ML17193B497

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Final Recommended Site Specific Ground Response Spectra for Eastern SEP Plants.Geology Reviews Identified No Geologic Features That Would Affect Site Specific Spectra. No Changes Re Local Geologic Considerations Expected
ML17193B497
Person / Time
Site: Millstone, Dresden, Palisades, Oyster Creek, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Yankee Rowe, La Crosse, Big Rock Point  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/17/1981
From: Crutchfield D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO., NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP., YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
References
LSO5-6-68, LSO5-81-06-068, LSO5-81-6-68, NUDOCS 8106240234
Download: ML17193B497 (37)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LETTER TO ALL SEP OWNERS (EXCEPT SAN ONOFRE)

Gentlemen:

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 June 17, 1981 SUB.JECT:

SITE SPEC! FIC GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SEP PLANTS LOCATED IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES

Reference:

Letter to SEP Group II Plant (Big Rock Point, Dresden 1,*

Haddam Neck, La Crosse, Yankee Rowe) Licensees from D.G. Eisenhut, NRC dated August 4, 1980

  • Our letter dated August 4, 1980 (reference) issued the prelimiary version of site specific ground response spectra for the eastern United States SEP plants.

Recently, these spectra have been finalized by the staff. Enclosure l includes the recommended ground response spectra (5% damping) for the east-ern SEP sites. The bases of our final decision regarding the spectra and the digitized spectral acceleration values (5% damping) for these spectra are docu-mented in Enclosure 2.

The site specific ipectra (SSS) included in Enclosure 1 ~stablish the ground motion acceleration values to be input into the structural reevaluation analyses to determine the resultant seismic loads.

The geology reviews for Palisades, Ginna and Dresden 2 have been completed by the staff. The results of the review did not' identify any geologic features that would affect the site specific spectra for those facilities. Based on our review to date for the remainder of the SEP facilities located in the eastern United States, we do not expect* the SSS to be changed due to 1oca1 geologic cons i dera ti ons.

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page Sincerely, L?Jf.~

Dennis M. Crutchfield, hief Operating Reactors Br ch Nb. 5 Division of Licensing

u.

Mr. J. S. Abel DRESDElt.1 cc Isham, Lincoln & Beale Counselors at Law One First National Plaza. 42nd Floor

  • Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. B. B. Stephenson Plant Superintendent Rural R.oute )11 Morris, Illinois 60450
u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission
  • Resident Inspectors Office Dresden Station RR 11 Morris, Illinois 60450 Mary Jo Murray
  • Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 w. Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Morris Public-Library 604 Liberty Stre~t

~orris, Illinois 60451 Chairman Board of Supervisors of Grundy County Grundy County Courthouse Morris, Illinois 60450 I 11 i noi*s Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 u.-s *. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch Region V Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois *60604 Docket No. 50-10

. I

Mr. J. S. Abel cc Isham, Lincoln & Beale c*ounselors at Law e-One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. B. B. Stephenson Plant Superintendent Dresden Nuclear Power Station Rural Route i¥1 Morris, Illinois 60450 Natural Resources Defense Council 917 15th Street, N. w.

Washington, D. c. 20005 U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission Resident Inspectors Office Dresden Station RR ill

  • Morris, Illinois 60450 Mary Jo Murray Assistant Att'orney Genera 1 Environmental Control Division 188 w. Randolph Street -

Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Morris Public. Library 604 Liberty Street Morris, Illinois 60451 Chairman.

Board of Supervisors of Grundy County Grundy County Courthouse Morris, Illinois 60450 John F. Wolfe, Esquire 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Or. Linda W. Little 500 Hermitage Drive

'Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 DRESDEN 2 Docket No. 50-237

u. s. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch Region V Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 Or. Forrest J. Remick 304 East Hamilton Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60604

Mr. John E. Maier cc Harry H.-1/oigt, Esquire LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Hampshjre Avenue, N. w.

Suite 1100 Washington, D. c. 20036.

Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New Ydrk 14618 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center

  • New York, New York 10047 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office Swan St~eet Building Core 1~ Second Floor E~ire State Plaza Albany~ New York 12223 Director, Technical Development Programs

. State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West Ontario, New York 14519 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S. NRC 1503 Lake Road Ontario, New York 14519 Mr. Thomas 8. Cochran R. E. GINNA Docket ~o. 50-244 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

1725 I Street, N. w.

Suite 600 Washington, O. c.

20006 u *. s. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chai rrnan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

U.' S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, o. c.

20555 Or. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safe~y and Licensing Board

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Co~mission 1..iashington, o. c.

20555 Dr. Emrreth A. Luebke

  • Atomic Safety and Li~ensing Board"
u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, O. c.

20555

Mr. David P. Hoffman cc M. I. Miller, Esquire lsha~. Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60670.

Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Comp.any 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd.L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esquire Suite 4501 One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Kalamazoo Public Library 315 Sou th Rose Street Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006

  • Joseph Gallo, Esquire Isham, ~incoln l Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue Room 325 Washington, D. t. 20036 Peter W. Steketee, Esquire 505 Peoples Building Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 Charlevoix Public Library 107 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Ms. Mary P
  • Si nc hi r Great Lakes Energy Al 1 i ance.

5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan '48640 Resident Inspector Big Rock Point Plant c/o U.S. NRG RR #3, Box 600 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 BIG ROCK POINT 50-155 PALISADES 50-255 Charles Bechhoefer, ~sq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

  • U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Department of Oceanography University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Dr. M. Stanley Livingston 1005 Calle Largo Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq. Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuc~ear Regulatory Conmi'ssion Washington, D. C.

20555 Mr. John O'Neill, 11 Route 2, Box 44 Maple City, Michigan 49664 Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D. c.. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, D. c. 20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D. C.

20555 Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant ATTN:

Mr. c. J. Hartman

' Pl ant Superintendent Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Mr. Jim E. Mills Route 2,.Box 108C...

Charlevoix, Michigan 49720

Mr~ David P. Hoffman cc Chairman County Board of Supervisors Charlevoix County Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Office of the Governor (2)

Room l - Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan* 48913 Herbert S efffile l Council for Christa Maria, et al.

Urban Law Institute Antioch School of Law 2633 16th Street, N. w.

1..Jashi ngton, *o. c.

20009

u. s. Environrrental Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch Regiqn V Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 Resident Inspector c/o.U. S. NRC P. o. Box 87 South Haven, Michigan 49090 Palisades Plant ATTN:

~1r. Robert Montross Plant Manager Covert, Michigan 49043 Township Supervisor Covert Township Route l, Box l 0 Van Buren County, Michigan. 49043 Christa-Maria Route 2, Box 108C

  • Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 William J. Scanlon, Esquire 2034 Pauline Boulevard An~ Arbor, Michigan 48103 11.:*** Ms. JoAnn Bier BIG ROCK POINT 50-155 PALISADES 50-255 204 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Thomas s. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission

~~ashington, o. c.

20555 Or. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board

u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, o. c.

20555

Mr. w. G. Counsil cc

'..Ji 11 i am H. Cuddy, Esquire Day, Berry & Howard Counselors at Law One Constitution Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Board of Selectmen Town Ha 11 Haddam, Connecticut 06103 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co~any ATTN:

Superintendent Mi 11 stone Pl ant P. O. Box 128 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Mr. James R. Hirranelwright Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box ?.70 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Resident Inspector c/o U. S. NRC.

P. O. Box Drawer KK Niantic, Connecticut 06357 Waterford Public Library Rope Ferry Road, Route 156 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 First Selectman of the T0wn of 1..Jaterf ord Ha 11 of Records 200 Boston Post Road -

Waterford, Connecticut 06385 John F. Opeka Systems Superintendent Northeast Utilities Service Co~any P. o. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Natural Resources Defense Council 917 15th Street, N. W.

Washington, o. c. 20005 Connecticut Energy Agency A TIN:

Assist ant Di.rector Research and Policy Deve 1 opment Department of Planning and Energy Policy 20 Grand Street HADDAM NECK 50-213 MILLSTONE 1 50-~45

  • Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Resident Inspector Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station c/o U. S. NRC East Haddam Post Office.

East Haddam, Connecticut 06423

u. s. Environmental Protection Agency Region I Office ATIN:

EIS COORDINATOR JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Superintendent Haddam Nee~ Pl~nt RFD 1'1 Post Office Box 127E East Hampton, Connecticut 06424

e.

Mr. frank Linder cc Fritz Schubert, Esquire Staff. Attorney Dµiryland P01*1cr Cooperative 2615 East /\\venue South La. Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 0

  • S
  • He i stand, J r., Esq u i re Morgan, Lewis & Beckius 1800 M Street, N. w.

Washington, o. c.

20036 Mr. R. E. Shim.shak La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Dairyland Pm*1er Cooperative

p. O. Box 135 Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Ms. Anne K. Morse Coulee Region Energy Coa 1 it ion P. O. Box 1583 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 La Crosse Public Library 800 Main Street La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Resident Inspectors Office Rural Route #1, Box 225 Genoa, Wisconsin 54632.

Tciwn Chairman Town of Genoa Route 1 Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Chairman, Public Service Corrmission of Wisconsin Hill Farms State Office Building Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Alan s. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, D. c. - 20555 Mr. Frederick Milt-On Olsen, III 609 North 11th Street Lacrosse, Wisconsin LA CROSSE (BWR)

Docket No. 50-409

u. s. Environm~ntal Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch Region V Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 Mr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Co11.11ission Washington, O. c.

20555 Dr.Lawrence R. Quarles Kenda 1 at Longv10od, Apt. 51 Kenneth Square, Pennsylvania 19348 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.,.Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiqn Washington, D. c.

20555 Dr. George c. Anderson Department of Oceanography University of Washington Seattle, Washing~on 98195 Mr. Ralph s. Decker Route 4, Box 1900 Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Thomas s. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory CoITlllission Washington, D. C.

20555

Mr. t,.l. G. Counsil cc Day, Berry & Howard Counselors at Law One Constitution Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06)03 Superintendent Haddam Neck Plant RFD #1 Post Office Box 127E East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 \\

Mr *. James R. Himmelwright Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Russell Library 119 Broad Street Middletown, Connecticut 06457 Board of Selectmen Town Hall Haddam, Connecticut 06103 Connecticut Energy Agency AT1N:

Ass*istant Director Research and Policy Development Department of Planning and Energy Policy 20 Grand Street Hartford~ Connecticut 06106

u. S. En vi ronmenta l Protect ion Agency Region I Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR JFK Federal Building*

Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Resident Inspector Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station c/o U. S. NRC East Haddam Post Office East Haddam, Connecticut 06423 HADDAM NECK Docket No. 50-213

Mr. I. R. Finfrock, Jr.

cc G. F. Tro\\'lbri dge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. w.

\\~ashington, o. c.

20036 J. B. Lieberman, Esquire Berlack, Israels & Lieberman 26 Sroadrlay New York~ New York 10004 Natural Resources Defense Council 917 15th Street, N.

W~

Washington, o. c.

20006 J. Knubel 81..JR Licensing Manager Jersey Central Power & Light Colll)any Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Merri stown, *New Jersey* 07960

.Joseph w. Ferraro, Jr., Esquire Deputy Attorney General.

State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 1100 Raymond Boulevard Newark, New Jersey 07012 Ocean County Library Brick Township Branch 401 Chamb~rs Sri dge Road..

Brick Town, New J ersei' 08723 i'.1ayor Lacey Township P. O. Box 475 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 CorT111i ss i oner Department of Public Utilities State of New Jersey 101 CorT111erce Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 U. s. Environirental Protection Agency Region II -Office ATIN:

EIS COORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Gene Fisher Bureau Chief OYSTER CREEK Docket No. 50-219 Bureau of Radiation Prot~ction 380 Scotts Roaq Trenton, New Jersey 08628 Corrrnissioner New Jersey Department of Energy l 01 CorT111erce Street Newark, New Jersey 07102

  • Licensing Supervisor Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station P. 0. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Resident Inspector c/o U. S. NRC P. o. Box 445 Fo.rked R.iver, New Jersei 08731

Mr. James A. Kay cc Mr. James E. Tribble, President Yankee Atomic E 1 ect ri c Company 25 Research Drive Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Greenfield Cormrunity College 1 College Ori ve Greenfield, Massachusetts 01301 Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Rowe Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 Energy Facilities Siting Council 14th Floor One Ashburton Place Boston, }'1assachusetts 02108

u. s. Environw~ntal Protection Agency**

Region I Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR*

JFK Federal Bui 1 ding

Resident Inspector Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station c/o u~s. NRc*

  • Post Office Box 28 Monroe Bridge, Massachusetts* 013SO YANKEE ROV/E Docket No. 50-29

~. * *

*~ f

.p 0

'~..... 112'

  • .*.vfH.:J

.. ~ ;.#'

,I' I

. ~*.. *... :.

... *PSEUDO RELATIVE RESPONSE VELOCITY, S

  • CM/SEC.:

v 0

0 C>

8 0

I.'

0

~

0

    • .'.. ;:* ::~ *:;:~:.~>:.

.. : *.~.\\~**t.*~*:*:

(:,..... ~

....... -..ii-.~..a................... l...l.............................. ~~

.... --a........ ~

......... ~t-----..-..... ----'..__........._....................... ~

.... ------.... ~

...... _.~,~........lo...~

, I*

,y* :*:,::~~{r;;i>...

  • .;~. : :,<:::. :;?;~*: :~

)'.*.~~-

): l ::;,:~.:<;~;:_:.\\'ii;(,:.: ; ~ ::=::==~:==:===============~;=::_*+----:a...---~...... ----... ---t*--...11-...,,---------..... c..--+---~... --------~;_-..>,..

11 * 'I rn. :. i:.*.* -l*--'-....;..-'---*.14[-------'---'-.f--.,...------x'-----~--11-------r,~-------1*-------'1<.-------t--

o, *-.-~~-

,,._. t

~* *;"; ;* "'4----...,,,."----------*1-~'.-"-'..___,, _____...,c----lo,l-----,,-----'°'Oc----*l----J w, *.

o.

C>

(:,

.;*:-qa... ~...

.. ~.....

0 <h

~ I.;;>")

. \\..,.. '

. o 7.

I>

I f

~

        • *,'.;, t I>

... '.::.;. ~

  • .~::*.:: I::* (:+.'*,*.:.;.r.f,i:IJ.J.*.;*:'.:~.. ~ '.~ * *.

" ~*.... '...,. *~ : : **.. ~'... :";.....

. -~..

*' ~,* *...

... *. /..

.* **1

_. *' *. -~. :.~ :, ~::

~1.

I

~

~-

i I !.

..-... ~"-1'~

  • i I
.
~.

~. :..

  • . :.: ~:*. i:
....
*'..;-... ~.:.:

.. ; ~-.',,_*

rfw.,dunz:z %SJ

~f.'5 01i?S: Q1..<(Z

  • ~*-.~****~:-:."

.** :. *:. :~*+-~-*...

. ~..

..:*~-
  • ,.. ~
~.... :;**....

~...

  • .***. ::"/:, >

'f ;11 ;;wfjy.

~-:* ::** <.**>:~.. :... :..... *.. **.

~.

__.~ *-
: _:..... _-~ :--~~: *
  • t*-. :. : * *. :..
    • I 1,.

' :.e I

o//5

  • . --* :* -*.* *:~
      • ,~~~~:..:.,;~.

-~-.-~--~~.

.. _.:~-.: ~~ -:-:~ ~:**.*.

~(.. *:. ~ -

  • ~=~?)-*

.~..... --

'~'=-**

~****.

G

    • "".. /~..
  • k**

~~~..-.:

~... -.

. ~.

1 ****

-_.. *.~

1:.. :***:: * '=>..

  • ..~

.... _,..-. ~-

5/~

.. ~-,.....

.. **.... (:.. -~ ~.. : ~*: '..:1

.. ~.*. _.....

I I

0.1

.. :.. :.:... *=~~.. ~~:::~";*, :.~~-* '**:.. *.

,.. _ ":-,7.:::..:-!:* *:::,;: ~ ~:~}~

. ***::1'

~--...........

I

  • :..i.t".'A.. *... *

....... \\

PERIOO.SCC.

1.

'. ~

    • . ~..

5/te

. *.-~.*

I

~:-.

.... :".*_~*-.:...

T

. ~. *:.~...... :

.>.". -~*. -* =-~.---:

  • . ~::*.... ":-:..
~- ~~: :=*... :::\\~!!:

-:.-~--:--~~- -~ *...

~- ~

i-*

... r_

u t.tJ

~ -

~

tJ * >

\\

e.

O.t

.. 0.01

.... ~--.. -.

-~- ;.

. :.-:. -:.-~-:.::; '_; :... -;,.~(X-<: *'.. :, : <i*;ti!

I....

~...

-~~:;-~sec.

!lad! cim A/ecf s,~

(S% Va,,n?'7)

..... ~.. :

.*... ~

--~ *.~:'*.

.. -~~-.-----::.

.:...... -*~_*:~.... :

  • ~*.

... ***<.*:*'.::/ *.~:.:::;~~;.

-;-. ;J_..* ~-1.:*t~;:.~----

..::S'..,.. ~..: ~:. :...... (_;.

e-

~ **>:*-"*""*

.... --~-

  • . --~~ :-.-:... ~ ~
  • -*...... ~. *.
  • or l 0,, ** ** t 1'_:. "'**.-:
    • ... :t **.

-~

  • ~*

. : *.. *.: : *... t.

.... *. *~*~ ~-.

_.. _;~~~~*'..?,:.>.*:r:... *.. -.

.
*
.~.

.. *~*'**I"

..... *.. ;.. =--~.-.. -'... -**

.-~-..
;*...
::

, --.. I

  • *.. *. : *."! ***.": ~-- *.

.

  • i.*

< 7. '.:~ i#:iv5.~j_-plf p

  • . ~-

.. :*.*.: -~.. *.;:..

.. :*.~::*:** -~-- :-* \\:*.:...

  • .*.. *_=-.. -~**:* _:.. *..

.-.*:~; ~ ~-..... **.*. ~

.. -~

~- -.

o*ccot c

  • n 3:

~

m

()

µ~~-:::::-: ;\\-:-.. ~

~=. -~* :.

..
.. ~ ~..

.~... -** :-::**

. _.. *:~

_::?:.

. (.. ~.:.

  • ~: *.

.. *....-.: : *... ~ *.

.. *. :*....... ~-....

0*01

... ~~-*~... **~ :- _...

-. ** *...:. *.... _. ~ ~

  • ~ ~- *. ~***:.:_.*~:....
  • <:.:~~=.:*;-~.:f".: *-~
      • -*~... ;.*. **-**..
  • .~.... ***
    • =~*_-....

~-.\\* ~)~>*

. *.. a* -

I

    • =...

.. : ~

  • :*.. ~ !.. *

.. ;* -~. *.~_........ :~* ::*~~..

.. : '. """=... ~

(fw.,c/wz,cz ~5)

~ or>"JJ, 'ft

  • ~3$-00.l~~
.*.**. ~-~'~; *~* ~:
  • (%S)

I'

  • ~

I. * ::;>

/ o -;;;a

.'.; ~.?:~d~**::;,. *:t._ *:*.: ~ ~

. *~ ~*.*. *......

10*0 ro

\\It

. (')

.. ~ -

Vt rn (l

o*ccot

-~*-***~~~ ;~**

  • ~

1 ****

... ~

.... *{*:**

.:;...... :.*., *.:.~<;.:

.. ~:-.; ---. ~~* >*

~ -~* -;~_;:.;*(~

. *':.:.:*..... -... ~ <*.!:.

u

~J

~

~

u. * >

.. _ **.": ~* *:.:..... '.':.

.. -.*i..

e.

I

.........,-~* -.. ~~:~-~SEC.

~.

  • r.- **

~

~-.

  • .. '~** *..

~ : *... *.. *

. -.:: ~:. :.....-

~*

  • ....:.:~.. ;

... :~.=~~-:- -:_.-...,:.*

    • -.,,.*.... *.;..... :~**.. *:::

"'** -.. ~,-

.'~-:.:::

-~*: *.'~~*, ~-?.:*;~~;-:-:~.

.-~.. ::....

":*: *.'\\'. :.. -.

  • .:*........ *. **~ -:~

-~ -*. **

~---.* _;

/..

. ( !,,,,d<v2"?ct '%: 5) s=*~rl'~ 7~

~...

~ '..

..... :::*.~-~ ~-

~*......

  • . J **.....:.*=-.'. ~
  • --~*-/

.*.<.;,~j::;-~ '.:;;* :~:*

. ~~:*:.... -.. _;...;.* ~..,

-*-._*... : :"* -~ -....

"*°':.'. ~-~:... ~.i:*:.-'"* ***

~-.\\. -~)~~-*.

~.-*,,...*

~

. : ~

. -. ~.,;:::..

-~:.:1-.:;. ~-._....... ::'

  • .-..... *~*.. -.~-~

~. :*...

. -~..

-'X*.:~...

\\:*,.

... :i,1'~!7~ 2'ff v

... ;. *. :.. *~ ~... *-...

..... *.. *..,* *... *.... ~ -:.

  • .. ' ~...
  • >3$-001~~

. :. ~:' ~~-~. :*..r:

' I t~~H*:, :

>-:<>*~-'~.,,
.;.. ~:..! :

... /.:

. *. :"' *-. !:.. ~...

. *1*0 10*0 ro o*cc.:i1

..... *.... ::_~--~;. *:.:-

  • .. ~~-~.. ~-:1f'-~~-*..

-.~

  • ----~~!.:*.... _,.

~ *Y.\\

~~w.

~

-~

(')

"" *

  • 2 -

V' m

0 *

-~-

          • (
  • !"~--~~-.7."">."..;;,::-

~

1

_fl I

~.

~ *...

    • ~:~

. :~ *...

PSEUDO RELATIVE RESPONSE VELOCITY, S *CM/SEC.:

y

.p p

0

,, * 'I rn * *. ;:.. '*

0 8

0 0

C>

o **
*:

'"*.I

~ * /\\.... ______,,. ______,~-~--*--*T**-'_._ _ _,,,,. ______,,..,-----1-----"'"------*... ~----*-----,d'*"-----*""'

x; *.

o.

§ C>

.e I **a*.

I i.::,.... r.

~--".~.-:

MEMOR~.NDUM FOR:

THRU:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. c. 2.osss

. MAY 2 0 1981 William.Russell, Chief Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Division of Licensing James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering Robert E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences Branch.

Division of Engineering FrnAl:. REVIEW AND* RECOMMEiiDATIONS FOR SiTE SPECIFIC SPECTRA AT SEP SITES On April 24, 1981, we received the most important outstanding items related to* the Site Specific Spectra Study, Drafts of Volumes 4 and 5 of Seismic Hazard Analysis (Lc.wrence Li\\ieraore Laboratories).

Please find enclosed our final review of this study with respect to the SEP.

This* review and our recommendations were prepared by Dr. _lean Reiter of the Geosciences Branch and are attached to this mer;iorandurn.

A SU;iiiiary. of these recorrrnendati ons is:

1.

He reaffirm the spectra recommended in the "Ir.'itial Review and Recomrnenda tions for Site Specific Spectra at S~P Sites 11 (Memorandum from R. Jackson to D. Crutchfield, June. 23, 1980).****

2.

We find no need to reduce the spectra at rock sites. This possibility was raised in the June 23, 1980 Memorandum.

3.

We have not taken into account possible anomalous site conditions at Palisades, Lacrosse or Yankee Rowe.

4.

Application of this study and its reviev-1 recOiTii7'iE:ndations to.other sites*

or other programs should. be examined on a case by case basis.

He consider the recom.ended spectra and the. evaluation of their' conservatism as described in the section entitled "Conservatism of Recor:;mended Spectra" in the attached review to be consistent with the general SEP approach.

The assessment of these spectra with respect to safety and design adequacy should be considered within the context of structural and mechanical perfor.r:ance of p1ant structures, piping and equipment.

t

  • 9 MAY Z 0 1981 Wil 1 iam Russell Bas~d upon our ongoing review.of site geology to satisfy SEP Topics II-4; Geology and Seismology, and II-48:

Proximity of Ccpable Structures to the Site, we do not anticipate that our final review of these topics will have any impact upon the recommended spectra.

Enclosure:

As $tated cc:

w/enclosure R. Vollmer

  • D. Eisenhut G. Lainas
w. Russell T. Cheng
0. Crutchfield F. Schauer H. Levin L. \\*Ji ght, TERA G. Lear L. Heller
0. Sernreuter, GSS Personnel Corp.

LLNL

_//();df:i.. ~~0

~~*E: Jack on, Chief Geosciences ranch Division of~gineering

FINAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA AT SEP SITES Purpose and Scope This review presents final recommendations for Site Specific Spectra to be used in the reevaluation of SEP *plants.

It supplements "Initial Review and Recommendations _for Site Specific Spectra a_t SEP Sites" (Me!ilorandum from R. Jackson to 0. Crutchfield, June 23, 1980, and referred to below as Initial Review) and is based upon those items reviewed for the Initial Review plus the fo 11 o'wi ng documents. *

. = *

( 1 ) Seismic Hazard Analysis:

I Volume 4, NUREG/CR-1582, Application of Methodology, Results and Sensitivity Studies (Draft) D. L. Bernreuter, LLNL April 1?81 NUREG/CR-1582.

(Referred to below as Volume 4).

(2) Seismic Hazard Analysis:

Volume 5, NURES/CR-1582, Peer Review, Eastern Ground Motion Panel ar.d Fomal Feedback (Draft) D. L. Sernreuter LLNL, April 1981 (Referred to below as Volume 5).

(3) Final Report Seismic Hazard Analysis:

Results, TERA Corporation, February 1981.

(4) Introduction to Ground Motion Panel, TERA Cprporation, February i980.

(5) Second.Round Questionnaire, TERA Corporation, September 1980.

(6) Seismic Hazard Analysis:

Solicitation of Expert Opinion Seccnd Round Questionnaire, TERA Corp., January 1981.

',l.1

  • 9

.. All of the above documeDtS and many of those listed in the initial review will appear in their final form as text or.appendices in volumes 4 and 5 of NUREG/CR-1582 Seismic Hazard Analysis. *Two segments of this study, Volume 2,'.

"A Methodology for the Eastern U.S.," and 'Volume 3, "Solicitation of Expert Opinion," have already been published.

Volume 1 of this series, which represents an executive sumnary of. the s.tudy, has not yet been submitted.

Items originally iisted in the Initial Review which have not been received a re:

(1)

Review of the Draft Seismic Hazard Analysis by the USGS, (2)

Additional Review and CoITTTlents by Ors: Newrr;ark and Hall.

Licensee submittals.for individual SEP sites are being handled by the SEP Branch separately on a case by case basis.

Recommendations In the Initial Review the following recor.ui1endation was made.

It is recommended that the following spectra presented in the Sensitivity Results (May 1980) be used as site specific free field spectra.

Eastern U.S. (Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Millstone, Ginna, Oyster Creek) - "1000 year" spectra assuming no background and dssippee Attenuation.

Central U.S. (Dresden, Palisades, Lacrosse, Sig Rock Po1nt)

"1000 yr" spectra a~sumin§* no background and Gupta-Nuttli Attenuation.

These spectra account for gross site conditions (soil or rock) and do not take into account any specific conditions which may result in amplification (Lacrosse, Yankee Rowe, Palisades).

It is als6 recommended that a minimum be established for which no spectra be allowed.to go below.

It is suggested that this minimum be the median (SOth percentile) representation of real spectra for a magnitude 5.3 earthquake.

This minimum exceeds the "1000" yr spectra for Big Rock Point, Lacrosse and Paiisades at frequencies greater than 2 to 3 Hz."

Based upon review of the documents and.infonnation received since preparation of the Initial Review, we conclude that the recoor*nended spectra as described above in the Initi~l*Review are appropfiate for use in the Systematic Evaluation Program.. *The rationale for this conclusion is discussed below.

Digitized :response spectral values (5% damping) for each site and a scaling relationship which can be used to derive spectra at other da~ping values are attached to this review (~nc1osure 1).

Basis for Previous Recommendation As described in the Initial Review the above recomiended s:ectra depend upon several ir;,portant assumptions by the staff.

They are:

The cpp~opriate ~round mcticn model to be used in Central-U.S. was

""h d * -*

r.

d "....... * * ( 1 o...,. r * - * *

1. at uasei:i upon a.r.io*iiica:ion Ci 1..ne.:up:a an 11u1... 11

~ior re12ticn.

(2) The apprcpriate ground ~oticn model to be used in the northeastern U.S.

was.that calculated from the 19~0 Ossippee earth~ua~e. The ~articular version of the Qssip~*ee mode! to* be used is tr,at which w:s crigina1ly presented since it is ~er: c~cicgous ~o c.nd ti:.ittl i

( 107~' far the csntra1 U.S.

a~d fa11s c1osest to t~ecreticc.1 mode1s of

~

J ground

-.~.a...;,......

.:J'-( """ i...... J'.

J

..Ar

  • e 3)

The appropriate zonation assumptions should be intermediate between those

.1 abel ed "Background" and "No Background".

4)

The appropriate dispersion assumed for ground motion estimation should be u = 0.7 (natural logari-thms) truncated at.!. 30'.

5)

The recommended spectra can be c.ssociated with return periods *of the order of 1,000 to 10,000 years.

The additional review herein concentrates upon the appropriateness of the preceeding assumptions in light.of the new material received.

Feed~ack and Second Round Questtonn~ire T_he most important i tern received s i nee the previous review centers about convening the experts for a round. table discussion and the submittal by them.

of answers to a second-round questi6nnaire.

At the meeting Of the expert~

the results of the *first questionnaire~ calculated re~ults, and sensitivity parameters were presented and discussed.

This meeting was followed by submittal of a second round questionnaire which gave each expert the opportunity to modify his input to the study regarding the seismicity models used in*the LLNL/TERA analysis.

In addition each expert was asked to explicitly address those issues which were not adequately discussed previously

  • and were shown to have an important effect upon the calculated spectra.

It is important to point out ~hat in the interim (between responding to the first and second questionnaires) there occurred an mblg = 5.2 earthquake in Kentucky.

.°'-..;* This was the largest event to occur in the U.S. east of the Rocky Mts. since the_southern Illinois earthquake of 1968 and it provided an opportunity to test the effect of. new {nformation upon. the experts' input and the calculated spectra.

Chance in Seismicitv Models Most of the experts suggested some changes in thei~ seismicity models.

While

_ri.any of these changes were minor, some had possible major impact upon* the calculated results. *O~~ expert provided a significantly different seismis zona ti on than he previously hac provided*, severa 1 changed their upper magnitude tut-off and two ~xperts suggested modified ~ v~l~es. Qualitative assessments

<<(>

of the impact of these changes on calculated r~sults were originally ~ade (Volume 5) i~dicating net changes in resulting ground motion for individual experts fanging.from a ~% decrea~~ t6 a 30: increase in the central ~.S. and.

from a 15: decrease* to a 15% increase in the ~astern U.S.* It was also felt that the effects of these individual changes in the input would lead to changes in the synthesis that would certainly be less than 15:.in the central

~*

. U.S. and less than 10% in the eastern U.S.

  • LLNL recalculated results (Volume 5) for four of the experts.

(The generic pararnet~rs were the same as those recommended in the Initial Review).

The experts selected were those fo~ whom most of the larger changes were indicated.

Many of the changes were not as large as ciriginally anticipated particularly for the expert who had large changes in zonation.

As a result cf the recalculations it was estimated (LLNL) that the change in any synthesis would be less than 10~.. Based upon our

  • e examination of the individual results we believe that this.can be even further res..tricted to less than about 5%.

This net change in synthesis ground motion 1*1ould be least (a very slight increase or decrease) in the eastern U.S. and reach an increase of perhaps several percent in the central U.S.

It is important to note that probabilistic estimates rematn quite stable in*

particular these based upon a syntheses of opinion even.though some of the input parameters may vary significantly. This is due primarily to the balancing 0

~ffects.which result from the changes in different input parameters for the same expert and the balancing effects which res~lt from changes in input parameters from different experts.

Feedback on Generic Assumotions The* experts were ~sked to provide their input on generic assu~ptions preyiously.

assumed in the study 1vhich \\yere applied to all the inputs uniformly.

\\-iith respect to the *assuTiiption of "background. vs. "no.background" most of the*

experts. (6) supported the original assumption of b~ckground (and zone supposition) while the others were either unsure, rejected this concept or offered no opinion on the subject.

1 ' *

  • h
  • h h
  • o* &

o *

  • o*'
  • 1 ""h or~-
  • as
  • 11:

regara :..O

.... e c; 01ce

.1

~ne gr una ;n... on ;r,oce. '" e I"', nion w diversified.

Different models iricluding some which were not previously c:nsidered i\\'ere reco;:rr:ended.

There see;:;ed to be a preference for intensity attenuation ~ased upon several earthquakes and the use of different ~odels for the central and northeastern regions.

Some recommended the use of theoretical models.

With respect to the uncertainty assumed in the ground motion model the experts recorrrnended_ the use of standard deviations ( r::r) which ranged from v= 0.5 toV=0.9 with some preference for the 0.6 to 0.7 range.

Effect of Second Round Ouestionnaire Uoon Conclusions of the Initial Review As indicated above the preferred model for calculating risk suggested in the

  • Initial Review assumed Gupta-Nuttli intensity attenuation in the central U.S.,

Ossippee Intensity attenuation in the eastern U.S., a dispersion of v; 0.7

.:_ 3 er and an \\ntemediate pci~ition bet\\.,.een "background" and "no backgrou~e".

Zone superposition was assumed to be.coincident with th~ assumption of backgrcun~. Since calculations were not carried specifically for th~s modeJ of dispers1on and background, existing mcidels were examined and we concluded that the calculations based upon CT"= 0.9 + 2Ci and no background 1>10uld approximate the desired results.

The higner level of ground motion

(~7 to +10%) in the calculated.result which was caused by assuming greater-dispersion was balanced by the.lower level of gr6und*motion (-Z to -10%) in the calculated result wh~ch was caused by assuming nb backgrotind.

With r~spect to generic assumptions in the Initial Review, input from the Second Round Que~tionnaire can be sum1iarized as follows.

J

.. 1) There is no preferred guidance from the experts as to which intensity attenuation relation should oe used,

2)

The use of a standard deviation of G"'= 0.6 to 0.7 !. 30- (Second Round

. expert preference) as compared to the use of G"'= 0. 9.:. 2cJ would result in a decrease of 10 to 15% in estimated ground motion at the level recorn:"Tlended in the Initial Revie1,o1 (Volume 5).

3)

The use of a generic seismicity model which favored the use of background (Second Round expeft preference) with respect to a model which assumed no background would result in an increase of about 10% or more in. estimated ground lilOtion at the level recoi1111ended in the Initial Review.

4)

The use of revised input~ for seismicity and zonation would result in an*

estir.;ate.d.change of 5~ or less in estimated ground motion.at the level recomilended for the various sites in the Initial Review.

Based upon the above discussion, we estimate that inclusion of input from the Second Round Questionnaire would lead to calculated site specific spectra Hhich would be roughly similar to those recorrrnended in the Initial Reviev-1 differing at most by several (less than 10) percentage points. This is not to say however.that an individual expert \\'iOUld not or could r.:it provide input that would lead to calculated spectra that were different. Slight variations in the choice of attenuation model and ground motion dispersion alone could have a major impact upon the results.

What these results do indicate however is the relative stability of integr~ted-estimates sjnthesized

.from different individual input assumptions.

J

/

-.9-Com6arison with Other Studies The~Final Repori Seismic Hazard Analysis:

Results, (TERA Corporation, 1981) includes a comparsion with several other seismic hazard studies.

In general it was found that when using input taken from other studies with the TERA co~puter code, the same results were obtained and that the difference between thes~ results and those obtained using input from the expert panel could be explai~ed by differences in assumptions.

One of the studies compared was a probabilistic assessment of ground motion carried out to assess *the likelihood of liquefaction ct Lacrosse (Parnes and Moore, *1980). Taking i~to account the variations in input, the Dames and Moore (1980) ~tudy and that performed by TERA-LLNL are in close agreement.

An i nteres ting comparison was a 1 so made ut i 1 i zi n9 a "pseudo-hi stori cal" analysis at Dresden and Yankee Rowe.

In this analysis, no zbnation is ass:.uned and the probability of exceeding a given level.. 9f ground motion is dete:-:nir.ed entirely from the*'historical record.

Lacking instrumental records the ~round motion itself is estimated frcim a given attenuation model.

These*

estimates are sensitive to the inclusion of rare events such as the 1811, 1812 New M~drid Series and have not been corrected for homogeneity or upper magnitude cutoff.

They do however yield results that are generally within the range of ground motion estimates calculated from the inputs of the individual experts for these sit es.

)

.i

  • 9 Adeauacv of Soectra for Rock Sites In the cover letter to the Initial Review it was indicated that a reduction in spectra at intermediate and low freq-uencies may be called for at rock sites (Dresden, Ginna, Haddam Neck and Millstone).

The change (Table 5-2, Final Report Seismic Hazard Analysis:

Results, TERA Corporation, 1981) was recommended by TERA Corpora ti on based upon its restructuring (weighting) of the strong motion data set used in ground motion estimation primarily to av9id overemphasis ~pon the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. While this*

restructuring may be valid for estimating ground motion as a function of magnitude and intensity or distance, LLNL has pointed out (Volume 4) t*hat it also results in a significant reduction in the number of rock records* since many such records resulted from the San Fernando Earthquake.

We agree Llf.IL I

... h.... '

. h... d

,J 1.

tnereiore w1t:n

, s assessrnen1. 1.. a1. t:ne ongina,.nor.we1g.i1.e moue is more appropriate for detemining differences in ground motion between rock and soil sites and no reduction is called for.

  • conservatism of Recommended Soectra Our estimate in the Initial Review was that although the recommended spectra were labelled "1000 year" spectra the actual return periods associated with these spectra were longer.

TERA Corporation had estimated.these actual return periods to be.closer to 5,000 or 10,000 years.

While we were not sure what the precise estimates were we co~c1uded that they were consistent with the previous implicit accept~nce of design spectra that were assumed to have teturn periods of the order of 1,000 or 10,000 years.

As a result of this final review we find no new information that changes our previous estimate.

.-11-*

Since other levels of ground motion-spectra could fit into this range of*

probabilities. it is worthwhi 1 e reexamining the criteria by which the recommended spectra were found to be ap~ropriate.

1.

Th~se spectra, whatever their true return periods actually are, represent

~pproximately equivalent levels of seismic hazard at the different SEP sites currently being considered and represent a more consist~nt estimate to be used in seismic analysis than standard "deterministic'!* procedures.

These "deterministic" procedures generally rely upon tectonic provinces and controlling earth"quakes regardless of the size.of the tectonic provinc.c:

or the fre~uency of earthquake occurrence.

As a:*result, these procedures can lead to the acceptance of different level~ of seismic hazard at

. different 1 oca ti ons..

The recoiiiilended spectra genera 1 ly i ndi ca te a relatively greater earthquake hazard associ~ted with sites in* the' northe~~t when compared to sites in the upper midwest.

2.

\\*!hen compared to the -determi ni s tic procedure recorrriiended for use in the SEP in NUREG/CR-0098 the recomended spectra as a group bracket the 50th and 84th percentile deterministic spectra as caicuiated in the Initial Review.

3.

\\-/hen compared to non-probabili.sti'c: site specific spectra derived from real records, an approach currently being pursued with many OL reviews, the recommended spectra vary from the 84th percentile to the SOth percentile representation of a magnitude 5.3 earthquake.

The 50th percentile of the

)

f spectra from real records was specified in the Initial Review as ~he minimum whi~h recommended spectra would not be allowed to fail.

The 84th percentile is that level which has been used in OL reviews.

4.

The recommended spectra form a band centered about the Regulatory Guide spectrum anchored at O.lg.

New plants licensed in t~ese areas would most lik~ly utilize peak accelerations of *0.12 to 0.20 g to anchor the Regulatory Guid~ Spectrum.

Based upon the above discussion we* consider this approximate overl~p of the higher of the recommended spectra with the mid to lower range of those spectra estimated applying current deterministic criteria to indicate that the recommended spectra can be generally associated with the higher end of the range of implicitly assumed seismic hazard that has been found acceptable using current criteria.

lacking more defined levels of acceptable seismic hazard and a prescribed method for caltulating this hazard, the use of individual and often non-quantifiabl~ judgement cannot be avoided in assessing the results of this study so as to integrate it with other techniques into a decision-making framework.

Based upon the above comparison it is our position that the recoITTilended spectra represent the appropriate levels of free fiel~ ground motion to be used in the SEP for the purpose of evaluating the sei~mic design adequacy of the selected p'l...a.l:lts.

'J c..

i1.

.a

~

Application of this study and its review recommendation to other sites or.

other programs should be examined on a case by case basis.

Anomalous Site Conditions As was indicated in the Initial Revi~w these spectra only acco~nt for gross site conditions (soil or rock).

No attempt was made to consider soil amplification beyond that already inherent in the soil records used in the study.

LaErosse, Palisades, and Yankee Rowe have been identified as ~aving site conditions whicb may be anomalous with fespect to those site conditions associated with the soil records used in this study.:,

" i I

I I

1

  • i I

.I i

! l I

h

-.*1.)

~i *i;

~

... nclosure SEP 1 7 1saa

  • DIS TR I BU TI ON CENTRAL FILE
  • .~. *

-~.-.'.:-~ :-*;.*-

~ ;~.~;
.*.. -.~... -
  • .: ~.:-i'

-~*-

NRR ROG

~,. '.

""~~*.;., ~*:t ~\\;: ~* -?.~.; ~

.-~~~ F~ j ~1-~t;_**;iJ:-; ~E~~~.. :

H~;D.W,-:.li.-M F0.. 1 De.nni~ H. Crutcbfie1d, Chief*-.-.** ;-..r_,:.

Syst~at~c Eva11:iatfon Progra.'il.Branch=:. * ** *..

Howard Levin, Technic~l Assistant.

Dh1sfo~ of Er.g~needn9

'7"'

-i <:-:.. -*..

  • ,. I I.

.'. ~ *: ~ :.. '

,.. ~..

SUSJECTt spectra to spectra in the range of 2:: to 2~.

  • How~rd Levin~ i.echn1ca1 Assistant Divis1on*~f Engineering cc:

D. Ei se:ihct.

R. Vo 1 ioer.

J. Knight *<.

R. Jackson L. Reiter J. Gre:eves

r. Cheng

.. ~

.. -**-*---:* ~**-**. --------*.

.~,...,-.

. ~.

  • .o:

.. tL~~LQ.LJ~~ ~ ***----*-

/

  • v **AM* ~.. c1.e_'l.iD_;_m.g. __.. ****-----------

cm~ 9 J.!lJBO... --****-*

i L - :-.-:o.c )'CF_Y, ;15 (9-75)

~1'.0{ 02~

  • u: I. OCVCJllW.,.CNT,,lltl......:"IMO Q,,-1C:c,,i 1*11 -

1.:.......:,.6

. "j. /

0:' ~...

lru::..TIC

  • -:/,*

f\\' AL Li;.. T JO:~ P?.OGR~*l

-~.

7~..

SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA (cm/sec2)

PSEUDO SPECT~/.,L ACCELERAT l Oi~S J'

Ycnkee Oyster.

Haddam Big

rfod Rol':e
  • Creek Ginn a Ueck l*~i 11 stone Rock Pt.

Lacrosse Paliscdes Ores de I

203.00.. 172.61 178.85 215.91 196.23 122~29 122.29 122.29 i34.l

~:

213.69

  • 178.17 192.52 228.92 210.91 130.19 130.19 130.19 142. 5 247.74 206. 77 230.16 279.47 253.44 152. 05, 152.05 152.05 164. s

. ~*.

0 27 5. 63 229.98 258.38 316.00 287.00 179.69 179.69 179.59 181. 7 270.~

Q 434.80 363. 77 388.92 4 75.17 433. 65

.213.50 213. 50 214. 77

.'""\\:.

~55. 49 376.59 375.82 456.79 415.45 201.96 201. 96 224.41 257.~

0:

~OS.76 339. 90* 328.79 395.71 360. 53 171.68 195.71 218.32 249.3 224.32 180.98 165.10 183.25 165.68 122.90 151.98 174.57 1s*s.1 i!i,.

195.20 161.33 168.65. 202.48 184.16 102.50 102~50 102.50 124.1 l"*

22. 48.

18.41 16.92

. 19.66 17.82

11. 39 13.50 15.18.

16.0 Co '

1 \\1 ERSi0~

1 TO O'H'""R OL.!!,pJ,1.*r.

'11tl_UFS

"( 0.,,r::..r..,'f'.:E 2:'. -

zoc;.._')

ii

  • I\\

I n

  • *cTx(new d2mping(x)-.os);

PSA~% = PSA5% x 10 I

1--fod

-0.290

-0.600

-0.904

.3

-1. 270

,:o

-1 ~700

-1.990

-L950 5

-1.810.

-1. 960

-; its =cm/sec tatistica11y Insignificant Coefficient, Use 5% PSA Value
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17193B497&oldid=5130494"