ML14177A086: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML14177A086 | | number = ML14177A086 | ||
| issue date = 06/26/2014 | | issue date = 06/26/2014 | ||
| title = | | title = NRC Presentation Slides for Public Meeting with Southern on Seismic Reevaluation (GMRS) | ||
| author name = | | author name = | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR | | author affiliation = NRC/NRR | ||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| docket = 05000321, 05000366 | | docket = 05000321, 05000366 | ||
| license number = | | license number = | ||
| contact person = Balazik M | | contact person = Balazik M, NRR/JLD, 415-2856 | ||
| document type = Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts, Slides and Viewgraphs | | document type = Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts, Slides and Viewgraphs | ||
| page count = 21 | | page count = 21 | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Near-term Task Force | {{#Wiki_filter:Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2 2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Southern June 26, 2014 | ||
References for Meeting | |||
* Licensee Presentation Slides - ML14176B239 | |||
* NRC Presentation Slides - ML14177A086 | |||
* Public Meeting Agenda - ML14169A437 | |||
* 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 | |||
a median kappa of 0.04 sec (i.e. a deep soil site) and a ln=0.4 | Look-ahead: | ||
GMRS Comparison 1 0.1 | Potentiall Next Steps | ||
* NRC will consider the meeting information | |||
*Kappa-Southern considered Hatch to be a deep soil site and used a median kappa | * Potential paths: | ||
-Classification as a deep soil site inconsistent with Vs base cases | - 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 | |||
Hatch Units Nuclear Plant Sarah Tabatabai Office of Research June 26, 2014 | |||
Screening | |||
* Screens in: Expedited Approach, Seismic Risk, High Frequency, SFP Evaluations | |||
* Prioritization P i iti ti G Group: 2 0.6 Licensee SSE (Unit 1) | |||
Licensee SSE ((Unit 2)) | |||
0.5 Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS (Updated) | |||
Specctral Acceleration (g) 0.4 0.3 02 0.2 0.1 0 | |||
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) | |||
Stratigraphy Site Geologic Column (Source: FSAR Figure 2.5-8, Rev. 19) | |||
Control Point NRC Submittal SSE Control SS Co o Point o El. 129 9 ft SSE Control SS Co o Point o El. 129 9 ft | |||
Vs Profile Development NRC Submittal Template velocity profile for ISFSI data used to develop near Vs=400 m/s (1312 ft/sec) from surface Vs profile (i.e. to a depth of SPID used for entire profile. 229 ft). Deeper portions of the Template velocity profile supported profile (i.e. below a depth of 509 ft) by Vs data found in the literature were developed with nearby oil well exploration (Vp) data | |||
Epistemic Uncertainty in Vs Profiles NRC Submittal Applied pp ed a sca scale e factor ac o oof 1.2 to o the e Applied pp ed a sca scale e factor ac o oof 1.57 5 to o the e | |||
base case profile for development base case profile for development of the upper and lower case profiles of the upper and lower case profiles | |||
Vs Profiles Shear-Wave Velocity y ((ft/sec)) | |||
Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 0 | |||
NRC-BC NRC-LBC 500 50 NRC-UBC Licensee-BC 1000 100 Licensee-LBC Licensee-UBC 1500 De epth Below Co ontrol Point (ftt) 150 Dep pth Below Con ntrol Point (ft) 200 2000 250 2500 300 3000 350 3500 NRC-BC 400 4000 NRC-LBC NRC-UBC NRC UBC 450 4500 Licensee-BC Licensee-LBC 500 5000 Licensee-UBC | |||
Information from other sites: Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Vs=2450 +/-200 ft/s in upper 0 50-100 ft (FSAR) Saxena (2008) Vs=1500 - Hawthorn Fm. | |||
1900 ft/s (Hawthorn Fm.) | |||
Fm ) TTampa FFm. | |||
500 Undifferentiated Oligocene Parker (2008) Vs=2296 ft/s Ocala Fm. | |||
(Ocala Fm.) | |||
Vogtle COL: Vs=2650 ft/s 1000 at 149 ft (Lisbon Fm.) Lisbon Fm. | |||
Odum et al (2003): 1500 Tallahata Fm. | |||
Wilcox Group Depth Below w Control Poin nt (ft) | |||
Vs=2805 ft/s at 98 ft (Wilcox Group) Clayton Fm. | |||
2000 2500 Post Tuscaloosa Deposits 3000 Odum et al (2003): | |||
Vs=2840 ft/s at 98 ft Tuscaloosa Fm. | |||
3500 (Tuscaloosa Fm.) | |||
4000 Undifferentiated Early NRC-BC Cretaceous Deposits NRC-LBC 4500 Pre-Cretaceous NRC-UBC Basement Rock Licensee-BC 5000 | |||
Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 | |||
500 An averageg Poissons ratio of 1000 Lisbon Fm. | |||
0.43 is reported for the Lisbon Formation at the 1500 Depth Below Control Point (ft) | |||
Farley site 2000 NRC-BC 2500 NRC-LBC NRC-UBC 3000 Licensee-BC (v=0.25) | |||
Licensee-BC (v=0.33) 3500 Licensee-BC (v=0.45) 4000 4500 5000 | |||
Aleatory Uncertainty in Vs Profiles NRC S b itt l Submittal 60 Randomizations Using USGS 30 Randomizations Using USGS B Site Conditions B C, B, C and D Site Conditions for the Upper-Range, Median, and Lower-Range Profiles, Respectively ln = 0.25 Upper 50 ft. ln = 0.25 Upper 90 ft. | |||
ln = 0.15 Below 50 ft. ln = 0.15 Below 90 ft. | |||
Epistemic Uncertainty in Shear Modulus and Damping Curves NRC Submittal M1 M1 EPRI Soil: 0 - 276 ft Av. of EPRI 50-120 ft & 120-250 ft: | |||
EPRI Rock: 276 - 500 ft 0 - 129 ft Linear & No Damping: | |||
p g > 500 ft Av. of EPRI 120-250 ft & 250-500 ft: | |||
129 - 279 ft M2 Idriss & Boulanger Weathered Rock Peninsular: 0 - 276 ft Curves: 279 to 509 ft Linear & 1% Damping: 276 - 500 ft Linear & Kappa Kappa-Based Based Damping: > | |||
Linear & No Damping: > 500 ft 500 ft | |||
Kappa and Epistemic Uncertainty NRC Submittal Kappa was calculated for each Calculated a kappa distribution2 for base case profile using Q values each base case Vs profile based on from Campbell (2009). A ln=0.2 a median kappa of 0.04 sec (i.e. a was applied to determine the range deep soil site) and a ln=0.4 of kappas for each base case profile. | |||
Base Case Kappas Kappa Distribution LBC: 0.057 0 0571 kL: 0.024 0 024 BC: 0.040 kM: 0.040 UBC: 0.030 kU: 0.067 1Imposed an upper limit of 0.04 sec based on the SPID Guidance 2Clarification needed | |||
Amplification p Functions 6 | |||
NRC (Input PGA = 0.01 g) | |||
NRC (Input PGA = 0.2 g) | |||
NRC (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 5 Licensee (Input PGA = 0.01 g) | |||
Licensee (Input PGA = 0.2 g) | |||
Licensee (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 4 NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.01 g) | |||
NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.2 g) | |||
Ampliffication NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.5 g) | |||
Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.01 g) 3 Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.2 g) | |||
Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 2 1 | |||
0 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) | |||
GMRS Comparison 1 | |||
Spe ectral Accelerattion (g) 0.1 NRC GMRS 0.01 Licensee GMRS Hatch Unit 2 SSE Hatch Unit 1 SSE Licensee GMRS (NRC Calc.) | |||
0.001 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) | |||
Primary Differences | |||
* Kappa | |||
- Southern considered Hatch to be a deep soil site and used a median kappa of 0.04 sec, while the NRC placed an upper limit of 0.04 sec on kappa | |||
- Classification as a deep soil site inconsistent with Vs base cases | |||
* Large differences in shear-wave shear wave velocities below a depth of approximately 500 ft due to an assumed Poissons Poisson s ratio}} |
Latest revision as of 05:30, 5 December 2019
ML14177A086 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Hatch |
Issue date: | 06/26/2014 |
From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
To: | |
Balazik M, NRR/JLD, 415-2856 | |
References | |
Download: ML14177A086 (21) | |
Text
Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2 2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Southern June 26, 2014
References for Meeting
- Licensee Presentation Slides - ML14176B239
- NRC Presentation Slides - ML14177A086
- Public Meeting Agenda - ML14169A437
- 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
Hatch Units Nuclear Plant Sarah Tabatabai Office of Research June 26, 2014
Screening
- Screens in: Expedited Approach, Seismic Risk, High Frequency, SFP Evaluations
- Prioritization P i iti ti G Group: 2 0.6 Licensee SSE (Unit 1)
Licensee SSE ((Unit 2))
0.5 Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS (Updated)
Specctral Acceleration (g) 0.4 0.3 02 0.2 0.1 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Stratigraphy Site Geologic Column (Source: FSAR Figure 2.5-8, Rev. 19)
Control Point NRC Submittal SSE Control SS Co o Point o El. 129 9 ft SSE Control SS Co o Point o El. 129 9 ft
Vs Profile Development NRC Submittal Template velocity profile for ISFSI data used to develop near Vs=400 m/s (1312 ft/sec) from surface Vs profile (i.e. to a depth of SPID used for entire profile. 229 ft). Deeper portions of the Template velocity profile supported profile (i.e. below a depth of 509 ft) by Vs data found in the literature were developed with nearby oil well exploration (Vp) data
Epistemic Uncertainty in Vs Profiles NRC Submittal Applied pp ed a sca scale e factor ac o oof 1.2 to o the e Applied pp ed a sca scale e factor ac o oof 1.57 5 to o the e
base case profile for development base case profile for development of the upper and lower case profiles of the upper and lower case profiles
Vs Profiles Shear-Wave Velocity y ((ft/sec))
Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 0
NRC-BC NRC-LBC 500 50 NRC-UBC Licensee-BC 1000 100 Licensee-LBC Licensee-UBC 1500 De epth Below Co ontrol Point (ftt) 150 Dep pth Below Con ntrol Point (ft) 200 2000 250 2500 300 3000 350 3500 NRC-BC 400 4000 NRC-LBC NRC-UBC NRC UBC 450 4500 Licensee-BC Licensee-LBC 500 5000 Licensee-UBC
Information from other sites: Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Vs=2450 +/-200 ft/s in upper 0 50-100 ft (FSAR) Saxena (2008) Vs=1500 - Hawthorn Fm.
1900 ft/s (Hawthorn Fm.)
Fm ) TTampa FFm.
500 Undifferentiated Oligocene Parker (2008) Vs=2296 ft/s Ocala Fm.
(Ocala Fm.)
Vogtle COL: Vs=2650 ft/s 1000 at 149 ft (Lisbon Fm.) Lisbon Fm.
Odum et al (2003): 1500 Tallahata Fm.
Wilcox Group Depth Below w Control Poin nt (ft)
Vs=2805 ft/s at 98 ft (Wilcox Group) Clayton Fm.
2000 2500 Post Tuscaloosa Deposits 3000 Odum et al (2003):
Vs=2840 ft/s at 98 ft Tuscaloosa Fm.
3500 (Tuscaloosa Fm.)
4000 Undifferentiated Early NRC-BC Cretaceous Deposits NRC-LBC 4500 Pre-Cretaceous NRC-UBC Basement Rock Licensee-BC 5000
Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0
500 An averageg Poissons ratio of 1000 Lisbon Fm.
0.43 is reported for the Lisbon Formation at the 1500 Depth Below Control Point (ft)
Farley site 2000 NRC-BC 2500 NRC-LBC NRC-UBC 3000 Licensee-BC (v=0.25)
Licensee-BC (v=0.33) 3500 Licensee-BC (v=0.45) 4000 4500 5000
Aleatory Uncertainty in Vs Profiles NRC S b itt l Submittal 60 Randomizations Using USGS 30 Randomizations Using USGS B Site Conditions B C, B, C and D Site Conditions for the Upper-Range, Median, and Lower-Range Profiles, Respectively ln = 0.25 Upper 50 ft. ln = 0.25 Upper 90 ft.
ln = 0.15 Below 50 ft. ln = 0.15 Below 90 ft.
Epistemic Uncertainty in Shear Modulus and Damping Curves NRC Submittal M1 M1 EPRI Soil: 0 - 276 ft Av. of EPRI 50-120 ft & 120-250 ft:
EPRI Rock: 276 - 500 ft 0 - 129 ft Linear & No Damping:
p g > 500 ft Av. of EPRI 120-250 ft & 250-500 ft:
129 - 279 ft M2 Idriss & Boulanger Weathered Rock Peninsular: 0 - 276 ft Curves: 279 to 509 ft Linear & 1% Damping: 276 - 500 ft Linear & Kappa Kappa-Based Based Damping: >
Linear & No Damping: > 500 ft 500 ft
Kappa and Epistemic Uncertainty NRC Submittal Kappa was calculated for each Calculated a kappa distribution2 for base case profile using Q values each base case Vs profile based on from Campbell (2009). A ln=0.2 a median kappa of 0.04 sec (i.e. a was applied to determine the range deep soil site) and a ln=0.4 of kappas for each base case profile.
Base Case Kappas Kappa Distribution LBC: 0.057 0 0571 kL: 0.024 0 024 BC: 0.040 kM: 0.040 UBC: 0.030 kU: 0.067 1Imposed an upper limit of 0.04 sec based on the SPID Guidance 2Clarification needed
Amplification p Functions 6
NRC (Input PGA = 0.01 g)
NRC (Input PGA = 0.2 g)
NRC (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 5 Licensee (Input PGA = 0.01 g)
Licensee (Input PGA = 0.2 g)
Licensee (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 4 NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.01 g)
NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.2 g)
Ampliffication NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.5 g)
Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.01 g) 3 Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.2 g)
Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 2 1
0 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
GMRS Comparison 1
Spe ectral Accelerattion (g) 0.1 NRC GMRS 0.01 Licensee GMRS Hatch Unit 2 SSE Hatch Unit 1 SSE Licensee GMRS (NRC Calc.)
0.001 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Primary Differences
- Kappa
- Southern considered Hatch to be a deep soil site and used a median kappa of 0.04 sec, while the NRC placed an upper limit of 0.04 sec on kappa
- Classification as a deep soil site inconsistent with Vs base cases
- Large differences in shear-wave shear wave velocities below a depth of approximately 500 ft due to an assumed Poissons Poisson s ratio