ML20136E685

Forwards marked-up Final Rule Setting Out Necessary Editorial & Format Corrections Re App E to 10CFR50, Consideration of Earthquakes in Emergency Planning

ML20136E685
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/04/1985
From:	Philips J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Jamgochian M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML20136D809	List: ML20136D806 ML20136E606 ML20136E685 ML20136F238 ML20136F289 ML20136F441 ML20136F940 ML20136G130 ML20136G165 ML20136G173 ML20136G275 ML20136G290
References
FOIA-85-653 NUDOCS 8511210550
Download: ML20136E685 (10)

Text

,.

o

( ( ( ( '

1. .-.,'o, UNITED STATES 8' o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D. C. 20555

& ,i l"~~

WP 4 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Michael T. Jamgochian Division of Risk Analysis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: John Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

SUBJECT:

REVIEW 0F FINAL RULE (SECY-85-283) CONSIDERATION OF EARTHQUAKES IN EMERGENCY PLANNING The Rules and Procedures Branch has reviewed for the first time, the final rule, currently before the Commission (SECY-85-283), that amends Appendix E to Part 50 to require limited consideration of the complicatingWe effects of severe, low have enclosed a marked-up frequency natural phenomena in emergency planning.

copy of the final rule that sets out necessary editorial and format corrections.

These changes should be made prior to submitting the rule for publication in the Federal Register. We have limited our coments in this review to those we believe are necessary to meet Federal Register requirements and to those necessary to correct typos.

The Office of the Federal Register does not permit the use of any additional, agency developed captions, such as implementation, in its required preamble fomat (1 CFR 18.12). The infomation presented under the implementation caption in this final rule may be included under the Effective Date heading as indicated in the mark-up or inserted in the Supplementary Information portion of the preamble as a separate paragraph.

Because your Federal Register notice references several NRC publications (NUREGs), the Supplementary Infomation must contain the following statement:

Copies of NUREGs may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, D.C.

20013-7082. Copics may be purchased also from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Comerce, 5285 ,

l Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is available also l for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2055. 1 i

This statement should be inserted as a single spaced footnote following the first reference to a NUREG - on page 6 of this draft of the FRN. Before publication of this final rule you should check with TIDC to ensure that the l

NRC has adequatt: stock of the referenced NUREGs.

q

.s 8511210550 851106 j PDR FOIA I 1

l BELL 85-653 PDR

cm., a

- e am .m .m.m., ~..,. m.:.mm. mm a.;..,mA . g., ....,a ,

Michael T,.4Jamgochian _2- Sgp 4 1985 The final rule has been forwarded to the Document Management Branch, TIDC for their review concerning the paperwork management aspects of this rulemaking.

You may find in the future that DRR review of rules prior to their submission as SECY papers permits a more thorough and helpful review. If you have any questions, please call me on ext. 27086 or Michael T. Lesar of my staff on ext. 27758.

/9l John Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosure:

As stated i

RDG SUBJ MLESAR JPHILIPS OFC :ADM:DRR: :A DRR  :  :  :  :  :

NAME :MLESAR/BKG . :JP4  :  :  :  :  :

@S

.___.:._______.___:__y ______:.___________:____________:_________.__:______ .... :______.....

DATE :9/'//85 :9/4y85  :  :  :  :  :

1 5eb'(.ItW'

' NOTE T,0: Jim Knight ht htY %h hk eGes.cy fl***mf (SCP PS- .)

I FROM: Leon Reiter The proposed rule is better than that originally put forward in the Federal Register in that it does give some consideration to earthquikes. It is not as j good as that proposed by the ACRS in their letter of June 10, 1985 (attached). The principal difference between the ACRS recomendation and the new role centers about what kind of study would be useful. The ACRS believes that the TERA study done for Diablo Canyon would fill the bill while the PoJ3 proposed role clearly rejects this (see page 2). Aside from rejecting the

TERA study the proposed rule also makes, what I consider to be some doubtful

arguments. On page 2 (point 1) it is argued that evacuation times should not i

be estimated in that they are too uncertain. I view evacuation times much i,

like PRA estimates (which are at least as uncertain) namely, the estimation of ,

4 evacuation times is most important in that it exposes the wegk ifnks in the system. Like PRA the " quantitative" aspect of estimation forces us to look at the way things go wrong in a systematic manner. If we can live with safety l

1

{

goals we surely can live with estimation of evacuation times. The wording In point 2 on page 2 also makes me a little uneasy. There clearly could be some benefit at _some sited to reinforce bridges etc. The rule should state that utilities should not be required to do this. In California around Diablo

! Canyon the state has reinforced some bridgeg.

I On page 11 of enclosure 1 (issue 3),-I'am happy to see that the artificial

! constraints originally posed for not considering events beyond the SSE have been dropped.

? O f

L  :+ n hb

l On page 13-14 of enclosure 1 (issue 5), I am not aware of the basis for the statement that fragilities used in PRA's are very conservative. I also find the comparison of point estimates for seismic and internal cove melts without mentioning uncertainty to be inappropriate.

^

On page 14-16 enclosure 1 (issue 6) these are several questionable statements. For instance we have never concluded that the design basis for eastern L43 plants may be understated. What we are having trouble with is twhereit defining the seismic margin tats.;;t in the design basis. Similarly the statements about piping has little relevance to the issue being raisedj defects in seismic design and quality assurance.

On page 25 of enclosure 1, there is a statement 'about aftershocks which looks at only one aspect of the problem. No systematic investigation jthat I am aware of, has been made into the topics of aftershocks.

On page 33 of enclosure 1 (item 3), is the statement requiring the state and jocal 9( site emergency plans to meet certain criteria qn opening to litigation 3 In conclusion I think_we have a better rule than we had originally but it week still has some weak points and may hit some arguments.

O w + - , - - , ,- e --

e There has been a lot of activity this podwt week over in RES concerning the rule. I must have gotten 10 phone calls asking for information on various aspects of seismic hazard and PRA. Apparently my presence was not wanted. I understand that today (September 6,1985) there was a briefing to W. Dircks by RES with NRR, 18E and ELD participation. The Connission meeting will take place on September 9, 1985.

f*w Leon Reiter I

2

, , k[/Ob '

) (g g

. 'b UNITED STATES g ~k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\ .. . p$ ..

\

'O , Oct %romog eCA )

NOTE TO: Th ehm Joe: Ber-/a.p.,r ce. M N ",

we.cas drq y $ $ '

FROM: Leon Reiter w= g .

SUBJECT:

EARTHQUAKE MAP 0F THE U. S. FOR CONGRESSMAN MARKEY'S SUBCOMMITTEE Attached are copies of two earthquake maps I am providing at your request for transmittal to Congressman Markey's Subcommittee. These maps were photocopied from the publication " Earthquake History of the United States", Publication 41-1, Revised Edition (Through 1970) Reprinted 1982 with Supplement (1971-1980), U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.

These maps are small scale and the earthquake location synbols take up a very large area. The locations of the earthquakes are based primarily on " felt" reports for the historic events and, therefore, the locations and detection threshold are a function of the population density and vary with time and location. The location of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) is indicated by an arrow on the maps.

There are two other maps which may be of interest to the Congressional Subcomittee. These are " Seismicity Map of the Conterminous United States and Adjacent Areas, 1965-1974," Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-812, U. S.

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia,1977, and " Earthquake Epicenter Map of California 1900 through 1974," Map Sheet 39, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1978.

We have only one copy of each of these maps. Since we use them in our day to day activities we would prefer that they be obtained directly from the issuing agencies or that we provide our copies at the last appropriate moment.

It may be advisable to provide these maps since they are large (several feet in width) and may provide alternate and/or clearer perspectives.

We think it is important that those involved in the subcommittee hearing on July 10 be made aware of the maps being forwarded.

\

Leon Reiter cc: H. Denton J. Knight R. Bosnak i

f s

i j

I

.e 5 5f . j ..*

f EJRTHQUAKEHISTORY OF THE ~

UNITED STATES

\

Publication 41-1 Revised Edition (Through 1970)

Reprinted 1982 With Supplement (1971-80)

L Edited by Jerry L. Coffman and Carl A. von Hake NOAA, Environmental Data and Information Service Carl W. Stover U.S. Geological Survey  ;

l l

Q '

i ,jg

-f A

-: -//A . o

+ s-[

z- -

- s g INN m .;ij!! h.J $'

~

r .< -

N ...'" /., f,

' g( ;i '

- d .. ' .

k ,

. 2 ,

kl $=1 id5 g asa#2!!sfM $y'asnagg gf % d9 'lwlMk( " p.gl eM

l U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. National Oceanic and Atmospheric l Administration and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Geological Survey Boulder, Colorado ,

- 1982 l l

l

v o ,

y , -

l J.'8/h o j ,, ,, t" a- o' i

}. _. o\

y  ;

\ '2l" %';*s. \o i!:s!. .

I '

< o i

\ \ *

.s l  : i s \ o e

. ..s -

\ . ,4=. \

[~~*

.., ='"a

. _..- . \

., ~,

v;.

o. . ..

. ., f .. 4 . = .

. ,: . ,. 1

,i c

. , .5 ,- .

~~. ..

~

g .

1 di . . .

.  ! ".. 4 *i

• i .i -y-

, .S  ;

Io w a ra t,

l

..I

. i. ": .- **

.P ,

, ' *~ i' -'

.g .. L _. .

r.. .

. = .

i i

. r, .

,- 7  ; .

'3* a i,a - -

't

. ;- , .- .g -- . g =v ,

mc ian y

, \

. ?- -

d. . ,I, ,4. soir *

,e.,,A -/ .  ;

. .T i K

f

.m .

. . . Q. .

-4;. i

..... .1

. ,. . . . , q* . C' ' 1

-+'-

.c. j< --

t _ ,

% 1

.. n, ~ . .g ?. ~...

,. .t. , a t a. -

_a u=== 6 l . .- ..,, ~..: . .~ .

_ .a-

= . ,

t.

g.s

',f S 3,f ( l --- ~

1.. ..m _ . , , -. ,.  : .

.. m , ~9. - l ,

sg . .g,t i,

.%C ' i.

, .l  ; .

., .,, I

. i ,l, t' ' ,

• ~../..._ ,, . . it u > "

)

. ' ' ' ' . . h.\ - .

- ~

-. j i

~-c.s.. ,.  ; y , ,. =..

g

. 2

.- .- G. .

s,. .'

Q .. . k, .. gr 'f' m , l

~'~ ~ ?~ "~'

LA. ..;_...--- +

q  !  ; ~. , .

'~~'~~,'

W& N s f f

• I

.,5 P- - .

-\

is,

.' _ _ . . . . . .. -- 3

.. {, .

e i

_I.ECEN D  :

g

}

i i

.g. ,/ / 5 gg, .a j i

. Intensity V.VII

( . ers c.ut .i.)

. .- i.

t .

/ . , .

8

, .. k . . ;. .. ...

• Iaten'ily VII-VIII ~}! .~...e 3.. " \

j

,.. \ k.... e Insensity Vill-IX  ; ei.i . ca a.c .a4 ain we.< am s"*.- l .- < s..i.e.

, 4  ; , jo i @ Intensity IX X r ... ae.i o. . se.... t

, , h . ..J .eaf ' ~ . . .. .. ]. i

""' " n,,,we agig go '

+

. . . . . 3 h interisity X.XII --

,,. _, . . . ,,, , , , .-- ,;. c. i r..o.,i. ace unienerv .n.: 36 .) in o.e u .a <.

--- = - - - -

.:. . r . i.r t

i I

t 130* I:Y I:o* tis

• sio* tos* Ic:P sy se ey er ty

~ to= ss.

L.'-

l .

.r. .

- - Q ..i..

a V' 4'I

f. . .

h.~r

-l. m

. s

^

?, (=Q

.; -l .

), . ,

j - 3 m a m 40

..1:

e

i

) )

Y . ..v' C f

• e .

.  :,  := a

• e ' e -l

. . " -e* E * .......;.

• S  :

(-

l s a . .m. "

g

=

x,.,

-]

to sv . ;

T '

4 , * :?

=

e i

e. f-*~e ..

e_ f- E,v

'"d" s

.a.e. . , , a

, , s84 .% N 3MD m.*

e .

e Inten.ity V

=

se. . .

. - =

e insen ity \.l

.I; r

.. j ... , * . *

. o e insen.isy Vil-)lli

• e-

, 7 .. ,,, ,

' @ Intensity IX

%(

, ., Intensity X tv  : -

A

\ c

... . l ..

t ..:

• Je. . . n

• x..

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

=

National Geophysical Data Center <

Figure la.--Earthquake intensities in the conterminous United States. 1971-80. .

! I em.e. --s>-

0a f 1

i i

'l I

l .

Question 1-b. Compared to other reac' tor sites, is the Diablo' Canyon site of low to moderate seismicity?

Response: The seismological community generally uses terms such as high, moderate and low seismicity in a relative rather than a clearly defined absolute context. Compared to other reactor sites in California the seismicity (seismic activity) in the vicinity of the 01.ablo Canyon site is about the same as that in the vicinity of the San Onofre site and is greater than in the' vicinity of the Rancho Seco site. In general, compared to reactor sites in the eastern United States (sites east of the Rocky Mountains) the seismicity in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site is greater.

Question 1-c: Compared to other reactors, is Diablo Canyon built to more or less stringent seismic standards? Specifically what, if any, reactors have more stringent seismic design requirements?

Response: Although they are not exactly the same the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre reactors have the most stringent seismic standards of all U. S. reactors.

.. r r

v%

)

t lL i