ML15331A197: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Near-term Task Force Recommendation21Seismic Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Enter gy gy June 19, 2014 ReferencesforMeetingReferences for Meeting*Licensee Presentation Slides
{{#Wiki_filter:United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of:                    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.                                         NYS000528 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
-ML14169A072
ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Submitted: June 9, 2015 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS000528-00-BD01                Identified: 11/5/2015 Admitted: 11/5/2015                        Withdrawn:
*NRC Presentation Slides -ML14169A489
Rejected:                                      Stricken:
*Public Meeting Agenda -ML14161A361MtiFdbkF(tffb@)
Other:
*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)
Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2                                           2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Entergy gy June 19, 2014
*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 di ng 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 NTTF Recommendation 2.1-SfPliiSii S ummary o f P re li m i nary S e i sm i c Hazard Anal y sis: yIndian Point Units 2 and 3 June 19, 2014Jon Ake-NRC Indian Point 2 1.2 1.4 0.8 1(g)0.4 0.6SA 0 0.2 0.1 1 10 100Frequency (Hz)LicenseeSSELicenseeGMRSNRCGMRS IHS/RLE Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRSNRC GMRS IHS/RLE Indian Point 3 1.2 1.4 0.8 1(g)0.4 0.6SA 0 0.2 0.1 1 10 100Frequency (Hz)LicenseeSSELicenseeGMRSNRCGMRS Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRSNRC GMRS Summary of Issues
*Licensee did not perform site response analysis. Cited P-wave refraction profile as justification pj*NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
*NRC staff concludes both Units screen-infor all risk evaluation activities
-Difference due to site response, not rock hazard
*Additional information on plant-level capacity ilddiIP3bittlwas i nc l u d e d i n IP3 su b mitt a l. -Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March SeismicHazardandScreeningReportsubmittal Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal PartialListofReferencesUsedPartial List of References Used*IP UFSAR Rev. 23 (IP2)
*GZA, 2008, HydrogeologicSite Investigation Report for the Indian Point Energy CenterML102910404(FOIAwebpackage
)Center. ML102910404 (FOIA web package)*Licensee September 2013 and March 2014 submittals
*Memorandum on Geologic Features of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Site by T. Fluhr(memo in FSAR appendix)
*GuidebooktoGeologicFieldtrip CortlandtIgneousComplexBuchananNY
*Guidebook to Geologic Field trip:  Cortlandt Igneous Complex , Buchanan , NY (2008)*Merguerian, C., et al., 2011, Stratigraphy, structural geology and metamorphism of the InwoodMarble Formation, northern Manhattan, NYC, NY:
in Hanson, G. N., chmEighteenthAnnualConferenceonGeologyofLongIslandandMetropolitan chm., Eighteenth Annual Conference on Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan New York, 09 April 2011, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, Long Island Geologists Program with Abstracts, 19 p.
*Various on-line sources for velocities of marble etc
*SiteGeologicReportforIndianPointNo2andIndianPointNo3NuclearPower
*Site Geologic Report for Indian Point No. 2 and Indian Point No.3 Nuclear Power Plants*Geology, Geochemistry, and TectonostratigraphicRelations of the Crystalline Basement Beneath the New Jersey Coastal Plain and Contiguous Areas: USGS Prof. Paper1565-B.Paper 1565 B.


FSAR Version 23 (IP2)
References for Meeting
*"The Geology
* Licensee Presentation Slides - ML14169A072
.*The property as a whole is underlain by three geologic rock formations. They are:
* NRC Presentation Slides - ML14169A489
*(a) A Phylliteor Schist. This is the uppermost formation of sedimentary origin. In some places the rockisafinegrainedphylliteresemblingthephylliteoftheHudsonRiverseriesInotherplacesitisrock is a fine-grained phylliteresembling the phyllite of the Hudson River series. In other places it is a muscovite schist resembling the Manhattan schist found typically in New York City.
* Public Meeting Agenda - ML14161A361
*(b) Beneath the phylliteor schist, and apparently conformable with it, is a limestone. Most of this is coarsely crystalline white or gray limestone, with some dolomitic and siliciousbands, and a few quartz veins. Its original bedding structure has been obscured in part by shearing and jointing.()ThhitithtltfthttbthlfiltfthHdRihb
* M ti FFeedback Meeting      db k FForm ((requestt ffrom mfb@nrc.gov) fb@        )
*(c) Th e sc hi s t , i n th e eas t er l y par t o f th e trac t , a b ou t a h a lf-m il e eas t o f th e H u d son River, h as b een intruded by basic igneous rocks, known as the CortlandtSeries."
* May 9, 2014, NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for central and eastern US Licensees (ML14111A147)
**"The limestone has a well-defined layered structure, believed to be original bedding, which strikes N-S to N E and dips easterly at 45 to 65 degrees. This layered structure is marked by shear planes and, rarely, thin shalylayers. The notable feature of the limestone is its extremely jointed condition. A major joint system extends at about right angles to the bedding structure, but, in addition, there are also many irregular joints. The jointing has an intensity which might almost be described as brecciation.
* May 21, 2014, NRC memo providing preliminary staff ground motion response spectra for central and eastern Licensees (ML14136A126)
*The joints are open, but few display decay. This limestone formation is not cavernous. The liihdbfijiddiiiiiihiilf limestone i s h ar d , because o f i ts j o i nte d con di t i on, i t is my op i n i on t hat i ts support ing va l ue f or foundation purposes should be held to no more than 50 tons per square foot." (T. Fluhr, Memo)
* Meeting Summary to be issued within 30-day
**"North and east of the plant are hills and ridges of phylliteand schist."
*T he"limestone"isinfacttheOrdivicianLinwood"Marble"T he limestone is in fact  the OrdivicianLinwood Marble GeneralSiteStratigraphyGeneral Site Stratigraphy
*ManhattanSchist(Ordivician
)Manhattan Schist (Ordivician
)*InwoodMarble (Lower Ordivicianto Upper Cambrian)Cambrian)*LowerreQuartzite (Cambrian)
*Fordham Gneiss (Pre-Cambrian)
*Intrusive Com plex Rocks p Indian Point: Local Geolo gy gyFrom Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.
Bedrock: InwoodMarble w/Manhattan schist present in northeastern portion of site ComplexSub
-surfaceGeologyComplex Subsurface GeologyFrom Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.
Geologic section of Inwoodin h(i)Upper Man hattan (type sect i on)Basedonregionalobservations:assumethattheCambrianQuartzite Based on regional observations:
assume that the Cambrian QuartziteAnd underlying units have a Vs > Vs reference ControlPointControl Point*IndianPointisafirmrocksiteConsistentwith Indian Point is a firm rock site. Consistent with SPID the Control Point is defined as the top/surfaceoftherockunit(theInwoodtop/surface of the rock unit (the Inwood Marble).*Toreiterate:ithasbeenassumedthatthe
*To reiterate:
it has been assumed that the underlying Ordovician LourreQuartzite and underlyinggneissesandintrusiveshavea underlying gneisses and intrusiveshave a velocity >= 9200 fps (reference rock velocity).
Additional Information Available fhdiii f or t h e In dian Po int S i te*"B et w ee n 2 005 a n d 2 00 7 , GZA GeoEnvir o nm e n ta letee005ad00,GGeooeta(GZA), performed a comprehensive hydrogeologicinvestigation of the site. This investigation was ddddfldinitiate d to un derstan d groun dwater fl ow an d contaminant transport. During this investigation numerousboringswereadvancedtostudythenumerous borings were advanced to study the site geology, hydrology and aquifer properties.
Details of the g eolo gy , h ydrolo gy and a quifer ggyygyqproperties can be found in the GZA report."
*From Rev 23 of IP2 FSAR (Hydrology Section
)
Shear-wave velocity profilefrom IP site.13 profiles acquired with Surface wave-technique-All penetrated bedrock(from GZA Hydrogeology report, Appendix O)


ML102910404Very consistent velocities inupperportionof in upper portion of bedrock (Inwood)
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
GZAReport:Seismic ProfilesGZA Report: Seismic Profiles Independent P-wave data indicates Vp~8-9000 fps in near surface.
IP Velocity Profiles Informed with TemplateProfilesTemplate Profiles Profiles Used in NRC Analysis Preliminary Indian Point Site Response ModelLayerDepth (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Sigma-lnG/Gmax&DG/Gmax&D(Vs)BC-1 0-40 49000.15EPRI Rock Linear-1%BC-2 40-75 64190.15EPRIRock Linear-1%BC-375-10080240.15EPRIRock Linear-1%BC-4100-20084000.15Linear-NDLinear-ND LBC-1 0-40 43200.15EPRIRock Linear-1%LBC-240-10056620.15EPRIRock Linear-1%LBC-3100-20070770.15EPRIRock Linear-1%LBC-3200-40077850.15Linear-NDLinear-ND LBC-4 400-800 8500 0.15 Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC 4 400 800 8500 0.15 Linear ND Linear ND UBC-1 0-40 55550.15EPRI Rock Linear-1%UBC-2 40-75 72770.15EPRIRock Linear-1%UBC-3 75-85 90000.10EPRIRock Linear-1%


Summary*Licensee did not perform site response analysis. Cited P-wave refraction profile as justification pj*NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
==Background:==
*NRC staff concludes both Units screen-infor all risk evaluation activities
NRC and licensee seismic hazard require resolution to support a final seismic screening decision and to support related follow-on submittals Outcomes:
-Difference due to site response, not rock hazard
* Begin NRC and licensee resolution to support regulatory decisions and development of seismic risk evaluations, as appropriate
*Additional information on plant-level capacity ilddiIP3bittlwas i nc l u d e d i n IP3 su b mitt a l. -Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March SeismicHazardandScreeningReportsubmittal Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal Why P-Wave Refraction Results hldbdihi S h ou ld b e Use d W i t h Caut ion HereConclusion based on results of P-wave refraction.
* Establish resolution path, including timelines and identification of potential information needs
Velocities of 8000-16,000 fps cited.Significant layered (bedding) in near-vertical attitude. Discontinous "strin g ers" o f  ver y hard material.gfyVery easy (maybe impossible not to) to bias refraction results to high value.Vsforthese Vpvalues:46008550fps Vs for these Vp values: 4600-8550 fps(assuming nu =0.3).Existence of direct shear-wave resultsFrom-Merguerian, C., et al., 2011 Near-term Task Force Recommendation21Seismic Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Enter gy gy June 19, 2014 ReferencesforMeetingReferences for Meeting*Licensee Presentation Slides
-ML14169A072
*NRC Presentation Slides -ML14169A489
*Public Meeting Agenda -ML14161A361MtiFdbkF(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 di ng 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 NTTF Recommendation 2.1-SfPliiSii S ummary o f P re li m i nary S e i sm i c Hazard Anal y sis: yIndian Point Units 2 and 3 June 19, 2014Jon Ake-NRC Indian Point 2 1.2 1.4 0.8 1(g)0.4 0.6SA 0 0.2 0.1 1 10 100Frequency (Hz)LicenseeSSELicenseeGMRSNRCGMRS IHS/RLE Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRSNRC GMRS IHS/RLE Indian Point 3 1.2 1.4 0.8 1(g)0.4 0.6SA 0 0.2 0.1 1 10 100Frequency (Hz)LicenseeSSELicenseeGMRSNRCGMRS Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRSNRC GMRS Summary of Issues
*Licensee did not perform site response analysis. Cited P-wave refraction profile as justification pj*NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
*NRC staff concludes both Units screen-infor all risk evaluation activities
-Difference due to site response, not rock hazard
*Additional information on plant-level capacity ilddiIP3bittlwas i nc l u d e d i n IP3 su b mitt a l. -Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March SeismicHazardandScreeningReportsubmittal Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal PartialListofReferencesUsedPartial List of References Used*IP UFSAR Rev. 23 (IP2)
*GZA, 2008, HydrogeologicSite Investigation Report for the Indian Point Energy CenterML102910404(FOIAwebpackage
)Center. ML102910404 (FOIA web package)*Licensee September 2013 and March 2014 submittals
*Memorandum on Geologic Features of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Site by T. Fluhr(memo in FSAR appendix)
*GuidebooktoGeologicFieldtrip CortlandtIgneousComplexBuchananNY
*Guidebook to Geologic Field trip:  Cortlandt Igneous Complex , Buchanan , NY (2008)*Merguerian, C., et al., 2011, Stratigraphy, structural geology and metamorphism of the InwoodMarble Formation, northern Manhattan, NYC, NY:
in Hanson, G. N., chmEighteenthAnnualConferenceonGeologyofLongIslandandMetropolitan chm., Eighteenth Annual Conference on Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan New York, 09 April 2011, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, Long Island Geologists Program with Abstracts, 19 p.
*Various on-line sources for velocities of marble etc
*SiteGeologicReportforIndianPointNo2andIndianPointNo3NuclearPower
*Site Geologic Report for Indian Point No. 2 and Indian Point No.3 Nuclear Power Plants*Geology, Geochemistry, and TectonostratigraphicRelations of the Crystalline Basement Beneath the New Jersey Coastal Plain and Contiguous Areas: USGS Prof. Paper1565-B.Paper 1565 B.


FSAR Version 23 (IP2)
Look-ahead:
*"The Geology
Potentiall Next Steps
.*The property as a whole is underlain by three geologic rock formations. They are:
* NRC will consider the meeting information
*(a) A Phylliteor Schist. This is the uppermost formation of sedimentary origin. In some places the rockisafinegrainedphylliteresemblingthephylliteoftheHudsonRiverseriesInotherplacesitisrock is a fine-grained phylliteresembling the phyllite of the Hudson River series. In other places it is a muscovite schist resembling the Manhattan schist found typically in New York City.
* Potential paths:
*(b) Beneath the phylliteor schist, and apparently conformable with it, is a limestone. Most of this is coarsely crystalline white or gray limestone, with some dolomitic and siliciousbands, and a few quartz veins. Its original bedding structure has been obscured in part by shearing and jointing.()ThhitithtltfthttbthlfiltfthHdRihb
  - Licensee Li          submits b it supplemental l    t l iinformation f     ti bbased d
*(c) Th e sc hi s t , i n th e eas t er l y par t o f th e trac t , a b ou t a h a lf-m il e eas t o f th e H u d son River, h as b een intruded by basic igneous rocks, known as the CortlandtSeries."
on public meeting dialog
**"The limestone has a well-defined layered structure, believed to be original bedding, which strikes N-S to N E and dips easterly at 45 to 65 degrees. This layered structure is marked by shear planes and, rarely, thin shalylayers. The notable feature of the limestone is its extremely jointed condition. A major joint system extends at about right angles to the bedding structure, but, in addition, there are also many irregular joints. The jointing has an intensity which might almost be described as brecciation.
  - NRC staff issues a request for information
*The joints are open, but few display decay. This limestone formation is not cavernous. The liihdbfijiddiiiiiihiilf limestone i s h ar d , because o f i ts j o i nte d con di t i on, i t is my op i n i on t hat i ts support ing va l ue f or foundation purposes should be held to no more than 50 tons per square foot." (T. Fluhr, Memo)
  - Licensee sends a revision or supplement to the seismic hazard report
**"North and east of the plant are hills and ridges of phylliteand schist."
* NRC completes screening review and issues th fi the   finall screening i d determination t   i ti lletter tt
*T he"limestone"isinfacttheOrdivicianLinwood"Marble"T he limestone is in fact  the OrdivicianLinwood Marble GeneralSiteStratigraphyGeneral Site Stratigraphy
*ManhattanSchist(Ordivician
)Manhattan Schist (Ordivician
)*InwoodMarble (Lower Ordivicianto Upper Cambrian)Cambrian)*LowerreQuartzite (Cambrian)
*Fordham Gneiss (Pre-Cambrian)
*Intrusive Com plex Rocks p Indian Point: Local Geolo gy gyFrom Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.
Bedrock: InwoodMarble w/Manhattan schist present in northeastern portion of site ComplexSub
-surfaceGeologyComplex Subsurface GeologyFrom Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.
Geologic section of Inwoodin h(i)Upper Man hattan (type sect i on)Basedonregionalobservations:assumethattheCambrianQuartzite Based on regional observations:
assume that the Cambrian QuartziteAnd underlying units have a Vs > Vs reference ControlPointControl Point*IndianPointisafirmrocksiteConsistentwith Indian Point is a firm rock site. Consistent with SPID the Control Point is defined as the top/surfaceoftherockunit(theInwoodtop/surface of the rock unit (the Inwood Marble).*Toreiterate:ithasbeenassumedthatthe
*To reiterate:
it has been assumed that the underlying Ordovician LourreQuartzite and underlyinggneissesandintrusiveshavea underlying gneisses and intrusiveshave a velocity >= 9200 fps (reference rock velocity).
Additional Information Available fhdiii f or t h e In dian Po int S i te*"B et w ee n 2 005 a n d 2 00 7 , GZA GeoEnvir o nm e n ta letee005ad00,GGeooeta(GZA), performed a comprehensive hydrogeologicinvestigation of the site. This investigation was ddddfldinitiate d to un derstan d groun dwater fl ow an d contaminant transport. During this investigation numerousboringswereadvancedtostudythenumerous borings were advanced to study the site geology, hydrology and aquifer properties.
Details of the g eolo gy , h ydrolo gy and a quifer ggyygyqproperties can be found in the GZA report."
*From Rev 23 of IP2 FSAR (Hydrology Section
)
Shear-wave velocity profilefrom IP site.13 profiles acquired with Surface wave-technique-All penetrated bedrock(from GZA Hydrogeology report, Appendix O)


ML102910404Very consistent velocities inupperportionof in upper portion of bedrock (Inwood)
NTTF Recommendation 2.1-S Summary  off P Preliminary li i    Seismic S i i Hazard Analysis:
GZAReport:Seismic ProfilesGZA Report: Seismic Profiles Independent P-wave data indicates Vp~8-9000 fps in near surface.
y Indian Point Units 2 and 3 June 19, 2014 Jon Ake-NRC
IP Velocity Profiles Informed with TemplateProfilesTemplate Profiles Profiles Used in NRC Analysis Preliminary Indian Point Site Response ModelLayerDepth (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Sigma-lnG/Gmax&DG/Gmax&D(Vs)BC-1 0-40 49000.15EPRI Rock Linear-1%BC-2 40-75 64190.15EPRIRock Linear-1%BC-375-10080240.15EPRIRock Linear-1%BC-4100-20084000.15Linear-NDLinear-ND LBC-1 0-40 43200.15EPRIRock Linear-1%LBC-240-10056620.15EPRIRock Linear-1%LBC-3100-20070770.15EPRIRock Linear-1%LBC-3200-40077850.15Linear-NDLinear-ND LBC-4 400-800 8500 0.15 Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC 4 400 800 8500 0.15 Linear ND Linear ND UBC-1 0-40 55550.15EPRI Rock Linear-1%UBC-2 40-75 72770.15EPRIRock Linear-1%UBC-3 75-85 90000.10EPRIRock Linear-1%


Summary*Licensee did not perform site response analysis. Cited P-wave refraction profile as justification pj*NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
Indian Point 2 1.4 1.2 1
*NRC staff concludes both Units screen-infor all risk evaluation activities
SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
-Difference due to site response, not rock hazard
0.1                  1                    10            100 Frequency (Hz)
*Additional information on plant-level capacity ilddiIP3bittlwas i nc l u d e d i n IP3 su b mitt a l. -Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March SeismicHazardandScreeningReportsubmittal Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal Why P-Wave Refraction Results hldbdihi S h ou ld b e Use d W i t h Caut ion HereConclusion based on results of P-wave refraction.
Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE  Licensee GMRS  NRC GMRS  IHS/RLE
Velocities of 8000-16,000 fps cited.Significant layered (bedding) in near-vertical attitude. Discontinous "strin g ers" o f  ver y hard material.gfyVery easy (maybe impossible not to) to bias refraction results to high value.Vsforthese Vpvalues:46008550fps Vs for these Vp values: 4600-8550 fps(assuming nu =0.3).Existence of direct shear-wave resultsFrom-Merguerian, C., et al., 2011}}
 
Indian Point 3 1.4 1.2 1
SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1                  1                    10          100 Frequency (Hz)
Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE      Licensee GMRS    NRC GMRS
 
Summary of Issues
* Licensee did not perform site response analysis.
Cited P-wave refraction p  profile as jjustification
* NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
* NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities
  - Difference due to site response, not rock hazard
* Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.
b itt l
  - Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal
 
Partial List of References Used
* IP UFSAR Rev. 23 (IP2)
* GZA, 2008, Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report for the Indian Point Energy Center ML102910404 (FOIA web package)
Center.
* Licensee September 2013 and March 2014 submittals
* Memorandum on Geologic Features of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Site by T.
Fluhr (memo in FSAR appendix)
* Guidebook to Geologic Field trip trip: Cortlandt Igneous Complex, Complex Buchanan, Buchanan NY (2008)
* Merguerian, C., et al., 2011, Stratigraphy, structural geology and metamorphism of the Inwood Marble Formation, northern Manhattan, NYC, NY: in Hanson, G. N.,
chm Eighteenth Annual Conference on Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan chm.,
New York, 09 April 2011, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, Long Island Geologists Program with Abstracts, 19 p.
* Various on-line sources for velocities of marble etc
* Site Geologic Report for Indian Point No.
No 2 and Indian Point No No.33 Nuclear Power Plants
* Geology, Geochemistry, and Tectonostratigraphic Relations of the Crystalline Basement Beneath the New Jersey Coastal Plain and Contiguous Areas: USGS Prof.
Paper 1565 1565-B.
B.
 
FSAR Version 23 (IP2)
* The Geology.
* The property as a whole is underlain by three geologic rock formations. They are:
* (a) A Phyllite or Schist. This is the uppermost formation of sedimentary origin. In some places the rock is a fine fine-grained grained phyllite resembling the phyllite of the Hudson River series    series. In other places it is a muscovite schist resembling the Manhattan schist found typically in New York City.
* (b) Beneath the phyllite or schist, and apparently conformable with it, is a limestone. Most of this is coarsely crystalline white or gray limestone, with some dolomitic and silicious bands, and a few quartz veins. Its original bedding structure has been obscured in part by shearing and jointing.
* ( ) Th (c) The schist, hi t iin th the easterly t l partt off th the ttract, t about b tah    half-mile lf il eastt off the th HHudson d    Ri River, h has b been intruded by basic igneous rocks, known as the Cortlandt Series.
*
* The limestone has a well-defined layered structure, believed to be original bedding, which strikes N-S to N E and dips easterly at 45 to 65 degrees. This layered structure is marked by shear planes and, rarely, thin shaly layers. The notable feature of the limestone is its extremely jointed condition.
A major joint system extends at about right angles to the bedding structure, but, in addition, there are also many irregular joints. The jointing has an intensity which might almost be described as brecciation.
* The joints are open, but few display decay. This limestone formation is not cavernous. The li limestone  iis h hard, d bbecause off iits jjointed i d condition, di i  iit iis my opinion i i that h iits supportingi value l ffor foundation purposes should be held to no more than 50 tons per square foot. (T. Fluhr, Memo)
*
* North and east of the plant are hills and ridges of phyllite and schist.
* The limestone limestone is in fact the Ordivician Linwood Marble                  Marble
 
General Site Stratigraphy
* Manhattan Schist (Ordivician)
* Inwood Marble (Lower Ordivician to Upper Cambrian)
* Lowerre Quartzite (Cambrian)
* Fordham Gneiss (Pre-Cambrian)
* Intrusive Complex p Rocks
 
Indian Point: Local Geology    gy From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.
 
Bedrock: Inwood Marble w/Manhattan schist present in northeastern portion of site Complex Sub-surfaceSub surface Geology From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.
 
Geologic section of Inwood in Upper Manhattan        h            (type
(          section)i )
Based on regional observations: assume that the Cambrian Quartzite And underlying units have a Vs > Vs reference
 
Control Point
* Indian Point is a firm rock site site. Consistent with SPID the Control Point is defined as the top/surface of the rock unit (the Inwood Marble).
* To reiterate: it has been assumed that the underlying Ordovician Lourre Quartzite and underlying gneisses and intrusives have a velocity >= 9200 fps (reference rock velocity).
 
Additional Information Available f the for  h Indian di Point  i Sitei
* Between et ee 2005005 and a d 2007, 00 , GZA G Geo GeoEnvironmental o e ta (GZA), performed a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation of the site. This investigation was initiated d to understand d      d groundwater d     fl flow andd contaminant transport. During this investigation numerous borings were advanced to study the site geology, hydrology and aquifer properties.
Details of the ggeology, gy hydrology y      gy and aquifer q
properties can be found in the GZA report.
* From Rev 23 of IP2 FSAR (Hydrology Section)
 
Shear-wave velocity profile from IP site.
13 profiles acquired with Surface wave-technique-All penetrated bedrock (from GZA Hydrogeology report, Appendix O)
ML102910404 Very consistent velocities in upper portion of bedrock (Inwood)
 
GZA Report: Seismic Profiles Independent P-wave data indicates Vp ~8-9000 fps in near surface.
 
IP Velocity Profiles Informed with Template Profiles
 
Profiles Used in NRC Analysis Preliminary Indian Point Site Response Model Layer    Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Sigma-ln G/Gmax&D  G/Gmax&D (Vs)
BC-1    0-40      4900            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
BC-2    40-75      6419            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
BC-3    75-100    8024            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
BC-4    100-200    8400            0.15    Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-1    0-40      4320            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
LBC-2    40-100    5662            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
LBC-3    100-200    7077            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
LBC-3    200-400    7785            0.15    Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-4 LBC 4    400-800 400 800    8500            0.15    Linear-ND Linear ND Linear-ND Linear ND UBC-1    0-40      5555            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
UBC-2    40-75      7277            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
UBC-3    75-85      9000            0.10    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
 
Summary
* Licensee did not perform site response analysis.
Cited P-wave refraction p  profile as jjustification
* NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
* NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities
  - Difference due to site response, not rock hazard
* Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.
b itt l
  - Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal
 
Why P-Wave Refraction Results Should h ld be        b Used d With i h Caution        i Here Conclusion based on results of P-wave refraction.
Velocities of 8000-16,000 fps cited.
Significant layered (bedding) in near-vertical attitude. Discontinous stringers g      off veryy hard material.
Very easy (maybe impossible not to) to bias refraction results to high value.
Vs for these Vp values: 4600 4600-8550 8550 fps (assuming nu =0.3).
Existence of direct shear-wave results From- Merguerian, C., et al., 2011
 
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of:                    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.                                          NYS000528 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Submitted: June 9, 2015 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS000528-00-BD01                Identified: 11/5/2015 Admitted: 11/5/2015                        Withdrawn:
Rejected:                                      Stricken:
Other:
Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2                                            2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Entergy gy June 19, 2014
 
References for Meeting
* Licensee Presentation Slides - ML14169A072
* NRC Presentation Slides - ML14169A489
* Public Meeting Agenda - ML14161A361
* 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
 
NTTF Recommendation 2.1-S Summary  off P Preliminary li i    Seismic S i i Hazard Analysis:
y Indian Point Units 2 and 3 June 19, 2014 Jon Ake-NRC
 
Indian Point 2 1.4 1.2 1
SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1                  1                    10            100 Frequency (Hz)
Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE  Licensee GMRS  NRC GMRS  IHS/RLE
 
Indian Point 3 1.4 1.2 1
SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1                  1                    10          100 Frequency (Hz)
Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE      Licensee GMRS    NRC GMRS
 
Summary of Issues
* Licensee did not perform site response analysis.
Cited P-wave refraction p  profile as jjustification
* NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
* NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities
  - Difference due to site response, not rock hazard
* Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.
b itt l
  - Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal
 
Partial List of References Used
* IP UFSAR Rev. 23 (IP2)
* GZA, 2008, Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report for the Indian Point Energy Center ML102910404 (FOIA web package)
Center.
* Licensee September 2013 and March 2014 submittals
* Memorandum on Geologic Features of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Site by T.
Fluhr (memo in FSAR appendix)
* Guidebook to Geologic Field trip trip: Cortlandt Igneous Complex, Complex Buchanan, Buchanan NY (2008)
* Merguerian, C., et al., 2011, Stratigraphy, structural geology and metamorphism of the Inwood Marble Formation, northern Manhattan, NYC, NY: in Hanson, G. N.,
chm Eighteenth Annual Conference on Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan chm.,
New York, 09 April 2011, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, Long Island Geologists Program with Abstracts, 19 p.
* Various on-line sources for velocities of marble etc
* Site Geologic Report for Indian Point No.
No 2 and Indian Point No No.33 Nuclear Power Plants
* Geology, Geochemistry, and Tectonostratigraphic Relations of the Crystalline Basement Beneath the New Jersey Coastal Plain and Contiguous Areas: USGS Prof.
Paper 1565 1565-B.
B.
 
FSAR Version 23 (IP2)
* The Geology.
* The property as a whole is underlain by three geologic rock formations. They are:
* (a) A Phyllite or Schist. This is the uppermost formation of sedimentary origin. In some places the rock is a fine fine-grained grained phyllite resembling the phyllite of the Hudson River series    series. In other places it is a muscovite schist resembling the Manhattan schist found typically in New York City.
* (b) Beneath the phyllite or schist, and apparently conformable with it, is a limestone. Most of this is coarsely crystalline white or gray limestone, with some dolomitic and silicious bands, and a few quartz veins. Its original bedding structure has been obscured in part by shearing and jointing.
* ( ) Th (c) The schist, hi t iin th the easterly t l partt off th the ttract, t about b tah    half-mile lf il eastt off the th HHudson d    Ri River, h has b been intruded by basic igneous rocks, known as the Cortlandt Series.
*
* The limestone has a well-defined layered structure, believed to be original bedding, which strikes N-S to N E and dips easterly at 45 to 65 degrees. This layered structure is marked by shear planes and, rarely, thin shaly layers. The notable feature of the limestone is its extremely jointed condition.
A major joint system extends at about right angles to the bedding structure, but, in addition, there are also many irregular joints. The jointing has an intensity which might almost be described as brecciation.
* The joints are open, but few display decay. This limestone formation is not cavernous. The li limestone  iis h hard, d bbecause off iits jjointed i d condition, di i  iit iis my opinion i i that h iits supportingi value l ffor foundation purposes should be held to no more than 50 tons per square foot. (T. Fluhr, Memo)
*
* North and east of the plant are hills and ridges of phyllite and schist.
* The limestone limestone is in fact the Ordivician Linwood Marble                  Marble
 
General Site Stratigraphy
* Manhattan Schist (Ordivician)
* Inwood Marble (Lower Ordivician to Upper Cambrian)
* Lowerre Quartzite (Cambrian)
* Fordham Gneiss (Pre-Cambrian)
* Intrusive Complex p Rocks
 
Indian Point: Local Geology    gy From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.
 
Bedrock: Inwood Marble w/Manhattan schist present in northeastern portion of site Complex Sub-surfaceSub surface Geology From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.
 
Geologic section of Inwood in Upper Manhattan        h            (type
(          section)i )
Based on regional observations: assume that the Cambrian Quartzite And underlying units have a Vs > Vs reference
 
Control Point
* Indian Point is a firm rock site site. Consistent with SPID the Control Point is defined as the top/surface of the rock unit (the Inwood Marble).
* To reiterate: it has been assumed that the underlying Ordovician Lourre Quartzite and underlying gneisses and intrusives have a velocity >= 9200 fps (reference rock velocity).
 
Additional Information Available f the for  h Indian di Point i Sitei
* Between et ee 2005005 and a d 2007, 00 , GZA G Geo GeoEnvironmental o e ta (GZA), performed a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation of the site. This investigation was initiated d to understand d      d groundwater d      fl flow andd contaminant transport. During this investigation numerous borings were advanced to study the site geology, hydrology and aquifer properties.
Details of the ggeology, gy hydrology y       gy and aquifer q
properties can be found in the GZA report.
* From Rev 23 of IP2 FSAR (Hydrology Section)
 
Shear-wave velocity profile from IP site.
13 profiles acquired with Surface wave-technique-All penetrated bedrock (from GZA Hydrogeology report, Appendix O)
ML102910404 Very consistent velocities in upper portion of bedrock (Inwood)
 
GZA Report: Seismic Profiles Independent P-wave data indicates Vp ~8-9000 fps in near surface.
 
IP Velocity Profiles Informed with Template Profiles
 
Profiles Used in NRC Analysis Preliminary Indian Point Site Response Model Layer    Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Sigma-ln G/Gmax&D  G/Gmax&D (Vs)
BC-1    0-40      4900            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
BC-2    40-75      6419            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
BC-3    75-100    8024            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
BC-4    100-200    8400            0.15    Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-1    0-40      4320            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
LBC-2    40-100    5662            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
LBC-3    100-200    7077            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
LBC-3    200-400    7785            0.15    Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-4 LBC 4    400-800 400 800    8500            0.15    Linear-ND Linear ND Linear-ND Linear ND UBC-1    0-40      5555            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
UBC-2    40-75      7277            0.15    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
UBC-3    75-85      9000            0.10    EPRI Rock Linear-1%
 
Summary
* Licensee did not perform site response analysis.
Cited P-wave refraction p  profile as jjustification
* NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
* NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities
  - Difference due to site response, not rock hazard
* Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.
b itt l
  - Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal
 
Why P-Wave Refraction Results Should h ld be        b Used d With i h Caution        i Here Conclusion based on results of P-wave refraction.
Velocities of 8000-16,000 fps cited.
Significant layered (bedding) in near-vertical attitude. Discontinous stringers g      off veryy hard material.
Very easy (maybe impossible not to) to bias refraction results to high value.
Vs for these Vp values: 4600 4600-8550 8550 fps (assuming nu =0.3).
Existence of direct shear-wave results From- Merguerian, C., et al., 2011}}

Revision as of 04:02, 31 October 2019

Official Exhibit - NYS000528-00-BD01 - USNRC Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation (June 19, 2014)
ML15331A197
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  
Issue date: 06/19/2014
From:
State of NY, Office of the Attorney General
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 27910, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR
Download: ML15331A197 (27)
v • d • e


Text

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. NYS000528 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Submitted: June 9, 2015 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS000528-00-BD01 Identified: 11/5/2015 Admitted: 11/5/2015 Withdrawn:

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2 2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Entergy gy June 19, 2014

References for Meeting

  • 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

NTTF Recommendation 2.1-S Summary off P Preliminary li i Seismic S i i Hazard Analysis:

y Indian Point Units 2 and 3 June 19, 2014 Jon Ake-NRC

Indian Point 2 1.4 1.2 1

SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS IHS/RLE

Indian Point 3 1.4 1.2 1

SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS

Summary of Issues

  • Licensee did not perform site response analysis.

Cited P-wave refraction p profile as jjustification

  • NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
  • NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities

- Difference due to site response, not rock hazard

  • Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.

b itt l

- Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal

Partial List of References Used

  • GZA, 2008, Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report for the Indian Point Energy Center ML102910404 (FOIA web package)

Center.

  • Licensee September 2013 and March 2014 submittals
  • Memorandum on Geologic Features of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Site by T.

Fluhr (memo in FSAR appendix)

  • Guidebook to Geologic Field trip trip: Cortlandt Igneous Complex, Complex Buchanan, Buchanan NY (2008)
  • Merguerian, C., et al., 2011, Stratigraphy, structural geology and metamorphism of the Inwood Marble Formation, northern Manhattan, NYC, NY: in Hanson, G. N.,

chm Eighteenth Annual Conference on Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan chm.,

New York, 09 April 2011, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, Long Island Geologists Program with Abstracts, 19 p.

  • Various on-line sources for velocities of marble etc
  • Site Geologic Report for Indian Point No.

No 2 and Indian Point No No.33 Nuclear Power Plants

  • Geology, Geochemistry, and Tectonostratigraphic Relations of the Crystalline Basement Beneath the New Jersey Coastal Plain and Contiguous Areas: USGS Prof.

Paper 1565 1565-B.

B.

FSAR Version 23 (IP2)

  • The Geology.
  • The property as a whole is underlain by three geologic rock formations. They are:
  • (a) A Phyllite or Schist. This is the uppermost formation of sedimentary origin. In some places the rock is a fine fine-grained grained phyllite resembling the phyllite of the Hudson River series series. In other places it is a muscovite schist resembling the Manhattan schist found typically in New York City.
  • (b) Beneath the phyllite or schist, and apparently conformable with it, is a limestone. Most of this is coarsely crystalline white or gray limestone, with some dolomitic and silicious bands, and a few quartz veins. Its original bedding structure has been obscured in part by shearing and jointing.
  • ( ) Th (c) The schist, hi t iin th the easterly t l partt off th the ttract, t about b tah half-mile lf il eastt off the th HHudson d Ri River, h has b been intruded by basic igneous rocks, known as the Cortlandt Series.
  • The limestone has a well-defined layered structure, believed to be original bedding, which strikes N-S to N E and dips easterly at 45 to 65 degrees. This layered structure is marked by shear planes and, rarely, thin shaly layers. The notable feature of the limestone is its extremely jointed condition.

A major joint system extends at about right angles to the bedding structure, but, in addition, there are also many irregular joints. The jointing has an intensity which might almost be described as brecciation.

  • The joints are open, but few display decay. This limestone formation is not cavernous. The li limestone iis h hard, d bbecause off iits jjointed i d condition, di i iit iis my opinion i i that h iits supportingi value l ffor foundation purposes should be held to no more than 50 tons per square foot. (T. Fluhr, Memo)
  • North and east of the plant are hills and ridges of phyllite and schist.
  • The limestone limestone is in fact the Ordivician Linwood Marble Marble

General Site Stratigraphy

  • Manhattan Schist (Ordivician)
  • Inwood Marble (Lower Ordivician to Upper Cambrian)
  • Lowerre Quartzite (Cambrian)
  • Fordham Gneiss (Pre-Cambrian)
  • Intrusive Complex p Rocks

Indian Point: Local Geology gy From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.

Bedrock: Inwood Marble w/Manhattan schist present in northeastern portion of site Complex Sub-surfaceSub surface Geology From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.

Geologic section of Inwood in Upper Manhattan h (type

( section)i )

Based on regional observations: assume that the Cambrian Quartzite And underlying units have a Vs > Vs reference

Control Point

  • Indian Point is a firm rock site site. Consistent with SPID the Control Point is defined as the top/surface of the rock unit (the Inwood Marble).
  • To reiterate: it has been assumed that the underlying Ordovician Lourre Quartzite and underlying gneisses and intrusives have a velocity >= 9200 fps (reference rock velocity).

Additional Information Available f the for h Indian di Point i Sitei

  • Between et ee 2005005 and a d 2007, 00 , GZA G Geo GeoEnvironmental o e ta (GZA), performed a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation of the site. This investigation was initiated d to understand d d groundwater d fl flow andd contaminant transport. During this investigation numerous borings were advanced to study the site geology, hydrology and aquifer properties.

Details of the ggeology, gy hydrology y gy and aquifer q

properties can be found in the GZA report.

  • From Rev 23 of IP2 FSAR (Hydrology Section)

Shear-wave velocity profile from IP site.

13 profiles acquired with Surface wave-technique-All penetrated bedrock (from GZA Hydrogeology report, Appendix O)

ML102910404 Very consistent velocities in upper portion of bedrock (Inwood)

GZA Report: Seismic Profiles Independent P-wave data indicates Vp ~8-9000 fps in near surface.

IP Velocity Profiles Informed with Template Profiles

Profiles Used in NRC Analysis Preliminary Indian Point Site Response Model Layer Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Sigma-ln G/Gmax&D G/Gmax&D (Vs)

BC-1 0-40 4900 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-2 40-75 6419 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-3 75-100 8024 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-4 100-200 8400 0.15 Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-1 0-40 4320 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-2 40-100 5662 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-3 100-200 7077 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-3 200-400 7785 0.15 Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-4 LBC 4 400-800 400 800 8500 0.15 Linear-ND Linear ND Linear-ND Linear ND UBC-1 0-40 5555 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

UBC-2 40-75 7277 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

UBC-3 75-85 9000 0.10 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

Summary

  • Licensee did not perform site response analysis.

Cited P-wave refraction p profile as jjustification

  • NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
  • NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities

- Difference due to site response, not rock hazard

  • Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.

b itt l

- Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal

Why P-Wave Refraction Results Should h ld be b Used d With i h Caution i Here Conclusion based on results of P-wave refraction.

Velocities of 8000-16,000 fps cited.

Significant layered (bedding) in near-vertical attitude. Discontinous stringers g off veryy hard material.

Very easy (maybe impossible not to) to bias refraction results to high value.

Vs for these Vp values: 4600 4600-8550 8550 fps (assuming nu =0.3).

Existence of direct shear-wave results From- Merguerian, C., et al., 2011

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. NYS000528 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Submitted: June 9, 2015 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS000528-00-BD01 Identified: 11/5/2015 Admitted: 11/5/2015 Withdrawn:

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2 2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Entergy gy June 19, 2014

References for Meeting

  • 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

NTTF Recommendation 2.1-S Summary off P Preliminary li i Seismic S i i Hazard Analysis:

y Indian Point Units 2 and 3 June 19, 2014 Jon Ake-NRC

Indian Point 2 1.4 1.2 1

SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS IHS/RLE

Indian Point 3 1.4 1.2 1

SA (g) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Licensee SSE Licensee_SSE Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS

Summary of Issues

  • Licensee did not perform site response analysis.

Cited P-wave refraction p profile as jjustification

  • NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
  • NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities

- Difference due to site response, not rock hazard

  • Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.

b itt l

- Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal

Partial List of References Used

  • GZA, 2008, Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report for the Indian Point Energy Center ML102910404 (FOIA web package)

Center.

  • Licensee September 2013 and March 2014 submittals
  • Memorandum on Geologic Features of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Site by T.

Fluhr (memo in FSAR appendix)

  • Guidebook to Geologic Field trip trip: Cortlandt Igneous Complex, Complex Buchanan, Buchanan NY (2008)
  • Merguerian, C., et al., 2011, Stratigraphy, structural geology and metamorphism of the Inwood Marble Formation, northern Manhattan, NYC, NY: in Hanson, G. N.,

chm Eighteenth Annual Conference on Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan chm.,

New York, 09 April 2011, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, Long Island Geologists Program with Abstracts, 19 p.

  • Various on-line sources for velocities of marble etc
  • Site Geologic Report for Indian Point No.

No 2 and Indian Point No No.33 Nuclear Power Plants

  • Geology, Geochemistry, and Tectonostratigraphic Relations of the Crystalline Basement Beneath the New Jersey Coastal Plain and Contiguous Areas: USGS Prof.

Paper 1565 1565-B.

B.

FSAR Version 23 (IP2)

  • The Geology.
  • The property as a whole is underlain by three geologic rock formations. They are:
  • (a) A Phyllite or Schist. This is the uppermost formation of sedimentary origin. In some places the rock is a fine fine-grained grained phyllite resembling the phyllite of the Hudson River series series. In other places it is a muscovite schist resembling the Manhattan schist found typically in New York City.
  • (b) Beneath the phyllite or schist, and apparently conformable with it, is a limestone. Most of this is coarsely crystalline white or gray limestone, with some dolomitic and silicious bands, and a few quartz veins. Its original bedding structure has been obscured in part by shearing and jointing.
  • ( ) Th (c) The schist, hi t iin th the easterly t l partt off th the ttract, t about b tah half-mile lf il eastt off the th HHudson d Ri River, h has b been intruded by basic igneous rocks, known as the Cortlandt Series.
  • The limestone has a well-defined layered structure, believed to be original bedding, which strikes N-S to N E and dips easterly at 45 to 65 degrees. This layered structure is marked by shear planes and, rarely, thin shaly layers. The notable feature of the limestone is its extremely jointed condition.

A major joint system extends at about right angles to the bedding structure, but, in addition, there are also many irregular joints. The jointing has an intensity which might almost be described as brecciation.

  • The joints are open, but few display decay. This limestone formation is not cavernous. The li limestone iis h hard, d bbecause off iits jjointed i d condition, di i iit iis my opinion i i that h iits supportingi value l ffor foundation purposes should be held to no more than 50 tons per square foot. (T. Fluhr, Memo)
  • North and east of the plant are hills and ridges of phyllite and schist.
  • The limestone limestone is in fact the Ordivician Linwood Marble Marble

General Site Stratigraphy

  • Manhattan Schist (Ordivician)
  • Inwood Marble (Lower Ordivician to Upper Cambrian)
  • Lowerre Quartzite (Cambrian)
  • Fordham Gneiss (Pre-Cambrian)
  • Intrusive Complex p Rocks

Indian Point: Local Geology gy From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.

Bedrock: Inwood Marble w/Manhattan schist present in northeastern portion of site Complex Sub-surfaceSub surface Geology From Guide to Courtland Igneous Complex, 2008.

Geologic section of Inwood in Upper Manhattan h (type

( section)i )

Based on regional observations: assume that the Cambrian Quartzite And underlying units have a Vs > Vs reference

Control Point

  • Indian Point is a firm rock site site. Consistent with SPID the Control Point is defined as the top/surface of the rock unit (the Inwood Marble).
  • To reiterate: it has been assumed that the underlying Ordovician Lourre Quartzite and underlying gneisses and intrusives have a velocity >= 9200 fps (reference rock velocity).

Additional Information Available f the for h Indian di Point i Sitei

  • Between et ee 2005005 and a d 2007, 00 , GZA G Geo GeoEnvironmental o e ta (GZA), performed a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation of the site. This investigation was initiated d to understand d d groundwater d fl flow andd contaminant transport. During this investigation numerous borings were advanced to study the site geology, hydrology and aquifer properties.

Details of the ggeology, gy hydrology y gy and aquifer q

properties can be found in the GZA report.

  • From Rev 23 of IP2 FSAR (Hydrology Section)

Shear-wave velocity profile from IP site.

13 profiles acquired with Surface wave-technique-All penetrated bedrock (from GZA Hydrogeology report, Appendix O)

ML102910404 Very consistent velocities in upper portion of bedrock (Inwood)

GZA Report: Seismic Profiles Independent P-wave data indicates Vp ~8-9000 fps in near surface.

IP Velocity Profiles Informed with Template Profiles

Profiles Used in NRC Analysis Preliminary Indian Point Site Response Model Layer Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Sigma-ln G/Gmax&D G/Gmax&D (Vs)

BC-1 0-40 4900 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-2 40-75 6419 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-3 75-100 8024 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

BC-4 100-200 8400 0.15 Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-1 0-40 4320 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-2 40-100 5662 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-3 100-200 7077 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

LBC-3 200-400 7785 0.15 Linear-ND Linear-ND LBC-4 LBC 4 400-800 400 800 8500 0.15 Linear-ND Linear ND Linear-ND Linear ND UBC-1 0-40 5555 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

UBC-2 40-75 7277 0.15 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

UBC-3 75-85 9000 0.10 EPRI Rock Linear-1%

Summary

  • Licensee did not perform site response analysis.

Cited P-wave refraction p profile as jjustification

  • NRC Staff used available on-site data and performed a site response analysis
  • NRC staff concludes both Units screen-in for all risk evaluation activities

- Difference due to site response, not rock hazard

  • Additional information on plant-level capacity was included i l d d iin IP3 submittal.

b itt l

- Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March Seismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal

Why P-Wave Refraction Results Should h ld be b Used d With i h Caution i Here Conclusion based on results of P-wave refraction.

Velocities of 8000-16,000 fps cited.

Significant layered (bedding) in near-vertical attitude. Discontinous stringers g off veryy hard material.

Very easy (maybe impossible not to) to bias refraction results to high value.

Vs for these Vp values: 4600 4600-8550 8550 fps (assuming nu =0.3).

Existence of direct shear-wave results From- Merguerian, C., et al., 2011

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15331A197&oldid=2026602"