ML20197A522
| ML20197A522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Green County  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1978 |
| From: | Burwell S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Baer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197A528 | List: |
| References | |
| 780905, NUDOCS 7810120108 | |
| Download: ML20197A522 (5) | |
Text
,
r0M RbR Y
UNITED STATES i
p'
>g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
,/
OCT 5 1978
- +
Docket No. 50-549 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert L. Baer, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2, DPM FROM:
S. B. Burwell, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2, DPM
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (PASNY) ON GREENE COUNTY OlHSTANDING ITEM NUMBER 2, GROUND SH0CK DUE TO BLASTING AND EXPLOSIONS DATE & TIME:
Thursday, October 12,1978 - 1:00 p.m.
LOCATION:
Room P-ll4, Phillips Building 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Marvland PURPOSE:
Discuss concerns resulting from initial review of blast induced ground motion.
The enclosed memorandum (telecopy) will serve as an agenda.
PARTICIPANTS:
APPLICANT (PASNY:
A. Barchas, P. Reichart)
(S&W:
W. Gruenberg, P. Dunlop)
(Consultant:
A. Hendron)
NRC - STAFF (S. Burwell, J. Stepp, L. Reiter)
'b/bfpwpcc S. B. Burwell Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
Six page telecopy ces w/ enclosures:
See next pages
/
}/
l0 l
Mr. George T. Berry General Manager & Chief Engineer Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 cc: Admiral P. J. Early Power Autt.ority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Mr. Andrew W. Barchas Project Engineer Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Director, Technical Development Programs State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Gregory F. Golgowski Planning Aide Columbia County Environmental Management Council 247 Warren Street Hudson, New York 12534 Mr. W. C. Gruenberg, J r.,
Project Engineer Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Post Office Box 1350 New York, New York 10001 Mr. S. F. Hellman, Project Manager Babcock & Wilcox Company Post Office box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Mr. P. W. Lyon Manager-Nuclear Operations g
Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019
Mr. George T. Berry cc: Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents P. O. Box 666 New Paltz, New York 12561 Ms. Rosemary S. Pooler Executive Director New York State Consumer Protection Board 99 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12210 Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley c/o Robert J. Kafin, Esq.
Glens Falls, New York 12801 Albert K. Butzel, Esq.
Butzel & Kass 45 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 2350 New York, New York 10020 Edward W. Hyland, Vice President General Counsel and Secretary Lehigh Portland Cement Company 718 Hamilton Mall Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105 William J. Spampinato, Esq.
Rosenberg & Spampinato 443 Warren Street Hudson, New York 12534 Arthur L. Reuter, Esq.
Attorney at Law Sharpe's Landing Germantown, New York 12526 Mr. John Nickolitch Cementon Civic Association P. 0. Box 124 Cementon, New York 12415 f
4
n Mr. George T. Berry cc: Algird F. White, Jr.
DeGraff, Foy, Conway and Holt-Harris Attorneys and Counselors at Law Ninety State Street Albany, New York 12207 Jeffrey C. Cohen, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1 - 2nd Floor Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Arthur Rheingold, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Mark S. Kahan, Esq.
Staff Counsel State of New York Public Service Commission Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Lewis R. Bennett, Esq.
Assistant General Manager - General Counsel Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Vito J. Cassan, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Edward R. Patrick, Esq.
Assistant Counsel for Energy NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Room 608 - 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 1
1 s
Mr. George T. Berry cc: Nancy Spiegel, Esq.
NYS Public Service Commission Agency Building 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3320 Estelle Terrace Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear ReguIatory Commission
~
Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson Professor of Nuclear Engineering Howard University Washington, D. c.
20666
August 21, 1978 MEMORANDU FOR: Kcri "nicl, Chicf M
J. Carl Stepp, Chief Geosciences Branch, DSE ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTAL AND ROUTINE BLASTING AT
SUBJECT:
GREENE COUNTY DOCKET No.:
50-549 Attached is our initial review of the applicants submittals on blast induced ground motion at the Greene County Site.
Additional analysis as indicated in the text, is required of the applicant. This review was conducted by Leon Reiter of our staff.
//D-
Enclosure:
J. C ef As stated G
ciences h, DSE 1
/ s Tea r ??
[ELECo8/
- f. T ret CHE12.7 hAEN Y l
7~o,.
2 / 2 - 39 7 - c 2 4 2.
a -76 / F Fa.o m
- 5. /2 AvavteLL, rH2 C.
G pac es.
P00R ORGNAL
d This memorandum deals with the applicant's analysis of blast (routine and accident) induced ground motion at the Greene County site as presented in Amendment 21 to the PSAR, in " Evaluation of Ground Motions Induced by Postulated Explosions in the Vicinity of Greene County Nuclear Power Plant" (Hendron and Fernandez, 1978), and in "Greene County Nuclear Power Plant -
Blast Monitoring Program Data" (PASNY letter, July 25, 1978). It represents an initial review of these documents in light of material presented in Dowding (1971), Hadala (1973), Hendron and Dowding (1974) and Hendron (1977) and additional calculations conducted by our staff.
The applicant maintains that the predicted response spectra for the worst accidental blast and closest routine quarry blast both fall below the response spectra for the OBE.
The analysis of the accidental blast problem is presented in detail in Hendron and Fernandez (1978). Predicted response spectra are arrived at by 1) computing peak ground motion parameters from scaled observations of large surface blasts and from generalized models presented in Hendron (1977) and 2) converting these peak parameters to response spectra using techniques and amplifiention factors appearing in Dowding (1971) and Hadala (1973). The routine blast problem is dealt with in little detail in Amendment 21.
The applicant informed us that the predicted response spectrum was computed using the technique outlined in Hendron (1977). The PASNY letter of July 25, 1978 presents the results of a 3 month monitoring prograc where instruments recorded ground motion from routine quarry blasts in the vicinity of the site at locations in and
~ around the site area. The applicant maintains that the peak ground motion parameters recorded would be conservatively predicted by the theoretical relationship of Hendron and Dowding (1974) and therefore, the conclusions drawn using this relationship are valid, Following are a' list of concerns which have arisen during the review.
i
- 1) Peak Motion Parameters - Plots of recorded acceleration from t'.ie blast monitoring sites showed that simple comparisons of peak accelerations and scaled distance (R/W or R/W ! ) yielded much less scatter than
- f plots using the Hendron and Dowding (1974) theoretical scaling of vs R (Pc )
R is distance, W is yield, a is peak acceleration, 1/3 9
P is density, and C is compressional wave velocity.
The best fit to a simple log linear regression is obtained using R/W !..The correlation coeficient is -0.992, a perfect correlation being +1.0.
This relacionship.
would predict mean peak accelerations of 0.044g and 0.013g for the worst accidental and routine blasts. The applicant used 0.027g and 0.01g for these parameters.
Using more conservative predictions than the mean would of course result in higher estimates (e.g. the mean plus one standard error would yield accelerations of 0.055g and 0.016g.)
Regression estimates were only computed for accelerations since they affect the frequency range where the predicted blast spectra are closest to the design spectra.
Another concern relates to the calcu-lation of the peak parameters for the routine blasts. The applicant utilized the generalized prediction r.odels of Hendron (1977).
Hendron (1977) however, stated that for certain types of confined e
/
. blasts such as pre-split rounds, these estimates should be doubled.
It is not clear whethe r these types of blasts could occur in future quarry operations.
2)
Amplification Factors - The most important parameter in computing the predicted response spectra is the amplification factor.
For the accidental blast, Hendron and Fernandez (1977) used the 3% damping amplification factor of Hadala (1973) modified to other damping ratios using ratios developed by Dowding (1971). The amplification factors for the routine blasting appear in Hendron (1977) and were developed by Dowding (1971).
Both of these sets represent mean amplification factors.
It would be more in keeping with the conservatism inherent in carthquake design response spectra such as in Regulatory Guide 1.60 to use the mean plus one standard deviation.
Standard deviations were calculated for the Hadala (1973) (5% damping) and Dowding (1971)
(3% damping) data sets.
They were 0.6 and 0.9 respectively.
If we apply the mort conservative one to the 2% amplification factors, then the amplification factor becomes 4.56 for the accidental blast and 2.1 for the routine blast.
Using the predicted mean peak accelerations discussed above results in predicted pseudo accelerations of 0.2g and 0.06g for the respective blasts. The response spectra for the
, accidental blast would than be at the same level as the SSE for f requencies > 33Hz. The applicant arrived at a maximum psuedo accel-eration of 0.lg for this case.
3)
Ef f ect of delays upon computed spectra - In computing the response spectra for routine blasts the applicant has neglected the effect of the delay.
Dowding (1971) and Hendron (1971) clearly state that the velocity bound of the computed response spectrum must include the frequency corresponding to the delay interval. That was also shown l
in the response spectra computed by Dowding (1971) form actual blasts, Assuming the delay intervals to be 9 and 17 ms (as reported in the PAShT letter July 25, 1978) then the corresponding frequencies are 111 and 59 Hz.
Assuming the velocity bound caluclated by the applicant to be correct, this would result in the OBE being exceeded at frequencies greater than 24 Hz and the SSE being exceeded at frequencies greater than 33 Hz.
l l
The concerns listed above indicate that OBE and SSE could very well be l
l l
exceeded at frequencies greater than 20 or 30 Hz, The applicant should 1
l l
be required to determine whether this is indeed so.
Revised reports should be submitted that address these concerns in a detailed manaer, In addition actual response spectra from records recorded during the blast monitoring program should be computed and compared to spectra determined from any predictive model used.
l l
RFFFRENCES 1.
Dowding, Charles H., " Response of Building to Ground Vibrations Resulting from Construction Blasting," Doctoral Thesis sub 'tted to Gradutate College, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1971.
2.
Hadala, P.
F., "Effect of Consitutive Properties of Earth Media on l
Outrunning Ground Shock from Large Explosions," Doctoral Theses submitted to Graduate College, University of Illinois at Urbana-l Champaign, 1973.
3.
Hendron, A. J., " Engineering of Rock Blasting on Civil Proj ects,"
Structual and Geotechnical Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, 1977, pp. 242-277.
4 Hendron, A. J. and Dowding, C.
H.,
"Cround and Structural Response to Blasting" Proc. 3rd Congress of the International Society of Rock
'iechanics, Denver, Colorado,1974.
l l
l
,