ML20202J106
| ML20202J106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Seiberling J HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202J110 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604150544 | |
| Download: ML20202J106 (6) | |
Text
._.
+
g
/
UNITED STATES N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!ON h
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.....,/
APE 4 l
The Honorable John F. Seiberling j-k U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 fu-9 M L i
Dear Mr. Seiberling:
l Thank you for your letter of March 25, 1986, addressed to Chairman Palladino.
Since the issues addressed in your letter will be considered in a future Commission meeting, your letter has been referred to me for response. The response which follows reiterates in part the testimony which we will present 1
i on April 8,1986, before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
I NRC regulations (Appec.Ex A to 10 CFR Part 100) state that the applicant and staff are to consider the possible effects caused by man's activities on a plant site, such as withdrawal of fluid from or addition of fluid to the subsurface, extraction of minerals, or the loading effects of dams or reservoirs. As such, the staff routinely examines man-made conditions near plant sites. The staff considers the possibility of subsidence or collapse caused by withdrawal of fluids or mineral extraction and induced seismicity and fault movement caused by reservoir impoundment and fluid injection or withdrawal.
The NRC staff does not coordinate the siting of nuclear power plant loca-tions with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or any federal government I
agency with regard to the location and utilization of deep well injection reguldtion.
If deep well injection were suspected of triggering earthquakes near a nuclear power plant site, the staff would ask the applicant to evalu-ate the situation. As an example, at the Perry plant site in Northeastern Ohio, salt solution mining and naturai gas and oil production were evaluated by the applicant and the NRC staff during the Construction Permit review.
Salt solution mining has been conducted within 5-1/2 miles west of the site.
No solution mining was being considered in the site area. Nevertheless, the applicant, in order to preclude subsidence which might result from any future mining operations, acquired mineral rights for both on:hore and offshore lands within a 3,000 feet exclusion boundary.
I Currently, both natural gas and a limited amount of oil are being extracted l
commercially in northeastern Ohio. Salt exploration wells drilled in the site vicinity encountered no commercial gas reserves. The nearest com-mercial gas production is from the Madison Lake Pool, some W miles south-l east of the site. Gas, not in commercial quantities, is extracted for home l
use from the Chagrin shale in the site vicinity. The staff considered i
subsidence due to extraction of gas or oil to be highly improbable.
l 8604150544 060404 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
l John F. Seiberling The mineral rights which were acquired within the exclusion boundary (3000 feet) as well as within 1800 feet of all safety-related structures, l
will also minimize the possibility of any subsidence due to oil or gas production.
Your letter asked if any of the licensed nuclear power plants are operating near known fault lines. The NRC regulations (10 CFR 100, Appendix A) require the identification and evaluation of tectonic structures underlying the site and the region surrounding the site, whether buried or exposed at the surface.
There are many faults in the Unitdd States that are geologically old, but Appendix A requires the determination of whether these faults are considered to be capable faults. The term " capable fault" was established as a measure of the likelihood that a fault could cause surface rupture and/or i
localize earthquake activity. The term has since gained worldwide use in the geologic and seismologic profession as a more precise definition for
" active fault." Four basic elements are used in Appendix A to establish
+
whether or not a fault is a " capable fault." These are:
(a) movement on a fault within the past 35,000 years or multiple movements within the past 500,000 years, (b) a correlation with " macro-seismicity," (c) a relation-ship to a known " capable fault," and (d) for non-capability, a structural association with geologically old structures, i
The capable fault concept is derived from observations of highly active faults located in the western United States where there is relatively high, ongoing tectonic activity in areas characterized by rugged topography, high rates of crustal deformation, and large and frequent earthquakes. Although it was developed with western geology in mind, Appendix A applies this concept uniformly across the entire United States, including the area east of the Rockies where rates of tectonic activity are relatively low.
In the western United States there are two operating nuclear power plants located near capable faults - Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. Diablo Canyon is three miles from the Hosgri fault and San Onofre is 6 miles from the Offshore Zone of Defor-mation. The Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant is also located very close to what may be a capable fault but that facility is no longer authorized to operate.
In the eastern United States we know of no capable faults near licensed nuclear power i
plants. Current or projected deep well injection authority has not been limited or stopped near these sites or fault lines.
The NRC staff has concluded that no significant plant damage was sustained by the Perry nuclear power plant due to the January 31, 1986 earthquake. However, the NRC's consultant, the USGS, and the applicant's consultants are exploring the possibility that injection of chemical wastes in two wells about 3 miles south of the Perry plant and about 7 miles north of the epicenter of the recent earthquake may have been related to the earthquake. At this time the staff finds an association between the wells and the earthquake to be unlikely due to the lack of earlier seismicity associated with the wells and the fact that the recent earthquake was about 7 miles from the wells.
In addition, seismicity was observed in this region prior to construction of the wells, a
i m
r John F. Seiberling,'
However, on the basis of concerns expressed with respect to these injection wells by the USGS and the NRC, the applicant has agreed to pursue seismic monitoring of these injection wells.
We hope this infonnation addresses your concerns.
Sincerely, (Signed) Jack W. Roe Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations Identical letter to:
The Honorable Dennis E. Eckart U. S. House of Representatives DISTRIBUTION See next page u
- Previously concurred:
PD#4/PM PD#4/D BWEB,,
DD/BWR OELD D/BWR DD/NRR C 'T l' *JStefano
- WButler
- BDLiaw
- RHouston
- JGray
- RBernero DGEisenhut
[y '03/31/86 03/31/86 04/01/86 04/01/86 04/01/86 04/01/86 04/4/86 D
HRDen o VSt 10 04/ 2 /86 04/
86
/
\\
John F. Seiberling However, on the basis of concerns expressed with respect to these injection wells by the USGS and the NRC, the applicant has agreed to pursue seismic monitoring of these injection wells.
We hope this information addresses your concerns.
Sincerely, Victor Stello, Jr., Acting Director Office of the Executive Direc+or for Operations E
osufe:s Se of' Qts &'A!(
DISTRIBUTION See next page
)
p BW ~
BDL a(w,h (DD' PD#4/PM PD#4/D
,p/M'.
DD/NRR JStefano WButler BlWufton S(rSy
$5 rne'o DGEisenhut 03/3\\/86 0&3(/80 04/el/86 04/
/86 04/ l /86 04
/86 04/ /86
/
D/NRR D/EDC '
HRDenton VStelio 04/ /86 04/ /86 I
i
(
'e.
e,,
DISTRUBUTION GREEN TICKET NO. 001589 Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR EDO #001589 ED0 Reading HDenton/DEisenhut Glainas JKnight DCrutchfield PO#4 Reading Woodhead, OELD i
OCA SECY VStello PPAS(ED0#001589) DMossburg RBernero/LKriesel JStefano M0'Brien JDavis JKeppler JTaylor GCunningham i
l
- I jo,,
UNITED STATES
~
8 NUCLEAR REIULATORY COMMISSION o
D E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 k"#l a
ACney VY EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
==
(
FROM:
DUE: 04/02/86 EDO CONTROL: 001589 f
DOC DT: 03/25/86 i
REP. DENNIS E. ECKART FINAL REPLY:
REP. JOHN F. SEIBERLING TO:
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO j
FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- PRIORITY **
SECY NO:
A DESC:
ROUTING:
s i
OUESTIONS ON PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STELLO ROE DATE: 03/27/86 REHM ASSIGNED TO: NRR CONTACT: DENTON SNIEZEK i
~ _ _ _ _
DAVIS l
GCUNNINGHAM i
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
-TAYLOR KEPPLER COORDINATE RESPONSE WITH NMSS.
l m
NRR RECEIVED: MARCH 27, 1986 D
W 5
I ACTION:
-DSL:8ERNER0
(
1 g
J NRR ROUTING:
DENTON/EISENHUT PPAS MOSSBURG
.j