ML20034F481
| ML20034F481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/23/1993 |
| From: | Murphy A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Shao L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR47802, FRN-57FR52255 AD93-1, AD93-1-045, AD93-1-45, NUDOCS 9303030280 | |
| Download: ML20034F481 (71) | |
Text
_
'o UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
FEB 2 31993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering, RES FROM:
Andrew J. Murpty, Chief Structural & Seismic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering, RES I
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF A PUBLIC MEETING ON THE REVISION OF APPENDIX A
" SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC SITING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" TO 10CFR PART 100 A meeting was held on February 4,1993, among the NRC and its consultants, members of the staff of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC)
I and other representatives from the nuclear industry. A list of attendees is attached as Enclosure 1.
The purpose of the meeting was to provide NUMARC the opportunity to present the results of applying its probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) methodology (Integrated Seismic Siting Process), a proposed alternative to the NRC staff's revision of Appendix A, to selected sites. A public meeting notice appeared in the Federal Reaister on January 19, 1993, Vol. 58, No. 11, page 4946. is the meeting agenda.
This meeting, scheduled at the request of NUMARC, is a followup of four previous meetings: September 11, July 10, June 17, and April 23,1992.
Dr. A. Murphy opened the meeting by stating its purpose and providing a summary of the status of the Appendix A Revision Package. Dr. N. Farukhi 4
presented an outline of the presen M ions that were to be'made and introduced the two speakers: Dr. M. McCann ;;i J. Benjamin and Associates and Dr. W. Savage of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
The presentation was divided into four parts: the goals, which from the NUMARC perspective, are similar to those of the NRC staff; the bases for its Integrated Seismic Siting Process; a summary of the NUMARC methodology, which was described in considerable detail on September 11, 1992; and the application of the NUMARC methodology to sites. Most of the presentation consisted of a discussion of the geological and seismological information about two test sites:
a hypothetical site in the Wabash Valley near Vincennes, Indiana and the Department of Energy's Savannah River site in South' Carolina; the way this information was incorporated into the decision process of the NUMARC methodology; and the final results. The viewgraphs shown in the presentations are enclosed as Enclosure 3.
NUMARC concluded that these applicatio..s of its Integrated Seismic Siting Process demonstrate its stability. A large part of that stability is the result of the broad range of existing eastern U.S. seismic source f
2
(~
n.
- g3onPo?SE*dy g
//h
.r FEB 2 313u Lawrence C. Shao 2
interpretations of the LLNL and EPRI PSHA's. NUMARC feels that the exercise i
also demonstrates the applicability of its program to direct and formal consideration of site specific information in the assessment of the SSE.
The NRC staff will review the NUMARC procedure along with other comments formally submitted during the public comment period for the Appendix A revision package scheduled to end March 24, 1993.
as) ' W A
Andrew J. Murphy, Chief Structural & Seismic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering, RES t
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
H. Farukhi, NUMARC G. Bagchi, NRR R. Rothman, NRR P. Sobel, NRR J. Craig, RES T. King, RES C. Ader, RES N. Chokshi, RES R. McMullen, RES R. Kenneally, RES A. Ibrahim, NMSS E. Igne, ACRS
- % PDR S +
1 1
l
}
ET BY:
2-2-83 ; 5:12t'M :
NLy,Axc-. -
U2 3356;i 2/ 2
~!
AGENDA' FOR l
NUMARC/AHAC - NRC STAFF MEETING l
FEBRUARY 4,1993 8:30AM - 12:30 PM -
[
'l NICHOLSON LANE SOUT11 l
CONFERENCE ROOMS AAB J
-t i
8:30-8:45AM INTRODUCTION A. MURPHY l
8:45-9:00AM PURPOSE OF MEETING /
1 PRESENTATION OUTUNE N. FARUKHI 9:0011:15AM INDUSTRY'S PROPOSED INTEGRATED -
PROCESS TO DETERMINE SSE M. McCANN/
GROUND MOTION W. SAVAGE l
f PROPOSED PROCESS -
l PROCESS APPUCATION FOR
)
WABASH VAUEY &
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 11:15-12:15PM
~ OUESi1ONS/ DISCUSSION l
12:15-12:30PM WRAP UP FARUKHI/
i
- MURPHY
'l I
P i
I r
1 1
ATTENDEES PUBLIC MEETING REVISION OF SEISMIC AND GE0 LOGIC SITING CRITERIA (Proposed Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 & Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1015)
February 4, 1993 NRC Headquarters, NL/S Building (Conference Rooms A & B) 8:30 AM NAME AFFILIATION td(cl fi22.5 O'A fnnen M,-
i a: lou c.
cLo hs L,'
thtcl(l&&
A n h e w v~, Pfa r,n i~,/
))R t / re c= s Allm Corne(I cAc cm Ro u a r 7 8voa;a m%
0;uL$rmecuigt LW L T> g vE fv1 01) E E rd r0 0 M A RC,
[de Ork q laRC/RS3 l
s v
//t. cf f,.fy'b62 C'CZ fn'&.4/W Duk.#7c #fuMen Arc - e e s S u S ceev T w w x-A n :..on n
,bA9M' M7W////fM N d C-W1 Ewx s+m
,cor1 knbeJ N& eb N d. W h lon w N -
~ Nw/hs $olx!'
Nte/NL4
/
6 v5 & /c4E - h cM.
/ f f d_* / / / L ) L f015h&~
eawat u o -
ide6derred ~C fud#
Ol tlu o
o.w/,m s -
-llumn ps9trs v,,L, J. n s y
(cw$.$nticlW lW d m i c e'b s m MJu_ C Doaas P. A rt s.a6 L 6 L 1% PkTh
% w Idd M i
/
i
(.
i ATTENDEES
'h PUBLIC MEETING l
REVISION OF SEISMIC AND GE0 LOGIC SITING CR*,TERIA
. (Proposed Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 & Draft Regult. tory Guide DG-1015)
February 4, 1993 NRC Headquarters, NL/S Building (Conference Room: A & B).
-8:30 AM i
NAME AFFILIATION i
litrcah Iafu.t iokyo Blec4v4_. Powe r Da.
Arra-e f?asac a.s.
croccucsc. Lx ar 9eA i M a (l E l e-/
L. L AJ C _
J,. % aTette d
%A j
Qe i h&O doe J.>.
l SU/t-- '6M6Mq $:?/QL irn ~ci (
6ATAmA smen Ms.w;,a d,Af Erm ZurflucLt N E C //? f C k SAr hh etejhsx t
J~v"tk wc s,a Ho MI M I M w A u-A ip5[ tom lJ/ Wear EHCE C'Acut l
NA%EM M. FARokHf IdUMARC
%/rll% ll. SevA y f6Cikti. M F W et Atc
/k<o 7 S,(/w. > vim des,w,/nx Msg.T i to M C C A u to.T R T58A i
(
i I
I
.f Seismic Siting Rulemaking-10 CFR Part 100 t
i
\\
Development and Demonstration of j
Industry's Integrated Seismic Siting 1
Decision Process 1
1 I
i
[
7 i
h NUMARC/NRC Meeting l
Rockville, MD j
February 4,1993 1
1 v
'r
e 4
s SCOPE OF PRESENTATION e
Goals e
Foundation of the industry seismic siting process Industry Integrated Seismic Siting Process e
l e
Example Applications
\\
i l
NUMARC t
l GOALS i
e Seismic siting process must be:
predictable and stable able to account for uncertainty in the assessment of seismic hazards acceptable to the scientific and engineering community flexible to support the regulatory process (use of existing, acceptable probabilistic seismic hazard methodologies and new information) able to provide an information base that facilitates an understanding and review of the assessment of the SSE NUMARC
FOUNDATION OF THE INDUSTRY SEISMIC i
SITING PROCESS t
i Existing plants are acceptably safe and establish a e
stable Reference Probability level for determining seismic design motions Acceptable seismic hazard methodologies are available Accepted seismic source interpretations and parameters can be used to assess a site's SSE in the EUS, unless it is shown that they do not, on a site-by-site basis, accommodate new data Integration of up-to-date, site-specific information and accepted seismic source interpretations and seismicity parameters is required Establish a measure of the significance of new site-specific information Stability of the median seismic hazard curve NUMARC
r ACCEPTABLE SEISMIC HAZARD METHODOLOGIES Must permit determination of a Reference e
Probability (based on existing plants)
Must be generally applicable to determine hazard.
e at a new site o
Seismic source interpretations and seismicity parameters should be adequately documented permits examination of data used in developing seismic sources permits evaluation of new data and existing seismic source interpretations and seismicity parameters NUMARC
i E
INTEGRATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC DATA l
l i
l l
J Systematic framework to:
e examine site-specific data and information available at the time the acceptable methodologies were performed evaluate new data and accepted seismic source interpretations assess the sensitivity of the site hazard to new information NUMARC
7 t
ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE OF NEW, SITE SPECIFIC INFORMATION 1
impact of new data on the determination of the e
SSE is the ultimate determinant Changes (increases) in hazard that produce small e
changes in the SSE level can be accepted within the framework of engineering evaluations, plant margins, and the uncertainty in seismic hazard assessments NUMARC
i 4
WHAT IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN HAZARD?
Alternative paths can be considered to establish significance:
1.
Define a change / difference in the SSE, spectral acceleration, that is acceptable and determine the change in hazard that occurs Asse +
AHazard (Ap)?
i 2.
Define a change in the hazard that is l
acceptable and determine the change in the SSE that occurs P
ILLUSTRATION OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES Asse -+dr asse = 0.05g N
3
'\\
\\
5 N
3r _
p*
[
RP <-----
s N
Median Hazard, Py
~g
~
b l
~
l
s_
l
]
I N
.=
l l
5 l
EPRI Median, Pau 1
I l
l SSE SSE+a ssa Spectral Acceleration asse
- ar N
\\
A, = 2 s
v
\\
\\M' Assa = SSEy-SSEuu RP ------S-W l
N N
Median Hazard, P3 g
l l
N N
E.
t i
i N ---
E
~.
l l
I l
l C
EPRI Median, Puu l
l qa sse
+
+
SSEun SSEy Spectral Acceleration NUMARC l
l
w j
SITE Asse E1M i
Spectral Acceleration - 5 Hz Site Ag Asse l
Limerick 2.0 0.043 1
Seabrook 2.0 0.071 Zion 2.0 0.019 Millstone 2.0 0.043 Braidwood 2.0 0.023 Sequoyah 2.0 0.040 l
l l
1 l
SITE Ap RESULTS j
Spectral Acceleration - 5 Hz Site Ap Asse Limerick 2.32
.05 Seabrook 1.62
.05 Zion 4.44
.05 Millstone 2.20
.05 j
i Braidwood 3.83
.05 Sequoyah 2.35
.05 5
h r
i i
NUMARC l
n-
)
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE IN THE SSE AND HAZARD 1
e Median Ground Motion: ASSE 0.05g (S, at 5 and 10 Hz)
P" i
2
< 2.0 (SSE)
Median Hazard: AP
=
Pow
,s
,? -
t t
/J ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NEW INFORMATION New data are not considered significant if:
after examination, require no further evaluation, they require no alternative seismic sources or seismicity parameters, or result in maintaining or decreasing the site seismic hazard er NUMARC
/J
- FACTORS THAT MAY SHIFT THE MEDIAN HAZARD e
Seismic activity rate Maximum magnitude recurrence rates size of the maximum event e
Identification of new, active tectonic features b
t k
o-INTEGRATED SEISMIC SITING PROCESS Accepted seismic source interpretations and e
seismicity parameters are the basis to determine the SSE Given up-to-date, site-specific information, an e
integrated evaluation is required to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to require a modification of the accepted interpretations
/ntegrated: systematic evaluation of new e
geological, seismological and geophysical data within accepted seismic hazard methodologies and seismic source interpretations Seismic siting process incorporates advancements e
in siting technology in last 10 years j
Efforts have focussed on the examination and o
evaluation of earth sciences data and the consistency of the accepted seismic source interpretations with new detailed, site-specific information l
NUMARC l
/d i
1 INTEGRATED SEISMIC SITING PROCESS BUILDING BLOCKS r
i l
SSE Evaluation Site-Specific Data Accepted Hazard Methodology Accepted Earth Science Database i
NUMARC i
/7 i
I i
S!!e-speafic t
Regional and Site Geological, Seismological and Geophyscal Investgacon l
WUS EUS l
t Perform integrated Develop Seismic j
Evaluation of Accepted Sources and Seismicty i
Parameters Seismic Sources i
9 Are Seismic Sources Consistent No Revise / Update Wrm Site and Seismic Sources Region Data?
i a
Yes 6
Perform Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis l
t Determine SSE Ground Moton
.I i
Determine i
Site-Response Spectrum l
4 Develop Site-Specfc Scale Standard Spectrum Specw m i
/$
i Acceptable Seismic Hazard Methodology Earth Science Database I
Y Reference Probability for Seismic Design Levels 4
Acceptable Seismic Preliminary Assessment Seismic Hazard of the Site SSE Information Base Source Interpretations t
Y Site and Site Region Geological, Geophysical and Seismological Investigation l
Y P
Integrated Evaluation New Information and i
Existing Seismic Sources Level 1, 2, 3 i
a SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGICAL, SEISMOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL DATABASE t
Develop a comprehensive, state-of-the-art database for the site EPRI database Detailed investigations within 8 and reconnaissance within 40 kilometers of the site Regional review and update within 200 km of the site f
i NUMARC
2:3 INTEGRATED EVALUATION e
Assess the consistency of new site and site region data and interpretations with existing source characterizations Level 1: examine the consistency of each site-specific data set with existing data set Level 2: evaluate the consistency of new data with the range of interpretations incorporated in accepted multiple seismic source characterizations Level 3: evaluate the consistency of the accepted median hazard with an estimate of the hazard based on seismic sources modified by new data or interpretation NUMARC j
~
e<
j EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS i
i Objectives: Apply the industry seismic siting e
approach; develop guidance for its application e
Sites:
Wabash Valley (Vincennes, Indiana)
Savannah River Site 9
NUMARC l
2L' WABASH VALLEY SEISMIC SITING EXAMPLE e
vincennes, Indiana r
e Not a piant site e
in an area of moderate histo:ic earthquakes e
Use EPRI seismic source interpretations and seismicity parameters Recent documentation of paleo-liquefaction is new information, not considered in the EPRI study Compelling test due to implications regarding e
seismic sources and maximum magnitude NUMARC i
\\
WABASH VALLEY - APPLICATION 1
i e
Level 1 - Examination of new, site-specific earth science information j
o Summarize new data that requires further evaluation Examine new information; check consistency with the existing data set Determine which data requires further evaluation t
i
'I l
1 i
e 9
.i
/Y WABASH VALLEY t
aannen w=e se esaw NT1CN l
a.-g wen n og y wie e
5.te comaan ng 1 to 3 edes Lacanon of searcnee sans as g
+
6
+
Lecas.on of neartnee mane sa contaaning cras h*DMN A i Region of locanzee asarzn of stream cents p*
[
~
i Wamarnum sehe maann: H. 260 sm: VI 2W em:
1 L tb5 cm:M. ht4 em:S. d cm voen i
>e i
h, _=
L.
)
,e.,
g r.no
/
j i
7 N c,l r
./
\\
l
=
+
i i
i wane I
w bI
'[N
- ne CLau i
g
[1 i
, +/m
-b- ~-a. ~~
L,
/
j i
i-s
/
r j
I l
f
}
i
, " = i i
j
[ aunots
" +g l
l
'\\h.
\\
(
~
3-g
(
...k...i.S.-;,
i n
L OMo 1
Webeen Venev 4
s g
se ma
=
e m
(
t I
\\
k,,,%
Enewes I.
't a a..i.".
\\
MO KY Yg 5
ew,
\\
u i s s s s s s inou:uctts NUMARC
2f 00'?S
- l M T g
/
ph 5a o
Cn
/
- S_
m s9
+
+
o
+
--/
e, i
00'99 o
+
t
~
=
a +
+%
o c
b P
o v
E 00'49
+
+
u 4
o+
t o
+
E g
+
+
+
g m *.
g 0
F, 00'99 8
o 1
+
,o
.V o o. o.
ao o
o N
o
- h g
o +#
00*69
- +*
+
+
o 5
- o e =I
.*$o o
e,
- s ?
o 4
e.,
o
- +
- 0I
+ '7 5
.o 00 06
+
B
.,.. g p #.ftso O
E eo o
8 o* *+
+.
l-0046 o
n
/
o o
o
+/
y o
o oe
+
+
+
4 p+
go zs x
be en o
a e
o
.O h
g
+
+
)
00T6 o
m
(:
- )
c'
\\.
s a
00'96 8
8 g
e Y
n 0
?
?
8 8
a g
e a
n R
8 T
<s
=
Z Ch ari t
m a3 5 e o 4 m N -
w q
e c
i
&00ooo o
o w
x o
a I
h i
l
.e
.. s i
.V l
"N g 0e0
- k'3 j,
j f
uses s
9 0 l
. < v.-
w t
s,p
~
a O.P.s;,p {., %
+ ','-
,,k '.
+y f> ?
~
a;
/
o :s.
1
-. e f.,,l, c
- g
- n.,
%s,e f-y,
a-
= \\ o.:: 4.--
,.4 v-
/-
t w
L.( Q.
Nl f.%,-
a,
- g,.
~W~y.'...u%p'z gw-
=.
~
1 f.r i
g.
i
).)
- N
/-
3r-S, '.
s f b " * {
at h,
Y 1
s /..4
,,3..
g saa
- U ______
--- - --) --
w Timessti
-l:.in?sg
)
pf-
-\\
- f l*c /.
m e.xmm <o-om e4 T
eman /
- 7).
/
i mer.
,o
/
we e T/ aan.msAs 8
{
--.an 3
u'
?
I-
- =-
w w
er i
i Figure 3-2.
Map of in ferred rift complex in the New Madrid Area.
(Braile,etal.1982) i P
I h
i
.'i j
1 i
i 1
1 I
l i
I a
DAMES AND MOORE 4
5
< i 7
+ 18 A toi3 ozi o
on 4
(018 01)
Q s
jg 06 4t>
f(004 02 4~
g2SF as 4
y 4
(02S 01) j S2 20
/
i k
Vpt r
1, 4
(
x+
\\.
.2.
c%
mAa c_
\\
2 C
- ,)
- c. _ _/':7;
)
s
\\
3 f
/
?>
\\
Q o
'-+em- - +esw-w' 9r-ry+.-s wyg.e wryg,ww-yy'y g-.sys w m ryyg.-si-wi r rg' vern i,5 e ryg rw p g-9m-p,.m, w,u 4
,,wy wgi g m,y.,yw,.y,y7
,,p,
,y,,i,,..i.,,,_yy 9_,,
g,
_W,,,
,,,,Y,,,
,pgcT__Tg,_Y,,,
u,Ww, W
,FW,,
,p, T,,,,,
Mv,_,_,,Lp_&4 p,
,w,pr,,,,ye.
u, m
,v
~
I LAW ENGINEERING os,,,
(
)
UW/v V
(
( W,-
\\*,
i j
a\\/_
0 8 iSl
'l C
x 's "8
vr s
"3 '8' i
's j
/'
'll6-11 5 1
k a
03 O '
s
+
l
/ /
i oe on -r g
!!"f!I
- ll8 m
^
06 8 2v e
+ <>e
?,8 2 sit jg
?
0l as 2n.
- 15
,j 50 e, ," JD o
'f/,3n,
~
G
,! M 08
- oy
<1'" 32>
j y, "18
/
3,
'~c f?",],3' "g1-wa,<, /
a2 c2> -
,,7
,82 0,,
ne n
\\
%Ee-oyen$ j
~
r Y,
w, o,,
\\
a' \\
ll7 xs, J
/
10 8 p
3
,, m,,,
'/
T
'9
'"8 44808 4 O
U3 431,s 08 42)
S
.38 an 1
- us e, 308 Jo 08so,'~~_
'p/'
/' -
y wQ3S 49)
(
g
\\
]
r C
v f
2 6 cy__i !
/
s o
N
=
t.
O \\ -(OS is; x
r W
o
=
7
\\
D 4._,.
.., _ ~.., _.
_r_...,_.
.3 m.....
<.....,,,...,. ~. _ _,. _,,
.4_
=
-4e l
i s
\\
g.,
i
\\
u... ~
s f.'t L,
< s
\\
w
=
s G
/
/
s/\\
1
,,es o
o4 s
j6 r
~
c o w
((
j
\\
N Q
s g
C
(
\\
e-U t)
V
's i
N h
o
'x
,1 o
x + -T... 2.......
1,..,..
\\, \\ k s,
(
..,~~..
O r
s e a o
(
n o
o
.d:
i 1
?
~/. *
~
+5 r
2 o
,\\ %
,,~^.s "
s n
J Y
O
(/
s 3
4 O
?
\\
g g
, _, - ~ -... a m
tG i
h 9
k
-i n sh
[
f N,
N o
,1 N
f a
o
~.
t i
+
a
3s Y\\
\\O g
N
<r O
s, 4
p
-/
i Os
~~~,
~~'
s L,.
Zs p
~
Ob f,
ed CC
',. /
g g
el '
Y N
\\\\
w
'; F N
+,
1e 1
N to
~,
N a v, 8
O
\\'t O
T
~
g,,
hN NB
,ii D
/
a Wg e
~~
un Y
N.T.
'T
+
~
p/
N f'
-. sr
~
/_
Q,
\\
g
,.- d p
s.
y./
+
J 0
\\
1 i
y x-j
's
~
\\
m NUMARC i
WOODWARD CLYDE
(
('
\\ 'j
/ e
/ t> u'2d~Eiiounu
?
',_fL 0
~i
/
ss 63
}
\\ f>,36 -f 35
. SG l
/
S' j 61 j
n I
N e
n 1
Sj" 1~
i 39 y
l i
)
47 Y
T so I
'36 6
J '-
I I
j r
44 270' ; j WATTS BAR
' 31 comom l
43 "
l 42 BACKGROUN
- 3 3HEARON llARRIS
~
BACKGROUND j
x 2
t,
,i s
d - -..,,e 3ia.
<e,oz, L
i,m, e,.. _
i
+
Aro29on/i.
j
- +
>2 p.
l 29A 9
233 4l o2s
{.
l_ _ _ _ _ _ \\_. _ _ _.....
2 c
O. 'l j
/
l l
2cJ s
a
{
!j e
C l
/
j.
E r
/
g 1
+
2 N
t m s.
v b
.~. -,, _
_._,__.,_m
i,
%b.
<d wa J u
N-a L
r -
A 2-
/
~
m-0-
e&?/
/D[2 C
S 2
I 2
S
, +
- c...,,,
Y
,. ' +
/
/
+
<r r,
8
/)v\\
H s
l 6
2 P
'T t
wu-O
. [- ) 'p mr O
o E
8.
G o
T N
p m
u W
g>
m O
v a
2-W
/
m T
I,
r S
3 T.
E 0
I 4
3 W'
3 f
c 6
ij.
3 0
h, 0
~
1 5
3
/ ;;.
e
~
W 0+
~
4 1
z 3
3 t
/
i
/
w i
j i
.z-0+
t i
\\
I 5
3 m8
/
6
]
+
x 3
z y : c, I
_ = -.
JJ 00'tB O
o S.
\\
I
<o 00'G9 n#
w
+
+
+
0 j
~
4/
+
(
g
+
+
00*99 i
.a l
C O
0 2
l O
..E l
4
+
+
00 4g i.
E O
P m
h I
O 0
i C
e 0o j
00'9B
+
+
g l
o o
N i
0 oo
+
4-
%o +
e 8-o
+.
00'6B o
e r
o o
o T,,
O-s t
o a
e 00'06 s
+
+
+
+
00' L 6 s
/
.]
_- /
+
+=
+
00 26 o
g i
v s
o j
e v.
o
+
f
+o
+
00T6 1
".(.
l
)
g 00't6 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 I
o s
s a
s 4
s T
T M
M ery pr>
ag 4
t k,
5 DJ
~
.g m 4
\\
mn t
M i
e-=O
-@Ooe o
E
)
O i
t
[
t
.I
]v 00'?S h
i 1
C
. (>
/
_ eg_
. e:,
- s;l.
oo s9 Co q
u-
+
.v,\\
N i
A 00'99 4
o 4
,J 1
+,,
o E
~ >
o
- o. e y
o 00'L9 3
4
+
+
i f
o
+
o E
b w
o eg 4
o
+
00'99
.5
- g
- o
. R
.o..o. e.y o g
o
~
e o +,
- oo sg
(
,% o "+ o
- ho
=-
+
+
O
,?s,.o d
- o.Ad
~
~
..e o.
ss o
.. o g>
m o '-
4 o
T 00'06 q
8 b
\\"
[
o
% o
~
o,=* of*'*+o o.
o o
8 Y,
~
- +
o A*
00'16
[4
)
o
- 0 o
o-f 4
oo /
0 T
@g,+
00'Z6
]
p, p C
O F
o o
OC 4
et c
~
+o
+b;-
oo ts j
o o,
w I
\\
.J r
..k 00 >6
?
8 o
o g
o c;
o E
d d
i f
8 o.
7 7, 8
o s
i on =,
- m.."
]
on 80 h*
GD 2 T 9 N
- Z
.o 7
C e
i
?000oo o o oo a
Ef aTTERSBOCKS OF THE 1987 SOUTHEAS70RN 311NOIS Ea2THQUAKE 425 18 7) 00d1.) near the appr lianic am. We owpect, howewr, that catalogs will list the h0dl. as VL h h lenael af intensity was imamed present,
- ers the 3 to Tut Wanama Va try Smamoc 2aese 10 0 The June 1987 earthquake was the suost r===r in a series of magnitude i al 3 4.5 shocks to occur in the Wah==h Valley we==ac ame a(southeastern Ilhnoia j
and southwestern Indiana (Fig. 2). %e Wabenh Valley mone, as identified by s),
Nuttli and Herrmann (1978) and Nuttli (15r79), has a record of meisade activity es d
dating back prior to 1800 that in the last 99 years incleadas sevea shar4rm with 1
i magnitude g 4.5 and MhD, = VII. nome carehq -W which are enckr large e,
h for the central United States, occur on the average every 16 = 15 pues (see Table 1). Nuttli and Herrmann (1978) and Nuttii (19;$ based their 6desrfwa-so Lion of the zome prunanly on the hieancaJ seismicity :ecord, but they also y
i
- recognued the g-
= ef the north-north My-trending Wabada Valley i
fault system za the ="hern half of the 200-km-long zone. Additionally, they noted that the -Wy data were too sparse to determine dthere was one continuous zone present or a series of dweaous smaller zones. Omo of the I
largest historical earthquakes in the mid.coacnental United States have oc-curred in the Wabash Valley zone; the m. - 5.8 (fCGo = VU) 1892 evect 40* _
tt, i
IN
-/. N. /.
r p
sane WO
- ~% *-
'/
/.*
- (,g
- y 38' 7
,/y A
- Iy Y,
.,.. a f; -[ 6
- ~
~
t
. ++
15
"*I..*;pkg
., s.
xv h
=
-@ 9k 28 a
l$*
a o
AR M
. ~
e g2' 90' 88*
88*
e see -
r i ha.1. hiap showing boundarsen of the Wabash Valley setsmic sons as en6ned by&henhaus h eal ammmmerty (Nuttli and Herrmana. Im; Norzh. Im) and by geophyncal snetbeds 1982). Also shown is the areal extent of the Wabash Valley fault zone. Syumbets: Open circles are.
earthayaates of F < 5 0; chamands unds:sse earthermales of M g 5,Q,; the st.ar singedy eastef 68*W lamptude hne s the 10 Kse 19E7 epacender a artle<lat indicates the Gr Him. Indiana. prthable 16quefaction ste. (Hiss.crical eartharemmes freen das.a fue compiled by B. d. Reager and C. W. Sumer.
UJi. Geneopeal Survey.)
b ey w I 1
l l
l i
i l
3G i
i l
ArTnSHOCKS OF THE 1967 SOUT1itEASTERN ILLINOIS EARTHQUAKE 427 j
Raelfoot nft (Senstbers 14=== arm, F~eg. 4 em the basis of gravity and amag-netic data. *Phe souchmest '- - -y of the martbeast-treadmg Wabash Valley zone was seEned geologica3y by timane==whs as the east-southeast-senk.ang Cottage Garwe-Rough Cneek inss&t - and geophysically as a pronunent east-==nhaaat-crending magnetic '- - =* The northeast boundary was set arbararDy ar 30*N latitude, amene the gravity and magnetic expression of the anne is hat.
The Wahash Valley fault mone is isa the southern half of the seismic zone and, in ternes of ins geology, is part et the rilmais Basin. The fault zone is about 100 l
km long, trends north noreb+==e Figs. 2 and 3), and is characterrzed by gener-ally paraDel, high-angle marnaal faults that bound horsts and grabens. The maximum displacement en individual faults is as great as 146 an, with most of
{
the faulting post-Pennsylvanian and pre-Pleistocene in age (Bnstol and Tre-1 worgy,1979). Sixty eight kilometers of seismic-refectaoa profiles across the
,o.
se.
se+
i 5
6 i
j
{
l IMO j
ILL J
\\/
\\
i 39%
N,,,N
/
i MO o
f C
i N\\
9
/
g r( s
)
\\
-g Nf
~
~%
sb t
l
\\
h 8/
s
~j k
% ry %)tf' V
\\
C I
/
37
\\
a
.. i.. M/ -d;k.:. s g.
y Y
.? _,.
Zgh; $hYf
~~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
7pf i h.
if.5 5 ; ~
. ARK
- YQ '>
[* h.lM-..
n..
- c.,
.:. =;. : r 1..
e -:
?$,ps$1SSIPPI '?.iW4I'-
TENN nft $
)
.,j CA 5
c T EMBAYMENT1 A
-.,..$???5Ihh.f$$T~
,1:
x
]
..r_ww! vg ;.; ;.
t 2
3 j
h[ib$:O m];7p fkjff
[
C 1oo Ksometes s 1
1 n
b 4
l Fic. 3. New Madnd rA Wez. After Braile er al. (tsr2a, be and and Keller (1961L i
Symbols: Star :s epacenter of 10 June M4 ansmt.=r+ carcW shows Grs an. Man =, paleo-l aarthquakE~TiquefacG site in Wabash Valley; open carcie senachwest of main shock ep center a location of Uname Osl Campany Cisne Community a 1 deep drsil bele. Supple Pauern andicatae 4
,1 Mississippi esameysment, fine lines are regional (sults e n) Gr* Y
- Y*)
l i
l 2
i b
jv
~
EXPLANATION menmere erae er ammer/-
j a
a
{
emene wammea mer u
)
l 5.es centsining 1 to 25 etmas h
p p
l p j
Lacamon ofwnes same pa f
2(DIANAi t
Lamouon of seerenso send pm contaning dikes Region of locahzec semeca of sorsam bants
$\\
- a--
Nmum mem$ ass em$ 30-se em:
$ 52sem(Im 5-wsme 1. d em v
wries:
=T eam q
\\
'w
\\
f vr
%, c
+-
+$
/,
-q _._Y4 vq anne i
l (4
~
stoneWhas N i
't i
i l
l wm l
)
f k
t
==
)
'c "
?
i
~
(
ILUNOIS Y
/
1 N
q, i
-y j
1 k
] KENTUCKY [
q
im
I
)$15127)
\\
- = am. m a g
i i
M 7
Ohio i
t l
m u
w.m a v===v 4.,
t 99'E*MC nm:
\\
- R k!
(
)
n' 1
/
L s
/
i si.it kA
)
'\\
i l) g H
m I
\\
w e. un.de
'\\
MO KY
.s
\\
\\
N
/
\\
NeadrMuirW '
j
/
c is a m e w s x' aunsas.
5'j
- l hbte mesh a/~ k D92,,,
I t
JP I
se.serwe um Protuing sss.
Gravity Model Profile C Shallow Lower Crust 4 s 3
4 4
J w ".
- i. o~=~
-c+-
1 e
-a Cw 1'
.e
+
=.
h a
9 j
Baumusa Wat Samury w
$, 4 4,,
Camre fort Smuumry e
e f
e e
e 6
4 i
4 Seetance (ka) c.
J a
p 2 eso eym l
ic-2 Pio sym3
/
l x
- . r:-
2sSoaym>
l l x-C ac -
3 asa we Fr 19. Grscty ode! along the oce swse., oar proede C.C tFigures I and ll showing observed and calculated grauty anomaly vaaues for : tic modei shown in the lower part of the disgram.
- =
n
-c 3
Sg NW w
i Wu
- n i
53
% 000 e 1d
$1 C-
- GRAvtTy f
J
</g' e
m
/
,s
- 900 w 9 y $ -10
/ '-- MAGNETICS
/
f wE
\\
\\
4
/
/
. goo g g 2
j -2Oj' N-
/
sr g
700
- W O
~
i j
m 4 _3c '
'_i u
ert g,,,,, or:
3
- == c.a. s.
w
.e a emry mamma h sesn,e atyuero, e y
2
/
~eersittsopeoaterto) !
3
==em*~gtg v
- -l l
. y~..+= - u rs **usec=c cra s 1ces-0 rr s =-
--, m,,,c.,,e es oc-e 2
,, m, ore,e eaneomarr8- -
'Ns... '. ' -
/
5 34
, i i
g.messsu d.,.
--- (
g s.% i
.. '*g,. '..
.'- D..
',.,*,.., ' '.... ' ~..
8 w
-- g -
.en n an= men f-3 w
c,. -
creer n speem esaur 10-I
-maase surt.ms O
40 80 120 g,4 t/./ /{F i2 DISTANCE ( KM )
Fic. 20. Sehe-r.stie model along the northwest southeart pro 61e C-C' showing tae locatsoas of the setsmic renecuon prenn s iprm.ed onto the C-C linet gravity and magnetic anomalv data. Palecrose strac graphic data interpe from deep dnil 50.es and the seismic redection record secuons, and' faulted basemerit and pre-Mt. Simon layered wwwence mse-ed from the seismic redecuen and gravity data.
I
war.ch-fault assemblages, basemant-block Eulting cnd 39 fau!
able-drape-folding, compound styles, and basement crtins Pcn ;
end sags" (N21 son,1988). More complex localized l
structures have been observed in the Palcoroic strata, Pe detached from the basement tectonism. The surficial are senacrures of this region can be coarsely divided into thic!t trwe saajor types, fault systems that dominate the struc.
mer j inacal style in southernmost Indiana and Illinois, and refit l lacge do&d systems that 'are pronounced in central Illi.
gest ;
- amis, thm evid.
may '
<r mul
\\,%,
)
- sedi, f\\
l 191k i
j g
i
/
alor o
t t
a
['/g.%.j \\a-j
\\
zf'
-- -y.;a
~
nm of t f
l
.t j
,8 1984
?{/4 ld j
(/"
/
/'/
Si j
the-
/
3 Rou!
i t
e thej N ) _.
wenrucxy W:@ m %i W s WN M h 9; mid -
,5 y
4.,I 'J faul >
dec i 7t' '
?=
Inte eart,
sr er sr er er w
w
- I"' " * " "
systi Fig.1. Tectonic settin6 of the June 1967 southeastern app l Illinois earthquake.. Heavy lines denote major.
indi!
structural elements of the region, after Nelson _
Palt !
and Bauer (1987); light numbered lines indicate gral!
structure contours (in feet) on the top of the
.nor, Prairie du Chien Geoup (Lower Ordovician),
Pra'i from Student at af., (1981). East-west lines indi-ue cate locations of cross sections shown in Figure'
- 6. Asterisk denotes earthquake epicenter.
152' A
f k*f/* I
...-.......{
c e
4 p
j
n LEVEL 1: DATA EXAMINATION
SUMMARY
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT DATA AND INTERPRETATIONS Data / Interpretation impact References Large (seismically-induced)
Source configuration Obermeir et al.,1991 liquefaction features along Source / tectonic feature activity Obermeir et al.,1990 Wabash River; associated Maximum magnitude with ~m 7.5; not New Recurrence (?)
Madrid source Occurrence of M 5 Source configuration Taylor et al.,1989 Southeastern 111. earthquake Recurrence (?)
Langer and Bollinger,1991 10 June 1987 in Wabash Valley area; strike-slip Interpretation of Wabash Source configuration Braile et al.,1982 Valley fault zone as northerly Source / tectonic feature activity Sexton et al.,1986 extension of New Madrid rift Maximum magnitude Sexton,1988 complex Recurrence (?)
New Madrid rift complex Source configuration Hamburger and Rupp, does not extend as far north Source / tectonic feature activity 1988 as 1987 epicenter Maximum magnitude Nelson,1990 Pre-1811 earthquakes not Recurrence for New Madrid Wesnousky,1992 found in Holocene record at New Madrid NUMARC
LEVEL 2:
EVALUATION OF NEW DATA AND EXISTING SEISMIC SOURCE INTERPRETATIONS t
Evaluate if new data or new interpretations are accommodated in the accepted seismic source interpretations e
Perform sensitivity evaluations that exam
.the accepted seismic sources and estimated occurrence rates i
l NUMARC
-r z I
LEVEL 2 PARAMETERS I
i e
Seismic source boundaries PA (probability of activity)
R l
Maximum magnitude distribution Earthquake occurrence rates (a-and b-values) j e
t NUMARC
r, i
SEISMIC SOURCE BOUNDARIES
+
5 Teams provided alternative interpretations of the tectonic framework and active tectonic features i
i Conclusion - Accepted seismic source boundaries accommodate the range of reasonable i
interpretations b
l
-I i
L r
I I
i NUMARC I
EPRI EARTH SCIENCE TEAMS - SEISMIC SOURCE
SUMMARY
t Wabash Valley Site -
Team Host Source m,.
No.
Description Probability of Activity Magnitude P(m,,, )
Dames & Moore 18 Southern Illinois, Indiana 1.0 6.6 0.75 Fairfield Basin 7.2 0.25 Law Engineering 7
Wabash Valley Arm 0.85 5.5 0.20 6.0 0.50 6.8 0.30 Bechtel 34 Wabash Valley Fault 0.35 5.5 0.10 5.8 0.40 I
6.1 0.40 6.6 0.10 Rondout 2
Southem lilinois, Indiana 1.0 6.6 0.30 6.8 0.60 7.0 0.10 Weston Geophysical 33 Indiana Arm of New 1.0 6.0 0.68 Madrid Rift Complex-
- 6.6 0.27 7.2 0.05 i
l Woodward Clyde 43 Southern Indiana Arm 1.0 5.8 0.33 6.6 0.34 7.4 0.33 i
+
t w
-,we-=--eww--*-.**-v
.<w--i----,
e--
-<*-w--.-=--ws.w-,-we,--vr-eve---*-
--,w e<.-----w
.--~w vw--vw,-
-nn-
,-=-=w e-e +- - - ---+ -
---,----v
--m-,-#-w-v v--
---vrw i,,,.,.. --
WABASH VALLEY - LEVEL 2 EVALUATIONS l
\\
l l
l Case Parameter Description i
1 NA Use EPRI Earth Science Team seismic sources, etc.
i 2
Probability of activity Change team P, values for Wabash Valley (P,)
seismic source to 1.0 +
.-r
(
3 P OUd E Same 89 Case 2, plus team m., values are A
man m
revised to reflect paleoliquefaction data New m., Distribution for Wabash Seismic m
Source i
mm.,
Elab..I 6.0 0.05 6.6 0.65 7.2 0.30 t
t q.
l EPRI REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE i
OCCURRENCE RATES e
Determine team estimates of earthquake I
occurrence rates within the vicinity of the site i
I' o
Occurrence rates are based on team source combinations (i.e., source probability of activity) seismicity options j
1 maximum magnitude estimates i
e Rates are determined for selected distances from l
the site 4
ll
)
5 l
i NUMARC i
- 7 R
j f
ILLUSTRATION OF PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCE i
RATES t
s S
r ph, g.
/.
-<JitE_..
T
/*
w C10
'sz.:
+
BZO
\\
/
1 4
h 4
I i
i NUMARC h
n-1 EPRI REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE MEDIAN OCCURRENCE RATES - 100 km i
1 l
1 E-1 _
t i
=
l l
5
=
wo P
1 z
[
Ow l
w 1 E-2 '-
__ =
o
=
=
x p
w i
-O Z
o 1 E-3 =-
c
^
Z
=
w r
D Distance = 100 km O
w C
EPRI J
E 1 E-4 Z
h
[
EPRI, revised Pa and Mmax Q-ye w
L I
I 1 E-5 5.0 5.5 6.0 S.5 MAGNITUDE F
s'5 i
EPRI REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCE RATES VERSUS DISTANCE I
l t
i i
1 E-1 _
1 1
=
=
y 9
z
~1
~
r i
o p
w W
i l
u j
l x
1 E-2 _
w 3
u a
o F
t r
q r
oZ l_
l M > 5.00 o
l f
w
-}
D
! _-_ EPRI, remsed Pa and Mmax ;
d EPRI O
3 g.3 __
Z
~
(
r w
i T-u<
c L
W i
2 I
i j
1 E-4 0
100 200 300 l
RADIAL DISTANCE (km) l 6
?
1 E-3 _
1 I
=
w
=
3 1
u Z
F D
9 r
o l_
w w
u
-=
1 E-4 _-
~
L Q
i
=
r O
~
3 r
+
r r
l j
o
(
M > 6.50 3
D
[
)
1 E-5 g--
e
~
EPRI, revised Pa and Mmaz J
2 E
v 5
1 t
e w
}
1 1
1 1 E 0 100 200 300 e
RADIAL DISTANCE (km) t i
)
i J
r; i
i NPR EVALUATION AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE l
i q
i e
NPR - New Production Reactor i
robabilistic seismic hazard assessment being e
o conducted by.LLNL for DOE i
e NPR funding was suspended, work has not i
been completed (ongoing)
Preliminary results are partially documented
)
i I
5 NUMARC J
.e
+
.> /
e APPLICATION TO THE NPR, SRS l-e LLNL (1989) seismic hazard results for the SRS are used e
Level 1 and Level 2 evaluations are not documented in the Earth Science database and seismic source interpretations is not available i
9 i
1 eer 34
?
NUMARC O
o O
C.
f7 t
o o
O o
9 9
9 c
o o
n n
A n
O..
9 w
n c
A e
n n
n l
n A
00 44 t
+
i
)
['
+
+
5 00'94
~
+
+
i l
+
=
f&
l 00~ 64
+
+
+
a, v
CE m.
4
+
00'09 j
+
go
-3 i
=
o o
x ol.
f o
3 o,
o 00' L 9 o
O.
a
+
O 8
co J
O s
(.. =.
(
m
+
+
+
00*Z9 C
+*
+
4,7.
+a p
o*
- e o
t o
r Oo t
s f.:
4
.o 5
[*
- +
+
+
+
00'E9 3
+
=
u 8
o ap o
o 0
=
a
+
+
+
+
00't9 5
o.
4 g **
- r.
cr E
.e
- er B
w
(
+
+'
00'99 7S
. % V(.
x.
l 00'99 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 I
a e
e i
s a
a s
n n
A n
A n
n A
t")
1:0 05 l
4 1
ce
-E ca 3 e in v A N
-2 05 m.
z
_s 30 g
8' 0 0 o o o M
- =
o i
+
4 i
a,.
~
s
.,,a
>,.s
.._.w...,
x-.
a, a
+a u
.u.,
e r.,sp '
- )
I
)
C
- i-v i
b Q *%
w i
W f
i k
T M
.c x
Wa N
e s
.e
%=%
' 'g s.,
euen s
\\
M
. a.d
- . t.?
eqi
'.:s N'.'-
/
s
's-g
/qc 7 m
?
%e st
\\
3
-h..s
' ~~~-
Ot' _
s sq,s st m
.s..
Q.'
i x$
N 1
~~,,a i
t.
s
/'
Ps, eI{! '
\\
p I
e
\\N^, 6, W,,
,' N nU j
v.
o... /
r~
.,s.-
N.
\\
io
\\@4 b
.I.
\\0
' :' s sN
/-
5
' Qr
=
.r
- t. o
' 'h i
14.
~
\\\\s Mj!:
W I.
=
s s.,'
s
'N,
e g; - w*
{
o:
3 e
- ~,
,,-e-
'i
/
- 1,
,s
-~s
(
.,s.,N f
.e
.i
~ -.,>
~
}
i s...
s i
- s. \\
Q
'., ~.
]
5
.s
.s
.e L
s a-
\\
).
s.'
gt p
W f,
. h s
k h
b.
%w, h
- e..' -****~7;i ywu,,.o.***g
's
/
y n~l~
e w'
t N
- ,4
,..A**---
- ~1 S~
~~
/.
," \\
j!
9
- 6. /
Q 1
I d
4 4
O
,,,,,.2.-......-
/
i
"*" *aurmes a
,s s
s N.
[
p, s
a p
I o
E I
=
4 g
er,
/
Y.
I 9
w e
o i e
o' p
e o
s
,# g s#
/
'N.,,<s C.E i.
r,.
t p
-- i e~
I o
.o
.g
- 1 i
y i
TI
,I O
l'~Jl
&,= t.
,8 r
~.
t 7d.i~. ~.
i
/
~
x* h e
a st Y
5 '.
/
t g (e i
/:
s Y,
[
vm
/
f i.
/
-Ag %:
f
,v a
l k
8 j
w a
S
.g iy g
24==
+
?
1 i
.</
'}
s f,;.,
w O
s
' 't s
e.n 4*'
u I
c"
\\
1 3
Q.- _- /
E n
4 i
I 4
. - ~
2.r y-SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, SOUTH' CAROLINA DATAllNTERPRETATION POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE REFERENCES Paleoliquefaction not found Source configuration Amick,1990: 1991 outside of SC in coastal Source / tectonic feature activity Amick and Gelinas,1991 deposits from D.C. to Fla.
Multiple pre-1883 events Source con!rquration Taiwaini and Cox,1985 7
found in paleoseismic record Maximum magnitude Taiwani and in Charleston area Recurrence Collensworth,1988 Obermeir et al.,1990 i
Amick, et al.,1990 Evidence for post-Cretaceous Source configuration Behrendt and Yuan, reverse /SS reactivation of Source / tectonic feature activity 1986; 1987 l
Helena Banks fault zone i
identification of Woodstock Source configuration Marple and Talwani, linament in 1886 Source / tectonic feature activity 1992 i
meisoseismal area Evidence for post-Cretaceous Source configuration Stieve et al.,199' reverse reactivation of Source / tectonic feature activity DOE-SRS reports J-Dunbarton Basin border fault Maximum magnitude 1992 (Pen Branch fault)
Recurrence Occurrence of small-Source / tectonic feature activity Taiwaini et al.,1985 magnitude earthquakes l
within SRS l
Majority of CEUS focal Source / tectonic feature activity Zoback,1992 mechanisms suggest reactivation of preexisting faults in regional stress field I
i f
NUMARC i
33 t
o o
9 c.
o o
o o
o E
8 9
4 N
o o
n o
e n
n i
o n
n 00* LL 00*BL 4
l x
+
+
y
?
b 00'6L 2
+
a.
+
t
-r 6
00'09
+
+
T t
4
[
+
+
00'19 1
r.
h a
og n
00'Z9
+.
+
+
+
+
+
a O
b g
++
+
+
+
I O
.*t
+
+
+
00,g o
_ _)
o do O
~
k4 h
s(_
00.s, e
+
+
y M
'I 4
00~98 o
o o
V e
e o
M M
m M
M g
~
8 o.o 4
8 o
N 4
O.
e Q
D.
ycwM N ~Z o
BOO 8
o a i
O 1
t 1
e i
s t
0 0
0 v T, 0
D 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
3 3
1 3
4 3
0 5
3 3
6 3
7 3
8.;
3 r
I y=
7 8.R
+
+
4 p
m 1
l 4
8d p
g I
p 4
~
p S
R S
8$
4 4
2 4
4 9
t.
/
1
=
o
/
0
+
1 o
8d t
4
+
8 j
0
,f#
=
0
). g
~
6
.',o 1
, % o
/
g d
3 0
4 p
4 8d 4
,y.*A 4
mo
/
A.
r o o f
v,a
=
d e
8 d
3 o
i g
4 p
4 8d r
3 c
e E
R o
o s
e o.
k a
o 4
g tr f
4 8i u
q o
o h
o *7
=
a
.*(*
E 4
/e -
g g
u p
p 1
+
g 88 C
j J
g' j
m P
~
8E 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 7
6-0 0
0 0
0 0
5 4
3 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
0 1
0 32 0
89 0,
99 t 1 0
A 0
/
84 0,
N 98 5
e d
8 7 6 5 3 2 9
69 1
u I 1 t
i o
l n
o a OOOO g
o *,=
c S
M OO
m_....
,oJ g
0 m
(
t a
- N s
"S._
h n
,o.)
i 0
5 5
1 y
g gN-J l
- ! "j
- \\
i Mz F
l 50,.l 0 ll:
E8 E3 aneusu
- - u c.m -
saaa eum i
1 l
e ese me
.se eso
-2ce
- ao Distence from Charleston (km) w l
Dis:ntnmaa of pcuncal ligtwur= sites evaluami -
L*
FIGURE 5.
along 6e wheern Atimac Seaboard (top) mi i.- ;b locanon of pre-1886 liquefacnon stes (bocom) dr.s:ovemi. Sites widin the = --W area of 6e
,/
k "~
18&6 earthquake are labeled 'CH*. Oudymg liquefaccan mzes terari to the south and north of the,..,,,, ]
j l
W.--*
1886 epicentral area are Inbeled *S* and *N*.
i j
respeenvely. (also see insert at right that shows the
_.s
, l =*
nna of oudymg lign> Man stes with
,. /
.c general irr
~ ~...
respect to Charleston). The prmise number of sites "*
~
[
cvaluand in the Charicsson area has ocx been abown.
T-,!
f Ho vever, the total nurnber of nies near Charleston
.f g
= = *
- evaluateci dunng our study was significantly less than
' /f**{ ~C j
54 in other areas. No smdies were "~4 in the Cape Fear arte due to the general absence of suitable [
i depouts over the Cape Fear Arch. (From Amidt et.
'"'"- f 3
{
~
_ c.
al.,1989.-)
g=
f.*
e
S.9 naarsor ao rum, Itf'7 592 style in this area unmeda:cfy offshore to be szm-The prment<isy tec:ocue s=en 6cid in imenor demons: rated a northeast-ce:du:g compremve Bar to that of the adjacx=t land area. The oegec-North Ame n a one of cas4cxcribeast com-s=ess 6cid for so uve of tha study was to becer dedne the prisseo (Zoback and Zoback.19801 shbough recretly (in a compaanon b cocEgursuon and tus:ory of the HBFl.
onsinaDy 'N**
and Zoback (1980), Yang types of new data includmg se:s:me focal mech-Figure 3 shows the locanon of a fauh-and Asgarws3 (1981), and Wentwoch and an:sms and drGIho bounded Tnassd7) bamn reponed on the tec-Mergner Keefer (1983) favored a northwes:- (1983) and Zoback and others (1986) stated ton 2c map of Behrendt and Grun (1983) trendas comp t ares 6dd along the that the p epondersa::e of evdencz now sup.
Adanoc seaboarr.' L d largety freen pons a northean-trend.cg compresave stress compGed from the ~<=1 verocal denvanve young nortbesasribng reverse faults mapped Seid along the Atlante w='vurd as interpretacon of the aeromagneoc survey (Behrendt and Klitgord 1979; Behrendt and on land (Prowell.1987) sad a few seisnue foc:a intenor. This others.1983)of the Atlanucconnnentalmarg:n. "*- Compacte w=ne focal me:ha-quescon of whether the nort anms (Tarr and others,1981; Talwani 1982; verse" faults de:enmned from rr&rma profDes Figure 3 sho shows mterpre:anoes from Behrendt Tarr and Rhen.19E3) for carthquakes recorded in the Charleston arts (Behren aad others (1983) of e
-rr6cmo proses nom 1974 in the 1886 -st area, sl.
1981; HamGion and othen.1983: Schat and (CH2 and CH5. Fig.1) over tha basi.s. De HBF ppem to lie aloeg tha cend thougn gmng poorly conscamed local planca, o:hers,1983) and mapped geolognuy cine A
(RPLAN ATCN j
n.rx s *W
'p
...... _ _.. j A.
g
..t.-
- c.......
....1....,,..
x s
d s...._.......
1 3 ;y
.s.
= = = Ci.t.c..us t.wm
\\
[
/
- 'k
%, ' s i
I w
ii e4
!o pe 4 x.
y ~,.
g 9\\,
d
^
v pyp[yg,;o s
s
% d,6 g eo I
e.
l l
d h p-s r
g G2B,s l
v s
y 1
e v3~- g-g*
- 4 Cr l
t Q
y
\\
lg //
e,
- s. _
c a
(
l n
I I
I i
l l
%o-i 7-(.-
j
.t f
~
3*
),-
/
a.
i I
/
jf ty
)
f PB.1
........Y
,s..
~ '
p
/ Q ^)
o
//.
PPF U
l //.
PBF-8 s
/
- y Iq 1.
psy.7
,/
gW
.s e
j.
/
c'
/
g
.. Ps -4 h
(*
PBF-5 /
0.:.
/
BF6 p
..):
l
{
g-l
,,,,, h
}Y
%= o.c=.
W
/
s i f*s-
.k ii
,. -; /.
/
I Figure 1. Location of Pen Branch fault at SRS with PBF sede I
faults are thought to intersect the Pen Branch fault.
3ksys of*0.,(94i t
I
_- ~
l f.)
sa a
m m.;. ~. ;.,
....n
,.._,,m.,,
+
e
.- y~ p mf.. -:,
~"::
4 3 u, 2 c ~.m 4. r:.=w
- ;y; y
~-
a.
m
- y _
- ..,,c. f.B"* L.
V
~,
, _.,...:. c
.h
";,,- '. 9 o.
..x-L<
? +:
.~ x:n. >..
s tk ss.m b,,,,5;c :"J".:- w.. ~,dicq 9
- y_p, v.M.
- <.. ~,4,3; gy;f3y,3 s g,
y I
,_; Mv;
,,_.p.
,m, g _;
..lvM.K.ln.m:
- ,.4~e-W &f!Wf} 0..
,-Ws y.
e
- - 4_
~
~
e
[
,,m,..
w..... m
-~,
w..
M,:l.: ;
.. n, a?:m;Y g h'?y
- *,c AM.ny&Q:,,,6yj?uM.:
t,.~
f:Oth & i92'Reo.g:
u g
- c. > y?Me.p~m 3.q, -=w* y.w.w.u,+,.
. -g-
~S r.mx a a
- <../
r-a.g.g 1W
- ~...
s'
...m n
yn7
- -ysg.,.ms,.a.a :; g?
-+y SA
- fp*pW:;4tWp_
,, %,$c" * "*
q y
-
- m_.
%,:q.A.u:,-.Qt%$q~#. :4. O.L,,.:r(c./ $4 w
,"+p.m..
%.m,m.>
i a
v.
<..w:.fJWs/wr 'gW s$a y *%.f., H. 3 m ws e-
- y s.
S
%q
_4._ mA:ssApp A Q"y Qg
- ';;gf..,,
.K 9 :{'yyg: Ry.j_f -
s
,c
' ~ ~ }
t
~.nn g.s.a
%*IIlbO kMI eO,,* n.
l v,
g j Y.[
k y,?*e' '%(y M,
n,
- y c. ; g.
.3_.gT 4.
o q
.. v a ~.., ~.,;
, i m;.
MC && '
G@;..~
f." f.,
^
%. :wr.. ev. < y,
e
..q
,. v.a :f,6 g s-*.s.,.
. ~ '
,o 4
j
- :. T I
--[j f
m m&
/
1 QM. es y,M a
- A' ' n ;
>,e a
a+
r 3.g.. ~ %&+.
e
)
f
^
y, _ > <,Q%
a.
y
.I C.,L:A@"Ch;
~
e 1
n
- p.
m,.r:+
e y
5 nmy
., y 4 r
y,_,_ ~
i j
v s N M'W5yDN$.f a
)%,m
,e I;x.t Q oar.(Wr -
I
' f p**r*Rf-'
g
?
t G,f2
{.l}g fl.- %
? -%~ ~~'
a.ggv:m v
~~e
. M' :
gy:
x
,e i
y n y i
'Ql 'Q" D-g, t.0"o,*.*
- .>.,' y w -
ysam w : ' i:-.-
7
~%.
.;%. ems
'/ d;;%..; kf. wgv:m:h :
' :wwg.D
- < ~ rn A
- f. i
.*Q Y
48 f#
w b6Soh RD
+
N:.+
- m.
Y A
l
?&
f, f neMng j
q Q ;
,o i
W j
yM-i e*~~*
m,.
k l,9 a:M&,M.
~ ~.
m
..w%x&/yw'.e
,;uyy mn:v y.
e -
25.
fUW&N f
y 4
,r e'
, + +
g 1
O/
9,p
- . y w y
e
- Vx J.
. T ::*4 &e?.
- M e
- fw w%,;'y;L QW.w
-).
g.&, u.w:..y;g z;c o
r^;ni,l x,;w.s.aq,w-
/
'r9,.-p' A y*; *u.
7' Q ** *a; &t:d 4
i e
l
. - ::.~.% -,,..
- n M
. $$m gs ~^~?m$. _
v'.9% w q.%
N@H
,[w". y 5 s.n.lD$.Nh.f5..
I-f'.~=="*
e%
w
'? A
"...:P:'.:t -MM t
+/
' QST.G.;;9 "~hf
??.
oH n
'N* :
- -P h
w
- ^ %
a e
(tas
= L'. R:
i 4.,M s. + : #
f,f', '
% 4 c :s3 -
C' Q
mac
?
l
,u
. I
.. n.g. w ':%
9/
s.
/
. te*',au
-::ww n
_$M1,
./
) e. -
r,a. %....
,e
,f s
.. g' m.e.m sp -
p,,
$,:{
4 r
4,,Q^i.:
{
nn a
1 g:,;4.S,.
(
E~
h.h
. s h.e$fl.i;wgA.c&e a
'f
'~-
s
. na.
g e
r M
1*
M X*yp.,r
- i 4
{
j wn.,
p;g'y j
4, l h&- a -- *wu' y 4.%
N 3g&ig h.
N
( h?0$
g
- g
~
l %. fuy:d u
\\s 4
t4 t
f
'7 d,% *
' M;g:,.;
\\
g y-e j
- %%+'
.m
+
n
+
. f%?6" q
h
- &T '
(,
w l'
A $.WL
' $s?hk n.h'
- o
!"*j a
9M...,.~
7.7
- :;4%. g,.
. flff
~
^Z'6bf?
.y.
u.
~ g%en
[1%
5.Q
> 2;A Au n:
h
- M inv, M'g Q E
J:. :.e.
v d, ij t vpW f,
g a
d,
+;w m
l m
p.%
,. env : p.n
. w:mg
.ML _
. *<fw 3.+.>.,
1
.+ : ;.%x, A"ni.M!~-
- .* p.
r
/
wQ.., g;,)u ww v
I
... Q;ns.sw,:
,g m
e.wn I
- e n' 2
^
sg"/c u.n..
- u. r
..;.':/.,w.d. i,gM ggt,,.
4.=<.a f
v.
a,v :. hg+.*
M s.m s
M. nd : p.
- A < &p sesp ww.d:9 6:gn'#.,, }
).
s*
I v:e s
.N.
m%..,s:. w;g
.r 6x
~ ?*7 4 a.
,,,s.
, yM9?
.e
,j.
r_mem,,,.c. a :%.,
w.
s p u,e - -
s _. g r,g.g; % ~. ~Y-)
- m,-
/
.m e 1 *'.ms*veQ
,,,!.&,e-8
?,,,,,.,
f.@
[.(....[".-,4'5
(
.M har.Y M
M
, 5&wA
- > p.. v. s..n, w'[
n 37.,
h M'
? _ ".w%.. *~ _, _ -
She d af et.7(91I
-e~
(
r
SUMMARY
TO THIS POINT There does not appear to be new information e
that requires further evaluation at Level 2 or 3 a
e Nonetheless, new seismic source interpretations have been developed that are very different from the interpretations produced in the LLNL study y
e The NPR becomes an interesting case to evaluate whether the site ground motion hazard has changed 4
b NUMARC
b b
To 3
O 5
5, DB A9
=
9
\\ c' tr
\\
1
\\
/N s~~
,A
~
e y, 9
[
s m.
y
(
=
\\
e u'
S b(
N v
e i
N l,
1 guMARC
s.c
=
x
-c v
c-C.
I 2
x A
N a
'N
\\
O<
s.>z
- g. c -~ :
,%z~- m..
\\.
.9
(*
f..o b ' \\;@(}...g6
.h
\\
s 3. cAs' sig.u. -
..' n-n.... %...
..J;;
3 cv.:
y A
K ',_,...:_
'~*]d.. 7.+-W....T(m ;
s..
2.
r q
-tT~...-r w. g 1.s.v.
. g n1,.,...
em t
.r
, ) s s
o > '.
..a:
3
.u e v ~
j sk_-r.. _1,y._J.;...3 -ir~
.J s. y
/
-r.,g.7,'7 ;y. 4c,3i,
- .;_) _ p..... -
- -.-r j-,..
,. 3 :.
3 s
.A N *e
_g
' + ~ * ~~Q"4h W
)
~ ~ " - * * ~ ' *
... - m,;
ie
=
1 I
~
'"'I b:
(M l':
.. e 9. :
%d l'
?
_; t
- v.
j
,~:?t........
i
- h..
- j v4 / \\7 04 -
$5%
V
! eg :
- 1., (:e*/
A' ::
[
~~~
-~~
,/
w 1*.' W 'R-- ?*,y g,2p FJ
!~~i
]\\
o lh' - \\..
,m
-I/
\\
e j
\\
.3 c~ w w: w--a
,,2A......
k-
-~
l 1')
h
^
J,,,,{ \\ f O
~I Q--.d f 1.
.I
- %4
..,f _#_ /
~..
" ' * +
" ~ ~ - -
l.*$
.m
. (J ^- e...,. " T "
+~.. r..Q'f;~' r.;...:-....
..'"j*" - + J N
- = = =. * * *....
Q;.
4 14-l m)...
-,.a.~...
{.. s
~
)
j~
~
4
- t
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.._._ _ w -
~ -
i E!
/
O I
e i
to -
O n
O Ml Y
/
e'
'g g4
[.
V
,/
!\\
T c.,.I, _ /_ _f _ _ ". _ _
_ _\\
N
/
i 3
J
- k s'
/
/,
,/
.'M s
~
/
j f
q
~,
\\
/
y _ _ _ _ _ <W_ _ _ -@
m/
n l
~ne j
i g l
i i
- 3 1
LJ sen i
\\
\\
l la m
l A 4J l
l w
l
\\
d
../f
~
l l
/
I
.,nb f
l s
9
\\/
i I
dI I
/I\\
le, t
T j
l,6 i
~
k l
W 8) l i
j 5
l l
i e',
s t
1)
T 4
j 1
l 1
c y
y i
i,
/*
\\)/
^
i.
e i
sv 1
m s/
I
- /
Ci NUMARC
or EVALUATION OF NPR SITE e
Level 3:
Evaluation of new data and interpretations in terms of the SSE Evaluate whether expert assessments in NPR study are consistent with original LLNL study results Some difficulty in making comparisons at PSV 5 and 10 hz 1.
Different attenuation models and soil factors
- 2. Lower-bound magnitude of 3.75 rather than 5.0 was used NUMARC l
w i
LLNL/USNRC - NPR COMPARISON FOR SRS l
LLNL 10 Level l
4 i
Ground Motion Average Std. Dev.
NPR Range Measure PGA (g) 0.20 0.05 0.08 - 0.24 PSV - 5 Hz 11.2 4.6 2.8 -11.9 (cm/sec)
PSV - 10 Hz 4.7 1.54 1.84 - 9.2 (cm/sec) r a
J E
h r
NUMARC t
=
?
SUMMARY
L l
Each expert represents an applicants assessment of the site SSE. Thus we have 9 trials Results - at the 95 percent confidence level PGA
- 9 experts fall within study results PSV (5.0 Hz) - 9 experts fall within study results i
PSV (10 Hz)
- 8 experts fall within study results Conclude - existing study is consistent with i
e new information NUMARC
t>
SUMMARY
Stability of the seismic siting process is derived e
from:
acceptance by the USNRC staff and the industry of the broad range of existing EUS seismic source interpretations use of the median hazard curve as the basis to determine the SSE Direct, formal consideration of the significance of site-specific information in the assessment of the SSE NUMARC
.)