ML15331A197

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)

Text

Near-term Task Force Recommendation21SeismicRecommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard EvaluationEntergygyJune 19, 2014 ReferencesforMeetingReferences for Meeting*Licensee Presentation Slides -ML14169A072*NRC Presentation Slides -ML14169A489*Public Meeting Agenda -ML14161A361MtiFdbkF(tffb@)*Meeting Feedback Form (request from mfb@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 IntroductionPurpose: support information exchange and begin dialog to have ddifhfhidiffcommon understanding of the causes of the primary differences between the preliminary NRC and licensee seismic hazard results

Background:

NRCandlicenseeseismichazardrequireresolution

Background:

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,asdecisions and development of seismic risk evaluations, as appropriate*Establish resolution path, including timelines and identification of potential information needs Look-ahead:lPotential Next Steps*NRCwillconsiderthemeetinginformationNRC will consider the meeting information*Potential paths:Libitltliftibd-Licensee submits supplemental information based on public meeting dialogNRCstaffissuesarequestforinformation-NRC staff issues a request for information-Licensee sends a revision or supplement to the seismichazardreportseismic hazard report*NRC completes screening review and issues thfilidtitilttthe final screening determination letter NTTF Recommendation 2.1-SfPliiSiiSummary of Preliminary Seismic Hazard Analysis: yIndian Point Units 2 and 3June 19, 2014Jon Ake-NRC Indian Point 21.21.40.81(g)0.40.6SA 00.20.1110100Frequency (Hz)LicenseeSSELicenseeGMRSNRCGMRSIHS/RLELicensee_SSELicensee GMRSNRC GMRSIHS/RLE Indian Point 31.21.40.81(g)0.40.6SA 00.20.1110100Frequency (Hz)LicenseeSSELicenseeGMRSNRCGMRSLicensee_SSELicensee GMRSNRC GMRS Summary of Issues*Licensee did not perform site response analysis. Cited P-wave refraction profile as justificationpj*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 included in IP3 submittal. -Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March SeismicHazardandScreeningReportsubmittalSeismic 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)*GuidebooktoGeologicFieldtripCortlandtIgneousComplexBuchananNY*Guidebook to Geologic Field trip: CortlandtIgneous 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., chmEighteenthAnnualConferenceonGeologyofLongIslandandMetropolitanchm., 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 1565B.

FSAR Version 23 (IP2) *"The Geology.*The property as a whole is underlain by three geologic rock formations. They are:*(a) A Phylliteor Schist. This is the uppermost formation of sedimentary origin. In some places the rockisafinegrainedphylliteresemblingthephylliteoftheHudsonRiverseriesInotherplacesitisrock is a fine-grained phylliteresembling the phylliteof the Hudson River series. In other places it is a muscovite schist resembling the Manhattan schist found typically in New York City.*(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*(c) The schist, in the easterly part of the tract, about a half-mile east of the Hudson River, has been intruded by basic igneous rocks, known as the CortlandtSeries."**"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.*The joints are open, but few display decay. This limestone formation is not cavernous. The liihdbfijiddiiiiiihiilflimestone is hard, because of its jointed condition, it is my opinion that its supporting value for 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 phylliteand schist."*The"limestone"isinfacttheOrdivicianLinwood"Marble"The 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 Complex Rocksp Indian Point: Local GeologygyFrom 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 Manhattan (type section)Basedonregionalobservations:assumethattheCambrianQuartziteBased on regional observations: assume that the Cambrian QuartziteAnd underlying units have a Vs > Vs reference ControlPointControl Point*IndianPointisafirmrocksiteConsistentwithIndian 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 InwoodMarble).*Toreiterate:ithasbeenassumedthatthe*To reiterate: it has been assumed that the underlying Ordovician LourreQuartzite and underlyinggneissesandintrusiveshaveaunderlying gneisses and intrusiveshave a velocity >= 9200 fps (reference rock velocity).

Additional Information Available fhdiiifor the Indian Point Site*"Between 2005 and 2007, GZA GeoEnvironmentaletee005ad00,GGeooeta(GZA), performed a comprehensive hydrogeologicinvestigation of the site. This investigation was ddddfldinitiated to understand groundwater flow and contaminant transport. During this investigation numerousboringswereadvancedtostudythenumerous borings were advanced to study the site geology, hydrology and aquifer properties.

Details of the geology, hydrology and aquifer 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)

ML 102910404Very consistent velocities inupperportionofin upper portion of bedrock (Inwood)

GZAReport:SeismicProfilesGZA 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-10-4049000.15EPRI Rock Linear-1%BC-240-7564190.15EPRIRockLinear-1%BC-375-10080240.15EPRIRockLinear-1%BC-4100-20084000.15Linear-NDLinear-NDLBC-10-4043200.15EPRIRockLinear-1%LBC-240-10056620.15EPRIRockLinear-1%LBC-3100-20070770.15EPRIRockLinear-1%LBC-3200-40077850.15Linear-NDLinear-NDLBC-4400-80085000.15Linear-NDLinear-NDLBC440080085000.15LinearNDLinearNDUBC-10-4055550.15EPRI Rock Linear-1%UBC-240-7572770.15EPRIRockLinear-1%UBC-375-8590000.10EPRIRockLinear-1%

Summary*Licensee did not perform site response analysis. Cited P-wave refraction profile as justificationpj*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 included in IP3 submittal. -Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March SeismicHazardandScreeningReportsubmittalSeismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal Why P-Wave Refraction Results hldbdihiShould be Used With Caution HereConclusion based on results of P-wave refraction.

Velocities of 8000-16,000 fps cited.Significant layered (bedding) in near-vertical attitude. Discontinous "stringers" of very hard material.gfyVery easy (maybe impossible not to) to bias refraction results to high value.VsfortheseVpvalues:46008550fpsVs for these Vpvalues: 4600-8550 fps(assuming nu =0.3).Existence of direct shear-wave resultsFrom-Merguerian, C., et al., 2011 Near-term Task Force Recommendation21SeismicRecommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard EvaluationEntergygyJune 19, 2014 ReferencesforMeetingReferences for Meeting*Licensee Presentation Slides -ML14169A072*NRC Presentation Slides -ML14169A489*Public Meeting Agenda -ML14161A361MtiFdbkF(tffb@)*Meeting Feedback Form (request from mfb@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 IntroductionPurpose: support information exchange and begin dialog to have ddifhfhidiffcommon understanding of the causes of the primary differences between the preliminary NRC and licensee seismic hazard results

Background:

NRCandlicenseeseismichazardrequireresolution

Background:

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,asdecisions and development of seismic risk evaluations, as appropriate*Establish resolution path, including timelines and identification of potential information needs Look-ahead:lPotential Next Steps*NRCwillconsiderthemeetinginformationNRC will consider the meeting information*Potential paths:Libitltliftibd-Licensee submits supplemental information based on public meeting dialogNRCstaffissuesarequestforinformation-NRC staff issues a request for information-Licensee sends a revision or supplement to the seismichazardreportseismic hazard report*NRC completes screening review and issues thfilidtitilttthe final screening determination letter NTTF Recommendation 2.1-SfPliiSiiSummary of Preliminary Seismic Hazard Analysis: yIndian Point Units 2 and 3June 19, 2014Jon Ake-NRC Indian Point 21.21.40.81(g)0.40.6SA 00.20.1110100Frequency (Hz)LicenseeSSELicenseeGMRSNRCGMRSIHS/RLELicensee_SSELicensee GMRSNRC GMRSIHS/RLE Indian Point 31.21.40.81(g)0.40.6SA 00.20.1110100Frequency (Hz)LicenseeSSELicenseeGMRSNRCGMRSLicensee_SSELicensee GMRSNRC GMRS Summary of Issues*Licensee did not perform site response analysis. Cited P-wave refraction profile as justificationpj*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 included in IP3 submittal. -Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March SeismicHazardandScreeningReportsubmittalSeismic 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)*GuidebooktoGeologicFieldtripCortlandtIgneousComplexBuchananNY*Guidebook to Geologic Field trip: CortlandtIgneous 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., chmEighteenthAnnualConferenceonGeologyofLongIslandandMetropolitanchm., 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 1565B.

FSAR Version 23 (IP2) *"The Geology.*The property as a whole is underlain by three geologic rock formations. They are:*(a) A Phylliteor Schist. This is the uppermost formation of sedimentary origin. In some places the rockisafinegrainedphylliteresemblingthephylliteoftheHudsonRiverseriesInotherplacesitisrock is a fine-grained phylliteresembling the phylliteof the Hudson River series. In other places it is a muscovite schist resembling the Manhattan schist found typically in New York City.*(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*(c) The schist, in the easterly part of the tract, about a half-mile east of the Hudson River, has been intruded by basic igneous rocks, known as the CortlandtSeries."**"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.*The joints are open, but few display decay. This limestone formation is not cavernous. The liihdbfijiddiiiiiihiilflimestone is hard, because of its jointed condition, it is my opinion that its supporting value for 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 phylliteand schist."*The"limestone"isinfacttheOrdivicianLinwood"Marble"The 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 Complex Rocksp Indian Point: Local GeologygyFrom 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 Manhattan (type section)Basedonregionalobservations:assumethattheCambrianQuartziteBased on regional observations: assume that the Cambrian QuartziteAnd underlying units have a Vs > Vs reference ControlPointControl Point*IndianPointisafirmrocksiteConsistentwithIndian 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 InwoodMarble).*Toreiterate:ithasbeenassumedthatthe*To reiterate: it has been assumed that the underlying Ordovician LourreQuartzite and underlyinggneissesandintrusiveshaveaunderlying gneisses and intrusiveshave a velocity >= 9200 fps (reference rock velocity).

Additional Information Available fhdiiifor the Indian Point Site*"Between 2005 and 2007, GZA GeoEnvironmentaletee005ad00,GGeooeta(GZA), performed a comprehensive hydrogeologicinvestigation of the site. This investigation was ddddfldinitiated to understand groundwater flow and contaminant transport. During this investigation numerousboringswereadvancedtostudythenumerous borings were advanced to study the site geology, hydrology and aquifer properties.

Details of the geology, hydrology and aquifer 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)

ML 102910404Very consistent velocities inupperportionofin upper portion of bedrock (Inwood)

GZAReport:SeismicProfilesGZA 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-10-4049000.15EPRI Rock Linear-1%BC-240-7564190.15EPRIRockLinear-1%BC-375-10080240.15EPRIRockLinear-1%BC-4100-20084000.15Linear-NDLinear-NDLBC-10-4043200.15EPRIRockLinear-1%LBC-240-10056620.15EPRIRockLinear-1%LBC-3100-20070770.15EPRIRockLinear-1%LBC-3200-40077850.15Linear-NDLinear-NDLBC-4400-80085000.15Linear-NDLinear-NDLBC440080085000.15LinearNDLinearNDUBC-10-4055550.15EPRI Rock Linear-1%UBC-240-7572770.15EPRIRockLinear-1%UBC-375-8590000.10EPRIRockLinear-1%

Summary*Licensee did not perform site response analysis. Cited P-wave refraction profile as justificationpj*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 included in IP3 submittal. -Used to support Section 5 Interim Actions of March SeismicHazardandScreeningReportsubmittalSeismic Hazard and Screening Report submittal Why P-Wave Refraction Results hldbdihiShould be Used With Caution HereConclusion based on results of P-wave refraction.

Velocities of 8000-16,000 fps cited.Significant layered (bedding) in near-vertical attitude. Discontinous "stringers" of very hard material.gfyVery easy (maybe impossible not to) to bias refraction results to high value.VsfortheseVpvalues:46008550fpsVs for these Vpvalues: 4600-8550 fps(assuming nu =0.3).Existence of direct shear-wave resultsFrom-Merguerian, C., et al., 2011