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 Recommendation21Seismic Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Duke Ener gy gy June 30, 2014 ReferencesforMeetingReferences for Meeting*Licensee Presentation Slides

-ML14181A032

• NRC Presentation Slides -ML141181A078

• Public Meeting Agenda -ML14167A164MtiFdbkF(tffb@)

• M ee ti ng F ee db ac k F orm (reques t from m fb@nrc.gov) *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 groundmotionresponsespectraforcentralandground motion response spectra for central and eastern Licensees(ML14136A126)

• Meeting Summary to be issued within 30-day MeetingIntroductionMeeting Introduction Purpose: support information exchange and begin dialog to have ddifhfhidiffcommon un derstan ding o f t he causes o f t h e pr i mary differences between the preliminary NRC and licensee seismic hazard resultsBackground

NRCandlicenseeseismichazardrequireresolutionBackground

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

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

• Establish resolution path, including timelines and identification of potential information needs Look-ahead:

lPotentia l Next Steps

• NRCwillconsiderthemeetinginformationNRC will consider the meeting information

• Potential paths:Libitltliftibd-Li censee su b m it s supp l emen t a l i n f orma ti on b ase d on public meeting dialogNRCstaffissuesarequestforinformation

-NRC staff issues a request for information

-Licensee sends a revision or supplement to the seismichazardreport seismic hazard report*NRC completes screening review and issues thfilidtitiltt th e fi na l screen i ng d e t erm i na ti on l e tt er R 2.1-Seismic Hazard Analysis H.B. Robinson NPP Vladimir GraizerSarahTabatabaiSarah TabatabaiJune 30, 2014 5

6 160HB Robinson GMRS 1.40 1.60GMRS Duke SSE appl 1.00 1.20 NRC GMRS NRC Preliminary 0.60 0.80 SA (g)020 0.40 S 0.00 0.200.1110100FreqencH 7 Freq u ency, H zPreliminary run was performed without kappa.

PrimaryDifferencesPrimary Differences

• Impactoflicensee

'srevisionofCEUS

-SSC Impact of licensees revision of CEUS SSC *Thickness of Alluvium layer

• NRCVsprofilesbasedonregional

• NRC Vs profiles based on regional measurements of Middendorfformation

• LargeepistemicuncertaintyinLicensee

'sVs*Large epistemic uncertainty in Licensees Vs profiles-BasisforP3shearwavevelocities?

Basis for P3 shear wave velocities?

• Use of EPRI Rock (M3) for Lower Base Case VelocityProfile(P2)Velocity Profile (P2)8 RevisionofSourceModelRevision of Source Model*50.54(f) letter specified use of CEUS-SSC model withoutneedforsitespecificgeologicinvestigations without need for site specific geologic investigations

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

• CEUS-SSC conducted as Level 3 SSHAC process and endorsedbyNRCendorsed by NRC*Per NUREG-2117 update of SSHAC 3 would need to beperformedasformalSSHACprocessandrequire be performed as formal SSHAC process and require subsequent NRC review

• NRC unable to evaluate im pact of u pdate without pprock 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. RobinsonControl PointDepth toShear-Wave Velocity Reference G/G max and DampingLicenseeNRC StaffLicenseeNRC StaffLicenseeNRC StaffGround Ground 460 ft 460 ftAlluvium Alluvium (EPRI Surface; above

1) 56 ft Alluvium, surface above

1) 30 ft Alluvium, (randomiz ed +-93 ft) (randomiz ed with Sig=0.2)(M1=EPRI Soil, M2=Peninsular, M3=EPRI Soil;

equally Soiland Peninsular; equally

weighted);

MiddendorfFm

2) 404 ft Middendorf

Fm.,

3) Pre-2) 430 ft Middendorf

Fm.,

3) Pre-weighted); MiddendorfFm (M1=EPRI Soil, M2=Peninsular, (EPRI Soil, and Peninsular; equally

weighted);

Total kappa =

Cambrian crystalline

rock Cambrian crystalline

rock M3=EPRI Rock; equally weighted);

Hard rock kappa 0.0145 s.

Hard rock kappa =

0.006 s= 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):Allilli56 ftitdf30 ft(ifidithFSAR)All uv i a l layer i s 56 ft i ns t ea d o f 30 ft (as spec ifi e d i n th e FSAR)11 VsProfileDevelopment Vs Profile Development

• Section 2.5.4.1 (p a g e 2.5.4-1) of UFSAR states: (pg)"These sediments are comprised of about 30 ftof surface alluvium over 430 ftof Middendorfformation"formation*Figure 2.5.1-2 of UFSAR also has 30 ftfor alluvium layer and Vs=3600 ft/sec for the Middendorfformation

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

• NRC assumed a factor of 1.29 for epistemic uncertaint y to develo p base case profilesypp 12 Site Profile from FSARTable 1. S-wave velocities at H. B. Robinson NPP (from UFSAR Figure 2.5.1-2).

Depth to Bottom (ft)Thickness (ft)Geologic Formation Assigned S-wave velocity (ft/s)Unit weight (pcf)Comment ()()3030Alluvium750125Moderatelycompact alluvial sandsand gravels. Develo p ed from gpthe MiddendorfFm.460430 Middendorf Formation3600130Sands (compact), siltyand sandy clay (firmto

hard), sandstoneand

)siltstone. Piedmont Crystalline Basement10000170 13 00200040006000800010000Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec)

AlluviumSCDOT Geotechnical Design Manual (2008):Information from other sites:

100Dense sand and

gravelVs= 650 to 1,350 ft/s 200 n t (ft)300 w Control Poi nMiddendorfFm. (Tuscaloosa Fm.)Tuscaloosa Fm. Vs=2840 ft/s at 89 ft(Odumet al.,

2003)400 Depth Belo w 500 NRC-BC NRC-LBC 600 NRC-UBC Licensee-BC Licensee-LBC Licensee-UBC 14 KappaDevelopmentKappa Development

• NRCusedCampbell

's eqntoestimatethetotalNRC used Campbells eqn to estimate the total site kappa

-Usingthicknessof460 ftgiveskappavalueof85

-Using thickness of 460 ftgives kappa value of 8.5 msecfor soil

-Totalsitekappais145 msecTotal site kappa is 14.5 msec-Effective kappa is about 11 msec(for middle base caseprofile)case profile)15 Kappa check Depth (ft)

Thickness (ft)BC VsLBC VsUBC VsG2/D2 Small Strain DampingQ Kappa BC Kappa LBC Kappa UBCG2/D2 Small Strain DampingQKappa BC Kappa LBC Kappa UBC20.0020.0010007741292E soil 0-201.42934.990.00060.00070.0004Pen 0-501.0647.170.000420.000550.0003330.0010.0010007741292E soil 20-501.14243.780.00020.00030.0002Pen 0-501.0647.170.000210.000270.0001650.0020.00349927084521E soil 20-501.14243.780.00010.00020.0001Pen 0-501.0647.170.000120.000160.0000970.0020.00350927154534E soil 50-120150.000.00010.00010.0001Pen 50-5000.683.330.000070.000090.0000590.0020.00351927234547E soil 50-120150.000.00010.00010.0001Pen 50-5000.683.330.000070.000090.00005110.0020.00352927314560E soil 50-120150.000.00010.00010.0001Pen 50-5000.683.330.000070.000090.00005120.0010.00354127414576E soil 50-120150.000.00010.00010.0000Pen 50-5000.683.330.000030.000040.00003140.0020.00354127414576E soil 120-2500.85758.340.00010.00010.0001Pen 50-5000.683.330.000070.000090.00005190.0050.00356127564602E soil 120-2500.85758.340.00020.00030.0002Pen 50-5000.683.330.000170.000220.00013240.0050.00358627754634E soil 120-2500.85758.340.00020.00030.0002Pen 50-5000.683.330.000170.000220.00013250.0010.00361127954666E soil 120-2500.85758.340.00000.00010.0000Pen 50-5000.683.330.000030.000040.00003290.0040.00361127954666E soil 250-5000.78663.610.00020.00020.0001Pen 50-5000.683.330.000130.000170.00010340.0050.00363628144699E soil 250-5000.78663.610.00020.00030.0002Pen 50-5000.683.330.000170.000210.00013390.0050.00366128334731E soil 250-5000.78663.610.00020.00030.0002Pen 50-5000.683.330.000160.000210.00013460.0070.00369128574770E soil 250-5000.78663.610.00030.00040.0002Pen 50-5000.683.330.000230.000290.000180.00290.00370.00220.00210.00270.0016 16H (ft) =460Kappa "budget" =0.0145 kappa BC=0.0120 kappa LBC=0.0113 kappa UBC=0.0126 Comparison of Duke and NRC SAFs from Base ProfilesandEPRIsoilrelationsProfiles and EPRI soil relations.450 HB_Robinson SAF 3.50 4.00 4.50 M1PM1P+sigM1P-sigBase prof, EPRI, bed sig=0.2 EPRI+sig EPRI i 2.50 3.00 n EPRI-s i g 1.00 1.50 2.00 A mplificatio n 0.00 0.500.1110100 A 17Frequency, Hz 1.60HB Robinson GMRS 1.40GMRS DukeSSEappl 1.00 1.20 SSE appl NRC GMRS060 0.80 SA (g)0.40 0.60 S 0.00 0.20 01 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100Frequency, Hz 18 PrimaryDifferencesPrimary Differences

• Impactoflicensee

'supdateofCEUS

-SSC Impact of licensees update of CEUS SSC *Thickness of Alluvium layer

• NRCVsprofilesbasedonregional

• NRC Vs profiles based on regional measurements of Middendorfformation

• LargeepistemicuncertaintyinLicensee

'sVs*Large epistemic uncertainty in Licensees Vs profiles-BasisforP3shearwavevelocities?

Basis for P3 shear wave velocities?

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

• H. B. Robinson Updated FSAR.

• URS , 2012.,*Assessment of Seismic Hazard at 34 U.S, Nuclear Plant Sites. EPRI Final Report, August 2008. 1016736.

• SeismicEalationGidanceScreeningPrioritiationand

• Seismic E v al uation G u idance. Screening , Prioriti zation and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic. 2013 ThilRt T ec h n i ca l R epor t.*USGS OFR 03-043. OdumJ.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 E NGINEERING. SCDOT Geotechnical Design Manual.2008 Manual. 2008 20