ML19322C326
| ML19322C326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1976 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001160853 | |
| Download: ML19322C326 (1) | |
Text
i-p Ktc
- 'g oq UNITED STATES 3
- [ ] ~3.,, g'\\
N LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf WASWNGTON, D. C. 70555
. &s - m f -\\
e ts g
'%, ((,, # -
February 3, 1976 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta i $
D
SUBJECT:
BRIEFING ON SEISMIC CRITE Iy, JANUARY 26, 1976, 11:35 A.M.,
COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE
.00M, D.
C. OFFICE Mr. Minogue introduced Mr. Gammill and Mr. Stepp.
The first three slides were shown.*
Chairman Anders asked if slide 3 indicated that recent carthquakes have resulted not from non-active faults, but rather fron deeper crust movements.
Mr. Stepp responded affirmatively.
The Chairman then asked if a capable fault was defined in the regulations.
Mr. Stepp said yes, there is a rigid definition in Appendix A (to 10 CFR Part 100).
Chairman Anders asked if there had been any correlation found between east coast faults and tectonic action in the recent past.
Mr. Stepp answered negatively, but said that the possibility remains.
Mr. Stepp noted that the recently adopted Appendix A has formalized reporting requirements and acceptance criteria for geologic and seismic siting of reactors.
Over 100 previous reviews have been affected.
Chairman Anders asked if any old sites had been found to be grossly out of compliance.
Mr. Stepp said yes, where a new plant was proposed for an old site, but no shutdowns had been found necessary for older plants.
Mr. Stepp said that it is now assumed by NRC that random earthquakes are possible within tectonic provinces, contrary to the pre-1973 assumption that only patterned and stationary earthquakes would He said that the probability of earthquake within the occur.
Kelvin trend area is greater than without and that little is known about large infrequent earthquakes because no source theory has been developed for them.
Responding to a question from Chdirman Anders, Mr. Stepp said that there is! disagreement between NRC and other seismdlogists about the rescatibility of earthquakes and the location of tectonic provindes.
He also said that the eastern earthquake driving mechanism is not nearly as well understood as vast coast seismic
- 7 forces.
i i
~
- Numbered Vu-graphs used during the briefing are attached.
(
Cor3 tact :
Fred Emigh (SECY) h.U
~
S 16L
' "gg A
'800116Q
{.. ]
V Brf on Seismic Criteria l
1/26/76 February 3, 1976 Responding to another question by the Chairman, Mr. Stepp said that NRC would pick up the seismic review workload and not call on the USGS at hearings to discuss sites they have not reviewed.
He added that the USGS could be called as a witness, but NRC probably would not do so.
Mr. Stepp said that he felt the USGC does not like case work very much because they prefer to work on general trends and theories, and tend to look at a case in terms of its research value.
He also said the he felt USGS expertise lies more on the west coast and that the Service usually tries to stay out of hearings.
It was stated that NRC now has capable people on board to assume most of the seismic workload.
Mr. Stepp said that USGS seems to be sensitive about their employees commenting as individuals because it is afraid the NRC might influence their independent judgment.
Chairman Anders said that improved communication with USGS is necessary.
Mr. Minogue replied that the NRC might propose a memorandum of understanding to USGS.
Mr. Stepp reviewed some site-specific problems, noting that the USGS seems to often give its interpretation of problems without underlying reasons and that USGS often will not operate within NRC schedules.
He added that there have been no difficulties with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Commission requested:
1.
that staff return with another briefing focussing on difficulties of coordination with the USGS; and 2.
that staff recommend areas in which the Commission can take immediate action to work out problems with USGS.
(12:45 p.m.)
Those in attendance were:
I OFFECEAL USE ONLY k
OFFHCEAL UE ONLY A
i Brf on Seismic Criteria 1/26/76 February 3, 1976 Commissioners Staff William A. Anders, Chairman H. Denton Marcus A. Rowden F.
Enigh Edward A. Mason W.
Gammill Victor Gilinsky.
M. Grossman Richard T. Kennedy J.
Hard J.
Harves Secretary of the Commission C.
Heltemes B. Huberman Samuel J. Chilk A. Kenneke R. Minogue T.
Quay W.
Ramsay B.
Snyder C.
Stepp C.
Stoiber L. Weiss b
i 1
o
-l OFFECHAL USE ONLY s
.)
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SEISMOLOGY AND GE0 LOGY
-e REVIEW HISTORY
~
IST-- APPLICATION FOR COMMERCI AL POWER PLANT (INDI AN POINT lli)......
19'X, 1ST S EI S M I C DES I GN (HUMBOLDT)...........................................
19'P) n IST S EI SMOLOGY REV I EW (S AN ON0FRE)....................................
198 i
1ST GEOLOGY & SEISMOLOGY REVIEW (HADDAM NECK)....................... l 'KO APPENDIX A -(DRAFT)
........................................................I'.r/1 REG. GUlDE 1. 7 0........................................'....................
1 97 2 A P P EN D l X A (A D O PTE D ).....................................................
1973 REG.
GUlDES 1. 60 & 1. 61..................................................
1973 NRC GE0 LO GYlS EI S M0 LO GY STAFF FORMED..................................
1973 S TA N D A R D R EV I EW P LA N....................................................
1975 S TATE P A RT I C I PAT I ON......................................................
1975
~~o+
.m m
~
4
EARLY REVIEW PROCEDURE I. _ CONSULTANTS X~~~U5Ei5 PXRTIC1PATION B.
USC&GS PARTICIPATION C.
NEWMARK 11.
EgggEDUBE A.
MONTHLY MEETING OF CONSULTANTS B.
MEETING WITH APPLICANT C.
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION Ill.
GUIDELINES 15~UFR Part 50.34
~
" Contents of Application:
Technical Infor motion" S
p
-5.,
..9
+
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY REVIEWS PRIOR TO APPENDIX A g
NO CAPABLE FAULTS IN EASTERN UNITED STATES 1.
NO SElSMICALLY ACTIVE FAULTS IN EASTERN UNITED STATES 2.
STATIONARITY OF EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCE 3.
4.
CONCEPT OF CONTROLLING EARTHQUAKE DEFINITION OF TECTONIC PROVINCES NOT NECESSARY 5.
MAX 1 MUM POSSIBLE ACCELERATION IS 50 PERCENT OF GRAVI O
6.
w aa n
~
SEISMIC 1,00 Gt.0L.uGiG Si: ins CHITERiA
(
1
[df:IIl,[I[i.I.,'iENT8 i
Ear thquake Des ign Bases Surface Fou l. ting SeismicaL1y Induced FI004s A sso.c i a t ed Ph en omena B.
.!8 EA CI-Pre-Appendi x A Rev t ews No Grandfath er CI Avs e_
> Fo rMa. l I z Afion o f Rep orti9 Raqo f r em en ts Fo rma.l i za.t-l on of Acceptance criteria
q
=
n.
I f
lilVGSTl Gj, Tic;J
- TbCTutail rRo v?ticiN.
~
1 o
f l CAI'M.L E FAULTS '
h WITHlN 2CDidikES hY NO
$O' L
SiGtJlF\\chhT?
ff A >LE v'ENr /DEdr.
03:cy rXc1. PkceiuE yes s
v FNiiET 'OiAt!ACTERISTtcs IS SITE 1x [wcentc ?
~
141%}.R5PG ATEh F\\lEH7
~
~
p gS
~
EPitFarER fr r.
\\
.gp g.gg(gp' CLOSE ST IVIST s
H T'Strf TY S lie
^
/
l
- ( nrTEN0 ATE i
f g
A TTESL%TE J
b y
.=w S/7 E SH or-k u.'s E M y g{y'g g i
. bETEff(lMTlCUOF SAFE 9hlTUCtJ J FAA1//<.vHE t
4 l
l.
g H
)
l
SUMMARY
OF USGS b
REVIEWS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITES i
NO.
SITES RI:-
0 TION STATUS Ng
_SJ.TES VJ_ER ED_ Pay _ US tis I.
LICENSED SITES A.
OPERATING LICENSE 40 38 B.
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 33 33 Ii.
CURRENT REVIEY!
A.
CONSTRU'CTION PERMIT 36 18 B.
EARLY SITE 3
3 111.
PROJECTED APPLICATIONS A.
FY 76 9
1 B.
FY 77 10 2
~
.I V.
NUMBER OF PLANTS Li-CENSED. PRIOR TO ISSU-ANCE OF APPENDIX A
126 w
G 4,
O
,... j w
G'
~
i l_ _.
yg9 GEOL 0GY-SE I SM0L0GY STAFF 3
Seismology 3
Geology 8
Foundation 5
Engineering e
N 4
.d.
8
.s r<
e e-r r +=- 7 ***: M
'~
~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ " ~ " ' ' "
LV e
CURRENT AGREEMENT WITH USGS
_ 72; A._ SCOPE 1.
REVIEW 0F DOCKETS 2.
RESEARCH 3.
ADVISORY GROUP B.
MECHANICS OF COORDINATION, ETC.
1.
MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON SITES TO BE REVIEWED BY USGS 2.
MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON TESTIMONY, ETC.
3.
OFFICIAL AGENCY CONTACTS 4.
REVIEW LEVEL CONTACTS a.
ACCESS TO GS REVIEWERS b.
ACCESS TO SCIENTIST WITHIN USGS i
r m
6 9
pp a~,,-e,-~
w
-~
J
-v i
CURRENT REVIEW PROBLEMS SKAG I T SAFE SHUTD'0WN EARTHQUAKE
~
PALO VERDE LOCAL FAULTING PEBBLE SPRI NG VOLCANI SM '.
M RBLE HILL LATE
RESPONSE
DIABLO CANYON SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE PILGRIM REEVALUATION SUNDESE'RT LATE
RESPONSE
4'.
Q 4
W
, = -
-q....
t i_
PROBLEMS A.
LACK OF CONTACT WITH USGS SCIENTISTS i
B.
SCHEDULES C.
NATURE OF SCIENCE 1
i e
d
.i I
D 0
,,e
]
. j'[
1 BEggMMENDAI1gNS l.
REVISE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IMPROVE COMMUNICATION
)
SPECIAL GENERIC REVIEWS REALISTIC. SCHEDULES 2.
POWER PLANT SITING ADVISORY GROUP 3.
. CONTINUE MINIMUM USGS PARTICIPATION IN CASE REVIEWS A
,i a
d