ML20138A679
| ML20138A679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/13/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1497, NUDOCS 8603200019 | |
| Download: ML20138A679 (161) | |
Text
._ .
ORIG!NAL I
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI
=
DOCKET NO:
IN THE MATTER OF:
DS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUAR 311TH GENERAL MEETING O .
1 - 93 PAGES:
WASHINGTON, D. C.
LOCATION:
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1986 DATE:
=
ilPDTRp%qsyP0fsy a new ou 5 mA uu.r 30 Notjlemovefrom ACRS Office AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O Official Reporte-s 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 0 c of _a i "
(202) 347-3700 Prm NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
I) PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1986 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at
() this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or
~
inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
O
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON. REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4 311TH GENERAL MEETING 5 ---
6 PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 1717 H Street, N.W.
9 Room 1046 10 Washington, D.C.
11 The recorded portion of the 311th meeting of 12 the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was convened 13 at 2:00 p.m.
14 PRESENT FOR THE ACRS:
15 D. WARD, Chairman 16 C. SIESS 17 J. C. MARK 18 P. SHEWMON 19 F. REMICK I
20 G. REED l
21 H. ETHERINGTON 22 C. WYLIE l 23 C. MICHELSON 24 D. OKRENT 25 M. CARBON
- lli i
l l
2 1 W. KERR 2 D. MOELLER 3 H. LEWIS 4 DESIGNATED COGNIZANT STAFF MEMBER:
5 R. FRALEY 6 PRESENT FOR THE NRC AND INDUSTRY:
7 M. TRIFUNAC 8 D. SMITH ,
9 J. STEFANO 10 P. SOBEL 11 K. ANDERSON 12 L. REITER 13 A.-LEE i 14 R. HERMANN 3
15 G. LITER 16 R. WESSON 17 M. EDELMAN 18 C. CHEN 19 R. HOLT 20 P. TALWANI 21 G. LEBLANC 22 C. ETEPP 23 I. WALL f 24 B. BERNERO j 25 J. JOHNSON llif
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . . _ . -..__.._-__,.,.._._______,.,_.._m.. _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . . - _ - . _ - _ _ . , . . . , . . _ , . , . _ . . , _ . . . . . - _ _ _ , . . . _ . .
3 j PROCEEDINGS 2
MR. WARD: Our first topic for the afternoon is 3
in regard to Perry Nuclear Power Plant and a report of our
, subcommittee regarding the adequacy of the seismic design 5
by Dr. Okrent.
6 Mr. Okren The' subcommittee meeting was held 7
yesterday afternoon on this subject, and you will recall g
that there was a briefing of the full committee last month 9
I believe it was.
10 In connection with this meeting, we arranged to jj have the consulting advice from two people who are expert 12 in seismology. That is Drs. Pomeroy and Trifunac. In the 13 area of effects we tried to get Dr. Bond from Sandia, but u it turns out that he had to be out of the country, as I 15 recall.
16 Also we had at the meeting yesterday and I think u he is here today, Dr. Craig Smith from Anco Corporation ig who, together with one of his associates, reviewed effects 19 of the earthquake on equipment. The Anco Corporation has 20 had quite a lot of experience in qualifying equipment.
21 You have a handout which looks like this. It 22 says "4" on the front, and it has got the proposed agenda 23 for the meeting this afternoon which is scheduled to run 24 from 2 up until 4:30.
25 As you see, in a couple of minutes when I am 8
4 F'~1
(_) 1 ' finished with the~ subcommittee report, we will hear from 2 those consultants who here today.
3 Dr. Pomeroy could not be here, and you should 4 have a white sheet of paper marked " Comments, Paul 5 Pomeroy, March 12, 1986." I suggest that you take.a look 6 at.that, and I will try to summarize these.
7 I expect Dr. Smith to be here in person. So I
~
8 am not going to try to give his comments.
9 We. heard from the staff and from the utility. I 10 think itis fair to say that each of them feel that 11 although at fairly.high frequencies of roughly 15,-20 or 12 25 hertz the response spectra at least at some elevations 13 exceeded the reg. guide spectrum, that there was very
+
E- 14 little, relatively little energy in the earthquake, that 15 there were minor displacements and so forth, and that
! 16 there was no visible significant damage and there was no 17 physical functional damage of significance. A couple of 18 things chipped off, but it was at least in one case a set 19 chip of modest shaping.
, 20 They did some examination by sampling of 21 equipment to check to see for the particular event that 22 they could have exceeded the qualification of the 23 equipment, and you will hear that they are embarked on a
_ 24 expanded program at the suggestion of the staff to make i
j 25 sure that the sample that they looked at is adequate for l
Ill
. - . __ _ ~.
! 5 9
3s,/ 1 the purpose. The staff will tell you about that.
2 Let me review the points that Dr. Pomeroy 3 mentioned-since he is not here.
4 It so happens'that there have been in the 5 vicinity of the Perry plant, sort of between'the Perry 6 plant _and where the epicenter of the earthquake is which 7 was of the order of 10 miles away', some disposal of ,
8 chemical waste, deep-well disposal. And this has a 9 potential for causing earthquakes where it is found in the i
10 Rocky Mountain arsenal. It is not a hypothetical 11 question.
12 There is a question as to whether it could have 13 caused this earthquake. The situation of the Rocky 14 Mountain arsenal is not a clear one. Here it is a 15 possible one, and in fact the man from USGS said well, you 16 can say maybe one chance in three or something this that ,
17 there was a connection between this deep-well disposal 18 waste and the particular earthquake.
, 19 The earthquake itself was not damaging. So it 20 is only important if in the future there is some chance
, 21 that there is a causative connection,and, furthermore, if 22 it could cause a substantially larger earthquake.
23 MR. MARK: How large was the magnitude of the 24 earthquakes in the Rocky Mountain arsenal?
L 25 MR. OKRENT: I believe they were in the vicinity 8
, _ - . r - . . - - . - , _
. -.,,_w,---,-r, -,*-..--r --..v- .-- ---- .
6
- 7. . - ,
k_,) I of 5. something. This is my recollection, but I will let 2 Carl Stepp or someone in the audience or from the staff or 3 maybe Mike Trifunac will remember specifically.
4 MR. STEPP: I am sorry, I didn't hear you.
5 MR. OKRENT: At Rocky Mountain arsenal when they 6 had the deep-well induced earthquakes, what magnitude did 7 they run to?
8 MR. STEPP: They were in the five to six range, 9 about five and a half..
10 MR. MARK: So they were at least this big.
11 MR. STEPP: yes.
12 MR. OKRENT: Or a little bigger than the one 13 that occurred there.
'="" 14 Anyway, so Pomeroy points out that this needs 15 some thought, and he mentions that there also happens to 16 have been some solution mining, again, sort of not in this 17 case between Perry and the site of this earthquake, 18 somewhat over to the side, but it involves a high-pressure 19 process which conceivably could lead to activation of some 20 fault that already existed relatively deep in the rock, 21 not at the surface.
22 So that is one point raised by Pomeroy.
23 He also mentions that the safe shutdown 24 earthquake was exceeded above 14 hertz and it is 25 conceivable that some future earthquake could be exceeded 8
7
-7
) 1 more more'than it was this' time.- So it is relevant to 2 understand, even though'in.this case the experts'seen.to
{ 3 feel that this particular earthquake should not have 4 caused damage.. .If you go up.a factor'of 2 or 5 or 10 you 5 might anticipate difficulty.
6 MR. MARK: Dave, the excitat' ion from.this
.7 earthquake was a little peculiar containing.no low i a frequency components.
I 9 MR. OKRENT: There were some at four, as I i
l 10 recall.
1 i 11 MR. MARK: I am wondering whether it has been 4
12 looked at and if the Rocky Mountain arsenal stuff was 13 special in the same way?
! 'O 14 MR. OKRENT: I don't know. I don't remember if I that question specifically came up yesterday, 15 i
f 16 Well, in any event,.this is not the first
~
l 17 earthquake in the Eastern U.S. that has shown a high i
la frequency component.
19 (Loud squeal in room.)
. 20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. OKRENT: We have a high frequency component.
22 (Laughter.)
i 23 So apparently at least the smaller and perhaps i
24 more shallow earthquakes in the East, to the extent that l
d 25 lIll i
8 F~
(_]s I we have some information, showed this. But let me leave 2 ~it at that for the moment. I am sure Dr. Trifunac will 3 have some comments on this and certain other things 4 related to the high frequency components.
5 The other recommendation that we received from 6 Pomeroy is that in view of things like this, maybe there 7 ought to be some kind of monitoring, and this is a follow-8 on.
9 I don't think I heard any comments from Dr.
10 Craig Smith. He is just~ entering the room. There is a 11 seat here for.you, Mr. Craig. He seemed to be relatively 12 satisfied, but he will tell you in a minute of his gs 13 reactions from the point of view of could this earthquake k6 )
t 14 have bothered some of the equipment that is sensitive at 15 the higher frequencies.
16 Let me, if I can, ask Dr. Trifunac to give what 17 comments he thinks are of potential interest to the 18 committee, after which we will hear from Dr. Smith and 19 then the subcommittee members who have any further 20 thoughts.
21 Mike.
22 MR. TRIFUNAC: Not in order of significant, but 23 just as they came to me, I think that some lessons could 24 be learned from this case on whether the procedures that 25 we use in structural response analysis are adequate
, 9 because~some of the examples.we'have seen yesterday
~
1
< 2 suggest that for the north-south motions the. recorded 3 versus calculated. apertures of response at some elevated 4 points are considerably larger, while for the east-west 5 motions they are smaller.
6 That suggests a number of possibilities that I.
7 could just guess what they might be, but one of which I a suppose may have something to do with the rotation of.the 9 ground motion due to PS-3 potential because the earthquake 10 is almost due south of this plant. -So that this 11 particular motion would be essentially a-radial type of 12 motion during the earthquake.
1 i
13 The second point is that we have seen high i'
14 accelerations of .2G, a round figure at modified Mercale 15 intensity 5. The particular plant is designed for l 16 modified Mercale 7. We tried to discuss this and we 17 didn't accomplish much, but it doesn't take any analysis
! 18 or imagination to see that things would be larger at 7 by
)
t 19 some factor, and the question is what does this mean.
20 .I think this brings up the' question of adequacy 21 of Reg. Guide 160 spectrum for this type of analysis.
- 22 My personal comments would be that I see too
- 23 much concern with exceeding Reg. Guide 160. I would love i
24 to see NRC encourage applicants to be more innovative and l 25 more ambitious in their analysis than to just go on the lli P
10 1 face of the value of the analysis and not necessarily just 2 insist on being less than Reg. Guide 160, because that in 3 itself is not always necessary.
4 Just iterating the same point, I see too little 5 concern about the sound principles of analyses in 6 respecting the physics of the world that surrounds us, and 7 too much concern for fitting a regulation.
8 I don't see any problem with this particular 9 plant, but I think we should learn from it and not try to 10 force it into regulation.
II I think that it would be useful to re-examine 12 whether the instrumentation in this particular plant and 13 possibly in some other plants is placed appropriately so
(-~,}
'"6 14 that we can infer the types of motions of the structure 15 and foundation, and particularly should some of these 16 concerns that I mentioned just a minute ago be valid ones.
17 Obviously we are seeing high frequency motions, 18 high amplitudes and high frequencies for very small 19 earthquakes that are larger than what we have seen in 20 literature coming out for these types of earthquakes of 21 these types of distances.
22 Obviously there seems to be no difficulty with 23 structures, but there may be important implications for 24 equipment because the damping values that we put into the 25 analyses of structures are too large for these types of 8
4 11 1 earthquakes. The buildings are capable of developing 2 large damping values, but-only if they are excited to 3 large nonlinear response.
4 So what you have here is a perfect linear 5 problem that vibrates maybe with, I don't know, much 6 smaller dampings than what is in calculations, and 7 consequently the building doesn't really get into any 8 dangerous response range, but the equipment may get much 9 larger excitations that calculated.
10 As you well know, equipment has typically much 11 higher frequencies than the building does. In fact, a 12 large percentage of the equipment is calculated for the rx 13 pseudo starting type of consideration because the 14 frequency is so high.
15 But the important thing is that this argument of 16 short duration, which implies that the building is not i
17 going to go through repeated nonlinear cycles, which is
) is certainly correct, does not apply to equipment because 19 equipment is high frequency.
20 So even though the duration may be may be half a 21 second or one second, which is very short from the 22 dynamics point of view for buildings, it is not short for 23 high frequency equipment.
24 So that suggests alternative ways of analysis 25 which would I hope follow the sound physical principles lli
12
(_,) I and they would'go beyond the typical routine of Reg. Guide.
2 160 type calculations.
3 That is about it.
4 MR. OKRENT: Thank you, Mike.
5 Any questions that the committee wants to ask 6 Mike? l 7 (No response.)
8 Dr. Smith, can you give us your comments?
9 MR. SMITH: My name is Craig Smith. I guess to 10 summarize my comments at this point, I have no_ major 11 problems with the plant structures or equipment. I 12 believe that the questions I asked yesterday and I raised g-s 13 yesterday have been answered to my satisfaction.
k6
)
14 I am' satisfied that the safety related equipment 15 can perform as designed and intended.
16 I would reiterate that the applicant has made a 17 commitment to extract information about equipment in the 18 plant so that we can maximize the learning from 19 earthquakes.
20 This is a situation where lack of problems is 21 useful in terms of information as the evidence of 22 problems. So I hope to see that aspect carried through.
23 MR. OKRENT: Dr. Kerr.
24 MR. KERR: Dr. Smith, should I translate no 25 major problems to mean no problems?
8
13 1 MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.
2 MR. KERR: Thank you.
3 MR. OKRENT: Any other questions for Dr. Smith?
4 (No response.)
5 There is one item that we will hear about today 6 that we didn't hear yesterday. It so happens that in the 7 operating license letter on Perry, which was 1982, as I 8 recall, we recommended that a look be take at the 9 capability of the plant to shut down safely in earthquakes 10 of lower likelihood than the SSE of somewhat more 11 severity. We are to hear from from the staff and from the 12 applicant just where the status of what they have done in that regard, if anything, stands. Anyway, that is 0
13 14 supposed to be touched on by both parties this afternoon.
15 If there are no other comments or questions at 16 this time, I think we will proceed with the agenda.
17 First off is the NRC staff who we have allocated 18 30 minutes to.
19 MR. STEFANO: Mr. Chairman and distinguished 20 members of the committee, my name is John Stefano. I am 21 the Project Manager for Perry with the NRC.
22 Here with me today to present the staff's 23 findings and conclusions at the earthquake which occurred 24 near the Perry site on January 31st are Dr. Phylis Sobel.
25 Dr. Sobel will present our geological and seismological 8
14 F~7
(_J 1 evaluation of the event and will describe related 2 confirmatory items to be addressed by the NRC and its 3 consultants, USGS, CEI and Post-Licensing.
4 (Slide.)
5 There is one change. Well, before we go to 6 that, this basically is probably about the thousandth time 7 you have seen such a slide, but this basically lays out 8 what the earthquake was as we have been able to determine 9 it from our evaluation and it pretty much agrees with what to the utility has found as well.
11 (Slide.)
12 We have had a change in the presentation of our gs 13 equipment qualifications of confirmatory items. Mr.
i"^ E 14 Robert Hermann, who is a Section Leader who has supervised 15 the evaluation that is contained in our SER Supplement No.
16 9 will do that part of the presentation today.
17 In addition, we have with us today Dr. Jim 18 Johnson of Structural Mechanics Associates and Dr. Leon 19 Reiter of the NRC staff. Dr. Johnson has been our 20 consultant in the area of the plant structural design, and' 21 Dr. Reiter has been our technical adviser concerning the 22 characterization of the earthquake and its input motions j 23 to the plant.
24 All of these individuals helped prepare the 25 Perry SSER Supplement No. 9 which I personally hand copied lli
15 pm
() I final printed copies to-the committee yesterday and I. hope 2 you all have received it. If you have not, we will try to 3 get those to you as soon as possible.
4 We also have present here today the following 5 U. S. Geological Service representatives. I believe these 6 individuals were here yesterday as well. Dr. Ken 7 Campbell, Dr. Robert Wesson and Dr. Craig Nicholson.
8 I understand that the-USGS recently has been 9 contracted with the NRC to assist in the confirmatory work 10 which will be discussed during Dr. Sobel's presentation.
11 As I indicated to the subcommittee yesterday, I 12 would like to reiterate today to the full committee, it is g- 13 our intent as a result of these deliberations, those we
/ 14 had before the subcommittee yesterday and these today, to 15 obtain ACRS commitment and_ agreement with out action to 16 license this plant. And when I say license this plant, I 17 meant issue a low-power operating license which will la enable the plant to load fuel and to operate at power 19 levels of up to five percent of thermal rated power which 20 would in this case be approximately 178 megawatt thermal.
21 In addition to that, I would like to expand a 22 little bit on that in view of the many comments of a 23 generic nature that were presented today and also 24 yesterday by the subcommittee consultants. We would also 25 entertain certainly very much any additional comments you 8
16 F7 1 (_) I may have on any -further follow-on generic work that y'ou 2 may believe the staff should pursue.
3 A couple of other points.
4 We do have 2206 petitions form Western Alliance 5 Associates and also from Ohio Citizens for Responsible 6 Energy. These are intervenors in the Perry proceeding.
7 They have both expressed concerns over the earthquake of 8 course and its impact on the plant design, and we are 9 currenty preparing responses to those, as I pointed out 10 yesterday. In fact, we hope to get those responses 11 issued, if not tomorrow, this weekend.
12 In addition to that, OCFRE, which is Ohio 13 Citizens for Responsible Energy, has issued a motion to O
""6 14 the Licensing Board to reopen hearings on the earthquake
. 15 event as a new contingent issue. They contend that the 16 design basis is inadequate. We have responded to'that 17 motion. In fact, we did so on March 5th and we are 18 awaiting the Board's decision in that regard.
19 Dr. Okrent, you did raise a question yesterday 20 that we were not very successful in answering about 21 seismic margins, and specifically the comment raised by
! 22 the ACRS in the July 13th, 1982 letter on Perry dealing i
23 with that matter, if it is your and the committee's i
24 desire, we are prepared to do that right now or we can it 25 after the prtsentation, whichever you prefer, sir.
!Ill
- _. . . ~ ___ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _
, _ _ _ _ _ _ , _- _ _. m . ._
17 1 MR. OKRENT: Why don't you do it right now.
2 MR. STEFANO: Okay. We have with us today Dr.
1 3 Knute' Anderson from the NRC staff who will be presenting I
]
4 this. What the NRC staff is doing in this regard, I 5 understand that Mr. Edelman, who is the Vice President of l
6 Nuclear Operations at Perry will in their presentation be i
I 7 explaining what the CI is doing.
8 Also one further thing. If the committee has no 9 objections, rather than me keeping running back and forth
'l
]
10 Eup here, while I-introduce the people who are going to 11 make the presentation of our findings, if.I may be 12 Permitted to do it from that table, and then after that l
j 13 come up.
l O 14 .Thank you.
, 15 MR. ANDERSON: .Thank you, John.
- i 16 Dr. Okrent, you asked for a very brief and crisp j 17 review of the seismic margins program yesterday, and I
)
18 think I have made it as brief and as crisp as I can. I am 19 not going to bore you with all the gory details because~I 1
20 am sure that most of you have heard a presentation on the t
- 21 seismic margins program many times.
i
- 22 MR. OKRENT
- If I can modify what you said, I am 23 interested in knowing what has been done in response to i
24 the paragraph in here. It is slightly different than i 25 asking about the seismic margins program, unless the two
!Ill .
- l. _ . . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ - . _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . , _ __ _ _ . .
l J '
, 18 I are a one for one assembly.
- 2 MR. ANDERSON
- The seismic margins program is a
, 3 potential and very likely candidate for a procedure that 4 could be used to answer _this question'at Perry. ,In that
'5 sense I think it is responsive to your concern.
6 (Slide.)
l- 7 Very briefly, the seismic margins program was i
8 ~ developed in response to several concerns, ACRS concerns, 9 ' including the number of letters on NTOLs, including the 10 Perry letter to the' Charleston earthquake concerns which.
11 were raised and'also to a number of eastern seismicity 12 questions. These obviously are not independent reasons.
s 13 The program objective is to develop the 14 capability to estimate seismic capacity of a plant, and it l'
] 15 uses the experience from seismic PRAs as well as many I 16 other things and the fragilities from all sources. It 17 includes tests, analysis, expert judgment and the
- 18 considerable-data bank of experience, actual earthquake 19 experience data that exists today.
- 20 This seismic margins program is intended to
! 21 provide this capability to review a plant for a specific i
- 22 margin at a selected earthquake acceleration level.
[ 23 Now this indicates that it is not pointed 24 towards looking for absolute margin in a plant. What it
! 25 will do is to take a predetermined earthquake level and
!Ill
}
7- 9ete-r>--y,-yy-w---.-=,w,w-wryyy---y----nri*v-w w- -
+ = g y w~-raw-+- w- --
w-w,g-wvW- --w--mw7evwv*T--- - - - wy-y7m-ywy-r--wvywyw-y--y'wwr-y--yr-wy)"y'-www ww wmytyr'g tm vt-Yv rvrt TT"-
19
,. \
(_) 1 determine or verify that that plant is capable of 2 successfully going through an earthquake at that level.
3 The status of this program and the schedule, the 4 procedure is broken down into two sections, a PWR and a 5 BWR. Because it relies very heavily on the review of 6 existing seismic PRA, it turned out that there was a lot-7 more information in this area on PWRs. So the PWR 8 procedure is very well along. The BWR is training it 9 somewhat.
10 The procedure is essentially complete for PWRs, 11 and currently we are negotiating with two different
- 12 utilities for a trial plant review. This trial plant i3 review will require we believe approximately nine months
-- to complete.
14 This procedure will be available for use in 15 doing plant specific reviews we think about the end of 16 fiscal year 1986.
17 The BWR procedure is currently being developed, 18 and by the end of fiscal year 1986 we think we will be in 19 a position where we can start a trial plant review. It 20 will be ready for this trial plant review early in fiscal 21 year '87, and again will take approximately nine months to 22 complete. This procedure we believe will be available for 23 use to do plant specific reviews near the end of fiscal 24 year '87.
1 25 Now I don't intend to say any more about the l
1
20 t -j 1 program and schedule unless there are any specific 2 questions that you have.
3 MR. OKRENT: 'And you feel with this procedure 4 one will be able to perform a reasonable assessment of the 1
5 capability of a plant like Perry, for example, to l 6 accomplish safe shutdown in the event of substantially 7 larger earthquakes than the SSE? I 8 MR. ANDERSON: We believe that it will have that 9 capability. Of course, we will be a lot smarter after we ;
10 have done the trial plant reviews.
Il MR. OKRENT: All right.
12 Any questions?
13 MR. KERR: The response that in answer to our 14 letter the staff is developing a method?
15 MR. OKRENT: I think that is it. We did write a 16 letter to the Commission saying that quite a few utilities 17 have be asked to look at this.
18 MR. KERR: I am not opposed to developing a 19 method before you do something. I just want to make 20 certain I understood.
21 MR. OKRENT: But this is one possible method 22 which I hope will be an efficient one. We will hear a 23 little bit more on this later from the utility and what 24 their view is.
25 MR. STEFANO: Thank you, Dr. Anderson.
8
21
~ (~N At this point in time, Mr. Chairman, I would Nm) 1 2 like to introduce Dr. Phylis Sobel, who will be presenting 3 our findings on the geological and seismological aspects 4 of the earthquake.
5 MS.,SOBEL: My name is Phylis Sobel. I am a 6 seismologist in the NRC's Division of Boiling Water 7 Reactor Licensing.
8 (Slide.)
9 This slide summarizes the characteristics of the 10 January 31st earthquake and its after shocks.
11 The January 31st event occurred about 10 miles 12 south of the Perry plant. The maximum intensity for the f- 13 event was a six. There were reports of cracked plaster 14 and broken windows near the epicenter. The plant site is 15 located in site intensity five area.
16 There were at least five research groups who ,
I 17 rushed to the epicentral area to record aftershocks. What 18 they recorded were about 10 aftershocks, the largest of 19 about a magnitude of two and a half.
20 One or two of the larger ones were felt, but not 21 at the plant site.
22 The aftershocks appeared to occur in a cluster 23 and they occurred in the orecambrian basement in the 24 area. Their depth range is about one to six kilometers i
l 25 deep.
The USGS, which was one of the organizations i
i I l l l
l _ - . . _ . _ . - , . - - _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ . - - . . _ _ . _ _ , . - - , _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _
22 R)
(_, I recorded the aftershocks, is assessing the free field 2 recordings from the aftershocks and any that are available 3 from the main shock.
4 (Slide.)
5 As the engineers will explain, the earthquake 6 triggered in-plant seismic instruments. Their recordings 7 were of short duration and high frequency. There were 8 exceedances of the OBE and the SSE above about 15 hertz.
9 (Slide.)
10 This slide summarizes the staff's operating 11 license review which is contained in the SER published in 12 1982. Most of the seismic category one structures for 13 this site are founded on Devonian shale bedrock. There b ") 14 were no capable faults in the site area. During plant 15 site excavations some minor f.aults and folds were 16 discovered in the plant excavations.
17 These were investigated by the NRC staff, the 18 applicant, the USGS and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 19 and they were found to be due to glacial voting in the 20 Erea. They are non-tectonic and non-capable. Faults were 21 also discovered in the intake and discharge tunnels and 22 these were also judged to be probably of glacial origin, 23 non-tectonic and non-capable.
24 The Perry site is located in a central stable 25 region tectonic province. As for other sites in the area, 8
23
.- I the maximum controlling earthquake was a magnitude of 5.3.
2 The applicant was asked to construct site 3 specific response spectra for a nearby magnitude 5.3 event 4 and the SSE seismic design enveloped the 84th percentile 5 of the site specific response spectra.
6 (Slide.)
7 This figure summarizes the confirmatory a seismology issues.
9 The first item is the location of main shock and 10 aftershocks. It now seems that the aftershocks did occur 11 in a cluster around the main shock. l l
12 When fault plane solutions are available, we !
1 i3 will be examining them for consistency with the regional l 0 14 stress direction in this area, which is approximately East 15 Northeast compressive stress direction and.it appears that l 16 the preliminary fault plane solutions agree with this 17 regional stress direction.
18 The staff will assess the effects of this 19 information on the previous assessment of faults which 20 were believed induced by glacial activity.
21 As was mentioned in summary by Dr. Okrent, the 22 USGS is examining the possibility that earthquakes may be 1
23 related to injection of chemical wastes in two wells which l 24 are about seven miles from the earthquake epicenter.
25 Past experience with induced seismicity has 8
24
, r7 '
1(_) I shown seismicity beginning near the wellhead and spreading
-2 outward. However, ru) seismicity had been detected prior 3 to this event near the wells.
4 In addition, previous seismicity occurred in the 5 area, including an event'in 1943 of about magnitude 4.5.
! 6 For these reasons, the staff considered it i 7 unlikely that the seismic event was related to this 8 earthquake.to the. injection by these wells.
9 The final item is that the. staff and~USGS will
'10 be assessing free field ground motion reporting with 11 respect to worldwide data base. We will look to 12 determine what part of the high frequency exceedances of 13 observed in the' plant were due to source, transmission pap 14 or site effects at the Perry site.
15 That concludes my presentation.
! 16 MR. OKRENT: I have questions on this slide.
17 What is planned and by whom in connection with 18 research associated to geologic structures?
19 MS. SOBEL: The effort is primarily being 20 conducted by the applicant. He presented yesterday a
- 21 program which would culminate about mid-summer. They will 22 be looking at geological and seismological and geophysical 23 data, and especially the large amount of data that has
] 24 been accumulating in the last five years since the FSAR 25 was written.
i' 25 i .
) 1 MR. OKRENTi My understanding from'some of the 2 discussion yesterday.is-that it is not simple'to make' 3 measurements that would tell one whether or not there was 4 a significant fault down several miles,below the surface.
5 So how meaningful do you think this. effort by the. j I
-6 applicant really is going to be'with regard to associated 1 7 geologic structures?
8 MS. SOBEL: Well, we certainly thing the effort ,
l 9 should be made because a lot of new information has been !
10 accumulated, but based on examinations of other 4
11 earthquakes of similar size in the area, such as the ones 12 in 1937 and 1980 in Kentucky, we find it unlikely that they are going to find a structure, rO 13 14 MR. OKRENT: You heard yourself yesterday Dr.
) 15 Pomeroy's interest in the deep disposal wells and the
- 16 solution mining, and I think you heard Dr. Wesson, was it, 17 who gave e personal opinion that the relation between the 18 deep disposal and this earthquake might be have a i
j 19 probability of one in three, which I considerLto be not i 20 trivial.
i 21 What constitutes an adequate examination of that 22 issue in your opinion. What you said is you are going to 23 look into, but I haven't heard and the committee hasn't i
{ 24 heard what information would be sufficient to resolve it 25 one way or another and how important this might be.
Ill ;
i 1
l l
_ . - , . ~ . - . . - - . _ _ , _ - , . . , _ . _ . - _ , . . . _ . . . . , . _ , - . . . , _ , , , _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . - . , , .
26 i
(cr 1
'k .
1 MS. SOBEL: Perhaps this would be a good time to-2 have Dr. Wesson summarize the studies.
J .3 MR. OKRENT: Okay..
4 MR. WESSON: The arrangement that the Geological i
}
5 Survey has with the NRC at the moment is to do a 6 ' preliminary study to see-what could be said from 7 essentially existing data, that is the pressure records 8 that.have were obtained by the company that drilled and 4
9 operates the well and existing data about stress
- 10 ' measurements in the region and the analysis of data from 11 the aftershocks and whatever other data that becomes 12 available from the earthquake.
gs 13 This studies that we would carry out and that we 14 are carrying out at the present time involve a number of
- 15 things. First, the attempt, as Dr. Sobel has indicated, 16 to precisely determine the hypocenters of the aftershock
- 17 and the main shock. It.looks at this point that the 1 18 epicentral locations of the main shock and aftershocks are 19 fairly well determined at a distance of 11 kilometers from j 20 the well and, whatever it is, 18 kilometers from the f 21 plant.
l l 22 The depth of the earthquake is still an 23 important question, which has not been resolved, and which
. 24 hopefully can be resolved more exactly than we currently 25 know. The depths currently range from about two kilometers l
1
- . _ _ _ . _ - _ . _ . _ _ , . _ _ . , _ _ _ . , _ , . _ , . _ . . . . _ . _ . _ . , , _ . ~ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . . . _ , _
4 27 1 to about seven' kilometers,fand we would'like to resolve
! 2 that more clearly. That will depend on ideas about the l l 3 velocities of weight. propagation in crustal rocks around I
4 Perry.
5 .Further, we will carry out a series of reservoir
, 6 simulation calculations.to determine what the range of 7 possible pressure increases is in the hypocentral area of 8 the earthquake. As a result of the injection, the 9 pressure increase in the reservoir at the bottom of.the
, 10 well'is currently about 100 bars. And based upon what we.
j 11 know about the-regional pattern of stress, that would 12 suggest that the conditions are near those required for 13 frictional failure especially along the pre-existing fault 14 if one exists.
i 15 Whether the pressure is high'enough'at some 16 distance from the well, namely, 11 kilometers from the 17 well,.is unknown and is the' object of these pressure 18 calculations.
19 The one element that is important or probably 20 the most important element in really ascertaining whether
'21 the stress conditions were appropriate to cause the l 22 earthquake is the determination of the maximum horizontal 23 compressive stress in the region, particularly in the f
24 hypocentral area.
1 25 It may be.possible to deduce that from the l
g -
28 49 I
'L_) pressure records of the well, but that is.not yet clear.
2 There may be some data on that-issue from the 3 hydrofracture measurements that were carried out at the 4 plant site. So there may be some data on that, but it is 4
'5 a conceivable that a recommendation of our preliminary 6 study would be to try and make some additional stress 7 measurements in the area.
! 8 MR. OKRENT: Let's see, Dr. Pomeroy suggested 9 that.some form of seismic monitoring for a few years be 10 carried out on sensitive instruments. Do you have any 11 opinion on that recommendation?
12 MR. WESSON: Yes. I think it is a good 13 recommendation. The key argument currently that would 14 suggest that this is an earthquake that is unrelated to 15 the well is the fact that the main shock and.all the 16 aftershocks seem tightly clustered in this location about i
17 11 kilometers south of the well.
18 If there were one earthquake of magnitude of I 19 minus .5 anywhere on a line between the well and this j 20 hypocentral cluster, the balance of that argument would 21 change rather drastically.
22 So from the point of view of determining whether 23 this earthquake had some relation to the well, the 24 continued monitoring is, in my opinion, rather important.
25 The other argument against the possibility that 8
l
29 r
~
1 the eart'hquake was induced somehow by the well is the fact 2 that in the best documented cases one tends to see a 3 migration of earthquakes out from the source of pressure 4 extending typically along some fractures. That has not
- 5 been seen in this case.
6 We discussed yesterday the difficulty in 1
7 establishing that case rather conclusively because there 8 was no instrumentation in the area. So it is conceivable 9 or it is possible that there was such a pattern, but it 10 was not observed. It is also true that in cases such as 11 Denver that a long time after the pumping has been 12 started, then the earthquakes do tend to move away from 13 the well.
O 14 So it is possible just by looking at a snapshot 15 in time we haven't seen the whole picture. However, if we 16 do continue, or if someone were to continue monitoring 17 like this, it could play an important role.
i la MR. WARD: -Is this well particular unique and 19 are there a lot of them around the country similar to 20 this, and if there are, is there any evidence.that 21 seismicity induced by the well could ever produce 22 something approaching an OBE across the full spectrum of 23 frequencies?
24 MS, SOBEL: I don't have the answer to that.
e 25 MR. WESSON: I think Dr. Stepp mentioned before
- lit
30 7
t ; I when asked about what was the largest earthquake that we 2 have had from such an induced situation, and I believe the 3 one at Rocky Mountain, which is somewhere between 5 and 4 5.5, is the largest earthquake that we have had, and that 5 is about the size of the SSE.
6 So I guess based on the experience of injection 7 wells, if that were to be the limiting criteria, that the 8 Iargest earthquake that we could expect would be about the 9 size of the SSE if that was our criterion.
10 MR. WARD: But we didn't really get an answer to 11 the question about that particular quake. You said it was 12 a magnitude of about 5 ---
,s, 13 MR. WESSON: It was somewhere between a
( -" )
14 magnitude of 5 and 5.5.
15 MR. WARD: Did it have a frequency content 16 across the spectrum?
17 MR. WESSON: We asked that question originally 18 and all the preliminary indications are that the people we 19 have spoken to do not see a significant difference between 20 induced earthquakes and non-induced earthquakes. At least 21 preliminarily I am not aware of any differences.
22 MR. MARK: Was the Rocky Mountain well of the 23 same depth as this and what were those depths?
24 MR. WESSON: I think that was a lot deeper, and 25 I think maybe Rob can give you more information about 8
31 i
,s i i that.
2 MR. MARK: I think the magnitude is of the same 3 nature as this magnitude, the magnitude of Rocky Mountain.
4 MR. REITER: I think the magnitude was a little 5 larger that this. This is around 5 and maybe a little bit 6 larger. There is a whole sequence of earthquakes. In 7 fact, I believe the largest earthquake there occurred 8 actually after the shut the well down, but there were 9 many, many earthquakes occurring around the wellhead.
10 That was a very clear distinct pattern.
11 MR. MARK: I heard that there was a pressure at 12 the bottom of the well of 100 bars which would imply that it has to be 3200 feet deep or more.
0 13 14 MR. REITER: The 100 bar is the excess pressure 15 at the wellhead. So one would add the 100 bars to the 16 weight of the water column to get the total pressure at 17 the bottom. In other words, before one drilled a well, we 18 could calculate by the hydostatic head the pressure at the 19 bottom, and then one would add to that 100 bars owing to 20 the injection of pressure.
21 MR. MARK: Pumping at 1400 psi or more.
22 MR. REITER: Somewhat more than that.
23 With regard to the depth of the well, in Denver 24 the well is about 3.3 kilometers keep. This well is about 25 2 kilometers deep. There is one example of rather clearly 8 ..
~. __ _ _ _ _ _ .
32 1 induced small earthquakes in Western New York associated 2 with a salt mining operation that were only about half a
- 3 kilometer. keep, but in that case those earthquakes were 4 rather small.
5 MR. OKRENT: If I can bring out a point that I 4
6 think Dr. Pomeroy would if he were here. He felt that if 7 this were caused by the deep well injection and that it I 8 was activation of some old fault that in fact the next I
- 9 earthquake could be larger than this one. In other words, t
4 10 it could be sort of a growing area of fault involved in 11 the next break. This was the speculation which I am not 12 prepared to-comment on.
I 13 MR. TRIFUNAC: I have a question for NRC l
14 basically. I don't understand what they are going to do 15 if somebody comes along, say USGS comes along and says 16 this earthquake was induced by this additional pressure, i
17 I am thinking from the design point of view. The design i
! 18 point of view would like to know whether the spectra are t
i 19 going to be large. So whether this earthquake was or was
- 20 not induced by the additional pressure, the question is
\
\
j 21 whether a larger magnitude that what is postulated for the 1
j 22 design earthquakes can be created, i
1 23 So it seems to me that you have to look way
! 24 ahead and you could almost analyze the situation now. If 25 someone said here is an experiment and here the earthquake !
- llt i
33 I was induced by fluids, can you answer the question of what 2 would be the largest magnitude that this might imply, and 3 then we are done and it is over.
4 But if we discover it so many years down the 5 line that it maybe was or it maybe wasn't, we still answer 6 the key question, which is a design one, what is the 7 largest earthquake. Because if the additional pressure 8 just increases the frequency of earthquakes, but not the 9 levels of shaking, we are still in linear range that we 10 are now concerned about.
11 So it seems that we are not addressing the right 12 question perhaps.
13 MR. OKRENT: That is an important aspect of it.
14 MR. TRIFUNAC: To me that is the question.
15 MR. OKRENT: Leon, did you have a comment?
16 MR. REITER: I think that is a very good point, 17 and in fact we have asked the USGS exactly that point. We 18 say the first part is to determine whether or not there is 19 an association, and then the second part of our request is 20 if there is an association, to assess the potential for 21 the location in size of further induced earthquakes.
22 It is obvious that if we felt very comfortable 23 in absolutely enveloping everything, then this would have 24 a lot less significance. But we are not a hundred percent 25 comfortable. We I think all the evidence indicates based 8
l 34 1 upon where the earthquakes are even of larger size, that 2 we really don't expect this to be of impact to the plant, 3 but we are pursuing it, and we are pursuing it to the best 4 that we know how. We are bringing in the kind of
^
5 expertise available to the USGS to address the problem and 6 in a confirmatory manner.
7 MR. HERMANN: One of the things'that is part of 8 the confirmatory program that.is going to be looked at is 9 earthquakes similar to the one that occurred with maybe a 10 little longer duration and a higher amplitude. I don't 4
11 know if we can get to the point of getting what you are 12 looking for in terms of what are margins. I think we were fy 13 going to approach it more from the end of make some U' 14 assumptions of something bigger and something longer and
] 15 take a look at the effects of that on structures'and 16 equipment. We are going to do that and the licensee is 17 doing that. That is part of the confirmatory work that is d 18 ' going on, plus looking at the energy content of high 19 frequency earthquakes. i 20 MR. TRIFUNAC: But is anybody looking at the 21 question of what is causing earthquakes in this area i
j period no matter where they come from?
22 That is the key 23 question.
, 24 MR. REITER: Mike, that is the key question , and 25 not only in this area though. We have very large expert Ill .
1
,w-.myv,e r ,ryr--w-v,----,-y.,n,. ...,,,,,-~~~~.,_,y_,.m._w-*~_.-w. -,..yye,__.v..n--_.-w--we-w_,v- ~-.,e.y.-.- _,-e-m.-,-
35 c
.. 1 programs being conducted by Lawrence Livermore and EPRI, 2 which I understand you are going to hear about later, that 3 are looking at that. If we knew the answer to that, then 4 neither the NRC nor EPRI would have to spend a large 5 amounts of money in trying to gather expert judgment and 6 opinion in trying to sort some of these things out.
7 We don't know the answer of what is causing 8 earthquakes here, as we do not know the answer of what is 9 causing earthquakes in other parts of the Eastern United to States. We have suggestions, but everybody has different 11 feelings about those suggestions and about what may be the 12 correct answer.
MR. OKRENT: I think we had better move on to e
13 u the next topic or we will never finish.
15 MR. ETHERINGTON: Could I ask, does injection 16 imply a pressure greater than the hydrostatic head?
17 MR. WESSON: Yes. That is what I tried to 18 indicate earlier. The injection produces at the bottom of 19 the well a pressure that is about 100 bars larger than the 20 hydrostatic head. Since they had pumped in the well for 21 15 years 300 million-gallons of waste, there is a bulb of 22 pressure that extends outward from the base of the well, 23 and the shape of that bulb depends on the permeability and 24 the fractures and so on, and that is the kind of thing we 25 will be attempting to investigate.
36 1
f'J
'L_ l MR. EBERSOLE: Is the well case all the way.
2 down?
3 MR. WESSON: We have about 2 kilometers of 4 paleozoic rocks on top of precambrian basement. The well 5 is cased down to within about 150 meters of the bottom and q 6 then the lower part is not cased and there are some 7 sandstones in which they plan to inject the waste. So the 8 idea initially is that you have radial flow away from the 9 base above the precambrian and confined to about the 150 10 meter or so interval at the base.
11 MR. EBERSOLE: Is it introduced into a 12 groundwater environment?
, 13 MR. WESSON: From my understanding of the permit 14 materials, my reading of the permit materials, the well 15 injection permit materials, the idea is that the waste is 16 injected at such a level that it would not get back into i
17 the groundwater. It is more or -less confined below 18 certain less permeable members, some shales and so on in 19 the paleozoic section.
I 20 MR. EBERSOLE: You mean this excess pressure 21 will not force it back up?
22 MR. WESSON: Well, the idea is, and based on 23 measurements, that the permeability of these shales and in 24 fact there is salt higher up in this section which in 25 effect has very low permeability, that the pressure could 8
37
) I get above these confining horizons.
2 The idea is that these horizons at the base of 3 the paleozoics are more permeable than those above.
4 MR. OKRENT: I think we had better move on.
5 MR. STEFANO: Thank you, Dr. Sobel.
6 The next presenter here for the staff will be 7 Mr. Robert Hermann. Mr. Hermann will discuss our 8 evaluation findings regarding the qualification of the 9 plant equipment and also of the structure itself impacted to by this earthquake.
11 MR. HERMANN: My name is Bob Hermann, and I am 12 the Section Leader in BWR Engineering.
13 I would like to present some information 14 regarding the structural and mechanical aspects of the
] 15 seismic design.
16 (Slide.)'
17 Initially there was a walkdown following the la earthquake by the staff from NRR on January the 31st. The 19 region performed a short inspection on February the 1st, 20 and a more comprehensive inspection.was conducted by the 21 region on February 5th through 7th, and on February the !
l 22 6th the staff again took another walk through in the l 23 plant.
24 I think the results of all the inspections and 25 the walkdowns are that essentially no damage was observed g
i t
I
d 4
, 38 l
.s I of significance in the-facility.
I 2 The earthquake, as has been mentioned earlier, 3 is of high frequency and short duration and believed to f 4 have an insignificant energy content.
f 5 'With regard to the reactor building, a motion i
l 6 would'need to.be scaled by higher than a factor of 2 to j 7 achieve the. deformations corresponding to the desgin level
$ forces.
8
! 9 Analyses have been performed both by the staff 7
l 10 and by the applicant in trying to get a measure of how the i
! 11 building modeling was compared to how the building 3
4 12 actually responded to the earthquake. Both our analysis
{ 13 and those of the applicant correlate fairly well.
14 The measured structure response and the response f 15 calculated using the recorded foundation ~ motion in a fixed ,
i 16 base reactor building dynamic model showed that the -
- 17 frequency responses compared very well and the
- 18 amplifications, let's say, were similar.
19 Our conclusion with regard to the building model >
i I 20 is that the original Perry Building dynamic model was i
i 21 adequate to predict the high frequency responses.
i j 22 (Slide.) L
, 23 Again, as in the case of the structures, the l 24 inspections and walkdowns that I talked about earlier l
25 showed no evidence of damage in the facility. People l
!Ill I
L
39 rm j 1 looked at things like anchor bolts, supports, mounting 2 configurations, and I think perhaps, if I recall, one case 3 in a non-safety system where somebody might have been a 4 scrape of paint in a non-safety system, and I think that 5 is about all that the staff has seen.
6 There was some cracking observed in the 7 concrete. I think in most cases feel feel it was 8 shrinkage cracking.
9 Again, as mentioned earlier, the earthquake was 10 of high energy and short duration, and from the results 11 that we see to date an the analyses that were performed, 12 things are within the original designs. The measured
, , . 13 motions on the foundation mat were used to generate some
)
kl 14 floor response spectra in the reactor building -- well, 15 no. The measured recorded motions at the foundation mat 16 in the auxiliary building, as well as those at the top of 17 the reactor building were used as part of the equipment 18 qualifications. So the measured values that were seen in 19 the building were those that were used to assess whether 20 or not the original designs were met.
21 It wasn't a question as to whether or not, you 22 know, the measurements were valid or not. What was seen 23 in the building were those things that were used in 2.s assessing equipment.
25 I think there were essentially 39 safety related 8
40
) I and 36 non-safety related systems that were energized 2 during the earthquake andithey essentially functioned 3 properly. Three systems tripped and I think there was a 4 question with water level in the wet well and a question 5 ~ with -- well, the only one of the trip problems'that I 6 think probably was of interest was the one that was 7 regarding an unenergized breaker.
8 I think the applicant's position was that it was 9 basically a DC signal to the breaker and the breaker l
10 vibrated and made relays break in the yard, and the ,
11 position is that if it would have been energized they 1
12 don't believe that would have occurred, l 13 From the quantitative assessments that were done 14 to date, all the comparisons to. equipment qualified by ,
15 testing shows that there are large margins. In those .
16 cases where things are qualified by analysis, the motions 17 from the earthquake were put back into the original is anlaysis and they were all within the designs.
19 (Slide.)
20 So I guess our conclusions are there was no l 21 significant safety impact on the equipment and structures
)
I 22 that have been identified. Although there was some l 23 exceedance in a higher narrow frequency region of the i
24 response spectra, the original plant seismic design was 4
l 25 not affected, and basically the staff stands by its
!Ill l
l
41 1
t_; 1 previous findings in the SER.
2 (Slide.)
3 With regard to the confirmatory actions, and I 4 will go over these again, and these have been committed to 5 by the applicant.
6 The equipment sample is going to be expanded and 7 it is based on the fragilities of equipment, locations, 8 types, and I think you will get more detail out of that 9 from the applicant.
10 As I said earlier, we are going to try to 11 independently take a look at a generic evaluation of a 12 high frequency, short duration earthquake with regard to gs 13 its contents and then try to make an assessment of should k" " 14 it have higher amplitude and longer duration and try to 15 .come up with some effects of that kind of an action.
16 That is the end of my presentation.
17 MR. REED: Are you familiar with the work that 18 has been going on by the utility groups on the Mexican and 19 Chilean earthquakes which were much more serious 20 earthquakes and some of the equipment in these plants was 21 not affected to speak of. I don't think this earthquake 22 is in a class with these Mexican and Chilean earthquakes.
23 MR. HERMANN: I think this earthquake is a lot 24 lower in energy content than the large earthquakes you are 25 talking about.
8
42~
b) s_ 1 MR. REED: And yet in those power plants, many 2 of which were looked at, there was not any serious or real 3 loss of function; is that correct?
4 MR. BERNERO: I think the key issue is the 5 characteristic of this earthquake rich in high frequency.
6 Certainly in magnitude and energy it doesn't compare to 7 the Mexico City earthquake or San Diego, Chile or others 8 like that.
9 But what we are speculating and what we are 10 searching for in this confirmatory item is is it possible il that an earthquake of these characteristics if much 12 greater in magnitude and in duration, but with that same 13 high frequency character, could it make the equipment ring 14 and could it get to the equipment because of that high i
15 frequency character? That is speculation we are after is j 16 to be sure that we don't have a unique vulnerability 17 there.
i 18 We don't suggest that this earthquake is even in 19 the same league as the bigger earthquakes, no, not at all, 20 but it (oes have that rather unique characteristic of
! 21 being rich in this frequency range of 20 hertz or 22 thereabouts.
23 MR. OKRENT: Any other questions for this 24 presentation?
25 (No response.)
lIll 1
I
43 j l
1 Let me just ask if the staff has any comment on 2 Dr. Trifunac's point that one may not really have a good 3 understanding of this kind of earthquake or something even 4 though it wasn't a big earthquake and it didn't produce 5 any effects?
6 MR. REITER: I thin::, Dr. Okrent, you are 7 referring to the analytical models.
8 MR..OKRENT: Yes, I am.
9 MR. JOHNSON: During the next three months both 4
10 the NRC and the applicant will be looking further at the il correlation between the analytical predictions and the 1
12 recorded motions upon the vessel.
i 13 As you recall yesterday, east / west and vertical
.I k ") 14 directions compare reasonably well. The north / south
]
i 15 direction does not. We will be looking at the time i
16 history records and the techniques used to predict the 17 response, and in this period of time hopefully understand
), 18 better what the possibilties are and report back to you at 19 that time, j 20 MR. STEFANO: This serves as a summary of what
- 21 we have just told you, and I think it is pretty self-22 explanatory and I don't intend to dwell on that again, j 23 (Slide.)
24 The confirmatory items are listed as follows.
25 These may be found highl'ighted in Chapter 1 of the 4
y- -,--- - - . .,---e -c. ..p - w..,.-m- -r--m.--., % ,e -
_,y-., _--.r.--..w.,-.. o -,,. w -,e --<w,m.m .
w_,%,..,%,-.,,.,rm-p.,-..y-~w.,--ce-
,, - . - . ~ _ _ - _
,s n
44 1 Supplement No. 9. .
2 I think the point here is we have indicated in
- 3 this SER that these confirmatory matters will be resolved 2
4 or completed, is the better word, prior to permitting this 5 plant.to exceed five percent rated thermal power.
i
- 6 I think you~have to understand that the way it l'
] 7 has been presented, there are certain aspects of these
} 8 confirmatory matters which are not under the control of 9 the applicant, but which are required inputs from USGS i
, 10 under contract to us and some of our own consulting work.
1 11 That isn't to say that we will.not complete
- 12 those items by the time we make a decision. We do plan to 13 issue another supplement to the Perry SER which will
- C:) la encompass the results of the confirmatory work done. At l '
i 15 that point in time we will present that to you and we will 16 also make some sort of a judgment call as to whether we i
i 17 have really got our hands enough around this so that we
! 18 can actually go beyond five percent rated power.
l t 19 The target date appears to be sometime in mid- :
i I
20 summer, and that would be I think a reasonable time frame 21 to expect something from the staff again.
) 22 MR. OKRENT: If I can speculate, if the analysis
- f 23 examination of this turns to leave the possibility open l! 24 that the earthquake was caused knr the injection, it is not l 25 so obvious to me that in six months you will have it all I
i h
i i
l-3
- ..__ . _ _ __ .-.,,- , _ . ,,_ ._ _ .~. . _ _ _ . , _ _ , __, - --
45 .
I'
't I wrapped up.
2 I would be cautious myself about saying that I 3 .would not consider going above five percent power because 4 it has not been possible to gain the information to i
5 resolve that issue. My guess is that there is a 50/50 6 chance that six months isn't going to be enough.
7 MR. STEFANO: I think we tend to agree with you 8 sir. I think that is the target right now. We will have 9 to wait and see what that evaluation shows.
10 (Slide.)
Il These are basically the conclusions. I think 12 the bottom line here is that the staff finds at this point 3 , 13 in time no technical basis upon which the staff should not
)
"~^
14 -- sometime between now and the short time from now we are 15 talking licensing, and you are probably wondering why that a 16 is scratched out. The reason why that is scratched out is 17 because we do have some other actions to take care of 18 before we issue the license, not only as a matter of 19 policy, but in order to address things like 2206 20 petitions. We are still trying to work on those and
} 21 trying to get those out the door. ,
i 22 We will not license the plant until we do that.
23 The best estimate we have right now is of from yesterday 24 that we may not be able to do that by that date. So that 25 is why that is scratched out. I don't have a 4
46 1
Q(_/ 1 determination at this point.
2 Bob, do you have any comment?
- 3 MR. BERNARO
- I would just like to add for the 4 committee's benefit. We are here. . Harold is here and I 5 am here, and we are here to hear personally what the 6 committee's opinion is. We really want to see the 7 committee's opinion, comment and agreement I hope with our 8 findings before we move to license this plant, and I don't 9 foresee licensing it any earlier than Monday, presuming l
10 that there is no blizzard and you can write a letter on 11 Saturday morning.
l 12 (Laughter.)
13 But we really do want to see the written 14 comment.
15 MR. OKRENT: I have used up all but five minutes ,
j 16 of my time cushion. We are running late. So I would like 17 us to let the utility give their presentation.
18 MR. EDELMAN: Good afternoon. My name is Murray
- 19 Edelman. I am Vice President of the Nuclear Group of the 20 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. With me today i 21 also is our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 22 Officer.
23 What we would like to cover in this overview 24 agenda here is that I will cover an introduction and 25 overview of the event. We will than have Dr. Chen, who is
- lli 6
47
.. _ , 1 our Chief Structural designer.from Gilbert Commonwealth, 2 talk to the seismic design and evaluations. We will then 3 have Mr. Holt from Weston Geophysical talk about the 4 earthquake analysis and seismicity.
5 We do have an expert, Dr. Talwani, who will tell 6 you in our opinion why we do not believe the injection 7 wells caused the earthquake, and then I will conclude with 8 our summary of the event.
9 (Slide.)
10 I think by now you all know the earthquake took 11 place on the 31st of January. The plant responded 12 immediately to it and declared an emergency event at the f3 13 site. Even though we are not under a license, we felt
!;' - )
14 that was the best and the most prudent action to take to 15 marshall the resources of both ourselves and the NRC and 16 for the accountabilty on the site.
17 We did a number of subsequent physical plant ta inspections and design basis and earthquake analyses over 19 the last month. As you remember, about a month ago today 20 we were here before you and gave you our preliminary 21 review of the findings of the earthquake.
22 We believe we have completed our design 23 confirmation and, as we said last month, we are about 10 24 days away from fuel load. We are now about 10 days beyond 25 fuel load. The plant is completely done and ready to 8
48 j i operate today with the conclusion of the review of tne 2 earthquake and any other matters that the NRC has to sign 3 off on as far as issuing a license.
4 (Slide.)
5 At the time of the earthquake we had ongoing
- survellance testing going on at the plant and calibration 7 and work activities at the site. He were preparing to run s our Div. 2 diesel generator tests. All the systems to 9 support that test were energized in the standby mode. We 10 were about ready to move startup sources in the upper fuel 11 pools and we had, as mentioned prior to this, 39 eafety 12 systems and ab non-sarety systems energized and in the
,s 13 operating mode, i .
'# 14 None of these systems were affected during the 15 earthquake. The did not have any spurious initiation nor 16 did we see any initiation of alarms in the control room or 17 any relays that tripped as a result of the earthquake is other than those that we anticipated and the ones 19 discussed by Mr. Hermann with respect to the generator 20 breaker.
21 (Slide.)
22 Immediately following the earthquake, our 23 operators surveyed the plant and saw no structural 24 damage. We did a walkdown with our maintenance people.
25 We did a systematic inspection that Friday night with .
8
i
, 49 4
f~m 4 . i. ;L l' of our engineers using our health physics radiation 2 sheets, which are good. sheets to check at every point of 3 the plant and doctment anything that they saw in the j 4 plant.
l 5 We did site surveys of our monument system l 6 around'the plant which we normally take monthly and we 7 initiated it right then and saw no_ major deviations. We 8 walked our cooling towers to see if there was any damage 9 to the cooling tower structures and now were visually 10 observed or noted since then.
11 There was a seal at the base of the cooling j 72 tower which we normally can see in the wintertime that in jgs 13 the freeze and the cold might leak, which is not unusual, 14 which ties the cooling tover base into the circulating 15 water pump house.
16 We did have some areas where we are correcting 17 seismic clearance. We have pipes and valves in close 18 proximity. There are about 25 of those. We. looked to see 17 specifically on those if there were any movements or i 20 anything identified, and none of those were identified.
21 We analyzed all the electrical equipment that 22 was energized. We had 7,000 relays, and we know it is not I
23 a real test of the relays, but we noticed that none of the i
i '24 relays actuated or tripped from our records of looking at 25 the relay systems.
f L L lit
50 1 We have had ongoing surveillances since that 2 time of our system and have not noted any indications of ,
3 damage to any of our systems that we have tested since ,
4 that time. ,
5 We also initiated as a result of NRC revien and .
6 working together specific work request procedures where ,
7 any items which could be potentially identified as being 8 related to the earthquake was reviewed by ourselves.and 9 the NRC resident staff to make sure that there was nothing to we were doing that were noting and analyzing.
11 Since that time we have had about 2400 work 12 requests processed through our plant, of which about 1G0 l
13 were questionable for earthquakes. We have reviewed those O 14 and none of those had any potential damage with respect to 15 the earthquake.
16 We also made sure that our procedures were 17 reviewed for emergency procedures as far as reading in the l IB control room. As you know from any event that takes 19 place, you can learn something. By using our emergency 20 procedures we learned where they can be improved even
! 21 though they worked and where we can improve the operator 22 response and knowledge as to what is going on with respect 23 to the earthquake.
I 24 Now I would like to turn the meeting over to Dr.
25 Chen to talk about the seismic analysis of the plant.
lli
I 51 1 Thank you.
~
2 MR. CHEN: Good afternoon. My name is Chan 3 ~ Chen. I am the Manger of the Civil Structure Department 4 and a civil structure engineer of Gilbert Commonwealth.
} 5 I would like to discuss with you about a 6 . comparison of the recorded event of 1986 Ohio earthquake 7 and our design values.
8 (Slide.)
9 Before I show you the comparison, I would like 10 to summarize the nature of the 1986 earthquake. The Ohio 11 earthquake has high frequencies, short duration, low
< 12 velocity and low energy displacement.
13 (Slide.)
14 Our design earthquake has' program frequencies, 15 long duration, high velocity and high energy, and this 16 conclusion was reached by a comparison with the design 17 time history versus the recorded time history at 18 containment elevation 666.
19 (Slide.)
20 This is the vertical components. The one at the 21 top is the design time history and the one at the bottom 22 is the recorded time history.
23 As ycu can see, the design time history is a 24 much longer and broader time frequency and the recorded I
25 time h4 story has a very high frequency content and short
52 O)
(_ 1 duration.
2 (Slide.)
3 A similar comparison also showing the other two 4 components, the east / west component and the north / south 5 components.
6 (Slide.)
7 The Perry Power Plant design basis is based on 8 the frequency design spectra and 84 percentile confidence 9 level and the composite time history used for the design to as a long duration and high energy.
11 (Slide.)
12 Next, we won]d lika to do a ZPA comparison. ZPA 13 stands for zero period acceleration. The recorded ZPA 14 value varies from the low OBE value to 74 percent of SSE 15 value, except at the containment vessel elevation 686.
16 However, at this location the relative displacement is 17 very small. That means that induced stress is also very 18 small. The reason for that is because of the low energy 19 content.
20 (Slide.)
21 Now I want to show you the stress comparison of 22 the containment.
23 The first column is the calculated dynamic 24 forces. That is translated into stress in the second 25 column and the third column is the calculated stress in 8
53 Fl
( ,; I the original design.
2 Design is controlled by the stress at elevation 3 592. At that point, as you can see, the dynamic stress 4 induced by the earthquake is .52 ksi. The original 5 seismic stress was 1.32, which is 2.6 times higher than 6 the stress induced by the 1986 earthquake.
7 Furthermore, I would like to point out that the 8 real stress of this material is 38 ksi in comparison with 9 the .51 ksi. So the seismic stress in this case is really 10 insignificant because the design was controlled by 11 internal pressure.
12 (Slide.)
13 Next I would like to show you the response
('~ )
14 spectra comparison and a summary of the comparison as 15 follows.
16 The Perry design spectra far exceeds the 17 recorded spectra in the frequency range below 11 hertz.
18 Certain recorded spectra exceeds the design spectra in the 19 high frequency region of those kinds of hertz, but their 20 displacement is very small. For example, there is less 21 than 700ths of an inch.
22 (Slide.)
23 Now I show you the comparison of the spectra.
24 This is the north / south component. As you can see, in 25 this frequency region the lower one is the recorded and 8
54
("% I
(_) I the upper one is the design spectra. In this frequency 1 2 region where the majority of the sturcture and equipment 3 lies, it far exceeds the recorded event. The one 4 exceedance is at.20 hertz. However, this corresponds to 5 the displacement of less than 3/100ths of an inch, which 6 is very small and of not much engineering significance.
7 (Slide.).
8 A similar comparison can be shown in the 9 east / west component and a similar conclusion.
10 (Slide.)
11 And the vertical component.
12 (Slide.)
13 In spite of the insignficance of the energy 14 content of this earthquake, we still went one step further
- 15 to reconfirm and to quantify the margins of the active 16 components of the equipment. The criteria we used in 17 selecting those equipment for quantification of margins is are as follows.
19 The first criterion we used are those active 20 components required for cold shutdown.
21 The second criteria was based on the list 22 compiled by Lawrence Livermore National Lab. For those 23 equipment with a frequency higher than 14 hertz and with 24 low HCLPF, which stands for high confidence and low 25 Probability of failure, with a value of less than .5G.
8
55 f~l L_) 1 That means we have picked the group of equipment which'is 2 most sensitive to this type of earthquake.
3 (Slide.)'
4 Examples of those equipment. selected are as l
5 follows.-
1 6 The component types indicates all kinds of 7 equipment, and people are concerned about relays. Relays 8 are in the control switch gear and power switch gear. And 9 also Dr. Johnson mentioned earlier about the unusually l
10 high response at the 688 elevation of the containment 11 vessel in the north / south direction in comparison with the 12 east / west and the verical components.
3 13 Irregardless of the cause of that, we used the
)
" 14 data as recorded in our evaluation. So whatever is the o 15 outcome of that evaluation will not change our conclusion 16 here.
17 (Slide.)
18 This is a typical example of the comparison.
19 This orange curve was the original spectra as used by the 20 testing lab in quantifying those equipments. Those are 21 the transmitters. And this green curve are those so-22 called amplified spectra and the locations of those 23 transmitters inside the instrument racks.
i 24 Now we have picked a piece of the instrument ,
25 rack which we believe is most critical. The resonance 8 l
56
( '\
(_) I frequency of this rack is about 25 hertz which is in the 2 very high frequency region in resonance with the input-3 frequency content.
4 As you can see here, there is an ample margin 5 here between the qualification curve and the amplified 6 curve due to the earthquake.
7 (Slide.)
8 This is.another example -- and Dr. Smith is not 9 here -- which is used to answer Dr. Smith's question i 10 yesterday. Yesterday we only showed an orange curve which 11 was the qualification curve.
I 12 Then the creen curve is the curve due to the 13 1986 earthquake. We show plenty of margin between the u orange curve and the green curve. Dr. Smith raised the 15 question that the orange curve was one percent and the 16 green curve was two percent and it was not a valid 17 comparison.
18 The reason we didn't show the true percent was 19 we did not believe there was much difference. As we show 20 here, the yellow curve is the true. percent curve. So 21 there is still plenty of margin here.
22 (Slide.)
23 Now the conclusion of our evaluation. The '86 24 earthquake has high frequency, short duration, low energy, 25 low velocity and small displacement, and the structure 8
_ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ . . _ . - . . . . - . _ . - - _ - . . ~ .
l
57 I~l L_J 1 ' equipment design has substantial margins of safety 2 relative'to load and stress induced by the earthquake.
3 Thank you.
4 MR. MARK: You did not compare the. energy under 5 the standard design curve and the energy under the 6 observed curve. I am not asking you to remember, but 7 there must be a very large factor.
8 MR. CHEN: There are many ways to look at the 9 energy. There is a method you can use, the so-called 10 pseudo relative velocity spectrum. The area under the 11 pseudo velocity spectrum is a measurement of the energy.
12 So if you look at this tripartite curve, the vertical axis
, 13 is the pseudo velocity. So if you integrate the area 14 under the curve, this is a measure of the energy. So one 15 way of comparing the energy is to figure out an area here 16 and an area here.
17 MR. MARK: I know it is very slippery, but it 18 seems to me it might have been a comparison you would have 19 made.
20 MR. CHEN: That could be done. Yes, sir.
21 Another way to measure the energy is looking to 22 the comparison of the time history by taking the sum 23 square of the acceleration on the time scale.
24 MR. EDELMAN: Our next presenter will be Mr.
25 Holt of Weston Geophysics.
8
58 t
,, 1 MR. HOLT: Good afternoon.
2 I would like to discuss four major subjects with 3 you, a brief review of the background of the licensing for 4 the Perry plant and the seismology, a brief description of 5 the Leroy earthquake which occurred on January 31st, 1986 6 and a brief description of the site specific response 7 Spectra and some conclusions.
8 (Slide.)
9 The slide shown in front of you shows the 10 seismicity within and slightly outside of 200 miles of the 11 Perry Nuclear Power Plant which is designated in the 12 middle of the slide.
,. 13 The licensing of the Perry plant was under the
('/ )
14 concept of a tectonic province which calls the moving the 15 largest earthquake in that prevince, or assuming that the 16 largest earthquake in that province would occur at the 17 site.
18 The largest earthquakes listed on the upper 19 right-hand side of the slide within the 200 mile circle is 20 the Adeca earthquake with a magnitude of 5.2. On the lower-21 left-hand side the Anna earthquake with magnitudes of 22 slightly less than 5.
23 Subsequent to the submission of the PSAR an 24 earthquake occurred in Kentucky. On the lower-left-hand 25 side of the slide it is designed 727-80 with a magnitude 8
1 59 l
1 of 5.2.
2 .(Slide.)
3 On this slide is shown the main characteristics 1
4 of the earthquake. It occurred in the Town of Leroy and ;
1 5 hence the name. It is approximately 10.5 miles from the 1
6 plant to the epicenter. It occurred at approximately i 7 11:47. Eastern Standard Time.
! 8 The stag model is the one that we like for the.
- 9 location of the earthquake, which I will show you on the I
j 10 sequenquent slide. The focal depth is approximately 5 11 kilometers, and the magnitude is at 4.9.
12 (Slide.)
l' g. 13 A substantial amount of work was done 14 immediately after the occurrence of the earthquake.
4 15 Questionnaires were sent out to various people and'some
! 16 800 were returned to evaluate the intensity of the i 17 earthquake.
18 On this slide are shown the various intensities i
19 and the main shock as located instumentally is within an 20 isosized line listed as intensity six. The plant site, as t
21 cited earlier, was an intensity of 5 and the plant is l 22 shown in the upper right-hand-side of the slide again.
l 23 MR. MARK: How well'is the depth focus l 24 determined?
25 MR. HOLT: The focal depth is. determined from a f
- Ill I
I '
u- -,_..:-...-_--.-__._.. _ _ . . _ , _ . _ , , , _ . . . - . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . . . _ -
60
/"
'g_j} i series of aftershocks, some 10 of them, that were 2 composite'd -- I am sorry. The focal depth is from 10 3 worldwide stations and is approximately 5 kilometers
- j. 4 deep.
5 MR. MARK: I asked how well is that determined?
6 . Is it five plus or minus one?
7 MR. SHEWMON: Plus or minus five.
8 MR. HOLT: Let me have a comment from the 9 audience from the person that talked to the Unj'ed States 10 Geological Survey. Dr. Leblanc. '
11 MR. LEBLANC: On the basis of taleseismic data, 12 they usually constrained the epicenter at-five bacausa it
, 13 tends to -- the solution doesn't always converge. So five 14 means that the geophysicist has fixed it at five.
15 Previously they had.tried to fix it at 10, but they prefer 1
16 now to fix it at five.
l 17 MR. SHEWMON: Sir, your answer of five then 18 could be any place between 10 and the surface; is that 19 right?
20 MR. LEBLANC: It could be, but within probably 5 21 and 10.
22 MR. SHEWMON: How about between 5 and 27 23 MR. LEBLANC: I would say probably not because l
24 .to generate a magnitude of 5 there is a sort of a minimum
\
l 25 focal depth required.
- 3 i
I l
- --n .-- , , ,.,-, .., ,.- _...m - - . . - - - , ,.-.---,_..,.-.,.n-..--w-, , , , - ,_,,n_...-, , - , , . . , - , , , , , . - --n ..nn.-e,. -.-
a 61 T'"
(,l-J. 1 MR. HOLT: I might add that_in a future slide I 2 will show you ---
3 (Slide.)
4 The seismicity within 50 miles of the plant is
- 5 shown here. This is actually a diagram taken from the 6 final safety analysis report with two additions, an 7 earthquake that-occurred in Lake Erie in.1983 on January 8 22nd below a magnitude of 3 and of course the earthquake I 9 that occurred on January 31st with a magnitude again of' i
j 10 4.9 shown in this location.
11
{ (Slide.)
, 12 Within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> of the necurrence of the
, 13 earthquake, seismic instrumentation was deployed to
- " 14 determine the occurrence of aftershock and their 15- location. Those instrument locations are shown on the 16 blue dots on the slide. The instrumental location again 17 is shown in red and, although you can't see it, there are 18 a number of aftershocks shown which I will show on the 19 next slide underneath the red square.
20 (Slide.)
21 This slide shows several things. - The Perry 22 Nuclear Power Plant again in the upper-right-hand side.
! 23 The wells-that were referenced earlier are shown as the 24 Ohio injection wells as two dots approximately three miles 25 from the plant site, and the series of aftershocks that
- lil I
- s
-_ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . , _ . . - _ _ _ _ , - . _ . . . _ _ . - _ _ , _ . _ _ . . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ - - . . . - .
62
(. ,)
I were measured from the instruments were shown on the 2 previous slide.
3 The focus plane mechanism for the fault has two 4 solutions based on seismic data. This is a composited 5 solution of eight aftershocks and not of the main shock 6 itself. That shows not approximately 20 degrees east or a 7 conjugate plane not 70 degrees west.
8 Now the depths of these aftershocks are well 9 determined and they range between'two and seven kilometers 10 deep.
11 (Slide.)
12 characterizing the'eafe shutdown earthquake 13 selected for the Perry site, a modified Mercale intensity 14 seven set a peak ground acceleration of .15G. That 15 spectral shape was a regulatory guide 160 shape.
16 In addition, subsequent to the submission of the 17 PSAR, the NRC staff asked us to look'at a site specific 18 spectra for the site. Those site specific spectra I will 19 discuss. They were carried out at a magnitude of 5.3 plus 20 or minus one-half magnitude, or a subset of that data to 21 represent the Anna Ohio quake at a magnitude of 5.5 plus <
22 or minus a third of a magnitude.
23 (Slide.)
24 In selecting the data to represent the site 25 specific spectra, three criteria were followed.
8
l 63 r7
(_j 1 The.first is that the magnitude range as cited 2 was honored from a worldwide set of strung motion 3 recordings. The foundation conditions for the plant site 4 were also honored. That is a hard rock' foundation. And 5 the distance was representative of the Appendix A l 6 requirement that the earthquake be considered at the 7 site. Those distances for the components were taken from 8 zero to 20 kilometers.
9 A couple of comments with respect to the site 10 specific spectra.
11 The earthquakes range from a magnitude of 5.0 to 12 5.9, The magnitude determinations are generally in 'the gs 13 vicinity of one hertz, and at one hertz I might tell you
\""") 14 that the components are reasonably well behaved, the 5.9 15 being the highest component and the 5.0 being the lowest 16 component.
17 However, when we get to the high frquency range, 18 you will find that the coherency disappears. As a matter 19 of fact, the component that is shown on the higher side is 20 a magnitude of 5.0 and the component that is shown down at 21 the bottom is a 5.5 and interdispersed in the middle are 22 two or three magnitudes of 5.9.
23 A comment that I would like to make here is that 24 per chance the earthquake were to get larger, I think we 25 would just simply see in Richmond at the low frequency end Ill
64 f3 and not necessarily-any in Richmond at the high frequency
(,/' 1 2 end.
3 (Slide.)
4 With respect to the Leroy earthquake of January 5 31st, and you were shown this slide previously, except 6 that I plot period instead of frequency. The exceedance 7 is at approximately 20 hertz. Again, you can see that the 8 rest of the spectra were well below the design response 9 spectra.
10 When we take that particular earthquake and 11 composite it with the 14 components'that I showed you
- 2 earlier, the dached 11ne shows the site specific response 13 spectra for the 14 components and the solid line shows 14 those 14 components with the two additional horizontal
~
15 components from the Leroy earthquake. There is a slight 16 exceedance in the acceleration end of about 10 percent.
17 (Slide.)
la In conclusion, the tectonic province approach 19 that was used for Appendix A is still valid. We have 20 looked at the geology of the area and we have examined the 21 epicentral area, we looked at the major structures that 22 were studied during the FSAR and PSAR stages.
23 We find nothing to indicate capable faulting nor 24 at this point do we find anything to indicate a tectonic 25 structure. The safe shutdown intensity, a modified
65 1 Mercale 7, was not exceeded by the earthquake which is i
2 intensity 6. The site specific response spectra for the 3 SSE at 5.5 or 5.3 are greater than the earthquake also.
l l 4 The exceedance of the safe shutdown earthquake
! 5 1:s less t'han a half a- second for the 20 hertz frequency, 6 and'in the confirmatory program of studies I might tell
[ 7 you that we ar'e looking at all wells in the area, and
- 8 there are some 1,000 of them that have been drilled when 9 people were still looking for gas and oil, and those will j 10 all be compiled and put together along with a study of the 4
11 injection wells.
, 12 That finishes my presentation.
13 MR. SHEWMON: When you say they will all be
} 14 studied, you will locate them and put them all on the same 15 map or what?
3 16 MR. HOLT: We will locate them and we will put 17 them on a map, and we will also look at the logs that were 18 gathered from them and see whether there are any l 19 disturbances in the logs or whether or not there might be
! 20 a reflecture in the paleozoic sediments that you heard 4
21 about earlier.
22 MR. SHEWMON: With respect to'the aftershocks 23 and the depths that these came from, is the limits on bare 24 -depth more precise than the limits on the original depth l 25 that I understand you ---
8 l
t
66 4
((~)h 1 MR. HOLT: My answer to that would be yes.
2 MR. SHEWMON: Would you care to say whether it 3 is fun to monitor or what the standard deviation is on the 4 estimate?
a
.5 MR. HOLT: Again, I am going to let the man that 6 did it speak to it. Dr. Leblanc.
7 MR. LEBLANC: Two of the larger aftershocks, 8 which are located roughly at 4 kilometers and 7 9 kilometers, the error bar is less than 1 kilometer. For i
10 the smaller events that tend to be shallower, the error 11 bar is just a little bit larger.
12 MR. SHERMON: Thank you.
13 MR. EDELMAN: Our next presenter will be Dr.
i 14 Talwani of the University of South Carolina.
15 MR. TALWANI: Thank you.
16 My name is Pradeep Talwani. I am at the 17 Univeristy of South Carolina, and I am here to address the 18 question of the possibility of the injection wells 19 inducing the earthquake.
20 I heard Dr. Wesson's hypothesis, and I find it 21 very interesting. My bottom line is that it is a very 22 interesting hypothesis, but everything we know and all the 23 data we have that the likelihood of that is very little.
24 In my judgment, it is very unlikely that the well had r
25 anything to do with the earthquake.
- - , , - - , . . - , , , . - _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ , , , _ , . . . , _ _ _ - - . . _ = - , . - - , , - - - _ _ _ , . , , , - - , , ,
67 R
L_J .1 I will present you some.of my arguments.
2 l (Slide.)
3 This shows the location of the two wells we have 4 talked about. They are about 800 meters apart. They are
~
5 located roughly about 11 kilometers from the epicentral 6 area. This is the location of the main shock. These axis 7 are for the direction of the fault planes on the focal 8 mechanisms and the shaded area shows the limit of the I
9 aftershock activity.
10 As Mr. Holt pointed out a few slides ago, these i
11 were determined with an extensive network of seismic 12 instruments.
13 Some of the points I would like to make is that 14 we have no information or no evidence of any earthquakes j 15 in the vicinity of the wells either before this earthquake 16 or after. Before the earthquake there was a general lack 17 of instrumentation in this area. So it is conceivable 18 that you would miss anything less than about a magnitude l 19 of 2 to 2.5. But earthquakes with a magnitude of 3 or 20 greater are likely to be felt, and as far as I know there 21 has been no report of felt earthquakes in this area before 22 this earthquake.
23 Secondly, even after the deployment of the 24 instruments, there has been no earthquakes located in 25 these lines. So if you talk about the pressure front that 8
I i
68
[')
(_/ 1 migrated from the well that was postulated and that 2 traveled in this direction, we would expect it t:o trigger 3 small numbers of earthquakes, at least micro-earthquakes 4 which would be picked up by the available 5 instrumentation. And to date there have been no l 1
6 earthquakes that have.been located with the available 7 instrumentation which can detect to a magnitude of zero in 8 this corridor,'if you will.
9 ( S lide .' )
10 Next I will show you a cross-section running 11 across like so. Before I get to that, another point I 12 want to make is that the earthquakes that have occurred in 13 this area, there is historical evidence of earthquakes in i
O 14 this area prior to the deployment of these injection 15 wells, especially things like the 1943 earthquake which i 16 had a magnitude of about 4.7.
17 And, finally the earthquake pattern here of a 18 magnitude 5 earthquake at a depth of 5 or thereabouts 19 which occurred in here and the aftershock, a few 20 aftershocks that taper out, is very similar to earthquakes 21 that have occurred in this general tectonic region at 22 Kentucky, New Hampshire and some other locations.
23 The earthquakes that have been known to occur l
24 injection wells are characterized by a large number of )
25 swarms, lots and lots of very small earthquakes. So even
.-------.-J
69 R
, (_) 1 ,now after the deployment of the instruments, we:have seen
~
2 no evidence of any swara-like activity.
3 MR. OKRENT: It is conceivable, is it not, that 4 the mechanism if indeed the earthquake is related to the 5 wells, that the mechanism is not identical to those facts 6 which, let's say apply at the Rocky Mountain arsenal, and 7 that there is a different mechanism and it might not have l 8 the same evidence, swarms and so forth? you grant the 9 possibility.
- 10 MR. TALWANI: I grant the possibility as 11 considerable, but I would say unlikely.
12 MR. SHEWMON: Would this be a mechanism that 13 nobody has ever heard about before, and how often have 14 people seen this swarming activity that became famous at 15 least to the laymen out around Denver?
16 MR. TALWANI: You can count it essentially on 17 one hand, the number of wells where we have documented 18 cases of induced earthquakes that range from the deepest 19 well that we know about at Denver where the well was about 20 3.6 kilometers deep and that generated swarms of 21 earthquakes that migrated away from the well to the <
22 northwest. And even after the pumping stopped, the i
23 pressure get going and you had a series of earthquakes.
24 That is one of the best documented cases of induced l
l 25 seismicity.
8 4
l l
) 70
() 1 Then there was an experiement carried out at 2 Rangely where they actually pumped water in wells to try !
3 and trigger these earthquakes. l 4 MR. SHEWMON: And they behaved in the same way.
5 MR. TALWANI: yes.
6 MR. SHEWMON: Thank you.
7 (Slide.)
8 MR. TALWANI: This is a cross-section of the 9 north / south and the horizontal and the vertical scale are 10 the same. This is the location of the two wells. They 11 are in the precambian which lies below this blue line.
12 The blue line shows the location where the water.is
~
13 injected. It is injected in two formations which is shown 0 14 up a blowup here, the Maynardville and Mt. Simon.
15 So over the years the water has been injected 16 since '74 in well No. I and since '82 in well No.~2. So i
17 over the years nearly 300 million gallons of water has i 18 been injected into these two formations. And the way I 19 understand it, the hypothesis that was suggested was a 20 pressure bulb forms in this location and with time given i
21 the right permeabilities in this blue horizon, gradually 22 the pressure front sort of migrates out and comes here and 23 finds available faults, a weak zone here and triggers the 24 earthquakes.
25 That is a very nice idea, but the question marks 8
1
71 rq j 1 are that if you have a pressure front that had been 2 migrating out over 10 or 15 years, surely it might have 3 encounted some faults or some features which would trigger 4 a small earthquake. We do not have instruments here to 5 locate the micro-earthquakes. It is inconceivable that 6 that there were no magnitude 2's or 3's or 4's as the 7 pressure front migrated out to encouter another fault 8 here.
9 It is not unlikely but, in my judgment, it is 10 very highly unlikely that this sort of scenario happened.
11 (Slide.)
12 Finally, here are some of the parameters that we
, . , 13 think bear on this.
("" )
14 There is no known seismicity near the wells 15 before when the magnitude threshold was maybe 2.5 to 3, 16 and certainly after the January 24th when the magnitude 17 threshold was zero or thereabouts. This is in the la vicinity of the wells, and this is th characteristics of 19 all known cases of injection related induced seismicity.
20 The second point, that earthquakes occurred 21 about 11 kilometers south of the wells, and as far as we 22 know, there is no evidence of seismicity between them, 23 which is again a feature noticed in other cases where 24 there is well documented cases of induced earthquakes.
25 Third, the historical seismicity. This area has 8
72 f
) I a history of small earthquakes but which are not typical 2 of the region.
3 And, finally, the time lags in most other cases 4 that we have in terms of days and weeks is essentially in 5 that ball park. But here if we say the '82 well was 6 relevant, then it is four years old, and if you look at 7 the '74 well, we are talking about a 12-year time lag.'
8 Again, if conditions are all exactly'right, it is not 9 inconceivable, but not very likely.
10 Then in most other cases the seismicity occurs 11 in swarms. This is the point I just made. That means a 12 large number of very small earthquakes of very small
- 13 magnitude, and these swarms go on for a very long time.
I I
\/
14 This is a characteristic of both the injection related 15 earthquakes as well as those around reservoirs, and this 16 was certainly not seen.
17 In fact, the seismic pattern, one main shock and 18 a very few aftershocks dying out in a few days, is very 19 typical of what we have seen in the Eastern U.S. at 20 Kentucky, at New Hampshire and several other locations.
21 So, if anything, this thing argues for a regular 22 tectonic earthquake rather than one induced by injections.
23 And, finally, nd this is not a very strong 24 Point, but between the two wells, and we have not looked 25 at the records in any detail, but there is no 8
73 R
(_) 1 instantaneous time correlation between the two wells.
2 That means when they would pump one well and turn out the 3 other well, they would monitor the water level in the 4 second well.
5 We have not had a chance to look at the records 6 going back further, but on a instantaneous level we have 7 seen no evidence of that.
8 So looking at all these paramters or these 9 factors, in my judgment , any relationship between 10 injection well and the January 31st event is highly 11 unlikely.
12 Thank you.
13 MR. OKRENT: Any questions or comments?
7-U' L 14 (No response.)
.i 15 MR. EDELMAN: I think we have stated our i 16 conclusions many times, but just briefly to put it: up 17 there.
18 (Slide.)
19 We think that our plant demonstrated adequate 20 design for the January 31st earthquake, that the safety 21 related structures and systems were unaffected by this 22 earthquake. There are no changes in our opinions, and I 23 think it has been confirmed by the staff to the 24 conclusions of our geology and seismology for the design 25 of the plant.
5
,.. - _ . . , -_r.,- - , - - ----,,,+ww,. .,w-3 -,e v.+,.-_m,- c._ , .--,-.-------,,-----y- - _ , - - . . . -.=4 e- , . , ,*. 7e-m .-.y.m.-
74
) 1 The plant seismic design is able to accommodate 2 the earthquake which, as we have said, is short duration, 3 high frequency and low energy.
4 We looked at a representative set of equipment 5 evaluations to confirm our margins. We have looked at 6 over 75 percent of the type of equipment that we think is 7 critical, and as part of our confirmatory program we will
- 8 look at a number of these to ensure that'this 9 representative sample matches that program.
10 That in essence concludes our remarks.
11 I would like to give our response to you, Dr 12 Okrent on our seismic design program.
13 (Slide.)
0 14 Back in 1982 we responded to the staff based on 15 the ACRS letter that was issued to us in 1982 that we 16 recommended a scheudle, as Dr. Okrent mentioned, including 17 any needed modifications prior to startup of the second 18 refueling cycle, which for Perry now would take us to 19 1989.
20 Currently we are monitoring and have been 21 participating,in the industry generic and NRC efforts to 22 develop the methodology as part of the owners group.
23 We are following this development of the 24 guidance as outlined to you earlier, and we will take that 25 guidance and establish the seismic margin program during 8
I l
75
?~3 l
(,_) 1 our first cycle, i
2 We then will complete the evaluation and if I 1
3 there is any implementation or.results, we will meet the !
l 4 ACRS criteria and implement it during our second cycle.
5 And I think, Dr. Okrent, that is roughly our 6 time frame that you allotted for us, sir.
7 MR. OKRENT: You did very well and the committee 8 cooperated.
< 9 (Laughter.)
10 Are there any questions?
11 (No response.;
12 11 not, I think we have a presentation next by 13 Dr. Wall.
(3 14 MR. WALL: Good afternoon, gentlemen.
- 15 I would like to thank the distinguished 16 committee and Dr. Okrent for.their kind invitation to make 17 this presentation.
18 My presentation will very briefly outline some 19 EPRI research addressing some generic issues brought to 20 focus by the Northern Ohio earthquake.
21 (Slide.)
22 The ACRS staff tells me.that Dr. Okrent's 23 subcommittee may request some more detailed presentation 24 in a couple of months, and we will be very happy to 25 oblige.
. _ _ _ . , . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ - , - . _ , . _ , , , . - _ . . ~ , . _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ , . , _ -. ~.__ _._ ____ . _
76
(_) 1 Our President, Floyd Carter, formed the Seismic 2 Center in 1983 to focus EPRI research supporting the 3 resolution of generic seismic issues and the development 4 of advanced technology.
5 As Director, I am fortunate in having an 6 excellent staff. You will hear from Dr. Carl Stepp in a 7 moment who heads our Seismology Project Office. Dr.
8 Robert Cassawara heads our Plant and Geotechnical l l
9 Engineering and Dr. Tang our Civil Engineering.
10 Our associated staff include Dr'. George Sliter, l
11 who handles equipment qualification, and he is also 12 Equipment qualification, and he is also present to answer 13 any questions.
O 14 We are currently working in basically four 15 subjects, and Dr. Stepp will address the first subject. I 16 will just take briefly the next two.
17 . In seismic margins we have had a continuing 18 program on equipment qualification in support of SQUG for 19 many years. A new project.has been initiated recently on 20 relay functionability during a strong earthquake motion.
21 Although relays have been shown to have 22 sufficient ruggedness to operate after an earthquake, 23 relays could through chatter or change of state during an 24 earthquake cause.other other equiment to malfunction.
25 Our project to be completed in March of 1987 8
77 f"R.
t_j 1 will define methods by which a utility can identify 2 -seismically critical relays so that they can be qualified 3 or, if economical, modified or changed out.
4 yesterday'Dr. Okrent asked about the seismic 5 margins. EPRI has an ongoing project to address this 6 issue.
7 We will. shortly produce a walkdown procedure to 8 identify seismically critical systems and components to ,
9 achieve a hot shutdown condition following the occurrence i
10 of an earthquake.
1 11 Second, next year about February we will produce 12 procedures to quantify the margins of critical 13 components. A trial evalaution of Duke Power's Catawba n"
14 plant has been initiated and we are working very closely 15 and in parallel with the Office of Research of NRC.
16 MR. EBERSOLE: I would like to see the
~
17 components of the walkdown inspection and how you do it 18 and ritualistic expression of what you look for and what 19 you can see and can't see and how you deduce your
. 20 findings.
21 MR. WALL: We will be very happy at your 22 pleasure, sir, to have a presentation on that.
23 MR. OKRENT: Can you supply us with a memorandum 24 or a report or whatever?
25 MR. WALL: I have a draft report in hand 111
l 78 b)
(,j 1 already, Dr. Okrent. I think my Project Manager would
- like to have another couple of-months to get it in. shape, 3 but.at that point in time I think we could make it 4 'available to you.
5 MR. OKRENT: I think it would be helpful to have 6 it and answer what questions Mr. Ebersole has or otherwise 7 there will be a thousand questions.
8 (Laughter.)
9 MR. MICHELSON: You referred to relay chatter 10 and.your work on relay chatter. From time to time it has 11 occurred that instrument contracts also chatter in a 12 somewhat similar fashion. Is that intended as a part of 13 your general definition of relay chatter?
14 MR. WALL: I do not believe that is within the 15 scope of our current project.
16 MR. MICHELSON: I keep hearing these discussions 17 and I keep saying make sure it is relay in instrument 18 contact chatter that we are talking about and it keeps-19 coming back relay chatter.
20 MR. OKRENT: Why don't you think on it, Dr.
21 Wall.
22 MR. WALL: I would like to think on it.
23 Do you.have a comment, Dr. Sliter?
24 MR. SLITER: I just think it will include 25 anything that is capable of chattering and it will be l
l t
_. _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ __--_. - -_ . _ - -__ . _ , - ~ . , _ . - _ . . _
79 r~1
,__, I addressed. Did you say instrument chatter?
2 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. That was the question.
3 Does that include. instrument contact as well as relay-4 contact.
~5 MR. SLITER: Yes, sir.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you.
7 MR. WALL: Finally, in this subject we have an 8 ongoing project with Professional Alan Cornell to quantify 9 the effectiveness of Northern Ohio type earthquakes, that to is the short duration, high' frequency content, et cetera, il and their effectiveness relative to current design 12 requirements such as Reg. Guide 160.
- r. 13 This work is addressing floor response spectra
- }"
14 and it complements that in NUREG CR-3805 which was 15 referenced by Dr. John S'evenson yesterday. It is 16 scheduled for completion by late 1986.
17 MR. OKRENT: May I suggest that it would be 18 useful, if you could somehow to find a way of managing it, 19 of ascertaining how much one can exceed the design spectra 20 at the I will say the 12 to 20 hertz area before one 21 starts gets suspicious of lots of trouble. In other 22 words, does one have a margin of 2 or 10 and so forth. If 23 somehow you could get a handle on that in what you are 24 doing, it would prove useful, not only to the NRC, but to 25 some future utilities.
0
.. - . . . , , _ . _ - . _ . _ ,-- . . - , . . _ . . - , . _ - - , . , . . , , , - . , . _ _ . , _ . ,, m , . . . , , ---
+
1 80 A
~ (,) 'l MR. WALL: That is a. good point, Dr. Okrent, and 2 we will-look at that.
3 In soil structure interaction our flagship
.4 project is a heavily instrumented one-quarter scale 5 containment located within the Smart One Array in Lonton, 6 Taiwan. We can simultaneous measure in detail free fieJd 7 and building motions.
8 Since operation last October, we have already 9 experienced 25-percent G free field at the site. EPRI and it the Office of Research of NRC are sponsoring blind 11 predictions of these measurements to find out whether 12 indeed the methods can predict reality.
13 Finally, EPRI is deploying a very dense array of
'"' 14 certain accelerometers at a site'near Parkfield, 15 California to measure the coherency of high frequency 16 seismic energy, the tau effect postulated by Nat Newmark 17 in the late 70's. A Richter 5 to 5.5 earthquake is la expected at Parkfield within about three years, and we 19 will be able to measure that coherency.
20 Thank you very much for your attention.
- 2) I brought enough copies of our program plan for 4
22 the subcommittee, and I could make available additional 23 copies if the committee so wishes.
24 MR. SHEWMON: Would you say your last sentence 25 over again?
lli
81 P
(l 1 MR. WALL: In the late 1979's Dr. Newmark 2 postulated that high frequency, short wave lengths of 3 seismic energy would be incoherent on the dimensions of a 4 structure of the same dimensions of a power plant. We are 5 deploying a dense array of accelerometers about the same 6 -size at a power plant foundation about five miles from the 7 Parkfield fault.
8 When the earthquake occurs within about three 9 years we will measure that coherency and get a gauge'of 10 how much is it or is it not.
'i 11 MR. SHEWMON: Thank you.
12 I would like to introduce Dr. Carl Stepp who
,,, 13 will give you a status report on the seismicity owners
'- 14 group.
15 MR. STEPP: Good afternoon.
16 It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to 17 appear before you and discuss briefly the seismicity 18 owners group activities.
19 (Slide.)
20 I plan to abbreviate this and would welcome 21 questions from you, but look forward to discussing it in 22 much more detail at a future time.
23 Let me first state the purpose of the activities 4
24 that I have discussed as the owners group.
25 We are developing a probabilistic model the 0
82'
() .I compute earthquake hazards at any. point and any geographic i 2 location, and our motivation for doing this is basically *
! 3 what has come to be known as the Charleston earthquake 4 issue, which I have stated in my cans words as underlined l 5 on this slide, i
E
'6 Now to respond to this hypothesis,-we have taken 7 the tact'of developing a probabilistic model that focuses s on estimating hazard from moderate and large earthquakes, 9 and by moderate and large I mean 5 magnitude and greater.
10 Our procedure is highly probabilistic based and
, 11 not intended to attempt to. resolve hypotheses regarding 12 earthquake causation. Instead, what we have attempted to
~13 do is take all hypotheses of earthquakes causations that O 14 were known in the literature or could be conjured by our 15 interpretation teams and use those hypotheses to interpret 16 source zones that we-believe captures the state of the
- 17 scientific profession's uncertainty about earthquake 18 causations and therefore the uncertainty about the hazard 19 estimations, l
j 20 (Slide.)
21 This program has been~ conducted in two phases.
22 MR. EBERSOLE: Pardon me, before you take that 23 down, I wonder if you would give me a clarification of the i
24 qualifying phrase there, where favorable geologic 25 structure exists. What is favorable structure?
l i l
O 83 R
(_) 1 MR. STEPP: What I mean by that is the structure 2 is both large enough in extent and oriented in the 3 contemporary stress field such that you would expect 4 earthquakes to occur on it, and large enough in extent 5 that earthquakes of moderate and large size might occur on 6 it.
7 MR. OKRENT: I don't think you have really 8 answered his question, Carl, in the sense that it is my 9 understanding that there is evidence of earthquakes 10 occurring where there was no previous fault. So you have 11 to consider both old faults in the right stress field and 12 good rock in the right stress field.
, 13 MR. STEPP: To expand on the answer, we have
)
14 gone through a considerable assessment of what the model, 15 mechanistic model of earthquake occurrence might be in the 16 eastern U.S., and based on.our assessment of the magnitude 17 of the lithospheric stresses that we believe exist in the 18 eastern U.S., we conclude that earthquakes would be 19 expected along existing zones of weakness. These zones of 20 weakness could be old faults, that is that have material 21 weakness that is weaker than the surrounding bedrock 22 within the fault zone, or they could be simply 23 discontinuities in rock material properties in the earth's 24 crust.
25 There is a very wide range of these 0
84
(~n)
(_ I possibilities and the work that we have done started with 2 that list of hypotheses or range of possibilities and we 3 have developed our interpretations-from that listing.
4 I hope that goes give an expanded answer.
5 MR. OKRENT: you had better continue because we 6 are supposed to be all done by 4:30.
7 MR. STEPP: Well, this program has been broken 8 into two phases. The first phase of activity was a 9 rather compressed methodology development period which we 10 conducted between December of 1983 and about April of 11 1985.
12 Now we the entered a Phase 2 which is focusing 13 on enhancing the methodogy with some improvements that we O 14 identified during the development stage and in conducting is a series of tests of the methodology that lets us define.
16 where the uncertainties lie.
17 (Slide.)
la We started this effort with a' series of 19 interpretations conducted by six teams of earth 20 scientists. We formed teams rather than asked for 21 interpretations from individuals because of the nature of 22 this problem of earthquake interpretations.
23 We believe that the range of discipline i
24 knowledge requitad is generally.not known by one person.
25 So we attempted to overcome this what we consider to be a 8
I
\
. ~ - - - - - - . .. . - ,
85 1 deficiency in previous approaches by forming teams that 2 consist of geologists, geophysicists and seismologists, 3 and this is our list of teams. It contains many of the-4 people who are interested in this problem in the Eastern
- 5. U.S. and we developed:a total of six independent i
6 : interpretations by these approximately 35 people.
i i 7 (Slide.)
8 As I stated earlier, our starting point for i
9 these interpretations was a list of the hypotheses of 10 earthquake causation in the East. We translated those 11 hypotheses into interpretations of potential structures 12 that are potential sources of earthquakes throughout the 13 region.
n'
"~
14 These structures and features are developed 15 based on a very extensive set of geophysical data, 16 including aeromagnetic and gravity data which we filtered i
17 to bring out characteristics of the earth's mid and upper j
i i
18 crust.
19 MR. EBERSOLE: I was going to just ask you if 20 the Charleston events had not yet taken place in many 21 years, would you have forecast them?
22 MR. STEPP: We would certainly have forecast the 23 locations because there are structures in both locations 24 that would have been picked.up in our geophysical data, j 25 MR. EBERSOLE: So you would have localized at 8
7 J
-- . . . - - - - . . - . - . . , - - , . . - . - - ~ . . . - , . - - - - . ~ - . - - , - - . - , - . - . . . . - . - - - , - - -
._- . ~.. . . . - .. .- . . . . .. . - - - - .
U I 86 1 least' the probability that they were there.
! 2 MR. STEPP: Yes.
^
3 MR. SHEWMON: I had never heard'that there was-
. 4 .an identifiable structure at Charleston.
5 MR. STEPP: There are many identifiable f 6 structures at Charleston. The issue has always rested on f 7 the fact that no unique structure, no unique explanation i
, 8 for that earthquake has been given or has been found in 9 the existing. data. Certainly there are abundant 10 structures in the area that are potential explanations for
- - 11 the earthquake, and out of those potential explanations 12 grow a half a dozen or so hypotheses that we considered in 13 this study.
j 14 MR. CARBON: Is there a reason to suspect an 15 earthquake of that magnitude from any of those?
-, 16 MR. STEPP: Magnitude we have found to be the
) 17 most difficult parameter to estimate. It is the parameter 18 in our interpretation that we consider to have the highest
{
l 19 degree of uncertainty and we are working very hard to try
! 20 to improve our ability to estimate that parameter now.
21 Based on the information we have, I would not be 22 able to assure you that we could have properly estimated i
23 the magnitudes of the Charleston earthquake.
f 24 MR. WARD: I didn't really understand your i
25 answer as to whether you could have predicted Charleston
!,Ill
)
i
.-.-e-~_v-,,-,.,,w.--~i,m..,%,-,-, m,-mwn--,,-.,#w-i-rwe,,----,,,vw-+-u--.-----v-,v,--.--, ,,-w,w-.ww ._< - +=wwww. w w.ww
87
(_j 1 if it hadn't occurred a number of years ago. What you 2 seemed to say is you might have had five or six reasons 3 for predicting a significant earthquake in that region ~.
4 MR. STEPP: That is correct.
5 MR. WARD: And probably at many other regions in 6 the Southeast.
! 7 MR. STEPP: That is correct.
- 8 MR. WARD
- So it doesn't sound like there really 9 was much of a prediction.
10 MR. STEPP: What I mean't convey to you is that 13 with the information that we have and the state of our 12 knowledge today, we would have identified earthquake
, 13 sources at Charleston, no unique source, and in fact the 14 interpretations that we have received have identified 15 alternative sources at Charleston.
16 MR. EBERSOLE: Can you pick the most likely 17 third large earthquake and then the fourth and the fifth?
18 Do you have an order of probabilities?
- 19 MR. STEPP: The way these interpretations are 20 made, each team has assigned a probabilistic estimate to 21 each of its alternative interpretations, and that total 22 p'robability must add up to one. So that the composite of 4
23 the interpretation has to explain the occurrence of the 24 earthquake.
4 25 MR. OKRENT: I would like to note that for a
9 I
88 1 variety of reasons, including'Dr. Lewis'-interest, that we 2 are going to have either a one or two days' subcommittee 3 meeting where the only subject is what I will call the 1 4 seismic-hazard ---
5 MR. STEPP: It takes about.two days to discuss 6 this, f 7 (Laughter.)
I 8 MR. OKRENT: I encourage all the members to come t
3 9 and we will have lots of time for questions.
1 d
10 MR. STEPP: Starting with this series of i
11 structures, then each team was asked to aggregate those F
12 structural features to come up with a set of source zones, i 13 (Slide.)
14 This shows one example of the distribution of i
j 15 the sources in the eastern U.S. Each of these sources has '
i
- 16 some probability of being the correct interpretation of 17 earthquakes, some probability of less than one.
i 18 Now let me just summarize where we are going in l-
! 19 Phase 2 of this work, t
20 In the second phase of the activity, as I have 21 said we have made a number of enhancements to the 22 methodology. I won't go into these.
23 We have conducted a series of comparative 24 evaluations with the NRC and LLNL comparing the results of 25 the methodology developed by the seismicity owners group i
1
-, . . , ,.-,eme----m-wo-- --v~*~we+~w, v<e-e-w's~
~
- '&'*"'WW- *W'~'""WF"7'"""~~" "Y"Y ~ ~~
- 89 u_; I with the methodology that has been developed by the NRC, 2 and because the outcomes were very favorable, we found 3 that in fact we do each properly capture the uncertainty 4 on the hazard estimate given the same input parameters, 5 and I think we have identified where the sources of !
6 difference lie between the outcomes our of two 7 methodologies. So this was a very productive activity.
8 We did extensive parametric analysis, as did the 9 NRC, during this period. So that we now understand the 10 relative contribution to the hazard of the different input 11
\
' parameters. '
12 One of our major motivations in this work has I 7-13 been to involve the total scientific community. I know
(
14 this has been a major emphasis of the NRC also, and they 15 are setting up a National Academy of Panels to review this 16 subject.
17 For our work we wanted to get scientic feedback la on it. We set up a distinguished panel headed by 19 Professor Emeritis Donald Hudson of Cal Tech and they 20 performed a review for us and we had formalized 21 interactions with them to get their feedback and implement 22 it into improvements in the methodology.
23 Then, finally, we are going to be developing a 24 topical report that we will submit to the NRC. Our 25 anticipated date for submitting that report is about mid-8
90
(
1 July of this year.
2 (Slide.)
3 I might just show you for current interest an 4 example of one' interpretation in the North Central part of 5 the' country which shows a source zone in the vicinity of 1-6 Perry. The source zone of interest is outlined in red i
.i 7 here. This source zone is defined almost entirely on the 8 basis of geophysical data, primarily magnetic gravity data 9 representing the material properties contrast in the upper
! 10 crust, and the maximum magnitudes estimated for this i
4 11 source zone are consistent or umbrella the magnitudes that 12 have occurred in this source zone in historic periods, 13 including the recent earthquake.
l
. 14 Now as it turne out, all of our-six teams did 15 interpret source zones that included some configuration
! 16 about the Perry earthquake that umbrelled this estimate of f
17 maximum event.
4 18 Thank you.
19 MR. SHEWMON: Sir, when you say that this is in 20 the upper crust, this is in the precambrian; is that 21 right?
22 MR. STEPP: yes. We filtered our geophysical i 23 data in such a way that we would not have seen shallow 24 structures.
25 That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman.
8
\
y.-a-- -- ,r e m + erm e % 4.--- -we.wr,, av--*y-e- y m , wm ew---v-vgw-,-=re --ew*w+r-*+eF-vee-*****ww-t**r*9--N"-"~e*-**'-*r*'"e-we"- v
91 1 MR. OKRENT: We are now running a little late, 2 Mr. Chairman.
3 MR. WARD: Dave, do you think that you would 4 anticipate that you will draft a letter to the committee 5 which'will say approximately what? ,
6 MR. OKRENT: Well, I have to find out what the 7 committee's thinking is. I can express my own opinion.
8 MR. WARD: Well, that is what I would like to 9 hear.
10 MR. OKRENT: I don't see any evidenced to make 11 me be concerned that the earthquake which occurred damaged 12 the operation of the plant. So I have no problem myself 13 with five percent power. I think the committee will 7
14 probably want to reflect on Dr. Pomeroy's suggestion that 15 there be some continued monitoring, sensitive monitoring,
~
16 unless the USGS comes up with from their analysis of well, i
17 we can just show that there is no connection. As long as 18 USGS says there is a possible connection, I think we l 19 should be monitoring for two or three years.
20 MR. KERR: You mean in connection with injection 21 wells.
22 MR. OKRENT: Yes, to see whether it gives 23 evidence of that sort. Certainly we will support the 24 staff's confirmation issues.
25 MR. WARD: Okay. So in essence we will be 1
l 1
.. - - ..,-... - .~ , -.
't l
92 -l
) I considering a letter that would support the staff's 2 proposal.
3 MR. OKRENT: This is what I would propose, and I 4 can't speak for the committee.
5 MR. WARD: Well, that is what I will find out.
6 MR. MICHELSON: You are saying a five percent 7 letter.
8 MR. OKRENT: Well, that is what we are asked for T
9 now.
10 MR. WARD: The staff is proposing within a few 11 days to issue a five percent letter based on the J
, 12 information, a summary of which we have heard.
j 13 I guess I would like to poll the members to find O 14 out if they are agreeable with that general concept.
15 Dr. Okrent has indicat'ed he would give us.
16 Carlyle?
17 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, only five percent.
I la MR. WARD: All right. ~That is the question.
I 19 Dr. Kerr?
i j 20 MR. KERR: I have no problem, i
i 21 MR. WARD: Dr. Moeller?
i 22 MR. MOELLER: No problem.
23 MR. WARD: Mr. Ebersole.
24 MR. EBERSOLE: No problem.
25 MR. CARBON: No problem.
93 O 1 MR. ETHERINGTON: No problem.
2 MR. REED: No problem.
3 MR. SHEWMON: No.
4 MR. WARD: Okay. I think that is pretty clear i'
5 then, and you can expect a letter from us Saturday, a
6 All right, thank you very much gentlemen.
7 (Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the recorded session 8 of the general meeting concluded )
9 e e e e e e 10 4
12 j
13
,0 ,,
1 15 16 4
2 17
}
18
.I 19 i
j 20 1
1 i 21 i
l^ " 22 j 23 l 24 i
i 25 i
l0 1
4
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the . attached proceedinga before
- the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: .
l j NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS i 311TH GENERAL MEETING 1
i 4
i DOCKET NO.:
PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C.
DATE: THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1986 i
were held as herein appears, an'd that this is the original l transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
4 (sigt k M (TYPED) [
MARY C. SIMONS Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation 1
1 1
_ - _ . = .- . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . .
. i NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE ACRS O(
SUBJECT:
PERRY EARTHQUAKE DATE: MARCH 12 - 13, 1986 PRESENTER: J. STEFAri0, P. SOBEL, A. LEE
( ,
.O.
PRESENT5R'S TITLE / BRANCH /DI\OF DIVISION : BWR LICENSIrlG 1
PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: J. STEFAN0, X29473 i
{ SUBCOMMITTEE:
EXTERME EXTERNAL PHENOMENA l
pP em oee o em a
,,---------.----y - , - - , , , - - - . - - - , - , - - , , , - - - - - - - - g----.--,m_ - - - , , - - - - - - -
j.-
1
- i. .
! J. STEFANO -
SUMMARIZE EARTHQUAKE EVENT, PLANT RESPONSE, i STAFF. ACTION / FINDINGS, POST-LICENSE CONFIRMATORY ISSUES P, SOBEL
{ -
GE0 LOG / SEISM 0 LOGY FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVE OF RELATED CONFIRMATORY ITEMS i
t TO BE PURSUED POST-LICENSE
, A, LEE -
EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONS AND RELATED' CONFIRMA ITEMS ;
4 i l
STRUCTURAL FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVE OF-RELATED i O CONFIRMATORY ITEMS POST-LICENSE 1
- J. STEFAN.0 - CONCLUDING REMARKS i
t i !
I i -
I
! i I.
O i
l
3 .'
O STAFF FINDS (SSER NO 9 - MARCH 5, 1986)
NO OBSERVED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO PLANT FROM EARTHOUAKE DESIGN OF PLANT STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL MARGINS OF SAFETY RE LOADS / STRESSES INDUCED BY EARTHOUAKE NO BASIS AT THIS TIME TO REVISE SEISMIC DESIGN BASES FOR PLANT
)
- SEVERAL CONFIRMATORY MATTERS NEED FURTHER ANALYSIS AND REVIEWS BY CEI/ STAFF (LISTED BELOW) l 4
4 i
O
~
()
j CONFIRMATORY ITEMS MOST COMPLETED PRIOR TO FULL POWER LICENSE 5
(ALL EXCEPT LONG TERM GENERIC ITEMS)
FAULT PLANE SOLUTIONS INJECTION WELLS FAULTS AT PLANT SITE :
ENRICHED'HIGH FREQUENCY
~
- - HIGH FRE0, SHORT DURATION EARTHOUAKES
($)
RELOCATION OF SEISMIC INSTRUMENTS i
i l SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT 1
I i
}.
4
()
I l
!O CONCLUSION I *
.i PLANT SEISMIC DESIGN ADEQUACY HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED
- i CONFIRMATORY WORK-NOT EXPECTED TO RESULT IN ANY -
j DESIGN CHANGES i
5% LICENSE ON MARCH 14 i
j I
4 1
!O ,
i b
I i
l O
i l
1
O v
JANUARY 31, 1986 EARTHOUAKE LOCATION - 41.65'N, 81.16*W ABOUT 10 MILES SOUTH OF PERRY MAXIMUM INTENSITY VI (MM)
AFTERSH0CKS - ABOUT TEN
- 1 TO 6 MI DEEP
- LARGEST WAS MAGNITUDE 2.4
- FREE-FIELD RECORDINGS INPLANT RECORDINGS OF MAIN SHOCK SHOW EXCEEDANCES OF SSE AND OBE AT HIGH FREQUENCIES (AB0VE 15 Hz).
O O
! C:)
STAFF REVIEW (SER-1982) 1 MOST SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES FOUNDED ON DEV0NIAN SHALE BEDROCK.
NO CAPABLE FAULTS IN THE SITE REGION.
! FAULTS IN THE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE TUNNELS AND IN THE PLANT SITE EXCAVATIONS ARE NOT CAPABLE.
i PERRY SITE IN CENTRAL STABLE REGION, I'
SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR A NEARBY MAGNITUDE 5.3 EVENT COMPARED TO THE SSE (0.15G, RG 1.60).
(:)
i f
C i
1
! () ,
I(
f CONFIRMATORY ISSUES LOCATION OF MAIN SHOCK AND AFTERSHOCKS.
FAULT PLANE SOLUTIONS AND STRESS DIRECTION, c
! SEARCH FOR ASSOCIATED GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE (S).
i ASSESSMENT OF FAULTS WHICH WERE BELIEVED TO BE INDUCED BY PLEISTOCENE GLACIATION.
POSSIBILITY THAT EARTHQUAKES ARE RELATED TO INJECTION 0F CHEMICAL WASTES IN TWO WELLS 7 MILES NORTH OF THE EARTHQUAKES.
j ASSESS FREE-FIELD GROUND MOTION RECORDINGS WITH
() RESPECT TO WORLD-WIDE DATA BASE; ASSESS SOURCE OF 1
I HIGH FREQUENCIES AND POSSIBLE SITE EFFECT.
J i
.i i
I
~
4 i
i l
1 m&We-WW
- nT-**tPPTN*r'P 'T' Wer Fm=wf-*W-h'1.'*Te6-W.greq -a .sene fgi v e+p g ry_, g ypyrm y ptv--p._ _3
O STRUCTURAL SEISMIC DESIGN
, PLANT WALKDOWNS REVEALED NO SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE DAMAGE. REGION lil, SQRT, AIT A GOOD CORRELATION OF MEASURED IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE AND THE RESPONSE CALCULATED USING THE RECORDED FOUNDATION MOTION AND A FIXED-BASE REACTOR BUILDING DYNAMIC MODEL WAS OBTAINED. THIS CONFIPMS A LACK 0
'F ROCKING RESPONSE; AND HENCE, INSIGNIFICANT S0ll-STRUCTURE INTER 4CT10N.
RECORDED FOUNDATION MOTIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THE CORRESPONDING FREE-FIELD GROUND MOTIONS IN FREQUENCY C)
CONTENT; ABOUT 20 Hz.
WITH A FIXED-BASE 3-D MODEL AND THE RECORDED FOUNDATION ACCELERATION TIME HISTORY AS INPUT, THE CALCULATED RESPONSE SPECTRA AT HIGH ELEVATION OF REACTOR BUILDING INDICATE SIMILAR AMPLICATIONS AS THE MEASURED RESPONSES OVER THE MEASURED FOUNDATION RESPONSE SPECTRA, AT 20 HZ REGION.
O.
THE ORIGINAL PERRY REACTOR BUILDING DYNAMIC MODEL IS, THEREFORE, ADEQUATE IN PREDICTING HIGH FREQUENCY RESPONSE.
THE HIGH-FREQUENCY, SHORT-DURATION EARTHQUAKE HAS AN INSIGNIFICANT ENERGY CONTENT. FOR REACTOR BUILDING, THE RECORDED MOTION WOULD NEED TO BE SCALED BY A FACTOR OF HIGHER THAN TWO TO ACHIEVE DEFORMATIONS CORRESPONDING TO THE DESIGN LEVEL OF FORCES.
A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT INDICATES THAT THE DYNAMIC
() STRESSES IN CONTAINMENT BUILDING INDUCED BY THE RECORDED FOUNDATION TIME HISTORY IS WELL BELOW THE DESIGN VALUES.
O i
EQUIPMENT SEISMIC QUALIFICATIONCD PLANT WALKDOWNS REVEALED NO DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT ITSELF, l
THE SUPPORTS, AND MOUNTING CONFIGURATIONS.
THE HIGH-FREQUENCY, SHORT-DURATION EARTHQUAKE HAS AN INSIGNIFICANT ENERG.Y CONTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGES TO EQUIPMENT.
ALL OF THE 39 SAFETY-RELATED AND 36 NON-SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS THAT WERE ENERGIZED DURING THE EARTHQUAKE HAD FUNCTIONED AS DESIGN.
THE TRIPPING OF THREE NON-SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS WAS CONSIDERED TO BE EITHER INSIGNIFICANT OR EXPECTED BY DESIGN.
A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF A' SAMPLING OF EQUIPMENT REVIEWED SO FAR INDICATES THAT THE ORIGINAL SEISMIC QUALIFICATION IS ADEQUATE.
O
A U
CONCLUSIONS NO SIGNIFICANT SAFETY IMPACT OF THE EARTHQUAKE ON EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED.
THE DESIGN-BASIS EARTHQUAKES MAY HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED AT A HIGH, NARROW FREQUENCY REGION OF THE RESPONSE SPECTRA, THE ORIGINAL PLANT SEISMIC DESIGN WAS NOT AFFECTED.
THE STAFF CONCLUSIONS AS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS SER AND ITS SUPPLEMENTS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE SEISMIC QUALIFICATION PROGRAM REMAIN VALID.
O 1
i i
1
- - _ . . _ _ _ . . _ - - - - _ - _ _ _ . , . - _ _ . , _ . . _ . . . . _ - . . _ . . . . . ~ _ _ ,
i J
CONFIRMATORY ACTIONS BY THE APPLICANT-PERFORM AN ADDITIONAL QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT ON THE SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF A BROADER SAMPLE OF EQUIPMEN TYPES, LOCATED IN DIFFERENT BUILDINGS ON VARIOUS ELEVATIONS.
PERFORM A GENERIC EVALUATION OF A HIGH-FREQUENCY, SHORT-DURATION EARTHQUAKE WITH REGARD TO ITS ENERGY CONTENT AND POTENTIAL SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE OF EQUIPME AniD 9TRUCTURES AT PERRY.
USING T'1E RESULTS OBTAINED, ASSESS THE SEISMIC CAPABILITY
(]) 0F THE PERRY PLANT, IF ANOTHER EARTHQUAKE OF SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS, BUT WITH HIGHER MAGNITUDE AND/0R LONGER DURATION SHOULD OCCUR NEAR THE SITE.
O
l O
AGENDA i
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW M. R. EDELMAN, CEI SEISMIC DESIGN EVALUATIONS DR. C. CHEN GILBERT COMMONWEALTH EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS AND SEISMICITY R. HOLT WESTON GEOPHYSICAL SEISMICITY AND INJECTION WELLS DR. P. TALWANI UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS M. R. EDELMAN, CEI
')
O l
i i
a .
O ~
OVERVIEW SEISMIC EVENT 01/31/86 PLANT RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT EVALUATIONS
- PHYSICAL PLANT
- DESIGN BASIS
- EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS PRIOR ACRS MEETINGS DESIGN CONFIRMED PLANT READY TO LOAD FUEL O
O
i l
PLANT STATUS PRIOR TO SEISMIC EVENT ONGOING TESTING, CALIBRATION, WORK ACTIVITIES PREPARATION FOR DIVISION'II DIESEL GENERATOR TESTING STARTUP SOURCES NOT YET MOVED SYSTEMS ENERGIZED (IN OPERATION AND STANDBY MODE) 39 SAFETY SYSTEMS 36 NON-SAFETY SYSTEMS O
O
INSPECTIONS AND FINDINGS FOLLOWING THE SEISMIC EVENT O
- OPERATOR SURVEY (NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE)
WALKDOWNS BY PLANT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL (NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE)
SYSTEMATIC PLANT WALKDOWNS BY 65 ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS (NO STRUCTURAL / EQUIPMENT DAMAGE)
SITE SURVEY PLANT SETTLEMENT SURVEY COOLING TOWER WALKDOWN SEISMIC CLEARANCE INSPECTION ENERGIZED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT STUDY ON GOING SVI's SYSTEMS ENERGIZED AND NOT-ENERGIZED DURING EVENT POST EARTHQUAKE WORK REQUEST REVIEW PROCEDURE O -
ASSURED CEI/NRC REVIEW OF ALL POTENTIAL EARTHQUAKE-RELATED ITEMS TIME FRAME: FEB. 3 THRU 28 TOTAL WR's REVIEWED DURING PERIOD: 2401 EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PROCEDURE REVISIONS ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE TO OPERATORS ON USE OF INFORMATION FROM AVAILBLE INSTRUMENTATION LONGERTERM EVALUATION OF SETPOINTS AND ACTIONS BASED ON EXPERIENCE AND RESULTS OF ALL ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS i
i
O . CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 1986 OHIO EARTHQUAKE e HIGH FREQUENCIES e SHORT DURATION e LOW ENERGY e LOW VELOCITY e SMALL DISPLACEMENT O CH ARACTERISTICS OF THE PERRY DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE (SSE) e BROAD BAND FREQUENCIES e LONG DURATION e HIGH VELOCITY e LARGE DISPLACEMENT e HIGH ENERGY l
O
s 2
(Y[ """;C*_:.. $ k k*h125.7_d$ b bbibY:S if' " ' .
I N I2ih !.d.550' l'5,"S.' - ,l
. . . i c
e t
e
..i. .
. i s'" .: ' ;
l I
REACTOR BLDG EL686 VERTICAL
. l ;
- e ..
i :
- .I.I .
i i s. . . J; I i : 1 I I i .
g ,
- t. ._. . ,
e _I l l '
. 1, l i .
f
. g..
[3l -
$ f g
k i hl h~ i ,
e .
g
. i b 8
l '
!.'E
. I . ::-
I-s -
.L
- '._ . E g
- .:i.. s.
3 an
- n. _ ._.. . - s:a I
't . SB 3.50 3.88 18.30 4
4.98 6.5 3.33 8.m 13. 3 l b.gg 84. 5 44.86 84.85 89.80 46.50 f t.W .
flat is ucanos - - -
s
[4,.. . . . . ..= =. . . .-. p.c. . I., =.
. ,"t .w..;w...T M., , . ,3-]. L,l r,.;i.
- e. . ,,D, ,,, .r. .",m""=..
.f.".r.,,1";,,;.,,,";
m ,e U .... l e
.m ...l a.i.=.i.a. -
- s. .. .. ... . . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . .. .. __ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _. ... .
. s g . _ . . . ... . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . .. ..
- g. .. -. - - . . _ . , _ _. . _ .
_g. .._ .. .. . _ . _ . __ . _- . . .
'.k,W 5 W1.fh:'fhWE=-^^~ -
' * - " ^^
- ~ - - - ~ ~ - - - - ' ^ - ~ ~
w + 1 1
u.
- g. . ., ._ _ . .. . _ . . _ . . _ . . .
?.
. . .u . . . _ .. .- --. . _ _ . . - . . - . _ . . . - . - ."-
t-
- .. t .-
. . . . . . . _ _ - . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . ... .. . .. l i1 ~. :3 J
=
. ,i.w m . . .v.. . ~ .. n .. v. m .. i.. w ,,. ,, u li, ._ .. .. w is.a ..-_.a---ir inae u i
. - n.w i <n n ns r .si...n i
a
[@h*..":" :: r". E. !!!Pdia.6. ti.,C.. Nihi'.!sh $83*O375N' l'*tM .
= ,
- i. .
i l l l
(%)
\
v =1 1
I 3
REACTOR BLDG EL686 E - W 3 [
, l..._.
,n
,, _._ _i l -.
I l ! l l .
l .
i . t-r l l
. l *
- p. _ . . ._. , ..
t l ! f
= ,
ljf 4. . l I f -
h -
u, l f i gj 4 w=
ig .__ _: _ _(_ .] ,
i i
}
7 1-i_ .
g u-Ji g i . 1 E
+
- I l 8
! ! i N i
. g l .
6
. ,a
+ -. . .
-- 1 . g.
. , . -2 i=
I h$
s ' 1 sT 4 .t.
__ .z:r:
t . i l
g I $ 1 J B !
l
- _4.as s.u s.se ..se s.se s.es e.as is.no es.e a s.se st.as is.se so.se is.se an.se as.se flMC in SECOm05 -
Os .
. O. . . . ....
rnm :.:.u..w. :a.,.w...
,.,, p,.u:,2,...w....,- p,. r m.... ,. r,, .,,:: n .... F.... ...-
J e i;
- . . . . . . . l 3, -
- g. .. . . - ..- _ . . __ __
y . . . . . _ _ .
y
.. !! dhwak !)ijr5kk jf/;'# WWM**AC as -www --- - - - - - -- - - - - -
- - .. p)y e . . . . .
- m:
1,i, .. ._ . . .. __. _._ . _ . . ._.. . _ . . . . .. . . . . .. a_=.
. 2 l
- . 1
, e. .. ... .. .. . . ,, ..... ,.,.. ... .. ., _ _ ._. . .. ._ _ _, s_. ,._ _ . ,, . ,,.=
....m.... ...,_.._, .
l .-
l . .. . _ _ . . . - -..- _ _ . . _ . . . . .
t 4. n . . .. i. . .. c, ,.l',..-
LCr."::L9.' 'i.'". . . };P:: ..9 .. .'.: .: r :: ',.. l w:p::: ... . ,,:::.e:n,..
,,,, ...,.. 1.... , ..... ......s.:'t =;;.:: ;;,,:.,q:. ' l . . .. . ..
l e
i
. j
- d
'} .. .
! REACTOR BLDG EL686 N - S 8 l.. -
'I_-l 4
j - _,. . -- , i
- . _ ,t .
! , ! : i I i : i*
- l -
[t
- p. . . _ . I. _ . _ _ _ _ _
)- [i f h,
khlg;[Id[i
=
3 h- 3
- p. _ _ _ . . . _ _\__ -.
h ! } __
l, 3
l k
SW2 j i t I iE E j I*
l-
! IE g ::
, i .
s j
- i. ' i3 g i s
I l
j
}- .-! .:!!
l l J _ .l, ti__r!.
= i }
s.. .... . . . . se ... ... .... i,. . - in. =
i s. . ... .... i s. u n.= u.w
.==...m..- IIME tu SEC3m05 m s ;. . .s oc .
. @....__.._,.......1_,,,,.t..=.,,.,,;.,,.._.l...,c,,...,_ .
1_, . f., - .. . .. i .un m. , e ..m . . . . l= , _=.
3 . . . ...._ ..-. . - ----- --.
g .. _ .._. . . - . . .. ... _
a _.
- g. .. _ _ __ ..._ . . - . . ..
E g .. . '.._
i' :
e a h! l 4] !l g,, l h- if NN'b'Y'h'NIYN
~ - ~ " ~~
ihbi '
w ..a,, ,
p .. . g . _g
.J, 5,.
- 1 I;
.E.
3 :f i
i !
s I 'sT5 f #N g i
- ::04
( 1 l l (vA ,
" t t i l t I
- e. co e . se 3.oe o. ee e.se s. ee ie.se : oo e s.Se it.no is.se is.co is sa si se n se
. .s : .. . e in ., e---. se , tier IN %ItONn% 4 A.m -. T 1 e
.e. .
O -
SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS
., e BROAD BAND FREQUENCY DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA e SMOO'.MED,84 PERCENTILE SPECTRA e COMPOSITE TIME HISTORIES WITH
~ LONG DURATIONS AND HIGH O ENERGY O S
- O
O . ZPA COMPARISON e ZERO PERIOD ACCELERATION 4
- RECORDED ZPA'S VARY FROM BELOW OBE VALUES TO 74% OF SSE _ VALUES e EXCEPT AT CONTAINMENT VESSEL ELEVATION 686' e BUT RELATIVE DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES HE.RE (AS WELL AS O ALL OTHER LOCATIONS) ARE LOW REASON:
e HIGH FREQUENCY AND LOW ENERGY OF THE 1986 EARTHQUAKE e e O
O ~
CONTAINMENT STRESSES COMPARISON EI.1VATION DYNAMIC FOPCES h4IC STRESS FROM CAICUI.ATED STRESSES-Nte 1 SEISMIC CCt@CtENT P Mr Mr P/A + Mx/5 or P/A + M /5 (K) (Ft-K) (Ft-K) (K/in2) 688'-6* 1,339 44,220 31,820 (K/In2) 0.414 .398 Note 2 644'-6* 1,589 46,970 44,820 0.464 .802 592'-3* 1,674 38,000 53,670 0.510 1.320 Note 3 NOTE 1:
THE DESIGN OF CONIAINMENT VESSEL IS CO EROLLED BY INIERNAL PRESSURE IDADS, NOT SEISMIC IDADS.
NOIE 2:
STRESSES AT THIS ELEVATICN DOES NOT CCNTROL DESIGN. SINCE MIS IS A UNIFORM WICKNESS SHELL, DESIGN IS COUROLLED BY MAXIMUM STRESS AT ELEVATICN 592'-3".
NOTE 3:
THE YIELD STRESS IS 38 2 K/IN IN COMPARISOJ WITH THE DYNAMIC STRESS OF 0.510 K/IN ,
e 0 0
O '
RESPONSE SPECTR A COMPARISON e PERRY DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA ARE FAR
. ABOVE THE RECORDED SPECTRA IN THE FREQUENCY REGION BELOW 11 Hz.
o CERTAIN RECORDED RESPONSE SPECTRA EXCEED DESIGN SPECTRA VALUE5 IN THE REGION AROUND 20 Hz.
e CORRESPONDING SMALL DISPLACEMENTS (EXAMPLE: 7/100 INCHES OR BELOW AT FOUNDATION MAT)
- RECORDED VELOCITY SPECTRA SHOW MUCH LESS ENERGY THAN THE DESIGN ,
RESPONSE SPECTRA e b lO
..O.,J C. n r. t ". J u. . - ., .n.. ts :_ J n. .nunni... v .
si. . q it o, ,
IIAE001 PERRY NUCLEAR F'0WER PLAN! COMP SOUTH SMA35/N :ss-IL
( DAMPING VALUE5 ARE 2 PERCENT OF CRITICAL
' FREQUENCY - HZ ..
10 1 10 3 4 . .
3.. . . . . 6 .
. . . . . . . . . .... ;10
- - 1-g -
4
,. F'S A - C ~SD - IN' t .
10 . .
~
.0 18~
-
- 2
. ESi C-
'g.8.ufar L.974, sif 3 101
. . A 1
~ ~
' ~
0~ -
n . .
n .
0:
! , . I.
Z -
s, u . 1 .
- c
- n . -
o '
.i _z _
0 -
'10 ,
' -RECbRDE i -
1 g-z 3
[ _
~
s; 0-2, _ ;
- . -3 _
~
( i O, 3
- o n ,
-i 10 1 10 i
_ PERIOD - SEC l
Mu 5.0 E A.- H' JAKE JANUARY 3i. 1556 11AE001 PERRY NUCLEAR PCb'ER PLANT COMP WEST SF.A35/N ISS-1T DA.MPiNC VALUES ARE 2 PERCENT OF CR;TICAL C FRECUENCY - HZ .
10' 10 1 :
i . .
3.. ... 6 . . i... . . 6 . ,,...-i0 -
r . g j ~
(.
0 1d 1
sid ']I C
~
3 2D A E.5 M ' so - On
$' t.LE. Rda.y fg 11. * -
t = ,~ ~
1 %
l-
. '10 -
D -
e - -
< . -1 1 1 .0
- s 2l: -
- i0 s
- .
-g . -
\3 c.
0
-2
- PERCPsDE -
-1 -
- '10 .
1 i . -2 -3 1 ,i G
- l. _
4
-2 ~
- 'i O -
4_
! -3 k ..
]
I I.
10
-1
/' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-6 1 10 1 10 i i PERIOD - SEC (/
1
- (
ilA8001 PERRY NUCLEAR PCER PL ANT CO.*1? UP 5.9.O t / N iss-sv i I
l
( DAMPlNG VALUES ARE 2 PERCENT 0.c CRITICAL.
FREOUENCY - HZ _;
1 l
. 10 1 10 : 1
)
.....;ic
. i I * -
. .d -
PSA - G .
SD - IN 2 -
1 10 -
I
/
40 1
. ' s .. ,2 -
10 ESIGM SD - cn :
n.e.ya r &.. m.s, .
s.s.r. var,e4r.,R z2. -i o.s -
f -
- . . si c
, 0 -
eo. - -
.- ~
. -1 z
30 s 'l -
e, ..
m - -
o .
-1 -2 -
_ 1 ,o -
D
~
i , s; g
-i - RECOR -
1 1 -
\ .
- -2 ,-
.o-
-2 /
.1
'i o .
3
.J
_1 -
i L ..
0 -1 to' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
10 1 10 PERIOD - SEC I /
}......'....
(3
(.) -
EQUIPMENT SELECTION CRITERIA ACTIVE SAFETY CLASS EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR SAFE SHUTDOWN.
EQUIPMENT LIST COMPILED BY LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY, WITH FREQUENCIES HIGHER THAN 14 Ez AND HCLPF VALUES LESS THAN 0.5g.
SUPPLIED BY MULTIPLE VENDORS.
ACTIVE COMPONENTS QUALIFIED BY ANALYSES.
VALVES & MOTOR OPERATORS SUPPPORTED BY PIPING SYSTEMS.
ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR & INSTRUMENT RACKS. ,
1 VERTICAL PUMPS.
BATTERIES & BATTERY RACKS.
CRITERIA RESULT IN MORE COMPREHENSIVE SAMPLES OF-EQUIPMENT.
APPROXIMATELY 75% OF SELECTED EQUIPMENT TYPES HAVE ALREADY BEEN EVALUATED WITH AMPLE QUALIFICATION MARGINS.
BALANCE TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE JUNE 1986.
l l
l t 1 I
O l
l
REPRESENTATIVE EQUIPMENT EVALUATED FOR' O, SEISMIC QUALIFICATION MARGIN Qualification Components Bldg. Elev. Methods Vendor Motors Auxiliary 568' Test / GE Analysis Pumps Auxiliary 56d' Analysis Byron Jackson Control Intermediate 620' Test GE Switchgear Blowers Auxiliary 620' Test GE Pressure Auxiliary 568' Test Rosemount Transmitters Power Control 620' Test Brown Boveri Switchgear Flow Auxiliary 568' Test Rosemount OTransmitters Valves Reactor 688' rest / Henry Pratt Analysis Actuators Reactor 688' Test / Bettis Analysis Limitorque Instrument Auxiliary 568' Test GE Racks l .
l I
~ . ~ . . . . **. . . . ~ . . . . . -w . . . . . ....o.*
VA . An ?5 e-9
...s::
El s::i::s i::i' .
a .I t.1":s .r.1
~i I -
i.**!I;t <
- 3... :";;i . i * .
' ':s i:3 . I "t" im.:t t '
' l' . _ _ _'
c!;::
C!;;i
- aa s:**.:8 s: i.'l 8 -
yl:::::: C;;l )I
-t
.s' ~
Am I'
N
'. I %
I w
,I w
g,.
, q%
gQ
- f. ..
e.
t,1_
8 I . U
...t ..I W ,
g s,.
-3~... ^ N g . :x-
- i l
em :n g*....- s:.3 2s A 2 3
.....g ..
gg 4
- ..-..: i:1.s i.
- N , %
- r' -r
- 3.s g l ' :::..
l.. ...
.. x .
., u n.
t.i.f
- : a l ' t, I
' .:':;s g N
- s ar:: o %
l 3 4"';a %
e pj
..i....:
l
.:, " :.r .
l
~<f x ,
5 i
,. . .FP..-
s -
- t I, c':::
.1-. ' .
- C?D t.
C';;l 1:'!;;l t,
c...'.::.:
- r. .. ..a l .. C;;
- , * , l..: " . '.
f.t":t ...."#
C!:;t !. ": c ;i i....
- i... _
.1 ri
.l..
- n: c.:. . .;i ,1... . -
1
P r..... . . . . . . . . . . . 2.w. =;
w : .s . . : . .e. . . , .. : .;. . . :. .
{ Tes: Program No. 43250-1
. Run No. 60, HCA, 1 (SSE) ( 2 %
- . . . 6.
Page 26 og 63 Report No. 37-51955-55
' ce a. reu ri.t ? - +. 8 6 K V METAL C AD Swif8"&fA R
, _. m neu Coarm. 5a. E.L 620' "5 P- $6G -00 g;t l
. * < ype g 4..IG KV ks-cavma SYETEM Tigure( ,
100 '
~ i 80 SPECTRUM DESCRIPTION h
~
60 '
Motion Input : Tront-to-Back/ Vertical Y,5, Accel.
- 100 . Peak. =_=
40 ""PI"I h i Dash Curve : ' Test Program Horiz SSE RRS 3 .
~
30 Point Curve : Horiz. TRS, analyzed at 1/3 "
i octava frequencies 'sy Boriz.:=-g i 20 Control Acceleromatar E
. Solid Curve : Customer's Boriz. SSE 115 5 <
. r.
W ,
I 4
.-_,.,,,,..,,,-,-,,,,,,,,,,,i........,,,,,,,-.,-
1 4 , , i i i ne i si i . i .
1 . . i . . ..,n .
. . i # 6 i s. 6,4. si i o aiet si n. 6
. . . . . set is.oi... , a. si .o i ei i , ai.i a4e. is in iii6 ei .in . i 4 e ei ie6e i.4o....,.s.yns . ...
^ ^^ "
..:- ;l 8
n - -
M i i i ein , mai e e'si i. it s i :A iu I . m E 4 .i . . . .i i i ii.. i ii ! sui if. - , .o. , syv e . , . f .y .sy.s
.L,i i .i. ,.
i s v.Ag . : a ,,
I tr i
@ , s agii . is 41 b-a=
- e t
4 _ ._
e -
o ll g . - - ,
.. ". r- I:
'.- a g;
an9 ' he ;'
y -
e e
- 2 . - .
l g
c.
< ~
D' a
1 1 1 .r x s i., e er - i . ,
i ais 1 i 5 .
L. .
._u j . r i ii ei , i I,
Air i 1 . . is. 1 ii
,,. . . . .re z . . . , o, n.. .... ,,, . ..u . . ui4 , , , .n on . .. . . .. ., ,
e ig
.... i/ir y 6 6 6 . 16e s.es ee4e .. . o .4 8-
- 1. 0 4 . .
- i6eie* . ... .*s. ."4 +e. . I, 6 e Qu o f '; .
0.8 ,
., , ,- , , ,,,o ,, . . . . ... . . . .. ,m .. ,
0.6 -
t
_ __ __ - . : =_ _
C -
~
(
- -_ _ =_ = -. .=.:
- h. . .
0.3 2 E 1K E
( 0.2 ~
~
l 1
- ., 1
-_._.,y,, m y .
.i m y ,,
- i
, , i,, i -, -~.w.- , , i
,,,, , , , . i n. . ,n ,, , ,,- sov.- e. .
. r, . ,1 m6 .
1
, ,,,. . . . i i i.. . non i. n o... . . o , v... .. . .o .o . ,,-
0.1 , , , , . . . . a e a e e r sh ie
...o" e 4 s *
- e s ie O.4 1.0 10 100 ,'
Trequency (Es)
- h j h Sen %eRu G.ur zur nous sm<-sso risuccb d, i t COMPARISON OF THE CUSTOMER'S HORIZONTAL SSE RRS TO THE HORIZONTAL :
TRONT-TO-BACK TRS OF THE SEK-350 SWITCICEAR TEST SPECIMEN
- i
- i. t G A 7. M PL " IR 22 Soot, , IK 22 S007, iR12.-soo3 '
O .
CONCLUSION THE 1986 OHIO EARTHQUAKE:
HIGH FREQUENCIES SHORT DURATION LOW ENERGY LOW VELOCITY SMALL DISPLACEMENT STRUCTURAL & EQUIPMENT DESIGN HAS SUBSTANTIAL MARGINS OF SAFETY RELATIVE TO LOADS & STRESSES INDUCED BY THE EARTHQUAKE O
1 e
l I
f
i e4a O ~"N ? ^ei I
0 W
/ O D
o1 I
C 1 i
g a
- ,c *
.g 8
.t eATTICA ,
e*
. t
\*\
c
- w*
-, e pg,,
g a e 1/31/86 O \ "a** c
- ae, ,
- =
ANNA , e f ,
g .= .
- s g
e C e f.
m 200 0 -
3
- If P
,0 D INII*O e 5, pv o .
~
g *O C a * * - 0C O O o 'g C .1
. h U C O e? 4 ~**" ^
... c e.4* .o, d.g e..
9.
? so too wn.as EPRI DATA BASE l
1 i
O .
"^'"*" "
JANUARY 31,1988 LOCATION : TOWN OF LEROY LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 4
DISTANCE TO PLANT : APPROX.10.5 MILES APPROX.17.0 KM.
ORIGIN TIME : 18hr dem 42.3s U.T.
JEFFREYS-BULLEN O U.S. MODEL TAsLE LATITUDE : 41.6 5 0 N 41.6 4 9 N LONGITUDE : 81.16 2 W 81.105 W FOCAL DEPTH : 5 KM (CONSTR AINED)
M e (TELESEISMIC) 4.9 (10 STATIONS)
SOURCE: NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE INFORM ATION SERVICE (USGS)
O
g .
I G 3 C,. -
3 o : 3
=
- I .a ,
g ,,
= En a
_ >- 2
- i" Ig -3 -
>g t j
I I E / t g 2 >* -
>> . ga> * > >
4
> AM g
> U w >
>> R
~
I hk> -
b> ~
P.
gm E
>t mi y>>lSee
> ~ , gese >
a t{ [ i ;
z.
S
~
- D I
)f" 3 <
Q 2' ) *> >> 3 4
g W o l- , 3, :W M0>:
aD.> >>! =
E. >
? >e t > *? L
. tt E i
a . - . _ .1
- 2 ? 5 52 -
E
- I g$
m >
='
? >
5- l- >t2a s g e
it I
E aw g
= = 5g- =, y <
_ a ,
I__ . _._. _ . _ . ._. . _ _ __
J m- I > = <
$I E
~
g.l O i
. E O t
9_ _L - s - s-z
~
. 1 i= 7 t i TE >
IT l
E ,I-t i z 8
~
3 t U
~
I i tl O E. ;
T T
O . =
a o
A
/
f -
b-J *
,4 4 o . u# g -
I nuonez f samma 1 SITE O 'Et
'g g .1 . . egw.= -
l C ees m } m m a E
=
. . ieusEis -
- b\ =
l
.O 5 hv
- e o@2ER*
o E :
. - - . ,, ,e i
.x
. (# p~ ~~ ~
w%enmas s-m .
8 :
l O
o .
W men o
)
asse==e e n s . .eune c a.e-se o oa i
Q ai.as o oe ,
Qas-esQ Os o O
i o'
de a
- ,/
~
i O- LINC!TtM H.e W.
Figure 4 Seismicity Map
-_,a 7,
~
_+
', m' N Y. m . m.n .W ~
w - .,
.: g-L _ _r ar.. .y. -
.' - %, . %y,p. r-MgE n==. r %s t.~,p. v .lj e
. ni
> = ,
Ab k % .- -
\.- Y k: f L d wa E E E E 5 % U,.~a f D IM my Eh pxas QYh:b . ww w w .: f-w$m l
\ VY, --
F 4+
Nkh ' a
%.w. - .n. _
.x -
-: y-
'O. ws 4 c.w.:.$2 Y y
wea sag .
M' .""
^
A _ , _ _
i e.*
~
.I .
~
A ~\ M',- _
JR.~ .
l -
W- .+ff m $.
g ,,,,.hR
\h{n
+ \g <
-p : -i .
M
. A, 4og
-9
% ~
bi m
s j m % % r+'
%v ss ng. g_ f i ,
e -% R"%%iMF/Mi l
L
___ .. _._ . ,/ f y4 lJ j ' {1 g ; g g
- . a~
x m _ ,
}i* \. s..f i-
., t s
A O .
PNPP LAKE Erit paaay C CALMSO INJECTION WELLS I""'* - 41*45*
) esame aivse
!A . sw-A -Li O
PaeaeaviLLa LeAeY siss/.,,,
/ 10 ml USGS (DEWE Y) .y e sei ss$ ,* *st1e Y h',e],-,-,_,_
. _ . .L K E 0 ,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_, ,
,s. a,a
- 81'12'30"
\
O sis
- Aftetsheete 0 1 WILE e injeetlea weNe .
0 1 KM
O .
1 MFE SHUTDOWN EARTHOUAKE l
l MODIFIED MERCALLIINTENSITY = Vil l
l PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION - 0.15 g REGULATORY GUIDE 1.60 SPECTRA SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA e 5.3 Mato i .5 e 5.5 M ata . 3
)
R
~
O !
.._,__._-m._.._.,.r.,, . , . - ,.,,,,w ,,.,e,- m ,,- ,.,m , .y,
O .
i l
l 2 PNPP - BASIC SSRS 14 Hor.z. Comp's. Damping = 0.05 10 . .
i iiiiiIt i ii e i i i i i iy a g -
w M 1 z 10
=
Y N
c Ocw -
\
- n, - _
t C
o -0 2 10 y
v -
N g ,.
i
)
l 1 _
-1 ' ' '
I i I I '
10 !
I
-2 -1 -
0 :
10 10 10 10 PERIOD (SEC)
O :lin:::
!!:n:1!!
J
!!Ei$d.
"ft:f: Igg ssas - 14 aoRI2oNTAL coMPouzwTs oIAcaAx vs ao 1.6o qla!!!:nf lff!.!.?:'l'.i...
O . !
l 2 DNPP - BASIC SSRS [i4 Components 3 Damping = 0.05 10 i i i i i -
- i i ii 66 i l i i i it l r 4
g -
w Z ]
N a 10 x_
_ -f -
w o 34th '
c _
J O W:n, -
l C
c -0 \50th !
3 10 / \
-1 iet i i , i i.:
I i i i eit i i i i
- 10
-2: '
0 10 10 10 10 PERIOD (SEC)
! ,1*:R' "
Q ]%5"e*f*
SSRS - 50TH ti 84TH PERCENTILE VS RG 1.60 4
.,-,,--,v--- , a-w, , ~ , ,.w ,rr ,e----,,-n.,,---,,,.n-ww.,s_m_,-,ww_-,e,, sw,,w,w,.-._,.w,.e_ewar.-me.--_,,
~
O .
2 PNPP REACTOR FOUNDATION 31-JAN-1986 Demp.ng = 0.05 10 i i 166 i-I Ii i a it
-f I I il i .i i ,
l f
=
p aumm p
LaJ W j
- 10 /.
z
=
V / N
>=
e _
Od -
-i
?
!- iO \
E Y / N _
eunu M
egna he
-1 il' ' i '
I ! lII ' I i 10 I !
-2
-1 0 1 10 10 10 to PERIOD (SEC)
, u oir. . ..
O in N -
., g O
2 PNPP - BASIC SRSS + PNPP (1/ 31/86 Re e s .1 Damoing = 0.05 10 -
I I ii l-
= l l l l 1 ll l l } l- .l ll 1
,=. -
O W
W 1 N
>=
a= ,
U #
.Q -
- ,, W4'34(h J _
OE3 -
i c -0 v v\. so n
. s.....
10 / \ '
w g -
/
.. ,i9ASIC N-
/ i ...... -
.,n, -
.i/
/
/
-1 ' ' ' ' ' ' '
I I ' !'! I ' '
10 I
~ *
-2 -1 0 10 . 10 to 10 PER100 (SEC) 35it:R' mi?'gt ..
O =sm SSRS & PNPP (LEROY) - 50TH & 84TH VS REG GUIDE
4 8 - g O
CONCLUSIONS TECTONIC PROVINCE APPROACH STILL VALID
- NO CAPABLE FAULT
- NO TECTONIC STRUCTURE SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY
- MODIFIED MERCALLI VII VS. VI (1/31/86)
SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SSE
- 5.5* .3 VS. 4. 9q3 (1/31/86)
- 5. 3 * .5 VS. 4. 9M3 (1/31/86)
EXCEEDANCE OF SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE
- SHORT DURATION (4 0.5 SEC.)
- HIGH FREQUENCY (20 Hz)
- CONFIRMATORY PROGRAM OF STUDIES O
- g A
O .
PNPP L A E Is ERIE peaaY it CALM 40 INJECTION WELLS I "I* - 41'48'
} emans nevse eIW-2
- fel O
PaeaeaviLLE LEReY sisa /. ,,,
/ ., 10 ml usesionwsy) s I . sit stS j* *st1e s
LAKE T,0UNTY / 'ste
/
GEAUGA COUSITY
'! l j %Is 8
81'12'30"
@ Maleshoek ..
0 1 MILE sis
- Afteesheete e in)eettee weNo .
1 KM O
l
' 9 "j*
. ! I 4-hcs=
t
! n. .
, i e .I
- I II w e "V*
I~
- t. ~
s E
. l I
t j
i 3 3 5
- 8 g -
l- g % o E
I O
1~ il f s
I
~ $ y~l
- I
- gD ;
h :I i l.
- ! l g-.- ; i m ... .
- =,
3: *
~
l
- , I
- I ,, i
. g l-a
. ' %esme l
e.
I;j I
g g.
8%v a g13
. - _ . , _ , , _ . . . _ _ _ _ . - - - _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ - _ . _ . - . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ ~ . , _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . .-
, o' O
SEISMICITY AND CALHIO INJECTION WELLS NO KNOWN SEISMICITY NEAR WELLS - BEFORE/AFTER JANUARY 31, 1986 EVENT EARTHQUAKES - 11 KM S OF WELLS.
NO SEISMICITY BETWEEN THEM HISTORICAL SEISMIC ACTIVITY IN AREA BEFORE WELLS OBSERVED TIME LAGS BETWEEN INJECTION & SEISMICITY AT OTHER LOCATIONS ~IS IN DAYS / WEEKS. HERE 22 4 YEARS NUMEROUS MINOR EVENTS AT OTHER KNOWN LOCATIONS OF INJECTION RELATED SEISMICITY. NOT SEEN HERE LACK OF HYDROLOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN WELLS ANY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NJECTION WELL AND JANUARY 31, 1986 EVENT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY l
0
.s
()
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS DEMONSTRATED ADEQUATE SEISMIC DESIGN FOR JANUARY 31, 1986 EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY VI, 4.9 RICHTER
- SAFETY RELATED PLANT STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS UNAFFECTED BY EARTHQUAKE NO CHANGE TO CONCLUSIONS ON GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY
- DESIGN EARTHQUAKE BOUNDS JANUARY 1986 EVENT (MAGNITUDE, ENERGY ETC.)
- DESIGN SPECTRUM IS ADEQUATE EVEN WITH THE INCLUSION OF RECENT EVENT PLANT SEISMIC DESIGN ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE JANUARY, 1986 EARTHQUAKE
- SHORT DURATION, HIGH FREQUENCY, LOW ENERGY
- MEASURED RESPONSE EXCEEDANCES RESULT IN CALCULATED STRESSES WITHIN DESIGN h
- REPRESENTATIVE SET OF EQUIPMENT EVALUATIONS CONFIRM SEISMIC
(~l QUALIFICATION MARGINS CONFIRMATORY PROGRAMS IN PROGRESS i
l
\
i e
O
SEISMIC DEISGN MARGINS
- ACRS RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION, INCLUDING ANY NEEDED MODIFICATION, PRIOR TO STARTUP FOLLOWING SECOND REFUELING (END OF 1989)
- CURRENTLY MONITORING / PARTICIPATING GENERIC INDUSTRY
& NRC EFFORTS TO DEVELOP METHODOLOGIES AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
- FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE, AND DATABASE INFORMATION, ESTABLISH SEISMIC MARGIN ASSESSMENT PROGRAM DURING FIRST CYCLE OF OPERATIONS I
- COMPLETION OF EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESULTS J
DURING SECOND CYCLE OPERATIONS 1
i 4
i l
l 4
EARTHQUAKE HAZARD AND DESIGN RESEARCH AT EPRI ;
O ;
I l
IAN B. WALL l J. CARL STEPP H. T. TANG ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA O
i O
SOL S"3UCTU33 INTERAC"::ON 33SIARC3 i O
GENERATE DATABASE TO VALIDATE REALISTIC SSI MODELS WORK WITH NRC ON REVISION TO SRP 3.7.2 O
1 O
r m.,_. _ . . . - . _ _ . _ . ,--,_--.,_-,_m._ ,,.mm_,,_... . . _ , - - - . ,,_--,--m,.y.-....,,. , ~ - . , , _ _ _ , . . . . .. . ._ , , .. . . . - -w..--.__y,.__,_v-
EPRI SEISMIC RESEARCH O -
SEISMIC HAZARD IN EASTERN UNITED STATES SEISMIC MARGINS FOR EUS PLANTS DATABASE FOR SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTIONS DATABASE FOR PIPING DAMPING AND ULTIMATE CAPACITY 1
O l
!O s
,,,w. -----w--,e. ,. w--,- ee,-- - - -,- - , . - - - - - - ~ --s,----w-v,-- -., ~ , , _ , . - .-w,_n aw,--,r-,~,,,ne-,,nwo-,,--,,,,--
~ - . - . - . - - - . -
EPRI SEISMIC MARGINS PROJECT O
WALKDOWN PROCEDURE
- IDENTIFY CRITICAL COMPONENTS
- AVAILABLE MARCH 1986 QUANTIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR CRITICAL COMPONENTS
- INTEGRATE PRODUCTS FROM OTHER EPRI WORK AVAILABLE SEPTEMIlER 1987 FF&eu AR y
- O 1
i O
i
- D a EPRI SEISMICITY OWNERS GROUP SEISMIC HAZARD RESEARCH PROGRAM PURPOSE l
- DEVELOP PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD METHODOLOGY AND INTERPRETATIONS TO ADDRESS THE
" CHARLESTON EARTHOUAKE ISSUE" i O "THERE IS A FINITE PROBABILITY THAT LARGE EARTH 0VAKES MAY OCCUR AT ANY LOCATION IN THE CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES WHERE I FAVORABLE GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE EXISTS, INDEPENDENTLY OF PRIOR SEISMICITY"
+
JCS/LHM/3854ST68 2 O
l O
EPRI SEISMICITY OWNERS GROUP SEISMIC HAZARD RESEARCH PROGRAM PARTICIPATION.
- FORTY-TWO NUCLEAR UTILITIES IN CENTRAL ~AND EASTERN UNITED STATES.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
- EPRI NUCLEAR POWER DIVISION SEISMIC CENTER OWNERS GROUP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE LICENSING STEERING COMMITTEE
- JCS/LHM/3854ST68 1 l0 .
. ..-...- - . ~ . . . .... _ ..... _ . ... .. _ _.. .
1 O
EPRI SEISMICITY OWNERS GROUP SEISMIC HAZARD RESEARCH PROGRAM PROGRAM HAS TWO PHASES 4
PHASE 1 - METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER-1983 TO APRIL 1985 O
- PHASE 2 -METHODOLOGY REVIEW, TESTING AND ENHANCEMENT APRIL 1985 TO JULY 1986 l
JCS/LHM/3854ST68 3 O
j I
. . . ... - . . .. _ - ... .... _ . z.. . . .. .... _ ... . ..... ...
O EPRI SEISMICITY 0WNERS GROUP SEISMIC HAZARD RESEARCH PROGRAM PHASE 1 DATA BASE COMPILATION 4
METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROBABILISTIC PROCEDURES INPUT INTERPRETATION PROCEDURES O -
INPUT INTERPRETATIONS SEISMIC SOURCE ZONE INTERPRETATIONS SEISMICITY OCCURENCE PARAMETER INTERPRETATIONS TEST COMPUTATIONS i
JCS/LHM/3854ST68 4
- p a
l l
O SEISMICITY OWNERS GROUP EARTH SCIENCE TEAMS Team Members Bechtel Group, Inc. Dr. Thomas Buschbach Dr. Robert D. Hatcher, Jr.
Dr. Joseph Litehiser*
Dr. Rolfe Stanley Dr. Isidore Zietz Dames & Moore Prof. Charles Fairhurst Prof. Robert Herrmann Prof. Lyle McGinnis Mr. James McWhorter*
Dr. Rene Rodriguez Law Engineering Testing Company Prof. Robert Butler Dr. Martin Chapman
(~>) Dr. John Dwyer Prof. Arch Johnston Prof. Timothy Long Mr. Malcolm Schaeffer Mr. William Seay Dr. Robert White
- Rondout Associates, Inc. Ms. Noel Barstow*
Prof. William Hinze Prof. Pradeep Taiwani Prof. Barry Voight Weston Geophysical Corporation Mr. Richard Holt Dr. George Klimkiewicz*
Dr. Gabriel LeBlanc Prof. Donald Wise Woodward-Clyde Consultants Dr. Terry Engelder Dr. John Kelleher Dr. Richard Quittmeyer Mr. Thomas Statton*
Dr. Thomas Turcotte 1
, Team Leader l l
l 1
l 1
l I
i O
i
! EPRI i
SEISMICITY OWNERS GROUP 4 SEISMIC HAZARD RESEARCH PROGRAM PHASE 2 i
I
' - METHODOLOGY ENHANCEMENTS 1
l COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS WITH NRC/LLNL METHODOLOGY i
PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS l
I SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW
)!
SEISMIC HAZARD METHODOLOGY TOPICAL REPORT I
a i JCS/LHM/3854ST68 5 l
i l0
(0 I
I I I I i 1 1 1l iI I I I i 1 '.1 l* I 't I I I I I I i 1 I' l I'l I l i I I I
g h
. l *
'l ) *
,t . .
5 I
[
t E e/ /
i I
O-et u
4, -
+
, s
,d gE '
I ll ,
I b , 9' I '
1 i r I
i.
E
.., ye, ,,,
3 t CV '
p s. '
5 J s.'f
/ i i -
S I
9s -
t
.i
, / g i 5 e '
'* ' g i i
i s
i dy s ., ,'y 9 6*) i
, 1, . -i l k k
n '
j qq 's I g
&X - .' < >cn tl'Ms l
, / 1 i
, 1 b
/ .
r- gt I g
- e s
n . ,
i .
' (
%s ^
6, '
i i, i. y %_
5 i
_j s e v..y.: .
i -
.j, -
s' l l l l l T. I I I I I I I I I I I l- '
1 I I I I I I I i 1 I I I I I I I I J ,
i
\7 y.
I -
l -
l l l l I I I-l' I I' I I I I I I O'i. .
I '
l- - z
+ l
. . .t
. ,3
[.
/
/gN. N . - .
!"3-3.! . l .I . j .
I !$*h IEE33. i 33:: .: sg.-
[- . +
- -** I* re. r:$ .
k . : :I I. N -
- Ii'i ' gi:gIII .
- -- =
\s '
% t : I !!-
I-
\ , s g'
l, N
.'g' f.\ '
\ ~
---d,5 1-k.
\.
~
s
- v. -n ,) 3r % / ' 1..
e p
' \
1]. ,
\ '
l
.. 'N
\ : /
\ \,
- 's. ' '
/ -
l -
\
- 1
.:/ s ', .' I a \, ?':\ '
/
}.
Oi
\ =
'y V '
(
ij l'
- 7 :r+2n-I v
((gj ..
i -
1 - -
%q..:::...".-- . .. -
1.
.3 :
f .$.V- 1 j m ', 9
\
1 ./ . -' .
I
. -: {
I- + .
t y
..[ -
N . >
u ml q i
. . c' . .r.-
8' '
+\.
l , _ . .
- ,.*- ~ g 1
}~
(. .
I
. I I
/
l~ r-l-
- l A , / .
[- ~~.. . L. .T ~~ ~&~ ~
\, ' ^l OI - *
~
+y-
. .J . . l i '
/,:-l/,
- f
.(
.,..,...,.m,.-- ._ s
, -. ,-+ ,
I I I I I i I i I l I I ! I I I I I I
STRUCTURAL SEISMIC DESIGN
(]) ,
. PLANT WALKDOWNS REVEALED NO SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
REGION III, SQRT, AIT THE HIGH-FREQUENCY, SHORT-DURATION EARTHQUAKE HAS INSIGNIFICANT ENERGY CONTENT. FOR THE REACTOR BUILDING, THE RECORDED MOTION WOULD NEED TO BE SCALED BY A FACTOR HIGHER THAN TWO TO ACHIEVE DEFORMATIONS CORRESPONDING TO THE DESIGN LEVEL FORCES.
PRELIMINARY ANALYSES INDICATED A GOOD CORRELATION OF MEASURED IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE AND THE RESPONSE CALCULATED USING THE RECORDED FOUNDATION MOTION AND A FIXED-BASE REACTOR BUILDING DYNAMIC MODEL.
THE ORIGINAL PERRY REACTOR BUILDING DYNAMIC MODEL IS THEREFORE, ADEQUATE PREDICT HIGH FREQUENCY RESPONSE.
l O
l l
._.,_._.___.J
. e- . .,
SEISMIC MARGINS PROGRAM o DEVELOPED AS RESPONSE T0:
o ACRS CONCERNS o CHARLESTON EARTHQUAKE CONCERNS
! o EASTERN SEISMICITY QUESTIONS l
O PROGRAM OBJECTIVE IS TO DEVELOP CAPABILITY TO ESTIMATE SEISMIC CAPACITY OF A PLANT i
i o USES EXPERIENCE FROM SEISMIC PRAs AND I FRAGILITIES FROM ALL SOURCES INCLUDING EXPERT j JUDGMENT AND EXPERIENCE DATA i
j o WILL PROVIDE CAPABILITY TO REVIEW A SPECIFIC PLANT FOR MARGIN AT A SELECTED EARTHOUAKE ACCELERATION LEVEL
\ 9 f.!
i 9 9- O
_ ...____ -__- _ _ _ -.. . .. _. - . - _ - - - . . . - - . . - - _ - - . _ - - ~ - _ _ _ - .. .- - ... -. .
4
- .~ -
j STATUS 1
! PWR O PROCEDURE ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE l 0 NEGOTIATING FOR TRIAL ~ PLANT REVIEW (APPR0X. 9 MONTHS T0 COMPLETE) l l
i o AVAILABLE FOR USE END OF FY-86 I'
BWR i
o PROCEDURE TO BE DEVELOPED BY END 0F FY-86 i
l 0 READY FOR TRIAL PLANT REVIEW EARLY FY 87 (APPR0X.
! 9 MONTHS TO COMPLETE) 0 AVAILABLE FOR USE END OF FY-87
! e e e
- _ - - - - . ..