REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SLOVENIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY...

REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

SLOVENIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SNSA challenges related to Libna fault

Andrej Stritar26. 4. 2013




COMPLEXITY OF SEISMIC ISSUES

Quick historical overview of seismic charts of Krško plane




Strukturno formacijska karta Libne pri Krškem, GZL, 1996(M. Poljak, T. Verbič, I. Rižnar, M. Toman, M. Demšar)




Reambulirana formacijsko strukturna geološka karta Libne, GZL, 1997.(M. Poljak, L. Placer)




Verbič, T., 2008: Kvartarni sedimenti, stratigrafija in neotektonika vzhodnega dela Krške kotline (doktorska disertacija)












Geology – phase 1, GeoZS, 2010












Ekspertno mnenje o potencialnih pojavih inducirane seizmičnosti v območju akumulacije HE Brežice, 2011.(V. Mihajlov)




USAR, Rev. 14, 2008




1. Challenge:

Quality assurance




Are these consortium reports?

Single signature!?




Are these consortium reports?

Single signature!?




How is quality assured?

• Was the document reviewed by anyone?

• Who has approved it?• Do all consortium members

stand behind this document?• Does the consortium have

any quality management system?

• IRSN statement 1: “The consortium agree on capabilities of this fault”

• Based on which document? Is there any consortium report we are not aware of?




2. Challenge:

Changes of the site characteristics




Implication to NEK 2

• IRSN statement 2:“This new and serious finding does not allow concluding in a favorable manner as regards suitability of site for JEK2”

• Why such urgent conclusion, when in the continuation of the letter a possibility for further investigation and clarification is given?

• For SNSA siting of second unit is not a challenge now!

• New findings will have to be taken into account once siting formally starts.




Implication to NEK 1

• IRSN statement:“Particular attention must be given to the fact that the Libna capable fault lies in the vicinity of the existing Krško 1 plant site.”

• This is our major concern!

• The consortium should tell us what is the problem!

• Could something like this happen?

http://www.survival-goods.com/What_is_an_Earthquake_s/269.htm




Is USAR Chapter 2.5 still valid?

Is that still valid?




What about response spectra like this one?




Core Damage Frequency and Accelerations

• PSHA 2004– PGA on surface = 0.56 g– PGA on the level of foundation = 0.38 g

• Will that change?




New challenge?

• What displacement is probable on the site?• What displacement probability is acceptable?




3. Challenge:

How to improve NEK 1




After new inputs about the site are known

• Krško NPP will have to review its seismic design

• New data will be taken into account in siting of the low and intermediate level radioactive waste repository

• This is not expected from the consortium




THREE CHALLENGES

1. How was the quality of the consortium work assured?

2. How has the seismic input to Krško NPP changed?

3. How will those changes influence safety margins of the Krško NPP seismic design?

Date post:	18-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wilfrid-poole
View:	222 times
Download:	2 times

REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SLOVENIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY...

Documents