ML20196G354

for Comment Issue of Proposed Rev 3 to SRP 2.5.3, Surface Faulting

ML20196G354
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/28/1995
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20196G123	List: ML20196G133 ML20196G157 ML20196G254 ML20196G340 ML20196G354
References
FRN-57FR47802, FRN-59FR52255, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52 AD93-1-104, NUREG-0800, NUREG-0800-02.5.3R3D, NUREG-800, NUREG-800-2.5.3R3D, SRP-02.05.03DRF, SRP-2.05.03DRF, NUDOCS 9705160078
Download: ML20196G354 (16)

Text

. - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

A'D$3 -I PP R.

I 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

(~~'}

2 STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.5.3 February 1995 V3 SURFACE FAULTING

Contact:

A.J. Murphy 4 PROPOSED REVISION 3 (301)415-6010 5 REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES 6 Primary - Civil Engireering and Geosciences Branch (ECGB) 7 Secondary - None 8 I. AREAS OF REVIEW b

9 ECGB reviews information in the applicant's Safetyfriajys ) Report (SAR) or 10 Early Site Evaluation Report (ESR) that address.ei.JhhBte.v.e ex of a potential 11 forsurfacedeformationthatcouldaffectthesit6?gTheinformation i

l 12 presented in this section results largel,. [ w Ntailedsurfaceandsubsurface 4 n 13 geological, seismological, and geophysi invistigations performed in the h 14 site subregion (40 km or 25 mi front y t , site vicini',y (8 km or 5 mi 15 from the site), and in the sit (wJthin1kmor0.6tniofthesite). The 16 following specific subjects a addl ssed: the structural and stratigraphic j 17 conditions of the site . rbgi te vicinity, and site area (subsection 18

] 2.5.3.1), any evidence ofau ! offset, including near-surface folding,

' 19 uplift, or subsidence that reflects faulting at depth, or evidence 20 demonstratinggfiegabsence of faulting within these areas (subsection 2.5.3.2),

21 earthquakes a ta%ed with tectonic structures within these areas (subsection 22 2.5.3.3fd grknation of the age of most recent movement on faults or other 6V This etIgnard review plan le being issued in draft form to involve the public in the early stages of its development. It has not receivedSplete staff review and does not represent en official NRC staff position.

Pubhc commente are being solicited on this draft standard review plan, wich is part of a group of drafts of regulatory guides and standard review plan sections on meeting proposed amendments to the regulations on eiting nuclear power plante (59 FR 52255). Commente should be accompanied by appropriate supporting data. Written commente may be eubmitted to the Rules Review and Directives Branch, DFIPS, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of cornmente received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street NW., Washirgton, DC.

Comments will be moet helpful if received by May 12, 1995.

[ Requeste for eingle copies of this standard review plan (which may be reproduced) will be filled while supplies last, Requeste ehould be in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Reguletary Commission, Weehington, DC 20555, Attention: Office of Administration, f(v/

Distribution and Mail Services Section.

9705160078 970422 PDR PR 50 57FR47802 PDR

1 near-surface tectonic deformation (subsection 2.5.3.4), determination of 2 structural relationships of site area faults to regional faults (subsection '

3 2.5.3.5), identification and characterization of capable tectonic sources l 4 (subsection 2.5.3.6), zones of Quaternary deformation that requ ue detailed )

5 fault investigations (subsection 2.5.3.7), and results of studies in zones 6 requiring detailed Quaternary faulting investigations (subsection 2.5.3.8).  !

7 References 1 through 8 (regulations and regulatory guides) provide guidance to 8 the ECGB reviewers in evaluating potential nuclear power plant sites. The 9 principal regulation that will be used by ECGB in the future to determine the l 10 scope and adequacy of the submitted geological, seismological, and geophysical

)

11 information is Proposed Section 100.23, " Geologic and Seismic Siting Factors,"

12 10 CFR Part 100 (Ref. 2). Specific guidance for implementing this proposed 13 regulation can be found in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1032, " Identification and 14 Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe Shutdown 15 Earthquake Ground Motion" (Ref. 3). Guidance regarding the geotechnical 16 engineering aspects is found in Regulatory Guide 1.132, " Site Investigations 17 for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants" (Ref. 4). Additional guidance is provided to the ECGB reviewers through information published in the scientific 18 19 literature. As the state of the art regarding the geosciences is advancing 20 rapidly, it is the responsibility of the reviewers to stay abreast of changes 21 by reviewing the current scientific literature on a regular basis and 22 attending professional meetings.

23 II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 24 ECGB acceptance criteria are based on meeting the requirements of the 25 following regulations:

26 1. Accendix A. " General Desian Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants". General 27 Desian Criterion 2 "Desian Ba gi_for Protection Aaainst Natural 28 Phenomena. 10 CFR Part 50." This criterion requires that safety-related 29 portions of the structures, systems, and components important to safety  !

30 be designed to withstand the effects of earthquakes, tsunami, and 31 seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions j 32 (Ref. 1).

2.5.3-2 1

1 2. 10 CFR Part 100 Proposed Section 100.23. "Geoloaic and Seismic Sitina

(] 2 Factors." These proposed requirements describe the general nature of V 3 the geological, seismological, and geophysical data necessary to 4 determine the site suitability (Ref. 2).

5 The following regulatory guides provide information, recommendations, 6 and guidance and in general describe bases acceptable to the staff for 7 implementing the requirements of General Design Criterion 2, Part 100, 8 and Proposed Section 100.23 of Part 100.

9 a. Draft Reaulatory Guide DG-1032. " Identification and 10 Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe 11 Shutdown Earthauake Ground Moligfl." This draft guide and its 12 appendices are being developed to describe geological, 13 seismological, and geophysical investigations to determine site 14 suitability; methods to identify and characterize potential 15 seismic sources; acceptable methods to conduct probability 16 seismic hazard analyses; and methods to determine the Safe G 17 Shutdown Earthquake ground motion (SSE) (Ref. 3).

Y 18 b. Reaulatory Guide 1.132. " Site Investiaations for Foundations of 19 Nuclear Power Plants." This guide describes programs of site 20 investigations related to geotechnical aspects that would normally 21 meet the needs for evaluating the safety of the site from the 22 standpoint of the performance of foundations and earthworks under ,

23 anticipated loading conditions, including earthquakes. It 24 provides general guidance and recommendations for developing site-25 specific investigation programs as well as specific guidance for 26 conducting subsurface investigations such as borings, sampling, 27 and geophysical explorations (Ref. 4).

28 c. Reaulatory Guide 4.7. " General Site Suitability Criteria for 29 Nuclear Power Stations." This guide discusses the major site 30 characteristics related to public health and safety that the NRC 31 staff considers in determining the suitability of sites for 32 nuclear power stations (Ref. 5, also see Ref. 6).

LJ 2.5.3-3

1 The data and analyses presented in the SAR or ESR are acceptable if, as a 2 minimum, they describe and document the information proposed to be required by 3 Reference 2, show that the methods described in Reference 3 or comparable 4 methods were employed, and conform to the format suggested in Reference 7. j 5 References 8 and 9 have been used by the staff in past licensing activities as 6 relevant guides to judge whether or not all of the current pertinent 7 references have been consulted. References 10 through 17 are also used by the 8 staff.

9 Specific criteria necessary to meet the relevant requirements of the 10 Commission regulations identified above are described in the following 11 paragraphs. If the information that satisfies these criteria is presented in 12 other sections of Chapter 2.5, it may be cross-referenced and not repeated in 13 this section.

14 Subsection 2.5.3.1. In meeting the requirements of References 1 and 2 and the 15 positions of References 3 and 4, this subsection is considered acceptable if 16 the discussions of the Quaternary tectonics, structural geology, stratigraphy, 17 geochronological methods used, paleoseismology, and geological history of the 18 site are c.omplete, compare well with studies conducted by others in the same 19 area, and are supported by detailed investigations performed by the applicant.

20 For coastal and inland sites near large bodies of water, similar detailed 21 investigations are to be conducted, and the information is to be provided in 22 the SAR or ESR regarding offshore geology and seismology as well as onshore.

23 In some instances it may be possibit. to identify an onshore projection of the 24 offshore fault or fold of concern, or a tectonic structure that is analogous 25 to it at an onshore location. It is acceptable to the staff, along with other 26 investigations of the specific feature, to investigate the more remote, 27 accessible exposure to learn the nature of the potentially hazardous offshore l 28 or buried fault and apply it to the local structure (Refs. 3 and 18). Site 29 and regional maps (Ref. 3) and profiles constructed at scales adequate to 30 illustrate clearly the surficial and bedrock geology, structural geology, 31 topography, and the relationship of the safety-related foundations of the 32 nuclear power plant to these features should have been included in the SAR or i

33 ESR.

91 2.5.3-4 l

[

i

1 Subsection 2.5.3.L In meeting the requirements of References 1, 2, and 3, I 2

this subsection is acceptable if sufficient surface and subsurface information 3

is provided and supported by detailed investigations, either to confirm the 4

absence of surface tectonic deformation (i.e., faulting) or, if present, to 5

demonstrate the age of its most recent displacement and ages of previous 6 displacements.

If tectonic deformation is present in the site vicinity, it 7

must be defined as to geometry, amount and sense of displacement, recurrence 8 rate,, and age of latest movement.

In addition to geological evidence that may 9

indicate faulting, linear features interpreted from topographic maps, low and 10 high altitude aerial photographs, satellite imagery, and other imagery should 11 be documented and investigated. In order to expedite the review process, an 12 identification list, index, and duplicates of the remote sensing data used in 13 the linear features study should be provided to and reviewed by the staff.

14 Evidence for the absence of tectonic deformation is obtained by the applicant 15 conducting site surface (geological reconnaissance and mapping, etc.) and 16 subsurface investipations (geophysical, core borings, trenching and logging, 17 18 etc.) in such detail and areal extent to ensure that undetected offsets or other deformations are not likely to exist.

O 19 In the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS), except for the New Madrid 20 Seismic Zone, the Meers fault, and possibly the Harlan County fault of 21 Nebraska and the Cheraw fault of the Colorado piedmont, earthquake generating 22 23 faults either do not extend to oround surface or there is insufficient overlying soil or rock of kr.own or of a sufficient age to date those that do.

24 In tectonically active rcgions such as the Western United States (WUS), many 25 capable tecto ic sources are exposed at ground surface and can be 26 characterized as to their seismic potential. However, in these regions many 27 other capable tectonic sources are buried (blind faults), and may be expressed 28 at the surface or near surface by folding, uplift, or subsidence (including 29 faults related to subduction zones). Investigations in these regions should 30 take these phenomena into account.

The nature of geological, seismological, 31 and geophysical investigations will vary in detail and extent according to the 32 geological complexity of the specific site.

33 Subsection 2.5.3.3. In meeting the requirements of References 1 and 2, this l 34 subsection is acceptable if all historically reported earthquakes within 40 km 2.5.3-5 hW5I8[sh1

1 (25 mi) of the site are evaluated with respect to hypocenter accuracy and 2 source origin, and if all capable tectonic sources that trend within 8 km (5 3 mi) of the site are evaluated with respect to their potential for causing 4 surface deformation. In conjunction with these discussions, a plet of the 5 earthquake epicenters superimposed on a map showing the local capable tec anic 6 sources should have been shown.

7 Subsection 2.5.3.4. In meeting the requirements of References I and 2, this 8 subsection is acceptable when every fault, or fold associated with a blind 9 fault, any part of which is within 8 km (5 mi) of the site, is investigated in 10 sufficient detail using geological and geophysical techniques of sufficient 11 sensitivity to demonstrate, or allow relatively accurate estimates of the age 12 of most recent movement and identify geological evidence for previous 13 displacements if it exists (Ref. 3). An evaluation of the sensitivity and 14 resolution of the exploratory techniques used should be given.

15 Subsection 2.5.3.5. In meeting the requirements of References 1 and 2, this 16 subsection is satisfied by a discussion of the structural and 17 genetic relationship between site area faulting or other tectonic deformation 18 and the regional tectonic framework. In regions of active tectonism it may be 19 necessary to conduct detailed geological and geophysical investigations to 20 assess possible structural relationships of site area faults to regional 21 faults known to be seismically active.

22 Subsection 2.5.3.6. In meeting the requirements of References 1 and 2, this 23 subsection is acceptable when it has been demonstrated that the investigative 24 techniques used have sufficient sensitivity to identify all potential capable 25 tectonic sources such as faults, or folds associated with blind faults, within 26 8 km (5 mi) of the site and when the geometry, length, sense of movement, 27 amount of total offset, amount of offset per event, age of latest and any 28 previous displacements, and limits of the zone are given for each capable 29 tectonic source. Investigations are to extend at least 8 km (5 mi) beyond all 30 plant sites, including those adjacent to large bodies of water such as oceans, 31 rivers, and lakes.

32 Subsection 2.5.3.7. In meeting the requirements of Reference 2, this 33 subsection is judged acceptable if the zone designated by the applicant as 2.5.3-6

1 1 requiring detailed faulting investigation is of sufficient length and breadth l h)

O 2 to include all Quaternary deformation significant to the site (Ref. 3).

3 Subsection 2.5.3.8. In meeting the requirements of References 1 and 2, this 4 subsection must be presented by the applicant if the aforementioned 5 investigations reveal that surface displacement must be taken into account.

6 If there is a potential for tectonically induced surface displacement at the 7 site, it would be prudent of the applicant to abandon the site. No commercial 8 nuclear power plant has been constructed on a known capable fault (capable 9 tectonic source) and it is an open question as to whether it is feasible to 10 design for tectonic surface or near-surface displacement with confidence that 11 the integrity of the safety-related features of the plant would remain intact 12 should displacement occur. It is, therefore, staff policy to recommend 13 relocation of plant sites found to be located on capable faults (capable 14 tectonic sources) as determined by the detailed faulting investigations. If 15 in the future it becomes feasible to design for surface faulting, it will be 16 necessary to present the design basis for surface faulting and supporting data 17 in considerable detail.

O U 18 III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 19 The three-phase review procedure described in'Section 2.5.1 should be applied 20 to assessing the potential for surface faulting. The first phase consists of 21 an acceptance review to determine the completeness of the ESR or SAR by 22 comparing the contents with the Criteria described in Part II, Acceptance 23 Criteria, of this section. The second phase consists of a detailed review of 24 the applicant's data and other independently derived information, which may 25 result in requests for additional information. The third phase is a final 26 review to resolve open issues and prepare a Safety Evaluation Report (SER).

27 The staff review procedure involves an evaluation to determine that the 28 applicant has performed adequate investigations to fulfill the general l 29 requirements of Reference 2. Acceptable methods are described in Reference 3.

30 Consultants or advisors may be called on to assist the staff in reviewing this 31 section of the ESR or SAR on a case-by-case basis. On request, the advisor or

(\ 32 consultant provides expertise in numerous earth science disciplines and 33 occasionally is able to provide first-hand knowledge of the site. A 2.5.3-7

I literature search is conducted independently by the staff concerning the 2 regional and local geology and seismology. The staff also utilizes the U.S.

3 Geological Survey and other Federal agencies, State geological surveys, 4 universities, and private industry to obtain additional, up-to-date

5 geosciences information regarding Quaternary tectonics at the site.

6 The Proposed Section 100.23 of 10 CFR Part 100 would require that applicants

, 7 investigate the potential for near-surface deformation, both tectonically 8 induced and that induced by other phenomena (Ref. 2). The steps that 9 applicants may follow in determining the presence and extent of deformation 10 and whether near-surface deformation (if present) represents a hazard are in 11 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1032, Appendix 0 (Ref 3). The site vicinity (8 km -

12 5 mi from the site) and site area (1 km - 0.6 mi from the site) must be 13 investigated by a combination of exploratory methods that should include 14 borings, trenching, seismic profiling and other geophysical methods, 15 geological mapping, and seismic instrumentation. The results of these 16 explorations are cross-compared and evaluated by the staff. An important part 17 of the staff's review effort is to compare the new information derived from 18 these investigations or other sources with the specific data base used in the 19 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for the site (Ref. 3).

l 20 It has been the policy of the staff to encourage applicants to avoid areas 1 21 that have a possibility for near-surface tectonic deformation. As the l 22 question of whether or not a surface tectonic deformation condition exists is 23 so critical in determining site suitability, this consideration is usually 24 addressed very early in the review. The exceptions are cases in which a 25 previously unknown fault is revealed in excavations during construction or is 26 discovered during the course of other investigations in the area. The staff 27 should require early on that it be notified by the applicant when the 1 28 excavations for Seismic Category I structures are available for NRC inspection )

29 and when the detailed geological maps to be used by the staff while examining l 30 the excavations will be available. In addition, the staff should require that l 31 it be contacted immediately if a fault, not previously identified in the SAR 32 or ESR, is found within 8 km (5 mi) of the plant.

33 The previous two-step procedure of requiring applicants to obtain a j 34 Construction Permit, followed several years later after the plant design bases 2.5.3-8 i

1 have been approved by the staff, by application for an Operating License, has

/ ) 2 been provided with an alternative method, a combined licensing procedure, by 3 10 CFR Part 52. This procedure could create a problem for the staff in that 4 the applicant could already have a license before excavations are started, and 5 faults that fall in the category described in the previous paragraph will not 6 have been evaluated by the staff before preparation of the Safety Evaluation 7 Report (SER). It is imperative that Section 2.5.3 of the SER be made 8 conditional on the demonstrated absence of previously unknown potentially 9 hazardous faults beneath the plant as determined by careful examination of the 10 excavations by the staff as described in the previous paragraph.

11 When faults are identified in the site vicinity or site area, it must be 12 demonstrated that the faults do not have the potential to generate earthquakes 13 at the site (seismogenic source) or cause near-surface ground displacement 14 (capable tectonic source). This is accomplished by determining the ages of 15 the latest displacement on the faults, preferably by stratigraphic methods, 16 that is, identifying strata or a stratum of datable soil or rock overlying the 17 fault that is undeformed by the fault. Other methods include correlating the 18 last faulting event with regional tectonic activity of known ancient age,

' 19 geomorphic evidence of age, determining the relationship between the time of 20 the fault rupture event and the ages of marine or fluvial terraces.

21 Geochronological methods are discussed in References 3 and 17. Draft 22 Regulatory Guide DG-1032 (Ref. 3) provides brief descriptions and a list of 23 references of state-of-the-art methods and their applications, which can be 24 used to estimate the geochronological history of geological materials 25 associated with faults or other features.

26 In cases such as are described in the last paragraph, the staff will carry out 27 limited site observations and investigations of its own such as examinations 28 of excavations. In some cases, the staff may select samples from shear zones 29 or other materials for subsequent dating and analysis. Applicants usually 30 excavate trenches in the areas where major facilities are to be located for in 31 situ testing and to reduce the chance for surprises when the construction 32 excavations are made.

33 Subsection 2.5.3.1. This subsection is evaluated by conducting an independent 34 literature search and cross-comparing the results with the information 2.5.3-9 l

u__

1 submitted in the SAR or ESR. The comparison should show that the conclusions 2

presented by the applicant are based on sound data, are consistent with the 3 j published reports of experts who have worked in the area, and are consistent 4

with the conclusions of the staff and its advisors or consultants. If the  !

5 applicant's conclusions and assumptions conflict with the literature, and the 6

staff disagrees with the applicant's analysis and assumptions, additional  !

7 investigative results to support those conclusions must be submitted to the 8 staff for review.

t 9

Subsection 2.5.3.2 is evaluated by first determining through a literature 10 search that all known evidences of tectonic deformation such as fault offset 11 have been considered in the investigation. The results of the applicant's 12 site investigations are studied and cross-compared in detail to see if there '

13 is evidence of existing or possible displacements. If such evidence is found, 14 additional investigations such as field mapping, geophysical investigations, 15 borings, or trenching must be carried out to demonstrate that there is no 16 offset or to define the characteristics of the fault if it does exist. It is 17 important to distinguish between tectonically induced near-surface deformation 18 and deformation caused by nontectonic phennmena such as growth faulting, 19 collapse caused by the development of karst terrane, etc. (Ref. 3). '

20 Subsection 2.5.3.3 is reviewed in conjunction with the consideration of SRP 21 Section 2.5.2. Historical earthquake data derived from the review of SRP 1 22 Section 2.5.2 are compared with known local tectonic features and a i 23 determination is made as to whether any of t'hese earthquakes can reasonably be 24 associated with tne local tectonic structures. This determination includes an i

25 evaluation of the hypocentral error estimates of the earthquakes. When 26 available, the earthquake source mechanisms should be evaluated with respect  !

27 to fault geometry. In addition, applicants and licensees are encouraged to 28 evaluate the relationship of fault parameters to earthquake magnitude. These 29 parameters may include, but are not limited to, slip rate, recurrence 30 intervals, length, rupture area, and fault type (Ref.18).

31 Subsection 2.5.3.4 is evaluated to determine whether the geochronological 32 methodologies used by the applicant are based on accepted geological 33 procedures. In some cases unusual or untested age-dating techniques may have 3

34 been used. When such methods are employed, the staff will require 2.5.3-10

1 documentation of the technique. The resolution of all age dating techniques 2 should be carefully documented. The staff may require the services of a 3 consultant who has expertise in the method used.

4 Subsection 2.5.3.5 is evaluated by determining through a literature search 5 that the applicant's evaluation of the regional tectonic framework is 6 consistent with that of recognized experts whose reports appear in the 7 published literature. The conclusions reached by the applicant should be 8 based on sound geological principles and should explain the available 9 geological and geophysical data. When special investigations are made to 10 determine the structural relationship between faults that pass within 8 km (5 11 mi) of the site and regional faults, the resolution accuracy of the 12 investigative techniques should be given.

13 Subsection 2.5.3.6 is evaluated to determine whether a sufficiently detailed 14 investigation has been made by the applicant to define the specific 15 characteristics of all potential capable tectonic sources located within 8 km 16 (5 mi) of the site. The fault's characteristics that must be defined include 17 length, orientation, geometry, and relationship of the fault or fold to

' 18 regional structures; the nature, amount, and geological history of 19 displacements along the fault; and the outer limits of the zone established by 4

20 mapping the extent of Quaternary deformation in all directions. The staff 21 must be satisfied that the investigations cover a large enough area and are in 22 sufficient detail to demonstrate that there is little likelihood of near-23 surface deformation hazards associated with capable tectonic sources existing 24 undetected near the site.

25 Subsection 2.5.3.7. The zone that needs detailed investigations is defined by 26 the area characterized by Quaternary deformation in the site subregion (within 27 a distance of 40 k.m or 25 miles of the site). The staff reviews the results 28 of the applicant's investigation together with a review of the published 29 literature. The investigative techniques employed by the applicant are 30 evaluated to ascertain that they are consistent with the state of the art. As 31 part of this phase, experts in specific disciplines may be asked to review 32 certain aspects of the investigative program. The results of the o 33 investigations are analyzed to determine whether the outer limits of the zone 34 of Quaternary deformation investigation are appropriately conservative.

2.5.3-11 l

1 Subsection 2.5.3.8. If the detailed faulting investigations for the proposed 2 commercial nuclear power plant reveal that there is a potential for surface 3 deformation at the site, the staff recommends that an alternative location for 4 the proposed plant be considered. In the future, when it may be feasible to 5 design a commercial nuclear power plant for displacements, substantial 6 information would be required to support the design basis for surface 7 faulting.

8 While fulfilling the tasks of Subsections 2.5.3.1 through 2.5.3.8, it is l 9 important for the staff SAR or ESR reviewer to identify all significant new 10 information, such as a seismic source or a new tectonic model that was not 11 included in the site PSHA, and coordinate that information with the staff PSHA  ;

12 reviewer. l l

13 IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS l

1 l

14 If the evaluation by the staff, on completion of the review of the geological  !

15 and seismological aspects of the plant site, confirms that the applicant has l 16 met the requirements of applicable portions of General Design Criterion 2, 17 " Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena," of Appendix A to 10 l 18 CFR Part 50; and Proposed Section 100.23, " Geologic and Seismic Siting  ;

19 Factors," the conclusion in the SER would state that the investigations 20 performed, and the information and analyses provided, support the applicant's 21 conclusions regarding the geologic and seismic suitability of the subject 22 nuclear power plant site with respect to surface deformation potential. Staff 23 reservations about any significant deficiency, either presented in the 24 applicant's ESR or SAR identified by the staff, should be stated in sufficient 25 detail to make clear the precise nature of the concern. The above 26 determinations are made by the staff during the early site, construction 27 permit, operating license, or combined license reviews.

28 The ESR or SAR is also reviewed for any significant new information derived by l

29 the site-specific geological, seismological, and geophysical investigations 30 that had not been applied to the tectonic and ground motion models used in the 31 PSHA. Appendix E of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1032 (Ref. 3) discusses an 32 acceptable method to address significant new information in the PSHA.

2.5.3-12

1 A typical finding for this section of the SER follows:

l U 2 In its review of the geological and seismological aspects of the plant 3 site, the staff considered pertinent information gathered during the 4 regional and site-specific geological, seismological, and geophysical 5 investigations. The information includes data gathered from both site 6 and near-site investigations and from an independent review of state-of-7 the-art, published literature and other sources by the staff.

8 As a result of this review, the staff concludes that the geological, 9 seismological, and geophysical investigations and information provided 10 by the applicant in accordance with the Proposed Section 100.23 of 10 11 CFR Part 100 and Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1032 provide an adequate 12 basis to establish that no capable tectonic sources exist in the plant 13 site vicinity that would cause surface deformation or localize 14 earthquakes there.

15 16 The information reviewed for the proposed nuclear power plant concerning the p 17 potential for near-surface tectonic deformation is summarized in Safety

\ 18 Evaluation Report Section 2.5.3.

19 The staff concludes that the site is suitable from the perspective of surface 20 deformation and meets the requirements of: (1) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A 21 (General Design Criterion 2), and (2) the Proposed Section 100.23 of 10 CFR 22 Part 100. This conclusion is based on the following:

23 1. The applicant has met the requirements of:

24 a. 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix A (General Desian Criterion 2) with 25 respect to protection against natural phenomena such as faulting.

26 b. The Proposed Section 100.?3 of 10 CFR Part 100 (Geoloaic and 27 Seismic Sitina Factors) with respect to obtaining the geological 28 and seismological information necessary (1) to determine site 29 suitability, (2) to determine the appropriate design of the plant, 30 and (3) to ascertain that any new information derived from the V 31 site-specific investigations does not impact the SSE ground 2.5.3-13

I motions derived by a PSHA. In complying with this regulation, the 2 applicant also meets the staff's guidance proposed in Draft 3 Regulatory Guide 1032, " Geologic and Seismic Siting Factors";

4 Regulatory Guide 1.132, " Tite Investigations for Foundations of 5 Nuclear Power Plants;" and Regulatory Guide 4.7, " General Site 6 Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants."

7 V. IMPLEMENTATION 8 The following is intended to provide guidance to applicants and licensees 9 regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this SRP section.

10 Except in those cases in which the applicant / licensee proposes an acceptable 11 alternative method for complying with specific portions of the Commission's 12 regulations, the method described herein will be used by the staff in its 13 evaluation of conformance with Commission regulations.

14 Implemeatation schedules for conformance to parts of the method discussed 15 herein are contained in the referenced regulatory guides (Refs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 16 and 8).

17 The provisions of this SRP section apply to reviews of construction permits 18 (CP), operating licenses (0L), early site permits, and combined license 19 (CP/0L) applications docketed pursuant to the proposed Section 100.23 to 20 10 CFR Part 100.

21 VI. REFERENCES 22 1. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 2, " Design Bases 23 for Protection Against Natural Phenomena."

24 2. CFR Part 100, Proposed Section 100.23, " Geologic and Seismic Siting 25 Factors," Federal Reaister, Volume 59, page 52255, October 17, 1994 26 (59 FR 52255).

O 2.5.3-14

1 3. US NRC, " Identification and Characterization of Seismic Sources and  ;

2 Determination of Sa/e Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motions," Draft 3 Regulatory Guide DG-1032.

4 4. US NRC, " Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants."

5 Regulatory Guide 1.132.

6 5. US NRC, " General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations."

7 Regulatory Guide 4.7 (Proposed Revision 2, DG-4004).

8 6. US NRC, " Report of Siting Policy Task Force," NUREG-0625, August 1979.

9 7. US NRC, " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for 10 Nuclear Power Plants," Regulatory Guide 1.70.

11 8. American Petroleum Institute data base, accessible through RECON system, [

12 9. 'GeoRef data base, American Geological Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.

13 10. R.L. Bates and J. A. Jacksons, editors, " Glossary of Geology," American 14 Geological Institute, Falls Church, Virginia, 1980.

15 11. G.V. Cohee (Chairman) et al., " Tectonic Map of the United States," U.S.

16 Geological Survey and American Association of Petroleum Geologists, [

17 1962, 18 12. RECON / Energy data base, Department of Energy.

4 19 13. State geological maps and accompanying texts.

20 14. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 and 15 minute topographic and geologic 21 quadrangle maps.

22 15. Aerial photographs from Federal agencies such as the National 23 Aeronautics and Space Asministration, the U.S. Departmint of l 24 Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Forest Service.

C ,

2.5.3-15

I 16. Satellite imagery such as Landsat and Skylab.

2 17. P.J. Murphy, J. Briedis, and J. H. Pfeck, " Dating Techniques in Fault 3 Investigations," pp. 153-168, in Geoloav in the Sitina of Nuclear Power 4 Plants, A.W. Hatheway and C.R. McClure, Jr., editors, " Reviews in 5 Engineering Geology," Volume 4,' Geological Society of America,1979.

6 18. US NRC, " Safety Evaluation Repott Related to the Operation of Diablo 7 Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-0675, Supplement No.

8 34, June, 1991.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 POS AGE AP D E S PAID USNRC PERMIT NO. G-67 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 0

f O

2.5.3-16

.