ML19332C774

Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants.Lwr Edition.Revision 2 to Section 2.5.2, Vibratory Ground Motion

ML19332C774
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/30/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-0800, NUREG-0800-02.5.2-R2, NUREG-800, NUREG-800-2.5.2-R2, SRP-02.05.02, SRP-2.05.02, NUDOCS 8911280533
Download: ML19332C774 (17)

Text

.. -.

.g.__

e q

NUREG-0000 (Formerly NUREG 75/007)

{

m

/#vuog*%

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[d fig..s i STANDARD REVIEW PLAN j

f OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULAMN gg j

Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysic Reports for Nucicar Power Plants t

4

' Section No.

2.5.2 Revisio.1 No.

2 Appendix No.

N/A Revision No, N/A Branch Tech. Position N/A Revision No.

N/A Date issued August 1989 f

(

FILING INSTRUCTIONS PAGES TO BE REMOVED NF.W PAGES TO BE INSERTED PAGE NUMBER DATE PAGE NUMBER DATE I

2.5.2-1 Rev. 1-July 1981 2.5.2-1 Rev. 2 August 1989 l.

thru thru l

2.5.2-13 2.5.2-15

)

l' l

8911280533 891130 l

PDR NUREG 0B00 R PDR

}

l L

j 1

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's r

Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0000, prepared by the

. 'y Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,is available for sale by the National Technicalinformation Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

I L

t

_.., _,.. ~.,

..,.m._

e1

.e NUREG-0000 l

(Formerly NUREG-75/007)-

q

'n,.

~

/....o,*\\ -

0"I d

i M U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM i

ky ',-' w OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION -

s

.e i

<)

2.5.2 VIBRATORY GROUND HOTION j

w f/

REVIEW RESPONSI31LITICS Primary - $tructural and Geosciences Branch (ESGB) l r..

Secondary - None L..;

1. AREAS OF REVIEW J

l, The Structural and Geosciences Branch review covers the seismological and geological investigations carried out to establish the acceleration for the 1

safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and the operating basis earthquake (OBE) for the site. The safe shutdown earthquake is that earthquake that is based-L.

upon an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential considering the regional.and local geology and seismology and specific characteristics of local subsurface material.

It is that earthquake that prt, duces-the maximum

'l vibratory ground motion for which safety-related-structures, systems, and L.

components are designed to remain functional.. The operating basis earthquake is that: earthquake that, considering the regional and local geology, seis-mology, and specific characteristics of local subsurface material, could reasonably be expected to affect the plant site during the operating life of the plant; it is that-earthquake that produces the vibretory ground motion for"which those features of the nuclear power plant necessary for continued I

operation without undue risk to the health and safety of the public are i.

designed to remain functional. The principal regulation used by the staff

'in' determining the scope and adequacy of the submitted seismologic and I

geologic information and attendant procedures and analyses is Appendix A,

" Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power' Plants" to 10 CFR Part 100 (Ref. 1). Additional guidance (regulations, regulatory guides, and reports) is provided to.the staff through References 2 through 8.

Specific areas of review include seismicity (Subsection 2.5.2.1), geologic and tectonic characteristics of the :,ite and region (Subsection 2.5.2.2),

correlation of earthquake activity with geologic structure or tectonic Rev. 2 - August 1989 i

USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff rMsponsible for the review of applications to construct and operate nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part,of the Commission's policy to inform the nuclear Industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. Standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission's regulations and compliance with them is not required. The

[N standard review plan sections are keyed to the Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants.

{

Not all sections of the Standard Format have a corresponding review plan.

I sh d sta derd review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new informa-Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be act to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commitsion.

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C. 20li66.

.-J-

~---#

._._.-.,_m..

--m. - - -

.n.-

provinces (Subsection 2.5.2.3), maximum earthquake potential (Subsection O1

'2.5.2.4), seismic wave transmission characteristics of the site (Subsection 2.5.2.5), safeJshutdown earthquake (Subsection 2.5.2.6), and operating basis earthquake (Subsection 2.5.2.7).

'The geotechnical engineering aspects of the site and the models and methods employed in the analysis of soil and foundation response to tne ground motion environment are reviewed under SRP Section 2.S.4.

The results of the geo-sciences review are used in SRP Secticas 3.7.3 and 3.7.2.

11.

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The applicable-regulations (Refs.1, 2, and 3) and regulatory guides (Refs. 4, 5, and 5) and basic acceptance criteria pertinent to the areas of this section of the Standard Review Plan are:

1.

10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.".These criteria describe the kinds of geologic and seismic information needed to determine site suitability and ioentify geologic and seismic factors required to be taken into account in the siting and design of nuclear power plants (Ref. 1).

2.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, " General Design Criteria for Nuclea~r Power Plants"; General Design Criterion 2, " Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena." This criterion requires that safety related portions of the structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed'to withstand the effects of earthquakes, tsunami, and seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions (Ref. 2).

3.

10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria." This part describes criteria that guide-the evaluation of the suitability of proposed sites for nuclear power and' testing reactors (Ref. 3).

4.

Regulatcry Guide 1.132, " Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants." This guide describes programs of site investigations a

related to geotechnical aspects that would normally meet the needs for evaluating the safety of the site from the standpoint of the perform-ance of foundations under anticipated loading conditions including earth-quake.

It provides general guidance and recommendations for developing site-specific investigation programs as well as specific guidance for conducting subsurface investigations, including the spacing and depth of borings as well as sampling intervals (Ref. 4).

5.

Regulatory Guide 4.7, " General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear

' Power Stations." This guide discusses the major site characteristics related to public health and safety which the NRC staff considers in determining the suitability of sites fnr nuclear power stations (Ref. 5).

6..

Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants." This guide gives one method acceptable to.the NRC staff for defining the response spectra corresponding to the expected maximum ground acceleration (Ref 6).

See also subsection 2.5.2.6.

2.5.2-2 Rev. 2 - August 1989

'hL

,V,7N The primary required investigations are described in 10 CFR Part 100, Sec-V)

, tion IV(a) of-Appendix A (Ref. 1).

The acceptable procedures for determin-ing the seismic design bases are given in Section V(a) and Section VI(a) of Lt L

~servative determination of.the SSE and the DBE. ~As defined in Section III the appendix =The seismic design bases are predicated on a reasonable, con-L of 10.CFR Part 100, Appendix A (Ref. 1), the SSE and OBE~are based on con-1 sideration of the-regional and local geology and seismology and on the characteristics of the subsurface materials at the site and are described in i

terms of the vibratory ground motion that they would produce at the site.-

No comprehensive' definitive rules can be promulgated regarding the investi-gations needed to establish the seismic design bases; the requirements vary from site to site, i

i

2. 5. 2.1 Seismicity.

In meeting the requirement-of Reference 1, this l

subsection is accepted when the complete historical record of earthquakes in i

the region is listed and when all available parameters are given for each earthquake in the historical record.

The listing should include all earth-quakes-having Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI). greater than or equal to IV or magnitude greater than or equal to 3.0 that have been reported in all tectonic provinces, any parts of which are within 200 miles of the site.

A regional-scale map should be presented showing all listed earthquake epicenters and should be supplemented by a larger-scale map showing earthquake epicenters of all known

.l events within 50 miles of,the site.

The following information concerning j

each earthquake is required whenever it is available:

epicenter coordinates,

. depth of focus, origin time, highest intensity, magnitude, seismic moment, source mechanism, source dimensions, distance from the site, and any strong-O motion recordings (references from which the information was obtained should

(,/

be identified).

All magnitude designations such as m, M ' N, M,,

etc.,

b L

s should be identified.

In addition, any rerorted earthquake-induced geologic failure, such as liquefaction, landsliding, landspreading; and lurching should be described completely, including the level of strong motion that induced failure Land the physical properties of the materials.

The completeness of the earthquake history of the region is determined by comparison to published 1

sources of information (e.g., Refs. 9 through 13).

When conflicting descrip-tions of individual earthquakes are found in the published references, the staff should determine which is appropriate for licensing decisions.

2.5.2.2 Geologic and Tectonic Characteristics of Site and Region.

In meeting the requirements of References 1, 2, and 3, this subsection is ac-cepted when all geelogic structures within the region and tectonic activity i

that-are significant in determining the earthquake potential of the region are identified, or wcen an adequate investigation has been carried out to provide reasonable assurance that all significant tectonic structures have been identified.

Information presented in Section 2.5.1 of the applicant's safety analysis report (SAR) and information from other sources (e.g.,

Refs. 9 and 14 through 18) dealing with the current tectonic regime should

-be developed into a coherent, well-documented discussion to be used as the basis for determining tectonic provinces and the earthquake generating poten-tial of the identified geologic structures.

Specifically, each tectonic province, any part of which is within 200 miles of the site, must be identified.

The staff interprets tectonic provinces to be regions of uniform earthquake O

potential (seismotectonic provinces).

The proposed tectonic provinces may Y

i-2.5.2-3 Rev. 2 - August 1989 h

/

/

^

,be' based'on seismicity studies, differences in geologic history, differences in the current tectonic l regime,'etc, The staff considers that the most j

iimportant factors for the determination of tectonic provinces include both (1) development and characteristics of. the current. tectonic regime of the i

regio.n that is most likely reflected in the_ neotectonics (Post-Miocene or

'cbout-5 million years and younger geologic history) and (2) the pattern and level of historical seismicity.

Those characteristics of geologic structure, J

tIctonic history, present and past stress regimes, and seismicity that dis-1 tinguish the various_ tectonic provinces and the particular~ areas within those provinces'where~ historical earthquakes have ' occurred should be described.

1 Alternative regional ~ tectonic models derived from available literature sources,

-including previous SARs and NRC staff Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs),

should be-discussed.

The model that best conforms to the observed data is accepted. 'In addition, in those areas where there are_ capable' faults, the E

- results 'of the additional investigative requirements described in 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, Section IV(a)(8) (Ref. 1), must be-presented. 'The discussion should be augmented by a regional-scale map showing the tectonic provinces, earthquake epicenters, locations of geologic structures and other l

features that characterize the provinces, and the~ locations of any capable

_ faults.

2.5.2.3 Correlation of Earthquake Activity with Geologic Ctructure p

-or Tectonic Provinces.

In meeting the requirements of Reference 1, accept-1 l-ance of this subsection is-based on the development of the relationship l

between the history of earthquake activity and the geologic structures or 1 tectonic provinces of a region.

The applicant's presentation is accepted 1

when the earthquakes discussed in Subsection 2.5.2.1 of the SAR are shown to.

.b3 associated with either geologic structure or tectonic province.

Whenever u;

an earthquake hypocenter or concentration of earthquake hypocenters can be 1.

^rsasonably correlated with geologic structures, the rationale for the associa-tion _should be developed considering the characteristics of the geologic structure-(including geologic and geophysical data, seismicity, and the L

l tectonic history) and the regional tectonic model.

The discussion should l'

include identification of the methods used to locate the. earthquake hypo-L

-centers,- an estimate of.their. accuracy, and a detailed account that compares -

and contrasts the geologic structure involved in the earthquake activity with other areas within the tectonic province.

Particular attention should be given_to determining the capability of faults with which instrumentally

' located earthquake hypocenters are associated.

The presentation should be augmented by regional maps, all of the same scale, showing the tectonic provinces, the earthquake epicenters, and the locations

'of-geologic structures and meastrements used to define provinces.

Acceptance of the' proposed tectenic provinces is based on the staff's independent review cf.the geologic and seismic information.

2.5.2.4 Maximum Earthquake Potential.

In meeting the requirements of L

Reference 1, this subsection is accepted when the vibratory ground motion l

due to the maximum credible earthquake associated with each geologic structure l'

or the maximum historic earthquake associated with each tectonic province has been assessed and when the earthquake that would produce the maximum vibratory ground motion at the site has been determined.

The maximum credible 2.5.2-4 Rev. 2 - August 1989

N earthquake is the largest earthquake that.can reasonably be expected to occur

],r5[

on a geologic structure in the current tectonic regime.

Geologic or seismo-NJ

. logical evidence'may warrant a maximum earthquake larger than the maximum historic' earthquake.. Earthquakes associated with each geologic. structure or c

tectonic province must be identified.

Wnere an earthquake is associated j

h with geologic structure, the maximum credible' earthquake that could occur on

?

-that structure should be evaluated, taking into account significant factors, j

for example, the type of the faulting, fault' length, fault slip rate, rupture I

length, rupture area, moment,.and earthquake history (e.g., Refs.-19 through

'22).

In order _to determine the maximum credible' earthquake that could occur on those faults that are shown or assumed to be capable, the staff accepts. con-servative. values based on historic' experience in the region and specific i

considerations of the earthquake history and geologic history of movement on

-the faults. Where the earthquakes are associated with a tectonic province, the largest historic earthquake.within the province should be identified.

Isoseismal maps should also be presented for the most significant earth-quakes..The ground motion at the site should be evaluated assuming appropri-ate seismic energy transmission effects and assuming that the maximum earth-i i

quake associated with each geologic structure or with each-tectonic province occurs at the point of closest approach of the structure or province to the site.

(Further description is provided in Subsection 2.5.2.6.)

The earthquake (s) that would produce the most severe vibratory ground motion I

at the site should be defined.

If different potential earthquakes would-LQ produce the most severe ground motion in different frequency bands, these l1'/

earthquakes should be specified.

The description of the potential earth-

. quake (s) is to include the maximum intensity or magnitude and the distance from the assumed location of the potential earthquake (s) to the site.

The staff independently evaluates the site ground motion produced by the largest earthquake associated with each geologic structure or tectonic province.

Acceptance of the description of the potential earthquake (s) that would produce the largest ground. motion at the site is based on the staff's indepen-dent analysis.

2.5.2.5 Seismic Wave Transmission Characterist., of the Site.

In meeting the requirements of Reference 1, this subsection is accepted when the seismic wave transmission characteristics (amplification or deamplifica-tion) of the materials overlying bedrock at the site are described as a function of the significant frequencies.

The following material properties should be determined for each stratum under the site:

seismic compressional and shear wave velocities, bulk densities, soil index properties and classifi-cation, shear modulus and damping variations with strain level, and water table elevation and its variation.

In each case, methods used to determine the properties should be described in Subsection 2.5.4 of the SAR and cross-referenced in this subsection.

For the maximum earthquake, determined in Subsection 2.5.2.4, the free-field ground motion (including significant frequencies) must be determined, and an analysis should be performed to determine the site effects on different seismic wave types in the significant frequency bands.

If appropriate, the analysis should consider the effects of site conditions and material property varintions upon wave propagation (oV) and frequency content.

2.5.2-5 Rev. 2 - August 1989

w

- s I

t

-The fee'e-field. ground motion (also referred to as control motion) should be l defined.to be on-a ground surface'and should be based'on data obtained in

_th2 free field.

Two cases are identified depending on the soil characteris-tics at the' site; and subject to' availability of appropriate recorded ground-motica data. When data are;available, for example, for reletively uniform sites;of soil or rock with smooth variation of properties w?th'denth, the

'contro1~ point (location'at2which the control motion is appli 4) nocid bc specified on the soil surface at'the top of'the finished grad, lhe free-

. field ground motion or control motion should be consistent with the. properties coffthe. soil profile.

For sites composed of cne or more thin soil layers ovstlying a competent material, or in case of insufficient recorded ground-motion data, the control point is specified on an outcrop or a hypothetical outcrop at a location on the top of the competent material.

The control motion specified should be consistent with the properties of the competent caterial.

Where vertically propagating shear waves may produce the maximum ground motion,

'a cne-dimensional equivalent-linear analysis (e.g., Ref. 23 or 24) or nonlinear analysis (e.g., Refs. 25, 26,_and 27) may be appropriate and is reviewed in

?ct.njunction with geotechnical and structural engineering.

Where horizontally propagating shear waves, compressional waves, or surface waves may produce

-the maximum ground motion, other methods of analysis (e.g., Refs. 28 and 29) t y be more appropriate.

However, since some of the variables are not well

defined and the techniques are still in the developmental stage, no generally agreed-upon procedures can be promulgated at this time.

Hence, the staff

.:ust use discretion in reviewing any method of analysis.

To insure appropri-ateness, site response characteristics determined from analytical procedures should be compared with historical' and instrumental earthquake data, when available.

2.5.2.6 Safe Shutdown Earthquake.

In meeting the requirements of Ref-erence 1, this subsection is accepted when the vibratory ground motion specified for the SSE is described in terms of_the free-field response

- sp2ctrum and is at-least as conservative as that which would result at the site from the maximum earthquake (determined in Subsection 2.5.2.4) consider-ing the site transmission effects (determined in Subsection 2.5.2.5). -If several different maximum potential earthquakes produce the largest ground motions in dif ferent frequency bands (as noted in Subsection 2.5.2.4),- the vibratory ground motion specified for the SSE must be as conservative in each frequency band as that for each earthquake.

_The staff reviews the free-field response spectra of engineering significance (at appropriate damping values).

Ground motion may vary for different founda-tion conditions at the site.' When the site effects are significant, this review is made in conjunction with the review of the design response spectra Lin Section 3.7.1 to ensure consistency with the free-field motion.

The staff normally evaluates response spectra on a case-by-case basis.

The staff considers compliance with the following conditions acceptable in the evalua-tion of the SSE.

In all these procedures, the proposed free-field response sp:ctra shall be considered acceptable if they equal or exceed the estimated

'84th percentile ground-motion spectra from the maximum or controlling earth-

_ ' quake described in Subsection 2.5.2.4.

J 2.5.2-6 Rev. 2 - August 1989

m

[

e 7

~

l r^'

-The following steps-summarize the staff review of the SSE.

i

/

A4 1.

Both horizontal and vertical component site-specific response spectra

~

should be developed statistically from response spectra of. recorded strong motion records that are selected to have similar source, propaga-tion path, and recording site properties as the controlling earthquake (s).

It must'be ensured that the recorded motions represent-free-field condi-t tions and are free of or corrected for any soil-structure interaction effects that may be present because of locations and/or housing of recording instruments. Important source properties include magnitude and, if possible, fault type, and tectonic environment.

Propagation path properties include distance, depth,.and attenuation.. Relevant site properties include shear velocity profile and other factors that affect the amplitude of waves at different frequencies.

A sufficently large' number of site-specific time histories and/or response spectra should be used to obtain an adequately broadband spectrum'to enccmpass the uncertainties in these parameters.

An 84th percentile-response 4

spectrum for the records should be presented for each damping value of interest and compared to the SSE free-field and design response spectrum (e.g., Refs. 30, 31, 32, and 33).

The staff considers direct estimates j

of spectral ordinates preferable to scaling of spectra to peak accelera-tions.

In the Eastern United States, relatively little information is available on magnitudes for the larger historic earthquakes; hence, it may be appropriate to rely on intensity observations (descriptions of earthquake effects) to estimate magnitudes of historic events (e.g.,

Refs-. 34 and 35). If the data for site-specific response spectra were

(

not obtained under geologic conditions similar to those at the site,

' V )'

corrections for site effects should be included in the development of the site-specific spectra.

2.

Where a large enough ensemble of strong-motion records.is not available, response spectra may be approximated by scaling that ensemble of strong-motion data that' represent the best estimate of source, propagation path, and site properties (e.g., Ref. 36).

Sensitivity studies should show the effects of scaling.

3.

If strong-motion records are not available, site-specific peak ground acceleration, velocity, and displacement (if necessary) should be deter-mined for appropriate magnitude, distance, and foundation conditions.

Then response spectra may be determined by scaling the acceleration, velocity, and displacement values by appropriate amplification factors l

(e.g., Ref. 37).

Where only estimates of peak ground acceleration are available, it is acceptable to select a peak acceleration and use this peak acceleration as the high frequency asymptote to standardized response spectra such as described in Regulatory Guide 1.60 (Ref. 6) p

' for both the horizontal and vertical components of motion with the l

appropriate amplification factors.

For each controlling earthquake, the peak ground motions should be determined using current relations between acceleratill, velocity, and, if necessary, displacement, earth-quake size (magnitude or intensity), and source distance.

Peak ground motion should be determined from state-of-the-art relationships.

Rela-l-p tionships between magnitude and ground motion are found, for example, l+ G 2.5.2-7 Rev. 2 - August 1989

f f

in References 38, 39, 40, and 41 and relationships between ground motion and intensity are found, for example, in References _41, 42, and 43.

Due to'the limited data for high intensities greater than Modified Mercalli Intensity-(MI) VIII, the available empirical relationships between intensity and peak ground motion may not be suitable for determining L

the appropriate reference acceleration for seismic design.

4.

Response spectra developed by theoretical-empirical modeling of ground motion may be used to supplement site-specific spectra if the input parameters and the. appropriateness of the model are thoroughly docu-mented (e.g.,_Refs. 19, 44, 45 and 46).

Modeling.is particularly useful.

for_ sites near capable faults thac may experience ground motion that is different in terms of frequency content and wave type from ground motion caused by more distant _ earthquakes.

5.

Probabilistic estimates of seismic hazard should be calculated (e.g.,

Refs. 41 and 47) and the underlying assumptions and associated uncer-tainties should be documented to assist in the staff's overall deter-ministic approach.

The probabilistic studies should highlight which seismic sources are significant to the site.

Uniform hazard spectra

'(spectra that have a uniform probability of exceedance over the fre-quency range of interest) showing uncertainty should be calculated for 0.01, 0.001, and 0.0001 annual probabilities of exceedance at the site.

The probability of exceeding the SSE response spectra should also be estimated and comparison of results made with other probabilistic studies.

)

'The time duration and' number of cycles of strong ground motion is required for analysis of site foundation liquefaction potential and for design of many plant components.

The adequacy of the time history for structural

-analysis is reviewed under SRP Section 3.7.1.

The time history is reviewed in this SRP section to confirm that it is compatible with the seismological and geological conditions in the site vicinity and with the accepted SSE model.

At present, models for daterministically computing the time history

--of strong ground motion from a given source-site configuration may be limited.

It is therefore acceptable to use an ensemble of ground-motion time histories from earthquakas with ~ similar size, site-source characteristics, and spectral characteristics or results of a statistical analysis of such an ensemble.

Total duration of the motion is acceptable'when it is as conservative as values determined using current studies such as References 48, 49, 50, and 51.

2.5.2.7 Operating Basis Earthquake.

In meeting the requirements of Reference 1, this subsection is acceptable when the vibratory ground motion for the OBE is~ described and the response spectrum (at appropriate damping L

values) at the site specified. ' Probability calculations (e.g., Refs. 41, 47, and 52) should be used to estimate the probability of exceeding the OBE L

during the operating life of the plant.

The maximum vibratory ground motion of the OBE should be at least one-half the maximum vibratory ground motion of the SSE unless a lower OBE can be justified on the basis of probability calcu-lations.

It has been staff practice to accept the OBE if the return period is on the order of hundreds of years (e.g., Ref. 31).

2.5.2-8 Rev. 2 - August 1989

(%p III. _ REVIEW PROCEDURES w

/s V-Upon receiving the applicant's SAR, an acceptance review is conducted to determine compliance with the investigative requirements of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A (Ref. 1).

The reviewer also identifies any-site-specific problems, the resolution of which could result in extended delays in completing the review.

After SAR acceptance and docketing, those areas are identified where addi-tional information is required to determine the earthquake hazard.

These are transmitted to the applicant as draft requests for additional informa-tion.-

A site visit may be conducted during which the reviewer inspects the' geologic conditions at the. site-and region around the site as shown in outcrops, borings, geophysical data, trenches,, and those geologic conditions exposed durirg c:onstruction if the review is for an operating license.

The reviewer also discusses the questions with the applicant and his consultants so that it is clearly understood what additional information is required by the staff to continue the review.

Following the site visit, a revised set of requests for additional information, including any additional questions that may have been developed during the site visit, is formally transmitted to the applicant.

i-The reviewerLevaluates the applicant's response to the questions, prepares l-requests for additional clarifying information, and formulates positions that may agree or disagree with those of the applicant.

These are formally

- /^j transmitted to the.apDlicant, k~~)

The' safety analysis report and amendments responding to the requests for additional information are reviewed to determine that the information pre-sented by the applicant is acceptable according to the criteria described in Section II (Acceptance Criteria) above.

Based on information supplied by the applicant, obtained from site visits or from staff consultants or litera-l ture sources, the reviewer independently identifies the relevant seismotec-tonic provinces, evaluates the capability of faults in the region, and deter-mines the earthquake potential for each province and each capable fault or tectonic structure using procedures noted in Section II (Acceptance Criteria) above.

The reviewer evaluates the vibratory ground motion that the potential earthquakes could produce at the site and defines the safe shutdown earthquake and operating basis earthquake.

IV.

EVALUATION FINDINGS

,If the evaluation by the staff, on completion of the review of the geologic and seismologic aspects of the plant site, confirms that the applicant has met the requirements or guidance of applicable portions of References 1 through 6, the conclusion in the SER states that the information provided

. and investigations performed support the applicant's conclusions regarding the seismic integrity of the subject nuclear power plant site.

In addition to the conclusion, this section of the SER includes (1) definitions of tectonic provinces; (2) evaluations of the capability of geologic structures em in the region; (3) determinations of the SSE earthquake (s) and free-field l

1

\\

Q 2.5.2-9 Rev. 2 - August 1989

it E

4 t

L response spectra based on evaluation of the potential earthquakes; (4) time Lhistory of strong ground notion, and (5) determinations of the OBE free-

-field response spectra.-

Staff reservations.about any significant deficiency

' presented.in the applicant's SAR are stated in sufficient detail to make

clear the precise nature of the concern.

The above evaluation determina.

tions or redeterminations are made by the staff during both the construction permit (CP) andioperating license (0L) phases of review.

1

- 01. applications 'are reviewed for ar'y new information developed subsequent to

~

the CP safety evaluation' report (SER).

The review will also determine whether

.the CP' recommendations have been implemented.

A typical. OL stage summary finding for this section of the SER follows:

In our review of the seismologic aspects of the' plant site we have con-sidered pertinent information gathered since our initial seismologic review which was made in conjunction with the issuance of the Construc-tion ~ Permit.

This new-information includes data gained from both site.

and near-site investigations as well as from a review of recently pub-lished literature.

As a result of our recent review of the seismologic information, we

- have determined that our earlier conclusion regarding the safety of the plant fron' a seismological standpoint remains valid.

These conclusions can be summarized as follows:

1.

Seismologic information provided by-the applicant.and required by 1

Appendix A to.10 CFR Part 100 provides an adequate basis to establish that no capable faults exist in the plant site area which would'cause earthquakes to be centered there.

1 2.

The response spectrum proposed.for the safe shutdown earthquake is the appropriate free-field response spectrum in conformance with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.

The new information reviewed for the proposed nuclear power plant is

' discussed in Safety Evaluation Report Section 2.5.2.

The staff concludes that the site is acceptable from a seismologic stand-j point and meets the requirements of (1) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A L

(General Design Criterion 2), (2) 10 CFR Part 100, and (3) 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A.

This conclusion is based on the following:

i 1.

The applicant has met the requirements of:

a.

10 CFR-Part 50, Appendix A (General Design Criterion 2) with respect to protection against natural phenomena such as faulting.

b.

10 CFR Part 100 (Reactor Site Criteria) with respect to the L

identification of geologic and seismic information used in L

determining the suitability of the site.

e l

2.5.2-10 Rev. 2 - August 1989 mL-ew' e

-p r

"D T-

I s

/~T c.

10 CFR Part.100, Appendix A (Seismic and Geologic Siting.

L

/

Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants) with respect to obtaining N

-the geologic.and seismic information necessary to determine (1)-site suitability and (2)sthe appropriate design'of the plant.~. Guidance for complying with this regulation is con-tained in Regulatory Guide 1.132, " Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants,'! Regulatory Guide 4.7,.

" General' Site Suitability for Nuclear Power Stations," and s

Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Seismic-

~

Design of. Nuclear Power Plants."

V.

IMPLEMENTATION

. The following is intended to provide guidance to applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this SRP. section.

Except in.those cases in which the applicant / licensee proposes an acceptable' alternative method for complying with specific portions of the Commission's

-regulations, the methods described herein will be.used by the staff in its evaluation of'conformance with Commission regulations.

Implementation schedules for conformance to parts of the method discussed herein are contained in the referenced regulatory guides and NUREGs (Refs. 4 through 8).

-The provisions of this SRP section apply to reviews of construction permit gll

- (CP), operating license (0L), preliminary design approval: (PDA), final: design

.- U approval (FDA), and combined license (CP/0L) applications docketed after the date of issuance of this SRP section.

VI.

REFERENCES 1.

10 CFR Part 100,' Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants."

2.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 2, " Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena."

3.

10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria."

4.

Regulatory Guide 1.132, " Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants."

5.

Regulatory Guide 4.7, " General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations."

6.

Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear. Power P1 ants."

7.

Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants."

O

,t g 8.

NUREG-0625, " Report of Siting Policy Task Force" (1979).

2.5.2-11 Rev. 2 - August 1989

• 4 m

.f 9.' * :NUREG/CR-1577,._"An Approach to Seismic Monation for Siting Nuclear 9

Electric Power Generating Facilities in the Eastern United States,"

~

prepared by Rondout Associates, Inc., for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Commission.' Authored by N._Barstow, K. Brill, O. Nutt11, and P.

-Pomeroy;(1981).

10.

C. W.' Stover etlal.,.1979-1981, Seismicity. Maps of the States of the U.S., Geological.Gurvey Miscellaneous Field Studies Maps.

11. '" Earthquake History of the United _ States," Publication 41-1, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (1982).

12.

T. R. Toppozada,~ C. R. Real, S. P. Bezore, and D. L. Parke, "Compila-tion of Pre-1900 California Earthquake History, Annual Technical Report-Fiscal Year 1978-79, Open File Report 79-6 SAC (Abridged

~ Version)'," California Division of Mines and Geology (1979).

13.

P. W. Basham, D. H. Weichert, and M. J. Berry, " Regional Assessment of I

Seismic Risk in Eastern Canada," Bulletin Seismological Society of-America,'Vol. 65, pp. 1567-1602 (1979).

14.

P. B.' King, "The Tectonics of North America - A Discussion to Accompany the Tectonic Map of North America, Scale 1:5,000,000," Professional Paper 628, U.S. Geological Survey (1969).

15.

A. J. Eardley, '! Tectonic Divisions of North America," Bulletin American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Vol. 35 (1951).

16. 1J. B. Hadley-and J. F. Devine, "Seismotectonic Map of the Eastern United States," Publication MF-620, U.S. Geological Survey (1974).

17.

M.

L.' Sbar and L. R. Sykes, " Contemporary Compressive Stress and Seismicity:in Eastern North America:

An Example of Intra-Plate Tec-tonics," Bulletin. Geological Society of America, Vol. 84 (1973).

18.

R. B. Smith and M. L. Sbar, " Contemporary Tectonics and Seismicity of the Western United States with Emphasis on the Intermountain Seismic Belt," Bulletin Geological Socinty of America, Vol. 85 (1974).

19.. NUREG-0712, " Safety Evaluation Report (Geology and Seismology) Related to the Operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3" (1980).

20.

D. B._Slemmons, " Determination of Design Earthquake Magnitudes for Microzonation," Proceedings of the Third International Earthquake

-Microzonation Conference (1982).

21.

M. G. Bonilla, R. K. Mark, and J. J. Lienkaemper, " Statistical Relations Among. Earthquake Magnitude, Surface Rupture, Length and Surface Fault.

Displacement," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.

74, pp. 2379-2411 (1984).

2.5.2-12 Rev. 2 - August 1989

?

h. :

t

/N

-22.

T. C. Hanks and.H. Kanamori,."A Moment Magnitude Scale,"-Journal of.

4

[-

Geophysical ^Research, Vol. 84,'pp. 2348-2350 (1979).

23.

P. B. Schnabel,'J. Lysmer, and H. B. Seed, " SHAKE-A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites," Report No. EERC'72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley (1972).

24.

E. Faccioli and J. Ramirez, " Earthquake Response of Nonlinear Hysteretic Soil Systems," International-Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 4, pp. 261-276 (1976).

25.

I. V. Constantopoulos, " Amplification Studies for a Nonlinear Hysteretic

'l Soil.Model',"-Report No.~R73-46, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1973).

26.

V. L. Streeter, E. B. Wylie, and F. E. Richart, " Soil Motion Computa-tion by Characteristics Methods," Proc. American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 100, pp. 247-263 (1974).

27.

W. B. Joyner and A.<T. F. Chen, " Calculations of Nonlinear Ground Response in Earthquakes," Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Vol. 65, pp. 1315-1336 (1975).

H

-28.

T. Udaka, J. Lysmer, and H. B. Seed, " Dynamic Response of Horizontally i

1O Layered Systems Subjected to Traveling Seismic Waves," Proc. 2nd U.S.

1 LQ National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (1979).

29. 'L. A. Drake, " Love and Raleigh Waves in an Irregular Soil Layer,"

'j Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Vol. 70, pp. 571-582 (1980).

l 30.

NUREG/CR-4861, " Development of Site-Specific Response Spectra" (1987).

.]

31.

NUREG-0011, " Safety Evaluation Report Palated to Operation of Sequoyah o

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2" (1979).

32.

NUREG-0793, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2" (1982).

l-33.

NUREG-0798, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2" (1981).

j 34.

R. L. Street and F. T. Turcotte, "A Study of Northeastern North American Spectral Moments, Magnitudes, and Intensities," Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Vol. 67, pp. 599-614 (1977).

35.

C. W. Nuttli, G. A. Bollinger, and D. W. Griffiths, "On the Relation L

between Modified Mercalli Intensity and Body-Wave Magnitude," Bulletin l

Seismological Society of America, Vol. 69, pp. 893-909 (1979).

36.

T. H. Heaton, F. Tajima, and A. W. Mori, " Estimating Ground Motions g

l i )4 using Recorded Accelerograms" Surveys in Geophysics, Vol. 8, pp. 25-83 l %

(1986).

2.5.2-13 Rev. 2 - August 1989

- m

!s l

'37.

NUREG/CR-0098, Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected 4

Nuclear Power Plants" (1978).

1

38. ' W. B. Joyrer and _D.- M. Boore, " Peak Horizontal Acceleration and Velocity from Strong Motion Records including Records from the 1979_ Imperial

-l Valley,.Califo nia: Earthquake," Bulletin Seismological Society of 1

America,.Vol. 71, 2011-2038 (1981).

'1 39.

KE W.' Campbell,'"Near-Source' Attenuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration,"

Bulletin' Seismological Society of America, Vol. 71, pp. 2039-2070 (1981).

40.

'O. W.. Nuttli and R. B. Herrmann, " Consequences of Earthquakes in the Mississippi Valley," Preprint 81-519, American Society of Civil Engineers e

Meeting, 14 pp.,(1981).

41.

NUREG/CR-5250, " Seismic Hazard Characterization of-69 Nuclear Plant Sites East of the Rocky Mountains" (1989).

42.

M. D.:Trifunac and A. G. Brady, "On the Correlation of Seismic Inten-

. sity Scales with Peaks of Recorded Strong Ground Motion, Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Vol. 65 (1975).

43.

NUREG-0402, " Analysis of a Worldwide Strong Motion Data Sample to 1

Develop an Improved Correlation Between Peak Acceleration, Seismic Intensity and.0ther Physical Parameters," prepared by Computer Sciences

-Corporation for the U.S. - Nuclear Regulatory Commissio'n.

Authored by.

J. R. Murphy and L. J. O'Brien_(1978).

44.

NUREG-0717, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1" (1981).

45. _ NUREG/CR-1340, " State-of-the-Art-Study Concerning Near-Field Earthquake Ground Motion!' (1980).

46.: NUREG/CR-1978, " State-of-the-Art Study Concerning Near-Field Earthquake Ground Motion" (1981).

47.

" Seismic Hazard Methodology for the Central and Eastern United States,"

Electric Power Research Institute, Report NP-4726 (1986).

l

'48.

R. Do'bry, I. M. Idriss, and E. Ng, " Duration Characteristics of l

Horizontal Components of Strong-Motion Earthquake Records," Bulletin l

Seismological Society America, Vol. 68, pp. 1487-1520 (1978).

49.

'B.. A. Bolt, " Duration of Strong Ground Motion," Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (1973).

50.

W. W. Hays, " Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions,"

Professional Paper 1114, U.S. Geological Survey (1980).

51.

H. Bolton Seed, I. M. Idriss, F. Makdisi, and N. Banerjee, "Representa-tion of Irregular Stress Time Histories by Equivalent Uniform Stress Series in Liquefaction Analysis," National Science Foundation, Report EERC 75-29, October 1975.

2.5.2-14 Rev. 2 - August 1989

~

,.3 ': s c Lo.

m

>; W

" :9 i

52.

S. ;T.. Algermissen,. D. : M.'. Perkins, P. C. - Thenha'us, S.~ L. Hanson.. and i

'i' v/"i

' B. L. Bender, "Probabilistic Estimate of. Maximum Acceleration and.

1 l Velocity-in' Rock'in:the Contiguous United States," U S. Geological

-Survey Open-File. Report 82-1033 (1982).

c, 1

s I

V t

-)

e ll.D).

u--

q i

l i

L i

\\

l. (%

[ L.)

1 1'

2.5.2-15 Rev. 2 - August 1989

.c ye s

.q NRC 804V 336.

U.S. NUCLE AR Rt OUL ATORY COMMI5510N

1. R E POR1 Nuvet R Uc%es.

M. C h* 2,*il M ~*"~

m.=

BIBLIOOFIAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0800

~

tsee,=rewr..a r* *,rni j

Section 2.5.2

( ~

Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports Revision 2 r.mte ANo Summte for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition 3

oats REPORT PuetiSsto i

'Section 2.5.2, Rev. 2, " Vibratory Ground Motion" l

-November 1989

4. FIN OR GR ANT NUM8E R

6. AUTHORISI

6. TYPE OF REPORT -

1. PE RIOO COVE R LD oonerosan coress -

9.

F R AN12 AT lON - N AMi AND ADOR LS$ ist Nnc. ore,e o won, orrete er nepoa, us seemer noeuorery con monn.ca, and meanne seeren. se coarrector, poore Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j

L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Washington, D.C. '20555 1

RG ant 2ATION - N AME AND ADOR ESS fer Nec, type '3eme es enow, se entracree. pre.m Nac c een, carse,e, napea, u1 svenne seeneve<r coma won.

f 9.SPO c

Same as above.

~

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ASSTRACT <Joo mese er aus This revision specifies the preferred hierarchy of ground motion

~

specifications as follows:

(1) Site-specificspectra(horizontal-andvertical)usingrecordssuitable l

for site conditions Site-specific spectra (horizontal and vertical) using scaled records fiultiple parameter characterization such as NUREG/CR-0098 Spectra Regulatory r,uide 1.60 Spectra scaled to peak ground acceleration Additional references have been provided.

n

12. KE Y WORDS/DESCR;PTORS (twe neros oc aareers ener o itassine rence,vasos m sorenar tne rvoore.s s3. AvAsLAsaliv 6TaltMENT Unlimited t

l USI A-40

... ucuaa v ctAweicAm~

Seismic Design Criteria

< r..,.,e, Ground Motion Unclassified l.-

r ras neports Unclassified

16. NUMBER OF.8 AGE S l

16. PRICE 8 enc FORM 336 (2401 1!

.