ML13303A761
| ML13303A761 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1980 |
| From: | Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002190090 | |
| Download: ML13303A761 (8) | |
Text
Meeting Summary Docket File
- 1. Murphy NRC PDR
.1. Knight Local PDR S. Hanauer TIC R. Tedesco NRR Reading R. Bosnak LWR #2 File S. Pawlicki E. Case F. Schauer D. F. Ross K. Kniee D. B. Vassallo T. Novak S. A. Varga Z. Rosztoczy D. Skovholt W. Butler W. Gammill V. Benaroya.
R. Stolz R. Satterfield R. Baer V. Moore
- 0. Parr M. Ernst L. Rubenstein F. Rosa C. Heltemes R. P. Denise W. Haass EP Branch Chief R. Houston G. Chipman L. Crocker J. Collins F. J. Williams W. Kreger R. J. Mattson G. Lear R. DeYoung B. Youngblood Project Manager -H.
Rood
- 8. Yun Attorney, ELD -
L. Chandler L. Hulman J.
LeeNRC
Participants:
J. Lee IE(3)
P. Sobel ACRS(16)
B. Jackson R. J. Brazee A. J. Murphy R. Gonzales J. Stampelos R. Rothman L. Reiter H. McGurren 8029 C I
Docket Nos.:
50-361 and 50-362 APPLICANTS:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SAN; DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC: COMPANY FACILITY:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF SAN ONOFRE SEISMOLOGY MEETING On November 16,1979, the NRC staff met with the applicants, the applicant's consultants, theUnited Std'tes Geological Survey (USGS), and NRC staff con sultant Dr. David B. Slemnimons in Bethesda, Maryland. Attendees at the meet ingare given in Enclosure 1. The purpose of the meeting was to allow the applicants to summarfze the approach they plan to take in addressing the setsmological ;concerns identified at.the September 13, 1979 meeting held in Menlo:. prk, California. The agenda for the meeting is given in:.Enclosure
- 2.
During ithentroduction the applicants indicated that their response to the staff "s ismological concerns would be submitted after the first of the year..
staff stated that December 1, 1979 was its target date for issuance of a le tqr containing all the staff and consultant questions and concerns in the e1smilogical area (Letter was actually sent on December 21, 1979).
The ap icants then presented the areas that they plan to cover, in the develop at of the maximum magnitude earthquake that could occur on the Offshor one of Deformation (OZ).' These are summarized in Enclosure 3.
During th' discussion of this subject, the staff and its consultants made the fo ing comments:
- 1. T-heLapplicants should take into account the work by Chinnery on luper bound earthquakes (NUREG/CR-0563).
- 2. i'e applicants should make sure they are consistent in the use of ihe various definitions of magnitude (M s. Ms).
31# 'Sensitivity studies and statistical analyses are necessary to define
/the effect of various assumptions on the slip-rate vs. magnitude correlation, since it is primarily an empirical relationship. The applicants should revfew tfi rdeent ACRS meeting on the General Electric Test Reactor.
'Japanese data should be evaluated to see if it is applicable to the slip rate,vs. magnitude correlation.
o fFICE SURNAME E ATE.
N FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240
- U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
Southern California Edison Co. FEB 4 1980 San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
- 5. The applicants should discuss the implications of the fact that the observed 1933 Long Beach earthquake magnitude of 6.3 is very close to the maximum magnitude of 6.5 that the applicants predict for the 0ZO.
The applicants-.also presented the areas that they'plan to address in the development of site ground motion parameters. These are summarized in.
Origin ned by Harry Rood, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No.2.
Division of.Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page OFFIC.
LWR#2:DPM LWR#2:DPM HRood/bm BL'aex 2/k /80 2/ /80 DATEb
- ....1.
U MENT PRINTING OPPICE 1978 -288
-76
Mr. James H. Drake FEB 4 1980 Vice President Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. B. W. Gilman Senior Vice President - Operations San Diego Gas and Electric Company 101 Ash Street P. 0. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 cc:
Charles R. Kocher, Esq.
James A. Beoletto, Esq.
Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Chickering and Gregory ATTN: David R. Pigott, Esq.
Counsel for San Diego Gas
& Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company Three Embarcadero Center, 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94112 Mr. Kenneth E. Carr City Manager City of San Clemente 100 Avenido Presidio San Clemente, California 92672 Alan R. Watts, Esq.
Rourke & Woodruff 1055 North Main Street Suite 1020 Santa Ana, California 92701 Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102
S4 FE 4 1980 ENCLOSURE 1 ATTENDEES 11/16/79 Mtg. on San Onofre 2/3 Seismology Name Organization H. Rood NRC-DPM Phyllis Sobel, NRC-DSS-GSB Mark Medford SCE Phil West SCE John A. Barneich Woodward Clyde H. Gene Hawkins SCE Bob Jackson NRC-DSS-GSB M. G. Bonilla USGS J. F. Devine USGS Ina B. Alterman NRC-GSB R. J. Brazee NRC-RES Andrew J. Murphy NRC-RES R. Gonzales NRC-DSE-HMB John Stampelos ACRS Fellow Robert L. Rothman NRC-GSB Hank Peters SDG&E Burt Slemmons NRC Consultant Leon Reiter NRC-GSB Henry J. McGurren NRC-OELD
ENCLOSURE 2 g
4 1980 MEETING WITH NRC GEOSCIENCES BRANCH SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 NOVEMBER 16, 1979 I. Introduction P. J. West II.
Determination of Magnitude for Offshore Zone of Deformation A.
Slip Rate -
Magnitude J. Barneich B. Recurrence Interval J. Barneich C. Historic Seismicity J. Barneich D. Comparison of Offshore Zone of Deformation with Hosgri and Major Southern California Features H. Hawkins E. Offshore Data H. Hawkins III.
Ground Motion Parameters A. Attenuation Relationship J. Barneich B. Magnitude Effects J. Barneich C. Comparison with USGS Circular 795 J. Barneich IV.
Design Response Spectrum H. Medford V. Conclusion M. Medford
ENCLOSURE 3 FEB 4 980 DEVELOPMENT OF MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE FOR THE OZD
- 1.
Develop tectonic setting relating the OZD to the San Andreas and other faults using physical parameters.
- 2.
Discuss conventional methods to develop maximum magnitude and compare them to slip rate to assess the most appropriate way to describe the relative activity of the OZD to other faults in the Southern California area.
- 3.
Discuss the physical model of why slip rate versus maximum magnitude is viable for quantatively assessing maximum magnitude.
- 4.
Present the results of a careful analysis of the slip rate data used in the empirical treatment of the slip rate-maximum magnitude relationship showing the best estimate developed in the June report and what carefully evaluated extremes in the data range would yield.
- 5.
Develop a revised maximum magnitude-slip rate bounding line using a conservative interpretation of the data presented in 4.
- 6.
Examine the NIZD as a model for the OZD for developing the maximum magnitude for the OZD.
- 7.
Present a detailed statistical evaluation of the maximum magnitudeslip rate bounding line indicating the compatibility of the bounding line with the empirical data based on the observation period and the number of faults considered.
- 8.
Evaluate the conservatism of the selected maximum earthquake for the OZD by comparing the estimated affects of such an earthquake (based on conventional relationships Of Surface rupture and displacement versus magnitude) to observed displacement and other geologic evidence of faulting.
ENCLOSURE 4 PEB 4 18 DEVELOPMENT OF SITE GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS
- 1.
Summarize the work in the June 1979 report showing attenuation with distance of instrumental peak acceleration and response spectra.
- 2.
Discuss the way in which the data were treated and compare with data treatment in USGS Circular 795.
- 3.
Present the results of the extended source-path-site model examined since the presentation in September.
The extended modelling incorporates empirical data from the Coyote Lake earthquake and the previously used Horse Canyon earthquake as well as keying on empirical data attenuation for M 4.5 to M 6 earthquakes and using a more site specific model.
- 4.
Present the results of the 15 October 1979 Imperial Valley instrumental peak acceleration attenuation data.
Specific comparisons will be made between the Imperial data and all soil sites (Appendix I of June report) and SONGS site specific data.
- 5.
Discuss the effects of directivity and stress drop on the ground motions.
- 6.
Present data on the effects of magnitude on peak acceleration both from the empirical data available and the modelling work.
- 7.
Present the estimated maximum peak instrumental site accelerations consistent with the results of 4 and 6 and on the revised maximum magnitude from the slip rate-maximum magnitude work.
- 8.
Present the progress of the work on instrumental response spectra for the revised maximum magnitude.