ML14058A059
| ML14058A059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/2010 |
| From: | Jeffrey Mitman Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lois James Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14055A421 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2012-0325 | |
| Download: ML14058A059 (16) | |
Text
Mitman, Jeffrey I From: Mitman, Jeffrey i (' (
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:55 PM To: James, Lois Cc: Ferrante, Fernando; Vail, James; Laur, Steven
Subject:
Generic Failure Rate Evaluation for Jocassee Attachments: GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM.doc; Memo OFI Dam Failure Rate Rl.doc Importance: High Lois, attached is the final version of the subject document. It has been reviewed by Steve, all of his comments and concerns have been addressed. I've also drafted a transmittal memo to Mark (through Melanie) from you.
It also is attached. If these meet with you concurrence we will enter the documents formally into Adams and transmit them to Mark.
Jeff Tracking:
SU.S.NRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ProtectingPeople and the Environment Generic Failure Rate Evaluation for Jocassee Dam March 15, 2010 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Analyst: James Vail, Reliability and Risk Analyst, NRR/DRA/APOB Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Analyst: Fernando Ferrante, Reliability and Risk Analyst, NRR/DRA/APOB Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Analyst: Jeff Mitman, Senior Reliability and Risk Analyst, NRRJDRAIAPOB Peer Reviewer: Steven A. Laur, Senior Technical Advisor NRR/DRA SENSITIVE INFORMATION OFFICIAL U~ UNLY~
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM BY DIVISION OF RISK ASSESSMENT'S PRA OPERATIONAL SUPPORT BRANCH The following documents a generic dam failure rate analysis applicable to the Jocassee Dam performed by the PRA Operational Support Branch (APOB) of the Division of Risk Assessment (DRA) in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). The analysis, technical justifications, and databases used in support of the calculations for the derived value are briefly discussed.
Portions of this evaluation were initially performed in 2007 but not formally documented at that time.
Approach The approach used in deriving a generic failure rate value applicable to the Jocassee Dam included: (i) an evaluation of the physical characteristics and description of the dam, (ii) an assessment of the overall U.S. dam population for those with similar features to the Jocassee Dam, (iii) a study of U.S. dam performance information for failure events that may be applicable to this subset of the overall population, and (iv) a calculation of a point estimate, as well as consideration of the uncertainty involved, for the failure rate given the observed failure events and the observed time period (in dam-years).
Jocassee Dam Description The Jocassee Dam is located in northwest South Carolina, forming a reservoir (Lake Jocassee) with a 7565-acre surface area, a water volume of 1,160,298 acre-feet, and a total drainage area of 147 sq-miles at full pond (1,110 feet elevation above mean sea level). The reservoir was created in 1973 with the construction of the dam. The Jocassee Dam is an embankment dam with an earthen core and rockfilled and random rockfilled zones (see Figure 1).
(b)(7)(F)
SENZITI'.'E INFORftiLA.TION - OFFICIAL U3~ ~
1
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc The dam is 385 feet in height (1,125 crest elevation above mean sea level) and 1,825 feet in length and, along with two homogeneous earthfill dikes and a reinforced concrete spillway, is part of a hydroelectric station and pumped storage project. The underground powerhouse generating units receive water from two cylindrical intake towers through eight openings. The water is channeled from the intake towers to four hydro turbines by two bifurcated power tunnels which are constructed through the bedrock of the east abutment. Two gates 33 feet in height and 38 feet in width control the outflow of the spillway.
Databases The staff used two databases to obtain information about the population of dams in the US: the National Inventory of Dams (NID), maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Performance of Dams Program (NPDP), developed by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University. The NID database contains data describing multiple attributes such as dimensions, type, impoundment characteristics, etc. The NPDP database contains a collection of dam incident reports searchable by various parameters including dam type, incident type, and consequences.
Failure Events Table 1 lists the applicable dam failures initially derived from the NPDP database. To choose these 13 failures, the analysts used criteria based on the previously discussed dam characteristics (i.e., dam type and height). However, due to the ambiguity in the classification of the dam type (i.e., based on material composition) between and within the NID and NPDP databases, as well as the lack of information to establish an exact link with the Jocassee Dam characteristics for every data point, the staff considered both rockfill dams and mixed-rockfill dams (i.e., those classified exclusively as rockfill dams as well as mixed dam types that include rockfill in their categorization). It should be noted that the NPDP database does not list any failures post-2006 and at least two well-known large dam failures in the U.S. are not included:
the Big Bay Dam in Mississippi (March 2004) and the Taum Sauk Reservoir (December 2005) in Missouri. While the Big Bay Dam was an earthen dam (i.e., excluded based on dam type),
the Taum Sauk Reservoir consisted of a concrete-faced rockfill dam approximately 100 feet in height and was, therefore, included in the current analysis.
Additionally, the list was screened to take into consideration (i) failure events observed between 1900 and 2005, and (ii) failure events observed between 1940 and 2005; under the assumption that events prior to these construction periods could produce different results representative of distinct design practices. In part, this choice was due to the lack of information on the exact construction date of several dams in the database. The staff expended an extensive effort to determine the construction completion date for several dams for which the information was missing in the NPDP database (this information is included in Table 1).
Several failures listed in Table 1 have (or are assumed to have) occurred within a few years of either the start or completion of construction (e.g., the Lower Hell Hole Dam and the Frenchman Dam failures). Based on the information available and the estimated completion dates, the staff screened out such failures since the occurrence of the events was assumed to be related to the construction phase and, therefore, not applicable to a mature dam such as Jocassee.
Finally, the analysts chose to include the Dresser No. 4 Dam failure, because they deemed this dam to be similar to the Jocassee Dam in composition (i.e., a large mixed earthfill-rockfill dam),
3ENSITIVE INFORMATION OFFC'IAL USE OL-2
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc despite the fact that it is listed as a tailings dam (i.e., a dam theoretically built under lower standards of quality and maintenance).
Therefore, the final list of failures of dams similar to, and therefore applicable to, the Jocassee Dam includes 6 failures occurring between 1900 and 2005. These six failures are highlighted in Table 1. The staff included these failures based on the following criteria: (i) rockfill or mixed-rockfill dam type, (ii) dam height above 50 feet, (iii) failure occurring after 1900, and (iv) no failures during or within a few years of completion of construction. Note that iffailures occurring prior to 1940 are screened, then only 4 events remain: (1) Taum Sauk, (2) Dresser No.4 Dam, (3) Skagway, and (4) Kern Brothers Reservoir. It should be noted that there are 1 to 3 failures of dams built between 1940 and 2005 depending on whether the entries with unknown construction dates are excluded or not, respectively (in similar fashion, there are 3 to 5 failures for dams constructed between 1900-2005 excluding or not entries with unknown construction dates, respectively).
Total Dam-years Calculation To calculate the dam failure rate, the staff needed to obtain the total number of dam-years of both failed and non-failed dams. The analysts extracted a subset of dams from the NID database based on a set of parameters to narrow the US population of dams to those reflecting the characteristics of the Jocassee Dam discussed above, i.e., large rockfill dams. They assumed that dams above 50 feet in height appropriately reflect design practices and structural characteristics of larger dams such as Jocassee. This height criterion was consistent with the large dam definition (WCD, 2000) established by the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) which "defines a large dam as a dam with a height of 15m or more from the foundation." If dams are between 5-15 meters high and have a reservoir volume of more than 3 million cubic meters, ICOLD also classified such dams as large. Hence, the staff used this definition as a screening criterion. The dams considered for calculation of the total dam-years were those in the NID database that were categorized exclusively as 'Rockfill' dams (i.e., those listed under the 'ER' abbreviation, intended to correspond to rockfill dams for NID cataloguing purposes).
The staff included the dam-year contributions from Skagway and the replacement for the failed Frenchman Dam, while those from Kern Brothers Reservoir, Dresser No. 4 Dam, Penn Forest, and the failed Frenchman Dam were not included. This was because the staff judges that including the dam-year contribution from these specific dams would not significantly impact the resulting dam-year total. The staff calculated the final result using the difference between the last year in the available data (2005) and either 1900 or 1940. For the 1900-2005 period, the staff obtained a total of 21,490 dam-years; while for 1940-2005 the result was 13,889 dam-years. See Appendix A for a tabulation of the dams and the associated dam-years.
3
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc
'2005, Overtopped due to overjunipi of reservoir. Independent analysis Taum Sauk 1963 RoM 94 indicated several root causes(e,, lack of monitoring, spillway).
Dresser Dam No.4 1975 Unknown Ppg.... EarthRoddl Ea ill 105 Catastrophic failure that created a breach 300 feet wide inthe levee.
Indow FbWed Skagway 1965 1925 " logic Event Rockill 79 The dam failed during afood in1965.
Hell Hole 1964 1964 Not Known RocdlI 410 Dam failed during construction. Overtopped by 100 feet- washing out most of the fill.
Penn Forest 1960 1960 Piping Concrete Earth 151 Partial failure. Sinkhole occurred inupstream slope of dam.
Rockfi ll Frenchman 1952 1951 Inflow Flood- RockhIll 63 Runoff from melting snow. Adike section was overtopped early Dam Hydrologic Event morning April 15, 1952. Later that day, dam breached.
Kern Brothers 1949 Unknown Settlement Earth Rockilll 54 Failure due to excessive settlement of fill.
Reservoir Blowout failure under concrete spillway weir structure during period Lake Francis 1899 1899 Piping Earth Rockfill 79 of heavy spillway flow. Spillway failure thought to be due to piping in soft saturated foundation.
Lafayette 1928 1928 Embankment Slide Earth Rockfill 132 Foundation slide during construction (at 120 feet). Height raised to L170 feet in1932. Not sure ifthis isconsidered afailure.
Manitou 1924 1917 Seepage Earth Rockill 123 Partial failure was dlsintegrating and converted into gravel fill.
Failure by piping through abutment; undermined by passage of water Lyman 1915 1912 Piping Earth Rockfill 76.4 under cap of lava rock which flanked dam and extended beneath
_ spillway. Main part of dam uninjured.
Lower Otay 1916 1897 Spillway Earth Rockdil 154 Foundation slide during construction (at 120 feel). Height raised to 170 feet in1932. Not sure ifthis isconsidered afailure.
Failure by piping through abutment; undermined by passage of water Black Rock 1909 1908 Piping Earth Rockflll 7 under cap of lava rock which flanked dam and extended beneath spillway. Portion of spillway dropped 7feet; some fill at south end washed out. Main part of dam uninjured.
SeENBIIE-NF9RMA:Hie-eF~eIAHUeE ONLY-4
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc Generic Point Estimate of the Dam Failure Rate The staff calculated the point estimate by dividing the number of applicable dam failures (see Table 1 above) by the total applicable dam-years (derived as described previously). Assuming a 1900-2005 range for the year of occurrence of the failure events and the dam-year estimation (based on completion year), the analysts obtained a failure rate of 2.8E-4 per dam-year. When considering a 1940-2005 range, the staff obtained a result of 2.9E-4 per dam-year.
Because the NID database does not give information regarding the quality of design, construction and/or maintenance, and the NPDP database does not consistently supply information on the dam health (i.e., is it well maintained?) at time of failure, the staff could not derive failure rates for above or below average built and maintained dams. This lack of information precluded the staff from making any judgment as to whether Jocassee is or is not an above average designed, constructed and maintained dam deserving of a failure frequency different than an average failure frequency.
Additionally, the staff recognizes that ambiguity and lack of complete information with respect to dam type, construction completion data, and dam incident reporting, may result in variations in the failure rate estimation. Therefore, the staff performed a simple sensitivity study in order to evaluate the changes due to screening failure events and cut-off year criteria. The results are shown in Table 2 for an assumed number of failures and clearly indicated that the results exhibit small variations for the period cut-off selected (1900-2005 and 1940-2005) and the number of failures considered (6 and 4, respectively). Additionally, the extent of the variation in the point estimate is shown for other number of failures and cut-off years based on the subset of dams selected. The table illustrates that the order-of-magnitude failure frequency estimate does not change significantly if the number of failures is increased or decreased slightly.
Table 2: Failure Rate Sensitivity Analysis ASSUMED NUMBER OF FAILURES CUT- DAM-OFF YEARS #DAMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ALL 25137 484 4.OE-05 8.OE-05 1.2E-04 1.6E-04 2.OE-0.4 2.4E-04 2.8E-04 1900 21490 466 4.7E-05 9.3E-05 1.4E-04 1.9E-04 2.3E-04 2.8E6.44 3.3E-04 1910 19778 449 5.1E-05 1.OE-04 1.5E-04 2.OE-04 2.5E-04 "3.0E-04 3.5E-04 1920 18389 434 5.4E-05 1.1E-04 1.6E-04 2.2E-04 2.7E-04 3.3E-04: 3.8E-04 1930 16475 410 6.1E-05 1.2E-04 1.8E-04 2.4E-04 3.OE-04 3.6E-04 4.2E-04 1940 13889 373 7.2E-05 1.4E-04 2.2E-04 2.9E-04 I 3.6E-04 4.3E-04 5.OE-04 1950 12269 346 1960 8453 270 1970 3242 143 1980 1339 82 1990 381 36 I FAILURE RATE GIVEN # NUMBER OF FAILURES AND CUTOFF YEAR INFORMAT- -FCILUE 5
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc Bayesian Estimate of the Dam Failure Rate To evaluate the dam failure rate uncertainty, the staff conducted a Bayesian analysis of the failure rate for the 1900-2005 period via a Bayesian analysis approach (Atwood et al, 2003). In this approach, a prior distribution was assumed from the number of failures and dam-years for all large dams (according to the ICOLD definition) identified in the NID and NPDP databases.
Failures identified as 'infantile failures' in NPDP were excluded and only dams built since 1900 according to NID were used for total dam-year calculation. Under these assumptions, the total number of failures for all large dams for 1900-2005 was 84 with a total of 260,960 dam-years.
This corresponds to a point estimate of the failure rate equivalent to 3.2E-4/dam-year. A distribution was fitted around this mean. The number of dam failure events was modeled as a Poisson distribution for which its conjugate prior was assumed to follow a Gamma distribution (i.e., the conjugate prior in a Gamma-Poisson model). The staff, based on judgment, chose a Gamma distribution with the point estimate obtained from the large dam failure rate above and a 5 th percentile corresponding to 1 E-5/dam-year. With these assumptions, the staff obtained a prior Gamma distribution with parameters a = 0.8333 and 13= 2589, which has a 5 th percentile equivalent to 1E-5/dam-year and a 9 5 1h percentile corresponding to 1 E-3/dam-year. The staff updated this prior distribution with the data used to obtain the large rockfill dam point estimate (e.g., 6 failures in 21,490 dam-years) to calculate the posterior distribution. The resulting posterior has a mean of 2.8E-4/dam-year, a 5 th percentile of 1.3E-4(dam-years, and a 950' percentile of 4.8E-4/dam-years (with parameters a = 6.8333 and 13= 24,079). Figure 2 shows both the generic large dam prior and the posterior specific to rockfill dams.
Conclusions The staff estimated generic dam failure rates for large rockfill dams, which it considers applicable to the Jocassee Dam, as 2.8E-4/dam-year. Given the nature of the data and the assumptions involved in narrowing the applicable failure events and subset of the U.S. dam population comparable to this specific dam, the staff performed a Bayesian analysis. Using available data on the domestic inventory of dams and dam failures, the range obtained varies between 1.3E-4/dam-year and 4.8E-4/dam-year (5 th - 9 5 th percentile) around a mean of 2.8E-4/dam-year.
A literature review performed by the authors for statistical studies of dam failures appears to corroborate this conclusion. Such studies were found in Baecher et al (1980), Martz and Bryson (1982), Donnelly (1994), ICOLD (1995), Foster (2000a), and Foster et al (2000b).
6
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc Figure 2: Failure Rate Probability Distributions Used in Bayesian Updating 5000 4500-Prior 4000 - Posterior
, 3500-(D 3000-\
2500 -
22000 O.1500 "",
1000" 500 0
2 4 6 8 10 Failure Rate (per dam-years) x 10-4 References Baecher, G. B., M. E. Patd, and R. De Neufville (1980), "Risk of Dam Failure in Benefit-Cost Analysis," Water Resource Research, 16(3), 449-456.
Martz, H.F., and M.C. Bryson (1982), "Predicting Low-Probability/High-Consequence Events,"
Proceedings of the Workshop on Low-Probability/High-Consequence Risk Analysis, June 15-17, 1982, Arlington, Virginia.
Donnely, R. (1994), "Issues in Dam Safety, ACRES International Innovations Autumn Edition":
http://www.hatch.com.cn/Hatcheneravy/Innovations/autumn2OO4/feature.html ICOLD (1995), "Dam Failures Statistical Analysis," Bulletin 99, International Commission on Large Dams.
WCD (2000), "Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making - overview," The Report of the World Commission on Dams.
Foster M, Fell R, Spannagle M (2000a), "The statistics of embankment dam failures and accidents," CanadianGeotechnicalJournal,37, 1000-1024.
Foster M, Fell R, Spannagle M (2000b) "A method for assessing the relative likelihood of failure of embankment dams by piping," CanadianGeotechnicalJournal,37, 1025-1061 SENS1il~.1114RAT 7
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc C.L. Atwood, J.L. LaChance, H.F. Martz, D.J. Anderson, M. Englehardt, D. Whitehead, and T.
Wheeler (2003), "Handbook of Parameter Estimation for Probabilistic Risk Assessment,"
NUREG/CR-6823, US NRC.
'"'"" ..... R.....T. "' O,-FICiAL USEQNLY-"
8
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc S DAM MPOL2NDMENT IPOUNDMENT RAGE APOUNDMENTDAM CENSITIVE INrORMA lION - oFFICIAL UZE ONLY 9
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc 400 73.000 28 CA01116 50 420 29 1ST2 CAO1108 77 870 29 CA01128 101 250 29 E CA01 122 123 42300 29 mA CA018124 225 1.970 29 OR00B12 345 500,000 29 CA01092 55 89 30 CA01120 80 117 30 CA01084 108 2,500 30 (ON CA01123 183 5.700 so CAD1101 55 300 31 OCH NC01524 112 762 31 CA01080 179 285400 31 CA01111 52 52 32 CA01054 53 570 32 CAD0D87 56 1,820 32 lAY SC02757 64 1,287,788 32 CA0 112 93 180 32 PA00734 102 71,000 32 R CA00223 109 43.800 32 CA00309 114 r1800 32 CA00054 133 131 452 32 KY03048 282 435600 32 340 323r700 32 385 1,257,788 32 CO 58 2,950 33 63 887 33 87 550 33 79 1.250 33
.A 80 340 33 135 4,080 33 158 8r200 33 WALINGS DAM 570 7,200 34 52 74 34 62 185 34 89 14,200 93 2.342 34 34 111 2to0 34 124 11100 34 162 3r300 34 568 2,030,000 38 55 117 35 67 730 35 75 3,840 35 78 240 35 87.7 4230 35 116 2,500 35 180 8o000 37 53 844 36 Creek Dam ili 4,000 37 120 7.850 38 163 29.101 38 166 52500 37 84 1,490 37 92 3,375 37 124 220 37 127 58903 37 I4YON 157 356 37 N 187 2,570 37 222 77100 38
'RINIS LAKE 54 37 38 59 550 38 ANL;H 60 210 38 8a 4.150 38 71 3160 38 LANTDAM 75 380 38
.LL 152 25 38 108 877 39
- 3 118 309 38 128 61,000 3a 215 1 808 38 ECT 285 45 70 4,020 39 51 39 68 140 83 680 39 97 18000 100 8,542 34 115 83,000 39 38 DAM 122 111293 39 224 3036 39 410 208, 0 39 50 300 40
- Dike 52 4900 40 07 5,870 40 70 240 40 75 2,56 40 77 185 40 81 121000 40 OLLOWTALINGS DAM 129 1,260 146 11500 40 40 105 2,040 193 221000 vS 195 525500 INFPM~TQN
~ENSII'.' -CrI'Ar-u USE-NLY 10
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc 205 1251000 40 214 24.300 40 231 111.333 45 36.30D 45 240 413400 45 kM 390 50 4' 71 so 41 130 41 54
)am 91 55 41 K 59 20 41 Dam 90 120 41 03 1r140 41 Dam 92 65 157 41 95 390 41 a5 29 41 76 73 41 AM 150 1,156 41 41 113 22*5*6 41 193 41 273 67,520 41 440 535,D 41 S19 219,00 42 RK 51 109
-- 25 42 54 42 55 310 42 57 4820 42 ows Reservolr So 59 42 4.425 42 71 I30 42 73 42 85 390 42 94 37 42 1PER 94 4,350 42 95 42 102 75,500 42 108 76,500 119 15T800 42 42 148 147 42 152 57T050 42 165 Bo0 42 171 417120 42 185 42 DAM DN 250 42 453 230.,000 43 51 376 43 VOIR 19 43 55 912 43 50 37 43 75 3500 43 892 2,754 43 100 46 43 I 1. 2 DAM EWS 124 140 145 150 185 25.000 519500 43 43 43 4,750 42 10 42 192 20000 42 200 9,790 44 90 94 75 45 82 244 44 95 5,250 115 3415s 44 120 129 55,477 43 44 4 58.200 44" S 175 S 200 31680 44 210 03,010 44 OAM 150,290 451 43 DAM 239 659050 271 473 1.670,700 45 300 43 56 116 40 43 59 193 45 43r 66 340 45 71 234 45 90 23 45 107 68 45 138 12.250 49 192 89991 46 193 409062 45 400 123,600 49 65 180 45 79 45 25400 47 95 ISO 190 37,120 47 164 2,400 47 ky, 200 59r500 47 47 5o 45 47 50 109 52 107 I1,240 72 72 280 320
!ES 147 22 3EN3ITiv~ INrO~MATION OrFICIAL USE QNL-t 11
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc SERVOIR (NP&L-FERC)
SENISiivE iNFeRMATIUN -OFFICIAL USENL-r 12
GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc
-SENSITIVE iiRMAi -OFFICIAL USE-- ",...,"
13
I, GENERIC FAILURE RATE EVALUATION FOR JOCASSEE DAM (2).doc LOWER
-SESIiVEIFO T -OFII 14