ML20214K715
| ML20214K715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/10/1986 |
| From: | Ibrahim A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | William Ford NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-54 NUDOCS 8612020433 | |
| Download: ML20214K715 (3) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
- WM s/f '
N//d v ,
e' g NMSS r/f REBrowning 86/09/09/AI MJBell
_1_ J0 Bunting PSJustus SEP :101986 JSTrapp
'Albrahim,& r/f NOTE T0: William Ford, WMGT -PDR ~ ~
DRAP Coordinator MFliegel JGrimm FROM: Abou-Bakr Ibrahim, WMGT
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F GPAND JUNCTION DRAP Enclosed are the preliminary comments on the Grand Junction DRAP.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Abou-Bakr Ibrahim, WMGT 3.1 Reccrd FHe WI.1 Pre;..c. . ? _
. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ Docket I:0. _ y - -.
P D it K _ __ __
LP O R _ _ _ _ _ _ __
0:siribuhan; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ ___
L E., , ~E.i 'n23 5$) . _ _ _ _ _
h l 8612020433 860910 PDR WASTE y WM-54 PDR sFC :WM.7 : : : :
s____:___' L__:___________:____________:____________:____________:____________:___________
MME : Albrahim : : : .
s____:____________:____________:____________:____________:____________:____________:___________
(ATE:86/09/IO
( ,
3/ r
~a 86/09/09/AI/1 GRAND JUNCTION RAP COMMENTS Section E. 3.6. Seismotectonic Setting. P. E-42.
Provide a map showing the stress field orientations in the Colorado Plateau as compared to the surrounding provinces. Discuss if the stress field is used as a parameter in delineating the different seismotectonic provinces.
Section E.3.6, Western Mountain Province. P. E-48.
Provide a reference or a justificatior fcr the statement " faults associated with evaporation flowage or solution which cut Neogene rocks are not considered to be capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude greater than 4 or 5".
Section E.3.7. Analysis of Seismic Risk. P. E-53 and E-59.
Provide the rationale for choosing Campt' ell (1981) attenuation relation as compared to other investigators attenuation relations and state if Campbell (1981) relation is applicable to the area.
Provide the rationale for choosing nine (9) miles as the distance from the site to the floatirg earthquake to calculate the acceleration.
Section E.3.7. Determination of Floating Earthquake Pacritude. P. E-57.
Provide the rationale for the statement "the FE magnitude should never ha greater than the ME".
Section 3.7.4. , Faults and Epicenteral Compilation. P. E.63.
Kirkham and Rogers (Colorado Geological Survey, Bulletin 43, Plate 3, 1981) identified fau!ts .1,3,4,7,8,9 and 17 as potentially active faults. In the RAP it is stated that these faults are not proven to be capable. Provide supporting eviderces to support that these faults are not capable.
Sectinn 3.7.4, Cheney Reservoir Site Lineament. P. E.65.
Provide the field evidences which wculd support that this Lineament is not the result of faulting.
Secticr. ?.7.4, Epicentral Compilation. E.67 If the earthquake of Feveriber,1871 appears to be related to Fault 6, it should be considered capable, i
5 86/09/09/AI/1 ,
-c-Section 3.7.4, Recommended Seismic Design Parameters. P. E.67 Identify the references and the formulae used to estimate the magnitude and the acceleration from fault 8. Indicate if the fault type is considered in estimating the magnitude and the exact distance of the fault from the site.
Section 3.8.4, Recommended Seismic Design Parameters. P. E.67.
In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (00E/EIS-0126-D, Vol.II, P.
E-41, March 1986) it is stated that " Higher accelerations may result from the occurrence of earthquakes of magnitude as higher as 6.6 on previcusly unknown faults within less than five miles of the sites". Based on this statement should the design earthquake be located at a distance less than 5 miles from the site, if not discuss with rationale.
Table E.3.5, Earthquakes of M 4.0. P. E.89.
This table lists earthquakes up to 1981. Update this table to cover recent seismic activities in the area and provide a map showing the locations of these earthquakes.
General Comment The RAP does not discuss any gecpbysical survey which may have been used to support the site investigation findings. Discuss the type of geophysical surveys conducted. If no surveys are conducted explain the reasons.
-_