ML20148A259

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 781006 Meeting W/Util to Discuss SSE Program. Summary of Util/Tera Presentation & Attendee List Encl
ML20148A259
Person / Time
Site: San Onofre Southern California Edison icon.png
Issue date: 10/16/1978
From: Desiree Davis
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Eisenhut D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA-79-86, TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 7810300068
Download: ML20148A259 (33)
v • d • e


Text

. - -.

(

(.

MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION pggkg(,50-206 bkhReabng NRR Reading E. G. Case V. Stello B. Grimes T. Ippolito R. Reid G. Knighton V. Noonan D. Eisenhut A. Schwencer D. Ziemann E. K. Davis G. Lainas P. Check T. J. Carter L. Scinto, OELD OI&E(3)

H. Smith R. Fraley, ACRS (16)

T. B. Abernathy J. R. Buchanan SEPB Members (10)

J. McEwen, KMC C. Stepp H. Canter, Region V J. L. Crews, Regicq V J. Hanchett, Region V L. Reiter, NRC D. L. Bernreuter, LLL D. H. Chung, LLL R. B. Herrmann, St. Louis Univ.

K. Aki, MIT S. E. Luco, UCSD W. C. Moody, SCE D. E. Nunn, SCE H. G. Hawkins, SCE P. J. West, SCE J. Frazier, TERA / DELTA R. J. Apsel, TERA / DELTA S. W. Smith, TERA / DELTA M. Hauf, TERA / DELTA 78'lo 3c o*8

a 4

[

UNITED $TATES

'"4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 October 16, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR:

D. G. Eisenhut, Assistant Director for Systems

& Projects, D0R FROM:

D. K. Davis, Chief, Systematic Evaluation Program Branch, D0R

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETING WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS0N -

SITE SPECIFIC EARTHQUAKE PROGRAM On October 6, 1978, the NRC staff met with its consultants and representativos of Southern California Edison Company (SCE)(attendees listed in Enclosure 1) to d1scuss technical questions regarding the adequacy of the site specific earthquake model (SSEM)for San Onofre Unit 1.

In a pre-meeting caucus, the staff discussed with its consul-tants the major NRC objectives for the SSEM as it relates to licensing use and summarized the major technical issues that required additional study before any staff position could be established. Although the.

staf f did not expect the SSEM to represent a complete resolution of the near-field problem from a scientific viewpoint, three major areas were identified as requiring additional resolution prior to any meaningful decision of the SSEM's adequacy. These areas are the integration and mesh size, slip functions, and sensitivity and appropriateness of certain parameters.

After this caucus, the meeting with the licensee began with a summary of the issues identified by the staff and its consultants. The licensee indi-cated its major objectives for the meeting and proceded with a technical presentation of its proposed program for resolution and progress to date on that program. This presentation is summarized in the information attached (Enclosure 2). The licensee also presented an alternate program aimed at resolving the issues raised by the staff and its consultants through additional verification studies (Enclosure 3). After these dis-cussions, the staff and its consultants caucussed to develop its position on the required technical studies and how they would be used to reach a decision on SSEM for San Onofre Unit 1.

The staff indicated to the licensee a two phase effort for resolving the SSEM for San Onofre Unit 1; a first phase to resolve the three major issues identified above followed by a preliminary staff decision on the SSEM and appropriate site specific spectra for San Onofre Unit 1, and a second phase to confirm the SSEM's adequacy and staff judgments through

-- ~

D. G. Eisenhut October 16, 1978 additional verification studies. While the staff's need for additional technical studies paralleled that proposed by the licensee in Enclosures 2 and 3, several important changes in scope and direction were identified.

After these issues were discussed, the licensee indicated its preference to document its understanding of the studies identified by the staff and its program to rasolve the issues identified. The staff would then indicate agreement or disagreement with this program. The schedule for the s.v phase effort, staff review of results and staff review of conclusions were discussed as it related to the Systematic Evaluation Program. The staff indicated its belief that these issues could be resolved on a schedule consistent with that set forth r other plants in the SEP.

Dor, K. Davis, Chief Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosures:

As stated

]

=

ENCLOSURE 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES D. Davis, NRC C.'Stepp, NRC H. Canter, NRC, Region V J. L. Crews, NRC, Region V J. Hanchett, NRC, Region V L. Reiter, NRC D. L. Bernreuter, LLL D. H. Chung, LLL R. B. Herrmann, Saint Louis University K. Aki, MIT S. E. Luco, UCSD W. C. Moody, SCE D. E. Nunn, SCE H. G. Hawkins, SCE P. J. West, SCE J. Frazier, TERA / DELTA R. J. Apsel, TERA / DELTA S. W. Smith, TERA / DELTA M. I' of, TERA / DELTA f

~,

1

)

. 1 e

i SCE/ TERA PRESENTATION

- SITE SPECIFIC EARTHOUAKE PROGRAM SAN ONOFRE UNIT 1 OCTOBER 6, 1978 I.

SCE Objectives in Meeting

- Wes Moody

. (5 min) l 5

II.

Proposed Program to Address Staff / Consultant Comments Gerry Frazier (45 min).

1 III.

Summary of Program Objectives Stiu Smith (10 min) i IV.-

Program Schedule Gene Hawkins (5 min).

t l

1 L

t l

}

f t

i.,

{

v 5

,,.,,r.

.,,,,--.,~..n,.-..

.n,--~-

w.,-..,,...

...-nn,.,,

-,...n,r..

-,n--,--m..,.w.n.v-+n,---.,n.,,~,4,,-.,,--n.

,,-.,n,,,

v~.v,,w----,-,

i O

se GROUND MOTION SINULATIONS:

RESPONSE TO NRC CONCERNS 1.

MESH SIZE QUANTIFY OR REMOVE ANY APPROXIMATIONS DUE TO MESH SIZE ALONG THE RUPTURE SURFACE.

2.

SLIP FUNCTION EXAMINE ALTERNATE SLIP FUNCTIONS, PARTICULARLY THAT SUGGESTED BY AKI, FOR POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCURACY OR PLAUSIBILITY.

3.

PARAMETER STUDIES COMPLETE PARAMETER STUDIES ON THE EFFECTS OF GEOLOGY AND RUPTURE RANDOMNESS.

PRESENT PARAMETER STUDIES IN THE FORM OF PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS.

l' y

.\\

.1 l

i

026...'JD l'.:. 7*LON

[Qu/r rfGiV Za

&ceivea Geweniu4res

( xi, x,0, t )

e 5

l

,y' 3

/

a Reee SurrAce

/

y, MNv4\\W#

/

WJWAN\\WW

/A

/

/

L. kerage CoeeD/N4res

[ %> 0, f z,T)

\\

)

H'onow ] = q FuocrioN ) * (Grzen's/

Gnoapo fStip

+

f a n cri ai

)

t u(ht)= ll ds(g! ldt 4 (y,r) g (x,t;.y,t)

A r=o

E~TuA T.(Chi

$h. :=IC AT100s 1.

SPA' T/ ALLY ZNVARIAUT 5~LLP 1

A (yjt) =,4 (r) # b[r-Q )

waere z, ~ y. n / va is rne rwe of RuPRIAE lulTTATIGAt 1 Locnay Sixtur Geseds fua trom C]Q,6 ; yi ) ~ g (b t i y,z)*ST-4%)

t WNG/c 47p (h-hn)//2 is THE TL4 VEL TlHE DETAY 3.

LOCAL [NTEyAL APPADX/MATtou l3[dsty) ((t-r,-sr.,) x l

1 I

i 4"

hTy Y;= (%g+4 % )[~ Ts rHe T/NE DE/AY WHERE DUE 70 BOTH RUPTURE AND TRAVEL T/ME AT THE iY CCRNEA? 0F THE AufruRE SEGEM5Vr,

2 4

8 4 Cacuarwn hm :ao c

M(h t) = y j JS(g),(dr4(y,7)y(3,t;p,t) r4 A

% =0 d6(y) Alt)M$(T-T]*

g An f [3,t;.7,,r) k d(t-stn)

= f A (T)

  • f (M ; y,,,7) M { dGly) [(t-r,-Ar.,)

A,

^

1 1

1 I

"C T T Ty i

n

.s

l MESH SIZE PROPOSED RESOLUTION 1.

COMPUTE GROUND MOT 10N FOR HIGHLY REFINED C0HERENT RUPTURE.

2.

COMPARE REFINED RESULTS WITH RESULTS FROM REPORTED METHOD TO ASSESS ACCURACY.

3.

QUANTIFY RANDOMNESS AND APPROXIMATIONS IN REPORTED METHOD IN TERMS OF RANDOMNESS INTRODUCED INTO.

COHERENT RUPTURE,

.. _ _... ~..,

i

. SLIP; FUNCTI0NS PROPOSED RESOLUTI0fl 1.

COMPARE RESPONSE' SPECTRA FOR ALTERNATE SLIP FUNCTIONS.

2.

COMPARE RESPONSE SPECTRA: FOR PARKFIELD AND IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKES USING-ALTERNATE SLIP FUNCTION.

3.

EXAMINE ALTERNATE DESCRIPTIONS OF FAULT SLIP FOR POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS IN:

(A)

ACCURACY-(B)

PLAUSIBILITY

'l

i PARAMETER STUDIES PROPOSED RESOLUTION 1.

QUANTIFY HOW CHANGES IN RUPTURE RANDOMNESS INFLUENCE COMPUTED RESPONSE SPECTRA.

2.

QUANTIFY HOW VARIOUS GEOLOGIC PARAMETERS INFLUENCE COMPUTED RESPONSE SPECTRA.

3.

COMPUTE THE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM BY ASSIGNING A PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION TO EACH MODEL PARAMETER.

.T

.,-a

.-me

4 I4 E

rLTERMATE bLtp Fut;ctreras i

1.Two 42AMETEa_ ( Akr, BRuas, one ces) sup h

A.g - -.

to = Rr%E TIME TIM.E

2. Tl42es Si?AMETEG- (DELTA) stIP A

A-

/

/

r, g,= m

/

4e W

T*pa, %

tp w/g rue

._,.L.

"rs J, ya y,

..O 1

v

-g i

l N

U0 2'. 5 5'. o 7,5 3g,9 yg~3 ]5~0, I

TIML_ (SEC)

- + -

r hy M k

\\

\\

he

~..

Ni\\

\\t W

i

[Al k

J i

L M_

r f

\\

I v

\\

(

% v.~

y l

3, 3 l o.r

-n u

'O. 0 33

'y s.v 4oo FPsi~ G W E

I d

i I

l.

i

-,I s'Y *I

-]

I r!

i.,

l h

i f

il I

lj h

\\\\

-aM

,y.

v1 c' V h

1 T

i il

! j!

TD f} ;

'l D.0 5'. 0 16.0 is. J 26.0 2$.0 30.0' TIME (ErC)

4

/i i

dj,

n fWh~_

i I

4

! l.I

\\0\\l ' % ~. :-

1 i

l I

i A

Iji r

l i W,.

i

\\l',h I i

/

IDA%~.

t i

t i

I

)

A i

?

\\: 1

\\ \\'^b%~. ~_

D.0 3'. 3 6'. 7

b. 0
$3

}$.7 20.0'

-f F2ES _ltiZ )

)

.-,y,,.,--..

,-,-.,..-.,-n.

n,-

.,n.,,

,,,-w

.n-a

C,. c u.u; rmu

/viki!Op 6

Ulbt)=g? *dSig),(dr scy,r) g(5,t ; y,r )

A

%=0 d6(y) A(t)M hlT-T ) #

p An n

](Es t;.7,,t) k d(t-Ar )

n 1

n w) h

$~

~~br j

4 A,

^

z, r, z, r, t

f t

-..,.,.-,..,..---,-.--,,.,,,,.,,-,,-,n,,--,,

2"r-9-3 4

  • "4a O

54 4-'

ha&

4 h

h.

N j

gA Y

i r

f I

I t

s f

k f

d i

i 4#

Ys>

{

> a i

f x4 s

L5 cvv 0

dL.

b I

r L

.-,,..,c..

..,e.

,ywy.,,-.=,-,m...,,,

. ~..., ~,,. _ -, _, -. - -..,-.

.I\\,

// {

C.000 2.000 0.000 l

0.000 1.C^D 0.000

' 0';0

'1 t

0.500 0.07.

l t

1.000 0.C00 f

l f

-2.000

-2.000 i

1 i

g g

s%

v st\\

r g

,n-g or a:

~_

I 0

I O~

[

l

--~

t j

~

o!

0!

I qi t

1, i

h k

lI ii

~

~

j ir y

o I

o i,

c

=

c b

Ch i

a-o-

i!

o-i 0-b I'

" "6

""i

' ' ' ".'i.o '

' " 'd

' ' ' ' " " i

""10

'f

~

0.000 2.000 O.000 2.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 t

~7 0.000

-1.000 7

.866 0.500

[

\\

-2.000 f

I

-2.000

\\

g z1 L

I I

i 1

I I.

_5 OE 0

a:

.h or e

o

/q [

o i

o I

I i su e

c5

/

05 f

l c

('\\,if f

Z 2

I l

l e f 'L. i'

, ij a

lI fI O

To e

4 o= i; i l

c o:

n 0 ti

,p l

.r 1

o~

d 8!

o-L it i

o-i l

.j o-l i

a o-

. ii n i i iliin i i i liiii i

lii i i i l iill i i i tilli i

g PER!3D PER100 A

.a.a

--a e

ie oucuarwn Mernoo t

Ul?!it) = y yt *dS(g),f dr4(y,r)g(5,t;,p,r)

A

% =0 d5(y)A(t)MhlT-T)N g

A,,

f(?>t;.7,,r) x S(t-Ar )

n f A lt)

  • f(Ed ; y,, r) M ll dGly) [(r-r,-Ar,)

A.,

^

(N.

I i

1 i

T

%t b Ty 4

l i

l

e s.

J A

i h

.f 4 Inaa m

i

w I

8"

'R V f y

L h

.c m

6 D

e 8

L

_w 6

$=

M v

4s

-2 i

8s s

%4 B

=q

..o o

7

.* 4. e)

-c

$ gr a m.

,-e y-_,,3-.,-.

-,~.

.<cm-_r,---.--

..e-e-.,,,,

a.

m

fud:iW).

Tha

.cs.pl y (Dn%rttel M5 M )

N pAmps,03,.di.lO f

.\\

\\

0.." '

l'...

i

\\

f I

&_'. 00 7.25 0.3250

-g j

'N 594.

-2.00 f'

N.s N_,U i

i i

~l

,l

+

i i

o I

o

- ttSM W :.00724 l

o_'

d%%.M f

o

/

~N J

,,/

y

/

i p(A/'

i 18-a Mg, y

-a uaq

's-m U>

m_

~,.7

x__,

~//

A Y

e.

>/

J v.

i

/.

+

H,

  • -ooaa, as

. w'

-i 1

t I

i l

o, i

i i

i :. :4 e

i i c,,,, J:.,

.m,"'0 s o. O PERIJD (SED

. I!

4

\\

2.31 1 :. 3:.

l 7

~J.03 7.25

?

j D.C32 5327 i

gN _,

^

E 2

l l

l N

-2.03 i-l'/.-..J.-..-..

ij 1_

SN

'N

~

7 6

/W lyV.%#

i O

~

.j u/

-a G a~a

/

DJ.- '

/

r I[)

/

.J s

~/

f

+ -i t,,s

~

l I--

.)

I b

.o l

~

h) O~.,

e_e SS

.-A G

9 a

i f

o d

! > ji G

' ' 'l' 6. 0 r i rn i

i i i i

. -.. c )

$ $' L. O L) e

-,-,.,y--

r w

r e

t F

l' 1

\\.

0..

11.0) j

\\

23.01 7.20 t

i t

D.03:

5327 i

(

ll3

)C

~ ~ -

-2.03 i

i i

I

-J...-_

J J

a 4

P J

[*

I e

Os

\\, ; s

. i i'

  • Od e

L) O.,

Lu m U) 8

.J A

  • l

~'

's -

i-2O.

e x> o-i

_e

[

~

s e

6" ene J

Ol I

d =

Il E P i

l i i IiI'I I

l f I I I l.l J.

l l

l 1

J 1.J

.! U. O n

g c, : o.., n t.=.:.. '..- -}

Ju

_. ~.

i t.

O Cacuarwn

/4i80s 6

Ml?it) = y 3e *ds'(g) (di s cy,r) y(5,t ; y,t )

A

% =0 dSly) A(C)M h(T-7 ) N p

An

](Es t;.%,t)k Elt-Ar>,)

  • f A lt)
  • f (E>t ; y,,7) M ll dGly) [(t-r,-sr.,)

A.,

^

(*N, 1

1 1

1 TT T Ty i

t

,3 l

l l

l l

l

c iart ei ve r w-x 3

1

-- r I

l l

i t

s r

'r\\

Hypocenter V

Z Close In Mesh Size Study (defocussed) 1 km mesh

.5 km mesh

.25 km mesh

.N 100.0

/

h

^ g.

ss Nv.

y ry g

p N

/

s

=

j.

n 9

g 10.0

/

_. /

3 s'

4 m

6 m

1.0

,,,,1

,,,,,1

,,,,,,1 0.1 1.0 10.0 Period (sec)

-.-.-e.

,-,,,,.,..,m--,,.-..,n-

..,.g,

e r,m,-.,,

...~-.,v,r---,

.,,w,-.,,,,n

,-,.,e..,m,-,-,

n-ew,

,-,ns

-a e

r-e. w vam--u-,-

n

Receive-w y

r w

i s o

/4 Hypocenter 1 r Z

l Close In Mesh Size Study (focussed) i f

1 km mesh

.5 km mesh

.25 km mesh

.125 km mesh 100.0

\\

s

/

\\

~

.f 3

-?

? /

C.

C 10.0 sa

"]

I O

m C) i L

4 9

nel i

1.0 e i ii..I i

i i i i s inl i

i i i, i 0.1 1.0 10.0 Period (sec)

'l y-

....,y,y.-,.w..

,m,..,.

..r_m_.

,m

.,,we-,,,-,_,...-_.--.,

y-..,__c.1-,

Receiver v

'x

% /

4%

Hypocenter 1 r Z

m Far Away Mesh Size Study (focussed) 100.0

~

f:

  • l'.l5 l o

yY}

f

'*iA/

f

,.}

U U

1 d

[

.f

.[%*

C 10.0 n

.a.

.....y

'E

_/,.* /

1 km mesh

~c *

/

.5 km mesh

.25 km mesh

.125 km mesh

'l

I

' ' ' ' ' '.I 1.0 O1 1.0 10.0 Period (sec)

GROUND MOTION S I t1 U L A T I O N S RESOLUTION Sur.f1ARY 1.

MESH SIZE (A)

DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EARTHQUAKE MODEL (POSSIBLY REFINED)

P'AODUCES SMOOTHED RESPONSE SPECTRA THAT ARE WITHIN 120%

OF WHAT WOULD BE OBTAINED USING INFINITESIMAL MESH SPACING WITH AN IRREGUL R PRESCRIPTION OF FAULT SLIP.

(B)

ALTERNATIVELY, DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EARTHQUAKE MODEL (POSSIBLY REFINED) IS SELF CONSISTENT SO AS TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF BIAS IN PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS.

2.

SLIP FUNCTION (A)

DEMONSTRATE THAT DELTA'S THREE-PARAMETER SLIP FUNCTION IS AT LEAST AS THEORETICALLY PLAUSIBLE AS THE TWO-PARAMETER SLIP FUNCTION AND THAT THE THREE-PARAMETER SLIP FUNCTION SERVES AT LEAST AS WELL FOR MODELLING RECORDED GROUND MOTIONS.

(B)

ALTERNATIVELY, IMPLEMENT THE MOST PHYSICALLY REALISTIC SLIP FUNCTION (TWO-PARAMETER, THREE-PARAMETER, OR MODIFIED THREE-PARAMETER) IN THE EARTHQUAKE MODEL.

3.

PARAMETER STUDIES

/m e

(A)

COMPLETE PARAMETER STUDIES TO QUALIFY THE EFFECTS THAT IRREGULARITIES IN THE RUPTURE AND CHANGES IN THE EARTH PROPERTIES HAVE ON THE COMPUTED RESULTS(' ' ~

e; m (

?

r (B)

IN ADDITION, COMPUTE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM BY ASSIGNING A PROBABILITY DISTRI-BUTION TO INDIVIDUAL MODEL PARAMETERS.

TASK

'O 1

2 3

4

1. MESH SIZE
2. SLIP FUNCTION 3.

PARMETER SEDIES r

COST ESTIMATE TASK

SUMMARY

SHEET Task 1 - Mesh Size S 53,224 Task 2 - Slip Function 36,863 Task 3 - Parameter Studies 55,583 TOTAL PROGRAM COST

$145,670

. s ~

VALIDATION STUDIES PROPOSED RESOLUTION 1.

PERFORM ADDITIONAL WORK TOWARD MODELING THE 1940 IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE AND THE 1966 PARKFIELD EARTHOUAKE.

2.

COMPUTE GROUND MOTION FOR DISTANCES GREATER THAN 20 KM TO COMPARE WITH EARTHOUAKE DATA AND EMPIRICAL FORMULAE.

3.

COMPUTE GROUND MOTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL EARTHQUAKE AND COMPARE WITH RECORDED MOTIONS.

.a -

1

. i. x GROUND MOTION SIMULATIONS ALTERNATE RESOLUTIONS 1.

MESH SIZE DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EARTHQUAKE MODEL (POSSIBLY REFINED)

IS SELF CONSISTENT SO AS TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF BIAS IN PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS.

2.

ADDITIONAL VALIDATION (A)

COMPUTE GROUND MOTIONS FOR DISTANCES GREATER THAN 20 KM AND MATCH EMPERICAL RELATIONSHIPS FOR PEAK ACCELERATION VS DISTANCE AND MAGNITUDE TO WITHIN THE UNCERTAINTY IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS (ROUGHLY A FACTOR OF TWO).

(B)

COMPUTE GROUND MOTIONS FOR ONE ADDITIONAL EARTHOUAKE (PREFERABLY THE 1933 LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE) AND MATCH THE RECORDED MOTIONS (RESPONSE SPECTRA) TO THE DEGREE ACHIEVED FOR PARKFIELD AND IMPERIAL VALLEY.

r

TASK 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 1.

MESH SIZE 2.

VALIDATION STUDY COST ESTIMATE Task 1 - Mesh Size S

53,224 Task 2 - Validation Study 266,137 TOTAL PROGRAM COST

$ 319,361 l

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20148A259&oldid=4177439"