ML20148M639

Suppl Testimony of NRC Staff on Geology of Proposed Site for Subj Facil.Staff Concludes That Capable Faults Do Not Exist Beneath Hudson River

ML20148M639
Person / Time
Site:	Green County
Issue date:	11/07/1978
From:	Caldwell D, Kelleher J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20148M544	List: ML20148M541 ML20148M546 ML20148M551 ML20148M557 ML20148M564 ML20148M577 ML20148M595 ML20148M611 ML20148M622 ML20148M632 ML20148M639 ML20148M649
References
NUDOCS 7811220092
Download: ML20148M639 (7)

Text

.. _ ____ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -

.y a

4 .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE Docket No. 50-549 7 NEW-YORK )

)

(Greene County Nuclear Power Plant)

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF NRC STAFF ON GE0 LOGY OF THE PROPOSED SITE by Donald M. Caldwell John A. Kelleher l

781122 do 7p i

Donald M. Caldwell John A. Kelleher 1 This supplemental testimony is offered in response to Greene 2 County, et al., Unstipulated Contention I.C, which states:

3 Greene County et al . , Unstipulated Contention I.C 4 The PSAR does not adequately assess the geology of the site I

5 and the risk it may impose in terms of nuclear safety. One 6 basis for the Board's acceptance of this contention is that 7 the Applicant's purported description of the geology of the l 8 Cementon site is not, in fact, a description of this site 9 but relates to an area located approximately 15 miles away.

10 and the portion of Shirley A. Brand and Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents' i

Il Stipulated Contention 2 which states:

12 Neither is the geological data and evaluation sufficient )

13 to determine the site's geological suitability for nuclear 14 power development. Submarine geology under the Hudson River 15 has not been adequately investigated and evaluated.

f 16 Detailed investigations have not been carried out regarding the 17 geologic conditions underlying the Hudson River. An evaluation has, 18 however, been carried out based on regional considerations. This 19 evaluation leads the Staff 'to conclude that capable faults do not 20 exist beneath the River. This conclusion is based on two lines of 21 evidence. The first is related to the tectonic evolution of the region 22 and the second is the absence of any coherent pattern of seismicity 23 such as is coninonly associated with active faulting.

24 The tectonic evolution of the region surrounding the site is well 1

(

i

a

. . 1 Donald M. Caldwell John A. Kelleher

) i understood in terms of the ages and effects of the deformational

! 2 events which have occurred within it. (SeeSections 2.5.2-2.5.5 of the

'3 Safety Evaluation Report for a discussion of the tectonic evolution of 4

the site area and surrounding region.) The principal events which have 5

affected the region occurred approximately 450-500 million years ago 6 (Taconic orogeny), 360 400-million years ago (Acadian orogeny), and 7 190-200-million years ago (Palisades disturbance). In the site area 8 (5-F11e radius), the deformational features are faults of Taconic age 9 and folds of Acadian age. No younger deformation has been described in 10 the literature or revealed as a result of the site investigation.

11 Therefore, we have concluded that any deformational features which may ,

1 12 be present beneath the River are no younger than 360-million years old.

13 Appendix A to 10 CFR 100 defines capable faults in Section III,g. as 14 follows:

15 (g) A " capable fault" is a fault which has exhibited one or 16 more of the following characteristics:

17 (1) Movement at or near the ground surface at least once 18 within the past 35,000 years or movement of a recurring nature 19 within the past 500,000 years.

(2) Macro-seismicity instrumentally detennined with records of .,

20 )

' 21 suf ficient precision to demonstrate a direct' relationship with the fault, 22 23 (3) A structural relationship to a ca'pable fault according to

>24 characteristics (1) or (2) of this paragraph such that movement 2

I Donald M. Caldwell John A. Kelleher 1 on one could be reasonably expected to be accompanied by 2 movement on the other.

3 No evidence suggests that any structures in the site area display any 4 of the three characteristics of capable faults cited above.

5 The requirement to evaluate natural phenomena for design purposes is contained in 10 CFR 50; General Design Criterion 2 of Appendix A. l 6

7 Site evaluation factors are given in 10 CFR 100 and Appendix A 8 to that Part sets forth " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for 9

Nuclear Power Plants." Appendix A describes how the Safe Shutdown 10 Earthquake shall be determined and how faults shall be investigated l

11 and evaluated for their potential as seismic generators and for surface 12 displacement. j 13 Regulatory Guide 1.70 Revision 2 (Standard Format and Content 14 of Safety Analysis.1 Reports for Nuclear Power Plants) specifies in 15 Section 2.5 the geological information which must be provided by the 16 applicant and considered by the Staff in evaluating a proposed site.

17 Section 2.5 includes discussions of information needed to evaluate 18 regional and site geology.

19 Sections 2.5.1 (Basic Geologic and Seismic Information) and 2.5.3 20 (Surface Faulting) of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Standard 21 Review Plan describe the procedures to be followed'in reviewing the

22 required information.

23 The Applicant has met the requirements stated above by providing 24 the information which is contained in Section 2.5 of the PSAR. Based 3

l l

l Donald M. Caldwell John A. Kelleher I on this information, the Applicant has concluded that 0.20 gravity 2 is an adequate seismic design acceleration and that there is no hazard 3 of surface faulting at or near the site. 1 4 The Staff has reviewed the content of the PSAR and the Applicant's 5 conclusions in conformance with the regulations and guidance cited above.

6 The Staff's evaluation and conclusions are stated in Section 2.5 of 7 NUREG-0283 (Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Construction of 4

8 Greene County Nuclear Power Plant), i 1

9 In accord with the procedures set forth in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.3 10 the Staff considered geologic, seismic and man-made features on a 11 regional as well as site-specific context. Physiography, geomorphology, 12 stratigrphy, lithology, geologic history and tectonics were considered 13 on both a regional and site-specific basis. Topography slope stability, 14 mineral extraction, faulting, shearing, jointing and fracturing were 15 considered on a site-specific basis. With reference to faulting, the 16 following subjects were considered:

17 1. The structural and stratigraphic conditions of the site 18 and vicinity.

19 2. Evidence of fault offset.

20 3. Earthquakes associated with faults.

4. Determination of structural relationships among site 21 22 area faults and regional faults.

5. Identification of capable faults.

23 24 The infonnation supplied by the Applicant in the PSAR provides 4

s; .

1 Donald M. Caldwell I l

John A. Kelleher l

1 an adequate basis for its analysis of the geology of the site. On 2 the basis of these data and other sources of information available to tfie Staff, we have concluded that the site is geologically acceptable. j 3

4 The NRC Staff reviewed the text and figures included in the PSAR 5

which relate to the on-site investigations (mapping, boring and 6

trenching;- See 82.5 of the PSAR) carried out to describe the geology 7

of the Cementen sit a and has visited the site during some phases of 8

the investigations. On the basis of our review and observations we 9

find that the PSAR does describe the geology of the Cementon site.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5

DONALD M. CALOWELL GEOLOGIST

. GEOSCIENCES BRANCH DIVISION OF SITE SAFET', AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I presently reside at 7909 Tilbury My name Street, is Donald Bethesda, M. Caldwell.20014, and am employed as a Geologist, Maryland Geosciences Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor R'egulation.

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from the City College of the City University of New York in 1969. From 1969 to 1974 I attended Columbia University where I received a Master of Science degree in 1971 and a Master of Philosophy degree in 1974.

While at Columbia I majored in geology and specialized in sedimen-tology, geomorphology and marine geology. The major part of my research as a graduate student at Columbia was in the area of coastal-zone processes, however, I was employed for one summer as a research assistant at Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. In this capacity I participated in investigations of tectonic processes operating in the deep ocean basins. I have also taught introductory geology courses at Columbia and Lehman College of the City University of New York.

My employment with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission dates from --

October 1974. My responsibilities in my present position include the evaluation of safety-related geological aspects of reactor siting.

I am a member of the Geological Society of America, American Associ-ation of petroleum Geologists, American Geophysical Union, and Geological Society of Washington, O. C. ,

I