ML20140E717
| ML20140E717 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/12/1985 |
| From: | Reiter L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140B566 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-535 NUDOCS 8505020021 | |
| Download: ML20140E717 (1) | |
Text
F, APR1gigg5 NOTE T0: Jim Knight, Acting Director, DE FR0fi: Leon Reiter, Acting Chief, GSB, DE
SUBJECT:
NRR/EPRI COORDINATION OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON SEISMIC HAZARD I received a call from Carl Stepp with reference to the attached letter. Carl believes that my comments do not accurately reflect what went on and that I modified what happened to reflect subsequent thoughts on my part. I maintained that they do indeed reflect my understanding of what went on and that the difference between our views reflects the framework within which we view the comparative studies and their coordination. A part of the misunderstanding concerns how one describes what the USGS will be doing. For example, Carl claims that the projected USGS/NRC conference on Seismic Hazard was not part of the " schedule" and that there was no discussion as to a USGS presentation at the September meeting. I was to determine what the scope of the USGS effort was. I suggested that Carl write me a letter outlining his specific differences of opinion and that I would respond or that we meet at the SSA meeting next week. He rejected these ideas indicating that he would call for another meeting with the presence of management.
I believe there are some major differences between our perspectives. I indicated to Carl that my coments on the matter reflected my view that the purpose of the meetings was and will be to coordinate and discuss our comparative studies and perhaps modify them. My concern with the minutes was that they implied that the meetings would plan and control them.
Clearly there exists some basic misunderstanding here as to the comparative studies, EPRI-NRC interaction, and expectations as to what the final product will be. This may stem from different interpretations of our meeting with the ED0 on November 7,1984.
I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you as soon as I get back (April 18) from the SSA since I assume some communication to NRC from EPRI will be forthcoming.
Leon Reiter, Acting Chief, GSB, DE
~
Attachment:
As stated cc: S rocoum l Sobel G. Giese-Koch
% 5 9 2 p cp 2. 1 y fa/
~
.....,'o,, UNITED STATES ggg pg
- ! g NUCf. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
- s.,
j -
APR 0 31985 Dr. J. Carl Stepp Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue P. O. Box 10412 r Palo Alto, CA 94303 ,
Dear Carl:
In response to your March 18, 1985 request for coments on your minutes of our February 27, 1985 meeting, I am enclosing an annotated version of your minutes which reflects my understandir.g of that meeting. I believe that the meeting was worthwhile and that subsequent meetings and the LLNL, EPRI and USGS studies will be very useful in helping the NRC make decisions in this highly complex area.
I recently participated in the first meeting of a National Academy of Science / National Research Council panel on Seismic Hazard Analysis. The panel Chairman indicated great interest in the LLNL and EPRI studies and I " volunteered" LLNL and EPRI sending copies of the results and comparative reports to the 15 panel members. The panel was also very interested in attending the proposed NRC sponsored, USGS coordinated, workshop / conference on Seismic Hazard Analysis which we are planning to
. hold in November 1985. If there is any problem with EPRI sending their fiay 1985 and subsequent reports, please let me know.
Sincerely, Leon Reiter, Acting Chief Geosciences Branch, DE
Enclosure:
As stated cc: w/ enclosure D. Bernreuter, LLNL J. Savy, LLNL J. King, EPRI J. J. Taylor, EPRI W. Loewenstein, EPRI -
I. B. Wall, EPRI J. Knight R. Bosnak -
P. Sobel S. Smith, Jr.
R. A. Thomas Y Mfg 's
C.. ., ,
r i
Minutes and :
Meeting with NRC/LLNL '
4 February 27, 1985~ T Westin St. Francis San Francisco, CA The meeting was begun at 9:00 AM.
Present Leon Reiter (NRC) Carl Stepp (EPRI)
Jean Savy (LLNL) Jerry King (EPRI)
Donald Bernreuter (LLNL)
Purpose clisc.wn'- ' ' ' ' ' '
To '- - - -
. Plans for comparative evalua-tions of the WLLNL and EPRI seismic hazard methodologies at f nine test sites. .
ad resdt!
Sch ed ule
- C' P" *
- Coo.1m.__abm v- -- . , , - , 3
- -~ will be initiate.d with an *information exchange we-wsmee on May 23, 1985. The following key milestones were sstablished. % eetmj b, oliit uta l e May 23, 1985 L[4Ee4-h
_ :. . a to c ^ :- 'P awed fch technical au.d ovesa re- a3 Wf tf4 eva vesw of'the W LiSL and EPRI seismic '
hazard methodologies :: -__. -- -m ef : __ _ _ _ _ : _ast allgreird rc$4NJ e4 wi%1 cq.<sm 5_. ,? ijoie 1;gr.
., _ , , .n, t.. u ...g -_ - . . - . - - . . . . , . . . . .
bulk. e4 e June 3, 1985 to Perform comparative evaluations.
September 3, 1985 g 1.LULa A EYAl e September 3-27, 1985 Prepare d M ccmparative evaluation 4 reports.
e p h'- kr 26,IYPI
~~ ' 'oo" Ag
';wik.,. 4 on comparative evaluations.
. :~. ...m 1 ~, , 1;L w...eam cu===::-_- -
i .. <.ym -.
m . November. 8t#
General Structure of "^dsh- Prete. del.m af Ebleea es fortki'3/*8C
-1 o+
med .c tiawd .raeedtjdas cmkrtT ** '
M*y*%$.s3 (1) EPRI presentation of methodology including proposed 4 parametric analyses. '
- l 1
. _ . - _- . . . . . -- - . ~. -
E., s. . :. ,
., ;.. ,., /.:.
2- -
G
, 4 % m .-?-eemO I Cyt'1" .4 LLua.d m ced
- d. s joi.d ted srter (3) NEVLLNL. presentation of mathaAal~ y in-luding proposed parametric analyses.
(t/) 'c.<(scusate r -,,r__
4 aAA% \ compar%c eve lw.Amt- . ..__
(m . . _
-- General Structure of Wrkcha 2 Sefloer met (1) EPRI presentation of draft comparative evaluations.
(2) NAG /LLNL presentation of dr:ft comparative evaluation report.
( 5) uscs pecaeMm.----- ei lui a wa[ugM ,
n._,..: -, e ,
z _- - '
+1st k. er-:-E a n k',,_y____. is + o S O " Y *
- N An issue to be resolved prior to "; ':_'.a r::;;__-
. . : c 'n :
f ..
,_ _c_ . ' " - '72: :__-_ . . _1 _ _. _ _ . . . ,~ _
E u.An.Ed U gie[A( M r~*AIiine.'emtoic[ de $[t$$le joid- re ed tm NRC 4=M (tscs sMQ
- ~ ~ ~ :: 2 : u : :
. : . . . . go_ ;. . .:
., a
..~~=__=_ . ... c. _
._ g_ --,.w--- ___f
-7 _~ _,,
,7z' 5--.-........ _.._-,a-n e The USGS has done some parametric analyses based on alterna-tive tectonic models (perhaps other considerations (?)). Leon.
Reiter will d;-_. i .- : ' ' ^ '- r ,r ; .: .._ !! - . -..- _ _
..u w - ,.
, , - w ,., 4-,,,. 2 7_ ;- __ , _ _ _ ,,,
.- m , , , 3 . ., _
' * ^ ' " ' ~ ' ' - l9towAt Toa e'{ +kret sfneoloes -fa J.2.0t aa,d&Aef, Preliminary Parametric Analysis Proposed by LLML
- 1. Test lower bound' magnitude cut-off.
-- EPRI ground motion model will be used for this comparison.
- 2. Test impact of different earthquake catalogs used by EPRI and LLNL.
-- Determine differences in catalogs.
-- Perform computations to test impact on final hazard estimates. .
- 3. Perform independent calculations of seismicity model para-meters a and b using a statistical model to be developed by.
LLNL. Both EPRI catalog and LLNL catalog, will be used.
- 4. Use EPRI's seismicity parameter evaluation method to estimate '
a and b values for LLNL source zones /w asses 3 n,. i [lic.%rus of N Ml oppnack e sehWe h=2. r.t esh.wafc;
- 5. Perform sensitivity on site corrections.
l C. 453<u Lt.u L. 4.e( smeders k W.T spr%c<oScmAAwr.t.leudsauguM 7-Tesd sta.Acuce .-f essof r mA resee,1 +o fe c.-pjmed <7 2- e . .
iv3' .
+r,,
-* plO A sien diNreces bebe+n A SPRt CAsenN .* l +4f L L ML- Cceib u:us) qp(roaches % beding cace,$ag%i7 85 Perform sensitivity on source zone uncertainties.
b&
77 Perform sensitivity on distance and magnitude gparameters.
% 8: nt .y aw.. _ icit; cf th, cim 12 tier appcsuch ; L -__1 ; _r--=
th 1_gic --- - -. u w w ua e rnr. . , Iw. o s s z c s c.t i.m 50ar2: ;nCO-Q, --& o v.. a w owswa . . w w .1 -w hw id C T. t i # i Od .
- 5. 1. o -..si .l . it; c r' 2 r r u m i c.s c.; , partial, full cc : la tis. -.-
ty"" '
'2r.d b parametcr0 of .hu a c . am. v -; - .0 5 ; 1.
Preliminary Parametric Analysis Proposed by EPRI
. 1
- 1. Comparisons to test essential differences between the 1+ar e ektse.reTC s s m __e approach (EPRI) and the L. u ..%.. . . . . . ; . . . . a co mb u o u.1 approach (LLNL).
Specific isolation of sources.
Specific isolation of seismicity parameters.
- 2. Comparisons to test details of the methodologies.
Method for truncating upper bound magnitude.
Methods for determining seismicity parameters, a and b.
Methods for determining activity rates and establishing appropriate constraints.
-- Impact of site-specific versus general regional interpretations.
Upper bound magnitude.
-- Different seismicity models.
- 3. Specific evaluations to assess key elements of the EPRI methodology.
Scientific uncertainty matrix.
Data uncertainty matrix.
The final methodology should be site independent. The NRC feels
_ that this sho.uld include interpretation of source zones, y The scoce of comparative evaluations will be firalisco at :ne May 23 l
woricshop . M atek The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 AM.
I so as b awe:M inconsdances # dbT # b- 8 8 'C' mes.n3 A.c e&Q d aAAb[ site.-specke 2.mah ym M or,[ul l
enits c4-4k 14ed sikJ: