ML19221A959
| ML19221A959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-02.4.6, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-2.4.6, SRP-02.04.06, SRP-2.04.06, NUDOCS 7907120057 | |
| Download: ML19221A959 (6) | |
Text
N U R E G-75/087
/g, no.,%
S
[N U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION id'. h' STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
\\...../
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SECTION 2.4.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM TSUNAMI F LOODING REVIEW RESPON5iRILITIES Primary - Hydrology-fie teo rology Branch (HMC)
Secondary - Geosciences Bran * (GB) 1.
ARRAS OF REVIEW t
The geohydrological design basis of the plant (discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59) 's developed in this section of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) to determine the extent f
of plant protection required for tsunami flooding and drawdown (outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.102).
The areas of review include the hydrologic characteristics of the maxi-mum locally and distantly generated tsunami and the techniques, methodologies and i
parameters, incluoing the geoseismic parameters of th generators, used in the deter-t mination of the design 5 asis tsunami.
l 4
I Geologic and seismic characteristics reviewed include earthquake magnitude, focal i
i depth, source dimensions, fault orientation and vertical displacement. Hydrologic analysis techniques, including tsunami formation, propagation and shoaling models, and l
coincident water levels, incla ing astrrnomical tide, storm surges and waves are i
e revieweds 11.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA If it has been determined that tsunui estimates are necessary to identify flood or low l
water design bases, the anal} ;is will be considered complete if the following areas are addressed and can be independent #y and compar1D'y evaluated f rom the applicant's submission:
i 1.
All potential distant and local ts.nami generators, including volcanos and areas i
o potential landslides, are investigated and the most critical ones are selected.
2.
Conservative values of seismic characteristics (source dimensions, fault orienta-tion and vertical displacement) for the tsunami generators selected are used in the analysis.
3.
All models used in the analysis are verified or have been previously approved by the staff.
USNRC STANDARD REVl5W PLAN stenderd re,*ew piene era pre. red for in. go.de.,ce of the of+ic. of weieer peector mesvietion ete*+ respone.bie for th. r.a of e,piications to co..efruct and oPerese acciose power plente These docwmente are made ewediebie to the puhdc es port of the Commeseaen e poecy to inform the nuclear Indus ry end the eer eroi pubek -f reguletory procedures and po4cies Stendard reweew piene are not substitutee for re* iletary guides or the Commession e rege.eteone end c6melaeace wnti them 6e not toavered The etenderd rewtow pien sectione are keyed to Movesson 2 of the Stenderd Forenet and Content of 5efety A4.e*yses Mooorts for NWC80er Power P' ente Not all sectione of the Stendeed Formet have a correspandmq reveew plan Pwbitehod stenderd reveew piene well be rewooed periodscelty es espropnete to accommodate comenente end to reflect new informetson s eid emperience Cemneente end avggestione for improvement wiH be coneadored sad should be sent to the U S Nuclear Regulatory Commsesson omco of Nacieer meector Regwe fsen. Weehengton. D C 2Tde e
=_
Ecy. I 79071 20 0C lob 30
4.
Bathymetric data are provided (or are read 1!y obtainable).
5.
Detailed descriptions of shoreline protection and safety-related facilities are provided for wave runup and drawdown estimates.
6.
Ambient water levels, including tides, sea level anomalies, and wind waves, are estimated using PDAA and Corps of Engineers publications as described below.
7.
If Regulatory Guide 1.59, Position 2, is aoopted by the applicant, the design basis for tsunami protection of all sa.ety-related f acilities identified in Regulatory Guide 1.29 must be shown to be adequate in terms of the time required for implementation of any emergency procedures.
The applicant's estimates of tsunami runup and drawdown levels are acceptable if the estimate; are no more than 5% less conservative than the staff'e estimates.
If the applicant's estimates are me e than 5% less conservative (based on the difference between normal water levels and the maximum runup or drawdown levela) than the staff's, the applicant should fully document an't justify its estimates or accept the staff
astimates.
This section of the SAR will also be scceptable if it states the criteria used to determine that tsunami flooding estimates are not necessary to identify toe flood design basis (e.g., the site is not near a large body of water).
Ill. REkIEk PROCEDURE 5 I
The review procedure, are outlined in F igure 2. 4. 6.
The references used are general geophv,1 cal, sci m ingical, and hydrodynamic publications, such as published data by tN National Ocea.ic and Atmospheric Administration (h0AA), and wave propagation models such as those developed D/ NCAA, WES and Tetra Te h.
Section 2.4.6 of the applicant's SAR is raviewed to identify any missing data, informa-tion or analyses necessary for the staff's evaluation of potential tsunami flooding.
This section is evaluated when the applicant has responded to all of the additional information requested.
If the site is not near a lat ge body cf water with potential tsunami generators, the staff findings may be prepared a priori.
The staff (with input from GB) will review the potential tsunami sources analyzed by the applicant to assure that all locations capable of generating a tsunami of signifi-cant magnitude at the site have teen considered. The GB staff will evaluate the geeseismic pararreters of the t sunami generators, including fault location and orienta-tion, and amp?itude and areal extent of vertical displacement, to assure that conserva-tive values have been chosen.
An independent staff analysis, using one of the models listed in the refere.fes, may be performed. Staff estimates of tsunami levels are compared with the applicant',
The Rev. 1 2.4.6-2
applicant must justify, to the staff's satisfaction, tsunami levels more than 5% less conservative than the staff's.
6-As an alternative, the staff may perform an independent evaluation of the applicant's model and its utilization. lhe model's theoretical basis, its i nherent conservat i sr,.
and applicability to the problem, will be evaluated (this can be done on a generic basis).
The conservatism of the models' use, including the conservatism of all input parameters, will be evaluated.
l l
l Coincident ambient tide and wave conditions will be evaluated to assure that they are i
of at least annual severity.
Data from publications of NOAA, the Corps of Engineers, and other sources are used to substantiate these conditions chosen.
i Criteria and methods of the Corps of Engineers as generally summarized in Reference 12 are used as a standard to evaluate the applicant's estimate of coincident wind generateJ wave action and runup.
Cr,teria and methods of the Corps of Engineers and other standard techniques are used to evaluate the potential for ascillation of waves at natural periodicity.
Criteria and methods of the Corps of Engineers (Raf. 12) are used to evaluate the adequacy of protection from flooding, including the static and dynamic effects of broken, breaking and nonbreaking coincident waves.
IV.
EVAL!ATION FINDINGS For construction permit (CP) reviews the findings will consist of a statement summa-rizing estimates of the maximum and minimum tsunami water levels, static and dynamic effects of wave action, and a statement of acceptability of the tsunami-induced design basis.
If the tsunami conditions do not constitute a design basis, the findings will so indicate. For operating !icense (OL) reviews, the findings will consist of the evaluation of any new information on tsunami potential, improvements in predictive models acceptability of specific design bases, and the acceptability of design provision 5.
A sample <*atement for an CP review follows:
" Analyses of tsunamic effects from local and distant generators were performed by the applicant at the staff's direction. The design tsunami results from a magni-l tude 8.7 earthquake in the Aleutian T ;nch.
A finite difference numerical mod.
was used to analyze tsunami generation and propagation to the continental shelf.
Results of this computation were used in a nearshore model to calculate tsunami runup and drawdown.
including the effects of high and low tides of annuai ccur-rence, the maximum tsunami runup and drawdown are estimated as +24.5 feet MLLW and
-13.4 feet MLLW, respectively. Wind waves of annual severity were assumed coinci-dent with the tsunami. The maximum wave runup, at the intake pumphouse was
[] % h 2.4.6-3
estimated as +31.2 feet MLLW. The maximum drawdown, at the location of the A
offshore intake, was cstimated as -21.3 feet MLLW."
V.
REFERENCES 1.
li-San Hwang, H.
Lee But'et, and David J. Divorky, letra Tech, Inc., " Tsunami Model: Generation and h en-Sea Charactertics," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 62, No. 6, Decumber 1972.
2.
Li-San Hwang, D. Divorky, anj A. Yuen, Tetra Tech, Inc., "Amchitka Tsunami Study,"
Report NV0-289-7, Nevada Operations Of fice, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission (1971).
3.
Li-San Hwang and D. Diverky, Tetra Tech, Inc., " Rat Island Tsunami Model: Genera-tion and Open-Sea Characteristics," Report Nv'0-289-10, Nevada Uperations Office, U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission (1971).
4.
H. G.
Loomis, "A Package Program for time-Stepping Long Waves into Coastal Regions with Application to Haleiwa Harbor, Oahu," Ha.aii Institute of Geophysics and Nationa! Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1972).
S.
Li-San Hwang and D. Divorky, " Tsunami Ger.eration," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 75, No. 33 (1970).
6.
K. L. Heitner, " Additional Investigations on a Mathematical Model for Calculation of the Run-Up of Tsunamis," California Institute of Technology (1970).
7.
R.
L. Street, Robert K-C Chan, and J. E. F romm, "Two Methods f or the Coaputation of the Motion of Long Water Waves - A Review and Applications," NR 062-3/0, Tecr.nical Report 136, Cffice of Naval Research, distributed as a r p. int from the Proc. 8th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, August 1970.
8.
B.
W. Wilscn, " Earthquake Occurrence and Effects in Ocean Artas (U)," Technical Report 69.027, U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme California, february 1969.
9.
C. L. Mader, " Numerical Simulation of Tsunamis," Hawrii Institute of Geophysics and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, February It'3.
10.
R. W. Preisendorfer, "Fecent Tsunami Thecty," Hawaii Institute of Geophysics an1 NOAA, August 1971.
11.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Nautical Charts.
12.
" Shore Protection, Planning and Design," Technical Report 4, Third Edition, Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, Third Edition (1966); and " Shore Protection Manual" (1973).
}brJ i
v 7 !v.
1 2.f.
6-4
13.
B.
W.
Wilson and A.
Trum, "The Tsunami of the Alaskan Earthquake, 1964:
Engineer-ing Evaluation," Tech. Memo No. 25, Corps of Engineers Coastal Engin'ering Research Center (1968).
14.
Regulitary Guide 1. 70, " Standard f ormat are) Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Flants."
15.
kequlatory Guide 1.59, " Design Basis floods for Nuclear Power Plants.
16.
Regulatory Guide 1.102, " Flood Protection Requiremet ts for Nuclear Power Plants. '
l 4
l 17.
Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification I
18.
Regulatory Guide 1.135, " Normal Water Level and Discharge at Nuclear Power Plants."
i 19.
R.
L. Wiegel, "Oceanographical Engineering," Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood i
Cliffs, NJ (1964).
20.
J.
R. Houston and A.
W.
Garcia, "fype 16 Flood Insurance Study: Tsunami Predic-tions for Pacific Coastal Communities," Technical Report H-74-3, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment station (1974).
21.
J.
R.
Houston, R.
W.
Whalin, A.
W.
Garcia and H.
L.
Butler, "Effect of Source Orientation and Location in the Aleutian Trench on Tsunami Amplitude Along the Pacific Coast of the Continental United States," Technical Report H-75-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (1975).
22.
R.
L. Wiegel, " Earthquake Engineering," Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1970).
23.
Tetra Tech, I nc., " T s unt..ii Atlas for the Coasts of the United States,"
Report TC-486 (1977).
I 24 L.
G. Hulman, W.
S.
Bivins and M.
H.
Fliegel, "1sunami Protection of Coastal Nuclear Power Plants in the United States " Journal of Marine Geodesy (in press).
I\\
(-
1 [1 J
- y 2.4.6-5 1cv-I
Figure 2.4.6 REVIEW PROCEDURES Receive SAR ls the site at or near a large body of water g NO h with potential tsunami generators? (W/GB]
t hES]
1 Are all potential tsunami sources considered and are conservative seismic para-neters used? (W/GB)
ES]
N t _Ask Questions Evaluate applicant's hydrologic modells) as to its applicability to the problems,its basic conservatism y ygg L and the conservatism of its application, including all l
i parameters used. Is applicant's analysis satisfactory?
__f Are there significant enough problems with the appl ant's analysis to warrant independent staff analysis?
YES k NO Make conservative estimate L_using s.af f model or consultant Ask NO h Are applicant's tsunami estimates Questions within 5% of staff estimates?
Ee{s]
Review applicant's responses Are applicant's estimates g y conservativn?
I i
L"o Develop staf f positions h-Resolve diffarences with LPM and applicant or understand where areas of disagreemera lie WRITE SER INPUT Rev. I
- 2. 4. 6-6 J]f