ML20235X625

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Confirms 790119 & 26 Telcons Requesting USGS Consider Undertaking Review of FSAR Amend,Including Approach for Determining Max Earthquake Magnitude on Offshore Fault Zone That Differs from Fault Length Vs Magnitude Approach
ML20235X625
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, San Onofre
Issue date: 02/02/1979
From: Denise R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Devine J
INTERIOR, DEPT. OF, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Shared Package
ML20235X376 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-462 NUDOCS 8710200060
Download: ML20235X625 (3)


Text

_ - _ _ -

5

^

<}

I FEB 2 1979 f

l I

Distribution i

4 -Betiket Files (50-361/362)

GB Rdg NRR Rdg H. Denton j

Mr. James F. Devine E. Case ~

l U. S. Geological Survey R. DeYoung Mail Stop 905 R. Jackson National Center P. Sobel South Lake Drive L. Reiter j

Reston, VA 22092 H. Rood R. Denise

Dear Jia:

q p

q l

This will confirm our telephone conversations of January 19 and 26, i

1979, in which I requested that the United States Geological Survey consider undertaking review of a limited topic with respect to San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations Units 213-(SONGS 283), and in j

which you indicated the willingness and capability of the USGS to j

perfom such a review. These efforts should be charged to NRC Con-

]

tract AT(49-24)-0113.

i We are presently conducting an Operating License review for SONGS

)

2&3. dich includes review of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and its amendments. The USGS participated extensively in the Con-struction Pomit stage of the review and has kept us informed on new geological infomation available on the site region.

We will soon receive an FSAR amendment which includes an approach for detamining the maximum earthquake magnitude on the offshore fault zone that differs from the fault length versus magnitude approach and a deter-mination of the resultant ground motion at the site.

I request that the USGS perfom an evaluation of this FSAR amendment. The USGS re-view should include an evaluation of the applicant's methodology, data, and models And the validity of the conclusions presented.

Whenever your evaluation ind3 cates that the applicant's proposal is unacceptable, please indicate the impact of the differences on the final conclusions to the extent practicable. The USGS evaluations should also bring into -

consideration any pertinent additional data available for detamining the size of the maximum magnitude earthquake on the offshore fault j

zone and the effect et the SONGS site of that maximum earthquake i

occurring at the closest approach of the zone to the site.

The off-i i

shore fault zone is the zone described in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for SONGS 2&3 dated October 20, 1972. The SER indicates a

{

}

8710200060 871014

~

PDR FOIA l

SCHARA87-462' PDR I syg i

1

'f i

iorpsc s >

oumMANa b DATE F

.j NRC PORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 Tr u. s. oovsRNMENT PRINMNe OFFICES 19M = 440 444

Q N$'

1

[

- 1

.e t

Mr. James F. Devine FEB 2 1979 i

I linear zone of deformation at least 240 kilometers long extending i

from the Santa Monica Mountains to at least Baja. California. We are thus starting with a given geological model.

The applicant's FSAR amendment is scheduled to arrive about February 15, i

1979; we will deliver copies to your office as soon as we receive it.

The USGS evaluation report should be available to us no later than eight weeks after the USGS receives the information. This will pemit us to complete our review within about eight weeks after we receive the applicant's report.

Current schedule projections indicate that the ACRS Subcommittee will meet about May 15, 1979 and the Full Cennittee will meet on June 6-8,1979. The public hearing on this. site is scheduled for early fall 1979.

It is likely that the USGS personnel will be re-quired to participate in these ACRS meetings and possibly in the hearing.

I request that this limited review be conducted with the close and effective interaction we have had on other sites in the recent past.

The MRC seismology reviewer for SONGS 283 is Dr. Phyllis Sobel; Dr. Leon Reiter is evaluating information relative to SONGS 1 and will also be available for consultation on this matter.

We would appreciate having i

the names of the USGS personnel conducting this evaluation and an in-i dication of whether you wish us to send material directly to them in i

order to save time.

We will, of course, observe the established practices of arranging meetings, discussions, site visits, etc., through your office.

i i

I appreciate your personal efforts in arranging for this evaluation, and those future efforts to ensure the task is completed on schedule.

If anything arises which threatens the timely completion of the task or which otherwise needs sty attention, please advise me.

Sincerely, t,

Original Signed By Richard P. Denise Richard P. Denise. Assistant Director for Site Technology Division of Site Safety and i

Environmental Analysis cc: See next page l

DSF/t)Q$1)

_DSE:GB/ST DSE:AD/R o,n..,

4 R/gk(IoJn tnrf PSobe Q M RDenise Q 212/7[

2/2/79

_2/2/79 UI tar.,

NRCPORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 1'f u. s. oovsRNhdENr PRINTING OPMCEa t.74 = 414484

0 r

Mr. James F. Devine 3-FEB 2 1979 cc: Mrs R. Morris U. S. Geological Survey National Center Mail Stop 908 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 22092 j

~

Dr. Henry coulter U. S. Geological Survey National Center Mail Stop 106 l

Reston. VA 22092 I

i l

l l

)

i i

I l

i l

o99te s >

eunwaus h cats >

NRC PQRM $18 (9 76) NRCM 0240 W un s.aovsanuswv Pninisme orricas sete eas.es4

_.-_-_ - - -