Sand-Glen Rose Limestone contact.
Provide appropriate discussion and illustra-tions demonstrating the continuity of this Cretaceous contact within the area depicted on Figure 2.5.1-10, Vicinity Geologic Map.
361.23 Although the probability may be low, the NRC staff, based on presently (2.5.1.2) available data, can not preclude hydrocarbon production within the plant Position exclusion area.
As depicted on the mineral right ownership cap provided to the NRC by Texas Utilities Services,'Inc. correspondence of July 24, 1978 hydrocarbon production may be possible within 500 feet of a seismic category I structure (containment).
361.24 Provide the basis for the statement (FSAR p. 2.5-32) that the hydrocarbon (2.5.1.2) production within 5 miles of the site is believed to be from stratigraphic traps, not structural traps.
361.25 The response to NRC question 361.14 is not acceptable.
The requested (2. 5.. l. 2) information is to be previded on a bi-monthly basis through the safety hearing (currently not scheduled before January, 1980).
Please indicate your intention tg compl with this request.
..=
_..m
=-
INFORMAL COMMENTS JAN 171979 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEXAS UTILITIES CENERATING COMPAh7 DOCKET NOS. 50-445/446 17.
FSAR, p. 2.5-37 Discuss what is meant by depletion drive.
18.
Response to Question 361.3 No mention is made of potential subsidence.related to water pumpage associated with possible hydrocarbon production from the Ellenburger.
The H. J. Gruy letter of June 28, 1978 indicates the Ellenburger may have significant aquifer potential.
Discuss.
19.
Response to Question 361.5 In the response to Question 361.5, please correct the reference to Section 2.5.1.2.4.3.
This section is apparently non-existent.
20.
Response to Question 361.6, p. 2.5-29 Reference is made to Figure 2.5.1-17a, which was apparently not sub-mitted.
Provide this figure or reference the intended figure.
21.
Response to Question 3'1.7, p. 2.5-29 6
The response to NRC question 361.7 discusses a subsurface fault 65 miles long and refers to Figure 2.5.1-17.
This figure shows no faults.
Clarify.
22.
Response to Question 361.9 Identify by well number, those wells shown on Figure 2.5.1-17 and listed
/
in Table 2.5.1-30 that were used in the construction of Figures 2.5.1-30 and 2.5.1-31.
Provide the NRC a copy of the full scale logs used in the construction of the above figures.
In addition, provide a copy of all the available electric logs with a five mile radius of the site.
e e.
=.
e
JAN 171979 23.
Response to Question 361.9 Are geophysical data (other than electric logs shown in the FSAR) available for the area within 5 miles of the site?
If so, what are there data and ca'.
they be produced for NRC inspection?
0 m
e 9
e mem- - - - -
-. + -
w.
..., - se