levy nuclear plant revised 07/02/12 draft rai response for … · 2012. 7. 20. · 1.e-07 1.e-06...

Figure 2.5.2-322: CEUS SSC model logic tree for the Charleston RLME source

DRAFT

NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft

Figure 2.5.2-323: Alternative Charleston source geometries for the Charleston source.

Figure 2.5.2-324: Location of seven demonstration sites used for hazard calculations in NUREG-2115 and the location of the LNP site. Approximate location of the LNP site is shown by the red star.

DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.1 1 10

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy

Peak Ground Acceleration (g)

Central Illinois This StudyMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSCMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.1 1 10

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy

10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)


15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSCMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy



15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSCMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

Figure 2.5.2-325: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Central Illinois demonstration site DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.1 1 10

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy


ChattanoogaThis Study

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.1 1 10

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy



Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy



Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

Figure 2.5.2-326: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Chattanooga demonstration site DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy


Houston This StudyMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSCMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy



15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSCMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy



15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSCMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

Figure 2.5.2-327: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Houston demonstration site DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy


JacksonThis Study

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.1 1 10

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy


JacksonThis Study

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy


JacksonThis Study

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

Figure 2.5.2-328: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Jackson demonstration site DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.1 1 10

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy


ManchesterThis Study

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.1 1 10

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy



Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy



Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

Figure 2.5.2-329: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Manchester demonstration site DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.1 1 10

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy


SavannahThis Study

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.1 1 10

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy


SavannahThis Study

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy


SavannahThis Study

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSC

Mean

15th%

50th%

85th%

Figure 2.5.2-330: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Savannah demonstration site DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy


Topeka This StudyMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSCMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.1 1 10

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy



15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSCMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1

An

nu

al E

xcee

dan

ce F

req

uen

cy



15th%

50th%

85th%

CEUS SSCMean

15th%

50th%

85th%

Figure 2.5.2-331: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Topeka demonstration site DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy

0.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)

Updated EPRI-SOG Mean

Updated EPRI-SOG 5th%





CEUS SSC Mean

CEUS SSC 5th%

CEUS SSC 16th%

CEUS SSC 50th%

CEUS SSC 84th%

CEUS SSC 95th%

Figure 2.5.2-332: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 0.5 Hz spectral accelerations for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.

DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy








CEUS SSC Mean

CEUS SSC 5th%

CEUS SSC 16th%

CEUS SSC 50th%

CEUS SSC 84th%

CEUS SSC 95th%

Figure 2.5.2-333: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 1 Hz spectral accelerations for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.

DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy








CEUS SSC Mean

CEUS SSC 5th%

CEUS SSC 16th%

CEUS SSC 50th%

CEUS SSC 84th%

CEUS SSC 95th%

Figure 2.5.2-334: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 2.5 Hz spectral accelerations for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.

DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy








CEUS SSC Mean

CEUS SSC 5th%

CEUS SSC 16th%

CEUS SSC 50th%

CEUS SSC 84th%

CEUS SSC 95th%


DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy








CEUS SSC Mean

CEUS SSC 5th%

CEUS SSC 16th%

CEUS SSC 50th%

CEUS SSC 84th%

CEUS SSC 95th%

Figure 2.5.2-338: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 100 Hz spectral accelerations (PGA) for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.

DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy


Total Updated EPRI-SOG

EPRI-SOG

UCSS

Total CEUS SSC

Distributed CEUS SSC

Charleston RLME

NMF RLME

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy


Total Updated EPRI-SOG

EPRI-SOG

UCSS

Total CEUS SSC

Distributed CEUS SSC

Charleston RLME

NMF RLME

Figure 2.5.2-339: Contribution of the various source types to the total mean hazard at the LNP Site. DRAFT


0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10 100

Sp

ec

tra

l A

cc

ele

rati

on

(g

)

Frequency (Hz)

Updated EPRI-SOG Mean 10-3Updated EPRI-SOG Mean 10-4Updated EPRI-SOG Mean 10-5Updated EPRI-SOG Mean 10-6CEUS SSC Mean 10-3CEUS SSC Mean 10-4CEUS SSC Mean 10-5CEUS SSC Mean 10-6

Figure 2.5.2-340: Comparison of hard rock UHRS based on updated EPRI-SOG model with results computed using the CEUS SSC model.

DRAFT


0

10

20

30

40

Magnitude Interval

Per

cen

t C

on

trib

uti

on

Distance Interval

5 and 10 Hz

0

10

20

30

40

50

Magnitude Interval

Per

cen

t C

on

trib

uti

on

Distance Interval

1 and 2.5 Hz

Figure 2.5.2-341: Deaggregation of mean 10-3 hazard from CEUS SSC model calculations.

DRAFT


0

10

20

30

40

Magnitude Interval

Per

cen

t C

on

trib

uti

on

Distance Interval

5 and 10 Hz

0

10

20

30

40

50

Magnitude Interval

Per

cen

t C

on

trib

uti

on

Distance Interval

1 and 2.5 Hz


DRAFT


0

5

10

15

20

Magnitude Interval

Pe

rce

nt C

on

trib

uti

on

Distance Interval

5 and 10 Hz

0

10

20

30

40

Magnitude Interval

Pe

rce

nt C

on

trib

uti

on

Distance Interval

1 and 2.5 Hz


DRAFT


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Magnitude Interval

Pe

rce

nt C

on

trib

uti

on

Distance Interval

5 and 10 Hz

0

5

10

15

20

Magnitude Interval

Pe

rce

nt C

on

trib

uti

on

Distance Interval

1 and 2.5 Hz


DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy


Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV

Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average

CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV

Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy



Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation


Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation

Figure 2.5.2-345: Comparison of mean hazard curves for 0.5 Hz spectral acceleration computed with CAV for the finished grade elevation (left) and the GMRS elevation (right). Solid lines are results for the updated EPRI-SOG model with CAV applied to all magnitudes and dashed lines are for the CEUS SSC model with CAV applies only to magnitudes < M 5.5.

DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy



Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average


Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy



Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation


Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation

Figure 2.5.2-346: Comparison of mean hazard curves for 1 Hz spectral acceleration computed with CAV for the finished grade elevation (left) and the GMRS elevation (right). Solid lines are results for the updated EPRI-SOG model with CAV applied to all magnitudes and dashed lines are for the CEUS SSC model with CAV applies only to magnitudes < M 5.5.

DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy



Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average


Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy



Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation


Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation

Figure 2.5.2-347: Comparison of mean hazard curves for 2.5 Hz spectral acceleration computed with CAV for the finished grade elevation (left) and the GMRS elevation (right). Solid lines are results for the updated EPRI-SOG model with CAV applied to all magnitudes and dashed lines are for the CEUS SSC model with CAV applies only to magnitudes < M 5.5.

DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy



Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average


Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy



Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation


Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation


DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

cee

da

nc

e F

req

ue

nc

y

25 Hz Spectral Acceleration) (g)


Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average


Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

cee

da

nc

e F

req

ue

nc

y



Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation


Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation


DRAFT


1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy

100 Hz Spectral Acceleration (PGA) (g)


Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average


Hard Rock (no CAV)

FG 500 fps Fill

FG 850 fps Fill

FG 1000 fps Fill

Weighted Average

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.01 0.1 1 10

Ex

ce

ed

an

ce

Fre

qu

en

cy

100 Hz Spectral Acceleration (PGA) (g)


Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation


Hard Rock (no CAV)

GMRS Elevation


DRAFT


0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10 100

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(H

z)

Frequency (Hz)

GMRS Elevation

Updated EPRI-SOG with full CAV10-4 UHRS

10-5 UHRS

10-6 UHRS

CEUS SSC with modif ied CAV

10-4 UHRS

10-5 UHRS

10-6 UHRS

Figure 2.5.2-352: Comparison of UHRS for the GMRS elevation based on updated EPRI-SOG model with full CAV and the CEUS SSC model with modified CAV.

DRAFT


0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10 100

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(H

z)

Frequency (Hz)

PBSRS Elevation

Updated EPRI-SOG with full CAV10-4 UHRS

10-5 UHRS

10-6 UHRS

CEUS SSC with modif ied CAV

10-4 UHRS

10-5 UHRS

10-6 UHRS

Figure 2.5.2-353: Comparison of UHRS for the PBSRS elevation based on the updated EPRI-SOG model with full CAV and the CEUS SSC model with modified CAV.

DRAFT


0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10 100

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(g

)

Frequency (Hz)

10-4 UHRS

10-5 UHRS

GMRS=10-4 UHRS x DF2

GMRS=10-5 UHRS x 0.45

Figure 2.5.2-354: Development of horizontal GMRS based on the CEUS SSC model with modified CAV.

DRAFT


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0.1 1 10 100

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(g)

Frequency (Hz)

Westinghouse 0.3g horizontal CSDRS

Horizontal Scaled GMRS - Updated EPRI-SOG with Full CAV

Horizontal GMRS - CEUS with Modified CAV

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0.1 1 10 100

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(g)

Frequency (Hz)

Westinghouse 0.3g vertical CSDRS

Vertical Scaled GMRS - Updated EPRI-SOG with Full CAV

Vertical GMRS - CEUS with Modified CAV

Figure 2.5.2-355 Comparison of GMRS based on updated EPRI-SOG and CEUS SSC models

DRAFT


0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10 100

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(g

)

Frequency (Hz)

10-4 UHRS

10-5 UHRS

PBSRS=10-4 UHRS x DF2

PBSRS=10-5 UHRS x 0.45

Figure 2.5.2-356: Development of horizontal PBSRS based on the CEUS SSC model with modified CAV.

DRAFT


levy nuclear plant revised 07/02/12 draft rai response for … · 2012. 7. 20. · 1.e-07 1.e-06...

Documents