ML20203C114

Forwards Responses to Congressman Markey Questions 39 & 40, Per 860331 Request

ML20203C114
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/03/1986
From:	Bernero R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Funches J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20203C120	List: ML20203C114 ML20203C122
References
NUDOCS 8604210013
Download: ML20203C114 (12)

Text

.. -

APR 0 3 1986 i

MEMORANDUM FOR: Jesse L. Funches, Director Planning & Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

FROM:

Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of BWR Licensing

SUBJECT:

DBL RESPONSE TO MARKEY QUESTIONS 1

Enclosed are responses to Que.stion Nos. 39 and 40 from Congressraan Markey that you requested DBL to address in your memorandum dated March 31, 1986.

gesstas181sMA DT8$

go a.r;. M. Bernow l

Robert M. Bernero, Director

{

Division of BWR Licensing l

Enclosure:

As stated 1

DISTRIBUTION N chet File-NRC PDR" Local PDR PD#4 Reading P0Brien JStefano 1

J

.h 4

1 gg42ggp 3 $$$f,

b

,k p9 3)9 L

A g

j

1. 4/PM PD#4/D BWD1h B

y '\\

D' D/BWR tefano:lb WButlerb RHermann TLiaw on RBernero 64 As 0 /0$/86 04/f,/86 04/p/86 04/v/86 04/t./86 04/3 /86 of/pB4 t

yf

'o, UNITED STATES y % c c (,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 gkv/E f

Ss, * *. * *,a j

I 031986 APR MEMORANDUM FOR: Jesse L. Funches, Director Planning & Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of BWR Licensing

SUBJECT:

DBL RESPONSE TO MARKEY QUESTIONS l

Enclosed are responses to Question Nos. 39 and 40 from Congressman Markey that you requested DBL to address in your memorandum dated March 31, 1986.

/

l Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of BWR Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated I

4 i

i a

i i

l I

i

i s

~

i QUESTION 39.

PLEASE PROVIDE AN UPDATE OF THE NRC'S REVIEW 0F THE JANUARY 31, 1986 EARTHQUAKE NEAR THE PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, YOUR RESPONSE I

SHOULD ADDRESS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A SEISMIC EVENT IN EXCESS OF THE PLANT'S DESIGN BASIS.

I 4

l a

ANSWER.

l SINCE OUR LETTER TO YOU DATED MARCH 13, 1986, THE ADVISORY i

COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS (ACRS), IN A LETTER TO THE l

CHAIRMAN DATED MARCH 17, 1986, CONCURRED WITH THE NRC STAFF'S i

l EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, (DOCUMENTED IN PERRY SUP-I PLEMENT SER NO 9), THAT THE JANUARY 1986 OHIO EARTHQUAKE DID NOT DAMAGE THE PERRY PLANT AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR 4

REVISING THE PLANT'S SEISMIC DESIGN GASIS.

THE ACRS AGREED WITH THE STAFF'S FINDING THAT A LOW POWER OPERATING LICENSE MAY BE ISSL'ED FOR THE OPERATION OF PERRY UNIT 1.

THE POINTS ENUMERATED l

IN THE ACRS LETTER ARE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:

i l

l 4

MARKEY/ED0 APRIL 1, 1985

QUESTION 39. (CONTINUED).-

1.

THE EARTHQUAKE WHICH OCCURRED NEAR LEROY, OHIO, WAS CHARAC-TERIZED BY RELATIVELY LOW ENERGY, LOW VELOCITIES, SMALL DISPLACEMENTS, A SHORT DURATION, AND A RESPONSE SPECTRUM RICH IN HIGH FREQUENCIES.

EXCEPT AT THE RELATIVELY LESS SIGNIFICANT HIGHER FREQUENCIES, THE EXCITATION OF THE PLANT STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT WAS MUCH LESS THAN THAT CONSIDERED IN THE SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS.

2.

NO SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE WAS OBSERVED AT THE PERRY PLANT DURING THE INSPECTIONS WHICH WERE PERFORMED BY CFI AND THE NRC STAFF.

CEI, BY USING ANALYSES AND COMPARIS0lS WITH PRIOR l

QUALIFICATION TESTING, FOUND THAT ALL OF THE STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT ANALYZED THUS FAR HAVE SUBSTANTIAL MARGINS OF SAFETY RELATIVE TO THE LOADS AND STRESSES INDUCED BY THE EARTHQUAKE.

THE ACRS CONSULTANTS CONCURRED WITH THAT CONCLUSION.

3.

THE ACRS SUPPORTS THE NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED CONFIRMATORY ACTION PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES THE ANALYSES OF A LARGE SAMPLE OF PLANT EQUIPMENT, AND WHICH WILL INVOLVE SEVERAL ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY CEI PRIOR TO THE NRC AUTHORI ING PLANT OPERA-TION ABOVE 5% OF RATED THERMAL POWER.

MARKEY/ED0 APRIL 1, 1986

l OUESTION 39. (CONTINUED) !

4.

THERE CURRENTLY EXISTS SOME POSSIBILITY THAT THE JANUARY 31, 1986 EARTHQUAKE IS RELATED TO DEEP WELL INJECTION ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE PERRY PLANT SITE AND THE TOWN OF LEROY, OR DUE TO PAST SOLUTION MINING.

THE NRC STAFF HAS ENGAGED THE SERVICES OF THE U.S. GE0 LOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) TO i

i EVALUATE THESE HYPOTHESES TO SEE IF THERE REALLY MAY BE A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJECTION WELLS AND THE EARTH-QUAKE AND, IF S0, WHETHER THERE IS ANY LIKEllH00D OF SUB-STANTIALLY LARGER EARTHOUAKES IN THE FUTURE.

l l

5.

ONE OF THE FLAS CONSULTANTS SUGGESTED THAT MONITORING WITH SENSITIVE SEISMOLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS i

WOULD BE HELPFUL IN ASSESSING THE POSSIBLE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEEP WELL INJECTION AND THE JANUARY 31, 1986 EARTHQUAKE.

THE USGS REPRESENTATIVES AGREED THAT SUCH SEISMIC MONITORING WOULD BE VALUABLE.

THEREFORE, UNLESS THE USGS AND THE NRC STAFF ARE ABLE TO DECIDE THAT THERE IS NO CAUSAL CONNECTION, OR THAT EARTHQUAKES OF A MAGNITUDE SUF-FICIENT TO BE OF CONCERN CAN BE RULED OUT, THE ACRS RECOMMENDED THAT CEI ASSURE THAT APPROPRIATELY SENSITIVE MONITORING BE CONTINUED OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

]

j MARKEY/ED0 APRIL 1, 1986

b

-r<y

.A,m

_ +~

-s,---,--

a-Mb 1

1-e-2-

2A-

--- --~-+

-+-m a

• ' + ="

l' i

I j

00ESTION 39. (CONTINUED) 4-i 6.

THE ACRS AGREED WITH THE NRC STAFF THAT THE JANUARY 31, 1986 i

EARTHQUAKE IS UNLIKELY TO LEAD TO ANY REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE DESIGN OF THE PERRY PLANT'S STRUC-TURE OR ITS EQUIPMENT, AND FINDS NO REASON TO ALTER THE CON-

}

CLUSIONS STATED IN THE ACRS REPORT DATED JULY 13, 1982 l

REGARDING OPERATION OF THIS NUCLEAR PLANT.

i i

i i

i i

i i

I t

4 i

MARKEY/EDO APRIL 1, 1986 i

I 1

l 1

OUESTION 40'.

INFORMATION PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S FEBRUARY 5, 1986 LETTER SUGGESTS THAT DEEP INJECTION WELLS CAN POTENTIALLY CAUSE SEISMIC EVENTS.

A MARCH 13, 1986 INTERNAL NRC MEMORANDUM STATES:

"lF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE RECENT EARTHQUAKE WAS RELATED TO INJECTION, THEN AN ASSESSMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE AS TO THE POTENTIAL AND LOCATION OF FUTURE EVENTS AND THE IMPACT THEY MIGHT HAVE ON THE PERRY PLANT."

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING:

(A)

HAS THE NRC DETERMINED WHETHER THE JANUARY 31, 1986 EARTHQUAKE THAT OCCURRED NEAR PERRY WAS CAUSED BY DEEP INJECTION WELLS OR SOME OTHER HUMAN ENDEAVOR?

.l MARKEY/EDO APRIL 1, 1986

QUESTION 40, (CONTINUED) l

ANSWER, 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 RECENT EARTHQUAKE MAY HAVE BEEN RELATED TO THE EARTHQUAKE, AT THIS TIME THE STAFF FINDS AN ASSOCIATION 4

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 CON-STRUCTION OF THE WELLS.

4 i

MARKEY/ED0 APRIL 1, 1986

I OVESTION 40, (CONTINUED) 1 i

}

(B)

WHAT WOULD BE THE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE OPERATION OF PERRY IF IT WAS DETER-MINED THAT THE RECENT EARTHQUAKE WAS CAUSED BY DEEP INJECTION WELLS?

SPECIFI-CALLY, DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE A RESPONSE i

TO THE ABOVE QUOTED PASSAGE FROM THE 1

MARCH 13, 1986 NRC STAFF MEMORANDA?

I i

i

ANSWER, i

THE POSSIBILITY THAT INJECTION WELLS MAY INDUCE SEISMICITY WAS FIRST CONSIDERED IN THE 1960S WHEN A SERIES OF EARTHQUAKES WERE 1

j ASSOCIATED WITH DEEP WELL WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS AT THE ROCKY l

MOUNTAIN ARSENAL NEAR DENVER, COLORADO.

SINCE THAT TIME i

SEISMICITY HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH INJECTION OR EXTRACTION OF

)

FLUID IN OTHER WELLS, INCLUDING THE RANGELY OIL FIELD IN COLORADO, THE WILMINGTON, CALIFORNIA OIL FIELD, AND VARIOUS OIL l

FIELDS IN TEXAS.

VIRTUALLY ALL OF THESE EARTHQUAKES WERE SMALL; I

l THE LARGEST INDUCED EARTHQUAKES WERE THREE MAGNITUDE 5 TO 5 1/2 EVENTS AT THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL.

THE PERRY PLANT DESIGN i

CONTROLLING EARTHQUAKE IS A MAGNITUDE 5.3 EVENT.

l MARKEY/EDO j

APRIL 1, 1986 1

i

QUESTION 40, (CONTINUED) l (C)

WHAT WOULD BE THE GENERIC SIGNIFICANCE OF A FINDING THAT DEEP INJECTION WELLS CAN TRIGGER SEISMIC ACTIVITY?

IS THE NRC EXAMINING THE POTENTIAL GENERIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS ISSUE AND IF NOT, SHOULD IT BE INVESTIGATED?

ANSWER, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE POSSIBILITY THAT INJECTION WELLS MAY INDUCE SEISMICITY HAS BEEN KNOWN SINCE THE 1960S, NRC REGULA-TIONS (APPENDIX A TO 10 CFR PART 100) STATE THAT THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ARE TO CONSIDER THE POS51BLE 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.

MARKEY/EDO APRIL 1, 1980

i QUESTION I40. (CONTINUED) :

i (D)

HAS THE NRC SOUGHT TO DEVELOP OR OBTAIN FROM EPA OR USGS A LISTING OF DEEP j

INJECTION WELLS AND THEIR PR0XIMITY TO LICENSED NUCLEAR FACILITIES?

PLEASE I

PROVIDE ANY SUCH INFORMATION, i

ANSWER, 1

j THE NRC STAFF DOES NOT COORDINATE THE SITING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LOCATIONS WITH THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OR ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WITH REGARD TO THE LOCATION AND 1

l UTILIZATION OF DEEP WELL INJECTION REGULATION.

IF DEEP WELL INJECTION WERE SUSPECTED OF TRIGGERING EARTHQUAKES NEAR A NUCLEAR i

POWER PLANT SITE, THE STAFF WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO EVALUATE THE SITUATION.

AS AN EXAMPLE, AT THE PERRY PLANT SITE IN NORTHEASTERN OHIO, SALT SOLUTION MINING AND NATURAL GAS AND OIL PRODUCTION WERE EVALUATED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE NRC STAFF DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REVIEW.

SALT SOLUTION MINING HAS 1

BEEN CONDUCTED WITHIN 5 1/2 MILES WEST OF THE SITE.

NO SOLUTION MINING WAS BEING CONSIDERED IN THE SITE AREA.

NEVERTHELESS, THE j

APPLICANT, IN ORDER TO PRECLUDE SUBSIDENCE WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM i

ANY FUTURE MINING OPERATIONS, ACQUIRED MINERAL RIGHTS FOR BOTH ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE LANDS WITHIN A 3,000 FEET EXCLUSION BOUNDARY.

i l

MARKEY/ED0 i

l APRIL 1, 1986 1

I

l t

6 1

i QUESTION 40.

(CONTINUED) I i

l THE NRC STA'FF HAS CONTACTED THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION i

AGENCY (EPA) AND LEARNED THAT THE EPA 0FFICE OF DRINKING WATER REGULATES INJECTION WELLS THAT AFFECT DRINKING WATER.

THE NRC 1

l STAFF HAS OBTAINED A MAY 1985 EPA REPORT ENTITLED, " REPORT TO CONGRESS ON INJECTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE."

A COPY IS ENCLOSED J

FOR YOUR INFORMATION AS REQUESTED.

PART C OF THE SAFE DRINKING j

WATER ACT ESTABLISHED THE UNDERGROUND INSPECTION CONTROL PROGRAM.

1 j

A REQUIREMENT OF THE EPA REGULATIONS IS THAT DEEP INJECTION WELLS SHOULD BE SITED IN AREAS FREE OF FAULTS.

i I

1 i

'j l

j i

ll 1

l i

i l

1

l l

i f

1 i

MARKEY/EDO j

APRIL 1, 1936

., - - -, - ~

-