1 / 26

SNSA challenges related to Libna fault

SNSA challenges related to Libna fault. Andrej Stritar 26. 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).

dayo
Download Presentation

SNSA challenges related to Libna fault

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SNSA challenges related to Libna fault Andrej Stritar 26. 4. 2013

  2. COMPLEXITY OF SEISMIC ISSUES Quick historical overview of seismic charts of Krško plane

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

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

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

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

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

  8. Geology – phase 1, GeoZS, 2010

  9. Geology – phase 1, GeoZS, 2010

  10. Geology – phase 1, GeoZS, 2010

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

  12. USAR, Rev. 14, 2008

  13. Challenge:Quality assurance

  14. Single signature!? Are these consortium reports?

  15. Single signature!? Are these consortium reports?

  16. 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? How is quality assured?

  17. 2. Challenge:Changes of the site characteristics

  18. 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.

  19. 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?  Implication to NEK 1 http://www.survival-goods.com/What_is_an_Earthquake_s/269.htm

  20. Is that still valid? Is USAR Chapter 2.5 still valid?

  21. What about response spectra like this one?

  22. 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?

  23. New challenge? • What displacement is probable on the site? • What displacement probability is acceptable?

  24. 3. Challenge:How to improve NEK 1

  25. 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

  26. THREE CHALLENGES • How was the quality of the consortium work assured? • How has the seismic input to Krško NPP changed? • How will those changes influence safety margins of the Krško NPP seismic design?

More Related