ML20213D911
| ML20213D911 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1981 |
| From: | Rolonda Jackson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0425, CON-WNP-425 NUDOCS 8112010103 | |
| Download: ML20213D911 (5) | |
Text
,.
i j
NOV 6
- 33; e
1
!i
.i l
fl0TE TO: James P. Knight, A/D for Components Structures Engineering, DE FR0ft:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief, Goosciences Branch, DE 4
SUBJECT:
UtlP TELEGRN4 TO DIRCKS REGARDING SCHEDULE i
2 During a conference call with the applicant this morn 1(3 which included A. Schuencer, oiyself, the LPH and staff reviewers to discuss the meeting agenda on seismic issue, we were informed of a TUX (telegram) that is being sent to Dircks.
It is our understanding that thi.s telegram addresses the need to maintain schedule and the extensive geosciences studies accomplished to date. Although the applicant has undertaken a considerable amount of effort, he has been extremely reluctant to address the bottom line (the adequacy of the "g" value and response spectrum) in light of the discovery of new capable faults and swarm-type earthquakes).
In a conference call on 11/5/81 with the LTfi and fir. Bouchet of WPPSS, I indicated that their reluctance in this area and failure to adequately address issues as per Appendix A could seriously delay our review effort and indeed may have already done so. We also requested a management meeting at the AD or Division Director level to make sure these potentials for significant delays were addressed on 11/17 or 11/18/81.
Robert E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences Branch Division of Engineering e\\ \\ h.~
i cc:
R. Vollmer
.A
,g' 'N g t' * :,
/,
/ ' ! ' i,.
sy,
'i DISTRIBUTION:
',) Itb U U
' Docket File D ROV 1 P E#~ I1 e
4 t l
NDE:GSB Rdg. File
,-pu.s.egb,,,s.ced i
>. i 7
,f#
l MlTgQ'
/
i g
~~s
.M N
,7 DElG D M lY X
- ' I Q...".j@S'i[n' ~g'.12010103 811106
' ")"
^ """
'ADOCK OSooo33 sunuwt>
1.1../N../. 8.1................................l.............'.....w....7,.... '.....
,.p...............
--.--.w-..
. -. ~
ome) g nac rosu ais ito-aaj sacu c:4a OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
-' usw. mi-mea
Omt?teflh Apf MEMORANDUM FOR:
Al Schwencer, Chief THRU:
FROM:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief
SUBJECT:
GEOSCIENCES BRANCH REQUEST FOR ADDITI NAL INFORMATION - WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT 2 On April 29, 1981 the Geosciences Branch requeste,d information on WNP-2.
The questions dealt with difficult subject matters such as capable faulting, near field earthquake swarms and dehelopment of a site specific spectrum. In our initial review of the responses to these questions thefupplyfystem has incorporated many of these subject matters into a seismic probability study (seismic exposure analysis). While a e exposure analysis is useful (particularly for a difficult site such as-this) Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 requires that some of these subject matters be dealt wit.h.deterministically or empirically. Attached to this memorandum are items which must be answered independent of the probability study by the applicant in order for the staff to complete its rehiew.
The SER scheduled date of Feb. 1, 1981 is now seriously in question.
In the original request for additional information it was emphasized that
..the Sbpply System should maintain direct contact with the GSB concerning
..,,L..,. m - - the questions. There was little or no contact made and as a result the.J,.l..._J.-
current responses do not adequately address the concerns of the staff.
Again we request that direct contact with the GSB be emphasized. This is necessary to resolhe these issues in a timely fashion.
REJ 1h.*,. ~,* d.' *sM
- . ' k ' ". U 4.
- gg g
g
,+
g4
[4.
4 r k' \\' I O. P N
b
[h 1 N./
G 5 : n l{-:%*<fs'. % O*A Ula4 V~%.ad** W.3;'hY* ),h d fs?-
?'
m~1 :
- .L* * 'd 's *. [ f[,?J.,,._..,I,.'J.~,5
- 7 7 N,$*[IN~ ~ '* * * *
.2..',*,',,
JLlyyi"%% a,*&Gg
'.'*?i+ $%?.$.?5 & *
,.9o
- WlE5?AA %'5
-wei' - - m -m - "- '" ^:'t h e
- Y i"Y:
J
n
{
(h )
Additional WNP-2 Questions 361.16 The response to question 361.1 is incomplete. The ff requests supporting basis for the statement that earthquakes of such small magnitude are considered not to be of engineering significance totheplantbecauseoftheheryshortdurationandherylowenergy contentof ground motion associated with such earthquakes. The response
/
to this question should include an estimate of the ground motion (including peaks and response spectra) from this potential earthquake. As discussed in Amendment 18 (Section 2.5.2.4.2.3) thesizeofthisehentisconserhatihely estimated at M = 4.0 (Mg = 4.0-4.4).
As shown in Figure 2.5J-23 a L
distanceof3-5kilometersisconserhatihelyassumedbetweenthesource and the site. The response to this question may include discussions
~
items such as: (1) The primary frequency of ground motion compared to the frequency range of, interest of the plant; (2) A comparison of the response spectra sustained oher repeated cycles of ground motion (ie:
an+
tipi cycles compared to third, fifth cylces etc.) from qualitatively similarrecordedstrongmotionrecords(similartowh$tthesw$rmehentis estimated to be).; (3) A comparison of the energy content of this type ofearthquakeandmoretypicaldeepere$rthqu$keJ
.y
.h. e. a...,.j.The staff is currently undergoing an extensiv,e. review and. litigation of
+-
.. m er.
a similar situation for the V.C. Summer site. Although not directly the same (Sumer has reserhoir induced seismicity) thepotential for small magnitude nearsourceehentsissimilarbetweenthetwocases. One lesson learned from the Sumer case inholhes the length of time a difficult conceptual hi.iAh,.;
L ' ;;.. : b& M Y :: "'
- .
- .7&;-i 19:.. L~;.. t.
._ g { V? p %.:.mg;tauWh:44%Mh.MMuigiM,SA. w.u.~as..hig.M.s,.
.q-
?
. m. =. :. a. w ~ 1 :. s.. w m, w m e
.. u.. t.
,..;m.7.;
- g(
issue (smallmagnitude-nearsource)suchasthis,takestoresolhe.
Because of the difficult time constraint (SER date) the staff would emphasis that an "open door" policy be initiated between the technical rehiewersofallparties.
361.17 The response to question 361.2 is inadpquate. Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 100 (Section V(a)(1)(ii)) requires that where earthquakes cannot be related to tectonic structures the accelerations at the site shall be determined assuming that these earthquakes occur at the site. Although Amendment 18(Appendix 2.5KSeismicExposureAnalysis)incorporatesehents similar to the July 16, 1936 M = 6.1 earthquake ehents which hahe not been L
j associatedwithaspecificgeologicstructuremustbeehaluated
~ " 'deterministically. As stated in Question 361.2 one method of making such a comparison is to analyze accelerograms from similar magnitude earthquakes (similartoML = 6.1) recorded at appropriate distances (less than or equal to 25 kilometers) and site condition (similar to the WNP-2 site). It has been the staff's position that the representation appropriate for use in comparing a " site specific spectra" with the SSE is the 84th percentile oftheresponsespectraasderiheddirectlyfromtherealtim6 histories.
4...
-.7 4.~.;. wl.. 2.V,.. +,. e.n;;45 L 2X.. '.
r ?:.";.-t.,. :,:n ;,.,'h 4...: :.. Qi ::..
i.si...P5 -..... N.
kR X % R E. W s M. 2 \\i Uh
- ; ;._.. f:%
Chin 12: 5:. 5'3?% T. %
QC%20X%,,., v. CMS,y?'?V5,-4~.R.~5.. 3yy..z...: w-.g.w.i#.x. 2.%2'2t4t
~..
i x.66%.: +
.ne
.g..q.n..
.t r.
l0 a
As a item at the forthcoming meeting the staff would also 1 e to discuss 1.
The treatment of structures associated with capable faults (question 361.3) and estimates of ground motion from these structures. Many of these"potentialsources"haYebeenincludedinA:heseismicexposure analysis. Howeher,thestaffisconcernedthatmoreofthesesources should be treated deterministically. These may include for example the Gable Mtn and Rattlesnake Mtn structural trends.
.....,. ~.
..s..
- c
,e..
.;..~...su....,
.....w,..,....
.. m p.
w...,,,...,,..,y
.s 1;
. W,.. -
u.
>l'
.. ;.. j;,.4
. :a..
J.
gg.F.,(.a'.
- p'y.2,;,J. w.....,g.
.p,.p.;
....u 4,....,.f.y3
- c. ;.... r y.q 4; s;.w 4.....
cg. ;.......,s. a.s.
',. L, t.o.,,, ;, d
... r...
3
.v, -. M,.
..y
.m,,..
- e 8
_ _ _._mu.- s -..
.g.
Q g,c_,-
. ~_.. m L.-__._-
e
.,_,