ML14189A562

July 9 NRC Slides for Public Meeting with Indiana/Michigan Power Co. (D.C. Cook) - NTTF 2.1 - Seismic Reevaluation - GMRS

ML14189A562
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	07/09/2014
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Balazik M, NRR/JLD, 415-2856
References
Download: ML14189A562 (34)

Text

Near Term Task Force Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Evaluation D C Cook D.C. Cook July 9, 2014

References for Meeting

• Licensee Presentation Slides - ML14190A185

• NRC Presentation Slides -ML14189A562

• Public Meeting Agenda - ML14182A182

• Meeting Feedback Form (request from mfb@nrc.gov) mfb@nrc.gov)

• May 9, 2014, NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for central and eastern US Licensees (ML14111A147) and eastern US Licensees (ML14111A147)

• May 21, 2014, NRC memo providing preliminary staff ground motion response spectra for central and eastern Licensees spectra for central and eastern Licensees (ML14136A126)

• Meeting Summary to be issued within 30-day

Meeting Introduction

Purpose:

support information exchange and begin dialog to have common understanding of the causes of the primary have common understanding of the causes of the primary differences between the preliminary NRC and licensee seismic hazard results B

k d NRC d li i

i h d

i

Background:

NRC and licensee seismic hazard require resolution to support a final seismic screening decision and to support related follow-on submittals Outcomes:

• Begin NRC and licensee resolution to support regulatory decisions and development of seismic risk evaluations decisions and development of seismic risk evaluations, as appropriate

• Establish resolution path, including timelines and identification of potential information needs identification of potential information needs

Look-ahead:

Potential Next Steps

• NRC will consider the meeting information NRC will consider the meeting information

• Potential paths:

- Licensee submits supplemental information Licensee submits supplemental information based on public meeting dialog

- NRC staff issues a request for information q

- Licensee sends a revision or supplement to the seismic hazard report

• NRC completes screening review and issues the final screening determination l tt letter

DC Cook DC Cook NTTF R2.1 Seismic Hazard Christie Hale Zuhan Xi and Cliff Munson July 9, 2014 July 9, 2014

6

Primary Issues

• Basis for the 6 profile approach

- 3 of the 6 profiles (P1, P2, P3) infer ref. rock velocities for sedimentary rock layers

• Basis for not including beach sands in velocity fil

(

t l

i t) profiles (control point)

• Approach for calculating kappa and its application to the site response analysis to the site response analysis

• NRC unable to replicate licensees GMRS perhaps due to differences in standard deviation of log due to differences in standard deviation of log normally distributed Amp Factor as a function of input rock motion

DC Cook Location DC Cook Location Point Beach Palisades DC Cook Braidwood Braidwood 8

DC Cook FSAR Figure DC Cook FSAR Figure Dune Sand Beach Deposits Lake Deposits 140 ft Glacial Till Bedrock Shale 9

DC Cook Geology DC Cook Geology DC Cook FSAR Section 2.3:

Site geology a simple sequence of deposits consisting of a surface deposit of dune sand which overlies older beach sand which in turn is underlain by glacial lake clays, glacial till and shale bedrock Regional geology bedrock consists of a mixed sequence of sedimentary strata bedrock consists of a mixed sequence of sedimentary strata including shale, limestone, sandstone, and dolomite. The strata range in age from Cambrian to Pennsylvanian. This sequence is underlain by a basement complex of Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks Bedrock formations in the vicinity of the site metamorphic rocks. Bedrock formations in the vicinity of the site include shale and sandstones of Devonian and Mississippian age.

The Precambrian basement is estimated to occur at a depth of 3,500 feet.

Elev

[ft]

Dune Sand (excavated)

+608 (Plant Grade)

Control Point Containment

+583 (Foundation)

+558 (top of clays)

Beach Sand Gl i l L k Cl Lake deposits, clayey Dense beach sands Ground water Glacial Lake Clays Glacial Till

+468

+446 Outwash moraine sediments, Lacustrine Clay and Silt Paleozoic

+446 Limestone, Dolomite, Paleozoic Sedimentary Rocks esto e, o o te, Shale, Sandstone Bedrock?

-2904 Crystalline Basement Igneous and metamorphic rocks 11

El Thi k V

S Control Point Elev

[ft]

Thickness

[ft]

Vs

[ft/s]

590 Wisconsin paper (dense sands)

Source Containment

+583 (Foundation)

+558 (top of clays)

Beach Sand 25 650 to 1800 750 to 1300 Wisconsin paper (clays)

Illinois GS paper (Lacustrine) 590 800 328 to 1640 Wisconsin paper (dense sands)

GE study DC Cook Stanford paper (dry sands)

Glacial Lake Clays Glacial Till

+468 90 22 650 to 2600 1360 1600 1829 Stanford paper (sat. Sh & clays)

GE study Palisades Vs GE study DC Cook Vs EGC ESP Illinois (Lacustrine) 2780 GE t d P li d

V Glacial Till P l i

+446 22 2780 GE study Palisades Vs 5620 1640 to 5905 GE study Palisades Vs Stanford paper (Sh & Ss)

Paleozoic Sedimentary Rocks 3350 1640 to 5905 6561 to >9200

>9200

>9200 Stanford paper (Sh & Ss)

Stanford paper (Ls & Do)

GE study DC Cook Vs Braidwood FSAR Vs

-2904 Crystalline Basement

>9200 12

NRC Velocity Profiles Vs

[ft/s]

NRC Velocity Profiles uln = 0.35 Formation Beach Sand Lower (10th %) Median Upper (90th %)

Thick [ft]

25 800 511 1253 Glacial Lake Clays Glacial Till 90 22 670 4800 2780 1360 3065 1775 868 9200 4354 2130 Paleozoic S di R

k 670 670 670 5600 5200 4800 3576 3321 3065 9200 Sedimentary Rocks 6400 670 670 670 6000 5600 4087 3831 3576 Crystalline Basement 9200 9200 13

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Shear Wave Velocity, ft/s 0

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Shear Wave Velocity, ft/s 0

500 0

20 40

, ft CNP LBC1 CNP BC1 CNP UBC1 NRC LBC 1000 nt, ft 60 80 100 Control Point NRC LBC NRC BC NRC UBC 1500 w Control Poin 120 140 160 Depth Below 2000 2500 Depth Below CNP LBC1 160 180 200 3000 CNP BC1 CNP UBC1 NRC LBC NRC BC NRC UBC Licensees first 3 profiles sedimentary rock = bedrock 3500 NRC UBC 14

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Shear Wave Velocity, ft/s 0

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Shear Wave Velocity, ft/s 0

500 0

20 40

, ft CNP LBC2 CNP BC2 CNP UBC2 NRC LBC 1000 nt, ft 60 80 100 Control Point NRC LBC NRC BC NRC UBC 1500 w Control Poin 120 140 160 Depth Below 2000 2500 Depth Below CNP LBC2 160 180 200 Licensees second 3 profiles bedrock beneath sedimentary rock 3000 CNP BC2 CNP UBC2 NRC LBC NRC BC NRC UBC 3500 NRC UBC 15

Shear Modulus & Damping Curves

• NRC used EPRI soil and Pennisular Range NRC used EPRI soil and Pennisular Range G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves for soil layers soil layers

• NRC used EPRI Rock curves and Linear with 3%

damping for first 200 ft of sedimentary rock damping for first 200 ft of sedimentary rock

- Remaining sedimentary rock layers modeled as linear with 1% damping linear with 1% damping 16

Kappa Kappa

• NRC estimated total site kappa values of 24 NRC estimated total site kappa values of 24 msec (MBC), 32 msec (LBC), and 8 msec (UBC)

- Applied Campbells eqn for 137 ft of soil: 2 5 msec

- Applied Campbell s eqn for 137 ft of soil: 2.5 msec

- Used Qs of 40 to determine kappa for sedimentary rock layers: 16 msec (MBC) and 24 sedimentary rock layers: 16 msec (MBC) and 24 msec (LBC)

- Added additional 6 msec for reference rock Added additional 6 msec for reference rock contribution 17

Amplification Functions (kappa = 0.024) 3 3.5 DC Cook NRC Analysis 2

2.5 fication PGA = 0.01 0 5 1

1.5 Amplif PGA 0.01 PGA = 0.1 PGA = 0.5 0

0.5 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency [Hz]

18

Median AF vs. Rock Motion 3

3.5 2.5 0.5 Hz 1 H 1.5 2

1 Hz 2.5 Hz 5 Hz 10 Hz 25 Hz 0 5 1

25 Hz PGA 0

0.5 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 19

Sigma ln(AF) vs. Rock Motion 0.7 0.8 0 5 0.6 0.5 Hz 1 H 0.4 0.5 1 Hz 2.5 Hz 5 Hz 10 Hz 25 Hz 0.2 0.3 25 Hz PGA 0.1 20 0

-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5

DC Cook 1.2 0.8 1

)

0 4 0.6 SA (g 0.2 0.4 0

0.01 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz) 21 Frequency (Hz)

Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS Updated NRC GMRS

DC Cook Submittal DC Cook Submittal

• What are the bases for velocities as well as lack of at a e t e bases o e oc t es as e as ac o velocity gradients for both soil and rock layers?

• What is the basis for the high P-wave velocity g

y (17,000 fps) for the sedimentary rocks as shown in Table 2.3.1-1?

• What is the basis for assumed Poissons ratio of 0.2 for the sedimentary rock?

Wh t i th b i f id i

di t

• What is the basis for considering sedimentary rock to have reference rock velocity for 3 of the 6 profiles rather than just 1 of 3?

profiles rather than just 1 of 3?

22

Shear Wave Velocity Data Shear Wave Velocity Data Illinois Geologic Survey Report (Glacial Lake Clays layer) 1300 ft/s 750 ft/s

Shear Wave Velocity Data Bechtel Paper - Shoreline of Lake Michigan in Wisconsin Shear Wave Velocity Data

~ 590 ft/s

~ 650 to 1800 ft/s

DC Cook Submittal DC Cook Submittal

• What is basis for control point such that b

h d

i l d d i l

i beach sands are not included in velocity profiles?

DC C k FSAR S ti 2 5 2 DC Cook FSAR Section 2.5.2:

Major plant structures are supported on mat foundations installed on the overlying compact sand, recompacted sand, or stiff clay deposits.

DC Cook FSAR Section 5.2.2.1:

The containment areas as well as the remainder of the plant areas were excavated to elevation 588 ft. The dewatering system which consisted of eductor wells was installed around the entire periphery of the general plant site excavation and the ground water level was lowered to the top of the clay stratum, approximately elevation 558'. The containment areas were then excavated to Elevation 583'-4. the dense sand at elevation 583'4" was 25 compacted with a vibratory compactor. The containment structures were constructed on mat foundations founded directly on the dense beach sands.

DC Cook Submittal DC Cook Submittal

• What is basis for second sentence in Section 2.3.2.1 as soil layers total about 128 ft?

- The firm soil material over the upper 500 ft was assumed to have behavior

• Total site kappa values for P4, P5, P6 are similar to staffs values; however basis for statement in Section 2.3.2.2 is unclear 2.3.2.2 is unclear

- As documented in Reference 14 for shallow, less than about 3000 ft soil/firm rock sites, kappa may be estimated based on the small strain damping contributed by the based on the small strain damping contributed by the profile

- Does above statement refer to kappa estimate for P1 P2 &

P3 only?

y 26

DC Cook Submittal DC Cook Submittal

• Range for total standard deviations ( or Range for total standard deviations (T or lnAFlx) of ln AF given rock motions are much lower than staffs values shown on Slide 16 lower than staff s values shown on Slide 16

- Affects hazard integral probability calculations P(AF>z/xlx)

P(AF>z/xlx)

- Consistent with standard deviations in Table A2-B2 for specific models, profiles, and PGA levels?

o spec c ode s, p o es, a d G e e s 27

Median AF vs. Rock Motion Median AF vs. Rock Motion 3.5 3

2 2.5 0.5 Hz 1 Hz 2.5 Hz 1

1.5 5 Hz 10 Hz 25 Hz PGA 0.5 1

28 0

-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5

Sigma ln(AF) vs. Rock Motion 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 Hz 1 Hz 2.5 Hz 5 Hz 0.3 10 Hz 25 Hz PGA 0.1 0.2 29 0

-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5

Rock Hazard Verification Rock Hazard Verification

• Using Table A-2a in submittal (l l and Using Table A 2a in submittal (lnAFlx and lnAFlx) together with NRC rock hazard curves for DC Cook staff calculated control point for DC Cook staff calculated control point hazard curves and also UHRS at 10-4 and 10-5 and GMRS and GMRS

• Results match indicating that NRC and Licensee rock hazard curves are similar Licensee rock hazard curves are similar 30

Rock Hazard Verification Results Rock Hazard Verification Results Freq. (Hz) 10-4 UHRS (g) 10-5 UHRS (g)

GMRS (g) 100 0 171 0 516 0 248 100 0.171 0.516 0.248 25 0.295 0.958 0.454 10 0.337 0.952 0.464 5

0.297 0.869 0.421 2.5 0.185 0.487 0.240 Licensee 1

0.0866 0.202 0.102 0.5 0.0493 0.110 0.0563 Freq. (Hz) 10-4 UHRS (g) 10-5 UHRS (g)

GMRS (g) 100 0.17 0.51 0.25 25 0.28 0.79 0.39 10 0.33 0.93 0.45 5

0.30 0.86 0.42 NRC 2.5 0.19 0.50 0.25 1

0.09 0.20 0.10 0.5 0.06 0.11 0.06 31

NRC Replication of Licensees Models NRC Replication of Licensee s Models

• Staff calculated site response for DC Cook Staff calculated site response for DC Cook using licensees velocity models

- 20 layer model for P1 P2 P3

- 20 layer model for P1, P2, P3

- 62 layer model for P4, P5, P6 F

h ll fil (P1 P2 P3) t ff d EPRI

• For shallow profile (P1, P2, P3) staff used EPRI Soil and Peninsular curves

• For deeper profile (P4, P5, P6) staff used EPRI rock and Linear with 3% damping for 500 ft 32

DC Cook 1.2 0.8 1

)

0 4 0.6 SA (g 0.2 0.4 0

0.01 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz) 33 Frequency (Hz)

Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRS Lic. P1-P3 Lic. P4-P6

Primary Issues

• Basis for the 6 profile approach

- 3 of the 6 profiles (P1, P2, P3) infer ref. rock velocities for sedimentary rock layers

• Basis for not including beach sands in velocity fil

(

t l

i t) profiles (control point)

• Approach for calculating kappa and its application to the site response analysis to the site response analysis

• NRC unable to replicate licensees GMRS perhaps due to differences in standard deviation of log due to differences in standard deviation of log normally distributed Amp Factor as a function of input rock motion