ML20027C402
| ML20027C402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Vandewalle D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| TASK-02-04, TASK-02-04.B, TASK-2-4, TASK-2-4.B, TASK-RR LSO5-82-10-029, LSO5-82-10-29, NUDOCS 8210150488 | |
| Download: ML20027C402 (17) | |
Text
.
Q October 12., 1982 Docket fio. M-155 LS05-82-lC
)
1 Mr. David J. VandeUalle Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consuners Power Conpany 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. VandeWalle:
SilBJECT:
SEP REVIEW TOPICS 11-4, GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY AND II-4.8, PROXIMITY OF CAPABLE TECTONIC STRUCTURES IN PLAf4T VICINITY -
BIG ROCK POINT Enclosed is a copy of our evaluation for Systematic Evaluation Progran Topics 11-4, Geology and Seisnology and 11-4.3, Proxiuity of Capable Tectonic Structures in Plant Vicin;ty. These assessnents compare your site condition, as described in the dncket and references with the criteria currently used by the staff for licensing new facilities.
Please inforn us if your s!te condition differs from the licensing basis assumed in our assessnents.
Based on infomation currently available, we conclude that there are no capable faults that pose a hazard to the Big Rock Point. However, because the SMrock beneath the site is limestone and can, under proper conditions, dissolve,the staff needs additional information with regard to solution cavities. This concern remains an open issue in our review. With this exception, our review of these topics is complete and this evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety gh assessment for your facility unless you identify changes needed to reflect the existing site condition at your facility. These topic D$ubiI{#g}
assessnents may be revised in the future if NRC criteria relating to these topics are modified before the integrated assessment is conpleted.
Sincerely.
Dennis H. Crutchfield, Chief h g M 05000155 88 822012 Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing P
PDR A
L F
ia
Enclosure:
f hM
/C//23 10/
82 As stated omc.,
....ss...v1.e.c.1 au.r.m........SEPB:
SEPB:DQp SIPB:DL 0RB#5:PM f5:BC
, aaeme A,,
w au s,s e,i i,,,,,,,,atmcng,,, g,
,,,,,,,,,e,1, a S
sux ue>....,9,e next g,9e
,a
,,a,g
.l.
. 2........l.0141R......1.01.hlE.......1.0151E.....-i.si$82.....
om>
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi-sam Nnc roav ais oo-soi nacu c24a
Mr. David J. VandeWalle cc Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary U. S. Environmental Protection Consumers Power Company Agency 212 West Michigan Avenue Federal Activities Branch Jackson, Michigan 49201 Region V Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative Judd L. Bacon, Esquire 230 South Dearborn Street Consumers Power Company Chicago, Illinois 60604 212 West Michigan Avenue
" Jackson, Michigan 49201 Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Joseph Gallo, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Isham, Lincoln & Beale Washington, D. C.
20555 1120 Connecticut Avenue Room 325 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Washington, D. C.
20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Peter W. Steketee, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20555 505 Peoples Building Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman U. S. NQclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Sig Rock Point Nuclear Power Pl-ant ATTN: Ms. C. J. Hartman
.r-Mr. John O'Neill, II FTant Superintendent Route 2, Box 44 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Maple City, Michigan 49664 Christa-Maria
~~~ Mr. Jim E. Mills Routh 2, Box 108C Route 2, Box 108C Charlevoix, Michigan -49720 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 William J. Scanlon, Esquire Chairma' 2034 Pauline Boulevard County board of Supervisors Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Charlevoix County Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Resident Inspector TE Big Rock Point Plant 0'f fice of the Governor (2) c/o U.S. NRC' Room 1 - Capitol Building RR #3, Box 600
.,, Lansing, Michigan 48913 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 1 --.;
. Herbert Semmel Hurst & Hanson Counsel for Christa Maria, et al.
311 1/2 E. Mitchell
_,c-Urban Law Institute Petoskey, Michigan 49770 Antioch School of Law 2633 16th Street, NW Washington, D. C.
20460 l
s Mr. David J. VandeWalle cc Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Ms. JoAnn Bier 204 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Thomas S. Moore Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 O
l l'
e 9
.__. m __._ _..
_... =. _.
.w SEP - BIG ROCK POINT TOPICS II GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY, AND II-4B - CAPABILITY OF FAULTS IN THE SITE REGION 1
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Identification of Safety Issues The SEP topics addressed in this chapter are the geology portion of Topic II-4, Geology and Seismology, and Topic II-48, Capability of Faults in the Site Region. The seismology section of Topic II-4, Topics II-4A, and II-4C are addressed in " Final Review and Recommendations for Site Specific Spectra at SEP Sites" (memorandum from R. E. Jackson to W. T. Russell, 20 May, 1981).
Based on our review to date there are no capable faults in the site vicinity or in the region around the site.
Bedrock beneath the site is limestone of the Gravel Point formation.
Extensive solutioning has taken place in this formation in northeastern lower penninsula Michigan east of the site, partic-ularly in Presque Isle County about 40 miles to the east.
Because of the much thicker soil cover in the site region, it is very unlikely that unstable solution cavities of sufficient size to present a potential subsidence or collapse problem are present beneath the site, however, the staff concludes that it would be prudent to conduct additional investigations to confirm that they don't exist.
Other than the remote possibility of cavernous conditions, there are no geologic hazards in the site area.
- 1. 2 Scope of the Review Th,e purpose of this review was to determine whether or not there was a surface faulting or other geological hazard that could affect the site. The SEP review of the geological aspects of this site consisted of:
(1) evaluation of information included in the 1961 Final Hazards Summary Report, which included core borings, lab test data, and geological and geotechnical reports; (2). two geological reconaissances of the site and region around the site; (3) a review of pertinent references from the published literature (see bibliography);
(4) a study of airphoto stereo pairs (scale 1-24,000) of the area around the site and USGS 15' quadrangle maps; (5) a review of Safety Evaluation Reports for the Haven and Midland nuclear sites; and (6) a review of two recent reports that summarized investigations carried out to obtain information pertinent to the Systematic Evaluation Program:
l l
1-1
- l. - - _
_. _ I _ __.. __.___,_.,... _ __
_._.__a__._
a._.
v.
" Geophysical Cross-Hole Survey, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan" by D'Appolonia, and " Solution Features in the Traverse Group of Northwestern Michigan" by Harding-Lawson Associates.
In the early stages of this review two concerns were identified by the staff:
(1) faulting in Lake Michigan based on the interpretation of seismic reflection profiles; and (2) the possibility of large cavities or cavernous conditions beneath the plant based on the karst-like topography beneath Little Traverse Bay, the susceptibility of the Gravel Point formation in other areas to so'lu-tioning, zones of poor reco.ery and RQD (Rock Quality Designation) in some of the site exploratory borings, and the presence of three large sinkholes and an open cavern in quarries near the site.
Our evaluation of the available data leads us to conclude that the faults in Lake Michigan, if they exist, are very ancient and therefore not capable according to Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 100.
The bases for that conclusion are presented in Section 5.2.
We find that it is very unlikely that cavernous conditions are present directly under the plant, but consider it prudent to conduct additional investigations to confirm that finding. We discussed this concern with Consumers Power Company (CPC) in 1979, resulting in the Harding-Lawson report (Harding-Lawson, Associates, 1979). We don't consider that report to be adequate to provide the necessary assurance on this matter.
CPC was informed of this in June, 1979, during a site ' visit, and during several telephone contacts since t: it time. We have not received the results of an investigation, therefore ws regard this as an open issue.
I l
l l'
l l
f 1-2 7
4 2
REVIEW CRITERIA Current licensing criteria which governed our review of the safety issues addressed in this chapter include Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," and NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.3.
e 2-1
.._.__._.i..a_.
.a.
..1.....__
3 RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES The geotechnical engineering aspects of the site are closely related to the topics covered in this chapter. They are addressed under Topics II-40. II-4E, and II-4F.
Topic II-4F is dependent on information from this chapter.
l l
I I
l l
9 3-1
.----..y._z.,_.
l 4
REVIEW GUIDELINES Certain principals set forth in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" were used in this review to provide guidance in identifying and evaluating tectonic structures in the site region to determine whether or not any of them are capable.
Chapter 2.5.1 of NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan guided the staff in its assessment of geologic features in the site area related to the potential for faulting, subsidence or collapse, landslides, weathering, or other foundation instabilities.
Chapter 2.5.3 of the SRP was utilized for guidance in considering the following subjects:
the structural and stratigraphic conditions of the site and vicinity (Subsection 2.5.3.2), any evidence of fault offset or evidence demonstrating the absence of faulting (Subsection 2.5.2.2), earthquakes associated with faults (Subsection 2.5.3.3), determination of age of most recent movement on faults (Subsection 2.5.3.4), determination of structural relationships of site area faults to regional faults (Subsection 2.5.3.5),
identification and description of capable faults (Subsection 2.5.3.6), and zones requiring detailed fault investigations (Subsection 2.5.3.7).
4-1
.._...__.A.--
.__....m.3.,...
~
-. a"
-e.=
?.
5 EVALUATION 5.1 Geology-Topic II-4 5.1.1 Regional Geology The Big Rock Point site lies within the Great Lakes Section of the Central Lowlands Physiographic Province (Thornbury,1965).
The dominant features of this section were caused by glaciation and include lakes, large and small, prominent end moraines, outwash plains, closed basins forming swamps or lakes, eskers and drumlins, and vast areas of rolling ground moraine between the end moraines. Because of the direction of advance and retreat of the last glacia-tion, lower penninsula Michigan has a strong surficial northwest-southeast grain. This is also the principle structural trend in Paleozoic rock.
Bedrock beneath the site area consists of limestones and shales of the Traverse Group of Middle Devonian age (395 million years before present (mybp) to.
375 mybp) (Harding-Lawson Associates, 1979).
Three formations of the Traverse Group are exposed in the site region:
the Petoskey, Charlevoix, and Gravel Point formations. The bedrock immediately beneath the site is the Gravel Point formation because the Petoskey and Charlevoix have been eroded away.
In the site vicinity, the Gravel Point formation is about 200 feet thick and consists of a variety of rock types but is primarily a gray to brown, fossil-iferous limestone that varies from massive to thin bedded.
Interbedded with the limestone strata are beds of shale and shaley limestone. Much of the southern shoreline of Little Traverse Bay from Charlevoix to Petoskey is formed by outcrops of the Gravel Point formation.
The rock in the site area is overlain by several tens of feet of till, glacial lakebed, glacial outwash, and windblown deposits.
The site is located in the Central Stable Region Tectonic Province (Eardley, 1962). This province is characterized by major domes, basins, and arches which formed during the Paleozoic Era (570 mybp to 240 mybp). The site lies above the northern flank of the Michigan Basin, which is one of the large tectonic structures in the Central Stable Region.
I Bedrock in the site region dips at a low angle to the southeast toward the i
I center of the Michigan Basin.
Superimposed on this regional dip in the site region, are gentle undulations caused by the presence of minor synclines and anticlines.
These folds strike generally northwest-southeast and plunge to the southeast (Harding-Lawson Associates, 1979). The axes of major folds within Paleozoic rocks of the Michigan Basin also have northwest-southeast trends.
Regional jointing in the northern Michigan Basin have four major vertical joint sets:
N52*E, N46*W, N89*W, and N1*E (Holst, 1982).
These trends are present in the site region with the northwest set being the most prominent (Harding-Lawson Associates, 1979). The joints are usually tight and widely spaced, but locally they have been widened by solutioning. The sinkholes 5-1 y-..-._._................_
- -..~._._
~
....:.=
exposed in the quarries in the area appear to be aligned along major joint trends.
Solutioning in the region is discussed in Section 5.1.3.
The Michigan Basin has been relatively stable for seven
.iundred million years and is therefore relatively undeformed.
Faults have been identified in Paleozoic rocks in the basin, however, no major faults are known in the site The faults in the basin are believed to be pre-Pennsylvanian (more than area.
330 mybp).
They do not offset Pleistocene (10,000 years to 2 mybp) glacial deposits.
Minor faults related to ancient solution collapse features have been observed in local quarries.
Faults have beer postulated, based on seismic reflection profiling in Lake Michigan. These faults have been evaluated and interpreted to be not capable (USNRC, 1978).
Faulting in the region and site area is discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.
5.1.2 Site Geology The site is located on the south shore of Little Traverse Bay where it opens into the northern end of Lake Michigan.
Elevations range from about 580 feet mean sea level (ft. ms1) at the lake shore to +700 ft msl about one mile inland.
Elevation at the site is +590 ft ms1.
From the lake shore to about one mile inland the terrain is a lowland that was once submerged beneath ancestral Lake Michigan.
The topography is chara;terized by low beach ridges with swampy areas in between.
From one to five miles from the lake elevations range from +700 to +900.
This area is a till plain with drumlins that rise forty to sixty feet above it.
A drainage divide is present in that area from which surface water and shallow groundwater flow north to Little Traverse Bay and south to Lake Charlevoix.
It is also the probable recharge area for minor artesian zones in the soil beneath the site.
The geology of the site was investigated by Consumers Power Company (CPC) in several phases. Two exploratory boring were drilled into the top of bedrock in May,1959, and seven additional borings were drilled into rock in February, 1960.
In 1979, three borings were drilled to determine the dynamic characteristics of the soil and rock beneath the site.
Tha site lies within the outcrop belt of Devonian limestones of the Traverse Group, and the rock directly below the plant is the Gravel Point formation.
It consists of brown and gray, broken to massive limestone with clay seams and interbedded shale, claystone and siltstone layers (D'Appolonia, 1979). Between depths of about 130 and 190 feet the limestone contains vuggy zones and core recovery and RQD (Rock Quality Designation) percentages were low. The line-stone bedrock is overlain by about 40 feet of soil. The upper eight to ten feet consists of denso, fine to coarse sand with gravel and some boulders.
l Below the sand and extending to bedrock is very dense till. The till consists of clayey, fine to medium sand with limestone fragments, cobbles and boulders.
The water table varies seasonally, but is usually several. feet above the normal level of Lake Michigan.
i
(
The till and massive bedrock beneath the site are competent foundation materials, however, the Gravel Point limestone is susceptible to solutioning.
In northeastern lower penninsula Michigan, karst topography is well developed in the Devonian limestones. This may be due to the relatively thin cover of glacial deposits in that area.
In the site area solution features are more I
subtle and apparently far less common, but several significant features have 5-2
.. _, - 11... ~.1. !.....
been found. A more detailed discussion of limestone solutioning is included in Section 5.1.3.
Other than the slight possibility of cavernous conditions beneath the site, there are no geologic hazards at this site.
5.1.3 The Potential for Subsidence or Collapse Due to Solutioning When the staff first considered the possi' ility of solution features beneath o
the site two concerns came to light:
(1) the possible existence of a large cavern under the site that could ultimately cause subsidence or collapse; and (2) the possibility of the development and enlargement of a new cavern during the life of the plant.
These concerns arose after a review of the literature and a site visit by an NRC geologist on 16 November, 1978 (memorandum for RP Denise from A.T. Cardone, 6 March, 1978).
The bases for the concerns are:
(1) the existence of 3 large sinks and an open cavern in the Penn-Dixie and Medusa quarries, which are located 8 miles to the east and several miles to the southwest respectively; (2) the suscep-tability to solutioning of the Traverse Group limestones which comprise the site bedrock; (3) the karst-like topography of the rock surface offshore beneath Little Traverse Bay where there is little or no soil cover; and (4) poor rock recovery in the original site exploratory borings and the discovery in 3 recent borings of a vuggy zone between 130 and 190' depths.
In their report entitled " Solution Features in the Traverse Group of Northwestern Michigan" Harding-Lawson Associates, geologist consultants for Consumers Power Company, presented data supporting their conclusion that extensive solutioning is not going on in the site area at the present time, nor has it likely been for the past several thousand years.
The evidence cited includes:
(1) the sinks present in the quarries are filled with undis-turbed glacial deposits including sand, gravel and till; thus dating the solution holes as being at least Late Pleistocene age (2) the open cavern in the Penn-Dixie quarry had been bridged by 60 to 80 feet tf rock before excava-tion and was well below the present level of Lake Michigan, indicating that it probably formed when the level of the Lake was much lower than it is today.
l (3) Movement of groundwater through the rock, related to the wide range of fluctuation of the surface of ancestral Lake Michigan during the Pleistocene, is believed to have caused most of the more geologically recent solutioning activity.
The level of Lake Michigan and the local groundwater surface have I
been relatively stable since the lake reached its present level after the close of the Pleistocene.
(4) The site region is covered by a olanket of relatively impermeable soil, causing most precipitation to run off rather than percolate down and move through the rock.
(5) Extensive karst topography is not apparent at ground surface in the site area.
f Based on the evidence available to date, it is not likely that significant solution activity is going on in the rock beneath the site, nor is it likely that there are large caverns beneath the site sufficiently close to the surface to cause subsidence or collapse beneath the plant, as indications of this condition would probably-have already been observed during or shortly after construction twenty years ago.
However, because of the scarcity of information on the condition of site bedrock it was considered prudent to perform additional studies to confirm its competency.
l 5-3 l
-~
Because of the uncertainties the staff requested additional investigations to provide greater assurance that there were no large cavities in the upper limestone bedrock beneath the plant. A site meeting was held on 19 July, 1979 and several telephone conversations were made on 24 September, 1979 among the NRC and CPC and its consultants to discuss NRC concerns and the appropriate investigative techniques needed to solve the problem (USNRC 19798 and C).
On 24 September, 1979, the staff requested that a plan of investigations be submitted to NRC for review.
In spite of numerous fc110w-up contacts with CPC representatives, we have not received the results of the investigation.
Although the presence of a cavern directly beneath the plant shallow enough to present a hazard is unlikely, it is not a sufficiently remote possibility that it can be completely disregarded. We consider this to still be an open item in this review.
Another ground failure concern that was raised was the possibility of subsidence and collapse due to the dissolution of salt at depth beneath the site.
Wold (1980), based on the examination of the available seismic reflection profiles in Lake Michigan interprets the presence of faults, which he attributes to collapse structures formed by the dissolution of salt within the zone of outcrop of Middle Silurian (445 mybp) through Middle Devonian (360 mybp) strata.
The site lies within this zone.
Based on our review we don't consider this phenomenon to represent a hazard to the site because:
(1) the site is underlain by a relatively thick section (400/500 feet) of Upper Devonian rocks with little or no salt deposits (based on studies by Dr. T. Buschbach of outcrops, quarries, hydrocarbon exploratory borings, and water well logs); and (2) the section of rocks that are of concern, in addition to being overlain by a thick sequence of Upper Devonian rocks, are also overlain by 40 feet of glacial deposits.
There is no apparent evidence of collpase features at depth in the glacial soil at the site.
5.2 Capability of Faults in tne Site Region - Topic II-4B Major faulting has not been recognized in the subregional area around the site. Although the Michigan Basin has a long history (hundreds of million years) of relative tectonic stability, large-scale structures have been mapped within it, primarily in areas of hydrocarbon exploration and production.
During geological studies in regard to the Midland Nuclear site, a pattern of orthogonal northwest-northeast mild deformation was mapped on several Mississippian and Devonian stratigraphic horizons (USNRC, 1982).
Faults were inferred to be associated with that pattern. These investigations showed that the inferred taulting could not be demonstrated to extend upward into overl.ying Pennsylvanian strata, therefore the faults, if they exist are at least Late Mississippian in age (more than 330 mybp). Deformation was also identified in Pennsylvanian rocks south and east of the Midland site.
It was demonstrated however that these distortions were formed by soft sediment deformation that i
occurred during or shortly after deposition and were not tectonically derived (USNRC, 1982). All faults in the region around the Midland site were concluded to have occurred prior to the Pennsylvanian period (more than 330 mybp). That conclusion is consistent with observations on the regional geologic history of the Michigan Basin (Haxby et al.,1976; Cross,1982; and Fisher,1979 and 1982).
5-4
=eseso
+pe==
aw eapee
--=w
- w..
-....-ope.
m==* am -,. - --
wo-m-imm--
w3w.
I The intrabasin structure is dominated by a subparallel set of northwest-southeast anticlinal flextures that are asymmetric in cross-section with the strong dip toward the basinward side.
They are best defined in the eastern, southeastern, and central portions of the basin.
Several prominent features located far to the south of the plant site, namely the Howell antiline, Albion-Scipio syncline, and the Lucas-Monroe monocline, are postulated (but not proven) as having west-flanking faults in their Paleozoic strata (USNRC 1982).
Several faults are located on the southeast flank of the Michigan Basin that have mid-Paleozoic displacements.
These are the Bowling Green Fault, located in northwestern Ohio, with youngest displacement being of upper Silurian age, and faults associated with the Chatham sag, Ontario, Canada. The latter system of faults, which includes the Electric and Osborn faults, indicates that the Chatham sag was inactive after middle Devonian time (more than 350 mybp).
A series of major folds in the Paleozoic rocks characterizes the Michigan Basin (Holst, 1982). A prominent northwest striking joint set may be related to this structural grain.
It is likely that faults are associated with these structures, but based on regional associations, these faults are not capable.
During the staff review of the Wisconsin Electric Company's (WEPCO) Haven site several sources of seismic reflection data indicated the possible presence of NNE and NW trending faults beneath Lake Michigan.
The staff reviewed these and other data gained during WEPCO's investigation, and studied the seismicity of the Lake Michigan region.
Based on thr.t review (memo from R. Denise to
- 8. Grimes, Octcber 11, 1978) the staff coocluded that (1) faulting within Paleozoic strata in the Central Stable Region is wide' spread in rocks that are Mississippian age and older (320 mybp), therefore, the discovery of faults, or the inference of faulting within Mississippian or older units beneath Lake Michigan is not surprising; (2) no historic earthquake epicenters have been plotted in Lake Michigan, and (3) the faults beneath fate Michigan are geologically old and pose no potential to increase the earthquake hazard of the region.
There are other structures like those described above within and around the Michigan Basin. All of these structures are considered by the staff to be post Devonian to pre Pleistocene (345 mybp to 1 mybp) with most activity occurring in the Late Paleozoic. This conclusion is based on the observation that all Paleozoic rocks are affected by the. structures, with Mississippian being the youngest; and there is no evidence that the faults cut Pleistocene sediment.
Several minor faults have been reported in the site area.
One small fault mapped by Pohl (1929) was reported as not displacing the Petoskey formation, and is therefore more than 360 million years old.
Faulting described in the Penn-Dixie quarry (Walden,1977) is related to solution slumping because they do not extend below the sinkhole in the north wall (Harding-Lawson Associates, 1979).
We assume that there are probably minor faults in bedrock in the site area because faults have been mapped in Paleczoic rocks throughout the Michigan Basin. There is no evidence, however, of fault displacement of Pleistocene 5-5
......s
_ a ; -
_f l
soils that cover bedrock in the region. We conclude that there are no faults within the site region that could be expected to localize earthquakes in the site vicinity, or that could cause surface displacements at the site.
Based on our review, it is the staff's conclusion that there are no tectonic faults that represent a hazard to the continued safe operation of the Big Rock o int.
o 9
5-6
.... ~.. -..
' ~~
. u. 22 :
.L
...u
..L
~. - - - - - - - - - ~
6 CONCLUSION Geological investigations that have been carried out in the site area and throughout the Michigan Basin have not found any indication of fault movement in the recent geologic past.
Evidence has been found throughout the basin that indicates that the latest movement that occurred along known faults was at least 330 million years ago. No evidence has been found that faults displace Pleistocene deposits.
No faults have been identified at the site, however, if they exist, they like all known faults in the Michigan Basin are not capable according to Appendix A 10 CFR, Part 100.
Salt deposits lie at depth beneath the site.
It has been postulated that inferred faults in Lake Michigan are the result of collapse due to dissolu-tion of salt. We conclude that this phenomenon doesn't present a hazard to the plant because of thick limestones over the salt deposit, and there is no evidence of it having occurred in at least the last 10,000 years in the Pleistocene soils that cover rock in the site area.
Although-the presence of large solution cavities in the limestone bedrock beneath the site that could cause subsidence or collapse is considered unlikely, the staff concludes that additional demonstration of that condition should be provided.
6-1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _
REFERENCES 1.
Ayers, J.
C., V. E. Noble, C. F. Powers, and W. E. French, 1961, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant Hydrological Survey; prepared for Consumers Power Co., Nov., 1961.
2.
Cross, A. T. (1982) " Review and Comments on the February 1982 Report by Weston Geophysical Corporation." Report to Consumers Power Company, 10 p. Mich. State Univ.
3.
Consumer Power Company, 1961, The Hazards Summary Report, Vol. II, Docket No. 50-155.
4.
D'Appolonia, 1979, Geophysical Cross-Hole Survey, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant Charlevoix, Michigan; for NUS Corporation, Rockville, Md.,
January 1979.
5.
Dorr, J. A., Jr. and D. F. Eschman,1971, Geology of Michigan; University of Michigan Press, 2nd Printing.
6.
- Eardley, A., 1962, Structural Geology of North America; Harper and Row, 743 pp.
7.
Fisher, J. H., (1979) " Structural Evolution of Michigan Basin and Its Petroleum Potential." Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. Bull. 63 450-451.
8.
Fisher, J.
H., (1982) " Review of Weston Geophysical's Report (February 1982) on the Bedrock Structura in the Vicinity of the Midland Nuclear Plant." Report to Consumers Power Company, 11 p. Mich. State Univ.
9.
Harding-Lawson Associates, 1979, Solution Features in the Traverse Group of Northwestern Michigan; prepared for Consumers Power Company, July 18, 1979.
10.
Hough, J. L.,1958, Geology of the Great Lakes, University of Illinois Press, Urbana,1958.
11.
Holst, T.
B., 1982, Regional Jointing in the Northern Michigan Basin; Geology Vol. 10 pp 273-277, Pay, 1982.
l 12.
Institute of Science and Technology, Great Lakes Research Division, 1961, Big Rock Nuclear Power Plant Hydrological Survey; Univ. of Michigan,'
Special Rep' ort No. 9, Nov. 1961.
13.
Kesling, R.
V.,
R. T. Sehall, and H. O. Sorensen, 1974, Devonian Strata of Emmet and Charlevoix Counties, Michigan; Papers on Paleontology No. 7.
14.
Pohl, E.
R., 1929 The Middle Devonian Traverse Group of Rocks in Michigan, a summary of existing knowledge:
Proc. U.S. National Museum, v. 76, art. 14, 34 p.
R-1 l
l
.mn
, ;.yy;
_1.
_~
~
a '.
s.,7 : xW,L.
y% yj.',. m)cjygg ~ ^ tQ
- a m..
[?
, ~'
u m M. x p %g$ & f gg W!
g-w
' 9; ' i : d Ol?
QMM 7
[,
l
$fl '
- py;$
0 Raymond Concrete Pile Company,1959. Test Bo. ring R8 Port; w
.mn
.. m :
15.
RaymondConcretePileCompany,1960,TestBoringReport;10Feb.,11980.j@N"P M
16.
.O:ff &&
Q 3,:
-!y
- 17. Soil Testing Services, Inc., 1960, Soil Report on the Subsurface 4 MQM W, ( f Investigation from the Big Rock Point Plant in Charlevoix, Nichigen;' Sgfpffg 7 March, 1960.
e
> q, %.s; wM r.~
18.
Thornbury, W.
D., 1965, Regional Geomorphology of the United. States;
.g.fhh p.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
.v. n 4AjQ
- > x::.W w-
%py 19.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1982, Safety Evaluation Report,
. SM Midland Nuclear Power Plant; Docket No.'s 50-329/330.
a ik k
20.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979A, Status of Reviww-81g Rock
_ ' N.,
f!?
Memorandum for R. P. Denise from A. T. Cardone.
Point Systematic Evaluation Program Review-TAC No. 07342; 6 March, 1979, "y 27
.'W.
e p
~ ;y h:
21.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1979B, Summary of Site Visit and Y
W
Inspection for Big Rock Point SEP Review; 6 August,1979, Memorandum for R. E. Jackson from J. T. Greeves and R. B. McMullen.
p y'
22.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979C, Bedrock Solutioning at Big ii:
Rock Point, Docket No. 50-155; 28 Sept.,1979, Memorandum for R. E. Jackson
^
from J. T. Greeves and R. B. McMullen.
e 23.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1978A, Impact of Faulting Near the f
Haven Site on Other Nuclear Power Plants; 25 September meno. fro.a
$7 -
R. C. DeYoung to V. Stello.
W p
24.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,19788, Preliminary Evaluation of W'
Faulting in Lake Michigan; 11 October,1978 memorandum for B. Grimes l'
from R. Denise.
- 25. Walden, W. A.,1977, Sink Hole Formation in Quarry Floor at Petoskey
~
i Plant, Section 3, T34N, RGW, Emmet County; 7 January, 1977 letter report, Z
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources.
- 26. Wisconsin Utilities, 1978, Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report, Haven Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Project No. 541.
4 27.
Wold, R.
J., 1980, Review of Lake Michigan Seismic. Reflection Data; 7
USGS Open File Report 80-902; prepared on behalf of USNRC.
28.
Wold,R.J.,R.A.Paull,C.A.Wolosin,andR.J.Friedel,1981,Geo)ogy of Central Lake Michigan; AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 65/9, September,1981, pp 1621-1632.
29.
Zumberge, J.
H., 1961, Geology and Hydrology of the Proposed Reactor Site of Big Rock Point, near Charlevoix, Michigan; The Hazards Summary
'T Report.
/
/
R-2 4;
7;
...~..
, m ~