LIC-13-0126, Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Acciden
| ML13256A109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/2013 |
| From: | Cortopassi L P Omaha Public Power District |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| LIC-13-0126 | |
| Download: ML13256A109 (8) | |
Text
fjjjjjfj ----Omaha Public Power District 444 South uf h Street Mall Omaha, NE 68102-2247 LlC-13-0126 September 12, 2013 u.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001
References:
- 1. Docket No. 50-285 2. Letter from NRC (E. J. Leeds & M. R. Johnson) to OPPD (D. J. Bannister), "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," dated March 12,2012 (ML 12053A340) (NRC-12-0021 ) 3. Letter from NRC (D. L. Skeen) to NEI (J. E. Pollock), Endorsement of EPRI Final Draft Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance," dated February 15,2013 (ML12319A074) 4. EPRI Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 5. Letter from NEI (A. R. Pietrangelo) to NRC (D. L. Skeen), "Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations," dated April 9,2013 (ML13107B386)
- 6. Letter from NRC (E. J. Leeds) to NEI (J. E. Pollock), "Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations," dated May 7, 2013 (ML 131 06A331)
Subject:
Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident -1.5 Year Response for CEUS Sites On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Reference 2 to all power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status. Enclosure 1 of Reference 2 requested each addressee in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) to submit a written response consistent with the requested seismic hazard evaluation information (items 1 through 7) by September 12 , 2013. On February 15, 2013, the NRC issued Reference 3, endorsing the industry guidance (Reference
- 4) prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for responding to Reference 2. Section 4 of Reference 4 identifies the detailed information to be included in the seismic hazard evaluation submittals. Employment with Equal Opportunity U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission LlC-13-0126 Page 2 On April 9, 2013, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted Reference 5 to the NRC, requesting NRC agreement to delay submittal of some of the CEUS seismic hazard evaluation information so that an update to the EPRI (2004, 2006) ground motion attenuation model could be completed and used to develop that information.
NEI proposed that descriptions of subsurface materials and properties and base case velocity profiles (items 3a and 3b in Section 4 of Reference
- 4) be submitted to the NRC by September 12, 2013, with the remaining seismic hazard and screening information submitted to the NRC by March 31, 2014. In Reference 6, the NRC agreed with this recommendation.
The attachment to this letter contains the requested description of subsurface materials and properties and base case velocity profiles for Fort Calhoun Station. The information provided in the attachment to this letter is considered an interim product of seismic hazard development efforts being performed for the industry by EPRI. The complete and final seismic hazard report for OPPD will be provided to the NRC in our seismic hazard submittals by March 31, 2014 in accordance with Reference
- 5. This letter contains no new regulatory commitments.
Should you have any questions concerning the content of this letter, please contact Bill Hansher at (402) 533-6894.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 12,2013. LPC/JLB/mle
Attachment:
Descriptions of Subsurface Materials and Properties and Base Case Velocity Profiles for Fort Calhoun Station c: E. J. Leeds, Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation S. A. Reynolds, Acting NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV J. M. Sebrosky, NRC Senior Project Manager L. E. Wilkins, NRC Project Manager J. C. Kirkland, NRC Senior Resident Inspector LlC-13-0126 Attachment Page 1 . Descriptions of Subsurface Materials and Properties and Base Case Velocity Profiles for Fort Calhoun Station The basic information used to create the site geologic profile at Fort Calhoun Station is shown in Table 1. This profile was developed using information documented in Reference
- 1. As indicated in Reference 1, the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) Control Point is defined at the ground surface (elevation 1004'-6" feet), and the profile was modeled up to the surface. For dynamic properties of rock layers, modulus and damping curves were represented with 2 models. The first model used rock curves taken from Reference 2, the second model assumed linear behavior.
These dynamic property models were weighted equally. For dynamic properties of fill and compacted sand layers, modulus and damping curves were also represented with 2 models. The first model used soil curves taken from Reference 2, the second model used soil curves taken from References 3 and 4. These dynamic property models were weighted equally. To model the profile, rock modulus and damping curves from Reference 2 were paired with soil modulus and damping curves from Reference 2, and linear f rock modulus and damping curves were paired with soil modulus and damping curves from References 3 and 4. The 3 base-case shear-wave velocity profiles used to model amplification at the site are shown in Figure 1. Profiles 1, 2, and 3 are weighted 0.4, 0.3, and 0.3, respectively.
Thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) corresponding to each profile are shown in Table 2.
LlC-13-0126 Attachment Page 2 Depth Range (feet) 0-10 10-20 20-40 40-75 75-700 700-970 970-1310 1310-2130 2130-2200 2200+ Table 1 Summary of Geotechnical Profile Data for Fort Calhoun Station Compression Shear Wave Wave (P) Average Density (Vs) Velocity Velocity Poisson's Soil I Rock Description (pcf) (feet/sec) (feet/sec)
Ratio Man-Placed Fill: clays, silts, sands 120 1000 1500 +/-500 0.40 Quaternary System: Recent alluvial clay, silt 115 500 +/-250 1500 +/-500 0.28 Quaternary System: Recent alluvial sand, some silt 120 1000 +/-500 2000 +/-500 0.30 Pleistocene System: Older sands 125 1500 +/-500 3000 +/-500 0.32 Pennsylvanian System: 5000 +/-Limestone and Shale 140 1000 10000 +/-1000 0.28 MissisSippian System: Limestone, Shale, 9000 +/-Dolomite, and Sandstone 155 1000 14,000 +/-1000 0.18 Devonian System: 6000 +/-Shale and Dolomite 145 1000 9500 +/-1000 0.21 Ordovician System: Dolomite, Shale, 7000 +/-Sandstone, and Limestone 150 1000 11,000 +/-1000 0.18 Cambrian System: 8500 +/-Dolomite and Sandstone 155 1000 14,000 +/-1000 0.17 Precambrian System: Granite 165 10,000+ 17,000 +/-1000 0.25 1. The ground surface elevation of 1005 feet was assumed to correspond to a depth of 0 feet. 2. The dynamic properties (density, shear wave and P-wave velocities and Poisson's ratio) for the man placed fills and the overburden soils were developed based on Standard Penetration Test data (ASTM D 1586), cone penetration test soundings (ASTM D 5778) and seismic refraction and ReMi profiles taken at the site (HDR, 2012 and Geotechnology, 2011 ). 3. The dynamic parameters for the rock of the Pennsylvania System were estimated from seismic refraction (P-wave) and ReMi (shear wave) methods taken at the site by Geotechnology (2011) and Dames & Moore (1967). 4. The dynamic parameters for the deeper rock strata were estimated based upon an estimated percentage of rock type within each geologic unit, its age and the stratigraphy noted in the logs of oil and gas wells (NGS, 1961, 1967). 5. The uncertainties in the dynamic parameters are expressed in a range of values (that is, 18,000 +/-1000).
LlC-13-0126 Attachment Page 3 o 100 200 3 00 400 500 600 700 800 _ 900 :;. 1 000 ..s 1100 1 200 o 13 00 1 400 1 500 1 600 1 700 1 800 1900 2000 2100 2200 Vs profiles for Fort Calhoun Site Vs (ft/sec) o 1000 2000 3 000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 I I -Pr o file 1 -Profile 2 -Pr ofile 3 I Figure 1 LlC-13-0126 Attachment Page 4 Table 2 Layer thicknesses, depths, and Vs for 3 profiles, Fort Calhoun Site Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 thickness(ft) depth Vs(ftls) thickness(ft) depth Vs(ftls) thickness(ft) depth (ft)-(ft)-(ft) 0 1000 0 800 0 5.0 5.0 1000 5.0 5.0 800 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 1000 5.0 10.0 800 5.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 500 5.0 15.0 400 5.0 15.0 5.0 20.0 500 5.0 20.0 400 5.0 20.0 5.0 25.0 1000 5.0 25.0 800 5.0 25.0 5.0 30.0 1000 5.0 30.0 800 5.0 30.0 5.0 35.0 1000 5.0 35.0 800 5.0 35.0 5.0 40.0 1000 5.0 40.0 800 5.0 40.0 5.0 45.0 1500 5.0 45.0 1200 5.0 45.0 5.0 50.0 1500 5.0 50.0 1200 5.0 50.0 5.0 55.0 1500 5.0 55.0 1200 5.0 55.0 5.0 60.0 1500 5.0 60.0 1200 5.0 60.0 5.0 65.0 1500 5.0 65.0 1200 5.0 65.0 5.0 70.0 1500 5.0 70.0 1200 5.0 70.0 5.0 75.0 1500 5.0 75.0 1200 5.0 75.0 5.0 80.0 5000 5.0 80.0 4000 5.0 80.0 10.0 90.0 5000 10.0 90.0 4000 10.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 5000 10.0 100.0 4000 10.0 100.0 10.0 110.0 5000 10.0 110.0 4000 10.0 110.0 10.0 120.0 5000 10.0 120.0 4000 10.0 120.0 10.0 130.0 5000 10.0 130.0 4000 10.0 130.0 10.0 140.0 5000 10.0 140.0 4000 10.0 140.0 10.0 150.0 5000 10.0 150.0 4000 10.0 150.0 10.0 160.0 5000 10.0 160.0 4000 10.0 160.0 10.0 170.0 5000 10.0 170.0 4000 10.0 170.0 10.0 180.0 5000 10.0 180.0 4000 10.0 180.0 10.0 190.0 5000 10.0 190.0 4000 10.0 190.0 10.0 200.0 5000 10.0 200.0 4000 10.0 200.0 10.0 210.0 5000 10.0 210.0 4000 10.0 210.0 10.0 220.0 5000 10.0 220.0 4000 10.0 220.0 10.0 230.0 5000 10.0 230.0 4000 10.0 230.0 10.0 240.0 5000 10.0 240.0 4000 10.0 240.0 10.0 250.0 5000 10.0 250.0 4000 10.0 250.0 10.0 260.0 5000 10.0 260.0 4000 10.0 260.0 10.0 270.0 5000 10.0 270.0 4000 10.0 270.0 10.0 280.0 5000 10.0 280.0 4000 10.0 280.0 10.0 290.0 5000 10.0 290.0 4000 10.0 290.0 10.0 300.0 5000 10.0 300.0 4000 10.0 300.0 10.0 310.0 5000 10.0 310.0 4000 10.0 310.0 Vs(ftls) 1250 1250 1250 625 625 1250 1250 1250 1250 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 LlC-13-0126 Attachment Page 5 Table 2 Layer thicknesses, depths, and Vs for 3 profiles, Fort Calhoun Site Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 depth depth depth thickness(ft) (ft) Vs(ftls) th ickness(ft) (ft) Vs(ftls) thickness(ft) (ft) 10.0 320.0 5000 10.0 320.0 4000 10.0 320.0 10.0 330.0 5000 10.0 330.0 4000 10.0 330.0 10.0 340.0 5000 10.0 340.0 4000 10.0 340.0 10.0 350.0 5000 10.0 350.0 4000 10.0 350.0 10.0 360.0 5000 10.0 360.0 4000 10.0 360.0 10.0 370.0 5000 10.0 370.0 4000 10.0 370.0 10.0 380.0 5000 10.0 380.0 4000 10.0 380.0 10.0 390.0 5000 10.0 390.0 4000 10.0 390.0 10.0 400.0 5000 10.0 400.0 4000 10.0 400.0 10.0 410.0 5000 10.0 410.0 4000 10.0 410.0 10.0 420.0 5000 10.0 420.0 4000 10.0 420.0 10.0 430.0 5000 10.0 430.0 4000 10.0 430.0 10.0 440.0 5000 10.0 440.0 4000 10.0 440.0 10.0 450.0 5000 10.0 450.0 4000 10.0 450.0 10.0 460.0 5000 10.0 460.0 4000 10.0 460.0
- 10.0 470.0 5000 10.0 470.0 4000 10.0 470.0 10.0 480.0 5000 10.0 480.0 4000 10.0 480.0 10.0 490.0 5000 10.0 490.0 4000 10.0 490.0 10.0 500.0 5000 10.0 500.0 4000 10.0 500.0 25.0 525.0 5000 25.0 525.0 4000 25.0 525.0 25.0 550.0 5000 25.0 550.0 4000 25.0 550.0 25.0 575.0 5000 25.0 575.0 4000 25.0 575.0 25.0 600.0 5000 25.0 600.0 4000 25.0 600.0 25.0 625.0 5000 25.0 625.0 4000 25.0 625.0 25.0 650.0 5000 25.0 650.0 4000 25.0 650.0 25.0 675.0 5000 25.0 675.0 4000 25.0 675.0 25.0 700.0 5000 25.0 700.0 4000 25.0 700.0 90.0 790.0 9000 90.0 790.0 5732 90.0 790.0 90.0 880.0 9000 90.0 880.0 5732 90.0 880.0 90.0 970.0 9000 90.0 970.0 5732 90.0 970.0 85.0 1055.0 6000 85.0 1055.0 3821 85.0 1055.0 85.0 1140.0 6000 85.0 1140.0 3821 85.0 1140.0 85.0 1225.0 6000 85.0 1225.0 3821 85.0 1225.0 85.0 1310.0 6000 85.0 1310.0 3821 85.0 1310.0 164.0 1474.0 7000 164.0 1474.0 4458 164.0 1474.0 164.0 1638.0 7000 164.0 1638.0 4458 164.0 1638.0 164.0 1802.0 7000 164.0 1802.0 4458 164.0 1802.0 164.0 1965.9 7000 164.0 1966.0 4458 164.0 1965.9 164.0 2129.9 7000 164.0 2130.0 4458 164.0 2129.9 35.0 2164.9 8500 35.0 2165.0 5414 35.0 2164.9 Vs(ftls) 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 6250 9285 9285 9285 9285 9285 9285 9285 9285 9285 9285 9285 9285 9285 lIC-13-0126 Attachment Page 6 Table 2 Layer thicknesses, depths, and Vs for 3 profiles, Fort Calhoun Site Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 depth depth depth thickness(ft) (tt) Vs(ftls) thickness(ft) (ft) Vs(ftls) thickness(ft) (ft) 35.0 2199.9 8500 35.0 2200.0 5414 35.0 2199.9 3280.8 5480.8 9285 3280.8 5480.8 9285 3280.8 5480.8 References Vs(ftls) 9285 9285 1. OPPD (2012). Transmittal of Soils Data, IEEEISSE Seismic Spectra and Control Point Elevation Information, Omaha Public Power District letter FCS-FRP-GEN-12-001 from J. Gasper to J. Hamel on October 30, 2012. 2. EPRI (1993). Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions, Elec. Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto, CA, Rept. TR-102293, Vol. 1-5. 3. Silva, W.J., N. A. Abrahamson, G.R. Toro, and C. Costantino (1996). Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model, Rept. submitted to Brookhaven Natl. Lab., Assoc. Universities Inc., Upton NY 11973, Contract No. 770573. 4. Walling, M.A., W.J., Silva and N.A. Abrahamson (2008). "Nonlinear Site Amplification Factors for Constraining the NGA Models," Earthquake Spectra, 24 (1) 243-255.