ML14181A078

June 30 NRC Slides for Public Meeting with Duke - NTTF 2.1 - Seismic Reevaluation - GMRS

ML14181A078
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson
Issue date:	06/30/2014
From:	Michael Balazik Japan Lessons-Learned Division
To:
Balazik M, NRR/JLD, 415-2856
References
Download: ML14181A078 (20)

Text

Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2 2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Duke Energygy June 30, 2014

References for Meeting

• Licensee Presentation Slides - ML14181A032

• NRC Presentation Slides - ML141181A078

• Public Meeting Agenda - ML14167A164

• M ti FFeedback Meeting db k FForm ((requestt ffrom mfb@nrc.gov) fb@ )

• May 9, 2014, NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for central and eastern US Licensees (ML14111A147)

• May 21, 2014, NRC memo providing preliminary staff ground motion response spectra for central and eastern Licensees (ML14136A126)

• Meeting Summary to be issued within 30-day

Meeting Introduction

Purpose:

support information exchange and begin dialog to have common understanding d di off the h causes off the h primary i diff differences between the preliminary NRC and licensee seismic hazard results

Background:

NRC and licensee seismic hazard require resolution to support a final seismic screening decision and to support related follow-on submittals Outcomes:

• Begin NRC and licensee resolution to support regulatory decisions and development of seismic risk evaluations, as appropriate

• Establish resolution path, including timelines and identification of potential information needs

Look-ahead:

Potentiall Next Steps

• NRC will consider the meeting information

• Potential paths:

- Licensee Li submits b it supplemental l t l iinformation f ti bbased d

on public meeting dialog

- NRC staff issues a request for information

- Licensee sends a revision or supplement to the seismic hazard report

• NRC completes screening review and issues th fi the finall screening i d determination t i ti lletter tt

R 2.1-Seismic Hazard Analysis H.B. Robinson NPP Vladimir Graizer Sarah Tabatabai June 30, 2014 5

6 HB Robinson GMRS 1 60 1.60 GMRS Duke 1.40 SSE appl 1.20 NRC GMRS 1.00 NRC Preliminary 0.80 SA (g)

S 0.60 0.40 0 20 0.20 0.00 0.1 1 10 100 Freq enc Hz Frequency, H Preliminary run was performed without kappa. 7

Primary Differences

• Impact of licensees licensee s revision of CEUS-SSC CEUS SSC

• Thickness of Alluvium layer

• NRC Vs profiles based on regional measurements of Middendorf formation

• Large epistemic uncertainty in Licensees Licensee s Vs profiles

- Basis for P3 shear wave velocities?

• Use of EPRI Rock (M3) for Lower Base Case Velocity Profile (P2) 8

Revision of Source Model

• 50.54(f) letter specified use of CEUS-SSC model without need for site specific geologic investigations

• Section 2.2 of SPID states that use of CEUS-SSC as published is appropriate appropriate

• CEUS-SSC conducted as Level 3 SSHAC process and endorsed by NRC

• Per NUREG-2117 update of SSHAC 3 would need to be performed as formal SSHAC process and require subsequent NRC review

• NRC unable to evaluate impact p of update p without rock hazard curves for Robinson 9

Site Location: Southwest shore of Lake Robinson in northwest Darlington County, South Carolina 10

Comparison of Site Response Profiles H.B. Robinson Control Point Depth to Shear-Wave G/Gmax and Damping Velocity Reference Licensee NRC Staff Licensee NRC Staff Licensee NRC Staff Ground Ground 460 ft 460 ft Alluvium Alluvium (EPRI Surface; surface (randomiz (randomiz (M1=EPRI Soil, Soil and above above ed +-93 ed with M2=Peninsular, Peninsular; equally

1) 56 ft 1) 30 ft ft) Sig=0.2) M3=EPRI Soil; weighted);

Alluvium, Alluvium, equally Middendorf Fm

2) 404 ft 2) 430 ft weighted); (EPRI Soil, and Middendorf Middendorf Middendorf Fm Peninsular; equally Fm., Fm., (M1=EPRI Soil, weighted);

3) Pre- 3) Pre- M2=Peninsular, Total kappa =

Cambrian Cambrian M3=EPRI Rock; 0.0145 s.

crystalline crystalline equally Hard rock kappa =

rock rock weighted); 0.006 s Hard rock kappa

= 0.006 s

• Control point defined at the top of alluvium FSAR Appendix 2.5E, letter from Dr. Housner)

• Licensee considered the following modifications from MACTEC (URS, 2012):

Alluvial All i l llayer iis 56 ft instead i t d off 30 ft (as

( specified ifi d iin th the FSAR) 11

Vs Profile Development

• Section 2.5.4.1 (p (page g 2.5.4-1)) of UFSAR states:

These sediments are comprised of about 30 ft of surface alluvium over 430 ft of Middendorf formation formation

• Figure 2.5.1-2 of UFSAR also has 30 ft for alluvium layer and Vs=3600 ft/sec for the Middendorf formation

• Odum et al., 2003 estimates Vs=2840 ft/sec at 89 ft depth for Middendorf

• NRC assumed a factor of 1.29 for epistemic uncertaintyy to developp base case pprofiles 12

Site Profile from FSAR Table 1. S-wave velocities at H. B. Robinson NPP (from UFSAR Figure 2.5.1-2).

Assigned Unit Depth to Geologic S-wave Thickness weight Comment Bottom Formation velocity (ft) (pcf)

((ft)) ((ft/s))

Moderately compact 30 30 Alluvium alluvial sands and 750 125 gravels. Developed g p from the Middendorf Fm.

Sands (compact), silty Middendorf and sandy clay (firm to 460 430 3600 130 Formation hard),) sandstone and siltstone.

Piedmont Crystalline 10000 170 Basement 13

Information from other sites: Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 SCDOT Geotechnical Design 0 Manual (2008): Alluvium Dense sand and gravel Vs= 650 to 1,350 ft/s 100 200 Depth Below w Control Poin nt (ft)

Tuscaloosa Fm. Vs=2840 Middendorf Fm.

ft/s at 89 ft (Odum et al., (Tuscaloosa Fm.)

2003) 300 400 NRC-BC 500 NRC-LBC NRC-UBC Licensee-BC Licensee-LBC Licensee-UBC 14 600

Kappa Development

• NRC used Campbell Campbellss eqn to estimate the total site kappa

- Using thickness of 460 ft gives kappa value of 8 8.5 5

msec for soil

- Total site kappa is 14 14.5 5 msec

- Effective kappa is about 11 msec (for middle base case profile) 15

Kappa check Small Small Thickness Strain Kappa Kappa Kappa Strain Kappa Kappa Depth (ft) (ft) BC Vs LBC Vs UBC Vs G2/D2 Damping Q BC LBC UBC G2/D2 Damping Q Kappa BC LBC UBC 20.00 20.00 1000 774 1292 E soil 0-20 1.429 34.99 0.0006 0.0007 0.0004 Pen 0-50 1.06 47.17 0.00042 0.00055 0.00033 30.00 10.00 1000 774 1292 E soil 20-50 1.142 43.78 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 Pen 0-50 1.06 47.17 0.00021 0.00027 0.00016 50.00 20.00 3499 2708 4521 E soil 20-50 1.142 43.78 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 Pen 0-50 1.06 47.17 0.00012 0.00016 0.00009 70.00 20.00 3509 2715 4534 E soil 50-120 1 50.00 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00007 0.00009 0.00005 90.00 20.00 3519 2723 4547 E soil 50-120 1 50.00 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00007 0.00009 0.00005 110.00 20.00 3529 2731 4560 E soil 50-120 1 50.00 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00007 0.00009 0.00005 120.00 10.00 3541 2741 4576 E soil 50-120 1 50.00 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00003 0.00004 0.00003 140.00 20.00 3541 2741 4576 E soil 120-250 0.857 58.34 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00007 0.00009 0.00005 190.00 50.00 3561 2756 4602 E soil 120-250 0.857 58.34 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00017 0.00022 0.00013 240.00 50.00 3586 2775 4634 E soil 120-250 0.857 58.34 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00017 0.00022 0.00013 250.00 10.00 3611 2795 4666 E soil 120-250 0.857 58.34 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00003 0.00004 0.00003 290.00 40.00 3611 2795 4666 E soil 250-500 0.786 63.61 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00013 0.00017 0.00010 340.00 50.00 3636 2814 4699 E soil 250-500 0.786 63.61 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00017 0.00021 0.00013 390.00 50.00 3661 2833 4731 E soil 250-500 0.786 63.61 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00016 0.00021 0.00013 460.00 70.00 3691 2857 4770 E soil 250-500 0.786 63.61 0.0003 0.0004 0.0002 Pen 50-500 0.6 83.33 0.00023 0.00029 0.00018 0.0029 0.0037 0.0022 0.0021 0.0027 0.0016 Kappa "budget" kappa kappa kappa H (ft) = 460 = 0.0145 BC= 0.0120 LBC= 0.0113 UBC= 0.0126 16

Comparison of Duke and NRC SAFs from Base Profiles and EPRI soil relations relations.

HB_Robinson SAF 4 50 4.50 M1P 4.00 M1P+sig M1P-sig Base prof, EPRI, bed sig=0.2 3.50 EPRI+sig EPRI i EPRI-sig 3.00 2.50 A

Amplification n

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency, Hz 17

HB Robinson GMRS 1.60 GMRS Duke 1.40 SSE appl 1.20 NRC GMRS 1.00 0.80 SA (g)

S 0 60 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 01 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency, Hz 18

Primary Differences

• Impact of licensees licensee s update of CEUS-SSC CEUS SSC

• Thickness of Alluvium layer

• NRC Vs profiles based on regional measurements of Middendorf formation

• Large epistemic uncertainty in Licensees Licensee s Vs profiles

- Basis for P3 shear wave velocities?

• Use of EPRI Rock (M3) for Lower Base Case Velocity Profile (P2) 19

References

• H. B. Robinson Updated FSAR.

• URS,, 2012.

• Assessment of Seismic Hazard at 34 U.S, Nuclear Plant Sites. EPRI Final Report, August 2008. 1016736.

• Seismic EEvaluation al ation G Guidance.

idance Screening Screening, Prioriti Prioritization ation and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic. 2013 T h i lR Technical Report.

t

• USGS OFR 03-043. Odum J.K. et al., Near-Surface S-wave and P-wave Velocities of Primary Geological Formations on the Piedmont and Atlantic Coastal Plain of South Carolina, USA . 2003.

• GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING. SCDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. 2008 20