|
|
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | number = ML17037C156 | | | number = ML17037C156 |
| | issue date = 02/21/1964 | | | issue date = 02/21/1964 |
| | title = Nine Mile Point Unit 1 - Letter Regarding a Geological Report and a Request for Examination and Submittal of an Independent Opinion | | | title = Letter Regarding a Geological Report and a Request for Examination and Submittal of an Independent Opinion |
| | author name = Ewart J N | | | author name = Ewart J |
| | author affiliation = Niagara Mohawk Power Corp | | | author affiliation = Niagara Mohawk Power Corp |
| | addressee name = Sutton G | | | addressee name = Sutton G |
Line 15: |
Line 15: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:J0~/SNIAGARAMOHAWKPOWERCORPORATIONNIAGARAMOHAWKBUFFALO8,N.Y.February211964Dr.GeorgeH.SuttonLamontGeologicalOb'servatoryPalisades,N.Y. | | {{#Wiki_filter:J 0 |
| | ~ / S NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK BUFFALO 8, N.Y. |
| | February 21 1964 Dr. George H. Sutton Lamont Geological Ob'servatory Palisades, N. Y. |
| | Dear Dr. Suttori'~ |
| | Confirming our telephone conversation'of February 21, Mr. Joseph Fischer will hand you a copy of the Dames and Moore geological report for our Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station on Monday, February 24. We request that you examine this report and render an independent opinion of it. Please feel free to comment, as an expert, in any area you wish but we would like your opinion in the following specific categories: |
| | : l. Is there sufficient evidence in this report that this site is not subject to Zone 3 earthquake rating, and do you agree with the ground acceleration as specified.? '"'. |
| | Do you agree with the historical seismological data of the site regarding the magnitude of the shocks at location of the epicenter? |
| | : 3. What'would you consider to be the probable maximum magnitude of shock that might occur in the general area within a 100-mile radius of the site during the next 200 years? |
| | : 4. What do you consider the credible magnitude of shock that might occur in the general area during the next 200 years? |
| | J We have worked very closely with Mr. Fischer on this project, so if you need further clarification of the questions listed herein, please feel free to discuss them with him. |
| | As I indicated to you, we would like to have your reply as early as possible in order that we can incorporate it as a part of our preliminary harards summary report which is due on April 1 ~ |
| | Very truly yours, J. N. Ewart Chief System Project Engineer 4 |
|
| |
|
| ==DearDr.Suttori'~Confirmingourtelephoneconversation'ofFebruary21,==
| | ~P ALPINE GEOPHYSICAL ASSOCIATES, ING. |
| Mr.JosephFischerwillhandyouacopyoftheDamesandMooregeologicalreportforourNineMilePointNuclearPowerStationonMonday,February24.Werequestthatyouexaminethisreportandrenderanindependentopinionofit.Pleasefeelfreetocomment,asanexpert,inanyareayouwishbutwewouldlikeyouropinioninthefollowingspecificcategories:l.IstheresufficientevidenceinthisreportthatthissiteisnotsubjecttoZone3earthquakerating,anddoyouagreewiththegroundaccelerationasspecified.?'"'.Doyouagreewiththehistoricalseismologicaldataofthesiteregardingthemagnitudeoftheshocksatlocationoftheepicenter?3.What'wouldyouconsidertobetheprobablemaximummagnitudeofshockthatmightoccurinthegeneralareawithina100-mileradiusofthesiteduringthenext200years?4.Whatdoyouconsiderthecrediblemagnitudeofshockthatmightoccurinthegeneralareaduringthenext200years?JWehaveworkedverycloselywithMr.Fischeronthisproject,soifyouneedfurtherclarificationofthequestionslistedherein,pleasefeelfreetodiscussthemwithhim.AsIindicatedtoyou,wewouldliketohaveyourreplyasearlyaspossibleinorderthatwecanincorporateitasapartofourpreliminaryharardssummaryreportwhichisdueonApril1~Verytrulyyours,J.N.EwartChiefSystemProjectEngineer4
| | 55 Oak Street, Norwood, New Jersey ~ Cable: "ALPGEO" ~ 201-768-8000 March 10, 1964 Mr.. 3. N. Ewart Chi,ef Systems Prospect Engineer Niagara Hohawk Power Corporatian 535 4/ashington Street f |
| ~P ALPINEGEOPHYSICALASSOCIATES,ING.55OakStreet,Norwood,NewJersey~Cable:"ALPGEO"~201-768-8000March10,1964Mr..3.N.EwartChi,efSystemsProspectEngineerNiagaraHohawkPowerCorporatian5354/ashingtonStreetBuffalo,NewYorkOurFile3S-714 | | Buf alo, New York Our File 3S-714 |
|
| |
|
| ==DearMr.Ewart:== | | ==Dear Mr. Ewart:== |
| Followinglsasummaryof'yopinionsbasedonacriticalreadingof'PartII,SectionC,EngineeringSeismology;SiteEvaluationStudy,ProposedNineHilePointNuclearPowerPlant;nearOswego,NewYork;fortheNiagaraMohawkPowerCorporation"preparedbyDamesandMaara.Inanswertothefourspecificquestionsyouraisedinyourletterof21February1964:(1)Ibelievethatthereshouldbesuf'flclentevidenceinthecitedreportbyDamesandMoore(hereaftercalled0-Mreport)thattheOswego,NewYorksiteisnotsub)ectedtoZone3earthquakeratingandthatthespecifiedgroundaccelerationsarereason-able.(2)Thehistoricalseismologicaldataregardingin-tensitiesandmagnitudesintheregionappearstobeaccuratelypresentedlntheD-Mreport.(3)Theprobablemaximummagnitudeshockthatmightoccurinthegeneralareawithin10Dmileradiusof'hesiteduringthenext2DOyearslsH~5.0ta57(maximumintensityI,~7to8).(4)Thecrediblemaximummagnitudeshockthatmightoccurwithin100mileradiusofthesiteduringthenext200yearsi,sM~7~0(Maximumintensitylo~9)~,Althoughtherecanbanaabsoluteguaranteethataverylargeshockwillnotoccurinthevicinityofthesita,ltappearstobefavorablylocatedwithrespecttoseismicrisk.
| |
| 4II Hr.3.N.EwartMarch10,1964Historically,onlythreeshocksofintensityI~5orgreaterhaveoccurredwithin100milesofthesita;onenear50milesdistantandtwonear100milesdistant.TherearenoknownactivefaultsintheregionanditisunderlainbyrelativelyundeformedlowerPaleozoicrockswithhighmechanicalcompetence.SeismicityinthisgeneralregionseemstoberelatedtotheSt.LawrenceValley,marginaltothestableCanadianShield,andtotheancientAppalachianMountainsystem.HostoftheactivityrelatedtotheSt.LawrenceValleyisnortheastofthesitewhiletheactivityrelatedtotheAppalachiansystempasseswelleastofthesiteinthegeneralNE-SbJtrend.Similarzonesofrelativelyminorseismicactivityarecommonthroughouttheworldatthemarginsofstableshieldareasandalongmature(ancient)mountainsystems.TheoccurrenceofseveralearthquakeswestofthesiteinthegeneralvicinityofBuffalo,NewYork,requiressomecautioninassumingthatthehistoricalactivitywithin100milesofthesitevillberepresentativeoftheactivityinthenext200yearsorso.Also,Idonotbelievethatthestatementthattheseismicitymaybedecreasingasaresultofslackeningglacialreboundiscompletely)ustified,since,asmentionedabove,similarregionswhichhavenot'beenglsciatedinthepastfewthousandyearsexhibitsimilarseismicity.InordertoobtainsomestatisticalreliabilityIconsideredaregionofradius200milessurroundingthesite.Thisregionhas4timestheareaofthezonebeingconsidered.Thefollowingtableliststhenumberofhistoricalearth-quakeswithmaximumintensitiesequaltoorgreaterthanthestatedvalueinthisregion:nuabar41~IntanaitV(orgreater)VI(orgreater)VII(orgreater)VII1Iftheseismicitywithin100mileradiusofthesitewereequaltothatofthelargerregionthesenumberswouldbedividedby4.Aconservativeestimatetakingintoconsiderationtheactualhistoricaldistributionofshockswouldbetodivideby8.(Theprecisionofthedatamakesanysmallcorrection
| |
| 'I Mr.J.N~EwartMarch10,1964forthetimefactor,200yearsspanincludesmoatoftheshocks,relativelyunimportant.)OnthisbasisoneearthquakeofmaximumintensityI,~7mightbeexpectedwithin100milesin200years.Ho~evertwointensity8earthquakeshaveoccurredatadistanceonlyslightlygreaterthen100milesfromthesite.Sinceveryfewmagnitudesoflargerearthquakesinthisregionhavebeenmeasureddirectly,itisnecessarytorelateintensitydatatomagnitudes.Theformula,M~2/3Io1.7logh-1.4whereMisRichterMagnitudeI,ismaximumModifiedMercalliintensityhisfocaldepthinkilometers,obtainedbyHarnikasanaverageofobservationsbyseveralinvestigatorsinvariousregions,wasusedforthispurpose.InaveryrecantstudybyIsacksofa300kmradiusareasurroundingnorthernNewDerseythisrelationwasfoundtobereliableforrelativelysmallearthquakesusingafocaldepthofabout10km.Previousstudiesoflargerearthquakesinthisgeneralregionindicategreaterfocaldepths(upto60km).OntheSeismicZoningMapofthe1958UniformBuildingCoda,preparedbytheU.S.C.EG.S.,theproposedsitefallsnorthofalineseparatingZone1(tothesouth)fromZone3.Thelinesonthismaparenecessarilysome~hatarbitraryandshouldbeusedonlyasageneralguide,especiallynearzoneboundaries.TheimmediatevicinityofthesiteshouldbeconsideredmoranearlyZone1or,perhaps,Zone2thanZone3.Sincerelyyours;;HS:GEGeorgeHESuttonAssoc.Prof.ofGeologyConsultantpprovedby:aerC.Beckmblann,PresidentALPINEGEOPHYSICALASSOCIATES)INC~
| |
| 0I THEUNIVERSITYOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORKTHESTATEEDUCATIONDEPARTMENTAI.SANYINEWYORKI2224NCWYORKSTATCNVSCVNANOSCICNCCSCRVICCASSISTANTCOMMISSIONCRApril23,1968DamesandMoore100ChurchStreetNewYorkNewYork10017Gentlemen:Attention:~JosehA.PinchesInatelephoneconversationwithFredFoxyesterday,heindicatedthatyourcompanyispresentlyconcernedwiththetrendofstruc-turalandseismiclinesinNewYorkState,particularlywithre-specttotheOswegoarea.AlthoughIdonotconsidermyselfanexpertintheareaofgeo-physics,IamquitefamiliarwiththestructuraltrendsinNewYorkandhavehadoccasion,withinthelasttwoyears,toplotareasofseismicitywithintheState.ThereisnoindicationtomethatsuchabeltpassesthroughorneartheOswegoregion.Ibelievethatseismi,cactivityintheSt.Lawrencelowlandsislargelytheresultofshallowfocusmovementresultingfromreactivationalongfaultlinescausedbyiceoverloadingduri.ngtheglacialperiod.Theglacialreboundinthelast10,000yearshasbeeninthenatureof550feetintheareaofMontrealandprogressivelylesssouthwardintoNewYorkState.OtherstructuraltrendsinNewYorkStatearenortheast-southwestlineamentswhichtransecttheAdirondacks,roughlyeast-westfoldsintheFingerLakesareaandsouthwest,andnorthwest-southeasttrendinglineswhichappearonNimbusphotoscuttingacrosswesternNewYorkintheBuffaloandNi.agaraFallsareas.NoneoftheseindicateatrendrunningfromtheSt.LawrencelowlandssouthwardthroughOswegoandthenceacrosstheState,andIdonotbelievethatanyexists.DAMES&MOORENEWYORKRECEIVEDSincerelyyours,cc:F.Foxg(j"IooCMIIICCG.BrougonAssistantCommissioner(Acting)ReiseIJTOICPSIWJMII9ITETRSEI.JARRMC'TMNCL,CARIJWOMITJMHJ4 lIIt I2~I'ee~IINIAGARAMOHAWKPOWERCORPORATION.Ittllt&,NIAGARA~)MOHAWKBvvvAI.a,NEwYoRK$4203May31,1968(1)Thepassiblelinecannectio'nofopicenterssouth-weotwax'dframtheSt.LawrenceRivex'alloy.~/Dr.JackE.Olive'rIamantGeologicalObservatoryp"-~Palisades,NewYox'k10964LtDoaxDr.Oliver:~gEaxlyin'1964wecontactedDr.GeorgeSutton,whawasthonassoci-'tedwiththoLamantGeolagicalObservatory,farindependentreviewofthepreliminarygeologicalreportpx'eparodbyDamesandMooreforourNine'~MiloPointNuclearStation.%'enowfoolitisdeoirablotoobtaina,similar".independontreviewafasubsequentDamesandMo'ox'ereportentitled"SeiomicGeology,NineMilePaintNuclearPowerPlant,Noa'rOswego,NowYork."Vlehaveax'x'angedfoxMr.JosephFischertodoliveracopyofthisreporttotheObservatoryandxequeotthatyouoramemberofyouxstaffreviewit,asanexpert,andcommentinanyareayouwish.However,',~~~wewouldlike'opinionsinthefollowingspecificareas:'~4,1~v~'t~,I~~',r'~.t'~~al,,t,~(2)Lothereanyreasonpredicatedonnewinformationwhichwouldindicatethatthe11pex'centanticipatedm~mumgroundacceleratianpreviouslyadaptedaoadesignvalu'eshouldbechanged'lIIVehaveworkedveryclaoolywithher.Fischoronthisprojectsaifyouoryour"aosaciateonaodfurtherclarificationofthiswox'k,p)easefeelfreetadiocuooitwithhim.Wowould'appreciateareplybythefixotweekafJulyatthelatestforconsiderationinmeetingsscheduledwiththeAtomicEnergyCommission.tVarytrulyyours,JNE/jfw~N.Ewax'tChiefSyotorojoctEnginoorf.
| |
| tkg~o sLamontGeologicalObservatory'ofColumbiaUniversity~Palisades,NY..10984tCabfsAddrassrLamont,Pallsados,fsfswYorkStatsCoda0'f4,ELmwood0-0000June26,1968Mr.J.N.EwartChiefSyst;emProjectEngineerNiagaraMohawkPowerCorporationEhxffalo,NewYork14203
| |
|
| |
|
| ==DearMr.Ewart:== | | Following ls a summary of'y opinions based on a critical reading of'Part II, Section C, Engineering Seismology; Site Evaluation Study, Proposed Nine Hile Point Nuclear Power Plant; near Oswego, New York; for the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation" prepared by Dames and Maara. |
| DrOliverforwardedyourletterofMay31tomeandrequestedthat;IhandlethereviewoftheDamesand.Moorereportentitled."SeismicGeology,NineMilePointNuclearPowerPlantnearOswego,NevYork".Accordingly.Icontac+edMr.JosephFischerandarrangedwithhimameetingwithHr.FredFox.Ireceivedtheabove-mentionedreportfronMr.Foxanddiscussedtheworkwithhim.readthereport;carefullyandfurtherdiscussedseveralpointswithttfr.FoxandMr.Fischer.Thefollowingare~comnentsthatIhaveconcerningthereport.Iagreewiththebasicargumentofthereportthat'itisnotreasonabletoextrapolatetherelativelyh'.ghlevel.ofse~smicityoftheSt.TawrenceregiontotheareaoftheOswegosite.Inparticular,Ithinkthattheevidencefor+hecorrelat."onbetweenthehighseismicityoftheNewMadridenr3.St.lawrenceregionswithlocalizedfault;edstructuresofPaleozoicorlateragesisconvincing.Thisevidencereasonablyindicatesthat,evenifthealign-mentofepicentersisnotanartificeorisnotfortuitoutbelevetoi,'ei,sisicltyvariesslgnlfi.cantlyalongtbesupposedfeatureandappearstobecontrolledby'.localgeologicalstructure.IseenoproblemwiththeestimationofO.llgforthemaximumgroundaccelerat;ion".IsuggestedtoMr.Fischerthatheconsider,asapossiblealternative,theeffect;sofanearthquakethesizeoftheAtticaEarthquakelocatedverycloseoratthesiteinquestion.Yw.F.'.scherinform-edmethat.thiswouldnotsigrificantlyincreasetheestimatedacceleration.Ingener@3.,Iagreewiththebasicconclusionsofthereport.Pleasele~tmeknow'fyouwishfurther.deta11eddiscussionofsomepart<eulernoints.Sincerelyyours3ynL.Isacks
| | In answer to the four specific questions you raised in your letter of 21 February 1964: |
| ~vkP~}} | | (1) I believe that there should be suf'flclent evidence in the cited report by Dames and Moore (hereafter called 0-M report) that the Oswego, New York site is not sub)ected to Zone 3 earthquake rating and that the specified ground accelerations are reason-able. |
| | (2) The historical seismological data regarding in-tensities and magnitudes in the region appears to be accurately presented ln the D-M report. |
| | (3) The probable maximum magnitude shock that might occur in the general area within 10D mile radius of'he site during the next 2DO years ls H ~ 5.0 ta 5 7 (maximum intensity I, ~ 7 to 8). |
| | (4) The credible maximum magnitude shock that might occur within 100 mile radius of the site during the next 200 years i,s M ~ 7 ~ 0 (Maximum intensity lo ~9) ~, |
| | Although there can ba na absolute guarantee that a very large shock will not occur in the vicinity of the sita, lt appears to be favorably located with respect to seismic risk. |
| | |
| | 4 I |
| | I |
| | |
| | Hr. 3. N. Ewart March 10, 1964 Historically, only three shocks of intensity I ~ 5 or greater have occurred within 100 miles of the sita; one near 50 miles distant and two near 100 miles distant. There are no known active faults in the region and it is underlain by relatively undeformed lower Paleozoic rocks with high mechanical competence. |
| | Seismicity in this general region seems to be related to the St. Lawrence Valley, marginal to the stable Canadian Shield, and to the ancient Appalachian Mountain system. Host of the activity related to the St. Lawrence Valley is northeast of the site while the activity related to the Appalachian system passes well east of the site in the general NE-SbJ trend. Similar zones of relatively minor seismic activity are common throughout the world at the margins of stable shield areas and along mature (ancient) mountain systems. |
| | The occurrence of several earthquakes west of the site in the general vicinity of Buffalo, New York, requires some caution in assuming that the historical activity within 100 miles of the site vill be representative of the activity in the next 200 years or so. Also, I do not believe that the statement that the seismicity may be decreasing as a result of slackening glacial rebound is completely )ustified, since, as mentioned above, similar regions which have not 'been glsciated in the past few thousand years exhibit similar seismicity. |
| | In order to obtain some statistical reliability I considered a region of radius 200 miles surrounding the site. |
| | This region has 4 times the area of the zone being considered. |
| | The following table lists the number of historical earth-quakes with maximum intensities equal to or greater than the stated value in this region: |
| | nuabar ~Intana it 41 V (or greater) |
| | VI (or greater) |
| | VII (or greater) |
| | VII1 If the seismicity within 100 mile radius of the site were equal to that of the larger region these numbers would be divided by 4. A conservative estimate taking into consideration the actual historical distribution of shocks would be to divide by 8. (The precision of the data makes any small correction |
| | |
| | 'I Mr. J. N~ Ewart March 10, 1964 for the time factor, 200 years span includes moat of the shocks, relatively unimportant.) On this basis one earthquake of maximum intensity I, ~ 7 might be expected within 100 miles in 200 years. Ho~ever two intensity 8 earthquakes have occurred at a distance only slightly greater then 100 miles from the site. |
| | Since very few magnitudes of larger earthquakes in this region have been measured directly, it is necessary to relate intensity data to magnitudes. The formula, M ~ 2/3 Io 1.7 log h - 1.4 where M is Richter Magnitude I, is maximum Modified Mercalli intensity h is focal depth in kilometers, obtained by Harnik as an average of observations by several investigators in various regions, was used for this purpose. |
| | In a very recant study by Isacks of a 300 km radius area surrounding northern New Dersey this relation was found to be reliable for relatively small earthquakes using a focal depth of about 10 km. Previous studies of larger earthquakes in this general region indicate greater focal depths (up to 60 km). |
| | On the Seismic Zoning Map of the 1958 Uniform Building Coda, prepared by the U.S.C.E G.S., the proposed site falls north of a line separating Zone 1 (to the south) from Zone 3. The lines on this map are necessarily some~hat arbitrary and should be used only as a general guide, especially near zone boundaries. The immediate vicinity of the site should be considered mora nearly Zone 1 or, perhaps, Zone 2 than Zone 3. |
| | Sincerely yours; George HE Sutton Assoc. Prof. of Geology Consultant |
| | ; HS:GE pproved by: |
| | bl a er C. Beckm ann, President ALPINE GEOPHYSICAL ASSOCIATES) INC ~ |
| | |
| | 0 I |
| | |
| | THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AI.SANYINEW YORK I2224 NCW YORK STATC NVSCVN ANO SCICNCC SCRVICC ASSISTANT COMMISSIONCR April 23, 1968 Dames and Moore 100 Church Street New York New York 10017 Gentlemen: Attention: ~Jose h A. Pinches In a telephone conversation with Fred Fox yesterday, he indicated that your company is presently concerned with the trend of struc-tural and seismic lines in New York State, particularly with re-spect to the Oswego area. |
| | I Although do not consider myself an expert in the area of geo-physics, I am quite familiar with the structural trends in New York and have had occasion, within the last two years, to plot areas of seismicity within the State. There is no indication to me that such a belt passes through or near the Oswego region. |
| | I believe that seismi,c activity in the St. Lawrence lowlands is largely the result of shallow focus movement resulting from reactivation along fault lines caused by ice overloading duri.ng the glacial period. The glacial rebound in the last 10,000 years has been in the nature of 550 feet in the area of Montreal and progressively less southward into New York State. Other structural trends in New York State are northeast-southwest lineaments which transect the Adirondacks, roughly east-west folds in the Finger Lakes area and southwest, and northwest-southeast trending lines which appear on Nimbus photos cutting across western New York in the Buffalo and Ni.agara Falls areas. |
| | None of these indicate a trend running from the St. Lawrence lowlands southward through Oswego and thence across the State, and I do not believe that any exists. |
| | DAMES &YORK MOORE NEW RECEIVED Sincerely yours, G. Broug on g(j "I oo Assistant Commissioner (Acting) cc: F. Fox CMII I CC Reise I JTO I CPS NC I WJM L,C I I9 I TET RSE I.JA R RM C'TM AR IJW OMIT JMH J4 |
| | |
| | l II t |
| | |
| | I 2 |
| | ~ I |
| | 'ee |
| | ~ I I |
| | NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION . |
| | NIAGARA ~) MOHAWK Ittllt&, |
| | BvvvAI.a, NEw YoRK $ 4203 May 31, 1968 |
| | ~ / |
| | Dr. Jack E. Olive'r I amant Geological Observatory p"-~ Palisades, New Yox'k 10964 Lt Doax Dr. Oliver: |
| | ~ g Eaxly in '1964 we contacted Dr. George Sutton, wha was thon associ-'ted with tho Lamant Geolagical Observatory, far independent review of the ' |
| | preliminary geological report px'eparod by Dames and Moore for our Nine |
| | ~ Milo Point Nuclear Station. %'e now fool it is deoirablo to obtain a, similar " . |
| | independont review af a subsequent Dames and Mo'ox'e report entitled "Seiomic Geology, Nine Mile Paint Nuclear Power Plant, Noa'r Oswego, Now York." Vle have ax'x'anged fox Mr. Joseph Fischer to doliver a copy of this report to the Observatory and x equeot that you or a member of youx |
| | ~ |
| | staff review it, as an expert, and comment in any area you wish. However,', |
| | we would like'opinions |
| | ~ ~ |
| | in the following specific areas: 4 |
| | 't ~, |
| | ~ |
| | ,1 ~ v |
| | ~ |
| | ~ |
| | ' I ~ |
| | (1) The passible line cannectio'n of opicenters south- ,r weotwax'd fram the St. Lawrence Rivex'alloy. |
| | '~.t |
| | ' ~ ~ |
| | al,,t |
| | ~ |
| | (2) Lo there any reason predicated on new information which would indicate that the 11 pex'cent anticipated m~mum ground acceleratian previously adapted ao a design valu'e should be changed'l I |
| | IVe have worked very claooly with her. Fischor on this project sa if you or your "aosaciateo naod further clarification of this wox'k, p)ease feel free ta diocuoo it with him. Wo would'appreciate a reply by the fixot week af July at the latest for consideration in meetings scheduled with the Atomic Energy Commission. t Vary truly yours, |
| | ~ N. Ewax't Chief Syoto rojoct Enginoor JNE/jfw f. |
| | |
| | t k |
| | g ~ |
| | o |
| | |
| | s Lamont Geological Observatory 'of Columbia University ~ |
| | Palisades, N Y.. 10984 t |
| | Cabfs Addrassr Lamont, Pallsados, fsfsw York Stats Coda 0'f4, ELmwood 0-0000 June 26, 1968 Mr. J. N. Ewart Chief Syst;em Project Engineer Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Ehxffalo, New York 14203 |
| | |
| | ==Dear Mr. Ewart:== |
| | |
| | Dr Oliver forwarded your letter of May 31 to me and requested that; I handle the review of the Dames and. Moore report entitled. "Seismic Geology, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Plant near Oswego, Nev York". Accordingly . |
| | I contac+ed Mr. Joseph Fischer and arranged with him a meeting with Hr. Fred Fox. I received the above-mentioned report fron Mr. Fox and discussed the work with him. |
| | read the report; carefully and further discussed several points with ttfr. Fox and Mr. Fischer. The following are ~ |
| | comnents that I have concerning the report. |
| | 'it I agree with the basic argument of the report that is not reasonable to extrapolate the relatively h'.gh level. of se~smicity of the St. Tawrence region to the area of the Oswego site. In particular, I think that the evidence for +he correlat."on between the high seismicity of the New Madrid enr3. St. lawrence regions with localized fault;ed structures of Paleozoic or later ages is convincing. |
| | This evidence reasonably indicates that, even if the align-ment of epicenters is not an artifice or is not fortuitou tbe levet oi,'ei,sisiclty varies slgnlfi.cantly along tbe supposed feature and appears to be controlled by '.local geological structure. |
| | I see no problem with the estimation of O.ll g for the maximum ground accelerat;ion". I suggested to Mr. Fischer that he consider, as a possible alternative, the effect;s of an earthquake the size of the Attica Earthquake located very close or at the site in question. Yw. F.'.scher inform-ed me that. this would not sigrificantly increase the estimated acceleration. |
| | In gener@3., I agree with the basic conclusions of the report. Please le~t me know discussion of some part< euler noints. |
| | 'f you wish further. deta11ed Sincerely yours 3 y n L. Isacks |
| | |
| | ~ v k |
| | ~ |
| | P}} |
|
---|
Category:Letter
MONTHYEARML24222A6772024-08-0909 August 2024 Response to Request for Additional Information for Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-591-A, “Revise Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program” Revision 0 and Revise 10 CFR 50.69 License Condition IR 05000220/20240022024-08-0505 August 2024 Integrated Inspection Report 05000220/2024002 and 05000410/2024002 ML24215A3002024-08-0202 August 2024 Operator Licensing Examination Approval ML24213A1412024-07-31031 July 2024 Requalification Program Inspection NMP1L3601, Supplemental Information Letter No. 2 - Revision to the Technical Specifications Design Features Sections to Remove the Nine Mile 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, Designation2024-07-31031 July 2024 Supplemental Information Letter No. 2 - Revision to the Technical Specifications Design Features Sections to Remove the Nine Mile 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, Designation NMP2L2883, Fourth Inservice Inspection Interval, Second Inservice Inspection Period 2024 Owner’S Activity Report for RFO-19 Inservice Examinations2024-07-24024 July 2024 Fourth Inservice Inspection Interval, Second Inservice Inspection Period 2024 Owner’S Activity Report for RFO-19 Inservice Examinations ML24198A0852024-07-16016 July 2024 Senior Reactor and Reactor Operator Initial License Examinations RS-24-070, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Nine Mile Point, Units 1 and 2, Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, R. E. Ginna - Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plan Document Revisions2024-07-12012 July 2024 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Nine Mile Point, Units 1 and 2, Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, R. E. Ginna - Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plan Document Revisions RS-24-061, Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, Response to NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2024-01, Preparation and Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations2024-06-14014 June 2024 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, Response to NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2024-01, Preparation and Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations NMP1L3584, License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-230, Revision 1, Add New Condition B to LCO 3.6.2.3, RHR Suppression Pool Cooling2024-06-13013 June 2024 License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-230, Revision 1, Add New Condition B to LCO 3.6.2.3, RHR Suppression Pool Cooling IR 05000220/20244012024-05-30030 May 2024 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000220/2024401 and 05000410/2024401(Cover Letter Only) ML24079A0762024-05-23023 May 2024 Issuance of Amendments to Adopt TSTF 264 NMP1L3591, Response to Ny State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Request for Information & Modification Request2024-05-18018 May 2024 Response to Ny State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Request for Information & Modification Request NMP1L3589, Special Report: Containment High Range Radiation Monitor Instrumentation Channel 12 Inoperable2024-05-16016 May 2024 Special Report: Containment High Range Radiation Monitor Instrumentation Channel 12 Inoperable NMP1L3582, Annual Radioactive Environmental Operating Report2024-05-15015 May 2024 Annual Radioactive Environmental Operating Report NMP1L3582, 2023 Annual Radioactive Environmental Operating Report for Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 22024-05-15015 May 2024 2023 Annual Radioactive Environmental Operating Report for Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 IR 05000220/20240012024-05-10010 May 2024 Integrated Inspection Report 05000220/2024001 and 05000410/2024001 RS-24-049, Updated Notice of Intent to Pursue Subsequent License Renewal Applications2024-05-0909 May 2024 Updated Notice of Intent to Pursue Subsequent License Renewal Applications RS-24-038, Relief Request Concerning Extension of Permanent Relief from Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Pressure Vessel Circumferential Shell Welds2024-05-0202 May 2024 Relief Request Concerning Extension of Permanent Relief from Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Pressure Vessel Circumferential Shell Welds NMP1L3581, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) - 2023 Radioactive Effluent Release Report2024-04-30030 April 2024 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) - 2023 Radioactive Effluent Release Report RS-24-041, Alternative Request to Utilize Code Case OMN-32, Alternative Requirements for Range and Accuracy of Pressure, Flow, and Differential Pressure Instruments Used in Pump Tests2024-04-30030 April 2024 Alternative Request to Utilize Code Case OMN-32, Alternative Requirements for Range and Accuracy of Pressure, Flow, and Differential Pressure Instruments Used in Pump Tests NMP2L2877, 2023 Annual Environmental Operating Report2024-04-19019 April 2024 2023 Annual Environmental Operating Report NMP2L2878, Core Operating Limits Report2024-04-16016 April 2024 Core Operating Limits Report ML24103A2042024-04-12012 April 2024 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-591-A, Revise Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program Revision 0 and Revise 10 CFR 50.69 License Condition ML24092A3352024-04-0101 April 2024 NRC Office of Investigations Case No. 1-2023-002 RS-24-002, Constellation Energy Generation, LLC - Annual Property Insurance Status Report2024-04-0101 April 2024 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC - Annual Property Insurance Status Report ML24074A2812024-03-14014 March 2024 Request for Information and Notification of Conduct of IP 71111.21.N.04, Age-Related Degradation, Reference Inspection Report 05000220/2024010 and 05000410/2024010 NMP1L3577, Special Report: Containment High Range Radiation Monitor Instrumentation Channel 12 Inoperable2024-03-13013 March 2024 Special Report: Containment High Range Radiation Monitor Instrumentation Channel 12 Inoperable IR 05000220/20230062024-02-28028 February 2024 Annual Assessment Letter for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, (Reports 05000220/2023006 and 05000410/2023006) NMP1L3570, Supplemental Information Letter - Revision to the Technical Specifications Design Features Sections to Remove the Nine Mile 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, Designation2024-02-0101 February 2024 Supplemental Information Letter - Revision to the Technical Specifications Design Features Sections to Remove the Nine Mile 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, Designation IR 05000220/20230042024-02-0101 February 2024 Integrated Inspection Report 05000220/2023004 and 05000410/2023004 05000410/LER-2023-001, Supplement to LER 2023-001-00, Automatic Reactor Scram on Low Level Due to Partial Loss of Feedwater2024-01-30030 January 2024 Supplement to LER 2023-001-00, Automatic Reactor Scram on Low Level Due to Partial Loss of Feedwater NMP1L3569, CFR 50.46 Annual Report2024-01-26026 January 2024 CFR 50.46 Annual Report ML24004A2122024-01-0808 January 2024 Senior Reactor and Reactor Operator Initial License Examinations ML23354A0012024-01-0404 January 2024 Exemption from Select Requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 (EPID L-2023-LLE-0059 (Security Notifications, Reports, and Recordkeeping and Suspicious Activity Reporting)) NMP1L3566, Radiological Emergency Plan Document Revision. Includes EP-AA-1013, Revision 10, Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for Nine Mile Point Station2023-12-14014 December 2023 Radiological Emergency Plan Document Revision. Includes EP-AA-1013, Revision 10, Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for Nine Mile Point Station IR 05000410/20243012023-12-14014 December 2023 Initial Operator Licensing Examination Report 05000410/2024301 ML23278A1292023-12-14014 December 2023 Units 1 & 2; Limerick, Units 1 & 2; Nine Mile Point, Units 1 & 2; and Peach Bottom, Units 2 & 3 -Revision to Approved Alternatives to Use Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project Guidelines ML23305A1402023-12-13013 December 2023 Units 1 & 2; Nine Mile Point, Unit 2; Peach Bottom, Units 2 & 3; and Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2 - Issuance of Amendments to Adopt Traveler TSTF-580 NMP1L3564, Supplemental Response to Part 73 Exemption Request - Withdrawal of Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 73, Subpart B, Preemption Authority Requirements2023-12-0707 December 2023 Supplemental Response to Part 73 Exemption Request - Withdrawal of Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 73, Subpart B, Preemption Authority Requirements ML23291A4642023-12-0707 December 2023 Issuance of Amendment No. 251 Regarding the Adoption of Title 10 the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.69, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of SSC for Nuclear Power Plants ML23289A0122023-12-0606 December 2023 Issuance of Amendment No. 250 Regarding the Revision to Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-505, Revision 2, Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b NMP1L3563, Submittal of Relief Request I5R-12, Revision 0, Concerning the Installation of a Full Structural Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208)2023-12-0404 December 2023 Submittal of Relief Request I5R-12, Revision 0, Concerning the Installation of a Full Structural Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208) IR 05000220/20234022023-11-28028 November 2023 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000220/2023402 and 05000410/2023402 NMP1L3557, Request for Exemption from Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event Notifications Implementation2023-11-22022 November 2023 Request for Exemption from Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event Notifications Implementation ML23317A1192023-11-10010 November 2023 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC - 2023 Annual Report - Guarantees of Payment of Deferred Premiums ML23305A0052023-11-0101 November 2023 Operator Licensing Examination Approval IR 05000220/20234202023-11-0101 November 2023 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000220/2023420 and 05000410/2023420 IR 05000220/20230032023-10-25025 October 2023 Integrated Inspection Report 05000220/2023003 and 05000410/2023003 IR 05000220/20235012023-10-17017 October 2023 Emergency Preparedness Biennial Exercise Inspection Report 05000220/2023501 and 05000410/2023501 2024-08-09
[Table view] Category:Note to File incl Telcon Record
MONTHYEARML20213B2212020-11-20020 November 2020 Memo to File: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact and NRC Financial Analysis for Constellation and Exelon'S Decommissioning Funding Plan Submitted in Accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (C) for Nine Mile Point Unit ML18022A0692018-01-30030 January 2018 Review of Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 25 ML17108A4562017-05-26026 May 2017 Clarification to License Renewal Safety Evaluation for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CAC Nos. MC3272 and MC3273) ML0610900642006-04-18018 April 2006 Note to File - Docketing of Additional Information Pertaining to License Renewal Application of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (TAC No'S. MC3272 and MC3273) ML0609405772006-04-0404 April 2006 Note to File - Docketing of Additional Information Pertaining to License Renewal Application of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (TAC Nos. MC3272 and MC3273) ML0605906442006-02-24024 February 2006 2/24/2006 - Docketing of Documents Sent to the NRC by Linda Bond-Clark Related to Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station ML0502404242005-01-13013 January 2005 Request for Additional Information - Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Fire Protection Open Items ML0502103762005-01-13013 January 2005 Request for Additional Information on Open Items for Balance of Plant Section ML18018B1861986-04-10010 April 1986 Letter Referring to Generic Letter 83-28 Concerning Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events and Requesting That GE Provide a Response by April 15, 1986 ML17037B9421976-12-13013 December 1976 Letter Confirming September 7, 1976 and Early October Telephone Conversations Concerning Features in the Reheater Bay Area and a December 2, 1976 Call to Inform of More Recent Observations Which May Suggest Possible Post ... ML17037B9041976-12-13013 December 1976 Letter Confirming Telephone Conversations Relating to Certain Geologic Features and a December 2, 1976 Call to Inform of More Recent Observations Which May Suggest Possible Post-Glacial Vertical Displacement of Sediments .. ML17037C1891975-09-30030 September 1975 Letter Regarding a Telephone Conversation on August 15, 1975 Requesting Informing Concerning Potential Operational Limitations of the Onsite Standby Emergency Diesel Engines ML17037B5791975-09-0303 September 1975 Letter Confirming a 09/02/1975 Telephone Discussion Relative to the Meeting to Be Held 09/04/1975 ML17037C2061974-10-0404 October 1974 Letter Acknowledging Receipt of the Analysis on ATWS with Letter of September 25, 1974 and Requesting Submittal of Additional Analysis, an Explanation for the Delay, and a Schedule of the Detailed Plan within Two Weeks .. ML17037C2511973-12-18018 December 1973 Letter Regarding Letters Dated November 28 and December 3, 1973 Reporting Failures of Eleven and Fifteen Control Rods to Insert to Position Oo Following a Reactor Scram and Confirming That a More Complete Report Will Be ... ML17037B7681965-04-21021 April 1965 Letter Requesting More Information Concerning the Recent AEC License Awarded to Niagara Mohawk ML17037C1561964-02-21021 February 1964 Letter Regarding a Geological Report and a Request for Examination and Submittal of an Independent Opinion 2020-11-20
[Table view] Category:Verbal Comm
MONTHYEARML20213B2212020-11-20020 November 2020 Memo to File: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact and NRC Financial Analysis for Constellation and Exelon'S Decommissioning Funding Plan Submitted in Accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (C) for Nine Mile Point Unit ML18022A0692018-01-30030 January 2018 Review of Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 25 ML17108A4562017-05-26026 May 2017 Clarification to License Renewal Safety Evaluation for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CAC Nos. MC3272 and MC3273) ML0610900642006-04-18018 April 2006 Note to File - Docketing of Additional Information Pertaining to License Renewal Application of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (TAC No'S. MC3272 and MC3273) ML0609405772006-04-0404 April 2006 Note to File - Docketing of Additional Information Pertaining to License Renewal Application of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (TAC Nos. MC3272 and MC3273) ML0605906442006-02-24024 February 2006 2/24/2006 - Docketing of Documents Sent to the NRC by Linda Bond-Clark Related to Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station ML0502404242005-01-13013 January 2005 Request for Additional Information - Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Fire Protection Open Items ML0502103762005-01-13013 January 2005 Request for Additional Information on Open Items for Balance of Plant Section ML18018B1861986-04-10010 April 1986 Letter Referring to Generic Letter 83-28 Concerning Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events and Requesting That GE Provide a Response by April 15, 1986 ML17037B9421976-12-13013 December 1976 Letter Confirming September 7, 1976 and Early October Telephone Conversations Concerning Features in the Reheater Bay Area and a December 2, 1976 Call to Inform of More Recent Observations Which May Suggest Possible Post ... ML17037B9041976-12-13013 December 1976 Letter Confirming Telephone Conversations Relating to Certain Geologic Features and a December 2, 1976 Call to Inform of More Recent Observations Which May Suggest Possible Post-Glacial Vertical Displacement of Sediments .. ML17037C1891975-09-30030 September 1975 Letter Regarding a Telephone Conversation on August 15, 1975 Requesting Informing Concerning Potential Operational Limitations of the Onsite Standby Emergency Diesel Engines ML17037B5791975-09-0303 September 1975 Letter Confirming a 09/02/1975 Telephone Discussion Relative to the Meeting to Be Held 09/04/1975 ML17037C2061974-10-0404 October 1974 Letter Acknowledging Receipt of the Analysis on ATWS with Letter of September 25, 1974 and Requesting Submittal of Additional Analysis, an Explanation for the Delay, and a Schedule of the Detailed Plan within Two Weeks .. ML17037C2511973-12-18018 December 1973 Letter Regarding Letters Dated November 28 and December 3, 1973 Reporting Failures of Eleven and Fifteen Control Rods to Insert to Position Oo Following a Reactor Scram and Confirming That a More Complete Report Will Be ... ML17037B7681965-04-21021 April 1965 Letter Requesting More Information Concerning the Recent AEC License Awarded to Niagara Mohawk ML17037C1561964-02-21021 February 1964 Letter Regarding a Geological Report and a Request for Examination and Submittal of an Independent Opinion 2020-11-20
[Table view] Category:Report
MONTHYEARNMP2L2883, Fourth Inservice Inspection Interval, Second Inservice Inspection Period 2024 Owner’S Activity Report for RFO-19 Inservice Examinations2024-07-24024 July 2024 Fourth Inservice Inspection Interval, Second Inservice Inspection Period 2024 Owner’S Activity Report for RFO-19 Inservice Examinations NMP1L3563, Submittal of Relief Request I5R-12, Revision 0, Concerning the Installation of a Full Structural Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208)2023-12-0404 December 2023 Submittal of Relief Request I5R-12, Revision 0, Concerning the Installation of a Full Structural Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208) NMP1L3545, Supplemental Information Letter to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk- Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Revision 2 and 10 CFR 50.69, Risk-informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems .2023-08-0404 August 2023 Supplemental Information Letter to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk- Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Revision 2 and 10 CFR 50.69, Risk-informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems . NMP1L3515, Submittal of Emergency Relief Request I5R-11 Concerning the Installation of a Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208)2023-03-27027 March 2023 Submittal of Emergency Relief Request I5R-11 Concerning the Installation of a Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208) NMP1L3469, Constellation Energy Company, LLC, Request for Use of Honeywell Mururoa V4F1 R Supplied Air Suits2022-06-30030 June 2022 Constellation Energy Company, LLC, Request for Use of Honeywell Mururoa V4F1 R Supplied Air Suits RS-21-001, Revised Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Cases N-878 and N-880 for Carbon Steel Piping2021-01-0404 January 2021 Revised Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Cases N-878 and N-880 for Carbon Steel Piping ML20303A1752020-10-23023 October 2020 Proposed Relief Request from Section XI Repair/Replacement Documentation for Bolting Replacement of Pressure Retaining Bolting ML20190A1482020-07-0808 July 2020 FAQ 20-01 NMP Scram Final Approved ML20100F6822020-04-0909 April 2020 Submittal of Analytical Evaluation of Recirculation Discharge Nozzle-to-Safe End Weld Indication ML19228A0232019-08-15015 August 2019 Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-879 NMP2L2695, Supplement Information and Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of an Emergency License Amendment Request for One Time Extension to The.2018-12-0707 December 2018 Supplement Information and Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of an Emergency License Amendment Request for One Time Extension to The. NMP1L3229, Report of Full Compliance with Phase 1 and Phase 2 of June 6, 2013 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents Capable of Operation Under Severe ...2018-08-20020 August 2018 Report of Full Compliance with Phase 1 and Phase 2 of June 6, 2013 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents Capable of Operation Under Severe ... ML18018B2922018-01-18018 January 2018 Appendix a, Justification for Continued Operation, Component Review Summary Sheet ML18018B2912018-01-18018 January 2018 Pipe Crack Task Force Report ML18018A9652018-01-18018 January 2018 Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 - Equipment Qualification Program and Tables I - Equipment Qualification Reports and Table Ii - TMI Action Plan ML18018B0122018-01-18018 January 2018 Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report July-December 1999 ML17251A0452017-09-20020 September 2017 - Staff Assessment of Flooding Focused Evaluation (CACs No. MG0087 and MG0088) ML17109A3652017-04-13013 April 2017 Pressure and Temperature Limits Report ML17079A3842017-03-24024 March 2017 Summary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff'S Review of the Spring 2016 Steam Generator Tube Inservice Inspections ML17037A6862017-02-0606 February 2017 Table 7.2-1 ML17037A7032017-02-0606 February 2017 Table 7.2-1 (Cont'D) ML17027A0162017-01-27027 January 2017 10 CFR 50.46 Annual Report of the Emergency Core Cooling System Evaluation Model Changes and Errors RS-16-178, High Frequency Supplement to Seismic Hazard Screening Report2016-11-0202 November 2016 High Frequency Supplement to Seismic Hazard Screening Report ML16231A4522016-08-30030 August 2016 Interim Staff Evaluation Relating to Overall Integrated Plan in Response to Phase 2 of Order EA-13-109 (Severe Accident Capable Hardened Events) ML16223A8532016-08-25025 August 2016 Interim Staff Evaluation Relating to Overall Integrated Plan in Response to Phase 2 of Order EA-13-109 (Severe Accident Capable Hardened Vents) RS-16-091, Report of Full Compliance with March 12, 2012 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Order Number EA-12-051)2016-06-14014 June 2016 Report of Full Compliance with March 12, 2012 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Order Number EA-12-051) ML16160A0942016-06-0808 June 2016 ASP ANALYSIS- REJECT- Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Automatic Reactor Scram Due to Main Steam Isolation Valve Closure (LER 220-2015-004) ML15153A6602015-06-16016 June 2015 Staff Assessment of Information Provided Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.54(f) Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Re ML15028A1492015-02-11011 February 2015 Interim Staff Evaluation Relating to Overall Integrated Plan in Response to Order EA-13-109, Severe Accident Capable Hardened Vents RS-14-277, Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-513-4, Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Piping Section XI, Division 12014-09-24024 September 2014 Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-513-4, Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Piping Section XI, Division 1 ML15022A6612014-07-31031 July 2014 Stress Re-Evaluation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer at 115% CLTP, CDI Report No. 14-08NP, Revision 0, Non-proprietary Version ML14153A4102014-07-24024 July 2014 Staff Assessment of Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Information Request - Flood-Causing Mechanism Reevaluation ML14176A9612014-06-24024 June 2014 Submittal of Non-Proprietary BWROG Technical Product, BWROGTP-11-006 - ECCS Containment Walkdown Procedure, Rev 1 (January 2011), as Formally Requested During the Public Meeting Held on April 30, 2014 ML14167A3492014-06-20020 June 2014 Staff Assessment of the Flooding Walkdown Report Supporting Implementation of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Related to the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident (Tac. MF0249 & MF0250) ML15022A6622014-05-31031 May 2014 Acoustic and Low Frequency Hydrodynamic Loads at 115% CLTP Target Power Level on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer to 250 Hz Using ACM Rev. 4.1R, C.D.I. Report No. 14-09NP, Revision 1, Non-proprietary Version ML15023A0312014-04-30030 April 2014 Computation of Cumulative Usage Factor for the 115% CLTP Power Level at Nine Mile Point Unit 2 with the Inboard RCIC Valve Closed, C.D.I. Technical Note No. 14-04NP, Revision 0, Non-proprietary Version ML14099A1962014-03-31031 March 2014 Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC - Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task. ML14064A3242014-02-28028 February 2014 000N2495-R1-NP, Rev. 0, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 Comparison of Mellla+ Reference Design to Cycle 15 Design Characteristics. ML14071A4782014-02-21021 February 2014 Response to Nrc'S Request for Cashflow Statements Regarding Application for Order Approving Transfer of Operating Authority and Conforming License Amendments ML14351A4272014-01-31031 January 2014 000N2528-SRLR, Revision 1, Supplemental Reload Licensing Report for Nine Mile Point 2 Reload 14 Cycle 15 Extended Power Uprate (3988 Mwt) / MELLLA (99-105% Flow). ML14064A3222014-01-31031 January 2014 00N0123-SRLR, Rev. 2, Supplemental Reload Licensing Report for Nine Mile Point 2 (NMP2) Reload 14 Cycle 15 Extended Power Uprate (Epu)/Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Plus (Mellla+). ML14024A4422014-01-0707 January 2014 Submittal of Report in Accordance with 10 CFR 26.719(c)(1) Regarding Unsatisfactory Blind Performance Sample Testing ML14064A3232013-12-31031 December 2013 000N0123-FBIR-NP, Rev. 0, Fuel Bundle Information Report for Nine Mile Point 2 Reload 14 Cycle 15. ML13225A5842013-12-19019 December 2013 Interim Staff Evaluation Relating to Overall Integrated Plan in Response to Order EA-12-049 (Mitigation Strategies) ML13338A6632013-12-11011 December 2013 Mega-Tech Services, LLC, Technical Evaluation Report Regarding the Overall Integrated Plan for Nine Mile Point, Unit 1, TAC No.: MF1129 ML13338A6642013-12-11011 December 2013 Mega-Tech Services, LLC Technical Evaluation Report Regarding the Overall Integrated Plan for Nine Mile Point, Unit 2, TAC No.: MF1130 ML13311A0542013-11-0404 November 2013 Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) PTLR-2, Revision 0 (Draft B) ML13316B1102013-11-0101 November 2013 Attachment 9 - Global Nuclear Fuel Report GNF-0000-0156-7490-RO-NP, Gnf Additional Information Regarding the Requested Change to the Technical Specification SLMCPR, Dated August 26, 2013 (Non-proprietary) ML13311A0552013-09-30030 September 2013 Fluence Extrapolation in Support of NMP2 P-T Cure Update, MPM-913991, September 30, 2013, Attachment 3 ML13197A2222013-07-12012 July 2013 Supplemental Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information, Recommendation 2.3, Seismic 2024-07-24
[Table view] Category:Technical
MONTHYEARNMP1L3545, Supplemental Information Letter to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk- Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Revision 2 and 10 CFR 50.69, Risk-informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems .2023-08-0404 August 2023 Supplemental Information Letter to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk- Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Revision 2 and 10 CFR 50.69, Risk-informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems . NMP1L3469, Constellation Energy Company, LLC, Request for Use of Honeywell Mururoa V4F1 R Supplied Air Suits2022-06-30030 June 2022 Constellation Energy Company, LLC, Request for Use of Honeywell Mururoa V4F1 R Supplied Air Suits RS-21-001, Revised Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Cases N-878 and N-880 for Carbon Steel Piping2021-01-0404 January 2021 Revised Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Cases N-878 and N-880 for Carbon Steel Piping ML20100F6822020-04-0909 April 2020 Submittal of Analytical Evaluation of Recirculation Discharge Nozzle-to-Safe End Weld Indication ML19228A0232019-08-15015 August 2019 Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-879 NMP2L2695, Supplement Information and Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of an Emergency License Amendment Request for One Time Extension to The.2018-12-0707 December 2018 Supplement Information and Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of an Emergency License Amendment Request for One Time Extension to The. NMP1L3229, Report of Full Compliance with Phase 1 and Phase 2 of June 6, 2013 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents Capable of Operation Under Severe ...2018-08-20020 August 2018 Report of Full Compliance with Phase 1 and Phase 2 of June 6, 2013 Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents Capable of Operation Under Severe ... ML18018B0122018-01-18018 January 2018 Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report July-December 1999 ML18018A9652018-01-18018 January 2018 Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 - Equipment Qualification Program and Tables I - Equipment Qualification Reports and Table Ii - TMI Action Plan ML17109A3652017-04-13013 April 2017 Pressure and Temperature Limits Report ML17037A7032017-02-0606 February 2017 Table 7.2-1 (Cont'D) ML17037A6862017-02-0606 February 2017 Table 7.2-1 RS-14-277, Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-513-4, Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Piping Section XI, Division 12014-09-24024 September 2014 Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-513-4, Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Piping Section XI, Division 1 ML15022A6612014-07-31031 July 2014 Stress Re-Evaluation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer at 115% CLTP, CDI Report No. 14-08NP, Revision 0, Non-proprietary Version ML14176A9612014-06-24024 June 2014 Submittal of Non-Proprietary BWROG Technical Product, BWROGTP-11-006 - ECCS Containment Walkdown Procedure, Rev 1 (January 2011), as Formally Requested During the Public Meeting Held on April 30, 2014 ML15022A6622014-05-31031 May 2014 Acoustic and Low Frequency Hydrodynamic Loads at 115% CLTP Target Power Level on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer to 250 Hz Using ACM Rev. 4.1R, C.D.I. Report No. 14-09NP, Revision 1, Non-proprietary Version ML15023A0312014-04-30030 April 2014 Computation of Cumulative Usage Factor for the 115% CLTP Power Level at Nine Mile Point Unit 2 with the Inboard RCIC Valve Closed, C.D.I. Technical Note No. 14-04NP, Revision 0, Non-proprietary Version ML14064A3242014-02-28028 February 2014 000N2495-R1-NP, Rev. 0, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 Comparison of Mellla+ Reference Design to Cycle 15 Design Characteristics. ML14071A4782014-02-21021 February 2014 Response to Nrc'S Request for Cashflow Statements Regarding Application for Order Approving Transfer of Operating Authority and Conforming License Amendments ML14064A3222014-01-31031 January 2014 00N0123-SRLR, Rev. 2, Supplemental Reload Licensing Report for Nine Mile Point 2 (NMP2) Reload 14 Cycle 15 Extended Power Uprate (Epu)/Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Plus (Mellla+). ML14351A4272014-01-31031 January 2014 000N2528-SRLR, Revision 1, Supplemental Reload Licensing Report for Nine Mile Point 2 Reload 14 Cycle 15 Extended Power Uprate (3988 Mwt) / MELLLA (99-105% Flow). ML14064A3232013-12-31031 December 2013 000N0123-FBIR-NP, Rev. 0, Fuel Bundle Information Report for Nine Mile Point 2 Reload 14 Cycle 15. ML13225A5842013-12-19019 December 2013 Interim Staff Evaluation Relating to Overall Integrated Plan in Response to Order EA-12-049 (Mitigation Strategies) ML13338A6632013-12-11011 December 2013 Mega-Tech Services, LLC, Technical Evaluation Report Regarding the Overall Integrated Plan for Nine Mile Point, Unit 1, TAC No.: MF1129 ML13338A6642013-12-11011 December 2013 Mega-Tech Services, LLC Technical Evaluation Report Regarding the Overall Integrated Plan for Nine Mile Point, Unit 2, TAC No.: MF1130 ML13311A0542013-11-0404 November 2013 Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) PTLR-2, Revision 0 (Draft B) ML13316B1102013-11-0101 November 2013 Attachment 9 - Global Nuclear Fuel Report GNF-0000-0156-7490-RO-NP, Gnf Additional Information Regarding the Requested Change to the Technical Specification SLMCPR, Dated August 26, 2013 (Non-proprietary) ML13311A0552013-09-30030 September 2013 Fluence Extrapolation in Support of NMP2 P-T Cure Update, MPM-913991, September 30, 2013, Attachment 3 ML13197A2222013-07-12012 July 2013 Supplemental Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information, Recommendation 2.3, Seismic ML13078A3232013-02-28028 February 2013 XGEN-2012-25-NP, Revision 1, Westinghouse Engineering Report, Technical Basis for the Inspection Frequency of the Modified Alloy 718 Jet Pump Beam, Attachment 2 ML13066A1692013-02-28028 February 2013 Units I and 2, Overall Integrated Plan for Reliable Hardened Vents ML12313A2032012-10-26026 October 2012 Attachment 1, NMP2 Extended Power Uprate, Power Ascension Test Report ML12313A2042012-10-26026 October 2012 Attachment 2, Final Steam Dryer Stress Report, Continuum Dynamics, Incorporated Report No. 12-18NP, Attachment 3, Affidavit from CDI ML12277A0902012-10-12012 October 2012 Technical Letter Report on Aging Management Program Audits at Ginna and Nine Mile Point 1 ML12284A1842012-09-30030 September 2012 Attachment 3, Final EPU Steam Dryer Load Definition CDI Report No. 12-20NP, Acoustic and Low Frequency Hydrodynamic Loads at 115% CLTP Target Power Level on Nine Mile Point, Unit 2 Steam Dryer to 250 Hz Using ACM Rev. 4.1 ML12284A1852012-06-30030 June 2012 Attachment 4, Steam Dryer Limit Curves CDI Technical Note No. 12-13NP, Limit Curves with ACM Rev. 4.1 for the 100% Power Level Basis at Nine Mile Point, Unit 2, Revision 1 ML12170A8692012-06-30030 June 2012 Transition to 10 CFR 50.48(c) - NFPA 805, Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants, 2001 Edition ML11221A0132011-08-0505 August 2011 Attachment 3, Continuum Dynamics, Inc Technical Note No. 11-17NP, Limit Curve Analysis with ACM Rev. 4.1 for Power Ascension at Nine Mile Point Unit 2, Revision 1. (Non-Proprietary) ML11208B7732011-07-0808 July 2011 Report No. 1100539.401, Rev. 1, Nine Mile Point Unit 1, Steam Dryer Support Bracket Flaw Evaluation. ML11188A1952011-06-28028 June 2011 Calculation S0VESSELM035 (SIA File No. 1100566.301), Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Weld Flaw Evaluation, Rev. 00.00 ML11171A0602011-05-31031 May 2011 Attachment 3, CDI Report No. 11-04NP, Stress Evaluation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer Using ACM Rev. 4.1 Acoustic Loads, Revision 0. (Non-Proprietary), Attachment 4, Affidavit from Continuum Dynamics, Inc ML1108803022011-03-31031 March 2011 NEDO-33636, Fuel Storage Criticality Safety Analysis of New Fuel Storage Racks - GE14, Attachment 3, (Non-Proprietary) ML1104601602011-01-31031 January 2011 Attachment 1, CDI Report No. 10-09NP, ACM Rev. 4.1: Methodology to Predict Full Scale Steam Dryer Loads from In-Plant Measurements, Revision 3 ML12135A6232011-01-14014 January 2011 Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual (Odcm), Revision 32 ML1035003652010-12-13013 December 2010 Holtec Report No. HI-2012621 (Non-Proprietary), Criticality Safety Evaluation for the Nine Mile Point 2 Rack Installation Project ML1021702952010-07-30030 July 2010 Attachment 5, Continuum Dynamics, Inc., CDI Report No. 10-12NP, Design and Stress Evaluation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer Modifications for EPU Operation ML1021701862010-07-28028 July 2010 Attachment 4, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., Flaw Evaluation of Indications in the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer Vertical Support Plates Considering Extended Power Uprate Flow Induced Vibration Loading ML1019004492010-06-30030 June 2010 C.D.I. Report No. 10-10NP, Acoustic and Low Frequency Hydrodynamic Loads at CLTP Power Level on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer to 250 Hz Using ACM Rev. 4.1, Rev. 1 ML1021701852010-06-30030 June 2010 Attachment 3, Global Nuclear Fuel - Americas, LLC, MCNP01A, Low Enriched UO2 Pin Lattice in Water Critical Benchmark Evaluations Using ENDF/B-V Nuclear Cross-Section Data, Revision 1 ML1019004482010-06-30030 June 2010 C.D.I. Report No. 10-09NP, ACM Rev. 4.1: Methodology to Predict Full Scale Steam Dryer Loads from In-Plant Measurements, Rev. 1 (Non-Proprietary) 2023-08-04
[Table view] |
Text
J 0
~ / S NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK BUFFALO 8, N.Y.
February 21 1964 Dr. George H. Sutton Lamont Geological Ob'servatory Palisades, N. Y.
Dear Dr. Suttori'~
Confirming our telephone conversation'of February 21, Mr. Joseph Fischer will hand you a copy of the Dames and Moore geological report for our Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station on Monday, February 24. We request that you examine this report and render an independent opinion of it. Please feel free to comment, as an expert, in any area you wish but we would like your opinion in the following specific categories:
- l. Is there sufficient evidence in this report that this site is not subject to Zone 3 earthquake rating, and do you agree with the ground acceleration as specified.? '"'.
Do you agree with the historical seismological data of the site regarding the magnitude of the shocks at location of the epicenter?
- 3. What'would you consider to be the probable maximum magnitude of shock that might occur in the general area within a 100-mile radius of the site during the next 200 years?
- 4. What do you consider the credible magnitude of shock that might occur in the general area during the next 200 years?
J We have worked very closely with Mr. Fischer on this project, so if you need further clarification of the questions listed herein, please feel free to discuss them with him.
As I indicated to you, we would like to have your reply as early as possible in order that we can incorporate it as a part of our preliminary harards summary report which is due on April 1 ~
Very truly yours, J. N. Ewart Chief System Project Engineer 4
~P ALPINE GEOPHYSICAL ASSOCIATES, ING.
55 Oak Street, Norwood, New Jersey ~ Cable: "ALPGEO" ~ 201-768-8000 March 10, 1964 Mr.. 3. N. Ewart Chi,ef Systems Prospect Engineer Niagara Hohawk Power Corporatian 535 4/ashington Street f
Buf alo, New York Our File 3S-714
Dear Mr. Ewart:
Following ls a summary of'y opinions based on a critical reading of'Part II, Section C, Engineering Seismology; Site Evaluation Study, Proposed Nine Hile Point Nuclear Power Plant; near Oswego, New York; for the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation" prepared by Dames and Maara.
In answer to the four specific questions you raised in your letter of 21 February 1964:
(1) I believe that there should be suf'flclent evidence in the cited report by Dames and Moore (hereafter called 0-M report) that the Oswego, New York site is not sub)ected to Zone 3 earthquake rating and that the specified ground accelerations are reason-able.
(2) The historical seismological data regarding in-tensities and magnitudes in the region appears to be accurately presented ln the D-M report.
(3) The probable maximum magnitude shock that might occur in the general area within 10D mile radius of'he site during the next 2DO years ls H ~ 5.0 ta 5 7 (maximum intensity I, ~ 7 to 8).
(4) The credible maximum magnitude shock that might occur within 100 mile radius of the site during the next 200 years i,s M ~ 7 ~ 0 (Maximum intensity lo ~9) ~,
Although there can ba na absolute guarantee that a very large shock will not occur in the vicinity of the sita, lt appears to be favorably located with respect to seismic risk.
4 I
I
Hr. 3. N. Ewart March 10, 1964 Historically, only three shocks of intensity I ~ 5 or greater have occurred within 100 miles of the sita; one near 50 miles distant and two near 100 miles distant. There are no known active faults in the region and it is underlain by relatively undeformed lower Paleozoic rocks with high mechanical competence.
Seismicity in this general region seems to be related to the St. Lawrence Valley, marginal to the stable Canadian Shield, and to the ancient Appalachian Mountain system. Host of the activity related to the St. Lawrence Valley is northeast of the site while the activity related to the Appalachian system passes well east of the site in the general NE-SbJ trend. Similar zones of relatively minor seismic activity are common throughout the world at the margins of stable shield areas and along mature (ancient) mountain systems.
The occurrence of several earthquakes west of the site in the general vicinity of Buffalo, New York, requires some caution in assuming that the historical activity within 100 miles of the site vill be representative of the activity in the next 200 years or so. Also, I do not believe that the statement that the seismicity may be decreasing as a result of slackening glacial rebound is completely )ustified, since, as mentioned above, similar regions which have not 'been glsciated in the past few thousand years exhibit similar seismicity.
In order to obtain some statistical reliability I considered a region of radius 200 miles surrounding the site.
This region has 4 times the area of the zone being considered.
The following table lists the number of historical earth-quakes with maximum intensities equal to or greater than the stated value in this region:
nuabar ~Intana it 41 V (or greater)
VI (or greater)
VII (or greater)
VII1 If the seismicity within 100 mile radius of the site were equal to that of the larger region these numbers would be divided by 4. A conservative estimate taking into consideration the actual historical distribution of shocks would be to divide by 8. (The precision of the data makes any small correction
'I Mr. J. N~ Ewart March 10, 1964 for the time factor, 200 years span includes moat of the shocks, relatively unimportant.) On this basis one earthquake of maximum intensity I, ~ 7 might be expected within 100 miles in 200 years. Ho~ever two intensity 8 earthquakes have occurred at a distance only slightly greater then 100 miles from the site.
Since very few magnitudes of larger earthquakes in this region have been measured directly, it is necessary to relate intensity data to magnitudes. The formula, M ~ 2/3 Io 1.7 log h - 1.4 where M is Richter Magnitude I, is maximum Modified Mercalli intensity h is focal depth in kilometers, obtained by Harnik as an average of observations by several investigators in various regions, was used for this purpose.
In a very recant study by Isacks of a 300 km radius area surrounding northern New Dersey this relation was found to be reliable for relatively small earthquakes using a focal depth of about 10 km. Previous studies of larger earthquakes in this general region indicate greater focal depths (up to 60 km).
On the Seismic Zoning Map of the 1958 Uniform Building Coda, prepared by the U.S.C.E G.S., the proposed site falls north of a line separating Zone 1 (to the south) from Zone 3. The lines on this map are necessarily some~hat arbitrary and should be used only as a general guide, especially near zone boundaries. The immediate vicinity of the site should be considered mora nearly Zone 1 or, perhaps, Zone 2 than Zone 3.
Sincerely yours; George HE Sutton Assoc. Prof. of Geology Consultant
- HS
- GE pproved by:
bl a er C. Beckm ann, President ALPINE GEOPHYSICAL ASSOCIATES) INC ~
0 I
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AI.SANYINEW YORK I2224 NCW YORK STATC NVSCVN ANO SCICNCC SCRVICC ASSISTANT COMMISSIONCR April 23, 1968 Dames and Moore 100 Church Street New York New York 10017 Gentlemen: Attention: ~Jose h A. Pinches In a telephone conversation with Fred Fox yesterday, he indicated that your company is presently concerned with the trend of struc-tural and seismic lines in New York State, particularly with re-spect to the Oswego area.
I Although do not consider myself an expert in the area of geo-physics, I am quite familiar with the structural trends in New York and have had occasion, within the last two years, to plot areas of seismicity within the State. There is no indication to me that such a belt passes through or near the Oswego region.
I believe that seismi,c activity in the St. Lawrence lowlands is largely the result of shallow focus movement resulting from reactivation along fault lines caused by ice overloading duri.ng the glacial period. The glacial rebound in the last 10,000 years has been in the nature of 550 feet in the area of Montreal and progressively less southward into New York State. Other structural trends in New York State are northeast-southwest lineaments which transect the Adirondacks, roughly east-west folds in the Finger Lakes area and southwest, and northwest-southeast trending lines which appear on Nimbus photos cutting across western New York in the Buffalo and Ni.agara Falls areas.
None of these indicate a trend running from the St. Lawrence lowlands southward through Oswego and thence across the State, and I do not believe that any exists.
DAMES &YORK MOORE NEW RECEIVED Sincerely yours, G. Broug on g(j "I oo Assistant Commissioner (Acting) cc: F. Fox CMII I CC Reise I JTO I CPS NC I WJM L,C I I9 I TET RSE I.JA R RM C'TM AR IJW OMIT JMH J4
l II t
I 2
~ I
'ee
~ I I
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION .
NIAGARA ~) MOHAWK Ittllt&,
BvvvAI.a, NEw YoRK $ 4203 May 31, 1968
~ /
Dr. Jack E. Olive'r I amant Geological Observatory p"-~ Palisades, New Yox'k 10964 Lt Doax Dr. Oliver:
~ g Eaxly in '1964 we contacted Dr. George Sutton, wha was thon associ-'ted with tho Lamant Geolagical Observatory, far independent review of the '
preliminary geological report px'eparod by Dames and Moore for our Nine
~ Milo Point Nuclear Station. %'e now fool it is deoirablo to obtain a, similar " .
independont review af a subsequent Dames and Mo'ox'e report entitled "Seiomic Geology, Nine Mile Paint Nuclear Power Plant, Noa'r Oswego, Now York." Vle have ax'x'anged fox Mr. Joseph Fischer to doliver a copy of this report to the Observatory and x equeot that you or a member of youx
~
staff review it, as an expert, and comment in any area you wish. However,',
we would like'opinions
~ ~
in the following specific areas: 4
't ~,
~
,1 ~ v
~
~
' I ~
(1) The passible line cannectio'n of opicenters south- ,r weotwax'd fram the St. Lawrence Rivex'alloy.
'~.t
' ~ ~
al,,t
~
(2) Lo there any reason predicated on new information which would indicate that the 11 pex'cent anticipated m~mum ground acceleratian previously adapted ao a design valu'e should be changed'l I
IVe have worked very claooly with her. Fischor on this project sa if you or your "aosaciateo naod further clarification of this wox'k, p)ease feel free ta diocuoo it with him. Wo would'appreciate a reply by the fixot week af July at the latest for consideration in meetings scheduled with the Atomic Energy Commission. t Vary truly yours,
~ N. Ewax't Chief Syoto rojoct Enginoor JNE/jfw f.
t k
g ~
o
s Lamont Geological Observatory 'of Columbia University ~
Palisades, N Y.. 10984 t
Cabfs Addrassr Lamont, Pallsados, fsfsw York Stats Coda 0'f4, ELmwood 0-0000 June 26, 1968 Mr. J. N. Ewart Chief Syst;em Project Engineer Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Ehxffalo, New York 14203
Dear Mr. Ewart:
Dr Oliver forwarded your letter of May 31 to me and requested that; I handle the review of the Dames and. Moore report entitled. "Seismic Geology, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Plant near Oswego, Nev York". Accordingly .
I contac+ed Mr. Joseph Fischer and arranged with him a meeting with Hr. Fred Fox. I received the above-mentioned report fron Mr. Fox and discussed the work with him.
read the report; carefully and further discussed several points with ttfr. Fox and Mr. Fischer. The following are ~
comnents that I have concerning the report.
'it I agree with the basic argument of the report that is not reasonable to extrapolate the relatively h'.gh level. of se~smicity of the St. Tawrence region to the area of the Oswego site. In particular, I think that the evidence for +he correlat."on between the high seismicity of the New Madrid enr3. St. lawrence regions with localized fault;ed structures of Paleozoic or later ages is convincing.
This evidence reasonably indicates that, even if the align-ment of epicenters is not an artifice or is not fortuitou tbe levet oi,'ei,sisiclty varies slgnlfi.cantly along tbe supposed feature and appears to be controlled by '.local geological structure.
I see no problem with the estimation of O.ll g for the maximum ground accelerat;ion". I suggested to Mr. Fischer that he consider, as a possible alternative, the effect;s of an earthquake the size of the Attica Earthquake located very close or at the site in question. Yw. F.'.scher inform-ed me that. this would not sigrificantly increase the estimated acceleration.
In gener@3., I agree with the basic conclusions of the report. Please le~t me know discussion of some part< euler noints.
'f you wish further. deta11ed Sincerely yours 3 y n L. Isacks
~ v k
~
P