NUREG-1147, Recommends That NRR & RES Meet to Discuss Extent to Which Existing Programs in RES Can Provide Answers to Encl Generic Questions Re High Frequency Ground Motion & 860131 Earthquake: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[NUREG-1147, Forwards NUREG-1147 Seismic Safety Research Program Plan, & FEMA FY84 Activities,Natl Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, in Response to .W/O Encls]]
| number = ML20215B910
| issue date = 10/03/1986
| title = Recommends That NRR & RES Meet to Discuss Extent to Which Existing Programs in RES Can Provide Answers to Encl Generic Questions Re High Frequency Ground Motion & 860131 Earthquake
| author name = Denton H
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)
| addressee name = Beckjord E
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
| docket = 05000440, 05000441
| license number =
| contact person =
| case reference number = RTR-NUREG-1147
| document report number = NUDOCS 8610090431
| package number = ML20213E796
| document type = INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM, MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 3
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_ . _ _
  . p Meuq CR C'
* h,                        UNITED STATES P          ,    g E,                            NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION j                    wasmNoToN. D. C 20555 s,              e s., *  +*/
001 0 3 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:      Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:                Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
 
==SUBJECT:==
 
GENERIC OF JANUARY QUESTIONS 31, 1986      STEMMING FROM THE OHIO EARTHQUAKE On January 31,1986 a magnitude 5.0 earthquake occurred in the vicinity of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Site in Ohio. Plant specific issues related to the licensing of Perry have been resolved and discussed in recent supplements to the Safety Evaluation Report.
relating to high frequency ground motion have arisen.During the course of the revi these questi                                                Attached is a list of-occurrence o,ons. Many of these are similar to the questions steming from the f small earthquakes near the Sumer Nuclear Power Plant in South Carolina, and have a high likelihood of surfacing again as additional earthquakes occur near instrumented nuclear power plants.
I recomend that the appropriate technical staff of both NRR and RES meet and discuss the extent to which existing programs in RES can provide answers to these questions and to what extent new programs may be needed.
k&
arold R. Denton, Dir tor Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation                i
 
==Attachment:==
 
As stated i
i A ff                                                            esno3
 
e' % , -
ATTACHMENT                        -
: 1. What is the source of high frequency free-field ground motion? A dispute exists, as to whether the high frequencies are source or site related.
This issue has bearing on the applicability of western U.S. ground-motion records to eastern U.S. seismic analyses.
: 2. How well do high frequencies propagate through the crust? This question has particular bearing upon the effects of distant earthquakes.                      '
: 3. How well are we able to correlate analytical predictions of earthquake                          ;
motion with that actually recordet vittir. n c' car pce2r plar.ts.
Studies subsequent to the occurrence of the earthquake were not able to determine to what extent the high frequency motion recorded at Perry was due to the earthquake, or induced response of structures and compenents.
Attempts to model recorded building response were only partially successful.
This latter problen, has bearing upon non-seismic issues since earthquakes are not the only source of high frequency motions.
: 4. What types of equipment are particularly sensitive to high frequency motion and at which levels do malfunctions appear? Included in this issue is relay-chatter.
 
e&;'                                                                                                                    '
l 2-
: 5.            What is the significance of higt frequency ground motion to plant safety?
Does it pose a real problem in larger, longer duration earthquakes?
To what extent and how should high frequency motion be incorporated into seismic design criteria? The oeficiency of Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra with respect to high frequencies has been recognized in the past. The answers to these questions rest upon the integrated conclusions of the previous questions.
: 6.            How can exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) be defined                            '
when high frequency ground motion occurs? The OBE was exceeded in the j                          high frequency range at Perry. Should such an exceedance have required                          ,
skildown of an operating plant? Different instruments at the same location recorded somewhat different levels of ground motion. Criteria are needed to place instrumental recordings and their variations in proper context.
: 7.            Is existing nuclear power plant instrumentation adequate? Had the Ohio earthquake occurred near a plant founded on soil, the lack of free field instrument would have made a pcst-mortem analysis more difficult.
4 4
y, .
          --- ,- - , . . ,    -,---,---,..,n. - , . - - .
                                                            , . . , - , . _ . , -    _ _ . . - - - - . - - - - - ~ --. --,e}}

Revision as of 00:03, 14 December 2021

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=NUREG-1147,_Recommends_That_NRR_%26_RES_Meet_to_Discuss_Extent_to_Which_Existing_Programs_in_RES_Can_Provide_Answers_to_Encl_Generic_Questions_Re_High_Frequency_Ground_Motion_%26_860131_Earthquake&oldid=3374568"