ML15331A197

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Official Exhibit - NYS000528-00-BD01 - USNRC Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation (June 19, 2014)
ML15331A197
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 06/19/2014
From:
State of NY, Office of the Attorney General
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 27910, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR
Download: ML15331A197 (27)
v • d • e


Text

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. NYS000528 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Submitted: June 9, 2015 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS000528-00-BD01 Identified: 11/5/2015 Admitted: 11/5/2015 Withdrawn:

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2 2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Entergy gy June 19, 2014

References for Meeting

  • M ti FFeedback Meeting db k FForm ((requestt ffrom mfb@nrc.gov) fb@ )
  • May 9, 2014, NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for central and eastern US Licensees (ML14111A147)
  • May 21, 2014, NRC memo providing preliminary staff ground motion response 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 d di off the h causes off the h primary i diff differences between the preliminary NRC and licensee seismic hazard results

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

Look-ahead:

Potentiall Next Steps

  • NRC will consider the meeting information
  • Potential paths:

- Licensee Li submits b it supplemental l t l iinformation f ti bbased d

on public meeting dialog

- NRC staff issues a request for information

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

  • NRC completes screening review and issues th fi the finall screening i d determination t i ti lletter tt

NTTF Recommendation 2.1-S Summary off P Preliminary li i Seismic S i i Hazard Analysis:

y Indian Point Units 2 and 3 June 19, 2014 Jon Ake-NRC

Indian Point 2 1.4 1.2 1

SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS IHS/RLE

Indian Point 3 1.4 1.2 1

SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS

Summary of Issues

  • Licensee did not perform site response analysis.

Cited P-wave refraction p profile as jjustification

  • NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
  • NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities

- Difference due to site response, not rock hazard

  • Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.

b itt l

- Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal

Partial List of References Used

  • GZA, 2008, Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report for the Indian Point Energy Center ML102910404 (FOIA web package)

Center.

  • Licensee September 2013 and March 2014 submittals
  • Memorandum on Geologic Features of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Site by T.

Fluhr (memo in FSAR appendix)

  • Guidebook to Geologic Field trip trip: Cortlandt Igneous Complex, Complex Buchanan, Buchanan NY (2008)
  • Merguerian, C., et al., 2011, Stratigraphy, structural geology and metamorphism of the Inwood Marble Formation, northern Manhattan, NYC, NY: in Hanson, G. N.,

chm Eighteenth Annual Conference on Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan chm.,

New York, 09 April 2011, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, Long Island Geologists Program with Abstracts, 19 p.

  • Various on-line sources for velocities of marble etc
  • Site Geologic Report for Indian Point No.

No 2 and Indian Point No No.33 Nuclear Power Plants

  • Geology, Geochemistry, and Tectonostratigraphic Relations of the Crystalline Basement Beneath the New Jersey Coastal Plain and Contiguous Areas: USGS Prof.

Paper 1565 1565-B.

B.

FSAR Version 23 (IP2)

  • The Geology.
  • The property as a whole is underlain by three geologic rock formations. They are:
  • (a) A Phyllite or Schist. This is the uppermost formation of sedimentary origin. In some places the rock is a fine fine-grained grained phyllite resembling the phyllite of the Hudson River series series. In other places it is a muscovite schist resembling the Manhattan schist found typically in New York City.
  • (b) Beneath the phyllite or schist, and apparently conformable with it, is a limestone. Most of this is coarsely crystalline white or gray limestone, with some dolomitic and silicious bands, and a few quartz veins. Its original bedding structure has been obscured in part by shearing and jointing.
  • ( ) Th (c) The schist, hi t iin th the easterly t l partt off th the ttract, t about b tah half-mile lf il eastt off the th HHudson d Ri River, h has b been intruded by basic igneous rocks, known as the Cortlandt Series.
  • The limestone has a well-defined layered structure, believed to be original bedding, which strikes N-S to N E and dips easterly at 45 to 65 degrees. This layered structure is marked by shear planes and, rarely, thin shaly layers. The notable feature of the limestone is its extremely jointed condition.

A major joint system extends at about right angles to the bedding structure, but, in addition, there are also many irregular joints. The jointing has an intensity which might almost be described as brecciation.

  • The joints are open, but few display decay. This limestone formation is not cavernous. The li limestone iis h hard, d bbecause off iits jjointed i d condition, di i iit iis my opinion i i that h iits supportingi value l ffor foundation purposes should be held to no more than 50 tons per square foot. (T. Fluhr, Memo)
  • North and east of the plant are hills and ridges of phyllite and schist.
  • The limestone limestone is in fact the Ordivician Linwood Marble Marble

General Site Stratigraphy

  • Manhattan Schist (Ordivician)
  • Inwood Marble (Lower Ordivician to Upper Cambrian)
  • Lowerre Quartzite (Cambrian)
  • Fordham Gneiss (Pre-Cambrian)
  • Intrusive Complex p Rocks

Indian Point: Local Geology gy From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.

Bedrock: Inwood Marble w/Manhattan schist present in northeastern portion of site Complex Sub-surfaceSub surface Geology From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.

Geologic section of Inwood in Upper Manhattan h (type

( section)i )

Based on regional observations: assume that the Cambrian Quartzite And underlying units have a Vs > Vs reference

Control Point

  • Indian Point is a firm rock site site. Consistent with SPID the Control Point is defined as the top/surface of the rock unit (the Inwood Marble).
  • To reiterate: it has been assumed that the underlying Ordovician Lourre Quartzite and underlying gneisses and intrusives have a velocity >= 9200 fps (reference rock velocity).

Additional Information Available f the for h Indian di Point i Sitei

  • Between et ee 2005005 and a d 2007, 00 , GZA G Geo GeoEnvironmental o e ta (GZA), performed a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation of the site. This investigation was initiated d to understand d d groundwater d fl flow andd contaminant transport. During this investigation numerous borings were advanced to study the site geology, hydrology and aquifer properties.

Details of the ggeology, gy hydrology y gy and aquifer q

properties can be found in the GZA report.

  • From Rev 23 of IP2 FSAR (Hydrology Section)

Shear-wave velocity profile from IP site.

13 profiles acquired with Surface wave-technique-All penetrated bedrock (from GZA Hydrogeology report, Appendix O)

ML102910404 Very consistent velocities in upper portion of bedrock (Inwood)

GZA Report: Seismic Profiles Independent P-wave data indicates Vp ~8-9000 fps in near surface.

IP Velocity Profiles Informed with Template Profiles

Profiles Used in NRC Analysis Preliminary Indian Point Site Response Model Layer Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Sigma-ln G/Gmax&D G/Gmax&D (Vs)

BC-1 0-40 4900 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-2 40-75 6419 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-3 75-100 8024 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-4 100-200 8400 0.15 Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-1 0-40 4320 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-2 40-100 5662 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-3 100-200 7077 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-3 200-400 7785 0.15 Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-4 LBC 4 400-800 400 800 8500 0.15 Linear-ND Linear ND Linear-ND Linear ND UBC-1 0-40 5555 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

UBC-2 40-75 7277 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

UBC-3 75-85 9000 0.10 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

Summary

  • Licensee did not perform site response analysis.

Cited P-wave refraction p profile as jjustification

  • NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
  • NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities

- Difference due to site response, not rock hazard

  • Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.

b itt l

- Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal

Why P-Wave Refraction Results Should h ld be b Used d With i h Caution i Here Conclusion based on results of P-wave refraction.

Velocities of 8000-16,000 fps cited.

Significant layered (bedding) in near-vertical attitude. Discontinous stringers g off veryy hard material.

Very easy (maybe impossible not to) to bias refraction results to high value.

Vs for these Vp values: 4600 4600-8550 8550 fps (assuming nu =0.3).

Existence of direct shear-wave results From- Merguerian, C., et al., 2011

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. NYS000528 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Submitted: June 9, 2015 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS000528-00-BD01 Identified: 11/5/2015 Admitted: 11/5/2015 Withdrawn:

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2 2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Entergy gy June 19, 2014

References for Meeting

  • M ti FFeedback Meeting db k FForm ((requestt ffrom mfb@nrc.gov) fb@ )
  • May 9, 2014, NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for central and eastern US Licensees (ML14111A147)
  • May 21, 2014, NRC memo providing preliminary staff ground motion response 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 d di off the h causes off the h primary i diff differences between the preliminary NRC and licensee seismic hazard results

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

Look-ahead:

Potentiall Next Steps

  • NRC will consider the meeting information
  • Potential paths:

- Licensee Li submits b it supplemental l t l iinformation f ti bbased d

on public meeting dialog

- NRC staff issues a request for information

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

  • NRC completes screening review and issues th fi the finall screening i d determination t i ti lletter tt

NTTF Recommendation 2.1-S Summary off P Preliminary li i Seismic S i i Hazard Analysis:

y Indian Point Units 2 and 3 June 19, 2014 Jon Ake-NRC

Indian Point 2 1.4 1.2 1

SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS IHS/RLE

Indian Point 3 1.4 1.2 1

SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS

Summary of Issues

  • Licensee did not perform site response analysis.

Cited P-wave refraction p profile as jjustification

  • NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
  • NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities

- Difference due to site response, not rock hazard

  • Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.

b itt l

- Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal

Partial List of References Used

  • GZA, 2008, Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report for the Indian Point Energy Center ML102910404 (FOIA web package)

Center.

  • Licensee September 2013 and March 2014 submittals
  • Memorandum on Geologic Features of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Site by T.

Fluhr (memo in FSAR appendix)

  • Guidebook to Geologic Field trip trip: Cortlandt Igneous Complex, Complex Buchanan, Buchanan NY (2008)
  • Merguerian, C., et al., 2011, Stratigraphy, structural geology and metamorphism of the Inwood Marble Formation, northern Manhattan, NYC, NY: in Hanson, G. N.,

chm Eighteenth Annual Conference on Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan chm.,

New York, 09 April 2011, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, Long Island Geologists Program with Abstracts, 19 p.

  • Various on-line sources for velocities of marble etc
  • Site Geologic Report for Indian Point No.

No 2 and Indian Point No No.33 Nuclear Power Plants

  • Geology, Geochemistry, and Tectonostratigraphic Relations of the Crystalline Basement Beneath the New Jersey Coastal Plain and Contiguous Areas: USGS Prof.

Paper 1565 1565-B.

B.

FSAR Version 23 (IP2)

  • The Geology.
  • The property as a whole is underlain by three geologic rock formations. They are:
  • (a) A Phyllite or Schist. This is the uppermost formation of sedimentary origin. In some places the rock is a fine fine-grained grained phyllite resembling the phyllite of the Hudson River series series. In other places it is a muscovite schist resembling the Manhattan schist found typically in New York City.
  • (b) Beneath the phyllite or schist, and apparently conformable with it, is a limestone. Most of this is coarsely crystalline white or gray limestone, with some dolomitic and silicious bands, and a few quartz veins. Its original bedding structure has been obscured in part by shearing and jointing.
  • ( ) Th (c) The schist, hi t iin th the easterly t l partt off th the ttract, t about b tah half-mile lf il eastt off the th HHudson d Ri River, h has b been intruded by basic igneous rocks, known as the Cortlandt Series.
  • The limestone has a well-defined layered structure, believed to be original bedding, which strikes N-S to N E and dips easterly at 45 to 65 degrees. This layered structure is marked by shear planes and, rarely, thin shaly layers. The notable feature of the limestone is its extremely jointed condition.

A major joint system extends at about right angles to the bedding structure, but, in addition, there are also many irregular joints. The jointing has an intensity which might almost be described as brecciation.

  • The joints are open, but few display decay. This limestone formation is not cavernous. The li limestone iis h hard, d bbecause off iits jjointed i d condition, di i iit iis my opinion i i that h iits supportingi value l ffor foundation purposes should be held to no more than 50 tons per square foot. (T. Fluhr, Memo)
  • North and east of the plant are hills and ridges of phyllite and schist.
  • The limestone limestone is in fact the Ordivician Linwood Marble Marble

General Site Stratigraphy

  • Manhattan Schist (Ordivician)
  • Inwood Marble (Lower Ordivician to Upper Cambrian)
  • Lowerre Quartzite (Cambrian)
  • Fordham Gneiss (Pre-Cambrian)
  • Intrusive Complex p Rocks

Indian Point: Local Geology gy From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.

Bedrock: Inwood Marble w/Manhattan schist present in northeastern portion of site Complex Sub-surfaceSub surface Geology From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.

Geologic section of Inwood in Upper Manhattan h (type

( section)i )

Based on regional observations: assume that the Cambrian Quartzite And underlying units have a Vs > Vs reference

Control Point

  • Indian Point is a firm rock site site. Consistent with SPID the Control Point is defined as the top/surface of the rock unit (the Inwood Marble).
  • To reiterate: it has been assumed that the underlying Ordovician Lourre Quartzite and underlying gneisses and intrusives have a velocity >= 9200 fps (reference rock velocity).

Additional Information Available f the for h Indian di Point i Sitei

  • Between et ee 2005005 and a d 2007, 00 , GZA G Geo GeoEnvironmental o e ta (GZA), performed a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation of the site. This investigation was initiated d to understand d d groundwater d fl flow andd contaminant transport. During this investigation numerous borings were advanced to study the site geology, hydrology and aquifer properties.

Details of the ggeology, gy hydrology y gy and aquifer q

properties can be found in the GZA report.

  • From Rev 23 of IP2 FSAR (Hydrology Section)

Shear-wave velocity profile from IP site.

13 profiles acquired with Surface wave-technique-All penetrated bedrock (from GZA Hydrogeology report, Appendix O)

ML102910404 Very consistent velocities in upper portion of bedrock (Inwood)

GZA Report: Seismic Profiles Independent P-wave data indicates Vp ~8-9000 fps in near surface.

IP Velocity Profiles Informed with Template Profiles

Profiles Used in NRC Analysis Preliminary Indian Point Site Response Model Layer Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Sigma-ln G/Gmax&D G/Gmax&D (Vs)

BC-1 0-40 4900 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-2 40-75 6419 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-3 75-100 8024 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-4 100-200 8400 0.15 Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-1 0-40 4320 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-2 40-100 5662 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-3 100-200 7077 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-3 200-400 7785 0.15 Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-4 LBC 4 400-800 400 800 8500 0.15 Linear-ND Linear ND Linear-ND Linear ND UBC-1 0-40 5555 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

UBC-2 40-75 7277 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

UBC-3 75-85 9000 0.10 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

Summary

  • Licensee did not perform site response analysis.

Cited P-wave refraction p profile as jjustification

  • NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
  • NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities

- Difference due to site response, not rock hazard

  • Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.

b itt l

- Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal

Why P-Wave Refraction Results Should h ld be b Used d With i h Caution i Here Conclusion based on results of P-wave refraction.

Velocities of 8000-16,000 fps cited.

Significant layered (bedding) in near-vertical attitude. Discontinous stringers g off veryy hard material.

Very easy (maybe impossible not to) to bias refraction results to high value.

Vs for these Vp values: 4600 4600-8550 8550 fps (assuming nu =0.3).

Existence of direct shear-wave results From- Merguerian, C., et al., 2011

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15331A197&oldid=2446194"