ML13333B779
| ML13333B779 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1982 |
| From: | Paulson W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR LSO5-82-09-036, LSO5-82-9-36, NUDOCS 8209160362 | |
| Download: ML13333B779 (48) | |
Text
September 9, 1982 Docket No. 50-206 LS05-82-09-036 LICENSEE:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FACILITY:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1
SUBJECT:
SUMIMARY OF AUGUST 4, 1982 MEETING On August 4, 1982, members of the NRC staff met with representatives of Southern California Edison Company and their consultants in Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the appropriate ground motion spectrum for San Onofre Unit No. 1. is a list of attendees.
The NRC staff is developing a final position regarding the appropriate free field ground miotion to be used in the seismic reevaluation of San Onofre Unit No. 1. This reevaluation is being conducted by the licensee as part of the Systematic Evaluation Program (Topic 111-6).
The NRC staff raised several concerns based on a review of the licensee's submittals. The licensee responded to these concerns during the meeting. The viewgraphs used by the licensee and consultants are shown in Enclosure 2.
The NRC staff indicated that an SER would be issued shortly.
Original signed by Walter A. Paulson, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enclosures:
See next page 8209160362 820909 PDR ADOCK 05000206 P
PDR OFFICE SURNAME
.d DATE 11.
82....
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960
Mr. September 9, 1982 cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant General Counsel James Beoletto, Esquire Southern California Edison Company Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 David.R. Pigott Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Harry B. Stoehr San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831
.San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector/San Onofre NPS C/o U. S. NRC P. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors County of San Diego San Diego, California 92101 California Department of Health ATTN: Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 U.- S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 215 Freemont Street San Francisco, California 94111 Robert H. Engelken, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V 1450 Maria Lane Walnut Creek, California 94596
ENCLOSURE 1 ATTENDANCE LIST Metting between Southern California Edison and NRC Personnel August 4, 1982 NAME AFFILIATION W. Paulson NRC R. Krieger SCE J. Rainsberry SCE R. Sadigh WCC L. Wight TERA G. Frazier TERA R. McNeill Cons. Engr.
R. Rothman NRC J. King NRC B. Tucker MIT P.Y. Chen NRC D. Hadley Sierra L. Reiter NRC J. Barneich WCC G. Hawkins SCE P. West SCE L. Heller NRC
NCLOSURE 2 AGENDA Evaluation of 2/3g Housner Reanalysis Spectrum San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 August 4, 1982 I. Introduction II.
Overview:
Ground Hotion Studies for SONGS III. Response to NRC Comments IV.
Conclusion
SUMMARY
OF GROUND-MOTION SITUATION ZPA=0.67g IS A 98TH PERCENTILE PGA.
DELTA:
CLOSEST APPROACH IS ABOUT 2/3 OF REANALYSIS SPECTRUM.
IV-79 IS ESSENTIALLY TANGENT TO REANALYSIS SPECTRUM.
TERA REGRESSION:
REANALYSIS SPECTRUM IS 72 TO 85TH PERCENTILE (2%, 10% DAMPING) AT CLOSEST APPROACH.
WCC REGRESSION:
REANALYSIS SPECTRUM IS 73RD TO 77TH PERCENTILE (2%, 10% DAMPING) AT CLOSEST APPROACH.
PROBABILITY STUDIES:
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IS ABOUT 10-5 FOR BOTH SHORT AND LONG PERIODS; AND ABOUT 10-4 FOR MID PERIODS.
RECOMMENDATION INCREASE REANALYSIS SPECTRUM BY UP TO 10% IN THE PERIOD RANGE 0.06 TO 0.25 SECONDS FOR ALL DAMPINGS.
SUPPORT FOR 10% VALUE AVERAGE OF ALL STUDIES SUPPORTS AN ASSOCIATED CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY LEVEL > 84 PERCENT.
AVERAGE OF ALL STUDIES YIELDS A TIME-EQUIVALENT CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY LEVEL OF 90 PERCENT.
ANNUAL PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IS CONSERVATIVELY CALCULATED TO BE 2 x 10-4.
IMPERIAL VALLEY 1979 SUPPORTS AN ASSOCIATED CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY LEVEL > 90 PERCENT.
EFFECTIVE ACCELERATIONS CONTROL STRUCTURE RESPONSE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL MARGIN.
LISTING OF REVERSE OR OBLIQUE-REVERSE DATA BASE CASE SMALL STRUGi.[.TURES WITHOU.IT DAM!-
OBS EQNAME DATE MAO USGS STANAME..,
SDIST RE; 1
KERN COUNTY 520721
- 7. 7 1095 TAFT
.INCOLN SCHOrL
- 42. 0
-0.271 7:
DALY CI T5703 5.3:
11 1 7 SF 'OLDEN OATE PARK 9.2
- 0. 126.
3 SAN FERNANDO 710209
- 18. 4
- 0. 05256 4
SAN FERNANDO 710209' 6.6 110 GASTAIC OLD RIDGE RT 22.8 1.20301 5
SAN FERNANDO 710209 6.6 126 LAKE HUi E.
STA 4 24.9 0.86.476 6
SAN FERNANDO 710209 6..6 135 LA HOLLYWD STROE PE LO 20.5 1.11821 7
SAN FERNANDO 710209
- 6..
26:
PALMDAL..E FIRE TA 27.6
- 0. 6.1 19a 8
SAN FERNANDO 710209 6.6 475 PASADENA ATHENAEUM CI T 22.5
-0.
05672:
9 SAN FERNANDO 710209 6.6.
125 LAKE HUGHES:
':TA 1
- 29.
-0. 5100.0 10 SAN FERNANDO 710209
- 6..
105.
US0 PUMP ING PLANT 40.2
- 0. 985.7 11 SITKA ALASKA 720730 7.6 2714 SITKA ALASKA MAO OBS 45.0 0.80882 12 GAZLI USSR 760517 7.0 911 ISSR KARAKYR 3.5 1.66557 13 SANTA BARBARA 78 780813 5.7 283 SANTA BARBARA 'RH 9.8
-0.6.388'?
14 SANTA BARBARA 78 780813 5.7 885 GOLETA II 7
PHYS PLANT 7.7 0.85215 15 TABAS IRAN 780916 7.4 9124 IRN TABAS
- 3. 0 1 6.5008 0
0 z
[
IN' lIF LARGE STRUCTURES C.CII'-ED FRO M FINAL ANALy-t..:
RESIDAL COMFUTEL FROM ALL STRUCTURE ANALYSi-ISUING SCALING VARIABLES U'S EQNAME U"T MA
FAULT IIC-S:-
TANAME SD I T
RE' I
LONO BEACH-
- it 1I:
['L If A' Ii 1-'111 '
I'T DLO
. 4
- 66 LONG ['EACH It
- /..
I
.U WAY TERML TIINL
:./
3 LONG PEACH
- 0
- 6. 2 VE.RNN ilM' 1ERM I NAL I./5C 4
HELENA MONTANA 1'
1 N
II: 1-1H IA MCNT FED PLDG 5;
DALY CITY 70:
188C F :TATE Li' 1
- '755 6
- DALY CITY 5732 A
.3 I 5 ALE XANDFR IL D
- 14.
- 1 741/
7 DALY CITY 5701:%
.M 14
ll AND fIlY IIAI.L
.4. /1 444 8
K OYNA INDIA 67121' 1
""0' L.OYNA
LYTLE CFEERF 70091 4
74 SAN DERN HALL (F RCI'S
.0
.341 Ic SAN FERNANDIO:
71d29 6..
R
'41 LA
'44 1'HI'N
- 7.
- 1.
11 SAN FERNANDO 71C2('
6..
k 4-::
LA 15107 VAN OWEN 7
4-149 12 SAN FERNANDO 71020' L.
R 1 41 LA
'GRIFFI1HP
'LSER 1..
' 0.313 13 SAN FERNANDO 7 1020
.6 R20 LA 3:
LANkERSI 1N.4 0.1I 14 SAN FERNANDO 710209
. 6 R
LA 14724 VEN1URA 15.4 031 15 SAN FERNANDO 71629 6
R J./
- 14. L i117 16 SAN FERNANI'0 71020' 6..
R 41 LA 1I t VE-Nl IRA
- 14.
- 0. 0811 17 SAN FERNANL'O 71 '209 6..6.
IN 4//
L.A 1525(
VENIURA 1
4 0.1 O59 18 SAN FERNAND' 71 ('20'
/- '
166 LA HOtLYWE STORAGE BLD
'.5
- 0. 146c 19 SAN FERNANDO 71)2' 6
R 1 7 LA WATER AND' POWER BLD
- 4. 1
- 0. 47'7 20 SAN FERNANDO 7 10209
- 6. 6 R
I 1
LA 1 /-.44) MARENG7.O 2c.
- 0. 0491, 21 SAN FERNANDO 71020' 6.e, R
I 1 LA 2'11 ZONAL
- 25.
-0. 10'c 22 SAN FERNANDO 7 12' 6..
R 64 PASADENA MIL.LlkAN LIB
- 1.
- 0. 1:35 23 SAN FERNANDO 7102)
- 6. 6 R
432 ALHAMF'RA 9(p
- -: FREMONT 24.D 0.3574 24 SAN FERNANDO 7102
- 6. 6 R
LA
_25'Y EN I IRY
-Q.*3376 25 SAN FERNANDO 7112')
6.6.
k
- 14 LA I.39 Li I i N 6.1
-- 1.347 26 SAN FERNANDO 7 1 (20'1
//
47 LA
'841 AlRPIRT
[LVD
/61
-- '0.92'.
27 SAN FERNANDO 7 1(1021
. 6. 6 I::::
VERNON CMI IERNINAL.
- .7
-0.219 28 SANTA BARBARA 78 780:1 5.7 R
- 10. 1
- 0. 274.
0 z
LI ST IN OF SITE; LOCATED ADJACENT TO DAMS SMALL STRUCTURE ANALYSTI1S 1 INLIJD ING DAM SITES OBS EONAME IATE MAi FAULT 1,-.
STANAME LOCINT SDIS-T RES 1
SAN FERNANDO 71024-)v
- 6. A R
279 PA '.i MA DAM ABUT 1
7 SAN FERNANDO 7100 C) 6.6 F%
104 tANIA ANITA DAM ADU1T 2'.
.v'M40 3
SAN F ERNANLIC' 7 1' 6.. C.
R 272 PUDD I NO'i 'NE RESEV' IR ABUT 5
4 SANTA BARBARA 78 73081'3 5.7 R
1!
'A 111. 'MA I'AM TOE TOE
- 5./
-2.691 5
COYOTE LAKE 790
- 5. 9 S
1 445 F I'YCTE CREEK ABUT
- 3. 9
-0. 84 16 F~1
0 0 LRRGE STRUCTURES K ORM SITES 0
0 O SELECTED DRTR BRSES 0
00 0
C m8 LU A
0 clTh 0
1-c -0 00 0
0 0
O
-00 00 0
0 0 0 00 0
00 0
4.50 5.00o 5.50 6.00c
- 6. 50 7.00
- 7. 50 8.00 MAGNI TUDE COMPLETE SPECTRAL DATA BASE
E
- 0.
L)
C")
O O
z 0
0
- 4. 50
- 5. 0o
- 5. 50
- 6. 00
- 6. 50 7.00 7.50 8.o0 MRGNITUDE SITES ADJRCENT TO DRMS EXCLUDED FROM SPECTRAL RNALYSIS
LA I
0 E
0 S0 0
UO uO z S0 0
O 0
Lr)N 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
I I
I 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00
.7.50 8.00 MRGNITUDE LRRGE STRUCTURES EXCLUDED FROM SPECTRRL ANALYSIS
O 0
0 0
0 0
E 0
0 0
LU 0
0 0
8 0-C 0
0 o
0 0
00 0
8o O
- 4. 50
- 5.
o 5.50
.00
- 6. 50
- 7. 00
- 7. 50 S. 00 MRGNITUDE SELECTED SPECTRRL DATR BRSE LARGE STRUCTURES AND DRM SITES REMOVED
SENSITIVITY CALCULATIONS STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE SV. 1 2 -
5%
A B
D C1 C2 R
S (en)
- 1) All structures w/o scaling variables 1.293 +.78011 - 1.432 In (R + 2,721e. 200M)
(1.58)10
- 2) Small structures, w/dams w/o scaling variables 2.675 +.691M - 1.582 In (R + 7,696e.094M)
(1.53)
- 3) Small struct., w/o dams w/o scaling variables 3.145 +.579M - 1.500 In (R + 13.176e.014M)
(1.50)
- 4) Small struct., w/o dams reverse fault var.
4.260 +.515M - 1.703 In (R + 16.453)
+.329R (1.47)
- 5) Small struct., w/o dams 098 reverse and embed.
var. 3.686 +.623M - 1.712 In (R + 9.246e0 9 8M) +.404R -
.265S (1.45)
Ot O
z]
0 00 0
z
SENSITIVITY CALCULATIONS FOR SV12 AT 5% DAMPING RESULTS Incremental SV Variation(%)
84th median Percentile median 84th percentile a(e")
- 1) 12.595 19.843 0
0
.455(1.58)
- 2) 12.994 19.934
+3 0
.428(1.53)
- 3) 12.480 18.720
-4
-6
.405(1.50)
- 4) 11.226 16.474
-10
-12
.384(1.47)
- 5) 11.457 16.665
+2
+1
.375(1.45) 0 z
OfO OOD o
o0o o
0 0a 0
o Co 0 0
0 o
00 0
00 0
0 0
80 S
0 0
0 0
0 00 o
0 10 20 30 40 50 3 -k+*d Residucts vs. Distance S'tn mar)able
0
§Op 0~~ 0o 0
00 CO0 0
Oi O
0 0
0 0
0 0
S 00 0
0 oo 0 o0 0
0 0 3
0O m
0 0
20 30 40 50 0 ttancoe (kMY.
aorma I Ized e
eS duQl VS.
D5tOnce roe 2: smal1 Structures, w/ Dams, w/o Scat ing
O O
00 0
0 O0 coo O
0 C0 0
0 0
0o a o o
0 0
co M00 0
10 30 40 50 13ta c
(km)
Normal,ae M.e ghted Res rducal vs. Os staniCe Case 3:
Sant ( Sructuires, wo Dams, w/o Scot say C.
c t ) 0 0 0 q0 0
00 Go 0
0 90 0
00 0
0 0
O N
0 0
00 0 0
0 0 00 0t to1 20
- 30) 40 5o O
On O)
Oistane~ (km)
Normaltzed Heighted Residuals v6. Distance Case 4: Small Str..
w/
- Dans, w/ Reverse Secling
OO 0
0CO O
00 o0 U0 0n O
Ob 0 L
0 0
0 N
0 0
0 0
10 0
0 0
0 0
E 0Q0 L
0 C)0 0
0 3
0 S
D0 0
0 C.
10 20 30 40 50 DQistance (km)
Normalized Weeghted Residuals vs. Oistance Case 5: Small Structures, w/o Dams, w/ 5cal ing
0 00 0
+
. 0 0
1
+.
C:)
0 0C NORMALIZ D EIHTDREIUL Lu z 0
40 CDO~
0
+09m i..
TER CORPORATIO
+
+
0D GEOLOGY CODE:0 0 =
RECENT ALLUVIUM (A)0 0z
+ = PLEISTOCENE DEPOSITS (B)
= SOFT ROCK (C)0 0.01 0.1 1
RCCELERRTION IG)
FIGURE 4-7 NORMALIZED WEIGHTED RESIDUALS VS. PEAK ACCELERATION SHOWING GEOLOGY TYPE 4-9 TERA CORPORATION
N I
I
- I COPLT PG DAA AS 0~lc TYP A
)K)K A
K LL K
K
) )
")
)K K
-~j o)
K
)K N )K) z)
X K
)
OK )K
)
cLu z
)OK z
010 20 30 40 50 DISTRNCE (kin)
COMPLETE PGR DRTR BRSE GEOLOGY TYrPE R
NORMAL.IZED RESIOURL 2
-0
-2K
-3 Xa r-m mm
- )
-<C 0
m<
M0
01 CN 0 TOP OR SIDE O FLAT OR BOTM
- TOPOGRAPHT UNDEFINED (LARGE STRUCTURES)
-J O
'-O 0
)K 0O 0
0 mL 0
10
- 20.
30
- 40.
50 DISTRNCE (km)
COMPLETE. PGA DRTR BASE GEOLOGY TYPE C
0 I
I I
- TOPOGRRPHT UNDEFINED (LARGE STRUCTURES)
- J
'-4 LiK CD n
0 co 00 Lu0 N
O 0
CE z
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 DISTRNCE (km)
COMPLETE PGA DRTR BASE.
GEOLOGY TYRE 0
AI I
(11 A
LU
- K K
- K X
- X z
- K 0
10 20 30 40 50 DISTANCE (km)
SELECTED SPECTRAL DATA BASE GEOLOGY TYPE A
co C',
M*
1 I*
Lu 0
102C0
)05 Lj N
z 010 20 30 40 50 DISTRNCE (km)
SELECTED SPECTRAL DATR BRSE GEOLOGY TYPE 8
cr~
- D M
-J O~ TOP OR SIDE ac O FLAT OR 80TM.
1 z
- A TOPOGRPH-T UNDEFINEC (LARGE STRUCTURES)
I 0
10 20 30 40 50 DISTANCE (kin)
SELECTED SPECTRAL DATA BASE GEOLOGY TYPE C
LuT N
-J O
0 FLAT OR BOTM
- TOPOGRAPHT UNDEFINED (LARGE STRUCTURES) 0 10 20 30 40 50 DISTANCE (km)
SELECTED SPECTRAL DATA BASE GEOLOGY TYPE 0
JOYNER-BOORE COMPARISON SPECTRAL ORDINATES CONCLUSIONS Joyner-Boore relationships represent an increase of 55% in the median values and 97% in the 84th percentile value of S.10 as compared to preferred TERA relationship.
Preliminary study finds the following relative contributions to the above increases:
S.10 - 5%
Percent Increase Contributory Factor median median + 1 a) Use of max. horiz. comp, 13%
12%
b) Use of J-B model 0%
0%
c) Use of J-B Analysis 10-30%
20-40%
d) Constraining h2=0 20%
19%
e) J-B data base 0%
10%
Largest contribution to the differences between Joyner Boore results and those of TERA is the use of their two-step regression technique which cannot optimize the overall fit. The greatest problem comes in the second part where magnitude scaling is determined.
The second largest contribution to differences in results is the constraint of h2=0. Their spectral data demonstrate a significant amount of saturation (DMS = 69%), more than their PGA data.
TERA CORPORATION
1U0 II-1 I
I 1
1 From Current Ground Motion Analyses 8-From WCC February 1982 Report 30 From WCC April 1982 Report 10 3
1 0.55g 0.49g 0.46g 0.3 Dampin
= 0.02
- 0.
I illiiI t
- iI 3
10ii 0.03 0.1 0.3 1
3 10 Period (sec.)
Project No.
SONGS Unit 1 Spectra Comparison of Instrumental Response Spectra
. Figure 1-1 41482 I
Developed by WCC for the SONGS Site
0.9 I
I OROVIL.
A.
1980 Mammoth 0.8 Aftershock 4-4 0.7 rovelle Aftershock Go V 7 Aftershock 0.6 Coyote 1979 Melationship Use 0.5 -in Current Anay San Ferna 0.4-1971 Imperial Valley 5
6 7
Magnitude Project 40o r14,21 SONGS Unit 1 Spectra Variation of Dispersion for PGA as Figure A-13 I
Ca Function of Magnitude Woodwa rd-Clvde osfat
11I I
l i
I I
I I l I I I 0 0 San Fernando, SF71 (02!09.71) 6 M = 6.6 6 Imperial Valley, IV79 (10/15/79)
A M=69 8
0 0
A Ad 0.3 6
0 0
A A0 0
00 O
0 0
A 0
0O O
A O
O 60 0
0 0
00~0 0
0 00 000 00 08 0
0 0.01 0
6 0
0 3
10 30 100 200 Distance (kin)
1.6 a
I I
i 1 I 1 I A-Rock to Deep Soil 1.4 -A/
C-Estimated Based on Curves L2 A and B and the PGA Ratio 1.2-Ratio of SONGS to Deep Soil Based on Figure B-1, Interpolated from A cc,.
c 1.0 B-Ratio of all Soil and Rock Data O
e to Deep Soil Data Estimated Range of SONGS o O.
Site Conditions to Deep Soil 0.8 0.6 NOTE: The relationships shown are applicable to M
7 magnitude M7 and distance of 8 km.
Damping = 0.02 0.2 1
1 I
1 1 1 I(
1 I
1 1
1 A 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1
Period (sec)
P142o.
SONGS Unit 1 Spectra Relationships Between SONGS and Figure 6-2 41421Deep Soil Conditions W!oodward-Clyde Consdta-Asf
.00.0 0.6 PGA im I km w or Rock Site Conditions PGA ea ins 8 Ism for SONGS vstC,,Dns 0M PGA it I km for IV79
-weSOGSieCnto 0.20 0.3 stfoilndio
/oMdu~r LV S
0.2 0
0.1 0.2 0-3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 It bM~sximrri Ax.lruitin in~ Rodk. (1;)
R-Fock 0
Stif-f Soil Condioions
/ESlcrmaed SONGS Site Condition otge of M usin Shear Wave Velocity
$A%
an-d Shear Modulus *m Basis 0.4 aI 7
0 50 S
Dep CSlo iondeo s Sodos EIVSimte CwdlOG it odiin E
E 0.0.5 MaximMum Accandon n
ousa s
0.4 0
Mmimumri Accreranion an Rack. 49)
Projeci No.
SONGS Unoit I Sp~evtra I nterpolation of Peak Acceleration for 414821 CSONGS Site Conditions from Relationships Figure 2-1 for Rock and Soil Site Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF MEDVIAK ATTENUATn10 RE.LATIONSHIPS FOR Sy S
i PA Ln a
- 6.
= b+
b step Sv/o.
?t.4 S
4,3 b,+:s
( a. b.
6,'
100
/
T= 0.70 seconds 03
/2-0 50
/ I 6
13 0
7 O
/
/
cI,
/O 10 Relationships from Multiple-Regression Analysis Data for M < 5 Data for M > 5 AlI Data 10 D
Earlhoua.'-
Number of Points 1
Irmperia Valley (IV79) 44 C
2 San Fernando (SF71) 28 3
Coyote Lake 12 4
Mammoth Lakes 10 5
Santa Barbara 9
6 Parkfield 7
7 Lytle Creek 4
8 Livermore (Main Shock) 2 9
Oroville (Aftershocks) 24 5
10 Oroville (Aftershocks) 12 11 Mammoth Lakes (Aftershocks) 32 12 Mammoth Lakes (Aftershocks) 12 13 Mammoth Lakes (Aftershocks) 14 Daming= 0.02 31 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
Magnitude
100 I
I T= 0.70 seconds C)2 0
Relationship from Multipie Regresaon Analysis 50 13 0
/
/0 /n 8
30
/
C.CU/
3 Coyote Lake 12 4
Mammoth Lakes 10
-5 Santa Barbara9 6
Parkf teld7 7
Lytle Creek 4
8 Livermore (Main Shock) 2 9
Oroville (Aftershocks) 24 010 Ooville (Aftershocks) 12 11 Mammoth Lakes (Aftershocks) 32 12 Mammoth Lakes (Aftershocks) 12 13 Mammoth Lakes (Aftershocks) 14 Damping 0.02 3
4 5
6 k7 8
Magnitude Fiur.
13 - Comparimon of Regression Results with S /ap Data for T =0.70
2(T 1 0 7 Mean
-10 ITj 0.1I CI
'T 0.03 0.01 Data for Magnitude Range 6.0 - 6.9 Transformed to Magnitude 6.5 I
I I I I I 1 1I 1
3 10 30 100 200 Distance (km)
I I
I I
III 1
1 2CF Data for Magnitude Range 5.0 - 5.9 Transformed to Magnitude 5.5 lT 03 Mean C041 cc 0.03 0.0 D
N 13 10 30 100 200.
Distance (kin)
26 Data for Magnitude Range 4.0 - 4.9 Transformed to Magnitude 4-5 I
0T 0.3 Mean 0.1
-29 0.03 iTi T
0.01 i\\1 1I I1 1
I I
I I'
0 3
10 30 100 200 Distance (krn)
Data for Magnitude Range 2.8 - 3.9 Transformed to Magnitude 3.5 0-3 2U C
Mean
-~7-1 0.03 Distance (km)
NN 1;7~
3 10 30 100 200 Distance (kin)
1.4 1
1 SONGS Instrumental Spectrum 1.2
-Based on Februar 1982 WCC 1.0 0.8
.0 PUo II t
0.6 SONGS Instrumental Spectrum Ratio Instrumental Foa of Housner Reanalysis Spectrum 0.2 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.51 Period (sec)
SONGS Unit 1 Spectra Ratio of SONGS 84th Percentile Instrumental 4141 Bas Figure 1-2 iStruentral Formose Reanalysis Spectru 0Dmn 0.F
Ratio SONGS Instrumental Spectrum Based on the Current Housner Reanalysis Spectrum
/Ground Motion 1.2 Analyses Based on April 11982 WCC SONGS Instrumental Spectrum Based on February 1982 WCC SONGS Instrumental Spectrum 1.0 0.8 0
0.6;
-h 0.4 i
SONGS Instrumental Spectrum Ratio Instrumental Form of Housner Reanalysis Spectrum 0.2 Damping = 0.10 0
I I
I l l Ii I
0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 Period (sec)
0.80 KEY 1 6 6.
4 IpilIL ViI.[f 1940 2
7.2 Kr5FN OUNI t 1952 0.70
"' S' o.3 r ctr 95 A 4 5.
PitFIELD 1968
-+
5 6.7 OtrGO 9OUNrIN 196e
(,
X 6 5.6 SANTA 5i05I 1969
% 7
- 5.
7 SAT5 805a 1969 0
s.. L.ruE cr(F 1o970 M 0.6.4 SNW F9RNrNOO 1971 3 10 5. 1 6Efl9 ILLE?
1972
+ 1) 7.7 Sinfit. nLSKn 1972 12 6.2 mIN5IGU9.,
NICR99GUn 1972 w 0.50
" a
. 0 OINT UGU 1973 14 5.2 H7L15E71 1974 SJ o
557 OR"toVILLE 197 0 8
b 16 5.
I sNT4 699e6a9i 1976 8
d 0 17 7.6 $T.
IIrS.
Rt 59K 1979 0.40 a
16 S.9 COOe I.fnK 1979 s*
19 6.6 IMPERtIAL V('III.
1979 3 20 S.0 I MPFtI. VNLET 1979 g 2 5.5 L1VERM5OR vat 1.57 1980 ozh 22 5.6 tIV rPWOf Vittr 1960 Or 0.30
-.3 S.. s li b
1,A X oLINE KEY 0....
5 T -
96945m354m 5. s 1982 0.20 2-- -------.of r -
Po5neano305N 6.s 1902 3
-...... CVIlP8lL 5.0 1901 raMP6fi t
- 7.
1 1961
. fa 60-0-.-.-
JOIN 55 -
00E 5.0 1981 It.. N-...6 JOWNtI 6 0055f 7. 7 1981 0.10-b k
Z We 0.00 1000*
0 1
10
'o
' "10 1.0 10 1oo DISTANCE IN KILOMETERS RECOMMENDED UPPER & LOWER EQUATION BOUNDS OVERLAID BY JOYNER & BOORE DATA SET EXPANDED TO INCLUDE BOTH PEAK COMPONENTS FIgure 2
100 1
l j I I O ll l
I i l 80 o
O 30 10 3
a~:3 1
84th Percentile Spectral Values Based on the Relationships by Joyner and Boore (1982).
M=7, d=8km Soil 0
Rock Damping 0.02 0.3 0.03 0.1 0.3 1
3 10 Period (sec.)
1.5 0 Based on 1979 Imperial Valley Data 1.4 A Based on 1971 San Fermando Data 1.3 0
A 0
0 0O 12
-A 0
0 0
- O0 0.9 0.8 i
0.2 0.05 0.1 02 0.5 Period (sec)
PARAMETER J & B (1981, 1982)
J & B BIAS PGA -
S Sec)
PGA-S (1 sec)
S (envelope)/S (overoge) 1,1 1.3 1.1 1.3 S-(M 7)/Sw (M 6.5) 1.33 -
1.92 1.2 1.4 S (84th)/S (med) 1.82 -
2.29 1.3 -
1.5 Net Effect 1.7-2.7