ML20212L142

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 760323 Meeting W/Nm Newmark & USGS in San Francisco,Ca Re Plant Seismic Design.Attendance List Encl
ML20212L142
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Diablo Canyon
Issue date: 03/26/1976
From: Allison D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Parr O
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20150F500 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-86-391 NUDOCS 8608250225
Download: ML20212L142 (3)
v • d • e


Text

...

+3 j

-/

m ap y

r-u

[

E M6

.\\

\\'I Docket Noe 50-and 50-323 j

Olan D. Parr,

, Light Water Reactors Ikench No. 3, DPM SL99 WOf 0F MAROI 23, 1976 MEEIDIG WITH NDMAIGC MO USGS 70 DTNYlRR SEISMIC IISIGN OF DIABED CANYON l

On March 23, 1976 we not with Dr. N. M. Natuurk and the USGS in San Fkenoisco, California to diam== the mafsamin design of Diablo Carqyon.

A list of attendees is 5xtnHded in the enclosure.

Dr. Nemark had 1 coked at several appcoaches fe arriving at an effec-tive engineering acceleration to be used in ev=h= ting the Diablo Canyon h i-n-He tr'iefly described the apgrosches and the ground response spectrue that they would lead to using the USGS ramsmarulation as an

, input.

i

. xg

.. u 4.g.v.

. s..,. g

.m.g.,. %,..,_ u. jw...;-

m.

Fe the magnitu$e 7.5 earthquake zww=== ruled by USGS, very high amalern-tions of about lg and above cxmld ocotre at the site fe a few peaks in the ground untion as diarmaad in USGS Cirtmlar 672. In amentlance with estah14mhed rectices, hoWeVer, these runbers which represent a.few I

peaks are not cor=4dared aPirogr' late fe haign purToses. Instead an i

acceleration u.u-i-:- iirg to the mean value plus one standart1 devia-

  • te value f e design tion (one sigma) is used. In this case the ea.ur a

purposes would be about 0.75g.

The 0.75g value, while it represents the mean plus one signa which is approixiate fe design, also rwp M.s the free field motion to which a small instrument or structure would zwspcmd. Large ma==4ve structures do not, in effect, rw nd to the. free field motion but to scsnething r

less. Accordingly, ar== reduction from 0.75g to amenwit fe this effect could be techriinally justified in this case.

Dr. Newnerk described his apgroaches to date to determine what reduc-tions would be justified. These were centered on a consideration of how the==hir waves would interact with a large massive structure.

Dr. Kapur dearw'ibed his apgroaches to date, which ceneered on considern-tions of the spectral energy content at rock sites.

D. Bernruder deamibed work he had perfanned concerning modification of ground response spectra due to velocity considerutions at rock sites, attenua -

i tion of motion through the sai-doi.we and nudstone layers under the site, and attenuation of motion in rock-structures interactions.

8605250225 860001

-oeress,

PDR FOIA HOUCHS6-391 PDR owemams ).

FO*.Mg-39 /

A eQ - 5l

  • a'*
  • Pese ABC 315 (Rae. MM ABCM 0240 W u. s. oovenament paintene orrects tota.sae.soe

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

7...

.. :. s -

_9

- x X;-

1

')

~'

)

MAR R 4 B76 A great deel of.discussirm was then devoted to these differwit apgrosches and to shat the exact nature of the ground response spectrum fe Diablo Cargon should be. Although we did not zwnoh agressent on the exact nature of the ground response.wa, there was gensaul agreement that it would be in the nein.bc.G.44 of the sociating zwsponse spectru (either the 0.4g eiginal design spectrum e 0.5g Hoegri spectrum against which the plant has mirundy been evaluated). It would be sonewhat acxw seware then these existing spectra in sc== frequency zunges, requiring zeenalysis and, in some osses, strengthening. It appeared that the structures would be adequate as built fe the required spectrsa but F

that some systmas and acupements mounted near the base slab would need

~

strengthening.

We also diar===ad the USGS raar===ndation. It w id that the final USGS ripwi could be sent soon. It would be essentially the same recon-mandation as ccz*ain=d in the draft USGS r--

4 of January 12, 1976, the only difference being mince changes in It was agreed that USGS

- umuld send.the final zwport in the next week er tub. -

^-

3 -~

N EW The next meeting was scheduled for April 12, 1976 in Bethesda or Reston.

It appeared that we could have Dr. Nenaark's final rww*ation at p

that time, following his oormiderations of the ev=rmartts and ideas which had been ; resented at this meeting. It also appeared that, Irie to the April 12 meeting, the staff cmuld cormide the ocements and idaan which had been ed.ed and be ready to act quickly an Dr. Newmark's r

final r+_- - - "# fr=m.

Original Signed By,'

Dennis P. AlliSOIL D. P. All 4 ann

~-

Light Water Reactors Branch !b. 3 Division of Project Management oc: Senrice List I

F'C ' >. gg3 ownwa nes

  • _g1I{ q g

{.

3/ /70 Form ABC.313 (Re P.33) ABCM 0240 W v. a. sovanneesar paintene orrecas sera.mae.soe

. e...~

~

.c i

y.

&. K.

'I

'i

'.k i'

7 l

~~

  • 4 576 y

LIST OF ATIDOES MMK3123,1976 NRC - STAIT LX4W' R. C. DeYoung y,c a ll J. C. Stepp D. P. Allison l'~

J. Tourte12otte USGS

& Cbitar s,liliP6iWb

,y OTHER STAFF CONSULTANTS N. M. Ihk, University of Illinois D. Bemtuder, Lawrence Livermore Lab.

' FFSCs >

O sumMansa k pars >

b ABC.)la (Rev. SS)) AECM 0240

  • u. o..OVERNMENT PetpeFIN. OFFDCEa 9974 58 94.

.mg_

,7 7

$e 4

.,,-W-u.

MAR 4 196 DOCKER 30. 50-275 and 50-323 FACILITY: Diablo Canyon u=elear Power Flaat (Diablo Canyon)

AFFLICAET Facific Gas & Electric Company SUMd&RY N MEETIEG BEIA 05 FEREBARY 5,1976 TO DISCUSS GEOLOGY AE I

marsmanr4 0F DIAELO CAENE SITE.

Da February 5, 1976 we met in Menlo Park, california with Pacific Ces l

and Electric Ceaptay (PG&E) and the U. 5. Geological Survey (USGS) to L

discuss geology and==i===1=gy of the Diablo Cemyon site. A list of attendees is enclosed.

l l

The purpose of the===ef== was to discuss the differences of opinion which had arisen regarding geology and==4 --M_ -J at this site, to hear PG&E's views regarding such differences and to give PG&E our views and these o'f the USGS. A y a ::f agende, which was used to guide the di -==4a=, is enclosed.

With regard to the northern and of the Boegri fault and its possible ceamactime with the Sea Simeon fault, D. n==41*a= presented PG&E's visse on the investigatises conducted in that area. He stated that phes ha places greatest weight en the physical work in the area of the possible esmaestima, which de not demonstrate a commention. Es also cited thh @ of movener.t en the Esegri feelt.

C. Hall of the

. University of California a.t Ime Ameeles (DCLA) presented a m of

. '~

..' 2 his work as==eaking ser.Qhic segnances, which suggest about 80 M1===*m of stribs slip seveneemt en the Boogri fanit in the last 5-13 millien years.

E. Wagner of 53Gs stated that, while the physimi data de est indsames a======*4== with the San Simess fault, they

,.,g asisher diagesse such a======*4== h====== et 14=4*=*4-en how eless to shora survey ships he'd been able to go.

H. Colter of USGS stated that, while USGS would be willing to review durther information which may be submitted, it did not seem the positive proof one way or the other was necessary to the situation at hand. He read the draft USGS conclusion 'to demonstrate this point. A copy of the draft USGS conclusion is enclosed.

With regard to the location of the 1927 earthwuake, S. Smith presented the applicant's views. He stated that the teleseismic location data were poor and should not be used to indicate that the 1927 earthquake was

/j or night have,been located on the Hosgri fault. He discussed other

/

evidence indicating that it was not on the Hosgri fault.,We questioned smi :n on wnetner

ne telt errects or tne i n/ eartnquase v.su s e A===A.uu=%.
  • M
omca, b

OATE >

' g ~4fi/

A rena a5C-51e tRev.S.53) ABCM 0340 em r ^^ ~ f =*17e

,.7,, u,A7y.g

[g p. gy

a - ~.. _..:

(

(

o Ed M taken by themselves, indiente that the earthquake was further away from the coast than the Boogri fanit. Smith stated his opinion that, while the felt area isas small for such a large earthquake so close to the coast, it was within the range of variability for earthquakes.

He, therefore, could not agree that the size of the felt area could be used to positively preclude the possibility of the 1927 earthquake having i

g been located on the Beogri faalt. Smith did however, state his opinica that his work using g intervals to locate the earthquake and its aftershocks clearly indicate that the 1927 earthquake was not on the 6

Boogri fealt, espaa4=11y when taken with other evidence such as ship

(

reports, type of motica and fish kills.

H. Colter stated USGS opinion s

that the t=1===4==ie location data is the keystone to assessing the

{

l location of the 1927 earthquake.

g.

(f,

Regarding the soutbarn termination of the Boagri fault, D. Hamiltoa.

E. Magaer, D. Willingham sad J. C. Stepp and 1.'Bofmaa====4==d sad dime===ad saia=4e profile, M fault maps to obtain a better understand-(. /k.

ing of the specific points where PG&E's interpratatians of the data

}

e differ from the USGS interpretations. (The USGS-opinica is that the

i Bosgri fault captinues further - t h ed them PG&E's interpretations
L indlemte).

i' \\

OriginalSigned By

(

Dennis P. Allison misP.nu a

,f tor gg ya,,,.

h.- e - w w.. e. w g

-W +. y..

Divistaa of Project Management

'k f

j%

man 1 amares 4

1.

List of attendees 2.- Proposed agenda

\\

3.

'g

.@s USGS eiraft co=e1==4an,s

. s.

..p.

4

~

ee: Service list 1

i

\\

t

.All<3 L-suswanaer >

n:ndf _

om>3ff//l6

~.

  • e rg$P - -

,e 4+

'3 M

y esc-me.*-m Anos:aa

'.f:

.P = =4

" * = '-

~

~'

n~

i, 3,~ c V -W

  • 2,;

l!k 3

.~

t z, u _. -.

-..y -- -..,w 4l.

.r s n

t-g

.s.

_ e

. ~

~#

},

..Q g

'D Attendmace List Meetina Held With Pacific Gas & Electric Company i;

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant February 5. 1976 USGS PG&E PG4E CON 6JLTANTS S

t 2

F. A. McKeown W. J. Lindblad Stewart Smith H. W. Coulter R. V. Bettinger Richard Jahns

[

I F. N. Houser V. J. Ghio Douglas Hamilton J. F. Devine P. A. Crane C. Richard Willingham H. C. Wagner F. F. Mauts Michael Keaton M

C. A. Hall G. O. Gates Harvey Wagner W. B. Joyner Richard Meehan M. Hill John Blume D. McCulloch J. C. Morrissey REPORTERS NRC - STAFF 4

p 1

D. Kutzman D. P. Allison i

J. Staley J. C. Stepp D. Perlman H. R. Denton R. B. Hoffaan L. D. Driis T. Young J. Hanchett i

-l s

l l

e i

l i

errecs >

even a w e y o ATs %

....., N Y.

Foran AEC 338 (Rev. 9 $3) AECM 0240

  1. u. s. oovenwnswT resNTime orrscs seve.sas-see
'.?

h w.

PROPOSED AGZNDA USGS - APP *.ICANT MEETING DIABLO CMiYON 1.

Detailed discussion of each profile intersecting or possibly intersecting the Hosgri fault near its Southern termination as mapped by Hoskins and Griffith 1970 or USGS other than in published or open file maps.

2.

Discussion of all doct=entable phenomenon regarding the northern end of the fault and possible connection with the San Simeon e.g. borings and the stratigraphic relationship recently proposed by Hall.

3.

The epicenter and error associated with an unweighted solution of all seismic data for the 1927 Pt. Arguello earthquake.

N 4'.

The accuracies of P times given in the ISS, ISC or BCIS for data used in the 1927 re-solution.

5.

The effect of gaps in afimuchal coverage and th'a critical dependence on data at about 340*, pointed out by Engdahl, on th'e

' shape of the 95% confidence areas over the. proposed epicenters.

6.

Reconcilliation of Intensity contours and proposed locations of the M=7.25 1927 Pt. Arguello earthquake.

7.

Reconcilliation of the maximum Intensity observed with the proposed epicenters of the M=7.25, 1927 Pt. Arguello earthquake.

8.

Discussion of attenuation and method of specification of design accelerationsorotherparameters.

u __

ee.

R:$A Brs-39/

A -50

. ~.. -

s'.

v-

.g,

,/ f

,.,3, s

T

)

-).

V. (l -i....

~

i S.V/ / J{ D l

,/.,< Li w"

'. 3 : ',

.,j habe

l

/f/2.f7L,

c. m. V / 9 v

-$b)',A P tl3.,

>,l

. Conclusions

'Although the FSAR includes a considerable amount of n M'

ew informa-tien and analysis, the only change that can be made in th e original conclusions transmitted to the NRC'on January 28, 1975, is to be more cpecific in our estimate of the design basis earthquake. This is based upon the following facts hnd judgments.

1.

The Hosgri fault zone is more than 90 miles long and may even tectonically coupled to the San simeon fault as they are withi n 2.5 i

milco of each other and both form par'ts' of the eastern boundary of th

e. '

Santa Maria basin.

e t,

9 i

n f%rA %-39/

e-so

4

i. m:.

.).

'}

11' f

2.

Marked changes [in thickness and signature of acoustical units

'i j

Ecr:ss the Ilosgri fault zonc in several profiles indicates evidence of I

intaral slip. This yas noted in our review of January 28, 1975, but such

. chtages are even mo're aiandant in the profiles of Amendment 31.

Right-lateral movement is reported for the San Simeon fault., These data guggest that displa< eme,nts on the Ho,sgri fault are related to the

~

highly ac ive San Andreas plate-boundary system.

~3.

The length

  • of the Lompoc fault appears incompatible with the
  • ~

magnitude of the 1927 earthquake.,

4.

The liosgri fault is closer to the center of the estimates of crrar of both Engdahl a'nd Gawthrop than any other fault.

It'is there-

' q

' fera a.possible source of the 1927 earthquake.

~

5.

Equivocal evidence related to vertical displacement on the Hosgri fruit in the epicentral area of *the 1927 earthquake does not eliminate it as a source.

Surface, rupture is generally discontiriuous, and if lettral slip occurred, it probably would not be. detected.~ offset of the ba o of post Wisconsinan sediments and. probable faulting of them is

  • l E

avidince of post-Pleistocene movement.

For the above reasons and discussions given in the review, we etnclude that the 1927 ear'thquake could have occurred on the llosgri fcult and that a similar earthquake with a ma'gnitude in the range of 7.0 - 7.5 could occur in the future anywhere along the llosgri fault.

0 f

j

^

y. -
c

. n

.~

.. wh -

7s.

2 .

12 Page 12

.).

).

Revised

~

2-3-76 6.

We repcot our opinion that, for sites within ld km of the

~

surface expression of a fault, the description of maximum earthquake ground motion by means of a single acceleration value may not be an appropriate represengation.

Consequently, we feel that it is appropriate that the Safe Shutdown carthquake for this site be described in.ter=s of near-fault horizontal ground motion.. A technique for such a description is presented in the Geologi, cal Survey Circular 672 entitled " Ground Motion Values for Use in the Seismic Design of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System" (Ref. 4).

It is our intention that the ground motion values as shown in Table 2 "Near-fault horizontal ground motion" of'Ref'. (4) for magnitude 7.0 WMNt and 7.5 be used to form the basis of a description of the earthquake postulated to have the potential for occurring on the Hosgri fault at a point nearest to the Diablo Canyon site subject to che, conditions placed on these values in Ref. 4.

It is intended, also, that this potential carthquake be considered in addition to all earthquakes considered previously by the applicant during the construction permit review process.

?

l l

S O

e e

4 4

=

b e

Fo2 A 21 4 9/

A-5o

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20212L142&oldid=3996663"