Nuclear Operating Company · 2013. 9. 30. · Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:...

Nuclear Operating Company

South Texas Pro/ect Electric Generating Station PO. Box 289 Wadsworth. Te7as 77483 AA/-

September 11, 2013NOC-AE-1300302810 CFR 50.54 (f)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAttention: Document Control DeskWashington, DC 20555-0001

South Texas ProjectUnits 1 & 2

Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499Response 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 ForceReview of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

1.5 Year Response for CEUS Site

References: 1. NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to E. D. Halpin, "Request for InformationPursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f)Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-TermTask Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident"dated March 12, 2012 (ML12053A340)

2. NRC Letter, Endorsement of EPRI Final Draft Report 1025287,"Seismic Evaluation Guidance," dated February 15, 2013(ML12319A074)

3. EPRI Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening,Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution ofFukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,February 2013 (ML12333A170 & ML12319A074)

4. NEI letter to NRC, Proposed Path Forward for NTTFRecommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations, dated April 9, 2013(ML13101A345)

5. NRC Letter, EPRI Final Draft Report XXXXXX, "Seismic EvaluationGuidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Near-TermTask Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," as an AcceptableAlternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for SeismicReevaluations, dated May 7, 2013 (ML13106A331)

On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Reference 1 toall power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred

STI 33742194 -- )

NOC-AE-13003028 of 3

status. Enclosure 1 of Reference 1 requested each addressee in the Central andEastern United States (CEUS) to submit a written response consistent with therequested seismic hazard evaluation information (items 1 through 7) by September 12,2013. On February 15, 2013, NRC issued Reference 2, endorsing the Reference 3industry guidance for responding to Reference 1. Section 4 of Reference 3 identifies thedetailed information to be included in the seismic hazard evaluation submittals.

On April 9, 2013, NEI submitted Reference 4 to NRC, requesting NRC agreement todelay submittal of some of the CEUS seismic hazard evaluation information so that anupdate to the EPRI (2004, 2006) ground motion attenuation model could be completedand used to develop that information. NEI proposed that descriptions of subsurfacematerials and properties and base case velocity profiles (items 3a and 3b in Section 4 ofReference 3) be submitted to NRC by September 12, 2013, with the remaining seismichazard and screening information submitted to NRC by March 31, 2014. In Reference 5,NRC agreed with this recommendation.

The attachment to this letter contains the requested descriptions of subsurface materialsand properties and base case velocity profiles for STP Nuclear Operating Company(STPNOC). The information provided in the attachment to this letter is considered aninterim product of seismic hazard development efforts. The complete and final seismichazards report for STP will be provided to the NRC in our seismic hazard submittal byMarch 31, 2014.

There no commitments in this letter.

If there are any questions regarding this letter, please contact Robyn Savage at(361) 972-7438.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: '/'1/.o12.

Rencu rrelSenior Vice President, Operations

Attachment: Response to Request for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 ofthe Near-term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichiAccident

rds

NOC-AE-13003028 of 3

cc:

(paper copy) (electronic copy)

Regional Administrator, Region IVU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission1600 East Lamar BoulevardArlington, TX 76011-4511

Balwant K. SingalSenior Project ManagerU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOne White Flint North (MS 8 B1)11555 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852

NRC Resident InspectorU. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionP. O. Box 289, Mail Code: MN116Wadsworth, TX 77483

Jim CollinsCity of AustinElectric Utility Department721 Barton Springs RoadAustin, TX 78704

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOne White Flint North (MS 13 H 16M)11555 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852

A. H. Gutterman, EsquireMorgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Balwant K. SingalU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

John RaganChris O'HaraJim von SuskilNRG South Texas LP

Kevin PolioRichard PenaCity Public Service

Peter NemethCrain Caton & James, P.C.

C. MeleCity of Austin

Richard A. RatliffTexas Department of State HealthServices

Robert FreeTexas Department of State HealthServices

Attachment 1NOC-AE-1 3003028Page 1 of 20

Response to Request for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the

Near-term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

References:

1. South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Updated Final SafetyAnalysis Report (UFSAR), Rev. 15, for Units 1 & 2 Project.

2. EPRI Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening,Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution ofFukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,February 2013 (ML12333A170 & ML12319A074)

3. South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Final Safety AnalysisReport (FSAR), Rev. 7, for Units 3 & 4 Project.

4. Petrophysics, Inc. Digitized Logs of Wells LL3341, LL4537, LL4987,Piano, Texas.

5. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993). "Guidelines forDetermining Design Basis Ground Motions", Volumes. 1-5, EPRI TR-102293, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

6. Vucetic, M. and R. Dobry. "Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response,"Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1, January1991.

7. NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to E. D. Halpin, "Request for InformationPursuant 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 TaskForce Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident" datedMarch 12, 2012 (ML12053A340)

8. NRC Letter, EPRI Final Draft Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Near-Term Task ForceRecommendation 2.1: Seismic," as an Acceptable Alternative to theMarch 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, datedMay 7, 2013 (ML13106A331)

This attachment provides the initial response to the NRC's request for information(Reference 7) for the South Texas Project (STP) Units 1 and 2. It provides theinformation the NRC agreed, as indicated in Reference 8, was required to be submittedby September 12, 2013. STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) provides theinformation in the EPRI Report (Reference 2), Section 4, items 3a and 3b.

STP Units 1 & 2 Site Description

STP Units 1 & 2 are located on a site in Matagorda County, Texas. While the currentgeotechnical licensing basis for the site is provided in the UFSAR for these units(Reference 1), the combined licensing (COL) effort is nearing completion for two

Attachment 1NOC-AE-13003028Page 2 of 20

Response to Request for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of theNear-term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

additional units (STP Units 3 & 4) that will also be located on the site. As a result, unlikemost other existing nuclear power plants performing a seismic re-evaluation, the STP 3& 4 licensing activities have provided significant additional recent geotechnicalinformation for the site which can be used for the seismic re-evaluation of Units 1 & 2.Therefore, to take advantage of this additional recent geotechnical information and toprovide a consistent geotechnical licensing basis for the site, this new information hasbeen integrated into the development of the soil profiles and other information for Units 1& 2 provided in this response.

The purpose of this report is to provide a response to the NRC request for additionalinformation described above by submittal of a description of subsurface materials andproperties and base case soil profiles and non-linear material properties for the STP 1 &2 site. The report develops a dynamic soil column from the ground surface to a depth ofabout 20,000 feet depth for the STP Units 1 & 2 site to be used as input to the seismicre-evaluation that will be provided for Units 1 & 2 in response to the NRC March 12,2013 Letter. The report considers both historic data originally developed for Units 1 & 2and current data which have been developed for the licensing of Units 3 & 4. Noadditional subsurface data were collected for preparation of this report.

The following properties are provided in this report:

* subsurface stratification and layer thickness,

* material type and classification,

* unit weight,

* shear wave velocity (Vs) and compression wave velocity (Vp),

* Poisson's ratio,

* shear modulus and material damping versus cyclic shear strain, and

* groundwater elevation.

Reference 2 suggests developing base-case models that fully evaluate and integrate allexisting geological information. Regarding the STP Units 1 & 2 site, there are threeprimary sources available to derive the geotechnical parameters (focusing on Vs and Vp)for the base-case models:

* Data collected at the site of STP Units 1 & 2 (from Reference 1) are available toa depth of approximately 341 feet from finish grade.

* Data collected at the site of STP Units 3 & 4 (from Reference 3) are available toa depth of approximately 603 feet from finish grade. The site of Unit 3 and Unit 4are located approximately 1,500 and 2,200 feet northwest of Units 1 & 2,respectively.

* Sonic log data collected from oil-field borings LL3341, LL4537, and LL4987 (fromReference 4) are available from a depth of 594 feet to approximately 20,000 feet



from finished grade. LL3341, LL4537, and LL4987 are located approximately 13miles, 11 miles, and 19 miles from the STP site, respectively.

All elevations are referenced to the mean sea level (MSL or NGVD), U.S. Coast andGeodetic Survey, datum of 1929. This datum is commonly referred to as NGVD29.

Subsurface Stratification and Layer Thickness

The STP Units 1 & 2 site is essentially level, with plant grade at El. 28 ft.

The STP site subsurface consists of deep Gulf Coastal Plain sediments underlain byMesozoic age bedrock ("basement rock"). The uppermost soils consist of BeaumontFormation (Pleistocene) sediments extending to a minimum depth of approximately 750feet, underlain by soil and soft rock deposits of Pleistocene, Pliocene, and Mioceneages. These lower deposits extend to a depth of approximately 4,400 feet, at which pointthey transition to the Oakville Sandstone Formation sediments, with a base depth atapproximately 6,200 feet. These sediments are, in turn, underlain by Cretaceousbedrock, followed by the Mesozoic basement rock which occurs at a top depth ofapproximately 34,500 feet. The basement rock beneath the site is presently believed tobe continental crustal material from the Grenville Orogeny.

One boring at Units 1 & 2 was extended to a depth of about 2,620 feet depth, andencountered alternating layers of clays and sands, transitioning to soft sedimentaryclaystones and siltstones at depths greater than approximately 1,100 feet.

Material Type and Classification

Clays in the upper 600 feet comprise about 60 percent of the materials, and the sandsabout 40 percent. There are 12 distinct clay interbeds which range from stiff to hard,and are predominantly high plasticity (CH) materials. There are 11 distinct sandinterbeds which range from medium dense to very dense, and are predominantly siltysand (SM) materials. There is one silt interbed (ML). The thickness and material types ofthese layers, including the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) classification andplasticity index (PI) are shown in Table 1. (The sands are generally non plastic.) Notethat the stratigraphy in Table 1 for the upper 341 feet (the limit of detailed exploration forUnits 1 & 2) is the average stratigraphy for Units 1 & 2. The Units 1 & 2 stratigraphy isvery similar to the Units 3 & 4 stratigraphy, with layer thicknesses exhibiting variationthat would be expected to typically occur for measurements taken over a large site inthis area of the United States. From 341 to 603 feet depth, the stratigraphy is theaverage Units 3 & 4 stratigraphy, since there is no detailed stratigraphy available forUnits 1 & 2 below 341 feet depth, except for the 2,620 feet deep boring.

From about 600 feet to the bottom of the 2,620-foot deep boring, approximately two-thirds of the sediments encountered in the boring were fine-grained, consisting mainly oflean clay, fat clay, silty clay, silt, claystone, or siltstone. The remaining one-third of thesediments encountered in the boring were coarse-grained, consisting mainly of siltysand or sand.




Unit Weiqht

The total unit weights for both the sands and clays in the top 600 feet fall into a relativelynarrow range, from about 123 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 130 pcf (excluding the top 6feet). The values for each layer are shown on Tables 2 and 3 (to 341 feet depth) andTable 4 (below 341 feet depth). Compactness and hence unit weight will increasegradually with increasing depth due to increasing overburden pressure - a value of 128pcf is used from about 600 to 900 feet depth, 130 pcf from 900 to 1,900 feet, 133 pcffrom 1,900 to 2,100 feet, 135 pcf from 2,100 to 2,500 feet, and 140 pcf below 2,500 feet.

Shear and Compression Wave Velocity

Shear wave velocity (Vs) and compression wave velocity (Vp) measurements wereobtained for Units 1 & 2 and Units 3 & 4. Vp measurements were obtained to a depth ofapproximately 20,000 feet in oil-field borings.

Units 1 & 2 Shear and Compression Wave Velocity

Seismic cross-hole measurements were used to determine Vs and Vp. Measurementswere taken in two receiver boreholes, 15 feet apart. In the initial series of tests, readingswere taken to 280 and 298 feet depth in Unit 1 and Unit 2 locations, respectively. A finalseries of tests was run to 315 feet depth at a location between Units 1 and 2. Testswere made at 5-foot depth intervals. Four to 10 readings were taken at each depthinterval, and individual readings were generally within 6 percent of the average reading.Reference 1 indicates that Vs values between 305 and 341 feet were derived based onthe soil stratigraphy and extrapolation of the Vs data in the upper 305 feet.

Units 3 & 4 Shear and Compression Wave Velocity

Suspension P-S logging was performed in 11 boreholes, 6 at the proposed Unit 3location and 5 at the proposed Unit 4 location. P-S measurements were taken to about200 feet depth in 8 of the borings and to about 470 feet in one boring. In one boring inthe Unit 3 area and one boring in the Unit 4 area P-S measurements were taken toabout 600 feet depth. Readings were taken at either 0.5-meter (1.6-foot) or 1-meter(3.2-foot) intervals.

Well Loq Data

The wells are located about 11, 13 and 19 miles from the STP site. Readings extendfrom a depth of approximately 600 feet to depths of about 16,000 feet in two of the wells,and 20,000 feet in the third well. Vp was measured at 0.5-foot intervals in each well. Foranalysis, the readings were averaged over 200-foot intervals in each well. Theseaveraged Vp measurements were converted to Vs using typical values of Poisson's ratio(see next section).




Design Shear and Compression Wave Velocity Profiles

Comparison of the Vs values in the upper 341 feet showed that the Units 1 & 2 valueswere typically somewhat higher than those measured in the top 341 feet for Units 3 & 4.As a result, two base cases are developed.

Base Case 1 uses the average Vs values from Units 1 & 2 to 341 feet depth. Base Case2 uses the Vs values from Units 3 & 4 to 341 feet depth, but uses the stratigraphy fromUnits 1 & 2. Below 341 feet depth, both base cases use the Units 3 & 4 Vs values to603 feet depth, and the sonic log values from 603 to 20,000 feet depth. The values forBase Cases 1 and 2 to 341 feet depth are given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Thevalues below 341 feet depth are the same for both base cases and are given in Table 4.Note that soil column analysis for Units 3 & 4 showed that the column could be truncatedat less than 10,000 feet depth with no change in the site response at frequencies above0.5 Hz.

The best estimate and upper and lower bound Vs values are provided along with thebest estimate Vp values. The upper and lower bound Vs values to 341 feet depth inTable 2 are taken directly from Reference 1. Coefficients of variation range from about0.21 to 0.25. The upper and lower bound Vs values from 341 to 530 feet depth in Table 2and from zero to 530 feet depth in Table 3 have a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.20;from 530 to 603 feet depth the logarithmic standard deviation is 0.19. Below 603 feet,the upper and lower bound Vs values are based on the standard deviation of all of thedata within the 200 feet depth interval.

For analysis using the Vs and Vp data in Tables 2 and 3, weighting of 40% should begiven to Base Case 1 (Table 2) and weighting of 60% should be given to Base Case 2(Table 3).

The Base Case 1 and 2 Vs values to 341 feet depth are plotted on Figure 1. The Vsvalues below 341 feet (same for both base cases) are plotted on Figure 2.

Poisson's Ratio Values

The Poisson's ratio values to 341 ft depth in Table 2 are taken directly from Reference 1.The Poisson's ratio values from 341 ft to 603 feet depth in Table 2 and from zero to 603feet depth in Table 3 are derived from the best estimate Vs and Vp values. ThePoisson's ratio value decreases linearly at 300-foot intervals below 603 feet depth,starting at 0.46 from 603 to 900 feet depth, 0.45 from 900 to 1,200 feet depth, and so onuntil it reaches 0.30 at 5,400 feet depth. The value remains constant at 0.30 below5,400 feet.



Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio versus Strain

Shear Modulus

The shear modulus reduction (G/GMAx) versus cyclic shear strain curves from Units 1 & 2(Reference 1) were digitized and compared against the curves from Units 3 & 4(Reference 3) for each stratum. The curves for Units 1 & 2 were generated based onlaboratory cyclic triaxial test results while the curves for Units 3 & 4 were generatedbased on laboratory resonant column torsional shear (RCTS) tests. The comparisonindicated that values from Units 1 & 2 decrease much more rapidly with increasing strain(more strain dependent). Considering the improved technology used in RCTS tests, thecorresponding test results from Units 3 & 4 are expected to more accurately reflect theactual soil characteristics. They are adopted here for both base case profiles down to603 feet depth.

Based on the comparison between the RCTS test results and published curves, thefollowing shear modulus reduction curves for sand, clay and silt are adopted. (The EPRIcurves are from Reference 5 and the Vucetic & Dobry curves are from Reference 6.)

* For sands located at depths greater than or equal to 100 feet, use the EPRIcurve for depths of 500 to 1000 feet

" For sands located at depths less than 100 feet, use the EPRI curve for depths of250 to 500 feet

" For clays with PI greater than or equal to 30, use the Vucetic & Dobry curve forP1 = 100

" For silt, use the EPRI curve for P1 = 50.

Based on the soil type and the corresponding plasticity index, the recommendedmodulus reduction curves are provided in Table 5 for each stratum. The G/GMAx valueswith increasing cyclic shear strain are given in Table 6 for each material. Note that theRCTS tests gave very consistent G/GMAx results for each material tested. This isreflected in the small variation given in Table 6. The curves are plotted in Figure 3without showing the variation (for clarity).

Linear properties (implying G/GMAx = 1) are used for soils below 603 feet depth.

Damping Ratio

Like the shear modulus reduction curves, the damping ratio (D) versus cyclic shearstrain curves from Units 1 & 2 were generated based on laboratory cyclic triaxial testresults while the curves for Units 3 & 4 were generated based on laboratory RCTS tests.Comparison between the two sets of curves indicated that values from Units 1 & 2increase much more rapidly with increasing strain and constantly stay higher. As withthe shear modulus reduction curves, the corresponding test results from Units 3 & 4 areexpected to more accurately reflect the actual soil characteristics, because of the



improved testing technology. They are adopted here for both base case profiles down to603 feet depth.

Based on the comparison between the RCTS test results and published curves, thefollowing damping ratio curves for sand, clay and silt are adopted.

* For all sands, use EPRI curve for depths of 500 to 1000 ft

* For clays with PI greater than or equal to 30, use the Vucetic & Dobry curve forPI = 200.

* For low P1 clay and silt samples, use the Vucetic & Dobry curve for PI = 200 up tostrains of 0.005% and use the EPRI interpolated P1 = 60 curve for strains above0.05%.

Based on the soil type and the corresponding plasticity index, the recommendeddamping ratio curves are provided in Table 5 for each stratum. The values of D withincreasing cyclic shear strain are given in Table 7 for each material. Note that the RCTStests gave consistent results of D for each material tested. This is reflected in therelatively small variation (about 10 percent) given in Table 7. The curves are plotted inFigure 4 without showing the variation (for clarity).

A constant damping ratio is used for materials below 603 feet depth based on a kappavalue.

Control Point

The SSE control point for Units 1 & 2 is defined in UFSAR Section 2.5.2.6. It states that"0.1 g is a conservative estimate of the SSE acceleration at the site ground surface".The design uses the Regulatory Guide 1.60, Design Response Spectra for SeismicDesign of Nuclear Power Plants response spectra anchored at 0. 1g.

Groundwater Elevation

Based on the information from Reference 1, the groundwater table is between El. 17 feetand 26 feet NGVD, or a depth of 2 to 11 feet below El. +28 feet.

Summary

The following information has been developed for this report:

* Description and stratification of soils to 603 feet depth - Table 1

* Base Case 1 VS, VP, Poisson's ratio, and unit weight values to 341 feet depth -Table 2 and Figure 1.

* Base Case 2 VS, VP, Poisson's ratio, and unit weight values to 341 feet depth -Table 3 and Figure 1.

* Base Cases 1 & 2 VS, VP, Poisson's ratio, and unit weight values below 341 feetdepth - Table 4 and Figure 2.



Shear modulus reduction and damping curves assigned to each stratum - Table5.

* Shear modulus reduction curves for Base Cases 1 & 2 - Table 6 and Figure 3.

* Damping ratio curves for Base Cases 1 & 2 - Table 7 and Figure 4.

For analysis using the VS and VP data in Tables 2 and 3, weighting of 40% should begiven to Base Case 1 (Table 2) and weighting of 60% should be given to Base Case 2(Table 3).



Table 1: Description and Stratification of Soils to 603 Feet Depth

Depth, Ft(1) Stratum Description USCS PI

0-22 A Medium stiff to very stiff CLAY CH 4022-36.5 B Loose to dense sandy SILT ML 2036.5 -44 C Dense to very dense silty SAND SM -

44- 59.5 D Very stiff to hard silty CLAY CH 40

59.5-81.5 E Dense to very dense slightly silty fine SP-SM -59.5__81. E__ _ SAND

81.5 - 119.5 F Very stiff to hard silty CLAY CH 40119.5- 132 H Very dense silty SAND SP-SM -

132 - 172 J clay Hard silty CLAY CH 35172 -212 J sand Very dense silty SAND SM -

212 - 222 K clay Stiff to hard sandy CLAY CL 25222 - 232 K sand Dense to very dense silty SAND SM -

232 - 281 L Very stiff to hard silty CLAY CH 50281 - 291 M Dense to very dense silty SAND SM -

291 - 331 N clayl Very stiff to hard silty CLAY CH 45331 - 352 N sand1 Dense to very dense silty SAND SM -

352 - 360 N clay2 Very stiff to hard silty CLAY CH 45360 - 393 N sand2 Dense to very dense silty SAND SM -




530 - 603 N clay6 Very stiff to hard silty CLAY CH 45

(1) Depth below El. +28 feet (ground surface).



Table 2: Base Case 1 Values to 341 Feet Depth

Total BestSoil Depth Below El Shear Wave Velocity, Poisson's Unit Estimate

Stratum +28 ft Vs (ft/s) Ratio, v Weight, Vp (ft/s)Bottom Best Lower Upper (ib/Vt)

Top (f) (ot) Estimate Bound Bound(Note 1)

0 6 610 460 760 0.42 115 1642A6 11 610 460 760 0.42 125 1642

11 16 625 475 775 0.42 125 1683

16 22 790 600 980 0.42 125 2127

B 22 29.5 900 685 1115 0.42 125 2423

29.5 36.5 910 700 1120 0.42 125 1885

C 36.5 44 910 700 1120 0.35 125 1894

D 44 50 840 645 1035 0.42 126 2262

50 59.5 1150 880 1420 0.42 126 3096

E 59.5 70.5 1150 880 1420 0.35 126 2394

70.5 81.5 1160 890 1430 0.35 126 2415

81.5 91 1280 990 1570 0.42 129 3447

F 91 100 1280 990 1570 0.42 129 3447

100 109 1220 930 1510 0.42 129 2504

109 119.5 1460 1130 1790 0.42 129 3931

H 119.5 132 1560 1210 1910 0.35 128 3247

132 172 1229 950 1508 0.42 126 3309

172 212 1173 900 1446 0.42 126 3158

K 212 232 1541 1190 1892 0.35 130 3208

L 232 281 1271 990 1552 0.42 128 3422

M 281 291 1520 1190 1850 0.35 125 3164

N clayl 291 331 1324 1040 1608 0.42 127 3565

N sandl 331 341 1585 1268 1902 0.35 125 3299

(Note 1) Depth below El. +28 feet (ground surface)


Response to Request for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of theNear-term Task Force Review of Insights from thd Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

Table 3: Base Case 2 Values to 341 Feet Depth

Total Best

Soil Depth Below El Shear Wave Velocity, Poisson's Unit EstimateStratum +28 ft Vs (ft/s) Ratio, v Weight, V, (ftls)

Top Bottom Best Lower Upper (Ib/ft3)(ft) (ft) Estimate] Bound Bound0 6 115

A6 11 575 460 690 0.45 190711 16 12516 22

B 22 29.5 725 580 870 0.48 125 369729.5 36.5

C 36.5 44 785 628 942 0.49 125 5606

D 50 925 740 1110 0.48 126 471750 59.5

E 70.5 1080 864 1296 0.48 126 550770.5 81.5

81.5 91F 91 100 945 756 1134 0.48 129 4819

100 109

109 119.5H 119.5 132 1075 860 1290 0.48 128 5481

132 161 1145 916 1374 0.48 126 5838

161 174 1275 1020 1530 0.47 126 5359

174 212 1030 823 1237 0.48 126 5252

K 212 220 1170 936 1404 0.48 130 5966

220 232 1370 1096 1644 0.47 130 5758

L 232 281 975 780 1170 0.48 128 4972

M 281 291 1165 932 1398 0.47 125 4897

N clayl 291 331 1230 984 1476 0.47 127 5170

N sandl 331 341 1645 1316 1974 0.46 125 6044



Table 4: Base Cases 1 &2 Values below 341 Feet Depth

Best Min Max P Unit BestTop ottm Esimae ~Poisson'sStratum Estimate Vs Vs Weight Estimate

(ft) (ft) Vs (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) Ratio (Ib/ft3) VP (ft/s)

N sandl 341 352 1645 1316 1974 0.46 128 6044

N clay2 352 360 1535 1228 1842 0.46 123 5640

N sand2 360 393 1665 1332 1998 0.45 128 5522

N clay3 393 401 1850 1480 2220 0.45 123 6136

N sand3 401 420 1570 1256 1884 0.46 128 5769

N clay4 420 450 1205 964 1446 0.47 123 5065

N sand4 450 458 1355 1084 1626 0.47 128 5695

N clay5 458 512 1220 976 1464 0.48 123 6221

N sand5 512 530 1845 1476 2214 0.45 128 6119

N clay6 530 603 1345 1089 1601 0.47 123 5653- 603 694 1625 1427 1824 0.46 128 5972- 694 894 1677 1524 1830 0.46 128 6161- 894 1094 1862 1703 2022 0.45 130 6177- 1094 1294 2006 1794 2218 0.45 130 6653- 1294 1494 2147 1913 2381 0.44 130 6559- 1494 1694 2311 1993 2629 0.43 130 6595- 1694 1894 2336 1986 2686 0.43 130 6665- 1894 2094 2510 2175 2844 0.42 133 6757- 2094 2294 2700 2351 3048 0.41 135 6912- 2294 2494 2965 2666 3263 0.41 135 7591- 2494 2694 2980 2577 3383 0.40 140 7300- 2694 2894 3234 2841 3628 0.39 140 7617- 2894 3094 2901 2484 3319 0.39 140 6832- 3094 3294 3305 2823 3788 0.38 140 7513- 3294 3494 3663 3130 4197 0.37 140 8065- 3494 3694 3887 3198 4577 0.37 140 8558- 3694 3894 4231 3599 4863 0.36 140 9046- 3894 4094 3932 3133 4730 0.35 140 8184- 4094 4294 3860 3137 4583 0.35 140 8035- 4294 4494 4046 3380 4712 0.34 140 8217- 4494 4694 4166 3647 4684 0.33 140 8270- 4694 4894 4126 3664 4588 0.33 140 8191- 4894 5094 4393 4045 4742 0.32 140 8539




Best Min Max Unit BestTop Bttom Estiate s V~ Poisson'sIStratum Estimate Vs Vs Weight Estimate

(ft) (ft) Vs (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) Ratio (Ib/ft3) Vp (ft/s)- 5094 5294 4607 4237 4976 0.31 140 8779- 5294 5494 4773 4216 5330 0.31 140 9095- 5494 5694 5008 4229 5787 0.30 140 9369- 5694 5894 4889 4323 5454 0.30 140 9146- 5894 6094 4976 4526 5426 0.30 140 9309- 6094 6294 5287 4740 5833 0.30 140 9890- 6294 6494 5045 4520 5570 0.30 140 9439- 6494 6694 4607 3776 5438 0.30 140 8619- 6694 6894 3928 3160 4697 0.30 140 7349- 6894 7094 3741 3257 4225 0.30 140 6998- 7094 7294 3644 3352 3937 0.30 140 6818- 7294 7494 3610 3477 3744 0.30 140 6754- 7494 7694 3575 3447 3703 0.30 140 6688- 7694 7894 3472 3318 3626 0.30 140 6496- 7894 8094 3511 3354 3668 0.30 140 6568- 8094 8294 3576 3475 3677 0.30 140 6690- 8294 8494 3619 3433 3805 0.30 140 6771- 8494 8694 3703 3499 3906 0.30 140 6927- 8694 8894 3690 3502 3878 0.30 140 6903- 8894 9094 3840 3592 4088 0.30 140 7184- 9094 9294 3827 3560 4094 0.30 140 7160- 9294 9494 3849 3531 4167 0.30 140 7200- 9494 9694 3897 3585 4208 0.30 140 7290- 9694 9894 3966 3666 4266 0.30 140 7420- 9894 10094 3924 3691 4158 0.30 140 7342- 10094 10294 3880 3697 4063 0.30 140 7259- 10294 10494 3943 3714 4172 0.30 140 7376- 10494 10694 4047 3804 4291 0.30 140 7572- 10694 10894 4080 3826 4334 0.30 140 7634- 10894 11094 4117 3856 4377 0.30 140 7702- 11094 11294 4163 3913 4412 0.30 140 7787- 11294 11494 4299 4065 4532 0.30 140 8042- 11494 11694 4291 4015 4566 0.30 140 8027- 11694 11894 4260 4001 4518 0.30 140 7969

Aftachment 1NOC-AE-1 3003028Page 14 of 20



Best Min Max Poisson's Unit BestStratum Top Botom Estimate Vs Vs Weight Estimate

(ft) (ft) Vs (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) Ratio (Ib/ft3) Vp (ft/s)- 11894 12094 4328 4072 4583 0.30 140 8096- 12094 12294 4473 4157 4789 0.30 140 8368- 12294 12494 4568 4280 4857 0.30 140 8546- 12494 12694 4621 4356 4886 0.30 140 8645

- 12694 12894 4619 4335 4903 0.30 140 8641- 12894 13094 4610 4453 4767 0.30 140 8624- 13094 13294 4674 4479 4869 0.30 140 8744- 13294 13494 4873 4584 5162 0.30 140 9116- 13494 13694 4679 4487 4870 0.30 140 8753- 13694 13894 4749 4498 4999 0.30 140 8884- 13894 14094 4879 4571 5188 0.30 140 9128- 14094 14294 4942 4423 5461 0.30 140 9246- 14294 14494 5054 4622 5487 0.30 140 9456- 14494 14694 5000 4672 5328 0.30 140 9354- 14694 14894 5361 4896 5825 0.30 140 10029- 14894 15094 5195 4767 5623 0.30 140 9719- 15094 15294 5219 4869 5570 0.30 140 9765- 15294 15494 5083 4596 5570 0.30 140 9510- 15494 15694 4910 4565 5255 0.30 140 9186- 15694 15894 4864 4406 5322 0.30 140 9100- 15894 16094 5084 4742 5426 0.30 140 9511- 16094 16294 5369 5070 5668 0.30 140 10044- 16294 16494 5490 5136 5845 0.30 140 10271- 16494 16694 5527 5157 5897 0.30 140 10340- 16694 16894 5405 5159 5651 0.30 140 10112- 16894 17094 5424 5118 5730 0.30 140 10147- 17094 17294 5405 5152 5659 0.30 140 10113- 17294 17494 5268 5109 5427 0.30 140 9855- 17494 17694 5321 5074 5567 0.30 140 9954- 17694 17894 5565 5327 5803 0.30 140 10411- 17894 18094 5664 5398 5929 0.30 140 10595- 18094 18294 6442 5911 6974 0.30 140 12052- 18294 18494 6376 5941 6810 0.30 140 11928

- 18494 18694 5767 5593 5941 0.30 140 10789





Top Bottom Best Min Max Poisson's Unit BestStratum Estimate Vs Vs Raio Weight Estimate(ft) (ft) Vs (if/s) (ft/s) (if/s) Ratio (Ib/ft3) VPpy(ts)

- 18694 18894 5720 5594 5847 0.30 140 10701- 18894 19094 5447 5223 5671 0.30 140 10191- 19094 19294 5635 5462 5808 0.30 140 10542- 19294 19494 5817 5288 6345 0.30 140 10882- 19494 19694 5320 5006 5634 0.30 140 9952

19694 19894 4898 4688 5107 0.30 140 9163

19894 19984.5 4803 4724 4881 0.30 140 8985

Table 5: Modulus Reduction and Damping Curves Assigned for Each Stratum

Stratum P1 (%) G/Grax Damping

A-fill N/A None Given None Given

A 40 CLAY (V&D P1 = 100) CLAY (V&D, PI=200)

B 20 SILT (EPRI PI = 50) Low PI CLAY and SILT (Hybrid)

C N/A SAND at < 100 ft depth (EPRI 250 ft - 500 ft) SAND (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft)

D 40 CLAY (V&D P1 = 100) CLAY (V&D, PI=200)

E N/A SAND at < 100 ft depth (EPRI 250 ft - 500 ft) SAND (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft)

F 40 CLAY (V&D P1 = 100) CLAY (V&D, PI=200)

H N/A SAND at > 100 ft depth (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft) SAND (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft)

J Clay 35 CLAY (V&D P1 = 100) CLAY (V&D, PI=200)

J Sand N/A SAND at > 100 ft depth (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft) SAND (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft)

K Clay 25 CLAY (V&D PI = 100) CLAY (V&D, PI=200)

K Sand N/A SAND at > 100 ft depth (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft) SAND (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft)

L 50 CLAY (V&D PI = 100) CLAY (V&D, PI=200)

M N/A SAND at > 100 ft depth (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft) SAND (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft)

N Clay 45 CLAY (V&D P1 = 100) CLAY (V&D, PI=200)

N Sand N/A SAND at > 100 ft depth (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft) SAND (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft)




Table 6: Modulus Reduction Curves for Base Case Profiles I and 2

Sand at Sand at ClaySi 100 ft depth < 100 ft depth (V&D Silt

Strain (EPRI 500 ft- (EPRI 250 ft - =1(00) (EPRI P = 50)N 1000 ft) 500 ft)

G/Gmax

1.0 0.20 ± 0.05 0.15 ± 0.05 0.36 ± 0.05 0.14 ± 0.050.316 0.40 ± 0.05 0.33 ± 0.05 0.62 ± 0.04 0.32 ± 0.05

0.1 0.65 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.04 0.82 ± 0.03 0.58 ± 0.040.0316 0.86 ± 0.03 0.80 ± 0.03 0.93 ± 0.02 0.81 ± 0.03

0.01 0.95 ± 0.02 0.94 ± 0.02 0.98 ± 0.01 0.95 ± 0.020.00316 1.00 0.99 ± 0.01 1.00 1.00

0.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.000316 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.0001 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Table 7: Damping Curves for Base Case Profiles I and 2

Sand Clay Low PI Clay and

Strain (EPRI 500 ft-1000 (V&D PI Silt

(%) ft) = 200) (Hybrid)

Damping Ratio (%)

1.0 16.66 ± 1.7 8.08 ± 0.8 15.72 ± 1.60.316 10.70 ± 1.1 4.86 ± 0.5 10.96 ± 1.1

0.1 5.64 ± 0.6 3.09 ± 0.3 6.61 ± 0.70.0316 2.67 ± 0.3 2.22 ± 0.2 3.54 ± 0.4

0.01 1.30 ± 0.1 1.65 ± 0.2 2.03 ± 0.20.00316 0.83 ± 0.08 1.33 ± 0.1 1.33 ± 0.1

0.001 0.67 ± 0.07 1.09 ± 0.1 1.09 ± 0.10.000316 0.60 ± 0.06 1.09 ± 0.1 1.09 ± 0.1

0.0001 0.60 ± 0.06 1.09 ± 0.1 1.09 ± 0.1




Figure 1: Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, for Base Cases I and 2 to 341 Feet Depth

0

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (ftls)

500 1000 1500 2000

I T| 0

25000

50

VU

01

0

a

1004

150

200

250

300 1

I' II I

-4

i,

III-

II

II

~1

I-

S

I. -

IIIIIIIII. I -

-. 4

1*

Case 1 Best Estimate

Case 1 Upper Bound

- - Case 1 Lower Bound

Case 2 Best Estimate

- - Case 2 Lower Bound

. - -Case 2 Upper Bound

I- - -




Figure 2: Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, for Base Cases I and 2 below 341 Feet Depth

0C,(U'I:

Cl)0

0I-

C,

0

0

a.00

00

2000 -

4000

6000

8000

10000 -

12000

140OO

16000 -

20000 -

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (ftls)2000 4000 6000 8000

L .

t-- r

* S.=|1 II

0 %• Best Estimate

.Upper Bound

-q -

". Io

Loavr Bon

I




Figure 3: Shear Modulus Reduction Curves



Near-term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dal-ichi Accident

Figure 4: Damping Ratio CurvesI

18

16

14

12

10

8

--- SAND (EPRI 500 ft - 1000 ft)

-U-CLAY with PI > 30 (V&D, PI=200)

-Low P. CLAY and SILT (Hybrid) I

6

4

2

0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Shear Strain, y

Nuclear Operating Company · 2013. 9. 30. · Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:...

Documents

Transcript of Nuclear Operating Company · 2013. 9. 30. · Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:...