ML20213D972
| ML20213D972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1982 |
| From: | Rolonda Jackson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0447, CON-WNP-447 NUDOCS 8202170336 | |
| Download: ML20213D972 (1) | |
Text
.
DISTRIBUTION:
M.., 3 G 1 g M 12/l'-
OCKET FILE GSB RDG oV N.; N.
"~
y v s
, [
{
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jares P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering, DE f f ' h..,
D 4 l.?
FROM:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief b
"g Geosciences Branch, DE N ?n...
M v
4
SUBJECT:
WNP-2 REVIEW STATUS bM We have had numerous lengthy nectings during the past week regarding the s
i status of our review for the WNP-2 OL. Today I informed the applicant that it would be useful to discuss further the large number n( potential open issues and staff /USGS positions which differ from their proposals before finalizing our SER with these issues identified. A tentative date of February 10, 1982 has been set for this meeting. I indicated to WMP-2 project personnel and geologist (J. Sorenson, W. Waddell, and W. Kiel) what nur issues were and the likely further investigation requirenents. A shortened synopsis is listed below, l.
The geoloaic boundary of the CLEtt (a larne structure which we are assuming as capable) is in question because of inadequate investination of the Cold Creek lineament. This could change the distance to this structure fron 19.5 km to 11.5 km with sionificant inpact on ground motion estimates. A new DOE study (ST-14) has just been received anri is not yet evaluated by the staff or applicant.
2.
A possible continuation of the Untanum-Gable Mountain capable f ault zone to the souttnast (en echelon) is unresolved. This feature called the Southeast Anticline fault is not clear as to its length, offset, age of last movement, dip, etc. There is even a question about its presence. This feature currently approaches 5 kn from the site and could cone closer depending on its length.
3.
The expected ground notion from capable structures rceains in cuestion pending resolution of 1 and 2 above. Presently, a M 6.5 or CLEt! at 19.5 km would probably be accommodated by the present design, however, a closer distance could lead to significant exceedances, i
4.
The site specific response spectra renains unresolved. Questions relating to the appropriate nagnitude, shear velocity contrast, use of San Fernando and San Juan Batista data remain open.
5.
The study of ground motion from swarn earthquakes has not been received and we understand that we will not receive it for several wenks.
There are nurerous subelerunts to 1-5 above which will be provided in a follow-i up meno.
It is my view that the issues raised indicate significant inadequacies ein t e applican.t's current studies which need to be further pursued.
eE2170336 emotus
)
N '. g* kNb
, 7 C ADOCK_050003 7' '
_/
g
- n. e.
g
,. m m...
... DI.:fda........
....Ee.9.sc,1,e,n,c,e s,,,Br,an,c.!h..M.
mica p
........... ~... -..
su m m ) c.g...t t"ReiterWM40N 6'
-"--~~ ~~ ~~-
- ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
- - " - - - ~ ~ ~ " - -
--"-~~~-"""
em>..........S...B r ocpr2.1128/.aZ....
hac rono m oomacu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY wm
. __