ML20140F540
| ML20140F540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/08/1992 |
| From: | Shao L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20007G200 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR47802, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52 AD93-1-031, AD93-1-31, NUDOCS 9705050047 | |
| Download: ML20140F540 (5) | |
Text
. . - .. _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ .
i
- g. ' .. -
, q q**
h y*\ 1 t J\ .
\
[7590-01] l l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 911SSION i.,
Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR'Part 100 2
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
ACTION: Notice of. meeting.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with the staff
} of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and other industry i s.
l representatives to' discuss the revision of Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic ;
f Siting Criteria for. Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100.
.L DATE: July.10, 1992 1:00 PM i ADDRESS: 11555 Rockville Pike 1
l Room: 1 F7/9 j Rockville,-Maryland
{ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Chief, Structural and l l
Seismic Engineering Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear l Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-3860.
i SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Appsndix A~ to 10 CFR Part 100 describes the seismic and geologic siting and earthquake engineering criteria for nuclear power plants. Because of the advances in the state-of-the-art since the publication of the regulation (effective December 13,1973), a need for the revision has been established.
Staff progress in the revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 has been dis-cussed in public meetings with NUMARC and other industry representatives on February.4, 1992 and April 23, 1992.
The purpose of this meeting is to meet with NUMARC and other industry representatives to discuss industry recommended alternatives to the draft proposed revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 that was placed in the NRC 9705050047 970422 PDR PR
-4
_50,57FR47802 ,PDR
5 Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC (Memorandum from Lawrence C. Shao to Raymond F. Fraley, dated January 21, 1992,
Subject:
Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 - Geological and Seismological Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants). No specific agenda is being proposed.
'The meeting cited herein is in addition to the meeting scheduled for i
June 17, 1992 (57 FR 23548, June 4, 1992).
i Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of June,1992, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
3 Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 4
0 .
y . . . ..
noos ;,nd w.w.a_ .m m m..m.i.w~wim a wavsw+wwe h(
- e Proposed Rulesm 9p,a. m h; i . n
-- om.m r d-' a s5a- um -
)
5 m , a o , 4 m.4. m h a V 6 N MW n 3DrJM Vol. 57. Na 117 ; , '
a w: & rs tw n t i s v v. > ,s'L.? ?,H10*.,n ts ? 3' %D .
i : e i>, ,wh Wednesday. June 17, 1992" 'H i
..C.{k,,v ,, .
. , , , g,y; , t c ' im .n .r/ .Me.. <
Thisrtecnoe,oi the.FEDERALrREGSTERa Appendix Atoto CFR Part 200- . Au/ 1992) june 2.2.1902 meeting has been
],, coNsins no@ss'do#e putec ot thew n, Geologicaland SelamologicalSiting a changed from 9 a.m.to a:30 a.m. t
- proposed issuance of rules and a v, Criteria for NuclearPower Plymts).No .m AnoResses:nicomanthe wuimeetin
{.
g mgulatons. The purpose of these specific agenda is being proposed. Rooms 1101-02 of the FCA.1501 Fann -
"d* ' "
d
- 8 **
to e meeti e o Jun 1 b rules. . .
- a 1992 (57 FR 23548, June 4,1992). . . FORIW THER N
[r $ Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day Robert S. Ch!N. ScMor CNtipedalist. - q [
of June,1992, for the Nuclear Regulatorv Office of Examination,7 arm Cmd1t NUCt EAR REGULATORY p
[ COMMISSION commission.
Weca C. Shao, Administration McLesn. Virginia 22102-5000. (703) 883-4180. TDD (703) 883-4444.
i 10 CFR Part 100 Director. Division ofEngineerittg. Office of or NuclearRegulatoryResectrk William L. Larsen. Senior Attorney, d' - ( Revision of Appendix A FR Doc.93-14218 Filed 01642: 845 aml Regulatory and Legisis@stamsloa -
h ;, ,,1,,o cong ,, m , Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit yy
.TotNCv: Nuclear Regulatory Administration. McLean. Virginia 22102-J " 5000.(703)813 4020.TDD(703)883-4444.
. C1mmission.
IO At TION:fbtice of meeting. FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION sUPPt.EMENTARf INFORMATION: Pursuant f- '
rJMMARY:The Nuclear Regulatory 12 CFR Parts 607 and 618 8 ^
Commission staff will meet with the f 5US n Federal i
- p. n:N sos 2-Aato Advisory Committee Act. 5 U.S.C. App.
o e . staff of the Nuclear Management and
- 2. section to, the FCA gives notice of the f Resources Council (NUMARC) and Assessment and Apportionment of . third meeting ofits Assessment .
l 7 : other industry representatives to discuss Administrative Expenses; General Regulations Negotiated Rulemaking g the revision of appendix A. ,' Seismic Provisions; FCA Assessment Committee. The meetings will be held at y)3 and Geologic Power Plants,,S,iting Criteria for Regulations Megotiated Rukmaking Nuclear the FCA's McLean, Virginia q to lo CFR part 100. Committee headquarters and will be open to the b
- oAtts: July 10,1992,1 p.m.
" Farm Credit Administration Public.
} ApoResses:11555 Rockville Pike, Room: Aos y 1 F7/9, Rockville. Maryland. FCA.
and negotiate proposed amendments to IQ P
' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
ACTION: Notice of meetings and time Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Chief Structural change for previously announced FCA assessment regulations.The agenda for the third meeting will be meeting.
M and Seismic Enginering Branch Office shaped by the progress of discussions of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear
SUMMARY
- In accordance with the und negotiations at the second meeting
, @f! L l Regulatory Commission, Washington. Negotiated Rulemaking Act and the and will continue to focus on WR DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-3860. Federal Advisory Committee Act, the development of an assessment formula M sVPPUEMENTARY INFORMATION: FCA hereby gives notice of the third for banks, associations and banks for
<l- I' Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100 meeting of the FCA Assessment cooperatives of the Farm Credit System P
describes the seismic and geologic siting Regulations Negotiated Rulemaking (System). Tentatively, the Committee is and earthquake engineering criteria for Committee, which has been convened to scheduled to meet biweekly for 2-day f , nuclear power plants. Because of the negotiate and develop proposed sessions continuing through advances in the state-of-the-art since the amendments to FCA assessment approximately August 4,1992, subject to I!
):i publication of the regulation (effective December 13,1973), a need for the regulations ucse regulations prescribe adjustment by the Committee if needed.
the method for assessing Farm Credit On May 6,1992, the FCA published revision has been established. Staff System (System) institutions for the notice ofits intent to establish a progress in the revision of appendix A to FCA's annual expenses in administering negotiated rulemaking committee to 2 10 CFR part 100 has been discussed in the Farm Credit Act of 1971.The FCA is develop and negotiate proposed public meetings with NUMARC and also giving notice of a change in the amendments to its assessment other industry representatives on star'ing time of its previously regulations. 57 FR IMOS.The Notice of I ebruary 4,1992 and April 23,1992. announced committee meeting for June Intent describes the negotiated
%e purpose of this meeting is to meet 22,1992 from 9 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. rulemaking process and how it will t with NUMARC and other industry DATES:The third meeting of the apply to development of proposed
.h representatives to discuss industry Assessment Regulations Negotiated assessment regulations.
9! recommended alternatives to the draft Rulemaking Committee will be a 3-day The assessment regulations prescribe u proposed revision of appendix A to 10 session.The meeting will be on July 7 the method for assessing System
- 6 CFR part 100 that was placed in the 1992 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., continuing institutions for the FCA's annual NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L on july 8,1992 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., expenses in administering the Farm Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, and on July 9,1992 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 Credit Act of 1971,12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.
DC (Memorandum from Lawrence C. p.m. A complete discussion of the current Shao to Raymond F. Fraley, dated The starting time of the previously assessment procedures and the need for january 21,1992
Subject:
Revision of announced (See 57 FR 21755 May 22, new regulutions can be foimd in the 5
,o L
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . 3
yL roos- ' mop' elm atM = m ma * + u\ m:M e av1 d o M a Proposed Rulesm m.mu -n m e d -' ra se a v f[
j o '.
% 3..n a: um. ?m aqr,ow Lr#
z t t w , *& ri Jmw - .a t a s vu .n h n N 6 ;&'WD EDAJN Vol 57 No.117
. . . F t.1! 10 *.2 in % M 'f 3
, e , .e ,'
. .c, . .. 'l
, u, ,v r Wednesday, June 17 tes2' N-
,..i . M ., ' d b-m on ;n'
- w M . . ' r 3
T)ssDecnoe,of to,NDERALrREG86TERJ1 Appendix A40'10 CFRPart300- utm/ 1992) june.22.1992 meeting has been j conesens siotloes:40Jhe piAdo of: theiM k, Geologicaland Selamological Siting g 7 changed fross 9 a.tn. to 820 a.m.'r '
pj proposed issuance of rules and v, regulatons. The purpose of these .o Criteria for NuclearPower Planta).No m goongasse.nehwueMSmeetla
- is to ghe interated persons an specific agenda is being proposed.
Rooms 1101-02 of the FCA.1501 Farm .
- opp durg to panicipate in the'mle * '
to %e meeting cited Junehereinis in addition ( CreMw,Wy,,Q sqq y' the meeting scheduledfor 17 ,
rules ' ! 1992 (57 FR 23548. June 4.1992). . . . , ,
FOR PURmen WooRIAAfl0N00NTACT*
f' .
. . . . . 4 Dated at Rockville. Maryland, this eth day Robert S. ChjN. SsNorfbhilIgAciA!!al[*] [
of June.1992. for the Nuclear Regulatory Office of ExaminaGon.Tarm Credit '
4p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION commission. Administration. McLean. Virginia 222nz- 1 1.awance C. shao, soso. (703) a83-4189. TDD (703) 883-4444
$ 10 CFR Part 100 Dinctor. Division ofEngineeritts. Office of or T_ NuclearRegulatoryResearch.
1 i William L Lanen. Senior Attorney.
t . < Revision of Appendix A (FR Doc. 92-14218 Filed 6-16-92: 8:45 am) Reguiatory and IAgislative.14w Division. .
s u o coos w w ,
, Office of General Counsel Farm Cmdit dU AGENCv: Nuclear Regulatory Administration. Mdean. Virginia 22102-
, Commission.
M 5000. (703) 88W'mD (703) 883-4444 ACTiose Notice of meeting. FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
! 4 supptsasswTany peronesATsoec Pursuant
( suesasAny:The Nuclear Regulatory 12 CFR Parts 607 and 618 to the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of Commission staff will meet with the 1990. 5 U.S.C. 581. 585, and the Federal
. staff of the Nuclear Management and RIN 3052-A819 Advisory Committee Act. 5 U.S.C. A p.
.p
}] . Resources Council (NUMARC) and 2. section to, the FCA gives notice ofthe j other industry representatives to discuss Assesser.ent and Apportionment of . third meeting ofits Assessment .
q the revision of appendix A. ' Seismic Administraeve rv-E ::: General Regulations Negotiated Rulemaking '
and Ceologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Provisions;FCA Assessment Committee. The meetings will be held at Power Plants, to 10 CFR part 100. Regulations Negotiated Rulemaldng the FCA's Mclean, Virginia
- Committee headquarters and will be open to the DATas: July 10.1992.1 p.m.
'k ADDREssts:11555 Rockville Pike. Room: AoswCv: Farm Credit Administration public.
[f 1 F7/9. Rockville. Maryland.
' POR PURmER NTFW CONTACT.
(FCA).
ACTioec Notice of meetings and time and negotiate proposed amendments to "9 ,
Dr. AndrewJ. Murphy Chief. Structural change for previously announced FCA assessment regulations.ne and Seismic Enginering Branch. Office nwetmg. agenda for the third meeting will be
, [' shaped by the progress of discussions of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Nuclear sunsasany:In accordance with the
@p tc 1 '
Regulatory Commission. Washington, and negotiations at the second meeting Negctiated Rulemaking Act and the and will continue to focus on N' DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 403-3800.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the development of an assessment formula
,63 suppt.assENTARY lesFORatATION: FCA hereby gives notice of the third for banks, associations and banks for dM h
Appendix A to to CFR part 't00 meeting of the FCA Assessment cooperatives of the Farm Credit System
- describes the seismic and geologic siting Regulations Negotiated Rulemaking I (System). Tentatively, the Committee is and earthquake engineering criteria for Committee, which has been convened to scheduled to meet biweekly for 2-day
! f nuclear power p? ants. Because of the negotiate and develop proposed sessions continuing through L
i N advances in the state-of-the-art since the amendments to FCA assessment 8pproximately August 4.1992, subject to publication of the regulation (effective regulations.nese regulations prescribe adjustment by the Committee if needed.
! December 13.1973), a need for the the method for assessing Farm Credit
'! On May 6.1992, the FCA published revision has been established. Staff System (System) institutions for the notice ofits intent to establish a progress in the revision of appendix A to FCA's annual expenses in administering negotiated rulemaking committee to 10 CFR part 100 has been discussed in public meetings with NUMARC and the Farm Credit Act of1971.The FCA is develop and negotiate proposed also giving notice of a change in the amendments to its assessment other industry representatives on starting time of its previously February 4,1992 and April 23.1992. regulations. 57 FR 19405.The Notice of announced committee meeting for jur.e Intent describes the negotiated The purpose of this meeting la to meet 22.1992 from 9 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. rulemaking process and how it will 1 with NUMARC and other industry DATrs:The third meeting of the apply to development of proposed h ?1 representatives to discuss industry recommended alternatives to the draft Assessment Regulations Negotiated assessment regulations.
' Rulemaking Committee will be a 3-day The assessment regulations prescribe proposed revision of appendix A to 10 session. The meeting will be on July 7.
CFR part 100 that was placed in the the method for assessing System 1992 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m continuing institutions for the FCA's annual
. NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L on July 8.1992 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m expenses in administering the Farm Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, and on July 9,1992 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 Credit Act of 1971.12 U.S.C. 2001 et seg.
DC (Memorandum from Lawrence C. p.m. A complete discussion of the current Shao to Raymond F.Fraley, dated The starting time of the previously january 21.1992,
Subject:
Revision of assessment procedures and the need for announced (See 57 FR 21755. May 22, new regulations can be found in the
!i
![4
Fed:ral R:gistst / Vol. 57, No.117 / Wednesday, June 17, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 27005~.
pl I
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 642 PART 642-COASTAL MIGRATORY (v) Social Security number and date of porting and - PELAGIC RESOURCES OF THE GULF birth of the applicant and the owner (if
' .8 OF MEXICO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC the owner is a corporation,in lieu of the
,,e r epin r uir social security number, provide the Dated: June 11.1992. 1. The authority citation for part 642 employer identification number, if one Samust W. McKeen, continues to read as follows: has been assigned by the Internal Acting Assistant Administmforforrisheries, Authority: to U.S C.1801 et seg. Revenue Service, and. in lieu of the date NationalMarine fisheries Service. 2. In i 642.4. paragraph (b)(2)(v) is of birth, provide the date the corporation For the reasons set forth in the revised to read as follows: was formed):
preamble, the interim final rule amending 50 CFR 642.4. 642.Sfb), and $ 442.4 Permits and fees. , , , , ,
c42.7(f) and (v). which was published at 57 FR 11582 on April 6,1992 is adopted (b) * * * [FR Doc. 92-141331 Filed 6-14-92; 8:45 amj as final with the following change: (2) * *
- swwo coor nie.u-a I
l
[
l l
D908
' i Proposed Rules r d-i a s
- Vol. 57. No.117 Wednesday, June 17, 1992 TNs secaon of the FEDERAL. REGISTER Appendix A to to CFR Part 100- 1992) june 211992 meeting has been contains notices to the putAc of the Geological and Seismological Siting changed from 9 a.m. to a:30 a.m.
proposed lasuance of rules and atons. T se hese notices Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants). No Aoonasses:The Committee will meet in specific agenda is being proposed.
9 Rooms 1101-02 of the FCA.1501 Farm gp Py g g, g The meeting cited herein is in addition Credit Drive. Mclean, Virgnia.
"W to the meeting scheduled for June 17 1992 (57 FR 23548, June 4,1992). FOR FultTHER INFORMATION COttTACT:
Dated at Rockville. Maryland. this eth day Robert S. Child. Senior Credit Specialint.
of June.1992, for the Nuclear Regulatory Office of Examination. Farm Credit NUCLEAR REGULATORY comminion. Administration McLean, Virginia 22102-COMMISSION Lawm C. Shao. 5000. (703) 883-4189. TDD (703) 8834444 10 CFR Part 100 Director. Division ofEngineering. Office of or NuclearRegulatory/Lasearch. William L Larsen. Senior Attorney, R: vision of Appendix A [FR Doc. 93-14218 Filed 6-16-92: 8A5 am) Regulatory and Legislative Law Division, sume coos rssom-m Office of General Counsel Farm Credit A2ENcy: Nuclear Regulatory Administration. McLean. Virginia 22102-Commission. 5000. (703) 8834020. TDD (703) 88M44.
ACTION: Notice of meeting. FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFOnMATIOec Pursuant suasMARY:The Nuclear Regulatory t e 12 CFR Parts 607 and 618 ,5 U.S Commission staff will meet with the ,5 he F detal staff of the Nuclear Management and RIN 3052-Ast9 Advisory Committee Act,5 U.S.C. App.
Resources Council (NUMARC) and 2, section 10, the FCA gives notice of the other industry representatives to discuss Assessment and Apportionment of third meeting ofits Assessment Administrative Expenses; General Regulations Negotiated Rulemaking therevision of appendix A. Seismic Provisions;FCA Assessment and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Committee. The meetings will be held at Power Plants," to to CFR part 100. Regulations Negotiated Rulemaking the FCA's McLean. Virginia Committee headquarters and will be open to the dates: July 10,1992,1 p.m.
Farm Credit Administration public.
Aconsases:11555 Rockville Pike. Room:
1 F7/9 Rockville, Maryland. ho ' and negotiate proposed amendments to POn FunTNan INFORMATION CONMCT: ACTIO#c Notice of meetings and time FCA assessment regulations.The Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Chief. Structural change for previously announced agenda for the third meeting will be and Seismic Engi.nering Branch, Office meeting.
shaped by the progress of discussions of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear suMMAny:In accordance with the and negotiations at the second meeting Regulatory Commission, Washington. Negotiated Rulemaking Act and the and will continue to focus on DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-3860. Federal Advisory Committee Act, the development of an assessment formula suPPLaMeNTARY INFORMATION: FCA hereby gives notice of the third for banks, associations and banks for Appendix A to to CFR part 100 meeting of the FCA Assessment cooperatives of the Farm Credit System describes the seismic and geologic siting Regulations Negotiated Rulemaking (System). Tentatively, the Committee is and earthquake engineering criteria for Committee, which has been convened to scheduled to meet biweekly for 2-day nuclear power plants. Because of the negotiate and develop proposed sessions continuing through advances in the state-of-the-art since the amendments to FCA assessment approximately August 4,1992, subject to publication of the regulation (effective regulations. These regulations prescribe adjustment by the Committee if needed.
December 13,1973), a need for the the method for assessing Farm Credit On May 6,1992, the FCA published revision has been established. Staff System (Sysiam) institutions for the notice ofits intent to establish a progress in the revision of appendix A to FCA's e.nnual expenses in administering negotiated rulemaking committee to 10 CFR part 100 has been discussed in the Farm Credit Act of1971.The FCA is develop and negotiate proposed public meetings with NUMARC and also giving notice of a change in the amendments to its assessment otherindustry representatives on starting time ofits previously regulations. 57 FR 19405. The Notice of February 4,1992 and April 23,1992. announced committee meeting for June Intent describes the negotiated The purpose of this meeting is to meet 22,1992 from 9 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. rulemaking process and how it will with NUMARC and other industry dates:The third meeting of the apply to development of proposed representatives to discuss industry Assessment Regulations Negotiated assessment regulations.
recommended alternatives to the draft Rulemaking Committee will be a 3-day The assessment regulations prescribe proposed revision of appendix A 1010 session.The meeting will be on July 7, the method for assessing System CFR part 100 that was placed in the 1992 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., continuing institutions for the FCA's annual NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L c n July 8,1992 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., expenses in administering the Farm Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington. P_nd on July 9,1992 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 Credit Act of 1971,12 U.S.C. 2001 et seg.
DC (Memorandum from Lawrence C. p.m. A complete discussion of the current Shao to Raymond F.Fraley, dated The starting time of the previously assessment procedures and the need for january 21,1992.
Subject:
Revision of announced (See 57 FR 21755, May 22, new regulations can be found in the
/
/ %, UNITED STATES M9 -l
[
En g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S55 4 k*****p# SEP 2 9 $92 l
l i
MEMORANDUM FOR: Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering, RES i FROM: Andrew J. Murphy, Chief Structural & Seismic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering, RES
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF A PUBLIC MEETING ON THE REVISION OF APPENDIX A,
" SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC SITING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" TO 10 CFR PART 100 A meeting was held on September 11, 1992, among the NRC and its consultants, members of the staff of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and other representatives from the nuclear industry. A list of attendees is attached as Enclosure 1. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss proposed revision of Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100. A public meeting notice appeared in the :
Federal Reaister on August 31, 1992, Vol. 57, page 39371. Enclosure 2 is the meeting agenda. !
This meeting, scheduled at the request of NUMARC is a followup of three previous meetings: July 10, June 17 and April 23, 1992.
R. Ng restated NUMARC's concern about the dual evaluations required by l Appendix B and described in the draft Regulatory Guide D.G.1015 having a destabilizing effect on the licensing process. The package describing an alternative single path methodology utilizing both deterministic and probabilistic inputs, which was prepared by NUMARC's adhoc committee has been endorsed by NUMARC and will be distributed for review to the nuclear industry ,
about the same time as the Appendix A Revision package goes out for public i
, comment. NUMARC will request industry comments about I month prior to the end
- of the 120 day Appendix A Revision package public comment period. He j suggested that another meeting be scheduled in mid-November to walk through j j.' their methodology and discuss how the NUMARC and NRC methodologies will be '
applied and brought together. He stated that J. Butler had been replaced at NUMARC by N. Farukhi. j Dr. Murphy gave a status report on the NRC 10 CFR Part 100 package. The SRM from the Commission requested a few changes and the package (seismic and i source term) will go out within a few weeks. l The following is a summary of highpoints of the discussions that accompanied each of three presentations: M. McCann for NUMARC, R. Rothman, NRC, and D.
Bernreuter, LLNL. ,
I
SEP 2u d ;
Lawrence C. Sha 2 M. McCann, JBA, presented a description of NUMARC's Integrated Seismic Decision Process (ISDP). The viewgraphs from this presentation are attached .
as Enclosure 3. NUMARC's procedure is based on the probabilistic analysis i outlined in D.G. 1015. Integration of the findings from the deterministic i site investigations into the probabilistic analysis is a major factor. This '
integration and guidance for integration was discussed extensively (see below). NUMARC accepts the NRC's target of the median probability of exceeding the SSE of operating plants as a foundation for the process. The EPRI data base, which is considered to be applicable for a 10--year period, will be used. McCann stated that in the 1990's we are starting with a high level data base, along with expert interpretations, and two state-of-the-art probabilistic seismic hazard analysis programs; and are thus in a much better position than ever before. The EPRI data set consists of maps at a scale of one to one million and geophysical data points at two kilometer spacings.
Site specific confirmatory investigations and analyses will be performed to determine whether any new information is covered by the EPRI hazard analysis.
Viewgraph 7 illustrates the flow chart of applying the ISDP to the eastern U.S. and subsequent viewgraphs present parts of this methodology in greater detail. The ISDP contains a three level system to handle new data and
, interpretations derived by the site specific studies: at Level 1 a decision is made regarding whether the new data is consistent with the EPRI/LLNL data base; at Level 2, a decision is made whether the new data challenges or is consistent with the bases for seismic sources, seismicity parameters, or maximum magnitudes of the two hazard programs; and at Level 3, a decision is made whether the hazard based on unequivocal new data is consistent with the LLNL/EPRI median hazard. In failing Levels 1 and 2, the applicant moves to the next level. Failing Level 3, the applicant must decide whether to abandon the site or perform a site specific update and evaluate it.
The NRC and its consultants indicated that additional guidance is needed in using the NUMARC methodology and expressed the following concerns: how much variation in parameters can be tolerated; what is the mechanism for changing seismic sources such as decreasing the size of the Charleston Earthquake source based on recent paleoseismicity investigations; how the ISDP alleviates a difficulty which arose often in past licensing activities, when different applicants present different seismic source zones, etc; how does NUMARC propose to change seismic sources (reconvene the panels or teams, etc); and how will it accommodate the varying levels of importance placed on certain new data in making interpretations by individual team or panel members. The NRC staff also pointed out that new information and interpretations, in addition to affecting the median, could also effect the resulting ground motions.
NUMARC believes that the interprett.tions of the six EPRI teams is sufficiently robust to encompass any interpretation that could be proposed, such as by a seventh team. The only way that the median hazard could be affected is if the six original teams drastically altered their interpretations based on new data. In response to these concerns, along with the IDSP methodology, NUMARC will provide guidelines that address these issues; specifically how to handle new data and differences in scientific interpretation.
L .;
L
.i i
SEP 2 91982 I'
.. Lawrence C. Shao 3 !
NUMARC expressed concern that the NRC may hold up the Appendix A revision package'until after the issue of the differences between the EPRI and LLNL j hazard study results is resolved. The concern is that such a delay could i impact plans for a forthcoming early site review and subsequent combined license of a prototype DOE nuclear power plant site. They were assured that the Appendix A revision package was going forward as, planned. ;
! An assessment of SSE ground motions of Maine Yankee at 5 and 10 Hz and average l
of the two was presented (viewgraph 18) using the NUMARC methodology. NRC .
consultants suggested using spectral accelerations as well as velocities, and, l although 5 to 10 Hz represents a good descriptive of the range that causes damage to structures, other frequencies should also be described. By anchoring the Reg Guide 1.60 spectrum to the 5 to 10 Hz value results in an l unconservative design at some frequencies. ;
, R. Rothman, NRR, presented the deterministic methodology (Enclosure 4) that :
the NRC has been using for the past few years, and indicated that the ~
deterministic evaluation described in D.G.1015 is an' attempt to codify this methodology. He emphasized that data collection requirements are the same for both deterministic and probabilistic evaluations.
NUMARC reiterated its concern regarding use of the deterministic evaluation, even as a sanity check for the probabilistic analysis. In NUMARC's view, there is lack of stability to the process in using this evaluation in that the Deterministic Source Earthquake (DSE) is exceeded by the expected earthquakes, and in some cases the lower bound earthquakes, designated by each expert and expert team that participated in the LLNL/EPRI Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). Use of the DSE would be extremely difficult to defend in any litigation process. NUMARC recommends that to have stability only one evaluation, a probabilistic cvaluation be carried out. Several participants recommended that the DSE definition should be changed, removing'such words as i
" reasonably expected," etc; and that the NRC staff should clearly describe what the DSE,is and how it is to be used.
K. Coppersmith, NRC consultant, commented that the definition of the DSE has l evolved since it was first written. The definition in Appendix B and D.G. 1015 was formulated based on the way the deterministic earthquake had been considered in past licensing activities. Recently, earthquakes.in other intraplate regions of the world that are analogous to the eastern U.S. have ;
been studied and these studies indicate that the current DSE may no longer be applicable as it is written.
D. Bernreuter described the probabilistic analysis detailed in D.G.1015, presented the results of applying that methodology to eight operating nuclear ;
power plant sites (Bellefont, Clinton, Limerick, Millstone, Perry, Seabrook, Vogtle, and Zion); and showed some comparisons between his analysis and that of EPRI.on two sites (Enclosure 5).
Paleoseismic information was discussed as an example of new information that could drastically change the experts interpretations in the probabilistic analysis. The applicant would use recent paleoseismic data to extend the historic seismic record back in time thus possibly raising the magnitude of ;
. -_ -- ._. -- - . .. - - ~~ - -. .-. ._.
l l SEP 2 91992 Lawrence C. Shao 4 the DSE. NUMARC would incorporate the paleoseismic information into the probabilistic analysis at the Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 phases of evaluation as presented by NUMARC.
l During this meeting it appeared that there is general understanding of the
! methodologies to be employed in the probabilistic analysis, however, t l confirmation of this understanding must await formal submittal in writing of l the NUMARC proposal and NRC assessment of comments from the public. There remains wide disagreement regarding the use of a dual analysis incorporating both deterministic and probabilistic evaluations. NUMARC strongly argues that i a parallel deterministic analysis would destabilize the process. The participants tentatively agreed to convene a working meeting on November 19 and 20, 1992, during which the NRC and NUMARC would demonstrate the applicability of their methodologies on new sites. Another meeting similar to this one is proposed before the November meeting.
Um 1
Andrew J. Murphy, Chief Structural & Seismic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering, RES
Enclosures:
As stated cc: R. Ng, NUMARC 1 R. Bosnak, RES l T. King, RES C. Ader, RES !
G. Bagchi, NRR R. Rothman, NRR '
R. McMullen, RES !
tR. Kenneally, RES1 P. Sobel, NRR A. Ibrahim, NMSS PDR l e
~ ~ ATTENDEES f'? ([ /
PUBLIC MEETING A REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 100, APPENDIX A, SEISMIC AND GE0 LOGIC SITING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS September 11, 1992 NRC Headquarters, 0WFN, IF7/9 8:00 AM AFFILIATION ;
liNiE
@w M. de mm. , 3 Nec /ges !
Alclest c chokr6- ^/a-c / Ac 5 l Gou/am, Basedi /@e/N/?K keer /25-minw tvec her AIAVEGM IVl. FA90KHT IdaMhRC
\Jdim~ U.%ua %h GmEkdm Rohed R Kennelt y Ad. Mes. rmsc /
1 1
A, A. e as At a ,- n 4- o Ad t//?n3 1 1 1.-
/ ,+ S7tpP UfdL Mu . 3 (FCA~ a J8A SeL,/ A?en%//w wee - /2e c llm 0ns0ll 8k &-doasliJ L w b if litt/Ji5 5A L cuhd b/f/ q
$ ~s Ne kr 27s ne
('nel L der Nul Ensk7 lu es NRc /R Pc Sm L hm /6 m x m-e.l a m t s Ew_ S nnu /b q SG2EH O ncse be bf Thins 'Scha neetneL V 0 MV/5 $ 07TROM j?n bl SNS<W Da w we s u c _ c~wste Aml h c.d s% O. b.c_ Able
/kme 7'Alevme feares Dc
- ATTENDEES PUBLIC MEETING REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 100, APPENDIX A, SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC SITING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ,
1 September 11, 1992 '
NRC Headquarters, 0WFN, IF7/9 8:00 AM l
- l N_s!iE AFFILIATION d
lba /
y,/eiv eEz /Nv'M4c.c A* Alec Snpara Avn ,,J 'resean '
Mr , ' R n. 0 f,,,, ,4,x / %.. su ,:.th :
fan 4 $U W #12.f i Gh L {tehrJYt,c L-L l)l.
j d
+
l
?
l
~ gl x i
AGENDA FOR NUMARC/AHAC - NRC STAFF MEETING l SEPTEMBER 11,1992 i 8:00 AM - 2:00 PM l WHITE FLINT . ROOM IF 7/9 I l
l Introduction and purpose of meeting R. Ng/
N. Farukhi Industry's proposed integrated approach to determine SSE M. McCamt
, ground motion Proposed Procedure Example SSE results based on EPRI methodology
.3 Demonstration / Application of NRCs deterministic approach to R. Rothman determine SSE ground motion i
Demonstration / Application of NRC's proposed probabilistic approach D. Bernreuter to determine SSE ground motion ,
Discussion Adjourn t-d b i
! .- Enc / 3
- j. I i
Seismic Siting Rulemaking 10 CFR Part 100 i
i 1
i 4
, Presentation on Development of
- Integrated Seismic Siting Decision Process i !
i i
i NUMARC/NRC Meeting Washington, DC September 11,1992
SCOPE OF PRESENTATION e Goals e Precepts e Integrated Decision Process e Example Assessment of the SSE NUMARC 1
GOALS Seismic siting process must be: '
e predictable and stable t
. e robust with respect to accepting future technical developments (e.g.,
i site-specific data) and methods of l evaluation e able to account for uncertainty in the assessment of seismic hazards e acceptable to the scientific and '
engineering community '
e able to provide an information base that facilitates an understanding and -
review of the assessment of the SSE l
t I
b NUMARC :
2
PRECEPTS
- Existing plants are acceptably safe and l establish a stable reference probability .
level
- . Existing EPRI seismic sources and parameters are an acceptable basis for l assessing a site's SSE ground motions in !
the EUS !
- Site-specific geological, seismological l and geophysical investigations must be !
performed ,
- On a site-by-site basis a confirmatory ;
assessment must be performed given the ;
site-specific earth science database o Existing seismic sources are accepted for ;
determining a site's SSE ground motion j unless shown to be inappropriate on a site-by-site basis ,
i
)
NUMARC i 3 ,
PRECEPTS, CONT.
- Median hazard curves add stability to the seismic siting decision process k
r NUMARC 4 ,
e INTEGRATED DECISION PROCESS l
Site-Speof.c Regonal and Slte Geologeal, SeismoiogicaJ and Geophysical ,
IrivesDqanon EUS WUS
$ [
Perform integrated Develop Seismic Evaluationof EPRIor Sources and Seismiaty LLNL Seismic Sources Parameters I
1 Site-Specfc Update of Yes erto p
0**
R u edh s [ Hazard Analysis Revise / Update No Seismic Sources Conduct EPRl/LLNL Seismic Hazard Determine SSE Assessment Ground Monon A
Determine SSE i Ground Monon 4
i Determine l 5 Site-Response Spectrum I
or ,
h h J
Scale RG-1.60 Spectrum Develop SiteSpeafic
)
Spectrum -
1 I
NUMARC l
5 :
1 l
l l
, .> -s n ,c- ,
INTEGRATED DECISION PROCESS BUILDING BLOCKS SSE EVALUATION EPRI SITE-SPECIFIC DATA EPRI HAZARD METHODOLOGY EPRI DATABASE I
l NUMARC 6
- . - - . . _ - ~
e INTEGRATED DECISION PROCESS APPLICATION TO EUS l
r 1 r 3 Sde and See Regen EPIM Geokqcal,Geoonyuz Eanh Soenas i and Sesmdogem Database investaganon !
L J L J a
_ l a
\
I l
Level I r 3 r Products '
is New Data Yes Median Hazard Conestent we Conduct EPRVLLNL ResuRs EPRULLNL Earm S*struc Hazard
- Q 0 Composne 8" 1
--* Assessment Saence . Source By-Database? ( y ( Source ;
No CPRVLLNL Sewrec Sources, '
Sesmsary P tranwHers l
@ and uamnum I n Magnaude a L J E
$ 1 uj dwJ 2 Diee , e Dess O Cha8ang.su Basis For. No
,$2 Somme Sources Q) Smerfuaty Parameurs g uantun uegnam J
@ Yes E 4 C r 1 b Sesmsc Sources y Sesmoty Parameters
- and Maumum Magnitude Bassa g orn New Data j 7
r 1 ( 7 Conduct i Conduct Seisme Hazard EPRl/LU4L Assese For Seismc Hazard the Sao Assessman For Y
(
4
) (' 4 J
f I f T Products Products Median Hazar4 Expert Median Hazard Results Resuha M,0 Composae 4,0. Composne
. SourteSy. Source-By-( Source J ( Source ;
Level 3 is Hazard Yes BaMd Go New Data Consstent We LLNtAPRI ueden Hazard?
No Sae-Specrfe Update of Soisnuc Sources I
I l NUMARC 7
i SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGICAL, SEISMOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL DATABASE i
e Develop a comprehensive, state-of-the-art database for the site EPRI database Detailed investigations within 8 '
kilometers Reconnaissance investigation within -
40 kilometers of the site Regional review and update within 200 km of the site NUMARC 8
INTEGRATED EVALUATION .
l e Assess consistency of new site and site -
region data and interpretations with existing data and seismic sources Level 1: consistency of each site-specific data set with existing data set Level 2: consistency of new data with the range of interpretations incorporated in existing multiple seismic source characterizations
~
Level 3: consistency of the EPRl/LLNL median hazard with an i estimate of the hazard based on seismic sources modified by new data or interpretation NUMARC 9
POTENTIAL NEW DATA AND INTERPRETATIONS e Microearthquake data e M > 5 earthquake e Geophysical or seismological evidence of active faulting l
NUMARC 10
POTENTIAL NEW DATA AND INTERPRETATIONS (continued) i.
l 4
l 1
- New concepts of tectonics and earthquake L source characterization i
i i
!
- Geodetic measurements I l
..i
- In-s.tui stress measurements i
I i
NUMARC 11
- - - , # e a e
LEVEL 1 EVALUATION OF NEW DATA e Compare each new data set with equivalent data set from EPRI database !
I e Assess differences in spatial patterns, deformation rates, elationships to significant earthquake activity, etc.
e Perform quantitative evaluations as appropriate e If consistent, use existing seismic sources NUMARC 12
_ - = .
t LEVEL 2 EVALUATION OF NEW DATA l AND INTERPRETATIONS e Evaluate the implications of significant new l data on existing seismic source interpretations
- Assess if implications are adequately bracketed by the range of existing
- interpretations:
I alternative seismic source boundaries )
I alternative maximum magnitudes !
i --
alternative recurrence rates or models 2
- Perform quantitative evaluations as
- appropriate i
l e Use existing sources if no significant implications i
i i
-l NUMARC
- 13 l
4 1__________-__ . . _ -_ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - - . ~ > >
LEVEL 3 EVALUATION OF NEW DATA AND INTERPRETATIONS
- If new data and interpretations are not adequately addressed by existing seismic sources at Level 2, compare the hazard computed using existing seismic sources to the hazard computed using seismic sources based on new data and interpretations e Compare derived median hazard with median hazard based on existing seismic sources NUMARC 14
ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROCEDURE TO 4
ESTIMATE THE SSE GROUND MOTION i
1 1
o O ,
C lp = Reference probability! <
I (Median of existing '
g l plants) l e '
O N i N
p, ....................
i N :
o l 8
h l Median Hazard Curve d
,g ! (Average of 5-10 Hz)
- s. :
4 H
M i I
rd :
4 !
O i H :
Spectral Velocity l
ILLUSTRATION OF THE SSE GROUND !
RESPONSE SPECTRUM :
1 l
l l
I i
[ SSE Ground Motion, SVS -10 HzIPc) 8 t
c 0
a U
8
' i l'O 10.0 Frequency (Hz) l 1
l 16
PRODUCTS OF THE INTEGRATED SEISMIC SITING PROCESS
- Up-to-date, site-specific earth science database o Confirmation, or site-specific revision of seismic sources
- SSE ground response spectrum e Assessment of mean magnitude and distance composite (total) hazard source-by-source NUMARC 17
4
- EXAMPLE ASSESSMENT OF SSE GROUND
- MOTIONS i SITE
- MAINE YANKEE 4
i e
, 0.1 p i 10 hz 5 hz Avg.
7- ..6... ..g.
, 0.001 '.,
a .
tG
.O 0.0001 r-f %.
1E-05 --
c .a.
E slE ;,,
k 1E-06 .g-- - ,
1E-07 r-- -- -- ----------N-~e....,".. ,,,
... - a 1E-08 O 10 20 30 40 50 Spectral Velocity (cm/sec.)
NUMARC 18
9 ESTIMATION OF 51 AND U e Based on mean seismic hazard curves e Simple to calculate and check l e Useful to assess the contribution of different seismic sources 1
NUMARC 19
- - , . . . ... m , , .,...m. . .. _ _ ... .. ...
,, , ,,. . . . ., .~.,o..
4 PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION ON MAGNITUDE, PSV = 8.42 cm/sec Maine Yankee - PSV (5.0 Hz) = 8.42 cm/sec 0.45 -
- / .w ---
0.40 V '9h 0.35 I '-
N :- , Niae -~ -wr
~W ~
N 0.30 - 'M'-f '?
0.25 _., i E 0.20 Y b l' 5.0-5.5 5.5-6.0 6.0-6.5 6.5-7.0 >7.0 Magnitude Maine Yankee - PSV (10.0 Hz) = 8.42 cm/sec 0.40[ , g i/ %!
- " .:n e t
?
~/
A M. K~n.ME s n1 m y
0.30 !
2::;
Mh *
.dsbegt 4
< 0.25 ?, Rb'Q ,,'
4 -d%- ;.
O if f,Wp'd Q 0.20 spyj 33- .: .ps j ,_._
a i 9b ':Efkbf.$_ Cr5 0 0.15 :/?S:iK;; .h._
9' ,"..-% .. g
- lQ ;.qps2
.DM. '4 A. 4 ? .46 0.10 E,/ 1.m. .. _. ',
- Mi A/
~ -
0.05 if .}M
'M gg -
r, 0.00 ** - ^
S.0-5.5 5.5-6.0 6.0-6.5 6.5-7.0 >7.0 Magnitude NUMARC 20
9 4
PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION ON DISTANCE l PSV = 8.42 cm/sec Maine Yankee - PSV (5.0 Hz) = 8.42 cm/sec 0.40 0 " e-/
- v k ,
Q 0.35 / * :.': .
-4 .
G a
0.30 (
$o 0.25 / ./ /
- , C/
M 0.20 ( .. . O,,
- ,e: . . . ..- .:. : --J- 4gg q 0.15 p.
gw.;-s.a v .z \
0.10 / $
"'[hd
.00 0 - 25 25 - 50 50-100 100-150 150-200 MIEbhDistance
~
>200 i
I l
Maine Yankee - PSV (10.0 82) = 8.42 cm/sec 0.7 -
.g 0.6 / '#
l 0.5 h/ ,
y A 0.4 /h
?) l E l \
$O f . hl 0.3
.q n_4 ..y 02 .bh r- #:i.
.h ,
f4.na o,3 ;/. ;t-9sw..
y '4 h} !
j ^~A 7 i *f/ / </// -//
0 - 25 25 - 50 50-100 100-150 150-200 >200 Distance l
1 NUMARC l 21
i EARTH SCIENCE T_EAM - SEISMIC SOURCE M - D RESULTS PSV (5.0 Hz) = 8.42 cm/sec Seismic Source (S) _
Expected MagnitudeIM)
Earth Science Team Expected Distance (D)
Weston Geophysical @ 1 12 13 14* 17 C03* C04* COS*
M 7.19 6.28 5.85 5.85 5.99 5.75 5.75 5.59 D 300 284 119 24 28 28 28 25 Dames & Moore @ 2 56* 59 61 63 M 6.41 5.91 7.18 5.91 5.88 D 133 29 300 56 62 Bechtel @ 3 8 9 B* BZ7 BZ8' ,
M 6.64 5.72 5.95 5.70 6.4 5.72 D 300 24 78 25 273 29 Woodward Clyde @ 6 8 9 58 59 B01*
M 5.83 6.16 5.94 6.24 6.41 5.77 D 30 105 129 127 160 28 Law @ 12 17 21 22* 102* 103 C12*
M 7.18 6.65 6.12 6.09 5.48 5.36 6.08 D 300 300 130 36 21 20 35 Rondout @ 31 37 40 42 43 rd 6.38 7.20 6.53 6.67 5.88 D 300 300 107 240 30 l Host source i
NUMARC 22
l l
SUMMARY
PSV (5-10 Hz) = 8.42 cm/sec l
l l
PSV 5.0 Hz PSV 10.0 Hz l M D (km) M D (km) 5.98 52.1 5.88 27.7 J
l 4
NUMARC 23
{.t a O t I MAINE YANKEE SSE RESPONSE SPECTRUM l
l Maine Yankee - SSE/ Regulatory Guide Spectrum 1.0 , ,
, i, i
' i }
i I il l g g !
! IIII l i I' )
y / M lll '
= RG 1 60 !\\ i
! /' i l lA i i lll j
/ i
- l \' l
- i !!
l ' I !
L4 , ! i t .
- g. i .
n i t. l.
4 I i l I '
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 Frequency (Hz) i l
l 4
l l
NUMARC 24
&c / %
, i ;
.! I l
DETERMINISTIC APPROACH i !
, SSE GROUND MOTION I i
- PROPOSED APPENDIX B TO 10 CFR PART 100 1
i e
i
- NUMARC - NRC MEETING l
l SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 l 1
4 i
i l
l -l l
l i :
i ROBERT L. ROTHMAN 1
o e 4
l i CHARACTERISTICS TO BE DETERMINED FOR A SEISMIC SOURCE Source zone geometry - location, size and shape in three dimensions.
l Descriptions of Quaternary displacements.
4 l Historical and instrumental seismicity.
Paleoseismic evidence.
< Deterministic Source Earthquake
+
L DETERMINISTIC SOURCE EARTHQUAKE i
I i
j Deterministic Source Earthquake (DSE) is the largest
- (earthquake that can reasonably be expected to occur in I
a given seismic source in the current tectonic regime, and is to be used in a deterministic analysis. It is
! generally based on the maximum) historical earthquake -
.' associated with a seismic source, unless recent
! geological evidence warrants a larger earthquake, or l where the rate of occurrence of earthquakes indicates e the likelihood of larger than the largest historical event.
i
! The DSE for each seismic source is assumed to occur at
! the closest approach of the source to the site.
[ For the seismic source in which the site is located, the l DSE is assumed to occur at about 15 km from the site.
d l
i
i GROUND MOTION ESTIMATES FOR THE DSE f
The ground motion at the site is estimated for each of l
the DSE using the procedures in SRP Section 2.5.2.
Site specific response spectrum using 84 % of a
! suite of response spectra of strong motion recor'ds-with similar source, propagation path, and site ~
l properties is developed.
l Response spectra may be approximated by scaling
- the ensemble of strong motion data that represent l the best estimate of source, propagation path, and
- site properties. I
! Site-specific peak ground acceleration, velocity and i displacement can be determined for appropriate i magnitude, distance and foundation conditions.
Response spectra may be determined by scaling the
! PGA, PGV, and .PGD with suitable amplification
- factors.
i
- PGA could be used to scale standard response L spectra.
- Theoretical - empirical modeling of ground motion may be used to supplement site-specific spectra.
l
e O i
l CONTROLLING EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION .
1 1
The controlling earthquake ground motion is the envelop of the response spectra obtained from the DSE.
The controlling earthquake ground motion is considered for the safe shutdown earthquake ground motion or is
. used to evaluate a standard design.
- i e
4
TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS ;
(Appendix D to DG-1015) k Interpretation of aerial and satellite imagery, topographic and geologic maps.
Geophysical investigations including: seismic reflection and refraction surveys; gravity, magnetic and electrical surveys; and well logging.
Geological investigations including: field mapping, core drilling, and trenching.
Seismic monitoring of the site vicinity. j i'
Cataloging of all historical and instrumentally recorded earthquakes within the site region.
I
.. e 5
a r
l l
[
l l l l l :
l The purpose of deterministic investigations for a ,
nuclear power plant site is to evaluate:
1 Seismogenic and capable tectonic sources in th'e site region.
The potential for surface deformation, both of tectonic and non-tectonic origin.
The potential for seismically induced floods and l water waves which could affect the site.
The potential for volcanic hazards which could affect the site.
l 1
l l
l I
l
y ,.
., 1
- N A Nuclear NSSP Systems Safety Program Q Application of Proposed New Approach in DG-1015,i ,
- for Determination of the Controlling Earthquake from the Probabilistic Analysis by Don L. Bernreuter Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to NUMARC/AHAC - NRC Staff Meeting D
^
September 11,1992 a
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . - _ _ . _ _ . _ - _._-_._______________.._--_______m__..__m --$.-- w -- - - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
1 Outline of Presentation Q l
4 i Ii .
- Definition of CE-PA
- Overview of the proposed approach to determination of the CE-PA
- Key decisions and their implications
- Application to 8 sites i
- A few comparisons to EPRI results 4
l 1
1 w
EG92 08Sv OtII - 2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _-.___ _____ _ __ _ __._ -.______ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________._i-..._ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
i
! Definition of the Controlling Earthquake (s) from the Probabilistic Analysis (CE-PA) Q '
i l .
l l Ir .
i
- The CE-pas are those earthquakes in terms of distance and magnitude i
- which contribute most to the ground motion hazard at a site for a given level
! of ground motion. Thus, there can be more than one CE-PA for site l
i depending upon the frequency content or level of the ground motion hazard from a given CE-PA.
4 l
a j EG92 085v DL H - 3 i
- w. v%-e- + y - . - , . , - , - - , , . , + - - - . . , - ~ - , - . - - , - , . , - - , . , .,e,.. -, v ..~-,, ~ - , , - . . - . ,, - -,,,,*. ,- . - -, , , - - = - --,--t*-- - - - - -
I 1 After considerable discussion and a large number of sensitivity studies
) the following procedure for determining the controlling earthquake j from the probabilistic analysis (CE-PA) for a site is proposed in DG-1015 t
i .
. d
- The GM level to be used to determine the CE-PA is based on enterind'the
- hazard curve for a site at a selected Probability of Exceedance (PE) level - in DG-1015 the specified PE level is determined using the cumulative i distribution of exceeding the SSE Sv at average of 5 - 10 Hz for the median hazard estimator of all NPP, at the 0.5 level.
i h-----------
i 1.
i :
o L PE .
j Probability of Exceedance for Estimator i
l r .
4 EG92 ot1Sv:OLil . 4
. - . . . ~ _ _ . . . _ _ _ - . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ - _ , _ , . _ , . . , _ _ , , . . , - . . ~ .
I l
The procedure for determining the CE-PA (cont'd) $
1 9 I / it ,
- Enter the hazard curve for the site (at the PE value) and obtain the GM value i
l
! 8 4 5 7
8
, 5 -
x
- 'B .
I b 5
. .8 e v -
Q. -
]
Ground Motion 2
i
, EG92 085wDL B - $
. - . _ . ~ . . _ _ . . . - . . . _ . . . - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ , _ . . . . , . _ _ . _ _ , _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . . - . _ . . . , . _ , . . . . , . _ _ _ . . , , , - - - . _ . . . _ . .
1 The procedure for determining the CE-PA for a site (cont'd) $
j
- In order to account for the relative likelihood provided by each expert pnf '
- to appropriately weight the input of any given expert, we have assumed l that we want to use the results obtained by aggregating over all experts and scenarios.
- To do this, we developed the contribution to the hazard for each S-expert and
- all G-experts in 16 bins so that the hazard surface could be examined as a function of magnitude (M) and distance (D) at the ground motion level previously determined. For some sites additional bins are needed.
S to 5.5 5.5 to 6 6 to 6.5 >6.5 0 - 25 25 - 50 50 -100
> 100 EG92 085v/DLB - 6
f i
4
- The procedure for determining the CE-PA for a site (cont'd) $
i
- Combined over all S and G-experts for each bin to compute the relative
) hazard from each bin. (This give 16 hazard curves for each estimator,ie.g.,
j median).
i Enter each hazard curve at the correct GM value previously determined to
~
] obtain relative contribution for that bin to the CE-PA ground motion.
AL 3 _
\
s
'\;
! t i E j i e I 8
\ N kI L i s -
b Bin i I jg j j Bin 2 2 Bin 3
- ~ Bin 4 Ground Motion EG92 085v DL0 - /
i
-m. <-*--.. - _ ,.. -,+,- ,,,.. _ -, , m.- .,s.,,m,.---..,,,<..,,,-,.-,__,-,_,~,r, vy-.m.,-.rwm-_,-.- . . , - , , , ,._,
l The procedure for determining the CE-PA for a site (cont'd) E i
/ it ,
- Si,D value for the CE-PA is computed by using the hazard level in each i bin as the appropriate weight. -
i Ki= mE E M Ilma m/E E tia lo8 @ = 1 1 los A H a / 1 1 " a l
- d d i
4
- Hu = hazard in bin M,D l
EG92 08SvDLB - 8
1 I
l Key Decisions S i
il .
- How to select the PE level to be used to determine the GM level to be used to enter the hazard curves for each M,D bin to determine the contribution to the hazard?
4
- Which Ground Motion Parameter should be used. (PGA,5 -10 Hz,1 - 2.5 Hz)?
- Which estimator (e.g., median, mean) should be used?
- How will the computed GM from the CE-PA compare to the target?
EG92 085v.0LB - 9
i To understand the implication of the key decisions and how l
the method would work, eight sites were selected for analysis $
1 j
5 l it ,
- Bellefonte 2 Perry 4
!
- Clinton - Seabrook i
l
- Limerick -
Vogtle i
- Millstone - Zion 4 All current NPP sites will be examined i
l i
EG92-085vi)LB - 10
. . . - . _ _ , . . _ . _ . ~ . . . , _ _ . , . . ~ . , _ . . . _ . ~ . . . _ _ _ . _ - , _ _ , _ . , . . ~ , . , _ . . _ _
l To deal with Issue 1, I investigated the sensitivity in the
- resultant D,lVI for four PE levels @
l 5 si .
i 1.0 1.0 ALL3 l
i _R_G2 ____
- ALL2 i
i i
l l i _R_Gl _ _
i l 1
0- I T 0 Y Y All Sites Just RG 1.6 Sites i Prob. of exceeding SSE j
l EG92 085wDL H - 11
To deal with Issue 1, I investigated the sensitivity in the
- resultant lVI,D for four PE levels (cont'd) $
l Table 4 .
i >
l' '
Summary of Levels Investigated l PE Level Probability of Designation Description Exceedance RG1 Only 25 per cent of the NPP designed 1.8 E - 05 (median) with RG 1.60 or Newmark spectral 5.0 E - 04 (85%)
shape have lower probabilities of 5.6 E - 04 (mean) exceeding the SSE RG2 51 percent of the NPP designed with 4.6 E - 05 (median)
RG 1.60 or Newmark spectral shape 8.6 E - 04 (85%)
have higher probability of exceeding 1.3 E - 03 (mean) the SSE ALL2 50 percent of the NPP have higher 1.0 E - 04 (median) probabilities of exceeding the SSE 1.66 E - 03 (85%)
2.15 E - 03 (mean)
ALL3 75 percent of the NPP have lower 2.0 E - 04 (median) probabilities of exceeding the SSE 2.8 E - 03 (85%)
3.5 E - 03 (mean)
NOTE: Exceedance of the SSE is based on the average of the 5 and 10 Hz spectral velocity at 5 percent damping. In addition, both primary and secondary soil conditions were used. Somewhat different PE values would result if only the primary site soil condidon was used.
EG92-08Sv/DLB - 12
e l
The best way to examine the significance of changes in the M and i
D between the various choices is at the ground motion level i
1 l o For our comparison in this presentation, a very simplified apyroach is beihg,, ,
j used to determine the sensitivity of the GM to variations in M and D l - The best estimate model from each of the five LLNL G-Experts was used
- The 1 sigma GM was computed for each BE model at the si and D of interest i and the appropriate site correction was included f - Then the 5 GM estimates were average:I to get the estimate plotted l
o Note that the DG-1015 specifies that the Standard Review Plan Section 2.5.2 l should be used to compute the ground motion
- The GM estimates here are generally different than would be obtained by i following the SRP, but are somewhat consistent with the hazard analysis i
! EG92-08Sv DLIl- 13 L.,__._,-, _ _ - , _ _ _........._.,,--....m.,_ . , . _ . . -,_ _ _ , . . ._ , , _ . . _ , _ , , _ . . . . . , , , _ _ __ _.,. _ , . , . - . , .. . . , . _ ... ...__,_.__-,.~_.m. _ . , , _ _
~ -
- There is relatively little sensitivity in the resultant GM based on the PE level used to compute the CE-PA lVI and D E M D l vogtle
- av 5-10hz C-RG1 C2-RG2 C3-ALL2 C4-ALLS C-- -C LevelRG1 j ' h6 20 C2 --C2 Level RG2 5.7 ' 23
, 10000 E C3- -C3 Level ALL2 5.7 29
- 3 C4-----C4 Level ALL3 5.8 36 i
A g 1000 r E -
- o
_ 100 r as :
- u ;
q _
4
, , ,,,,,,l . . iisial * ''!
I 1 10 100 i
i frequency-cps ECV32 08Sv Dt B - 14
. . _ . , _ _ . . . . - = . -. ,_ . ._, ,.. .__..,.._..- _ ._ .. - ,_- ..,., _ _ ,,.,_. .-. ,.-,. -. ,.__. .._.._..,_..,_.. . , _ - - _ _ . . _ , , _ . , . - - _ . , , . . - . . . . - -.
There is relatively little sensitivity in the resultant GM based on the PE level used to compute the CE-PA 171 and D seabrook : M D
f av 5-10hz C-RG1 C2-RG2 C3-ALL2 C4-ALLS ,, .g, 10000__
C2 -C2 Level RG2 5.8 18
, 5 C3 --C3 Level ALL2 5.8 19
- C4- - -C4 Level ALL3 5.7 20 I
m 1000 --
U ! S, 5, u
g _
e ~
3 $
- 100 7 S :
el a t t I i8 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
, i e a e a E I
.1 1 10 100 frequency ~ cps
There is some sensitivity to the choice of GM parameter used - particularly below 5 Hz Largest ClInton C ALL2 C M, D using Av.1 - 2.5 Hz C av5-10 C2 av1-2.5 C3 pga C2 -C2 M, D using Av. 5 - 10 Hz 10000-. C3----C3 M, D using PG A" '
m 1000 -
E e -
'a 5; g 2
, u C2
- 100 _- C o :
u -
4 e .
e 10
~
.1 1 10 100 frequency ~ cps Eco2 oasvecto m
There is some sensitivity to the choice of GM parameter l ;
used - particularly below 5 Hz g l Smallest Limerick C- C M, D usin8 Av.1 - 2.5 Hz ALL2 C av5-10 C2-av1-2.5 C3 pga C2 C2 M, D using Av. 5 - 10 Hz 10000 - C3-- C3 M, D using Pd A i ,
i m 1000 -
- i f2 ^n W
~
i u -
0 1
( ~
j E -
u
- 100 --
< b :
- 8 :
0 -
~
......., . . . . ..... . . . .....i 1,
1 10 100
.1 4
i .
frequency ~ cps
- EG92-085v DLil s 17
- The M and 5 based on the mean estimator are always larger than the M and D based on the median. A larger M leads to larger GM but a larger D leads to smalier GM. Often, the M,D based on the median leads to larger GM than the M,D based on the mean, but not always I
- MilIstone C------C Median ALL2 av 5-10hz C-medien C2-raean C2 p-C2 Mean il .
10000 -
-l i
m 1000 _-
1 i
u -
- s c E
j 2
C2
- 100 _-
e :
u .
E : C 10 ' ' '' ' ' '' ' ' ' '
.1 1 10 100 frequency ~ cps ecom;2,..n u m
l . -
i 4
-~
-~
The M and 5 based on the mean estimator are always larger than the M and D based on the i median. A larger M leads to larger GM but a larger D leads to smaller GM. Often, the M,D _
based on the median leads to larger GM than the M,D based on the mean, but not always i
C1inton C------C Median j ALL2 av 5-10hz C-median C2-mean
! C2-- / ---C2 II .
Mean
- 10000 -
4 3
4 l
m 1000 -
i ' * -
~
U e
- a -
e -
G u
C
- - 100 -
i e :
I u -
1 u -
i e .
4 10 ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
.1 1 10 100 i
1
- frequenCg' cps EG92 085v.DL11 - 19
i .
4
- The target GM for the PE level ALL2 is often lower than the
! estimate for the corresponding CE-PA based on lVI,D Q j MiiIstone ALL2 P-------P Ta et model e used: 52 37 12 12 27 magnitudes p1otted 5.60 C------C Fr.og CE-PA 1000r:
100 7 1 .
i -
e -
E 1@ -
f1 U -
1 7 I
m 4
,1 . . ......i . . . . . . . . . . . . ....i
.1 1 10 100 frequency ~ cps EG92 076 -18
__ - ., __.._.. . -----., . ,____.....---..._._..-_ .__._-. ..-.~_,.. ...,__ __._____- _.~- .,_..__--.-._ . ... -- - - -
i e
- i i The target GM for the PE level ALL2 is often lower than the estimate for the corresponding CE-PA based on lVI,D Limerick ALL2 P--------P Target mode 1 # used: 52 37 12 12 27 magnitudes plotted 5.60 C--------C Fion} ICE-PA -
- 1000r I 5
~
f -
1
- 100 7 i
u -
i 0 _
- m N e E 10 r C u -
~
] 3 i u -
2 0 5 1T 4
t 1
1 -
l -
,1 . . .iiiil . . . . ...il , , , ,,,,,1
.1 1 10 100 i
t l
frequencg' cps EG92 076 *20
_ . - _ . _ _ . _ , . . - - , , - , . . - , - _ . _ . . . . . . ~ . _
. . - . . . . . _ . . - . ~ . - . . _ . . _ _ _ , . . _ . _ . . . . . . _ . _ , . . . _ _ __ _. .. --,.._. _ ,_-__-.. - _.- --___--- --
t The target GM for the PE level ALL2 is often lower than the E
l estimate for the corresponding CE-PA based on lW,D P ----P Target Beiiefonte ALL2 C--------C From CE-PA madeI # used: 52 37 12 12 27 /,g,,
magnitudes plotted 5.70 1000--
i 2
i _
4 100 r f O [ n
. ~
U m : -
a .
o s i r
^
i >
. . ......i . . ......i . .......I
! ,y I .1 1 10 100 EG92-076 - M frequency ~ cps
i
! The target GM for the PE level ALL2 is often lower than the I
estimate for the corresponding CE-PA based on WI,D J
C11nton ALL2 P-------P Target se C--------C Fionh ,E-P C A mog i t$e"e'sYiotNe 1000 -
i
~
i f
100 r i .
u -
h A 10 - C u :
l ,
i F o
O 1 r i :
...isl i i a e i s al j
,,,,,,,.I . . e 10 100
".1 1 frequency-cps EG92 076 49
. - . - . _, _ . - - - - , . _ _ - , _ - . . - - . . . . . _ - - - _ . , . = - . , _ . . _ - - - - - . , , , . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . , _ , , , - - - _ , . . _ - ,. . .__
i Some results based on the EPRI data are available for 4 sites for
- PGA/ However, because of differences in approach comparisons can only be approximately made at two sites l
I ll .
l * - To make comparisons, I used the following approach
!
- Used the GM levels that the CE-PA was evaluated at for the EPRI results to enter the LLNL curve to compute the CE-PA. Note that the PE levels for the LLNL data are much larger than for the EPRI data. '
i 4
i 4
l i
l a
t EG92-085v/DLB - 20 4
v,.-,,, , ----e,w-4---,w, s.- 4,-, -,-e-.,,-w~ w+-,,,-m--,um--,,-.~=we,.,...v.-,-wmc-.w,,ev. = , ..ww,-w,,w,.. - , , .,-w,.,,,,,m..-.. .w- ,,--3 , m,.m.-
limeric pga spri Ivl 3 347 cm/s**2 50 _
C x '
=
f _
Z 40 z
E -
.c 30' 2 _
,f -
20 0 Z o ___
M _
r 10
=_
h
- *XM 0_ - ~~h
-x m _
5-55 ~- -h 0 25 55-6 -
25-50 6-6.5 50-100
> 6.5 >100
~.
mag bins dist-bins corrected Figure 6b.
i j -- .
l I LIMERICK - PGA
! 1 j
1.0E-04 141.17 cm/sec**2 i i -
/
! 50 //
45 /
f 34&!/
I h3& / ,
i i
S 30 /
.6 25-//
b s 2& !/
- 0* 15-'i/
/ M M .0-5.5 i # 'l / I -Mo47 5
{
0./ 0-20
/ .
- / # />6.5 20-50 50-100 100-150 ' >150 i
t Distance (km)
Distance (km)
, Magnitude 0-20 20 50 50-100 - 100-150 >150 A!! Dists.
l 5 0-5.5 20.7 24.3 0.8 - 0.0 0.0 45.9 5.5-6.0 8.8 28.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 40.3 3 6.0-6.5 2.1 9.7 1.9 0.1 0.0 13.8
! <6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i
l All Mags. .$f31.7 62.5 5.7 0.1 0.0 1
m d
i m.
e
) .
lid 1
. i limeric pga epri Ivi 2 141 cm/s**2 af \
., ( 's 50 ". _M 40
/
E o
g 3 30 p
c ,
.h -
5 3 20 <
\
E o
[ ', _
s-?
de _
l 10 -
l . -
- ^; ~ s x .
I l
om- s ts m-NT.EEEE .
i '. '% -
i 5 5.5 Y'SA.'b .
2 0-25
~
>100 m.
mag bins dist-bing corrected Figure 6a.
e LIMERICK - PGA 1.0E-05 347.23 cm/sec**2
/
5& !/
4E !/
34& /
f 3E!/
.9 30- !/
.6 2E!/
b m
20!/
O 81E!/ M M M 8 10 // .0-5.5
.5-6.0
& //
0 !"l* l"Ml "Ml".l>6 5 0-20 20-50 50-100 100-150 M
>150
.0-6.5 Distance (km)
Distance (km)
Magnitude 0 20 20-50 50-100 100-150 >150 All Dists.
5.0-5.5 24 2 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.9 5.5-6.0 29.0 14.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 43.7 i 6.0-65 11.6 155 0.3 0.0 0.0 27.4 j <65 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ;
i ..
j MMags. 64E 34.7 0.5 0.0 0.0
}
i
! l i
l
! l i m.
i Figure 6d i' ! '
j t, - c
/
{<
millstono pga l epri Ivl 2 150 cm/s**2
^
60 - ~
~
50 E 40 2
2 2
C
.9 30 g ,
g _
20 g^ '
~ ~
, x y. =-
^
0 -_ ~ "w
~
' ~
s __ . _
Me c -
5-55 '
, 0-25 55-6 + ,
25-50 6-6.5 50-100
>65 >100 m.
i mag bins disTebins i
corrected
, Figure 5a.
. 7. c
l .
! For the two sites for which comparisons with EPRI results can be made, i the CE-PA based on EPRI LV 3 PGA and EPRI results lead to slightly j higher GM than LLNL results Limerick at EPRI Iv 3 #
PGA C- C LLNL 10000 - C2
- 7-C2 EPRI
- 1I .
t m 1000 .-
) w .
M ,
- \
i E _
u l - 100 .-
1 e :
I u -
- u -
! G .
~
1 a a e e a e nnl e a a a e eaal e a a a e e aml l
.1 1 10 100 I
i l frequenCg' cps EG92 085v:DL11 21 c.
- For the two sites for which comparisons with EPRI results can be made, the CE-PA based on EPRI LV 3 PGA and EPRI results lead to slightly
, higher GM than LLNL results i
j Mi1istone at EPRI 1v 3 pan C----C LLNL
, 10000r C2------C2 EPRI l
/'
II .
i -
1 b -
i m 1000 r
[ - k2 N
1 E -
u
, - 100 r i
e :
u -
u -
,i q .
, , ,,,,..I . . .....I i i i.>> 1 1g
, .1 1 10 100 j f r equency-cps EG92-085v/OL O 22
, -- .,m __ , _ _ , , . .
. , , , . _ . ,