ML20203G202
| ML20203G202 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/07/1986 |
| From: | Pomeroy P Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, RONDOUT ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| To: | Savio R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-CT-1852, NUDOCS 8608010023 | |
| Download: ML20203G202 (2) | |
Text
_
Roxooor Associares.
Inconeonareo cr-/gga P. O. Box 224, Stone Ridge, New York 12484 79 426
- ?-
July 7,1986
~
m.-
. - 0,, _.
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission y,,
1717 II Street NW,10th Floor hp,.
Washington, DC 20555 Att'n: Dr. Richard Savio
Dear Dr. Savio:
In accordance with your request, I have reviewed the following :
- 1. Deep Well Injection at the Calhio Wells and the Leroy, Ohio Earthquake of January 31,1986 by Talwani and Acree i
- 2. Preliminary System Description injection Well Monitoring Network (Attachment 2 to Item 1)
The seismic network, as described in the cited report, conforms to the description I provided in my letter dated March 25th,1996. The proposed 5 station (4 single component,1-3 c<,mponent) will telemeter digital signals to a central recording station where event detection will trigger sam-pling at 250 samples per second. There are a few specific comments:
- 1. I would have preferred to see a sixth station la the approximate location (Figure 1 of Attach-ment) where the CEI station is, I presume, identified as part of the caption. This would provide some additional cast-west control in the aftershock crea.
- 2. I also would like to see some additional justification for the use of a horizontal sensor rather than a vertical at each of the four singic camponent altes. While it is true that S waves will be recorded with higher amplitudes at mome azimuths on horizontals, the P w aves will in general be larger on the vertical component (e.g. Fig. 4, pg. 9 in the Main Report - Item 1) and well recorded P waves are necessary for location (as contrasted to detection).
- 3. What is the proposed operational time of the network? (I concur that after a few months of operation,it may not be necessary to operate analog recorders at the central station and thus the expense may be reduced.)
In general, however, the proposed network is satisfactory and I trust that its installation is being expedited.
l DESIGNATED ORIGINAL
[c/
8600010023 860707 C //M, a
) '~
\\
PDR ACRS Cortified By CT-1852 PDR
I would also like to make two comments on the main report (item 1).
- 1. Talwani and Acree have done an excellent job in bringing together the data on induced earth _
quakes anf the recent tectonic earthquakes in the eastern United States. While I do not agree '
~
that it is " highly unlikely" that the Leroy, Ohio earthquake was induced, this compendium of information will be useful in future evaluation of activity in this region. I am looking forward to reviewing the USGS report on this matter.
- 2. Talwani and Acree have provided (in Attachment 1 to Item 1) a point by point rebuttal to Dr. Ahmad's testimony before the llouse Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. In para-graph 7, they treat completely and correctly (in my opinion) the application of the Davis and Pennington and Davis ideas to the Leroy, Ohic earthquake case. This overall study (all of ) by Talwani and Acree is the type of study which is required to answer comments like Dr. Ahmad's. This type of study requires many days ofintensive research which are not gen-erally available to ACRS and NRC consultants.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these matters.
Sincerely yours,
, -7
/- -
- d.. t.
~
,,.m u.i
/
s Paul W. Pomeroy ACRS Consultant
..