ML20196G254
| ML20196G254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1995 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196G123 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR47802, FRN-59FR47802, FRN-59FR52255, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52 AD93-1-102, NUREG-0800, NUREG-0800-02.5.1R3D, NUREG-800, NUREG-800-2.5.1R3D, SRP-02.05.01DRF, SRP-2.05.01DRF, NUDOCS 9705150366 | |
| Download: ML20196G254 (46) | |
Text
i erP9 3 -l tpk 1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10ri s")
2 STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.5.1 February 1995 3
BASIC GE0 LOGIC AND SEISMIC INFORMATION
Contact:
A.J. Murphy 4
PROPOSED REVISION 3 (301)415-6010 5
6 REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES 7
Primary - Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch (ECGB) gy a
9 k
b*
$p(%yQg, 8
Secondary - None (W a 9
I.
AREAS OF REVIEW 4e^
ge e %u w'^4 10 ECGB reviews the geological, seismologicalhand geophysical information ww 11 submitted in the applicant's early sitefeyaluatioh report (ESR) or safety v
uw 12 analysis re art (SAR), Sections 2.5sig 2iS22;and 2.5.3.
Because there is a m
g v.n
)
13 strong overlap among these areas of review'and those of geotechnical aA % %
14 engineering and geohydrology,(the reviesers of these sections of the SARs should also carefully review SRP S,ection 2.5.4 and Section 2.4.12, and closely 15 4
16 coordinate their reviewsfand ffndings with those of the geotechnical y
Y-17 engineeringandthegeohyb.ol6 y reviewers.
For example, coordination with 9
18 geotechnical engineers is required when verification of geological processes affectingthejile',e,uchasthepreloadinghistoryoftheplant'ssoil 19 s
n
,y 20 foundationgby'msans'of glacial and other geologic processes, can be p
-+
21 determined through various geotechnical testing methodologies.
,/.,k k 22 N 3Q This standard review plan is beir.g issued in draft form to involve the public in the early stages of its development. It has not received complete etsff review and does not represent an official NRC staff position.
Pt.blic comments are being solicited on this draft standard review plan, wich is part of a group of drafts of reguistory guides and standard review plan sections on meeting proposed amendments to the regulations on siting nuclear power' plants (59 FR 52255). Comments should be accompanied by appropriate supporting data. Written commente may be submitted to the Rules j
Review and Directives Branch, DFIPS, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. DC 20555.
Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC.
Comments will be most helpful if received by May 12, 1995.
f Requests for eingle copies of this standard review plan (which may be reproduced) will be filled while supplies last. Requests w./
should be in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, V'eshington, DC 20555, Attention: Office of Administration, Distribution and Mail Services Section.
9705150366 970422 PDR PR l
50 57FR47802 PDR
1 References 1 through 8 (regulations and regulatory guides) provide guidance to 2
the ECGB reviewers in evaluating potential nuclear facility sites.
The 3
principal regulation that will be used by ECGB f n the future to determine the 4
scope and adequacy of the submitted geological, seismological, and geophysical 5
information for new nuclear facility sites is 10 CFR Part 100, Proposed 6
Section 100.?3, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Factors" (Ref. 2).
Specific 7
guidance for implementing this regulation can be found in Draft Regulatory 8
Guide DG-1032, " Identification and Characterization of Seismic Sources and 9
Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motions" (Ref. 3).
Guidance 10 regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects is found in Regulatory Guide 11 1.132, " Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants" (Ref. 4).
12 Additional guidance is provided to the ECGB reviewers through information 13 published in the scientific literature.
As the state of the art in the 14 geosciences is advancing rapidly, it is the responsibility of the reviewers to 15 stay abreast of changes by reviewing the current scientific literature on a 16 regular basis, attending professional meetings, etc.
17 Using the knowledge derived from these activities and the geosciences 18 reviewers' own aggregate academic background and experience, ECGB judges the 19 adequacy of the geological, seismological, and geophysical information cited 20 in support of the applicant's conclusions concerning the suitability of the 21 plant site.
22 The geological, seismological, and geophysical information that must be 25 provided by applicants for the site review to proceed is divided into the 24 following thrn basic categories:
25 1.
Tectonic or seismic information.
Information regarding tectonics, 26 (particularly Quaternary tectonics), seismicity, correlation of 27 seismicity with tectonic structure, characterization of seismic sources, 28 and ground motion.
Seismicity and vibratory ground motions are primary 29 review responsibilities addressed in SRP Section 2.5.2.
However, the 30 review and acceptance of the applicant's basic data-gathering processes 31 and findings that are presented in support of these topics, and their 32 completeness, are also integral parts of the re/iew responsibilities 33 covered in this section.
There must be close coordination ai.
..y 2.5.1-2
I geologists, geophysicists, and seismologists in reviewing these 2
sections.
3 Sufficient information must be provided to estimate the potential for 4
strong earthquake ground motions or surfac.e deformation at the site, 5
such as the proximity and nature of potent!al seismic sources, 6
Quaternary geological evidence for faulting, folding, prehistoric 7
earthquakes (i.e., ;;aleoliquefaction features), and other seismically 8
induced features. A complete presentation, including supporting basic 9
data, of the characteristics of the subsurface materials beneath the 10 site must be provided (or cross-referenced with SRP Section 2.5.4) and 11 reviewed by the staff so that an assessment of the potential for 12 amplification of vibratory ground motion or ground failure under dynamic 13 loading can be made.
Potential ground failure modes may include 14 liquefaction, excessive settlement, differential settlement, and those 15 caused by high tectonic stresses. Additionally, for sites adjacent to 16 large bodies of water, information pertinent to estimating tsunami and 17 seiche hazards must be provided, or cross-referenced to SRP Section j
18 2.4.12.
19 2.
Nontectonic deformation information. Adequate information must be 20 provided for an assessment of other nontectonic geological hazards, such 21 as landsliding and other mass-wasting phenomena, subsidence (including 22 differential subsidence), growth faulting, glacially induceri 23 deformation, chemical weathering, the potential for collapse or 24 subsidence in areas underlain by carbonate rocks, evidence of 25 preconsolidation, etc.
26 3.
Conditions caused by h.uman activities.
Information on cnanges in 27 groundwater conditions caused by the withdrawal or injection of fluids, 28 subsidence or collapse caused by withdrawal of fluids, mineral 29 extraction, induced seismicity and fault movement caused by reservoir 30 impoundment, fluid injection or withdrawal must be included in the SAR 31 or ESR and evaluated by the ECGB staff.
l 32 Acceptance Criteria related to the above conditions are presented in SAR 33 Subsections 2.5.1.1 (Regional Geology) and 2.5.1.2 (Site Geology).
This 2.5.1-3 4
i
1 information should be reviewed in terms of the regional and site tectonics, 2
with emphasis on the Quaternary period, structural geology, physiography, 3
geomorphology, stratigraphy, and lithology.
In addition, with specific 4
reference to site geology, the following subjects should be reviewed as they 5
relate to the above-mentioned conditions: topography, slope stability, fluid 6
injection or withdrawal, mineral extraction, faulting, solutioning, jointing, 7
seismicity, and fracturing.
8 The information provided should be documented by appropriate references to all 9
relevant published and unpublished materials.
Illustrations such as maps and 10 cross sections should include but should not be limited to structural, 11 tectonic, physiographic, topographic, geologic, gravity, and mag 1 etic maps; 12 structural and stratigraphic sections; boring logs; and aerial photographs.
13 Some sites may require maps of subsidence, irregular weathering conditions, 14 landslide potential, hydrocarbon extraction (oil or gas wells), faults, 15 joints, and karst features. Some site characteristics must be documented by 16 reference to seismic reflection or refraction profiles or to maps produced by 17 various remote sensing techniques.
18 Maps should include superimposed plot plans of the plant facilities. Other 19 documentation should show the relationship of all Seismic Category I 20 facilities (clearly identified) to subsurface geology.
Core boring logs, logs 21 and maps of trenches, aerial photographs, satellite imagery, and geophysical 22 data should be presented for evaluation.
In addition, plot plans showing the 23 locations of all plant structures, borings, trenches, profiles, etc., should 24 be included.
25 The review can be brought to an earlier conclusion if the ESR or SAR contains l
26 sufficient data to allow the reviewers to make an independent assessment of 27 the applicant's conclusions.
The reviewers should be led in a logical manner 28 from the data and premises given to the conclusions that are drawn without 29 having to make an extensive independent literature search. A literature 30 search will be conducted by the staff at the appropriate level of detail, 31 depending on the completeness of the SAR or ESR. All per tinent data, 32 including that which is controversial, should be presented and evaluated.
The 33 geologic termino!ogy used should conform to standard reference works (Refs. 9 34 and 10).
2.5.1-4
i 1
The primary purposes for conducting the site and regional investigations are 2
to determine the geological and seismological suitability of the site and to 3
provide the bases for the design of the plant. A secondary goal is to 4
determine whether there is significant new tectonic or ground motion 5
information that could impact the seismic design bases as determined by a l
)
6 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) (Refs.11,12, and 13). The 7
objective of Section 2.5.1 of the SAR is to present the results of these l
l 8
investigations and to describe geologic and seismic features as they affect 9
the site under review; all data, information, discussions, interpretations, 10 and conclusions should be directed to this objective.
]
11 II.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 12 The applicable rules and basic acceptance criteria pertinent to the areas of 13 this section of the SRP are given below:
I 14 1.
10 CFR Part 50. Accendix A. " General Desian Cyiteria for Nuclear Power 15 Plants." General Desian Criterion 2. "Desion Bases for Protection 16 Aaainst Natural Phenomena." - The criterion requires that safety-related 17 portions of the structures, systems, and components important to safety 18 be designed to withstand the effects of earthquakes, tsunami, and seiche 19 without loss of capability to perform their safety functions (Ref.1).
20 2.
10 CFR Part 100. Proposed Sgction 100.23. "Geoloaic and Seismic Sitina 21 Factors" (59 FR 52255) - This proposed section of Part 100 would require 22 that the geological, seismological, geophysical, and geotechnical 23 engineering characteristics of a site and its environs be investigated 24 in sufficient scope and detail to permit an adequate evaluation of the 25 proposed site, to provide sufficient information to support evaluations 26 performed to arrive at estimates of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake ground 27 motion (SSE), to preclude sites with potential surface or near-surface 28 tectonic deformation, and to permit adequate engineering solutions to 29 actual or assumed geologic and seismic effects at the proposed site.
It 30 would require the determination of the SSE, the potential for surface 31 tectonic and nontectonic deformations, the design bases for seismically 32 induced floods and water waves, and other design conditions (Ref. 2).
.d 2.5.1-5
1 The following regulatory guides provide information, recommendations, 2
and guidance, and in general, describe a basis acceptable to the staff 3
for implementing the requirements of GDC 2, Part 100, and Section 100.23 4
of Part 100.
5 a.
Draft Reaulatory Guide DG-1032. " Identification and 6
Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of 7
Safe Shutdown Earthauake Ground Motions" (Ref.31 - This 8
proposed guide describes acceptable methods to: (1) conduct 9
geological, seismological, and geophysical investigations of 10 the site and region around the site, (2) identify and 11 characterize seismic sources, (3) perform probabilistic 12 seismic hazard analyses (PSliA), and (4) determine the SSE 13 for the site (see SRP Section 2.5.2.6 and Ref. 14).
14 b.
Reaulatory Guide 1.132. " Site Investiaations for Foundations of 15 Nuclear Power Plants" - This guide describes programs of site 16 investigations related to geotechnical aspects that would normally 17 meet the needs for evaluating the safety of the site from the 18 standpoint of the performance of foundations under anticipated 19 loading conditions, including earthquakes.
It provides general 20 guidance and recommendations for developing site-specific 21 investigation programs as well as specific guidance for conducting 22 subsurface investigations, including borings, sampling, and 23 geophysical explorations (Ref. 4).
24 c.
Reaulatory Guide 4.7. " General Site Suitability Criteria for 25 Nuclear Power Stations" - This guide discusses the major site 26 characteristics related to public health and safety that the NRC 27 staff considers in determining the suitability of sites for 28 nuclear power stations (Ref. 5).
29 The information in the SAR must be complete and thoroughly documented, and it 30 must be consistent with the requirements of Reference 2 and should cos. form to 31 the format suggested in Reference 6.
Information from varied sources, 32 including the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and other Federal er 33 State agencies' published and open file papers, maps, aerial photographs, 2.5.1-6
I geophysical data, and similar data from nongovernmental sources covering the 2
region in which the site is located, are used to establish the staff's 3
conclusions as to the completeness and acceptability of the SAR.
i
)
4 The ECGB reviewers must ensure that investigations, as described in Draft l
5 Regulatory Guide DG-1032 and Regulatory Guide 1.132, are conducted with the 6
appropriate level of thoroughness within the 4 areas designated in Draft 7
Regulatory Guide DG-1032, based on distances from the site:
320 km (200 mi),
8 40 km (25 mi), 8 km (5 mi), and 1 km (0.6 mi).
There must be sufficient 9
information presented in the ESR or SAR on which to base a comparison between l
10 the new data derived from the regional and site investigations and that used i
l 11 in the tectonic and ground motion models of the probabilistic seismic hazard l
12 analysis (Ref. 3).
l l
13 Specific criteria necessary to meet the relevant requirements of General 14 Design Criterion 2, of Part 100, Appendix A, and Proposed Section 100.23 are 15 as follows:
16 Subsection 2.5.1.1, " Regional Geology."
In meeting the requirements of
\\
17 References 1 and 2, the subsection will be considered acceptable if a complete 18 and documented discussion is presented of all geological, seismological, and l
19 geophysical features, as well as conditions caused by human activities.
This 20 subsection should contain a review of the regional tectonics, with emphasis on 21 the Quaternary period, structural geology, seismology, paleoseismology, l
22 physiography, geomorphology, stratigraphy, and geologic history within a 23 distance of 320 km (200 mi) (site region) from the site, to provide a 24 framework within which the safety significance can be evaluated of the 25 geology, seismology, and conditions brought about by human activities.
26 Subsection 2.5.1.2, " Site Geology."
In meeting the requirements of References 27 1 and 2, and the regulatory positions of References 4 and 5 and certain 28 recommendations of Reference 7, the subsection will be judged acceptable if it j
29 contains a description and evaluation of site-related geologic features, 30 seismic conditions, and conditions caused by human activities, at appropriate 31 levels of detail (defined by the distances of 40 km (site subregion), 8 km 32 (site vicinity), and I km (site area) of the site). This subsection should j
33 contain the following general site information:
2.5.1-7
i l
l 1
1.
The structural geology of the site, specifically the identification and 2
characterization of local seismic sources and their relationship to the 3
regional structural geology and seismic sources.
4 2.
The seismicity of the site, including historical and instrumentally 5
recorded earthquakes, and whether there is a relationship to tectonic 6
structure.
7 3.
The geological history, particularly the Quaternary period, of the site 8
and its relationship to the regional history.
9 4.
Evidence of palecseismicity or lack of it.
10 5.
The site stratigraphy and lithology and their relationship to those of 11 the region.
12 6.
The engineering significance of geological features underlying the site 13 as they relate to:
14 a.
Dynamic behavior during prior earthquakes.
15 b.
Zones of alteration, irregular weathering, or zones of structural 16 weakness.
17 c.
Unrelieved residual stresses in bedrock.
18 d.
Materials that could be unstable because of their mineralogy or 19 unstable physical properties.
l 20 e.
Effects of human activities in the area.
1 21 7.
The site groundwater conditions.
22 III.
REVIEW PROCEDURES 23 The staff review is conducted in three phases.
The first phase is the 24 acceptance review, a brief review of the SAR or ESR to evaluate its 2.5.1-8
t 1
j' I
completeness and to identify obvious safety issues that could result in delays 2
at subsequent stages of the review. The judgments on acceptance or rejection l
3 of the SAR or ESR for review are governed by two criteria:
(1) adherence to I
4 the Standard Format (Kef. 6) in identifying and describing the geological, 5
seismological, and geophysical features and the conditions resulting from 6
human activities that affect safety of the site, and (2) provision of adequate 7
information and documentation as described in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1032 8
to allow'for an independent staff review of the conclusions made therein.
9 After an SAR or ESR is docketed, the staff conducts a thorough review of the L
10 material.
In this second phase of the review an effort is made to identify 11 all safety issues.
The reviewer carefully examines the SAR or ESR to see that 12 all interpretations are founded on sound geological and seismological practice 13 and do not exceed the limits of validity of the applicant's data or of other 14 data, such as that published in the scientific literature.
15 At the beginning of this phase of the review, the staff usually seeks 16 assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and decides to what extent 17 consultants should be involved.
The necessary information is then made
\\ -
18 available to the USGS advisors and consultants. Advisors from the USGS and 19 consultants are asked to perform such varied tasks as reviewing the tectonic 20 setting of plants in regions of complex geology, evaluating the potential for 21 surface displacement, verifying an applicant's mineral identifications and 22 geochronology, or providing advice on the proper level of earthquake ground 23 motion in the seismic evaluation of selected sites.
l 24 A review of relevant references is conducted by the staff, USGS advisors, and 25 consultants.
Pertinent references, such as publish'ed geological reports, 26 professional papers, open-file material, university theses, physiographic and l
27 geological maps, and aeromagnetic and gravity maps, are ordered from the 28 appropriate sources and reviewed. Several basic general references used in 29 the past by the staff are References 9, 15, and 16.
GeoRef database (Ref. 17) 30 and other databases, such as References 18 and 19, are used to identify 31 specific references.
32 As publication usually lags behind the completion of research or construction 33 investigation projects by months or years, the reviewers should not rely l
2.5.1-9
i l
1 entirely on information submitted by the applicant or in the published 2
literature. The reviewers should make an effort to identify any pertinent 3
studies that may be under way in the site region and any preliminary findings i
4 of these studies.
This may be accomplished by contacting the U.S. Geological 5
Survey or other Federal agencies, State geological surveys, universities, and 6
industry, to obtain current information about the site.
Some pertinent 7
information may be of a proprietary nature, and special provisions may be i
8 required to examine the data.
9 The staff members will conduct a geological reconnaissance of the site and 10 region around the site as part of the second phase of the review to examine 11 geological features, soil and rock samples from core borings or test pits, 12 trenches excavated across the site, and actual excavations for the plant 13 facilities, if present at this stage.
This site reconnaissance is especially 14 important in view of the revised requirement of 10 CFR Part 52 (Ref. 8), which 15 allows for a combined license as an alternative to the previous two-step 16 requirement of a construction permit followed by an operating license.
In the 17 previous procedure, many geologic features, such as faults (as at North Anna, l
18 Summer, Byron, Catawba, Seabrook, Watts Bar, etc.) that had the potential to 19 impact the safety of the plant were not identified until the actual 20 construction excavations for the plant were made. Additionally, unanticipated 21 engineering problems have occurred during and after construction (as at North l
22 Anna, WNP-2, Nine Mile Point-2).
For example, larger-than-expected 23 settlements have frequently occurred in engineered backfill, even though the 24 design had been approved by the staff during the construction permit review.
25 Under 10 CFR Part 52 it is possible that the construction excavations for a 26 plant will not be made until after the staff prepares the site SER.
27 l
28 During the second phase of the review, questions and comments are developed 29 from items that have not been adequately addressed by the applicant, those 30 which become apparent during the detailed review, or those which develop from j
31 the additional information provided as a result of the acceptance review.
32 These first round questions usually require the applicant to conduct 33 additional investigations or to supply clarifying information.
Questions may 34 result from the reviewer's discovery of references not cited by the applicant 35 that contain conclusions that are in conflict with those made by the 36 applicant.
When the applicant provides insufficient data to support its
~2.5.1-10
1 interpretations and conclusions and there are reasonable and more conservative 2
alternative interpretations in the literature, the staff will request
]
l 3
additional investigations, or require that the applicant adopt the more 4
conservative interpretation. This phase of the review will usually involve l
5 public meetings with the applicant to clarify questions and allow the j
6 applicant to present new data to justify its position. The applicant's response to questions are reviewed and any remaining issues are settled either l
7 8
by a second round of questions or by staff positions.
9 The third review phase is the staff evaluation of the applicant's responses to 10 questions raised in the second phase.
At the end of the third phase, the 11 staff takes positions on all safety-related issues, either concurring with the 12 applicant's positions or taking more conservative positions as may be 13 necessary in the staff's view to assure the required degree of safety.
14 A staff position is usually in the form of a requirement to design for a 15 specific condition in a way that the staff considers to be sufficiently 16 conservative and consistent with the requisites of Reference 2.
When all n^
17 safety issues have been resolved, the staff provides its input to the safety 18 evaluation report (SER).
l 19 Under the combined licensing procedure, as described above, geological 20 features such as faults that were not discovered until after the construction 21 excavations are made, and therefore after the SER has been prepared, would not l
22 have been assessed by the staff.
Likewise, unanticipated engineering problems l
23 such as settlement that occurred during or following construction would not 24 have been evaluated by the staff.
For these reasons, conditions should be 25 included in the SER that the staff conduct a followup site review when the l
26 excavations for the Seismic Category I facilities are open to confirm 27 tentative conclusions presented in the SER, and that final conclusions by the 28 staff are pending the results of this site review unless there is reasonable 29 certainty that such occurrences are unlikely.
30 IV.
EVALUATION FINDINGS 31 If the evaluation by the staff, on completion of the review of the geological 32 and seismological aspects of the plant site and region, confirms that the 2.5.1-11 i
1 applicant has met the requirements of applicable portions of References 1 and 2
2, and the guidance contained in References 3, 4, 5, and 6, the conclusion in 3
the SER states that the information provided and investigations performed 4
support the applicant's conclusions regarding the geological and seismological 5
integrity of the proposed nuclear power plant site.
Staff reservations about 6
any significant deficiency presented in the applicant's SAR or ESR are stated 7
in sufficient detail to make clear the precise nature of concern.
8 The evaluation determinations are made by the staff after the early site, 9
construction permit, or operating license reviews.
A similar conclusion 10 following a combined license review should be tentative until after the staff 11 examines the excavations for the seismic category 1 facilities and determines 12 that there are no previously unknown features, such as potentially active 13 faults, evidence for strong ground motions such as late Quaternary seismically 14 induced paleoliquefaction features, unsuitable soil zones, or cavities in the 15 excavations.
16 This final staff visit, in addition to determining whether there is any new 17 information since the combined licensing review, ensures that the staff 18 recommendations or positions formulated by the staff during the combined 19 licensing review have been implemented.
20 A typical staff finding at the conclusion of the combined licensing review 21 follows:
22 In its review of the geological and seismological aspects of the plant, 23 the staff has considered pertinent information gathered in support of 1
24 the application for a combined license.
The information reviewed 25 includes data from site and near-site investigations, as well as a 26 geological reconnaissance of the site and region, an independent review 27 of recently published literature, and discussions with knowledgeable 28 scientists with the USGS and other Federal agencies, the State 29 Geological Survey, local universities, consulting firms, etc.
O i
l 2.5.1-12 L
I
1 1
Based on its review, the staff concludes that:
2 (1)
Geological and seismological investigations, and other information 3
provided by the applicant and required by the Proposed Section 4
100.23 to 10 CFR Part 100; the staff's independent review of the f
5 data and other sources of information, and a geological 6
reconnaissance of the site and region and examination of 7
excavations for Seismic Category I structures at the site by the 8
staff, provide an adequate basis to establish that no capable 9
tectonic sources or seismogenic sources exist in the plant site 10 area that have the potential of causing near-surface displacement 11 or earthquakes to be centered there.
12 (2)
Based on the results of the applicant's regional and site 13 geological, seismological, and geophysical investigations, and the 14 staff's independent evaluation (which is conducted' primarily by 15 the reviewer of Section 2.5.2 but supported by the reviewer of 1
16 this section), the staff concludes that all seismic sources 17 significant to determining the SSE for the site have been k
18 identified and appropriately characterized by the applicant in 19 accordance with Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1032 and SRP Section 20 2.5.2.
l l
21 (3)
Based on the applicant's geological, geophysical, and geotechnical 22 investigations of the site vicinity and site area, the staff 23 concludes that the site lithology, stratigraphy, geological 24 history, structural geology, and characteristics of the subsurface 25 soils and rocks have been properly characterized.
26 There is no potential for the occurrence of other geological l
27 (4) l 28 events (such as landsliding, collapse or subsidence caused by 29 carbonate solutioning, differential settlement) that could 30 compromise the safety of the site; or the applicant has mitigated 31 such occurrences and has adequately supported the engineering 32 solutions in the SAR.
O 2.5.1-13
1 (5)
There is no potential for the effects of human activity, such as 2
subsidence caused by withdrawal or injection of fluids or collapse 3
due to mineral extraction, that compromises the safety of the 4
site; or the applicant has taken steps to prevent such occurrences 5
and has adequately supported these actions in the SAR.
6 (6)
If this is a combined license review, the conclusions stated under 7
(1) above are pending until confirmation by the staff, after a 8
detailed examination of the walls and floors of the excavations 9
for the seismic category 1 facilities and the applicant's 10 geological map of these exposures; and an examination by the staff 11 of the applicant's engineering solutions to mitigate any 12 nontectonic geological hazard.
13 The information reviewed for the proposed nuclear power plant is discussed in 14 Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3.
15 The staff concluded that the site is acceptable from a geological and 16 seismological standpoint and meets the requirements of (1) 10 CFR Part 50, 17 Appendix A (General Design Criterion 2) and (2) 10 CFR Part 100, Proposed 18 Section 100.23.
This conclusion is based on the following:
I 19 1.
The applicant has met the requirements of:
20 a.
Appendix A (General Desian Critorion 2) of 10 CFR Part 50 21 with respect to protection against natural phenomena such as 22 earthquakes, faulting, and collapse.
23 b.
Proposed Section 100.23 (Geoloaic and Seismic Sitina Factors) to 24 10 CFR Part 100, with respect to obtaining the geclogic and 25 seismic information necessary to determine (1) site suitability 26 and (2) the appropriate design of the plant.
In complying with 27 this regulation the applicant also meets the staff's guidance 28 described in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1032, " Identification and 29 Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe 30 Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion"; Regulatory Guide 1.132, " Site 31 Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants"; and 2.5.1-14
~ _..
~
__.m i
1 Regulatory Guide 4.7, " General Site Suability Criteria for Nuclear i
2 Power Stations."
3
.V.
IM'PLEMENTATION i
j 4
The following is intended to provide guidance to applicants and licensees 5
.regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this SRP section.
i i
6 Except in-those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable j
7 alternative method for complying with specified portions of the Commission's regulations, the method described herein will be used by the staff in its 8
1 9
evaluation of conformance with Commission regulations.
i 10 Implementation schedules for conformance to parts of the method discussed 11 herein are contained in the referenced regulatory guides.
12 The provisions of this SRP section apply to reviews of construction permits 13 (CP), operating licenses (OL), early site permits, and combined license.
I
_14 (CP/0L) applications docketed pursuant to the proposed Section 100.23 to 15 10 CFR Part 100.
16-VI. REFERENCES 17 1.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A,-General Design Criterion 2, " Design Bases 18 for Protection Against Natural Phenomena."
19 2.
10 CFR Part 100,' Proposed Section 100.23, " Geologic and Seismic Siting 20 Factors" (59 FR 52255).
21 3.
US NRC, " Identification and Characterization of Seismic Sources and 22 Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motions," Draft 23 Regulatory Gulde DG-1032.
1 24 4.
US NRC, Regulatory Guide 1.132, " Site Investigations for Foundations of j
25 Nuclear Power Plants."
j l
2.5.1-15 i
)
1 5.
US NRC, " General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations,"
2 Regulatory Guide 4.7 (Proposed Revision 2, DG-4004).
3 6.
US NRC, " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for 4
Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition)," Regulatory Guide 1.70.
5 7.
US NRC, " Report of Siting Policy Task Force," NUREG-0625, August 1979.
6 8.
10 CFR Part 52, "Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications; and 7
Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
8 9.
R.L. Bates and J. Jackson, editors, " Glossary of Geology," Second 9
Edition, American Geological Institute, Falls Church, Virginia, 1980.
10 10.
S.M. Colman, K. L. Pierce, and P. W. Birkeland, " Suggested Terminology 11 for Quaternary Dating Methods," Ouaternary Research, Volume 288, pp.
12 314-319, 1987.
13 11.
J.B. Savy et al., " Eastern Seismic Hazard Characterization Update,"
14 Lawrence Levermore National Laboratory,, UCRL-ID-ll5111, June 1993.
15 12.
US NRC, " Revised Livermore Seismic Hazard Estimates for Sixty-Nine 16 Nuclear Power Plant Sites East of the Rocky Mountains," NUREG-1488, 17 April 1994, 18 13.
Electric Power Research Institute, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard 19 Evaluation of Nuclear Power Plant Sites in the Central and Eastern 20 United States," Volumes I through 10, NP-4726A, 1989.
21 14.
Electric Power Research Institute, " Guidelines for Determining Design 22 Basis Ground Motions," EPRI Report TR-102293, Vols. 1-4, May 1993.
23 15.
A.L. Odom aid R. D. Hatcher, Jr., "A Characterization of Faults in the 24 Appalachian Foldbelt," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-25 1621, 1980.
O 2.5.1-16
1 16.
G.V. Cohee (Chairman) et al., " Tectonic Map of the United States," U.S.
rs
(
)
2 Geological Survey and American Association of Petreoleum Geologists 3
1962.
4 17.
GeoRef Data Base, American Geological Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.
5 18.
American Petroleum Institute data base, accessible through RECON system, 6
19.
RECON / Energy Data base, Department of Energy.
l
+
J
]
m.-
i I
2.5.1-17
4o
,V
'l J
l 1
t]
Printed on recycled paper O
Federal Recycling Program
. l..
b.:
UNITED STATES FIRST CLASS MAIL NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION POSTAGE AND FEES PAID WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 USNRC PERMIT NO. G-67 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300 I
l l
4 t
i i
4 l
l 1
2
?
1 l
1 i
J 1
4
.., _.,..,,,-, _..... ~
.. - _ _,-.....