ML14176B239
| ML14176B239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/2014 |
| From: | Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML14176B239 (49) | |
Text
Southern Nuclear Operating Company p
g p
y Seismic Reevaluation GMRS - NTTF 2.1 GMRS NTTF 2.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Meeting June 26, 2014
Southern Nuclear Team Charles Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director John Giddens Licensing Manager - Fukushima John Giddens Licensing Manager - Fukushima
Response
Don Moore Consulting Engineer - Seismic Melanie Brown
- Principal Engineer - Seismic Farhang Ostadan Chief Geotechnical Engineer/Bechtel Tarek Elkhoraibi Senior Geotechnical Engineer/Bechtel Engineer/Bechtel John Damm Senior Geotechnical Engineer/Bechtel g
Mike Lewis
- Corporate Geotechnical Manager/Bechtel 2
Purpose and Scope of Meeting To present the basis for the March 2014 GMRS submittals and understand the differences with NRC
Purpose:
understand the differences with NRC preliminary GMRS S
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant
- Previous Site Characterization Scope:
- Basis for soil profile for the GMRS
- Methodology for developing the GMRS Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant
- Low Frequency Evaluations Conclusions & Use of the GMRS 3
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2 4
5
6
P i
Sit Ch t
i ti Previous Site Characterization D
M Don Moore 7
FSAR Soil Dynamic Properties y
p
- Single Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) =
2450 fps 2450 fps
- Based on late 1960s seismic refraction survey refraction survey
- No use of site boring data
- SSI analyses used Vs of 2450 fps for
- SSI analyses used Vs of 2450 fps for the elastic half-space (soil springs) 8
1980s Hatch Pilot Seismic Margin A
t Assessment
- Reassessed site profile to obtain Vs vs. Depth using SPT data & soil type
- Performed new SSI analysis
10
11
Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential
- HCLPF for soil liquefaction was 0.28g
- Potential for liquefaction exists in only limited
- Potential for liquefaction exists in only limited soil layer at significant depth below grade 12
Site Characterization
- Vs profile: Soil site where Vs varies with depth Vs profile: Caused a shift of the peak SA of the
- Vs profile: Soil liquefaction HCLPF ~= 0 3g
- Vs profile: Soil liquefaction HCLPF ~= 0.3g 13
Closure of Soils Issues
- NRCs Seismic Design Margins Working Group D
G G B hi J Ch P Y Ch N
- Dan Guzy, G. Bagchi, J. Chen, P. Y. Chen, N.
Chokshi & L. Phillips NRC Resolution & Closure of all soils issues
- NRC Resolution & Closure of all soils issues NRC letter dated 4/29/1990 ll f th t di h
b f
d i all of the studies have been performed in accordance with the guidelines for seismic margins assessment and in a manner consistent a g s assess e t a d a
a e co s ste t with the best of the state-of-the art practicehaveresolved all previous
concerns 14
Hatch Seismic Issues Resolved
- NRC Letter from K. N. Jabbour (NRC Project
(
j Manager) to Southern Nuclear dated April 16, 1991, Seismic Design Issues -HatchUnits 1 and 2.
The NRC staff has reviewed your submittal The NRC staff has reviewed your submittal (Hatch SMA report) and finds that the concerns identified previouslyhave been satisfactorily identified previouslyhave been satisfactorily resolved 15
NRC References Letter from Dan Guzy (NRC, Seismic Design Margins Working Group),
Resolution and Closure of All Soils Issues in the Hatch Review, dated April 29, 1990.
p Memorandum from Dan Guzy and Goutam Bagchi (NRC, Seismic Design Margins Working Group), Final Evaluation of the Hatch Margins Review, dated May 2. 1990 y
Letter from D. R. Davis (Hatch Seismic Margin Assessment Peer Review Group) to Dan Guzy (NRC Seismic Design Margins Working Group), with enclosed report, Hatch SMA Peer Review Group Final Report: Evaluation p
p p
of the Application of the NRC and EPRI Seismic Margins Methodologies, dated May 3, 1990.
Letter from K. N. Jabbour (NRC, Project Manager), Seismic Design Issues
(
j g
),
g Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), dated April 16, 1991.
Letter from Dr. Michael P. Bohn (Sandia National Laboratories) to Dr.
(
)
Nilesh Chokshi (NRC) with enclosed report, Independent Evaluation of the Hatch Seismic Margin Assessment Seismic Building Response and Floor Spectra, dated July 5, 1991.
16
Basis for Soil Profile for the GMRS J h D
John Damm 17
Dynamic Soil Properties R
i it d f D
l t
f GMRS Revisited for Development of GMRS
- Project setting and data sources j
g
- On-site data and nearby wells
- Site stratigraphy
- Depth to hard rock
- Shear wave velocity profile
- Base case and uncertainties
- Strain-dependent soil properties
- Published relationships and uncertainties 18
Geologic Setting
- Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province physiographic province
- 80 mi SSE of the Fall Line Line
- FSAR Figure 2.5-5
- Geology typically gy yp y
consists of alternating strata of very gently dipping sedimentary dipping, sedimentary deposits
- Depth to base of Coastal p
Plain sediments reported at 4,100 ft in the vicinity of Plant Hatch 19
Geologic Setting Plant Hatch HNP FSAR - Figure 2.5-5 20
Data Sources
- Hatch FSAR
- Borehole data (1967)
- Maximum depth of 150 ft
- Alternating layers of sands, cemented sands, and stiff to hard clays Georgia DNR 1981
- Sonic data in nearby, deep exploratory borehole
- Total depth, 11,470 ft Seismic Margin Assessment 1991
- Seismic Margin Assessment, 1991
- Vs correlated from on site SPT data
- Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 1998 S i i
h l it
- Seismic crosshole survey, on site
- Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 2011
- PS logging survey, on site 21
Nearby Exploratory Well Plant Hatch a
a c AP Snipes No.1 22
Nearby Exploratory Well Source: Petroleum Exploration Wells in Georgia, 1979-1984, William M. Steele, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Geologic Survey 23
Seismic Margin Assessment, 1991
- Dr. Idriss (Woodward-Clyde Consultants)
SPT bl t d t f
54 FSAR b h l
- SPT blow count data from 54 FSAR boreholes
- Vs developed from correlation with SPT N values, Sykora and Stokoe (1983)
Sykora and Stokoe (1983)
- Published relationships for modulus reduction and damping based on material type damping based on material type
- Best estimate Vs profile with upper and lower bound 24
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) 1998 Installation (ISFSI), 1998
- Dr. I. M. Idriss
- Crosshole and downhole seismic surveys to depth
- Crosshole and downhole seismic surveys to depth of 150 ft
- Cone penetrometer testing Cone penetrometer testing
- Published relationships for modulus reduction and damping based on material type g
y 25
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) 2011
- Subsurface investigation included standard Installation (ISFSI), 2011 penetration testing, undisturbed sampling, and laboratory testing
- Maximum depth 150 ft.
- Index testing of representative samples
- Piezometers for groundwater level measurements
- Downhole geophysical logging including P-S th d t l
it methods to measure velocity 26
Data Contributions to the Vs Profile
- Near surface materials (plant grade at El. 129 ft to El. -100 ft)
- SPT data, soil type and laboratory test results from FSAR boreholes, 1967
- Crosshole velocity data from ISFSI study 1998
- Crosshole velocity data from ISFSI study, 1998
- SPT data, soil type, laboratory test results, and PS logging velocity data from ISFSI study, 2011
- Deep materials (below El. -100 ft)
- Material descriptions and strata thicknesses from p
nearby (5 mi) oil test well reported in FSAR
- Gamma ray and sonic (Vp) log data from nearby (27 mi) oil exploration well mi) oil exploration well 27
Using Velocity Data at Deeper Depths
- The measured P-Wave Velocity shows increasing velocity trend with depth increasing velocity trend with depth
- For sedimentary deposits, one must account for the effects of confining pressure on velocity the effects of confining pressure on velocity when comparing similar materials
- Poissons Ratio Poisson s Ratio
- Reasonable Poissons Ratio for sandy material was assumed to obtain the Vs.
- Epistemic uncertainty accounts for uncertainties of Vs 28
Stratigraphy Stratigraphy developed in FSAR from nearby (5 mi) deep y (
)
p exploratory well Formations consist of alternating layers of sand, clay, and y
y, fossiliferous limestone Unit wt. of 125 pcf and Poissons ratio of 0.25 (except 0.33 -
(
p Hawthorne)
Hard rock (9,200 fps) at ~ El.
4,000 ft, unit wt. of 165 pcf p
Depth to Hard rock confirmed on sonic log in nearby (27 mi) well 29
Capturing Epistemic Uncertainty i
th V l it P
fil in the Velocity Profiles 30
Shear Wave Velocity Profiles (3 base case profiles) to El -300 ft
(
p
)
100 150 0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Shear Wave Velocity (fps)
Insitu Stratigraphy/Geology 50 100 Median Hawthorne
-50 0
tion (ft)
Median Lower range (10th %)
-150
-100 Elevat Upper range (90th %)
-250
-200 Tampa 31
-300
Shear Wave Velocity Profiles (3 base case profiles) to Hard Rock 0
500 0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Shear Wave Velocity (fps)
Insitu Stratigraphy/Geology Hawthorne
(
p
)
-1000
-500 Tampa Oligocene Ocala Lisbon
-2000
-1500 tion (ft)
Median Lower range (10th %)
Tallahatta Clayton Post Tuscaloosa Wilcox
-3000
-2500 Elevat Upper range (90th %)
Post Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa
-4000
-3500 Comanchean Triassic 32
-5000
-4500
Nonlinear Dynamic Material Properties
- No site specific modulus degradation and damping data available data available
(
)
are used in soil amplification analysis and the result are equally weighted
- El. -150 to El. -380: Used Idriss and Boulanger curves for weathered rock based on Vs values El 380 to top of hard rock (Triassic) linear
- El. -380 to top of hard rock (Triassic): linear material, calculate damping from kappa 33
Nonlinear Dynamic Material Properties Section of Vs Profile Recommended G/Gmax and Damping Relationships G
d f
t El 0 2
t EPRI 50 120 d 120 250 ll i ht d Ground surface to El. 0 2 sets: EPRI curves 50-120 and 120-250 equally weighted El. 0 to El. -150 2 sets: EPRI curves 120-250 and 250-500 equally weighted El. -150 to El. -380 Idriss & Boulanger curves for weathered rock El 380 to El 3 958 (Triassic) linear material compute damping from kappa El. -380 to El. -3,958 (Triassic) linear material, compute damping from kappa Below -3,958 Halfspace, constant damping ratio of 1 percent 34
Summary of Dynamic Soil Properties
- Hatch profile consists of Coastal Plain sediments to a depth of 4 100 ft to a depth of 4,100 ft
- Alternating strata of clay, sand, limestone, marl, and partially indurated sediments
- Below a depth of 500 ft, Vs increases to above 4,000 fps
- Non linear behavior of upper 280 ft of sediments characterized with sand curves
- Non linear behavior of sediments from 280 to
- Non linear behavior of sediments from 280 to 500 ft depth characterized with weathered rock curves
- Below 500 ft to top of hard rock, shear modulus is linear and damping calculated using kappa estimate 35
Methodology for Developing gy p
g the GMRS T
k Elkh ibi Tarek Elkhoraibi 36
Kappa 37
Kappa 38
Site Amplification Analysis 60 randomized fil il profiles per soil column case Each subjected to HF and LF rock motions at rock motions at MAPE 1E-3 through 1E-7 Total of 10,800 runs (18 x 60 x Total = 1.0 39
(
2 x 5)
Profile Simulation (Randomization)
Randomized parameters for aleatory variability
- Shear-wave velocity
- Soil layer thicknesses
- Depth to bedrock
- Depth to bedrock
- Strain-independent damping for soil layers below 509 ft 40
Profile Simulation (Randomization)
Randomized parameters for aleatory 0.8 0.9 1
0.8 0.9 1
Hatch-VsM-G1-kM Insitu 1 - EPRI 50-120 p
y variability
- Strain-dependent 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 G/Go 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Log-SD
- Strain-dependent shear modulus for top 509 ft 10
-4 10
-3 10
-2 10
-1 10 0
10 1
0 0.1 0.2 Strain [%]
Simulated Median Input BE Min and Max Bounds Simulated SD Input SD 0
0.1 0.2 20 1
- Strain-dependent damping for top 509 12 14 16 18 20
%]
Simulated Median Input BE Min and Max Bounds Simulated SD Input SD 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
p g p
ft 4
6 8
10 Damping [
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Log-SD 41 10
-4 10
-3 10
-2 10
-1 10 0
10 1
0 2
Strain [%]
0 0.1
Input Rock Motions 10 HF3 LF3 HF4 LF4 HF5 LF5 HF6 LF6 1
Accel. [g]
HF6 LF6 HF7 LF7 0.1 mped Spectral A 0.01 5% Dam 0.001 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 Frequency [Hz]
42
3 0 Amplification Functions 2.5 3.0 cation HF 1E-4 LF 1E-4 HF 1E-5 2.0 e Site Amplific LF 1E-5 1.5 ghted Average 0 5 1.0 Damped, Weig 0.0 0.5 0 1 1 0 10 0 100 0 5%
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 Frequency [Hz]
43
GMRS 0.7 UHRS 1E-5 GMRS Using Approach 3 in NUREG/CR-6728 0.5 0.6 ration [g]
GMRS UHRS 1E-4 0.3 0.4 Spectral Accele 0.2 5% Damping 0.0 0.1 0.1 1
10 100 Frequency [Hz]
Frequency [Hz]
44
How the SPID was Implemented 45
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2 46
47
Low Frequency Evaluation
- Screens in under the special screening considerations for a low seismic hazard site considerations for a low seismic hazard site
- FNP not required to provide Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process Evaluation Process
- Section 3.2.1.1 of the SPID provides guidance for performing low frequency evaluations for performing low frequency evaluations 48
Conclusions & Use of the GMRS
- Hatch Site
- Multiple sources used to develop soil profile p
p p
- Guidance in SPID Appendix B was used
- Judgments made to implement the Guidance in SPID A
di B i
Appendix B were appropriate
- SNC is using the Hatch GMRS submitted in March to comply with ESEP comply with ESEP
- SNC is using the Hatch site seismic hazard submitted in March to benchmark ongoing Hatch SPRA development
- Farley Site
- SNC is using the Farley GMRS submitted in March l t th L
F E
l ti complete the Low Frequency Evaluations.
49