ML20004C220

Application to Amend Ol,Upgrading Tech Specs to Address Outstanding Licensing Issues & Requirements.Encl Safety Evaluation & Proposed Revisions to Tech Specs Available in Central Files Only

ML20004C220
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	05/28/1981
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19250G474	List: ML20004C220
References
NUDOCS 8106020323
Download: ML20004C220 (3)

Text

Company a

8 600 North 18th Street

-s g

Post Office Box 2641 Dirmingham, Alabama 35291 Telephone 205 783-6]31

\\

F. L Clayton, Jr.

senior Vice President Alabama Power Flintridge Puilding

~"

May 28, 1981

~

Q)

Docket No. 50-348 8

(.t v

ku Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation jun 01198I" $

~~

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p ma Washington, D. C.

20555 E

"d' p#5""'

C Attention:

Mr. S. A. Varga

'd,

(o.

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION UPGRADE Gentlemen:

In accordance with discussions with Mr. Ed Reeves of your staff, enclosed as Attachment I is the Unit 1 Technical Specification upgrade package. This package reflects Alabama Power Company (APCo) comments on the NRC draft version of the upgrade package with proposed changes indicated by a bar on the side of the page. The intent of this proposed package is to upgrade the Unit 1 Technical Specifications to the Unit 2 version to address outstanding licensing issues and requirements as they relate to Unit 1.

Certain items from the Unit 2 Technical Specifications were not i.icluded in this package because these items have not been generic itsues on operating reactors and do not form a part of the licensing bases for Farley Unit 1.

In addition, changes have beeri proposed to the Unit 2 version which will require further discussions with the NRC staff.

These changes have been brought about as a result of experience gained by using the Unit 2 specifications.

In an effort to clarify APCo concerns, a discussion of the significant differences batween the Unit 1 Technical Specification upgrade package and what is pret.itly in the Unit 2 Technical Specifications is provided in Attachment II. This attachment contains 22 items which have been divided into two categories based upon action APCo wishes to take on each of them.

These categories are as follows:

I.

Major item affecting plant availability without enhancing plant safety - not generic requirement for operating reactors.

II.

Item which requires clarification between the NRC and APCo on the design, licensing, and operational aspect of Unit 1.

APCo proposes to defer any action on Category I items at this time.

It is requested that the current provisions of the Unit 1 Technical Specifications remain in effect for the Category I items.

For the Category II items, APCo has proposed these changes in Attachment i and wishes to discuss these items as part of the Unit 1 Technical Specification upgrade effort.

'8106020%3

)

4

Mr. S. A. Varga.May 28, 1981 The Environmental Protection Plan (Appendix B to 0.L.) which addresses non-radiological aspects of plant operation was submitted to the NRC in APCo letters dated May 19, 1980 and August 7, 1980.

APCo requests that the Unit 1 Technical Specification upgrade license amendment be made effective in the following manner:

Section Effective Date Appendix A to 0.L.

1.

Def' Mns Prior to startup following the third refueling outr.ge.

2.

Safety Limits and LSSS Prior to startup following the third refueling outage.

3/4 LCOs and Surveillance 3/4.1 thru 3/4.10 Prior to s',artup following the-third refuleing outage.

3/4.11 and 3/4.12 January 1, 1932 m

5.

Design Features Sixty days after' issuance of license amendment.

6.

Administrative Controls Sixty days after issuance of license amendment.

Appendix B to 0.L.

Environmental Protection January 1, 1982 Plan The Plant Operations Review Committee has reviewed the above proposed changes and has determined that the changes do not involve an unreviewed safety question as shown in the safety evaluat.on in Attachment 1.

The Nuclear Operations Review Board (NORB) will review the. final upgrade package prior to issuance of the license amendment by the NRC. The results of the NORB review will be forwarded at that time.

l The Class of this proposed amendment ic designated in accordance with 10 CFR Part 170 as a Class III change in that is deemed not to involve a significant hazard consideration.

Since APCo has submitted twenty-eight thuusand dollars in fees to cover the outstanding technical specification change requests which are incorporated in this upgrade, no additional fees are enclosed.

l

Mr. S. A. Varga May 28, 1981 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(c)(1)(i), three (3) signed originals and thirty-seven (37) additic'lal copies of this proposed amendment are enclosed.

Shotild you have any questior.s, please advise.

.Yours truly,

[

. L.

layton, Jr FLCjr/BDM:rt Attachments cc: Mr. R. A. Thomas SWORNTOANDSygSCRIBEDBEFORE Mr. G. F. Trowbridge-ME THIS e?%2/

DAY OF Mr. E. A. Reeves Mi m

, 1981.

Mr. J. P. O'Reilly F

Mr. W. H. Bradford (uteo n

~ " ~ Ngta'ry Public 2 -

My Commission Expires:

}

2-/6-32

.:'r l

l f

r 7

k f-s s

=

o t

FED : ' 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Robert Jackson, Chief Geosciences Branch Division of Engineering THRU:

Jerry Ha bour, Chief Site Safety Research Branch Division of Reactor Safety Research FROM:

Andrew Murohy Site Safety Research Branch Division of Reactor Safety Research SLEJECT:

RECOMMENDATION OF MAXIMUM RESERVOIR-INDUCI EARTHQUAKE AT THE Y. C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION The purpose of this memorandum is to convey my coments on the FSAR for the V. C. Sumer Nuclear Station and rMommentations for the maximum reservoir-induced earthquake at that site. These comments and recomendations were formulated after reviewing the pertinent infomation for the Geosciences Branch, NRR, as requested in a memorandum from R. J. Mattson to T. E. Murley, dated March 3,1980 and answered on March 14, 1980.

The coments and escommendations are included as Enclosure 1.

/s/

Andrew Murphy Site Safety Research Branch Division of Reactor Safety Research

Enclosure:

as stated C)U l2[ O P g !O Go f i cD S Z

t-ENCLOSURE 1 assisted in the review.Dr. Andrew Murphy of the NRC Office of Nuclear earthquake of M, = 4.0 as proposed by the apolicar.t and MHe belie recommended by tASL are not sufficiently supported by the argumentst = 4 currently presented.'

maximum induced earthquake should be MInste'ad he believes that at Monticello information is provided.

These are hib a=rgu.3 until further supporting 5

ments:

1.

The applicant has not provided sufficient data to establish that th maximum dimension of geological structures within the immediate e

of this reservoir is 1 km or less and that the maximum stras drop is less than 25 bars.

2.

After assuming that the maximum earthquake to be associated with Mcnticello Reservoir will-have MM intensity VI as maximum intensity because MM intensity VI is the maximum intensity observed to date at Diedmont reservoirs, the applicant has employed a and interpolations to relate the area of MM intensity VI shaking andseri local magnitude.

This method has not previously been used for south-eastern U.S. earthquakes and the apolicant has not established the validity of the method for southeastern U.S. events or th:

conservatism associated with the method.

level of than the method of Nuttii and Hernnann, lE78The method is less conservative Dr. Murphy supports his first argument with the following points:

1.

The applicant has attempted to show that the size of the area available for rupture can be limited to 1 km or less.

has not given sufficient weight to the observation that the clusters However, the applicant of seismicity as identified by the applicant are at least as large as 3 km.

2.

The use of the 25-bar stress drop in the Brune % del was justified on the basis of an abstract by Fletcher (1980) in which he reported a 17 b stress drop for the August 27, 1978 ar The conservatism gained by the apolicant's use of 25 barse Reservoir.

over the observed 17 bars may have been invalidated when Fletcher pre the paper at the American Geophysical Union Meeting At that meeting, he presented his updated results which show that the

, December 1980.

stress drop for the earthquake was about 17 bars on one horizontal axis but about 90 bars on the other horizontal axis.

l 3

Although the seismicity may be spatially associated with the surficial boundaries of the plutons, there is no reason to state that all the seismicity is only relieving local stress around the plutons because another observation can be made.

That. is the spatial occurrence of several clusters of seismicity and the focal mechanism also agrees with the orientation of a projection of the Wateree Creek fault (section 2.5.3.2.3).

I k

f e.

m,,,

e

2

\\

4.

The applicant's suggested stress barrier might be better considered a The applicant's arguments support the concept tha continub the rupture on the opposite side of the bound i

event occurs above the boundary, its size is restricted by the boundary.

Thus, if an Dr. Murphy's coment is that events can and have occurred below the boundary and, therefore, the boundary does not intrinsically limit the size of the event.

of seismic activiti below the boundary:The following observations suppo micity above and below 1 km; (2) the USGS stress measurements in that above the stress boundary there is a stress regime that tends to that tends to favor strike-slip type faulting. favor thrust-typ that for the deeper events (<2 km) there is a strike-focal mechanisms.

5.

The applicant's arguments for the limited areal extent of the geological structures in the vicinity of the Monticello Reservoir include obsorva-tions:

generally corresponding to the orter.tation of fractur USGS wells, suggesting that seismicity may be occurring along a network of preexisting fractures which surface geology indicates are not continu-ous over long distances.

(b) The pemeability data from the USGS wells and exploratory borings indicate significant variations eaterally and with depth.

extent of the geological features available for possible ru observations are based only on shallow data (wells and surface geolog The less than 1 km) and may not apply to the deeper earthquakes (depth gre than 1 km).

6.

The level of seismic activity at Monticello Reservoir may be characterized as a low background level that has been punctuated by four swarms (tem

-spotted clusters of seismicity), including activity at initiation rf 911ing.

- f C

It was during the swarms that the largest events to date (M going to vary over the expected life of the V. C. Sum 2.8) occurred.

=

7.

The applicant's calculations show that if 3.2 km (length of the clusters of seismic activity) is taken as the source dimension and 100 bars (Fletcher measured 90 bars at Monticello) as the stress drop, by Brune's model (1970) a magnitude (M ) 5.3 event is possible in the imediate vicinity of the reservoir.

g Dr. Murphy supports his second argument with the following points:

e 1.

The applicant has not adequately supported his assu i

-y-,-

vi.--- - -

9%

- +,. - - - - -,,,

e

3 2.

The applicant's method L; relating MM intensity VI shaking to local ma gnitudi involved:

a.

the use of a relationship between seismic moment and local magnitude whose validity has only been documented to date for southern California earthquakes; b.

an extrapolation of seismic moments from widely scattered data points on a log-log graph.

In summary, Dr. Murphy recommends that an event of magnitude 5 to 5-1/4 occurring in the near-field is sufficiently conservative and should be used for the SSE.

This recommendation is based more on observed flaws in the applicant's arguments and disagreements with his conclusions drawn from available data than on fully independent analyses.

I l

{

~

t l

l

Statement of Professional Qualifications of Andrew J. Murphy My name is Andrew J. Murphy.

I am a Research Seismologist in the Earth Sciences Branch (formerly the Site Safety Research Branch) of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

My education and experience have been in geophysics and seismology.

I attended St. Louis University from 1964-1968, receiving a B.S. degree in geophysical engineering.

I attended Columbia University from 1969-1975 receiving the Ph.D. degree in May of 1975.

fly Ph.D. thesis work concerned the characterization of long-period earth noise and earthquake detection problems.

During the period 1975-1979, I worked at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University as a Research Scientist and Research Associate. My attention was principally to the collection and analysis of seismological data on the seismicity and the tectonics of the northeastern.faribbean Sea area.

I joined the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Retearch in October 1979 as a Pesearch Seismologist.

In that position my duties included the formulation, development, and implementation of research projects in seismology and geophysics.

Currently I am responsible for regional' projects in New England, the southeastern U.S., the Pacific l

Northwest, and the New Madrid Seismic Zone and for topical projects concerning earth-quake recurrence intervals and the attenuation of Lg-waves.

In March 1980, I was detailed to assist the Geosciences Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in preparing the SER for the U.C. Summer Facility.

I examined the problem of reservoir-induced seismicity at the Monticello Reservoir, a l

part of the Summer Facility.

1