ML20055B647

Forwards DD Dickey & Rc Mcdowell Statement on Facility,As Result of Preliminary Analysis of PSAR & 2-day Field Insp of Site

ML20055B647
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	07/13/1982
From:	Hays W INTERIOR, DEPT. OF, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
To:	Rolonda Jackson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8207220583
Download: ML20055B647 (2)

Text

_- _

,s. e, ,v,

$0' T37

[ A^A 5 United States Department of the Interior j g i C.EOLOGICAL SURVEY

,g A. # RESTON, VA. 22092 In Reply Refer To:

Mail Stop 905 July 13,1982 Dr. Robert E. Jackson Chief, Geosciences Branch Division of Engineering U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Dr. Jackson:

I am enclosing a statement on the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant. This statement was prepared by D. D. Dickey and R. C. McDowell on the basis of their preliminary analysis of the PSAR and a two-day field inspection of the site area.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours, I

Walter W. Hays Dexity for Research Applications Ofdice of Earthquake Studies Enclosure DOcQ 8207220583 820713 PDR ADOCK 05000537 A PDR

e e

Status Review CRBRP D. D. Dickey and R.C. McDowell June 11, 1982 U.S. Department of Energy Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Oak Ridge, Tennessee NRC Docket No. 50-537 Our concern over the suitability of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant consists of two parts:

Part 1--the applicant states on page 2.5-25 of the PSAR that the focal depths of the seismicity are 50,000 to 65,000 feet. The NRC asked for details on the seismicity, to which the applicant is responding. If the seismic zone is established to be at these depths it would be well below geologic structures exposed at the surface, and the validity of the applicant's conclusions that shallow structures are not involved would be supported.

Part 2--if some of the focal depths are shallow, an association with the shallow structure should be sought. The applicant has cited evidence supporting a Paleozoic age for the geologic structure in the area. However, his evidence for proving absence of renewed movement on old faults is weak.

For instance, the radiometric date of the mylonite from the Copper Creek fault zone supports a Paleozoic age for the fault, but recent movement on that same f ault at shallow depths is not precluded. The applicant should, therefore, provide geologic evidence supporting the proposition that no tettonic activity is now taking place.