ML20078L521
| ML20078L521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie, Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1993 |
| From: | Burford J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-473, RTR-NUREG-CR-5250 NUDOCS 9411300244 | |
| Download: ML20078L521 (5) | |
Text
14 -
Ftrida Power & Ught Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juio Be:ch, FL 33408 I: P L August 18, 1993 n.
Mr. D.H. Grimsley, Director Division of Freedom of Information and Public Services FREEDOM 0F INFORMATION office of Administration U.3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACT REQUEST Washington, D.C.
20555 3_
h j J7Ljj--9)
Dear Mr. Grimsley:
In January 1989, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ( LLNL),
under contract to the NRC, published an eight volume report NUREG/CR-5250 (UCID-21517) on seismic hazard characterization of 69 Two of the nuclear power plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains.
sites, Turkey Point and St. Lucie, are owned by Florida Power &
Light Company and they were ranked 67th and 68th, respectively in seismic hazard characterization.
In preparation of NUREG/CR-5250, LLNL elicited the opinions of five ground-notion experts, identified as 1GX through SGX.
In the 1990-1991 time frame, the NRC commissioned LLNL to prepare revised seismic hazard characterizations with ground-motion expert SGX eliminated.
These characterizations were prepared, but have not to date been published as an addendum or revision to NUREG/CR-5250.
The attachment to this letter (Pages 165, 166, 167 of the transcript of the Wednesday February 5,
1992 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards) provides additional details on the subject of SGX-versus 4GX.
In 1992 the NRC commissioned LLNL to prepare new seismic hazard characterization for all 69 sites by re-eliciting expert opinion on These new
" seismicity" and " ground motion" and using 4GX and SGX.
characterizations were prepared and presented at a public meeting in Rockville, MD on March 9,
1993 but have not to date been The new published as an addendum or revision to NUREG/CR-5250.
(1992) characterizations appear to lower the seismic hazards by one to two orders of magnitude from the original (1989) characterizations.
The original (1989) version of NUREG/CR-5250, without any revisions or addenda, is the only version presently referenced in the Proposed Rulemaking 10 CFR Parts 50, 52 and 100 " Reactor Siting Criteria" (57 Federal Register 47802 - October 20, 1992 and 55601 -
November 25, 1992).
The original version is based on including ground-motion expert SGX.
9411300244 930818 PDR FOIA BURFORD93-473 PDR en FPL Group company
3 I
JNL-93-156 Page 2 of 2 to the Freedom of Information Act and the implementing Pursuant regulations in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, I hereby request the following documents pertaining to Florida Power Lucie sites for the 1990-Light Company's Turkey Point and St.
&1991 revisions to the original (1989) report and also for the new (1992) seismic hazard characterizations.
numerical printouts, graphs and charts providing All 1
1.
seismic hazard data and informetion after the elimination of ground-motion expert SGX.
numerical printouts, graphs and charts providing All 2.
comparative data and information with and without ground-motion expert SGX.
All notes, correspondence or other documents to or from 3.
the NRC in which ground-motion expert SGX is mentioned, i
Please let me know if the cost of responding to this request will j
j exceed $100.00.
Ve truly yours,
,1 L J
ry Burford 1
cti Supervisor ucle Licensing JNB/JRL/vmg Attachment cc:
JNL-93-156 5
)
'65
- pper eno.
s :;t :n the 1:wer anc.
'<R.
MURPHY:
Oka,.
I don't know MR. SIESS:
It tells me somet.
3 4
what.
5GX versus 4GX?
Are you going to explain the 5
) --
MR. MURPHY:
Yes.
6 study made use of five ground-motion The Livermore 7
some controversy associated with one of 3
experts.
There was what the ground-opinion about the ground-motion experts' 9
motion model should be.
10 some sensitivity studies were Because of this, 11 program in which the seismic hazard 12 done with the Livermore run without making use of this fifth calculations were 13 models.
ground-motion experts' five ground-motion 14 we end up with Livermore, So, 15 C,0 f and Liver,}gif' ground-motion experts.
16
- experts, MR. SIESS:
Were there any technical, geological, 17 for eliminating that one expert, or seismological reasons is an outlier?
it simply that he was 19 was eliminated.
We MR. MURPHY:
That expert was not 20 to understand what 21 simply made a special effort d
contributions that his models made to the hazar 22 eliminate him.
We did not 23 calculations.
In the 4GX line up there?
MR. SIESS:
24 eliminate him, say we did not MR. MURPHY:
When we 25 y Sb W
/(/p /t.* b/ste N,
$/}f ch w pol
a
/
/
b
.66 Ine :2_:u ani:ns ano so forth, we do nave,
_f
/Ou'_; forgi/e Se, two sets of Livermore hazard curves.
MR. SIESS:
I didn't mean elimination in the Mafia 4
sense.
I meant, you know MR. MURPHY:
Fair enough.
He was isolated in the 5
.)
5 Amish sense, okay?
~
MR. SIESS:
Now, again, was that based on that he evidence or purely probabilistic evidence, 3
technical made him different?
an outlier?
What
?
was j
individuals that MR. MURPHY:
There were 10 and that was on a his ground-motion models, 11 questioned 12 technical basis.
of conversions of magnitude i
He made use, in part, 13 some of his to magnitudes and did
-- of densities 14 15 calculations and ideas that may not be the most current 16 today.
when this information was Ten years ago, 17 he was in the forefront of ground-originally collected, 18 motion modeling and expertise.
19 MR. SIESS:
Okay.
20 is we end up with two The bottom line
21 MR. MURPHY:
22 target probabilities.
It just struck me, with MR. SIESS:
Excuse me.
is no difference between the 23 his model out of there, there 24
.)
25 Livermore and EPRI median medians.
6 167 MR. MURPHY:
In this particular measure, that is absolutely correct.
3 MR, SIESS:
This is the average of 5 and 10 hertz.
4 It's the median median.
5 MR. MURPHY:
Yes.
6 MR. SIESS:
Fascinating.
The means are going to 7
be way different.
8 MR. CHOKSHI:
We wanted to put 4GX here, and the 9
original study was on the hazard and changes, what is the 10 impact on the ground motions and controlling earthquake.
11 So, you can see, if you were to use different 12 methods, what would be the catcome.
}
in the Reg.
13 MR. SIESS:
Now, with the means 4G)( did 14 Guide, the draft guide I had, you didn't have the 15 you?
c (< c sw,
- 16 MR. CHOKSHI:
No, we did not.
No, we did not.
18 MR. SIESS:
So, I can't really tell how it would J
19 be.
20 MR. MURPHY:
At this moment, in the one that is 21 going around for circulation that has the means and the 22 85ths eliminated, there is not mention of the 4G expert 23 category either.
This is simply here for your information.
24 MR. SIESS:
Okay.
I like the 4G)( It agrees with
)
25 the EPRI, and then we're home-free.
N"Mdk k