ML091560176

E-Mail from Eric L. Geist to Lynett, Patrick, Re Notes from Kickoff Meeting

ML091560176
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	06/11/2008
From:	Geist E US Dept of Interior, Geological Survey (USGS)
To:	Lynette P - No Known Affiliation, Office of New Reactors
References
FOIA/PA-2009-0013A
Download: ML091560176 (2)

Text

Henry Jones From: Eric L. Geist [egeist@usgs.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:08 AM To: Lynett, Patrick Cc: David C Twichell; Henry Jones

Subject:

Notes from kickoff meeting Attachments: %1023_Samad.pdf

Dear Pat,

Here are the notes from today's kickoff meeting, specifically related to Section 2.4.6. I'm cc'ing this to Dave and Henry in case I missed anything critical.

Teleconference was hosted by UniStar and discussion was lead by John Rycyna (NRC Project Manager) and covered the agenda for the safety audit and the information needs in general terms.

The agenda was already distributed by Henry, but here are a few additional notes:

-Please bring a picture ID to enter the site each day.

-For the site tour (Tuesday), there is an emphasis on safety. Please bring appropriate footwear (no tennis shoes). UniStar will provide other safety gear (hard hats, safety glasses) if needed, as well as insect spray.

There are ticks, so jeans are recommended.

-Cameras must be permitted by UniStar. They can provide already-permitted cameras, with digital photos cleared for security before being distributed to us.

-Bechtel will provide a geologist for the site tour (?) and audit for any questions related to tsunami deposits, cliff failures, etc. Dave will be checking out the sub-aerial cliffs during the site tour.

-Discussion of Section 2.4.6 will begin on Wednesday morning (hopefully finished that day?) -For each day, we need to pay for our own lunch (have cash handy).

With regard to the information needs, these were only discussed generally with UniStar since the info needs are being reviewed at NRC.

-Primarily, Sections 2.4.5, 2.4.6, and 2.4.12 of the FSAR will be discussed.

-General categories of items include: input/output files, modeling documentation, references, basis for conclusions.

-NRC indicated that the general nature of information needs will be similar to South Texas, which Bechtel was also at.

-Dr. Mustafa Samad from Bechtel's Frederick, MD office will be on hand to discuss tsunami modeling--I recall he was also at the South Texas safety audit. Attached is a one-pager describing Chesapeake modeling--

similar to what's in the FSAR.

That's pretty much it. Just let me know if there are any questions... Eric Eric L. Geist Desk: (650)329-5457 Research Geophysicist Fax: (650)329-5411 U.S. Geological Survey Email: eqeistcusqs.qov 345 Middlefield Rd., MS 999 Menlo Park, Ca 94025 Internet: http://walrus.wr.usqs..qov/staff/eqeist/

---

---- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- -- 1

TSUNAMI PROPAGATION INTHE CHESAPEAKE BAY, USA Mustafa Samad, Bechtel Power Corporation, USA masamaddbechtel.com Sung-Meyon Yi, Korea Power Engineering Company, Inc., South Korea, hydroyi(kopec.co.kr Yifan Zheng, Bechtel Power Corporation, USA yzhengcabecktel.com INTRODUCTION and periods for different cases are applied as regular The present paper investigates the propagation of sinusoidal waves at an internal boundary. The external potential tsunamis within the Chesapeake Bay. The model boundaries are based on implementing a radiation Chesapeake Bay, located on the US East Coast, is one of boundary, as proposed by Larsen & Dancy (1983).

the largest estuaries in the world (Figure 1). The US East Coast traditionally is believed to be an area nearly free from tsunami impacts. However, historical data and recent research has indicated that the threats of large tsunamis affecting the area cannot be completely discounted. In this study, a summary of tsunamigenic . BAY source mechanisms that may affect the Chesapeake Bay region is presented along with simulations of tsunami propagation within the Bay. The simulations are performed based on a description of incoming tsunami amplitude at the Bay entrance and using a 2-dimensional depth-averaged numerical model. The model considers both linear and nonlinear shallow water equations and investigates the effects of bottom friction.

POTENTIAL TSUNAMIS AT THE BAY ENTRANCE Three potential tsunami sources are identified based on historical tsunami records and published studies that are considered most sever for the Chesapeake Bay region.

The first is the Currituck submarine landslide zone off the 0 50 100 MLES coast of Virginia near the Bay entrance. Ward (2001) 0 50 100 KILOMETERS estimated maximum tsunami amplitude of 4 m at the Bay entrance based on postulated slide scenarios. The Figure 1 - The Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

second source is for trans-Atlantic tsunami caused by submarine landslide due to Cumbre Vieja volcanic flank RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS failure on Canary Island. Mader (2001) estimated 3 m Incoming tsunami water level at the model boundary maximum tsunami amplitude at the Bay entrance from shows that the generated boundary condition is this source. The third source is the Caribbean subduction satisfactory. Simulated water levels at the mouth of the zone, from which maximum tsunami amplitude of 1 m at Potomac River, and near Annapolis and Baltimore show the bay entrance is estimated (USNRC, 1979). that the large incoming tsunami waves are quickly dispersed inside the Chesapeake Bay. Wave nonlinearity TSUNAMI ANALYSIS and bottom friction effects contribute in wave dissipation The tsunami model uses finite difference leapfrog scheme and therefore tsunami wave amplification within the bay is for numerical solution. Because of shallow water depth in unlikely. The first wave in the wave train reaches the the bay, wave nonlinearity and bottom friction effects mouth of the Potomac River (about 90 km from the model considerably contribute in wave dissipation. The bottom boundary) in about 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. Simulation results also friction term is taken as a function of the Manning's show that the maximum tsunami amplitude at this location roughness coefficient along with the fluxes in the two would be considerably reduced with maximum amplitude horizontal directions. Numerical dispersion in the remaining close to approximately 0.5 m when bottom discretized governing equations in finite difference form is friction effects are neglected.

eliminated by selecting computational time step and grid spacing based on an accuracy criterion. Results from the REFERENCES

'hidden grid' are then converted to model grid following Ward (2001): Landslide Tsunami, J. Geophys. Res.,

the procedure proposed by Yoon (2002). 106(6).

Mader (2001): Modeling the La Palma Landslide The Chesapeake Bay model domain extends Tsunami, Sc. Tsunami Hazards, 19: 50-170.

approximately 290 km from near Plume Tree Point, VA to Yoon (2002): Propagation of Distant Tsunamis over the Susquehanna River mouth. Freshwater flow through Slowly Varying Topography, J. Geophys. Res., 107(C10).

the rivers and tidal variation from the Atlantic Ocean are USNRC (1979): Tsunami Atlas for the Coasts of the ignored. A zero-flux condition is applied across the fixed United States, USNRC, NUREG/CR-1106, USA.

land boundary. Flooding and drying of grids are not Larsen & Dancy (1983): Open boundaries in short wave considered in the model. Incoming tsunami amplitudes simulations - A new approach, Coastal Eng., 7:285-297.